So where's the error/s?

[EverettInterpretation]

Could you explain those principles to me or give a link to where I can read about these principles, please Bill?
Cosmologists employ the Copernican and the Cosmological principles in their work, as well as the principle of Parsimony and various other principles. It'd be nice to know how the principles you refer to square up with the ones I'm familiar with.

I don't have any specific principles in mind. What I mean is simply a general thing, that principles of nature would be scientific and therefore predictable, set in what they do. Therefore, why didn't they operate to make the universe sooner, if they alone were involved?

Well, that all depends on what you mean by the word, 'sooner', Bill.

A strictly relativistic (Einsteinain) description of the origin of the universe invokes what's known as an initial singularity - which is considered to be the source of space and time. There is no 'before' or 'beyond' the singularity. The count of time cannot be taken back any further than the singularity to a "time" before it, allowing the universe to come into being any 'sooner'. As Stephen Hawking has commented, "That would be like arriving at the North Pole and trying to go further North. It can't be done."

But that strictly relativistic description cannot be an adequate one - because it takes no account of quantum physics.

And I simply understand that any real principles were created by God and have worked when and how He has pleased, with Him starting it all.

I see this as an entirely valid statement of faith on your part, Bill.

And I agree that we can know something is true, even while we are not perfect; but how we are, in our character, can effect how we understand and apply what we have discovered.

Agreed.

I can be a perfectionist, rejecting a whole thing because I find some one little fault in it. But in loving, this does not work well.

 

[com7fy8]

Well, that all depends on what you mean by the word, 'sooner', Bill.

This goes with my saying that "before" the universe banged into existence, wouldn't there be the physical principles which would cause that? So, why didn't those principles do what they do "sooner"? . . . if it was really a process only of physical principles. By "sooner" I mean while there was no universe. If God didn't cause it, I understand that scientific principles of matter and energy always do the same thing - - are predictable and measurable, therefore; so how come, if physical existence was all there was, why didn't those principles cause a big bang "sooner"?

Below, you possibly are presenting how Albert explains about this >

A strictly relativistic (Einsteinain) description of the origin of the universe invokes what's known as an initial singularity - which is considered to be the source of space and time. There is no 'before' or 'beyond' the singularity.

This, "of course", I would say, is not something that comes from experimenting by means of the scientific method.

But - - - there is the idea of how matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed. So, if matter and energy can't be created, this might mean that there did exist some form of matter and/or energy while there was no big-banged universe. While there was some existent form of energy and/or matter but no universe, this is "when" I mean by "sooner". However, "of course", there was not time, then . . . no time that could be measured by the relative position of the sun around the earth, since there was no sun or earth "then".

The count of time cannot be taken back any further than the singularity to a "time" before it, allowing the universe to come into being any 'sooner'. As Stephen Hawking has commented, "That would be like arriving at the North Pole and trying to go further North. It can't be done."

This sounds like philosophy, with the problem of it being said by certain scientists that matter and energy can't be created nor destroyed. If there wasn't God "in the mix", I would think there would need to be set scientifically measurable principles which would produce a big bang of the already-existent forms of matter and/or energy.

By the way, Everett > ones who leave God out can have the explanation which you have presented as being what Albert and Steve have given. But I think you did not actually say you yourself go with that. Maybe you simply understand that there are things you don't know; I think you said this, in an earlier post.

They have stated their faith, and I have stated what I understand. But, for me faith is not only beliefs which I have > our Apostle Paul speaks of "faith working through love," in Galatians 5:6. I understand that faith can mean our actual spiritual connection with God (1 Corinthians 6:17) so we know "that He is" (Hebrews 11:6) and "is love" (1 John 4:8&16), and in this connection we have His love's correction (Hebrews 12:4-11) into His love's perfection (1 John 4:17) . . . more and more So, "real" faith involves the proof of experience (Hebrews 11:1), not only logic and beliefs.

So . . . back to this idea that you can't go any more "north", once you reach the North Pole. You can not go any farther on land, as measured by land, yes. However, if you go up into the air and keep going up up and away from the South Pole, then this is another kind of going "north", except it can't be measured by where you are on the circumference of the earth, since you are no longer down to earth.

And, "like" this, while the universe did not exist, there could be matter and/or levels/forms of energy but no time measurement by means of the position of the sun around the earth, since there is no sun. But even if you don't have the sun, there still is "time" of some sort, meaning the timing of how other things move in relation with one another. So, if Albert and Steve really mean there was no sort of time, at all, before the universe came into existence, I consider they might have an escape philosophy, trying to explain things away from something they just don't want to believe.

My concern is that if God is so good, "why" would He create what is inferior? How, ever, could He even think of what is inferior, if He was all there is during some "time" during past eternity? So, I consider there are substances or whatever that have always existed, and He created things and beings by organizing different existent substances into organized forms, since He is orderly. So, material stuff was used to create the universe; human spiritual stuff was used to make humans, and this inside physical-stuff bodies.

And there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2) > there was spiritual stuff evil and God organized this into beings who are evil . . . so that the messy nasty spirit would not be just anywhere everywhere.

But I get this from "logic"; this is not what I have read in the Bible or been told by any human being, ever. I am satisfied that God did not bring the spirit of evil into existence, in any case; nor did any good creature bring the spirit of evil into existence, I consider.

So, my offering is that Albert and Steve have stepped into philosophy. And I understand that Jesus says "before the world was" (in John 17:5), He had glory with our Father. Jesus Himself says "before" They were in very special and sensitive sharing with one another. And our Father was so pleased with Jesus, that He now wants to have many children who are like His own Son. And this universe is the place where He is producing and maturing people to become pleasing to Him like Jesus . . . more and more as we gain His correction of His love's perfection > 1 John 4:17.

So, Jesus Himself uses the word "before" to refer to while the universe did not yet exist. And "then" was while He and our Father were very busy with love, first, sharing with one another . . . not busy with material things and trying to figure out what's with material things. I consider and offer how marvelously made the universe is, including with all the beautiful and wonderful plants and organisms which we can enjoy without dissecting them physically and intellectually The Bible does say God "gives us richly all things to enjoy." (in 1 Timothy 6:17) So, His love for us is included in the motivation for this universe to be so enjoyable . . . in spite of the evil which so many rather give their attention to, instead of enjoying what is so much more in quality and quantity than the evil is.

But God loves us even more, by how He sent His own Son so delighting to Him . . . to us . . . though we are so less than He is; so God is not conceited

So, if Albert and Steve have stepped elsewhere into philosophy, from their science, I do not know them personally so I can know why. There is a lot more good, than evil, in this created universe, even; so I would not let evil decide what I believe and do >

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)

 

[Troy Rambo]

Hello.
I have some questions for any Young Earth Creationists willing to respond.
Ok, the questions themselves may be flawed and maybe the assumptions I'm making are too (so any help on those fronts would be appreciated), but what I can't figure out is this.

How can this be?
In 1980 a scientist made a prediction about the properties of a then-undetected type of radiation coming from the very ancient universe. In 1990 this radiation was detected and measured for the first time and it's properties agreed exactly with the 1980 prediction of it. In fact, this example is the most precise agreement between prediction and observation ever made. This linked image shows the agreement between the prediction (green) and the observed data (red). (Please see first graph on the right.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

So, if the universe isn't billions of years old and is only around 6,000 years old, why is there such a precise agreement between what was predicted and what was observed?
(Remembering that this is not a post-diction - an interpretation of previously known data - but a prediction of something that was unknown in 1980.)

So, where's the error/s?
How can the universe be telling us it's billion's of years old if it's actually about 6,000?
Can someone help me to understand (in terms of logic, rather than faith) why the cosmos doesn't agree with scripture?

Thanks,

E.I.

Its simply a matter of choice of what you want to believe. If you believe the Bible is the true word of God, then anything that contradicts it is a lie. I believe they are lying about the old age theory, along with the dinosaurs and evolution. They are simply making stuff up. Just like all the other false religions out there. They are all made up lies.

 

[com7fy8]

Its simply a matter of choice of what you want to believe. If you believe the Bible is the true word of God, then anything that contradicts it is a lie. I believe they are lying about the old age theory, along with the dinosaurs and evolution.

I recall that the Bible says that before the flood of Noah, there had not been any rain, but there was mist. So, I consider this means there was a worldwide rain forest. And in such a situation, there could have been dinosaurs along with humans. But after the flood, there were four seasons so dinos could not survive in such a different climate.

They are simply making stuff up.

The truth is I do not personally know all the people who supposedly did their research and discovering; and yes people do lie and rig things to look the way they want people to see things . . . like "maybe" in American politics. I have seen how people can make things look and argue things, so they can use people for pleasures and money and power. And, of course, religious people do this, so I could suspect that Christian things have been rigged.

But I do experience God quietly (1 Peter 3:4) sharing with me (Romans 5:5) and correcting me (Hebrews 12:4-11) . . . proving what the Bible says He does with people. I did not come close to thinking up how He is with me and others, and no one told me. DNA did not mutate to make me discover how God living in us is a match with how the Bible says He has us living and loving. And circumstances did not produce this, so differently for me, than for others in the same circumstances . . . including in the same churches!

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Its simply a matter of choice of what you want to believe. If you believe the Bible is the true word of God, then anything that contradicts it is a lie. I believe they are lying about the old age theory, along with the dinosaurs and evolution. They are simply making stuff up. Just like all the other false religions out there. They are all made up lies.

