Christianity without creationism - Also other similar theologies.

[Penis Drager]

Gimme like 30 mins. I've been drunk/workposting. I'll be home in a few to answer your bullshit more coherently.

 

[Penis Drager]

God can be made up of cells which evolve inside it. Evolution isn't just monkey turning into man.

You're projecting a linear concept of time onto a being beyond time and space. Humans are able to manipulate space-time and we're not even close to all powerful. Humans have proven that events in the future can influence particles in the past. We have done experiments changing the form a particle before it reaches the moment in time which manipulates it into taking that form. If basic bitch humans can do you think God could do?


*Tips Fedora* This is 2002 atheist youtube channel levels of salt.

The christian God is the alpha and the omega. It's unlikely that he is divisible into smaller components given what the bible says about him. I don't think any theologian would consider "he's made of cell and is capable of evolution" a valid proposition. If God is beyond matter, space and time, you shouldn't expect him to follow the same rules.

Well yes, actually, but that's not the point

What you think is logical and perfect someone else will disagree. How do you propose going about showing that your premises are objectively correct and the logic follows consistently from them to a conclusion that is also consistent

Eficiancy is basically the goal of logic. You find the easiest way to get from A to Z and cut as much crap in between out while keeping everything consistent. If your God can make a blue thing that's not blue, then there's no point in arguing because logic is all a waste of time here. But if we expect God to act in a logical manner, we should expect that he's gonna achieve his goals in the most efficient way he can.

[{"id":"8497093-0"}]
Even if you are entirely logical and entirely correct there is still problems. The universe as we know it isn't perfectly logical, there are mathematical instability to put it in layman's terms. The odds of an event happening due to the instability is obviously insanely low but it does exist. You could turn on your light switch and your chair explodes. There's no logical reason for this to happen but that small instability in the universe makes it possible and inevitable on a long enough timeline (longer than the heat death of the universe). If you had perfect logic and perfect answers you would still have to deal with random illogical bullshit. It's one of the fascinating theories involved in alternative universes, if they exist and every possibly exists then in one universe every time you use a light switch a chair explodes. Not because that universe has a stable connection between exploding chairs and light switches, purely on random luck.

Don't try the quantum woo-woo on me. I'm more than likely more educated on the topic then you (only a little bit of a flex). No matter the interpretation of QM you choose, it's still logically consistent as far as it can go. WHen it loses consistency is when it loses value.

 

[Rust-froth]

Don't try the quantum woo-woo on me. I'm more than likely more educated on the topic then you (only a little bit of a flex). No matter the interpretation of QM you choose, it's still logically consistent as far as it can go. WHen it loses consistency is when it loses value.

It's not logically consistent, that's the entire point being made. You're applying fedora logic to the illogical and claiming to be an expert for whatever reason.

How long until you stick a banana up your butt?

 

[Penis Drager]

How long until you stick a banana up your butt?

Depends. You subscribed to my Onlyfans?

It's not logically consistent, that's the entire point being made. You're applying fedora logic to the illogical and claiming to be an expert for whatever reason

In all seriousness, quantum mechanics does follow perfectly logical rules regardless of which interpretation you pick. Shit gets weird when you try to reconcile it with general relativity, which is something that's still being worked on, but just because we don't understand something doesn't make it illogical.

 

[Rust-froth]

Depends. You subscribed to my Onlyfans?


In all seriousness, quantum mechanics does follow perfectly logical rules regardless of which interpretation you pick. Shit gets weird when you try to reconcile it with general relativity, which is something that's still being worked on, but just because we don't understand something doesn't make it illogical.

Having the universe work in 2 completely different ways because of a scale difference is illogical. It's like water not being wet if you put it in a glass. We're off topic though.

 

[Penis Drager]

Having the universe work in 2 completely different ways because of a scale difference is illogical. It's like water not being wet if you put it in a glass. We're off topic though.

This isn't too far off topic I think.
We're talking about the nature of the universe in a thread about the nature of God. I don't think I'm smoking too much crack in saying that these topics go hand-in-hand.
Either way: do you even know what the contradictions between QM and GR are? They go much deeper than "the universe work in 2 completely different ways because of a scale."

 

[Quiet Guy]

In terms of the nature of God, consider the following points:

God is eternal; this means that either an infinite amount of time has passed for Him or that He exists outside of time, neither of which really makes sense to me. You also run into the same problem with time itself, so a secular worldview doesn't seem to solve the problem, although perhaps there might be some kind of physical explanation for existing outside of time that would apply to both scenarios.

God is more powerful than the angels; in Isaiah 6:2, they even shield their faces from His glory:
"Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew."

