6 days Creation

[Kevinb]

48 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

51 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

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

God is the source of the light on the fourth day.   He separated that light from darkness.   How did He do that?   He is God.  God can do things like that. 

He is..doesnt the bible say the sun and stars were the source of light on day 4? Even though day 1 is says day and night. 

Also he separated light and darkness?  Please demonstrate your corroberative evidence to support the bible claim?  We have evidence of an earth spinning on its axis to do this. Or don't you believe that? If you do.. why do you need God on this point? Unless you can demonstrate his involvement?

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, siegi91 said:

So, suppose that a fellow believer believes in a God different from yours (because of the same process): how would you convince him that he is right on the rest, but wrong about the evidence for his God? And how would you intend to do that, without conclusive, clear-cut evidence about your God that would make the rest of the arguments superfluous?

Thanks for clarifying, I'm understanding your point now. I'm guessing, based on the scope of your previous comments, that you're familiar with the "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument proposed by C. S. Lewis. If we read the claims of Jesus during His ministry, Lewis contends that these are the only three possibilities based on His claims. If we start with the evidence of the historical Jesus, we can see secular support in addition to Biblical support, we can move on to the most central events regarding His life - the crucifixion and resurrection. There were thousands of eye witnesses to His resurrection and His followers continued to teach His resurrection despite persecution and horrific execution.

My comparative theology is not so fantastic, but I know of no other religion with so many eye witnesses to a central series of events. Like I've said, it can be argued that it isn't "proof", but I would certainly consider it compelling enough to investigate further.

Edited September 10, 2017 by one.opinion

[siegi91]

54 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

God is light. 

Hi Kiwi. Are you from the South pacific? BTW. I have been in Hawaii a couple of time for vacation and it is really beautiful. 

You seem to know a lot about Genesis, so I need to ask. I am still learning about Christianity and the intersection it might have with my field of research (cosmology, mainly).

It appears to me that Genesis states that Water (H2O) existed before the first star. Now, I am a physicist, and we learned that heavier elements like Oxygen (The "O" part of water) can only be forged inside big stars and made available when those stars go supernova (i.e. they mighty explode). This is also what we teach to our kids, so I want to make sure we are teaching the right stuff. 

So, how is that possible? Do you think we missed something and we need to rewrite basically the whole history of heavier elements in the Universe? 

By the way, a friend of mine who lives in North America told me that evolution books are frowned upon because of the obvious inconsistencies with Scripture. Are all astronomy and space science books frowned upon in North America, too. I ask because the level of contradiction  they have with Scriptures is even worse than biology books have.

 siegi

 

[siegi91]

15 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Thanks for clarifying, I'm understanding your point now. I'm guessing, based on the scope of your previous comments, that you're familiar with the "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument proposed by C. S. Lewis. If we start with the evidence of the historical Jesus, we can see secular support in addition to Biblical support, we can move on to the most central events regarding His life - the crucifixion and resurrection. There were thousands of eye witnesses to His resurrection and His followers continued to teach His resurrection despite persecution and horrific execution.

My comparative theology is not so fantastic, but I know of no other religion with so many eye witnesses to a central series of events. Like I've said, it can be argued that it isn't "proof", but I would certainly consider it compelling enough to investigate further.

So, you believe that all those eye witnesses provide enough evidence about the existence of the divine (namely, Jesus and His Father) that makes all other indirect evidence of the existence of God (cosmological argument, ontological argument, teleological argument, etc.) completely redundant?

And what do you mean with "investigate further"? I am not sure how we can resurrect all those eye witnesses without making things like resurrections to be in the mainstream . By the way, the NT also claims that many saints resurrected and wondered around town at the time of Jesus death. Not much of a follow-up after that extraordinary claim, but there it is. Is that claim reliable too, in your opinion?

But I fully respect your response. You read like a thoughtful bloke. And I am aware of Lewis dilemmas. However, as a strong atheist, it is clear how I would respond to it, even thought I do not think Lewis exhausted all possibilities.

 siegi

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2017 by siegi91

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

So, you believe that all those eye witnesses provide enough evidence about the existence of the divine (namely, Jesus and His Father) that makes all other indirect evidence of the existence of God (cosmological argument, ontological argument, teleological argument, etc.) completely redundant?

I believe, much as Lewis did, in something of a two-tiered approach. The arguments you list (cosmological, etc) support the existence of a "Greater Being", but (again, in my opinion) the evidence surrounding Jesus Christ supports the Christian God. So I wouldn't call the others redundant. Personally, the evidence I find most compelling is my own relationship with Him. I understand that it is difficult to convince someone else based on my own personal experience, so what I am presenting is what I think would be compelling evidence to someone that did not already believe.

16 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

And what do you mean with "investigate further"?

No, I don't expect anyone to perform any resurrections and Q/A sessions. What I meant is that although there is not enough evidence to "prove" the existence of the Christian God, I believe there is enough evidence to prod curiosity and questioning to learn more about Jesus Christ and the claims of Christianity.

28 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

By the way, the NT also claims that many saints resurrected and wondered around town at the time of Jesus death. Not much of a follow-up after that extraordinary claim, but there it is. Is that claim reliable too, in your opinion?

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!”

Several miracles here accompany the death of Jesus. I know it sounds unbelievable, but based on the response of the centurion, I do think these were real events for the purpose of bringing people to belief.

