Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Genesis 2:2 He rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIf god created the universe, and specifically the earth, specifically for man, then it is highly unlikely that Dinasaurswould exist and rule the earth millions of years prior to mans existence, or that it would be 14 billion years after its creation before human beings even existed.
Originally posted by JimL View PostAnd if you are going to make the argument that time is not an issue for god, then you need answer the question that I posed to rogue which he failed to respond to. If time is no issue for god, being that he exist outside of time, then time is no issue for the universe either.
1. Any geodesic that is, on average, in a state of positive expansion began to exist. (BGV Theorem)
2. The universe is a geodesic that is, on average, in a state of positive expansion. (Standard Big Bang Model)
3. Therefore, the universe began to exist. (From 1 and 2, via modus ponens)
1. A thermodynamically closed system is one that does not receive any additional matter or energy from outside of itself. (Definition of a thermodynamically closed system)
2. The universe has not received any additional matter or energy from outside of itself. (Standard Big Bang Model)
3. Therefore, the universe is a thermodynamically closed system. (From 1 and 2, via modus ponens)
4. Any thermodynamically closed system will tend towards thermodynamic equilibrium. (Second law of Thermodynamics)
5. If the universe had existed for an actually infinite amount of time, it would have reached thermodynamic equilibrium by now. (Evidently true)
6. The universe is not in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. (Standard Big Bang Model)
7. Therefore, the universe has not existed for an actually infinite amount of time. (From 5 and 6, via modus ponens.
Also, God's not strictly timeless, either. He's eternal and, whilst His eternity is essential to Him, the mode of His eternity is not. He was timeless sans creation, but entered into time with creation. Kind of like how God is essentially omniscient, but the content of His knowledge varies depending on which world He actualised. But then you probably haven't even heard of the time 'relational properties' before, have you?
Originally posted by JimL View Post"So, if you believe otherwise then please give a cogent explanation as to how time can be both static and flowing dependent on ones perspective?"My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostFunny, no scholar of the NT/Patristics/etc. in any Western university interprets it in that way.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostFirst of all, one can have signed that confirmation and still not be an inerrantist,
so I'm not sure what you think that proves. There are plenty of non-inerrantists who agree that all scripture was given by inspiration of God to holy men who were moved by the Holy Spirit.
That comes straight from 2 Peter 1:20-21. A simple Bible believing Christian will have accepted that.
But even if it did mean that those who taught at these schools were required to first accept inerrancy, so what?
All universities, even the most secular of them, have written and unwritten standards and criteria that they require their faculty members to accept. For instance, as far as I know, Oxford isn't going to allow a holocaust denier on their staff. And if one arrives at a view of inerrancy through their own studies before accepting a position at the university, why shouldn't they sign a mission statement that they agree with? If they don't agree with the statement they can apply to the many universities that don't require acceptance of that particular article. But all of this is a Red Herring as Sailhamer didn't teach at Dallas Theological Seminary. Wikipedia states that he was briefly appointed as a provost there, but resigned before he could begin serving.
I just call it as I see it, and I'm right about this. You're a serial genetic fallacist.
No it isn't. Gee, that was easy.
Christianity teaches that God is the center and purpose of it all, not man, so, you're wrong about that. And what is the vastness of the universe to an eternal and omniscient being?
My point was that this argument is merely a rationalisation of the creation narrative to avoid the fact that it’s scientifically wrong. One doesn’t need billions upon billions of solar systems, and billions and billions of galaxies merely to “provide light on the land for man and to be measurements for keeping time”.
Stop imagining that you know what it's like to be a god, Tassman.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostBut the fact that at least one scholar did many centuries ago invalidates OBP’s sneering claim that "only 18th-century pseudo-scholars interprets it in that way", which was my point. Especially relevant given that OBP himself states that he considers that Genesis creation narratives to be allegorical and not literally true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostOne can only sign that annual Affirmation if one is an inerrantist; that’s what it's all about.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWhat “it proves” is that that those who believe “divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical...”, as per the Dallas Affirmation, are going to accept the Genesis creation accounts as historical and literally true...as revealed by inerrant scripture.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostInteresting that you base your authority for inerrancy on a non-authentic very late pseudepigraphical epistle!
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIt means that the scholars are required to begin their research with the conclusion and then interpret the text in such a way as to reinforce it...i.e. the very reverse of what true scholarship is all about.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAll the Baptist seminaries, of which Sailhamer’s Gateway Seminary is one, hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. As for Dallas Seminary, do you really think that Sailhamer, as Provost, would be exempt from signing the same Mission Statement re inerrancy that every member of faculty was obliged to sign? I don’t think so.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe way you “see it” is to whine about the other person always being wrong. It’s your standard m.o. More to the point, to be critical of invalid scholarship is not the genetic fallacy.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYour argument, based upon Sailhamer , was that God made the sun, moon and stars "in the beginning to provide light on the land for man and to be measurements for keeping time". You go on to say “It is amazing that God had His purpose for man in mind eons earlier when He created these heavenly bodies”. Clearly the “divine inspired” authors of these narratives had no idea that the universe comprised much, much more than these heavenly bodies.
"Behind the narrative is the author's concern to emphasize that God alone created the lights of the heavens, and thus no one else is to be given the glory and honor due only to God (cf. Ne 9:6). The passage also states that God created the lights in the heavens for a purpose, namely, to divide day and night and to mark the "seasons and days and years" (vv.17–18). These two concerns form the heart of ch. 1. God alone is the Creator of all things and worthy of the worship of people."
Originally posted by Tassman View PostMy point was that this argument is merely a rationalisation of the creation narrative to avoid the fact that it’s scientifically wrong. One doesn’t need billions upon billions of solar systems, and billions and billions of galaxies merely to “provide light on the land for man and to be measurements for keeping time”.
"Each generation must ask how the Bible fits into its world. Yet if we are to understand Genesis 1 correctly, we must first read it on its own terms--without attempting to reconcile it with current scientific views. The full, rich, theological message of Genesis 1 and 2 must not be lost in an attempt to harmonize them with modern science. When we know what the biblical view is, only then can we attempt to correlate it with science."
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWhat is the basis of this remark?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAh right, Genesis. But of course it is a myth, just like the myths, it is wrong in every way. Its a story based on ignorance. For instance, there was no light separating the day from the night on the first day, because there was no sun until the 4th day. There is also no skydome that separates the waters above from the waters below. And vegitation could't have sprung up on the 3rd day since there was no sun until the 4th day. And you must take into consideration that 1 day in genesis had to have equaled approximately 666,666,667 regular earthly days. So vegitation can't exist for 1 biblical day, 666,666,667 earth days, without any sun. Thats what you call a myth, its basically a guess, an uneducated guess, concerning the origins of the universe, and the fact they they have a modicum of truth in them means nothing. The only truths in the myths are already known, it's from out of those truths, i.e. from out of the observed facts about the universe, that the myths are fashioned.
The NT though, is also myth, though its a myth woven into a history, or perhaps it is more apropo to say that it is a history woven into a myth.
Actually the Christ-myth is scholarly, where do you think it came from.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIf god created the universe, and specifically the earth, specifically for man, then it is highly unlikely that Dinasaurs would exist and rule the earth millions of years prior to mans existence, or that it would be 14 billion years after its creation before human beings even existed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rational Gaze View PostWhilst I'd love to know just exactly what a 'Dinasaur' is, the more pressing question, I think, is, when, exactly, did you ask God what the likelihood was for His creating dinosaurs millions of years prior to humans and waiting billions of years, on balance, for His favoured creations to even appear? More importantly, how exactly did you manage to snag that interview? Is it recorded? Because I'd LOVE to see it. What was He like? Was He in human form when you spoke to Him, or did He do the whole 'disembodied mist' thing that He did with Moses? Also, if it's the former, did He have a beard, and, if so, what is an awesome one?
That's not a question. That's a statement.
But in answer to your muddled query... the universe isn't outside of time?
I mean, that's pretty basic, really. I mean, if the universe is all of time and space... how could it possible be timeless
without begging the question in favour of a B-theory of time? And even on a B-theory you run into the problem of primary versus secondary causation and the inability of inanimate objects to initiate action. Had you an actually infinite number of train carriages, it would never move unless you had at least one train engine.
The same problem applies to the universe. But, since an A-theory of time is self-evidently true, it's fairly obvious the universe began to exist, because then it wouldn't be a tenseless block, but a thing that began to exist.
1. Any geodesic that is, on average, in a state of positive expansion began to exist. (BGV Theorem)
2. The universe is a geodesic that is, on average, in a state of positive expansion. (Standard Big Bang Model)
3. Therefore, the universe began to exist. (From 1 and 2, via modus ponens)
1. A thermodynamically closed system is one that does not receive any additional matter or energy from outside of itself. (Definition of a thermodynamically closed system)
2. The universe has not received any additional matter or energy from outside of itself. (Standard Big Bang Model)
3. Therefore, the universe is a thermodynamically closed system. (From 1 and 2, via modus ponens)
4. Any thermodynamically closed system will tend towards thermodynamic equilibrium. (Second law of Thermodynamics)
5. If the universe had existed for an actually infinite amount of time, it would have reached thermodynamic equilibrium by now. (Evidently true)
6. The universe is not in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. (Standard Big Bang Model)
7. Therefore, the universe has not existed for an actually infinite amount of time. (From 5 and 6, via modus ponens.
Also, God's not strictly timeless, either. He's eternal and, whilst His eternity is essential to Him, the mode of His eternity is not. He was timeless sans creation, but entered into time with creation. Kind of like how God is essentially omniscient, but the content of His knowledge varies depending on which world He actualised. But then you probably haven't even heard of the time 'relational properties' before, have you?
¿Que? Yo no hablo idiota. Yo sólo hablo Inglés.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostAs I said, one does not need to be an inerrantist to sign off on what you quoted.
Inerrancy “means that the Bible is without error. It’s a belief in the “total truthfulness and reliability of God’s words” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, Inter-Varsity, 2004, 90). Jesus said, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). This inerrancy isn’t just in passages that speak about salvation, but also applies to all historical and scientific statements as well. It is not only accurate in matters related to faith and practice, but it is accurate and without error regarding any statement, period (John 3:12)”.
http://defendinginerrancy.com/why-is...ncy-important/
Hence, one needs to be an inerrantist to honestly sigh off on the Dallas Seminary Affirmation, namely: “We believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical...”
That isn't the case. There are non-historical, non-literalists on this very forum who believe that “divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical...”
Couple things here, 1.) I didn't base authority for inerrancy on 2 Peter, to the contrary, I pointed out that one need not be an inerrantist to accept it, "A simple Bible believing Christian will have accepted that." 2.) It is generally agreed that 1 and 2 Peter are derived from a Petrine community who were likely writing based on Peter's own teachings, and derive their authority from his Apostleship.
"True scholarship" begins with generally established premises all of the time. Again, no major secular university is going to be hiring a historian who rejects the Nazi genocide of Jews. No major secular university is going to be hiring a YEC to teach courses on human evolution. If a scholar feels that they no longer accept those generally established premises that their university requires them to accept, then they're free to move on, and a number of Biblical scholars have done just that.
I couldn't find an adherence to the doctrine of inerrancy in Gateway's mission statement, but, again, even if it did, it's not problematic as I've already demonstrated. I don't know what Sailhamer signed at Dallas Theological Seminary because, as I've already pointed out, he never started his position there.
Be that as it may, it is true that you are a genetic fallacist. That is your M.O. You routinely attempt to undermine the credibility of those scholars whom you disagree with rather than dealing with their arguments. At any rate, there's nothing invalid about Sailhamer's scholarship. He was generally considered one of the world's preeminent Old Testament scholars.
Not sure if you noticed, but that was not my argument, nor my words, so I'm not sure why you're attributing them to me. If you reread that post you'll note that I highlighted the source. It comes from John Piper's website "Desiring God", in which the author is summarizing Sailhamer's argument from his book Genesis Unbound. Sailhamer's argument is that the cosmos was created at an indeterminate period in Genesis 1:1 (seen in the merism "heaven and earth"), and that the rest of the Genesis narrative concerns the preparation of the Promised Land. Describing the purpose of creation as it relates to humanity does not infer that humanity is the center and purpose of it all, to the contrary, chapter 9 is literally titled GOD AT THE CENTER, and Sailhamer goes on to point out that the Genesis narrative reveals important information about the nature of God,
"Behind the narrative is the author's concern to emphasize that God alone created the lights of the heavens, and thus no one else is to be given the glory and honor due only to God (cf. Ne 9:6). The passage also states that God created the lights in the heavens for a purpose, namely, to divide day and night and to mark the "seasons and days and years" (vv.17–18). These two concerns form the heart of ch. 1. God alone is the Creator of all things and worthy of the worship of people."
