How did the universe come into existence?

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
How? Without God humans are just another animal and of no more objective value than a cockroach.
Click to expand...
↑
Fraid so, without God neither of those things exist objectively. They are just arbitrary things that people make up for the government to do or take away. If the Christian God exists then those things objectively exist and cannot be taken away without facing the consequences in either this life or the next or both.

de: Objective value doesn't exist, value is always relative to the person evaluating something and is therefore subjective. Even if a god is involved, our value to him is still subjective to the will of that god.

Even in things with a set value (for example a US $100 bill), the actual value can fluctuate wildly compared to other currencies and currency traders. Also, subjectivity enters into it where some people value money more than others. For example an out of work homeless guy would value a $100 bill far more than Bill Gates would.

No, if something exists outside of human minds and exists irrespective of human feelings, desires, and opinions then it exists objectively. God's valuing of humanity exists outside the mind of humanity and irrespective of any human belief or opinion, therefore it exists objectively.

de: For us, we value our lives and the lives of other humans. That's the only value that matters when it comes to morality and how we treat each other.

How do you know this? Not all humans agree with this. What about unborn humans? What about humans in a coma? That is just your subjective opinion based on your brain chemistry brought about by evolution. Stalin believed that the aristocracy and devout Christians deserved to die and be eliminated from society, his belief came from the same sources as yours, how do you know your brain chemistry is right and his is wrong?

↑

ed: I didn't say that Christians have always followed Gods laws and principles but we do have them as a standard and a goal. Why do you think that the first nations to outlaw slavery were ones based on Christian principles, ie Britain and the USA? And only western societies even have women's rights groups. As far as gay rights and trans rights, there are no such things. Those are just 21st century human constructs with no basis in reality or even nature. If you think they are real, please provide their origin.

de: Amazing, in one paragraph you simultaneously try to take credit for all the civil rights advances,

I am not taking credit, I am just stating historical facts.

de: while disregarding the modern day civil rights issues, just like Christians of 200 years ago argued in favour of slavery, and Christians of 100 years ago argued against universal suffrage, and the Christians of 50 years ago argued for segregation.

Many Biblical Christians argued against slavery 200 years ago. Most of the leaders of women's suffrage were Christians also. Many Christians argued against segregation 50 years ago.

de: Just like the Christians of 100 years from now will try to take credit for the gay and trans rights movements, and claim it was christian values that lead to their full and equal integration into society.

If they argue in favor of special sexual rights for gays then they will be violating orthodox Christian teaching and therefore are unlikely to actually be Christians. Transgenderism is something different from homosexuality. Science has not quite determined what it is. Most of the evidence points to it being a serious mental illness similar to anorexia since the person cannot seem to recognize reality. When they look in the mirror they see the opposite sex of what they are, just like when an anorexic looks in the mirror and sees a fat version of themselves when they are actually deathly thin. But there is a chance it could be a result of the fall of humanity and a sin distorted world where someone may actually be a female spirit or soul trapped in a male body or vice versa. So how they should be treated is still in flux. We do know that over 80% of children that believe that they are the opposite sex change that believe by the time they become adults. So using surgery and hormonal treatments on children is probably wrong.

de: Secular people like myself also have a standard, and a goal. I'd argue it's a far more defensible one, and a far better one than what you find in any holy book.

No, they are contradictory. Secular humanists can classify some humans as not worth saving from death Such as the very old and very young and very disabled. They don't have an objective standard by which they can be judged and be encouraged to work toward a superior standard because they don't have an objective one.

↑

ed: When properly understood from Gods perspective you would be amazed at how it has influenced society and the world. Look how the USA treated its enemies after WW2. Imagine what would be happening in our country if there were as many Muslims as there are Christians and the secular humanists were doing what they are doing to Christians. There would be much more violence because such a teaching is not a part of Islam. But you are right that Christians have not often obeyed it, because we are all sinners.

de:What would the secular humanists be doing that's a problem?

Devaluation of human life and reduction of first amendment rights to name two things. Indoctrinating of children in public schools to reject America's Christian principles.

↑

ed: Fraid so, what He proclaims is based on His objectively existing moral character.

de: Objective means true regardless of anyone's opinion or views on the matter. The moral commandments in the bible are god's views on morality.

They are more than just God's views on morality, they the moral standard incorporated into the universe and exist outside of human minds, thereby making them objective.

de: You can have an objective basis for morality, for example human well-being. However, someone's opinions on the matter, even a gods opinions are not objective.

Gods morality is based on God's objectively existing moral character. His character exists in reality outside of humanity's mind and beliefs and feelings, therefore it exists objectively.

 

[Peter1000]

Okay then. You have two scientists, one that just says "yep...evolution still appears to be true and here is the evidence," and you have another that says, "whoooops, looks like we got evolution all wrong and here is the evidence." Which one is going to go down in history as an award-winning acclaimed gosh-darn hero? Scientists have every incentive to overturn our current understanding of accepted theories. That is exactly how they get money and fame. Successful scientists don't just go through their career saying, "yep...what the last guy said."

Your woops-we-go-it-wrong-person would be drummed out of his job quickly, evidence or no, are you kidding, science makes billions of dollars on evolution, you think they care about the truth. That man would pay dearly for bringing evidence to prove evolution was a fraud. Don't be naive.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Your woops-we-go-it-wrong-person would be drummed out of his job quickly, evidence or no, are you kidding, science makes billions of dollars on evolution, you think they care about the truth. That man would pay dearly for bringing evidence to prove evolution was a fraud. Don't be naive.

Educate me, friend. How do scientists make money for simply confirming what is already understood? How do they get this "fame" that you speak of?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, if something exists outside of human minds and exists irrespective of human feelings, desires, and opinions then it exists objectively. God's valuing of humanity exists outside the mind of humanity and irrespective of any human belief or opinion, therefore it exists objectively.

All opinions are subjective, no matter if that opinion comes from a human, an alien on another planet, or a god.

 

[Peter1000]

Whatever dude, if you want to buy into conspiracy theories, that's your business. However, what you are portraying is flat out wrong.

Any reputable journal won't even publish a work unless it's passed peer review. The journal won't risk its reputation (and therefore earning potential) unless vigorous impartial review has been done. Likewise, the peers that will be testing the phenomena described in a given paper have no particular vested interest in making someone else wealthy. If the results in the paper hold up, they report that. If they get different results from what was in the paper, they report that and the paper is generally disregarded. That's how peer review works.

Nobody gets rich by confirming discoveries. People get rich by overturning previous ideas. That's how virtually every great scientist in the last few hundred years has made a name for themselves.[/QUOTE]

Whatever dude, if you want to buy into conspiracy theories, that's your business. However, what you are portraying is flat out wrong.

You remember the conference I believe it was in Hellsinki, when presidend Obama recieved the redicuous Nobel peace award? Then he was going to give a talk to the scentific community at Hellsinki.

Do you remember the scandal that was uncovered at that time and kind of messed up the whole conference? It was a scandal of scientists that had fraudulently messed with the climate numbers and made them way worse than they really were. It was exposed as to how they changed numbers and laughed about it and that it was OK to lie because the whole earth was in dire straights.

Do you remember when NASA reported that the average temperature for somewhere around 2008 was up by something like 2 degrees, and this was a crises in the making.

Then a reporter found out that NASA had eliminated some northern temperature censors from the data to make the average highere than it was.

If I looked long and hard, I'm sure I could come up with a lot more examples of out of control science.

Lots of room for error when comes to millions of years old anything for evolutionary science. I'm sure you have heard of some scandals yourself, if you would admit it. Like finding a leg bone and saying lots of things about that bone that is not true. Like finding a skull of an ape and somehow making it like the skull of homonid, hundreds of thousands of years earlier than the last reported skull. Lot's of room for error.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Do you remember the scandal that was uncovered at that time and kind of messed up the whole conference? It was a scandal of scientists that had fraudulently messed with the climate numbers and made them way worse than they really were. It was exposed as to how they changed numbers and laughed about it and that it was OK to lie because the whole earth was in dire straights.

Hopefully you care about the actual truth about "climategate", and not just the spin that was put on it by dishonest persons opposed to the idea of global climate change...

'Climategate' - FactCheck.org

 

[Peter1000]

Educate me, friend. How do scientists make money for simply confirming what is already understood? How do they get this "fame" that you speak of?

I am not talking about a confirmation of understood stuff. How bout finding a ('human??')skull that you can ('prove???') is 200,000 years older than the oldest existing human skull? Have you read of any scandals involving bones of apes, and hominids and old humans??? That is a ripe area for error.

You are aware that a lot of scientists fund their projects and fund their living style with money from donors that want to see them succeed in a particular scientific endeavor??

What happens to all that money from donors when the scientist strikes out? Money dries up and he has to go back to bagging groceries at the local walmart.

But if he strikes a find of some sort that can be massaged (truth or not) into what he needs to bolster his projects success, then the money keeps coming and the donors are happy and he keeps living high off the hog in science heaven.
What would you rather do, be unsuccesful and bag groceries or be successful and find bones and drive a Lexus?? You don't think there are possible shenanigans to be played on the donors and on the people?? If you don't, then I can't help you.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Yes, I'm familiar with the errors and hoaxes surrounding possible human ancestors. They are few and far between, but I know of the most popular ones. Of course the fakes are typically discovered and outed by other scientists. Fakes and forgeries and bogus science is outed and those involved are shamed and they are the ones bagging groceries.

 

[Petros2015]

I am aware of only 2 possible answers to this question.

3) The universe as you know it didn't come into being, you just think it did. You could, in effect, be dreaming or something equivalent and 'wake up' in a completely different universe

 

[Peter1000]

Hopefully you care about the actual truth about "climategate", and not just the spin that was put on it by dishonest persons opposed to the idea of global climate change...

'Climategate' - FactCheck.org

Do you remember in the 60's and 70's the climate scare that the world was evolving into an ice age? I llived through it and it sounded authoritative, you kidding, scientists were saying it. I was 15 then and didn't care, so I believed it.

Did you know that there is more ice in the arctic circle on Sept. 2016 than there was in Sept. 2008?

Read this:
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Trump is right to fight against the multi billion-dollar lobby for climate change. Climategate is the correct word.

 

[Aman777]

I am not talking about a confirmation of understood stuff. How bout finding a ('human??')skull that you can ('prove???') is 200,000 years older than the oldest existing human skull?

Impossible, since Humans (descendants of Adam) have only been on planet Earth for some 11,000 years. That is when Adam's firmament sank in Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat Gen 8:4 releasing the 450 ft long Ark into the Lake, according to the History of Human civilization. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE God Bless you

 

[Peter1000]

Yes, I'm familiar with the errors and hoaxes surrounding possible human ancestors. They are few and far between, but I know of the most popular ones. Of course the fakes are typically discovered and outed by other scientists. Fakes and forgeries and bogus science is outed and those involved are shamed and they are the ones bagging groceries.

BTW, obviously all science is not money-hungry nutwacks. I have always believed that science is one of the most important regiments that our world needs.

It is totally awesome what science has acheived and the rich lives that we live on the backs of countless hours of scientific discovery. I am a science guy. There are only a few areas of science that drives me nuts.

I have always said that one day science and religion will one day fit together like a hand in a glove. That day will not happen until religionists pull their heads out and come to a realization of the real truth, and scientists are willing to be guided by the light of the Designer. When that day comes, scientific discovery will go into warp speed in an endless series of pure knowledge, the application of which will be staggering to our increased well being.

I want you to think about this: The Designer Being enlightening the minds of our incredibly intelligent scientists that allows them to hurdle over problems that have stopped progress since the beginning. Problems that once are solved leads to a utopia of higher and higher principles and formulas and equations that lead us to a state of omniscience.

That is omni (all) science (knowledge). The Designer of this universe has, over billions of earth years, come to a state of omniscience. Is that a rediculous statement? No. Think about what knowledge we have of flight. In 1903 Wilber flew a flying machine 120 ft. In 1969 we landed a manned space capsul on the moon. Today we have flying machines that are headed out of our solar system. So in 100 years we have gone from 120 ft. to unlimited.
If we had 1 billion years to work on flight, what could we accomplish?? If we had 10 billion years to work on flight, could we be omniscience about flight? How bout 100 billion years?

In 500 billion years could we be omniscience about everything? I know it is speculation, but just think about it.

I look forward to the day religion and science get together.

 

[Peter1000]

Impossible, since Humans (descendants of Adam) have only been on planet Earth for some 11,000 years. That is when Adam's firmament sank in Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat Gen 8:4 releasing the 450 ft long Ark into the Lake, according to the History of Human civilization. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE God Bless you

I was responding to an atheist/evolutionist. They think a lot differently than you do. I know, truth is truth, I believe that, but they have no idea of your depth of the truth, so I respond at their level.

 

[Peter1000]

3) The universe as you know it didn't come into being, you just think it did. You could, in effect, be dreaming or something equivalent and 'wake up' in a completely different universe

A universe that did not need a Savior?

Thank you for the contribution. What you say is interesting, and it could be true.
But I would not make my long term plans based on that formula.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

That is omni (all) science (knowledge). The Designer of this universe has, over billions of earth years, come to a state of omniscience.

I hope you don't mind me asking, I'm just interested in what you said here. The God that you believe in wasn't omniscient prior to the universe He created? He at some point over the billions of Earth years became omniscient?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Do you remember in the 60's and 70's the climate scare that the world was evolving into an ice age? I llived through it and it sounded authoritative, you kidding, scientists were saying it. I was 15 then and didn't care, so I believed it.

Did you know that there is more ice in the arctic circle on Sept. 2016 than there was in Sept. 2008?

Read this:
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Trump is right to fight against the multi billion-dollar lobby for climate change. Climategate is the correct word.

So instead of trying to argue against the link I provided, you changed subjects to something which can also be debunked:

That ’70s myth—did climate science really call for a “coming ice age?”

Personally, I find it more intellectually honest to investigate the sources of the news I pass along to other people, but you may be different.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Exodus 21:7-11 - When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter. If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Care to point out the correct context in how selling your daughter into slavery, or buying a slave wife doesn't count as involuntary slavery?

You have chosen the only potential case of that but it is not quite what you think it is. First you have to understand that in the ancient Mideast a woman having a husband was absolutely essential unlike today because a single woman was very vulnerable. There was no police force in the ancient middle east to protect them so they needed a husband. So this is actually more a like a betrothal combined with having a maid. She works for a man that is a potential husband, but if the husband doesn't like her he can sell her back to her family. No sexual relationship is allowed during this time, as that would be fornication which was forbidden by the ancient Hebrews. Or if his son likes her, she can marry him but otherwise she goes free. Always look at the historical context of a text.

↑

ed: As God incarnate He had the omnipotent power to do so, but He didn't. Also His disciples could have been like the sicarii and forced people to convert by knife point and yet they did not. It was a free choice just like when Moses in the OT told the Hebrews that they were to "choose whom this day they would serve."

de: Jesus and his band of 12 merry men wouldn't have had a lot of luck converting Roman Judea to Christianity at knifepoint. The centurions had swords....

Well they probably would have begun with the jews, but yes they could have gotten people to convert by force in different ways. Ever hear of the mafia? The mafia uses different types of force and threats to get people to support and work for them against their will. But He didn't, allowing them freedom of conscience and religion.

↑

ed: He is just warning you that if you want to prosper in this life and the next then you should choose to follow Yahweh otherwise you will face the natural consequences of your free choice. No coercion there. But it was more explicit in the actions of Christ and the disciples.

de: "That's a great soul there.... be a shame if something were to, you know... happen to it..... Better play by the rules, or something may happen....." God's "coercion free" setup perfectly mirrors what we'd expect to see from a mob thug demanding his protection money.

Either way, that's still not freedom of religion. It's a commandment that you will not have other gods. It's not an option, or advice, it's a commandment.

No, God cannot stop you against your will if you choose to reject Him. It is more a loving warning. A better analogy is that you are hiking in the mountains and you are heading straight toward a cliff but because of a heavy fog you don't believe the warnings of someone that lives on the mountain because you don't think you see any signs that it is a cliff. So God just lets you go off the cliff of your own free will you rejected His warnings. God cannot remove the cliff and he cannot go against your will, He cannot go against the universal law of justice because He cannot go against His own character which is being a perfectly just being.

↑

ed: During the period of 300 to 1600 the RCC was under corrupt leadership and did not follow many of the teachings of Christ that is why the Reformation occurred. They valued their power more than following Christ. But after the reformation the bible became more available to the laity and learned that Christ and His disciples taught and practiced freedom of conscience. Christian scholar John Locke wrote about this and the founders of the USA learned from him how it came from the bible and this influenced them to incorporate into our Constitution.

de: lol.... yeah, ok, modern church leaders aren't also rampantly corrupt and self serving.

Some are, especially the ones that reject the infallible authority of the bible. But most are not in those denominations that are more orthodox.

de: Also, the bible appears nowhere in the constitution.

True but the DOI is the philosophical foundation of the Constitution and it DOES mention indirectly the moral laws of the Bible as I demonstrated in my earlier post.

↑

ed: I live in the deep south and have known many atheists and agnostics, in fact I used be an agnostic, with well paid jobs. There are very few Western Christian influenced nations that treat atheists badly. In fact, many of them in Europe have been taken over by atheists and agnostics.

de: There's also plenty who have been fired, harassed, kicked out of their house or otherwise mistreated by Christians simply because they are atheists.

Only a very tiny minority. There are many atheists and secular humanists in the Establishment thereby having great power over the educational systems and major news outlets.

