Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
54 online now:
frako, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,211 Year: 22,247/19,786 Month: 810/1,834 Week: 310/500 Day: 9/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 106 of 176 (477496)
08-03-2008 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by ICANT
08-03-2008 4:26 PM


Re: Points In Time
Did I mention time as you and I know it?

Are we pretending we have an intellectual understanding of imaginary time? Or are we just using it as one of our magic phrases to fudge our argument to save us from having to admit we are drawing a blank when it comes to how the Universe really works?

I am still convinced that the universe existing today and Hawking and Peebles saying it had a beginning is the best evidence for creation.

Why would we convince ourselves of such a thing when we must realize that the honest position would be to admit complete ignorance? Firstly, their writings are chock full of anthropomorphism and vernacular. It's a limitation of the language that we adjust for ourselves so as not belabor the writer. We don't believe that an apple feels the force of gravity drawing it to the Earth do we? Secondly, the speculations of scientists are not evidence of anything but their own ignorance, which they are admitting. Surely, their brand of ignorance is far superior to our brand of knowledge, and that is more the reason to admit our own.

[sarcasm]I think this might be one of those rare occasions where we would learn more by asking questions and listening to the answers then by doggedly insisting that we know the true nature of the Universe.[/sarcasm]


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.

One hot lesbian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 4:26 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 9:35 PM lyx2no has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 107 of 176 (477498)
08-03-2008 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by cavediver
08-03-2008 5:54 PM


Re: Bounce
cavediver writes:

There is no such thing as a 'bounce theorist' - it is just one idea.

The oscillatory universe has many big crunches each followed by a bounce and expansion.

The cyclic model has a universe exploding into existence many times.

One new cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe.

The central idea is that the visible, four-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the "bulk".

Brane cosmology refers to several theories in particle physics and cosmology motivated by, but not exclusively derived from, superstring theory and M-theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

cavediver writes:

there has never been an 'absence of any thing'

I agree.

There has always been some thing.

But if the universe had a beginning that is the best evidence for creation.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2008 5:54 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by cavediver, posted 08-04-2008 5:48 AM ICANT has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 108 of 176 (477499)
08-03-2008 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by lyx2no
08-03-2008 7:39 PM


Re: Points In Time
lyx2no writes:

Are we pretending we have an intellectual understanding of imaginary time? Or are we just using it as one of our magic phrases to fudge our argument to save us from having to admit we are drawing a blank when it comes to how the Universe really works?

I know how the universe works but that is not the discussion here.

The discussion here is what is the best evidence a creationist has for creation.

lyx2no writes:

Why would we convince ourselves of such a thing when we must realize that the honest position would be to admit complete ignorance?

Please notice I say "IF" the universe did not exist but had a beginning (origin) (came into existence) that is the best evidence for creation (something created, brought into existence)Message 73

There is no time involved of any kind.

There is no point of any kind involved.

The only thing involved is existence and non existence.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by lyx2no, posted 08-03-2008 7:39 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by lyx2no, posted 08-04-2008 8:53 AM ICANT has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 109 of 176 (477501)
08-03-2008 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by onifre
08-03-2008 4:50 PM


Re: No evidence so far.
onifre writes:

your link wasn't to Son Goku's explanation.

Link worked for me but I am set to 100 messages. It is message 295.

onifre writes:

I don't see how a particular temperature creates a problem for String theory. Could you explain...

My question is how would you get any information prior to that hot place. GR breaks down nothing is known at that point.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by onifre, posted 08-03-2008 4:50 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by onifre, posted 08-03-2008 10:10 PM ICANT has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1293 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 110 of 176 (477503)
08-03-2008 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ICANT
08-03-2008 9:49 PM


Re: No evidence so far.
GR breaks down nothing is known at that point.

Exactly, so why would you presume it has an origin?

Why would you presume it has a creator?

Why would you presume to know who the creator is?


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 9:49 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 10:38 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 111 of 176 (477505)
08-03-2008 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by onifre
08-03-2008 10:10 PM


Re: No evidence so far.
onifre writes:

Exactly, so why would you presume it has an origin?

It either has an origin or it has always existed in some form.

onifre writes:

Why would you presume it has a creator?

I would presume a creator because of my personal beliefs.

But I have not been talking about a creator.

I have said and maintain that:

'IF' the universe did not exist, as stated by Hawking and Peebles but had a beginning that is the best evidence I as a creationist (one who believes in creation) can offer for creation.

I go on to maintain as I have throughout this thread that I believe that it has always existed in some form.

But that does not say that it did not have a beginning in the form as we see it today.

I believe it did have a beginning in the form we see it today.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by onifre, posted 08-03-2008 10:10 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1986 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 112 of 176 (477511)
08-04-2008 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by ICANT
08-03-2008 9:11 PM


Re: Bounce
cavediver writes:

there has never been an 'absence of any thing'

I agree.

No, you don't. Even if the existence is only 14 billion years old, there has never been an 'absence of any thing'.

But if the universe had a beginning that is the best evidence for creation.

It is only evidence for creation when viewed from a very naive understanding of space-time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 9:11 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 9:41 AM cavediver has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 113 of 176 (477517)
08-04-2008 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by ICANT
08-03-2008 9:35 PM


No You Don't
I know how the universe works but that is not the discussion here.

No one knows how the Universe works. Using a television as an analogy; cavediver could adjust the beam compensators, I could change the channel, and you could put a doily on top of it.

The discussion here is what is the best evidence a creationist has for creation.

Yes, but I don't think Brian merely intended that we assign those things we might consider evidence ordinals but to discuss the quality of their evidentiary value.

Please notice I say "IF" the universe did not exist but had a beginning (origin) (came into existence) that is the best evidence for creation (something created, brought into existence)

Making a statement conditional does not protect the statement from examination. Especially when the statement has the form: IF God and his angels exist then they are real. The premise should not be a definition of the conclusion.

I need to know how you define "create"; i.e., does a tree "create" shade?


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.

One hot lesbian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2008 9:35 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 11:14 AM lyx2no has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 114 of 176 (477520)
08-04-2008 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by cavediver
08-04-2008 5:48 AM


Re: Existence
cavediver writes:

No, you don't. Even if the existence is only 14 billion years old, there has never been an 'absence of any thing'.

So you want to limit existence to the approximate age of the universe.

I have no idea how you define existence.

To me existence is the opposite of nonexistence.

Existence = some thing exists.

Nonexistence = no thing exists.

Now lets try the dictionary.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/existence

N ex·is·tence
1. The fact or state of existing; being.
2. The fact or state of continued being; life:
3.
a. All that exists:
b. A thing that exists; an entity.
4. A mode or manner of existing:
5. Specific presence; occurrence:

Since there is existence now...
And there was nonexistence 14 billion years ago as you say.
There had to be a creation of existence 14 billion years ago as it did not exist.

cavediver writes:

ICANT writes:

But if the universe had a beginning that is the best evidence for creation.

It is only evidence for creation when viewed from a very naive understanding of space-time.

You have told me many times there is nothing outside the universe.

Therefore space-time exists only inside the universe as well as gravity, matter, and all energy.

So what is there to understand about space-time.
It did not and does not exist for the universe to exist in. Matter and energy did not exist to form all the things in the universe, until the universe existed.
Gravity did not exist until well into expansion.
These things only exist inside the universe.

If the universe did not exist, had a beginning as stated by Hawking and Peebles it had to be created by some means.

If that was by some magical brane's banging together it was still creation.
If it was by some magical string expanding into the universe that was still creation.

If it was by any other means it was still creation.

Notice all three of these methods would be outside the universe.

'If the universe had a beginning/origin, It had to be created. (brought into being/existence)

That is the best evidence for creation.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by cavediver, posted 08-04-2008 5:48 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-04-2008 11:03 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 116 by Rahvin, posted 08-04-2008 11:08 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2008 11:10 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 130 by cavediver, posted 08-05-2008 3:39 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 115 of 176 (477535)
08-04-2008 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ICANT
08-04-2008 9:41 AM


Re: Existence
Sorry ICANT, to intrude on this thread, but have you heard from the Naturalist, Autunman? Its been several days now with no responses.

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 9:41 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 116 of 176 (477536)
08-04-2008 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ICANT
08-04-2008 9:41 AM


Re: Existence
I'm really not going to go into cosmology with you, ICANT. Not again. You have shown a complete inability to comprehend even the most basic of concepts in that regard, and it's a dead end.

Fortunately, that's not actually the topic. So rather than rehash that tired old argument yet again, I'll just concentrate on the portion of your post relevant to the topic.

'If the universe had a beginning/origin, It had to be created. (brought into being/existence)

That is the best evidence for creation.

Fortunately, this doesn't depend on cosmology, because the flaw is your root assumption: all things that have a beginning have a creator.

Your basic assumption is completely bogus. A storm system has a beginning, and yet it's a natural phenomenon without a creator. Earthquakes have beginnings, but no creators. Stars have beginnings, but no creators. Galaxies have beginnings, but no creators.

Why then does the Universe, which also has a beginning, require a creator?

Do you mean a violation of thermodynamics by creating matter and energy requires a creator? Perhaps - I wouldn't know, since that's not possible in our Universe. Big bang cosmology certainly says nothing about matter and energy being created - all of the mass/energy of the Universe has existed for then entire time the Universe has existed. There is no point in time where it did not exist. And since we have no examples of spontaneous formation of mass/energy ex nihilo (barring the spontaneous formation of particle/antiparticle pairs in quantum physics that then immediately self-annihilate and cause no actual change in the mass/energy total of the Universe, which of course also do not seem to have a creator), it's logically unfounded to insist that even such a thing would require a creator.

You say that the fact that the Universe has a beginning is the "best evidence" for a creator, but it's not evidence for a creator at all. So if this is the best you have, you really don't have any evidence at all. It seems to me you're just manipulating layman dictionary definitions that were never intended to be binding from a scientific standpoint in an attempt to prove your assertion, and instead you're just repeating nonsense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 9:41 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 12:18 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 819 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 117 of 176 (477537)
08-04-2008 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ICANT
08-04-2008 9:41 AM


Re: Existence
ICANT writes:

Since there is existence now...
And there was nonexistence 14 billion years ago as you say.
There had to be a creation of existence 14 billion years ago as it did not exist.

So, existence was created 14 billion years ago by a non-existent creator, was it?

How fascinating!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 9:41 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2008 12:34 PM bluegenes has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 118 of 176 (477538)
08-04-2008 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by lyx2no
08-04-2008 8:53 AM


Re: No You Don't
lyx2no writes:

No one knows how the Universe works.

I know you believe that. But just because you believe it does not make it a fact.

As I said this is not the place to discuss what I know or do not know.

This thread is about Brians question:

Brian writes:

So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?

My answer:

If the universe did not exist and had a beginning/origin that is the best evidence for creation (brought into existence).

Because it makes a lot more sense than saying it poofed into existence from an absence of any thing as cavediver has assured be there has never been an absence of any thing.

lyx2no writes:

I need to know how you define "create"; i.e., does a tree "create" shade?

You can find my definition of beginning and creation Here

The tree does not create the shade just as the ground does not create the tree.

lyx2no writes:

Making a statement conditional does not protect the statement from examination. Especially when the statement has the form: IF God and his angels exist then they are real. The premise should not be a definition of the conclusion.

Do you have physical evidence that God and angels are real and exist today?

There is physical evidence the universe exists today. It is real.

Hawking and Peebles say the universe had a beginning. Hawking says the universe did not always exist.

So how did it begin to exist?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by lyx2no, posted 08-04-2008 8:53 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by lyx2no, posted 08-04-2008 10:27 PM ICANT has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 119 of 176 (477547)
08-04-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rahvin
08-04-2008 11:08 AM


Re: Existence
Rahvin writes:

Fortunately, this doesn't depend on cosmology, because the flaw is your root assumption: all things that have a beginning have a creator.

Where in my statement did I mention a creator.

You are the one assuming a creator.

If two branes collided and caused the universe to begin to exist wouldn't that fulfill my statement.

ICANT writes:

'If the universe had a beginning/origin, It had to be created. (brought into being/existence)
That is the best evidence for creation.

It makes no difference what brings the universe into existence.

If it did not exist as Hawking says and has a beginning as Hawking and Peebles say, it had to be brought into existence by some means.

Because it is real here and now.

Rahvin writes:

Your basic assumption is completely bogus. A storm system has a beginning, and yet it's a natural phenomenon without a creator. Earthquakes have beginnings, but no creators. Stars have beginnings, but no creators. Galaxies have beginnings, but no creators.

Does a storm have a cause?
Does an earthquake have a cause?
Do stars have a cause?
Do galaxies have a cause?

cavediver says the universe does not have causality. Message 61

Rahvin writes:

You say that the fact that the Universe has a beginning is the "best evidence" for a creator,

Where did I say this?

I said in the message you are replying to the last two sentences:

"If the universe had a beginning/origin, It had to be created. (brought into being/existence)

That is the best evidence for creation."

Rahvin writes:

you're just repeating nonsense.

Did the universe not exist as Hawking says?

Did the universe have a beginning as Hawking says?

Could you please explain how if the universe did not exist as Hawking says.

Exists today without having an origin/coming into being which is creation.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rahvin, posted 08-04-2008 11:08 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 120 of 176 (477549)
08-04-2008 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by bluegenes
08-04-2008 11:10 AM


Re: Existence
Hi bluegenes,

I will remind you as you did me that we need to read the simple english and not jump to conclusions.

bluegenes writes:

So, existence was created 14 billion years ago by a non-existent creator, was it?

How fascinating!

You are replying to a message to cavediver where I said:

"as you say"

So to answer your question. NO

Existence has no beginning and no end.

Only the things that exist in existence has a beginning and end.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2008 11:10 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by bluegenes, posted 08-05-2008 3:29 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019