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

[AB1OB]

What a waste of TIME!
TIME is something that the author obviously does not understand.

But to the question @ hand...there is zero logic or argument in chapter 1 to convince anyone of anything.

The one good point, IMHO, of the chapter is stressing "God" as "I am"...and the relativity of "that which is" to ALL TIMES vs. man's time perspective of a fleeting arrow of "presents".

[Jardar]

Managing to read two entire pages, i concluded the book must have been written by someone who neither understands science nor religion, and the only thing it convinced me of was that I'm signing out of these forums to avoid wasting time like that again.

[Being_1925]

Hi Scott, thanks for sending that E-mail.

God as an idea can only be a phantasie and so is creating the world in six days. If God represents matter then we are god but only like an ant, it also knows how to build a home. So to understand god is to understand matter.

For example the Jews in the bible were sometimes in critical circumstances, there was no help from something that does not exist, and they had to help itself to exist as a nation.

[Elan vit]

Why is this drivel even a question on a philosophy forum?
It is merely a recitation of assertions with no empirical or logical foundation.

[Conflictofinterests]

I consider myself an open-minded atheist and I find the sample I was able to get ahold of tone-deaf at best and condescending at worst. Within the first page of the introduction the Bible is quoted without any explanation as to why anyone ought to care what it says in the first place. If your audience is primarily non-believers, whether they are members of different religions or not, it would pay off to lay that groundwork before bringing up particulars.

It appeared to me as if the author had done no self-reflection, no contemplation on what would convince them to change their stance if presented with a similar proposition. This is hard not to take as a sort of disregard for the intelligence and thoughtfulness of the audience. Any arguments that come after such a perceived insult will therefore be accepted much less readily.

In response to the actual arguments as they are presented, though:

The introduction brings up a very muddy and imprecise scientific concept of time. It is difficult to parse the intention of this mention without reading the title of Chapter 1, something which is narratively problematic. The introduction then goes on to cite several claims the Bible makes as if these claims were supporting evidence. I have encountered this misconception often, so while it is not surprising, it is also disappointing.

After several paragraphs of this, the author brings up their disbelief that life, the universe and everything could have been the product of accident, and their inability to imagine why the universe would appear as it does given that understanding. They said they would expand further in a later chapter, so I will forgo calling this an argument from incredulity for now.

The introduction goes on to cite yet more claims the Bible makes (as if the claims were evidence of anything other than the authors' understanding of the world around them), and then goes on to quote a kitschy little saying I swear I've seen printed on a mug. Not to say such cliché may not have a point, but if one is attempting to convince an audience that presently has beliefs contrary to what one is presenting, one would do well to more thoroughly tie them in to the narrative or argument, thereby avoiding the appearance of being vapid or demeaning.

The first chapter begins by quoting Genesis 1:1-2 and stating that the biggest controversy is whether the world was actually created in 6 literal days. It is not mentioned in which circles this is a controversy, though three fields of science are mentioned as considering these claims to be absurd based on fossil evidence. This neglects many MANY other fields and many MANY other lines of evidence against a young earth, though we can set those issues aside for the time being. The chapter continues by attempting to discredit various dating methods used by geologists and paleontologists, without displaying much understanding of the science and theory behind the methods. This may also be set aside for the time being.

The author proceeds to cite other Christians' positions and argue against them using more biblical claims, posing neither logical argument nor empirical evidence for any topic brought up, and further attempts to refute (ineptly, I might point out) stratigraphy. That being the case, if we view all the author's objections in the most charitable light, where are we left? Having no knowledge of the world around us, only with claims for which we have no substantive evidence. Further, they are claims that bring in the unnecessary assumption of a supernatural being with not only the capacity to create time, space, matter, and energy, but to create life and further to interact directly with it. There are so many assumptions that go in to the claim of the existence of the God of the Bible that are not explicitly justified that it, again, brings me to the conclusion that the author has never considered the atheist (or any alternate theist) position seriously.

At this point, I feel I have put forth enough of an effort to understand where the author is coming from, and I do not feel that the author has made an honest effort to understand any other position. I do not care to read any further into the book, and I don't think many other atheists will care to either.

[Knerses 1ste]

Hi Scott.

I think it was an honest attempt by the writer.

However, some critique if I may; Christians are not in the business of convincing unbelievers. To the unregenerate(Unbeliever) mind it (Word) is foolishness as said by the Apostle Paul in the first half of the first Century. It would always be a foolish messege(Gospel) to the unregenerated mind. Christians should however give the Gospel to those who don't posess it. It is the job of the 3rd person of the Triune God of Scripture, the Spirit who regenerates the Elect to life and only after this event, faith is recieved by the new, alive, person.

If we aspire to enter apologetics however, it is done very differently. It seems like she where appealing to some sort of presuppositional methedology. However, it was a bit incoherent and sloppy.

Hope this helps.

Greetings.

[Nick_A]

Scott, this cannot lead anywhere. I don't see how this could influence an atheist or even a believer like me. Why not use Jacob Needleman's book: "What is God." Here is a review. He offers something intelligent and meaningful to discuss and defend.

http://www.watkinsmagazine.com/what-is- ... -needleman

[Lone Wolf]

I am neither atheist or pantheist, but I found nothing in Chapter 1 that would convince me of God's existence. It is all theory and opinion and based on the "Holy Bible" of the Christians which makes it biased from the start. I was raised Baptist and spoon fed all the dogma on the beginning as presented in this chapter, but when I reached a point of asking a few questions about the source of the information being presented, I found it to be less than credible. Questions such as "Who said that?" "Where did he/she get the information?" and "Is it true for me?" led me to a point of understanding that no one I have met or read or listened to knows any more about these things than I do. From an epiphany in 1984, I am convinced that there is something beyond my comprehension that loves me. Since I cannot comprehend this something, I cannot put a name on it. I still generally accept the premise that there is "God", but not as described by any account presented by man.

[TheViivi]

As person who believes in God somedays and somedays doesn't this first chapter did make some impact IN ME. However I don't think it really had any real reasoning behind it. For atheists the writer used too many quetes from the bibble and not enough real examples. Also I see the six days of creation differently than the writer so I skipped some of the pages because I knew there would be nothing making me see life differently in this subject.

[Mcdoodle]

I thought the sample chapter was intellectually shallow and feebly written. I would be amazed if it would convince a thoughtful believer, let alone an atheist.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

I consider myself an open-minded atheist and I find the sample I was able to get ahold of tone-deaf at best and condescending at worst. Within the first page of the introduction the Bible is quoted without any explanation as to why anyone ought to care what it says in the first place.

Agreed. Why would an atheist be swayed by bronze-age mythology?

[Transcend]

The chapter seems to have exactly three arguments.

1. You can't trust radiocarbon dating, because it's not a 100% perfect solution for dating everything.
2. You can't trust biostratigraphy, because comparing strata across continents is "difficult."
3. No person witnessed the creation of the universe, so scientific methods for understanding it are automatically invalidated, because according to creationists science only works when you directly witness something. By the same logic, we can't possibly understand what's inside the sun because it's too hot for us to physically go inside of it and look around.

He doesn't follow up the arguments with examples, just a bunch of badly written fluff. My favorite bit of atrocious writing in the chapter is "Israel was Jesus' hometown when he was on earth." I would have hoped that a student of the Bible would have at least grasped enough of it to understand that Israel is a country, not a city, but apparently that's beyond his mental powers.

So to answer the question, no, it would take a thoroughly uninformed atheist to be even slightly moved by these arguments.

[Dionysusxxyyzz]

The constant lag between Atheists and Creationists is about "what" make this sensible world. It is just illogical to accept everything exist as is, as any sensible man cannot accept a rabbit out of the hat because of "abracadabra!" ... while in other hand no sensible man accept a "non-existed" thing as proof?

Let's set those scriptures aside ... don't anyone use words to express the universe? Be it literal or verbal, to inform human, beside "hints" that can be grasp ... but words are the final result anyway ...

If there is God, and He is using words to contact with human ... how can we know which word come from the creator of this universe?

[Nicolas]

This website has a tagline and rule of public space which reads:"An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks."
But discussing the reality of G_d is an outright personal attack on the very personal being which G_d is.

G_d can not be a subject of philosophy, but only a subject to theology.

We need to understand that not even the bible can convince people of g_d's reality.
So no first chapter of any book can convince a staunch atheist.

Religion is not about convincing ( secular philosophy ) but about conversion ( dogmatic theology )

Talking about g_d is something for the church, not for a website for the practice of philosophy.



Truth is bigger than existence. So G_d does not need to exist.

[Stantasyland]

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