If you are a true Biblical Christian and trying to understand Genesis, you should remain within the framework of the Bible and not apologize for it.
- You have an omnipotent God.
- You believe He can regenerate a decayed corpse cell by cell, molecule by molecule in less than mere seconds.
- You believe He can individually reset the state variables of every air and water molecule in a chaotic storm at sea.
- You believe he can fly and walk through walls.
- You believe He can flood the entire planet, stop and reverse its rotation without spilling any oceans, and do trivial things like parting the sea.
- You believe he can intervene to control the course of History at any time and is not constrained by any of His Laws of Physics.
Great. So do I.
Now, given that, why are you copping out about how He created the universe in the first place? If He says he did it out of order, He did it out of order.
Not saying that the Simulation Hypothesis that Elon Musk talks about is how God does it, but it provides a mental framework for grasping that a Creator might work like a Movie Producer or Video Game Designer and assemble all the parts of the final product in some arbitrary order and slap them together with his Multi Dimensional Rendering Engine incrementally in whatever order suits Him.
- Jesus plainly said we should believe what Moses wrote (John 5).
- Moses wrote that the ten commandments were carved in stone by "the finger of God"
- The fourth commandment confirms (in stone) that God created the universe in six days.
- The Genesis account of creation written by Moses says they were literal day-night cycles and that God did things out of order.
So, I'm going with "that's what really happened".
That leaves me with only one Working Hypothesis that fits ALL the facts, both scientific and scriptural.
We are living in God's matrix.
Originally published in response to this post by alexbeyman. I decided it was worth a stand-alone post to reach a bigger audience.
That cause has to be outside of matter, energy, time and space. The only thing that fits that description is a mind or an abstract number. Since abstract numbers are never a causal factor, all that is left is a "mind".
There are scientist on both side of the debate. The last novel prize in physic was won by an atheist...the one before was a theist. Somehow, the narrative has turned into that no scientist believe in God. The giants of science were in an overwhelming majority theist. They looked for "Physical Laws" because they expected them from a "Law Giver".
Where did you come up with #1? I see no reason why that is obvious.
Sorry, I had to edit to more precise language: "Everything that begin to exist has a cause".
I have yet to find an example where something can begin to exist without a cause. Can you find one? Also, the opposite is blatantly false: "Everything that begins to exist have no cause".
We also have to consider that there exists an Eternity outside of time.
(Science postulates all sorts of such extra-observational speculation.)
We have no idea whether causality applies in Eternity.
Jesus said, "I AM the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end."
There He goes using that present tense again. :o)
if reality or the physical universe can be broken down to matter, energy, space and time...then whatever was the cause has to be outside of that. Therefore, eternal may be the right term...that's a complete theological phD right there. I think William Lane Craig indeed did his Doctorate on that topic. Very fascinating topic indeed.
The actual opposite of "Everything that begin to exist has a cause" is "Something that begins to exist has no cause".
Also, "a cause" doesn't mean "God". In short, this proves nothing.
Still...can you find an example anywhere of non-causal existence?
In any case, what in the world can be a causal factor that is outside of matter, time, energy and space (aka reality)? As stated above, the only thing we can come up with is a disembodied mind/consciousness. It's the only logical thing we can find that fits the description.
Couple that with the incredible and unlikely fine tuning of the universe and anyone can naturally see that a fine-tuner is the most likely cause of what we call reality. Unless you believe that the symphony of physical harmony and tuning is just the process of time + chance. Which in my opinion, require more faith than most christian could muster.
"can you find an example anywhere of non-causal existence?"
This depends on how "causal" is defined; it's not like there exists a single definition since Aristotle. So no, even if it's impossible to show a thing that exists without a cause as it is understood in modern physics, it doesn't follow that God must have created the world.
"a causal factor that is outside of matter, time, energy and space (aka reality)?"
