Why do YEC Christians commonly challenge the theory of evolution, while...

[BigV]

Someone raised a point that if 2+3=4000 were actually true, then Christ's miracle with the fish and bread wouldn't even be a miracle.

Well, I hear you, buddy, but I'd counter that the +Y (or Jesus working miracles) factor is unpredictable. it's like a random number generator. So, with Jesus, 2+3 could equal 4,000 or it could equal 0.

In biology, Christians make no predictions as to how many animals share a common ancestor. In their view, all different kinds, that reproduce within their own kinds, were created ex-nihilo. On the day 6 of the Creation. They are not concerned with the how it was done. It's irrelevant to them on the how. The important lesson in their school is that it happened as they believe it did. And they will (and do) fight a naturalist.

But, strangely, they are very content while studying a math or physics subject. And naturalism doesn't bother them one bit during those classes.

 

[BigV]

So the sun moon and stars were placed IN the heavens. Sounds good to me so far. I'm not sure what you are saying about water above the heavens though?

Ah.. so the heavens is now SPACE? So, where is the water above the firmament then? Let me guess, it disappeared after the flood because that's where flood waters came from, flooded the entire planet and then disappeared somewhere without a trace?

Well good for them, but I don't subscribe to that model, I prefer the Earth as a sphere model like the ancient Babylonians.

Where is your evidence that ancient Babylonians had the Earth as a sphere rather than a flat circle?

 

[SPF]

No, you always have +Y because Jesus is a real and existing being that sustains and holds everything. He is answering prayers as we speak. Giving people cures from cancers, helping people find parking spaces and actively working against COVID19 for those deemed worthy of a healing while punishing sinners.

Well that's fine, it still works logically.

Therefore, 2+2 could equal 5, because, again, +Y is the unknown factor which is always there.

Again, 2+2=4 and will always equal 4.

In the feeding of the 5,000 for example. We could say that 2 (number of physical fish) +Y (Number of fish created ex nihilo) = 2,000

So yes, the Y will change based upon the specific miracle at hand. And what exactly is the problem with that? It's not illogical, that's actually common sense.

For example, how did all of the life forms start to exist

Easy, an omnipotent Being created them ex nihilo. I think it takes more faith to believe the universe has either eternally existed, or came into existence out of nothing, which is the position you're forced to hold.

How can the earth be only 10,000-15,000 years old?

Well that's an odd question. If it was created 10,000-15,000 years ago, then that's how it's 10,000 to 15,000 years old. I personally suspect it's much older though.

So why not carry the same reasoning forward to math and other sciences?

Why continue making the same categorical mistakes? Omnipotence does not apply to the illogical or non-sensical.

God cannot draw a square-circle.

God cannot create another eternal being.

God cannot make 2+2=5

Those are illogical and non-sensical.

The omnipotence of God has always been understood to mean that God can do all possible things.

 

[BigV]

1. God has eternally existed and created the universe.

Where did God exist and how? Was/is God a part of the Universe or is he outside of it? If he is a part of the Universe, then you believe in the Universe being eternal.

IF he exists outside of the universe, then you hold the view similar to that of having extra dimensions. But then you need to account for the natural laws in those extra dimensions.

2. Matter has eternally existed and was able to aimlessly form itself into the universe.

Ah.. there you go, bringing +Y again.

3. Something spontaneously came into existence out of nothing at a specific point in time in the past (Big Bang out of nothing).

Here is a Sean Carroll on fine tuning <10 min

 

[SPF]

Where did God exist and how? Was/is God a part of the Universe or is he outside of it? If he is a part of the Universe, then you believe in the Universe being eternal.

IF he exists outside of the universe, then you hold the view similar to that of having extra dimensions. But then you need to account for the natural laws in those extra dimensions.



Ah.. there you go, bringing +Y again.



Here is a Sean Carroll on fine tuning <10 min

I'm confused, are you rejecting the three options that account for existence? Do you have an alternative that you would like to put forth? How do you account for the existence of matter?

And just to clarify, because by your responses what I said clearly went over your head - options 2 and 3 were both the positions that atheists choose between, and exclude God.

 

[SPF]

Oh, and instead of just picking out one part where 1 person speaks, if you listen to the whole debate.... Craig wins.

Some Reflections on the Sean Carroll Debate | Reasonable Faith

 

[BigV]

Again, 2+2=4 and will always equal 4.

In a world without (+Y), I agree. 2+2 always equals to 4.

But, again for the umpteenth +1 time, you need to determine in which world you are living in. In a world with +Y or in a world without it?

How do you account for the existence of matter?

Well, I'd defer to physicists on this one. These questions are a bit complicated to understand and to explain, which is why "Goddidit" will work as a perfect explanation for the majority of people.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Ah.. so the heavens is now SPACE? So, where is the water above the firmament then? Let me guess, it disappeared after the flood because that's where flood waters came from, flooded the entire planet and then disappeared somewhere without a trace?

Well I suspect that out there in the universe there is probably a lot more water than there is here on Earth. I believe that one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn is supposed to be mostly ice.

Where is your evidence that ancient Babylonians had the Earth as a sphere rather than a flat circle?

You'd have to find out yourself. It was info I picked up about 12 years ago when I was studying how ancient civilisations measured and understood time.

If I remember correctly they understood the difference between planets and stars and had figured out that planets revolved around the sun... so they generally thought that the Earth was the same.

Also pretty much every seafaring race could tell you that the horizon never got closer. Also those who could climb high enough could see the curvature of the Earth.

Pythagoras in the 6th century BC knew the Earth wasn't flat and one philosopher (Aristotle?) tried to calculate its circumference and got close as I recall.

 

[SPF]

In a world without (+Y), I agree. 2+2 always equals to 4.

But, again for the umpteenth +1 time, you need to determine in which world you are living in. In a world with +Y or in a world without it?

In a world with our without God, 2+2 will always equal 4. The attribute of omnipotence does not include the ability to perform the illogical.

Well, I'd defer to physicists on this one.

But I'm asking you, you must have an idea or a belief about how the universe even exists. What do you think? Again, there are ultimately three options for the creation of the universe:

1. God has eternally existed and created the universe.

2. Matter has eternally existed and was able to aimlessly form itself into the universe.

3. Something spontaneously came into existence out of nothing at a specific point in time in the past (Big Bang out of nothing).

I hold to option 1 (obviously). Atheists must choose between options 2 and 3. Which do you think is most likely and why? Surely you've considered this, it's a rather important question.

 

[BigV]

In a world with our without God, 2+2 will always equal 4. The attribute of omnipotence does not include the ability to perform the illogical.

That's for confirming that God is irrelevant in math or physics. I wish you spend as much effort convincing your YEC buddies that there is no reason to think biology should be any different.

But I'm asking you, you must have an idea or a belief about how the universe even exists.

I defer to physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss or Sean Carroll. You have said earlier, that in your opinion, Dr. William Lane Craig won the debate with Sean Carroll, even as Dr Craig's argument is (+Y) did it.

This whole conversation is pointless, because you keep switching between (+Y) doesn't matter (such as in math) to (+Y) matters a whole lot (origins of the Universe, biology).

An honest answer of "I don't know" is preferable to (+Y) did it in my view.

Plus, science has a very good track record of explaining things that only God could do in the past. We may not have exact answers today, but my bets are on science.

 

[SPF]

That's for confirming that God is irrelevant in math or physics.

I think you probably don't understand the difference between math and physics (I'm not surprised at this point).

Physics is the branch of science that deals with the structure of matter and how the fundamental constituents of the universe interact. It studies objects ranging from the very small using quantum mechanics to the entire universe using general relativity.

As God does not perform illogical or non-sensical feats (those are things that fall outside of omnipotence), we can trust that 2+2 will always equal 4.

With regards to physics, since God actually created the entirety of the universe and established the laws by which the universe operates, ie. gravity; I would say it would be possible to see a miracle occur within the realm of physics.

For example, physics cannot explain the origin of the universe. There is no explanation from physicists, or any scientists really for that matter on how the universe itself came into existence. Hence, the three options I laid out in my previous post.

The creation of the universe itself was a miracle, and I suspect that people who study such things will never actually come up with a realistic, working hypothesis on the creation of the universe.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, I hear you, buddy, but I'd counter that the +Y (or Jesus working miracles) factor is unpredictable. it's like a random number generator. So, with Jesus, 2+3 could equal 4,000 or it could equal 0.

In biology, Christians make no predictions as to how many animals share a common ancestor. In their view, all different kinds, that reproduce within their own kinds, were created ex-nihilo. On the day 6 of the Creation. They are not concerned with the how it was done. It's irrelevant to them on the how. The important lesson in their school is that it happened as they believe it did. And they will (and do) fight a naturalist.

But, strangely, they are very content while studying a math or physics subject. And naturalism doesn't bother them one bit during those classes.

Ah, yes, Aron Ra's phylogeny challenge. They say he's waiting for an answer to this very day.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Actually, the burden of proof would rest with your assertion that creating ex nihilo is illogical.

And I gave you four points, numbered in bold font, which you somehow missed.

You can't say that the burden of proof is on me and then ignore the part where I prove my point, and then say you've corrected me when you've merely asserted your position!

Making 2+2=5 is non-sensical, having the power to create something out of nothing is not. Creating ex nihilo is something an omnipotent being could do.

I explained it. You can say the burden of proof is on me, but once I respond to it, the burden is then on you.

I haven’t seen you say anything to contradict the hundreds of years of philosophers that disagree with you.

Get your eyes checked then. I said goodbye to you and you're dragging me back in. Tell you what. This is your last chance. Go find the four points I give as to why creatio ex nihilo is illogical. EXPLAIN why the points are wrong. Don't say the burden of proof is on me - the burden is on you because I returned the volley. Don't re-assert your point - I've already heard it and responded to it. You can contribute to the conversation and move it forward, or you can go on my ignore list.

 

[Hank77]

Does John Lennox or David Berlinski affirm YEC?

You could research David Berlinski on your own as I don't know anything about him. John Lennox is a favorite of mine.

 

[SPF]

1. God spoke the universe into existence.
This is literally abracadabra. It is magic. It explains nothing.

2. God acted on nothing in order to create the universe.
To act on nothing is to do nothing. He isn't even using his unlimited power. And doing nothing produces no results.

3. God acted on himself in order to create the universe.
I disregard this as a Christian answer as it seems to be blasphemous. It would mean that the profane is divine. It would mean that we are all God.

4. God acted on the universe to create the universe.
Clearly circular reasoning.

God did speak the universe into existence, and He did act upon nothing. This is what it means to create ex nihilo. It is not magic, and "acting" upon nothing is not doing nothing, the very fact that one is "acting" means one is doing something. 3 and 4 we can dismiss outright.

Creating ex nihilo is how the universe came into existence. It is how Jesus performed the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. That particular power falls under the attribute of omnipotence.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

God did speak the universe into existence, and He did act upon nothing. This is what it means to create ex nihilo. It is not magic, and "acting" upon nothing is not doing nothing, the very fact that one is "acting" means one is doing something. 3 and 4 we can dismiss outright.

Nothingness is not a thing. You cannot act on nothingness. Acting on nothing is doing nothing. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to demonstrate.

I will formalize causality for you with an old copy/paste of mine from a couple years ago:

Here are two definitions of causality that I know of:

PHYSICS

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter and energy in a system.

Causality is the process by which a system transitions from one state to another over a period of time.

ANTIQUITY

Aristotle proposed four causes, two of which are relevant here: efficient cause and material cause. For a marble statue, the material cause would be a marble slab, and the efficient cause would be the sculptor or the chisel. Causality requires both the efficient cause and the material cause. A causal event lacking one or the other is impossible to even describe.

Creatio ex nihilo is untenable in either model. In a state wherein nothing exists, causality does not exist, so God cannot cause anything to occur. It is impossible even in principle. No amount of power would change that. Equivalently, no amount of power would allow God to generate an efficient cause when there is no material cause.

Creating ex nihilo is how the universe came into existence. It is how Jesus performed the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. That particular power falls under the attribute of omnipotence.

Not plausible even in principle.

 

[SPF]

Nothingness is not a thing. You cannot act on nothingness. Acting on nothing is doing nothing.

God is acting upon nothing out of His omnipotent power.

You are aware that the standard model of cosmology (Friedman-Lemaître model) actually relies itself, ultimately, on creation ex nihilo.

Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric - Wikipedia

The standard Big Bang model, as the Friedman-Lemaître model came to be called, describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover, –and this deserves underscoring–the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity.

As John Barrow and Frank Tipler emphasize, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.”On the standard model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.

Today, few cosmologists doubt that the universe, at least as we know it, did have an origin at a finite moment in the past. The alternative—that the universe has always existed in one form or another—runs into a rather basic paradox. The sun and stars cannot keep burning forever: sooner or later they will run out of fuel and die.

The same is true of all irreversible physical processes; the stock of energy available in the universe to drive them is finite, and cannot last for eternity. This is an example of the so-called second law of thermodynamics, which, applied to the entire cosmos, predicts that it is stuck on a one-way slide of degeneration and decay towards a final state of maximum entropy, or disorder. As this final state has not yet been reached, it follows that the universe cannot have existed for an infinite time.

Modern day physics indicates that the universe is not going to eventually contract in upon itself, but that space will continue to exponentially expand, and the universe will eventually find itself in a cold death.

My point in saying all that is while you might not personally be able to comprehend creation ex nihilo, it is the reigning model among cosmologists (not just Theists).

There is nothing logically contradicting about creation ex nihilo, nothing you've said would actually suggest that there is. If you think it is not possible, you should take it up with modern day physicists.

Some of the above was pulled from an article by someone I'm sure you respect greatly.

 

[Hawkins]

not challenging math or physics?

For example, lets assume there is Jesus/God, etc... Then Creationism could be right, however, 2+3= 5 could be wrong.

Because the miracle working Jesus could make 2+3=4,000 or maybe equal 400,000! Why not? Why must only the biology (and earth sciences when it pertains to dating methods) be challenged but no other challenges?

If I could only go back in time and attend a Christian school! I'd be their top student.

-teacher: "BigV, how much is 2+3"?
-BigV: "4,000"!
-teacher: "But last week you said it was 400,000!"
-BigV: "so what? Jesus is a miracle worker, he can do anything, he can make a snake talk, he can make a man walk on water without drowning and he can make 4,000 or 400,000 out of 2+3!

It is science 101. Google up "falsifiability". Physics is falisibiable but not evolution, evolutionists don't seem to understand science though.

 

[miknik5]

Yes, I want real answers. 2+2=4 in a purely naturalistic world! In a world where donkey's speak, and a man can walk on water, in a world where 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread feed 5,000+ people AND you have baskets full of food left, why would a 2+2=4?

It seems to me Christians resort to a naturalistic mindset when they study arithmetic, but then pick up a 'miracles can happen' hat when they study biology. Why the inconsistency?

The problem is in your view of ¨the man¨...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

God is acting upon nothing out of His omnipotent power.

You are aware that the standard model of cosmology (Friedman-Lemaître model) actually relies itself, ultimately, on creation ex nihilo.

Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric - Wikipedia

The standard Big Bang model, as the Friedman-Lemaître model came to be called, describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover, –and this deserves underscoring–the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity.

As John Barrow and Frank Tipler emphasize, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.”On the standard model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.

Today, few cosmologists doubt that the universe, at least as we know it, did have an origin at a finite moment in the past. The alternative—that the universe has always existed in one form or another—runs into a rather basic paradox. The sun and stars cannot keep burning forever: sooner or later they will run out of fuel and die.

The same is true of all irreversible physical processes; the stock of energy available in the universe to drive them is finite, and cannot last for eternity. This is an example of the so-called second law of thermodynamics, which, applied to the entire cosmos, predicts that it is stuck on a one-way slide of degeneration and decay towards a final state of maximum entropy, or disorder. As this final state has not yet been reached, it follows that the universe cannot have existed for an infinite time.

Modern day physics indicates that the universe is not going to eventually contract in upon itself, but that space will continue to exponentially expand, and the universe will eventually find itself in a cold death.

My point in saying all that is while you might not personally be able to comprehend creation ex nihilo, it is the reigning model among cosmologists (not just Theists).

There is nothing logically contradicting about creation ex nihilo, nothing you've said would actually suggest that there is. If you think it is not possible, you should take it up with modern day physicists.

Some of the above was pulled from an article by someone I'm sure you respect greatly.

I see you redacted a large portion of my message. You must think I didn't mean it when I was talking about causality. Let me clarify that if you don't have a working definition of causality then you're talking pure nonsense when you say that God created the universe.

It seems like you're saying that unlimited power could not create a one-ended stick but that unlimited power could cause events to occur even if the necessary preconditions for the existence of causality are lacking.

Well I guess it makes sense why you ignored that topic altogether. You've got no answer.

As for a universe from nothing, you're simply wrong. Watch the Carroll v Craig debate. Scientists don't say that all of existence began in the Big Bang. That claim doesn't even make sense in light of a proposed multiverse. Thermodynamics, space, matter and energy require an arrow of time. So what? Does that mean nothing else could exist absent a Big Bang? For a person who apparently advances the idea of a disembodied mind existing apart from space and time, your imagination is surprisingly lacking.

Further, Christian apologists said that Krauss gave a poor explanation of a "universe from nothing" because his "nothing" was not nothing. When a physicist says "nothing" and when a philosopher says "nothing" they mean two different things.

If you continue to give my points no consideration, do you think I will listen to you? I don't know what you think causality is, but you are certainly mistaken if you think you have done a good job explaining your position. I don't care how stupid you think atheism is, or how much you want to cram "we believe that the universe exists for no reason and with no cause" into their mouths. None of that will strengthen your position.

In short, you have not explained how creatio ex nihilo makes sense in any model of causality. You've merely asserted that it has happened. This isn't church so that nonsense doesn't fly. You have to *explain* it.