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.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,203
I've deliberately kept my input minimal. I rarely bother with this board anymore due to what the scientific minded folks mean when they want proof of God's existence is for me to not only produce a picture of God and I standing next to each other with an arm wrapped around each others shoulder, but to also get God to accompany me to rock up on said sceptic's door, introduce Him, and then put God to the test by asking Him to perform miracles in front of said sceptic in order to prove Himself as being God almighty.
Whether 'God' exists is unknowable. I can't prove that he doesn't exist...nor am I trying to. You can't prove he exists. However if one such as yourself expects others to also believe in such a deity there has to be a very good reason as to why. Merely quoting the Bible, a document written by man is not evidence of God. Quoting Homer's Iliad or Odyssey is not evidence the Greek Gods existed, so why is the Bible different?

It's truly a waste of time for me to fully argue my case, of which I could fill page after page here.
With quotes from the Bible? I've read the Bible. Many times. I've studied it critically. I have numerous works of modern scholars writing on various aspects of the Bible in my collection. If you're going to argue a case for the Bible's veracity, could you at least provide some supporting external evidence that supports your case?

But why would I bother practically writing a book explaining my position to those who don't really care for it, no matter what was said in it, when the bible speaks for me better than I could?
We know your position.

You said yourself about a year ago that:

"The bible says that Christians are commanded to preach the good news to others. Those people who've heard this good news have been given an opportunity to come to know God and His ways. When folks hear such news, they have the choice as to whether accept it and do according to God's will laid out in the bible, or not. When God calls time and begins judging everyone, those hearing and not accepting can't plead ignorance, as they had their chance but didn't take it."

and..

"Considering that the bible commands Christians to preach the good news, those Christians not doing so are against Jesus, and thus, God."

You're clearly preaching the "good news" on here. This is a discussion forum and if you going to promote/preach your beliefs on matters such as the resurrection, homosexuality and hell amongst others as being the one true belief, to the detriment of all other belief systems, then be prepared to be challenged.

Yet, when I've previously introduced scripture quotes, it's scoffed at.
Not everyone believes in the infallibility of the Bible. I certainly don't. I want external supporting evidence as well before I begin accepting what the Bible says. This external supporting evidence can be taken from the fields of archaeology, anthropology, genetic studies, philology, linguistics, paleontology and history. Just to name a few.

Roy selects scholars who agree with his position, and I could do the very same thing.
Well of course I do. That's providing evidence to back up your opinion. So why don't you? Pick your scholars in any of the fields listed above, present their credentials and present their arguments and the evidence for those arguments. Let's take a look at them.
 

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 know the bible is supposed to prove the Bible, but you need more than that. Unless you can establish its scientific and historical credibility, you won't get this audience to take it seriously. That's what you're trying to do, I assume.
Hardly. I'm just here to comment, not convert. If sceptics of the bible were truly interested in finding out whether the bible has historical and scientific credibility, they would do the leg work themselves rather than waiting for someone like me to do it for them. If the sceptics are too lazy to do such research, then they're not that interested in the first place. And if they're not that interested in the first place, anything I produce will simply be dismissed with a meh and be a waste of time in the end.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,207
Hardly. I'm just here to comment, not convert. If sceptics of the bible were truly interested in finding out whether the bible has historical and scientific credibility, they would do the leg work themselves rather than waiting for someone like me to do it for them.
Well I am interested and I've done quite a bit of research. My conclusions are obviously different from yours.

And if they're not that interested in the first place, anything I produce will simply be dismissed with a meh and be a waste of time in the end.
Particularly if what you post is limited to just biblical verses.

Not everyone believes in the infallibility of the Bible. They want external evidence as well.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Posts
9,156
Likes
8,254
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Cronulla Sharks PGFC Detroit Lions
Hardly. I'm just here to comment, not convert. If sceptics of the bible were truly interested in finding out whether the bible has historical and scientific credibility, they would do the leg work themselves rather than waiting for someone like me to do it for them. If the sceptics are too lazy to do such research, then they're not that interested in the first place. And if they're not that interested in the first place, anything I produce will simply be dismissed with a meh and be a waste of time in the end.
Speaking for myself I have read the bible several times and done my own research. I once even read it whilst completing training at Kapooka so I have even read the thing whilst in what some may consider a vulnerable emotional phase. It didn't hook me then. Simply put, the bible fails to add up scientifically with what current scientific thinking is and it certainly is riddled with contradictions not too mention good old fashioned old bible morality of slaughter, raping, pillaging and non- tolerance of burning "witches" and stoning people. Homosexuality is popular too. Let's not ignore the unicorns and whacky supernatural action that just does not exist in the natural world which we all live in. So as a sceptic I have investigated the bible. Many other sceptics, agnostics, atheists and non-believers have all considered the bible. It is ignoring reality to think and claim otherwise. The bible does nothing to reinforce the historicity of jesus either.

Have you spent time examining all other religious texts for the same historical and scientific credibility? Have you taken the time to consider the Koran and Haddith, The Tanakh, Dianetics, Tao Te Ching, Book of Shadows, Guru Granth Sahib or the Book Of Mormon? A geniune sceptic must be well rounded and consistent. Are you sceptical of all other faiths?
 

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
Whether 'God' exists is unknowable. I can't prove that he doesn't exist...nor am I trying to. You can't prove he exists. However if one such as yourself expects others to also believe in such a deity there has to be a very good reason as to why. Merely quoting the Bible, a document written by man is not evidence of God. Quoting Homer's Iliad or Odyssey is not evidence the Greek Gods existed, so why is the Bible different?



With quotes from the Bible? I've read the Bible. Many times. I've studied it critically. I have numerous works of modern scholars writing on various aspects of the Bible in my collection. If you're going to argue a case for the Bible's veracity, could you at least provide some supporting external evidence that supports your case?



We know your position.

You said yourself about a year ago that:

"The bible says that Christians are commanded to preach the good news to others. Those people who've heard this good news have been given an opportunity to come to know God and His ways. When folks hear such news, they have the choice as to whether accept it and do according to God's will laid out in the bible, or not. When God calls time and begins judging everyone, those hearing and not accepting can't plead ignorance, as they had their chance but didn't take it."

and..

"Considering that the bible commands Christians to preach the good news, those Christians not doing so are against Jesus, and thus, God."

You're clearly preaching the "good news" on here. This is a discussion forum and if you going to promote/preach your beliefs on matters such as the resurrection, homosexuality and hell amongst others as being the one true belief, to the detriment of all other belief systems, then be prepared to be challenged.



Not everyone believes in the infallibility of the Bible. I certainly don't. I want external supporting evidence as well before I begin accepting what the Bible says. This external supporting evidence can be taken from the fields of archaeology, anthropology, genetic studies, philology, linguistics, paleontology and history. Just to name a few.



Well of course I do. That's providing evidence to back up your opinion. So why don't you? Pick your scholars in any of the fields listed above, present their credentials and present their arguments and the evidence for those arguments. Let's take a look at them.



How do you know that God is unknowable though? Couldn't the same Creator of the universe give humans the capacity to know Himself also? Ultimately, saying 'God is unknowable' presupposes some form of existence while stating an attribute, namely the unknowableness.
The bible is evidence, though not proof. The bible can't rightfully be dismissed as evidence simply because one does not believe its validity. So, while the bible is written by man, 2 Timothy 3:16 states: It's inspired of God. Can you prove the bible is not inspired of God? The bible is different to the books of those Greek gods you've named because the bible has prophecies which can be verified that were written ahead of time and fulfilled at a later date.

Of course it'd have some bible quotes. The reason I'd have to write a book length response would be because it'd have other supporting sources too. Do I care to put in such an effort only for it to fall on deaf ears and simply be dismissed, no, it's not worth my time and energy. I'd only do so if I were here to convert. That, I've already said, I'm not trying to do.

Hardly preaching. Commenting and preaching are two different things. Have I not said that "I've deliberately kept my input minimal"? Has it not also been claimed by others on here that I need provide more to back up my claims? So, if I were preaching rather than just commenting, I'd be doing a pretty half-arsed job of it. If you, or anyone else, wish to challenge my comments that's fine. I've never stated otherwise.

If you want external supporting evidence for the bible, it's up to you to do the leg work. Remember, I'm not here to preach or convert you.

I've already answered this question previously. It's because I don't care to and I'm not attempting to change your mind or prove you wrong. I simply make my comment and let it be discussed by others. I don't take this forum seriously enough to waste hours on research for folk who're only looking to crush Christianity and religion as a whole. For me too go to such an effort would be an exercise in futility.
If you had an open mind and cared to have a look at contrary scholarly works, you'd have already done so in your own time.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,965
Likes
15,370
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
I never said they were mate
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.
But you clearly mentioned the mammoth in your ppst regarding evidence that man existed alongside dinosaurs.
Why would you mention mammoths at all in this context?
Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the theory of evolution knows that early man hunted Mammoths, a fellow mammal.
Why the association with the man/dinosaur coexistence discussion and the "what wiped out the dinosaurs" theory?

What could a 4000 year old Biblical flood have to do with even the mammoth let alone dinosaurs?

Just for a bit of perspective, the dinosaurs first appear in the fossil record 230 million years ago and died out about 65 million years ago.
The Mammoth first appears in the fossil record 150 thousand years ago.
While the vast majority of Mammoth died out 12 thousand years ago, the last Mammoths died out as recently as 3,600 years ago.
Modern man, homo sapiens, you and I, first began to evolve from earlier man 200 thousand years ago.

The dinosaur ruled the earth for 150 million years.
Man has dominated the planet for only 100,000 years......64 million years after the last of the dinosaurs.
 

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
Speaking for myself I have read the bible several times and done my own research. I once even read it whilst completing training at Kapooka so I have even read the thing whilst in what some may consider a vulnerable emotional phase. It didn't hook me then. Simply put, the bible fails to add up scientifically with what current scientific thinking is and it certainly is riddled with contradictions not too mention good old fashioned old bible morality of slaughter, raping, pillaging and non- tolerance of burning "witches" and stoning people. Homosexuality is popular too. Let's not ignore the unicorns and whacky supernatural action that just does not exist in the natural world which we all live in. So as a sceptic I have investigated the bible. Many other sceptics, agnostics, atheists and non-believers have all considered the bible. It is ignoring reality to think and claim otherwise. The bible does nothing to reinforce the historicity of jesus either.

Have you spent time examining all other religious texts for the same historical and scientific credibility? Have you taken the time to consider the Koran and Haddith, The Tanakh, Dianetics, Tao Te Ching, Book of Shadows, Guru Granth Sahib or the Book Of Mormon? A geniune sceptic must be well rounded and consistent. Are you sceptical of all other faiths?
Whilst you may have read the bible, what you've written here seems to indicate you haven't researched individual topics in the bible in depth. For those issues, as well as God's actions, are explained in the bible, but you've only managed to pick out what's seemingly bad on the surface to reinforce an already held view. For someone who has read the bible several times and researched it, many issues have gone over your head. Your comment here shows that.

No, I can't say I've examined all other texts. There's more than a life time's work in doing so.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Max zero

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
12,196
Likes
7,242
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
My point was that your statement re "the voice in my head" suggests believers are mentally ill - schizophrenic, if you want to put a tag on it. That is not particularly helpful.
From a believer's perspective, it's a good reason to stay away from threads like this.

Just phrase your points in a way that doesn't sound like a personal attack.

Not that hard, is it?
I don't mean it to sound insulting how else can I phrase it? I mean if all you have to support you views is the existence of a special relationship between you and your chosen deity then when questioned how can it not come across as personal?

From a non believers perspective how can we tell the difference between a sincere believer and someone with a mental condition?

This is why physical evidence is so important. Simply because these deeply personal questions don't come up.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,965
Likes
15,370
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
Whilst you may have read the bible, what you've written here seems to indicate you haven't researched individual topics in the bible in depth. For those issues, as well as God's actions, are explained in the bible, but you've only managed to pick out what's seemingly bad on the surface to reinforce an already held view. For someone who has read the bible several times and researched it, many issues have gone over your head. Your comment here shows that.

No, I can't say I've examined all other texts. There's more than a life time's work in doing so.
God, and Jesus, alleged actions in the bible are "explained" by men, theologists, who have to attempt to reconcile the myriad inconsistencies, outright errors and blatant contradictions which arise when you have a book authored by dozens of individuals over a period 100's of years all them at second hand accounts of those who never even lived at the time of Jesus. The 1600 odd years of subsequent omission, editing, revision, addition and alterations to the original 1st century AD texts claiming to be Gospels certainly does make it an onerous and painstaking task, and yes you would probably spend a lifetime wading through the various interpretations,opinions and vagaries of the theological "take" on biblical meaning, even forgetting the constant changes made to suit the ever changing societies in which these words are supposed to have legitimacy.

It amazes me that a God finds it impossible to clearly communicate his own wishes, without the fat-thumbed interference of mere mortals.;)

If anything was actually explained within the bible there would be no need for theologians.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Posts
1,477
Likes
219
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Denver, UO, NY
I'm willing to accept that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, if there is enough evidence to support that fact. In fact most Biblical scholars do not accept that Moses wrote the book of Genesis for a whole host of reasons. They believe Genesis was written in about the 6th century BC at least eight hundred years after Moses (if he existed at all) was believed to have lived. A 1976 study by Schmidt demonstrated that the Yahwist writer of Genesis knew the prophetic books of the 8th and 7th centuries BC, while the prophets did not know the traditions of the Torah, meaning the Yahwist section of Genesis could not have been written earlier than the 7th century BC and probably in the 6th. Genesis therefore cannot have been written by Moses.
Here's a quote I found

There's significant evidence of the Exodus, however. For a short time after the period of the supposed Exodus, Egypt moved its capital and apparently became monotheistic. Letters from Canaanite cities requesting Egyptian help against an attacking band of Semites are ignored by Egypt. The Egyptians have a stella that describes the Hyskos Expulsion, a story that seems to parallel the Semetic Exodus as told from the Egyptian viewpoint (however, this piece of evidence is controversial because of dates). The Hebrew people wrote phonetically, not in hieroglyphs like the Egyptians, and the spread of phonetic writing follows a path from Egypt up to what is now modern day Israel, along the path of the supposed Exodus. The Sinai is covered in ancient open-air sanctuaries, but there is one location that has both pictograms on stones that appear to represent the tablets of the 10 commandments AND open-air sanctuaries that would provide space for nearly a million people at once, even though there is no record of a people that large living in that area.

The evidence is absolutely circumstantial, all of it. However, that evidence fits together nicely with the Exodus story and it predates the writing of the Biblical books.

The history of the Jewish people is evidence. Their Temple practices and their religious beliefs -- all from the time of Moses -- are evidence. Their scripture, written by Moses himself, is evidence.

- I have to point out the use of the word EVIDENCE. Like tesseract said, I cant physically prove Moses existence. As for the documentary hypothesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/06/28/did-moses-write-genesis

and

http://creation.com/did-moses-really-write-genesis
 

Monniehawk

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
3,491
Likes
603
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore
The bible is evidence, though not proof. The bible can't rightfully be dismissed as evidence simply because one does not believe its validity.
I am grappling with both the logic and the concept of spiritual growth in this, although I do agree that the Bible is evidence rather than proof. (At some stage we have to a reasoned judgement on how much of it we will accept on the balance of other sources. We may even have to define evidence as an interpreted evidence. You will read the Bible in your way; someone else in another. If he outright refuses to examine, test or accept your opinion, then he is not functioning as a rational person.)

You would have to dismiss evidence if you believe it to be invalid! Surely! I will insert the rider here that evidence can rarely be totally fool-proof. Ultimately, we make a choice about what we accept, if not what we believe!
Otherwise, why not accept The Apochrypha? Or Darwin's research. Or Dawkins? You doubt them and have dismissed them as invalid, yet eagerly and unquestioningly approve the Bible in its literal sense.
I would suspect it is more cogent to treat with caution evidence that has doubtful validity than to blindly adhere to it in the presence of other sound contrary evidence.
The Bible is evidence, but in your case it seems to heavily rely on itself to corroborate its veracity. And thus, it shields itself from any scrutiny or forensic examination. It defines itself as incontrovertible. That almost places one in the position of accepting wholly or rejecting it wholly. A clear case of dangerous absolutism.
Those things concern sceptics as well as many xians.

Much (all?) scientific evidence is also evidential theory, not fact. This gets forgotten by some on both sides.
science differs in that it remains open to both confirmation and contradiction. In fact, that very process of constant testing and assessing is what makes it more reliable and convincing. It needs to be found wrong in order to remain a true science.
To the dogmatist, the dice is inevitably loaded in The Bible's own favour and so can't be questioned. That nexus needs to be broken so that both sides can play by the same rules.

The problem with your opening sentence above, is that it doesn't gel with your implied ideas or reason. If The Bible is only evidence, then it should be treated as forensically as other forms of evidence. In your case (for example) I don't believe it is, because when it is challenged, you repeatedly use The Bible as proof of its own validity and the very basis for rejecting any other contrary evidence. There can be no dialogue.
This concerns me on a number of levels.
 

evo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Posts
27,410
Likes
16,984
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Ultimately, saying 'God is unknowable' presupposes some form of existence while stating an attribute, namely the unknowableness.
I reckon you got him there, Tesseract.

Personally I would never claim that the Abrahamic God is unknowable. in my view, the Abrahamic God is incoherent, the attributes are contradictory.
 

evo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Posts
27,410
Likes
16,984
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I think what hasn't been said a lot is that Xians believe the bible to be the "inspired word of God".

Saying something is the inspired word of God, is to not say much at all. I mean anything could make claim to be the inspired word of God.

Maybe I'll try that if I ever submit another paper at university. With such truthiness and gravitas attached, I'm sure to get a high distinction. "Statistical anomalies in Melbourne Weather patterns" written by Evo, inspired by God.

I suppose it is good that you at least recognise that the Bible wasn't written by God.

 

bombermick

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 28, 2009
Posts
9,737
Likes
1,170
Location
Vermont South
AFL Club
Essendon
Here's a quote I found

There's significant evidence of the Exodus, however. For a short time after the period of the supposed Exodus, Egypt moved its capital and apparently became monotheistic. Letters from Canaanite cities requesting Egyptian help against an attacking band of Semites are ignored by Egypt. The Egyptians have a stella that describes the Hyskos Expulsion, a story that seems to parallel the Semetic Exodus as told from the Egyptian viewpoint (however, this piece of evidence is controversial because of dates). The Hebrew people wrote phonetically, not in hieroglyphs like the Egyptians, and the spread of phonetic writing follows a path from Egypt up to what is now modern day Israel, along the path of the supposed Exodus. The Sinai is covered in ancient open-air sanctuaries, but there is one location that has both pictograms on stones that appear to represent the tablets of the 10 commandments AND open-air sanctuaries that would provide space for nearly a million people at once, even though there is no record of a people that large living in that area.

The evidence is absolutely circumstantial, all of it. However, that evidence fits together nicely with the Exodus story and it predates the writing of the Biblical books.

The history of the Jewish people is evidence. Their Temple practices and their religious beliefs -- all from the time of Moses -- are evidence. Their scripture, written by Moses himself, is evidence.

- I have to point out the use of the word EVIDENCE. Like tesseract said, I cant physically prove Moses existence. As for the documentary hypothesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/06/28/did-moses-write-genesis

and

http://creation.com/did-moses-really-write-genesis
That evidence in effect says most secular theorists say Moses didn't write Genesis, but they are ignoring biblical evidence that says he did. What is written in Joshua and other books would carry weight if we could be sure they were written shortly after Moses is supposed to have lived.

Moses was Egyptian royalty and caused its greatest defeat, yet archaeologists haven't found any evidence of him? Sounds a bit suss.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
33,311
Likes
27,197
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #3,222
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.
Youre aware that there is no such thing as Scientific Fact? Only ever theory.

The only scientific fact about Science... is there are no scientific facts.

That doesnt mean the Mobile phone you use suddenly ceases to work because Electromagnetic radiation is simply a theory, or that planes fall out of the Sky because Gravity is just a theory.

The theory of gravity is generally accepted to be pretty sound (although there are still holes in even this ancient theory, and scienticts still argue over some of the more fine points). Same deal with the theory of evolution.

The Big bang theory is a lot more sketchy.

Are you honestly saying that the theories and scietific fields of evolution, radiography, carbon dating, ice core samples, biology, anthropology, zoology, genetics, botany, astronomy, astrophysics, physics, quantum physics, geology etc etc etc (which all share consensus on the age of the Earth and the biological impossibility of Genesis creation) have all gotten it wrong?

**** me, even the Catholic church gave up on that one years ago.
 

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
Youre aware that there is no such thing as Scientific Fact? Only ever theory.

The only scientific fact about Science... is there are no scientific facts.

That doesnt mean the Mobile phone you use suddenly ceases to work because Electromagnetic radiation is simply a theory, or that planes fall out of the Sky because Gravity is just a theory.

The theory of gravity is generally accepted to be pretty sound (although there are still holes in even this ancient theory, and scienticts still argue over some of the more fine points). Same deal with the theory of evolution.

The Big bang theory is a lot more sketchy.

Are you honestly saying that the theories and scietific fields of evolution, radiography, carbon dating, ice core samples, biology, anthropology, zoology, genetics, botany, astronomy, astrophysics, physics, quantum physics, geology etc etc etc (which all share consensus on the age of the Earth and the biological impossibility of Genesis creation) have all gotten it wrong?

**** me, even the Catholic church gave up on that one years ago.
I don't know whether those fields are correct as to the age of the earth. I'm certainly not one who believes the earth is 6000 years old though. I don't know what you mean by "biological impossibility of Genesis creation." If you expand or give an example, I'll answer. My stance is God created humankind, and given that nothing is impossible for Him to accomplish, talk of 'impossibility' when it comes to God doesn't even come into my thinking.
 

bombermick

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 28, 2009
Posts
9,737
Likes
1,170
Location
Vermont South
AFL Club
Essendon
I don't understand your thinking, Tesseract. You reject the creationist view of a young earth, but reject evolution - which has a stack of evidence. Surely it would be more consistent to reject mainstream science's view completely?
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
33,311
Likes
27,197
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #3,225
I don't know whether those fields are correct as to the age of the earth. I'm certainly not one who believes the earth is 6000 years old though. I don't know what you mean by "biological impossibility of Genesis creation." If you expand or give an example, I'll answer. My stance is God created humankind, and given that nothing is impossible for Him to accomplish, talk of 'impossibility' when it comes to God doesn't even come into my thinking.
I refered to the scientificly verified impossibility of Genesis creation.

Obviously if you want to factor the existence of a Supernatural force such as a Deity, Wizard, Jedi or similar into the equation, then Science goes out the window completely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom