Creation started with nothing?

razzelflabben · May 18, 2007

gluadys said:
You really have a bee in your bonnet about evolution haven't you? I said before I am willing to discuss it in another thread. It just derails the conversation here.

How be I start another thread with the question above and answer it there, where we can focus on evolution.

My only interest here on evolution and if you were reading for comprehension you would know this, is the comparison of how we deal with the beginnings of the accounts. It is merely a comparison and not a suggestion that we discuss it. In fact, I agree that evolution doesn't deal with how the single celled pop came to be, but that it exists is part of the equasion. this is a wonderful comparison to what I am saying about creation which is why it was included. so instead of listening to what is being said and seeing the comparison, go off on some tangent and change the topic and then tell me I am the one not listening....

Meanwhile try to wrap your head around the fact that whether Christians accept or reject evolution, they agree on the divine creation of the universe and all that is in it.

What is there to wrap my brain around, I have never said otherwise, though you have tried to make it sound as though I have, the truth is that I have not.

Actually, Genesis, and all the creation texts in scripture, are focused mostly on the who. God created. God created everything. There is nothing other than God that God did not create. There is no eternal matter or primal matrix. There are no gods begotten of the universe. There are no other gods than God involved in shaping the universe. There is no pre-existing matter from which the universe was made.

It is God, God and only God who created all things.

and....... I said this in the last post, that the point of Gen. is about dieties not about how life was created. So now you come and try to make it sound like I don't already know this? what do you possibly hope to gain?

Well, that is limiting the story to only a part of the story. God created living beings, but also a great many other things as well.

If you want to focus on the creation of life on earth, we can do that in the other thread.

What I said in the OP is that if we look at the Gen account of creation, where does it say that God created something from nothing. Thus the stage is set for a discussion about the actual hows of creation as put forth in Gen. See, we have sufficient background information in the OP to establish what the topic of discussion is. And that topic is not what the intent of Gen. is, you had your chance to discuss that and through it away in exchange for asserting that you are always right thus there is no room for discussion only for bowing to your assertions. Because I refused to bow to your assertions, you got mad and left the discussion and if memory suffices, we didn't even get past vs. 1.

So now we come to another discussion about Gen. the OP establishes that we are talking about the hows not the whos and therefore, your premise from the start of this discussion appears to have been flawed and based on your own bias rather than on actual listening.

razzelflabben · May 18, 2007

jeff992 said:
Well there seem to be three option in all of this. Gen. 1:1 is obviously the key verse to look at to me.

1. It could be the commencement of the 7 days and the actual beggining of our universe (creation ex nihilo).
Some verses that go with this would probably be john 1:1 and Proverbs 8:22.

2. That matter has always existed and God formed it.

3. That matter and energy had existed previously but God had already made it in some sort of time.

(if you can think of any others let me know)

I personally think that creation ex nihilo makes the most sense based on what we know in cosmology. Even alot of atheists believe that the Big Bang came from nothing. I think the actual passage is in line with ex nihilo because he created not just the earth, but the heavens formless. This would imply to me that he just made matter formless. I am not sure what the original Hebrew or Greek says but this makes the most sense to me.

is there anything you can add for or against?

What I would add will really throw some for a loop. First, I would on a personal belief level agree that the most likely senerio is that God created the heavens and earth from nothing, however that being said, that is my personal opinion and is not based on evidence that is solid or without question.

The OP deals with what the bible tells us not about what my personal opinion is. Therefore to answer the OP, I would have to say we simply don't know. Therefore two different questions can be asked and answered. As an outsider dealing with the OP. I would have to say WE DON'T KNOW!

In talking to people who over the course of time I have gotten to know on some level, I would say that personally I do believe the the heavens and earth were created from nothing (the repeat was for gluady's benefit). So then in other discussions, the key to understanding to to identify what the context of the discussion is. Are we talking about what the bible says or what our personal feeling are? When that context is identified then the discussion would flow, and that discussion would be very different depending on the context stated. Oh, one last point for gluady's benefit, somtimes context is directly stated and sometimes it is implied, but rarely is it missing altogether.

Mark2010 · May 18, 2007

OK, so the heavens and earth were created from nothing, but only the beginning parts. It was not a finished product, but one that had to evolve over time from a tiny bit after it was initially created?

So this would pretty much throw out the idea of a literal six days that would include plants, animals and humans?

jeff992 · May 18, 2007

Mark2010 said:
OK, so the heavens and earth were created from nothing, but only the beginning parts. It was not a finished product, but one that had to evolve over time from a tiny bit after it was initially created?

So this would pretty much throw out the idea of a literal six days that would include plants, animals and humans?

The first part i would strongly agree with but the second part is debatable and in my opinion really does not matter one way or the other.

gluadys · May 18, 2007

Mark2010 said:
OK, so the heavens and earth were created from nothing, but only the beginning parts. It was not a finished product, but one that had to evolve over time from a tiny bit after it was initially created?

So this would pretty much throw out the idea of a literal six days that would include plants, animals and humans?

If you take the scientific findings seriously, yes, there is no way that is compatible with a literal six-day creation.

But the basic principle does apply even with a literal interpretation of the story. We do begin with an unformed, uninhabited mix of "waters" or some sort of chaos, to which God gives form and life over the six days of creation.

jeff992 · May 18, 2007

razzelflabben said:
What I would add will really throw some for a loop. First, I would on a personal belief level agree that the most likely senerio is that God created the heavens and earth from nothing, however that being said, that is my personal opinion and is not based on evidence that is solid or without question.

The OP deals with what the bible tells us not about what my personal opinion is. Therefore to answer the OP, I would have to say we simply don't know. Therefore two different questions can be asked and answered. As an outsider dealing with the OP. I would have to say WE DON'T KNOW!

In talking to people who over the course of time I have gotten to know on some level, I would say that personally I do believe the the heavens and earth were created from nothing (the repeat was for gluady's benefit). So then in other discussions, the key to understanding to to identify what the context of the discussion is. Are we talking about what the bible says or what our personal feeling are? When that context is identified then the discussion would flow, and that discussion would be very different depending on the context stated. Oh, one last point for gluady's benefit, somtimes context is directly stated and sometimes it is implied, but rarely is it missing altogether.

So what evidence do you have that might support your conclusion even if it is not solid?

What did you think of my last comment about the non-existance of the actual infinite in our universe?

jeff992 · May 18, 2007

gluadys said:
If you take the scientific findings seriously, yes, there is no way that is compatible with a literal six-day creation.

But the basic principle does apply even with a literal interpretation of the story. We do begin with an unformed, uninhabited mix of "waters" or some sort of chaos, to which God gives form and life over the six days of creation.

You've probably already said this, but what scientific findings could you point me too and how do you answer people who say that the universe was created with appearance of age?

gluadys · May 18, 2007

jeff992 said:
You've probably already said this, but what scientific findings could you point me too

Where do you want to start? I have over 30 sites bookmarked and that is only scratching the surface. And as I am a non-scientist, it doesn't include primary sources such as scientific journals.

Here is a fairly friendly outline of Big Bang theory

http://www.amtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html

and how do you answer people who say that the universe was created with appearance of age?

That they are flirting with Hinduism and the denial of the reality of creation.

Creation does not just show appearance of age; it shows marks of actual history. A history that is only a figment of the imagination if it is not real.

Now if God puts an imaginary history into his creation, how can you know that he wouldn't also put an imaginary story of redemption into scripture?

If you can't trust God to give us a real creation, why trust him to give us a real Saviour?

jeff992 · May 18, 2007

gluadys said:
Where do you want to start? I have over 30 sites bookmarked and that is only scratching the surface. And as I am a non-scientist, it doesn't include primary sources such as scientific journals.

Here is a fairly friendly outline of Big Bang theory

http://www.amtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html

this really wasn't what i was looking for. It just states the Big Bang happened, which I stated earlier. The question becomes what caused the big bang. But anyways, that wasn't what we were discussing. How do you know that after the "Big Bang" (Caused by God), God did not form everything in six literal days but used evolution. I might agree with you. I just want to know how you came to this conclusion.

gluadys said:
That they are flirting with Hinduism and the denial of the reality of creation.

