Adam And Eve, Noah And The Origion Of Man

[kiobe]

I don't really see a difference in evoluation and God creating man from earth. The Bible just says that man was formed from earth, not how and exactly how long it took.

Interesting concept, can you expand on that thought?

[JCamilo]

It is reasonable to assume so, provided that you assume that how our bodies operate now and how they originally operated "fresh from the manufacturer" were identical. With the myriad of problems associated with the human body, why would we assume that "freshly" created would be the same as that suffering through thousands of years of sin?

Yes, it is reasonable to assume it. After all you need a reason to assume otherwise and we have not any reason to believe our bodies are so different.
However this is circular, what I do not assume is: " 1 - A freshly created human, 2 - Thousands of years of sin causing any suffering."
If I do not assume it and there is not reason for me to do so (you only do for your faith) how can it be reasonable?

Again - these statements are made from within a framework that either a) denies that God exists, or b) assumes that what he creates is unchanged or both. Once we make God's existence as He is described in the Bible, all these things I'm saying become entirely possible.

hmmm? The frame that assume creation is not mutable is the biblical interpretation not otherwise. The very meaning of the world evolution was the change of geology of the world and plants and living organisms.
And I can only assume God does not exist. Your God only exist for a minority in the world, isnt so?

"Mythical" in your opinon - proof please?

Myths are the description of the universe or sociecity creation. That is their simple definition. If you call Sumerian, Babylonian, Greek, Hinduim, etc myths why not calling the works of the bible (of course, not the laws, the poems, etc) as myth if they fit the description. Do you understand that to only those with hewbrewish, christian and muslim faith those works are not as fantastic as the Eddas? Plus, I will mention again, even the Catholic Church labels the genesis as myth, symbolic stories, etc. What kind of proofs is this?

"This is how the argument ends" - huh? Did you just prove something and I missed it?

No, It means that it will get circular as you basis your entire argumentation in the notion God Exist - The Bible is right no matter what is argued against or favaroble to it and we would just lose our time arguing this matter.

What is unprovable is abiogenesis - because the initial conditions cannot a) be observed or b) duplicated. Since scientific fact is (at least in part) established through verification via repeated experiment, evolution (especially abiogenesis) must be inferred from "evidence."

I agre abiogenesis is not proved. Science agrees it also. It is not accepted as "natural selection" but do not forget that evolution still not life origem.

Science tends to be rather dogmatic regarding the subject of God as creator. God apparently is not a "question" science is willing to consider.

No, that is not true. Until the XIX the possibility of God not existing was not considered, it was a taboo. Then several areas of the bible, where used to be "evidences" of god are questioned by Lydell, Darwin, Freud, etc and the belief in god lost importance.
Then it is not important because Science is seeking answers not a cullprint to every natural phenomen in the world. That is not a dogma of any short - religious people still only present the same argument "I think god exist", "seek the bible" which are left behind long ago. It is rather lousy to re-consider the idea just with arguments that belong to the XVIII century.

Dogmatism is being painted here as something negative - and under many circumstances it can be so; however, if you know you're right, is it still dogmatism?

I agree Dogmatism depends of the use of the individual to be positive or not, but to search the truth, dogmatism is often a trouble rather than a help, since it stops you from questioning.

The scientific method is a valuable way to examine how things work - but it is not the sole arbiter of reality.

Neither they claim it. One trait that makes the Science so trustworth is the capacity of critic to itself which is not as open in many other belief systems.

Science has not confirmed empirically all beliefs that you hold to be true.

Oh, please. You do not know me. I barelly have empirically beliefs of any short. And Empyrism have been long ago under critics of the philosophers and the scientific method have changed since XVIII and still do so.

Everybody excercises faith in some aspect of their existence.

Yes, I believe the feelings related to faith we have to experiment. That is how I support a football team and how I appreciate art.

You may see scientific "validity" as being an advantage over poor intangible faith, but that simply means that you need to see things to believe in them.

As if. Religious people are often trying to prove logical evidences for their faith but that just means I do not have the same faith of you.

"God isn't real" is the assumption that many atheists make,

That have nothing to do with Science, but old logic. You can not prove a negative because there is no afirmative evidence for you present. I can not prove Unicorns do not exist either, but since there is no evidence that they do not exist, why would I?
In the notion of the possibility, I love it as I love Chesterton, I am not limited. Why would I stop with The God of the Bible and not all other beings I can not disprove. It includes Odin, Zeus, Tiamat, Brahma, Tupa, Ogma, Ogum, Dragons, Faeries, Gnomes, Trolls, Hercules, etc.
The difference is that an atheist does not believe in anything supernatural while you believe in god but also exclude all rest.

and since they generally (like you have) tout the wonders of empirical science and the factual nature of verification, I assumed that any non-believer making such a claim had some sort of evidence for his opinion.

But it was an illogical assumption as it is anything about me talking about wonders of empirical science and factual nature of verification.

Science pretends it's completely objective - but it's not, because it is conducted by people with subjective biases and interpretive preferences.

Science is considerable more objective than religious systems since, what you seem to ignore, what science accepts for truth must be truth for any group, society, momment because they all can test and negate the results of any experiment.
That is why a scientist can be faithfull and deeply religious and Science still do not aknowledge god.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Sin - left unchecked - would destroy everything. It destroys our minds, our spirits and our bodies. God is the source of life - sin is that which is contrary to God: choosing sin is like choosing to cut yourself off from food, water, air. Once sin entered the human race, we began to "degrade" in ways that science cannot necessarily measure or understand.

See my comment below re the connection of sin with free will.

Thanks for the advice.

If indeed you have taken it, will you correct the contradiction I noted?

Whether it came about via evolution or was created by ;God,’ the human mind is the most astonishing thing in the known universe (and possibly the least understood).

It is at is most godlike when

1) it chooses to behave morally, whether a) via the concept of a God who demands that of us or b) of its own choosing on the assumption that we will either live together or die together.

2) it insists on confronting the most difficult moral, philosophical and physical questions.

The “big bang” answers much but not everything and in a sense nothing since it leaves us with the question of what there was before the big bang - which might as well have been ‘God’.

But religion answers everything - and nothing - in somewhat the same way, since it never addresses - and indeed disclaims that it can address - the still fundamental question: Whence and why God? What did ‘God’ have in mind in allegedly creating the universe? And is God perhaps a hopeless muddle, if

a) He/She or It is omniscient, and allowed Man free will, knowing in advance the misery that humans might bring about, even to the possible destruction of the world; and

b) God endowed us with free will but punished us severely the moment we first used it, whereby we created “original Sin” which therefore is synonymous with free will.

In view of 2) above, the ultimate trouble, for me, with the concept of God is not that it is too difficult to imagine or to understand but that it is too easy.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, it is reasonable to assume it. After all you need a reason to assume otherwise and we have not any reason to believe our bodies are so different.
However this is circular, what I do not assume is: " 1 - A freshly created human, 2 - Thousands of years of sin causing any suffering."
If I do not assume it and there is not reason for me to do so (you only do for your faith) how can it be reasonable?

You're right; therefore, our conversation appears to be at an end. I haven't asked you to accept my assumptions - I'm asking you to examine the logic of my assumptions given that God is who He is described to be. Pretend for a moment that that being I suggest is real - now follow my logic. What I find is that most atheists won't even dare play my game - why is that? You have an imagination - why not exercise it a bit to consider the logic of my argument?

hmmm? The frame that assume creation is not mutable is the biblical interpretation not otherwise. The very meaning of the world evolution was the change of geology of the world and plants and living organisms.
And I can only assume God does not exist. Your God only exist for a minority in the world, isnt so?

Why would this matter?

Myths are the description of the universe or sociecity creation. That is their simple definition. If you call Sumerian, Babylonian, Greek, Hinduim, etc myths why not calling the works of the bible (of course, not the laws, the poems, etc) as myth if they fit the description. Do you understand that to only those with hewbrewish, christian and muslim faith those works are not as fantastic as the Eddas? Plus, I will mention again, even the Catholic Church labels the genesis as myth, symbolic stories, etc. What kind of proofs is this?

One of the biggest differences is that the Bible is the only creation narrative that establishes where things came from; in many other belief systems' mythology, matter is already here and is involved in the creation of the "god" figures - who generally do not behave like God, but more like a human with super powers.

The Catholic Church, as far as I am concerned, capitulated because it wants to argue apologetics on the Naturalist playing field. I'm not a Catholic so their position has zero validity with me, and Catholicism does not speak for all of Christianity.

No, It means that it will get circular as you basis your entire argumentation in the notion God Exist - The Bible is right no matter what is argued against or favaroble to it and we would just lose our time arguing this matter.

If the Bible is RIGHT and God EXISTS then why would I even bother to to believe otherwise? You know the truth: if God exists, then it is sheer foolishness to do anything but believe in Him. Atheists make the supreme gamble when they deny His existence because they can't find Him on their terms (i.e. scientific Naturalism).

I agre abiogenesis is not proved. Science agrees it also. It is not accepted as "natural selection" but do not forget that evolution still not life origem.

I don't follow your second sentence.

No, that is not true. Until the XIX the possibility of God not existing was not considered, it was a taboo. Then several areas of the bible, where used to be "evidences" of god are questioned by Lydell, Darwin, Freud, etc and the belief in god lost importance.
Then it is not important because Science is seeking answers not a cullprint to every natural phenomen in the world. That is not a dogma of any short - religious people still only present the same argument "I think god exist", "seek the bible" which are left behind long ago. It is rather lousy to re-consider the idea just with arguments that belong to the XVIII century.

The two things you quoted Christians saying are an opinion and a piece of advice; neither are an "argument." Science has not diminished the value of religion; it thinks it has because it figured out a few of the world's mysteries erroneously attributed to God. "Hey - earthquakes don't come from God, so God must not exist!" OK - that's solid logic.

I agree Dogmatism depends of the use of the individual to be positive or not, but to search the truth, dogmatism is often a trouble rather than a help, since it stops you from questioning.

Certainly -but what is the dogmatic attitude is arrived at because of questioning?

Neither they claim it. One trait that makes the Science so trustworth is the capacity of critic to itself which is not as open in many other belief systems.

Belief systems are not as open to critique per se because the statements of a divine being cannot really be subjected to human revision - "well, that can't be what God meant; I'm sure he actually meant this."

Oh, please. You do not know me. I barelly have empirically beliefs of any short. And Empyrism have been long ago under critics of the philosophers and the scientific method have changed since XVIII and still do so.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Yes, I believe the feelings related to faith we have to experiment. That is how I support a football team and how I appreciate art.

That's my point.

As if. Religious people are often trying to prove logical evidences for their faith but that just means I do not have the same faith of you.

Faith in what?

That have nothing to do with Science, but old logic. You can not prove a negative because there is no afirmative evidence for you present. I can not prove Unicorns do not exist either, but since there is no evidence that they do not exist, why would I?

I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm pointing out the assumption that atheists must make to believe as they do. Unicorns did not leave a comprehensive narrative that explains the origins of the universe, mankind, the emergence of sin, the solution for the problem and a moral law to live by. But again: I'm not suggesting this makes God real. I'm pointing out the opposing team's assumptions that something does not exist (which requires that they have an exhaustive knowledge of all that does exist).

In the notion of the possibility, I love it as I love Chesterton, I am not limited. Why would I stop with The God of the Bible and not all other beings I can not disprove. It includes Odin, Zeus, Tiamat, Brahma, Tupa, Ogma, Ogum, Dragons, Faeries, Gnomes, Trolls, Hercules, etc.
The difference is that an atheist does not believe in anything supernatural while you believe in god but also exclude all rest.

Because there is only one true God; the rest cannot be God.

Science is considerable more objective than religious systems since, what you seem to ignore, what science accepts for truth must be truth for any group, society, momment because they all can test and negate the results of any experiment.
That is why a scientist can be faithfull and deeply religious and Science still do not aknowledge god.

Science is objective within whatever framework it chooses to operate; the foundation of the "objectivity" of science, however, is that of Naturalism; so, from the beginning, the rule has been this pretty much since the Enlightenment: science must be objective and fair - and it will do so but inside the framework that posits that only what is measureable or observable will be considered valid evidence. So, no matter how "objective" science may be, it has already - from the beginning - established groundrules that eliminate God as a possibility.

[Redzeppelin]

See my comment below re the connection of sin with free will.

If indeed you have taken it, will you correct the contradiction I noted?

Whether it came about via evolution or was created by ;God,’ the human mind is the most astonishing thing in the known universe (and possibly the least understood).

It is at is most godlike when

1) it chooses to behave morally, whether a) via the concept of a God who demands that of us or b) of its own choosing on the assumption that we will either live together or die together.

2) it insists on confronting the most difficult moral, philosophical and physical questions.

The “big bang” answers much but not everything and in a sense nothing since it leaves us with the question of what there was before the big bang - which might as well have been ‘God’.

But religion answers everything - and nothing - in somewhat the same way, since it never addresses - and indeed disclaims that it can address - the still fundamental question: Whence and why God? What did ‘God’ have in mind in allegedly creating the universe? And is God perhaps a hopeless muddle, if

a) He/She or It is omniscient, and allowed Man free will, knowing in advance the misery that humans might bring about, even to the possible destruction of the world; and

b) God endowed us with free will but punished us severely the moment we first used it, whereby we created “original Sin” which therefore is synonymous with free will.

In view of 2) above, the ultimate trouble, for me, with the concept of God is not that it is too difficult to imagine or to understand but that it is too easy.

The simplest way I can deal with these issues is this: it's clear you're unhappy with how God has chosen to conduct the universe and that which He created in it; I am incapable of lessening that unhappiness with my answers because I am not God; Job - who God saw as a man best fit to demonstrate his faith - spent 30 odd chapters talking about God - but when God came and intervened and spoke to Job, Job responded thusly:

1 Then Job replied to the LORD :
2 "I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.

3 You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.

4 "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'

5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."

Job - who was probably closest to God (since God pointed out his righteousness to the Devil in Ch. 1) realized that seeing God pretty much shut down all he thought he knew about God. We think we've got the answers - and you think you do too; I contend that if you understood and knew what God understands and knows, you would be content with the choices He's made. As a human, you cannot know all of this - and you choose to put God on trial; fine - but for those of us who believe, we know that God knows more than we do, and we trust that His judgement is good.

[The Atheist]

I'm suggesting that the original human beings' science must be objective and fair - and it will do so but inside the framework that posits that only what is measureable or observable will be considered valid evidence.

This is an interesting concept and I agree with you.

Science must deal with the measurable.

The age of the earth - within fairly tight parameters - is completely obvious through established scientific procedures, dealing with clearly measurable effects. If you agree that science can measure the material world, how can you persist in believing the earth to be 6011 years old? That belief denies that science is even able to operate on a physical plane. Can you see the contradiction in your position?

[MaryLupin]

My original use "de-evolved" was in quotation marks; I assume that most people understand that convention in written expression. The word is still understood by most educated people in indicate a degradation of some sort in terms of something lessening or decreasing from a more refined, complex state into something inferior in nature. I thought that was clear. Sorry if it wasn't.

It was clear and many "educated people" do assume the concept of evolution as something that can include concepts such as "inferior." Of course it is not actually correct. Common sense ideas of what theories like evolution mean are not often based in actual study, rather they are syncretic amalgamations of what they think evolution means and the value system they learned as children. Let me give an example. I have a niece that was taught by her parent that evolution was silly because it meant that she was descended from monkeys and "anyone with half a brain" could see that she wasn't. She went on to say that she had a soul where a monkey didn't and that was what proved evolution wrong. This is perhaps a little more extreme than the notion of evolution carried by you average "educated" person but, unfortunately, not much. I have found that education in and of itself does not equate to understanding.

[MaryLupin]

Red, you said this

"Science tends to be rather dogmatic regarding the subject of God as creator. God apparently is not a "question" science is willing to consider."

It is not that science won't consider the question of god but rather it cannot consider it. Have you read Nonoverlapping Magisteria by Stephen Jay Gould? It discusses this point exactly.

