6 days Creation

[one.opinion]

35 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

However, I am not sure what you mean  with "you have not come to your position without careful thought and consideration" .

If you've read C. S. Lewis and William Lane Craig (guessing that's who you were referring to earlier), you've given some thought to the issue. And you're also hanging out here! 

[KiwiChristian]

5 hours ago, siegi91 said:

If God is light and God created light (day 1), does that entail that God created God on day 1?

I have no clue on the subject, but is sounds sort of strange. At least, logically.

 siegi

 

thats a non sequitur.

 

Kind of like God made man out of the dust of the ground, so why do we have hair instead of grass?

 

Of course we cannot fully comprehend God.

 

As i said to 4 mormons in my living room once, if we could understand HOW God IS God, we'd BE God.

 

We dont HAVE to understand everything, just TRUST what God has said.

[KiwiChristian]

1 hour ago, HAZARD said:

 

Hi siege.

I believe our God can and did create everything which included the molecules of the universe, from the basic atomic particles to the subatomic particles, and even particles we know nothing about yet in His creation we see and live in today!

 

“Put simply, "In the beginning" [literally by periods or ages] God created the heaven, [Hebrew, heavens] and the earth, not 6000years ago God created the Heaven and the earth.

No, in context it is six LITERAL 24 hour days.  Yes, 6000-7000 years ago according to science.

 
When we speak of the six days and the creation of the present life on Earth, we can speak with Bible authority that it was about 6000 years ago.

Didnt you just say NOT 6000 years ago? Where did you dig this nonsense up from?

 

This can be seen by the lengths of the various dispensations since Adam. In no Scripture are we taught to believe that the heavens and the Earth were "originally created" during the six days and at the time of Adam about 6000 years ago.
 

The Bible makes it clear.

 

Some use Exodus 20:8-11; 31:17 to try and prove that the heavens and the Earth were created in the six days of Gen. 1:3-2:25, and therefore, that they were created about 6000 years ago. However, nothing is said of the original creation of the heavens and the Earth in these passages.

In these Scriptures the Hebrew word 'ASAH,' meaning to make out of already existing material, is used instead of the word 'BARA,' to create. These verses picture the re-creation work of the six days and not the original creation "In the beginning."

WHICH Scriptures? WHICH manuscripts? I've just checked at it says "BARA" so i dont know what corrupted texts YOU are using! 

 

"BARA" occurs 55 times in the Bible.

This sounds like a mormon argument.

1 hour ago, HAZARD said:

When God said, "In six days, the Lord 'MADE' heaven and Earth," he had in mind the restoration of the heaven (firmament, or clouds) the Earth to a habitable state as it was before Lucifers rebellion and the destruction of Lucifer’s kingdom and all therein by the flood and Gen. 1:2.

Did you copy and paste this from http://thestrongdelusion.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 ?

 

Strange source.

 

So, You profess to know the mind of God? Wow.

[KiwiChristian]

3 hours ago, Kevinb said:

A little more on prophecy. Not relevant strictly to thread but it's been brought up. 

There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled:

Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.

Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.

Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.

Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.

Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.

There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories. 
 

In biblical times, prophecies were not simply predictions. They were warnings of what could or would happen if things did not change. They were meant to influence people's behavior. If the people heeded the prophecy, the events would not come to pass; Jonah 3 gives an example. A fulfilled prophecy was a failed prophecy, because it meant people did not heed the warning. 
 

The Bible also contains failed prophecies, in the sense that things God said would happen did not. For example:

Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13).

Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (29:19-20). Neither happened.

 

Other religions claim many fulfilled prophecies, too (Prophecy Fulfilled n.d.). 
 

Divinity is not shown by miracles. The Bible itself says true prophecies may come elsewhere than from God (Deut. 13:1-3), as may other miracles (Exod. 7:22, Matt. 4:8). Some people say that to focus on proofs is to miss the whole point of faith (John 20:29).

Do you trust the Bible?

[KiwiChristian]

3 hours ago, Kevinb said:

 

The Bible also contains failed prophecies, in the sense that things God said would happen did not. For example:

Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13).

Josh. 3:10 does not say that all of the people of these tribes would be driven out. These tribes were defeated and nearly all of the people were killed, or driven out of the land, but because of Israel's incomplete obedience God did not remove all of the people of these tribes for a time. For the most part God did drive out these tribes during Joshua's lifetime and even more after his death. Furthermore, God did eventually remove even those that were left after the conquest.

3 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (29:19-20). Neither happened.

Actually, this claim is based on an error in Egyptian chronology. When the error is corrected for there is evidence of both events. So these prophecies were fulfilled. It needs to be noted that the Hebrew does not necessarily mean that Egypt would be totally uninhabited. It does however indicate that exile and devastation would last 40 years.

[KiwiChristian]

 

3 hours ago, siegi91 said:

"Yes, a very unusual couple of verses with absolutely no follow-up anywhere. Let me add a bit more context:

⁵¹ And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. ⁵² The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, ⁵³ and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. ⁵⁴ When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son^[i] of God!”"

Well, yes. But my friend Hildegarde told me that the disciples where very skeptical about the first reports of their Master's return. 

But why? How can you be skeptical about a resurrection after a few hours where many other resurrections took place? Especially, when the occurrence involve your Master who already claimed that He will return after a couple of days? And all those other amazing events...Earthquakes, Eclipses, converted centurions and all... I wonder how you can bring skeptics to believe, on the sole account of these events, when the first row spectators (the disciples) seem to have not been impressed by that.

Why none of the disciples said: guys, look what happened and all those miracles surrounding our master's death. He told us He would return in a few days, didn't He, He predicted everything with full precision, so I think we should give Him the benefit of the doubt, and get ready for His return.

I think, even a die hard materialist would have come to that conclusion after witnessing all that.

But no. The disciples behaved like their memories had been zapped away like in that Men in Black movie. Sorry, that does not compute. I don't want to sound too cynical, but that narrative seems to privilege emotional impact over logical plausibility.

 

 

 siegi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

darn stupid quoting tool.

 

You mentioned about why many Christians claim a personal relationship with Jesus and yet differ on many points?

 

Well, ANYONE can CLAIM to be a Christian or have a personal relationship with Jesus. That means diddly squat.

 

In other words, Are they Christians because they SAY so?

 

happy to reply to all your points, but not prepared to muck around with this silly quoting thing. if you want to post one or two points per post, i would be happy to address them 

[KiwiChristian]

5 hours ago, Kevinb said:

 Do you have evidence God is light?

Yes, the Word of God.

 

"This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all."

[HAZARD]

38 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

This sounds like a mormon argument.

Did you copy and paste this from http://thestrongdelusion.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 ?

 

Strange source.

 

So, You profess to know the mind of God? Wow.

No, I did not copy and past this from strongdelusion. I have never heard of that site until now?

Snow me, where did I profess to know the mind of God?

There were two great floods that God sent to the Earth, one, Lucifers flood and the second, Noahs flood, and there are literally many dozens of Scriptures to prove this in the Bible.

[KiwiChristian]

20 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

No, I did not copy and past this from strongdelusion. I have never heard of that site until now?

Snow me, where did I profess to know the mind of God?

There were two great floods that God sent to the Earth, one, Lucifers flood and the second, Noahs flood, and there are literally many dozens of Scriptures to prove this in the Bible.

It was in your quote.

 

No, there was only one worldwide flood.

 

show me "lucifers flood" in the Bible, please.

 

unless you are referring to the stupid so-called "gap theory" which can easily be refuted.

Edited September 11, 2017 by KiwiChristian

[Tristen]

On 10/09/2017 at 7:10 PM, Kevinb said:

This is bizarre to me. Of course we can use science to investigate the past. The past isn't investigatible? 

I'm sure you're aware of cosmic background radiation... my mistake wasn't Einstein.. 40s.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

Gravitational waves.

www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw.

Predictions made and supported by big bang theory. Hubbles work and more.

We can investigate here. We didn't have to find this...it didn't have to be that way. If we hadn't found it or had found something else we might have a different model now. 

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. The scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different theories, the Big Bang and theSteady State theory, but a wide range ofempirical evidence has strongly favored the Big Bang which is now universally accepted.[9]In 1929, from analysis of galactic redshifts,Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are drifting apart; this is important observational evidence consistent with the hypothesis of an expanding universe. In 1964, the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the Big Bang model,[10] since that theory predicted the existence of background radiation throughout the universe before it was discovered. More recently, measurements of the redshifts of supernovae indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, an observation attributed to dark energy's existence.[11] The known physical laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme densityand temperature.[12].

How does God fit in here... where is his involvement?  Or do you just deny this data? This is clearly not the same as the supernatural being non investigatible...as you admit. Why believe in a proposition you can't investigate?

The consensus supports these things because it's based on....evidence. where did i say believe consensus not based on evidence? Most people in the world...certainly usa and the middle East believe in God as you believe in God. Couldn't that be a consensus view?  Where is the evidence for me to subscribe to this? Oh wait supernatural claims can't be investigated. I'd need faith from a starting point... having all answers before I've even investigated... and from authority... that's a fallacy.

