How did the universe start?

[Beleg]

How do you think the Universe started? Are you satisfied with the Big-Bang theory?
Do you belive in the religious views concerning the start of the Universe?
Do you belief that the Question of the Creation of Uinverse is interrelated with the presence of God?

P.S: I intend this thread for serious dicussion and I just didn't knew where to put it, so i have placed it here. This thread might take a religious turn and I believe Guild of Politics is the most suitble place for such a question.

[Eriol]

"How" -- I am satisfied with the Big Bang as to "how". Of course there is much to be known yet.

I believe in religious views. (more accurately, Christian).

I think it the Origin of the Universe is related to God.

[Aragorn21]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That's my opinion.

[Theoden]

Originally stated by God through Moses
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

I agree with Aragorn21. I am a firm believer in a six-day creation, as it is recorded in the first book of the Bible. I cannot prove it, because my faith is not based in science, nor do I claim that it is, but rather what I believe (Christianity) is backed by science.

-me

[Eliot]

I believe in the creation of the Universe in only 6 days by God. But since that's only my belief, I can't scientifically prove that, as Theoden said above.

[Elendil3119]

I also am a literal 6-day Creationist. There is a very good discussion on this matter in The Time Lords under "Question on the Bible", if you guys want to check it out. Although Creation cannot be 'proven', so to speak, by science, it also cannot be disproven. ;)

[Aragorn21]

Although Creation cannot be 'proven', so to speak, by science, it also cannot be disproven. That is true. But science can't prove anything at all. However, there is more evidence on the side of creation and like "noah's flood" then there is on the side of evoluction.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Aragorn21
That is true. But science can't prove anything at all. However, there is more evidence on the side of creation and like "noah's flood" then there is on the side of evoluction.

*Eriol looks at his feet, uneasingly*

er... how come?

[Ciryaher]

I think that the Big Bang was the method used to create the Universe, and I believe that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Just as Valinorean years were longer than Human years in Tolkien's works, I believe that time is an abstract concept as far as God is concerned, and that many many years for Man would pass for each day of "God".

[Nóm]

I believe that the expansion of the universe is probably accelerating, and that to me, is a good indication that there was a Big Bang.

I generally trust in scientific, in math... but, I know we have much to learn. Anything known today can be disproved tomorrow, as far as I am concerned.

Since I believe the techonology of today will be seen as primitive in as little as 100 years, I think we can not be sure about the universe.

On the other hand, maybe technology will not advance in the same direction as it has been going, and looks to be going. No telling what might happen to change the way humanity looks at things.

I surely don't believe some almighty being (least of all "Christ") created the Universe... but what isn't possible.

[Eliot]

Just out of curiosity, how would you -of all people- know that the Universe is expanding?

[Dr. Ransom]

Ever heard of the doppler effect? Like when a plane goes by the sound shifts from high to low? Basically, the same effect happens w/ light. The spectrum shifts from high to low. So galexies flying towards us have a "blue-shift", and galexies flying away from us display a "red-shift". The universe is thought to be expanding as all the galexies outside our local cluster are displaying a red-shift.

[Beleg]

Yes, the greater distance the Galaxies away from us are, the greater would be the red-shift.

I believe that the expansion of the universe is probably accelerating, and that to me, is a good indication that there was a Big Bang.

So what do you think will happen in the future? Will the expansion continue or will we have a pulsating Universe? and finally a return to the position before Big-Bang.


Well I gather, according to hubble law, the age of Universe is 15000 Million years ago with give or take 5000 million years.

[Dr. Ransom]

I personally lean more towards a literal 6 day creation than otherwise, but as time itself can dilate, the circumstances of creation could be endless. And all we know for sure (as far as a Christian is concerned), is that "God created the heavens and the earth." Both Eriol and myself would agree on this statement, but would concider the circumstances very different.

When pondering the beginning of the Universe, science cannot support the big bang anymore than it can God. The reason is this: philosophy and science both hold that something cannot come from nothing. This is the argument used against the big bang; what created it? For certainly you can keep asking that question forever, so therefore there can be no beginning to the universe.
The special creationist merely side steps this issue by believing in a devine creator, which is certainly just as likely as far as matter creating itself is concerned. I personally believe that the complexity and vastness of the Universe, not to mention nature and many human issues attest to special creation. But both creation by the big bang, or creation by God, are equally outside the realm of true science. For from a scientific perspective, both are impossible.

(I'm not quoting a book or anything, this is just right off the top. So work w/ me here a bit guys before you tear my post apart :D)

Fun topic, but it's getting too late, or should I say early for this, :cool: Ransom

[Rangerdave]

There is a school of philosophy that states "the only true reality is what the individual mind can concieve of"

This includes knowlidge, dreams, fantasies and theories.

If this is assumption is correct. Then the Universe was created 10:18am (CST) on the 25th of March, 1966.

This also explains why the universe is expanding, as I learn more, more room is needed to store it all.

Of course, if the universe is nothing but my mind at work. I think I will need to seek some professional advice in the near future.


RD

Legal Disclaimer
Individual universe inception dates may vary

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Eliot
Just out of curiosity, how would you -of all people- know that the Universe is expanding?
I don't know that it is.
It is just the thing I guess is most likely based on what I have read.

But being that I went on to say this:
I generally trust in scientific, in math... but, I know we have much to learn. Anything known today can be disproved tomorrow, as far as I am concerned.


I think the answer was right infront of you all along.

[Eriol]

The expansion of the Universe is based on the following observation, Eliot: every galaxy in the Universe is drawing away from our position. This holds true in whatever direction we look. And most importantly, the farther away the galaxy is, the greater is its speed!

(This is based on the Doppler shift addressed earlier by Beleg and Dr. Ransom).

Now what does this data suggest? Imagine the Universe looking at it "from the outside", so to speak. Every galaxy is hurrying away from a given point, the speed gets greater as the distance gets greater. This would imply that the Earth is in the center of the Universe...

But the curious point is that this Doppler shift is the same wherever you measure it. In other words, if you chose any other point in the Universe, the result will be the same.

The Universe is expanding away from every point inside it! Hard to picture that in our minds.

As for "nothing can come from nothing", Dr. Ransom: I sure agree with you on that, but on philosophical grounds. Science, or more precisely, quantum mechanics under the Copenhagen interpretation (which I question -- but is still the "mainstream" quantum mechanics), holds that it is possible to "draw energy out of the vacuum", because the vacuum is not really a vaccum. It has a positive (more than zero) energy. And it can draw energy out of itself. If it can draw energy, it can draw matter (remember E=mc2), with a positive (more than zero, even if infinitesimally small) probability.

I don't agree with it, but many scientists do.

[Aragorn21]

The theory of creation is much more stable than the theor of evolution. Ever since the beginning the theory (or should I say "scientific fact") of creation has been "God created the heavens and the earth." The theory of evolution is continually changing, (things like the date of when the earth began, etc.).

And you say that something can't come from nothing... so you say, uh, what was it? bumped into eachother and the planets formed. Well where did that, uh, stuff come from if nothing can come from nothing!? Saying something can't come from nothing defets your whole argument.

[Eriol]

Easy, Aragorn... Some people in this thread know my position, but I will repeat it here:

I'm a Christian. I believe in God. Therefore, I believe in Creation as regards the Universe. The Universe was created from nothing by God. That is Creation (strict sense).

However, I also believe in Evolution. And this is because the two theories are completely unrelated. You can believe in an "uncreated universe" (something that always existed, always will exist, with no beginning, no end) and refuse Evolution; You can do the opposite. There is no logical link between the two. If you accept Creation (strict sense) there is no logical reason why you should accept -- or refuse -- Evolution.

It is as if we said that by believing in Creation (strict sense) you have to believe in, say, Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Not at all - Muslims believe in Creation (strict sense).

There is no logical link between Creation (strict sense) and Christ; much less between Creation (strict sense) and Evolution.

The difficulty lies in the use of the word Creation. For it has another sense besides the strict sense -- the sense associated with the word "Creationism", which implies a 7-day creation, with 24-hour days, Noah's Flood, etc. as described in Genesis. THAT sense is contradictory with Evolution, and that is the sense in which I don't agree with it.

You could say I believe in Creation but not in Creationism.

And the theory of evolution is still the same as it was when Darwin gave it its modern form. No change at all.

[Aragorn21]

There is no logical link between Creation (strict sense) and Christ Yes there is, because God (remember he has three parts, father, son, and holy spirit) created everything.

OK, mabye saying "the theory of evolution changes" is the wrong way to put it, (even though the dates of how old they claim things are does change). But there has been great evidence against it. Take the Grand Canyon for example, evoluction says "the Grand Canyon was formed by the CO river, well after further study, it's not possible that the Grand Canyon was formed by the CO river, but that the CO river was formed by the Grand Canyon. So then where did the Grand Canyon come from, and how was it formed?? Much evidence points to a great movement of much water, such as...the great flood as told in the Bible!

I hope I made sense, my thoughts are kind of scattered.

[Eriol]

We are drifting off-topic, Aragorn. I suggest you take a look at the "Thoughts on Darwinian Evolution" thread on this forum, as well as on "Question on the Bible" in the Time Lords.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the Grand Canyon.

As I said, a Muslim can believe in Creation and not in the Trinity. No logical link between the two.

You make sense :D You are just wrong, hehe.

(Joking)

Really, there is a lot said in those two threads about his subject. Let's keep this thread about Creation (strict sense), i.e. about how did EVERYTHING come to be, and not about the evolution of biological entities in a planet...

[Beleg]

As I said, a Muslim can believe in Creation and not in the Trinity. No logical link between the two.

Yes, sure. What is common is the fact that the creation was the work of God. But how did he create it, on this point people differ.
As has allready been said, you can not create anything out of nothing. God created the matter, but what happened with the matter afterwards, that we can examine through scientific processes.
So It seems that people are more bent upon believing the Big Bang theory. What about the other theories? Like the Continuous Creation theory.

[Aragorn21]

Sorry about that Eriol I was in a rush, (piano lessons), I did drift off topic. Now, where were we?

[Eriol]

No problem! I think we were on the how's of Creation -- is Big Bang acceptable? For me it is, for you I guess it isn't, since it would contrradict 7-day creation.

No one so far has said that he does not agree with Creation -- i.e. no one believes in an eternal, uncreated universe. Interesting, because this is the only position consistent with atheism, as far as I see it.

The Big Bang can be interpreted in two forms. One: it was the actual creation of matter, meaning there was no matter before it. Two: it is a cyclical event, Universes come and go as matter expands and converges back to a single point. This would be an "uncreated" universe, in which no beginning could be detected for the entire cycle.

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Beleg_strongbow
How do you think the Universe started? Are you satisfied with the Big-Bang theory?
Do you belive in the religious views concerning the start of the Universe?
Do you belief that the Question of the Creation of Uinverse is interrelated with the presence of God?

P.S: I intend this thread for serious dicussion and I just didn't knew where to put it, so i have placed it here. This thread might take a religious turn and I believe Guild of Politics is the most suitble place for such a question.

KABOOM! Expresses my opinion....

Originally posted by Theoden
nor do I claim that it is, but rather what I believe (Christianity) is backed by science.
How?


Originally posted by Aragorn21
However, there is more evidence on the side of creation and like "noah's flood" then there is on the side of evoluction.
Such as? There is evidence for Noah's flood, but not nearly on the scale as it was described in The Bible.

Originally posted by Beleg_strongbow
So what do you think will happen in the future? Will the expansion continue or will we have a pulsating Universe? and finally a return to the position before Big-Bang.


Well I gather, according to hubble law, the age of Universe is 15000 Million years ago with give or take 5000 million years.
Yes, the most updated Big Bang theory says that eventually the force of gravity will slow the universe's expansion, and then pull it all together again, at which point, there will be another Big Bang...

Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
The reason is this: philosophy and science both hold that something cannot come from nothing. This is the argument used against the big bang; what created it? For certainly you can keep asking that question forever, so therefore there can be no beginning to the universe.
The special creationist merely side steps this issue by believing in a devine creator, which is certainly just as likely as far as matter creating itself is concerned. I personally believe that the complexity and vastness of the Universe, not to mention nature and many human issues attest to special creation. But both creation by the big bang, or creation by God, are equally outside the realm of true science. For from a scientific perspective, both are impossible.
See above....It just keeps going and going...but you ask where does it come from to begin with? I don't know. But then again, do you know that God even exists?

Orignally posted by Rangerdave
There is a school of philosophy that states "the only true reality is what the individual mind can concieve of"

This includes knowlidge, dreams, fantasies and theories.

If this is assumption is correct. Then the Universe was created 10:18am (CST) on the 25th of March, 1966.

This also explains why the universe is expanding, as I learn more, more room is needed to store it all.

Of course, if the universe is nothing but my mind at work. I think I will need to seek some professional advice in the near future.


RD

Legal Disclaimer
Individual universe inception dates may vary
I think RD has schizophrenia and is imagining all of us... ;)


Originally posted by Eriol
The expansion of the Universe is based on the following observation, Eliot: every galaxy in the Universe is drawing away from our position. This holds true in whatever direction we look. And most importantly, the farther away the galaxy is, the greater is its speed!

(This is based on the Doppler shift addressed earlier by Beleg and Dr. Ransom).
Purty much...

Now what does this data suggest? Imagine the Universe looking at it "from the outside", so to speak. Every galaxy is hurrying away from a given point, the speed gets greater as the distance gets greater. This would imply that the Earth is in the center of the Universe...
This is where there's a flaw in your theory:
Imagine three balls. They're all at one point. You start them rolling in the same direction: one is rolling at 5 mph, one is rolling at 10mph, and one is rolling at 15 mph. So, they started 0 mi from each other. After an hour they're all 5 mi apart. They're all, also moving away from each other.

But the curious point is that this Doppler shift is the same wherever you measure it. In other words, if you chose any other point in the Universe, the result will be the same.
I'm not so sure that's true. Where did you find that out?

The Universe is expanding away from every point inside it! Hard to picture that in our minds.
Once you think of my rolling balls, it's possible. If you took an empty balloon and blew it up, the latex is expanding away from every point on it.

As for "nothing can come from nothing", Dr. Ransom: I sure agree with you on that, but on philosophical grounds. Science, or more precisely, quantum mechanics under the Copenhagen interpretation (which I question -- but is still the "mainstream" quantum mechanics), holds that it is possible to "draw energy out of the vacuum", because the vacuum is not really a vaccum. It has a positive (more than zero) energy. And it can draw energy out of itself. If it can draw energy, it can draw matter (remember E=mc2), with a positive (more than zero, even if infinitesimally small) probability.

I don't agree with it, but many scientists do.

Well, that contradicts the law of conservation of energy...but more importantly, it doesn't explain why matter is here. Yes, matter can be converted to energy (look up fission and fusion).

Originally posted by Aragorn21
OK, mabye saying "the theory of evolution changes" is the wrong way to put it, (even though the dates of how old they claim things are does change). But there has been great evidence against it. Take the Grand Canyon for example, evoluction says "the Grand Canyon was formed by the CO river, well after further study, it's not possible that the Grand Canyon was formed by the CO river, but that the CO river was formed by the Grand Canyon. So then where did the Grand Canyon come from, and how was it formed?? Much evidence points to a great movement of much water, such as...the great flood as told in the Bible!
As to the bolded part: says who?!

I'm sorry if I seem a bit 'know it all,' but there are some things in here that just contradict a lot of things....

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Beorn
This is where there's a flaw in your theory:
Imagine three balls. They're all at one point. You start them rolling in the same direction: one is rolling at 5 mph, one is rolling at 10mph, and one is rolling at 15 mph. So, they started 0 mi from each other. After an hour they're all 5 mi apart. They're all, also moving away from each other.

Well, then you have to explain why out of a single explosion there come objects with three different speeds.

The point is that with the Doppler shift we can detect not only speed but acceleration. The acceleration of the most distant galaxies is greater than those of the closest galaxies. We can also measure relative acceleration between galaxies, and see that our galaxy is drawing away from the others just as the others are drawing away from us.

In other words, we are NOT at the "center" of the Universe -- as the balloon analogy makes clear, there is no center.

I was aware of the ballon analogy, but still it conflates a three-dimensional expansion (our Universe) into a two-dimensional picture (the balloon). It is the best picture we have to imagine it, but I still find it hard to picture.

I'm glad you don't like that "energy coming out of the vacuum" scenario. I don't either.

And as for one of your questions, I'd like to hear your own answer, Beorn: where did matter come from? Why is there matter?

[Aragorn21]

Such as? There is evidence for Noah's flood, but not nearly on the scale as it was described in The Bible. A mamoth (can't spell) was found frozen with food still in its teeth, doesn't sound like a long period of time to me. There is a massive fossil grave yard (don't know where anymore) with fish, mamals, birds, tons of different kinds of animals. ALL IN ONE PLACE! Sounds like a BIG flood to me. But, not being much into science, I can't really confirm much more than this.
says who?! One, my personal favorite scientists Dr. Jay Wiles, and other creationists. And it's not possible for the river to have gone in that many directions! Rivers don't do that, floods do.
I'm sorry if I seem a bit 'know it all,' Nah, everyones intitled to an opinion.

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Eriol
Well, then you have to explain why out of a single explosion there come objects with three different speeds.

[quote]The point is that with the Doppler shift we can detect not only speed but acceleration. The acceleration of the most distant galaxies is greater than those of the closest galaxies. We can also measure relative acceleration between galaxies, and see that our galaxy is drawing away from the others just as the others are drawing away from us.

In other words, we are NOT at the "center" of the Universe -- as the balloon analogy makes clear, there is no center.

Get an apple and a few fire crackers. Put the apple in the street, and the fire cracker in the apple. Light it and run...reallllllly far... After you get up from your fits of laughter, you'll see that the pieces from the inside (no skin) are closest, and the pieces from the outside (if you can find any) are farthest. The pieces from the inside must first transfer the energy injected into them to the outside pieces. When the outer pieces fly off, they have plenty of energy. The inside pieces have less.

A much safer experiment is hitting an apple with a golf club (drivers work best). That's just darn funny.

I was aware of the ballon analogy, but still it conflates a three-dimensional expansion (our Universe) into a two-dimensional picture (the balloon). It is the best picture we have to imagine it, but I still find it hard to picture.
I just made up the thing about the balloon out of my head...that's weird....

I'm glad you don't like that "energy coming out of the vacuum" scenario. I don't either.

And as for one of your questions, I'd like to hear your own answer, Beorn: where did matter come from? Why is there matter?

Quoth the raven: but you ask where does it come from to begin with? I don't know.

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Beorn
Get an apple and a few fire crackers. Put the apple in the street, and the fire cracker in the apple. Light it and run...reallllllly far... After you get up from your fits of laughter, you'll see that the pieces from the inside (no skin) are closest, and the pieces from the outside (if you can find any) are farthest. The pieces from the inside must first transfer the energy injected into them to the outside pieces. When the outer pieces fly off, they have plenty of energy. The inside pieces have less.


HAHAHAHAHA :D, this is the funniest thing you can do i swear :D
Its even better when the snobby neighbours car gets smooshed with apple :D

[Eriol]

The trouble is that the apple is tridimensional, while the infant Universe was a point. No dimensions (of course, since there was no space). There would be no "inside" and "outside".

Other than that, it's a good scenario, and reminds me of my mischievous childhood.

:D

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Beorn



I think RD has schizophrenia and is imagining all of us... ;)




Yes, I am imagining you, but if the theory is correct.
Then I am a figment of your imagination as well.



RD

[Dr. Ransom]

I am a figment

I think you're right on at least part of that RD :D

[Rangerdave]

Good one Dr Ransom.

At least I kept it in the vein of philosophy. I could have just as easily gone on to discuss gravataion, strong and weak nuclear forces, string theory. etc...

but that would have left the green fields of philosophy and ventured into dusty world of physics.

And I would much rather be a figment than a Fig-Newton.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D




RD




hangs his head in shame over that one

[Sador]

I have always thought of the bible as a text on morality and rules for a just society. I have never thought of it as a cosmology text. To use it as a basis to understand the physics of the universe would be folly.
To say that the bible must in all cases be taken literally is bordering on bibliolatry. Worshipping the book, not the message.
I believe the creation of the universe is an open question which may never be answered, but I can live with that. A bit of mystery is good for the soul. I think we should never stop asking the question, but we shouldn't be too disappointed if we don't find the answer.

[Dr. Ransom]

I have always thought of the bible as a text on morality and rules for a just society. I have never thought of it as a cosmology text. To use it as a basis to understand the physics of the universe would be folly.

Sador, the Bible claims to be directly inspired by God. And if this is so, than certainly God Himself would understand physics and cosmology. Sure, the purpose of the Bible is not as a science textbook, but we can be assured of it's accuracy in all areas.
(Eriol and I would define accuracy differently however)

To say that the bible must in all cases be taken literally is bordering on bibliolatry. Worshipping the book, not the message.

I have never met a person in my entire life who believes that it must in all cases be taken literally. Proper and consistant heurmanutics (heurmanutics is the study of interpretation) would be to interpret the Bible in the "normal" sence. The Bible should be taken at face vaule. You should interpret it pretty much like anything else, the way the authors intended and with the context and genre in mind. How is actually believing what is written worshiping the book and not the message? What is written IS the message.

I believe the creation of the universe is an open question which may never be answered, but I can live with that. A bit of mystery is good for the soul. I think we should never stop asking the question, but we shouldn't be too disappointed if we don't find the answer.

Most of us believe that we already know the "Who", and are merely working out the "How".

This is off topic, and further discussion on the Bible should probably be moved the Beorn's new thread.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
Sador, the Bible claims to be directly inspired by God. And if this is so, than certainly God Himself would understand physics and cosmology. Sure, the purpose of the Bible is not as a science textbook, but we can be assured of it's accuracy in all areas.
(Eriol and I would define accuracy differently however)


I wouldn't think that we disagree on what is 'accuracy', Dr. Ransom. Ideal accuracy is "fitness to the truth'. Since we can't determine what is truth on our own, Accuracy in practice means 'fitness with what is perceived as true'.

Do you disagree?

As for the Bible, there is no doubt that Christians believe it is the Word of God, and therefore it is to be taken much more seriously than any other source of information. Of course everything in the Universe ultimately comes from God, but the Bible is supposed to be a special case -- God is handing us his wisdom, as unpolluted by the medium as it can be. The medium is, of course, words and concepts, and since all of us must think with words and concepts, therefore we do not realize 'truth in itself'. But the Bible is the closest thing we can get to that, while we don't look at Christ himself.

The Bible is in fact a special case because any mistake in interpretation can be attributed to the medium, to ourselves, as opposed to the author of any other "message". If we look at the Bible and see something wrong, it is our mistake, not the Bible's.

[Hadhafang]

I too am a man of Christian faith...however, I am also a man of scientific faith. The law of Uniformitarianism requires faith. This law states that the physical laws of the universe are the same today as they always have been throughout physical history. That takes a good deal of faith not being there to experience the Universe through its 15 billion years of existence.
with fish, mamals, birds, tons of different kinds of animals. ALL IN ONE PLACE! Sounds like a BIG flood to me. Most of these bone beds occur in either lacustrine or estuarine, and occasionally marine environments. all of the above listed classes tend to congregate near water. It is no surpirse to see the corpses of terrestrial fauna drift out to see and eventuall sink and be buried next to sharks, crocs, fish and plankton. These bonebeds usually occur during long periods of slow deposition..say 20,00 years. The bones are concentrated in the layer becasue sedimentaion rates vary, in this case they were slower. The rate of death remained the same. We (geologists) find these bone beds at many intervals in bedrock. If it was one flood event (The Noah Flood) there would only be one bone bed that. There are literally thousands of them at different layers separated by thousands of feet of rock. It seems unlikely that this bonebed would be the result of one event that lasted a short period of time. Also the Colorado River did create the Grand Canyon. A canyon like that does not simply appear for no reason. That is the result of millions of years of tectonic upwelling mixed with river down cutting.

IMHO God created the universe and it is approximately 15,000,000,000 years old. The Earth is about 1/3 that age.

[Sador]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
[B]Sador, the Bible claims to be directly inspired by God. And if this is so, than certainly God Himself would understand physics and cosmology. Sure, the purpose of the Bible is not as a science textbook, but we can be assured of it's accuracy in all areas.
(Eriol and I would define accuracy differently however)
How can you be assured of it's accuracy in all areas? Are you excepting the passage in Ezekial which describes the text as "Falsehoods from the lying pens of scribes"?




How is actually believing what is written worshiping the book and not the message? What is written IS the message.

The message is in the intent of the authors. To get hung up on a six day creation or the literal interpretation of Noah's flood is to miss the point of the stories.


Most of us believe that we already know the "Who", and are merely working out the "How".

What I don't understand is why anyone should think that there is a "who" in this question. The presence of a creator is in MHO a needless complication. To say that the universe is too complex to have come into being spontaneously and therefore requires a conscious creator, begs the question how complex is this creator and did "He" come into being spontaneously or does He require another level of creation? in which case you end up with an endless tower of Gods.


Sorry if I'm off topic on this, but trying to solve the origin of the universe using the bible is like trying to solve maths problems with a dictionary.

[Hadhafang]

The presence of a creator is in MHO a needless complication.Something had to generate all of the material in the universe. Whether that something has a conscious or not is the question. To say it occurred in the 'big bang is just as big a cop out as saying God created it. Because....what the heck caused the big bang, and all of the preceeding events that led up to it? Also if it can be assumed that God exists both in and outside the space-time continuum, then he/she wouldn't necessarily have to be created from anything. It has always been my assumption that there are higher forms of conciousness out there beyond our senses. In otherwords existence is probably much larger than what our pea brains can detect. The question for me is if any of those higher froms of conciousness (God and angels, etc.) care about us.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Sador

What I don't understand is why anyone should think that there is a "who" in this question. The presence of a creator is in MHO a needless complication. To say that the universe is too complex to have come into being spontaneously and therefore requires a conscious creator, begs the question how complex is this creator and did "He" come into being spontaneously or does He require another level of creation? in which case you end up with an endless tower of Gods.


Sorry if I'm off topic on this, but trying to solve the origin of the universe using the bible is like trying to solve maths problems with a dictionary.

Well, solving the "hows" of the origin of the Universe with a bible is really strange, I agree. But the Who is not. Of course, you must convince yourself of the existence of God before you accept the Bible's authority, but once you get past that, there is no reason why the Bible can't be used to understand better the Who.

But what I wanted to say is this -- the endless tower of Gods is precisely why the argument is correct. Can you imagine an infinite regression of Creators? You can say that sentence, sure, but try to actually imagine it. It is unheard of in every human activity, in every human observation, in every human experience.

Nothing comes from nothing is a good, established principle (including, of course, the Laws of Thermodynamics in its demonstration). But the corollary is that Something comes from Something -- it MUST come from something.

We either can take a Creator or an Endless Tower of Gods, but there is no other way to explain the Universe. And the Endless Tower of Gods runs against our experience and imagination.

The Endless Tower of Gods, in my opinion, is a prime example of Reason working in "the void" and reaching a silly conclusion. Reason is really designed to be used with other parts of our mind, but we try to make it the sole master...

The sole Creator is, in fact, obvious once your experience and imagination -- your existential self -- dismisses the Endless Tower of Gods as a mere sentence with no concrete meaning.

[HelplessModAddi]

Yes, the most updated Big Bang theory says that eventually the force of gravity will slow the universe's expansion, and then pull it all together again, at which point, there will be another Big Bang...
Actually, new evidence has dealt a blow to this idea. Somehow, somewhere, some guys recently came up with very hard evidence showing the expansion of the universe to be accelerating. If this is true, no amount of dark matter could ever pull the stars back together. The universe's physical fate is an inky void.

Another interesting theory. Some scientists claim that since conditions in black holes resemble conditions in the primordial universe, it is logical to assume that black holes represent the beginning of new universes. If this is true, then universes would give birth to other universes, and there even might be a form of evolution involved, where universes with laws of physics that allow many black holes would be more common then universes whose laws allowed few black holes.

[faila]

scientific proof of how the universe created is a moot point, in other words no scientist really knows.

It is my thought that the earth was created in 6 twenty four hour days about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. I have no proof, but I also have no way to disprove that the earth was created 5 seconds ago with memories of things past.

[Eliot]

I don't think we'll ever know how long Earth has existed. I used to think it was probably about 10,000 years old, but think about this: we have no idea of how much time there was between Creation, and when Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. It could've been 10 days, 5 months, or even 22 billion years for all we know. I just wanted to point that out.

[Sador]

I still don't get why people think that there needs to be a supernatural explanation for nature. A god who stands outside time and space, is undetectable and indefinable is the same to me as a god that doesn't exist.
To say that the world was created about six thousand years ago in six days is to call God a deceiver. I don't believe in God, but if I did I wouldn't want a God who deliberately sets out to deceive his children by planting all those dinosaur fossils etc.
If you are going to accept the literal truth of Genisis, you are not using the brain God gave you and that is a sin.

[Grond]

Time = measurement of movement of objects withint he known universe.

second, minute, hour, day (= 1 revoluation of Earth on its axis), month, year (= 1 revolution of the Earth around the Sun).

Question for all who don't believe in God.

What happened? What event occurred that sparked this big bang? (I personally believe in the big bang and in God).

The problem so many intellectuals get into is trying to view Creation through the eyes of time. They say, "Well, you say God has always been here, I can say that the universe has always been here.)

Well, you can't say that the universe has always been here because it hasn't. It was created. All we argue about is what and/or who created it. I believe in a living God who had a plan. The living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is who I believe did the work. And later, his son Jesus Christ came and ultimately provided us with the game plan for eternal salvation. That's what I think about that... so there. ;)

[Dr. Ransom]

Welcome back!

So are you a Theistic Evolutionist Grond? Would you care to give us some background on your beliefs?

(I am a special creationist myself, who stronly leans towards a literal view.... but theism certainly is an ally of even us literalists.)

[Sador]

Well if you read Stephen Hawkings' book "A Brief History of Time" it explains how the universe is unbounded in Time. There was no "Before" the universe was created, because time didn't exist.
The fact of the universe's existence is also its cause. That's what I believe. So there.
Nothing Supernatural about it. Doesn't mean it isn't wonderful, beautiful and awe inspiring, just not the product of some god's workshop.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Sador
Well if you read Stephen Hawkings' book "A Brief History of Time" it explains how the universe is unbounded in Time. There was no "Before" the universe was created, because time didn't exist.
The fact of the universe's existence is also its cause. That's what I believe. So there.
Nothing Supernatural about it. Doesn't mean it isn't wonderful, beautiful and awe inspiring, just not the product of some god's workshop. An event had to have occurred for the essence of creation to occur. At that very moment, time and all our laws of physics, etc. etc. etc. were defined. It sounds like you very much believe in creationism, you just don't want to attiribute it to Someone who lives outside the bounds of the very universe He created. And, of course, that is your right. The wonderful thing about faith and grace is that I know in my heart what awaits me when I die and I look forward to it. Most nonbelievers (not necessarily anyone posting on this thread) dread approaching death.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
Welcome back!

So are you a Theistic Evolutionist Grond? Would you care to give us some background on your beliefs?

(I am a special creationist myself, who stronly leans towards a literal view.... but theism certainly is an ally of even us literalists.) I honestly believe that I cannot know the mind of my God. How ever He created this wonderful universe we live in is beyond me. I don't profess to know any more than the Bible tells me. Having said that, I also don't profess to know what a day is to God nor do I profess to know the complicated process He put together to create DNA that allows the creatures of this world to adapt to changes in the very world He created.

I simply study the Bible and place my faith in my lord Jesus Christ and let the rest fall where it may.

[Inderjit S]

I believe that god, created the universe, and the 'Big Bang' could be a result of his (or her:p ) actions within the fruition of the universe. I also believe that is god's influences that have caused our evolution---though in the end evolution is a theory, not fact, it hasn't been proven in the case of Human evolution, I believe that god gave us a helping hand on the way so to speak. (Of course I am no diverging off topic, this is a topic on creationism not evolution.)

Just like to add, I am not a Christian, I am a Sikh. Sikhism is primarily a religion based upon Hinduism and Islam the two dominant religions within the Indian sub-continent and we are relatively young for a religion, being just over 300 yrs old, though quite large. I also believe that we all share the 'same' God. Even though the Christian dogma claims (or seems to) that all non-Christians will go to hell, I do not believe this to be so, but I think that instead we all worship a single, infallible supreme power, and we have different terms for it, but then again I could be wrong, And I am on the highway to hell, and quite frankly If I am, then so be it and maybe I will repent of my Faustian error when I have a red-hot poker sticking up my err..backside.

Most nonbelievers (not necessarily anyone posting on this thread) dread approaching death.

One must question your terming of 'non-believer'-do you mean non Christian or someone who has no religious allegiance or a atheist? Religion is fast losing it's influence within the sphere of the world, mostly in Western nations, though it is still prevalent in Eastern ones, and is responsible for many deaths and a disruption to world peace. There are many atheists, fewer people attend Churches, Mandir's, Mosque’s, Gurdwara's etc and the influence of god is waning. Though this is from a Western standpoint, the situation in some nations whereby religion is a dominant force. An example of this is the Islamic 'Jihad' or 'Holy War'. Hereby they are rather blasphemously using religion and god as a excuse to commit religious crimes---but one must remember that there are deeper-rooted social conflicts or problems within this and religion is only a excuse or a catalyst for military action. I mean 150 or so yrs ago Pope Pious's IX 'Papal Infallibility', which to put it bluntly lives up to it's title, in stating the pope was always right and infallible was believed by a lot of Catholic's in Europe and this was a factor in Bismarck’s ill-fated (for both sides) Kulturkampf, yet how many Catholics now believe the Pope is always right-fallibility is part of basic human nature isn't it? Religion was also used to support several totalitarian states. (I think the Romanov dynasty was backed by the Roman Catholic church?) Yet even though religion still plays a large part in our worlds politics I think it's sphere of influence is dieing down, esp. with the secularisation of governmental polices and our states itself.) so I wonder-if our world survives for say 500 hundred yrs and religion is follow the pattern it is doing now, of waning-will all people be bereft of hope after death as you say

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Sador
Well if you read Stephen Hawkings' book "A Brief History of Time" it explains how the universe is unbounded in Time. There was no "Before" the universe was created, because time didn't exist.
The fact of the universe's existence is also its cause. That's what I believe. So there.
Nothing Supernatural about it. Doesn't mean it isn't wonderful, beautiful and awe inspiring, just not the product of some god's workshop.

A touching faith, to be sure, Sador. Can you give us any other instance of a fact being its own cause? How can you even imagine that in your mind? Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to reach out and understand your faith. I don't see how a fact can be its own cause.

Unless, of course, that fact is God himself. And then you would be saying that the Universe is God...

Posted by Inderjit S

though the Christian dogma claims (or seems to) that all non-Christians will go to hell

"Seems to" is correct. Take a look at this (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=10669&perpage=15&pagenumber=25) thread for a take on how heathens (which, please note, is just a technical word for non-Christians, and not an insult!) can be saved within a Christian worldview. The discussion begins at the end of that page, after a question by Mad Adski.

I mean 150 or so yrs ago Pope Pious's IX 'Papal Infallibility', which to put it bluntly lives up to it's title, in stating the pope was always right and infallible was believed by a lot of Catholic's in Europe

sigh... the Papal Infallibilty is surely the most misunderstood concept ever. The Pope is infallible if and only when he is speaking about matters of doctrine and faith, with the full authority of the Catholic Church as its head. It does not mean that the Pope is a perfect human being. It does not mean that if a Pope has a personal opinion about a matter of faith he is automatically right. It means that WHEN A POPE SPEAKS AS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, ABOUT DOCTRINE AND FAITH, he is infallible, as the Church is supposed to be protected and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So, if the Pope says he is against War in Iraq, he is not automatically right (though I happen to agree with him on that particular issue :D), since it is not a matter of faith.

I don't see why people who do not believe in Catholic faith would take an issue on the Pope's authority when speaking about faith and doctrine.

Oh, and the Pope is certainly a sinner, by the way, as the rest of us. He confesses his sins 4 times a week.

Religion is fast losing it's influence within the sphere of the world

Thank God, nothing of the sort can be seen in the Third World. Christianity (not only Catholicism) is taking a big boost throughout the world. It is only in the West that this "waning" can be seen.

I found another post of mine in another thread addressing this issue of the future of religion in the 21st century. Here it is:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?postid=315139&highlight=Africa#post315139

[faila]

Originally posted by Sador
I still don't get why people think that there needs to be a supernatural explanation for nature. A god who stands outside time and space, is undetectable and indefinable is the same to me as a god that doesn't exist.
To say that the world was created about six thousand years ago in six days is to call God a deceiver. I don't believe in God, but if I did I wouldn't want a God who deliberately sets out to deceive his children by planting all those dinosaur fossils etc.
If you are going to accept the literal truth of Genisis, you are not using the brain God gave you and that is a sin. how do you know its not us who made the mistake? Maybey our dating is off, maybe it is possible under the right conditions for fossils to be formed in mere moments. That wouldnt be him decieving us that would be us decieving our selves.

How do you know he stands outside of our space? he stands outside of out time, but he can and does controll this world.... (dont get me started im a calvanist), but either way he still has an effect on this world.

Note: we do not know if the geneologies in the scriptures skip generations, they may, thats why I say 6-10 thousand, and I think its probobly somewhere in the middle.

[Inderjit S]

sigh... the Papal Infallibilty is surely the most misunderstood concept ever

Sorry!!! :( :( :( I have little knowledge on the papal infalibilty-I only came across it when studying the Kulturkampf and Bismarck's foreign domestic plocy and our teacher and the textbooks told us that it was a decree that stated the pope was always right, and since it wasn't very important in relation to the events I didn't delve much into it, though one can see this as a reflection of Bismarck's views on the Papal Infallibility, not a detailed explanation on what exactly was entailed within it.

So, if the Pope says he is against War in Iraq, he is not automatically right

But weren't Pope Pious IX's 'Syllabus of Errors' an attack on liberalsim, nationalism and 'recent' civilisation? And wouldn't many Catholics believe this since these statements reflect their own conservative views or because of their reverence for the pope?

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Inderjit S

But weren't Pope Pious IX's 'Syllabus of Errors' an attack on liberalsim, nationalism and 'recent' civilisation?

Yes, but it is not covered by the Papal infallibility. Just as a catholic can support war in Iraq, he can also support those things. Catholics are allowed to disagree with the Pope, you know -- and even outright dislike him.

:D

The infallibility only touches matters of faith. On other subjects the Pope is just "another guy", theoretically. Still, he IS the head of the Church, and the office -- not the man, mind you -- draws a lot of respect from Catholics.

By the way, even on matters of faith the Pope listens to the scholars before speaking. There were many instances of a Pope believing something about the doctrine, against the opinion of the scholars, and in which he did NOT rebuke them, having the humility to acknowledge that he might be wrong before using his authority.

It is only when he speaks with the FULL FORCE of the office, not as a private person -- the technical term is ex cathedra -- that he is infallible, since he is protected and inspired by the Holy Spirit when he does it.

Also, THIS particular Pope, John Paul II, is greatly revered because of his accomplishments. This is reverence of the man, for what he is. The two reverences (office + man), combined, result in a very great reverence for the Pope's opinions, by most Catholics at least.

By the way, there are also liberal Catholics... not all Catholics are conservatives, by a long shot :rolleyes:.