Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

Thanks for your careful response. I did actually follow up your links (and links from there also - interesting, if over wordy, writing), and I have watched chunks of the video clip.

I don't object to anyone saying that science doesn't rule out any particular conception of a personal God. That's true. But what is not ruled out cannot be considered to be ruled in. I specifically used 'a god' rather than 'God', because there is a great number of possible gods allowed for as reasons for there to be a universe rather than no universe. As well as an infinite number of non-god reasons.

The video you linked to is of an interesting, thoughtful guy. But he explains the limits of the Physics before asserting that the cause "must be God", with no other justification. This is too much of a God of the gaps to be satisfying to me.

The universe did not come into existence 'at a point (in time?)’ as our concept of time does not extend outside of the universe. The universe is just the set of events and locations in the 4D space-time - a starting cause is not needed. In fact, it is hard to see how a starting cause can produce a causal chain past a singularity.

That does not, of course, explain why there is this set of events in the 4D space-time at all. Why something rather than nothing? I don't know, but that lack of knowledge does not mean that theists do know. I see theistic explanations simply as hopeful guesses that cannot be directly refuted, as opposed to likely solutions to the quandry.

Cheers, Selaphiel.

 

[alwight]

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

Sorry Michael but I really don't think that whoever the "John" was who apparently dreamed up Revelation had any greater inside knowledge than you do. :nono:
He thought the world was just about to end too.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

You don't have to be sorry Alwight. John of Patmos did not dream up Revelation. It was dictated and revealed to him by Jesus. You know nothing of what the book of what happens in the future means. And John knew that first, the words and story of Jesus, had to be proclaimed throughout the whole world first before the end could come. That's why we know it is soon, because the whole world knows of it all now. No one now has any excuse to say they never heard about it all. I gave you some good pos. rep. pts. because I know you're trying. It's okay, Alwight, us Christians will be fine without you atheists. We will be happy for being faithful and being believers, even though we can't see Him physically. Just like you can't see the wind, you can still feel that it's there.

May God Be With You And Take Special Interest In You For Me!!

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

You don't have to be sorry Alwight. John of Patmos did not dream up Revelation. It was dictated and revealed to him by Jesus. You know nothing of what the book of what happens in the future means. And John knew that first, the words and story of Jesus, had to be proclaimed throughout the whole world first before the end could come. That's why we know it is soon, because the whole world knows of it all now. No one now has any excuse to say they never heard about it all. I gave you some good pos. rep. pts. because I know you're trying. It's okay, Alwight, us Christians will be fine without you atheists. We will be happy for being faithful and being believers, even though we can't see Him physically. Just like you can't see the wind, you can still feel that it's there.

May God Be With You And Take Special Interest In You For Me!!

I'd suggest that Revelation was more of a nightmare than a dream. Some Christians imo seem all too easily convinced by the unsupportable claims of doubtful fantasists who could never have met Jesus except maybe inside their own heads.

 

[dave3712]

Thanks for your careful response. I did actually follow up your links (and links from there also - interesting, if over wordy, writing), and I have watched chunks of the video clip.

I don't object to anyone saying that science doesn't rule out any particular conception of a personal God. That's true. But what is not ruled out cannot be considered to be ruled in. I specifically used 'a god' rather than 'God', because there is a great number of possible gods allowed for as reasons for there to be a universe rather than no universe. As well as an infinite number of non-god reasons.

The video you linked to is of an interesting, thoughtful guy. But he explains the limits of the Physics before asserting that the cause "must be God", with no other justification. This is too much of a God of the gaps to be satisfying to me.

The universe did not come into existence 'at a point (in time?)’ as our concept of time does not extend outside of the universe. The universe is just the set of events and locations in the 4D space-time - a starting cause is not needed. In fact, it is hard to see how a starting cause can produce a causal chain past a singularity.

That does not, of course, explain why there is this set of events in the 4D space-time at all. Why something rather than nothing? I don't know, but that lack of knowledge does not mean that theists do know. I see theistic explanations simply as hopeful guesses that cannot be directly refuted, as opposed to likely solutions to the quandry.

Cheers, Selaphiel.

There is no reason to call the "Cause" by the term God.

But certainly, the "Cause" qualifies for the term "creator" of the universe.

 

[dave3712]

...yeah, right... LOL

...yeah, right... LOL

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.

You are very hard headed, indeed.

I supported my statement that Science DOES support the claim of a creator of the universe in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is Science, regardless of whether other ideas have now been suggested.

Copenhagen requires an observer to collapse the wave function of the elementary particles of the initial Big Bang.

Seems clear and simple.

 

[Ben Masada]

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

Light is an accident of matter and dark energy nobody knows anything about it.

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.

Perhaps another theory of nonsense.

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

A Creator. If you don't believe it prove that the universe has created itself.

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

The only logic you understand is your unproved logic.

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?

The universe is composed of matter and that's a proven fact. If the universe can exist without having been caused to exist prove to me how did it cause itself to exist since the BB is an evidence for its beginning.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Dave3712,

You have worked hard on what you believe. Thanks much!! Some things, these atheists will know only when God shows them and leaves them in the dust. We'll hear their tune then, won't we?

God Be With You In All That You Do!!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Good for you too Ben,

Thanks for all the help we are so graced with by God. We are brothers under God. Let's work towards the same goal.

May God Fill Your Heart With Joy!!

 

[gcthomas]

A Creator. If you don't believe it prove that the universe has created itself.

The old 'if you can't disprove it then it is true' falacy? Come on Ben, you can do better than that!

 

[Ben Masada]

The old 'if you can't disprove it then it is true' falacy? Come on Ben, you can do better than that!

That's exactly what I believed you could but so far you have become statistics with all the other atheists: No answer to my questions.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear gcthomas,

You've lost the 'war' dude. Let it go and don't mess with my friends, freelight or Ben Masada. We don't have to prove that the universe created itself. You are far out-numbered, so you prove it did. Our Dear Heavenly Father is the Creator of Our Universe and you'd best wise up now before it's too late. But no, you will wait until it's too late and you're then in deep quicksand. Yet no one will pull you out of that. Plenty of luck!!

His Children Know His Name,

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

Light is an accident of matter and dark energy nobody knows anything about it.

Nope. Wrong again. The universe was dominated by light in the first instants, and matter was formed from the light (look up pair production). Matter is, therefore, an accident of light.

Dark energy has some measured properties (gravitational pressure, energy density, non-interaction with the electric field, approx uniform density as the universe expanded, etc.), just not enough yet to fully describe it's behaviour.

The universe is composed of matter and that's a proven fact. If the universe can exist without having been caused to exist prove to me how did it cause itself to exist since the BB is an evidence for its beginning.

I find your 'proven fact' comments so funny. Keep them coming! :chuckle:

The BB suggests a beginning, but in a restricted sense. If I say that a tv programme has a beginning, I imply that there was a time before then when the programme wasn't showing, because the tv show's beginning was described relative to other events and time existed before, during and after the show.

For the universe, time is an internal property of events within the universe itself. You cannot describe times within the universe in relation to events external to it. If by beginning you mean there was a time when the universe did not exist, then you are making a fundamental mistake about the nature of time. Time cannot extend into the past beyond the BB singularity.

Since there was NO time before the BB in which to embed the BB event, I see no need for a creation event. The BB expansion was internal to the universe and marks the start of time as we can describe it. The universe's 4D space time extent just exists, as a bounded whole. no start, no finish, as measured externally. just existence.

That's exactly what I believed you could but so far you have become statistics with all the other atheists: No answer to my questions.

Then you have not been reading my posts. I have been quite clear that using the necessary lack of knowledge of things external to the universe to demonstrate the existence of a creator is to invoke the discredited 'God of the gaps' argument.

Don't be afraid of not knowing all the answers. It is better to honestly not know than to pretend you know something for which the evidence is so weak. Believe it if you want, but don't pretend the evidence and logic is secure.

 

[gcthomas]

Dear gcthomas,

You've lost the 'war' dude. Let it go and don't mess with my friends, freelight or Ben Masada. We don't have to prove that the universe created itself. You are far out-numbered, so you prove it did. Our Dear Heavenly Father is the Creator of Our Universe and you'd best wise up now before it's too late. But no, you will wait until it's too late and you're then in deep quicksand. Yet no one will pull you out of that. Plenty of luck!!

His Children Know His Name,

Michael

Ah, the old 'science is a democracy and you are outnumbered' gambit.

Try again!

:rotfl:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Why should I play your game gcthomas? Nothing appeases you except to believe against God. Try again! Tons of help when you see Him helping others and not you!!

Your Wish is His command!!

MC

 

[gcthomas]

Why should I play your game gcthomas? Nothing appeases you except to believe against God. Try again! Tons of help when you see Him helping others and not you!!

Your Wish is His command!!

MC

As I've said already, I have no objection to you believing that the baby universe was delivered by a sky-blue-pink pelican, if that what floats your boat. But the claim keeps coming about that science somehow supports your faith positions. Why you think that you need the approval of science I don't know, but I don't like you misrepresenting science in order to feel better about your beliefs.

Also, I am not against God as such. I am an agnostic atheist, not a militant atheist.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear gcthomas,

If you want to believe that the baby universe was delivered by a sky-blue-pink egret, whatever. If you want to believe that God created the Universe, and that is part of Science, then have at it. That is really what's going on here, yes? Myself, I believe that a Loving, Caring God made all of this for us to enjoy, beyond the wildest imagination that could be, He gave to us, like you would take care of a pet turtle or perhaps someone better than that turtle. He Loves Us, Dang It!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

As to what is going on in another thread, it's time you all knew:

First of all, don't be negative; it is right to have Jesus come into your Heart, for then your heart may soon have Jesus be in your Brain, and soon enough, your whole Soul. It happened to me. BTW, my mother was raped by my grandfather also, but she turned out to be a great Christian woman who is the woman written of in Rev. 12. I'm finally disclosing it to all who will rebuke me for sharing the secret. My dad was Lebanese, and my mother, mostly Israeli, English, Scottish, Irish and some Cherokee. She did have all twelve tribes of Israeli blood in her, as this was told me by the Lord. He said that over the years, the blood of all the tribes were intermingled. My mother told my dad that I would be named Michael instead of Mohammed, after my grandfather, Mohammed. She also said us children would be raised as Christians, not as Muslims, and dad gave in on that also. We used to have to run and hide the Christian Bibles and church leaflets whenever my dad's relatives used to pull up in the driveway unannounced, as they never called first (They were Muslims). It was quite a life. They found out we were Christian once I was 18 yrs. old. You don't have to believe me. What is truth will play out as the truth, as life unfolds even more. Time will prove who is true and who is a liar.

She was caught up by a Nazarene Church for 3 and 1/2 years which helped feed her heart God's Spirit, and thus, us children going to the same church, as well. When it is written that the devil cast a flood after the woman that she be taken away by the flood, that was my mom's battle with beer drinking. Which she had a problem with for a year or so. She was able to overcome it by Jesus' help and what she'd see on TV and read in the Bible. I do not feel comfortable right now talking about all of these things as they have been very personal to me and her, and she knew about all of this before she died. I'm only bringing it up because of the thread about Rev. 12 that has surfaced on this site. Thought it was time to share it, so you will know, so I put it on this, my only real thread.

Thanks to my guardian archangel Michael, and God,

Michael

 

[dave3712]

...Revelation is an exercise in Sociology...

...Revelation is an exercise in Sociology...

I'd suggest that Revelation was more of a nightmare than a dream. Some Christians imo seem all too easily convinced by the unsupportable claims of doubtful fantasists who could never have met Jesus except maybe inside their own heads.

Revelation has been so interesting a speculation into the future of Western/Jewish society that movies have been produced which have drawn large audiences and made many actors, script writers, and moguls happy and even rich.

It has been the driving force behind religious anticipation and revivals as in each generation some of the things it refers to has always seemed applicable to the social conditions.

Revelation has been instrumental in galvanizing large groups of people drawn together in the name of great social change which seemed to be supported with things stated in that Book.
It was used to search out villains which actually did exist inside the church, and it may well have been the necessary support for the Protestant revolt that force a Reformation in the western institution of religion.

But, it seems to be a pretty good puzzle that has discredited most attempts at a thorough exegesis of all past interpretations.
The many failed tries to link what was written to events and individuals of the past have all failed to completely satisfy the writings and over time, proven poor guesses.

Nevertheless, interest remains high and each generation still sees current events that fit some of the passages.

Link to free copy

 

[dave3712]

..First Cause Argument of Science...

..First Cause Argument of Science...

That's exactly what I believed you could but so far you have become statistics with all the other atheists: No answer to my questions.

You are on firm ground here, even in Science.

Science denies supernatural events and is founded upon the argument that for every Effect there is a Cause.

This has always been anti-magic and anti-supernatural superstition.
Yet, to this this day, Science MUST beg the Axiom before it makes it case, that the First Cause be exceptional to this theory of Cause and Effect.
The First Cause remains the Unmoved Mover and inexplicable, supernatural Creator of the eve unfolding Reality we experience from moment to moment.
This is NOT supposition in place of the absence of an initial Cause, but a necessary postulate that Science must start with if its claim that for EVERY effect there is a Cause.
That premise includes the requirement for a Cause to the Big Bang, and we have none other than some detached "Observer", one outside of the Universe that was to appear as suggested by the Science of the Copenhagen Interpretation.