Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

god or advanced entity?

  • god

    Votes: 14 40.0%
  • advanced entity

    Votes: 21 60.0%

  • Total voters
    35
Status
Not open for further replies.

tesseract

I am Woman
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Posts
10,059
Likes
1,828
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats, Swan Districts
Are you talking evolution - which has a mountain of evidence - or other theories like the big bang (with no need for a creator)? I doubt science will ever disprove God, but evolution has a mountain of evidence. There is NO evidence for intelligent design, save for a feeling that life is too complex.

I don't think you realise what a theory in science means.
You're the one who said Old Spice has "genetics, geology, biology, archaeology and astronomy to show Genesis is not a trusted, true account." So how about you be more specific with me.

I think there is evidence of a creator in what we can observe, just not the scientific proof that will satisfy non-believers.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,029
Likes
8,625
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,152
Biblical myth according to a sceptic. What a surprise. You've provided as much reasoning as Old Spice has for his comment.
I've provided my reasoning. Would you like me to repeat it? How about you address those arguments for a start. Better yet, why don't you provide the scientific reasoning as to how Adam and Eve were the first humans?

(Que your usual copy and paste job.)
Yeah, I get sick of cutting and pasting my own comments repeatedly to the same dogma you keep spouting.
 

bombermick

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 28, 2009
Posts
9,737
Likes
1,170
Location
Vermont South
AFL Club
Essendon
You're the one who said Old Spice has "genetics, geology, biology, archaeology and astronomy to show Genesis is not a trusted, true account." So how about you be more specific with me.

I think there is evidence of a creator in what we can observe, just not the scientific proof that will satisfy non-believers.
Genetics - We know we descended out of Africa, NOT the Middle East. We know we're more closely related to Chimps than Chimps are to other apes.
Geology - We know the earth is billions of years old.
Archaeology - The information we have doesn't support what's in the Bible. No evidence of key figures existing.
Biology - Lots of transitional forms in the fossil record, with none appearing in the "wrong" age-bracket according to the fossil record.
Astronomy - The speed of light tells us we can see stars billions of light years away.

I grew up believing as you do, but the facts are Genesis is wrong. It's entirely possible a god started the universe, but it didn't happen as Genesis describes.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Posts
1,477
Likes
219
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Denver, UO, NY
Genetics - We know we descended out of Africa, NOT the Middle East. We know we're more closely related to Chimps than Chimps are to other apes.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pers01.htm

not incompatible with Genesis

Archaeology- what do you mean by key figures? Until I know here is a little on archaeology and the bible.
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a005.html

Geology - of course you know the book of Genesis doesn't mention the age of the earth and I could quote apart of Genesis to suggest the world being older than 6000 years
 

tesseract

I am Woman
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Posts
10,059
Likes
1,828
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats, Swan Districts
I've provided my reasoning. Would you like me to repeat it? How about you address those arguments for a start. Better yet, why don't you provide the scientific reasoning as to how Adam and Eve were the first humans?



Yeah, I get sick of cutting and pasting my own comments repeatedly to the same dogma you keep spouting.
I stopped following this thread for a time when God and philosophy got interwoven, so I haven't seen the reasoning you've provided of late. All you've provided as a response to my comment was an unreasoned comment.
Nah, my interest is the bible. While I like science, and it serves a limited purpose in this instance, for information on matters pertaining to God and His creation, I'll continue to delve into the bible as a source rather than looking for outside reasonings to explain God out of the picture. The science in which supposedly disproves God's involvement is more your angle to indulge in. I care not to, for I'd have to reason presumptuously to do so.

So, can you say you haven't previously indulged in copy and paste jobs of works not of your own origin on this board?
 

RobbieGray17

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
10,793
Likes
5,250
Location
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
What's so BS about that?

I've been raped myself and I don't see your point.
Sorry to hear that, noone deserves to go through that, but this along with dozens of other bible verses are completely absurd.

the book is nothing more than a philosophical one. So here's the thing that gets me. christians say I will burn in hell, and yet christians can't even agree with themselves. So if the catholics and lutherans disagree, who is right and who is wrong??? idiots!
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,029
Likes
8,625
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,157
I stopped following this thread for a time when God and philosophy got interwoven, so I haven't seen the reasoning you've provided of late. All you've provided as a response to my comment was an unreasoned comment.
I've posted this yesterday in another thread. Previously on this thread. Why don't you provide some scientific evidence that Adam and Eve existed?

Nah, my interest is the bible. While I like science, and it serves a limited purpose in this instance, for information on matters pertaining to God and His creation, I'll continue to delve into the bible as a source rather than looking for outside reasonings to explain God out of the picture.
The Bible is essentially a man-made collection of myth, legend, law, poetry, prophecy, philosophy and bits of history, written by perhaps hundreds of authors between the 6th century BC and the fourth century AD. Essentially its about a localised Bronze Age Canaanite / Edomite deity and his often rocky relationship with one tribe of Canaanites and a first century figure who claimed to be his son and whose followers founded a new cult.

The science in which supposedly disproves God's involvement is more your angle to indulge in. I care not to, for I'd have to reason presumptuously to do so.
Of course you care not to. I worked that out a long time ago. After all you wouldn't want to find or acknowledge empirical evidence that contradicts that one collection of myth, legend, law, poetry, prophecy, philosophy and bits of history that you solely use to construct your world-view. Only the bits of evidence that fit your own personal world view are the bits that are valid and relevant. Will Yahweh strike you down if you have to "reason presumptuously"?

So, can you say you haven't previously indulged in copy and paste jobs of works not of your own origin on this board?
Often I have quoted the work of various experts to support my opinions. I've stated for example that such and such says such and such on many, many occasions. I'll continue to do so. Would you like me to footnote in future and provide a bibliography?
 

bombermick

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 28, 2009
Posts
9,737
Likes
1,170
Location
Vermont South
AFL Club
Essendon
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pers01.htm

not incompatible with Genesis

Archaeology- what do you mean by key figures? Until I know here is a little on archaeology and the bible.
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a005.html

Geology - of course you know the book of Genesis doesn't mention the age of the earth and I could quote apart of Genesis to suggest the world being older than 6000 years
I was responding to Tesseract who clearly believes Genesis is a literal account. As for what you've posted, how do you explain the genealogies if they are not literal?

Many combine what science tells us with religion. I don't think they're compatible, but it's attitudes like Tesser's that I find frustrating. It's nothing less than wilful ignorance.
 

tesseract

I am Woman
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Posts
10,059
Likes
1,828
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats, Swan Districts
Genetics - We know we descended out of Africa, NOT the Middle East. We know we're more closely related to Chimps than Chimps are to other apes.
Geology - We know the earth is billions of years old.
Archaeology - The information we have doesn't support what's in the Bible. No evidence of key figures existing.
Biology - Lots of transitional forms in the fossil record, with none appearing in the "wrong" age-bracket according to the fossil record.
Astronomy - The speed of light tells us we can see stars billions of light years away.

I grew up believing as you do, but the facts are Genesis is wrong. It's entirely possible a god started the universe, but it didn't happen as Genesis describes.
Don't speak for me with "we" in regards to where humanity was first located, for I don't believe as you do.
I, too, believe the earth is more than 6000 years old as some believe.
There's archeological evidence to support the bible. "Key figures" is vague. Who might not be considered key figures to you may be considered key to me.
Lots of fossils, yes. Supposing and reasoning upon that to suit an evolution based agenda, yes.
Can you provide context to the point you're trying to make in regards to astronomy, please?
 

GetDimmaBack

BigFooty Librarian
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Posts
7,049
Likes
5,859
Location
Gippsland via Braybrook
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Sunderland, Phillip Island Dogs
I think what hasn't been said a lot is that Xians believe the bible to be the "inspired word of God".

Science can examine the world and come up with it's physical conclusions, but the bible needs to be viewed as essentially spiritual but which does include some history at times. Believers understand themselves to be "in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit", something which happens at the point of acceptance of Christ as Saviour.

In order, then, to understand the lessons taught in the bible, one has to see it as spiritual teaching, not as history.

I am a Christian, and I read and understand scripture as spiritual development. The evidences of science, which I enjoy, are not spiritual arguments for or against a Creator. They are the discoveries made when studying what has been created.

It's really hard to explain the different views I have as a result of the direction of the spirit of God, but very little scientific "proof" does anything to change my mind. Non believers look to scientific proof to demonstrate what exists and what doesn't (yes, I know I'm generalising here), but it never convinces believers because we are shown the "truth" by the Holy Spirit. Yes, I know it requires a leap of faith to get to that point, but that's where we (I) am.

I would think that's why non believers feel so frustrated at our lack of acceptance of these "scientific truths".

By the way, I accept the theological lessons of the bible, but I am not a literalist.

I don't really want to be someone who says, "the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it".

God gave us a brain, after all...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

porksy

Team Captain
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Posts
433
Likes
338
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I'll ask you simply: Do you believe we shared the world with dinosaurs? If so, why is there no fossil or historical evidence to support it?
At one stage, yes I do believe so.

And how has there been no fossils? Having a love for history, I can state with certainty that there have been a fair few archaeological discoveries of what is perceived to be dinosaur remains. The same goes for mammoths.

I wouldn't know for sure what the hell happened to the dinos, being born a fair few millenia afterwards...but from a Biblical perspective, I suspect the flood may have had something to do with it. From a scientific perspective, the Ice Age would be my go.

Whatever happened to them won't affect my faith anyway, though it'd be pretty fascinating if they were still around today.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Posts
1,477
Likes
219
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Denver, UO, NY
'The Bible has so far proven to contain the most accurate history of any ancient book, with many details large and small being confirmed by archaeolgy, but not of course as far back as Adam and Eve. The Bible and Science both say we all came from a common ancestor and we are therefore all related. “Y-Chromosomal Adam” and “Mitochondrial Eve” are the scientifically-proven theories that every man alive today is descended from a single man and every man and woman alive today is descended from a single woman. Regardless of whether or not you believe their names were Adam & Eve, it does appear that everyone alive today are the descendants of one man and one woman. Scientists who share the Darwinian bias naturally presume that these two were not the only humans alive during their pre-child bearing lifetimes, while Biblical creationists naturally presume that they were. Logically, it would be amazing for one human male and female to evolve from a monkey both at around the same time and at the same place (perhaps the monkey had mutant twins?), so what would be the odds of a whole bunch of humans all suddenly being born to a group of monkeys? The mitochondrial Eve data does not prove the Bible—but it is most definitely consistent with it. '


I'm not saying I 100% agree with that ^ (not my material) but its another theory. Whether we're actually meant to take Adam and Eve literally is a whole other argument. It could be argued that Eden was a garden in East Africa, and it could be argued that like GBD said its maybe a spiritual lesson.
 

bombermick

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 28, 2009
Posts
9,737
Likes
1,170
Location
Vermont South
AFL Club
Essendon
At one stage, yes I do believe so.

And how has there been no fossils? Having a love for history, I can state with certainty that there have been a fair few archaeological discoveries of what is perceived to be dinosaur remains. The same goes for mammoths.

I wouldn't know for sure what the hell happened to the dinos, being born a fair few millenia afterwards...but from a Biblical perspective, I suspect the flood may have had something to do with it. From a scientific perspective, the Ice Age would be my go.

Whatever happened to them won't affect my faith anyway, though it'd be pretty fascinating if they were still around today.
Fossils have been found of humans and dinos together, let alone in the same aged rocks? Wow, please enlighten us.
 

tesseract

I am Woman
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Posts
10,059
Likes
1,828
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats, Swan Districts
I've posted this yesterday in another thread. Previously on this thread. Why don't you provide some scientific evidence that Adam and Eve existed?



The Bible is essentially a man-made collection of myth, legend, law, poetry, prophecy, philosophy and bits of history, written by perhaps hundreds of authors between the 6th century BC and the fourth century AD. Essentially its about a localised Bronze Age Canaanite / Edomite deity and his often rocky relationship with one tribe of Canaanites and a first century figure who claimed to be his son and whose followers founded a new cult.



Of course you care not to. I worked that out a long time ago. After all you wouldn't want to find or acknowledge empirical evidence that contradicts that one collection of myth, legend, law, poetry, prophecy, philosophy and bits of history that you solely use to construct your world-view. Only the bits of evidence that fit your own personal world view are the bits that are valid and relevant. Will Yahweh strike you down if you have to "reason presumptuously"?



Often I have quoted the work of various experts to support my opinions. I've stated for example that such and such says such and such on many, many occasions. I'll continue to do so. Would you like me to footnote in future and provide a bibliography?


I have no need to go along with your framing of the debate. Given my belief is bible-based, I like to comment on such things, and as I see fit, not be constrained by your taking this debate down the scientific path, which then requires a fair bit of leg work in research for me.

Myth, legend, philosophy? Keep making it up as you go. I expect no less. Your use of "perhaps" in your post that was linked displays your uncertainty, yet you pass your long-winded spiel off as if you actually know what you're talking about. Even your use of "Edomite deity" here shows you have no idea what the bible says.

Your supposed empirical evidence is far from empirical fact. How can you say that "only the bits of evidence that fit your own personal world view are the bits that are valid and relevant"? How could you possibly know for sure without assuming? My previous comment of "I care not to" was in regards to not going down this path with you here. That's its context. So, your comment is nothing but assumption. What has whether Yahweh will strike one down if they reason presumptuously got to do with anything we've discussed? Nothing.

Hence my comment of "Que copy and paste job."
 

Monniehawk

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
3,491
Likes
603
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore
I am a Christian, and I read and understand scripture as spiritual development. The evidences of science, which I enjoy, are not spiritual arguments for or against a Creator. They are the discoveries made when studying what has been created.
...for the simple reason that Science is not concerned with the spiritual.... or poetry, legend or ethics.
It is pragmatic and empirical by nature and intent. So it should be.
That makes it a very potent tool for humanity.
Just not the only one.
Using science to discredit faith is akin to using the Bible to discredit science. Futile, inapt and fated to fail.
By the way, I accept the theological lessons of the bible, but I am not a literalist.
I don't really want to be someone who says, "the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it".
God gave us a brain, after all...
:thumbsu:
What you state here is probably the overwhelming attitude of most xians.
The problem is that too many people describe xians using the extremists and literalists as models.

Buggers some good dialogue.
 

GetDimmaBack

BigFooty Librarian
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Posts
7,049
Likes
5,859
Location
Gippsland via Braybrook
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Sunderland, Phillip Island Dogs
I've posted this yesterday in another thread. Previously on this thread. Why don't you provide some scientific evidence that Adam and Eve existed?
This is the sort of question that will not concern a believer too much, Roy.

Let me frame it in a way that a believer might ask of you:

Why don't you provide some spiritual evidence that proves evolution?

You're asking a person who looks at the world spiritually for scientific proof??
...and that's why such debates frustrate both "sides".
 

Monniehawk

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
3,491
Likes
603
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore
And how has there been no fossils? Having a love for history, I can state with certainty that there have been a fair few archaeological discoveries of what is perceived to be dinosaur remains. The same goes for mammoths.
The chances of being a fossil are minuscule. You virtually have to be in the right place (e.g. a swamp) where your carcass is immediately encased in a layer of preserving mud; and at the right time, where it can remain relatively undisturbed, become metamorphosed over millennia, and then uplifted or exposed by erosion on the surface where it can be located. Our crust is regularly recycled into the mantle by the process of induction, so little evidence remains from very early times. It is that remnant that forms the basis for research into dinosaurs.
Mammoths are much later-evolving megafauna (mammals) and post-dated the dinosaurs. They are direct descendants of elephants and existed up until quite recently, as there is direct evidence of mammoth hunts recorded in ancient art. They appear to have died out through lack of genetic diversity rather than hunting or the Ice Age.
I wouldn't know for sure what the hell happened to the dinos, being born a fair few millenia afterwards...but from a Biblical perspective, I suspect the flood may have had something to do with it. From a scientific perspective, the Ice Age would be my go.
Whatever happened to them won't affect my faith anyway, though it'd be pretty fascinating if they were still around today.
No-one knows 'for sure', but to immediately jump to the flood as the cause is a bit premature and quite dismissive of other evidence.
If dinosaurs were still around, I would wonder why Noah was so selective. The dimensions of the Ark precluded all the known species being housed, but I find nothing to suggest that god started to create new species after planting the bow in the sky.
I'm sure you could research it and, with an open mind, find more plausible solutions.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Posts
1,477
Likes
219
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Denver, UO, NY
This is the sort of question that will not concern a believer too much, Roy.

Let me frame it in a way that a believer might ask of you:

Why don't you provide some spiritual evidence that proves evolution?

You're asking a person who looks at the world spiritually for scientific proof??
...and that's why such debates frustrate both "sides".
Yep, not everything is so black and white. There are different ways of looking at things and that why people like William Lane Craig and Richard Dawkins will more than likely never change their personal beliefs even if they are defeated in debate. Not everything in the bible can be scientifically proven but that doesn't mean it didn't historically happen. Most Xians and Jews will tell you Moses wrote the book of Genesis and that is his historic proof but for some that isn't enough. It's something you have to be open minded to and if you so arrogantly dismiss one argument (not RL in particular) because of your own personal views you will never know another way which could be the truth
 

Monniehawk

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
3,491
Likes
603
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore
Most Xians and Jews will tell you Moses wrote the book of Genesis and that is his historic proof but for some that isn't enough. It's something you have to be open minded to and if you so arrogantly dismiss one argument (not RL in particular) because of your own personal views you will never know another way which could be the truth
I presume you mean 'truth' in the ecclesiastical sense, rather than an empirical truth.

There is some good reason for many theological scholars to suggest that Genesis was actually a revisionist rewrite of other ancient texts, to bring it into context for Israel under Moses.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Posts
1,477
Likes
219
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Denver, UO, NY
I presume you mean 'truth' in the ecclesiastical sense, rather than an empirical truth.

There is some good reason for many theological scholars to suggest that Genesis was actually a revisionist rewrite of other ancient texts, to bring it into context for Israel under Moses.
I wasn't stating it as fact, just using it as an example on the different views people have and the different ways they will view what they see as fact and fiction. Some people will need flat out scientific evidence, some will only need faith and some inbetween. I wasn't really trying to get into a debate over that haha.
 

bombermick

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 28, 2009
Posts
9,737
Likes
1,170
Location
Vermont South
AFL Club
Essendon
Tesseract, you haven't even attempted to argue your case. No trying to defend creationism via AIG or quoting scholars who disagree with Roy's position. Paul in Acts defended his faith to the Greeks, but yours looks completely blind. The Bible says so, end of story.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,966
Likes
15,370
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
I'm sure he has what some non-believers believe they have which supposedly links the universe and life to that which doesn't include God as the source. There's many such theories around that do similar. If these theories were scientific fact, rather than just theory, similar conversations the world over wouldn't still be being had.
Similar conversations are had because similar ignorance is embraced by similarly closed minded individuals.
There is no such thing as scientific fact only theory. Science has never laid claim to fact that is the express territory of religion which blows it's nose at even evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom