Zone1 Belief in God drops to 81 percent

[Ringtone]

Yes, it was, at least by Ussher. If you come up with young earth creation by a non-literal means, lay it out.

No, it wasn't!

Once again, Ussher's interpretation is not based on a literal reading of the text. It's based on a gratuitous, extrabiblical hermeneutical presupposition about the text.

Hello!

I'm trying to help see this for yourself, so you will stop further confounding the matter for nonbelievers. You've created a problem in your head that doesn't exist in the first place.

Look. This is you:

Nonbeliever: The Earth is not young.​

You: The Creation Hymn is not to be interpreted literally with respect to days and the biblical lineage.​

Nonbeliever: So you're weaseling out of a literal interpretation to make the Bible work?​

You: The Hebrew interprets to something different than that which is expressed in English translations.​

Nonbeliever: Really? How so? What does that mean? Wait! What?! Huh?!​

​

This is me:

Nonbeliever: The earth is not young.​

Me: The young Earth interpretation is not based on a literal reading of the biblical text but on Ussher's extrabiblical hermeneutical presupposition about the text.​

Nonbeliever: Really?​

Me: Yes, really. Ussher's extrabiblical presupposition about the text didn't even exist before the 17th Century. The Jews of antiquity and the early Christians read the text literally and understood that the Bible doesn't tell us anything about the age of the Earth, let alone anything about the age of the Universe. Now carefully and prayerfully read the text again without imposing things on the text that aren't there in the first place.​

​

END OF DISCUSSION​

​

Old Earth Creationists do not impose Ussher's presupposition. They read the text literally. They read what's written, adding nothing.

​

 

[Ringtone]

What are your own conclusions about the beginnings of the universe? That is my only question.

Please review:

The First Principle of Ontology or The Principle of Eternality:

1. Something exists rather than nothing.​

2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence.​

3. Hence, something has always existed.​

Existence arising from nonexistence would be absurd; indeed, a state of nonexistence in and of itself is an absurdity.

Scientifically, we have known for sure since the early 20th Century that the Universe is necessarily moving forward in time to a relatively greater and greater state of entropy (a greater and greater state of relative chaos or disorganization). This increasing state of entropy is routinely referred to as the arrow of time.

But let's go back a few centuries, to a time in history before we knew this scientifically.

Aside from the fact that their respective revelations told them that the Universe began to exist in the finite past, when at time-0 God ordered or spoke or willed the Universe into existence: how did the classical theist thinkers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam know that the Universe (the spacetime continuum of mater and energy) began to exist in the finite past; i.e., that the Universe could not be the eternal existent?

They knew just like everybody else knows that God exists, via the a priori imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principle of ontology as brought to bear on "the things that are made".

You claim that God's existence cannot be proven. That's a very strange thing for a Christian to say, given that your claim is utterly falsified by God's word:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . .​

Everybody knows, for example, that the First Principle of Ontology or the Principle of Eternality is necessarily true!

1. Something exists rather than nothing.​

2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence.​

3. Hence, something has always existed.​

Everybody knows that time moves forward, not backward. In order for the Universe to be the eternal existent, time would have to extend into the past forever. How could that be possible? If time were forever moving backward, it could never traverse the infinite past to reach the present, let alone the future. Yet here we are in the present, and each moment that goes by as I write this clause is the future.

Time could not move forward toward the future unless time had a beginning. The spacetime continuum of matter and energy (the physical world) began to exist in the finite past! In other words, an infinite regress of causality/temporality could not be traversed to the present unless there were a first, uncaused cause of causality/temporality. The fist, uncaused cause of the Universe cannot be the Universe. How could the Universe cause itself to exist before it existed? That would be an absurdity.

Hence, collectively, the imperatives of logic and mathematics, the fundamental laws of physics, and the first principle of ontology tell us that the Universe necessarily began to exist in the finite past and that God the Creator necessarily exists.

Absorb that, and then I'll tell you in more detail why it's also self-evident that the cause of the Universe's existence has to be a personal agent of incomparable power and greatness, namely God.

 

[surada]

No, it wasn't!

Once again, Ussher's interpretation is not based on a literal reading of the text. It's based on a gratuitous, extrabiblical hermeneutical presupposition about the text.

Hello!

I'm trying to help see this for yourself, so you will stop further confounding the matter for nonbelievers. You've created a problem in your head that doesn't exist in the first place.

Look. This is you:

Nonbeliever: The Earth is not young.​

You: The Creation Hymn is not to be interpreted literally with respect to days and the biblical lineage.​

Nonbeliever: So you're weaseling out of a literal interpretation to make the Bible work?​

You: The Hebrew interprets to something different than that which is expressed in English translations.​

Nonbeliever: Really? How so? What does that mean? Wait! What?! Huh?!​

​

This is me:

Nonbeliever: The earth is not young.​

Me: The young Earth interpretation is not based on a literal reading of the biblical text but on Ussher's extrabiblical hermeneutical presupposition about the text.​

Nonbeliever: Really?​

Me: Yes, really. Ussher's extrabiblical presupposition about the text didn't even exist before the 17th Century. The Jews of antiquity and the early Christians read the text literally and understood that the Bible doesn't tell us anything about the age of the Earth, let alone anything about the age of the Universe. Now carefully and prayerfully read the text again without imposing things on the text that aren't there in the first place.​

​

END OF DISCUSSION​

​

Old Earth Creationists do not impose Ussher's presupposition. They read the text literally. They read what's written, adding nothing.

​

This is the Jewish year 5782.

 

[Blues Man]

You're clouded by religious dogma.

Really?

I am not a subscriber to any religion.

 

[surada]

No, it wasn't!

Once again, Ussher's interpretation is not based on a literal reading of the text. It's based on a gratuitous, extrabiblical hermeneutical presupposition about the text.

Hello!

I'm trying to help see this for yourself, so you will stop further confounding the matter for nonbelievers. You've created a problem in your head that doesn't exist in the first place.

Look. This is you:

Nonbeliever: The Earth is not young.​

You: The Creation Hymn is not to be interpreted literally with respect to days and the biblical lineage.​

Nonbeliever: So you're weaseling out of a literal interpretation to make the Bible work?​

You: The Hebrew interprets to something different than that which is expressed in English translations.​

Nonbeliever: Really? How so? What does that mean? Wait! What?! Huh?!​

​

This is me:

Nonbeliever: The earth is not young.​

Me: The young Earth interpretation is not based on a literal reading of the biblical text but on Ussher's extrabiblical hermeneutical presupposition about the text.​

Nonbeliever: Really?​

Me: Yes, really. Ussher's extrabiblical presupposition about the text didn't even exist before the 17th Century. The Jews of antiquity and the early Christians read the text literally and understood that the Bible doesn't tell us anything about the age of the Earth, let alone anything about the age of the Universe. Now carefully and prayerfully read the text again without imposing things on the text that aren't there in the first place.​

​

END OF DISCUSSION​

​

Old Earth Creationists do not impose Ussher's presupposition. They read the text literally. They read what's written, adding nothing.

​

Ussher counted the begats.

 

[Ringtone]

This is the Jewish year 5782.

Indeed, the prevailing Jewish year is 5782, which harkens back to the year of Creation 3761 BC, not 3760 BC, by the way, due to the way the first day of each year is varyingly reckoned vis-a-vis the Jewish lunar calendar.

I have a Jewish Calendar.

But keep in mind, this is the year of Creation according to the 12th-Century Jewish philosopher Maimonides' calculi. Maimonides and Ussher assumed the same hermeneutical presupposition.

I'm sure a lot of observant Jews, like a lot of observant Christians, do not accept their presupposition.

 

[Ringtone]

Ussher counted the begats.

Yes, he did.

 

[Ringtone]

Really?

I am not a subscriber to any religion.

But you subscribe to some system of belief more or less religiously.

 

[Blues Man]

But you subscribe to some system of belief more or less religiously.

REally?

Which ones and to what extent?

You seem to know so much about what i think and do so that should be an easy question

 

[Dagosa]

why did you come on this thread out of nowhere talking trash to folks?

Because the arrogance of believers who want to control my life with a belief system ensconced in our Govt. is repulsive.
You don’t know shit.

 

[Dagosa]

in your instance why not just use a circle ...

Do a little research then. Also, research the Möbius band.

 

[Dagosa]

I've never had an experience with a fallen angel, and as I don't watch many movies, I haven't seen Fallen, either.

My great-uncle saw an angel once. After his mother died.

You asked. I told you. It’s a movie. Fakery.
No different then religion in general.

 

[Dagosa]

My belief is that we have a physical life and a life in the spirit. When our physical bodies die, they return to dust, and our spirit to our Creator. Therefore, I am not expecting a physical body to sit up and speak.

Then why do Christians use that as a foundation for a belief system, then want our entire system of Govt
Infiltrated with that influence. If you’re going to separate physical life from your belief in a spiritual life, fine. Let’s just stop starting and ending our governance in practice with a “ Lord’s Prayer”

 

[Meriweather]

Then why do Christians use that as a foundation for a belief system, then want our entire system of Govt
Infiltrated with that influence. If you’re going to separate physical life from your belief in a spiritual life, fine. Let’s just stop starting and ending our governance in practice with a “ Lord’s Prayer”

Without spirit, we would all be zombies. How does anyone's prayer affect you? How does even a group prayer affect you? Are you forced to pray?

 

[Meriweather]

You asked. I told you. It’s a movie. Fakery.
No different then religion in general.

People choose to live their lives in various ways. Some are more or less meticulous in following the Law of God given to Moses. Others are more or less meticulous in following the Way Christ taught. Etcetera. What about the Law or the Way is fake?

 

[Ringtone]

Because the arrogance of believers who want to control my life with a belief system ensconced in our Govt. is repulsive.
You don’t know shit.

Liar. I'm a classical liberal. I'm pretty sure you're a statist bootlick.

 

[Meriweather]

END OF DISCUSSION

Yes, I think it is. We seem to be talking past each other.

 

[Ringtone]

REally?

Which ones and to what extent?

You seem to know so much about what i think and do so that should be an easy question

You're stuck on the term religion. I'm talking about your worldview, your ideology and the like. Though I'm not saying you are necessarily, as I don't recall your politics at the moment, but don't tell me that rabid humanists, for example, are not raving statist religionists just because they don't pray to a deity as such. . . . For leftists, politics is their friggin' religion.

 

[Blues Man]

You're stuck on the term religion. I'm talking about your worldview, your ideology and the like. Though I'm not saying you are necessarily, as I don't recall your politics at the moment, but don't tell me that rabid humanists, for example, are not raving statist religionists just because they don't pray to a deity as such. . . . For leftists, politics is their friggin' religion.

You assume a lot.

And dogma, religion and philosophy are very different things.

Can one hold a personal philosophy without dogma?

Yes since dogma is more or less groupthink.

Dogma is a set of beliefs accepted without argument by members of a group. I personally do not accept anything without argument and as far as I know there isn't really any organized group of people that all hold my personal philosophy.

 

[Ringtone]

Yes, I think it is. We seem to be talking past each other.

Your resistance to objectively stepping back and regarding something outside your notion of what you've always thought to require a non-literal reading is obvious. The tension in your responses is palpable.

But your attitude is no, no, no, no, no before I've even shown it to you.