withreason
Active Member
but, what if understanding God's creation is only possible through believing what he wrote to us about it?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
but, what if understanding God's creation is only possible through believing what he wrote to us about it?I don't believe it is possible to offend God in an attempt to understand his creation.
Drawing improper philosophical conclusions is another matter though.
but, what if understanding God's creation is only possible through believing what he wrote to us about it?
or, a good scientist must reject the Genesis account?Does this imply that the best scientists must study the Bible, or one requires the Bible in order to be a scientist, or that only Christians make good scientists? Also, a scientist must take a literal interpretation of Genesis in order to do correct science? If so, I disagree. Science is set up so that it does not matter what faith or beliefs a scientist has, as long as they follow the method, they can be good scientists.
I also think that if some diaster occurred, and every Bible was destroyed, it would still not affect science. I believe that God Creation can be studied without requiring a Bible.
or, a good scientist must reject the Genesis account?
the possibility does exist that God created all of the evolutionay appearance in his 6 day creation, we are talking about God right! he could very well have excellerated 6 billion years as a cascading of unfolding processes within his creative power, or, his process of creation may only appear to have the evidence that we see as evolution....this is God we are trying to confine within the limits of our very immature understanding through science
there is one side of me that says..wow! nicely done! referring to your post. but, there is nothing that I am saying to try to reduce the importance of scientific discovery, or, the gift that God gives to us to discover these amazing wonders that science has been able to do, along with the all the benefits that we enjoy, medically as well...and we are created in his image and likeness, that is why these things are possible for us!.I believe some of what I wrote contains my answers to your last questions.
But let me try to be clearer.
What God expects of us with regard to understanding the universe is one of the questions that takes me to the end of a path. Hence, faith. I have faith that God intends for me to understand creation through examination. He gave us the faculties to do so.
If I were to believe that God's creation is only possible through believing what he wrote (per your question), then I would have to believe that by faith! The bible doesn't tell us that believing it is the only way to understand creation.
Again, I reach this point of faith by walking to end of the path that evidence has lead me. For example, the evidence is that the Bible tells us nothing (AFAIK) about gravity. It tells nothing of the properties of super-conductors. It tells us nothing for Fermat's last equation nor germ theory.
Yet proper investigation into the universe has yielded vast rewards.
I say this acknowledging that faith is involved: This must be what God intended.
I did not imply that God created a false appearance to decieve, in the process of his creation it may only appear to US, by the methods we employ..
Creating the appearance of age in a young earth/universe, or evidence of events that never happened, simply does not square with a God who is truth. How could we have faith in God if his work is filled with deceit? Why should we believe what he says if what he does is not believable?
the compromise is always the integrity of the written word of God that we claim to believe.
or, a good scientist must reject the Genesis account?
grimbly; I do understand what you are saying, yet, the potential for being wrong within the science community can be resolved, corrected, and even understood more precisely through the discovery of error. and your colleagues are dedicated to a strict compliance of precise and accurate dialogue as well.
I did not intend to stab sarcastically at science, only to imply that the consequences are non-reversible if it turns out to be offensive to God!
I did not imply that God created a false appearance to decieve, in the process of his creation it may only appear to US, by the methods we employ.
It is not Gods fault that we can not see beyond the confines of our understanding.
grimbly; I am sorry, I must not be very articulate at defining my post's, (no sarcasm).Ok, I'm still struggling with your post #135,specifically the first paragraph and I'll try to address that later.
I did want to address your whole post here but it's the underlined part that intrigues me the most. I can't imagine what consequences you are talking about. How is it possible for an honest scientist (which most are) to offend God? They go out and do there experiments or collect their samples or make their observations, then come back and try to fit their data into a logical coherent model... going where the data leads them (sometimes reluctantly), but doing it with the objective of better understanding our universe (or to put it in other terms God's creation). I really am at a loss to see how that can be construed as being offensive to God, in fact I see it as actually acknowledging the wonder of God. Ok, maybe that's just me...
Now to the first part. Scientists, probably better than anyone else, are all too aware of their own fallibility. That's why they are constantly checking, rechecking, and reanalyzing their findings with additional tests and observations. They, if at all possible do not rely on a single measurement or even a single methodology to arrive at their conclusions but rather look for as many independent means at their disposal to arrive at their best estimate of truth. As an example, there currently are over 40 different radiometric dating schemes in use today. Why? Well if you arrive at a date using only one technique, it is possible that you can be in error due to a systemic flaw in your measurement methodology. However if you use 2, 3, or more independent techniques and arrive at the same answer, then your confidence in the veracity of your conclusion increases by a considerable amount. That's why even today, as good as our radiometric data is (and it really is very very good), there are still people who are working very hard to make it even better. It's a constant struggle, and quite frankly, there are a lot of people that don't have the right temperament to work in a scientific field. That's not meant as a slam, it's just different strokes for different folks.
The point is, that we have progressed so far (with yet a lot to learn) in our understanding of our planet and our universe that we will never be able to return back to some old beliefs that were held in some cases as little as 100 years ago. In short, there isn't that one piece of data sitting in somebodies file cabinet that's going to turn around billions of data points that point to the great antiquity of our planet. I rambled enough!
I can agree with 99.9 % of this, and I must admit that I do admire your detail to observance, and very refined response...but, with all the falculties that we have to perceive, to admire, to reason, to experiment, does not mean that we have excelled to a point to be able claim that we have gained enough reasoning through observation, to assume that God was not capable of creating what we observe according to the genesis account, and that is the stumbling block for millions.Comes to the same thing in a way. If this were true, God did not intend us to understand his creation. Yet he gave us senses to perceive it and rational powers to seek understanding.
We used those perceptions and powers of reasoning to discern that the earth is a sphere, that it orbits the sun, that the sky is open space, not a roof above our heads, that we are one small planet in a large galaxy and that our galaxy is only one of hundreds of millions of galaxies.
What makes our perceptions and reasoning right in those cases (in spite of scripture that appears to disagree) and wrong in the case of the age and history of the earth?
Scripture tells us that God made the earth to be our habitation and that he gave the care and governance of the earth to us. Did he expect us to rule a domain we cannot understand?
Yes, our understanding is limited. That doesn't necessarily make it incorrect as far as it goes. And we know from history that we can improve our understanding of creation through further study. I agree with the other posters in believing this is God's will for us concerning nature. Since he made us in his image and gave us the faculties to know it, he expects us to study it and learn about it, the better to exercise the responsibility he has given us in respect to it.
This simply does not square with the idea that we are looking at an appearance that does not correspond to reality.
grimbly; I am sorry, I must not be very articulate at defining my post's, (no sarcasm).
I am referring to the potential millions, that may, as a result of trusting in the theoretical teaching of evolution, may have destroyed a potential relationship with Christ, ultimately...suffering the consequences!
that being offensive to God, not the sciences in general.
thats amazing..I was just following up on glaudys, looking into theistic evo....and I just read that st augustine quote, I'm not kidding.Nah, it was probably me misreading you. Musta got my stupid pills mixed up with my vitamins this morning.
So let's go with the underlined part. I can see Biblical literalism doing exactly the same thing. I NEED that St. Augustine quote. Ah here it is!
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
I guess he said it mush better than I could
For what it's worth, I've known more people to fall away from God, having had their faith in YECism debunked by science. I think it's the insistence that people must deny logic and observation to be Christian that ultimately leads them away from the faith. Not science itself.I am referring to the potential millions, that may, as a result of trusting in the theoretical teaching of evolution, may have destroyed a potential relationship with Christ, ultimately...suffering the consequences!
I can agree with 99.9 % of this, and I must admit that I do admire your detail to observance, and very refined response...but, with all the falculties that we have to perceive, to admire, to reason, to experiment, does not mean that we have excelled to a point to be able claim that we have gained enough reasoning through observation, to assume that God was not capable of creating what we observe according to the genesis account, and that is the stumbling block for millions.
well...I must say gluadys, you continue to amaze me with your preceptive post's. and your "virtually" un-arguable replys, only due to my inadaquecies to respond with equalative insight... are you the same gluadys from interfaith forums..?? KUDOS My only rebutal is.....http://www.trueorigin.org/biotic.aspWell, no one is disputing God's capability. It is not what God can do that is disputed. It is what does the record show that God did do.
God's works and God's words cannot conflict with each other. So when God's work in nature tells us the universe and the earth are billions of years old, and that there is a long history of evolving species, including our own, that cannot be in conflict with scripture. If it seems as if it is, then we have some sort of misunderstanding of scripture.
Yes, it is a problem when one is raised with an understanding of scripture that does not agree with the reality God created. But since we cannot change the reality God created, the solution is not to turn a blind eye to the evidence, but to correct the way we understand scripture.
This is one reason for learning to understand the cultural context in which scripture was written--a cultural context that did not value history in the same way we do, and which did not have the scientific understanding that we do, so expressed their ideas in different ways.
When we understand how ANE cultures expressed themselves, it is easier to accept those differences without treating them as inferior or incorrect even when they conflict with our science-based knowledge. We no longer have to choose between ancient and modern paradigms, but can value both.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?