Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[Radrook]

Ah, but now you are changing the terms of the discussion. Disagreeing with you about "what the Bible tells us happened" is not the same thing as being an atheist.

"All Nature is but Art, unknown to thee;
All chance, direction, which thou canst not see."

--Alexander Pope​

As an Anglican Christian which you claim to be, exactly what is it that you are attempting to prove?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As an Anglican Christian which you claim to be, exactly what is it that you are attempting to prove?

It appears that he is trying to "prove" that the Bible does not have to be interpreted to deny science.

 

[Speedwell]

As an Anglican Christian which you claim to be, exactly what is it that you are attempting to prove?

That there is no such thing as "atheist astronomy," only atheist astronomers.

 

[Michael]

I cannot say that every singly person which proposed those origins for the universe was or is an atheist. However, the Steady State theory does not harmonize with what the Bible tells us happened.

That ultimately would depend on how one chooses to "interpret" the Bible. Even if the universe is infinite, eternal and relatively static, it wouldn't rule out God either.

Also, such theories depend totally on pure chance and not a purposeful conscious being whose purpose is to create. In short, they attribute the universe to a chance occurrence and not to a purposeful effort by a creator. So in that indirect way they are atheistic.

Again, that would depend on the individual, not the cosmology theory itself. Even an infinite static universe can have theistic overtones, hence concepts like Pantheism and Panetheism. The "creation" of Earth need not be unintentional even in a static, infinite universe.

I'm really not aware of any cosmology theory that precludes the notion of "God". One can of course "spin" the so called "evidence" to suit themselves, but that's ultimately not the fault of the cosmology theory itself. It's related to the biases of the individual.

That's why atheists and theists alike can be "happy" with big bang theory (or any cosmology theory) and put their own spin on it.

 

[Radrook]

That there is no such thing as "atheist astronomy," only atheist astronomers.

Just my personal a coinage of terms. Coining terms is a favorite human pastime. Prevents language from becoming boringly stale.

 

[Radrook]

That ultimately would depend on how one chooses to "interpret" the Bible. Even if the universe is infinite, eternal and relatively static, it wouldn't rule out God either.



Again, that would depend on the individual, not the cosmology theory itself. Even an infinite static universe can have theistic overtone, hence concepts like Pantheism and Panetheism. The "creation" of Earth need not be unintentional even in a static, infinite universe.

I'm really not aware of any cosmology theory that preclude the notion of "God". One can of course "spin" the so called "evidence" to suit themselves, but that's ultimately not the fault of the cosmology theory itself. It's related to the biases of the individual.

That's why atheists and theists alike can be "happy" with big bang theory and put their on spin on it.

You can be happy with whatever you choose whether it be biblical unbiblical. Happiness and freedom of choice isn't the issue under discussion. Neither are overtones nor undertones relevant to theories under discussion. Obviously the Steady State Theory denies a Creator since it claims no beginning for it. That you illogically refuse to acknowledge it for the sake of being argumentative is really of no particular consequence.

BTW
You seem to be under the false impression that in terms of Bible interpretation anything and everything goes. That isn't the case at all. The universe either had or did not have a beginning. God either created it or he did not. Such parameters eliminate the Steady State Theory that you claim fits right in.

 

[Speedwell]

You can be happy with whatever you choose whether it be biblical unbiblical. Happiness and freedom of choice isn't the issue under discussion. Neither are overtones nor undertones relevant to theories under discussion. Obviously the Steady State Theory denies a Creator since it claims no beginning for it. That you illogically refuse to acknowledge it for the sake of being argumentative is really of no particular consequence.

No, it does not deny a creator. Steady state cosmologies are consistent with creation ex materia, a perfectly respectable theological doctrine which was once popular even in Christianity and is still believed by some to this day.

 

[Michael]

You can be happy with whatever you choose whether it be biblical unbiblical. Happiness and freedom of choice isn't the issue under discussion. Neither are overtones nor undertones relevant to theories under discussion. Obviously the Steady State Theory denies a Creator since it claims no beginning for it. That you illogically refuse to acknowledge it for the sake of being argumentative is really of no particular consequence.

We all assume that God has no beginning or ending as well, don't we? Does God have a "creator"? Does a panentheistic notion of God require a "creator"?

BTW
You seem to be under the false impression that in terms of Bible interpretation anything and everything goes. That isn't the case at all.

Considering the variation in "interpretation" between different "sects" of Christianity, it sure seems that way. Not all "interpretations" are necessarily congruent with empirical physics of course, hence YEC and the like.

The universe either had or did not have a beginning. God either created it or he did not. Such parameters eliminate the Steady State Theory that you claim fits right in.

Not necessarily. What we perceive as the "universe" is but a tiny visible sliver of a much more vast physical universe. Our little sliver may have changed over time, and in fact this part of "spacetime" may have been "created" and changed relatively recently compared to other regions of the universe.

Our solar system for instance seems to be less than 5 billion years old. Compared to eternity, that's a drop in the bucket.

 

[Radrook]

We all assume that God has no beginning or ending as well, don't we? Does God have a "creator"? Does a panentheistic notion of God require a "creator"?



Considering the variation in "interpretation" between different "sects" of Christianity, it sure seems that way. Not all "interpretations" are necessarily congruent with empirical physics of course, hence YEC and the like.



Not necessarily. What we perceive as the "universe" is but a tiny visible sliver of a much more vast physical universe. Our little sliver may have changed over time, and in fact this part of "spacetime" may have been "created" and changed relatively recently compared to other regions of the universe.

Our solar system for instance seems to be less than 5 billion years old. Compared to eternity, that's a drop in the bucket.

When the Bible refers to the heavens and Earth nit isn't referring to a sliver.

Different understanding of the Bible doesn't mean that it is open to any interpretation. It just means that many people are confused and aren't understanding it correctly.

BTW
How do you harmonize an attack on the Bible with being a Christian? Or an attack on theism with being a theist?

Just curious.

 

[Speedwell]

BTW
How do you harmonize an attack on the Bible with being a Christian? Or an attack on theism with being a theist?

Just curious.

More false accusations against a fellow Christian. You should try and get over that.

 

[Radrook]

More false accusations against a fellow Christian. You should try and get over that.

Why not respond to the question?

BTW
Not saying that you are not a Christian.

 

[Speedwell]

Why not respond to the question?

BTW
Not saying that you are not a Christian.

Because neither Michael nor I have attacked either the Bible or theism, the question makes no sense.

 

[Michael]

When the Bible refers to the heavens and Earth nit isn't referring to a sliver.

It's kinda difficult to convey the concepts of infinity and eternity in a single sentence, along with the concept of creating a galaxy or a visible 'portion' of infinity.

Different understanding of the Bible doesn't mean that it is open to any interpretation. It just means that many people are confused and aren't understanding it correctly.

I'd agree with that statement actually.

BTW
How do you harmonize an attack on the Bible with being a Christian? Or an attack on theism with being a theist?

Just curious.

I don't think YEC are trying to "attack" the Bible from their perspective, even if I disagree with their "interpretation" of a few paragraphs of that book.

I've personally never had a problem with "attacking" ideas, including scientific beliefs, and even ideas like theism and atheism. I suppose that explains my comfort level with this particular forum. Any religious or scientific idea that holds up to scrutiny is worth consideration IMO. I like to at least understand the alternatives to my own "preferences".

IMO the only way to know which "interpretations' might be valid and which are not, we have to at least discuss the various possibilities. I see nothing wrong with that, even if I ultimately disagree with some particular interpretations.

I've never expected a single book to explain every scientific detail of this vast universe, let alone a topic as complex as "God".

 

[Radrook]

It's kinda difficult to convey the concepts of infinity and eternity in a single sentence, along with the concept of creating a galaxy or a visible 'portion' of infinity.



I'd agree with that statement actually.



I don't think YEC are trying to "attack" the Bible from their perspective, even if I disagree with their "interpretation" of a few paragraphs of that book.

I've personally never had a problem with "attacking" ideas, including scientific beliefs, and even ideas like theism and atheism. I suppose that explains my comfort level with this particular forum. Any religious or scientific idea that holds up to scrutiny is worth consideration IMO. I like to at least understand the alternatives to my own "preferences".

IMO the only way to know which "interpretations' might be valid and which are not, we have to at least discuss the various possibilities. I see nothing wrong with that, even if I ultimately disagree with some particular interpretations.

I've never expected a single book to explain every scientific detail of this vast universe, let alone a topic as complex as "God".

What the Bible means by Heavens and Earth is everything in existence and not just the visible portion of our universe which is to the unseen portion as an atom is in comparison to our Earth. In fact, the Bible goes beyond our visible universe and includes the third heaven where God dwells and which isn't not part of the visible universe and existed before our visible universe was created.

The Bible as a book has the primary purpose of offering salvation via the Ransom sacrifice of Jesus. It isn't meant to delve into scientific specifics. However, if indeed it is the inspired Word of God then we can rightfully expect it not to contradict solidly proven scientific facts since God as its author would nopt convey erroneous information concerning the universe he himself created.

BTW
Thanks for the explanation as to why you take different stances in reference to religious issues. The confusion is caused by your identification as Christian. It would be less confusing to tag yourself as a philosopher. That way your arguments would not cause one to pause and ponder in the way I did.

 

[Michael]

What the Bible means by Heavens and Earth is everything in existence and not just the visible portion of our universe which is to the unseen portion as an atom is in comparison to our Earth.

If that is your interpretation, that's ok by me. On the other hand, it doesn't preclude other interpretations, nor does it change the fact that a static universe does not necessarily favor atheism.

In fact, the Bible goes beyond our visible universe and includes the third heaven where God dwells and which isn't not part of the visible universe and existed before our visible universe was created.

I'm personally skeptical that we've figured out the whole range of "empirical physics" yet, and I'm quite sure that Earth will one day "pass away" as well all the stars we currently observe in spacetime.

How you might define or describe a "third heaven" in terms of physics isn't really directly related to my original point.

The Bible as a book has the primary purpose of offering salvation via the Ransom sacrifice of Jesus.

And it serves that purpose very well IMO, even if it doesn't answer every scientific question under the sun.

It isn't meant to delve into scientific specifics.

That's kinda my point actually.

However, if indeed it is the inspired Word of God then we can rightfully expect it not to contradict solidly proven scientific facts since God as its author would nopt convey erroneous information concerning the universe he himself created.

Well, technically I agree with you that no 'interpretation' should be at odds with empirical lab demonstrated physics. That's the problem with YEC IMO.

Short of that, I tend to give people a lot of latitude in terms of how they attempt to "interpret" the Bible.

BTW
Thanks for the explanation as to why you take different stances in reference to religious issues. The confusion is caused by your identification as Christian. It would be less confusing to tag yourself as a philosopher. That way your arguments would not cause one to pause and ponder in the way I did.

Sorry for any confusion. We were simply discussing and addressing a philosophical question that is related to science, static universe theory, and atheism.

My identification with "Christianity" comes from my love of Christ and my appreciation of his teachings and his sacrifice. It has absolutely nothing to do with a single interpretation of the book of Genesis. I don't care if YEC feel the need to "judge" me based upon their literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, and I don't really care what you think of my philosophical position as it relates to static universe theory and whether or not it favors atheism.

 

[Radrook]

If that is your interpretation, that's ok by me. On the other hand, it doesn't preclude other interpretations, nor does it change the fact that a static universe does not necessarily favor atheism.



I'm personally skeptical that we've figured out the whole range of "empirical physics" yet, and I'm quite sure that Earth will one day "pass away" as well all the stars we currently observe in spacetime.

How you might define or describe a "third heaven" in terms of physics isn't really directly related to my original point.



And it serves that purpose very well IMO, even if it doesn't answer every scientific question under the sun.



That's kinda my point actually.



Well, technically I agree with you that no 'interpretation' should be at odds with empirical lab demonstrated physics. That's the problem with YEC IMO.

Short of that, I tend to give people a lot of latitude in terms of how they attempt to "interpret" the Bible.



Sorry for any confusion. We were simply discussing and addressing a philosophical question that is related to science, static universe theory, and atheism.

My identification with "Christianity" comes from my love of Christ and my appreciation of his teachings and his sacrifice. It has absolutely nothing to do with a single interpretation of the book of Genesis. I don't care if YEC feel the need to "judge" me based upon their literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, and I don't really care what you think of my philosophical position as it relates to static universe theory and whether or not it favors atheism.

The first heaven is the firmament or Earth's atmosphere. The Second heaven is outer space. The third heaven or heaven of heavens is where God resides with his angels. That is the standard understanding and not my personal understanding of the terms.

I agree that you should not care about what I think. However, a Christian is expected to care about how Jesus feels about any expressed opinions. Claiming to respect him and then saying things that place doubt on his veracity or contradict what he considered the inspired Word of God conveys a certain contempt for his views which is incompatible with any claimed respect for Jesus.

Please note that Genesis tells us God created the universe and that the Steady State Theory tells us that the universe has ALWAYS existed which is a clear contradiction. In short, they are mutually exclusive views because they are diametrically opposed to one another. In order to believe both you would need to believe that God did and did not create the universe. That the universe did and did not have a beginning. That is as much an impossibility as saying that god is both God ad not God.

 

[Michael]

The first heaven is the firmament or Earth's atmosphere. The Second heaven is outer space. The third heaven or heaven of heavens is where God resides with his angels. That is the standard understanding and not my personal understanding of the terms.

You seem to be "expanding" your sense of "heaven" as you go outward, which does seem to be moving you from the finite, toward the infinite. Ok.

I agree that you should not care about what I think. However, a Christian is expected to care about how Jesus feels about any expressed opinions.

I'm prepared to answer to Jesus, but I really don't care about the opinions of every YEC who doesn't like my *metaphorical* interpretation of Genesis. It may give them some sense of superiority of course to try to exclude me from "Christianity" over those differences in beliefs about the book of Genesis, but I simply don't care.

Claiming to respect him and then saying things that place doubt on his veracity

In *which specific sentence* do you believe I did anything of the sort?

or contradict what he considered the inspired Word of God

Your interpretation or mine? Even a perfect book is open to "interpretation" by imperfect human beings, hence YEC.

conveys a certain contempt for his views which is incompatible with any claimed respect for Jesus.

When specifically, and what specifically did I say that even remotely resembled "contempt"? You're apparently reading in a whole lot of motivations, feelings and beliefs that I simply did not convey or hold.

Please note that Genesis tells us God created the universe

Ok.

and that the Steady State Theory tells us that the universe has ALWAYS existed

Technically a steady state universe doesn't even tell us that *this particular* physical layout of matter and energy has *ALWAYS* existed. The laws of physics only imply that some form of *energy* has always existed, but physics does not insist that all forms of matter as we perceive it has always existed.

I'd encourage you to think in terms of "time". A steady state universe changes over time even if it's not necessarily expanding or contracting. It's not eternally the same over time.

which is a clear contradiction.

It may be a clear contradiction to *your own interpretation*, but as I pointed out, there are other interpretations to consider. Admittedly you personally may not care for them, but that has nothing to do with my original point that a static universe doesn't automatically favor atheism, even if blows your personal interpretation of Genesis out of the water.

In short, they are mutually exclusive views because they are diametrically opposed to one another.

Such positions imply an overly simplistic view of things in my experience, and they typically involve an oversimplification fallacy. I don't see the concept of a "created this (visible) universe" and a static universe theory as being diametrically opposed to one another. It all depends on how you choose to *interpret* a few sentences from the Bible, and frankly my *original* point has nothing to do with the Bible, just atheism and static universe theory actually.

I can appreciate that you don't "care for" the interpretation I offered you, but as I said, my point wasn't even directly related to the Bible in the first place. All I pointed out to you is that a static universe doesn't automatically favor atheism. From there you went on a tangent related to your interpretation of Genesis.

In order to believe both you would need to believe that God did and did not create the universe. That the universe did and did not have a beginning. That is as much an impossibility as saying that god is both God ad not God.

You clearly did not hear what I said, and I get the impression that you don't want to hear what I said either. I simply pointed out that infinity and eternity do not demonstrate that God does not exist. Your own opinions about Genesis aren't really even relevant to that issue.

 

[Speedwell]

Please note that Genesis tells us God created the universe and that the Steady State Theory tells us that the universe has ALWAYS existed which is a clear contradiction. In short, they are mutually exclusive views because they are diametrically opposed to one another. In order to believe both you would need to believe that God did and did not create the universe. That the universe did and did not have a beginning. That is as much an impossibility as saying that god is both God ad not God.

Yet creation ex materia was considered an acceptable view in the early church and was only suppressed by the Fathers because they considered it a form of dualism which made doctrine vulnerable to the Gnostic heresies they were contending with. I don't believe that you can rule it out absolutely even with a literalist interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Michael]

I should also point out that only in the last 100 years has a steady state state universe theory been replaced by a general acceptance of a "big bang".

 

[Radrook]

Yet creation ex materia was considered an acceptable view in the early church and was only suppressed by the Fathers because they considered it a form of dualism which made doctrine vulnerable to the Gnostic heresies they were contending with. I don't believe that you can rule it out absolutely even with a literalist interpretation of Genesis.

You mean creation ex nihilo or out of nothing? I have never viewed God as creating things out of nothing. I have always conceived of him as using power to produce effects or his holy sprit to create things.

Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Job 34:14-15 "If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.

Psalm 104:30
You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the ground.

Isaiah 40:26 (NIV)
26 Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one
and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing.

Genesis 1:2 (NKJV)

2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters


“And the angel answered and said to [Mary], ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you’” (Luke 1:35).