Why the Christian creation myth

[juvenissun]

I don't remember Hawking doing any work in theology.

But I get it, you have an emotional need to demonize him.

That is the bad part. He said something without doing any work on it.

 

[juvenissun]

Where does it say that, exactly?



What question or problem?
And let's find out, where does it say that?

And if that is what you believe, then why do you reject so much science?



But you didn't say that it answers a "major question". You said it answers EVERYTHING.
If it answers EVERYTHING, why would have a need for scientists to find out the answer to ANYTHING?

Do you even keep track of your own claims?
Because it looks like you are simply engaging in ad hoc defences or something....
Sounds like you are making everything up on the spot.

Yes, Christianity has answer to everything.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is the bad part. He said something without doing any work on it.

So? He's a human and he's allowed to have opinions.

None of his opinions have any relevancy to his scientific work.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, Christianity has answer to everything.

Clearly that is not correct.

I tried leading you to the water, but it seems you are unable to drink.

 

[juvenissun]

So? He's a human and he's allowed to have opinions.

None of his opinions have any relevancy to his scientific work.

It is critical to "him".

 

[juvenissun]

Clearly that is not correct.

I tried leading you to the water, but it seems you are unable to drink.

Your water is too shallow to touch the point.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually a Jew.

The "Judaism" label in his profile should give you the answer you are looking for

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your water is too shallow to touch the point.

And your claim that christinity can answer EVERYTHING, is clearly wrong.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, Christianity has answer to everything.

Lol, where in the bible is the behavior of atoms explained?

 

[juvenissun]

Lol, where in the bible is the behavior of atoms explained?

It is included in the word "knowledge".

 

[Ophiolite]

It is included in the word "knowledge".

You would be astounded if you knew what was included in the words "Hello juvenissun".

 

[Tayla]

Are there any reasons why the Christian creation myth should be preferred

Christians have various views. I agree with the scientific explanation and I'm not the only Christian who does.

But I am troubled by the expansionary phase just after the Big Bang in which the current natural laws were not in operation. Seems this is outside the domain of science.

 

[Tom 1]

so we can interpret the bible in any way we want?

No, interpretation of the bible is a fully involved process, i.e it requires an approach that takes account of original context, practical application, overall meaning, and relation to all of the contextual difficulty of how we behave and how we relate to God and to each other, or put in another way what happens when we properly understand the bible and put it into practice, and what happens we don’t. In the case of the Genesis narrative the first steps are understanding the relevant cultural/intellectual norms at the time, i.e ideas about cosmology and what people actually thought about when thinking about ‘creation’, and how this is reflected in the language used in the bible.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, interpretation of the bible is a fully involved process, i.e it requires an approach that takes account of original context, practical application, overall meaning, and relation to all of the contextual difficulty of how we behave and how we relate to God and to each other, or put in another way what happens when we properly understand the bible and put it into practice, and what happens we don’t. In the case of the Genesis narrative the first steps are understanding the relevant cultural/intellectual norms at the time, i.e ideas about cosmology and what people actually thought about when thinking about ‘creation’, and how this is reflected in the language used in the bible.

I have put into practice belief in creation, and it has worked very well for me. I'm not confused about my origin. Anyway here's the question science has to answer in order to support evolution.......

How Did Life Arise on Earth?

 

[Tom 1]

I have put into practice belief in creation, and it has worked very well for me. I'm not confused about my origin. Anyway here's the question science has to answer in order to support evolution.......

How Did Life Arise on Earth?

There seem to be a lot of different beliefs about creation, whatever yours is I’m sure it does work well for you. I do think there’s a lot to be gained though by learning what can be understood about what people thought about it at the time of writing/hearing. There is a lot that is fundamentally different about how people thought about everyday things 3,000 yrs ago, and that context is more helpful than a 21stC context when it comes to understanding more of the intent and meaning of passages like Genesis 1-2.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Christians have various views. I agree with the scientific explanation and I'm not the only Christian who does.

But I am troubled by the expansionary phase just after the Big Bang in which the current natural laws were not in operation. Seems this is outside the domain of science.

The bolded bit is a strong claim. Why do you think that?

The big bang is a prediction of mathematical models of the universe. The models also predict things that we can observe such as the cosmic microwave background. Since models are theories, this seems to be science working as per normal, and the big bang is within the domain of science.

 

[Tayla]

But I am troubled by the expansionary phase just after the Big Bang in which the current natural laws were not in operation. Seems this is outside the domain of science.

The bolded bit is a strong claim. Why do you think that?

The big bang is a prediction of mathematical models of the universe. The models also predict things that we can observe such as the cosmic microwave background. Since models are theories, this seems to be science working as per normal, and the big bang is within the domain of science.

It seems to me there is an edge, a limit, to the domain of science, of what science is capable of studying and of determining knowledge and truth about. Certainly events before the big bang are outside of the domain of science. So are speculations and musings about multiple universes. Or what will become of the universe in 100 billion years.

I also include events during and before the expansionary phase just after the Big Bang as outside of the domain of science because, as I understand it, certain of the natural laws are no longer in operation. I postulate that the universe was created at the moment just after the expansionary phase. I would like to hear about what the implications of that would be, of exactly how this initial spherical universe would look in order to become the universe of today.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

It seems to me there is an edge, a limit, to the domain of science, of what science is capable of studying and of determining knowledge and truth about. Certainly events before the big bang are outside of the domain of science. So are speculations and musings about multiple universes. Or what will become of the universe in 100 billion years.

I also include events during and before the expansionary phase just after the Big Bang as outside of the domain of science because, as I understand it, certain of the natural laws are no longer in operation. I postulate that the universe was created at the moment just after the expansionary phase. I would like to hear about what the implications of that would be, of exactly how this initial spherical universe would look in order to become the universe of today.

This doesn't address the points I raise. We can construct theories about the big bang, and these theories make predictions that we can test. How is this not 'within the domain of science'? I'm not talking about 'speculations' or 'musings', but actual testable hypotheses.

You say that science has 'an edge, a limit', but the big bang is not outside that limit.

If, say, 'before the big bang' (which is not clear as time started with the big bang) was outside of the domain of science, then doesn't that imply that we have absolutely no useful way of knowing what, if anything, happened then?

Again, you say that science has 'an edge, a limit', but that doesn't mean that there is any useful or reliable way of knowing the things that science cannot tell us.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

It is included in the word "knowledge".

Knowledge.
Oh look! I just explained the atomic theory!

 

[juvenissun]

Knowledge.
Oh look! I just explained the atomic theory!

Fine.
But you are still lost.