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.

[bluethread]

You "believing" has nothing whatsoever to do with reality ....

On the contrary it has everything to do with reality. One's understanding of reality is entirely based on what one believes. If you are talking about objective reality, then one might use scientific methodology to verify that to some extent. However, that verification is itself dependent on ones willingness to believe in the methodology. However, if one believes that consciousness is part of objective reality, one would be hard pressed to verify that using scientific methodology. The turing test is the closest thing we have to that at the moment. However, that itself presumes that the responses of a human are the model for true consciousness. Do you agree?

[FWI]

[Replying to Goat]

How does complexity of our planet point to a deliberate designer?

Example one: it's called photosynthesis!

The process of photosynthesis converts radiant energy (from the sun) into a form of stored chemical energy, which plants can use. But, along the way, the process generates an important byproduct called oxygen (what a convenience), which supplies energy to humans and other life forms. Amazingly, photosynthesis must have the "right kind of energy" for it to work. This is known as the visible spectrum or light energy. Which, is the right kind of energy. The sun gives off almost all of its energy as light energy. Whereas, the earth's atmosphere has the right composition to allow light energy to reach the surface of the planet, while largely absorbing many other kinds of radiations, which are dangerous to life.

Therefore, this finely tuned process (photosynthesis) with the energy of the sun and the nature of the earth's atmosphere surely eliminates any explanation depending on blind chance. Hence, the universe from its beginning has obeyed a purposeful design. Where, the most fundamental aspects of nature (fire, water and light), which has surrounded us, is finely tuned with life in mind. So, for those who fully acknowledge this, they "wipe clean" the smear of dull complacency, which is spread by those who support a non-intelligent creation.

Why is 'order' being an accident nonsense? And 'most humans' argument is the logical fallacy known as 'argument from popularity'.

When putting things into their correct place or order (planets or life forms) there must be some rule that must be followed. This rule doesn't allow for randomnessThus, there is only design. So, where there is design, there is a Designer.

As far as, the logical fallacy known as "the argument from popularity" this is a two-way street and is often used by the scientific community and other minority groups (non-religious) to push their agenda to the masses.

This totally ignores the concept of how evolution works.

You are exactly right (that is what my intent was). I do not accept the concept of how evolution works, as you seem to understand it. Yet, you really didn't think I would, did you? I surely don't expect you to see life and the changes that occur (related to it) from my perspective

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.

There is an event recorded in the bible, where a man is suggesting to his fellow religious leaders (of the time) that if the Christ is just another man, with no special purpose, as related to his claims, he will come to nothing, just like those before and those who would appear after him. However, if he is from God, there is nothing they, nor anyone else could do to stop this purpose. This wise man saw through the nonsense of his time and history vindicates him and his wisdom.

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat]

How does complexity of our planet point to a deliberate designer?

Example one: it's called photosynthesis!

The process of photosynthesis converts radiant energy (from the sun) into a form of stored chemical energy, which plants can use. But, along the way, the process generates an important byproduct called oxygen (what a convenience), which supplies energy to humans and other life forms. Amazingly, photosynthesis must have the "right kind of energy" for it to work. This is known as the visible spectrum or light energy. Which, is the right kind of energy. The sun gives off almost all of its energy as light energy. Whereas, the earth's atmosphere has the right composition to allow light energy to reach the surface of the planet, while largely absorbing many other kinds of radiations, which are dangerous to life.

Therefore, this finely tuned process (photosynthesis) with the energy of the sun and the nature of the earth's atmosphere surely eliminates any explanation depending on blind chance. Hence, the universe from its beginning has obeyed a purposeful design. Where, the most fundamental aspects of nature (fire, water and light), which has surrounded us, is finely tuned with life in mind. So, for those who fully acknowledge this, they "wipe clean" the smear of dull complacency, which is spread by those who support a non-intelligent creation.

It is a straw man to invoke 'blind chance'. You are ignoring the filter of natural selection. THis is showing a lack of information on how evolution operates, and is basically the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

[FWI]

It is a straw man to invoke 'blind chance'. You are ignoring the filter of natural selection. THis is showing a lack of information on how evolution operates, and is basically the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Natural selection is explained as the adjustment of genes throughout an organism (of a species) from generation to generation based on certain factors, which help the organism to survive.

However, the natural selection, of one specific organism, within a specified species, does not affect a different organism of another species, even though they may be in the same family. The logic becomes more absurd, when different families are introduced. As well as, the fact that natural selection has no effect on planets or suns at all

Therefore, the interaction between our sun, the earth and plant life, to give our planet "oxygen" has nothing to do with natural selection, it's quite the opposite. It can only relate to a design.

Thus, any attempt to try and discredit presented materials by introducing a different "unrelated rebuttal" is what a strawman really is. This type of weak approach separates the parties involved and shows who is really more up-to-date on the topic's finer points.

[Goat]

It is a straw man to invoke 'blind chance'. You are ignoring the filter of natural selection. THis is showing a lack of information on how evolution operates, and is basically the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Natural selection is explained as the adjustment of genes throughout an organism (of a species) from generation to generation based on certain factors, which help the organism to survive.

However, the natural selection, of one specific organism, within a specified species, does not affect a different organism of another species, even though they may be in the same family. The logic becomes more absurd, when different families are introduced. As well as, the fact that natural selection has no effect on planets or suns at all

Therefore, the interaction between our sun, the earth and plant life, to give our planet "oxygen" has nothing to do with natural selection, it's quite the opposite. It can only relate to a design.

Thus, any attempt to try and discredit presented materials by introducing a different "unrelated rebuttal" is what a strawman really is. This type of weak approach separates the parties involved and shows who is really more up-to-date on the topic's finer points.

1) You are assuming that photosynthesis always produces oxygen. that is an error. You are also confusing cause and effect.. because the stars and planets effect the environment,, which effect biology.

And, lets see you back up your claim that

However, the natural selection, of one specific organism, within a specified species, does not affect a different organism of another species, even though they may be in the same family. The logic becomes more absurd, when different families are introduced. As well as, the fact that natural selection has no effect on planets or suns at all

All evidence points to this being a false claim... since small changed accumulate, and become larger changes. That means an organism can change over successive generations to be something other than what it's ancestor was..

[William]

[Replying to post 37 by StuartJ]

Which goes nowhere in getting Genesis 1:1 outside the human imagination

What I offered as possibility does require the use of human imagination, but not that alone. My arguments are plausible.

Condescending Ideas About Imagination
Is it correct to delegate imagination as 'woo'?

[font=Comic Sans MS]Often in argument, the imagination is derided as somehow irrelevant and suspect for that. This happens in relation to alternate experiences individuals have where the arguments against these being real - and thus 'of the imagination' are expressed - often in derogatory fashion and used in that way to procure a kind of legitimacy which itself might be construed in that fashion for the sake of giving the impression that one 'wins' the argument by adopting such method. [/font]

What I gave were plausible reasons as to why such cultural stories developed so your hand-waving one-line response is neither effective or substantial.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 33 by Goat]

Would you care to back up your claim that 'not so long ago that atheists mocked and reject the very beginning to the universe'.

if need be.... of course

(from wiki)

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[54] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lematre, was a Roman Catholic priest

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 42 by FWI]

Therefore, this finely tuned process (photosynthesis) with the energy of the sun and the nature of the earth's atmosphere surely eliminates any explanation depending on blind chance. Hence, the universe from its beginning has obeyed a purposeful design. Where, the most fundamental aspects of nature (fire, water and light), which has surrounded us, is finely tuned with life in mind.

Your argument is akin to shooting an arrow at the barn wall then drawing a target around it to show that it hit the bullseye.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in " an interesting hole I find myself in " fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 48 by brunumb]

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in " an interesting hole I find myself in " fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

Well the casual puddle may wake up one morning and say- "hey, of course I fit this hole- I'm a puddle ain't I? whaddya expect? how else could it be?

But the slightly more inquisitive puddle, may come to appreciate that as 'intuitive' and 'natural' as all this may seem- it is dependent on a long list of finely tuned parameters-

a very narrow range of temperature that allows him to be a liquid- not a gas or solid
The right amount of mass and gravity to keep him in the hole
the right pressure and composition of atmosphere to stop him from evaporating etc

even before he gets into the complex molecular structures and quantum mechanics required for himself and the surrounding rock to exist

And so he may come to realize that even if he is temporary, the world probably was designed with his existence in mind, however fleeting

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 49 by Guy Threepwood]

And so he may come to realize that even if he is temporary, the world probably was designed with his existence in mind, however fleeting

The puddle will only form in those environments where water is a liquid. The environment wasn't created for the puddle to form. Countless environments formed naturally and those with suitable characteristics allowed the formation of the puddle. No gods necessary.