Theistic Evolution

mathetes123 said:

You will still have to eventually come to a first cause.

Click to expand...

Why does that cause have to be a deity?

crimsonleaf said:

Equally, show us the evidence that the universe did come about by a natural cause. Both assertions are matters of faith. The theist position is that the universe had a cause (we call that cause God); the atheist's position is that the universe exists through no cause.

Click to expand...

Actually, the atheist's position is that we just don't know how the universe came to be. It could be a first cause, but the universe could just as well be eternal and uncaused; we just don't know.

You may say that it's illogical for the universe to exist without a cause, but really, it's not much more illogical than to postulate an uncaused first cause based on the premise that everything must have had a cause. Especially because quantum fluctuations have no discernible cause, either, which casts some doubt on the principle of causation.

juvenissun said:

So when the Scripture says that God "finished" His creation, then He is not creating anything after that. This makes a high contrast to your idea of an ever-creating god, even he is outside the realm of time.

Click to expand...

OK, then I guess that's one difference between your viewpoint and mine. I don't think of God's creation as any more finished now than it was at any point in the past. (Although if the universe has a limited lifespan, I guess you could say that God's creation will be finished when that lifespan has expired.) But as I said, I don't mind if you have an opinion about this that's different from mine.

I'm more interested in hearing how you think God's timescale is different from ours, and how you think that explains what Psalm 104 says about God creating animals to renew the earth after others have died. Is your view that the six days of creation were six days on God's timescale, but that within the universe's timescale this corresponded to a much longer period?

Loudmouth said:

Why does that cause have to be a deity?

Click to expand...

Why does there have to be a first cause, at all?

sandwiches said:

Why does there have to be a first cause, at all?

Click to expand...

Basic logic. Cause and effect. Where did it all begin?

Loundmouth said:

So why can't we have a natural cause outside of the universe that produces the universe?

Click to expand...

Again, basic logic. Nothing is capable of causing itself. All causes come from an outside source.

Notedstrangeperson said:

Again, basic logic. Nothing is capable of causing itself. All causes come from an outside source.

Click to expand...

We see nature causing nature all of the time. Clouds are a part of nature, and they are produced by natural causes. Obviously, you are wrong.

Even more, why does this outside source have to be a deity?

Notedstrangeperson said:

Basic logic. Cause and effect. Where did it all begin?

Click to expand...

I agree that all we've ever observed seems to have a cause or origin. EVERYTHING.

Loudmouth said:

We see nature causing nature all of the time. Clouds are a part of nature, and they are produced by natural causes. Obviously, you are wrong.

Even more, why does this outside source have to be a deity?

Click to expand...

I was referring to nature as a whole. It cannot be its own cause and so it's cause must be supernatural ( outside of the natural world).

The cloud cannot be its own cause and requires a cause outside of itself.

Whatever the cause of the natural world, given the design and Information found in the natural world it would have to be an intelligent cause. Having created everything from nothing it would have to be and extremely powerful cause. It would certainly be more intelligent and more powerful than anything it created. Sounds like a deity to me.

Notedstrangeperson said:

Basic logic. Cause and effect. Where did it all begin?

Click to expand...

Quantum mechanics has turned this basic logic on it's had decades ago.

Again, basic logic. Nothing is capable of causing itself. All causes come from an outside source.

Click to expand...

So what caused God? Basic logic, remember?

Aggie said:

OK, then I guess that's one difference between your viewpoint and mine. I don't think of God's creation as any more finished now than it was at any point in the past. (Although if the universe has a limited lifespan, I guess you could say that God's creation will be finished when that lifespan has expired.) But as I said, I don't mind if you have an opinion about this that's different from mine.

I'm more interested in hearing how you think God's timescale is different from ours, and how you think that explains what Psalm 104 says about God creating animals to renew the earth after others have died. Is your view that the six days of creation were six days on God's timescale, but that within the universe's timescale this corresponded to a much longer period?

Click to expand...

Ps104 talks about BOTH animal and human.
verse 30 has two parts. Part a mentioned creation.

I remembered now that there are many other places in the Psalms where the author also use the word creation for different occasions, such as the birth of a person, or the establishment of a new government. So Ps104:30 is not the only place this word is used in such a way.

So, the use of the word creation in many verses of Psalms does not have the same meaning as it is used in Gen 1. For example, God makes a chaotic situation in Libya yesterday could also be described as a creation (a new situation is created). But it does not have the same meaning as it is used in Gen 1.

The ground is restored from volcanic destruction at Mt. St. Helens. This does not mean all the new trees there are God's new creation. Animal habitat restored along a coast after a tsunami. It does not mean all those baby animals are God's new creation. The word creation is borrowed to describe these processes because it apparently changed from non-existence to existence.

So, if I could, I will use two different words for these two uses of the word creation.

Tomk80 said:

Quantum mechanics has turned this basic logic on it's had decades ago.

So what caused God? Basic logic, remember?

Click to expand...

Basic logic says that everything that has a beginning requires a cause. God has no beginning, created time, exists outside of time and is not subject to the limitations of his creation, including time.

mathetes123 said:

Basic logic says that everything that has a beginning requires a cause.

Click to expand...

Quantum mechanics has proven "basic logic" wrong.

