Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9024 total)
55 online now:
AZPaul3, frako, Tangle, vimesey, xongsmith (5 members, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: Moe's URL Addresss
Post Volume: Total: 882,825 Year: 471/14,102 Month: 471/294 Week: 227/136 Day: 3/32 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question for creationists: Why would you rather believe in a small God?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 13 of 301 (702698)
07-10-2013 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by yenmor
07-08-2013 12:38 PM


During the show, I thought to myself. If there was a God, and he created this really really really really big universe with all these wonders that are out there waiting for us to explore, why would you rather believe that His word only exist in a book? Why not embrace in a God that is bigger and more powerful than anything we can ever understand, you know, like the God that created this really really really really really big universe?

But that is the one we embrace, the one who made all of it. Absurd there should be a question about that.

What does His having communicated to us in writing have to do with how big He is? 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. In which, by the way, He informs us that Nature shows His character too. But you don't see Him there, do you? That's because you're fallen. We need the writings to help us see the reality of things.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 07-11-2013 12:30 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 07-11-2013 7:04 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 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 responded

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 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 responded

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 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 yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 32 of 301 (702915)
07-12-2013 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
07-12-2013 4:47 PM


On some subjects true Christians all agree, that's the way it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 07-12-2013 4:47 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 9:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 36 of 301 (702974)
07-13-2013 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by ringo
07-12-2013 1:32 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.

It's more like I don't think Nature is readable at all the way a book is and evidence for that is how long it took to develop scientific knowledge. If Nature were so easily readable primitive peoples could have understood what Newton and Einstein discovered. Also I don't think "secular scientists are wrong..." about anything other than evolution and the Old Earth. There's a long list of things they're right about. But again, it took until quite recently for that knowledge to be acquired.

ringo writes:

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.

All I was saying was that God gave us the Bible BECAUSE Nature isn't readable. We'd see Him in Nature if it were. And yes this is because our minds are fallen, we're spiritually blind, and intellectually hindered as well. That's why we need a revelation from God to understand things rightly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 07-12-2013 1:32 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 07-13-2013 11:37 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 11:39 AM Faith has responded
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 07-13-2013 11:46 AM Faith has responded
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 07-13-2013 12:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 301 (702983)
07-13-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tangle
07-13-2013 11:39 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Yes you did compile a list of sciences I'd supposedly have to reject if I reject evolution and an Old Earth but you are wrong, I reject none of them and none of them needs to be rejected because they fit in quite well with Creationist assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 11:39 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 11:58 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 301 (702986)
07-13-2013 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
07-13-2013 11:46 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
As the passage says it's our wickedness that keeps us from seeing God in Nature, not science, but God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 07-13-2013 11:46 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 301 (702991)
07-13-2013 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Tangle
07-13-2013 11:58 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Sorry, Tangle, it is you who are wrong. The vast majority of scientific knowledge is perfectly in tune with Creationist principles, and no Christian denies any of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 11:58 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 12:08 PM Faith has responded
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2013 12:16 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 301 (702995)
07-13-2013 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Tangle
07-13-2013 12:08 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Wherever there are Old Earth assumptions we disagree, but the bulk of science has nothing to do with such assumptions. Genetics doesn't need them, most Geology doesn't need them, medicine doesn't need them, very little needs them and the stuff that uses them is all theoretical and impractical, essentially useless, they are tacked on and have nothing to do with the facts of the sciences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 12:08 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2013 12:20 PM Faith has responded
 Message 51 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 12:22 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 49 of 301 (702998)
07-13-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Adequate
07-13-2013 12:16 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
If what they said has to do with an Old Earth of course I contradict it. That's most of what is said at EvC since that's what the debate is about, but it isn't necessary to any of the sciences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2013 12:16 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 52 of 301 (703001)
07-13-2013 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Dr Adequate
07-13-2013 12:20 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Yes, I do believe they don't need it. They make use of it here and there though I don't think it's really necessary, but the vast majority of their knowledge has no need of it at all. 90% or more of your course in Geology is quite acceptable to a Creationist because all that knowledge has nothing to do with an Old Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2013 12:20 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 12:54 PM Faith has responded
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2013 2:20 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 53 of 301 (703002)
07-13-2013 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tangle
07-13-2013 12:22 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
I said nothing about text books. I said science doesn't need it. Text books of course include it because they are brainwashed, but it's possible to read around their nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 12:22 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 07-13-2013 12:35 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 58 of 301 (703023)
07-13-2013 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ringo
07-13-2013 12:35 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
So you're defining "science" as something that doesn't need science books or even scientists.
I suppose aircraft don't "need" service manuals or pilots either but they're not very useful without them.

No I did not say that. I said that the sciences don't need the Old Earth concept.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 07-13-2013 12:35 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Coyote, posted 07-14-2013 12:37 AM Faith has responded
 Message 72 by ringo, posted 07-14-2013 3:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 59 of 301 (703024)
07-13-2013 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tangle
07-13-2013 12:54 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Sorry, I disagree with you. 90% of Dr. A's Geology is presented without the Old Earth concept and is fine with a YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 12:54 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2013 11:22 PM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021