Game Over!

Ophiolite said:

A plan can be finished. A statement of intent can be finished. Then the passage of time can witness the plan implemented and the intentions realised.

Click to expand...

AllDayFaith said:

1 Corinthians 1:27
Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.

Click to expand...

A_Thinker said:

The seventh day was just a break.

God had finished what He was doing at that time ...

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

I'm an agnostic. In terms of the Christian God I am an atheist. Nothing in my post implied otherwise, though you may have inferred something from it that wasn't there.

I simply offered a general statement that some might find applicable to the scenario you painted and the questions you asked. If I were a Christian who was troubled by your questions I think I might find that statement answered the questions, or rather rendered answers unnecessary.

Surely you are aware that Christians do not "cling to" a literal 6,000 year time frame. That is only a small, but vocal subset. However, if I were a member of that subset I would reflect on this: I can cook a delicious stew in a slow cooker over many hours. I can achieve the same end in a pressure cooker in a matter of minutes.** And I am a mere human. An omnipotent God should have no difficulty creating, more or less instantaneously any number of stars while also providing the means for others to form over longer time periods.

Now, were I a Christian, I would find it odd that his Word written in electromagnetic waves reaching us from the depths of space and in the rocks, minerals and fossils of this planet tell a story at odds with a literal interpretation of Scripture, and so I would conclude the Genesis story is a nicely crafted and beautiful metaphor.

**I can't really cook, but my wife can.

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

I am really not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. It is understood by many that to properly understand any argument one must be able to understand, indeed present, both sides.

I've offered a selection of potential responses to your questions, not because I "believe" them, but because they are plausible responses. I was motivated to do so because your OP hinted that you thought you had a potentially irrefutable argument. I think I have demonstrated that you don't.

I don't believe anything. I consider belief to be a grossly over-rated and essentially pointless concept. I prefer to accept certain things as being the most probable explanation, for the moment, for what is perceived. That leads me to accept that we are probably living on a small, rocky 4.5 billion year old planet, in a 13.5 billion year old expanding universe, the planet being home to a complex biosphere of carbon based life-forms that have evolved over a period of about 3.5 billion years from single celled organisms to a great variety including more complex types, among which is an especially dangerous and damaging one, self named Homo sapiens.

But I might be mistaken. I might be in a coma imagining all this. I might be a computer simulation. The God Ra may have created all this including my memories eight years ago. I tend to reject these options because of lack of evidence, but I don't rule them out.

I find some aspects of Christian ethics wholly consistent with what we would expect as sound preferred behaviour for a social ape that gives birth to helpless infants (cf. most other animals) and requires considerable cooperation for survival, yet has an aggressive character that requires control.

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

I suggest you consider two things:

• I work hard at selecting words that are apt
• Here are two dictionary definitions of plausible. The emphasis is mine
  • Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible
  • Persuasive or ingratiating, especially in an effort to deceive.

In regard to both. It is probable that an individual called Jesus existed and promoted some of the beliefs credited to him. I do not think he was divine.

Well, if you keep thinking I have beliefs you will spend a long time not finding them. What did you find confusing in the third paragraph of my prior post? I'll be happy to clarify it for you.

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

I cannot give you a date. It began, I think, as an unexpressed attitude arising out of a diligent application of scepticism. Initially that was applied exclusively to scientific and engineering matters, but I gradually expanded it to every aspect of my life and it became habitual. Then, sometime during the last decade I verbalised it, much as I have in summary form for you earlier.

Please note that from a practical standpoint it will generally seem that there is no difference between accepting something (provisionally) or believing something. However, the difference is - at least for me - that by always accepting rather than believing I remind myself that the acceptance may be mistaken. In practical terms what does this mean? A simple example, in writing this post (as with any other) I asked myself several times "Is this really what I think? Is the basis on which I reached this conclusion still valid? Etc."

Note this is a personal philosophy and I have no idea if it would work for anyone else.

Click to expand...