6 days Creation

[one.opinion]

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of the entire Old Testament, though.  You apparently think   Jesus and Genesis are disconnected, that the Gospel has nothing to do with Genesis and creation, but that would be incorrect.

Not only are you again incorrect about what I think of Jesus and Genesis, you are bringing up days-old posts that have absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote to @Kevinb.

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

There is not only plenty of evidence for God as Creator, but the entire created order glorifies God as it testifies to His power, and wisdom.

You believe this and I believe this, but I maintain that there is not evidence to the point of proof (read prior to formulating objections). There is evidence that is suggestive of a Creator. What Kevin has questioned is how we know that it is the Christian God that created. This is a legitimate question that is insufficiently explained by evidence in nature. This is why I propose that the existence of Jesus Christ and evidence for His resurrection is absolutely critical, and a great starting point for bringing others into faith in Him.

[siegi91]

20 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Not only are you again incorrect about what I think of Jesus and Genesis, you are bringing up days-old posts that have absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote to @Kevinb.

You believe this and I believe this, but I maintain that there is not evidence to the point of proof (read prior to formulating objections). There is evidence that is suggestive of a Creator. What Kevin has questioned is how we know that it is the Christian God that created. This is a legitimate question that is insufficiently explained by evidence in nature. This is why I propose that the existence of Jesus Christ and evidence for His resurrection is absolutely critical, and a great starting point for bringing others into faith in Him.

I think that is an important point.

Natural arguments that might serve as evidence of a creator do not justify belief in a certain specific creator. For instance the God of the Bible vs. some other potential creator.

As a matter of fact, I think that evidence of a certain creator (e.g. the God of the Bible) can only be justified on account of miracles and such. Like you mentioned, the resurrection of Christ. That would fulfill two important requirements: His divinity, and His identity.  

But if we had that evidence, what use can more general arguments like the natural argument, or the cosmological argument, can have? They are completely redundant. We have already evidence of a divine being, because of miracle this and that. because if we did not have that, how could we justify our faith for that particular kind of creator?

Why do believers in X insist on more general arguments, that equally apply to Y, if they had already independent and clear-cut evidence of the divinity of X, which is all they need to justify their faith in X?

It would be like saying: look I can philosophically prove that a not well specified intelligent agent must have stolen that cake in the jar, when I have a picture of my neighbor's kid doing exactly that.

 

 Siegi

 

 

Edited September 10, 2017 by siegi91

[siegi91]

7 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

Duplicated

 

 

Edited September 10, 2017 by siegi91

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

As a matter of fact, I think that evidence of a certain creator (e.g. the God of the Bible) can only be justified on account of miracles and such. Like you mentioned, the resurrection of Christ. That would fulfill two important requirements: His divinity, and His identity.  

But if we had that evidence, what use can more general arguments like the natural argument, or the cosmological argument, can have? They are completely redundant. We have already evidence of a divine being, because of miracle this and that.

I see it as using multiple lines of independent evidence that point to a singular conclusion. There may be some that are completely convinced by a single piece or two, but others require those multiple lines of evidence to assemble it into something convincing enough to commit in faith. The role of faith is preached and praised throughout the Bible, which leads me to believe that God very rarely (I can't say "never" after my pastor preached on Gideon this morning!) provides proof of His existence. It seems to me that God provides enough evidence to compel us toward belief, but the final steps must be ours.

[siegi91]

23 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I see it as using multiple lines of independent evidence that point to a singular conclusion. There may be some that are completely convinced by a single piece or two, but others require those multiple lines of evidence to assemble it into something convincing enough to commit in faith. The role of faith is preached and praised throughout the Bible, which leads me to believe that God very rarely (I can't say "never" after my pastor preached on Gideon this morning!) provides proof of His existence. It seems to me that God provides enough evidence to compel us toward belief, but the final steps must be ours.

Yes, a sort of cumulative proof. That is Craig's apology, which is a completely respectable one. After all, we might condemn one murderer not because of one single clear-cut evidence, but because of many, all going in the same direction. A sort of probabilistic reasoning, so to speak: it is highly unlikely that all those vectors pointing in the same direction, do that by chance. Which is somehow acceptable.

But I am not sure how logically tenable that is, in case of faith justification.

If you need separate and cumulative lines of evidence, then you assume that some of them might be false. You need the others to sort of compensate. Because if you did not assume that, then you would not need different lines of evidence, one would suffice.

But how do you know then, that the one that uniquely identifies the object of your faith, is not the false one? How do believers in different Gods, got mistaken and you did not?

 siegi

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2017 by siegi91

[Guest shiloh357]

7 hours ago, Kevinb said:

I meant science doesn't show what was prior to the big bang and what caused it. I've cited..hubble..cosmic background radiation and things that support a big bang model. It's not about just dismissing God did it.. you just need to demonstrate he did and evidence he did. 

Well, there has to be uncaused cause.  You cannot have an endless regression into the past of causes. That is simply not rational.   The big bang model doesn't really explain a lot, including the formation of the galaxies and stars. And the big bang is really less of a theory and more like a hypothesis.

Quote

Well you make a claim...ie God did you must need to give evidence of his involvement . So if the evidence is out of your reach...

I cannot give any evidence that you would accept, is what I meant.   I mean there is evidence, but usually, what Atheists want is evidence that they know cannot produced.   That's how they rest their case that Christians cannot produce any evidence. 

 

Quote

why not just not believe it until it is.

There is no actual evidence for Evolution, but that doesn't stop evolutionists from believing in it.

Quote

The default is we have no claims let's look for evidence. The default initial stance shouldn't be there is a God..we can't investigate that.. now let's go look at evidence with that presupposition bias. I don't see that as rational.

No, that is not how I am approaching this at all.  God can be investigated, the claims for God can be investigated.  Can I prove the existence of God? No.  But that doesn't mean that there is no evidence at all for God.   The problem that I run up against is Atheists asking for unreasonable types  of evidence, while ignoring evidence that has or can be provided.

Quote

Okay... here we're breaking the laws of nature right... so we are appealing to biblical authority and faith and miracle. This is a big claim that's in the bible..i need more than the it's true coz later in the bible it says it is.  Same as people seem to be 100s of years old. The quran says Mohammed went to heaven on a winged horse. What mechanism do I reject that and accept the bible stuff? 

God is not bound to the laws of nature.   He can intervene any time He chooses.

The Bible has a long track record of accuracy that the Koran does not. 

Quote

The list given was either general and was open to interpretation or to accept others all I've got is the bible saying it's true. 

It's not open to intepretation at all.   That's just a cop out.

 

Quote

Those who like nostradamous cite him predicting conflicts with the middle East.. the 2nd world war and even the rise of Hitler.

There is no comparison with Nostradamus, none whatsoever.

 

Quote

Incidently I've still seen no response to the fall of tyre biblical prophecy that didn't happen.

Sure it did.  http://www.ancient.eu/article/107/

[KiwiChristian]

8 hours ago, Kevinb said:

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day. And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 

God is light. 

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

If you need separate and cumulative lines of evidence, then you assume that some of them might be false. You need the others to sort of compensate. Because if you did not assume that, then you would not need different lines of evidence, one would suffice.

But how do you know then, that the one that uniquely identifies the object of your faith, is not the false one?

This does not require that any lines of evidence are false. I think individuals simply vary in what they find convincing and what they don't. Imagine a courtroom case -- attorneys provide multiple lines of evidence in the hopes of convincing a judge or jury that their conclusion is the correct one. The attorneys are (hopefully) presenting all factual material, but some lines of evidence are simply more or less convincing to the individuals listening to the case.

[KiwiChristian]

8 hours ago, Kevinb said:

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day. And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 

There was LIGHT to mark them.

 

Why don't you trust the Bible?

Edited September 10, 2017 by KiwiChristian

[Kevinb]

5 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

8 hours ago, Kevinb said:

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day. And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 

God is light. 

I don't understand that. Photons are light. God is photons? Do you have evidence God is light? What do you mean?