C
cho_pilo
Guest
I was intrigued by the following quote. I think there cannot be two sets of standards, one for material only explanations and one for explanations that include a Maker.
- Status
A
Alexander_Smith
Guest
I was under the impression that dating anything was an iffy situation.
The billion year old Earth concept is a necessary component of evolution, and without that extreme length of time, evolution would be all but impossible. Even so, if God did indeed create the world, no one could say at what state it was created. So while God may have created Earth 15,000 years ago, He could easily have created it in the state of a 4.5 billion year old planet.
The billion year old Earth concept is a necessary component of evolution, and without that extreme length of time, evolution would be all but impossible. Even so, if God did indeed create the world, no one could say at what state it was created. So while God may have created Earth 15,000 years ago, He could easily have created it in the state of a 4.5 billion year old planet.
C
cho_pilo
Guest
I agree with you but if you try that one at a murder trial, the argument will become weak. Your honor, for all we know the world could have been created yesterday complete with a corpse. The forensic experts are relying on assumptions that the world functions today as it always has, but these are nothing but assumptions!
Any other thoughts?
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use!
If what you say is true then is it not possible that God created the world last Thursday or even next Thursday?
T
tonyrey
Guest
There is only one standard. The Church accepts evolution!
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I think there is only one standard for judging physical reality, and that is Modern Science. But there are also other standards which deal with different aspects of human knowledge which cannot be placed within or understood within the context of science. It was always a mistake to look in the bible for scientific explanations about how the world was made, but naturally before the sciences people assumed that the objective world they inhabited was an absolute extension of the bible. Being that scripture was at the heart of their human dignity, they tended to favour philosophies and any theories that supported that dignity. Its not surprising that when science finally began to paint a different picture, that these people took it as an attack on their human dignity and therefore an attack on the faith. However, this perceived attack is based on an assumption, that genesis was intended as “divine revelation” giving specific details about how God created the world in actual history. When you drop that assumption, there is no conflict between science and religion. But the damage that has been done by this assumption is severe and has thus made it appear despite reconciliation’s to the contrary as if science has disproved the Christian understanding of the physical world; and thus has disproved Christianity.
Of course, the problem was born from nothing more than an assumption, perhaps biblical illiteracy and definitely ignorance; and one could argue that there is evidence to suggest that it was an assumption based on ignorance. But it is never about what it is; its about what it looks like.
If the Christian religion is synonymous to seven day young earth creationism, if that is the core doctrine of what Christianity is, then Nietzsche was right. God is dead.
All Christianity has to do, is show beyond reasonable doubt that such a false understanding was never a core irremovable teaching of the faith. Suddenly the straw-man collapses.
L
LifeIsAbsurd
Guest
cho pilo:
You, as the defendant, must produce evidence that your hypothesis–that the world was created yesterday (and false evidence and memories implanted across all humanity)–is not merely possible but also reasonably likely.
If your hypothesis is true, your task is not hopeless, as there may be evidence:
(And even if your unlikely hypothesis is true and you’re not guilty, it seems a super-powerful being wants you sacrificed. In which case we should probably find you guilty so as not to offend the gods.
)
False. Suppose the world operated differently ten billion years ago. That wouldn’t change how we interpret finding your bloody fingerprints, a strand of your hair, a shell casing of a certain calibre, gunpowder residue, ballistics data matching a gun you own, decay of a body indicating time of death when you have no alliby, etc. Ergo, forensic experts* don’t *rely on assumptions that the world functions today as it always has.
The prosecutor only needs to provide evidence of your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to twelve jury members. If he’s provided a body, murder weapon, motive, opportunity, and DNA evidence he’s likely met that burden.
You, as the defendant, must produce evidence that your hypothesis–that the world was created yesterday (and false evidence and memories implanted across all humanity)–is not merely possible but also reasonably likely.
If your hypothesis is true, your task is not hopeless, as there may be evidence:
- No memories or only vague memories before today.
- An unusual number of inconsistencies or contradictions in memories.
(And even if your unlikely hypothesis is true and you’re not guilty, it seems a super-powerful being wants you sacrificed. In which case we should probably find you guilty so as not to offend the gods.
)
L
LifeIsAbsurd
Guest
To the original point:
Alexander Smith:
Alexander Smith:
cho pilo:
I agree his argument is what is iffy but in both contexts, as while it’s conceivable, it asks us to ignore our collective sensory data without any supporting evidence.
P
paduard
Guest
I agree. For to think otherwise, apart from other considerations, would make God out to be a liar, which is impossible.
B
Big_Ro
Guest
Accepts seems strong. The way I understand it the Church neither accepts nor rejects. We are allowed to consider it and reach our own conclusions. I thought threads or discussions on evolution were banned.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Wait a minute here. There is an element of truth to what is being said in this quote. He does not have it quite right but is onto something…
St. Augistine (if I remember correctly) stated that time is a measure of change. We percieve change and so we percieve time. Our space-time continuum does not appear “Only in our minds” but it is something which is an actual artribute of the corporeal created universe. True, we percieve time with our minds but our perception is not what determines it’s existence.
But since God does not change, God is outside of time. Time does not apply to God. God sees all of the created universe, from the beginning of time (AKA the start of creation, the start of things which can change) until the end of time (when things no longer change) as one moment… eternally present… now.
Since God does not change, he is not part of time. God is “In eternity”. Things do not change “In eternity”. Eternity therefor, is not “forever” as in “until the end of time” but is existence with no time. This is based on the fact that God is a spirit, without created parts which can change.
The concept of time vs eternity can be viewed in light of the incarnation, when changless God stepped out of eternity, took on created matter which can change (flesh), and stepped into time with us.
The error in the quote above is that of both models of time, only one really exists and the other is simply in our mind and that our perception defines its existence. This is strict relativism which defines reality by our perception.
Therer are in fact, two very real models of time; one is called simply that, time and the other is that which we call eternity or the absence of time. Both however, are very real. Both exist.
My head hurts.
-Tim-
T
tonyrey
Guest
B
Big_Ro
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
The universe must be more ancient than the ancients could fathom.
That is one reason why Genesis is such a simplistic explanation for Creation. No modern explanation including the idea of evolution would have been possible three thousand years ago for the simple reason that science as we recognize it today had yet to arrive. God could not reveal the mechanism of evolution, but God could and did reveal that Creation occurred over time and in a certain prescribed order. Genesis tells us that the universe began with an explosion of light, which modern science confirms. Genesis tells that life began in the sea and moved to the earth and the sky, which science also tells us. Science tells us that man was created last, which science also tells us. In no other world religion is the account of the order of creation so consistent with science as that of Genesis.
It is true there are fanciful aspects of creation also present in Genesis, but they are not sufficient to overcome the more impressively accurate aspects of creation that seems to be the product of inspiration rather than mere guesswork.
Yes, religion has one standard, and science has another. But in a very general way the standards do not have to be so diametrically opposed as some have tried to make out.
That is one reason why Genesis is such a simplistic explanation for Creation. No modern explanation including the idea of evolution would have been possible three thousand years ago for the simple reason that science as we recognize it today had yet to arrive. God could not reveal the mechanism of evolution, but God could and did reveal that Creation occurred over time and in a certain prescribed order. Genesis tells us that the universe began with an explosion of light, which modern science confirms. Genesis tells that life began in the sea and moved to the earth and the sky, which science also tells us. Science tells us that man was created last, which science also tells us. In no other world religion is the account of the order of creation so consistent with science as that of Genesis.
It is true there are fanciful aspects of creation also present in Genesis, but they are not sufficient to overcome the more impressively accurate aspects of creation that seems to be the product of inspiration rather than mere guesswork.
Yes, religion has one standard, and science has another. But in a very general way the standards do not have to be so diametrically opposed as some have tried to make out.
B
Big_Ro
Guest
B
Big_Ro
Guest
I very much agree with this statement. It seems that the supposed schism between science and religion is overblown and unnecessary. Everything I read and understand about science of all types only confirms for me the greatness of God’s plan. I don’t understand why some scientists ( broadly speaking) seem to think that because they can understand and quantify the mysteries of the universe that it somehow negates God. I can’t explain it like an apologist, but in my mind science and Religion can be squared. And, BTW, I think it hurts both science and religion to continue this unnecessary battle.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
*And, BTW, I think it hurts both science and religion to continue this unnecessary battle. *
Unfortunately, there is guilt on both sides. Protestant Christianity has been more antagonistic than Catholic Christianity to the various advances in scientific thought. But atheistic scientists have been very antagonistic toward the legitimacy of religious thought, dismissing it as unfounded because it does not conform to scientific standards. This really is the height of absurdly irrational arrogance … otherwise known simply as scientism.
Unfortunately, there is guilt on both sides. Protestant Christianity has been more antagonistic than Catholic Christianity to the various advances in scientific thought. But atheistic scientists have been very antagonistic toward the legitimacy of religious thought, dismissing it as unfounded because it does not conform to scientific standards. This really is the height of absurdly irrational arrogance … otherwise known simply as scientism.
J
JosemariaDon
Guest
Could be:
a second is like a thousand years to God.
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. (Psalms (RSV) 90:4)
Who can search the mind of God? Wish I could,-- but hey-- I can’t.
a second is like a thousand years to God.
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. (Psalms (RSV) 90:4)
Who can search the mind of God? Wish I could,-- but hey-- I can’t.
- Status