|
Post by Vegas on Mar 20, 2018 16:41:04 GMT
More predictable than Death & Taxes.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 20, 2018 16:44:32 GMT
tpfkar Actually, creation is not a myth. it happens all the time. now it may be true, dependent on the subdivisions, that some beliefs are more tied to myth others. however, that was not what i was discussing in the first place which was the notion that the universe as proven can totally exist alongside the concept of a creator existing. Honestly! I created a pie just yesterday. However, the creation myth in the Bible is in fact myth. And any concept any mental bloke wants to come up with "can totally exist alongside the concept of a creator existing", for whatever value that random thought may have. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place. It's a fact? If you say so. See how unimportant this all is.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 20, 2018 16:46:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 21, 2018 3:38:53 GMT
Why think that? Where does it say that in the Bible? You're asking me where in the Bible it makes more sense to me that it take 10 billion years? No, I am asking where it says that in the Bible. It is quite a simple question for you chapter and versers!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 21, 2018 11:59:27 GMT
FF: Please quote where I say 'God shouldn't take so long'. Cool: I didn't say I was quoting you. In which case the notion that "your point which is better described as God shouldn't take so long to do anything." is better described as just your impression, to which you are very welcome - but would not mean it was necessarily right. Once again I can only differentiate between asking why a god doesn't do such a thing and what it ought to do, which is another thing entirely. Your point is 'better described' as unwillingness to understand my repeated observation. Indeed. Both ways work ... to ultimately make God less of a purported deity than one first thinks. How effective for instance has been the conversion to Christianity since creation, thus bringing all to salvation and letting God's will be done? (i.e. only about a third of the globe, even after the sacrifice of Himself - er, Christ - and all the missionary work?) I can readily think of a god which would have been far more effective in securing converts by now - by making itself known unambiguously by name to all for instance. After all any omniscient god would be expected to know exactly what is needed to convert (not coerce) most unbelievers - for instance I have my own 'red lines' which crossed would compel immediate conversion to theism - but also what won't, ever, work. Like with the argument from efficiency, if I can easily imagine a more effective god here, then God is not the most effective and hence not the greatest thing thinkable. I am not suggesting that God only must work at one speed. I am asking why something cannot be done at once rather than dragged out. Conversely, God could quite easily have been more leisurely, and hence more effective, too (not just appearing for 30-odd years in a small part of the middle east, just once say, but instead surviving post-crucifixion for a thousand years appearing up and down the ancient world with an inarguable and unkillable presence, for instance!) Which still does not answer the question of whether slow is the most effective means if the result is just the same when something is done instantaneously. Since you have already assured me that the Xian god is 'outside of time' or something, then when the spurt of speed occurs in the human scale of things is immaterial is it not? It is more the case that being the work of man, (and one which has been interpolated, translated, edited, etc down the millennia) that the Bible text is likely to contain errors and the like. Unless you are consider such a text uncorrupted and inerrant of course. Do you? Most biblical scholars would hesitate to agree. OK then: away from the vexed issues over taking a whole week to create things when a moment could achieve the same result ... if God is so efficient, and words inspired by Him would reflect this being 'correct to the theme' etc, then why are there several authors and two accounts of the creation in Genesis? Did the early writers not have the 'scope of knowledge' which included notions of editing as they went? One would have thought a single voice and lack of repetition of the text would be better, easier and quicker, in conveying a powerful and simple message. And more to the point: if we see that the authors of Genesis can reflect inefficiency in the way they write the story, why it is impossible that they would not also reflect that in the way the narrative is constructed?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 21, 2018 12:09:03 GMT
creation is not a myth. it happens all the time. We both know that this not the form of creationism under discussion. However if you can point to any supernatural creation which happens all the time, this is the moment to provide the link. Your best bet is to reference science witnessing elemental particles popping in and out of existence. But even then the proven hand of the supernatural is not suggested. Indeed; a lot of things can exist along side the notion of a deliberate supernatural explanation for everything. But those other things may not give the credulous much comfort.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 21, 2018 12:32:04 GMT
As a guy who would love to see God be more generous with the examples of His existence...
I will point out: If God was more effective in this department - You'd probably be the first one crying about how God took away your free will to decide for yourself.
And... You might not know His "red lines" that He might not be willing to cross..
Therefore, all of your "I would have made elephants purple" arguments are as meaningless as they are moronic.
Once again... You're definition of "efficient" and "effective" is meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 21, 2018 12:45:09 GMT
You're asking me where in the Bible it makes more sense to me that it take 10 billion years? No, I am asking where it says that in the Bible. It is quite a simple question for you chapter and versers! Here is what I said: Again, tell me how my opinion is supposed to be in scripture.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 21, 2018 12:48:55 GMT
No, I am asking where it says that in the Bible. It is quite a simple question for you chapter and versers! Here is what I said: Again, tell me how my opinion is supposed to be in scripture. So there is less sense in scripture's account as this figure is not mentioned?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 21, 2018 13:05:12 GMT
FilmFlaneur Actually I don't know that. However, if we are talking deity created & ignoring literalism in Bible reading, I'm not sure why that would be considered a myth anymore than any other theory not supported by science yet. I would love to see something created without creation even if it takes billions of years, but I assume we will both be disappointed. Creation is the ONLY thing we know. That's it. There has never been any other evidence of life forming, so the notion of something being supernatural is only in the sense of it being something not understood. I'm pretty sure this is a line atheists use all the time to dismiss religious belief so it should be a familiar concept. Heck, men are creating life in a lab right now, so the only thing that should be hard to stomach at this point is the notion that there is something larger than man out there and who knows why that would be dismissed so quickly when there is nothing to suggest humans are top dogs in the universe in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 21, 2018 13:07:20 GMT
Here is what I said: Again, tell me how my opinion is supposed to be in scripture. So there is less sense in scripture's account as this figure is not mentioned? You do have a bad memory. I've already said that there was never a reason to consider the Bible a science text in the first place. To you, it is logical to think things should happen immediately. To me it is logical to think things can take as long as wanted or needed. Science backs my view up more than yours.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 21, 2018 14:10:31 GMT
So there is less sense in scripture's account as this figure is not mentioned? You do have a bad memory. I've already said that there was never a reason to consider the Bible a science text in the first place. This is certainly true. But it was you who said it would 'make more sense' to consider 11 billion years as a suitable time scale. Which means, for you at least, it makes less sense (for the Bible) not to. As already patiently explained, several times now, there is a difference between asking why something has not happened against demanding it should. But keep going. This is also certainly true, but does not affect the previously outlined argument from inefficiency one jot. The only obvious question left is why a Creator would want to make things last a exactly a human week, or needed to, when apparently it is outside time anyway. Well? Why not take a day, a month, a year or (as Age-old creationists would see it anyway) an eon?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 21, 2018 14:26:09 GMT
tpfkar However, if we are talking deity created & ignoring literalism in Bible reading, I'm not sure why that would be considered a myth anymore than any other theory not supported by science yet. Right, the state of science on precursors forming and replication starting is right up there even with the tantrum toddler god shooting lightning bolts out of his eyes and farting continents. When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything also on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean, and everything on which she sits shall be unclean.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 21, 2018 14:37:27 GMT
FilmFlaneur I see. Not even in the context of a religious discussion like this? What do you think I referred to when I defined Day-Age creationism earlier? It is hard to ignore literalism when one suggests that the world was created in seven days by the deliberate supernatural and one is haggling over whether a week was best for the entity to work within. As previously indicated, one needs to take a fundamentalist frame of thought at face value, at least to be going on with, in order to critique it. There is, it might be observed, a good theory about the beginning of things which are supported by science, even if it is uncertain(to date) of the precise cause of the initial singularity. (Personally, I think it was the eventual effect of gravity working at an uneven quantum level, but that's another story.) For a good idea of much of recent thinking, read Lawrence Krauss et al. Created without creation? How's that work then? You might have meant without deliberate creation, since science assumes that the creation (cause) of things was a natural event. This is not true. The only thing we really know is that we don't know all there is about nature. It is quite possible that, as a 'brute fact' there could always be something provoking and permanent at the most basic level of reality. If one is happy to accept this 'fact' about an uncreated god then the same logic applies but with one less level of reality to consider. Since there has never been any evidence for supernatural creation, period (other than the claims of scripture and credulity) then this view is moot. Scientists though, as previously noted, have seen and theorised elementary particles pop in and out of existence without any supernatural on show. It has also been suggested by modern physicists that an absence of something (rather than a 'pure nothing', which does not exist) in the natural reality is enough to provoke more of what can be. Not from anything other than existing life, at least at the moment. They have just synthesised some of the building blocks. Unless I missed the world-wide headlines. I agree; but the issue is over whether any purported 'larger thing' is an anthropomorphically attributed, deliberate supernatural such as the ancients would have had it - and many still do.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 21, 2018 15:23:47 GMT
In religious context (as well as secular), there are various views of creation. You were discussing a minimum of two types.
