[_ Old Earth _] The origins of the universe

[victorhadin]

Well, lets see.

God created the universe it laws, everything else. God knows how it all works. If he wants to operate under His own rules, he would know how to.
If He doesn't, its still not a problem.

That's marvelous. Back it up. Show me a method by which god could have done it, or you explain nothing with your god of the gaps.

Existance. What annoys me is that when people say: It doesn't make sense that God would exist. But I can sometimes sympathyze. Its important not to rule something out that you don't understand.
But anyway, God existed before tyhe creation of time, but before that Its not possible to know. Somethings just can't be fathomed.

Again; show that god existed before time. If you want to explain a hypothesis and show it to be consistent, you need more than blind assertion.

But here are some possibilities:

God is something that could never be non-existant. He must always be there. Hard to ex[plain. I'll have to thnik about this more.

And I forgot #2.

Wow, I should really just quit.

Perhaps you should, because I cannot see how your invokation of the god-of-the-gaps can possibly answer anything. It merely dodges from one assertion to another.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Show me a method by which god could have done it, or you explain nothing with your god of the gaps.

I'm afraid that would be quite difficult. You see (and I bet you already know), as people existing within our universe and observers of what is taking place within that universe, we can only understand functions that occur around us. We call those things natural activities because they follow the laws of nature. When we extend beyond those boundaries, though, and into the realm of powers beyond nature, we arrive at the supernatural - that which we cannot understand or explain fully because we do not have sufficient access to it. God creating the world would certainly classify as supernatural because there is no natural explanation for the occurrence.

Again; show that god existed before time. If you want to explain a hypothesis and show it to be consistent, you need more than blind assertion.

Well, that one's much more simple... if you accept the premise that God exists.

If God exists, then God, by definition, is Creator of all that exists (note the capital G). Time is an aspect of the creation, and thus, one of many things that was created. If time was created, then God does not exist on the linear, cause-and-effect line that we exist on and as a result, is not constrained by His creation. In effect, God "pre-existed" time even though the mere statement is ill-defined because of language constraints.

BL

 

[victorhadin]

But again you run into the problem that the existence of god is assumed there, and still doesn't explain the matter. -Hence why I find it hard to see how alluding to the big bang and the beginning of time in any way backs the existence of a deity, since there is little to indicate it, the deity's methods remain unexplained, it is not said how the existence of such a personified deity would be a hypothesis using the fewest assumptions and so forth.

Hence my use of the term 'god of the gaps' as in an assumed deity brought forward to 'explain' something that isn't known.

-And my use of 'god' without a capital g is something I stick to, since I am, of course, an atheist and am therefore referring to a concept rather than an individual, from my point of view.

 

[saved4life]

Time is an aspect of the creation, and thus, one of many things that was created. If time was created, then God does not exist on the linear, cause-and-effect line that we exist on and as a result, is not constrained by His creation. In effect, God "pre-existed" time even though the mere statement is ill-defined because of language constraints.

To me this is all just speculation about things humans can scarcely understand.

An agnostic can be comfortable with unknowing, and this mystery is what keeps his interest up in life.

A religious person isn't comfortable with unknowing, and instead calls it God, elevates it morally, and then worships it.

 

[Pearly Gator]

...
A religious person isn't comfortable with unknowing, and instead calls it God, elevates it morally, and then worships it.

I don't understand my hamster, but I certainly don't elevate him morally and worship him. :roll:

It takes a lot more faith to believe in the big bang, than it does to believe God created everything.

PG

 

[saved4life]

...
A religious person isn't comfortable with unknowing, and instead calls it God, elevates it morally, and then worships it.

I don't understand my hamster, but I certainly don't elevate him morally and worship him. :roll:

You do to. You worship God as the creator of your hamster.

 

[Pearly Gator]

...
A religious person isn't comfortable with unknowing, and instead calls it God, elevates it morally, and then worships it.

I don't understand my hamster, but I certainly don't elevate him morally and worship him. :roll:

You do to. You worship God as the creator of your hamster.

You lost me on that one.

 

[saved4life]

You lost me on that one.

You worship the unknown source or origin of the hamster as God.

You can't marvel at the hamster...or be amused by it...or just be unmoved by it.

You see God in it.

Not the hamster itself, but it's unknown beginnings.

Those unknown beginnings you call God, elevate morally, and then worship.

You give a name, morality, temperment and a personality to something that's a mystery. That's how you understand and cope with the unknown.

Not everybody has to do that. Some people can live their lives saying "I don't know how the world started" and feel fine with it.

 

[Pearly Gator]

So, are you saying that Bob (That's my hamster's name so, I call him, Bob.) can walk on water?

Or, are you saying that Bob evolved from rocks and, therefore, cannot float?

Anxiously awaiting your answer,


The Gator

 

[saved4life]

So, are you saying that Bob (That's my hamster's name so, I call him, Bob.) can walk on water?

Or, are you saying that Bob evolved from rocks and, therefore, cannot float?

Anxiously awaiting your answer,


The Gator

Some lizards and bugs can walk on water, but doubt Bob is fast or light enough.

There's like 114 elements that make up everything. They're all traceable back to the centers of stars. Proof of the big bang? No, but doesn't look good for the religious defense.

Besides, it's never God vs. science or the big bang. It's the Bible vs. science. God can exist and be nothing at all like he's portrayed in the Bible.

 

[Pearly Gator]

Physics proves that order does not come from chaos. A big bang did not get us here, no matter how much time is allowed. God's fingerprints, on the other hand, are everywhere.

It's not an important topic to me. The people who get heartburn over it seem to be those who are anti-God.

Best regards,

The Gator

 

[victorhadin]

First things first:

It takes a lot more faith to believe in the big bang, than it does to believe God created everything.

Not at all. Red shift observation in distant galaxies gives an indication about rates of separation that can be directly observed, and that can be measured out to find out if there is a single 'point' from which they are moving out from, relatively.

As it turns out, there is, and this is obervable.

Furthermore, the background microwave 'echo' is still evident, and is a measurable piece of empirical evidence, charting back to the primordial bang.

So there you have it: We can 'hear' the echo of the bang in mocrowave radiation and observe that galaxies and galactic clusters are expanding out from a single point source at rates which fit well with the assumption of an exploding singularity.

That is a lot of evidence. On the other hand, you only have faith in god, as such measurable data does not exist backing his existence.

Physics proves that order does not come from chaos. A big bang did not get us here, no matter how much time is allowed. God's fingerprints, on the other hand, are everywhere.

I've been over this with Rebecka.

-For you to show this statement to be correct, you should first define what forms of 'order' and 'chaos' you are referring to*, in a measurable fashion. If possible, you can then refer to the physical law or relationship which governs said definitions of order/ chaos.

I assume you can do that?



*Yes. That's right. There is no general all-reaching definition for 'order'. You have to be specific.

 

[Pearly Gator]

Then what about the second law of thermodynamics?

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Mmmph... wish I had been on here a while ago to curtail this one... oh well.

Let me start by saying that when I explained the creation through God as supernatural and the idea of time having be be created - there was a direct question about the science of God in relation to those things and thus, a response could only be made under the assumption that God exists. Now, to the more evolved discussion:

1) It's late, I'm tired, and I just finished a whole lot of metaphorical, spanish literature - I'm tired of text.

2) Let me throw the question out to our resident atheist and resident agnostic - how do you respond to the theory of external original cause?

3) Another theory and please respond - the theory of VSL (Variant Speed of Light) that was noted in Discovery magazine not too long ago as having a very credible chance of debunking Einstein's orignal equation?

We'll get more into the Red Shift and physics tomorrow... it's been a while since I seriously debated perceptions of the universe and with a tired brain... well, my memories and cognitive abilities seem to have settled to the bottom.

BL

 

[Featherbop]

Uh wait s4l, just because the same elements are all over the universe isn't evidence against God and creation. God uses the same materials throughout creation.

About Gods all time existance, I have something to explain that I will probably do a poor job of.

God had to create time. Time had a beginning, the creation was made, and over time, it would wear down, which it is doing all the time. If the earth was really old, it wouldn't be in its current condition. But hey, everyone seems to know how old this planet is. Its probably about 6000 yeares old according to Bible info. But, since it is unknown how long Adam and eve were in the GoE, the earth may be millions of years or more old. no one can know for sure, it doesn't matter how much you date. i always imagined it was a week for some reason. lol. Anyway I'll use the circle theory for God. A circle, or lets say a ring, has no beginning or end. So, Gods existance could be a ring that never "started or will ever end" hard to fathom, and science wouldn't be able to explain this. Science doesn't deal with supernatual things, or even with supernatual more apparent things. So its pointless to use science out of the matter world. If only someone could create a supernatual science. buty how would that even work? So, I think the ring idea might be plausible.

 

[saved4life]

Uh wait s4l, just because the same elements are all over the universe isn't evidence against God and creation. God uses the same materials throughout creation.

I was just responding to an oft-heard (but kinda silly) question about how animals and people can be made of soft tissue but have been derived from "space rock."

 

[Featherbop]

Its a silly question to ask why are animals and people are made of space rock?

 

[saved4life]

Its a silly question to ask why are animals and people are made of space rock?

No, it's a silly question to ask why aren't we all as hard as rocks. Besides, our bones are pretty damn hard. (They're made mainly from calcium that was forged inside of stars as well.)

 

[Featherbop]

Are you trying to use that as an arguement or just pointing out that bones are hard like rocks?

I coulda toldya that!

 

[saved4life]

Are you trying to use that as an arguement or just pointing out that bones are hard like rocks?

I coulda toldya that!

argghh....

Somebody asked me why are bodies weren't as hard as rocks.

I told them the elements create compounds that are soft, hard, liquid, gaseous, etc.

Then you responded to my post.