Why do Christians believe that God created the world?
I am not a Christian. I do believe in God. But I don't believe God created the world we live in. It doesn't look like the kind of place an all-good person would create. But Christians typically do believe that God created the world. Why?
God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. Those are the essential attributes of God (don't be tedious and question that - if you want to use the word 'God' to refer to a peach, that's fine, but you're just a berk).
Possession of those attributes does not entail that one has created anything, much less the world. Indeed, if anything supposing God to have created this world creates problems - really quite big problems - that do not arise if one does not make that assumption.
Being omnipotent involves being all powerful - being able to do anything. But it does not essentially involve actually doing anything. That is, one can be all powerful and not do a thing. A creature who is unable to refrain from doing things is not omnipotent.
Being omniscient does not essentially involve creating anything either. And nor does being omnibenevolent.
So, there is nothing in the definition of God that commits a Christian to the belief that God created the world.
Perhaps it is the bible that commits them to it. I haven't read it, but I did just read the book of Genesis and it does not say there that God created the world. Rather, it is just a description of God creating a place. There seems no reason to think the place in question is here. Indeed, there seems good reason to think it isn't, given the description.
For instance, in the place that God creates in Genesis people live for hundreds and hundreds of years. The average lifespan seems about 800-900 years! It's quite explicit about this. Now, that's not at all like here.
And the place that God creates in Genesis he creates in 6 days. But this place - the world - seems to have evolved slowly.
And events - such as a the flood - are described that do not seem to have occurred here (indeed, that do not seem capable of occurring here - the flood described in Genesis submerges everything, for instance....is there even enough water in the world to do that?). And an ark is created that can contain pairs of every type of animal, which does not seem logistically possible if it applies to all the variety of creatures that exist here.
And though places are mentioned in the Genesis account that correspond to names that we have given to places here in the world, the book of Genesis seems to have been written before those places had those names. Take Egypt, Egypt is mentioned. But it is first mentioned as the name of a person - Egypt. And so Egypt is simply that person's land. There is no reason to think that Genesis is referring to place we call Egypt. Indeed, Egypt was not called Egypt at the time (Genesis was supposedly written in the 6th century BC, but Egypt acquired that name much later. That applies to other places too it seems. The Euphrates is mentioned. But the river that we call the Euphrates was not called that when Genesis was written. And so on.
So, there is nothing in Genesis to suggest that it is an account of how all things that have come into being have come into being. It is just an account of how God made a place. And there is no reason to think the place being talked about is here, and positive reason to think it is not.
Seems to me, then, that Christians are missing a trick: they are trying to square the genesis account of God's creation of a place with what we understand about how this place - the world - has come to be. But the Genesis account does not seem to be about this place at all.
But perhaps I am wrong and there are passages in the bible that really do commit the Christian to believing that God created this place. So much the worse for the credibility of Christianity if that is true....but I wonder if it is true?
God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. Those are the essential attributes of God (don't be tedious and question that - if you want to use the word 'God' to refer to a peach, that's fine, but you're just a berk).
Possession of those attributes does not entail that one has created anything, much less the world. Indeed, if anything supposing God to have created this world creates problems - really quite big problems - that do not arise if one does not make that assumption.
Being omnipotent involves being all powerful - being able to do anything. But it does not essentially involve actually doing anything. That is, one can be all powerful and not do a thing. A creature who is unable to refrain from doing things is not omnipotent.
Being omniscient does not essentially involve creating anything either. And nor does being omnibenevolent.
So, there is nothing in the definition of God that commits a Christian to the belief that God created the world.
Perhaps it is the bible that commits them to it. I haven't read it, but I did just read the book of Genesis and it does not say there that God created the world. Rather, it is just a description of God creating a place. There seems no reason to think the place in question is here. Indeed, there seems good reason to think it isn't, given the description.
For instance, in the place that God creates in Genesis people live for hundreds and hundreds of years. The average lifespan seems about 800-900 years! It's quite explicit about this. Now, that's not at all like here.
And the place that God creates in Genesis he creates in 6 days. But this place - the world - seems to have evolved slowly.
And events - such as a the flood - are described that do not seem to have occurred here (indeed, that do not seem capable of occurring here - the flood described in Genesis submerges everything, for instance....is there even enough water in the world to do that?). And an ark is created that can contain pairs of every type of animal, which does not seem logistically possible if it applies to all the variety of creatures that exist here.
And though places are mentioned in the Genesis account that correspond to names that we have given to places here in the world, the book of Genesis seems to have been written before those places had those names. Take Egypt, Egypt is mentioned. But it is first mentioned as the name of a person - Egypt. And so Egypt is simply that person's land. There is no reason to think that Genesis is referring to place we call Egypt. Indeed, Egypt was not called Egypt at the time (Genesis was supposedly written in the 6th century BC, but Egypt acquired that name much later. That applies to other places too it seems. The Euphrates is mentioned. But the river that we call the Euphrates was not called that when Genesis was written. And so on.
So, there is nothing in Genesis to suggest that it is an account of how all things that have come into being have come into being. It is just an account of how God made a place. And there is no reason to think the place being talked about is here, and positive reason to think it is not.
Seems to me, then, that Christians are missing a trick: they are trying to square the genesis account of God's creation of a place with what we understand about how this place - the world - has come to be. But the Genesis account does not seem to be about this place at all.
But perhaps I am wrong and there are passages in the bible that really do commit the Christian to believing that God created this place. So much the worse for the credibility of Christianity if that is true....but I wonder if it is true?
Comments (211)
Maybe you're taking somebody else's unreliable word for what God is like. Who told you He's all-good?
Christians believe their god created the world, because the Sumerian creation myth is in a book that was written down by Hebrews long after they picked up the oral tradition. Meanwhile, the Christians' founding figurehead changed the whole concept and identity of the Hebrew god. So they have the Saviour figure at the center of their religion, but His role depends on the God figure that's supposed to have engendered Him, which is a different person from the Jehovah of the OT. But the compilers of the Bible that modern Christians use as their source and final authority lived in Roman Europe 300 years later just lumped all the stories in together, regardless of their origins, ages and contradictions. So the Christians are confused and conflicted and all the time at odds with one another over doctrine.
Quoting Bartricks
If you subscribe to that hyperbole, your conundrum is intractable and impervious to reason.
Is the choice really is between the absolute acceptance of that omni-doctrine and a peach? OK then I'm a berk, because both appear silly to me.
Quoting Bartricks
The commitment of Christians is not in a definition; it's in the acceptance of Jesus as their redeemer. A cornerstone of the doctrine is believing that story in the foundational book that starts "In the beginning...", which also enables the same God to be King of Heaven, which is important to Christianity wih it afterlife myth. But they do a lot of interpreting, ignoring and cherry-picking between that and the Ascension.
They don't need to 'square the book' with the omni-God. They just need faith and short memories.
OMG. Did you read the OP? It's true by definition. What did I say someone who quetsions that is? Focus on the issue.
Again: you're not focussing on the issue.
Does the concept of God - defined as I defined God - entall that God created the world? No.
Does the bible commit a CHristian to believing that God created the world? So far as I can see, no.
A berk, I think.
What "issue"? People believe whatever they want.
Yes. I think that's what you are. Quoting Vera Mont
Again, relevance to the OP??
No, some people believe what they think they have reason to believe and stop believing what they recognize they do not have reason to believe. Not berks though.
OK
IF God is omnipotent, who else could have created the world? Some other omnipotency?
The belief that God created the world goes back to the development of creeds (over a fairly long period of time). "I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth".
A lot of what Christians believe is based on their early roots in Judaism. The Jews, per Genesis 1:1, believed that God created the heavens and the earth.
A God-Creator 'works' because we seem to require a beginning to everything, somehow. Big Bang or Fiat Lux.
The more we talk about the nature of God; what God did or did not do; what God is or is not like, etc. the deeper into the indefensible we get. Our claims about God are indefensible because we can't know God. In my opinion (talk about hubris!) God (the Father) is above and beyond our knowing. God (the Son) is the knowable person of God.
Christians chatter and natter on about God (the Father) as if he was as familiar to them as the manager of the local Safeway supermarket. Christians make as many unsupportable statements about Jesus (and the Holy Ghost). Why do they do this?
I tend to think that we are better off NOT thinking that God is all-loving. God might oversee without intervention. Omniscience is a major stumbling block for our alleged free will. If God is all knowing, I'm content thinking that we have zero freedom of action. For that matter, I'm not sure God is omnipotent either. (A limited God presents other problems.)
Mostly, like children, many "believe" the ancient fairytale "God created the world" is literally true due to their incorrigible scientific illiteracy and superstitious gullibility. And for once we agree: this world is conspicuously inconsistent with any notion of "an all-good, all-loving creator God".
I think the burden of proof would be on the person who thought God did create the world.
There seems no positive reason to suppose God created this world. And there seems positive reason to think God did not create it, given how ugly some of it is.
So, the default is that God did not create this world, not that he did.
And as for Christians, it seems to me that there is nothing in the creation story in the bible that commits them to thinking that God created this world. It would be more reasonable for them to believe that Genesis is a story about another place, not here.
Note, I am not interested in a psychological or sociological or historical explanation of why it is that Christians typically believe God created the world.
I am interested in whether there is any good philosophical reason for them to do so.
But that kind of argument does not get one to God, but to uncreated things. That is, from the fact that there are created things, one can conclude that there are also uncreated things. Nothing commits one to supposing that there is just one uncreated thing that is responsible for all else, much less that it is God.
Quoting Bitter Crank
It is hubris to think you know that we can't know what God is like. If God wants us to know what he is like, then he can do that. And he has, for we can know that God exists and we can know something of what God's character is like from our reason. From our reason we know that God wants us to be people of a certain character or characters - well, we can reasonably suppose that God's character resembles one of them.
And what's this stuff about God the son? First, is God his own son? How does that make any sense? And you have contradicted yourself. You've said God is unknowable and knowable.
Sunday School babble. Have one more for good measure, then toddle off to beddy bye. :roll:
Quoting Bartricks
Really.
Quoting Bartricks
You might find more enlightenment about the matter if you don't insist on only "philosophical" reason.
Yes.
You think you already know that God is unknowable. That's both extremely arrogant and obviously confused, for if you don't know anything about God then you don't even know what you're using that word to refer to, do you?
When you sober up you'll get it.
It's nice to have the definitive definition of God. It's nice to have the last word on all matters theological. But it's a teensy bit odd to do that and then come with that burden of proof thingie at other people. It's almost like you were attacking John Cleese with a banana.
Which would have made more sense and been far more entertaining.
Christians believe in God because otherwise would be contradictory. Christianity is based on the role of Jesus as a prophet and he spread his messages on one belief: the faith of God's mercy.
Without God, a Christian would be "naked".
It goes further than that. A Christian already believes in God's existence, he is not using Christianity to believe but encourage the existence itself.
Justifying reason, not explanatory reason.
It's not a 'have a pop at christianity' thread.
It looks like that in your first post you try to explain Genesis and Christianity with reason or critical thinking.
I think this sort of belief is said to be a matter of faith because there are no justifying reasons of the kind that would satisfy in other circumstances. For example, Michaelangelo made the statue David. The justifying reasons for believing this lie in a train of documents, witness accounts, etc together with some plausible dismissals of implausible alternative theories. Contrast: God made the world. We are not committed to believing this on pain of being inconsistent with other beliefs. It certainly seems to be the case. It makes perfect sense. It's the kind of thing God might do. Knowing the character of God as much as we can, it's in character. But there's no audit trail. It's a matter of faith.
God is. (Shut up and don't question his existence!)
God is perfect, omni-everything. (because I said so.)
Why do Christians believe my version of God made the world? (I'm not only uninterested in interpretation and explanation, I'll heap verbal abuse on anyone who attempts it.)
Discuss.
The first verse of the Bible says God created the heavens and earth. Are you saying that this was another dimension (odd) or that God used something to create with?
Whether this place - which is referred to as 'the world' - is made or not is another matter.
'Odd' is not a rational criticism.
You already think christianity is stupid, yes? That, for you,is in the bank. You think it,so it must be true. End of. You can't defend it. You just know it.
What I am doing is applying reason to the matter. I am questioning a basic assumption that many Christians make about the bible,but that is not in the bible.
Imagine that most people think something is illegal that isn't in fact illegal. And furthermore this thing that most people think is illegal actually operates to cultivate disrespect for the law in general. Well, then it'd be good to point out that the thing everybody has been thinking is illegal is not, in fact, illegal.
God did make our world from the Genesis one. Have you forgotten about the Fall and how Paul says the world groans until redemption?
Where is it then?
If God didn't even create us or this world, why should we think that he cares at all about anything we do or think? But then again even if he did create us, why would he care what we think? You seem to be displacing a stupid belief via an equally irrelevant proxy. Yes, maybe God didn't create this world yet exists, but what conclusions should we draw? The situation in which God has not created us or the world sounds mostly equivalent to the conclusion that we have no reason to believe in God at all and therefore should not believe in him in terms of consequences.
Not to mention that would leave us all alone in terms of moral injunctions and imperatives. But I suppose you would say a personal relationship with God is possible and that he can still give us inspiration. Or something.
Honestly it seems like you are trying to detach religion from religion, and I don't think it is working.
edit: not making an argument based off of my belief that Christianity is dumb, but I do think it is dumb
It's a matter of faith, which is different from the kind of justification that we would give for the existence of a statute, for example. I can look up statutes in the statute book and the parliamentary records. Matters of faith are matters about which we say 'Well, that seems right to me and I can't prove it but I trust it and I'm going to proceed as if it's the case even without being able to produce the evidence.' God created the heavens and the earth. I understand your point that it's not in scripture - or if it is in there somewhere, it's perhaps tucked away where one might not expect it. But in scripture or not it's a matter of faith.
Thought about it some more. So maybe we have God and then some incredibly powerful being capable of creating us and the universe/world. I remember back to the aseity thread you argued that some original thing must have existed with aseity. So if this powerful being that is less than god created us and this world he must have existed with aseity. What space could there be for God if something comes into existence with aseity and creates the only space there is? This thing would have to predate God or God created this being that then created our world. Both contingencies sound bizarre. And in the second one you could hold God accountable indirectly for our shitty world.
Christians believe with the Jews that this world is a copy of the original because of the Fall. Read saint Paul.
Gen 3:17-24 - thistles, thorns, sweat, animal skins, driven out of a good place to a difficult place - yep, sounds historically accurate
Gen 4 - coupling, conception, childbirth, sibling rivalry - this place - check.
The only thing that doesn't fit here is that pretty, shiny, benevolent sky-daddy god.
Conclusion: pretty, shiny, benevolent sky-daddy god did not create "this place".
Therefore, Christians must have been misled.
But were they misled about the nature of the creation or the nature of the creator?
Reminds me of an old joke. The teacher asks the students: "Who was the most intelligent man in history? The pupil with the right answer gets five bucks from me." Bobby says: "Donald trump." NO, Bobby, it wasn't him." Michael says, "Galileo." "No, son," says the teacher, "It wasn't Galileo." Little Moritz says, "Teach, the smartest man ever alive was Edison." "Very good, Moritz, here's the five dollar for you. Now tell us, why he was the smartest." Moritz looks at the teacher, and says, "Teach, both of us know the most intelligent guy ever was Moses; but business is business."
Similarly, the squeeky clean, shiny god is known by everyone as a mean, vicious bastard; but we also know that we have no chance left with a mean vicious bastard unless we call him the best of adjectives we can ever muster.
I disagree - not entirely but I think some specifics need to be hashed out.
God is omnipotent (all energy - and matter e=mc2, they are equivalent), omniscient (all information throughout time - all interactions between energy and matter) that have or ever will occur) and omnipresent (all space in which these interactions occur). If that is the truth of things then God cannot be a person (because people are not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent) because they are minute objects in the system (universe).
A person cannot move a mountain for example (potency), be everywhere because they're a singular object (omnipresence) nor be omniscient (a person cannot know what someone across the world just named their newborn baby).
However, a person can behold/believe in this truth of things, this God, can hold that god as their ideal in their mind and understand it, and thus the limitations of its application in the Human sphere. The can channel that truth, its description, but they cannot be that truth - its characteristics.
In that sense one can reveal God to others but cannot be God itself, at most a conduit for the truth, a "truth teller", but not a "truth-be-er".
A person can however be onibenevolent, by describing this truth to others, and thus enabling insight, understanding and empowering them with the knowledge of God. In that way a person satisfies the final of four conditions for a god worth worshipping: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence (characteristics of the universe at large) and finally omnibenevolence (accurate description of the universe) only done by a person, a truth teller (a part of the whole universe).
Whoa, we haven't got that far. So far "God created the heavens and the earth" is under discussion because it is doubted whether the earth God is said to have created is this earth or some other earth. The authors should perhaps have been clearer about what they meant when they wrote "the earth". It's a common fault, if it is a fault.
Saint Paul, representing Christians, calls the earth "creation". Isn't that what the OP wanted to know?
This world appears to have been created incredibly slowly.
The place described in Genesis is created in 6 days.
The place described in Genesis contains people whose average lifespan is 900 years or thereabouts.
And so on.
Vera: oh, but it contains animals. So does here. Therefore it is here. Jesus.
there is,
consider a god which creates a world, and god which doesn't.
which one is more benevolent?
There's no difference.
Note too that I did not say God did not create anything (although that too would be entirely consistent with being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent)
I said that there is nothing in Genesis that commits a christian to the idea that God created this world.
All I am arguing here is that nothing in the concept of God or in Genesis (or, I suspect) in the bible commits a Christian to the belief that God created the world.
I have not argued that the Christian can deny God created some place - for it does say that in Genesis.
Note: atheists typically do not believe the world was created by someone other than God. THey believe God does not exist and they believe the world has non-agential origins.
There's nothing, I am pointing out, that stops a Christian from simply accepting that.
Note too that denying that God created the world does not then oblige one to provide an account of what or who did create it.
Quoting ToothyMaw
No, I argued that if there exist thinks that have come into being, then there also exist things that have not. I did not - and have never - argued that there must be one such thing. On the contrary, I have argued that all of us have that status. Minds - all minds - seem to exist in that manner for none of them are divisible. Being indivisible is what something that exists with aseity would be.
Quoting ToothyMaw
I don't follow you. You seem to be thinking that if I claim the world was not created by God, then I am committed to the view that someone else created it. No I'm not. I do not know who or what created the world. I am saying that God didn't. That nothing in the concept of God implies he did - on the contrary, it implies he didn't. And nothing in the bible does either, so Christians can - and should - agree with me.
Quoting ToothyMaw
TO exist with aseity is not to have come into being. That's the point.
But anyway, you are attributing to me a whole load of claims that I have not and would not make.
Being omnipotent involves having the ability to do anything. That's entirely consistent with there being other powerful people around and so on. It's entirely consistent with other people and other processes creating things. There's no contradiction involved.
Read Genesis 'without' assuming that 'the earth and the heavens' refers to here. Don't be dumb. Don't think "oh, it must refer to here because, you know, that's what people have been stupidly assuming for thousands of years'. Try and think a little differently. Try it. Try being original.
Notice things, such as the fact the place described there is created in.....6 days. This world wasn't. They estimate it is 4.54billion years old.
Do you spot the difference? 6 days. 4.54billion years. 6.....days. 4,540,000,000 years.
No? Well, 4.54 billion years is 1657100000000 days.
"I'll meet you in 6 days"
Gregory: "so, you mean 1,657,100,000,000 days?"
Descartes wrote 6 meditations.
Gregory: "so, you mean he wrote 1,657,100,000,000 meditations? I thought he only wrote 5"
Christians interpret the OT in light of the New.
Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesall things were created through him and for him.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/creating_the_world_in_6_days#:~:text=100%20Bible%20Verses%20about%20Creating%20The%20World%20In,was%20hovering%20over%20the%20face%20of%20the%20waters.
There's no claim that God actually created the world. 'Framed by' does not mean 'caused by' (whatever it does mean). And saying that a group of people believe something to be the case is not the same as asserting that it is the case.
Note, I do not deny that Christians typically 'believe' that the world was created by God. I do not deny that this is what Christians understand to be the case. But is it the case? Not 'is it the case taht they believe it" but "is it actually the case that God created the world?"
Quoting Gregory
Question begging - you've just assumed 'in heaven and on earth' refers to here. That's precisely what's at issue. It's not at issue that the bible says God created at place - a place consisting of heaven and earth. What's at issue is whether God created this place.
Colossians 1:16 is as clear as you can get unless the Bible means nothing by it's words. You don't read the Bible like Christians and yet you say that they don't interpret correctly according to your non believing ways. Odd. Also, click on the link i gave for many more verses on this
Then who are you trying to argue with with this thread if not against Christian interpretations of their own book? Your new interpretations doesn't make theirs irrational
Look, if all you can do is simply tell me what CHristians typically believe, then you're no use to me.
So you have a novel interpretations of 100 verses. That's nice
Every heresy has their interpretation of the Bible. Everyone reads it and decides on their own which interpretation makes the most sense. One man's stretch is another man's sublety. Anyway I doubt any Christians would be impressed with your particular understanding of the text.
See?
What about Genesis 1:26, since Genesis is all you read.
Man created in the same universe described earlier in the chapter.
And that was that
Where did Adam's world come from? Genesis says God created it. OP refuted
This isn't hard. Genesis says God created a place. That place doesn't seem to be here.
Do you remember earlier when I pointed out that the place described in Genesis was made in 6 days and that this place - the world - came about in 4.54 billion years?
Do you still not see a difference there? 6 days. 4.54 billion years.
If place A was created in 6 days, and place B was created in 4.54 billion years, is A the same place as B??
It's right there in the text. Aren't we descendants of Adam? "Place" is rather ambiguous for Jews though. The world is layered with heavens and sometimes things happened there instead of here. You read the Bible though way to esoterically than a Christian would, so they I'm guessing aren't the target for this thread
And why would the Bible talk about God creating other earth's but ours?
No. Not if that's not this place. See? Any bulbs in there at all?
Now, once more: do you think 6 days and 4.54 billion years are the same?
Everyone already knows there are many interpretations of the Bible. You didn't add any knowledge to the pile with the thread. Anyway, "ALL THINGS were created by him and for him" says saint Paul. That's enough for most Christians.
Every non-consequential word, for my sins!
Quoting Bartricks
It didn't appear that way to the Sumerian storyteller who originated some version of this particular creation myth.
Quoting Bartricks
It doesn't say how long those days were.
Quoting Bartricks
Just the first few generations after A&E are tossed out of Eden. After that, lives get shorter and shorter, until we get to the louse-infested Middle Ages, after which they start growing longer again. Who knows, in another 1800 years, we might get up to the 900's again.
Quoting Bartricks
Both the gods' garden and our present world contain animals, as have all the worlds in between. I don't think their presence is decisive. According to one rumour, in Paradise, they don't eat one another, while in the here here, they do. As far as Genesis knows, in the Garden, food was there for taking, herbs, fruits (except one - oops!) ; no clothes, no dangers, no discomforts, no shame. (Some walled gardens like that exist now, too.) Outside were nettles, thorns, lions and tigers and bears, oh my, and it took hard work to make a living - no unlike our world.
Quoting Bartricks
Here is where we happen to be. Not my fault - honest! Not Jesus's, either: he just got plopped down in a restless subject nation of the Roman Empire in a volatile phase of its cycle. Some hopeful malcontents took him to be their rebel leader. He wasn't; he was just another peacenik prophet. He got executed anyway. Paul and Peter posthumously repurposed him as The Messiah. Not my fault. Not Jesus's, either. Political expediency. Luck of the draw.
I already gave you that verse! You're challenged. Have a nice day
How do you interpret the last phrase of Colossians 1:16. Why don't you quote it for us
Which is inadequate
What does it say, Gregory?
Quote it. King James. Quote it. All of 1:16. Come along.
What makes you think God's days are the same as ours?
"For by him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or pierrs or rulers or authorities, ALL things were created by him and for him"
The second part refers back to the first
Now quote my earlier answer
I don't know, Abortricks, what you've been saying seems incoherent to me. What makes it even worse is that you can't (or won't) answer a simple question that threatens your absurd conclusions.
Any time, Pilgrim!
Imagine we're in a duel. You would put your gun behind your own head and attempt to shoot me through it. That's what you'd do. And you'd still miss.
How do we know what anything means? How do we really know anything?
How, Vera? How do we really know anything? That's a good question, isn't it? Although how do I know it is? How do any of us really know anything?
Vera! How do any of us know anything!? How?
Not at all. You are unjustified and arguably incorrect in assuming that 'day' refers to a time period equivalent to one rotation of our planet or the period between one sunrise and the next. We have far less reason to make such a stupid assumption than we do to think that 'Earth' in the Genesis creation myth refers to our Earth. In fact given that the genesis of our existence, cosmically speaking, has always been something that invites philosophical and religious speculation, we have every reason to think the author of Genesis had precisely our world in mind.
Quoting Bartricks
You don't.
Just for being difficult, I'm not going to tell you.
These really are very good points
Yes.
It depends. Some things are known logically; they just seem self-evident, and any attempted questioning of them presupposes them. Other things are known by observation. Encyclopedias are full of "facts" which are conventional formulations of what is taken to be the store of human knowledge.There is obviously a distinction between belief and knowledge, but then on examination there are many things humans count as knowledge which would better be characterized as belief.
Tip: if you are driven to play the extreme sceptic card when confronted by an argument for an interesting proposition, then you've lost.
Not really sure what you're referring to exactly by "yes, I'm sure you do." But if it is about me disagreeing with you, it just makes me someone with a different perspective I guess.
If its about God, it makes me spiritual. I'm not religious. I don't ascribe to any one religion in specific I think they all have some basic validity but also a lot of strict, stubborn specific dogmas that I don't agree with as they don't keep up with the progression of society.
We can argue our beliefs and personal assumptions for reasoning things, or determining what we think is immoral or immoral all day and night, for years, but in the end it doesn't mean we have to agree unanimously.
It just means we can accept, reject or offer a third option to whatever is discussed, all the while times change, culture changes, society advances and some lines of argument thus become obsolete while others become newly minted/available.
Fundamental arguments on the other had seem to persist throughout the millenia. We are still arguing about basics that were argued by plato, Aristotle etc. I doubt that will ch age any time soon.
Absolutely Janus. I agree. I think belief and fact differ only by a matter of magnitude/scale/scope.
The more people that believe a belief, the more factual that becomes (the more easily it can be assumed/presupposed as obvious/evident).
Some beliefs however (whether poorly reasoned or unethical) are harder to accept as fact than others.
Things that are useful to humans are generally considered fact: money has value is considered collectively to be a fact, because if it didn't how would we be able to transact it for goods and services?
Money is a good example of a large scale belief system.
And what happens to the value of money when we lose confidence in it? When we lose our belief in its value due to fear or greater priorities - need for goods/physically useful objects for survival like food, water, fuel, medicines (in times of war and political upheaval for example - like now with the Russian - Ukraine war).
The answer is it "inflates" - becomes less valuable per product. What used to cost 10 $£ now costs 20. Less "Bang for your buck".
However money doesn't have any actual intrinsic physical value other than the heat the paper could generate when burnt. It requires everyone who uses it to believe that this little flimsy note equals 20 somethings.
It's a good lesson in economics for sure. Economy is merely mass psychology in disguise.
If a billionaire was the only person left on the planet his/her money would be likely used to keep them warm during the long cold winters. What else would the paper pile be good for with no one else there?
It is interesting to come across someone who says that they believe in God but don't believe he created the world. So many people who believe in God believe in a creator. It may depend on what people mean by the idea of God, and so many perceive God in a very anthropomorphic way but there are other ways of seeing God, like that of Spinoza or the Hindu idea of Brahman.
Also, the Buddhists speak of higher consciousness, but not as an actual deity, so it may be that when people try to think about the idea of God they come from a stereotypical way of thinking based on church going beliefs rather than more imaginative ones. With many spiritual ideas, including the concept of God, such ideas were sometimes based on esoteric ones, rather than those adhered to in mainstream religious understanding.
Now, what are you disagreeing with? Do you think I don't ,in fact, mean that by the term?
Er, I do. That's what I mean by the term. I'm an expert - the world's leading expert - on what I mean by the term 'God'. And that's what I mean.
Now, if YOU don't use the word 'God' in that way, why the hell would I care? All that means is that you use a word differently. Use it however the bloody hell you want. Use it to refer to your own bumhole if you want. The point is that that's not how I am using it here. Here it means what I say it does. It's my thread. So if you want to understand what I am saying, then you need to understand that I mean by 'God' an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenvolent person, not your bumhole. Ok? Sheesh.
My use of the term is also not unusual. And Christians certainly believe in God so defined. Christians also believe other things about God. But precisely why is exactly what I am questioning here. So, don't tell me what Christians believe. I am questioning the rationality of believing those additional things.
So, for instance, I am clearly well aware that most Christians believe that God created the world. I am questioning the rationality of that, given that nothing the bible says commits them to that additional claim and that additional claim operates to make their view less, not more plausible.
I agree with the rest of what you said there, Ben, but I think this view of economics as mass psychology is too limited. Psychology is a significant part of it to be sure, but there are real ecological constraints at work that are equally, if not more important.
An example is inflation. The traditional wisdom was that if a government prints money and injects it into the economy, that will cause inflation because there are is a certain quantity of available goods and services, and now, with more money available, more demand, which will push the prices up. But this is true only if there is not enough supply to meet demand, because if there is enough supply then there will be no incentive for people to pay more.
"Day" in Genesis is only taken by fundamental creationists to be literally a twenty four hour day. Most Christians today accept an evolutionary account of God's creation. In any case, what could a twenty four hour day even mean prior to the existence of human time measurement and the revolutions of the Earth they are based upon? What could such a paltry "day" mean to a God busy creating the heavens and the Earth?
If you don't make the very implausible assumption that God spoke literal cultural and context-independent meanings to humanity through the prophets and scribes who wrote the books of the Bible, then the question as to the relation of God's days to our days, and God's created heaven and Earth to our Heaven and Earth, and consequently your whole argument is moot; the Book of Genesis just represents a cosmological speculation made by those who were entirely innocent of our current scientific understanding of the universe.
Now, if you want you can insist that every single word in Genesis - hell, every single word anywhere - means something different. But that'd be unbelievably stupid and unjustified, yes?
Yes you're absolutely right I didn't include that in the phrase: economics is mass psychology and the finite resources under its behaviour/influence.
I think most scriptures are intended to be interpreted metaphorically not literally. Parables, like children's stories, don't neccesarily have to refer to an actual event that ever occurred.
I doubt three little pigs ever built three different home, however the underlining message of "strength in numbers, and acknowledging the wisdom of others when due" is very applicable.
In the same way the most fundamental basics and meanings (specific details/exacting words aside) of all scriptures in most if not all religions has validity.
We must remember that the messages they wrote were culture/time dependent. They were written for, and read by, people of that time. They didn't have our modern day science and tech that discredits what's "literally written" but not what underlies figuratively .
Also let's not forget these books are seriously old. Like pre-printing press by thousands of years so they've been hand transcribed hundreds of times. Perhaps a lot of nonsense and errors were added in, in that time no, adding to the modern day ludicrousness?
Language evolves too so the meaning of words changes, some become obsolete, and new ones emerge making the text ever more interpretative and less accurate.
That's totally fine. Based on how you use the term - I disagree. I don't think a person can be omnipotent (they can't create stars, levitate or teleport), they can't be omnipresent (as they are a singular finite object) and they can't know everything that has ever occurred is occurring or ever will occur (they don't know what Janet just called her new baby across the world).
This concept of a God is absurd. I'm sure there are better versions of a god that could exist.
Makes more sense then to move on now that we agree that that idea is absurd and discuss better description and parameters we could give to such a term that seem more reasonable and plausible, more clout for argument.
With what?
Quoting Benj96
Read the OP and try and focus on what it is about.
Reminds me of an oft-used signage in corner-shops:
"IN GOD WE TRUST. EVERYONE ELSE PAYS CASH."
These points are, of course, too subtle for the likes of you.
Quoting Bartricks
Ooops, I gave you too much credit again ... just more fatuous gibberish. You ought to try reading your bible, kid ...
[quote=KJV, Genesis 1:1]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.[/quote]
[quote=KJV, Isaiah 45:12]I have made the earth, and created man upon it ...[/quote]
[quote=KJV, Job 38:4]Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.[/quote]
Etcetera.
And just for holy shits-n-giggles, this good ol' oldie derived from said "bible":
[quote=Nicene Creed (Theodore of Mopsuestia, 325 CE)]I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible [ ... ][/quote]
I mean, I'd rather not.. butt... If you say so. :p
Quoting Bartricks
Yes I understand, I didn't mean to offend or anything I was merely following what I thought to be the logical implications of such a God as you described. I don't know about the others here I was just trying to add some different viewpoints for you to consider in your quest to personally understand better the God you believe in. As I assume is the reason you're here right?
But of course you're allowed to consider or reject whatever ideas you wish.
Quoting Bartricks
I didn't think I had. I apologise again if you feel I overstepped. Personally I think Christianity has a good deal of very useful and insightful points and I try to respect religions and those that believe in them.
But I'm a little confused is all as to why one would start a philosophical thread on the subject - presumably to discuss with others, but then get personal when they express their views. They're just opinions, some more reasonable than others I would imagine.
I don't think "my bumhole" as you launched off about has any place in a formal/ academic discourse.
Im trying to afford you the respect you deserve to speak your mind here on the forum. I think it's only fair I am permitted the same in return.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Luke 6:31 - a great one from Christianity.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/754305
So, read the OP - you clearly didn't, or you lack the understanding necessary to appreciate what it said - and then realize how your previous post made no sense whatsoever.
Do that. Or go away. Or post little crying with laughter faces. That's the only form these interactions between us take, for you have nothing to say, right?
This is about the coherence and plausiblity of Christianity.
And what I am arguing is that there is no reason for a Christian to make a certain claim - a claim that they almost invariably do make. And that claim is that the world is God's creation.
I don't want a psychological or historical explanation of why Christians typically make that claim.
THis is a philosophy thread. So I am only interested in philosophical reasons.
There are three broad philosophical reasons why CHristians might think they need to make the claim. First, that it is made in the bible and they are committed to the view that the bible is a source of insight into how things are.
So I pointed out that it is not in the bible. The claims made in the bible do not explicitly refer to this place and could plausibly - much more plausibly, given their content -be about somewhere else.
Another reason is because it may be thought to be implied by the divine attributes. I explained why that is not so.
The third reason, is that certain arguments for God - such as the first-cause and design arguments - posit God as the cause of all else. But those are bad arguments and anyway a CHristian is not logically compelled to endorse them.
Now, again: read the OP and say something relevant to it or go away.
Quoting Bartricks
Is coherence and plausibility not much the same idea? And Christianity a subtype under the umbrella of theism? These two sentences seem to me to be a contradiction with one another.
Quoting Bartricks
On the contrary, I believe the very fact we are arguing is a contradiction. You are contradicting me and I'm contradicting you because we believe different things. So yes, contradiction is involved here.
Quoting Bartricks
Okay and you have your three reasons that you outlined after that assertion, all of which you don't believe/discredit.
So you already have your own answer no?
Why ask others if you already know? No matter what I say it seems I'm consistently failing to focus on your thread.
Quoting Bartricks
Oh look, another person who is apparently "failing to focus on your thread" . Bartricks perhaps, if everyone seems to you like they're not following your OP, perhaps it's worth considering that they actually are following it, and in fact you're just not listening to anyone, instead getting personal and a bit judgemental towards the other philosophers here.
Would you prefer to tell me what I think for me, or entertain new ideas?
Are you Christian? And is this issue you have with the claim of god being a first cause/creator reason enough in your mind not to be Christian anymore? If so, again I think you already have the answer you wanted. I don't see why I can help because I can only offer my interpretations not your own ones back at you (it wouldn't even be useful as you already know them).
For example, you've just asked if I am a Christian. Now, I said I wasn't, didn't I?
So that means the answer to that question is 'no'. See?
And this thread is not - not - a request for historical or psychological explanations of why most Christians believe that God created the world.
This is a philosophy thread.
So, clearly what I am wondering is if there is any philosophical reason why a Christian should believe such a thing.
And then I explained why I think there is no philosophical reason why a Christian should beleive such a thing and good philosophical reason why they should not.
And then you said something irrelevant, namely that the concept of God is incoherent. That's not true, but it is also not relevant. It's like blurting that England is bigger than France. That's not true and it is also not relevant.
Okay. Lol. Bartricks = not Christian. I got it.
Quoting Bartricks
Okay no historical explanations. No psychological explanations. Check. Got it.
Quoting Bartricks
Sorry I guess they can't then. No historical references are allowed. Nor psychological ones. They aren't allowed to cite what others believed historically (religious or philosophical, sorry plato, artistotle, Augustine, and all religious figures I guess and also those that were religious and philosophical (like Augustine) etc) nor are they allowed to think from their own point of view (psychological explanations).
So no. Can't offer a reason when all possible means to do so have been restricted/ denied.
Happy?
You have your answer.
Now you can continue to throw personal attacks and degrade my character or ability to philosophise if you want to resort to that. That's your perogative. But I suggest that perhaps you ought not to as that goes against the community guidelines.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/754305
Well, This suggests that the reporter of the Genesis fable was indeed a human who was familiar with the human invention of a 24h day. But how long would it take for a god to create a singularity? What was the 'had a rest' on the 7th day all about? An omni that needs a rest? What about time dilation? Were these 6 days based on an absolute universal time reference frame?
This universe continues to demonstrate change, it seems this creator was unable to 'finish the job,' and create a steady state universe which is not entropic.
This is just another of many bar tricks mad cap, attention seeking, threads that he/she/hesh needs to post to satisfy a need to type anonymous nonsense. I actually have no problem with his/her/hesh conjured supernatural omni, not being responsible for creating this universe. Atheists have been suggesting this universe has no god creator for years. Glad bar tricks wants to try, in his/her/hesh mad way, to help them in their cause
If the bizarre god characters bar tricks conjures in his/her/hesh mind, are too busy, involved on their own projects, not related to this universe or they/it is just 'hanging around,' as non-productive omnis, who had no responsibility for this world, and they don't exist anyway, then we can all simply ignore the OP and move to more interesting threads.
Abortrix seems to have aborted the mission, hard to figure out what motivates that boy...
As Tom Waits sings in "God's Away On Business":
[i]I'd sell your heart to the junkman baby
For a buck, for a buck
If you're looking for someone to pull you out of that ditch
You're out of luck, you're out of luck
The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking
There's a leak, there's a leak, in the boiler room
The poor, the lame, the blind
Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves, and lawyers
God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business. Business.
God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business. Business.
Digging up the dead with a shovel and a pick
It's a job, it's a job.
Bloody moon rising with a plague and a flood
Join the mob, join the mob
It's all over
It's all over
It's all over
There's a leak, there's a leak in the boiler room
The poor, the lame, the blind
Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves, and lawyers
God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business. Business.
God's away,
God's away on Business. Business.
[Instrumental Break]
God damn there's always such a big temptation
To be good, To be good
There's always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby
It's a deal, it's a deal
God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business. Business.
God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business. Business.
I narrow my eyes like a coin slot baby,
Let her ring, let her ring.
God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business.
God's away, God's away,
God's away on Business. Business.[/i]
To me, he's like Bob Dylan, good lyrics, awful voice. :smile:
Quoting Janus
Well, only his shrink knows that one, and perhaps the god(s) in his (since you suggested 'male' with your 'boy' label) head.
I look for character and resonance in singing voices, not purity of tone and pitch (although I'm not against that either, if character and resonance are there as well), so I don't have a problem with the likes of Leonard Cohen, Tom Waits and Bob Dylan.
Indeed - to me these are the great voices. Character, uniqueness, expression. Try to sing a Tom Waits song with a conventional 'good' voice and it almost disappears.
Have you seen this?
There's an OP. To challenge what I argued there you need either to show that it is essential to being an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person that one would create a world such as this one, or you need to argue that something in the bible commits the Christian to the view that this place - not 'a place', but this place specifically - was created by God. And don't just quote a passage without having read the OP.
No, because philosophy concerns human reason whereas God is conceived of as beyond human reason. The moment we start philosophizing a God who neatly fits into our conception of reason we are not talking about the God of Israel.
Sure, man. Just remember that the foundation of your faith is revelation, not reason. The figure of Jesus Christ, who is 100% God and 100% man, is your theological starting point. Now go philosophize.
If you want to philosophize about some first mover go ahead. Good luck getting to the God of Israel never mind Jesus.
Strangely, I can listen to Leonard Cohen's voice much more than I can Dylan or Tom Waits.
Cohen was a phenomenal lyrics writer. But I think every cover version I have heard of his songs like 'hallelujah' or 'everybody knows' sounds better to me than when Leonard sings it, I still own his 'best of' albums.
:lol: It would be so cool if bar tricks was typing this to the original Moses! :rofl:
Perhaps as a disembodied booming voice from a burning bush.
Even better if he added 'and thy mother and father were immoral for engaging in procreation. Betrayers of the antinatalist way!'
YEAH, ok bar tricks, I will stop typing off OP, before a mod insists, I refer to the content of the OP only.
Ok bro. It's nice to hear your Christianity is built on pure reason. You're a sharp one. :up:
Quoting Bartricks
Agree - but then how did the world get here? Did God (per your definition) set up the conditions that allowed the world to come into existence? Did God permit some other powerful entity to create the world? Or perhaps there is some other explanation?
Quoting Bartricks
I am not a biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that in the sentence "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." the phrase "the earth" is referring to the planet Earth that we all live on.
But since I am not a biblical scholar I am not an authoritative source to answer this question. But given that your question is directed at religious Christians, I suggest that you go to the source and pose your question to a religious Christian group. This site seems as good a place as any to find an appropriate place: Top 10 Bible Forums, Discussions and Message Boards
Quoting Bartricks I agree.
Quoting Bartricks
Here I suggest that you go to a Christian forum to get a more definitive answer to how actual religious Christians resolve this apparent discrepancy.
I like Jeff Buckley's 'Hallelujah', but comparing to Leonrad's version seems to me like comparing apples and oranges.
I asked because you quoted Genesis. And yet in the OP I explained why nothing in Genesis commits the Christian to the view that the account is an account of the creation of here. On the contrary, it seems quite obviously to be an account of the creation of somewhere else.
So, why did you quote Genesis at me when I had explained at length in the OP why Genesis is not evidence that God created the world?
I am arguing that they are mistaken. I keep saying: I am not asking for an account of why Christians typically believe what they believe. I am asking for a defence of it.
So,
1. If Genesis is an account of the creation of this place, then this place is approx. 6,000 years old
2. This place is approximately 5.54 billion years old
3. Therefore, Genesis is not an account of the creation of this place
And so on.
no. Whatever explanation the atheist gives, the Christian can give too if they wish. If there is no need to suppose that God created this place, then all options are open
I am not disagreeing with anything you said. We seem to be getting two issues mixed up.
Issue #1 Does the Bible account for the world as it is?
Quoting Bartricks
We agree.
Issue #2 How do Christians defend the belief that God created the world.
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
I'm not seeing much distinction between giving an account of something vs. defending it - in order to defend something you have to first give a clear explanation of what you're defending.
But either way, I'm agreeing with you. The only point I'm trying to make here is that you're highly unlikely to find anyone out here on TPF who will spend much time defending Christian beliefs. That's why I suggest that you go to a Christian forum - I'm sure you can find plenty of smart, informed, religious people who are willing to defend the belief that God created this place.
Quoting Bartricks
That was my reason for quoting the bible - I'm suggesting that there are such passages. But again - I'm not defending this. If you're looking for someone to explain/defend Christian beliefs you need to speak to people who actually believe this and are willing to defend their beliefs.
Just to repeat myself one more time - apart from your belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person (which is not relevant to your main points) I agreed with pretty much everything in your OP.
Well, in my view and experience Christians are often among the ablest philosophers and some of the very best philosophers have been Christians. And this is a philosphical issue. You don't think it is, but that's neither here nor there. I am interested - as I keep saying - in 'justificatory' reasons (aka epistemic reasons) not motivational reasons or explanatory reasons.
If I ask "why do you believe X" the question is ambiguous, as I could be inquiring about your motives or a literal explanation of how you came to believe it. Or I could be asking you to provide justifying reasons. If that question is asked in the context of a philosophy forum, then it should be taken as read that it is justificatory reasons that are being inquired after.
Quoting Bartricks
Has anyone given a decent response to your question? I don't have the time/energy to review the entire thread, but a quick scan shows this:
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
Have you gotten even one satisfactory response to your OP? Perhaps I overlooked one, but I don't think so.
Quoting Bartricks
So go out to a Christian forum.
Meanwhile - you still haven't responded to my last post on the AN thread. I'm really curious to see how you re-frame the Problem of Evil when your person is not omnibenevolent.
No. It wasn't a genuine question: I was defending a view and asking 'why' rhetorically - it was an invitation to those who think differently to defend their view against me.
Quoting EricH
It's a philosophical issue you....
Quoting EricH
What?
Quoting Bartricks
I will correct my previous statement:
Quoting EricH
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/755502
Yes Master. Advice to give you not will I.
What other explanation can there be? I am not Christian and I do not have a problem with the notion of an universal god. For me it is futile to argue the existence of "God" but really? how believable is the Christian explanation of God and creation? It just is not right to be forced to believe an unbelievable story of "God" and denied any other understanding of "God", disrespecting and possibly killing those who have different beliefs.
In this case, who is authority about "God" and what makes the authority legitimate? Are there any verifiable reasons for believing the Biblical explanation of Creation? Like can DNA test support the idea that a god made us of mud as opposed to believing in evolution? Do the Sumerian stories of Creation and the Flood support the truth of creation and people being made of mud, even though in the Sumerian stories it is a Goddess not a God who makes people with mud, just as the people made images of their own patron gods and goddesses.
Just how literal one wants to get with the Bible will depend on how you read it. There is hyperbole, figurative language, and stories. The Bible says the world has 4 corners. It says geocentrism is true. It says this at least to those who interpret it that way. Religious stories are all over the ancient world and creations claims are prominent
I think we can agree that creation stories are not intended to be anything like scientific truth. They are stories made up for psychological and social reasons. That is they are mythologies, even the Biblical story is mythology. At least 5 Biblical stories appear to be plagiarized from Sumerian stories. Abraham began in Ur a former Sumerian city with a Sumerian library.
And so far as I'm aware, these traditions generally prefigure robust philosophical or theological traditions, so the answer to why people posit or believe creation myths will come more from sociology/anthropology or psychology than from philosophy or theology: most philosophical/theological justifications or defenses of creation myths being generally post-hoc and somewhat arbitrary.
But that is what the Reformation is about. The Reformation is putting an end to men tinkering with the Bible and creating a religion that deviates from God's truth.
This is also a matter of logic. Higher-order thinking skills prepare individuals for abstract thinking. In the past, well-educated people were taught higher-order thinking skills. Those without this education think literally. It is exactly as the Bible says it is and it is not up to individual interpretation. That was what was wrong with the authority of the Catholic church, individuals in authority wrongly interpreted the Bible, so lay people had to learn how to read the Bible for themselves, so no one could get away with misrepresenting God's truth.
One more thing- where does deciding what the Bible means, stop? Do Baptists believe in demons and angels and how much is Satan a part of the religion? How about slavery? Does the Bible justify slavery or make slavery taboo? What are the boundaries of deciding truth for oneself?
The Christian 'sects' cannot even decide if they believe in monotheism or not.
An angel or a demon or even an Islamic jinn are not humans, so what are they?
Is Satan a lesser god? are angels, demons, jinn's etc lesser gods compared to humans?
If so, then Christianity's monotheistic claims are open to question, are they not?
Perhaps they could claim there is a 'godhead'/leader/originator but, according to Christians, it seems to require not only deference to it but also to its other supernatural creations such as angels!
Well thank you. It seems to me denial is a large part of believing. I have heard and read that Satan played a much larger role in Christian beliefs than is so today. We stopped beating Satan out out of children. Christians did not see God as a loving God instead of a jealous, revengeful and punishing God until our bellies were full and most of enjoyed a relative high degree of security. I find the Christian belief totally confusing. How can anyone know if it is Satan making their lives miserable or God punishing them?
Why does Jesus keep referring to his Father in heaven, if he is that Father, and if he is not that Father, there is more than one god and that is a blasphemous idea because the defining characteristic of Christianity is monotheism. I believe Hebrews were okay with many gods. Why else would God be a jealous god if there were none to compete with Him.
And please, what is the logic of breaking away from Judaism, God's favorite people, who know God's word and claiming Christians somehow have the authority to change the rules? Hey that could make a good discussion? This subject could look like a dog chasing its own tail. Christians correct Judaism, Protestants correct Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Many, many new comers come in with better protestant explanations of God's truth and are Mormons Christians or something else? Is a Catholic a Christian? Like I said, it can all be rather confusing.
As I understand it, Baptists leave interpretations and matters of faith to each individual church, so they vary wildly. In America they tend to be blunted literalists in many places.
I was taught that the Bible is a man-made compilation of allegories containing both good and bad ideas. We were taught there's no satan, slavery is wrong, women are equal and that Christianity could be abused like any idea. It looked towards progressive politics rather than an ossified text for guidelines about culture and society.
Let me give you some flavour of the kids of things we were taught from my favourite (now dead) American Episcopalian bishop, John Shelby Spong.
Personally I was never able to believe in god/s, even as a child. I've never had a sensus divinitatis and the idea of theism was never coherent to me. I only got interested in the arguments used to prove or disprove god because the apologists thought reason could be aggressively mustered in their defence.
You are engaging in what fundamentalist theism is most afraid of, reason and rationale, and in doing so, you add to my hope for the future of our species.
Don't doubt or question, keep their faith! Believe and be saved (after you die) or be dammed eternally!
That's the theist 'trump' card! You have to sit in the dark, alone, knowing that one day you must die, and you must tackle your own primal fears and your overwhelming, inherent, survival instinct, against that currently inevitable fate. This makes many folks engage in Pascals wager.
No atheist can guarantee you the peace and unawareness of oblivion. They can only use evidence such as all of time before you were born. You were aware of no existence before you were born so why would you be aware of time passing after you die?
So, which path will you choose?
For me, I truly believe that all human lives are formed from that which is OF THE UNIVERSE.
Gods have and still have no existents at all.
We are of the universe, not in the panpsychist sense, nor did the universe have any intent to create YOU, or ME as in the person of you or me.
YOU are a 'happenstance' but WE were always potential happenstances, as we did come to be.
Our lives are unique, we will disassemble and become 'spare parts' again.
BUT, In this sense, we are all part of each other.
I find great personal contentment in that. My life has purpose, meaning, value and a spectacular sensation of wonderment. I want to contribute to secular, humanist, socialist, democratic progress in everyway I can, as long as I live.
That is the legacy I want, but my revered remembrance, is not a pre-requisite, of my want for such a legacy.
I see nothing in theism that offers me more. Science and transhumanism are the only avenue that could offer me more options, than I have now. Prayer, is forlorn bullshit by comparison, in my opinion.
As Lawrence Krauss once stated, alongside Richard Dawkins when debating with theists.
'If you are choking, I can either perform the Heimlich manoeuvre on you ,or I can pray for you, which would you prefer?'
:rofl:
Si comprhenedis non est Deus.
I may still be in the church with a leader like John Shelby Spong. I struggled with superstitious fears when I was young and this became an extremely serious part of my life when I was in my early 30's. That is an age of transition and for some of us, it is a very difficult time. I had to make a choice, either I was possessed by the devil or all those boogieman stories of the devil and demons were false beliefs and in reality, I am 100% responsible for what I do. I am very glad I decided those superstitious ideas were false. However, at that time Satanism became very popular and some years later, my daughter had a friend who went to prison with another friend for their satanic killing of one of the girls. And I have seen other people suffering because of false beliefs. I am not so sure freedom of religion is 100% a good thing. Religion and ignorance can be a terrible mix.
That is not the only problem I see with religion. Our education and justice systems are very seriously hindered by religious notions and this is a serious problem for a democracy.
LOL, I am a registered organ donor, but for that to work, one must die in the hospital and that is not something we can always arrange. Hit me with a truck and make my brain dead and get me to the hospital while my blood is still circulating so my organs can live on in other people. Or I consider my mitochondria that has given me life and dying someplace where the birds and other creatures might consume my mitochondria and give it life.
I think it is sad that we all do not have a sense of oneness with the universe. Those who fear the eternal publishment of a god are the most sad. What can separate us from the universe other than our own ego? If we are willing to surrender our ego then what is left but the universe?
However, I come with western individualism and a mandate to have a meaningful life and that comes with ego. I think that might be a good thing for while we are here. For me, it is a lot more fun than thinking my life does not matter.
I think reincarnation is a possibility and I would choose a different life experience than the one I have had because if there is an "I" it would be nice for it to have many experiences and expand its consciousness and hopefully make it more useful. But if I just quietly become one with the universe that is okay. There will be no "I" to be unhappy about that. Is that line of reasoning logical?
So true. We are very much shaped by our time in history. I love to think of myself as a hippy. My mother sang for USO shows and was the ideal pinup girl. My grandmother devoted her life to defending democracy in the classroom from the first world war and through the second one. I carry my mother and grandmother with me.
Oh, oh have you heard the saying that when we meet someone we come a little part of that person's life and that person becomes a little part of us?
Totally :heart: we are part of something bigger than ourselves. We need to spread this as religions are spread. I think we can succeed if we bring back the consciousness of the Enlightenment and Athens. For sure Athens was not ideal in all ways but it opened the door to our greater human potential when it gave life to Apollo, the concept of reason.
Aristotle argued with his teacher Plato and both have strongly influenced our consciousness. Who would want to stop our intellectual growth with Socrates, Plato's teacher, or Platto, or even stop with Aristotle? Aristotle was not 100% right and his notion that the universe circles the earth was wrong and without Nicolaus Copernicus, and then Bacon turning Aristotle's reasoning upside, we would not have the modern world we have today and this reality is much more capable of the meeting the needs of a huge world population than the authority of old.
The Athenians' difference is one of reasoning and questioning and even arguing with the teacher, the authority. Our mandate is to learn and question and argue, always searching for the best reasoning, rather than be submissive to authority that stops progress. That is the east and west divide.
Quoting Athena
What more can one ask for? Individual human morality can invoke as high a standard as anything suggested in the bible.
Quoting Athena
Quoting Athena
:clap: You smashed it, you saw through the bullshit, you denied the demons they tried to convince you existed and you called their bluff. Satan, God, Jinn, Demons, Angels, Hell, are all powerless fantasies.
I challenge all of them, to affect me. I exist! so I am much more powerful than any of them. Only objects in the material/physical universe can affect me.
Quoting Athena
The evil that people are capable of is terrifying. The human mind can become very sick indeed, we need to find better preventions and cures, as praying just does not work.
Quoting Athena
There is no question that you, me and every other person is part of the universe. It is my 'universeness.' Most of what you are made of is a result of supernova explosions. The death of stars meant that you could become.
How spectacular is that? I am made of starstuff not godstuff! Yeehaaaaa!
You think the only possible explanation for the external world is God?!?
Why on earth would you think that?
And second, you also think - incoherently - that God does not exist.
So, er, you think the external world doesn't exist? Or do you not see the contradiction in your beliefs?
:rofl:
:lol: Finally, something! :joke:
Yeah, Well done! You made Bar tricks say something nice about you!
Bartricks says really interesting stuff. He cuts through the noise to get at the signal. I only hope there's a signal waiting out there for him. Good luck Bartricks.
:grin: Wheras, I think Bar tricks helps make most of the noise! But I am glad he has some fans!
Sure, I get it. I like to attend the mad hatters tea party sometimes.
How can you appreciate sense if you cant play with nonsense.
What is God? What is the external world? I believe the universe exists. I think I believe energy continues to flow from the center of the universe but I have not gotten enough information to have confidence in what I think.
I do have confidence that the Bible is written by people and to me, its explanation of God is not believable.
You have said that you do not believe in God.
You have also said that you do not think that there could be any other explanation for the world apart from God.
So, you believe a contradiction. That's dumb. That is, you believe something - the world - exists and that it could only possibly exist if God exists, but you believe God does not exist. Jeez. Join. The. Dots.
Excuse me. You do not know Athena do you.
Quoting Laurie Parrish, Lynette Delp, Alex Klinkhardt, Stephanie Palmer
It is not a good idea to piss off any of the gods, and certainly not a good idea to piss Athena off. Now do you want to talk about ignorance? Being disrespectful as you were in your opening line, is an obvious sign of ignorance. Do you want to try again, or should we just ignore each other?
If your god is believable or not is up for question. However, there could be no manifest reality without logos.
Ok, I'll play God's advocate: God created this world because he couldn't have done differently. Not creating this world would be logically inconsistent because he would not have created the world he has created.
Then he wouldn't be omnipotent. God is by definition omnipotent. So God can do anything. That includes refraining from creating a world.
Quoting litewave
That's flagrantly question begging. I've explained that it isn't inconsistent. An omnipotent person can do anything - so that means they do not 'have' to do anything. Thus, there is nothing in the idea of omnipotence that commits one to believing that an omnipotent being created everything. There can be an omnipotent person, and there can be a ton of other stuff, and the omnipotent person can have created none of it. If you think that, logically, omnipotence involves creating this world, then you need to provide an argument.
It gets worse, not only does omnipotence not positively imply that God created the world, omnibenevolence positively implies God did not create it.
But even an omnipotent being can't create a logically inconsistent object because such an object cannot exist, for example a square circle.
Quoting Bartricks
Reality must be logically consistent, which means that it cannot be what it is not. God's action is a part of reality, which means that God's action cannot be what it is not, and so if God creates a world he cannot not create it.
Quoting Bartricks
Then God creates the best worlds that are logically possible (consistent).
Yes they can. They can do anything, including things that violate the laws of logic.
Anyway, it's beside the point, for it is clearly not a violation of the laws of logic to refrain from creating something. I, right now, am refraining from doing lots of things. I am not thereby violating the laws of logic. Similarly, God can refrain from creating anything. Thus, nothing in the idea of God entails that God has created the world. That's true whether one understands omnipotence correctly as the ability to do anything whatsoever, or incorrectly, as the ability to do that which is logically possible.
Quoting litewave
That's not an argument. You've just said 'reality must be consistent......therefore God has created the world'. How on earth does that follow? Peas are legumes. Therefore God created peas. It doesn't make sense.
Quoting litewave
You're not following. 'If' God created a world, then he would create the best world. This isn't the best world, is it?! Therefore, God did not create it.
There can't be such things. If there were, there wouldn't be.
Quoting Bartricks
Right, but sometimes it would be. It is not a violation of the laws of logic for a circle to exist, but it would be a violation of the laws of logic if the circle existed in a set of triangles. Similarly, it would be a violation of the laws of logic if you refrained from doing something in a world where you don't refrain from doing it.
Quoting Bartricks
No, I didn't.
Quoting Bartricks
I don't know. But maybe an omnibenevolent God would create top 10 best worlds and this is one of them?
If God exists, there can be. I've already explained why. If someone is omnipotent, they're able to do anything. If there was something they couldn't do, they wouldn't be omnipotent. So, ironically, you're the one with the logically incoherent view: you think an omnipotent person can exist and be unable to do some things. That's a contradiction. A person who can do anything exists and can't do some things. That's what you're saying. That's actually incoherent.
What I am saying is that God exists and can do anything and that he hasn't created the world.
Quoting litewave
You said if God created the world, then God created the world. Er, yes. And?
The issue is whether God created the world. Saying 'if he did, he did' is a pointless platitude that doesn't address the issue.
Quoting litewave
Again, you don't seem to understand what the issue is.
If God exists, God did not create the world. Now, try and focus on the issue.
But a square circle is not really something. It is nothing. In mathematics it is the content of empty set.
Quoting Bartricks
It's a consistent proposition. You suggest that an inconsistent proposition can be true: "If God created the world, then God didn't create the world." The point is: God's actions are parts of reality and reality must be logically consistent, which means identical to itself. If the action of God's creation of this world is a part of reality then it is so necessarily because otherwise reality would not be identical to itself. Everything that happens in reality, happens necessarily. God's free will is at best compatibilist because no other free will is coherent.
Quoting Bartricks
You said that this is not the best possible world. I say that even if this is not the best possible world, it may still have been created by an omnibenevolent God. Because an omnibenevolent God may have created the 10 best possible worlds and our world may be one of them. But who knows, maybe our world is the best possible one, who are we to say it isn't? How do you define the best possible world? I would imagine it's a world that somehow maximizes happiness across the whole spacetime, and so suffering at some time may enable more happiness at another time.
It's not nothing - it's a square circle. It'd be a thing if it existed. God is not bound by logic, for God is its creator. But anyway, you're still missing the point as 'refraining from creating a place such as this' is not something forbidden by logic.
So, I am saying that God has not done X. And what you are doing is claiming - falsely and irrelevantly - that God cannot do Y. No, God can do Y. But the issue is whether God has done X.
Now, has God created this world? No. Is that logically consistent? Yes. You've so far said nothing to show it not to be.
Your 'argument' otherwise keeps changing. You have said that anything God does he does in reality. Er, yes. So?
I didn't just make a painting. Ok? A painting was just made. But I didn't make it.
In this analogy I am God and the painting is the world we're living (don't respond 'but the world isn't a painting - that'd be thicker than a thick thing on thick day. So don't. Needless to say 99% of the people on this site would respond in that manner).
So, something happened - a painting was made - but I didn't make it.
Do I have the power to make a painting? Yes. But I didn't exercise it.
Your response? "But anything Bartricks does, Bartricks does in reality".
Er, yes. I know. But I didn't make the painting that exists. I could have done. But I didn't.
Your response?
"But if Bartricks creates something, he creates the best".
Er, yes, I know. But I didn't create the painting.
"But if Bartricks creates something, he might create 10 of the best".
Yes, I might. But I didn't create the painting. Why are you having trouble understanding what I am saying? I didn't create the painting. This painting: this one. I didn't create it.
Quoting litewave
That's just some random claims strung together. It doesn't engage with anything i have argued . You're just saying stuff.
It's existence or nonexistence has no importance to us then, we should focus on trying to find out how this world and this universe was created, and ignore questions about who or what did not create it.
You ask if Christianity has a sound philosophical reason for believing God created the world.
I surmise Christianity makes a metaphysical commitment to creation of the world by a conscious, intelligent designer.
By this belief, existence has an innate design and also a purpose that gives the bible a role to play as teacher and guide to humanity regarding how it should live its life.
Evidence of the Christian commitment to creation by intelligent design is opposition by some Christians to evolution without a supernatural intelligent designer.
This reveals another aspect of the Christian metaphysical commitment. It says life creation is peer-to-peer, meaning life only from prior life.
This opposes some physicalist persons who posit life arising from lifeless organic compounds sparked by lightning into life.