Whilst personal revelation is not "presentable proof" in any kind of empirical sense, surely it does constitute proof to the individual?
I knew you'd call me on THAT
DNA - belief destuction
by donkey 85 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
funkyderek
Whilst personal revelation is not "presentable proof" in any kind of empirical sense, surely it does constitute proof to the individual?
Apparently it does, to a lot of individuals. I don't see why it should, though given that it's not "'presentable proof' in any kind of empirical sense". I will concede that some Christians believe they believe based on evidence. How's that?
-
LittleToe
I would be happier to concede that it is just subjective proof
To me, it doesn't need any more belief than seeing a formula or a evolutionary model on a screen.
Edited to add:I wouldn't limit this discussion to Christians, either. Nor for that matter would I include all "Christians".
Some do indeed work entirely on "belief". -
a Christian
Derek, I wrote: If the writer of Genesis had written his account of creation to match our 21st century understandings of when and how the heavens and the earth came into being, if in the next 500 years some of our 21st century understandings are replaced with "new improved" understandings, what would 26th century readers of Genesis think of its contents? You responded: This is interesting. It seems to show you have a typically religious view of science, as something that changes constantly and unpredictably. The earth has been around for 4.5 billion years (give or take) there was no global flood 4000 years ago. All life on earth is descended from a common ancestor. These are facts. Barring supernatural revelation, these facts will not change. I agree with you for the most part. But even if the Bible had said the earth was created by God 5 billion years ago some critics would now say that the Bible cannot be inspired by God because it is not sufficiently accurate. However, isn't it possible that today's scientific estimate for the age of the earth, "4.5 billion years," will be adjusted closer to 5 billion years in five hundred years time? The point I was making was that the origins of our universe are not so clearly defined as some would lead us to believe. For instance, scientists are still not unanimous in their opinion as to how exactly our moon came into being. Various theories have been proposed. The earth and moon formed side by side at the same time. The moon was thrown off from the earth early on as a result of earth's then high speed spin. The moon was acquired by earth's strong gravitational pull. After the earth formed, another very large body struck the earth. The resulting debris from that impact spewed out into space, gathered together, and solidified into our moon. This last theory is presently the most popular but has many detractors. One of the first three theories, or another altogether, could become the most popular in future years. That being the case, I believe it is best that Bible writers did not tell us exactly how God created the moon. What if they had explained the origin of the moon according to the presently most popular theory? This theory was thought to be ridiculous by most scientists only a few years ago and it is still rejected by many scientists today, since it closely resembles the crackpot writings of Velikovsky. So whatever the Bible had to say in this regard, in any greater detail than it now gives, would have been harshly criticized by most 20th century scientists, and even now by many 21st century scientists. I wrote: For instance, Genesis uses the Hebrew word for "create," Bara, only in describing God's bringing into existence the heavens and earth, life in the sea and mankind. All other kinds of life, vegetation and animals, Genesis tells us, were not directly "created" by God but were "produced" by "the land." (Gen. 1:11,12, 24) And, as I mentioned earlier, Hebrew lexicons tell us that "Bara," Hebrew for "create," refers to "the initiation" of something, while the Hebrew words translated as "produced" refer to "the fashioning of," or "the changing shape of," preexisting materials.
You asked: Would it have been grammatically correct to use "bara" when referring to making something from dust? ... Was the word used the only one that could be used even if it was intended to mean that God made all living things directly? I will not comment on what may or may not have been "grammatically correct" in the ancient Hebrew language. For I am not an expert in biblical Hebrew. I only know what Hebrew lexicons tell us pertaining to the meanings of words. They say that the verb "bara emphasizes the initiation of an object," while the other Hebrew word used in reference to God's activity in the Genesis creation account, "yasar," "emphasize the shaping of an object." I wrote: "The events in Eden demonstrated that all human beings are capable of sinning, and are thus all less righteous than God (God can't sin). You responded: If we are capable of something that God is incapable of, surely we are superior to him. So, according to your logic, since we know Charles Manson was capable of mass murder, if I say that I am not capable of mass murder I am making Charles Manson superior to me. Derek, at this point I think I will let you go your own way on all of this. For I think that anyone who can make a ridiculous statement like the one you just made either just wants to argue or lacks the common sense necessary to hold a productive conversation.
-
a Christian
Donkey,
You asked: How can i seek that which I don't know exists? What EVIDENCE does he give?
I developed doubts about the organization in my late teens. I left JWs in my early 20s. Shortly thereafter I became an agnostic and a skeptic of any religious claims. I remained skeptical of anything religious for about 15 years. Then in 1992 I came across what I considerd to be strong evidence that the Bible must be God's Word and that Jesus Christ must have created the uiniverse. I then became a Christian. I am now compiling this evidence into book form, evidence which I believe will one day help many open minded agnostiocs to become Christians. I have discussed this evidence on this forum before. You can find my discussions of it by doing a search of my post history.
-
seattleniceguy
a Christian:
The point I was making was that the origins of our universe are not so clearly defined as some would lead us to believe. For instance, scientists are still not unanimous in their opinion as to how exactly our moon came into being. Various theories have been proposed.
This is a misleading comparison. You are choosing a question for which there is little evidence. Also, the various "theories" you mention are not theories; they are hypotheses. A scientific concept does not become a theory until there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to a coherent, internally consistent system well supported by the facts. We have gravitational theory and evolutionary theory, but not moon theory.
