In the Beginning...

[onejayhawk]

I am not sure that God needs or maintains free will. Not sure how we arrived at the same point as the other thread. It would seem that God allowed for choice instead of earth being a perfect place with no sin or consequences. From the narrative, that is how earth was before the point of sin, which brought upon the whole of creation the ability to decay and life became destructive. Humans had to work at being perfect and free from the results of such a state. The failed state was not the result of a failed creation, but it was the result of a human who decided that knowing good and evil was better than living in a boring perfect pain and disease free life.

"Free will" is a bit off. Luther wrote a long work the subject, largely to refute Erasmus, which was no small challenge. His term is usually translated as bound will. Perhaps hobbled will would convey things more clearly. In effect, some choice is allowed, but not all choices.

One thing that is generally neglected is the third party to all this--the Adversary. One cannot intelligently discuss will without also discussing temptation and the tempter. Sin does not exist in a vacuum. It is a choice between God and Satan. Typically, this is cast as a choice between selfish desire and selfless service.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

A few months back was reading the creation narrative to my sons (ages 5 and 4). First day went over fine, second day, fine third day, fine...

But when I got to the fourth day, the wheels fell off. As I read:

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night and the stars also"

The 5 year old interrupts me and says "Daddy, the greater light is the sun right?"
"Yes buddy"
"And Daddy the lesser light is the moon right?"
"That's right"
"But daddy the moon isn't a light, its just a rock that reflects the sun's light, right?"
"Yes buddy that's exactly right"
"And in a Solar system the star comes first, then the planets form around it from the gravity right Daddy?"
"Yes buddy, that's right too."
"And our sun is a star right Daddy?"
"Umm Hmm"
"And the light from daytime comes from the sun right Daddy?"
"Yes that is right"
"So how can God make there be light on the first day, but he didn't make the sun until the fourth day?"...

So proud of that boy... I almost cried right then. I never could have reasoned that out when I was his age.

So I just told him "Son, this is just a story. The stuff in this book are just stories, they don't all have to make sense."

"Oh OK Daddy! What happens next?!"

Incidentally, a relative who is in a devout Christian denomination became very upset when she heard I told my son this and gave me a lecture about the scientific accuracy of the bible ... complete with links to "sources" which of course were articles published by her religion's corporate headquarters...

 

[El_Machinae]

From my understanding only God knows what is perfect and what isn't, and always chooses the perfect choice. Meaning the moral/godly/whatever choice.

But he makes decisions, right? A God that doesn't make decisions and is just an automated robot doesn't make any sense to me.

But again, that presumes that there's more than one perfect choice. If a god always chooses the perfect choice, by definition, then is there really a choice?

 

[warpus]

If God is all-powerful then he is capable of choosing an action which is not the perfect one.

But he does not do that, he chooses one that is perfect. (Presumably). This to me implies that God has the capability to make decisions. Otherwise God would just be a machine, and I don't think Christians worship an automaton. They worship a creature capable of performing almost any thing you can think of.

 

[onejayhawk]

But again, that presumes that there's more than one perfect choice. If a god always chooses the perfect choice, by definition, then is there really a choice?

That whole line of thinking is dicey. For example, how do deal with preferences when everything is perfect? Also, you presume to understand the basis of evaluation which is not the case. Leave it as a higher level decision, for which you have neither sufficient knowledge nor competence.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

All presumptions about gods are dicey.

 

[warpus]

But if we couldn't presume things about Gods, we could never discuss anything about them So we presume and we discuss.

Personally I think that the "paradox"/issue/discussion point of a God being perfect and not having/having/? free will is explored in an interesting way in the Dune series. It's sort of one of the threads that runs through the entire original series.

 

[Arakhor]

Of course, the nature of evil doesn't necessarily require an Adversary figure.

 

[Berzerker]

Or, you know, that it's just a story and shouldn't be taken literally.

I dont believe it should be read literally nor is it to be taken as fiction.

Or he created it without form, and then formed it later.

how does one create dry land without form and what happened to form it later?

it was revealed, not formed... The water receded into "Seas" exposing the dry land (Earth)

But when I got to the fourth day, the wheels fell off. As I read: The 5 year old interrupts me and says "Daddy, the greater light is the sun right?"
"Yes buddy" "And Daddy the lesser light is the moon right?" "That's right" "But daddy the moon isn't a light, its just a rock that reflects the sun's light, right?" "Yes buddy that's exactly right"
"And in a Solar system the star comes first, then the planets form around it from the gravity right Daddy?" "Yes buddy, that's right too." "And our sun is a star right Daddy?" "Umm Hmm"
"And the light from daytime comes from the sun right Daddy?" "Yes that is right" "So how can God make there be light on the first day, but he didn't make the sun until the fourth day?"...

So I just told him "Son, this is just a story. The stuff in this book are just stories, they don't all have to make sense."

God made the two great lights rule over Earth's sky... The Earth was not earth until the 3rd day. Genesis is not describing the universe, or our galaxy or even this solar system - its describing Earth and its sky. Does the sun cease to exist if the Earth (dry land) is covered by water? No, neither does the sun rule over Earth's sky if there is no earth (dry land).

So the 1st day saw the separation of darkness and light and that was the 1st day. Days are the product of spinning near a star. The dark, water covered world of Gen 1:2 was given rotation near (closer to) the sun in Gen 1:3. But the Earth was still not dry, it remained submerged until the 3rd day. Thats why a description of Earth's sky starts on the 4th day...

 

[abradley]

@abradley: I don't see what's difficult to understand about my posts. If I'm to take religious people at their word and assume that humans were created by God, I have to say I'm really not impressed. It's very shoddy workmanship and unethical to deliberately create beings who malfunction as easily as humans do. Note that I'm talking about biology, not "free will." Although some of that doesn't work too well, either, since some people are determined to do destructive, selfish things instead of constructive, helpful things.


Yes, thank you, I know to whom you were replying. I noticed that.


See above.

Thank you for the clarification, but I don't understand why you posted:

Originally Posted by Valka D'Ur View Post
I don't care about giving and taking away. I'm talking about deliberately designing things that don't work properly, and refusing to fix them when they're discovered to not work properly. It's unethical in business, and unethical in designing lifeforms. If your god worked for me and did shoddy work like this, he'd get fired thisfast.

Why bring God into it since you don't believe he exists? Since you brought up God, shoddy work, and fire him. I felt God deserved an explanation which is 'Free Will' vs being robots.

If you don't want to talk about God don't bring him up. Simple.

 

[Sommerswerd]

God made the two great lights rule over Earth's sky... The Earth was not earth until the 3rd day. Genesis is not describing the universe, or our galaxy or even this solar system - its describing Earth and its sky. Does the sun cease to exist if the Earth (dry land) is covered by water? No, neither does the sun rule over Earth's sky if there is no earth (dry land).

So the 1st day saw the separation of darkness and light and that was the 1st day. Days are the product of spinning near a star. The dark, water covered world of Gen 1:2 was given rotation near (closer to) the sun in Gen 1:3. But the Earth was still not dry, it remained submerged until the 3rd day. Thats why a description of Earth's sky starts on the 4th day...

Yep, my fundamentalist relative already explained all this to me... It makes even less sense now that I am hearing again from you, which I didn't think was possible... It's not a "day" or "night" because the Earth was covered with water?? Please... It's not "Earth" yet because there's no "dry land??" Puh-leese... Who do you think you're talking to? A five year old?

I am reluctant to even go down this path... but as any CIV Player worth his salt knows, Genesis 1:1-2 says *Leonard Nimoy Voice*:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now THE EARTH was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

So the very first verses of the Bible completely debunk your "It wasn't Earth until the dry land appeared" stuff...

As I have already explained to you, even my 6 year old could debunk such. The days when you can twist and turn to concoct some explanation to try to force the Bible to be "accurate" ... and have people buy it, are over. The only people who buy it are the already converted, because they have no choice but to buy it.

I have another explanation that is much more plausible. The person who wrote Genesis had no understanding of the universe, and to him, the tiny little dots in the sky were just that... tiny little dots. The big bright lights in the sky were... well, big bright lights in the sky. That's all it is. Its just a story to explain the world, written by a man who had no understanding of the world beyond the knowledge available in his time... Even my 6 year old gets it.

 

[Berzerker]

Yep, my fundamentalist relative already explained all this to me... It makes even less sense now that I am hearing again from you, which I didn't think was possible... It's not a "day" or "night" because the Earth was covered with water?? Please... It's not "Earth" yet because there's no "dry land??" Puh-leese... Who do you think you're talking to? A five year old?

I dont want fundamentalists to get the blame for this interpretation, they dont accept it either.

'In the beginning' refers to the creation of Heaven and Earth. We need to define these terms to understand when that beginning happened and what if anything preceded it. Thankfully, Genesis does it for us. God told us what they are and even named them.

The Earth is the name God gave the dry land revealed on the 3rd day. Thats why the lights in the Earth's sky are not described until the 4th day - there was no Earth's sky before the 3rd day because the Earth (dry land) was submerged. Notice how the waters were gathered together to form seas thereby exposing the land? God didn't create the water, it was here before God. And all God did to "create" the Earth (dry land) was expose it.

So what was Heaven? It appears on the 2nd day...

Whoa! The Earth is created on the 3rd day and Heaven on the 2nd day? How can "in the beginning" refer to time when the 1st day already happened before Heaven and Earth appear?

Heaven is something firm, hence the firmament. Middle Eastern texts describe it as a hammered bracelet, a chunk of metal heated and pounded out to form a ring. This Heaven was placed amidst the water to divide the water above from the water below. Clearly Heaven cannot be the universe, it came after the water.

I am reluctant to even go down this path... but as any CIV Player worth his salt knows, Genesis 1:1-2 says *Leonard Nimoy Voice*: So the very first verses of the Bible completely debunk your "It wasn't Earth until the dry land appeared" stuff...

Earth was the dry land, thats the name God gave the land when it was revealed by the receding waters on the 3rd day. Thats why the Earth exists in Gen 1:2 but without form and void, it was covered by the deep (ocean) - it wasn't dry land yet.

As I have already explained to you, even my 6 year old could debunk such. The days when you can twist and turn to concoct some explanation to try to force the Bible to be "accurate" ... and have people buy it, are over. The only people who buy it are the already converted, because they have no choice but to buy it.

You were a busy man a few years ago, 3 kids in 3 years? Let them read my explanation, maybe they'll see what I'm talking about.

I have another explanation that is much more plausible. The person who wrote Genesis had no understanding of the universe, and to him, the tiny little dots in the sky were just that... tiny little dots. The big bright lights in the sky were... well, big bright lights in the sky. That's all it is. Its just a story to explain the world, written by a man who had no understanding of the world beyond the knowledge available in his time... Even my 6 year old gets it.

Genesis (and most of the world's creation myths) describes a primordial world covered by water before land and life appeared. Plate tectonics started maybe 3.9-4.1 bya and life began ~3.8 bya following what researchers call the late heavy bombardment. If that world before plate tectonics and life was covered by water, then Genesis is correct. A primordial world covered by water preceded the dry land and life.

 

[Arakhor]

So, what do you think this thread will solve that your other threads didn't, Berzerker?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

A few months back was reading the creation narrative to my sons (ages 5 and 4). First day went over fine, second day, fine third day, fine...

But when I got to the fourth day, the wheels fell off. As I read: The 5 year old interrupts me and says "Daddy, the greater light is the sun right?"
"Yes buddy"
"And Daddy the lesser light is the moon right?"
"That's right"
"But daddy the moon isn't a light, its just a rock that reflects the sun's light, right?"
"Yes buddy that's exactly right"
"And in a Solar system the star comes first, then the planets form around it from the gravity right Daddy?"
"Yes buddy, that's right too."
"And our sun is a star right Daddy?"
"Umm Hmm"
"And the light from daytime comes from the sun right Daddy?"
"Yes that is right"
"So how can God make there be light on the first day, but he didn't make the sun until the fourth day?"...

So proud of that boy... I almost cried right then. I never could have reasoned that out when I was his age.

So I just told him "Son, this is just a story. The stuff in this book are just stories, they don't all have to make sense."

"Oh OK Daddy! What happens next?!"

Incidentally, a relative who is in a devout Christian denomination became very upset when she heard I told my son this and gave me a lecture about the scientific accuracy of the bible ... complete with links to "sources" which of course were articles published by her religion's corporate headquarters...

Your 5-year-old is a smart kid.

Thank you for the clarification, but I don't understand why you posted:
Why bring God into it since you don't believe he exists? Since you brought up God, shoddy work, and fire him. I felt God deserved an explanation which is 'Free Will' vs being robots.

If you don't want to talk about God don't bring him up. Simple.

I don't believe Santa Claus exists either, but I still talk about him. I talk about lots of fictitious characters.

Free will has NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. You say your God created humans? I say your God did a lousy job. If your God worked for me and did such a lousy job, I'd fire him.

No, I'm not talking about robots. I'm talking about biological human beings.

What is so hard to understand about this?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I dont want fundamentalists to get the blame for this interpretation, they dont accept it either.

Then why are you trying to get non-fundamentalists to buy it? If you can't even get fundamentalists who are obligated to accept pretzel-twisty reasoning to get the Bible to be "accurate" to accept your explanation, then why would you bother trying to pass off stuff to non-fundamentalists that even fundamentalists reject?

You were a busy man a few years ago, 3 kids in 3 years? Let them read my explanation, maybe they'll see what I'm talking about.

Already have... The 6 year old made a face like this ... and the 4 year old laughed hysterically and said "Daddy that doesn't make any sense!"... Then the 6 year old laughed and said "Yeah Daddy that's silly!"... Keep in mind that these kids love the Bible and ask me to read them Bible stories every night. Not exactly a tough audience... It's just nonsense, and so much so, that even a 4 year old rejects it out of hand. I'm thinking that you may have put a lot of thought into this explanation, and it probably made sense in your mind when you came up with it, but its just not good. Let it go and come up with something else. Not every idea we come up with is good. Sometimes you have to accept that and move on.

And my boys are 6 and 4 now, but the 6 year old was 5 when I first read him the creation story.

 

[Berzerker]

So, what do you think this thread will solve that your other threads didn't, Berzerker?

I was hoping for answers to my questions

Then why are you trying to get non-fundamentalists to buy it?

I'm asking people who believe the Bible to explain how time (and the universe) began with creation when Heaven and Earth appear in the story after the 1st day. I wasn't asking non-believers...

If you can't even get fundamentalists who are obligated to accept pretzel-twisty reasoning to get the Bible to be "accurate" to accept your explanation, then why would you bother trying to pass off stuff to non-fundamentalists that even fundamentalists reject? Already have... The 6 year old made a face like this ... and the 4 year old laughed hysterically and said "Daddy that doesn't make any sense!"... Then the 6 year old laughed and said "Yeah Daddy that's silly!"... Keep in mind that these kids love the Bible and ask me to read them Bible stories every night. Not exactly a tough audience... It's just nonsense, and so much so, that even a 4 year old rejects it out of hand. I'm thinking that you may have put a lot of thought into this explanation, and it probably made sense in your mind when you came up with it, but its just not good. Let it go and come up with something else. Not every idea we come up with is good. Sometimes you have to accept that and move on.

what doesn't make any sense?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am not a fan of string theory. If there are real things that cannot be observed (measured/interacted with), doesn't that open the door for magic and other not very scientific phenomenon?

No, one does not follow from the other.

If something cannot be measured, is it/can it be part of the physical universe?

If the inability is due to our own physical limitations, definitely.

If it can't in principle be measured, I'm not sure. What does something that can't be measured in principle yet is still part of the physical universe look like (conceptually) though? Why should we believe it exists relative to any other thing we can't observe?

Is part of the problem, humans want to put God into a religious "box" instead of viewing God as a scientist?

Why God instead of the Troglodyte or superhuman illuminati? We can put any word we want there without changing our model of how things worked or will work.

God gets put in the "religious box" because that's where the concept belongs, alongside other things with widespread belief but scant evidence to support it, the former being what separates it from the "cult box".

I remember when my mother finally started coming clean with all the ways she'd tapdanced around the truth when I was younger. All it did was make me wonder what else she'd lied about.

And in what other ways our trusted figures are fallible (and how likely it is we're wrong too). I'm still not sure how I'll handle Christmas type stuff if I ever have kids, but I'll probably refuse to tell them either the truth or the lie, put the presents there all the same, and tell them that it's up to them to figure out the correct belief and why they believe it. That would be a fun exercise.

Surely the Christian God has free will. Otherwise he would he make decisions?

The conceptualization of "free will" is weak enough when we merely apply it to people, rather than theoretical beings that conform to moving target motivations without evidence.

How do you even measure "free will" against "electric signals and chemicals operating faster than we can measure/perceive"? What are the differences between the two? How would you expect a person to choose an action differently if you believed one vs the other? Why even bother talking about free will vs free yuingots in this case?

That said, on the topic of God/gods, I find them way more compelling in obviously fictional stories. An over-zealous character can annoy me, but when said character can literally walk up to his god and talk to the being, or characters in that world can observe literal and sometimes devastating actions, I have to remind myself that said over-zealous character has *very* good evidence for his beliefs. Wrath has a whole new meaning when the death beam really does fry the village.

 

[Sommerswerd]

what doesn't make any sense?

The interpretation of Genesis you offered.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The interpretation of Genesis you offered.

Why are we even considering it? Was the big bang caused by fruit flies? I mean really special fruit flies. In the beginning there was fruit flies?

It's a tongue-in-cheek question but the implication should be obvious; we don't have evidence that leads us to assign it significant attention. If I wrote an alternative story about superpowers and origin of everything the main difference between that and Genesis would be how many people read/believe it, but in practical terms they would be identically falsifiable.

 

[Berzerker]

The interpretation of Genesis you offered.

You'll have to be specific, so far you complained about the Earth not being the Earth (or something to that effect).

I agree Genesis can be confusing, I spent decades believing the Earth was this planet so how could the Sun appear on the 4th day?

But Genesis defines the Earth, God called the dry land Earth, not this planet. And where was this dry land before the 3rd day? It was under water, ie it wasn't dry land yet.

The problem arises from the common belief Genesis supposedly describes the creation of the universe, so how could a water covered "Earth" in darkness precede both God and creation? And yet the authors of Genesis told us that primordial world was here first and God arrived later to create the dry land.

Again, the lights in Earth's sky already existed before creation... But the Earth did not. The dry land appeared on the 3rd day, thats why the lights in the sky over that dry land appear on the 4th day. Genesis is not telling us when the Sun was made, its telling us when that sun was appointed to rule over the Earth and its sky.

This thread was to discuss Genesis with "fundamentalists", I dont know how or why you thought I was asking people who reject the story to tell me they reject the story. I'm asking the people who believe Genesis to explain how in the beginning refers to the universe when both Heaven and Earth (in the beginning of what?) followed the 1st day of creation.