The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an atheist?

Burning ghost · Post by **Burning ghost** » October 10th, 2016, 2:45 am

Beanjay-

In the east it is not uncommon for people to say they are muslim and buddist, or christian and muslim, or zen buddist, muslim and christian. The point being they have an entirely different regard towards what westerns call "religion".

Beanjay · Post by **Beanjay** » October 10th, 2016, 6:44 am

Burning ghost

Thank you for that information. I lived in Thailand for a while and then the Philippines and I never came across that. You live and learn! Thanks.

Dionysusxxyyzz · Post by **Dionysusxxyyzz** » October 10th, 2016, 10:46 am

Stantasyland wrote:The simplest answer is generally the correct answer. When God was asked his name he responded "I AM" I stands for the one and AM stands for existence. He wasn't saying "I AM that I AM" as many ministers profess. So if God is the one existence that the all exists in how about us where it says God created us in his image? Well even us when we introduce ourselves we also say "I AM" Once again the I stands for the one and the Am stands for existence. Never before you has there been any one exactly like you and never after you will there be. We are all singularities in the universe, we are not the same in any way we are unique. When mankind can except the uniqueness of self and the sameness in our differences hopefully we'll evolve to where we stop killing each other over greed and ignorance. As far as proving things it takes all kinds to make a world and if we all walked the same walk and talked the same talk this planet would be the most boring place in the universe. In actuality if the so believed God or Gods actually know everything and they do exist they can't be judging our paths as they already know our choices. For a God to be omnipresent as stated that would mean their essence exists not only in every possible point in reality. It also means they would exist in the past, present and future at the same time in this reality and any possible alternate realities. So when you take texts that are over a couple thousand years old and then apply modern science and physics to it the concepts of a God and his knowledge and plan and so forth take on a new light. Seriously if there is a God and he or she knows everything a small thought would be he or she would have known how many grains of sand the oceans would create before the earth was formed. Now if you have a mind strong enough to figure out why he would have to know that you might just be on the way...
Stanley Victor Paskavich/Author, Poet and Philosopher

I think the confusion of the total number of the Bible's God, or any other calculations cannot be pointed only to those believers or readers; the fact that there are numerous ways to number this God based ultimately from the elasticity of those texts itself.

So the text cannot be used as a consistent basis; agreed with most comment here.

However, does the "God" become null because of the Bible?

Aonghus · Post by **Aonghus** » October 10th, 2016, 11:09 am

I noticed a couple of issues -

(1) 'But they still cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt the exact age of fossils.'

This argument seems to be a common one amongst Christians - unless proof is absolutely conclusive, it is dismissed (e.g. evolution) and in this case is based on the fallacy that if the exact date cannot be specified, six days is a legitimate time-frame. Whether the fossils are 3 million years old or 3.05 million years old is academic; they are old enough to suggest the six day theory has no basis.

(2) "large numbers of students have turned away from the bible altogether under the false impression that it binds a believer's conscience to six twenty-four hour days.'

Not sure where the author is going with this one - surely this is what she is asking the reader to accept as fact? And by extension, this is what a devout Christian would ask us to accept as fact? There is an interesting irony here re grumblings about how scientists are misrepresenting Christian ideology while simultaneously reserving the right to misrepresent or distort what science tells us.

(3) 'He is always here and now. He is the eternal present. He was present before the creation of the world and will be present at the end of of the world, even for eternity. Hence his presence will never have a past or a future. Whatever he does is instantaneous.'

The last sentence flies directly in the face of this chapter's central thesis. If whatever God does is instantaneous, how could it take him seven days to create the world?

Mdam · Post by **Mdam** » October 10th, 2016, 11:22 am

No, not at all! The arguments are based on Christian and Jewish mythologies and not on any rational reasoning. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no chance that an atheist will
find the chapter convincing.

Mdam

Alexei · Post by **Alexei** » October 10th, 2016, 1:10 pm

The chapter in question patently fails to convert atheists into believers. As a matter of fact, an atheist is the same believer, except that the subject of his faith is not God, but Nature. The Latter, in an atheist’s opinion, can safely exist on Its own and, as was proved, notably, by Spinoza, It does not need anything Supernatural to ensure Its existence. So, any stories of creating Nature “in six day” by God and all that stuff miss the target; they stay groundless for the atheist and are referred totally to the Jewish mythology. A transition from atheism to the faith in God can hardly occur in an atheist as a result of preaching; rather, it is a matter of personality development.

Longfun · Post by **Longfun** » October 10th, 2016, 6:17 pm

To op, no, it can´t convince me. To begin with, the writer inevitably falls back on a single book I rather consider a badly written historical science fiction novel. And this bible can´t bring a conclusive definition for god outside maybe a circular one, I am that I am (I love the consequences of this definition though). If I from this point on ignore all references to the god-claim (direct and indirect) then what´s left is ¨in the beginning there was a heaven and in our case an earth and none to count the days. Now that sounds like the "Pokemon" origins a story one momentarily uses to play augmented reality games with. Seems that if I drag this analogy further then any specific religion is just an augmented reality game, obviously without the phone. To return to the chapter I: It all comes down to relativity, which point to use to start measuring from and what to use to measure, it being a fictional measure or a factual measure, all that is affected is the practical usability of that measurement in reality. For a gamer/ believer a fictional measure can be sufficient to keep the game entertainment value on a sufficient level to keep on playing it; On the other hand for a scientist an commonly agreed upon measure in reality may well be more practical and may point out the flaws emerging from a fictional measure.

Josefina1110 · Post by **Josefina1110** » October 10th, 2016, 10:16 pm

If there is no God why are there atheists? Who are they to argue with if there is no God? Why would they strongly argue to the point of being red in the face that there is no God if indeed there is no God? The reason is that God's existence is overwhelmingly true and no matter how atheists argue against it, with all their scientific ramblings and arrogance, they cannot prove that God doesn't exist. The argument I made in chapter 1 is that there is a God who created the world in six literal days contrary to the evolution theory that the world had existed millions and millions of years. I mentioned "time" because it is the basis of the argument. Creation would not have been a miracle if there was no miraculous beginning of everything. Even Einstein believed that there was a beginning of the universe " and all the rests are details." I am not trying to convince the existence of God in the creation narrative in chapter one alone. I just want to persuade unbelievers that there is a God who created the world in the beginning as revealed in the Scripture. The next chapters follow up the first chapter towards the end of the book which is the fulfillment of the main goal of the creator. Much is said about chapter 1 on the basis of the statement from the introduction. It seems that those who have made the comments never even read chapter 1 fully for fear that they might have second thoughts. (Laugh as they may but read the whole book.) It is true that I am just a laywoman and originally a citizen of the third world but scientists in all their educational glory have never convince true Christians that there is no God. Big churches are popping up everywhere against them. As a matter of fact, they are just trying to convince themselves mostly about the theory of evolution (for funding purposes). Now they are trying to promote the theory to innocent kids in order to start the ball rolling into a world of atheism. Hence the world is becoming chaotic because there is no higher authority to fear from. Morality is rolling down the ditch. Such is the world without a God. Christians are persecuted everywhere. The world is going to hell.

James195101 · Post by **James195101** » October 11th, 2016, 1:45 am

I am afraid this is just the same old stuff. Some definitions of 'existence' and of 'god' are essential.

TheViivi · Post by **TheViivi** » October 11th, 2016, 4:09 am

This first chapter doesn't convinse anyone but it shows how different the Christianity is around the world. I Finland (my home country) no one would have began the book like that. I mean for us the religion and sciences walk hand in hand. Six days of creation is methapor for longer period of time. This first chapter can't convince anyone because it's view of the world is too one-sided. The writer doesn't have any glue how the atheists think and what they want to hear.

Alan Masterman · Post by **Alan Masterman** » October 11th, 2016, 5:55 am

The first alarm bell rings when we see that the contents of the book were written with "the guidance of The Lord". The second one rings when we see an old and familiar East-Asian proverb, "It is better to light a lantern than to curse the darkness", attributed to Perry Como...

-- Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:09 am --

Scott, I think it would be more of a challenge - would at least raise the standard of enquiry above Phil 200, if you rephrased the question in more general terms - for example, "Given that religion and science operate within apparently contradictory and incompatible knowledge-systems, is such a thing as a 'rational' (or 'scientific') proof of God's existence possible?"

Richardtod · Post by **Richardtod** » October 11th, 2016, 6:46 am

God is a jump of faith. No rational argument has ever and will ever be able to prove a jump of faith. If you believe, then God exists for you. If you do not, then God does not exist. I believe therefore God is. I do not believe therefore God is not. No amount of complicated rhetoric or deep analysis can alter the simple truth that an infallible and omnipresent God cannot be pinned down.

The 'idea' of God is however, very real in the minds of many and has to be respected. All other arguments to prove conclusively God exists are a waste of time and energy and should be left to Theologians not Philosophers. For me the debate for Philosophers should be 'Why do people need the idea of God?'

Aonghus · Post by **Aonghus** » October 11th, 2016, 7:53 am

I agree with Alan. I'm not sure that Christians should be trying to 'prove' the validity of their religion to others. Believing in God, the afterlife etc, is a matter of faith and faith - by definition - is accepting something without proof. I'm pretty sure I've said as much elsewhere on this site. Trying to disprove widely accepted scientific theories (theories that are a reality in everything but name) because they conflict with your faith is another example of the same skewed thinking.

Similarily, surely it is a waste of an atheist's time trying to scientifically disprove something that is a matter of faith, if only because you would be applying the same flawed criteria? Sure, I know we've all done it (largely because these are parameters laid down by misguided theists) but surely our time might be better spent teasing out - in greater detail - why these parameters are wrong in the first place?

Alan Masterman · Post by **Alan Masterman** » October 11th, 2016, 8:42 am

That summarises what I was trying to say, I think. I am an agnostic from way back, partly due to the influence of Bertrand Russell. My brother, on the other hand, is a former hippy who is now a minister of religion. He claims religious experiences which I cannot disprove, and have no grounds to doubt or disparage. I myself, on no scientific ground whatsoever except anecdotal evidence, am strongly inclined to believe in re-incarnation. Waiter, more Chardonnay here!

Josefina1110 · Post by **Josefina1110** » October 11th, 2016, 4:42 pm

It is pretty clear that atheists do not understand the Bible or haven't read it at all. The Bible is full of answers to the argument of the existence of God. It is what it is all about. It tells about the existence of God and His goal of creation. That is why I started the first chapter of my book about Creation. God reveals Himself that He is the creator of the universe. Nobody ever could say "I created the universe" except the Creator himself and that is God. "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature --have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:18-20). Scientists thinks they are better than God. What better way to dispute God's existence than the theory of evolution. But they could not explain without a doubt how the Big Bang happened. They have stopped talking now about the Higgs Boson because it failed to prove the Big Bang after spending millions and millions of dollars on the project to shame creationism. Has atheism ever silenced Christianity? Nobody could, so the pagans just kill them to annihilate believers.