Originally posted by Penguinwhat do we know?
Ancient creation myth, thought up by people from a period when no-one knew better. Now that we do, it should be treated the same as all the other creation myths.
--- Penguin.
big bang? doesn't disprove god and it has flaws.
evolution? doesn't disprove god, supports my metaphor theory and it has flaws. (like all theories do).
so what do we know that would make us treat this as myth?
Originally posted by ZahlanziWe are not trying to disprove god here (god is not disprovable), we are discussing the Genesis creation story.
what do we know?
big bang? doesn't disprove god and it has flaws.
evolution? doesn't disprove god, supports my metaphor theory and it has flaws. (like all theories do).
so what do we know that would make us treat this as myth?
The 'big bang' theory is the best model of reality that we currently have, although I agree there are still plenty of questions and a more accurate model may well come along in the future. It describes things better than any other theory and certainly better than all the ancient creation stories.
Evolutionary theory is the best model we have for explaining the complexity and variety of life around us and through history. Again, a better model may come along but at the moment, it describes its domain better than any other theory, certainly better than all the ancient creation stories, including Genesis.
We should treat it as myth because we know that the universe is 14 billion years old and the Earth is 4 1/2 billion years old. We know the Earth took far more than a few days to form, we know that life didn't appear till nearly a billion years after the planet formed.
None of this was known at the time the Genesis story was written. We can see similarities between Genesis and many other ancient creation stories that are treated as myths. Why should we not treat the Genesis story as a myth as well? The story is entirely consistent with the religious and social environment at the time and inconsistent with the empirical evidence we have since gathered about the universe.
Note that when I say we 'know' in the above, I am obviously using the scientific meaning: it is the logical conclusion based on the evidence.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by ZahlanziIts not what we know, but rather what we don't know. Until evidence for it surfaces, it should be treated as a myth just like any other myth. You don't believe other myths until they contradict science, you start of with skepticism surely?
so what do we know that would make us treat this as myth?
Originally posted by amolv06well we have the whole faith thing. we don't need to prove anything.
Couldn't this question be posed to any creation story that is now considered myth?
science however doesn't have that luxury. and while we don't have proof of god existance, we also don't have proof of his inexistance. just like with the higgs boson. we might find it when we turn lhc on but we might not. there is no experiment to find god.
i accept it when you say: There is no proof that god exists, as such i am not comfortable saying he exists. I will live my life and plan considering he doesn't exist.
i don't accept it when you(any atheist) say: I haven't a proof that god exists therefore he surely doesn't exit.
You take your lack of knowledge on a subject and you advance it to fact. That is not scientific.
Originally posted by twhiteheadexactly, start with skepticism. but there is a difference between being a skeptic and being absolutely sure of something as some are.
Its not what we know, but rather what we don't know. Until evidence for it surfaces, it should be treated as a myth just like any other myth. You don't believe other myths until they contradict science, you start of with skepticism surely?
you don't have proof that higgs boson exists, yet you search for it though. and some realy think it doesn't exist but still they search for it hoping they find proof that it really doesn't exist.
i really think god exists. i don't have proof of him but i search for him(or her) and hope he is there waiting.
Originally posted by Penguinoh excelent, you clarified your position. and i fully agree with you. from a scientific point of view, you are exactly right.
We are not trying to disprove god here (god is not disprovable), we are discussing the Genesis creation story.
The 'big bang' theory is the best model of reality that we currently have, although I agree there are still plenty of questions and a more accurate model may well come along in the future. It describes things better than any other theory and cert ...[text shortened]... the scientific meaning: it is the logical conclusion based on the evidence.
--- Penguin.
science has no use for maybes.
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanziwell we have the whole faith thing. we don't need to prove anything.
well we have the whole faith thing. we don't need to prove anything.
science however doesn't have that luxury. and while we don't have proof of god existance, we also don't have proof of his inexistance. just like with the higgs boson. we might find it when we turn lhc on but we might not. there is no experiment to find god.
i accept it when you say: your lack of knowledge on a subject and you advance it to fact. That is not scientific.
But as an atheist why should I distinguish between the Christian story, and stories of older mythologies. From an atheistic perspective, would it not be fair to call the Christian story a myth?
I'm not sure if the rest of the post was a response to me.
That said, if it was, I take issue with the following:
i don't accept it when you(any atheist) say: I haven't a proof that god exists therefore he surely doesn't exit.
You take your lack of knowledge on a subject and you advance it to fact. That is not scientific.
Is this not a straw man? Do you know of any atheist who would make this claim? I certainly would not. Furthermore, I don't know any atheists that would. Maybe somewhere out there they exist, but I could guarantee that they are in the minority.