Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Dear ben Masada, DFT_Dave and 6days,

You are all making quite a contribution to this thread. It is like windows of light opening finally to give in to tangibility. I just had to thank you all. I've been sick with the pneumonia and then a computer virus a day after that. It has set me back quite a bit. But I will step up to the plate again, God Willing. I still have a lot of fluid in my lungs, but I demanded that the doctor send me home that day. Stuff to do.

Again, thanks tons, and I will try to help out more very soon, possibly tonite. The Prednisone they are giving me along with another drug similar to Keflex, plus other meds I'm taking for my cold/flu make me sleepy and I can't stay up on the Internet as long as I used to be. Just give me a few more days. This Prednisone should be finished in a week or so. I have to keep gradually stepping down from the dosage amount. They had me on 40 mg/day.

Thanks again, guys!! I will try to get to some of my other threads a little later 2nite. God's Very Highest Blessings To You All,

MichaelC

 

[DFT_Dave]

Space and time had their beginning with the beginning of the universe as they came to exist as accidents of matter which is the composition of the universe. They did not exist outside the universe because to the Primal Cause is not subject to time or space. What I mean by Prime Cause is what caused the beginning of the universe as the universe could not have existed forever or caused itself to exist.

I agree with your saying that time and space do not make sense as existing outside the universe because there is nothing to think about to be outside the universe apart from the Primal Cause that is not subject to time or space as It is not composed of matter which is what causes time and space to exist.

The Primal Cause outside the universe is needed to protect Logic from collapsing about the existence of matter that could not have caused itself to exist.

If the Primal cause existed "before" it caused the existence of the universe how can "time" not be associated with it?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Oh no Dave, "Primal" is a reference to the beginning of what It has caused. The first thing created. For instance when God created man, He blessed him saying "Be fertile and multiply fill the earth and subdue it." (Gen. 1:28) The Primal Cause gave origin to man and from then on man evolved to what we are today. The same with regards to the universe. The Primal Cause gave origin to the universe and consequently, expansion took care of the enlargement of the universe as it has been demonstrated that it expands at quite a fast rate. Interesting to notice that expansion in these terms became in the mind of Einstein of all people as "God at His work of Creation." He had been working on the expansion of the universe when he was asked if he believed in God and his answer was that all his life was trying to catch God at His work of creation.

If God is at work in the expansion of his universe and the universe is expanding in time then God would also be at work in time.

It would be illogical to say God was "timelessly" at work in his universe of "time".

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

No I'm not particularly open to the existence of any gods while you imo are just the same apart from one specific God. All the more reason for any extant god to come through loud and clear afaic.
No I am not being dishonest to claim I don't know, far more dishonest would be to pretend I do.

Ultimately I honestly don't know, but you otoh pretend you do, it seems?

You pretend I don't know.

Do you think you have an "objective" view of reality if you have no understanding of how thoughts are formed in your head?

--Dave

 

[alwight]

You pretend I don't know.

I don't think you do know, but I can't really know if you are actually pretending, perhaps to yourself, but I can suggest that perhaps you are.

Do you think you have an "objective" view of reality if you have no understanding of how thoughts are formed in your head?

--Dave

I don't think anyone has an objective view of reality since it is subject to our limited ability to perceive and understand.
That is why I can't understand why some people, perhaps arrogantly, conclude that their own perception is nevertheless absolute, objective or gnostic, since we are all clearly very fallible.

Do you really think that you know how thoughts are formed? Can you know that thoughts are more than a part of what goes on naturally in a human brain? Or are you only pretending to yourself that you know?

 

[DFT_Dave]

I don't think you do know, but I can't really know if you are actually pretending, perhaps to yourself, but I can suggest that perhaps you are.

I don't think anyone has an objective view of reality since it is subject to our limited ability to perceive and understand.
That is why I can't understand why some people, perhaps arrogantly, conclude that their own perception is nevertheless absolute, objective or gnostic, since we are all clearly very fallible.

Do you really think that you know how thoughts are formed? Can you know that thoughts are more than a part of what goes on naturally in a human brain? Or are you only pretending to yourself that you know?

Are we not all forming our own thoughts?

You are not forming my thoughts, I am not forming yours.

God is not forming every thought, though he forms some.

The mindless random movement of atoms are not forming any thoughts.

If you don't think you are willingly forming your own thoughts, and there exists no objective reality to form them from or in relationship to, then why are you on this website?

--Dave

 

[DavisBJ]

Is this relevant?

7 PM CST tonite – debate between William Lane Craig (famous Christian apologist) and Sean Carroll (Caltech Cosmologist)

http://www.greerheard.com/

 

[Ben Masada]

It's not true to claim it is known that a singularity wasn't simply the state of an always existing (bouncing) universe at the time or that another sequence of events (e.g. brane theory) hadn't somehow by chance resulted in a big bang. We just can't know that our particular universe was ever meant to be or indeed was intended to be created.
Perhaps an unknown or a divine uncaused cause of some kind did kick everything off, perhaps billions of universes ago. But our existence, here in this universe at this time, could well be just as un-designed, un-supervised and un-created as if no such distant original unknown or even divine uncaused cause ever did exist, whatever it was.
The absolute ultimate origin of everything is simply a paradox and an unknown, supposing a god doesn't help to supply rational answers or change anything.

I can see that you do not know that our universe was meant to be created but you do know what by definition Logic is, I am sure. Since it is a proven fact that the universe is composed of matter and that matter could not have caused itself to exist, it is only obvious that the universe was caused to exist by something outside the universe that preceded it.

 

[Ben Masada]

Dear ben Masada, DFT_Dave and 6days,

You are all making quite a contribution to this thread. It is like windows of light opening finally to give in to tangibility. I just had to thank you all. I've been sick with the pneumonia and then a computer virus a day after that. It has set me back quite a bit. But I will step up to the plate again, God Willing. I still have a lot of fluid in my lungs, but I demanded that the doctor send me home that day. Stuff to do.

Again, thanks tons, and I will try to help out more very soon, possibly tonite. The Prednisone they are giving me along with another drug similar to Keflex, plus other meds I'm taking for my cold/flu make me sleepy and I can't stay up on the Internet as long as I used to be. Just give me a few more days. This Prednisone should be finished in a week or so. I have to keep gradually stepping down from the dosage amount. They had me on 40 mg/day.

Thanks again, guys!! I will try to get to some of my other threads a little later 2nite. God's Very Highest Blessings To You All,

MichaelC

Michael, you are a romantic kind of poster. Take care of your health because we need you around to throw from time to time a grain of salt into our stews.

 

[Ben Masada]

If the Primal cause existed "before" it caused the existence of the universe how can "time" not be associated with it?

--Dave

Time cannot be associated with the Primal Cause because there can't be time in eternity. Therefore, before the "big bang" there was no time.

 

[6days]

Time cannot be associated with the Primal Cause because there can't be time in eternity. Therefore, before the "big bang" there was no time.

There was no Big Bang, or possibly God was confused about how things came into being?
For example...God seems to think He created an earth covered in water to begin with.

 

[DavisBJ]

… it is a proven fact that the universe is composed of matter and that matter could not have caused itself to exist …

I know of at least two well-known Cosmologists who dispute that claim.

 

[6days]

I know of at least two well-known Cosmologists who dispute that claim.

There are many different ideas by cosmologists... No agreement. However I think most if not all agree that matter does not pop into existence out of nothing, and matter does not pop into existence without a cause.

 

[Ben Masada]

If God is at work in the expansion of his universe and the universe is expanding in time then God would also be at work in time.

It would be illogical to say God was "timelessly" at work in his universe of "time".

--Dave

Good point but not too hard to explain. The expansion of the universe is the expansion of matter and not the beginning. God Himself is not subject to time but His Creation is. The tools in the "hands" of God in the expansion of the universe are His natural laws which are subject to time. Hence Jesus in John 5:17 said, "My Father is at work until now..." That's the same as Einstein's statement that God is (constantly) at His work of creation. Of course he had in mind the natural laws but the interesting point is that he associated the expansion of the universe as akin to God's creation.

 

[alwight]

Are we not all forming our own thoughts?

Yes perhaps, but then again read on.

You are not forming my thoughts, I am not forming yours.

Certainly not, that is deemed very impolite among telepaths to even try to plant thoughts in other people's minds.

God is not forming every thought, though he forms some.

I really don't think you can honestly claim to know that any one extant god ever actually has planted any independent thoughts into anyone's mind. Particularly since there are probably as many different claimed versions as there are those who believe.
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
Susan B. Anthony

What does God say to you Dave, if it's not too personal?
How do you know it is God and not another part of you?
Is it what you want to hear?

The mindless random movement of atoms are not forming any thoughts.

Evidentially untrue while natural selection is not random.

If you don't think you are willingly forming your own thoughts, and there exists no objective reality to form them from or in relationship to, then why are you on this website?

--Dave

I never said there was no actual objective reality I simply questioned our perceptions of it.
Actually I wonder how much "I" do have to input into my thoughts, do they simply arrange themselves in my mind?
Am I perhaps little more than an observer in my own mind? :think:
However I see no reason to suppose that a supernatural entity is doing any of this arranging or impolite planting of thoughts.

 

[alwight]

I can see that you do not know that our universe was meant to be created but you do know what by definition Logic is, I am sure. Since it is a proven fact that the universe is composed of matter and that matter could not have caused itself to exist, it is only obvious that the universe was caused to exist by something outside the universe that preceded it.

I'm rather sure Ben that you don't really know that this particular universe was specially created or just happened by chance, any more than I do. Its origins could be from a virtually infinite number of regressions and long since forgotten by the originating course/paradox if there was one.

 

[Ben Masada]

There was no Big Bang, or possibly God was confused about how things came into being?
For example...God seems to think He created an earth covered in water to begin with.

Hi 6-days, did you notice that I closed "big bang" within parenthesis? It means that it is not my definition of the Primal Cause, aka God. The other day an atheist suggested to me if he could call God "Quantum Field". Most definitely I said, why not? Then my reference to God with him became from then on "Quantum Field". What's in a name? Besides, God is not a name but a title. If you became acquainted with Judaism, you would be surprised with how many different names we use in our references to God. Bottom line is that no one knows the Real Name of God in Biblical Judaism which was pronounced once a year at Yom Kippur Day and only once so that the Community could not hear and learn how to pronounce it.

So, to your "There was no big bang," what about if the scientific term "big bang" was only a facsimile to the Genesis expression "Let there be light and there was light?" It could very well have been the Biblical "big bang" for the beginning of the universe.

 

[Ben Masada]

I know of at least two well-known Cosmologists who dispute that claim.

Now, you know three.

 

[Ben Masada]

There are many different ideas by cosmologists... No agreement. However I think most if not all agree that matter does not pop into existence out of nothing, and matter does not pop into existence without a cause.

See now where we stand? Common ground. Welcome to the club.

 

[6days]

Hi 6-days, did you notice that I closed "big bang" within parenthesis? It means that it is not my definition of the Primal Cause, aka God. The other day an atheist suggested to me if he could call God "Quantum Field". Most definitely I said, why not? Then my reference to God with him became from then on "Quantum Field". What's in a name? Besides, God is not a name but a title. If you became acquainted with Judaism, you would be surprised with how many different names we use in our references to God. Bottom line is that no one knows the Real Name of God in Biblical Judaism which was pronounced once a year at Yom Kippur Day and only once so that the Community could not hear and learn how to pronounce it.

So, to your "There was no big bang," what about if the scientific term "big bang" was only a facsimile to the Genesis expression "Let there be light and there was light?" It could very well have been the Biblical "big bang" for the beginning of the universe.

I apologize. Perhaps we are on the same page.