I don't think there's much else that can pass between us, Troy.

But thanks for responding.

E.I.

 

[Troy Rambo]

And in such a situation, there could have been dinosaurs along with humans. But after the flood, there were four seasons so dinos could not survive in such a different climate.

I dont believe that the dinosaurs existed at all because if they lied about they existed 70 million years ago, then you can reason that the dinosaurs never existed as well. If the dinosaurs existed during biblical times, then why didnt the Bible clearly mention them. Surely, a dinosaur would be hard to miss wouldnt it?

 

[EverettInterpretation]

This goes with my saying that "before" the universe banged into existence, wouldn't there be the physical principles which would cause that? So, why didn't those principles do what they do "sooner"? . . . if it was really a process only of physical principles. By "sooner" I mean while there was no universe. If God didn't cause it, I understand that scientific principles of matter and energy always do the same thing - - are predictable and measurable, therefore; so how come, if physical existence was all there was, why didn't those principles cause a big bang "sooner"?

Below, you possibly are presenting how Albert explains about this > This, "of course", I would say, is not something that comes from experimenting by means of the scientific method.

But - - - there is the idea of how matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed. So, if matter and energy can't be created, this might mean that there did exist some form of matter and/or energy while there was no big-banged universe. While there was some existent form of energy and/or matter but no universe, this is "when" I mean by "sooner". However, "of course", there was not time, then . . . no time that could be measured by the relative position of the sun around the earth, since there was no sun or earth "then".This sounds like philosophy, with the problem of it being said by certain scientists that matter and energy can't be created nor destroyed. If there wasn't God "in the mix", I would think there would need to be set scientifically measurable principles which would produce a big bang of the already-existent forms of matter and/or energy.

By the way, Everett > ones who leave God out can have the explanation which you have presented as being what Albert and Steve have given. But I think you did not actually say you yourself go with that. Maybe you simply understand that there are things you don't know; I think you said this, in an earlier post.

They have stated their faith, and I have stated what I understand. But, for me faith is not only beliefs which I have > our Apostle Paul speaks of "faith working through love," in Galatians 5:6. I understand that faith can mean our actual spiritual connection with God (1 Corinthians 6:17) so we know "that He is" (Hebrews 11:6) and "is love" (1 John 4:8&16), and in this connection we have His love's correction (Hebrews 12:4-11) into His love's perfection (1 John 4:17) . . . more and more So, "real" faith involves the proof of experience (Hebrews 11:1), not only logic and beliefs.

So . . . back to this idea that you can't go any more "north", once you reach the North Pole. You can not go any farther on land, as measured by land, yes. However, if you go up into the air and keep going up up and away from the South Pole, then this is another kind of going "north", except it can't be measured by where you are on the circumference of the earth, since you are no longer down to earth.

And, "like" this, while the universe did not exist, there could be matter and/or levels/forms of energy but no time measurement by means of the position of the sun around the earth, since there is no sun. But even if you don't have the sun, there still is "time" of some sort, meaning the timing of how other things move in relation with one another. So, if Albert and Steve really mean there was no sort of time, at all, before the universe came into existence, I consider they might have an escape philosophy, trying to explain things away from something they just don't want to believe.

My concern is that if God is so good, "why" would He create what is inferior? How, ever, could He even think of what is inferior, if He was all there is during some "time" during past eternity? So, I consider there are substances or whatever that have always existed, and He created things and beings by organizing different existent substances into organized forms, since He is orderly. So, material stuff was used to create the universe; human spiritual stuff was used to make humans, and this inside physical-stuff bodies.

And there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2) > there was spiritual stuff evil and God organized this into beings who are evil . . . so that the messy nasty spirit would not be just anywhere everywhere.

But I get this from "logic"; this is not what I have read in the Bible or been told by any human being, ever. I am satisfied that God did not bring the spirit of evil into existence, in any case; nor did any good creature bring the spirit of evil into existence, I consider.

So, my offering is that Albert and Steve have stepped into philosophy. And I understand that Jesus says "before the world was" (in John 17:5), He had glory with our Father. Jesus Himself says "before" They were in very special and sensitive sharing with one another. And our Father was so pleased with Jesus, that He now wants to have many children who are like His own Son. And this universe is the place where He is producing and maturing people to become pleasing to Him like Jesus . . . more and more as we gain His correction of His love's perfection > 1 John 4:17.

So, Jesus Himself uses the word "before" to refer to while the universe did not yet exist. And "then" was while He and our Father were very busy with love, first, sharing with one another . . . not busy with material things and trying to figure out what's with material things. I consider and offer how marvelously made the universe is, including with all the beautiful and wonderful plants and organisms which we can enjoy without dissecting them physically and intellectually The Bible does say God "gives us richly all things to enjoy." (in 1 Timothy 6:17) So, His love for us is included in the motivation for this universe to be so enjoyable . . . in spite of the evil which so many rather give their attention to, instead of enjoying what is so much more in quality and quantity than the evil is.

But God loves us even more, by how He sent His own Son so delighting to Him . . . to us . . . though we are so less than He is; so God is not conceited

So, if Albert and Steve have stepped elsewhere into philosophy, from their science, I do not know them personally so I can know why. There is a lot more good, than evil, in this created universe, even; so I would not let evil decide what I believe and do >

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)

Hello Bill.

This is quite a lot of ground for me to cover, so can you please give me a little time and I'll get back to you, with a properly thought-out response to your many points?

Thanks,

E.i.

 

[com7fy8]

can you please give me a little time

I think that possibly both of us have made our points. And you have represented what well known scientists and philosophers have to say. I now have maybe the most of an explanation that I am going to get about why ones claim there could be a big bang.

But if you have anything more to share, fine. But I think you have made yourself clear, and I have offered what I think about it. So, take your time or maybe you will get some thoughts, by resting about it.

Sometimes I find that patience brings things faster than hurry and pushing Thank you for your time and explanations.

 

[hedrick]

This goes with my saying that "before" the universe banged into existence, wouldn't there be the physical principles which would cause that?

At this point there's no agreement on what happened before the big bang, or whether that question even makes sense (since time is part of the universe). However many of the models do suggest that there was something. E.g. one model says that the universe condensed out of an eternally expanding system. I think at this point it is premature to look at theological implications, except for the obvious fact that the universe is billions of years old.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

I think that possibly both of us have made our points. And you have represented what well known scientists and philosophers have to say. I now have maybe the most of an explanation that I am going to get about why ones claim there could be a big bang.

But if you have anything more to share, fine. But I think you have made yourself clear, and I have offered what I think about it. So, take your time or maybe you will get some thoughts, by resting about it.

Sometimes I find that patience brings things faster than hurry and pushing Thank you for your time and explanations.

Ok then Bill.

Perhaps this thread has run it's course and needs winding up. I see that Hedrick has made a post, so I'll respond to him and then call it wind things up.

Thanks for your input, btw.

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

At this point there's no agreement on what happened before the big bang, or whether that question even makes sense (since time is part of the universe). However many of the models do suggest that there was something. E.g. one model says that the universe condensed out of an eternally expanding system. I think at this point it is premature to look at theological implications, except for the obvious fact that the universe is billions of years old.

Thanks for this, Hedrick.

Yes, there's much debate and theorizing about what might 'precede' the Big Bang, but nothing in the way of definitive and direct evidence. Should the B-mode polarization of the CMB finally be nailed down, that would seem to imply that Inflationary theory is our best 'fit'. However, in the light of the BICEP2 fiasco, I'm not holding my breath!

Anyway, it seems that this thread has run it's natural course, so unless you've further input, I'm retiring from it.

Thanks again,

E.I.

 

[pastor marty]

Everett; U should concentrate on the scientific evidence 4 GOD; & save who,what ,where 4 HIM. UR lack of knowledge/belief may well land an atheist in an eternity of watching re-runs of the big-bang while those w/faith are enjoying forever. (sompin' ta' think about !) B/Blessed marty

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Everett; U should concentrate on the scientific evidence 4 GOD; & save who,what ,where 4 HIM. UR lack of knowledge/belief may well land an atheist in an eternity of watching re-runs of the big-bang while those w/faith are enjoying forever. (sompin' ta' think about !) B/Blessed marty

Thanks for your concern, Marty.

However, the very nature and function of science itself prevents me from doing as you suggest.
Science is (by definition) agnostic about the existence/non-existence of God. It's not within the remit of science to attribute any observed phenomenon to a supernatural cause. Science investigates only the natural, not the supernatural. Nor is it permitted for science to invoke anything religious or supernatural to explain what it observes. Ok, a scientist can hold to religious beliefs in their private lives - but it is unprofessional for them to bring these beliefs into their work.

A good example of this scientific professionalism at work was the team of Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salaam. They worked on Electroweak Unification, back in the 60's and 70's. Glashow came from an orthodox Jewish background, Weinberg is a Humanist and Salaam was a devout Muslim. However, they rightly and properly put their diverse personal beliefs aside and adopted a thoroughly agnostic approach to their scientific work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

So Marty, I really can't look for scientific evidence for God.
If I were to take any scientific data out of it's agnostic context, I'd be subverting it and wrongly using it to arrive at a conclusion it wasn't designed to address.

Thanks,

E.I.