The atheist response to the text of the Bible is based primarily upon the young earth creationist interpretation, which is flawed. If I put myself objectively in the position of the atheist attempting to debunk the Bible I would start with Genesis Chapter 1. The Chapter passed the inspection of this former atheist.

The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

What this means is that the creation was complete even before the six "days" of creation even began, in fact, later verses in the chapter reveal it was more than likely a long time in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Views: 4243

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Wait, I have a problem at the 3rd word. Have we established that there was a beginning?

It appears he was given a free pass at the third word, but lets hold our horses, he should provide evidence for the fourth word and then we are game

To Marc and Onyango,

Seriously? I hate to do this and normally I wouldn't. If you don't want to or have the time to read the links I provide I understand, but I offer them none the less.

Food for thought.

Proof That God Exists


Evidence For God's Existence

To me, these efforts don't do much. I honestly don't think I think or ever thought of this subject like you do. Certainly not from a scientific standpoint.


You are doing poorly and I know why you are avoiding the question. I have looked at the first link and it is a rewriting of Kalam Cosmological Argument , WLC favourite argument. 

Gen 1:1 makes two positive claims, one there was a beginning and two there is a god. This is what we are asking you to do, since to the best of my ability there was no memo, you started this blog without any prompt from us, you have to present the evidence then we will continue to Gen 1:2.

Is this simple enough for you to understand or how I may to make it any clearer?

That first link is too much for my influenza-addled brain to go through completely.  It lost me when it gave me two imperfect choices, presented out of context and without the qualifiers they must have.  That is not proof - it is word games, trickery that might work with unarmed minds, but not with mine.

RE: "my influenza-addled brain" - have some twizzlers and a beer, you'll be good as new in no time!

Is that the solution?  I've been praying for relief, even thinking of offering my first-born as a sacrifice - the smell pleases the Lord, you know.  All I have to do is have Twizzlers and beer?  Geez..  I had sour cherry gummy things,  smooth minty nonpareils, and sweet tarts, as well as orange juice, but nothing helped.  Ok, back to the candy store...

Food for thought. Proof That God Exists

This is the "Divine Command Theory" (DCT) which states that our senses of right and wrong (and sometimes beauty and ugliness) MUST have come from God. It fails on two levels.

DCT is an 'argument from ignorance' fallacy. The theist tactic is (1) get you to acknowledge ignorance, and (2) pin God to that ignorance. It goes like this:

1. Crackpot: How did life arise on earth?
2. Me: That's one of the most difficult questions in science. It's never been fully explained.
3. Crackpot: (Triumphantly) See? God MUST have done it! It's the ONLY explanation! 

Note the theist can substitute almost any question in #1. Where did the universe come from? How does human consciousness work? Why are there "gaps" in the fossil record? How did my cousin survive terminal colon cancer? 

For the theist, actual ignorance works best. But willful ignorance will do. For instance, the theist may be genuinely unaware of the evidence for evolution. Or he may be fully aware, but denies and refuses to become informed by it.     

No matter the question, the answer in this situation is the same:

4. You: Why must it have a supernatural explanation? Why can't it have a natural explanation we don't understand yet?  (Before science discovers how it works, it's God. Once sciences discovers how it works, God vanishes. History has countless examples, including; earthquakes, disease, ocean tides, fire, lightning, fertility, and meteorites. Not once in millions of investigations has the supernatural ever been the explanation for ANYTHING.)

The ignorance used in the DCT: Human altruistic behavior has been explained. Humans who cooperate and help each other have a better chance of survival. Likewise, concepts of disgust and beauty are survival mechanisms: seek healthy things and friendly environments, and avoid unhealthy things and unfriendly environments. This is a result of evolution and selection pressure: a natural process, not a supernatural one. 

Evidence For God's Existence

This is another red herring. Details forthcoming...

To me, these efforts don't do much. I honestly don't think I think or ever thought of this subject like you do. Certainly not from a scientific standpoint.

It's never too late to start thinking, David.

"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on."

-- Neil Degrasse Tyson --

Really? David? That's all you have?

That just sucked even the very little bit of fun we were having here out of it for me.

Wait, when the 'molesting children for fun question' came up, I did spit coffee out of mt nose, which was fun. However, cleaning up the mess was quite an involved task.

From your second link:

"Let me explain each of these. One year my wife and I drove from Los Angeles to Rhode Island. It took a long time. The country is pretty big. From this observation it makes sense to think that if there is some person or being who is responsible for making the physical universe, this being has a lot more power than we do."

WTF?!! Your Greg Ganssle, Ph-freakin'-D, appears to leap to tall conclusions in a single bound! When I think of the immense size of the Earth (as compared to my own), I envision all of those tiny specks of matter - dust, metal molecules, tiny rocks, swirling in orbit around the sun, all coalescing under the force of gravitational attraction over eons, to finally form the spheroid we live on, but from a single, cross-country trip, Ganssle (PhD!) instantly concluded, "Goddidit!" Now THERE's the scientific mind at work! I'd hang on his every word --

Also, he trots out the tired, old "First Cause" fallacy - one thing I noticed, he didn't allow for comments. What does that tell you?

Arch beat me to it. And he's right.

it makes sense to think that if there is some person or being who is responsible for making the physical universe

"First Cause" makes no sense at all.

Crackpot: Nothing comes from nothing! The universe exists so it HAD to have a creator! 
Me: Then what created God? If God exists, according to you, he had to have a creator. Did God have a God have a God...? 
Crackpot: (Enraged) This shit is God! (Storms out.) 

The prospect of the earth sitting atop a stack of infinite turtles comes to mind, only now it's the universe sitting atop of stack of infinite gods.


© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service