Three models for the origin of the universe

There are basically three different models that describe the origin of the universe, the YEC-model, the OEC-model and the atheistic model.

1. YEC-model (Young Earth Creationism):
   The universe was created by God approximately 6000 years ago within 6 (24 hour) days.
   ​
2. OEC-model (Old Earth Creationism):
   The universe was created by God, but not necessarily within 6 (24 hour) days and not necessarily 6000 years ago.
   ​
3. Atheistic model:
   The universe came into existence through chance and/or natural events.

Proposition If you disagree, please mention events or experiments that could make a distinction between the three.Please note that I only want to discuss the proposition, not which model you think is correct, or anything else. If you want to discuss something else in this post, send me an e-mail and maybe I'll start another thread on that specific topic.I hope to get interesting replies; I'm always open for well-founded criticism and am certainly willing to reconsider/revise my viewpoints.Greets StellaticThis message has been edited by Stellatic, 05-19-2004 03:50 AM

---

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

Hi PaulK,Thanks for your reply.I'm sorry, but I really didn't want to discuss your second issue, the actual course of events. I didn't mean three models for the history of the universe; I really meant the origin, the event at t=0 or ultimate causation, as you put it.I'm glad to read that you basically agree with me on my proposition, however I disagree with your reasoning why. You say that you can't make a distinction between them, because if the atheistic model proposes a natural explanation, the creationistic model just has to add a proposition that says: `God created this proposed natural phenomenon that made the universe come into existence'. So for every atheistic model there exists a creationistic model that makes the same predictions. Of course this is in fact possible, but in this case I wouldn't grant the models equal scientific status. I think the extra proposition would decrease the scientific status of the creationistic model.My reasoning for equal scientific status is not that God could be behind the natural events of the atheistic model, but that from our point of view, there is no way to distinguish between a universe that came into existence through natural or supernatural events.I'm really sorry that it wasn't quite clear what I wanted to discuss, because due to my vagueness most of your writings were just a waste of your time. Nevertheless I found it very interesting and I have to restrain myself from responding to the second part of your post. Maybe I'll start a discussion on these matters later, I'm afraid I haven't got enough time to start another thread about it now.greets Stellatic

Hi jar, That's right. In principle there could be a God that came into being together with the universe or existed before that time, but did not create the universe. Atheistic is probably not the best word, but I had to give it some name, right? Sure, but that would be Model 2, wouldn't it? The fact that after creation the universe follows natural laws (at least most of the time), explains why physics is so useful. Besides, if God created the universe, he obviously designed the laws of physics, so in a way still controls the universe.Greets Stellatic

Hi PaulK, I disagree. YEC and OEC differ in their statement at what point in time the universe was created. They do not necessarily have to propose a different course of events. If the universe was created some 6000 years ago, it is still possible to calculate further back to find out what the universe would look like if it already existed at that time. You would expect (but even this is not necessarily true) that at some point this calculating back doesn't make much sense anymore and basically we end up at such a point: a spacetime singularity at what usually is called the Big Bang.Click image for full size version It really is different from what you said and I'm not substituting Gods for viable natural mechanisms. I understand now that you tend to the atheistic model, because it seems to me that your idea of substitution is dominated by your prejudices. An equally prejudiced creationist would probably say something like: "Those atheists are just substituting a natural mechanism for a viable God". I'm trying to leave all my prejudices behind in order to `develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue'.
I was just saying that from our viewpoint, there is no way to distinguish between a universe that came into being through natural events or a universe that was made by God. The above picture illustrates this: the history of the universe after it came into being is the same for all three models. 'prior cause'? I'm sorry, but what do you mean? A prior cause to the ultimate cause? A prior cause to a natural mechanism? A prior cause to God? I didn't assign any capabilities to this God beyond creating the universe. But if this God could create a universe, there probably wouldn't be many things he couldn't do, would there? Anyway, all other properties of God do not matter in this thread; the creationists models include models with Gods that just create universes and do nothing afterwards.Greets StellaticThis message has been edited by Admin, 05-25-2004 08:00 AM

---

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

Hi PaulK, Funny, in your first post you said I was conflating two different issues (ultimate cause / course of events) and now you're saying they are in fact one! It basically depends on whether you take the course of events to be the open interval 0 < t or the closed interval 0 <= t. In your first post you chose the open interval and I would prefer this definition; in this case the course of events is completely unrelated to this discussion.I don't understand why you keep on bringing it up. In order to not ending up discussing the history of the universe, I defined the three models as general as possible. They only differ in their statements concerning the origin of the universe. I'm still able to turn it into a prejudiced creationist's phrase without any obvious lacks in his reasoning as compared to yours: "If we have a viable God to explain an event it is certainly unscientific to attribute it to a natural mechanism instead."
By using 'viable' you are somehow assuming that this natural mechanism could be tested, verified and falsified. If this is what you mean by 'viable', I'd like to say some things about it. In this case it surely would be a scientific model, but merely because it was assumed to be beforehand. If the atheistic model would be: "The universe came into existence through chance and/or natural mechanisms and these natural mechanisms are assumed to be 'viable' (i.e. testable, verifiable, falsifiable and thus scientific).", yes, it would be scientific, but I don't think it counts. If you say a natural mechanism is testable, then you have to give an example of an experimental test that can be carried out. As far as I'm concerned, there are no such testable natural mechanisms for the origin of the universe. If there are, I'd like to hear about them. That is the meaning that seemed most logically to me, but in this case, what do you mean by: It seems to me that either the latter half is by definition true (we don't know the causes prior to those that are known to us) so that we just have to accept it, or that you are taking into account the possibility of no cause at all, which I would find rather interesting and would like to go into in more detail. Ah, that's what you mean by capabilities. Yes, I guess you are right then: that would be an assumption. But would the cause 'God without being a person' then be a natural mechanism? Isn't it true that by being a natural mechanism, additional capabilities are also assigned to the ultimate cause? Saying the ultimate cause was a natural mechanism is something else than saying there was an ultimate cause. I think by saying it was a natural mechanism, it is assumed that this mechanism would continuously produce infinitely many universes, except when by creating one universe the parameters of this mechanism are changed in a way that ends the process.But before we're going deep into the discussion how many assumptions would be involved by each of the models, let's take a step back and think about what it would mean if one of the models involved more or more complex assumptions. In Message 14 you said: You are saying that the model with the smallest set of assumptions would be the one parsimony would favour, but the question was whether science could favour one of them, not whether parsimony could favour one of them. If we're going to ask parsimony, then why not the credibility, the popularity, the simplicity, the complexity or even the beauty of the model? It appears that in your opinion the model parsimony would favour is the model science would favour too. It sounds reasonable, but do you have a reason for this opinion? That would interest me, so please explain.Greets Stellatic

---

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

Hi PaulK,Reading your post, I got the idea that you were a bit pissed-off. I'm really sorry if I pissed you of, I didn't intend to do this. I can give an answer to your last reply, if you still want this. Otherwise I will let it rest for a while.Greets Stellatic

---

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

Hi Kent,No, I'm not proposing apparent age, at least not in the sense that certain things have been created on purpose in such a way that it looks to have a certain age in every possible way, but is in fact younger. Although this certainly is a possibility and it's OK for anyone to believe this, we will not take this possibility into account. Not because it's impossible, but because it's untestable by definition. It would be different if the model would explain that there are good reasons for it to be created in that way, but an entity that by definition exactly mimics another non-existent entity for no good reason is not testable, so unscientific. It certainly could be true, but it has no value for science. If science would have to take these kind of things into account (including Last Thursdayism, did you invent this yourself? Very funny !), the only conclusion science could draw would be: "Cogito ergo sum" (Descartes).What I meant was, that when you're using one dating method, you shouldn't be surprised to get an age higher than the age of the universe, because you don't know what the situation was at the beginning of the universe. If on the other hand, several dating methods result in the same age, that would be a coincidence, which would tend to falsify theories that have no explanation for this.But anyway, your post set me thinking and I do agree with you on some points. PaulK also pointed out to me that there are events that could favour or disfavour the YEC-model. In fact I realize now that I gave some examples of them in my original post, so my proposition was actually a bit ill-considered.As for the geological dating issue, the YEC-model needs, in order to earn scientific status with model (2) and (3), to do one of the following:

1. Disprove the consistency of ages of rocks determined with geological dating.
   ​
   I've seen some YECs try to do this, but most of them ended up with conspiracy theories like "Those evolutionists only publish the consistent results to hide the inconsistencies in the ages of rocks". I don't think this is the way. When you want to check the consistency of geological dating, you have to date some rocks with several methods yourself and, this is the most important thing, do it without any expectations. Popper says about this: "It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory - if we look for confirmations.". ( Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 9-13. ) I know this is true from my own experience !
   ​
2. Design its own model for geological dating that shows the same consistency but results in lower ages.
   ​
   I think, though I'm not an expert in geology, it will be possible to design such a theory by just taking a different set of assumptions. It will take some time to work this out of course and since I'm not really a YEC myself I don't feel any tendency to try. I will take a look if someone else did.

If they have done one of these two things, I might grant them even a higher scientific status, as long as the earth's decaying magnetic field and the Oort cloud are not solved issues to me. Whether they will or not, it follows now that my proposition is false, there are conceivable events that could grant model (1) higher or lower scientific status. I'm a bit anxious to say this, because no YEC joined this discussion which is a bit unfair. Anyway, as long as no YEC joins and disagrees with us, I will revise my proposition:Proposition Greets Stellatic

---

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

Hi bob_gray98,I'm just wondering, but why do you think the third one is science and not religion? Most scientists use Poppers definition of a scientific theory: "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability" ( Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 9-13. ) Is model (3) better testable? I don't see why, but if you do, please explain why.I see you brought up a new model. Although I don't think anyone really believes this, it's perfectly OK to include it in my proposition. It would be (just as Last Thursdayism) a slightly altered version of model (1). Because I just came to the conclusion in post Message 22 that there are events that could favour model (1), the same holds for these two new models, so these could have a higher or lower scientific status too. I will therefor not include them in my new proposition either. By the way, did you know the author of Ardism (J.R.R. Tolkien) was a christian? His works and also this 'creation story' are heavily based on his catholic background. See: Why Tolkien Says The Lord of the Rings Is Catholic or google "Tolkien catholic".I think the post Message 22 basically answers your final question.Greets Stellatic

---

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

Hi PaulK,You could ask me to clarify things or explain what I mean with something in more detail, instead of saying that I'm talking 'complete nonsense', 'obvious untruths' and that everything I say is absurd. But anyway, since you replied, you probably do want a clarification instead of giving it a rest. I will try to clarify my proposition as good as possible. If something remains unclear, just ask.I wanted to discuss the scientific values of the different models for the origin of the universe. I thought about which possibilities there were and I realized they can be divided into three groups. One group saying the universe originated at the point where calculating further back is impossible (Big Bang) and there was some unknown natural mechanism involved in it. Another group saying basically the same, but with a God instead of a natural mechanism. And then finally a group saying the origin was somewhere between this theoretical starting point and now and that God was the cause of it (I don't know of any theories saying this happened due to a natural mechanism, so I didn't include this fourth possibility). I had to give these groups names, so I gave each of them a name that conforms with the people who generally agree with this model. Maybe I should just have numbered them to avoid misconceptions, but I thought a name would keep clear about which model someone was talking. By giving the models these names, I certainly did not want to include all other statements, that people of these standpoints have, in my models. So by saying that these models have equal scientific status, I don't mean the entire OEC or YEC view has equal scientific status with the atheistic worldview, just the models for the origin in the way I defined them.Furthermore I should note that in Message 22 I already excluded model (1) from my proposition, because there are events that could make a difference between a young or old universe. Although I realized later I gave examples of this myself in my original post, it was basically you and Kent who convinced me of this. So if you're doubting my openness and willingness to accept criticism, you should have a close look at the rest of the posts. I did'nt suggest this. I only said that if it's unscientific to replace one explanation by another, than it's also unscientific to replace the other with the first explanation. Except of course when one of them is more scientific than the other one, but the point of this whole discussion is to find out whether one of them is more scientific or not.I didn't want to accuse you of prejudices, what I meant is that it seems to me that you assume model (3) to be scientific beforehand. I concluded this from you using the word 'viable' in post 16 and 'scientific explanation' in post 24. Crudely speaking assuming it's scientific beforehand would be saying model (3) is more scientific because it's more scientific. I want to go much deeper than that.I hope I cleared things a bit up, let me know if I can do any more.Greets Stellatic

---

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

Hi bob_gray98,Thanks for your reply, finally this discussion is getting somewhere. I agree with your new proposition. Now I'm just wondering how model (1) fits in all of this. Could we include model (1) again in your new proposition? Or would it be more scientific than (2) and (3)? That would be quite unexpected, wouldn't it! By the way, before people get very angry, this would not say that (1) is more true. It could be more scientific but refuted (so less probable to be true) if there is evidence against it.Greets Stellatic

---

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

Hi bob_gray98, Oh sure, there are many aspects of the YEC view (and the others) that I didn't include in the models. PaulK brought some of them up too. In my last reply to him (Message 29) I explained that I only gave these models names like YEC and OEC, for the readers convenience. It appears now to be rather misleading; as if I'm claiming that the full YEC, OEC and atheistic view have the same scientific value. That would indeed be a different discussion.One last thing. You mentioned the 'most obvious' case of a 'clearly false' claim: a flood. I know this is extremely off-topic, but I'm really interested in the evidence against it. Could you explain this or give some good references. Preferably by e-mail (freezegek@hotmail.com), because otherwise this thread will probably end in chaos.Greets Stellatic

---

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

Hi PaulK,I disagree that dating an event at more than 6000 years ago would disprove the YEC position that easily. In post Message 22 I explained why: However, it doesn't matter for this discussion whether YEC is falsified, but whether YEC can be falsified. It appears that it can indeed be falsified and therefor I already excluded the YEC-model from my proposition, also in post Message 22.Furthermore I note again that I'm not a YEC myself. I have pointed this out before, so I don't know whether you think I am or not, but "Stellatic's "YEC position"" and "He can retreat to Omphalism" seem to hint at this. By the way, bob_gray98 also asked this, but what is Omphalism exactly? It looks to be something like ignoring all evidence, which is rather stupid and I'm certainly not going to retreat to that.Oops! I see that you have already explained Omphalism in the mean time. It appears to be much like apparent age and I gave my opinion on that before. If several dating methods result in a consistent age, that's a coincedence for which a model has to give an explanation. If it explains why it is necessary to have this appearance, I think the Omphalism-idea would be OK. But you say they don't have a satisfying explanation in many cases and I think I agree with you.Greets StellaticThis message has been edited by Stellatic, 06-16-2004 08:21 AM

---

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

Hi Lam,That's an interesting model. Certainly there are no false claims in this model. However there is one problem: this model can't be tested even in principle, which makes it just as unscientific as the other ones, if not even more unscientific. Or did you intend it to be some sort of unified model?Greets Stellatic

---

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

Hi PaulK,Ah, I see what you meant with absurdities.1) I thought that with 'history' you meant the history after the creation of the universe, so in the case of YEC only the past 6 ky. Since I didn't mean model (1) to be the entire YEC view, but just the model as defined in my first post, I didn't want to discuss what YECs usually claim to have happened during the past 6 ky. I realize now that with 'history' you meant the timespan between 13.7 Gy and 6 ky ago. Of course that plays a role in this discussion, leaving this out of consideration would surely be absurd. However it is not relevant for this discussion what happened during this history, but whether the reality of this history can be tested. It appears that this indeed can be tested and science can favour statements concerning the age of the universe. Which is basically why I excluded model (1) from my proposition in post Message 22.I understand now that I have been a bit slow-witted. Thanks for being so patient with me!2) On your second point I'm afraid we still disagree. I understand your position very well though, it's just that I see it slightly different.I agree that it is more scientific to attribute for example lightning to electromagnetism instead of attributing it to a god. Not because electromagnetism is a natural mechanism, but because it is testable. Attributing it to a god is untestable, because you can't conduct experiments with gods. You can't say: "God, produce lightning now", well you can say it, but, even assuming this god exists, there is no reason why he would listen to you. With electromagnetism on the other hand, you can conduct an experiment in a lab with the same conditions and each time you do it, lightning will strike.For the origin of the universe, I think model (2) and (3) are both untestable and therefore equally (un)scientific. I understand that you think model (3) is more scientific because you think natural explanations are by definiton more scientific and I can't say you're wrong. I shouldn't have used the word 'natural' in my definition of model (3), because it implies things that, in my opinion, do not apply to this model.If a theory is testable, then it's scientific. If the tests do not falsify the theory, the theory apparently describes nature and therefor is called 'natural'. This however is not what I meant with 'natural' in my definition of model (3), because I don't think these 'natural' events can be tested. What I meant was that these events (according to this theory) will occur again under the same conditions. They are (according to this theory) a consequence of the circumstances in combination with the way nature reacts on these circumstances. Therefor I called them natural, but I didn't meant 'testable' and certainly not 'verified by tests'.I already said that I didn't want to accuse you of prejudices; I'll explain here what I meant in more detail. What I wasn't saying is: "It's prejudiced to state something, because it's also prejudiced to state the opposite." That would basically make all statements prejudiced. What I meant with prejudices is taking a natural explanation as your starting point. After that you can ask whether we should keep this natural explanation or substitute a god for it. But why don't we start with: "We don't know what the cause of the existence of the universe is." and think about which optional explanations there are after that.Greets Stellatic

---

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein