YECs, did the universe begin?

[Papias]

Papias wrote:

1robin, I've asked you several times now if you accept that the consensus view of the experts matters, and that the opinions of non-experts is irrelevant. Do you still refuse to answer that basic question?

1robin wrote:

Papias I have answered that question many times if you will look back maybe everytime it has been asked. Yes it matters, to me it matters more than any single argument and maybe all of them. However before I slam the door on a young earth I will continue to keep an open mind. As I have said it has no effect on my faith and there is no reason I need to decide on it at this time.

OK, all good. Sorry that I missed your previous answers. It's OK, from a salvation perspective, to keep an open mind about a young earth, just as it is OK from a salvation perspective to keep an open mind about whether the earth is flat, geocentrism, whether germs cause disease, and so on.

I was not questioning whether you are a true Christian or not, I am answering posts so fast I can't keep track of the details. I asked because I respect your sincerity and wanted to know what you do with evolutions (assuming you believe it) implications of death before sin or why God would use such an inefficient, pointless, sloppy method of getting humans.

Also all good. Is evolution inefficient, pointless, and sloppy? I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. I see evolution as a wonderful and glorious expression of God's glory, just like all the rest of his creation. Are volcanoes inefficient, pointless, and sloppy? Or are sex and childbirth inefficient, pointless, and sloppy? Or is breastfeeding inefficient, pointless, and sloppy? Again, to me, all are wonderful and glorious expression of God's glory.

The theological discussions of death before sin have been discussed - there are whole threads on them (here's one http://www.christianforums.com/t7519515/). From these it can be seen that even among creationists, there are many that agree that death preceeded the fall.

I have looked up some of your sites but not all. I am mostly interested in discussing actual theological topics and have several discussions going in other threads so I have limited time.

you might also look at the links on the first page of this thread - http://www.christianforums.com/t7590899/. They discuss the theological aspects of God's creation through evolution.

as I have had a personal encounter with God that renders all these considerations less important.

Selah

Very true, and most important anyway. God bless-

Papias

 

[ebia]

It didn't actually state that they worked together it implied they worked in the same type of field and had a common viewpoint. The invention of the steam engine is contreversial but some sources list Watt as the inventor regardless they both advanced the technology of steam power. What does this have to do with the arguement itself?

Such a basic mistake demonstrates an author who knows nothing about the topic he is writing about. Newcomen's engines were in common use before Watt was even born (and some contined in use well into the 20th century). What Watt did was to significantly improve the efficiency. Newcomen engines are massively inefficient - but they last forever.

So unless you can provide some serious citations for the rest of that claim I'll assume it is full of the same basic mistakes.

 

[philadiddle]

It is a clever question. When science is taken to its extreme, it comes upon a dead end called the "big bang." Since the Big Bang is illogical in my opinion, it reenforces my theory that science is a very limited epistemological tool, especially in the area of origins. I don't think origins can ever be a scientific question.

And since I don't believe God passively allowed the world to form naturally (i.e. scientifically), I have to turn to logic to determine whether the universe as we understand it had a beginning. My basic axiom is this. Anything with a beginning needs a cause. It is also axiomatic that anything caused must have a beginning. I also believe God caused all things apart from himself.

Therefore, I have to conclude that the universe as we understand it, space, matter & time, all had a beginning.

So you don't think there is any scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning? That's fine, I just wanted to know what your thought process was on this. Thanks.

 

[Calminian]

So you don't think there is any scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning? That's fine, I just wanted to know what your thought process was on this. Thanks.

Well, no, that's not the case either. If the assumptions of science are correct, then the universe definitely had a beginning. All science points to a non-eternal universe. But I also think this proves that science, in and of itself, is an inadequate tool for investigating the beginning of anything. Science is merely the recognition of patterns, upon which it makes predictions. But a pattern can never tell you when it was created. Nor can a pattern create itself. That would be illogical. Other epistemological systems have to be employed to gain such knowledge.

Thus, if you're relying on science alone, blindly, and you accept the dead end of the big bang, then you must conclude the universe had a beginning. If you allow your thinking to step outside of science, then you have a chance at believing in an eternal universe (but only a fat chance).

 

[philadiddle]

Well, no, that's not the case either. If the assumptions of science are correct, then the universe definitely had a beginning. All science points to a non-eternal universe. But I also think this proves that science, in and of itself, is an inadequate tool for investigating the beginning of anything. Science is merely the recognition of patterns, upon which it makes predictions. But a pattern can never tell you when it was created. Nor can a pattern create itself. That would be illogical. Other epistemological systems have to be employed to gain such knowledge.

Thus, if you're relying on science alone, blindly, and you accept the dead end of the big bang, then you must conclude the universe had a beginning. If you allow your thinking to step outside of science, then you have a chance at believing in an eternal universe (but only a fat chance).

Now what it seems you are saying is "Science says the universe had a beginning but it is wrong." Odd.

 

[Calminian]

Now what it seems you are saying is "Science says the universe had a beginning but it is wrong." Odd.

Correct! Science also says Jesus did not rise from the dead, and Jesus did not turn water into wine.

Science in essence can only draw scientific answers to questions. It cannot allow for miracles or non-uniform causes, such as those a free-willed God would perform. This is a methodological assumption it must make, and therefore cannot argue for or against it's own assumption, less it be guilty of circular reasoning.

But in the strictest sense, science must be uniformitarianistic. That said, I think we should not, when it comes to rational logicl thinking. We should only think in uniformitarian terms when we have good reason to.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Try around 3 mins into this

NT Wright on the Biblical Creation Texts, Genre, and Politics | Through a Glass Darkly

Nope nothing there except a bit of tap dancing

 

[ebia]

Nope nothing there except a bit of tap dancing

Methinks you're just avoiding.

 

[Keachian]

Nope nothing there except a bit of tap dancing

Since he cites Walton at that point in time it'd probably be good to acknowledge that the work that he is referencing is Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One in which the conclusion is that the Bible does not talk about the material origin of the world and as such we are free to take a theistic evolution stance if we so wish and in fact he goes further than that to say that we should rely on the opinion of experts in their given field.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Methinks you're just avoiding.

Methinks there are so called "theologians" who just say things that they know an audience will pay to listen to. Sometimes perhaps they don't say what you want them to say lest they put the noses of their next audience out of joint.
Methinks that anyway

 

[Keachian]

Methinks there are so called "theologians" who just say things that they know an audience will pay to listen to. Sometimes perhaps they don't say what you want them to say lest they put the noses of their next audience out of joint.
Methinks that anyway

What does the Resurrection mean? N. T. Wright explains. - YouTube

Grounds resurrection as a historic fact and slams the Jesus Seminar, this is no liberal scholar

 

[ebia]

Methinks there are so called "theologians" who just say things that they know an audience will pay to listen to. Sometimes perhaps they don't say what you want them to say lest they put the noses of their next audience out of joint.
Methinks that anyway

I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

Tom Wright is interested in teaching about scripture, particular the NT, how we read it, etc. his job is not to teach science anymore than Genesis tries to. Most of his primary audience have absolutely no problem with TE anyway. So what he has to say on the topic of reading Genesis is about how we should read it, not about answering enlightenment questions.

If you read enough of his work it's obvious that he operates in a worldview where basic scientific observations about the age of the universe are taken for granted. The number of British Anglicans who dont is vanishingly small.

 

[ebia]

What does the Resurrection mean? N. T. Wright explains. - YouTube

Grounds resurrection as a historic fact and slams the Jesus Seminar, this is no liberal scholar

Absolutely.

Why do I think there is a "no true Scotsman" lurking out of sight ready to spring.

 

[philadiddle]

Why do I think there is a "no true Scotsman" lurking out of sight ready to spring.

Because it's the easiest way to dismiss scholars you don't agree with.

 

[Calminian]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

Tom Wright is interested in teaching about scripture, particular the NT, how we read it, etc. his job is not to teach science anymore than Genesis tries to.

I'd just like to inject, though, I think it is a misnomer that YEC's think Genesis attempts to teach science. All the authors of Genesis do is offer descriptions of a process, much like anyone else would do who is witnessing something.

No mathematical formulas are offered. No scientific experiments are cited. It merely reports what happened as a modern journalist might do. Journalist/reporters generally aren't scientists either. This does not mean they are not trying to give accurate historical accounts.

I think all YEC's would agree, there is no attempt to be scientific on the part of the Genesis writers. But this does not mean they were trying to be metaphorical either.

The whole, "Genesis was never meant to be a science book" is a misnomer and straw man.

 

[ebia]

I'd just like to inject, though, I think it is a misnomer that YEC's think Genesis attempts to teach science. All the authors of Genesis do is offer descriptions of a process, much like anyone else would do who is witnessing something.

No mathematical formulas are offered. No scientific experiments are cited. It merely reports what happened as a modern journalist might do. Journalist/reporters generally aren't scientists either. This does not mean they are not trying to give accurate historical accounts.

I think all YEC's would agree, there is no attempt to be scientific on the part of the Genesis writers. But this does not mean they were trying to be metaphorical either.

The whole, "Genesis was never meant to be a science book" is a misnomer and straw man.

Yes and no.
So you don't assume the authors are trying to teach science but you do think it's valid to try to deduce answers to scientific questions from what they do write? That looks even more crazy to me.

 

[Calminian]

Yes and no.
So you don't assume the authors are trying to teach science but you do think it's valid to try to deduce answers to scientific questions from what they do write? That looks even more crazy to me.

It sounds crazy to me too, as I'm not following what you just said. To my knowledge I've not done anything of the sort. You'll have to explain where you think I've done this.

 

[ebia]

It sounds crazy to me too, as I'm not following what you just said. To my knowledge I've not done anything of the sort. You'll have to explain where you think I've done this.

I'm talking about anyone who deduces, say, the age of the earth or the mechanics of creation based on Genesis.