• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Argument for God's existence.

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by createdtoworship, Apr 4, 2019.

  1. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,149
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    so again like I said if not even scientists attempt to prove something, yet you offer their views as proof...how does that work?
     
  2. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    391
    +340
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    True, not the Church itself, but a Catholic priest.

    Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

    From the article:

    "By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism."
     
  3. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +445
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    What do you mean by "When you study the passages in the bible with the proper context"?

    What is the 'proper context'? Rhetorical question, you don't have to answer...

    Let's start with one of the most obvious discoveries. No, not evolutionary theory. Something a little less "controversial"... The claimed 'flood'.

    The Bible states Genesis 6:15-22. These verses are pretty unambiguous, regardless of interpretation.

    Thus, I'm going to make a bold statement now... 'No flood, no Bible.'

    Again, for sake in brevity, here's my stance....

    I have absolutely NO CLUE 'why' we are here, if there is an actual 'why.'

    But the book I was raised in seems to have been demonstrated inaccurate, so back to the drawing board. A flood claim is falsifiable. Science has a fairly good track record thus far. No, it does not have all the answers, but the more evidence which comes out, the clearer the Bible seems not to fit with all the asserted conclusions. So let's start with the flood claim. If the flood is demonstrated not to have happened, as science seems to indicate, then 'Houston, we have a problem.'

    That's all.
     
  4. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    Ok well I'm trying to be logical in a scientific way. Every where in the universe and our galaxy and earth there is cause and affect in action. well yes there must be cause to the universe.

    Genesis 1

    7 Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.

    this is a simple explanation.

    evolution
    water
    dust, moss, plants, trees, animals, man

    Genesis 1

    dust- man.

    the process doesn't actually disagree.
     
  5. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +445
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Fascinating rationalization here. I must now ask... When the author also wrote:

    "7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed"


    You are saying that this was a very gradual process, (from dust to man)?.?.?.?

    When did He actually declare Adam? After enough micro-changes? I've always been fascinated by the ones whom try to marry both the evolutionary process and Genesis.
     
  6. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    At the end of being formed man became living spiritual being as God breathed his life into him. that is he became the man species. with spiritual character of God.
     
  7. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +445
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Are you then saying, that you accept evolution, in all of it's claims, and as homo sapiens branched off, at some point, God declared one of them 'Adam'; and only then, was there the 'beginning' of the human race, and all other lateral living sapiens, were not?

    Sorry for the run on sentence....
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2019
  8. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    NP
    NO. I don't accept every thing But I take some things as quite plausible.
    He picked Adam to breathe his life into him making him the man species. Adam was the first man with a spiritual nature. It does seem to be saying that.
    I believe in miracles but the evidence suggests God didn't plant every star in the sky with his finger. He used science as he is all knowing.
    God uses adaption. We a vertebrae's. Carbon organic creatures just like animals. A spiritually god driven evolution is plausible and there is evidence towards this.
     
  9. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +445
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Stay with me... I'm not changing the subject. But it will 'appear' that I am :)

    When God speaks of 'days' in Genesis, are these 'days' literal, or not?
     
  10. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    Of course I know where your going with this. Is the earth young or old. I think it is old. Its going to a take a while to get back to u on the explanation of that.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  11. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +445
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    No, that's not what I'm asking. Are the days literal or not? I already know you think the earth is 'older' from your prior responses.
     
  12. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    Consider the use of the word "Yom" by Moses. In the Genesis creation account and in Psalm 90 (written by Moses), it is used four different ways!

    1. 12-Hour Period. In Genesis 1:5, it says "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." This use of "Yom" is for a 12-hour period.

    2. 24-Hour Period. In Genesis 1:14, it says "And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,…”. This use of "Yom" is for a 24-hour day.

    3. The Entire Creative Week. In Genesis 2:4, it says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." Here, "Yom" refers to the entire six-day creative week.

    4. A Long Period of Time. Psalm 90:4 says, "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." In this instance, Moses says "Yom" is like a thousand years.
    In each case, it is the same author, Moses, who uses the word "Yom" to represent a different period of time. Thus, young earth creationist claims that "Yom" is only a 24-hour day are completely unfounded by Scripture. For more, see Word Study: Yom.

    So I think yom which is the Jewish word can mean a day or an age. that is a period of time. So the word day in the creation account has a duel meaning.

    the important thing about the 7 days is it sets out the whole Jewish calendar and the prophecy's and the old testament sabbath.
     
  13. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +445
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I am aware of the 'Yom' argument. :)

    I'll cut to the chase...

    Regardless of whether each day was 12 hours, 24 hours, or many years, would you at least agree, that in the use for a specific context in explanation, the use of 'Yom' is consistent? Meaning, each 'day' references the same length in time? Again, in a specific given context.

    Example: Day one I did this, and day 2 I did that. Regardless of how long the 'day' was, each day represents the same length in time; whether it be literal, or 20K years.
     
  14. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    there's things that are not literal in the creation piece of prose.
    For example
    Genesis 1:16 New International Version (NIV)

    16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

    As prose that's not wrong.
    But literally in a science exam if I called the moon a light I would get it wrong. It's not a light. It's a reflection of light. That is it is not a source of light.
    So no I don't take genesis 1 literally. that's the logical thing to do.
     
  15. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +445
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Here's my point.... If you are going to even present the "Yom' argument in the first place, then this must mean the 'day' represents some specific duration in time for your particular application... Otherwise, don't clarify this word 'Yom' at all. So which one do you choose, for this context (Genesis)?

    Case and point in Genesis...

    'Day 1' - creates light
    'Day 2' - creates sky
    'Day 3' - land and plants
    'Day 4' - planets etc..
    'Day 5' - fish/birds
    'Day 6' - humans
    'Day 7' - rest

    Was each day the same duration in time? For evolution/astronomy/cosmology/etc to even have a chance, each 'day' would need to be vastly different time spans. Thus, if 'day' is nothing more than slang, it would make more sense for the Bible to instead state, 'God did this first, this second, this third, etc', and leave out 'Yom' all together. But instead, it would appear the Bible sort of incriminates itself, by forcing apologists to instead use this 'Yom argument', when it is really worthless in this application regardless. Otherwise, you have a whole mess of apologetics to contend with...


    So I again ask... Does each day represent the same (time span)? If not, how do you then rationalize your alternative explanation?
     
  16. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,149
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Thanks for helping me debate this old earther. I appreciate it. I disagree with some of your views, specifically that evolution/astronomy/cosmology etc need long lengths of time, for one simple reason. When God created adam and eve, they were full grown. When God created the tree with the forbidden fruit is was not a sapling, it was full grown. If God created these things with age dating factors already in place, is it that hard for God to create star light that took billions of years to get here, or fully evolved human beings (granted if they evolved from apes at all, which there is no evidence of that). I hope you see my point, so God created "age dating factors" into the universe on day one, and the rest of the days. As you see the animals were not babies, they were of age to reproduce. Same with adam and eve. Which makes sense.
     
  17. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +445
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Hence, the gulp at 3:40

     
  18. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,149
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    sorry sir I don't have time to watch your video, if you can post the relevant arguments in a sentence or two I would love to debate just the highlights.
     
  19. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +445
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private

    In the time it takes you to read a short response, you can watch the video :) Listen carefully at 3:40-3:41.
     
  20. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,149
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    no thanks, like I said if you wish to post the arguments briefly I can respond, if not then to me it is not important.
     
Loading...