This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Atik
"With the Lord a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day".
Which basically means that a day is a thousand years is a day is a day is a duck.
Post by
MyTie
I don't even need that verse. God said he did it in 6 days, about 6 thousand years ago. I believe the two can co exist.See, I don't see a way they can co-exist.But you aren't answering my question. My question is, if I can provide a possible way they can co exist, can we stop contrasting the two?
I prefer to use the speed of light to contrast Biblical truth. It is cleaner. It is beyond dispute. It is not a theory, it is a fact. Light travels at a certain speed in a vaccum. Further, we can measure the distance it has traveled by the speed of objects traveling across the sky and the red shift of the light. We can demonstrate, beyond dispute, that we are receiving light that is millions of years old. Who needs the theory of evolution to argue against the Bible when we have that?
If I can offer a possible solution for how the Biblical truth that the universe is 6 thousand years old, is compatible with the fact that we are receiving light that is millions of years old, can we drop the science vs religion argument?
Post by
Gone
I don't even need that verse. God said he did it in 6 days, about 6 thousand years ago.
6 of his days, or ours though? What can you call a day to a being who the creation of time?
"With the Lord a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day".
Which basically means that a day is a thousand years is a day is a day is a duck.
No what it means is that our perception of time =/= Gods perception of time.
EDIT: I also wanna point out that if you do believe the 6 days God mentioned was actually 6 long periods of time, then that can also still sync up with the 6,000 year old time frame. Even if the world was created in a period of millions of our years, it could still have only been 6,000 years ago that this process was completed up to the book of Genisis.
Post by
Orranis
I don't even need that verse. God said he did it in 6 days, about 6 thousand years ago.
6 of his days, or ours though? What can you call a day to a being who the creation of time?
Twenty four hours or the amount of time it takes for the earth to revolve around it's own axis once. That's how you define a day. I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the whole 'God has a different perception of time' thing, even before I don't buy into the whole religion thing, especially considering he was supposed to have created day and night in the first place.
Post by
Gone
I don't even need that verse. God said he did it in 6 days, about 6 thousand years ago.
6 of his days, or ours though? What can you call a day to a being who the creation of time?
Twenty four hours or the amount of time it takes for the earth to revolve around it's own axis once. That's how you define a day. I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the whole 'God has a different perception of time' thing,
Do I even have to point out how easy it is to shoot holes in that? what about on a planet larger than the Earth, a day would take longer than 24 hours. Genisis began with the creation of the world, the creation of the Sun and the Earth, how could he have created them in the first "day" when you cant even define a day aparently without the rotation of the earth.
Thats of course not even counting the quote I posted where it says that time is viewed differently with God... Just gonna repost this in case you missed it.
With the Lord a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day
If a single day can be viewed with different ammonts of time on different planets, is it so hard to believe that it might be construed differently by a being that exists outside of any single planet? Or even predates time itself?
Post by
gamerunknown
And its not science that says whether or not something falls short of a test, its the person conducting said test.
Richard Feynman wrote the best definition of science I know of. From memory, it goes like this: science encompasses both the scientific method (the gathering of empirical evidence) and the corpus of data which accumulates through such techniques. Recently, the fruits of such knowledge have been attributed to science too, while historically such products would have been called "technology".
But there are also quite a few theorys that people take for granted as scientific "laws" that cant be proven to a certainty either.
This relies on an outdated conception of science, where science's primary obligation is to prove theories. There has been a moderately recent update in the philosophy of science which Karl Popper was primarily responsible for, where the onus is for science to disprove theories. If a theory has no mechanism for disproof, it is held to be
not even wrong
.
Here
's a good video on "just a theory", by the way.
Its not really at odds with science.
When someone claims the world is 6000 years old, those words have a meaning. They make an objective truth claim, which does not at all correspond with reality. Only by changing the meaning of words can we assume those words and our conception of science are analogous. Doing so would not be concordant with how Ussher used the words, either. The methodology for alighting on the 6000 year figure is based on a chronology derived from unempirical sources. Making an assumption based on such sources and attempting to make one's conclusions jibe with reality is not how science proceeds.
Edit: Also, if the days were periods corresponding to billions of years (if they refer to a coherent demarcation of time at all), then the Sabbath would last for billions of years.
Post by
Gone
When someone claims the world is 6000 years old, those words have a meaning. They make an objective truth claim, which does not at all correspond with reality. Only by changing the meaning of words can we assume those words and our conception of science are analogous. Doing so would not be concordant with how Ussher used the words, either. The methodology for alighting on the 6000 year figure is based on a chronology derived from unempirical sources. Making an assumption based on such sources and attempting to make one's conclusions jibe with reality is not how science proceeds.
Its also possible that the claim of the Earth being 6000 years old actualy refers to the completion of the Earth 6000 years ago. God could have spent billions of years forming the Earth, the process of which was simply completed (up to the point of the sixth day) 6000 years ago.
Also you say it makes an objective truth claim that does not correspond with reality. But we dont know 100% what reality is, we never do. And we may have arrived to our perception of reality via science, but that dosnt mean its correct. Its like I said about math in my earlier post, science is infaliable, but the way people apply it isnt.
So we arrive at a conclusion about reality, something we perceive as fact, but that disnt mean thats the conclusion of science. Its a conclusion we arrived at through science, it dosnt mean its correct. Another person could use an aplication of science to come to a completley different conclusion.
Also, if the days were periods corresponding to billions of years (if they refer to a coherent demarcation of time at all), then the Sabbath would last for billions of years.
Thats assuming first off that the six days of creation and the Sabbath were all equal periods of time. And even if they were then God could have simply told people to take a single day, the Sabbath, as a symbol of the final period of rest that he took.
Post by
gamerunknown
But we dont know 100% what reality is, we never do.
As a purely practical point, no-one treats all outcomes as equally probable. If it were equally likely that if we stepped on a crack we broke our mother's back and nothing happened, then we would not step on a crack. One theory of cognition, not given much credence any more, is that humans are "naïve scientists" - we form heuristics (hypotheses) and extrapolate from the empirical data we receive daily. Real scientists are trained to ignore cognitive biases in interpreting results, to apply controls and look for statistical significance. We can say with the same degree of confidence that the world is not 6000 years old as that it isn't
5 minutes
old or that
written history is only 1200~ years old
.
And even if they were then God could have simply told people to take a single day, the Sabbath, as a symbol of the final period of rest that he took.
Which is an interesting slant, but one which only appears when modern science reveals that either of the accounts of the creation given in Genesis does not correspond to what we know about reality.
Oh,
something I was unaware of
until my mother pointed it out yesterday.
Post by
Gone
Which is an interesting slant, but one which only appears when modern science reveals that either of the accounts of the creation given in Genesis does not correspond to what we know about reality.
Nono, you rmissing my point. Im saying that its possible that the 6 days that God took to create the universe, then the seventh day of rest could have been millions or billions of years each. But the Sabbath that he tells people to honor, as a symbol of that, is only a single day. That could also explain why God refered to it as a day, in addition to making it easier for people to understand. I mean Genisis would almost have to be dumbed down, the creation of a universe is probably more complicated than humans can even conceive.
EDIT: Also I dont mean to keep beating this horse, but our perception of the laws of physics can be easily compromised if there is an omnipotent God that created the universe. He could very easily have created the Earth in 6 days, and still crammed billions of years worth of evolution in to that small time frame. THis is gonna sound cheesy, but imagine a fast forward button a remote controll.
Remember is there is a God, and hes omnipotent, than that makes pretty much anything possible. He would be able to break the laws of reality in ways that we cant even imagine. That includes the laws of time. He could create the Earth over billions of years, and still have it happen in only a single day.
Post by
MyTie
God could have spent billions of years forming the Earth, the process of which was simply completed (up to the point of the sixth day) 6000 years ago.
You're doing a great job of detracting from my point. We get that "a day is a thousand years" Biblical quote. Incidentally, God created the sun on the first day. There was morning, there was evening, there was a day. Now that may have been like a thousand years to God, but that was still a day.
Specifically, I dislike the "day is a thousand years" creation argument, because it doesn't take God at his word. He says He does it in 6 days. Why would we need to explain that away just because we don't believe He could have?
I believe that the universe was created about 6 thousand years ago, and I believe that it was created in 6 days. I also know that we can measure light that has been traveling from far off stars for millions of years.
In an effort to end the science vs religion debate, I will present the Theory of MyTie. This theory, presented on page 14 of this religion thread, will demonstrate one possible way in which both the science and religion could co-exist. It isn't to say that this was the way that it happened, just a way that it could have happened.
The Theory of MyTie
If an omnipotent deity created the universe, there is reason to believe that that deity had the power to create the universe at any age that deity desired. Further, a logical deity would have created the universe at the optimal age. Further, if this deity created subordinate entities (ie humans) to live in the universe, it is likely that the deity not only created the universe at the appropriate age to support those life forms, but would have also created those life forms at the appropriate age to survive.
Explanation:
When Adam was created, in the Bible, I don't think God would have created him a freshly met sperm and egg, floating in air. That doesn't make sense to me. I believe Adam would have been created a grown human man, with hair and fingernails, and skin, and eyes, etc, at the optimal age for survival. Why couldn't an omnipotent God also create the universe in the same manner? Some will point to the light of long dead stars and question why God would do that, as it is deceptive. I point to the fact that Adam could have had hair and fingernails at the point of creation, and say that the hair wasn't there to lie to Adam, but simply stated, God creates things complete and perfect. A complete and perfect universe has light from long dead stars in it. Down to the molecule and beyond, God created this universe complete. That is omnipotence.
To question omnipotence with science is to not understand omnipotence. I am here explaining that I believe in an all powerful God, and what is being used to argue against that? Evolution? Light?
Does this mean that I know
how
God created the universe? God didn't feel it necessary to explain the specifics. God did tell me how long it took Him, and He gave me an outline for how long ago it occurred. That is all He gave me. That is all I need. I believe those details. I will not compromise those details with "a day is a thousand years". It isn't necessary for me to change what God said He did to make it possible for Him to do it. He is omnipotent.
In summary, if God is, and God is omnipotent, then why bother with science vs God? It's silly, in context. The real question that is being postulated: Is God? So, let's stick to that question, and drop the silly out of context science vs God stuff. It doesn't go anywhere.
Post by
Gone
MyTie he could have taken billions of years to create the universe, and still only done it in 6 days. Im not even saying that the 6 days are symbolic. Im saying that God could literally spend billions of years forming the stars and planets of the universe, and only have it happen in a 24 hour time period. Your theory about a universe being created, at a mid way point in its lifetime is valid, but it also kind of implies that God is limited by the laws of time and physics.
Imagine a man spends 1 hour walking from point A to point B, but when he arrives at point be only 5 minuts had passed. He didnt move really fast and bypass the other 55 minuts, he literally spent an entire hour walking, yet arrived at point B after the passing of only 5 minuts. Its a time paradox, to us its impossible, to God its not.
Judging the possibility or impossibility of the literal word of the Bible based off the assumption that God has to follow the laws of time and physics is wrong. Accepting the existance of God throws those out the window as valid tools of experimentation.
Thats another reason I say that religion does not clash with science. People assume that religion states impossibilitys that clash with what we know of reality. But using anything that abides by the laws of physics to test this is a fallacy because God obviously breaks the laws of physics.
Post by
MyTie
Yeah ok. Great. It's beside the point.
The point is you can't argue science vs omnipotence. It doesn't go anywhere. Similarly, arguing omnipotence vs omnipotence also doesn't go anywhere. I don't know how God did it. He did. That's all that really matters here, right?
Post by
Gone
Well my whole point is that you dont have to argue science vs religion, because they dont clash with each other if you consider the existance of an omnipotent being. I dont want somebody to run along and say "Well the existance of an omnipotent being clashes with science because blah blah blah" because thats not true. Omnipotence is just another variable if you aproach religion from a scientific viewpoint.
And actually omnipotent might even be overkill. Even just the existance of a being powerfull enough to bend or break the laws of physics is enough of a variable that the standard of proof many people associate with science cant be used to the same extent on religion.
My whole point from the begining has been that science and religion can exist hand in hand (albiet it may be a tense relationship), and anybody who thinks that they cant exist together has a poor understanding of one or the other.
So it bugs me when I see somebody like Skeeran go on about science vs religion (just using him as an example because hes the one who made me mention it a page or two back). They are not even held in the same category, so they cant be compared like that, and one certainly dosnt denounce or negate the other, its only peoples perception or understanding of it that does so.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I don't know how God did it. He did. That's all that really matters here, right?
I dont mean to try and put words in your mouth, but could that arguement not be applied to a lot of different things and boiled, essentially, down to: "Why learn how things work? God made it that way and thats all I need to know"
Thats strikes me as being a horribly ignorant way to live a life
That's taking it a bit further than what I mean. I mean that when God says He did something, if one has faith in an omnipotent God, then it's pointless to display scientific evidence
against
that. That isn't to say that all of science is pointless, or useless. That isn't to say that how things work is all dumb because I believe in God. That's not my point at all. I'm very interested in the universe around me, and how things work. I'm simply pointing out that how things work cannot be used as proof against something that is omnipotent. That's all.
I mean, I worked as an engineer. I understand the importance of how things work.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
It boils effectivly down to: "When does the need to understand become replaced by faith?"
and the reverse: "when does faith become replaced by the need to understand?"
My drive to understand the universe is not driven by a need to understand its origin, as I already do. My point to study the universe is to understand more about the works of God. God created the entire universe, and left in it many marvels. I am curious about those marvels, and about the universe in general.
Since my curiosity isn't limited to origins, then there is no need to replace my need to understand it with the Bible.
The science vs God argument is just as pointless as the God vs science argument. Neither are a "good" position to argue from, as they don't stand in opposition. Science doesn't and cannot ever disprove God, and God never argues against science.
Post by
yukonjack
"With the Lord a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day".
Which basically means that a day is a thousand years is a day is a day is a duck.
This quote has always made me think time is not linear but more cyclical and elastic, it still isnt enough to make me believe in a single omnipotent being though.
I won't even attempt to argue science against religion as seen in this thread already it's a waste of time. I say dinosaurs and a creationist would say omnipotent being. From a creationist point of view it is the go to answer for everything. Used to be that was the explanation for lightning strikes too and even though we have a solid understanding for them today and we can even recreate them in a lab, it can still be argued they are the result of an omnipotent being and therefore can not be understood or explained.
I do have another question though, how do for lack of a better term Christians explain all the other gods of various cultures through history a few even complete with flood and ressurection stories?
Post by
MyTie
I do have another question though, how do for lack of a better term Christians explain all the other gods of various cultures through history a few even complete with flood and ressurection stories?
What is there to explain?
Post by
Adamsm
The Church's view on all other religions is that they aren't 'true', there is only one truth out there and the Church just happened to hit on it.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.