Messages

[HAD]

In the very first chapter of the bible, God creates all the animals, then man and woman (at the same time, it seems).
In the next chapter, he creates man, then a woman out of his rib, then all the animals.
So in what order did it actually happen? And why did at least one account get the order wrong?

The second chapter does not say that man was created before animals. I presume you are referring to 2:19 which is where God brought all the animals etc. that he HAD (past tense there you may notice) created to man to name them.

Then in v21  God makes woman, which on any reading cannot be before he made man or the animals.

So I suppose my questions to you would be If you are going to read the bible can I suggest you do it a little bit more carefully? I mean if you decide for yourself what it must say without reading it properly and then try to take it apart it will no doubt be quite easy but, possibly, not very scientific  .

We're talking about the inspired word of god here, describing how the universe came into existence, right?

Well not really actually. You will note that the creation of the world is essentially covered in chapter 1 (and a little bit in chapter 2). That makes it pretty clear to me that this book is not intended as some kind of scientific manual for how the universe came into existence. Should you read the rest of the Bible you will note that it concentrates mostly on the relationship between God and Man and is largely not concerned with scientific process, fashion, food, the arts or many other areas which make up the world/universe as we know it.

It's a Submerged Seaweed-Snorkelled Psychiatrist Assissin! (When does alliteration become sibilence?!).



X2

The blue-cup shaped hole in the wall of my office!





Technically not within the rules I suppose but ... well ... I've done it now so thought I'd post it anyway!

So, I would suggest maybe picking one premise and fleshing it out after learning the beliefs of the person you are debating.

The person you are debating? Woah what happened since I went to bed last night?! :o

For me, this started as a debate over whether or not belief in God was illogical (or at least me questioning Nacho's statement that it was). Now it feels like it's starting to get this "hunt the christian" vibe and I feel people's anger getting up.

Apologies if I have misunderstood anyone's intentions here but for me it's time to bow out of this thread, as I would ideally like to make friends here rather than anger people, which is what appears to be happening.

Hoping we can all be friends despite differences in belief .

Point of interest - I am not backing out of this just because someone is challenging my faith, in fact I have not really said what my faith is for anyone to challenge besides a belief in God. Rather because the tone of the thread appears (to me) to be changing from fairly objective debate, when I initially questioned Nacho's statement, towards (i.e. not all the way there yet...) a "Christian hunt".

But if anyone wants to know and/or ask questions of my faith etc. and wouldn't get too wound up by the subject please feel free to PM me.

[
We know pretty much about how the universe got to its current state by exclusively natural ways since 0.000001 seconds after the big bang (the actual number is different but I'm too lazy to look it up). There are some fuzzy gaps science isn't able to explain completely, but by and large we know.

But it doesn't explain where all this came from, including the energy etc. for the big bang. And what went before.

You have completely missed my point though. The god hypothesis does fill in the gaps, true, but leaving it at that is completely useless. If you include a supernatural, omnipotent being, anything is possible and everything can be explained. Conducting science becomes utterly pointless.
There's increasingly strong evidence that everything can be explained by natural processes, so lets fill in the gaps using science, not god, alright?

But if there is a God who created (i.e. "the god hypothesis") then he would have created the rules and state of the universe that make it what it is. Therefore science is not pointless but is mankind's effort to understand and innovate/create in the physical world that God has created.

Plus, the hypothesis that a god created the universe including us (whether directly or through natural processes he invoked) and the theory that no god did it are NOT equal alternatives. And I'm calling it a theory because in a sense, it's something that's confirmed over and over again, has a huge body of evidence and allows accurate predictions (e.g. no amount of prayer will cause amputees to grow back limbs).
You can't do science based on the assumption that an omnipotent being could interfere at any moment.

The theorys are not equal because clearly they are mutually exclusive.

I may have misunderstood the next bit but I think you mean that science in general is the theory allowing accurate predictions etc. As I said earlier, the universe works the way God created it to work and therefore we are only discovering and using what God has made. God could - and has - interfered in "mysterious ways" as the cliche goes but as he has created the universe to work a certain way you can generally rely on the fact that it will do!

Nacho:

Option A - please do explain to me how it proves there was nothing at all before it (and in particular no God before it).

Option B - with respect I didn't say "I don't think so", I said that I had not stated that the possibilities you outlined needed a god (from your point of view of course) as I though you were implying . Apologies if I misunderstood you.

Option C - I am open to hearing reasoned argument on the subject and just as capable of looking at it impartially as anyone else of average intelligence (I flatter myself ). That is the reason I asked the question. If the big bang is true then what you say about matter may follow, but how would that affect the existence of God? Once again, please explain this for me I promise I will try to listen with an open mind.

Whoops! (fixed)

Sorry about that, didn't want to misquote/malign anyone!

Actually, I am convinced that scientists are among the least productive, progressing, and advancing people on this planet (with the exception possibly of their followers, because those - their followers - really are a bunch of amoebae-brained mammals who really have no idea what science really is). I have found that it is really best to just largely ignore everything that comes out of their mouth, pen, or keyboard, because there's rarely any sanity in any of it. So if you ever meet a scientist in real-life (and I'm talking about a real scientist, not one of those whacks who claim to be and/or write 'popular' books that are considered crap even by their colleagues) pay your regards, and ignore him from that moment on...because he really has no idea what he's talking about.

Not sure I would accept such a sweeping generalisation...!

However, I agree with your first paragraph

...Big Bang theory ... The latest studies prove that there was nothing before it.

Prove there was nothing before it? Really?

None of the possibilities needs a "God"

I don't think I said they did!

Actually both possibilities tell us that, if the big bang is true, there is no God.

How on earth do they do that? I'm not just trying to provoke, I honestly do not see how they do.

Slifin:

Implying that god is perceived to take an active role, I have religious associates who regularly ask god to guide them etc, why would that be the case if they were told to expect a passive god.

If he is only a "watcher" then that would limit his activity!

I would suggest that the difference here is in the asking. If men have free will (which I would say that they do for the most part, although not always consequence free!) then they can choose to ignore God if they want. Likewise God is free to act as he will, but in an absolute sense.

Khris:

I wouldn't call it illogical but baseless. Yes, baseless. There's no evidence and using god as an explanation isn't fulfilling in the slightest.
How about: we don't know yet, me might never find out, but let's get to work!
Science is progress, religion is the opposite.

I would not say baseless (apologies if this sounds like semantics but I like the considered way you have used the word). Clearly there is no cut and dried proof either of us can offer the other that there is or isn't a God. However I would say that the very existence of matter, the earth and indeed your very good self is evidence that there is a God who creates. I am sure you may disagree but, once again, it cannot be stated with absolute certainty that I am wrong in such a statement which at least gives the possibility I am right. (No doubt almost but not quite 0 in your opinion! ). It is not therefore demonstrably baseless.

Science is progressing and has enabled us to progress in some ways but is not in itself progress. Things that are possible now have always been possible if only mankind had known/underdstood how. Therefore it deals with absolute truths (insofar as we can ascertain them) which is the same as God does (but not always religion).

Nacho:

He... I knew it! I knew that to the "Everything must be created!" has to be followed by an "Eeeer... Well... Everything except God..."

If I believe in God then of course I believe he wasn't created! Presumably you wouldn't believe that the universe was created?

So, I must assume that you don't believe in Big Bang...

Why? Couldn't God have used this method to create the universe?

Something we have evidences of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

Evidences of God?

Evidence of electromagnetic radiation!

Slifin:

To me, it's illogical to think that a silent watcher is shaping my life, in fact I'd call it paranoia, I believe I am the greatest influence on my life and in a way I believe I AM god in a very tangible sense.

If there is a silent watcher why would he be shaping your life? I don't doubt for a minute that, as you say, you are the greatest influence on your own life and therefore, in a way, you are your own god. (That is not intended as some kind of attack on you by the way) but that doesn't render belief in God illogical.

God is eternal and was not created. To me it is more logical to assume that a great creating power (God) is eternal than the universe itself which has no power of its own.

Clearly something has got to be eternal as otherwise there must always have been something before it but eternity is a concept that my mind cannot realy grasp to be honest!

A lot of Americans can't accept that there are some things that other countries do better than us.

That's very interesting, I must say that I have never understood America's reluctance concerning public healthcare and it is fascinating to see other countries mind sets.

In the UK pretty much everybody will complain about the NHS, long wait times etc. but realistically no-one wants to completely do away with it.

... but I would weigh "I had to wait four months to fix my knee" against "My whole family went bankrupt and we lost our house after I got cancer and the insurance company cancelled my coverage because they found out I visited a dermatologist once as a teenager" any day.

Completely agree.

Personally I don't see why it is illogical to believe in God.

It is apparent to me from my senses that the world around me exists. If something exists it is logical to consider that it was created by someone or something. I know that I cannot create an entire world and believe that no other human can and therefore it is logical to assume that it was something greater/more powerful than a human.

Scientific theories do not present a credible alternative for the world existing. Big bang, panspermia etc. may explain some things but do not provide any clues as to where everything came from in the first place (including matter, energy, pressure etc.) and what was there before. Furthermore, Big bang does not render the existence of God illogical in any way to my mind.

The Rad trophy?

Cool!

*Steers topic away from religion

I don't understand what America's problem is with an NHS style healthcare provision. Being a UK resident I get annoyed by the NHS's failings and bad points (and there are many!) and I know most others do too. However, you hardly ever hear people seeking to do away with it altogether in favour of private only (well, maybe the rich...).

It's a long way from perfect but surely having even a mediocre healthcare option available to all must be better than having a situation where people without the money can't get help?

Be interested to hear American viewpoints on this, particularly from those who are against it.

OK, last minute entry here!



Questionable at best really.

As to what it is, well it's an ... it's a ...

Thing With A Knob At The End That Has A Purpose?

Just to make them grammatically correct. Obviously, the solutions aren't very elegant

That's the problem with the rules of grammar, sometimes you end up with a ridiculous result!

I like to think of it as similar to music. For certain situations there are rules (like harmonising a Bach chorale) but ultimately the test is; Does it sound/look good/right?  That will (sometimes) over-ride the rules.

[was]

Your example in bold reads better than your friends example to me.

"He accepted that she showed them off not breaking the pact" implies that the pact was to show them off (or for him to accept the showing off). I would stick a comma in after "off".

You do have mixed tenses "was her work" and "as not breaking the pact", but I think this is more of a stylistic than a grammatical thing. Your grammar makes it clear to me that there was a pact that the two people made and which her showing off of the photos did not break.

Unless I have misunderstood the intention of the sentence...

[Since this was her work, he accepted that her showing them off was not breaking the pact.]

To be honest, I would say:

Since this was her work, he accepted that her showing them off was not breaking the pact.

or even better (dependant on emphasis):

Since this was her work, he accepted that she was not breaking the pact by showing them off.