The creator did it.

[Subduction Zone]

Hard to follow your logic. So allow me share how God has revealed Himself to be in regards to His existence prior to His creation. He is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the universe on the other hand(His creation) has been shown to have a beginning. He is before all things and has brought everything that we see into existence, not being made from what already existed but from what is not seen. How He did this, we cannot explain because our understanding (in science) has not caught up with His wisdom. I am explaining what He has said and not what I am making up on my own. He has also stated that he holds all things together.

Hmm, that sounds just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Are you sure that you are not a Pasatafarian?

 

[He has Risen!]

What would keep the universe from doing the same? Why could not the universe exist in some form we do not now recognize "before the Big Bang" (scare quotes used to acknowledge that this may be a nonsensical phrase)?

There are 3 explanations to the existence of our universe (there maybe more but they probably fall into these three categories or it is an explanation that cannot be explained or understood).
1. Can something cause itself to come into being?
answer- No, because it would have required itself to exist before it was.
2. Can the universe be eternal?
answer-No, because if the universe had no starting point we could never arrive at the present. Every moment in time can be measured because we have a point at which to start, but if the universe had no starting point then we could never arrive at any point in time because we never started.
3. Was the universe created by a being greater than itself?
Yes-The logic here is that everything that has begun to exist has to have a cause. The universe began to exist, therefor it follows that it was caused by something outside its own existence, i.e.,GOD.

 

[He has Risen!]

Hmm, that sounds just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Are you sure that you are not a Pasatafarian?

I am not familiar with your belief. Please explain in detail this monster of yours.

 

[He has Risen!]

Once again, this ignores that time is part of the universe. To talk about prior, before, and causality, requires time to exist, which means the universe exists.

There cannot be a 'before time'.

As for 'God saying things', that is clearly NOT the case. Religious texts are written by humans. They have agendas and purposes that are *human* agendas and purposes. God has never written a word that anyone has ever demonstrated. Only fallible humans conveying limited understanding.

What idea would best be used to communicate a moment that existed before time as we understand time? My own thoughts are these, Time is a measurement of motion, if every atom in the universe were frozen and unable to move, time as we know it would also be frozen, but a being that is not part of our universe can continue to experience one moment passing by another moment.


from Google....
How do you define time?
For example, in many dictionaries the definition of time is as follows: Time is a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them.Jan 2, 2015

 

[Polymath257]

What idea would best be used to communicate a moment that existed before time as we understand? My own thoughts are these, Time is a measurement of motion, if every atom in the universe were frozen and unable to move, time as we know it would also be frozen, but a being that is not part of our universe can continue to experience one moment passing by another moment.


from Google....
How do you define time?
For example, in many dictionaries the definition of time is as follows: Time is a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them.Jan 2, 2015

Once again, the phrase 'a moment that existed before time' is meaningless. That is the whole point. Causality requires time. And time is part of the universe. So causality only makes sense *within* the universe. That means 1) there was no 'before time', and 2) there was no cause of the universe.

There are 3 explanations to the existence of our universe (there maybe more but they probably fall into these three categories or it is an explanation that cannot be explained or understood).
1. Can something cause itself to come into being?
answer- No, because it would have required itself to exist before it was.

I can accept this, at least provisionally.

2. Can the universe be eternal?
answer-No, because if the universe had no starting point we could never arrive at the present. Every moment in time can be measured because we have a point at which to start, but if the universe had no starting point then we could never arrive at any point in time because we never started.

No, it is not required that there be a start to be able to measure time. I have never understood why people think it would be impossible to 'arrive' if there is an infinite amount of time prior to now. All durations would still be finite. It's like what happens to the negative integers. Between any two there is a finite amount of time, they can be measured perfectly well, there is no first one, and they go backwards infinitely.

There is no logical contradiction here.

3. Was the universe created by a being greater than itself?
Yes-The logic here is that everything that has begun to exist has to have a cause. The universe began to exist, therefor it follows that it was caused by something outside its own existence, i.e.,GOD.

Well, I deny your premises. Everything within the universe, that has a cause, has a cause within the universe. But there are many events *within* the universe that are uncaused (most quantum events, for example). So you claim that everything that begins to exist has a cause is simply false.

Also, I also dispute the phraseology that the universe 'began to exist'. Why? because there was no time before the universe. Time is *part* of the universe. So it is simply nonsense to talk about 'before the universe' (unless you are talking about a multiverse, but then it is nonsense to talk about 'before the multiverse'). The phrase simply makes no sense.

But what does it mean to 'begin'? it means that there was some time when the thing did not exist and some later time when it did. This is NOT the case with the universe! There was no time when the universe did not exist!

Furthermore, as pointed out, all known causes are causes *within* the universe. So, again, it makes no sense to talk about the cause of the universe as a whole.

The point is that either the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time (a logical possibility) or it has existed for finite amount of time, but is still uncaused because there was nothing prior to the universe (no time when the universe did not exist).

in any case, your argument fails.

 

[He has Risen!]

As for 'God saying things', that is clearly NOT the case. Religious texts are written by humans. They have agendas and purposes that are *human* agendas and purposes. God has never written a word that anyone has ever demonstrated. Only fallible humans conveying limited understanding.

The words that came from the mouth of Jesus prove the existence of God. Why is that? Logic. Jesus claimed to be God, His claim to deity was validated by Him healing the sick, calming the stormy sea, feeding the multitudes with a few fish and loaves, knowing what people were thinking, knowing the future, raising the dead and finally coming back to life after His body was dead for 3 days. These are the proofs of a person is that greater than any other in history. And our dating method is based on His birth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I afraid I am not certain what your position really is.

I am a Christian. I believe in God. I do not view the Bible as inerrant nor do I consider Genesis to be relating stories that actually occurred. The Bible was written by man and it has flaws, but it does form the basis of my theological views. I tend to view much of it allegorically. Where events, people or places have been verified, I accept that as fact. I am also a scientist. An entomologist. I could not be much of a scientist if I disavowed most of my learning and experience because it made me uncomfortable. Where would the logic and reason be in that. Besides, it is against my beliefs to bear false witness, even if it were delivered to myself. I take a practical approach to my beliefs. I do not use them as scientific evidence. They are not. They are evidence only that I believe. In a scientific discussion, I stick to what is hypothesized, known and demonstrated.

Either you believe in the reality that exists, or you simply create the reality you want to exist. Do you believe or acknowledge that all life, including its non-living components, are controlled only by how they interacts with the four fundamental forces of nature? Do you believe that over time, inert and non-living matter(chemicals and molecules), would assemble themselves to become more efficient, and produce a single precursor to life? And eventually over a billion years, to produce a completely primitive living organism? This would be thermodynamically driven by an open system, not simply by probability alone. After the first primitive life evolved, evolution became a fact. Also, the less specialize an organism is, the more primitive it is. We are all a composite of billions of singularly specialized cells. We are NOT something greater than the sum of these parts.

I do not believe any of it. Not as I believe in God. I accept the evidence, knowledge and the theories that explain all this to be the case, though.

I appreciate your choice of words in your sentence about specialization and primitive condition. I almost used parasites and parasitoids to rebut that, because they are not primitive in that sense, but have a reduction in structures over their ancestors. However, you said 'specialized' and that makes the difference. Parasites and parasitoids are very specialized.

As to your last sentence here, I am not sure that I agree with it. Life is an emergent property and we may be greater than the sum of our parts, but I will have to give that some thought.

Also, if you make comments, you must expect your comments to be addressed. You can't manipulate, or deflect the scope of the response, by deciding if it is relevant or germane to the OP.

I did not.

You made the comments concerning Religion and the Constitution. "People are free to do just that and believe as they choose. This is a recognized freedom and protected in the constitutions of many countries".

