Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[Stuu]

Is it possible for a pixel to ever truly understand the fractional it is part of?

You might ask yourself that question when you make claims about what your god wants you and other people to do. When it comes to your non-depraved humanity, you are a member of the one species we know is capable of investigating the nature of the universe. You are something which the universe made which allows it to observe itself. And so my answer would be yes, to a significant extent the pixels can understand their fractional part. And that is corrosive to god belief too.

You will have to ask God when you see Him. I tend to think that God is always enjoying the operations of the universe while at the same time being sad that those He created to be with Him reject Him and hurt each other.

Sad. So sad. So sad in fact, that I will judge them inadequate for ignoring me, and I will burn them.

That I find wonder in the universe does not make me ignorant of the works of the universe. I just see it in broader terms than you do.

Or add a bit that is inconsistent with what you can observe. You have never justified your god's supposed meddling in evolution. There is nothing about what you observe that is consistent with that. You add it to satisfy a delusion you hold about the universe. Evolution works fine without your god hypothesis at all. The case is that actually you aren't seeing the wider picture because you have placed a self-inflicted cloud in front of the frame.

No one has ever seen God.

Exodus 6:3 And I [God] appeared unto Abraham.

Genesis 26:24 And the LORD appeared unto him [Isaac] the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not.

Exodus 33:23 And I [God]will take away my hand, and thou [Moses] shalt see my backparts.

Exodus 24:9-11 Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel ... They saw God, and did eat and drink.

Judges 13:22-24 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. But his wife said unto him, If the LORD were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering and a meat offering at our hands, neither would he have shewed us all these things, nor would as at this time have told us such things as these. And the woman bare a son, and called his name Samson.

On the other hand,

John 1:18, 1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time.

We have nothing upon which to base speculation. I tend to believe that God exists in at least n+1 dimensions which is to say that God exists in at least one more dimension than we do. We exist in at least 4 dimensions and we can really only perceive 3 of those dimension. If we can't explain and orthogonality of the 4th dimension to the other three how do we model an Being that exists in 5 (or more) orthogonal dimensions? (Those are my shower thoughts) None the less, God did leave us scripture so that we can know Him and His will. And of one seeks, God does answer. You see that concept repeated regularly on these pages yet continue to write it of as some sort of mental disorder.

Yes, the more I read it, especially from an intelligent person like you, the more I think it must be some kind of mental disorder. My problem is that I am not a psychologist, and there is obviously a very long history of discussion of different point of view amongst psychologists about the question of whether religious belief constitutes a mental disorder. From the very little I have read it strikes me that clinical practitioners kick the question into touch on the question of what religion is, and simplify the whole question by sticking to analysing whether religious beliefs are associated with a mental disorder in a particular patient.

So they might say that someone who felt their life was enhanced by religious belief and was feeling less anxiety and stress because of their perceptions of a god, and what it did, was not suffering from any religiously-induced mental disorder, while a person who was literally hearing the voice of god, or displaying obsessional behaviour fixated on particular religious concepts, or suffering extreme anxiety relating to whether the god in question was being appeased enough to avoid eternal punishment, in each case to the point where it was affecting the person's life or causing depression, would definitely have a mental illness rooted in religious belief. Then there is specific hypothesising about god belief and faith, from Freud, Piaget and others.

It occurs to me that when you try to observe the universe dispassionately, accounting as much as possible for the vulnerabilities of the brain, you have to conclude that the belief in the Judeo-christian creator god is an extremist position, but it looks like psychology refers its cases to norms, where one of the 'norms' is widespread belief in a god conspiracy, meaning that that extreme position is considered normal in some way. So, is the god-believing section of the population suffering mental illness? I am not qualified to say, and I don't know if psychologists necessarily are either. It's all opinion. My opinion is that one can see how easily a human mind could fall into such a belief, but also that they are without excuse, because it is possible to look into it a bit more and realised that the reasons for believing this conspiracy are poor ones. So perhaps it is the mental illness of laziness, or lack of possession of all the facts we do possess, or sabre tooths, or fear of death, or one or more of a myriad of other possible motives.

Then you mention scripture, which is the fearful witterings of one of the most ignorant ancient cultures to inhabit the planet. The best you could say about it is to call it historical fiction. I can see some plausibility in your flatland-type claim, that we living in the four dimensions are going to find a five-dimensional thing moving through it to be a very strange thing, like a sphere moving through a two-dimensional world would be like a circle that appears, gets bigger, then gets smaller again and disappears. The problem is, we don't make any observations like that. There are certainly curious phenomena in the universe, but curious is a subjective term, and subjectivity is a product of human brains operating. And human brains have those well-known vulnerabilities to conspiracy thinking, for example seeing sabre tooths behind every bush (for our own good), and being really poor at statistics, so we don't count the fails, only the successes, and so on.

But once you account for all of that, there is nothing strange in the universe that is like a sphere to flatlanders, or like the effects you claim for your god. There is possibly dark matter / energy, but that's not the kind of claim you are making for your god. You are claiming that it is specifically knowable in some four-dimensional sense and that it interacts with the stuff we know in these four dimensions. And yet no one has ever seen it.

This is not logical. There is no reason that not having a picture of God should negate the experience of God coming into my life.

Where is your photograph, or else your reason why it is not a reasonable request?

Faith is also a matter of identity. You reject that but that does not mean that my faith is not a core part of who I am and how I live my life. You cannot talk me out of my faith because I was not talked into my faith. It is much a part of me as my white skin.

I think I already dispensed with that by the example of conversions. And you have described your own experience in the same terms. Haven't you 'converted' twice now? Or is it just once? You can't convert away from white skin, and you couldn't convert away from heterosexuality, but you could abandon faith tomorrow if you wanted.

And who gets to decide what ideas are crazy? You? I do not find your judgment to be reliable in this area. I no longer hold the labeled of deprived, I am now labeled forgiven and I have no desire to be "cured" of that. I find great strength and peace in my faith and my walk with God.

I don't think we can dispense with deciding that some ideas are crazy. Again, if you don't believe in deciding on crazy then you had no business being an engineer of any kind.

My wife went through breast cancer. Twice. The chemo and radiation utterly destroyed her sex life as in she has no desire and the act itself is physically painful. So that part of our life is over at a very young age. And yet we still find ways to express our love for each other in ways that no longer depend on one particular act. In some ways, it has brought is closer. It is possible to express love to others without the physical act. And as I noted before, people may have to make a choice between whether they love one physical act more than they love God.

I am sorry to hear about your wife's circumstances, and hope that her treatment has been as successful as you could hope, medically speaking.

I don't think that makes any difference to the immorality of giving gay people a sex drive then proclaiming that it is not to be used.

Of course you do. Otherwise you would not feel the need to try to talk me out of my "mental illness".

I'm trying to avoid this becoming evidence for an apparent mental illness of my own! Don't forget that I believe the beauty of the universe is evidence against the existence of a god that obsesses about figs and tortures gay people.

You are stating that I am not qualified to be an engineer because of my faith. That is an ad hominem by definition.

Sorry, but it's not. Ad hominem is not the same thing as personal attack, or making conclusions about a person based on argument. It is specifically as I described, the logical fallacy that because of a person's perceived faults, therefore the attacked person's arguments are invalid. I am making conclusions about your qualification to be an engineer based on the beliefs you hold. That is not an ad hominem.

The fact that I believe in Jesus as my Lord and Savior does not in anyway impact my ability to use math and science to design the systems I work with. As an engineer, my systems MUST work if I want to continue to work and provide for my family. I have been a licensed and practicing engineer for some 27 years. Apparently I know what I'm doing as an engineer.

So there you go. Already your faith is not such an inherent part of your personality that you allow your belief in invisible friends and miracles to interfere with your professional work. You keep them separate, and that is an important part of the qualification you hold to work as an engineer. You have a kind of social contract with the public to produce work that specifically does not include the concept of miracles. You have two parts of your brain that work independently, one that does believe in miracles and one that doesn't.

Actually its a life cult as the resurrection of Jesus is central to redemption. Christianity is about living and loving and serving each other. It is not about any one single event.

God belief in general might not be about one specific event, but christianity is specifically about the death of one man, because as you have stated, Jesus had to die. The alternatives of Jesus living and forgiving were not possible, apparently. Thus, death cult.

I don't see this verse as a warning against knowledge and science. I do see it as a warning to be wary of people that would use those things to turn me away from Christ.

And what if that knowledge is clear evidence,supplied by your god, that christ belief is wrong? You think islam is wrong, presumably, but they have exactly the same justification for thinking you are wrong. You really have insulated that 'miracles' part of your brain against any questioning, haven't you. So when this whole 'christ' thing is revealed, say, as a plot of satan to deceive you from what your god was really trying to tell you (given that your god doesn't seem omnipotent enough to vanquish satan), will you have any excuse (as Paul might have put it in Romans)?

Behaviors embed into our genetics are instincts and are extremely difficult to ignore. I have horses. When working with them I must always remember that their instincts are as prey animals. When spooked, that animal is going to react instinctively no matter how well it is trained and you can find yourself in a whole lot of trouble in the blink of an eye. We do not have genetic instincts towards morality.

Is that supposed to be an argument?

And this proves that commandment "Thou Shalt not commit murder" is not a genetic code. That society has made murder all to easy and instincts are not that easily over come.

You appear to be willfully ignorant.

Scripture does not devalue women. It exults them. It is just that most people completely ignore this:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.
Women are not devalued by scripture, they are devalued by men who use scripture to their own ends, not God's.

How many begattings of girls do you read of in scripture? Where may women speak without it being a shame? What is the natural 'use' of a woman, according to Paul? Who is the 'head of the woman', according to Paul? To whom must women be obedient and in 'subjection'? While man is the glory of a god, who is a woman the glory of? Who was the woman created for? How may women dress themselves? How may women learn? Are they allowed to teach? Which of Adam or Eve transgressed? Which of men or women is the 'weaker vessel'? Who did John write exclusively to, the men or the women?

Is your scripture the word of men or the word of your god?

As an upstanding Christian male, I love and care for my family. I work hard so that there is food on the table and warm bed to sleep in. My wife helps and together, as God intended, we make our life together as one flesh.

Right, so your wife 'helps'.

Modern culture tries to be nicer than God and now we live in a cespool where what is legal is frequently not just and what is just is ignored. God's standard has not changed. There is no need for it to as people have not changed.

Steven Pinker has established that the current day is the least violent time to live as a human, in at least the past 10,000 years, and a significant part of that is the adoption of the concept of human rights. It appears from what you say that your god would rather us live in a less safe world, one dominated by the small-minded and vindictive concepts of justice that existed in ancient Palestine.

Regardles, I have nothing to fear. On the other hand, you do. It is called Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager is one of the most immoral propositions ever made. Would the god you believe in be taken in by that? Then that's one more reason not to worship it. Do you live by Pascal's Wager? Of course you don't. I have no reason to fear death, based on the simple fact that I will return to the kind of physical state in which I existed for the 13.7 billion years before I was born, and a purely physical state is the nature of my existence as a human. Claims beyond that are incoherent examples of christians' egos and general vanity getting in the way of their judgement of the absurdity of claims of 'afterlife'.

I do not believe that it is retribution as I do not believe that God is vengful in His exicution of justice..

Here are the 'unchanged standards' of your god:
Ezekiel 25:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will stretch out mine hand upon the Philistines, and I will cut off the Cherethims, and destroy the remnant of the sea coast.
25:17 And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

I know. And that's all we need to know.

No, you also need to know that logic is a human invention, and the valid examples of when it doesn't apply, for example the temporal sense of cause-and-effect at the Big Bang and the lack of logic that goes with quantum theory, examples that you have twice deleted from the quote box in your failed attempt to cherry pick what I wrote.

Quote-mining is the one skill you have learned from creationism, Stripe. It's a shame you haven't learned any science. Then you could participate in discussions properly.

Stuart

 

[6days]

But who said the beginning of the universe has to conform to logic?

Evolutionists think their beliefs need not be logical.

many atheists are very religious

You should look up the definition of religion in the dictionary.

You should look up the word religion, or religious in a dictionary. It has a variety of meanings including worldview. Some atheists zealously promote and proselytize their religion through monthly meetings, magazines, conferences, books and even TV preachers.

You seem to think religion isn't a very good thing. I agree.

It depends on the religion. The Bible defines pure religion as charity...helping widows and orphans. So... you would agree that Biblical religion is good.

I gave you a list of the empirical evidence that is consistent with Big Bang cosmology, and you deleted it

Your list is consistent with a created universe... evidence that needs interpreted.

in your reply, and replaced it with a different list, of things that aren't consistent with empirical evidence.

I gave a list of things for which there is NO empirical evidence, but are beliefs to prop up the house of cards... big bang beliefs.

And what do you mean by ETC? That's a lazy man's failed attempt to appear impressive.

Etc means I don't want to list the hundred or more evidences that contradict Big Bang beliefs. Eg.. 'mature' galaxies in the 'early' universe, decaying magnetic fields, comets, density of Mercury, chemical composition of Jupiter, fine tuned universe, geysers on Enceledus ETC.... ETC....ETC

You have not demonstrated that Big Bang cosmology requires the application of conventions of logic.

There you go!

You called it a theory. Why did you?

It is NOT a theory. Evolutionists called it a theory till science proved it was false. http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/lamarck/lamarck/lamarck_lamarck.htm

You offered them (examples of evolutionary beliefs that science proved false.) I agreed with your first example. Next?

Evolutionists (including journals and textbooks) taught of Piltsowns place in the evutiin of man. Science proved it was a hoax.

 

[Stuu]

Evolutionists think their beliefs need not be logical.

What does the beginning of the universe have to do with evolution?

It depends on the religion. The Bible defines pure religion as charity...helping widows and orphans. So... you would agree that Biblical religion is good.

That would be the same kind of logical fallacy that you displayed earlier, the fallacy of composition. Just because some acts described in the bible might be 'good' does not make 'biblical religion' good.

Your list is consistent with a created universe... evidence that needs interpreted.

You are now proposing a different hypothesis, that the universe is created. What is the unambiguous evidence for that claim?

I gave a list of things for which there is NO empirical evidence, but are beliefs to prop up the house of cards... big bang beliefs.

How is any of your list required for Big Bang cosmology? They don't address the evidence on which that cosmology is based, they really aren't relevant.

Etc means I don't want to list the hundred or more evidences that contradict Big Bang beliefs. Eg.. 'mature' galaxies in the 'early' universe, decaying magnetic fields, comets, density of Mercury, chemical composition of Jupiter, fine tuned universe, geysers on Enceledus ETC.... ETC....ETC

Hilarious. You would like to have the feeling of credit for having mounted a spectacular Gish Gallop, without doing any of the work necessary to justify your 'ETC'. Fail. Once again, calm down and give us one at a time. I realise that is not the approach of a lazy person, because you are not interested in details but just an overall cheap effect on the gullible reading this.

Stuu: You have not demonstrated that Big Bang cosmology requires the application of conventions of logic.

There you go!

Was that your demonstration that Big Bang cosmology requires the application of conventions of logic?

Evolutionists (including journals and textbooks) taught of Piltsowns place in the evutiin of man. Science proved it was a hoax.

Yes indeed. Science has correction mechanisms.

Next?

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Logic is a human invention.

It's OK. You don't have to use it. Just don't claim that you're being logical. :chuckle:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

You might ask yourself that question when you make claims about what your god wants you and other people to do. When it comes to your non-depraved humanity, you are a member of the one species we know is capable of investigating the nature of the universe. You are something which the universe made which allows it to observe itself. And so my answer would be yes, to a significant extent the pixels can understand their fractional part. And that is corrosive to god belief too.

I don understand why you keep asserting this. God left us scripture that we may know Him and His will. I am not the result of a random process, I am the result of God's act of creation.

Sad. So sad. So sad in fact, that I will judge them inadequate for ignoring me, and I will burn them.

You are either with God or against Him. If you are against Him, why should He invite you into His home?

Or add a bit that is inconsistent with what you can observe. You have never justified your god's supposed meddling in evolution. There is nothing about what you observe that is consistent with that. You add it to satisfy a delusion you hold about the universe. Evolution works fine without your god hypothesis at all. The case is that actually you aren't seeing the wider picture because you have placed a self-inflicted cloud in front of the frame.

God is a Sovereign Creator. DNA is His to "meddle" with as He sees fit. Evolution works as well as it does because it was designed to do so.

Exodus 6:3

And I [God] appeared unto Abraham.

Genesis 26:24 And the LORD appeared unto him [Isaac] the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not.

Exodus 33:23 And I [God]will take away my hand, and thou [Moses] shalt see my backparts.

Exodus 24:9-11 Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel ... They saw God, and did eat and drink.

Judges 13:22-24 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. But his wife said unto him, If the LORD were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering and a meat offering at our hands, neither would he have shewed us all these things, nor would as at this time have told us such things as these. And the woman bare a son, and called his name Samson.

On the other hand,

John 1:18, 1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time.

I wonder why these people didn't take a picture?

God has appeared as a pillar of fire and a column of smoke and a burning bush. But we cannot see His face and live. So if we cannot see His face, how can we take a picture? And I am not convinced at all that we must see God to believe in God. Fact of the matter is, if you see a picture of God, a real picture, faith is no longer possible. Knowledge of God does not redeem a person, faith does.

Yes, the more I read it, especially from an intelligent person like you, the more I think it must be some kind of mental disorder. (And there is the ad hominem again) My problem is that I am not a psychologist, and there is obviously a very long history of discussion of different point of view amongst psychologists about the question of whether religious belief constitutes a mental disorder. From the very little I have read it strikes me that clinical practitioners kick the question into touch on the question of what religion is, and simplify the whole question by sticking to analysing whether religious beliefs are associated with a mental disorder in a particular patient.

Faith is not a mental disorder. Why would it be? Seriously? Why would believing in God and following His commandment to love one another be a mental disorder? Is loving people a mental disorder?

So they might say that someone who felt their life was enhanced by religious belief and was feeling less anxiety and stress because of their perceptions of a god, and what it did, was not suffering from any religiously-induced mental disorder, while a person who was literally hearing the voice of god, or displaying obsessional behaviour fixated on particular religious concepts, or suffering extreme anxiety relating to whether the god in question was being appeased enough to avoid eternal punishment, in each case to the point where it was affecting the person's life or causing depression, would definitely have a mental illness rooted in religious belief. Then there is specific hypothesising about god belief and faith, from Freud, Piaget and others.

It occurs to me that when you try to observe the universe dispassionately, accounting as much as possible for the vulnerabilities of the brain, you have to conclude that the belief in the Judeo-christian creator god is an extremist position, but it looks like psychology refers its cases to norms, where one of the 'norms' is widespread belief in a god conspiracy, meaning that that extreme position is considered normal in some way. So, is the god-believing section of the population suffering mental illness? I am not qualified to say, and I don't know if psychologists necessarily are either. It's all opinion. My opinion is that one can see how easily a human mind could fall into such a belief, but also that they are without excuse, because it is possible to look into it a bit more and realised that the reasons for believing this conspiracy are poor ones. So perhaps it is the mental illness of laziness, or lack of possession of all the facts we do possess, or sabre tooths, or fear of death, or one or more of a myriad of other possible motives.

Then you mention scripture, which is the fearful witterings of one of the most ignorant ancient cultures to inhabit the planet. The best you could say about it is to call it historical fiction. I can see some plausibility in your flatland-type claim, that we living in the four dimensions are going to find a five-dimensional thing moving through it to be a very strange thing, like a sphere moving through a two-dimensional world would be like a circle that appears, gets bigger, then gets smaller again and disappears. The problem is, we don't make any observations like that. There are certainly curious phenomena in the universe, but curious is a subjective term, and subjectivity is a product of human brains operating. And human brains have those well-known vulnerabilities to conspiracy thinking, for example seeing sabre tooths behind every bush (for our own good), and being really poor at statistics, so we don't count the fails, only the successes, and so on.

But once you account for all of that, there is nothing strange in the universe that is like a sphere to flatlanders, or like the effects you claim for your god. There is possibly dark matter / energy, but that's not the kind of claim you are making for your god. You are claiming that it is specifically knowable in some four-dimensional sense and that it interacts with the stuff we know in these four dimensions. And yet no one has ever seen it.

Well, your opinion and 5 bucks will get you a Starbucks. God has His plan and works it according to His will. If it is His wish not to be seen then He will not be seen. I am sure that He has a good reason for doing things the way He does.

Where is your photograph, or else your reason why it is not a reasonable request?

There is not now nor will there ever be a photograph of God. You request is unreasonable because you are demanding absolute proof when God has only allowed for faith. This demand allows you to feel superior as you feel it allows you to claim that God does not exist because He will not prove that He exists to your satisfaction. You don't get to tell the King what to do. None of us do.

I think I already dispensed with that by the example of conversions. And you have described your own experience in the same terms. Haven't you 'converted' twice now? Or is it just once? You can't convert away from white skin, and you couldn't convert away from heterosexuality, but you could abandon faith tomorrow if you wanted.

No, I was only "converted" once. I was raised within the Catholic tradition but God tends to get lost in deeply prescriptive religious traditions so I never met Him there. I could not abandon my faith if I wanted. It is not something I hold because of any act of my own, it was a gift from God.

I don't think we can dispense with deciding that some ideas are crazy. Again, if you don't believe in deciding on crazy then you had no business being an engineer of any kind.

Non sequitur. It does not logically follow that deciding crazy ideas would prevent me from being an engineer. As an engineer, if somebody has a seemingly crazy idea, it is my job to investigate that idea to determine if it is workable or not. Many ideas that sound crazy will in fact work. Most of the time people will not pay to develop those ideas. My job is to keep an open mind because I have seen the history of people who declared an idea to be crazy and turned out to be spectacular wrong.

I am sorry to hear about your wife's circumstances, and hope that her treatment has been as successful as you could hope, medically speaking.

Thank you. It has.

I don't think that makes any difference to the immorality of giving gay people a sex drive then proclaiming that it is not to be used.

I have a sex drive and I am not allowed to use it as I freely choose.

I'm trying to avoid this becoming evidence for an apparent mental illness of my own! Don't forget that I believe the beauty of the universe is evidence against the existence of a god that obsesses about figs and tortures gay people.

And I believe that the beauty and complexity of the universe reveals to the Hand of a Creator. A Creator who gave us each an immortal soul and cares very much about what happens to the soul.

Sorry, but it's not. Ad hominem is not the same thing as personal attack, or making conclusions about a person based on argument. It is specifically as I described, the logical fallacy that because of a person's perceived faults, therefore the attacked person's arguments are invalid. I am making conclusions about your qualification to be an engineer based on the beliefs you hold. That is not an ad hominem.

ad ho·mi·nem



1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.


You are saying my faith makes me a bad engineer. My position is that faith and science are opposite sides of the same coin, that they are not mutually exclusive propositions. When you state that my faith should disqualify me as an engineer you are not addressing my position, you are directing your argument against me. See the definition above.,

So there you go. Already your faith is not such an inherent part of your personality that you allow your belief in invisible friends and miracles to interfere with your professional work. You keep them separate, and that is an important part of the qualification you hold to work as an engineer. You have a kind of social contract with the public to produce work that specifically does not include the concept of miracles. You have two parts of your brain that work independently, one that does believe in miracles and one that doesn't.

No, my brain is not dividied as you suggest. Since I see science and faith as both coming from God, I have no problem holding both in equal regard. Science is about dealing with the physical world around us. Faith is about dealing with people. Engineering is about figuring out to make and keep things running smoothly by applying math and physics to a problem. Faith is about caring for other by applying the commandments that Jesus gave to us. There is nor reason why those two positions cannot peacfully exist in one person.

God belief in general might not be about one specific event, but christianity is specifically about the death of one man, because as you have stated, Jesus had to die. The alternatives of Jesus living and forgiving were not possible, apparently. Thus, death cult.

All you see is one event through you predetermined conclusions. Think of it this way. Lets say you have somebody you deeply love, a child or spouse or even a close frined. Lets say that that person has been convicted of a crime and has been sentenced to death. Let us further say that you could go before the judge and offer to take the punishment for this person you love and in exchange, they will be pardoned and released. Would you sacrifice yourself to save one that you love? This analogy is built around human terms so it falls a bit short but it does represent why Jesus did what He did. He died, but it was a death He went to willingly so that those He loves the most might be pardoned and stand before the Judge as innocent when they die.

And what if that knowledge is clear evidence,supplied by your god, that christ belief is wrong?

I honestly believe that no such evidence exists to be found.

You think islam is wrong, presumably, but they have exactly the same justification for thinking you are wrong. You really have insulated that 'miracles' part of your brain against any questioning, haven't you. So when this whole 'christ' thing is revealed, say, as a plot of satan to deceive you from what your god was really trying to tell you (given that your god doesn't seem omnipotent enough to vanquish satan), will you have any excuse (as Paul might have put it in Romans)?

No, I am open to questioning but I also have a standard I can use to evaluate those questions. Is a religion true or false? I can look at what the religion teaches and compare it against what scripture says. That is why I am no longer Catholic.

Is that supposed to be an argument?

Not if you don't understand what I said.

You appear to be willfully ignorant.

We disagree here. Instinct is a powerful drive within an animal. It is not easily overcome.

How many begattings of girls do you read of in scripture? Where may women speak without it being a shame? What is the natural 'use' of a woman, according to Paul? Who is the 'head of the woman', according to Paul? To whom must women be obedient and in 'subjection'? While man is the glory of a god, who is a woman the glory of? Who was the woman created for? How may women dress themselves? How may women learn? Are they allowed to teach? Which of Adam or Eve transgressed? Which of men or women is the 'weaker vessel'? Who did John write exclusively to, the men or the women?

And yet we are still left with with the passage from Ephesians that actually commanded husbands to love and care for and exault their wives. There is an order in creation and women are to submit to husbands as husbands submit to Jesus. It is not a slave relationship that results. In Christ there is great freedom, so much so that it terrifies people. So a husband should love his wife and care for her as Chrst does for His sheep. A wife is not a slave, she is a helper created by God to walk along side her husband.

Is your scripture the word of men or the word of your god?

It is God's word translated by men. It does not answer each and every question we have about life. It encourages people to seek a relationship with God so that in prayer we may find more specific answers to lifes challenges.

Right, so your wife 'helps'.

And that's a problem for you because?

Steven Pinker

has established that the current day is the least violent time to live as a human, in at least the past 10,000 years, and a significant part of that is the adoption of the concept of human rights. It appears from what you say that your god would rather us live in a less safe world, one dominated by the small-minded and vindictive concepts of justice that existed in ancient Palestine.

God was the initial authoer of human rights. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." It has taken men a L O N G time to figure out how to implemnt that one simple command.

Pascal's Wager is one of the most immoral propositions ever made. Would the god you believe in be taken in by that? Then that's one more reason not to worship it. Do you live by Pascal's Wager? Of course you don't. I have no reason to fear death, based on the simple fact that I will return to the kind of physical state in which I existed for the 13.7 billion years before I was born, and a purely physical state is the nature of my existence as a human. Claims beyond that are incoherent examples of christians' egos and general vanity getting in the way of their judgement of the absurdity of claims of 'afterlife'.

Ironically, I agree with you. Pascal's wager is correct in that you have more to lose by not believing in God that I do by believing in God. What it gets wrong is it assumes you can genreate the required faith by your own act of will. This is not the case.

Here are the 'unchanged standards' of your god:
Ezekiel 25:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will stretch out mine hand upon the Philistines, and I will cut off the Cherethims, and destroy the remnant of the sea coast.
25:17 And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.

Stuart

Never ceases to amaze me how so many atheists and christians alike base their theology on the Old Testament. Yes, God in the Old Testament was a very strict and vengeful God. He did nopt play games. But He also fulfilled the law of the Old Covenant and ushered in the New Covenant where He no longer smites those who deserve a good smiting. Instead, He now extends His arms to all those who desire to be with Him.

 

[6days]

What does the beginning of the universe have to do with evolution?

I thought you believed that we evolved from stardust? Stellar and biological evolution are both 'evolution'.

Just because some acts described in the bible might be 'good' does not make 'biblical religion' good.

The Bible only gives one description for pure religion, which is charity... helping the needy. (Specifically orphans and widows)

You are now proposing a different hypothesis, that the universe is created. What is the unambiguous evidence for that claim?

Haha... I listed some evidences. "Unambiguos evidence" is what you claimed you could provide for fish to man evolution. (Fail)

How is any of your list required for Big Bang cosmology?

They are just a few of hundreds of examples where evolutionists invent rescue device explanations. IOW... They explain away the most obvious explanation, or as you said you cherry pick when to use logic.

Once again, calm down and give us one at a time

Oh my... you are hard to please. You can pick one, if you want to discuss.

Was that your demonstration that Big Bang cosmology requires the application of conventions of logic?

I think you suggested that people can't use logic... they just need to believe in the Big Bang?

Yes indeed. Science has correction mechanisms. Next?

Yes... science often corrects false unscientific beliefs.


We have two you agreed to so far. We can go up to ten if you keep asking.

3. The human appendix was described as useless and therefore evolution did it. Science has shown the appendix is useful. (IF useless is evidence for common ancestry, then is useful evidence of a Creator?)

 

[Stuu]

I don understand why you keep asserting this. God left us scripture that we may know Him and His will.

I don't know why you assert that. Scripture exists, written by humans. What is a god, and what does it have to do with this writing?

I am not the result of a random process, I am the result of God's act of creation.

Another platitude. What does it mean? The 'Finger of Mutation'?

You are either with God or against Him. If you are against Him, why should He invite you into His home?

You don't appear to have read the scripture that your god 'left you'.

God is a Sovereign Creator. DNA is His to "meddle" with as He sees fit. Evolution works as well as it does because it was designed to do so.

Platitude. Sounds grand. Means nothing at all.

I wonder why these people didn't take a picture? God has appeared as a pillar of fire and a column of smoke and a burning bush. But we cannot see His face and live. So if we cannot see His face, how can we take a picture?

So your first reason that we don't have a picture of your god is that it will kill you if you take one. But that didn't apply to Manoah and his unnamed wife though. So that just sounds weak.

And I am not convinced at all that we must see God to believe in God. Fact of the matter is, if you see a picture of God, a real picture, faith is no longer possible. Knowledge of God does not redeem a person, faith does.

So you are denying that I really want to see a photograph of your god, or know why it is not possible. That's an evasion of the question. You were doing better with the 'we will be killed' line. At least that is a fantasy story that addresses the question.

Stuu: Yes, the more I read it, especially from an intelligent person like you, the more I think it must be some kind of mental disorder.

(And there is the ad hominem again)

And once again, it's not because I am not using a personal attack as an argument against any of your arguments.

Faith is not a mental disorder. Why would it be? Seriously? Why would believing in God and following His commandment to love one another be a mental disorder? Is loving people a mental disorder?

Did you read what I wrote? I did explain myself quite carefully.

Well, your opinion and 5 bucks will get you a Starbucks. God has His plan and works it according to His will. If it is His wish not to be seen then He will not be seen. I am sure that He has a good reason for doing things the way He does.

So killing people for taking photographs is something you are fine with.

There is not now nor will there ever be a photograph of God. You request is unreasonable because you are demanding absolute proof when God has only allowed for faith. This demand allows you to feel superior as you feel it allows you to claim that God does not exist because He will not prove that He exists to your satisfaction. You don't get to tell the King what to do. None of us do.

My question has always been about why the photograph is not possible. I am not interested in the subject's attitude to being photographed or its willingness to commit murder to avoid it, I want to know why it is not possible. Let's say I was willing to risk being killed, and the whole 'it's not necessary for faith' nonsense didn't apply to me (which it doesn't) and I was ready with a camera, could I take a photograph of your god, and if not, why not?

No, I was only "converted" once. I was raised within the Catholic tradition but God tends to get lost in deeply prescriptive religious traditions so I never met Him there. I could not abandon my faith if I wanted. It is not something I hold because of any act of my own, it was a gift from God.

Well your state of mind does not change the situation for others who are capable of conversion from religious faith.

Non sequitur. It does not logically follow that deciding crazy ideas would prevent me from being an engineer. As an engineer, if somebody has a seemingly crazy idea, it is my job to investigate that idea to determine if it is workable or not. Many ideas that sound crazy will in fact work. Most of the time people will not pay to develop those ideas. My job is to keep an open mind because I have seen the history of people who declared an idea to be crazy and turned out to be spectacular wrong.

But the crazy ideas we are talking about are miracles, for example those supposedly performed by Jesus. Do you think those events, as described in the bible, could become the basis of something workable? Could the principle of walking on the surface of water be applied in an engineering solution as an alternative to building foot bridges over rivers?

I have a sex drive and I am not allowed to use it as I freely choose.

Non-response, and you know it. You are suggesting that your obsessed invisible friend bans same-sex sexual expression in gay people altogether.

And I believe that the beauty and complexity of the universe reveals to the Hand of a Creator. A Creator who gave us each an immortal soul and cares very much about what happens to the soul.

Another platitude. What is a soul? And if we put the subjective question of beauty aside for a minute, what is it about complexity that gives any cause to believe in this invisible, unphotographable, thing that exists only on your bald assertion? Why would complexity require a god, and what difference does that make to understanding the universe?

My position is that faith and science are opposite sides of the same coin, that they are not mutually exclusive propositions. When you state that my faith should disqualify me as an engineer you are not addressing my position, you are directing your argument against me.

My argument has always been against that position you are maintaining. The argument does involve you, of necessity, but it is not the attack on you that is the argument. I can mention you personally in an argument against your position without it being an ad hominem argument. A person who believes in miracles is not to be trusted as an engineer. See? If you generalise it and take out the example of you specifically, it doesn't actually change the argument.

No, my brain is not dividied as you suggest. Since I see science and faith as both coming from God, I have no problem holding both in equal regard. Science is about dealing with the physical world around us. Faith is about dealing with people.

Faith is about dealing with people? I thought faith was the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Engineering is about figuring out to make and keep things running smoothly by applying math and physics to a problem.

Although people may be the end user of an engineering solution, and needs to be fit for purpose, 'dealing with people' is in a different category from the actual mechanism of devising a proper solution. And so here, I am hoping for the sake of the people, you would not apply that biblical definition of faith. The substance of things hoped for is not a good engineering principle; I would need the substance of material properties used to calculate dimensions properly. The evidence of things not seen must be avoided by an engineer; I definitely don't want you to be relying on evidence that formed part of a religious platitude, possibly also an oxymoron.

Faith is about caring for other by applying the commandments that Jesus gave to us. There is nor reason why those two positions cannot peacfully exist in one person.

Faith seems to be whatever you want it to be. The bible seems to be irrelevant to your concept of faith. But, since you mention them, here is a list of some of Jesus's commandments:
Love One Another; Pray for your Enemies; Repent; Believe that Jesus is in the Father; Take up your Cross and Follow Me; Go and Make Disciples; Pray Always.
You claim that you hold faith and science in equal regard, but my point all along was that you would have to separate the 'I believe in miracles' part, which you must hold on faith (whatever that means...'dealing with people'?) from the 'professional engineering' part of your brain. And you seem to have confirmed that with every response you gave: indeed you do separate these aspects in practice. But now, tell us how you could work as a professional engineer and have 'equal regard' for these commandments of Jesus by not ignoring them in your professional work.

All you see is one event through you predetermined conclusions. Think of it this way. Lets say you have somebody you deeply love, a child or spouse or even a close frined. Lets say that that person has been convicted of a crime and has been sentenced to death. Let us further say that you could go before the judge and offer to take the punishment for this person you love and in exchange, they will be pardoned and released. Would you sacrifice yourself to save one that you love? This analogy is built around human terms so it falls a bit short but it does represent why Jesus did what He did. He died, but it was a death He went to willingly so that those He loves the most might be pardoned and stand before the Judge as innocent when they die.

The immorality of vicarious punishment in christianity is not that one could take the punishment for another, it is that one can take away the responsibility from another. I don't want that in my name, thanks. Someone may offer to pay my fines, or whatever, but I insist on remaining responsible for my own actions. Christianity removes responsibility along with the punishment.

I honestly believe that no such evidence exists to be found.

And that is the result of you closing yourself off from even considering that possibility.

No, I am open to questioning but I also have a standard I can use to evaluate those questions. Is a religion true or false? I can look at what the religion teaches and compare it against what scripture says. That is why I am no longer Catholic.

But that's day one, isn't it. Catholicism poof, gone, thanks for all the wine. Day two: how do you corroborate the veracity of scripture? If you have 'equal regard' for science and faith, then you wouldn't just compare religion against scripture, you should have imported from science the kind of scrutiny that it would bring to the claims made in scripture. But since scripture fails the science scrutiny on so many points, how do you maintain that 'equal regard'?

And yet we are still left with with the passage from Ephesians that actually commanded husbands to love and care for and exault their wives. There is an order in creation and women are to submit to husbands as husbands submit to Jesus. It is not a slave relationship that results. In Christ there is great freedom, so much so that it terrifies people. So a husband should love his wife and care for her as Chrst does for His sheep. A wife is not a slave, she is a helper created by God to walk along side her husband.

So we must conclude that scripture is written by men, and men of various attitudes to women. And calling a woman a 'helper' is patronising and sexist. What if a christian man's wife called him the 'helper'. How would that play? Your scripture is not fit for purpose in a socially just world. If this is the justice of your god, then it is decades overdue to retire.

It is God's word translated by men. It does not answer each and every question we have about life. It encourages people to seek a relationship with God so that in prayer we may find more specific answers to lifes challenges.

Why was translation necessary? You know what poor translation can do to a message.

God was the initial authoer of human rights. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." It has taken men a L O N G time to figure out how to implemnt that one simple command.

Yes, the human rights of ordering the killing of the Amalekites, or flooding the earth and killing almost every inhabitant. Or vicarious punishment for crimes not committed by the punished. Brilliant human rights record, this god of yours.

Ironically, I agree with you. Pascal's wager is correct in that you have more to lose by not believing in God that I do by believing in God. What it gets wrong is it assumes you can genreate the required faith by your own act of will. This is not the case.

I can see how much effort you put into maintaining your own 'faith'. Why does your god make it so difficult for you, or anyone? It's quite perverse, isn't it. God wants to be loved, indeed commands it on pain of punishment, but then makes it very difficult.

But it doesn't look to me like you have ever considered what you lose by believing in a god the way you do. Tell me what I have to lose by believing in your god, since you mention it.

Never ceases to amaze me how so many atheists and christians alike base their theology on the Old Testament. Yes, God in the Old Testament was a very strict and vengeful God. He did nopt play games. But He also fulfilled the law of the Old Covenant and ushered in the New Covenant where He no longer smites those who deserve a good smiting. Instead, He now extends His arms to all those who desire to be with Him.

So when you said 'unchanging standards', you didn't mean unchanging standards.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

I thought you believed that we evolved from stardust? Stellar and biological evolution are both 'evolution'.

So an 'evolutionist' could be a believer in stellar evolution, and also a creationist when it comes to biology. I'll bear that in mind the next time you or Stripe use the word in derogation.

Haha... I listed some evidences [for the hypothesis that the universe is created].

You haven't done that yet. Unambiguous evidence for a creator: type it here.

"Unambiguos evidence" is what you claimed you could provide for fish to man evolution. (Fail)

Yes, sorry about that. I'm still working on it. It takes a bit of work avoid Gish Gallops. I could dump all of the evidence with each only getting a passing mention, but I did promise one specific piece, properly presented.

Stuu: How is any of your list required for Big Bang cosmology?

They are just a few of hundreds of examples where evolutionists invent rescue device explanations. IOW... They explain away the most obvious explanation, or as you said you cherry pick when to use logic.

Well, I wasn't actually expecting a proper answer to my question, so you haven't disappointed. The list of four observations I gave, which are explained by Big Bang cosmology, remain. And your list is not relevant to the explanation for those four observations. Would you like me to answer my own question properly, to show you how it's done?

I think you suggested that people can't use logic... they just need to believe in the Big Bang?

I think I didn't suggest that.

Yes... science often corrects false unscientific beliefs.

Yes, we are agreed.

3. The human appendix was described as useless and therefore evolution did it. Science has shown the appendix is useful. (IF useless is evidence for common ancestry, then is useful evidence of a Creator?)

Evolution by natural selection is established independently of the existence of the appendix. That theory can be applied to the appearance of the appendix when it is compared to homologous structures in other animals. In other animals the caecum is a storehouse for microorganisms that perform the function of digesting cellulose.

The creator hypothesis doesn't seem to generate any predictions, so it doesn't appear possible to test, but evolution predicts that existing parts that are no longer required for an original function may be adapted to a new function, or may be lost altogether. Both has happened with the appendix. A change in function makes the appendix vestigial, as does the fact that one in 100,000 people are born without an appendix. Regarding common descent, then the appearance of the same anatomical feature with a different function is very clear evidence of common descent, and indeed is the kind of evidence that proved wrong the idea of 'irreducible complexity' held by Intelligent Design creationists.

The function of the appendix is not essential. The immune tissue function doesn't appear to be that specific to the appendix. The harbouring of 'good' gut bacteria in the event of gastrointestinal illness is more specific, is clearly a modification of the original function of harbouring digestive microorganisms, and indeed may constitute a selection pressure, but given the congenital lack of an appendix in some perfectly healthy people, this is obviously somewhat optional.

Science has indeed shown us all this.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

No, this is a threat on behalf of your invisible friend.

Incorrect.

And it is as mindless a platitude as ever. You can't see your god, and given the rates of conversion between atheism and christianity in both directions, there is obviously no difference between the way our brains are able to use our senses to interpret the world, so the only reasonable conclusion is that christianity is a form of mental illness.

Incorrect, else you have it too by YOUR platitude. You are just in excusing mode and it shows. Frankly, the real answer from you is "I don't want to."

I'd say the only reason you post on ToL is to find some support to prop up what you know is a nonsense set of beliefs, but one you have committed to, for some bizarre reason. So the psychology in this discussion is of you playing to the converted others in your ingratiation to their mutual admiration of the emperor's new clothes.

Right, because YOU are in denial, Stuu. You are the odd-man-out, not me. Think about that a LOT longer. You already acquiesced there were things outside the material plain that exist. You are working on self-rationalization from faulty premises.

Well I'm not against you comparing your god to goblins, pink pachyderms and green rabbits. They are all equal in their lack of existence.

Incorrect. Again, you are employing coping mechanism for things you "don't like." It has nothing to do with the reality of them. You simply "don't want." That is exactly what is at play here and nothing else. We are off topic so I'll let this conversation go. You have the feedback you need. There is nothing else here, Stuu. My presence here is for 'your' good. I pray for you.

You still haven't shown me a photograph of your god. Why not?

Stuart

YOU already acquiesced, logically, that things exist beyond this material universe. Einstein said so too. Hitchens and Hawking are beyond the material plain. Dawkins isn't far behind. Don't put all your eggs in poor baskets.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I don't know why you assert that. Scripture exists, written by humans. What is a god, and what does it have to do with this writing?

Scripture was authored by God and transcribed by men.

Another platitude. What does it mean? The 'Finger of Mutation'?

It means that God is sovereign over His creation and can direct it at His will. Sometimes His interaction is in the form of a miracle, sometimes more subtle via mechanisms we are as of yet unfamiliar with.

You don't appear to have read the scripture that your god 'left you'.

I do rather focus more on the New Testament than the Old.

Platitude. Sounds grand. Means nothing at all.

To some, it means nothing, others understand what I mean.

So your first reason that we don't have a picture of your god is that it will kill you if you take one. But that didn't apply to Manoah and his unnamed wife though. So that just sounds weak.

I believe that Moses saw the back of God. Others may have also seen the back of God. None may look on His face and live. Except Adam and Eve who walked in the garden with God.

So you are denying that I really want to see a photograph of your god, or know why it is not possible. That's an evasion of the question. You were doing better with the 'we will be killed' line. At least that is a fantasy story that addresses the question.

I have no doubt that you would love to see a picture of God. I have no doubt that seeing one would be of any good to you. Can you tell me what kind of camera would be needed to capture the image of an n+1 dimensional being?

Did you read what I wrote? I did explain myself quite carefully.

I found the reasoning to be less than convincing.

So killing people for taking photographs is something you are fine with.

I don't believe that God kills you for seeing His face. I believe that you cannot live after seeing His face because the experience is more than our mortal form can withstand.

My question has always been about why the photograph is not possible. I am not interested in the subject's attitude to being photographed or its willingness to commit murder to avoid it, I want to know why it is not possible. Let's say I was willing to risk being killed, and the whole 'it's not necessary for faith' nonsense didn't apply to me (which it doesn't) and I was ready with a camera, could I take a photograph of your god, and if not, why not?

Can you tell me what kind of camera would be needed to capture the image of an n+1 dimensional being?

But the crazy ideas we are talking about are miracles, for example those supposedly performed by Jesus. Do you think those events, as described in the bible, could become the basis of something workable? Could the principle of walking on the surface of water be applied in an engineering solution as an alternative to building foot bridges over rivers?

No. We are not God nor His Son so we do not have access to inner workings of the universe as they did. That said, the Apostles were able to heal as Jesus did so I believe that it is possible for us to do that. If we understand the nature of that healing.

As Jesus was on his way, the crowds almost crushed him. 43 And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years,[c] but no one could heal her. 44 She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped. 45 “Who touched me?” Jesus asked. When they all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you.” 46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me.” 47 Then the woman, seeing that she could not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet. In the presence of all the people, she told why she had touched him and how she had been instantly healed. 48 Then he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace.”

Once again we return to the concept of faith.

Non-response, and you know it. You are suggesting that your obsessed invisible friend bans same-sex sexual expression in gay people altogether.

I am banned from adultery. I am, or at least was, banned from fornication. Yes, sex is a HUGE perk to a heterosexual marriage. It is not given by God to be enjoyed by same sex couples. No man can have two masters.

Another platitude. What is a soul? And if we put the subjective question of beauty aside for a minute, what is it about complexity that gives any cause to believe in this invisible, unphotographable, thing that exists only on your bald assertion? Why would complexity require a god, and what difference does that make to understanding the universe?

A soul is what sets us apart for the other great apes. A soul is why you and I are having this conversation instead of sitting in a zoo someplace.

Going through engineering school we learn a lot about how things interact. We learn of universal constants and how very carefully balanced the universe and its internal operations are. We study how things are connected and what had to come before something else. The more I studied engineering the more I came to understand that the universe looks and feels like a design than a roll of the dice. I appreciate the work of a good engineer.

My argument has always been against that position you are maintaining. The argument does involve you, of necessity, but it is not the attack on you that is the argument. I can mention you personally in an argument against your position without it being an ad hominem argument. A person who believes in miracles is not to be trusted as an engineer. See? If you generalise it and take out the example of you specifically, it doesn't actually change the argument.

What reason is there for bringing in my personality at all? I have not made any comments regarding your personality. I do not know you. The person you present on this board may or may not be an accurate representation of your true personality. Saying that my faith in some way disqualifies me from practicing engineering fits the definition I posted. I know several engineers on this board that are both faithful men and good engineers. One does not preclude the other.

Faith is about dealing with people? I thought faith was the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

People think a lot of things about faith in God. They want to qualify and quantify it. They want to direct it and control it for others. They want to ignore and deny it. We are so busy trying to say what faith is and what it isn't that we forget that all we need to do is just experience it our life. It will manifest itself in each persons life differently and that is okay.

Although people may be the end user of an engineering solution, and needs to be fit for purpose, 'dealing with people' is in a different category from the actual mechanism of devising a proper solution. And so here, I am hoping for the sake of the people, you would not apply that biblical definition of faith. The substance of things hoped for is not a good engineering principle; I would need the substance of material properties used to calculate dimensions properly. The evidence of things not seen must be avoided by an engineer; I definitely don't want you to be relying on evidence that formed part of a religious platitude, possibly also an oxymoron.

I don't understand why you think faith in someway interferes with engineering. It truly is a non-sequitur on your part.

Faith seems to be whatever you want it to be. The bible seems to be irrelevant to your concept of faith. But, since you mention them, here is a list of some of Jesus's commandments:
Love One Another; Pray for your Enemies; Repent; Believe that Jesus is in the Father; Take up your Cross and Follow Me; Go and Make Disciples; Pray Always.
You claim that you hold faith and science in equal regard, but my point all along was that you would have to separate the 'I believe in miracles' part, which you must hold on faith (whatever that means...'dealing with people'?) from the 'professional engineering' part of your brain. And you seem to have confirmed that with every response you gave: indeed you do separate these aspects in practice. But now, tell us how you could work as a professional engineer and have 'equal regard' for these commandments of Jesus by not ignoring them in your professional work.

There is a technical part of engineering and a people part of engineering. I am on of a semi rare engineering type that can break technical concepts down in to layman terms to help my customers understand what we can and what we cannot do and why. My faith allows me to see ALL people as being valid of respect so I am able to deal with people respectfully. This was not a quality I possed to any great degree before I met God.

The immorality of vicarious punishment in christianity is not that one could take the punishment for another, it is that one can take away the responsibility from another. I don't want that in my name, thanks. Someone may offer to pay my fines, or whatever, but I insist on remaining responsible for my own actions. Christianity removes responsibility along with the punishment.

A swing and a miss. The question was not about what you would do for yourself, it was about what you would do for one that you loved. Note that I didn't say you could ask your loved one what they wanted, this is strictly a question about YOU.

And that is the result of you closing yourself off from even considering that possibility.

I'm not closed to the possibility, I simply believe that the probability is zero.

But that's day one, isn't it. Catholicism poof, gone, thanks for all the wine. Day two: how do you corroborate the veracity of scripture? If you have 'equal regard' for science and faith, then you wouldn't just compare religion against scripture, you should have imported from science the kind of scrutiny that it would bring to the claims made in scripture. But since scripture fails the science scrutiny on so many points, how do you maintain that 'equal regard'?

You wont like this at all but I found it to be true. Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing. I don't believe in God because scripture says God exists, I believe that scripture is true because God does exist. I feel God's presence in my life every single day. Because I believe that God is real, I accept on faith that the scripture God authored for is true. That is something very few people ever seem to grasp. People thing that others believe in God because scripture says He does. That is not the case at all. Faith in God is the foundation upon which all else, including the truth of scripture, is built.

So we must conclude that scripture is written by men, and men of various attitudes to women. And calling a woman a 'helper' is patronising and sexist. What if a christian man's wife called him the 'helper'. How would that play? Your scripture is not fit for purpose in a socially just world. If this is the justice of your god, then it is decades overdue to retire.

You may conclude that but I do not share your conclusion. The wife as a helper can and does take many forms. A wife may play the traditional roll of the stay at home wife. Other wives may play the roll as the primary bread winner for the family. Some wives may be responsible for the budget while others prefer not to be responsible for it. The point is that a husband and wife work together whatever rolls they may take in a marriage.

Why was translation necessary? You know what poor translation can do to a message.

Translation is necessary because nobody speaks Aramaic or ancient Greek anymore. So it must be translated. And I know all to well what poor translations and agenda translations (such as the Gay Bible) can do to God's message. Which is why scripture should never be the only measure by which we judge things. This is why we need to seek a relationship to God through prayer.

Yes, the human rights of ordering the killing of the Amalekites, or flooding the earth and killing almost every inhabitant. Or vicarious punishment for crimes not committed by the punished. Brilliant human rights record, this god of yours.

There you go off to the Old Covenant again. Please check back when you get to the New Covenant.

I can see how much effort you put into maintaining your own 'faith'. Why does your god make it so difficult for you, or anyone? It's quite perverse, isn't it. God wants to be loved, indeed commands it on pain of punishment, but then makes it very difficult.

I find that my faith does not need maintenance. I find that I simply need to live that faith day to day. It is not a hard thing at all. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

But it doesn't look to me like you have ever considered what you lose by believing in a god the way you do. Tell me what I have to lose by believing in your god, since you mention it.

Eternity in God's Kingdom. But that means nothing to one who refuses the possibility of a soul.

So when you said 'unchanging standards', you didn't mean unchanging standards.

Stuart

THe rules by which we raise our children do not change as they grow but the way in which we enforce those rules does change.

 

[Stuu]

Incorrect, else you have it too by YOUR platitude.

I don't remember writing any platitudes. Everything I write has some real meaning, it's not just meant to sound impressive.

You are just in excusing mode and it shows. Frankly, the real answer from you is "I don't want to."

Don't want to do what?

Right, because YOU are in denial, Stuu. You are the odd-man-out, not me. Think about that a LOT longer. You already acquiesced there were things outside the material plain that exist. You are working on self-rationalization from faulty premises.

What is 'the material plain'?

Incorrect. Again, you are employing coping mechanism for things you "don't like." It has nothing to do with the reality of them. You simply "don't want."

I don't like the nasty world described in the Judeo-christian book of talking snakes, and I am glad it's not true.

My presence here is for 'your' good. I pray for you.

I would prefer you didn't, or at least don't tell me about it. As you might have heard, research on the effects of intercessory prayer show that heart surgery patients who know they are being prayed for are more likely to die of complications. And that would be really bizarre because I haven't had heart surgery.

YOU already acquiesced, logically, that things exist beyond this material universe. Einstein said so too. Hitchens and Hawking are beyond the material plain. Dawkins isn't far behind. Don't put all your eggs in poor baskets.

Perhaps get back to us on what the 'material plain' is, and then we will know what you mean by 'beyond it'.

Then you could tell us what the purpose of name-checking Einstein, Hitchens, Hawking and Dawkins was.

And if it turns out that none of that precludes the publication of a photograph of your god, then perhaps you could post that too.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Scripture was authored by God and transcribed by men.

Your god writes as if it is an ignorant ancient Palestinian. If it is omniscient then why didn't it include in there something useful that humans couldn't have known (or invented) in that time and place? Why didn't it tell us about the germ theory of disease? There are hand-washing rituals of course, but taken together they don't require you to wash your hands at specific times that would correlate to knowledge of bacteria. If there was a verse in there which became the origins of our modern knowledge of the causes of disease, you would seriously have my attention at this point. But there is nothing at all like that in scripture. By this assertion of authorship, your god appears locked in an ignorant age, with no more knowledge than the men who wrote it down. This is an ancient emperor that has no clothes.

It means that God is sovereign over His creation and can direct it at His will. Sometimes His interaction is in the form of a miracle, sometimes more subtle via mechanisms we are as of yet unfamiliar with.

And sometimes it is very judgmental and keen on some burning of its playthings, apparently in an angry, vengeful way, although a bit less today you say.

To some, it means nothing, others understand what I mean.

I tried out some of my own platitudes on christians a few years ago. 'Jesus is the salt in my coffee', that kind of thing. Some found them trivial and others were impressed at my depth. Not a very nice hobby to do that, of course, but it does highlight how trivially some people think through their beliefs if I can appear to have spiritual depth with a statement that is intentionally meaningless.

I believe that Moses saw the back of God. Others may have also seen the back of God. None may look on His face and live. Except Adam and Eve who walked in the garden with God.

I think the mods would be even less impressed with me if I asked for a photograph of your god's backside...but as you say, it's there in scripture, so I should be ok!

I have no doubt that you would love to see a picture of God. I have no doubt that seeing one would be of any good to you. Can you tell me what kind of camera would be needed to capture the image of an n+1 dimensional being?

You're telling the story, not me...

I don't believe that God kills you for seeing His face. I believe that you cannot live after seeing His face because the experience is more than our mortal form can withstand.

Come on, that's just bad storybook writing. Greek mythology is so much better than that. A woman with venomous snakes for hair will turn you to stone with one gaze at her face. That's more like it!

No. We are not God nor His Son so we do not have access to inner workings of the universe as they did. That said, the Apostles were able to heal as Jesus did so I believe that it is possible for us to do that. If we understand the nature of that healing.

Right, so the miracle of walking on water is too crazy for an engineering solution, and you would tell me that as your client. But you would pass on to any doctor friends that it would be worth them professionally researching 'apostolic healing'.

Again, not wanting to haunt you with the memory of the bells 'n' smells crowd, but it is they who have found what they think is an access point for divine healing (possibly a different mechanism from apostolic healing) at Lourdes in the South of France. You will have heard of it. Recently I saw a calculation (no link sorry) in which it was established that the rate of claimed remission of cancer in those who have visited Lourdes is actually less than the rate of spontaneous remission of cancer that is found in the general population. So it is safer not to go to Lourdes to seek a cure. And you might also have read (mentioned in my reply to Lon above) that in a major study a few years ago, intercessory prayer either had no effect or made things slightly worse, in the specific case of recovering heart surgery patients. So at this stage, investigations of divine intercession are breaking the Hippocratic Oath of first doing no harm. But maybe apostolic healing will prove to be different.

As Jesus was on his way, the crowds almost crushed him. 43 And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years,[c] but no one could heal her. 44 She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped.
45 “Who touched me?” Jesus asked.
When they all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you.”
46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me.”
47 Then the woman, seeing that she could not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet. In the presence of all the people, she told why she had touched him and how she had been instantly healed. 48 Then he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace.”

And you know how they achieve the same effect at faith healing shows in the megachurches?

Posting these verses puts into the room the elephant of establishing that you could know anything about what Jesus said or did through reading scripture. It is a matter of faith and not history that you read the words and deeds of Jesus, and it is a matter of faith that you read of real medical effects. No research funding should be provided on the basis of a faith claim about a faith claim.

But hey though, how about the televangelists spend their money on this research?

You see how ridiculous the whole proposition is?

I am banned from adultery. I am, or at least was, banned from fornication. Yes, sex is a HUGE perk to a heterosexual marriage. It is not given by God to be enjoyed by same sex couples. No man can have two masters.

Gay people are perfectly capable of physical expression of love. Why was that 'given' to them?

A soul is what sets us apart for the other great apes. A soul is why you and I are having this conversation instead of sitting in a zoo someplace.

Or up a tree in Indonesia. This thing you call a soul is a non-concept, invented and iterated by ignorant people as a great platitude. Humans anthropomorphise everything. And this is just another example. The psychology of cats is interpreted in terms of human wants and needs, but that's almost certainly not how cats think. Same with any other species. What are the properties of a living thing with a soul that are not properties of one without a soul? I'm going to guess: the soul gives you a way of interacting with a god, or Jesus in some special, moral way. It is another kind of magic of the biological world.

But Stuu, that's a circular argument, isn't it? Yes Stuu, I guess you are right: you have been given a soul to get you into the god club, which is the means by which you are granted a soul. I thought so, Stuu that's a crock of nonsense, isn't it. Yes, I guess so. It's like opening a bank account in the UK: you have to have letters from utility companies to establish your identity, but you don't have letters from utility companies because you don't have the bank account from which you could have paid any previous utility bills. That just sounds like madness, Stuu. Yes. Stuu, I guess it does.

Hey, maybe souls are subject to evolutionary selection pressure. Wouldn't that be interesting to research. Except, actually a soul is a platitude invented by the religious to make humans sound special. Not interesting to research. Dull nonsense, as it turns out.

Going through engineering school we learn a lot about how things interact. We learn of universal constants and how very carefully balanced the universe and its internal operations are. We study how things are connected and what had to come before something else. The more I studied engineering the more I came to understand that the universe looks and feels like a design than a roll of the dice. I appreciate the work of a good engineer.

I think you just want everything to be convenient, without really having to reconcile what we can know about the universe. Another celebration of ignorance, in other words. You know exactly how complexity arises in biological systems, but you want to have your 'designer' jammed in there as well. The two parts of your brain that don't speak of one another really make a mess of things here now that they have communicated by platitude. You don't need a god for biological complexity to arise, but you insert one anyway. You don't need a god to keep the universe ticking along, clearly things are headed in a disastrous direction for humans in the billions of years timescale, but of course we won't be like this at that point, if we survive to the collision with the Andromeda galaxy. And we have no idea why the Big Bang happened, although I think there are clues to that throughout spacetime, in the form of black holes, but anyway, inserting a god at the Big Bang doesn't change anything. It just might make you feel better about it.

Your argument is the well-know, and well-demolished argument from the appearance of design. Can't you see through that?

People think a lot of things about faith in God. They want to qualify and quantify it. They want to direct it and control it for others. They want to ignore and deny it. We are so busy trying to say what faith is and what it isn't that we forget that all we need to do is just experience it our life. It will manifest itself in each persons life differently and that is okay.

You seem to refer to scripture only when it suits you.

I don't understand why you think faith in someway interferes with engineering. It truly is a non-sequitur on your part.

You might remember that my original point was you have two parts of your brain that must stay apart, the bit that believes in miracles, and the bit that professionally cannot. Your replies have indicated that you do indeed keep those two parts of your brain separate, professionally. So we agree that faith doesn't get in the way of you being a competent engineer, because you exclude magical thinking from your work.

There is a technical part of engineering and a people part of engineering. I am on of a semi rare engineering type that can break technical concepts down in to layman terms to help my customers understand what we can and what we cannot do and why. My faith allows me to see ALL people as being valid of respect so I am able to deal with people respectfully. This was not a quality I possed to any great degree before I met God.

Is faith being able to communicate technical ideas to a non-specialist audience? Because you see all people as equal?? That is a valuable skill, but it is not exclusive to those who believe in invisible friends. And what about the women who are there as helpers? Are they equal enough to be allowed into your explanations?

You did say you can incorporate the commandments of Jesus. I gave you some examples, but you didn't address how you might do that specifically.

A swing and a miss. The question was not about what you would do for yourself, it was about what you would do for one that you loved. Note that I didn't say you could ask your loved one what they wanted, this is strictly a question about YOU.

Sorry, you have swung and missed, or played down the wrong line as we might say in the former British colonies. I specifically answered your point by telling you that it is not what I might do for other people that is the problem. That is not exclusive to christianity. What is excusive is the immoral proposition of removing responsibility.

I'm not closed to the possibility, I simply believe that the probability is zero.

Well a zero probability assessment is pretty much the definition of 'closed to the possibility'.
You will no doubt respect my position that the probability of your god existing is very close to zero. You will see that an assessment of the probability as not quite zero shows my position is not closed-minded.

You wont like this at all but I found it to be true. Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing. I don't believe in God because scripture says God exists, I believe that scripture is true because God does exist. I feel God's presence in my life every single day. Because I believe that God is real, I accept on faith that the scripture God authored for is true. That is something very few people ever seem to grasp. People thing that others believe in God because scripture says He does. That is not the case at all. Faith in God is the foundation upon which all else, including the truth of scripture, is built.

As a person with training in technical and scientific fields, you cannot have avoided learning about the way the human brain interprets its senses. It looks like you haven't really criticised why you feel a particular way. You know, for example, that your brain makes up most of what you see based on patterns it has learned. Although the whole rear part of your brain, about 30% of the whole, is devoted to vision, even that is not enough computing power to process all the information from the eyes in real time. Everything you think you know has arrived via your senses (unless you want to assert magical sensing), and most of it is interpreted in ways that would help your survival on the African Savannah. So, I think you should be very wary of how you 'feel' about things if you are really trying to get to understand how the world works.

It's your life, obviously, and it's none of my business what decisions you make about how you live it, but if you are serious about your feelings and the illusion of design being central to your belief that there is a divine conspiracy running the universe, then I think you should be demanding more of yourself than you are. You know how natural selection works, and you know how Big Bang cosmology, stellar nucleogenesis and planetary accretion work, well enough to be skilled at explaining such kinds of technical concept to lay people. So how have you managed to fall for the classic trap of the illusion of design, or the brain illusions that aided survival in Africa?

Translation is necessary because nobody speaks Aramaic or ancient Greek anymore. So it must be translated. And I know all to well what poor translations and agenda translations (such as the Gay Bible) can do to God's message. Which is why scripture should never be the only measure by which we judge things. This is why we need to seek a relationship to God through prayer.

And this is prayer during which you hope that your god will confirm your prejudice against the contents of the Gay Bible (what a bizarre concept, why not just reject the bible altogether if it is so ill-suited for humanity in all its orientations?). And you will hear it speaking to you, literally, or figuratively? And then how will you translate that yourself? And how will you know if that translation is accurate?

There you go off to the Old Covenant again. Please check back when you get to the New Covenant.

Well, happy for you to mention it. It is only with the arrival of sweet baby Jesus that we learn of eternal punishment in hell. That doesn't exist in the Jewish bible. So the vicarious punishment for crimes not committed is the 'New Covenant'.

I find that my faith does not need maintenance. I find that I simply need to live that faith day to day. It is not a hard thing at all. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Sorry to say that I think this is consistent with the amount of critical thought you say you have applied to what you believe. You have reached up from depravity (your word) and found something to hold onto. But it's a comfortable thing, not to be questioned. I couldn't live that way. I'd rather have discomfort and a worldview that is based on things that can reasonably be said to be true.

But it doesn't look to me like you have ever considered what you lose by believing in a god the way you do. Tell me what I have to lose by believing in your god, since you mention it.
Eternity in God's Kingdom. But that means nothing to one who refuses the possibility of a soul.

Can I ask again? " Tell me what I have to lose by believing in your god, since you said that Pascal's Wager tells me I have more to gain than to lose by god belief.

THe rules by which we raise our children do not change as they grow but the way in which we enforce those rules does change.

You've lost me there. Is that supposed to be some kind of analogy for your god's changing unchangability?

Stuart

 

[everready]

I got into a discussion about young Earth creationism recently. My position was that YECism is completely debunked because it is obvious that there are objects in the night sky that are much older than 6,000 years. For instance, the galaxy Andromeda is roughly 2.5 million light years away. That means that when we look at Andromeda, we don't see it as it is today. We see what it looked like two-and-a-half million years ago. (It takes the light from that galaxy that long to reach us.)

My friend, who is a Christian (but not a YEC) agreed with me, but introduced me to a bit of apologetics that says this: just as God made Adam in a mature state, so too he made the cosmos appear mature. I guess this works, but it sounds a little bit like squaring the circle. After all, in doing this, God has given anyone with a telescope very good reason to doubt the literal accounts in Genesis. My friend even added a nice counter argument along this same vein: we can see stars that are much farther than 6,000 light years years away enter their dying phase. By creationist logic, when we see this, we are in fact seeing stars die that were never born in the first place. That makes no sense!

Unless you are going to see God as a cosmic practical joker, the "mature universe" apologetics are not very plausible. But my reason for starting this thread wasn't just to push that point. My question is for YECs: Isn't it reasonable for a person to conclude that the universe is older than 6,000 years? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that it is. Can you really fault anyone for coming to that very sensible conclusion? After all, even if the accounts in Genesis ARE literally true, God went through a lot of trouble to make it look otherwise. Whether it turns out to be true or not, isn't it reasonable to doubt young earth creationism?

Sin causes aging..we all die

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

everready

 

[eleos]

I got into a discussion about young Earth creationism recently. My position was that YECism is completely debunked because it is obvious that there are objects in the night sky that are much older than 6,000 years. For instance, the galaxy Andromeda is roughly 2.5 million light years away. That means that when we look at Andromeda, we don't see it as it is today. We see what it looked like two-and-a-half million years ago. (It takes the light from that galaxy that long to reach us.)

My friend, who is a Christian (but not a YEC) agreed with me, but introduced me to a bit of apologetics that says this: just as God made Adam in a mature state, so too he made the cosmos appear mature. I guess this works, but it sounds a little bit like squaring the circle. After all, in doing this, God has given anyone with a telescope very good reason to doubt the literal accounts in Genesis. My friend even added a nice counter argument along this same vein: we can see stars that are much farther than 6,000 light years years away enter their dying phase. By creationist logic, when we see this, we are in fact seeing stars die that were never born in the first place. That makes no sense!

Unless you are going to see God as a cosmic practical joker, the "mature universe" apologetics are not very plausible. But my reason for starting this thread wasn't just to push that point. My question is for YECs: Isn't it reasonable for a person to conclude that the universe is older than 6,000 years? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that it is. Can you really fault anyone for coming to that very sensible conclusion? After all, even if the accounts in Genesis ARE literally true, God went through a lot of trouble to make it look otherwise. Whether it turns out to be true or not, isn't it reasonable to doubt young earth creationism?

***

"God went through a lot of trouble to make it look otherwise"

God doesn't experience "trouble". How is it that mankind thinks he can know and understand the ways of God in regard to creating the heavens and the earth? We are talking about the supreme deity that speaks things into existence. No way we can wrap our little minds around that really.

Could it be mankind is mis-interpreting through science? Could it be "heavens" are being mis-interpreted in the Bible? One thing that is a consistent belief between the two is that in the very beginning "bang" it happened. Was that "bang" the spoken word of God? Or was that bang from what else? Lots of theories about that and no way to prove either scientifically.

1 Kings 8

27“But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you.

Heavens .... is there more than one heaven? Perhaps the highest heaven is the cosmos .... and the other "heaven" is the earths atmosphere? In that context then it is certainly possible that the earths "heaven" was created in one day.

Revelation 21:1 Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the ...
Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first
earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. ...

Refers to "earths" heaven. Doesn't talk about the entire cosmos.

Personally I believe this is the case ... the "cosmic" heavens (highest heavens)are different from the "earths" heaven. The earth and it's heaven was created in 7 days. The cosmic heavens .... who knows?

 

[George Affleck]

But it doesn't look to me like you have ever considered what you lose by believing in a god the way you do. Tell me what I have to lose by believing in your god, since you mention it.

Foolishness for one thing.
You are a fool.

You don't even realize that your belief system depends on believers.
We are your bread and butter my friend.
Without us, you'd be out of a job.

Atheism depends on theism. Without it, you don't have anything to talk about.
You wouldn't be able to go into your rants and tirades.
You should be nicer to us really.

Imagine a world without believers!
You'd be telling a friend how awful believing in God is and they would be like...

"But Stuu. They are all gone. They don't exist anymore. We can't be atheists because there is nothing to be "a" about."

And you would be like...
"Oh ya, but let me tell you how bad they were."

And they would be like...

Well, you get the picture.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Stuu

When will he learn?

Oh, that's right. He doesn't want to.

 

[Stripe]

So, back on topic: Vulcan has long gone, but raised an interesting issue. Is it reasonable to doubt YEC?

The answer is yes. Doubt is what scientists should have for their theory. This is something that Darwinists have long forgotten.

 

[6days]

The earth and it's heaven was created in 7 days. The cosmic heavens .... who knows?

"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" Ex. 20:11 Why reject what seems the obvious intention of the author; thatGod created everything in six days?
There are various ways in Scripture we know that day 1 was an absolute beginning. There was no pre-existing universe. One way we know this is from the way 'ordinal' and 'cardinal' numbers are used in the creation account.
I'm going to use Young's Literal Translation to show this, since most translations don't properly reflect an important nuance.
Genesis 1
8 ...."day second"
13 .... "day third"
19 .... "day fourth"
23 ...."day fifth"
31 ... "day the sixth"
In the Hebrew, these are called 'ordinal'numbers.

But... Why is Day 1 not an ordinal number...IE. Why doesn't the Hebrew call it 'the first day'?
Again Youngs Literal translation says this...
Genesis 1:5 "and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one."

"Day one"... not, 'first day'. This is significant because it is now a 'cardinal' number in the Hebrew.
There was no other days before this time. The purposeful use of a cardinal number for "day one" shows that this was the absolute beginning, other than God Himself.

 

[chair]

YEC can be always successfully defended, using the same methods used to defend flat-earth-ism