Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

I certainly bow to that reasoning...but then I consider myself and you to be rational.

all of the "sacredbooks" seem to miss out on many aspects of creation and life on the planet. Stuff like extinction, which is a driving mechanism to open up niches. Stuff like changing face of the earth . The sacred books and legends appear silent on everything xcept one or two "historical events " that IMHO are dubious to begin with. Like the Flood. (Theyre still trying to find evidence and everytime they announce one (like the CRI did this past winter, some geology grad student announces that, in the same horizon as their "flood horizon" is clear evidence of cross bedded sandstones indicative of desertification.

What would you expect from books written thousands of years ago?

t the same time, the biblical literalits , like neo or Fabulosity, seem to quote section that "prove" to them, that the BIBLE did mention such things.

In addition to tha,t it has over 40 authors and spanned 1600 years in its writing...for something that was divinely inspired it sure took a long time. Then again you would think that an omnipotant being could create the universe in the blink of an eye instead of 6 days!

I don't understand how anyone can flatly ignore the mountains of evidence before them and believe that the Bible contains the literal history of the creation of the universe, earth, and all life upon it. If fact I don't think they really do. I think they feel compelled to say they do, and to find the most convoluted ways to "prove" it.

I also don't understand why anyone believes the Bible is the literal Word of God. I haven't done anything close to exhaustive research on this, but I can't find anything to suggest that Jesus said; "The Bible is the literal world of God," or "God told the writers of the Bible, word for word, what to write." Even if he said such a thing, I doubt he added "As he did every person who has completed translations of it; including translations of translations."

If I did believe it was the literal word of God I think I would want to learn Hebrew and Aramaic and attempt to read what are believed to be the earliest renderings.

Perhaps the literalists posting on this thread can point be to chapter and verse where they believe Jesus confirmed Biblical literalism.

All I have found are interpretations of things he is purported to have said.



With all due respect to the person who wrote this, we do not see from this passage that Jesus clearly taught that creation was young, and even if he did, this isn't a statement by him that the Bible should be seen as the actual word of God.

I'm sympathetic to the idea of faith and a belief in the existence of God, but I'm afraid I can only find less than attractive reasons for believing the Bible is the Word of God.

As someone who does believe in the existence of God, I find it troubling that anyone believes that the Bible contains all we have ever needed or will ever need to know about the world and our place in it.

Certainly these folks acknowledge that science has been correct about a great many things that are not contained in the Bible. The examples are legion. Science has led us to know that micro-organisms are the causes of most of the disease that has plagued mankind throughout history and to the means to combat them and save millions of lives. As far as I can tell there is nothing in the Bible that addresses this. Science has led us to developing means of transportation and communication that has enabled Christians to spread the teachings of Jesus around the globe and possibly one day around the universe. Putting aside whether or not this has or will be a good use of the fruits of science, I can assume Christians think it is, including Bible literalists.

These are just two of very many examples that I've not seen fundamentalists dispute on the basis of what has been written in the Bible. So for them there has to be a huge disconnect between the scientific truths they accept and which don not relate to matters discussed in the Bible and those which do relate to Biblical topics and which they dispute.

It makes no sense and therefore I am led to belief that these folks are adhering to what has been taught to them by their parents or Church leaders rather than formulating their own opinions, and have chosen to ignore the very sort of evidence that they accept on matters not addressed by the Bible.

I respect the Christian faith, but as far as I can tell, this literalism and willful ignorance isn't truly part of it.

What you wrote is good, but willful ignorance is truly a part of it in one limited sense. I don't think anyone can present me with sufficient verifiable evidence to rationally justify a belief that God exists, and it's illogical to believe something without some evidence that it's true. There are all sorts of satisfying things I can start believing if I don't need evidence.

The amount of absolute horseshit in scripture is truly breathtaking.

Current image of Babylon. Looks pretty barren to me.

Restoration, though started is estimated at 25 years. After reading of the current sectarian strife in Iraq, that may be overly optimistic. Herodotus reportedly explains that Cyrus diverted the Euphrates river into a canal so that the water level dropped enough to allow the invading forces to march directly through the river bed to enter at night unopposed.

You can't even see your own idiocy. You're attempting to claim that the prophecy was fulfilled by Cyrus taking the city, in the 6th century BCE, but then you try to claim that it's barren by using a photograph from the 20th or the 21st century. Are you really so dull-witted that you can't see the foolishness in your claims? By the way, that photo shows an awful lot of greenery for what you claim is land that has been devastated.

You have utterly failed to substantiate your idiotic claims about this alleged prophecy, but i have no doubt that you'll be peddling that horseshit until the day you die.

Still unanswered:


The opposite of what I actually said. I'm looking for any evidence whatsoever that the universe was created by a supreme being. I've asked you over and over and over and pretty much all you do is misdirect me. It is unreasonable to believe something for which there is little or no evidence. I didn't suggest that the Bible is hard to understand. I suggested that you have no evidence that it's true.

I left out Isaiah's prophecy regarding Cyrus, though it cetainly applies.
The prophecy regarding the drying of waters did find fulfillment in 539. Unless you have other information.

I'm sorry if the timetable for the devastation of the city does not meet your considered understanding. I am, however, not alone in my considered opinion.

Perhaps these are merely coincidences.

You won't find me in retraction, however.

There is no hard, incontrovertible evidence of God's existence or non-existence, so if there is a logical response it is that we don't know; we can't say.

It's not in my nature to say "I can't say," and I see no reason not to believe what makes most sense to me, and the existence of God does. I'm fine with those who say it makes the most sense to them that God doesn't exist. I can empathize with how they have reached that conclusion.

Clearly I am not of the mind that a belief in God necessitates a belief in any given religion, and certainly not in the narrow-minded and ignorant aspects of those religions. Too often people make such an argument or assumption and it is both insulting and ignorant.

I also don't appreciate people who don't believe in God telling me or anyone else that it is weak-minded to do so any more than I appreciate people who don't believe in God telling atheists that they are somehow less of a person for thinking the way they do.

I don't buy the crap about how belief in God is humanities bane, but I also don't believe the nonsense that atheism leads to the destruction of society.

Whether you believe in God or you don't is not an indication of your morality or your intelligence. There are decent and smart people among both mindsets as there are malignant and stupid people as well. I think I understand why so many people feel the need to ridicule and/or denigrate believers or non-believers, but I don't empathize with them. I don't find it particularly appealing or even harmless.

In the end I see no useful reason to challenge someone's belief or lack of belief in God unless one is undecided and is trying to reach a decision. I don't think one will get very far with the challenge but if it’s done in good faith, no problem. If challenged, on my belief, I simply reply that it makes the most sense to me. It feels right. Clearly a conclusion not based on the scientific method, but not everything has to be deconstructed and proven.

At least Setanta attempts to provide counter argument.

If my arguments so far are considered misleading or spurious., there is no point in providing additional argument until those first advanced may be justified.

I'm perfectly willing to continue, however.

I do see a reason. The reason is that it's illogical to believe things without some evidence that they're true. If one does that, one will end up believing things that aren't true. Your logic enables me to say that the bottom of the Atlantic ocean is filled with extraterrestrial aliens who are concealing themselves from us. Obviously, it's illogical to believe that things are true without evidence.


Which is why I never do it in daily life unless they challenge me first, which is very rare. I might also challenge a person who kept talking over and over again about God in my presence, although in the real world, I always choose to just walk away unless, as I say, they are trying to challenge me about it. If you don't want to have your beliefs debated, you probably shouldn't post in this thread, because that is pretty close to the thread topic. Posting in this thread is voluntary.

I have asked you over and over again in two threads for a little evidence that a supreme being created the universe and you have failed to provide any, except maybe that Babylon didn't last forever. All you have done is to give some examples of how the Bible isn't completely incompatible with reality, which is hardly evidence that a creator exists. My counter-argument is that I have asked you for evidence that a supreme being exists and you haven't given me any. If your belief is correct, why don't you end the argument by providing a little evidence? Or, alternatively, just state plainly in the open that you are determined to believe it without any evidence.

Noted

There you go with your snide remarks again. There was no prophecy about Cyrus, and what you allege was a prophecy says that the waters dried up, and that there was a drought. There was no drought, and the waters did not dry up. They were simply diverted--i've never disputed that. What i dispute is the bizarre mental gymnastics you indulge in to make it seem that your so-called prophecies have been fulfilled.

So you sneer about a timetable. You want to patch together Cyrus so that you can make a phony-baloney claim about drought and waters drying up, to the fading away of Babylon under Muslim rule--1500 years later. What people want is coherence, not a rambling account which wanders over thousands of years of history, and can only be made to appear the fulfillment of a prophecy by playing idiotic word games. Babylon faded away due to the Caliphate's "islamification" policy. Even then, it's foundations were not destroyed and it's walls were not thrown down. Young men did not die in the streets. The people in the surrounding country did not leave taking their livestock with them. The surrounding land was not devastated.

Your loony and deluded attempts to claim that there was a prophecy fulfilled depend entirely on distortion and idiotic word games. Even then, the effort fails. I understand that you won't "retract" your claims. As i've already noted, i expect you to be peddling this horseshit on your deathbed.

The sacred texts can not portray extinction because there were no humans to witness extinction. Communications were so rudimentary that no one knew there were any such events and god was of no help to them in knowing.

Yeah, well I guess it was just a coincidence that Isaiah mentioned Cyrus by name, and that Cyrus, for all practical purposes, dried up the Euphrates, and that the city eventually became desolate and the walls were in ruins.

I get it. So let's move on: I mentioned Daniel's prophecy on page 11 of this thread. Shall we revisit?

Another coincidence: Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks (Daniel 9: 24-27) specifying a time period "from the going forth of [the] word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes·si′ah" The prophecy specifies periods of 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and a final week. The first 7+62 weeks measured at a day for a year works out to 483 years from the time specified by Nehemiah 2:1-8. It has to do with Artaxerxes and the restoration of Jerusalem.

Some historians claim that Artaxerxes began his reign in 465 B.C.E. upon the death of his father. However, it is apparent that Xerxes bestowed a share of the Government on him 10 years before his death, about the year 475 B.C.E. (References available) This would make the twentieth year of his reign the year 455 B,C.E.

Counting 483 years from that date, remembering there was no zero year, takes us to the year 29 C.E., the early months of which were in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Luke 3:1) That was the year John the Baptist began preaching and when, about six months later, he baptized Jesus.

The 70th week was eventful in that, after preaching for half the week, (3 1/2 years) Jesus was executed, although keeping the covenant in force for another half week. This would correspond with the inclusion of Gentiles in the new congregation, and the end of valid sacrifices by the Jewish priests.

I know its a coincidence, but it does fit in nicely with the scriptures and corresponds with the messianic expectations of the Jews at that time.