Creation vs. Evolution

[dave3712]

LOL

LOL

1) Why did you drop off the last sentence of the 'Acceptance Among Physicists' section? You reproduced the entire subtitled section, but left off the key part about recent surveys... Now, why would you do that?



2) I'm still not clear as to why it is OK for a god to exist without a cause, but not the universe.

3) If you accept the principle of uncaused existence, why can that not apply to the universe?

1) ?
Through 1997 " according to a poll conducted ... the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists.

It still is, though some physicists recoil at the idea it "proves" an observer god.
They have merely come up with Multiple Universe ideas which still suggest a Heaven were we live in duplication of ourselves.


2) That is why we use the word God for this phenomenon.

3) The Big Bang appearance of the Universe is explained by the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

I have no problem explaining what I was told about Babylon has fallen. If you need to know let me know.

God Be With You!

Why not just tell me what you say you were told.
What exactly is Babylon anyway, when did it fall? Is it ancient Iran perhaps?
Can you impress me with something, anything we could all check independently rather than credulously believe everything you say.

 

[gcthomas]

1) ?
Through 1997 " according to a poll conducted ... the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists.

It still is, though some physicists recoil at the idea it "proves" an observer god.
They have merely come up with Multiple Universe ideas which still suggest a Heaven were we live in duplication of ourselves.


2) That is why we use the word God for this phenomenon.

3) The Big Bang appearance of the Universe is explained by the Copenhagen Interpretation.

All the many interpretations are just that: interpretations of the mathematics. They all have the same mathematics, so they all make the same testable predictions and are therefore indistinguishable by experiment. You cannot determine which is true! That the Copenhagen Interpretation is still popular is due to its formulations being easier to manage mathematically and picture intellectually. It makes it easier to calculate predictions. That does not make it truer than the other interpretations, though. They are mathematically identical.

So if only interpretation indicates (to you only) that there is a god, and the others do not, then that suggests that your conclusion is an unreliable one. Quantum physics does not predicts the existence of a god, no matter how much you'd like it to.

On the big bang, it is a theory of the expansion of the universe, and it does not bother itself with the origin question. Origins hypotheses are substantially speculation at the moment, without any experimental or firm theoretical underpinnings. You are extrapolation too far, again.

Physics does not support your theistic beliefs. It is your theistic beliefs that are supporting your naive interpretations of the physics.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear gcthomas,

I do not have angels telling me things to tell others. Not since 1988, when I learned about the greatest earthquake in Phoenix. Like I said earlier, I do have some proof pages that back up the book I've written, which includes many of my experiences. Like I told you, it is FREE and accessible to you online. The proof pages I would have to mail you and you would have to Private Message me your mailing address, or your neighbor's (if you don't want me to know your address for some reason). That's all I can offer you and it is plenty. That doesn't mean I am sending everyone who asks a copy. I can mail you some and you have to tell the others that I'm telling the truth and that God has been with me, which the proof pages help prove. That's all I can do for you before the greatest earthquake in Phoenix, which shall be stronger than any on earth since man has been on earth! But Hollywood (spiritually called Babylon) shall receive a very great earthquake afterwards.

BTW, the ten kings of the whore beast in the Bible refer to the kings that the devil oversees, namely the seven deadly sins, plus drugs, cigarettes, etc. They do not refer to kings over countries. How simple, people. The kings are the sins that the devil offers, like killing, theft, lying, adultery, etc. Enough for now.

Take care of yourself!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

I now have come to your question. The angel told me that Hollywood was spiritually like Babylon, with all it's male and female prostitutes lining the Sunset Strip, etc. That is why it says about the beast or whore in Rev. that this woman was actually a city. See Rev. 17:18. And the woman which thou saw is that great city which reigns over the other cities of the earth. The angel told me that this city Hollywood is spiritually like ancient Babylon and that it teaches all of the other cities to do the same things it depicts in the movies, and TV, books and magazines: like murder, thievery, corruption, usury, deceitfulness, abortion, fornication, violence, alcoholics, drugs, smoking cigarettes, etc. And because of her movies and TV shows, she teaches all the rest of the world to think those things are acceptable to some people who mimic what they see in those movies or TV shows, or magazines, etc. There is one secret I will keep to myself for now. This is enough for you to figure things out so far. The secret is about the actress Betty Hutton, who had many riches (money) and many husbands (five, I believe), and that she wold lose everything and turn to God and call Him Ishi (husband) instead. And this is foretold in the book of Hosea (see verse 2:16). That is the secret I was going to keep to myself. I didn't want to have to explain it to you when you probably won't understand anyway. You have to understand the whole second chapter of Hosea.

God Be With You As You Learn, Buddy!

 

[dave3712]

Babylon was ancient Iraq

Babylon was ancient Iraq

Why not just tell me what you say you were told.
What exactly is Babylon anyway, when did it fall? Is it ancient Iran perhaps?
Can you impress me with something, anything we could all check independently rather than credulously believe everything you say.

Babylon is one of the heads of the economic beast which appeared when ancient Iraq formed the first Bank that issued paper/money and started the dance of a federal reserve type system of inflation lik every empire mimicked thereafter.


Dan 3:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.

 

[dave3712]

I didn't say what was "true."

I didn't say what was "true."

All the many interpretations are just that: interpretations of the mathematics. They all have the same mathematics, so they all make the same testable predictions and are therefore indistinguishable by experiment. You cannot determine which is true!

.

Again, I remind you that the question was whether science supported the idea of a creator, and I merely told you, "yes, in accord with the science we call The Copenhagen Interpretation."

Bible people believe God, the creator, is true.
Science tells us this may well be the case.

 

[gcthomas]

Again, I remind you that the question was whether science supported the idea of a creator, and I merely told you, "yes, in accord with the science we call The Copenhagen Interpretation."

Bible people believe God, the creator, is true.
Science tells us this may well be the case.

Science says nothing of the sort. The big bang theory describes the expansion of the universe, not its origin, while quantum physics describes how things behave inside the universe, not outside of it. You are barking up the wrong tree!

 

[alwight]

Babylon is one of the heads of the economic beast which appeared when ancient Iraq formed the first Bank that issued paper/money and started the dance of a federal reserve type system of inflation lik every empire mimicked thereafter.


Dan 3:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.

I'm obviously crap at symbolism which is probably why I don't understand why Michael's "angels" seem to be stuck in the Biblical past or whether they simply prefer to use riddles rather than simply tell it like it is? :think:
But I suppose that being too specific might actually risk being falsifiable at some point or by real facts and (non-)events, a la Harold Egbert Camping. :juggle:

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

I now have come to your question. The angel told me that Hollywood was spiritually like Babylon, with all it's male and female prostitutes lining the Sunset Strip, etc. That is why it says about the beast or whore in Rev. that this woman was actually a city. See Rev. 17:18. And the woman which thou saw is that great city which reigns over the other cities of the earth. The angel told me that this city Hollywood is spiritually like ancient Babylon and that it teaches all of the other cities to do the same things it depicts in the movies, and TV, books and magazines: like murder, thievery, corruption, usury, deceitfulness, abortion, fornication, violence, alcoholics, drugs, smoking cigarettes, etc. And because of her movies and TV shows, she teaches all the rest of the world to think those things are acceptable to some people who mimic what they see in those movies or TV shows, or magazines, etc. There is one secret I will keep to myself for now. This is enough for you to figure things out so far. The secret is about the actress Betty Hutton, who had many riches (money) and many husbands (five, I believe), and that she wold lose everything and turn to God and call Him Ishi (husband) instead. And this is foretold in the book of Hosea (see verse 2:16). That is the secret I was going to keep to myself. I didn't want to have to explain it to you when you probably won't understand anyway. You have to understand the whole second chapter of Hosea.

God Be With You As You Learn, Buddy!

Hollywood, the place, is about extremes of how some people try to make a living. Some highly successful, some sadly less so. Most people know that it's all largely based on a façade, it's Tinsel-town after all, it doesn't actually represent humanity.
Do you see yourself as a prophet like Hosea Michael?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

No, I only see myself as a witness to those things I've seen and heard from the Lord, His angels, visions from Him, and mostly, my experiences with the Holy Ghost!! Just excellent and exuberant!! You don't belong to be an atheist.

God Bless You Too, Alwight!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Dave3712,

We are brethren in Christ, but Babylon is not one of the heads of the economic beast. Which angel told you that??! Quit spreading lies around unless you've had the Lord tell you such. Don't lie. It could be dangerous.

God Be Between Us Bro'!!

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

No, I only see myself as a witness to those things I've seen and heard from the Lord, His angels, visions from Him, and mostly, my experiences with the Holy Ghost!! Just excellent and exuberant!! You don't belong to be an atheist.

God Bless You Too, Alwight!

I was playing some random music in my car today, one of which was Elton John when I thought of you with these lyrics for some reason:

"If there's a God in heaven
What's He waiting for
If He can't hear the children
Then He must see the war
But it seems to me
That He leads his lambs
To the slaughter house
And not the promised land"

Please ask an angel for me Michael "What's He waiting for?".

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

God is waiting for all whom He wants to be killed, to be killed and go to heaven. Soon they'll find a promised land like they never dreamed of. You might know this if you have a Bible. See Rev. 6:11. If you need more information than this, let me know.

God Bless You Buddy!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear gcthomas,

I haven't been visited by an angel since 1988, but I do have a guardian angel that guides me and I get help that way. Didn't know if you realized that or not (Per Post 785). Take care.

God Bless You!

 

[Ben Masada]

On your first point, the big bang theory of the expansion of the universe is not a theory of the cause for the existence of the universe. So it cannot lead to your faux-logical conclusions.

As for the creator, your wriggling excuse for logic is laughable. To paraphrase, you say that having a creator that needs creating would be silly, so there must be a creator that doesn't need creating. But that begs the question of the existence of a creator.

The equivalent logic for me would be that a self-creating universe cannot have a creator because if it did then the logic would be destitute as the universe would not have been self creating.

See the problem with trying to use logic to prove the existence of god when the argument necessarily relies upon the pre-assumed existence of a creator?

You have missed the point of how I am using Logic to demonstrate my proposition. Again, if my struggle to use Logic to prove the Primal Cause is laughable, your lack of ability to refute me is ridiculous.

The universe is composed of matter that has been proven as a fact of everyday life to have had a beginning and an end. Since it could not have caused itself to exist, the Primal Cause is obvious. Refute that and I'll call the quits.

 

[gcthomas]

The universe is composed of matter

... and light and dark energy (only 25% matter!).

that has been proven as a fact of everyday life to have had a beginning and an end.

No, it hasn't. You keep claiming that, but it is not true. Perhaps you could read up on the Hawkins-Hartle no-boundary sum over histories model for the universe, for a rather more nuanced approach to beginnings.

Since it could not have caused itself to exist

Plain assertion. What reason do you have for that claim? How do YOU know what is necessary to have a universe?

the Primal Cause is obvious. Refute that and I'll call the quits.

Only obvious if you beg the question. You start with the assumption of god's existence then distort the logic to produce that conclusion.

For your logic to hold you must demonstrate that a Universe (not matter or objects inside the Universe, but the Universe itself) cannot exist without a god starting it in the same way that you already believe a god can exist without a more primal cause. If you believe in uncaused existence in one case, how do you logically reject the possibility in the other?

 

[Selaphiel]

Plain assertion. What reason do you have for that claim? How do YOU know what is necessary to have a universe?




Only obvious if you beg the question. You start with the assumption of god's existence then distort the logic to produce that conclusion.

For your logic to hold you must demonstrate that a Universe (not matter or objects inside the Universe, but the Universe itself) cannot exist without a god starting it in the same way that you already believe a god can exist without a more primal cause. If you believe in uncaused existence in one case, how do you logically reject the possibility in the other?

Of course you could claim that the universe is a necessary being, but it does not seem that way. The universe changes, there seems to have been a time when the universe did not exist. If that is the case, then the universe is contingent. Can we honestly see anything in physical existence that contains the reason for its existence within itself? A contingent thing cannot be its own cause, for something to be a cause it must be actual, which means it would already have to exist, that would be circular reasoning.

I'm a bit unsure what you mean when you differentiate between the universe and its "objects", isn't that a bit of an outdated view of space and time as something of an objective frame in which objects exists and events take place? In what sense is the universe more than its objects (using the term objects loosely here of course, it includes all forms of energy and matter, be it light, dark matter, dark energy etc)?

The last part of your statement is a misunderstanding of the cosmological arguments. They do not state that everything has a cause, it states that all contingent things have a cause. Based on that observation it states that there must a non-contingent ground, a non-contingent reality. Basically it states that at some point we must postulate a necessary being, in order to avoid turtles all the way down. What classical theism does is to argue that this non-contingent reality must also (that is, it is not a part of the cosmological argument alone) have properties that justifies referring to it as God.

So no, the argument does not start with "a god" (the proper term is God, these arguments are not talking about pagan gods, but the God of philosophy who unlike the pagan gods is not a contingent being) whose existence is assumed. It starts with the claim that the universe is contingent, and contingent beings cannot ultimately explain their own existence. It therefore argues that there must be such a thing as a reality that exists necessarily, a changeless and non-contingent reality. It is then argued that this reality must have properties such as omnipotence and omniscience, and based on that, that it is justified to call this reality God in the sense that it has properties we have in mind when using that term.

I've linked this several times on this forum, but I will do it again, since it dispels the most common misconceptions about the cosmological argument(s):

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.no/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

 

[gcthomas]

Of course you could claim that the universe is a necessary being, but it does not seem that way. The universe changes, there seems to have been a time when the universe did not exist. If that is the case, then the universe is contingent.

What does 'before the universe' mean when time is a property of interactions within the universe, and has no application outside of that framework?

I'm a bit unsure what you mean when you differentiate between the universe and its "objects", isn't that a bit of an outdated view of space and time as something of an objective frame in which objects exists and events take place? In what sense is the universe more than its objects (using the term objects loosely here of course, it includes all forms of energy and matter, be it light, dark matter, dark energy etc)?

I was differentiating between the sum total of the objects, forces and interrelationships (the Universe) and the individual sub-parts (objects). The discussion involved using observations of the latter to justify conclusions about the origins of the former.

It starts with the claim that the universe is contingent, and contingent beings cannot ultimately explain their own existence. It therefore argues that there must be such a thing as a reality that exists necessarily, a changeless and non-contingent reality.

This still begs the question of the contingent status you ascribe to uni/multiverse, but decline to ascribe to a god. You have assumed it instead of demonstrated it, with the entire argument coming down to the belief that the universe must be created by a creator. All the rest is argument fluff.

Please give the best argument you can for a proof that the universe must be contingent on an active, non-contingent agent.

 

[Selaphiel]

What does 'before the universe' mean when time is a property of interactions within the universe, and has no application outside of that framework?

I never used the term "before the universe". I merely noted the fact that it seems that the universe came into being at one point. That is to say, the universe is ~13,75 billion years old, not eternal.

I was differentiating between the sum total of the objects, forces and interrelationships (the Universe) and the individual sub-parts (objects). The discussion involved using observations of the latter to justify conclusions about the origins of the former.

That is fine, but how does that help you argue that the universe is not contingent or to formulate as a positive assertion, that the universe exists necessarily?

This still begs the question of the contingent status you ascribe to uni/multiverse, but decline to ascribe to a god. You have assumed it instead of demonstrated it, with the entire argument coming down to the belief that the universe must be created by a creator. All the rest is argument fluff.

No, the argument comes down to stating that there must be a necessary ground of contingent being. That this reality is God relies on other arguments, arguments that argue that such a necessary reality must also have other properties that we associate with the term God. I explicitly showed this in my previous post, your objection is a misunderstanding of the argument. It is not that we decline to say that "a god" (onece again, it is God, repeating an error does not make it more correct) is contingent as well, the whole point of the argument is to show that at some point there must be a being that exists necessarily. To the ask what caused this reality is nonsense, then you are no longer talking about that reality, you are then asking the question "what caused the uncaused reality?", which is an absurd and nonsensical question.

Please give the best argument you can for a proof that the universe must be contingent on an active, non-contingent agent.

Proof? It is hard to give proof for an empirical claim. If I remember correctly, you have a science degree, so you should know that. Nor is the cosmological argument a proof in the absolute sense, it is an argument, one of many ways to seek to present the belief in a deity as rationally justified even if it is not absolutely proven.
As far as I understand it, the best scientific cosmologies assume that the universe came into being, it is not eternal. That is evidence that it is contingent, even if it does not absolutely proves it. Secondly, there is no evidence that the universe contains the reason for its own existence within itself. Do you know about any one thing in the universe that contains the reason for its own existence within itself? Or a reason to believe that the universe as a whole contains the reason for itself within itself if you wish you make that distinction? If not, then I think it is no stretch to assume or believe that the a universe which came into being and is not eternal, is contingent. Of course, strictly speaking, the Aristotelian argument would work even with an eternal universe, Aristotle himself believed the universe was eternal. You are of course free to argue that the universe is a necessary being, but I have seen no such argument.
As for the non-contingent agent, here you are inserting something that the argument never claims to argue for, namely that this reality is an agent. The cosmological argument argues for a necessary reality that is the ground for contingent beings, it says nothing about (at least directly) whether this reality is an agent or not.

It is not my intention to say that the cosmological argument absolutely proves God and that anyone that does not accept it is an idiot, that would be unjustified. I do however claim that it makes belief (along with other arguments) in a God rationally justifiable.

I gave you a link that clear up these misundestandings, written by an expert of these arguments. I suggest that you read it.

Can also recommend this video, which is a physicists take on the issue: