Print
The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
by Christadelphian.org
Steve sends us in this great little bit:
"Hi,
Just thought I should send this in. I have attached a flyer that was posted
through my letter box. It is from an odd Christian group,
Christadelphians, that take the good book literally. Sad to see these groups
actually exist, good to see they are on the defensive.
I really hope it is not from my next door neighbour! Perhaps I need to move."
Just thought I should send this in. I have attached a flyer that was posted
through my letter box. It is from an odd Christian group,
Christadelphians, that take the good book literally. Sad to see these groups
actually exist, good to see they are on the defensive.
I really hope it is not from my next door neighbour! Perhaps I need to move."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, November 19, 2006 | PermalinkComments 701 - 750 of 1742 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers702. Comment #25863 by Theo on March 15, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Hi Lee,
So god had no origin? Any proof on this?
You cried foul earlier about SG since it would be difficult to falsify, how can I test this theory of yours?
So where was god when the Universe began? Inside looking out or outside looking in? This is serious question.
How could I provide proof for something that I clearly stated was outside the scope of science? You stated that there would be a problem with creation, not because it lacked evidence, but because it would raise more questions than answers. Now answer me this: where did the singularity come from? And whatever produced the singularity, where did that come from? And so the question goes on to infinity. The concept of the singularity also raises more questions than answers, but is the concept of the singularity dismissed because of infinite regress as creation? Of course not! But infinite regress does give us an important answer concerning reality, and that answer is that something must have always existed. As Billy pointed out, why not the universe instead of God? I would have accepted this if the origin of life on earth did not point to an intelligent designer.
So basically, if you a theist can not prove god exists to themselves (they have faith for that), the theist will make it damn will impossible for anyone to prove god by making up rules. . .
Can you describe to me exactly how I made up the rules? Note well that atheists cannot prove that S.G. took place (they have faith for that also)
You are merely trying to take god outside of physics... is a theist worried about what science can prove so much that they have to change the rules? Of course you would say you did not make the rules... which is a fair comment.
I am not saying that, I am asking you to describe how I did it.
The problem though with your theory (as I have stated) is that as science learns more it does not matter where you hide your god. You see, the thing is, science is looking for god - we just have not found him yet and finding less and less need for him.
Actually Lee the more science discovers, the more we theists appreciate the intelligence and power of the Creator. You keep forgetting Lee that theists are not anti science! God going into hiding? From where?
Out of interest, you never responded to my comment in 829. Comment #23820.
It just sounds like the "Emperor's New Clothes" - only clever people can see the fine clothes (or God), and fools like us can only see what there is (or not).
If you are saying that clever people accept that there are things existing beyond observation while fools do not, then I agree with your analogy.
Where is this infinite being you talk about, I have never seen him, heard him or have any proof of him... not so infinite is he? Besides, the god of the bible does . . .
No bible talk remember?
Comment 851
I am really glad that you could acknowledge that an atheists faith rests on a scientifically meaningless claim. Therefore the discussion now is which faith is more probable.
Is this all it would take for millions to lose their faith or just you to lose yours (you said you were an atheist once)?
I can only speak for myself, though I would consider it foolish for a theist to believe in a theory that has been proven wrong.
If I did have life in a test tube, it would only be very simple life... you could claim that God made it better or something and the debate goes on. Or more likely claim the experiment false and not believe what you see.
Of course being the critical thinker that I am, questions must be asked. You do not want someone placing a germ in a test tube and exclaim that he created life, do you?
Lets face it; this last one is more likely. Science has proved the Earth and the moon to be 4.5 billion years old... really proved it, yet some theist still hold onto the belief that the world is a few thousand years old. (Sorry Theo - have to ask now - How old do you think the Earth is by the way - just want to check which side of the fence you are on?)
There is no need to answer this question; it would only take away attention from the issue at hand. I will reveal that If however, rocks did form in a closed environment and if it was formed without daughter isotopes, then the earth must be about 4.5 billion years old!
Another point though, your statement means that the only reason for believing in god is the life you see around you... well didn't I previously use this evidence as proof of SG, but you were not convinced? (And why should you be on such an empty argument - but it works for you and god doesn't it)
If it is seen that the origin of life points to a Designer, how can someone possibly conclude that this is evidence for spontaneous generation?! . . . now I have a headache!
My point is that a simple life form with just a few thousand or millions of atoms is far more likely to "pop" into existence than 10^23 atoms all appearing in one place to form a pen-knife (or a god?). This is the problem with analogies
Here is an excerpt from the Blind Watchmaker:
"To generate a biological molecule like haemoglobin, the red pigment in blood, by simple sieving would be equivalent to taking all the amino-acid building blocks of haemoglobin, jumbling them up at random, and hoping that the haemoglobin molecule would reconstitute itself by sheer luck. The amount of luck that would be required for this feat is unthinkable, and has been used as a telling mind-boggier by Isaac Asimov and others. A haemoglobin molecule consists of four chains of amino acids twisted together. Let us think about just one of these four chains. It consists of 146 amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids commonly found in living things. The number of possible ways of arranging 20 kinds of thing in chains 146 links long is an inconceivably large number, which Asimov calls the 'haemoglobin number'. It is easy to calculate, but impossible to visualize the answer. The first link in the 146-long chain could be any one of the 20 possible amino acids. The second link could also be any one of the 20, so the number of possible 2-link chains is 20 x 10, or 400. The number of possible 3-link chains is 20 x 20 x 20, or 8,000. The number of possible 146-link chains is 20 times itself 146 times. This is a staggeringly large number. A million is a 1 with 6 noughts after it. A billion 11,000 million) is a 1 with 9 noughts after it. The number we seek, the 'haemoglobin number', is (near enough) a 1 with 190 noughts after it! This is the chance against happening to hit upon haemoglobin by luck. And a haemoglobin molecule has only a minute fraction of the complexity of a living body. Simple sieving, on its own, is obviously nowhere near capable of generating the amount of order in a living thing"
Now if the amount of luck that would be required for the S.G. of one molecule haemoglobin is unthinkable and thus can only be explained by means of cumulative selection, how much more for a living replicating cell that comprises of many molecules of greater complexity!
is it the simplest possible living thing that the scientists agree on, or just the simplest around at the moment after all the early primitive stuff evolved or became extinct?
Yes, it is generally accepted in the scientific community that the first cell was prokaryotic.
No need . . . Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion" pg 130-132 talks all about the flagellum motor
That is why I had "optional" in brackets, meaning that the first cell did not necessarily have to possess this motor.
Since you bring it up, could you please response to Richards's arguments? I assume you have read the book . . . if not please do; it will help with the debates on this site.
Right now I am occupied with the Blind Watchmaker; I will start the G.D. when I am through.
However I don't actually see your point on this discussion- all what you have described is covered in the debate "Evolution and natural selection"... this is not what we were discussing. You pick me up on this before when I went off the argument
As mentioned earlier, the scientific community agrees that the first cell was indeed prokaryotic. Structures always present in these cells are: phospholipid cell membranes, DNA and ribosomes. Any living cell must possess machinery that would enable it to harness energy from its environment incorporated with information duplication machinery to ensure acceptable replication. DNA and ribosomes which are arguably more complex than haemoglobin, all working together with other structures to produce a cell . . . by chance is "unthinkable". I guess that it is because of such complexity you really thought we were moving the debate to evolution and natural selection!
Now if such is the complex machinery of the first and simplest cell, it certainly points to a Creator! I just cannot find the foolishness within myself to dismiss such overwhelming evidence ONLY BECAUSE SCIENCE IS "LIMITED" AND CANNOT DEAL WITH THE RESULTS!
Other Comments by Theo
703. Comment #25999 by LeeC on March 16, 2007 at 2:45 am
Responding to 840. Comment #25032 by Mark TauntonHi Mark,
Thanks for the detailed response. I am glad you are able to highlight the good and bad of the bible. It is a credit to you.
Your brief summary of Bible morality is a poor caricature of what it actually says. You say you don't know the Bible well, and I have to agree with you! It
Sorry about that… I have apologised for the comment (846. Comment #25317)
My original comment, however poorly made, was/is that the bible, in particular the OT, has people and god(?) doing a lot of bad things which morally, in today's eyes, would seem evil, yet back when it was written it was of course "morally correct".
This to me proves that it was man who wrote the bible since, as we know and seen, our morals change and "evolve" over time.
If god has the power to see the future, why does his morals change? He should have learnt already (sorry known already), by seeing the future, what his morals should be when the bible was written. (This past, present and future writing is difficult for me – hope that made sense?)
For example, early in their history as a nation, Israel were instructed to destroy the peoples living in the land of Canaan, …
…They are not to do with racism, brutality, or "religious extremism". They are to do with false religion, particularly in regard to sex and its misuse.
I will not labour on this point yet, as you can imagine the idea to me of killing in the name of religion (the statement "false religion" implies this to me) is surely has to be seen today as a bad thing…
…But you are evidently unaware of the logic behind those cases…
I will read on and learn…
The Canaanites' religion and sexual excesses were strongly linked, as is clear from the Biblical accounts…
For the sake of argument at this point I will take your evidence as "true" since I do not have the means to check your sources at this time… however, I will also keep in mind the history of mankind – did not the Nazi's vilify the Jews for their own purpose? Of course I would not suggest you (or the bible) are doing this but it does sound all too familiar with our recent history.
But God said that the Canaanites must all be killed. Harsh and drastic though it appears to us (it would no doubt be classed as ethnic cleansing and genocide)
You are not wrong there… it is sounding more like Nazi's, but I will hold back on commenting yet… but I think you are highlighting the bad points of the OT that I mentioned earlier (but could not quote off hand)
…it was something God required to be done. It was intended not only to prevent Israel adopting their religious practices which used sex as a means of control and subordination; it would also rid the land of a huge pool of sexually transmitted disease
This would be seen as pure evil in modern eyes…it is the bible that is stating the Canaanites are evil – just as Hitler did with regards to the Jews and Hitler is not seen as a very nice man. If I put these bible quotes next to the history of Nazi Germany they both would seem pretty evil to me.
It does sound to my "untrained eye" that the bible is suggesting that these other religions (and practices) are bad (a bit of an understatement) and that the god of the bible is the one true god… and that the Canaanites with the wrong religion should be killed??
Sorry… you objected to this summary of the OT that I made "follow me, your one true god… kill the non-believer…"? How would you summarise in a sentence the paragraphs you have written?
To come back to another point you raised, "it would also rid the land of a huge pool of sexually transmitted disease"
Now isn't god seen by you as an all-powerful being? Why does he need man to do all the dirty work then? Could he just not cure them and remove this STD from the face of the planet… you never know, it may convince the Canaanites' that they are following the wrong god?
Or if god thinks they are so evil, why did he invent a disease that did not kill them out right (or did he have to wait 3,000 years for HIV and Aids to do that… took a bit of thinking did it?)
I take absolutely no practical precedent from it, for my own actions today. Nor is there justification for anyone else in thinking that they could equally plan to wipe out a whole people, or just one man, for their own self-determined reasons, in other circumstances
Glad to here it… so this proves that today we can not take our morals purely from the bible? You yourself have selected your previous quote as "evil" (I assume?) or have at least distanced yourself from it morally.
How are you able to select which bits of the bible are good and should be followed, and which bits are bad and should be ignored?
I find it hard to identify a time in history when the Bible's legal and moral stance would suit the political aims of any particular person or group over the nation of Israel, as you propose. In particular, the idea that the Bible was written as a means to allow some elite to keep the people in their place by threatening them with God's wrath, doesn't seem to match the detail of the text at all
I stated the bible was used to control people; I did not say it was a state or country.
The bible did at least control the people of Israel – your quotes shows that – the bible said "kill such and such they are evil" (sorry, I summarised your earlier quotes please tell me I have gone to far again), and off the believers of the bible go and kill. This sounds like control to me. Very scary type of control.
Surely you will agree to this… they attacked and killed whomever they were told by god to kill – and without questioning, as you said.
The bible also gives reason for other evils, belittling women for a start?
And what about the worse sin of all – the people tried to think and change religions… the bible I has strong words to say about that… or am I mistaken again?
Again I ask: who invented the law of Moses? Who invented the writings of the prophets? Who could gain control over others by means of these - according to the sceptic, invented and fraudulent - words?
I though Moses wrote them down? Not sure if he did it alone or by committee.
Whoever it was, I am sure the people who wrote these laws "believed" and had "faith" but this does not mean god exists or that He wrote them.
The prophets have already been discussed at great length on this thread by people who can quote the bible better than me. It would seem no one was converted either way.
They only seem to work for those who want to believe them. They are too vague for a sceptic… which begs a question. Why didn't god "predict" something that could not be debated… a very clear prediction in plain and easy to understand language. Not something vague as the ones discussed on this website.
Thanks
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
704. Comment #26035 by Quetzalcoatl on March 16, 2007 at 7:17 am
Re comment 25495: Mark Taunton-I thought you had forgotten me Mark! I look forward to reading your response. In fairness, it may take me a while to compose a reply, although hopefully not too long. If it's as lengthy as you say, I'll do my best to respond as best I can.
Re comment 25766: Shauntheboy-
I also thought you had forgotten me! In fact, I had to go and read my original comment again. No need to apologise though, at least you responded. What annoys me is when people raise points (not necessarily talking about myself here) that others completely ignore. So, thanks for the response.
A few points in response to some of your replies-
The Exodus quote. First you ask me about the UK government imprisonment issue. The people imprisoned are those guilty of committing crimes. The law says that those who commit crimes will be incarcerated, or at the very least punished. The law says that it is wrong for the INNOCENT to be imprisoned, or for criminals to be without a fair trial. It's not quite the same thing.
You accept that God is qualified to take the life of another. I read the verse in question. In it, Moses said God said for the Levites to kill their fellow Israelites after the calf incident. Notice God didn't say to kill. Moses SAID God said. There is nothing in the verses around it about God SPECIFICALLY telling Moses to get the Levites to go on their little killing spree. What about all the people in the world who kill because they say God told them to? What you said seems to suggest that ONLY God should kill. Does that mean that anyone who says God told them to kill is wrong? So was Moses wrong?
The John quote. John 6:44 suggests that people can seek Jesus as much as they like, but if God doesn't want them to, they won't, no matter how sincere their desire. It doesn't say that everyone who honestly looks for Jesus will definitely find him. God could still block them. Or do you think that he will NEVER block someone who seeks salvation?
The Job and Jude quote. Revelation seems very specific that Satan exists- Chapter 20 is one example. Luke 4 (the temptation of Jesus) also seems to suggest that the devil is a real person. I need clarification on your point about the angels. You said "individuals". Do you believe these individuals to be actual angels, or just humans? Do you actually believe in angels?
Job 1:6 (New International version). One day the angels came to show themselves before the Lord, AND SATAN WAS WITH THEM...... Satan answered the Lord, "I HAVE BEEN WANDERING AROUND THE EARTH, GOING BACK AND FORTH IN IT". Later it talks about Satan putting sores on Job's body, NOT God (Ch 2 V 7). It certainly sounds like Satan is a real, distinct entity to me, with independence to wander where he chooses. Any comment?
The Corinthians/Isaiah quote. Truth be told, I put this one in because it was very ironic, and made me chuckle.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
705. Comment #26254 by LeeC on March 18, 2007 at 4:07 am
New question to all theistsHow old is planet Earth, the Sun and the solar system?
I am stating up front the whole point of this reply I have written below.
It is a simple question to which the response could be
"I agree with modern science and their belief it is 4.5 billion years old"
or
"I believe in the bible and feel it is 10,000 years old"
(If that what the bible says?)
or another response - in years?
I am asking this question to all theists (assuming that an atheist will agree with modern science – unless they state otherwise)
This question came out of my discussions with Theo, to which my reply is below.
It is a simple question.
I am curious only because I hear that some theists in America believe the planet and life upon it are only 10,000 years old?
Also, since this thread has spawned from a Christadelphian pamphlet, what is their view?
Mark,
You have clearly spoken on the views of the Christadelphian with regards to the bible so maybe you could answer my question?
Many thanks
Lee
(Theo please read on... and anybody else who wishes)
851. Comment #25432 by LeeC
Responding to 856. Comment #25863 by Theo
Hi Theo,
Before I reply in full to your response (of which I am in the process of drafting at the moment) I do feel the need to focus on one of your comments. It may have been a throwaway question by myself, but its answer is very important.
I asked you rather simple question, which I admit was not part of the original debate so I have now separated the question in a new discussion.
This debate should be a simple one so your reply was an interesting one to me.
My simple question was "How old do you think the Earth is?", and to ensure I am being specific now, I am asking how old is the planet Earth, the Sun and the solar system.
You have already stated that God is outside the scope of science, do you also feel that the age of planet Earth is also outside science?
So to your answer given by you in "856. Comment #25863" was: -
There is no need to answer this question; it would only take away attention from the issue at hand. I will reveal that If however, rocks did form in a closed environment and if it was formed without daughter isotopes, then the earth must be about 4.5 billion years old!
I take the point of it will be moving the attention at hand, but since you raised the question on singularities (of which I will be replying more shortly) I thought you will allow me this simple question, at least now I have moved it in a separate debate here.
I am also not sure if you are just playing with me to see if I bite (which I know I have by writing this reply and starting a new debate), or are seriously saying you doubt the age of 4.5 billion years given by modern science?
If so, by how much to you doubt the age given and why?
Now to your actual answer… well, you have not actually given a personally answer to anything have you – you have crossed your fingers while you answered with your use of "if" – Basically stating "IF science is right, then it is the age is 4.5 billions years"
I could also happily make the statement "IF god exists, then god created planet Earth and man… IF god exits… the Earth is 10,000 years old IF science is wrong"
This statement in itself does not state whether I actually believe in god. It answers nothing – but with such an answer you would question if I actually believe in god.
So Theo, all I wanted was a simple clear response on your view on how old the Earth is.
Can you please answer me this?
It is a simple question to which the response could be
"I agree with modern science and their belief it is 4.5 billion years old"
or
"I believe in the bible and feel it is 10,000 years old"
(If that what the bible says?)
or another response - in years?
Many thanks
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
706. Comment #26340 by Mark Taunton on March 18, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Lee, a quick response (since I'm supposed to be finishing off my response to Quetz - sorry Quetz!):New question to all theists
How old is planet Earth, the Sun and the solar system?
Sorry if I seem to be quibbling, but I'm not giving my answer in exactly the form you wanted. I'm not going to say they are X years old. Instead my answer is:
I believe the heavens and the earth were created around 6,000 years ago.
If that seems only a trifling difference, and the same as saying "they are about 6,000 years old", please read on…
[As an aside, in relation to my answer: I believe that, because I believe the Biblical account, including the details of various historical time periods it identifies; I believe the Bible because I find evidence for its being true. Please note, I am not giving any of that evidence in this comment, but I will present some of it in my response to Q, when that finally appears(!)]
You would of course say that my statement of belief above is obviously at odds with the common views of geologists, cosmologists etc. But in one sense it is not, because those various *ologists (if you will excuse the contraction) don't accept creation by a supernatural creator as the origin of the universe in the form we see it, whereas the timescale aspect you ask about is critically dependent on that element of my statement. It is not valid to ask how old something is, if you mistakenly assume something about the process by which it acquired its apparent "oldness", that is not in fact true. And therefore you cannot just logically compare the timescales of the two viewpoints (mine, and the *ologists), if you pass over the fact that the underlying assumptions about the events being considered are intrinsically different, and incompatible.
To illustrate the point, from a Biblical standpoint (I know you don't believe it, but please bear with me for the sake of argument): how "old" was Adam when he was formed? According to the Bible, he was formed by God as a man, able to do the work he was given to do (namely, tending the garden of Eden). So Adam clearly didn't start life as a fertilised human egg, or as a newborn baby. In terms of apparent age, he was presumably, say, 20-30 years old (pure guess – the Bible gives no indication). So, hypothetically of course, if we, with our current natural expectations and assumptions, were to see Adam exactly one hour after he was made, and assumed he was as old as he appeared to us to be , we would be in error by a large factor (order 250,000). A day later, our error would have reduced to a factor of 10,000, but we would still be far out, because our assumptions were faulty - we assumed Adam was as old as he "appeared" to be.
Why the discrepancy?
Partly because our model of the relation between "appearance" and "age" is based on purely human experience of people and objects aging on a scale of the human lifetime. Whereas if as I believe, there is in fact a supernatural creator, who has acted in a super-natural manner – going beyond the "natural" behaviour and characteristics of the world we experience – then our natural assumptions are by definition not sustainable in relation to his activity.
Partly also because there is a logic and structure to creation, that is ignored in the naturalistic approach. If God formed the earth to be inhabited (as the Bible says he did: Isaiah 45:18) there would be no point making it at the scientifically presumed earlier planetary stage of a ball of hot or molten rock – it could not support life in such a state. So creation according to a Biblically defined rationale simply cannot follow the "natural" expectations or reasoning of scientists, who assume – at least for purposes of giving an account of how they think things happened over stellar and geological timescales – that there is no creator.
I am quite scientifically minded and educated (as are a significant number of Christadelphians I know), but science in relation to things we can experiment on in the present is one thing, whereas when extrapolations are made in various dimensions outside the scope of direct testability (and especially extrapolation backwards in time), the associated assumptions that scientists make cannot logically be substantiated in any absolute sense. Even in a scientific framework, they must remain forever assumptions, not hard facts. It is therefore appropriate not to place the same degree of reliance upon the conclusions scientists reach when making such assumptions, as we can in disciplines in which we can by practical means test and confirm (or falsify) scientific theories.
In regard to this issue, the Bible in one place (2 Peter 3:4) speaks negatively about people who it predicts (i.e. post Biblical times) as saying that "all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation". The context suggests this concerns nominal Christians ceasing to believe that Jesus Christ will return to the earth to judge it, more than being directly about the current general scientific view of geological or astronomical timescales. However, it is certainly possible (and I would be inclined) to understand that the latter is at least part of the reason for the former. Whatever the exact application, it is clear from the context that the underlying issue is the same, namely, that "they" (whoever they are) are asserting effectively a uniformitarian view, as the *ologists – with the occasional exception, such as theorists about "inflation" in the early universe – normally hold: things continue in the same way as they always have done. By contrast, Peter asserts that "they" will wilfully ignore the possibility of God having been involved, firstly in forming the heavens and earth by his word (as the Bible says he did) or that he has previously intervened in the world by means of the flood (as again, the Bible says he did). If you deny his existence entirely, then you are bound to reach a different conclusion about both how, and over what length of time, this world has come to be the way it is.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
707. Comment #26341 by Mark Taunton on March 18, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Quetz and Lee: sorry, I've been going out of order again - answering Lee's latest question before either completing and posting my response to Quetz, or indeed responding to Lee in 857 over my own earlier post. Time is a problem (I'd hoped to have last Thursday evening to complete my reply to Quetz, but circumstances changed and I was unable to do that), and I've also been away, out of internet reach, over the weekend. But I do still intend to respond to you both... Other Comments by Mark Taunton
708. Comment #26384 by LeeC on March 19, 2007 at 3:54 am
860. Comment #26340 by Mark Taunton Mark,
Thank you for your honest reply, I will respond now, but I am also getting out of order with responses since I am still to reply to Theo on singularities.
You say you are a "scientifically minded" man but I may question your understanding of science.
Are you looking at the same evidence?
Where do you feel is science getting the ageing process wrong?
Sorry, 3 questions straight away without a response from me….
My understanding of radioactivity dating is pretty good as you may well expect (?) and this gives an age much closer to the 4.5 billion years I stated.
(For those who would like further information on the techniques, a quick search on the Internet has found me a good page: - http://www.fsteiger.com/radioact.html)
However, this is just one of many different ageing methods a scientist could use, one that a physicist like myself understands the most about.
For the sake of argument though (as you have put it) I will for the moment accept your age of the Earth (you mentioned heavens, can I take that to be the universe?)
OK… God created it all 6,000 years ago…
I take your point about Adam, if this one man was my foundation of ageing the Earth I could be wrong…
I would agree that I could be making a mistake by "guessing" his age just by looking at him (let alone if he was created or not – some people just look older or younger than others.)
However, now my question for you, Mark, is this…
Why did God leave around so many "puzzles and clues" pointing to a much older Earth and Universe?
For example?
Fossils, radioactive dating, continental drift, the Australian Aborigines ? (Just a few puzzles for the Earth's age – not all of them),
An expanding universe, a cooling universe now at 3K, distant galaxies, ageing stars, globular clusters, quasars so distant that the light has taken billions of years to reach us… shall I go on?
So to repeat, why so many pointers to an older Earth and universe…?
Are you saying that god created "life, the universe and everything" 6,000 years ago, but just made it look older (a LOT older) even with all the different ageing techniques God left for us to discover 2,000 years after the bible was written? (Bit odd that – none of these ageing techniques were known at the time of the bible – could the bible writers be wrong?)
Or -
Do you want to say that science is wrong on ALL these different pointers and ageing methods… every one? Not one of the techniques or methods is correct?
Is there a 3rd option?
Mark, you mention other interesting points in your response but I feel that I have gone on long enough for now. I may come back to some of these points later.
Cheers
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
709. Comment #26425 by Theo on March 19, 2007 at 8:43 am
Hi Lee,I hold the same view as Mark for the same reasons and more.(Mark I could not have said it better myself, good job!)
Why did God leave around so many "puzzles and clues" pointing to a much older Earth and Universe?
Here is a parable by Garth Wiebe:
Chris and Lucy entered a building looking for Manuel. In a room they found a note and a lighted candle. Chris looked at the note and read it aloud:
"Hi! It's 2:30, and I'm leaving to run some errands. I'll be back in a couple of hours. BTW, the electricity is out, so I lit a candle for you. - Manuel."
Then Lucy said, "I know how we can find out how long it's been since he left! Look, the candle has been burning since he lit it and has a significant amount of wax that's melted and dripped down. If we figure out what the rate is which the wax is melting and measure the amount of wax that has thus far dripped, we can work backwards to find out how long it has been since he left."
Chris said, "Why waste your time? The note says he left at 2:30." Lucy said, "Don't believe everything you read." Chris replied, "Look, I've known Manuel for a long time, and this is his handwriting. Don't be ridiculous."
Lucy replied, "Ah yes, but what does he mean by "2:30"? A note like that is subject to interpretation. Suppose he was talking about another time zone or something." And so a short philosophical argument ensued about the note. However, Lucy prevailed and insisted on performing the measurement and calculations.
A few minutes later, Lucy announced: "Well, I've got bad news for us. Based on the amount of wax that has melted and the rate at which the wax is melting, I can confidently tell you that it has been at least one whole day since this guy left. He was probably talking about 2:30 yesterday. And since he said that he'd be back "in a couple of hours", we can assume that something happened to him and he's not coming back at all. So much for your "note"."
Just then, Manuel walked in. Lucy said, "Are you this guy "Manuel"? What took you so long?" Manuel replied, "What are you talking about? I left you guys a note saying I'd be back in a couple of hours. It hasn't even been that long." Lucy said, "Never mind the note. I measured the amount of wax that has dripped off your candle, and the rate which the wax was melting. I know you've been gone since yesterday."
Manuel replied, "First of all, that candle isn't burning anywhere near as brightly as when I first lit it. Second of all, I didn't light a new candle, but a used one. And thirdly, I used another candle to light this candle and in the process the wax from that candle spilled all over this one.'
Lucy said, "So you set up that candle to deceive us, to make it look like you left the room over a day ago, when in fact it's been less than a couple of hours." Manuel replied, "Look, I left you a note telling you when I left. I never intended for you to conduct some silly experiment measuring wax dripping off of a candle to figure out when I left. I put the candle there so you guys would have some light."
Other Comments by Theo
710. Comment #26473 by Quetzalcoatl on March 19, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Re comment 26340: Mark Taunton, 26384: LeeC and 26425: Theo.Since LeeC is a physicist, he'll obviously be able to talk about these things with a great degree of expertise (I am merely a well-read accountant). However, there are a few points I'd like to make.
The first time that it became really accepted that the Earth was geologically old was in the eighteenth century thanks to James Hutton. He did a great deal of work studying rock formations, and speculating on the origins of what he found.
One of the ways in which sedimentary rock is laid down is, to labour an obvious point, through the deposition of sediment. (At this stage I should say that I'm not quite sure if it was Hutton SPECIFICALLY who studied this, but I know it's been done). The rate at which sediments are laid down has been studied, and from that the age of the rock formations can be calculated. This has been done in many different places. I'm sure no-one will argue about this happening in the world today, and back through time. According to Mark and Theo, it then stops 6000 years ago, when the earth is created.
Radioactivity is another age indicator. This has also been studied in great detail in the lab (I remember being taught about this in upper school) and then applied to the larger world around us.
Ice cores. Lightspeed. Continental drift. The expanding universe. Genetic drift and diversity. The list goes on. So many methods. And all, according to the Bible, wrong.
The question then becomes WHY? These methods of dating have been arrived at through experimentation and observation, and been found to work. There are many different types of radioactive testing, but all give roughly the same answers, a good indicator of overall reliability. Theo's parable implies that God did not intend for us to try and figure things out like this. But why not? In a world, a universe, filled with such suffering and confusion, a world where God is often very hard to see/find, what else is Man to do but use his intelligence and study the environment around him, to try and make sense of it all? Why would God create a universe six thousand years ago that would appear to be so much older than it actually is? Why would God give man tools and an intellect that would cause him to arrive at the wrong answers?
I'm sure Mark and Theo would say no deception was intended. But the way it appears is that God is saying, "Fine, study the world around you. But once you go past a certain point, it's all meaningless". Evolution as a concept probably wouldn't have arisen if Darwin and the others weren't aware of the concept of Geological Time. Both concepts are drawn from observations of the world around us. Why would God create a Universe which, when observed, would cause many to lose faith in the word of the Bible, simply because they studied the world that God created? How many people stopped believing because of this? And God would KNOW that this would happen. It doesn't make sense.
And that's without even getting into many other areas. The Sumerians, for instance, who were around prior to 4000 BC. Fossils (explainable, perhaps, if Mark and Theo believe in the Flood. Since I don't know if you do, I'll refrain from comment. Suffice it to say that there are many things I could say in regard to that. But the hour is late).
In summary, all the many and varied methods of studying the world around us, that WORK and have been seen to work, only fail in regards to the word of one thing- the Bible. A book which is hardly overflowing with detail regarding the Creation. Is it any wonder that so many find it so hard to believe? Why would God build such a world as the one we live in the way he has? Why would he not be a bit more free with the detail? Which is easier to believe? Everything we see in the world around us? Or one solitary book? And God created everything this way DELIBERATELY?
It just doesn't make sense.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
711. Comment #26475 by steveroot on March 19, 2007 at 3:03 pm
863. Comment #26425 by TheoTheo, that little parable made it so clear for me. What was I thinking?
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
712. Comment #26514 by LeeC on March 20, 2007 at 3:43 am
Re: Comment #26473 by QuetzalcoatlHi Q,
I am glad you have joined the debate, please help me on my "gaps in knowledge" since theists loves those gaps…
Since LeeC is a physicist, he'll obviously be able to talk about these things with a great degree of expertise
Thanks for the compliment, I hope I can live up to that, on the physics I can talk with some confidence, however with some of the other Earth ageing techniques I may know just as much as you (or less).
And this I suppose is my point, there are so many different ageing techniques and not all are in the field of physics (I gave a link to radioactive dating which is a good physics method to dating rocks)
I would not claim to know all the possible Earth ageing techniques, I doubt any single atheist can or will, but the ones I know of all point to an Earth very much older than the bible – why is this?
(Oh and thanks for the new ageing method - I did not know that one.)
I hope Mark, Theo and Co (?) will help answer some of our questions because I do not know how to answer the age difference between science and the bible… it is a puzzle to me. Why all these pointers to an older Earth and Universe?
(Oh, and I will come back to Theo's story a little further down…)
Just to say though, I am not out to disprove the bible; I said before there is no point in doing this. I merely want to know as much about the truth as possible.
If the bible matches the "truth" then great… if not, well this is for others to answer.
Re: 863. Comment #26425 by Theo
Theo,
Thanks for joining in as well… hope you do not mind me starting another debate, I do not want to close our earlier one yet if you do not want to, so I will come back to it shortly.
At least I now know where we stand on the scientific debate… I have a lot of work to do I can see.
As for your little story/parable…
Seems to work fine for people leaving candles burning in houses… you just can not trust them… too many variables as your story pointed out. Worth a go though… I think it is good that Chris and Lucy like to use their brains, but it does not mean when you do you are always right.
However, it does not answer my question… why do we have so many pointers stating an older Earth, it is not just one burning candle we are talking about here…
Manuel replied, "…I never intended for you to conduct some silly experiment measuring wax dripping off of a candle to figure out when I left. I put the candle there so you guys would have some light"
Erm… since this is a parable as you put it (having only one meaning) and not just a story lets break this down a little.
"Manuel replied"…. Should be read as God replied…
"I never intended for you to conduct some silly experiment…" implies that God never intended for man to think about anything he has written down, do not question Manuel's word (sorry – god's word)
Interesting parable you have given me here Theo… what should I make of it? It does sound like a parable about the bible to me?
As for silly experiments… well, the one you describe is a little childish I agree, but it is a bit of fun, I may have even played the same game while I was waiting for Manuel.
But a game it would have been.
It is not a scientific experiment… please read the link I provided for radioactivity dating earlier… This is how a physicist dates rocks... please read it and come back to me where you think it is wrong.
Do not compare it to a candle experiment you just wrote about, unless you can point out as to where they are similar.
One is a controlled experiment in a closed environment (a rock is quite enclosed you know for an atom.) with a scientifically proven theory with radioactive half-life decay. (It is possible to actually do a experiment in a lab and prove this method - do your own counting and draw your own graphs – I did when I was at college - hey why not try it your self, this is a link to an experiment kids can do (OK big college kids) http://chemistry.binghamton.edu/ilc/labs/radiochem/sims/radioChem_lab3.html#safe_precaution
http://chemistry.binghamton.edu/ilc/labs/radiochem/sims/radioChem_result.html
Once you have done that, how about thinking about all the other dating methods I have mentioned, do you really think they are all wrong? Why?
And if so why did god leave all these pointers for us to find that give us a wrong age of the earth… this is not a candle in the room question here… not sure why god would leave in rocks isotopes that decay in a predictable manner and leave them underground for the scientist to find that "just so happen" to point to an age of 4.5 billion years… these rocks do not light up rooms like your candle did…
Thanks
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
713. Comment #26813 by Theo on March 21, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Hi Guys,Lee,
I really believe that we should at least have some closure on the previous discussion before commencing another for as you know from my initiating statements, that I see no reason to debate on things that have nothing to do with Gods existence. I will be the one to tell you though that just as science does not give you both sides of the story concerning the evidence for God's existence;it is the very same way it does not give the whole story concerning the age of the universe. I do not believe I have the time for such a debate as yet as examinations are just around the corner for me. So I look forward to at least wrapping up the first debate and hopefully starting "the age of the universe" with you sometime in the future!
Theo
Other Comments by Theo
714. Comment #26849 by LeeC on March 22, 2007 at 2:01 am
Hi Theo,I have not forgotton about our earlier discussion, I have dafted a long reply. I just wanted to proof read it before I post it.
However, I will just post it and then you can tell me where I went wrong.
As for the new discussion, I think it does have a lot to do about god... but more about the bible I guess and the Christadelphian point of view.
We have agreed though that disproving the bible does not disprove god... this is why I do not go out of my way to try and do so.
Good luck with the exams and may I ask what is the subject?
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
715. Comment #26854 by LeeC on March 22, 2007 at 2:33 am
Responding to 856. Comment #25863 by TheoHello again Theo,
As promised...
Sorry I have been so long in replying, but you have noticed I have started up a new discussion so I got busy with that.
I will be happy to continue this discussion, but I think we are coming to a natural close anyway
How could I provide proof for something that I clearly stated was outside the scope of science?
How about reasoning?
This is what religion is all about, right? Science provides the how, and religion provides the why?
I have never asked for proof (Oops – it looks like I did, but it was an off the cuff remark. Sorry about that…)
The whole point of my discussion with you is that I would not ask for proof, I was obviously tired when I wrote it that remark. Sorry.
I agreed that you could not have 100% proof for a god, the same way I could not prove 100% SG.
The point of my discussion was this: -
Which is more likely and probable.
You know where my money is…
However you never really answered this question. You statement has always been "God exists, therefore more likely"
However the question was meant for us to think about the situation if neither god nor life existed at a point in time (what ever that means), which would be more likely to come into existence by chance…?
Think as if it is a theoretical question, which it is.
"disbelieve" for a moment about your faith in god….
So, which is more likely to come into existence by chance and probability…
A complex God or simple life?
It has to be simple life every time… in this theoretical question… the details will have to follow.
But back to your point, if your strongest proof for god is creation, then I would say is that all?
You know that I am happy with science's theories of breaking down the steps of life into smaller and smaller pieces until it is "probably" by chance alone that life came into existence.
The reason I believe in science is that it has answered (or at least can put a theory on) almost all that I can see, hear, smell and touch.
Now I know not all these theories will be 100% correct (I bet I know more "incorrect" theories than most that are still taught in high school – light, atoms, Newton's laws etc etc.) but they can explain a hell of a lot – even if they are only "estimates" and I am confident given time science will learn more and answer more fully the unknowns.
The hope that you are not holding onto the "gaps" in science's knowledge.
History has shown this is not a good place to hold your hope…
Now answer me this: where did the singularity come from? And whatever produced the singularity, where did that come from? And so the question goes on to infinity. The concept of the singularity also raises more questions than answers, but is the concept of the singularity dismissed because of infinite regress as creation? Of course not! But infinite regress does give us an important answer concerning reality, and that answer is that something must have always existed.
Which singularity? For there are many…
As for raising more questions, well I would agree it shows we have more to understand, but I disagree that it gives more questions than answers… the questions were always there before science suggested the "big bang". (Is this what you meant when you spoke of a singularity and infinite regress?)
However the big bang theory answers many questions, and fits better to observations than the "Infinite Universe Theory" (or Steady state theory) suggested by Fred Hoyle. This theory stated that the universe was "always there" and never had a beginning… nobody in science believes this… the expanding universe observed by Hubble is one simple reason.
And to your last point…. Why must something always exist?
I rather believe that everything had a beginning…. Time will tell if I am right…
Shall I go onto singularities now?
There are many theories on these… you could call it a "gap" in our knowledge if you like, so I am glad you are consistent and always focus on the cutting edge of science.
I assume you are not just interested in simple blackholes?
That would be too easy right?
If you are interested, lookup the physics of white dwarves and neutron stars and you may began to understand blackholes and singularities.
To try and put it simply in my own words, when a star can no longer "burn" its nuclear fire, it in a way becomes a "dead" star. The nuclear fusion that was stopping the star collapsing under the weight of gravity disappears… so the star collapses…. (jumping a few steps in the life cycle of a star here about super giants and supernovas)… until another force is able to stop this further collapse of the star.
If the star is not too massive that the "electron degeneracy pressure" can stop the collapse (white dwarf)…
If it is too massive then this force is too weak, because the gravity is too strong, and the star continues to collapse… until the "degenerate neutron pressure" is able to stop the collapse (neutron star)…
however if the dead star is too massive, then the neutron pressure will not be strong enough to stop the gravitational collapse of the star. Unfortunately we have no known physics to stop the collapse and so a black hole is formed with a theoretical singularity at its centre. I say theoretical since we cannot see within.
We have "seen" these in our own galaxy…
There are also super blackholes at the centre of many galaxies, but I assume you are not interested in these either? Although they are another potential source of singularities which you speak of.
I guess the singularity of interest is the theoretical singularity that started off the whole universe…?
Well, we have moved on a bit from the "creation" of life and SG… this is more like cosmology. Not that I am complaining.
Well, there are many theories on this also… do you really want me to go on?
You know that as I do the theories become more "unproven" since it is at the cutting edge of science… the gaps you're so happy to find.
However before I go down this path… since a theist sometimes likes to highlight the gaps of science and use it as some form of "proof" for god… A brief history lesson in physics if I may…
In the 19th Century Physics had no idea how to explain the age of rocks found on earth or for the number of years required for evolution to create man…
The oldest age Physics could explain for the sun with the best science of the day was 20 million years….
That's it….
Physics told geologists that they were wrong on the age of the rocks, and told biologists that evolution only had 20 million years to play with… and that was not long enough for Darwin's theory.
However, pride comes before a fall, and Physics was wrong…
there were "unknown" physics to be discovered…. Nuclear physics… this gave the power to the sun… Physics could again re-explain the sun and this time with greater understanding, with Nuclear Physics they could date the rocks to be 4.5 billion years old.
Gone was a huge gap in science…
This history lesson is just one of the many chapters on the history of science. Always science learns more, it does not stand still. A gap today will just become a history story tomorrow.
So back to the big bang… (with a hint of inflation…?)
Did this come from a single singularity? Possibly… maybe it spawned from a singularity from one of the black holes I just described? So each black hole could form another universe outside our own… who knows? This could mean Universes could evolve?? Scary stuff…
Maybe no singularity, just imaginary time after a big crunch (ask Stephen Hawking – in the brief history of time – I never agreed with it myself…)
Maybe energy and matter just "appeared" from nothing… and started off the big bang – energy and matter coming into and out of existence happens all the time… negative energy is great… and the uncertainty principle actually allows for it.
I will not go into great detail here, unless you really want me too.
I have many of my university books on the subject and I could copy out of them some chapters if you like… I have to admit though, it has been a while since I have done the maths, and so it will be heavy going for me too.
Anyway. this reply is getting long enough as it is…
Can you describe to me exactly how I made up the rules? Note well that atheists cannot prove that S.G. took place (they have faith for that also)
Not you personally, but the theist in general.
You have stated that God is outside science… making it impossible for science to prove to you that he does not exist.
My rule is that everything can be explained by Physical laws and theories… just that we do not know them all yet.
However I still stand by the "fact" that the god you described is very, very unlikely.
As for faith… you call it faith, I do not.
I BELIEVE in SG and know that science will try like hell to prove it…
You have FAITH in god, and there you stop.
You do not think any further and in fact have closed your mind to observations that contradict your god theory. (The age of the earth is one area we have now started to discuss in another thread. The list however is much longer than that…)
Actually Lee the more science discovers, the more we theists appreciate the intelligence and power of the Creator. You keep forgetting Lee that theists are not anti science! God going into hiding? From where?
Not so… you ignore all the science that disagrees with your viewpoint. (Evolution and the age of the earth are just two that pop into my mind for some reason.)
You are anti-science when it proves the likelihood of a god is less and less likely.
God is going into hiding because there are less areas we need a god to explain the "unexplained".
If you are saying that clever people accept that there are things existing beyond observation while fools do not, then I agree with your analogy.
The story of the "Emperor's New Clothes" seemed to fit our discussion.
Would you like me to break it down for you….?
The king called his subjects fools, but they could see he was naked… it was the king who was the fool for what he believed in what was not there because he believed only in what he was told and did not think for himself. He chose to ignore the plain observation that he was naked…
You surely know the story… anyway, not important..
I am really glad that you could acknowledge that an atheists faith rests on a scientifically meaningless claim. Therefore the discussion now is which faith is more probable. .
Erm… I missed where I said this…
However, the WHOLE point of my discussion with you has ALWAYS been which "belief" is more probable.
I have ignored the word faith because I do not have faith in my theories… I believe in them and will go out to prove (or disprove) them at every opportunity.
Faith, as I have said, stops thinking since it has come to its conclusion that they are correct. No one with faith goes out to disprove their faith… how could they, it is faith.
I can only speak for myself, though I would consider it foolish for a theist to believe in a theory that has been proven wrong.
Glad to hear it…
erm, but you have since stated that the Earth is 6,000 years old… this has been proven to be very, very wrong. Let's come back to this in my new discussion.
If it is seen that the origin of life points to a Designer, how can someone possibly conclude that this is evidence for spontaneous generation?! . . . now I have a headache!
This is was your conclusion, not mine. "I see life… therefore creator"
The point is, I can look at the same evidence and make a similar claim.
"I see life on Earth as proof of SG…" but my point is though I do not see it as the only proof.
It does not point to a designer… the odds of a designer are far more unlikely then SG.
I say this point a lot… but I guess I am just not hitting home with it.
Here is an excerpt from the Blind Watchmaker:….
You are lucky I have lost my copy of this book…
I know I read it over 10 years ago but I do not remember Richard making any statement like the one you quoted without then going on to prove where the original statement had errors in the assumptions or proving how much smaller steps can answers the bigger problem. Richard would have solved this problem in the book with an explanation… you seem to have missed this out.
I believe therefore you are misquoting from the book… do I need to purchase another copy of the book to prove this or can someone else on this site help me out on this please?
Thanks
Yes, it is generally accepted in the scientific community that the first cell was prokaryotic.
You have found a gap in my knowledge…. I believe I am right, but I do not have the knowledge to back it up… I need to do more reading.
Right now I am occupied with the Blind Watchmaker; I will start the G.D. when I am through.
I would put the Blind Watchmaker down, and read GD for this web site…it is why the site was created I believe… but I can wait.
Now if such is the complex machinery of the first and simplest cell, it certainly points to a Creator! I just cannot find the foolishness within myself to dismiss such overwhelming evidence
On second thoughts… keep reading the Blind Watchmaker… I remember Richard explaining the simple steps from a very basic life form to today's life…
See ya
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
716. Comment #26929 by Theo on March 22, 2007 at 10:59 am
Hi Lee,Comment 868:
Well I'm a 24 yr. old petroleum engineering student and I have a reservoir eng. exam tomorrow (unfortunately it is not the last!) and the rest of the semester would be littered with such until Finals (which would start on the 16th of next month)so as you probably figured out by now I may not be able to respond to your lengthy but pertinent post within my usual response time. But don't worry, I'll start a draft asap.
It is interesting that I ended up in this field as my first love was Physics! Not surprising that everything I know (well almost)is as a result of studying for fun! Unfortunately Lee where I'm from, there are no opportunities for Physicists.
Well anyway, I've got to get back to the books!
Hope to reply soon!
Theo
Other Comments by Theo
717. Comment #27048 by LeeC on March 23, 2007 at 3:18 am
Hi Theo,Aah… finals… I remember those…
Well take your time with the reply… sorry it was so long.
No jobs where I am from in Physics either… I graduated with Physics and Astrophysics, hence for the purpose of this web site I called myself a physicist, but it is not my job. I did do a PGCE so I could teach science at High school, but the stupid thing was I was teaching more biology then Physics… go figure? Now that is the British education system for you???
So now I am in IT like most of the people I graduated with, including those who went on to complete PhD's…
Good luck again.
See ya
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
718. Comment #27955 by Mark Taunton on March 27, 2007 at 12:03 pm
All: just to say that I am not dead(!). Life's been pretty busy, and I'm struggling to find time to finish off the response I promised Quetz on the subject of prophecies as proof of God's existence and purpose in the world. But I am still working on it... Other Comments by Mark Taunton
719. Comment #28109 by LeeC on March 28, 2007 at 3:22 am
RE: 872. Comment #27955 by Mark TauntonHi Mark,
I was getting worried that no one was out there...
With Theo and his exams it has gone all quiet, thought it was something I said.
Take your time; as long as this thread is open I just cannot stop coming back to it.
Look forward to your reply to Quetz.
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
720. Comment #28334 by Mark Taunton on March 28, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Quetzalcoatl asked me a good while ago to provide some examples of prophecies in the Bible that (as I claim) prove its truth. I've been taking a long time to prepare my response for a number of reasons, of which one is simply that there are a great many relevant prophecies to choose from! As things are (to my regret) going so slowly, I've decided the only sensible way to proceed is to give my answer in instalments – probably 3 or 4. Hopefully I won't be too distracted in discussing responses to earlier parts so as to prevent the appearance of subsequent ones! I am aiming to get at least one instalment out per week – Quetz, I hope you can wait!Let me begin then with the Biblical book of Daniel. Daniel lived in the 6th century BC, during the Jews' captivity under the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires. It is common for critics to reject that dating and place the book's writing some 400 years later, making Daniel a pure invention, not a historical figure. But they do so without any substantial evidence to justify their claims, so far as I have ever seen. The obvious primary motivation for such an approach is simply in order to deny the divine inspiration of Daniel, and allow a non-miraculous explanation of why Daniel's prophecies of the intervening period were fulfilled so incredibly accurately. It is asserted – but without proof - that his words were written after, not before, the events he predicts, and that is why the book could present the history (as if) in advance, in such great detail. But this fails to explain how the alleged forger of the book, supposedly operating 1000 miles away, in a much later era, and very different circumstances, could get so many details so right, not least concerning the high-powered and changeable political context in which the book of Daniel itself is set. Critics in past ages used to mock Daniel as being a work of fiction, having no relation to real history; some went so far as to discount Babylon itself and its rulers as pure myth, along with the Jewish prophet. Yet the trend in more recent times, from when the ruins of that great city were first stumbled upon around a century ago, is that progressive archaeological discoveries throughout the region bring further validation of Daniel's record, and discredit to former critical views, which are then – though very quietly – discarded.
For example, Belshazzar the last king of Babylon (as Daniel relates) was for a long time unknown to historians, even those who accepted Babylon's status as a real city rather than just a fable. Instead, Nabonidus – not mentioned by name in the book of Daniel – was held, based on ancient accounts, to be the last ruler before Babylon was overrun by the rising Medo-Persian power. Yet a tiny detail in Daniel agrees perfectly with what is now understood from unearthed original records: Nabonidus was indeed the king, but because he preferred warfare to court politics, he for much of the time gave effective charge over the kingdom to his son Belshazzar while he went off in pursuit of his own military adventures. Chapter 5:29 records that in seeking to honour Daniel as much as he could in reward for interpreting the famous "writing on the wall", Belshazzar proclaims him to be, not – as would be expected from precedent – the "second ruler" in the kingdom, but the third. That fits precisely with the historical fact that Belshazzar, though in practice the king, was officially still only co-regent with his father: he therefore had no authority to promote Daniel above himself, or even to cede his own role to Daniel, so third place was the best he could offer. In any case it wasn't worth much to (nor presumably considered of value by) Daniel. According to his account, in fulfilment of the very writing from God that he had just explained, the supposedly unassailable city of Babylon was overcome that same night by the army of the Medes and Persians, and the king was killed. Furthermore, it is known how this happened: exactly in line with a separate prophecy through Isaiah (44:24-45:6), they diverted the flow of the Euphrates and marched into the city by its nearly-dry channel, passing under the river gates that would otherwise have blocked a water-borne attack.
Now I well understand that the details of a prophecy, such as that in Daniel 5, coming true within a few hours of its being given, will hardly carry weight with sceptics living over 2500 years later, without further independent detailed confirmatory evidence. But Daniel is a book full of prophecies, ranging over a vast swathe of human history, even down to and beyond our own time. Those who, in the face of increasing supportive evidence, deny its historical veracity may persuade themselves that some of the prophecies it contains were actually written with hindsight rather than inspired foresight. But such a view cannot explain how all Daniel's other prophecies, several of a scope long past the c.160BC proposed alternative date for the book's composition, have also continued to come true in so much detail. Let me illustrate that with a couple of examples.
Chapter 2 has certainly the widest chronological and geographic scope of all Daniel's prophecies. In it he explains to king Nebuchadnezzar the detail and interpretation of a troubling vision – Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream a great image made of different materials, from a golden head down to feet formed from a mixture of iron and clay. In the end the whole structure is destroyed by force by a stone that is "cut out of a mountain without hands"; the stone itself then grows into a mountain and fills the whole earth. Daniel outlines to the king how this represents successive world powers, from his own (golden) empire of Babylon onwards, through three later kingdoms characterised as silver, bronze and (for the two legs) iron – the last being the most powerful and destructive kingdom. The final elements are incoherent: strong iron and weak clay forming the feet and toes are mingled but do not hold together, until the mysterious stone appears; in its striking on the feet and subsequent crushing of the whole image, it represents the abrupt ending of human politics altogether, when man's kingdom is replaced by the indestructible kingdom of God.
This prophecy is very clear in its meaning, and we can readily follow the interpretation of it given by Daniel. The golden head of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon was followed by the silver chest and arms representing the combined Medo-Persian empire. The latter was in turn replaced by the power of Alexander's Greece, symbolised by the image's belly and thighs of bronze. Fourthly and most prominently, the Roman empire out-spanned and out-lasted its predecessors, latterly separating into the eastern and western branches, reflecting the two legs of the image. Note in passing that all these kingdoms (each in turn the "super-power" of its time) dominated some significant area of the Middle East. In particular, all during at least a part of their respective eras had control of the land of Israel while Jews inhabited it as a nation: overlaying maps of the different empires' reach shows that that land is almost the only territory common to all four powers' geographic scopes.
Finally, since the decay of the Roman empire, we are now living in the times of the image's feet and toes. Exactly as the prophecy implies, there is not now (and has not been since Rome) an overall regional superpower covering the area of those past empires and having dominion over the people of Israel in their land, even though Jews have now returned to live there in fulfilment of so many Biblical prophecies. (I shall deal with that issue separately, in a later instalment). Powerful remnants of Roman influence (the iron) remain in western culture and political/religious alignment, but it is intermixed with a softer unsupportive element (the clay) in a complex and unstable way.
As an aside on Rome in relation to Israel: In sheer military might Rome was unquestionably the strongest of the four "metallic" empires Nebuchadnezzar saw; however, its potential for violence – the bruising and crushing identified explicitly by Daniel – was relatively rarely realised. More commonly, the "pax romana" was accepted as the benefit experienced by the peoples it conquered, in compensation for their loss of sovereignty and liability to tax and tribute. Only where subjugated nations actively revolted from under it did the iron fist of Rome fall hard upon them. And one case of such dire consequences for resistance was experienced by Daniel's own people of later times – the Roman legions were repeatedly called upon to put down determined Jewish uprisings, ultimately destroying and uprooting Israel as a nation entirely. This piece of history is of great relevance to many Biblical prophecies, and to an understanding of the book of Daniel. As I have previously outlined in this forum, the terrible events in Israel in the first and second centuries AD were specifically predicted by God's prophets, as far back as by Moses in the 15th century BC, and are also mentioned again by Daniel, as I detail below. God's dealings with mankind have historically been centred in his involvement with that one people throughout their generations. The history of Israel is central to a Bible-based prophetic pattern in history, and so Daniel's various predictions all in some degree revolve around it, even though for much of the overall timescales of his prophetic coverage the nation as such did not exist.
The great climactic event in Nebuchadnezzar's prophetic dream has yet to be fulfilled. Like all Christadelphians, I am waiting for the arrival of "the stone", which I believe represents Jesus Christ returning to the earth in power, as the New Testament many times says he will. According to many Biblical prophecies, when he comes he will put down all human rule and authority, over time establishing in its place the kingdom of God on earth, beginning in Israel, and extending ultimately to rule the whole world in peace.
In some aspects, later prophetic visions in Daniel take up and add detail to the broad prophecy of chapter 2 (e.g. the 4 beasts in Daniel 7, the two warring animals and their horns in chapter 8; a very detailed account of a sequence of international political developments in chapter 11). In chapter 8 two symbolic animals appear in conflict: a ram and a he-goat, whose identities are given explicitly, as Daniel is told of the future interactions between Media/Persia (the latter becoming dominant over the former) and Greece. This directly corresponds to the 2nd and 3rd kingdoms of chapter 2. The 3rd power, Greece, is portrayed as a great he-goat with a single horn, skirmishing with and defeating the asymmetrically-two-horned ram representing Medo-Persia. Then, after the he-goat's horn itself is broken, it is replaced by a 4-way geographic division of the kingdom. This matches the history of the Greek succession following Alexander the Great, when 4 generals divided up his empire between then. Quite unambiguously, then, not merely the first (Bablyon), but the first three of the four great kingdoms from the chapter 2 vision are identified exactly by name, and the details given about them also match known history (Daniel is no Nostradamus - all symbol and no interpretation!)
Subsequently a new powerful force appears from small beginnings within one part of the divided Greek empire (8:9 onwards). This "little horn" corresponds to the 4th and final great kingdom of chapter 2, an iron-strong power that breaks and crushes opposition, especially in relation to God's people and their land. Although the power of Rome is not identified by name in Daniel (or anywhere else in the Old Testament) it is uniquely and clearly identified prophetically, in remarkable detail, in respect of its particular character and actions. To conclude this first instalment of my response on Bible prophecies, I will pick out just a couple of aspects of this for now – there are many more that I simply don't have time to develop now.
In a far earlier prophecy, in the book of Deuteronomy (28:49-57), Moses spoke of a particular enemy nation that would in the future be brought by God against the land and the people of Israel, in punishment for long-continued disobedience. I have previously presented in this thread (and I intend to mention again in a later instalment) the full characterization Moses gives, as predicting precisely (and exclusively) the origins and behaviour of the power of Rome in its relation to the Jews. One detail of his description is that the invading force would be of "fierce countenance" (28:50, per King James Version), or more literally according to the original Hebrew, "strong [of] faces". This unusual word-pairing comes in only one other place in the Bible, in Daniel 8:23, in the angelic explanation of Daniel's vision of the ram and he-goat and what follows. Again, with reference to context, it is clear that Daniel's prophetic use of the phrase is also describing the 4th great kingdom, that is, Rome. And amongst other elements, we are told that this power is responsible for both the desecration and also the treading down of the sanctuary (i.e. the Jewish temple), for the destruction of the "holy people" (the Jews themselves) and that it will "stand up against the prince of princes".
All these prophetic elements (and many more) were fulfilled directly by Rome: (a) the Roman governor Pilate authorised the crucifixion of Jesus (the yet future prince of princes, in Biblical terms); (b) the Romans deliberately defiled the temple by bringing in pagan symbols, in order to provoke the Jewish religious zealots; (c) in response to Jewish attacks they finally burned and completely demolished the temple, and (d) they killed hundreds of thousands of Jews, and evicted the rest from the land, taking and selling the survivors as slaves.
Of particular relevance to the question of Daniel's date: Note that all of those actions of Rome that I picked out from Daniel 8 happened long after even the sceptics' latest proposed date (circa 160 BC) for Daniel. Rome's ultimate role, in completely dominating the known western and mid-eastern world, was only beginning to take shape at that time. And those aggressive aspects of this 4th kingdom in the vision of chapter 2 (expanded later in specific detail as I have illustrated) that transpired, particularly in respect of their severe treatment of the Jewish resistance and deliberate provocative attacks on the Jews' religion, only really came to the fore during and beyond the 1st century AD. So the critics would need to go to impossible lengths and place Daniel's composition even later, substantially after the time of Christ, if they really wanted to circumvent the (to them) embarrassing problem of Daniel's predictive precision!
In summary...
Daniel is densely packed with prophecy, of which I have briefly picked out only a tiny sample. Some of it – such as the original "writing on the wall" – is (very!) short term, though the majority by contrast has huge scope in time and place. While the short term prophecies do not of themselves prove much from a modern sceptic's viewpoint, the long term ones demand to be considered seriously by any who would claim that the Bible is mere human invention. How could a man who lived over 2500 years ago predict in such detail the development of international politics down to our present era, unless the God of heaven, who by the Bible's description is actively directing events in this world, had revealed it to him?
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
721. Comment #28698 by Quetzalcoatl on March 30, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Mark, glad to see that you're still with us! You've certainly given me a lot to read and think about.Since you've said that you'll probably be doing three or four instalments, I think that I will wait until you've done them all before I start replying. This is because I don't want to make a reply highlighting things that you deal with in subsequent parts, since if we end up repeating each other it's hardly going to move things along!
So, if you let me know when your instalments are all on, I will begin my replies. I should warn you not to expect quick responses though. Since you've taken the time to draw these detailed comments up, it would be remiss of me not to do the same. Besides, I have considerably less familiarity with the Bible than you do.
Theo- hope the exams are going well! I look forward to reading your comments on my earlier posts.
Same goes for Shauntheboy.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
722. Comment #28705 by Helian on March 30, 2007 at 12:47 pm
"Ah yes, so you all believe that everything came from nothing....by accident! Now that's faith I admire."AHA!! The British "incipient theocracy" is on the march. And you don't even have a firewall against it in your Constitution. Why, correct me if I'm wrong, but you still have an established church, don't you. When religion becomes the fashion again in Britain, as in the days of Cromwell, you'll be as sheep led to the slaughter. The "British Taliban" will just step into their accustomed and tradition-hallowed role in their very own established church. Then it will be a mere matter of finding another Queen Mary (and, perhaps, a King Philip) to "restore order" among the atheists.
Other Comments by Helian
723. Comment #28742 by Mark Taunton on March 30, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Helian, you don't realise it, but you could hardly be more wrong.The person whose comment you quote, from page 1 of this thread (made some 5 months ago, in case you had not noticed!), is like me a Christadelphian. Christadelphians take no part in politics, and do not seek power in or influence over any human government. We are conscientious objectors to military service: some of my older fellow-believers have in the past suffered at the hands of the British authorities (or those sharing their views) for taking such a position, and others holding our beliefs (or very similar ones) have been actively persecuted by the established churches in various countries. We are the last people you would find associated in any way with British state religion, of any era. While the Bible says that God both sets up and removes the rulers of this world, in accordance with his purpose, that does not mean he therefore approves of their morals, as some British monarchs once assumed it did. There is no "divine right of kings"!
As for "incipient theocracy", again we have no expectation of such a thing being brought about by human activity (unlike many, especially in the USA, who appear to think that they can establish the kingdom of God by themselves, in the framework of national politics). Rather, we await the day when God himself, through the return of his son Jesus Christ to the earth with power, will establish his kingdom directly, to complete the purpose he began long ago. I wrote briefly about this same issue, as part of my comment 874 above.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
724. Comment #28774 by LeeC on March 30, 2007 at 6:21 pm
RE: 874. Comment #28334 by Mark TauntonHi Mark,
Thanks for the posting…
I will need to do some reading on this matter, since as you know I am not that well read on the bible… more focused on science.
However, I will be open-minded and look for the evidence…
It is common for critics to reject that dating and place the book's writing some 400 years later, making Daniel a pure invention, not a historical figure.
This could be a HUGE issue with the book's prophecies if it was merely a "history" book.
But they do so without any substantial evidence to justify their claims
Erm… but do you have proof that the book was written when you think it was?
OK, I will now go off and start doing some reading.
I found a web site with a different view…
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/daniel.html
it states that the book of Daniel is merely a history book, so it seems I have much to read.
See ya
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
725. Comment #28781 by LeeC on March 30, 2007 at 7:29 pm
RE: 876. Comment #28705 by Helian AHA!! The British "incipient theocracy" is on the march. And you don't even have a firewall against it in your Constitution. Why, correct me if I'm wrong, but you still have an established church, don't you. When religion becomes the fashion again in Britain, as in the days of Cromwell, you'll be as sheep led to the slaughter. The "British Taliban" will just step into their accustomed and tradition-hallowed role in their very own established church. Then it will be a mere matter of finding another Queen Mary (and, perhaps, a King Philip) to "restore order" among the atheists.
I take it you are from America? You do not say… why is that?
I do not worry about Christian church's in England… the C of E are very good at keeping order. More happy for tea and biscuits than revolution… besides this all been tried before.
You blindly quote 3 names out of history. All have something in common, they failed to establish their beliefs onto the country.
Elizabeth followed Mary, no more Catholic church in power – ever!
Philip failed in his attacks against England. (The seas and god must have been on England's side that day?)
As for Cromwell, I like him, you know parliament actually offered him the position of King of England to try and reduce his control and power? Anyway, he died and the rest is history. The good old Church of England survives…
It is interesting though that indeed England does not have a constitution to keep church out of government (That I am aware, although I do not think we can have a Roman Catholic as prime minister?),
Even so, the church has little political power in the UK.
Yet in the US, there is a constitution to keep church and state separate… but the church's power there is over whelming and scares the rest of the world (at least it scares the hell out of me…)
Church and religion should not have power in government; America knew this when it's founding fathers created its constitution. Yet every religion seems to want to control; be it the minds, the souls or the government. After all, it is the government who tax the people and have the money. This is where the true power is.
Are the Christadelphian's different? Mark says they do not take any interest in the government of countries, only the kingdom of god… this then is good and I believe him.
Does a Christadelph
701. Comment #25766 by shauntheboy on March 15, 2007 at 4:32 am
Sorry for the long…….long delay in responding! In response to your queries in post 788:
In response to this first point let me ask you a question: In the UK the law states that it is wrong to imprison someone against their will, yet the Her Majesty's Government currently has about 80.000 individuals imprisoned against their will. Is the Government of the UK unjust or hypocritical, or is it just that they are in power and have the authority to make the rules?
This question is about God's authority. I accept the authority of His commandment which tells me that I am not qualified to take the life of another, whilst accepting that He is.
Self explanatory if you read the verses. God is saying I alone am holy and the source of "holiness". You are to try and be like me, says God.
Context shows the difference between "heaven" - God's dwelling place, and "heaven" -the sky. No one has ever been to God's dwelling place except Jesus Christ. Plenty of people have been in the sky! If you have time check your concordance for the word Elijah, he appears to send a letter to one of the kings of Israel after his experience in the chariot. It would appear to me that this spectacular event signified the end of his ministry.
God selects people who are genuiniely seeking and makes sure that they find a way to Jesus. It's a two way thing rather than a fatalistic thing – if you see what I mean?
Believers still sin, but the key difference is their sincere desire NOT to sin and their faith in the saving work of the Lord Jesus which facilitates the blotting out of their sin. In other words the sins of believers are dealt with and done away with, in this context they are counted as "sinless" by faith and God's grace.
When the Lord Jesus spoke the words "My God my God why have you forsaken me" he was quoting from Psalm 22 and if you read Psalm 22 you will see that God had not forsaken Jesus and neither did Jesus believe God had forsaken him. "You have answered me" (Psa 22v21) and ""They will come and declare His righteousness to a people who will be born" (Psa 22v31). Well, here we are declaring his righteousness as predicted!
With regard to the second point about God and Jesus being inseparable" (I and my Father are one John 10v30 etc). If you read the context of these statements Jesus is declaring a oneness of purpose, not a literal oneness of being as claimed by Trinitarians. In John 17v20-26 Jesus prays to His Father that all believers might be "one" as he is "one" with his Father. The oneness refers to a unity of mind and purpose, being in tune with God if you like. You don't hear many Trinitarians contending that believers are "very God of very God" as they do with some of the other statements of this nature made by the Lord Jesus – strange that!
The word "satan" simply means adversary. An adversary of Job was given his request. Difficult one this if you believe in a "supernatural monster" devil because the text is quite clear that it is God who afflicts Job, and Job himself acknowledges this fact.
The angels in prison in Jude and Peter is referring to individuals who have rebelled in the past who will be judged at a future date. They are dead in the grave and will be raised to judgement, the grave is a pretty secure place for most of us!
Same answer as to "Everyone sins" question earlier.
The Earth referred to Ecclesiastes is the literal Earth and it would appear to be God's plan that it will endure forever and ultimately the place of reward for the faithful.
"Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth" (Mt 5v5) ;
"Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven…";
""In that day Yahweh shall be king over all the Earth. In that day it shall be Yahweh is one and His name one" (Zech.14v9)
"For the earth will be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea" (Hab. 2v14)
The context of the passage in Peter also refers to the "heavens" and "earth" that were destroyed at the time of the flood. This should give us a clue as to what the message of the passge is.
The literal earth and heavens were not destryed, but human beings, their civilisations, their works (the earth) and their systems of government (heavens) were completely destroyed. So with the Lord Jesus when he comes the governments and civilisations and works and deeds of man will come an end and we will enter a new dispensation, a new heavens and a new earth. For context see: Isaiah 65v17 & 66v22; Psa ; Hebrews 12v26; Revelation21v1
The word confusion in Corinthians is a word which means disorder and the context of the chapter is order and behaviour in church meetings. Having said that, the point that God's message is simple to understand for those who are genuinely seeking is true, "knock and it shall be opened" "seek and you shall find" etc. However for those who are rebellious, reject God or simply downright wicked then God allows these individuals to experience the full consequences of their chosen path!
"because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2Thes2v11-12)
The Isaiah passage you quote simply states that God is in control and has authority over His creation.
Regards
Shaun
Other Comments by shauntheboy