Best evidence for Creation

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? 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]

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.One hot lesbian.

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.Brane cosmology - Wikipedia 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."

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. 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 73There 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."

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

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

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

No, you don't. Even if the existence is only 14 billion years old, there has never been an 'absence of any thing'. It is only evidence for creation when viewed from a very naive understanding of space-time.

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. 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. 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?

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.One hot lesbian.

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.Existence - definition of existence by The Free Dictionary 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. 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."

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

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. 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.

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

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: 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. You can find my definition of beginning and creation HereThe tree does not create the shade just as the ground does not create the tree. 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."

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. 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. 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 61Where 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." 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."

Hi bluegenes,I will remind you as you did me that we need to read the simple english and not jump to conclusions. You are replying to a message to cavediver where I said:"as you say"So to answer your question. NOExistence 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."