Can a Genesis God be Explained from a Science Perspective? (part 1)

[BlaznFattyz]

Still waiting for that name. Do you have a copy of the signature? A photo? I really, really, really want to see it. Please, don't keep it to yourself anymore!

Since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding. As an architect of a building, there doesn't need to be a copy of signature to know that someone put thought into building it and that it has a builder who made it for a reason. The signature is in the atom, the DNA, all living things, the ocean and the earth, the heavens with its countless planets and stars, and our ability to be alive, to reason, and to wonder at His creation. That is my belief and my answer to your question.

 

[Ouroboros]

Since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding. As an architect of a building, there doesn't need to be a copy of signature to know that someone put thought into building it and that it has a builder who made it for a reason. The signature is in the atom, the DNA, all living things, the ocean and the earth, the heavens with its countless planets and stars, and our ability to be alive, to reason, and to wonder at His creation. That is my belief and my answer to your question.

Is that how artists signs their paintings?

You said, "...an all knowing God that created the universe and left his initials on all of creation such as an artist signs a painting."

Which to me says that you think that God signed it with his initials, like an artist.

But you bring something else to the table, not initials.

 

[Etritonakin]

No it doesn't. It states "and" which is not "before" You confuse word ordering for chronology, nothing more

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NLT
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV



When it says certain events happened in Days then yes there is a chronological ordering. Earth is not part of Day 1 but precedes it before the ordering of Days.

No verse identifies the greater light with daytime and the lesser light, (singular) with nighttime in Day 4. There are the Sun and the Moon. While the Moon does not contradict planetary formation theory it contradicts stellar formation thus the verse is is in error. Planets are formed by the resulting stellar disk formed after a star is formed. The disk required gravity which is provided by the star

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form

I do hope you are simply trying to be argumentative.

The assumption that "made" means initially created is simply false.
The word can mean that, but not necessarily. It is not correct to assume so.

The first verse includes both the Earth and the entire universe -the sun, stars, etc...

Everything after that is just that -after that.

Even if Genesis was simply a work of fiction, it is doubtful a writer would overlook the fact that if the sun were initially created on the fourth day, having previous days would be quite difficult.

Made means appoint, arrange, etc. -anything causing a certain state to exist.

There is no point in continuing if you are not going to be serious about it.
These arguments are juvenile.
It Is no different than saying the bible is false because Adam and Eve could not have children by simply "knowing" each other.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think there is a tendency to think that people back so many years ago were ignorant to an unreasonable fault or wise beyond anything man has ever known. The truth probably lies like certain truths in the middle. They certainly weren't ignorant, we to this day still use observation to relay information to ourselves. That Genesis would say we have a beginning doesn't need divine aspiration, one simple needs to look around and see that in this world most things have a beginning most have an end. The fact that science affirms that currently doesn't mean that they were geniuses or individuals who were given guidance but that they were people who could like all other humans seek to explain the world as they saw it.

At the same time just as we don't know everything it is certain that they did not as well, which is why we get words like firmament , or that there is a greater and lesser light which maybe was just a comparison or true belief that the moon produced its own light.

But that's from just a general outlook, it seems that people seek to either declare these invidiuals brilliant or idiotic, when regardless of divine intervention or not (based on where you fall) they were first and foremost human.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

if you know an artist his signature is in the style, the design. whether he leaves actual initials is irrelevant. the mona lisa doeant need initials to know that a painter painted it same for architects. la sagrada familia doesnt need initials on it to know that someone engineered this. i hope that clears it up.

Is that how artists signs their paintings?

You said, "...an all knowing God that created the universe and left his initials on all of creation such as an artist signs a painting."

Which to me says that you think that God signed it with his initials, like an artist.

But you bring something else to the table, not initials.

 

[Ouroboros]

if you know an artist his signature is in the style, the design. whether he leaves actual initials is irrelevant. the mona lisa doeant need initials to know that a painter painted it same for architects. la sagrada familia doesnt need initials on it to know that someone engineered this. i hope that clears it up.

Well, because you said it was initials just like an artist, that's why I was asking. You mean a "signature" as a figure of speech, and not literally as a painter would do, so it would be better if you said that upfront instead of suggesting that there was an actual signature or initials.

 

[Blastcat]

So you do not have an explanation other than it is complicated?

Can you show me in the big bang theory where it says the Laws were created?

If you have to insist from the get go that the universe was CREATED, it's not going to be a stretch for you to justify that it was created. As they say, a CREATION implies a CREATION and vice versa. Using the word "created" is misleading.

 

[Blastcat]

The discussion is not about the bible as a whole.

The bible is based on a belief in a God.

I have proposed the Natural Laws fit that definition.

If you disagree then please explain why the Laws exist and when they came into existence?

