God as our creator.

[AzA]

Aren't there those who are [here] (they exist, are on this planet, etc.) who know that they were not created?

BFA

I know (am personally familiar with) many people who believe that they were not created in instant fiat by Santa-Claus-or-mystical-variation-thereof. And in our discussions they all say they do not know this (intellectually or experientally). Even Richard Dawkins prefers alien seeding as an alternative to Genesis-style creation -- but all that does is replace one kind of creation with another... and it is an intellectual substitution.

What is it you have in mind when you speak of creation?

 

[Avonia]

I know (am personally familiar with) many people who believe that they were not created in instant fiat by Santa-Claus-or-mystical-variation-thereof. And in our discussions they all say they do not know this (intellectually or experientally). Even Richard Dawkins prefers alien seeding as an alternative to Genesis-style creation -- but all that does is replace one kind of creation with another... and it is an intellectual substitution.

One of the outcomes of our inability to respect science AND the creation story is the gap will become so huge, people will get disillusioned and ditch the story. This is already happening for many of our young people - especially our young scientists.

It's important that we come to understand how both are true. Treat both as sacred. If Christians continue to insist this is a battle, science will win.

The creation story is one of the most beautiful stories in the Bible. The book "starts good." What we have demonstrated in much of Christianity, is that we care more about protecting ourselves (belief) than discovering greater truth.

A Christian and an atheist should be able to have a rich conversation about where they came from. Not an argument. The fact that they have different beliefs doesn't change the fact that they stem from the same creation. And are right in the middle of it.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I know (am personally familiar with) many people who believe that they were not created in instant fiat by Santa-Claus-or-mystical-variation-thereof. And in our discussions they all say they do not know this (intellectually or experientally). Even Richard Dawkins prefers alien seeding as an alternative to Genesis-style creation -- but all that does is replace one kind of creation with another... and it is an intellectual substitution.

Is it a substitution of something true for something less than true? If so, how do we know?

AVONIA: It's important that we come to understand how both are true. Treat both as sacred. If Christians continue to insist this is a battle, science will win.

How do we know both are true? How would we evaluate this?

BFA

 

[Avonia]

How do we know both are true? How would we evaluate this?

The same way we know gravity is true. We know it is true, because we are in relationship with it.

I suspect that whether or not a person "believes in God" is not correlated - in the way that many Christians assume - to the depth of their knowing about God.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The same way we know gravity is true. We know it is true, because we are in relationship with it.

I suspect that whether or not a person "believes in God" is not correlated - in the way that many Christians assume - to the depth of their knowing about God.

How would we know that the big bang really occurred? In what way are we in relationship with it? Is it true? Are all assertions simulaneously and equally true?

BFA

 

[Avonia]

How would we know that the big bang really occurred?

It doesn't matter whether the big bang happened or not. The story of creation is all around us. It's constantly being told - by all of creation.

 

[sentipente]

What is it you have in mind when you speak of creation?

After reading his follow-up questions I have no idea what he is trying to accomplish and whether I wish to be a part of it. I guess I am infected by the belief that one should not ask a question without first knowing the answer.

 

[AzA]

I guess I am infected by the belief that one should not ask a question without first knowing the answer.

Yes, that does sound like an infection. Have you seen a doctor, lol?

Questions with known answers are worthy, questions without known answers are also worthy, and the answer isn't always the prize.

 

[sentipente]

Yes, that does sound like an infection. Have you seen a doctor, lol?

Questions with known answers are worthy, questions without known answers are also worthy, and the answer isn't always the prize.

I humbly disagree. If the answer is not the prize then the question is not worth asking. Unless you meant that the answer is not always the end of the road. If I don't know the answer then I can't tell if you are putting me on.

 

[JonMiller]

A Christian and an atheist should be able to have a rich conversation about where they came from. Not an argument. The fact that they have different beliefs doesn't change the fact that they stem from the same creation. And are right in the middle of it.

Many atheists I know don't know much about christianity or religion in general. It is very foreign to their thinking. Their experience with it is creationism in schools, gay-bashing, and the history of the catholic church.

This is what I have tried to bring up here, but people don't seem interested in the subject.

