Creation According to Genesis

[Muravyets]

Actually, I have no problem with this. O:)

Still waiting on that source.

Are you one of those Young Earthers who dismiss the entire fossil record and carbon dating as either fakes or tricks by Satan? Because the source that shows that Genesis is not "true" in the sense of "factual" is the fossil and geological record attesting to the age of the Earth.

I am not. I believe that there were dinosaurs and such. I haven't decided where they fit in, though; that's one of the things I plan to ask about when I get to Heaven or Hell, whichever it happens to be.

You don't have to decide where they fit in. Paleontologists have already done that work for you.

[Maurepas]

Geez, buddy, I've been typing responses this whole time. Unknot your bloomers, will ya?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_God

Merely repeating your own mantra, friend,

And that is simply a list of arguments for and against, it does not draw any definitive conclusions, try again...

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Geez, buddy, I've been typing responses this whole time. Unknot your bloomers, will ya?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_God

I've read them all and they all fail for one simple reason.

1) Stephen Hawking has shown that it is logically possible for there to be a universe without a god.

2) A universe without a god is logically simpler than a universe with one.

3) Therefore, there can be no proof of god on the basis of pure logic. To show that god exists, you must present empirical evidence.

[Almajoya]

The "creature" could have always existed; this doesn't mean the universe did. He could have been existing for a while, then up and decided one day, "Hey, you know what would be fun? If I made a huge expanse of matter and things and a community of worshippers...."

Omnipotence defined as "the ability to literally do anything" is actually impossible. Omnipotence defined as "the ability to do anything which is not logically self-refuting" is not logically impossible, but it certainly does tear physics a new asshole.

It does, if you consider physics to be "the language of God." Therefore, if physics is the law that God worked by, or rather, the human translation of his processes, there is nothing self-refuting about his abilities at all; res ipsa loquitur.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It does, if you consider physics to be "the language of God." Therefore, if physics is the law that God worked by, or rather, the human translation of his processes, there is nothing self-refuting about his abilities at all; res ipsa loquitur.

I'd like to know these particular physical laws that god has to follow.

[Maurepas]

The "creature" could have always existed; this doesn't mean the universe did. He could have been existing for a while, then up and decided one day, "Hey, you know what would be fun? If I made a huge expanse of matter and things and a community of worshippers...."

Omnipotence defined as "the ability to literally do anything" is actually impossible. Omnipotence defined as "the ability to do anything which is not logically self-refuting" is not logically impossible, but it certainly does tear physics a new asshole.

It does, if you consider physics to be "the language of God." Therefore, if physics is the law that God worked by, or rather, the human translation of his processes, there is nothing self-refuting about his abilities at all; res ipsa loquitur.

Except for the fact that the supposed language directly contradicts Genesis, but, dont let that stop you,

[Almajoya]

Geez, buddy, I've been typing responses this whole time. Unknot your bloomers, will ya?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_God

I've read them all and they all fail for one simple reason.

1) Stephen Hawking has shown that it is logically possible for there to be a universe without a god.

2) A universe without a god is logically simpler than a universe with one.

3) Therefore, there can be no proof of god on the basis of pure logic. To show that god exists, you must present empirical evidence.

1) It is logically possible; that does not mean that this is the case.

2) Just because it is more simple, does not mean it is the case.

3) The empirical evidence I would choose would be what are considered "miracles." Of course, you will argue that every miracle can be explained by science; I will reply that science is simply the study of God's methods.

[Almajoya]

The "creature" could have always existed; this doesn't mean the universe did. He could have been existing for a while, then up and decided one day, "Hey, you know what would be fun? If I made a huge expanse of matter and things and a community of worshippers...."

Omnipotence defined as "the ability to literally do anything" is actually impossible. Omnipotence defined as "the ability to do anything which is not logically self-refuting" is not logically impossible, but it certainly does tear physics a new asshole.

It does, if you consider physics to be "the language of God." Therefore, if physics is the law that God worked by, or rather, the human translation of his processes, there is nothing self-refuting about his abilities at all; res ipsa loquitur.

Except for the fact that the supposed language directly contradicts Genesis, but, dont let that stop you,

The language that we have discovered so far. Is there an explanation for everything that is explained in Genesis? No; not yet. Perhaps it is because we have not come across it yet, or we never will.

[Muravyets]

I've yet to hear anything from you that isn't just emotional sparring. Your post makes very little sense to me; there is plenty of evidence that there have been millennia of worshippers- artifacts, documents, temples etc. This is where modern Jewish/Christian/Muslim beliefs stem from.

And the only think I hear from you is an appeal to popularity fallacy. The fact that a lot of people believe something does not make it true.

Also, how is it emotional to point out that you have no way to know what people spread out over millennia thought?

Kindly point out where I ever disputed that there have been millennia of worshippers. Hint: I did not. I only disputed that you know what was on their mind. You seem to think they all thought the same way you do, but even today, hundreds of millions of Christians and Jews (I don't know about Muslims) do NOT think Genesis is literally true as fact. If you can't even prove consistency of belief on this point among believers TODAY, how can you possibly support a claim about the thoughts of generations past? Hint: You can't.

Sure, they worshipped and continue to worship that god. Sure they held beliefs concerning him and his main book. But WHAT those beliefs were -- THAT you cannot state with any authority is what you say it is.

[Barringtonia]

Personally, I think that 'religion' was not really viewed as such back in the day, that ritual and superstition were inseparable from the daily life of a farmer/herder/hunter.

It's not a question of whether they 'believed' in creation, the story of their existence was a continuous one rather than religion being seen, these days, as almost a separate institution.

The question is about when the institution of religion became a separate function from the individual and his place in the world.

I wonder if it correlates to writing, that writing allows for an intrinsic way of life to become a set of rules that must be abided by.

[Maurepas]

The "creature" could have always existed; this doesn't mean the universe did. He could have been existing for a while, then up and decided one day, "Hey, you know what would be fun? If I made a huge expanse of matter and things and a community of worshippers...."

Omnipotence defined as "the ability to literally do anything" is actually impossible. Omnipotence defined as "the ability to do anything which is not logically self-refuting" is not logically impossible, but it certainly does tear physics a new asshole.

It does, if you consider physics to be "the language of God." Therefore, if physics is the law that God worked by, or rather, the human translation of his processes, there is nothing self-refuting about his abilities at all; res ipsa loquitur.

Except for the fact that the supposed language directly contradicts Genesis, but, dont let that stop you,

The language that we have discovered so far. Is there an explanation for everything that is explained in Genesis? No; not yet. Perhaps it is because we have not come across it yet, or we never will.

So you cannot prove that Genesis is literally true then?

[Almajoya]

It does, if you consider physics to be "the language of God." Therefore, if physics is the law that God worked by, or rather, the human translation of his processes, there is nothing self-refuting about his abilities at all; res ipsa loquitur.

I'd like to know these particular physical laws that god has to follow.

They are not laws that God has to follow, they are laws that He created- maybe to streamline things, maybe to keep the universe together. To read these laws, crack open any physics textbook.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

1) It is logically possible; that does not mean that this is the case.

2) Just because it is more simple, does not mean it is the case.

I don't think you understood the point of these two premises. It was not to show that no god could exist. It was to show that there is no proof in terms of logic that god must exist, so all the arguments like the ontological argument and such automatically fail to establish the existence of god.

3) The empirical evidence I would choose would be what are considered "miracles." Of course, you will argue that every miracle can be explained by science; I will reply that science is simply the study of God's methods.

Actually, my response is that unconfirmed or actually unconmfirmable anecdotes in an extremely uncontrolled environment without even so much as a single meta-analysis does not empirical evidence make.

[Muravyets]

Okay, B, seriously now -- what part of anything you've been saying has, in your mind, fuck-all to do with the earlier assertions that people believed the creation myths to be literally and actually true?

My position is that such a black-and-white view isn't a fair reflection of the intricate way in which creation stories were formalised into fact.

There certainly are people who take the creation story literally, how far that goes back is up for debate.

