I Need Help From Fellow Creationists...

[fragmentsofdreams]

I suppose it may not be. If someone knows of a better one I would be glad to hear about it.

People can sense when you try to sell them something. If you rehearse arguments and actively try to convert him, he will become defensive and probably won't listen to you. Instead, just talk about your beliefs without trying to convince him. He will probably listen to more of what you say that way.

I would definitely avoid trying to try to use science to prove God in any way. People believe in God because they experience Him, not because of proofs and arguments.

 

[PotLuck]

Had 5 sciences in my senior year, continued the interests into college and made one of them my career. During that time I set out to prove there was no God by the evidence I aquired from the scientific community. Thing was, I ran smack into Him.
Oh well, so much for that project. Was kind of humbling.

 

[Micaiah]

What a great testimony. I'd be interested to hear a bit more. It may also give some insight how to reach the sort of people you once were.

 

[Aeschylus]

Well he not alone in not understanding the basic concepts since the scientists having a lot of trouble. They had to invent make-believe (dark) matter and make- believe (dark) energy to make the math work.

Actually no, dark matter was not theory put foward in connection with the big bang, it was put forward to eplain the rotation curves of galaxies, it's other that or modeifying the very basics of gravity (i.e. Newtonian gravity), but the evidnec shows dark matter is more likely. I don't know why people object to dark matter so much, after all why should be expect the majority of the matter in the universe to be of the type thta is ammenable to direct observation. We can be fairly sure dark matter exists and we even have a couple of fairly good ideas of what it could be.

Dark enrgy is a fairly new deveolpemnt and it is an idea but forward to explain the fact that the unievrse appears to be expanding at an accelarting rate and unlike dark matter it's still a bit of an enigma, but it's worth saying that we've always allowed for the possibilty of a dark enregy-type force in our cosmologival models.

 

[PotLuck]

Dark matter is nessary so the universe has enough mass to slow down and collapse upon itself, in other words an oscillating universe that has no end. And I'm not so sure dark matter would be enough anyway. An oscillating universe is more comfortable to accept than one that expands forever then becomes so sparce it "winks out". It would then become a much harder task to explain a beginning. Therein lies the crux of the problem. Where did the matter come from in the first place?
So far our mathematics can take us only so far into the past. Once we get to the frontiers of the "Big bang" and beyond our mathematics simply falls apart. The laws no longer hold. But so far we don't really have much evidence that there's enough matter for a collapse by the mechanics of gravity. Therefore astrophysics is looking for the matter required for such an event to take place.

An interesting note though. I believe it's the Hindus that believe an oscillating universe. Everything is made new within the cusps, the point at which there's another "Bang".

 

[Aeschylus]

Dark matter is nessary so the universe has enough mass to slow down and collapse upon itself, in other words an oscillating universe that has no end. And I'm not so sure dark matter would be enough anyway. An oscillating universe is more comfortable to accept than one that expands forever then becomes so sparce it "winks out". It would then become a much harder task to explain a beginning. Therein lies the crux of the problem. Where did the matter come from in the first place?
So far our mathematics can take us only so far into the past. Once we get to the frontiers of the "Big bang" and beyond our mathematics simply falls apart. The laws no longer hold. But so far we don't really have much evidence that there's enough matter for a collapse by the mechanics of gravity. Therefore astrophysics is looking for the matter required for such an event to take place.

An interesting note though. I believe it's the Hindus that believe an oscillating universe. Everything is made new within the cusps, the point at which there's another "Bang".

Oscillating unievsre are hardly part of standard cosmology, if the unievres contained enough dark matter (or matter in general), which can be pretty sure it doesn't, then it would recollapse to the big crunch. So the amount of dark matter is important in big bang theory, but it doesn't comne from big bang theory, it comes from the observation of structures in the universe.

 

[PotLuck]

Do you believe in an oscillating universe?

 

[Aeschylus]

No, any oscallting universe theory reies on making specific staemnts about unknown physics and is infact contary to the evidnce that the universe is expanding at an accelarting rate.

 

[PotLuck]

Would you believe I was taught an oscillating universe in high school back in 1970?
So what changed?

 

[Aeschylus]

Would you believe I was taught an oscillating universe in high school back in 1970?
So what changed?

In 1970 such a theory proably seemed more likely as the Hawking Penrose singularity theorum was only first demonstrated in that very year (it was this that means that an osciallting universe must rely on new and unknown physics) and whether the unievrse was going to contiune expanding forvere was unknown (infact until it was shown otherwise many did suspect that the big crunch would occur), howver it always has been speculative and not the sort of thing that should be presented in highschools as standard cosmology.

 

[PotLuck]

... howver it always has been speculative and not the sort of thing that should be presented in highschools as standard cosmology.

I agree.
Things always seem to change as science progresses AS it's supposed to, otherwise we'd stagnate without the motivation of curiousity.

 

[Word of Peace]

I think what Adam is saying is simply that philosophy is the core of where the debate stands. The side of the debate that lies in the physical realm is still very important.

The scientific issues can be, for many people, a stumbling block, and for many people, an excuse - and it's important that we give them an understanding of how the scientific facts fit with and uphold our philosophy, and how their theory is an impossibility. We have to allow them no excuse in any realm, scientific or otherwise, for clinging to their paradigm and philosophy, or any other opposing paradigm or philosophy.

 

[adam149]

Hi Adam,

Hello.

You make some very good points. But I wonder if our approach should vary depending on who we are speaking with.

Naturally, we should not have a stock approach to discussing the topic, every person is different, thus every approach must be slightly different. So, yes, I would agree.

I studied science and engineering degrees at uni, so I tend to trust the scientific method more than say someone who studied philosophy. I think it would be harder for someone with a science background to accept that it isn't neutral. In these cases I would be inclined to first argue that science cannot prove atheism is any more likely than creation (in fact I think there is a better basis for original creation).

I'm studying History and Geology, so I have no problem with the science itself and generally I agree with your comments. Many scientists recognize the problem of interpretation.

For example, Gould himself wrote that

"Facts do not 'speak for themselves'; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation." (Gould, 1978)

Lewontin writes

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Lewontin, 1997)

Furthermore, the whole point of presuppositionalism is to demonstrate the utter inadequacy of all opposing systems of thought at their very root base, leaving atheists, new agers, occultists, humanists, etc completely without any reasonable excuse for denying the truth and the True God.

CostlyGrace's friend is obviously using some theories from theoretical physics as a basis for his belief in a universe without God - from what I have read on this theory, it requires as much or more faith than believing in a creator. Unfortunately this approach relies on CostlyGrace reading and understanding the physics theory (Stephen Hawking is a good place to start).

Yes, far more faith. But, and I should have linked this in my reply to him directly, even the Big Bang is falling out of secular favor, as this article clearly shows. www.cosmologystatement.org

The article recommends adopting various steady-state and eternal unviverse theories, but these have even less observational and experimental support than the Bang ever did.

However, these are just my thoughts & I could be wrong. In any case, different people respond to different approaches - which is why I will read some of the references you listed.

Thanks[/QUOTE]
I highly recommend that you do. I would check your local public or university library to see if they have copies. I'm in the Ohio (USA) area, and I have access to all of the works of both Rushdoony and Van Til through my university access. If those don't work, you can probably find them for a fair price at www.half.com or somewhere.

References

Gould, S.J., 1978, "The Validation of Continental Drift," Ever Since Darwin, Burnett Books, pg. 161-162

Lewontin, R., 1997, "Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review, 9 Jan., pg. 31

 

[adam149]

Good points. It is good to be informed about the current issues, and be aware of the obvious flaws in stories put forward by both sides. At the end of the day, a lot comes down to the persons motivation.

Exactly. And this is why we ourselves can never force another person to accept our paradigm, they have to be motivated by the Holy Spirit from within.

As well as books, you could direct the person to the AIG site. If they are genuinely seeking, I think the site will help clarify a lot of issues, and raise many questions in their mind. It will demonstrate that there are well qualified Christian people who have thought through the issues and have a sensible explanation for many queries raised, while at the same time recognising the limitations of human enquiry. The important thing here is that you show yourself to be intellectually honest, humble, willing to investigate clams that are made carefully, and your trust in God's word is unshakeable.

Again, spot on. THough the sceptics are generally less interested in intellectual debate and more interested in mocking Christians.

My observation of discussions on this forum is that many people are interested in little more than denegrating God's word, and elevating their own theories. They will stubbornly cling to their beliefs, even if the failings are patently obvious. Arguments becomes a game of brinkmanship where either party ups the claims they make to the point where it is almost impossible to substantiate those claims scientificatlly, and pure speculation takes over. Debates become so detailed and technical over such a wide range of sciences, it is very difficult for one person to be on top of all the arguments. These are some of the failings I see in the 'apologetics' approach.

And that's what happens when one uses the evidentialist approach to apologetics. The creationist presents scientific evidence. The Sceptic mocks and reinterpretes the evidence into his system (which he then parades as factual objectivity), nullifying any effect, the creationist tries to demonstrate why that interpretation doesn't work, but the Sceptic reinterpretes that evidence too. Thus, there is no motivation to change sides, even if the sceptical position can't explain a few things, because they percieve their system as being fuctional and allows them to do whatever they want. Using the presuppositional approach, you cut the legs out from under their entire system by cutting to the core issue and showing them their presuppositional rejection of opposing paradigms and demonstrating how their system either results in the death of all meaning or showing how it is built upon the Christian foundation while denying this fact.

For example, something I wrote, taken from History of the Ancient World: Noah's Ark and the Flood (manuscript in preparation):

"Science is not about objective, brute facts. If uninterpreted facts existed, we would be utterly unable to make connections between them to construct theories, because each fact’s brutness would be whole unto its own, existing of its own right. A universe without God must ultimately exist in this fashion. If God does not exist, then each fact is determined of itself and exists wholly unto itself without any connection to any other fact (Rushdoony, 1959; Rushdoony, 1967).
An example of this would be if we looked at the Grand Canyon, we would observe many sedimentary layers on the sides of the canyon. In a Godless universe, this is as far as we could go. The canyon has layers. This fact would exist wholly of itself. No connection could be made discerning whether these layers supported vast evolutionary ages of slow deposition or whether they supported a world-wide Global flood as described in Genesis.

But notice something incredibly vital about this. If there is no God, then there can be no interpretations because facts completely speak for themselves and man can construct no theories whatever. But the evolutionary theory is a theory that denies supernatural events and as such is atheistic in its attempts to explain the origin of all things without a creator. But if the theory itself were true then it would be impossible for the scientists to construct the very theory purporting to prove a naturalistic origin for the universe! Thus, because it is possible for man to construct theories and facts are always interpreted according to a framework, there logically must therefore be a supernatural God who created the universe. But this conclusion the evolutionist hates all the more, for it means that the very existance of his theory explaining the universe naturalistically itself automatically proves the opposite by simply existing! Under the demands of his theory, his theory could not be constructed, and under the auspices of the opposite the very existence of his theory proves a supernatural creator-God. The evolutionist loses no matter where he turns!

If he accepts a brute universe, he cannot have his theory demonstrating such and thus any meaning or ability to think is lost and if he accepts a universe where facts are interpreted through a framework the very fact that his theory exists demonstrates the existence of God."

At the end of the day, each person has to make a personal decision about the evidence, a bit like a jury forming a verdict in a trial. It is always difficult to convince someone of the validity of something about which they have little understanding.

Or of the validity of something about which they do not desire to have understanding of.

I think a good approach is to simply state the clear teaching of Scripture, and say that you believe it to be the Word of God. We don't have to 'jazz' it up to make it sound intellectual. If you feel you have powerful water tight scientific arguments that will compel the athiest to doubt evolution, and trust God, give it a go. But don't be disappointed if they ignore the truth even if it blantantly obvious. As stated previously, that is the heart of unregenerate.

No, there should be no jazzing up. Really, creationism is the result of applying scripture to every area of life. The evolutionary model is also an application of certain principles to every area of life. Thus, the two shall clash, until, of course, the Kingdom of God has victory. Because, as Christians, we know (generally) how it will all end up. Satan and his minions will perish, broken and defeated, and be cast into the fiery lake and with them will plunge the myth of evolution.

 

[costlygrace]

Thanks for your help, all of you!

 

[Null-Geodesic]

Because, as Christians, we know (generally) how it will all end up. Satan and his minions will perish, broken and defeated, and be cast into the fiery lake and with them will plunge the myth of evolution.

You are correct except it's the nonsense of Creation science that plunges with it's creator Satan.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Dark matter is nessary so the universe has enough mass to slow down and collapse upon itself, in other words an oscillating universe that has no end. And I'm not so sure dark matter would be enough anyway. An oscillating universe is more comfortable to accept than one that expands forever then becomes so sparce it "winks out". It would then become a much harder task to explain a beginning. Therein lies the crux of the problem. Where did the matter come from in the first place?
So far our mathematics can take us only so far into the past. Once we get to the frontiers of the "Big bang" and beyond our mathematics simply falls apart. The laws no longer hold. But so far we don't really have much evidence that there's enough matter for a collapse by the mechanics of gravity. Therefore astrophysics is looking for the matter required for such an event to take place.

An interesting note though. I believe it's the Hindus that believe an oscillating universe. Everything is made new within the cusps, the point at which there's another "Bang".

No, dark matter has to do with galaxies rotating. It does affect whether the universe will expand forever or collapse, but it was not postulated to make the Universe recollapse. Dark energy really goes against your idea that physicists are postulating things in order to comply with their desire for an oscillating universe. It heavily shifts things in favor of expanding forever.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Would you believe I was taught an oscillating universe in high school back in 1970?
So what changed?

34 years of observations have improved our models.

 

[seebs]

Please--I did not post my question to start an argument. Basically I am wanting help convincing this guy that there is a God, through the evidence of His works. (He is an atheist.) What we were debating was the origin, not of matter, but of the universe as we know it.

Don't try to argue it from science; get him to admit that science punts, and does not ultimately answer this question. Because, frankly, it's outside the scope of science.

There's no scientific evidence that will convince him of active creation; the right strategy is to focus on the way in which the question you're talking about is outside the scope of science. Stephen Jay Gould wrote an article on this topic, calling it Nonoverlapping Magisteria.

Try that.