Is the Biblical account of Creation self - consistent?
I am researching into the conflict between between Creationism and Evolution, so forcefully portrayed over internet debates such as the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate as well as the Kent Hovind debate. The recent ruling on school textbooks in the US has also kept the issue in current circulation. How does one approach this debate rationally?
Everyone needs to make up their own mind, however, the Creationist side of the argument is very confusing, and sometimes claimed to be irrational. If it is simply a matter of private faith, so be it,
however, faith involves reason as well, and we would all like to believe our faith is not irrational.
For the first step, assuming the account of creation in Genesis is true, that is, fact, and by some
miracle God created the universe in six days (St. Augustine believed that God created the world in an instant) then is there any self-inconsistency that makes this account impossible? I have been searching for an answer, and there are many who point out the conflict between the theory of evolution and a
historical interpretation of the first chapters in Genesis, I was unable to find a logical critique of the belief.
We can discuss specifics.
There is an article in the Scientific American that answers many of the Creationist claims. I accept the Scientific American's characterization of the current state of evolutionary theory. At least some of the claims listed therein are scientifically untenable, and I will take them at face value, which makes me part company with a great many Creationists.
Here is a link to the article:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
Comments (127)
The Genesis account is consistent with itself but not with science. Christians have their ways of reading Genesis but they have to be very doubtful of science to say the universe has been around for in 7 thousand years. The world would have to be irrational in a high degree for science to be wrong on this and why do Christians think their translations of ancient texts is more reliable than science on this? It doesn't make sense
Some Biblical accounts may be allegorical. In which case they may still be compatible with science.
It may also be a matter of perspective. Science states that the earth goes around the sun, but everyday experience suggests that it is the other way around. One perspective is scientific, the other is psychological. Both of them are valid and useful for different purposes.
That is, no, the creation story is not internally consistent, regardless of whether it can be interpreted as being consistent with evolution.
You can reads the text as saying God formed every beast of the field every fowl of the air in anticipation of what Adam would need. After all, it is talking about the mind of God in the second account, not the literal series of creation as to the first. The two sections have different intents theologically
In Genesis, God created Adam, as is, fully formed, from scratch, as intended, presumably immutable, with all the features of modern man, and so Adam's creation is taken to have happened around 4000-7000 years ago; yet, man is mutable and the evolutionary tree of life has been found. Also, we know how solar systems form, and our thriving planet requires a metal rich third generation star as our sun. Earth is in the Goldilocks zone, not too hot and not too cold, just as it should be for life to arise.
Adam didn't know what his genitals were for and so God showed him some visions of animals, but Adam wasn't all that attracted them. Then God showed Adam some visions of naked women and Adam then knew right away what his primary male part was for!
God then told Adam, "I can make you the perfect woman; she will do all the chores, including painting the ceilings, cleaning the litter box, cutting all the grass by hand with a scissors, cleaning the sewers, etc., and all that you ask her to do, with no complaints; however, she will cost you an arm and a leg!"
Adam thought for a while and then asked, "What can I get for just a rib?"
Hi Gregory. First of all, thanks for the civil response. I have been discussing these with various persons and I know the reactions that I get from deeply entrenched views in science. So we have agreed that the creation story is self-consistent. The scientific establishment has a different view.
The age of the earth has been a matter of debate from antiquity, and there are traditions where the universe was thought to be ancient, I think the Hindu traditions.
Quoting BBC
I would think it reasonable to assume that the writers of Genesis would have been aware of this concept. In fact, the eternal existence of God may have led some to believe that God created a universe very far back in eternity.
The study of the geological record, the finding of fossils and the theory of evolution all supported a different view of the origins of the earth and life on earth. It is hard to see how this could have been postponed indefinitely!
This is a good question to ask. Let me quote you something from the Stanford Encylopaedia of Philosophy:
"Creationism
First published Sat Aug 30, 2003; substantive revision Fri Sep 21, 2018
At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be “transcendent” meaning beyond human experience, and constantly involved (‘immanent’) in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all Creationists in this sense."
The reason for the belief is based on what are considered ancient texts, and considered the very word of God. There are reasons for belief. Given the existence of God, it seems natural to reason that the Universe was created by Him.
The difficulty lies with harmonizing the scientific theory of origins with the religious claims of origins. There are several approaches, and I will discuss these next, however, I need help in analyzing these claims for rationality and for logic, since both religious and scientific thought can rule out irrational arguments.
The West has a very linear idea of time because of the influence of Genesis and Revelation in the Bible. The Jews who wrote the Old Testament had a particular culture they were keeping intact. I think the Christians ran with the Jesus legend and basically appropriated Judaism for a global religion and added tons of stuff that orthodox Jews did and do believe is inconsistent with the spirit of their religion
Yes, this is one approach, which is not without difficulty, but one that has been adopted by many denominations.
The *likelihood* that we can translate the Bible with enough accuracy to really understand what was written is *far* lower than the likelihood science is wrong in saying the world is very old. Science does a much better job with clarity than texual scholars
So how does one harmonize the accounts? John F. McArthur of Grace Community Church calls the creation event a miracle. The creation of the heavens and the earth, in effect the universe and everything there is, and the creation of the earth, moon, animals, plants, and human beings takes place a week-long miracle. The creation story ends at Genesis chapter 2, but followed by a flood event which creationists interpret as a literal account. It is possible to harmonize the flood account as a local event, but it is not possible to find any corresponding body of evidence in the geological record, according to geologists. This must remain a mystery, at least from my point of view because I have no access to the geological record or any means of interpreting it in accordance with the story of a flood. There are flood myths that exist in communities worldwide, but that is all that the scientific community will admit.
The question is then, is there anything logically inconsistent in considering the creation account as a miracle, like the miracle of turning water to wine, or parting the red sea? Again, I make no other claims that Creationists make. Of course from the scientific point of view, taking the Biblical record or the any other accounts of creation as fact is problematic. There is nothing to prevent scientists from staying away from commenting on any religious accounts, no matter how well accepted by most of the world.
Any ideas on harmonization?
Correct. When taken at face value the two accounts may be thought to be mutually contradictory. But there is no reason why it should be impossible to harmonize and amalgamate them into a single coherent account.
Much of the Gospels seem to be history, except for the raising of dead people and the virgin birth and stuff. At least, it's asmuch history as any ancient texts can be assumed to be. Language has changed so much we can't be sure what miracle claims were meant to say back then. What does giving a blind man his sight mean to someone in ancient times? That why I said the study of ancient text is not very reliable for literal truth. The way we write history today may not be the same as how they wrote stuff back than. This was 2000 bloody years ago for christ sake. I think Jesus did and said much of what the Gospels say, but his followers obviously added some things that, if taken literally, make the Gospels religious texts and not history as we now understand that
If we believe in miracles, or to be more exact, for people who believe in miracles, what are the options? Surely they are not unlimited.
Noah landed on the "mountains of Ararat". So the flood got very very high. How could a local one do this?
What limits? There are miracles claims being claimed this very day across the world. It depends on what you want to believe.
1) Jesus could have been akin to a Hindu guru, thinking he and everyone were one with God. Maybe everyone's atman (soul) is united in a sense with Brahmin (God) and anyone can do miracles with enough faith. That is one *religious* way to understand the Bible. Latter believers made Jesus into the "one" God
2) Any power, good or bad, in the universe could have given Jesus powers. I don't see performing miracles as a likely thing that could happen, but if someone did there is no way to tell where the power is coming from. The problem with Christians is there narcissism in thinking that God is always giving them signs
Thus, delimiting creation to 144 hours never made sense.
The Bible is a humanist story functioning on several symbolic levels. The creation story pairs things created on the Earth and things created in the heavens. So, each Earthly thing has a counterpart creation in the heavens. The next organizing principal is that each thing created as more freedom than the next. So plants come first as a fixed form of life, as do the immovable heavens. Creates progresses in levels of freedom, so for example, beasts have more freedom of movement and decision than plants, the stars move throughout the night sky and have more freedom in their relative paths and so come later. This culminated in man, having the most freedom due to access to reason coming last.
This book has a good breakdown of the symbolic linkages and ways the creation verses split into pairs.
If you begin with the position that the document was written by God, then you are forced to make sense out of it, even if it's jumbled nonsense.
Let's look at the flood story, for instance. It lasted 40 days at Genesis 7:17, but 150 at Genesis 7:24. Noah took aboard one pair of each animal at Genesis 6:19, but at 7:2, he was said to have taken one pair of the clean animals and 7 pairs of the clean.
40 days of a certain activity and 110 days of a different degree of activity. I don't see your three examples as contradictions. Noah had a different ritual for the each selection of animals. It about ritual renewing of the earth
My argument is that the flood was about 30 feet high according to Genesis and the ark 600 ft long. And this ark lands on a mountain. Something doesn't add up if you want to take this literally. Unless, of course, the base of the mountain is part of the mountain. I find the Bible completely ridiculous, to be clear, and I don't believe believing in God makes someone wise
I don't see that in the story. The flood was 15 feet above the mountains at Genesis 7:20. I don't see a problem with a 600 foot boat landing on a mountain.
Quoting Gregory
I don't. I see it at least 4 different books pulled together into one, and, if used to provide guidance and wisdom can have some purpose, but I don't see how it can be taken literally in a serious way.
Quoting Gregory
Not sure that was ever argued here.
Quoting Gregory
Genesis 7:17: " And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth."
Genesis 7:24: "The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."
Genesis 6:19: "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
Genesis 7:12: "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,
1) the Flood was most intense during 40 days out of 150. That's how people read religious text
2) with the clean animals, a pair was consecrated as special while the other 6 others entered as well. Reconciling verses in this way is what religious interpretation is about
Why is the Christian view always off the table in these discussions? He could have been the Son of God for Christ's sake!
My point is that, if someone believes in miracles, there are many who do, but numbers do not matter, then it is reasonable that Creation itself could have been a miracle. There is no self inconsistency in believing water to wine or nothing to the universe. All it says is that it sounds absurd if you take a certain view. I grant that belief can be called absurd, but not the beliefs that stem from that belief, and these could follow a rational train of thought.
And by the way, the date and time of creation is not supported in the text. There is a set of genealogies, if taken at face value, give date of about 6,000 years as far as I know. Projecting the date on the current calendar system and working backwards was certainly unwarranted and does neither science nor religion any favours.
The sounds pretty ridiculous to me. There might be a flying monster drinking from a teapot on Venus, but it sounds ridiculous to entertain it as a possibility
That is an excellent book, I have not read it, but it demonstrates the kind of frameworks that help the Christian and perhaps the scientist grapple with these issues, and indeed integrate them into his faith. The purpose of this discussion is to make a case for holding on to one's Christian faith and also integrating what is in the scientific body of knowledge, an informed, civil discussion.
You can gather from my comments what I can say explicitly, that I while I can be expected to be dismayed by attacks on the faith, mainly be Atheists, old and new, I am just as dismayed, maybe even more, by the irrational, non-theological as well as nonscientific treatment of the issue by Creationists. Has anyone read Henry Morris? Hugh Ross? Surely there is a way for people to speak without making themselves sound irrelevant, or a laughing stock for all humanity? Has anyone seen this?