Creation does not just show appearance of age; it shows marks of actual history. A history that is only a figment of the imagination if it is not real.

Now if God puts an imaginary history into his creation, how can you know that he wouldn't also put an imaginary story of redemption into scripture?

If you can't trust God to give us a real creation, why trust him to give us a real Saviour?

Again, prove to me that he did not form the earth as we know it with age since logically everything would need to be fully formed. Again, i might agree with you on this point.

gluadys · May 19, 2007

jeff992 said:
this really wasn't what i was looking for. It just states the Big Bang happened, which I stated earlier. The question becomes what caused the big bang.

Well that is still a scientific unknown.

But anyways, that wasn't what we were discussing. How do you know that after the "Big Bang" (Caused by God), God did not form everything in six literal days but used evolution. I might agree with you. I just want to know how you came to this conclusion.

Well there is a lot that happens after the Big Bang before you ever get to evolution. There is over 9 billion years of cosmic history before the solar system is formed, and another billion years of early earth history before we have signs of life. Evolution only begins with the existence of life.

The dating has been worked out in various ways by scientists in the appropriate fields. I don't have the math and physics background to properly explain it, and if you don't have a much better math and physics background than I have, it probably wouldn't mean a lot to you anyway.

However, if you want to check some of this out, you might read A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, which is a good layman's guide to the Big Bang.

When we get to the history of earth, the initial work on the age of the earth was done by geologists of the 18th and 19th centuries and has been confirmed by later studies. Interestingly, most of these early geologists were Christians (some clergy) who were looking for scientific evidence of the biblical flood. So they had no anti-biblical preconceptions. Check out the on-line summary of Davis Young's book on The Biblical Flood, which I reference in my signature. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

So I basically came to my conclusions the same way the Christians of two centuries ago did--although I did so at second hand, by learning about the research they did and why they came to the conclusions that they did.

Creation itself tells us that it is very old and came to its present form gradually over eons of time. And there is no reason we should doubt the evidence of creation itself. After all, God made it.

Again, prove to me that he did not form the earth as we know it with age since logically everything would need to be fully formed.

Sorry, I don't see that it is logically required that creation have its present form when it was first created. Cosmological development (and later evolutionary development) are perfectly consistent with belief in creation. Why would everything have to begin in its current form when we have perfectly good explanations for how the present developed out of the past? And we also have evidence that the past was not the same as the present. e.g. trilobites were a common life form in the past but do not exist today.

jeff992 · May 19, 2007

gluadys said:
Well that is still a scientific unknown.

That is what I am saying. The Big Bang was the act caused by God. It's the only thing that fits with current cosmology. By what you are saying I would put into question whether you are truly a theist.

gluadys said:
Well there is a lot that happens after the Big Bang before you ever get to evolution. There is over 9 billion years of cosmic history before the solar system is formed, and another billion years of early earth history before we have signs of life. Evolution only begins with the existence of life.

I am very sorry, I have no problem with you asserting evolution but this is not good. You are succumbing to the atheists. In all you've said, there is no place for God, and this is just not the case. I am not saying I disagree I just want some clear thinking so i can engage.

1. How did all of the solar system form randomly?

2.how do you know it took that long. Why could the solar system not have formed right after the big bang?

3. How did everything come together? All these centers of gravity just formed and everything came around it?

gluadys said:
However, if you want to check some of this out, you might read A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, which is a good layman's guide to the Big Bang.

I am familiar with Stephen Hawking and with what he suggests in that an actual infinity does not exist, it was God who started the Big Bang singularity, not some scientific "thing".

gluadys said:
Sorry, I don't see that it is logically required that creation have its present form when it was first created. Cosmological development (and later evolutionary development) are perfectly consistent with belief in creation. Why would everything have to begin in its current form when we have perfectly good explanations for how the present developed out of the past? And we also have evidence that the past was not the same as the present. e.g. trilobites were a common life form in the past but do not exist today.

Okoms Razor. Seems perfectly good explanation to me that everything came out as is and it looked aged.

I am not saying i disagree with you on the evolution part, or the forming of the universe after the Big Bang, and I agree with you on cosmological devolpment but i think you are asserting the wrong conclusions.

gluadys · May 19, 2007

jeff992 said:
That is what I am saying. The Big Bang was the act caused by God. It's the only thing that fits with current cosmology.

Oh, I agree. But that is a belief. It cannot be a scientific conclusion. Science can't say what caused the Big Bang, but Christians can.

By what you are saying I would put into question whether you are truly a theist.

Why? Just because science can't speak about God doesn't prevent me from believing in God.

You seemed to be asking for a scientific explanation and there isn't one. I regret if I misunderstood you. I was taking it for granted that we both believe in creation.

I am very sorry, I have no problem with you asserting evolution but this is not good. You are succumbing to the atheists. In all you've said, there is no place for God, and this is just not the case. I am not saying I disagree I just want some clear thinking so i can engage.

As I said, I thought you were asking about the science. Science does not deny God, but it doesn't affirm God either. You don't find references to God (either positive or negative) in science. You find evidence and mathematics and theories.

Nothing I said requires atheism. Nothing science says requires atheism.

1. How did all of the solar system form randomly?

2.how do you know it took that long. Why could the solar system not have formed right after the big bang?

3. How did everything come together? All these centers of gravity just formed and everything came around it?

Well now I am confused. These sound like scientific questions. They have scientific answers, but you objected to scientific answers.

For example, in response to #2, we know from the chemical composition of our solar system that it is a secondary formation as it contains elements that could only be formed in a previously existing star that went supernova. It could not have been formed immediately after the big bang, as another star would need to be formed first, run through its main sequence to a super-nova stage (a process that takes millions to billions of years) and then go supernova to release the complex elements we find in our solar system.

(A physics text on how elements are synthesized in stars will explain this in detail.)

What do you mean by "random"?

Gravity does play a key role in forming stars, galaxies, etc. Gravity can play the role it does because the expansion of the universe is not perfectly smooth. Again, a good primer on cosmology will cover this. One lay description I found helpful is The Life of the Cosmas by Lee Smolin.

Now these are all scientific answers and they make sense if you grasp the physical properties of atoms and sub-atomic particles.

But they are not theological answers.

I guess my question would be, why would you see any of the science as excluding God? Why assume that belief in God requires doubting that scientists can measure these things with some accuracy? (e.g the mass of an electron, the chemical composition of a star, the length of time it takes for a process to run its course, etc.)

I am familiar with Stephen Hawking and with what he suggests in that an actual infinity does not exist, it was God who started the Big Bang singularity, not some scientific "thing".

I had the impression Stephen Hawking is an atheist, so you may be reading a bit into his work. Not that I object in this case.

Science does not describe what started the Big Bang at all as it has no way of finding that out. Lots of speculative ideas going around, but until there is a way to test them, this will remain an unknown from a science stand-point.

Okoms Razor. Seems perfectly good explanation to me that everything came out as is and it looked aged.

Well, to each his own as far as what seems "good". I just don't see anything "better" about beginning in the middle as it were. What's the objection to starting small and simple and letting things develop over time?

I am not saying i disagree with you on the evolution part, or the forming of the universe after the Big Bang, and I agree with you on cosmological devolpment but i think you are asserting the wrong conclusions.

Well, I am stating accepted scientific conclusions as far as I understand them. Barring errors on my part, if they are wrong, your quarrel is not with me, but with the science. You would have to show where the scientists are mistaken.

If the scientists are not mistaken about the science, then I have problems with a theology that requires rejecting it. Good science is a good description of God's creation. What reason would there be to deny what God created?

jeff992 · May 20, 2007

gluadys said:
Oh, I agree. But that is a belief. It cannot be a scientific conclusion. Science can't say what caused the Big Bang, but Christians can

Well technically everything past the Big Bang would be considered in a less than scientific thing. I'n sorry, I thought you were somehow asserting that God was not the answer but science would eventually figure it out. I do not completely agree that the study of God cannot be scientific because we can look at the effects. Would you call string theory or looking at things like quarks (which we cannot see, only predict) as scientific? These are examples of things that are based on inferential evidence, or seeing the effect of something on something else (whether seen or unseen).

gluadys said:
Why? Just because science can't speak about God doesn't prevent me from believing in God.

