Personally, in my opinion, I think it’s reasonable to reach the conclusion that Dan rejects the historic/Orthodox understanding of the divine inspiration of all of scripture. In my opinion, he probably has some sense in which he affirms some sort of inspiration of some parts of scripture, but beyond that I think you’re probably correct in your conclusion.
If he deletes this as off topic, I’ll do something if you want to continue.
Sounds more like the mad-pervert conservative god-king, Trump, than anything progressives stand for.
Hiram, I believe all that is Good and True is of/from a Good and True God. Thus, those conclusions that one may draw from the OT that are good and true,are from God.
I don't believe in the human theory that the OT represents a literal or factual modern style history, or a science book.
Thus, if someone reads the OT and concludes that it's cool to hold slaves or sell your daughter, I don't think that conclusion is inspired by God. But, if one reads the OT and concludes that we should be wary of war-mongering Kings or we should support refugees... These conclusions are of God.
No, it doesn’t. Hiram asked if you thought the OT was a product of “divine inspiration”, which you didn’t specifically answer.
You did suggest that how one responds to the text might or might not be “inspired”, but that seems different from what Hiram asked.
I am impressed with your ability to bring in your Trump fixation as well as trying to speak for “progressives”, in response to a comment about neither of those things.
It almost seems as if you are trying to suggest that (in a general sense) that the people who deny historic Christian doctrines and things like the inspiration of scripture are conservative, which seems a bit counterintuitive.
Thus, if someone reads the OT and concludes that it's cool to hold slaves or sell your daughter, then they are perverting Scripture in the same manner Dan does to rationalize his support for sexual immorality.
Craig, you used this post to choose to post a Weinstein link to try to attack liberals, when it's not related to the topic at all.
When I volley back to you that Weinstein's behavior, to objective people, comes closer to matching the conservative/evangelical darling Trump than any progressives, it's just responding to your off topic and rather silly ad hom attack. Don't dish it if it reveals deep flaws in your sides' ugly candidate.
And on those lines, I recall many conservatives questioning the women who accused Trump of sexual misdeeds. Is there even one conservative that has had any doubt about the women accusing Weinstein? Indeed, they appear to believe them wholeheartedly.
Is there anything other than hypocrisy to explain this?
Actually I posted a link comparing Weinstein to Zeus, not attacking liberals at all. Your problem with trying to make this about Trump is that the political/Hollywood/elite left protected, enabled, and made jokes about Weinstein for years while pocketing the large contributions he made and bundled.
I’m not, nor have I ever tried to make excuses for Trump and what he’s actually done. If they find evidence to charge him, I’ll support that.
Instead of hypocrisy, maybe it’s credibility of the victims. Maybe it’s the large numbers. Maybe it’s the fact that people feel guilty for enabling his behavior.
I don’t know, because I don’t/can’t speak for anyone but myself.
Of course no one thinks it’s hypocritical to lionize Hugh Hefner, at the same time they’re throwing Harvey under the bus.
Would I be going too far if I imagine that Dan rejects divine inspiration of the Old Testament?
I responded the way I did because "divine inspiration" can be misunderstood/exploited/abused. I happen to think that the Bible - OT and NT - ARE inspired by God, but we need to be careful what we understand that to mean.
I believe, as I stated, that ALL good things and ALL true things are from God. When one reads the OT, the NT, or any other text and understands the teachings of love and grace, forgiveness and peace, one is reading words and understanding ideals inspired by God, or at least reflecting God's nature.
I think the stories of the OT are inspired tellings of the history of Israel... but NOT a literal history. The Bible doesn't tell us that it's a literal history, reason suggests it's not a literal history. This is easiest to see in the early Genesis stories, which are told in a very clearly mythic genre style. But the later stories - some of which are clearly at least partially factual - just don't appear to be told in a literally factual history style as later histories are told. It's just the wrong time period for such a story. But that doesn't mean that I think they're not inspired, just that they're not best understood as a literal history or scientific story.
Ultimately, the Truths that are found in the OT, these are Godly, Good, Inspired. Because any Truths must come from a True God, right? But if one reads this "inspired" book and reaches poor conclusions (like, for instance, where it says that Israel can enslave people or forcibly marriage women, thus God must be okay with slavery or forced marriages, because otherwise, God wouldn't inspire such stories...)
Do I think the Bible is "inspired," OT and NT? Yes. But don't misunderstand what "inspiration" means. I don't think that the Bible is a magic book that forces "right messages" or "right understandings" upon us. We can read a book or a story and misunderstand the meaning/points/messages. Those misunderstandings are not inspired, even if the book/story/message is.
Craig, if you want to reject my opinion, that's fine, but let's be clear that you're understanding my position:
1. Do you think the Bible is a magic book? That it forces you to understand it correctly? (I'm not saying you do think this, I'm saying I'm rejecting that view of inspiration and just seeing if that's what you're disagreeing about...)
2. Do you think that if one reads an OT text and, for instance, concludes that God is not specifically opposed to slavery, that their understanding is inspired? That the "inspired text" is inspiring them to conclude that slavery is not, in and of itself, a sin?
3. Do you think (because of your reading of the various texts of the Bible) that, for instance, enslaving people is not always a sin/a moral wrong?
So, yes, I do think it depends on what one means by inspired. Do you disagree? Or are you saying that, as long as someone is believing in an "inspired text" that their understanding is also inspired? Or does it depend?
The point of this particular poem was just a poor attempt to reflect the great glory of the setting sun on these beautiful oak leaves, and, I suppose, the notion that nature testifies to nature, glory to glory and that even so great a power as an unimaginable ancient and powerful sun can be reflected, at least in some small degree, in a lowly, temporal leaf.
And if one wants to make extrapolations from there, they are welcome to do so.
Sun on oak leaves, yes, that's well and good. But minutes ago I read a yahoo dot com article which reports that "a male chimpanzee has been observed snatching a seconds-old newborn then eating it. This behavior has never before been documented by scientists, who say it could explain why female chimpanzees normally hide themselves away during the late stages of pregnancy."
Do any of you wonder why nature contains such awful instances of behavior as that, instead of serving as a uniformly-positive example for us humans? A divine Creator surely had it in His power to do better by us. I reckon the anti-Dans here will say it's because of "the fall of creation due to human sin," but I don't guess Dan would go that route.
Dan, was it a perfect world for billions of years until humans arrived on the scene? Remember that fossilized dinosaur bones have been found with damage from predator teeth, and with evidence of bone breakage. When you say "thanks to all of us," you imply humans are the root cause of the bad things in the biosphere.
Look, in one sense of the word/idea, 12 eggs are a perfect dozen. It's just a dozen being what a dozen is. Animals are wild creatures. A predator attacking and eating prey is just that predator being a predator. There's nothing imperfect in that, in that sense.
The world isn't designed (or just happened) around the desires of humanity. So, while there are hurricanes and tornadoes that may cause damage to flora, fauna and humans, that's just the nature of a wild world. It's neither perfect nor imperfect, it just is.
Thanks. Your response tells me which camp of believers you are in with respect to the importance of the human race in the universe.
Folks at the other end of the spectrum from you read the Bible--especially Genesis--as saying that humans are the primary purpose for the whole shebang: of all the billions of planets, only this one we are on was destined to receive God in physical form. Only the graves on our planet will open on Judgement Day. Those folks might ask why the rest of creation does not model good behavior for us--and would likely answer that it must have to do with The Fall.
It is my opinion - unproven and unprovable, so far as I can tell - that God willed the universe into being. I see a great deal of evidence of design in nature/creation, but there again, I don't think that's provable, so it's my opinion that there is design... A plan, if you will, in nature. But what that looks like (a God "willing" or "designing" a universe), I can't say and don't think anyone can say, not authoritatively.
1. There's a difference between saying, "This sounds like where the latest science is pointing" and saying, "I'm committed to this theory..." I'm not sure that science "commits..." They acknowledge data. If different data comes along, it's no problem changing theories and opinions precisely because there is no commitment.
See the difference?
2. I don't know what you mean. You, I, scientists and theologians, NONE of us know authoritatively and precisely HOW the universe began, what was the cause of the "Big Bang." Science has no definitive opinions on what there is no data for, thus "science" does not disagree with me, does not have a conflict with me.
3. An infinite and all powerful God surely IS entirely capable of whipping up a Creationist's creation of The Universe, there is just no data that supports the suggestion that it happens as most creationists suggest it did. An infinite God is capable of inspiring Scripture (and presumably in some Evangelical-friendly manner), there is just no authoritative data that God did so.
1. I see the semantic difference, I don’t see any hard, empirical, data to support the theory and I see many who acknowledge that there is no data. I see advocates saying bluntly that even if there was no data they would still be committed to Darwinian theory.
2. Then you aren’t aware that starting with Darwin himself, there is an unbroken chain of scientists and others who have unequivocally stated that Darwinian theory is intentionally anti theist?
