How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[BreezeWood]

.
creationist linger for a time past they never deserved from their literature unlike mythology who's pleasant past though never proven remains a meaningful respite for the complexities it served to define.

Oh, yeah, you're taking over the world with your theology of "Believe nothing, behave like an animal until you die and cease to exist". That's totally going to appeal to the vast majority of humans.

Good luck with that.

.

Oh, yeah, you're taking over the world with your theology of "Believe nothing, behave like an animal until you die and cease to exist". That's totally going to appeal to the vast majority of humans.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with that ...




are you related to bond ...

tell us serpent, where is the religion in your 10000 pg book.

I have no idea, I have not seen God yet.

surly you jest ...


.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And I am convinced that you are actually Muslim.

And I am convinced that your opinions are meaningless.

What an odd response, when all I did was use the tactics you described on you. I guess you have a pretty low opinion of your own methods. Maybe you should change them.

I think that we should add "Cecilie's methods" to the long, LONG list of things you utterly do not understand, since you didn't do anything I would ever do.

You need to pay attention. You clearly said you knew peoples thoughts , regardless of what they actually say or do. I tookyour amazing advice to heart and used your awesome methods to discern that you are a secret, crazy Muslim, trying to infiltrate a good, Christian message board. I also realized you are big fan of Precious Moments figurines.

Are you now denouncing your own methods, professor?

No, dumbshit, I didn't. I said, and will continue to say, that words mean things, and I'm fully capable of reading your words and discerning what they say about your thoughts, opinions, and attitudes. That's WHAT THEY'RE FOR.

If you don't want to reveal your stupidity, don't talk. In fact, that would be doing everyone else a tremendous favor.

Your words:

"Let me give you some free advice: don't be gullible enough to take people's words at face value."

You typed this right after to claim to know what people are really thinking, despite what they actually say.

Using your methods, I have deduced that your are a fundamental Muslim who is also a polyamorous homosexual.

Are you now denouncing your own methods? Or are you saying they only work for YOU, but not for me?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry but I think their conclusions are spot on and their science was both precise and pretty wonderful

Then you clearly mkssed my point and/or have not read much about their work. When Einstein made empirical claims resulting from the beliefs you mention (but misrepresent), he was wrong and had to drop these claims.

So those beliefs led to incorrect assumptions and some bad science, as Einstein tried to force the mathematics to agree with the assumptions. Einstein admitted this....why can't you?

 

[Weatherman2020]

.
creationist linger for a time past they never deserved from their literature unlike mythology who's pleasant past though never proven remains a meaningful respite for the complexities it served to define.

Oh, yeah, you're taking over the world with your theology of "Believe nothing, behave like an animal until you die and cease to exist". That's totally going to appeal to the vast majority of humans.

Good luck with that.

.

Oh, yeah, you're taking over the world with your theology of "Believe nothing, behave like an animal until you die and cease to exist". That's totally going to appeal to the vast majority of humans.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with that ...




are you related to bond ...

tell us serpent, where is the religion in your 10000 pg book.

I have no idea, I have not seen God yet.

surly you jest ...


.

You don't talk with God?
How sad.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I never said athiests are right. I said they think they have no possibility in their thought process that maybe they are wrong.

ag-nos-tic, not atheist.

An agnostic is someone too lazy to make up their mind in the most important issue in their lives.

I know neither the bible nor the Koran can be right. You realy think god wants to be praised all day? He has got to be thinking shut the fuck up you brown noser suck ups! I already know what I did was cool!

I have no idea, I have not seen God yet.

You think God wants you to saw the heads off all unbelievers?

Nope, I doubt he would give a shit!

You don't think God cares babies are murdered?
Interesting. I know the left does not care.

 

[evenflow1969]

ag-nos-tic, not atheist.

An agnostic is someone too lazy to make up their mind in the most important issue in their lives.

I know neither the bible nor the Koran can be right. You realy think god wants to be praised all day? He has got to be thinking shut the fuck up you brown noser suck ups! I already know what I did was cool!

I have no idea, I have not seen God yet.

You think God wants you to saw the heads off all unbelievers?

Nope, I doubt he would give a shit!

You don't think God cares babies are murdered?
Interesting. I know the left does not care.

Quite the leap in l;ogic there buddy!

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry but I think their conclusions are spot on and their science was both precise and pretty wonderful

Then you clearly mkssed my point and/or have not read much about their work. When Einstein made empirical claims resulting from the beliefs you mention (but misrepresent), he was wrong and had to drop these claims.