Questions regarding earth, on the other hand, can be answered with much more confidence because we have boatloads of evidence to examine, all around us. The age of the earth and its various periods can be established in many, many ways: radiometric dating, ice core sampling, strata reading, wear patterns on mountains, etc, and they are all consistent.
Obviously, any question in science is open to reanalysis if novel evidence emerges. And in very new, cutting edge fields, there are sure to be lots of new discoveries that shape our fledgling understanding. But to suggest that science goes back and forth wildly would be grossly misleading.
In short, the fact that we have comparatively little data on the origin of the moon does not relate in any way to the amount of data we have on earth or its geological or biological systems.
SNG
-
a Christian
Nice Guy,
You wrote: the various "theories" you mention are not theories; they are hypotheses.
I beg to differ. According to the book, The History Of Earth - An Illustrated Chronicle of an Evolving Planet, its author Dr. William K. Hartman "is internationally known for pioneering the modern theory on how Earth's moon formed. ... In addition to his doctorate in astronomy, he holds an M.S. in geology." In his book's chapter 5, entitled "Where did the moon come from?" he discusses all four "theories" of the moon's origin at great length. Throughout this chapter he continually refers to these theories as "theories" including his own most favored "theory," which is the one most planetary scientists now adhere to.
I'll accept the word of Dr. Hartman as to whether or not it is proper for us to refer to his theory as a "theory."
You wrote: The age of the earth and its various periods can be established in many, many ways: radiometric dating, ice core sampling, strata reading, wear patterns on mountains, etc, and they are all consistent.
I am aware of that fact and have not disputed it.
You wrote: to suggest that science goes back and forth wildly would be grossly misleading.
I have not suggested such a thing. I have only said that Bible writers were wise not to provide too many specific details about exactly how and when creation took place. For scientists' acceptance of some such "details" is subject to change even today. I was simply using their very recent change in opinion on the probable origin of the moon as an example of that fact.
-
City Fan
a Christian,
I think the creation story in Genesis 1 - 2:3 is written by men who thought the Earth was the centre of that creation. I think people living 3 millenia ago would have understood a sentence such as "and Elohim made the Moon to circle around the Earth, and the Earth to circle around the Sun".
Someone on this board once re-wrote Genesis 1 as it should have been if truly inspired, i.e. easy for ancient people to understand and yet at the same time be scientifically correct. Unfortunately I can't remember who it was or which thread it was in.
-
seattleniceguy
City Fan wrote:
I think people living 3 millenia ago would have understood a sentence such as "and Elohim made the Moon to circle around the Earth, and the Earth to circle around the Sun".
Someone on this board once re-wrote Genesis 1 as it should have been if truly inspired, i.e. easy for ancient people to understand and yet at the same time be scientifically correct. Unfortunately I can't remember who it was or which thread it was in.
Awesome. That's the thing I really marveled at when I left the organization. It is possible to write clearly and accurately, such that people in different lands, in different cultures, in different times can still understand what you are talking about. Even evolution can be described simply by using analogies of heredity and breeding, things that early people would be aware of. If the Bible were truly God's word, I would expect it to be written like that.
I'm not just talking about the science. I'm talking about the entire Bible, in general. Why is it that readers are left to fill in the gaps, explain away apparent plot holes, make excuses for God, and so on? Why can't you just read tho book and have it make sense? If this book were really the work of an intelligent, benevolent Creator-person, s/he should have been able to write simply, clearly, and accurately. To me, the Bible is plainly just not anything special.
SNG
-
seattleniceguy
Okay, here's my Modified Genesis version of evolution.
1 And God saw that the earth was formless, and he caused his spirit to move to and fro upon the surface of the waters. 2 And he brought forth small creatures, like grains of dust for smallness, in the waters. 3 And he caused the creatures to multiply and to bear offspring after their kind. Each one would bear its young, the young being similar in appearance, as a boy takes after his father and his mother, but being slightly different, each one, even as brothers resemble each other but are different, and as sisters bear a likeness but differ individually.
4 And God caused mountains to rise out of the sea to form the land masses of earth. And the land was desolate and barren, and the creatures lived only in the sea. 5 And as the creatures multiplied, each having a likeness to one another but being different in various ways, some were better able to live and bear offspring. So the stronger creatures mated with their stronger counterparts and produced stronger youth, each one continually different in various ways. 6 So the LORD caused the creatures to change gradually, over the course of many generations, into different types of creatures that could live in different ways, in different parts of the sea. 7 In this way, God caused life to flourish and shoot forth all over the sea, in the coastal shores, and in the depths.
8 And God caused the life in the sea to begin to move about on the earth. And the creatures gradually differentiated into the salamanders and the frogs and the birds and the livestock. 9 They were all of one stock, of one lineage, for the LORD had made them all, even as the LORD has brought forth the great nation of Israel from the loins of Jacob. 10 That is why even today it is said, "You must treat the stork and the frog and the she-goat with compassion, for they are your brothers."
To me, this is accurate and understandable. Sure, it might be a bit surprising to an ancient people, but surely no more surprising that being told they were built out of dust, and that Woman was crafted out of a rib from old dust-boy!
The funny thing is, if only Genesis were written this way, no one would have a problem with teaching evolution. Science would be seen as merely elucidating what the Bible already says. Instead, the Bible describes all kinds of madness that Christians must sort out and decide which to accept literally, which to take as figurative, and which to pretend simply isn't there.
Sigh.
SNG