Thought Experiment

[JohnDB]

In this experiment, there was no universe and therefore nothing existed 11 minutes ago. No matter, no energy, no physical space.

Then God created the universe 10 minutes ago, exactly as it is right now, with all the evidence it's billions of years old built-in, with the light from distant stars created in transit, and us with all our memories of a lifetime in place.

Now...how could you disprove this? NOTE: Emotions are not proof. Hostility to God and insistence He's not real is not proof.

Well, there's this whole personal relationship thing.
I have a relationship with my wife...
I have a relationship with my son
Parents, in-laws, cousins, Aunt's, Uncle's and etc.
I have many friendships as well...
I behave in a fashion of relationship with them and they reciprocate in a similar fashion...

And that includes my relationship with God.
Not that it's really all that comfortable when I gain a bit more of His attention than normal...
Its a bit scary to have focus from the One who can do anything and is beyond perfect.

 

[sear]

It's an allegorical account just as the tower of babel and the account of the flood are allegorical accounts.

That's a very constructive way to interpret it.
The problem is:
once we open the flood-gates of interpretation, it's off to the races.

"spare the rod, spoil the child"
Rod was the staff shepherds used to guide their flock, to protect them from danger.
But there have been many accounts of this bible passage used to justify beating children with a stick.

No need for you tell me what I already know. Holy scripture for those in sincere quest for spiritual growth can be constructive. But history reminds us the divine imprimatur also has vast capacity to do harm.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." sometimes attributed to Seneca the Younger (c.3 BCE - CE 65)

 

[ding]

That's a very constructive way to interpret it.
The problem is:
once we open the flood-gates of interpretation, it's off to the races.

"spare the rod, spoil the child"
Rod was the staff shepherds used to guide their flock, to protect them from danger.
But there have been many accounts of this bible passage used to justify beating children with a stick.

No need for you tell me what I already know. Holy scripture for those in sincere quest for spiritual growth can be constructive. But history reminds us the divine imprimatur also has vast capacity to do harm.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." sometimes attributed to Seneca the Younger (c.3 BCE - CE 65)

The key point of Genesis Chapter 1 is that God created everything. A key distinction between polytheism and monotheism.

 

[sear]

Yes.
But many scholars assert the earliest, most original texts don't use the word - god - singular, but plural. I've got no dog in that fight. Which ever you like, fine with me.
But let's not pretend Genesis is purely monotheistic. The scholarship I've read of it indicates gods, plural.

 

[JohnDB]

Yes.
But many scholars assert the earliest, most original texts don't use the word - god - singular, but plural. I've got no dog in that fight. Which ever you like, fine with me.
But let's not pretend Genesis is purely monotheistic. The scholarship I've read of it indicates gods, plural.

Seraph is singular... Seraphim is plural.
Eloh is singular...Elohim is plural.

So in that you are correct.
But Hebrew is a metaphoric language...
definitions are not exactly what you want.

In this case " Elohim" is usually associated with "waters of waters of waters" which is usually translated loosely as "highest heaven' or just "Heaven" as in God created the HeavenS and Earth.

But also the root of the word "created" (bara) is a sort of verb form we don't have in English as that it demands a material to be mentioned.
You can bara a wooden box or a metal box...but you can't bara a box without mentioning a material.

In the beginning God bara the HeavenS and the Earth.....

Meaning that an implied "out of" is demanding a material.
But there isn't a material listed so the sentence is incomplete intentionally.
Meaning that God, plural in majesty, created everything out of nothing.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I've always chuckled at the moxie Christian-attackers will display when they say "HA.. EARTH IS BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD"... not realizing that the people who they are attacking believe in an omni-potent God who can create and manipulate matter.

However, that official position of Catholicism is Intelligent Design. The Big Bang was created by a Catholic Priest. So many Christian-attackers think all Christians believe the earth is 10,000 years old. That's not even widely held in the split, broken Protestant realm.

But, it's easy to attack.. so, yea, they apply it to all of us without asking us if it's what we believe.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

In this experiment, there was no universe and therefore nothing existed 11 minutes ago. No matter, no energy, no physical space.

Then God created the universe 10 minutes ago, exactly as it is right now, with all the evidence it's billions of years old built-in, with the light from distant stars created in transit, and us with all our memories of a lifetime in place.

Now...how could you disprove this? NOTE: Emotions are not proof. Hostility to God and insistence He's not real is not proof.

Interesting experiment. Nobody can disprove it. Nobody can prove a God-less evolution, and why we would have a conscious without God's intervention. We'll never know.. and that's fine for people of faith. The anti-faith folk will largely continue to lie about how their belief is proven even though it flies in the face of all the physical rules we've observed in our universe.

 

[ding]

Yes.
But many scholars assert the earliest, most original texts don't use the word - god - singular, but plural. I've got no dog in that fight. Which ever you like, fine with me.
But let's not pretend Genesis is purely monotheistic. The scholarship I've read of it indicates gods, plural.

I am not sure why scholars would question 4,000 years of practicing monotheism.

Apparently everyone but those guys accepts that Abraham was the father of monotheism. And everyone accepts that Abraham's beliefs were diametrically opposite to the beliefs of his day which was polytheism. That rather than many gods who control different parts of nature and meddles in the affairs of men, that there was only a Creator who was responsible for creating everything. That what they saw wasn't created all at once but evolved over time in steps. And that man was a product of that creation. That man arose from that creation. That that creation wasn't created from anything which was pre-existing. That what was created was created from nothing. These are long held beliefs. Read Maimonides. Read the catechism of the Catholic Church. Read up on creation ex nihilo. It's all in there.

Ever since the beginning of man there have been two views; the universe is eternal or the universe was created. It's actually pretty cool that ancient man knew ~6,000 years before science did that the universe was created from nothing.

 

[sear]

#85: God, plural in majesty, created everything out of nothing.

And what was the name of the eye witness that provided this report?

 

[JohnDB]

And what was the name of the eye witness that provided this report?

How do you determine that someone is regularly truthful?

What standards do you use?
How do you define "good"? Where did that definition come from?

 

[sear]

ancient man knew ~

The story tellers among men of ancient time, told stories that avoided pitfalls just as ours do today.
Tell a story about using pre-existing materials, and it's no longer a tale of creation. See?

ancient man knew ~

Nope. But we can easily understand why they'd be heckle averse.

a) How do you determine that someone is regularly truthful?

b) What standards do you use?
c) How do you define "good"? Where did that definition come from?

a) "Regularly"? To know that one would have to examine a sample that would satisfy this "regularly" parameter. I'm not sure I'd have the patience for that even with a hot chick. So if you meant me, I don't / wouldn't.
b) Verification.
c)
good (gd)

Share:​

adj. bet·ter (bĕtər), best(bĕst)
1. Being positive or desirable in nature

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: good

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: good

ahdictionary.com

I revere OED, but for American English strongly prefer AHD.

 

[Blues Man]

In this experiment, there was no universe and therefore nothing existed 11 minutes ago. No matter, no energy, no physical space.

Then God created the universe 10 minutes ago, exactly as it is right now, with all the evidence it's billions of years old built-in, with the light from distant stars created in transit, and us with all our memories of a lifetime in place.

Now...how could you disprove this? NOTE: Emotions are not proof. Hostility to God and insistence He's not real is not proof.

How can you prove it?

 

[sear]

How can you prove it?

Indeed, there's no such thing as a burden of disproof.
It's left to those making the extraordinary claims to provide proof.
Granted, it's only been several millennia. Perhaps it will take them some time to organize their thoughts on the matter.

But after all this time, all the synagogues, mosques, & churches that have been built up, & then taken down (Earthquake, fire, whatever), after 100 generations of believers in a clamor to justify their religions, so far not a single shred of proof. It's just ancient myth.

“The debate between science and religion ended when churches put lightning rods on their steeples.” shiftless2

 

[ding]

The story tellers among men of ancient time, told stories that avoided pitfalls just as ours do today.
Tell a story about using pre-existing materials, and it's no longer a tale of creation. See?

It was how they recorded history and wisdom deemed important enough to pass down to the next generation. The answers to the origin questions were a part of it and most certainly are about creation.

Nope. But we can easily understand why they'd be heckle averse.

No idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[JohnDB]

The story tellers among men of ancient time, told stories that avoided pitfalls just as ours do today.
Tell a story about using pre-existing materials, and it's no longer a tale of creation. See?

Nope. But we can easily understand why they'd be heckle averse.

a) "Regularly"? To know that one would have to examine a sample that would satisfy this "regularly" parameter. I'm not sure I'd have the patience for that even with a hot chick. So if you meant me, I don't / wouldn't.
b) Verification.
c)
good (gd)

Share:​

adj. bet·ter (bĕtər), best(bĕst)
1. Being positive or desirable in nature

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: good

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: good

ahdictionary.com

I revere OED, but for American English strongly prefer AHD.

So...
You using a dictionary shows that you regard that book as being truthful.
Why do you see it as "good"?
In fact you went so far as to mention you prefer one type over the others (thereby declaring one more good over the others)

Again I ask you WHY?

 

[sear]

It was how they recorded history and wisdom deemed important enough to pass down to the next generation. The answers to the origin questions were a part of it and most certainly are about creation.

Very selective.
It's one of the methods used to archive stories, to retell them.
But other cultures did this too. You insinuate the word "important", attached to the methodology of mythopoeism.
Were the "important" stories told in ancient Asia, ancient Africa, or ancient America any less valid than your personal favorite?

No idea what you are trying to say here.

There were critics then as now.
So the stories that were shot down by critics are forgotten.
It's the stories that withstood superficial scrutiny that endured, until Galileo, etc.

You may not be aware of it d #94, but you are flailing.
You might find it more refined to pick a side based on science rather than emotion. Reinforcing prejudice is rarely covert.

Define the topic.
Consider the facts. Or in your case, consider the absence of facts.

 

[sear]

So...
You using a dictionary shows that you regard that book as being truthful.
Why do you see it as "good"?
In fact you went so far as to mention you prefer one type over the others (thereby declaring one more good over the others)

Again I ask you WHY?

Have you ever known a dictionary to lie?

"Words mean things." Rush Limbaugh

I use a dictionary for its intended use, to minimize my misuse of a word.

Why? Personal judgement. Why do you prefer one car, one movie, one textile over another? Look up "metaphysical" in Websters. Compare that definition to the definition in AHD.
Which do you prefer?
Why?

 

[JohnDB]

Have you ever known a dictionary to lie?

I use a dictionary for its intended use, to minimize my misuse of a word.

Why? Personal judgement. Why do you prefer one car, one movie, one textile over another? Look up "metaphysical" in Websters. Compare that definition to the definition in AHD.
Which do you prefer?
Why?

We are getting to my reasons which are very similar to yours. (This isn't a trick question...I don't play gotcha games)

So you believe that the group of people who make and publish certain dictionaries to be more truthful in their writings.

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[dblack]

In this experiment, there was no universe and therefore nothing existed 11 minutes ago. No matter, no energy, no physical space.

Then God created the universe 10 minutes ago, exactly as it is right now, with all the evidence it's billions of years old built-in, with the light from distant stars created in transit, and us with all our memories of a lifetime in place.

Now...how could you disprove this? NOTE: Emotions are not proof. Hostility to God and insistence He's not real is not proof.

I don't think I could disprove that. I have a unicorn stuffed up my ass that tells me the future. No one else can see it. Now... how could you disprove this?

 

[Blues Man]

We are getting to my reasons which are very similar to yours. (This isn't a trick question...I don't play gotcha games)

So you believe that the group of people who make and publish certain dictionaries to be more truthful in their writings.

How did you come to that conclusion?

All dictionaries are pretty similar. Thousands of years of language studies and documentation of usages are impossible to fake so as to invent new and different definitions for words that have been used for centuries