Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Any of you science-minded people care to defend atheism for a moment? It would help me understand atheistic cosmogony. Yes, I’m totally uneducated in science.
Because as of right now, an atheistic cosmogony seems illogical. Here’s why I say that.
If an infinite number of events had to transpire before I was born, I would never have been born. My birth would still be pending.
Therefore, only a finite number of events have occurred in cosmological history, in which case there was a first event in the sequence.
To me this seems to imply a transition from stasis to motion. (After all, if motions were already occurring ‘for eternity’ then we’d be back to the problem of an infinite number of events transpiring before my birth). Naturally, then, we are led to posit a big bang. So far so good.
But whence the impetus? The fundamental nature of existing substance shouldn’t change. That is to say, the matter we see all around us is classified by scientists as inert (as far as I know), which means that it isn’t self-propelling. If it’s at rest, it tends to stay at rest.
In other words, please don’t try to tell me that “matter used to be self-propelling but is no longer that; today it’s inert.” That’s absurdity, at least within an atheistic system, because it would be a miracle, to say the least, and they don’t believe in miracles.
Perhaps the Big Bang theory isn’t meant to address this question – maybe it’s only a description of what happened AFTER that initial motion. Fine. But nonetheless the atheist still needs to address this question if he claims to have a cosmogony as viable as creationism. (I’m an Old Earth Creationist).
So what am I missing here? How do they address the question as to the source of the impetus for that first motion?
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
To me this seems to imply a transition from stasis to motion. (After all, if motions were already occurring ‘for eternity’ then we’d be back to the problem of an infinite number of events transpiring before my birth). Naturally, then, we are led to posit a big bang.
A few things about this point. First, there WAS no 'time' as we know it until the Big Bang. So there was no time when there was stasis that had to transition to motion. When spacetime started it started expanding.
Also, the Big Bang isn't how it all started, it's how it expanded and is expanding. Not about what causing the thing that then expanded.
Perhaps the Big Bang theory isn’t meant to address this question – maybe it’s only a description of what happened AFTER that initial motion. Fine. But nonetheless the atheist still needs to address this question if he claims to have a cosmogony as viable as creationism. (I’m an Old Earth Creationist).
What do you mean by viable?
So what am I missing here? How do they address the question as to the source of the impetus for that first motion?
When time started it was pretty much in motion, as far as i understand it.
Also, remember that "We don't know" IS an acceptable answer in science. Just gonna throw that out there.
Metherion
__________________ Oh, for the love of Pete!
PETE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!
And, because I won't write anything I'm not willing to attach my name to...
A few things about this point. First, there WAS no 'time' as we know it until the Big Bang. So there was no time when there was stasis that had to transition to motion. When spacetime started it started expandin...When time started it was pretty much in motion, as far as i understand it.
Agreed. If I implied time it wasn't intentional.
Also, the Big Bang isn't how it all started, it's how it expanded and is expanding. Not about what causing the thing that then expanded.
As I noted, I was aware that the Big Bang might be post-impetus in focus. But the impetus question needs to be addressed.
What do you mean by viable?
Ok, I just watched some YouTube videos where some very educated atheists trounced all over YECs for some (apparently) stupid positions they hold. The videos did everything in their power to imply that YECs are idiots and that religion is irrational. At the least, then, they need to provide a cosmogony that isn't self-contradictory and irrational. That's what I mean by viable. Clear?
Also, remember that "We don't know" IS an acceptable answer in science. Just gonna throw that out there.
Metherion
Doesn't look very acceptable in this case. The atheistic system seems to imply that "inert matter moved itself" which seem to be a self-contradictory statement. If that's what they're saying, it sounds to me even more idiotic than the YEC statements those videos were denouncing.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
Actually it isn't. And frankly, your OP is a hodgepodge of philosophy, metaphysics that isn't applicable and therefore not considered in atheistic evolutionary theory, and is ignorant of how the scientific method operates.
