Athiests: What do you do when....

[Charlemagne_II]

jin

we’re in a time that allows questioning of even things once held to be ‘sacred’ and ‘off-limits.’ Individuals are not satisfied by suface-scratching answers that just lead to more questions. Those in science are trained to accept something only if it has the necessary evidence and have found various religions wanting in that area.

And we’re in a time when atheism is wanting in that it demands of religion what it will not demand of itself … proof that God does not exist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*I love it. When all else fails:

• equate disbelief with some form of hatred, anger, attack, or whatever secondary-emotional-motive-with-hate-based-connotations you can conjure up
• when god is not sustained by belief due to inquiry which has not found evidence… blame the devil. *

You can’t prove the devil doesn’t exist either.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jim

Arguments for god often rest on premises answered by science.

No they don’t. The first cause argument and the teleological argument existenced long before the dawn of modern science. The First Cause argument was bolstered by the scientific discovery of the Big Bang, which strongly implies a creation event, and therefore a Creator. The Big Bang says nothing whatever against religion. If anything, it reinforces Genesis and challenges the favorite atheistic position that the universe is infinite and eternal (the preferred cosmology of Spinoza and Einstein now discredited by the the insights of a Catholic priest, George LeMaitre).

 

[Moonstruck888]

jim

Arguments for god often rest on premises answered by science.

No they don’t. The first cause argument and the teleological argument existenced long before the dawn of modern science. The First Cause argument was bolstered by the scientific discovery of the Big Bang, which strongly implies a creation event, and therefore a Creator. The Big Bang says nothing whatever against religion. If anything, it reinforces Genesis and challenges the favorite atheistic position that the universe is infinite and eternal (the preferred cosmology of Spinoza and Einstein now discredited by the the insights of a Catholic priest, George LeMaitre).

The Big Bang says that the creation myth in the Bible is demonstrably wrong. If you can’t see why that puts the rest of God’ publication on a shakey nail then perhaps critical thinking is not your forte?

 

[aperture]

Charlemagne: Also, the Big Bang hardly supports Christian ideas. Beyond the fact that it points to a sort of beginning to what we know? Nothing.

To say that a moment of Creation implies a Creator doesn’t make sense. Analogously, one would say that the existence of God implies a superior God, which you would say is incorrect.

Also, I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic, but asking someone to prove a negative is bad logical/argumentative form. Quick, prove that the Pope has never murdered someone!

 

[Annemariels]

Too-da-loo Everyone!



Anne Marie, the OP

 

[Ismael]

The Big Bang says that the creation myth in the Bible is demonstrably wrong. If you can’t see why that puts the rest of God’ publication on a shakey nail then perhaps critical thinking is not your forte?

As a matter of fact it does not.
Nor the bible ever pretended to be a science book, by the way.

It only proves that those who take the creation story literally are wrong.

The Big bang theory simply states a thery that explains how the universe orginated and can be a valid physical explaination for the ‘let there be light’.

I think it is more a support of the creation story rather than an enemy of it…

By chance I have seen many atheists argue against the Big bang because they believe it is a religious conspiracy…

To say that a moment of Creation implies a Creator doesn’t make sense.

if there is a ‘creation’ there must be a creator, the word itself implies it.

The big bang seem to point that indeed there IS a beginning of time, space and matter/energy. We do not know what was before that (perhaps we never will, some scientists argue).
Does this prove immediately that there is a God? Perhaps not. But it is logical to think of a non-created source for existence itself.

Analogously, one would say that the existence of God implies a superior God, which you would say is incorrect.

That is a Dawkins’ argument but in itself it makes no sense at all and is completely disjointed from the previous statement.

In other words, you can’t define what would falsify God. Correct?

You cannot falsify reality itself either, because to do so you’d have to go outside reality.

If by chance we would live in some fantasy world like ‘The Matrix’ science could not prove it. Science could indeed only aaply within this ‘fantasy world’ or ‘Matrix’ but could not prove that this world is a fake world and not realy.

Many eastern philosphers and also some western ones have argued that physical reality is merely an illusion.

Still you take for granted that what you perceive is real?How do you know you are not just a ‘brain in a vat’ and all that you perceive is some artificial construct? How do you really know and test for it? You cannot.

Hence the argument ‘non falsifiable = not real’ is wrong, unless you admit reality itself is not real.

 

[Ismael]

Jeremiah 48:10

It never ceases to amaze me that I know more about the Bible than most Christians. Don’t you actually read the Bible?

