My propositions were logical deductions from what we know, not what we don't know. The more pieces of the puzzle we get, the more certain the conclusion that the universe had a beginning and that its beginning cannot ultimately be due to a material cause, which would be subject to the law of entropy and therefore would have also had to have had a beginning, etc.
But then I am repeating the article's arguments. Paul C. HK November 11th, Thanks for another great article. I have noticed a couple of new arguments from some atheist friends of mine, firstly they like to point out that since time started with the big bang then talking about causality is worthless, they seem to think that because whatever caused the big bang also caused time causality apparently does not to apply.
Secondly they like to throw around the term 'zero-sum' universe, from Steven Hawking I think. Is there any validity to this?
Who created God - fitransnipve.cf
To me even a zero-sum universe had to come from somewhere. Keep up the great work guys, your articles continue to be a terrific source of encouragement for me and a true 'thorn in the side' for friends of mine who like to think atheism is the only rational position. For His glory. Don Batten November 11th, Thanks for your appreciation, which we appreciate!
Regarding causality, I have discussed this above, in the article and in the responses to comments see answer to Jason D. The zero sum idea is not new either; the idea that that big bang produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, which it is claimed is effectively nothing. A big problem for the idea is that the amount of anti-matter needed is nowhere to be found in the universe: Missing antimatter challenges the big bang theory.
Furthermore, if matter and anti-matter collide, the result is not nothing, but energy. Atheism is not a rational position ; atheists believe in numerous naturalistic miracles, with no adequate cause. Jason D. US November 7th, Archaeology confirms many of the historical events where evidence has been found. When skeptics have attacked the Bible it has had a track record of later being proved correct. The nonsense of "simultaneity by philosophers is nonsense.
It has never been observed, and you know it. As for my not having read the Bible, that's preposterous. Whatever it is, the Bible is NOT a book of history. In archaic Hebrew there is not even a wrod for "history". It's "literature", not "history".
God and Time
It's a compilation of various forms of "literature". As Dr. The modern American Fundamentalist literalism is WAY off the rails, secondary to ignorance, and a lack of real education. Archaeology confirms some events, and also, in many cases confirms that the so-called historical events could not have happened the way they were presented in the Bible. For example camels were not domesticated until BCE. Scholars don't even debate that any more.
gelatocottage.sg/includes/2020-09-12/1329.php Where did you get your education? Don Batten November 22nd, So, you don't like the answer that specialists in philosophy find satisfying simultaneous causation? You apparently don't like your 'gotcha' question being answered. That is, you are not looking for answers, but looking to justify your anti-Christian worldview. Yes, I know you are a theology student, but you are anti-Christian because you do not believe what Jesus said about the real history of events in Genesis—the creation of Adam and Eve and the Flood Luke 17 for example. Furthermore, you don't believe God the Father either, because Jesus only spoke what the Father told him to say John So, you stand opposed to God, which is a rather dangerous thing to do.
If you have read the Bible as you claim, then you have no excuse for your unbelief; none whatever. That makes your situation even more dire. And because you are a biblical studies student at Harvard you know more about the Bible than I do? I don't see how being a student at Harvard or anywhere tells you that you know more about anything than someone else. The logic escapes me.
- Is There a God?!
- Recommended for you?
The most important thing I learned as a PhD student was that I didn't know much at all! It should be a humbling experience. But let's look at some of your claims and see how much you have learned at Harvard that is actually true or defensible. You say that it's "'literature', not 'history'"?
What type of literature? Of course the Bible is not just a book of history, but its overarching framework is a claim about history; the history of the universe from the beginning to the end.
- Les trois Don Juan (French Edition)!
- The Constitution on the Campaign Trail: The Surprising Political Career of Americas Founding Document?
- Pre-Existence Before the Material Universe.
- Choose country.
- The Complete Idiots Guide to the pH Balance Diet (Idiots Guides);
- Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Creator?
- Why does God hate me?;
- God and Time | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Kira...The Mysterious Disappearance.
Genesis in particular is meant to be understood as history, as the Oxford University Hebrew Professor James Barr stated. See Should Genesis be taken literally? You claim that biblical Hebrew has no word for 'history', as if this proves they did not know what history was another non sequitur.
They had no actual word for universe either, but clearly understood the concept, coupling heavens and earth together to convey the concept a construction known to grammarians as a merism. Genesis , , , etc.
Since there are many archaeological confirmations of the events recorded in the Bible, if the Bible is not about history in these areas, then neither is archaeology, which would be rather bizarre! You even admit that archaeology confirms events in the Bible, then claim the Bible is not about history.
That does not seem at all logical. Yes, I know that you are a theology student at Harvard, but have you ever actually read Kings or Chronicles? I fail to see how you could read these and not see the historical nature of this 'literature'. And there is plenty of evidence that the Resurrection of Jesus happened in time and space i. And if the Resurrection did not actually occur, there is no point to Christianity and I don't know why you are bothering to even study theology; what a waste of time!!!
See The Resurrection of Jesus and the related reading. Many a skeptic has set out to disprove the historicity reality of the Resurrection and ended up convinced it happened and converted to Christ e. You claim "The modern American Fundamentalist literalism is WAY off the rails, secondary to ignorance, and a lack of real education.
Firstly I am not an American. Secondly, this 'literalism' as you call it, is nothing more or less than the view of Bible scholars for years before the modern era of so-called 'liberal' theology, which is nothing more than the same lie that the serpent said to Eve in the beginning, "Did God really say? You claim that archaeology disproves some historical claims of the Bible.
I could ask how archaeology could do that unless the Bible was about history? However, this is a very old claim that has long since been shown to be wrong; see the short article about camels on About. This 19 th century idea has also long since been discredited. The JEDP idea documentary hypothesis absolutely disregards the large-scale structures in Genesis that we simply wouldn't see if it was simply cobbled together—the genuine indications of prior sources fit very well with Moses acting as a sort of editor with pre-existing sources.
And Genesis 1 couldn't have been taken directly from Babylonian or Sumerian myth—did you miss the distinctive Jewish monotheism and thinly-veiled polemic against sun and star worship? Even scholars of a liberal bent have debunked the documentary hypothesis. See also, Did Moses really write Genesis?