Levels of EvC belief

[Bungle_Bear]

Why are any of you here on Christian Forums to accuse Christian believers? You have forums already for your communication, right?

If you don't like non-Christians disagreeing with you, why are you posting in one of the few forums non-Christians are allowed to frequent?

I don't go to forums that are about what I disagree with, I don't know that any others are doing that. I go to forums to communicate with others with whom I have something that is clearly in common with them.

You're here, aren't you? Your presence here contradicts that very claim.

In other forums there is a word for any such who would go to the forums that are about what they disagree with to argue.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[FredVB]

Well, talking to people like this is fruitless.
The overwhelming consensus of scientists is that the Big Bang theory is correct. The Big Bang theory implies that our universe came into being at a time T0 (i.e. that it existed after T0, but not "before," if "before" has any meaning). In that sense it was created. The Big Bang theory says nothing about how our universe came into being.

This. Before there was nothingness. There was no existence. Then there was everything for the universe to become what it is. How is Mystery. That is all that is said for it. And there will be argument with you saying you have no basis to think differently.

Those of us who criticize your arguments or disagree with you are not all atheists. Get over it.

I can't tell any one of the responders is Christian, at all. Who is it that is not an atheist? I can't tell.

If you don't like non-Christians disagreeing with you, why are you posting in one of the few forums non-Christians are allowed to frequent?
You're here, aren't you? Your presence here contradicts that very claim.

This is Christian Forums. Not one forum here excludes Christians from posting. You who are not, just as said, Christian are permitted to post here, as well as several others here. But I see no Christians posting here, and see why that would be if a group of atheists are here arguing with any who it even seems are speaking of God.

 

[Speedwell]

I



I can't tell any one of the responders is Christian, at all. Who is it that is not an atheist? I can't tell.

I'm not, for one. I'm an Anglican.

This is Christian Forums. Not one forum here excludes Christians from posting. You who are not, just as said, Christian are permitted to post here, as well as several others here. But I see no Christians posting here, and see why that would be if a group of atheists are here arguing with any who it even seems are speaking of God.

The existence of God and the truth of the Christian faith are usually not at issue in this forum. Generally the way the discussions line up is, biblical creationists on one side and those who are not biblical creationists (Whether Christians, other theists or atheists) on the other side. That said, this is a science forum and all arguments, whether from the creationist or non-creationist side are going to be held to the same rigorous epistemological standards.

 

[Ophiolite]

I addressed one, Ophiolite, who had reported me, about the same comment to me first, it is my conversation to him and it should not be for others to speak to. If I was wrong to post as I did, the comment to me first was wrong, it was just as much as an attack and meant to be hurtful, I still had no acknowledgment of that and certainly no apology. I should not put up with others, even if they always all like each others posts, telling me I should just let it go, just butt out of it if it does not concern you.

Fred, this is a public forum. That means it is open for anyone who is a member and has the current right to post, to comment upon the content of any post, by any member, as long as that comment is within the rules. (Ideally it should also be more or less on topic.) I have been an active member on many forums for over two decades and that has been the practice on all of them.

If you wished your comments to me to be private, uncommented upon by others, then you could have initiated a private correspondence with me. I would have been quite happy to engage with you in that way.

Fred, by repeatedly harping back on the fact that you were provoked into making a mildly offensive post and telling members to "butt out", you are coming across as petulant. I doubt you are petulant in the "real world". Maybe bring some of the calm you exhibit there into your posts in this thread.

 

[Strathos]

I'd just like to say that I never thought this thread would get so popular. Thanks for all the responses and poll answers.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'd just like to say that I never thought this thread would get so popular. Thanks for all the responses and poll answers.

I would like to thank the six members who "Liked" my post, #4, even although I miss-typed "available".

 

[RealityCheck01]

You and others here still do not answer the logic, while still arguing with those who think diffently in the forum. What do you do with this, if you do not just dismiss it with ignoring it? Either there is something that is enough for all the universe to exist, so there is what is existing necessarily even if we cannot explain it, or else as may be believed there is not something always existing that is enough for all the universe to exist, with all the forces and parameters just right for this universe to come from a big bang in the form that we and other life can exist in any world that would be right for the life, and it all came from nothing at all existing. There logically are no other possibilities, it is an either or question.

This seems to be the misconception that the Big Bang is that the universe came from nothing at all. The Big Bang is what happens when we apply the laws of physics to the existing universe and run time backward. We end up with a universe starting in a very hot, dense state. Before that is a singularity where the laws break down and we can say nothing about the state of the universe. The obvious logic is that either the universe always existed or that it came into existence some unknown time before the Big Bang. That is an either/or question as everyone agrees.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This seems to be the misconception that the Big Bang is that the universe came from nothing at all. The Big Bang is what happens when we apply the laws of physics to the existing universe and run time backward. We end up with a universe starting in a very hot, dense state. Before that is a singularity where the laws break down and we can say nothing about the state of the universe. The obvious logic is that either the universe always existed or that it came into existence some unknown time before the Big Bang. That is an either/or question as everyone agrees.

Yes, the t=0 of big bang cosmology is the earliest time that our current theories/models can describe, and we know that our current models are limited in these regimes. It is thought that a complete theory of quantum gravity would give us a better description, but until then we don't know what, if anything, preceded the big bang.

 

[BobRyan]

This is just an attempt to categorize the different gradations of beliefs regarding evolution and creationism, because there is quite a large spectrum. Starting from one extreme and proceeding to another:

1. There is no God or other higher intelligence, life arose from chemical processes and evolved on its own to the level we see today.

2. There is a God or higher intelligence, but it never did anything to encourage the development of life. Life arose from chemical processes and evolved on its own to the level we see today.

3. There is a God or higher intelligence, and it arranged things so that the laws of physics would be conducive to forming life. Life arose from chemical processes and evolved on its own to the level we see today.

4. There is a God or higher intelligence, and it directly intervened in some way to make sure life arose. After that, life evolved on its own to the level we see today.

5. There is a God or higher intelligence, and it intervened to make sure life arose, and continues to intervene to guide its evolutionary path. The modern science of evolution and biology is correct, but cannot detect God's interference.

6. Evolution and common descent are correct, but every step of the process is directly controlled by God.

7. Deep time is correct, and species can evolve into new species, but the ancestors of all modern lifeforms were divinely created by God.

8. Deep time is correct, and species can evolve to an extent, but not into new species. God created each species separately.

9. The earth and universe are only a few thousand years old. God created each species separately, but they can evolve, just not into new species.

10. The earth and universe are only a few thousand years old. Evolution does not and cannot happen. Every species today is exactly the same as when God created it.

I'll include a poll.

I pick '9' because it is the closest to what I believe.

I believe all life on Earth is less than 10,000 years old -- around 6000 years old and so also the Sun and moon.

But the rest of the universe is most certainly older -- probably 10's of 1000's of years older or less - but if we limit the conversation to "just rocks" then I don't have a strong opinion on how old rocks in the universe can be...

 

[FredVB]

The existence of God and the truth of the Christian faith are usually not at issue in this forum. Generally the way the discussions line up is, biblical creationists on one side and those who are not biblical creationists (Whether Christians, other theists or atheists) on the other side. That said, this is a science forum and all arguments, whether from the creationist or non-creationist side are going to be held to the same rigorous epistemological standards.

This thread is "Levels of EvC belief" and I responded to answer that. I was the one who was immediately ridiculed and all here were arguing me. I was not the one who brought up reference to God in the argument. I am certainly not hiding I am Christian, here on Christian Forums.

Fred, this is a public forum. That means it is open for anyone who is a member and has the current right to post, to comment upon the content of any post, by any member, as long as that comment is within the rules. (Ideally it should also be more or less on topic.) I have been an active member on many forums for over two decades and that has been the practice on all of them.

Of course all can post here. I did ask why those who are not believers are motivated to come to Christian Forums, and argue against the belief of Christians who post, on Christian Forums. I was asked why I come to this forum to post, which I certainly can do, it is certainly open to Christians as well as those who do not believe, and certainly to answer what is the level of belief about evolution or creation, the topic of this thread.