3. Yet, you argue that the data supports either Darwinian/materialistic/naturalistic theory. That naturalistic presuppositions are proven by data. That Darwinian theory can be demonstrated using the scientific method.
I answered your questions, Craig, how about if you answer this one...
What specific creation theory do you promote? That the earth was created wholly formed in six days about 6000 years ago? That humans were created - a literal Adam and Eve - wholly formed humans (from dirt and a rib) who then went around and named literally every animal on earth?
Who besides you (in this conversation) is pushing anything as science. I’m trying to understand how you reconcile your opinion with the stated position of scientists as far back as Darwin.
I haven’t, and don’t, promote a specific creation theory.
It’s interesting how you’ve gone from my answering your interrogation, to my asking for clarification of what you’ve said, to this last.
FYI, you said you wanted me to answer 1 question, yet asked 3.
I’m not the one who brought “created” and “designed” language into the conversation, I’m just trying to understand what you mean when you use that language. Surely you can’t object to my trying to properly understand why you choose the language you choose, and what you mean by the words you choose to use, can you?
I’m sure you’ve been too busy to notice, but I posted a bibliography of sorts on the issues surrounding origins and Darwinian theory for you to peruse at your leisure.
I've read them. I'm unsure of your point. You appear to not want to take a position, only criticize those who do.
So, on evolution and your sort of answer: You do not believe one way or the other about Darwinian evolution?
You do not believe one way or the other on "creationism?"
The world MIGHT be 6,000 years old, you just don't know? Or maybe it's 6 billion years old, you don't know that either and don't think there is sufficient evidence to decide one way or the other?
On Adam/Eve, you DON'T KNOW if they were actual people that existed and that the story is literally true and Adam was literally made from dirt and Eve was literally created from a rib from Adam... maybe that happened and maybe it didn't, there isn't sufficient data to make you lean one way or the other?
Forget that I said "promote." What theory of the beginnings of the universe do you think are most likely? Or are you entirely agnostic against the best scientific theories we currently have (as well as the Creationist guesses)?
How about cigarette smoke - do you distrust and are you agnostic about that science, or do you accept the best data and conclusions we currently have?
You’ve read every book and article in the bibliography, that’s impressive. At this point, I’m perfectly satisfied to point out the flaws in Darwinian theory. That seems a reasonable first step.
Re:Darwinian theory. I’ve seen enough evidence to convince me that it doesn’t satisfactorily explain what it was intended to explain. Further, when scientists openly admit that they are attached to Darwinian theory whether the evidence supports it or not, that is a red flag. More importantly, the a priori commitment to philosophical/methodological naturalism seems to contradict the scientific method.
I do not promote s specific theory regarding “creationism”. “Cretationism”, is a limiting and loaded term that doesn’t further the conversation.
I don’t think it matters. There is no unequivocal evidence that pinpoints the earths age as 6 billion years, so why would I accept that specific number.
On Adam and Eve, both Jesus and Peter seemed to buy into the fact that they were real people, so I’m fine with that. But I’m not dogmatic about it.
Personally, I’m satisfied that the current “Big Bang” cosmology is consistent with a Biblical understanding of origins.
I’ll answer your question about cigarette smoke when you can show me the scientists who have subjected the origin of the universe to the same scientific methodology as studies of cigarette smoke. It’s apples and oranges.
I feel like you can’t discuss gravity without establishing how earth ended up is this very narrow window in a very immense universe that allows for gravity of the proper amount to make life possible.
In both of your “examples”, your jumping ahead and operating on assumptions.
1. You’re assuming that origins have been tested using the scientific method, and that that result should be assumed, not demonstrated.
2. Your assuming that you can divorce gravity from the forces that cause gravity. So, first you would have to prove how things were arranged in such a precise way, then you can discuss the results.
I’m pretty sure that this is dealt with in one of the books and articles you read, maybe you just read so much so fast that you didn’t remember it.
I have to admit, I'm really puzzled by your reactions here. You seem to be somehow bothered by the fact that I'm more interested in what you think and why you used the terms you used, than in having an argument. You chose to used terms like "create" and "design" which are usually in the lexicon of more conservative or Orthodox believers. Given that it seems reasonable that it would do me good to understand why you chose those words, and what you mean by them. Given your longstanding complaint that I don't understand you, it seems you might welcome the chance to help me do so.
So, there are a couple of reasons why I haven't been as specific as you would like.
