Why was God demoted?

[chakka35]

Here's a question for those of you who believe in the Judaeo/Christian 'God'. There's a bit of a preamble:
Until nearly 3000 years ago the Jews worshipped several gods depending on where in Israel they lived. The main gods of northern Israel were Baal and El. The god of southern Israel was YHWH (modified to Yahweh to make it pronounceable, and later to Jehovah). When the Jews decided to become monotheistic they chose YHWH to be their sole god, now called 'God'. This is the basis of the 1st commandment ('Thou shalt have no other gods but me'). Christians later adopted this god too, though not monothestically.
(That, briefly, is history as far as we can ascertain it.)
It was claimed that 'God' had created the whole of the universe and all life on earth.
(That is religious belief.)
The problem is that the universe emerged about 12,000 million years ago, the earth about 4,700 million years ago and life about 3,500 million years ago. (That is scientific fact as far as we can ascertain it.) So to my multiple question:
How come that the chap who performed such mind-boggling miracles thousands of millions of years ago, making him a Supreme Being, ended up as an obscure minor deity in a small part of a small country with very few people recognising him until the Jews decided to promote him? Why was he demoted from Supreme Being and who demoted him?
Rational discussion please. No sermons, Theland!

[kempie]

Apologies for the thread-creep but isn't "...fact as far as we can ascertain it" another way of saying "conjecture" (i.e. reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence)?

[kempie]

...I'm just trying to ascertain ;-) that you are applying equal invalidity (or otherwise) to both the religious history and scientific sections of your preamble.

[chakka35]

No kempie, 'fact as far as we can ascertain it' is far from being conjecture. In the matter of the history of 'God' what I give are the facts as we know them; we wish we knew more, and, if we did, we might find that things were slightly different, but only slightly. As for the scientific facts about the age of the universe and earth this is solid science as far as we know it so far.
Naturaly these two things are completely different from the religious claim, which really is only conjecture and not based on any form of research or discoveries at all.

[Lighter]

<<In the matter of the history of 'God' what I give are the facts as we know them;>>
Chakka what you stated in your question is quite far off any facts we know about God. To correct a few of your mis-ascertions:
The Ten Commandments were given before there was a land of Israel.
Christianity did not 'adopt' the Jewish God, Christianity is the continuation of the worship of Jehovah, except Christ is the fulfilment of all the Jewish sacrifices etc. The Jews, like Abraham, David etc, looked forward to what Christ would do, Christians look back to what Christ has now done.
Christianity is monotheistic, as opposed to pantheistic such as Hinduism.

Just because people do not worship God does not in anyway detract from Him, and certainly does not demote Him.
If a defendant in court shows contempt towards the judge, it doesn't suddenly remove the legality or power of the judge's position.

I'd be a little concerned with your reasoning that you think the belief in a God Who created everything is religious yet consider stating that the universe 'emerged' 12 billion years as a scientific fact. They are both religious statements!
What observable, testable, verifiable facts prove the universe is 12 billion years old?

I'd be interested to hear what you believe the universe 'emerged' from?

[Theland]

As Lighter says, what is actually proven scientific fact regarding the universe "emerging" 12,000m years ago? And what did it "emerge" from?
That is surely a "belief" albeit based on quite a lot of circumstantial evidence?
The peoples of those lands in those times worshipped many gods, but the supreme being, revealed Himself to Abraham, and was not demoted or suddenly promoted.
We can look back to Jesus, and see that He believed the scriptures from Genesis to Malachi, and quoted from them as part of His earthly ministry. So if they were good enough fo Him, they're good enough for me.
(I think Wizard69 will be along shortly, with a very large stick!)

[Llamatron]

http://www.tunkki.biz/warning.jpg

[dawkins]

I think you are a little out on your dates chakka: The earth is approximately 4.55 bya; The visible universe is roughly 13.7 bya. life was present on earth fully 300 million years earlier than you state. The evidence of the age of the earth is provided by radiometric dating methods through measuring the decay of several independent radioactive minerals that are present in rocks by methods which are well understood and which provide consistent, verifiable facts about the age of rocks which make up the substance of the earth.

But why did god send all the kangaroos and monotremes to australia? and why did he bother creating plate tectonics that act over millions of years when the earth is only to act over thousands of years and he created it finished? and distant galaxies, why? and why did he make two types of chimpanzee and put a physical barrier in-between them like they'd been separated for a while and gone their separate ways? presumably the ark was very crowded and surely he didn't need two types of chimp. By the way, did noah walk the earth picking up animals or did they have to hang around on makeshift rafts till he sailed by? And why have religions around the world (including christianity) developed on a tribal basis based overwhelmingly on societal norms if the real truth is a minority version of christianity?

[wizard69]

Theland. I dont need a very large stick, the bible itself is sufficient in itself to beat you with.
"We can look back to Jesus and see that he believed the scriptures from Genesis to Malachi and quoted from them as part of his earthley ministry"...Really? Lets take a look then (and this time Theland I'm not going to let you get away with a sermon.I want ANSWERS).
First of all John 7:38 Jesus said, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." Where is this scripture?
Luke 24:46 "Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day."
Where is this written?
Mattew 27:9-10"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they gave them for the potter's field as the Lord appointed me"
Where in Jeremiah is this prophecy?
It would appear that Jesus didn't know his scriptures.
Theland, as you are so fond of believing in the prophecy of the bible I suggest that you have a look here
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell _till/prophecy.html (from where i have unashamedly copied and pasted from...saves time typing).

[wizard69]

chakka35, whats the betting that Theland either ignores this thread now or chooses to honour us with a sermon?
Theland, dont you dare start telling us that you "believe".
We all know that by now.Just answer the questions
(or I WILL come around with a big stick.lol)

[dawkins]

Calculating the age of the universe relies on a variety of techniques. Basically, observers developed techniques from chemistry including spectroscopy to identify the elements of stars. Observations led to the discovery of the doppler effect. Some types of stars were discovered to have a similar brightness and so comparing their brightness with stars around then observers started to get an idea of distance. hubble discovered a relationship between radial velocity (through spectroscopy) and distance - that the farther away a galaxy the faster it is accelerating - which led to the discovery that the universe is expanding to something called hubble's constant. Rewinding this process gives us the age of the universe. To believe the bible you have to assume that humans used to live for over 900 years for which there is no evidence, you have to believe in the supernatural, for which there is no evidence. Science doesn't argue specifics on the start of the universe because there is no evidence yet. That's one good reason why science is not a religion.

[kempie]

The natural sciences do not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth. Rather, science tests some aspect of the world and provides a precise, unequivocal framework to explain it i.e. a theory.

Scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

It is good fortune that astrophysicists never found the need to prop up any of their theories with the invention of supernatural entities such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Belief in God(s)... Belief in Science(s)...

Two sides of the same coin.

[dawkins]

So kempie, if science puts forward a testable and falsifiable hypothesis to attempts to explain an aspect of the physical world that is observed but little understood then that is equivalent to ceding all explanation of life and matter to an omniscient creator? By your reasoning then gravity is supernatural coz you can't see or touch it and our faith in it is religious?

Lack of understanding in, or ignorance of, the evidence for "insert pet subject" cannot prove something else. (e.g. my atheism does not prove evolution)

[Theland]

Wizard69 - Do you already know the answers to the questions you threw me?
Anyway, I am in the process of getting a concordance and will try to find the answers you require. Also, as you can imagine, I'll try to glean what I can from the net.
So, confession time, I cannot answer your question .. now, but if there is an answer, I hope to discover it.
I'm guessing that this could possibly be one of those situations that on the face of it, presents a contradiction, but maybe some new or further information will shed some light on the matter.
chakka35 - As you can see, I have not ignored the thread, or, I hope, "honoured" you with a sermon, but I will need some time to get to grips with this.
(Do I hear multiple chuckles from the Wizards Den?)

[kempie]

dawkins - ignoring your fatuous remark about gravity, my point is that both sides of this Religion/Science argument require a leap of faith.

You have chosen to disbelieve in God.

You have chosen to believe in the scientific explanation as to the composition of the Universe, namely 4% ordinary matter, 22% dark matter (hypothetical matter of unknown composition), and 74% dark energy (hypothetical energy).

[Theland]

Wizard69 - I am awaiting a reply from a site that may help me to answer yor questions but it could take a few days, so in the meantime, please bear with me.
http://www.gotquestions.org/

[wizard69]

Theland, i do not chuckle at you (niether do members of my household).I mearly want to show you the truth.Namly that you are living a delusion by believing in something that is so patently a work of fiction (as hard as that may be for you).
Yes, I do already know the answers.And it is this....the gospel writers were ignorent of the Jewish scriptures and the Jewish way of life.The origens of Christianity has more to do with Mithraism than Judaism.It is a pagan religion (virgin births, God becoming men, ressurecting saviours etc...) I will look forward to your replies

[dawkins]

Fatuous eh Kempie. The attractive force that keeps us to earth has been well explained by Newton and then Einstein, its called gravity and I trust by your rebuttal that you accept it (i.e its not god keeping us on the earth but a well understood interaction of mass). Dark matter is postulated because stars orbiting the edges of galaxies have tremendous speeds. Calculations of the gravitational pull of stars closer to the centre of the galaxy should not have enough gravitational attraction to prevent these orbiting stars from flying off into space. 'Maybe', say the scientists, 'there is matter contained within galaxies kepping these stars in orbit which is dark so that light does not reflect off it' (candidates include blackholes and planets). 'If that is true', they say, 'we would expect to measure x amount of matter to keep the peripheral stars in their orbit'. Then they go off and find experiments to test this hypothesis which will live or die on the evidence. How is that religious?

As I've said, my atheism doesn't go one jot to explaining the physical world, its not connected. However, my basic understanding of science makes me extremely sceptical about biblical creationism. Radiometric evidence alone falsifies the bible account. without going into the extreme unlikeness that people once lived for over 900 years. I don't need to understand dark matter or dark energy or evolution or even have an opinion on any of these things to reasonably dismiss the bible. I can reasonably dismiss the bible with geography: why are the japanese mainly Buddhist? Indians mainly hindu? people from utah mainly mormon? European or European colonies christian?

[pugwashjw]

You are n the right track about the age of the universe and the earth. But it is only man who has been around a short time. About 8,000 years [ Gen ch. 5 age of the Patriarchs, Matt. ch. 1 and Luke ch. 3 geneology of Jesus] . Almighty God gave us free will. to worship the true God. Many chose false gods. Only a very small group chose the CORRECT God. The One who created everything.
It was the 'many' who chose to demote him. That in itself does not reduce his POWER. At Armageddon, He will show his power and those ' many' will not survive. The 'few' who did choose Him will urvive.
(Luke 17:34-35) I tell YOU, In that night two [men] will be in one bed; the one will be taken along, but the other will be abandoned. 35�There will be two [women] grinding at the same mill; the one will be taken along, but the other will be abandoned.�

Not taken to heaven, but simply saved.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Surely two men in one bed would be an abomination, and thus neither would be saved..? 8-)

[chakka35]

Well now, where have we got to in five days? Not very far, alas. Only two of the believers who replied, lighter and theland , addressed the question. Fairly predictably, they questioned the first item in my preamble (the history) and my third (the science) but left the second (religious supposition) unchallenged. Well, both of you, if you claim that your �God� is not the YHWH who was the minor god of Israel (or Palestine, or that area, if you want to be pedantic) then you should explain where and how the historians got it wrong. And when it comes to the age of the universe, of the earth and of life you can hardly expect me to supply here all that scholarship from so many different scientific disciplines which converge on the dates I gave you (fine-tuned by you dawkins, thank you very much).
Do you two reject all science as a matter of principle or just those aspects which conflict with your religion, such as evolution and the age of the universe?
kempie, although seemingly to give religion the same status as reason, does not address the question, while pugwashjw gives precisely the sort of tedious sermon which I had hoped not to be lumbered with.
Answering my own question, it seems reasonable, when history and science combine to clash with mere religious belief, that the latter gives way, on the principle of Occam�s Razor. The simplest solution is that yes, YHWH became the Judaeo/Christian �God� quite recently and, yes, the universe was formed thousands of millions of years ago. Ergo, the idea that YHWH �did it� must be abandoned.
No, I don�t know where the universe emerged from lighter and theland. Neither do you, nor anyone else.