Freeper Views on Origins

Alamo-Girl | 7/16/2002 | Alamo-Girl

[JediGirl]

erm. i'm agnostic.

[BMCDA]

"In evolution, through death came man. In Genesis, through man came death." Evolution is a system which depends on the births and deaths of countless creatures and manlike animals prior to the first steps of Homo Sapiens.

And where is the problem with this?

[BMCDA]

I think you don't believe in God because you don't want to believe in God.

How's this possible? I've never heard that belief is an act of volition. If this were true I could simply believe or not believe something just as I can raise and lower my arm. Maybe some people can do that but I can't and I also doubt JediGirl can (as far as I can tell).

[Tribune7]

I think you don't believe in God because you don't want to believe in God. . . How's this possible? I've never heard that belief is an act of volition.

Of course to believe is an act of volition.

If this were true I could simply believe or not believe something just as I can raise and lower my arm.

Why do you think you can't (don't) do this?

[BMCDA]

Belief is a cognitive, not a volitional process, so it is not a decision, but a matter of being convinced by evidence.

I don't know if you're different but I can't just believe a claim and in the next moment not believe it, then again believe it and so on. This would be possible if belief were an act of volition.

[Tribune7]

Belief is a cognitive, not a volitional process

I don't think they are exclusionary. Volition means the act of making a choice or decision. Cognition means the act or process of knowing. (Cognitive means relating to "cognition.") I'd agree there are things you can know instinctively i.e. "pain is bad" but complex beliefs require a choice to be made, which is a volitional process.

There are many you things you do so it is not a decision, but a matter of being convinced by evidence.

If you're have been convinced you have made a decision.

I don't know if you're different but I can't just believe a claim and in the next moment not believe it, then again believe it and so on.

You've never changed your mind about anything? You may have a point about something, however.

I like to think my beliefs are deeply considered which means I made a choice about them.

But I grant that some, however, can hold tight to a belief without considering the evidence for it. This would mean your belief would be based on emotion, not reason. Namely you would believe something just because you want to, which is what I accused JediGirl of doing.

So maybe "wanting" is not a volitional process but overcoming the wanting is.

[BMCDA]

Of course I've changed my mind. However, that wasn't a decision I made but it happened because I was confronted with new evidence or because I reexamined what I already knew. But then I couldn't just change my mind back. The new evidence convinced me and without any additional evidence to the contrary I can't simply decide to be not convinced anymore. Or are you able to convince yourself that something is true and in the next moment that it is not, then again that it is true and so on without seeing any new evidence or reexamining the information you already have? I for instance can't convince myself that the moon is made of green cheese, or can you?

This is the belief I am talking about and not the belief that can be also referred to as trust like in: I believe my father that the car is in the garage. I don't have any evidence that the car is there but since I know from experience that my father doesn't lie to me in such a case I trust him when he tells me that the car is in the garage.

[Tribune7]

because I was confronted with new evidence

You made a choice to believe the new evidence. You chose your belief.

Is to want volitional? Is emotion volitional?

[BMCDA]

You made a choice to believe the new evidence. You chose your belief.

No, I didn't make that choice. The only choice I made was to examine new evidence but this new evidence may or may not have convinced me. The state of being convinced just happens to me and I can't influence it by wanting or not wanting to be convinced. Yes, it can happen that there is something that I rather not want to be true but if I've seen compelling evidence in it's favor then I'm convinced and there's nothing I can do about it.
Somehow it seems you are convinced of the contrary but since you're able to simply change your convinction to whatever you want, I suggest you just do it ;-)

[ALS]

"And the earth was without form, and void"

If the actual phrase is rendered according to Strong's it reads more accurately "and the earth BECAME WASTE AND RUIN", doesn't that change the accepted meaning and along with it all the erroneous assumptions?
The very first sentence should read "A" beginning, not "the" beginning.
I contend that the earth indeed did exist for a very long time prior to Genesis, and a war between the angels and demons(you'll see reference to this in Revelations, because there are 2 wars of this type, one that was and one yet to come) destroyed the earth, and Genesis is a story as told by an observer standing on the earth under dark thick clouds, watching God restore its life and beauty.
This take not only adheres to what the bible actually says, without spiritualizing everything to fit a particular belief, but it also squares with the observable sciences, and is primarily the cure for this silly debate between creationists and evolutionists. The original truth has a tendancy to clear things up.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your views, ALS!!!

I'm not trying to change your view, but since you mentioned Strong's - if you'd like to see a little more about the language behind Genesis 1 (from the Jewish perspective) you might find this article interesting: The Age of the Universe

[ALS]

Nor would I ever attempt to change yours, but the article you gave me does not address tohu and bohu in the verse I posted. Which is essentially waste and ruin. And the word "was" is "became", which totally alters the english translation we are all so used to seeing. ( I wished someone would seriously address this simple sentence)

As for the verse about a 1,000 years with God is like a day, well, it says "like". It doesn't say it "is" a day. I find difficulty in reordering meanings based upon similes.
All too often entire dogmas are based upon such things. Said dogmas are the problem, not the solution.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

I've seen the verse you raise argued both ways with conviction and good cause. I don't wish to dispute anyone's interpretation.

The reason I suggested the above link is in the overall structure of the language as it was studied many years ago - in particular with regard to the days themselves. Lurkers following our conversation might find this excerpt of interest:

Each day of creation is numbered. Yet there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations that make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! Because there is a qualitative difference, as Nachmanides says, between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative. The link also contained this tidbit that Lurkers might find interesting:

Nachmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" - from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence - that's when the Biblical clock starts.

Thank you for your sharing your views!

[ALS]

I would see the first excerpt as simply pointing out that you can't say "a second day" or "a third day", until you've established an initial day. I see nothing more than that.

As to the second excerpt, I have previously given this thought as well and conclude that indeed a unique mode of time must come into existence upon creation. That the universe is a clock is a no brainer and doubtful anyone would attempt to refute such. However, I do believe that it would have to exist, at least in concept, in order for God to create it. My personal belief holds that God spent an untold (huge) quantity of time "thinking" everything up, so to speak, before He spoke it into reality.
Just like how we observe the phrase, "in the beginning" instead of "A" beginning, which is far more accurate, so were there many beginnings, all of which began a time reference. To us it would all seem relative, but to the Creator it wouldn't.

Thank you for handling my variances with grace.

[Alamo-Girl]

You are very kind, ALS! It is my hope that this thread will collect all kinds of views on origins so that Lurkers can see them all at once.

[LiteKeeper]

bump for later read and comment

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for bumping by! I look forward to hearing your views on Origins!

[HalfFull]

Well Alamo-girl here is my take:

1. I tend to believe the Bible literally...that is, that the days mentioned in Gen 1 are literal days, each bounded by an evening and a morning. Most Hebrew scholars agree that the text can only be read as literal days. Why God chose to take as long as six days, I'll never know... He could have done it in 6 seconds if He had chosen to do so!

2. That most of the Bible is not open to "interpretation" . If the literal meaning of the text is clear, it should be taken as such. It is dangerous to Spiritualize such clear text to mean something else. I admit that there are some portions of scripture that are clearly symbolic...but those sections are in the minority. When we start "explaining away the flood" and other miracles, we limit God. If we can't trust Him about the Creation account, how can we trust that Jesus is who He says He is?

3. Contrary to popular belief, Evolution is not backed up in what we see today. The fossil record bares witness to exactly what we would expect to see with a flood of the scope described at the time of Noah. Is the flood true or not? Are the waters covering the highest mountains referenced in Genesis 7:19-20 open to interpretation? I think not

"Gen 7:19-21 19 And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered" .

How can this mean anything but what it says? Its nice that what we see today is exactly what we would expect to see as a result of such a Catastrophe. For example, the vast deposits of oil and coal (which are created by large amounts of animal and vegitable matter under heat and pressure) can only be explained by something such as the flood.

4. Why does the earth have to be old? Where is the real evidence of an old earth? The "dating methods" that scientists use today require huge assumptions...some of which are ridiculous.

The clincher for me is when Jesus Himself refers to Man and Woman being made in the beginning (Mat 19:4) , and to His clear reference to the days of Noah (Luke 17:26). Good enough for me!

Do I accept this by faith? You bet I do. But, its nice to know that what I see today backs up what God would have me accept by faith.

Regards,

HalfFull

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your views and your testimony!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Links on harmonics in the early universe:

Physics News 481, April 27, 2000

BEST MAP YET OF THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND (CMB). The CMB is a redshifted picture of the universe at the moment photons and newly formed hydrogen atoms parted company roughly 300,000 years after the big bang. First detected in the 1960s, the CMB appeared to be utterly uniform until, eight years ago, the COBE satellite provided the first hint of slight temperature variations, on a coarse scale, with an angular resolution of about 7 degrees...

The 36-member, international "Boomerang" (Balloon Observations of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation and Geomagnetics) collaboration, led by Andrew Lange of Caltech and Paolo de Bernardis of the University of Rome, confirms that a plot of CMB strength peaks at a multipole value of about 197 (corresponding to CMB patches about one degree in angular spread), very close to what theorists had predicted for a cosmology in which the universe's overall curvature is zero and the existence of cold dark matter is invoked. The absence of any noticeable subsidiary peaks (higher harmonics) in the data, however, was not in accord with theory.

The shape of the observed pattern of temperature variations suggests that a disturbance very like a sound wave moving through air passed through the high- density primordial fluid and that the CMB map can be can be thought of as a sort of sonogram of the infant universe. (de Bernardis et al., Nature, 27 April 2000.)

Big Bang Evidence Found – May 2, 2001

"The early universe is full of sound waves compressing and rarefying matter and light, much like sound waves compress and rarefy air inside a flute or trumpet," explained Paolo deBernardis of the University of Rome La Sapienza, one of the members of the Balloon Observations of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation and Geophysics (BOOMERanG) team. "For the first time the new data show clearly the harmonics of these waves." Harmonics In The Early Universe: The CMB Power Spectrum June 5, 2001

The MAXIMA, BOOMERANG, and DASI collaborations, which measure minute variations in the CMB, recently reported new results at the American Physical Society meeting in Washington, D.C. All three agree remarkably about what the "harmonic proportions" of the cosmos imply: not only is the universe flat, but its structure is definitely due to inflation, not to topological defects in the early universe.

The results were presented as plots of slight temperature variations in the CMB that graph sound waves in the dense early universe. These high-resolution "power spectra" show not only a strong primary resonance but are consistent with two additional harmonics, or peaks.

Cosmological Parameters and Galaxy Biasing – May 22, 2002