Exactly. To ask "What does science say about X?" presupposes an understanding of X.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can a Genesis God be Explained from a Science Perspective? (part 1)
- Thread starter Dante Writer
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
So basically you are redefining the "Laws" to coincide with one of the many definitions of "god"?
Dante Writer
Active Member
The interpretations of religions are not the topic.
The description in Genesis as it describes a God and a scientific perspective of that God is the topic.
If you want a religious discussion on the many interpretations then there is a religious section of the forum for that.
McBell
Unbound
And said description, which you JUST STATED is the topic, is different depending upon which version of that very description you use....
Dante Writer
Active Member
No- any "understanding" you apply would be nothing but your opinion or religious bias.
If you want to discuss religious interpretations of the bible there is a religious section in the forum for that.
This is discussion is for looking at the description in Genesis of a God and seeing if their is a scientific perspective that can be applied to that description.
If you are seeing a different description from those words then explain your description?
Please stay on topic.
Dante Writer
Active Member
Use your own description and tell us what it is then?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
It is if you want to compare science to a religious story (Genesis). You can't fit Genesis (religious story) to science unless you know how to interpret the religious story.
What God does it describe? How does it describe this God? I can't compare it to a scientific perspective until we've first settled what the story describes.
But you're asking to compare a religious story to science, without doing the proper analysis of the story. I'm not talking about a theological analysis, but you refute to discuss the interpretations of the story only to favor your own.
Jay wanted some analysis of your interpretation, but you don't want to, yet you want this vague and personal interpretation to fit a scientific view. Then this "fitting" is nothing but your interpretation as well.
McBell
Unbound
That is just it, HE IS staying on topic.
Dante Writer
Active Member
This is just another tactic you use when you do not want to discuss the topic and want to take the discussion off topic to try and make it irrelevant because it challenges your own beliefs.
The words from Genesis KJV are in my OP:
1-."In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
That is a description of a God entity with the power to create matter or particles that form matter.
If you disagree with that description then you need to explain your own description.
I am not going to debate why I started the discussion. I did it because I can and that is what this forum is for.
If you do not like the topic. Start your own and ignore my discussions in the future please.
McBell
Unbound
I can just as easily make the claim that you are only avoiding answering on topic questions because you are a feared they will undermine your agenda.
Wow.
i never realized just how much fun making bold empty claims were.
Especially if I do not have to worry about credibility of supporting them with anything other than more bold empty claims.
I can see now why it is so addictive.
Ignorant rubbish.
Dante Writer
Active Member
You have added nothing of substance and will be ignored for the rest of this discussion.
If you want respect for your posts- start showing respect!
McBell
Unbound
Which applies equally to you.
Yet instead of just flat out answering the question, which would have taken what two posts at most, you go on and on for several posts falsely accusing it of being off topic.
I cannot help but wonder if the answer to the question:
Why that version of Genesis?
Is simply:
Because it is the version I am most familiar with.
What I do not understand is why you are making such a big to do over it.
Dante Writer
Active Member
Are you saying that anything you say is not just opinion and based on personal bias?
LOL!!!
McBell
Unbound
And now you are already back to elementary school behavior?
Sadly your post is just plain flat out not true.
I have a higher percentage of on topic posts in this thread than you do.
McBell
Unbound
interesting.
Because I took it to mean that it is his opinion that you are trying, in serious vain, to have a discussion on a topic you know less than nothing about, but with the attitude that you know more about said topic than everyone else in the thread.
^ pretty dishonest.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
You could start your own thread on that, right?
Dante Writer
Active Member
You have added nothing of substance to the discussion and will be ignored for the rest of this discussion.
If you want respect for your posts- start showing respect!
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I would say the same about your avoiding exploring the interpretations.
So speaking in the void and creating man from clay isn't part of Genesis?
My description is that Genesis is allegorical and metaphorical. So you can fit anything you want by contorting the meanings.
Sure.
I didn't say I don't like the topic, but if you want to explore the topic, you have to be open to other people's views.