The Beginning

Originally posted by stoker
i disagree. i as a christian belive it was ment to tell one and other the begining, but even i find the universe and its size unbaliveable with all the knowledge i have at my disposetion, how on earth could they understand it.

the whole creation story could be resumed to "god created all"
that's it. the rest is preposterous

Originally posted by stoker
i disagree. i as a christian belive it was ment to tell one and other the begining, but even i find the universe and its size unbaliveable with all the knowledge i have at my disposetion, how on earth could they understand it.

...with all the knowledge i have at my disposetion

You were dispossessed of all your knowledge?

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]You are mistaken about a few things.
1. There does not have to be a beginning.

Actually i would argue that there HAS to be a beginning. If you try to explain evolution or explain things through logic and science, everything has to have a beginning. If you decide that there doesn't need to be beginning, meaning that something is infinite, or eternal, then why not believe in an eternal God? Instead of some stuff in space that bangs and makes the earth, why not a God who created it, who said the word at it was there?

And if you dismiss the logic, and you believe there is not beginning, then what about atomic energy? Science shows that the transfer of energy from one source to another loses some of the energy in the transfer, and becomes a weaker form of energy. If the world has always been, then the world would be dead, because all of the energy would have been used up. And you can't even say that we are early along in the existence of the world, which is why we still have energy and living things, because that, itself, would say that you believe in a beginning.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the whole creation story could be resumed to "god created all"
that's it. the rest is preposterous

While i disagree that it is preposterous, I do agree with the idea that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" as the focus of the Creation. I don't think we can fathom him, day after day, saying things and them appearing. And at the same time, we DONT know for sure if it was 6 days. It could have been! If you believe in a God that can create life, then why can't youbelieve in a God that can create it in 6 human days? While I don't believe it matters what you believe in that regard either way, I do see that it very well could have been 6 24-hour days.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Seriously, how old are you? Did it ever occur to you that what you call God is just a tiny droplet of sweat rolling down the eye of a giant steer that balances millions of universes on a single nostril hair while the steer is in turn dwarfed by the limitless expanse of a single scale resting on back of the diving figure of Bahamut, the great fish of the deep that is the true foundation of all of creation.

woah. you've seen to much Men in Black, haha.

Originally posted by stoker
well as a christian the big bang is gods finger started it, non faiths belive its a result of a cosmic force coming together.
Your understanding of the 7 days may have some merit only remember its gods 7 days not mans. ie we take a day is the turn of the earth 24 hours. gods day is a lot longer

where did the cosmic force come from?

And we seriously don't know how long God's day is, and even if he was using that measurement in Genesis. It could have been 7 24-hour days, it could have been thousands of years, who really knows.

Originally posted by zeger55
Actually i would argue that there HAS to be a beginning. If you try to explain evolution or explain things through logic and science, everything has to have a beginning. If you decide that there doesn't need to be beginning, meaning that something is infinite, or eternal, then why not believe in an eternal God? Instead of some stuff in space that bangs an ...[text shortened]... ave energy and living things, because that, itself, would say that you believe in a beginning.

Actually i would argue that there HAS to be a beginning. If you try to explain evolution or explain things through logic and science, everything has to have a beginning. If you decide that there doesn't need to be beginning, meaning that something is infinite, or eternal, then why not believe in an eternal God? Instead of some stuff in space that bangs and makes the earth, why not a God who created it, who said the word at it was there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

And if you dismiss the logic, and you believe there is not beginning, then what about atomic energy? Science shows that the transfer of energy from one source to another loses some of the energy in the transfer, and becomes a weaker form of energy. If the world has always been, then the world would be dead, because all of the energy would have been used up. And you can't even say that we are early along in the existence of the world, which is why we still have energy and living things, because that, itself, would say that you believe in a beginning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

Originally posted by zeger55
Actually i would argue that there HAS to be a beginning.

Well why don't you then? The rest of your post contains no such argument.

If you try to explain evolution or explain things through logic and science, everything has to have a beginning.
Merely restating the claim is not an argument. Or do you think it is obvious or something?

If you decide that there doesn't need to be beginning, meaning that something is infinite, or eternal, then why not believe in an eternal God?
Why should I? Why not Santa or invisible pink unicorns? Because I don't think they exist, and I fail to see why the universe being infinite would sway my opinion on the matter.

And if you dismiss the logic, and you believe there is not beginning,
What logic is that? You haven't used any yet.

... then what about atomic energy? Science shows that the transfer of energy from one source to another loses some of the energy in the transfer, and becomes a weaker form of energy.
Now if you are that ignorant of science, you can hardly expect to convince me regarding grand questions about the universe. The conservation of energy is one of the most fundamental laws of science, yet you claim that science shows otherwise. And I don't get the reference to atomic energy at all.

If the world has always been, then the world would be dead, because all of the energy would have been used up.
Ah. Now you are appealing to the second law of thermodynamics. Sorry, but there is no evidence that it holds for events prior to the big bang.

If you want sources for my claim then look here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce

[edit]
I see Green Paladin points out that you contradict the First Law of thermodynamics. You then go on to appeal to the Second.

Originally posted by zeger55
While I don't believe it matters what you believe in that regard either way, I do see that it very well could have been 6 24-hour days.

I fully agree that if you are going to believe in the rest of Christianity, you might as well believe in a literal creation if you want to.
However, it does leave you with a thorny theological problem.
The universe is peppered with strong evidence that the earth is very old and that evolution took place and that it was not created in 6 days as described in genesis. Now I fully accept that God could quite easily have concocted all this false evidence, but why? If he went to so much trouble to deceive us, then who are we to turn a blind eye and refuse to believe what he quite clearly wants us to believe. Or is he testing us - millions of fossils, rocks, ice cores, tree rings, stars, galaxies and a multitude of other data vs a few pages in an ancient book by an unknown writer - a true test of faith.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't need to. It is not an assertion as such, the opposite is the assertion that must be qualified.
My qualification is: there is no known law of physics, common sense or logic that dictates or implies that time is finite. There isn't even one regarding the spacial dimensions.

Then just try to name one thing that doesn't have a beginning.

Originally posted by zeger55
where did the cosmic force come from?

And we seriously don't know how long God's day is, and even if he was using that measurement in Genesis. It could have been 7 24-hour days, it could have been thousands of years, who really knows.

I know God doesn't have days and nights. Think about it. And since God resides outside of time it is silly to put limited ideas on Her like 1000 years.
God is on all the time and knows no divisions.
Gods day ...Cracks me up everytime🙂

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the whole creation story could be resumed to "god created all"
that's it. the rest is preposterous

coming from a man who does not even understand the account out Genesis, even after repeated attempts to help you, through both chronology and the study of the original languages i find this statement quite rich!

Originally posted by zeger55
While i disagree that it is preposterous, I do agree with the idea that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" as the focus of the Creation. I don't think we can fathom him, day after day, saying things and them appearing. And at the same time, we DONT know for sure if it was 6 days. It could have been! If you believe in a God that can ...[text shortened]... lieve in that regard either way, I do see that it very well could have been 6 24-hour days.

the fact of the matter is that this statement is scientifically accurate, the universe, did indeed have a beginning. It has not always existed. the 'days', are not literal twenty four hour periods, for this is a human invention and finds no credence in either scripture nor science as clearly there was an unspecified duration of time between the specified events. the fact can be established scripturally for Paul states of the seventh day, that God was still 'resting', on the seventh 'day', even in Paul's own time, some many of thousands of years later.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the whole creation story could be resumed to "god created all"
that's it. the rest is preposterous

the rest is science

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
coming from a man who does not even understand the account out Genesis, even after repeated attempts to help you, through both chronology and the study of the original languages i find this statement quite rich!

i think i will manage to not lose any sleep over not being able to understand your "explanations". just barely, but i will survive.