[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Why does that leave little space for the divine?
You could believe that God created the rules (i. e. the laws of physics) and started things, like flicking the first domino and the rest will fall by themselves. The laws that govern this universe are very, very complex and delicately balanced …

You are completely correct, OC. One could hold to a belief like Deism and that would be completely compatible with acceptance of the theory of evolution. So, to be more precise, I should have said that evolution does not leave much room for an "active Creator" who shapes and interacts with creation to any meaningful extent but not a "passive Creator" who serves as nothing more than a First Cause.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Sure it does. God could be actively shaping our environment to select for the type of evolutionary change he wants, the same way humans over the centuries have actively shaped the evolution of dogs, corn and corndogs. (edit: or more to the point, the same way engineers use genetic algorithms to solve problems in ways they would have never thought up explicitly)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Fair enough. But if one defines evolution as "descent through modification by way of natural selection," then that doesn't leave much room for the role of a Creator. And it should be stated for those who don't know my position that I reject evolution, as defined in those dictionary definition terms, as anywhere near a sufficient cause for the existence of life (from the lowliest amoeba on up).

I'm not really sure that it doesn't leave any role for a creator. From a deist perspective (which obviously isn't really compatible with Judaism, but some form of modified/limited deism could perhaps be) you could just say that God wrote the program, set it executing, and let it do its thing. If, however, we posit a God that does play an active role in the universe there's still no reason to believe that He wouldn't have created evolution. Perhaps He simply set it in motion knowing that it would end up with the result He wanted. Or perhaps He set it in motion and occasionally interferes by nudging it in one direction or another, or even by simply creating extinction events.

As for the issue of the creation of life, no one who's worth talking to about evolution would posit that the theory of evolution explains the origin of life, only what happened afterwords. In other words, evolution was only ever intended to cover the events that happened after God did His thing.

That's certainly a possibility. The Torah explicitly says to honor the seventh day in remembrance of God's refraining from creation on the seventh day, although it is never says that His creation days are equivalent to our solar days (and it actually suggests otherwise). (That parallel is what causes, in part, absolute literalist Christians to assert that they were days like our days.) There may be a more precise definition of the yemot of creation that is not held by commonly known traditions. Or perhaps it's information that was not given.

In yet another perspective, the article I linked to discusses in brief scientist Gerald Schroder's theory that from God's perspective they were days of regular duration but from the perspective of relative time the periods that it would mesh with geologically accepted time scales.

Wow, I wish I had read that article sooner. Absolutely fascinating. I'd definitely like to see a critique of it by a cosmologist, as there are a few issues that pop out most importantly that current estimates of the age of the universe are less than 14 billion years, not the 15 that he posits. Of course, there's some uncertainty on both sides of these calculations, so I'm not going to dismiss it based solely on that.

The more important issue, to my mind, is when Man was created. A more standard reading would suggest that Man was created on the sixth day, some 250 million years ago. Unforunately, homo sapien sapien did not emerge onto the scene until approximately 200,000 years ago, some 249.8 million years too late. Interestingly, however, the ideas that we were talking about before around my programming metaphor might help us resolve this disparity. If we consider that on the sixth day what God actually did was to write the 'model definition' for Man, and that his blessing upon Man and his instructions to Man were actually simply programming for Man (or the writing of the appropriate parts of the Torah), there's no conflict. In that case, God defined man some 250 million years ago, but didn't necessarily instantiate Man (ie create Adam) until later. This certainly seems to bare out in the text, as in chapter one we're told that God created both male and female, but the in chapter two we're told that God created Adam alone, and then only later created Eve. So God defined the idea of Man in both the masculine and feminine forms on the 6th day, but didn't actually create Man until, presumably, the 8th day.

I'm afraid I'm not really familiar enough with the timeframe of natural history to really go much further in analyzing this. However it's not obvious to me that there would necessarily be any conflict between this interpretation of Creation and the idea that God's instantiation of Man involved my aforementioned bootstrapping process. The question, of course, is if the timing works out. I can't shake the feeling that this interpretation would put the origin of life on Earth later than the fossil record indicates. But again, this isn't necessarily contradictory as we could interpret God's creation of Man as a tweaking of the evolutionary path or something along those lines.

Definitely something worth some thought.

It should be stated that the generally accepted Orthodox Jewish opinion is that we are 5768 years from Creation, but it's important to note that that's the date from the creation of Adam (the sixth day) and not from the outset of creation of heaven and earth itself.

The problem with this, of course, is that, as I stated above, it appears homo sapien sapien came into being around 200,000 years ago. ~6000 years ago the Chinese had already developed agriculture and were moving into the bronze age. It seems unlikely that Adam and Eve hadn't even yet discovered their nakedness while the Chinese were farming millet and making metal tools.

Yeah, that's the type of absolute literalist Christian opinion to which I was referring.

Yeah, I get the impression that he really only saw what he wanted to see in those texts. Either that or he's intentionally discounting what he saw because it doesn't fit what he wants to say.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You are completely correct, OC. One could hold to a belief like Deism and that would be completely compatible with acceptance of the theory of evolution. So, to be more precise, I should have said that evolution does not leave much room for an "active Creator" who shapes and interacts with creation to any meaningful extent but not a "passive Creator" who serves as nothing more than a First Cause.

That's an age-old question raised by monks, philosophers and writers alike … and if you realize that it's either-or (either God is inside of time and actively `interfering'/shaping or God is outside of time, the passive creator who flicked the first domino), you have to accept consequences either way (limits on free will or lack of `divine intervention', for instance). In Paul Davies' `About Time', there is a chapter dedicated to this question, I'm sure it'll be an interesting read for you, if only for its philosophical entertainment value

Edit: I mistook Paul Davies for Paul Churchland.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Well, the question was different, not whether you can test whether there is God, but something that can be scientifically tested: the age of the Earth, human ancestry, etc.

Well that's the problem.. those tests have been done by some of the smartest people but the "Faithful" folks will never believe it no matter what proof you give them so again there isn't much point in trying to convince them.

[OreoCookie]

You won't be able to convince people who don't believe in scientific reasoning, because they believe it somehow contradicts their dogmas and interpretation of faith. Nor is every debate about convincing your opponent. I'd settle for mutual understanding of the other's side.

Progress is on the side of people who think of science and faith as two things that compliment each other like Ying and Yang.

[nonhuman]

After putting perhaps way too much thought into this, I've done some of the math to take a closer look at Dr. Schroeder's idea. In the article Big Mac linked to he says that the first day of creation would have been equivalent to about 8 billion years. Following his calculations through to the end this leads to an age for the universe of about 15.75 billion years. This is off by almost exactly 1 billion years which, considering the numbers being dealt with I figured is most likely the result of some rounding somewhere in his calculations. So, I decided to figure out how long the first day of creation would actually have been if his theory is right. The answer is approximately 7.48 billion years. Using that value you end up with 14.73 billion years as the age of the universe which is basically the currently accepted age. According to Genesis, the Earth was created on day 3, which lasted 1.87 billion years starting 3.51 billion years ago and ending 1.64 billion years ago. Unfortunately, the age of the Earth is actually about 4.5 billion years, which puts it towards the end of day 2 of creation using Dr. Schroeder's equation. This fits with neither the Torah's account of creation (in which on the second day the firmament of Heaven was created), nor with my programming metaphor idea in which all of the actual creation events would have occurred during day 8 which, according to Dr. Schroeder's equation won't actually start for another 112 million years (we're still in day 7).

I still think it's an interesting idea.

[design219]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

After putting perhaps way too much thought into this

I think I'm going to have to agree with you here.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The problem with this, of course, is that, as I stated above, it appears homo sapien sapien came into being around 200,000 years ago. ~6000 years ago the Chinese had already developed agriculture and were moving into the bronze age. It seems unlikely that Adam and Eve hadn't even yet discovered their nakedness while the Chinese were farming millet and making metal tools.

You'll forgive that I don't have time to reply to the rest of your post right now, but I wanted to respond to this portion to say that I don't agree with conventional scientific dating.

[Uncle Skeleton]

What about literary dating?

[Big Mac]

Science is getting closer to the truth every day: Slashdot | Humans Nearly Went Extinct 70,000 Years Ago

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't get it

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't get it

Noah, I would imagine.

I swear, seeing some of the craziness that people believe in with regard to this, it's hard to take anything else they say seriously. I mean, Big Mac even still believes in PowerPC, which is kind of the Mac equivalent of creationism.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Now you're discrediting any scientist who is a theist -- and any laymen who uses logical thinking in his/her life as well.
Plus it shows what I've said earlier: you neither understand science nor religion properly, all your confusion is a result of that. I think you would use the term `presuppositions' here.
No, this is an erroneous conclusion.
Most (scientific) evidence has nothing to do with God in the eyes of laymen. They will not view evidence that material A is more durable than material B as evidence for or against a God. They will not see the weather patterns of the seasons as arguments for either way. People use scientific reasoning all the time. Or at least make use of it and take it for granted. But the vast majority of them do not see this as evidence for or against a creator, because they understand that one has nothing to do with the other.

This would be the first time I've had to remind a moderator what a thread is about. We're talking about reconciling faith (more specifically, Scripture) with evolution, not reconciling faith with meteorology or durability. The ad homs, projections, and strawmen are unnecessary. For example;

- what is it exactly I don't understand about science based on this discussion?
- what is it exactly I don't understand about religion based on this discussion?

IMO, this is engaging me in a pissing contest of some sort and serves no fruitful purpose.

theist;
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods

One who believes God is the creator and ruler of the universe will have presuppositions. Presuppositions often misunderstood by those with their own. I'm not claiming they're expressed in science necessarily, but many scientists acknowledge the anomaly. I believe when we're discussing very specific Scriptural subjects such as Adam and Eve, the presuppositions become most apparent.

presuppositions;
1. to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.
2. (of a thing, condition, or state of affairs) to require or imply as an antecedent condition: An effect presupposes a cause.

Kenneth Miller makes an interesting point in Finding Darwin's God claiming that God of gaps suppositions by some scientists are dangerous because when science does fill them, atheist scientists jump on this as more evidence disproving God. IMO, if it weren't for the presuppositions neither problem would exist.

A 1981 pronouncement by the National Academy of Sciences summed up this comfortable truce. "Religion and science," it declared, "are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to a misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief."
NYTimes, 'beliefs'
Sounds irreconcilable.

Again wrong.
Science cannot make any claims beyond things you cannot test. That includes faith. But that doesn't mean science `cannot regard "creators",' it means science cannot test whether there is or isn't a creator.

How can evolution science regard creators if it cannot test for them?

Scientifically, it's an undecidable question, so it's entirely a matter of faith. Even better, whether God exists or not does not interfere with scientific results!

Nevermind, you've just answered my question. Science cannot regard creators.

You got that one right.

I'm glad you got that one.

It's not about being objectionable, you're throwing around the word presupposition and you leave it to the reader which presuppositions you actually mean. Instead of saying what it is exactly you object to, you argue that `you just can't see it because of your presuppositions.' This is not a good way to foster a discussion.

I never said 'you just can't see it because of your presuppositions'. I assumed Dakar genuinely couldn't see Taliesin's reasoning. I was very fair and liberal with my use of the word "may" when I addressed Dakar. If truly unable to see Taliesin's reasoning he may be subject to his own presupposition. I was merely using their disconnect to illustrate my earlier point about reconciling faith with science. More specifically, Scripture. i.e. Adam and Eve. Those who suggest as you, that the faithful should simply not take Scripture literally do not provide instances where it is acceptable to take it literally.

You identify presuppositions with some vague notion of philosophical foundation, which is alright, although in my opinion the word presupposition is not the right one.

I think this would've been a better way to start off.

But you make two mistakes: first of all, you seem to think that it is possible to be without `presuppositions' (in your sense). Every person has to make basic assumptions and quite a few of them fall into the realm of faith.

I never claimed they didn't. In fact, I'd be more inclined to tell you that it is impossible to be without presupposition. The matter of Adam and Eve is specifically a question of how you reconcile Scripture or religion with science. I don't think you can. They are two entirely different disciplines.

The second mistake you make is that you mix conclusions you derive from these `presuppositions' with presuppositions themselves. E. g. you construe that if you believe in a creator, then they cannot view scientific evidence as such.

You'll recall that I addressed what seemed to be Dakar's confusion on Taliesin's reasoning. Taliesin's reasoning was clearly founded on a presupposition, an assumption that God exists. Taking issue with this may be the result of a differing presupposition. It was an observation and IMO, an illustration.

reconcile;
1. to cause (a person) to accept or be resigned to something not desired: He was reconciled to his fate.
2. to win over to friendliness; cause to become amicable: to reconcile hostile persons.
3. to compose or settle (a quarrel, dispute, etc.).
4. to bring into agreement or harmony; make compatible or consistent: to reconcile differing statements; to reconcile accounts.

The ones quarreling, hostile, seeking to "win over" to friendliness, (and IMO the most vocal ones) are the opinionated ones in defense of their presupposition. Then, you're left with the ones resigned to something not desired. I don't think it's necessary to reconcile faith (more specifically, Scripture) with science. As mentioned earlier, I don't think it's an effective use of time until you know more about both.

[Big Mac]

Here's an article worth reading: An Atheist Turns

And another: In The Beginning

In the comments section of the second article, the author responds with some additional intriguing ways to reconcile science with Genesis:

Originally Posted by Lawrence Kelemen

AUTHOR RESPONDS
Dear Mr. Feinstein,

It would be deceitful to falsify either biblical or scientific claims just for the sake of harmonizing the two fields. However, we have no duty to make up contradictions where they do not exist. The age of the universe is such a case. Three approaches entirely resolve the biblical and scientific sources.

The first emanates from Adam's maturity at the moment of creation. The man whom God commanded, on the sixth day, to "be fertile and multiply; fill the land and conquer it; dominate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every beast that walks the land" (Genesis 1:28) could not have been a newborn infant. When Adam appears, he strikes us as fully developed. (It is interesting to note that the Midrash and Talmud, in texts recorded no later than 505 C.E., explicitly state that God created a fully developed world (see tractate Rosh Hashanah 11a), that Adam and Eve were created twenty-years old (see Bereshis Rabbah 14:7), and that this "first" couple were preceded by 974 generations (see tractate Chagigah p.13b). Similarly, when God created trees, He could have created them as normal and fully developed too -- with rings indicating their history. Theoretically, a scientist present on the third day could have read these rings and described weather conditions that reigned in the months and years preceding Creation. In short, this solution posits that about 6,000 years ago God created a 15 billion year-old universe.

This is not to say that God perpetrated a fraud, that He created a universe that looked fifteen billion years old. Rather, this solution suggests that God created a world with a real history. If this solution is correct, then hominids might really have been extant during the 95,000 years before Adam arrived on the scene. Theoretically, an omnipotent God could create such a reality, even after the fact.

Another solution is based on some classical Jewish writings. The Talmud (Sanhedrin p.97a) states that "the world will exist for six thousand years and be destroyed in the seven-thousandth year." A first century talmudic scholar, Rabbi Nechunya Ben-Hakanah, explained (Sefer Ha-Temunah) that this passage describes a single "Sabbatical Cycle," but that the world will pass through seven of these (7,000 year) cycles. Rabbi Isaac of Akko, one of the foremost kabbalists of the thirteenth century, taught that we are currently in the seventh of these cycles. He wrote, "Since the Sabbatical Cycles existed before Adam, their chronology must be measured, not in human years, but in Divine years". Rabbi Isaac was alluding to the biblical verse, "A thousand years are, in Your eyes, but a single bygone day" (Psalms 90:4). Since a Divine day is 1,000 human years, then a Divine year -- consisting of 365¼ Divine days -- is equal to 365,250 years. Thus, when Adam was created our universe was (6 cycles) x (7,000 Divine years/cycle) x (365,250 human years/Divine year) = 15,340,500,000 human years old. The Orthodox Jewish scholar Rabbi Israel Lipschitz (1782 to 1860), author of one of the most widely used Talmudic commentaries, worked with these sources and taught that fossil finds were indeed remnants of previous Sabbatical Cycles. (See Rabbi Israel Lipschitz, Derush Or Ha-Chayim.)

As you alluded, M.I.T.'s Professor Gerald Schroeder offers a third possible solution to the dating problem. He first describes this 1972 experiment reported in Science (14 July 1972, Volume 177 (1972), pp. 168-9): Researchers from Washington University and the U.S. Naval Academy placed highly accurate cesium-beam clocks on TWA and Pan Am flights. Before take-off the scientists synchronized the onboard clocks with a land-based clock, and after landing they checked to see if the onboard units still showed the same time as the land-based one. In keeping with Einstein's prediction that time moves more slowly onboard moving objects, the onboard clocks lost time relative to the land-based clock. In essence, time slowed down aboard the jets.

Next Dr. Schroeder describes the state of the universe 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang. The temperature was 1032°K, and all that existed was "a melee of random high-energy collisions." As the universe cooled, physical particles formed and aggregated. Because time is relative, the "clock" aboard each of these billions of aggregations operated at a different speed. According to which of these billions of clocks did the Creation take six days? Indeed, why should God have chosen any particular star or planet's clock over its neighbor's? Since man -- the purpose of Creation -- did not yet exist, no single location was more central or significant than any other.

"The compromise," Dr. Schroeder theorizes, "was to choose, for the time preceding Adam, the Creator's own reference frame that viewed all the universe as a single entity." According to Dr. Schroeder's calculations, the period of time that would measure 15 billion years from the earth's perspective would measure about about six days from an overall perspective. Then, once Adam was created, "that part of the universe where man dwells started to operate in the same space-time reference frame as its Creator." In essence, God threw away His Divine clock and started measuring time according to the earth's perspective. As corroboration for his theory, Dr. Schroeder points out that:

Biblical dating is not totally at odds with archaeology. Within the total time span of the biblical calendar, we find no conflicts between its chronology and scientifically established dates for the entire post-Adam period, that is, the 57 centuries since Adam... Only the early part of the Bible's calendar, which relates to events of the six days that precede Adam, appears to be in contradiction with the results of modern scientific inquiry.

As an example, Dr. Schroeder compares the dates given by the Torah and by archaeologists for the Bronze Age:

Using a midpoint of the age of Noah for the time that [the biblical character] Tuval-Cain invented forging, we can place the early Bronze Age at approximately 1,350 years after the appearance of Adam, or 4,400 years (5750 minus 1,350) before the present. The archaeology section of the Israel Museum houses examples of early brass tools. Their first appearance is dated at approximately 2,400 B.C.E. or approximately 4,400 years ago.

As I point out in Permission to Receive: Four Rational Approaches to the Torah's Divine Origin (in the chapter entitled "The Empirical Issue"), the dates indicated for the flood by more than a half dozen nonbiblical tablets also correspond with the biblical record.

All three of these solutions resolve the dating dilemma. Whether six thousand years ago, in six 24-hour days, God created a genuinely old universe; or whether the Torah's six days of Creation began after 15 billion years of previous sabbatical cycles; or whether six days and 15 billion years are really the same era timed from different space-time reference frames; the result is the same. The Torah and science can harmonize. If, indeed, all other details of the biblical record conform to known historical facts, then the early dates implied for the universe's creation and man's appearance do not compromise the document's credibility.

Sincerely,

Lawrence Kelemen

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A 1981 pronouncement by the National Academy of Sciences summed up this comfortable truce. "Religion and science," it declared, "are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to a misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief."
NYTimes, 'beliefs'
Sounds irreconcilable.

No, on the contrary, it is exactly what I've been saying all along: faith and science are complementary to each other (mutually exclusive realms of human thought), but they are not `mutually exclusive'. Mutually exclusive realms of thought means that you cannot argue science in faith and the other way around. But mutually exclusive they are not.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How can evolution science regard creators if it cannot test for them?

Evolution cannot. For Evolution it is irrelevant if God has created the universe and the laws of physics or not.
People can, because they have a side (= faith) that cannot be grasped by scientific reasoning.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You'll recall that I addressed what seemed to be Dakar's confusion on Taliesin's reasoning. Taliesin's reasoning was clearly founded on a presupposition, an assumption that God exists.

No, his reasoning was based on a specific interpretation of his scripture, not on the assumption of the existence of God.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think it's necessary to reconcile faith (more specifically, Scripture) with science. As mentioned earlier, I don't think it's an effective use of time until you know more about both.

Reconcile (i. e. existing side-by-side in harmony) is easy. It's not difficult and it's absolutely necessary for the advancement of human society.

[Atomic Rooster]

heheh...just read that a majority of Jews rarely practice or are atheists. That's interesting indeed.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Regarding the supposed discrepancies in creation between B'Reshit (Genesis) 1 and 2 (discussed on page 3), when it says no plant of the field was in the earth because Adam was not around to tend to them, the context informs us that it's referring to the Garden of Eden (the reference to "in the field" is one clue, and the fact that it refers to man is another that this plant life was specifically for Adam's benefit and would not be actualized until he was ready). Also, the animals that God forms for Adam to name were already formed. The verb formed is in past tense - God "had formed" them previously but brought them to Adam in the garden when he was ready to name them. Chapter 1 is an overview of creation; chapter 2 (or at least, from verse 4 on because the Christian chapter division cuts the end of chapter 1 off) is specific to humanity.

I also thought first, that Genesis 1 were the chronogical account, and Genesis 2 merely offering some details concerning espescially the relationship between God and Adam, and maybe espescially concerning Garden Eden. But two sentences prevented a consistent approach:

5When no(D) bush of the field[a] was yet in the land[b] and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man(E) to work the ground

So according to this, bushes and plants did not come up until the first rain and until there was man to work the ground.

It seems like Garden Eden were the first garden at all.

18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone;(R) I will make him a helper fit for[e] him." 19(S) Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed[f] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and(T) brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21So the LORD God caused a(U) deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.

Source: BibleGateway.com - Passage�Lookup: Genesis 2

According to this, God decided that man needed a helper and "then" created every bird and beast and brought them to Adam who named them all, and when no helper for Adam was appropriate enough, God created Eve out of Adam...

The whole passage minus the direct speech is written in past tense.

I will have to continue on sunday or monday, if God wills, time is unfortunately short.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I mean, Big Mac even still believes in PowerPC, which is kind of the Mac equivalent of creationism.

Hey now, still chugging along quite well on my dual 2GHz G5. Don't be ha'in.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, his reasoning was based on a specific interpretation of his scripture, not on the assumption of the existence of God.

No, the disconnect between he and Dakar began with Taliesin's response to the posted link; Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

Taliesin responded; Now if that doesn't show God's power, I don't know what is. May God be praised.

Dakar took issue with Taliesin's assumption of God in the evidence as if others were supposed to get it. I'm not saying Taliesin does not interpret his Scripture, but there was no scripture to be interpreted in the article. There was a disconnect between the two on the God assumption.

Reconcile (i. e. existing side-by-side in harmony) is easy. It's not difficult and it's absolutely necessary for the advancement of human society.

As long as the faithful do not take Scripture literally. Except, again no one has claimed when it is okay to take Scripture literally. Scripture and science do live side by side, but there is little that would be considered harmonious between the two. IMO, leave it at the 'side by side' part and most will do just fine.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Dakar took issue

Hey, hey, let's not manufacture events here. I didn't take issue because I wasn't sure what was going on. I'm not sure I got the point of the statement, however.

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You'll forgive that I don't have time to reply to the rest of your post right now, but I wanted to respond to this portion to say that I don't agree with conventional scientific dating.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

What about literary dating?

What about speed dating?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Hey, hey, let's not manufacture events here. I didn't take issue because I wasn't sure what was going on. I'm not sure I got the point of the statement, however.

Because I want to be careful in not misrepresenting your query to Taliesin, let me rehash the events and please tell me where I manufactured something;
Taliesin in response to evidence of evolution via link regarding Lizards' rapid evolution;

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Now if that doesn't show God's power, I don't know what is. May God be praised.

Originally Posted by Dakar

I'm not sure I see your reasoning.

Originally Posted by Dakar

Well, I'm a little confused because he's stating it in such a way that implies we should all be seeing it.

Seeing what? God's power? God? God being praised? It seemed to me this was an issue of the God assumption and you expressing confusion over this assumption?

[Dakar the Fourth]

I just objected to your wording, ebuddy. "Take issue" has a negative connotation like I had some major problem with it. I didn't have a problem, but I was confused what he meant until he cleared it up.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

heheh...just read that a majority of Jews rarely practice or are atheists. That's interesting indeed.

Lewis Black has a great bit on that. The reason the Old Testament was written was to help the Jews survive. "They were three hairs away from being baboons." He touched on stuff like marriage and the old testament God being a outright bastard. The reason marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman is because people were marrying pigs and camels. People can't survive if they don't propagate.

[Big Mac]

I'm proud of you for getting your history from a rather crappy comedian.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Here's an article worth reading: An Atheist Turns

And another: In The Beginning

In the comments section of the second article, the author responds with some additional intriguing ways to reconcile science with Genesis:

You know, I wonder if you might indulge me in a little thought experiment, here...This guy's essential argument is that life, the unvierse and everything are too "wonderful" to not be the work of an "infinite intelligence." Right?

The problem is that THAT logic also applies to said "infinite intelligence."

If the universe can't "just happen," then neither can God.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Here's an article worth reading: An Atheist Turns

And another: In The Beginning

In the comments section of the second article, the author responds with some additional intriguing ways to reconcile science with Genesis:

Oh, and the In the Beginning article's central premise that an open universe automatically implies a creator is completely absurd.

That is the oldest and most primitive reaction to the unknown. If that is truly the logic of the religious, then it explains much. I'm sure a moment like that some millions of years back was indeed the origin of all religion.

Something unexplained happened and someone else told a story about a hidden God causing it.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

If the universe can't "just happen," then neither can God.

Huh? That makes absolutely no sense. That conclusion does not follow whatsoever from that proposition.

[OreoCookie]

Yes, it does. It's the same with irreducible complexity: God is at least as complex as the most complex of his designs, where is `his' complexity coming from? Is there a designer behind the designer? And who was its designer?

To assume that the `universe' just happened is no more or less absurd than to believe `God just exists' (and is the Alpha and the Omega). Who or what is the reason behind the reason of all reasons?

I'm not saying either one assumption is absurd, I'm saying they're equally absurd, so you may as well pick one of them or both

[Big Mac]

The Supreme Being is necessary and sufficient unto Himself. He is and will be and needs nothing to justify His existence. One second from now existence could cease but He would still be. God cannot be confined to His creation. What the two of you have just raised are logical red herrings that sound good to atheists on paper but are meaningless in real terms.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The Supreme Being is necessary and sufficient unto Himself. He is and will be and needs nothing to justify His existence. One second from now existence could cease but He would still be. God cannot be confined to His creation. What the two of you have just raised are logical red herrings that sound good to atheists on paper but are meaningless in real terms.

See, this is where theism starts to lose me. If it's possible for God to exist independently of all else, then how can we say it's impossible for the universe, something which, by definition, must be less complex than God Himself, to exist independently of all else?

It's not so much that I have a problem with the idea of something infinite simply existing without beginning or end, it's the I have the problem with the idea that it's absolutely possible and necessary for one thing to do so while absolutely impossible for another thing to do so.

[OreoCookie]

@Big Mac
You take this too personally, I was actually trying to affirm your position by saying it's no less strange or `illogical' than to assume that the universe came into existence by itself.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

What the two of you have just raised are logical red herrings that sound good to atheists on paper but are meaningless in real terms.

I'm not an atheist

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The Supreme Being is necessary and sufficient unto Himself. He is and will be and needs nothing to justify His existence. One second from now existence could cease but He would still be. God cannot be confined to His creation. What the two of you have just raised are logical red herrings that sound good to atheists on paper but are meaningless in real terms.

You flunk logic.

[design219]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

To assume that the `universe' just happened is no more or less absurd than to believe `God just exists' (and is the Alpha and the Omega).

Agreed.

I think the human brain is wired to think within limits. The concept of "eternal" for time in both directions and "infinite" for space in all dimensions is really inconceivable. I think a creator helps us deal this this brain twister.

I actually hope that the universe continually collapses and explodes to recycle itself (this has all happened before, and will happen again). As far as infinite universes off in the distance, I hope it turns out that space is some sort of weird thing that circles back onto itself (you know, exit stage left and re-enter stage right).

That concept is a limit as well.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Huh? That makes absolutely no sense. That conclusion does not follow whatsoever from that proposition.

Of course it does.

The "logic" used to justify the existence of God in the theistic article you posted was that the "wonder" of creation dictates that it must be the product of a creative intelligence.

However, that reasoning must also apply to an intelligence sweeping enough to have created the universe. If a universe capable of spawning life is so special as to demand active creative intelligence in its origins, then by extension so must whatever was responsible for its creation.

The argument, of course, extends on ad infinitum.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The Supreme Being is necessary and sufficient unto Himself. He is and will be and needs nothing to justify His existence. One second from now existence could cease but He would still be. God cannot be confined to His creation. What the two of you have just raised are logical red herrings that sound good to atheists on paper but are meaningless in real terms.

So says your book, or rather so says an overly wrought interpretation of your book, but there is nothing logical about this assertion.

This is precisely why ebuddy was right that science and religious cannot be discussed in the same terms. This assertion you make, that God cannot be confined to his creation, is precisely the kind of statement that cannot be subjected to reason. When you invite people to apply logic to your unprovable, subjective faith, then you invite this very situation: you look quite foolish for throwing this up when only a few posts back you were posting material indicating that there was some logical reason to believe in God.

There is not. There never will be. But don't worry, according to the interpretations I've heard, that's just the way your God wants it.

So keep your God out of my science and I'll keep my reason away from your God.


P.S. I just caught your last line again. "Real" terms. Come on, deep down, don't you know none of this is real?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by design219 

Agreed.

I think the human brain is wired to think within limits. The concept of "eternal" for time in both directions and "infinite" for space in all dimensions is really inconceivable. I think a creator helps us deal this this brain twister.

I actually hope that the universe continually collapses and explodes to recycle itself (this has all happened before, and will happen again). As far as infinite universes off in the distance, I hope it turns out that space is some sort of weird thing that circles back onto itself (you know, exit stage left and re-enter stage right).

That concept is a limit as well.

The bottom line about cosmology is that we really don't know what the hell is going on out there. Big Bang has holes you can fly a passenger jet through. Gravity and Quantum mechanics just refuse to get along...still. String theory/M theory/whatever-the-hell-they're-looking-to-this-week keeps branching and receding into the distance.

The universe is obviously so complex as to be incomprehensible to us at our current level. By extension, any God that was somehow capable of creating all of this would naturally be beyond our comprehension as well. Yet you will find no shortage of people who believe they know the nature of such an incomprehensible being and what is more, that they know what it is this being wants of us. Suspiciously, what this God often wants is submission to authority--a very anthropomorphic motive that is the most illogical of any assertions about God. Why would the creator of the cosmos have such a frail and human-like ego as to require worship from us?

What was my point, again?

[design219]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

What was my point, again?

Ha, your point was very good.

I think it's a no win argument and sounds weird either way:

"something created everything"

"nothing was ever created"

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

How do you reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution?

I guess I'll bite..
the garden of eden represents man's childhood state of innocence without worry ( there may have also been a literal adam and eve but we will never know.). Without sin one's soul lives forever. Hence the tree of life. The snake is not a real snake obviously; it represents Satan whispering to them. The apple represents the "seed of sin that exist in everybody". The seed that everyone will eat from, will grow, consuming them, killing their soul.. Only god can save you from this. The technical rules are different for different people depending on circumstances that allow god/christ to save someone. Those who aren't saved, Satan will be able to temp into hell with his great power and cunningness.
We can't think of the rules of the bible as being like rules in our society, in which the rules are made for us to follow and a beaurocracy is instated to enforce those rules regardless of circumstance. God isn't bound by rules, he created them for us not for him to enforce.

someone came to Christ and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"
He said, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." The man said, "All the commandments I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you'ill have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the man heard this, he left grieving; for he was one who owned much. And Jesus said," it's easier for a camel go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." the disciples said, "Then who can be saved?" Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
-The Bible
In other words God/Christ will bend the rules based on who's truly good not who followed technical rules..

"For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. "-The Bible:

In Christianity you must ask to be saved and seek christ. People before christ wouldn't have been able to do this this way.
Eve's vice is that being a woman, she's inherently a little self serving. She eats the apple because it looks good to eat... it looks like it tastes-good for her big selfish mouth... and we know how woman like to eat a lot.

When Adam hears the apple will let him know the difference between good and evil making him like God he's thinking "what's that? Like God?". As a man Adam's vice is a quest for power. Adam heard "like God" and he was sold. Men are more philosophical and inherently desire to reshape things for the better according to their perspective of whats better. A nation, corporation, societies...could be anything...Generally they fail at actually making something better. Its just egotistical behavior.
When adam/eve sinned they sentenced themselves to spiritual death and had to make sacrifices of things they worked hard to acquire and were considered necessities to live; to prove their faith that God would make sure they got their "daily bread", without much evidence that he would do anything.

I may have left something out.. maybe I;ll come back later. I dont have much time... Oh yea. and the bible says nothing about or contradicting to evolution. it's not about that kind of stuff. 7 days... is kinda like saying "the technology of tomorrow" even though we don't literally mean tomorrow.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

This is precisely why ebuddy was right that science and religious cannot be discussed in the same terms.

I disagree with your move from "science and religion cannot be discussed in the same context" to
"there will never be a logical reason to believe in God".

I consider myself a very logical person and yet I maintain a belief in God. I believe there are many things that have brought me to faith, logic being one of them. I know enough Christians to know this to be the case with them as well.

A belief in God or a god(s) would naturally begin with at least accepting the possibility of the supernatural. One does not have to investigate long to infer the existence of the supernatural or in softer terms; at least not a priori reject it. Granted, in science there are things simply not yet defined by any natural mechanism, but there is nothing illogical about concluding otherwise. This compounded with some profound points in my life and in witnessing things I could only explain as "extra-coincidental", I accepted the Biblical account as the most plausible to me. I made this choice based on several factors that simply differentiate the Bible/Christianity from other faiths. At this point a choice was in fact made and faith enters in. I've given a detailed account of why I believe the two are irreconcilable, but this does not mean that one has to abandon logic to be faithful.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I disagree with your move from "science and religion cannot be discussed in the same context" to
"there will never be a logical reason to believe in God".

I consider myself a very logical person and yet I maintain a belief in God. I believe there are many things that have brought me to faith, logic being one of them. I know enough Christians to know this to be the case with them as well.

A belief in God or a god(s) would naturally begin with at least accepting the possibility of the supernatural. One does not have to investigate long to infer the existence of the supernatural or in softer terms; at least not a priori reject it. Granted, in science there are things simply not yet defined by any natural mechanism, but there is nothing illogical about concluding otherwise. This compounded with some profound points in my life and in witnessing things I could only explain as "extra-coincidental", I accepted the Biblical account as the most plausible to me. I made this choice based on several factors that simply differentiate the Bible/Christianity from other faiths. At this point a choice was in fact made and faith enters in. I've given a detailed account of why I believe the two are irreconcilable, but this does not mean that one has to abandon logic to be faithful.

I apologize if it seemed I was trying to imply you agreed with the latter of my two statements.

One does not have to abandon logic, no, but I cannot agree that logic has anything to do with faith. Even I, atheist that I am, have some faith. My faith is not in anything as detailed and enumerated as any of the religions of the world, nor is it in any supernatural force at all. Even that vague faith I possess, though, I must recognize has nothing to do with logic, unless by that one means that logic itself can lead to the human truth that logic itself is not enough to give purpose to our lives.

For myself, I cannot imagine what logical factors led you to choose Christianity as the one belief system to subscribe to. From a logical standpoint, the historical evidence alone that many key events of the New Testament simply did not happen would seem to be enough to preclude one's logic from playing much role in his or her life as a Christian.

My point is that we are all marvelously complex beings, capable of extraordinary feats of cognitive dissonance--which is one of the capabilities that makes us what we are. After all, a computer is capable of completely logical thought, and yet we are capable of so much more than mere machine thinking.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by design219 

Ha, your point was very good.

I think it's a no win argument and sounds weird either way:

"something created everything"

"nothing was ever created"

No, no, I was saying this:

Not everything was created.

[lpkmckenna]

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This is one of the two big questions I've always had.

How did Adam and Eve know that defying God's word was wrong if they had no knowledge of good and evil?

The other question is why does no one ever call God out for lying to Adam and Eve, nor give the serpent credit for telling the truth?

[Chongo]

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

The other question is why does no one ever call God out for lying to Adam and Eve, nor give the serpent credit for telling the truth?

Some do.

These guys are interesting too.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

The other question is why does no one ever call God out for lying to Adam and Eve, nor give the serpent credit for telling the truth?

What did God lie about and what truth did the serpent tell?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What did God lie about and what truth did the serpent tell?

IIRC, God tells Adam and Eve that if they partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they shall surely die. They do partake, and then don't die.

Of course, they ultimately die, but that's not because they ate the apple, it's because God cast them out of the garden. Had they been able to stay, they would have been able to partake of the tree of immortality.

From the Revised Standard:

"3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not die.'"

"22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" -- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden"

[design219]

Originally Posted by subego 

the man has become like one of us,

That's interesting. Who is the "us?"