- Jul 9, 2002
- 2,929
- 725
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
So we really don’t need to pursue evidences for my faith at this time… I’ll respond here anyways and refrain from offering new evidences, or at least ones that do not bear directly upon our discussion. I’d like to continue the topic of how we deal with reality at some point, but for now let’s see where this discussion leads us.
Indeed. I concede the philosophical portion of this argument. I remembered after posting this that there was a valid argument against this proof, but couldn’t remember what it was. Sorry for wasting your time. I will add this, though, because I don’t know whether your reason for denying the need for a cause of the Big Bang singularity was the same as mine: the laws of our universe, and therefore our concept of time (which Einstein proved to be a physical property of our universe) is negated, and it is possible that causality loses all meaning at a singularity. So in the absence of time as we know it, the laws of cause and effect, as we know them, cease to exist as well. This seems to render meaningless the question of how long a singularity has existed, particularly when it is the only part of space-time that exists. Even so, the evidence pointing in the direction of a beginning leads a large percentage of scientists to the theory that there was one. The failure of my logical proof does not negate the fact that the Big Bang Theory indicates, even though it doesn’t require, a universal beginning; and this is evidence that supports my faith according to the definition of evidence I post below.
In the previous paragraph I explained that at a singularity the laws of our universe break down, thus negating the laws of time and cause… in the absence of time, beginning and causality as we understand them have no meaning. In a similar way, existence outside of our universe implies the absence of space-time as we know it; thus a transcendent God (one that exists beyond our universe) needs no cause. Before you argue that the Big Bang singularity is a more rational 1st cause than God, consider that the word “universe” is a relatively modern term, and we use it to describe the physical reality that we see and observe. However, recent advancements in science have strongly suggested that there is reality OUTSIDE our visible universe, and thus the Big Bang singularity existed within this reality… The Bible states that God exists outside time (Isa 57:15), and it also states that there is a reality beyond our physical universe [the third heaven spoken of by the Apostle Paul indicates something beyond 1st our atmosphere (Gen 1:20), and 2nd beyond the stars (Gen 1:14-16)].
evidence v 1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood, 2. a mark or sign that makes evident; indication his pallor was evidence of ill health
ev·i·dencen 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. 2.Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face. 3. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
evidence, proof - Evidence—from Latin e-, "out," and videre, "to see"— is information that helps form a conclusion; proof is factual information that verifies a conclusion.
I think the bolded definitions are accurate… I also included the contrast of evidence and proof found at the bottom of the page because I think you might be confusing the two. Proof is a stronger word than evidence, and I expect a stronger case to be made to say that something is proof than to say it is evidence. Again I apologize for using the logical syllogism that implied proof, my mistake. Although the idea that the universe had a beginning cannot be proven empirically, there is strong evidence leading a large percentage of scientists towards that conclusion (note I am not declaring unanimous agreement, or even general consensus, here). The Bible does teach that the universe had a beginning, and I stand by that as being something acceptable as evidence in light of current accepted theory.
First, you’re taking a hard line literalist interpretation of the Bible by claiming Job 38:13 and similar verses describe a flat earth. I do not interpret the Bible in this extreme literalist way, and neither do the vast majority of Christians. It should be noted that both “the ends of the earth” and also similar phrases like “the rising of the sun” are STILL IN COMMON USAGE as figures of speech. Are you implying that the people who use this language believe in a flat earth and geocentric universe? These phrases are figures of speech utilized to express thought in a nonliteral way, yet still conveying a literal truth (i.e., the sun appearing over the horizon of the earth). Your quotation from Job 38:13 is actually a poor example of what I am trying to convey, since it is more an instance of a failure in translation. The Hebrew word translated “ends” here is defined by the New American Standard Hebrew and Greek Dictionary as: H3671 kanaph; from an unused word; wing, extremity. This word does not properly denote an edge or end, but the extreme parts like the wings of a bird (its primary literal meaning). It was also used for extremities of distance, which was the case in this verse, and time. When used of the earth, it should be translated as “the farthest reaches of the earth”, or the literal meaning “wings of the earth” given for poetic effect. This word in no way teaches a flat earth)... do you think the ancient Hebrews believed in flat 2 dimensional birds? The verse was understood poorly by the medieval church, and translated poorly into English in the 1500-1600’s; even in modern translations this mistake is retained largely due to the acceptance of “the ends of the earth” as a figure of speech we could all understand. Your reference to the earth being "spread out" in Isaiah 42:5 was also a translation failure, this time it was due to figurative language... the Hebrew word translated "spread" was: H7554 raqa; a prim. root; to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out. It was a metal working word used to figuratively describe the making of the earth in those terms. Just in case you were wondering, the word stretched out was properly translated, and it figuratively describes God's work in creating space in terms that would normaly be used to describe unrolling the skins of a tent or stretching out on the ground (lying down).
On a side note regarding God and eternity, I find it interesting that the concept of a Being who experiences no time but exists in an “eternal now” (for lack of better terms) is to us an intellectual singularity… at this idea our intellect and experience break down the same way that our physical laws break down at a singularity in space-time. This is the essence of Isaiah 55:8-9 NKJV: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. (9) "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.” Knowing that the ideas of past, present and future do not apply to God is at times helpful in interpreting the Bible… you being aware of this this may help our discussion if we look at Biblical apologetics at some point.
Sorry for such a long post. I tried to avoid digressing from the topic, but felt that my side notes were, with the exception of that last paragraph, necessary to bring across what I was trying to say.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
