-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So your willingness to accept the existence of other sentient beings is theologically restricted by scripture. May I ask, what would God’s purpose be in creating other verdant worlds without men to enjoy them? What biblical evidence is there that such worlds exist?
The Hebrews believed God created Man in his image, but is there any evidence they possessed any concept of other worlds beyond the solar system? For that matter is there any reason to think they understood the solar system as we perceive it? Is there any biblical evidence that they were aware of the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune? Personally, I think Genesis paints a picture of the world very different from the one we recognize.
The Hebrews believed God created Man in his image, but is there any evidence they possessed any concept of other worlds beyond the solar system? For that matter is there any reason to think they understood the solar system as we perceive it? Is there any biblical evidence that they were aware of the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune? Personally, I think Genesis paints a picture of the world very different from the one we recognize.
Well, if you are ready to abdicate any effort to include us in your belief system, you are certainly on the right track. We are not persuaded by the need to be saved, for it is the message itself we see as flawed. The starting point for me is Genesis 1. It paints a picture of the world that is not our world, but is the geography of an ancient Bronze Age cosmology. Ignore that and you ignore a big part of the reason I cannot join you in your belief.
God did not make this universe for humans to enjoy. God made it as a sign for people to worship God. Each time we discover the universe is billions of light years bigger than it once was or we look into a microscope and find new creatures smaller than the eye can see we should prostrate in respect on just how magnificent God is.
S
I believe you will see it one day, but it won't be from the result of seeing all of kinds of evidence that you desire. But I cannot say how.
God created the world my friend. God made man. Man rebelled. Man condemned by the law. God sent Son. Son took our condemnation. We are set free.
Until you believe, God will not show Himself as much as He wants to. If He does, what a rare occasion!
Man says shows me evidence and I will believe. God says believe and I will show you evidence.
God truly loves you, even now.
God created the world my friend. God made man. Man rebelled. Man condemned by the law. God sent Son. Son took our condemnation. We are set free.
Until you believe, God will not show Himself as much as He wants to. If He does, what a rare occasion!
Man says shows me evidence and I will believe. God says believe and I will show you evidence.
God truly loves you, even now.
If part of our goal as atheists is to help you see reason and bring you to a truer understanding of the universe then we have no option but to talk about God with you, as God is central to your understanding of the universe. We cannot discuss with you the truth of history, evolution, biology, geology and astronomy unless we also address your belief in God. You give us no choice in the matter.
Oh, but you can if there is truly evidence for your claims. If, on the other hand, there is no evidence then your prophecy is self-fulfilling. It may be that for myself and the others to believe as you do we must first have as much faith in the scriptures as you do. You believe because you have belief in the stories scripture tells. In the absence of your faith in the holy texts we cannot follow the path you have taken.
When I read Genesis one I perceive an image of the world that is nothing like the world I live in. I think this text describes an ancient cosmological view of the world that is now defunct. This is the reason I must turn to science, but if you think the text is accurate then explain what I have misunderstood so that I can grasp it as you do.
When I read Genesis one I perceive an image of the world that is nothing like the world I live in. I think this text describes an ancient cosmological view of the world that is now defunct. This is the reason I must turn to science, but if you think the text is accurate then explain what I have misunderstood so that I can grasp it as you do.
When I read Genesis one, it opens with these foundational words: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
When I read Cosmos by Carl Sagan, it makes a different opening statement: The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.
Science affirms a beginning and nothing more. Genesis affirms a beginning. Scientific evidence confirms the first three words of Genesis 1:1. Carl Sagan made a dogmatic statement that the Cosmos is all that ever was. Thus Dr. Sagan affirmed a timelessness to the Cosmos without evidence to do so.
The logical Principle of Causality is: “Everything that begins has a cause.” As stated previously, books have authors, skyscrapers and bridges have builders. The universe had a beginning and must have a cause.
Logically, the notion of a beginning supports a cause to that beginning. The cause of a beginning would be One who had no beginning. His name is God.
Carl Sagan asserted that the Cosmos is all that ever was. Thus, he asserts a timelessness to the cosmos but it is only an assertion. Science confirms a beginning but nothing more. Science shows that the heavens and the earth had a beginning and estimates the beginning of the universe at around 14 billion years ago. The earth has a finite age. Galaxies, stars, planets, protons, neutrons and electrons all had a beginning. Conventional science has a name for that beginning: The Big Bang. Science can make some assumptions and postulate a Big Bang. Before a Big Bang, science can show us nothing. Scientists are human beings and they can speculate but speculation is not science.
The heavens and the earth had a beginning. Since they had a beginning, we can also be confident that they will have an end. All things are possible with God. God can make a new heavens and a new earth.
Based on evidence and logic, acknowledgement of a beginning would necessitate acknowledgement of a cause to that beginning and that would lead to an acknowledgement of God. Since the a priori presumption of conventional science is that there is no god, Carl Sagan and conventional scientists needed to assert a timelessness to the Cosmos that extended before a beginning even though they lacked evidence to do so.
Now, Cosmos with a capital "C" seems to me to be a pantheistic personification of the visible universe as "god" but that would be another topic.
Carl Sagan asserted dogma that science does not support. Science does not confirm that the Cosmos is all that ever was. Also, science can not prove the non-existence of realities in addition to the cosmos.
Faith can originate as an outworking of evidence and logic. Scientific evidence supports that there was a beginning. Scientific evidence supports a beginning (and nothing prior to a beginning). Logic supports that where there was a beginning, there was a cause to that beginning. By logic, the only force that could cause a beginning is one who had no beginning. The Name for the Force who had no beginning but caused a beginning is: God.
As affirmed by Dr. T, in the opening episode of the new Cosmos television series, one of the agreements of the community using the scientific method is: Follow the evidence wherever it leads. The evidence leads to a beginning. A beginning leads logically to a cause for that beginning. Ultimately, the cause of a beginning is One who had no beginning. His name is God.
Please do follow the evidence (and logic) where it leads. It leads to a beginning and to God.
When I continue with Genesis one, it describes an arrangement of formlessness followed by order, of darkness followed by a separation of darkness and light, of things below separated from things above, of pervasive waters followed by a separation of waters from dry land, of six creation days. Genesis 1:26 contains hints of a theological trinity and of the nature of humanity: "Let us make man in our image". Genesis one contains information about God creating male and female and giving them directions (Genesis 1:28-30). An expansion of those themes would need to be the subject of additional posts.
When I read Cosmos by Carl Sagan, it makes a different opening statement: The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.
Science affirms a beginning and nothing more. Genesis affirms a beginning. Scientific evidence confirms the first three words of Genesis 1:1. Carl Sagan made a dogmatic statement that the Cosmos is all that ever was. Thus Dr. Sagan affirmed a timelessness to the Cosmos without evidence to do so.
The logical Principle of Causality is: “Everything that begins has a cause.” As stated previously, books have authors, skyscrapers and bridges have builders. The universe had a beginning and must have a cause.
Logically, the notion of a beginning supports a cause to that beginning. The cause of a beginning would be One who had no beginning. His name is God.
Carl Sagan asserted that the Cosmos is all that ever was. Thus, he asserts a timelessness to the cosmos but it is only an assertion. Science confirms a beginning but nothing more. Science shows that the heavens and the earth had a beginning and estimates the beginning of the universe at around 14 billion years ago. The earth has a finite age. Galaxies, stars, planets, protons, neutrons and electrons all had a beginning. Conventional science has a name for that beginning: The Big Bang. Science can make some assumptions and postulate a Big Bang. Before a Big Bang, science can show us nothing. Scientists are human beings and they can speculate but speculation is not science.
The heavens and the earth had a beginning. Since they had a beginning, we can also be confident that they will have an end. All things are possible with God. God can make a new heavens and a new earth.
Based on evidence and logic, acknowledgement of a beginning would necessitate acknowledgement of a cause to that beginning and that would lead to an acknowledgement of God. Since the a priori presumption of conventional science is that there is no god, Carl Sagan and conventional scientists needed to assert a timelessness to the Cosmos that extended before a beginning even though they lacked evidence to do so.
Now, Cosmos with a capital "C" seems to me to be a pantheistic personification of the visible universe as "god" but that would be another topic.
Carl Sagan asserted dogma that science does not support. Science does not confirm that the Cosmos is all that ever was. Also, science can not prove the non-existence of realities in addition to the cosmos.
Faith can originate as an outworking of evidence and logic. Scientific evidence supports that there was a beginning. Scientific evidence supports a beginning (and nothing prior to a beginning). Logic supports that where there was a beginning, there was a cause to that beginning. By logic, the only force that could cause a beginning is one who had no beginning. The Name for the Force who had no beginning but caused a beginning is: God.
As affirmed by Dr. T, in the opening episode of the new Cosmos television series, one of the agreements of the community using the scientific method is: Follow the evidence wherever it leads. The evidence leads to a beginning. A beginning leads logically to a cause for that beginning. Ultimately, the cause of a beginning is One who had no beginning. His name is God.
Please do follow the evidence (and logic) where it leads. It leads to a beginning and to God.
When I continue with Genesis one, it describes an arrangement of formlessness followed by order, of darkness followed by a separation of darkness and light, of things below separated from things above, of pervasive waters followed by a separation of waters from dry land, of six creation days. Genesis 1:26 contains hints of a theological trinity and of the nature of humanity: "Let us make man in our image". Genesis one contains information about God creating male and female and giving them directions (Genesis 1:28-30). An expansion of those themes would need to be the subject of additional posts.
In Babylonian mythology Marduk created men to serve the gods; and how do we serve them? – through animal sacrifice. It brings to mind the passage, “And the priest shall burn it to smoke at the altar: food, an offering by fire to YHWH” (Leviticus 3:11). Of course our views have since changed. We no longer think the gods need be fed, but that was our original purpose: suppliers of food for Yahweh. And supply the gods in plenty we did. “And Noah built an altar to YHWH, and he took some of each of the pure animals and of each of the pure birds, and he offered sacrifices on the altar. And YHWH smelled the pleasant smell...” (Genesis 8:20-21).
You can take it on faith, and you do, but the biblical account offers no understanding of the universe – microscopic or macroscopic. All discoveries are derived from science.
You can take it on faith, and you do, but the biblical account offers no understanding of the universe – microscopic or macroscopic. All discoveries are derived from science.
J
You know, as I think about it, there are about a billion stars in this galaxy and about a billion galaxies or so. At least that is what I have heard. The universe is so great in its expanse that the majority of it we will never see or understand. What if God did this to show mankind how effectively puny we are? What if he made it this way to tell us that we can never fathom His true greatness?
for me personally, the vastness of the universe humbles me and makes me trust in God that even if I don't understand everything, I know that He knows what He is doing.
for me personally, the vastness of the universe humbles me and makes me trust in God that even if I don't understand everything, I know that He knows what He is doing.
J
Why would God even want to provide microscopic or macroscopic evidence in Genesis? The book is not about revealing nature, but about revealing God. All the books of the Bible are about revealing Who God is and they do.
It is faith that pleases God. The fact that the Genesis account gives so little information shows us that God desires our trust. The account may not be acceptable for a scientist, but it is acceptable for a child who simply trusts and believes as God asks us to do.
It is faith that pleases God. The fact that the Genesis account gives so little information shows us that God desires our trust. The account may not be acceptable for a scientist, but it is acceptable for a child who simply trusts and believes as God asks us to do.
No. Science states that from the Big Bang came the galaxies, and in the galaxies the stars formed, lived, and exploded, enriching the space between them with heavy elements from which new stars and, planets, and ourselves formed.
“In the beginning...”? It might have opened with “Once upon a time...” and been just as informative. Read on in Genesis and you will find a very different account than what science provides.
I think he sums up his understanding of this matter in the following short clip from Cosmos.
Carl Sagan - The Big Bang Theory - YouTube
Here he states that we don’t know yet whether the universe is open or closed, and we don’t know if it had a beginning or not; and if we want to say God created it then this begs the question, “Where did God come from?” If we are willing to say God is timeless, then why not just save a step and say the universe is timeless?
Remember, the original Cosmos series is now more than thirty years old. Astronomy has answered the one question Sagan asks: the universe is open. At least that is the current thinking. In the 1980s there were still proponents of the Steady State hypothesis. Perhaps Sagan leaned toward that view. This would explain his opening words in the book.
Wait a minute. How do you know the universe had a beginning? Are you taking the astronomers at their word? Are you trusting a Bronze Age text? How do you know God didn’t have a beginning? You are arguing that the most complex entity in the universe had no beginning? It seems you are setting logic aside.
No, sorry, not allowed. If God needs no cause then neither does the Big Bang.
Which is another way of saying you can make any claim and attribute it to God. Problem: there is no physical evidence for the existence of this being. You want to credit him with the formation of the universe, but you cannot demonstrate his existence. The Big Bang is premised on physical observations. God is premised on a book, and in particular, in Genesis 1, you are arguing from a Bronze Age text.
False. Science makes no presumptions or judgements about God. Science cannot test for God. There are many scientists who are Christians. Francis Collins accepts all the claims of evolution, but he is a Christian. Sagan was simply giving his own opinion on God. Sagan’s specialty was planetary science. His view was simply that you don’t need God to explain the cosmos.
Sagan’s view on this may not match contemporary views. As I said earlier, he may have been partial to the Steady State hypothesis. Be careful when you rely on 34 year old statements to make judgements about contemporary thinking in astronomy.
Your reasoning: God exists, the universe had a beginning, therefore God created the universe.
My reasoning: the universe exists, it must have had a beginning, the Big Bang might explain its origin.
I can’t invent an origin for the Big Bang and you can’t invent one for God, so you argue he always existed. I am not even completely confident the Big Bang occurred, so I will just have to admit ignorance.
“In the beginning...”? It might have opened with “Once upon a time...” and been just as informative. Read on in Genesis and you will find a very different account than what science provides.
I think he sums up his understanding of this matter in the following short clip from Cosmos.
Carl Sagan - The Big Bang Theory - YouTube
Here he states that we don’t know yet whether the universe is open or closed, and we don’t know if it had a beginning or not; and if we want to say God created it then this begs the question, “Where did God come from?” If we are willing to say God is timeless, then why not just save a step and say the universe is timeless?
Remember, the original Cosmos series is now more than thirty years old. Astronomy has answered the one question Sagan asks: the universe is open. At least that is the current thinking. In the 1980s there were still proponents of the Steady State hypothesis. Perhaps Sagan leaned toward that view. This would explain his opening words in the book.
Wait a minute. How do you know the universe had a beginning? Are you taking the astronomers at their word? Are you trusting a Bronze Age text? How do you know God didn’t have a beginning? You are arguing that the most complex entity in the universe had no beginning? It seems you are setting logic aside.
No, sorry, not allowed. If God needs no cause then neither does the Big Bang.
Which is another way of saying you can make any claim and attribute it to God. Problem: there is no physical evidence for the existence of this being. You want to credit him with the formation of the universe, but you cannot demonstrate his existence. The Big Bang is premised on physical observations. God is premised on a book, and in particular, in Genesis 1, you are arguing from a Bronze Age text.
False. Science makes no presumptions or judgements about God. Science cannot test for God. There are many scientists who are Christians. Francis Collins accepts all the claims of evolution, but he is a Christian. Sagan was simply giving his own opinion on God. Sagan’s specialty was planetary science. His view was simply that you don’t need God to explain the cosmos.
Sagan’s view on this may not match contemporary views. As I said earlier, he may have been partial to the Steady State hypothesis. Be careful when you rely on 34 year old statements to make judgements about contemporary thinking in astronomy.
Your reasoning: God exists, the universe had a beginning, therefore God created the universe.
My reasoning: the universe exists, it must have had a beginning, the Big Bang might explain its origin.
I can’t invent an origin for the Big Bang and you can’t invent one for God, so you argue he always existed. I am not even completely confident the Big Bang occurred, so I will just have to admit ignorance.
I never said mine is or is not, I only said I believe and that is what it is, for me and waht I ahve seen since is beyond this world and is why I stand as the number 1 that Cycel put out in an earlier post and he is a number 7, and I said I am number one on the list. and am glad to meet him number 7
You beleive what you want to beleive, it quite fine, yet if anyone of us live like a refugee, maybe time to rethink waht is really truth, and this goes for all, the claimed believers as well. If anyone is living like a refugee, in fights, arguments, not at peace, then it is time to rethink what one thinks to be truth you think
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Would that be free form worry, stress, and arguments?
John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
And all this to see this and be this starts with Believe, forget what I am saying and or anyone else and search this out in your own heart, and ask self are you free and do you want to be if you are not free?
You beleive what you want to beleive, it quite fine, yet if anyone of us live like a refugee, maybe time to rethink waht is really truth, and this goes for all, the claimed believers as well. If anyone is living like a refugee, in fights, arguments, not at peace, then it is time to rethink what one thinks to be truth you think
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Would that be free form worry, stress, and arguments?
John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
And all this to see this and be this starts with Believe, forget what I am saying and or anyone else and search this out in your own heart, and ask self are you free and do you want to be if you are not free?
P
Gentlemen if you know anything about physics you will see that everything in the sciences only proves God's perfection of design, so I take exception to the statement 2000 years ago when noone knew anything. If you are aware of physics then you know that our universe is FINITE!!! Pick up a copy of Scientific American. Read about quanta, quarks and the dimension of time. Understand that the speed of light is NOT a constant. Ever hear of Einstein? Do a little reading of his work. (BTW he was a jewish beleiver in Jesus)
If you were God and did the creating, and gave the free will as told in the Bible, and after these two fell, from eating what you told them would kill them and man created more mankind and man just waxed worse and worse, killing each other except those they could control and even killed them when they decided to with no love in their heart for their neighbor.
Would you be sorrowed over it?
Would you be sorrowed over it?