The Religion Discussion

[MG Man]

just trying to converse at your level

[stev]

yep, it's universal, that waste however (animal excretion) is a tree's most tastiest dish. we enjoy the fruit of the tree and take a dump at it's roots. we breathe out co2 and the tree breathes it in. there is a pattern to the law. balance is found in all things and all interactions in existence.

the same way i didnt spring out of the ground on my own. atheist logic is also hypocrisy, little do they know.

no one did...that would just be insane.

there are many scientific theories of how life on Earth began.

one of them states that it happened by chance - certain molecules just happened to pass by other molecules. another theory is that it came from another planet via frozen bacteria etc. on a rock floating in space......and many others.....all making perfect sense.

one of the most interesting theories I am currently reading about is the fact that the universe can simply be a simulation or part of bigger process that is happening....which is mind blowingly accurate.

[rocknrolla]

just trying to converse at your level

good good man, i like to see ppl striving to better their mental fortitude LOL

[maj. tom]

this man batting from the other wicket yes.

[stev]

where did gravity come from? ok bbl

oh lawd, that is too long to answer in here

u can google that. Lol

in a nutshell, the origin of gravity is unknown to science but there are theories which are very accurate. - see dark matter theory.

not many scientists have devoted their life / work to proving the origin of gravity, they always focus on something a bit more useful....its just there so scientists use it as 'something that is always there"

in fact this is quite a popular question among believers and non-believers.....which gave rise to the statement: "Whatever science did not prove at the moment is automatically tagged as 'supernatural' ".

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I agree with stev because "given the requirements for life on our planet, there are a vast number of other solar systems with planets that are the right distance away from their sun to be able to support life. That is a fact with empirical evidence to back it up."

LOL that is not empirical evidence for life outside Earth.

That is like pointing at a random house and saying that there must be someone in it because people live in houses.

Empirical proof for life outside of Earth would be life that can be subjected to empirical tests. A few pages ago you were holding that up to be standard of something's true existence and it seems you are contradicting yourself now.

are you even reading what I am writing?

I said I am NOT a firm believer in aliens. I DO NOT think sentient aliens are roaming around on earth abducting people.

I said "given the requirements for life on our planet, there are a vast number of other solar systems with planets that are the right distance away from their sun to be able to support life. That is a fact with empirical evidence to back it up."

we know the scientific requirements for life on our planet and we have empirical and testable evidence of those requirements. We have empirical evidence of numbers of planets that fit the criteria of planets that are the right distance away from their sun to be able to support life.

I never said there is empirical evidence of aliens.

you really need to get past your preconceptions!

As it pertains to djaggs view on the age of the Earth we disagree. I believe the YEC is consistent with the Bible he doesn't. Christians don't break fellowship on that issue. However denial of creation is counter to the teachings of Christianity.

don't break fellowship on what issue? That you make up Biblical facts that are not even in the Bible?

I think any contradiction of opinion in something claimed to be "perfectly written" and so "accurate in its historicity" should be a big big deal.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

where did gravity come from? ok bbl

oh lawd, that is too long to answer in here

u can google that. Lol

Gravity is a property of space time. Eintein basically describes gravity as a curvature in space time. To put it simply any object caught in another celestial body’s gravity is so because the space it is moving in is curved toward that object. It is similar to the way a coin would spiral down one of thse penny slot cyclone machines you see at tourist shops.
So Gravity comes from mass warping space around it.

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/75705/wher ... z2U3iIqdL1

in a nutshell, the origin of gravity is unknown to science but there are theories which are very accurate. - see dark matter theory.

not many scientists have devoted their life / work to proving the origin of gravity, they always focus on something a bit more useful....its just there so scientists use it as 'something that is always there"

in fact this is quite a popular question among believers and non-believers.....which gave rise to the statement: "Whatever science did not prove at the moment is automatically tagged as 'supernatural' ".

God of the gaps is the term often used.

there was a gap in the science of what causes lightning, so religion at that time filled the gap in knowledge with "Zeus sends lightning from his staff and his son Thor creates thunder with his hammer". Eventually when science figured out what natural causes generate lightning and the sound it makes, thunder, that the gap replaced from "God did it" with scientific knowledge.

[pioneer]

religion of peace, leaves people in pieces.

[stev]

nice...thanks Duane.


by the way...everything i say in this thread is based on the research of others who dedicated their lives to science.....i am just 'saying what they said'

i am only human so there may be times where my interpretation may be off or complete BS....plz correct me if i post BS.

