|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Islam on evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Force, please don't waste posts with one liners.
We have a limit of about 300 posts per thread here so I'd ask that you don't use them up if it isn't contributing to the discussion. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Why 'if' - when this is a fact?
quote: There are no creators - technically. No one creates. Technically, create refers to something from nothing [ex nihilo]; while forming refers to making something from something else. IMHO, it is amazing that this factor is identified only in genesis, namely, the technical term of create ['bara'] is used only in the first creation chapter [genesis 1], and is replaced by the word 'formed' for the rest of the five OT books: this is no typo. This is logical when examined: at one time, there were no tools, elements, heat, energy or anything else, when the universe is accepted as finite. That a created thing needs a creator signifies an infinite cycle, which is a violation of a finite universe. Thus it is a non-scientific and illogical conclusion, while genesis is scietific and logical here. If we knew that the creator had a creator, that would not be the creator, and to negate an infinite cycle [the wrong path], we have to agree the buck must stop some place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IaJ writes: Technically, create refers to something from nothing [ex nihilo]; while forming refers to making something from something else. Technically, neither "create" nor "form" refers to "something from nothing". Check your dictionary, and you'll see that ex-nihilo (which you've finally learned to spell, thanks to bluegenes the teacher) doesn't come into it. However, your claim was that "creationism" is the only alternative. Technically, "creationism" means, from Dictionary.com quote: There are an infinite number of alternatives to creationism by those definitions. On what basis do you claim that there is no alternative? Blind Faith? Joseph's Desires?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
A dictionary does not explain this word, except as its usage in everyday language. We have no means of displaying ex nihilo, so it is not a word of utilisation in its technical application. However, that your dictionary explanation refers to genesis as one of its meaning, then something from nothing does apply; the term ex nehilo, or something from nothing, need not appear in the texts - while there is no other interpretation here.
You say there are many other alternatives - but you gave no 'for examples'? The issue has nothing to do with faith or desire, and should only be discussed with logic; science does not apply - because no tools or elements subsisted at this juncture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
bluegenes writes: IamJoseph writes: Technically, create refers to something from nothing [ex nihilo]; while forming refers to making something from something else. Technically, neither "create" nor "form" refers to "something from nothing". Check your dictionary, and you'll see that ex-nihilo (which you've finally learned to spell, thanks to bluegenes the teacher) doesn't come into it. However, your claim was that "creationism" is the only alternative. It's your awkward use of language that's the problem once again, Joe. Create doesn't mean creationism. But once we're talking about "creationism" I'm happy to agree with you that we don't really need the ex-nihilo on this site, as it's usually understood. So for creationism (rather than create which you used in the quote above) I agree with the below:
Joe writes: However, that your dictionary explanation refers to genesis as one of its meaning, then something from nothing does apply; the term ex nehilo, or something from nothing, need not appear in the texts - while there is no other interpretation here. So, here again are the dictionary definitions, followed by my comment to which you're now replying:
quote: bluegenes writes: There are an infinite number of alternatives to creationism by those definitions. On what basis do you claim that there is no alternative? Blind Faith? Joseph's Desires? You'll agree that it's the first two definitions that concern us, and I claim that there are an infinite number of alternatives, which there are. You say:
IaJ writes: You say there are many other alternatives - but you gave no 'for examples'? The issue has nothing to do with faith or desire, and should only be discussed with logic; science does not apply - because no tools or elements subsisted at this juncture. Right. Alternatives to creationism as defined above. Firstly, if teleology is involved, there can be any number of creators, so the proposition that 357 Goddesses created the universe is just as likely as any other, and you already reach effective infinity anyway without making the obvious point that creators are not required, because, if creators can exist without requiring creators, so can universes, so the universe can come into existence sans creators. Otherwise, you get the infinite regression of creators, also giving us infinite possibilities in relation to their numbers and their natures. So, you ask for "for examples". That's easy. The universe was created ex-nihilo by seven Goddesses because they thought it would look pretty. I could go on for ever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Yes it does. Your error is in not factoring that genesis mentions the term create in a setting where nothing else exists; in a creation chapter; employs the operative factor of a 'word' as the only implement ['And the Lord *SAID* let there be Light and there was Light']. To complete this equation, genesis refrains absolutely from using the same term outside the first creation chapter - because then it becomes 'to form' from other already existing elements. No other reading is possible. These are deceptively naive texts, perfectly cushioned to generations of mankind's contemporary vocabs, from what is the first alpahatical books and the introduction of the most perfect grammatical and literary works in all recorded history. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: While anyone can say anything they like, they fail the logic test. While we cannot prove a creator or creation, the logic factor begs the question, what was the first scenario, and does the claim start at a post-beginning point? Your example does the later, while genesis first preambles that 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD'. I said, this is not provable via history or science - but it is logically posited, anticipating and catering to the enigma. Whereas if one says seven godesses done it - they should first illustrate their case - were they infinite ['I am the Lord I have not changed']: they don't even address this issue! Admittedly, any texts can also say so, and genesis cannot stand just because it is written - but here is a responsa not just to the 7 goddesses, but one which deals with the entire creation scenario comprehensively, and is a varied description from myth. Myths do not even cater to the enigmatic, logical issues - genesis does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I cannot say I am right and you are wrong. I am saying Genesis is the safest bet on the menu, including the scientific premises available [namely, 'NONE' exists] - so choose your own.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024