You keep tripping over this idea of billions and billions of years. While the concept of billions and billions of years might seem heavy to limited ol you, it's absolutely nothing to a creator who has endless time and endless resources. That this universe is ancient, and that God, in his own time, ordered the universe to unfold as it did, simply points to the believer how great and majestic God truly is. Sailhamer is adamant that we must not rationalize the creation narrative, to the contrary he states,
"Each generation must ask how the Bible fits into its world. Yet if we are to understand Genesis 1 correctly, we must first read it on its own terms--without attempting to reconcile it with current scientific views. The full, rich, theological message of Genesis 1 and 2 must not be lost in an attempt to harmonize them with modern science. When we know what the biblical view is, only then can we attempt to correlate it with science."
The idea that if you were God, the utter vastness and the age of the universe would be a waste of time and resources. You're not God. Stop presuming that to one who has unlimited time and resources that these things would be wasteful.Last edited by Tassman; 11-13-2017, 10:11 PM.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostOne does!
Inerrancy “means that the Bible is without error. It’s a belief in the “total truthfulness and reliability of God’s words” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, Inter-Varsity, 2004, 90). Jesus said, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). This inerrancy isn’t just in passages that speak about salvation, but also applies to all historical and scientific statements as well. It is not only accurate in matters related to faith and practice, but it is accurate and without error regarding any statement, period (John 3:12)”.
http://defendinginerrancy.com/why-is...ncy-important/
Hence, one needs to be an inerrantist to honestly sigh off on the Dallas Seminary Affirmation, namely: “We believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical...”
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAll Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God; not all Christians are inerrentists as per the proper definition of inerrancy.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAgain, there’s a difference between believing in inerrancy and believing scripture to be inspired but not necessary literally true. E.g. some non-inerrantist Christians believe the creation narratives are just poetry or allegory...not literally true.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNo, “true scholarship" begins with what’s already known and builds upon it. It does not begin with the conclusion, namely that everything in the bible is literally true, and tries to make the facts fit this belief.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAll Baptist seminaries (such as Gateway) and education facilities Associated with Convention of Baptist Churches must commit to inerrancy. From its Mission Statement: “We stand together in the truth of God’s inerrant Word, celebrating the faith once for all delivered to the saints...”
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYou can label me whatever you like but “genetic fallacist” is inaccurate. I’m refusing to accept scholarship based upon a faith statement, i.e. bible inerrancy, rather than upon established facts. Because this is not true scholarship, its apologetics.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostBoth John Piper and Sailhamer are Baptist academics committed to biblical inerrancy. Hence they interpret the creation narratives in such a way as to leave their literal beliefs intact.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIndeed! “The full, rich, theological message of Genesis 1 and 2” can only be understood as poetry or allegory because as science it is demonstrably and verifiably wrong
Originally posted by Tassman View PostMy comment was based on the nonsensical, arrogant, man-centred belief that the sun, moon and stars were created to provide light for Man. This, when we know that our sun is a smallish yellow star (one of billions of stars) on the fringe of a galaxy which itself is just one of billions of galaxies. All this supposedly to provide light for a species of primate known as Homo sapiens...the last members of the genus Homo that is not extinct. The authors’ of Genesis obviously had no idea of what the universe consisted or how it functioned.
Most of this reply you wrote was you either doubling down on what you had already stated, and I had already replied to, or it was you repeating back to me my argument to you (which was a bit unnecessary). If you have something new to add to the conversation except more "nuh-uh" let me know, otherwise, like most conversations with you, this is quickly getting monotonous.Last edited by Adrift; 11-14-2017, 07:49 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostHey JimL, how do you know that "THE universe" that you propose exists exterior to this universe isn't what Christians call "Heaven" which is inhabited by superior beings that created this universe and control it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostGive me a cogent explanation as to how time can be both static and flowing dependent upon ones perspective?
RG explicitly told you he doesn't believe time is "both static and flowing dependent upon ones perspective" when he told you ". . . an A-theory of time is self-evidently true . . ."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
RG explicitly told you he doesn't believe time is "both static and flowing dependent upon ones perspective" when he told you ". . . an A-theory of time is self-evidently true . . ."
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
79 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
55 responses
262 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 11:13 PM
|
||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
158 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
103 responses
569 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-18-2024, 11:43 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
Comment