But that just what creation is, "God did is" or "God is omnipotent" or "God will throw you into lake of fire" is the worse form of magic and superstition.
No it isn't. The difference is, when the magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least the magician exist, and he is the intelligent agent performing the magic trick of pulling the rabbit out of the hat. On your view, there IS no magician, the rabbit just pops in to being uncaused out of complete nothingness hahaha. Those are two different options and if you presented both options to the average Joe on the street and ask him which is more reasonable to believe, I have a pretty good idea which one the person would choose.
None of the verses you have quoted (Job, Isaiah and Zechariah) are clear what it meant, so it is open to interpretation, which has nothing to do with the universe's expansion.
Well, the heavens meant outer space, and the text states that the heavens is scretching. When we look outer space, we see the universe expanding. Seems pretty clear to me. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in reference to the Job verse, but i cant do the same with the others, because it is very clear. I don't believe that the mention of the heavens stretching would be mentioned that many times if it weren't taken literally. Not to mention the fact that every single context that this is mentioned in, the text is talking about the omnipotence of the Almighty, so it makes perfect sense. There would be no need to even mention the stretching of the heavens if it was not the case.
All you have done is twist the words to suit your agenda, taking it completely out of context. You are no better than the other Young Creationists or Intelligent Design (followers) or the Muslim who believe in "scientific miracles" are found in their Qur'an.
If the shoe fits, wear it. Not only does the shoes fit but the shoes are the new Jordans that just came out. Not only will i wear the shoes but i will be styling while i wear them. :yes:
And the 2nd thing that nothing in the Big Bang Theory say that everything was created out of "nothing". You are misrepresenting what science say about matters and energy.
If it didn't come out of nothing, then you are postulating a natural cause which would require infinite time, so you are back to infinite regression.
The Conservation of Matter is quite clear that matters can't be created or destroyed, but matters can be transformed into something else, which I have quoted in my thread -
creation and the incorporeal spirit. It is the same with energy.
As I have said before, the first law of thermodynamics, which state that matter cannot be created or destroy only comes in to effect AFTER the universe began to exist. So you still haven't answered the origins question. And second, just because it cannot be created doesn't mean that it WASN'T initially created. A naturalists cannot assume that just because something cannot be destroyed that therefore it wasn't created. I could easily say that God created the matter so that it wouldn't be destroyed. As long as this is even POSSIBLE, which it is, this blows the first law out of the window. Second, the second law clearly indicates that the universe began to exist, and this is a independent argument from big bang cosmology and the philosophical arguments against a past eternal universe.
And lastly, I have not said anything about the universe was created out of nothing. You putting words into (cyber-) mouth.
You are clearly double-talking. You said in post 167...
Nothing outside of the universe exist, and nothing outside, such as your transcendent or intelligent being, can cause the expansion to begin.
If nothing is outside the universe, and yet it began to exist,m then it was created out of nothing, because nothing caused it. Clearly.
You are the one who said reference to these "pillars" could be metaphoric, not me. But it is your silly logic that one verse is metaphoric, but not the others, just demonstrate that are cherry-picking.
I acknowledged that that particular part could have been metaphorically, as if Job was using pillars as a way to say that God is holding the earth up. This is not unlikely since there are numerous of other occasions that the bible uses metaphors.
If verse 6 (about the make the pillars "tremble") is metaphoric, why not verses 5, 7, 8, 9 (your "He alone stretches out the heavens"), 10, etc?
Simple, because we have proof that the heavens are stretching. We dont have proof of pillars. I don't for one second believe that Job thought the earth is being held by pillars. But for arguments sake, lets grant it. Lets say the whole chapter is to be taken metaphorically. We still have the other books that talk about the stretching of the universe.
And so what Isaiah 51:13 state this too? I don't think it was done independently.
Why not?
A number of chapters couldn't have been written by Isaiah, who supposedly flourished in the 8th century BCE. Chapter 51 was one group of chapters that was written during the Babylonian Exile, early 6th century BCE (or even possibly after their Return). Many Hebrew scriptures weren't written until the Exile and/or in their return from Exile.
This is irrelevant. Just because the events took place after his death doesn't mean that he didn't write the book. God has a way of giving us divine revelation of future events. In fact, practically the whole book is filled with prophecies and prophecies by definition is an account of whats to come. Second, the context is what it is, regardless of who wrote it. And in the context of certain scriptures it speaks of the universe stretching.
And that included the Book of Job. I don't know if it was during the Exile or later, but the reference in that very chapter (9) about the constellations, Pleiades (daughters of the Titan Atlas) and Orion (the Hunter), are Greek names, so the author is more likely familiar with Greek astronomy, therefore I'm more inclined to believe that Job was written in 5th or 4th century BCE.
And? Still independently of Isaiah, Zechariah, and David.
Those texts were possibly written by the same individual or group of scribes/authors. And it is not uncommon for people who write during or later periods, to either copy or borrow ideas from one another.
Um, David was a book of psalms, poetic in nature. Isaiah is a book about prophecy, foreseeing future events. Zechariah is a book about spiritual strength and encouragement for the people. Three difference perspectives. Second, Isaiah 44:24, it is the LORD that is stating that he stretches out the heavens. So you can't logically say that Isaiah is taking or borrowing someone elses ideas, when he is recording what the LORD himself spoke.