Many Creationists accuse scientists of cowardice when they refuse to "debate" with them. In reality it isn't cowardice at all, it is just that the entire scientific community can clearly see the obvious factual errors, realizes that refuting them is beneath them, and that instead of a debate, Creationists should simply be directed to enroll in General Biology.
Actually it isn't. And frankly, your OP is a hodgepodge of philosophy, metaphysics that isn't applicable and therefore not considered in atheistic evolutionary theory, and is ignorant of how the scientific method operates.
Many Creationists accuse scientists of cowardice when they refuse to "debate" with them. In reality it isn't cowardice at all, it is just that the entire scientific community can clearly see the obvious factual errors, realizes that refuting them is beneath them, and that instead of a debate, Creationists should simply be directed to enroll in General Biology.
Ok, so you never debate any issues on this forum. Fine. Does anyone else around here ever do debates?
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
As noted, this thread is a reaction to several atheists on YouTube who clearly insinuated, “Those YECs are complete idiots and religion is irrational.”
Atheists often claim, “There is no observable evidence for the existence of a soul.”
Ok, this statement seems to me almost as idiotic as an atheistic big bang. I’ll explain.
You imply free will if you believe that
(1) criminals could have freely chosen to live righteously.
(2) YECs could have freely chosen to practice better scholarship!
(3) I could have freely chosen not to start this thread.
So what does free will suggest? It suggests a soul. Here’s why. I’m looking at a sandwich. This matter is inert. I eat the sandwich and my digestive system transforms it into human protoplasm. Is this sandwich (which is currently protoplasm) still inert? Yes. It was inert before it became part of the human body so therefore (unless a miracle occurred) it is still inert.
So what can we say about inert objects? Suppose a rock falls on your head. Do you get angry at the rock? No, because it has no free will. The laws of physics predetermine its motion. It didn’t CHOOSE to move in your direction.
Now suppose I walk up and punch you in the face. Why do you get angry? Your anger betrays that, in your opinion, my hand is NOT acting (inertly) like the rock. In other words your anger implies that the power of choice self-propelled my hand. If ordinary physical impulses (viz. food combustion energy) were the chief impetus of my hand, you couldn’t rightly be angry at me. (You’d have to blame my metabolism). The movement of my hand isn’t “ordinary physics” at work, therefore. It’s a cognitively driven self-propulsion (a sort of telekinesis if you will).
How? This takes us back to the Big Bang issue. If all reality is inert, there could be no first motion, for lack of an impetus. The Christian maintains that God is not inert – He moves by the power of His free will. In other words, in a theistic view, free will is a force just as real as the force of gravity.
Again, I punched you in the face. You got angry. Why? Isn’t my hand just like the rock that fell on your head? Totally inert? Isn’t my brain totally inert? Isn’t my whole body totally inert? Yes, because it’s made up of inert sandwiches that I ate. So why did you get angry? Isn’t all this just ordinary physics at work? Do you get angry at gravity? Magnetism? Climate? Tectonics?
But the Christian can explain the anger. I have a soul (in my opinion, it’s a tangible substance). It moves by the power of choice. Thus when it freely chose to punch you in the face, this choice caused it to lunge toward you, dragging my inert hand toward your face. The body is inert, but the soul is self-propelling.
“But I’ve never seen a soul.” True. And I’ve never seen an atom. I believe in the atom based on the evidence of the atom’s existence (its observable effects upon material objects).
The observable evidence suggests that the human body has a soul inside it. The evidence suggests that the objects normally classified as non-living (such as sandwiches and rocks) do NOT have a self-propelling soul. Why is that? Is it by chance that humans have souls and rocks do not? Or is it perhaps because God put me in this human body. And given that I am self-propelling, why can’t I leave my body at will? Is it perhaps that God forcibly confines me in this tent until a judgment day of His choosing?
In sum, just as free will is the chief impetus in my bodily movements, so too the impetus launching the Big Bang was the power of God’s free will. At least that’s my position.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
Linear Mode