Fred, by repeatedly harping back on the fact that you were provoked into making a mildly offensive post and telling members to "butt out", you are coming across as petulant. I doubt you are petulant in the "real world". Maybe bring some of the calm you exhibit there into your posts in this thread.

I am not petulant, I responded in like manner to one posting unduly to me, I was attacked for the response but there still is no acknowledgment of the wrongness of that response to me, let alone any apology, which is the case if my response was wrong. I don't have to stop mentioning it because any come in and just tell me to stop it. Still, just acknowledge it.

This seems to be the misconception that the Big Bang is that the universe came from nothing at all. The Big Bang is what happens when we apply the laws of physics to the existing universe and run time backward. We end up with a universe starting in a very hot, dense state. Before that is a singularity where the laws break down and we can say nothing about the state of the universe. The obvious logic is that either the universe always existed or that it came into existence some unknown time before the Big Bang. That is an either/or question as everyone agrees.

Why still is there ever a singularity even without the same laws? Why would it just start being, even with any different laws from physics or with no laws, or start a big bang if had always existed?

There isn't anything in this to excuse me from understanding there is necessary existence, that would have no limit, that could explain all things, which do not have any explanation otherwise.

 

[Yttrium]

Why still is there ever a singularity even without the same laws? Why would it just start being, even with any different laws from physics or with no laws, or start a big bang if had always existed?

In science, it's perfectly okay to say "we don't know". We don't know why mass has gravity. That doesn't prevent us from studying and describing the effects of gravity. We don't know what came before the Big Bang. That doesn't prevent us from theorizing what happened once the Big Bang started.

The purpose of science is to come up with natural explanations for things, if we can. We aren't guaranteed to find natural answers. Perhaps the cause of the Big Bang was divine in nature, beyond the ability of science to analyze. Perhaps we'll be able to figure out a natural explanation if we keep working at it, someday. Or perhaps there is a natural cause (or some kind of spontaneous creation) that we simply will never be able find, because it will always be beyond our capability to detect.

 

[VirOptimus]

This thread is "Levels of EvC belief" and I responded to answer that. I was the one who was immediately ridiculed and all here were arguing me. I was not the one who brought up reference to God in the argument. I am certainly not hiding I am Christian, here on Christian Forums.



Of course all can post here. I did ask why those who are not believers are motivated to come to Christian Forums, and argue against the belief of Christians who post, on Christian Forums. I was asked why I come to this forum to post, which I certainly can do, it is certainly open to Christians as well as those who do not believe, and certainly to answer what is the level of belief about evolution or creation, the topic of this thread.



I am not petulant, I responded in like manner to one posting unduly to me, I was attacked for the response but there still is no acknowledgment of the wrongness of that response to me, let alone any apology, which is the case if my response was wrong. I don't have to stop mentioning it because any come in and just tell me to stop it. Still, just acknowledge it.



Why still is there ever a singularity even without the same laws? Why would it just start being, even with any different laws from physics or with no laws, or start a big bang if had always existed?

There isn't anything in this to excuse me from understanding there is necessary existence, that would have no limit, that could explain all things, which do not have any explanation otherwise.

My post wasnt an attack on you or your faith. So no apology from me.

Its obvious the point went over your head however, but Im not responsible for your education so I dont care.

 

[Ophiolite]

Of course all can post here. I did ask why those who are not believers are motivated to come to Christian Forums, and argue against the belief of Christians who post, on Christian Forums. I was asked why I come to this forum to post, which I certainly can do, it is certainly open to Christians as well as those who do not believe, and certainly to answer what is the level of belief about evolution or creation, the topic of this thread.

You have ignored the point of my post. You objected to members who had responded to a post directed to me. You went so far as to tell them to "butt out". I had gently pointed out that they were fully entitled to respond to any post in the thread. While you seem to agree with this in principle, your request that they "butt out" seems still to be standing.

I am not petulant, I responded in like manner to one posting unduly to me, I was attacked for the response but there still is no acknowledgment of the wrongness of that response to me, let alone any apology, which is the case if my response was wrong. I don't have to stop mentioning it because any come in and just tell me to stop it. Still, just acknowledge it.

I did not describe you as petulant. I said you were "coming across as petulant". I added that I doubted you were petulant in the "real world". You are of course free to continued complaining, it's just that such action does look more and more like petulance. (Just trying to advise you here.)

It seems that Vir Opitmus, the member responsible for the disputed source, does not think he attacked your faith. In an effort to end this once and for all could you please summarise exactly what offended you in the post. (Please summarise. I find some of your posts difficult to disentangle.)

 

[FredVB]

It seems that Vir Opitmus, the member responsible for the disputed source, does not think he attacked your faith. In an effort to end this once and for all could you please summarise exactly what offended you in the post. (Please summarise. I find some of your posts difficult to disentangle.)

Again, I posted in this thread my response to the topic, on levels be of Ev/Cr belief. BobRyan above posted in the same way, without the response to him. Without response to me, that probably would have been it.

I believe, which is what is asked in this topic, that there are evidences of consequences on the earth, as well as in organisms, while these are really interpreted in different ways depending on worldview and perspective. The layers of rock, for an obvious instance, might have accumulated for hundreds of millions of years from gradual processes that are ongoing, as understood in one worldview and perspective, or occurred as a result of great global catastrophe, as understood in another worldview and perspective, rather like all the formation which quickly formed from the volcanic explosion of Mount Saint Helen. The patterns in living organisms could result from gradual random processes that are ongoing over many hundreds of millions of years, in one worldview and perspective, or from planned design at any time, in another worldview and perspective.

It may seem like one is with a stronger case, but this is yet with that worldview and perspective with this bias in that.

Still my views are not crystallized, and change a bit as I consider more and more as I grow and age. But I don't presume either I or others really know truth so fully about most things, while I see some arrogantly speak with apparent claim that they do.

I am not so sure about how old the earth is, but at this point, as it changes a bit with more consideration, I think it could have been an unformed planetary body for a very great long time, that even the Bible could allow for, while special creation from God happened as described more recently. Still how long ago that was I am not so sure about.

If there already is light enough for vegetation (any photosynthesizing organisms), which is what the account says, twenty-four hours to survive is no issue. The account says there was light, though why ask what it would be, I wouldn't know and could just guess, too.

If the world was created as a viable place for life, and living beings were put in it, any observer coming in then or any time afterwards, weeks or hundreds of thousands of years after, with not seeing God would do that would conclude there is age seen there. It is stretching it, which the said observer might do, to say if God made this it is with deceptive lie in the design, while the arrangement in the design would have been necessary for having a viable place for life and living beings put in it, which is presumed so to be with this deceptive lie in it. Without the presumed deceptive lie in it, the viable place life with living beings put in it would not be possible.

Indeed, with the worldview and perspective you come with, what evidences you consider and bring up do not verify conclusions to many others, including me. I still can respect you with your conclusions though they do not convince me.

All ”views” are not equal.

Science explains data and evidence and is a description of physical reality.

Creationism is a religious belief with no power of explanation. (Magic explains everything and therefore nothing.)

It was not right for this to be said while not right for me to make the response to say it of that position. And despite the repeated claim with implying I needed education in which I was lacking, nothing from this poster was ever showing me anything at all.

Reporting my posts instead of engaging points in discussion is not providing any good basis for further discussion. It was said if I clarified my position there would be answers given to me, that never happened though.

 

[VirOptimus]

Again, I posted in this thread my response to the topic, on levels be of Ev/Cr belief. BobRyan above posted in the same way, without the response to him. Without response to me, that probably would have been it.





It was not right for this to be said while not right for me to make the response to say it of that position. And despite the repeated claim with implying I needed education in which I was lacking, nothing from this poster was ever showing me anything at all.

Reporting my posts instead of engaging points in discussion is not providing any good basis for further discussion. It was said if I clarified my position there would be answers given to me, that never happened though.

You are hilarious.

 

[Ophiolite]

Again, I posted in this thread my response to the topic, on levels be of Ev/Cr belief. BobRyan above posted in the same way, without the response to him. Without response to me, that probably would have been it.

It was not right for this to be said while not right for me to make the response to say it of that position. And despite the repeated claim with implying I needed education in which I was lacking, nothing from this poster was ever showing me anything at all.

Thank you for your repeated effort to make your position clear. Unfortunately it comes across to me as a ramble. I apologise for suggesting earlier that your remarks appeared petulant. I now realise this was my misreading of the haphazard writing of your posts, with many repetitions, irrelevancies and ambiguities. It would be a waste of your time to attempt further explanation or clarification and a waste of my time to attempt to understand such posts.

Reporting my posts instead of engaging points in discussion is not providing any good basis for further discussion. It was said if I clarified my position there would be answers given to me, that never happened though.

Unfortunately, as noted, your attempts to clarify your position have actually made it unclearer, so I have no idea what the questions are that you need answered. (I realise you think you have been clear: you are mistaken.) I strongly recommend we all forget any of this happened and move on.

 

[FredVB]

Thank you for your repeated effort to make your position clear. Unfortunately it comes across to me as a ramble. I apologise for suggesting earlier that your remarks appeared petulant. I now realise this was my misreading of the haphazard writing of your posts, with many repetitions, irrelevancies and ambiguities. It would be a waste of your time to attempt further explanation or clarification and a waste of my time to attempt to understand such posts.
Unfortunately, as noted, your attempts to clarify your position have actually made it unclearer, so I have no idea what the questions are that you need answered. (I realise you think you have been clear: you are mistaken.) I strongly recommend we all forget any of this happened and move on.

It is alright to opt out further discussion with that, while certainly the offer to answer to give response, "I could also have taken a stab at trying to answer your question(s)", to show what I was saying was not really right was an empty gesture.

You are hilarious.

Have fun with it, as if, nothing went over my head as there was no point ever made more than this in response to me. The most ever said to actually answer was showing what I already know about science, it is no basis to dismiss what I say I say I believe with referring to necessary existence as belief in magic. None here have answers from science to show what I said I believe makes no sense. There was then no further point to be made.

In science, it's perfectly okay to say "we don't know". We don't know what came before the Big Bang. That doesn't prevent us from theorizing what happened once the Big Bang started. The purpose of science is to come up with natural explanations for things, if we can. We aren't guaranteed to find natural answers. Perhaps the cause of the Big Bang was divine in nature, beyond the ability of science to analyze. Perhaps we'll be able to figure out a natural explanation (or some kind of spontaneous creation) if we keep working at it, someday.

Certainly, but I am confident that someday that this happens will never come.

 

[Speedwell]

Certainly, but I am confident that someday that this happens will never come.

And even if it did, the explanation would not rule out divine authorship of the universe.

 

[VirOptimus]

It is alright to opt out further discussion with that, while certainly the offer to answer to give response, "I could also have taken a stab at trying to answer your question(s)", to show what I was saying was not really right was an empty gesture.



Have fun with it, as if, nothing went over my head as there was no point ever made more than this in response to me. The most ever said to actually answer was showing what I already know about science, it is no basis to dismiss what I say I say I believe with referring to necessary existence as belief in magic. None here have answers from science to show what I said I believe makes no sense. There was then no further point to be made.



Certainly, but I am confident that someday that this happens will never come.

wooosh.

 

[Ophiolite]

It is alright to opt out further discussion with that, while certainly the offer to answer to give response, "I could also have taken a stab at trying to answer your question(s)", to show what I was saying was not really right was an empty gesture.

Fred. Listen to what I am saying. Read what I am saying. Think about what I am saying.

Your writing is incomprehensible. You do not write clearly. Your writing is ambiguous. Your writing appears to contradict itself.

Consequently: I do not understand what you are saying. Your meaning is not getting through to me. I do not grasp your intent.

And because of that I cannot answer your questions, because I have not the slightest idea what they are.

I sincerely wish I had recognised earlier that the fault was yours. I thought it was mine. I thought I just wasn't paying enough attention. I thought I was being dumb. I thought I wasn't putting enough effort into understanding. I was wrong. The problem is that you are, apparently, unable to convey your thoughts unambiguously in writing.

Thus, I apologise for not recognising this earlier and therefore believing that I was in a position to answer your questions. If you ever figure out how to write with clarity send me a pm and I'll try again.