Faith

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…...Creation isn't a theory..…

I don’t understand because I must have totally misunderstood you here -if you are saying that your view on creation is NOT a “theory” then are you implying here that it is a “fact” -or what?[/b]

We know that there is something rather than nothing. That's pretty close to knowing that creation is a fact.

That is unless possibly if you think something has always existed and it was never created.

Where is the greater weight of evidence, creation always being or having started ?

A scientific theory is never a mere guess. Then it's called a hypothese. A theory is one way to scientifically explain things by observations and experimentations.
Creation doesn't explain anything. It's just a belief, not based by evidence, but by faith alone. Creation can never be regarded as a scientific theory, never.
You cannot ever mix religion and science.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
A scientific theory is never a mere guess. Then it's called a hypothese. A theory is one way to scientifically explain things by observations and experimentations.
Creation doesn't explain anything. It's just a belief, not based by evidence, but by faith alone. Creation can never be regarded as a scientific theory, never.
You cannot ever mix religion and science.

Creation does explain how this universe and everything in it got here,
science does not ever address that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Creation does explain how this universe and everything in it got here,
science does not ever address that.
Kelly

Actually it does: -by saying that the universe was never “created” in the sense that all of existence was never “created” thus rendering the question on what “created” our universe redundant in that sense (unless what you mean by the “creation“ of our universe is all the particular stars, planets, galaxies etc that we currently see in it? -if so, the “creation“ of all that can be traced back to the big bang which thus explains the creation of all of that). This is because the main-stream big bang theory implies that, because there was no “before” the big bang, the universe was not “created” but merely existed at t=0.

Even the alternative big bang theory called the “big bounce theory” that says there was a “before” the big bang doesn’t imply that all existence was “created” but rather all of existence was eternal thus, again, rendering the question on what “created” our universe redundant in that sense.

Originally posted by jaywill
We know that there is something rather than nothing. That's pretty close to knowing that creation is a fact.

That is unless possibly if you think something has always existed and it was never created.

Where is the greater weight of evidence, creation always being or having started ?

…...We know that there is something rather than nothing. That's pretty close to knowing that creation is a fact.

That is unless possibly if you think something has always existed and it was never created.
...…

Neither hypothesis is necessarily correct -read my last reply to KellyJay post.

…Where is the greater weight of evidence, creation always being or having started ?
. ...…

The main-stream big bang theory says that it is neither true that “creation always being or having started” if what you mean by “creation” is the “creation” of existence itself.
There is a “greater weight of evidence” that the big bang happened:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A9.html

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0105/02bigbang/

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…...We know that there is something rather than nothing. That's pretty close to knowing that creation is a fact.

That is unless possibly if you think something has always existed and it was never created.
...…

Neither hypothesis is necessarily correct -read my last reply to KellyJay post.

…Where is the greater weight of evidence ...[text shortened]...
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A9.html

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0105/02bigbang/

[/b]

===============================
Neither hypothesis is necessarily correct -read my last reply to KellyJay post.
==================================

Sorry, if I misread your reply.


====================================
The main-stream big bang theory says that it is neither true that “creation always being or having started” if what you mean by “creation” is the “creation” of existence itself.
=====================================

I suspect that I will not understand this paragraph either.

It sounds more like philosophical concepts are at play here rather than how cosmologists usually talk about the Big Bang.

Existence itself sounds like the theological concept of "the ground of being." Paul Tillich, I think, argued that God was the ground of being.

I am not not terribly well read in either seminary theology or philosophy. I am primarily a Bible student, so to speak. Yet to me the Bible is primarily a book of life. I mean God's life - divine life - spiritual life.



======================================
There is a “greater weight of evidence” that the big bang happened:
=======================================

I thought cosmologists speak of the beginning of space, matter, time, energy in the Big Bang.

The present evidence, I thought, convinces many modern cosmologists that space, time, energy, and matter began in the Big Bang.

In other words the univese, ie. the creation, had a beginning.

My belief is that the uncreated did not have a beginning. God is the uncreated. That is my faith in what the Bible says.

"From eternity to eternity, You are God." (Psalm 90:2)

Originally posted by jaywill


===============================
Neither hypothesis is necessarily correct -read my last reply to KellyJay post.
==================================

Sorry, if I misread your reply.


====================================
The main-stream big bang theory says that it is neither true that “creation always being or having started” i ...[text shortened]... h in what the Bible says.

[b]"From eternity to eternity, You are God." (Psalm 90:2)[/b]

…...My belief is that the uncreated did not have a beginning....…

Note that IF the “big bounce theory” is correct (and I am not saying it is) then it would be true that the “uncreated did not have a beginning” but that “uncreated” would not be a “god” but rather the physical universe.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…...My belief is that the uncreated did not have a beginning....…

Note that IF the “big bounce theory” is correct (and I am not saying it is) then it would be true that the “uncreated did not have a beginning” but that “uncreated” would not be a “god” but rather the physical universe.[/b]

🙂 You not believe in a big bounce?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Actually it does: -by saying that the universe was never “created” in the sense that all of existence was never “created” thus rendering the question on what “created” our universe redundant in that sense (unless what you mean by the “creation“ of our universe is all the particular stars, planets, galaxies etc that we currently see in it? -if so, th ...[text shortened]... rnal thus, again, rendering the question on what “created” our universe redundant in that sense.

This goes back to if everthing is eternal, why are you dating it?
If you say the dates reset, then you really cannot say we for sure
what any date really is because we have just acknowledged dates
reset one way, can they do it in other ways?
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
A scientific theory is never a mere guess. Then it's called a hypothese. A theory is one way to scientifically explain things by observations and experimentations.
Creation doesn't explain anything. It's just a belief, not based by evidence, but by faith alone. Creation can never be regarded as a scientific theory, never.
You cannot ever mix religion and science.

Just so I know, define what you mean by 'explain', because it most
certainly does explain how everything got here, God created it, and
that is an explaination.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
🙂 You not believe in a big bounce?
Kelly

I think it is “improbable” given the current evidence but it cannot be ruled out completely -or at least not yet.

Originally posted by KellyJay
This goes back to if everthing is eternal, why are you dating it?
If you say the dates reset, then you really cannot say we for sure
what any date really is because we have just acknowledged dates
reset one way, can they do it in other ways?
Kelly

…...This goes back to if everything is eternal
.....…

Not necessarily -read my post again.

…why are you dating it?
If you say the dates reset, then you really cannot say we for sure
what any date really is because we have just acknowledged dates
reset one way, can they do it in other ways?
. ...…

What does that mean? -I find it impossible to decipher what you are saying here;

How does it logically follow from:

1, “dates are reset”

And:

2, “we have just acknowledged dates reset one way” (whatever exactly that is that is supposed to mean)

That:

3, “you really cannot say for sure what any date really is”

And what “other ways”? -give me an example to clarify what you mean here.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Creation does explain how this universe and everything in it got here,
science does not ever address that.
Kelly

... but 'creation' never submit any proofs. That's not much of an explanation, is it?

Tell me how 'creation' explain anything?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…...My belief is that the uncreated did not have a beginning....…

Note that IF the “big bounce theory” is correct (and I am not saying it is) then it would be true that the “uncreated did not have a beginning” but that “uncreated” would not be a “god” but rather the physical universe.[/b]

I know that God exists. It is not a problem to me.

Originally posted by jaywill
I know that God exists. It is not a problem to me.

…...It is not a problem to me......…

-but although you don’t see your absolute certainty of something that you have no rational premise for as a “problem”, I do.

I am about 99% certain that the main-stream big bang theory is correct because that theory is not based on “faith” but rather the on strong evidence.
But there are alternative scientific theories consistent with the current evidence but which assume things that cannot currently be proven (thus I should be less certain of them -we should always assume that the simplest hypothesis that is logically consistent with all the current evidence is the most probable) but, never a less, I cannot rationally rule them out completely. This fact of uncertainty in cosmology is not a “problem” for me but rather, the recognition that I cannot have absolute certainty in a cosmological theory is merely an indication that I am thinking rationally. One can only think rationally of such things in terms of probability.

If I or somebody else thinks that they “know” with absolute certainty that their cosmological theory IS definitely the correct one (with 100.0000000000000000000% certainty) and in all of its many precise details then I would think that would be a “problem” for him for it indicates that he is not thinking totally rationally -especially when he has no evidence nor reason to back-up his belief!