Meriweather
Not all who wander are lost
- Oct 21, 2014
- 17,330
- 3,571
- 165
Harmonica was asking how theists think, and many of us theists start with what is in Genesis and the givens in Genesis. Further, the steps given in Genesis are remarkably alike what we know (and teach in science) about the formation of a solar system. Of course, with a solar system, we start with dust particles, and light does emerge from energy before matter breaks into the parts of a solar system. So, as a theist, it interests me that instead of dust, the givens are water, wind, and darkness with the later presumption there is indeed land (dust) underneath all of this water. I also keep in mind that the Genesis account is not about the creation of a solar system, but the creation of a particular planet that seems to have emerged from a great deal of water.Your first “Given” is entirely presumptive and springs from one presumptive version of gods formed by a collection of largely unknown authors.
Your givens are in conflict with hundreds of other, equally authoritative givens.
To proceed from presumptive givens with suggestions of authoritative statements is terribly flawed.
Further, it is with some amusement I note that some who follow science scoff, "God did it" but with great seriousness say, "Evolution did it." No matter who/what "did it" I am still more interested in how it was done. And my question is that if there was light before the sun and moon were fully formed, what in the water and wind caused this light? Some people prefer starting at the end and working backward. I also like to take a look at the beginning and work forward as well.