This isn't a surprise. People in general need hope of some kind, so they manufacture it. The real problem is when their belief system is used to justify the oppression of others and to suppress facts.

Is being more transcendent like being a feminist?

Why is that balding old white man standing with his back to the wall and talking straight at me??!?!??

Rememeber, kids, he's not just ooky:

Pat Condell Watches You Masturbate.™

Well, no one knows, but in December of 2010 I heard that she'd had an episode of thickly-accented, peek-from-behind-her-own-hair earnestness so profound that she had to go to Betty Ford to dry out over the holidays. She was a real mess.

The Clinic's staffers on her floor of the psych ward learned the hard way that when Sun Bunny puts on a pretty blouse and tilts her head 1" forward while looking right at you, you have to run like hell, because she's going to have a spasm.

If Condell asserted that logic, reason, and reality are limited to what can be quantified via science, then a discussion could ensue. We could discuss whether or not Condell possesses evidence-free faith in science.

However, Condell's claims - that Christianity transcends logic, reason, and reality - are straw men. I am Christian, and do not believe that logic, reason, and reality are limited to what can be measured by science, and therefore do not believe that Christianity transcends either logic, reason, or reality.

Condell also claims that "invoking the transcendent makes you a better person morally."

Condell's formulation is not a tenet of Christianity.

Commonly (though maybe not in Condell's case), the formulation is a misunderstanding of the Moral Argument for the Existence of God, which asserts that God is a necessary condition for objective morality.

The Moral Argument does not assert that atheists cannot be moral, and does not assert that any particular theist is more moral than any particular atheist. If God exists, then God communicates moral truth to both atheists and theists.

Correction: above, first sentence ought have read "Condell claims that theists believe that "invoking the transcendent makes you a better person morally."

> I am Christian, and do not believe that logic,
> reason, and reality are limited to what can be
> measured by science, and therefore do not
> believe that Christianity transcends either logic,
> reason, or reality

Did you go to college? Just curious.

> Correction:

No corrections.

Hey! That blond woman made her video private!

This is funny to me.

I figger she's old and saggy and wrinkly now.

It's so great having Cothy back, 'cause them Christians really know how to sell, sell, sell.

> then a discussion could ensue.

There has been no ensue-age!

I scared him away. I feel bad because it was probably going to be as much fun as last time. It would have been great to find out how often this guy uses the word "ensue" in his daily life.

She made the video private because there is currently bad blood in the YouTube atheist community. Basically she has somewhat changed her views on feminism. There is this giant controversy started by feminist guys and gals on one side and lead by that one famous atheist biologist I can't think the name of..PZ something?...and then other atheists who say feminists are being too whiney and censoring others. The blonde belongs to the former.

My favorite bit on all this mess? One of the leaders of the pro feminism in atheism community met her hero Dawkins and he basically called her a whiney little annoying bitch. She went nuts. It was great.

The problem is, though, that in the mind of PZ Myers, Watson, and the those of that ilk, there is no room for measures of disagreement. If you're not totally on board their train, then you are the enemy. You are, as PZ describes it, an "anti-feminist".

PZ Myers wakes up every morning wanting to be a vagina to make up for all the horrible, terrible things people with penises have done.

It's news to me that there's a YouTube atheist community big enough for sectarian quarrels about feminism. (It's less surprising that a lithe, fertile blond is a divisive figure of such tribe.) I like to think they all stake their territory with selfie/jumpcut videos looking up their own thigh-lines.

If the blond is upset about censorship, why did she take her own clips offline?

Is she still cute?

(more later gotta goto a thing.)

(Amy, what's your quote from?)

Sorry, forgot the link:

http://www.theaunicornist.com/2012/12/feminism-patriarchy-pz-myers-and-other.html

PZ Myers wakes up every morning wanting to be a vagina to make up for all the horrible, terrible things people with penises have done.

Posted by: Amy Alkon

I wonder if anyone has ever explained to PZ that all those horrible things were done to impress women in to touching those . . . penises? peni?

What is the plural of penis?

The blonde belongs rather reluctantly to the pro feminist atheist camp. If you disagree with them you are censored, barred from atheist conferences and banned from the big atheist blog called (ironically) Free Thought Blog.

They are trying to create a pro feminist, anti homophobia, anti racism, paid advertising, and community outreach program called Atheism Plus. Basically a liberal style atheist church.
The controversy really boils down to it being lead by PZ Meyers and a feminist woman called SkepChick who say women are unfairly persecuted in the atheist community and anyone who disagrees with it needs to be censored.

The opposing view says atheism just means lack of belief in God, stop trying to add anything to it.

So, then, this is not an intellectual bloc that has (to date) deployed its superpowers out here in the real world?

Here is a good explanation:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ69BhfiC6g

Nope, all YouTube atheists seem pretty isolated, odd kinda group. Kinda like they don't have a lot of real world friends or can't relate to people in a real world setting.

They are really close to one another and there is always some kind off odd drama going around despite living far apart.

I mean that for both the pro feminist and anti feminist atheist group.

Oops this is the explanation I was looking for;

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plpp&v=95LG9crl3yo

I have one book on tape in my manly little Scion, just because I'm not really into it (and it's actually a CD, or course... Car audio is meant for what Amy calls "speeding music.") It's Hitch's compilation on religion, the Portable Atheist.

An important point he makes in the introduction is that ALL of us are atheists. If you don't believe in Mohammad, all the Muslims will think you're atheist, and they'll be right. If you don't believe in Christ, all the Christians will think etc. And if you don't do the Tooth Fairy....

Now, see, I have given evidence to the people of this blog that I like to argue and quibble with others, especially when they're wrong, and they almost always are.

The paradox is that an individual can make no advances in the intellectual realm (or the spiritual realm, or the sexual one, for that matter) without humility.

From what you've said, Meyers has yet to embrace this paradox. Other people, and their silly ideas, are here for a reason. You're not supposed to dismiss them and pretend they don't exist, you're supposed to countermand them with something better.

I don't know why the sex-blond chose to hide her videos, but I'm pretty sure this is not how dialectic is supposed to work.

and.....

And read this.

I think the blond is kinda silly for not recognizing how her own method of communication (video of her thick golden locks, earnest young visage, and firm inner thighs) cheats the attention of the audience she seeks to cultivate.

But if this Meyers guy cowers her into silence over atheism and feminism, the ironies will stack too high to count.

I'm thinking of getting a Scion Crid.

Great minds think alike-at least when it comes to cars.

Don't get the supercharger; DO get the leather package.

Loved that Reddit link Crid.

I'm on Reddit all the time and I noticed that they are only accepting of hot female celebrities if she is some kind of awkward dork. If she has some kind of ya know...confident charm they lash out.

They also have specific tastes when it comes to women (small boobs, freckles, pale, thin, nerdy yet incredibly hot) while viewing themselves as accepting of "real female beauty". I have to fight with the women and men on there explaining that yes I love high heels, no I'm not brainwashed & you don't have to love 'em cuz I ain't trying to attract you.

God I LOVE the Internet.

And for the record, having not studied their disagreement at all, I'd bet that's (the attention automatically given to comely blondes doing video with naked legs) what this is about for Myers.

He understands that imagery of that magnitude can be tough to set aside. For many men. By which I mean almost all of them from the beginning of history until the end of time.

(Condell's videos are freaky too, though, even though he's just ooky instead of alluring.)

Will do! Thinking of getting an Scion FR-S but but.....it comes with Prius tires.

There's a twin.

evidence-free faith in science.

Missed this tripe the first time thru, how exactly does one have faith in science when by definition faith is dependent on no evidence of existance and effectiveness?

If you go for the Scion, shoot me a report.

lujlp says:
"by definition faith is dependent on no evidence of existance and effectiveness"

Multiple definitions of faith.

My faith is grounded in evidence of existence and effectiveness. The evidence is historical, archaeological, scientific, philosophical, and more. The overwhelming evidence moved me down the path towards Christianity.

re "evidence-free faith in science"

No science questions its own first principles, and no science can prove its own first principles. Science is grounded in assumption, therefore science is grounded in faith.

You have faith in science, and properly so. I have faith in science. But our faith in science is no more grounded in proof than is my faith in Jesus.

You believe you understand Christian belief. I tell you: you do not. You are ignorant of actual Christian belief. You reject a concept of Christianity which is not Christianity at all. You reject your concept, yet you have not rejected Christianity, b/c you do not comprehend it.

I should clarify:

evidence, for God, exists. But, it is not evidence which can be proven by science*, and that is the type of knock-down evidence which some demand for the existence of God.

Similarly, evidence for science exists. Yet, it is not knock down proof, insofar as science cannot prove its own first principles.

Science assumes its own first principles. For example, science assumes the universe is explainable. Why should this be so? It cannot be proven. Science assumes the laws of physics apply thoughout the universe, and even backwards into history. I assume the same. But, why should this be so? It cannot be proven.

So: evidence exists for both science and for God. But, in neither case does the evidence meet the specific category of evidence which some demand for God. That category of "knock-down" evidence is unreasonable, for both God and for science.

Amy,
really? You think this is about ego? as opposed to being about truth? You call yourself agnostic, yet leave no room for the possibility of: God=Truth.

I see evidence for God in the same way in which you and I see evidence that the universe is explainable. You and I use our reasoning, and are persuaded by preponderance of the evidence.

In the exact same way, moving down the path towards Christianity .. is "thinking that requires evidence before one believes".

I don't see how gcortharn offered an illogical defense of a "Big Man In The Sky". Actually, gcorthan gave a rational defense of God's existence (I don't know who legitimately locates him in the sky or who said he has any size: big or small).

Hopefully, I can elaborate on what gcortharn said... The first principles that make science possible (the basic laws of logic, math, and reason itself) are impossible to prove demonstratively. We accept them as true neither by experience nor by reason. For example, that nature is uniform (what I take gcortham to mean by the explanatory aspect of the universe) is nothing we could possibly learn from experience nor is it logically provable. It has to be accepted as a first principle.

We can probe a little further and ask what makes these first principles genuinely true. There has to be something that grounds these things as true, making them not just arbitrary rules that are relative to cultural and temporal attitudes, but principles that are necessarily and universally true. That grounding is God---not a man, a thing, or a point in space, but the possibility of there being anything at all.

I understand you might critique the argument and I really doubt you'll be persuaded by it (though, I don't think there's a legitimate objection to it), but to say it's as irrational as believing in flying cows is, well, irrational.

BTW, hope you're doing well, Amy!

Russ,
I can learn from your wisdom. Thanks for taking a moment to comment.

@gcotharn
Multiple definitions of faith.

According to the prophet christians ignored Jebus in favor of "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

My faith is grounded in evidence . . . scientific, . . ., and more.

Please proved copies of the scientic evidence, and categorial deffinitions for "more"

No science questions its own first principles, and no science can prove its own first principles. Science is grounded in assumption, therefore science is grounded in faith.

So you are saying if people stopped believing in the magic that is electricity it would stop working? And the only reason our space probes successfully used the gravitation slingshot of the planets to leave our solar system is blind belief in unknowable magical constructs, and nothing to do with reality what so ever?

You have faith in science, and properly so.

No I dont, I see things that work, and expect them to continue to operate under the same conditions in which they currently do

But our faith in science is no more grounded in proof than is my faith in Jesus.

HORESEFEAHTERS!!!

You believe you understand Christian belief.

I do actually, I was raised a christian, mormon specifically, I am aware of the concepts and precepts. I'm also aware of facinating MRI studies preformed on various religious people in the midst of worship. My problem is I was smart enough to see the myrid of internal flaws, inconstistancies, and contradictions - and I have yet to met anyone smarter than myself who is a believer and capable of rationalizing and explaining them. Met a few who are smarter and use their intellect to IGNORE the problems, but none how can get past them.

You are ignorant of actual Christian belief.

Explain it then. I always offer this opportunity, I've offered it thousands of times over the years - you'd be the first to accept

evidence, for God, exists. But, it is not evidence which can be proven by science*,

Is it evidence which can be replicated by various people preforming the same procedurs?

@lujlp

I'll do my best to defend gcotharn's claims:

"So you are saying if people stopped believing in the magic that is electricity it would stop working?"

This has nothing to do with first principles. Science depends on our acceptance that nature acts uniformly. If we didn't assume this, then we could not have any knowledge of electricity, gravity, etc. But this uniformity is something that isn't acquired from experience and that means it's also not acquired from science. It's what makes science possible in the first place. Just like the laws of logic are not learned by reason, they make reasoning possible. This is what gcortharn means by "faith". It's not faith in the blind sense used today.

This would not mean that if we stopped believing that nature is uniform that it would stop acting uniformly just as a belief that 2+2=5 would not change the laws of arithmetic. The point is that if we are to believe that science can give us any knowledge, we have to believe that nature is uniform and this is not something that is empirically, scientifically, or demonstratively known.

"Is it evidence which can be replicated by various people preforming the same procedurs?"

No, it's the same sort of evidence that we have for the law of identity, that contradictions are false, that the Pythagorean theorem is true, that the universe is explainable. None of these true things can possibly be proved by a demonstrative proof, nor can they be verified by experience.

" Science is grounded in assumption, therefore science is grounded in faith."

Ah, the loon is here with his own definitions again.

See here: "I am Christian, and do not believe that logic, reason, and reality are limited to what can be measured by science, and therefore do not believe that Christianity transcends either logic, reason, or reality."

Since the application of science is merely the recording of what works and what does not, such that a third party may observe the item of interest, you're really engaged in your own special pleading to use "reason", "logic" and "reality" in any way that cannot be measured.

I believe I have already shown that you have no idea what the state of the investigative arts is; while your ilk is insisting on a "great Flood" and an "Ark" - which curiously eludes you - scientists, who challenge assumptions at every stage of investigation, have shown you the surface of Mars, landed a probe in the methane ocean of Titan, measured the currents of the surface of the Sun, and brought you every modern convenience you use as you scoff at them.

What have you done?

You've built a special world for yourself. Fortunately, the real world pays no attention to faith. Rockets kill Jews and Muslims with no bias whatsoever.
Unfortunately, the faithful vote. When they do, scientific and expeditionary programs are crippled. How's that working for you, with a world population over 7 billion and still growing? Gas is cheap and will always be here, right?

The first action of a scientist is to question everything. The first action of a "true believer" is to discard that idea. It may lead to the most unpleasant thing in the world: thought.

@Radwaste:

Perhaps the "application of science is merely the recording of what works and what does not work", but science itself does not tell us what works. You said it correctly, science is merely the application-- and I will add that it's the best we have. However, first principles tell us what works. Some examples are the validity of the system of reasoning, the law of non-contradiction, that nature is uniform, that a statement is only either true or false, the law of identity, arithmetic and geometric principles, etc. These things are not discoverable by science, or raw observation, or even by reasoning; they are axioms. We accept them and they are needed in order to start reasoning or to start making any scientific investigations.

If they cannot be known by science, raw observation, or reasoning, there exists some other type of knowledge. In a certain sense, it is faith, but, as I said before, it's not a blind faith nor is it faith in the sense that "I have faith she will do the right thing."

The question we have to address is what actually makes these first principles true and not simply arbitrary inventions? Well, there are two options: admit the existence of something that grounds them as true...or dogmatically accept them. I have faith in the former.

Then your argument is that science is our view of the world and can never be expanded.

So lightning was god's magic until Franklin and subsequent investigators expanded the understanding?

Gravity was god's magic until Newton and Galileo explored the forces involved?

Radio was god's magic until Marconi figured out how to modulate frequencies?

So the fact that humans can't spontaneously regenerate limbs means that god(s) haven't decided to bless us with that knowledge or exercise it themselves?

Science means that a hypothesis can be reproduced multiple times. Miracles are not reproducible.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Epicurus [341–270 B.C]

I'm not sure how you drew any of these conclusions, Jim P.

Even if science is defined as our "view of the world" (which I actually would more or less agree is accurate), why would it follow that the view can never be expanded? Of course views can be expanded. To quote C.S. Lewis: "For it is the glory of science to progress." As the scope of our observations increase, so does our scientific knowledge.

For our friend Epicurus:

Is he omnipotent, but not able to make square circles and
numbers greater than 9 and less than 6? Then He cannot exist! But, neither can those impossible shapes and impossible numbers!

@gcotharn: Thanks for that comment.

@lujlp

re understanding
To me, your statement: "by definition faith is dependent on no evidence of existance and effectiveness", indicates a lack of understanding. My faith is grounded in evidence. If you understood Christianity, then you would understand it is grounded in massive accumulation of evidence, from many directions, which constitutes a convincing preponderance.

re please cite scientific evidence
Big Bang.

Also, consider what science cannot explain, such as objective morality, or consciousness. In this very comment thread, Russ has pointed to some foundational assumptions which cannot be explained by physics. That science cannot measure these ... is itself a type of evidence.

You can argue: given time, objective morality and consciousness, et al, will be explained by physics.

I simply disagree. Based on my life experience, I believe some phenomena exist outside of the parameters of physics.

I know that some here - definitely including Amy - cite evolution theory as a self-evident source of objective morality. Alvin Plantiga, often called the greatest living American philosopher, offers a defeating argument which can be summed thusly: if evolution is true, it is false. http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/an-evolutionary-argument-against-naturalism.pdf

@gcortharn

Thanks for bringing up Plantinga's argument. I just want to clarify one thing.

It's not that if evolution is true, it is false. Plantinga definitely believes in evolution. Rather, he is calling into question atheistic evolution. And it is a self-defeating position as he points out. This also does not mean that he is a proponent of Intelligent Design. He thinks that God is not a physical cause in evolution (as if he could zap down animals from the skies) but a logical one. His existence is logically necessary for there being anything at all. Just as our first principles are logically necessary for reasoning and making scientific inquiries. That same logical relationship exists between God and "nature".

Science assumes its own first principles. For example, science assumes the universe is explainable. Why should this be so? It cannot be proven. Science assumes the laws of physics apply thoughout the universe, and even backwards into history. I assume the same. But, why should this be so? It cannot be proven.

So: evidence exists for both science and for God. But, in neither case does the evidence meet the specific category of evidence which some demand for God. That category of "knock-down" evidence is unreasonable, for both God and for science. -- gcotharn at May 20, 2013 11:37 AM

Even if science is defined as our "view of the world" (which I actually would more or less agree is accurate), why would it follow that the view can never be expanded? Of course views can be expanded. To quote C.S. Lewis: "For it is the glory of science to progress." As the scope of our observations increase, so does our scientific knowledge. -- Russ at May 20, 2013 9:55 PM

So the presumption is that god can do things humans can not do?

Why? Why can't humans learn to do the same things a "god" can? What principles can a "god" suspend to do his miracle that humans can't learn or understand?

Why can "god" suspend 1 in 125 million odds to allow a particular person to win the lottery but no human can do it?

Why can there be multiple tornadoes through the same ares over years? Why does "god" want people's homes destroyed. Because one local family didn't go to church on Sunday? Does he destroy a 1,000 homes because a Muslim or atheist is in the neighborhood?

And still no one has said why there isn't spontaneous limb regeneration. That would be "god's" will, wouldn't it?

Also, consider what science cannot explain, such as objective morality, or consciousness. In this very comment thread, Russ has pointed to some foundational assumptions which cannot be explained by physics. That science cannot measure these ... is itself a type of evidence.

One, 95% of what most people refer to as objective morality is subjective. The 5% that is objective has been explained by evolutionary biologists. As has consciousness.

Russ pointed out a few things but he doesnt know what he is talking about. Sure astro physicists preform their experiments as though the nature of the universe is uniform, but that is not evidence that they "believe" that to be true. They already understand that the laws of physics do not apply in regions surrounding massive gravity wells and are open to the possibility that they many not be uniform. Many lament that all our observations of reality are biased; biased by the way our brain process gathers and processes information, biased by the fact that all our observations thus far are from this one planet, biased that our observations may be distorted by the gravitational forces of our solar system. I have a few friends in the community who long for the day their ideas can be retested in the void of interstellar space free from such variables

You can argue: given time, objective morality and consciousness, et al, will be explained by physics.

I simply disagree. Based on my life experience, I believe some phenomena exist outside of the parameters of physics.

Change out the word physics for science and thats what they said about
earthquakes, the tide, the moon, eclipses, wind, rain, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, lightning, tsunamis, and hundreds of thousands of other things

@luljp

You don't understand what it means for nature to be uniform. Just because certain physics do not pertain to all situations does not mean that the underlying physics are not uniform. Put in purely formal logic, it means that if x occurs in the exact same way as p, and if x causes y, then p causes y. Emphasis on "exact." Exceptions, by their very definition, mean that we are not dealing with the exact same phenomena as before, or else they would be the same. Do we ever have the exact same phenomena? Rarely. But that doesn't matter. Implicitly, we are accepting this principle of uniformity as it is what makes scientific explanations possible. That we can have exceptions to the rule (you pointed out that "the laws of physics do not apply in regions surrounding massive gravity wells") means that there must be a rule can have exceptions in the first place. The exception then must be grounded in some real observation. My point is not that scientists consciously accept the belief in a uniformity in nature. They may not, just as an empiricist mathematician may deny that 2+2 does not equal 4. He can deny it all he wants, but that doesn't make it true, nor does it change the fact that he must implicitly accept it in order to continue his studies in math. Instead, what I am saying is that the scientist is logically committed to the principle that nature acts through necessary connections, whether or not he chooses to admit it. If he does not accept this, he is being irrational. Take your pick.

Then, we have the everything we observe in reality is biased problem. How could this be? Are we biased in thinking that 2+2=4. No, and there is no way we could be. If we could, then there is simply no knowledge whatsoever, not even knowledge that our brains are possibly biased. In fact, you are still relying on basic principles of logic to say that our brains are biased. Your argument depends on this necessary connection: that if our brains are biased, we have no way of knowing reality. This implies that our knowledge needs to be grounded in order to be knowledge, but unless we admit with certainty that knowledge is knowledge only if it is grounded, then we cannot accept your objection. But, if we accept your objection, we apparently do know something and consequently our brains are not biased. It's a self-defeating position.

What then do we have to do? We have to admit that first principles exist. We have to admit that we accept the system of reasoning, the truths of geometry and algebra, the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, the uniformity of nature, etc.. None of these things, as stated before, are the products of logical demonstrations, science, or raw observation. They are another sort of knowledge.

@Jim P.

I'm afraid I don't understand how this :

"Why does "god" want people's homes destroyed. Because one local family didn't go to church on Sunday? Because one local family didn't go to church on Sunday?" and the many other examples you gave"

follows from this:

"Even if science is defined as our "view of the world" (which I actually would more or less agree is accurate), why would it follow that the view can never be expanded? Of course views can be expanded. To quote C.S. Lewis: "For it is the glory of science to progress." As the scope of our observations increase, so does our scientific knowledge."

I don't want to respond until I clearly see how you drew your conclusion.

Russ,

Who are you? Your comments are more fun than an episode of Dancing With the Stars.

btw: I appreciate all the commenters who have sincerely grappled with the issues. Actual exchange of ideas, i.e. actual good faith (heh) conversation), is all more interesting than The Voice.

Well thanks, @gcotharn, though I've never seen Dancing or the Voice.

Philosophy of science is my main interest, so I have just as much fun. To answer your question, I'm actually a relative of Amy's.

Also---apologies, but I meant to write "just as an empiricist mathematician may deny that 2+2 equals 4" not "does not equal 4."

I think I get what you are saying now Russ, I assumed you meant to say that everything os the same everywhere.

I now understand what you are saying is there is no proof water at sea level will always boil at 100 degrees C

You are saying that even if a billion people boiled water 100 times a day every day for every day of their life and it was always 100 degrees C that somehow magically the underlying rules of our reality could shift and water would start boiling at 50 degrees C in one spot and 150 degrees C in another with no reasonable or rational explaination what so ever.

Is that a fair enough assesment?

Unfortunately, that is not a fair assessment.

On the complete contrary, I do think there is a legitimate uniformity in nature. We do expect that water will boil when heated to 100 degrees C, and this is not wishful or merely practical thinking: it is a grounded stance. However, what I am saying is that the uniformity itself is not grounded in our observation that water boils. The uniformity is something we have to intuit prior to any observation. Without knowing, and consequently anticipating, that the properties of nature are uniform, we could never have any knowledge of it. Put another way, unless the universe is really governed by laws, then we cannot have knowledge of it, but that the universe is governed by laws is not something we can possibly learn from observing it. It is a first principle that makes the rational observation of the universe, i.e. science, possible in the first place.

Possibly because I wasn't clear, I think you're confusing our "knowledge" of the laws of nature and the laws of nature themselves. You are correct that I said that x causes y and will cause y again only if x occurs in exactly the same way. Knowing that the two Xs are identical is not always clear...as you rightly pointed out when we start to generalize our system of physics to realms that go beyond the scope of our initial findings. However, the implication of my strict logical formulation is not that the underlying factors of reality have changed (let's call this "the thing itself"), but that our knowledge is prone to error. The thing itself is still governed by laws, but because reasoning is imperfect and probable knowledge (science) is our best tool, we assume certain things about the thing itself that aren't necessarily true. The underlying factors, or the thing itself, haven't changed, rather increasing the scope of our experiment lets us see deeper into the underlying factors and consequently improve our understanding of the thing itself. *Although I don't want to go too far off-topic, I want to add that this does not imply that we should therefore disregard findings because they are not certain. Well, if we did, we couldn't live a single day. Certainty is unnecessary and isn't an argument I am trying to make. My point is the principle that nature is uniform does not mean that what is true for this or that star must be true for all stars, but that the laws that govern x are true for all things that are also x.

As a cautionary step, I also don't want you to think I'm articulating my point in this specific way only to leave open the possibility that the "underlying" factor is a supernatural being, changing our toast to look like Madonna and allowing the sea to part. Yes, that has been argued by others, but I am not taking it up. I am concerned primarily with the first principle of the uniformity of nature.

Hope that clarifies my argument.

My point is the principle that nature is uniform does not mean that what is true for this or that star must be true for all stars, but that the laws that govern x are true for all things that are also x.

Essentially you are arguing that the simple explanation of water boiling at 100C is not a given. And it isn't. But physics can explain it if you know the full statement. Water will boil at 100C at 101.3 kPa (kilo-Pascals) at a temperature of 15 °C.

So change the altitude, with lower kPa and water will boil at lower temperatures. If you are on the side of the Himalayas at 25K feet water will boil at about 80C. Please argue the fact.

I can repeatedly get the same effect using an decompression chamber.

You are effectively arguing that we can;t know everything and prove it using science.

@Jim P.

We seem to be in agreement here. Of course physics can explain. It does so by understanding the underlying factors of phenomena. I brought up the incompleteness of our knowledge only to reconcile my claim that nature is uniform with lujlp's objection that nature is possibly not uniform given that "the laws of physics do not apply in regions surrounding massive gravity wells".

My claim is that nature is uniform even if (as lujlp seems to suggest) it may appear not to be. When it appears not to be uniform, it is not actually a lack of uniformity in the thing itself, but in our knowledge of the explanation, which then requires us to delve deeper (and yes, by using physics) to figure out the cause.

So, then just to be clear, you believe nature is uniform.

But there is no proof that it is, so science must be a form of religion for making an unprovable assumption?

I do believe it's uniform, and it's a first principle that we're pressed to accept as true, not by logical demonstration or observation. But, if these first principles are legitimately true, they must be grounded in something and not just be things that could have been different if we wanted them to be. They are necessarily true.

Here comes the dilemma: if we admit that these are necessary truths, there has to be something that grounds them, i.e. makes them necessarily true, and not just opinions or conventions. Something that is the possibility of there being any true statements about the world, which Spinoza, Descartes, Plato, and friends call God. There are two alternatives: deny that these first principles (such as 2+2=4 and that the law of non-contradiction) are necessarily true, and be stuck with having no knowledge, reducing everything to mere belief, including science and systematic reasoning...or dogmatically accept these principles as true without their having any grounding.

I dont know Russ. I was never taught that nature is uniform in my science classes. I was taught that nature was observable and hypothesis could be tested and proven true or false.

I dont see how that requires faith

For example is was at one point thought that all life on earth needed some form of heat to survive. And a reasonable balance between oxygen and carbon dioxide breathers. But this seems to contradict that

http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2013/05/15/blood_falls_a_bleeding_glacier_is_a_natural_time_capsule_containing_a_unique.html

Faith requires ignoring any contradictory information in order to survive. Science does not

Falsifiability requires that nature is uniform. Unless nature is really governed by rules, we could never hold exceptions to those rules. The point of science is to discover causes, but all a cause is is a necessary connection among phenomena, and unless these causes are indeed necessary, we cannot have scientific knowledge.

The findings in the Slate article don't contradict that nature is uniform, they contradict the notion that one of our scientific theories is complete. But there we need to draw a distinction between the thing itself (the actual law of nature) and our knowledge of the law. Finding a new underlying factor in the phenomena does not mean that there is no law, but that the law was not known.

Falsifiability requires that nature is uniform. Unless nature is really governed by rules, we could never hold exceptions to those rules.

Russ,

How does that lead to a belief in god™?

My response to ljulp should address your question:

The principle of the uniformity of nature is a first principle that we're pressed to accept as true, not by logical demonstration or observation. But, if these first principles are legitimately true, they must be grounded in something and not just be things that could have been different if we wanted them to be. They are necessarily true.

If we admit that these are necessary truths, there has to be something that grounds them, i.e. makes them necessarily true, and not just opinions, conventions, or contingent truths. The possibility of there being any necessarily true statements about the world, which Spinoza, Descartes, Plato, and friends call God. There are two alternatives: deny that these first principles (such as 2+2=4 and that the law of non-contradiction) are necessarily true, and be stuck with having no legitimate knowledge, reducing everything to mere belief, including science and systematic reasoning...or dogmatically accept these principles as true without their having any legitimate grounding.

I'll add:

Even if we disregard the first option (which I think is true) and accept either the fideist position (that everything is reducible to mere belief) or the dogmatic position (that we assert things without proper grounding), we have no logical reason to disregard faith in God, which a dogmatist or fideist would presumably argue is dogmatic or fideist. Of course, neither the dogmatic nor fideist position implies that God therefore exists, but shows that belief in God is not illogical.

You are saying that because physical things exist and repeatable things are standard God™ exists?

Please show me this something that can change fate, fortunes, and sees all that has to be that grounds them.

JimP,

a quote from Russ:

"As a cautionary step, I also don't want you to think I'm articulating my point in this specific way only to leave open the possibility that the "underlying" factor is a supernatural being.... Yes, that has been argued by others, but I am not taking it up. I am concerned primarily with the first principle of the uniformity of nature."

If you look at Russ' comment, just above, May 24 at 2:56 AM, he argues the following: even in the most extreme cases, i.e. the fideist position or the dogmatic position, the most which can be asserted is that belief in a creator is not illogical. Which is to say: the principle of uniformity of nature ... means that belief in a creator is not illogical.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JimP, your second sentence seems a reference to a God who is personally concerned with individual human lives (as opposed to a creator god who watches, with little concern for individuals, from a distance).

Excepting for a personal experience of God - such as happened to this somewhat famous atheist http://www.scifiwright.com/2011/09/a-question-i-never-tire-of-answering/
- excepting for something like that, the main path to a personal God to is notice a mass accumulation of evidence which indicates that the Bible is truth (if the bible is truth, then a personal God is truth). So far as I know, there is no one piece of evidence which typically shifts a person. Rather, it is an accumulation of evidence which becomes a preponderance of evidence (which is followed by genuinely [from the heart] seeking God, which is followed by God making Himself known to you).

Last, given that atheists love to cite alleged contradictions in the Bible, I link to Norman Geisler's listing of Biblical explanations for 600 falsely alleged contradictions http://endtimedeception.org/books/when_critics_ask-a-popular-handbook-on-bible-difficulties.pdf

If a deist theory is forthcoming (some supernatural being created the universe and then went away) I can deal with it, but not like it.

excepting for something like that, the main path to a personal God to is notice a mass accumulation of evidence which indicates that the Bible is truth

Please show me evidence. Show me a ghost. Show me Satan. Show me an angel. Show me a regrown limb. Show me a person that has been seriously wounded by a gunshot and gets up and walks away without surgery.

Show me a true miracle. Is that too much to ask? A personally involved god could and should do any of the above.

"The first principles that make science possible (the basic laws of logic, math, and reason itself) are impossible to prove demonstratively. We accept them as true neither by experience nor by reason. For example, that nature is uniform (what I take gcortham to mean by the explanatory aspect of the universe) is nothing we could possibly learn from experience nor is it logically provable. It has to be accepted as a first principle."

I'm sorry, Russ, but this is simply wrong, and it poisons the rest of your commentary irretrievably.

I have posted some of the accomplishments of investigators using the scientific method. Unfortunately, such citations are easy to gloss over, to disregard, because the reader simply cannot understand the effort involved.

For instance, the SI unit, "second", is defined as the duration of 9192631770 oscillations of the Cs-133 atom between two hyperfine ground states. Consider that for a moment. We found Cesium. Found it had isotopes. Found hyperfine ground states. Eliminated other isotopes as a standard. Established other timepieces capable of measuring that performance.
Can you begin to understand that effort?

What has your faith found?

Practically speaking, a code of conduct has ridulously high utility as a survival mechanism for a society, and we can see the effects of a lack of that code today, in an environment where the individual had more capacity for harm than in times past.

That isn't a reason to distort the utility of a method that even brought you the ability to decry it.
-----

About the "nature is uniform" issue: this is often cited as a sort of backdoor to argue that God™ can alter things if we beg the right way. Unfortunately for such people as make this claim, investigators look for the result of any experiment to check the assumptions about the initial conditions. For instance, the spectra of supernova 1987a is changing in agreement with local measurements of radioactive materials. These measurements are made with devices of such precision that is it difficult to explain, but suffice to say that the event happened ~160,000 years ago, and the explosion is still visible in the process of expanding.
If you want to see an experiment to see what happens when a fundamentalist utterly fails to understand the investigative arts with respect to genetics, look up "The Lenski Affair". I find it sad and funny at the same time that fundamentalists can't seem to see that animal husbandry, or even Gregor Mendel's work in the garden, would not be possible unless there were traits heritable in the exact manner shown in the theory of evolution. Here, it's likely that again, they do not know what has been discovered. Found, not asserted in "faith".

-----
A short note about measurement: you should know - and it is likely that you do not - that valid measurements always include an uncertainty factor. This has been necessary since the first King noticed grain shipments weren't up to snuff, but it is ignored by the lazy who want an answer, and any answer is enough because thinking is too hard.

There is real irony in the religious accusing scientists of assorted undisciplined thinking.

It's simply dishonest - one could say, "unChristian" - to claim that "scientists have all the answers", OR "science can't prove anything/everything", when THEY KNOW THAT, and assorted CHURCHES claim certainty.

Meanwhile, all you have to do to demonstrate the existence of your favorite deity - AND win a MILLION DOLLARS from the James Randi Educational Foundation - is break the law of cause and effect.
Do, or do not. There is no try.

JimP,
you ask an interesting question (paraphrasing): Stipulating a creator god: why believe he is a personal god?

You would have to work such a thing out for yourself -- it is a very personal conversation and decision.

You might begin by asking yourself: why would god create anything at all?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Separately, I will address some specifics:

Show me a true miracle. Is that too much to ask? A personally involved god could and should do any of the above.

Also, for me, personally: I see "true miracles" all around me. The physical world is intelligible? Miracle. Human consciousness? Miracle. et al to a very big number of examples.

Final also: I find your chosen sample circumstances to be interesting, for I consider that God has shown me examples of all but one. I consider that God has shown me ghosts and angels, for He has pointed me towards persons who have seen ghosts and angels. In my own life, God has shown me Satan's influence.

We all know of persons who have incurred potentially fatal gunshots, yet have been able to walk away w/o surgery. A local example: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/15/4260528/hudson-oaks-pastor-uses-brush.html

As for a regrown limb - it is the one of your sample circumstances for which I know of no example.

Thank you for sincerely engaging these issues.

If god exists, we must cede that he has greater understanding, and that therefore it would be silly to demand that he conform to our inferior human standards

Hows about we just expect him to follow thru on his own promises?

lujlp,

I already linked this:
http://endtimedeception.org/books/when_critics_ask-a-popular-handbook-on-bible-difficulties.pdf

If you can find an example -- of God failing to keep a promise -- which example is not already investigated and explicated at that link, please inform. Seriously. I want to know. Truth.

4. There is scientific evidence to support a young age (of thousands of years) for the
earth

This here make reading the rest of it pointless. YECs using YEC science to sidestep bible inconststancies arent trying to convert others, they are trying to justify ignoring reality

EXODUS 4:21 —If God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, how can Pharaoh be held
responsible?

That later version of the bible were edited to reword is not a solution - this one was ignored entierly

Also there is no evidence of millions of jewish slaves being held in Eygpt

Your list is nothing but a sad attempt to redefine words and ignore that which is inconventent to think about. It explains away nothing

I'm sorry, Radwaste, but you haven't shown how

"The first principles that make science possible (the basic laws of logic, math, and reason itself) are impossible to prove demonstratively. We accept them as true neither by experience nor by reason. For example, that nature is uniform (what I take gcortham to mean by the explanatory aspect of the universe) is nothing we could possibly learn from experience nor is it logically provable. It has to be accepted as a first principle."

is wrong. I invite you to show me how any of the premises in that passage are false.

Again, scientific evidence can neither negate not prove that nature is uniform.

I never said that scientists can't prove anything nor did I say they have all the answers...nor did I say that they even think they have all the answers. I simply asserted that we implicitly assume there to be first principles that serve as the foundation of science. When I say "assume", I do not mean assume in the sense that we draw a potentially faulty generalization. On the contrary, that nature is uniform is more firm than any discovery we could make in science, for scientific inquiry necessarily depends on it.

My discussion with lujlp shows that I definitely think that all measurements carry uncertainty, and that there is a way to reconcile that the laws of nature exist with the fact that a scientific theory is falsifiable.

lujlp,

I appreciate your engagement. It indicates sincerity.

I don't know where you get this apparent quote:
4. There is scientific evidence to support a young age (of thousands of years) for the
earth

"Young age" is not my belief, and I do not recall Russ asserting it.

It does seem reasonable to estimate that roughly half of Protestant ministers are "young earth creationists". They are ignorant of compelling scientific evidence. Many of them, probably, are willfully avoiding the evidence.

In this thread http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/14/what_allows_a_p.html
on Dec 16 @5:10 pm, I said that 4.54 Billion years seems a sound estimate.

In addition, I have looked at scientists' argument that each Genesis "day" represented a number of years -- i.e. a billion years here, a half billion years there, et al -- and that the Genesis account is an exact representation of the physical order in which the galaxy would have been formed ... in order to create proper conditions for life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

re Pharoah's heart, et al
am short on time. Will respond later. If you have a specific example of "a sad attempt to redefine words", please point to it.

btw, as a note for JimP re miracles:

if the Genesis account is an exact representation of the physical order in which the galaxy would have been formed in order to create proper conditions for life. Then, the Genesis account = miracle. The Genesis account was recorded by persons with limited knowledge of physics.

I got that quote from your twice posted link

luj,

Thanks for telling me where you got the quote.

The authors were not endorsing a young age for the earth. Rather, the authors chose to explicate Genesis 2:1, to a Christian audience, in this way:

Conclusion: There is no demonstrated contradiction of fact between Genesis 1
and science. There is only a conflict of interpretation. Either, most modern scientists
are wrong in insisting the world is billions of years old, or else some Bible
interpreters are wrong in insisting on only 144 hours of creation some several
thousand years before Christ with no gaps allowing millions of years. But, in either
case it is not a question of inspiration of Scripture, but of the interpretation of
Scripture (and of the scientific data).

lets try that quote again:

Conclusion: There is no demonstrated contradiction of fact between Genesis 1 and science. There is only a conflict of interpretation. Either, most modern scientists are wrong in insisting the world is billions of years old, or else some Bible interpreters are wrong in insisting on only 144 hours of creation some several thousand years before Christ with no gaps allowing millions of years. But, in either case it is not a question of inspiration of Scripture, but of the interpretation of Scripture (and of the scientific data).

Not really there way around the contradiction of plant life exisiting millions of years before light, or sea life is
a. This is evidence of possibly young earth creation

b. God is magic and can do what he wants.

Seems to me being an all knowing would have forseen this fucking problem and paid a bit more attention to following the step by step instructions on his little sister's easy bake universe oven

I do not understand your point.

I've already referenced a Genesis "day" equating to millions of years, and scientists argument the Genesis records the perfect ordering of the creation of the conditions for life. re the authors at the link: their job is to investigate possible contradiction between Genesis and science. They found no contradiction. I do not understand your point.

Its not my point, its the point of that document you linked.

According to genesis plants were created before the sun, and before sea life.

The documenty you linked "explains" this away buy suggesting it could be proof of YEC, and if not that god is magic and can do as he pleases

So if each "day" was millions of years, how did plants exist for millions of years BEFORE the creation of the sun?

luj,
Here is my purpose in our conversation:

First, the conversation is interesting to me: I am interested in the objections and claims. Of course, if any objections are legitimate, then I must carefully weigh that. I am committed to truth; opposed to fantasy and superstition.

Second, though you and I may never agree, I would like it if you came to understand, for yourself, that many Christians are well educated; are well-versed in theology, philosophy, history, archaeology, physics, cosmology, et al. I would like it if you could say that you disagree with Christians, yet you respect our scholarly (if misguided) efforts to grapple with the subject, and you and we simply disagree. Shit happens, and disagreement (even amongst knowledgable people) happens.

For instance, the authors of the linked http://endtimedeception.org/books/when_critics_ask-a-popular-handbook-on-bible-difficulties.pdf
material: Geisler and Howe, are both nearing the end of distinguished academic careers. Between them, they have published maybe 20 books, plus scores of academic papers. These guys are not hillbillys, and I would like it if you knew, for yourself, that you could respect them, even as you disagree with them.

So, those are my goals inside our conversation. I may fail at them. But, I think they are reasonable and respecful goals.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I said: "scientists argue that Genesis records the perfect ordering of the creation of conditions for life."

luj: "According to genesis plants were created before the sun, and before sea life."

I say: you are misinterpreting Genesis 1:2: you are interpreting "earth" to mean vegetation, nad you are not giving proper weight to "formless and empty". Please note my highlights in Genesis 1-11:

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

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
[...]
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

luj says: "The documenty you linked "explains"
this away buy suggesting it could be proof of YEC"

I say: you are misinterpreting Geisler and Howe. They DO NOT suggest it "could be proof of YEC." Rather, they frame the question thus: "Does Genesis 2:1 conflict with science?" They answer thus: Genesis 2:1 does not conflict with science. When persons believe it does, those persons are either a) misinterpreting scripture, or b) misrepresenting science.

If you go to the link, look at their explication of Genesis 2:1, their explanation is clear, imo. I believe you have misinterpreted their words.

You are right, I did misintrepret their words.

As a result I now see they do nothing to even attempt to discuss how land based plants could have existed before the creation of the very sun they need to survive

luj,

you have pointed to something -- Genesis 1:14-16 -- which I never even noticed! -- including in my initial response to you, in which I merely quoted "let there be light", then went on about my day. You prompt me to educate myself on a contentious matter. Thank you.

Below, you will find citations from 10 academics. You might disagree with them. Fine. Academics make mistakes all the time. But, here is what I hope you will notice for yourself: these guys are not hillbillys. These are serious people, doing serious research, and making serious arguments. It is possible that all 10 cited academics have done far more research - into relevant philosophy, theology, archaelogy, history, physics, cosmology, language - than 99% of atheists. Which doesn't prevent the 99% of atheists from being ignorant, arrogant pricks. That is what I would like you to notice: a good number of Christians (probably a far larger number than the number of comparable atheists) are well-versed on the relevant material, and continue to educate themselves -- as you would expect of a group of sincere persons. They disagree with you: but they do not disagree on account of ignorance and superstition. They are well-versed and well educated re the issues. Sometimes, smart people simply disagree. Lots of times, actually.

INITIAL NOTE RE GEISLER AND HOWE
At the link, Geisler and Howe do address the issue, thusly:

GENESIS 1:14—How could there be light before the sun was made?
PROBLEM: The sun was not created until the fourth day, yet there was light on the first day ( 1:3 ).
SOLUTION: The sun is not the only source of light in the universe. Further, the sun may have existed from the first day, but only appeared or became visible (as the mist cleared) on the fourth day. We see light on a cloudy day, even when we can’t see the sun.

INTERPRETATION
Jon W. Greene cites argument that the issue is one of interpretation of the original Hebrew.

While English translations can make it sound as though God created the Sun, Moon and stars that instant, the Hebrew text indicates otherwise. First, the text states God “made” (‛āśāh) the lights, not that He “created” (bārā’) them. Asah expresses the idea of producing something from pre-existing material, not the idea of bringing something into existence that did not exist before (bārā’).60 Also, the verb asah does not specify when God created the heavenly bodies, only that he completed the action. Second, the Hebrew “Let there be...” does not imply the creation of the heavenly bodies in the sense of their coming into existence.61 “Let there be” is completed with the purpose clause “to separate.” Thus, the narrative focuses on the function of the lights rather than their origin.62 Third, the Hebrew “and it was so” denotes a completed action–that the sun and moon had performed the functions God commanded, serving as signs for years, seasons and days. This could not be accomplished in a 24-hour period. All of these things argue against an instantaneous creation of the Sun, Moon and stars.

It is also important to remember that the Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha ‘erets) in Genesis 1:1 encompasses everything in the physical universe. As previously discussed, this interpretation is supported by the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,63 Vine64 and Grudem.65 Bruce Waltke also confirms that hashamayim we ha ‘erets refers to the totality of the physical universe, all matter and energy and whatever else it contains.66 Thus, the Hebrew text clearly states the Sun, Moon and stars were created “in the beginning” and not on the fourth day.

For these reasons, many Bible scholars believe Genesis 1:16 is more accurately interpreted as meaning God had made the heavenly bodies prior to the fourth day. Gleason Archer states: “The Hebrew verb wayya`as’ in verse 16 should better be rendered ‘Now [God] had made the two great luminaries...”67 Wayne Grudem states: “[had made] can be taken as perfects indicating what God had done before... This view would imply that God had made the sun, moon, and stars earlier... or allowed them to be seen from the earth on Day 4.”68 Harris, Archer, and Waltke state: “Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day; rather it informs us that the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day 1.”69 And, James Montgomery Boice states: “It is not said that these [sun, moon, and stars] were created on the fourth day; they were created in the initial creative work of God referred to in Genesis 1:1.”70

A bit more COSMOLOGICAL EXPLICATION
Dr. John Walton, author of The Lost World of Genesis One; Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate:

Creation day one in Genesis 1 begins with “Let there be light.” Creation day four begins with “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky.” In both cases the Hebrew verb haya is used rather than the verbs asa (make) or bara (create). This usage implies that God did not create or make light on day one. Rather, that is when light appears for the first time on Earth’s surface.

What kept the light from getting through to Earth’s surface before day one? Job 38:9 tells us that at that time God “made the clouds its [the sea’s or the waters’] garment and wrapped it in thick darkness.” That is, Earth’s primordial atmosphere was opaque to light. In the beginning when God created the universe, the cosmos was filled with light but it was dark on Earth’s surface. On creation day one God transformed Earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent, enabling light from the stars, Sun, and Moon to reach Earth’s surface so that life could now exist.

On the fourth creation day God transformed Earth’s atmosphere from transluscent (overcast) to where the clouds would break on occasion. Now, for the first time, transparent skies would allow creatures on Earth’s surface to see the objects responsible for the light.

What’s notable about the life described within the six creation days is that all life-forms mentioned or implied on creation days one through three do not need to know where the Sun, Moon, and stars are in the sky. However, all the life-forms described on creation days five and six must, at least on occasion, know where the Sun, Moon, and/or stars are in the sky in order to feed, reproduce, migrate, and/or hibernate at the right times of the year. This need explains the inclusion of the following phrase in the opening statement concerning creation day four in Genesis 1: “Let them [lights in the sky] serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years.” It’s the higher animals that need the signs.

When, then, was the Sun created? God made the Sun before the six creation days (the Hebrew verb asa means “made,’ and appears in the appropriate form for completed action). On day one, the Sun’s light penetrates through Earth’s atmosphere to bathe Earth’s surface in light. But, not until day four is it possible for creatures on Earth’s surface to see the position of the Sun in the sky.

This chronology of events follows from a straightforward integration of the four biblical creation texts that address the early creation content; namely Genesis 1, Job 37–39, Psalm 104, and Proverbs 8. This chronology also fits perfectly with the creation chronology revealed in the scientifically established record of nature.

First let me say you are far more versed than nearly every christian I've run across, or st the very least willing to argue the point

As to your first posted solution the 'mists clearing'

My response to that would be the account of Genesis is not, nor has ever been claimed to be an eye witness account. It is, according to tradition, an account Moses transcribed from god.

The second proposed solution - 'it never says when god created the stars and the mood, and no one thinks it was a literal 24 hr period'

One, I'm not one to quibble the literal 24hr point, only YEC's and those arguing them tread that intellectual bog

Two, it does say when god created them. On day 4, three days after he created light

As to your posted 'expanded' cosmological solution, I was expecting mention of protons being emitted from the hydrogen clouds that preceded the formation of the first stars.

As a response refer to the first solutions response. There was no one to witness it, ergo when god to the story seems to me he could have been far more clear as to the supposed chronology, given as an all knowing being he would have known his poor storytelling abilities would inevitably lead to such confusion and debates

Sorry, seems the last part of my response disappered.

I understand that some people like to say that the words have been mistranslated. Last time I checked, and I'll admit its been nearly a deacade, the oldest known manuscripts were hardly five centuries older than christianity itself. So I hardly think calling a manuscript 3,500 yrs older that the event it describes as original.

As I understand it Hebrew as a laungage only dates back to about 600BC with proto froms of it going only so far back as 900BC

Hebrew as a language did not exist until nearly 1500 yrs AFTER the time of Abraham, if I am doing my math correctly.

@gcoharn and @lujlp,

I think there's a general problem with trying to treat Genesis as a scientific textbook. First of all, and most importantly, I don't think that is the intent. Second of all, we could never extract anything concrete from it. When considering that a "day" in the Genesis sense could mean a certain length of time, we would need to know how long that length of time would be. The word "day" itself could never teach you that length. Even though you're right that the Hebrew word "yom" for day can be interpreted as an age or era, that still doesn't mean we could still figure out the length. Science however can teach us. The Bible would then have to be conformed to science, and cannot be scientifically analyzed in isolation (assuming that you're going to treat it as a scientific explanation).

The plant before the sun problem is one problem, but we don't even have to look that far. That Earth could exist formlessly and void does not make sense either. How it could be formless and still be something is incomprehensible. And why would an omnipotent being beyond time and space need or even be able "to rest" (something that is necessarily temporal)? But these are only problems if we look at them as literal depictions.

Seeing Genesis as literary expression meant to convey something else that is true is an option. Genesis conveys the idea that God brought form to the void, law to nothingness with the line "Let there be light" and references to visibility as good and darkness as bad. That he is the author of all that exists is reinforced by descriptions of him creating animals, plants, the moon, the sun, man etc.

Of course, that Genesis can be understood this way does not mean therefore that it is true, but Catholics have a long history of believing (and still do, although we've lost part of the tradition) that pure reason (the sort of arguments that I gave earlier for first principles and God) can give us knowledge of what is necessarily true and we can then use that knowledge to see if the theology is true or false. I side with those who say it's true.

all comments noted. Have enjoyed the conversation.