• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Is there a Christian cosmology that doesn't include miracles?

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
His vs. ours. We simply have to trust in Christ more than our own grasp. In essence, my argument is wrapped up in Proverbs 3:5,6 "Lean not on your own understanding ("logic"). Anybody who says differently is doing it wrong. In Him -Lon

What Lon isn't smart enough to grasp is how he contradicts himself with this literally idiotic statement.

"My argument is that anyone who relies on logic is doing it wrong."

Just think that through for ten seconds.

"MY ARGUMENT is that anyone who relies on logic is doing it wrong."

As I have stated on this website perhaps a thousand times over the years, you cannot undermine the veracity of logic without using logic to do it. An overt distrust of sound reason is the most profound example of self defeating stupidity that it is possible to perform.

Notice the syllogistic form of Lon's argument...

The bible is true.
The bible says not to lean on our own understanding. (false premise as applied - it is a rule of thumb not a law of nature or morality).
"our understanding" = "logic" (false premise)
Therefore, anyone who trusts logic is "doing it wrong".

His conclusion is false because of false premises but that isn't the point. The point is that whether he chooses to acknowledge it or not, he was using, albeit poorly, the very logic he is trying to convince us all can't be trusted. In other words, it isn't logic that has failed Lon, it is his own understanding! He is, in fact, leaning on his own understanding because without sound reason, that's all that there is left to lean on!

Lon, very simply and as a matter of fact, does not know how to think! He therefore checks his brain at the door of his church and is willing to believe WHATEVER he is told to believe. This is why it doesn't bother him that the supposedly immutable God became a man and died and rose from the dead. It's not that he doesn't see the contradiction. He totally sees the contradiction and simply doesn't care. He is perfectly willing to live with the contradiction because he doesn't trust his own mind to detect error even when that error is in direct conflict with the bible that he claims is the source of his doctrine and this willingness to ignore blatant contradiction is what he thinks it means to have faith. The more blatant the contradiction the more pure and pious the faith.

And this mindless belief that Lon call faith, is his core doctrine. The rejection of reason is the central pillar upon which he has built his entire theological worldview. If I came here touting virtually any other wacky doctrine anyone could name, he'd have no problem with me whatsoever, regardless of how dogmatic I was about it. But not the rejection of reason! That's the hill which Lon must defend or die trying because if one's Christianity must make rational sense, then much of what Lon believes goes up in smoke.

In short, by cutting himself off from the only tool available by which anyone can detect truth or error, (i.e. sound reason), Lon believe whatever he wants to believe and demands that you do the same or else you're "doing it wrong".

Clete
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
You mean that you hate Him so much you're willing to reject His existence?

What happened to cause you to reject Him?

The presumes there is something to hate and then reject. But, as I have suggested before, any need to accept a literal Bible blows rationality and logic up. Certainly any requirement to accept a young earth, Noah's Flood, Adam and Eve's special creation is irrational and goes against evidence. What follows from that is a rejection of the rest of the story.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Obviously you hate God. Why do you waste your energy by hating God?

Hey 7! The American Psychological Association published a paper on atheists being angry at God. Let's see...

I know I have that reference around here somewhere...

Hmm. Oh, it's got to be linked to from rsr.org/atheism!

Found it! Okay, it's here...
 

Lon

Well-known member
Hey 7! The American Psychological Association published a paper on atheists being angry at God. Let's see...

I know I have that reference around here somewhere...

Hmm. Oh, it's got to be linked to from rsr.org/atheism!

Found it! Okay, it's here...
He will have to wait until his ban is over. Could someone who has an account summarize the article and/or with any good quotes? The website said something about having to pay a fee to become a member in order to read it. Thank you. -Lon
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
He will have to wait until his ban is over. Could someone who has an account summarize the article and/or with any good quotes? The website said something about having to pay a fee to become a member in order to read it. Thank you. -Lon

The link are RSR.org allows you to see the abstract...


