BIBLICAL PROPOSITIONS

[jce]

The Bible presents me with a logical account of the Creation surrounding us, a history of man, an introduction to sin and death and a methodical plan conceived of God to redeem that Creation.

The Bible answers the following fundamental questions to my satisfaction:

Origin
Purpose
Responsibility
Destiny

For example, the Bible answers these basic questions about Origin:

(1) From whence came substance?
(2) From whence came life?
(3) From whence came death?

Answers about Purpose:

(1) A reason for life & death
(2) God is involved and He has a plan
(2) He is unfolding and revealing this plan to man
(3) All creation participates in this plan

Answers about of Responsibility and Accountability:

(1) Man was entrusted with great responsibility and subsequently abused that trust
(2) Because that trust was betrayed, creation & mankind was cursed
(3) Mankind is unable to deliver himself from that curse
(4) God assumed control of the cursed creation

The question of Destiny:

(1) God's plan incorporates a future redemption and perfection of His Creation
(2) God will successfully consummate this plan.
(3) This earthy life in the flesh will terminate
(4) God is concerned about mankind's eternal destiny
(5) God's plan incorporates the promise of something better

In addition to these fundamental questions, the Scriptures also set forth several irrefutable proofs such as:

(1) The curse of death has passed on to all subsequent generations of mankind and creation to this day.

(2) Death will claim all mankind born of the generation of that first man.

(3) The Bible appears to be silent on the method of death, nor does it appear to set any limitations regarding the time of one's death. If true, then all methods of death, whether of nature, war, old age, natural causes, disease, accident, execution by man or even execution by God Himself, appear to be unrestricted. If that is also true, then God cannot be condemned for taking life, but rather is justified in requiring it by any means He chooses. Thus, the how, when and where of terminating a life appears to be at His prerogative.

(4) God is not a thief. The world and all it contains belongs to Him. Everything is His claim, to give to whomsoever He will. There appear to be no exclusions nor limitations to His property rights. Whatever man possesses has been entrusted to him by God, whether it be land, wealth, wisdom, knowledge, power, authority, husband, wife, concubine, children, etc.

(5) God has set very few limitations on Himself.

(6) There are many limitations placed on mankind and his abilities. Man's power is limited, his authority is limited, his knowledge is limited, his understanding is limited and his days are limited.

Biblical inconsistencies…

(1) There are some unresolved issues with the scriptural text, but due to my present limitations, I am content to let them be until such time as they can be more fully understood. Early man was faced with many more unresolved issues and Biblical uncertainties than we are today. He was able to resolve much less than we have simply because the prophesies during his time were a future mystery which required the passing of time and a further revelation of knowledge. So, I am confident that the current problematic issues will eventually be resolved.

What method did Jesus use to make His appearance to the disciples when he entered the room of "shut doors" after His resurrection as recorded in John 20:19. Did He use another dimension to pass through the walls? Did He go back in time and then step into the space before the building existed, then fast forward in a return to the current time to appear inside the walls? Presently, we don't know how He did it because the Bible is silent about the method. Someday we will know, just not today. He could have used either method or even some other method presently inconceivable to man. This story illustrates one limitation of man's current knowledge and present understanding.

Biblical proofs….

(1) There are many significant proofs that the Bible is a supernatural culmination of work. If God exists, why not the God of the Bible? If God does not exist, how does one account for all of the substance of the universe? Is there any mounting evidence that this universe is more than a random chance occurrence and, in reality, exhibits significant signs of design?

When asked by skeptics to furnish proof of the Biblical God and His existence, I can only share the testimony of God revealing Himself to me. The Biblical God, by His Spirit and His Word has proven Himself to me beyond any worldly doubt and sufficiency of that proof continues to sustain my faith. In addition, there are many witnesses who share a comparable experience.

Of course the question justly arises,,, "What about the other faiths such as Islam, Hindu, etc". In my opinion, they simply add more proof of the existence of a Living God as evidenced by their own testimonies to a spiritual dimension of life. The significant difference in these faiths is revealed in a contrasting of their corresponding books. How do the other books of faith measure up to the Bible? The comparative richness of the Bible becomes apparent in its exposition of sin & death… and its solution, to ancient prophecy and its fulfillment, to its remarkable composition and consistent theme linked together over thousands of years by so many dis-contemporary authors. And now, thanks in part to the work of Richard Amiel McGough, Students of the Scriptures have the inception of the "Bible Wheel", an extraordinary 3 dimensional application of the 66 books of the Bible! Just some food for thought.

Grace and Peace to you.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Excellent post John!

I love it when folks take the time and effort to articulate their position with clarity.

There are many points that I would like to address, but I want to take them one at a time since otherwise the posts become unwieldy.

Before giving my first response, I want to acknowledge the points you made in your closing paragraph. The Bible is an exceedingly rich book that does not really have a peer in other religious texts as far as I know. The Tanakh can't compare because it is incomplete relative to the Bible. It doesn't form a complete story. Indeed, it ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC (2 Chronicles) with the promises clearly unfulfilled. And the Quran can't compare because it is mostly just a confused mish-mash of Bible stories. The Book of Mormon is fraudulent. The only serious contenders would be the Eastern texts like the Vedas, Upanishads, and Buddhist scriptures. Unfortunately, I don't really know enough about those books to make a judgment at this time, except to say that Buddhism is atheistic so it can't be from God (in the sense of theism, i.e. a personal God). So if there is any book produced by God, then it is seems most likely the Bible. But the problems with the Bible and the concept of theism have convinced me that there probably is no "Book of God" at all. And as we will see in our discussion of your post, the things you take as "answers" are to me reasons to reject the Bible.

I will begin at the top of your list, Origins:

(1) From whence came substance?
(2) From whence came life?
(3) From whence came death?

(1) I don't think it would be fruitful to discuss point #1 at this time for three reasons. 1) I was trained in Physics and Mathematics so the conversation would probably be lopsided. 2) The question is very philosophical with no certain answers so it wouldn't really help to discuss it. 3) There are much bigger fish to fry in your other questions.

(2) I don't see the Bible as giving an adequate answer on this point. Indeed, I believe it gives a demonstrably wrong answer, and that is one of the reasons I can't believe the Bible is from God. Have you studied evolution at all? Have you read any books that explain the evidence? If not, you have probably been misinformed by Christians who are deceiving people about the topic. So the first question I would like to ask is this: Are you familiar with the evidence for the common descent of all living creatures? It comes in a variety of forms such as the morphological tree of life which also is confirmed by DNA analysis of the same kind courts accept as evidence of paternity. This is why the case is so strong. We have solid evidence that all organisms are biologically related to each other in the sense of having a common ancestry.

(3) The Biblical explanation of death is also very problematic. It looks like pure mythology. Magic trees, talking snakes, etc. Death does not need an explanation. It is impossible to conceive of a physical world in which death didn't happen because organisms are made of atoms, and any compound object can be destroyed. This was Buddha's last words "All compound things are subject to dissolution." I don't see how it could be any other way unless God constantly overrode natural laws.

I can't trust the Bible because the whole creation story which describes our origin is riddled with problems. There was no creation of Adam and Eve and all the animals a mere 6000 years ago.

Well, that's enough for a start.

Thanks again for a great post.

Richard

[jce]

Excellent post John!

I love it when folks take the time and effort to articulate their position with clarity.

There are many points that I would like to address, but I want to take them one at a time since otherwise the posts become unwieldy.

Before giving my first response, I want to acknowledge the points you made in your closing paragraph. The Bible is an exceedingly rich book that does not really have a peer in other religious texts as far as I know. The Tanakh can't compare because it is incomplete relative to the Bible. It doesn't form a complete story. Indeed, it ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC (2 Chronicles) with the promises clearly unfulfilled. And the Quran can't compare because it is mostly just a confused mish-mash of Bible stories. The Book of Mormon is fraudulent. The only serious contenders would be the Eastern texts like the Vedas, Upanishads, and Buddhist scriptures. Unfortunately, I don't really know enough about those books to make a judgment at this time, except to say that Buddhism is atheistic so it can't be from God (in the sense of theism, i.e. a personal God). So if there is any book produced by God, then it is seems most likely the Bible. But the problems with the Bible and the concept of theism have convinced me that there probably is no "Book of God" at all. And as we will see in our discussion of your post, the things you take as "answers" are to me reasons to reject the Bible.

Hello Richard and Thanks for replying to my post!

Based on your accumulated knowledge of religious guide books, it appears from your remarks above that the Bible tops your list.

I will begin at the top of your list, Origins:

(1) From whence came substance?
(2) From whence came life?
(3) From whence came death?


(1) I don't think it would be fruitful to discuss point #1 at this time for three reasons. 1) I was trained in Physics and Mathematics so the conversation would probably be lopsided. 2) The question is very philosophical with no certain answers so it wouldn't really help to discuss it.

These are key questions as they not only establish the starting line, but they point out the proper direction for the human race.

Should I assume that you have concluded that the universe and all life as we know it, is nothing more than the result of time + matter + chance. Is that an accurate assessment of your world view on creation? I'm sure you have your reasons either way, and it's not necessary to type many paragraphs of explanation, so a simple yes or no will suffice. In short, the evidence either points you toward or away from a creator.

(2) I don't see the Bible as giving an adequate answer on this point. Indeed, I believe it gives a demonstrably wrong answer, and that is one of the reasons I can't believe the Bible is from God. Have you studied evolution at all? Have you read any books that explain the evidence? If not, you have probably been misinformed by Christians who are deceiving people about the topic. So the first question I would like to ask is this: Are you familiar with the evidence for the common descent of all living creatures? It comes in a variety of forms such as the morphological tree of life which also is confirmed by DNA analysis of the same kind courts accept as evidence of paternity. This is why the case is so strong. We have solid evidence that all organisms are biologically related to each other in the sense of having a common ancestry.

The Bible, to me, is not a treatise on science, not nearly enough pages. It's message is theistic and intended to establish a foundation of reasoning. The debate regarding 24 hour days vs days = age is pointless. Genesis gives mankind a starting point. In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. It answers the fundamental question that science may never prove, that the universe, and it's fullness are the resulting creative acts of a superior being.

I would agree that everything in nature consists of the fundamental particles. Things like earth, liquids, trees, flesh, fur, etc.. The Bible agrees that man's body was composed of earth elements (Adamah or Red Clay). It may even be possible that species such as plants, animals, aquatic creatures, reptiles, insects have one common ancestor. By faith, I accept the biblical account that mankind is a unique creature, designed by God to have dominion over the earth, which point the Bible also states.

(3) The Biblical explanation of death is also very problematic. It looks like pure mythology. Magic trees, talking snakes, etc. Death does not need an explanation. It is impossible to conceive of a physical world in which death didn't happen because organisms are made of atoms, and any compound object can be destroyed. This was Buddha's last words "All compound things are subject to dissolution." I don't see how it could be any other way unless God constantly overrode natural laws.

What is mythology? Has science now disproved the miraculous? Has it become the alter of worship? Mythology, may not be mythic at all. The miraculous works of Christ cannot be verified or nullified by science because man's science is limited and incomplete. Did Jesus rise from death? The answer to that question cannot be verified or nullified by science. Science cannot confirm, nor will it ever, that the universe appeared from nothing. If everything came from nothing, then there is nothing to find! To blindly follow science for the ultimate answer is a far more presumptuous position than that of embracing faith in a living Creator.

I can't trust the Bible because the whole creation story which describes our origin is riddled with problems.

Perhaps the word "Riddle" is appropriate here. Science has its own riddles even as its purpose is to solve them.

There was no creation of Adam and Eve and all the animals a mere 6000 years ago.

Richard, I'm surprised that you would make such an affirmative statement. If one can believe the universe is the result of nothing more than chance, you don't think its possible that a supreme intellectual being could create a mature universe and do it in the order of His prerogative? How can you possibly prove the certainty of your final statement with the certainty in which you have stated it?

Well, that's enough for a start.

Thanks again for a great post.

Richard

Thanks for the compliment Richard and I pray God's Grace upon you.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard and Thanks for replying to my post!

Based on your accumulated knowledge of religious guide books, it appears from your remarks above that the Bible tops your list.

Yes, the Bible "tops my list" of theistic religious books. But being the best out of a very short list of clearly inadequate books does not give any reason to think it is true. It has its own problems, so it seems most likely that no authoritative religious text has been given by a God.

These are key questions as they not only establish the starting line, but they point out the proper direction for the human race.

Should I assume that you have concluded that the universe and all life as we know it, is nothing more than the result of time + matter + chance. Is that an accurate assessment of your world view on creation? I'm sure you have your reasons either way, and it's not necessary to type many paragraphs of explanation, so a simple yes or no will suffice. In short, the evidence either points you toward or away from a creator.

Excellent question! I love the way this conversation is progressing. I must answer both yes and no. I answer "no" because I have no way of justifying the "nothing more than" part of your question. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in any human philosophy, Horatio. But I also must answer with a qualified "yes" because it may be that matter is a product of mind. The qualification concerns the meaning of "matter" which is a mental concept. I don't know if there is such a thing as matter independent of mind. On the one hand, I can understand all matter as an "object of consciousness" whereas it is difficult to understand how consciousness could arise from matter. The problem is that matter is an object whereas consciousness is a subject. This asymmetry inclines me towards Idealism. It may be that matter and mind are two aspects of a single reality. It gets very philosophical very quickly and I see no way we can justify any answer with certainty. This is why I said I don't think it would be fruitful to discuss this question at this time.

The Bible, to me, is not a treatise on science, not nearly enough pages. It's message is theistic and intended to establish a foundation of reasoning. The debate regarding 24 hour days vs days = age is pointless. Genesis gives mankind a starting point. In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. It answers the fundamental question that science may never prove, that the universe, and it's fullness are the resulting creative acts of a superior being.

We agree that the Bible is not a treatise on science. But it does make many statements concerning the nature of reality and many of those statements contradict science. This means that we are forced to sort through the true and the false in the Bible, and so it cannot be considered trustworthy in all that it says.

Case in point: There is a lot more to Genesis 1 than the mere assertion that God is creator. If that's all God wanted to say, then that's all he should have said. As it is, we are forced to try to find some kind of harmony between what he said and the real history of the universe. That's where the problem lies.

I would agree that everything in nature consists of the fundamental particles. Things like earth, liquids, trees, flesh, fur, etc.. The Bible agrees that man's body was composed of earth elements (Adamah or Red Clay). It may even be possible that species such as plants, animals, aquatic creatures, reptiles, insects have one common ancestor. By faith, I accept the biblical account that mankind is a unique creature, designed by God to have dominion over the earth, which point the Bible also states.

It is good to know that you allow for the possibility of evolution of all living organisms (other than humans) from a single ancestor. But there is a problem. The same evidence that supports common descent of all other organisms applies equally to humans. Therefore, we must explain why God would create this unique creature in such a way that it looks like it is related to all the others. If Adam was a special creation, there was no reason for God to insert patterns into his DNA that makes his descendents look like they descended from the same common ancestor as all other organisms.

(3) The Biblical explanation of death is also very problematic. It looks like pure mythology. Magic trees, talking snakes, etc. Death does not need an explanation. It is impossible to conceive of a physical world in which death didn't happen because organisms are made of atoms, and any compound object can be destroyed. This was Buddha's last words "All compound things are subject to dissolution." I don't see how it could be any other way unless God constantly overrode natural laws.

What is mythology? Has science now disproved the miraculous? Has it become the alter of worship? Mythology, may not be mythic at all. The miraculous works of Christ cannot be verified or nullified by science because man's science is limited and incomplete. Did Jesus rise from death? The answer to that question cannot be verified or nullified by science. Science cannot confirm, nor will it ever, that the universe appeared from nothing. If everything came from nothing, then there is nothing to find! To blindly follow science for the ultimate answer is a far more presumptuous position than that of embracing faith in a living Creator.

Your comment is a caricature of science. "Blindly following science" is an oxymoron. Science is based upon skepticism and the word skeptic is based on a root meaning "to look, reflect, inquire." To suggest any equivalence with religious objects of worship is nothing but polemics.

What is mythology? It is what you think of all the other religions that you don't believe in.

As for miracles attributed to Christ - I was not talking about those things. I was talking about the mythology in the Garden story.

It would be good if you could respond to my answer that death does not need an explanation of the kind given in the Bible. It necessarily follows from the fact that we are compound beings. The Biblical explanation makes no sense because death is a natural part of reality. It gives a false explanation of why we die.

I can't trust the Bible because the whole creation story which describes our origin is riddled with problems.

Perhaps the word "Riddle" is appropriate here. Science has its own riddles even as its purpose is to solve them.

I grant that there are plenty of riddles, but I don't see how that helps save the Bible from the errors it contains.

There was no creation of Adam and Eve and all the animals a mere 6000 years ago.

Richard, I'm surprised that you would make such an affirmative statement. If one can believe the universe is the result of nothing more than chance, you don't think its possible that a supreme intellectual being could create a mature universe and do it in the order of His prerogative? How can you possibly prove the certainty of your final statement with the certainty in which you have stated it?

I have no problem with the abstract possibility that "a supreme intellectual being could create a mature universe." Supreme beings can do what they want. He could have created the universe five minutes ago and implanted memories to make it look like we've been here a long time. But if that's the case, then he has chosen to imprison us in a matrix of deception in which there is no way for us to know anything at all. Is this what you are suggesting?

Thanks for the compliment Richard and I pray God's Grace upon you.

John

Much peace to you my friend,

Richard

[jce]

Yes, the Bible "tops my list" of theistic religious books. But being the best out of a very short list of clearly inadequate books does not give any reason to think it is true. It has its own problems, so it seems most likely that no authoritative religious text has been given by a God.

I'm surprised again at your modest response. Having read so many of your posts, I assumed you were an expert on various religions.

Excellent question! I love the way this conversation is progressing. I must answer both yes and no. I answer "no" because I have no way of justifying the "nothing more than" part of your question. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in any human philosophy, Horatio. But I also must answer with a qualified "yes" because it may be that matter is a product of mind. The qualification concerns the meaning of "matter" which is a mental concept. I don't know if there is such a thing as matter independent of mind. On the one hand, I can understand all matter as an "object of consciousness" whereas it is difficult to understand how consciousness could arise from matter. The problem is that matter is an object whereas consciousness is a subject. This asymmetry inclines me towards Idealism. It may be that matter and mind are two aspects of a single reality. It gets very philosophical very quickly and I see no way we can justify any answer with certainty. This is why I said I don't think it would be fruitful to discuss this question at this time.

Is this that exotic matter that appears from nothing, like magic trees, suddenly appearing with forbidden fruit? Has your newfound reasoning now led you to accept fantasies? The same of which you point to as reason to reject the bible? I'm being a little facetious here but really Richard, is not what you are considering as reality, sounding a little fantastic?

We agree that the Bible is not a treatise on science. But it does make many statements concerning the nature of reality and many of those statements contradict science. This means that we are forced to sort through the true and the false in the Bible, and so it cannot be considered trustworthy in all that it says.

Why are you looking to the Bible for answers to science questions? I thought we were in agreement on this point?

Case in point: There is a lot more to Genesis 1 than the mere assertion that God is creator. If that's all God wanted to say, then that's all he should have said. As it is, we are forced to try to find some kind of harmony between what he said and the real history of the universe. That's where the problem lies.

What is the REAL history of the universe?

It is good to know that you allow for the possibility of evolution of all living organisms (other than humans) from a single ancestor.

Of course I would allow for those possibilities. I accept my limitations of knowledge and understanding but I cannot eliminate the Bible as God's message to man. That would be supremely presumptuous on my part.

But there is a problem. The same evidence that supports common descent of all other organisms applies equally to humans.

Why is that a problem?

Therefore, we must explain why God would create this unique creature in such a way that it looks like it is related to all the others.

Pray tell, why must we be able to explain this?

If Adam was a special creation, there was no reason for God to insert patterns into his DNA that makes his descendents look like they descended from the same common ancestor as all other organisms.

Why not use the same materials in the interest of economy? There is a much larger gap between humans and other species that would suggest that man is special and endowed by His Creator with unique abilities.

Your comment is a caricature of science. "Blindly following science" is an oxymoron.

Jumbo shrimp are oxymorons too... but they are real.

Science is based upon skepticism and the word skeptic is based on a root meaning "to look, reflect, inquire." To suggest any equivalence with religious objects of worship is nothing but polemics.

Many scientists of our era have placed unwavering faith in unproven scientific theories and forced their dogmas on academia. What does that make them? Philopolemicists?

What is mythology? It is what you think of all the other religions that you don't believe in.

The same could be said of unproven scientific theories, and yet, they are often accepted without question, no matter how improbable. THe big bang has evidence and many an astrophysicist present it as fact and it could easily be a myth.

I have no problem with the abstract possibility that "a supreme intellectual being could create a mature universe." Supreme beings can do what they want. He could have created the universe five minutes ago and implanted memories to make it look like we've been here a long time. But if that's the case, then he has chosen to imprison us in a matrix of deception in which there is no way for us to know anything at all. Is this what you are suggesting?

Not at all. Among the other things God has been accused of, He is neither a deceiver. On the other hand, are you suggesting that it would not be possible for God to design a mature universe, then have man examine it with faulty methods, and draw erroneous conclusions?

Much peace to you my friend,

Richard

We wish the same for each other Richard.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Is this that exotic matter that appears from nothing, like magic trees, suddenly appearing with forbidden fruit? Has your newfound reasoning now led you to accept fantasies? The same of which you point to as reason to reject the bible? I'm being a little facetious here but really Richard, is not what you are considering as reality, sounding a little fantastic?

It appears my answer went over your head. I've given it a lot of thought. Your flippant answer indicates it was beyond your comprehension. That's another reason I don't think it would be fruitful for us to pursue such an advanced topic.

We agree that the Bible is not a treatise on science. But it does make many statements concerning the nature of reality and many of those statements contradict science. This means that we are forced to sort through the true and the false in the Bible, and so it cannot be considered trustworthy in all that it says.

Why are you looking to the Bible for answers to science questions? I thought we were in agreement on this point?

I am not looking to the Bible for answers to science question. I am pointing out that the simple fact that the Bible makes false statements and that this forces us to sort through the true and the false which means that the Bible cannot be trusted in all it says. Why do I have to repeat myself?

What is the REAL history of the universe?

Why do you capitalize "REAL"? Are you saying that science is not real? Or that folks ignorant of science can get discover the "REAL" history of the universe by their own fallible interpretations of the Bible?

Of course I would allow for those possibilities. I accept my limitations of knowledge and understanding but I cannot eliminate the Bible as God's message to man. That would be supremely presumptuous on my part.

Is it not supremely presumptuous to attribute a book written by humans to God?

But there is a problem. The same evidence that supports common descent of all other organisms applies equally to humans.

Why is that a problem?

Because the DNA evidence proves paternity, just like in a court of law. We are descended from the same ancestors as all the other animals.

Therefore, we must explain why God would create this unique creature in such a way that it looks like it is related to all the others.

Pray tell, why must we be able to explain this?

Because you say we are not related to all the other animals, whereas the evidence says we are.

If Adam was a special creation, there was no reason for God to insert patterns into his DNA that makes his descendents look like they descended from the same common ancestor as all other organisms.

Why not use the same materials in the interest of economy? There is a much larger gap between humans and other species that would suggest that man is special and endowed by His Creator with unique abilities.

I wasn't talking about "using the same materials." I was talking about the DNA evidence that shows common descent.

Science is based upon skepticism and the word skeptic is based on a root meaning "to look, reflect, inquire." To suggest any equivalence with religious objects of worship is nothing but polemics.

Many scientists of our era have placed unwavering faith in unproven scientific theories and forced their dogmas on academia. What does that make them? Philopolemicists?

And many Christians were Nazis. But you would answer that they were not "real Christians." If I were to follow your logic (overlooking the "No Real Scotsman Fallacy"), all I would need to say is that those scientists were not "real" scientists.

What is mythology? It is what you think of all the other religions that you don't believe in.

The same could be said of unproven scientific theories, and yet, they are often accepted without question, no matter how improbable. THe big bang has evidence and many an astrophysicist present it as fact and it could easily be a myth.

There is no comparison to modern scientific theories and the ignorant myths of ancient people. For you to assert such a thing makes me wonder if you are losing interest in supporting your case with reason. Scientists are people, so yes, they will exhibit all the foibles common to humans. But they do not, as a rule, accept "unproven scientific theories" without question. That's absurd. Scientists don't even talk about "proof" - they look for EVIDENCE, not "proof." Your use of language makes it look like you have been reading to much creationist propaganda.

Not at all. Among the other things God has been accused of, He is neither a deceiver. On the other hand, are you suggesting that it would not be possible for God to design a mature universe, then have man examine it with faulty methods, and draw erroneous conclusions?

I can't say it would be "impossible" but I can say it would be irrational. What would his motive be? It's one thing to create a full grown individual like Adam, but it's quite another to create a universe with ten billion year old stars read to die the moment after they were created! Your logic is being twisted by a need to force the Bible to conform to modern science. Isn't that a bit odd given that you said you don't look to the Bible for science? Do you see the inconsistency of your arguments?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I've moved John's post to its own thread in the Biology forum: Debating the Cause of Death & Aging.

[jce]

There are many points that I would like to address, but I want to take them one at a time since otherwise the posts become unwieldy.

I will begin at the top of your list, Origins:

(1) From whence came substance?

(1) I don't think it would be fruitful to discuss point #1 at this time for three reasons. 1) I was trained in Physics and Mathematics so the conversation would probably be lopsided. 2) The question is very philosophical with no certain answers so it wouldn't really help to discuss it. 3) There are much bigger fish to fry in your other questions.

On the contrary Richard. If you have an explanation for the origin of the universe and it's matter, apart from intelligent design, please give it a go. I'm sure I'll learn something.

Your friend in time.

John]

[Richard Amiel McGough]

On the contrary Richard. If you have an explanation for the origin of the universe and it's matter, apart from intelligent design, please give it a go. I'm sure I'll learn something.

Your friend in time.

John]

Hey there John,

I really don't think that it would be fruitful to pursue unanswerable abstract philosophical questions. We should focus on questions that can be answered.

Case in point: Intelligent design is not an answer. It is mere assertion with no content. I could just as well say Mickey Mouse did it.

You know that any explanation about the ultimate source of matter would be speculative. That's why Christians focus on it. They know that their answers are just as speculative as all others, so they focus on the unanswerable questions because they are trying to "level the playing field" since they cannot compete with the logic and facts of science.

And besides, I already answered your question, but you showed no sign of understanding what I was talking about. Specifically, here was our exchange:

Should I assume that you have concluded that the universe and all life as we know it, is nothing more than the result of time + matter + chance. Is that an accurate assessment of your world view on creation? I'm sure you have your reasons either way, and it's not necessary to type many paragraphs of explanation, so a simple yes or no will suffice. In short, the evidence either points you toward or away from a creator.

Excellent question! I love the way this conversation is progressing. I must answer both yes and no. I answer "no" because I have no way of justifying the "nothing more than" part of your question. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in any human philosophy, Horatio. But I also must answer with a qualified "yes" because it may be that matter is a product of mind. The qualification concerns the meaning of "matter" which is a mental concept. I don't know if there is such a thing as matter independent of mind. On the one hand, I can understand all matter as an "object of consciousness" whereas it is difficult to understand how consciousness could arise from matter. The problem is that matter is an object whereas consciousness is a subject. This asymmetry inclines me towards Idealism. It may be that matter and mind are two aspects of a single reality. It gets very philosophical very quickly and I see no way we can justify any answer with certainty. This is why I said I don't think it would be fruitful to discuss this question at this time.

Is this that exotic matter that appears from nothing, like magic trees, suddenly appearing with forbidden fruit? Has your newfound reasoning now led you to accept fantasies? The same of which you point to as reason to reject the bible? I'm being a little facetious here but really Richard, is not what you are considering as reality, sounding a little fantastic?

It appears my answer went over your head. I've given it a lot of thought. Your flippant answer indicates it was beyond your comprehension. That's another reason I don't think it would be fruitful for us to pursue such an advanced topic.

I would be happy if you wanted to discuss the reasons I gave. But that would involve a rather heady discussion of epistemology and the philosophical implications of Quantum Physics. I don't get the impression you are really interested or informed on those topics. That's why I have suggested that we discuss things that we both know about and can settle with logic and facts. Epistemology and Quantum Physics don't fit that bill.

All the best,

Richard

[Rose]

On the contrary Richard. If you have an explanation for the origin of the universe and it's matter, apart from intelligent design, please give it a go. I'm sure I'll learn something.

Your friend in time.

John]

Hi John,

Saying that the origin of the universe began with an intelligent mind is only pushing back the beginning by one step, it tells us nothing of how things began. What we do know for certain is that it could not have been created by the biblegod.

All the best,
Rose