3.3 Why Genesis zero verse zero?

The reason for Zero verse zero, is to cover the evolution/creation debate in a basic non partisan way. Too often the debate is between a specific religion's understanding of Scripture and somebody's private interpretation of present evolution theory. This would be practical only if; one religion had got it all sorted and it debated with an atheist(s) who equally, had it all sorted, but we live in a world where we all still learn.

Most believers find it difficult or are unable to present a clear reasoning to the atheist, why? Because creation alone is not all there is to belief, for a fair number creation is not even the prime reason. So here are some reasons for belief which often start to cloud the debate, to the irritation of the atheist.

Note, all things have a time and place it is best to keep to the point agreed, these are all worthy topics in themselves, but may dilute or cause confusion if mixed in.

Here are Four points;

1-Moral guidance of scripture, (way of life). Possibly the most powerful reason for belief a personal/family/congregation way of life, some effects even reaching a cultural level. Many are happy to live within the structures formed. Interesting how many who have lived debauched/evil lives rebuild/reform/repent into the fold, often these becoming the more forceful advocates of the 'cleaner' lifestyle. Even today a major evangelical/charitable drive among many varieties of faith. The many varieties and versions of belief often counts against belief, consider though if it still works the 'core motive of belief' must be very powerful?

2-As a view of life, (wisdom). Often more satisfying across the broader range of human questions. Science does do well on; 'how and can I?' a scriptural based thinking does well on; 'why and should I?' Learning the many stories /parables etc. which contain elements of wisdom can help us ride the sometimes rough passages in our life with some dignity in faith.

3-Prayer, (answered). I find this a most misunderstood topic even among believers. There seems to be a self interest naive idea of the answer being 'yes', as though the 'Lord of the Heavens' were a servant on call with nothing to contribute to the request other than doing as told. Although for some a prayer answered is the strongest pillar of their personal (now made intimate) faith, this is not the only reason for indulging in this practice. Because this evidence will only occur [a] when a clear request could be given a straight answer, and [b] only for the one who believes already. When it comes to prayer answered it stands to reason the more often answer is 'no', remember we're asking, He has choices. The prayer will often be answered with something not as requested and it may be a long time before we realise how this is so. Did we really in our childhood fully appreciate all the things our parents did? Responses to prayer will have similar complexities. The main reason is for communication with a friend, a friend wiser than yourself, just as we may be encouraged by something so to a little credit or thanks does not go amiss. So in talk with an unbeliever 'prayer answered' is a distraction, perhaps too soon, evidence for, and identity of, God must come first. Nevertheless, just as in other things and more so here, its not what you know its who you know.

4-Prophecy, (fulfilled). These are clear enough to see if your knowledge of scripture has depth, that is details and also an understanding of symbolism. Even then particularly with prophecy awaiting fulfilment not even all believers agree on the detail of what is meant. So is this a good proof for those who's experience and knowledge of scripture is only beginning? Many prophecies clearly are meant for the 'time of the end' we are also told this period will be relatively short in duration. It would seem then the display of fulfilment may only be appreciated by spectators with a knowledge of scripture. However, in line with the topics due later consider how recently humanity has changed from fear to think in terms of control of Nature, when Genesis 1 v 26 stated the design specification for mankind thousands of years ago. For 2003 CE, Isaiah 10 v 5 to 32 curious, maybe keep an eye on that one.

[End of the four points.]

If; the unbeliever thinks God is not,

then fails to avail themselves of the things now or hoped for,

he or she has lost nothing,

since one cannot loose what one has not.

Therefore by simply proving a Creation, will sometimes create motive for such wonderful gain.

Put simply; zero verse zero argues for a creation on the evidence seen so far, whereas, the next section 1v1 to 2v4 is argument for a specific named artisan.

As prepared here the text may be employed by the believer who needs to answer the atheist, on 'his home ground'. In consideration of that need, no Scripture is used as part of the arguments/proofs, some are inserted as interesting asides/comments it is optional if you choose to use these, faith etc. issues are omitted, for the zero v zero section only.

Judging by by how we use the word 'creation' in various fields of human activity, music, literature and artisan works. A creation is anything which could not have existed but for, an action of will by an intelligence. If you agree to the above, 'the creation' might not be restricted to just the results from some interpretation of Scripture, but to any deliberate constructive act(s). For example an intelligence causes the existence of a primeval ball in our space/time and detonates it.

Though believers may dispute among themselves the method by which God [generally creator in this section] did the job of creation, this is much less important than the issues; Were we created? And if so by whom? What duties/relationship should ensue? The first of these three is dealt with in zero v zero.

That there is good reason enough in Nature just as it is, to conclude a considerable intelligent creation as a valid conclusion.

Mainly applied science is used as this is unlikely to be in dispute and examples abound. Many believers will not refer to the creation as an act of manufacture (etymology), aside from that, man has now an extensive technology and has made many things. So applied science should be a viable source of principles &/or parallels to extrapolate. Think; extrapolate from man's works for many of the reasonings here.

1/ The generally accepted evidence is taken 'as is', for now.

2/ What (kind of) evidence or logic seems to support active production by (an) intelligence.

Next: 2/ Self

Yahweh, Immanuel Information




Mobile v:1.0