The flood, and meat eating.

I dont feel the Big Bang is either scientific or has anything to do with Genesis.Can you think of any facts that support the Big Bang?How does the Big Bang = the creation of light?Here is a link to arguments refuting the Big Bang:
Page not found – Evolution-Facts--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-26-2005 06:51 AM

Why do we assume that god is 'outside of time'? He made the world in Six days. Those are units of time, infact I don't think anywhere in the bible does it ever say that god travels thrugh time.Furthermore quantum mechanics has nothing to do with an imaterial, supernatural diety described in a 2000 year old manuscript. The people who pened that manuscript had no concept of the structure of the solar system let alone something as complex as quantum physics. Because this is how bacteria work. We need them to digest food as well.The only reason you want to assume that they werent is because you want to belive in a god. Thats not assumption, it's fact. We havent seen carnivores backtrack and become herbivores. Time is a forward continum and time travel is a logical and physical imposibility.And no, unless you can show me a bible verse where it says god went back in time, I'm not buying that god is a time traveler.

quote:

---

Can you think of any facts that support the Big Bang?

---

The red shift in the spectrum of distant galaxies, proportional to their distance from us, is a pretty good one.Quasars only exist very far away (and therefore very long ago) is another one.The cosmic microwave background radiation is another one, and should be seen as the clincher.

quote:

---

Why do we assume that god is 'outside of time'?

---

More important, what does that even mean?

"God originally created man to only eat plants"Then why the canine teeth and gut adaptations for meat eating as well as herbivory? Animals with digestive systems adapted solely for herbivory are going to get seriously messed up and probably die it they eat any significant amount of meat.

Obviously, that was not the original design, if you accept the biblical text (as I do) as truthful.That's my point here. The Bible indicates a change in the entire system, the very code if you would of the creation, that occurred with the Fall.This message has been edited by randman, 07-26-2005 06:45 PM

But don't you understand that the 'code changes' required amount to scraping everything and starting over?I mean, instead you have god traveling back in time, redoing his creation, then speeding up to the present in order to change things to meat eating?Why is god being so hard on himself? I mean, he knew they were gonna fall anyway. It sure seems god is acting a bit Rube Goldberg about all this creation buissnes. This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-26-2005 06:41 PM

Some of your ideas are fairly nonsensical such as: Why do you assume something is "hard" for God?Or, here is another: Why would God have to travel back in time if He is already there? Your assumption here is that despite God creating time, that He somehow is limited by it. That's a false assumption.Moreover, you and others are ignoring the basic issue I raised which is the nature of existence, which quantum physics studies.Take the concept of the multi-verse as an explanation for quantum observations. The idea that a multi-verse can exist is presented as a fully scientific, rational, plausible explanation. Whether it is correct or not, we don't know, but we do know that such a hypthesis could be an explanation for the fact that probability patterns can take on different forms, such as either a wave or a particle. The multi-verse idea is that they take on all potential forms.My point is simply that we already know there are potential forms that the universe can take, and not necessarily a set form. Light, for example, can exist as a wave or a particle, and perhaps exists as neither until it takes on one form or the other. It exists a potential according to a probability pattern, and basically exists as information.Well, it's not that difficult to consider that what we see now is just one potential path and manifestation of the universe's probability pattern, and that the universe could well have been changed all at once, from beginning to end, yes, but also forward. One potential existence was removed via the Fall of man.

I don't mean hard in the sense that it is difficult for him, I mean it in the sense that he is going thrugh alot of unecessary steps. He is taking dozens of extra steps to reach a predetermined goal. He must be bound by time since god is temporal in the bible. He creates the world in six days, he exiles the jews for fourty years, there are numerous accounts of god being patient, of god waiting, of god changing his mind. How is god 'outside of time' when he is so clearly defined in temporal terms? Right, so you are saying that there are billions of possible gods in all of these possible universes?Besides the multi-verse is not a proven theory. So, god is still contingent on existence. He still needs 'this universe' to exist. Meaning that there are multiple version of god in all the billions of 'non-fallen' universes.Sounds to me like not only is god bound by time, but he is also bound by QM.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-26-2005 07:44 PM

Who says? This is an absurd claim on the face of it. First off, we see plenty of seeming unnecessary steps in life. Assuming God exists, one would assume He doesn't mind taking "unnecessary steps", and the most logical assumption is that complexity if something God enjoys, as well as simplicity. "He must be", eh? No, not really. God can be anything He wants within His own nature. The fact that God exists within time does not preclude God from existing apart from time. The Bible also states He created "all things", and Jesus says He is the beginning and the end.You are making a common mistake. No, it is not, but does that make it unscientific. Seems you guys have a double-standard. Total nonsense on your part. God is not physical and thus does not exist in multiple versions. I don't know how you got that, but great way to dodge the entire substance of the thread.

False. This is one of the science forums (click the All Forums link), so the Bible does not stand as evidence for itself here.

---

*not an actual doctor

Im sorry, let me explain what I mean more clearly. I didn't mean to write the last post so quickly, but see if you can follow me on this:God changes his mind right? I mean, he gets angry, people interceed and calm him (moses), god makes choices etc. etc. None of these things could happen if god was not bound by time. To have change (emotions) you need time. Therefore god is affected by time, i.e. bound by it.As far as gods existence relying on QM. God created QM, right? But by your argument, god is contingent on QM. His choices are probability waveforms right? The way he views the future is in those waveforms right?Well that means that where we are today is one solution to one waveform. This means that there are dozens of other waveform solutions existing in parallel with ours (multi-verse). This means multiple gods in each universe. And the god we have here with us today, is one of those gods, following one waveform solution.Now, if you say God is not bound by QM, you get into an infinite regression problem. Essentialy, god creating existance, yet relying on existance to exist?Look at existance as a thing, a force in nature. God created everything right? Thus he created existance, because if he didn't he wouldn't be all powerfull, but then how could he create existance, if he himself must exist to create it?This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-26-2005 08:09 PM

Randman,The Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy forum is concerned with whether or not the Bible is accurate with respect to the real world. You need evidence from the real world, outside the Bible.Your "god is outside time" hypothesis is not evidence. You need to give us something -anything - to show us that what you are saying has some reality to it.Without evidence, your contentions about meat-eating are just unsupported opinions. They belong in the Faith and Belief forum, not here.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

The standard theological answer to your position here is that this is simply anthropomorphism; i.e. we cannot understand God so He presents Himself in terms we can grasp. http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/anthropo.htm No, my argument is the opposite. God created QM so He is not "contingent on" it in the way you suppose. It is a tool of God's, not something ruling over God. No. Maybe I am not following you here, but I see no reason to suggest God views the future only as waveforms since He knows the definite form they will take already. Well, I can go along with the conclusion but not how you got there. Not necessarily. It may be there are dozens of other potential solutions which do not actually exist in a form, but just exist as a potential form. No, it would not. God would be the same in all, if alternative universes exist. They exist as potential paths, sure, but we have no idea if they are realized. No, God does not follow anything. He creates and controls, and allows for us to make choices within the set of potential choices He created. No, you don't because God does not rely on QM principles to exist. QM principles deal with created energy and matter, not God Himself, although they may deal with God's connection to energy and matter.As far as existence, God created our concept of existence, but Gid did not create Himself, but exists, period. The idea He is dependant on the concept of existence in order to be is fallacious logic on your part.This message has been edited by randman, 07-26-2005 08:25 PM

The OP deals with a claim about the Bible. If you are saying one has to scientifically prove God exists before discussing the topic, then really the whole thread topic should never have been placed here because that is an entirely different thread, trying to prove the existence of God via science.If one is to offer an explanation on how the ideas in the text can fit with modern science, then we can do that, and that's what I am doing here. The first step is to try to get a handle on the fundamentals of what existence is. How do things exist?I think the discoveries thus far on how things exist suggests that a scenario that I have layed out is plausible.You act as if the scenario is so out there to be wholly unscientific, and yet science offers explanations for quantum physics observations such as the multi-verse, which is not proven either.My idea is not so different than the multi-verse concept, except that I am suggesting that this could occur without the alternatives within the multi-verse ever taking on real form. Probably that gets into physics too much, and they are problems that are unresolved in quantum physics, but at the same time, there are critical discoveries as well, and imo, those discoveries support my idea here.