What if you seek and don't find?

[Athée]

What? I am not getting this. God was giving the over view of how and what He created during the Creation. This is the point we are making here. You know full well that evidence in the fossil record changes quite often, new evidence comes to light that moves an appearance of some life form back into time by even hundreds of millions of years. There is no other Creation narrative that even comes close to being represented by scientific findings, but the Christian Narrative fits very very well. That being said, on the points that are not exactly as evidence now shows, we know that new evidence can support the narrative too. For instance, evidence shows that oxygen was present far far before the great oxidation event. Scientists do believe that some form of life had to be present prior to the event to have oxygen levels at where they are in new discoveries.
Can you present anything that would exclude the possibility that we could discover evidence that would support more closely the Biblical Creation Narrative?

I guess what I am not understanding is that your original claim was that life originated in the oceans, a scientific discovery that you say is predicted by the Bible and could not have been present except for divine revelation. Then you quote Genesis 1:21 which occurs in the middle of the creation sequence, so why in your mind does it happen first?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I guess what I am not understanding is that your original claim was that life originated in the oceans, a scientific discovery that you say is predicted by the Bible and could not have been present except for divine revelation. Then you quote Genesis 1:21 which occurs in the middle of the creation sequence, so why in your mind does it happen first?

I believe how this discussion began, I used the example of life starting in the seas. I shared the life swarming in the seas to support that comment.

 

[Athée]

"Why could we not drive it out?" 20And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith;

This does not day anything about Satan having access to the sinner because of what they have done. In fact is is only talking about the disciples and thier lack of faith so I think you have not yet made the case that Satan has greater access to serial killers.

Thank you. When have I ever claimed that belief is not fastened in evidence and reason? This goes to reason, why would anyone jump? It isn't that we can chose to believe something we know is not true. I know that the building is not only 4 inches tall.

Lol this is exactly why I figured the point had passed The catch comes because we as atheists know with the same certainty you have about the building, that the universe does not require God as an explanation, so for us the universe is not evidence of God. You Mk ugh be saying that we know that God is a possible explanation for the universe and this is true but so are an infinite number of other things as well. Universe creating pixies, universe creating unicorns, universe creating alien races etc... Do you think that by not believeing in those explanations, which fit the evidence exact as well as your God, that you are consciously choosing not to believe in them, or are you simply convinced by the evidence that those other explanations are not correct (exactly as we do with the God hypothesis).

Correct. God will always leave a way out.

OK so it seems we agree that the evidence of the universe on its own is not conclusive, so how do you make sense of Romans which says that it is?

Also I am still hoping you will provide some support for your belief that free will is important God. This ses to be central to many of your positions in this discussion but it has not yet been established.

I haven't a clue. God believes that unbelievers suppress the knowledge, but they earnestly believe that they don't.

Do you think God is right?

 

[Athée]

I believe how this discussion began, I used the example of life starting in the seas. I shared the life swarming in the seas to support that comment.

Right so as I see it your argument runs like this:
1 science shows that life began in the seas
2 God revealed this to the ancient writers and there is no other way for them to have know that.
3 we can tell that the Bible says life began first in the water because sea creatures and oceans swarming with life appear halfway through the creation story and after several life forms have ready appeared.

Clearly 3 is not a valid support of 2 so what am I missing in your argument?

 

[Oncedeceived]

This does not day anything about Satan having access to the sinner because of what they have done. In fact is is only talking about the disciples and thier lack of faith so I think you have not yet made the case that Satan has greater access to serial killers.

Yes it does. There are levels of evil that take more to take it out.

Lol this is exactly why I figured the point had passed The catch comes because we as atheists know with the same certainty you have about the building, that the universe does not require God as an explanation, so for us the universe is not evidence of God.

Really? You know with the same certainty as the building that the universe does not require God as an explanation? What evidence do you cite that provides that certainty?

You Mk ugh be saying that we know that God is a possible explanation for the universe and this is true but so are an infinite number of other things as well. Universe creating pixies, universe creating unicorns, universe creating alien races etc... Do you think that by not believeing in those explanations, which fit the evidence exact as well as your God, that you are consciously choosing not to believe in them, or are you simply convinced by the evidence that those other explanations are not correct (exactly as we do with the God hypothesis).

Is there documentation somewhere that provides a sequence of events that fits so well with evidence by pixies?...By unicorns?...By alien races?

OK so it seems we agree that the evidence of the universe on its own is not conclusive, so how do you make sense of Romans which says that it is?

I guess I would have to determine what is conclusive and what is not. I think it is pretty conclusive to conclude that design is apparent in the universe and all life in it. That is the evidence, what is free choice is how we interpret that evidence. You can make excuses for why there is design in the universe and life or you can choose to believe that apparent design is what it appears to be.

Also I am still hoping you will provide some support for your belief that free will is important God. This ses to be central to many of your positions in this discussion but it has not yet been established.

"See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”

Now are you telling me that after being a Christian you need me to point this out? Is not the entire NT about Choice?

Do you think God is right?

↑
I haven't a clue. God believes that unbelievers suppress the knowledge, but they earnestly believe that they don't.

I will say however, that when I wasn't a Christian my view wasn't what it is now. I didn't see the things I see now.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right so as I see it your argument runs like this:
1 science shows that life began in the seas
2 God revealed this to the ancient writers and there is no other way for them to have know that.
3 we can tell that the Bible says life began first in the water because sea creatures and oceans swarming with life appear halfway through the creation story and after several life forms have ready appeared.

Clearly 3 is not a valid support of 2 so what am I missing in your argument?

I said I used it as an example and now you are presenting it like it was the whole argument? Do you think that is fair? Do you think it is accurate?

 

[Davian]

But it does matter because we are suppose to be seeking truth and the context of the conversation is about the Christian God.

The subject is belief, and if we should be held accountable for them.

My theology is not based on a sense of ultimate justice but of ultimate mercy.

Then why all of your posts on morality and justice, if your theology is not based on morality or justice?

This is a case in which I was just pointing out. I clearly responded with so much more than a serial killer being allowed in heaven. You dismiss everything else and just claim that I am saying that all sorts of evil people can get into heaven, without the other part of my explanation. This seems like a clear example of cherry picking my response to fit into your worldview. You seem to ignore or dismiss the concept of mercy, repentance and the unlikelihood of someone of such a nature would in actuality repent of their sins and accept Christ as their savior. The mercy is that if they truly would, they could be saved and go to heaven. There is no one good enough to get to heaven on their own and no one bad enough that God denies His mercy and gift for eternal life.

...except for those "bad enough" to not believe, or believe in other gods, etc.

Serial killing is one thing, but disbelief...

You haven't shown that we are not in conscious control of what we believe. If we can truly change our mind, we are in control.

You are equating control...without reason. That is not the same thing. We can not believe anything without reason. That means our reasoning allows us to actually chose what we do believe.

Obviously our beliefs can change, but again you evade my point. I am talking about changing our beliefs by conscious choice.

You demonstrated that you could not do it, with the green apple example. How can you expect me to do the same for gods?

 

[Athée]

Yes it does. There are levels of evil that take more to take it out.

That passage was not talking about levels of evil in the sinner at all, it was talking about levels of faith in the disciples (unless there is more to the passage than you included). So again I don't think this passage says anything about Satan's access to sinners.

Really? You know with the same certainty as the building that the universe does not require God as an explanation? What evidence do you cite that provides that certainty?

That is what we are trying to say yes When we look at the world around us we have the same level of certainty that neither God nor pixie nor unicorn is responsible for it, that we do that that building is not 4 inches tall. That is how the evidence strikes us and that is why we have enough been saying we are not choosing to not believe in God. The evidence tells us that no God exists, it is not ambiguous in our minds either, which is why we have no conscious control over our belief in your universe creating God. For us trying to force ourselves to believe in your God as an explanation for the world around us is like you trying to believe that building is 4 inches tall... It just can't be done. In light of this, we are saying, how does it make sense to hold us morally accountable? If for some bizare reason the only way to get to heaven was to stand in that building and force yourself to believe that it was 4 inches you wouldn't be able to do it either, right?

Is there documentation somewhere that provides a sequence of events that fits so well with evidence by pixies?...By unicorns?...By alien races?

They are transcendent, invisible all knowing and all powerful and they knew that providing such documentation would force us to believe and violate our free will which is also very important to them. I know this by personal relation

I guess I would have to determine what is conclusive and what is not. I think it is pretty conclusive to conclude that design is apparent in the universe and all life in it. That is the evidence, what is free choice is how we interpret that evidence. You can make excuses for why there is design in the universe and life or you can choose to believe that apparent design is what it appears to be.

I wondered if this was what you were thinking but I try not to assume So I guess I will say straight up that I don't see evidence of intelligent design in the universe. What makes you think that there is?

Now are you telling me that after being a Christian you need me to point this out? Is not the entire NT about Choice?