There could be millions and it's a bit shortsighted to dismiss out of hand all creation ideas as myths when there is nothing to indicate life did not start as created. Why? The Bible doesn't address the vast majority of my opinions. I'll rephrase: To you, it is logical to repeatedly ask why things shouldn't happen immediately. I'm not sure you have provided any evidence to suggest it wasn't efficient.
However, if creation days exists outside of time, then whose to say it 11 billions years wasn't instant for God?
What time scale should god use to tell a story for humans? Angel time?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 21, 2018 16:09:27 GMT
FF: I see. Not even in the context of a religious discussion like this? What do you think I referred to when I defined Day-Age creationism earlier? Cool : In religious context (as well as secular), there are various views of creation. You were discussing a minimum of two types. If you are suggesting you had not thought we were discussing Jehovah's work of creation of all things over a purported week (rather than "creation happens all the time") I find it very hard to accept. I don't know why you would even suggest this. Of what? Gods? I agree that there is no limit to the human imagination. Well it is like this: if you are a Christian, especially a literalist (assumed, since you are arguing over the merits of a week for the supernatural event in the bible here as if it is literally true) then it would be a fair assumption that you dismiss all other religious creation ideas as myths. I just go one further and add the Christian version to the list. Meanwhile science has quite a lot to say on the processes behind the early universe and, as already noted, nothing to say about a deliberate supernatural being the cause. The fact that the distribution of the chemical and elemental aspects of the current universe is exactly as current theories predict is an indication that knowledge is on the right track. As already explained. See my lines above. Either the 11 billion year 'mostly makes sense' to you, or it does not. If it makes most sense to you, the Bible's account must perforce make less (assuming of course it is not the equivalent.) See how this works? The Bible certainly addresses how long it took for creation. You know, the type of creation I usually have in mind. lol And I still am not saying what 'should' happen. My query is over whether one can consider Jehovah the greatest god it is claimed through his purported works, when one can quickly imagine something greater as it would be more efficient and effective. You haven't made a case for a week being better either, so all we have is God taking a week when He could have taken a second to the exact same end, and the point stands. (Since we can assume God is a perfect workman, we can assume that the result would have been the same.) As far as my argument that the Christian god is not effective either, that seems to have gone the bye-and-bye. I didn't write the line quoted. And God didn't 'tell' the Genesis story. It was inspired by Him. For one thing, if God was telling it, it would most naturally be in the first person. I notice that my observation and point about the several writers of Genesis, and the inefficiency of two creation accounts, was ignored too, btw LOL.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 21, 2018 16:47:15 GMT
tpfkar Which is fine as long as you understand he doesn't need to. What would a god "need" to do? He obviously doesn't "need" to be a decent, moral creature. And you really like to use "seem" a lot in regards to what someone else is saying. The entire creation story is full dramatic of silly. The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 21, 2018 17:20:46 GMT
FilmFlaneurI'll simplify. Within Christianity, there are people whose beliefs range from creation being an allegory which I assume means they don;t believe god created anything to people like me who believe the earth and the universe are as old as science says they are to people who believe creation is 7 literal creation days. There could be a bunch of variations in between since the Bible is not concerned about the details of creation which allows wiggle room for a wide swath of beliefs since the details are not terribly important as long as they are in harmony with the gist - God created stuff within a specific timeframe. You seem to be looking or questioning the devil in the details that aren't there and calling it a flaw as opposed to it simply being unimportant. I'm not the one arguing that they are literally true. If anything, it's the contrary to that. Maybe this is for Cody? Well, science can only discuss what it knows and there's no reason to rush ahead of the knowledge prior to verification of it. If science does indeed prove God's non-existence in some way, shape,or form, then it's an easy enough thing to adjust to that new reality. Well, this just verifies your insistence on creating a false dichotomy on the basis that either the universe is 11 billion years old or it's a literal interpretation of a human day in Genesis. Why? I can't figure out why I am beholden to your views on creation as if you have closer insight to scripture without actually revealing it. It's keeping me in suspense, but until I learnt he twist, I have no reason to view the universe being old as being in disharmony with God's creation. you haven't explained he more effective or more efficient part. Is it only tied to speed because that's what it sounds like. Quickly imagine the thing you are saying would be more efficient or more effective since you haven't done that yet unless you are saying it speed. It's a good thing that was never my goal. It wasn;t intentionally ignored. I have only so much time to address long posts. Accusations like this is one of the reasons I try to avoid lengthy stuff altogether. If you think the thing you brought up was so insurmountable that I scurried away from it, then congratulations, you won something.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 21, 2018 17:32:25 GMT
tpfkar More predictable than Death & Taxes. Yeah, your moobicle "ignoring" certainly is. words to live by
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 21, 2018 17:36:50 GMT
|
|