You don’t. As many atheists you just take a sentence out of context and generalizing it in the wrong way.

Jeremiah speaks about the ruin of the nation of the Moabites… not the right to kill ‘infedels’.

 

[AnAtheist]

And what do atheists do when a loved one dies?

Weep and mourn, just like anybody else.

Do they believe that death is the end of the road for them?

To be honest I do wish that it was not. I’d very much like to meet my loved ones on the other side. But I believe that reality does not comply with my wishes here.

 

[JRKH]

I still have yet to hear satisfactory explanations of what exactly those purposes are and for what they were intended.

This is part of the difficulty with the OT… if any one of THESE, for example, cannot be justified… religion fails.

Even if it is more than commands (which obviously it is as it contains stories and quasi-history as well), we’re still at a loss regarding why god commanded:

• to stone non-virgins on their wedding night on their father’s door step
• not to eat four legged insects

Dei Verbum and one of the early Leo’s stated that 1) nothing is uninspired in the bible and that 2) god inspired to be written only what he wanted and no more

So…

• nothing superfluous
• everything explicitly inspired by god

But we have the above and everything at the link. Even ‘through the eyes of the NT’ this seems a bit more than one can explain away.

Which is why I predict something akin to:

• we cannot know the mind of god and all his mysterious ways
• god created everything so whatever he wants to do is moral

There are a couple of problems with what you have written above.
First is the fact that you say you have heve not heard any “satisfactory explanations” for the OT. This indicates that you have heard explanations, just not ones that you will accept.

Second, and more significant, is the error of trying to apply a single, and modern, moral viewpoint to situations more than 2500 years old. This happens when questions come up of How God could allow this, or Why did God order that…
The Bible, as a whole, is the story of God leading His people from chaotic, animal, sinful behavior toward order and law and Love. In each stage, fromt he mysterious mists of the Genesis accounts, to the Covenant with Abraham through to Moses and so on, God moves his people toward greater control over their actions by placing more rules around them.
Early on, vengence was allowed and was basically uncontrolled, later, Laws governed who what and how vengance could be applied. Still later it became more “legalized” until finally in the NT, Christ basically forbade vengence altogether. The same for many other forms of personal and social behavior. We may not agree with a particular outlook, or law, but we can hardly place ourselves in that time and place to make a fair judgement on it either.
Vengence is just one example of how God works through the OT times and into the NT covenant.
Non-theistic scientists might look at this same thing and call it “social evolution” and not “God based” but that is another matter. The fact remains that the Bible contains a record of that growth.

Now to the reference to:

• nothing superfluous
• everything explicitly inspired by god
  There is no contradiction here. God wishes us to know where we came from, and how His loving care has brought us up from the depths of condemnation into the light of salvation. From the “law of the Jungle” to the “Law of Love”.

I’m sorry to have disappointed you in what you “predicted” to see in response.
Well - no I’m not - - -

God is mysterious and we cannot “know” all of his ways, but we can discern from the various resources available to us, the truth of his loving and slavic plan for us.
We can do this just as a scientist can sift down through the layers of the earth and try to make sense out of the seemingly disconnected and even contradictory bits of evidence he finds in the soil. He may not be able to resolve all of the contradictory evidence and there certainly will be gaps in his understnding of what occurred in the distant past, but that will not prevent him from trying to make sense of the data to fit what he already “knows” (that the earth is ancient and things evolve etc…)

All it take is the desire to see it and to fit the pieces together in honesty and truth.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The Big Bang says that the creation myth in the Bible is demonstrably wrong. If you can’t see why that puts the rest of God’ publication on a shakey nail then perhaps critical thinking is not your forte?

Another - side tracking - kind of argument.
A full grown adult with a three PHD(s) and 35 years experience in physics cannot explain fully the theory of relativity and the interrelation of space time etc. to the average 10 year old. At best he might be able to provide certain basics along with some analogies.
Why?
Because the average 10 year old, heck the averge 20 year old, does not have the capacity to grasp the intricacies of the theories. The answer that the PHD provides cannot be from his perspective but must be geared toward the perspective and abilites of the audience.

Same with Genesis.
How is God going to answer the questions of the ancients about creation? Certainly not from His perspective, we did not then and don’t now, have the capacity to grasp all of His reality. So He told them in a manner that they could grasp.

One of the things that some like to “pick on” is the “days” issue. Not saying that you do, but we’ve all heard it discussed.
The reason I mention it is because I remember in science class having the development of the earth explained by using a 24 hour clock. If I recall they went through all the development from molten to first plants to dinosaurs to humans and saying that humans ony shoed up in the last 6 minutes before midnight (midnight being today).
So Science teachers, at least in my day, compressed billions of years of geologic and life history into one 24 hour period. Such a compression provide a general way to understand the development of things, but left a great deal out also. God just used a similar device in Genesis, days instead of hours, and general principles instead of specifics.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Too-da-loo Everyone!



Anne Marie, the OP

Anne - Thanks for a wonderful thread. Very Charitable and enlightening.

Sorry it got sidetracked but I’ve found these things to be inevitable.

Peace
James

 

[jinminn]

There are a couple of problems with what you have written above. First is the fact that you say you have heve not heard any “satisfactory explanations” for the OT. This indicates that you have heard explanations, just not ones that you will accept.

Is this any different than the plethora of explanations supporting Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology which you are aware of but do not accept?

Second, and more significant, is the error of trying to apply a single, and modern, moral viewpoint to situations more than 2500 years old.
.
.
.
We may not agree with a particular outlook, or law, but we can hardly place ourselves in that time and place to make a fair judgement on it either.
Vengence is just one example of how God works through the OT times and into the NT covenant.
Non-theistic scientists might look at this same thing and call it “social evolution” and not “God based” but that is another matter. The fact remains that the Bible contains a record of that growth.

Fair enough response and I do appreciate it. Moral transition. I’ve heard similar and my only objection is that it seems to contradict:

• claims about Jesus’ authenticity relying on his disregard for current cultural norms and laws. In other words, we’re to believe in Jesus’ teaching more because he specifically disregarding common views on the role of women, Jewish dietary practices, and the OT law.
  — Given that, why was Yahweh ‘bound’ to lead a ‘gentle transition’ through 4000 years of history before finally revealing the ‘real way’ to everyone?
  — If through Jesus Yahweh revealed the ‘real rules’ concerning adultery, for example, which were laws he, himself, provided at one point to the Israelites, why not reveal that animal sacrifice was no longer necessary far before Jesus? This would have been him correcting poor ideas about what pleased him which he never instituted in the first place. Instead, I’ve heard that he needed to ‘speak through the language of the times’ and work with them on animal sacrifice to build to Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice. I see no need to continue the practice in light of the fact that god didn’t have any issue in putting his foot down on misconceptions once Jesus came.
• Also, god is ‘unchanging’. Something either is or is not immoral. Commanding, instructing, and even assisting the Israelites’ slaughter of other nations for either belief-based motivation or land possession either is or is not immoral for the god portrayed.
  — How is an unchanging god able to modify his commands through time. I could see him commanding them not to kill non-believers and them doing it anyway and continuing to ‘work with them’ (as you put it) through time… however in reality he commanded both to kill nonbelievers and to turn the other cheek in different time periods.
  — I agree that if we were merely looking back on human actions we could suspend modern moral viewpoints and realize it was just ‘a different time.’
  — contrary to this, however, it was god himself commanding this. He could have done differently, evidenced by leading the Jews through the desert for 40 years purely to spare them from military encounters. In one case he avoided them, in another case he directly instructed them to engage in them and even specified which should die (every man, woman, and child and even beasts – everything that breathes).

I’m sorry to have disappointed you in what you “predicted” to see in response.
Well - no I’m not - - -

God is mysterious and we cannot “know” all of his ways, but we can discern from the various resources available to us, the truth of his loving and slavic plan for us.
We can do this just as a scientist can sift down through the layers of the earth and try to make sense out of the seemingly disconnected and even contradictory bits of evidence he finds in the soil. He may not be able to resolve all of the contradictory evidence and there certainly will be gaps in his understnding of what occurred in the distant past, but that will not prevent him from trying to make sense of the data to fit what he already “knows” (that the earth is ancient and things evolve etc…)

All it take is the desire to see it and to fit the pieces together in honesty and truth.

Well, you didn’t hide behind ‘god can do what he wants’, but you do support ‘god is a mystery’ so you half answered as I predicted after all

I agree – the simplest explanation is that humans have written this book, adapting their view of god as cultures and ideas changed. It matches ever so much better than that an unchanging god actually revealed himself physically and vocally with one set of divine edicts and then completely updated those same commands. You are correct that the theory with the overall best explanation of the facts should win.

I believe this to be the naturalistic explanation of the bible:

• commands we can easily see should not have come from the omnibenevolent commander of the universe… regardless of the time period
• contradictory facts presented (typically written off as interpretation/translation errors)
• stories contradicted by archeology/geology (flood, sojourn in the desert, Jericho)
• extravagant stories of god’s intervention and revelation personally which we no longer see manifest

Natural explanation says that it’s a human-made book trying to paint a picture of god. The natural explanation also accounts for the prevalence of 25,000 years of religions attempting to also paint pictures of god(s) and explain the unknown as well as why even today religions exist with their own holy books that, though they contain contradictions, have perfectly good explanations of why they have them…

 

[jinminn]

And we’re in a time when atheism is wanting in that it demands of religion what it will not demand of itself … proof that God does not exist.

You can’t prove the devil doesn’t exist either.

You are correct. Though you can’t prove leprechauns don’t exist, either. This does not obligate you to live your life as though they do…

As far as I’m concerned, the devil and heaven could very well be contradictory. Both creatures have full knowledge of creation, are in union with god, have all they could ever want… and in one case his right hand man rejected him, but on the other we will never want to leave. How do explain his turning?

Me: Arguments for god often rest on premises answered by science.
You: No they don’t.

You contradict yourself immediately afterward by pointing out that, yes, these arguments existed before science had knowledge in the area, but that the cosmological argument was bolstered by the big bang. ‘Bolstered’ is a fancy word for ‘supported by’ which suggests that the argument, in fact, rests on what science says.

Simple thought experiment: some theory gains validation through a number of experiments and predictive statements and is accepted. It states that the universe had no beginning. What then? If science invalidates that the universe ‘began to exist’, where will the cosmological argument be?

Also, the cosmological argument does nothing for god. Why? The typical argument says:

• whatever begins to exist has a cause
• the universe began to exist
• the universe had a cause

But what would it be? WL Craig says it’s a ‘timeless spaceless disembodied mind of unfathomable power and a personal will.’ So… we have no concept of an uncaused cause, so we will hypothesize something that defies our experience even further?

Furthermore, the laws of causality, as far as we’re concerned, only apply from within time and space. You lose me as soon as you posit that from outside of time and space a creature caused the universe. Our discussion of causation is only valid and comprehensible when used in conjunction with time: at point a, an effect was not in existence; at point b, a cause acted; at point c, the effect was realized.

Without time and space, we have no points a, b or c as there was no timeline. How does one prove god’s creative power of causality without the common tools used to work with that subject area?

 

[jinminn]

@Charlemagne:

Lastly, as another case-in-point, take the work of Francis Collins, a geneticist who discovered the genes responsible for several diseases such as a form of leukemia and cystic fibrosis. He was a crucial member of the Human Genome Project and the author of the book, ‘The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.’

He rests an argument strongly on the moral intuitions of the human race. This is common. We differ, fairly strongly in many cases, in intelligence, social behaviors, society, and morality from other species. As is often pointed out, a lion killing a gazelle is not ‘murder.’ We don’t expect this from them.He states that the existence of morality in humans is one of the strongest ‘signposts’ of god’s existence since it cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.

Further on he writes, however:

“[if] attempts to provide explanations for altruistic behavior on the basis of its positive value in Darwinian selection… could be shown to hold up, the interpretation of many of the requirements of the Moral Law as a signpost to God would potentially be in trouble”

This is both a bold and honorable move. Bold in that it allows for falsifiability. Honorable in that he is (or appears to be willing) to sacrifice his beliefs in accordance with the truth and where the evidence leads.

This is what I meant with respect to many proofs eventually resting on scientific claims. Even of you expand that to philosophy, it’s interesting that in these two fields (as stated earlier), we have a majority of atheists. The NAS, as I stated was about 90% atheist/agnostic and a recent study of philosophers were found to be about 70% atheistic. Those using the tools typically used by apologists to support god… are not believers themselves. Isn’t that odd?

Finally, I believe falsifiability is critical. Though god can never be disproven, it is healthy to have some form of criteria for which one’s belief will not hold up anymore. To not have such criteria makes on look rather silly if you ask me. Case in point with William Lane Craig:

• He stated that if allowed to travel back in time to 33AD on Easter-eve and were parked outside the tomb and never saw Jesus come out and resurrect as reported… he would still believe. He says this because his inner witness of the Holy Spirit is so strong that he would assume he was hallucinating in 33AD before doubting Jesus.
• In another debate with Lewis Wolpert, the moderator asked Lewis what would make him believe. He stated that more resurrections would be a start. Unlikely, but at leasts he gives us something. The moderator asked Craig the same question. Craig stated, “Nothing.” Why? Because, he went on to say, “At the end of the day, I don’t believe based on arguments.”

I think this is telling. It’s perhaps not characteristic of all believers, but as a staunch Christian apologist and formidable debater on behalf of the Christian community, it’s interesting to hear him admit that it is literally impossible to convince him that Christianity is false despite any evidence whatsoever.

If there is anything that comes of these discussions for me, it would be to encourage both sides to be open to whatever the evidence points to. We all need falsifiability criteria. I find in practice that atheists can state this with far more ease than theists. Even if unlikely to ever happen, the atheist’s criteria at least exist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jinminn

Are you really a Catholic?

I notice that in most of your posts you lower case the name of God as “god.” You are also triumphalistic about the dominance of atheists among the intellectual class. Wherever you can, you bring into doubt the reliability of religious texts.

Come now, are you really a Catholic?

You are correct. Though you can’t prove leprechauns don’t exist, either. This does not obligate you to live your life as though they do…

So tell us, please, what obligates you to live your life as a Catholic?

 

[JRKH]

Is this any different than the plethora of explanations supporting Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology which you are aware of but do not accept?

None really. Although I must say that I have only made cursory studies of other specific nonchristian faiths. I tend to look at things in a general way rather than getting too wrapped up in details. Buddaism, Islam, Confusionism - These are faith systems that seem to be built on the same general principles of Love of God (as they define it) and Love of neighbor. I hope to see many from these faith traditions in heaven.
As for other Christian and quasi-christian traditions. I look mainly at their origins. That is what lead me back to Catholicism.

Fair enough response and I do appreciate it. Moral transition. I’ve heard similar and my only objection is that it seems to contradict:

• claims about Jesus’ authenticity relying on his disregard for current cultural norms and laws. In other words, we’re to believe in Jesus’ teaching more because he specifically disregarding common views on the role of women, Jewish dietary practices, and the OT law.

Well I’ve never heard of this argument, but there are many I have not heard. Frankly I’m not impressed with this one either. Jesus had great regard for authority, even the teaching authority of the sinful pharasees. (See Mt 23:2-3). Jesus mission in his ministry was to bring the “Law” from the realm of “Written word” related to “actions” into the realm of “interior word” (written on the heart) and related, not just to actions but to thoughts and intent as well.

— Given that, why was Yahweh ‘bound’ to lead a ‘gentle transition’ through 4000 years of history before finally revealing the ‘real way’ to everyone?

— If through Jesus Yahweh revealed the ‘real rules’ concerning adultery, for example, which were laws he, himself, provided at one point to the Israelites, why not reveal that animal sacrifice was no longer necessary far before Jesus? This would have been him correcting poor ideas about what pleased him which he never instituted in the first place. Instead, I’ve heard that he needed to ‘speak through the language of the times’ and work with them on animal sacrifice to build to Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice. I see no need to continue the practice in light of the fact that god didn’t have any issue in putting his foot down on misconceptions once Jesus came.

He was allowing us to mature. A parent explains a behavior one way ot a 3 year old (because I said so that’s why) and a different way to a 13 year old and still a different way to a 23 year old. It’s true in our own personal social and spiritual lives and it is equally true in the life of “Humanity”. I’m sure that you can understand this from the scientific viewpoint of “evolving”

• Also, god is ‘unchanging’. Something either is or is not immoral. Commanding, instructing, and even assisting the Israelites’ slaughter of other nations for either belief-based motivation or land possession either is or is not immoral for the god portrayed.
  — How is an unchanging god able to modify his commands through time. I could see him commanding them not to kill non-believers and them doing it anyway and continuing to ‘work with them’ (as you put it) through time… however in reality he commanded both to kill nonbelievers and to turn the other cheek in different time periods.

I’ll grant that to a certain point, you’ve got me here. I don’t understand much of this either when it comes to some of the killing between nations.
I can understand it in the sense that punishment for certain crimes might change and become less harsh, the views and roles of women and men in society can change etc. These can certainly relate to our maturity as humans.
As far as the issues between nations, I don’t let it get me down for this reason. I was not there, I do not know the relative merits or crimes of the nations destroyed by command of God. Yes we know that they were, “unbelievers” but is that all?? We just cannot know. These are the “holes” in our understanding, just like the holes in the understandings of the Geologist who can construct a pretty good general picture of what happened back in time but can’t figure out everything that happened or why.
What is more important, to me anyway, is what we know through God’s own Son. From His mouth we have the great teachings of Love, and Inclusiveness, and Forbearance, etc. These are the Laws that we as Christians are bound to live by - imperfect as we might be at it.

(cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

— I agree that if we were merely looking back on human actions we could suspend modern moral viewpoints and realize it was just ‘a different time.’
— contrary to this, however, it was god himself commanding this. He could have done differently, evidenced by leading the Jews through the desert for 40 years purely to spare them from military encounters. In one case he avoided them, in another case he directly instructed them to engage in them and even specified which should die (every man, woman, and child and even beasts – everything that breathes).

Yea, as I said before, there is a lot in the OT that is hard for us to understand from our perspective today. That is why I try to keep my faith simple and not require that I understand it all in order to have faith and hope.

Well, you didn’t hide behind ‘god can do what he wants’, but you do support ‘god is a mystery’ so you half answered as I predicted after all

Well I just added that part in so that you wouldn’t think that I had allt he answers.

I agree – the simplest explanation is that humans have written this book, adapting their view of god as cultures and ideas changed. It matches ever so much better than that an unchanging god actually revealed himself physically and vocally with one set of divine edicts and then completely updated those same commands. You are correct that the theory with the overall best explanation of the facts should win.

I believe this to be the naturalistic explanation of the bible:

• commands we can easily see should not have come from the omnibenevolent commander of the universe… regardless of the time period
• contradictory facts presented (typically written off as interpretation/translation errors)
• stories contradicted by archeology/geology (flood, sojourn in the desert, Jericho)
• extravagant stories of god’s intervention and revelation personally which we no longer see manifest

Natural explanation says that it’s a human-made book trying to paint a picture of god. The natural explanation also accounts for the prevalence of 25,000 years of religions attempting to also paint pictures of god(s) and explain the unknown as well as why even today religions exist with their own holy books that, though they contain contradictions, have perfectly good explanations of why they have them…

This is certainly possilbe and truthfully I think the truth lies in between the two extreme views of the Bible.

That is why I’m happy to be Catholic.

Gotta cut this short I’m afraid.

Peace
James

 

[Moonstruck888]

Another - side tracking - kind of argument.
A full grown adult with a three PHD(s) and 35 years experience in physics cannot explain fully the theory of relativity and the interrelation of space time etc. to the average 10 year old. At best he might be able to provide certain basics along with some analogies.
Why?
Because the average 10 year old, heck the averge 20 year old, does not have the capacity to grasp the intricacies of the theories. The answer that the PHD provides cannot be from his perspective but must be geared toward the perspective and abilites of the audience.

Same with Genesis.
How is God going to answer the questions of the ancients about creation? Certainly not from His perspective, we did not then and don’t now, have the capacity to grasp all of His reality. So He told them in a manner that they could grasp.

One of the things that some like to “pick on” is the “days” issue. Not saying that you do, but we’ve all heard it discussed.
The reason I mention it is because I remember in science class having the development of the earth explained by using a 24 hour clock. If I recall they went through all the development from molten to first plants to dinosaurs to humans and saying that humans ony shoed up in the last 6 minutes before midnight (midnight being today).
So Science teachers, at least in my day, compressed billions of years of geologic and life history into one 24 hour period. Such a compression provide a general way to understand the development of things, but left a great deal out also. God just used a similar device in Genesis, days instead of hours, and general principles instead of specifics.

Peace
James

It’s an interesting idea, and I accept that your analysis and your reasoning are sound. There would be little point in trying to explain the Universe in God’s own terms when we obviously cannot create Universes as of yet nor fully comprehend the underlying structure behind this one, however, I would have to say that the bible is absolutely riddled with internal contradictions, because it is clearly not the work of one mind.

The Bible is a compilation, if you will, of tomes written by many different authors at many different times for many different reasons. If the knowledge in the Bible had been vouchsafed them by a single mind, God’s mind, then the internal incosistencies, like cursed is he who withdraws his sword from blood vis a vis Thou shalt not kill would not be there.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

moonstruck

*The Bible is a compilation, if you will, of tomes written by many different authors at many different times for many different reasons. If the knowledge in the Bible had been vouchsafed them by a single mind, God’s mind, then the internal incosistencies, like cursed is he who withdraws his sword from blood vis a vis Thou shalt not kill would not be there. *

Much of what you say is true. However, internal inconsistencies, or even contradictions, can be overcome by faith not only in the inspiration of God, but also by faith in our inability to understand that maybe some of these inconsistencies are only apparent because we do not know the context in which they were written.

Peter suggests the following in 2 Peter 3:16 >>

New International Version (©1984)
“He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”