Creation
God called the expanse “sky.”
If there was ever a time that nothing existed, there would still be nothing. Something exists; therefore, something must have the power of self-existence and cannot “not be”. Either matter (stuff) has the power of self-existence or a supreme being (God) has this power. To believe that un-intelligent matter has this power is the religion of evolution. To believe that the God of the Bible has this power is the religion of Christianity. The God of the Bible said the following: For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:20-21)
11 comments:
Hostility against the God of the Bible. Some people like to think that Total Depravity only speaks of total inability. Clearly the bible speaks also of man's hostility and his unwillingness to come to know God through Christ. Man loves his sins and darkness too much; he does not want his evil exposed by Christ's Light.
Thank you for this post.
Amen Mr. Bluecollar.... You are right because I was in that boat for many in fact most of the years of my life.
Jazzy
jazzycat--
You said:
To believe that un-intelligent matter has this power is the religion of evolution.
This is a misrepresentation of biological evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory does not presume to say that matter is self-existent, self-creating, etc. In actuality, evolutionary theory does not even talk about "origins" at all. Rather, it is a framework for describing the changes that exist and occur between biological species.
Therefore, your bifurcation between evolutionary theory and the God of the bible is completely fabricated, a false and unnecessary dichotomy.
Exist...
You may be technically correct, but since most people who believe and promote evolution do not believe in a supreme creator being, then they ultimately have to answer not only the orgin of the species, but the orgin of matter. Since it is nonsense to assert that lifeless matter sprang into being from nothing, Then the only alternative would be self-existent matter. Which is also nonsense.
If you care to give this dilemma a shot, I am all ears?
Jazzycat
I am not entirely sure how people who do not believe in a Creator would solve that dilemma. However, in regards to evolution, it is not properly an accurate dilemma, for evolution does not answer the question of origins; rather, it merely describes the way in which life has developed in the universe.
However, I suppose one way in which to think of the existence of matter with a creator is to simply posit that matter is eternal. Hawkings once proposed that instead of thinking of the "beginning" in terms of a cone leading back to a singular point, one should envision a cone shape that is rounded on the end (where the point would be), thus removing the need to even talk about an "ultimate" origin for space/time. Of course, and admittedly, Hawking's proposal required the use of imaginary numbers that could not exist in the actual universe...
Exist-dissolve,
You said........
(However, I suppose one way in which to think of the existence of matter with a creator is to simply posit that matter is eternal.)
I think you meant without a creator. If so this gets back to my Photo Meditation's point.
Choice one- Inert, unintelligent matter has the power of self-existence and from this our universe came into being and intelligent life evolved from it.
Choice two- A supreme intelligent being has the power of self-existence and from this the universe was created......
I ask you which one makes more sense? Somehow the imaginary number theory doesn't scratch my tickle.
Yet evolutionary theory people say that creation is implausible.
Jazzycat
Which "evolutionary" people say that creation is implausible? I am an "evolutionary" person, but I affirm the existence and necessary involvement of a creator.
Exist...
Most evolution advocates are essentially atheist. You would certainly be an exception.
The necessary involvement of a creator as you put it is exactly where logic leads and that is part of the point of my post. It is hard for the finite mind to comphrehend the work of a creator, but even harder to fathom not having a creator.
If it is believed that any part of the Bible is God's revelation, then it is inconceivable to me that he would allow any part of the Bible to be in error.
Thanks for your comments. Your site is very deep but fascinating.
Jazzycat
Your website has a useful information for beginners like me.
»
jazzycat--
You said:
Most evolution advocates are essentially atheist. You would certainly be an exception.
Interestingly enough, most of the evolutionary advocates that I know are quite strong theists. Perhaps this discrepency is rooted in where each of us is looking and the groups to which we respectively belong.
If it is believed that any part of the Bible is God's revelation, then it is inconceivable to me that he would allow any part of the Bible to be in error.
This is precisely why I would not advocate that the Scriptures are "revelation" per se. Rather, I would advocate that they are "testifiers" to the revelation of GOd in Christ.
As I understand it, there are many "errors" in the bible if one is approaching them from a modern/textual perspective that requires that the Scriptures provide "accurate" information about science, history, etc. However, if one allows them to be what they are and function as they were meant to function, the discrepencies, while still extant, are destructive but rather instructive.
Thanks for your comments. Your site is very deep but fascinating.
Thank you for the compliment!
Exist...
Please site me a Biblical error.
Jazzycat
Post a Comment