Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Dear DFT Dave, ben Masada and Tyrathca,

Now, it seems like some progress has been made. Namely that 6,000 years on earth was all there is. I just had some feeling that before any man was on earth, there were dinosaurs, and during and after that, even giants (men and women).

I don't have all of the answers and that's for the best. I am not God. I'm just a blade of grass in one of the fields on earth. But I have had some fantastic experiences in my life.

Well, enough said. Thanks Dave! That's all I needed to hear. I hope you are all supporting Israel. I send them $50/mo. It's not much, but with the rest of the income going to church and my operating costs (books and postage, graphics, etc.). And also my foster child in Guatemala for ten years. I give a tenth of my earnings to the Lord God, my tithe as the Lord God asks. I also gave $300 to the church recently. I know the church runs on the generosity of it's members. Well, will close for now.

Praise God, The Father, and His Son, Jesus,

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

The age of the universe! Does it mean the universe had a beginning? In that case there is no word about the universe being eternal. It did have a beginning and... since it could not have caused itself to exist, some thing from outside of it caused it to exist. Is it safe to say we have found a good evidence for the Primal Cause?

You are mixing up events within the universe with hypothetical events without. Yes, events within the universe had a beginning, since there was an earliest event. But that is not the same as saying the space-time arrangement of the universe had a beginning as measured from some perspective outside the universe. Time is a property of the internal workings of matter in the universe itself, so I am not clear what you mean by the universe itself having a primal cause: the space-time of the universe exists and has events progressing within it, but time in that sense does not make sense outside.

What can having a cause before the universe mean except for before time? Before time, naturally, is a nonsense, and so the lack of a concept of time outside the universe plays merry hell with naïve ideas of causation.

SO, without a rational idea of causation without the universe existing, what need is there for a primal cause?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear gcthomas,

Hi GC. It is written, "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth. And the earth was 'without form, and void;' and darkness was upon the face of the deep"...And God said, "Let there be light." This was the Big Bang light that happened. And the light He called Day and the darkness He called Night. So we can know that BEFORE the Universe, there was a God who made it be so. And soon, instead of void, God created the firmament (Heaven) and the dry land, planet Earth. You can read the rest if you like since it is in the KJV Bible. See Genesis chapter 1:1...

If you don't own a Bible, that is your fault. I'm not going to quote the whole thing here. Most of us know what is written and they will understand this.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear gcthomas,

Before there was the Big Bang, there was God!!

Sincerely

Michael

 

[DFT_Dave]

The age of the universe! Does it mean the universe had a beginning? In that case there is no word about the universe being eternal. It did have a beginning and... since it could not have caused itself to exist, some thing from outside of it caused it to exist. Is it safe to say we have found a good evidence for the Primal Cause?

I wouldn't call God "Primal", but the universe that we live in requires a cause, just not a "timeless" one.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

It is the age of the known universe, as far as the question of "was there a 'before' the big bang" we don't know. I think most astrophysicists lean to no (in the sense there is no north of the north pole) but there are also hypotheses that allow for in some sense a 'before'.

Could the universe cause itself? Maybe, why not? Could it be uncaused? Maybe, why not? Limits we put on causality in time do not necessarily apply to the beginning of time itself. Quantum mechanics certainly implies that our previous understanding of these issues is not necessarily as clear cut outside the world/conditions we experience.

The universe cannot originate itself if it does not exist, that which does not exist cannot be the cause of what does exist.

Quantum mechanics has become a magic wand that allows you to pull a universe out of an empty hat.

--Dave

 

[Tyrathca]

The universe cannot originate itself if it does not exist, that which does not exist cannot be the cause of what does exist.

That limitation at best only applies when linear time is a constraint. Given we are discussing an event that resulted in time existing it is not necessarily relevant.

Quantum mechanics has become a magic wand that allows you to pull a universe out of an empty hat.

--Dave

The point still stands, what we view as the fundamentals of reality which can not be violated turn out to not always be as universal as we thought.

 

[Stripe]

That limitation at best only applies when linear time is a constraint. Given we are discussing an event that resulted in time existing it is not necessarily relevant.

Evolutionists love to rescue one idea involving physical impossibility with another idea that is physically impossible. :chuckle:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Thanks DFT_Dave and Stripe!! It's been a unique ride. You made my day! I know the Bible says God created the HEAVENS and the Earth in 6 days. So it took him 3 days to create heaven?? Not Bad. I still think God created things in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. How it all happened, I can't say that I know. All that I was told was that Adam was created, and became a civilization, which sinned, and God wiped them off of the earth, quite similar to Noah and the flood. But the Lord God formed another Adam, and this may be happened a number of times. But our Bible is the book about our Adam, which is enough for us to know for now. I can only suggest that you read Post No. 1 of my "Creation vs. Evolution" thread (this thread).

Enough for me for now. Maybe I will stick around this site after all. I was going to just leave and let my threads go down the tubes. If you want a couple of other interesting threads, go to 'six day creation' by tambora; and 'Are You Really Ready' by Michael Cadry (me). You can answer some questions there also. God Be With You!!

Michael

 

[DFT_Dave]

That limitation at best only applies when linear time is a constraint. Given we are discussing an event that resulted in time existing it is not necessarily relevant.

The point still stands, what we view as the fundamentals of reality which can not be violated turn out to not always be as universal as we thought.

Neither time nor it's nonexistence has anything to do with what you are proposing.

To believe that something comes from absolutely nothing is irrational thinking. It cannot be proven and therefore is an irrational faith not rational science.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

To believe that something comes from absolutely nothing is irrational thinking.

Nope. Not irrational, since the conclusion can be reached through deduction, given the assumptions. Might be incorrect, but not irrational. It may suit you to paint it as irrational, since it allows you to ignore the arguments, but that's your lookout.

It cannot be proven and therefore is an irrational faith

Are you saying that Christianity is an irrational faith since your God would have had to have come from nothing? Welcome aboard!

:up:

 

[Jukia]

Are you saying that Christianity is an irrational faith since your God would have had to have come from nothing? Welcome aboard!

:up:

No, I think the argument is that the Christian God always existed, he did not need to come from anything. He always was.

I think we know that from the Bible, so it is true. cough, cough.

 

[gcthomas]

He seems to have missed the trivial observation that once he accepts that some things can have always existed from a viewpoint outside the universe, then he can't deny the possibility that the universe has always existed. Unless he is relying on special pleading for his God.

:think:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Nope. Not irrational, since the conclusion can be reached through deduction, given the assumptions. Might be incorrect, but not irrational. It may suit you to paint it as irrational, since it allows you to ignore the arguments, but that's your lookout.

Are you saying that Christianity is an irrational faith since your God would have had to have come from nothing? Welcome aboard!

:up:

The question was, can a material universe come from nothing. The answer is obviously no. One would have to be irrational to believe it could.

If we ask, can God come from nothing, the answer is also no. Neither God nor matter can come from absolutely nothing.

The next question would be, can either God or matter be eternal, having always existed, having no beginning.

A God that is subject to cause and effect, as matter is, could be no more eternal than matter could be.

The only thing that could be eternal is a God who is not material, not subject to cause and effect. That God would be free and dynamic, not static--DFT.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

Dave, you assert that the universe could not just exist, saying it is obvious. The trouble with saying that it can't come from nothing is that there is no suggestion it did come from nothing.

Coming from nothing will imply a flow of time in the nothing; no time there means no cause and effect, so you have a logic problem here. Time is a feature of the material universe - there does not need to be a before! No before means no need for a creation.

So explain the necessary role of god when no causation was necessary.

 

[6days]

Dave, you assert that the universe could not just exist, saying it is obvious. The trouble with saying that it can't come from nothing is that there is no suggestion it did come from nothing.

Secular astronomers, physicists etc realize the problem of believing that nothing created everything. And there certainly were many who asserted that or very similar.

In another thread I a couple months ago, I posted 4 different ideas on the beginning of the universe. The program was on BBC, and they summarized the program with...
BBC "They (The 4 scientists/ their ideas) would be easier to dismiss as the half-baked musings of the lunatic fringe were it not for the fact that some of the very people who constructed the everything-from-nothing big bang model are themselves starting to dismantle it."
I can post the names of the scientists and their ideas if you wish.

So the everything from nothing idea hasn't worked, so now they are believing that some type of energy, or something, has existed throughout eternity.
There is a Book that tells us the answer.

 

[gcthomas]

Ah, the old 'no one knows the origin so that leaves space for me to claim I know for certain' trick.

 

[6days]

Ah, the old 'no one knows the origin so that leaves space for me to claim I know for certain' trick.

Sort of what I said, yes. Secular scientists don't know the origin. Scientists who believe in God's Word do know.

 

[Jukia]

Sort of what I said, yes. Secular scientists don't know the origin. Scientists who believe in God's Word do know.

Well yeah, but it is based on your particular genocidal deity and the book cobbled together from oral myth. Other than that, OK.

 

[alwight]

The question was, can a material universe come from nothing. The answer is obviously no. One would have to be irrational to believe it could.

If we ask, can God come from nothing, the answer is also no. Neither God nor matter can come from absolutely nothing.

The next question would be, can either God or matter be eternal, having always existed, having no beginning.

A God that is subject to cause and effect, as matter is, could be no more eternal than matter could be.

The only thing that could be eternal is a God who is not material, not subject to cause and effect. That God would be free and dynamic, not static--DFT.

--Dave

Why must whatever it is be deemed "God"? Why presume to know that whatever it is, is not simply an unknown, but that somehow you are able to know that it had godly powers presumably used with purpose and intent.
Sorry I really don't think that you can claim to know that.
A probably unknowable unknown cause is not necessarily a God and could just as easily be an entirely natural ungodly phenomenon, never mind the particular God that you presumably have in mind.