That's the problem here: we have no idea what (if anything) exists outside of observable reality. Thus we don't know what caused the Big Bang, was it a collapse of another universe, a collision of two other universes, or perhaps "God created the heavens and the earth". But even then, it's just the good ole God of the Gaps.
"Couple that with the incredible and unlikely fine tuning of the universe"
This presumes that the Universe we live in is the only one ever existing, and that it is really fine tuned. But is it? We don't really know again. In fact, for now it appears that we are fine tuned to live in this very unfriendly universe and on this very unfriendly world.
I read this once and then read it a second time to someone I care very much about. This mirrors the belief I have in our creator. Loved it! Thank-You.
I read the Bible Genesis when I was a teenager. The amount of murder, genocide, incest and pedophilia there is shocking. The vindictiveness of this man-made god cannot be compared to the worst horror movie ever made!
LOL!
You probably ought to study the New Testament now that you are all grown up.
Maybe read a simple classic primer like CS Lewis's Mere Christianity?
Get to know the real Jesus.
That, the most famous Christian apologetic "classic"?
No, thanks :-P
They were pioneers of scientific revolution and gave basis for scientific method but science has dramatically evolved since then. Sadly they were incapable of applying scientific method to their own thought process. An approach which many people who consider themselves scientists fail to apply even nowadays. I think that's what differentiate true scientists of semi-scientist (hthat's what I call them) - an ability to apply scientific method not just to learnt scientific activity but also to your own thought process.
Also, whatever supernatural you believe in, it won't give you a new arm or leg.
Science will :-P
https://steemit.com/science/@logic/great-hope-for-disabled-people-open-bionics-uk-startup-creates-custom-fitted-3d-printed-bionic-arm-for-less-than-gbp1-000
Most of people take technology for granted, failing to understand that it is inseparable part of human existence and evolution. We cannot exist without technology. Introduction of primitive technology by certain homininae stimulated evolution towards Homo Sapiens.
If you think that you can survive without technology, then try to live in wilderness without clothing, shelter and any tools (and without creating any tools - primitive technology).
You can attempt to look for illusionary emotional comforting by deluding yourself through all sorts of beliefs/ideologies - religious, political, "spiritual", pagan, wishful thinking, tribal, you name it - but these will not protect you from environment and satisfy your basic human needs. You may even be evolution denier, but it still does not change the fact that you won't survive without technology. Only science and technology will satisfy your basic human needs.
Everything man-made, around you is technology: house, pen, bed, medications, food production, food processing (cooking), water sanitation, clothes, books etc.
Technology and science is neither negative nor positive, or so called "good" or "evil". These are only tools. It is up to humans how they apply it.
You can apply it for betterment of humanity or to fuck things up. It's that simple.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technophobia
You are getting close to ad hominum.
I have over 40 years as a master of technology, so you are barking up the wrong axis.
You, however, appear to be a theophobe. :P
I totally embrace technology.
You totally reject theology.
So advocating for technology with me is preaching to the choir.
But you are blind to what can be known about the universe through revelation from outside.
It is called ad hominem.
The above post is not directed at you personally. "You" in sentences is a generalisation pointing out to anyone., not a specific person.
Even if it was directed at you, there is nothing which can be considered as a personal attack or criticism of your character.
Anyway. I'm off to bed. Answers to your questions are in the videos I posted. Please watch them.
And I have not clue what revelation from out side you are talking about. Do you mean pink flying unicorn from outer space or man-eating humpty dumpty?? Good night
The revelation found in the Bible from Moses, the Prophets, and Jesus Christ.
These are things that science admits it cannot observe.
But they were demonstrated to credible humans and preserved in Scripture.
The old testament have both warnings and examples. It's mostly about how the Jews kept screwing up again and again even thou they had direct contact and knowledge of God. Also, when it comes to "genocide", I had my issues with it too but Genesis 6 gives a glimpse of the why. Those people, in the narrative, were not human or real descendant of Adam and Eve, they were corruptions "who had constant evil in their heart". The Israelite in Numbers describe them like this: "Compared to them we felt like grasshoppers." That's a head scratcher right there. So maybe it wasn't such a bad idea to get rid of flesh eating giants after all.
For more indepth understanding of this, look into the book of Jasher or Enoch. It's quite interesting to have a glimpse of what the "pre-flood" world was like and their remnants. It's strangely mirror some greek mythology. (genetic tempering, giants, flood, etc.) I always marvel at the similitude of ancient history has told by chineses, greeks , indians and the ancient hebrews. If it's all fairy tale, why are they so similar?
Great points!
I've also wondered the same thing with, say, Jesus' parable of the Wheat and Tares. The tares (weeds) were said to have been planted by Sower's enemy. He want's to raise a crop of wheat and His enemy mixed in some weeds.
So, I can understand the weeds complaining about being cut down and burned, but I'm not sure that implies any immorality on the part of the Sower. :o)
Here's the referenced Bible passage, for the record:
So now we know why bad things happen. There are weeds among us. Most of the time God let's them grow, but sometimes he has to use a little Roundup.
It's called "weedocide" not "genocide" when it happens.
I can't reply to your comment underneath, so I will reply here.
It is likely that it is a mixture of point 1 & 3. Some super-old and superdimensional alien race created our reality/Universe. The main phase of this creation was a big bang. Considering how technologically advanced and powerful they are, they can be seen as of creators of Universe ( I don't like to use the word "gods"). There is nothing supernatural about them though. All their activity is based on laws governing their Universe.
Also this cycle of creation of different Universes can go into infinity. Super-race creates new Universe, then in this new Universe at some point another super-race creates different Universe (or maybe it is the same race creating itself and it all goes in loop) and then in this Universe another super-race do the same thing etc
All the Universes/Reality may be, in the end, super simulations.
As humanity, we have not enough data yet to confirm that, but considering what science already knows about artificial intelligence and virtual reality, this hypothesis is quite probable. Homo Sapiens is still in very primitive stage of technological development. Also, socially we are not intelligent species yet. Not really "civilized" yet.
About my opinion about aliens mentioned by Bettie?
Hmm I know one thing. Many so called debunkers/skeptics of this phenomenon tend to have little knowledge about the subject. Their replies tend to be typical of someone who doesn't know anything relevant about this phenomenon and who has not made an effort to explore the subject properly. They do not follow simple principle “Be skeptical, but when you get the proof, accept the proof”.
Denying something based on flimsy, invalid critique is not skepticism at all. It is contrarianism or denial.
Many debunkers (pseudo-sceptics) of this phenomenon make at least one of these mistakes:
Also, I would be grateful if you upvoted my post, like I upvoted yours, although I may have disagreed with few aspects, I found it interesting.
I spent 10 hours writing my post. It was originally intended to be a response to Gavvet, but then you added your response too, so I decided to respond to both of you. You are the only one who has replied so far.
Good detailed answer.
I'd be interested in your thoughts about why you find the super-race theory more palatable than the supernatural theory.
@stan Well I guess that explains why so many right wingers are against the legalization of weed then :D
But libertarians from both the left and right want fewer such rules.
Something interesting. You may have watched it already.
I'm a rocket scientist.
I believe in God.
Boy, am I messed up!
Fortunately Sir Francis Bacon (founder of the Scientific method) and Sir Isaac Newton (um, famous for a few somethings) were Christians, so I don't feel too bad.
Newton spent more years studying the Bible than he did inventing Calculus, discovering gravity, and deriving the laws of physics combined.
You draw a false division between science and religion.
The shism lies along another orthogonal axis.
I don't disagree with this video at all.
Now substitute our two positions and replay the video. :)
Here is my full response post to your post above and to gavvet's post:
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@logic/universe-as-simulation-virtual-reality-created-by-super-dimensional-super-cybernated-semi-organic-race-direct-response-to-stan
So... i read it. Does this mean you are offering this theory as something serious to be considered?