They make good points, but there is a way to discuss this thing, without destroying the image of the Church.
Indeed, so making sense of it has to be something like this: the thoughtful believer sits down with a pen and paper and uses the dimensions of the ark, the number of animals on board, the problem of the insects and so on, and has to come up with an answer that seems reasonable. One could simply say that one does not know, and to use the often-used exit strategy : "I will ask God when I get to heaven". Well then this raises an interesting question: The answer, as far as we can see now, is that "Yes. all the animals and creatures did fit on the ark" or "That was a story to illustrate the Providence of the Almighty"
The Answers in Genesis team gives an answer:. Still, making there is nothing inconsistent in saying one does not know. The calculations and assumptions could be right or wrong, in fact I could do a fact checking myself sometime.
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-all-animals-fit-ark/
"Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat"
" Something doesn't add up if you want to take this literally. Unless, of course, the base of the mountain is part of the mountain. " - Hanover
This is what I am interested in: what are the things that do not add up if you take them literally? How does one deal with these rationally?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%208&version=NKJV
According to research published in the Journal of Mammalogy in 2018, the number of recognized mammal species is 6,495, including 96 recently extinct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal
From other sources, there are about 10,000 reptiles. I have a way out though, I am not locked into proving the literal account to be true, in order to prove the inerrancy of the Bible. Inerrancy does need to be defined.
In the Catholic church they usually take a more allegorical stance. And if the Flood left the Ark on a mountain, the Flood would have to have flooded the world considering that the water would keep rushing into other regions
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-evolution-idUSLG62672220080916
Also: (I will examine in detail later)
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081031_academy-sciences.html
Evolution is consistent with Catholic teaching and with it's methods of historical criticism when it comes to the Bible. I don't think Christian theology in general makes much literal sense but I was raised Catholic and am one culturally. Don't take my posts as those of a church going Catholic nevertheless. Regular Catholics believe they have a monopoly on truth and I don't believe what they believe in a literal sense
Quoting HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI October 2008
The only comment I make is that 'scientific truth'. although can help, often impedes and damages philosophy and theology and darkens our understanding of God. By "scientific truth" I mean the common consensus of the science of the day, which may or may not reflect reality and maybe a vehicle for the philosophical agenda of the scientists involved, a huge majority of whom are atheists.
If any mutual enrichment takes place, I am also, along with His Holiness, grateful, but if it does not. my gratitude will turn to something else.
If irrational things are rational, then can this irrational thing be rational? Certainly.
As for being irrational, what can I say? If a person believes irrationally that miracles happen, then they could believe that any number of miracles could have happened. The initial belief may be irrational, i.e. belief in miracles, I accept that person would be guilty as charged but you can only charge them once.
Classifying faith in any or all religions as irrational is nothing really new.
If there are miracles, how can we ever know the source of them?
A miracle, not to put too fine a point on it, in one sense is about attribution. Of course, it could represent objective reality, but that determination is out of reach for us at the moment, and from a modern scientific point of view, there is no reason to expect an explanation will be found. If there seems to be no other explanation, then it is a miracle.
For example, certain cancers can disappear without treatment, there are peer-reviewed journals that document this. Then there is the Lazarus syndrome. Obviously, anyone who has been praying for healing or raising the dead will consider someone being 'healed' or rising from the dead as a miracle.
The stories of Jesus, even if one thinks of Him as a fictional character, contains accounts of miracles, and if one accepts these stories as being true, then there is no logical reason to pick and choose as to which miracles happened and which ones did not. If miracles are attributed to God, being all-powerful 'as the story goes, there is no reason to imagine to give a reason why it should not have happened at the beginning as well.
Kass' work is based on that of Leo Strauss. Unfortunately Strauss' commentary is hard to find.
If this stuff interests you another student of Strauss, Robert Sacks, wrote a commentary on Genesis:
https://interpretationjournal.com/shop/lion-ass-commentary-book-genesis-chapters-1-10-robert-sacks/
"The Lion and the Ass"
The essays are compiled here: https://www.greenlion.com/books/LionandAss.html
You can charge them again if they start presenting you with evidence as if they had a rational belief. An irrational belief doesn't require evidence. It's unnecessary and at worst distracting to the people looking for rational based understandings.
I would appreciate it if you could give me examples of the 'evidence' the Creationists in question are presenting. Do you mean Ken Ham and Noah's Ark?
I was thinking more just in principle; if a position is going to lean on an irrational belief then evidence supporting it doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to retract an acknowledgement of an irrational position. Off the top of my head; I think there have been people that try to add up consecutive lifetimes to arrive at a number. I think they have located the garden of Eden and the ark a few times. Flat earth seems to ride on an unspoken purpose of being evidence for creationist. Then, denial of fossils and other indicators as tests of faith. I believe a few irrational things, but I wouldn't consider trying to prove them or assert their implications.
The thing is Zeus might be God and the lesser gods could be each giving miracles to their favorite religions. There is no way to no. I've prayed much of my life but I realize now that I'm just talking to myself when I pray. I don't think God exists. Christians will blame the person who prays instead of the God who doesn't answer or exist and that is messed up. I don't mind Christians except when they say they can prove their faith is true. Many other religions make this claim too but I usually debate Christians because I've been Christian and am familiar with their theology
Anyone may think God does exist or does not exist but in any case, it may or may not correspond to reality. But that is not what I want to discuss.