Any horizon issue well this is where inflation comes in. Science doesn't start with all knowledge and doesn't have all answers..things have to be discovered. Look how we've progressed in the last 400 years since science. If we don't know yet then we don't know.. we can't just say God. That's a argument from ignorance fallacy. Think I'm starting to understand.. you just attempt to derail any theory that contradicts biblical presupposition.. you still need to demonstrate God involvement.. I'm not seeing anything. Even in your view science can't investigate... and supernatural claims can't be investigated... your default should be... don't know not to assert the latter. You can just have faith in supernatural regardless and you must have. Then I'm left with which faith shall I pick... and based on what... where and when I happen to be born into?  I don't see the need to pick any faith...how does it help to believe supernatural claims on faith. It seems as a species we more readily went to this in the absence of scientific but we don't need to do that now.

Also faith claims require breaks in the laws of physics and biology and nature. Virgin births..people living for 800 plus years in the bible. Rising from the dead etc. Magnificent claims indeed... the evidence needs to be pretty magnificent..i don't see magnificent evidence for these claims...or any evidence. Unless anyone has some I've not seen? Doesn't your consensus fallacy apply here also? 

Hi Kevin,

“This is bizarre to me. Of course we can use science to investigate the past. The past isn't investigatible?”

The scientific method generates mathematical confidence in claims based on experimental comparisons between treatment groups and control groups. E.g. to test the effect of a new medication, you would compare the medicated group to a placebo group, then statistically determine if there is a significant difference between the outcomes of each to justify a claim of effect. There is no logical way to perform such an experiment on a claim that something happened in the past. We cannot perform experiments in the past, and there are no appropriate controls against which to generate mathematical confidence. To be confident in a claim about the past you have to depart from the logical robustness of the scientific method – which can only generate legitimate confidence in current, natural phenomena (i.e. things which are at-last theoretically available to experimentation).

Some creationists call investigating the past historical science (as juxtaposed against operational/experimental science). Consider a forensic hypothetical; The victim’s blood found on the accused and the accused’s fingerprints on the murder weapon. The prosecution claims the facts points to the accused murdering the victim. The defence says the facts point to the accused trying to help the victim and picking up the weapon in case the threat remained. Same facts, two different stories. There is no objective way to know which is true if the event wasn’t externally observed. This problem is amplified exponentially when it comes to unobserved past events. The facts seeming to line up with a particular story of the past can never rule out the possibility of a different story being true. That is why claiming scientific confidence in past claims commits the logic fallacy Affirming the Consequent. Multiple causes can produce the same outcomes. Therefore, the current existence of a particular outcome does not necessitate that any proposed cause be true. It is a logical weakness of investigating any claim which cannot be subjected to natural observation (including both past claims and supernatural claims).

So I didn’t claim that the past “isn't investigatible”, only that there are logical limitations on such investigations that necessitate a departure from the more robust logic of the scientific method. Any confidence in such claims necessarily incorporates faith (be they past or supernatural claims) or Affirms the Consequent. It’s not a criticism, just a recognition that we can’t generate the same type of confidence for these claims as we can for claims we can subject to experimentation through the scientific method.

 

“Predictions made and supported by big bang theory”

Since the model was initially formulated around available facts, it is unsurprising that it has some predictive capacity. The creation model has made successful predictions as well. Claiming scientific confidence in past claims based on model predictions is the epitome of Affirming the Consequent.

 

“We can investigate here. We didn't have to find this...it didn't have to be that way. If we hadn't found it or had found something else we might have a different model now”

The Big Bang model has undergone massive changes since its inception. So in those instances, the predictions of the model didn’t stack up to the newly uncovered facts. If you are determined to base confidence on the predictive quality of the model, then objectivity compels you to mitigate that confidence based on these failed predictions.

 

“The scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory”

So then,  this so-called “scientific community” were only really considering the issue from the perspective of no God being involved in the formation of the universe. That is a faith presupposition; a world view that influences how the data is interpreted. This is tantamount to an admission of bias (which every human has, but only secularists seem to deny).

 

“How does God fit in here... where is his involvement?  Or do you just deny this data?”

Have I denied and data? None of the provided facts are inconsistent with the proposal that God created the universe. Sure, if you, by faith, presuppose a purely naturalistic reality, then you can rationally interpret these facts to be consistent with the secular model. That is not contested. But the existence of these facts does not logically obligate anyone to the model.

The existence of God is simply a different faith presupposition. I simply interpret the facts through the Biblical paradigm to support my preferred model - in exactly the same way that secularists interpret the facts through the naturalistic faith paradigm.

 

“This is clearly not the same as the supernatural being non investigatible...as you admit. Why believe in a proposition you can't investigate?”

It is exactly the same logical methodology. Both can be investigated, but empirical confidence is logically impossible for either. None of the claims can be directly observed or experimented upon. In both cases, the best we can do is compare the model to the current facts. Both positions interpret the facts through the filter of presupposition. Confidence in either requires faith.

 

“The consensus supports these things because it's based on....evidence. where did i say believe consensus not based on evidence? Most people in the world...certainly usa and the middle East believe in God as you believe in God. Couldn't that be a consensus view?”

An accusation of Appeal to Consensus is a criticism of the provided argument. It is irrelevant that the argument can be supported by reason and evidence if that reason and evidence is not provided. If you ask me to uncritically accept a position based on consensus, then such a proposal is meaningless and fallacious. You have given me nothing of logical substance to consider or respond to. If there is argument and evidence, then provide that. But don’t just tell me there is consensus and ask me to trust that they have the evidence.

 

“Oh wait supernatural claims can't be investigated. I'd need faith from a starting point... having all answers before I've even investigated”

I never claimed anything “can't be investigated”. Everyone starts from a position of faith presupposition – as demonstrated in your above cut and paste.

 

“Any horizon issue well this is where inflation comes in”

Yes, but the point was that there was a time when the model was not consistent with the facts. What this demonstrates is the unfalsifiable nature of past claims. In the face of contrary facts, you can always just shrug your shoulders and say ‘maybe one day we’ll figure out how it all fits together’.

Cosmological inflation is not an observation. It’s purely conceptual/theoretical; a speculation about what might have happened, which has become increasingly popular because it mathematically reconciles some problems with Standard Cosmology. It is a just-so story. That doesn’t make it necessarily untrue, but the only reason to find it compelling is that it is necessary to reconcile the model to the facts, not because it was observed.

 

“If we don't know yet then we don't know.. we can't just say God . That's a argument from ignorance fallacy”

It may be if that was our reasoning process – but it’s not. We have an existing model that incorporates claims of what God has done. We don’t just use God to fill gaps in knowledge. But we do assess the facts against the model (as do secularists with their models).

 

“you just attempt to derail any theory that contradicts biblical presupposition”

I’m not trying to “derail” anything. My argument is not that you are wrong, but that your confidence, that your preferred model is the only valid perspective, is not justified in logic. And that my perspective is equally valid from the standpoint of logic (including logical consideration of the available facts).

 

“you still need to demonstrate God involvement.. I'm not seeing anything”

And I’m still not seeing any Big Bang or Cosmological inflation. When are you going to show me these events? Or would I be correct in suggesting it might be irrational to require natural observations of the logically unobservable?

 

“I don't see the need to pick any faith...how does it help to believe supernatural claims on faith.”

It has never been my goal to convert you. I’m just defending the rationality of my position. I have a faith. People try to tell me that my faith is contrary to scientific discovery, and that I must be ignoring evidence, or being somehow intellectually compromised. What I have found is that the facts can all be interpreted to be perfectly consistent with the Biblical model. Therefore, there is no objective scientific reason to reject the Biblical account of reality. I have not suggested there is any rational obligation on you to reject your faith in a purely naturalistic reality. But neither logic nor science supports your position any more than mine.

 

“It seems as a species we more readily went to this in the absence of scientific but we don't need to do that now”

Your subjective speculation on this issue does not speak to the truth or untruth of any belief system.

 

“Also faith claims require breaks in the laws of physics and biology and nature. Virgin births..people living for 800 plus years in the bible. Rising from the dead etc. Magnificent claims indeed... the evidence needs to be pretty magnificent..i don't see magnificent evidence for these claimss...or any evidence. Unless anyone has some I've not seen?”

There is no such thing as “magnificent” evidence. There are only facts which have been interpreted to support a particular position (i.e. as “evidence” of that position). But facts are observations, and requiring observations of the unobservable is an illogical standard to require – and speaks to stacking the deck in favour of your existing presupposition. But if “evidence” is all you need, the Bible itself qualifies as “evidence” by way of testimony. Your distrust of the testator does not disqualify it from the definition of “evidence”.

 

“Doesn't your consensus fallacy apply here also?”

If I claimed you should believe what I believe because many others do, that would be fallacious. But I have made no such suggestion.