All things considered, it's likely God could perform logically impossible feats if He so chose.

Maybe our skyfather's powers only exist outside spacetime and can be wielded to create universes, but not alter them once they get rolling along.

I think it may be fairly likely that God doesn't outright violate the laws of nature. The Bible calls Him a God of order. With that said, while I think He (and the angels) may take advantage of certain properties of nature, I think God (but not necessarily angels) could outright violate the laws of nature, especially since He made them in the first place.

First of all, time is completely subjective to God, it's not like he had to wait out billions of years like we would, a billion years could pass in a day, so what difference does it make how "fast" he did it when linear time is subjective and there's no "fast" or "slow" to begin with?

And secondly, the Genesis story was always meant to be an allegorical explaining of what happened in a poetic way rather than a literal transcription of events, it literally all boils down to "God created the universe, God created life, God created mankind, mankind fell prey to temptation and achieved self consciousness, possibly by influence from Lucifer, that changed the dynamic of the universe and is why we no longer live in Eden today"

There you go, the exact details of the story are there to simply convey the overall message.

Why do you think the Genesis was meant to be allegorical? Also, if how would evolution occur in a world that would appear to be without death? If the story were allegorical wouldn't that mean that God created the world in a "fallen" state without Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

In terms of Creationism, there are issues with the reliability with carbon dating for example. The firmament and possibly a stronger magnetic field could have inhibited carbon-14 creation by helping prevent cosmic radiation from reaching Earth. Here is a link if you're interested: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/. It mentions that Libby, the father of carbon dating, assumed that his measurement that seemed to indicate that the ratio of carbon isotopes was out of equilibrium (which could point to a young Earth, since an older Earth should, in theory have had enough time for the ratios to equilibrate), was due to error, but I haven't managed to check how far out of equilibrium it supposedly was.

I do kind of believe in the Big Bang, since there was light on the first day without celestial bodies, and I believe a large amount of light was present after the Big Bang. Also thanks to relativity, the time frame is a bit more nebulous, so 7 days on Earth could correspond to a substantially different time for the rest of the universe if I'm not mistaken, but I'm not able to calculate how different it could be.

 

[murdered meat bag]

The christian God is the alpha and the omega. It's unlikely that he is divisible into smaller components given what the bible says about him. I don't think any theologian would consider "he's made of cell and is capable of evolution" a valid proposition. If God is beyond matter, space and time, you shouldn't expect him to follow the same rules.

Read up on Gregory Palamas and the essence and energies of God. Palamas explains how there are 2 parts of God, the unknowable essence and the knowable energies. there's also the trinity.

jesus is made up of cells as he is a human
fhe incarnation is important in christianity.

Eficiancy is basically the goal of logic. You find the easiest way to get from A to Z and cut as much crap in between out while keeping everything consistent. If your God can make a blue thing that's not blue, then there's no point in arguing because logic is all a waste of time here. But if we expect God to act in a logical manner, we should expect that he's gonna achieve his goals in the most efficient way he can.

God cant make squared circles or make humans with free will that always reject evil.

as for making a blue thing not blue, it might as well be a semantic argument. you need a new name for not-blue blue, maybe Red or yellow.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

As dumb as creationists are, at least their version of history makes a bit of sense. Sure, you could ask "why 6 days?" but that still makes a whole lot better sense than billions of years.

It's functionally equivalent. "Why six days?" "Why six billion years?" "Why instantaneously?"

Ultimately, it's because He wanted to. I don't dwell the specific mechanics of creation nearly as much as I do the fact that He created the cosmos out of chaos and put humans at the apex of creation, as well as the fact that the fall of man also meant creation fell for want of a ruler. I mean, the reading of the creation narrative (as well as others) principally for its theological truths was the standard procedure until, I reckon, the 18th century or so with the Fundamentalists.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

In terms of Creationism, there are issues with the reliability with carbon dating for example. The firmament and possibly a stronger magnetic field could have inhibited carbon-14 creation by helping prevent cosmic radiation from reaching Earth. Here is a link if you're interested: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/. It mentions that Libby, the father of carbon dating, assumed that his measurement that seemed to indicate that the ratio of carbon isotopes was out of equilibrium (which could point to a young Earth, since an older Earth should, in theory have had enough time for the ratios to equilibrate), was due to error, but I haven't managed to check how far out of equilibrium it supposedly was.

The only people who like to nitpick carbon dating are creationists who've copied their talking points from other creationists. If they actually bothered to research the subject, they'd know that "carbon dating" isn't even what's used to establish the age of most fossils, since carbon has a relatively short half-life. The article you're citing even admits this, and it's not a credible source either: Answers in Genesis is a thoroughly disreputable organization as far as the scientific community is concerned, and outside of science is perhaps mostly notable for building that moronic Ark Encounter theme park in Kentucky.

The ultimate problem with pseudoscientific beliefs such as young-Earth creationism is that once you measure them up to the available evidence, the whole thing becomes a house of cards. In reality, you can't just alter one important scientific conclusion without multiple others also being affected, and this is perhaps also the greatest irony with such beliefs, since they ostensibly attempt to invite skepticism, but in the process fail to withstand it themselves.

Take radiometric dating for instance: if there really was the massive discrepancies which creationists claim exist, why does the science work so well? How were we able to build MRI machines and nuclear bombs if our understanding of radioactive decay was allegedly so flawed? Moreover, why does the data provided by radiometric dating accurately correspond to the timescales suggested by cosmic inflation and the expansion of the universe, and why does it accurately fit with the physical evidence we have: such as the location of fossils within the stratigraphic column, and the comprehensive phylogenetic databases we've compiled which accurately fit with the fossil record? Think about it honestly, and the whole objection falls apart.

 

[Penis Drager]

"carbon dating" isn't even what's used to establish the age of most fossils, since carbon has a relatively short half-life.

The carbon dating thing is actually really interesting and goes beyond just the short half life:
If the problem were just half-life, carbon dating could go back about 100,000 years. But we can't typically use it beyond about 50,000 because it's a very finicky dating method. C14 is produced primarily through solar radiation interacting with nitrogen. Variation in solar radiance results in variation in C14 concentration in the atmosphere (this is actually a common creationist argument for why it supposedly can't work). Not only that, but aquatic life is using "old" carbon because they aren't getting it directly from the atmosphere (known as "the reservoir effect" and it's the cause of another creationist trope about live penguins being carbon dated to 800 years or so). And then there's the fact that C14 levels are different in the northern and southern hemispheres, which is related to the coriolis effect. There's other shit that can skew the data but those are the big three.
As a result, we construct calibration curves by using other dating methods to establish how much C14 is present in a sample of that age in that environment. Dendrochronolgy (literally tree rings) is one way of doing this since we can know exactly how old the sample is and use the carbon present to establish a very precise curve. But this only takes us back a little over 12,000 years. To reach the 50,000 year mark typically requires ice cores from the arctic/antarctic.

Shit's pretty cool, actually.

 

[Zarael]

Preface: Christianity is not the only religion this logic applies to. It's just the most popular... especially here.

So let's say you believe the creation story is metaphorical. You think your god spent billions of years to create human kind in literally one of the most roundabout ways possible. Why?
Why would he do it that way when he could just snap his fingers and make it so?

Why not? This argument relies on the premise that you have the perspective and understanding that omnipotent being has. Do you? The argument that "If I was God I would do things this way" relies entirely on the premise that you have an understanding of the whole of creation, from every star, atom, planet, animal and everything else equal to that of the creator. Of all the atheist arguments I find this one of the least compelling.

 

[Penis Drager]

Why not? This argument relies on the premise that you have the perspective and understanding that omnipotent being has. Do you? The argument that "If I was God I would do things this way" relies entirely on the premise that you have an understanding of the whole of creation, from every star, atom, planet, animal and everything else equal to that of the creator. Of all the atheist arguments I find this one of the least compelling.

God working in mysterious ways is nothing more than a cope.
"God does something that is demonstrably irrational? It's just mysterious ways that you cannot comprehend!" His "plan" is so great that it requires his adversary to hold dominion over the Earth before it comes into fruition. Top-tier plan he's got there! Literally "if you kill your enemies, they win" tier shit.

 

[Zarael]

God working in mysterious ways is nothing more than a cope.

"Omnipotent being does not necessarily act in ways that a being with a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the understanding of creation it has thinks it should act" is the furthest thing from a cope as you can get. It's an entirely rational position. It is irrational to believe that you are in a position to accurately judge how a being that is infinitely further from you than you are from a termite would choose to act in any given circumstance.

God does something that is demonstrably irrational?

For God to do something demonstrably irrational would require us to have the same information available to make the determination as God does. And we don't. If you mean to say that God seems to do irrational things sure, I grant that, but it doesn't give any more insight than the fact your dog thinks you're "irrational" for having a fridge full of food you don't immediately devour. Acts that seem irrational to lower beings can be justified with a higher level of understanding. Your dog will never understand why you leave the house to earn money, but you do. You will never understand the motive behind Gods actions, but that's ok! No-one asked you to. The only question is whether you reach toward the transcendent understanding your own limitations or reject the transcendent because it doesn't conform to your limitations.

 

[Penis Drager]

"Omnipotent being does not necessarily act in ways that a being with a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the understanding of creation it has thinks it should act" is the furthest thing from a cope as you can get. It's an entirely rational position. It is irrational to believe that you are in a position to accurately judge how a being that is infinitely further from you than you are from a termite would choose to act in any given circumstance.

If it has a brain, it understands "get shit done in the most efficient way possible." Even from the termite to the human, this principle applies. Better brains are just better at it. A termite doesn't understand our actions only because it doesn't understand our motivations. But God supposedly told us his motivations through the bible. If my dumb ass (and millions of dumbass creationists) could come up with a quicker and easier way to achieve his goals, then maybe such an omnipotent being simply doesn't exist.

 

[Zarael]

If it has a brain, it understands "get shit done in the most efficient way possible."

And? What's the goal? What does "getting shit done mean" in a universe created by God? You need the answer before you can judge whether things are actually advancing toward that goal.

But God supposedly told us his motivations through the bible

Have you read the Bible? There are two whole books, Job and Ecclesiastes, entirely devoted to the unknowability of Gods motives and how to deal with that fact.

 

[Penis Drager]

And? What's the goal? What does "getting shit done mean" in a universe created by God? You need the answer before you can judge whether things are actually advancing toward that goal.


Have you read the Bible? There are two whole books, Job and Ecclesiastes, entirely devoted to the unknowability of Gods motives and how to deal with that fact.

God produced us in his own image. We are in the likeness of God. He wanted them to live in paradise, but they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Them, not being perfect beings such as himself, would die for it.
The metaphorical interpretation is that this was God's goal all along; that humans progressively evolved to understand morality and this was the loss of innocence. But why plan it in such a way over billions of years?
He's God. He could create it all such that the story is literally true. Why would he even tell a false story if that would only drive people away from his arms when they learn the reality of the situation? It's his fucking book. He could have had the authors write it accurately. And it makes sense that he would.
Christianity + "old universe cosmogony" makes no fucking sense. (Maybe Gnosticism works here but that shit's weird).

 

[Trianon]

Frens might benefit in thinking about time as the unfolding of a linear story. The Bible as a text mirrors the scope of that story, and the creation + isolation + incarnation + crucifixion + resurrection + restoration storyline is not meant to be downloaded all at once as a Wiki summary. It must be experienced and anticipated. The history of Christianity is God saying, "I will do something amazing. Wait for it." and then his followers telling themselves this story and, in the process, learning the meaning of hope and of life. Even today Christians view the world as "already, but not yet" - because they are saved and yet waiting for the next chapter.

I think that is why the impatience of "couldn't it be done more efficiently?" or "why do it this way?" can actually be the first right question people can ask. Because the next question is, "Why do I feel like it has to be 'efficient'? What does that mean for how I see the world? Am I really seeing it as it is, or do I just want to skip over it to get to the next thing?"

But to answer the original question, I think some Christians spend too long trying to square things with Current Scientific Theory, when those theories are a long way off from explaining anything about how life came to be. I think it would be more honest for more of our science literature to allow itself to "cope" with the fact that abiogenesis is also a "mysterious ways" argument. It is something we all struggle to truly comprehend, no matter which angle we're coming at it from.

 

[Quiet Guy]

Take radiometric dating for instance: if there really was the massive discrepancies which creationists claim exist, why does the science work so well? How were we able to build MRI machines and nuclear bombs if our understanding of radioactive decay was allegedly so flawed? Moreover, why does the data provided by radiometric dating accurately correspond to the timescales suggested by cosmic inflation and the expansion of the universe, and why does it accurately fit with the physical evidence we have: such as the location of fossils within the stratigraphic column, and the comprehensive phylogenetic databases we've compiled which accurately fit with the fossil record? Think about it honestly, and the whole objection falls apart.

My point wasn't that our understanding of the process of radioactive decay is flawed, such that radioactive decay rates themselves are flawed or that issues would arise with the devices you mentioned, but that there may be an erroneous starting point for the isotopes. I'm not sure how serious the alleged isotope discrepancy might be since I haven't been able to look a the paper.

Also, what are you talking about when you're referring to a correlation between cosmic inflation and radiometric dating? They don't use cosmic isotopes to try to determine the ages of objects in space do they?

 

[jje100010001]

Personally I think that that Noah movie with Russell Crowe had it good in terms of a realistic creation story: