The Big Bang, The First Cause, and God

_{July 10, 2016

Atheism, Big Bang, Cosmology, Fine tuning, Logic and Reason, Multiverse, Philosophy}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Over on a recent thread there has been much interesting discussion about a recent debate between theist philosopher Rabbi Daniel Rowe and atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling. HeKS provided a review of the matter, focusing largely on his analysis of Jerry Coyne’s responses.

I agree with HeKS’s general observation that Coyne failed to adequately address the issues. Indeed, it seems Coyne failed to adequately understand some of the issues, a situation that is all too common.

However, I want to focus in this post on a specific aspect of the discussion, namely, some of the points raised by sean samis, starting @37 on that thread. In his comments, samis urges caution in drawing any conclusion from the Big Bang about deity’s existence or involvement. I do not necessarily share all of his conclusions, but I think a number of his points are worthy of additional discussion.

First of all, let me apologize to HeKS for starting a new thread. I initially began this as a comment to the prior thread, but it became long enough that it required a separate post. Additionally, I want to focus on a specific issue that tacks in a slightly different direction than the prior thread.

If the Universe Had a Beginning, then What?

samis begins by addressing the question of the universe being created ex nihilo:

The proper response to the creation ex nihilo argument is that science does not believe or claim that our universe was created ex nihilo. The argument is a red herring.

This is an important point, and one on which the Big Bang arguments for God seem to flounder. The fact that the universe had a beginning (and we should note here for accuracy’s sake that this is not a “fact” in an observational sense, but an inference), does not mean that whatever caused the universe had to be the First Cause or had to be God, in any sense of that word. That the universe had a beginning just means that something caused the universe. Nothing more; nothing less.

We can, indeed we must, approach claims of a multiverse or cosmic bubbles or some other universe-generating natural phenomenon with extreme skepticism. There are many problems with such ideas, which have been well detailed previously in these pages. But it simply does not follow that because the universe had a beginning that it must have been caused by the First Cause or that the First Cause has to be God.

Rather, what can be said is that: (a) no-one has any real observational evidence as to the cause of the universe; and (b) it is possible that the cause of the universe was the First Cause. In addition, we might add that (c) it is possible that the First Cause had a plan, a purpose, an intent, a desire, a design – attributes similar to what we see ourselves possessing as rational, intelligent, individual, creative beings.

The foregoing is a more modest claim. It is a reasonable claim, a supportable claim, a claim that is not at all challenged by the silly responses of the likes of Coyne & Co. It is certainly as good of a claim – probably better from most rational points of view – than the contorted naturalistic explanations we are often treated to.

Yet we must acknowledge that it is still a claim based more on likelihood and inference, than on certainty and deduction.

samis later remarks:

That [the First Cause is spaceless, timeless and immaterial] does not follow unless we are careful to specify that whatever space, time, or material this “non-extensional something” might be composed of, it is not the space, time, or material which is part of our universe.

In other words, this “non-extensional something” can (and probably does) occupy space, experience time, and is composed of some material, but it is not of the space, time, or material of our universe.

Also a point worth considering. Again, that the universe had a cause does not mean that the universe is all that there is or that the cause has no attributes similar to the attributes of our universe. It is probably fair to say – definitionally so – that the cause of the universe exists outside the universe, but that does not speak directly to other attributes of that cause.

samis continues:

Much less is it given that this First Cause have attributes of intelligence (mind, intention, goals, wants, relationships, affection, etc.). Absent these this First Cause would not be any deity but a mere “thing” or “things”.

This is true up to a point. Most of the attributes projected onto the First Cause flow not from any logical requirement of the First Cause itself, but from our personal beliefs and preferences about what we think that First Cause is, or should be. That is well enough as a philosophical or religious matter, but it is not sustainable as a logical, scientific or deductive matter.

That said, there are some hints of purpose and goal-oriented activity and planning that strike any thoughtful observer of the cosmos. Although not rising to the level of logical deduction, such hints certainly provide reasonable grounds to infer that the cause of the universe has certain attributes.

—–

How Far Can We Go?

It seems that with regard to the observable universe we have, at most, the following situation:

An inference, from observable facts, that the universe had a beginning.
A deduction that the universe had a cause.
A deduction that the cause was not within the universe itself (i.e., existed outside of the universe, both spatially and temporally).
An inference, from observable facts, that the universe has been finely tuned.
A deduction that the cause was capable of producing the universe and of finely tuning the constants.

Most everyone is in agreement up to this point. One additional item that everyone should agree on is the following:

Ultimately, when traced back, there must be a First Cause – that which existed in and of itself, without a beginning.

It is true that whether the universe was caused by the First Cause or by some intermediate cause is entirely open to question. However, at some point, we must regress to a First Cause. We trust everyone is in agreement with this concept of a First Cause.

Identifying the First Cause, unfortunately, is a trickier matter.

The Nature of the First Cause

A number of proposals might be put forward, but let us focus on the two most common.

One proposal on the table is that the First Cause was a purely naturalistic phenomenon: some unidentified, never-before-seen, essentially indescribable, powerful phenomenon, that coincidentally (through sheer luck or sheer repetition over time) managed to produce the finely-tuned universe in which we find ourselves.

A second proposal on the table is that the First Cause is God. The materialist will quickly argue that God is likewise unidentified, never-before-seen, and essentially indescribable. Even if we grant this for purposes of discussion, this argument does not serve to strengthen the materialistic claim of a naturalistic First Cause, but only serves to put the God proposal on at least the same footing.

Yet they are not quite on the same footing.

We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that many individuals have claimed (often at great risk to their reputation and physical safety) to have had a personal encounter with God and have tried, with varying degrees of completeness, to describe God. This holds both for the rare visual experiences, as well as the less-concrete but far more common emotional or spiritual experiences. The materialist may well argue that these individual accounts are disparate, unverified in some cases, and open to challenge. That may well be true. But the fact remains that there is some evidence, independent of the observations of the cosmos itself, of God’s existence, however scattered and fragmentary it may be. It may not be much. But it is more than can be said for the naturalistic proposal.

Furthermore, there is an additional aspect of the cosmos that even ardent materialists acknowledge demands an explanation: that of the finely-tuned constants and the apparent purposeful way in which everything works together to make our very existence possible The universe, to put it bluntly and to borrow a phrase from Richard Dawkins uttered in the biological context, gives “the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Now it may be that the materialist is right, that this apparent design is an illusion, that the existence of our universe is the result of a cosmic – or, shall we say, “extra-cosmic” – lottery. That is one potential explanation, as a matter of sheer logical possibility. But it is lacking in evidence, provides absolutely no intellectual comfort, and is certainly nothing to hang our hat on.

The concept of God at least has the benefit of positing a First Cause with the ability to make the purpose real, to fine tune for a purpose, to have a plan and a goal and an intended outcome; in other words, a First Cause that helps explain the apparent design in the universe, not one that tries to explain it away.

Finally, it is noteworthy – not definitive in any sense of the word, mind you, but noteworthy – that some of the very attributes attributed to God over the ages (tremendous power, vast intelligence, setting a plan in place, showing a personal interest in human affairs), have gained support centuries later in scientific discoveries. If not at the level of deduction, then at least at the level of reasonable inference.

—–

Conclusion

So what are we left with?

The inference that the universe had a beginning does not allow us to identify the First Cause. We cannot say, it seems to this author, as a matter of logic and deduction that the First Cause is God. We cannot even say that the universe was caused by the First Cause, rather than some intermediate cause. Indeed, as a matter of dispassionate objective scientific inquiry and reasoning, we can say but very little about the First Cause.

In that sense, the claim that the First Cause is God must be viewed with some caution. But it must not be viewed with derision. Rather, it should be seriously viewed as a live possibility, very much worthy of consideration.

Indeed, when compared against the materialistic claim, the proposal that the First Cause is God is eminently reasonable – being more consonant with the evidence, with our experience, and with the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from scientific inquiry. While recognizing a significant lack of direct observational evidence on either side of the debate, the objective observer must at least consider the existence of God as a live possibility and, when weighed against the alternative, as the more rational and supportable possibility.

In the final analysis, the individual who holds to the idea that the First Cause is God should not go a bridge too far by attempting to shoehorn the observed attributes of our universe into a definitive, deductive claim for God’s existence. Yet neither should he feel threatened by the materialistic claim, even more lacking as it is in evidence. In the face of the materialistic mindset that so often rules the day, he can approach the debate with a healthy dose of humility, recognizing that his claim of God’s existence is based on inference (and hopefully personal experience), while at the same time feeling confidently grounded in the comparative strength of his position and feeling no need to apologize for the same.

Comments

You claim I'm denying evidence. Well let's see, from your quotes:
The predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis have been one of the main successes of the standard Big Bang model,” said lead author Lind
Reality:
There’s no escape; new measurements show far less lithium than predicted by the big bang, and more fine tuning than would be expected by chance. Measurements made by Italians deep underground confirm an old problem in cosmology: not enough lithium-7, but too much lithium-6. Science Daily explains:
With these new results, what is known as the “lithium problem” remains a hard nut to crack: on the one hand, now all laboratory results of the astrophysicists suggest that the theory of primordial nucleosynthesis is correct. On the other hand, many observations of astronomers show that the oldest stars in our Milky Way contain only half as much lithium-7 as predicted. Sensational reports by Swedish researchers, who discovered clearly more lithium-6 in such stars than predicted, must also likely be checked again based on the new LUNA data. Bemmerer says, “Should unusual lithium concentrations be observed in the future, we know, thanks to the new measurements, that it cannot be due to the primordial nucleosynthesis.
National Geographic sums up the problem simply: “That curious deficiency suggests that astrophysicists either don’t fully understand the big bang, they suggest, or else don’t fully understand the way that stars work.” Such a quandary suggests they could understand neither. “The most radical solution to the problem is that the big bang theory is incomplete,” said Brian Fields at the University of Illionois. “But less radical solutions haven’t yet solved the problem.”
The only way it makes sense is fudging. If only you were reading them. Sheesh!Vy_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Vy, denial of denial does not constitute evidence for YEC.bornagain77_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Denial of evidence does not constitute dealing with the evidence forthrightly.
This plus the fact that you just posted that OEC yom misinterpretation article proves to me you either don't read my posts or don't understand it.Vy_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Old Earth Creation Science Word Study: Yom By Greg Neyman © 2007, Old Earth Ministries Published 16 March 2005 (This article can be freely copied and distributed, as long as it is unaltered and a link back to the original article appears on the page) The Hebrew word for “day” is the word “Yom.” Young earth creationists have always argued that the word used for the days of creation can only mean a 24-hour day. In this article, we will examine the uses of Yom in the Old Testament, and show that it can mean a wide variety of time periods. First, one must understand that the Hebrew language is not nearly as diverse as our English language. Whereas our vocabulary is around half a million, the Hebrew language has only 8,700 words. The French language, one of the poorest modern languages in vocabulary and the language of choice for diplomats, has just about 40,000 words or over 4 times the amount of words that Ancient Hebrew has. Many of the Hebrew words could be considered duplicates with only slight differences. Thus, words which contain multiple meanings are common. Such is the case with the word Yom. Hebrew Dictionaries Let’s start with the possible meanings of Yom; The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press) “It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague “time,” 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.).” Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (symbols omitted) from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:–age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (…live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger As you can see, Hebrew dictionaries attest to the fact that the word Yom is used for anywhere from 12 hours up to a year, and even a vague “time period” of unspecified length. Other Uses of Yom Day is not the only translation for the word Yom. Here are some other uses. Time It is interesting to note that in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word “time.” For instance, in Genesis 4:3, it says “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.” In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months. Again, in Deuteronomy 10:10, it refers to a “time” equal to forty days. In I Kings 11:42, it says “And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years.” In this case, Yom translated as the word “time” is equivalent to a 40 year period. In Isaiah 30:8, it says “Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever.” In this case, Yom is equal to “forever.” How long is forever? An infinite number of years…billions upon billions upon billons of years. If Yom can equal trillions of years here, then why not billions of years in Genesis? Year Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated “year.” In I Kings 1:1, “David was old and stricken in years…” In 2 Chronicles 21:19, “after the end of two years” and in the very next verse “Thirty and two years old.” Finally, in Amos 4:4, “…and your tithes after three years.” In each case, Yom represents years, not days. Age Eight times in the Old Testament Yom is translated “age.” These range from sentences like “stricken in age,” meaning old age (Genesis 18:11 and 24:1; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2), and other times it says “old age” (Genesis 21:2, Genesis 21:7). Genesis 47:28 refers to “the whole age of Jacob,” therefore yom here refers to an entire lifetime. In Zechariah 8:4, it says old men and women will sit in the streets of Jerusalem, “each with cane in hand because of his age.” Ago One time Yom is translated “ago.” 1 Samuel 9:20 says “As for the donkeys you lost three days ago, …” Always Four times yom is translated as “always,” in Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7. Always here can be interpreted as a lifetime…for instance, we are to keep the commandments of the Lord always (Deut. 5:29). Season Three times yom is translated “season.” In Genesis 40:4, “…and they continued a season in ward.” Again, in Joshua 24:7, “dwelt in the wilderness a long season,” and in 2 Chronicles 15:3, “…a long season Israel hath been…”. In each case yom represents a multi-month period. Chronicles When used in conjunction with the word dâbâr, yom is translated “chronicles” (27 times). Continually When used in conjunction with kôwl, yom is translated as “continually” (11 times). Once, in Psalm 139:16, it is translated continuance (without the kôwl). Ever Ever is used to represent a long period of time, such as in Deuteronomy 19:9, “to walk ever in his ways.” Nineteen times Yom is translated “ever.” The old testament uses “for ever” instead of the word forever. In sixteen cases of use of the word ever, for is placed before it, indicating a infinite period of time. I will not list them all (consult Strong’s Concordance for a full listing) but here is an example. In Psalm 23:6, it says “Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.” Here Yom is translated as the final word of this verse, ever. Thus, Yom in this verse, and 16 others, represents eternity. Evermore In one instance, when yom is used in conjunction with kôwl, Yom is translated “evermore.” Deuteronomy 28:29, “…and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore;” thus representing either a lifetime or eternity. Word Usage in the Old Testament As you can see, Yom is used in a wide variety of situations related to the concept of time. Yom is not just for days…it is for time in general. How it is translated depends on the context of its use with other words. Yom in the Creation Account Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods. Genesis 1:5 “And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.” Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate a 12-hour period Genesis 1:14 “And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.” Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate 24-hour days Genesis 2:4 “…in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate the entire creative week. The fourth usage of Yom in the creation account is in the summary for each of the six creation days, “and there was morning and evening the first day”. Yom is used to represent a finite, long period of time, usually either millions or billions of years. To show support for this, consider the uses of Yom by Moses. Moses Other Uses of Yom Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, and of Psalm 90, used Yom in many different ways. Genesis 4:3 “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.” In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months. Genesis 43:9 “…then let me bear the blame for ever.” Here, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity Genesis 44:32 “…then I shall bear the blame to my father for ever.” Again, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity Deuteronomy 4:40 “…that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth the, for ever.” Here Yom represents a physical lifetime Deuteronomy 10:10, “Now I stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time,…” Here, Yom is a “time” equal to forty days. Deuteronomy 18:5 “…to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever.” Again, Yom is translated as eternity Deuteronomy 19:9 “…to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in His ways…” Here, Yom represents a lifetime. As long as we live we are to walk in his ways As you can see, Moses used the word Yom to represent 12-hours, 24 hours, the creative week, forty days, several months, a lifetime, and eternity. Common Young Earth Arguments To get around the obvious conclusion that Yom in Genesis 1 can mean millions of years, young earth theorists have come up with several arguments, none of which is supported by common Hebrew grammatical rules according to Hebrew experts (such as Dr. Walter Kaiser). These rules were created by Hebrew language experts who are young earth creationists to begin with, thus their viewpoint is obviously biased. They have a specific agenda they are trying to prove, and thus cannot be objective. Ordinals/Cardinals Young earth creationists say that whenever Yom is used with an ordinal or cardinal number (1st, 2nd, 1,2, etc) that it always represents a 24 hour day. However, this is not true. In Zechariah 14:7-9, the “one day” refers to a period of time when the Lord shall be king over the earth. In other places, some say that Isaiah and Hosea have numbers with the word day which are figurative (External Link). Some young earth theorists, including Jonathan Sarfati in his book Refuting Compromise, have addressed this verse in Zechariah an Hosea. Although his argument sounds impressive, you have to recognize it for what it is…he is arguing for his young earth agenda, thus any rules that he espouses must be examined by true Hebrew scholars who are impartial. Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule.1 What Sarfati thinks is not important…what is important, as Dr. Walter Kaiser points out, is the intentions of the author. We should not create rules that support our own agendas, but should strive to understand the author’s intended meaning outside of rules. Evening/Morning Construction In Genesis 1 Moses says “and there was evening and morning the xx day”. Does the use of evening and morning indicate a sunrise and sunset for each creative day? First, let’s look at what evening and morning are not. They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset. According to young earth theory, the Sun was not created until Day Four, thus there could be no sunrise or sunset for the first three days of creation. However, God uses the terms evening and morning for those first three days. Therefore, they cannot be actual evenings and mornings. We are left with only one option. The words for Evening and Morning can only represent the beginning and ending of the creative period, and not actual sunrise and sunsets. Scripture itself sets this pattern for us. Morning and evening are used figuratively in Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6. Thus, the evening and morning of creation can mean the start and end of the creative process that is attributed to that creation period. Young earth advocates counter that traditionally, church fathers have always held that sunrise and sunsets do not constitute a day, and they accepted the sun creation on Day Four with no hint of the first three days being anything other than 24-hour days. For instance, Sarfati in Refuting Compromise mentions Luther and Calvin (page 84-86). However, Luther and Calvin did not have the means of modern science at their disposal. At the time, geocentricity was still accepted! Don’t fall into the trap of following the teachings of our church fathers. For more, read Church Fathers. Literal/Figurative Argument This argument says that you cannot use a word figuratively until after you have used it literally (see this Answers in Genesis article). The author gives two examples, which appear to be correct and follow this rule. However, is this rule valid? I see no reason to suppose that it is. You have to be careful with young earth claims about biblical interpretation methods. Again, they will invent rules that support their cause, when there is no basis for their rule in Hebrew. In this case, it makes no difference which order the word Yom appears in, i.e. literal before figurative or vice versa. Yes, these are the first words of the Bible, but they are not the first words of mankind. All the time from Adam to Moses, men were speaking in their own languages, thus the literal interpretation via spoken language would already have been established. There was no need to suppose a literal/figurative structure. If God’s Creation Was Billions of Years Old… If God’s creation was billions of years old, how would He have written the creation account in Genesis? One thing is certain…God is good at telling us exactly what we need to know. When God refers to a large number, He uses picture stories, such as Abraham’s descendants being as numerous as the sand. Why does He do this? If God had said, “You will have millions of descendants,” Abraham would have asked, “What is a million?” When considering the creation, if we broke it down into days, that would be 5,000,500,000,000 days, or roughly 13.7 billion years. Do we need an account for each day of creation…of course not. God in His infinite wisdom, saw fit to tell us the creation story by breaking it down into creative segments, each of which was attributed to a specific creative act or acts. We need to give the early Hebrews of Genesis a break…they didn’t have calculators like we do! One must also consider that time with God has no meaning. To Him, 10 billion years is like a day. Thus, it is no problem for God to put billions of years into one of His days. Dr. Hugh Ross puts it best in his determination that the frame of reference for creation is the surface of the earth. Genesis 1:2 puts the witness of creation on the surface. But who is witnessing these events? It is God himself. During the first 5.99 days of creation, God is the only one present. Thus, human time does not matter…no humans were there to witness the passage of time. What matters is how God sees time! Thus, a billion year day is only a passing moment in God’s eyes. The creation account is written in such a manner for all people to understand it. The issue is not how long creation took…the issue is that God did it, and that’s all that matters in the end. Conclusion With such a wide usage of the word Yom for many different time periods, it cannot be claimed that Yom in the Old Testament only represents a 24-hour period. During the creation account alone, Yom represents four different time periods. Rules of Hebrew, created by young earth Hebrew scholars, are invalid. Because of their biased position, they are trying to prove their own agenda. Since humans did not witness creation, our own concept of a 24-hour day does not apply. The only thing that matters is God’s concept of time. Thus, the only evidence we have to accurately assess the age of creation is the creation itself. Since the rocks and stars say we are billions of years old, that must be the truth. This fits perfectly with a literal interpretation of Genesis, and an inerrant Bible, and does not impact any other Biblical doctrines. 1 Television Show and Transcript, “Are the Genesis Creation Days 24 Hours or Long Periods of Time,” The John Ankerberg Show, 2005. http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm
Question: Do you, like mw apparently does in his heart of hearts, believe only YECs go to heaven? Supplemental notes:
Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbKELVHcvSI&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=1 Albert Einstein vs “The Now” of Philosophers and “The Now” of Quantum Mechanics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwyHUxoKWNM&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=3 ‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’ In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video (testimony starts at 27:45 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s66DchGhhD0 ‘When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.’ Dr. Ken Ring – has extensively studied Near Death Experiences ‘Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything – past, present, future – exists simultaneously.’ – Kimberly Clark Sharp – Near Death Experiencer ‘There is no way to tell whether minutes, hours or years go by. Existence is the only reality and it is inseparable from the eternal now.’ – John Star – NDE Experiencer
as to:
"All your big bang “evidence” is dealt with in the article I linked to."
Denial of evidence does not constitute dealing with the evidence forthrightly.bornagain77_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

All your big bang "evidence" is dealt with in the article I linked to.Vy_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

It means that if you want to read the bible ‘consistently’ then an OEC view is what you must take.
Didn't we already do this? - "Yom" as used in Genesis is obviously not referring to long periods but normal 24 hour days. From my post at #194:
I’d love to know which of the following verses, when considered in light of what YECs actually based their interpretation of ‘Yom’ as used in the creation, you’re referring to when you say “what about all the times Yom is clearly used referring to a long period of time?”: ———— ‘First day’ – 22 occurences ‘Second day’ – 13 exact matches ‘Third day’ – 44 occurences ‘Fourth day’ – 7 exact matches ‘Fifth day’ – 4 exact matches ‘Sixth day’ – 6 exact matches ‘Seventh day’ – 45 occurences
But don't worry, you can dance around this. - Being a YEC does not mean reading every part of the Bible literally. It never did. Some OECs don't seem to get that. Now, would you mind explaining reading the bible "consistently"?
Denial of the evidence for a beginning of the universe?
What are you talking about? :/ Are you assuming because I disbelieve in the fudge theory that is the big bang, I must believe the universe had no beginning?Vy_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

"What does it even mean?" It means that if you want to read the bible 'consistently' then an OEC view is what you must take.
,,, ‘And if you’re curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events’ Hugh Ross – Latest Scientific Evidence for God’s Existence – video 56:14 minute mark https://youtu.be/d4EaWPIlNYY?t=3374
as to
"Too bad it’s a theory of unobserved and unobservable fudge factors."
Denial of the evidence for a beginning of the universe? I would expect as much from atheists, but it really is surprising that some Christians would be as bad as atheists, even worse, in their denial of the evidence for the beginning of the universe:
Big Bang Exterminator Wanted, Will Train - Denyse O'Leary - October 20, 2013 Excerpt: "Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory." Cosmologist Christopher Isham http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/big_bang_exterm077961.html Big Bang Theory - An Overview of the main evidence Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ International team strengthens Big Bang Theory Jun 06, 2013 Excerpt: The fundamental observations that corroborate the Big Bang are the cosmic microwave radiation and the chemical abundances of the light elements described in the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory. "The predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis have been one of the main successes of the standard Big Bang model," said lead author Lind. "Our findings remove much of the stark tension between 6Li and 7Li abundances in stars and standard BBN, even opening up the door for a full reconciliation. This further consolidates a model resting heavily on the pillars of the cosmic microwave background and the expanding Universe." http://phys.org/news/2013-06-international-team-big-theory.html#nwlt Evidences For The Big Bang - Michael Strauss – video (4:50 - mark - main evidences) (14:30 mark - unscientific speculations involving quantum Planck time persist) https://vimeo.com/9195703 Evidence Supporting the Big Bang http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm Direct (Distance) Measurements Place Universe’s Age at 13.79 Billion Years – Hugh Ross – May 2013 – podcast http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science-news-flash/direct-measurements-place-universe-s-age-at-13.79-billion-years The Megamaser Cosmology Project. V. An Angular Diameter Distance to NGC 6264 at 140 Mpc; http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7292
bornagain77_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

"Well, does not God do violence to us by first commanding us to believe He created in six days; initially on pain of death?" So mw, do you or do you not believe that only YECers go to heaven? You can't have it both ways. You can't say in one instance that you don't believe only YECers go to heaven and then in the next instance say you believe God commands us the believe in YEC 'initially on pain of death'. Does 'initially' in this instance mean that not believing in YEC was a sin that Christ had to atone for? Do I need to repent of OEC in your belief system? Need I remind, I find that your YE interpretation of the bible to be seriously misconstrued?
My cat ate your dogma - picture https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a6/e4/1a/a6e41ab2a11d89228a9ee93253d2e7a6.jpg
bornagain77_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

... and still resolutely think your YE interpretation does violence to scripture overall.
You keep on harping on about this. What does it even mean?
Funny, I consider the big bang one the greatest apologetic tools in the arsenal of present day Christians
No surprise there. Too bad it's a theory of unobserved and unobservable fudge factors.Vy_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

"HMMM mw, so you don’t believe in the ‘big bang’ since it contradicts your YEC? Funny, I consider the big bang one the greatest apologetic tools in the arsenal of present day Christians." _____________________________________________ Really: I consider the greatest apologetic tool in the arsenal of Judaeo-Christianity is the personal Testimony of the Holy Trinity through Yahweh. The only scripture the Divinity ever wrote. Thus, it has the approbation of heaven. Name one big bang scientist in the same league. If Sinai is true, the big bang is one of the biggest cons in the history of Satan. Still, the big bang theory appears to knock the stuffing out of him also. Yes, your quotes are very impressive, which I read with interest, and use in some cases. None of which matches the word of God of Sinai. Therefore, I will stick to what God said in an historical, witnesses and recorded event. Jesus verified the Commandments, which He fulfilled, and did not destroy one tittle. Whereas, with respect BA77, the world appears to side with you, which however, spins or destroys a commandment Jesus upheld to the letter. Yet, there are scientists who do reject the big bang theory, even less who believe in a Hildegard system, but certainly a reasonable few believe God created in six days. That is a miracle in itself. You are persistent BA77, that I do violence to scripture. Well, does not God do violence to us by first commanding us to believe He created in six days; initially on pain of death? Indeed, does not your logic imply, in the Ten Commandments, God works violence. Unless His word is totally true. There cannot be shades of truth and shades of salvation.mw_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

HMMM mw, so you don't believe in the 'big bang' since it contradicts your YEC? Funny, I consider the big bang one the greatest apologetic tools in the arsenal of present day Christians
The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’ ,,, 'And if you're curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence – video 56:14 minute mark https://youtu.be/d4EaWPIlNYY?t=3374 Science and Creation - Dr Michael Strauss - video (at approx 17:00 minute mark the old earth interpretation of Genesis 1 is discussed) https://youtu.be/EZJozX3sbE0?t=1017 Dr. Michael Strauss (Professor of Physics at Oklahoma) gives a lecture and Q&A about Science and Creation at the University of Nebraka-Lincoln (March 2015).
Do you also reject Qauntum Mechanics since it says the universe did not exist 10^-43 seconds ago and that would also obviously conflict with your YEC worldview?
“Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation - Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
As well, Do you believe the earth orbits the sun? Or do you 'scripturally' believe that the Earth is the center of the universe? It might surprise you to find out that I do!
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/materialists-do-not-believe-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun-is-objectively-tr/#comment-615600
bornagain77_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Sorry, spelt "new" wrong.mw_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

I new something else was left unsaid. "Perhaps if you get a couple of people in the atheistic crowd at TSZ to convert to your YEC beliefs, or at least become Christians, then I would be more receptive to your argument(s)?" Surely, that is like saying, unless I can feel the wounds in His hands, I will not believe (Jn 20:25); or rather, 'unless I can speak to God face to face and ask Him, "did you create in six days or not," I will not believe?'mw_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

