Let’s start with my first question. In the bible, it says that god created the earth and said “let there be light”. Ok. Later, he creates our sun and the rest of the universe. Now I’m no scientist here, but how in the hell is there light without the presence of our sun?
Now onto question number two. He creates this vast universe filled with billions of stars and planets, but chooses to place life on only one. What the hell was the point of creating all this other stuff if all he cared about was earth?
And lastly, do you religious people think about this or do you take the story at face value, regardless of how laughable or simplistic it is?
On making all this but putting life on only one; Heck, He wanted to give us something to look at!
As to your first question, I don’t know, it makes no sense to me, but then again, I wasn’t there.
I’m not sure there’s a factual answer to your question, but since the idea of a universe that was NOT earth-centric didn’t really take hold until the Renaissance, I’m quite willing to accept that the scribes who wrote Genesis were trying to explain the mysteries of the universe based on what they knew.
As for your second question, we still haven’t found anyone else out there, have we?
Floyd13, let’s clarify what sort of answer you are seeking.
If you’re looking to debunk Genesis, Chapter 1 or if you are looking to debate with people who believe that those verses occurred as written, then we might want to move your thread to Great Debates. (Doing a search on “genesis AND creation” will turn up the last several hundred threads on the topic.)
If you are looking for a factual answer to the intent of the author(s), then we can provide some responses, here.
For example, a person who accepts those verses as literal may point out that the Light emanated from God or that the light existed without any need for the sun until the sun was created to be a vessel for the light.
On the other hand, a great many people believe that the first chapter of Genesis was never written to depict literal events, but to demonstrate God creating the cosmos in an orderly fashion, expressed poetically. (So your GD inclined question regarding whether people “ever think about it” has a factual answer: “Yes. Many people have thought about it.”)
tomndebb, I’ve been a lurker here for quite awhile and now that I’m actually posting, I’m never exactly sure where to put stuff. Kinda like moving into a new house. I guess my last question is more appropriate for GD, but I figured we’d just let the discussion dictate the final resting place of this thread.
I’ll take this (rather loaded) question. My answer: I’ve given it a good two hours’ thought. I don’t take the story at face value. And if you think it’s laughable and simplistic, I invite you to describe the universe using only knowledge available to the Bronze age. (Or to put it another way: just because a writer’s been dead a couple score of centuries, don’t assume he was stupid. There is allegorical depth in there that you may not have considered.)
The question of origins is one that is almost always near the top of my pile of things to think about. I think the creation story in Genesis was the author’s best effort at explaining the world’s existence and humanity’s place in it with knowledge in hand at the time. If you look at the story with this in mind, you may find that the story of the creation and particularly of the fall is at least as descriptive of human nature as it is of divine nature.
In conclusion, I would encourage you to view these accounts not as discredited science, but as cultural artifacts which (as human nature has not changed much or at all since then) still have relevance today.
Thanks for giving me some possible answers to my questions, though I still feel like the explanations are nothing more than excuses and WAG’s. We have no evidence to support anything like light just magically emanating from nothing, yet some contend that this is a reasonable theory. More succinctly, god always seems to work in mysterious ways. This leads me to another question.
If you explain everything in the world around you using that kind of logic, what does that make the world look like? Couldn’t it be almost anything? How could one use science for anything?
Now there’s one other thing bothering me. Please correct me if I’m wrong. A christian believes in jesus/god and denies the existence of all other gods. A muslim worships allah and denies the existence of jesus or any other god. An athiest denies the existence of all gods. Simply stated, aren’t they all doing the same thing to each other? How is it acceptable for one group to condemn another group when they are all dolng the same thing? i.e. denying the existence of some particular god.
Actually, Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet, just not the son of God.
It’s “acceptable” if you are convinced that your God is the true one. You might find the following aphorism interesting, though: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Well, it could be argued that God postulated the phenomenon of light before creating light sources. God may in fact have been referring to the speed of light rather than the presence of light. Maybe Genesis could be re-written to say “be there waves/particles !”
It could also be argued that the creation is not chronological, but the order of exposition is chosen to reflect complexity or proximity or some other scale (a classic argument is to ask how could there be ‘days’ before the creation of the Sun).
What would you propose as the fundamental building block ? Light seems like a good place to start.
Alternatively you could start with the book of John - where “the Word” shows up before “the light”.
This is interesting too - do you know of any biblical citations which point in this direction ?
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp
Also, note that creationists see Revelation as talking about a restoration to a paradise somewhat like Eden.
Revelation 21:23 talks about how it could have been in the beginning
“The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.”
“Certainly God did create many, many more objects in space than could be seen by the people in the ancient world. It would not be surprising for God to create (in the beginning) more in space than what human beings can see and measure today. The vastness of the heavens is often mentioned in the Bible to help us see our own limitations in contrast to God’s unlimited nature and power. It may also be appropriate to say that some of the great variety God created was made just for God’s own pleasure.”
I don’t think the Bible says God only cares about the earth… I think it just says he really loves people.
Creationists do… and I used to be one… It’s surprising how they can have pretty water-tight answers to common objections such as yours - and they even have lots of pretty convincing responses to scientific-type objections.
The problem of light before sun comes from the repetitive writing style of Genesis. The writer/writers often describe the same event twice, in slightly different words. It’s awfully confusing.
If you want respectful answer, you should ask respectful questions. Asking “how the hell” *twice * in a question addressed to “you religious people” is just wrong. If you post in GQ, ask a specific question, presented as neutrally and objectively as possible, in a way that allows for a factual answer.
My current mission is to give John Milton’s take (from Paradise Lost) in every thread that asks a creation question. (PL is mainstrean Christian theologically and Milton is careful not to directly contradict anything biblical, so he is a good touchstone for how Christian culture has often answered such questions.) An obsession, yes, but one I can embrace.
There is nothing biblical that says there are not other worlds with other created beings out there. Here is what Milton says (about unformed matter/chaos):
The bolded words are the source of Philip Pullman’s title of his alternate universes book series. CSLewis’ Perelandra series also looked to Milton on this point.
There ya have it–the sci fi age has no monopoly on speculatin’ about life on other planets.
Actually, the number of people condemning others for their beliefs is probably smaller than you believe. Muslims, for example, recognize Christians and Jews as “people of the book” (the book being what Christians call the Old Testament and Jews refer to as the Tanakh) and believe that Christians and Jews are following Allah (simply the Arabic word for God) imperfectly. Similarly, such fuddy-duddy organizations as the Catholic Church officially recognize that people of other faiths are following God “imperfectly,” (not just Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists, but even Protestants). Finally, Atheists as a group generally do not condemn believers for their beliefs (athough they may think them foolish or deluded).
Of course, if one has a truly profound belief regarding a Deity (or its lack), one may feel that it is truly unfortunate that others do not recognize the truth one holds, but that is true of most beliefs in all areas of life.
I would agree that condemnation is not appropriate, but where it occurs, it is a typically human response to seeing one’s own beliefs challenged or ignored.
Well…then why don’t you worship a supernatural purple donkey that flies around the moon? I mean, who needs physics? I just have a hard time accepting something on a purely supernatural premise. Plus, how far would you like to take this. Who created the creator? The game never ends.
I appreciate everyone’s attempt at explaining this, and if I offended someone by saying hell, I’m sorry.
tomndebb, your point is well taken regarding the condemning of religions. I agree that not everyone is Jerry Falwell, but to some degree, each side is claiming to be the ultimate truth. I myself am neither a theist or athiest. I guess that would make me an agnostic, and I only feel this way because of one little thing. Who am I to make these kind of claims about the universe one way or another? I always felt like religion of any kind is a somewhat arrogant position considering our minimal knowledge of the world. See, if you claim jesus is the only way, then you’re making an incredible statement, regardless of whether you see it this way or not. Einstein didn’t know, but somehow Jerry Falwell does? To me, there is ample evidence showing many errors and flaws with the bible and religion in general, yet people still hold this to be more truthful than any other possibility.