quick way to prove creation

[SecretOfFatima]

One way to deny creation is to say that the universe is ethernal, always existed.
If you can prove that time had a beginning, you can prove that the universe was created.

So here it is:

If there was an infinite amount of time before now, would we ever arrive at this moment?
No, we never would had arrive at this moment.

So time MUST have began sometime.

In the last 100 years scientists have discovered that the universe is expanding and began at a single point.
This is know as the big bang theory.

So the big bang theory and logic used earlier both support that the universe has a beginning, which was its creation by GOD.

A question you may ask is this: since time had a beginning, doesn't that mean that GOD didn't exist forever either?
No, it doesn't. Prior to the creation, God existed beyond matter and beyond time.

He was just there. All of his time prior to creation can be compressed into a single moment, because nothing happened.

 

[humblemuslim]

You might find this interesting:

Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality. If so, then what is time? And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience? “The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.”

Seems physicists are already wrestling with the idea that time might not exist, at least in a certain sense.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

 

[SecretOfFatima]

You might find this interesting:

Seems physicists are already wrestling with the idea that time might not exist, at least in a certain sense.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

Well nothing surprizes me anymore, otherwise atheist scientists would have to admit that there must have been a beginning, but even if they find that time does not exist, so what? certainly the universe is still growing and moving away from a central specific point (which backs the big bang theory), so that central point must have been the beginning of the universe.

Let's see what non beleivers have to say about this.

 

[SecretOfFatima]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRhgQSMOgVQ

 

[Eudaimonist]

One way to deny creation is to say that the universe is ethernal, always existed.
If you can prove that time had a beginning, you can prove that the universe was created.

A beginning to time doesn't mean that the universe was created. It simply means that change has a beginning, since time is a measure of change.

So I do believe that there was a beginning to time, but at the beginning of time was the natural universe in its initial form. The universe really is eternal, by which I mean uncreated and not "popping in" out of nothing. There was never a time in which there was nothingness. The universe has always been for all of finite time.

In the last 100 years scientists have discovered that the universe is expanding and began at a single point.
This is know as the big bang theory.

Actually, it is NOT known that the period of inflation known as the Big Bang was the beginning of time. This has not actually been proven.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Isambard]

One way to deny creation is to say that the universe is ethernal, always existed.
If you can prove that time had a beginning, you can prove that the universe was created.

So here it is:

If there was an infinite amount of time before now, would we ever arrive at this moment?
No, we never would had arrive at this moment.

So time MUST have began sometime.

In the last 100 years scientists have discovered that the universe is expanding and began at a single point.
This is know as the big bang theory.

So the big bang theory and logic used earlier both support that the universe has a beginning, which was its creation by GOD.

A question you may ask is this: since time had a beginning, doesn't that mean that GOD didn't exist forever either?
No, it doesn't. Prior to the creation, God existed beyond matter and beyond time.

He was just there. All of his time prior to creation can be compressed into a single moment, because nothing happened.

The same arguement can be applied to everything that consists of the universe. Just argue that it follows a expantion/contraction cycle, and you can eliminate the need for a God.

^Example of how special pleading can be applied to more than just God in your "creation proofs".

 

[Arthra]

While "Big Bang" has had some wide acceptance it isn't the only hypothesis out there.. The universe to some has always been out there.. maybe taking different forms but not originating from a single act of "creation" rather like a series of bangs and sputters. While Genesis has described a single process it may only have explained to people of the time who were limited to certain words what was going on..

 

[benmaarof]

A beginning to time doesn't mean that the universe was created. It simply means that change has a beginning, since time is a measure of change.

So I do believe that there was a beginning to time, but at the beginning of time was the natural universe in its initial form. The universe really is eternal, by which I mean uncreated and not "popping in" out of nothing. There was never a time in which there was nothingness. The universe has always been for all of finite time.

Actually, it is NOT known that the period of inflation known as the Big Bang was the beginning of time. This has not actually been proven.

eudaimonia,

Mark

For any change, cause is assumed. Any kind of change in a system would not have happened without some kind of causality. Nothing occurs at random.

For the universe to change (assuming that it's eternal), then there must be something outside of it (the universe) to change it. Otherwise, change is impossible.

 

[Sinful2B]

Hi and welcome

Nothing occurs at random.

For the universe to change (assuming that it's eternal), then there must be something outside of it (the universe) to change it. Otherwise, change is impossible.

but not originating from a single act of "creation"

Just argue that it follows a expantion/contraction cycle, and you can eliminate the need for a God.

I do believe that there was a beginning to time, but at the beginning of time was the natural universe in its initial form.

I've used the above quotes to highlight the inaccuracies in the views expressed in response.

The following from the originator of this thread, highlight the same.
Secret of Fatima

So time MUST have began sometime.

the universe has a beginning

Prior to the creation

In laymans terms, creation never was, this being the fundamental error in much perusal upon this subject.
Creation is a condition, a process if you will, that allows the universe as we perceive it to be, to exist.
Unfortunately, it also doesn't exist, well, at least at any given moment it doesn't, but fortunately, not all at the same moment, in this respect being the evidence for non-existence.
You cannot have one without the other. By definition, for something to exist, it has to have a comparative, ie/non-existence.

Inside of every single molecule in the whole of existence, exists non-existence, ie. the evidence of creation. When that creation occurs, clearly the evidence of non-existence occurs, leaving us as witnesses to creation and de-creation completely randomly. Resultantly, cause and effect are determined by the interaction between any moment between existence and non-existence, in much the same way as we witness within the fossil record, in that anything is determined by it's ability to exist in that moment.

As much can be said for a singularity, for non-existence cannot exist without existence.

That now leaves us in a very interesting position, of knowing that God certainly doesn't exist, because by the belief that he does, so he cannot be, and as existence and non-existence, together with creation and de-creation, already do exist and don't, until you can find an alternative parameter in which to put him, then:
1 - He has no place to call his domain,
2 - He has no function in all that is or isn't, and
3 - Time is meaningless in a condition that is ever eternal, your standpoint being the only reason for it's perception. God therefore cannot create something that needs to be created, because it would need time to create it, even a nanosecond, and once time exists, then God has a standpoint within existence. The condition cannot occur by any definition of God, and therefore God cannot self-create. ie. I AM .

At the most fundamental level of physical reality, exists the base upon which all other realities are built, consequently anything that applies to the microscopic, will also apply macro.
We should never invent an explanation for our ignorance.

 

[Eudaimonist]

For the universe to change (assuming that it's eternal), then there must be something outside of it (the universe) to change it. Otherwise, change is impossible.

Change may happen because it is in the nature of an entity to change. There is no requirement of an outside cause. It is enough for there to be an internal cause or self-cause.

Science has progressed far beyond the physical theories of Aquinas and Newton. Read up on quantum physics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[benmaarof]

Change may happen because it is in the nature of an entity to change. There is no requirement of an outside cause. It is enough for there to be an internal cause or self-cause.

Science has progressed far beyond the physical theories of Aquinas and Newton. Read up on quantum physics.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Are you implying that the science of quantum physics or mechanics has already reached it's pinnacle? All those theories of all those physicists are already canonical and cannot possibly be changed and revised or even debunked in the future? Or that scientists would not be able to construct any more scientific instruments that would contribute any new knowledge to the inner workings of our universe? Or that the Large Hadron Collider would not give any new insight when it becomes operational again?

Are you saying that there's no way that science would ever find any answer to the randomness or spontaneity of discreet particles?

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by Eudaimonist

Change may happen because it is in the nature of an entity to change.

What is responsible for that nature? Things just don't happen. There is always a mechanism behind it although we may not know exactly what it is.

There is no requirement of an outside cause. It is enough for there to be an internal cause or self-cause.

Suppose that you are correct, then what causes the internal events? Would you consider the universe a closed system? If so, what contains it?

Science has progressed far beyond the physical theories of Aquinas and Newton. Read up on quantum physics.

It just adapts an new one which is still inadequate, and perhaps 10 years from now, we will have the same perspective that you say about Aquinas and Newton.
I am only questioning to see your basis for your reasoning. My conclusion is that God is the cause of the the essentials found in our world. We don't need to try to theorize how it got here. God just said "be" and it was. Science is just trying to understand it all.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Are you implying that the science of quantum physics or mechanics has already reached it's pinnacle?

No, and I don't need to, any more than you need to imply that your knowledge has reached its pinnacle. I'm implying only that this is what is known by modern physics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

What is responsible for that nature?

What do you mean? Everything exists as something, and that means having specific characteristics. Its existence as a particular entity is responsible for its nature.

At some point, one simply has to say: that's the way it is. I'm not saying that physics and cosmology are unproductive at providing an understanding of change in the universe. However, at some point one simply has to say, for example, that "a photon is a photon". It behaves as a photon does because that is what it is -- a photon.

You might be able to discuss the photon's history, if it has one, and how it interacts with other entities, but an infinite series of explanations for how something acts as it does wouldn't make any sense and is unneeded. Even theists don't explain God's existence and nature by reference to a meta-God who creates or sustains the existence of that God.

Things just don't happen.

Of course they do! You just get old, for instance, and not due to outside causes, but due to what you might call internal causes, or a self-cause (the cause being your own biological nature).

There is always a mechanism behind it although we may not know exactly what it is.

Perhaps, but a mechanism does not need an external cause to make it operational.

Suppose that you are correct, then what causes the internal events?

The entity's nature. That which it exists as.

What causes the Earth to hold together in a sphere? Gravity. What causes its gravity? The Earth itself -- its nature as an object possessing the characteristic of mass.

Would you consider the universe a closed system? If so, what contains it?

Nothing contains the universe. It is neither closed nor open, but a totality.

I'm assuming here that by "universe" you mean all of physical existence. The universe would contain all locations, and so there couldn't be anything outside of the universe to contain the universe since there would be no locations outside of the universe.

It just adapts an new one which is still inadequate, and perhaps 10 years from now, we will have the same perspective that you say about Aquinas and Newton.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. I'm not interested in perhaps. Perhaps won't advance the discussion. We can only work with what we know, or else we can't say anything at all.

I'm speaking from a current understanding of physics, and solving certain philosophical problems with that. When and if physics changes in such a fundamental way we can re-evaluate the strengths of our respective positions.

I am only questioning to see your basis for your reasoning.

Questions are welcome. I appreciate questions.

The basis for my reasoning evidently includes a different model of causality than what you are using. My model is not Newtonian.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Aibrean]

The Big Bang theory was developed by a priest to support creation.

 

[Rasta]

Quickest way to disprove creation: The first rule of thermodynamics (matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed)

 

[morningstar2651]

One way to deny creation is to say that the universe is ethernal, always existed.
If you can prove that time had a beginning, you can prove that the universe was created.

So here it is:

If there was an infinite amount of time before now, would we ever arrive at this moment?
No, we never would had arrive at this moment.

You're wrong.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You're wrong.

No, SecretOfFatima is right on that one. The question of whether or not there has been an infinite past has nothing to do with Zeno's Paradox.

She is talking about travelling an infinite distance (in time), not a finite distance as in Zeno's Paradox.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[morningstar2651]

No, SecretOfFatima is right on that one. The question of whether or not there has been an infinite past has nothing to do with Zeno's Paradox.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'm not arguing against his conclusion, I'm arguing against his reasoning.

If there was an infinite amount of time before now, would we ever arrive at this moment?

Yes. The same way I walk across a room, or Achilles outruns the Tortoise, in spite of infinite subdivisions.

This argument is Zeno's first paradox - an infinite amount of time does not mean that time can't ever arrive to now. See Georg Cantor's diagonalization argument.

I also disagree with the conclusion, but the argument on that is a bit more complicated. The time before now is an infinite set contained within a larger infinite set. If we call the big bang the "beginning of time", then we suppose that absolutely nothing happened before - we suppose without knowing. However, my every observation of time has led me to believe that it is continuous thing with no discrete beginning or end.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes. The same way I walk across a room, or Achilles outruns the Tortoise, in spite of infinite subdivisions.

Subdividing a finite amount of time isn't the same thing as travelling an infinite amount of time. Those are two different issues. However, I'll read your link when I get a chance.


eudaimonia,

Mark