There you go again throwing out all of science.
And just a reminder: ToE can’t do what you say – not without a Divinometer.
Nicely explained!
2 Likes
Hear, hear!
2 Likes
They are not being dishonest at all.
Science dos not recognise God. It hasn’t got your Divinometer!
Only the scientific version. But you have your secret version of the Divinometer that you use to justify the scientific version falsely because it is faulty. it does not see what God did, it sees what you think God must have done (subtle difference)
What I claim is not what science see, but what you and all those Christians here who blindly accept the scientific version of evolution turn it into.
Perhaps one day you will see that (or maybe not)
Richard
Attenborough: “I wouldn’t say that [awe at nature] meant necessarily [unclear] demonstrated that God didn’t exist, on the contrary.”
Link.
That was recorded 13 years ago and his attitude has changed since then. I no longer watch him so would not have any recordings to show you.
Richard
I haven’t found anything to indicate that Attenborough’s attitude has changed.
Not sure that the flood argument will add to this view. The fact that our God need to press the “reset” button during Noah’s flood implied that the creation that God had intended did not proceed according to His original purpose and need to redo from descendants of Noah. So, I don’t think that God at every instant upholding the creation because of the fact that very creation did not proceed according to His overall plan.
As I understand it, the Jews at the time of Moses actually might hold to polytheism. the command “You shall have no other gods before me.” will not make a lot of sense if there is no other gods. The command though was clear that for the Jews, they should worship only one God, Yahweh. By the time after the exile, the Jews was becoming strictly monotheistic.
Interesting. How do you know about this?
1 Like
It is so hard to change a world view. It was hard to change from Geocentric to heliocentric despite the facts. Even now, there are still some who are flat earthed and they will not accept other arguments. YECs believe in their views and many of them are sincere and devoted christians. I don’t think they are dishonest. But, if they start with a YEC presumption and then interpreted everything from that foundation, then they will try to explain things from that foundation or even going in circles to justify that view. Basically, they are just doing what everybody else who is entrenched with their world view such as atheists, naturalists, even reformed or arminians. The only time one will be open to change is when “they learn enough of other facts” or “they experience something that might force them to change their view” or “they are being critical of their own view”. It is hard to get out from the box of “world view” because people don’t realise that they are in a cage of their own world view. In saying this, YECs, OECs or Intelligent designs or ToE have the same faith. God is the creator of all things material. The difference might be in answering “how did God do it?”.
To think that we know is the height of hubris.
Let’s just say we might have a few ideas.
Working theories does not mean that are right, only that is the best we have.
But there are any who think they really do know and fight to the teeth to “prove” or demonstrate it.
Richard
If we want to be nerds about it (and let’s be honest, we do), the term is henotheism. That’s where a people worships one ruling diety (often affiliated in some identity-shaping way with their nation or ethnicity) while acknowledging the existence or power of other dieities. In polytheism, multiple gods are all worshipped somewhat equally. I guess you could argue sometimes the Hebrews fell into polytheism (usually named as the sin of idolatry in the Hebrew Scriptures) but generally they were henotheists, claiming the supremacy of their god YHWH over all the other dieities in the pantheon of their cultural landscape and neighboring nations and cultures. At least pre-Exile during the early covenantal period when the Hebrew people were solidifying their idenity as Israel. Scholars often say they moved toward monotheism later, which is why Judaism is now considered a monotheistic religion. There were similar henotheistic systems in ancient Egypt and pre-Hindu India.
2 Likes
I always have a question about Gen 1 where repeatedly God saw that it was good (v. 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) and ending with “behold, it was very good” (v 31). Why did God see that it was good? good, but not perfect. If it was 100% God’s doing, it should be perfect all the way. What was it only “good”? Perhaps all that happened was “good enough” for God’s purpose in creation. Perhaps, we can also implied that God might use other means such as evolution (might be directed evolution) to make a habitable planet so that His main goal in creation can be started … Humans.
Look at verse 24-25, “And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.” God was directing the earth to bring forth living creatures. Then the bible said “God made”, not “God created”. So God was causing the earth (which had the potential for life) to bring forth all kind of animals and God mold them into may other kind of beasts.
1 Like
if they do have the science behind it that prove the theory to be credible, then yes. However, as with all other science, it is progressing. When other facts that emerge that run contrary to that theory, then they have to go back to the drawing board then try to figure out the new directions perhaps.
1 Like
Sure. But early Jewish polytheistic beliefs (monolatrism) have no bearing on metaphysical arguments for God being one.
What about the physical world or universe actually reset in your view? I agree the account describes creation being undone and harkens back to Genesis. I’m not sure why you think this creates tension with the idea of God as prime mover?
Because I am convinced by metaphysical arguments that abstract thought is not reducible to materialism and that humans need an immaterial rational soul.
I cannot exhaustively know all the details of how and when God gives souls but I believe the life of a biological human starts at conception/fertilization and that is where I view souls as being created for each person. Can I prove that? No more than I can prove every person on the planet has a souls and is a full metaphysical human created in the image of God. It’s just one of those things we assume where any alternator seems nasty.
Vinnie
2 Likes
Thanks Christy for the info. I looked it up and probably the more accurate description is monolatry.
I have no problem with God as prime mover. However the view that that God is upholding the creation at every instant meaning that God is somehow responsible for the goodness and wickedness that happened. I think the view that God is able to passively upholding the creation with all the natural laws fits more with the wickedness that happened. The flood was the example of this where God had to intervene periodically whenever His creation had gone astray away for His original plan for creation.
Fair enough. We are dealing with the unknowable territory here. While I agree with you that each person has a soul (think Avatar), I am just not sure if we could possible know where the soul is coming from. Is it a newly created soul or ?
1 Like
Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.
That science must be correct. Why?
Richard
Let’s just say that if the facts support it, then the science should be proved correct.
For example : the age of the universe of 13.8 billion years. Though I am not a scientist, but as I understand it, the expansion of the universe, the speeding of Galaxy from each other and cosmic microwave background support this calculation and hence the big bang theory. As YECs, there should be also some facts supporting this view.
If you are saying that this has nothing to do with our faith and salvation, then you are correct. I consider this thing not as the main thing of faith. However wondrous the book of nature is, it could not be compared with the book of scripture where the plan of salvation is clearly revealed thru the person of Jesus. However, the book of nature contains all the wonders of the works of God and even the scripture told us so. “The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” (ps 19:1)
Therefore, the scientists who are looking up to the heavens are also like the theologians who are searching for how wonderful of His handiwork. So, I guess it is not vanity if that can bring us closer to the wonder of his work.
2 Likes
And these “facts”, What determines their validity? (I said what not who deliberately)
But it relies on our ability to see and understand it
It would appear that Christians will quite happily claim imperfection and sin onto all of humanity except scientists (hyperbole).
The point being:
By claiming science does not get it always right, does not automatically claim that science gets it always wrong.
And, just because science appears to have got cosmology or meteorology accurate enough, does not automatically apply that it has got creation and evolution completely right.
This “all or nothing” attitude seems prevalent even it is openly denied.
Richard
In my view, that quandary is best explained by what you define as “wickedness.” Ultimately, animal death, parasites, predation and so forth are not wicked, as I see wickedness as something that arises from the heart where we know right from wrong, and chose to do wrong. As such it is not God that created wickedness, but rather man. Of course, that presumes free will, and not sure how Calvinism deals with it, since I am not a Calvinist.
3 Likes
It’s not that the science must be correct. It’s that reality must be acknowledged as reality. Facts are facts. Math is math. Science that aligns with reality isn’t something people get to decide if they “believe in” or not. Either they understand and accept reality or they live in ignorance and delusion.
6 Likes