[siegi91]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I believe, much as Lewis did, in something of a two-tiered approach. The arguments you list (cosmological, etc) support the existence of a "Greater Being", but (again, in my opinion) the evidence surrounding Jesus Christ supports the Christian God. So I wouldn't call the others redundant. Personally, the evidence I find most compelling is my own relationship with Him. I understand that it is difficult to convince someone else based on my own personal experience, so what I am presenting is what I think would be compelling evidence to someone that did not already believe.

No, I don't expect anyone to perform any resurrections and Q/A sessions. What I meant is that although there is not enough evidence to "prove" the existence of the Christian God, I believe there is enough evidence to prod curiosity and questioning to learn more about Jesus Christ and the claims of Christianity.

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!”

Several miracles here accompany the death of Jesus. I know it sounds unbelievable, but based on the response of the centurion, I do think these were real events for the purpose of bringing people to belief.

Oh, Mann, I have no idea how to use the quoting feature. So much for a PhD in cosmology, embarrassing, lol. 

Ok, one at a time.

"I believe, much as Lewis did, in something of a two-tiered approach. The arguments you list (cosmological, etc) support the existence of a "Greater Being", but (again, in my opinion) the evidence surrounding Jesus Christ supports the Christian God. So I wouldn't call the others redundant. Personally, the evidence I find most compelling is my own relationship with Him. I understand that it is difficult to convince someone else based on my own personal experience, so what I am presenting is what I think would be compelling evidence to someone that did not already believe."

I accept that. I could not possibly rebut personal experiences, by definition. For I have not been successful yet in penetrating other peoples minds.

My only question is: many Christians claim to have  a personal relationship with Jesus. Many, like my good Christian friend Hildegarde, even think that this is the main characterization of her creed. Something that is unique and cannot even be called "religion". Well, Hildegarde is Catholic, so I am not sure whether she is applicable here, but she is the only Jesus-believing human I personally know.... So, I assume she is applicable.

Fine, but why do then all those Christians disagree on something that, in my opinion, is quite basic? I don't know, but all those personal relationships seem to restrict to talking about the weather and such. How could you otherwise explain the following:

New earth/ young earth

Creation/evolution

Death penalty/ no death penalty

Infinite torment/termination/ absence of God

Gays marriage/ no gays marriage

Rapture version 1/ rapture version 2/ etc

Son of God/No son of God

Literal/symbolic

etc. Etc. for all the thousands of different views of Christianity.

Why not ask during those meetings: Lord, how old is the earth? And settle that thing forever?

"No, I don't expect anyone to perform any resurrections and Q/A sessions. What I meant is that although there is not enough evidence to "prove" the existence of the Christian God, I believe there is enough evidence to prod curiosity and questioning to learn more about Jesus Christ and the claims of Christianity."

Yes, I am very curious about those claims. My only problem is that I feel like a student surrounded by teachers, each claiming to have the correct interpretation of what I would like to learn. And all disagreeing with them. And all claiming to have the right answer. And all claiming to have a personal relationship with the object of their belief.

I mean, this is, I gathered, a pretty conservative forum. And yet, there is a lot of drama and disagreement on something that I really consider basic, like how old a piece of rock is. You just need to browse around to see that. So, what is the disagreement with the rest; with less conservative segments of Christianity?  It must be huge.

So, what is Christianity? How can you possibly convince any skeptic under these premises?

"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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by siegi91

[one.opinion]

37 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

But I fully respect your response. You read like a thoughtful bloke. And I am aware of Lewis dilemmas. However, as a strong atheist, it is clear how I would respond to it, even thought I do not think Lewis exhausted all possibilities.

I respect your responses, as well. It is clear that you have not come to your position without careful thought and consideration. I agree with you about Lewis - there are other options than the three he listed, but it does make a rather startling set for comparison!

[Kevinb]

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).

[siegi91]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I respect your responses, as well. It is clear that you have not come to your position without careful thought and consideration. I agree with you about Lewis - there are other options than the three he listed, but it does make a rather startling set for comparison!

Well, you are a very nice person, apparently. And I really like to converse with you. You are not only nice, I also detect strong evidence of rational thought in what you say. And I find cold rational thought attractive, always. It is the best guide towards objective truths I am aware of.

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

It took me two seconds to reach my position. My atheism is very much like a default position, in my case. I never believed in God. I never believed in any God. As a matter of fact, I always actively believed that there are no Gods. So, I never really needed to careful rule out anything that I considered absurd to start with. For me, it is self evident that there are no gods caring for us.

 I never really had to think too hard about that, or consider alternatives. For all practical purposes it should be equivalent to the amount of thought and consideration you invested in ruling out alternative Gods as creators of the Universe. Like Allah or Zeus.

But this is not what I am trying to push here. This is just me. Possibly very wrong. The day I realize I am advertising my atheism, is the day I am out of here. 

Having said that,  what other alternatives do you have in mind concerning Lewis claim? I am very much intrigued by that.

 

 siegi

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by siegi91

[HAZARD]

3 hours ago, siegi91 said:

The earth is not millions years old. It can be easily proven that it is not the case.

 siegi

 

 

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.
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. 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.
 

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."

'ASAH' never means to create. It is translated 'MADE,' 659 times; 'MAKE,' 449 times; 'MAKETH,' 59 times and 'MAKEST,' sixteen times; 'MAKER,' thirteen times; 'MAKING,' eleven times; and 'MADEST,' three times.
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.