[h=3]Citation[/h] Exline, J. J., Park, C. L., Smyth, J. M., & Carey, M. P. (2011). Anger toward God: Social-cognitive predictors, prevalence, and links with adjustment to bereavement and cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021716



[h=3]Abstract[/h]

Many people see themselves as being in a relationship with God and see this bond as comforting. Yet, perceived relationships with God also carry the potential for experiencing anger toward God, as shown here in studies with the U.S. population (Study 1), undergraduates (Studies 2 and 3), bereaved individuals (Study 4), and cancer survivors (Study 5). These studies addressed 3 fundamental issues regarding anger toward God: perceptions and attributions that predict anger toward God, its prevalence, and its associations with adjustment. Social-cognitive predictors of anger toward God paralleled predictors of interpersonal anger and included holding God responsible for severe harm, attributions of cruelty, difficulty finding meaning, and seeing oneself as a victim. Anger toward God was frequently reported in response to negative events, although positive feelings predominated. Anger and positive feelings toward God showed moderate negative associations. Religiosity and age correlated negatively with anger toward God. Reports of anger toward God were slightly lower among Protestants and African Americans in comparison with other groups (Study 1). Some atheists and agnostics reported anger involving God, particularly on measures emphasizing past experiences (Study 2) and images of a hypothetical God (Study 3). Anger toward God was associated with poorer adjustment to bereavement (Study 4) and cancer (Study 5), particularly when anger remained unresolved over a 1-year period (Study 5). Taken together, these studies suggest that anger toward God is an important dimension of religious and spiritual experience, one that is measurable, widespread, and related to adjustment across various contexts and populations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
I use to love learning about all the proofs that God Created the universe. I especially liked geochronometry.
I still enjoy hearing new things as they are discovered on a daily bases that prove a young earth.
But a lot of creation science gets a little too far into the weeds for the average person to wittiness with.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that those things shouldn't be explored, they should be. But it appears so so deep into the weeds . . . that it almost seems like people are trying to convince themselves and not others.

From my prospective as a firm believer in a young earth, I think a broader more hypothetical approach would win more converts to the young earth. I would love to see the brilliant minds on this forum tackle, just how God did creation. Was it all miracles?

My favorite way to start with a evolutionist is with the joke about the scientist who eventually created life in the lab, using a piece of clay. And as they presented the life to God, of course God says, get your own clay.

If, E=MC2 and I think most concede that it probably does, then why can't creationist take M=E/C2 and put it in the place of some or all of the so called miracles.

Maybe the term miracle may not be what we think it is. Maybe, just maybe miracle is a figure of speech meaning something like "things that are hard to understand". My understanding is the term "miracle" is defined as actions that violate the laws of physics. If you believe in E=MC2 then I think you have to believe in M=E/C2, or energy into matter that would not violate physics.

Miracles are in the eyes of the beholder. If you gave a cell phone to Moses, he would surely call it a miracle. Heck, the amount of diodes they can now get on the head of a pin, makes me think its a miracle! LOL

Is there a Christian cosmology that doesn't include miracles? Maybe there should be? Why would God create laws of physics such as He did, only to immediately break them? Or, at least ask the question, if God wanted to create without violating "His" laws of physics, could He do it?

Is bringing something into existence from nothing a miracle? From the perspective of a miraculous healing, ie, instantaneous healing, creation would seem to be a far greater accomplishment than simply healing someone instantaneously.

Scripturally, it seems that there is always some human ministering that miracle to another, whereas, in God's creative act of Genesis 1:1, no human was involved, does that distinguish creation from the instantaneous show of power called a miracle? I don't know off hand.

However, without God, there would be no heaven and earth seeing that God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Is bringing something into existence from nothing a miracle? From the perspective of a miraculous healing, ie, instantaneous healing, creation would seem to be a far greater accomplishment than simply healing someone instantaneously.

Scripturally, it seems that there is always some human ministering that miracle to another, whereas, in God's creative act of Genesis 1:1, no human was involved, does that distinguish creation from the instantaneous show of power called a miracle? I don't know off hand.

However, without God, there would be no heaven and earth seeing that God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning
If a miracle is an occurrence in the physical universe which has a super natural cause then, of course, the entire creation week was one miraculous event after another. But, I don't think the OP is looking for a cosmology that contains no miracles at all in the creation process. I think the point he's driving at is that Christians tend to pull out the miracle trump card too quickly any time there is an issue that they don't have a good answer for, which tends to undermine the credibility of the whole construct. That and he's just trying to explore the issue in an attempt to think God's thoughts after Him.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
If a miracle is an occurrence in the physical universe which has a super natural cause then, of course, the entire creation week was one miraculous event after another. But, I don't think the OP is looking for a cosmology that contains no miracles at all in the creation process. I think the point he's driving at is that Christians tend to pull out the miracle trump card too quickly any time there is an issue that they don't have a good answer for, which tends to undermine the credibility of the whole construct. That and he's just trying to explore the issue in an attempt to think God's thoughts after Him.

Yes, I that is a common theme amongst doubters.

And it is a fall back position for some.

In some cases, it is a weakness to do so, in others, a strength to do so.

Do I have have to understand exactly what electricity is and how it powers lightbulbs or motors or how it is used to weld metal for me to be able to enjoy the benefits of electricity?

Absolutely not, like wise, I do not have to know everything scientific about cosmology for me to enjoy God's creation.

It is enough for me at times simply to enjoy the warmth of the sun without understanding nuclear physics.

I can enjoy the stars at night without debating all the "scientific" guesses or the know about the "sciencology", that is, the preferred "theories" of science to enjoy the stars and the moon.

God set up the laws of science, so for those who are interested in science to a great degree can learn a little bit about God from studying the heavens and the earth He created.

The precision and orderliness of the physical laws that God set up.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Yes, I that is a common theme amongst doubters.

And it is a fall back position for some.

In some cases, it is a weakness to do so, in others, a strength to do so.

Do I have have to understand exactly what electricity is and how it powers lightbulbs or motors or how it is used to weld metal for me to be able to enjoy the benefits of electricity?

Absolutely not, like wise, I do not have to know everything scientific about cosmology for me to enjoy God's creation.

It is enough for me at times simply to enjoy the warmth of the sun without understanding nuclear physics.

I can enjoy the stars at night without debating all the "scientific" guesses or the know about the "sciencology", that is, the preferred "theories" of science to enjoy the stars and the moon.

God set up the laws of science, so for those who are interested in science to a great degree can learn a little bit about God from studying the heavens and the earth He created.

The precision and orderliness of the physical laws that God set up.

Okay. That's fine and all but I don't see how this adds to the discussion or gives an answer to the OP.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Okay. That's fine and all but I don't see how this adds to the discussion or gives an answer to the OP.

Because I answered the question. any Christian who actually believes God's word believes that God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1

That makes a lot more sense that assuming that nothing was the cause of nothing becoming something in a moment of time scientists refer to as the big bang.

Many scientists were at first repulsed by the idea of a big bang, Because it did not fit their "science"

Why do scientists refuse to believe science?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Because I answered the question. any Christian who actually believes God's word believes that God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1
No one has said otherwise.

That makes a lot more sense that assuming that nothing was the cause of nothing becoming something in a moment of time scientists refer to as the big bang.
Again, no one has said otherwise. At least not in the OP.

Many scientists were at first repulsed by the idea of a big bang, Because it did not fit their "science"

Why do scientists refuse to believe science?
Because they are leftists first, atheists second and scientists third (at best).

Big science is about politics. Scientific endeavor is just their cover.



It really feels like you've missed the point of the opening post. He wasn't trying to suggest that Genesis isn't true nor was he trying to make the Genesis account fit into modern cosmology. He's not asking a question about whether God created the universe but about how He went about it.

Clete
 
Top