If so, we now have three competing theories:
Each of these is a perfectly valid sci-fi concept. Now what causes us to take one more seriously that the other?
Given that, your answer to me in the other thread needs a final punchline, IMHO...
Thanks for upvote :-)
Why? It's simple. Because supernatural means something which is not based in evidence and science. Supernatural means something which does not fit with laws of nature. Something which appers beyond laws of nature. Scientific research and scientific theories are based upon laws of nature.
Here's the problem: You insist that I can only know things via science. I love science. It's made my life immeasurably better.
I have no objection to it!
But, you insist that the ONLY way to know something is via science. That's the part that's not true.
I know lots of things without applying science.
Even 99.9% of the things I know derived from science, I didn't actually use science to know.
I listened to someone I consider credible and decided to believe her. Possibly because she applied the scientific method and had a decent peer review but more probably because of her reputation as a credible eyewitness and how other people I respect (with better knowledge of the subject than me) reacted to her claims.
Admit it. You didn't really use the scientific method to know 99% of what you know. Your mother told you.
:P
As you said:
Perfect. So, the rest of reality is outside the reach of science. Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it means that it is beyond the reach of science.
So if a space alien shows up using technology that human science has never encountered and we only get a one time look at its affects before the alien flys away, science will find itself in the exact same place it is with the Bible: lots of credible observations from eyewitnesses but nothing it can test and repeat.
Poor helpless scientists. They have to throw the evidence away because they can't make more of it.
Other less crippled people might say - hey, there's a hint of something new here! Perhaps a variation of quantum entanglement or time dilation or gravitational lensing! - Lets do some thought experiments!
Maybe in time, one of them will devise a rigorous, repeatable experiment because of those thought experiments.
But the pure "scientists" won't. They've already labeled the accounts as "supernatural" and moved on.
That's an arbitrary distinction.
How does science know what is "natural"?
By your definition WiFi is supernatural in 1776.
Just because science cannot explain something yet, it does not mean that it may not have a chance to be explained in the future.
Anyway, your question is a bit nonsensical. Natural is what fits with current scientific theories regarding laws of nature. Making supernatural claims means believing in things which have no basis in what science has discovered about laws of nature. There is a big difference about being futurist and believer of supernatural. Futurism is about creating ideas and hypothesis about future, which are based on conclusions arriving from scientific understandings regarding the reality. Supernatural is about creating ideas about reality which have no support in scientific understandigns and do not fit to scientific theories. Science deals with probablilities and evidence. Concept of god does not fit with any scientific theory and believers of god are incapable of satisfying burden of proof. Concept/belief of god is as as valid and probable as concept/belief of pink, flying unicorn eating unborn babies during Equinox. Just, becasue some concept is generated in someone's head, does not mean that it must have reflection in natural world.
Please watch the video about open-mindedness.
And check up these if you can. They aren't very long:
"Scientific Method Made Easy"
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhb0ej_the-scientific-method-made-easy_tech
"Scientific Literacy"
"Can We Trust Scientists"
"Why Don't Scientists Fear Hell?"
"Here's the problem: You insist that I can only know things via science. I love science. It's made my life immeasurably better.
I have no objection to it!
But, you insist that the ONLY way to know something is via science. That's the part that's not true.
I know lots of things without applying science.
Even 99.9% of the things I know derived from science, I didn't actually use science to know.
I listened to someone I consider credible and decided to believe her. Possibly because she applied the scientific method and had a decent peer review but more probably because of her reputation as a credible eyewitness and how other people I respect (with better knowledge of the subject than me) reacted to her claims.
Admit it. You didn't really use the scientific method to know 99% of what you know. Your mother told you.
:P"
My response is. Everything you know is an experience coming from mixture of random or deterministic events, like these things which what your mother told you. Also, just becasue your mother told you something does nto mean it is factual. To verify if what your mother told you is factual, you need some method of coherent verification, some point of reference. Such point of reference is scientific method. IT its currently the most valid method of verification, which humanity has created so far.
Ayway, regarding illusion of free will, intuition and knowledge, please watch this presentation by neuroscientist Sam Harris.
Unfortunately Harris is a moron who doesn't understand pretty much anything outside of his narrow field of expertise, and Free Will is a philosophical, not a scientific concept. Added together, what we get from Harris is a Dunning-Kruger bordering on Creutzfeldt-Jakob.
Even worse, he interprets Libet and Haynes to disprove free will when neither does, and that in a most unsophisticated "scientistist" sense of the term.
Free will does not exist. It is man made concept, which shows nothing else but arrogance of human kind to think that they are inseparable of environmental influence. Everything in Universe, including thought is directly influenced and shaped by environment and cannot exist out of this influence.
Same as concept of consciousness and awareness is nothing more but very complex, advanced cognitive function in the brain. If your brain gets badly damaged, you can lose this ability.
Also Harris, in this video did not say that free will is a scientific concept. He actually defends and proves that it is not, and proves that it is nothing more but illusion. Nothing more but false philosophical concept.
"nothing more but very complex, advanced cognitive function in the brain"
Which does not make consciousness any less real. What else would you expect, an imp sitting in the cortex?
That free will is a man made concept (which concept is not man made?) doesn't mean that it does not represent a definable and possibly existing thing (not necessarily material: a process or a function is also a "thing"). Harris' problem is different here: he is philosophically so inept that he's not even able to pose a serious question about free will, yet he thinks that he's demolished the entire notion.
As I said, a Dunning-Kruger bordering on Creutzfeldt-Jakob.
(can't reply in place because of depth, replying here)
"Perfect. So, the rest of reality is outside the reach of science... ...Doesn't mean tThey've already labeled the accounts as "supernatural" and moved on."
Logically fallacious argument. Typical for persistent supporter of creationism.
If scientists encounter an alien life form and technology, they have direct evidence which they can measure.
Fantastical (paranomral) stories in Bible are not supported by laws of nature.
Story of Jesus has little credibility - dozens of popular historians who lived around that time did not record existence of such person, while only few claimed his existence (his apostles).
"Historical and operational science"
Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_and_operational_science
"Historical science" vs. "experimental science"
https://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/historical-science-vs-experimental-science
“Observational” vs. “historical” science? Pure bunk!
http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/02/26/observational-vs-historical-bunk/
I finish this debate now.
There is no point in having conversation and trying to explain how science works and how evidence works to someone who values his personal believes more than science and evidence.~
Good luck.
I agree. It's like talking to a brick wall.
You keep coming back to defending science which I have never criticized.
My only point has been that there are other ways of knowing things.
Most of everything we know individually is based on our faith in the source of that information. Almost no one uses science, although many use faith in scientists, or faith in articles about publications by scientists funded by governments with a secular agenda...
Take the "science" of global warming for instance. There is a nice consensus among those who have been able to get government funding. Whole political parties place their faith in that. :o)
@stan Agreed Christians should avoid being apologetic as should all other religions... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics
(yes it's good natured humor, not a troll)
love the analogy of God's matrix
Yes, it's possible God created us along Matrix lines. But as this good post (not mine) reminds us, that something is possible is not any reason to think it's true. It's also possible that there are invisible pink unicorns all around us (at least, if you do enough contorting for what is required to be "pink").
Precisely. And it's also possible that the universe designed itself via natural selection after an uncountably large number of random tries where all the failures die and don't get a second chance to iterate.
Of course, that's what Bitcoin is counting on not happening -- continuously generated random numbers by the world's largest supercomputer not finding the code that unlocks your wallet.
That's probably why invisible pink unicorns never evolved either. You would think they would have a very good fitness for survival.
Now, if we just had some evidence that it happened your way to match all the demonstrations that it happened my way.
Wait, what are the demonstrations it happened your way?
And just to be clear: are you denying that things can gain complexity through the process of natural selection? Is that the part you're saying lacks evidence?
I listed some of them in the OP.
The Bible is full of detailed accounts of such demonstrations, ok, miraculous Acts of God.
Now we are back to quibbling about whether you believe those accounts.
But the point is, there are no such accounts at all for the other theory.
I'm saying that all that is just as hard for me to imagine without proof as my scenario is for you.
So I go back and look at the times in the Bible where the laws of physics were sufficiently violated to prove there is Someone behind the curtain pulling strings.
You say that I have to discount that evidence by the probability it is pure fiction. Ok. That still leaves me with observations that have a non-zero probability of being true.
That's better evidence than Darwin has.
I don't think it's "quibbling" - I think it's very important to figure out how trustworthy a source is, and this is an important issue to get straight about!
And again, by the "other theory", you mean natural selection? You deny natural selection takes place - you say we have no evidence? Or do you mean it's not asserted in the Bible?
It's very important to consider the source of your information.
But no one ever proves the source false - they just say there is no total proof that it is true. Granted.
So we quibble about how much proof is needed. 50% probability? 10%? 0.01%.
How does anyone even assess that % objectively? My point is it's still greater than zero from my perspective.
Natural selection is the easy part.
Survival of the fittest is obvious assuming an ability to generate candidates to test.
Generating the genetic instructions for assembling, say, a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader and the cellular factory punch code tape reader able to follow those instructions is where you lose me.
Please show me a demonstration that a sequence of mutations that can arrive at something that gets no functionality and therefore survival advantage until a long string of modifications has occurred.
Incremental tweaks, sure. Quantum leaps? Not so much.
Again, I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I'm saying there is no proof that it happened that way. So we are down to a subjective evaluation about which of the two possibilties is more plausible.
I never quite see how to unify 'turn the other cheek' 'god made you the way you are' with things like 'all gays are a perversion of the christian faith' or 'you shall burn in eternal hellfire for giving into your god-given impulses'
Doesn't that leave you fearful, rather than comforted? Am I missing the point here?
God's laws apply to me and my pathological heterosexual desire to mate with half the world's population as well. We are both required to control whatever urges we are born with.
Nowhere does the Bible say that sexual orientation discriminates who gets into Heaven. It's all about believing that God has the authority to regulate our behavior according to His standards and then obeying His wishes.
There are things we don't understand yet. Science and religion try to explain us how things work. What you believe is up to you. We do know such little about what is happening around us
God created the Universe with all of us intact, and this all on last Thursday. Or was it Friday?
According to the Bible God started the simulation running about 6000 years ago.
He finished setting it up on a Friday.
It's worked mostly like Science thinks it does ever since. :o)
A Friday? Last Friday. Or maybe some weeks ago. Otherwise I can't imagine how people used to live before phones with front camera have been invented.
The first day of the week is a Sunday and we know He rested on the seventh day, a Saturday. Thus, via my amazing powers of deduction, His last of 6 work days must have been a Friday.
You don't know Last thursdayism, do you?
We are living in God's matrix. The earth is flat and we live under a dome. A real truman show scenario.
Actually, while no one claims the earth is flat, we do live under a dome of sorts and the Truman Show scenario is a fairly good analogy.
The human race is indeed of keen interest to many unseen eyes.
No one except those who claim, that is. E.g. a rapper B.o.B. recently.
If god is infinitely powerful could he create an object he could not move, if so would that would mean he is not infinitely powerful. If he couldn't make an object he can't move then he is also not infinitely powerful?
You don't understand infinity very well do you?
God is not impressed with such arguments.
Look at the universe.
don't think you understand a paradox buddy. This relates to a personal biblical god.
I love paradoxes. They stem from limitations of language or an inaccurate model of reality.
For example, Infinity x infinity = infinity.
There is plenty of room inside that construct for an infinite God to maneuver. :)
Wasn't this one refuted in the Middle Ages already?
Love your insightful posts on faith. keep up the great work @stan.