It's 2019, not 1519.

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

qv

Just more scientific speculation built upon more scientific speculation.
Inflation: A Failed Solution - Creation Astronomy Media

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You can make that argument if you want, but to attribute such a fallacious false dichotomy to science is (and let me put this as nicely as I can) a bare-faced lie.
Science claims that the universe as we know it may have had a definite beginning, but it does not claim that the universe as we know it is all there is or ever was.

Are you suggesting that science should investigate the possibility of the supernatural (above/beyond the natural universe)? I am curious to know what instrument scientist have created to empirically measure and study the supernatural.

 

[durangodawood]

Only if you deny the second law of thermodynamics and the theory of relativity. But you wouldn't be "anti-science" would you?

essential presented a possible model of this in post 257.

There are others as well. But mainly, the science of cosmic origins and destiny is in its infancy, and not at all settled enough justify firm conclusions like "there must be a creator" or "there isnt a creator".

 

[essentialsaltes]

Just more scientific speculation built upon more scientific speculation.
Inflation: A Failed Solution - Creation Astronomy Media

Only if you listen to pseudoscientific sources like 'Creation Astronomy Media'.

 

[Speedwell]

Are you suggesting that science should investigate the possibility of the supernatural (above/beyond the natural universe)? I am curious to know what instrument scientist have created to empirically measure and study the supernatural.

No, science makes no effort to study the supernatural because at this time there is no empirical evidence of it.

However, science recognizes the possibility that there is or was something natural existing before/outside of the universe as we know it.

However, science does not know whether there is or was something natural existing before or outside of the universe as we know it. To say that they deny it is false.

 

[Halbhh]

Moses is credited with writting Genesis which would put the creation about 2500 years removed from Moses. The account is built with a chiastic structure opening with "in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth..." and closing with "...Thus the Heaven and Earth were created" and these act as bookends to the account. day 1 is mirrored with day 4, day 2 is mirrored with day 5 and day 3 is mirrored with day 6. If literal there are problems in the text such as Day 1 light is created but Day 4 the luminaries are created. You may read it as literal days but staking them together doesn't make sense. Each day has metaphor that points to something greater. For example, the earth was formless and void and there was darkness and on the first day, God says let there be light and he separated the light from the darkness. This is why light is first (and not the sun) because light overpowering darkness is more important. This light is God's salvation and it is mirrored again through Christ and our salvation as we are the formless and dark vessels before salvation and after we are transformed through God's light.

We could have a whole discussion of the implausible of this account and how "Science has demolished" it but to me, the literalness of the account is the least important detail and it would probably be more fruitful to view the account as non-literal. Now I know there are fundamentalists that will defend its literalness to the core but they do so inconsistently and add a lot to the text to reconcil it. Is this a book about science or is it a book about spiritual matters? If it's the former by all means demolish it but if it's the latter then it doesn't matter how literal this account is as it's truth within transcends the literalness. Truth like a monotheistic God that exists outside of his creation, that created all things and gives us light and breath, truth that foreshadows Christ and his salvation. the spiritual impact is far more important and is the crux of the account.

Moses is credited with writing this book and if true it puts him 2500 years removed from the creation event according to his own timeline he authors in the book not to mention having many competing cultures surrounding him. Committing to the literal details doesn't even make anthropological sense. Even if we are to say God dictated the account to Moses it still doesn't demand it to be literal. The best way to reach people is through concepts they understand and accept not through concepts far removed from their world view.

If anyone wants even more endless speculations, read the various historical speculations from various well known names in the church. I found some from Augustine fun to read.

Why stop at one speculation, when you can have dozens?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

essential presented a possible model of this in post 257.

There are others as well. But mainly, the science of cosmic origins and destiny is in its infancy, and not at all settled enough justify firm conclusions like "there must be a creator" or "there isnt a creator".

Regardless, the possibility is logically binary. Either the universe was created by a creator (what ever that may be), or it is eternal and uncaused. As of right now the scientific evidence points to a finite universe. To conclude anything else is to deny the current scientific evidence in favor of unfounded theoretical assumptions produced by the imagination...not the scientific method. In my opinion, you need to have more faith to be an atheist.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No, science makes no effort to study the supernatural because at this time there is no empirical evidence of it.

Ironic. Being that you must evoke the supernatural to even consider the possibility of a multiverse or infinite expansion.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

If anyone wants even more endless speculations, read the various historical speculations from various well known names in the church. I found some from Augustine fun to read.

Why stop at one speculation, when you can have dozens?

Like how scientists are now speculating that the dinosaurs had feathers and t rex was a scavenger who didn't hunt its prey?

 

[Speedwell]

Regardless, the possibility is logically binary. Either the universe was created by a creator (what ever that may be), or it is eternal and uncaused. As of right now the scientific evidence points to a finite universe. To conclude anything else is to deny the current scientific evidence in favor of unfounded theoretical assumptions produced by the imagination...not the scientific method. In my opinion, you need to have more faith to be an atheist.

I wouldn't know; I'm not an atheist. What I do know is that presenting bogus arguments like yours does theism not good whatever.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Regardless, the possibility is logically binary. Either the universe was created by a creator (what ever that may be), or it is eternal and uncaused.

Well no. Either it was created by a creator or it wasn't.

As of right now the scientific evidence points to a finite universe.

Well, not exactly. If we use known laws of physics and run the film backward, we get to a point where we know our known laws of physics are invalid. Rather than assume that we know everything, science reserves judgment. We can say the Big Bang occurred 14 billion years ago, but we really don't have any consensus idea of what that was. It may have been the start of it all, or it may have been a superdense bottleneck connecting to a previous state.

 

[durangodawood]

Regardless, the possibility is logically binary. Either the universe was created by a creator (what ever that may be), or it is eternal and uncaused. As of right now the scientific evidence points to a finite universe. To conclude anything else is to deny the current scientific evidence in favor of unfounded theoretical assumptions produced by the imagination...not the scientific method. In my opinion, you need to have more faith to be an atheist.

Youre just jumping-the-gun on scientific conclusions in in favor of your preferred explanation. There is no evidence favoring a creator being over any other speculative eternal order (like universes branching off other universes).

What we do have tho is one very solid example of a universe.... while there's no objective evidence of a creator being nor a creator's realm. I'd say the model that requires an entirely other type of realm seems less reasonable, tho it could be correct.

My sense is that the more types of unknowns you have to stuff into your model, the more faith required to believe it.

Personally I dont think there evidence enough to firmly believe any explanation of universal origins. Not yet anyway. Thats OK. Why do we need to feel any certainty on this matter at all?