How did the universe come into existence?

[Aman777]

The verse you quoted doesn't say anything of the sort.

Correction: You don't understand that it does. Here's the verse:

Heb 11:3 ¶ Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

God is telling us that the energy side of matter doesn't appear to the naked eye unless it's released. ie. Lightening You cannot see the energy side of matter which God changed into the physical matter in our physical world but it's there. Lord God/Jesus changed some of the air, dust and water which God created in the beginning BACK into ENERGY some 13.8 Billion years ago, on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 As the energy cooled over the next one Billion years, the first stars lit up on the 4th Day Gen 1:16 which was only a Billion years AFTER the Big Bang. This means that it was late on the 3rd Day since each of God's Days/Ages is some 4 Billion years in length in man's time.

The First Stars in the Universe - Scientific American
The First Stars in the Universe
Jan 19, 2009 - The earliest stars also produced and dispersed the first heavy elements, ... on distant galaxies and quasars that emitted their light billions of years ago. ... But by a billion years after the big bang, some bright galaxies and quasars ...

Albert Einstein found that matter times the speed of light squared or E=mc2 changes matter back into energy. ie. Atomic Bomb. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Probably in the same way they "knew" that it is possible to take a handful of dirt and make a person. Are you implying that this is what we will be able to do next?

Of course, ancient men didn´t know anything like this - it´s you reverse engineering a prediction into the biblical creation narrative.

No, it's me showing you what Genesis actually says instead of what some ancient superstitious theologian THOUGHT it said. I do this because God hid His Truth in the FIRST Chapter of Genesis and ONLY the people of the last days can possibly understand, since they have the "increased knowledge" to unlock God's mystery. God told Daniel how to do it:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

We live today in the last days, when the internet has increased the availability of accessing the increased knowledge, we have today. When we compare what Genesis actually says with today's increased knowledge of Science and History, we find that they AGREE in every way. It's proof of God, since ONLY God could have known this more than 3k years ago and ONLY the people of the last days of this Earth can possibly understand His superior intelligence in writing Genesis this way. Our God is an Awesome God.

 

[Aman777]

The fact we have intelligence isn't proof of god.

Try again.

Sure it is UNLESS you can tell us how long, gradual, periods of time, and numerous mutations, with NO direction, hit the jackpot and magically changed Apes into Humans. You cannot and neither can ANY other evolutionist. What it demonstrates is that evolutionists don't believe God since they THINK they are smarter than God.

They're not, since they forgot about the Flood. It's the Achilles Heel of the False ToE. ll Peter 3:3-7 Sorry, but that's God's Truth Scripturally, Scientifically and Historically. The ToE is False in every way. God Bless you

 

[variant]

Correction: You don't understand that it does. Here's the verse:

Heb 11:3 ¶ Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

God is telling us that the energy side of matter doesn't appear to the naked eye unless it's released. ie. Lightening You cannot see the energy side of matter which God changed into the physical matter in our physical world but it's there. Lord God/Jesus changed some of the air, dust and water which God created in the beginning BACK into ENERGY some 13.8 Billion years ago, on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 As the energy cooled over the next one Billion years, the first stars lit up on the 4th Day Gen 1:16 which was only a Billion years AFTER the Big Bang. This means that it was late on the 3rd Day since each of God's Days/Ages is some 4 Billion years in length in man's time.

The First Stars in the Universe - Scientific American
The First Stars in the Universe
Jan 19, 2009 - The earliest stars also produced and dispersed the first heavy elements, ... on distant galaxies and quasars that emitted their light billions of years ago. ... But by a billion years after the big bang, some bright galaxies and quasars ...

Albert Einstein found that matter times the speed of light squared or E=mc2 changes matter back into energy. ie. Atomic Bomb. Amen?

Yeah, it doesn't say any of that.

I can tell because I have a decent amount of reading comprehension and can tell when something is said verses when it has not been said.

You simply making stuff up to suit your beliefs, isn't likely to convince anyone.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sure it is UNLESS you can tell us how long, gradual, periods of time, and numerous mutations, with NO direction, hit the jackpot and magically changed Apes into Humans. You cannot and neither can ANY other evolutionist. What it demonstrates is that evolutionists don't believe God since they THINK they are smarter than God.

Two points:

1) This is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy. The fact I could or could not prove an alternate idea is irrelevant to your claim being true. You need to prove your claim, if you can't then we have no reason to accept it.

2) Humans are apes, and we can prove that with genetics.

They're not, since they forgot about the Flood. It's the Achilles Heel of the False ToE. ll Peter 3:3-7 Sorry, but that's God's Truth Scripturally, Scientifically and Historically. The ToE is False in every way. God Bless you

There's no evidence the flood happened, and plenty of evidence that it didn't.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Or all people that are reasonably skeptical of shaky reasoning.

Cosmological arguments are usually quite hollow, thinly veiled appeals to ignorance.

Actually, the cosmological argument is based on knowledge, we know effects require causes and those causes must be adequate to produce the effects according to the law of sufficient cause.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I'm open minded, the problem is I keep hearing the same logically flawed arguments over and over again.

I'd love to hear something new that might actually demonstrate the god claims.

The cosmological argument is not flawed and the Bible is the only sacred book that teaches that the universe had a definite beginning, is expanding, and will run down energetically. These are the three main characteristics of the universe confirmed by the BB theory.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The cosmological argument is not flawed and the Bible is the only sacred book that teaches that the universe had a definite beginning, is expanding, and will run down energetically. These are the three main characteristics of the universe confirmed by the BB theory.

I've never seen a cosmological argument that wasn't logically flawed or proved the existence of a god. Do you have an example of a non-logically flawed cosmological argument?

I've read the bible, I must have missed the part where it makes those claims, or they weren't in there. What are you referring to?

 

[variant]

Actually, the cosmological argument is based on knowledge, we know effects require causes and those causes must be adequate to produce the effects according to the law of sufficient cause.

Which tells us what exactly?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Actually, the cosmological argument is based on knowledge, we know effects require causes and those causes must be adequate to produce the effects according to the law of sufficient cause.

There really is no "law" of sufficient cause. There's a Principle of Sufficient Reason, but it's not without controversy, and hardly considered a law.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There really is no "law" of sufficient cause. There's a Principle of Sufficient Reason, but it's not without controversy, and hardly considered a law.

Furthermore, cause and effect happen within the universe, and is necessarily temporal.

There's no reason to believe it applies to the universe as a whole, especially if it was in a state where time as we know it didn't exist.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

No, using a basic law of logic, ie Causality and its corollary, the law of sufficient cause, comes to the reasonable answer of the Christian God/Yahweh.

You can show Yahweh as the creator of the universe using logic? Please do.

Actually, the cosmological argument is based on knowledge, we know effects require causes and those causes must be adequate to produce the effects according to the law of sufficient cause.

You are appealing to physical laws of the universe as we know it to describe what is beyond the universe. So something that "exists" outside of our universe has to adhere to the rules that came into existence with the creation of said universe?

 

[Ed1wolf]

How do you figure that?

Most of the evidence points to the universe being an effect. Things that have a beginning and/or changes is an effect. The BB theory has confirmed that these are characteristics of the universe. According to logic the cause of the universe must be transcendent to the universe it cannot be part of the effect. This is true of the Christian God. Also, purposes exist in the universe, such as eyes for seeing and ears for hearing. Only a personal being can create purposes, therefore the cause of the universe is personal. Also, the universe is diversity within a unity, just like the Triune Christian God. When someone creates something there are characteristics of the creator/designer that point to the identity of that creator or designer. So that diversity within a unity points to the Christian God as the creator of this universe.

 

[Ed1wolf]

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, if the reasoning winds up being logical, reasonable and backed by evidence, then we'd have to accept it.

The problem is, I've never been presented with anything that is logically sound and reasonable that shows a god exists. Do you have an example of something?

See above.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Most of the evidence points to the universe being an effect. Things that have a beginning and/or changes is an effect. The BB theory has confirmed that these are characteristics of the universe.

Not necessarily, cause and effect is temporal in nature and applies to things within the universe. From what we can tell time itself started with the big bang. You can't have cause and effect without time. If the big bang is the effect, there is no "before" for a cause to exist in.

You can't apply the rules that govern this universe onto whatever exists outside of the universe. There may be something like time that exists outside of this universe, or the laws of physics may be wildly different. We have no idea.

According to logic the cause of the universe must be transcendent to the universe it cannot be part of the effect. This is true of the Christian God.

It's also true of Keith, the transcendent universe creating rhinoceros.

Also, purposes exist in the universe, such as eyes for seeing and ears for hearing. Only a personal being can create purposes, therefore the cause of the universe is personal.

You're asserting purpose where there's no apparent purpose. Just because you can see with your eyes doesn't mean they were designed purposefully to see. Evidence strongly suggests they evolved naturally.

Also, the universe is diversity within a unity, just like the Triune Christian God. When someone creates something there are characteristics of the creator/designer that point to the identity of that creator or designer. So that diversity within a unity points to the Christian God as the creator of this universe.

So, because the universe has a lot of stuff in it, that points to the trinity?

That's one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard on here. What about polytheistic religions? There's lots of gods, more than just the three in one deal with Christianity. That could account for far more diversity. On the other hand, perhaps Keith the transcendent universe creating rhinoceros took interior decorating in universe creating college, and simply wanted a lot of variety in his design to add a little flair.

 

[Ed1wolf]

There really is no "law" of sufficient cause. There's a Principle of Sufficient Reason, but it's not without controversy, and hardly considered a law.

Not according to Aristotle's Laws of Logic, it is a corollary of the law of Causality.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You can show Yahweh as the creator of the universe using logic? Please do.

The BB theory has proven that the universe is an effect and therefore needs a cause. And since the universe contains purposes, such as the fact that the purpose of eyes is to see and ears are for hearing and etc. We know that only persons can create purposes, therefore the cause of the universe must be personal. Also, the universe is a diversity within a unity just like the nature of the Christian God, (His triune nature) points to Him being the creator just like art experts can study the characteristics of a painting and determine the painter.

gp: You are appealing to physical laws of the universe as we know it to describe what is beyond the universe. So something that "exists" outside of our universe has to adhere to the rules that came into existence with the creation of said universe?

No, the law of causality is a METAPHYSICAL law and therefore applies to both the physical universe AND beyond the universe, to things that are non-physical.

 

[quatona]

No, the law of causality is a METAPHYSICAL law and therefore applies to both the physical universe AND beyond the universe, to things that are non-physical.

So it applies to God, too?

 

[Dave Ellis]

The BB theory has proven that the universe is an effect and therefore needs a cause.

And since the universe contains purposes, such as the fact that the purpose of eyes is to see and ears are for hearing and etc. We know that only persons can create purposes, therefore the cause of the universe must be personal.

Also, the universe is a diversity within a unity just like the nature of the Christian God, (His triune nature) points to Him being the creator just like art experts can study the characteristics of a painting and determine the painter.

I already addressed these three exact points in my last post in this thread. Why are you using them without addressing the very plain flaws in the arguments that I raised?

No, the law of causality is a METAPHYSICAL law and therefore applies to both the physical universe AND beyond the universe, to things that are non-physical.

Can you prove that? Or is that just a bald assertion?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

No, the law of causality is a METAPHYSICAL law and therefore applies to both the physical universe AND beyond the universe, to things that are non-physical.

Please do tell me more about how you have learned about the nature of laws outside of our universe.