This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

So this new stuff about the Big Bang...

#11kozlo100Posted 3/18/2014 11:53:37 PM
master_gamr1231 posted...
But for someone who believes in God that takes an extremely literal interpretation of Genesis as meaning that the whole universe poofed into existence in exactly six days, it does defy them.


Not any more than last week, before this discovery was made.

I really don't want to mitigate the scientific importance of this, but in the religious realm, it's not even another brick in the wall. It's just confirmation that we put the right brick in the right place.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#12epictetus1216Posted 3/19/2014 7:32:46 AM
mortal_snow posted...
is it possible that the scientists are on to something... AND that the Bible depicts an accurate account of a God who is real? That's what I'm trying to get to.


Are you trying to reconcile Genesis with the Big Bang theory? I don't think that can be done. It has to be one or the other.
#13OrangeWizardPosted 3/19/2014 9:26:57 AM
I haven't yet heard the news about this new big bang stuff.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#14splodeymissilePosted 3/19/2014 9:31:52 AM
OrangeWizard posted...
I haven't yet heard the news about this new big bang stuff.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26605974
---
One can not help but imagine Microsoft as being ran by a thousand Homer Simpsons. -Obturator
#15SSj4WingzeroPosted 3/19/2014 11:00:07 AM
epictetus1216 posted...
mortal_snow posted...
is it possible that the scientists are on to something... AND that the Bible depicts an accurate account of a God who is real? That's what I'm trying to get to.


Are you trying to reconcile Genesis with the Big Bang theory? I don't think that can be done. It has to be one or the other.


Yeah uh...you do know that a completely literal interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis is actually a relatively new thing, right? Many of the earliest scholars did not take the creation story literally, and neither do many scholars today. I mean, a "day" is a 24-hour period generally measured by sunrise and sunset - how could that have happened without a sun and a planet existing in the first place? I highly doubt the ancient writers of the Book of Genesis would be so foolish as to neglect that basic premise, which lends credence to the fact that it's not really meant to be taken literally.

Of course, that's my own view on it, but regardless of the situation, it's important to note that many scholars for over a thousand years have interpreted the creation account in Genesis 1 in a non-literal manner, and the idea that the Big Bang Theory and Evolution contradict a literal reading of Genesis 1 and thus invalidate the scriptures is, although a popular neckbeard atheist straw man argument for proving Christianity untrue, not really relevant in nuanced discussion unless you're talking with ardent YECs.
---
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?
#16OrangeWizardPosted 3/19/2014 12:40:24 PM(edited)
You can have a "day" mean something different than a literal 24-hour day and still take Genesis "literally".

What it means to take the bible "literally" comes up a lot. Some people seem to think that absolutely nothing can be symbolic or a metaphor if you're taking it "literally". This is not true.

Something can literally be a metaphor, for instance. If X is meant to be a metaphor, then you should take it as a metaphor. If X is meant to be literal, take it literally. This is what it means to have a "literal" interpretation of the bible.

You stop having a literal interpretation of the bible if you start taking things meant to be taken literally, and start taking them metaphorically.

Like if you're saying "Oh, the global flood couldn't have possibly happened. It must be a metaphor". That would not be a literal interpretation of the bible.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#17ThuggernautzPosted 3/19/2014 3:06:18 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
Like if you're saying "Oh, the global flood couldn't have possibly happened. It must be a metaphor". That would not be a literal interpretation of the bible.

No, but it would be the most reasonable otherwise you'd be ignoring a pretty staggering amount of contrary evidence. Likewise, reading Genesis' incorrect order of creation and interpreting it as metaphorical would also be most reasonable. Unfortunately, there's no divine primer in there for which parts are supposed to be literal or metaphor. God either appears to have been incapable of inspiring the authors to write it clearly, couldn't be bothered to correct them to make the whole thing correct across any age or knowledge gaps, or the writers chose to ignore his perfect intentions. I find it the most likely explanation, with the least assumptions, that many of those OT myths (which are very readily and heavily adapted from earlier cultures) are so seemingly incorrect now because they were written by humans with a very limited knowledge of their surroundings.
#18OrangeWizardPosted 3/19/2014 4:52:47 PM
No, but it would be the most reasonable


We're not defining what "reasonable" is, we're defining what a "literal" interpretation is.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#19mrplainswalkerPosted 3/19/2014 5:06:46 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
That is to say, science isn't the only way to contemplate questions, and many scientists recognize this. This is apparent by the fact that the foundation of the scientific method itself is apart from science.


I don't know if I would agree with that. The scientific method's usefulness is provable inductively. That is to say, as long as you start with a base case of "I have this goal of understanding X, and I want to achieve that goal," then the scientific method is evidently the best way to achieve it. The scientific method validates itself. If by "foundation" you were just talking about agreeing that achieving goals is desirable, then yeah science can't touch that. But as long as you agree on that, everything else follows through science.
---
Failure to at least give this show a chance gives anyone you see the right to punch you in the face.
- Spiritclaw on Battlestar Galactica