Again, inference.

gluadys said:
You seemed to be asking for a scientific explanation and there isn't one. I regret if I misunderstood you. I was taking it for granted that we both believe in creation.

Yes, misunderstanding. I believe in creation but i thought you were asserting that there is no need for it.

gluadys said:
As I said, I thought you were asking about the science. Science does not deny God, but it doesn't affirm God either. You don't find references to God (either positive or negative) in science. You find evidence and mathematics and theories.

Again, I disagree. New devlopments as far as Big Bang cosmology and time are closer to affirming the need for a "being" that is eternal and very powerful.

gluadys said:
Well now I am confused. These sound like scientific questions. They have scientific answers, but you objected to scientific answers?

I don't think i objected to any, i was originally asking for proof about evolution.

gluadys said:
I guess my question would be, why would you see any of the science as excluding God? Why assume that belief in God requires doubting that scientists can measure these things with some accuracy? (e.g the mass of an electron, the chemical composition of a star, the length of time it takes for a process to run its course, etc.)

Oh I don't doubt this at all. I believe that you can believe in GOd and do first-class scientific study and come up with 100% right conclusion. I know people who do. I have not disagreed with anything you have said, I just wanted to know how you got the conclusion that evolution is 100% true.

gluadys said:
I had the impression Stephen Hawking is an atheist, so you may be reading a bit into his work. Not that I object in this case.

Oh he was an atheist. He just had no idea as to what his study would lead to as far as theism is concerned. His on the non-existence of an actual infinity provide the basis for the kaalam cosmological argument, which i agree 100% with myself and have done alot of study on. Top-notch stuff.

gluadys said:
Science does not describe what started the Big Bang at all as it has no way of finding that out. Lots of speculative ideas going around, but until there is a way to test them, this will remain an unknown from a science stand-point.

I think i agreed with this earlier.

gluadys said:
Well, to each his own as far as what seems "good". I just don't see anything "better" about beginning in the middle as it were. What's the objection to starting small and simple and letting things develop over time?

Why wait that long when you could have it all instantly? Okam's razor in God's view. Although time doesn't really exist to him. Oh well, it makes more sense to me (not saying it's true)

gluadys said:
Well, I am stating accepted scientific conclusions as far as I understand them. Barring errors on my part, if they are wrong, your quarrel is not with me, but with the science. You would have to show where the scientists are mistaken.

If the scientists are not mistaken about the science, then I have problems with a theology that requires rejecting it. Good science is a good description of God's creation. What reason would there be to deny what God created?

I have no problem with the science. I misunderstood your conclusions. I agree with you completely. i dont have any quarrel with you or your science. I agree with you on the Big Bang cosmology. I guess my real question is, how did you become a theist?

gluadys · May 20, 2007

jeff992 said:
Well technically everything past the Big Bang would be considered in a less than scientific thing. I'n sorry, I thought you were somehow asserting that God was not the answer but science would eventually figure it out. I do not completely agree that the study of God cannot be scientific because we can look at the effects.

Well, science can never get from the study of effects to identifying God as the cause. In some cases it can acknowledge that the cause is currently unknown. But it is theologically dangerous to identify gaps in scientific knowledge with evidence for God. That becomes god-of-the-gaps thinking. What is wrong with that is that it limits God to the gaps. But actually, God is also the ultimate cause of what is known as well as what is not yet known. Yet, strangely, we don't often call on what is known as evidence of God.

Would you call string theory or looking at things like quarks (which we cannot see, only predict) as scientific? These are examples of things that are based on inferential evidence, or seeing the effect of something on something else (whether seen or unseen).

I honestly don't know. My background in physics is too weak to form an opinion. If science can make useful predictions from their inferences, I would tend to think of it as science.

I don't think i objected to any, i was originally asking for proof about evolution.

Do you mean evidence? Science doesn't do proof.

Oh I don't doubt this at all. I believe that you can believe in GOd and do first-class scientific study and come up with 100% right conclusion. I know people who do. I have not disagreed with anything you have said, I just wanted to know how you got the conclusion that evolution is 100% true.

I think technically even a scientist would say that evolution is only 99.999....% true. But, as Stephen J. Gould once said, there comes a point where the evidence is so overwhelming that to refuse provisional assent to the theory is simply perverse.

The conclusion of evolution makes the best sense of the evidence, pure and simple. It is also the only theory in biology that makes useful predictions for future use.

Oh he was an atheist. He just had no idea as to what his study would lead to as far as theism is concerned. His on the non-existence of an actual infinity provide the basis for the kaalam cosmological argument, which i agree 100% with myself and have done alot of study on. Top-notch stuff.

Well, just as a matter of protocol and respect, I would be careful about saying that Hawking concluded something contrary to his own beliefs.

That doesn't mean it's wrong for you to draw the conclusions from his work that you do. But you should not attribute your conclusions to Hawking as if they were his.

Why wait that long when you could have it all instantly?

Why miss out on the fun of watching it develop? Would you trade the years of your child's growing up for an instant adult child?

Although time doesn't really exist to him. Oh well, it makes more sense to me (not saying it's true)

So for him it wasn't a long time anyway.

I guess my real question is, how did you become a theist?

I didn't become a theist. I always have been as far back as my memory goes.

Perhaps the better question is why do I remain a theist. And the bottom line for me is that I can't believe existence has no purpose. We are creatures that need meaning in our lives and I don't believe a need exists for which there is no fulfillment.

Closely related to that logic, is the revelation in Christ that God is love. I believe it was the love of God that created all things, it was for love that he created and by love that he redeems and preserves all the beauty and goodness of creation in eternity.

jeff992 · May 20, 2007

gluadys said:
Well, science can never get from the study of effects to identifying God as the cause. In some cases it can acknowledge that the cause is currently unknown. But it is theologically dangerous to identify gaps in scientific knowledge with evidence for God. That becomes god-of-the-gaps thinking. What is wrong with that is that it limits God to the gaps. But actually, God is also the ultimate cause of what is known as well as what is not yet known. Yet, strangely, we don't often call on what is known as evidence of God..

I don't think you understand my reasoning. You are right, we need to avoid God of the gaps and we through science we can't identify a "certain" "God" but we can reason out some sort of an infinite, powerful, transcendent being. From this, we can find out about this being through Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection, and then through the Bible. From Stephen Hawkings conclusion (and many other cosmologists) that there is no actual infinite and the application of things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is reasonable to assume that the unverse began to exist and therefore it needs a creator, or reason for it's existence. I am saying not that God is 100% proovable, but that God makes sense considering what we know in science. DO you agree?

gluadys said:
Do you mean evidence? Science doesn't do proof..

Yes, i am aware of this. Evidence.

Well, just as a matter of protocol and respect, I would be careful about saying that Hawking concluded something contrary to his own beliefs.

gluadys said:
That doesn't mean it's wrong for you to draw the conclusions from his work that you do. But you should not attribute your conclusions to Hawking as if they were his..

I am not doing that. I am not drawing complete conclusions. BUT his work has truth in it, in that there is a lack of existence of an ACTUAL infinite. That IS what he found. From ONLY this, the kaalam argument has formed. Just because he didn't draw the right conclusion or think it through all the way, doesn't mean we can't use the truth he found to make other conclusions considering other factors.

gluadys said:
I didn't become a theist. I always have been as far back as my memory goes.

Perhaps the better question is why do I remain a theist. And the bottom line for me is that I can't believe existence has no purpose. We are creatures that need meaning in our lives and I don't believe a need exists for which there is no fulfillment.

