GOD of ABRAHAM is the CREATOR ("DESIGNER")

[roughdraft274]

This thread is related to the other topic that was recently created, IS THERE A GOD?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/232358-there-god.html


The purpose of this thread is to provide evidences that the God of Abraham (the God of the Bible) is the same God that Created the Universe.
He is also what is called, the Designer.

The Bible - which is authored by the Creator - will be heavily cited.




The CREATOR has intimate knowledge of His Creation. How can He not?
If He was the One who designed and created....of course, He knows everything about it!


The heading of the beginning of the Bible, is about........ the beginning. It simply states: The Beginning
The very first statement of the Old Testament - Genesis 1 - is an official declaration by the Creator.

Genesis 1

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


That first statement informs us that:
1. the universe had a beginning
2. it was Created
3. the Creator is God. God of Abraham. The Biblical God.


Science had discovered and confirmed the universe had a beginning. They've discovered it only sometime in the 1990's, please correct me if I'm wrong about the date......and yet, that fact was declared thousands of years ago (verbally passed by "primitive" ancient men for who knows how long before it got finally written down, on paper), without the use of any technology, I must add.


Beginning of the Universe - Science Confirms
Pure scientific findings consistently point to only one conclusion: the universe had a singular start, an explosion, where everything we know--the universe, time, space, scientific laws we observe--all had a beginning.

Beginning of the Universe - Beginning of Time


Where did that vital information come from?
According to the ancient folks who'd verbally passed that vital info, it came from God. The Creator.

That the universe had a beginning is very basic inductive reasoning that anyone could have easily concluded without the bible at all. All it requires is someone to think "hmm, everything I know of has a beginning, therefor the universe does!" This is not proof of the bible.

On top of this, there are numerous other creation stories that say "in the beginning there was nothing" and everything was created.

Creation Stories

In the beginning of time, there was nothing: neither sand, nor sea, nor cool waves. Neither the heaven nor earth existed.

This isn't evidence of anything Tosca.

 

[roughdraft274]

2. CAUSALITY aka THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/232358-there-god-10.html


The Bible screams about the Cause. The very first verse of the very first chapter of the very first Book gives the cause:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.”

Again Tosca, if you look at numerous other creation stories, there are many other stories with a "cause".

Creation Stories just one example.

This isn't proof or evidence of anything.

You are essentially saying "we need a cause, and this book offers one, therefor god exists" but you have done nothing to show that a cause is in fact required and that the cause in the bible is in fact accurate.

 

[tosca1]

That the universe had a beginning is very basic inductive reasoning that anyone could have easily concluded without the bible at all. All it requires is someone to think "hmm, everything I know of has a beginning, therefor the universe does!" This is not proof of the bible.

On top of this, there are numerous other creation stories that say "in the beginning there was nothing" and everything was created.

Creation Stories

This isn't evidence of anything Tosca.

You're overlooking the difference.

Did any scientists or any philosophers ever scrutinized, discussed, debated, were inspired by, or even wrote any articles, or any book....about the creation story of Odin and Ymir?

If the creation story of Odin and Ymir are even remotely comparable to the calibre of the Bible, surely it would've been mentioned by scientists and philosophers.....even just in passing?

The Bible is the ONLY RELIGIOUS BOOK that was, and still is, the topic of books, discussions, studies, and debates by scholars, philosophers, scientists, journalists, etc..,



You know what? It shouldn't be surprising that the Norse would have similar creation story. Why?


The Old Testament Roots of Norse Mythology


The early Christian church noted a remarkable fact: There was a distinct resemblance between ancient Israel's religion and that of the early inhabitants of Europe. Early Christian writers used the Latin phrase, "Preparacio Evangelica," meaning that European mythology constituted a good "preparation for the Gospel."

We now know why Norse mythology, Celtic Druidism, and Greek mythology all bear such striking similarities to the Old Testament -- it's simply because these peoples were the physical descendants of ancient Israelites who migrated to Europe in ancient times, bringing deep-rooted traces of their religion with them when they came.

Norse Mythology Old Testament Roots



It was inspired by the Old Testament.

That article is a very interesting long read. I never knew that, until you brought it up.

 

[roughdraft274]

You're overlooking the difference.

Did any scientists or any philosophers ever scrutinized, discussed, debated, were inspired by, or even wrote any articles, or any book....about the creation story of Odin and Ymir?

If the creation story of Odin and Ymir are even remotely comparable to the calibre of the Bible, surely it would've been mentioned by scientists and philosophers.....even just in passing?

The Bible is the ONLY RELIGIOUS BOOK that was, and still is, the topic of books, discussions, studies, and debates by scholars, philosophers, scientists, journalists, etc..,



You know what? It shouldn't be surprising that the Norse would have similar creation story. Why?


The Old Testament Roots of Norse Mythology


The early Christian church noted a remarkable fact: There was a distinct resemblance between ancient Israel's religion and that of the early inhabitants of Europe. Early Christian writers used the Latin phrase, "Preparacio Evangelica," meaning that European mythology constituted a good "preparation for the Gospel." We now know why Norse mythology, Celtic Druidism, and Greek mythology all bear such striking similarities to the Old Testament -- it's simply because these peoples were the physical descendants of ancient Israelites who migrated to Europe in ancient times, bringing deep-rooted traces of their religion with them when they came.

Norse Mythology Old Testament Roots



It was inspired by the Old Testament.

That article is a very interesting long read. I never knew that, until you brought it up.

You've ignored the fact that there are countless creation stories. That was the entire point of my post. There are dozens or hundreds of these stories. To point at the one in the bible and say "look it's evidence" is silly on it's face. This is not evidence.

 

[tosca1]

Again Tosca, if you look at numerous other creation stories, there are many other stories with a "cause".

Creation Stories just one example.

This isn't proof or evidence of anything.

You are essentially saying "we need a cause, and this book offers one, therefor god exists" but you have done nothing to show that a cause is in fact required and that the cause in the bible is in fact accurate.

So, what other samples you got?

You're not bringing up Sumerian, are you? Or any other religion older than Judaism? Because I've already answered that, too.

 

[tosca1]

You've ignored the fact that there are countless creation stories. That was the entire point of my post. There are dozens or hundreds of these stories. To point at the one in the bible and say "look it's evidence" is silly on it's face. This is not evidence.

Of course most religion have their own creation story! We know that!


If they are anything at all like the Bible.......cite them!

 

[roughdraft274]

So, what other samples you got?

You're not bringing up Sumerian, are you? Or any other religion older than Judaism? Because I've already answered that, too.

So we know that the god of the bible is the real god and is god because he has a creation story, and even though there are dozens of other creation stories, none of those count?

Come on, you don't see the childishness of your argument?

 

[Jerry]

Good.



:shrug:

Why....the rest is up to you. If you want to hang around, you're welcome. If you find it pointless, you don't have to stay....

My topic does not include, "now what?"....:mrgreen:

So then what's the point?

 

[Quag]

This thread is related to the other topic that was recently created, IS THERE A GOD?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/232358-there-god.html


The purpose of this thread is to provide evidences that the God of Abraham (the God of the Bible) is the same God that Created the Universe.
He is also what is called, the Designer.

The Bible - which is authored by the Creator - will be heavily cited.




The CREATOR has intimate knowledge of His Creation. How can He not?
If He was the One who designed and created....of course, He knows everything about it!


The heading of the beginning of the Bible, is about........ the beginning. It simply states: The Beginning
The very first statement of the Old Testament - Genesis 1 - is an official declaration by the Creator.

Genesis 1

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


That first statement informs us that:
1. the universe had a beginning
2. it was Created
3. the Creator is God. God of Abraham. The Biblical God.


Science had discovered and confirmed the universe had a beginning. They've discovered it only sometime in the 1990's, please correct me if I'm wrong about the date......and yet, that fact was declared thousands of years ago (verbally passed by "primitive" ancient men for who knows how long before it got finally written down, on paper), without the use of any technology, I must add.


Beginning of the Universe - Science Confirms
Pure scientific findings consistently point to only one conclusion: the universe had a singular start, an explosion, where everything we know--the universe, time, space, scientific laws we observe--all had a beginning.

Beginning of the Universe - Beginning of Time


Where did that vital information come from?
According to the ancient folks who'd verbally passed that vital info, it came from God. The Creator.

Science has not confirmed the universe had a beginning, not that having one would in any way be evidence of any God let aloen the one you believe in.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

 

[ALiberalModerate]

According to scientists there is evidence that the universe had a beginning!


"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time
The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

1. Just because the universe had a beginning does not mean that nothing existed before it.

2. Just because the universe had a beginning does not mean that it had a supernatural creator.

3. Virtually every creation story implies a creator that created our universe. Most of them could be somehow construed to be congruent with known science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Thus even if one believes the universe had a creator, there is no more evidence for that creator being the God of Abraham as there is for that creator being Ahura Mazda, Pangu, or Mbombo. For that matter, such a creator could be a deity that is completely unknown to us. Perhaps the true God and creator of the universe divinely revealed himself and all of the truths of the universe and its purpose to Homo Neanderthalensis whom he made in his image and created as his chosen people and given dominion over creation. When we killed the last of Homo Neanderthalenis about 38,000 years ago, this creator was so angry with our lesser species that he decided to forever hide his divine truth from us.

Unlikely yes, but still every bit as likely as any other creation story being true.

We humans have an instinctual belief that everything must have a creator and a purpose. Thus we create a god or gods that then created us, our world, our universe, and gave it all a purpose.

 

[IntelligentMan]

Why should we take these ancient men seriously, let alone believe, about their claim that those declaration came from God?


Because science - thanks to modern technology - had only recently discovered and confirmed what was stated thousands of years ago, by men without any technology to assists them! They claim the info came from the One who Created the universe!

Wouldn't it be common if you were uneducated and unsophisticated, to look up in the sky, and assume it's always been there forever?

And yet, they claimed the Creator of the universe had said, there was a beginning! And that was confirmed by science only recently!

then where did god come from? was he just there forever? facepalm.

 

[Riveroaks]

Did the meaning of the verse change?

Does your translation negate or veered away from the message in any way at all, that God created the heavens and the earth?
That's all that's relevant here as far as Biblical translations go.

I just think you need to be more careful about the English translations you are using for the Bible -- they have been corrupted by Protestant and Catholic alike over many centuries -- although the Catholic Douay-Rheims version is a lot closer to what I get when I translate it myself.

You cannot prudently start with any English translation and start deriving philosophy and theology out of it.

You really should start with the original ancient Hebrew and the original ancient Greek, if you want to play that game and be in that league.

At first, Judges created heavens and Earth. That's what it really says. Moses said it. But you need to be very careful what you yourself read into that.

 

[Riveroaks]

Well, since you have failed to produce *anything* to support your OP assertion what else do we have to talk about?

(BTW, the use of colors and text size is becoming entertaining.)

I think Tosca is just using us to practice for her next Sunday School class.

 

[Riveroaks]

I don't want to get in any discussion about the Trinity and all that.

Yes, I say God of Abraham (and the God of Moses, Jacob, Isaac etc..,)...after all, I'm including Abrahamic religions.

The Abrahamic religions refer to three sister monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) that claim the prophet Abraham (Hebrew: Avraham אַבְרָהָם ; Arabic: Ibrahim ابراهيم ) as their common forefather.

Abrahamic religions - New World Encyclopedia



If I'm not mistaken, even Muslims believe that the God of Abraham (which we also know is the God of Moses, Isaac, and Jacob, etc...) is the Creator of all things.

Tosca my dear sweet friend, you are unfortunately now again stumbling over the fallacies of argumentum populum and affirmation of the consequent.

In other words you are just talking, Tosca. You are not proving anything.

 

[Riveroaks]

I would hope it is, at least until something is offered that really bridges the gap between systems of process (science) and systems of belief (religion.) I've have held the contention for a while now that the two are inherently adversarial for a ton of reasons. Even the most far out there Quantum Sciences theories and models that point to what *might* be the case before Singularity (example, the collision of alternate universes... or realities) still do not point to an old white haired guy sitting in the dark creating everything that is our universe from absolutely nothing. We have inherent problems getting from the reasons for Singularity, or what was before it, to the idea of "designer" only made possible by systems of belief.

Remember though -- the old white haired guy is a Catholic myth -- from the Michelangelo art.

In Hebrew "ELOHIM" means "judges" and it is masculine plural.

I wanted Tosca to learn that for the first time.

"God" is a Gothic word and did not even exist at the time of Moses or Jesus.

Language and translation is a major issue here that is being overlooked.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Remember though -- the old white haired guy is a Catholic myth -- from the Michelangelo art.

In Hebrew "ELOHIM" means "judges" and it is masculine plural.

I wanted Tosca to learn that for the first time.

"God" is a Gothic word and did not even exist at the time of Moses or Jesus.

Language and translation is a major issue here that is being overlooked.

Valid point.

We cannot discount the simplicity of language then vs. today. The concept from the words "Judge" or "God" was not that far removed from one another, but into today's context mean very different things. Similar story with the never ending debate on "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not murder," how those concepts differed then and today also has a significant difference. Similar story with "creator" and "ruler/judge."

We also cannot discount the vast difference in the level of those educated enough to read and write in any language then vs. today. At the time the majority of this text was authored, the overwhelming majority of the populace was uneducated to the point of extremely simplistic communication by spoken word only. Most did not have the education or aptitude for learning complex differences in how words were used. That gave great latitude to those of authority to ensure a concept was delivered to the populace a certain way, which increased the effectiveness of the concept of religious authority in the first place.

 

[tosca1]

So we know that the god of the bible is the real god and is god because he has a creation story, and even though there are dozens of other creation stories, none of those count?

Come on, you don't see the childishness of your argument?

You have to re-read my posts. It's been explained repeatedly why The God of Abraham is the real God.

 

[tosca1]

1. Just because the universe had a beginning does not mean that nothing existed before it.

2. Just because the universe had a beginning does not mean that it had a supernatural creator.

We're talking about the universe.

2. Just because the universe had a beginning does not mean that it had a supernatural creator.

Evidence and logic are pointing that a Designer/Creator is the most likely answer.

3. Virtually every creation story implies a creator that created our universe. Most of them could be somehow construed to be congruent with known science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Thus even if one believes the universe had a creator, there is no more evidence for that creator being the God of Abraham as there is for that creator being Ahura Mazda, Pangu, or Mbombo. For that matter, such a creator could be a deity that is completely unknown to us. Perhaps the true God and creator of the universe divinely revealed himself and all of the truths of the universe and its purpose to Homo Neanderthalensis whom he made in his image and created as his chosen people and given dominion over creation. When we killed the last of Homo Neanderthalenis about 38,000 years ago, this creator was so angry with our lesser species that he decided to forever hide his divine truth from us.

Unlikely yes, but still every bit as likely as any other creation story being true.

We humans have an instinctual belief that everything must have a creator and a purpose. Thus we create a god or gods that then created us, our world, our universe, and gave it all a purpose.

No other religious book or creation story is of the same calibre as the Bible. Nothing is like it!

Show me a religious book other than the Bible that's been discussed, debated, scrutinized, and written in books by scientists, philosophers, scholars, etc..,

 

[tosca1]

then where did god come from? was he just there forever? facepalm.

He's been there forever. He will be here forever. He is eternal.

 

[tosca1]

I just think you need to be more careful about the English translations you are using for the Bible -- they have been corrupted by Protestant and Catholic alike over many centuries -- although the Catholic Douay-Rheims version is a lot closer to what I get when I translate it myself.

You cannot prudently start with any English translation and start deriving philosophy and theology out of it.

You really should start with the original ancient Hebrew and the original ancient Greek, if you want to play that game and be in that league.

At first, Judges created heavens and Earth. That's what it really says. Moses said it. But you need to be very careful what you yourself read into that.

So you're saying....Judges created the heavens and the earth! Interesting.


Out of curiousity....do you believe in the God of Abraham? I thought you did, but I might've confused you with someone.

 

[tosca1]

Tosca my dear sweet friend, you are unfortunately now again stumbling over the fallacies of argumentum populum and affirmation of the consequent.

In other words you are just talking, Tosca. You are not proving anything.

Then, don't mind me. I love to talk.

 

[Jerry]

You have to re-read my posts. It's been explained repeatedly why The God of Abraham is the real God.

Yes, that's true....and?

 

[Riveroaks]

So you're saying....Judges created the heavens and the earth! Interesting.


Out of curiousity....do you believe in the God of Abraham? I thought you did, but I might've confused you with someone.

Tosca my dear sweet friend, I believe in Jesus, and in his Holy Mother Mary, and in his Father-God, and in the Holy Spirit.

What does that make me? You tell me, Sweetie. You be the judge.

There is an old joke that goes something like this -- if we were accused of being Christians would there be enough evidence to convict us ??

 

[Riveroaks]

Valid point.

We cannot discount the simplicity of language then vs. today. The concept from the words "Judge" or "God" was not that far removed from one another, but into today's context mean very different things. Similar story with the never ending debate on "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not murder," how those concepts differed then and today also has a significant difference. Similar story with "creator" and "ruler/judge."

We also cannot discount the vast difference in the level of those educated enough to read and write in any language then vs. today. At the time the majority of this text was authored, the overwhelming majority of the populace was uneducated to the point of extremely simplistic communication by spoken word only. Most did not have the education or aptitude for learning complex differences in how words were used. That gave great latitude to those of authority to ensure a concept was delivered to the populace a certain way, which increased the effectiveness of the concept of religious authority in the first place.

I don't want to jack Tosca's thread other than to point out to her that there is a really big difference between what the ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek of the Bible really says, versus what has been taught and brainwashed to Catholics and Protestants ever since.

Most certainly, anciently, ordinary people were illiterate and totally preoccupied with farming and ranching and paying their taxes of 10% to 50%. This held true through Medieval times as well and on through the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries as well.

Only the priest class and the government bureaucrats in those ancient days learned "letters." You are right.

Moses was fortunate to have been saved from the river by the daughter of Pharaoh and raised as a prince. Josephus Flavius tells us the whole story about it. And the apostles Matthew and Paul were government bureaucrats, so they were also literate. The evangelist Luke was a physician and therefore also literate. Those are our ancient literary sources.

The Catholic ministry was also literate, as were the Protestant ministers from the times of the Protestant Reformation in England and Germany when universities began to be established to teach Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and religion.

The common people were always illiterate, yes. They learned things by word of mouth.

Most Catholic and Protestant doctrine is therefore mouth to ear to mouth -- not really out of the Biblical writings anywhere. That is what I have discovered as far as religion goes.

I feel like the purpose of science is to help us discover new scientific things, like medicines, energy, machines and technology. Science has nothing to do with religion or philosophy.

 

[distraff]

Of course there are some who's trying to discount it. I stand by the various statements from the quotes I gave. That's the general consensus.

No its not the consensus at all. The big bang does not at all address the origin of the universe. The big bang only talks about the expansion of the universe from a tiny compressed universe. It does not say anything about where this tiny compressed universe came from. It only details how this compressed universe expanded into this one.

Just look at Wikipedia:
"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3] It states that the universe expanded from a very high density state,[4][5] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and Hubble's Law.[6] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

No mention that the big bang theory proves that the universe had an origin.

Most scientists do believe that this tiny universe had a beginning but this has nothing to do with the big bang. These are separate theories. Most scientists believe our universe either popped out of nothing, or that it came from a multiverse. Some personally believe that a creator made this tiny universe. However there is no compelling evidence to support any of these positions yet and there still is a lot of debate.

Anyway, there's no telling what happened prior to that, is there? But no matter how far back we try to go.....it will always point to the same logical answer!

I am drawing a blank on this one. What answer is that?

If the Bible has already given several information - that's been proven by science - logically, why can't we consider creation, to be the most likely answer?

The bible has not said anything that is testable and falsifiable that has been proven by science. The bible did say that birds were created on the fifth day and land animals were created on the sixth day meaning that birds were created before land animals. It is pretty obvious from the fossil record that birds evolved from velociraptor-like dinosaurs 160 million years ago, while land animals which were ancestors of birds evolved 380 million years ago.