I want to address your comment "When they say they can prove their faith is true" - this is one branch of something have encountered recently, under the God-Aweful name of 'Apologetics'.People are free to proclaim their faith, but when they try to make a case that a reasonable person has no choice but to believe in Christianity I ask - so what if someone is not reasonable? If a person is not 'reasonable' then trying to make a case will only put them off.
It is a very curious thing to me what evangelicals will make of Jesus's admonition to leave people alone if they will not believe.
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Matthew 10:14, KJV
Also, one of the most important features of the ministry of Jesus and His disciples was that his teaching was accompanied by miracles, which caused many (but not all) to believe. This is very much absent from the current evangelistic program.
St Paul's instruction was to show 'gentleness and respect' when explaining one's reasons for faith to a non-believer, so you may have been the recipient of something less than gentleness and respect?
Evidence may be damaging to an irrational position, but may not persuade a person to give it up. There is evidence that will support the several sub-claims of a principal claim that is irrational or perhaps unsupported is a better word, and that evidence is valid, even though it is circumstantial. Of course, support for sub-claims does not prove the principle claim that is being made: for example, if is not possible to prove the existence of God, beyond all reasonable doubt, one could easily argue for a sub-claim convincingly: Taking God's existence as a given, then either God created the universe of the universe created God, it follows that the former inference is logical one.
Actually, that was Greg. I would have qualified it differently. My point was not to play both sides. If it's simply an irrational belief, then leave it there. Generally my position is that it's more important to be honest than convincing when it comes to religion.
Well, you are demonstrating my point to a degree. We start talking of evidence and it moves to an "unsupported claim". Taking the existence of unicorns for granted I can tell you that they eat twice a day. It doesn't really follow, but I think it's more important that people be ok with that; otherwise their beliefs hang on some tenuous evidence. I can't really prove that it matters that I do the right thing when no ones looking, but I believe it.
If you look at the theory of evolution, the theories of origin of life, and the theory of the origin of the universe, there is simply no room for God's action there, there are no gaps for God to act. Do you agree? In which case it is impossible to see how any 'harmonization' could be done rationally. It is not that God is unnecessary, it is necessary that there is no God.
Rather, I can suppose there is a God of some type that prefers not to be identified with physical evidence. The trouble we have now with everyone who thinks they know what God wants is bad enough. Logically, if God wanted to tell you something then God could? So, if you don't have evidence it is because God hasn't seen the need to provide any.
The 'God' of belief has been reduced to doing exactly what nature does.
That view is on the face of it rather simplistic, but at a deeper level it is a sophisticated argument: God exists, but leaves no evidence, as in miracles, but on a more subtle level could be that God does not leave evidence that is detectable, for example, 'loading the dice' in the game of evolution, or arranging for some unlikely event such as the fine-tuning of the universe. One must be careful here, though, that lack improbability does not constitute proof.
I am curious though, as to what sort of evidence you think God has not seen the need to provide. Evidence of Creation, Guided Evolution or sometthing else.
However, I see no strict inconsistency. For as Bertrand Russell pointed out, it seems entirely possible that the whole world and everything in it popped into existence in its entirety last Thursday. If that was in fact the case - that is, if the world and every thing in it popped into existence last Thursday - that would not be inconsistent with any scientific data, but with certain additional assumptions that scientists have mistakenly made (such that the processes that have been going on since last Thursday have been going on for much longer and are responsible for much more). And it is not as if we'd stop using scientific methods to find out about the world.
What goes for the last Thursday thesis surely also goes for the biblical account of creation. That is, it is not inconsistent with any scientific data, but rather is inconsistent with certain additional assumptions that scientists typically make, such as that the processes that turned B into C, also turned A into B. That may be an entirely reasonable assumption if other things are equal, but surely any rationally capable Christian would argue that other things are far from equal.
Another confusion, it seems to me, is between time and events. Time is not made of events. But events are taken to be the guide to how much time has passed. And again, that's quite reasonable other things being equal. But there is no inconsistency in granting that all the events the scientific evidence says have occurred, have indeed occurred just at a much faster rate in the initial stages (a 'two hour' film can be watched in about 10 minutes if one speeds it up - same events occur, just faster). There is, then, really no upper limit on how many events can occur in a day. And thus the six day thesis (and the 6,000 years ago thesis) is consistent with the occurrence all of the events the scientific evidence implies have occurred.
Obviously one would need good independent reason to think the world was created in 6 days etc, but the point is that there seems no strict inconsistency with scientific data.
As for apparent internal inconsistencies within the bible - saying one thing here and another there - these do not conflict with scientific evidence, but rather with the law of non-contradiction. And that isn't really a problem given that God can do anything, including violate the law of non-contradiction. So bearing that in mind, I think there is no problem being a literalist about the bible.
Do we really?
It's not clear that there is a need to do so.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Oh no. We better stop sciencing.
Thanks! I wanted to give Strauss credit but I was traveling and didn't have the book on me. He credits him in the text. I haven't had a time to finish the whole commentary because I have such a backlog that I have three Genesis commentaries alone I've started, The Man Who Wrestled With God by Sanford, a Jungian analysis, Mysterium Magnus, Boehme's rather mystical commentary, and this.
On a side note, I don't get why anyone bothers arguing about the six days vis-a-vis science. There is literally a second origin story in the next chapter that goes differently. Genesis clearly isn't focused on a scientific retelling of creation.
Interesting selection of commentaries.
If I remember correctly Kass shows the topology of each day and what belongs on that day according to its motion.
Yes, but with an additional comment, that there is a reason to believe that the universe was created 6,000 odd years ago, and that 'reason' is the tradition of belief of some of the worlds religions. More to the point, it is the traditional interpretation of the divine texts. I do not think it that belief in an arbitrary time of origin, say last Thursday for example, carries any weight.
What carries weight then, is the religous traditions of various large groups, and if there is a rationale for believing in these things (the Hindu belief is in a cyclical universe, for example) which is a question for the social scientist. The deeper question is: do religous beliefs correspond to reality? But that is out of scope of this discussion. My question is, given a religous belief, what are we allowed in terms of reason and logic, and I think we are making good progress here.
The fact that various factions within the Creationist community are engaged in serious disputes regarding Biblical interpretation, integration of faith and science makes for a rather confusing and unsettling state of affairs. Irrationality abounds in all camps. which is what I want to avoid.
Theist's argument
1. Complex things require a creator [premise]
2. The universe is complex [premise]
Ergo,
3. The universe requires a creator = God [from 1, 2]
Richard Dawkins' Argument
4. A complex thing requires a creator more complex [premise]
5. God is more complex [from 3, 4]
6. If a complex thing requires a creator, a more complex thing also require a creator [premise]
Ergo,
7. God requires a creator [from 5, 6]
[quote=Charles Darwin]There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed
into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.[/quote]
In other words, evolution started off simple, not complex i.e. the evolution and by extension, the universe itself progresses like so: simple -> complex and not like Dawkins supposes: more complex -> complex. Dawkins is contradicting himself - on the one hand, he claims the universe behaves simple -> complex and on the other hand, he claims God has to be more complex than the universe. No fair!
Ergo, my argument would be,
1. If the universe exhibits the progression simple -> complex then God is not only simple but the simplest
2. If God is the simplest then God doesn't need a creator
Ergo,
3. God doesn't need a creator
Insofar as Dawkins' views are concerned, it doesn't hold water.
To be fair the ad Infinitum version of the argument requires an infinite succession of creators, so that does not work either.
And then a God-Creator would require a God-Creator Creator.
Is a first cause the same thing? We are looking for a cause for the existence of the universe, are we not? By 'we' I mean cosmologists like Lawrence Kraus.
Apparently there are many who argue about just such a thing, and the arguments are among theists, since it concerns their faith. There are many arguments here: six days versus 'science', versus old earth, old universe, the God who did nothing, who did nothing visible. In the midst of it, there are public debates and school textbook wars.
I am looking for good options to integrate the Christian faith and belief in the Bible and the current scientific view of origins. I have got some good answers and some bad ones. I need to sort these out.
I was, as they say, working backwards from Darwin's own statement, which I quoted, and what appears to be a general consensus among the intelligentsia that the universe proceeds thus: simple -> complex. That evolutionary biologists like Dawkins have no bone to pick with such a conception, i.e. they feel no need to explain the simple, speaks volumes. I suppose all these volumes can be distilled into one "simple" yet profound statement: the simple needs no explanation (so you can forget about the simplest needing one).
God, in Dawkins' and Darwin's universe, has to be the simplest and not (more) complex (than the universe) and for that reason needs no explanation, another way of saying God doesn't need a creator. Thus, Dawkins' argument in his book, The God Delusion, fails.
I don't think it is right to rationally analyze a being we know nothing about. If it's a spiritual exercise it's ok but we can't know if this being exists, we can't know anything about abstractly, and we can't know if anyone can even really believe in such a being. This was Dawkins real point. God is not a scientific or a philosophical idea, it's a spiritual one, not useful when no longer needed. As for the science, we know the series of causes go back millions of years but if time is Absolute it might have happened in 6000 years. Science considers that philosophy, but the Bible is just one out of all the religious literature oral and written, and rejecting data because an old book àppears to contradict it is loony.
I think it is an unwarranted view to take the position that 'we can't know if this existing'. A person can believe in the existence in God with the same conviction that they believe in the existence of the people they see down the street. There are people that believe that only they exist. So belief and truth do not have a one-to-one correspondence which really makes the point moot. The current pendulum swing away from religious belief, especially in the West, is a testament to the fact the people base their beliefs are influenced or even determined by society. The pendulum could swing back again.
I will let the millions of believers around the world, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists make the determination that their faith is 'no longer needed'. They certainly need it, and if numbers are not an indication of validity, then it follows that if only one person in the world believed in God, it would not make their belief irrelevant because of numbers.
That's one way to prove it. In any case the entire concept seems to be in difficulty.
Until recently I was under the assumption God intended for us to have to claim to be atheist if we are honest. However, after seeing undeniable proof that I can't convey or attempt to defend, I think otherwise. I still think the atheist are honest, but I have a theistic belief I cannot defend, so it's irrational, but not less real to me.
Believing in people is in no way comparable to believing in God. One is mental health, the other is wishful thinking
I never said faith was always bad, first of all. It's just wishful thinking. Secondly, many Hindus and Buddhists don't believe in God
Could you prove that it was wishful thinking?
First of all there is a difference between faith and living by probability
If I wrote a book in which I said that I created A before B, and B before A, then you would be justified in thinking I was joking, or was confused, or that it was a typo, for such a claim violates an apparent law of Reason according to which that which is before cannot also be after. But if God wrote a book in which she says that she created A before B, and B before A, then although this claim violates that apparent law of Reason no less starkly than if I'd written it, the fact is God has the power to violate laws of Reason. And thus what provided you with excellent reason to reinterpret what I had written, provides you with no reason to reinterpret what God has written.
So, as far as I can see, the bible is going to be self-consistent no matter what it says, for it is - by hypothesis - the work of a being who has the power to do anything.
So god becomes evil and stays good at the same time (contradiction?) and in the end damns himself and the world while keeping the world and himself good?
You should know you are a moral relativist
And yes, I know I am a moral relativist. One has to be if one believes in God, for God can do anything and thus there are no necessary moral truths. All moral truths will be contingent on God and thus relative, not absolute.
My point is that there is no non-question begging way to argue against the biblical literalist. (Not endorsing it, just making a philosophical observation)
Well then you are in a strange world where science is doubted. Your finite female god with infinite thoughts and infinite power is not the Christian god
No it isn't. How is it doubted? There is no non-question begging way for a scientist to arrive at the conclusion that the world is older than the bible says it is. But a scientist could accept what the bible says and still do science in the same manner as any other. (As could a last-thursdayist who believes taht everything popped into existence last thursday).
What the science shows is that, other things being equal, the world is 4.5 billion years old give or take. But other things are not equal if the bible is true. That's the point.
Quoting Gregory
I am not a Christian and I haven't read the bible. But the God I believe in and have described above is the God of the Abrahamic religions - that is, a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. So a Christian believes in an all powerful person. And they believe - as I understand it, anyway - that the bible was written, indirectly, by that all powerful person. Now, the Christian should surely not be troubled by any apparent inconsistencies in the bible, for by hypothesis an all powerful person can do anything. If they are troubled by them, they show by their being so that they do not appreciate what omnipotence involves.
Again: I am not a Christian or a biblical literalist. But it seems to me that once one grants that the bible is the word of God, there is no possibility of the bible being self-inconsistent. So I think that if I thought the bible was the word of God, I would be a biblical literalist. After all, the default is that it should be taken literally, I'd have thought.
The entire Bible is not self-inconsistent, there are entire passages that are self-consistent, they may be taken to be fiction, however.
There are some statements that seem to be self-inconsistent in the Genesis account, and these are: the creation of light before the Sun and moon, and the two differring accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
Any civilization having a written language and even rudimentary technology such as used in farming, and a working knowledge of nature would be doubtless aware of the concept of cause and effect. More to the point, in daily lives the appearance of light is never something that happens on its own - there is a source for light, even the people of ancient Biblical times knew this. The appearance of light therefore meant to signify something.
I would suggest that the concept of a God who does not do anything is self-inconsistent, and the text must reflect this.
Your interpretation of god's power is very strange and unorthodox. Most theists would call it insane. If god can do anything in your sense than maybe he never existed and that this is just a contradiction. And he damns theists and this is just a contradiction. He never ever was good and this is just a contradiction. He never was all powerful and this is just a contradiction. I don't believe in relativism in this sense. You are an absolute relativist and not a true believer in god. For some odd reason you think you are very clever for insisting that god can do contradictions but the majority of readers are going to think you're a nut
The rest of what you said was utter nonsense. You, like Banno and others, do not seem able to distinguish between a metaphysical possibility, an epistemic possibility, and an actuality.
All things are metaphysically possible with God. So God can destroy himself. He isn't stuck in existence. That doesn't mean there is any epistemic possibility that he does not exist. His existence can be established with certainty. So, it is metaphysically possible for him not to exist (he would not be all powerful otherwise). But it is not epistemicalky possible.
An example to illustrate: it is metaphysically possible for me not to exist. But it is not epistemically possible. For I can be completely certain I exist.
And saying that something is metaphysically possible does not at all mean that one is asserting its actuality. It is possible for God not to exist. But he exists. It is possible for God do divest himself of power. But he hasn't. It is possible for God to make the law of non-contradiction false. But it is true. And so on.
None of this is nuts. Quite the contrary, it is just to apply reason to omnipotence. It is those who think an omnipotent being has to be constrained who are, well, not nuts so much as very stupid. For they think being who can do anything can nevertheless not do this and not do that. A clearer case of a contradiction is harder to conceive of.
You're just saying gods nature is prior to his contradictions, and without evidence
Of course. His nature is infinite, his will is infinite. They create each other in one simple being. But this creation is free and necessary, so the necessity of gods goodness requires only rational activity
Yep. You're not much of a philosopher
The irrational is impotence for god so he can't do it.
You think God can do anything and not some things.
I think you don't have a clue about anything.
Well you keep insisting that omnipotence means god can do irrational thing. And you stare in amazement at people when they laugh at that. You are stuck in the mud on this point
Would someone who can do everything 'God' can do and all the things he can't do, be more or less powerful than 'God'?
What do you think, Gwegowy?
He can do anything, Mr tricks at a bar, but irrational things are nothing
And who is your "we"? Islam? I imagine you living in Syria as a disreputed apologist for Islam, trying to win people with unwise arguments
Being irrational is a thing. You are being irrational. You think God can do anything, but not do the irrational things you do?
Destroying oneself is a thing. You think God can do anything, but he can't destroy himself?
You understand what a contradiction is, yes? (No, clearly).
No. For the divine the irrational is nothing
No idea what that is.
Of course there is a sort of reductionist argument that answers the omnipotence problem:
Simply put it means saying yes to every question about God.
Can God destroy Himself Yes
Can God destroy Himself and still exist? Yes
Can God destroy Himself and still exist but not exist? Yes
Can God exist and not exist? Yes.
Can God be eternal and die? Yes
Take your pick. In any case I am discussing a set of writings fixed in time and space, about which a limited number of rational statements are possible.
Well, minds are at least complex enough to express things like ...
[quote=George E Pugh (1977), accredited to Emerson M Pugh (1938)]If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't.[/quote]
I have a feeling that various worshipers aren't on board with their ehh friend being so simple.
Then again, it seems these G-ideas are free for the taking, contradictions included, and regardless that G never shows and isn't shown.
I do not really follow your point. What you say is quite right - God, being omnipotent, can do anything and so to any question "can God do..." the answer is an unambiguous 'yes'. Well, there we go. That's quite right.
And so can God make it the case that everything in the bible is true? Yes. No problem. Can it be true that God made the animals before man, and man before the animals? Yes, because God can do anything. It is no condition on God being able to do a thing that we be able to understand how.
Can God destroy himself? Of course he can. And note, that is compatible with him existing eternally. So you have reasoned fallaciously in concluding that God cannot destroy himself becasue he exists eternally. To exist eternally, you just need to exist forever. That's consistent with having the ability not to exist at any point. (Note too that existing eternally is not an essential feature of God. Omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are. Existing eternally is not, or at least I cannot see why it would be).
The mistake many theists make is to confuse existing eternally with existing 'of necessity'. God does not exist of necessity (for if he did, then there would be something - some weird existential glue - holding him in existence, and that's incompatible with his being all powerful. To put it another way, there would be something beyond God, something outside God's control that determines his continued existence). But existing eternally and existing of necessity are not the same. God exists eternally, but he does not exist of necessity.
Another mistake is to confuse existing with certainty, and existing of necessity. God exists with certainty. But he does not exist of necessity.
In a way, the issues you're grappling with - apparent internal inconsistencies in the bible and supposed inconsistencies with science (there are none, but as I have said, scientific claims come with an implicit 'other things being equal' clause which is not going to be satisfied if the bible is true) - are red herrings.
The big issues are whether God exists and whether the bible is a work of God's. If God exists and the bible is a work of his, then there are no problems at all - there can't be, for God can do anything.
Minds - all minds, not just God's - are simples. That is, they have no parts. That's why the idea of a half a mind makes no sense.
That does not mean that God is a simpleton. Consider a lump of ice and now consider that lump of ice transformed into a very complex sculpture. Well, as a stuff it is no different to before - it is a complex of hydrogen and oxygen molecules, or whatever. But now it has an extremely complex shape.
Likewise, the simplicity of a mind does not entail that teh mind will be in simple states. There is no upper limit to how complex the thoughts of a simple mind can be. The whole external world could exist as the complex thought of a simple mind. And probably does, if Berkeley is correct.
There are degrees of irrationality when it comes to faith and the Bible. Most theologians would make the claim that there is a certain method to it, the Bible stories are not jumbled mess that a mad person would write, there are some very cogent, intelligent passages, there is poetry, there is history, and there is prophecy. So there are parts where God did not do anything - in the Bible story, for example, in the book of Esther the word 'God' does not appear.
The problem occurs with the 'miraculous' or 'supernatural' parts of the Bible. How do we approach this? I would say the Creation story is broadly self consistent, except for some parts, such as the creation of the sun after the creation of light.
Is it possible to create the sun before the creation of light? Then the sun would be light-less. As I thought about this, is there a situation where light exists without the sun? Then evening came, and as the sun went down, there was still light, but no sun visible. Diffuse light, and not from the sun, but from the sun 8 minutes ago, existing independently in the atmosphere through diffusion.
There is a difference between a conflict between the Biblical account and scientific theory and between the Biblical story and rationality. This is exactly what I am trying to draw out. I feel that there is a large audience that will accept this, it being a numbers game after all, in a sort of truth by vote world.
However, one is not failing to follow Reason if one reasons that as God can do anything, there are no necessary connections between anything. One is following reason - one is being rational. It is rational to think that if there exists a person who can do anything, then nothing that exists exists of necessity (for a person who can do anything can destroy anything and everything at any moment)' and likewise to think that there are no necessary connections between things. Nothing 'has' to produce light and light can exist by itself.
If there is a being who can do anything, then nothing 'has' to be the case. There's what is the case and what is not the case. But there is no such thing as what 'has' to be the case.
That is not an irrational belief, but the opposite. It is the rational implication of there being a person who can do anything.
If one has independent reason to think the bible is the creation of that person, and in that book this person says that they created light before the sun or whatever, then there is no reason to think that this was not what they did.
And if the book says that the person in question - God - created X before Y, and Y before X, then once more it is rational to think that this is what happened, for the person who has said this is the one person capable of doing anything at all.
So, it seems to me that insofar as one thinks there are problems here - problems reconciling the bible account of things with this or that received view about how things are or how things have come to be - one is suffering from a rational failure: a failure to appreciate what omnipotence involves.
God, unlike us, is not a prisoner of Reason. God is Reason and so God can do anything, including violating the laws of Reason (for they're his laws). Appreciating this - properly appreciating it - means appreciating that what would be a problem if premised of anyone else, is not a problem when premised of God.
https://www.creationmyths.org/enumaelish-babylonian-creation/enumaelish-babylonian-creation-2.htm
Is it self-consistent? Well, as far as there are no contradictory statements within the text, and the original story tellers would have known this, it is self- consistent. My position is somewhat like a person who believes in the Babylonian myth today. A Babylonian Creationist!
So what would I say to this Babylonian Creationist? Your story is self-consistent. You believe in it. Are there any claims of the personalities acting throughout history? Are there any further revelations? And if so, will dismissing the Creation story as merely a story affect your faith? These are the questions to answer. The Babylonian myth will conflict with science, but there will be those who try to harmonize it, which is not necessary.
Christians believe everyone is a bad person without Jesus. But maybe everyone is bad and turn to religion in order to feel better. Majority does not rule in philosophy and how it relates to religion. This forum, I believe, does not favor the majority in the debates that occur here. It is really easy to say "I like the Bible, it sounds so true" but every religion has members who feel the same about their books. See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnJvuXpU6SU
One man's patterns are another persons nonsense. Why can't Christians just discuss this stuff with themselves? Why do they try to sell it to other people? If you want to evangelize why not talk only about your relationship with Jesus? You're going down the apologetic path yourself.
