Genesis 1:1

[StuartJ]

In the beginning Elohim/Theos/God created the heavens and the earth.

If we can't get past this very first verse, we can't claim legitimacy for another mote of biblical writing.

Do the Elohim exist ...?

Did they do the creating ...?

When was the beginning ...?

What are the heavens and the earth ...?

Who wrote that verse ...?

Can we back ANY of Gen 1:1 with anything other than faith and quotations from the same writings ...?

Because if we can't, we have to be honest and admit it.

And nit-picking over the finer details of what the questions may mean, or critiquing science, are just diversionary tactics.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 20 by Tcg]

Thank you for that reply ....

One of the comforts of faith is never having to admit that it's YOU who has got it wrong.

I can't see "philosophy" in that verse, let alone "psychology".

And still not a soul tries to demonstrate that the Elohim exist anywhere other than in human imaginations.

[Tcg]

I can't see "philosophy" in that verse, let alone "psychology".

Not even a hint. Because of that, and the fact that no explanation was given to support the claim, I'm not quite sure what the claim is claiming.

At least with the other "p" word claim, some will fall for it.

[FWI]

Genesis 1:1

The main premise here is: Does God exist and if He doesn't, then the record of Genesis 1:1 is inaccurate and also the records that follow. But, by taking this position, it only show a double standard when it comes to what exists and what doesn't, as well as, how it's determined

So, if we were to consider children, existence and proof only applies, when they can experience material objects, in other words; seeing is believing. Yet, that which constitutes proof for a young child may be totally inadequate for a scientist. Where, scientific proof is the kind of proof where the general idea (of the proof) is included in a report, which is related to a theory. However, this too is a proof based on perception, except that it is someone elses perception that's being accepted.

Thus, from a more theoretical level, another "acceptable kind of proof" is reasoning related to cause and effect. Hence, when one sees actions, the actions themselves are proof of an "activating force," even though this is not direct proof. A good example of this is electricity. Humans can sense colors by sight, we also can sense sounds by hearing. Therefore, these are considered complete and direct proofs. Yet, we cannot perceive electrical potential or voltage, we can only know its effect, but not its cause.

Yet, we are certain of the belief that there exists some "unnoticeable force," which we term electricity and is the reason for what we do see. This is considered "conclusive proof" in the same way one proves the existence of other such forces. Electricity is a prime example, because its existence is totally accepted, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Therefore, the scientists faith in "cause and effect" is so ingrained that they will accept as "undisputed fact" the existence of an "activating force" even if it plainly contradicts rationality.

People act in accordance with their beliefs, and skeptics are no different. Hence, it is reasonable to expect that a skeptic will feel free to use as a basis for action, any ideas that are shown to meet their criteria of legitimacy. On this basis, there is not only one, but several proofs for the existence of God and there is no problem if one is forced to say that this existence is not grasped by the senses or even if it contradicts rationality. As long as, this existence accounts for observed reality and does so better than any other means, thus we have what is usually considered to be conclusive, scientific proof.

In this sense, proving the existence of God is the same as proving anything else, whether in the realm of science or in the context of our daily lives! Therefore, when it comes to the existence of God, the following is, but a few, of these proofs:

* The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer, not only to creation. But, also to how it is sustained. The idea that "order" came to be by accident is nonsense and most humans don't believe this.

* Our universe and life had a beginning and this beginning was not by chance. Whereas, it is a known fact that life can only come from life and that objects come to be by means introduced by an intelligent source, they don't just happen

* The universe operates by the uniform laws of nature. This is only possible through intelligence.

(Where, many do their best to skirt the fact, that logic has left the topic, if you leave God out. So, if anything thing exist at all, the best possible answer is that an intelligent force brought it about. Hence to ignore God and His existence makes science nothing, but a lot of assumptions)

* DNA clearly shows that design was used and that a Designer was involved.

So, for anyone to suggest that including the finer details of what is actually intended or that critiquing science (because of the double standard that is normally used), are just diversionary tactics, is (it seems) just an attempt to hand-cuff the skeptics of the topic.

Hence, there can be "no rational" means to disprove the existence of God! So, Genesis 1:1 is accurate and undeniable

[Goat]

Genesis 1:1

The main premise here is: Does God exist and if He doesn't, then the record of Genesis 1:1 is inaccurate and also the records that follow. But, by taking this position, it only show a double standard when it comes to what exists and what doesn't, as well as, how it's determined

So, if we were to consider children, existence and proof only applies, when they can experience material objects, in other words; seeing is believing. Yet, that which constitutes proof for a young child may be totally inadequate for a scientist. Where, scientific proof is the kind of proof where the general idea (of the proof) is included in a report, which is related to a theory. However, this too is a proof based on perception, except that it is someone elses perception that's being accepted.

Thus, from a more theoretical level, another "acceptable kind of proof" is reasoning related to cause and effect. Hence, when one sees actions, the actions themselves are proof of an "activating force," even though this is not direct proof. A good example of this is electricity. Humans can sense colors by sight, we also can sense sounds by hearing. Therefore, these are considered complete and direct proofs. Yet, we cannot perceive electrical potential or voltage, we can only know its effect, but not its cause.

Yet, we are certain of the belief that there exists some "unnoticeable force," which we term electricity and is the reason for what we do see. This is considered "conclusive proof" in the same way one proves the existence of other such forces. Electricity is a prime example, because its existence is totally accepted, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Therefore, the scientists faith in "cause and effect" is so ingrained that they will accept as "undisputed fact" the existence of an "activating force" even if it plainly contradicts rationality.

People act in accordance with their beliefs, and skeptics are no different. Hence, it is reasonable to expect that a skeptic will feel free to use as a basis for action, any ideas that are shown to meet their criteria of legitimacy. On this basis, there is not only one, but several proofs for the existence of God and there is no problem if one is forced to say that this existence is not grasped by the senses or even if it contradicts rationality. As long as, this existence accounts for observed reality and does so better than any other means, thus we have what is usually considered to be conclusive, scientific proof.

In this sense, proving the existence of God is the same as proving anything else, whether in the realm of science or in the context of our daily lives! Therefore, when it comes to the existence of God, the following is, but a few, of these proofs:

* The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer, not only to creation. But, also to how it is sustained. The idea that "order" came to be by accident is nonsense and most humans don't believe this.

How does complexity of our planet point to a deliberate designer? Why is 'order' being an accident nonsense? And 'most humans' argument is the logical fallacy known as 'argument from popularity'.

* Our universe and life had a beginning and this beginning was not by chance. Whereas, it is a known fact that life can only come from life and that objects come to be by means introduced by an intelligent source, they don't just happen

How do you know that?? Can you show that 'the universe' had a beginning. The 'big bang' is not a theory about creation, but a theory of 'what happened to the universe after it started expanding'. The 'life comes from life' is a poor argument, since at one point, there was no life, and now there is life. Even if there was a deity that 'created' life (Something that has not been shown to be true), that still is life coming from non-life. What is life but a set of complex chemical reactions? The claim 'objects come to to be by means introduced by an intelligence' source is nothing but the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal belief'. or 'argument from ignorance' Can you provide tangible and objective evidence this is a true statement? We do know that the early earth had a lot of organic chemical compounds, (indeed, we see organic chemistry all over the solar system). We also have seen RNA molecules that are self replicating. That is a hypothetical way that 'life' can be kick started on the early earth without the need for an intelligent source.

* The universe operates by the uniform laws of nature. This is only possible through intelligence.

Is this a true statement?? Can you show how this claim can be tested? This seems to be the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal belief'. How is this true?

(Where, many do their best to skirt the fact, that logic has left the topic, if you leave God out. So, if anything thing exist at all, the best possible answer is that an intelligent force brought it about. Hence to ignore God and His existence makes science nothing, but a lot of assumptions)

[
* DNA clearly shows that design was used and that a Designer was involved.
/quote]

This totally ignores the concept of how evolution works. It works through 'reproduction with variation followed by the filter of natural selection'.. which is basically 'reproductive fitness' . That is a demonstrable in the lab. Indeed, when
the first RNA self replicating molecules were found, they were put into a solution where they would replicate, and the process happened where the solutions with RNA molecules started getting dominated with RNA molecules that were better at reproducing themselves. This falsifies the claim that clearly'design was used', and 'a designer was involved'. While that 'might' be true, it also shows that a designer is not needed.

So, for anyone to suggest that including the finer details of what is actually intended or that critiquing science (because of the double standard that is normally used), are just diversionary tactics, is (it seems) just an attempt to hand-cuff the skeptics of the topic.

Hence, there can be "no rational" means to disprove the existence of God! So, Genesis 1:1 is accurate and undeniable

While this does not show that there is a rational reason to disprove god, the leap of logic about Genesis 1:1 being accurate and undeniable is a false claim. IT is the argument from personal belief, and it builds on a whole bunch of straw men about how the world works. it makes a large number of 'leaps of logic' based on inaccurate information to reach a conclusion that is not provable.

[marco]

Hence, there can be "no rational" means to disprove the existence of God! So, Genesis 1:1 is accurate and undeniable

We cannot "rationally" disprove anything that somebody somewhere claims exists. The tea-cup orbiting the Earth may well be there. The "proofs" for the existence of a creative intelligence do not indicate Yahweh is the intelligence; in fact they are not proofs but human illustrations of a human way of seeing things. Extrapolating from true conclusions about physical objects to conclusions about God is flawed. It's an assumption too far. The word "must" is used to mean "we can't think of anything else, therefore ...."


As we progress in quantum theory and examine black holes, we find that our intuition leads us astray.

All this apart, it is moving from the sublime to the ridiculous to postulate the existence of an intelligent being and then find him bumbling about in the Garden of Eden.

[FarWanderer]

In the beginning Elohim/Theos/God created the heavens and the earth.

If we can't get past this very first verse, we can't claim legitimacy for another mote of biblical writing.

Do the Elohim exist ...?

Did they do the creating ...?

When was the beginning ...?

What are the heavens and the earth ...?

Who wrote that verse ...?

Can we back ANY of Gen 1:1 with anything other than faith and quotations from the same writings ...?

Because if we can't, we have to be honest and admit it.

And nit-picking over the finer details of what the questions may mean, or critiquing science, are just diversionary tactics.

A bit late to the party, but I will offer my opinion.

Gen 1:1 is a prescriptive statement, and as such demanding or offering argumentation in its support is missing the point. To put it another way, its a definition of God, or a tautology: That which does this is God; God is that which does this.

Its the starting point in building an interpretive framework through which to understand the world (much like language itself is).

You can accept it or not. Up to you.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 26 by FarWanderer]

You can accept it or not. Up to you.

I don't accept it as being what the writers were saying.

"In the beginning our version of "God" created the heavens and the earth" looks very much like the writers are telling us that it was their version of "God" that created the heavens and the earth.

Simple, straightforward: no poetry, or philosophy, or psychology, or prescriptions or any other level of consciousness cycle imagination on top of imagination.

They don't look to have been "defining" their version of "God".

It looks to me like the same sort of descriptive, explanatory claim that every culture I know of makes about their version of "God".

And if you make the claim that your version of "God" created the heavens and the earth in the very first sentence of your "scriptures", and you can't back it up with a scrap of independently verifiable anything, then everything you claim from the second sentence onwards has no validity with regard to anything else to do with your version of "God".

The biblical writings stall at the very first verse.

But the door is wide open for any faith community to demonstrate that their version of "God" created anything other than excitement in human neural fibres.

Silence on this matter demonstrates to an Atheist like me that we are dealing with mythology in Genesis 1:1 ...

... and the biblical versions of "God" are as imaginary as anyone else's.

[FarWanderer]

It looks to me like the same sort of descriptive, explanatory claim that every culture I know of makes about their version of "God".

Then why would anyone take these things without evidence?

They don't look to have been "defining" their version of "God".

I am wondering how you have already defined "their version" of God even before reading their book.

and the biblical versions of "God" are as imaginary as anyone else's.

Imagination is not something to casually belittle.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 28 by FarWanderer]

Then why would anyone take these things without evidence?

That may be the very best question you have ever asked ....

I am wondering how you have already defined "their version" of God even before reading their book.

That may be the very worst question you have ever asked. (Please read some of my topics.)

Imagination is not something to casually belittle.

I am in complete agreement with you FarWanderer ...

... but some folks wander TOO far with their imaginations.

And can end up believing that their Leader was a universe-creating, planet-flooding god-man who plonked himself into the uterus of a human virgin ...

... and then imagine they are dealing with "philosophy" and such to try and paper over the cracks in their earlier imaginings.

(For example ....)

[FarWanderer]

I am wondering how you have already defined "their version" of God even before reading their book.

That may be the very worst question you have ever asked. (Please read some of my topics.)

I think you misunderstand.

I am implying that you havent read their book in your OPs hypothetical set up where we are stuck on Genesis 1:1. I know you actually have read it IRL, but that is besides the point.

... but some folks wander TOO far with their imaginations.

And can end up believing that their Leader was a universe-creating, planet-flooding god-man who plonked himself into the uterus of a human virgin ...

I dont necessarily care about that. I just care about how they behave in the world, though this isnt to say the two issues arent related. At the very least, I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of a creator God (which is the focus of this thread). Deism has zero conflict with science.

... and then imagine they are dealing with "philosophy" and such to try and paper over the cracks in their earlier imaginings.

(For example ....)

I dont think the early writers made a distinction between fundamentalism and philosophy.