Made in the image of God

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think we were having 2 entirely different conversations, which is why I rarely engage with you anymore.

Let's return to that.

Well, you have not given me a reason to believe in an endless universe without a beginning, not even a bit. "In the beginning, God..." is more than you have presented so far.

@kellyjay said
If you tell me we see life, that is proof of a natural process: pure circular reasoning, nothing more. I don't care how much time you think you need to complete whatever processes you think are required for life; with all the time forever and a day, you cannot do what cannot be done. I don't believe in millions of years, but that doesn't matter to me, only to you. Suppose th ...[text shortened]...
I didn't once say because the Bible says so, this is the hope you are pinning everything on not me.

'I don't believe in millions of years'. So, according to your Christian 'teachings', how old do you think the earth is then?

@indonesia-phil said
'I don't believe in millions of years'. So, according to your Christian 'teachings', how old do you think the earth is then?

The most honest answer I can give is I don’t know. Science or many in science says it is billions of years old, while scripturally it isn’t definitive at all leaving the door open for a young or old Universe. I lean towards young not because of evidence one way or another because that could go either way. I just don’t see God going through billions of years when He isn’t limited by time except when He wants to be.

@kellyjay said
The most honest answer I can give is I don’t know. Science or many in science says it is billions of years old, while scripturally it isn’t definitive at all leaving the door open for a young or old Universe. I lean towards young not because of evidence one way or another because that could go either way. I just don’t see God going through billions of years when He isn’t limited by time except when He wants to be.

Science can't yet do everything, but what we can do is calculate the age of things with accuracy. By carbon - dating, the study of rocks, sediments and so on, in other words by means of geology in general, we can calculate that the earth is billions of years old, and that life has been upon it for billions of years. This is not 'faith' or 'belief', it is verifyable fact, to think otherwise is to deny science in its' entirety.
So, given that, you are right, of course, what deity worth their salt would take billions of years to create something in their own image? The answer to that is that they wouldn't, of course, which leads one to the only logical conclusion, which is that there isn't one.

@indonesia-phil said
Science can't yet do everything, but what we can do is calculate the age of things with accuracy. By carbon - dating, the study of rocks, sediments and so on, in other words by means of geology in general, we can calculate that the earth is billions of years old, and that life has been upon it for billions of years. This is not 'faith' or 'belief', it is verifyable fac ...[text shortened]... wouldn't, of course, which leads one to the only logical conclusion, which is that there isn't one.

That is faith, even believing we can get accurate information through science is faith. Proclaiming we have accurate information about the distant past is faith, simply using our methods to date something at billions of years and accepting it is faith. The dating methodology isn't faith; that is a process; accepting something as authentic is faith. So you are wrong if you are suggesting that science and faith are two different things; they are not.

-Removed-

You don’t believe we can get accurate information from science?

@kellyjay said
That is faith, even believing we can get accurate information through science is faith. Proclaiming we have accurate information about the distant past is faith, simply using our methods to date something at billions of years and accepting it is faith. The dating methodology isn't faith; that is a process; accepting something as authentic is faith. So you are wrong if you are suggesting that science and faith are two different things; they are not.

In terms of complete nonsense, this one rates up there with your thinking that talking snakes and airplanes are the same thing. If you're sick, what do you do, have faith or go to the doctor? (You know, medical science) It isn't faith that allows you to switch on your lights (physical science) or that keeps your airplane up in the air (engineering science).

@indonesia-phil said
In terms of complete nonsense, this one rates up there with your thinking that talking snakes and airplanes are the same thing. If you're sick, what do you do, have faith or go to the doctor? (You know, medical science) It isn't faith that allows you to switch on your lights (physical science) or that keeps your airplane up in the air (engineering science).

Who is denying medical science or engineering? Faith is a matter of trust; if you trust something like our ability to do science, you put your faith in it; if a friend tells you they want to borrow money, they will pay it back, and you lend it to them on your faith in your friend, that is also the same thing.

It is a matter of fidelity; your beliefs surrounding what you are putting your faith in are causing you to act in some cases or not in others. Simply because we can trust in different things doesn't mean the thing we are doing is any different; it is just what we choose to trust in, our trust is always going to be internal to us, our worldviews, our faith helps us to decide what merits the trust and what doesn't.

So applying the word faith in modern medicine, engineering, technology is no different than trusting your friend or trusting in God; it is us trusting, putting our faith into something, not ourselves.

@kellyjay said
Who is denying medical science or engineering? Faith is a matter of trust; if you trust something like our ability to do science, you put your faith in it; if a friend tells you they want to borrow money, they will pay it back, and you lend it to them on your faith in your friend, that is also the same thing.

It is a matter of fidelity; your beliefs surrounding what you ...[text shortened]... your friend or trusting in God; it is us trusting, putting our faith into something, not ourselves.

Yeah, you see you're using 'faith' as a catch - all phrase, and 'faith' is your word, not mine, when it comes to scientific knowledge. We're getting bogged down in semantics, and I can see why you're doing it. However, if you insist on using the word, then having 'faith' in proven scientific knowledge is completely different to having 'faith' in an unproven god. Once again, science and religion are not compatible, not at all, and nor are faith and knowledge. You can trust in your friend because you know that they exist, you don't know that your god exists. A friend is not the same thing as a god, this is just another of your 'a talking snake is the same as an airplane' pieces of total nonsense.
And as regards denial of science, if you accept medical science, then why do you not accept the findings of geological science? You seem to be very selective in which bits of science you trust in. I understand why this is; if you accept geological science then as you yourself have said it makes a nonsense of your belief in your god.
You either deny science and proven scientific evidence or you don't, so which is it?

@indonesia-phil said
Yeah, you see you're using 'faith' as a catch - all phrase, and 'faith' is your word, not mine, when it comes to scientific knowledge. We're getting bogged down in semantics, and I can see why you're doing it. However, if you insist on using the word, then having 'faith' in proven scientific knowledge is completely different to having 'faith' in an unproven god. Once a ...[text shortened]... in your god.
You either deny science and proven scientific evidence or you don't, so which is it?

Science and Religion are not at odds; you can be a man of religious faith and a scientist. You also don't have to be religious to disagree with some views in science. Many of the founders of science were men of faith. You are setting up a conflict that doesn't exist unless you define either Science or Religion so that they must be at odds which would have nothing to do with the word faith but your definition of either or both Science or Religion.

@kellyjay said
Science and Religion are not at odds; you can be a man of religious faith and a scientist. You also don't have to be religious to disagree with some views in science. Many of the founders of science were men of faith. You are setting up a conflict that doesn't exist unless you define either Science or Religion so that they must be at odds which would have nothing to do with the word faith but your definition of either or both Science or Religion.

I don't think you will find many scientists who agree with your belief in talking snakes. So do you accept geological science which states very clearly that the earth is billions of years old, and that life has existed upon it for billions of years, or not?

@indonesia-phil said
I don't think you will find many scientists who agree with your belief in talking snakes. So do you accept geological science which states very clearly that the earth is billions of years old, and that life has existed upon it for billions of years, or not?

Have you seen me asking anyone to accept talking snakes? I have said there is a spiritual world that can affect the natural one and that the natural one owes its very existence to it. I have also said I have no idea how old the universe or the earth is, but that time isn't a show stopper for me; the fact that you cannot explain the universe, earth, or life using only the material world is. You have nothing, not even a theory of how everything came from nothing. Any other explanation is just as supernatural as having something supernatural causing a snake to speak. Between a causeless universe, everything from nothing, or something transcendent making it all happen, the transcendent cause seems far more reasonable to me than any of the others, even if other so-called unnatural events now become possible.

@kellyjay said
Have you seen me asking anyone to accept talking snakes? I have said there is a spiritual world that can affect the natural one and that the natural one owes its very existence to it. I have also said I have no idea how old the universe or the earth is, but that time isn't a show stopper for me; the fact that you cannot explain the universe, earth, or life using only the ma ...[text shortened]... asonable to me than any of the others, even if other so-called unnatural events now become possible.

Yes, we all know what you've said, and what you believe. Everywhere human culture has its' own version of 'how it all started', what I've been trying to do is to give you the opportunity to tell us why your religion has more validity than any other, by telling us how it relates to the world we see around us, and the knowledge that we now have, which we did not have during biblical times.
How does your god's creation fit with evolution of species, the age of the Earth, and so on, but we're not getting very far with that, are we?
Still, never mind, it was worth a try, and since you are now simply ignoring the difficult questions there's really no point in continuing the conversation.

@indonesia-phil said
Yes, we all know what you've said, and what you believe. Everywhere human culture has its' own version of 'how it all started', what I've been trying to do is to give you the opportunity to tell us why your religion has more validity than any other, by telling us how it relates to the world we see around us, and the knowledge that we now have, which we did not have dur ...[text shortened]... now simply ignoring the difficult questions there's really no point in continuing the conversation.

Yes, every culture has its version of how it started, but you have not given me anything to work with outside of saying people believe different things. Do you have something you think science points to, or are you just going to say you don't know, and that is as far as you can go, then so much for current knowledge?

Concerning our knowledge, theories about the evolution of species aren't factual knowledge, and even if true, that doesn't dispel the transcendent beginning either. I have repeatedly told you that the universe's age or earth is meaningless for me, being old or new.

What difficult question have I avoided? The God I believe in created everything and holds it all together by the power of His Word. So all the bits we don't understand, and all the bits we do understand are due to Him.

If you cannot dispel the transcendent creator, then all you got is you don't think so, so it isn't so. That isn't much of an arguement.