↑

ed: Yes, but that is God's prerogative no human government is allowed to take human life except for murder and self defense or defense of others being killed.

de: No it's not. Morality is morality, and that morality must also apply to god. If it's wrong for us to kill a particular person, it's also wrong for god to kill that person.

If you think Morality is a double standard just because he's more powerful, then you are certainly arguing for subjective morality

Morality is more complex then you describe. Members of government have different roles. Judges and police officers can kill people without it being immoral as long as they are meteing out justice on evildoers. You and me as ordinary citizens do not have that authority. God is the judge of the universe so He has the authority to mete out justice including capital punishment. There is nothing immoral about that, in fact it is highly moral.

 

[Peter1000]

I hope you don't mind me asking, I'm just interested in what you said here. The God that you believe in wasn't omniscient prior to the universe He created? He at some point over the billions of Earth years became omniscient?

In short, yes. But I am sure there are methods available to transfer knowledge directly to the brain, we almost have that science today.

But your knowledge of general Christian dogma is not a good refection of who God is. Through the centuries the true God has been sifted and debated and altered by Christian creeds and the true God of the universe has been lost.

Come to know the true God and you will have something to believe in again. Your future is very bright, especially because I suspect you are rather intelligent.
Your intelligence will be a benefit to you in the next world, but you must learn obedience to God.

When you learn obedience to God he will multiply your intelligence by a factor of thousands. Your knowledge will be unlimited, but in order to control your enourmous ego, you will know and apply the concept of humility, love, patience, etc., etc., etc. OR you will destroy yourself and everyone around you. You have heard that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is a true statement. That is why God, the most powerful Man in our universe is also the most stable, loving, patient, humble....
Without this crucial balance you will be too destructive to be allowed to advance.

So get on the path and enjoy the ride.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

In short, yes. But I am sure there are methods available to transfer knowledge directly to the brain, we almost have that science today.

But your knowledge of general Christian dogma is not a good refection of who God is. Through the centuries the true God has been sifted and debated and altered by Christian creeds and the true God of the universe has been lost.

Come to know the true God and you will have something to believe in again. Your future is very bright, especially because I suspect you are rather intelligent.
Your intelligence will be a benefit to you in the next world, but you must learn obedience to God.

When you learn obedience to God he will multiply your intelligence by a factor of thousands. Your knowledge will be unlimited, but in order to control your enourmous ego, you will know and apply the concept of humility, love, patience, etc., etc., etc. OR you will destroy yourself and everyone around you. You have heard that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is a true statement. That is why God, the most powerful Man in our universe is also the most stable, loving, patient, humble....
Without this crucial balance you will be too destructive to be allowed to advance.

So get on the path and enjoy the ride.

Thanks for the information. I was mostly curious about the non-omniscient universe-creating God you referenced. It's just a representation of God I haven't come across yet and I found it interesting. I won't take the discussion off-topic any further.

 

[Peter1000]

Hopefully you care about the actual truth about "climategate", and not just the spin that was put on it by dishonest persons opposed to the idea of global climate change...

'Climategate' - FactCheck.org

It is not much of an argument, they were caught red handed and they are trying to spin out of it. Why do you think there is such a concept of 'climategate'? It is because it is such a fabricated lie that it is now designated 'climategate'.

I do care about the real truth about climategate. That's why I gave you my link. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle of the believers and critics.

I believe the earth is getting a little warmer, but I think that it is not due to man.
A small % may be from man, but the larger % is from nature, that we can do nothing about.

Your hero Obama, put forth legistation that he thought would start to control global warming. It was the cap and trade legislation. All that legislation would have done is make Al Gore (another hero of yours) and Obama rich through the commission due their firm when they brokered the trade portion of cap and trade.

How bout that. Al Gore and Obama and a handful of other liberal wacknuts getting filthy rich on climate change legislation. Oh, and not solving the problem.
My, how government works, its pretty impressive for some folk.

You are aware that Al Gore as a single person on earth has about the largest footprint for hazzardous global warming particulate. Is that ironic? His plane, and suv's and his team of people that fly and drive create a very large footprint for destruction. Al wants the rest of us to go back to the bycicle, and reduce our footprints, while he flys high off the hog in environmental hog heaven, filthy rich off the cap and trade stupidity.

Thank goodness we have Trump as our president who can see through all the government crap that is costing our country billions of dollars and millions of jobs for nothing. Absolutely nothing. No results that will reduce global warming, only making a handful of global nutwacks filthy rich.

'Climategate' is real because the scientists have screwed up the reporting mechanism to get a hotter result than they actually recieved. The money is just too lucrative to give up this scam easily.