Everyone needs to make up their own mind — FreeEmotion

Do we really?

It's not clear that there is a need to do so.

If any mutual enrichment takes place, I am also, along with His Holiness, grateful, but if it does not. my gratitude will turn to something else. — FreeEmotion

Oh no. We better stop sciencing.

Thanks! I wanted to give Strauss credit but I was traveling and didn't have the book on me. He credits him in the text. I haven't had a time to finish the whole commentary because I have such a backlog that I have three Genesis commentaries alone I've started, The Man Who Wrestled With God by Sanford, a Jungian analysis, Mysterium Magnus, Boehme's rather mystical commentary, and this.

On a side note, I don't get why anyone bothers arguing about the six days vis-a-vis science. There is literally a second origin story in the next chapter that goes differently. Genesis clearly isn't focused on a scientific retelling of creation.

Interesting selection of commentaries.

If I remember correctly Kass shows the topology of each day and what belongs on that day according to its motion.

Yes, but with an additional comment, that there is a reason to believe that the universe was created 6,000 odd years ago, and that 'reason' is the tradition of belief of some of the worlds religions. More to the point, it is the traditional interpretation of the divine texts. I do not think it that belief in an arbitrary time of origin, say last Thursday for example, carries any weight.

What carries weight then, is the religous traditions of various large groups, and if there is a rationale for believing in these things (the Hindu belief is in a cyclical universe, for example) which is a question for the social scientist. The deeper question is: do religous beliefs correspond to reality? But that is out of scope of this discussion. My question is, given a religous belief, what are we allowed in terms of reason and logic, and I think we are making good progress here.

The fact that various factions within the Creationist community are engaged in serious disputes regarding Biblical interpretation, integration of faith and science makes for a rather confusing and unsettling state of affairs. Irrationality abounds in all camps. which is what I want to avoid.

I'm going to focus on only one argument that Richard Dawkins makes in his book The God Delusion.

Theist's argument
1. Complex things require a creator [premise]
2. The universe is complex [premise]
Ergo,
3. The universe requires a creator = God [from 1, 2]

Richard Dawkins' Argument
4. A complex thing requires a creator more complex [premise]
5. God is more complex [from 3, 4]
6. If a complex thing requires a creator, a more complex thing also require a creator [premise]
Ergo,
7. God requires a creator [from 5, 6]

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed
into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. — Charles Darwin

In other words, evolution started off simple, not complex i.e. the evolution and by extension, the universe itself progresses like so: simple -> complex and not like Dawkins supposes: more complex -> complex. Dawkins is contradicting himself - on the one hand, he claims the universe behaves simple -> complex and on the other hand, he claims God has to be more complex than the universe. No fair!

Ergo, my argument would be,

1. If the universe exhibits the progression simple -> complex then God is not only simple but the simplest
2. If God is the simplest then God doesn't need a creator
Ergo,
3. God doesn't need a creator

Insofar as Dawkins' views are concerned, it doesn't hold water.

To be fair the ad Infinitum version of the argument requires an infinite succession of creators, so that does not work either.

And then a God-Creator would require a God-Creator Creator.

Is a first cause the same thing? We are looking for a cause for the existence of the universe, are we not? By 'we' I mean cosmologists like Lawrence Kraus.

On a side note, I don't get why anyone bothers arguing about the six days vis-a-vis science. There is literally a second origin story in the next chapter that goes differently. Genesis clearly isn't focused on a scientific retelling of creation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Apparently there are many who argue about just such a thing, and the arguments are among theists, since it concerns their faith. There are many arguments here: six days versus 'science', versus old earth, old universe, the God who did nothing, who did nothing visible. In the midst of it, there are public debates and school textbook wars.

I am looking for good options to integrate the Christian faith and belief in the Bible and the current scientific view of origins. I have got some good answers and some bad ones. I need to sort these out.

To be fair the ad Infinitum version of the argument requires an infinite succession of creators, so that does not work either.

And then a God-Creator would require a God-Creator Creator.

Is a first cause the same thing? We are looking for a cause for the existence of the universe, are we not? By 'we' I mean cosmologists like Lawrence Kraus. — FreeEmotion

I was, as they say, working backwards from Darwin's own statement, which I quoted, and what appears to be a general consensus among the intelligentsia that the universe proceeds thus: simple -> complex. That evolutionary biologists like Dawkins have no bone to pick with such a conception, i.e. they feel no need to explain the simple, speaks volumes. I suppose all these volumes can be distilled into one "simple" yet profound statement: the simple needs no explanation (so you can forget about the simplest needing one).

God, in Dawkins' and Darwin's universe, has to be the simplest and not (more) complex (than the universe) and for that reason needs no explanation, another way of saying God doesn't need a creator. Thus, Dawkins' argument in his book, The God Delusion, fails.

Come to think of it, time is relative, so how does it make sense to talk of time existing for 6000 or 14 billion years. We only know how *we* experience time

I don't think it is right to rationally analyze a being we know nothing about. If it's a spiritual exercise it's ok but we can't know if this being exists, we can't know anything about abstractly, and we can't know if anyone can even really believe in such a being. This was Dawkins real point. God is not a scientific or a philosophical idea, it's a spiritual one, not useful when no longer needed. As for the science, we know the series of causes go back millions of years but if time is Absolute it might have happened in 6000 years. Science considers that philosophy, but the Bible is just one out of all the religious literature oral and written, and rejecting data because an old book àppears to contradict it is loony.

I think it is an unwarranted view to take the position that 'we can't know if this existing'. A person can believe in the existence in God with the same conviction that they believe in the existence of the people they see down the street. There are people that believe that only they exist. So belief and truth do not have a one-to-one correspondence which really makes the point moot. The current pendulum swing away from religious belief, especially in the West, is a testament to the fact the people base their beliefs are influenced or even determined by society. The pendulum could swing back again.

I will let the millions of believers around the world, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists make the determination that their faith is 'no longer needed'. They certainly need it, and if numbers are not an indication of validity, then it follows that if only one person in the world believed in God, it would not make their belief irrelevant because of numbers.

That's one way to prove it. In any case the entire concept seems to be in difficulty.

I am curious though, as to what sort of evidence you think God has not seen the need to provide. Evidence of Creation, Guided Evolution or something else. — FreeEmotion

Until recently I was under the assumption God intended for us to have to claim to be atheist if we are honest. However, after seeing undeniable proof that I can't convey or attempt to defend, I think otherwise. I still think the atheist are honest, but I have a theistic belief I cannot defend, so it's irrational, but not less real to me.

Believing in people is in no way comparable to believing in God. One is mental health, the other is wishful thinking

I will let the millions of believers around the world, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists make the determination that their faith is 'no longer needed'. — FreeEmotion

I never said faith was always bad, first of all. It's just wishful thinking. Secondly, many Hindus and Buddhists don't believe in God

Faith does not have to be faith in God.

Could you prove that it was wishful thinking?

First of all there is a difference between faith and living by probability

God can do anything, right? So everything in the bible - even the contradictions, if contradictions there be - is self-consistent. For God can do anything. Thus God can make it the case that she created the animals before man, and man before the animals.
If I wrote a book in which I said that I created A before B, and B before A, then you would be justified in thinking I was joking, or was confused, or that it was a typo, for such a claim violates an apparent law of Reason according to which that which is before cannot also be after. But if God wrote a book in which she says that she created A before B, and B before A, then although this claim violates that apparent law of Reason no less starkly than if I'd written it, the fact is God has the power to violate laws of Reason. And thus what provided you with excellent reason to reinterpret what I had written, provides you with no reason to reinterpret what God has written.

So, as far as I can see, the bible is going to be self-consistent no matter what it says, for it is - by hypothesis - the work of a being who has the power to do anything.

So god becomes evil and stays good at the same time (contradiction?) and in the end damns himself and the world while keeping the world and himself good?

You should know you are a moral relativist

The person of God can do anything, including becoming evil. But so long as the person of God remains God - which is, of course, entirely up to her - she will not do evil, for to do evil is to go against God's will, and God is not going to go against her own will. She could - for she can do anything - but she isn't.
And yes, I know I am a moral relativist. One has to be if one believes in God, for God can do anything and thus there are no necessary moral truths. All moral truths will be contingent on God and thus relative, not absolute.
My point is that there is no non-question begging way to argue against the biblical literalist. (Not endorsing it, just making a philosophical observation)

Well then you are in a strange world where science is doubted. Your finite female god with infinite thoughts and infinite power is not the Christian god

Well then you are in a strange world where science is doubted — Gregory

No it isn't. How is it doubted? There is no non-question begging way for a scientist to arrive at the conclusion that the world is older than the bible says it is. But a scientist could accept what the bible says and still do science in the same manner as any other. (As could a last-thursdayist who believes taht everything popped into existence last thursday).

What the science shows is that, other things being equal, the world is 4.5 billion years old give or take. But other things are not equal if the bible is true. That's the point.

Your finite female god with infinite thoughts and infinite power is not the Christian god — Gregory

I am not a Christian and I haven't read the bible. But the God I believe in and have described above is the God of the Abrahamic religions - that is, a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. So a Christian believes in an all powerful person. And they believe - as I understand it, anyway - that the bible was written, indirectly, by that all powerful person. Now, the Christian should surely not be troubled by any apparent inconsistencies in the bible, for by hypothesis an all powerful person can do anything. If they are troubled by them, they show by their being so that they do not appreciate what omnipotence involves.

Again: I am not a Christian or a biblical literalist. But it seems to me that once one grants that the bible is the word of God, there is no possibility of the bible being self-inconsistent. So I think that if I thought the bible was the word of God, I would be a biblical literalist. After all, the default is that it should be taken literally, I'd have thought.

But it seems to me that once one grants that the bible is the word of God, there is no possibility of the bible being self-inconsistent. — Bartricks

The entire Bible is not self-inconsistent, there are entire passages that are self-consistent, they may be taken to be fiction, however.

There are some statements that seem to be self-inconsistent in the Genesis account, and these are: the creation of light before the Sun and moon, and the two differring accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Any civilization having a written language and even rudimentary technology such as used in farming, and a working knowledge of nature would be doubtless aware of the concept of cause and effect. More to the point, in daily lives the appearance of light is never something that happens on its own - there is a source for light, even the people of ancient Biblical times knew this. The appearance of light therefore meant to signify something.

I would suggest that the concept of a God who does not do anything is self-inconsistent, and the text must reflect this.

Your interpretation of god's power is very strange and unorthodox. Most theists would call it insane. If god can do anything in your sense than maybe he never existed and that this is just a contradiction. And he damns theists and this is just a contradiction. He never ever was good and this is just a contradiction. He never was all powerful and this is just a contradiction. I don't believe in relativism in this sense. You are an absolute relativist and not a true believer in god. For some odd reason you think you are very clever for insisting that god can do contradictions but the majority of readers are going to think you're a nut

I think most contemporary theist philosophers would indeed think my understanding of omnipotence is crazy. But they're boring hacks. And there is at least one contemporary theist philosopher who thinks my understanding is correct: me. I also have Descartes and Jesus on my side. Descartes wasn't a fool. And Christians who care what Jesus said should all agree with me.

The rest of what you said was utter nonsense. You, like Banno and others, do not seem able to distinguish between a metaphysical possibility, an epistemic possibility, and an actuality.

All things are metaphysically possible with God. So God can destroy himself. He isn't stuck in existence. That doesn't mean there is any epistemic possibility that he does not exist. His existence can be established with certainty. So, it is metaphysically possible for him not to exist (he would not be all powerful otherwise). But it is not epistemicalky possible.

An example to illustrate: it is metaphysically possible for me not to exist. But it is not epistemically possible. For I can be completely certain I exist.

And saying that something is metaphysically possible does not at all mean that one is asserting its actuality. It is possible for God not to exist. But he exists. It is possible for God do divest himself of power. But he hasn't. It is possible for God to make the law of non-contradiction false. But it is true. And so on.

None of this is nuts. Quite the contrary, it is just to apply reason to omnipotence. It is those who think an omnipotent being has to be constrained who are, well, not nuts so much as very stupid. For they think being who can do anything can nevertheless not do this and not do that. A clearer case of a contradiction is harder to conceive of.

You're just saying gods nature is prior to his contradictions, and without evidence

And what does that mean when it's at home?

Do you think a being who can do anything can't do some things?

Of course. His nature is infinite, his will is infinite. They create each other in one simple being. But this creation is free and necessary, so the necessity of gods goodness requires only rational activity