I am assuming that you think the bible is the word of God and thus that its creation story is the true one (and that all others are false).
Well, that creation story is consistent with science, first off. For scientific claims are always attended with an 'other things being equal' clause that is not met if God exists and created the universe in the manner outlined in the bible. (So, scientific discoveries imply that the world is 4.55 billion years old 'other things being equal' - well, if the bible story is correct, then the world is actually 4-6,000 years old. That doesn't contradict the science, precisely becasue other things are not equal in this case).
Perhaps that creation story contains apparent contradictions, such as claiming that X was created before Y, and then that Y was created before X.
That would seem to be inconsistent with Reason, not science. Until, that is, one remembers that this is God we're talking about, and God isn't bound by the laws of Reason, for God is Reason and can do anything.
God can't be Reason if he can ACT a contradiction.
But anyway, you're more of a pronouncer than an arguer, so there's not much point in me explaining any further is there?
Reason can't perform a contradiction. That's against its nature
You're a common idiot dude. I'm 35, I'm not a kid. You wouldn't have a chance first of all. And you say God is a finite mind with infinite power and thoughts. How does that lopsided picture work in your "mind"? And then you say this mind is Reason but can perform contradictions. So once again a guy or girl that doesn't give his name out is laughed off stage. Take a bow as you leave
God can do anything. Thus God can change the laws of logic. Why? Because he can do anything.
There are many reasons Christians do not just discuss among themselves, although they argue among themselves as well. Some Christians believe that all believers, not just preachers and evangelists have a duty to try to convert other people at every opportunity. That is not what my purpose is here. My purpose is to get some views on the rationality of the Biblical story.
What would really upset theologians is being told they are irrational. They are theologians after all. I think Christians also would not like being called stupid or irrational. So there are two choices, either admit that Christianity is "foolishness to the Greeks" and move on to something else, or try to make some rational statements about all of it that people of all faiths can accept and respect. Is this possible, and in what areas?
The entire problem is that the current aim of scientific enterprise is to seek to remove God from all causes and this is a stand a Christian cannot take. I think from the Christian point of view, the Christian tells people how to go to heaven and the scientist tells people not how the heavens go, but how to go to hell by denying the existence of God.
I think we are discussing the subset of views where God can do anything but does not break the laws of self - contradiction, we can do that.
What about the sin of piety?
I am not sure I follow you at all. The sin of piety?
Treat the Bible as a subjective account spanning from Moses to Jesus and setting the stage for Mohammad (Islam) and inconsistency becomes moot!
The Bible, to my reckoning, had multiple authors and each one of them had their own take on God and faer prophets, Moses and Jesus. What should we expect to find in such a book? Inconsistencies! That's exactly what we find in the good book!
One approach to inconsistencies is to choose between them, the other is to seek to harmonize them. For the sake of argument, let us remove the self-inconsistencies in Genesis 1. That is, conflicting accounts within the text of an event, but taken in their natural sense. For example if God created the 'heavens and the earth' first, then the sun and the moon, the creation of the heavens did not include the sun and moon. I am not talking of Genesis 2, but if one chooses Genesis 1 over Genesis 2, this does not make Genesis 1 untrue. Of course one can claim unreliably of the Bible, but that is a separate matter.
I have read once again the first chapter of Genesis, and, although it has several things that I do not understand, like the 'vault', the statements are clear: the text says that God created the everything in the 'heavens' night sky - stars etc and the earth, all living plants, animals and human beings. The co-author of the text for which we believe God was the co-author (or maybe editor) has made sensibly made no specific claims of creation, and has produced an account that is self-consistent, in my opinion.
The next question is then how did God create the universe? Any answer to this question has to be consistent with the Biblical account of creation, the Biblical account as myth (which reflects on the truthfulness of the Bible and God's character. We speak of 'apparent age' what about 'apparent truth' and 'apparent revelation'?
The answer to the question of how God created cannot be answered by the scientific enterprise as these are ever - changing theories, none of which claim to be final, except in their intention, which is to exclude forever supernatural causes and interpretations.
Why would you trust aged paper instead of modern brains?
Modern theological brains are what are certifying that the Bible is trustworthy. Are you saying the human race did not evolve right? Maybe only evangelicals will be fit to survive.
https://biologos.org/articles/comparing-interpretations-of-genesis-1/
I would lean towards the concordist interpretations, out of which the "Gap" theory I would rule out, in agreement with the authors.
"The Gap and Day-Age concordist views would have baffled the original audience, since these ancients would have had no concept of geological ages; if they could not fathom time periods of millions or billions of years, the text must have meant something different to them. "
Assuming this is true, and that the gap theory extends the meaning of the text to unimaginable proportions, and that the day-age theory is untenable because any of the ages cannot correspond to any geological spans of time unless those specifically chosen to match the geological record in which case there is no difference between the geological day age and the Biblical one. I assume the original text did not anticipate this.
So I am left with the 'six day' creation and the 'creation poem' interpretation. Both of these are compatible with the Christian faith and are self-consistent.
"Moreover, concordists can be forced to regularly change and update their interpretations as modern scientific knowledge grows and changes. For instance, the Gap Interpretation twisted the meaning of Genesis 1:2 outside its original intent; later it failed to match new scientific evidence."
I would agree with the above.
It is worth pointing out that the statement that 'a scientific study' will confirm the six day creation account is really missing the point. Science will never confirm a six day creation account, or more to the point a Divine creation, the scientific enterprise is simply not moving in this direction and never will.