Support NeoGAF

[Slightly Live]

I keep thinking some people think that God should have given us everything at the beginning. I'm also not sure why it matters which animal comes first considering they all happened during the same creative day.

It does matter. The bible states very specific the order of how things were made. Science on the other hand proves that the order in which in the bible describes is entirely wrong. With science we can prove exactly how certain creatures evolved over the life time of the earth and many of the creatures described hadn't evolved when life began and wouldn't be walking on the surface of the earth for many hundreds of millions years later.

So if the bible says that these creatures were created on the same "biblical" day (I'm leaving out silly justification and interpretation on what a day is to please you since it seems you are taking the position that a day can mean anything as long as it suits your arguments) then the either the bible is horrible wrong (most likely in my opinion) and folks like you are bending over backwards trying to stretch the details to fit reality or it's right and science, and all it's proof, is wrong.

There is nothing in the creation account that says it's a literal day. All we have is the info written later by the same writer of Genesis, plus additional scriptures. All point to the idea that God does not view his day as 24 hours. This is seen even with the death sentence of Adam & Eve. It would make no sense for the Genesis writer to talk literal days and then have Adam live for hundreds of years. The logical conclusion would be that the creative days do not equal literal days especially since the Bible explains it that way. In fact the Bible never mentions a literal day except in relation to human activities (I think). It does nothing to the story except make it more honest.

However, feel free to pick some verse and dismiss others. It happens all the time

In our day, we use the word "day" to mean more than 24 hours, are people back then really supposed to be too stupid to do the same?

How about some consistency? If the "biblical" day is anything from twenty four hours to a few million or billion years in one chapter, what about the next chapter? Are all "days" mentioned equally ambiguous in relation to their duration or just the days from Genesis because it suits you in this argument?

Uhh, as I said, science doesn't have to. It's not even up to the job since it's out of it's bounds. There aren't any untruths that I brought up. Honestly, your argument only works if you don't beieve in God.

A lot of of arguments only work if you disregard many proven and repeatable facts of truth and accept a flimsy line of reasoning that stretches when you want it to stretch.

The account does not dispute the slow evolution process and whatnot, just species jumping as things were made per kind. Science hasn't gotten past the concept phase of that yet either.

I think it clearly disputes evolution. I think you are fooling yourself by believing otherwise because it's convenient to your blind faith in whatever Christian denomination you are aligned with.

God (& his first creation - Jesus) would naturally know how long the universe has been around. They weren't the ones writing. In fact, your argument backs up the idea that the reason the genesis account didn't say billions of years is because the writer couldn't comprehend that kind of time frame, but could comprehend that God was on a different level when measuring time.

:lol This is just funny. C'mon, you cannot be seriously using this line of reasoning?

Right, isn't the bible supposed to be divinely inspired and accepted as the word of God? Accept here, it isn't, because it isn't convenient to your argument. If God is directly inspiring individuals he's imparting them with specific new ideas about reality - the supposedly correct ones. However, if this all powerful being can relay specific moral obligations, rules on life and death, etc yet he cannot give correct information about how he himself supposedly created life, he gives a false account because the humans of the day were too dumb to understand evolution and whatever else?

:lol

I'm not familiar with your last posts on abiogenesis, but I'm so positive there is no proof in them that I'm saying it now before looking. I will apologize of wrong, but at the moment it's still pseudoscience. It's easy to write a sentence about how life got here. If no proof is provided, I'll stick to my whacky beliefs.

You make yourself look foolish by claiming that despite your complete and total ignorance of a subject you will totally dismiss it outright

No offence, but your "whacky beliefs" are based around a few easy to write sentences. Don't you see, it's easy to write a few sentences and accept them as fact, like you are doing. Don't you see the hypocrisy here?

At least one thing can be said for the science versus religion debate, at least science doesn't rest itself on a few sentences and blind faith.

 

[Chaplain]

At least one thing can be said for the science versus religion debate, at least science doesn't rest itself on a few sentences and blind faith.

I suggest you steam the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Expelled_No_Intelligence_Allowed/70096749

I believe you will take back what you said after viewing the film.

 

[Dabookerman]

I suggest you steam the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Expelled_No_Intelligence_Allowed/70096749

I believe you will take back what you said after viewing the film.

I've seen this. It's the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.

Just for those who haven't seen it. They hint that Darwin is to blame for the Holocaust.

 

[JGS]

Busy day, so only have time to take these in parts.

You make yourself look foolish by claiming that despite your complete and total ignorance of a subject you will totally dismiss it outright.

One thing I'm not is ignorant is how life got started. I wanted to believe in it terribly while in college. Unfortunately, the information is lacking. I'm sorry, it is and that's not my fault so don't blame me for rejecting simple ideas. But I will look at the other poster's comments & I said I would apologize if wrong.

No offence, but your "whacky beliefs" are based around a few easy to write sentences. Don't you see, it's easy to write a few sentences and accept them as fact, like you are doing. Don't you see the hypocrisy here?

Offence taken, but expected. To the point, it's actually it's pretty difficult to come up with a coherent thought over many years. It is a sign of ignorance that someone wouldn't know that. It is also a sign of ignorance to assume what my faith is based on or what that faith even is. You have no idea but no matter what it's blind? OK.

But this proves my point that at best creation and abiogenesis are on similar ground. So why should I believe it over the one I do believe in?

At least one thing can be said for the science versus religion debate, at least science doesn't rest itself on a few sentences and blind faith.

Sure it does. I'm not allowed to tell you that's what it is. I respect the rules.:lol

 

[KingGondo]

I suggest you steam the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Expelled_No_Intelligence_Allowed/70096749

I believe you will take back what you said after viewing the film.

As I always say when you post in these threads:

Maybe you should stick to being a "Game Analyst," not "Life's Big Questions Analyst."

If you're relying on Kirk Cameron and Ben Stein to prove your points, I'd say you're already arguing a losing side.

Exhibit A:

1. Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Atoms are not "invisible," they're just so small that they cannot be detected without specialized equipment. And I don't remotely comprehend how the Bible verse is talking about atoms specifically.

Exhibit B:

6. Job 38:19 asks, "Where is the way where light dwells?" Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," traveling at 186,000 miles per second.

Really? God was trying to tell us about the speed of light by saying "where is the way where light dwells? So you're trying to tell me that the Judeo-Christian tradition figured out the specific speed of light before science? FUUUUUUUU

I'd rather have someone tell me they just blindly believe in god for no reason, rather than trying to justify their belief through ludicrous arguments like this.

 

[JGS]

:lol This is just funny. C'mon, you cannot be seriously using this line of reasoning?

Right, isn't the bible supposed to be divinely inspired and accepted as the word of God? Accept here, it isn't, because it isn't convenient to your argument. If God is directly inspiring individuals he's imparting them with specific new ideas about reality - the supposedly correct ones. However, if this all powerful being can relay specific moral obligations, rules on life and death, etc yet he cannot give correct information about how he himself supposedly created life, he gives a false account because the humans of the day were too dumb to understand evolution and whatever else?

So if the Bible is divinely inspired it must tell everything? Never heard that line of reasoning before outright although I've always suspected that was the issue, but let's go with it.

Genesis could very well be giving correct rules so I disgaree with that point. However (& again), the Bible is not primarily a science book. It is primarily designed for the part I bolded. It actually tells how he did it. The people of the time did not need help on learning in detail how they got here. At the time of it's writing, they were directly being taken care of by God per the Bible.

In fact, that wasn't a concern for most of intelligent mankind's existence even after God stopped favoring a particular people. They were happy to know simply how they got here. They did not need to know about bacteria and the writers would have known how to explain it anyway since no one could see them. Should God have invented the microscope to help them out?

As far as the Bible and God are concerned, Evolution IS NOT the way that they got here so why would they focus on it. He's the one that did it so why give credit to something he put into play? Your reasoning are a circular as mine since you are insistent that the only way things come to be is through an evolutionary process that includes how life started. It's stupid to accuse me of something you're guilty of yourself.

To find the Bible guilty of lacking information when it provides more than most if not all other religious texts is ludicrous.

On that note, I should say that my responses are based on Biblical points. However, creation is not just a Bible teaching. It is a people teaching, because in the grand scheme of things, it's the thing that makes sense even without any religious connotation whatsoever. All you have to do is prove me wrong on that. It's easy right?

I'll will await more laughies.

 

[jdogmoney]

If creation makes sense more than the alternative, I'm sure you have an explanation as to how the Creator came about, right?

 

[BlueWord]

I'm not sure if this belongs here, GAF, but I wanted to present this idea, and see what people had to think.

Some background: I was raised in a Christian household, attended Christian Schools for my primary education, and am, in general, pretty familiar with the teachings of Christianity. Near the end of Junior year in High School, I finally decided that, as it was, I couldn't bring myself to blindly accept/believe without some sort of convincing rationale - and, so, for the past two or three years, that's where I've been, just trying to figure things out for myself.

Now, this next point is, on the surface, slightly unrelated. I'm a Biology major, and, therefore, I've been involved in a heavier degree of science courses than at any point in my life. For my culture requirement, I took an intro to philosophy course this past semester, and was introduced to the concept of Determinism.

The idea, basically, says that everything is determined. It was proposed before our understanding of quantum physics - it's as old as dirt, honestly. But, from my perspective, if we take into account the state of the universe at any single moment, and have a total understanding of quantum mechanics, how matter will interact, could you not conceivably calculate the state of the universe at any point in time, both before and after that one moment? The primary objection to this argument is that there are some seemingly random events on a Quantum level, things that are unexplained, and therefore might present a degree of "randomness" and unpredictability to the universe. However, to me, at least, given the nature of how things seem to work in this universe (cause -> effect), I feel safe assuming that, even if we can't explain it, there must be some cause behind these unexplained phenomena.

I wrote my final on Ethics and Free Will in a Deterministic Existence - however, just to stay on-topic, I'm going to gloss over that issue, for now. I'm going to suggest a few things, things that a Deterministic universe makes easier to swallow, at least to me: 1) If everything is just a clock ticking away, and everything that has happened could not have happened any other way - what established this plan? The first thing, the start, must have had some form of individual motivation or randomness, being caused by nothing. Assuming that there was a beginning, of course. 2) Assuming everything that has happened proceeded from the individual, un-determined actions of the first event, whatever caused that event, a force or energy or anything, is worthy of the title "God". I say this for a few reasons; it is the only thing to act independently, as far as we know, and therefore has a level of power over the universe that we can never attain. We proceed from it, our existence a direct result of the event - and, therefore, it must be infinitely more intelligent and powerful than us, even if that "intelligence" does not necessarily equate to anything we would recognize.

I'm careful not to assign an identity to this force, because the concept of "God", as it's often tossed around, is associated with something relatable - something semi-human. I will say, however, that, if this argument holds water, then it makes that leap of faith to accept "God" much easier. If we can prove, or at least present evidence for, a beginning to this universe, and some suggestion that it is determined, then the only leap to accept "God" is to say "This force, this independent action, had some kind of intention in creating this universe." The leap is reduced from a series of rather huge jumps in logic to a single, smaller one - or, perhaps, a series of smaller ones.

I want to see what GAF has to say about this. I didn't present this argument in my Final because, as you can probably tell, it's not entirely fleshed out - and it's much harder to argue about the metaphysical than about ethics, anyway.

 

[Herpes Reasons]

If creation makes sense more than the alternative, I'm sure you have an explanation as to how the Creator came about, right?

what makes you think this designer/god is bounded by the laws that govern this universe?
if he/she created space and time, therefore he/she would not be bounded by its own creation and would be separate outside of space/time.
well, thats the gist i got from philosophy 101.

 

[Shanadeus]

I'm not sure if this belongs here, GAF, but I wanted to present this idea, and see what people had to think.

Some background: I was raised in a Christian household, attended Christian Schools for my primary education, and am, in general, pretty familiar with the teachings of Christianity. Near the end of Junior year in High School, I finally decided that, as it was, I couldn't bring myself to blindly accept/believe without some sort of convincing rationale - and, so, for the past two or three years, that's where I've been, just trying to figure things out for myself.

Now, this next point is, on the surface, slightly unrelated. I'm a Biology major, and, therefore, I've been involved in a heavier degree of science courses than at any point in my life. For my culture requirement, I took an intro to philosophy course this past semester, and was introduced to the concept of Determinism.

The idea, basically, says that everything is determined. It was proposed before our understanding of quantum physics - it's as old as dirt, honestly. But, from my perspective, if we take into account the state of the universe at any single moment, and have a total understanding of quantum mechanics, how matter will interact, could you not conceivably calculate the state of the universe at any point in time, both before and after that one moment? The primary objection to this argument is that there are some seemingly random events on a Quantum level, things that are unexplained, and therefore might present a degree of "randomness" and unpredictability to the universe. However, to me, at least, given the nature of how things seem to work in this universe (cause -> effect), I feel safe assuming that, even if we can't explain it, there must be some cause behind these unexplained phenomena.

I wrote my final on Ethics and Free Will in a Deterministic Existence - however, just to stay on-topic, I'm going to gloss over that issue, for now. I'm going to suggest a few things, things that a Deterministic universe makes easier to swallow, at least to me: 1) If everything is just a clock ticking away, and everything that has happened could not have happened any other way - what established this plan? The first thing, the start, must have had some form of individual motivation or randomness, being caused by nothing. Assuming that there was a beginning, of course. 2) Assuming everything that has happened proceeded from the individual, un-determined actions of the first event, whatever caused that event, a force or energy or anything, is worthy of the title "God". I say this for a few reasons; it is the only thing to act independently, as far as we know, and therefore has a level of power over the universe that we can never attain. We proceed from it, our existence a direct result of the event - and, therefore, it must be infinitely more intelligent and powerful than us, even if that "intelligence" does not necessarily equate to anything we would recognize.

I'm careful not to assign an identity to this force, because the concept of "God", as it's often tossed around, is associated with something relatable - something semi-human. I will say, however, that, if this argument holds water, then it makes that leap of faith to accept "God" much easier. If we can prove, or at least present evidence for, a beginning to this universe, and some suggestion that it is determined, then the only leap to accept "God" is to say "This force, this independent action, had some kind of intention in creating this universe." The leap is reduced from a series of rather huge jumps in logic to a single, smaller one - or, perhaps, a series of smaller ones.

I want to see what GAF has to say about this. I didn't present this argument in my Final because, as you can probably tell, it's not entirely fleshed out - and it's much harder to argue about the metaphysical than about ethics, anyway.

Wouldn't the multi-world theory kinda give an alternative explanation though?
The first action or force could simply have lead to all possible actions/worlds at once, making a will or intention unnecessary.
And even if one were to assume there only exist one universe and one universe only, then there's nothing speaking against the first cause truly being random, with no intelligence or freedom behind it.

 

[soul creator]

what makes you think this designer/god is bounded by the laws that govern this universe?
if he/she created space and time, therefore he/she would not be bounded by its own creation and would be separate outside of space/time.
well, thats the gist i got from philosophy 101.

of course, by that logic I can just say something like "abiogenesis is not bound by the laws that govern the universe" to justify my belief, and be on equal footing as a theist.

 

[JGS]

If creation makes sense more than the alternative, I'm sure you have an explanation as to how the Creator came about, right?

No beginning, no end.

However, if that seems unlikely, that's understandable given what I said about creation. But keep in mind that everything is relative. Just in case you did not read my other points this is a boiled down version if things I've said.

Science & spirituality do not have to reconcile with each other and don't have to disprove each other. The two can co-exist just fine.

I also have said that God's timetable and ours are two seperate things too. Time is explained in the Bible in ways that people can understand especially during the time period of the writer.

Science itself says that everything has a beginning. The is the framework where creation makes sense, in our little world and universe. From the Bible's viewpoint, God's place (heaven) is quite a bit different - so much so that we can't live there without some major modifications. It isn't a case where God was living on Mt Olympus all this time. He's in a different place entirely, making it impossible for us to determine a beginning and end.

Further, it's irrelevant to the worship of him. Let's say that God was created from an even bigger God. I don't believe this to be so, but so what? From the Bible's viewpoint, God is all we know and worship of him is not affected.

It kind of reminds me of LOTR where Sauron is talked up as THE dude when we come to find out he's really not. Well from Tolkien's viewpoint, he was still the most significant thing in Middle Earth for the purpose of his story.

People only need to worry about the terms put down by God and decide whether they follow or not. I imagine it's similar in other religions as well.

In any event, none of this has anything to do with how we got here or added one ounce to abiogenesis' credibility.

 

[GhaleonQ]

I'm not sure if this belongs here, GAF, but I wanted to present this idea, and see what people had to think.

At that point, you haven't really breached philosophy, you're just assigning a scientific cause to the action. I don't know where you go to college, but ask an experimental psychologist, a religion/theology professor, or a physicist for some good texts. As I understand it, at the level of actual experimental science, there hasn't been much progress. That's just because no one lives long enough to become well-versed in theology/philosophy/logic and advanced physics. There may have been recent new developments, though.

So because we don't know how abiogensis started its better to insert God? If we don't know the answer why complicate the matter with some supernatural being? I can almost respect the argument that maybe life started by some sort of god like being (would require a good definition), but to then go and claim to know the mind of the creator takes a fairly big leap. I'm okay with that but don't try to justify this belief with logic or science. Leave it as faith.

To be fair, "we don't know how abiogenesis started" is not a trifling matter. I don't see why you'd begrudge people skepticism solely for that reason. At that point, how can you even speculate what the "next most likely cause" is?

 

[Mumei]

I suggest you steam the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Expelled_No_Intelligence_Allowed/70096749

I believe you will take back what you said after viewing the film.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

I suggest you read this website and learn a bit more about what Ben Stein didn't tell you.

 

[EzLink]

Last time of me asking for some buddhist lit recommendations from this thread! I'm sure there aren't many buddhists here and they maybe don't check this thread regularly so I might have to go ahead and make a seperate thread for it

 

[jdogmoney]

Abiogenesis is credible. Inorganic proteins have formed amino acids. It's been done, you know, replicated in experiments. We just don't know yet the exact makeup of the chemicals that formed the first living bits.

[It may be astronomically unlikely to have occurred, but given the scale of the cosmos, it's as close to a sure thing as you can get that it would happen somewhere.]

What I don't see as credible is the theory espoused by an ancient religious text. Do you also think that all of the world is made from the remains of Ymir? Or that Vishnu told Brahma to get to work?

What evidence do you have that the universe was Created other than the Bible?

EDIT: I'm not officially a Buddhist, but I have done some looking into it, and think of it as a sort of philosophy. There's a book called What the Buddha Taught that I think is a good starting off point. I certainly have found it helpful.

 

[EzLink]

EDIT: I'm not officially a Buddhist, but I have done some looking into it, and think of it as a sort of philosophy. There's a book called What the Buddha Taught that I think is a good starting off point. I certainly have found it helpful.

Yeah, I think it seems more like a philosophy as opposed to a religion too. That book sounds good, I'll check into it. Is it easy to read? I don't want something overlycomplicated or anything. Just a straightforward rundown of the basics

 

[jdogmoney]

It's not incomprehensible. It's directed to "the educated and intelligent reader", according to the author. I'd peg it at a high school reading level.

It is exactly what I think you're looking for. I do heartily recommend it in your case. It gives an introduction, then lays down the precepts that form Buddhism, and then after it explains the core, it explains what different branches think about stuff.

It even mentions how Buddhism isn't a religion in the usual sense, how Buddha was the only founder of a major "religion" that never claimed to be anything more than a human. He didn't even claim divine inspiration. Everything he claimed, he admitted came from a human, which I, for one, find immensely refreshing, what with me knowing for a fact that humans exist and all. I've met some!

I'm going to read this book again. I have it on a shelf right in front of me. Thanks, EZLink, for reminding me about it.

 

[EzLink]

It's not incomprehensible. It's directed to "the educated and intelligent reader", according to the author. I'd peg it at a high school reading level.

It is exactly what I think you're looking for. I do heartily recommend it in your case. It gives an introduction, then lays down the precepts that form Buddhism, and then after it explains the core, it explains what different branches think about stuff.

It even mentions how Buddhism isn't a religion in the usual sense, how Buddha was the only founder of a major "religion" that never claimed to be anything more than a human. He didn't even claim divine inspiration. Everything he claimed, he admitted came from a human, which I, for one, find immensely refreshing, what with me knowing for a fact that humans exist and all. I've met some!

I'm going to read this book again. I have it on a shelf right in front of me. Thanks, EZLink, for reminding me about it.

Goddamit, my local library doesn't have it (stupid small ass conservative evangelical town) and I don't have enough money to go buy it

Oh well, once I get some funds this will be at the top of my list. Sounds like its exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks my friend!

EDIT: SHIT! I realized I can't order it online either. Can't have my parents seeing their "Christian" son ordering a book about Buddhism :lol

Off to Barnes&Noble I will go, then. Hopefully next week when I get paid. I really think this shit might be able to help me out

 

[Mumei]

Abiogenesis is credible. Inorganic proteins have formed amino acids. It's been done, you know, replicated in experiments. We just don't know yet the exact makeup of the chemicals that formed the first living bits.

[It may be astronomically unlikely to have occurred, but given the scale of the cosmos, it's as close to a sure thing as you can get that it would happen somoewhere.]

What I don't see as credible is the theory espoused by an ancient religious text. Do you also think that all of the world is made from the remains of Ymir? Or that Vishnu told Brahma to get to work?

What evidence do you have that the universe was Created other than the Bible?

EDIT: I'm not officially a Buddhist, but I have done some looking into it, and think of it as a sort of philosophy. There's a book called What the Buddha Taught that I think is a good starting off point. I certainly have found it helpful.

I like you.

 

[DeadGzuz]

Scientific Facts in the Bible

I hope this is a joke post, that page is beyond retarded. It is an insult to humans who were not home schooled by delusional parents.

I suggest you steam the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Expelled_No_Intelligence_Allowed/70096749

I believe you will take back what you said after viewing the film.

LOL, you fell for some propaganda that was dishonest, grats. How old are you?

 

[JGS]

Abiogenesis is credible. Inorganic proteins have formed amino acids. It's been done, you know, replicated in experiments. We just don't know yet the exact makeup of the chemicals that formed the first living bits.

This I know. This would be called creating amino acids.

What I don't see as credible is the theory espoused by an ancient religious text. Do you also think that all of the world is made from the remains of Ymir? Or that Vishnu told Brahma to get to work?

I've said in plenty of posts now that creation is an idea that transcends religion. It's what the majority of humans find to be a natural premise for how we got here. That doesn't have anything to do religion and there are several non-religious people who believe it, making this question...

What evidence do you have that the universe was Created other than the Bible?

...kind of head scratching. Are you under the impression that no other civilization other than Biblical have the idea that life started from being created?

In any event, all the bickering about whether God created us does not add credence at all to the idea that nothing did. Really, a true skeptic should be looking at this as choosing which movie is better - Meet the Spartans or Date Movie. If you don't klike one, then why embrace the other if they both are implausible?

EDIT: I'm not officially a Buddhist, but I have done some looking into it, and think of it as a sort of philosophy. There's a book called What the Buddha Taught that I think is a good starting off point. I certainly have found it helpful.[/QUOTE]

 

[msv]

This I know. This would be called creating amino acids.

It would be called actually caring about finding out what happened by attempting to recreate plausible scenarios. Is this supposed to be an argument of some sorts? Please elaborate.

I've said in plenty of posts now that creation is an idea that transcends religion. It's what the majority of humans find to be a natural premise for how we got here. That doesn't have anything to do religion and there are several non-religious people who believe it, making this question...

It's merely an idea, not even a hypothesis. You can entertain it, but in a rational discussion it doesn't hold up against arguments backed up by observation.

...kind of head scratching. Are you under the impression that no other civilization other than Biblical have the idea that life started from being created?

I think he's trying to say that none of them have any evidence. It is certainly possible that we're all living in a simulation of sorts, but virtually all hypotheses of a creator (as in going beyond entertaining the idea itself and move upon actual assumptions) are worthless.

 

[jdogmoney]

The amino acids formed by natural processes. They weren't created.

I've said in plenty of posts now that creation is an idea that transcends religion. It's what the majority of humans find to be a natural premise for how we got here. That doesn't have anything to do religion and there are several non-religious people who believe it, making this question...


...kind of head scratching. Are you under the impression that no other civilization other than Biblical have the idea that life started from being created?

Okay. Fine. I'll play this game.

Other than "the Bible says so" and "Everybody else is doing it", what evidence do you have for the Universe being created?

 

[Mgoblue201]

I'm not sure what you mean by contradictory or where I'm saying what you think I am, but I'll read on.



I'm not sure why ones would feel a need for detail in the creation account. It was written at a time when everyone knew the account. It was written to bolster the faith of those who believe in God while taking away nothing from those who liked science too.

The people did not know about micro organisms so why would someone write about them? The Bible didn't write about a lot of thigs. So what?

I keep thinking some people think that God should have given us everything at the beginning. I'm also not sure why it matters which animal comes first considering they all happened during the same creative day.

There is nothing in the creation account that says it's a literal day. All we have is the info written later by the same writer of Genesis, plus additional scriptures. All point to the idea that God does not view his day as 24 hours. This is seen even with the death sentence of Adam & Eve. It would make no sense for the Genesis writer to talk literal days and then have Adam live for hundreds of years. The logical conclusion would be that the creative days do not equal literal days especially since the Bible explains it that way. In fact the Bible never mentions a literal day except in relation to human activities (I think). It does nothing to the story except make it more honest.

However, feel free to pick some verse and dismiss others. It happens all the time

In our day, we use the word "day" to mean more than 24 hours, are people back then really supposed to be too stupid to do the same?



Uhh, as I said, science doesn't have to. It's not even up to the job since it's out of it's bounds. There aren't any untruths that I brought up. Honestly, your argument only works if you don't beieve in God.

The account does not dispute the slow evolution process and whatnot, just species jumping as things were made per kind. Science hasn't gotten past the concept phase of that yet either.

God (& his first creation - Jesus) would naturally know how long the universe has been around. They weren't the ones writing. In fact, your argument backs up the idea that the reason the genesis account didn't say billions of years is because the writer couldn't comprehend that kind of time frame, but could comprehend that God was on a different level when measuring time.



You would have to give more examples than creationists for me to believe the great conspiracy of God believers at war with science. The reality is scientists can't make sense of their own ideas of how life got here, much less the ideas surrounding being created. Unfortunately, the marriage between real science and unsubstantiated/sci-fi science is enduring. The reality is that it will be more likely to develop warp drive than any proof that life started from nothing.

I'm not familiar with your last posts on abiogenesis, but I'm so positive there is no proof in them that I'm saying it now before looking. I will apologize of wrong, but at the moment it's still pseudoscience. It's easy to write a sentence about how life got here. If no proof is provided, I'll stick to my whacky beliefs.

Actually, God created birds and sea creatures on the fourth day, then land animals on the fifth day. And once again, why is the Earth the first thing created? You can say that microorganisms weren't mentioned because no one knew about them, but that's the exact problem. No one back then knew about anything. No God was communicating anything to them about the beginning of the universe. The fact that they got so much hideously wrong proves that they were just guessing. You don't have to not believe in God to see the wild inconsistencies. "The account does not dispute the slow evolution process and whatnot, just species jumping as things were made per kind. Science hasn't gotten past the concept phase of that yet either. " I'm not sure what this last part is supposed to mean either.

There is nothing about the creation account that says it shouldn't be interpreted to mean days. At best, God was being negigent, because "Godly people" are spreading this misinformation is his name. The death sentence has nothing to do with this. "All the days of your life" is a term essentially meant to mean day in and day out, emphasizing the moment to moment misery of Adam. This is a correct way of looking at it, especially to humans. But saying day to refer to billions of years is nonsense. The author didnt say days, which still would be wrong. he didn't say years. He didn't say countless years, which is what one would naturally say if they couldn't comprehend the amount of time. He said day. The two views are totally incompatable.

Here is one good post from Jerry Coyne about the origins of life. It's a good post because it sums up the problems, some of the history of the possible solutions, the breakthrough that was made last year, and an argument against the idea that the issues of abiogenesis are possibly a good argument for anything that has to do with God.

EDIT: There is a huge difference between creating the very composition of amino acids through magical powerz and setting up an experiment meant to simulate the initial conditions in which to synthesize everything naturally. The point of these experiments isn't to create anything. It's to find out the conditions by which they were naturally synthesized and then letting nature do its thing.

 

[Dabookerman]

Look it's simple really.. About how life started.

Some aliens were strolling through our Solar System, and their toilets were simply unavailable, so they simply decided to take a piss on this planet, and then they flew off. It's not rocket science!

 

[Peronthious]

Look it's simple really.. About how life started.

Some aliens were strolling through our Solar System, and their toilets were simply unavailable, so they simply decided to take a piss on this planet, and then they flew off. It's not rocket science!

Makes sense to me.

 

[JGS]

Actually, God created birds and sea creatures on the fourth day, then land animals on the fifth day.

Oops, my mistake. I was going on the fly.

And once again, why is the Earth the first thing created?

The heavens and the earth were created in the beginning, no conflicts there.
The sun and the moon were allowed to show through the expanse of the heavens, whether it be a massive water mass or simply clouds. This is not that unusual of a concept considering even some of the planets in our solar system.
There was clearly daylight and nighttime as brought out in earlier verses.

Not sure what else I'm arguing here so I'll stop.

You can say that microorganisms weren't mentioned because no one knew about them, but that's the exact problem. No one back then knew about anything. No God was communicating anything to them about the beginning of the universe. The fact that they got so much hideously wrong proves that they were just guessing. You don't have to not believe in God to see the wild inconsistencies. "The account does not dispute the slow evolution process and whatnot, just species jumping as things were made per kind. Science hasn't gotten past the concept phase of that yet either. " I'm not sure what this last part is supposed to mean either.

Again, there is nothing hideously wrong about people not knowing about micro-organisms.

There is no wild inconsistencies. on top of that you still haven't provided what makes you idea so much more appealing. Further, your apparently rhetorical question doesn't note a flaw as much as a misinterpretation (My creative days faux pas excluded).

There is nothing about the creation account that says it shouldn't be interpreted to mean days. At best, God was being negigent, because "Godly people" are spreading this misinformation is his name. The death sentence has nothing to do with this. "All the days of your life" is a term essentially meant to mean day in and day out, emphasizing the moment to moment misery of Adam. This is a correct way of looking at it, especially to humans. But saying day to refer to billions of years is nonsense. The author didnt say days, which still would be wrong. he didn't say years. He didn't say countless years, which is what one would naturally say if they couldn't comprehend the amount of time. He said day. The two views are totally incompatable.

You are choosing to provide definitions for your explanations and not mine. That seems fair and balanced. The creation days weren't countless and they didn't need to be 24 hours. Nothing suggests they needed to be except your assumptions- the same ones you have for Adam's sin.

That would also mean that your own apparently rhetorical question proves that there was day and night at the time of Earth's creation, meaning it wasn't created first. Again, if all you want to go by is the Genesis account forst chapter, then fine, there is no distinction between number of days. If however, you go by the idea through the Bible incluuding by the same author in the same time frame that God measures time differently, there is plenty of evidence. However, I knw this won't happen.

Here is one good post from Jerry Coyne about the origins of life. It's a good post because it sums up the problems, some of the history of the possible solutions, the breakthrough that was made last year, and an argument against the idea that the issues of abiogenesis are possibly a good argument for anything that has to do with God.

I'm not the one who is comparing the pros and cons of the two so I'll bypass the debate. I'm saying that whether you view the Bible as a massive fraudulent fraud does not change the fact that abiogenesis is garbage. I can't make it clearer than that unless I bold it.

[EDIT: There is a huge difference between creating the very composition of amino acids through magical powerz and setting up an experiment meant to simulate the initial conditions in which to synthesize everything naturally. The point of these experiments isn't to create anything. It's to find out the conditions by which they were naturally synthesized and then letting nature do its thing.

Exactly, because the condition cannot be found in nature that would simulate a real world scenario where inorganic material becomes amino acids - a billion to one chance if that good. You then have to move on the the equally impossible task of these things becoming something actually living. It's bumpkis.

Do as many experiments as you want and high five yourselves for the "accomplishment". It provides no real evidence of life starting from inorganic matter when man wasn't here to control the experiment.

It's time to move on.

 

[EzLink]

Actually, God created birds and sea creatures on the fourth day, then land animals on the fifth day. And once again, why is the Earth the first thing created? You can say that microorganisms weren't mentioned because no one knew about them, but that's the exact problem. No one back then knew about anything. No God was communicating anything to them about the beginning of the universe. The fact that they got so much hideously wrong proves that they were just guessing. You don't have to not believe in God to see the wild inconsistencies. "The account does not dispute the slow evolution process and whatnot, just species jumping as things were made per kind. Science hasn't gotten past the concept phase of that yet either. " I'm not sure what this last part is supposed to mean either.

There is nothing about the creation account that says it shouldn't be interpreted to mean days. At best, God was being negigent, because "Godly people" are spreading this misinformation is his name. The death sentence has nothing to do with this. "All the days of your life" is a term essentially meant to mean day in and day out, emphasizing the moment to moment misery of Adam. This is a correct way of looking at it, especially to humans. But saying day to refer to billions of years is nonsense. The author didnt say days, which still would be wrong. he didn't say years. He didn't say countless years, which is what one would naturally say if they couldn't comprehend the amount of time. He said day. The two views are totally incompatable.

Here is one good post from Jerry Coyne about the origins of life. It's a good post because it sums up the problems, some of the history of the possible solutions, the breakthrough that was made last year, and an argument against the idea that the issues of abiogenesis are possibly a good argument for anything that has to do with God.

EDIT: There is a huge difference between creating the very composition of amino acids through magical powerz and setting up an experiment meant to simulate the initial conditions in which to synthesize everything naturally. The point of these experiments isn't to create anything. It's to find out the conditions by which they were naturally synthesized and then letting nature do its thing.

The interpretation of Genesis 1 that I agreed with when I was Christian was actually pretty awesome. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The word "created" used in this verse, in the original language, means to create out of nothing. However, when created is used later on (when talking about creating the birds and the fish and everything) the word means "to prepare" Sort of like "making a bed". In the first line of genesis, create is analogous to creating a bed from scratch... getting the wood together and building one. But when "create" is used later on, its analogous to making a bed in the sense of preparing it for your nights sleep.

So the interpretation I went by was this. Genesis 1 gives one line that says God created EVERYTHING. He creates EVERYTHING (sans human beings) in that opening line. Every galaxy, planet, bird, plant, animal, everything. And then when it goes by the seven days, its talking about the seven days he took to organize and make ready to specific part of the land (Eden) that he was going to use as the birthplace of human life.

I love this interpretation not only because it seems likely based on the original text, but also because it doesn't say how long of a gap there was between the original creation and the preperation of land for adam and eve. With this interpretation, you can easily allow for a 4.6 billion year old earth. You can also allow for evolution of everything except for humans themselves.

Some people argue that there was NO DEATH before the fruit was eaten. But the Bible says Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit from the tree of life daily (I believe anyway, been a while since I studied this) implying that that is what was giving them their immortality. And animals and everything DIDN'T eat from that tree, so its likely that they had been living and dying in the circle of life for billions of years before humans came about.

That interpretation really helped me reconcile faith and aspects of evolution at the time. Maybe it can help or at least offer insight to somebody else here

 

[Slightly Live]

The heavens and the earth were created in the beginning, no conflicts there.

By heavens, you mean the universe, right? Not the other heaven where god supposedly chills out? Is this distinction made in the bible? Would be interesting to hear the retcon if there is no plain distinction made or if there is.

Also, aren't you forgetting something? The universe was around for billions of years before the Earth was created. This is an accepted fact. So they weren't created at the same time, so the "beginning" mentioned has a wide hole of a few billion years in it.

Again, there is nothing hideously wrong about people not knowing about micro-organisms.

There is no wild inconsistencies. on top of that you still haven't provided what makes you idea so much more appealing. Further, your apparently rhetorical question doesn't note a flaw as much as a misinterpretation (My creative days faux pas excluded).

There is? The bible only contains things that man could have made up at the time of writing. There no new information presented in there, which is kind of strange considering it was written indirectly by a supposed creator of everything.

Did he just omit things that man didn't know about to allow man to discover it themselves (a cop out of explanation) or was it not mentioned because the bible is simply the product of man and has nothing to do with any god and man's limited knowledge at the time limited what man could write about?

 

[Shanadeus]

The interpretation of Genesis 1 that I agreed with when I was Christian was actually pretty awesome. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The word "created" used in this verse, in the original language, means to create out of nothing. However, when created is used later on (when talking about creating the birds and the fish and everything) the word means "to prepare" Sort of like "making a bed". In the first line of genesis, create is analogous to creating a bed from scratch... getting the wood together and building one. But when "create" is used later on, its analogous to making a bed in the sense of preparing it for your nights sleep.

So the interpretation I went by was this. Genesis 1 gives one line that says God created EVERYTHING. He creates EVERYTHING (sans human beings) in that opening line. Every galaxy, planet, bird, plant, animal, everything. And then when it goes by the seven days, its talking about the seven days he took to organize and make ready to specific part of the land (Eden) that he was going to use as the birthplace of human life.

I love this interpretation not only because it seems likely based on the original text, but also because it doesn't say how long of a gap there was between the original creation and the preperation of land for adam and eve. With this interpretation, you can easily allow for a 4.6 billion year old earth. You can also allow for evolution of everything except for humans themselves.

Some people argue that there was NO DEATH before the fruit was eaten. But the Bible says Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit from the tree of life daily (I believe anyway, been a while since I studied this) implying that that is what was giving them their immortality. And animals and everything DIDN'T eat from that tree, so its likely that they had been living and dying in the circle of life for billions of years before humans came about.

That interpretation really helped me reconcile faith and aspects of evolution at the time. Maybe it can help or at least offer insight to somebody else here

But that interpretation only holds up if you don't believe in a natural creation of human beings - in other words if you don't accept evolution as the cause of human creation.

 

[jdogmoney]

I'm not the one who is comparing the pros and cons of the two so I'll bypass the debate. I'm saying that whether you view the Bible as a massive fraudulent fraud does not change the fact that abiogenesis is garbage. I can't make it clearer than that unless I bold it.


Exactly, because the condition cannot be found in nature that would simulate a real world scenario where inorganic material becomes amino acids - a billion to one chance if that good. You then have to move on the the equally impossible task of these things becoming something actually living. It's bumpkis.

Do as many experiments as you want and high five yourselves for the "accomplishment". It provides no real evidence of life starting from inorganic matter when man wasn't here to control the experiment.

It's time to move on.

You don't really "get" science, do you?

Is the theory of gravity garbage? A human was responsible for dropping things, and a human worked out that stuff accelerates at a rate of about 9.81 m/s/s when falling to earth, so does that mean we can through the idea out the window and then go flying after it?