Closely related to that logic, is the revelation in Christ that God is love. I believe it was the love of God that created all things, it was for love that he created and by love that he redeems and preserves all the beauty and goodness of creation in eternity.

So what about ethics and the evidence surrounding the ressurrection of Jesus Christ? do you appeal to these?

gluadys · May 20, 2007

jeff992 said:
I don't think you understand my reasoning. You are right, we need to avoid God of the gaps and we through science we can't identify a "certain" "God" but we can reason out some sort of an infinite, powerful, transcendent being. From this, we can find out about this being through Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection, and then through the Bible.

Basically I agree with what you are saying, but I prefer not to mingle my beliefs with scientific conclusions as if they were necessary aspects of the science. You do realize that a non-Christian would view the scientific conclusions in light of a different set of beliefs and could well give them a different philosophical-theological twist.

I am saying not that God is 100% proovable, but that God makes sense considering what we know in science. DO you agree?

I agree, but I also recognize that I agree because I share the same beliefs. I would not expect someone who does not share that belief to agree. And that doesn't mean that one of us is misrepresenting the science. We can be in full accord on that and still disagree on any theological implications.

Just because he didn't draw the right conclusion or think it through all the way, doesn't mean we can't use the truth he found to make other conclusions considering other factors.

Agreed, but it would still be wrong to represent Hawking himself as coming to or agreeing with those conclusions. Building on the work of a predecessor is fine; calling it his work, rather than your own--especially if he would not likely agree with the conclusion--is not.

So what about ethics and the evidence surrounding the ressurrection of Jesus Christ? do you appeal to these?

No, though for different reasons.

On ethics there is a pretty general cross-cultural and cross-religious agreement on practical ethics i.e. the identification of certain behaviour as good and certain behaviour as not good. It is not a distinguishing feature of any faith or even of belief vs. unbelief. So it has no applicability as evidence for theism much less evidence for one particular form of theism.

On the resurrection, this would only apply to distinguishing one form of theism (Christianity) from other forms of theism (Judaism, Islam, Neo-pagan, etc.) Even on that basis, I would not say that evidence for the resurrection convinces me of the truth of Christianity. Rather I would say that because I am a Christian I believe in the resurrection.

jeff992 · May 20, 2007

gluadys said:
Basically I agree with what you are saying, but I prefer not to mingle my beliefs with scientific conclusions as if they were necessary aspects of the science. You do realize that a non-Christian would view the scientific conclusions in light of a different set of beliefs and could well give them a different philosophical-theological twist.

Who said anything about giving them a philosophical-theological twist? Are you aware that scientists are theorizing something about multiple universes colliding to make ours? How is this more scientific then postulizing some some sort of eternal being?

But anyway, here is the thing. One of the major problems with what you are proposing is that you basically don't believe in the ressurrection or miracles because they technically can't happen naturally. You would reject them based on what you have said.

But there is the question, who is right? Why can one not use science through things like the laws of thermoydynamics, the Big Bang and things of that nature to conclude the existence of God in the form of inference.

gluadys said:
I agree, but I also recognize that I agree because I share the same beliefs. I would not expect someone who does not share that belief to agree. And that doesn't mean that one of us is misrepresenting the science. We can be in full accord on that and still disagree on any theological implications.

Sure, that's a given. But there are other factors in determining any kind of supernatural like philosophy, logic, etc.

I think we are missing each other here. What are you saying about sience and do you think that science and the Christian God can agree and that they do?

gluadys said:
Agreed, but it would still be wrong to represent Hawking himself as coming to or agreeing with those conclusions. Building on the work of a predecessor is fine; calling it his work, rather than your own--especially if he would not likely agree with the conclusion--is not.

I never said anything of the sort. I cited his conclusion of the non-existance of infinity, just as like a sourcce. He wasn't a predesscor or anything, i was just citing what he said about infinity.

gluadys said:
No, though for different reasons.

On ethics there is a pretty general cross-cultural and cross-religious agreement on practical ethics i.e. the identification of certain behaviour as good and certain behaviour as not good. It is not a distinguishing feature of any faith or even of belief vs. unbelief. So it has no applicability as evidence for theism much less evidence for one particular form of theism.

On the resurrection, this would only apply to distinguishing one form of theism (Christianity) from other forms of theism (Judaism, Islam, Neo-pagan, etc.) Even on that basis, I would not say that evidence for the resurrection convinces me of the truth of Christianity. Rather I would say that because I am a Christian I believe in the resurrection.

I honestly say that i am very surprised you are a theist based on what you say. So you don't think Christianity can be based on reasonableness and evidence, just faith?

Is all evidence supporting science, direct evidence?NASA has taken pictures of Mars and announced that water once flowed there.
But they don't have pictures of water flowing on Mars.
Why do they think it once did? Cosmologists use particle accelerators to search for elementary particles.
They've announced they've discovered quarks, photons, etc. but they haven't
actually seen these particles. How do they know they exist? Not all science deals in direct evidence, but only in circumstantial evidence and inference. Another example, they think that some stars have planets not because they can detect the planets directly, visually or otherwise, but because the way the star behaves something else seems to be having an effect on it.
They infer that this something else is a planet orbiting that star. Again, inferential evidence.
Some science isn't even based on inferential evidence, only elegant mathematical theories that haven't been verified by experiment, string theory, for example.
Why, given that much of science is only supported by circumstantial evidence, inference and elegant, yet unproven theories, would you hold religion to a higher standard of proof? many people believe in a god due to circumstantial evidence and inference.

shernren · May 20, 2007

jeff992 said:
Who said anything about giving them a philosophical-theological twist? Are you aware that scientists are theorizing something about multiple universes colliding to make ours? How is this more scientific then postulizing some some sort of eternal being?

As someone interested in astronomy I'll say that to me, when scientists do that, it isn't really science. Yet. There are hints and bits and pieces of what it might actually mean to live in a multiverse; but I'd agree with you that due to the extreme dearth of evidence, multiverse ideas simply aren't on the level of hard science ...

... in the way that evolution is.

razzelflabben · May 21, 2007

gluadys said:
If you take the scientific findings seriously, yes, there is no way that is compatible with a literal six-day creation.

But the basic principle does apply even with a literal interpretation of the story. We do begin with an unformed, uninhabited mix of "waters" or some sort of chaos, to which God gives form and life over the six days of creation.

Biblically speaking, the length of day could vary until day four. Now that doesn't mean that the length of day changed, but I see nothing in the text that would tell us how long a day is time day four. Now look at the application of that. Vegatation was already created. So textually, day could (though I think it a weak arguement) be any length of time before day four.

razzelflabben · May 21, 2007

jeff992 said:
So what evidence do you have that might support your conclusion even if it is not solid?

since this whole thread has been talking about the evidence for what the bible says, I can only guess that you want evidence for my personal belief. That is a topic I don't like discussing because it is person opinion. Mostly it is based on traditional church teaching and traditions are often hard to break. I am slowly formulating evidence that would suggest that all of creation flows out of God. The more I study this concept, the more I see it consistant with the bible though I think this theory would also be weak, because I think we simply don't know. The beginnings of this idea would be that God is bigger that we can fathom. We would also move into God's nature. Consider this, God's very nature is Love, therefore Love flows from Him. If God's nature is one of creator, would creation not also flow from Him? Add to this Heb. 11 So that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Our "visual" of God is lacking for the most part, and yet He absolutely exists. So then that also would fit. Now this is just the beginnings of some thoughts and far from conclusive, but hopefully it answers some of your questions.

What did you think of my last comment about the non-existance of the actual infinite in our universe?

I think it is very interesting, with some very interesting concepts that I want to study more on. I would be happy for you to share more, but just like above, I would only have an elementary understanding of how to put these thoughts together and therefore not be able to offer much to our understanding I am afraid.

Creation started with nothing?

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

jeff992

Guest

Legend

jeff992

Guest

jeff992

Guest

Legend

jeff992

Guest

Legend

jeff992

Guest

Legend

jeff992

Guest

Legend

jeff992

Guest

Legend

jeff992

Guest

you are not reading this.

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency