Alternatives?

[miamited]

Thank you for replying. I must say, though, that I find your criteria a bit nebulous. Jesus is God, and digesting food is a process, so when Jesus ate it would seem to me God is acting upon the physical processes of the earth.

And yet, Jesus made a claim that he didn't know all the plans of God. He denied knowing the time of the end while saying that God did. Seems to me that if Jesus were God, he would know his own thoughts.

But I'll let it go.



Did you miss the part where I said I also consider these miracles? It's just that to me "miracle" does not mean "beyond comprehension". With respect to parting the Red Sea, the text actually tells us how God did it. He sent a strong East wind (Exodus 14:21). Later God also parts the Jordan River, and the interesting thing is that very event has also been observed and documented in modern times. It doesn't make it any less of a miracle.

Not sure that is does mean beyond 'comprehension'. Have you ever stopped to consider the power of a wind that could hold a wall of water in place several dozen feet high and yet people could walk within it with all their household goods in tow? I've witnessed some very powerful hurricanes and tornadoes and never seen one that could produce the effect that we read about in the exodus. I've seen waterspouts over open water in Biscayne Bay, which is fairly shallow, and never seen one cut a dry path beneath it's foot. Even the little water that it does displace quickly falls back into place as it moves over the water.

With respect to the sun turning back, I don't have an explanation. I've never said I can explain every miracle in the Bible. But again, even though I don't know how God did it, the basic mechanics aren't incomprehensible. It's simply that no one other than God could do such a thing.

Finally, with respect to pathenogenesis, I'm not aware that it's ever led to a live birth in humans (animals yes, humans no), but the process does happen in humans:

Is it possible for a virgin to give birth?

The cool part is that all documented cases of parthenogenesis I'm aware of only produce females. So, both the fact that Jesus was delivered alive and that he was male are ... miracles. I've never tried to deny that. All I was saying is that biology is aware of processes that cause virgin births.

There's no sin in exploring God's creation, and his creation includes some miraculous things.

So, you are willing to admit that God does do miracles that are unprovable by any known scientific studies that we have today, but the creation of an entire universe is not one of them? As to parthenogenesis, yes, God has made creatures that can reproduce without male and female species interaction, but man isn't one of them. Lot's of creatures reproduce in several various ways. Man only reproduces when male sperm fertilizes a female egg.


You probably don't see it in your argument, but when speaking of using assumptions on which to set theories and understanding, you do that a lot.
You are willing to assume that since there are species that can reproduce in ways other than humans reproduce, that it is possible that the human species could also do it. I asked for proof of the specific things I mentioned and not just proofs of other various and sundry processes that one then has to 'assume' could apply in the specific circumstances.

Light. God made light. God made everything that is. There is nothing that exists in this realm that God did not make. As these many examples of God's working in and around the heavens and the earth, if it is God's plan to create the stars for the purpose of man to know times and seasons, then they have to be seen by man and if God wants those stars to be seen upon the earth at the moment that they come to be, then God can do that. That's my understanding. Our scientific processes can no more explain that miracle then any of the other miracles brought up in this discussion. Is there some evidence of natural processes that we know to exist that we can then 'assume' might explain these things? Yes, just as some try to use parthenogenesis to explain the virgin birth, some will use the speed of light to explain the age of the universe.


God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Resha Caner]

And yet, Jesus made a claim that he didn't know all the plans of God. He denied knowing the time of the end while saying that God did. Seems to me that if Jesus were God, he would know his own thoughts.

Are you saying Jesus is not God? If so, I hope you realize this forum is for Nicene Christians only.

So, you are willing to admit that God does do miracles that are unprovable by any known scientific studies that we have today, but the creation of an entire universe is not one of them?

Maybe you are used to dealing with scientific realists - empiricists & Platonists. I am not any of those, so you need to stop using the word "prove". Science doesn't prove anything. Nor does philosophy for that matter, though people try to use both disciplines in that manner. So, philosophy is a way to search into what we can know to be possible, but goes no further than that. Science makes only a subtle, slight stronger claim (and yet the difference is very important). Of the known possibilities science ranks them from most to least probable.

