Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: albionin
Science is a method and we understand it very well.

I agree, we do understand science very well, as it functions at this point in space and time. The problem is that there is no way to confirm that our assumptions about the past are true due to the fact that there's no way to actually truly verify the past. Yes, we can take note of things and make educated assumptions based upon those notes, but there is a certain limit to our understanding that is due to our inability to see time as a whole.

Now, you stated that there are contradictions in Genesis. Care to provide an example?

37 posted on 12/22/2011 8:27:06 AM PST by Avalon Hussar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: Avalon Hussar

“In the beginning, the Earth was a formless void, and darkness shown on the waters of the deep.”

A void means an absence of anything. Formless means without form. The “Earth” and “waters of the deep” are things. Either the Earth was a void in the beginning in which case there could be no waters of the deep. Or there were waters of the deep in which case the Earth was not a formless void.

Then there is the problem of two different versions of the creation of Earth. In one the oceans come about by a deluge from the sky and the other tells that the oceans sprung from the land.

Then there is the problem of Cain’s wife. Where did she come from.

Then there is the fact that God punishes every man for the actions of Adam and Eve which would fly in the face of justice.

Then there is the fact that the Earth was created before the sun.

I could go on. In order to take the book of Genesis literally you must suspend your consciousness. You must abandon reason. Now I don’t mean to start a fight, but I can’t let the argument that the Earth is only thousands of years old go by without challenging it. If faith means ignoring reality to believe something written over two thousand years ago that flies in the face of reason, then I want no part of faith. Our assumptions about the past are based on reason, not arbitrary whim. They are based on real evidence. I don’t begrudge anyone their right to believe what every they want, and I don’t think that I have all the answers by far, but I don’t think it is arguable that Genesis is not full of contradictions and to accept them as true “somehow” is to abandon my one tool to perceive reality.

Now I don’t mean to run away on you but I really have to get to work. Also I have said all I have to say. I’ll probably get banned for this but that’s o.k.

45 posted on 12/22/2011 9:05:03 AM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: Avalon Hussar; Alamo-Girl

I’ve posted the following because I found it an interesting comment in light of this discussion as the dialogue was similar as seen here. The writer will have to remain annonoymous.


“...The tool of physics & chemistry offer the closest we can get to the “provable” truth.... Most of those who have studied the world from this particular perspective have generally tried to get at the unadulterated truth.... There have been exceptions of course.... But here’s the glitch.

As methods of measuring and viewing get smaller and smaller, the uncertainty of what “you know” increases... (This is know as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.)... Ultimately, when you get down to the size of atoms, all of your “common sense” ends up going out the window and you’re totally perplexed because you realize there is a serious limit to getting exact knowledge....

So you see, science clearly reaches a limit of understanding by measuring and viewing.

You can now see the difficulty someone will have in trying to find “The Truth”.... He will reach a point of limitation of knowledge regardless of which direction he goes..... If he were to decide to take the physics, chemistry and mathematics approach he would eventually be discouraged and disillusioned when he finds that the whole universe is based on statistics, which involves uncertainty.

If he decided to go in the direction of philosophy and religion he will arrive, again, at a point of uncertainty. He will be asked to have faith, which ultimately means believing without proof.... (Which on the surface, is the opposite of the scientific approach.)

Both methods, Science & Philosophy/Religion require a lot of effort and study if you want to have a clear understanding of them. And neither ends up offering a “Provable Truth”.

76 posted on 12/23/2011 12:33:30 AM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson