The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

lugha wrote: »

Your view that creationism is a factual account of the origins of the universe would be fine as a scientific conjecture if you placed it on an equal footing with any other conjecture. But you are clinging on for dear life (eternal salvation?) to your baby. You want it to be true and will never countenance the possibility that it is not. You are not impartial. You should be utterly indifferent to whether creationism is true or not if you want to place it in the realm of science.

...the Atheists are the guys with the 'one trick pony'....which DOESN'T actually do any 'trick' at all!!!!:D:eek:

...Christians encompass a wide diversity of worldviews from the Young Earth Creationists, like myself, right through OECs and IDers to Theistic Evolutionists, like Prof Collins - who has a scientific position on the 'origins' question that is very close to the Materialistic one!!!

....so IF Creation Science were to invalidate Creation ex nihilo tomorow ... then, being the rational person that I am ... I would probably revert to my FORMER Evolutionist Worldview ... and join Prof Collins in the National Institutes of Health!!!:eek::cool::D

Atheists have no such comfort zone to fall back on ... either everything arose materialistically and spontaneously ... or THERE IS A GOD to which they need to give an account .... and this drives them to extraordinary lengths of counter-productive irrationality ... as amply demonstrated on this thread over the past 10 pages, whenever they perceive their Worldview being threatened in any way ...
....they have ONLY one possible worldview, God help them....and they are prepared to engage in extraordinary feats of mental contortions to maintain this Worldview!!!!!:eek::D

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Few people believe in an infinite regress. Though I am curious as to why you find an uncaused universe to be more troubling than an uncaused god.

The evidence points to a beginning of the universe hence a caused universe. If the universe i.e. matter, energy, space and time all came into existence at the Big Bang, then whatever caused it to come into being obviously doesn't have these properties. One of the properties being ‘Time’, because it caused the universe from outside of time. Now if whatever caused the universe has no time then that means that the cause of the universe is eternal (no beginning and no end) and to be eternal means to be uncaused. It used to be thought that the universe itself was eternal too, but astronomical scientific discoveries of the last 100 years have totally blown that idea out of the water.

If the universe was infinite in the past then we wouldn't be here now? Why? Because it would have cooled down already, all the stars would have long ago burned up their energy and hence no life now. The fact that there are still stars and galaxies is testament to a young universe relative to infinity. So we don't need to worry about the universe being uncaused anymore. The big question now is what caused the universe to come into existence in the first place? Was it door number 1) A Creator? Or door number 2) Nothing? Which is the more plausible hypothesis? Until we can categorically rule out a creator then that is the more plausible hypotheses. Because from nothing, you get nothing.

If you want to believe that nothing brought the universe into existence then work away but don't dare to ever call theists gullible again. You see this is why they frantically try to use models which steer clear of an ultimate beginning of the universe to explain things, because they know what the implications are of an ultimate beginning. To have a beginning you must have a beginner. And that beginner is not bound by the same physical laws that govern us and the universe, which it freely chose to create. And if it freely chose to create the universe and hence us as well - who are personal beings - then as such He too must be personal.

So there you have it folks, the Bible was right all along :pac:

A comprehensive breakdown on why the other models fall flat on their face is given here by Dr William Lane Craig.

Edit: Sorry linked the wrong thing there ooops

philologos

Ah William Lane Craig, with the kalam cosmological argument. It's interesting how the further we get from the discussion, we have to rely on philosophy rather than science to ponder questions like these.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He still holds both positions, one where he thinks the evidence supports God and another where it doesn't

...sounds just like Wicknight's TWO VIEWS of science ... on the one hand he believes that science cannot be taken over by Chrisitians ... but on the other hand he thinks that it can be taken over by Christians!!!!!:D

lugha

J C wrote: »

Christians encompass a wide diversity of worldviews from the literal Creationists, like myself, right through to the Theistic Evolutionists, like Prof Collins ... who have a scientific position on the 'origins' question that is quite close to the Materialistic one!!! ....

Well the fact that Christianity does give rise to a “wide diversity of worldviews” rather undermines the veracity of the Christian message does it not?

J C wrote: »

Atheists have no such comfort zone to fall back on ... either everything arose materialistically and spontaneously ... or THERE IS A GOD to which they need to give an account ....

No scientific theories are sacred or of any intrinsic worth in themselves. They can and will be modified or dismissed completely if the evidence points in that direction. It is the process by which such theories are acquired that is valued. Not so with religious believes like creationism, masquerading as science, or any others for that matter. It is evident from those that embrace the Christian faith that their beliefs ARE sacred, to the point where many proclaim (wrongly, I believe) that their life would cease to have meaning without them. Now how can you trust a scientist to be objective in their assessment of the validity of creationism if it is of such enormous importance to them in their lives that it be true?
Oh, and I would be thrilled to discover that there is a God! A promise of eternal life? One would want to be mad not to. Now, if you could only rustle up some evidence ……

Sam Vimes

Contrary to popular theistic opinion, the options are not a)God or b)nothing. That's what we in the business call a false dichotomy

There are an infinite number of other possible options currently hypothesised and as yet unimagined. The leading one at the moment being c) no one has any idea

lugha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Contrary to popular theistic opinion, the options are not a)God or b)nothing. That's what we in the business call a false dichotomy

There are an infinite number of other possible options currently hypothesised and as yet unimagined. The leading one at the moment being c) no one has any idea

Yes, I reiterate. The strange things we have learned from science in the 20th century should caution us against believing that everyday logic might serve us well in our quest to understand our origins. Einstein’s (?) observation that common sense is the sum of all prejudices learnt by the age of 12 is worth remembering when we seek to answer the big questions.

Sam Vimes

Soul winner, I must say I'm disappointed in you. You said that atheism is illogical because atheists must believe that the universe came from nothing. I corrected you by saying that I don't know how the universe came into being, that it could have been some kind of force but that I take issue with ascribing human characteristics to the force the way people used to do for lightning.

And instead of dealing with my response you've ignored it and restated that the only options are a creator or nothing, and you've come out with the greatest non-sequiter known to man: "the universe had a creator, therefore the bible is true". I expected more from yourself tbh

J C

lugha wrote: »

Well the fact that Christianity does give rise to a “wide diversity of worldviews” rather undermines the veracity of the Christian message does it not?

... I believe there is ONLY ONE valid Christian Worldview ... which is based on a plain reading of the Bible .... but then I COULD be wrong!!!!
...and I certainly WOULDN'T engage in illegal discrimination against anybody who disagrees with me!!!!

lugha wrote: »

No scientific theories are sacred or of any intrinsic worth in themselves. They can and will be modified or dismissed completely if the evidence points in that direction. It is the process by which such theories are acquired that is valued. Not so with religious believes like creationism, masquerading as science, or any others for that matter. It is evident from those that embrace the Christian faith that their beliefs ARE sacred, to the point where many proclaim (wrongly, I believe) that their life would cease to have meaning without them. Now how can you trust a scientist to be objective in their assessment of the validity of creationism if it is of such enormous importance to them in their lives that it be true?
Oh, and I would be thrilled to discover that there is a God! A promise of eternal life? One would want to be mad not to. Now, if you could only rustle up some evidence ……

....so WHY then, for example, does an apparently sensible person like yourself, continue to believe in the idea that 'Muck evolved into Man' .... with nothing added in-betweeen, but time and MISTAKES???
....surely even a 5-year old, wouldn't believe in such an UNBELIEVABLE idea!!!!

philologos

lugha wrote: »

Well the fact that Christianity does give rise to a “wide diversity of worldviews” rather undermines the veracity of the Christian message does it not?

For the most part disagreement is on minor issues, or on issues of practice.

I would no doubt agree on most Christian teaching with J C. I wouldn't say disagreement on these things undermines its veracity at all.

kiffer

lugha wrote: »

I read the emboldened expression more than three times and I couldn't make head nor tail of it! :pac:

occluding verbiage ?

Occluding: Blocking, obstructing, clogging.
Verbiage: overabundance or superfluity of words.

Seems clear to me... if a little fancy.

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

For the most part disagreement is on minor issues, or on issues of practice.

I would no doubt agree on most Christian teaching with J C. I wouldn't say disagreement on these things undermines its veracity at all.

...and I love you too brother!!!:D

...in a purely Christian way ... I hasten to add!!!!:eek::D

J C

pts wrote: »

I'm also genuinely curious about this.
Lets say, for arguments sake that there is some kind of particle, which from time to time reaches a point where it explodes and causes what we now call the universe. It doesn't design the universe in any way, it is just the spark which starts the whole process off.

How can something like that be less probable than some immaterial entity, that knows everything that has been, is, and ever will be. A being that has absolutely limitless powers?

...just think about it and then tell me WHY an Omnipotent Omniscient God is MORE LIKELY to have given rise to the Universe and all life therin ... than a PARTICLE??!!

....use your RATIONAL faculties ... rather than your EMOTIONAL ones in coming up with the reply !!!:pac::):D:eek:

lugha

J C wrote: »

.... but then I COULD be wrong!!!! ...

Finally, a point of agreement! I could be wrong too. :pac:

J C wrote: »

and I certainly WOULDN'T engage in illegal discrimination against anybody who disagrees with me!!!!

Where did I suggest discriminating, legally or otherwise against anyone?

J C wrote: »

....so WHY then, for example, does an apparently sensible person like yourself, continue to believe in the idea that 'Muck evolved into Man' .... with nothing added in-betweeen, but time and MISTAKES??? ....

First, to what I believe. I believe that the complexity of life on earth came about by a process of evolution (although I think you have a different understanding of evolution to mine) which involved comparatively simple life forms evolving over time in to the complex life forms such as humans we see today. I have no understanding of where these initial life forms came from and for now, I am happy to say “I don’t know”. So if by muck, you mean non life entities, then it would not be correct to say I believe 'Muck evolved into Man'. That might be what happened but I do not know.

Second, why do I believe? Well let me explain first what the reason isn’t. I am not an expert on this or any other area of science. So it is not because I have engaged in extensive study of the area, personally examining and evaluating all the evidence. I have read a little about evolution and it seems entirely plausible but that is not in itself a persuasive reason. I believe it because I trust the mechanism by which the theory emerged, namely the scientific method. Science follows the evidence, it has no vested interest, no dog in the fight. This is patently not true for Creationists as I have explained above.

J C wrote: »

surely even a 5-year old, wouldn't believe in such an UNBELIEVABLE idea!!!!

Perhaps not. But a five year old would probably also not believe in time dilation, the dual nature of light and many other things. Doesn’t make them false.

J C wrote: »

could it be that the G word scares the Hell out of YOU????:eek: ...and you are prepared to believe in almost ANYTHING in order to avoid believing in GOD?:)

Once again, the promise of eternal life. Why on earth would I not want to embrace it??? Truth is that my crossing over from Christian (of sorts!) to atheist was for a long time impeded precisely because I DID want to believe.

kiffer

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps not. But a five year old would probably also not believe in time dilation, the dual nature of light and many other things. Doesn’t make them false.

More importantly most five year olds will probably laugh at pretty much anything if the person telling the story smiles and laughs too.


Oh and J C are you still with me on our spontaneous happenstances chain of events thingy?

lugha

Jakkass wrote: »

For the most part disagreement is on minor issues, or on issues of practice.

I would no doubt agree on most Christian teaching with J C. I wouldn't say disagreement on these things undermines its veracity at all.

I would have thought the truth or not of Creationism is hardly a minor issue even if it is not central to the Christian message?

In any case, if some parts of the bible can be misinterpreted (and differing interpretations imply that this is the case) then how confident can you be that you are interpreting the important parts accurately, even if your interpretation does not differ from everybody else’s?

lugha

J C wrote: »

...just think about it and then tell me WHY an Omnipotent Omniscient God is MORE LIKELY to have given rise to the Universe and all life therin ... than a PARTICLE??!!

It isn't. Occam's razor

J C

lugha wrote: »

Finally, a point of agreement! I could be wrong too. :pac:

....good ... a little humility when faced with God's Creation is a good thing ... even for an Atheist!!!:D

lugha wrote: »

Where did I suggest discriminating, legally or otherwise against anyone?

... it was a generalisation about some of your Evolutionist buddies on the thread !!!:D

lugha wrote: »

First, to what I believe. I believe that the complexity of life on earth came about by a process of evolution (although I think you have a different understanding of evolution to mine) which involved comparatively simple life forms evolving over time in to the complex life forms such as humans we see today. I have no understanding of where these initial life forms came from and for now, I am happy to say “I don’t know”. So if by muck, you mean non life entities, then it would not be correct to say I believe 'Muck evolved into Man'. That might be what happened but I do not know.

Second, why do I believe? Well let me explain first what the reason isn’t. I am not an expert on this or any other area of science. So it is not because I have engaged in extensive study of the area, personally examining and evaluating all the evidence. I have read a little about evolution and it seems entirely plausible but that is not in itself a persuasive reason. I believe it because I trust the mechanism by which the theory emerged, namely the scientific method. Science follows the evidence, it has no vested interest, no dog in the fight. This is patently not true for Creationists as I have explained above.

... there are so many Atheist 'dogs in the fight' that we should put the ISPCA on standby!!!!:D
...in all fairness, do you REALLY believe that the writings of the Atheists over the past few pages about a FELLOW EVOLUTIONIST are balanced and detached as you claim!!!!

lugha wrote: »

Once again, the promise of eternal life. Why on earth would I not want to embrace it??? Truth is that my crossing over from Christian (of sorts!) to atheist was for a long time impeded precisely because I DID want to believe.

..."a Christian of sorts" ISN'T a Saved Christian!!!!

...and I guess, some guys will ... and some guys WON'T!!!:D

pts

J C wrote: »

...just think about it and then tell me WHY an Omnipotent Omniscient God is MORE LIKELY to have given rise to the Universe and all life therin ... than a PARTICLE??!!

......why because a god is INFINITELY more COMPLEX......:D:P:rolleyes::eek::cool: why try to EXPLAIN something in a complex WAY when a simpler hypothesis exists?? :rolleyes:;):p:pac:cool:

J C wrote: »

....use your RATIONAL faculties ... rather than your EMOTIONAL ones in coming up with the reply !!!

Ha ha, right back at you buddy!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...just think about it and then tell me WHY an Omnipotent Omniscient God is MORE LIKELY to have given rise to the Universe and all life therin ... than a PARTICLE??!!

lugha
It isn't. Occam's razor[/QUOTE... let me give you a HINT ... try evaluating the problem from the point of view of capacity and potential!!!!!

....and then look at how an Omnipotent and Omniscient God compares with a PARTICLE ... as the source of our MEGA Universe!!!!!:pac::);)

munsterdevil

Reasons why I don't believe in an omnipotent, benevolent God would be

1. Why go to so much trouble in the intracies in making the universe.
2. The universe is estimated to be around 15 billion years old, and the earth 5 billion (I think, so correct me if I'm wrong), so why not make the a developed earth the first day.
3. It took billions of years for life to appear on earth and it was only a few million years ago that the first recognisable humanoid species first appeared, so why didn't god just put humans on earth the first day, why all the waiting and waiting for development.
4. Why were the Israelites the first the first to learn of the Christian Judeo God, when they had no written culture, when for example plenty of cultures in Asia had a written culture thousands of years before them.

pts

J C wrote: »

....WHAT ... have you cut yourself????

...anyway let me give you a HINT ... try evaluating the problem from the point of view of capacity potential!!!!!

....and see how an Omnipotent and Omniscient God compares with a PARTICLE ... as the source of our MEGA Universe!!!!!:pac::);)

If I may borrow one of Sam's arguments.

see how an Omnipotent and Omniscient God Thor compares with a PARTICLE atmospheric discharge of electricity ... as the source of our MEGA Universe lightning.

The point being the probability of any given explanation being the cause of an phenomena isn't effected by the "impressiveness" of that explanation.

J C

pts wrote: »

Ha ha, right back at you buddy!

...high five ... as Borat might say!!!!:pac::):D

J C

munsterdevil wrote: »

Reasons why I don't believe in an omnipotent, benevolent God would be

1. Why go to so much trouble in the intracies in making the universe.
2. The universe is estimated to be around 15 billion years old, and the earth 5 billion (I think, so correct me if I'm wrong), so why not make the a developed earth the first day.
3. It took billions of years for life to appear on earth and it was only a few million years ago that the first recognisable humanoid species first appeared, so why didn't god just put humans on earth the first day, why all the waiting and waiting for development.
4. Why were the Israelites the first the first to learn of the Christian Judeo God, when they had no written culture, when for example plenty of cultures in Asia had a written culture thousands of years before them.

...I can confirm that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and the Universe was Created to PROVE the Omnipotence of God to Mankind ... and therefore NONE of your points 1 to 4 have any validity!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

The evidence points to a beginning of the universe hence a caused universe. If the universe i.e. matter, energy, space and time all came into existence at the Big Bang, then whatever caused it to come into being obviously doesn't have these properties. One of the properties being ‘Time’, because it caused the universe from outside of time. Now if whatever caused the universe has no time then that means that the cause of the universe is eternal (no beginning and no end) and to be eternal means to be uncaused. It used to be thought that the universe itself was eternal too, but astronomical scientific discoveries of the last 100 years have totally blown that idea out of the water.

If the universe was infinite in the past then we wouldn't be here now? Why? Because it would have cooled down already, all the stars would have long ago burned up their energy and hence no life now. The fact that there are still stars and galaxies is testament to a young universe relative to infinity. So we don't need to worry about the universe being uncaused anymore. The big question now is what caused the universe to come into existence in the first place? Was it door number 1) A Creator? Or door number 2) Nothing? Which is the more plausible hypothesis? Until we can categorically rule out a creator then that is the more plausible hypotheses. Because from nothing, you get nothing.

If you want to believe that nothing brought the universe into existence then work away but don't dare to ever call theists gullible again. You see this is why they frantically try to use models which steer clear of an ultimate beginning of the universe to explain things, because they know what the implications are of an ultimate beginning. To have a beginning you must have a beginner. And that beginner is not bound by the same physical laws that govern us and the universe, which it freely chose to create. And if it freely chose to create the universe and hence us as well - who are personal beings - then as such He too must be personal.

So there you have it folks, the Bible was right all along :pac:

A comprehensive breakdown on why the other models fall flat on their face is given here by Dr William Lane Craig.

The short response: Cosmologists do not claim the universe came from nothing.

The tl;dr response:Cosmologists do not claim that energy, space and time came into existence at the Big Bang. Instead, our current cosmological models predict an expansion of space with the progression of time. In other words, the Big Bang is not a theory of creation, but rather a theory of moving outward. A consequence of this model is that, as we look to the past, we should see space, and everything in it, getting smaller - analogous to the way circles of latitude get smaller as we travel toward the north pole - until we get to what can be casually called the "beginning" of time, but at no point is there creation from nothing. Instead, time stops behaving like we expect it to be have, and acts like a north pole for our spacetime manifold.

So claiming that the universe must have a cause because time "begins" at the big bang is like claiming there must be something north of the arctic because lines of longitude "begin" there. The problem essentially lies with a misunderstanding of "beginning" and "cause".

On a more practical note, the assumption that everything must have a cause does not fit into the quantum mechanical regime, where systems can behave in an intrinsically stochastic manner. We know that this regime is essential when describing the big bang, even though we have not yet unified it with general relativity

Your link to Craig didn't work, but I am familiar with his formulation of the argument. As mentioned before, he seems to misunderstand the nature of the big bang, which has lead him to suppose that cosmologists claim the universe was created "ex nihilo".

Jakkass wrote:

It's interesting how the further we get from the discussion, we have to rely on philosophy rather than science to ponder questions like these.

That is probably why the questions are usually answered incorrectly.

munsterdevil

J C wrote: »

...I can confirm that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and the Universe was Created to PROVE the Omnipotence of God to Mankind ... and therefore NONE of your points 1 to 4 have any validity!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

....I just love the innocent simplicity of the Atheist mindset!!!!:D:)

How can you confirm? have you sound evidence that it is 10,00 years old?

Or do you just rely on putting smileys at the end of every sentence to gloss over your "simplistic" answers?

lugha

J C wrote: »

...in all fairness, do you REALLY believe that the writings of the Atheists over the past few pages about a FELLOW EVOLUTIONIST are balanced and detached as you claim!!!!

Well a lot of folks said a lot of things on this matter but my overall impression was that there is a distinction between what the Godless ones wrote and what the believers read.
Loosely, my impression was that they wrote that they had particular concerns about an individual for a post because he expressed views which called into question his suitability for this post (I have offered no opinion myself on this point). The believers seem to read this and interpreted it as saying that no Christian was suitable for this post. No doubt your synopsis would differ somewhat?

philologos

lugha wrote: »

I would have thought the truth or not of Creationism is hardly a minor issue even if it is not central to the Christian message?

All Christians believe that God created the universe, the earth, and everything in it. People differ on how exactly this happened.

God spoke "Let there be light, and there was light". Yes, that is true, but what scientifically happened following that point is up for scrutiny.

I think "Creationist" is too simple a term to describe it.

All Christians could be described as Creationists in that they believe in a Creation and a Creator.

However, there are Young Earth Creationists, Day Age Creationists and so on. The Wikipedia page explains the different types.

lugha wrote: »

In any case, if some parts of the bible can be misinterpreted (and differing interpretations imply that this is the case) then how confident can you be that you are interpreting the important parts accurately, even if your interpretation does not differ from everybody else’s?

It depends on the literary structure. Legalistic passages generally are to be regarded as legalistic. Explanations of Covenant are to be regarded as such. Passages such as the nature of man, and the nature of humanity, and the nature of the world are to be discussed and reasoned together. In the Bible we are told that if something is unclear in the Bible, to pray about it and God will offer us assurance (Philippians 3:15-16)

Again, these differences aren't as enormous as people like to make out. I'm rather sure that myself and J C would agree on most Christian doctrine ranging from the fallen nature of man to the substitutionary atonement that Jesus Christ offered us on the cross and the necessary repentance and transformation that comes from such an acceptance. In fact, me and J C even agree that the Lord God created the heavens and the earth right down to creating what life we have on it. I would suspect that myself and J C disagree on very little.

J C

pts wrote: »

If I may borrow one of Sam's arguments.

see how an Omnipotent and Omniscient God Thor compares with a PARTICLE atmospheric discharge of electricity ... as the source of our MEGA Universe lightning.

The point being the probability of any given explanation being the cause of an phenomena isn't effected by the "impressiveness" of that explanation.

....BUT we are NOT comparing Thor with lightning here!!!
Lightning has an obvious materialistic explantion ... and the atmosphere and the Sun have an obvious and sufficient energy capacity to produce lightning!!!

...we are comparing an Omnipotent and an Omniscient God with a PARTICLE ... as the source of the known Universe!!!!:pac::):D
..go figure!!

....as Borat might say "At-heists must have brain size of Hens teeth":pac::):D

munsterdevil

Jakass Wrote:

It depends on the literary structure. Legalistic passages generally are to be regarded as legalistic. Explanations of Covenant are to be regarded as such. Passages such as the nature of man, and the nature of humanity, and the nature of the world are to be discussed and reasoned together. In the Bible we are told that if something is unclear in the Bible, to pray about it and God will offer us assurance (Philippians 3:15-16)

Again, these differences aren't as enormous as people like to make out. I'm rather sure that myself and J C would agree on most Christian doctrine ranging from the fallen nature of man to the substitutionary atonement that Jesus Christ offered us on the cross. In fact, me and J C even agree that the Lord God created the heavens and the earth right down to creating what life we have on it. I would suspect that myself and J C disagree on very little.

But how can you rely on such books that were written circa 50 years after Jesus' death?

All the books are a complete word of mouth, and after 50 years were largely fictionalized accounts of Jesus' life...