So those beliefs led to incorrect assumptions and some bad science, as Einstein tried to force the mathematics to agree with the assumptions. Einstein admitted this....why can't you?

I think we are arguing different things here. What I am arguing and the context in which Einstein was arguing had nothing whatsoever to do with mathematical assumptions.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
creationist linger for a time past they never deserved from their literature unlike mythology who's pleasant past though never proven remains a meaningful respite for the complexities it served to define.

Oh, yeah, you're taking over the world with your theology of "Believe nothing, behave like an animal until you die and cease to exist". That's totally going to appeal to the vast majority of humans.

Good luck with that.

.

Oh, yeah, you're taking over the world with your theology of "Believe nothing, behave like an animal until you die and cease to exist". That's totally going to appeal to the vast majority of humans.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with that ...




are you related to bond ...

tell us serpent, where is the religion in your 10000 pg book.

I have no idea, I have not seen God yet.

surly you jest ...


.

You don't talk with God?
How sad.

.

You don't talk with God?
How sad.

no,

another serpent ... communication is through sight, seeing the Almighty is not hard to do.

 

[james bond]

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

Will gently disagree that creationism explains nothing or provides no useful predictions. Spinoza and Einstein who admired his theories both embraced a concept of some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the process that could explain so much that evolution/natural selection cannot. He did not believe in a personal God as the theist believes. He said: “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” and went on to explain that as not a God who concerns himself with humankind but rather a lawful harmony of all that exists. He said: “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”

I like to think of Einstein's amazement and delight to find out that how much of his theories were right and how close he got to God's truth before he was face to face with God and got the rest of the story.

The Creation stories are not useful to teach science as they cannot be taken literally and also be squared with the science that we are pretty sure we know. But if they are taken symbolically or metaphorically they fill in the blanks that evolution cannot. What exists that we know exists, as well as that we have not yet discovered, is because God made it happen. Many things are the way they are because they fit into a divine plan and/or because of sin that spoiled God's perfect creation. And because there is some great purpose to it all, then prayer makes a difference, obedience to God (i.e. fitting into his greater purpose) makes things better, and we can enjoy confidence that there is a brighter future/existence for us.

It's good that you can empathize, if that's the correct word, with Einstein's amazement and delight and how close he got to God's truth.

However, I disagree with your closing paragraph in that creation stories are not useful to teach science. They are to be taken literally. I hope one day we can teach Genesis, but not as religion. As I stated, the order has been reversed since the 1850s with Charles Lyell and his pupil Charles Darwin, with geology and uniformitarianism coming in to question creation geology and catastrophism. Today, people believe what these atheists laid down as science. Thus, the onset of evolution led people astray just like someone who hikes or backpacks and takes the wrong path early on his journey. The truth remains with the Bible. I studied evolution and when I had questions it could not answer, I finally looked at what creation scientists were saying and started to agree with them. They answered more of my questions than evolution, Lyell or Darwin. So, the Bible is to be taken literally and I am a young earth creationist. I'm a computer scientist or engineer by trade so there isn't much conflict at work. If I were a geologist, paleontologist, zoologist or a biologist, then I would have more difficulties. I would probably have to hide my creation science and views if I were to continue working in those fields. Have you heard of William Lane Craig? I subscribe to most of his arguments, but I cannot see his side of evolution and old earth creation. That's not the way God intended his word to be used. How can it when there was no evolution back then?

If someone wanted to shake up my faith, then let them find alien life on another planet. Let them colonize Mars or the moon. Let them create gold, the divine element. Let them create a blade of grass. Even that guy Francis Crick, who co-founded the double helix and A-T and C-G models of DNA and said this proves there is no God, thought later in life that panspermia originated life on earth. (Crick was roundly criticized for his beliefs as it was shown to be pseudoscience.) Show me panspermia or anything else for the origin of life. You see, I know one can't find an alien, colonize another planet or our own moon, create gold, i.e. create an atom, a blade of grass or show panspermia. I know there are no multiverses, a way to travel back in time (I can show you how to travel forward in time though and we can do it today via Space-X), no egg before the chicken and more. These are what I have come to think from the Bible and creation science. There are just some things God would not allow such as we'll never know the beginning nor the end. These things God said he'll keep to himself. Is it any wonder that even a smart guy like Stephen Hawking, as smart as Einstein, ends up saying he wants to know the origin of the universe and why something is greater than nothing?

