Originally posted by despondent:no wonder u kept using: who is the bachelor's wife as ur explanation why the qn is flawed...i am stil looking for known articles which use wads the value of infinity as the explanation...currently seems like i am alone for this...
I thought the bachelor's wife question is more easily understood. Infinity a bit abstract and may need more explanation.
Originally posted by White Dust:I think the issue is about creation in the absence of time. Since the creation of time itself must be an event outside of time. No, scientists do not agree that time, space and matter were created - scientists hold to the view that time, space and matter began to exist.
I understand. The same applies to the theory of gravity. However, theories can be translated into facts. There are 4 pieces of evidence in favor of the big bang. Two of which are microwave background radiation and general relativity. To say that someone believes in the big bang is no different from saying that one believes in gravity. Sure, one may say that, but it's merely semantics. Big bang did not create anything in particular (energy can neither be created nor destroyed). I think you speak of dis-order? That has to do with entrophy - the universe progresses towards chaos, not order.
The age of the Earth can be dated using uranium dating (uranium has a half life of 4.47 billion years). Uranium compunds in igneous rocks can be dated backwards to achieve a fairly decent estimate of the age of the Earth. If someone can offer an alternative method of determining the age of the Earth, I'll be glad to hear it.
Yes, is there a creator? I addressed some issues about "creating time" in a couple of my previous posts. Thus far, I have not heard any justification of such a premise and how this can be done.
If time has a beginning, and this not an issue of contention among secular scientists (see http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html), then it does not make sense to speak of anything prior to or before time. But note that while science has only RECENTLY come to this conclusion, the Bible has taught that for thousands of years! Again I see this as another evidence that supports belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture.
But I think we should not translate the issue about how the cause could have brought about the effect ( the universe, including time itself) to denying the need for a cause, which is what I think you are suggesting. That anything that began to exist, and scientists are saying that they began to exist simultaneously (hence the singularity), means that there must be a cause. I am sure you are familiar with William Lane Craig's defense of the Kalam cosmological argument.
There is the theory of gravity (to explain the big things) and there is the law of gravity which we all experience every moment of our lives. Gravity can be affirmed via operational science, repeated tests via the scientific method. But the big bang, if it is true, is a theory/hypothesis/model/belief about the past to explain the present. You cannot go back to test it. It depends on many unproven and untested assumptions. While there are evidence that supports the Big Bang, there are others that do not. Such evidence must of course be interpreted, and interpretation depends on one's worldview, be it naturalism or theism. Please see http://creation.com/dismantle-the-big-bang-and-rediscover-gods-universe
Dating methods are often appealed to as proof that the earth is immensely old, in the region of 14.7 billions years (I suspect the decimal point is put there to make it sound more correct). And even this figure was a revision upwards from the 13.7 billion years. But have you heard of the RATE project? It provides many evidences that points to a young earth. See http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-and-old-ages-in-disarray
And if you are a sucker for books like me, you can even download the entire research document here www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf
As to whether there is a Creator, we may have to start another thread. But I suspect it will be deleted just as soon as the topic is started. The existence of God seems to be a censored issue.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:If time has a beginning, and this not an issue of contention among secular scientists (see http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html), then it does not make sense to speak of anything prior to or before time. But note that while science has only RECENTLY come to this conclusion, the Bible has taught that for thousands of years! Again I see this as another evidence that supports belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture.
But I think we should not translate the issue about how the cause could have brought about the effect ( the universe, including time itself) to denying the need for a cause, which is what I think you are suggesting. That anything that began to exist, and scientists are saying that they began to exist simultaneously (hence the singularity), means that there must be a cause. I am sure you are familiar with William Lane Craig's defense of the Kalam cosmological argument.
There is the theory of gravity (to explain the big things) and there is the law of gravity which we all experience every moment of our lives. Gravity can be affirmed via operational science, repeated tests via the scientific method. But the big bang, if it is true, is a theory/hypothesis/model/belief about the past to explain the present. You cannot go back to test it. It depends on many unproven and untested assumptions. While there are evidence that supports the Big Bang, there are others that do not. Such evidence must of course be interpreted, and interpretation depends on one's worldview, be it naturalism or theism. Please see http://creation.com/dismantle-the-big-bang-and-rediscover-gods-universe
Dating methods are often appealed to as proof that the earth is immensely old, in the region of 14.7 billions years (I suspect the decimal point is put there to make it sound more correct). And even this figure was a revision upwards from the 13.7 billion years. But have you heard of the RATE project? It provides many evidences that points to a young earth. See http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-and-old-ages-in-disarray
And if you are a sucker for books like me, you can even download the entire research document here www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf
As to whether there is a Creator, we may have to start another thread. But I suspect it will be deleted just as soon as the topic is started. The existence of God seems to be a censored issue.
Just because the Bible/Koran is right about one thing doesn't make it divinely inspired, contrary to popular claims by Christian and Muslim apologists. Indeed, I am familiar with Craig's defense, though he hasn't addressed Peter Slezak's concerns about how time can be caused. Many have raised similar concerns (Keith Parsons, Le Poidevin, Michael Martin), and Craig's only defense of that premise is, as I understand it to be "If our current philosphical understandings cannot hold to this theory, then so much the worse for these understandings". This seems to me, to be "If you cannot fit my notion of causality into your understanding, then it only speaks badly about your understanding". But surely, one would find such a defense neither trenchant nor serious.
Just because you cannot go back to test it is no excuse that you cannot know what happened in the past. It is very often possible to do so with regards to physics. Do you think time can slow down and speed up? Do you think particles separated a universe apart can instantaneously interact with each other? Do we believe any of these weird things of the past? Of course not. But who cares what we believe. These are the most empirically verified facts within the realm of cosmology. With regards to the big bang and age of the earth, I have provided evidence which demonstrates that the universe began to exist at the big bang, and that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. By the way, the 0.6 has nothing to do with appearing more credible. Who cares if we find it credible anyway? Geologists aren't concerned with public relations or semantics, they're concerned with uranium dating. As such, the age of the eart has been postulated as 4.6 billion years as this is the degree of accuracy to which the half life of uranium allows. Percentage uncertainty is also taken into the equation in this case.
Originally posted by White Dust:Just because the Bible/Koran is right about one thing doesn't make it divinely inspired, contrary to popular claims by Christian and Muslim apologists. Indeed, I am familiar with Craig's defense, though he hasn't addressed Peter Slezak's concerns about how time can be caused. Many have raised similar concerns (Keith Parsons, Le Poidevin, Michael Martin), and Craig's only defense of that premise is, as I understand it to be "If our current philosphical understandings cannot hold to this theory, then so much the worse for these understandings". This seems to me, to be "If you cannot fit my notion of causality into your understanding, then it only speaks badly about your understanding". But surely, one would find such a defense neither trenchant nor serious.
Just because you cannot go back to test it is no excuse that you cannot know what happened in the past. It is very often possible to do so with regards to physics. Do you think time can slow down and speed up? Do you think particles separated a universe apart can instantaneously interact with each other? Do we believe any of these weird things of the past? Of course not. But who cares what we believe. These are the most empirically verified facts within the realm of cosmology. With regards to the big bang and age of the earth, I have provided evidence which demonstrates that the universe began to exist at the big bang, and that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. By the way, the 0.6 has nothing to do with appearing more credible. Who cares if we find it credible anyway? Geologists aren't concerned with public relations or semantics, they're concerned with uranium dating. As such, the age of the eart has been postulated as 4.6 billion years as this is the degree of accuracy to which the half life of uranium allows. Percentage uncertainty is also taken into the equation in this case.
I think we should not downplay the significance of what is it the Bible is right about. The fact is that it teaches that the universe had a beginning. Science only recently caught up with the theologians. The Bible is not just right on some trivial matter but on a very foundational question. Neither am I saying that this means or prove the divine inspiration of Scripture, but it supports the belief.
Regarding the age of the earth, you need to understand that this cannot be proven because no one was there to observe earth's creation, be it six thousand years or six billion years. Any dating method involves untested and unproven ASSUMPTIONS about the past. But there are numerous natural processes which, if we use uniformitarian assumptions, do not allow for am earth that is billions of years old. Besides, wrong ages have been derives from rock samples for which we knew the actual age where the calculated ages were far far older. I hope you will take some time to read up on RATE.
Originally posted by White Dust:Just because the Bible/Koran is right about one thing doesn't make it divinely inspired, contrary to popular claims by Christian and Muslim apologists. Indeed, I am familiar with Craig's defense, though he hasn't addressed Peter Slezak's concerns about how time can be caused. Many have raised similar concerns (Keith Parsons, Le Poidevin, Michael Martin), and Craig's only defense of that premise is, as I understand it to be "If our current philosphical understandings cannot hold to this theory, then so much the worse for these understandings". This seems to me, to be "If you cannot fit my notion of causality into your understanding, then it only speaks badly about your understanding". But surely, one would find such a defense neither trenchant nor serious.
Just because you cannot go back to test it is no excuse that you cannot know what happened in the past. It is very often possible to do so with regards to physics. Do you think time can slow down and speed up? Do you think particles separated a universe apart can instantaneously interact with each other? Do we believe any of these weird things of the past? Of course not. But who cares what we believe. These are the most empirically verified facts within the realm of cosmology. With regards to the big bang and age of the earth, I have provided evidence which demonstrates that the universe began to exist at the big bang, and that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. By the way, the 0.6 has nothing to do with appearing more credible. Who cares if we find it credible anyway? Geologists aren't concerned with public relations or semantics, they're concerned with uranium dating. As such, the age of the eart has been postulated as 4.6 billion years as this is the degree of accuracy to which the half life of uranium allows. Percentage uncertainty is also taken into the equation in this case.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I think we should not downplay the significance of what is it the Bible is right about. The fact is that it teaches that the universe had a beginning. Science only recently caught up with the theologians. The Bible is not just right on some trivial matter but on a very foundational question. Neither am I saying that this means or prove the divine inspiration of Scripture, but it supports the belief.
Regarding the age of the earth, you need to understand that this cannot be proven because no one was there to observe earth's creation, be it six thousand years or six billion years. Any dating method involves untested and unproven ASSUMPTIONS about the past. But there are numerous natural processes which, if we use uniformitarian assumptions, do not allow for am earth that is billions of years old. Besides, wrong ages have been derives from rock samples for which we knew the actual age where the calculated ages were far far older. I hope you will take some time to read up on RATE.
Indeed, I share the sentiment that the Bible/Koran is right on the universe beginning to exist. However, I do not think that humans were created. I think that humans evolved from a common ancestor to where we are today. So it seems to me, that we have to both look at what the Bible/Koran is right and wrong about and make the necessary adjustments to our worldviews. No one was there to observe it, therefore it cannot be proven? That is so untrue. Demonstrably untrue, in fact. How do forensics officers determine the time of death to an accuracy of that of a millisecond? Newton's Laws of Cooling. The whole notion of "You weren't there to see it, therefore it cannot be proven" is not supported by any good reasons. I don't know what to say to someone who insists that knowledge of the past is not possible despite the plethora of methods to establish facts about the past to a breathtaking certainty. Now, can science offer a dis-proof of God? No, I do not think so, no more than science can offer a dis-proof of Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Yahweh and so forth. But not every rational belief has to rest on proof. We deny the reality of many things, not because we can disprove them, but because there is simply no point in postulating their existence. Why don't we believe in Aristotelian Prime Movers any more? Because there is no need for them in our current understanding of the physical cosmos.
then creationists will ask u where this common ancestor came from...u cannot lead this on to ask where God came from cos u are comparing a finite common ancestor and an infinite God...
No one created god. God exists by himself and he is the best evidence and proof that existence without creation is possible. God is a higher state of living thing than humans, just like humans is a higher state of living thing than animals. God can exist without creation, so can humans.
but humans are finite God is not...u are missing the point concerning the difference btw finite and infinite...
Originally posted by White Dust:Indeed, I share the sentiment that the Bible/Koran is right on the universe beginning to exist. However, I do not think that humans were created. I think that humans evolved from a common ancestor to where we are today. So it seems to me, that we have to both look at what the Bible/Koran is right and wrong about and make the necessary adjustments to our worldviews. No one was there to observe it, therefore it cannot be proven? That is so untrue. Demonstrably untrue, in fact. How do forensics officers determine the time of death to an accuracy of that of a millisecond? Newton's Laws of Cooling. The whole notion of "You weren't there to see it, therefore it cannot be proven" is not supported by any good reasons. I don't know what to say to someone who insists that knowledge of the past is not possible despite the plethora of methods to establish facts about the past to a breathtaking certainty. Now, can science offer a dis-proof of God? No, I do not think so, no more than science can offer a dis-proof of Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Yahweh and so forth. But not every rational belief has to rest on proof. We deny the reality of many things, not because we can disprove them, but because there is simply no point in postulating their existence. Why don't we believe in Aristotelian Prime Movers any more? Because there is no need for them in our current understanding of the physical cosmos.
That the universe has a beginning is a fact that has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The question is, what is its cause? It cannot not have a cause, despite the difficulties in understanding how a cause can bring about the existence of time space and matter.
How something can come from nothing (creation ex nihilo) is a problem for naturalism/atheism, but not theism. Another problem for atheism is how life can come from nonlife. Before one can talk about evolution from a common ancestor, one has to explain or account for the origins of life. As of now, it is a matter of FAITH on the part of atheists that abiogenesis occured. And it is also a matter of FAITH to hold the view that simple life can evolve into complex lifeforms like human beings.
Creationists also believe that humans "evolved" from a common ancestor, namely Adam and Eve. We do not subscribe to the belief that simple life can evolve to complex life. The issue is INFORMATION. Where does it come from? Creationists believe that kind begat kind. Human beings will always reproduce after their kind. You don't get humans from apes nor apes from fish, regardless of how much time you put in. I think it takes greater faith and a bigger miracle to believe in the grand scheme of evolution.
You have misunderstood me. I am not saying that we can know nothing about the past. I am saying that the past cannot be proven, not by the scientific method. What you have access would be legal-historical evidences. And what you have is an inference to the best explanation. Forensic science is historical science, it gathers data that exists in the PRESENT and tries to piece them together to make up a plausible story about the PAST. Assumptions are being made in such cases. You may wish to read up more about it here http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner
The issue is not whether you personally see a point in believing in something, the issue is whether there are good reasons for believing in it. Atheists will say what's the point, theists will say got lots of point. But the point is not whether you think there's a point, but whether there are reasons for it. Yes, there are things we do not believe in because we have no good reason to, e.g. Zeus, elves etc. And no one defends their existence anyway. But God is not so easily cast away.
Originally posted by despondent:but humans are finite God is not...u are missing the point concerning the difference btw finite and infinite...
Finite or Infinite are all our perception. I believe animals think that humans are infinite.
Most of the animals' lives and deaths are in the hands of humans.
Originally posted by Pinknutri:No one created god. God exists by himself and he is the best evidence and proof that existence without creation is possible. God is a higher state of living thing than humans, just like humans is a higher state of living thing than animals. God can exist without creation, so can humans.
Philosophers make the distinction between contingent beings and necessary beings. Contingent beings are things that need not be. Neccesary beings are things that must be. The universe is a contingent entity because it has a beginning, it need not exists. But God is a necessary being because all things that exists are contingent upon Him. See http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
See also http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god
Originally posted by Pinknutri:
Finite or Infinite are all our perception. I believe animals think that humans are infinite.
Most of the animals' lives and deaths are in the hands of humans.
I disagree. Perception is NOT reality. It is a way of looking at reality which may or may not be true. What animals think of us is really irrelevant or moot since we have no inside access to their inner world. But the fact is that we are FINITE beings, and no amount of perception otherwise would change it.
has any animal ever told us that it believes humans are infinite? but there r humans who believe tat God is infinite...btw pinknutri, read my very 1st post in this thread...i did qualify by saying tat whether its a flawed or valid qn depends on whether you believe tat God is finite or infinite...if u believe God is finite, then dun ask christians who created God cos christians do not believe in a finite God...if you believe God is infinite then the qn is a flawed one...
we can say that 1 million is a higher value than 1 hundred but we cannot say infinity is a higher value than 1 million cos infinity cannot be valued...its beyond value...
Originally posted by despondent:we can say that 1 million is a higher value than 1 hundred but we cannot say infinity is a higher value than 1 million cos infinity cannot be valued...its beyond value...
Yep, infinity is not even a number, or a very large one. It's like comparing time and eternity. Eternity is not a very long time. Eternity is timelessness.
may i offer a better way to ask the qn of the thread...who created the finite God/who created the infinite God? add an extra word in front of the word ''God'' so that ppl noe wad type of god u are referring to...
Next round will be issues of faith... How much faith required to accept an infinite God to be believable. Go!
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Next round will be issues of faith... How much faith required to accept an infinite God to be believable. Go!
Personally I do not have enough faith to be an atheist. It takes more faith to believe that the universe was caused by nothing than that it was created by an all powerful God.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:That the universe has a beginning is a fact that has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The question is, what is its cause? It cannot not have a cause, despite the difficulties in understanding how a cause can bring about the existence of time space and matter.
How something can come from nothing (creation ex nihilo) is a problem for naturalism/atheism, but not theism. Another problem for atheism is how life can come from nonlife. Before one can talk about evolution from a common ancestor, one has to explain or account for the origins of life. As of now, it is a matter of FAITH on the part of atheists that abiogenesis occured. And it is also a matter of FAITH to hold the view that simple life can evolve into complex lifeforms like human beings.
Creationists also believe that humans "evolved" from a common ancestor, namely Adam and Eve. We do not subscribe to the belief that simple life can evolve to complex life. The issue is INFORMATION. Where does it come from? Creationists believe that kind begat kind. Human beings will always reproduce after their kind. You don't get humans from apes nor apes from fish, regardless of how much time you put in. I think it takes greater faith and a bigger miracle to believe in the grand scheme of evolution.
You have misunderstood me. I am not saying that we can know nothing about the past. I am saying that the past cannot be proven, not by the scientific method. What you have access would be legal-historical evidences. And what you have is an inference to the best explanation. Forensic science is historical science, it gathers data that exists in the PRESENT and tries to piece them together to make up a plausible story about the PAST. Assumptions are being made in such cases. You may wish to read up more about it here http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner
The issue is not whether you personally see a point in believing in something, the issue is whether there are good reasons for believing in it. Atheists will say what's the point, theists will say got lots of point. But the point is not whether you think there's a point, but whether there are reasons for it. Yes, there are things we do not believe in because we have no good reason to, e.g. Zeus, elves etc. And no one defends their existence anyway. But God is not so easily cast away.
It is a fact that the universe has a beginning? Where did you get that premise from? How odd then, to see many physicists and philosophers who do not think that time can be caused. I think you meant "the universe began to exist?" That would be true, and is accepted by almost everyone. Abiogenesis is not a matter of faith, abiogenesis is a result derived from the Urey-Miller experiment. If thinking something which has been verified again and again is called faith, then I propose that you are implicitly defining faith in a question begging manner. Furthermore, the letter to letter correspondences in the DNA between any group of animals, if plotted out, form a perfect hierarchy - a family tree. Not to mention, there is the record in the nucleic acids which is obtained by DNA sequencing. In which we can trace the evolutionary past of animals. So to say that evolution is a form of faith is simply non sequitur. I define faith as "belief in the absence of evidence".
But the past can be proven. In view of the techniques available to know facts about the past, the epistemic skeptic has to show that acquisition of past knowledge is unachievable. Just because one isn't there is no reason to think otherwise. Could you give me a scenario where epistemic claims aren't possible?
No doubt, we have to access the reasons for it. So what reasons are there to think that time can be caused?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Personally I do not have enough faith to be an atheist. It takes more faith to believe that the universe was caused by nothing than that it was created by an all powerful God.
Well then, following your logic, one has to loose faith in being atheist to become godly since by technicality, everyone is born atheist....
Faith is required to believe...
Atheism is a rejection to believe God/s. No faith requirement.
Just focus on the question TS posed...
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Well then, following your logic, one has to loose faith in being atheist to become godly since by technicality, everyone is born atheist....
Faith is required to believe...
Atheism is a rejection to believe God/s. No faith requirement.
Just focus on the question TS posed...
You are not following my logic at all. Both the theist and the atheist has faith. Saying that everyone is born an atheist, even technically speaking, is abusing definition of atheism amd misleading. No one is born declaring that there is no God. It is true to say that everyone is born ignorant since he comes into the world with a clean slate in terms of knowledge.
As for focusing on the question, I have already made my comments concerning the nature of the question. I don't think you have done so.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are not following my logic at all. Both the theist and the atheist has faith. The theist puts his faith in God while the atheist puts his in man. What cannot be denied is the element of faith in both system of belief. So long as you even use the word "believe" faith is present.
Saying that everyone is born an atheist, even technically speaking, is abusing the definition of atheism and misleading. No one is born declaring that there is no God. It is true to say that everyone is born ignorant since he comes into the world with a clean slate in terms of knowledge.
As for focusing on the question, I have already made my comments concerning the nature of the question. I don't think you have done so.
Originally posted by White Dust:It is a fact that the universe has a beginning? Where did you get that premise from? How odd then, to see many physicists and philosophers who do not think that time can be caused. I think you meant "the universe began to exist?" That would be true, and is accepted by almost everyone. Abiogenesis is not a matter of faith, abiogenesis is a result derived from the Urey-Miller experiment. If thinking something which has been verified again and again is called faith, then I propose that you are implicitly defining faith in a question begging manner. Furthermore, the letter to letter correspondences in the DNA between any group of animals, if plotted out, form a perfect hierarchy - a family tree. Not to mention, there is the record in the nucleic acids which is obtained by DNA sequencing. In which we can trace the evolutionary past of animals. So to say that evolution is a form of faith is simply non sequitur. I define faith as "belief in the absence of evidence".
But the past can be proven. In view of the techniques available to know facts about the past, the epistemic skeptic has to show that acquisition of past knowledge is unachievable. Just because one isn't there is no reason to think otherwise. Could you give me a scenario where epistemic claims aren't possible?
No doubt, we have to access the reasons for it. So what reasons are there to think that time can be caused?
The Bible supplies the premise that the universe has a beginning and more recently science has come to the same conclusion so clearly stated in the first words of Holy Writ.
The Stanley Miller experiment did not prove abiogenesis at all. They did not produce life. Far from it they got a deadly mixture of stuff. But even if they did manage to produce life in the lab it would prove that intelligent design was required, rather than a naturalistic undirected process.
Again I am NOT saying that we know nothing about the past. The Bible tells us a lot about the past that have been vindicated by other historical sources and archaeological findings. What I am saying is that you cannot repeat the past in the lab.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are not following my logic at all. Both the theist and the atheist has faith. Saying that everyone is born an atheist, even technically speaking, is abusing definition of atheism amd misleading. No one is born declaring that there is no God. It is true to say that everyone is born ignorant since he comes into the world with a clean slate in terms of knowledge.
As for focusing on the question, I have already made my comments concerning the nature of the question. I don't think you have done so.
Quote you. "... I do not have enough faith to be an atheist." does mean you were an atheist before. You were just saying either you lost faith in atheism or gained faith in being what you are.
"Saying that everyone is born an atheist, even technically speaking, is abusing definition of atheism amd misleading. No one is born declaring that there is no God. It is true to say that everyone is born ignorant since he comes into the world with a clean slate in terms of knowledge."
Before faith, knowledge must be. No knowledge --> no faith --> no believe of God/s--> atheist. Doubtless fact. Atheism is nothing about declaration, just belief or lack of it. Unless you wanna redefine atheism or use your own definition... be my guest, bring it on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Still I'd say, focus on the topic at hand.