Given that preamble, I will say you overstate my position. I can philosophize possible causes for any miracle. In some cases (such as parting the Red Sea in Exodus) the text actually gives us the cause. In some cases (such as the sun in Joshua) I don't see anything in the text to promote one cause over another, and so it can never go beyond speculation. The other miracles fall in a spectrum between those two.

I think some of the claims about the formation of the universe are highly probable. I think others are complete bunk. I don't have one monolithic answer.

As to parthenogenesis, yes, God has made creatures that can reproduce without male and female species interaction, but man isn't one of them. Lot's of creatures reproduce in several various ways. Man only reproduces when male sperm fertilizes a female egg.

That is a very high probability. Every species is unique in some way. That's why they're designated as different species. At the same time, we also have much in common. I don't see the point in arguing uniqueness where there is none. Until someone finds a reason why parthenogenesis can't happen in humans, there is no reason to say it can't happen. All we can say is that we don't know if it has happened. Further, there is no reason to say God didn't make use of that process. That is a claim of divine discernment.

You probably don't see it in your argument, but when speaking of using assumptions on which to set theories and understanding, you do that a lot.

I am a huge proponent of knowing and acknowledging one's assumptions. Everyone makes assumptions. I am well aware of my assumptions. Are you?

Light. God made light. God made everything that is. There is nothing that exists in this realm that God did not make.

I agree. This is one of my issues with science. Light exists, and could well be the first principle of existence (Genesis could be read to mean that). Yet science posits some Platonic form (energy) and flips everything on it's head to make energy the first principle. Sorry. I digress ...

As these many examples of God's working in and around the heavens and the earth, if it is God's plan to create the stars for the purpose of man to know times and seasons, then they have to be seen by man and if God wants those stars to be seen upon the earth at the moment that they come to be, then God can do that. That's my understanding. Our scientific processes can no more explain that miracle then any of the other miracles brought up in this discussion.

Actually, science does have an explanation for that. It would be better for you to understand and provide a cogent argument against the explanation than to say they don't have one. For my part, this is one place where I think the scientific explanation is bunk.

However, one anecdote does not a complete case make. Just because we might agree science does not properly explain the proliferation of light doesn't mean all their explanations are wrong.

 

[Smidlee]

The miracle of the Joshua sun can be done by Hollywood. I believe God is greater than Hollywood. Hollywood has the ability to change the weather in the film to whatever they desire no matter what the weather is while they are filming. So now they don't have to wait for it to rain at the scene to having it raining in the film. So it's possible for someone to see live a shot made on a sunny day for a film and then see it night , raining or snowing in the movie.

All the producer has to do is speak "Let there be night" and there will be night even in the middle of the day . God is much greater than any producer so all He has to do is to say "Let it be day" for Joshua and it will be done while everyone else in the world won't know any difference. God is after all the ultimate TimeLord.

Why is it hard for Christians to believe God has just as much control over His created universe as man has over his created universes. I believe God can build a billion year old universe in 6 days as again He is the ultimate TimeLord.

And yet, Jesus made a claim that he didn't know all the plans of God. He denied knowing the time of the end while saying that God did. Seems to me that if Jesus were God, he would know his own thoughts.

Jesus was not a hypocrite as he was not "acting as a man" but he literally became a man which means he place limits on himself including some knowledge. I wouldn't expect Jesus as a baby talk to Mary right after birth even though He is the Word.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yet what has happened is that science has been manipulated into a form whereby no alternative would be accepted unless it could be posited in a testable, repeatable form. That makes it mechanistic ... godless.

It doesn't. Nothing about science proves the past.
It can only lend support to the future. 'Science"
means I have a supportable idea. You may hate my
idea, but if you follow my procedure, you will see
the same data I have seen and you can determine
if my procedure is correct. Because God does not physically
interact with our world, we can expect your observations
to be the same as mine.

Science is Godless. But science cannot produce an idea
about a past event and show you the past event. It
can only show you a similar event tomorrow. This may
or may not be the same as the original.

Science cannot prove origins. Origins or original events
must all be taken on faith. Because the scriptures are
correct on how and why man thinks as he does, I've
also accepted on faith, it's comments on origins.

All past events are a matter of faith.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why is it hard for Christians to believe God has just as much control over His created universe as man has over his created universes. I believe God can build a billion year old universe in 6 days as again He is the ultimate TimeLord.

Some of those "days" had no earth or sun so "days" is a loose term
as nobody had a working stopwatch, clock or calendar to use.

We use the rate of deterioration to measure time, and the cosmos
did not start deteriorating until the fall of man.

 

[miamited]

Some of those "days" had no earth or sun so "days" is a loose term
as nobody had a working stopwatch, clock or calendar to use.

We use the rate of deterioration to measure time, and the cosmos
did not start deteriorating until the fall of man.

Hi SK,

I'm not sure that I agree with your understanding of 'how' time is determined. Time, as I understand it, is determined just as God said it would be. By the heavens. A day is one full rotation of the earth upon its axis. Pick a point on the earth and when that point gets back to the same position again, a day has passed. Years are established by the journey of the earth around the sun. Pick a point on the path of the earth around the sun and when the earth returns to that point, a year has passed. God has said that He created the heavens that man may know the times and seasons and that is exactly how we do it.

We would be hard pressed to determine the period of a day, if there was no other body in all of the universe by which we could set a reference point. Yes, today if all the other heavenly bodies disappeared we could watch our clocks and see that a day is passed because we have already established such a secondary system. In the beginning, there were no clocks. Man could only know that a day had passed because the sun came up over the horizon again. This shows another good reason for why man was created after this universal realm was created.

God spoke the earth to exist, and over the next 5 rotations of the planet, He built this realm in which we live. Beginning with an atmosphere to surround the earth and then progressing to living things upon the earth and all the stars, planets, asteroids, comets, etc. of the heavens. When all of this was in place, when the house was built so to speak, the tenants moved in. That day was upon the day begun with the 6th rotation of the earth. As I understand it, time as we know it, began to tick from the moment the earth was set in its place in the space we call the universe.

When God created the earth, spoke it to exist, there were no stars, planets, asteroids, comets, etc. in all of what we call the universe. There was only the earth spinning as a solitary and singular mass. There was, however, and also merely by God's command, light. This light may well have just been the glory of God shining in this realm. The Scriptures say that God is light. Therefore, it is possible that the light spoken of in the beginning of the account of God's creating of this realm, may merely have been Him coming into this realm to create it.

As a human example, which I readily admit may not be completely perfect in explaining or understanding this idea, when God moved from His place where His throne and the angelic realm exists into the new realm of our habitation, it would be like our taking a lamp from a closed room where there is light and opening a doorway into a dark room and carrying the lamp into that room. Now there is light in the new, previously dark room.

As I understand the Scriptures, we live in a completely separate, but overlapping realm from the angelic realm. The Scriptures speak of angels being around us and we are given examples of them appearing from time to time to man. So, it would seem that they exist on a different plane, if you will, but in the same 'space' of our universe.

All of this, of course, is conjecture, but based, I believe, on some Scriptural evidence. However, and perhaps you could expand upon your claim, I've never understood time to be established or determined by deterioration, but rather that things on the earth do deteriorate because of time. Depending on how one understands the new earth spoken of in the Revelation, the earth may well endure forever and the stars and other heavenly bodies not deteriorate, but are removed by God when He rolls them up like a scroll.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Are you saying Jesus is not God? If so, I hope you realize this forum is for Nicene Christians only.

Hi RC,

Here is the original 325 creed that has been called the Nicene creed. It has undergone a couple of minor changes and so one must always define which Nicene creed one is referring to, but:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ , the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.

