PDA

View Full Version : The Beginning of Time?



Jimi
01-16-2009, 11:52 PM
I was hoping someone could shed a little light on this for me. Im a pretty curious person so naturally all of the mysterys of the world drive me nuts, moreso than any other the beginning of everything.

The other day when i was pondering this i couldnt find any logical way to explain how the first atom, piece of matter, call it what you will but how the first thing came of nothing. A point where there was nothing seems illogical to me. Isnt it entirely possible that our logic says the universe had to begin by means greater than or different anyways then human logic? Unless im off base on this (good chance) that seems like the most possible answer would indeed be God.

I am a Christian, but its so hard for me to be sure about something with no proof, but this was the best thing i could come up with. I follow the religion on its fundamentals, im guessing my upbringing and probably more than anything my desire for it to be all truth. Id love for some people to help me figure anything out on this.

Tetragrammaton
01-17-2009, 02:52 AM
It is true that no matter can be created, only modified from other matter. So, all that exists has to have always existed, or be created from a supernatural force.

It is generally considered an absurd question to ask what happened before the Big Bang, because there is no way to tell. Science came to the conclusion of the Big Bang based on radiation and the speed of the planets separating from one another, but there is no way to determine what happened before a theoretical time when all matter is in one location. This actually might no longer be true, based on some of the information we have discussed in another thread here, but no one knows at this point.

I used to give myself headaches thinking about it in Astronomy. God is one of many answers, and it is a bit easier that way, but no one knows for sure.

Jimi
01-17-2009, 04:01 AM
Ya thats what i assumed, that anything before Big Bang would be unable to be determined. For this reason it seems that logic says it has to be God atleast to me. It seems something that goes beyond the laws of time and space would have to exist for anything to exist in the first place (including time and space)....maybe??

My head hurts.

Dolphan7
01-21-2009, 02:37 PM
The reason it is considered absurd to ask what happened before the Big Bang, is because that question exposes the Big Bang fallacy - That matter doesn't just explode without two things required to be in place in the first place -

1. Matter itself - must have matter in order for it to "explode". There is no way matter can come from non-matter. Ever. Ain't no way. It must have been created by some power or force beyond our comprehension.

2. A force behind the matter to "cause" it to explode. In the impossible chance that matter is just sitting there, something has to happen to make it do something - it can't just decide on it's own to explode, or do anything other than just sit there floating along in the cosmos.

Logically and intellectually there is only one explanation for both 1 and 2 - God, or for those who still can't accept God, a superior entity with capabilities far beyond our comprehension and understanding.

My choice is God, as He is the only Entity to reveal Himself to us.

Dol-Fan Dupree
01-21-2009, 04:59 PM
I also choose god, however not the god that is basically a more powerful santa clause that the average christian believes in. Or the idea of a superior entity or an entity at all.

Giviing such a limitation on god is pretty much trying to put an ocean into a thimble.

Plus the string theory does give a good theory on why the matter just explodes

Dolphan7
01-21-2009, 06:14 PM
I also choose god, however not the god that is basically a more powerful santa clause that the average christian believes in. Or the idea of a superior entity or an entity at all.

Giviing such a limitation on god is pretty much trying to put an ocean into a thimble.

Plus the string theory does give a good theory on why the matter just explodesHey Dupree, long time since you've posted. How ya doing?

I see your point that the Christian God would seek to limit God to the Christian God, and not include all the other God, Gods, Godesses etc...however......all the attributes of all these gods put together... contradict what the Christian God reveals of Himself. I don't think God, or any god, would reveal himself in contradictory ways.

String theory is interesting, but even it can only surmise the relationship of matter that already exists. It can't answer the fundamental question "where did it all come from", or show that matter came from nothing.

LouPhinFan
01-21-2009, 10:14 PM
This is the question that mankind struggles with most of all. It is very hard to grasp the notion that God has always been. He has no beginning and no end, alpha and omega. God's power, just like his love, is infinite, without end. He creates by speaking matter into exsistance. I don't know about you, but I cannot imagine such power. His power holds the universe together.

It urks me to no end when an athlete thanks God for helping them win the game/match and some idiot responds (or posts): "I think God has better things to do than worry about winning a game".

That's complete crap. He's God. He's all powerful and all-knowing. He can worry about your game and take joy in your victory and hold the solar system in correct orbits and not even bat an eye. People sell God's power short on countless occasions.

Movies make if fun to think that Lucifer is as powerful and God and that they are locked in this eternal struggle and a good guy win is in doubt. This is so far from the truth. As matter of fact, Satan is so far below God that he sends an angel to bind him and throw him into the lake of fire at the end of days.

I'll stop rambling now...

eric1589
01-21-2009, 11:32 PM
its funny that people claim that cant believe in everything generating somehow from nothing, or even a small point. but some how they can believe an all powerful, all knowing, intelligent being of some kind could have spontaineously come from nothing. then created everything else, from nothing, on top of that.

Dolphan7
01-22-2009, 12:48 PM
its funny that people claim that cant believe in everything generating somehow from nothing, or even a small point. but some how they can believe an all powerful, all knowing, intelligent being of some kind could have spontaneously come from nothing. then created everything else, from nothing, on top of that.Such is the nature of God. It is hard for us finite beings to understand and comprehend an infinite God. We live in a certain time and space that God has created for us. He understands the limitations of our comprehension and knowledge. He understands that we can't fathom time as "infinite". That is why he created our time and space so that we could understand it far better.

You are making an assumption that God was created. This thought process is indicative of the dilemna I just described, that we cannot understand what "infinite" really is.

I leave you with this....it is far more logical and intellectually sincere to believe in an infinite God that created all that we see...then to believe that all this was created by chance, over and over and over again. That chance defies the odds over and over and over again is harder to believe.

PhinPhan1227
01-22-2009, 01:45 PM
While I believe that God created the universe, an alternate theory for "everything" is that everything exists in a constantly looping cycle. There is no "beginning" because there is no end. It all just loops around and around. Just to play devils advocate.

Then again, if you want a REAL paradox, try figuring out whether this thread belongs in the science forum or the religion forum!

Dol-Fan Dupree
01-22-2009, 03:51 PM
Such is the nature of God. It is hard for us finite beings to understand and comprehend an infinite God. We live in a certain time and space that God has created for us. He understands the limitations of our comprehension and knowledge. He understands that we can't fathom time as "infinite". That is why he created our time and space so that we could understand it far better.

You are making an assumption that God was created. This thought process is indicative of the dilemna I just described, that we cannot understand what "infinite" really is.

I leave you with this....it is far more logical and intellectually sincere to believe in an infinite God that created all that we see...then to believe that all this was created by chance, over and over and over again. That chance defies the odds over and over and over again is harder to believe.


The thing about the Christian version of God is that God is only infinite by the word use infinite. Their god is very finite and human like.

It is far more logical and intellectually sincere to believe that we do not know for the reason that there is zero proof of either. The big bang is a theory and the God thing is a faith. Neither of them are true in the basic nature of the word true.

The main problem we have with infinite is the fact that we are very finite and we as humans only look at the universe through our limited perspective.

Dol-Fan Dupree
01-22-2009, 03:53 PM
This is the question that mankind struggles with most of all. It is very hard to grasp the notion that God has always been. He has no beginning and no end, alpha and omega. God's power, just like his love, is infinite, without end. He creates by speaking matter into exsistance. I don't know about you, but I cannot imagine such power. His power holds the universe together.

It urks me to no end when an athlete thanks God for helping them win the game/match and some idiot responds (or posts): "I think God has better things to do than worry about winning a game".

That's complete crap. He's God. He's all powerful and all-knowing. He can worry about your game and take joy in your victory and hold the solar system in correct orbits and not even bat an eye. People sell God's power short on countless occasions.

Movies make if fun to think that Lucifer is as powerful and God and that they are locked in this eternal struggle and a good guy win is in doubt. This is so far from the truth. As matter of fact, Satan is so far below God that he sends an angel to bind him and throw him into the lake of fire at the end of days.

I'll stop rambling now...

So the other team just did not believe in god enough to win?

The logical problem in your statement is "He's God" and "He's all powerful and all-knowing"

Pretty much painting God as a combination of Superman and Santa Clause

eric1589
01-22-2009, 10:22 PM
Such is the nature of God. It is hard for us finite beings to understand and comprehend an infinite God. We live in a certain time and space that God has created for us. He understands the limitations of our comprehension and knowledge. He understands that we can't fathom time as "infinite". That is why he created our time and space so that we could understand it far better.

You are making an assumption that God was created. This thought process is indicative of the dilemna I just described, that we cannot understand what "infinite" really is.

I leave you with this....it is far more logical and intellectually sincere to believe in an infinite God that created all that we see...then to believe that all this was created by chance, over and over and over again. That chance defies the odds over and over and over again is harder to believe.


you forgot to say "in my opinion"

because everything you think you know to be true is nothing more then a belief. a fairy tale passed down by other people. there is no credible evidence for any of it.

it is far more logical and intellectually sincere to admit that you have faith in what you were told, then it is to try and pass any of it off as fact. the latter is just arrogant and disrespectful.

ps. i find it extraordinarily humorous that you use words like logical and intellectually, when you are talking about believing religion.

i guess you over look the fact that many of the brightest minds of our current time, and recent past do not believe the religious stories that were passed down since BEFORE the days when innocent people were burned as witches.

ill take a crap in the sink and wash my hands in the toilet before i give more credibility to what people THOUGHT thousands of years ago, then what people know today.

LouPhinFan
01-22-2009, 11:49 PM
So the other team just did not believe in god enough to win?

The logical problem in your statement is "He's God" and "He's all powerful and all-knowing"

Pretty much painting God as a combination of Superman and Santa Clause

Whether or not another team believes in God really doesn't matter to the statement. It was only an observation.

I don't see your "logical" point. I see no problem with my statement. I'm simply describing God in the best fashion available to my limited brain. It sounds like to me you're trying to belittle me or my statement by reducing God to a comic book character and a old man in a red suit.:err:

If you want to discuss God further, then create a thread in the Religion forum. I have taken this thread off course with my original post. I'm sorry.

Dolphan7
01-23-2009, 01:19 PM
you forgot to say "in my opinion"

because everything you think you know to be true is nothing more then a belief. a fairy tale passed down by other people. there is no credible evidence for any of it.

it is far more logical and intellectually sincere to admit that you have faith in what you were told, then it is to try and pass any of it off as fact. the latter is just arrogant and disrespectful.

ps. i find it extraordinarily humorous that you use words like logical and intellectually, when you are talking about believing religion.

i guess you over look the fact that many of the brightest minds of our current time, and recent past do not believe the religious stories that were passed down since BEFORE the days when innocent people were burned as witches.

ill take a crap in the sink and wash my hands in the toilet before i give more credibility to what people THOUGHT thousands of years ago, then what people know today.
This is an open discussion forum, not a scientific journal showing emperical data, so yes everything posted is an opinion, even your's.

Obviously you are frustrated with religion, but......if you want to "believe" that matter just popped out of nowhere, for no apparent reason, and think that is the logical and intellectual choice, then that is your prerogative.

I disagree.

Dol-Fan Dupree
01-23-2009, 02:28 PM
Whether or not another team believes in God really doesn't matter to the statement. It was only an observation.

I don't see your "logical" point. I see no problem with my statement. I'm simply describing God in the best fashion available to my limited brain. It sounds like to me you're trying to belittle me or my statement by reducing God to a comic book character and a old man in a red suit.:err:

If you want to discuss God further, then create a thread in the Religion forum. I have taken this thread off course with my original post. I'm sorry.

If one team wins and one team loses God must favor one over the other.