BA77, I am absolutely not the one to convince anyone. How in the world did God get anyone to believe He created in six days? By a show of power and a death law, plus continuous daily miracles over 40 years. Today, who cares? Anyway, you have not answered any relevant argument I have made, scripturally that is. The world is mainly reflected in your response. You continue to bring up hell, when all manner of sins and blasphemies will be forgiven. Heavens above, I have done my fair share! It appears, that the worst enemy from your point of view is a fellow Christian, those who profess to keep wholeheartedly to the Word, certainly the Divine Law Commandments. But, with respect BA77, you have not won your position scripturally, and you cannot authenticate the Big Bang. Perhaps at the entrance to heaven, you will have rehearsed what you will say to the God of Sinai, 'Lord you made a big mistake by saying creation took six days, but I took notice of some fine scientists." And as for Jesus on His return, will he salute the Big Bang Theory, and institute a divine correction, or teach the Father's divne law, which he died keeping for our sake, as instructed in obedience to the Father? I think we will agree to disagree, and leave it at that, as I have other places to be scoffed at. We learn nothing by not allowing our beliefs to be tested. And as for being directed elsewhere, it speaks volumes, does it not? Better to be tested with the hardest arguments. Christians trample best the word of God underfoot, not atheists. This, I hope, is my final comment on this thought provoking thread. By all means have the last word; against the personal testimony of God! (Forgive me for such a cheap shot). All the very best, mwmw_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

So mw, are you saying that you do believe I am going to hell for not being a young earther? You say you don't in one sentence but your supposed clarifications of the matter seem to directly contradict your denial. If it is of any comfort for you, I am quite comfortable with an old earth interpretation of scripture, and still resolutely think your YE interpretation does violence to scripture overall. None of your pontificating on YEC has nudged my belief in OEC in the least. Perhaps you should focus your energy elsewhere, besides trying to convert me, a Christian, into YEC since your efforts have been so futile in that regards? Perhaps if you get a couple of people in the atheistic crowd at TSZ to convert to your YEC beliefs, or at least become Christians, then I would be more receptive to your argument(s)? http://theskepticalzone.com/bornagain77_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

BA77, with respect, you appear to be obsessed with you and others going to hell for disbelieving that God created in six days. You may cite as many citations you wish, which I read with interest, but you will not cite the accurate and truthful personal Testimony of God, one which you cannot accept at this moment. If His Testimony is not good enough for you, what is? As you elasticate the word of God, where or when does your method of believing stop? You cannot clearly address my last comment, nor of those embedded in the whole of my writings in this post. Therefore you bring in lesser fallen human consideration, and on top of that, you appear to make out that I condemn such science. Please do not keep following your own misleading train of thought. I for one accept your belief system, but I have right to argue against it according to Scripture. Jesus, against Satan, teaches volumes, "we live by every word from the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4). It appears you cannot agree with Jesus or the Father at Sinai, both who are one God (Jn 10:30). I believe, God must take account of the times we are in; such a beguiled time, such a disbelieving time, and all through the dragon in scientific clothing; through evolutionism in its various forms, God is eclipsed. However, I expect much trouble is on the way to change the face of the earth, and that we shall all taste it in some measure.mw_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

"Still, the one who sent him said he created in six days!" So in your belief system, since I do not believe in a six literal 24 hour day creation, but in six long periods of time creation, then I am not 'hearing God' according to you and am therefore not going to heaven in your belief system? Do you think Kelvin is in hell for believing in Old Earth creation?
"We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’.... Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’" Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics. “But I may be permitted to remark that a correction of this kind cannot be said to be unimportant in reference to biological speculation. "The limitation of geological periods, imposed by physical science, cannot, of course, disprove the hypothesis of transmutation of species; but it does seem sufficient to disprove the doctrine that transmutation has taken place through "descent with modification by natural selection” Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) https://books.google.com/books?id=wCNGAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA532
bornagain77_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT}

Indeed, BA77, and I am up to speed at last. You say rightly: ".....whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life." Still, the one who sent him said he created in six days! The message of Jesus is twofold and clear - "and believes him who sent me". "And no one goes to the Father but through me" (Jn 14:6), that's another problem.mw_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

"Do only young earthers go to heaven in your belief system?” ,,, to be very clear, no I don’t." Okie Dokie.
John 5:24 "Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.
bornagain77_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

Violence to Scripture-Addendum response to BA77. Sorry BA77, that I have taken a week to respond to “mw, apparently, from all the energy you’ve put into your responses, you think that a young earth interpretation is very important. So, is or is not the young earth interpretation essential for salvation? i.e. Do only young earthers go to heaven in your belief system?” However, I answered that question at #219 (or so I thought). So to be very clear, no I don’t. Many who are “first will be last and the last first” (Matt 19:30). Still, every knee will have to bow to Jesus, and His divine law from Sinai. As this post is about the Big Bang (Urknall). A few last thoughts. The letter below was send by me to the editor of the Catholic Times (England) last weekend: Fr --------- (Credo, The Catholic Times, 16th September) appears not to see a black hole in Mgr Lemaître’s calculations about a theoretical big bang over 13.7 billion years. Lacking are equations on the super science of miracles generated at instantaneous speed and at God’s will. The Big Bang Theory cannot address any dimension of the spirit. His calculations do not account for the personal almighty power of the infinite God, and therefore, are unable to disprove or prove how God created from nothing physical. God speaks, and it its done (Ps 33:9): work that out! For example, calculate by what way God created Himself from the dead instantly, repeat the process and join it with the Big Bang Theory. Not only that Jesus generated a new species of human, instantly; one which could traverse between spirit and matter. No Darwinian theory needed. However, if Mgr Lemaître said his calculations are the best natural science can do, but adhered to must be divine law, as Jesus said, that is a different matter. The Ten Commandments are the only scripture written by the Holy Trinity, that speaks volumes. God/Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (Matt 5:17-19). Therefore, Jesus fulfilled the divine law that God/He created in six days. Against the words of Jesus, it is delusional and unscriptural for Fr ------, normally a worthy and fine priest, to claim we can stand next to Jesus in “bliss,” with Lemaître, for destroying divine law. ________________________________________________________ Clearly, what I am saying is that any other interpretation to clear and plain scripture surely does violence to scripture? You may say the Bible is not scientific. No, it is only the word of God we profess to believe in! More so, it is the word of God written by Him personally at Sinai. In addition, the whole of scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:16). Pull one sweet apple away and the whole tree of faith turns sour or crinkled and would eventually rot if it were not for some divine intervention. If there was no Self-Revelation by God at Sinai, and in the Flesh, we would all be big bangers and atheists. The Divine Ten Commandments contain all essential moral and ethical laws. If one is deemed grossly in error, then Judaeo-Christians cannot moralise to anyone, as we demonstrate we cannot keep to believing our own ethical standards as given by Jesus/God when He created through Christ in six days, and said every seven days to remember that feat of almighty power and will and instantly. _______________________________________________________ However, in relation to a cosmic theory of creation, I came across the writings of Hildegard of Bingen; probably it will seem more foolish for me for mentioning it. Though I must say, as a Catholic, from experience, the best scoffers are Catholics! Saint Hildegard of Bingen, on 7 October 2012, the feast of the Holy Rosary, Pope Benedict XVI named her a Doctor of the Church. He called her “perennially relevant” and “an authentic teacher of theology and a profound scholar of natural science and music.” Her apparently divinely revealed celestial mechanics certainly opposes the Big Bang Theory, and provides room for investigation. A new low cost e-book book by Helmut Posch, is worth noting: The True Conception of the World according to Hildegard von Bingen, (2015). http://kolbecenter.org/store-2/#!/Books-PDF/c/13115134/offset=0&sort=addedTimeDesc He writes: “A few years ago a mathematical institute in Switzerland demonstrated that one can also look at the circulation of the planets as a centripetal effect of an eddy field and then make calculations that are just as exact” (as the Copernicus system). A very limited summary of her revelation is - In the Hildegard system, the whole cosmos is bounded as a cell, nothing goes beyond those bounds of space, and space does not move. The Cosmic Cell (I have just Christened it so) is a perpetual motion machine into which God supplies energy for all movement and life leading apparently to some form of cosmic winds and waves resulting in pressure differential and the explanation for gravity. Jesus allegedly said “I am fiery force hidden in these. They blaze up out of me!” (Divine Words, 42). The outer shell may alter shape somewhat. In simplistic terms, four elements make up the creation. Humans are interconnected, and our behaviour effects the whole. Distant stars and a cosmic winds/waves even effect even our cloud formation. Everything is interconnected elementally. The system is not simple. There is also a local system amidst universal space currents. The system may be called the “Spirit of Science.” The system is human centred and earth centred. Therein, under present conditions it takes some believing. Still, what is prime faith based on, it is not consensus science that is for sure. Nevertheless, apparently, after the judgment, the Cosmos will no longer rotate, as in Paradise, and there will be perpetual day. All the best, mw.mw_{September 20, 2016
September
09
Sep
20
20
2016
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

HeKS @223
HeKS: Anything that exists within a larger context is necessarily contingent upon its context. This is true whether the context is space, or time, or constraining laws, or variable motion, or probabilistic outcomes, or material components, or creative agency, or all of the above, or anything else.
This is a very important ontological point. Equally crucial IMHO is that persons have the ability to, temporarily, accept a wide variety of contexts. We can choose the act within an arbitrary context and its arbitrary rules — chess, society, fantasy scenarios and arguably this very universe. If the term ‘temporarily contingency’ would make sense, then it would apply here.
HeKS: The entirety of the context that informs a physical object’s existence, state of being and activity would need to already exist, each part in proper relation to the other, before the object itself could exist. This would apply all the way back to the beginning of the universe itself and even any quantum regime that may or may not have existed at that point. Physicality, at all points, is contingent upon composition with respect to its own parts, the spacetime it occupies, and the laws that govern its behavior. An electron does not escape this fact, even if one wants to consider it “one thing”. It is still “one thing” that is contingent upon its larger context.
I fully agree. I notice your reluctance to consider an electron “one thing”. Indeed, from a strict ontological point of view the universe, its laws and every physical thing in it would be a better candidate for the title “one thing”. But since it is contingent it also fails to qualify.
HeKS: So no physical object could possibly qualify as an uncaused cause.
Only what is truly “one thing” can qualify as an uncaused cause.Origenes_{September 18, 2016
September
09
Sep
18
18
2016
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

mw, apparently, from all the energy you've put into your responses, you think that a young earth interpretation is very important. So, is or is not the young earth interpretation essential for salvation? i.e. Do only young earthers go to heaven in your belief system?bornagain77_{September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Violence to Scripture: To balance a Catholic interpretation of "Yom," cited # 224, which, while offering reasoned views, holds the sun was created before day four, which is not entirely satisfactory to some, therefore, one final article, cited from Answers in Genesis is offered: https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/young-earth/reply-to-bruce-gordons-biblical-critique-of-young-earth-creationism/mw_{September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Violence to Scripture – I thought at least one scholarly counter to BA77’s reference to “Yom” may be useful: http://kolbecenter.org/meaning-yom-genesis/mw_{September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Origenes
Suppose that someone claims that an electron is one thing and not a composite whole. What would be your response?
Personally, I'd say what I said in #214:
Anything that exists within a larger context is necessarily contingent upon its context. This is true whether the context is space, or time, or constraining laws, or variable motion, or probabilistic outcomes, or material components, or creative agency, or all of the above, or anything else. The entirety of the context that informs a physical object’s existence, state of being and activity would need to already exist, each part in proper relation to the other, before the object itself could exist. This would apply all the way back to the beginning of the universe itself and even any quantum regime that may or may not have existed at that point. Physicality, at all points, is contingent upon composition with respect to its own parts, the spacetime it occupies, and the laws that govern its behavior.
An electron does not escape this fact, even if one wants to consider it "one thing". It is still "one thing" that is contingent upon its larger context. This would seem to have some implications for the possible number of uncaused causes. Anything that is physical is contingent upon its context, and anything that is contingent cannot be uncaused. Furthermore, no single physical object, in the absence of other objects, time and governing laws, can actually cause anything. So no physical object could possibly qualify as an uncaused cause. Instead, we need something that is not contingent on any external context ... something that embodies existence in a pure and necessary way. It could not be reliant upon an external space-time, because that would again make it contingent upon a greater context, and therefore not an uncaused ultimate cause. But this seems to create an issue for any attempts to multiply uncaused causes. After all, if we have 2 red blocks on a table, or 3, or 11, how is it that we distinguish them in terms of their identity so as to establish that there are multiple blocks rather than just one? How do we determine that Block 1 != Block 2, and Block 7 != Block 10? Isn't it because they are separated in space and thereby capable of having distinct identity? If the blocks all occupied exactly the same space, could we even really say that there were multiple blocks? If reality were exhausted by the presence of one such block, could there be two blocks? If an uncaused cause must exist in the absence of any external context like space, time or governing laws then, in a literal sense, there cannot be any room for multiple uncaused causes, or any possibility for distinctions in the uncaused cause. An uncaused cause would absolutely "embody" and exhaust existence in the absence of any contingent effects it causes.HeKS_{September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Violence to Scripture: part 4 of 4 As for the word “Yom,” God said many times in scripture, we must not add or subtract to words. Do you not ignore that advice? If we cannot keep to simple rules given for our good, what then? Paul gifted with the Holy Spirit, teaches the good rule, “nothing beyond what is written,” (1 Cor 4:6). Time and time again, God gives sound advice throughout scripture. Do not add or subtract to scripture (Deut 4:2), (1:3), (4:14), and, “Do not add to his words, or else he will rebuke you, and you will be found a liar.” (Prov 30:6) God said, “You must diligently observe everything that I command you; do not add to it or take anything from it” (Deut 12:32). The reason God is so adamant on this is because “The sum of your word is truth; and every one of your righteous ordinances endures forever. (Psalms 119:160) With respect, a major problem with your many examples of the word “Yom,” which I believe you cite in order to undermine the first impression of the plain and clear reading of the Genesis Sabbath Commandant, is you first must throw out scriptural standards and teaching. You appear to set “Yom” to any number to follow a God of long ages. I can only conclude by such a method (overtly straining at the word “Yom”) cast out are God given scriptural commands given for our good on how to act ethically and handle scripture containing the word of God. Ok, it is not a salvation issue. There again it is becoming one because the more and more people disregard the plain and first impression of scripture, which is not one of evolutionism in any form; eventually, we create a God of our own liking, as Darwin did, or none at all. Surely, your version of the word of God is that a day, as set down in Divine Law, leads to the belief that the Commandments harbours gross error, and hence untrue. In actual fact, “Yom” can mean as many days or fewer days as you want when boot strapped to the Big Bang Theory: everything bar what a plain reading says! God could have easily written He created over a long time and commanded us to rest every seven days and to remember the fact. However, He did not. Therefore, your interpretation cannot be true. Your reasoning surely leads to the conclusion that the sabbath is acutely imperfect as a Divine Law, a day is not a day when embedded by the finger of God as His Testimony and made Divine Law. Surely, that is a recipe for the eventual dismantling the kingdom of heaven. Yet God remembers the seventh day as the finality of the Creator act. Intended or not, I suggest, your version of God renders Him an amnesiac, and He must then at least bear false witness against the neighbour. The reliability and credibility of His word suspect. Let’s imagine BA77, quantum mechanics somehow transported you back to the stoning of the man for picking up sticks for firewood on the sabbath. You interrupt the crowed, stones in hand, saying: ‘I am from the future, where theory says, God did not create in six days, and the sabbath day is not a true or an exact day, therefore this act commanded by God is a murderous act and unjust.’ Phew! I will leave the rest to your imagination, remembering that the only big bang to consider in this case, is when Yahweh banged the heads of Miriam and Aaron together for believing they had a God given right to speak over Moses. Overall, in this context, I also suggest you render the Divine Law questionable and imperfect, therefore making unholy Divine Law (a meaning of holy, “exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness”), bearing in mind, a day in your version of events actually represents still an imprecise number of billions of year days. If God cannot count basic numbers and pass them on as perfect information, what is your version of God in this matter playing at! Yahweh said: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live” (Deut 30:19). God did not call Darwin or the Big Bang Theory as a witness for His defence. The heavens of the Big Bang Theory declare God wrong! Rather, ‘Our Father who art in heaven, who does not know how they go, who has been telling us a load of codswallop.’ What a way to encourage faith in the word of God! “The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.” (Ps 19:1). More codswallop if the heavens do not declare He created in six days. Who is to judge with righteousness, accuracy, truth and holiness, when He said the heavens were created miraculously over four days? You may say, ‘I will only believe if God wrote in stone again the same statement.’ As Jesus said, “Blessed or those who have not seen but believe.” (Jn 20:29) Take note scholars of the power of the Holy Spirit of truth, sent to remind us of truth, including Divine Law: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus.” (Acts 4:13) “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever” (Heb 13:8). God changes not (Mal 3:6). Therefore, will God/Jesus on His return, come back and apologise to the big bang Judaeo-Christians, or go to a place or worship, to remember, the Father created in six days, through Him (Col 1:15-19). Bearing in mind, God created deliberately, in six days; created in such a manner because he knew of the falling away in pride of fallen knowledge today. A creation deliberately made to appear foolish to confound the wise (1 Cor 1:27). God does not lie, or fiddle the scriptural books. “God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?” (Num 23:19). How can He ever fulfil truthfully and accurately His word by the Big Bang Theory? He told us how long creation took, no matter what human calculations and measurements say. Can we measure God with our calculations and see Him through a radio-telescope or a microscope? Have we strict evidence that God played a part in the Big Bang. If we accuse God of being a liar, at least make sure our evidence is irrefutable before we meet God and we end up being rebuked. Have any of us seen the hand of God, as strict evidence He created by the Big Bang? Nevertheless, we have His word how long creation took. Present fallen natural scientific consensus is no match for the miraculous science and word of the Almighty. Yet, we know best. Anyway, BA77, I am glad you say to me you only “think” [my] “YEC interpretation does violence to the scripture overall.” Nevertheless, what a violent lot those who take the Creationist God at His Word! Ah well, God/Jesus did say, “I come not to bring peace but a sword” (Matt 10:34). More faith less theory. I hope I have fully answered your concerns, I for one could not be clearer. Sincerely, all the best, mw.mw_{September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Violence to Scripture: part 3 of 4 The Ten Commandments do not contain science, they contain knowledge of a super scientific event, the knowledge of God to command miracles at will. Six-day creation was a super scientific event, the one big bang of miracles complete. Then natural law proceeded, as today. We cannot really on backward extrapolation which can never take account of a miracle to either prove God or disprove God. We take God at His word and that should be enough. Sadly, it is not. How long one of the six days of creation, the same length as the sabbath day, otherwise the sabbath becomes rather meaningless and makes God a murder and liar. God created to fit in with human activity and our need for rest. God stated as a Divine Law what six human days reflects when conjoined to a normal sabbath day. The Decalogue contains a replica test as given to Adam and Eve: a command containing a test of pure faith. A pure test of faith to believe in the Almighty by word alone. The tree of knowledge still resides in the Genesis Sabbath Commandment, this time, the world has almost fallen in pride, rejected is God information. Of course, we know we are too sophisticated in intelligence to fall for that old cherry of the Fall. For our good, God wills worship; remembered for honest truth and Almighty power, that He created in six days; accurate deserved worship for a monumental act of power. Clearly, at this moment in time, many are unable to do that. If He did not create in six days, He wants false worship. That is silly. Are you saying BA77, creation in six days is impossible, or that it is impossible by a theory which will never be proved by humanity? Or, is it more a matter of, “You of little faith” (Matt 6:8), when all things are possible with the Father (Mk 14:36). The truth of Yahweh sanctifies us (Jn 17:17), Jesus said so as the “truth” (Jn 14:6), who teaches He learned all in His Humanity from the Father. Believing God created in six days sanctifies us: it is only then that all scripture makes clear sense, easy to understand; but then expect stick and scoffing. It seems BA77, an outcome of your belief is that your version of God must do violence to us by literally commanding us, on pain of death as in one case, to believe He created in six days, when you strongly suggest the Law is not precise, rather, Divine Law is fallible by the standards of the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory becomes a golden standard, a god. A type of a wager BA77. God’s six-day Testimony against every word of every fallen scientist, who makes the Creator Saviour an inaccurate sinner to His Own Divine Law. Surely, on the basis of proof of an intelligent divine pattern of legal words spoken by God in Exodus, a real pattern of informational truth was given at Sinai. If we cannot see true informational intelligent design in Divine Law, how can we profess to be experts to see intelligent design? When you say to me, “I think your YEC interpretation does violence to the scripture overall,” I perceive you really mean, I do violence to your belief in consensus science and in relation to long ages and Hugh Ross? Was he by the way at Sinai, does he have knowledge of miracles or the power of God? He surely then is guessing; betting against the cut word of God, as you must also do.mw_{September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Violence to Scripture: part 2 of 4 Sinai, not Genesis, is the major historic starting point of the Judaeo-Christian faith because rooted and linked is seven-day worship to a historically witnessed event. The following scripture speaks volumes of God’s plain and clear Testimony, “a sign forever:” _______________________________________________________ “The LORD said to Moses: You yourself are to speak to the Israelites: ‘You shall keep my sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, given in order that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; everyone who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it shall be cut off from among the people. For six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.’ (Exodus 31:12-18) ________________________________________________________ That command is frighteningly plain: do a simple style Rorschach inkblot test on that pattern of divinely intelligent words Yahweh spoke. What immediate pattern do we see, “a sign forever” or a bad sign? A historical miraculous event directed by the finger of God, Lasered in stone tablets four times, pointing to Genesis and, in one sense, confirmed at the Transfiguration when Jesus spoke to Moses. The basis of Judaeo-Christian morality is the Ten Commandments. We agree on that. The Decalogue is the divine Testimony of the Holy Trinity; giving divine intelligent information; information which only the creator had true knowledge of. God surely gave true witness, the truth; accurate information to the letter. The Ten Commandments contain the witness statement of God on origins. Today, too many fallen scientists are on the road to agnosticism and atheism, having made a god out of the Big Bang Theory and Darwinism, while too many Christians feed the golden calf of evolutionism with shredded scripture. It appears BA77, in order to fulfil your belief in long ages, wrong in some measure is God: at least unclear and inaccurate; therefore, possibly giving highly misleading or contaminated information at Sinai, but set in a judgmental Divine Law. We have become embarrassed to believe God created in six days, and the command for us to remember creation took six days, every seven days. Heavens above, God as a tongue in his head (so to speak), and knows how to intelligently design a pattern of sound words reflecting a designer cosmos to aid us better to combat the battering ram of beguilement in spiritual warfare. The consequences of the elastication of Divine Law, is that God casts out his own moral laws. First he lied, and then he murders some Israelite in the wilderness for picking sticks on the Sabbath; for strictly not keeping to a major Divine Law. Is it not you who does violence to scripture on this point by making out God to be full of consensus scientific error. Accurate must be the judgement of God. We expect to be judged fairly and with accuracy. Therefore, was the stoning commanded by God unjust and inaccurate. If so, we may as well cast out the whole Ten Commandments, and your version of scripture and it is the word of God that needs saving by fallen theory! If one law is inaccurate and therefore verging on immoral, where then is the basis for morality, if one law is wrong, the whole batch is wrong by contamination. The Holy Trinity demonstrated time and time again in scripture the power to create from dead matter. To change six jars of water into mature wine. How old the wine, who determined its age? God wanted to create a mature cosmos, as a mature Adam and Eve. Surely BA77, you are not suggesting the existence of better knowledge than that written clearly by God in stone twice over? Well, yes you are. Has any creature ever created a universe in six days, clearly not. Do you have experience working miracles and know of their effects on data? Then why should I rely on your views before God’s? Surely, you cannot expect me to. Established is the New Testament on the Hebrew scripture (Matt 5:17-19); “his works were finished at the foundation of the world” (Heb 4:3). Therefore, I for one am not advising anyone to break a Commandment that incorporates a test of pure belief; that God created in six days. Surely, you do not say, at the beginning, the Big Bang Theory was a finished foundation. Too many are shoehorning scripture onto the Big Bang theory. The faith is dying because of lack of true faith in the word of God. Those who do so are scoffed at regularly by fellow Christians. How un-Christ-like, scoffing actually at the Divine Law of Jesus and the Father. It was Yahweh who was angered when he summoned together two people to bang their heads together when thinking God spoke to them above Moses. ______________________________________________________ “Suddenly the LORD said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, ‘Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting.’ So the three of them came out. Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the entrance of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forward. And he said, ‘Hear my words: When there are prophets among you, I the LORD make myself known to them in visions; I speak to them in dreams. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak face to face—clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?’ And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed. When the cloud went away from over the tent, Miriam had become leprous, as white as snow. And Aaron turned towards Miriam and saw that she was leprous.” (Num 12:4-10) _______________________________________________________ Creation took six days; it is not a riddle. Plain words, simple, clear cut in stone. Historic in witnessed evidence. In this day and age, it appears that a gift of grace is needed to believe the impossible. Still, many accept the grace, and pay a price. Today, too many Christians take a pot shot at the Father to see if we can knock him off Sinai. Lemaître for one: all in a scientific manner of course and very respectable.mw_{September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Violence to Scripture: part 1 of 4. You say, BA77, I did not answer you in my response at 184-187. Here is another go, though it was my aim to leave it at that due to having a lot on my plate at the moment; though I am obliged, it seems, to respond further. First, BA77; you ask a question, “do you think only YECs go to heaven?” What is a bright and scriptural person as you doing asking such a question? No doubt we will both hope to eventually meet in heaven. Nevertheless, you will remember, there are scripturally two ways to heaven: and there is always instant divine mercy, as the thief on the cross found. First, “And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.” (1 Jn 3:23) Second: “So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’ (John 6:53-58) However, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You say BA77: “For the record, I still disagree with your YEC interpretation of the scripture and think that the best fit for the word ‘Yom’ is a long period of time. I think your YEC interpretation does violence to the scripture overall.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it not your version of God whom you make violent by having Him command murder on a person for picking sticks on the seventh day by making out that God did not create in seven days? ____________________________________________________ “When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp.’ The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.” (Numbers 15:32-36) _____________________________________________________ God/Jesus, personally ordered the stoning to death of a man. Surely, such an extreme penalty must highlight the supreme importance of a Divine Law, which was not to be broken by an act of work or an act of disbelief. Of course, God wants people saved, but heavens above BA77, the God of Sinai had just given the Divine Law in miraculous acts and daily provided miraculous acts to reinforce his power and protection, and people still disbelieved! His power and command to believe could not be more clear through acts of divine power. God means what He says, and acted so. The Father was the teacher of Christ in his Humanity. The Father gave Him the commandment what to say (Jn 12:49-50), Jesus being obedient to death, keeping all the Father’s commandments to the letter, as Christians should try to (Matt 5:17-19), and not by being a hypocrite and elasticating them to make six days equal to billions of days in order to please Big Bang theorists (ref Matt 15:3-9), hence making the Genesis Sabbath Commandment at Sinai doubtful and eventually of no effect. Still, we will be judged by the words of the Father (Jn 12:48). If He can’t count, God help us. The accuracy of divine law is of prime importance. Truth does not have degrees of accuracy, truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not shades of truth to our liking, or lack of belief. Strict Divine Law is one reason for the Saviour. “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children” (Gal 4:4-5). Why, did not Jesus in relation to divorce, adultery and lust, make a stricter law out of the Decalogue (Matt 5:28). Do we not now commit spiritual adultery with the Big Bang Theory and Darwinism against Divine Law, intellectually crucifying Divine Law and Christ, and doing our selves no good whatsoever? The law must be accurate or we have a Saviour Creator God who is inaccurate. What then His judgements? Did not Jesus say, we will be judged to the last farthing is paid (Matt 5:26). Surely, we expect to be judged accurately. How, by what God plainly said. You are making the case BA77, that the Genesis Sabbath Divine Law is doubtful, subject to further interpretation. Therefore, Divine Law is inaccurate: ‘I appeal Judge to be removed from hell, because your law is unclear.’ Satan would have a field day. However, Jesus teaches a valuable lesson in the wilderness against Satan: “But he answered, ‘It is written, “One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”’ (Matt 4:4) Notice, Jesus said to Satan, “it is written.” And Jesus said it was hypocrisy to try to get around what is written, especially when written by God at Sinai (Matt 15:3-9). Therefore, BA77, no more of one implication to your statement, ‘I do violence to scripture by keeping to scripture.’ I have never heard such, as we shall see next.mw_{September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

HeKS,
I’d say we can even extend this principle out to additional levels. Anything that exists within a larger context is necessarily contingent upon its context. This is true whether the context is space, or time, or constraining laws, or variable motion, or probabilistic outcomes, or material components, or creative agency, or all of the above, or anything else. The entirety of the context that informs a physical object’s existence, state of being and activity would need to already exist, each part in proper relation to the other, before the object itself could exist. This would apply all the way back to the beginning of the universe itself and even any quantum regime that may or may not have existed at that point. Physicality, at all points, is contingent upon composition with respect to its own parts, the spacetime it occupies, and the laws that govern its behavior.
Yes, your extended analysis makes sense to me and points to a broader principle, perhaps something on the order that complexity implies dependence. Further, it shows that the logic which proves [a] a physical thing is always contingent is similar to the logic that proves [b] only one first cause is possible.StephenB_{September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply