FredVB said:
But if it would be established that it could be from a break, even that meaning it probably was, that hardly will make a fair analogy to the start of this universe with all the mass of its matter and energy from a microscopic size. This was what was meant in discussing this, surely. If that beginning were possible, there still aren't the parameters of the physical constants independent of each other taken into account, that would have to be exactly right for this universe to expand just right with the great systems in it, the stars, and the particles, among more things that make all this, to be possible. There is nothing in such pool analogy to correspond to that. There have always been many things not explained, with moving away from understanding that the Creator is at the start of it all.
I could address that specifically, though it was understood to yet be analogous. But the analogy does not really represent Creationist argument well. That is with recognizing great complexity that is highly ordered. The analogy does not consider the creator who made the pool table and balls, even.
Kylie said:
I feel you are missing the point of the analogy.
There is a situation where we do not know the origin of that situation. There is a piece of documentation that claims to describe the origin, but it was not written by the originator (which in this case refers to whatever caused the situation to come about, not necessarily some conscious entity), and how the documentation may not be an accurate description of the origin, so we should not just conclude that it IS just because it claims to be accurate.
I believe you are missing the case pointed out that the analogy is not corresponding to what is to be considered with how the beginning of our universe is to be explained. The case of a pool table and the balls is only dealing with whether the balls came to a position with one shot played, breaking them. There aren't even players one, two, three or four. If there were, a game would have been continuing with any players there watching the play, and with no such discussion as this. But that there are a player or players, a pool table, balls, cue stick, and a place for them existing are all taken for granted without explanation.
Creationists are not, at least those serious about discussing it and studying about it and not certain exceptions you might encounter around here, simply saying that all that there is, with whatever arrangement is around, must have a Creator who already was around, evwn with using just a claim for that from something written that was around a long time because they will just believe that. This is what this case that was shown is to be analogous to, but that is not the actual case.
There is nothing established that you can show explains the microscopic form that existed to expand with space to be all this universe, but there is necessary existence, and only this necessary being, to explain this. If our universe is with highly ordered complexity, this is from the necessary being with the capacity to make that, with it necessarily unlimited capacity.
The intelligence we have, with which to reason about truth, to know it, is not explained from complexity from natural processes. The necessary being from which there is intelligent design, even if the universe came from the microscopic existence with the big bang, to have the parameters just right to still exist as it does, has intelligence for that, and then this is without limit, and does explain how we have ours, from that unlimited ability to create.
We expect such necessary being which provides for us to communicate with us who are created, as with possibly revealing our purpose here. As such communication would be made for us to understand, we would look at all the communications which exist claiming to be the revelation of this being. We have reason to say the Bible is the one, apart from orhers, which shows qualification to be that.
