The Word “Create” Means “Arrange” – Genesis 1 & Science

create image pangea blog

Last week I wrote about the problem the church is perpetuating: we create atheists by dealing with the question of evolution poorly. Young adults continue to leave over the perceived posture of broader church culture toward science (this exists in every tradition to a point, but certainly in my home tradition of evangelicalism).

One of the biggest challenges when we come to a topic like creation and evolution is that the rules of the conversation have already been set.

Evolution is the same as atheism.

Atheism is the denial of God.

God is the creator.

Therefore atheism is wrong.

Therefore evolution is wrong.

Thus you can’t be a Christian and believe evolution is true.

If you claim evolution is true and claim to believe in God, you are lying to yourself and are subconsciously an atheist.

Theistic evolution is impossible.

It is dangerous.

It is a compromise.

It doesn’t take seriously the inspired Word of God.

The Bible says God did it in 7 days, so that’s all I need.

Don’t you read your Bible? Evolution is false.

And so… the culture war persists.

Interesting, very few people have stopped long enough to really ask a question about the Bible: What does the word “create” even mean?

Of course, that may seem like a silly question, but it is actually loaded with importance for how we engage in this conversation.

In our culture, we use the word ‘create’ and think: out of nothing. Historically, this has been the default understanding of this word.

However, we also use it metaphorically at times. One might say: I created this piece of art.

Really?

Yes. I started with paint brushes and a canvass, and with the materials available to me, I created what you see before you.

But do you see the important difference???? The way we Westerners tend to think of “create” is—there was nothing, but now there’s something.

Yet that isn’t what happened with this painting at all!

There were some things. And from those things, something was made. There were materials that were arranged just right. Having been ordered in such a way we can say: “Ah, it is art.”

Or think of Legos. My daughter has Doc McStuffins legos. I’m terrible at putting them together. But she, on the other hand (when Mom helps) can arrange them quite well.

But before those legos were a Pet Hospital, they were a pile of Legos.
When the Legos went from pile to an intentional arrangement: they became something much more than a pile. They were arranged and have thus created something.

Or, to use one last example, think of a new building going in down the street. In Seattle, there is construction at every corner.

A building project starts out with a foundation, then eventually has walls, and so on and so forth. At some point, let’s imagine that a sign is put in front of the building that says, “Future Home of Whole Foods.” Yay! A grocery store within walking distance: everyone’s dream.

Question: Is it a grocery store at this point? Nope! Not at all.

If we think about it, the building project only becomes a grocery store when it has all of its raw materials arranged in such a way that it is recognizable a store. Not only so, but it really isn’t a store until the day a customer can walk in, push a cart, select food items, and pay at a register.

That building is finally functional as a store. It is all predicated on the ability of people to walk in and shop. Until that moment of grand opening, all we have is something that has the potential to create into a grocery store.

These examples illustrate something about Genesis 1.

Create in that chapter, and throughout the entire Hebrew Bible, is not about “out of nothing.”

This isn’t to say that God didn’t also create in this way, but that our questions are different than those the ancient people of God were asking about life in the world.

John Walton, the Wheaton professor, breaks out two helpful categories in his book The Lost World of Genesis 1. He notes that we think in categories of “material ontology” but that when the ancients thought of the nature of reality, they had a “functional ontology” in view.

Material Ontology – “the belief that something exists by virtue of its physical properties and its ability to be experienced by the senses.”

Functional Ontology – “the ancient world believed that something existed… by virtue of its having function in an ordered system” (John Walton).

God certainly is the one who is the source of the raw materials of creation (I’m thinking here of the results of the ‘big bang’ or whatever). But that is decisively not what Genesis 1 is asking or expecting. It has a “functional ontology” in mind.

In other words, why does Genesis 1.31 call the world “very good?” Because a world is finally THE world as God wanted when it is arranged with human image-bearers as its pinnacle.

Just like a grocery store is arranged for the experience of the shopper (ok, imperfect analogy, but you get the idea), the cosmos is where God longs for humans to thrive.

Genesis 1 is not asking–How did God create the world?–but rather–How does God want the world to be?.

Genesis 1 is all about the “Who” and the “why” but not about the “how.”

God’s world, when God is in charge, is for the flourishing of humankind.

How God did and is doing that, is inconsequential.

In a functional worldview, the details of the story only serve to bring us to the real point: God creates and loves what is created.

Questions of material origins are far from the minds of ancient Hebrew people.

When we approach Genesis 1, these should be far from our minds as well.

"I have two books that were published by Moody Press - Angels Watchin’ and Nobody ..."

Ethical Children’s Books for the Christian ..."
""Powerlessness?"You don't know my Jesus."

2 Reasons NOT to ‘Keep Christ ..."
"I found this article in the midst of my own inner wrestling with the question ..."

If God Knows The Future, Why ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Iain Lovejoy

    Hebrew has two words for create / make, “bara” and “asah”: the former means more to bring into existence, the latter more to form or shape (although the distinction is not necessarily 100% strictly observed in all cases). Genesis 1 says God “baras” the heavens and earth into existence, but also subsequently “asahs” / shapes it as well. I don’t know which versions do or do not do this, but many Bibles will preserve this distinction by consistently translating “bara” as “created” and “asah” as either “made” or “formed” (the KJV certainly does) so it is possible to see this distinction in many English versions as well.
    I understand a little Hebrew grammar and the idea that Genesis 1 describes an ongoing gradual formation of creation is supported by the way verse 1 is written as well. It starts with a circumstantial / temporal clause: “In the beginning when God had created (bara) the heavens and the earth … ” which strictly speaking extends through the whole of verses 1 & 2. In addition, verse 5 doesn’t (for whatever reason) say “the first day”, but ” one day” (with the remaining days properly therefore being “*a* second day” etc”. This gives the reading:
    “In the beginning when God had created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was empty and waste, and there was darkness on the face of the deep, and God’s Spirit hovered over the face of the sea, God said “Let there be light”, and there was light, and God saw that the light was good.
    Then God separated the light from the darkness, and God called the light “Day” and the darkness he called “Night”.
    Then evening came and morning came: one day.”
    The whole chapter, I would say, is an invocation of God’s ongoing transforming power within creation, not a description of a static event. Indeed I am sure I read somewhere that in ANE cultures it was common to read creation stories over the sick, for precisely that purpose.

  • aedgeworth

    If you compare Genesis 1:1 with Hebrews 11:3 you get a clearer picture. Hebrews 11:3 says: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” The word “made” is the Greek word: “ginomai” which means “to cause to be.” God spoke the heaven and the earth into existence out of nothing. But then He formed it to be inhabited. Isaiah 45:18 Created in verse one does not mean arrange. It means to bring into existence out of nothing. Then God “arranged” it to be inhabited. Nothing very hard to understand about that. Some will always try to get it to fit the teachings of evolution though, because of their chosen philosophical worldview.

    • Paul

      “One might say: I created this piece of art.
      Really?
      Yes. I started with paint brushes and a canvass, and with the materials available to me, I created what you see before you.
      But do you see the important difference???? The way we Westerners tend to think of “create” is—there was nothing, but now there’s something.”

      Is it just me or is Kurt trying to say that the universe is eternal (“I started with paint brushes and canvass”)? When you don’t accept the plain teaching of scripture you get yourself tied into all sorts of hermeneutical knots. Certainly there was an arranging or ordering of the universe after it was brought into being (by the one who has the power of being in and of himself) but to try and assert that the universe, the stuff that makes up the universe, has been there eternally is to go beyond a reasonable explanation of Genesis 1.

      “Genesis 1 is all about the “Who” and the “why” but not about the “how.””
      There’s a way to end a discussion. Just limit it to include only what you believe to be true. Certainly the ‘how’ is addressed as well isn’t it? “God said..” there was the second person of the Deity in action. The Word of God bringing all that the Father commands into being.

      • http://KurtWillems.com Kurt Willems

        “Is it just me or is Kurt trying to say that the universe is eternal ” : you would know the answer if you read the ebook I linked to you in the other post. But why not just troll instead? 😉

        Also: please read more closely: “God certainly is the one who is the source of the raw materials of creation (I’m thinking here of the results of the ‘big bang’ or whatever).”

        • Paul

          I am reading the ebook you linked in another post and to be honest, in what I’ve read so far, you’ve presented nothing new. You continue to present the false dilemma that science and faith are in conflict. This just isn’t so. Believing that God could have created everything with the appearance of age does nothing to my understanding of science.

          Science is still able to do what it does ‘after’ God works supernaturally. The example of Jesus and the feeding of the 5000 is one example of this. The leftover fish and bread would have still been subject to the laws of science after Jesus created them. That is a point you continually ignore and fail to address.

          Far easier to label someone a troll than actually deal with the legitimate questions being asked I suppose. I’ll finish reading your paper but I’m not really confident you’ll do anything but rehash outdated ideas and continue to ignore real theological problems with theistic evolution.

          • http://KurtWillems.com Kurt Willems

            Paul. Briefly. I misunderstood your point about the leftover fish initially. Yes. God can do something and what is left over remains subject to the laws of nature. I agree. I just don’t see how that affirms and/or denies your broader dislike of biological evolution. It is an analogy for your actual point of creation with the appearance of age (which the text doesn’t say explicitly either) but the points in the biblical text are completely unrelated.

            On theistic evolution… you are making it a ‘salvation’ type issue. it isn’t. We can disagree. I labeled you troll due to the disrespect you were displaying…. If you received anything I said in that way, I apologize for that…. but theistic evolutionists and 7 day creationists should be able to sit at the same table together.

            I’ll finally end this conversation, from my end, with these quotes from evangelical leaders and scholars on this issue:

            “I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things that they weren’t meant to say, and I think we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course, I accept the Creation story. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man… whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.” (Billy Graham)

            “Belief in evolution as a biological process is not the same as belief in evolution as a worldview….
            Also: “One of my favorite Christian writers (that’s putting it mildly), C.S. Lewis, did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and I do not question the reality or soundness of his personal faith.” (Tim Keller)

            “Not many Christians today find it necessary to defend the concept of a literal six-day creation, for the text does not demand it, and scientific discovery appears to contradict it. The biblical text presents itself not as a scientific treatise but as a highly stylized literary statement (deliberately framed in three pairs, the fourth “day” corresponding to the first, the fifth to the second, and the sixth to the third)…
            “It is most unfortunate that some who debate this issue (evolution) begin by assuming that the words “creation” and “evolution” are mutually exclusive. If everything has come into existence through evolution, they say, then biblical creation has been disproved, whereas if God has created all things, then evolution must be false. It is, rather, this naïve alternative which is false. It presupposes a very narrow definition of the two terms, both of which in fact have a wide range of meanings, and both of which are being freshly discussed today…
            “But my acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic ‘hominid’ may have existed for thousands of years previously. These hominids began to advance culturally. They made their cave drawings and buried their dead. It is conceivable that God created Adam out of one of them. You may call them homo erectus. I think you may even call some of them homo sapiens, for these are arbitrary scientific names. But Adam was the first homo divinus, if I may coin a phrase, the first man to whom may be given the Biblical designation ‘made in the image of God’. Precisely what the divine likeness was, which was stamped upon him, we do not know, for Scripture nowhere tells us. But Scripture seems to suggest that it includes rational, moral, social, and spiritual faculties which make man unlike all other creatures and like God the creator, and on account of which he was given ‘dominion’ over the lower creation.” (John Stott)

            “…perhaps what Genesis is telling us is that God chose one pair from the rest of early hominids for a special, strange, demanding, vocation. This pair (call them Adam and Eve if you like) were to be the representatives of the whole human race, the ones in whom God’s purpose to make the whole world a place of delight and joy and order, eventually colonizing the whole creation, was to be taken forward. God the creator put in their hands the fragile task of being his image bearers. If they fail, they will bring the whole purpose for the wider creation, including all the nonchosen hominids, down with them.” (N.T. Wright)

          • Paul

            “I misunderstood your point about the leftover fish initially.”

            “It is an analogy for your actual point of creation with the appearance of age (which the text doesn’t say explicitly either) but the points in the biblical text are completely unrelated.”

            The points in the biblical text are completely ‘related’ Kurt. That is my point. One creation event is only different from the other on the level of quantity. The results of both would be subject to the same level of scrutiny that can be applied through science, and that was the point. Just as science can’t tell us the ultimate truth as to the origins of the fish and loaves that Jesus created, so too it has no authority in telling us the ultimate truth about the universes origins. Only the one who was there at the beginning can do that. All science can do is tell us about how it all works now.

            “On theistic evolution… you are making it a ‘salvation’ type issue. it isn’t.”

            On that point I agree, and it is was wrong of me in a previous post to make it sound as if I thought that were true. I could offer some sort of excuse as a reason for that but I won’t…it was simply wrong of me to say that and for that I apologise and ask your forgiveness.

            But I would still like to impress on you that I think that what you (and others who push for theistic evolution) are doing is undermining the authority of scripture. As soon as you say that a passage of scripture must be read with science in mind, you place science in authority over the scriptures and I find that an untenable position to hold.

            I agree we should leave it at this but I too will leave you with a quote from someone who I think is of more than just of passing significance to the protestant church (Martin Luther, not Joel Beeke). The quote below is from an essay by Joel R. Beeke titled ‘The case for Adam’ which is in the book titled, “God, Adam and you: Biblical Creation Defended and Applied”

            – “Martin Luther commented, ‘If Aristotle [the great philosopher] heard this,’ referring to the creation of Adam, ‘he would burst into laughter and conclude that although this is not an unlovely yarn, it is nevertheless a most absurd one.’ Luther said that the mind of fallen men, ‘shows in this way that it knows practically nothing about God, who merely by a thought’ made the first man out of a ‘clod’ of earth.”

            I think Luther understood the temptation to the church in looking for the approval of the learned in trying to understand our origins. We would rather seem to be, as you say, “intellectually honest” than an uneducated “fundamentalist”. As I said in an earlier post, by trying to fit your understanding of scripture in the ‘light’ of science, you tie yourself into all sorts of hermeneutical knots.

            I appreciate the interaction Kurt. God bless and take care.

  • https://disqus.com/home/channel/theangryatheist/ Michael Antifa Weed

    You’re losing because creationism is incompatible with evolution, natural selection, and even nature itself. Your product has been exposed for what it is. That’s why nobody but the uneducated in poor nations are receptive to the theist’s fraud these days.

  • Richard Worden Wilson

    Kurt, an admirable job here. I expected to find obvious flaws in your presentation (yeah, I get like that that sometimes) but didn’t–you squared the cirlcle very nicely.
    Kudos.

  • rationalobservations?

    There is a fundamental mistake at the core of this diatribe. That is that the conflict between creationist nonsense and evolutionary fact is the / a main reason that the millennial generation are shunning all religion. Education, common sense and living within a free, predominantly secular democracy appears to defeat superstitions of all kinds.

    Fewer than 18% of Americans and fewer than 6% of Europeans (under 2% in the UK and Sweden) are active members of any cult, sect or business of religion according to the remaining religions own published attendance figures while the vast vast majority of the millennial generation shun all religion and ignore all phony gods, goddesses and god-men (including christian gods and god-men) and redundant churches litter our villages, towns and cities.
    To the non-indoctrinated – nothing appears to distinguish one god, goddess or god-man/”messiah”., from any other of the many thousands of undetected and undetectable, entirely and exclusively hypothetical gods, goddesses and god-men/”messiahs.

    Christians are often baffled how atheists could deny the existence of their (originally Canaanite) god, “Jehovah/Yahweh” and their (Roman) god-man/”messiah” “Yeshu/Jesus”, but they shouldn’t be. Christians deny many tens of thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more ridiculously unconvincing god and one more stereotypical and entirely mythical god-man (among many hundreds of thousands of extremely similar undetectable and imaginary gods, goddesses and god-men) than Christians.

    Many among the declining cohort of the religionists join those christians who fail to justify their enthrallment to their specific brand of religion by pointing out that the non-existence of any of the gods cannot be proved.

    If inability to prove the non-existence of deities is enough for christians to believe in them.,they must be very busy worshiping Amun-Ra, Apollo/Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Pratibhanapratisamvit, (Buddhist goddess of context analysis) and Acat, (Mayan god of tattoo artists) and Tsa’qamae, (North American god of salmon migration) – and many thousands of other undetectable hypothetical entities among which the ridiculous “Yahweh” and “Jesus” remain merely mythical and of which no one ever provides proof or reason of (or for) existence and therefore non-existence may be sensibly and rationally assumed by default – as the third largest and fastest growing cohort of humanity (the godless / non-religious) conclude.

    All the evidence appears to indicate that the “christian” religion was cobbled together in the 4th century from mainly “pagan” components and exclusively “pagan” feast days and festivals.

    The burden of proof and the onus of convincing the rest of us of the validity of the “proof” is always upon the religionists and the rest of the rapidly declining membership of fraudulent religions. All religionists, fail too rise to meet that challenge and therefore your myths, legends and human businesses of religion remain debunked in the minds of most young folk and a large and growing number of us older folk who saw through and rejected the bunkum at some time in our life..

    • Paul

      Your argument is tired and baseless (for any thinking person be they Christian or not). Your atheistic/naturalism can’t even get off the ground (so to speak) rationally. If there is no first cause (God) then you have no way of generating the universe in the first place. If you claim the matter of the universe is eternal, you go against all that science has to say about that. And even if the universe were eternal (that infintesimal point of singularity as some put it), what caused it to go bang on a Tuesday afternoon at 2:00 o’clock? Your view is based on irrationality, how could you hope to make a rational case for it?

      • rationalobservations?

        You demonstrate only that the alternative to science and the evidence of material and biological evolution is not religion or creationism – it is ignorance and superstition.

        Thanks for making me laugh with the irony of your opening line from someone who can offer no argument that favours the existence of any of the hundreds of thousands of gods, goddesses and god-men and no validation, or excuse for blind faith in any of the thousands of fraudulent religions.

        Fewer than 18% of Americans and fewer than 6% of Europeans remain active members of any business of religion while the vast, vast majority of the millennial generation show nothing but indifference to all religion and all over the western world redundant empty churches rot or are being redeveloped into something useful to mankind.

        The reluctance of many to identify as atheist fails to disguise that the third largest and fastest growing human cohort are what is now called the “nones” (no religion/not religious) and in discrete and anonymous surveys many who remain among the still declining “culturally religious” church goers reveal non-belief in god or gods so technically can be counted as atheists.

        You may well live in one of the few remaining backward developing regions of the western/developed world – but the statistics are based upon evidence and the evidence shows a terminal trend in religion across the developed world with signs of the rejection of religion among millennials in developing nations.

        You can remain in denial and chose to believe the lies and propaganda of religionists – but the facts are the facts. You are probably among the last generation of active religionists and your children and grandchildren won’t be falling for the lies you appear to buy into.

        Atheism is not a “religion”. It is merely non-belief in any of the almost endless thousands of fictional, hypothetical and undetectable “gods” – including yours.

        Please get back to me when you can tell me (and the growing legion of the happy, peaceful and humanitarian godless) about (the originally Canaanite god) “Yahweh” and (Roman god-man) “Jesus” through logic and actual authenticated historical and scientific evidence and without any reference to the confused and internally contradictory mythology within any of the many diverse and different versions of human authored bibles, papyri, manuscripts and texts that were written centuries after the time in which their tales are backdated and merely set?

        Next..??

        • Paul

          “Next..??”

          How about you try and stop ranting and answer my questions.
          1. If there is no first cause (God) then you have no way of generating the universe in the first place. Tell me why there is something instead of nothing?
          2. If you claim the matter of the universe is eternal, you go against all that science has to say about that. Do you believe the universe is eternal, contrary to all the evidence?
          3. Even if the universe were eternal (that infintesimal point of singularity as some put it), what caused it to go bang on a Tuesday afternoon at 2:00 o’clock?

          Come back to me with some rational answers to these questions instead of your mindless rantings. How can I have a rational dialogue with you when your whole diatribe is irrational rhetoric?

          You call yourself ‘rationalobservations?’ and well should you add the question mark to the end of it. I highly suspect that you are anything but ‘rational’ in your observations.

          answer my questions rationally and then maybe we can address the many fallacies in your atheistic rant.

          • rationalobservations?

            1. If there is no first cause (God) then you have no way of generating the universe in the first place. Tell me why there is something instead of nothing?
            The origin of the universe 13,820,000,000 years ago was a singularity event commonly known as “The Big Bang”.
            The nature of that event remains a matter of speculation.
            There is no evidence that magic or any of the many thousands of undetected and hypothetical gods, goddesses or god-men where involved in or needed for that singullarity event. You jpin the many thousands of failed regionists from many diverse and different faiths who have failed to explain, justify or excuse belief in magic and supernatural beings.

            2. If you claim the matter of the universe is eternal, you go against all that science has to say about that. Do you believe the universe is eternal, contrary to all the evidence?
            Who assumes that the universe is “eternal”?
            All the evidence points to the violent and destructive universe we observe in ever greater detail to have an origin in a so far unexplained singularity event that we have confirmed as occurring 13,820,000,000 years ago. In the past decade we have obtained images of the primal hot and unformed universe from some 350,000,000 years after the singularity event. None of the evidence that supports the “Big Bang” supports involvement from magic or any of the many thousands of imaginary gods, goddesses and god-men of fiction.

            3. Even if the universe were eternal (that infintesimal point of singularity as some put it), what caused it to go bang on a Tuesday afternoon at 2:00 o’clock?
            Who assumes that the universe is “eternal”?
            All the evidence points to the violent and destructive universe we observe in ever greater detail to have an origin in a so far unexplained singularity event that we have confirmed as occurring 13,820,000,000 years ago. In the past decade we have obtained images of the primal hot and unformed universe from some 350,000,000 years after the singularity event. None of the evidence that supports the “Big Bang” supports involvement from magic or any of the many thousands of imaginary gods, goddesses and god-men of fiction.

            Your bunkum is debunked.

            Please get back to me when you can tell me (and the growing legion of the happy, peaceful and humanitarian godless) about (the originally Canaanite god) “Yahweh” and (Roman god-man) “Jesus” through logic and actual authenticated historical and scientific evidence and without any reference to the confused and internally contradictory mythology within any of the many diverse and different versions of human authored bibles, papyri, manuscripts and texts that were written centuries after the time in which their tales are backdated and merely set?

            Next..??

          • Paul

            You really do struggle with thinking rationally don’t you.
            “All the evidence points to the violent and destructive universe..”
            What nonsensical gibberish is that. The ” universe” is “destructive”?? Do you even understand what you’re saying?

            “..to have an origin in a so far unexplained singularity..” Where did that singularity come from? This is where your puerile rant becomes comical. You have something (a singularity) that you yourself said wasn’t eternal. What caused it?

            “None of the evidence that supports the ‘big bang’ supports involvement from magic..”
            Really?? And yet you believe that this singularity just popped into being from..what..nothing? Did your magician just say ‘abracadabra’ and there it was. No wait, you’d need a magician for that. Or hey, maybe it created itself! Oh wait, that would mean it would have to be and not be at the same time?? Oh aren’t you in a bit of a pickle! But hey, just stick with your shaman er, I mean scientist…I’m sure they’ll come up with something.

            Go away and have a bit of a longer think about things. And maybe put some time in trying to understand ‘necessary being’. Try and understand why it’s ‘necessary’.

            “Your bunkum is debunked.”
            Only in your imagination mate.
            (..hold on… maybe it wasn’t abracadabra…maybe it was presto-change-o.. no..maybe shazam… Keep trying. I’m sure you’ll come up with something.

          • rationalobservations?

            The violent and destructive universe??

            We don’t want to scare you, but our own Milky Way is on a collision course with Andromeda, the closest spiral galaxy to our own. At some point during the next few billion years, our galaxy and Andromeda – which also happen to be the two largest galaxies in the Local Group – are going to come together, and with catastrophic consequences.
            Stars will be thrown out of the galaxy, others will be destroyed as they crash into the merging supermassive black holes. And the delicate spiral structure of both galaxies will be destroyed as they become a single, giant, elliptical galaxy. But as cataclysmic as this sounds, this sort of process is actually a natural part of galactic evolution.
            Astronomers have know about this impending collision for some time. This is based on the direction and speed of our galaxy and Andromeda’s. But more importantly, when astronomers look out into the universe, they see galaxy collisions happening on a regular basis.
            Gravitational Collisions:
            Galaxies are held together by mutual gravity and orbit around a common center. Interactions between galaxies is quite common, especially between giant and satellite galaxies. This is often the result of a galaxies drifting too close to one another, to the point where the gravity of the satellite galaxy will attract one of the giant galaxy’s primary spiral arms.
            In other cases, the path of the satellite galaxy may cause it to intersect with the giant galaxy. Collisions may lead to mergers, assuming that neither galaxy has enough momentum to keep going after the collision has taken place. If one of the colliding galaxies is much larger than the other, it will remain largely intact and retain its shape, while the smaller galaxy will be stripped apart and become part of the larger galaxy.

            Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-10-galaxies-collide.html#jCp

            The following images show the “death” of whole galaxies and billions of stars and planets and our own “Milky way” galaxy is on a collision course as you tap away with your delusuions and denial.

            https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/597502main_hs-2008-16-aa-xlarge_web_full.jpg

            https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2016/11-whathappensw.jpg

            https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0610/antennae_hst.jpg

            https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PrIk6dKcdoU/maxresdefault.jpg

          • Paul

            “We don’t want to scare you.”
            hahaha. Sorry..couldn’t help myself. Why on earth should I be scared of something that is going to happen billions of years after (according to your worldview) my extinction? If you really want to scare me, tell me I’m going to die within a hundred years (I’m being generous) and when I do I’m going to be face to face with a Holy God who will bring me into judgement for all I’ve done and then punish me accordingly. Now that is something to truly fear, not some billions of years away destruction of the universe that will have absolutely no impact on me. (I’ve already dealt with that fear by the way, Christ is my advocate and my righteousness.)

            I really do feel for you irrationalobservations!. I’m not sure how you live with all of your inconsistencies. Naturalism, if you followed it with some integrity, leaves no room for hope, love, or even free will. Oh I know, you’ll say that you have all of these, but what you won’t have is a rational foundation for them. Your brain is only (mis)firing neurons and synapses and when you’re dead.. well.. that’s it, you’re dead. You started this life from the cosmic goo of meaninglessness (according to Naturalism) and you’ll end up in the same place. You have to inject meaning otherwise you’ll go as mad as Nietzsche did.

            As I said, I feel for you, I really do. I’ve even prayed for you (yes, I know…as useful as wishful thinking) and will continue to do so.

            You’ve also (again) failed to answer the question of that sticky old problem of ‘where did the (supposed) point of singularity come from, and what made it go bang’. The twofold problem of causality and being.

            I’ve included the short video below because I want you to see what your own atheistic biologists have to say about who and what we are. It really is a depressing bit of your reality.

            oh.. and pretty pictures. Thanks. The night time sky was one of the things God used to convince me of His reality. Thanks for the reminder!

            https://youtu.be/X2naHuU2gfs

          • rationalobservations?

            Fewer than 18% of Americans and fewer than 6% of Europeans (under 2% in the UK, Norway and Sweden) are currently active members of any cult, sect or business of religion according to the remaining religions own published attendance figures while the vast vast majority of the millennial generation shun all religion and ignore all phony gods, goddesses and god-men (including christian gods and god-men) and redundant churches litter our villages, towns and cities. In addition – anonymous polls among the shrinking cohort of social christian who still attend church reveals that many of them like the communal aspect but “don’t really believe in god”.
            Evidence of the existence of the infinite and infinitely destructive 13,820,000,000 year old universe is merely evidence of the existence of the infinite and infinitely destructive 13,820,000,000 year old universe.
            Please can anyone reading this explain how an undetected and undetectable super-spook could merely wish this 13.820.000.000 year old universe into existence from nothing?
            Come on now. Get real.
            The alternative to science and evolution is not creationism or dishonest so called “intelligent design”. The alternative to science and evolution is ignorance, superstition, myths, legends, lies and childish superstition.
            It’s an unremarkable “coincidence” that the religion of the nation in which any religionist is born is always the “real and true” one.
            Atheism is NOT “a stance that gods don’t exist.”
            It is an informed and rational conclusion that there is NO EVIDENCE of the existence of any of the hundreds of thousands of gods, goddesses and god-men that are currently undetected and undetectable.
            No one has challenged that informed and rational conclusion – and the third largest and fastest growing human cohort agrees with that informed and rational conclusion while churches empty and redundant churches rot all over the villages, towns and cities of the developed western world.
            If someone destroys the reason for atheism by presenting evidence of the existence of any/all of the many thousands of undetected gods, goddesses and god-men – that will terminate atheism in a flash. There’s no sign of that ever happening as the reasons for atheism continue to destroy the failed excuses for religionism.
            To the non-indoctrinated – and those of us who shrugged off indoctrination in favour of common sense, logic and evidence – nothing appears to distinguish one god, goddess or god-man/”messiah”., from any other of the many thousands of undetected and undetectable, entirely and exclusively hypothetical gods, goddesses and god-men/”messiahs.
            Christians are often baffled how atheists could deny the existence of their (originally Canaanite) god, “Jehovah/Yahweh” and their (Roman) god-man/”messiah” “Yeshu/Jesus”, but they shouldn’t be. Christians deny many tens of thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more ridiculously unconvincing god and one more stereotypical and entirely mythical god-man (among many hundreds of thousands of extremely similar undetectable and imaginary gods, goddesses and god-men) than Christians.
            Many among the declining cohort of the religionists join those christians who fail to justify their enthrallment to their specific brand of religion by pointing out that the non-existence of any of the gods cannot be proved.
            If inability to prove the non-existence of deities is enough for christians to believe in them.,they must be very busy worshiping Amun-Ra, Apollo/Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Pratibhanapratisamvit, (Buddhist goddess of context analysis) and Acat, (Mayan god of tattoo artists) and Tsa’qamae, (North American god of salmon migration) – and many thousands of other undetectable hypothetical entities among which the ridiculous “Yahweh” and “Jesus” remain merely mythical and of which no one ever provides proof or reason of (or for) existence and therefore non-existence may be sensibly and rationally assumed by default – as the third largest and fastest growing cohort of humanity (the godless / non-religious) conclude.
            All the actual historical evidence appears to indicate that the “christian” religion was cobbled together in the 4th century from mainly “pagan” components and exclusively “pagan” feast days and festivals.
            The burden of proof and the onus of convincing the rest of us of the validity of the “proof” is always upon the religionists and the rest of the rapidly declining membership of fraudulent religions. All religionists, fail too rise to meet that challenge and therefore your myths, legends and human businesses of religion remain debunked in the minds of most young folk and a large and growing number of us older folk who saw through and rejected the bunkum at some time in our life.
            It’s very noticeable that no one can tell me (and the growing legion of the happy, peaceful and humanitarian godless) about (the originally Canaanite god) “Yahweh” and (Roman god-man) “Jesus” through logic and actual authenticated historical and scientific evidence and without any reference to the confused and internally contradictory mythology within any of the many diverse and different versions of human authored bibles, papyri, manuscripts and texts that were written centuries after the time in which their tales are backdated and merely set.
            Christian faithists claim a god and a god-man exist. The onus remains upon them to justify, validate or excuse that bizarre claim. No one ever has.
            Meanwhile; the rest of us simply do not believe them because they present nothing but myths, legends and lies and the fact that they assert that they personally believe in magic, supernatural entities and the myths legends and lies in which such childish superstition exclusively resides fails to convince anyone of anything but the power of indoctrination and the strength of some folks delusions.
            We know faithists believe in magic, the third largest and fastest growing human cohort dismiss their beliefs in favour of common sense and evidence.

          • Paul

            Wow. Did it really take you 22 days to come up with this rant? You’ve merely repeated your mindless ramblings from previous posts and again failed to come up with any rational hypotheses for why their is something instead of nothing. You also have an extremely poor understanding of history, and particularly church history. Don’t let truth or facts trouble your obviously troubled mind.

            And just a couple more things. First; your use of words could use a bit of a brush up. Religionists, fastest growing human cohort, etc, try and simplify what you’re trying to say. I think you’re trying to be a wordsmith to sound intelligent but to be honest, it’s having the opposite effect.

            And secondly; this quote is just one example of how incoherent and irrational your views are.
            “Evidence of the existence of the infinite and infinitely destructive 13,820,000,000 year old universe is merely evidence of the existence of the infinite and infinitely destructive 13,820,000,000 year old universe.”
            You can’t call something ‘infinite’ and then put a time constraint on it. It’s either infinite, you know, no beginning and no end, or it’s 13,820,000,000 years old… IT CAN’T BE BOTH! And it’s also a nonsensicle, self asserting statement. It’s like me saying “The evidence for the existence of an infinite God is merely the evidence for the existence of an infinite God.”

            I’ll leave you with this: Jesus Christ is the very Word of God, the promise of a better life, a better future and a better universe. But only if you’re found in him when you breath your last breath or at his return. But you’ll need to turn from all your hateful ramblings and turn to him for that blessing to be true. I hope and pray that you do that.

          • rationalobservations?

            Your denial is noted.

            Denial is not rebuttal.

            Your indoctrinated recycled opinions are noted.

            Opinions are not evidence.

            “Jesus Christ is the very Word of God..”???

            Within the entire 1st century “Jesus” is not mentioned by a single Greek, Roman or Jewish historian or chronicler.
            There is no mention of Jesus from any scholar, politician, philosopher or poet.
            His name (or any real Jewish/Hebrew name from which “Jesus” could have later been derived) is not mentioned within any text, inscription or graffito and cannot be found within any correspondence.
            There is not even any archaeological evidence of a 1st century “City of Nazareth” beneath the modern Jesus theme park town of that name.

            Every single reference to “Jesus” was written centuries after the time in which the legends of Jesus are merely back dated to, and in which those confused and contradictory legends are set.

            The oldest fragments of scrawled legends of Jesus date from the 3rd century and the oldest extant bibles (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) date from the late 4th century and were written after the Roman religion they called “christianity” was cobbled together from mainly pagan components and exclusively pagan feast days and festivals and after the decree that altered the day of prayer from the messianic / Hebrew Sabbath (the seventh day – Saturday) to the pagan day of worship of Zeus the sun god Sun(god)day.

            Some have responded: “But there are written records as early as 50 to 70 years after the event of when he lived that recount many “godlike” qualities that he possessed and other accounts of his divinity.”

            That is just another lie that has been passed down for centuries through christian propaganda.

            Every single text that is claimed to originate within the 1st or 2nd century was written centuries later.

            Over 80% of christian texts date no earlier than the 9th century and many are the result of the industrial scale fabrication of texts, artifacts, fake relics and fraudulent shrouds etc that occurred in Medieval times.

            Since there are NO ACCOUNTS – the later written, diverse and different, confused and contradictory LEGENDS appear totally incredible to a large and rapidly growing number of us.

            The oldest / first xtian politico-corporate business of religion agrees, saying:

            “Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted.”
            (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

            The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, “the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled” (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels “do not go back to the first century of the Christian era”
            (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).

            This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ.

            In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that,
            “the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD”
            (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).

            You join many who have been duped by 1600 years of propaganda, myths, legends and lies that started to appear in the late 3rd century.

            To fail to conflate Jesus with other myriads of gods and god-men in all the various cultures throughout recorded history and to which his legends so closely resemble appears to be committing an egregious fallacy of logic.

            Many of us know the myths, legends and lies you recycle but cannot validate or excuse.

            Christian faithists claim a god and a god-man exist. The onus remains upon them to justify, validate or excuse that bizarre claim.

            No one ever has.

          • Paul

            So are you Tony Bushby or did you just go to his website and steal all of his grossly unfactual rubbish? I’ll think better of you and just call you Tony.

            So Tony, do you even read what I post? I’m beginning to think that you don’t really want to address any of the points I’ve mentioned and are simply convinced that your incoherent ramblings are in themselves some sort of refutation of the Christian religion or the scriptures. It really is quite pathetic that all you can do is ramble on with your own misapprehension of history and think that somehow, clever you, has managed to dismantle the Christian Faith. And just so you understand, I don’t consider the Roman Catholic Church to be ‘The Church’. At best it is apostate and anything they say, even regarding there own supposed ‘inerrant’ edicts have been contradictory so I don’t give too much credence to what they might say about manuscripts and such.

            Do you know that up to 95% of the New Testament could be put together just from the quotes that the church fathers put in there writings? Do you know that there are over 23,000 manuscripts of the New Testament and the earliest ones date back to within 50 years of the original writings. You say, “Within the entire 1st century “Jesus” is not mentioned by a single Greek, Roman or Jewish historian or chronicler.” I think you’ve forgotten the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman Tacitus. Both mention the Jesus of the gospels.

            So Tony, it’s been fun. But if you’re not going to address any of the points I’ve mentioned, and all you’re going to do is continue to ramble on about supposed myths and fantasies then I’ll leave off here. If you ever want to get around to dealing with the real issues you face, you know, where did the ‘stuff’ of the universe come from and how did it go bang, then get back to me and I’ll continue with the discussion. If all you want to do is rant… then just don’t bother, I’ve got more important things to do than sit here and read your nonsensical ramblings.

          • rationalobservations?

            I am extremely familiar with the condition of denial you demonstrate and the propaganda and lies you recycle, Paul.

            To justify your claim that original and authentic documentary evidence exists of the existence of “Jesus” – you are now charged with decribing that evidence and revealineg the location in which that authentic and original, 1st century originated evidence is conserved and available for study.
            You cannot do that because only centuries later fabricated texts exist. 80% of christian texts and all christian artifacts and faked relics originate no earlkier than the 9th century and most can be traced to the 12th to 16th centuries.

            Atheism is NOT “a stance that gods don’t exist.”

            It is an informed and rational conclusion that there is NO EVIDENCE of the existence of any of the hundreds of thousands of gods, goddesses and god-men that are currently undetected and undetectable.

            No one has challenged that informed and rational conclusion – and the third largest and fastest growing human cohort agrees with that informed and rational conclusion while churches empty and redundant churches rot all over the villages, towns and cities of the developed western world.

            If someone destroys the reason for atheism by presenting evidence of the existence of any/all of the many thousands of undetected gods, goddesses and god-men – that will terminate atheism in a flash. There’s no sign of that ever happening as the reasons for atheism continue to destroy the failed excuses for religionism.

            To the non-indoctrinated – and those of us who shrugged off indoctrination in favour of common sense, logic and evidence – nothing appears to distinguish one god, goddess or god-man/”messiah”., from any other of the many thousands of undetected and undetectable, entirely and exclusively hypothetical gods, goddesses and god-men/”messiahs.

            Christians are often baffled how atheists could deny the existence of their (originally Canaanite) god, “Jehovah/Yahweh” and their (Roman) god-man/”messiah” “Yeshu/Jesus”, but they shouldn’t be. Christians deny many tens of thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more ridiculously unconvincing god and one more stereotypical and entirely mythical god-man (among many hundreds of thousands of extremely similar undetectable and imaginary gods, goddesses and god-men) than Christians.

            Many among the declining cohort of the religionists join those christians who fail to justify their enthrallment to their specific brand of religion by pointing out that the non-existence of any of the gods cannot be proved.

            If inability to prove the non-existence of deities is enough for christians to believe in them.,they must be very busy worshiping Amun-Ra, Apollo/Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Pratibhanapratisamvit, (Buddhist goddess of context analysis) and Acat, (Mayan god of tattoo artists) and Tsa’qamae, (North American god of salmon migration) – and many thousands of other undetectable hypothetical entities among which the ridiculous “Yahweh” and “Jesus” remain merely mythical and of which no one ever provides proof or reason of (or for) existence and therefore non-existence may be sensibly and rationally assumed by default – as the third largest and fastest growing cohort of humanity (the godless / non-religious) conclude.

            All the actual historical evidence appears to indicate that the “christian” religion was cobbled together in the 4th century from mainly “pagan” components and exclusively “pagan” feast days and festivals.
            The burden of proof and the onus of convincing the rest of us of the validity of the “proof” is always upon the religionists and the rest of the rapidly declining membership of fraudulent religions. All religionists, fail too rise to meet that challenge and therefore your myths, legends and human businesses of religion remain debunked in the minds of most young folk and a large and growing number of us older folk who saw through and rejected the bunkum at some time in our life.
            It’s very noticeable that no one can tell me (and the growing legion of the happy, peaceful and humanitarian godless) about (the originally Canaanite god) “Yahweh” and (Roman god-man) “Jesus” through logic and actual authenticated historical and scientific evidence and without any reference to the confused and internally contradictory mythology within any of the many diverse and different versions of human authored bibles, papyri, manuscripts and texts that were written centuries after the time in which their tales are backdated and merely set.
            Christian faithists claim a god and a god-man exist. The onus remains upon them to justify, validate or excuse that bizarre claim. No one ever has.
            Meanwhile; the rest of us simply do not believe them because they present nothing but myths, legends and lies and the fact that they assert that they personally believe in magic, supernatural entities and the myths legends and lies in which such childish superstition exclusively resides fails to convince anyone of anything but the power of indoctrination and the strength of some folks delusions.

            We know faithists believe in magic, the third largest and fastest growing human cohort dismiss their beliefs in favour of common sense and evidence.

            When are you going to at least make some feeble attempt to address the points I raise??

            I have better things to do than read your recycled garbage and lies.

          • Paul

            Sorry Tony, not interested in diatribes. Enjoy your delusion.

            “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools…”

          • rationalobservations?

            Still no evidence supported claims that validate or excuse your indoctrination.

            Denial is not rebuttal.

            As the least religious and most peaceful and law abiding nations of the world demonstrate: Ungodliness has no relationship to unrighteousness. The opposite is demonstrated all around this little world of ours.

            Your bunkum remains debunked and you condition of denial and demonstration of wishful thinking, delusion and the Dunning-Kruger effect impresses no one but the similarly afflicted.

            Deep and sincere sympathy for your sad delusional condition – but you earn no respect for your egotism, anti-humanitarianism and stubborn ignorance.

          • Paul

            complete nutter….

          • rationalobservations?

            Thank you for so completely living up to my assessment of you, Paul.

            Again:
            You so clearly demonstrate that you can’t tell me (and the growing legion of the happy, peaceful and humanitarian godless) about (the originally Canaanite god) “Yahweh” and (Roman god-man) “Jesus” through logic and actual authenticated historical and scientific evidence and without any reference to the confused and internally contradictory mythology within any of the many diverse and different versions of human authored bibles, papyri, manuscripts and texts that were written centuries after the time in which their tales are backdated and merely set.

            Christian faithists claim an undetected and undetectable god and a god-man exist. The onus remains upon them to justify, validate or excuse that bizarre claim.

            No one ever has.

            You have qualified for my deep and sincere sympathy for your pathetic and delusional condition of unjustified and unjustifiable denial – but you earn no respect for your egotism, pathetic frustration and fury, anti-humanitarianism and stubborn ignorance.

            Never mind, your church may not close for few years yet, but it will undoubtedly join the thousands of empty redundant churches that rot and litter the villages, towns and cities of the western world as education and free secular democracy continue to replace the evil of superstition, oppression, prejudice and persecution that symbolizes religion past and present.

            Run along now and pretend you have had something of meaning and truth to present as most religionists do before cutting and running in confusion and distress.

          • Paul

            I said you were a complete nutter Tony because you keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over… You just don’t get it. You want people to present proof, but hey, wait a minute, I’m not going to accept anything you present because you’ve already decided that it’s “confused and internally contradictory mythology within any of the many diverse and different versions of human authored bibles, papyri, manuscripts and texts that were written centuries after the time in which their tales are backdated and merely set.”

            Do you realize how stupid you sound when you say things like that. I’m sorry if that sounds uncharitable Tony but it’s the bare bones truth. That’s why I called you a ‘complete nutter’. You actually think you are saying something worthwhile and all you’re doing is repeating ad nauseum the same rant over and over again.

            You continually ask for proof of the reality of God, and then ignore over and over and over again the evidence I presented. You’re the one who has failed to provide any proof that your worldview has any rational foundations. Remember that little point of singularity that scientist keep going on about. The one that went BANG and everything just popped into being! Maybe it didn’t just go BANG. Maybe it was the greatest example of prestidigitation the world has ever seen! An unseen nobody, shouted an unheard ‘Abracadabra’ and presto chango, everything just magically popped into existence. You see, this is what you claim the Christian believes, but the reality is it’s you who believes in the magic man in the sky. Worse yet, you think that everything that is just popped into existence from nothing! Incredible.

            You have failed in every post you’ve put up to address how you think that all came about. Is it ignorance or are you well aware that you have no serious rational ground for believing that the world can just pop into existence from nothing! It’s time for you Tony, to either put up, present your case for why there is even a universe in the first place, or simply just shut up, because your nonsensical ramblings are convincing no one but yourself.

          • rationalobservations?

            You are such a bold liar, Paul.
            You say you have presented “proof”. That is a lie.
            You call me “Tony”. That is not my name.
            You say you have presented evidence of the existence of your god. That is a lie.
            You claim that scientists believe that the universe came from nothing. That is a lie (Only creationists believe that the universe was wished into existence FROM NOTHING)

            You dishonest ranting fails to convince me of anything but your ignorance, anger and affliction with the Dunning-Kruger effect.

            Once again:

            You so clearly demonstrate that you can’t tell me (and the growing legion of the happy, peaceful and humanitarian godless) about (the originally Canaanite god) “Yahweh” and (Roman god-man) “Jesus” through logic and actual authenticated historical and scientific evidence and without any reference to the confused and internally contradictory mythology within any of the many diverse and different versions of human authored bibles, papyri, manuscripts and texts that were written centuries after the time in which their tales are backdated and merely set.

            Christian faithists claim an undetected and undetectable god and a god-man exist. The onus remains upon them to justify, validate or excuse that bizarre claim.

            No one ever has.

            Opinion is not evidence.
            Denial is not rebuttal.

            Your bunkum remains debunked and your lies exposed.

          • Paul

            I’m sorry that your small little world is crashing in around you Tony. (I call you Tony because your material is almost word for word from a page put up by a fellow named Tony Bushby, so if you’re not Tony then you’re nothing but a plagiarizing thief. The evidence was presented ages ago above, just because you choose to deny it and ignore it doesn’t mean it wasn’t presented. And here we are several more exchanges down the thread and you still don’t bother to tell me how you believe the universe came into existence. So… I’ll ask one more time.

            HOW DID THE UNIVERSE COME INTO EXISTENCE.

            I think I’ll be waiting for a long time to get an answer from you.

            And it’s stuff like this that you need to stop repeating ad nauseum…

            “You so clearly demonstrate that you can’t tell me (and the growing legion of the happy, peaceful and humanitarian godless) about (the originally Canaanite god) “Yahweh” and (Roman god-man) “Jesus” through logic and actual authenticated historical and scientific evidence and without any reference to the confused and internally contradictory mythology within any of the many diverse and different versions of human authored bibles, papyri, manuscripts and texts that were written centuries after the time in which their tales are backdated and merely set.”

            and this…

            “Christian faithists claim an undetected and undetectable god and a god-man exist. The onus remains upon them to justify, validate or excuse that bizarre claim.”

            and this too…

            “Your bunkum remains debunked and your lies exposed.”

            The only thing that is exposed is your inability to think for yourself.

          • rationalobservations?

            Thanks for the tip regarding Tony Bushby. I was somewhat puzzled when the first Google search resulted in many pages about a psychopathic murderer, but when added “author” to my keywords the guy you appear to mistake me for appeared.
            I’m not sure if I should be flattered or annoyed at your attempt at ad hominem/ad hominem by proxy.
            On one hand you flatter me that I would be a best selling author of what looks like well researched books that I will read to see how his research may parallel my own.
            On the other hand; My research is my own and it has been plagiarized quite a few times but that is a compliment to the veracity of my conclusions more than anything else.

            Your latest little furious diatribe continues to be long of false and empty claims and totally devoid of a single shred of original and authentic evidence.

            You are further revealed as an egotistical little delusional and dishonest wacko, Paul.

            Get back to me if you have any evidence supported observations or proof of the existence of magic and magical super-spooks…

            Next..??

          • http://KurtWillems.com Kurt Willems

            Hey guys. I’m tempted to shut down comments here. I’m only interested in cordial conversation. Please stop being pejorative toward each other simply because you disagree with each other’s worldview. Thank you.

          • rationalobservations?

            I would be delighted to have a calm and sensible, logic and evidence based debate, Kurt.

            Why can no one tell me (and the growing legion of the happy, peaceful and humanitarian godless) about (the originally Canaanite god) “Yahweh” and (Roman god-man) “Jesus” through logic and actual authenticated historical and scientific evidence and without any reference to the confused and internally contradictory mythology within any of the many diverse and different versions of human authored bibles, papyri, manuscripts and texts that were written centuries after the time in which their tales are backdated and merely set?

            Christians claim an undetected and undetectable god and a god-man exist. The onus remains upon them to justify, validate or excuse that claim.

          • rationalobservations?

            “HOW DID THE UNIVERSE COME INTO EXISTENCE.”
            There was a singularity event that occurred 13,820,000,000 years ago from which expansion commenced.

            In 2013 the Herschel and Planck projects added much to our knowledge of the ancient early hit dense universe and the age was more accurately established at 13.82 billion years.

            Further information and education can be acquired here:
            https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/21mar_cmb

            On the other hand: Perhaps you can explain the exact method that a hypothetical god wished the infinite universe into existence FROM NOTHING??

          • Paul

            This will be my last attempt Tony to see if you can understand a couple of rather simple concepts. You keep talking about a “singularity event” that “occurred”. Yet you can’t seem to grasp that this “singularity event” is something and had to come “from” somewhere. Where did it come from? You yourself gave it a start date, some 13,820,000,000 years ago. What was it before that date? Did it bring itself into existence? Did it create itself? This “event” was an effect. What was the cause of that effect? These are the 2 very simple concepts that you seem to be struggling with. You see, it’s not me who’s saying the universe came into existence FROM NOTHING, that would be you.

            You only have to tell me 2 things.
            1. Where did the singular event come from. What was it before it became that “sinularity event”?
            2. What caused it to happen? You can’t have an effect without a cause.

          • rationalobservations?

            The Big Bang theory is a model of the history of the universe, tracing the material evolution of the cosmos to its very earliest moments. And that’s it. Don’t try to stuff anything else into that framework. Just stop. You can keep your meta safely away from my physics, thank you very much.

            I’m emphasizing this because there is a lot of confusion from all sides, and it’s best to keep it simple. The Big Bang theory is a scientific model, just like any other scientific model. We conclude the theory is on the right track because it’s — gasp — supported by extensive evidence.

            The Big Bang theory can be summarized thusly: At one time, the entire universe — everything you know and love, everything on the Earth and in the heavens — was crushed into a trillion-Kelvin ball about the size of a peach. Or apple. Or small grapefruit. Really, the fruit doesn’t matter here, OK?

            That statement sounds absolutely ridiculous, and if you said it a few hundred years ago… Well, I hope you like barbecues, because you’re about to be burned at the stake. But as crazy as this concept sounds, we can actually understand this epoch with our knowledge of high-energy physics. We can model the physics of the universe at this early stage and figure out the latter-day observational consequences. We can make predictions. We can do science.

            So the question: “Where did the singular event come from. What was it before it became that “singularity event”? makes as much sense as: If everything must be created, who or what created “god” or “the gods”?

            As for the question: “What caused it to happen?
            No one knows.

            At even earlier times, though, our understanding of the universe gets … fuzzy. The forces, energies, densities and temperatures become too high, and the knowledge of physics we’ve cobbled together over the centuries just isn’t up to the task. In the extremely early universe gravity starts to get very important at small scales, and this is the realm of quantum gravity, the yet-to-be-solved grand riddle of modern physics. We just flat-out don’t have an understanding of strong gravity at small scales.

            We. Just. Don’t.

            That fails to be an opening for the answer “god or the gods did it” since that would demand belief in ALL the hundreds of thousands of super-spooks and all the hundreds of known creation myths.

            And the statement:
            “You can’t have an effect without a cause.”
            There is no proof that you can’t have an effect without a cause. However if that proves true:
            If that is true, what caused a “god” or “the gods”?
            How made the creator and who or what fabricated the maker and who constructed the constructor and what evidence is there of any creator, fabricator, constructor or fabricator.
            The evidence of the existence of the universe is merely evidence of the existence of the universe. Nothing more.

            I continually address and respond to your questions.

            Why can’t you tell me (and the growing legion of the happy, peaceful and humanitarian godless) about (the originally Canaanite god) “Yahweh” and (Roman god-man) “Jesus” through logic and actual authenticated historical and scientific evidence and without any reference to the confused and internally contradictory mythology within any of the many diverse and different versions of human authored bibles, papyri, manuscripts and texts that were written centuries after the time in which their tales are backdated and merely set.

          • Paul

            “So the question: “Where did the singular event come from. What was it before it became that “singularity event”? makes as much sense as: If everything must be created, who or what created “god” or “the gods”?”
            Actually that is the entire point. You need to do a little more thinking on the idea of ‘necessary being’. Unless you want to start believing in an infinite regress, where you go back and look for a cause for every effect and you never actually get anything started in the first place. After all, you’re going back for infinity so how do you ever get to a starting point? This is where your worldview breaks down and that is why you just can’t get past it. There needs to be necessary being. That’s why it’s called ‘necessary’.

            “As for the question: “What caused it to happen?
            No one knows.”

            Well, actually, we do know. What caused it was ‘necessary being’ or what is known as ‘the uncaused first cause’. This is a simple philosophical truth. “If there is something with being, then someone with the power of being in and of himself, must necessarily exist.” This necessary being is who we call God. Nothing you say will ever be able to dismiss that. Look up ‘infinite regress’ and see if you can find a satisfactory solution to that dilemma. Good luck.

            “That fails to be an opening for the answer “god or the gods did it” since that would demand belief in ALL the hundreds of thousands of super-spooks and all the hundreds of known creation myths.”

            Actually it is the opening for the answer “God did it”. Belief in the one true God in no way means that we ‘must’ believe in “ALL the hundreds of thousands of super-spooks and all the hundreds of known creation myths.” That is simply superstition

            “There is no proof that you can’t have an effect without a cause.”

            Yes there is. The proof is in the pudding as they say. Tell me of one effect that doesn’t have a cause? The very definition of effect proves that.
            Effect: A change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
            There would be no effect if there were no cause. And conversely the same is true of a cause. The
            words themselves would have no meaning without each other.

            “How (I think you mean who) made the creator and who or what fabricated the maker and who constructed the constructor and what evidence is there of any creator, fabricator, constructor or fabricator.”

            This is where your thinking keeps breaking down (again). See what I said above concerning ‘necessary being’ and ‘the uncaused first cause’.

            “The evidence of the existence of the universe is merely evidence of the existence of the universe.”

            Actually, the existence of the universe (or anything for that matter) is all you need for the evidence of the existence of God. That is as obvious a truth as is a bachelor is an unmarried man.

            And finally, “At one time, the entire universe — everything..” This is what you’re not seeming to grasp. That “everything’ needed a first cause. it needed someone to make it go bang. If there was nothing before that ‘everything’, there would still be just that now… nothing. Enjoy your life Tony. I’ve said all I can to help you out. Ciao.

          • rationalobservations?

            So now all you are required to do is present the evidence that indicates this entirely hypothetical “uncaused cause” and explain how it “caused” an infinite universe to exist FROM NOTHING?

            After that you can present original and authentic evidence that Jesus existed.

          • Paul

            Actually I’ve been waiting for over a month for you to do that. It’s not my problem that you can’t understand what it means to have a being who has the power of being in and of himself. The answer is in the being. He has the power to bring things into existence by the power of his word. You still have a universe coming into being (from non-being?) with no cause and no power to bring it into being. You need to be able to grasp that first bit before you’ll be able to understand anything beyond it.

          • rationalobservations?

            You reference only myths and legends that are similar to earlier myths and legends dreamed up by primitive ignorant men.

            All creation myths are unsupported by evidence and all creators are undetectable and undetected.

            In practical terms there is no difference between the undetectable and the nonexistent.

            To demand evidence of the nonexistence of the nonexistent appears ridiculous to most of us. Evidence of the nonexistence of the non-existent is nonexistent because the non-existent is non-existent.

            Your blind faith is based upon the possibility of proving the nonexistence of one apparently nonexistent “creator” but there are many thousands of them. If you consider why you dismiss the others you may come to realise why most of modern humans dismiss yours.

            Evidence of the existence of the universe is only evidence of the existence of the universe.

          • Paul

            That’s why I can’t help you anymore. You keep saying ridiculous things like this: “In practical terms there is no difference between the undetectable and the nonexistent.”
            Thought is undetectable, yet it certainly exists. You’re inability to grasp the difference between reason and logic, and rhetorical gibberish is truly mind boggling. I really don’t know why I bothered to waste my time on this conversation. I thought you might be able to grasp truth, but alas I was mistaken. Enjoy your life. And get ready for the surprise of your life when it ends…..

          • rationalobservations?

            Thought IS DETECTABLE ,Ken. A scan of the electrical activity can even locate the prions that fire during different processes of thought.

            Your recycled bunkum remains debunked and your pathetic lies exposed, Ken.

            Next.. ???

          • Paul

            I didn’t say the processes weren’t detectable.. the thoughts themselves aren’t. You really do struggle don’t you.

          • rationalobservations?

            It’s hardly a surprise that you struggle to detect sense, evidence or significance within your own random thoughts. I join you in that struggle.

            It is pretty clear that you have a naive belief in magic and imaginary, undetectable, undetected super-spooks. You have made no attempt to validate explain, or even excuse those wacko beliefs through logic, evidence or common sense.

            You have demonstrated the degree of your egotism, indoctrination and the Dunning-Kruger effect and eccentrics are amusing to the rest of us so keep me smiling with your vacuous nonsense by all means.

          • Paul

            Still igoring the crux of the issue I see.

            Here’s a little test you can do to try and understand what I’ve been telling you. Take a pen. Now press the pen against a white sheet of paper. Pull the pen away. Notice the tiny dot that is now on the paper. Tell me: “how did the dot got there.”

            Once you’ve answered that question, apply the same principles of logic to the other speck we were talking about above, you know, that ‘infintesimal point of singularity’ and tell me how it got there. I’ll give you a hint: like the dot on the paper, someone put it there.

            It’s really simple. All you have to do is answer the 2nd question using the same logical process you used to answer the first. I’ve got a sneaky feeling you’ll write another diatribe and ignore it all again.

          • rationalobservations?

            Oh the irony, ken.

            Talk avoiding the “crux” of the matter?

            The universe is not a man made dot on a man made piece of paper.

            You claim the evidence of the big bang is also evidence of an undetected and undectable hypothetical super-spooks. I point out that no evidence of that exists and you present no evidence.

            Many hypotheses exist concerning the nature of the Big Bang. Magic and super-spooks appear the most idiotic and least believeable.

            Please explain the method by which your particular super-spook (among hundreds of thousands of similar imaginary super-spooks ) wished a universe from NOTHING?

            Happy to educate and inform but you are resisting all my help. Still…..

            You’re welcome, Kenny boy.

          • Paul

            “The universe is not a man made for on a man made piece of paper.”

            lol

          • rationalobservations?

            Still no attempt to validate, justify or excuse your delusions then, ken?

            Deep sympathy but no respect yet earned by you.

          • Paul

            ” . “

          • rationalobservations?

            Still no evidence or excuses for your delusions.

          • Paul

            ” . “

          • rationalobservations?

            ;-D

            No evidence and no answers.

            Your bunkum remains debunked and your delusions revealed.

          • Paul

            ” . “

          • Paul

            —–> .

          • rationalobservations?

            So sorry you’re continuing to demonstrate surrender after having your bunkum debunked.
            You had a pretty slim chance to excuse your delusions but blew that.

          • Paul

            ——-> . <——–

          • rationalobservations?

            Still drawing attention to the size of your intelligence and the termination of any attempt to validate, explain, justify or excuse your primitive superstitions..

            Your bunkum remains debunked.

          • Paul

            =============> . <=============== (In case you've forgotten, that dot represents that point of singularity that your irrational, illogical mind can't explain. The fact that you have failed over countless posts to give a rational explanation for the beginning of the universe, is manifestly obvious to anyone who might have the great displeasure of reading your mindless responses. You haven't debunked anything. Only repeated the bunkum you that I debunked ages ago. Any real idea as to where the universe came from? How did the effect happen without a cause? This is where you must just sit there and shake uncontrollably as you realize that your whole little world is crashing in around you. This will be my last post… unless you really do answer the questions I've put before you. Where did the material of the universe come from? And what caused the effect of the universe? You really do make me laugh… Tony.

          • rationalobservations?

            Evidence of a dot is evidence of a dot. Nothing more.

            Evidence of the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of the universe. Nothing more.

            There is no evidence of the existence of the originally Canaanite god Yahweh or the Roman god-man Yeshua/Jesus.

            Your pathetic myths are busted and your bunkum remains debunked, ken.

          • Paul

            Evidence of the existence of God is evidence of the existence of God. Nothing more.

          • rationalobservations?

            Present the empirical evidence of the existence of your particular god that is not evidence of the existence of anything else.

            Explain the difference between the undetectable and the nonexistent.

            Prove that your undetectable hypothetical god exists and no other similar god, goddess or god-man exists.

            Explain why you believe in one hypothetical and undectable god and dismiss all others.

            Good luck.

          • Paul

            Right after you answer my questions. Good luck.

          • rationalobservations?

            So you confirm yourself to be: Just another superstitious cop out who makes claims they cannot justify or excuse.

            You have no answers, no evidence and offer no reason to believe the garbage you fail to defend or excuse.

            All your myths are busted and your bunkum remains debunked.

            Sincere sympathy to you and the rapidly declining membership of your primitive and barbaric cult.

          • Paul

            “You claim that scientists believe that the universe came from nothing. That is a lie (Only creationists believe that the universe was wished into existence FROM NOTHING)”

            You call me a liar, yet you spout garbage like that. Get a life mate, you have absolutely no rational foundation for your beliefs. Go pester someone else who’ll listen to your nonsense. Go back and waste your time reading the posts you’ve put up and tell me one time you’ve actually answered any of my questions. Just one time. Anyone else reading this will see you for what you are, a scared little man who doesn’t want to deal with his own fragile thinking. You really are quite pathetic. I feel sorry for you actually.

            I’ll leave you with a quote from the Apostle Paul, who understood people like you quite well. He said:

            “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress teh truth. For what can be known about God IS PLAIN TO THEM. For his invisible attributes, namely , his eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY PERCIEVED, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are WITHOUT EXCUSE. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became FUTILE IN THEIR THINKING, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise they became fools…”

          • rationalobservations?

            Hysterical fury of this sort is commonplace from religiots who fail to validate, justify or excuse the garbage they spew and the lies they recycle.
            Denial is not rebuttal, ken.

            Your questions are answered, your myths remain busted and your bunkum debunked.
            Op

          • Paul

            “Your questions are answered,” ?????

          • rationalobservations?

            You cannot answer my questions or present evidence of the existence of any of the thousands of imaginary gods that includes your imaginary gods.

          • Paul

            To prove God’s existence you only need to accept 4 premises that I believe all of us readily accept in everyday life.

            They are: 1. The Law of Causality. This is simply the law of cause and effect, and that is that ‘every effect has a antecedent or prior cause’. If someone has trouble with this one then please give me one example of an uncaused effect and I’ll rethink my position. Some try and derail the apologetic by asking the question “who caused God?” That is a misleading question. God is not an effect, he is the uncaused first cause and therefore the question is irrelevant.

            2. The Law of Non-contradition. This is simply put as ‘A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. To understand that in practical terms would be to say the A (I am alive physically) cannot be non A (I am dead physically) at the same time and in the same relationship. I may very well be alive now and dead 10 secs from now (time), or I may be alive physically, and dead spiritually (relationship) but I cannot be physically alive and physically dead at the same time and in the same relationship. The rules of logic apply here.

            3. I can have a basic trust in my perception of things. In other words I can reasonable trust that what I see is really what is. I say basically because people may hallucinate and such but that is rare. We prove this point every time we approach a red light while driving and stop.

            4. The use of analogical language. A quick example of the use of analogical language is if I were to say I have a ball beside me you would automatically understand what I am talking about. We all know what a ball is even though they may be in different sizes, shapes or textures. Same could be said for a chair. God uses analogy when speaking to us. Although God is far above us in being and transcends our being in kind, He can be understood by us using analogical language.

            With these four premises in place it is simply a matter of understanding that there is something with being, therefore something or someone ‘must’ have the power of being in and of it/himself. Understanding these four premises logically drives us to the reality of God. I’m not talking about the Christian understanding of God, just the basic understanding of God, one who is eternal and has the power of being in and of himself.

            Some doubt if we can really have any true knowledge of our existence, of our being. A consideration of the thought of Rene Decartes would be helpful here. He decided to doubt everything, anything he thought to be true he doubted. At the end of this exercise there was one thing he couldn’t doubt.. and that was the truth of his doubting. Even if he doubted that he was doubting, he proved his doubting to be true. He knew he was doubting via his mind and his thoughts, and if he was thinking he had to exist, thus the line we all probably know even if we don’t know Descarte himself and that is “I think therefore I am”. From this point we can go straight to the reality our something existing, to the knowledge of the truth of the existence of God.

            Some would say that we must forget about the second point and embrace contradiction and the irrational. In that case all meaningful communication ceases to exist. How could you have any meaningful dialogue if one of the participants couldn’t be trusted to make sense. If you embrace the irrational then I’ll let the Wizard of Id have the last word. He said, “frammin’ in the jimjam, frippin at the krotz!” Good luck with that…

            Your turn…

          • rationalobservations?

            Nothing you recycle indicates the existence of a god or the requirement for a god.

            Try again..

          • Paul

            You truly are a genius…

          • rationalobservations?

            No. Just an old scholar and teacher who values the truth and finds fulfillment in educating and informing those who appear to be ignorant and/or gullible…, and:

            You’re very welcome.

            Best wishes and kind regards to you and yours, son.

          • rationalobservations?

            1) Even if we allow that the “law” of causality is real (micro big bangs pop in and out of existence from “nothing” at CERN on a daily basis) – there is nothing to indicate the existence of your particular improbable “god”., or any of thr many thousands of other improbable and exclusively hypothetical gods, goddesses and god-men.

            2) This is a failed excuse for your delusions. Nothing you write is evidence of the existence of any of the “gods”.

            3) Nothing you write is evidence of the existence of any of the “gods”. Delusion, self delusion, brain washing and indoctrination account for all your internal fantasies and beliefs.

            4) This is another failed excuse for your delusions. Nothing you write is evidence of the existence of any of the “gods”.

            No logic, evidence or reason for the existence of your particular improbable god or any of the thousands of other improbable gods.

            If the inability to prove the nonexistence of your undetectable gods is all that causes you to believe in them, why don’t you believe in all the thousands of other similar and similarly undetectable beings?

            Evidence of the nonexistence of the nonexistent is nonexistent because the nonexistent is nonexistent.

            In all practical terms there is no difference between the undetectable and the nonexistent.

          • Paul

            “In all practical terms there is no difference between the undetectable and the nonexistent.”

            This is why I don’t know why I’ve wasted so much time having a discourse with you. Right here, right now, you are undetectable to me, therefore you must be nonexistent according to your logic. I can’t beleive you even believe this rubbish you say. And you’re going to present yourself as some sort of ‘teacher’. What a joke. And give me one example of an uncaused effect. Just one. Absolute tripe. What happens at CERN is of an unknown cause. There are many things happening at the subatomic level that we just don’t understand. What arrogance you have to say that you do understand. Go away little man. I’ve had enough of your nonsense.

          • rationalobservations?

            I am not undetectable to you, you read my words and are confounded by them.

            An example of an un-caused effect?
            Look around you at the magnificent, incredibly violent, emotionless universe in which you (and I) are totally insignificant to all but those we love and who love us.

            Run away little boy. Your bunkum is debunked and your childish myths are busted.

            I am always amused by the egotism of folk like you who delude themselves that they have evidence and answers but who inevitably run away when backed into a corner and asked to present evidence supported proof of your wild and fanciful claims.

            The burden of proof and the onus of convincing the rest of us of the validity of the “proof” is always upon the religionists and the rest of the rapidly declining membership of fraudulent religions. All religionists, fail too rise to meet that challenge and therefore your myths, legends and human businesses of religion remain debunked in the minds of most young folk and a large and growing number of us older folk who saw through and rejected the bunkum at some time in our life.

            It’s very noticeable that no one can tell me (and the growing legion of the happy, peaceful and humanitarian godless) about (the originally Canaanite god) “Yahweh” and (Roman god-man) “Jesus” (or any of the many thousands of other mythical deities) through logic and actual authenticated historical and scientific evidence and without any reference to the confused and internally contradictory mythology within any of the many diverse and different versions of human authored bibles, papyri, manuscripts and texts that were written centuries after the time in which their tales are backdated and merely set.

            Atheists make no claims. Religionists claim a god and/or gods and/or a god-man/men exist. The onus remains upon them to justify, validate or excuse that apparently bizarre claim.
            Meanwhile; the rapidly growing rest of us simply find no compelling reason to believe in any of the gods or religions because they present nothing but myths, legends and lies and the fact that a declining cohort of mankind personally believe in magic, supernatural entities and the myths legends and lies in which such childish superstition exclusively resides – is unconvincing to those of us who have shrugged off that indoctrinated BS and the millennial generation who have mostly not been infected by that garbage.

          • Paul

            “Atheists make no claims.”

            More foolish chatter from you. You ‘claim’ there is no God. Prove it… or be quiet.

          • rationalobservations?

            Yet another ridiculous straw man, Paul. You obviously have no sense of shame at your infantile lack of logic or ability to read and comprehend my words.

            I have never asserted that “there is no God” as there are many thousands of gods, goddesses and god-men. I point out the truth that there is NO EVIDENCE of the existence of any of the many thousands of gods, goddesses and god-men.

            To contradict that apparent truth – all you need to do is present incontrovertible and empirical evidence of the existence of at least one god, goddess or god-man.

            I repeat:
            It’s very noticeable that no one can tell me (and the growing legion of the happy, peaceful and humanitarian godless) about (the originally Canaanite god) “Yahweh” and (Roman god-man) “Jesus” (or any of the many thousands of other mythical deities) through logic and actual authenticated historical and scientific evidence and without any reference to the confused and internally contradictory mythology within any of the many diverse and different versions of human authored bibles, papyri, manuscripts and texts that were written centuries after the time in which their tales are backdated and merely set.”

            You appear to claim there is at least one god.
            Prove it – or accept your bunkum is debunked and your myths are all busted.

            Oh., and please read and answer the issues raised without further attempts at diversion into the twilight world of straw men of your own fevered and furious invention.

            Definition:
            straw man
            noun
            1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.

            You’re on the hook, Paul.
            Put up or shut up.

          • Paul

            You believe that there are thousands of gods without evidence?? What a truly astounding thing to admit! What faith you have to believe that there are thousands of gods, and that with no evidence! Astounding!! You truly are a fool. I only believe in the one and I’ve already presented the incontrovertible truth of that. You, in your irrational observations, have ignored that over and over again. You refuse to accept the evidence, and continue in your ignorance. You’ll stand before the King one day, and I hope I’m not there to witness your just condemnation. What horror will be written on your face. Yet there is still time. As long as you have breath you have time to repent of your sin and turn to the ‘one’ God who is there and will reward you with life eternal.

          • rationalobservations?

            Yet another feeble straw man for me to burn?
            Shame on you, Paul!

            “You believe that there are thousands of gods without evidence??

            Of course not! How ridiculous would that be?
            Although thinking about and to reiterate the point that was lost on you. It’s as ridiculous to believe in any of the goods without evidence as it is to believe in one god without evidence.

            As for any incontrovertible truth from you? There’s no sign of anything incontrovertible, or evidence supported, within any of your debunked bunkum.

            In recent rankings, among the top ten most peaceful nations on earth, all are among the least God-believing – in fact, eight of the ten are specifically among the least theistic nations on earth. Conversely, of the bottom ten – the least peaceful nations – most of them are extremely religious.

            As the great and greatly missed Hitch observed and history and contemporary news confirms:
            “Religion poisons everything”

            Fortunately for the future of humanity – education and free secular democracy has proved, and is proving; to be the antidote to that poison.

            Deep sympathy and get well soon, Paul.

          • rationalobservations?

            My name is not Tony but I’m beginning to think you are merely plagiarising ken ham.

        • Paul

          “Thanks for making me laugh with the irony of your opening line from someone who can offer no argument that favours the existence of any of the hundreds of thousands of gods, goddesses and god-men and no validation, or excuse for blind faith in any of the thousands of fraudulent religions.”

          Although I think you’re nothing more than a troll, looking to comment on something (this blog) that I believe you probably haven’t even read, I’ll give you my rationale (apologetic) for believing that there is a God. (I won’t bother trying to defend what you call the “hundreds of thousands of gods, goddesses and god-men” you take issue with as I don’t believe they exist either. Try and pay attention..

          When we talk about proof for the existence of God we’re not talking about scientific evidence as our means of proof. It’s not like our good friend Carmine (the microwave scene from the movie ‘American Hustle’).. Ques. ‘can you proof the existence of God?’ Carmine.. ‘it’s scientific!’. Sorry Carmine, no it’s not. When we talk about proofs for the existence of God we are talking about the metaphysical realm not the physical realm. Science is the means of understanding the physical realm and philosophy is the best means I’ve seen for understanding the metaphysical realm. Metaphysical of course means the realm that is above or beyond the physical, what we call the spiritual realm.

          To prove God’s existence you only need to accept 4 premises that I believe all of us readily accept in everyday life.

          They are: 1. The Law of Causality. This is simply the law of cause and effect, and that is that ‘every effect has a antecedent or prior cause’. If someone has trouble with this one then please give me one example of an uncaused effect and I’ll rethink my position. Some try and derail the apologetic by asking the question “who caused God?” That is a misleading question. God is not an effect, he is the uncaused first cause and therefore the question is irrelevant.

          2. The Law of Non-contradition. This is simply put as ‘A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. To understand that in practical terms would be to say the A (I am alive physically) cannot be non A (I am dead physically) at the same time and in the same relationship. I may very well be alive now and dead 10 secs from now (time), or I may be alive physically, and dead spiritually (relationship) but I cannot be physically alive and physically dead at the same time and in the same relationship. The rules of logic apply here.

          3. I can have a basic trust in my perception of things. In other words I can reasonable trust that what I see is really what is. I say basically because people may hallucinate and such but that is rare. We prove this point every time we approach a red light while driving and stop.

          4. The use of analogical language. A quick example of the use of analogical language is if I were to say I have a ball beside me you would automatically understand what I am talking about. We all know what a ball is even though they may be in different sizes, shapes or textures. Same could be said for a chair. God uses analogy when speaking to us. Although God is far above us in being and transcends our being in kind, He can be understood by us using analogical language.

          With these four premises in place it is simply a matter of understanding that there is something with being, therefore something or someone ‘must’ have the power of being in and of it/himself. Understanding these four premises logically drives us to the reality of God. I’m not talking about the Christian understanding of God, just the basic understanding of God, one who is eternal and has the power of being in and of himself.

          Some doubt if we can really have any true knowledge of our existence, of our being. A consideration of the thought of Rene Decartes would be helpful here. He decided to doubt everything, anything he thought to be true he doubted. At the end of this exercise there was one thing he couldn’t doubt.. and that was the truth of his doubting. Even if he doubted that he was doubting, he proved his doubting to be true. He knew he was doubting via his mind and his thoughts, and if he was thinking he had to exist, thus the line we all probably know even if we don’t know Descarte himself and that is “I think therefore I am”. From this point we can go straight to the reality our something existing, to the knowledge of the truth of the existence of God.

          Some would say that we must forget about the second point and embrace contradiction and the irrational. In that case all meaningful communication ceases to exist. How could you have any meaningful dialogue if one of the participants couldn’t be trusted to make sense. If you embrace the irrational then I’ll let the Wizard of Id have the last word. He said, “frammin’ in the jimjam, frippin at the krotz!” Good luck with that…

          • rationalobservations?

            You still offer no reason, evidence or excuse for belief in gods (always plural since there are many, many thousands of them).

            You write:
            “When we talk about proofs for the existence of God we are talking about the metaphysical realm not the physical realm.”

            For “metaphysical” many of us read “imaginary”, “hypothetical”, undetected and undetectable.
            That applies to all the goods, goddesses and god-men – including your pathetic little parochial geocentric originally Canaanite “god” “Yahweh” and his beloved consort Asherah, the Shekinah, “God-the-Mother”. Her sacred pillars or poles once stood right beside Yahweh’s altar, embracing it. Moses and Aaron both carried one of these Asherah “poles” as a sacred staff of power. The Children of Israel were once dramatically healed simply by gazing at the staff with serpents suspended from it. This symbol, the snakes and the staff, has become the modern universal symbol for doctors and healers.* Asherah was also widely known in the Middle Eastern ancient world as a Goddess of Healing. Then She was removed forcibly from the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures around 400 or 500 B.C. Her priestesses & priests, known by the headbands they wore, worshiped oHierodule, Lady in Redn hill-tops, such as Zion, Mount of Olives, Har Megiddo and countless others. Daughter of Zion, a term found numerous times in the Old Testament, was perhaps a term for a priestess of Asherah. It later came to mean the “City of God,” or Jerusalem herself. As the “official” state worship became increasingly male oriented, and the establishment became hostile toward all forms of Asherah worship, a time of conflict and bloodshed lasting over a hundred years began. Those that still clung to Her worship paid the price with their lives at the hands of King Josiah and other rabid Yahwists. (Story in the 2nd Kings ). But She could not be torn from the hearts and souls of Her people.

            The Law of Causality.
            Cause and effect when related to the origin of the universe 1,820,000,000 is as yet unknown.

            Belief in magic and and supernatural intervention in merely wishing the whole vast 13,820,000,000 year old universe into existence FROM NOTHING appear the least probable “first cause”.

            Creation myth definitions from modern references:

            A “symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood in a particular tradition and community. Creation myths are of central importance for the valuation of the world, for the orientation of humans in the universe, and for the basic patterns of life and culture.”

            “Creation myths tell us how things began. All cultures have creation myths; they are our primary myths, the first stage in what might be called the psychic life of the species. As cultures, we identify ourselves through the collective dreams we call creation myths, or cosmogonies. Creation myths explain in metaphorical terms our sense of who we are in the context of the world, and in so doing they reveal our real priorities, as well as our real prejudices. Our images of creation say a great deal about who we are.”

            A “philosophical and theological elaboration of the primal myth of creation within a religious community. The term myth here refers to the imaginative expression in narrative form of what is experienced or apprehended as basic reality … The term creation refers to the beginning of things, whether by the will and act of a transcendent being, by emanation from some ultimate source, or in any other way.”

            Your non-argument is based upon merely the pre-indoctrinated acceptance of a “creator god”. Without that indoctrination the irrational and logic devoid whole nonsense collapses.

            Taking your irrational non-argument to its logical conclusion would appear to demand belief in all the hundreds of thousands of “gods” – or none.

            Taking your irrational non-argument to its logical conclusion would appear to demand belief in all the hundreds of diverse and different creation stories, or none.

            Creation ex nihilo (Latin for “out of nothing”), also known as “creation de novo (Latin for “from the new”)”, is a common type of mythical creation. Ex nihilo creation is found in creation stories from ancient Egypt, the Rig Veda, the Bible and the Quran, and many animistic cultures in Africa, Asia, Oceania and North America.[24] The Debate between sheep and grain is an example of an even earlier form of ex nihilo creation myth from ancient Sumer. In most of these stories the world is brought into being by the speech, dream, breath, or pure thought of a creator but creation ex nihilo may also take place through a creator’s bodily secretions.

            The literal translation of the phrase ex nihilo is “from nothing” but in many creation myths the line is blurred whether the creative act would be better classified as a creation ex nihilo or creation from chaos. In ex nihilo creation myths the potential and the substance of creation springs from within the creator. Such a creator may or may not be existing in physical surroundings such as darkness or water, but does not create the world from them, whereas in creation from chaos the substance used for creation is pre-existing within the unformed void.

            A well known example of an ex nihilo creation myth is the one found in the Bible.

            Your pathetic non-explanation fails.

  • Charles Riley

    Kurt my dear young friend, I greatly appreciate your hard work and scholarship on this topic. I am not sure we have that kind of control over the youth in our country that is to drive them away from the Church because they believe I and others like me hate science. I love science. I don’t know any Christians who dis likes science. I guess I have to get out more. My old Mentor Bryce Jessup, President of Jessup U. Ret. told me ”what you win a person with is what you win them to.” I think we need to be careful when making absolute statements. When I accepted Christ I was controlled and followed my feelings and passion. Then after attending San Jose Bible College for 4 years a Jesuit Un. for 2 years, Delta College for a year and teaching as an instructor at 4 other colleges I was determined to follow Christ because the evidence for Jesus being God’s son had convinced me. I was won over through study. After a few more years I was trying to love God the best I could with my mind, my body, and my soul. I think I am convinced about Jesus and the Bible because of science, History and all the rest. I saw your little one had a birthday. God bless you and your family and God protect you. Corky

    • http://KurtWillems.com Kurt Willems

      Charles, thanks so much for this comment. Indeed, absolutes exist… but they all must be nuanced. The evidence is certainly strong for Jesus being who Jesus says he is. When it comes to debatable matters, we need to allow them to remain debatable (because when we make absolutes about things like biological evolution we lead people into unhelpful binaries). So thankful for your encouragement here.

      Also, yes, our little one did have a bday! She is 4 going on 14, hahah. We are soaking up every minute of it. Peace to you my friend.

      • Charles Riley

        Kurt, I have no problem with debate or discussion. Its the only way I learn. I remember when I decided to become a Psychotherapist many of my Christian brothers thought I was joining a Cult or I was putting my faith in Psychology instead of the Lord. The Church or Christians have done their share of crazy stuff in the name of God. God will get us where he wants us. Oh well. Bless you. Corky

  • Joshua Babbitt

    Perhaps a little off topic, but their was a Patheos.com article which teaches that some Bible verses turn people into Atheists! Some people make some crazy attacks against God’s Word, and the author even calmed to be a “Christian.”

    The CLE Church Group reviewed the article, and the Church rightfully demonstrated what the verses mean in their context. I enjoyed the discussion, so I thought I’d share it. And It only streamed 5 hours ago! http://creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=486.0

  • http://modicum.mu/ Tom Minkler

    Thanks for your work on this good article. Obviously it’s hard to cover the whole topic in such a limited space (as many books have been written about it).

    I would like to suggest that the real meaning of “bara” is “fatten” (or fill), as noted by Hebrew scholar Jeffrey A. Benner at this link:
    http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/emagazine/008.html
    Here is another one that reviews Hebrew poetry in the Bible including the beginning of Genesis:
    http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language_poetry.html
    (I’m not affiliated with those links except i like them LOL)

    My understanding of the Hebrew words for God:
    ELohiym = “Powers”
    YHWH = “BEing”
    so:
    “Elohiym YHWH” = “The powers that be”
    (and is not male – that was only from the culture and the gender of the words)

    What did “God” fatten earth (matter) and the heavens (space) with? Molecules and atoms! IT also made humans (adam) from the red or ruddy earth/clay/dust/dirt (adamah), that is, earthling from earth, and what is in that? Yes molecules, atoms, single celled organisms, etc. and of course science shows us that is indeed what we’re made of.

    For me there is zero conflict between the creation stories of Genesis and whatever science or investigation finds out, mainly because the Bible is not a science book. We could go on about that but i’m trying to be brief. :) Everything is connected to everything and it’s hard to shut up!

  • dbagsoh

    You pose some thought provoking points. Since you have put a lot of time into this study, a couple of questions come to mind?

    1. Looking for clarification, the seven days of creation are just poetry/myth?

    2. Does the same go for Noah?

    • rationalobservations?

      It is obviously all myths, legends and 1600 years of propaganda and lies.