Why would....?

[Nathan Poe]

One of the things, as a YEC, that I run into most often is: God's word is not true because it was written by man. So:

Right off the bat, I can see that you haven't been listening to a word your opposition has been saying, at least not on these boards...

"God's Word" did not descend from heaven on a silver platter. Nor did God personally dictate every last word to the writers of the Bible.

The question is not whether the Bible is "True" or not, but whether the people involved in it, both authors and readers, are infallible or not. Clearly, they are not.

So, how does one know that those writers, even inspired by God, didn't:

1: Forget anything?
2: Misunderstand anything?
3: Add poetry, allegory, drama, etc. to spice anything up?
4: Have their words edited or altered in the 2000+ years since they set them down?

Furthermore, how do you know that you as a reader are getting the intended message? When you read the Bible, what, besides a little voice in your head you choose to call the "Holy Spirit," tells you you're getting it right?

1) If the earth is billions of years old, what would be the reason someone would rewrite it for six days? What would they accomplish? What would be their motive? And how did they come up with six days and not one day or one minute or even one second?

I believe lucaspa has already addressed this one. Genesis was written after Exodus. The six day creation is a useful device for explaining the Hebrew Sabbath.

2) If man came from animals, as evolution states, what would be the point of changing this? If God did it this way, as some here would state, you need to answer why? And to what end? Was there a motive? And why would God have to use evolution when He is God?

Why would God have to make man out of dirt, or Eve out of a rib, when He is God? Why not snap his omnipotent fingers and *POOF* us into being?

For that matter, why did it take six days to make the world? And why did God have to rest on the seventh? Was he tired? Not quite as omnipotent as we'vebeen led to believe?

It's not a question of what God had to do, but what He chose to do.

Father Mulcahy: "32 hours in the O.R.; I'm all prayed out."
Hawkeye: "Tired? God made the universe in six days..."
Father Mulcahy: "Well, He was a lot younger then..."

YEC, OEC, or Evolution, the question might as well be: why didn't God just snap his fingers?

3) Big Bang- And why would God make something explode to create? As being God would He not have control over all the elements needed?

First of all, the "Big Bang" is not an explosion; that's just a catchy term for it.

Second, God, being God, can make a universe any way He chooses. He could've snapped his all-powerful fingers and *POOF*ed everything into being.

(Perhaps He did, and that's what the "Big Bang" really is)

However He chose to do it, the why of it is known to Him alone. Science studies the how (and the when) of it.

Genesis tells a very pretty story of how it could've happened. For thousands of years, people believed (and still believe) that it's how it did happen. But the more we learn about the universe, the less it resembles a 5000-year old myth.

Did God create the universe billions of years ago, using what scientists call the "Big Bang?" So far, that's what it looks like.

Did God create life on this planet over millions of years, using a process called "evolution" to continuously improve and tweak his creation? Looks that way too.

If He did, why did God choose to do it this way? Most likely because that's how He felt like doing it.

Will we ever know the why? Probably not.
Will we ever know the how? We're working on it.

 

[MartinM]

If you continued to grow at the rate you began, then by the end of your life, you would be as big as the whole universe

No, you wouldn't. Don't be silly.

 

[ikester7579]

Ike, the problem is that you assume that all the informations that are presented in the Bible come directly from God, and that you assume that the authors would have made clear when they used their informations and when they used God´s.

But there are quite some parts in the Bible were both assumptions do not make sense.

So we don´t have an infallable way to find out which parts were based on informations directly from God.

And there is no infallible way to prove that theories are absolutly what happened. But people still believe they are true and even fact. Which I have yet to see one definiton of any type of theory that says: It's absolute truth. In order to even get someone to even understand the concept of a theory, they have to be taught that there are many levels of truth, and a lie (a disproved theory) is just someone elses opinion. So when we redefine what these words mean, it's no wonder people will accept just about anything that sounds fesible.

In case of Genesis, we have informations from a different side - the world that God created, so you can compare and find out that Genesis is NOT based on direct informations.

Really? When science factors in the equation of an all powerful God, then maybe God's word would make sense to you. But you know that will never happen. And since it won't, it becomes a matter of what side you want to take as truth. In other words, it's a battle for truth. And since you have, along with some others here, decided to go along with the truth that man finds, God cannot be in a picture where man's ideas totally rule the out come. If God is not factor in, the outcome will never support there ever was a God. Besides, I have have yet to find a bible believing atheist.

Another problem of yours: you cannot answer your own questions if they were phrased in favour of six-days-creation. You also can only assume, based on your preconcieved ideas.
But in contrast to that, Evolution has at least a way to check its preconcieved ideas.

Only in theory, which still is not absolute truth. And the reason a theory will not become absolute truth is because it still is in corrective mode. This way science will always have an excuse as to why this theory(ideas) or that theory(ideas) was proven wrong. It was factored in so it makes it ok to be wrong. Even though theories are supposed to be a working progress to finding truth, I have yet to see one actually turn into absolute truth. Which by the standards you judge God's word, would not be any different. It just can't be explained. Which science runs into that all the time.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

When science factors in the equation of an all powerful God, then maybe God's word would make sense to you. But you know that will never happen.

Of course it won't happen. The inclusion of an all-powerful God would render science useless because:

a) Science cannot test for God (the supernatural) because it can only deal with the material universe (the natural).
b) Since an all-powerful God can answer anything and everything, there would be no reason to seek further knowledge and no way of distinguishing between competing ideas. Any theory could be instantly rendered valid with "Goddidit", and likewise any gap in knowledge can simply be plugged with "Goddidit".

In order for science to have any value whatsoever, it must only ever deal with the natural.

 

[ForeRunner]

Wow ikster, talk about strawmen. I am going to let you in on a little secret about the human beings and their understanding of the universe. Are you ready for this? Sit down, here it comes....

There are NO absolute truths

That's right, none, zero, zilch, nada. Science isn't the absolute truth and more importantly it never claimed to be. Insisting that science makes this claim is a strawman. We all accept certain ideas without absolute truth, namely that we, and the universe, exist. We also accept that, usually, what our observations tell us is true. This is especially powerful when anyone can "see" the same thing.

That is where science starts, it accepts that we exist and that we are capable of examining and understanding our universe. From there on in it is hypothesis, observation and data. Plain and simple that is how it works. All knowledge of science is regarded as "true until reliable data says otherwise".

What I am trying to say to you, ikster, is that you don't know what science is, nor do you understand it or its methodology. This is blatently clear in all your posts and I reccommend you either learn about science or stop talking about it. The more you show us how much you don't know the more foolish you look.

 

[ikester7579]

A billion years for God is like a day for man. It gives you a way to grasp that God is much greater than we are.

As others would say: So God lied to us?

A day has a beginning and a end. Light is seperated from darkness.

Thought it was billions of years, now you refer to days? Make up your mind John.

"Big Bang" is just a catch phrase. Do seeds explode? Some people thing they do, but really, they just start to expand and grow. With God things start off very small and they can get very big.

I remember being taught in school that it was an explosion, has this changed?

If you continued to grow at the rate you began, then by the end of your life, you would be as big as the whole universe. So really, the question is, what slows down or stops things from growing and expanding?

Room?

 

[ikester7579]

Wow ikster, talk about strawmen. I am going to let you in on a little secret about the human beings and their understanding of the universe. Are you ready for this? Sit down, here it comes....

There are NO absolute truths

That's right, none, zero, zilch, nada. Science isn't the absolute truth and more importantly it never claimed to be. Insisting that science makes this claim is a strawman. We all accept certain ideas without absolute truth, namely that we, and the universe, exist. We also accept that, usually, what our observations tell us is true. This is especially powerful when anyone can "see" the same thing.

That is where science starts, it accepts that we exist and that we are capable of examining and understanding our universe. From there on in it is hypothesis, observation and data. Plain and simple that is how it works. All knowledge of science is regarded as "true until reliable data says otherwise".

What I am trying to say to you, ikster, is that you don't know what science is, nor do you understand it or its methodology. This is blatently clear in all your posts and I reccommend you either learn about science or stop talking about it. The more you show us how much you don't know the more foolish you look.

I see you went to the school of redefining reality. Subject today:
1) If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a noise?
2) If a Atom bomb falls about a mile from where your standing, because it kills you before you hear it(before it's sound reaches you), did it happen?
3)There are no absolute wrong or rights, reality is what we make it.
4) we live in a Matrix.
5) A lie is just a different opinion, this is why it's ok to lie in a court of law. It's only an opinion.
6) Because there is no absolute truth, everybody in jail is in there for no reason. The jail must be another form of a government Matrix! LOL
7) When the light turns red at the next light, it's not reality, so just drive through it.
8) The speed limit is not 30 mph, it's as fast as you want to go. LOL tell that to a cop. You'll probably get more than a ticket.
9) Don't pay you tickets, it's ok, you never got them.
10) Don't pay your light bill, I hear the power utility has quit charging and is sending out bills as a joke.

So there's no absolute truth? You will die one day, have not seen anyone prove that not to be absolute truth.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Oh we could play word games all night

But Monopoly is so much more entertaining

 

[ikester7579]

Of course it won't happen. The inclusion of an all-powerful God would render science useless because:

a) Science cannot test for God (the supernatural) because it can only deal with the material universe (the natural).
b) Since an all-powerful God can answer anything and everything, there would be no reason to seek further knowledge and no way of distinguishing between competing ideas. Any theory could be instantly rendered valid with "Goddidit", and likewise any gap in knowledge can simply be plugged with "Goddidit".

In order for science to have any value whatsoever, it must only ever deal with the natural.

I'm glad we agree on something, because God did do it.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Goddidit

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I'm glad we agree on something, because God did do it.

Huh?

 

[ForeRunner]

Well, I see you didn't read what I said, I guess I'll have to quote myself...

We all accept certain ideas without absolute truth, namely that we, and the universe, exist. We also accept that, usually, what our observations tell us is true.

Your list is a bunch of nonsense because all the things you listed are based off those two assumptions. None of them are absolute truths.

So there's no absolute truth? You will die one day, have not seen anyone prove that not to be truth.

That is hardly an absolute truth. First of all, you don't know that I will die one day. You are assuming this based on prior evidence. Secondly, you are accepting a few things without basis there. One of them is that I exist. I could be a figment of your shattered mind while you sit in a white padded room in a mental institution. If I am a figment of your imagination then I can't die since I was never alive.

See, not an absolute truth. There is no certain knowledge, none. And you can't name something that is, period. Keep trying, it is worth a laugh.

 

[ikester7579]

Is everybody here? Do we have enough to dispell the ike theory LOL. I count six, lets make it ten. That should make it even.

 

[ForeRunner]

I'm glad we agree on something, because God did do it.

I would say, no, God did not do it. Which one of us is right? Beats me. Neither of us can prove either condition is true.

 

[ikester7579]

We have 9, can we get one more?

 

[ForeRunner]

Are you referring to names on the BB? Those aren't people, they are signals interperted by your brain.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Certainly not absolute truths.

Bless us all when we look for absolute truth in the bits of a message board.

 

[ikester7579]

I would say, no, God did not do it. Which one of us is right? Beats me. Neither of us can prove either condition is true.

God does not require a condition to create. Science does requires a condition to evolve.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

What condition?

 

[ForeRunner]

More nonsense.

I think it is safe to assume that since you can't name an absolute truth that you finally acknowledge that none exist. Thanks for playing, sorry, no consolation prizes.