Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question for creationists: Why would you rather believe in a small God?
ringo
Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 16 of 301 (702803)
07-11-2013 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-10-2013 10:16 PM


Faith writes:
He communicates through Nature too, but being fallen we can't be sure we're reading Nature accurately. That's why He kindly gave us a written testimony.
Given our fallen nature, why would we be able to read written testimony better than we read nature?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-10-2013 10:16 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Phat, posted 07-12-2013 1:26 PM ringo has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 301 (702846)
07-11-2013 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-10-2013 10:16 PM


He communicates through Nature too, but being fallen we can't be sure we're reading Nature accurately...In which, by the way, He informs us that Nature shows His character too. But you don't see Him there, do you?
Aren't you fallen too? Does it make sense that God deliberately communicates with us in way that we will almost certainly understand?
Since we are in the Accuracy forum, I think it is on topic to point out that there is nothing in the Bible that supports the idea of man becoming less able or capable scientifically after Adam sinned. In fact there is some Biblical support for exactly the opposite.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-10-2013 10:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 9:32 PM NoNukes has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 18 of 301 (702847)
07-11-2013 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by yenmor
07-10-2013 11:35 PM


Forgive my lack of humbleness. I have a BS in physics, BS in computer science, and a masters in structural engineering. I worked in research in astrophysics during my time in school. In other words, I've done some of the math behind these numbers. I actually understand what's involved for them to have come up with these numbers.
You're forgiven, education can be a valuable tool. I only have a high school diploma, and it's 40 years old at that. But I'd bet you and I aren't too far apart when it comes to an ability (or lack of it) to quickly comprehend how far a light-year actually is. 186,000 miles per second, times 31,536,000 seconds in a year. Almost 57 trillion miles? Doesn't really tell us much. Have you ever been encouraged to do some kind of exercise, mathematical or otherwise, to try to put into some kind of useful perspective how far one light-year is? I haven't - no encouragement at all from any of my high school teachers or science books. But I thought of one anyway, a few years ago. Here's how it went;
8000 miles (the diameter of the earth) multiplied by 23 gets close to the 186,000 figure. So it would take light one second to get from one end to the other of a string of 23 earths lined up side by side, touching each other. If we scale down the size of the earth, it will proportionately slow the speed of light into something more comprehensible. If we make the earth the size of a grain of sand, then we have light moving at about one inch per second. (23 grains of sand lined up is about one inch long) So how far will something moving at one inch per second travel in one year? Just going by memory, not doing all the calculations again, I remember it being about the distance from New York City to Atlanta, Georgia. So if the earth was a grain of sand in New York City, (with it's microscopic Hubble telescope orbiting it about......1/64th of an inch away) one light year away would be Atlanta. We're told that the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, is about 4 light years away. That would put it about 500 miles beyond the coast of California in the Pacific ocean, from that grain-of-sand earth, in New York City.
During your higher educational processes, were you ever encouraged to do a mathematical exercise like this, to get some comprehension of great distances? Did your TV show touch on it at all? If not, then maybe society needs some uneducated people, to look at things in ways that the educated don't think of or don't care about, because of a narrow worldview. A worldview that may not necessarily fit everyone in a diverse society.
I've little doubt that the distances and details that science has provided concerning astronomy are largely true. But it's an imperfect human endeavor, and any time long distances are involved in just about any undertaking by humans, chances for error greatly multiply, whether it's in the building of a long bridge, a long pool table shot, or looking into outer space.
marc9000 writes:
I believe that's all we're ever going to be able to do. If you disagree, what methods do you believe are right around the corner to take a closer look at things that are thousands of light years away?
For now, none. Does this mean we shouldn't try?
It depends on the cost and who's paying for it, resources are always limited. If the scientific community would like to do something useful, I'd like to see (as only one example) someone come up with a way to get at the BASE of forest fires and get them put out before firemen are killed and millions in property are burned up. Is squirting water at the tops of flames, and watching 90% of it turn to steam the best we can do?
marc9000 writes:
Not at all, because science restricts itself to naturalistic rearrangement processes only. Those who control it don't even allow the exploration of the possibility of an intelligent designer. The human mind can't comprehend creation and destruction. Science tries to fit all of reality into rearrangement processes. Christianity is much more than that. The scientific community claims that it can't address anything to do with Christianity. (other than their belief that it’s wrong) What could a Christian possibly learn about God from godless science?
Then could you cite a few scientific or technological advancements that are due directly to attributing the processes to a God actively participating in the process?
No, I can't. Therefore I can't see the study of scientific advancements concerning astronomy to be of any use to anyone who seeks to know more about God.
I've spent a great deal of time reading and studying past achievements. What I've found is that attributing the limits of our knowledge to an all powerful magical being gets us no-where.
Concerning many (but not all) branches of science, that's probably true. But science isn't the only source of knowledge concerning human existence and behavior. Applying only science to all of reality often gets us nowhere as well.
Had Newton attributed gravity to God's magic, calculus would never have been invented. That's just one example.
And quite possibly, since the atheists who control science attribute the origins of life to the magic of abiogenesis, we're not going to be able to scientifically discover anything new about God.
Again, can you name us a few scientific or technological progress that were directly resulted from attributing some natural processes to God's magic?
No. Therefore it would do creationists little good to search for God in science, the way science is practiced today. So from this one creationist at least, the main question in your opening post is answered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by yenmor, posted 07-10-2013 11:35 PM yenmor has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 301 (702848)
07-11-2013 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by yenmor
07-10-2013 11:35 PM


Had Newton attributed gravity to God's magic, calculus would never have been invented. That's just one example.
Calculus is most likely a particularly bad example. Most people believe that Leibniz and Newton developed calculus independently. And there is no question that Leibniz invented the differential notation we use today. No one uses Newton's system.
Besides that, is it really so certain that absent Newton and Leibniz that no one would have developed calculus sometime in the last 300+ years?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by yenmor, posted 07-10-2013 11:35 PM yenmor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Coyote, posted 07-11-2013 8:17 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2186 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 20 of 301 (702849)
07-11-2013 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes
07-11-2013 8:05 PM


Light year whoops
This is a reply to marc9000, not NoNukes.
Almost 57 trillion miles?
How about 5.87 trillion miles?
Scientists try to be very careful about the accuracy of their statements.
That's something worth emulating.
Edited by Coyote, : Wrong reply button.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 07-11-2013 8:05 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 301 (702856)
07-11-2013 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NoNukes
07-11-2013 7:04 PM


He communicates through Nature too, but being fallen we can't be sure we're reading Nature accurately...In which, by the way, He informs us that Nature shows His character too. But you don't see Him there, do you?
Aren't you fallen too? Does it make sense that God deliberately communicates with us in way that we will almost certainly understand?
I'm not sure you said what you intended to say here, but if Nature were as easy to read as a book it wouldn't have taken so long for science to discover all the things it finally laboriously discovered.
Since we are in the Accuracy forum, I think it is on topic to point out that there is nothing in the Bible that supports the idea of man becoming less able or capable scientifically after Adam sinned. In fact there is some Biblical support for exactly the opposite.
Ah well, believers know what it means even if you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 07-11-2013 7:04 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 10:41 PM Faith has replied
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 07-12-2013 4:47 PM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 22 of 301 (702867)
07-11-2013 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
07-11-2013 9:32 PM


I'm not sure you said what you intended to say here, but if Nature were as easy to read as a book it wouldn't have taken so long for science to discover all the things it finally laboriously discovered.
On the other hand, if your book was as easy to read as nature, then Christians would have achieved the same degree of unanimity on questions of doctrine that scientists have achieved on such questions as "is the Earth young or old?"; "are we really descended from filthy monkey-men?" and that all-time favorite "are creationists a bunch of amusing loonies?"
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 9:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 12:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 301 (702869)
07-12-2013 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dr Adequate
07-11-2013 10:41 PM


On the other hand, if your book was as easy to read as nature, then Christians would have achieved the same degree of unanimity on questions of doctrine that scientists have achieved on such questions as "is the Earth young or old?";
Oh that is not a problem with being able to read the Book. It's only too clear that it describes a Young Earth, and the reason some Christians disagree is merely that they are swayed by the claims of science, poor confused things.
"are we really descended from filthy monkey-men?" and that all-time favorite "are creationists a bunch of amusing loonies?"
Also nothing to do with the readability of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 10:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by dwise1, posted 07-12-2013 12:14 AM Faith has replied
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2013 10:49 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 9:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5969
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 24 of 301 (702870)
07-12-2013 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
07-12-2013 12:04 AM


Oh that is not a problem with being able to read the Book. It's only too clear that it describes a Young Earth, ...
Really? And what exactly does it say?
I'm not talking about the translation, which is often a translation of a translation. What does it say in the original?
For that matter, how many languages do you know? Do you have any experience thinking in another language? Somehow, I have you pegged for a complete monoglot.
Being a polyglot, it's really fun to watch a subtitled movie. I can see what the translation is, but I can also hear what they are really saying. It really is not the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 12:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 12:52 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 301 (702872)
07-12-2013 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by dwise1
07-12-2013 12:14 AM


I do not read Greek, but I've learned a few Greek words, and any time one consults an online Bible source one is presented with a variety of translations for any particular verse plus the Concordance which discusses the various meanings of the words in that verse.
The King James Bible made use of all the available Greek manuscripts as well as Latin, German, French, Syriac and many others, plus all the previous translations in English. Each verse was "diligently compared" with all these to arrive at the rendering they preferred. It is not a translation of a translation, and the more I learn about it the more I trust it.
I can speak a bit of Spanish, understand it better, understand some French and some German and even a few phrases in Russian. I even know enough of the first three to pick out some problems with subtitles myself.
Which of course has nothing to do with anything. The Bible in English translation, at least the King James, is quite trustworthy, but wherever there are questions we always have the Concordance and other translations to help us out.
In ANY language the Bible is far easier to read and understand than Nature.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by dwise1, posted 07-12-2013 12:14 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


(1)
Message 26 of 301 (702878)
07-12-2013 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by yenmor
07-08-2013 12:38 PM


My God is a BIG God
yenmor writes:
If there is a God, His true bible exists in nature, not an ancient book that was written by people thousands of years ago.
Greetings, yenmor. Actually He exists(IMB) in both places!
Romans 1:18-20 writes:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Of course, some otherwise intelligent men and women conclude (from the vantage point of this dust speck, no less) that there is no evidence for God and that human logic can explain the existence of this huge universe another way.
Proverbs18:2 writes:
--A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.
Of course, the critic would claim that science is never about opinion, unlike faith/belief. They would assert that they did not have opinions...they based their belief on evidence. Science itself became more comforting to them than a belief in a higher power that cares about humanity. I can see why some feel that way...Of course, the skeptic/critic concludes that the Bible is but a collection of human philosophy based on limited understanding and that now-a-days we have much better tools of logic, reason, and reality with which to form our belief. Sticking with scripture, (which the critic may suggest I am quote-mining)
we read in
1 Cor 3:18-20 writes:
Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."
Does this suggest that God wants humans to remain ignorant and stupid? I don't think so...He just wants us to acknowledge Him and have a reverent fear...as it is good for us and keeps our human ego in check.
In closing, I use
Ps 34:9-10 writes:
Fear the LORD, you his saints,
for those who fear him lack nothing.
The lions may grow weak and hungry,
but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.
In my opinion, belief in God in a personal way is achieved through Jesus Christ and does not prevent an individual from learning and embracing science also. God created the entire universe and even multiverses if they exist. In other words, if it exists, He created it...even the thoughts of atheists.
Edited by Thugpreacha, : corrected myself a wee bit, since I think my train of thought need not be derailed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by yenmor, posted 07-08-2013 12:38 PM yenmor has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 27 of 301 (702887)
07-12-2013 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
07-12-2013 12:04 AM


It's only too clear that it describes a Young Earth, and the reason some Christians disagree is merely that they are swayed by the claims of science, poor confused things.
Actually, its only too clear that it describes an old Earth. The reason some book-worshipers think it describes a young one is because they've been tricked by the devil. Dumbasses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 12:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 28 of 301 (702901)
07-12-2013 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ringo
07-11-2013 12:30 PM


Science meets Faith
Ringo writes:
Given our fallen nature, why would we be able to read written testimony better than we read nature?
This is actually a good question. If the theory were that the collection of 66 Books were in fact inerrant scripture, who wrote them? If, per argument, inspired humans wrote them, how could the audience--purportedly *uninspired* humans...be able to interpret what was important?
And I think Faith is trying to explain her theory of why the secular scientists are wrong...being fallen, they couldn't read nature any better than they can read the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 07-11-2013 12:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 07-12-2013 1:32 PM Phat has replied
 Message 30 by jar, posted 07-12-2013 1:34 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 29 of 301 (702903)
07-12-2013 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Phat
07-12-2013 1:26 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Phat writes:
And I think Faith is trying to explain her theory of why the secular scientists are wrong...being fallen, they couldn't read nature any better than they can read the Bible.
If I understand Faith (and I wouldn't be surprised if I don't) she believes that she is fallen too but Jesus has helped her back up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Phat, posted 07-12-2013 1:26 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 07-13-2013 2:56 AM ringo has replied
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 10:07 AM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 30 of 301 (702904)
07-12-2013 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Phat
07-12-2013 1:26 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Except there seems to be no Biblical basis for humans being fallen, though it does make a great way to con folk.
FUD works.
But there is of course ways to test the two concepts. The evidence shows that in 2000 years inspired Christians have not been able to even come up with a universally accepted list of what books should be in a Bible.
On the other hand, science works by repeatedly doubting testing and confirming or refuting. It's been very successful in creating universal consensus.
Edited by jar, : fix linkie thingie

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Phat, posted 07-12-2013 1:26 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024