[rocknrolla]

we still have a problem,

if we say gravity is a functional attribute of dark matter we still have to ask where did dark matter come from.

gravity may be a function of large bodies generating gravitation effects but why did the rules form in the way they did?

what im getting at, no matter if you are religious or atheist, you still end up with a paradox no matter how far you go.. cuz if u discover the cause of something u have to ask what was the cause of that 'cause' and u end up always back at the 'if God created everything, who created God?' conundrum

if the big bang created matter who created the big bang? it's a circular argument.

the horizon keeps moving further the further we travel which lends to the credibility of 'infinity'.. which is an illogical concept in itself that science cant adjust to.

the only way to settle it is to perform an experiment on the supernatural.. but most ppl too fraid to walk in the valley of the shadow of death and fear not evil.

[rocknrolla]

this old movie addresses the issues very well. it is a comedy.. a hilarious comedy that addresses the issues of existence. the same as the 'Cube' movies, which address existence within a matrix or tesseract. im sure everyone will enjoy it.. it's deeply philosophical just as all the cube movies are

[stev]

the only way to settle it is to perform an experiment on the supernatural.. but most ppl too fraid to walk in the valley of the shadow of death and fear not evil.

its not the only way....the human race is too young to understand / research deeper into the universe. the human mind is very limited....it may be generations before we can draw a final conclusion.

its not a conundrum....just untested in science....



by the way...

The Bible is the account of God's action in the world and his purpose with all creation. The writing of the Bible took place over sixteen centuries and is the work of over forty human authors. It is a quite amazing collection of 66 books with very different styles all containing the message God desired us to have.

http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/1/


the bible is just a book to tell us "God did everything and he wants us to act this way"?.................written by humans?

[rocknrolla]

the only way to settle it is to perform an experiment on the supernatural.. but most ppl too fraid to walk in the valley of the shadow of death and fear not evil.

its not the only way....the human race is too young to understand / research deeper into the universe. the human mind is very limited....it may be generations before we can draw a final conclusion.

its not a conundrum....just untested in science....



by the way...

The Bible is the account of God's action in the world and his purpose with all creation. The writing of the Bible took place over sixteen centuries and is the work of over forty human authors. It is a quite amazing collection of 66 books with very different styles all containing the message God desired us to have.

http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/1/


the bible is just a book to tell us "God did everything and he wants us to act this way"?.................written by humans?

no but just as you were stating about the holographic universe/ simulation environment. the bible as well as many other books simply tell u how to play the game. the rules behind the game, how to get points and how to beat the last boss.

it is both coded and literal, logical and imaginative to address all the different type of minds humanity can produce as best as possible so everyone can figure out the main message.

even atheists are correct to a certain degree. God doesnt exist, because to exist he would need to have a physical representation in this reality.. which it is acknowledged, he doesnt. he also claims to be invisible.. so from that perspective atheists are correct. we'd have to give existence a higher definition that places it outside its current boundaries.. so

existence should include anything that is conscious. thus God would only need to be a conscious (intelligent) entity to 'exist'. he could be invisible yet conscious.

we cant SEE many forces and fields, but we can DETECT them and that's why we say they exist. but of course since we know we havent detected everything in this existence, there may well be undetected.. or even undectable forces, fields, entities.

[Habit7]

I said I am NOT a firm believer in aliens. I DO NOT think sentient aliens are roaming around on earth abducting people.

I said "given the requirements for life on our planet, there are a vast number of other solar systems with planets that are the right distance away from their sun to be able to support life. That is a fact with empirical evidence to back it up."

we know the scientific requirements for life on our planet and we have empirical and testable evidence of those requirements. We have empirical evidence of numbers of planets that fit the criteria of planets that are the right distance away from their sun to be able to support life.

I never said there is empirical evidence of aliens.

you really need to get past your preconceptions!

If you want to endorse stev's post and then cherrypick now what you truly endorsed then no problem, I dont what to misrepresent your views. But I never brought up sentient aliens or abductions, you did.

There is not a "vast number of other solar systems with planets that are the right distance away from their sun to be able to support life." According to the University of Puerto Rico, we only know of 10 http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-e ... ts-catalog . And they only set a possible platform of life, you would then have to factor in whatever theory of abiogensis could best be applied, followed by the several thousands if not millions chance events we can perceive to even get a single cellular organism from inanimate materials. Anything more complex than that and the probability continues to escalate.

I am glad you are admitting there is no empirical evidence for aliens, yet I perceive you have a 'limp' belief in them. I guess you are somewhat persuaded by the arguments and the theories based on empirical evidence of other related things. Yet you challenged me to produced empirical evidence for the supernatural being, namely the God of the Bible, and you rejected the arguments and theories calling it all faith void of any evidence.

All I am asking you is to see the duplicity and inherent contradiction of your view. Please dont get defensive, it is glaringly obvious that you are lowering your scepticism to allow for the possibility of
life on other planets, but raising your scepticism on the idea of God and more specifically the God of the Bible. I dont blame you, the implications of aliens a couple hundred lightyears away would not affect the day to day running of your life no more than mine. But the implication of a Creator God having moral absolutes that you may have possibly violated, and that He has warned you that you will account for them after your death, has massive consequences.

As it pertains to djaggs view on the age of the Earth we disagree. I believe the YEC is consistent with the Bible he doesn't. Christians don't break fellowship on that issue. However denial of creation is counter to the teachings of Christianity.

don't break fellowship on what issue? That you make up Biblical facts that are not even in the Bible?

I think any contradiction of opinion in something claimed to be "perfectly written" and so "accurate in its historicity" should be a big big deal.

If I said "that issue" it would obviously refer to the issue I mentioned in the prior sentence.

There are fundamental beliefs in Christianity like God creating the heavens and the earth, and there are non-fundamental beliefs like age of the Earth. Disagreement on non-fundamental issues in Christianity is an expression of our freedom we have in Christ. It doesn't speak to an inherent error in the Bible, it speaks to our inherent fallibility to even perceive the truth without a revelation from God whether directly or indirectly.

Which version of the Big Bang theory do you believe in? Does the difference in views deem the theory inherently false? Darwin believed that people of African descent are lesser evolved hominids than Caucasians, I believe you disagree with that, is Darwinism wrong?

[stev]

edit: @ rocknrolla

well explained...


we cant see / perceive God....so how did people know what to write long ago when the holy books were written?......God made himself perceivable and spoke to someone and told them what to write?

and why do we define God as 'He'.....because at the time the holy book was written, women had no rights?

[stev]

There is not a "vast number of other solar systems with planets that are the right distance away from their sun to be able to support life." According to the University of Puerto Rico, we only know of 10 http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-e ... ts-catalog . And they only set a possible platform of life, you would then have to factor in whatever theory of abiogensis could best be applied, followed by the several thousands if not millions chance events we can perceive to even get a single cellular organism from inanimate materials. Anything more complex than that and the probability continues to escalate.

incorrect. the university of Puerto Rico is talking about planets that can support human life....not life in general.

they are also not affiliated with NASA or the ongoing Kepler mission....the "last updated" tag on their page seems a bit fishy though



edit:

its not a thousand of millions of chance....it was actually calculated (will update post when i find it)

and as the probability escalates...it never reaches '1' which always leave a chance for life.


edit: found some reasoning to the calculation....big number indeed (not stated)...but finite / possible

http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_ ... gin_chance

[Habit7]

Correction noted, but the number of those planets are still not "vast"

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I said I am NOT a firm believer in aliens. I DO NOT think sentient aliens are roaming around on earth abducting people.

I said "given the requirements for life on our planet, there are a vast number of other solar systems with planets that are the right distance away from their sun to be able to support life. That is a fact with empirical evidence to back it up."

we know the scientific requirements for life on our planet and we have empirical and testable evidence of those requirements. We have empirical evidence of numbers of planets that fit the criteria of planets that are the right distance away from their sun to be able to support life.

I never said there is empirical evidence of aliens.

you really need to get past your preconceptions!

If you want to endorse stev's post and then cherrypick now what you truly endorsed then no problem, I dont what to misrepresent your views. But I never brought up sentient aliens or abductions, you did.

There is not a "vast number of other solar systems with planets that are the right distance away from their sun to be able to support life." According to the University of Puerto Rico, we only know of 10 http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-e ... ts-catalog . And they only set a possible platform of life, you would then have to factor in whatever theory of abiogensis could best be applied, followed by the several thousands if not millions chance events we can perceive to even get a single cellular organism from inanimate materials. Anything more complex than that and the probability continues to escalate.

I am glad you are admitting there is no empirical evidence for aliens, yet I perceive you have a 'limp' belief in them. I guess you are somewhat persuaded by the arguments and the theories based on empirical evidence of other related things. Yet you challenged me to produced empirical evidence for the supernatural being, namely the God of the Bible, and you rejected the arguments and theories calling it all faith void of any evidence.

All I am asking you is to see the duplicity and inherent contradiction of your view. Please dont get defensive, it is glaringly obvious that you are lowering your scepticism to allow for the possibility of
life on other planets, but raising your scepticism on the idea of God and more specifically the God of the Bible. I dont blame you, the implications of aliens a couple hundred lightyears away would not affect the day to day running of your life no more than mine. But the implication of a Creator God having moral absolutes that you may have possibly violated, and that He has warned you that you will account for them after your death, has massive consequences.

As it pertains to djaggs view on the age of the Earth we disagree. I believe the YEC is consistent with the Bible he doesn't. Christians don't break fellowship on that issue. However denial of creation is counter to the teachings of Christianity.

don't break fellowship on what issue? That you make up Biblical facts that are not even in the Bible?

I think any contradiction of opinion in something claimed to be "perfectly written" and so "accurate in its historicity" should be a big big deal.

If I said "that issue" it would obviously refer to the issue I mentioned in the prior sentence.

There are fundamental beliefs in Christianity like God creating the heavens and the earth, and there are non-fundamental beliefs like age of the Earth. Disagreement on non-fundamental issues in Christianity is an expression of our freedom we have in Christ. It doesn't speak to an inherent error in the Bible, it speaks to our inherent fallibility to even perceive the truth without a revelation from God whether directly or indirectly.

Which version of the Big Bang theory do you believe in? Does the difference in views deem the theory inherently false? Darwin believed that people of African descent are lesser evolved hominids than Caucasians, I believe you disagree with that, is Darwinism wrong?

ah your preconceptions are showing again

unlike Religion, science changes it's viewpoint based on new evidence.
Science is not about faith and belief, it is about evidence. It is not important which version I believe in. If there is evidence for something then it can be tested.

10 planets found so far is still more than the zero amount of evidence you have brought.
It is in reality alot more than that on the most recent Kepler telescope findings

According to a study by Caltech astronomers published in January 2013, the Milky Way Galaxy contains at least as many planets as it does stars, resulting in 100–400 billion exoplanets. The study, based on planets orbiting the star Kepler-32, suggests that planetary systems may be common around stars in our galaxy. The discovery of 461 more candidates was announced on 7 January 2013. The longer Kepler watches, the more planets with long periods it can detect.
Since the last Kepler catalog was released in February 2012, the number of candidates discovered in the Kepler data has increased by 20 percent and now totals 2,740 potential planets orbiting 2,036 stars.

A new candidate, announced on 7 January 2013, is Kepler-69c (formerly, KOI-172.02), an Earth-like exoplanet orbiting a star similar to our Sun in the habitable zone and possibly a "prime candidate to host alien life".

In April 2013, NASA announced the discovery of three new Earth-like exoplanets – Kepler-62e, Kepler-62f, and Kepler-69c – in the habitable zones of their respective host stars, Kepler-62 and Kepler-69. The new exoplanets, which are considered prime candidates for possessing liquid water and thus potentially life, were identified using the Kepler spacecraft —NASA

from your replies it seems that the existence of any life anywhere other than earth is absolutely impossible?

[stev]

Correction noted, but the number of those planets are still not "vast"

its not vast because the kepler mission targets only a small section of our galaxy:



the milky way is a single galaxy....put a grain of sand on the tip of your finger and extend your hand outward...the section of the sky that grain of sand covers contains quite a number of galaxies.

[rocknrolla]

edit: @ rocknrolla

well explained...


we cant see / perceive God....so how did people know what to write long ago when the holy books were written?......God made himself perceivable and spoke to someone and told them what to write?

and why do we define God as 'He'.....because at the time the holy book was written, women had no rights?

haha laughing at the last line.

yes back then there were ppl that could perceive the heavenly realms. it is actually a sort of simple process which is embedded into our biology. it is described in ALL the holy books on the planet in various coded ways. we have 2 eyes to perceive this reality, and one hidden eye which does not require line of sight and functions on a quantum level.

the myth of the 3rd eye is no myth. in biology it is called the pineal gland. the drawing of the egyptian eye of horus is actually a perfect cross section of this gland as it would be drawn in biology class. it is an actual eye if ud do research. it possesses the parts of an eye, but is severely atrophied in most ppl simply because we dont utilize it, it goes dormant. meditation/lucid dreaming helps to grow the vision of this eye which will allow one to perceive the heavenly realms.

men of old simply discovered this and wrote on it so others can learn to use more of their potential. the human brain does struggle to process all the information, but the soul intelligence itself has no problem with the vast intelligence of existence. this is why in buddhism u may see them seperating the spiritual consciousness from the ego(Physical brain) consciousness. the ego consciousness is inferior to the spirit consciousness, but it must be developed to a certain level to perceive and synchronize with the spiritual consciousness to become what is called 'awake'

this development is of course full intelligence, not just logical intelligence, but emotional. those who depend on logic alone are aspiring to be nothing more than robots. the creative brain must also be developed. this development increases ones intelligence overall to the point where they cant be evil, and the conscious spiritual essence eventually reveals itself to you. known as 'communion with the guardian angel'

ill cut off there for now im sure that is pretty heavy and we have some research to do to confirm at least the scientific/biological aspects i just claimed.

[Habit7]

On the issue of possibility on life outside the Earth there are good argument for and against, I am not too sure where I lie.

I have preconceptions, I am a Christian. What I want you to admit that you have preconceptions too and that they are contradictory.




stev, I actually searched the UPR site and NASA Keplar site and Habitable Planets are not planets that can support human life, but life in general.

[stev]

edit: @rocknrolla

ooohh...i see. nicely explained.


why everything have to be coded? i cant understand dem books for nuttin!!! and i refuse to let someone tell me what it means in church / temple / etc. mainly cuz i dont trust the religious leaders of today...tellin women that sperm is holy milk and stuff....lawwdd

what about some pundit d other day tellin some young girls he have to give them a bath to get rid of evil spirits or sumtin...

[Habit7]

the milky way is a single galaxy....put a grain of sand on the tip of your finger and extend your hand outward...the section of the sky that grain of sand covers contains quite a number of galaxies.

Actually this also because in within our galaxy there is only specific areas that can host Habitable Planets. Solar systems within the arms are not conducive. Mostly intra-arm solar systems like ours within the middle of the galaxy are the best chance.

Hence Keplar's specific focus on a small area.

[stev]

the milky way is a single galaxy....put a grain of sand on the tip of your finger and extend your hand outward...the section of the sky that grain of sand covers contains quite a number of galaxies.

Actually this also because in within our galaxy there is only specific areas that can host Habitable Planets. Solar systems within the arms are not conducive. Mostly intra-arm solar systems like ours within the middle of the galaxy are the best chance.

Hence Keplar's specific focus on a small area.

indeed....human life may only be possible in the intra-arm as u stated.....there is also the possibility of non-human life on the outer arm but that's not worth getting into in this thread as we are all humans....not some gas / liquid life-form living at -1000 degrees celcius.

[rocknrolla]

edit: @rocknrolla

ooohh...i see. nicely explained.


why everything have to be coded? i cant understand dem books for nuttin!!! and i refuse to let someone tell me what it means in church / temple / etc. mainly cuz i dont trust the religious leaders of today...tellin women that sperm is holy milk and stuff....lawwdd

what about some pundit d other day tellin some young girls he have to give them a bath to get rid of evil spirits or sumtin...

yup one got charged recently, he would physically kick and punch evil spirits out of his congregation. if u look closely it is all acting.

thing is, even tho i explained it as simply as i could, i can garuntee u that there are many in this thread who still cant understand what i just wrote. it is definitely of the 'eyes to see, ears to hear'. the knowledge was always heavily guarded, hence coded to survive thru the ages. there are and have been those who wish for all to fail in the achievement. the knowledge had to be coded and hidden from them especially acknowledging that the information was given to others. just like money they think it is something to be horded. they wish to use the knowledge to exploit it for power over men in this reality, in itself self defeating because they cant get very far in actual practice since access requires a certain level of trust from the invisible entity(s) ud be interfacing with in their realm. as i mentioned b4..

u just have to show that u understand and are capable of living with 'class' in their neighbourhood. even explaining all this and more each person still has alot of homework to do b4 they can reach the permanent level. 10 years of devotion should be enough for anyone, even less depending on dedication.. just like anything in this realm. practice makes perfect, so scholastic achievements account for very little if u dont practice what u learn, and of course.. preach.

[stev]

these are some unsolved mysteries of the brain i stumbled upon a few days ago:

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/un ... Z1kDbUqb6Q

does religion teach anything about the human brain that are unknown to man?...this is what im researching currently

is the soul another name for the brain?

[rocknrolla]

religion teaches everything about the brain.. it is all the brain and it's development, everything from it's various attributes and functions to human psychology. there is a whole section in the bible which describes the attributes of human psychology and behaviour.. things like

'do not visit ur neighbour every day, even baring gifts lest he grow wary of u'

teaching us 2 things..

1. ppl like time for themselves

2. empathy for the fact that even you will want time for urself sometimes and u should understand that it is the same for everyone.

some ppl would only see one or the other, while some ppl would read that and gain no knowledge whatsoever.

science cant explain the spiritual on it's own. that can be done by a practitioner but his words will always seem confounding to a logic driven world. which is why everyone has to walk their own path to the knowledge. follow no man. alli im doing is filling in some of the harder blanks for the true seekers so that when they get to that point in the path it wont be so unfamiliar and scary. it is all very normal part of human evolution, anyone can do it.

we are human..
HU - spirit
Man - flesh

the body is a temple made of flesh and the kingdom of God is within man.. and woman

also no the soul and the brain are not the same.

the brain/body is a vessel
the mind is the gamepad controller
and the soul itself, is the true u sitting on the couch playing this game.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

On the issue of possibility on life outside the Earth there are good argument for and against, I am not too sure where I lie.

I have preconceptions, I am a Christian. What I want you to admit that you have preconceptions too and that they are contradictory.

what is contradictory.

I may have preconceptions, we are the sum of our experiences after all, but I keep an open mind and nothing is set in stone.

A theme I brought up earlier was asking why is it all the sciences, schools, universities etc etc teach and carry about using evolution, old earth, humans didn't walk with dinosaurs etc etc? Do you think it's because there is some sort of conspiracy against the biblical truth that you are pedaling?

[djaggs]

A Christian view on evoloution

[djaggs]

St Augustine on the Genesis account of creation:
Brenda Reynolds

The Biblical account of creation clearly indicates the process of creation took sixdays, with God resting on the seventh day. However, I find it quite remarkable that even in the 5th
century, Augustine does not necessarily believe each day spoken of inGenesis or in other books of the Bible, represented a twenty-four hour day. He ponders this point over somewhat significantly in his eleventh book of Confessions
where heindicates he desires to “know the force and nature of time, by which we measure the[heavenly] bodies”. He speaks of daylight hours being called a day and twenty-four hours being called a day and says “if both, then neither could be called a day”. Hecontinues to say that “Time, then is not the motion of a body . . . that time is nothing elsethan protraction” (139, 140). In fact, Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created theHeavens and the Earth”, there is no mention of days, no mention of time at all and did“not belong to any of those seven days” (Augusine, Hill 73). Yet, when the Earth isformless and invisible it is counted among the days when there was no sun or moon to Reynolds - 5 -measure time (Augustine, Pusey 146). He seems to come to the conclusion that all we know and see in creation “were made and arranged during those days” (Augustine,Pusey 151). This idea of a day being an age, or an unspecified period of time that commenced “there was evening” and concluded, “there was morning” the [ ] day wasfurther elaborated in book one of On Genesis

as he states “ For what I see throughoutthe whole tapestry of the divine scriptures is some six working ages” (Augustine, Hill62).Now Augustine was not a scientist, but he was a learned man who believed God’s greatest gift to humankind, outside grace and salvation, was that of intellectual reason which was to be used, not neglected (Bonner 233). Unlike his agony over how the Earth was formless before the creation of the sun that it could be counted in time, he did not necessarily understand nor was concerned about the physics and the specific order the universe took in coming into being. Augustine viewed the Bible with four different perspectives: historical, aetioIogical, analogical, and allegorical (Bonner 216). I think he might have believed like, Averroës did 750 years later, that scripture was written to be reflected on at several different levels of awareness.

“The majority of people can understand truth only in the imaginative form” and they need to read the scriptures literally, theologians can understand the “dialectical arguments” of thescriptures and are able to “draw inference”, whereas, the philosophers have the ability to comprehend the “deeper, allegorical meanings” (Baird 211). Augustine developed an analogy of the days (ages) of creation akin to the development and history of humankind from the period of Adam through the time of Jesus, the Christ. He seemed generally unconcerned about the accounting of actual time, but placed creation as anordered and consecutive series of events.