 

[Foxfyre]

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

Will gently disagree that creationism explains nothing or provides no useful predictions. Spinoza and Einstein who admired his theories both embraced a concept of some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the process that could explain so much that evolution/natural selection cannot. He did not believe in a personal God as the theist believes. He said: “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” and went on to explain that as not a God who concerns himself with humankind but rather a lawful harmony of all that exists. He said: “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”

I like to think of Einstein's amazement and delight to find out that how much of his theories were right and how close he got to God's truth before he was face to face with God and got the rest of the story.

The Creation stories are not useful to teach science as they cannot be taken literally and also be squared with the science that we are pretty sure we know. But if they are taken symbolically or metaphorically they fill in the blanks that evolution cannot. What exists that we know exists, as well as that we have not yet discovered, is because God made it happen. Many things are the way they are because they fit into a divine plan and/or because of sin that spoiled God's perfect creation. And because there is some great purpose to it all, then prayer makes a difference, obedience to God (i.e. fitting into his greater purpose) makes things better, and we can enjoy confidence that there is a brighter future/existence for us.

It's good that you can empathize, if that's the correct word, with Einstein's amazement and delight and how close he got to God's truth.

However, I disagree with your closing paragraph in that creation stories are not useful to teach science. They are to be taken literally. I hope one day we can teach Genesis, but not as religion. As I stated, the order has been reversed since the 1850s with Charles Lyell and his pupil Charles Darwin, with geology and uniformitarianism coming in to question creation geology and catastrophism. Today, people believe what these atheists laid down as science. Thus, the onset of evolution led people astray just like someone who hikes or backpacks and takes the wrong path early on his journey. The truth remains with the Bible. I studied evolution and when I had questions it could not answer, I finally looked at what creation scientists were saying and started to agree with them. They answered more of my questions than evolution, Lyell or Darwin. So, the Bible is to be taken literally and I am a young earth creationist. I'm a computer scientist or engineer by trade so there isn't much conflict at work. If I were a geologist, paleontologist, zoologist or a biologist, then I would have more difficulties. I would probably have to hide my creation science and views if I were to continue working in those fields. Have you heard of William Lane Craig? I subscribe to most of his arguments, but I cannot see his side of evolution and old earth creation. That's not the way God intended his word to be used. How can it when there was no evolution back then?

If someone wanted to shake up my faith, then let them find alien life on another planet. Let them colonize Mars or the moon. Let them create gold, the divine element. Let them create a blade of grass. Even that guy Francis Crick, who co-founded the double helix and A-T and C-G models of DNA and said this proves there is no God, thought later in life that panspermia originated life on earth. (Crick was roundly criticized for his beliefs as it was shown to be pseudoscience.) Show me panspermia or anything else for the origin of life. You see, I know one can't find an alien, colonize another planet or our own moon, create gold, i.e. create an atom, a blade of grass or show panspermia. I know there are no multiverses, a way to travel back in time (I can show you how to travel forward in time though and we can do it today via Space-X), no egg before the chicken and more. These are what I have come to think from the Bible and creation science. There are just some things God would not allow such as we'll never know the beginning nor the end. These things God said he'll keep to himself. Is it any wonder that even a smart guy like Stephen Hawking, as smart as Einstein, ends up saying he wants to know the origin of the universe and why something is greater than nothing?

I'm sorry, but while I have complete faith that God was the creator of all that was, is, or will ever be, I simply cannot take the creation stories literally, nor would colonization of the moon or Mars or any other extraterrestrial place shake my faith in any way. I simply can't logically square the creation of light on the first day, vegetation on the third day, and the sun and moon on the fourth day or that there was morning and evening before there was a sun.

I do not say this to shake your faith and have no problem with you or anybody else personally if you take the text literally and would never attempt to talk you out of it. I say this as my own witness for those who cannot believe as you do that the Bible and science as we know it is not at all in conflict and one can know that and still be a devout Christian or person of faith. But if you take the creation stories literally, I believe God blesses your faith. I would hope he also blesses mine. As Jesus taught, it is not the purity of our theology and/or keeping our rules/laws that God cares about so much, but it is the content of our heart and character and our relationship with and obedience to God.

Having said that:

I believe the first chapter of Genesis, most likely one of the most recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament, was a theological statement to illustrate that God is the author/creator of all that exists and reigns supreme over everything. I believe the second creation story beginning in Genesis 2, probably one of the oldest manuscripts included in the Old Testament, is an anthropological explanation of why things are the way they are; i.e. why humankind does not enjoy a perfect existence as sin spoiled God's perfect creation, why humans must work for what they have, why there is pain in child birth, how sin spread from the 'first couple' into the family, into the community, and into the whole world.

IMO, the entirety of the Bible is an affirmation of continuing cycles of creation, sin, judgment, redemption that is expressed in parable, allegory, metaphor, symbolism, poetry, wisdom sayings, history, prophecy, all. The creation stories were written by men of faith, not men of science and if, from their limited perspective, they got details of the science wrong, they were spot on that science (among other things) is from and of God, and what God wrought, is good.

And as I have said more than once, I suspect when we meet Him face to face, we are going to be surprised at how much we got wrong here and how minuscule our understanding of anything is compared with all there is to know..

 

[toobfreak]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

It all comes down to one simple fact: Those that have never had a religious experience don't believe a God exists, while those that have, do. People with profound spiritual experiences have no choice but to believe what they have seen and felt, while those who have never had any such experience usually, rather than simply deny it for themselves all too often declare that any such possibility is foolish.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What I am arguing and the context in which Einstein was arguing had nothing whatsoever to do with mathematical assumptions.

You clearly tied these beliefs to their work, did you not? If not , then you are merely agreeing with me that there is no overlap, and one doea not inform the other
If you ARE claiming that this belief informed Einstein's work, then I will once again have to point out that it did so to the detriment of his work.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those that have never had a religious experience don't believe a God exists, while those that have, do

What? Not true at all. Plenty of religious people were simply brainwashed as children and will be the first to admit they have never had any significant religiois experience. And many others had what they thought were religious experiences, only to later (after being educated on brain phenomena) realize that they simply had an altering of their consciousness due to a chemical event.

 

[toobfreak]

Those that have never had a religious experience don't believe a God exists, while those that have, do

What? Not true at all. Plenty of religious people were simply brainwashed as children and will be the first to admit they have never had any significant religiois experience. And many others had what they thought were religious experiences, only to later (after being educated on brain phenomena) realize that they simply had an altering of their consciousness due to a chemical event.

Spoken from personal experience no doubt?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those that have never had a religious experience don't believe a God exists, while those that have, do

What? Not true at all. Plenty of religious people were simply brainwashed as children and will be the first to admit they have never had any significant religiois experience. And many others had what they thought were religious experiences, only to later (after being educated on brain phenomena) realize that they simply had an altering of their consciousness due to a chemical event.

Spoken from personal experience no doubt?

The personal experience of knowing a lot of people, yes.

 

[Foxfyre]

What I am arguing and the context in which Einstein was arguing had nothing whatsoever to do with mathematical assumptions.

You clearly tied these beliefs to their work, did you not? If not , then you are merely agreeing with me that there is no overlap, and one doea not inform the other
If you ARE claiming that this belief informed Einstein's work, then I will once again have to point out that it did so to the detriment of his work.

No. I didn't even mention their work, much less considered it, in relating their personal views about the wonder of the harmony of the universe and unwillingness to discount it all as pure chance. I took that as their personal heartfelt views and did not connect it in any way with their work. And I'm not agreeing with you on much, if anything, I'm afraid. That isn't intended to be a criticism but I don't want to leave the impression I am agreeing with something that I am not.

 

[ding]

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

Will gently disagree that creationism explains nothing or provides no useful predictions. Spinoza and Einstein who admired his theories both embraced a concept of some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the process that could explain so much that evolution/natural selection cannot. He did not believe in a personal God as the theist believes. He said: “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” and went on to explain that as not a God who concerns himself with humankind but rather a lawful harmony of all that exists. He said: “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”

I like to think of Einstein's amazement and delight to find out that how much of his theories were right and how close he got to God's truth before he was face to face with God and got the rest of the story.

The Creation stories are not useful to teach science as they cannot be taken literally and also be squared with the science that we are pretty sure we know. But if they are taken symbolically or metaphorically they fill in the blanks that evolution cannot. What exists that we know exists, as well as that we have not yet discovered, is because God made it happen. Many things are the way they are because they fit into a divine plan and/or because of sin that spoiled God's perfect creation. And because there is some great purpose to it all, then prayer makes a difference, obedience to God (i.e. fitting into his greater purpose) makes things better, and we can enjoy confidence that there is a brighter future/existence for us.

It's good that you can empathize, if that's the correct word, with Einstein's amazement and delight and how close he got to God's truth.

However, I disagree with your closing paragraph in that creation stories are not useful to teach science. They are to be taken literally. I hope one day we can teach Genesis, but not as religion. As I stated, the order has been reversed since the 1850s with Charles Lyell and his pupil Charles Darwin, with geology and uniformitarianism coming in to question creation geology and catastrophism. Today, people believe what these atheists laid down as science. Thus, the onset of evolution led people astray just like someone who hikes or backpacks and takes the wrong path early on his journey. The truth remains with the Bible. I studied evolution and when I had questions it could not answer, I finally looked at what creation scientists were saying and started to agree with them. They answered more of my questions than evolution, Lyell or Darwin. So, the Bible is to be taken literally and I am a young earth creationist. I'm a computer scientist or engineer by trade so there isn't much conflict at work. If I were a geologist, paleontologist, zoologist or a biologist, then I would have more difficulties. I would probably have to hide my creation science and views if I were to continue working in those fields. Have you heard of William Lane Craig? I subscribe to most of his arguments, but I cannot see his side of evolution and old earth creation. That's not the way God intended his word to be used. How can it when there was no evolution back then?

If someone wanted to shake up my faith, then let them find alien life on another planet. Let them colonize Mars or the moon. Let them create gold, the divine element. Let them create a blade of grass. Even that guy Francis Crick, who co-founded the double helix and A-T and C-G models of DNA and said this proves there is no God, thought later in life that panspermia originated life on earth. (Crick was roundly criticized for his beliefs as it was shown to be pseudoscience.) Show me panspermia or anything else for the origin of life. You see, I know one can't find an alien, colonize another planet or our own moon, create gold, i.e. create an atom, a blade of grass or show panspermia. I know there are no multiverses, a way to travel back in time (I can show you how to travel forward in time though and we can do it today via Space-X), no egg before the chicken and more. These are what I have come to think from the Bible and creation science. There are just some things God would not allow such as we'll never know the beginning nor the end. These things God said he'll keep to himself. Is it any wonder that even a smart guy like Stephen Hawking, as smart as Einstein, ends up saying he wants to know the origin of the universe and why something is greater than nothing?

I'm sorry, but while I have complete faith that God was the creator of all that was, is, or will ever be, I simply cannot take the creation stories literally, nor would colonization of the moon or Mars or any other extraterrestrial place shake my faith in any way. I simply can't logically square the creation of light on the first day, vegetation on the third day, and the sun and moon on the fourth day or that there was morning and evening before there was a sun.

I do not say this to shake your faith and have no problem with you or anybody else personally if you take the text literally and would never attempt to talk you out of it. I say this as my own witness for those who cannot believe as you do that the Bible and science as we know it is not at all in conflict and one can know that and still be a devout Christian or person of faith. But if you take the creation stories literally, I believe God blesses your faith. I would hope he also blesses mine. As Jesus taught, it is not the purity of our theology and/or keeping our rules/laws that God cares about so much, but it is the content of our heart and character and our relationship with and obedience to God.

Having said that:

I believe the first chapter of Genesis, most likely one of the most recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament, was a theological statement to illustrate that God is the author/creator of all that exists and reigns supreme over everything. I believe the second creation story beginning in Genesis 2, probably one of the oldest manuscripts included in the Old Testament, is an anthropological explanation of why things are the way they are; i.e. why humankind does not enjoy a perfect existence as sin spoiled God's perfect creation, why humans must work for what they have, why there is pain in child birth, how sin spread from the 'first couple' into the family, into the community, and into the whole world.

IMO, the entirety of the Bible is an affirmation of continuing cycles of creation, sin, judgment, redemption that is expressed in parable, allegory, metaphor, symbolism, poetry, wisdom sayings, history, prophecy, all. The creation stories were written by men of faith, not men of science and if, from their limited perspective, they got details of the science wrong, they were spot on that science (among other things) is from and of God, and what God wrought, is good.

And as I have said more than once, I suspect when we meet Him face to face, we are going to be surprised at how much we got wrong here and how minuscule our understanding of anything is compared with all there is to know..

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

 

[ding]

What I am arguing and the context in which Einstein was arguing had nothing whatsoever to do with mathematical assumptions.

You clearly tied these beliefs to their work, did you not? If not , then you are merely agreeing with me that there is no overlap, and one doea not inform the other
If you ARE claiming that this belief informed Einstein's work, then I will once again have to point out that it did so to the detriment of his work.

No. I didn't even mention their work, much less considered it, in relating their personal views about the wonder of the harmony of the universe and unwillingness to discount it all as pure chance. I took that as their personal heartfelt views and did not connect it in any way with their work. And I'm not agreeing with you on much, if anything, I'm afraid. That isn't intended to be a criticism but I don't want to leave the impression I am agreeing with something that I am not.

You are correct. It isn't pure chance. We live in a universe governed by laws. Everything has unfolded according to the laws of nature. Laws which existed before the creation of space and time. Laws which governed the creation of space and time.

 

[Foxfyre]

Evolution and Creation can both be true and co-exist. The problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it disproves our beliefs, because it can't.

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

Will gently disagree that creationism explains nothing or provides no useful predictions. Spinoza and Einstein who admired his theories both embraced a concept of some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the process that could explain so much that evolution/natural selection cannot. He did not believe in a personal God as the theist believes. He said: “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” and went on to explain that as not a God who concerns himself with humankind but rather a lawful harmony of all that exists. He said: “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”

I like to think of Einstein's amazement and delight to find out that how much of his theories were right and how close he got to God's truth before he was face to face with God and got the rest of the story.

The Creation stories are not useful to teach science as they cannot be taken literally and also be squared with the science that we are pretty sure we know. But if they are taken symbolically or metaphorically they fill in the blanks that evolution cannot. What exists that we know exists, as well as that we have not yet discovered, is because God made it happen. Many things are the way they are because they fit into a divine plan and/or because of sin that spoiled God's perfect creation. And because there is some great purpose to it all, then prayer makes a difference, obedience to God (i.e. fitting into his greater purpose) makes things better, and we can enjoy confidence that there is a brighter future/existence for us.

It's good that you can empathize, if that's the correct word, with Einstein's amazement and delight and how close he got to God's truth.

However, I disagree with your closing paragraph in that creation stories are not useful to teach science. They are to be taken literally. I hope one day we can teach Genesis, but not as religion. As I stated, the order has been reversed since the 1850s with Charles Lyell and his pupil Charles Darwin, with geology and uniformitarianism coming in to question creation geology and catastrophism. Today, people believe what these atheists laid down as science. Thus, the onset of evolution led people astray just like someone who hikes or backpacks and takes the wrong path early on his journey. The truth remains with the Bible. I studied evolution and when I had questions it could not answer, I finally looked at what creation scientists were saying and started to agree with them. They answered more of my questions than evolution, Lyell or Darwin. So, the Bible is to be taken literally and I am a young earth creationist. I'm a computer scientist or engineer by trade so there isn't much conflict at work. If I were a geologist, paleontologist, zoologist or a biologist, then I would have more difficulties. I would probably have to hide my creation science and views if I were to continue working in those fields. Have you heard of William Lane Craig? I subscribe to most of his arguments, but I cannot see his side of evolution and old earth creation. That's not the way God intended his word to be used. How can it when there was no evolution back then?

If someone wanted to shake up my faith, then let them find alien life on another planet. Let them colonize Mars or the moon. Let them create gold, the divine element. Let them create a blade of grass. Even that guy Francis Crick, who co-founded the double helix and A-T and C-G models of DNA and said this proves there is no God, thought later in life that panspermia originated life on earth. (Crick was roundly criticized for his beliefs as it was shown to be pseudoscience.) Show me panspermia or anything else for the origin of life. You see, I know one can't find an alien, colonize another planet or our own moon, create gold, i.e. create an atom, a blade of grass or show panspermia. I know there are no multiverses, a way to travel back in time (I can show you how to travel forward in time though and we can do it today via Space-X), no egg before the chicken and more. These are what I have come to think from the Bible and creation science. There are just some things God would not allow such as we'll never know the beginning nor the end. These things God said he'll keep to himself. Is it any wonder that even a smart guy like Stephen Hawking, as smart as Einstein, ends up saying he wants to know the origin of the universe and why something is greater than nothing?

I'm sorry, but while I have complete faith that God was the creator of all that was, is, or will ever be, I simply cannot take the creation stories literally, nor would colonization of the moon or Mars or any other extraterrestrial place shake my faith in any way. I simply can't logically square the creation of light on the first day, vegetation on the third day, and the sun and moon on the fourth day or that there was morning and evening before there was a sun.

I do not say this to shake your faith and have no problem with you or anybody else personally if you take the text literally and would never attempt to talk you out of it. I say this as my own witness for those who cannot believe as you do that the Bible and science as we know it is not at all in conflict and one can know that and still be a devout Christian or person of faith. But if you take the creation stories literally, I believe God blesses your faith. I would hope he also blesses mine. As Jesus taught, it is not the purity of our theology and/or keeping our rules/laws that God cares about so much, but it is the content of our heart and character and our relationship with and obedience to God.

Having said that:

I believe the first chapter of Genesis, most likely one of the most recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament, was a theological statement to illustrate that God is the author/creator of all that exists and reigns supreme over everything. I believe the second creation story beginning in Genesis 2, probably one of the oldest manuscripts included in the Old Testament, is an anthropological explanation of why things are the way they are; i.e. why humankind does not enjoy a perfect existence as sin spoiled God's perfect creation, why humans must work for what they have, why there is pain in child birth, how sin spread from the 'first couple' into the family, into the community, and into the whole world.

IMO, the entirety of the Bible is an affirmation of continuing cycles of creation, sin, judgment, redemption that is expressed in parable, allegory, metaphor, symbolism, poetry, wisdom sayings, history, prophecy, all. The creation stories were written by men of faith, not men of science and if, from their limited perspective, they got details of the science wrong, they were spot on that science (among other things) is from and of God, and what God wrought, is good.

And as I have said more than once, I suspect when we meet Him face to face, we are going to be surprised at how much we got wrong here and how minuscule our understanding of anything is compared with all there is to know..

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

An interesting if somewhat differing perspective from my own. I don't quite agree that good and evil are the yin and yang of the Biblical message. but while I personally believe that the movie "Oh God", while not great theology, did present one important universal truth. If both good and evil did not exist then there would be no reason to define either because neither would exist. God said (in the movie) he never figured out how to make an up without a down, and in without an out, cold without hot, or good without bad--or something to that effect.

 

[ding]

Absolutely right, they can both be true. And evolution is not meant to disprove creation. Just remember that creationism explains nothing, provides no useful predictions, and needs to stay out of the way of science. Keep these things in mind, and there will be no conflict.

Will gently disagree that creationism explains nothing or provides no useful predictions. Spinoza and Einstein who admired his theories both embraced a concept of some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the process that could explain so much that evolution/natural selection cannot. He did not believe in a personal God as the theist believes. He said: “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” and went on to explain that as not a God who concerns himself with humankind but rather a lawful harmony of all that exists. He said: “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”

I like to think of Einstein's amazement and delight to find out that how much of his theories were right and how close he got to God's truth before he was face to face with God and got the rest of the story.

The Creation stories are not useful to teach science as they cannot be taken literally and also be squared with the science that we are pretty sure we know. But if they are taken symbolically or metaphorically they fill in the blanks that evolution cannot. What exists that we know exists, as well as that we have not yet discovered, is because God made it happen. Many things are the way they are because they fit into a divine plan and/or because of sin that spoiled God's perfect creation. And because there is some great purpose to it all, then prayer makes a difference, obedience to God (i.e. fitting into his greater purpose) makes things better, and we can enjoy confidence that there is a brighter future/existence for us.

It's good that you can empathize, if that's the correct word, with Einstein's amazement and delight and how close he got to God's truth.

However, I disagree with your closing paragraph in that creation stories are not useful to teach science. They are to be taken literally. I hope one day we can teach Genesis, but not as religion. As I stated, the order has been reversed since the 1850s with Charles Lyell and his pupil Charles Darwin, with geology and uniformitarianism coming in to question creation geology and catastrophism. Today, people believe what these atheists laid down as science. Thus, the onset of evolution led people astray just like someone who hikes or backpacks and takes the wrong path early on his journey. The truth remains with the Bible. I studied evolution and when I had questions it could not answer, I finally looked at what creation scientists were saying and started to agree with them. They answered more of my questions than evolution, Lyell or Darwin. So, the Bible is to be taken literally and I am a young earth creationist. I'm a computer scientist or engineer by trade so there isn't much conflict at work. If I were a geologist, paleontologist, zoologist or a biologist, then I would have more difficulties. I would probably have to hide my creation science and views if I were to continue working in those fields. Have you heard of William Lane Craig? I subscribe to most of his arguments, but I cannot see his side of evolution and old earth creation. That's not the way God intended his word to be used. How can it when there was no evolution back then?

If someone wanted to shake up my faith, then let them find alien life on another planet. Let them colonize Mars or the moon. Let them create gold, the divine element. Let them create a blade of grass. Even that guy Francis Crick, who co-founded the double helix and A-T and C-G models of DNA and said this proves there is no God, thought later in life that panspermia originated life on earth. (Crick was roundly criticized for his beliefs as it was shown to be pseudoscience.) Show me panspermia or anything else for the origin of life. You see, I know one can't find an alien, colonize another planet or our own moon, create gold, i.e. create an atom, a blade of grass or show panspermia. I know there are no multiverses, a way to travel back in time (I can show you how to travel forward in time though and we can do it today via Space-X), no egg before the chicken and more. These are what I have come to think from the Bible and creation science. There are just some things God would not allow such as we'll never know the beginning nor the end. These things God said he'll keep to himself. Is it any wonder that even a smart guy like Stephen Hawking, as smart as Einstein, ends up saying he wants to know the origin of the universe and why something is greater than nothing?

I'm sorry, but while I have complete faith that God was the creator of all that was, is, or will ever be, I simply cannot take the creation stories literally, nor would colonization of the moon or Mars or any other extraterrestrial place shake my faith in any way. I simply can't logically square the creation of light on the first day, vegetation on the third day, and the sun and moon on the fourth day or that there was morning and evening before there was a sun.

I do not say this to shake your faith and have no problem with you or anybody else personally if you take the text literally and would never attempt to talk you out of it. I say this as my own witness for those who cannot believe as you do that the Bible and science as we know it is not at all in conflict and one can know that and still be a devout Christian or person of faith. But if you take the creation stories literally, I believe God blesses your faith. I would hope he also blesses mine. As Jesus taught, it is not the purity of our theology and/or keeping our rules/laws that God cares about so much, but it is the content of our heart and character and our relationship with and obedience to God.

Having said that:

I believe the first chapter of Genesis, most likely one of the most recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament, was a theological statement to illustrate that God is the author/creator of all that exists and reigns supreme over everything. I believe the second creation story beginning in Genesis 2, probably one of the oldest manuscripts included in the Old Testament, is an anthropological explanation of why things are the way they are; i.e. why humankind does not enjoy a perfect existence as sin spoiled God's perfect creation, why humans must work for what they have, why there is pain in child birth, how sin spread from the 'first couple' into the family, into the community, and into the whole world.

IMO, the entirety of the Bible is an affirmation of continuing cycles of creation, sin, judgment, redemption that is expressed in parable, allegory, metaphor, symbolism, poetry, wisdom sayings, history, prophecy, all. The creation stories were written by men of faith, not men of science and if, from their limited perspective, they got details of the science wrong, they were spot on that science (among other things) is from and of God, and what God wrought, is good.

And as I have said more than once, I suspect when we meet Him face to face, we are going to be surprised at how much we got wrong here and how minuscule our understanding of anything is compared with all there is to know..

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

An interesting if somewhat differing perspective from my own. I don't quite agree that good and evil are the yin and yang of the Biblical message. but while I personally believe that the movie "Oh God", while not great theology, did present one important universal truth. If both good and evil did not exist then there would be no reason to define either because neither would exist. God said (in the movie) he never figured out how to make an up without a down, and in without an out, cold without hot, or good without bad--or something to that effect.

Here is MLK's take on it.

"...We must realize that God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. We can see this clearly in human illustrations. My purpose in doing a crossword puzzle is not to fill in certain words. I could fill them in easily by waiting for tomorrow morning's paper. Filling them in without the answers is harder but much more satisfying, for it calls out resourcefulness, ingenuity, and discipline which by the easier way would find no self expression.

Similarly, to borrow an illustration from William James, eleven men battle desperately on a field, risking falling and injury, using up a prodigious amount of energy, and when we ask why, we learn that it is to get an inflated, leather covered sphere called a football across a goal. But if that is all, why doesn't someone get up in the night and put it there? Football games are not played to get a ball across a goal, but to get it there under certain conditions, in a certain way, with certain results in the lives of those concerned. Power to get the ball across the goal is to be interpreted in terms of purposes and only makes sense in the light of those purposes. Action, then, which defeats purpose is weakness. Power is the ability to fulfill purpose. No one knows what it cost God to refrain from intervention when wicked men put his beloved Son to death. But the restraint was not weakness. The Cross became the power of God unto salvation..."

“Religion’s Answer to the Problem of Evil”