If you wish to feel like you are being belittled, that is your decision.

eric1589
01-23-2009, 04:18 PM
i guess god likes the ravens better then the dolphins.
and maybe the steelers prayed harder or louder then the ravens.


fact is none of us will ever know with 100% certainty how things started.


some people choose to believe some or all of what scientists discovered to actually be true. and some of those FACTS contradict religious beliefs.

and some people choose to believe a magical tale because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside. while most are just programmed to believe it with their upbringing.

PhinzN703
01-24-2009, 07:09 PM
So the other team just did not believe in god enough to win?

The logical problem in your statement is "He's God" and "He's all powerful and all-knowing"

Pretty much painting God as a combination of Superman and Santa Clause

That's what I say when I see a guy who just hit a home run and then he praises God for it. As if the pitcher is either a devil worshipper or an Atheist.

Some say that God created everything. My question is, who created him? Was he just there to start with? Doing what? And why?

PhinzN703
01-24-2009, 07:12 PM
This is an open discussion forum, not a scientific journal showing emperical data, so yes everything posted is an opinion, even your's.

Obviously you are frustrated with religion, but......if you want to "believe" that matter just popped out of nowhere, for no apparent reason, and think that is the logical and intellectual choice, then that is your prerogative.

I disagree.

Did God just get bored one day that never existed and decide to flick some matter off his fingertips thus creating planets and a solar system and then another planet that was inhabited by neanderthals who thus transformed into walking fish that became apes then humans? All just for the hell of it?

I have a headache now (and I know I'm not correct on the order of how it all went down)

TakeOne
01-25-2009, 06:55 PM
How come when people discuss the beginning of time, and chalk it up to god, they stop there? Why not keep going, if there is a God, who created him? And who created his creator?

Things like this(conception of the beginning of time, and what was before), IMO, are too complex for the human mind to truly understand. Maybe there are other planes/dimensions that we cannot even begin to concieve that relates to all of this.

What I'm saying is, if you can only see/notice/understand a portion of the puzzle, how in the world can you grasp the entire picture, and try to understand its beginning?

PhinPhan1227
01-26-2009, 10:43 AM
How come when people discuss the beginning of time, and chalk it up to god, they stop there? Why not keep going, if there is a God, who created him? And who created his creator?

Things like this(conception of the beginning of time, and what was before), IMO, are too complex for the human mind to truly understand. Maybe there are other planes/dimensions that we cannot even begin to concieve that relates to all of this.

What I'm saying is, if you can only see/notice/understand a portion of the puzzle, how in the world can you grasp the entire picture, and try to understand its beginning?

Given an infinite amount of time and space, why couldn't god simply be the result of the eventual confluence of existence?

Dolphan7
01-26-2009, 05:27 PM
How come when people discuss the beginning of time, and chalk it up to god, they stop there? Why not keep going, if there is a God, who created him? And who created his creator?

Things like this(conception of the beginning of time, and what was before), IMO, are too complex for the human mind to truly understand. Maybe there are other planes/dimensions that we cannot even begin to concieve that relates to all of this.

What I'm saying is, if you can only see/notice/understand a portion of the puzzle, how in the world can you grasp the entire picture, and try to understand its beginning?Why would we need to go beyond God, who has represented Himself to us as Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient. If God has always existed, why would I wonder when, where or how He was created? Makes no sense to me.

Keep in mind also that we really don't have a clear grasp on just what infinite means. We are only capable of understanding space and time as it has been given to us and defined for us, specifically because of our limited understanding. We view time as linear, one second followed by another second, and so on. God isn't constrained by this linear time, He is outside it. So trying to apply linear time to God, by asking when He was created, or began, is foolish for me.

I understand where you are coming from though, but I don't wonder where God came from, I just wonder about what infinity is like, because that is where God resides.

PhinzN703
01-26-2009, 09:28 PM
Why would we need to go beyond God, who has represented Himself to us as Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient. If God has always existed, why would I wonder when, where or how He was created? Makes no sense to me.

Keep in mind also that we really don't have a clear grasp on just what infinite means. We are only capable of understanding space and time as it has been given to us and defined for us, specifically because of our limited understanding. We view time as linear, one second followed by another second, and so on. God isn't constrained by this linear time, He is outside it. So trying to apply linear time to God, by asking when He was created, or began, is foolish for me.

I understand where you are coming from though, but I don't wonder where God came from, I just wonder about what infinity is like, because that is where God resides.

The thing, among many that doesn't make sense, is how God came about. God had to be from somewhere, or someone. Otherwise what's the point of just poofing out of thin air to create everything? Why have a heaven where your creations can hang out forever? Why have evil? Why planets? Why stars?

Dolphan7
01-26-2009, 09:40 PM
The thing, among many that doesn't make sense, is how God came about. God had to be from somewhere, or someone. Otherwise what's the point of just poofing out of thin air to create everything? Why have a heaven where your creations can hang out forever? Why have evil? Why planets? Why stars?Why does God have to be "from somewhere, from someone"? So that you can understand better? You are trying to fit an infinite entity into your finite understanding. It doesn't work. It won't work. This is why I say that we really don't understand infinity, or forever, or a being that does not have to be created or has to have a beginning or a source, because in infinite time keeping - there is no beginning or end. I know it's hard to comprehend.....

I know I will have many questions for Him when I see him one day.

PhinPhan1227
01-27-2009, 08:42 AM
The thing, among many that doesn't make sense, is how God came about. God had to be from somewhere, or someone. Otherwise what's the point of just poofing out of thin air to create everything? Why have a heaven where your creations can hang out forever? Why have evil? Why planets? Why stars?

You've heard of the infinite universes theory right? It's the catch all theory that is often used to explain how we wound up living in a universe where life is possible despite overwhelming odds against it. So, if there are infinite universes, why wouldn't some confluence elements in one of those universes coalesce to create a being that we could percieve as God? And since, being God he would be extra-dimensional, he would then exist across all those dimensions. Since, given infinite possibilities, you will end up with infinite results, the above scenario not only becomes probable, it becomes almost a mathematical certainty.

eric1589
01-27-2009, 03:21 PM
any religious debate ive ever been a part of, always comes down to the same fundamentals.

believers doubt facts because they contradict their faith.
non believers dont have faith because it doesnt go along with the facts.

dolphan7, you are arguing something ridiculous. you claim that god is infinite and we cant possibly understand him and blah blah blah.
please explain to us how you "know" so much to make such a bold declaration. what give you the gall to make such statements that is not a clever way of saying "i have no proof, therefore i make untestable claims."

theists want to scrutinize the smallest details about scientific theories. even if they are starring into a micro scope or telecsope looking at something with their own eyes. yet they blindly believe outlandish stories of supernatural beings. stories that were written by men thousands of years ago.

feeling something in your heart, or your "soul" is not proof of anything. it may be good enough to convince you but you can not sit here and try to argue on behalf of your opinions with NOTHING to back them up.

you might as well save us all the time and stop arguing unless you bring something to the table, that can actually be placed on the table for others to see.

just because you feel strongly about something does not make it correct. if you cant believe that you should go on a prison tour and take some surveys. those places are full of people who felt strongly about things that they were wrong about.

Dolphan7
01-27-2009, 05:44 PM
any religious debate ive ever been a part of, always comes down to the same fundamentals.

believers doubt facts because they contradict their faith.
non believers dont have faith because it doesnt go along with the facts.

dolphan7, you are arguing something ridiculous. you claim that god is infinite and we cant possibly understand him and blah blah blah.
please explain to us how you "know" so much to make such a bold declaration. what give you the gall to make such statements that is not a clever way of saying "i have no proof, therefore i make untestable claims."

theists want to scrutinize the smallest details about scientific theories. even if they are starring into a micro scope or telescope looking at something with their own eyes. yet they blindly believe outlandish stories of supernatural beings. stories that were written by men thousands of years ago.

feeling something in your heart, or your "soul" is not proof of anything. it may be good enough to convince you but you can not sit here and try to argue on behalf of your opinions with NOTHING to back them up.

you might as well save us all the time and stop arguing unless you bring something to the table, that can actually be placed on the table for others to see.

just because you feel strongly about something does not make it correct. if you cant believe that you should go on a prison tour and take some surveys. those places are full of people who felt strongly about things that they were wrong about.What kind of proof would you accept? My guess is that no matter what I present to you, you will reject, which makes you the exact same thing you accuse me of. Only I used to be an Atheist and staunch supporter and believer in evolution for over 30 years. Where you once a christian?

Look around you. Look at your own body. Look at the complexity that you see in that microscope you mentioned. Look at the perfect location of our planet in relation to the sun, one degree either way and we burn or freeze. Look at the abundant and wide variety of life on this planet. Look at the molecular ingenuity and complexity at the cellular level. Everywhere you look appears to have some sort of design and complexity, not some hodgepodge put together and barely working, or evolving.

How do you think this all happened? Let's look at the possible answers.

1. Random and unguided chance, upon chance, upon still more chance, against insurmountable odds and statistically impossible probabilities that life originated from non-life, and that life, for still some unknown reason evolved and continues to evolve.....beating the odds every time, over and over again.....until you arrive in the present day. Think about that first organism, on that very first day. It just happens that the situation is just right for a microorganism to begin to live and function. But what then? How does it eat? How does it survive? How does it defend against such harsh conditions? How does it ....the big question....how does it multiply? What makes it divide itself and make itself a copy of itself? How does all this happen? More than likely if it did indeed happen, it wouldn't survive for more than a few hours, and probably not more than a few minutes. Then what? If it happened once against all odds, and then died, then how did we get here? did it happen again, only this time it was able to duplicate itself? How was it supposed to do that the second time around? And so forth....you see the problem with this theory? It makes no sense. It is hard to believe. Yet.. this is what is taught to our children. And yet supposedly, if you listen to the scientists, and read the textbooks, it happened, and then life evolved, again against all odds and with no purpose or direction or mechanism, through random mutations that were somehow inherited by their offspring and passed along, yet......there have been no discovery of any positive or beneficial mutations on record. All mutations we see are neutral or negative often killing the host animal. We see mutations and deformities in birth all the time, and we consider it a bad thing. No one wants a baby with 4 arms these days it seems. We pray that our children are healthy and look exactly like us, as they should.

And then the alternative is that God created us, and everything we see, just like it is in it's complete and functional form, highly complex and intelligent design......just like he said he did in Gen 1.

Which one is more intellectually and logically easier to believe?

dolphinattick
01-27-2009, 06:14 PM
God Give's Us Sign's Everyday That He Is With Us We Just Dont Recognize It, It's Hard To Believe With All This Stuff Going On In The World But How Can You Explain Love And What You Feel For Your Child, We Are So Complex And Yet So Perfect, That Din't Just Happen.

TakeOne
01-27-2009, 06:59 PM
Why would we need to go beyond God, who has represented Himself to us as Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient. If God has always existed, why would I wonder when, where or how He was created? Makes no sense to me.

Keep in mind also that we really don't have a clear grasp on just what infinite means. We are only capable of understanding space and time as it has been given to us and defined for us, specifically because of our limited understanding. We view time as linear, one second followed by another second, and so on. God isn't constrained by this linear time, He is outside it. So trying to apply linear time to God, by asking when He was created, or began, is foolish for me.

I understand where you are coming from though, but I don't wonder where God came from, I just wonder about what infinity is like, because that is where God resides.

If you can say that, can I say "Why go before the big-bang?" I'll leave it at that, because I'm not going to go into a science vs faith discussion.

eric1589
01-28-2009, 12:02 AM
What kind of proof would you accept? My guess is that no matter what I present to you, you will reject, which makes you the exact same thing you accuse me of. Only I used to be an Atheist and staunch supporter and believer in evolution for over 30 years. Where you once a christian?

yes i did believe in god once. i also believed in santa clause, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, yada yada yada. that is not proof of any of them being real.

YOU are the one throwing the word "evidence" around like pacman throwing dollars in a strip club. why dont you share some of this "evidence?"
you want to know what i will reject as evidence:
anything man made.
anything that is an opinion or perception.
anything that is not agreeable on by everyone here to actually be evidence.

you made the claim (repeatedly) now back it up.


Look at the perfect location of our planet in relation to the sun, one degree either way and we burn or freeze.


i hope you really dont mean that. especially considering that Earth's distance from the sun changes by as much as 3 MILLION miles every year during its orbit.


[quote=Dolphan7;1062819720] Look at the abundant and wide variety of life on this planet. Look at the molecular ingenuity and complexity at the cellular level. Everywhere you look appears to have some sort of design and complexity, not some hodgepodge put together and barely working, or evolving.
"appears to have some sort of design" is an opinion. especially when it is stated by some one who is in favor of a designer.


1. Random and unguided chance, upon chance, upon still more chance, against insurmountable odds and statistically impossible probabilities that life originated from non-life, and that life, for still some unknown reason evolved and continues to evolve.....beating the odds every time, over and over again.....until you arrive in the present day. Think about that first organism, on that very first day. It just happens that the situation is just right for a microorganism to begin to live and function. But what then? How does it eat? How does it survive? How does it defend against such harsh conditions? How does it ....the big question....how does it multiply? What makes it divide itself and make itself a copy of itself? How does all this happen? More than likely if it did indeed happen, it wouldn't survive for more than a few hours, and probably not more than a few minutes. Then what? If it happened once against all odds, and then died, then how did we get here? did it happen again, only this time it was able to duplicate itself? How was it supposed to do that the second time around? And so forth....
i never said i have all the answers or understand it all. but im able to accept that. i dont need to change over to religion just because some one else wrote a complete story and it doesn't require any thinking.

you see the problem with this theory? It makes no sense. It is hard to believe. Yet.. this is what is taught to our children. And yet supposedly, if you listen to the scientists, and read the textbooks, it happened, and then life evolved, again against all odds and with no purpose or direction or mechanism, through random mutations that were somehow inherited by their offspring and passed along, yet......
it doesn't have to make sense because we dont have all the answers. its an ongoing study.
it makes sense to me because it seems possible and is the most rational idea ive heard.
sounds like you just refuse to believe in evolution because we dont have all the answers. it seems like you NEED answers and are more willing to accept a fairy tale because it has a happy ending.
the theory of evolution is not a book written by people thousands of years ago that CLAIMS to have all the answers yet contradicts itself, AND things we now know to be true because of scientific studies.

there have been no discovery of any positive or beneficial mutations on record. All mutations we see are neutral or negative often killing the host animal. We see mutations and deformities in birth all the time, and we consider it a bad thing. No one wants a baby with 4 arms these days it seems. We pray that our children are healthy and look exactly like us, as they should.
i hope you are not serious. mutations happen ALL THE TIME. most are small and unnoticeable. and there ARE beneficial mutations on record.
there are people walking around that are IMMUNE to HIV/AIDS. id call that a pretty ****ing beneficial mutation.


And then the alternative is that God created us, and everything we see, just like it is in it's complete and functional form, highly complex and intelligent design......just like he said he did in Gen 1.

Which one is more intellectually and logically easier to believe?
lol
do you really want me to answer that question?

one is more intellectual.
the other is easier to believe.

i think we all know which is which.

Dolphan7
01-28-2009, 12:37 AM
yes i did believe in god once. i also believed in santa clause, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, yada yada yada. that is not proof of any of them being real.

YOU are the one throwing the word "evidence" around like pacman throwing dollars in a strip club. why dont you share some of this "evidence?"
you want to know what i will reject as evidence:
anything man made.
anything that is an opinion or perception.
anything that is not agreeable on by everyone here to actually be evidence.

you made the claim (repeatedly) now back it up.



i hope you really dont mean that. especially considering that Earth's distance from the sun changes by as much as 3 MILLION miles every year during its orbit.



"appears to have some sort of design" is an opinion. especially when it is stated by some one who is in favor of a designer.


i never said i have all the answers or understand it all. but im able to accept that. i dont need to change over to religion just because some one else wrote a complete story and it doesn't require any thinking.

it doesn't have to make sense because we dont have all the answers. its an ongoing study.
it makes sense to me because it seems possible and is the most rational idea ive heard.
sounds like you just refuse to believe in evolution because we dont have all the answers. it seems like you NEED answers and are more willing to accept a fairy tale because it has a happy ending.
the theory of evolution is not a book written by people thousands of years ago that CLAIMS to have all the answers yet contradicts itself, AND things we now know to be true because of scientific studies.

i hope you are not serious. mutations happen ALL THE TIME. most are small and unnoticeable. and there ARE beneficial mutations on record.
there are people walking around that are IMMUNE to HIV/AIDS. id call that a pretty ****ing beneficial mutation.


lol
do you really want me to answer that question?

one is more intellectual.
the other is easier to believe.

i think we all know which is which.LOL. Like I said. You aren't interested in the evidence, nor discussing the subject in any civil fashion. Discussion over. Have a nice day.

PhinzN703
01-28-2009, 12:48 AM
Why does God have to be "from somewhere, from someone"? So that you can understand better? You are trying to fit an infinite entity into your finite understanding. It doesn't work. It won't work. This is why I say that we really don't understand infinity, or forever, or a being that does not have to be created or has to have a beginning or a source, because in infinite time keeping - there is no beginning or end. I know it's hard to comprehend.....

I know I will have many questions for Him when I see him one day.

All I know is that if God is real then great. It's the biggest mystery I've ever heard of. If he isn't real, then a LOT of people have been fooled. We'll never know IMO and for once, none of us can prove against what someone else has to say about it.

PhinzN703
01-28-2009, 12:50 AM
What kind of proof would you accept? My guess is that no matter what I present to you, you will reject, which makes you the exact same thing you accuse me of. Only I used to be an Atheist and staunch supporter and believer in evolution for over 30 years. Where you once a christian?

Look around you. Look at your own body. Look at the complexity that you see in that microscope you mentioned. Look at the perfect location of our planet in relation to the sun, one degree either way and we burn or freeze. Look at the abundant and wide variety of life on this planet. Look at the molecular ingenuity and complexity at the cellular level. Everywhere you look appears to have some sort of design and complexity, not some hodgepodge put together and barely working, or evolving.

How do you think this all happened? Let's look at the possible answers.

1. Random and unguided chance, upon chance, upon still more chance, against insurmountable odds and statistically impossible probabilities that life originated from non-life, and that life, for still some unknown reason evolved and continues to evolve.....beating the odds every time, over and over again.....until you arrive in the present day. Think about that first organism, on that very first day. It just happens that the situation is just right for a microorganism to begin to live and function. But what then? How does it eat? How does it survive? How does it defend against such harsh conditions? How does it ....the big question....how does it multiply? What makes it divide itself and make itself a copy of itself? How does all this happen? More than likely if it did indeed happen, it wouldn't survive for more than a few hours, and probably not more than a few minutes. Then what? If it happened once against all odds, and then died, then how did we get here? did it happen again, only this time it was able to duplicate itself? How was it supposed to do that the second time around? And so forth....you see the problem with this theory? It makes no sense. It is hard to believe. Yet.. this is what is taught to our children. And yet supposedly, if you listen to the scientists, and read the textbooks, it happened, and then life evolved, again against all odds and with no purpose or direction or mechanism, through random mutations that were somehow inherited by their offspring and passed along, yet......there have been no discovery of any positive or beneficial mutations on record. All mutations we see are neutral or negative often killing the host animal. We see mutations and deformities in birth all the time, and we consider it a bad thing. No one wants a baby with 4 arms these days it seems. We pray that our children are healthy and look exactly like us, as they should.

And then the alternative is that God created us, and everything we see, just like it is in it's complete and functional form, highly complex and intelligent design......just like he said he did in Gen 1.

Which one is more intellectually and logically easier to believe?

God creating us doesn't sound any more logical then any other way we were created. To me, it's all rather bizarre.

PhinzN703
01-28-2009, 12:53 AM
Why does God have to be "from somewhere, from someone"? So that you can understand better? You are trying to fit an infinite entity into your finite understanding. It doesn't work. It won't work. This is why I say that we really don't understand infinity, or forever, or a being that does not have to be created or has to have a beginning or a source, because in infinite time keeping - there is no beginning or end. I know it's hard to comprehend.....

I know I will have many questions for Him when I see him one day.

I respect the heck out of you for believing in God, I really do. But since he's so mysterious and infinite and since we lack understanding outside of a finite world, I don't see how one can so faithfully believe in something that is apparently to great for us regular guys to fully understand.

But it doesn't really matter until we're dead anyways and that will either work out two ways. It all goes black and the show is over....or it goes black, then white, then we're miles in the sky or somewhere else partying with everyone else who is dead.

PhinzN703
01-28-2009, 12:56 AM
What kind of proof would you accept? My guess is that no matter what I present to you, you will reject, which makes you the exact same thing you accuse me of. Only I used to be an Atheist and staunch supporter and believer in evolution for over 30 years. Where you once a christian?

Look around you. Look at your own body. Look at the complexity that you see in that microscope you mentioned. Look at the perfect location of our planet in relation to the sun, one degree either way and we burn or freeze. Look at the abundant and wide variety of life on this planet. Look at the molecular ingenuity and complexity at the cellular level. Everywhere you look appears to have some sort of design and complexity, not some hodgepodge put together and barely working, or evolving.

How do you think this all happened? Let's look at the possible answers.

1. Random and unguided chance, upon chance, upon still more chance, against insurmountable odds and statistically impossible probabilities that life originated from non-life, and that life, for still some unknown reason evolved and continues to evolve.....beating the odds every time, over and over again.....until you arrive in the present day. Think about that first organism, on that very first day. It just happens that the situation is just right for a microorganism to begin to live and function. But what then? How does it eat? How does it survive? How does it defend against such harsh conditions? How does it ....the big question....how does it multiply? What makes it divide itself and make itself a copy of itself? How does all this happen? More than likely if it did indeed happen, it wouldn't survive for more than a few hours, and probably not more than a few minutes. Then what? If it happened once against all odds, and then died, then how did we get here? did it happen again, only this time it was able to duplicate itself? How was it supposed to do that the second time around? And so forth....you see the problem with this theory? It makes no sense. It is hard to believe. Yet.. this is what is taught to our children. And yet supposedly, if you listen to the scientists, and read the textbooks, it happened, and then life evolved, again against all odds and with no purpose or direction or mechanism, through random mutations that were somehow inherited by their offspring and passed along, yet......there have been no discovery of any positive or beneficial mutations on record. All mutations we see are neutral or negative often killing the host animal. We see mutations and deformities in birth all the time, and we consider it a bad thing. No one wants a baby with 4 arms these days it seems. We pray that our children are healthy and look exactly like us, as they should.

And then the alternative is that God created us, and everything we see, just like it is in it's complete and functional form, highly complex and intelligent design......just like he said he did in Gen 1.

Which one is more intellectually and logically easier to believe?

Also with stuff being created at insurmountable odds and other stuff being impossible yet somehow we and other things are here on Earth doing our thing, why does this have to point to God and not someone/thing else? Maybe there is a faith out there for someone/thing that is different then God. I have no idea what of course, I'm just throwing out different examples of what the "other" could be rather then the God phenomenon a lot of folks are hung up on.

PhinzN703
01-28-2009, 12:59 AM
And so forth....you see the problem with this theory? It makes no sense. It is hard to believe. Yet.. this is what is taught to our children.

And then the alternative is that God created us, and everything we see, just like it is in it's complete and functional form, highly complex and intelligent design......just like he said he did in Gen 1.

Which one is more intellectually and logically easier to believe?

If that theory really doesn't make sense, it's easy to say that God makes no sense too. For all the reasons you believe he is real, they may sound ridiculous to someone else who chooses science over some other way of thinking.

And you mention "like he said he did in Gen 1". Is there proof he said anything, or that he could speak? Or is it just b/c it's written in a book that makes it true?

Dolphan7
01-28-2009, 01:15 AM
All I know is that if God is real then great. It's the biggest mystery I've ever heard of. If he isn't real, then a LOT of people have been fooled. We'll never know IMO and for once, none of us can prove against what someone else has to say about it.I agree there is no proving to one another of our beliefs, especially on a football fan site. That doesn't mean there isn't proof it just means it is hard to do in here. But we can point to why we believe the way we do, explain it, and maybe.... not today, but one day..... some will be exposed to that same evidence from another source, and maybe at some point in time it will all become clear.

To those who don't believe in God, don't give up. If one wants to know if he exists, simply look up in the sky and ask him to reveal himself to you, and then be prepared for the sign that he has indeed shown himself to you. It could be something as simple as a person in ones life, it could be an event, it could be a written word on a message board, or in a book, or on the side of a train, it could be a scripture appearing to you.... and a host of other possibilities.....if you ask, look for the answer. It won't come to your door fedex I can assure you that.

Dolphan7
01-28-2009, 01:21 AM
God creating us doesn't sound any more logical then any other way we were created. To me, it's all rather bizarre.Ok so it is bizarre...but you really only have two choices. Are you really thinking that scenario #1 makes the best sense?

To me what is bizarre is that anyone could ever take today's scientific opinions of our origins and actually believe that all that stuff not only could happen, but in fact did happen according to the concensus opinions. Actually believe it, in spite of a much more plausible and logical and intellectual reason in a loving and caring God.

Dolphan7
01-28-2009, 01:32 AM
I respect the heck out of you for believing in God, I really do. But since he's so mysterious and infinite and since we lack understanding outside of a finite world, I don't see how one can so faithfully believe in something that is apparently to great for us regular guys to fully understand.

But it doesn't really matter until we're dead anyways and that will either work out two ways. It all goes black and the show is over....or it goes black, then white, then we're miles in the sky or somewhere else partying with everyone else who is dead.God's as infinite is hard to understand, but there is so much more about him that he has revealed to us that we "can" understand. I don't know everything about God and everything....but I know enough to understand who God is, what his character is, what his attributes are, and that he really does love each and everyone of us, and sent his only son to die for us so that we can all have a personal relationship with him.

This is what markes Christianity different than any other religion. It really isn't a religion as much as a personal Relationship. It is like we each have a personal God all to ourselves - if we choose.

And I know there is this belief that hell will be filled with all our friends who missed the Heaven Interchange.....but the bible doesn't say that at all. In fact the bible describes hell as a feeling of falling, being hot without burning, blackness, alone, eternal. I wish that on no one.

Why would anyone want to "wait" until they die and take their chances? Because from my perspective the odds aren't good at all.

Dolphan7
01-28-2009, 01:37 AM
Also with stuff being created at insurmountable odds and other stuff being impossible yet somehow we and other things are here on Earth doing our thing, why does this have to point to God and not someone/thing else? Maybe there is a faith out there for someone/thing that is different then God. I have no idea what of course, I'm just throwing out different examples of what the "other" could be rather then the God phenomenon a lot of folks are hung up on.It's a good point. Once you get to the point where one chooses God over science and evolution and all that garbage.....then you get to decide on ....which god?

Is it the Christian God, the Muslim God, Jewish God? Is it Buddha afterall? Is Wicca going to take the final trophy? Or some other entity or religion that maybe hasn't been thought of yet?

All we can know is what has been made available to us. To me, the Christian God makes the most sense, the best sense, answers all the hard questions, and fits in nicely with science and history. To me it is a no brainer.

Dolphan7
01-28-2009, 02:04 AM
If that theory really doesn't make sense, it's easy to say that God makes no sense too. For all the reasons you believe he is real, they may sound ridiculous to someone else who chooses science over some other way of thinking.

And you mention "like he said he did in Gen 1". Is there proof he said anything, or that he could speak? Or is it just b/c it's written in a book that makes it true?I understand that it sounds ridiculous to most, otherwise we would have a world full of Christians, and the world would be a much better place.....I know....shameless plug.

You doubt the authenticity of the bible....ok. I will tell you that there is no way that the bible could ever be written by men alone and be so historically accurate, contain 100% fulfilled prophecy from the OT to the NT and to the person of Jesus Christ. There are over 300 prophecies attributed to Jesus alone, and he fulfilled them all. Do you know what the odds of that are? Astronomical.....statistically impossible that one man could do that intentionally and not be exactly who he said he was. The bible was written by over 40 authors, in many different places, in many situations, moods, languages and over a period of 1600 years. There is no way mere men could collaborate with each other, and yet...it speaks to hundreds of issues in harmony and consistency. The bible is unique among all historical written works. No other work of antiquity compares.

It amazes me that people will reject the bible, yet take as gospel any other written work from before or after the bible, especially ones that supposedly contradict the bible. It isn't about the bible, but what the bible says that is the source of the rejection.

It is the same with Jesus. The Jews knew who he was, and they killed him. Why? Because they didn't want to give up their belief system. That is the number one reason for rejecting Jesus. It isn't that people don't believe once they have been exposed to the truth, it is that they choose to continue to reject it. Trust me I have heard of people who say "you are right, it is true - Jesus is the real deal....but I reject him anyway". Pains me to say that but it is true. People will still reject truth, even after acknowledging that truth. Why? Because people don't want to change. They don't want to have that accountability that truth brings. Sad, but that is their choice. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. That is between them and God.

Hey don't think that you need to go to the grave to know for sure. That is a lie from Satan if I have ever heard one. That is what he wants you to think dude. Don't buy it.

Do some reading. Buy some books. Lee Strobel is a real good one to start, he has DVD's out now too. He was an atheist, now a christian. If people were atheists, and now have become christian doesn't that mean much more than someone who simply grew up in a christian home and really had no choice (although they did - don't know how many kids that grew up christian went off the deep end in college, but that's another story altogether). I was such a person as well. I laughed at christians, in their face, mocking them and their invisible God. I would look up in the sky and ask them - where is he? I don't see anything, you fools! I know..... I was bad. But guess who got the last laugh? God.

Blackocrates
01-28-2009, 02:13 AM
A moderator should move this thread. It needs to be in the religion section. D7 you should know better.

Dolphan7
01-28-2009, 02:23 AM
A moderator should move this thread. It needs to be in the religion section. D7 you should know better.Well.. the OP wanted a scientific explanation to his question......but none was forthcoming....and you know any question about our origins will ultimately involve the discussion of god and religion. You can't separate the two.

I can move it, most of the discussion is about religion anyway.

It's a shame that science couldn't provide an answer.

eric1589
01-28-2009, 02:34 AM
Ok so it is bizarre...but you really only have two choices. Are you really thinking that scenario #1 makes the best sense?

To me what is bizarre is that anyone could ever take today's scientific opinions of our origins and actually believe that all that stuff not only could happen, but in fact did happen according to the concensus opinions. Actually believe it, in spite of a much more plausible and logical and intellectual reason in a loving and caring God.

are you trying to be so condescending or is it just a "god given" character flaw you have?

1. you don't have ONLY two choices. for some one who has been around for 47 years... I assumed you would be better educated. I guess its my mistake making that assumption.

2. they are scientific theories. not scientific opinions. those two are far more different then you probably think.

3. lets look at the definitions of some of these words you use.

plausible
having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot.

logical
according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference.

to better understand the definition of logical, I will also post the definition of logic.

logic
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

intellectual
guided or developed by or relying on the intellect rather than upon emotions or feelings; rational.

to better understand the definition of intellectual, I will also post the definition of intellect.

intellect
the power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one wills; the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge.

plausible sounds like its more a point of view or opinion. so neither of us should use that word because the opposing views make both sides of the argument SEEM plausible to their respective parties.

logical leans toward what a person might think, given circumstance or point of view. pretty much the same as plausible.

both of these words should be discarded. given our opposing view points, things that are logical or plausible to me, are not so, to you. and vice versa.

how ever. I think I have you, on intellectual. it clearly imply's drawing a conclusion based upon intellect, or knowledge, and not emotions or feelings.

then intellect refers to knowledge and understanding. and as you said YOURSELF, god is beyond our understanding. so certainly nothing involving him could be considered intellectual if it violates the definition of the word.

back to fundamentals. it seems you need a full story to believe in something. I get the impression that you are unable to believe in the theory of evolution simply because it does not have all the answers.
I assume you believe in your religion because it provides enough answers to satisfy your need for them. whether or not those answers make any sense at all doesn't seem to matter. its easier to wrap your head around it because there are not as many holes and you don't have to think about mathematical odds.
but I, on the other hand, am not so needy. I can accept a lack of answers because I take into account how much things have changed in the past.
think about how much things have changed since the beginning of time. assume for a moment that you do believe in the theories of evolution and the big bang. think about how difficult it is TODAY to study 13 billion years ago.
think of how much society has changed in just the time since man first wrote the bible. just sit back for a minute and think about how things were back in those days. compare that to how things are now. how much more advanced we are these days.
man has always searched for the answers to questions regarding how he and everything else came to be. now think about how a man in those ancient times would go about getting those answers. basically his only option is to look around and make guesses or take answers given to him by another man.
many people came up with many different answers. just look at the number of religions and gods out there. past and present. what other conclusion do you assume people would come to with the limited abilities they had to make and kind of discoveries.
now think about how many origin stories the scientific community has given us. think about how much more advanced the current scientific community is compared to back in the days when people threw virgins into volcanoes to pray for good crop harvests.

eric1589
01-28-2009, 02:50 AM
Once you get to the point where one chooses God over science and evolution and all that garbage.....then you get to decide on ....which god?
dont hold back now. let us know how you really feel.


All we can know is what has been made available to us. To me, the Christian God makes the most sense, the best sense, answers all the hard questions, and fits in nicely with science and history. To me it is a no brainer.

just as i thought. you want answers. regardless of credibility.

fits in nicely with science and history?
is that a joke i missed.
surely it has to be. because if it werent a joke, this thread wouldnt be so long.

but i dont think you meant it as a joke.(even though it screams as one)
lets see. religion vs science.... probably the biggest debated topics of our time. and they CERTAINLY dont compliment each other.

unless of course your scientific readings ONLY consist of articles linked in a christian e-news letter or something similar. then i can understand the ignorance behind the satement.

history. HA.
the bible says that the earth is about 6 thousand years old.

yet evidence of civilizations dating back 12,000 years exists.
dinosaur fossils are dated to be about....oh i dont know...65 MILLION years old.
we know that the universe is MORE then 13 billion light years across, meaning its more then 13 billion years old.

well gosh darn. that sounds like religion being contradicted by BOTH history AND science. thats double jeopardy.

PhinPhan1227
01-28-2009, 08:54 AM
Also with stuff being created at insurmountable odds and other stuff being impossible yet somehow we and other things are here on Earth doing our thing, why does this have to point to God and not someone/thing else? Maybe there is a faith out there for someone/thing that is different then God. I have no idea what of course, I'm just throwing out different examples of what the "other" could be rather then the God phenomenon a lot of folks are hung up on.

Intelligent Design doesn't support any one religion. All it states is that a universe which supports the possibility of life is too improbable to be random. So ANY being of god-like ability would do. It says nothing at all about a Christian god.

PhinzN703
01-28-2009, 09:55 AM
I agree there is no proving to one another of our beliefs, especially on a football fan site. That doesn't mean there isn't proof it just means it is hard to do in here. But we can point to why we believe the way we do, explain it, and maybe.... not today, but one day..... some will be exposed to that same evidence from another source, and maybe at some point in time it will all become clear.

To those who don't believe in God, don't give up. If one wants to know if he exists, simply look up in the sky and ask him to reveal himself to you, and then be prepared for the sign that he has indeed shown himself to you. It could be something as simple as a person in ones life, it could be an event, it could be a written word on a message board, or in a book, or on the side of a train, it could be a scripture appearing to you.... and a host of other possibilities.....if you ask, look for the answer. It won't come to your door fedex I can assure you that.

Maybe, but it could also just be a coincidence too. Say a TV is on in the background and someone on there says the word God when you're on Finheaven. Is that a sign or a coincidence?

PhinzN703
01-28-2009, 09:56 AM
Ok so it is bizarre...but you really only have two choices. Are you really thinking that scenario #1 makes the best sense?

To me what is bizarre is that anyone could ever take today's scientific opinions of our origins and actually believe that all that stuff not only could happen, but in fact did happen according to the concensus opinions. Actually believe it, in spite of a much more plausible and logical and intellectual reason in a loving and caring God.

Honestly man, everything we're talking about is bizarre. An all knowing entity that created everything versus a theory where everything just went boom in the middle of nowhere and here we are today.

None of it is easy :lol:

PhinzN703
01-28-2009, 09:59 AM
I understand that it sounds ridiculous to most, otherwise we would have a world full of Christians, and the world would be a much better place.....I know....shameless plug.

You doubt the authenticity of the bible....ok. I will tell you that there is no way that the bible could ever be written by men alone and be so historically accurate, contain 100% fulfilled prophecy from the OT to the NT and to the person of Jesus Christ. There are over 300 prophecies attributed to Jesus alone, and he fulfilled them all. Do you know what the odds of that are? Astronomical.....statistically impossible that one man could do that intentionally and not be exactly who he said he was. The bible was written by over 40 authors, in many different places, in many situations, moods, languages and over a period of 1600 years. There is no way mere men could collaborate with each other, and yet...it speaks to hundreds of issues in harmony and consistency. The bible is unique among all historical written works. No other work of antiquity compares.

It amazes me that people will reject the bible, yet take as gospel any other written work from before or after the bible, especially ones that supposedly contradict the bible. It isn't about the bible, but what the bible says that is the source of the rejection.

It is the same with Jesus. The Jews knew who he was, and they killed him. Why? Because they didn't want to give up their belief system. That is the number one reason for rejecting Jesus. It isn't that people don't believe once they have been exposed to the truth, it is that they choose to continue to reject it. Trust me I have heard of people who say "you are right, it is true - Jesus is the real deal....but I reject him anyway". Pains me to say that but it is true. People will still reject truth, even after acknowledging that truth. Why? Because people don't want to change. They don't want to have that accountability that truth brings. Sad, but that is their choice. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. That is between them and God.

Hey don't think that you need to go to the grave to know for sure. That is a lie from Satan if I have ever heard one. That is what he wants you to think dude. Don't buy it.

Do some reading. Buy some books. Lee Strobel is a real good one to start, he has DVD's out now too. He was an atheist, now a christian. If people were atheists, and now have become christian doesn't that mean much more than someone who simply grew up in a christian home and really had no choice (although they did - don't know how many kids that grew up christian went off the deep end in college, but that's another story altogether). I was such a person as well. I laughed at christians, in their face, mocking them and their invisible God. I would look up in the sky and ask them - where is he? I don't see anything, you fools! I know..... I was bad. But guess who got the last laugh? God.

I dont necessarily doubt the bible or even God. I don't claim to know one way or the another what is real and what isn't. I'd love for there to be a heaven where I could be with loved ones for eternity. It's just going to be a pretty big let-down if when the lights go out, there's nothing left.

Sure once you're dead your conscious is gone and you have no clue what is going on so maybe it won't even matter by then.

PhinzN703
01-28-2009, 10:03 AM
Intelligent Design doesn't support any one religion. All it states is that a universe which supports the possibility of life is too improbable to be random. So ANY being of god-like ability would do. It says nothing at all about a Christian god.

But we're talking about the God, not any random entity.

PhinPhan1227
01-28-2009, 10:11 AM
But we're talking about the God, not any random entity.


You may be talking about "the" God, but the theory of Intelligent Design makes no such distinction. When using that theory you are only saying that some such being put everything in place, not any one God. In fact, many devout Christians object to intelligent design because it makes use of currently accepted scientific assumptions(such as the earth being millions of years old), which they object to.

PhinPhan1227
01-28-2009, 10:15 AM
dont hold back now. let us know how you really feel.



just as i thought. you want answers. regardless of credibility.

fits in nicely with science and history?
is that a joke i missed.
surely it has to be. because if it werent a joke, this thread wouldnt be so long.

but i dont think you meant it as a joke.(even though it screams as one)
lets see. religion vs science.... probably the biggest debated topics of our time. and they CERTAINLY dont compliment each other.

unless of course your scientific readings ONLY consist of articles linked in a christian e-news letter or something similar. then i can understand the ignorance behind the satement.

history. HA.
the bible says that the earth is about 6 thousand years old.

yet evidence of civilizations dating back 12,000 years exists.
dinosaur fossils are dated to be about....oh i dont know...65 MILLION years old.
we know that the universe is MORE then 13 billion light years across, meaning its more then 13 billion years old.

well gosh darn. that sounds like religion being contradicted by BOTH history AND science. thats double jeopardy.


The Bible says no such thing. Some people have interpreted the sequence of events in the Bible and extrapolated that date. But the Bible itself does not say when the earth was created. Try reading it some time.

PhinzN703
01-28-2009, 02:02 PM
You may be talking about "the" God, but the theory of Intelligent Design makes no such distinction. When using that theory you are only saying that some such being put everything in place, not any one God. In fact, many devout Christians object to intelligent design because it makes use of currently accepted scientific assumptions(such as the earth being millions of years old), which they object to.

D7 is talking about the God. I don't know who or what exists

PhinzN703
01-28-2009, 02:03 PM
The Bible says no such thing. Some people have interpreted the sequence of events in the Bible and extrapolated that date. But the Bible itself does not say when the earth was created. Try reading it some time.

:lol:

PhinPhan1227
01-28-2009, 02:16 PM
D7 is talking about the God. I don't know who or what exists

D7 is talking about the Christian God. But he also uses arguments from Intelligent Design. And ID doesn't care about which god is being discussed.

Dolphan7
01-28-2009, 02:31 PM
Intelligent Design doesn't specify which designer or God. They're main point is simply to get into the discussion....then at some point once Intelligent Design has been acknowledged, the obvious next question or debate would have to be - Ok who is the designer?

There is no point in them talking about who the designer is until they can get people to realize there is indeed a designer.

eric1589
01-28-2009, 03:17 PM
intelligent design was nothing more then a masked form of creationism trying to be taught along side the theory of evolution in schools. the theory is backed by those who can not let go of the idea of a god/designer. they know they cant force religion into schools. so they had to think of a different way to try to use tax dollars to tell impressionable children that there is some almighty being that is responsible for everything we know.

basically they want EVERYONE'S tax dollars to be used to implant the roots of religion into children.

there was a big ordeal about a school, staffed with bible humpers, that illegally pushed intelligent design onto the children. a trial insued and the verdict was that intelligent design is nothing more then watered down, re-branded religion.

teaching creationism in schools was already banned by law. so the people that wrote the text book on creationism simply did some editing to replace every instance of the word "creationism" with "intelligent design."

since they knew they couldnt bring religion into the class room they attemtped to use religion's ideas of origin without ever directly refering to any one, specific religion or god.

check out the documentary movie.
here is a 1 minute commercial for the program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiEP-XSApgY

here is the whole thing. just under 2 hours.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=intelligent+desing+on+trial&emb=0&aq=f#emb=0&aq=f&q=intelligent%20design%20on%20trial

PhinPhan1227
01-28-2009, 03:48 PM
intelligent design was nothing more then a masked form of creationism trying to be taught along side the theory of evolution in schools. the theory is backed by those who can not let go of the idea of a god/designer. they know they cant force religion into schools. so they had to think of a different way to try to use tax dollars to tell impressionable children that there is some almighty being that is responsible for everything we know.

basically they want EVERYONE'S tax dollars to be used to implant the roots of religion into children.

there was a big ordeal about a school, staffed with bible humpers, that illegally pushed intelligent design onto the children. a trial insued and the verdict was that intelligent design is nothing more then watered down, re-branded religion.

teaching creationism in schools was already banned by law. so the people that wrote the text book on creationism simply did some editing to replace every instance of the word "creationism" with "intelligent design."

since they knew they couldnt bring religion into the class room they attemtped to use religion's ideas of origin without ever directly refering to any one, specific religion or god.

check out the documentary movie.
here is a 1 minute commercial for the program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiEP-XSApgY

here is the whole thing. just under 2 hours.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=intelligent+desing+on+trial&emb=0&aq=f#emb=0&aq=f&q=intelligent%20design%20on%20trial


I don't favor ID being taught in schools. I do favor however the question being brought up of just how MASSIVELY improbable it is that the 12-16 universal constants that allow the universe to support some kind of life are JUST right to allow that life. Micro-gravity, macro-gravity, there are a slew of constants that if they were only the tiniest fraction different would prevent the universe from being able to support any sort of concievable life. I believe the odds are a one followed by several million digits. So yes, it's a valid, scientific question. And science has some answers, but they aren't much more concrete than ID. The most popular one I've heard is the "infinite universes" theory. Basically, there are infinite universes, so we just happen to be in the one that supports life. Problem is, you could use that excuse to explain anything. It's really no different from saying "God did it".

So, to reiterate, I don't support adding ID to curriculum. But I do support presenting the full situation, and let kids ask their own questions.

Btw...loving your religion is one thing, but I think humping a Bible would be frowned upon. ;)

PhinzN703
01-29-2009, 03:13 PM
D7 is talking about the Christian God. But he also uses arguments from Intelligent Design. And ID doesn't care about which god is being discussed.

Gotcha :)

Blackocrates
01-31-2009, 03:44 AM
staffed with bible humpers,


:sidelol: Talk about sexual deviance.

PhinPhan1227
01-31-2009, 09:56 PM
:sidelol: Talk about sexual deviance.


If Ricardo Montalban was still alive he would be AGHAST at such treatment of real corinthian leather!!:shakeno:

Marino613
02-03-2009, 01:06 AM
Another possibility is that energy (matter is just one more state of energy e=mc2) actually existed beforehand and that neither God nor randomness lead to the big bang but plain old cause and effect. Unfortunately, due to our current inability to "see" before the big bang, we don't know how it all went down.

PhinPhan1227
02-03-2009, 01:32 PM
Another possibility is that energy (matter is just one more state of energy e=mc2) actually existed beforehand and that neither God nor randomness lead to the big bang but plain old cause and effect. Unfortunately, due to our current inability to "see" before the big bang, we don't know how it all went down.

The problem arises with the sheer level of chance required for the energy involved to have the exact balances needed to form a material universe in which some form of concievable life could evolve to consider the question. It's that ridiculous improbability which gives rise to Intelligent Design.

Marino613
02-03-2009, 05:03 PM
The problem arises with the sheer level of chance required for the energy involved to have the exact balances needed to form a material universe in which some form of concievable life could evolve to consider the question. It's that ridiculous improbability which gives rise to Intelligent Design.

I wasn't responding to the ID point but to the beginning of time problem. I am not against ID actually. I think "faith" in God is actually a fundamental epistemological question about how you explain things on an apriori level. Intelligent design is vey reasonable to me

PhinPhan1227
02-03-2009, 05:28 PM
I wasn't responding to the ID point but to the beginning of time problem. I am not against ID actually. I think "faith" in God is actually a fundamental epistemological question about how you explain things on an apriori level. Intelligent design is vey reasonable to me


Gotcha.

PhinzN703
02-03-2009, 06:02 PM
Another possibility is that energy (matter is just one more state of energy e=mc2) actually existed beforehand and that neither God nor randomness lead to the big bang but plain old cause and effect. Unfortunately, due to our current inability to "see" before the big bang, we don't know how it all went down.

The next question on that would be: Why was the energy there in the first place?

Marino613
02-03-2009, 07:05 PM
The next question on that would be: Why was the energy there in the first place?

Those who would hold to this option would say that whatever caused the energy/mass, most likely a previous energy/mass state contains the cause, and so on and so on and so on.

One version of this that has been proposed in the scientific community (although I believe it would have to be completely hypothetical by nature) is the multiverse theory in which "universes" are collapsing and expanding constantly and this is just one of many.

Of course the problem is that time itself according to relativity doesn't exactly work normally in these circumstances.

tylerdolphin
02-11-2009, 09:57 PM
What kind of proof would you accept? My guess is that no matter what I present to you, you will reject, which makes you the exact same thing you accuse me of. Only I used to be an Atheist and staunch supporter and believer in evolution for over 30 years. Where you once a christian?

Look around you. Look at your own body. Look at the complexity that you see in that microscope you mentioned. Look at the perfect location of our planet in relation to the sun, one degree either way and we burn or freeze. Look at the abundant and wide variety of life on this planet. Look at the molecular ingenuity and complexity at the cellular level. Everywhere you look appears to have some sort of design and complexity, not some hodgepodge put together and barely working, or evolving.

How do you think this all happened? Let's look at the possible answers.

1. Random and unguided chance, upon chance, upon still more chance, against insurmountable odds and statistically impossible probabilities that life originated from non-life, and that life, for still some unknown reason evolved and continues to evolve.....beating the odds every time, over and over again.....until you arrive in the present day. Think about that first organism, on that very first day. It just happens that the situation is just right for a microorganism to begin to live and function. But what then? How does it eat? How does it survive? How does it defend against such harsh conditions? How does it ....the big question....how does it multiply? What makes it divide itself and make itself a copy of itself? How does all this happen? More than likely if it did indeed happen, it wouldn't survive for more than a few hours, and probably not more than a few minutes. Then what? If it happened once against all odds, and then died, then how did we get here? did it happen again, only this time it was able to duplicate itself? How was it supposed to do that the second time around? And so forth....you see the problem with this theory? It makes no sense. It is hard to believe. Yet.. this is what is taught to our children. And yet supposedly, if you listen to the scientists, and read the textbooks, it happened, and then life evolved, again against all odds and with no purpose or direction or mechanism, through random mutations that were somehow inherited by their offspring and passed along, yet......there have been no discovery of any positive or beneficial mutations on record. All mutations we see are neutral or negative often killing the host animal. We see mutations and deformities in birth all the time, and we consider it a bad thing. No one wants a baby with 4 arms these days it seems. We pray that our children are healthy and look exactly like us, as they should.

And then the alternative is that God created us, and everything we see, just like it is in it's complete and functional form, highly complex and intelligent design......just like he said he did in Gen 1.

Which one is more intellectually and logically easier to believe?
I agree with a lot of your post. I believe in God. But that bolded statement is flat out wrong.

Look at bacteria. They are good example because they reproduce new generations so quickly. It is a fact that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics over time. Thats undeniable. It is a genetic mutation that a few bacteria in a specific colony may have. when they are not killed by the antibiotics, they pass along their genes and their offspring are also resistant to that particular antibiotic. Thats why we always need new antibiotics and stuff.

Also, in the Galapagos islands, there are finches who will have thinner or thicker beaks every few generations depending on the abundance of certain food sources. When a mutation occurs giving a bird a thicker beak, it will survive better than birds with the thinner beak when they are forced to each harder food. This goes in cycles depending on what food source is readily available. Its natural selection.

You also have giraffes. They are the direct result of as genetic mutation. I believe they descended from antelopes or something similar. What happened is that the longer necked antelopes in a particular environment were able to reach food more easily (thats a positive for sure) and thus able to survive better than their shorter necked friends. The long necked antelopes kept mating and the result was insanely long necks. A lot of people dont know this, but giraffes only have 7 (I think) vertebrae in their neck. The same number as their cousins. They didnt get more bones in there, the bones simply got longer through genetic mutations (a positive one at that).

It can be scientifically proven that this is in fact possible. You can take a bunch of flies (because they produce new generations quickly) and isolate the flies in the top 20% of bristles on their legs. The first generation's top 20% may have a few bristles. You mate them. Take the next generations top 20%. They have even more bristles. You do the same thing a few more times and you are looking at flies with an unuasually massive amount of bristles on their legs.

Dolphan7
02-12-2009, 05:47 PM
I agree with a lot of your post. I believe in God. But that bolded statement is flat out wrong.

Look at bacteria. They are good example because they reproduce new generations so quickly. It is a fact that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics over time. Thats undeniable. It is a genetic mutation that a few bacteria in a specific colony may have. when they are not killed by the antibiotics, they pass along their genes and their offspring are also resistant to that particular antibiotic. Thats why we always need new antibiotics and stuff.

Also, in the Galapagos islands, there are finches who will have thinner or thicker beaks every few generations depending on the abundance of certain food sources. When a mutation occurs giving a bird a thicker beak, it will survive better than birds with the thinner beak when they are forced to each harder food. This goes in cycles depending on what food source is readily available. Its natural selection.

You also have giraffes. They are the direct result of as genetic mutation. I believe they descended from antelopes or something similar. What happened is that the longer necked antelopes in a particular environment were able to reach food more easily (thats a positive for sure) and thus able to survive better than their shorter necked friends. The long necked antelopes kept mating and the result was insanely long necks. A lot of people dont know this, but giraffes only have 7 (I think) vertebrae in their neck. The same number as their cousins. They didnt get more bones in there, the bones simply got longer through genetic mutations (a positive one at that).

It can be scientifically proven that this is in fact possible. You can take a bunch of flies (because they produce new generations quickly) and isolate the flies in the top 20% of bristles on their legs. The first generation's top 20% may have a few bristles. You mate them. Take the next generations top 20%. They have even more bristles. You do the same thing a few more times and you are looking at flies with an unuasually massive amount of bristles on their legs.Let me clarify what I mean by no positive mutation. First off let me explain what a mutation is - the missing or "mutated" genetic material passed on from parent to offspring. In the case of missing genetic information, there is less material being passed on to the offspring. This information is lost unless a mate has the missing genetic material and thus can pass it on to the offspring and it is back in the genetic pool once again. This isn't new information, but information that was already present.

In the case of mutated genetic material, there is an abnormality or corruption in the genetic material. This may or may not be passed on to the offspring, and in the case of the above missing material, it can be corrected by mating with a mate that has the correct copy of the genetic material. If it can be passed on to the offspring in the abnormal state, then it is carrying less than it's original and complete form. There is no new information being created, only the same or less than the original.

So when I say there are no positive mutation on record, what I mean is that there is no "new" genetic information being created. Everything we see is copying and re-copying (with errors sometimes) and re-arranging of the same original genetic material.

There is no new genetic material being created. There is no evidence of any new genetic material being created, ever.

In order for Macro-evolution to be true, and testable, and provable - there has to be new genetic information being created, and in turn being copied into the offspring.

The example you site above are nothing more than Micro-evolution, or adaptation. We know this happens. There is adaptation going on, but there is no new inforamtion being created, only re-arranged. The beaks of birds are still beaks. The hair on flies is still hair. Bacteria is still bacteria. There is no new information being created, only copying of old information that is already present. Information is being re-arranged, but that isn't new information either. I am surprised you didn't also include the Peppered Moth as an example of Macro-evolution.

The case for giraffes is simply conjecture, and rather comical when you really think about it. Vertebrae are only one part of a giraffes neck. More importantly the blood vessels in the neck which allow it to lower and raise it's head would also have to "evolve" right alongside the vertebrae, as well as many other parts of the giraffes neck. There is a mechanism in the giraffe neck that slows blood flow to the animals brain when they bend down to eat grass or drink water. Without this the Giraffe gets to much blood flow to the brain and - Dead. The same mechanism also regulates blood flow when the giraffe raises it's head above it's heart to eat from trees. Too little blood dflow to the brain and - Dead. Even so... increasing the size of the vertebrae requires "new" information to be created instructing the cells in charge of making the vertebrae. Something has to say "Hey guys, we are going to do the same thing only bigger this time around". As we have seen from above, there is no new information being created, only missing info, or abnormal info that is most often deadly to the organism.

Now there are good "benefits" to missing information. Like in the 10% or so of the population, mostly European, that have missing genetic information that coincidentally makes them immune to the HIV virus. This isn't evolution, or a positive mutation, or new genetic material being created - but simple missing information that just so happened to also have a beneficial side effect. Sickle Cell Anemia is another great example of having a coincidental benefit to a loss of information in the gene pool.

The most common mutations we see are birth defects and abnormal body parts. We don't look at these and say - Awesome, that person is evolving. We try to correct the problem if we can because obviously something went wrong in the copying phase of reproduction. Extra limbs, two people connected to each other, mental disorders etc......We don't call this evolution. We call it "something is wrong".

Here is a great article on bacteria and Sickle Cell Anemia, and other stuff. It is also a great site that points to the Science Against Evolution, from a strictly secular standpoint.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i3f.htm

1 dol fan
02-15-2009, 02:48 PM
It is true that no matter can be created, only modified from other matter. So, all that exists has to have always existed, or be created from a supernatural force.

It is generally considered an absurd question to ask what happened before the Big Bang, because there is no way to tell. Science came to the conclusion of the Big Bang based on radiation and the speed of the planets separating from one another, but there is no way to determine what happened before a theoretical time when all matter is in one location. This actually might no longer be true, based on some of the information we have discussed in another thread here, but no one knows at this point.

I used to give myself headaches thinking about it in Astronomy. God is one of many answers, and it is a bit easier that way, but no one knows for sure.
speaking of the speed of planets separating from one another, is the universe like one large planet maybe? you all know about continental drift and that eventually, north america will collide with asia and so forth with the other countries around it. Do you think the separation of the planets may be something like continental drift and the universe will eventually circumvent itself come together. We have such an odd perspective on things becasue we, as earthlings, can only see things from our view and not from others. If we saw europe begin to break apart from north america when pangea was beginning to break up, wouldn't you think that they are getting further away from you instead of the other way around? I love talking about this hypothetical BS because it really gets you thinking.

You know we are simply a speckle in the big picture of the universe. It tookus 2.5 years to get tot Mars, our next closest planet. It would take us 376 years to enter the next closest solar system. Not even land anywhere but just get there.

This talk kinda gets me thinking back to the book written by C.S. Lewis, who was a religous man. I am not talking about the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe but the book chronolgically previous to that, The Magician's Nephew. At one point in this book, the main characters are in a serene and peaceful place and there are "pools of water" that lead to another place. I like to think of this place as space. Certainly not a place sutiable to support life but simply a means of getting to a planet. These pools of water represent different worlds or in my interpretation, planets, maybe even galaxys.

In the book, it takes an outside force to get life growing and the world actually becoming something so maybe the reason we haven't found life anywhere is because we haven't explored sufficiently. Maybe instead of staying in our planet, it is our destiny to go to other places, spark life, and populat the universe. Maybe life exists on earth from god but not on other places because that is our job.

I think humans are naturally curious about everything around them and that was put in us by this super human force that created us and wished us to further his universe by our own means, regardless of how long and how much effort it may take.

Wow! that wa really deep! it would really suck if no one ever read this and I just spent all this time thinking this through for nothing.

GoonBoss
02-17-2009, 01:07 AM
This is actually one of the questions I was taught to ask when whitnessing back in the day when I was a Christian. I have lost my faith in a Christian god, but the theory still holds true.

Something cannot come from nothing. It simply cannot. But yet, it has to have in order for there to be something. This, is, by it's nature a miraculous event. It has to have occured due to a miraculous agent. There is no possible logical argument to refute this AFAIK. Now, where you go from there is problematic as to the exact nature of the agent.

My personal view is some sort of benevolent agent who is responsible for everything begining. Past that? Your guess is a s good as anyone elses.

Marino613
02-18-2009, 07:45 AM
Something cannot come from nothing. It simply cannot. But yet, it has to have in order for there to be something. This, is, by it's nature a miraculous event. It has to have occured due to a miraculous agent. There is no possible logical argument to refute this AFAIK. Now, where you go from there is problematic as to the exact nature of the agent.


One common argument against it throughout history is what I stated earlier (not my own belief necessarily. I am more uncertain than anything.) Things simply didn't come from nothing. They came from what was before it, which came from what was before it, which came from what was before it.

The big bang complicates that because it makes it impossible to know what if anything was "before it". But, hypothetically, a collapsing universe could become an "omega point" that could be the "alpha point" of our universe. That is, of course, speculation but not unreasonable.

Jimi
03-22-2009, 04:38 PM
One common argument against it throughout history is what I stated earlier (not my own belief necessarily. I am more uncertain than anything.) Things simply didn't come from nothing. They came from what was before it, which came from what was before it, which came from what was before it.

The big bang complicates that because it makes it impossible to know what if anything was "before it". But, hypothetically, a collapsing universe could become an "omega point" that could be the "alpha point" of our universe. That is, of course, speculation but not unreasonable.

Could you clarify what that means for me, im not too bright on the subject.

The way i see it, in our finite universe that we can percieve as humans, we have made some miraculous creations/discoveries. The fact that we have a brain capable of discussing more then just our perception is telling. We know that we our limited, and we know that no matter how powerful we get, there is always better. I think that engrained will to grow and expand as a human is the will of God in all of us. He gave us life so we could try to grow as close to God as possible while experiencing free will and creation that he knows is so great. As a begining of time is implausible to us I can only believe something greater then time is the answer. God.

Marino613
04-01-2009, 10:34 PM
Could you clarify what that means for me, im not too bright on the subject.

The way i see it, in our finite universe that we can percieve as humans, we have made some miraculous creations/discoveries. The fact that we have a brain capable of discussing more then just our perception is telling. We know that we our limited, and we know that no matter how powerful we get, there is always better. I think that engrained will to grow and expand as a human is the will of God in all of us. He gave us life so we could try to grow as close to God as possible while experiencing free will and creation that he knows is so great. As a begining of time is implausible to us I can only believe something greater then time is the answer. God.

It is quite simple - one universe ends (omega point, or "Z" point if we use the english alphabet) collapses in on itself providing the beginning (alpha point - "a") for the next universe. Sorry for using jargon from some of the science books I occasionally peruse. It is one hypothetical, unprovable, explanation as to where our universe came from, that is a universe before it. This posits no beginning to time and requires no need to wonder how something came from nothing. It just came from what was before it

[One side note: Time is way too interconnected with space for it to be so simple according to Einstein.]

I see nothing wrong with positing something greater than us beyond and above time and and space and understanding, an intelligent designer to the universe. But it isn't the only reasonable explanation. Nor for that matter does it mean that one can't reasonably live without the explanation stating that we can't know the answer at least in terms of trying to figure out the implications of the big bang.

Dolphan7
04-02-2009, 12:23 AM
It is quite simple - one universe ends (omega point, or "Z" point if we use the english alphabet) collapses in on itself providing the beginning (alpha point - "a") for the next universe. Sorry for using jargon from some of the science books I occasionally peruse. It is one hypothetical, unprovable, explanation as to where our universe came from, that is a universe before it. This posits no beginning to time and requires no need to wonder how something came from nothing. It just came from what was before it

[One side note: Time is way too interconnected with space for it to be so simple according to Einstein.]

I see nothing wrong with positing something greater than us beyond and above time and and space and understanding, an intelligent designer to the universe. But it isn't the only reasonable explanation. Nor for that matter does it mean that one can't reasonably live without the explanation stating that we can't know the answer at least in terms of trying to figure out the implications of the big bang.All you have done with this explanation is push back the beginning.
But you would still have the same unanswered question - How did the original universe come from nothing?

Marino613
04-03-2009, 11:34 PM
All you have done with this explanation is push back the beginning.
But you would still have the same unanswered question - How did the original universe come from nothing?

That is not what I did at all. I wrote quite clearly that this approach assumes time to be beginning-less. No original universe necessary. Every existing thing got here by its own set of causes and conditions, which was caused again but what came before it; each expanding/collapsing universe is the recipient of the universe collapsing before it ad infinitum backwards.

Dolphan7
04-03-2009, 11:49 PM
That is not what I did at all. I wrote quite clearly that this approach assumes time to be beginning-less. No original universe necessary. Every existing thing got here by its own set of causes and conditions, which was caused again but what came before it; each expanding/collapsing universe is the recipient of the universe collapsing before it ad infinitum backwards.Time can be eternal or beginning-less as you state, Most concepts of God carry eternal characteristics, no beginning, no end, but.....Matter is a different story. Matter cannot come from non-matter. It has to have a beginning.

Marino613
04-03-2009, 11:55 PM
Time can be eternal or beginning-less as you state, Most concepts of God carry eternal characteristics, no beginning, no end, but.....Matter is a different story. Matter cannot come from non-matter. It has to have a beginning.

There are two classic responses:

1) To agree. Matter does need a beginning. It has it's beginning in the thing that caused it. Which has a beginning in the thing that caused it. Again ad infinitum back. [Edit: to clarify, matter/energy that we experience now has a clear beginning in the matter/energy that caused it, which has its beginning in earlier matter, with no "original" matter necessary.]

2) To disagree: why can't matter/energy be eternal? Not the visible changing objects that we see, but the particles that combine and recombine to form those objects could theoretically be eternal.

Dolphan7
04-04-2009, 12:30 AM
There are two classic responses:

1) To agree. Matter does need a beginning. It has it's beginning in the thing that caused it. Which has a beginning in the thing that caused it. Again ad infinitum back. [Edit: to clarify, matter/energy that we experience now has a clear beginning in the matter/energy that caused it, which has its beginning in earlier matter, with no "original" matter necessary.]

2) To disagree: why can't matter/energy be eternal? Not the visible changing objects that we see, but the particles that combine and recombine to form those objects could theoretically be eternal.If you want to let your imagination run wild....then anything is possible. If you want to remove the bounds of time and energy/matter......then anything and everything are possible, simultaneously.

Marino613
04-04-2009, 12:46 AM
If you want to let your imagination run wild....then anything is possible. If you want to remove the bounds of time and energy/matter......then anything and everything are possible, simultaneously.

Again I can think of two ways which philosophers have responded in the past [to explain my argument here that is, not that they knew or cared who I am]:

The first is that I have never once suggested anything arbitrary or imaginary about the motion and production of matter that would indicate ignoring the bounds of time and space. I have presented a strict adherence to the principles of cause and effect behind the motion and production of matter/energy. Time is a measurement we use to conceive of that motion and production. Nothing is possible without its proper causes and conditions which function along several dimensions, one of them being time. I actually think this requires much less imagination than assuming an infinite uncaused, perfect creator and requires no breaking of the bounds of time and space which said creator would violate.

I could also try a David Hume approach, but I am less comfortable with that one although he might very well say that time as a category and dimension purely exists as a practical human measurement to the consecutive sequences of events we experience, but has no foundation beyond our projections.

MrEd
04-04-2009, 03:23 AM
I was hoping someone could shed a little light on this for me. Im a pretty curious person so naturally all of the mysterys of the world drive me nuts, moreso than any other the beginning of everything.

The other day when i was pondering this i couldnt find any logical way to explain how the first atom, piece of matter, call it what you will but how the first thing came of nothing. A point where there was nothing seems illogical to me. Isnt it entirely possible that our logic says the universe had to begin by means greater than or different anyways then human logic? Unless im off base on this (good chance) that seems like the most possible answer would indeed be God.

I am a Christian, but its so hard for me to be sure about something with no proof, but this was the best thing i could come up with. I follow the religion on its fundamentals, im guessing my upbringing and probably more than anything my desire for it to be all truth. Id love for some people to help me figure anything out on this.


I'd love to. It's actually quite simple. All we need to use is common sense, which you definitely have...

In order for us to know if something even had a beginning is by finding evidence that that something has an end. The universe, the sun, etc. are decaying, therefore show us that it has an end. So we know by this that it had a beginning.

Now, the beginning is the "very start" to a thing. So for the beginning to begin, (the Something, or someOne, for that matter must be/exist outside of that thing that is being began.)

So the Beginner of the beginning must exist outside of time because time exists within the barriers of the beginning and the end. So all that exists, began by "cause and effect". The Beginner 'caused' the beginning.

So before the 'beginning' of everything began, the Beginner (which must exist outside of time in order to be able to begin the beginning) created everything from nothing but Himself or the beginning would not be the beginning.

The Beginner is a someOne because of the universes "design" evidence. In order to design and establish a system the being must be able to plan and think. Everything runs by systems of laws...so we understand that the Beginner is a Person and not a thing.

Now, this Person is a "He" because of what defines he or she. "He", is the source of something, "she" is the helper of something.

What makes a male, a male, is that he is the source of life...what makes a female, a female, is that she 'helps' in the process of the maintenance of that life that was sourced from someone else.

So God is known as a He because He is the Creator and Source of the beginning. Nature is commonly called a "she" because of its responsibility or "our" job in maintaining life that was sourced by someOne other than ourselves.

God had no beginning because He was the Beginner of the beginning and so is not bound by time, since He created it. So if someone asks where did God come from it is a self defeating question.

It's like someone stating "there is no truth". You can't say there is no truth...because if there is no truth, than "that" statement "can't be true". Because "there is no truth". You see?

It is the same when someone asks where did God come from? Or who made God? It is a statement that is self defeating.

Jimi
04-04-2009, 04:09 AM
That was well put MrEd that is also my line of thinking on the situation. I must admit however, Marino 613 has made the most compelling counterargument ive come across. I still believe in God but i se where hes coming from. To believe in God we must allow our minds to comprehend something greater than us, an infinite. I guess its the same thing being asked to believe in his theory.


The Beginner is a someOne because of the universes "design" evidence. In order to design and establish a system the being must be able to plan and think. Everything runs by systems of laws...so we understand that the Beginner is a Person and not a thing.


That i believe would be your rebuttle to this. Makes good logical sense, but i think its hardly full proof. Systems can be created from chaos.

Dolphan7
04-04-2009, 10:52 AM
Again I can think of two ways which philosophers have responded in the past [to explain my argument here that is, not that they knew or cared who I am]:

The first is that I have never once suggested anything arbitrary or imaginary about the motion and production of matter that would indicate ignoring the bounds of time and space. I have presented a strict adherence to the principles of cause and effect behind the motion and production of matter/energy. Time is a measurement we use to conceive of that motion and production. Nothing is possible without its proper causes and conditions which function along several dimensions, one of them being time. I actually think this requires much less imagination than assuming an infinite uncaused, perfect creator and requires no breaking of the bounds of time and space which said creator would violate.

I could also try a David Hume approach, but I am less comfortable with that one although he might very well say that time as a category and dimension purely exists as a practical human measurement to the consecutive sequences of events we experience, but has no foundation beyond our projections.

LOL, unless said Creator - Created those boundaries!

Marino613
04-04-2009, 11:26 AM
That was well put MrEd that is also my line of thinking on the situation. I must admit however, Marino 613 has made the most compelling counterargument ive come across. I still believe in God but i se where hes coming from. To believe in God we must allow our minds to comprehend something greater than us, an infinite. I guess its the same thing being asked to believe in his theory.


That i believe would be your rebuttle to this. Makes good logical sense, but i think its hardly full proof. Systems can be created from chaos.

Thanks for the compliment :)

To clarify and repeat something from previous posts, I have not been commenting on the argument from design in this thread, although certainly there are those who use the various incarnations of the concept of the multi-verse to argue against it. I am still trying to think through the whole design concept and have been studying up on it looking at some classical and modern sources.

My main issue here is with the idea that because things we experience in time (that is we experience motion and production sequentially which we measure on a dimension called time) have beginnings, that therefore capital "T" Time must have a capital "B" Beginning. The Big Bang does make the idea of a from scratch/ex nihilo Beginning to Time more feasible in my mind, but it doesn't necessitate it either. For scientists and researchers not relying on revealed Truth through religious tradition, based on our current technology, it creates a seemingly impenetrable barrier to seeing what happened "before" it if there was a before it.

Design is a separate matter and one could always take a more Aristotelian approach; the universe is beginning-less and is still controlled by an intelligent eternal being.

Marino613
04-04-2009, 11:27 AM
LOL, unless said Creator - Created those boundaries!

I wasn't arguing that it is impossible, but it does require more imagination than the simple common sense cause and effect we see every day. Besides, that was a side point in my argument. You don't need a beginning to Time to have things happen sequentially within the bounds of time. That was my point in my response to you.

Jimi
04-08-2009, 07:50 AM
I wasn't arguing that it is impossible, but it does require more imagination than the simple common sense cause and effect we see every day. Besides, that was a side point in my argument. You don't need a beginning to Time to have things happen sequentially within the bounds of time. That was my point in my response to you.

Could you explain this a little further now for me? I think i got the premise of the multiverse theory but i still dont get the details. Is it kind of like a "time is a human invention" kind of thing where there really is no time that just what we are percieving?

I still dont see how something could come out of nothing this way. Something would have to put it in motion as far as i can see.

garcia420
04-12-2009, 02:53 AM
Time can be eternal or beginning-less as you state, Most concepts of God carry eternal characteristics, no beginning, no end, but.....Matter is a different story. Matter cannot come from non-matter. It has to have a beginning.

so then where did God come from?

PhinPhan1227
04-12-2009, 10:34 AM
Let me clarify what I mean by no positive mutation. First off let me explain what a mutation is - the missing or "mutated" genetic material passed on from parent to offspring. In the case of missing genetic information, there is less material being passed on to the offspring. This information is lost unless a mate has the missing genetic material and thus can pass it on to the offspring and it is back in the genetic pool once again. This isn't new information, but information that was already present.

In the case of mutated genetic material, there is an abnormality or corruption in the genetic material. This may or may not be passed on to the offspring, and in the case of the above missing material, it can be corrected by mating with a mate that has the correct copy of the genetic material. If it can be passed on to the offspring in the abnormal state, then it is carrying less than it's original and complete form. There is no new information being created, only the same or less than the original.

So when I say there are no positive mutation on record, what I mean is that there is no "new" genetic information being created. Everything we see is copying and re-copying (with errors sometimes) and re-arranging of the same original genetic material.

There is no new genetic material being created. There is no evidence of any new genetic material being created, ever.

In order for Macro-evolution to be true, and testable, and provable - there has to be new genetic information being created, and in turn being copied into the offspring.

The example you site above are nothing more than Micro-evolution, or adaptation. We know this happens. There is adaptation going on, but there is no new inforamtion being created, only re-arranged. The beaks of birds are still beaks. The hair on flies is still hair. Bacteria is still bacteria. There is no new information being created, only copying of old information that is already present. Information is being re-arranged, but that isn't new information either. I am surprised you didn't also include the Peppered Moth as an example of Macro-evolution.

The case for giraffes is simply conjecture, and rather comical when you really think about it. Vertebrae are only one part of a giraffes neck. More importantly the blood vessels in the neck which allow it to lower and raise it's head would also have to "evolve" right alongside the vertebrae, as well as many other parts of the giraffes neck. There is a mechanism in the giraffe neck that slows blood flow to the animals brain when they bend down to eat grass or drink water. Without this the Giraffe gets to much blood flow to the brain and - Dead. The same mechanism also regulates blood flow when the giraffe raises it's head above it's heart to eat from trees. Too little blood dflow to the brain and - Dead. Even so... increasing the size of the vertebrae requires "new" information to be created instructing the cells in charge of making the vertebrae. Something has to say "Hey guys, we are going to do the same thing only bigger this time around". As we have seen from above, there is no new information being created, only missing info, or abnormal info that is most often deadly to the organism.

Now there are good "benefits" to missing information. Like in the 10% or so of the population, mostly European, that have missing genetic information that coincidentally makes them immune to the HIV virus. This isn't evolution, or a positive mutation, or new genetic material being created - but simple missing information that just so happened to also have a beneficial side effect. Sickle Cell Anemia is another great example of having a coincidental benefit to a loss of information in the gene pool.

The most common mutations we see are birth defects and abnormal body parts. We don't look at these and say - Awesome, that person is evolving. We try to correct the problem if we can because obviously something went wrong in the copying phase of reproduction. Extra limbs, two people connected to each other, mental disorders etc......We don't call this evolution. We call it "something is wrong".

Here is a great article on bacteria and Sickle Cell Anemia, and other stuff. It is also a great site that points to the Science Against Evolution, from a strictly secular standpoint.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i3f.htm


Virtually every bit of genetic material in any terrestrial animal is present in any other terrestrial animal. The differences, even between a frog and a man, are in single digit percentages. The changes occur over thousands of years, with a possible leap occuring due to a gross mutation. The main point is that you are talking about incredibly tiny changes occuring to a tiny number of animals among hundreds of billions of animals, taking place over an incredibly long period of time. For us to be expected to see them is like asking someone to notice exactly when, over the next thousand years, a grain of creme colored sand washes up on Ft Lauderdale beach.

Dolphan7
04-13-2009, 12:33 PM
so then where did God come from?God isn't matter. It appears that God didn't come from anywhere, He simply has always been. It isn't easy for us to grasp what that means with our time dependent minds.

Dolphan7
04-13-2009, 01:19 PM
Virtually every bit of genetic material in any terrestrial animal is present in any other terrestrial animal. The differences, even between a frog and a man, are in single digit percentages. The changes occur over thousands of years, with a possible leap occuring due to a gross mutation. The main point is that you are talking about incredibly tiny changes occuring to a tiny number of animals among hundreds of billions of animals, taking place over an incredibly long period of time. For us to be expected to see them is like asking someone to notice exactly when, over the next thousand years, a grain of creme colored sand washes up on Ft Lauderdale beach.Common biological systems within animals and humans can also be because of a common design, so to say commonality points exclusively to evolution would be ignoring the incredible amount of design and complexity we see in life forms on this planet. Irreducible complexity only adds to the inplausibility that life evolved, in that complex systems that rely on each other in order to operate and function, couldn't have evolved seperately, but simumtaneously, which increases the odds of this happeneing to the realm of impossible.

So evolution happens so slowly we can't see it? Yet we have the mainstream secular science crowd saying it is true and proven, but we can't see it? Does that make sense?

We should see it! To get the amount of diversity and complexity we see just at the molecular and genetic level, we would have to see evolution taking place all the time....yet not one case of any new genetic material being "created" that evolution demands. Heck science can't even get it to work by manipulating it in the lab, and this is supposed to happen all by itself in nature?

The grain of sand analogy is good for one thing, and one thing only. It represent the chances that evolution could happen all by itself. 1 chance in an infinite number of possiblilties.

If it is true, we should see new genetic material being created. Not re-arranged, not shuffled, not latent characteristics popping up, not missing info, not copied info, not incorrectly copied info. New info.

There is none. And there can't be because it is impossible, because it didn't happen. It can't happen. There is no mechanism to drive that type of new material to be created, causing an upward growth in the organism that eventually allows it to jump Genus.

Everywhere we look we see things exactly like they are today. The fossil record. We don't see anything that could be a transitional period or organism. It is exactly as it was, as it is today, minus extinct animals.

Not only should we see it happening to day, but we should see it happening yesterday as well, yet is is all the same is it always has been. If evolution were true, we should see "Something". But we don't. Why? Because there is nothing to see.

Marino613
04-13-2009, 02:54 PM
Could you explain this a little further now for me? I think i got the premise of the multiverse theory but i still dont get the details. Is it kind of like a "time is a human invention" kind of thing where there really is no time that just what we are percieving?

I still dont see how something could come out of nothing this way. Something would have to put it in motion as far as i can see.

[Note: Wow! This became a long post]

The way I understand it, the basic premise is that a strict adherence to cause and effect should suffice to answer most of these questions.

While I did make mention of opinions that do see time as not really existing, that is not the central thesis I was suggesting. The alternative is that time is an objective measure; motion and production of things happen in sequence in reality and not just in perception. Still, time is only the reality that things happen in sequence. That it is observable and measurable as such that we can talk about units of time or the broad sweep of time we are generally speaking about a human measure of time. So hours and minutes don't exist "out there", nor does the "history of the roman empire" - those are human constructs.

Sequence in time means that to any slice of change or motion that we humans perceive or deduce, there is a beginning, middle and end. What I am questioning is why some people believe that just because all individual instances of motion and production happen in sequence with and must have a beginning, that therefore TIME itself must have a beginning. It is an unnecessary conclusion. I also think that sometimes we confuse the human measure of time which must have a beginning with the idea that motion must have a beginning. The reality that things happen in sequence does not require time to have a beginning - For matter/energy to actually travel through time is for them to happen in sequence and that is all. A beginning to time would simply mean an empirical fact that there is no motion or production or change. I am willing to accept that this is one very plausible explanation in light of the Big Bang and does push for some prime mover concept. The Multi-Verse idea is another plausible explanation that doesn't involve a prime mover.

So in essence, my answer to your question is that beginningless time does not imply that things are not being set into motion (change/be produced, etc.). For time to be beginningless by definition the reality that things are in motion would have to have no beginning either, meaning that whatever set the computer screen you are staring at in motion was set into motion by its causes and conditions, which were set into motion by its causes and conditions, which were again set into motion by its causes and conditions backwards ad infinitum. Each individual sequence with its beginning, middle and end, has its foundation in another set of sequences which are founded in an even earlier set of sequences leaving nothing without its cause. This is not the same thing as saying that material things are eternal with no beginning at all, as each individual existing object has a beginning in the set of causes and conditions that underlay it. The computer screen had a beginning as did your fingers touching the keys, as did the factory that made it and so on. Still, you don't need to posit something above time (that is something that moves other things without needing to be moved) to find an origin to all things that have a beginning. Just look at the world around you right now. We see things begin and end all the time. The things that start them also begin and end.

While I am not arguing against the existence of God, to accept God you need to accept as D7 put it in his response to garcia "that God didn't come from anywhere, He simply has always been. It isn't easy for us to grasp what that means with our time dependent minds." I agree with him, but to me it requires an added imaginative step to contemplate and if you want to be strict in your concern about "how something could come out of nothing", then God should give you more pause than the idea of beginningless time. That is not to say that there aren't ways to answer the concern and it may be that other reasons, such as ID or revealed truth, make God a necessary conclusion.

Maybe if I changed my terminology to say that motion has no beginning but that time is just a human measure, that would simplify things?

[Appendix (boy am I a nerd): As an aside - The "time is a human invention" thing, is one way of approaching it although I was hesitant in mentioning it earlier and it isn't representative of everyone who accepts a beginningless universe (or in our case a beginningless multiverse). Thinkers like David Hume, Sextus Empiricus, Nagarjuna, and others question the extent to which relationships that are correlated in general in our experience can form the foundation for induction of an actual real necessary relationship. Time is one way they talk about it. An interesting read from a buddhist perspective in Jay Garfield's translation and commentary to Nagarjuna's The fundamental wisdom of the Middle way.]