Do Christians accept that the earth is older than the sun like the Bible says?

[Valery]

Are you asserting that this explanation is closer to scientific accuracy than is Genesis?

I'm asserting this is accurate. However, this is not all the information we have. You asked what the story is. These are two places in the Qur'an where the creation is described in multiple consecutive verses. There are more verses in the Qur'an regarding the creation and a lot of information in the authentic hadith. I'm not qualified to explain the matter in detail. If you're interested, you can read more by searching the following site:

Consensus that the Earth is round - Islam Question & Answer

islamqa.info

You might also be interested in the following:

Seven Heavens In Quran

Seven Heavens In Quran

www.miracles-of-quran.com

 

[Valery]

Omnipotence requires the future to be pre-determined and free will requires it not to be.

You defy logic.

One of those is that it would be impossible for it to "want" anything since it would be able to unconditionally make existence that way and have it have always been that way.

You defy logic again. I agree with you when you said that an omnipotent being cannot have needs, but wants and needs are different things.

Question:

It seems that only fanatical evangelikal fundamentalists are "Christians" for you.

Don't you know any other Christians?

Have you considered getting a new hobby? I notice baking has become popular during covid.

Btw, it's written 'evangelical'.

 

[HonestJoe]

You defy logic.

You'd have to explain why you disagree with my logic on that if we're going to discuss it further.

You defy logic again. I agree with you when you said that an omnipotent being cannot have needs, but wants and needs are different things.

That distinction doesn't really matter in this context.

Consider there being something achievable you want (or need). You will spend time and effort to achieve whatever it is you want, during which you're still in the state of "wanting" it. Eventually, you achieve the thing and so stop "wanting" it.

Now consider an omnipotent being. They're not subject to and limitations of time or effort so the period of discovering the "want" and working to achieve it simply doesn't exist for them. There would be (literally) no time for them to want the thing, only the eternal state of them having it.

 

[Valery]

There would be (literally) no time for them to want the thing, only the eternal state of them having it.

That's not something we can understand. You're assuming to know what it's like to exist beyond time.

during which you're still in the state of "wanting" it.

That sounds more like a need. God has a plan for us. He knows what will happen. The idea that He "had to wait for it" is not something we can apply to God, as you yourself said, He is beyond time.

You'd have to explain why you disagree with my logic on that if we're going to discuss it further.

You said Omnipotence requires future to be pre-determined. I don't see anyway Omnipotence covers that. Though, even if pre-determination is accepted that doesn't remove free will as we experience it.
Here the issue is explained:

 

[Daisy]

No, I'm considering the idea of a hypothetical deity defined as omnipotent and omniscient and applying basic common-sense (if slightly mind-bending) logic to that concept. Omnipotence and omniscience would lead to several definitive characteristics for such a deity. One of those is that it would be impossible for it to "want" anything since it would be able to unconditionally make existence that way and have it have always been that way. I appreciate it is a weird concept to get your head around but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Regardless of any kind of god, free will is incompatible with omnipotence. If anything is capable of being omnipotent, nothing would be capable of truly having free will. Omnipotence requires the future to be pre-determined and free will requires it not to be.

Both can indeed co-exist...nothing being too powerful that God cannot contain, yet allowing man and angels the free will they were created with...

 

[Metanoia]

I'm asserting this is accurate. However, this is not all the information we have. You asked what the story is. These are two places in the Qur'an where the creation is described in multiple consecutive verses. There are more verses in the Qur'an regarding the creation and a lot of information in the authentic hadith. I'm not qualified to explain the matter in detail. If you're interested, you can read more by searching the following site:

Consensus that the Earth is round - Islam Question & Answer

islamqa.info

You might also be interested in the following:

Seven Heavens In Quran

Seven Heavens In Quran

www.miracles-of-quran.com

it is hard to argue that there is consensus amongst Muslims that the earth is round.

 

[Valery]

it is hard to argue that there is consensus amongst Muslims that the earth is round.

?

 

[Metanoia]

?

This appeared in NYT in 1995..............

"

The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment.

That is a well-known religious edict, or fatwa, issued two years ago by Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia. The blind theologian's status gives his fatwas great weight, though his opinions have often raised eyebrows or embarrassed worldly Saudis."

 

[Rumpel]

Btw, it's written 'evangelical'.

Is it?
I prefer the "evangelikal" writing.
The Greeks like the K!

 

[Valery]

This appeared in NYT in 1995..............

"

The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment.

That is a well-known religious edict, or fatwa, issued two years ago by Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia. The blind theologian's status gives his fatwas great weight, though his opinions have often raised eyebrows or embarrassed worldly Saudis."

You know what consensus is?

Definition of CONSENSUS

general agreement : unanimity; the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned; group solidarity in sentiment and belief… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You didn't bother to source your claim so I have no problem citing Wikipedia.

However, Malise Ruthven and others state that it is incorrect to report that Ibn Baz believed "the earth is flat"[32] Professor Werner Ende, a German expert on Ibn Baz's fatwas, states he has never asserted this.[30] Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî calls those that attribute the flat earth view to Ibn Baz "rumour mongers". He points out that Ibn Baz issued a fatwa declaring that the Earth is round,[40][41] and, indeed, in 1966 Ibn Baz wrote "The quotation I cited [in his original article] from the speech of the great scholar Ibn Al-Qayyim (may Allah be merciful to him) includes proof that the earth is round."[35]

Abd al-Aziz Ibn Baz - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Aziz_ibn_Abd_Allah_ibn_Baaz#cite_note-musawwir-35

 

[distraff]

Genesis 1

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"

12 "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good"

13 "And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day."

14 "And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years"

15 "and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so."

16 "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

17 "God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth"

18 "to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good."

19 "And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."

Some Christians believe in interpreting genesis metaphorically. This is more of a problem for creationists.

 

[Metanoia]

You know what consensus is?

Definition of CONSENSUS

general agreement : unanimity; the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned; group solidarity in sentiment and belief… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You didn't bother to source your claim so I have no problem citing Wikipedia.

This is laughable.....the very Wikipedia piece you cited cites the ongoing confusion of ibn Baaz. He vaccillated over the years believing the sun rotated around the earth and that the earth was static. Consensus in Islam is only for a limited period of time and is confined within the limits of various sects and schools of thought. Unlike the Catholic Church there is no hierarchy in Islam to define doctrine. Ibn Baal is famous for declaring it was wrong for women to drive. As far as consensus is concerned there was a long held belief in Islam that the holocaust was a hoax. A side note: amazing to me how our modern day militias deny science much as has Islam done. Makes one wonder if they are being funded by the Wahhabis.

 

[Valery]

As far as consensus is concerned there was a long held belief in Islam that the holocaust was a hoax.

"In Islam"?

 

[Rumpel]

"In Islam"?

Yes , in Islam!

 

[code1211]

It reminds me of the question, Can God create a rock too heavy for him to move?"

That answer may be in process now as we seem some pretty heavy rocks moved by Dark Energy.

 

[code1211]

No, I'm considering the idea of a hypothetical deity defined as omnipotent and omniscient and applying basic common-sense (if slightly mind-bending) logic to that concept. Omnipotence and omniscience would lead to several definitive characteristics for such a deity. One of those is that it would be impossible for it to "want" anything since it would be able to unconditionally make existence that way and have it have always been that way. I appreciate it is a weird concept to get your head around but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Regardless of any kind of god, free will is incompatible with omnipotence. If anything is capable of being omnipotent, nothing would be capable of truly having free will. Omnipotence requires the future to be pre-determined and free will requires it not to be.

Again, you are applying your own understanding to a thing that is not only not known, but is literally unknowable.

It is men who have defined God to be a thing that makes them feel good.

If observing that the actual undermines the claims you understand others to have made, it seems obvious that what you understand others have claimed needs to be reexamined.

In a movie once, I heard a character say something close to: "I have examined religions and found them wanting. So, I made one of my own".

Even within Christianity, the Almighty is various things in the belief systems of various religions and in the minds of various people within those religions.

Johnathan Edwards presents the image of an "Angry God", while Kahlil Gibran leaned pretty strongly to the image of a loving and nurturing God.

In many cultures, there is a pantheon of gods, and in others, divinity exists within each and all of us.

The limitations any of us place on the Almighty seem silly to me. It's like my dog thinking that I can't light up the room because light switches are beyond a dog's reach and understanding.

 

[HonestJoe]

Again, you are applying your own understanding to a thing that is not only not known, but is literally unknowable.

Applying my understanding to abstract logic is as valid as it is in literally any other topic. There is nothing special about the concept of gods that raises it above any other.

The limitations any of us place on the Almighty seem silly to me. It's like my dog thinking that I can't light up the room because light switches are beyond a dog's reach and understanding.

Then you can't say anything about "the Almighty", including that it exists or is "almighty" (which sounds like a poetic term for omnipotent anyway). Any definition, characteristic or action attributed to something applies limitations to the subject by definition. If it is "X", it can't be "Not X" too.

That does boil down to the core contradiction I see in many religions (certainly the mainstream monotheistic ones). A god has all sorts of characteristics, behaviour and emotions attributed to them in scripture, tradition and claimed direct experience, but the moment any of those things are questioned, the response is that god, the one those believers have spent all that time describing in great details, is suddenly beyond all human understanding and can't be questioned or challenged in any way.

 

[code1211]

Applying my understanding to abstract logic is as valid as it is in literally any other topic. There is nothing special about the concept of gods that raises it above any other.

Then you can't say anything about "the Almighty", including that it exists or is "almighty" (which sounds like a poetic term for omnipotent anyway). Any definition, characteristic or action attributed to something applies limitations to the subject by definition. If it is "X", it can't be "Not X" too.

That does boil down to the core contradiction I see in many religions (certainly the mainstream monotheistic ones). A god has all sorts of characteristics, behaviour and emotions attributed to them in scripture, tradition and claimed direct experience, but the moment any of those things are questioned, the response is that god, the one those believers have spent all that time describing in great details, is suddenly beyond all human understanding and can't be questioned or challenged in any way.

The only part of any description that holds water for me is the one that I highlighted omitting the word I omitted.

Being beyond human understanding did not happen suddenly. It always was.

If you realize it suddenly, like Newton quantifying gravity, it only means that it got noticed. Has nothing to do with where and when and if it was.

 

[HonestJoe]

Being beyond human understanding did not happen suddenly. It always was.

The "suddenly" was in the context of conversations with (some) religious people, how they go in to great detail describing and explaining their (human) understanding of god but if anything they say is challenge or questioned, they then come out with the "beyond human understanding" angle. It's just a blatant contradiction.

If you're going with the "beyond human understanding" line that's fine, but you have to acknowledge that discredits any and all religious teaching that presents any information about the nature, actions or desires of such a god.

 

[code1211]

The "suddenly" was in the context of conversations with (some) religious people, how they go in to great detail describing and explaining their (human) understanding of god but if anything they say is challenge or questioned, they then come out with the "beyond human understanding" angle. It's just a blatant contradiction.

If you're going with the "beyond human understanding" line that's fine, but you have to acknowledge that discredits any and all religious teaching that presents any information about the nature, actions or desires of such a god.

I agree.

If Jesus didn't say it, there's no reason for a Christian to accept it.

All of the "angels dancing on the head of a pin" stuff is just recounting of the boredom of people recording evidence of not having enough to do.

The great thinkers and the great doers seem to be grouped in circles that rarely intersect in Venn diagrams.

 

[HonestJoe]

I agree.

If Jesus didn't say it, there's no reason for a Christian to accept it.

Those two statements are contradictory though. If you agree with me you can't agree with Jesus (or at least what the Bible reports he said) since his words include statements about the nature of God, clearly expecting humans to understand them. The Bible is the primary source of the "God is all these specific things"/"God is beyond human understanding" contradiction.

 

[Valery]

If you're going with the "beyond human understanding" line that's fine, but you have to acknowledge that discredits any and all religious teaching that presents any information about the nature, actions or desires of such a god.

Can one person discredit all religious teachings? Far-fetched, isn't it? You should ask the scholars of the particular religion you have a question about.

 

[HonestJoe]

Can one person discredit all religious teachings? Far-fetched, isn't it? You should ask the scholars of the particular religion you have a question about.

That isn't what I said. It was "any and all religious teaching that presents any information about the nature, actions or desires of such a god.". It should be a very simple concept that if someone declares God is "beyond human understanding", they can't support anyone who claims to understand anything about God.

 

[Valery]

That isn't what I said. It was "any and all religious teaching that presents any information about the nature, actions or desires of such a god."

So..all religions I've ever heard of?

It should be a very simple concept that if someone declares God is "beyond human understanding", they can't support anyone who claims to understand anyt

You completely ignore revelation. God has told us about Himself.

 

[HonestJoe]

You completely ignore revelation. God has told us about Himself.

You're still skipping over the key point. Are you asserting that God is completely beyond human understanding?