It's eerie how I replied to this post before you type it, huh? Watch:

Abiogenesis is credible. Inorganic proteins have formed amino acids. It's been done, you know, replicated in experiments. We just don't know yet the exact makeup of the chemicals that formed the first living bits.

[It may be astronomically unlikely to have occurred, but given the scale of the cosmos, it's as close to a sure thing as you can get that it would happen somoewhere.]

What I don't see as credible is the theory espoused by an ancient religious text. Do you also think that all of the world is made from the remains of Ymir? Or that Vishnu told Brahma to get to work?

What evidence do you have that the universe was Created other than the Bible?

Odd how well that syncs up. I even mentioned the odds thing. Weird.

Anyway, yeah, you've not replied to my question. What evidence do you have that the Universe was created, by a sentient Creator, with a purpose in mind?

 

[Slightly Live]

You are choosing to provide definitions for your explanations and not mine. That seems fair and balanced. The creation days weren't countless and they didn't need to be 24 hours. Nothing suggests they needed to be except your assumptions- the same ones you have for Adam's sin.

That would also mean that your own apparently rhetorical question proves that there was day and night at the time of Earth's creation, meaning it wasn't created first. Again, if all you want to go by is the Genesis account forst chapter, then fine, there is no distinction between number of days. If however, you go by the idea through the Bible incluuding by the same author in the same time frame that God measures time differently, there is plenty of evidence. However, I knw this won't happen.

Just admit that there a difference between the bible and reality. The bible states certain things happening in a time scale that isn't possible in reality and by how we measure and define reality. It 's that simple.

I'm not the one who is comparing the pros and cons of the two so I'll bypass the debate. I'm saying that whether you view the Bible as a massive fraudulent fraud does not change the fact that abiogenesis is garbage. I can't make it clearer than that unless I bold it.

Abiogenesis has more supportive evidence than any god.

To use a comparison, if all signs point to a likelihood but you don't have exact evidence of it, then you need to look at the signs to come to a conclusion. God magic has no evidence just blind faith and a few hundred different religions claiming their special god did it. Abiogenesis gains traction every year with more and more discoveries and progress being made.

What will you say in future when man finally learns how to create life from non-life, something that religion places solely in the realm of gods? It will most likely happen at some point.

Exactly, because the condition cannot be found in nature that would simulate a real world scenario where inorganic material becomes amino acids - a billion to one chance if that good. You then have to move on the the equally impossible task of these things becoming something actually living. It's bumpkis.

Do as many experiments as you want and high five yourselves for the "accomplishment". It provides no real evidence of life starting from inorganic matter when man wasn't here to control the experiment.

It's time to move on.

So if man uses an experiment to prove something to happen, using naturally forming elements that has been found to naturally co-exist and react, it's impossible that natural events cannot do the same thing? :lol

Science should just stop experimenting in laboratories and confine itself to natural studies and observations, the labs has no worth in your eyes! :lol

Ignore as many experiments as you want and high five yourself for the "accomplishment". It provides no real evidence of god creating life.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Wow, the conversation switched to evolution rather quickly!

 

[Atramental]

Any Satanists here on Gaf?

 

[jdogmoney]

Wow, the conversation switched to evolution rather quickly!

Evolution =/= abiogenesis.

 

[EzLink]

But that interpretation only holds up if you don't believe in a natural creation of human beings - in other words if you don't accept evolution as the cause of human creation.

No, he still creates humans on the sixth day. He just uses materials that were already created (i.e. dust or whatever)

so the interpretation still works, and is still far superior to any other interpretation I have ever read ever

 

[The Librarian]

Why does God first create everything in the dark?

 

[Shanadeus]

Any Satanists here on Gaf?

What kind of satanist?

 

[Shanadeus]

There are plenty on gaf. We call them atheists, though.

 

[sadaiyappan]

I was thinking that the reason suffering exists is because god gave us free will. Because of the nature of us having free will and uncontrolled actions effecting other actions this causes some suffering here and there. I'm sure this has been thought of before but it's a thought I had while reading this thread.

 

[JGS]

Evolution =/= abiogenesis.

Hey, we agree!

 

[JGS]

I was thinking that the reason suffering exists is because god gave us free will. Because of the nature of us having free will and uncontrolled actions effecting other actions this causes some suffering here and there. I'm sure this has been thought of before but it's a thought I had while reading this thread.

That's true, but as a religious person I think of it as a few more:

1. Free will causes us to do stupid things
2. God lets that happen- not surprising since he said he would. Be careful what you ask for.
3. Satan- It's his world, we just live in it.
4. Our imperfections. If the world was an absolutely perfect place right now, we would still die

 

[Peronthious]

There are plenty on gaf. We call them atheists, though.

<3

 

[JGS]

The amino acids formed by natural processes. They weren't created.

I explained what I meant.

Okay. Fine. I'll play this game.

Other than "the Bible says so" and "Everybody else is doing it", what evidence do you have for the Universe being created?

Those are two pretty substantial reasons you dismiss, but my biggest reason is because there is not a better solution out there. There may be one that some people like more (Since they thought it up), but it is far from better. I think lightsabers are a cool idea, that doesn't mean I think they're viable weapon.

I'm done playing the game. It gets boring. Thus you win by default because the whacky religious guy gave up on it. You may consider me a abiogenesarian if you like unless you want to read everything I've already said.

I'm sure I will forget you've won at some point in time and start anew though, curse my contrarian nature.:lol

 

[spunibard]

Can we start discussing one of the global floods now?

 

[jdogmoney]

I explained what I meant.



Those are two pretty substantial reasons you dismiss, but my biggest reason is because there is not a better solution out there. There may be one that some people like more (Since they thought it up), but it is far from better. I think lightsabers are a cool idea, that doesn't mean I think they're viable weapon.

I'm done playing the game. It gets boring. Thus you win by default because the whacky religious guy gave up on it. You may consider me a abiogenesarian if you like unless you want to read everything I've already said.

I'm sure I will forget you've won at some point in time and start anew though, curse my contrarian nature.:lol

I did read everything you said, and I'm sorry if I turned it into a competition to win.

You said, repeatedly, that abiogenesis doesn't make sense, and that it's not viable. I am merely trying to figure out why. You can believe that it didn't happen, and I think you're wrong but whatever it's your belief, but to say that the theory is unsound...I don't understand why you feel this way. What part of it is not a reasonably educated guess?

There were certain chemicals in early Earth environments that reacted, as chemicals do. The reaction produced by these chemicals arranged them in such a way that they formed RNA, which was the first step along the life process that led to more complex, complicated beings.

Even if you think God did it, why wouldn't this be the method by which He worked? It's still extraordinarily unlikely that this would happen, so you can choose to believe the divine is at work. It also looks like this is what occurred, to the best of our knowledge, so I honestly don't understand where the disconnect is. It's like what you said about microorganisms not being in the Bible. One possible interpretation is that they just didn't feel like going into the specifics of the process.

If you don't want to keep talking about it, that's cool. Sorry to have put you off.



New question: What is the point of morality in a Christian worldview?

 

[Dabookerman]

There are plenty on gaf. We call them atheists, though.

Satanism involves lots of sex though, right?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

New question: What is the point of morality in a Christian worldview?

Let's play the "I'll answer your question if you answer mine" game!

Why do atheists live by moral codes if God is not the basis of morality? Let me give an example to illustrate my question:

Let's say you are an atheist who crash lands on a deserted island. You think you are the lone survivor of the crash, but lo and behold, another gentleman has also survived. You both agree that for safety's sake and ease of living that you should live in same general vicinity, yet you build a shelter for yourself and he builds a shelter for himself. You never establish any sort of rules, laws, etc. Among your belongings that you were able to recover from the crash is your favorite book, Nietzsche's "The Will to Power." Much to your chagrin, one night you are awakened to find that your fellow survivor is attempting to sneak out of your shelter with your book. You ask what he is doing and he is honest and admits to you that he was attempting to steal your book and keep it for himself rather borrowing it.

Do you have a problem with this individual's behavior? Why or why not?

 

[Zaptruder]

Ooh, forgot to reply for a few days. Busy with work.

I don't think the words are open to interpretation at all. Assuming the Bible is inspired, then that means God wants us to believe what the Bible says. This is why it seems clear enough when they are speaking in signs, using illustrations, or talking real events. All interpretation except one are wrong. We know at least one of them is right because God is backing that particular interpretation.

There are of course parables in the bible. But there are of course elements of the bible (namely its creation story) where it is very obviously untrue, but not stated as a metaphor of some sort. When it was written, it was taken as literal. It still is taken literal by many today; by those that follow the word of the bible at a literal level.

So I ask you now; are you a biblical fundamentalists? If you are, there is no point to this discussion. Your delusion is greater than can be helped with.

If you are not on the other hand, then I ask you; if you make concessions for parts of the bible like genesis, which now in hindsight appear to be obvious metaphors (if they are interpreted literally, they are incongruent with the truth of our observations), but have not been marked as such...

at what point do you stop making these concessions when those parts of the bible are proven to be incorrect, wrong, or again, 'metaphorical'?

The Bible is not open to interpretation by people, but it's definitely true that mankind has used it to gain power. That's not the bible's fault is it? There has never been a link between Christian teaching and political dominance except when a human makes it up. On the contrary, Christians aren't supposed to be doing the fighting for God in any physical way.

It is indeed the fault of the bible for been so open to interpretation, so wishy washy. If you cannot take its words and contents literally, if you must compensate for sections of it in order to properly make sense of it in a world that has long surpassed its usefulness, then you are doing only what you simply must, in order to square it with the reality at hand; interpreting the bible.

This is incorrect. In fact the vast majority of big moral issues are as paramount in the 21st century as they were when the Bible was written. Why? Because despite thousands of years of seperation, men are still largely screw-ups. No matter how you slice it, that's predicted. In fact, that's the easiest prophecy of them all.:lol

Men will continue to be flawed for as long as we stay as we are on a genetic level. Our cycle of birth and death means that lessons learnt will be forgotten and must be relearnt repeatedly.

Recognizing this, even thousands of years ago does not make you, or your words accurate and fully applicable thousands of years later.

It does nothing to address the burgeoning issues of economy, of global warming, etc. It says nothing of that, because it cannot say anything of it; it is a book written 2000 thousand and more years ago, dealing with issues of the time. If we try to use the bible to deal with those issues of now, we need to interpret the vague instructions of morality as best we can in the context of our circumstances now.

For a perfect book, it relies far too heavily on our flawed interpretive abilities.

If you're having trouble understanding all that... then basically what I'm saying is that; if the bible were the perfect document, then it wouldn't require intepretation to begin with and reintepretation thousands of years from now. It would do what it purported to do; which is provide clear moral guidance from a clearly higher power, without the chance for man to misinterpret and muddy up the information learned.

Because the bible isn't such a document, it is incredibly unlikely that it would've been written (or even inspired by) something that could be considered perfect, given the severely imperfect nature of the bible.

And it's not like a perfect document is impossible. Basic maths texts are as true and applicable now as they were thousands of years ago when written. Similarly, well written textbooks of calculus will be as true, applicable, and literal in hundreds, thousands, millions of years as they are now.

I'll take the lessons of Jesus over the lessons of a power hungry politician or an arrogant know it all who knows nothing or a person mad at God for the suffering people cause to each other any day of the week. If that makes me primitive, then I'm happy to stay in the Bronze Age. When you have something better though, let me know & I'll be first in line. Your current pearls of wisdom aren't doing much to allay my concerns for mankind without the existence of God.

You wade into this with the absolutely fixed assumption that the bible is the word of god, perfect in every way. This is the point from which you argue, and this is the nature of your delusion.

If you actually study the origin of the bible though, it is a collection of books written by many men that claim to have been inspired by the word of god. Moreover, these books have been vetted and carefully selected by men from a time after the writings of these original books. Who are these men to decide what should be the word of god and what should not be? Certainly not god themselves.

So if we accept this, than we have to accept that that the bible has indeed a large influence of man and not just god in it.

If we accept that, then how can you be sure that the words you read are what god intended and not man from 2000 years prior intended?

You criticize politicians, or some know it all, as though I'd suggest that's who you should listen to... yet you completely look past the idea that these may well have been the same people that wrote and vetted the bible of yours in the first place.


More to the point, I'm not asking you to listen to anyone without critical assessment. That is indeed my entire point; that you don't take as an implicit automatic assumption that any point of view must be right and true... but that you simply place value in the system that helps to determine what point of views may be more accurate or better than others.

Without equivocation, I'm asking you to think critically, look for evidence, use logic, rationality... reassess the things that you have come to accept long ago implicitly, without assuming them to be true automatically. Step outside the frame of been a 'true believer', and see other frames of reference, and fairly weigh them up, that you might find the best truth for yourself.

And keep applying this methodology throughout your life, so that either that frame of reference that you eventually settle upon is continually affirmed and reproven, or that you find a new one that is even better, even truer, as you can best understand it.

Of course understanding the nature of human behaviour as I do, I simply only expect you to defend your current ingrained point of view with the relatively non-sensical rhetoric you've already displayed, as best you can... or at best stay silent on the issue.