Notice that the Nicene creed does not make any claim of Jesus being God, but that he embodies the very essence of God. It fairly well makes the claim that Jesus is the Son of God, begotten of the Father. That he is of one substance with the Father.

I have always been one to accept God's own testimony about Jesus. "This is my Son in whom I am well pleased."

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Resha Caner]

Notice that the Nicene creed does not make any claim of Jesus being God, but that he embodies the very essence of God. It fairly well makes the claim that Jesus is the Son of God, begotten of the Father. That he is of one substance with the Father.

I have always been one to accept God's own testimony about Jesus. "This is my Son in whom I am well pleased."

If you're going to dissemble on the phrase "very God of very God" then we're done.

 

[miamited]

If you're going to dissemble on the phrase "very God of very God" then we're done.

Hi RC,

Yes, I imagine that we have covered the subject sufficiently.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[SkyWriting]

However, and perhaps you could expand upon your claim, I've never understood time to be established or determined by deterioration....

That's what limits your time
your house
your life
your hamburger
the life of the cosmos.

All are measured by the amount of deterioration.
Assume any one of those did not deteriorate, and time would stop for that item.

God spoke the earth to exist, and over the next 5 rotations of the planet,

With no sun, moon, or stars....there is no "rotation" of any item....unless God was standing off to one side glowing.
And He would have to be relatively short in stature.
If He was, that could account for the light and dark cycles.

Whith God still in Creation mode, and the world..."very good"....this suggests that everything is still
eternal at this point. The mind of God still permeates reality and there is no death or decay. Or "time" as we know it.
When you are walking with God....you are in the presence of the Alpha and the Omega.
With the future and the past as one....time does not exist....as we know it.



Glad to help.

 

[miamited]

Hi SK,

On what basis of fact are you making your determination that without sun, moon or stars there is no rotation? The gravitational forces of the other heavenly bodies only keep the various parts of space on their courses, they don't have any effect on rotation. If rotation were a product of gravitational forces, then the moon would rotate.

Also, why would there need to be light, be it God or some other source, for a planet to rotate? You seem to have confused 'day' with 'daylight'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

Sometimes it takes me awhile to determine how I want to formulate my question. This might be such a case. I suppose I was wondering what would motivate someone to seek a scientific alternative to evolution. I'm beginning to think there isn't much motivation from either side of the question.

You may want to look to ancient astronaut theorists. I was just watching one of their episodes and they actually deny evolution based on many of the arguments creationists make. They believe that human dna is too complicated to be an accident, or to have evolved from a lower life form, and they look to geneticists from another world to explain it.

They also line up with creationists on many other levels. They believe there was a great flood I just found in another episode. They believe dinosaurs and man lived together, based on the legends the see. They believe the ancient structures we see around the world are too advanced for Neanderthal man to have built. It goes on and on.

I suppose, this would be the most logical route for someone to go, if they saw the fallaciousness of evolution, but didn't want to accept the God of the Bible. People are going crazy these days for little green men. They pretty much explain everything, for those who are thoughtful, yet unwilling to acknowledge their God. Yeah, it's silly, but not as silly as evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi SK,

On what basis of fact are you making your determination that without sun, moon or stars there is no rotation? The gravitational forces of the other heavenly bodies only keep the various parts of space on their courses, they don't have any effect on rotation. If rotation were a product of gravitational forces, then the moon would rotate.

Also, why would there need to be light, be it God or some other source, for a planet to rotate? You seem to have confused 'day' with 'daylight'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

You need two points of reference to have "rotation", that's why.

So. If you have "light and dark"......then the light needs to be off to
one side of "the rotation."

To be consistent with your light and dark cycle and rotation, you can accomplish this with
with God glowing, and being about as tall as the sun, for the first 4 days.

I'm just working off your premises.


Oh....and the moon does rotate. From any other planet you will see it rotate.