Originally posted by KellyJayMy opinions is not at stake here. I'm just proving that your creation idea is a hoax.
Creation has an eternal God that never changes, so there will never
be a point in time where you get everything from nothing. Now, please
show me how you think nothing can produce everthing! I guess the
limitations you have are it must be science that gives you the process
so we should have evidence or proof to back up your claims.
Kelly
Was there anything before the creation of yours? Or was it only your god? The rest he created must come from nothing, right? Right. Reead your Genisis lately? Perhaps time to reread it?
Originally posted by FabianFnasRead this very slowly since you are without a doubt bound and
My opinions is not at stake here. I'm just proving that your creation idea is a hoax.
Was there anything before the creation of yours? Or was it only your god? The rest he created must come from nothing, right? Right. Reead your Genisis lately? Perhaps time to reread it?
determined to bring up God in the science forum. God is eternal; He is
the same yesterday, today, and forever He changes not. Now there
was never a time without God, God created all things and by the power
of His Word holds them together.
This completely different than all that science/man can offer without
God! At some point without God you either have an eternal cause or
nothing and everything came from either of those, the eternal cause
or nothing. That is why I don't like ID and do not consider myself and
ID person; I think it is cheap science/religion but I think it is still
better than what evolution/abiogenesis offers.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnother example of KellyJay retorics: Avoidance.
Read this very slowly since you are without a doubt bound and
determined to bring up God in the science forum. God is eternal; He is
the same yesterday, today, and forever He changes not. Now there
was never a time without God, God created all things and by the power
of His Word holds them together.
This completely different than all that science/man ...[text shortened]... science/religion but I think it is still
better than what evolution/abiogenesis offers.
Kelly
Read my question again, slowoly, until you understand what the question is. Wheny you have found the qeustion then think out an answer that acutally answers the question. Don't you see? I challenge your very religion!
But as I don't think you want to read my question from another posting I repeat it again: You say that nothing can come out of nothing, therefore you deny creation. right? Creation gives the whole Universe out of nothing, just by the word of your god, nein?
Try once more...
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo, creation has an eternal God creating the universe, that is every
Another example of KellyJay retorics: Avoidance.
Read my question again, slowoly, until you understand what the question is. Wheny you have found the qeustion then think out an answer that acutally answers the question. Don't you see? I challenge your very religion!
But as I don't think you want to read my question from another posting I repeat it a ...[text shortened]... ves the whole Universe out of nothing, just by the word of your god, nein?
Try once more...
thing that was created, being created by its creator, which is not the
samething as everything from nothing.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThat´s a bit of a difficult question, as time was created along with everything else. Literally there wasn´t a t < 0, so it´s not meaningful to talk about before. I know what you are getting at, I think it´s preferable to talk about everything being created then from nothing rather than pretend that the universe kind of always existed but that there´s no time less than zero. The earliest fractions of a second of the universe´s existence are not brilliantly understood so there´s scope for the model being refined, But I think that Kelly is wrong to say that there is a problem with ¨something from nothing¨. There is a far bigger problem with the universe being eternal due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
According to inflation/big bang theory, was there any point in time when there was “nothing” -I mean, was there any point in time when literally ‘nothing’ existed? -not even a singularity?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt is an either or choice is it not eternal, or something from nothing?
That´s a bit of a difficult question, as time was created along with everything else. Literally there wasn´t a t < 0, so it´s not meaningful to talk about before. I know what you are getting at, I think it´s preferable to talk about everything being created then from nothing rather than pretend that the universe kind of always existed but that there´s ...[text shortened]... re is a far bigger problem with the universe being eternal due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Unless you want to add creation to the mix, I don't see how you avoid
one of the two choices.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayScientific answers come with confidence intervals. For the sake of a clear answer: I am 95% confident that the universe and everything in it was spontaneously created from nothing 13.6 Billion years ago.
It is an either or choice is it not eternal, or something from nothing?
Unless you want to add creation to the mix, I don't see how you avoid
one of the two choices.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBased on detailed observation of the spectroscopic absorption lines of distant galaxies, we know that the universe is expanding, the data fit the model extremely well. Extrapolating backwards gives a small dense initial universe. On theoretical grounds the second law of thermodynamics effectively rules out a universe that exists eternally back in time. Based on our understanding of General Relativity we have good reason to believe that that is when time started. Not only was there nothing before the big bang, there wasn´t a before the big bang. This means whether you have a God creating the universe or it happening spontaneously you have to create everything from nothing.
Okay, I'm 100% confident that is impossible.
Kelly
Originally posted by DeepThoughtLet me ask you this, if our galaxy was the size of an apple and we
Based on detailed observation of the spectroscopic absorption lines of distant galaxies, we know that the universe is expanding, the data fit the model extremely well. Extrapolating backwards gives a small dense initial universe. On theoretical grounds the second law of thermodynamics effectively rules out a universe that exists eternally back in time. ...[text shortened]... creating the universe or it happening spontaneously you have to create everything from nothing.
were in the middle of the ocean would our ability to observe the
vastness around us actually let us know if we were in a part of the
ocean that had a current running through it, or we that we were in
a whirl pool? Would our impressions of our immediate surroundings
be able to give us misleading impressions? For me the vastness of
space and our limited abilities can give us quite a few false
impressions, your confidence in our data sets and the conclusions
we are drawing seems a bit arrogant to me.
Kelly
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI believe time is a constant, and I don't think it is bound to the
Based on detailed observation of the spectroscopic absorption lines of distant galaxies, we know that the universe is expanding, the data fit the model extremely well. Extrapolating backwards gives a small dense initial universe. On theoretical grounds the second law of thermodynamics effectively rules out a universe that exists eternally back in time. ...[text shortened]... creating the universe or it happening spontaneously you have to create everything from nothing.
material world as you do. For me if you have a point of reference
we can start saying there is an up and a down in relation to the
point of reference, the same is true for any event as soon as you
have one there is a before, during, and after. You denying that
is akin to a circular straight line logic again, you must deny what
is other wise known as true to make your theory fit where it doesn't.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAvoidance again: If the universe was not created from nothing, then what was it created from? Don't you se the paradox your'e trying to build?
No, creation has an eternal God creating the universe, that is every
thing that was created, being created by its creator, which is not the
samething as everything from nothing.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayScience is about controlling uncertainties. Scientific results come with confidence intervals. This stuff is based on theories that have been tested with great precision.
Let me ask you this, if our galaxy was the size of an apple and we
were in the ... your confidence in our data sets and the conclusions
we are drawing seems a bit arrogant to me.
Kelly
And
I believe time is a constant, and I don't think it is bound to the
material world as you do. .... you must deny what
is other wise known as true to make your theory fit where it doesn't.
Kelly
Time depends on reference frame, and a reference frame depends on it´s physical surrounding. You can´t imagine an earliest time so you deny it exists. The difference in the rate at which time passes for different observers has been tested on numerous occasions. The best evidence we have is that time is not some external thing disconnected from everything else.
What do you mean ¨deny what is otherwise known¨? You basically state what you want to believe is true, but cannot provide any good evidence. You deny real evidence which contradicts what you want to believe, but are unable to provide an explanation for it´s existence and lapse into insult or mysticism when presented with it. Your only arguments are based on ¨I think it´s unlikely¨ and that human error invalidates measurements which you can´t explain.
There is no evidence for a designer. You have not provided any. The scientific theories fit the evidence.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIn case you have slightly misunderstood what I imply:
That´s a bit of a difficult question, as time was created along with everything else. Literally there wasn´t a t < 0, so it´s not meaningful to talk about before. I know what you are getting at, I think it´s preferable to talk about everything being created then from nothing rather than pretend that the universe kind of always existed but that there´s ...[text shortened]... re is a far bigger problem with the universe being eternal due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Because time itself began at the beginning of the universe, at all points in time along the time line the universe existed thus there was no point in time when the universe didn’t exist thus there was no point in time when 'nothing' existed.
As you said, there was no ‘before’ the universe, thus there was no points in time ‘before’ the universe existed for ‘nothing’ to exist in!
In other words, there wasn’t first ‘nothing’ (at what point in time along the time line was there this ‘nothing’?) and THEN something -there ALWAYS (i.e. at ALL points in time) existed something. Thus the universe couldn’t have come from ‘nothing’ because there was never ‘nothing’!
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm not avoiding anything, you are not reading or if you are you are
Avoidance again: If the universe was not created from nothing, then what was it created from? Don't you se the paradox your'e trying to build?
not able to grasp that on the table there are three different schools
of thought on the table here.
Creation has an eternal God in it, the Christian version that is.
ID and evolution both have issues with the everything from nothing.
Since I'm a creationist and when you directly ask me about my faith,
I tell you God created the heavens and earth and all that is in them.
Beyond that, all other belief systems have the issues of all things
coming from nothing. You are the one with the paradox not me.
Kelly