God has no beginning, created time, exists outside of time and is not subject to the limitations of his creation, including time.

Click to expand...

That whole sentence is just something you made up.

M-branes have no known beginning, exist outside of this universe and therefore out of time and brought forth our universe. Only they at least have some underpinnings in string theory, so M-branes are a better explanation than God is.

Tomk80 said:

Quantum mechanics has proven "basic logic" wrong.

That whole sentence is just something you made up.

M-branes have no known beginning, exist outside of this universe and therefore out of time and brought forth our universe. Only they at least have some underpinnings in string theory, so M-branes are a better explanation than God is.

Click to expand...

String theory is neither testable, nor observable.

mathetes123 said:

String theory is neither testable, nor observable.

Click to expand...

I am completely with you, as I said in my last post. If we agree that nothing we've ever observed has been created without a cause, we have no reason to think anything can exist without a cause.

sandwiches said:

I agree that all we've ever observed seems to have a cause or origin. EVERYTHING.

Click to expand...

Nuclear decay? Last I heard there was no apparent cause for individual decay events, even though en masse they are statistically predictable.

eta - I oversimplify - the nuclear decay is caused by quantum fluctuation; but the quantum fluctuation itself appears to be uncaused. Hence nuclear decay being the ideal basis for Schroedinger's Cat, as only observation after the event can dictate which way the event went.

mathetes123 said:

String theory is neither testable, nor observable.

Click to expand...

In practice, as things stand, it largely is. It is not however in principle untestable or unobservable. Hence it is still a valid scientific tentative framework.

String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

mathetes123 said:

String theory is neither testable, nor observable.

Click to expand...

Not currently. That would place god(s) and string theory on equal footing. But string theory can be tested and observed, given the right equipment, which we'll very likely build in the future. Besides that, string theory follows from our current observations of reality. Neither can be said for god(s). So string theory is still the superior explanation.

Elendur said:

Nothing can be its own cause, except for god, right?

Click to expand...

Actually yes. As I said before nothing is capable of causing itself, it is always caused by an outside source. At some point there must have been an "uncaused cause" - something which did not have a previous cause. This cause must be supernatural (beyond natural causes) simply because at the time nature itself did not exist yet. We call this supernatural, uncaused cause God.

Nature cannot create itself because - to state the glaringly obvious - nature did not exist before it existed.

Tom80 said:

If God can be eternal, why can't the natural world be. You cop out has been noted by everyone here for what it is.

Click to expand...

"Eternal" does not just mean something which has "existed forever". It means something which "exists outside of time" (link). Does nature exist outside of time?

Loudmouth said:

But nature causes itself all of the time. Clouds are nature, and it is nature that produces clouds. Therefore, nature does cause itself. We see examples of this every day and every second.

Click to expand...

Nature does not cause itself - natural events are caused by cycles or build up in steps. Remove a step or break that cycle and the event stops. That's what i mean when I say nothing causes itself.

At some point there must have been a time when something caused the cycle to begin without having the previous step, because that previous step did not exist yet.

Tom80 said:

Since we already determined that "nature" does not necessarily have a beginning, your reasoning fails.

Click to expand...

Funny how, with a bit of prodding, we can get atheists to deny causality. Furthermore the Big Bang theory does suggest the universe had an origin, and it was at this moment of origin that time began.

Notedstrangeperson said:

Actually yes. As I said before nothing is capable of causing itself, it is always caused by an outside source. At some point there must have been an "uncaused cause" - something which did not have a previous cause. This cause must be supernatural (beyond natural causes) simply because at the time nature itself did not exist yet. We call this supernatural, uncaused cause God.

Nature cannot create itself because - to state the glaringly obvious - nature did not exist before it existed.

Click to expand...

Special pleading noted. Could you please stop using it, it's a really annoying debate tactic.

Why would nature not always have existed?

"Eternal" does not just mean something which has "existed forever". It means something which "exists outside of time" (link). Does nature exist outside of time?

Click to expand...

In m-brane theory, yes. Time is just another dimension, which started to exist when when this universe started to exist.

Funny how, with a bit of prodding, we can get atheists to deny causality. Furthermore the Big Bang theory does suggest the universe had an origin, and it was at this moment of origin that time began.

Click to expand...

There is no denying causality here. There is an understanding of two things:
1) It is not correct to state that "time began" at the origin of the universe. Our models do not work up to 1 length of planck time, so just after the beginning of the universe. We don't know what happened before that, so we do not know whether time began before that, was of a different nature before that or whether the concept of time even makes sense before that.
2) There is no denying causality in what I stated. M-brane theory does not deny causality, although it does lead to conclusions that are sometimes, as they say, "stranger than fiction". Stating that something does not necessarily have a beginning does not deny causality.

Notedstrangeperson said:

Actually yes. As I said before nothing is capable of causing itself, it is always caused by an outside source. At some point there must have been an "uncaused cause" - something which did not have a previous cause. This cause must be supernatural (beyond natural causes) simply because at the time nature itself did not exist yet. We call this supernatural, uncaused cause God.

Nature cannot create itself because - to state the glaringly obvious - nature did not exist before it existed.

Click to expand...

Why is it that god can exist forever but not nature?