A God thought experiment

NotReady · #1 07-15-2007, 12:06 AM

How would God describe creation that would please all people for all history?

Suppose He put the actual ages in the text, then:

Suppose the universe is really 25by and the earth is 12by - who, since Adam up til now, would believe the Bible without question?

Suppose the universe is really 1by and the earth is 10ky - who today that doesn't already believe would?

Suppose the universe and earth are the ages we say - there are scientists today who think it has no beginning, and many more before the 1950's. Interestingly enough, one of the theological hot topics of the middle ages was just that question - eternal or a beginning.

Suppose human evolution is true - who before Darwin would have believed it?

Suppose human evolution isn't true - well, you know the answer to that.

If God wanted to give a complete and technical scientific explanation of everything who before the 20th century would understand? For that matter, are we sure we would understand? So faith would still be required.

My central point is that God stated what happened in language accessible to all people for all times - non-technical, non-scientific, but true, and there is no way He could say it that wouldn't appear incredible to most people throughout history. Even before she sinned Eve misinterpred and misapplied God's Word on a command that was so simple a 2 year old could understand it. Even she needed faith, on a very simple matter, in pefect conditions, with no sin nature.

God didn't tell Adam the names of the animals. He left that to man. He made man to rule over the earth, to tend it and to do science. He told us in His Word what we need to know of His will, just as He told Adam and Eve, and He leaves to us the job and pleasure of discovering the beauty and brilliance of His design.

I don't think it's necessary or desirable to try to reconcile the Bible with science. Which science do we choose to make the reconciliation? Even today there is no complete concensus on any but the most trivial scientific issues. Who do we try to please? Don't even think about trying to reconcile science and the Bible throughout history. We would be taking as many contradictory positions as science. Galileo wasn't opposing Scripture. He was opposing what was then modern science. The church had bought into that science and got egg on its face. Not because of what's in the Bible, but because of modern science.

There are at least 12 different ways to interpret Genesis 1-3 from an old earth perspective. Only 1 or 2 are what could be called truly allegorical. The rest are literal but differ on what "day" means. The overall point is that God used language that is plain and obvious at one level - He created - and the important stuff requires little interpretation - but also the language is non-technical so that interpretation is needed to try to understand how today's science fits God's eternal Word. And that interpretation will necessarily change as man's knowledge changes - it could have been no other way, given progress in man's knowledge.

vhawk01 · #2 07-15-2007, 12:14 AM

This question all sort of relies on some shaky premises, and some stuff that needs clarification. If God had revealed to us that the Earth was really billions of years old, and the universe much older than that, he would have necessarily had to be giving people information they had never had before. Is this something you are comfortable with God doing?

If the answer is yes (and I think it probably HAS to be, but you may differ) then the real question is why didn't God reveal everything and explain it in such a way that everyone would pretty much believe it? Rather than just SAYING the Earth was billions of years old, surely he could have demonstrated it, and explained why he thought so, and explained how we could test it to see if he was lying. Your question would never come up. Sure, some would still disagree, but any honest, intelligent person would be able to follow God's reasoning, or test for himself if he still doubted.

I'm also a little skeptical of the implication here, that God deliberately lied because the people were so stupid they wouldn't believe the truth. Also, that God didn't have the foresight to understand that we'd eventually be smart enough to get it. Why were the ignorant Jews a more important audience than, for example, myself?

NotReady · #3 07-15-2007, 12:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]

that God deliberately lied

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't lie.

[ QUOTE ]

Why were the ignorant Jews a more important audience than, for example, myself?

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the guy 200 years from now who knows 10 times what you know?

I don't deny God could have taught man all science from the beginning. If that wasn't His purpose (remember, He told Adam to name the animals - Adam was the first scientist), then He needs to speak to all sinners for all history in a language that all can understand - if they are genuinely seeking truth.

David Sklansky · #4 07-15-2007, 12:21 AM

If God is deliberately a little bit vague about scientific stuff then he is probably also a little bit vague about other stuff. And if pinninng him down about scientific stuff is wrong, then why isn't it wrong to try to pin him down about other stuff like this fellow Calvin apparently tried to?

NotReady · #5 07-15-2007, 12:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]

If God is deliberately a little bit vague about scientific stuff then he is probably also a little bit vague about other stuff. And if pinninng him down about scientific stuff is wrong, then why isn't it wrong to try to pin him down about other stuff like this fellow Calvin apparently tried to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because He wanted us to do science but also wanted us to know about Him, us and salvation. You can be wrong about science with generally no negative effect - not so when it comes to His will for your life and your eternal fate.

chezlaw · #6 07-15-2007, 12:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
He leaves to us the job and pleasure of discovering the beauty and brilliance of His design.

[/ QUOTE ]
absolutely consistent with science and the Newtonian Church of England mantra. Yet so may religous folk are so anti the science.

The catholics, the Jews, CofE and no doubt others subscribe to this message. Scientists and atheists have no problem with it.

When will the rest join?

chez

NotReady · #7 07-15-2007, 01:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Yet so may religous folk are so anti the science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most are really only anti-evolution and anti-old - neither position really affects life or science much.

[ QUOTE ]

When will the rest join?

[/ QUOTE ]

When people like Dawkins let them. Take away earth age and evolution controversy and most fundies are not anti-science. I think you will find young earthers beginning to change over the next few years. Evolution will remain an issue for longer unless the fossil record demands otherwise.

But I agree all Christians should be slow to oppose putative science on the basis of Scripture.

chezlaw · #8 07-15-2007, 01:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When will the rest join?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When people like Dawkins let them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have far too much respect for Dawkins. Even so its hard to believe you will let him prevent anyone from carrying out god's will.

chez

David Sklansky · #9 07-15-2007, 02:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If God is deliberately a little bit vague about scientific stuff then he is probably also a little bit vague about other stuff. And if pinninng him down about scientific stuff is wrong, then why isn't it wrong to try to pin him down about other stuff like this fellow Calvin apparently tried to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because He wanted us to do science but also wanted us to know about Him, us and salvation. You can be wrong about science with generally no negative effect - not so when it comes to His will for your life and your eternal fate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why did it take until the 1500's or whatever it was for someone to decipher what he was saying.

NotReady · #10 07-15-2007, 02:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Then why did it take until the 1500's or whatever it was for someone to decipher what he was saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

About what? If you mean Calvin you should remember I said Augustine (about 400 A.D.) was the first reformer. Calvin built much of his doctrine on Augustine. But the essentials have been known from the beginning. No one questioned that Christ was the way of salvation. Calvin was a reformer, not primarily an innovator. Neither Calvin nor Luther were initially seeking to split from Rome, but wanted to reform the church, because the church had become corrupt in some of its practices and lost sight of the original knowledge of justification by grace. Throughout church history different doctrines have been at the forefront, often because a specific heresy needed to be confronted.