The genesis story does not say that sun and stars where placed in the "sky" or "heavens" it says "Firmnament". The Hebrew word was that of a solid dome/canopy. Lexicons reveal how modern translators have again altered the meaning of a word to conceal the primative cosmogony/cosmology of the Bible.
Fully Gifted Creation, No God of Gaps
by D wiltshire 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Abaddon
peacefulpete; ah, yes, but those with an ideological imperative to retain a literalistic interpretation will say;
"Here we see Moses describing by inspiration how the sky appears for an Earthly observer. As anyone who has stared up at the sky will know, it can indeed give the impression of being a solid bowl curbving over the observers head".
Those without a ideological imperative to retain a literalistic interpretation will say;
"Bronze-age bollocks!"
-
drwtsn32
I don't think science will ever be used to prove there is or isn't a God. So your use of "scientific understanding" to disprove God is something science can not do.
Correct. Science will never be able to disprove the existence of god as he is defined in the bible. However, neither will anyone ever be able to provide concrete, objective, repeatable evidence that he does exist. (It hasn't been done yet, anyway.)
If something is defined as untestable by science, does that mean it is more likely to exist? No. It isn't a good line of reasoning at all.
Think about this: does it seem more reasonable that "at the very beginning" there was only the most primitive forms of matter, or that there was some supernatural, all powerful being?
You lost me here.
What seems more likely to have existed at the very beginning: something extremely simple or something infinitely complex?
If god existed before the universe and all eneger/matter it contains, who created god?
You argue that man is too complex to have just formed "all by itself." Well what about god? Did he form by himself?
-
D wiltshire
Gum,
I could be in denial, but denial of what? There is no absolute proof either way, only more questions that beg answers.
Ab,
Obviously, god cannot be disproved. That is different from god existing. I frimly believe if it mattered we would KNOW, there would be no doubt - any other scenario puts god in a very dodgy situation as regards fairness.
That is your opinion, which God gave you the right to have. I know I'm presuming here.
Of course, god doesn't have to be fair. But the idea god is unfair is illogical, and if it turns out that way €uck it, a despot is a despot and I won;t live under a despot.
I agree God could be the meanest person in existence, and there would be nothing we could do about it.He could torture us everyday with pain that is more gruesome than we can even imagine, and make it impossible to ever get any relief for an eternity, and laugh with delight at every cry we make for mercy, and if we say anything disrespectful increase the pain. Lets be glad he's not a despot, because it wouldn't matter what you choose he would over ride it.
The possibility that we are actually not important to whatever created the Universe (if it was created) seems to be a option that few people consider; just as most human ideas of god are very petty and anthromoporhic, so to the idea that we MUST matter seems a rather arrogant assumption in the absemnce of any firm proof.
That's why I think Jesus is God, for I think it gives the clearest(possible) reason to beleive God is Love. In that he came down to this universe, became (wholly)man(with all the limitations) and suffered with us, beyond what the average man suffers, for our sins. God being beyond our time and space, entered into it to show his love for us in a very tangible way, I think is about the sincerest expession will towards us. Of coarse this is just my beleif, and is subject to refutation and correction for none is provable, I just have faith that this is close to what is reality.
And finally, as you have learnt over the past few year Dwilt, it really is quite possible the Universe has got to where it is via naturalistic processes without divine guidance; I know you've not always thought this. How it actually started is moot, but if it's possible that once it's running it works as cosmological and evolutiuonary theories generally define, there is another possibility. No god. That the Universe came into being via exotic physical processes, but still naturalistic ones.
That is harder for me to imagine, than a all wise God creating the universe. As you know Time has a begining. Beleif in a God who transcends time seems more believable, to me than just unitelligent purely natural(that word can have so many meaning, your contexts is the meaning meant here) cause.
This requires no more belief than in there being a designer, as the designer immediately gets us into a situation where a designer must be explained, and their designer must be explained, etc..
Time having a begining, could be used to explain it. Albert E. suggested that the difference in past, present, and future is just an illusion. Time is an invention of God, for us in this universe, I hope to understand it one day but not here inside time and space.
-
gumby
I could be in denial, but denial of what? There is no absolute proof either way, only more questions that beg answers.
Denial that the God the bible does not act or deal with people in the way the bible portrays him.....a god of love and "tender mercy". Reality in this world doesn't jive with a loving God looking after us. How anybody could think there is jusification for God allowing what he does is beyond me.
Can you give a REASONABLE answer to any of the questions I asked you? I realise there are no answers to some things......but an attempt would help.
Also.....I understand your thinking this way as I too reasoned this way, but after comparing God for what he is supposed to be........with the way THINGS are.....it does not jive.
To think there is no creator is a hard thing to grasp and is something I also am not convinced of yet. However the God of the bible went out the window with me. He's a mean biggoted prick.
Gumby
-
D wiltshire
Gum,
Can you give a REASONABLE answer to any of the questions I asked you? I realise there are no answers to some things......but an attempt would help.
I can't give you what "you" would call reasonable, I can only give what "I" consider reasonable. This term reasonable is very subjective. My reasons would be we can't always understand God he is way beyond our intellect. When he communicates to us through the Bible I beleive, he is using "baby talk", just as your mom or dad when explaining something to you when you were 2, that is how I think God speaks to us through the Bible. I think this book is full of metaphors, that are only a faint shadow of reality. It is just like someone who lived in a 2 dimensional world (flat land) he could understand squares and circles, but would have a hard time understanding someone from our 3 dimensional world as we talked about cubes and speres. We would have a hell of a time trying to explain the extra dimension to them. If we talked about a cube, we could tell them that it is made of 6 squares and that they all make one cube or we could say cubes have an infinite number of squares to them. Even though we've seemed to contradict ourselves we would be telling the truth to this "flat lander" in fact we would understand a square much better than he would because of our know 3 dimensions. The flat lander can only grasp the faintest shadow of what we are talking about.
This is the way I veiw God communication to us, we have a hard time grasping the reality of it all, in fact I don't think we ever will in this life.
Also.....I understand your thinking this way as I too reasoned this way, but after comparing God for what he is supposed to be........with the way THINGS are.....it does not jive.
See above.
To think there is no creator is a hard thing to grasp and is something I also am not convinced of yet. However the God of the bible went out the window with me. He's a mean biggoted prick.
We all have our opinions, and I understand where you are comming from. I would only suggest don't be too hasty, to form a concrete opinion. Leave a little room for changing your mind if new thoughts on the subject come your way.
-
drwtsn32
Yes, a 2-dimensional being would have a very hard time understanding a 3-dimensional world. Just like we have a hard time grasping what a 4-dimensional object would be like. (I'm talking about the 4th dimension being another measure of distance, not a measure of time.)
The idea of god doesn't make sense to us logically (never had a beginning, infinitely complex, etc.) so people come up with the idea that he is simply outside of our dimension and hence we have no possible way of understanding him. I think that's a weak cop out, personally.
-
funkyderek
My reasons would be we can't always understand God he is way beyond our intellect. When he communicates to us through the Bible I beleive, he is using "baby talk", just as your mom or dad when explaining something to you when you were 2, that is how I think God speaks to us through the Bible. I think this book is full of metaphors, that are only a faint shadow of reality.
That would be a reasonable explanation except that it seems the Bible was written by someone with less knowledge than us, not more. It's stories are so primitive and seem like "just so" stories, myths, legends and superstitions. They don't seem outrageously complicated but disappointingly small and petty. Now, of course, some sort of god could be trying to communicate with us in this fashion, but why?
-
rocketman
Interesting thread. Personally, I'm becoming more open (since becoming inactive as a jw) to what science has to say as far as where the evidence leads.
From a Biblical standpoint, I do sure wish that the creation account could have been written in more detail. It's kind of sad that we have just two chapters to go by (actually about one and a half, since the creation account seems to end at Genesis 2:9. Meanwhile, we get 9 chapters of geneology in 1 Chronicles.
-
Abaddon
Well, I can see you've done a lot of thinking Dwilt.
However, your belief structure is currently largely pinned to the presuppositionalist structure you grew up with, which in turn is an accident of birth, and violates Occam's Razor. As you know, Occam's Razor states that if you have equal evidence the simplest explanation is probably true. Adding an inexplicable god doesn't make your explaination any simpler.
Do you sincerely believe that god is partial and exclusive? Because if you'd been born a Hindu, I think you'd still be a Hindu.
Do you sincerely believe that you have succesfully doged the question of the origin of god? You seem to be putting the explaination into a special class of knowledge, just because you can't come up with an answer ("Time having a begining, could be used to explain it.", "I hope to understand it one day but not here inside time and space."), which is kind of convenient. Please realise that things happened before time, otherwise time could not have started, and thus your hope of doging the endless chain of designers required to validate your theory is just not on.
All the best.