Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 22, 2018 13:26:08 GMT
I'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.
Well, duh. But, in which case as noticed already, as one of the latter, why are you haggling still over the logical disadvantages of any biblical 'week' if you don't believe in it? No, I don't know either. LOL
The Bible is not concerned about the details of creation
Is that why the process is presented twice over, with specific information about each stage, and given a specific time period? I see.
...the details are not terribly important as long as they are in harmony with the gist - God created stuff within a specific timeframe.
But if there indeed was a "specific time frame" for creation, implying a clear beginning and end for it, how come you have told me, only very recently, that "... creation is not a myth. it happens all the time. " ?
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.
As I say, you have spent an awful lot of time - and, it must be said, a lot of special pleading - on something so 'not important', or not (as we now know you think) literally true, then. Which suggests this latest claim is disingenuous, to say the least. You see clarification at this point. I see a rowing back.
.. science can only discuss what it knows and there's no reason to rush ahead of the knowledge prior to verification of it.
Indeed - but a reasonable person, looking in the scientific literature at what has been observed, theorised, and evidenced so far in modern cosmology, would be forgiven for considering things are at least firmly on the right track. The God of the Gaps is getting smaller, all the time.
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.
I don't think science is interested in proving the existence of God, or indeed cares about 'proving' superstition, either way.
Cool: ... 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?
The dichotomy only falls away if one is a 'day-age' creationist - a fundamentalist position that I have previously defined here. Otherwise, since the universe is still expanding and developing from the initial singularity - and will do, at least until an eventual heat-death or contraction -a most likely scenario suggesting that cosmic 'creation' stopped after just a week - or any set period - is, factually, wrong.
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.
Scripture does quite a good job of supposed revelation on its own and, as this thread shows, the revelations can quickly work against themselves, especially after some close and trenchant analysis of what the early, primitive writers thought.
But: assuming we do take the revelation of a supernatural cause at face value, for whatever reason. The next question then would be whether things were created deliberately. There is no evidence for that, outside of credulity and the claims of various scriptures insisting on a purportedly conscious Creator.
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.
FF: 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.
Cool: It's a good thing that was never my goal.
Cool: It's a good thing that was never my goal.
If the week taken for creation was not the 'best' option - or you cannot/won't make a case for it being so - then that would another point against it being the most efficient way, would it not?
FF: 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.
Cool: 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.
Cool: 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.
Evasion noted. But I can see why. If the author(s) of Genesis can reflect inefficiency in the way they write the story, it is indeed not impossible that they would not also reflect that in the way the narrative is constructed and presented, whether inspired by the supernatural or not. This aside from my other question as to why God would think it an efficient thing to sacrifice Himself, er, Jesus and then have the resurrected Christ just hang around a small part of the earth for a short time, rather than making more of an impact on a wider geographic scale and for longer - also unanswered.