There are a few logical problems with the way you formulate your challenge:

1. If you really want to confirm a Biblical bias, the Bible is going to be the perfect place to look for it. Unfortunately, confirmation bias is a terrible method to prove anything. As they say, we can use the Bible to prove pretty much anything.
2. Asking someone to DISPROVE a hypothesis is never a good move. It's simply an attempt at shifting the burden of the proof. Facts tend to stand on their own. If you have them, bring them, and you will have convinced us. Otherwise, one unverified hypothesis is as good as any other, that is... not much.
3. That we don't know something doesn't prove anything else. To think so is to make an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy that never helps a case.
4. It's never the case that just because something can be made to fit the facts ( making a hypothesis ) that they are what is actually happening. You need to demonstrate the hypothesis ( the God hypothesis, in this case ) IS a fact.

 

[Blastcat]

I think there is a tendency to think that people back so many years ago were ignorant to an unreasonable fault or wise beyond anything man has ever known. The truth probably lies like certain truths in the middle. They certainly weren't ignorant, we to this day still use observation to relay information to ourselves. That Genesis would say we have a beginning doesn't need divine aspiration, one simple needs to look around and see that in this world most things have a beginning most have an end. The fact that science affirms that currently doesn't mean that they were geniuses or individuals who were given guidance but that they were people who could like all other humans seek to explain the world as they saw it.

At the same time just as we don't know everything it is certain that they did not as well, which is why we get words like firmament , or that there is a greater and lesser light which maybe was just a comparison or true belief that the moon produced its own light.

But that's from just a general outlook, it seems that people seek to either declare these invidiuals brilliant or idiotic, when regardless of divine intervention or not (based on where you fall) they were first and foremost human.

I agree with your whole-hardheartedly.
I hate the polarized nature of debates. It sometimes brings out the very worst in us.

When I started "arguing" with theists, I was quite belligerent. Ahh.. my newsgroups and Youtube days! I think that I have "upped" my game since then. I got a lot of warnings for incivility. Learning how to debate better, and how to think better has really changed me FOR the better. But it took a while. I'm still a work in progress.

We don't at all have to imagine that people in the past, even far far back were in anyway idiotic. But we DO know that many of their beliefs would be called "superstitious" by our modern standards. What we now know about nature makes any magic explanation seem less and less convincing. But that doesn't mean that people back then all had low I.Q. After all, they were smart enough to survive in very tough situations with very little in the way of technology. I don't know if I could do what they managed to pull off. I think that they made the best kind of thinking that they could do with the limited knowledge they had. I'm impressed.

I have no reason to think they were MORE brilliant that we are now as a species. They had their Socrates, we had our Einstein and so forth...

But I DO consider people who are superstitious TODAY are rather thinking a bit idiotically, but again, that doesn't mean they are idiots, but that accepting their indoctrination makes them so. They could easily change, as I did. My thinking has benefited from letting go of most of my superstitious and magical thinking.

I suppose, praying to a god feels good. Nothing wrong with that. But the bad reasoning ... bad. The violence that it can generate.. bad. Very bad.
I wouldn't have a problem with people feeling good if they didn't cause PROBLEMS for other people. Let them believe "what ever gets them through the night".

 

[Valjean]

The supernatural is not within the purview of science. Until God is observable and testable, science can make no pronouncements about Him.

Since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding. As an architect of a building, there doesn't need to be a copy of signature to know that someone put thought into building it and that it has a builder who made it for a reason. The signature is in the atom, the DNA, all living things, the ocean and the earth, the heavens with its countless planets and stars, and our ability to be alive, to reason, and to wonder at His creation. That is my belief and my answer to your question.

This is all very poetic, BF, but it's scientifically meaningless.
You seem to be falsely imputing agency by arguing from complexity or personal incredulity.

 

[Shad]

I do hope you are simply trying to be argumentative.

No I am showing your argument is horrible

The assumption that "made" means initially created is simply false.

There is other statement about the Earth's creations in the Day ordering

The word can mean that, but not necessarily. It is not correct to assume so.

Give there is no other statement about the Earth's creation the conclusion is reasonable.

The first verse includes both the Earth and the entire universe -the sun, stars, etc...

Yet the Earth is not mentioned in the Day ordering at all. You are making an assumption as an ad hoc rescue

Everything after that is just that -after that.

So the Earth does not exist as its not in the ordering of Days. I reject your ad hoc rescue

Even if Genesis was simply a work of fiction,

It is

it is doubtful a writer would overlook the fact that if the sun were initially created on the fourth day, having previous days would be quite difficult.

Considering the writers didn't know modern astronomy his ignorance would explain why this error was made. Also yowm does not always means a literal day

Made means appoint, arrange, etc. -anything causing a certain state to exist.

So? Do notice there is not Earth in any of the days as being made, it is already assumed to exist.

There is no point in continuing if you are not going to be serious about it.

This is just an excuse and whing since I do not agree with you and attack your fallacious argument, nothing more.

These arguments are juvenile.

Hardly. Pointing out the ordering is wrong in light of modern science is not juvenile. You are making another excuse for your flawed argument

It Is no different than saying the bible is false because Adam and Eve could not have children by simply "knowing" each other.

Strawman. You are projecting your literalism and inerrant ideology on to an argument then declaring it wrong. Good thing Adam and Eve are also allegory.

 

[Shad]

I think there is a tendency to think that people back so many years ago were ignorant to an unreasonable fault or wise beyond anything man has ever known. The truth probably lies like certain truths in the middle. They certainly weren't ignorant, we to this day still use observation to relay information to ourselves. That Genesis would say we have a beginning doesn't need divine aspiration, one simple needs to look around and see that in this world most things have a beginning most have an end. The fact that science affirms that currently doesn't mean that they were geniuses or individuals who were given guidance but that they were people who could like all other humans seek to explain the world as they saw it.

Fallacy of composition, just because the part require X does not mean the whole does. A human requires a mother. Humanity requires a mother. See the flaw? Also "begin" is misleading since things that "begin" to exist are is just a change of form of things that already exist, matter/material. The material already existed before. Thus again the same fallacy repeated along with eqvoication shifting "begin" from a material change to ex-nihilo with no material.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

The supernatural is not within the purview of science. Until God is observable and testable, science can make no pronouncements about Him.

This is all very poetic, BF, but it's scientifically meaningless.
You seem to be falsely imputing agency by arguing from complexity or personal incredulity.

yes, i agree it is all very poetic, but I totally disagree with your comment of being false and meaningless. i have done much research and study on this subject and it would be way too much info to post. I take everything i have seen and heard from a scientific standpoint in answering this question without really going deep into it. If you were to look up intelligent design and the signature of God in things you might see what I am talking about. These are explanations from Dr's that are experts in their fields.

 

[Shad]

The supernatural is not within the purview of science. Until God is observable and testable, science can make no pronouncements about Him.

If this were to ever happen it would make God empirical and mundane. Just another cog in the system, nothing really special.

 

[McBell]

yes, i agree it is all very poetic, but I totally disagree with your comment of being false and meaningless. i have done much research and study on this subject and it would be way too much info to post. I take everything i have seen and heard from a scientific standpoint in answering this question without really going deep into it. If you were to look up intelligent design and the signature of God in things you might see what I am talking about. These are explanations from Dr's that are experts in their fields.

Not even one of the many claimed samples can be presented?

 

[Blastcat]

yes, i agree it is all very poetic, but I totally disagree with your comment of being false and meaningless. i have done much research and study on this subject and it would be way too much info to post. I take everything i have seen and heard from a scientific standpoint in answering this question without really going deep into it. If you were to look up intelligent design and the signature of God in things you might see what I am talking about. These are explanations from Dr's that are experts in their fields.

"Experts" does not mean "correct" or "accepted" by their peers. We know that these experts probably work for the Discovery Institute, and that ID has been completely discredited as a big part of the Wedge. ID is not science, it's creationism disguising itself as science.

I wonder if you are aware of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. The judgement makes for an interesting read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

For those more interested in watching a video about it, there's a great documentary about the court case to be found here:

 

[Sapiens]

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Fallacy of composition, just because the part require X does not mean the whole does. A human requires a mother. Humanity requires a mother. See the flaw? Also "begin" is misleading since things that "begin" to exist are is just a change of form of things that already exist, matter/material. The material already existed before. Thus again the same fallacy repeated along with eqvoication shifting "begin" from a material change to ex-nihilo with no material.

not sure what that had to do with the point I was making?? Can you clarify?

 

[viole]

if you know an artist his signature is in the style, the design. whether he leaves actual initials is irrelevant. the mona lisa doeant need initials to know that a painter painted it same for architects. la sagrada familia doesnt need initials on it to know that someone engineered this. i hope that clears it up.

This is a false analogy. We infer the author of some piece of art by comparing it with other works we know he did. And by comparing it against the work of other artists. I can tell Bach almost immediately even if I never heard the piece I am listening to; and that is because I know his style from other pieces attributed to Bach by other means.

But in the case of the Universe there is only one piece. And only one author, allegedly. So how do we know?

If I tell you that the Universe has not been created by the God of the Bible but by a giant invisible turtle, and it fine tune it so that turtles could arise, how could you prove me wrong?

Ciao

- viole

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No. Does not Genesis 1:1 clearly state that -in the beginning -the heaven was created before the earth?

It does not. Genesis 1:1 reads "בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ" ("In a first/initial moment, God/deity created the heavens and the earth"). The portion typically translated with something like "In the beginning" is בְּרֵאשִׁית. It is a prepositional phrase or PP (in Hebrew, prepositions are often affixes or clitics, i.e., they are attached to lexemes not written independently), with an indefinite noun. Thus, strictly speaking, any translation of the form in the beginning is wrong. However, translations always involve inaccuracies and information loss and trying to convey the indefinite nature of the noun here would probably be more misleading than just making it definite. The PP not only starts the passage, it sets up its context. It thus "qualifies" or "ranges over" the entirety of Genesis 1:1. It does assign an order to the creation of "אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ".
Time in Hebrew is generally extremely complicated. There are no tenses. However, like every language I know certain lexemes, particle, clitics, adpositions, and/or affixes can make life easier by semantically indicating notions about time (e.g., in English we have words like "begin", "start", "finish", "before", "after", etc.). Here, "בְּרֵאשִׁית" makes the answer to this question easy as we don't need to look at the aspect of the verb and the context to determine tense, we have a PP telling us that there was an initial moment of creation by god, followed by description of this creation, and NOT a statement that god first created one thing and then another.