the origin of the universe - a short exercise

[partinobodycular]

Whichever unconscious mechanism you envision as the cause of the universe would just do that what it would do by default, namely create the universe... But with the uncaused cause being eternally self-existent, it would have created the universe an eternity ago, thereby running into the problems of an eternal universe.

Therefore the uncaused cause has to be conscious because only then it could decide to create the universe at any given time while itself being eternally self-existent.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it equates 'eternal' with 'infinite'. Instead it simply isn't accurate to ask what that 'unconscious mechanism' was doing 'before' it created reality. Because for that unconscious mechanism there's no such thing as before it created reality. It's like asking what it was doing before it created time. It's a nonsensical question.

You are correct about one thing though, it just did what it would do by default, namely create the universe. And at least as far as I can see, no consciousness was required.

Also if consciousness would be the result of mere chemical processes it would have no meaning. Our thoughts and feelings wouldn’t have any objective meaning, which would lead to the conclusion that nothing has any meaning.

Well then by all means make up a fictitious God if it gives you comfort. But if you really believe that I need your God to give my life meaning, then you're seriously mistaken.

Among all of the stars, and all of the planets, in all of the universe... I'm alive. What could possibly be any more amazing than that? And you think that my life doesn't have meaning. I've seen life and death, and joy and sorrow, and love and compassion, and hope and despair. And I've cherished every moment of it. It doesn't need any meaning beyond the fact that I got to live it.

I believe this conclusion is one of the causes of the existential crises we see many people struggling with nowadays because every human knows deep inside that our live do have an intrinsic purpose.

And yet oddly enough, my intrinsic purpose doesn't require your God.

 

[AV1611VET]

The million dollar question: what would they look for to see that the universal conditions were vastly different in the past?

Nothing.

There was no evidence generated during the Creation Week.

And between the Creation Week and the Fall, science is too myopic to ascertain what it was like then.

If you can't provide an answer, then don't blame others for ignoring what you say and passing it off as nonsense.

Those who ignore what I say have mental blocks that science put there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nothing.

There was no evidence generated during the Creation Week.

And between the Creation Week and the Fall, science is too myopic to ascertain what it was like then.

Then how can anyone look for nothing if no evidence was generated?

And what actual evidence would anyone look for between the Creation Week and the Fall? And by evidence I mean... you know, actual evidence, not verse you've taken out of context from the Bible.

Those who ignore what I say have mental blocks that science put there.

You're a single person on the internet who makes outrageous claims that would probably get you kicked out of any serious meeting of Christian preachers. I highly doubt that anyone is going to bend over backwards to hear you out or take you seriously, Mr 'Embedded Age'.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Buddy, I do not need science for matters of faith. You're asking questions that are squarely in the realm of science, and you keep wanting it to play by your rules.
The Bible is not a textbook, or a science book, or a history book. It is a book on faith, which was written over 2000 years ago by ancient Jews and then amended by the Roman-era Early Christians. The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.
And I am so very sorry that I don't ascribe to the outlandish and frankly insipid view from certain sects of American Christians that I have to hold 100% literally and infallibly to what the Bible says, even though the early church founders and thinkers didn't hold the same views and they lived much closer to Christ's time than you and your ilk do. And yes, I am 100% being facetious here.

Well I disagree because as I’ve pointed out the predictions that are made by scientists on the age of the earth are based on assumptions and they come right out and say that openly. I don’t know why so many people don’t recognize that fact. So their predictions are just as much based on faith as mine are. The only difference is that my faith is in the word of God and their faith is in their assumptions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well I disagree because as I’ve pointed out the predictions that are made by scientists on the age of the earth are based on assumptions and they come right out and say that openly. I don’t know why so many people don’t recognize that fact. So their predictions are just as much based on faith as mine are. The only difference is that my faith is in the word of God and their faith is in their assumptions.

You haven't 'pointed out' anything. You've made a claim, a pretty baseless one too. Scientists work with the information and evidence they have, and none of the evidence they have shows that the conditions of the universe were vastly different to what they are today in the distant past. It's not an assumption, it's working with the evidence.
The only one making assumptions here is you, buddy.

 

[sjastro]

indeed, also if the early conditions in the universe were different from what they are nowadays....

This indicates your knowledge of quantum field theories is not up to standard.
Quantum field theories unify quantum mechanics with special (not general) relativity and as such the speed of light c is a constant.

Quantum electrodynamics is by far the most accurate and successful theory in physics in terms of predictions and the fine structure constant α = e²/4πεₒhc ≈ 1/137 which is the strength of the electromagnetic force can only be a constant if c remains constant.
As mentioned in a previous post α has been found to be constant over time both experimentally and through observation.

A point which puzzles me is creationists seem to be blissfully unaware that by considering physical 'constants' to change with time contradicts another creationist theme of the universe being fine tuned where the constants have specific unchanging values as set by a creator.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then how can anyone look for nothing if no evidence was generated?

Good question.

When science learns that, maybe then they'll stop demanding evidence of Genesis 1:1, like a dog begging for a bone in a candy store.

And what actual evidence would anyone look for between the Creation Week and the Fall?

It wouldn't matter.

Science is too myopic to go look for it.

And case in point, I already answered that question in another post, and you probably didn't even "see" it because of a mental block.

But here it is again:

The earth was one tropical paradise.

And by evidence I mean... you know, actual evidence, not verse you've taken out of context from the Bible.

And again, you wouldn't know.

You're a single person on the internet who makes outrageous claims that would probably get you kicked out of any serious meeting of Christian preachers. I highly doubt that anyone is going to bend over backwards to hear you out or take you seriously, Mr 'Embedded Age'.

They need to bend sideways.

If they have a mental block, they need to "bend around" it.

And as long as they adhere to science, that's not gonna happen.

Unless the Holy Spirit helps them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You haven't 'pointed out' anything. You've made a claim, a pretty baseless one too. Scientists work with the information and evidence they have, and none of the evidence they have shows that the conditions of the universe were vastly different to what they are today in the distant past. It's not an assumption, it's working with the evidence.
The only one making assumptions here is you, buddy.

Ok, what do scientists observe about people who have been dead for 3 days? What does the evidence that they have suggest about people who have been dead for 3 days?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Good question.

When science learns that, maybe then they'll stop demanding evidence of Genesis 1:1, like a dog begging for a bone in a candy store.

Why should they when others keep trying to bring up Genesis in conversations about science?

It wouldn't matter.

Science is too myopic to go look for it.

And case in point, I already answered that question in another post, and you probably didn't even "see" it because of a mental block.

But here it is again:

The earth was one tropical paradise.

And the evidence for that is...?

And again, you wouldn't know.

QED

It wouldn't matter if they bent sideways.

If they have a mental block, they need to "bend around" it.

And as long as they adhere to science, that's not gonna happen.

Unless the Holy Spirit helps them.

This is an insult to Christian scientists. Especially since we all know thoroughly that the main problem is not science in general, more the fact that no-one and nobody takes your personal literal reading of the Bible as gospel. No way the Holy Spirit is going to help on what is 100% a man-made problem.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok, what do scientists observe about people who have been dead for 3 days? What does the evidence that they have suggest about people who have been dead for 3 days?

And what does that have to do with the fact that you cannot provide any single shred of evidence that the conditions of the universe were different in the past to what they are today?
At least make the effort to stick to the OP topic.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And what does that have to do with the fact that you cannot provide any single shred of evidence that the conditions of the universe were different in the past to what they are today?
At least make the effort to stick to the OP topic.

It has nothing to do with the age of the earth but it has everything to do with the difference between what the Bible tells us and what science tells us. I think that if you’re going to reject my argument about what is specifically written in the scriptures about the age of the earth as having any validity then you should scrutinize your own beliefs on Christ’s resurrection by the same reasoning that you’re scrutinizing my argument. I mean this is a science question is it not? This is not a faith question so do you reject the resurrection or do you reject biology?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It has nothing to do with the age of the earth but it has everything to do with the difference between what the Bible tells us and what science tells us. I think that if you’re going to reject my argument about what is specifically written in the scriptures about the age of the earth as having any validity then you should scrutinize your own beliefs on Christ’s resurrection by the same reasoning that you’re scrutinizing my argument. I mean this is a science question is it not? This is not a faith question so do you reject the resurrection or do you reject biology?

And I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on my religious beliefs, which I know that you're not going to accept anyway since neither one of us follow the exact same minutia of beliefs. It's not the purpose of this thread nor this subforum.
You made the claim that the conditions of the universe were vastly different in the past, which is a claim from you only, with no evidence to back it up. You act as if there is scientific evidence for your claim, and since you're talking about something scientific, then you must have something scientific to show for it. Have at it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on my religious beliefs, which I know that you're not going to accept anyway since neither one of us follow the exact same minutia of beliefs. It's not the purpose of this thread nor this subforum.
You made the claim that the conditions of the universe were vastly different in the past, which is a claim from you only, with no evidence to back it up. You act as if there is scientific evidence for your claim, and since you're talking about something scientific, then you must have something scientific to show for it. Have at it.

No I never made such a claim, I made a hypothetical statement about a plausible possibility. I never said anything about the creation process that is definitive. I would never make a definitive statement about the creation processes unless it is specifically stated in the scriptures.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on my religious beliefs, which I know that you're not going to accept anyway since neither one of us follow the exact same minutia of beliefs. It's not the purpose of this thread nor this subforum.

So what you don’t want to admit is that you won’t scrutinize your own beliefs with the same line of reasoning as you scrutinize my beliefs. Your belief in the resurrection is plausible even tho it’s contradictory to what science has observed but my belief in the creation of the earth is implausible because of what science has observed. How is that not a hypocrisy?

 

[Larniavc]

So what the Bible says about the age of the earth isn’t evidence?

It's a claim. Claims are not evidence.

 

[BCP1928]

So what the Bible says about the age of the earth isn’t evidence?

The Bible doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No I never made such a claim, I made a hypothetical statement about a plausible possibility. I never said anything about the creation process that is definitive. I would never make a definitive statement about the creation processes unless it is specifically stated in the scriptures.

Then I will apologise for saying that you did. I misread your comments.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So what you don’t want to admit is that you won’t scrutinize your own beliefs with the same line of reasoning as you scrutinize my beliefs. Your belief in the resurrection is plausible even tho it’s contradictory to what science has observed but my belief in the creation of the earth is implausible because of what science has observed. How is that not a hypocrisy?

Not in the slightest because:
A) That's not what the OP topic is about.
B) I've not made any comments about my believes vis a vis science, only you have so I am under no onus to make a commentary on it.
C) You're the only one of us two making commentary about science and the Bible being contradictory to one another so if anyone has to have their beliefs scrutinized, it is you.
And D) As per the statement of purpose of this subforum, the Physical & Life Sciences subforum is not a place for apologetics debates.

So, nope. No hypocrisy here.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Then I will apologise for saying that you did. I misread your comments.

Apology accepted friend, I’ve made similar mistakes here on CF numerous times.

 

[Astrid]

Well I disagree because as I’ve pointed out the predictions that are made by scientists on the age of the earth are based on assumptions and they come right out and say that openly. I don’t know why so many people don’t recognize that fact. So their predictions are just as much based on faith as mine are. The only difference is that my faith is in the word of God and their faith is in theirbsssumptions

Sounds as if your faith is in yourself.