How can you say you believe in god?

[sungaunga]

Cmon guys, I didn't say you guys aren't Christians. I said since Bible is replete with miracles and prophecies that run in total counter direction to modern science you probably do not believe them. But seriously brother, I know we are bombarded at a young age with the worlds view of origins and etc... But please remember that we can trust the Bible.

 

[Chesterton]

Sure the Bible is not a book of Science or astronomy. But when it does intersect with Science it is always correct.

I assume you think God dictated those facts in Genesis directly to Moses and told him to write them down for posterity? I'm curious why you think it's important that we know God created everything in six days. I read somewhere that the Genesis story is only referred to in passing once more in the entire Old Testament. Apparently the literalness of Genesis was not hugely important even to the Hebrew's religion. Why should it be any more important to the Christian religion?

 

[troodon]

Cmon guys, I didn't say you guys aren't Christians.

So you think someone can be a Christian without believing in the miraculous resurrection of Christ?

But seriously brother, I know we are bombarded at a young age with the worlds view of origins and etc...

I'd say the same is true for Creationists.

 

[sungaunga]

So you think someone can be a Christian without believing in the miraculous resurrection of Christ?



I'd say the same is true for Creationists.

Oh of course not. I assumed you at-least believed the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[lucaspa]

Cmon guys, I didn't say you guys aren't Christians. I said since Bible is replete with miracles and prophecies that run in total counter direction to modern science you probably do not believe them.

That is a misunderstanding of science. What you are doing is allowing theory to refute data, which is categorically denied in science. Let me explain. Let's take a very common argument of atheists: dead bodies don't come back to life, therefore the resurrection never happened. This is supposed to be science. But it's not.

Scientifically, what you have with the dead bodies is a THEORY, based upon the individual data points of dead bodies we have observed. The *theory* states that a person dead will not come back to life. However, you can never prove a theory, you can only test it. So far, all the data supports that theory. BUT, Yeshu's possible resurrection is DATA. That is the point that is missed. Data can always overthrow theory. But you cannot use theory tp reject data. You cannot generalize from what you have observed to reject the next observation.

Now, Yeshu's supposed resurrection is not solid data. It happened a long time ago and it left no physical consequences around that we can objectively, intersubjectively study today. So, atheists are allowed to view the event as an anomaly and do not have to revise the theory. But we, and they, simply CANNOT use the theory to say the data (the resurrection) never happened.

Let me give you another example of theory and data. We have released several rocks and seen them fall. So we devise a theory of gravity that says that ALL unsupported objects will fall. This works well as we drop bricks, people, seashells, leaves, etc. But then we try a helium balloon. It goes up. Do we deny that it goes up? NO. Instead, we revise the theory to: all objects that mass more than the air they displace will fall when unsupported. The THEORY gets changed. In the case of Yeshu, IF we could find objecitve data to confirm the event happened, then our theory would be: all humans who die remain dead except when deity interferes and reverses the process.

But please remember that we can trust the Bible.

How about we trust God and not worry so much about "the Bible"?

 

[lucaspa]

"For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's."

Great passage from the Bible, indeed it is God who is the foundation of this Earth. If you haven't noticed it is a figure of speech which is also found in psalms 75:3, 82:5 and 104:5

Why do you say this is a "figure of speech"? I submit for you to consider: you do so because of the science. Christians prior to 1500 AD did not consider these figures of speech. They indeed thought that the earth did not move. BTW, you forgot I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, and Psalm 96:10. This is why Ptolomaic astronomy -- with the earth at the center of the solar system -- was integral to Church theology. Only this astronomy would keep the earth from moving. So, how was it decided that this was a "figure of speech"? From the science that was discovered by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and others.

[Sure the Bible is not a book of Science or astronomy. But when it does intersect with Science it is always correct. For example, Isaiah 40:26 says it is God who creates the universe.[/quote]

But God creating the universe is not a scientific statement. It is a theological one.

This is where we disagree. The Bible was never meant to be about science or astronomy. Anytime it speaks on these subject the science or astronomy is simply a setting for the theology. Any science the Bible gets right is purely accidental.

Also, Job 36:27-28 speaks of evaporation and condensation centuries prior to any scientific discovery of the process. "He draws up the drops of water, they distill rain from the mist, which the clouds pour down, they drip upon man abundantly."

That's not true. Condensation from fog was well known at the time. In this passage nothing is being said that people at the time did not know. BTW, have you looked at those passages in Job where it has "storehouses" for snow? Do you think that is scinetifically accurate? Did you see the verse where the camel does not have a cloven hoof? But it does.

You are cherry picking verses and not looking at all of them.

Prior to Copernicus, the universe was generally thought to contain only about one thousand stars.

That too is untrue. There are over 5,000 stars visible from earth. Copernicus did not change the number of stars, but the position of earth in the universe (and, implied, the size of the universe).

And mallon, go lookup what the Word for earth is in Hebrew in that verse from Job I gave you couple treads below, The Hebrew word translated "earth" (hug) refers to a sphere.

"Word"? Do you realize that by capitalizing it like this, you are saying that the word for earth in Hebrew is God?

But you are in error. The word is a circle, not a sphere. Hebrew has another word for "ball", that would have been used for "sphere". Job meant to say a plane figure, not a 3 D one.

Again, you are cherry picking verses. You are trying to say "because the Bible is right about these things which science has confirmed, then it must be right about everything that science has refuted". You should be able to see the logical flaw in that argument. If you are using science to confirm the text, then, logically, you must also defer to science when it refutes the text.

 

[Mallon]

"For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's."

Great passage from the Bible, indeed it is God who is the foundation of this Earth. If you haven't noticed it is a figure of speech which is also found in psalms 75:3, 82:5 and 104:5

That's a very 21st century perspective. The early Hebrews didn't interpret these verses figuratively, though.

And mallon, go lookup what the Word for earth is in Hebrew in that verse from Job I gave you couple treads below, The Hebrew word translated "earth" (hug) refers to a sphere.

Actually, the Bible never describes the earth as a sphere. 'Duwr' is the Hebrew word for sphere, and it is never used to describe the earth. Rather, the earth is always described as a flat object (like a circle or square).

I wouldn't be surprised if you folks refuse to believe in the miracles and the prophecies that are contained in the Bible. Afterall they are not "scientific"

I believe in miracles. I don't believe in concordism.

 

[lucaspa]

So the word itself does not dictate a 24 hour day. Second, our measurements of time are based upon the earth's relation to the sun. The sun was not created until the fourth day of creation. Therefore to talk about a 24 hour day during the first three days of creation is meaningless.

However, the authors inserted "morning and evening" for the first 3 days precisely to make them 24 hours. The authors intended 6 24 hr days. That's not to say creation happened that way, but the authors had a theological reaon to structure creation for 6 days.

The theological reason, of course, is (an unnecessary) justification for hte sabbath. The justification is clearly seen in Exodus 20:11 where the redactor has inserted that Hebrews keep the sabbath because God created in 6 days and rested on the 7th.

 

[lucaspa]

Scripture teaches that the creation took 6 twenty-four hour days.

Is that the only time period scripture teaches? NO! If you go to Genesis 2:4, you find that the heavens and the earth -- which take at least 4 days in Genesis 1 -- is created within a single day. The word used for "in the day" is "beyom". Whereas "yom" can mean an indefinite time period, adding "be" limits yom to 24 hours. Beyom is also used in Genesis 2:1-3 to limit the 7th day to 24 hours. Otherwise, if only "yom" were used there, the day of rest could last for an indefinite period of time.

What you have, sungaunga, is 2 creation stories in Genesis 1-3, and they contradict -- read literally. Not only on how long creation took, but also on other critical parts. What this means is that the text is telling you to read the 2 creation stories non-literally. Instead of trying to take them as science/how God created, read them for the theological messages. Let science tell you how God created.

Pre-Darwin, no one was confused by it. That is the one of the saddest statement to hear that believing what the Bible says it did is anti-biblical. That is so sad....

Not true. There were atheists pre-Darwin who believe that God did not create. What's more, geology had scuttled the 6 literal days long before evolution even occurred to Darwin. You can't blame Darwin for this.

On top of that, Darwin was always very careful to portray evolution as how God created, not as a substitute for God creating.

 

[MattLangley]

I have a question I need to better understand the answer from. The only people who can help me to answer it are those who are "christians" as well as "evolutionists." Here's my question if you believe that elohim exists and that everything he said happened in the bible subsequently happened up to and including the birth of Yehoshua through imaculate conception via Mary then how can you rule out another thing he implicetely states without throwing out your entire belief system. It stands to reason that if one book of the bible is wrong then every subsequent book that makes reference to it within the bible is wrong.. if thats the case wouldn't that unsubstantient the entirety of the works? So assuming this to be the case, we would have to state that since Yaweh either didn't write the bible or he was mistake in what he himself said he did or claimed to be true, that he was not elohim meaning Jesus (who is reffered to in the bible as the son of adam) who shared the exact same understanding of the creation of the world that his father did was in fact incorrect as well.. so therefore he wasn't really "Christ" so your not really Christians since the term Christian isn't complete without Christ. You cannot say the bible cannot be taken literally and say you believe in Jesus because Jesus said "A man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God" and since the bible is the word of god you by not living by it are directly contradicting the Person you are basing your belief system on.

So this is more in response to your subject line than your detailed block of text. The Bible is a compilation of ancient writings, each of these writings were written by various people (many of which were most likely compiled from previous writings). Many (if not all) have different authors that traverse great periods of time.

To trust these words from these men as the undeniable literal word of God is a huge assumption. Would you trust the street beggar if he says God wants you to give him money? Well you probably know (and definitely -can-) know that street beggar better than any of the authors of these writings. Most of these authors have in fact been lost to time and we have no definitive proof of who wrote many of them, nevertheless details about that person.

When you state the Bible (a compiled book of ancient writings, keep in mind there are many writings in which we know the authors moreso and that are even more ancient) is the definitive word of God and from God you are instead trusting these authors did in fact speak from God (or write more accurately). That's a lot of trust to have in men, especially ones that you know so little about.

 

[Zoness]

Atheistic evolution =/= theistic evolution.

Thread over

 

[lucaspa]

The Bible is a compilation of ancient writings, each of these writings were written by various people (many of which were most likely compiled from previous writings). Many (if not all) have different authors that traverse great periods of time.

Biblical literalists do not agree with this fact. Instead, they tend to think that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the disciple Matthew wrote the gospel by his name, that Peter wrote both letters that bear his name, etc.

To trust these words from these men as the undeniable literal word of God is a huge assumption. Would you trust the street beggar if he says God wants you to give him money?

The question is a strawman. If you insist that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, then it's not a "street beggar", but the man who witnessed the Exodus. But it gets worse when you take your argument out of the Bible and see if the criteria of knowing the author and trust apply to other historical events. For instance, don't we trust the authors of the writings that cover the 1st Crusade? Yes. Any history you read of the 1st Crusade is going to be a re-telling of two accounts kept by different men. Yet both are anonymous and we don't know them. Some pretty extraordinary things happened during the 1st Crusade, but historians trust those 2 major sources. We know only what we can infer: one was probably a monk and the other a man-at-arms.

When you state the Bible (a compiled book of ancient writings, keep in mind there are many writings in which we know the authors moreso and that are even more ancient) is the definitive word of God and from God you are instead trusting these authors did in fact speak from God (or write more accurately). That's a lot of trust to have in men, especially ones that you know so little about.

While I agree with the general argument that trusting the Bible is having trust in the authors (at least one of whom was probably female), and I think it's good to point out to Biblical literalists this trust in humans.

However, if you look at Biblical literalists, you find that they do not accept the "When ... " clause. Altho literalists do not often out and out state so, they believe that God dictated the Bible to the authors. That removes the "trust" issue you are arguing.

Then the argument begins over what "inspired" means. Does "inspired" mean dictation, or does it mean, on the other extreme, there will be no major theological errors? Or does it mean something in between?

 

[Keepon]

proof for the existence of God

cause and effect. The world is here. So there is a cause. Its God.

something had to create the world.


The world began to exist

So God created it.

 

[MattLangley]

proof for the existence of God

cause and effect. The world is here. So there is a cause. Its God.

something had to create the world.


The world began to exist

So God created it.

Umm actually what you suggest possibly disproves the existence of God.

World is there God created it.
then God is there what created God (if something created him then he's not God right)

 

[Mallon]

Umm actually what you suggest possibly disproves the existence of God.

World is there God created it.
then God is there what created God (if something created him then he's not God right)

Nothing could have created God since, if He created time, there could be no instance before the creation of time at which He did not exist. He must therefore have always existed and was not Himself created.

 

[metherion]

Nothing could have created God since, if He created time, there could be no instance before the creation of time at which He did not exist. He must therefore have always existed and was not Himself created.

Well, this involves several MORE questions/logical conundrums/etc.

1)How do you know it’s your SPECIFIC God (the Judeo-Christian-Muslim one, the Hindi one, Apsu and Tiamat together, etc)?
2)By that logic, time also couldn’t have been created since there was never a time before time (indeed, the phrase is meaningless), so there was never time where time did not exist. And furthermore, without time, there needs be no cause/effect relationship because there was no before, so time wouldn’t have needed its own creator anyways.
3)It assumes that time did not replace another, unknown continuum that did in fact contain cause and effect, that God COULD have been created in before time as we know it. (to paraphrase Star Trek: It’s time, Jim, but not as we know it)
4)It assumes time was in fact created.
I’m sure there are at least 1 or 2 more but I’m having a brain fart.


Not that I’m against God (check mah faith icon), just misapplied logic

Metherion

 

[lucaspa]

proof for the existence of God

cause and effect. The world is here. So there is a cause. Its God.

something had to create the world.

But what "created" the world does not have to be God. That's why the "proof" fails.

You see, there are at least 4 other candidates for creator of the universe:

1. Logical and mathematical necessity. In this case, the equations that describe the universe also have to power to cause a universe to come into being so those equations can describe it.

2. Quantum fluctuation. At the quantum level some events do not obey "cause and effect". They are uncaused. It is possible that the universe arose from one of these uncaused quantum events.

3. Ekpyrotic. In this hypothesis, the universe results from the collision of 2 'branes in a 5 dimensional, eternal universe. The 5 D universe takes the place of an eternal and uncaused God.

4. Finally, in No Boundary, there is no "creation". Instead, the universe is "finite by unbounded". It just IS and does not require creation.

So, you and I believe God created the universe, but we cannot "prove" it by the means you are trying.

 

[lucaspa]

Umm actually what you suggest possibly disproves the existence of God.

World is there God created it.
then God is there what created God (if something created him then he's not God right)

This is just really bad science. When you answer a question in science, 3 or 4 new questions always pop up out of the answer. Not having the answer to those questions in no way "disproves" the answer.

We have a question: what is the origin of the universe?

One possible answer is: God created it.

Now we have a new question: what is the origin of God? We don't know the answer to that one. God may not have an origin. That is standard Christian belief.

Or God may have been "created" by some non-intelligent process. In that case God is still God.

Or God may have been created by another being. Quite frankly, I don't see how that displaces God as Creator, sustainer, or Savior (via Christ). We just have another, distant, being out there. It would appear that this hypothetical distant being never involved itself with our universe. So who cares about it?