mart0224

I received an unsolicited email from a xian and have since embarked on a debate. He is from a xian group called Reasons to Believe. It seems to be a group of mostly scientists at its core. They claim that the bible is scientifically accurate and even mentions the Big Bang and multiple dimensions beyond the traditional four.

Part of his latest email is below.

In the first part about Genesis he seems to be playing word games. The usual stuff: day is not a day, 'let there be' does not mean created. He also avoided my argument that the earth was not created in the beginning as genesis states.

I don't quite know how to respond to the last part where he says one must have a world view to explain how science works otherwise one can't use science to explain anything. Seems like he is trying to back me into a corner here since his basis is god which I don't have. Also, I don't understand why a world view is necessary in order to use science. Am I missing something here? Why would my views on the origin of life and the universe be important as he states. It seems to me that science would tell me about these things. He seems to presuppose the existence of god, says god is part of the basis for his science, then uses science to prove god.

I would appreciate any input or comments.

Sorry about all of those black thingies. They are from his email and I don't know how to get rid of them.

Thanks.



[mart0224 wrote]
In the beginning means 13 billion years ago. The Bible very clearly says God created the earth in the beginning. The earth didn't form until over 8 BILLION years later. That means at the time the bible was written more than 2/3's of known time had passed. That's hardly the beginning. In fact it's closer to today than the beginning.
�*
Also Genesis says the earth was created before the sun, which we know is not true.
�*
The sun must have existed before the earth because its gravitational field was necessary for debris that would eventually form the earth to accumulate.
�*
Furthermore the early earth was a tumultuous place so there were no oceans on it until almost a billion years later, long after the sun formed.
�*
Please direct me to the Biblical verse that says creation took place over billions of years and not a matter of days.
�*
[He replies]
Bill, you bring up a number of very common misconceptions about the Genesis 1 account.�* I can only give very brief answers here but in the future, I can either provide a longer exposition or send you the book Genesis Question.
�*
In regards to Genesis 1:1, the phrase “the heavens and the earth�? is a special phrase that means that simply refers to everything--the entirety of physical creation.�* The technical term for this type of phrase is a “merism,�? where parts are used to refer the whole.�* A classic example of a merism, is the title “Alpha and Omega�? (found in book of Revelation).�* This title does not mean that God is two letters but is the first letter, the last letter, and everything in between.�* Thus, “The heavens and the earth�? includes the sun, moon, stars, earth, etc.�* So, Genesis 1:1 begins with the formation of the universe around 13 billion years ago, while Genesis 1:2 refers to a later time after the earth has been fully formed (perhaps about 4 billion years ago).
�*
The Bible does not claim that the sun was created after the earth, although this is a common interpretation even within the Church.�* The sun was created in Genesis 1:1, the light of the sun becomes visible on the surface of the earth on the first creation day and the sun, moon, and stars become fully visible on the fourth creation day.�* One of the main reasons for this confusion is that we tend to read every verse as creating something on each day, but this is not the case.�* Looking through the passage, you will see that a number of different verbs are used to describe God’s work and the word “create�? only occurs in three places.�* At the beginning of the first creation day and again on the fourth creation day, it simply reads “let there be.�?�* This is Hebrew word hayah and is a very broad word that simply means to appear or came to pass.�* The passage is not claiming that the sun was actually created on the fourth day, long after the earth was created.�* (See below for more detail.)
�*
In terms of the length of the “days�? of creation, you have to remember that Genesis 1 was written in Hebrew, not English.�* The word “day�? in Hebrew is yom and is not as narrow as our English word “day.�?�* Yom can literally be translated as a 12-hour period when the sun is out (daytime), a 24-hour period (a calendar day), a long period of time (age or epoch), or even a moment (when).�* Each of these usages can be found in the early chapters of Genesis, so we can establish from the text itself that yom has this range of meanings.
�*
Genesis 1 does not claim that the “days�? of creation are 24-hour days.�* It does establish that events occurred in distinct period without specifying those periods.�* One of the main points is to establish the Sabbath principle (Genesis 1:1-2:4 and Exodus 20:6-11).�* Of course, this is an analogy not an equation, so God’s work day need not match man’s work day.�* The Sabbath principle given here is to rest on the seventh and is not specifically tied to normal 24-hour days.�* For example, the Sabbath principle for land is to work it 6 years and rest it on the seventh year.�* Another example is the Sabbath of Sabbaths, where after seven seven-year periods, there is a special year of rest.�* In other words, the period associated with the Sabbath work/rest cycle depends on the subject.�* For humans this Sabbath “day�? is a calendar day, for a plot of land it is a year, and for God it is something else.�* God’s view of time is different from ours.�* Passages like Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 make the analogy that a long period of time to God is like a short period of time for mankind.
�*
At no point in Church history, has there been a consensus that the days of creation were simple 24-hour days.�* No Church creeds or confessions of faith has ever defined the length of these creation days.
�*
[mart0224 wrote]
In these passages the Bible says trees existed before the moon. The moon is almost as old as the earth. Also long after its formation it was pounded by large impacts, which means lots of stuff was flying around the solar system. Since that is true the earth would have almost certainly received big impacts too which would undoubtedly would have prevented any trees from evolving.
�*
[He responds]
The sun, moon, and stars were all created in Genesis 1:1 along with the earth.�* What is happening on the fourth creation days is their appearance, not their creation.�* On the first creation day, the atmosphere was sufficiently clear that we can distinguish between daytime and nighttime but not clear enough to distinctly make out the sun as the source of light.�* On the fourth creation day, the atmosphere is clear enough to clearly make out the sun, moon, and stars.
�*
Part of the confusion comes from verses 16 and 17, where it says that God “made�? the sun, moon, and stars.�* But we must be careful not to place these verses ahead of verses 14 and 15.�* The activity for this creation days “let there be�? (Hebrew hayah) or simply “appear.�?�* The latter two verses add a note of clarification reminding the reader that God was the one who made these things.�* It is essential to point out at this point that the Hebrew word “made�? in verse 16 is in the completed tense, not in the English present perfect.�* The completed tense simply means that the verbal action is complete at that point but not necessarily that it was just completed at that moment.�* Hebrew only has only three basic verb tenses, whereas English has two dozen, so there may be multiple English verbs.�* In this case, the Hebrew word here (asah) could be translated as either “made�? (present tense) or “had made�? (past tense).�* While English translations typically pick the present perfect “made,�? that is not actually required by the text.�* We know that the sun, moon, and stars were created in Genesis 1:1 and the light from the sun was present on the first creation day, so it consistent with the text to understand verses 16-17 as reminding the reader that God made these lights and this reminder is necessary, since the actual work of creation occurred back in verse 1.
�*
Again, I’ve only given very quick answers to these questions.�* These questions certainly deserve much longer response.�* If my answers here seem weak, please keep in mind that I’m necessarily being very brief and don’t have time here to fully answer them.�* I’d be happy to send you a book, if you are interested that would go into much more detail.

---

[mart0224 wrote]
Of course cosmology is relevant to whether or not god(s) exists. But there are many things we do not know at this point so to conclude a god did it--especially a specific one--is arbitrary and subjective. For instance we have no idea what the cosmos (as Carl Sagan would put it) was like before the big bang nor do we know all of its parameters. So to conclude god did it is premature. The best answer is "we don't know."
�*
Since you say we cannot dismiss the cosmological argument as arbitrary, on what data can we draw any conclusions about the cosmos before our universe began with the big bang? And on what data can we conclude god did it?
�*
[He replies]
First, we do have specific scientific evidence that leads us to the conclusion that God.�* I have already presented this and you have not refuted any of it.�* You merely argue that it is not possible to absolutely prove that God created.�* I find it ironic that you appeal to existence of things outside of our universe for which you have no evidence whatsoever!�* This is a classic “no god of the gaps�? argument.�* A “god of the gaps�? argument is where someone appeals to God (or gods) to explain something that they don’t understand.�* A “no god of the gaps�? is similar appeal to ignorance.�* If we can’t absolutely prove that God did something, then we accept a naturalistic (non-God) explanation regardless of evidence.
�*
----
�*
[mart0224 wrote]
All my atheism tells me is that I lack belief in god(s)--that's it, nothing else. It's NOT a worldview. Let me repeat that: Atheism is not a worldview. It doesn't provide a foundation for modern science. I discussed this in my second letter.
�*
First of all, “atheism�? literally means “no god�? (a-theism).�* Historically, it has always meant a belief that God (or gods) does not exist.�* While that is the historically accepted meaning, I do recognize that you define things is a slightly different sense.�* Your “agnostic atheism�? would probably closer to “agnosticism,�? which literally means “no knowledge�? (a-gnosticsim) (i.e. that you have no direct knowledge or proof of God’s existence).�* Or perhaps you might prefer the term “non-theist�? which is a broad term covering beliefs that don’t accept traditional monotheism, polytheism, or pantheism.�* Anyways, this is just semantics, so let me move on to the key issue.
�*
The term “worldview�? is term that encapsulates all of our assumptions and beliefs.�* Of course, this includes one’s theological beliefs (whether monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, on non-theistic).�* It is, however, a much broader term in that it also includes views on ethics, metaphysics, episystemology (theory of knowledge), cosmology (nature and origin of the universe), and anthropology (nature and origin of man).�* We have these assumptions and beliefs even if we do not realize that we have them.
�*
In defining “worldview,�? we need to realize two things:
1)�* We all have a worldview, since we are not God and do not know everything.�* We all make assumptions about the nature of reality.�* You made an assumption that the world is real or else you would have never gotten out of bed.�* You made the assumption that I exist or else you wouldn’t have emailed me.�* While we both accept these assumptions, we must realize that they are still assumptions since neither of us can absolutely prove or disprove them.
2)�* Not all worldviews are equal.�* For example, I think that we would both reject the Hindu notion of “maya�? (i.e. that the world is an illusion).�* This belief system has helped keep India from progressing for centuries while Western society has moved forward.
�*
I don’t want to get too far off into defining worldview, except to remind you that we both have one.�* I don’t care what you want to call it, just as long as you recognize that you have one.�* I think that it is fair to recognize that you believe that modern science works and is very powerful.�* We both agree with that but the question is why does it work so well?�* As a scientist, I’m compelled to ask that question because that is what the scientific method demands.�* To simply believe that science simply works and that we don’t need to explain why is like stepping on a chair and then kicking it out from underneath you feet.�* I simply can’t accept that.�* If you want to appeal to science in your arguments, then your worldview needs to provide a sound basis for scientific methodology.�* Failing to do that means that your arguments are inconsistent with your own beliefs or else become arguments from private belief.
�*

funinspace

First I wouldn't bother really trying to debate that Genesis fits a old-earth model. Basically, he is trying to match his theology to science, why pick bones on that. It's better than total denial. If you really want to push the issue, I would move onto the Deluge.
He's trying to pin you down on a worldview because he will eventually try to argue that there is no logic, morality and such without a god. Take a walk thru this thread where "Hartke" presents just such a view. He doesn't enter the scene until pages 5-8 somewhere.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=121952

lpetrich

When I read those arguments, there seemed to be something eerily familiar about them. And then I realized that someone who calls himself Ed here has been using similar arguments in interminable "Ed threads".

That's the impression I get also. Why doesn't the Bible include a translation guide so that we don't misunderstand it?
And I don't see how "goddidit" is the perfect world view for science; especially when Mr. G. is supposed to be mysterious and inscrutable and more than willing to work miracles.

That's a hollow linguistic assertion that Ed has often made.
News to me; it's more like Jesus Christ was saying "I was at the beginning and I will be at the end", without implying anything about what happened in between.
Directly contrary to the plain statements of the rest of Genesis 1.
Rather jumpy narration, isn't it?
Which is contrary to the plain statements of the text.
With fruit trees and other plants created in darkness, of course.
So it was not really "creating", right? Those guys ought to explain why the Bible does not include a translation guide, so we don't mistranslate anything.
However, "day" used in a context like that of Genesis 1 means a standard 24-hour day.
So they are special "creation days"? Why doesn't the Bible warn us about that.
And, according to the Bible, non-overlapping ones.
That's one of Ed's favorite arguments, and it's totally hollow. The Earth has had an atmosphere that has allowed photosynthesizers to flourish for over 2 billion years, meaning that the Sun must have been visible from the Earth's surface in all that time. And fruit trees came along only toward the end of that time period, alongside birds and bats.

(a lot of hairsplitting about Hebrew grammar...)

However, ancient Hebrew had only two verb tenses, present and past, so it's rather hard to make fine distinctions with them.

One uses parsimony here; that's why one rejects other religions' deities and other such beings.

(arguments from word origins...)

If one wishes to use that argument, then one must conclude that the Holy Spirit is really the Holy Breath.

Also, I wonder what would happen if the Hugh Ross guys ended up accepting biological evolution. Would they claim that there is biblical support for that also?

And I think that the "worldview" argument is an attempt to do an end run around poor empirical support. I suggest making an extrapolation from the sort of reasoning that we do in everyday circumstances; theological arguments look too much like special pleading to me.
"What makes" science work so well is not really necessary in showing that it does; it is a separate question.

My answer would be that the Universe has to have enough regularity in it to allow us to exist in it, meaning that it is regularity that we must be capable of discovering.

This makes me wonder how many theologians have been given inferiority complexes by the progress of science.

BioBeing

Reason to Believe

Here is the book he is trying to get you to read.

So what sort of scientist is he, exactly? And why do you say that this group of nimrods are scientists at their core? A quick glance over their website and it looks like its all about one Dr Hugh Ross. who seems to have pissed off both the YEC and regular Christians.

BioBeing

Exactly. Just how much has Christianity been forced to change over the last 150 years due to the progress of science?

JesusLovesYou

If the Christian is following the bible and not mans ideas, then it hasn't had to change at all.

Oh, and since I was told I can't make decisions or answer questions by myself, I find that this being the second thread in 2 days when an atheist is saying I am talking to ______, help me with some___________, very funny.


Independent free thinkers that what you said I needed to be, yeah independent free thinkers like you. :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Yahzi

So you fell that slavery is an acceptable social instituition?

Nobody said you couldn't. They might have said you aren't; but that's entirely different.

Mart is not going to swallow what we say without thinking. He asked for comments, not help; he asked for input to refine his arguments, not cut & paste that he can crush the enemy with.

lpetrich

Yes, it must hurt them to see scientists outperforming them. Consider how much modern medicine outperforms faith healing, for instance. So they console themselves by saying that their business is about "ultimate concerns", "world views", and the like; ways in which they can say "Ha ha! Those smarty-pants scientists depend on us for the justification of their business."
What do you mean by "man" -- that we are a Borg-like species?
There's a difference between wanting assistance and acting like a puppet who waits for the string-puller.
People who assist each other rather than act like they are a bunch of puppets.

Wallener

This is incorrect. It does not say Earth was created in the beginning, it refers to the beginning of Earth's creation. More accurate English translation is...

"At the beginning of God's creating of..."

BruceWane

Could you give an example of an idea the a christian might follow that was introduced by the bible? i.e., any element of morality that did not exist before christianity? Since murder, theft, rape, etc. was generally frowned upon in all societies long before the year 1BC, and all religions previous to christianity must have been false and thus merely "mans ideas", I would guess that there must be at least a few moral elements that are uniquely from the bible.

Christians often assert that all morality comes from god/the bible.

Here's an analogy for you.

I have a $5 bill in my wallet. There is a bank at the corner of Main and 5th, and it has $5 bills, too. Therefore, my $5 bill must have come from the bank at Main and 5th.

See any problem?