Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[Tristen]

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Substance = facts.

Beyond the "facts", "Substance" can also refer to whatever else is contained in an argument. That includes any "facts", but also the application of logic and reasoning.

 

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Wanna discuss the meaning of "tohu wabohu"?

Case-in-point.

I have several times now answered your challenge to explain how 'tohu vabohu' can apply to both the early creation conditions, and the post war conditions.

You have, 1) ignored my explanation (except for the one case where you mocked my argument with a simple "Lol"), then 2) repeated your claim that it can't be explained.

How can we have a conversation about that if you are so thoroughly blinded to my arguments? How many times must I repeat my answer before your brain allows you to properly consider it?

As far as I am concerned, it is now on-you to go back and provide a rational rebuttal to my presented arguments. It is not on-me to continue to repeat myself until it gets through.

 

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

On 8/25/2023 at 11:11 PM, Tristen said:

Most recently, I have rather been "focused" on how the issue had "been dealt with".

Yes, my point.

Lol. It was "my point" first.

 

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And became overly "focused" on technique

It is necessary to focus on "technique" - because allowing irrational "technique" to pass invalidates the whole conversation - and therefore wastes the time of everyone involved.

My case-in-point (above) demonstrates this. How can we have a debate on an issue if you ignore my responses, and continue to repeat the same, rebutted, claims?

If the debate is allowed to depart from rational convention (or "technique"), then nothing is achieved. It's as useful as sticking out your tongue and thinking yourself clever.

 

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Wanna discuss the meaning of "tohu wabohu",

I have done. I await your response to my provided argument.

 

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

which is the real issue in Gen 1:2?

Both issues are "real" issues. And I have engaged on both issues.

In our conversation(s), there was no suggestion that one "issue" was more important than the other until you realized your argument for the first was based on bad information.

There is no objective reason to consider one "issue" to be more "real" than the other. It's purely a matter of you not wanting to talk about one any more - since you realized your argument for that one "issue" has been rendered much weaker than you initially thought.

 

7 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

On 8/25/2023 at 11:11 PM, Tristen said:

It is seemingly very difficult for you to comment without trying to find some way to turn the conversation around on me.

I have no idea what you mean here.

You claimed I "don't want to discuss substance". That is a lie - and a mischaracterization of what I said.

I am more-than happy to discuss "substance" - but only in the context of a fair-minded, rational conversation. Otherwise, we are wasting each other's time. Presumptuous claims about "substance" mean nothing outside the bounds of logic.

Ask yourself, 'Why would a sincere person be so thoroughly determined to avoid holding their arguments accountable to the standard of logic?'. I'm here saying, 'Let's be fair-minded, and reasonable, and rational', and you're complaining that I'm being "overly focused on technique".

 

7 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

On 8/25/2023 at 11:11 PM, Tristen said:

For example, here you needed to falsely claim that I have no interest in debating "substance". That is an obvious mischaracterization of what I wrote.

You yourself admitted that.  No, not obvious.  Maybe preview before posting, in order to ensure what you mean is just what you have typed.

This is a lie - and subsequently, an attempt to posture based on a lie.

 

7 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The substance of Gen 1:2 is about the meaning of "tohu wabohu" but you'd rather keep focused on the verb.

Actually, my focus has been on your lack of fair-mindedness, and your inability to take any rational account for your stated position. As you claimed earlier, my current "focus" in this conversation is about argument "technique".

 

7 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Maybe for obvious reasons.  

And so here we are again - a post ending with Innuendo (fallacy) based on a lie.

To quote my previous post, "It is seemingly very difficult for you to comment without trying to find some way to turn the conversation around on me.".

 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

FreeGrace said: 

Wanna discuss the meaning of "tohu wabohu"?

Case-in-point.

I have several times now answered your challenge to explain how 'tohu vabohu' can apply to both the early creation conditions, and the post war conditions.

You have, 1) ignored m y explanation (except for the one case where you mocked my argument with a simple "Lol"), then 2) repeated your claim that it can't be explained.

Since the words are descriptive of land that has been destroyed, it is absurd to claim that they can describe early creation conditions as well as a devastating war.  Simply impossible.  

Such a claim IS laughable.  What can't be explained is how a description of total devastation from a destroying army to the land can also fit "early creation conditions".

Do you think God created the earth initally in a state of chaos, waste, etc?

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

How can we have a conversation about that if you are so thoroughly blinded to my arguments?

I'm not blinded at all.  I actually see through them. Big difference.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

How many times must I repeat my answer before your brain allows you to properly consider it?

This is just the second time you've given an answer.  

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

As far as I am concerned, it is now on-you to go back and provide a rational rebuttal to my presented arguments. It is not on-me to continue to repeat myself until it gets through.

It's real simple, really.  The two words describe what a beseiging army does to the land.  It destroys it, lays waste to it.  Creates chaos.  All words translating "tohu".

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

My case-in-point (above) demonstrates this. How can we have a debate on an issue if you ignore my responses, and continue to repeat the same, rebutted, claims?

You haven't been responding with any explanation until this post.  Previous posts showed you weren't interested in moving on to "tohu wabohu".

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

If the debate is allowed to depart from rational convention (or "technique"), then nothing is achieved. It's as useful as sticking out your tongue and thinking yourself clever.

It is totally irrational to claim "tohu wabohu" can be used to describe "early creation conditions", whatever that even means, as well as what a beseiging army does to the land.  And we know what it does because Jer 4 gives us clear details.  

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

There is no objective reason to consider one "issue" to be more "real" than the other. It's purely a matter of you not wanting to talk about one any more - since you realized your argument for that one "issue" has been rendered much weaker than you initially thought.

You are free to your opinion.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

You claimed I "don't want to discuss substance". That is a lie - and a mischaracterization of what I said.

Read it again.  

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

I am more-than happy to discuss "substance" - but only in the context of a fair-minded, rational conversation. Otherwise, we are wasting each other's time. Presumptuous claims about "substance" mean nothing outside the bounds of logic.

How can there even be a rational conversation when you think "tohu wabohu" can legitimately be used to describe "early creation conditions" AND the result of a besieging army on the land?

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Actually, my focus has been on your lack of fair-mindedness, and your inability to take any rational account for your stated position.

The irrational argument is on your side.  As I've been pointing out.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

As you claimed earlier, my current "focus" in this conversation is about argument "technique".

That's clearly what you  communicated.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

And so here we are again - a post ending with Innuendo (fallacy) based on a lie.

To quote my previous post, "It is seemingly very difficult for you to comment without trying to find some way to turn the conversation around on me.".

You hold to a very irrational view of "tohu wabohu" even though there is clear context in 2 passages of what is being described, and you are just so willing to claim that it can also be used to describe "early creation conditions".

Yet, you have no idea what that would be, since the Bible doesn't give us any details about "early creation conditions".  In v.2 we find "tohu wabohu" and we know what that is describing from the other 2 occurrences.

What it can't be describing is anything about God's original creation of earth.

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Since the words are descriptive of land that has been destroyed, it is absurd to claim that they can describe early creation conditions as well as a devastating war.

And yet, I have done so.

You telling me, "it is absurd" is not a rational rebuttal of anything I've said. There is no indication in this statement that you have considered my argument. You are simply repeating your position.

 

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Simply impossible.

I look forward to your argument(s) articulating how my stated position is outside of the realm of logical possibility.

 

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Such a claim IS laughable.

An Appeal to Ridicule (fallacy) does not constitute a rational response to my stated position. Rather, the contrary.

 

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

What can't be explained is how a description of total devastation from a destroying army to the land can also fit "early creation conditions".

I have "explained" this very thing.

You have elected to skip over my explanation - and act as though it doesn't exist - and just repeated your same challenge as though I hadn't already rebutted your claim.

 

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Do you think God created the earth initally in a state of chaos, waste, etc?

You mean - do I think there was an early stage of creation where the Earth was unordered and empty? - yes.

 

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

How can we have a conversation about that if you are so thoroughly blinded to my arguments?

I'm not blinded at all.  I actually see through them. Big difference.

Well, let me know when you decide to provide a rational rebuttal of my supposedly transparent arguments. Until such a time, you are merely engaging in empty posturing.

 

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

How many times must I repeat my answer before your brain allows you to properly consider it?

This is just the second time you've given an answer.

I have given a direct answer a handful of times in this thread, and more in a previous thread. I have no indication from your responses that your brain has even registered these answers.

 

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It is totally irrational to claim "tohu wabohu" can be used to describe "early creation conditions", whatever that even means, as well as what a beseiging army does to the land.  And we know what it does because Jer 4 gives us clear details.

I look forward to you addressing the supposedly "irrational" aspect of my argument - demonstrating how it allegedly defies logic.

 

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

There is no objective reason to consider one "issue" to be more "real" than the other. It's purely a matter of you not wanting to talk about one any more - since you realized your argument for that one "issue" has been rendered much weaker than you initially thought.

You are free to your opinion.

I have my "opinion". I also have the pattern of your engagement in the discussion prior to you realizing that your arguments were based on bad information.

 

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

You claimed I "don't want to discuss substance". That is a lie - and a mischaracterization of what I said.

Read it again.  

Or you could show me where I said the thing you are claiming I said. Then we can compare what I actually said, to what you are claiming I said.

 

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

How can there even be a rational conversation when you think "tohu wabohu" can legitimately be used to describe "early creation conditions" AND the result of a besieging army on the land?

Well - whenever you get a chance to go back and examine my response to this challenge, we will be able to ascertain whether or not my position falls outside of the bounds of logic.

Until then, your above statement amounts to, '"How can there even be a rational conversation" when I still dare to disagree with you?'.

 

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The irrational argument is on your side.  As I've been pointing out.

You have thus far failed to demonstrate any flaw of logic in my position (nor even attempted to do so).

 

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

As you claimed earlier, my current "focus" in this conversation is about argument "technique".

That's clearly what you  communicated.

Yup.

 

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You hold to a very irrational view of "tohu wabohu" even though there is clear context in 2 passages of what is being described, and you are just so willing to claim that it can also be used to describe "early creation conditions".

Yet, you have no idea what that would be, since the Bible doesn't give us any details about "early creation conditions".  In v.2 we find "tohu wabohu" and we know what that is describing from the other 2 occurrences.

What it can't be describing is anything about God's original creation of earth.

Only when your brain permits you to register my response to this claim, will we be able to properly scrutinize the rationality of my position. 

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

@FreeGrace So we can eliminate all YEC arguments since I have found ALL to be illogical and devoid of scientific evidence.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

FreeGrace said: 

Since the words are descriptive of land that has been destroyed, it is absurd to claim that they can describe early creation conditions as well as a devastating war.

And yet, I have done so.

Rather, you have claimed so.  

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

You telling me, "it is absurd" is not a rational rebuttal of anything I've said. There is no indication in this statement that you have considered my argument. You are simply repeating your position.

We're getting nowhere.  There is NO WAY "tohu wabohu" can describe God's original creation AND the destruction of land.  Mutually exclusive.  Not rational.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

I look forward to your argument(s) articulating how my stated position is outside of the realm of logical possibility.

I just did.  Again.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

An Appeal to Ridicule (fallacy) does not constitute a rational response to my stated position. Rather, the contrary.

I'm not ridiculing you.  I am saying your view is not possible.  God ould NOT create the world looking like a besieging army just rolled through.  why would anyone believe that?

 

[Tristen]

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

18 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

FreeGrace said: 

Since the words are descriptive of land that has been destroyed, it is absurd to claim that they can describe early creation conditions as well as a devastating war.

And yet, I have done so.

Expand  

Rather, you have claimed so.

Yes - I claim to have provided an answer to your challenge a handful of times in this thread, and even more times in a different thread on the same topic.

For whatever reason, rather than tell me where my answer went wrong, you are acting like my answer doesn't exist - and simply repeating your supposed challenge.

 

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

We're getting nowhere.

Agreed. This is, a) because you are determined to treat my arguments like they don't exist, and b) I have come to a point where I am determined to not repeat my arguments - at least until there is some acknowledgement from you that you have the capacity to recognize the existence my arguments.

 

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

There is NO WAY "tohu wabohu" can describe God's original creation AND the destruction of land.  Mutually exclusive.  Not rational.

18 hours ago, Tristen said:

I look forward to your argument(s) articulating how my stated position is outside of the realm of logical possibility.

I just did.  Again.

This is not you addressing my argument. This is simply you repeating your position.

 

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

19 hours ago, Tristen said:

An Appeal to Ridicule (fallacy) does not constitute a rational response to my stated position. Rather, the contrary.

I'm not ridiculing you.

An Appeal to Ridicule is a logic fallacy whereby, instead of logically interacting with an opposing argument, one simply characterizes the opposing argument as ridiculous, "laughable" etc.

 

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I am saying your view is not possible.  God ould NOT create the world looking like a besieging army just rolled through.  why would anyone believe that?

And until you are prepared to consider my provided explanation - where I reconcile your claim of a supposed contradiction - The discussion can not move forward in any meaningful way.

 

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Yes - I claim to have provided an answer to your challenge a handful of times in this thread, and even more times in a different thread on the same topic.

For whatever reason, rather than tell me where my answer went wrong, you are acting like my answer doesn't exist - and simply repeating your supposed challenge.

I'll say again where your answer "went wrong".  Claiming "tohu wabohu" can describe original creation AND at the same time describe the total devastation of a besieging army on the land.  If you don't understand the conflict here, there is nothing more to discuss.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Agreed. This is, a) because you are determined to treat my arguments like they don't exist

Well, wrong again.  I have ADDRESSED and refuted your arguments from the FACTS of Scripture.  Both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 use "tohu wabohu" to describe devastation.  There is NO WAY the same two words can describe original creation.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

, and b) I have come to a point where I am determined to not repeat my arguments - at least until there is some acknowledgement from you that you have the capacity to recognize the existence my arguments.

See above.  

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

And until you are prepared to consider my provided explanation - where I reconcile your claim of a supposed contradiction - The discussion can not move forward in any meaningful way.

Considered and refuted.  There is no "supposede contradiction" and since you admit you can't see the contradiction, there is no reason for more discussion.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

@FreeGrace Mathematics is an important field of study that supports other scientific fields of study but not bound by them. Logic is a subset of Philosophy, Psychology, Behaviour Science, Game Theory, Probability and Statistics, etc. Interpreting the Bible requires knowledge of the original languages used, vocabulary, parts of speech, colloquial words and their common usuage, etc. How one can elevate logic higher than the inspired words of the Bible, seems absurd and inappropriate to me. As an engineering student at UMR, programming terms like A=A+1 may look absurd but are a necessity. 

 

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

@FreeGrace Mathematics is an important field of study that supports other scientific fields of study but not bound by them. Logic is a subset of Philosophy, Psychology, Behaviour Science, Game Theory, Probability and Statistics, etc. Interpreting the Bible requires knowledge of the original languages used, vocabulary, parts of speech, colloquial words and their common usuage, etc. How one can elevate logic higher than the inspired words of the Bible, seems absurd and inappropriate to me. As an engineering student at UMR, programming terms like A=A+1 may look absurd but are a necessity. 

 

Sorry, but not following your line of thinking.  My doctorate is in the healthcare field.  

Can you show or explain how A=A+1 is a necessity?  And what is meant by a "necessity"?  Thanks.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Sorry, but not following your line of thinking.  My doctorate is in the healthcare field.  

Can you show or explain how A=A+1 is a necessity?  And what is meant by a "necessity"?  Thanks.

Basically, I was trying to show how absurd it is to force logic into an argument regarding biblical interpretation. Disregard my post. Sorry.