No I have read the new testament a few times myself, but none of those verses make the case that God cares about our free will. There is nothing in any of them that would make it not a reasonable solution for God to force us to choose correctly or for God to create us with natures that would choose correctly on our own.

I haven't a clue. God believes that unbelievers suppress the knowledge, but they earnestly believe that they don't.

OK well it seems to me that you are saying...
1 God thinks we are all suppressing our knowledge.
2 God has clearly said this is what is going on.
3 I don't have any idea, meaning I don't know if this is what is going on.
4 Therefore I think it is possible that God, despite his clear statements on the topic, could be wrong.

 

[Athée]

I said I used it as an example and now you are presenting it like it was the whole argument? Do you think that is fair? Do you think it is accurate?

No that would not be fair or accurate. What I meant to convey was that your argument on the specific instance that the Bible predicted that the modern finding that life came from the seas seemed to be summarized in the way I presented it.
Didn't mean to offend but am interested in hearing where I am missing your point since I think we would both agree that 3 is not a valid support for 2

I also started a new thread to subcontract the point about free will! Hopefully someone smarter than me will make a clear and convincing case one way or the other

 

[Oncedeceived]

That passage was not talking about levels of evil in the sinner at all, it was talking about levels of faith in the disciples (unless there is more to the passage than you included). So again I don't think this passage says anything about Satan's access to sinners.

You've missed my point. I understand that the passage is not talking about levels of evil. I never implied it did. My point was in showing that in this passage we see that there are levels of evil that need more to eliminate them from people. The passage wasn't about that but the fact was that this person was inflicted with a stronger evil than others.

That is what we are trying to say yes When we look at the world around us we have the same level of certainty that neither God nor pixie nor unicorn is responsible for it, that we do that that building is not 4 inches tall. That is how the evidence strikes us and that is why we have enough been saying we are not choosing to not believe in God. The evidence tells us that no God exists, it is not ambiguous in our minds either, which is why we have no conscious control over our belief in your universe creating God.

Yes, you said that before and I am asking what evidence provides you with the certainty that no God is required? Just saying that you have this level of certainty and claiming that no God is needed does nothing to provide where this certainty arises and what evidence informed you of that.

For us trying to force ourselves to believe in your God as an explanation for the world around us is like you trying to believe that building is 4 inches tall... It just can't be done.

What evidence has provided you with this belief that can't be undone?

In light of this, we are saying, how does it make sense to hold us morally accountable? If for some bizare reason the only way to get to heaven was to stand in that building and force yourself to believe that it was 4 inches you wouldn't be able to do it either, right?

In light of what? You claiming that you can't believe that God is required for the universe? You haven't in any way shown that God is not required for the universe. One must have a better explanation and evidence to support that explanation to conclude that God was not required.

They are transcendent, invisible all knowing and all powerful and they knew that providing such documentation would force us to believe and violate our free will which is also very important to them. I know this by personal relation

Really? You really want to go here. That disappoints me. I was very impressed with your fairness and your ability to discuss your position without straw men. Darn. I mean I know that you are in a way joking but I rather see through that.

I wondered if this was what you were thinking but I try not to assume So I guess I will say straight up that I don't see evidence of intelligent design in the universe. What makes you think that there is?

Considering you said you looked into science, and I would assume you held that in some position of authority that you would not question the best minds in science when they claim they do see the appearance of design in the universe. I guess I was wrong.

No I have read the new testament a few times myself, but none of those verses make the case that God cares about our free will. There is nothing in any of them that would make it not a reasonable solution for God to force us to choose correctly or for God to create us with natures that would choose correctly on our own.

I believe that the whole entire Bible makes that case. I think that for centuries others, actually millions of others believe as I do. So what would provide all these people including myself to change our minds? If Christianity is true as we claim, it is not the Christian that by its theology is incorrect as the Holy Spirit informs the Christian of Bible truth so why should we believe that you know God's mind better than we do? What makes you think that you know that God could have or should have made a different world so that you and others couldn't reject Him?

OK well it seems to me that you are saying...
1 God thinks we are all suppressing our knowledge.
2 God has clearly said this is what is going on.
3 I don't have any idea, meaning I don't know if this is what is going on.
4 Therefore I think it is possible that God, despite his clear statements on the topic, could be wrong.

Isn't it funny that me just being a mere human can think differently than what you think I am thinking; yet you would have us believe that you know a better world is possible and that God should have provided it. If you can't even determine what my thoughts and positions are how in the world would I think you are capable of knowing what God could of or should of done to bring you and the minority of others holding your position to choosing God?
Now:
1. God doesn't think you are suppressing knowledge, He is absolutely certain of it if what the Bible claims is true.
2. God has clearly said this is the truth and is what is going on.
3. I myself have no way of determining the truth of the statement.
4. I know that God does not lie.
5. knowing God would not lie means that God is right.
6. Personally I have no knowledge of this suppression of knowledge
7. I have to conclude that while I have no clue as to whether or not you are suppressing this knowledge, God indeed does and I would not question that statement.
This is how I think, this is what my position clearly is and now you need not assume what my position is or believe something that you think I believe when I don't. Are we good?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No that would not be fair or accurate. What I meant to convey was that your argument on the specific instance that the Bible predicted that the modern finding that life came from the seas seemed to be summarized in the way I presented it.
Didn't mean to offend but am interested in hearing where I am missing your point since I think we would both agree that 3 is not a valid support for 2

I also started a new thread to subcontract the point about free will! Hopefully someone smarter than me will make a clear and convincing case one way or the other

Let me clarify what I think about Genesis and modern day science:


Science and Genesis


1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


This is like a heading or title rather than what many see as the first act in Creation. It is stating that there was a beginning to our universe and that God created both the heavens and the earth. This is supported later in Genesis. The Big Bang theory supports that the universe did have a beginning.


Now the earth was unformed and void,


This is stating that the earth was not formed yet. Which supports my viewpoint that the first verse is not the first act of Creation.



and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.


Science has shown that the early universe was dark (see below)

Up until recently, there was a conflict with Science due to the fact that it was considered impossible for a liquid form to be present during the formation of the universe. This also comes in below.




And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.


2 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5


http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_light_010808.html


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Astronomers announced Tuesday they have seen through the fog of the early universe to spy some of the first light emitted during a "cosmic renaissance" that occurred when the first galaxies were born.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The announcement came just days after a different research group said they had spotted the first evidence of the cosmic dark ages, the period long thought to have preceded this newly spotted cosmic brightening.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Together, the studies provide glimpses into the earliest mechanisms of the universe, after the Big Bang. Astronomers familiar with the studies called them important for helping create a timeline of the universe's evolution.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Evidence for the two epochs have long been sought by astronomers and cosmologists, who believe the universe began in a Big Bang some 12 to 15 billion years ago, after which the universe expanded rapidly but remained dark for millions and millions of years. Lumps and bumps were thought to form in an otherwise smooth distribution of matter during these dark ages, and the first galaxies were bornafter gravity caused these clumps of matter to grow larger. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The galaxies marked the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the cosmic renaissance.[/FONT]



6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7546975/


Liquid, not a gas

The quark-gluon plasma was made in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider — a powerful atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y. Unexpectedly, the quark-gluon plasma behaved like a perfect liquid of quarks, instead of a gas, the physicists said.

More to follow.

 

[Oncedeceived]

9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.

This again was thought conflicting with Scientific findings, it was thought that the early earth was too hot for a liquid state but that has been shown not to be the case. Early earth did have water on its surface.


11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. {P}


There are two points to consider in interpreting this verse. The first is that there is no evidence to support this verse. The second has two possible meanings which could be valid. The first of the two is that there is no evidence of this due to plate tectonics, it is a well known fact that the earliest surface of the earth is probably lost for all time due to movement. The second is that all plants and trees have their beginings from green algae which is the first life form on earth.


I concede that "evidence" to support my viewpoint on this is interpretive at best and so I will consider this verse somewhat of a gap in the conclusions I hold.

<=>>>>New information has come to light that oxygen levels support some sort of biological life on earth prior to the Great Oxidation Event and new fossil finds that look like possible plant life prior to the Cambrian have been discovered. There is controversy in whether or not these fossils are plant or animal.

 

[Oncedeceived]

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 19{P} and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.


There are several conflicts in this verse that skeptics have in their understanding of this verse. The first is firmament being meant as a hard dome surface but we see in the following verses that birds fly in the firmament which would be impossible to do in a hard domed surface. The second is that the sun was formed first with the moon and earth thereafter.


My viewpoint is that the age of the earth is not conclusive due to plate tectonics, the oldest known rocks are probably lost to us and those that are in evidence show the earth much older than scientists first believed. 03 February, 1998. Astronomers have been able to date the Sun by applying the theory of stellar structure and evolution to data that describe the interior of the Sun found through the study of solar oscillations. The Sun is dated at 4.5 billion years old, satisfyingly close to the 4.56 billion year age of the Solar System as found from the study of meteorites.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qage.html

Dating the Sun is an indirect process. There are several independent ways of estimating the age and they all give nearly the same answer: about 5 billion years.

The age of the Sun can be estimated from the ages obtained from radioactive dating of the oldest meteorites. This may seem odd at first, but in fact it is extremely likely that the solar system (i.e. th Sun, planets, asteroids etc.) formed as one unit. Therefore the age of the Sun should be close to the age of the meteorites, which can be found using the method of radioactive dating.

G.J. Wasserburg obtained a meteoritic age of (4.57 +/- 0.01) x 10^9 years and D.B. Guenther (1989, Astrophysical Journal 339, 1156) estimated that hydrogen burning started shortly thereafer (40 million (0.04 +/- .01) x 10^9 years later).

Additional evidence comes from the Earth. The oldest Earth rocks are also about 4.6 billion years old. The oldest fossils, found in Australia, are about 3.5 bilion years old. The presence of fossils in rocks indicates that the Earth was a suitable place for life when the fossils formed. This implies that the Sun was luminous at that time. [Of course we can't say exactly how long before the fossil formed the Sun was like it is today, but it does give us a lower bound.]

What is meant by "luminous?" We mean that the Sun was at or near the stable part of its lifetime called the "main sequence" more than 3.6 billion years ago. Viewing the Sun as a star on the main sequence, is very useful and important for astronomers because they have a model called "The Standard Solar Model" that views the Sun at stages in its life while it is burning hydrogen and converting that to helium. The model can be run forward and backward in time, and the astronomers can check the observable quantities in the model like luminosity, solar radius, composition, solar p-mode frequencies, and so on with our real Sun. They can stop the model at any time during its main sequence. If what we see from our Sun matches the quantities in the model for a specific age, then we have one more piece of information of what we think that the age of the Sun is.

One complication of checking the Solar Model with our real Sun is the quantity of helium: the "helium abundance." That is rather difficult to obtain. According to the Dalsgaard article (see below), the solar spectrum is too complicated to accurately measure the helium abundance, so that one parameter has to be estimated (one infers the helium abundance by matching the observed solar radius and luminosity in the solar models). It turns out this affects the estimated age very little.


20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'

This is stating what God wants done and the next verse says that is what he did.

 

[Oncedeceived]

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'

This is stating what God wants done and the next verse says that is what he did.

Hmmmm, I must have deleted this or something after I posted it earlier. You can go back and look for this if you want.

24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.


Now life moves to land. This is describing the Cenozoic period. The first mammals appear during this period.


26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food; 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so. 31And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/en/life-3.htm

The Cenozoic is the most current era, taking place from the last mass extinction of all land-based dinosaurs (approximately 65 million years ago) to the present day.

This era saw the rise of many mammals, such as whales, the great hunter cats, as well as Humans. But it also saw the rise of the birds, insects, and many new plants, including flowering plants.

Much of life as we know it today evolved during this era.


So we have in the general overview:

1. The Hadean, the Archeozoic and the Proterozioc eras.

2. The Paleozoic

3. The Mesozoic

4. The Cenozoic

All wrapped up in the Genesis narrative.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now we shouldn't go this far astray from the OP to discuss these thoughts of mine about Genesis I don't think but I wanted you to be aware of the whole spectrum of thought I have in regard to Genesis.

 

[Davian]

...
The Big Bang theory supports that the universe did have a beginning.

No, big bang cosmology does not address origins, it only describes the universe from its earliest known period until now.

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmologicalmodel for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Big bang cosmology is not incompatible with prior eternal or cyclical scientific models.

When making appeals to science, try for accuracy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, big bang cosmology does not address origins, it only describes the universe from its earliest known period until now.

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmologicalmodel for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Big bang cosmology is not incompatible with prior eternal or cyclical scientific models.

When making appeals to science, try for accuracy.

Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.

However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.

They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.

They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.

The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.

Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place).

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658: Did The Universe Have A Beginning?

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/

Right back at you.

 

[Davian]

Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.

However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.

They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.

They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.

The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.

Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place).

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658: Did The Universe Have A Beginning?

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/

Right back at you.

Then you concede that big bang cosmology does not address origins?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you concede that big bang cosmology does not address origins?

The point was that the universe had a beginning and that is what I was addressing.

 

[Davian]

The point was that the universe had a beginning and that is what I was addressing.

There is speculation that there was a beginning. I pointed out that big bang cosmology does not address origins. You then switched to other cosmological hypotheses.

Do you concede that big bang cosmology does not address origins?

And, do you concede what I am saying in post #327?