Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[taoist]

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
Taoist wrote: "In 1931, delivering a body blow to mathematics, Kurt Godel showed once and for all that given any axiomatic system of thought, it is possible to create undecidable propositions."

Taoist, but was Godel's argument true? -Bob

Yes.

Note that only decidable propositions can be said to be true or false. GIC is a decideable proposition, as evidenced by the fact that it has been proved within the realm of axiomatic proving systems.

This is a question of definition. A minor variation of your opening query yields a different answer. To wit, "Do truths exist?" The answer to this question is instead yes.

Truth, on the other hand, would reflect the collection of all true propositions, a collection whose complement would then be those things which are false. Such a collection does not exist, as it would require that all propositions are decidable, in contradiction to GIC.

This is especially appropriate to the question at hand, as the class of undecidable propositions is intimately related with those propositions which are recursively defined. Each time I have mapped out the question, Does God exist?, axiomatically assigning powers and properties to god, I have netted a recursive construction. An uncreated creator. An omnipotent omniscient. To show these propositions undecidable, it is necessary to reduce them to some form of Epimenides Paradox.

Fundamentally, I feel that the existence of a supernatural being may well be unprovable using evidence exclusively from the natural sciences. And no, I'm not sure if that question is decidable either.

Excuse the delay in my response, but I had been otherwise occupied.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by attention
God is both the eternal infinite material reality (the Primal cause of it) and is a consciouss being.

That's right! Preach it Rob! I'm pleased that you are starting to see the light.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by LightSon
That's right! Preach it Rob! I'm pleased that you are starting to see the light.

Excuse me? My reasoning was that this definition of God can not be true, since we can not adapt the notion of consciousness in the case of this assumed higher being.

And btw, I have always seen the light, otherwise I would have been blind.

And if you see the light too, you would no longer hold on to an early and primitive form of materialism (YES. that is what I state exactly, the Gods of the paste are personified entities that are in content nothing else as what we now denote as matter), but adapt to a more moden variant, which better fits the scientific facts of reality.

 

[jeremiah]

Originally posted by bmyers
Correct - however, it is no more "impossible" than the converse statement that might be made by theists: that they KNOW that there IS a God, and that this belief is based solely on reason.

I would agree to the essence of your statement here. Many other Christians might disagree with me and you.
However I think that it is much more possible to reason that there is a God than that there is not. I think that Bob has been showing that, and winning the debate so far, on that basis alone. Zakath has not been able to answer or has avoided many questions directed to him. Of course the peanut gallery thinks they have the answers. that Zakath has missed.
I, for one, believe with all my heart that there is a God and that He is the God of the Bible. I have never seen His essence nor heard His voice with my natural ears. In that sense, the Physical, I do not KNOW that God exists. Many atheists claim they KNOW that God does not exist. My point is that the best they can say is that they do not believe that He exists, or that they STRONGLY doubt that He exists.
The best that I can say is that I do believe that He exists, again, with all my heart.
If you will permit me. the Bible directly addresses this issue in 1 Corinthians 1 20-31. "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? {Zakath?} Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21. For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 FOR INDEED JEWS ASK FOR SIGNS, AND GREEKS SEARCH FOR WISDOM; {Us westerners} 23. but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, 24. but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27. but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28. and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, 29. that no man should boast before God. 30. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31. that, just as it is written, Let Him Who Boasts, Boast in the Lord.
This is similar to what Godel's threom says. For the Greek minded, each theory has to be replaced by a more complete and complex theory, and in the end you still can never reach all knowledge and all trurth.
At some point each theory becomes so complex as to be virtually incomprehensible. Godel concludes that humans have to go outside the limits of human reasoning to learn all truth. And that is impossible? That is what his thereom proved, wasn't it? There is a question that can be asked that cannot be answered even by the Universal truth machine. the UTM.
Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Some Jews disbelieved it and most Greeks say it was impossible. Yet it happened, and that is the message of the Bible.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by jeremiah
At some point each theory becomes so complex as to be virtually incomprehensible. Godel concludes that humans have to go outside the limits of human reasoning to learn all truth. And that is impossible? That is what his thereom proved, wasn't it? There is a question that can be asked that cannot be answered even by the Universal truth machine. the UTM.
Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Some Jews disbelieved it and most Greeks say it was impossible. Yet it happened, and that is the message of the Bible.

If you want to apply Godels theorema outside of it's context, I have another one for you. Even God cannot be omniscient, due to this same Godel theorema. What about that?

 

[jeremiah]

To attention:
Thanks for your reply, and for its brevity.
There are many people on this forum who are Christians who believe in an Open theist view who would agree with you that God is not omniscient. I do not ascribe to that position, however the Bible states in at least three places that come to mind quickly, the following:
Jeremiah 19:5. ...to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded, or spoke of, nor did it ever ENTER my mind." In other words because of God's holiness, He is not omniscient in thinking of all the evil that the human heart can conceive of.
In Gen.22:12 God says to Abraham....... now I KNOW that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, YOUR ONLY SON, from Me." God is not omniscient as regards the depths of the faith that dwells in the heart of a man? A man's actions confirm his faith and fear of God more than his words. Even God wants to "see" our faith. {Although other scriptures add complexity to this view}
Third and last, God said to the false disciples in Matt 7- 23... I NEVER knew you depart from me, you workers of iniquity. God makes himself deliberately non- omniscient when it comes to being associated with those who are not His children.
These are 3 different aspects where God declares that He is not omniscient. I have added my own thinking as to why this is so.


Also there are numerous times when Jesus declares that He is absolutely AMAZED at a person's faith, OR a person's lack of faith.

I would be intersested in seeing you explain, as briefly as posssible, how Godel's theroem would apply to God's omniscience.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by jeremiah
I would be intersested in seeing you explain, as briefly as posssible, how Godel's theroem would apply to God's omniscience.

My comment on the Godel theorema thing was more a comment that you can not just apply it to anything, outside of it's defined context. I think that our reasoning system is not to be compared with a mathematical, abstract, axiomatic system. It's a biological organ in the first place, but capable of formal and abstract reasoning.

Secondly, as to the issue of God, my position is that we can not attribute consciousness to this entity, since it does not match the way we define consciousness. To be consciousness means in the first place to be consciouss of something. God can not be consciousness of something, cause there is nothing outside of God. I have started a thread that maybe explains my position to this a bit better. A Thesis, Anti-Thesis and Synthesis about God/matter

 

[BillyBob]

Don't forget the Redneck Auction!!!!

C'mon folks. If everyone gave just ten bucks, Tye would be digging his way out of a very deep hole.

I would love to see Minus 3000 posts!!!!!!!!!1

-3000

[isn't it pretty!!!!]

Ten bucks each!!!!!!!

That's less than the cost of a cup of coffee every morning for a month.

The Redneck Club will match every ten dollar donation from here on until the end of the Auction.

If you wanna donate more, all the better!

Let's watch Tye's post count sink into oblivion!!!!!


Remove Tye's Posts Here

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by jeremiah
I would agree to the essence of your statement here. Many other Christians might disagree with me and you.

Well, that's certainly their right. We will go on, of course, secure in the knowledge that we, at least, are correct...

However I think that it is much more possible to reason that there is a God than that there is not. I think that Bob has been showing that, and winning the debate so far, on that basis alone. Zakath has not been able to answer or has avoided many questions directed to him. Of course the peanut gallery thinks they have the answers. that Zakath has missed.

Unfortunately, I can't agree with either the conclusion that "Bob...has been winning the debate so far," or that he has by any means shown that it is "much more possible to reason that there is a God than that there is not." Bob arguments have almost all (I would simply say "all", but it's possible I've missed one or two) been based on what could most charitably be called misunderstandings of the facts. In short, what he claims to be using as evidence and reason simply isn't so. In fact, in most cases, the arguments he uses are quite old, and have been shown to be nonsensical long ago. As I have pointed out before, this leaves me with only two possible conclusions - either Bob is unaware of the flaws in this argument (in which case he has not done any but the most shallow of research into the history of debates such as this one), or he is aware and simply is electing to use them anyway (in which case he is at the least being disingenuous, and possibly deceptive). I cannot judge from what he has said so far which is the case.

Note that I do not, in this conclusion, claim that the "there is no God" side has won, only that Bob Enyart seems to have lost. I am quite certain that there are much stronger arguments (and arguers) on the theistic side, and it is a pity that such could not be found for this debate. If such had happened, we'd have something much more interesting and important to be discussing here.

I, for one, believe with all my heart that there is a God and that He is the God of the Bible. I have never seen His essence nor heard His voice with my natural ears. In that sense, the Physical, I do not KNOW that God exists. Many atheists claim they KNOW that God does not exist. My point is that the best they can say is that they do not believe that He exists, or that they STRONGLY doubt that He exists.
The best that I can say is that I do believe that He exists, again, with all my heart.

Exactly. And I personally find both your understanding of this, and your honest presentation of it, refreshing. Thank you.

Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Some Jews disbelieved it and most Greeks say it was impossible. Yet it happened, and that is the message of the Bible.

Again, I believe that what you say here is exactly in line with what your religion teaches. I am always somewhat amazed by the number of professed Christians I run across who will tell me that "by faith alone they are saved," and then with the same breath attempt to convince me that they believe as they do because what they believe in is "proven." Excuse me?

 

[Psycho Dave]

Those who think that Bob is winning the debate are not making that judgement based on the validity and logic of his arguments, or on his scientific knowledge. They are making the judgement based on loyalty and fellowship in their common faith with him.

The majority of users here share many of Bob's religious and ideological opinions, and thus, have a certain comradery and sense of loyalty to him.

Anyone who is familiar with the logic and the scientific subjects raised here know that Bob is certainly not well read on either science or logic, and is getting by on popularity alone.

If we are to judge the winner based on how many people think he won, Bob would win. If we were to judge based on whose arguments and answers to questions have the most integrity, the best use of logic and the best knowledge of science and the other subjects touched, then Zakath has to win by a mile.

I believe that in order to be really fair, we should have a similar argument where Bob comes over to www.infidels.org, and we have a debate on their turf. Or even better -- have a debate with a fixed audience made up of 3 believers, 3 atheists, and 3 agnostics/undecided, and see who "wins".

In essence, Bob is betting on the same thing that creationists do -- they like to have their debates ONLY in friendly territory, and deliberately bus in hundreds of people from affiliated churches to stack the audience in their favor. They get more applause, and conclude they win that way, despite the invalidity of their arguments.

 

[jeremiah]

To Psycho Dave:
I can see only one scientific argument that Zakath, actually Flipper refuted, with a more recent scientific discovery. They apparently discovered primordial galaxies in 2001? Nasa failed to discover them as they had wrongly predicted and Bob Enyart correctly predicted back in 1995?
Can you list, briefly, a scientific argument, or a logical argument that newer science has refuted?
For example Creationists have been saying for years that the fossil records have not produced transitional forms to the higher mammals. Recently the evolutionists have said, yes we have the horse, and the whale. At least this is what most evolutionists websites are trumpeting. See science has proven transitional forms, creationists don't know what they are talking about.
Yet when you check it out, yes these are more recent and up to date. as you and others say, but the exposure of these transitional forms as wildly speculative and unfounded is even more up to date.
Would the horse evolution be an example of what you would describe as a science student, as one who is up to date? And people like myself, or Bob Enyart, who would never credit this false recent theory as being, out of touch.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by jeremiah

Can you list, briefly, a scientific argument, or a logical argument that newer science has refuted?

The problem here is that Bob Enyart, as far as I can tell in reviewing the debate, has yet to make a valid "scientific" argument. As I mentioned earlier, every example of an attempt of such, at least that I can think of, has been based on seriously incorrect statements. The whole "probability" group of arguments; the argument regarding the angular momentum of the sun vs. the rest of the solar system; the one involving the persistence of the structure of spiral arms in the galaxy - ALL of these are based on either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what is actually propsed as the explanations of these obsevations. It isn't a case of "newer" science needing to refute these, as science never said what Bob was claiming in the first place. He was wrong right from the start.

And again, whether he is making these arguments out of simple ignorance, or in an case of actual deceptiveness, I have no way of knowing.

For example Creationists have been saying for years that the fossil records have not produced transitional forms to the higher mammals. Recently the evolutionists have said, yes we have the horse, and the whale. At least this is what most evolutionists websites are trumpeting.

Again, I would have to say that you misunderstand just what evolutionary theory says should be found. And unfortunately, most of the "evolutionist" web sites you'll find are in similar states. One thing you have to realize is that the debate on both sides is being conducted in large part by people who are not expert in the field. Professionals who are actively engaged in research in the field of biology, etc., most commonly don't find it worth their time. If you're seriously interested in discovering what science really says on the subject, probably the best means is to spend some time in studying the various texts on the subject. But very, very few people are willing to do this with an open mind.

 

[jeremiah]

To bmyers:
Thank you for such a direct and respectful answer. Of the non believers on this site, I applaud you as being unlike the rest who typically exude arrogance and a condescending attitude. I am glad to see that you generally agree that the pro- evolution sites are not representative of, or apparently properly explain what evolutionary thought truly is. You can therefore see our dilemna. Those of us who are not scientists, read these sites, then read there refutation on the Creationist sites, and honestly I think, trying as best as I can to remove all my bias, the Creationist sites usually refute evolution. If they are not truly representative of what the forefront of science proposes then Creationists can not be blamed when they properly refute them. It is a true CATCH 22.
Astronomy seems to be the area that Creationists have not easily refuted. However discoveries are being made so rapidly, that many of the theories have not yet been put to the test, or are unfalsifiable because of the billions of light years involved.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by jeremiah
Astronomy seems to be the area that Creationists have not easily refuted. However discoveries are being made so rapidly, that many of the theories have not yet been put to the test, or are unfalsifiable because of the billions of light years involved.

Discoveries are being made very rapidly, however, you already have mentioned one of the most fundamental observations that is so damning to the creationist viewpoint.

There ARE "billions of light years" involved - in other words, we see things that are, without question, a very, very long distance away. The only possible rational conclusion is that these objects (and by implication, the entire universe) have been in existence for however long it has taken the light to reach us (or at the very least, existed at that point in the past when their light first started out on its journey toward us). This requires that the universe be at least as old, in years, as the distance to the farthest observable object (in light-years).

The creationist side has, of course, recognized this problem, and come up with two possible counters to it. The first is that the speed of light has not been constant throughout the history of the universe, and so these things only SEEM to be visible to us from that far in the past. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that this is true (other than the fact that the "young Universe" creationist viewpoint would require it to be so), and in fact for that speed of light to have varied by as much as would be required to reconcile the creationist viewpoint, the universe that we see by this light could not possibly have existed; the laws of physics, modified by this supposed change, would not have permitted it.

The second counter is one which lies outside the bounds of science, and rather is one of theology or philosophy; it is the notion that the universe was created "with age," i.e., with the appearance that it is billions of years old when in fact it is only a few thousand. It is impossible to refute this notion scientifically, just as it is impossible to refute the notion that the entire universe, including all of us and all of our memories, popped into existence just five seconds ago. But I believe that this idea faces several significant objections. First, it is an unnecessary complication; while it is certainly possible that the universe only "appears" old, surely it is much simpler to assume that what we observe is, in fact, reality, and that the universe really is as it seems to be. The second objection, however, I believe to me more serious. For if the "created with age" idea is correct, then those proposing it are saying that the Creator of this universe has been deceptive on a truly cosmic scale. This hardly seems in keeping with the image they otherwise seem to have of this Creator.

Frankly, I have never understood why so many Christians seem to think that accepting the creationist viewpoint is in any way essential to their faith. It does not make any difference at all to the basic message of the Christian religion whether the universe is six thousand years old, sixty billion years old, or six seconds old. And even if one were to accept the idea that the Old Testament account truly was "inspired by God", is it all that difficult to further accept the idea that such an account would have been given to the people of the time in a way that they could understand? Most Christians also seem to accept the idea that the Bible is not the ONLY means through which the mind of God is revealed to mankind; that we should also be able to infer the nature of God from the world around us. If that is so, then it seems to me that we would expect a written acount, given to relatively primitive peoples several thousand years ago to be a simpler version, one which mankind would later come to understand was allegorical as mankind's ability to explore and understand developed further. This does not make the account "untrue" - just that it should not be necessary to take it quite so literally, based on the more advanced understanding of the world that comes with time.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by jeremiah
To bmyers:
Thank you for such a direct and respectful answer. Of the non believers on this site, I applaud you as being unlike the rest who typically exude arrogance and a condescending attitude.

I should add to my previous post a thanks to you for the kind words. While I suppose I am a "non-believer" from your perspective, I do not necessarily classify myself as such. Rather, I'm just here to learn like anyone else.

I am glad to see that you generally agree that the pro- evolution sites are not representative of, or apparently properly explain what evolutionary thought truly is. You can therefore see our dilemna. Those of us who are not scientists, read these sites, then read there refutation on the Creationist sites, and honestly I think, trying as best as I can to remove all my bias, the Creationist sites usually refute evolution. If they are not truly representative of what the forefront of science proposes then Creationists can not be blamed when they properly refute them. It is a true CATCH 22.

Perhaps - but I also have to wonder, why is this an issue in the first place? Does the faith of anyone here really depend all that strongly on whether or not the Genesis account is literally true? Suppose it happens that tomorrow, absolute and unequivocal proof is somehow shown, that tells us without a shadow of a doubt that the evolutionary model is correct. If this were to happen, are any of you telling me that this one event would utterly destroy your faith in all other regards? If so, then I would have to wonder just what faith you really had in the first place. And if not - which I suspect is more likely the case - why is this one question such a big deal?

 

[Psycho Dave]

Originally posted by jeremiah
To Psycho Dave:
I can see only one scientific argument that Zakath, actually Flipper refuted, with a more recent scientific discovery. They apparently discovered primordial galaxies in 2001? Nasa failed to discover them as they had wrongly predicted and Bob Enyart correctly predicted back in 1995?
Can you list, briefly, a scientific argument, or a logical argument that newer science has refuted?

Sure. The list of bad creationist arguments based on bad, outdated, and ignorant science is endless. Take, for example, their "proof" of a young earth. One argument says that the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing at a steady rate, and that by reverse extrapolation, you can determine that by going beyond 10,000 years, the earth's magnetic field would be greater than the sun. Go back a million years, and it would be impossibly big. Creationists claim that this "fact" proves that the earth is younger than 10,000 years.

Of course, the creationist argument is complete hogwash. The earth's magnetic field decreases, but it also INCREASES, as well. The poles even shift. There is a long record in the core samples that we have showing how magnetic field increases, decreases, and shifts poles from time to time. It seems to do this in slightly predictable patterns, but we still do not know exactly what causes it.

There is also the argument about the Sun's diameter. Creationists claim that it's getting smaller. But it's been shown from careful measurement that the sun actually oscillates -- grows and shrinks year by year, as part of it's natural cycles.

For example Creationists have been saying for years that the fossil records have not produced transitional forms to the higher mammals. Recently the evolutionists have said, yes we have the horse, and the whale. At least this is what most evolutionists websites are trumpeting. See science has proven transitional forms, creationists don't know what they are talking about.
Yet when you check it out, yes these are more recent and up to date. as you and others say, but the exposure of these transitional forms as wildly speculative and unfounded is even more up to date.

What about transitional human fossils? We have a nearly complete series of skeletons that clearly show how man evolved from australopithecines. One creationist quack named Zimmerman proclaimed that "Lucy" was nothing more than a chimp, but he never examined the bones at all. He just proclaimed it in a famous article. Any person who looks at the bones and compares them to human and chimp fossils can easily see that they are not chimp. They clearly have mostly human characteristics. but that's just a small part of it. We have about 20 transitionals from Australopithecines which clearly show slow development over time to fully human. Our entire evolutionary history for the last 2 million years is very well documented.

Then there are the whole fossil categories of transitionals -- Therapsids, seymoria, and ichtyosetigids. Creationists try to blow these off, but they are categories of transitional fossils - fossils that are part mammal, part reptile (Therapsids). When you look at the details of these skeletons, it's hard to classify them as just reptiles or just mammals, because features that are found only in either reptiles or mammals are shared. Creationists blow off millions of fossils in the record -- fossils which clearly show transition -- because "the details are open to interpretation", however, they do not ever -- in over 20 creationist books I have which make this claim -- explain the simple way that certain characteristics are classified as "mammal" or "reptile". I could teach you this in about a half hour, with a few diagrams. Creationists do not have many pictures of fossils to allow readers to see the evidence for themselves. I believe this is deliberately so, because any reasonable person who examines these bones after knowing what to look for will come to similar conclusions that evolutionary biologists have. Creationists allow themselves to never have fossils diagrams or photos because "no transitional fossils exist", therefore, no photos need to be shown.
<quote>
Would the horse evolution be an example of what you would describe as a science student, as one who is up to date?
And people like myself, or Bob Enyart, who would never credit this false recent theory as being, out of touch. [/QUOTE]
Yes. and bird/therapod sequences, too. Feathered dinosaurs, Whale-kronosaur sequences, but most importantly, therapsids, seymoromorphs, and ichtyosetigids.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Whale-kronosaur sequences? Dude, I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. About the only thing kronosaurs and whales have in common is the fact that they're air-breathing marine animals. They're not even remotely related -- even under the evolutionary paradigm. Where did you come up with this nonsense?

 

[jeremiah]

To bmyers:

Thank you for another direct and clear answer. Theere are a couple of reasons why if the stars are billions of years old that would bother me, and make me question the Bible. Plant life was created on day three, and then the sun and moon and apparently the stars on day four. Therefore plants have existed for billions of years and had been living and DYING before Adam and Eve came along. Yet the Bible says there was no death in the world until Adam sinned. This would be a clear and significant contradiction in the Word of God. In other words God brought death into the world, in the form of plant life and seeds.
Of course by extension if Evoltion is true, then there were multipllied quadrillions of deaths that occurred before man ever appeared, and ever sinned against God. Therefore the statement that man brought sin, and sin brought death, and man needed a Redeeemer because of it, would be wrong. Death reigns supreme in evolution, and survival of the fittest.

 

[jeremiah]

....... If you have heard of a man called Hugh Ross, he is a Christian, and he is a Scientist, and he thinks that the earth is billions of years old and the problem of death of plants and animals before man does not bother him in his faith. He has many followers and other Christians can and do think similarly. There is also something called the "gap theory" between Genesis 1-1 and 1-3 to which some Christians insert billions of years. However I think verses 14-16 refute a gap theory. Personally, I can not reconcile these conflicts in my own mind, I find them contradictory, plus I think there are better reasons to believe in a young earth, than to believe in an old earth.
The problem of not taking creation and Genesis literally, but just as a story to primitve minds, is that Jesus took the Torah literally and quoted it often as absolute truth.
You are concerned that if God created the world with the "appearance of age" then He would be guilty of a great deception. Isn't this way too early in an age of science to be making such conclusions about are methods, and the reliability of our instuments. After all, wasn't it you who said to me that science can not "absolutely" rule out the possibility that two humans could reproduce, and the woman give birth to a fish?
In my opinion, Scientists are simply highly intelligent reverse engineers when it comes to God's creation. Given enough time and intelligence they will reverse engineer life, and come face to face with the Creator!
If creating stars that appear to have great age through a man made instrument is deceptive of God, then how much more deceptive of God was it for Him to rise from the dead, after three full days in the tomb, which took no special instruments to see, but only the eyes and hands of a fully doubting Thomas.
Think about this bmyers. You sound like an honest seeker of truth to me. You have the same questions most reasonable people have, if I can include myself in that category.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by bmyers
Perhaps - but I also have to wonder, why is this an issue in the first place? Does the faith of anyone here really depend all that strongly on whether or not the Genesis account is literally true?

As a former Young Earther :doh: that converted to an Old Earth view (before leaving Christianity entirely), and subsequently argued with YE'rs, perhaps I can answer your question. The reason it's such an issue is fear. There is a very vocal segment within Fundamentalist Christianity (this isn't an issue among many Christian denominations) that are afraid if 1 section of scripture isn't taken literally (i.e. the "correct" way they interpret it), then the whole Bible will lose credibility. So in order to defend their particular "infallibility" view they aggressively push their YE view.

Many of the conservative Evangelical Christians I've known over the years do not hold a YE view (especially those with science degrees). They, like you, don't see any real importance in the issue or any essential doctrine that is dependent on it. But they often remain silent on the issue because it's so emotional to a particularly dogmatic segment that is very vocal in their views. :madmad:

My own limited observation has been that this attitude is most often stirred up by the “professional” YE speakers that travel around (e.g. Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, etc.) giving seminars. Their presentations are generally very emotionally fear based (i.e. “we need to prevail against the evil immoral atheistic evolutionary view”) and full of fast snippets of science that the average Pastor or layperson can’t possibly refute or follow. The mind-set is that this speaker is a Christian (therefore honest), speaks authoritative about science (therefore credible), and he is defending the Bible (therefore doing a good act), so they get stirred up. Then they follow on by reading more of the speakers own (or recommended) one-sided literature and become convinced that Christian doctrines are dependent on their literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.