Science Proves Creation

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Pedantically, yes.

Prior to modern maths and physics discoveries, as @Speedwell mentioned, this space-time manifold is all we conceived of when we said "universe". With the advent of new information it is the convention to consider that which we can perceive (which is the same prior to modern math) as the universe and that which is hypothetical as the multiverse or metaverse or some other term.

I wouldn't get hung up on it.
Okay; so when he spoke of a multiverse, he wasn't speaking of something real, or even something even believed to be real; he was just speaking of a hypothetical? Can you give a hypothetical of when there could be more than one "all that exists"?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,214
5,606
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,468.00
Faith
Atheist
Okay; so when he spoke of a multiverse, he wasn't speaking of something real, or even something even believed to be real; he was just speaking of a hypothetical.
As I understand it the multiverse is a hypothesis for how things work. It, and other hypotheses are under consideration because they are consistent with the math.

At present, there is no known way to test which, if any, is correct, or none.
 
Upvote 0

St. Helens

I stand with Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
CF Staff Trainer
Supporter
Jul 24, 2007
59,024
9,668
Lower Slower Minnesota
✟1,216,969.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
ADMIN HAT ON
Thread has had a small clean.
Reminder: address the content of the post, not the member. Attacking members because of their views is goading.

ADMIN HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
When did I mention god as that cause? It appears that you are the one who made this leap; but at this time I see no need for your hypothesis to be challenged. Best wishes in your research
OK, so you got my last reply deleted. Let's get this back out there:

This is a thread about creation on a Creation & Evolution forum on a Christian website. The implication, therefore, is that Creation is the Biblical version, therefore God. Furthermore, your OP contains verses from the Bible. So, while pedantically you have not mentioned any particular agent the very clear implication is that God is your chosen agent. If that is not the case, please state this clearly. That is, after all, the nub of your OP.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
As I understand it the multiverse is a hypothesis for how things work. It, and other hypotheses are under consideration because they are consistent with the math.
Again; if the Universe is by definition "all that exists" it would defy logic for there to be more than one don't cha think?
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,687
8,039
US
✟1,060,823.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
OK, so you got my last reply deleted. Let's get this back out there:

This is a thread about creation on a Creation & Evolution on a Christian website. The implication, therefore, is that Creation is the Biblical version, therefore God. Furthermore, your OP contains verses from the Bible. So, while pedantically you have not mentioned any particular agent the very clear implication is that God is your chosen agent. If that is not the case, please state this clearly. That is, after all, the nub of your OP.

I'm a believer. That should be clear; but again, I'm not here to discuss my faith in this thread.

You can make what inferences that you will regarding what is stated in the OP; But understand that when you have made certain inferences, based on your misunderstanding of the purpose of this thread; then I restate, unambiguously, the nature and purpose of this thread; your inferences are irrelevant.

Let me say this most succinctly for you: This thread is not about my religion.

That said, I am interested in your inferences regarding the topic of this thread.

This concept might seem a bit abstract to you; but I would infer that what created all that is concrete; must transcend all that which is concrete. What would you infer?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,658
11,694
54
USA
✟294,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Let's start with a couple of axioms.

1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.

I started reading this thread and realized it was revived from oblivion, so I only read the first few posts. A couple notes on the first two "axioms".

1. This is about physics (cosmology particularly). Neither cosmology or physics in general works on axioms.

2. These aren't axioms. They are claims "Matter and energy are finite." & "Space is infinite."

3. These claims are not consistent. If space is infinite, and the matter density or energy density are non-zero, then the total matter in the Universe must be infinite, and so must the total energy.

I don't see any point with the rest of this.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,687
8,039
US
✟1,060,823.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
3. These claims are not consistent. If space is infinite, and the matter density or energy density are non-zero, then the total matter in the Universe must be infinite, and so must the total energy.
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that a quantifiable object cannot be contained in an indefinite amount of space?

















.......now where did that nickel of mine roll off to?
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
This concept might seem a bit abstract to you; but I would infer that what created all that is concrete; must transcend all that which is concrete. What would you infer?
As far as creation or beginnings of the universe, I see nothing to support any particular inference, so I wouldn't infer anything. If by transcend you mean "prior to", then I would tend to disagree. If time only began when the universe began, then by definition there cannot be a "prior to". As far as a First Cause is concerned, I'm not convinced a First Cause is required. I find the whole cosmological argument unsatisfactory, and my understanding of modern physics is that causality is not necessary in all models.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,687
8,039
US
✟1,060,823.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
If by transcend you mean "prior to", then I would tend to disagree. If time only began when the universe began, then by definition there cannot be a "prior to".
If motion is dependent on time; and nothing were to exist in motion; and time could exist with neither the motion it defines, nor an an observer to ponder the abstraction; I would struggle to make a case that it would exist.

As far as a First Cause is concerned, I'm not convinced a First Cause is required.

No causality?!? Causality is a fundamental of Physical science.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Again; if the Universe is by definition "all that exists" it would defy logic for there to be more than one don't cha think?
OK, so for purposes of argument we will take the universe to be all that exists, whether just this space-time manifold or including others if there are any. What's your point?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
OK, so for purposes of argument we will take the universe to be all that exists, whether just this space-time manifold or including others if there are any. What's your point?
You can't be "A" and "-A" at the same time, we must either change the definition of Universe (from all that exists, to something else) or recognize there can't be multiple of them.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You can't be "A" and "-A" at the same time, we must either change the definition of Universe (from all that exists, to something else) or recognize there can't be multiple of them.
Why? It's just a word. You can specify a working definition for it. It can either mean just the connected space-time manifold in which we find ourselves or the meaning can be expanded to include other space-time manifolds which we hypothesize--although it appears that there is already a term in use for that concept.

You also quoted an axiom of two-value propositional logic. To what end?

What point are you trying to make?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,687
8,039
US
✟1,060,823.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Causality is not well defined is what I should have said.

Seems clear as day to me.

cau·sal·i·ty
/kôˈzalədē/

noun

  • 1. the relationship between cause and effect.
  • 2. the principle that everything has a cause.


What part do you have trouble with?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Seems clear as day to me.

cau·sal·i·ty
/kôˈzalədē/

noun

  • 1. the relationship between cause and effect.
  • 2. the principle that everything has a cause.


What part do you have trouble with?
Very funny. But of course you know he meant as a physical phenomenon, not a word.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Why? It's just a word.
It's a word that has specific meaning.

You can specify a working definition for it. It can either mean just the connected space-time manifold in which we find ourselves
Universe is not defined as a space-time manifold, it's defined as ALL that exists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
It's a word that has specific meaning.


Universe is not defined as a space-time manifold, it's defined as ALL that exists.
OK, but I still don't see what your point is. However you wish to define it, the "universe" is not known by science to have had a definite beginning.
 
Upvote 0