JM

 

[Avonia]

Many atheists I know don't know much about christianity or religion in general. It is very foreign to their thinking. Their experience with it is creationism in schools, gay-bashing, and the history of the catholic church.

This is why conversation is important.

There are narrow-minded atheists and broad-minded atheists just as there are narrow-minded Christians and broad-minded Christians.

Said more simply, there are narrow-minded people and broad-minded people.

Said more simply, there are just "people."

 

[Byfaithalone1]

It doesn't matter whether the big bang happened or not.

Why doesn't it matter? It matters to those who conclude that there is no divine creator. Who decides which questions matter and which do not? You?

BFA

 

[AzA]

BFA, the Big Bang theory and the existence of a creator are distinct issues and can't really be correlated: there are people who acknowledge a creator who do accept the BB and others who don't, and people who don't acknowledge a creator who do accept the BB and others who don't. This means that acceptance of the BB vs. alternative explanations for the start of the universe like the thesis that there was no start is not a necessary precipitant for non-belief in a creator. Nor does that choice help one determine whether the creator is a being or a force, or both, or neither.

I know of those who believe there was no beginning, but haven't spoken with any of them directly.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BFA, the Big Bang theory and the existence of a creator are distinct issues and can't really be correlated: there are people who acknowledge a creator who do accept the BB and others who don't, and people who don't acknowledge a creator who do accept the BB and others who don't. This means that acceptance of the BB vs. alternative explanations for the start of the universe like the thesis that there was no start is not a necessary precipitant for non-belief in a creator. Nor does that choice help one determine whether the creator is a being or a force, or both, or neither.

I know of those who believe there was no beginning, but haven't spoken with any of them directly.

There is an underlying assumption that there is a creator. I seek more information regarding the basis of that assumption.

BFA

 

[sentipente]

There is an underlying assumption that there is a creator. I seek more information regarding the basis of that assumption.

BFA

I would not call it a mere assumption. Nothing ever comes from nothing. So, the existence of something directly indicates a source or creator.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I would not call it a mere assumption.

Without understanding the basis, it seems to be a mere assumption and it seems that any number of other assumptions could be equally considered.

Nothing ever comes from nothing.

Yet another assumption. What is the basis?

So, the existence of something directly indicates a source or creator.

The conclusion is built on assumptions. What is the basis of those assumptions? How do we know that such statements are true?

BFA

 

[AzA]

It only takes one exception to make a new rule, which is kinda cool when you think about it: you work with the rule until you find an exception, and then you get another rule to put in your bucket. In time, lots of rules! This is knowledge-making.

Everything we observe has a source. All the parts of creation, including us, have a source. So what about the sum of creation brings you to assume that as a totality it is different from its constituents? There must be something about the sum that makes you confident it is "not like the others." What is it?

To assume that something appeared without a precipitant -- and that something immediately mutated its own rules such that everything contained in it and subsequent to it needed a precipitant... well, that's a big 'un.

And, while I've heard many propose that that precipitant wasn't the churches' god, I've not heard them deny that something began the story. They simply do not know what it was. And some would rather it be anything other than YHWH -- including seeding civilizations from Andromeda.

 

[AzA]

It is also worth noting that the Big Bang theory does not answer "Who did it?" It definitely doesn't answer "Why did it happen?" It does try to describe "What happened?"... and that's all.

Insofar as we're still experiencing the movement from a huge outbound burst, I'd say the BB is a reasonable effort to be held lightly until we learn more and further comprehensive proposals emerge.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

It is also worth noting that the Big Bang theory does not answer "Who did it?"

The big bang theory seems to be built upon the assumption that "what did it" is a better question than "who did it."

BFA

 

[Avonia]

Why doesn't it matter? It matters to those who conclude that there is no divine creator. Who decides which questions matter and which do not? You?

BFA

It does not matter from the standpoint of causality. The big bang could have been a process of Creator. It makes the most sense at this point. At least from a scientific perspective.

You are making a case that it matters because of the stories people tell about Creator. That's different. These stories are often more about the people telling them than the characters portrayed in the story. There are creation stories in many cultures.