And type the wrong key on the keyboard... So you're an Old Earth Creationist, then?
Considering I had thought it was number 2 that gave number 3s position, yep. Looked at number three, marked number 2 (thinking #2 was the one I had glanced over), and here we are today.
Judging from your posts, number 4 might be as close or closer to your position as is number 3....
Not really. Number 3 (believing in the possibility of micro-evolution, while denying the reality of macro-evolution) is my stance. Whether God directs micro-evolution or not, I simply dont know.
I hesitate to mention this, but from a scientific perspective, it can be argued that a belief in a beginning does not necessarily require belief in a Beginner. Because "quantum uncertainty" (an aspect of the physics known as quantum mechanics) allows the small but finite possibility of something coming into being from nothing via what is known as a quantum fluctuation, it can be at least argued that the laws of nature allow the creation of the universe without the need for a creator.
What you seem to be saying is logically impossible. Out of nothing, nothing comes. If you have nothing, youre always going to have nothing unless an outside force acts upon it. This is a philosophical law as even understood by David Hume (Though I disagree with his overall stance, he makes quite a few good points). Besides, for a fluctuation to occur, there has to be something fluctuating, right? Where, then, did this thing that is fluctuating come from?
And, as you pointed out, there is the problem of cause and effect: Effects are separated from causes by time; but before the universe began, time did not exist.
Actually, we dont know that. We know that the Universe had a beginning, and that time had a beginning, but to say they both had a beginning together is without basis.
And finally, where would the quantum fluctuation occur? Prior to the big bang (or creation of the universe), space, time and matter did not exist. Both science and theology agree that prior to "the beginning" there was not even a vacuous void within which the universe was to appear.
So then, there was nothing, right? Thats one of those neat things about God he can create something out of nothing (which is an act I cant see any human accomplishing any time soon).
Granted. However, you changed the problem of the apples from a personally subjective one to an empirically scientific one.
Not really. I clarified what was being asked. What color is the apple is too vague, since it could be taken as What do you see the color as or How does light reflect off the apple, and those are two totally different questions. To get the right answers, you must ask the right questions.
Even if you show a colour-blind person the wavelengths of "red" light being reflected off an apple (say via an oscilloscope), they still will not be able to see the red light. Therefore, they still have no way of knowing that the apple is actually "red" (other than to take your word for it).
Where does the light fall on the spectrum? Theres a certain area defined as red, and if the light turns up to be on that area, then its red. Or perhaps you can measure the wavelengths of the light, since different colors have different wavelengths (or is it frequencies?). See what it measures out, and you will have objectively found out the color of the apple.
While I'm sure your argument would convince a lot of people, I don't view time quite the same way. Time, to me anyway, is a purely human construct to explain relative changes we observe. Our perception of time is shaped by the memories we form.
Time isnt always subjective, though. It can be measured objectively just as the light reflecting off an apple can (atomic clocks are usually the best sort of tools for objectively measuring this thing we call time).
However, I've yet to see any method of measuring "time" indepedent [sic]of some form of change.
Time and change, in this world, seem to go hand in hand. However, that doesnt need to be the case. If nothing changed in the world (suppose it was frozen over in ice for some reason), time would still continue in spite of the loss of change. We measure time by things that change at a constant and steady rate so that we can understand how much time has passed.
Calenders [sic], digital clocks, atomic clocks, human memory... all of these are measurements of relative physical change, and none actually measure an independant [sic]quantitative value of "time". (Btw, here's an interesting page I found on the subject of "time".)
Then take, for example, a moment. A theoretically infinite number of dimensionless points exists between my thumb and my first finger, but I cannot get an infinite number of sheets of paper between them not matter how thin they are. Each moment that passes uses up real time that we can never again experience. Moving your finger across an infinite number of books in a library would never get to the last book. You can never finish an infinite series of real things.
If this is so, then time must have had a beginning. If the world never had a beginning, then we could not have reached now. But we have reached now, so time must have begun at a particular point and proceeded to today. Therefore the world is a finite event after all and needs a cause for its beginning.
And yes, I understand at least the basics of the "arrow of time" with regards to Thermodynamics. More below
Unforunately [sic], I haven't yet read up enough on the laws of Thermodynamics, their applicability to the universe as a whole, and the whole "heat death" consequence of doing so
It's an interesting line of thought, especially with regards to a universal "beginning", but not one for which I'm properly equipped to debate.
Okay, Ill elaborate further on this then. According to the second law of Thermodynamics, in a closed, isolated system, such as the universe is, the amount of usable energy is decreasing. The universe is running down, hence cannot be eternal. Otherwise, it would have run out of usable energy long ago. Things left to themselves, without outside intelligent intervention, tend toward disorder. Since the universe has not reached a state of total disorder, this process has not been going on forever.
Another set of evidence comes from the widely accepted big bang cosmology. According to this view, the universe exploded into being some 15-20 billion years ago. Evidence offered for this includes the (1) red shift or Doppler effect noticed in the light from stars as they move away; (2) the radiation echo from space, which has the same wavelength that would be given off by a gigantic cosmic explosion; (3) discovery of a mass of energy such as was expected from an explosion.
Agnostic Robert Jastrow, founder-director of NASAs Goddard Institute of Space Studies, said, A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientists pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. But if the universe was created, then it is reasonable to conclude there was a Creator. For everything that has a beginning needs a beginner.
Yes, but if you're wrong and Islam is right, then I imagine Allah will be rather ticked with you for your heretical ways.
Very true, though Im quite sure thats not the case, but even so, I dont think the point is moot like you said. God is to be searched for just as the truth is to be searched for, since your eternal fate rests upon the outcome.
The whole idea of holding a particular belief "just in case" is illogical.
If all else fails, just use Pascals Wager for motivation. If the atheist is right and the Christian is wrong, then their outcome is the same nothing. However, if the Christian is right and the atheist is wrong, then the Christian gets eternity with his/her creator, while the atheist gets eternal torment by being sent away from his/her creator. It seems the only way to win is to believe. Atheism seems to be a wager that has no possibility of winning as it were. Other faiths claim to be the truth as well, so I suggest research them in your search for God (Since, like we concluded earlier, there can only be one truth), though Im quite convinced through conducting such research, Christianity is the most reasonable/best supported conclusion.
It turns the whole idea of religous belief into a lottery to see who gets into Heaven (or whatever happens in the afterlife). And, in my opinion, that cheapens the fundamental reason for believing in God.
Indeed, I think youre right. It should be your thirst for the truth and that love for your Creator which urges you to search, but for some people (unfortunately), that doesnt seem to be the case.
True, but you can't equate spiritual belief with mathmatics [sic].
I prefer the terms Theology, and/or Philosophy. Those are much more objective terms than spiritual belief. The truth of origins, and the truth of God can be just as objectively researched as mathematics (Though, like mathematics, not all questions have easy answers).
Spiritual belief (at least everything I have been taught) is personal.
It is, but its also no more personal than someones personal belief that 1+1=2.
Christians often talk about a "personal relationship with God" (see this post in the Apologetics forum).
A personal relationship is different than subjective evidence. Youre talking about two different things now: Relationship and evidence. A relationship is best (I think) when its personal, while the evidence is most reliable when its objective.
If God were provable by the same methods as a mathmatical equation, then why all the debate?
Thats a good question. I present all these facts that show how God exists, that the universe had a beginning, etc., and people still just dont seem to get it. Its like a teacher trying to explain some sort of math equation to a student.
We'd know who or what God is, and that would be the end of it.
None are as blind as those who dont want to see.
But God is not knowable along those lines. It takes a much deeper, personal spiritual connection to know God.
The facts lead you to him, much like a map might lead you to my house (or dorm rather). Once youve arrived at the right location, the search is over, and you can enjoy the personal relationship.
This is something which is very difficult to convey to a fellow human being, which is why it is so difficult to accept as "absolute".
But what some of these people are trying to convey isnt really the truth. They're the sort of people who took a wrong turn, ended up at a city monument, and are telling me about their feelings towards that monument/statue. Its not the real thing. You must use the objective evidence to make sure youve arrived at the right conclusion (or location as it were).