Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

[Alceste]

It is wrong to you because you have not yet come to understand the Word of God.You interpret it wrong.

How so? It's pretty unambiguous: day 3, plants. Day 4, the sun. We know this is not the order in which these things came to be, so why does the bible put them in this order?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How so? It's pretty unambiguous: day 3, plants. Day 4, the sun. We know this is not the order in which these things came to be, so why does the bible put them in this order?

Sometimes god speaks backwards. Oh wait, or is that satan? I guess satan actually created the world.

You see? These are the sorts of insights you get when you interpret the word of god correctly.

 

[LuisDantas]

How so? It's pretty unambiguous: day 3, plants. Day 4, the sun. We know this is not the order in which these things came to be, so why does the bible put them in this order?

God is a prankster and did so on purpose in order to remind its believers of the foolishness of literalism?

 

[Alceste]

Sometimes god speaks backwards. Oh wait, or is that satan? I guess satan actually created the world.

You see? These are the sorts of insights you get when you interpret the word of god correctly.

God is a prankster and did so on purpose in order to remind its believers of the foolishness of literalism?

I know you're both being funny, but I've actually had it explained to me that Satan filled the world with evidence that leads us to conclude the Bible is incorrect to tempt us from the path of righteousness. That guy was being completely serious. He was really angry that I couldn't stop laughing.

 

[TheGunShoj]

I know you're both being funny, but I've actually had it explained to me that Satan filled the world with evidence that leads us to conclude the Bible is incorrect to tempt us from the path of righteousness. That guy was being completely serious. He was really angry that I couldn't stop laughing.

I hope you pointed out how twisted God would have to be to still send people to hell even though they were tricked into disbelief by a supernatural being as if us mortals can somehow compete with that and it's our fault and we should be punished for it.

Makes sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, it makes more sense to me that God would make the Bible - or for that matter, the Quran and the Torah - deliberately questionable to some extent than to think of the alternative.

 

[Nada]

How so? It's pretty unambiguous: day 3, plants. Day 4, the sun. We know this is not the order in which these things came to be, so why does the bible put them in this order?

A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.*
On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.
The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth “day,” God was still in the process of “forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.”—Genesis 2:19.
Clearly, the Bible’s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.”



http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006326#h=13:143-13:433

 

[InChrist]

I hope you pointed out how twisted God would have to be to still send people to hell even though they were tricked into disbelief by a supernatural being as if us mortals can somehow compete with that and it's our fault and we should be punished for it.

Makes sense.

Actually, no one is "tricked" into disbelief unless they already want an excuse to disbelieve the truth which is already revealed to their conscience.

...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1;19-21

 

[TheGunShoj]

Actually, no one is "tricked" into disbelief unless they already want an excuse to disbelieve the truth which is already revealed to their conscience.

...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1;19-21

Way to take what I said out of context. If you take another look, I was referring to what Alceste said about the beliefs of one individual. thanks!

 

[Ouroboros]

You interpret it wrong.

According to your interpretation...

Oh, can't see the irony?

 

[Nada]

Rah rah rah......

 

[InChrist]

Way to take what I said out of context. If you take another look, I was referring to what Alceste said about the beliefs of one individual. thanks!

You said it ...

"how twisted God would have to be to still send people to hell even though they were tricked into disbelief by a supernatural being"

...and clearly you believe if the belief of that one individual is true then God is twisted and allows people to be tricked and you think this should be pointed out. So basically you wanted to get across your view that God is twisted, to which I responded. You are welcome.

 

[Alceste]

A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.*
On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.
The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth “day,” God was still in the process of “forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.”—Genesis 2:19.
Clearly, the Bible’s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.”



Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

So your position is that the sun already existed before God created it on day 4?

 

[Sonofason]

Well, I posted the age of the Sun and the Age of the Earth:


The Sun isn't that older, really. But Alceste does appear to be correct.

Stanford SOLAR Center -- Ask A Solar Physicist FAQs - Answer

I'm not sure why you're having such a problem with this. Isn't the point of the Genesis just to say that God created all things? Do you really have to take it so literally? Jews and most Christians don't take it literally.

It's easy to make bold claims. It's much more difficult to present evidence to support such claims. Now submit your evidence.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's easy to make bold claims. It's much more difficult to present evidence to support such claims. Now submit your evidence.

The article explains how they determine the age of the Sun. If you have a problem with middle school level science, I really can't help you.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

It's easy to make bold claims. It's much more difficult to present evidence to support such claims. Now submit your evidence.

If a credible article by an actual solar physicist who literally studies these kinds of things for a living does not count as evidence to you, then what actually does? Would you like him to write it down on 2,000 year old papyrus, bury it somewhere in the deserts of Israel, dig it back up, and say it came from God? Would that make it a bit more credible for your taste?

 

[Sonofason]

Sonofason had written:

Here is my question. Everyone says there's all this proof, yet it's apparently too complicated for anyone to really follow and truly understand, but they believe it anyway. Why? Because some guy with a PhD says so.

No thanks man, I'd rather put my faith in a God I experience than a model I can't understand. It seems to me, these days, science is it's own religion, and it requires a whole lot of blind faith.

No, it's not too complicated for anyone to follow. It's too complicated for ME to follow. I get the basics, don't get me wrong, but if you start talking about primary sources, then nope...lost me.

Okay, then to be clear, you admit that you don't have any evidence, at least none that you understand, that the sun predates the earth.

lewisnotmiller responds:

That doesn't mean I'm taking it on faith to the degree you mean. Yes, I am reliant on others for information. And those others could be wrong. In fact, I expect they are. But science isn't an 'answer' in the way religion is. I don't need to think it's right.

Lets see if I've got this right. You say you don't take it on faith that the sun predates the earth, yet you acknowledge that you have no actual evidence to show that it does. This sounds like blind faith, just as I described it. You admit you rely on others for information, yet you fail to submit any of the information you claim, or they claim they have.

lewisnotmiller responds:

It's an approach. So if you want to argue that I have faith in scientific method, then sure, that's probably valid. I would submit that my faith is based on tangible evidence that scientific method is our best method for answering previously unanswered questions, and for producing new technologies and insights to the world around us.

We have just shown that you have no evidence to show that the sun predates the earth. You have admitted that science is probably wrong. And we have shown that your beliefs about the age of the sun is based on pure speculation and blind faith.

As for the specifics about the Sun being older than the Earth, I don't need to trust science, nor trust a scientist. I trust lots of scientists independently trying to determine the truth by scientific method. Where they do a shoddy job, I trust other scientists to call them out. Where they do a good job, I trust other scientists to take their research and try to improve on it just a little and get some kudos/grant money/chicks for themselves. Okay, so the chicks was a stretch, but you get the idea.

Next time I turn on my tv, I see evidence that science works. Air con. Car. Next time I can google the layers of the Earth and get independently sourced information which I can cross reference and which agrees. I don't need to dig to the centre of the Earth.

Heck, I know what the Earth looks like in space. Never been in space. Never experienced the wonder. But I know what it looks like. Do you doubt what the Earth looks like from space?

Let me see if I've got this right. Because you know what the earth looks like from space, knowledge I suppose you owe to science and the scientific method, you believe that the sun predates the earth. You are saying that, because scientists are capable of taking pictures of the earth from space, it must also be true that they know the actual age of the sun and the earth.

For the age of the Sun to be something I personally could verify, for the age of the Earth to be something I could personally verify, and for me to be able to build a simple narrative to explain to others how I KNOW the relative ages of these would require two things;

1) A level of hubris I don't have.
2) For me to want to waste my breath, since everyone else would already know anyway.

The fact is, things can be complicated. And people can spend their whole lives studying what has come before them in a certain field, with the hope of advancing that field in one meaningful way.

So instead, I rely on the preponderance of evidence as I understand it to be to make my life choices, and update my view of the world as my understanding of the world develops.

From what I see, you are not relying on any preponderance of evidence, as you have so far been incapable of providing any evidence to support your claim. It seems to me that your understanding of the world, is based on pure speculation and blind faith.

 

[Desert Snake]

The article explains how they determine the age of the Sun.

Um. I'm not aware of any scientific 'reason' why the sun should predate the earth, those dates may be slightly arbitrary, or just fit into parameters for convenience sake of what can be 'assumed', not sure. I wouldn't present those as facts however.

 

[Sonofason]

I think she was just making reference to the order of which god created things in genesis. Plants, Light, living things, so forth.

She was trying to suggest that the order of creation in the Bible is false because of some unverifiable evidence or fact that the sun predates the earth. I'd like to see that evidence.

 

[Sonofason]

It is not surprising that you say so, because it is not the first time.

Shows how honest you are.

I am simply pointing out that many things which you think you know as a matter of fact are not indeed matters of fact, but pure unsubstantiated conjecture.