03 Oct 08
i had this idea for a while, i am sure some of you have it too.
when you tell someone who believes in god that the all matter in the universe excited for eternity. they always ask who created that matter and you say it was always there and they say god created it.
judging from that they can not believe that something could of existed for ever or what always just there
but then when you ask where did god come from, they say he was always there.
and then my logic can not go from here lol. so how can god exist for ever and nothing else can?
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by O Artem OAll of your questions are answered in Genesis. Read it.
i had this idea for a while, i am sure some of you have it too.
when you tell someone who believes in god that the all matter in the universe excited for eternity. they always ask who created that matter and you say it was always there and they say god created it.
judging from that they can not believe that something could of existed for ever or what ...[text shortened]...
and then my logic can not go from here lol. so how can god exist for ever and nothing else can?
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by O Artem OWhile it is logically possible that the universe is eternal it doesn't seem actually possible. The scientific evidence is accumulating on the side of the universe not being eternal but having a beginning.
i had this idea for a while, i am sure some of you have it too.
when you tell someone who believes in god that the all matter in the universe excited for eternity. they always ask who created that matter and you say it was always there and they say god created it.
judging from that they can not believe that something could of existed for ever or what ...[text shortened]...
and then my logic can not go from here lol. so how can god exist for ever and nothing else can?
I think there are two choices - either the universe is eternal or something that caused the universe to come about is eternal.
I take the second choice. Something outside of time, space, and matter is eternal and caused the universe to come into existence.
The athiest who says the universe is eternal argues against the accumlation of evidence that the universe had a beginning.
The athest who argues that the universe came into existence uncaused, I think, believes in a miracle. Yet it is a miracle with no cause.
I believe in a miracle with a cause - the God who is eternal caused a miracle of something coming out of nothing.
In this case I think it boils down to whether you believe in a non-divine miracle or a divine miracle.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillActually it is far from decided yet. There have always been alternative theories around, and even the more popular versions of big bang theory do not make any claims about whether or not the universe is eternal. At best there has only been speculation.
While it is logically possible that the universe is eternal it doesn't seem actually possible. The scientific evidence is accumulating on the side of the universe not being eternal but having a beginning.
The latest scientific american has an article suggesting a possible scenario in which the universe is eternal. The cover says we should change "Big Bang" to "Big Bounce".
I think there are two choices - either the universe is eternal or something that caused the universe to come about is eternal.
You are setting up a false dichotomy. There are other well known possibilities some of which you are perfectly well aware of as you have participated in threads discussing them. Here are a couple:
1. An infinite chain of causes and events.
2. A universe with a finite time dimension (and thus no 'cause'😉.
I take the second choice. Something outside of time, space, and matter is eternal and caused the universe to come into existence.
But the problem is language totally breaks down when you try to explain what you mean by 'caused' in a context 'outside' time, space, and matter. The whole concept of something being 'outside' does not make sense.
The athiest who says the universe is eternal argues against the accumlation of evidence that the universe had a beginning.
It is irrelevant whether someone is atheist or not when he makes a claim that the universe is eternal. You are wrong about the evidence - there is currently no solid evidence either way - only speculation.
The athest who argues that the universe came into existence uncaused, I think, believes in a miracle. Yet it is a miracle with no cause.
So you believe that miracles follow certain laws too? ie they must be caused? If I believe in quantum mechanics where most quantum events are uncaused, then do I believe in miracles too?
Why do you call an uncaused universe a 'miracle'?
03 Oct 08
4 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead================================
Actually it is far from decided yet. There have always been alternative theories around, and even the more popular versions of big bang theory do not make any claims about whether or not the universe is eternal. At best there has only been speculation.
The latest scientific american has an article suggesting a possible scenario in which the universe is e n do I believe in miracles too?
Why do you call an uncaused universe a 'miracle'?
Actually it is far from decided yet. There have always been alternative theories around, and even the more popular versions of big bang theory do not make any claims about whether or not the universe is eternal. At best there has only been speculation.
The latest scientific american has an article suggesting a possible scenario in which the universe is eternal. The cover says we should change "Big Bang" to "Big Bounce".
=================================
At first glance this sounds like back some variant of a Steady State Theory. Or was it the infinitly expanding and collapsing universe?
=======================================
I think there are two choices - either the universe is eternal or something that caused the universe to come about is eternal.
You are setting up a false dichotomy. There are other well known possibilities some of which you are perfectly well aware of as you have participated in threads discussing them. Here are a couple:
=========================================
==============================
1. An infinite chain of causes and events.
================================
I think that has convincingly been demonstrated to me as impossible. So I regard an infinite regress of this kind to be unlikely.
Mathematically, I believe that I have also been persuaded that we could not arrive at TODAY if time has an infinite past.
It would take infinity to traverse infinity. But we are at the time of now - today. At the present time I am persuaded that this argues against an ever existing universe.
=======================================
2. A universe with a finite time dimension (and thus no 'cause'😉.
===============================
I don't know what this means.
I am not sure that you yourself know what this means.
==================================
I take the second choice. Something outside of time, space, and matter is eternal and caused the universe to come into existence.
But the problem is language totally breaks down when you try to explain what you mean by 'caused' in a context 'outside' time, space, and matter. The whole concept of something being 'outside' does not make sense.
=========================================
I agree with the limitation of human language to express something in the divine realm.
So "outside of time" or "before the universe" are adaquate phrases to express what is beyond our ability to completely comprehend.
Now, this may sting my human ego for a little bit. I mean "Something that we Don't UNDERSTAND ?? Why we can understand EVERYTHING."
So as much as it may annoy me that there are things we cannot fully comprehend, I am willing to accept that. You see, I believe that the Love of God fills that void.
Sometimes as a child my parents did things which I did not understand. Maybe with more maturity in life those things became more understandable.
Anyway, there is a limit to what our human language can express.
================================
The athiest who says the universe is eternal argues against the accumlation of evidence that the universe had a beginning.
It is irrelevant whether someone is atheist or not when he makes a claim that the universe is eternal. You are wrong about the evidence - there is currently no solid evidence either way - only speculation.
======================================
Sounds to me like you are afraid to commit to any specific one scientific theory.
It sounds to me like you want very badly to keep all options open and not commit to any science theory too strongly.
So you are now a Beginningless - Big Bang exponent? Or you are a Big Bounce advocate or what ?
Why don't you just admit that you are first and foremost an ATHEIST? The rest is just minor details.
=====================================
So you believe that miracles follow certain laws too? ie they must be caused? If I believe in quantum mechanics where most quantum events are uncaused, then do I believe in miracles too?
Why do you call an uncaused universe a 'miracle'?
=======================================
Because it is outside the realm of scientific inquiry and discovery. Science, among other things, is a search for causes.
No cause argues for the supernatural. The supernatural implies the miraculous.
And for me it is logical that the Creator of the universe is of endless power and limitless knowledge and wisdom as to cause a miracle. To me this is logical.
But a miracle without a miracle worker I think is senseless. I think it requires much MORE "faith" to believe in a causeless miracle poping up from nothing. "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."
Out of nothing nothing comes.
03 Oct 08
4 edits
Originally posted by O Artem OWhat known science fact positively proves the falsity of this statement?
yea its just a made up story, and is not supported by anything facts
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen.1:1)
And arguing that no known fact negates that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists either, is a dodge and not a good answer.
The question is not what is just logically possible but what is actually possible.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywilli know its a bad answer just saying, so you believe that god excited for ever? and he created the universe and every thing in it?
What known science fact positively proves the falsity of this statement?
[b]"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen.1:1)
And arguing that no known fact negates that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists either, is a dodge and not a good answer.
The question is not what is just logically possible but what is actually possible.[/b]
04 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillThat the heavens (Universe) and the Earth didn't start at the same time. Universe went into being for some 14 billion of years ago, the Earth considerably later, for 4.6 billion of years.
What known science fact positively proves the falsity of this statement?
[b]"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen.1:1)
[/b]
If not even the first verse of the bible is correct, who can then anyone expect the rest of the book being true?
04 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas============================================
That the heavens (Universe) and the Earth didn't start at the same time. Universe went into being for some 14 billion of years ago, the Earth considerably later, for 4.6 billion of years.
If not even the first verse of the bible is correct, who can then anyone expect the rest of the book being true?
That the heavens (Universe) and the Earth didn't start at the same time. Universe went into being for some 14 billion of years ago, the Earth considerably later, for 4.6 billion of years.
If not even the first verse of the bible is correct, who can then anyone expect the rest of the book being true?
=========================================
That is an interesting point. However, I don't see that it matters concerning timing at all.
As a whole unit, either way, the passage says that God is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth.
Your argument seems to be that "the beginning" has to be at the same time.
Perhaps this is not necessarily the meaning. Once the entire unit of heaven and earth is completed that is the beginning of the whole unit - heavens and the earth, ie. the universe.
For example, we can compare Genesis 1:1 with Zechariah 12:1 which is also about the creation:
"The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him." (Zech:12:1)
They may well be understood as God successively accomplishing three main acts of creation at different moments:
1.) stretching forth the heavens - at Time 1
2.) laying the foundation of the earth - at Time 2
3.) forming the spirit of man within man - at Time 3
The net effect is still "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
The meaning could be that from Time 1 through Time 3 is all "the beginning". As a unite, as a whole entity, the coming into exitence of the universe is being described.
The other possibility is that under inspiration the Seer or Revelator is writing that all of heaven and earth was contained in the primordal seed of the singularity which underwent the "Big Bang". For all intents and purposes - that explosion was the creation in one moment of the heavens and the earth "in the beginning".
So I think your view does not necessitate the falsification of the utterance of Genesis 1:1.
04 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywill… Your argument seems to be that "the beginning" has to be at the same time.
[b]============================================
That the heavens (Universe) and the Earth didn't start at the same time. Universe went into being for some 14 billion of years ago, the Earth considerably later, for 4.6 billion of years.
If not even the first verse of the bible is correct, who can then anyone expect the rest of the book being true?
===== iew does not necessitate the falsification of the utterance of [b]Genesis 1:1.[/b]
Perhaps this is not necessarily the meaning
.…[/b]
But what is meant by "the beginning" in everyday language is generally the start of something with all parts starting either at exactly the same time or “approximately” at the same time and certainly, by any normal stretch of the imagination, NOT the various parts starting at various point in time with BILLIONS of years between them!
I do not doubt that there are verses in the bible that imply that everything started in a different way from this but that just means that this hinds of logical inconsistency in the bible.