Okay, fine. I agree then. You really had me confused.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The language that we have discovered so far. Is there an explanation for everything that is explained in Genesis? No; not yet. Perhaps it is because we have not come across it yet, or we never will.

Or perhaps it's because Genesis never happened, the Earth is older than 6,000 years, and there's no way to reconcile science with a literal interpretation of ancient scriptures.

[Maurepas]

They are not laws that God has to follow, they are laws that He created

Circular Logic circle, do you ever outlive your usefulness?

[Barringtonia]

Okay, B, seriously now -- what part of anything you've been saying has, in your mind, fuck-all to do with the earlier assertions that people believed the creation myths to be literally and actually true?

My position is that such a black-and-white view isn't a fair reflection of the intricate way in which creation stories were formalised into fact.

There certainly are people who take the creation story literally, how far that goes back is up for debate.

Okay, fine. I agree then. You really had me confused.

To be fair, I know that I can be confusing, I switch between surmising and stating as I switch from using NSG as a form of external dialogue to putting down my point of view.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

They are not laws that God has to follow, they are laws that He created- maybe to streamline things, maybe to keep the universe together. To read these laws, crack open any physics textbook.

General Relativity is beautiful, but what the hell was god thinking with the standard model?

[Muravyets]

1) It is logically possible; that does not mean that this is the case.

It doesn't mean it isn't, either. However, it does tip the balance more in favor of it than against.

2) Just because it is more simple, does not mean it is the case.

3) The empirical evidence I would choose would be what are considered "miracles." Of course, you will argue that every miracle can be explained by science; I will reply that science is simply the study of God's methods.

Choosing your evidence is a practice called "cherrypicking" and it is an intellectually invalid approach. You don't get to prove an argument by only picking out the evidence you like because it supports you. You have to show that your argument fits all the existing evidence, regardless of what that evidence is. Genesis fails as a record of what supposedly really happened because it does not fit with demonstrable and observable facts about what the world is and how it works.

EDIT: As a metaphor for humanity's relationship to the divine, on the the other hand, Genesis works just fine. And as the opening scene for a kick-ass dramatic myth of the world, it rocks artistically.

[Almajoya]

I've yet to hear anything from you that isn't just emotional sparring. Your post makes very little sense to me; there is plenty of evidence that there have been millennia of worshippers- artifacts, documents, temples etc. This is where modern Jewish/Christian/Muslim beliefs stem from.

And the only think I hear from you is an appeal to popularity fallacy. The fact that a lot of people believe something does not make it true.

Also, how is it emotional to point out that you have no way to know what people spread out over millennia thought?

Kindly point out where I ever disputed that there have been millennia of worshippers. Hint: I did not. I only disputed that you know what was on their mind. You seem to think they all thought the same way you do, but even today, hundreds of millions of Christians and Jews (I don't know about Muslims) do NOT think Genesis is literally true as fact. If you can't even prove consistency of belief on this point among believers TODAY, how can you possibly support a claim about the thoughts of generations past? Hint: You can't.

Sure, they worshipped and continue to worship that god. Sure they held beliefs concerning him and his main book. But WHAT those beliefs were -- THAT you cannot state with any authority is what you say it is.

I can't? How about the books stemming from Genesis, especially the New Testament? Were they not written by people who essentially think the same way you think I do? (Hint: I have not yet stated what my particular religion is.) They were all written one or two millennia ago, or earlier.

I never said you said there weren't millennia of worshippers. I shortened my sentence because I thought you would understand what I meant. Between writing replies to this thread and the essay I'm working on, my hands are quite tired.

My comment regarding your emotion was in response to this post:

No, the only worshipper who needs to be wrong is you.

This is a personal attack, which is never used in debate. Trust me, I am well versed in detecting emotion.

[Blouman Empire]

Obviously, Genesis is not literal, or correct.

Why not? I don't see what the problem is with an omnipotent being creating the universe in six days (on the seventh, He rested). Or would you rather believe that all this is a happy coincidence, and could fall apart at any moment?

because its obviously not "true".

Do you have a source, or scientific reason, to back this up? Or is this just your belief?

*snip image*

What did any of that have to deal with Genesis?

[Muravyets]

I've yet to hear anything from you that isn't just emotional sparring. Your post makes very little sense to me; there is plenty of evidence that there have been millennia of worshippers- artifacts, documents, temples etc. This is where modern Jewish/Christian/Muslim beliefs stem from.

And the only think I hear from you is an appeal to popularity fallacy. The fact that a lot of people believe something does not make it true.

Also, how is it emotional to point out that you have no way to know what people spread out over millennia thought?

Kindly point out where I ever disputed that there have been millennia of worshippers. Hint: I did not. I only disputed that you know what was on their mind. You seem to think they all thought the same way you do, but even today, hundreds of millions of Christians and Jews (I don't know about Muslims) do NOT think Genesis is literally true as fact. If you can't even prove consistency of belief on this point among believers TODAY, how can you possibly support a claim about the thoughts of generations past? Hint: You can't.

Sure, they worshipped and continue to worship that god. Sure they held beliefs concerning him and his main book. But WHAT those beliefs were -- THAT you cannot state with any authority is what you say it is.

I can't? How about the books stemming from Genesis, especially the New Testament? Were they not written by people who essentially think the same way you think I do? (Hint: I have not yet stated what my particular religion is.) They were all written one or two millennia ago, or earlier.

I never said you said there weren't millennia of worshippers. I shortened my sentence because I thought you would understand what I meant. Between writing replies to this thread and the essay I'm working on, my hands are quite tired.

My comment regarding your emotion was in response to this post:

No, the only worshipper who needs to be wrong is you.

This is a personal attack, which is never used in debate. Trust me, I am well versed in detecting emotion.

A) No, it is not a personal attack. If you are so well-versed in detecting things, maybe you should try detecting some facts. If you're so concerned with what's true, maybe you should try being more truthful yourself. You made up the claim of emotionalism. And you are indirectly attacking me by suggesting that I am not telling the truth when I correct you.

B) You point to the existence of the Bible as proof of your claims about what other people thought about the Bible? I'm sorry, but you really do fail at this point.

[Maurepas]

What did any of that have to deal with Genesis?

You do know what Genesis is right?

You know, rib-woman, talking snake, magical tree...ringin a bell?

[Almajoya]

The language that we have discovered so far. Is there an explanation for everything that is explained in Genesis? No; not yet. Perhaps it is because we have not come across it yet, or we never will.

Or perhaps it's because Genesis never happened, the Earth is older than 6,000 years, and there's no way to reconcile science with a literal interpretation of ancient scriptures.

Did you not just give an intelligent, detailed answer to the OP several posts ago?

They are not laws that God has to follow, they are laws that He created

Circular Logic circle, do you ever outlive your usefulness?

Nope, why do you think God makes such use of it? It's an excellent way to keep your followers mystified.

They are not laws that God has to follow, they are laws that He created- maybe to streamline things, maybe to keep the universe together. To read these laws, crack open any physics textbook.

General Relativity is beautiful, but what the hell was god thinking with the standard model?

Yeah, there are some problems, like one poster pointed out in the Intelligent Design thread about Him putting the "plumbing" in the same area as the fun zone.

Choosing your evidence is a practice called "cherrypicking" and it is an intellectually invalid approach. You don't get to prove an argument by only picking out the evidence you like because it supports you. You have to show that your argument fits all the existing evidence, regardless of what that evidence is. Genesis fails as a record of what supposedly really happened because it does not fit with demonstrable and observable facts about what the world is and how it works.

EDIT: As a metaphor for humanity's relationship to the divine, on the the other hand, Genesis works just fine. And as the opening scene for a kick-ass dramatic myth of the world, it rocks artistically.

Do you think scientists don't cherrypick? They ignore events that are easiest explained by the intervention of a Higher Power, simply because they are afraid to admit that there could be one.

[Maurepas]

Nope, why do you think God makes such use of it? It's an excellent way to keep your followers mystified.

So you admit to basing your beliefs on a logical fallacy then...I think we're done here...