1. Because I don't see how arguing aver this helps me understand what you were trying to say. 2. I've provided you with multiple sources which will give you a much more balanced, accurate and detailed description of some of the options available. 3. Because, in all honestly, it just seems like you switch over into interrogation mode in order to assert control ond to avoid giving additional details of your positions.
I really have no desire to have this discussion again, especially if you aren't going to actually deal with the supporting data that doesn't help your hunches.
So, if you don't have any more to say, why not just say as and stop the interrogation? Stop presuming to know what my position is. Stop trying to shoehorn things into your narrow "creationism" basket. Look at the data that's out there with an open mind.
Roughly 40 sources, plus what I’ve already provided. Zero data to demonstrate that any of them is wrong. Plenty of academic credentials for you to demonstrate to be inferior as well.
Wrong about WHAT? You've thrown a bunch of sources at me, the ones I recall not really having anything to do with anything I've said. I don't know that I disagree with any of them on anything. I don't recall, for instance, any of them suggesting that the only way to take Genesis is as literal history, or suggesting that the world is 6,000 years old 'cause "God said so..."
Give me something specific and we can talk. Vague links with no point being made, I'll pass on.
There is no unequivocal evidence that pinpoints the earths age as 6 billion years, so why would I accept that specific number.
The point is that the known, testable data suggests that the world is certainly billions of years old. Roughly 13 billion, give or take. The age of the earth is roughly 4 billion years old. The point is, it's definitively NOT ~6,000 years old, not according to the known data. Unless one believes in a trickster god who creates a universe and planet with deliberate false data - rocks that appear vastly older than they actually are, for instance - the data doesn't support it. And one can not prove a trickster god, so we have no reason to suspect that explanation.
You asked for sources from a different perspective, you dismissed the fisrst two in insufficiently weighty. Now you’ve got plenty more. You got what you asked for, if you choose not to engage that’s not really my problem.
You wanted sources, I gave you sources. If it’s too intimidating for you or maybe you were unaware that these sorts of things existed, I can understand. I’m just doing what you asked.
By all means, argue against a claim I haven’t actually made. Interestingly enough, I believe you claimed the earth was 6 billion years old, and your own “evidence” contradicts your claim. But even then, I’m guessing that no one is specifically claiming 13 billion specifically, but instead giving a range.
Really though, great job arguing against something I haven’t said. You kicked that straw man’s straw ass there.
Perhaps your inability to see past what you perceive as “creationism” and unawareness of some more recent science is part of your problem. This is what happens when you haven’t studied this for decades and write Things off as pablum.
Again, I refer you to the bibliography I’ve provided. The majority of sources are reasonably current.
Like I said, ANY TIME you want to provide some actual point I have made and some actual data that disputes MY point, I'll be glad to acknowledge the data.
Given your track record, I don't expect you'll do this.
Vague bullshit claims remain vague bullshit claims. I have no use for vague bullshit, don't bother repeating any more. You're just wasting the time of reasonable people.
47 comments:
Would I be going too far if I imagine that Dan rejects divine inspiration of the Old Testament? I had that thought while reading this page---
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/da0_skygod.htm
~ Hiram
Personally, in my opinion, I think it’s reasonable to reach the conclusion that Dan rejects the historic/Orthodox understanding of the divine inspiration of all of scripture. In my opinion, he probably has some sense in which he affirms some sort of inspiration of some parts of scripture, but beyond that I think you’re probably correct in your conclusion.
If he deletes this as off topic, I’ll do something if you want to continue.
Just skimmed the piece, but I'd say it's closer to Dan's worldview than it is to mine.
https://stream.org/harvey-weinstein-zeus-hollywood-feminists-hera-discuss/
Interesting take on Greek mythology
Sounds more like the mad-pervert conservative god-king, Trump, than anything progressives stand for.
Hiram, I believe all that is Good and True is of/from a Good and True God. Thus, those conclusions that one may draw from the OT that are good and true,are from God.
I don't believe in the human theory that the OT represents a literal or factual modern style history, or a science book.
Thus, if someone reads the OT and concludes that it's cool to hold slaves or sell your daughter, I don't think that conclusion is inspired by God. But, if one reads the OT and concludes that we should be wary of war-mongering Kings or we should support refugees... These conclusions are of God.
Does that clarify my position?
Dan
No, it doesn’t. Hiram asked if you thought the OT was a product of “divine inspiration”, which you didn’t specifically answer.
You did suggest that how one responds to the text might or might not be “inspired”, but that seems different from what Hiram asked.
I am impressed with your ability to bring in your Trump fixation as well as trying to speak for “progressives”, in response to a comment about neither of those things.
It almost seems as if you are trying to suggest that (in a general sense) that the people who deny historic Christian doctrines and things like the inspiration of scripture are conservative, which seems a bit counterintuitive.
Thus, if someone reads the OT and concludes that it's cool to hold slaves or sell your daughter, then they are perverting Scripture in the same manner Dan does to rationalize his support for sexual immorality.
On topic, Marshall.
Craig, you used this post to choose to post a Weinstein link to try to attack liberals, when it's not related to the topic at all.
When I volley back to you that Weinstein's behavior, to objective people, comes closer to matching the conservative/evangelical darling Trump than any progressives, it's just responding to your off topic and rather silly ad hom attack. Don't dish it if it reveals deep flaws in your sides' ugly candidate.
And on those lines, I recall many conservatives questioning the women who accused Trump of sexual misdeeds. Is there even one conservative that has had any doubt about the women accusing Weinstein? Indeed, they appear to believe them wholeheartedly.
Is there anything other than hypocrisy to explain this?
Actually I posted a link comparing Weinstein to Zeus, not attacking liberals at all. Your problem with trying to make this about Trump is that the political/Hollywood/elite left protected, enabled, and made jokes about Weinstein for years while pocketing the large contributions he made and bundled.
I’m not, nor have I ever tried to make excuses for Trump and what he’s actually done. If they find evidence to charge him, I’ll support that.
Instead of hypocrisy, maybe it’s credibility of the victims. Maybe it’s the large numbers. Maybe it’s the fact that people feel guilty for enabling his behavior.
I don’t know, because I don’t/can’t speak for anyone but myself.
Of course no one thinks it’s hypocritical to lionize Hugh Hefner, at the same time they’re throwing Harvey under the bus.
On topic and to Hiram's question:
Would I be going too far if I imagine that Dan rejects divine inspiration of the Old Testament?
I responded the way I did because "divine inspiration" can be misunderstood/exploited/abused. I happen to think that the Bible - OT and NT - ARE inspired by God, but we need to be careful what we understand that to mean.
I believe, as I stated, that ALL good things and ALL true things are from God. When one reads the OT, the NT, or any other text and understands the teachings of love and grace, forgiveness and peace, one is reading words and understanding ideals inspired by God, or at least reflecting God's nature.
I think the stories of the OT are inspired tellings of the history of Israel... but NOT a literal history. The Bible doesn't tell us that it's a literal history, reason suggests it's not a literal history. This is easiest to see in the early Genesis stories, which are told in a very clearly mythic genre style. But the later stories - some of which are clearly at least partially factual - just don't appear to be told in a literally factual history style as later histories are told. It's just the wrong time period for such a story. But that doesn't mean that I think they're not inspired, just that they're not best understood as a literal history or scientific story.
Ultimately, the Truths that are found in the OT, these are Godly, Good, Inspired. Because any Truths must come from a True God, right? But if one reads this "inspired" book and reaches poor conclusions (like, for instance, where it says that Israel can enslave people or forcibly marriage women, thus God must be okay with slavery or forced marriages, because otherwise, God wouldn't inspire such stories...)
Do I think the Bible is "inspired," OT and NT? Yes. But don't misunderstand what "inspiration" means. I don't think that the Bible is a magic book that forces "right messages" or "right understandings" upon us. We can read a book or a story and misunderstand the meaning/points/messages. Those misunderstandings are not inspired, even if the book/story/message is.
Which is pretty much what I said in my first comment.
To paraphrase, “It all depends on what you mean by inspired.”.
In this case, I’ll stick with Simon Peter and his view of the OT, rather than with Dan’s.
Craig, if you want to reject my opinion, that's fine, but let's be clear that you're understanding my position:
1. Do you think the Bible is a magic book? That it forces you to understand it correctly? (I'm not saying you do think this, I'm saying I'm rejecting that view of inspiration and just seeing if that's what you're disagreeing about...)
2. Do you think that if one reads an OT text and, for instance, concludes that God is not specifically opposed to slavery, that their understanding is inspired? That the "inspired text" is inspiring them to conclude that slavery is not, in and of itself, a sin?
3. Do you think (because of your reading of the various texts of the Bible) that, for instance, enslaving people is not always a sin/a moral wrong?
So, yes, I do think it depends on what one means by inspired. Do you disagree? Or are you saying that, as long as someone is believing in an "inspired text" that their understanding is also inspired? Or does it depend?
All of that to agree with me,impressive.
1. No, no.
2. No, no.
3. No,
Yes, no, I have no idea what you mean.
I see you’ve changed your stance on interrogation.
I’m not surprised, just amused.
If I have to choose between Simon Peter and Dan, I choose Peter.
Where do you think that Dan disagrees with Peter?
What makes you think you understand Peter correctly?
~Dan
Because of what it’s recorded that Peter said, because there’s no reason to doubt the translation, because I can read.
Yes, the comment seven above helps me understand how Dan reads the Old Testament. Thanks.
~ Hiram
The point of this particular poem was just a poor attempt to reflect the great glory of the setting sun on these beautiful oak leaves, and, I suppose, the notion that nature testifies to nature, glory to glory and that even so great a power as an unimaginable ancient and powerful sun can be reflected, at least in some small degree, in a lowly, temporal leaf.
And if one wants to make extrapolations from there, they are welcome to do so.
~Dan
Sun on oak leaves, yes, that's well and good. But minutes ago I read a yahoo dot com article which reports that "a male chimpanzee has been observed snatching a seconds-old newborn then eating it. This behavior has never before been documented by scientists, who say it could explain why female chimpanzees normally hide themselves away during the late stages of pregnancy."
Do any of you wonder why nature contains such awful instances of behavior as that, instead of serving as a uniformly-positive example for us humans? A divine Creator surely had it in His power to do better by us. I reckon the anti-Dans here will say it's because of "the fall of creation due to human sin," but I don't guess Dan would go that route.
~ Hiram
I guess you’d probably be pretty close. But I’m not sure you want to open that off topic can of worms.
I think these is some stuff along that general topic in one of these last few threads.
any of you wonder why nature contains such awful instances of behavior as that
I don't especially wonder about that.
This is a wild world, thank God.
It's not a perfect world, thanks to all of us.
Why would I expect an imperfect, wild world to go always sweetly?
Dan, was it a perfect world for billions of years until humans arrived on the scene? Remember that fossilized dinosaur bones have been found with damage from predator teeth, and with evidence of bone breakage. When you say "thanks to all of us," you imply humans are the root cause of the bad things in the biosphere.
~ Hiram
Perfect, how?
Look, in one sense of the word/idea, 12 eggs are a perfect dozen. It's just a dozen being what a dozen is. Animals are wild creatures. A predator attacking and eating prey is just that predator being a predator. There's nothing imperfect in that, in that sense.
The world isn't designed (or just happened) around the desires of humanity. So, while there are hurricanes and tornadoes that may cause damage to flora, fauna and humans, that's just the nature of a wild world. It's neither perfect nor imperfect, it just is.
Seems to me.
Dan
Thanks. Your response tells me which camp of believers you are in with respect to the importance of the human race in the universe.
Folks at the other end of the spectrum from you read the Bible--especially Genesis--as saying that humans are the primary purpose for the whole shebang: of all the billions of planets, only this one we are on was destined to receive God in physical form. Only the graves on our planet will open on Judgement Day. Those folks might ask why the rest of creation does not model good behavior for us--and would likely answer that it must have to do with The Fall.
~ Hiram
"The world isn't designed (or just happened) around the desires of humanity."
I'm going to take a risk and ask a question for some clarification regarding the above.
Are you suggesting that the world was actually "design"(ed), or are you suggesting that the world "just happened"?
It is my opinion - unproven and unprovable, so far as I can tell - that God willed the universe into being. I see a great deal of evidence of design in nature/creation, but there again, I don't think that's provable, so it's my opinion that there is design... A plan, if you will, in nature. But what that looks like (a God "willing" or "designing" a universe), I can't say and don't think anyone can say, not authoritatively.
Dan
How do you reconcile this with your commitment to Darwinian evolutionary theory?
1. I have no "commitment" to Darwin ET.
2. I have no conflict with DET. ET has no explanation of the beginning.
As to evolution itself, my God is a big boy, entirely capable of using evolution.
What lack of reconciliation do you imagine exists?
Dan
Given the fact that Darwinian theory and philosophical and methodological naturalism are explicitly opposed to any theistic explanation.
1. I’m sorry, your appeal to the “best science”, and your examples indicate that Darwinian theory was comfortable for you.
2. You may not, but ET does with you. You’re correct, it doesn’t.
So, God is a “big boy entirely capable of using evolution”, but less than capable of engaging in creation or inspiring scripture.
1. There's a difference between saying, "This sounds like where the latest science is pointing" and saying, "I'm committed to this theory..." I'm not sure that science "commits..." They acknowledge data. If different data comes along, it's no problem changing theories and opinions precisely because there is no commitment.
See the difference?
2. I don't know what you mean. You, I, scientists and theologians, NONE of us know authoritatively and precisely HOW the universe began, what was the cause of the "Big Bang." Science has no definitive opinions on what there is no data for, thus "science" does not disagree with me, does not have a conflict with me.
3. An infinite and all powerful God surely IS entirely capable of whipping up a Creationist's creation of The Universe, there is just no data that supports the suggestion that it happens as most creationists suggest it did. An infinite God is capable of inspiring Scripture (and presumably in some Evangelical-friendly manner), there is just no authoritative data that God did so.
1. I see the semantic difference, I don’t see any hard, empirical, data to support the theory and I see many who acknowledge that there is no data. I see advocates saying bluntly that even if there was no data they would still be committed to Darwinian theory.
2. Then you aren’t aware that starting with Darwin himself, there is an unbroken chain of scientists and others who have unequivocally stated that Darwinian theory is intentionally anti theist?
3. Yet, you argue that the data supports either Darwinian/materialistic/naturalistic theory. That naturalistic presuppositions are proven by data. That Darwinian theory can be demonstrated using the scientific method.
Great argument though. “God could, but didn’t”.
Again, there is no evidence. God could, but there is no data to support the theory.
So, other than for tradition sake,why forward this unsupported theory?
I mean, God COULD have set the Earth up on the back of a giant turtle, but there's no data to support that myth, so why push it as science?
There's just no reason to do so.
Dan
I answered your questions, Craig, how about if you answer this one...
What specific creation theory do you promote? That the earth was created wholly formed in six days about 6000 years ago? That humans were created - a literal Adam and Eve - wholly formed humans (from dirt and a rib) who then went around and named literally every animal on earth?
Dan
Who besides you (in this conversation) is pushing anything as science. I’m trying to understand how you reconcile your opinion with the stated position of scientists as far back as Darwin.
I haven’t, and don’t, promote a specific creation theory.
It’s interesting how you’ve gone from my answering your interrogation, to my asking for clarification of what you’ve said, to this last.
FYI, you said you wanted me to answer 1 question, yet asked 3.
I’m not the one who brought “created” and “designed” language into the conversation, I’m just trying to understand what you mean when you use that language. Surely you can’t object to my trying to properly understand why you choose the language you choose, and what you mean by the words you choose to use, can you?
I’m sure you’ve been too busy to notice, but I posted a bibliography of sorts on the issues surrounding origins and Darwinian theory for you to peruse at your leisure.
I've read them. I'm unsure of your point. You appear to not want to take a position, only criticize those who do.
So, on evolution and your sort of answer: You do not believe one way or the other about Darwinian evolution?
You do not believe one way or the other on "creationism?"
The world MIGHT be 6,000 years old, you just don't know? Or maybe it's 6 billion years old, you don't know that either and don't think there is sufficient evidence to decide one way or the other?
On Adam/Eve, you DON'T KNOW if they were actual people that existed and that the story is literally true and Adam was literally made from dirt and Eve was literally created from a rib from Adam... maybe that happened and maybe it didn't, there isn't sufficient data to make you lean one way or the other?
Forget that I said "promote." What theory of the beginnings of the universe do you think are most likely? Or are you entirely agnostic against the best scientific theories we currently have (as well as the Creationist guesses)?
How about cigarette smoke - do you distrust and are you agnostic about that science, or do you accept the best data and conclusions we currently have?
How do you feel about gravity?
You’ve read every book and article in the bibliography, that’s impressive. At this point, I’m perfectly satisfied to point out the flaws in Darwinian theory. That seems a reasonable first step.
Re:Darwinian theory. I’ve seen enough evidence to convince me that it doesn’t satisfactorily explain what it was intended to explain. Further, when scientists openly admit that they are attached to Darwinian theory whether the evidence supports it or not, that is a red flag. More importantly, the a priori commitment to philosophical/methodological naturalism seems to contradict the scientific method.
I do not promote s specific theory regarding “creationism”. “Cretationism”, is a limiting and loaded term that doesn’t further the conversation.
I don’t think it matters. There is no unequivocal evidence that pinpoints the earths age as 6 billion years, so why would I accept that specific number.
On Adam and Eve, both Jesus and Peter seemed to buy into the fact that they were real people, so I’m fine with that. But I’m not dogmatic about it.
Personally, I’m satisfied that the current “Big Bang” cosmology is consistent with a Biblical understanding of origins.
I’ll answer your question about cigarette smoke when you can show me the scientists who have subjected the origin of the universe to the same scientific methodology as studies of cigarette smoke. It’s apples and oranges.
I feel like you can’t discuss gravity without establishing how earth ended up is this very narrow window in a very immense universe that allows for gravity of the proper amount to make life possible.
In both of your “examples”, your jumping ahead and operating on assumptions.
1. You’re assuming that origins have been tested using the scientific method, and that that result should be assumed, not demonstrated.
2. Your assuming that you can divorce gravity from the forces that cause gravity. So, first you would have to prove how things were arranged in such a precise way, then you can discuss the results.
I’m pretty sure that this is dealt with in one of the books and articles you read, maybe you just read so much so fast that you didn’t remember it.
I have to admit, I'm really puzzled by your reactions here. You seem to be somehow bothered by the fact that I'm more interested in what you think and why you used the terms you used, than in having an argument. You chose to used terms like "create" and "design" which are usually in the lexicon of more conservative or Orthodox believers. Given that it seems reasonable that it would do me good to understand why you chose those words, and what you mean by them. Given your longstanding complaint that I don't understand you, it seems you might welcome the chance to help me do so.
So, there are a couple of reasons why I haven't been as specific as you would like.
1. Because I don't see how arguing aver this helps me understand what you were trying to say.
2. I've provided you with multiple sources which will give you a much more balanced, accurate and detailed description of some of the options available.
3. Because, in all honestly, it just seems like you switch over into interrogation mode in order to assert control ond to avoid giving additional details of your positions.
I really have no desire to have this discussion again, especially if you aren't going to actually deal with the supporting data that doesn't help your hunches.
So, if you don't have any more to say, why not just say as and stop the interrogation? Stop presuming to know what my position is. Stop trying to shoehorn things into your narrow "creationism" basket. Look at the data that's out there with an open mind.
That's not too much to ask, is it?
Mm-hmm.
Dan
That’s quite an astute answer. You must’ve pondered that a long time.
Roughly 40 sources, plus what I’ve already provided. Zero data to demonstrate that any of them is wrong. Plenty of academic credentials for you to demonstrate to be inferior as well.
Wrong about WHAT? You've thrown a bunch of sources at me, the ones I recall not really having anything to do with anything I've said. I don't know that I disagree with any of them on anything. I don't recall, for instance, any of them suggesting that the only way to take Genesis is as literal history, or suggesting that the world is 6,000 years old 'cause "God said so..."
Give me something specific and we can talk. Vague links with no point being made, I'll pass on.
~Dan
Like this...
There is no unequivocal evidence that pinpoints the earths age as 6 billion years, so why would I accept that specific number.
The point is that the known, testable data suggests that the world is certainly billions of years old. Roughly 13 billion, give or take. The age of the earth is roughly 4 billion years old. The point is, it's definitively NOT ~6,000 years old, not according to the known data. Unless one believes in a trickster god who creates a universe and planet with deliberate false data - rocks that appear vastly older than they actually are, for instance - the data doesn't support it. And one can not prove a trickster god, so we have no reason to suspect that explanation.
https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
~Dan
You asked for sources from a different perspective, you dismissed the fisrst two in insufficiently weighty. Now you’ve got plenty more. You got what you asked for, if you choose not to engage that’s not really my problem.
You wanted sources, I gave you sources. If it’s too intimidating for you or maybe you were unaware that these sorts of things existed, I can understand. I’m just doing what you asked.
By all means, argue against a claim I haven’t actually made. Interestingly enough, I believe you claimed the earth was 6 billion years old, and your own “evidence” contradicts your claim. But even then, I’m guessing that no one is specifically claiming 13 billion specifically, but instead giving a range.
Really though, great job arguing against something I haven’t said. You kicked that straw man’s straw ass there.
Perhaps your inability to see past what you perceive as “creationism” and unawareness of some more recent science is part of your problem. This is what happens when you haven’t studied this for decades and write Things off as pablum.
Again, I refer you to the bibliography I’ve provided. The majority of sources are reasonably current.
Mm-hmm.
Like I said, ANY TIME you want to provide some actual point I have made and some actual data that disputes MY point, I'll be glad to acknowledge the data.
Given your track record, I don't expect you'll do this.
Vague bullshit claims remain vague bullshit claims. I have no use for vague bullshit, don't bother repeating any more. You're just wasting the time of reasonable people.
What vague claims. That you asked for sources. Or that you’ve just beaten the crap out of a straw man.
Post a Comment