[Redzeppelin]

This is an interesting concept and I agree with you.

Science must deal with the measurable.

The age of the earth - within fairly tight parameters - is completely obvious through established scientific procedures, dealing with clearly measurable effects. If you agree that science can measure the material world, how can you persist in believing the earth to be 6011 years old? That belief denies that science is even able to operate on a physical plane. Can you see the contradiction in your position?

I do - and I will be honest and say that I do not know what to do with that contradiction. I am willing to believe that the 7 day creation MIGHT be allegorical in terms of time, but at this point that creates some problems for me. I believe that - as the world winds down towards the final judgment - that being a Christian will be extraordinarily uncomfortable because the facts will appear to totally and fully contradict my faith (and I think there are diabolical gears in motion to make this happen). I know I look foolish - but I'm not ready to concede defeat just yet.

[MaryLupin]

Science is no different; it begins from the Naturalistic conclusion that only what is observable and measureable is real; as such, scientific Naturalism automatically disincludes God as a possible source for reality. All systems engage in circular logic. Science pretends it's completely objective - but it's not, because it is conducted by people with subjective biases and interpretive preferences.

Just a note about this idea: Charles Darwin started his life as a Christian. He was baptized and a church-goer. In fact he was considering life as a clergyman. In fact he studied theology for some years. So he was no atheist born. What changed his mind was his attention to the evidence of the world. Quoted in the article I have linked here is “by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.” And he did mean gradually. He didn't come to this conclusion until he had seen decades of evidence that any literal interpretation of the bible could not account for what was in the world.

By the way, I chose this site deliberately. It takes a dim view of Darwin's choice. It even has a section in it called "Darwin's Descent into Darkness" which is a little purple for my taste but there it is. Still the site does provide some basic facts. This site gives a brief taste of Darwin's autobiography.

[PrinceMyshkin]

The simplest way I can deal with these issues is this: it's clear you're unhappy with how God has chosen to conduct the universe and that which He created in it;

No, I see no evidence that there was any supernatural being had anything to do with creation of the universe. It is patently easy to refute anything I say when you restate it to your convenience.

I am incapable of lessening that unhappiness with my answers because I am not God;

And yet you affected to speak as gus afent whgenb yiou assured me of his love for me!

[/QUOTE]Job - who God saw as a man best fit to demonstrate his faith - spent 30 odd chapters talking about God - but when God came and intervened and spoke to Job, Job responded thusly:

1 Then Job replied to the LORD :
2 "I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.

3 You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.

4 "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'

5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."

Job - who was probably closest to God (since God pointed out his righteousness to the Devil in Ch. 1) realized that seeing God pretty much shut down all he thought he knew about God. We think we've got the answers - and you think you do too; I contend that if you understood and knew what God understands and knows, you would be content with the choices He's made. As a human, you cannot know all of this - and you choose to put God on trial; fine - but for those of us who believe, we know that God knows more than we do, and we trust that His judgement is good.

As another human being who cannot know "what God understands and knows," neither can you defend him other than by the a priori argument that as he is God he must be right.

As a student of literature you might perhaps see how Job is constructed like a short story: The boast; the challenge; the introduction of conflict; its devlopment - and its resolution.

Depending on your point of view it is either a charming story or a gothic tale: either way, a parable, constructed to teach a lesson.

[Logos]

This site gives a brief taste of Darwin's autobiography.

And this site has the entire work available online

[Redzeppelin]

No, I see no evidence that there was any supernatural being had anything to do with creation of the universe. It is patently easy to refute anything I say when you restate it to your convenience.

I did no such thing; your comments indicate a clear hostility towards God based on what He didn't do (i.e. intervene in the Holocaust). OK - that's fair. What kind of evidence would convince you, by the way, that God did create the universe? Besides Him showing up personally?

And yet you affected to speak as gus afent whgenb yiou assured me of his love for me!

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

As another human being who cannot know "what God understands and knows," neither can you defend him other than by the a priori argument that as he is God he must be right.

*sigh* - if God is who He claims to be, how could He be wrong? How can you be omniscient and wrong? How can God BE love and choose wrongly?

As a student of literature you might perhaps see how Job is constructed like a short story: The boast; the challenge; the introduction of conflict; its devlopment - and its resolution.

There is a chance that this story is allegorical - that I will admit. Someday I intend to find out.

Depending on your point of view it is either a charming story or a gothic tale: either way, a parable, constructed to teach a lesson.

I won't argue - but it also could be a true story of a man called to serve God in an astounding way: a human called upon to vindicate the character of God against the charge of a demonic being attempting to undermine God's character. Simply amazing.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I did no such thing; your comments indicate a clear hostility towards God based on what He didn't do (i.e. intervene in the Holocaust). OK - that's fair. What kind of evidence would convince you, by the way, that God did create the universe? Besides Him showing up personally?

The last sounds good, although after 8-12 billion years (or even just 6,000, if you prefer) I would think that the chances are very slender.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

So says in in the Bible by one who had or provided no evidence that that is what God was doing.

*sigh* - if God is who He claims to be, how could He be wrong? How can you be omniscient and wrong? How can God BE love and choose wrongly?

He could be wrong in who he claims to be, i.e., in the extent of the powers he claims for himself. And if God is sui generis as I believe you think he is, there can be no independent witness as to his greatness, omniscience &c.

There is a chance that this story is allegorical - that I will admit. Someday I intend to find out.

Seriously, how do you expect to do this?

I won't argue - but it also could be a true story of a man called to serve God in an astounding way: a human called upon to vindicate the character of God against the charge of a demonic being attempting to undermine God's character. Simply amazing.

The charge, bear in mind, was provoked by God's boast.

Although as you claim elsewhere every believer understands that he may be called upon at any time, in any way, to bear witness for God, there is no evidence whatsoever that Job was opvertly, explicitly called upon in this instance. You are using "called upon" in a metapohoric way, something endemic to much of the thinking and expression of believers. There is always the danger that we will mistake the metaphor for the thing it is meant to illustrate, that we will take it as "Gospel Truth," itself a frequently used metaphor.

[Redzeppelin]

The last sounds good, although after 8-12 billion years (or even just 6,000, if you prefer) I would think that the chances are very slender.

Of course - so what you're really saying is there is no evidence you'd accept beyond a personal appearance. I'm willing to suggest that even if He did show up, those who disbelieve in Him would find some way to discount even that (hallucination, mass hysteria, etc).

So says in in the Bible by one who had or provided no evidence that that is what God was doing.

My friend, you accused me of speaking for God, so I went and found Biblical support for the idea that God loves everybody and wishes for all to be saved - including you. What more do you want - more texts? You blew this one off - why should I post more?

He could be wrong in who he claims to be, i.e., in the extent of the powers he claims for himself. And if God is sui generis as I believe you think he is, there can be no independent witness as to his greatness, omniscience &c.

Impossible; God is the only being who is fully aware of the contents of His personality and character. The Bible is the record of God's interaction with humanity and there are many testaments in their to His greatness.

Seriously, how do you expect to do this?

I intend to ask God myself (that among a few hundred other questions).

The charge, bear in mind, was provoked by God's boast.

God's "boast" is the same of a parent proud of a child. Nothing wrong with that. (And don't come back with the idea that God "set up" Job - as if Satan was not already aware of Job and his relationship with God. Even if God had kept silent [a sort of duplicity in itself], Satan knew).

Although as you claim elsewhere every believer understands that he may be called upon at any time, in any way, to bear witness for God, there is no evidence whatsoever that Job was opvertly, explicitly called upon in this instance. You are using "called upon" in a metapohoric way, something endemic to much of the thinking and expression of believers. There is always the danger that we will mistake the metaphor for the thing it is meant to illustrate, that we will take it as "Gospel Truth," itself a frequently used metaphor.

Job was "called upon" to demonstrate his faith as all believers are called upon to do so when put into the trap of temptation; when one refused to lose faith and give in to temptation, one is answering the call to stand up for God.
Language is largely metaphoric - whether sacred or secular in nature.