Is this your first official act as a moderator?
Now I’m no scientist here, but how in the hell is there light without the presence of our sun?
Well, the book says God is light, so I imagine He was the light source. He’s God. He made the sun, but He can have light without it in an infinite number of ways.
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?
One, God never told the universe to stop creating. He said “let there be light” but He never said “ok, lights, you can stop now.” Same with the stars, etc. That’s why the universe is expanding.
Another reason is that God is an artist. Look at Hubble pictures sometime, are they not beautiful? It’s not like God is limited to just dealing with people here on Earth. He can do an infinite number of things in an instant. Artists make stuff. The book says that the universe declares His glory, so why shouldn’t it be big and gorgeous?
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?
I’ll ignore your cheap shot and say that yes, I think about it a lot. The first few chapters of Genesis are some of my favorites because there is so much crammed into such a small space, and there’s so much we don’t know.
So you think about this stuff a lot, yet still feel that these stories are the undeniable truth? They completely go against everything that science has discovered, but somehow it’s rational to make statements like, god is light? And what about my who created the creator question? With no evidence supporting religion, how can you claim such wonderful and advanced knowledge? I’m not trying to be snarky here, but I’m really having trouble understanding how a person can be so sure when in reality they have no idea whatsoever. It’s like me claiming that my purple donkey is the master of the universe. Should you take me seriously?
Well, first of all, you can certainly have light without the presence of our sun. Go look at the night sky sometime. Every object you see (with a few exceptions) are the result of light forming without the presence of our sun.
“Ah, but Zev,” you will say “those are from other stars. How was light created without them?”
The answer to your question is very simple. Not all light comes from stars. As others have pointed out, you are seeking a natural explanation for a supernatural event. Why not just come out and ask “How could God have created the universe when matter/energy can’t be created or destroyed?”
Two answers to your questions, one a real answer and one a rebuttal to your question:
-
Who says that God only created life on Earth? Just because this is the only place we’ve observed it doesn’t mean that it exists only here. God could just as easily have created it elsewhere.
-
In the event that we are the only ones in the universe, I present you with this answer: God created the universe and all it’s wonders to show us how special humanity is to Him. God created an unimaginably vast universe, full of wonders seen and unseen, occupying a space of billions of light years across, and yet He chose to focus on us, occupying one little speck of dust in all the cosmos, and give us the gifts of life, intelligence and sentience. It shows how important humanity is to God in that of all the places He could choose to focus His attention, He chose to give it to us.
As I’ve stated on these boards before, how I view creation is that it really doesn’t matter all that much whether God created the world in six literal days or over millions of years. It doesn’t affect my life one way or the other if He created chickens as we see them today or if they evolved from lesser creatures. If no other lesson is learned from Genesis, learn this: the world was created by an Intelligent Being and that the world has Purpose and that therefore each and every person has a reason and a purpose in creation.
Zev Steinhardt
Not to belabor the obvious, but I assume that you do not believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God? For if it were, the limits of Bronze Age knowledge would surely have no effect on the transcription.
With all due respect, under what definition of “learn” are we to do this?
Poor wording on my part. My point, oddly enough, was really addressed to believers. If you don’t believe in God, then there’s really not much point, is there.
The point of my sentence is that it doesn’t pay to get bogged down in the nitty-gritty of the sun being made on the fourth day but light on the first. While it certainly makes for interesting discussion and there may be lessons to be learned from it, it misses the forest for the trees. The real point is, as I stated, that there is a Purpose to creation.
Zev Steinhardt
Fair enough. I don’t believe in God. Just to be clear, “there’s really not much point” in what, exactly. Studying Genesis?
Thanks
TRT
Only if one limits their concept of inspiration to setting forth scientific data to people who are not prepared to receive it.
There are a number of views regarding the manner in which (or purpose for which) God inspired the creation of Scripture. In one view, for example, God is inspiring people with limited knowledge and a circumscribed culture to recognize certain aspects of His love and intentions. They would, in that case, convey His moral lessons in ways that they would understand (and, in some ways, limited by their own cultures). Later people would then be able to study the message in its original context and draw conclusions relevant to their more advanced scientific knowledge and in their different social context.
Only those (whether theistic or atheistic) who insist on the literal nature of scripture are confined by the approach you have outlined in your question.
God may not exist, of course, or may exist but have nothing to do with Jewish scripture, but your objection is only valid if one agrees ahead of time to limit the perception of how and why scripture was written.
By definition, the Supreme Being exists outside time; indeed, created time and matter.
Gosh, I’m not going to try to defend anything like a literal interpetation of the Genesis creation account, however, just after the Big Bang, there was lots of energy, but no matter. Not sure if any of that energy could properly be called ‘light’, but it’s probably worth remembering that stars are only able to emit energy because they are made of matter, which was energy before it was matter.
There is Biblical support for the idea that God is light. Often it is supposed to be metaphorical - e.g. “Jesus is the light of the world”
Also, like I said in my previous post, Revelation 21:23 says:
“The city [the New Jerusalm] 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.”
You could have started a different topic for that because you’re just making this thread into a disorganised mess…
Anyway, read
and
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/197.asp
if you’re serious about finding what the educated creationist answer is rather than what people here can think of off the top of their head. Of course, on the internet there would be writings by Christians and other theists (god-believers).
You are saying that there exists absolutely NO evidence supporting religion. You sound very dogmatic and not open-minded - as if you know it all. I don’t think Christians would be very willing to debate with you.
Creationists and other Christians can sometimes go on for days or months about the reasons in which the Bible matches up with archaeology and science. If your purple donkey comparison is the same as their belief, are you able to argue for long amounts of time giving a lot of somewhat convincing reasons that the purple donkey explanation is true? I mean creationists can be quite convincing since former-evolutionists who even had doctorates had become creationists - even some who were atheists. Maybe you’re right about the purple donkey thing. But anyway, if you don’t take the creationists very seriously you’re probably not going to learn much about them - and I thought that was the point of the OP.
For in depth information about combining the Bible with the belief in an old universe see:
http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml
So if you want to see what the best explanations are, check out links like that, rather than assume that whatever people who post here is the full explanation that Christians have thought of. As far as all the errors you say exist in the Bible,
see http://www.tektonics.org/
It is a huge site. I mean just how objections to evolution have counter-arguments, so do objections to Bible verses. And those counter-arguments have counter-arguments, etc. It’s not like there are Bible errors that exist that everyone agrees on. But anyway, I’m an agnostic atheist - because I think the earth is old, and don’t really think an old earth is compatible with the Bible, including the gospel message and restoration.
You must have missed the part where I said that I’m an agnostic because I don’t claim to know whether there is or isn’t a god. My contention is that claiming absolute truth about our origins and the universe is rather silly and arrogant. And regarding the evidence supporting religion, where is it? The bible talks about all kinds of miracles, yet we haven’t seen miracle 1? The only evidence is that of stories. And questionable ones at that, hence the OP. Anyone can write stories, show me some dude parting a sea and then I’ll believe. How about a good ole resurrectio, or did these things only happen thousands of years ago? I’m sorry but I have yet to see 1 piece of evidence. I consider myself to be very open minded, but as far as I can tell, the evidence for god and santa claus are equal.
Yep.
They completely go against everything that science has discovered, but somehow it’s rational to make statements like, god is light?
Science once encouraged putting leeches on people to suck out diseases. God doesn’t change. Science is a good thing, but it can be wrong. I’m gonna go with whoever has the better track record.
And what about my who created the creator question?
I didn’t see it, but to answer, nobody created the creator. I can’t wrap my head around the concept of God having always existed, either.
It’s like me claiming that my purple donkey is the master of the universe. Should you take me seriously?
I’ll take you seriously as soon as you, say, calm a storm with your voice, raise someone from the dead, come back from the dead yourself, walk on water, and create a galaxy with your voice.
** Anyone can write stories, show me some dude parting a sea and then I’ll believe.**
That’s the thing, Floyd, and I mean no disrespect here, but no, you wouldn’t believe. Jesus ran around raising the dead and still people didn’t believe him. How are you any different from them?
How about a good ole resurrection, or did these things only happen thousands of years ago?
Resurrections have happened in present day, mostly in Africa. Those who believe it’s possible believe it, those who don’t wouldn’t believe it even if they were in the same room when it happened. No amount of evidence would convince you, so there’d be no point.
God doesn’t change??? You’re keeping kosher then, right? You’re waiting for the Messiah that was described in the Bible? You’re doing ritual baths? Christians changed all the rules, said that God used to be a meany but now is nice (except for the condemning to hell bit, of course) and you say God doesn’t change?
As for not trusting science, I’m sure that when you get sick you find someone to cast out your demons, just like Jesus did. Science has made us live longer. Science saved my daughter’s life when she had a fever as a baby. Science fixed my mother-in-laws hip when she fell. If you lived your words, you’d have the life expectancy of a Christian Scientist with appendicitis. When religion ruled 1/3 of Europe died of the plague.
And if you knew anything about science, anything at all, youi wouldn’t think that telling us that science made mistakes and improves is telling us anything at all. Religious people change their story all the time, but pretend it is all exactly the same. (Or that the inquisitors, slavers, and witch killers weren’t true Christians ™. Scientists know we’re all imperfect, and don’t pretend otherwise, and if you comprehended any of the discussions around here you’d know that.
Damn shame you believe in fairy tales. Do you believe Paul Bunyon made the Great Plains? It’s in a book, you know.
Cite? You believe in psychic healing also.
Here’s a clue for you. The reason that few people living there converted when seeing these miracles, when the ground opened up and the saints arose, was that it didn’t happen. Is is a coincidence that the story got better the further away you were from the events? My ancestors were there, and saw no reason to abandon the god they believed in for another false Messiah. A lot of people supposedly saw these miracles, and you’d think at least someone would have written them down at the time - even as a FOAF. But no… And because my ancestors stubbornly gave the lie to your god story, some Christians have been slaughtering us ever since.
tomndebb - I think you are calling my ancestors stupid. Given that God wouldn’t give a course on cosmology in the Bible, saying that the creation happened a very long time ago wouldn’t be that hard for them to grasp. I wrote a correct Genesis story, no more advanced than the one in the Bible, a while ago. Getting the order of the the animals wouldn’t be that hard. Saying that the Moon is not a light in the sky like the Sun wouldn’t be that hard. So, either God decided to lie to us, or some priests wrote down the creation as best they could imagine it, not forgetting to justify the Sabbath, 2700 years ago. Saying that God couldn’t get it right is not putting much faith in your deity. is it?
I knew this was pointless.
This is what I’m talking about. How come this crazy stuff used to happen, but now it doesn’t because?? Wouldn’t the bible have more credibility if it discussed events that actually happen right now? The bible seems to paint a very different view of the world than what we see for ourselves. Something doesn’t jive and this only leads me to more and more questions. And regarding these resurrections in Africa, why do you assume I would refuse to believe it if I were to witness it? I wouldn’t be asking these questions if I didn’t care about finding the truth, whatever that may be…I’m sure I can only imagine.
It depends on what kind of “credibility” you’re looking for from The Bible. Obviously, the book doesn’t work for you as a shot-by-shot account of the creation of the universe and the history of the world up until a couple of thousand years ago. It’s a religious document. You can’t apply scientific reasoning to it. That’s why self-described creation scientists fail, and that’s why atheists who try to dismiss the entire religion based on scientific criteria fail.
But saying it’s not scientific doesn’t mean it’s laughable or dismissable as a religious document. Your purple donkey example and comparing God to Santa Claus are insulting because you’ve obviously pulled them out of your ass, and because you’re completely failing to take into account what it is that people get from their belief in God.
As for your questions, here’s one guy-who-still-calls-himself-Christian-but-has-been-told-by-many-he’s-not’s opinion:
-
“Let there be light” is a higher-level declaration. In other words, let there be the concept of “light”, from a void in which nothing existed previously. When you’re talking about the creation of everything, you’re talking about the creation of ideas as well as physical objects; you can have “light” without a light source. In short, it’s God’s way of saying, “Let’s get this whole thing started, shall we?”
-
Who knows whether God created life on other planets than Earth? The Bible is mankind’s attempt to put concepts into words; at the time of its writing, mankind didn’t have the understanding of the universe that we do today. To them, Earth was the universe, and the idea of other “earths” was as foreign to them as the concept of alternate dimensions and multiple universes is to most of us in practical everyday life.
As for “Who created God?”, no one did. You say that every question just leads to more questions; that’s the whole point of religion, to provide a stopping point for the questions. To me, “God” is not a single specific being, but some kind of entity that is unfathomable for humans to even comprehend without simplifying Him and giving Him a human face. He is the being that created the universe as well as the concept of creation. He has no starting point or creation date, he simply exists. Asking who created God is as meaningless as asking “What does blue taste like?”
Just because you don’t believe you’ve come across any evidence that supports religion it doesn’t prove that no evidence exists. I mean it’s not accurate to say “With no evidence supporting religion…”. I later read you’re an agnostic though (like you said), so I guess you don’t really agree with that statement about “no evidence” anyway.