Creation vs. Evolution

[DFT_Dave]

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.

Alexander Vilenkin, Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University in "96" wrote “according to quantum mechanics”, tiny particles of matter are popping in and out of existence “from nothing”, and “if a particle can pop into existence from nothing then why not a whole universe?” --Discover Feb. 1996

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XYGo3wjdoM

I'm not exactly sure what else you're trying to say so I don't know what you mean when you want me to explain the necessary role of god when no causation was necessary. Please elaborate a little more.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

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

Many will say they believe that some form of energy is eternal. I always agree and ask if that energy has intelligence or if it is just random without plan or purpose.

--Dave

 

[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.

I believe we can reasonably say that "whatever is eternal" we can call God. Everything that is "temporal" is not God.

The question of the ages is, is that which is eternal a Personal Being or an impersonal force. If that ultimate eternal reality is an impersonal force then our personal existence is temporal and quite meaningless, wouldn't you agree?

--Dave

 

[alwight]

I believe we can reasonably say that "whatever is eternal" we can call God. Everything that is "temporal" is not God.

Yes maybe and I could, by doing that, define myself as a theist, but I don't think that really gets us anywhere if we can all claim to be theists.

The question of the ages is, is that which is eternal a Personal Being or an impersonal force. If that ultimate eternal reality is an impersonal force then our personal existence is temporal and quite meaningless, wouldn't you agree?

--Dave

Yes I think that ultimately our existence may well be in the end meaningless, however imo it's up to us to inject what meaning we are able to, not simply to suppose that meaning and purpose has already been provided.

On a somewhat different (possibly off the wall) tack, the idea that a God just is actually gives me some concerns for that entity itself.
A being that could well have had no say in the matter, apparently trapped by its own unending and perhaps ultimately meaningless existence. It all just seems too unlikely to be true to me, and only a natural impersonal unknown cause will do for me. Would you want to be this God? Does that make any sense? I wonder if you ever have actual concerns for the God you believe in or is it only about what you hope can be done for you?

 

[Jukia]

Many will say they believe that some form of energy is eternal. I always agree and ask if that energy has intelligence or if it is just random without plan or purpose.

--Dave

Energy, whether eternal or not, seems to have no plan or purpose.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Jukia,

Tell that to the angels who proclaimed the birth of Jesus to the shepherds in the fields at night with their flocks. Tell that to Jesus while He was walking on water towards the boat and his friends/disciples. There is no pleasing any one of you. You will find your own way to keep from believing in a God, even though the Bible, says there is a God and what He's about. The book is the biggest bestseller ever. And still, you have the nerve and audacity to say the things you do in the ears of the Father Who hears you. How dare you!! What do you expect Him to do with you when you face Him and tell Him you did not know. How many myriads of chances did you get to know Him, but would not?? You're a sad lot indeed and I'm sure He has a special place just for you.

Michael

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes maybe and I could, by doing that, define myself as a theist, but I don't think that really gets us anywhere if we can all claim to be theists.

Yes I think that ultimately our existence may well be in the end meaningless, however imo it's up to us to inject what meaning we are able to, not simply to suppose that meaning and purpose has already been provided.

On a somewhat different (possibly off the wall) tack, the idea that a God just is actually gives me some concerns for that entity itself.

A being that could well have had no say in the matter, apparently trapped by its own unending and perhaps ultimately meaningless existence. It all just seems too unlikely to be true to me, and only a natural impersonal unknown cause will do for me. Would you want to be this God? Does that make any sense? I wonder if you ever have actual concerns for the God you believe in or is it only about what you hope can be done for you?

I guess you would call yourself an "existentialist". Jean-Paul Sartre concluded, “Man is absurd, but he must act as though he were not."

Is God trapped in his own meaningless existence? Well said and I think spoken from your heart not just your head.

I would agree with you that a God who determines/ordains all things, in himself as well as in the world, to be quite an insecure and tyrannical sort that truly finds himself trapped in his own timeless and meaningless existence. Is this what you mean by God? If not then how do you see God?

Fortunately this is not how God is literally portrayed in the Bible. I think it would be good to consider what gives God meaning. I like the question.

If God is truly "free", not trapped, then meaning for him is possible. If God is not free then I would agree with you that his existence is meaningless. If God has ordained all things then we are not free either and our existence is also meaningless.

I don't think freedom alone is all there is to a meaningful life, love would also be included. What do we mean when we say God is love?

Does a "natural impersonal unknown cause" give us freedom or explain love, or even our existence?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Energy, whether eternal or not, seems to have no plan or purpose.

Yes, exactly. We are here by accident, but not for long, if our origin is impersonal energy.

Our personal existence as intelligent caring beings contradicts this thoughtless and unfeeling universe that has, without plan or purpose, brought us into this temporal predicament.

The big question is, how could it be even possible for such a universe to accomplish this in opposition to it's own nature?

--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.

Alexander Vilenkin, Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University in "96" wrote “according to quantum mechanics”, tiny particles of matter are popping in and out of existence “from nothing”, and “if a particle can pop into existence from nothing then why not a whole universe?” --Discover Feb. 1996

I am a trained physicist, so I am happy with the ideas of quantum physics. You should be aware that the particle creation is spontaneous and randon, but do not come from nothing and are not as such uncaused. This particle creation results from the interaction of gravitational, electrical, matter and other fields, within a vacuum state that has a non-zero energy density: there is nowhere within the universe with nothing. Vilenkin's hypothesis involves a pre-existing situation with a symmetrical vacuum state with the presence of fields and energy, so not 'nothing' as you describe, so he is suggesting that there was something there before the Big Bang, not nothing. The Big Bang was not a creation-from nothing event, so causation is part of what he suggests.

I'm not exactly sure what else you're trying to say so I don't know what you mean when you want me to explain the necessary role of god when no causation was necessary. Please elaborate a little more.

Without time, causation is meaningless. In that case, what is the role for a god in creation, when causes are not required? Causes are necessary within the universe, but I am unconvinced when discussions extend to 'events' outside of the universe/time, whatever that means. How can there be events or causes without time?

 

[DFT_Dave]

I am a trained physicist, so I am happy with the ideas of quantum physics. You should be aware that the particle creation is spontaneous and randon, but do not come from nothing and are not as such uncaused. This particle creation results from the interaction of gravitational, electrical, matter and other fields, within a vacuum state that has a non-zero energy density: there is nowhere within the universe with nothing. Vilenkin's hypothesis involves a pre-existing situation with a symmetrical vacuum state with the presence of fields and energy, so not 'nothing' as you describe, so he is suggesting that there was something there before the Big Bang, not nothing. The Big Bang was not a creation-from nothing event, so causation is part of what he suggests.

Without time, causation is meaningless. In that case, what is the role for a god in creation, when causes are not required? Causes are necessary within the universe, but I am unconvinced when discussions extend to 'events' outside of the universe/time, whatever that means. How can there be events or causes without time?

I don't use the term, "from nothing", Vilenkin uses it, but I agree with you that he is not consistent with the what the term really implies.

God, as literally depicted in Genesis, experiences time. He existed before he created the universe and is the cause for it's existence and the laws of physics that govern it.

Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover", a.k.a. "pure actuality" does not experience time and is not the cause for the existence of the universe but is the cause for it's movement.

Augustine's synthesis, a timeless Creator, is as inconsistent and contradictory as Vilenkin's out of nothing from something.

How do you define "time"? Is time the "cause" or the "effect" of what moves?

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

How do you define "time"? Is time the "cause" or the "effect" of what moves?

I rely on operational definitions for time, as with many other concepts. I don't see time as a cause or effect for events, but as a way to describe the separation of causes from effects, or the interval between them.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I rely on operational definitions for time, as with many other concepts. I don't see time as a cause or effect for events, but as a way to describe the separation of causes from effects, or the interval between them.

"Time is either the same thing as movement or an attribute of movement."--Aristotle

"If matter and its motion disappeared there would no longer be any space or time."--Einstein

If you don't see "time" as a cause then why do you say, "without time, causation is meaningless"? It almost seems like you're saying that time is a cause. I agree with you that events involve time and that time itself is not a cause. So, could you agree with me that there has always been time because there has always been a God who can act as a cause. Time for God would be that he freely acts without having to do or cause everything he is capable of doing or causing all at once.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

Einstein's comment is compatable with my use of operational definitions, which necessarily involve motion and matter.

If you consider the universe itself the effect resulting from some primal cause then you must consider the cause to precede the effect, else it wouldn't be a cause. But you still don't address the problems raised. With no time, what need is there for a cause? If you conclude there is a cause, why exclude natural causes? Finally, considering the whole of the space time of the universe as an object, within which time plays out, why couldn't the universe have the timeless eternal nature you claim for god?

 

[Jukia]

Yes, exactly. We are here by accident, but not for long, if our origin is impersonal energy.

Our personal existence as intelligent caring beings contradicts this thoughtless and unfeeling universe that has, without plan or purpose, brought us into this temporal predicament.

The big question is, how could it be even possible for such a universe to accomplish this in opposition to it's own nature?

--Dave

Beats me, but that's the way it is. have your god show up tomorrow morning at breakfast and explain it all.

 

[resurrected]

Beats me, but that's the way it is. have your god show up tomorrow morning at breakfast and explain it all.

you don't have to wait until tomorrow morning

He's standing in front of you at this moment

 

[keypurr]

Dear 6days,

I'm not trying to change the subject, or anything. I still stand by what I've said about the dinosaurs and other Adams. Was just wondering if you knew about them (the Hebrews and everyone else) having to work 7 days a week. You seem to know a lot and are very admirable and helpful. Probably, everyone worked 7 days a week back then. What a bummer!

Praise God For His Wonderful Imagination And Omnipotence!!

Michael

They kept the Sabbath BEFORE the Law was given.

Mana was not collected on the Sabbath telling you that the Sabbath was kept.

 

[alwight]

I guess you would call yourself an "existentialist". Jean-Paul Sartre concluded, “Man is absurd, but he must act as though he were not."

Yes that's about right, but allowing yourself to be absurd occasionally can be a an honest release. A couple of beers will usually do it for me.

Is God trapped in his own meaningless existence? Well said and I think spoken from your heart not just your head.

I don't believe that any gods are particularly likely to exist never mind trapped of course, I'm just thinking hypothetically.
Something being uncaused while also being sentient and omnipotent seems to have a vanishingly small chance of being true afaic even for a paradox.

I would agree with you that a God who determines/ordains all things, in himself as well as in the world, to be quite an insecure and tyrannical sort that truly finds himself trapped in his own timeless and meaningless existence. Is this what you mean by God? If not then how do you see God?

Primarily I'm only arguing that gods are too unlikely to be true, at least if we assume that "God" is an involved personal deity. Why should a perhaps single personal being, albeit a god, simply exist without a cause?

Fortunately this is not how God is literally portrayed in the Bible. I think it would be good to consider what gives God meaning. I like the question.

In the Bible "God" is supposed to be the explanation for us and for everything we know, I don't think that too many people are actually seeking any further regression.

If God is truly "free", not trapped, then meaning for him is possible. If God is not free then I would agree with you that his existence is meaningless. If God has ordained all things then we are not free either and our existence is also meaningless.

Do you think that your God is free to not exist by choice?

I don't think freedom alone is all there is to a meaningful life, love would also be included. What do we mean when we say God is love?

I don't say that.

Does a "natural impersonal unknown cause" give us freedom or explain love, or even our existence?

--Dave

An "unknown" is the only rational answer imo to the apparent paradox of why the universe with us in it can and does exist, while anything else we can suppose only tends toward an infinite regression or infinite gods (or turtles) perhaps.

 

[Jukia]

you don't have to wait until tomorrow morning

He's standing in front of you at this moment

Uh, my dog is standing in front of me right now.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Einstein's comment is compatable with my use of operational definitions, which necessarily involve motion and matter.

If you consider the universe itself the effect resulting from some primal cause then you must consider the cause to precede the effect, else it wouldn't be a cause. But you still don't address the problems raised. With no time, what need is there for a cause? If you conclude there is a cause, why exclude natural causes? Finally, considering the whole of the space time of the universe as an object, within which time plays out, why couldn't the universe have the timeless eternal nature you claim for god?

I don't believe in a timeless God or a timeless cause. There has never been a time when there was no time, I agree with Aristotle. Time is as much a part of the supernatural world as it is apart of the physical world. God is not a "timeless spirit".

A merely cause and effect universe that expands and evolves cannot give itself a beginning point required for it's origin.

Whatever is eternal must not be mechanical in nature, moved only by cause and effect. What ever is eternal, requiring no beginning, must be intrinsically "free" to cause something else to come into existence. God is free matter is not.

Do you believe in free will?

 

[gcthomas]

A merely cause and effect universe that expands and evolves cannot give itself a beginning point required for it's origin.

A beginning point in its internal time (the Big Bang) or externally (not required)?

Whatever is eternal must not be mechanical in nature, moved only by cause and effect. What ever is eternal, requiring no beginning, must be intrinsically "free" to cause something else to come into existence. God is free matter is not.

Assertion. You don't know how universes are created, or whether there is time outside of the universe. There has never been a time when the universe existed in any usual meaning of the word time.

Do you believe in free will?

Believe? Not especially. The assumption of free will is useful for disciplinary discussions and legal procedures and moralising. But whether there is absolute free will is irrelevant to most discussions. Why is it relevant now?