You brought in new material that was not necessary for me to provide in order to answer the question of the OP. Your comment about 'freedom from religion' was not required part of my response to the OP. The statement I provided was sufficient to answer the question asked in the OP. I did properly address it in my response to you. I agreed with you that, in the US at least, it also protects people from religion being forced on them. Not in so many words though. I think I simply stated that I agreed.

Therefore, my comments were relevant.

As an addition to what I said, they were relevant, but they were not relevant to my answer to the OP as you seem to be saying. I was not non-response to you either and I agreed with your comment. You misunderstood the placement of the relevance I was referring to.

You are the one that also slipped in God's will and action as the source of creation, "In fact, the description of God creating man is a description of life forming from non-living matter. In that case, it is believed to have been under the will and action of God, but aside from that difference, the essence of the issue roughly aligns with current scientific hypotheses.". You are saying that the only exception to the creation of life from non-living matter is God's will and actions.

No. I was just paralleling a bit of the Genesis story that illustrates that even God is considered to have made man from non-living matter. So the creationists quibble about abiogenesis is somewhat hypocritical, given they believe the Genesis account literally. You are reading way to much into this and missing much of my words as well.

This is special pleading, and an argument from ignorance.

You are bringing your own bias into this and giving my words way too much credit for things they were not addressing. It would be special pleading if I claimed that Genesis was correct and the origin of life or man was from the actions of God and not from natural processes. I did not do that, so we are all good.

If you don't want people to address your comments, simply don't make them.

I have never said that I do not want people addressing my comments. If I did not want that, I would not be here at all. But I also cannot stop people from bringing their own bias in and rewriting what I wrote and addressing it as if it was what was written, either. Pointing out that the inclusion of your comments was not relevant to my response to the OP is not trying to divert away from the comments of others. It is clarifying the fact that I did not need to include your additons in my responses to someone else. They needed to be considered in my responses to you and they were.

Finally, if you believe in all the fundamental scientific explanations, and their underlying laws and Theories, then why are you a Christian believing in an errant Book of fictions, superstitions, fables, and myths? Is it only because you have the freedom to do so?

Since, this is not a thread about my Christian views, I will just say that I believe in God. I do not ask or command anyone else to believe. I do not use it to address or as an answer to what is observed in nature. That should be enough of a reason for you. Unless you can demonstrate that God does not exist. If you can do that, I would be interested in reading that. I am not closed-minded.

A virus is not alive until it is attached to a host. It will then exhibit all the characteristics of being alive. Your reference to spontaneous generation has nothing to do with non-living, inert precursors to life. Spontaneous generation was a term used as a result of human ignorance, and was applied to anything that appeared that wasn't there before. If you left some cheese out the night before, and rats appeared in the morning, spontaneous generation was the answer given for the rats appearance. Maybe you should have given some examples of these precursors that supported the chemical evolution claim. Perhaps you could have stated that these precursors collectively led to the various stages of producing life(reproduction, excretory, stimulus response, movement, metabolism, etc.) over time. Since you clearly misunderstood my "corbomite" and alien energy example to help rationalize fictitious creationist's arguments, maybe the episode "The Measure of a Man" (Lt. Data) in The Next Generation, might help you determined what components are necessary to be considered as alive.

No offense, but you are just repeating what I said. Perhaps worded a little differently and then claiming that I did not say what you are saying.

I will repeat. Spontaneous generation was mentioned by the author of the OP. I explained that spontaneous generation was a creationist concept. A belief. I did not go into the details like cheese and mice, but I do not see that I needed to. I explained that it was a view that existing living things popped magically into existence fully formed. I explained that science had shown this was not the case. I correctly identified it as different from abiogenesis as it is hypothesized today. I do not recall if I mentioned precursors or just chemistry, but either would be sufficient. I did not have time or room to write a detailed dissertation on the subject.

I appreciate that you measure your comments to appeal to both sides of the argument.

Thank you. I am not doing it for appeal. Claiming something I believe, but cannot demonstrate, is evidence for a natural phenomenon is ridiculous. I am not going to do something ridiculous.

Unfortunately, the religious argument has the burden of proof, but refuse to exercise it. They simply keep mindlessly attacking any non-absolute aspect of science that they can find(or told). So unless you are willing to provide any evidence for even ONE example of a miracle, a resurrection, a God(s), a paranormal, supernatural or metaphysical event, a method to determining if all other religions are false, or provide a fallacy-free argument, I'm afraid that you might just wind up avoiding taking any clear position at all. You have already admitted, that you are unable to posit any scientific evidence to support the Bible or any religious beliefs. Therefore, it is inherently disingenuous and hypocritical to create a climate of disbelief, in any non-belief based system of inquiries, like the scientific method of inquiry.

I have no burden of proof. I am not making a religious claim. I am saying that I am a Christian and I believe in God. My word on that is my proof. Unless you are claiming that you can show that I am lying about that. Lots of luck with that, but it is the only claim I am making and it can be proven. You'll have to meet me at the church and talk to a lot of old friends to verify that I went to church with them. You'll have to foot the bill. I accept the burden of proof on the claims I made, but not the bill for running the experiment.

I appreciate your posts, but I do want to say that I think you read too much into what I said and ignored a good deal of it as well.

 

[He has Risen!]

The point is that either the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time (a logical possibility) or it has existed for finite amount of time, but is still uncaused because there was nothing prior to the universe (no time when the universe did not exist).

in any case, your argument fails.

Let me ask you this question so that we can clarify your belief about infinite universe time. Let us suppose that there were an infinite amount of moments before the moment we are currently in, how were we able to REACH this moment if we cannot REACH a starting point?

 

[Polymath257]

The words that came from the mouth of Jesus prove the existence of God. Why is that? Logic. Jesus claimed to be God, His claim to deity was validated by Him healing the sick, calming the stormy sea, feeding the multitudes with a few fish and loaves, knowing what people were thinking, knowing the future, raising the dead and finally coming back to life after His body was dead for 3 days. These are the proofs of a person that greater than any other in history. And our dating method is based on His birth.

Well, the places where those stories are made aren't places I consider to be reliable. I think there *may* have been a wandering preacher that ended up getting crucified by the Romans, but the of miracles and resurrection are, I believe, myths and legends, not reality.

Our dating methods are based on his presumed birthday because some people a few centuries later decided to make calendars based on their beliefs. That's hardly a justification for the existence of a deity nor that Jesus was such.

 

[Polymath257]

Let me ask you this question so that we can clarify your belief about infinite universe time. Let us suppose that there were an infinite amount of moments before the moment we are currently in, how were we able to REACH this moment if we cannot REACH a starting point?

Well, the whole point is that there *isn't* a starting point. Why would we need to reach such a thing to 'arrive' where we are?

let me put it this way: what is the start of the negative integers? -2, -3 -4 ...

 

[He has Risen!]

Well, the whole point is that there *isn't* a starting point. Why would we need to reach such a thing to 'arrive' where we are?

let me put it this way: what is the start of the negative integers? -2, -3 -4 ...

Yore example is a great example of the point that I am trying to get you to understand. But perhaps someone else on this thread can word it better for you than I.

 

[Polymath257]

Yore example is a great example of the point that I am trying to get you to understand. But perhaps someone else on this thread can word it better for you than I.

Well,my example sows what is wrong with the claims you have made. There *is* no start to the negative integers. But yet, -1 is certainly a negative integer. There is no difficulty getting to -1.

Even more, at any point you decide to start with, there is an infinite number of negative numbers before that point, and only a finite number to get up to 0. So, to get to 0 only requires a finite amount of time from any place in the sequence.

In the case of time, all that happens is that there is always something going on. There is always a previous time in which the universe exists. There is no beginning.

I really fail to see what is the obstacle to 'arriving' at the current time if there is no beginning.

/E: This argument was popularized by William Craig and I have to admit that I have never seen any value in it. Maybe it's because I am a mathematician and deal with infinities every day. But Craig seems to completely misunderstand some very basic facts about infinite sets.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I afraid I am not certain what your position really is. Either you believe in the reality that exists, or you simply create the reality you want to exist. Do you believe or acknowledge that all life, including its non-living components, are controlled only by how they interacts with the four fundamental forces of nature? Do you believe that over time, inert and non-living matter(chemicals and molecules), would assemble themselves to become more efficient, and produce a single precursor to life? And eventually over a billion years, to produce a completely primitive living organism? This would be thermodynamically driven by an open system, not simply by probability alone. After the first primitive life evolved, evolution became a fact. Also, the less specialize an organism is, the more primitive it is. We are all a composite of billions of singularly specialized cells. We are NOT something greater than the sum of these parts.

Also, if you make comments, you must expect your comments to be addressed. You can't manipulate, or deflect the scope of the response, by deciding if it is relevant or germane to the OP. You made the comments concerning Religion and the Constitution. "People are free to do just that and believe as they choose. This is a recognized freedom and protected in the constitutions of many countries". Therefore, my comments were relevant. You are the one that also slipped in God's will and action as the source of creation, "In fact, the description of God creating man is a description of life forming from non-living matter. In that case, it is believed to have been under the will and action of God, but aside from that difference, the essence of the issue roughly aligns with current scientific hypotheses.". You are saying that the only exception to the creation of life from non-living matter is God's will and actions. This is special pleading, and an argument from ignorance. If you don't want people to address your comments, simply don't make them. Finally, if you believe in all the fundamental scientific explanations, and their underlying laws and Theories, then why are you a Christian believing in an errant Book of fictions, superstitions, fables, and myths? Is it only because you have the freedom to do so?

A virus is not alive until it is attached to a host. It will then exhibit all the characteristics of being alive. Your reference to spontaneous generation has nothing to do with non-living, inert precursors to life. Spontaneous generation was a term used as a result of human ignorance, and was applied to anything that appeared that wasn't there before. If you left some cheese out the night before, and rats appeared in the morning, spontaneous generation was the answer given for the rats appearance. Maybe you should have given some examples of these precursors that supported the chemical evolution claim. Perhaps you could have stated that these precursors collectively led to the various stages of producing life(reproduction, excretory, stimulus response, movement, metabolism, etc.) over time. Since you clearly misunderstood my "corbomite" and alien energy example to help rationalize fictitious creationist's arguments, maybe the episode "The Measure of a Man" (Lt. Data) in The Next Generation, might help you determined what components are necessary to be considered as alive.

I appreciate that you measure your comments to appeal to both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, the religious argument has the burden of proof, but refuse to exercise it. They simply keep mindlessly attacking any non-absolute aspect of science that they can find(or told). So unless you are willing to provide any evidence for even ONE example of a miracle, a resurrection, a God(s), a paranormal, supernatural or metaphysical event, a method to determining if all other religions are false, or provide a fallacy-free argument, I'm afraid that you might just wind up avoiding taking any clear position at all. You have already admitted, that you are unable to posit any scientific evidence to support the Bible or any religious beliefs. Therefore, it is inherently disingenuous and hypocritical to create a climate of disbelief, in any non-belief based system of inquiries, like the scientific method of inquiry.

I wanted to add, that your questions make me...I am not sure the proper word here, not confused, but something like that. I know a lot of scientists that are Christian. I do not know any of them to publish their personal views as the cause of the observations they make or to disregard findings because of a personal distaste for them in light of their personal beliefs. Are you under the impression that scientists are only atheists?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are correct, when you die that's it. Unless you can demonstrate that it isn't, I'm afraid you'll just have to suck-it-up. I don't understand why you are in such obstinate denial. You can clearly see from the fossil and current evidence, examples of individual organisms at every stage of development, that is characteristic of the definition of life. Why do you find it so hard to accept and understand why we have a genetic, and almost symbiotic connection with our environment? Why do you keep mindlessly parroting creationist's narrow-minded soundbites? Do you really think that creation and evolution were the product of magic? Can you demonstrate any examples of magic occurring anytime in the history of mankind? But we can certainly point to many examples of science occurring? Any rational person can accept the transition from simple to complex. Unless you think you can play Schumann's Toccata in C Major, without learning simple chords first. So why is it so hard to accept that self-sustaining life was the product of trial and error over time, by an assembly or coming together of non-living materials? Even the fact that we are 99% composed of these non-living materials, don't even cause you to bat an eyelash.

What is clearly obvious, is that you are not interested in science providing you with any evidence. You are only interested in NOT providing any evidence to justify your own religious beliefs.

How have you established that when we die, that is it? It is my understanding that we do not know what happens after death. We neither know that we surrender to paradise, live in limbo, something else or that is it. I have my own beliefs about what happens, but it is not scientific and something I can prove. It is based on faith.

Claiming that upon death that is it, is a positive claim and places you under a burden of proof to demonstrate 'that is it'.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh. you mean the "woo-woo" force.

Tell us more about those ribs.

 

[Polymath257]

How have you established that when we die, that is it? It is my understanding that we do not know what happens after death. We neither know that we surrender to paradise, live in limbo, something else or that is it. I have my own beliefs about what happens, but it is not scientific and something I can prove. It is based on faith.

Claiming that upon death that is it, is a positive claim and places you under a burden of proof to demonstrate 'that is it'.

Well, we know that after death bodies decay. We know that the brains decay. We also know that brains are the medium for consciousness, so it is reasonable to say that consciousness stops.

if anything, there is a LOT of evidence for what happens after death. Some people just don't like the conclusions to be drawn and make philosophical run-arounds to prevent those conclusions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, we know that after death bodies decay. We know that the brains decay. We also know that brains are the medium for consciousness, so it is reasonable to say that consciousness stops.

if anything, there is a LOT of evidence for what happens after death. Some people just don't like the conclusions to be drawn and make philosophical run-arounds to prevent those conclusions.

I do not disagree with you about the conditions of the decay of the body, but I still do not know 'that is it'. I recognize it is a God of the gaps argument, but it is my personal belief and believing it hurts no one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, we know that after death bodies decay. We know that the brains decay. We also know that brains are the medium for consciousness, so it is reasonable to say that consciousness stops.

if anything, there is a LOT of evidence for what happens after death. Some people just don't like the conclusions to be drawn and make philosophical run-arounds to prevent those conclusions.

I do find it interesting that the fact is, I do not use my beliefs to qualify scientific investigations or findings, I do not proselytize, even where it is not banned or tell others what to believe or not believe and do not seem to get the same tolerance in return. There seem to be a lot of people on both sides that are concerned about the reasons and validity of my belief. I can assure you reasons exist and I have thought about it a great deal. I am more than ok with the consequences that I could be wrong or even directing my belief to the wrong target in light of Steven Stichs response to Pascal's Wager. For me, it is a none issue.

I know the creationists hate it, because here is a scientist that accepts the findings and views of science, but is also a Christian. I am not sure why the atheists would be bothered, but maybe there are reasons there too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are 3 explanations to the existence of our universe (there maybe more but they probably fall into these three categories or it is an explanation that cannot be explained or understood).
1. Can something cause itself to come into being?
answer- No, because it would have required itself to exist before it was.
2. Can the universe be eternal?
answer-No, because if the universe had no starting point we could never arrive at the present. Every moment in time can be measured because we have a point at which to start, but if the universe had no starting point then we could never arrive at any point in time because we never started.
3. Was the universe created by a being greater than itself?
Yes-The logic here is that everything that has begun to exist has to have a cause. The universe began to exist, therefor it follows that it was caused by something outside its own existence, i.e.,GOD.

And I reject all three of your premises. Your logic is faulty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not familiar with your belief. Please explain in detail this monster of yours.

Really? You are unfamiliar with the world's fastest growing carbohydrate based religion?

Rather than me explaining here is a short video that goes over the basics: