Have you read the OP?

Re: how the world got here. Why is any explanation owed?

Not only did I read it, but I'm basically agreeing with you on one of your main points.

So, there is nothing in the definition of God that commits a Christian to the belief that God created the world. — Bartricks

I agree.

Seems to me, then, that Christians are missing a trick: they are trying to square the genesis account of God's creation of a place with what we understand about how this place - the world - has come to be. But the Genesis account does not seem to be about this place at all. — Bartricks

Here I suggest that you go to a Christian forum to get a more definitive answer to how actual religious Christians resolve this apparent discrepancy.

↪EricH
Re: how the world got here. Why is any explanation owed? — Bartricks

It's not owed. I was merely curious if you had an alternate explanation

:lol: that's cool...

I like Jeff Buckley's 'Hallelujah', but comparing to Leonrad's version seems to me like comparing apples and oranges.

Not only did I read it, but I'm basically agreeing with you on one of your main points. — EricH

I asked because you quoted Genesis. And yet in the OP I explained why nothing in Genesis commits the Christian to the view that the account is an account of the creation of here. On the contrary, it seems quite obviously to be an account of the creation of somewhere else.

So, why did you quote Genesis at me when I had explained at length in the OP why Genesis is not evidence that God created the world?

Here I suggest that you go to a Christian forum to get a more definitive answer to how actual religious Christians resolve this apparent discrepancy. — EricH

I am arguing that they are mistaken. I keep saying: I am not asking for an account of why Christians typically believe what they believe. I am asking for a defence of it.

So,

1. If Genesis is an account of the creation of this place, then this place is approx. 6,000 years old
2. This place is approximately 5.54 billion years old
3. Therefore, Genesis is not an account of the creation of this place

And so on.

It's not owed. I was merely curious if you had an alternate explanation — EricH

no. Whatever explanation the atheist gives, the Christian can give too if they wish. If there is no need to suppose that God created this place, then all options are open

I am not disagreeing with anything you said. We seem to be getting two issues mixed up.

Issue #1 Does the Bible account for the world as it is?

1. If Genesis is an account of the creation of this place, then this place is approx. 6,000 years old
2. This place is approximately 5.54 billion years old
3. Therefore, Genesis is not an account of the creation of this place — Bartricks

We agree.

Issue #2 How do Christians defend the belief that God created the world.

I am arguing that they are mistaken. I keep saying: I am not asking for an account of why Christians typically believe what they believe. I am asking for a defence of it. — Bartricks

But Christians typically do believe that God created the world. Why? — Bartricks

I'm not seeing much distinction between giving an account of something vs. defending it - in order to defend something you have to first give a clear explanation of what you're defending.

But either way, I'm agreeing with you. The only point I'm trying to make here is that you're highly unlikely to find anyone out here on TPF who will spend much time defending Christian beliefs. That's why I suggest that you go to a Christian forum - I'm sure you can find plenty of smart, informed, religious people who are willing to defend the belief that God created this place.

But perhaps I am wrong and there are passages in the bible that really do commit the Christian to believing that God created this place. — Bartricks

That was my reason for quoting the bible - I'm suggesting that there are such passages. But again - I'm not defending this. If you're looking for someone to explain/defend Christian beliefs you need to speak to people who actually believe this and are willing to defend their beliefs.

Just to repeat myself one more time - apart from your belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person (which is not relevant to your main points) I agreed with pretty much everything in your OP.

But either way, I'm agreeing with you. The only point I'm trying to make here is that you're highly unlikely to find anyone out here on TPF who will spend much time defending Christian beliefs. — EricH

Well, in my view and experience Christians are often among the ablest philosophers and some of the very best philosophers have been Christians. And this is a philosphical issue. You don't think it is, but that's neither here nor there. I am interested - as I keep saying - in 'justificatory' reasons (aka epistemic reasons) not motivational reasons or explanatory reasons.

If I ask "why do you believe X" the question is ambiguous, as I could be inquiring about your motives or a literal explanation of how you came to believe it. Or I could be asking you to provide justifying reasons. If that question is asked in the context of a philosophy forum, then it should be taken as read that it is justificatory reasons that are being inquired after.

I am interested - as I keep saying - in 'justificatory' reasons (aka epistemic reasons) not motivational reasons or explanatory reasons. — Bartricks

Has anyone given a decent response to your question? I don't have the time/energy to review the entire thread, but a quick scan shows this:

Oh do read the OP. Stop just saying stuff. — Bartricks

Again, question begging. Read the OP. — Bartricks

The OP isn't about that, is it? I — Bartricks

OMG. Did you read the OP? It's true by definition. What did I say someone who quetsions that is? Focus on the issue. — Bartricks

Have you gotten even one satisfactory response to your OP? Perhaps I overlooked one, but I don't think so.

Well, in my view and experience Christians are often among the ablest philosophers and some of the very best philosophers have been Christians. — Bartricks

So go out to a Christian forum.

Meanwhile - you still haven't responded to my last post on the AN thread. I'm really curious to see how you re-frame the Problem of Evil when your person is not omnibenevolent.

Don't hold your breath.

Has anyone given a decent response to your question? — EricH

No. It wasn't a genuine question: I was defending a view and asking 'why' rhetorically - it was an invitation to those who think differently to defend their view against me.

So go out to a Christian forum. — EricH

It's a philosophical issue you....

Meanwhile - you still haven't responded to my last post on the AN thread. I'm really curious to see how you re-frame the Problem of Evil when your person is not omnibenevolent. — EricH

What?

It's a philosophical issue you.... — Bartricks

Christians are often among the ablest philosophers and some of the very best philosophers have been Christians. — Bartricks

I will correct my previous statement:

So go out to a Christian philosophy forum. — EricH

What? — Bartricks

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/755502

Stop giving me advice. This is not an advice forum. And the pupil shouldn't advise the teacher.

Yes Master. Advice to give you not will I.

I am not a Christian. I do believe in God. But I don't believe God created the world we live in. It doesn't look like the kind of place an all-good person would create. But Christians typically do believe that God created the world. Why? — Bartricks

What other explanation can there be? I am not Christian and I do not have a problem with the notion of an universal god. For me it is futile to argue the existence of "God" but really? how believable is the Christian explanation of God and creation? It just is not right to be forced to believe an unbelievable story of "God" and denied any other understanding of "God", disrespecting and possibly killing those who have different beliefs.

no. Whatever explanation the atheist gives, the Christian can give too if they wish. If there is no need to suppose that God created this place, then all options are open — Bartricks

In this case, who is authority about "God" and what makes the authority legitimate? Are there any verifiable reasons for believing the Biblical explanation of Creation? Like can DNA test support the idea that a god made us of mud as opposed to believing in evolution? Do the Sumerian stories of Creation and the Flood support the truth of creation and people being made of mud, even though in the Sumerian stories it is a Goddess not a God who makes people with mud, just as the people made images of their own patron gods and goddesses.

Just how literal one wants to get with the Bible will depend on how you read it. There is hyperbole, figurative language, and stories. The Bible says the world has 4 corners. It says geocentrism is true. It says this at least to those who interpret it that way. Religious stories are all over the ancient world and creations claims are prominent

Just how literal one wants to get with the Bible will depend on how you read it. There is hyperbole, figurative language, and stories. The Bible says the world has 4 corners. It says geocentrism is true. It says this at least to those who interpret it that way. Religious stories are all over the ancient world and creations claims are prominent — Gregory

I think we can agree that creation stories are not intended to be anything like scientific truth. They are stories made up for psychological and social reasons. That is they are mythologies, even the Biblical story is mythology. At least 5 Biblical stories appear to be plagiarized from Sumerian stories. Abraham began in Ur a former Sumerian city with a Sumerian library.

Exactly. And many Christians are of this view. I grew up in the Baptist tradition and we were taught that Genesis was a myth used to explain our world to a pre-scientific age. No one would have dreamed of taking this or Noah's ark story literally. That's for fundamentalists - a particular expression of religion that seems to take comfort in literalism.

I mean, creation myths are extremely common in human history- the Wikipedia page for "a list of creation myths" includes over 100 creation myths from various religions, cultures, and/or geographical regions (and is almost certainly not an exhaustive list)- most religious traditions and ancient cultures had creation myths among their earliest oral/literary traditions.

And so far as I'm aware, these traditions generally prefigure robust philosophical or theological traditions, so the answer to why people posit or believe creation myths will come more from sociology/anthropology or psychology than from philosophy or theology: most philosophical/theological justifications or defenses of creation myths being generally post-hoc and somewhat arbitrary.

Exactly. And many Christians are of this view. I grew up in the Baptist tradition and we were taught that Genesis was a myth used to explain our world to a pre-scientific age. No one would have dreamed of taking this or Noah's ark story literally. That's for fundamentalists - a particular expression of religion that seems to take comfort in literalism. — Tom Storm

But that is what the Reformation is about. The Reformation is putting an end to men tinkering with the Bible and creating a religion that deviates from God's truth.

This is also a matter of logic. Higher-order thinking skills prepare individuals for abstract thinking. In the past, well-educated people were taught higher-order thinking skills. Those without this education think literally. It is exactly as the Bible says it is and it is not up to individual interpretation. That was what was wrong with the authority of the Catholic church, individuals in authority wrongly interpreted the Bible, so lay people had to learn how to read the Bible for themselves, so no one could get away with misrepresenting God's truth.

One more thing- where does deciding what the Bible means, stop? Do Baptists believe in demons and angels and how much is Satan a part of the religion? How about slavery? Does the Bible justify slavery or make slavery taboo? What are the boundaries of deciding truth for oneself?

Do Baptists believe in demons and angels and how much is Satan a part of the religion? — Athena

The Christian 'sects' cannot even decide if they believe in monotheism or not.
An angel or a demon or even an Islamic jinn are not humans, so what are they?
Is Satan a lesser god? are angels, demons, jinn's etc lesser gods compared to humans?
If so, then Christianity's monotheistic claims are open to question, are they not?
Perhaps they could claim there is a 'godhead'/leader/originator but, according to Christians, it seems to require not only deference to it but also to its other supernatural creations such as angels!

The Christian 'sects' cannot even decide if they believe in monotheism or not.
An angel or a demon or even an Islamic jinn are not humans, so what are they?
Is Satan a lesser god? are angels, demons, jinn's etc lesser gods compared to humans?
If so, then Christianity's monotheistic claims are open to question, are they not?
Perhaps they could claim there is a 'godhead'/leader/originator but, according to Christians, it seems to require not only deference to it but also to its other supernatural creations such as angels! — universeness

Well thank you. It seems to me denial is a large part of believing. I have heard and read that Satan played a much larger role in Christian beliefs than is so today. We stopped beating Satan out out of children. Christians did not see God as a loving God instead of a jealous, revengeful and punishing God until our bellies were full and most of enjoyed a relative high degree of security. I find the Christian belief totally confusing. How can anyone know if it is Satan making their lives miserable or God punishing them?

Why does Jesus keep referring to his Father in heaven, if he is that Father, and if he is not that Father, there is more than one god and that is a blasphemous idea because the defining characteristic of Christianity is monotheism. I believe Hebrews were okay with many gods. Why else would God be a jealous god if there were none to compete with Him.

And please, what is the logic of breaking away from Judaism, God's favorite people, who know God's word and claiming Christians somehow have the authority to change the rules? Hey that could make a good discussion? This subject could look like a dog chasing its own tail. Christians correct Judaism, Protestants correct Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Many, many new comers come in with better protestant explanations of God's truth and are Mormons Christians or something else? Is a Catholic a Christian? Like I said, it can all be rather confusing.

One more thing- where does deciding what the Bible means, stop? Do Baptists believe in demons and angels and how much is Satan a part of the religion? How about slavery? Does the Bible justify slavery or make slavery taboo? What are the boundaries of deciding truth for oneself? — Athena

As I understand it, Baptists leave interpretations and matters of faith to each individual church, so they vary wildly. In America they tend to be blunted literalists in many places.

I was taught that the Bible is a man-made compilation of allegories containing both good and bad ideas. We were taught there's no satan, slavery is wrong, women are equal and that Christianity could be abused like any idea. It looked towards progressive politics rather than an ossified text for guidelines about culture and society.

Let me give you some flavour of the kids of things we were taught from my favourite (now dead) American Episcopalian bishop, John Shelby Spong.

“God is not a Christian, God is not a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist. All of those are human systems which human beings have created to try to help us walk into the mystery of God. I honor my tradition, I walk through my tradition, but I don't think my tradition defines God, I think it only points me to God.”
― John Shelby Spong

“To read the gospels properly, I now believe, requires a knowledge of Jewish culture, Jewish symbols, Jewish icons and the tradition of Jewish storytelling. It requires an understanding of what the Jews called “midrash.” Only those people who were completely unaware of these things could ever have come to think that the gospels were meant to be read literally.”
― John Shelby Spong, Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel

Personally I was never able to believe in god/s, even as a child. I've never had a sensus divinitatis and the idea of theism was never coherent to me. I only got interested in the arguments used to prove or disprove god because the apologists thought reason could be aggressively mustered in their defence.

You are engaging in what fundamentalist theism is most afraid of, reason and rationale, and in doing so, you add to my hope for the future of our species.
Don't doubt or question, keep their faith! Believe and be saved (after you die) or be dammed eternally!
That's the theist 'trump' card! You have to sit in the dark, alone, knowing that one day you must die, and you must tackle your own primal fears and your overwhelming, inherent, survival instinct, against that currently inevitable fate. This makes many folks engage in Pascals wager.
No atheist can guarantee you the peace and unawareness of oblivion. They can only use evidence such as all of time before you were born. You were aware of no existence before you were born so why would you be aware of time passing after you die?
So, which path will you choose?

For me, I truly believe that all human lives are formed from that which is OF THE UNIVERSE.
Gods have and still have no existents at all.
We are of the universe, not in the panpsychist sense, nor did the universe have any intent to create YOU, or ME as in the person of you or me.
YOU are a 'happenstance' but WE were always potential happenstances, as we did come to be.
Our lives are unique, we will disassemble and become 'spare parts' again.
BUT, In this sense, we are all part of each other.
I find great personal contentment in that. My life has purpose, meaning, value and a spectacular sensation of wonderment. I want to contribute to secular, humanist, socialist, democratic progress in everyway I can, as long as I live.
That is the legacy I want, but my revered remembrance, is not a pre-requisite, of my want for such a legacy.
I see nothing in theism that offers me more. Science and transhumanism are the only avenue that could offer me more options, than I have now. Prayer, is forlorn bullshit by comparison, in my opinion.
As Lawrence Krauss once stated, alongside Richard Dawkins when debating with theists.
'If you are choking, I can either perform the Heimlich manoeuvre on you ,or I can pray for you, which would you prefer?'

And the pupil shouldn't advise the teacher. — Bartricks

:rofl:

I believe Bartricks when he says "I'm a philosopher". I believe you Bartricks, I believe you! :smile: