@mister-moggy saidInteresting. I have held that creation tends towards destruction and then destruction tends towards creation, ad infinitum.
bapized catholic, raised nazarene, raised my children fundamental baptists and found myself an agnostic by fifty and in my last years, an atheist.
there are only two certain things i know.
creation precedes destruction.
order precedes chaos.
all things written on paper by man extolling a religion are just words on paper penned by man, for man and about a subjective experience.
And order tends towards chaos and then chaos tends towards order, ad infinitum.
Constant movement (change) is the fundamental nature of this "recycling bin" we have decided to call the universe.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidA foundation of chaos to what we see now, differs how from one of design? This something you believe due physics or philosophy?
The formation of the universe was one of chaos, not design. However, from that chaos, on Earth at least, order was established.
@kellyjay said'Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago, approximately one-third the age of the universe, by accretion from the solar nebula. Volcanic outgassing probably created the primordial atmosphere and then the ocean, but the early atmosphere contained almost no oxygen. Much of the Earth was molten because of frequent collisions with other bodies which led to extreme volcanism. While Earth was in its earliest stage (Early Earth), a giant impact collision with a planet-sized body named Theia is thought to have formed the Moon. Over time, the Earth cooled, causing the formation of a solid crust, and allowing liquid water on the surface.' (Wiki).
A foundation of chaos to what we see now, differs how from one of design? This something you believe due physics or philosophy?
Hardly a description of design.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou are not answering my question. What would be the difference between the two beginnings. Description of what one looks like does nothing to answer this. Had you asked me that question and all I offered was what took place during creation it leaves the difference untouched.
'Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago, approximately one-third the age of the universe, by accretion from the solar nebula. Volcanic outgassing probably created the primordial atmosphere and then the ocean, but the early atmosphere contained almost no oxygen. Much of the Earth was molten because of frequent collisions with other bodies which led to extreme volca ...[text shortened]... solid crust, and allowing liquid water on the surface.' (Wiki).
Hardly a description of design.
Are there differences we would or should see if one were true and the other not?
Explainable differences are not reasons why we believe what we do, it’s looking at both.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou can not show me this past, only believe it is true for whatever you are putting forward as your reasonings.
'Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago, approximately one-third the age of the universe, by accretion from the solar nebula. Volcanic outgassing probably created the primordial atmosphere and then the ocean, but the early atmosphere contained almost no oxygen. Much of the Earth was molten because of frequent collisions with other bodies which led to extreme volca ...[text shortened]... solid crust, and allowing liquid water on the surface.' (Wiki).
Hardly a description of design.
@ghost-of-a-duke said"The formation of the universe was one of chaos, not design."
The formation of the universe was one of chaos, not design. However, from that chaos, on Earth at least, order was established.
Formation- the action of forming or process of being formed.
Chaos- complete disorder and confusion.
The juxtaposition of those two words with regards to their meanings can only produce an incoherent conceptualization of the origin of the universe.
That by chance order was established in chaos, even with the injection of the concept of time in the forming of order in the process of dispelling chaos, it is an illogical use of the term.
Even "chance" implies a degree of order. If matter was in chaos no amount of time or chance would have an effect on matter.
Even the very existence of matter implies some degree of order. After all, one wouldn't say matter came into existence from nothing by chance and time.
Therefore, the term chaos is inapplicable to the concept of order in regards to the origin of the universe. In other words, if matter was truly in chaos at some point in the unfathomable past, it would still be so.
Design is the essential ingredient in the formation of matter whether it was in chaos, or whether it was brought into existence by supernatural means.
@secondson saidIn an eternal universe, matter has always existed in one form or another. I appreciate such a universe is difficult to understand, as we both, after all, are limited by our finite minds. Indeed, everything we know or have experienced has a beginning and an end. It is a challenge not to apply the same way of thinking to the universe itself.
"The formation of the universe was one of chaos, not design."
Formation- the action of forming or process of being formed.
Chaos- complete disorder and confusion.
The juxtaposition of those two words with regards to their meanings can only produce an incoherent conceptualization of the origin of the universe.
That by chance order was established in chaos, ...[text shortened]... n of matter whether it was in chaos, or whether it was brought into existence by supernatural means.
As it is, molten rocks randomly colliding and fusing (as a result of the nature of gravity) caused the formation of our planet. Pure chance, no intent or design. This origin can ONLY be viewed as chaotic.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAn eternal universe?
In an eternal universe, matter has always existed in one form or another. I appreciate such a universe is difficult to understand, as we both, after all, are limited by our finite minds. Indeed, everything we know or have experienced has a beginning and an end. It is a challenge not to apply the same way of thinking to the universe itself.
As it is, molten rocks ra ...[text shortened]... ormation of our planet. Pure chance, no intent or design. This origin can ONLY be viewed as chaotic.
That would make all ages of billions of years or any other completely untrustworthy.
You see or have knowledge that could lead any to believe in an eternal universe?
Is there material world evidence or some philological argument for such a truth?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIf have no philosophical objection with the existence of an eternal universe why would you have an objection with an eternal God being the uncaused first cause of the universe?
In an eternal universe, matter has always existed in one form or another. I appreciate such a universe is difficult to understand, as we both, after all, are limited by our finite minds. Indeed, everything we know or have experienced has a beginning and an end. It is a challenge not to apply the same way of thinking to the universe itself.
As it is, molten rocks ra ...[text shortened]... ormation of our planet. Pure chance, no intent or design. This origin can ONLY be viewed as chaotic.
@ghost-of-a-duke said"In an eternal universe, matter has always existed in one form or another."
In an eternal universe, matter has always existed in one form or another. I appreciate such a universe is difficult to understand, as we both, after all, are limited by our finite minds. Indeed, everything we know or have experienced has a beginning and an end. It is a challenge not to apply the same way of thinking to the universe itself.
As it is, molten rocks ra ...[text shortened]... ormation of our planet. Pure chance, no intent or design. This origin can ONLY be viewed as chaotic.
If matter has always existed, then I would agree the universe is eternal, but matter being eternal is an assumption necessary to assert eternality onto matter. For evolution to be viable matter must be eternal, but we simply do not know that for certain. That's why evolution is only a theory.
Matter existing in a form implies order in some form or another, dispelling the assertion of chaos.
"I appreciate such a universe is difficult to understand, as we both, after all, are limited by our finite minds."
I agree completely. It is the heart of the beauty of rational discourse and debate between seekers of knowledge and truth. imo
"Indeed, everything we know or have experienced has a beginning and an end. It is a challenge not to apply the same way of thinking to the universe itself."
This will be more difficult to parse out. I almost said something totally wrong until I reread those sentences once and again.
Yes we know we're finite, and yes it appears the universe is infinite. But we don't know that for sure being finite. As finite beings we cannot know for certain that the universe is infinite or not.
"As it is, molten rocks randomly colliding and fusing (as a result of the nature of gravity) caused the formation of our planet. Pure chance, no intent or design. This origin can ONLY be viewed as chaotic."
Ah! But sir, here you appear to be contradicting yourself. While rocks can and do collide, if there is a force exerted on them such as gravity, then gravity can be said to be a forming force obeying a natural law dispelling the idea of chance, which negates the concept of chaos in the equation relative to origins.
By introducing gravity into the equation, design and intent immediately spring forth further dispelling the notion of chaos.
@kellyjay saidBy the same premise, where is your evidence for an eternal deity?
An eternal universe?
That would make all ages of billions of years or any other completely untrustworthy.
You see or have knowledge that could lead any to believe in an eternal universe?
Is there material world evidence or some philological argument for such a truth?