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; 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

Origenes @216 If someone said that an electron is one thing and not a composite whole, I would first ask if, for him, an electron is an example of a thing or the definition of a thing. Then, I would remind him that I provided both a definition of a thing (composite whole) and an example (automobile). If he said that an electron was an example of a thing, I would ask him to provide the definition that informed his example. If he said it was the definition, I would ask him why it is so narrow that it excludes almost everything that most people would characterize as a thing, such as an automobile. Further, I would disclose my own understanding of an electron in the context of my own definition, that is, I would characterize the electron, nucleus, and atom as the basic raw materials which make up the parts and wholes in things. Finally, I would ask him to provide the context or the reason why he is providing a definition in the first place. For example, the reason that I provided my definition was to show that a "thing" cannot be a first cause. I would need a similar context from him. Until he disclosed this kind of information, I would consider his assertion to be meaningless.StephenB_{September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

StephenB @215, Suppose that someone claims that an electron is one thing and not a composite whole. What would be your response?Origenes_{September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Origines
Can you please elucidate? Do you mean to say that every physical thing is infinitely “cuttable”? Or do you mean to say that every physical thing cannot exist distinct from laws, space and time and is therefor a composite whole?
All I mean to say is that there is one aspect of physical things --[they exist as composite wholes]-- that, when considered, will provide proof of their contingent nature. I am assuming that everyone already agrees with me that physical things do, indeed, exist as composite wholes.StephenB_{September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

StephenB
I have said that a physical thing cannot be the first cause. A physical thing is a composite whole, that is, a whole that is made up of parts. The important consideration is that the whole depends on the parts for its existence; the parts must exist before the whole can exist. Think of an automobile: The crankcase, engine, and carburetor must exist before the automobile can exist. That means that a prior cause must already be in place to form the parts into a whole. Thus, a physical thing must be contingent. By virtue of being a composite whole, it cannot be the first cause.
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.HeKS_{September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson @209 :
I’m certainly open to learning about whatever qualities we think must exist in an uncaused cause (so far, the description of that uncaused cause has been pretty lean, consisting primarily of a claim of being “simple”) ....
How about adding the quality "enormously powerful" to the list, since the First Cause created all matter and energy. And how about "intelligent", in order to explain the fine tuning of the universe and life? On the concept of "simple"... It is, at least to me, a gift that keeps on giving. It provides me with a deeper understanding of "being", e.g. in the sense that "simple" (oneness) is uncuttable (indestructible). Also the concept elucidates "freedom" and "autonomy", in the sense that "simple" cannot be caused.Origenes_{September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

StephenB, thank you for your comments. Regarding your claim that a physical thing is a composite whole, would you care to respond to my question in post #191?Origenes_{September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Eric, you write,
A physical object being necessarily contingent at many levels does indeed appear to be the claim, yet I still feel some intellectual uneasiness accepting such a claim, as I haven’t heard a good reason why a physical object is necessarily contingent. Again, people seem to keep defining what is outside of our universe as having the non-characteristics of what is in our universe, but that becomes circular and doesn’t follow logically or as a matter of evidence.
I have said that a physical thing cannot be the first cause. A physical thing is a composite whole, that is, a whole that is made up of parts. The important consideration is that the whole depends on the parts for its existence; the parts must exist before the whole can exist. Think of an automobile: The crankcase, engine, and carburetor must exist before the automobile can exist. That means that a prior cause must already be in place to form the parts into a whole. Thus, a physical thing must be contingent. By virtue of being a composite whole, it cannot be the first cause.StephenB_{September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

Eric, Michael Augros, in his book “Who designed the designer,” makes my point using different words. Perhaps it will resonate with you. “Two first causes would have to share a common nature. They could thus be distinguished only by some addition to that nature in at least one of them. That distinguished addition, since the common nature is indifferent to it, would belong to its possessor as a cause. *(A distinguishing feature might be a god who has intelligence distinct from its, and added to, its self- existent nature. The distinguishing feature cannot be something trivial since it is the only way the two causes can be two and not one in the same thing. Their common nature exists with the distinctive feature in the one case and not in the other. The common nature is, therefore, in itself indifferent to the add-on and hence enters into a combination with it only through a prior cause, a combiner. Whichever of our first causes possesses this difference, and is distinguished by it alone therefore, has its distinct existence only through that prior cause having provided it with its distinctive feature). Therefore, the possessor of the distinguishing addition would not be a first cause after all. “StephenB_{September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

HeKS @207: Thanks for the comments.
First, using different colors as an example of qualities suggests that you think a physical object can be uncaused, but a physical object is necessarily contingent at many levels. I suspect that StephenB was referring to qualities that would be deemed essential rather than superficial.
The example of color was just for simplicity's sake to wake us up as to the specific claim that was being made (namely, that we can't have uncaused causes with different characteristics, and ergo, the claim goes, we can only have one first cause). I don't care whether we talk about color, size, shape, non-corporeal aspects, spirit, personality or whatever. That we can't have two uncaused causes because they will be different from each other just doesn't follow in my mind. Nor, frankly, does it follow that they must be different from each other. More to the substantive point of your comment: A physical object being necessarily contingent at many levels does indeed appear to be the claim, yet I still feel some intellectual uneasiness accepting such a claim, as I haven't heard a good reason why a physical object is necessarily contingent. Again, people seem to keep defining what is outside of our universe as having the non-characteristics of what is in our universe, but that becomes circular and doesn't follow logically or as a matter of evidence. I'm certainly open to learning about whatever qualities we think must exist in an uncaused cause (so far, the description of that uncaused cause has been pretty lean, consisting primarily of a claim of being "simple") and how those qualities cannot exist in more than one uncaused cause. That might all be true, to be sure. But I don't see how it holds together as a matter of deductive logic.
Second, even if it turned out that it could be possible for more than one uncaused cause to exist, Occam’s Razor would prevent us from multiplying such causes unnecessarily.
Well, I don't feel any obligation to bow down to Occam's Razor in general, used as it often is to dismiss unpalatable arguments without addressing them on the merits. Even so, a rational application of Occam's Razor would depend on some kind of knowledge about the actual entity or entities in question. One cannot simply invoke Occam's Razor to win the argument by fiat. With no knowledge about whether there are, or should be, or might be, multiple uncaused causes, Occam's Razor simply operates as a rhetorical device to win the day. We can't rationally apply Occam's Razor unless we have some knowledge and basis for doing so. More importantly, even if we were to apply Occam's Razor to argue that one uncaused cause is better than two, that is a far weaker and far more tentative argument than claiming that there can only be one uncaused cause as a matter of logic. That is much of my point. Again, there may well be only one uncaused cause. I'm certainly open to that. But I haven't yet seen how that can follow as a matter of logic.
So unless evidence or argument could be brought forth necessitating multiple uncaused entities there would be no basis for postulating their actual existence merely because you think it might be logically possible.
See Querius @93. That alone is certainly more than enough to prevent Occam's Razor from being applied broad brush to this issue. Furthermore, as mentioned already, part of the very point I am making is about logical possibility, which some have argued does not exist. That is precisely part of what I am questioning.Eric Anderson_{September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

Eric, Yes, I'm aware of the different ways of measuring time, and you're actually illustrating my point. o Time is measured by something that cycles, such as the oscillation frequency of a Cesium atom, a light-dark cycle (I won't conclude it's a rotation cycle, although that's possible as well), or an orbital cycle. The standard is arbitrary. o A "day" is defined in Genesis as a single light-dark cycle. o The passage of time is influenced by velocity and gravity. I'm sure you're familiar with the twins paradox. This thought experiment was scientifically verified in 1971 with the Hafele–Keating experiment. o A "day" of time is not absolute. There's no way of determining how long that light-dark cycle is. It's simply "a day." Thus, it makes no sense referring to "a day of 24 hours" because an hour is not absolute either. o Since about 1908, spacetime (or Minkowski space) is recognized as a single manifold. This means that it equally makes no sense to refer to "a foot of twelve inches." Genesis was not intended to be a science book, but it is compatible with scientific thought. It doesn't include dismemberment and re-purposed body parts of gods and goddesses. The sun and moon are merely lamps, not deities. Hope this clarifies what I meant. -QQuerius_{September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Eric, Just two quick points. First, using different colors as an example of qualities suggests that you think a physical object can be uncaused, but a physical object is necessarily contingent at many levels. I suspect that StephenB was referring to qualities that would be deemed essential rather than superficial. Second, even if it turned out that it could be possible for more than one uncaused cause to exist, Occam's Razor would prevent us from multiplying such causes unnecessarily. So unless evidence or argument could be brought forth necessitating multiple uncaused entities there would be no basis for postulating their actual existence merely because you think it might be logically possible.HeKS_{September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Thanks, Stephen, for your comment. I'm confused about your claim here:
There cannot be two uncaused causes. The very fact that they are different in some way (having different identities) indicates that one of them lacks some quality that the other has, meaning that its existence is contingent on something that lacks nothing—in which case it is disqualified from being the uncaused cause.
The fact that Cause B has a quality different than Cause A does not mean that Cause B's existence is contingent on something else, while Cause A's existence is uncaused. It simply doesn't follow. If one of the qualities of A is "red" and B, instead, has the quality "blue" it doesn't mean that B is somehow contingent, but A isn't. There is no principle of logic or practical reason that would preclude two identities from being uncaused. Now, if what you are making is a more narrow claim, namely that a specific Event X is associated with some particular Cause A, rather than Cause B, that well may be the case. But (i) it is a factual question what the cause of Event X is (it could be both A and B); and (ii) even the existence of a clear, complete, and comprehensive link between Cause A and Event X does not mean that Cause B does not exist -- only that it did not cause Event X.Eric Anderson_{September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

As to those who hold that Genesis should be taken not only literally in a linguistic sense, but as some kind of scientific treatise laying out the details of creation with precision ...
Hmm, maybe so. IMO, it's more like a historical description of what happened, when and broadly, how.
... inquiring minds presumably might want to know precisely which kind of “day” they are referring to.
I think in discussions like this "24 hour day" is more or less placeholder text for "however long it was then". Perhaps a full day was 20 hours long or 30 hours long, either way (from bornagain's quote):
"Genesis 1:5: “And there was evening and there was morning — the first day.” Here, the word does indeed mean [an x]-hour day."
:)
There cannot be two uncaused causes. The very fact that they are different in some way (having different identities) indicates that one of them lacks some quality that the other has, meaning that its existence is contingent on something that lacks nothing—in which case it is disqualified from being the uncaused cause.
Awesome stuff. :DVy_{September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Eric, Origenes, Thank you for your probing analysis and well-thought-out questions. There cannot be two uncaused causes. The very fact that they are different in some way (having different identities) indicates that one of them lacks some quality that the other has, meaning that its existence is contingent on something that lacks nothing—in which case it is disqualified from being the uncaused cause.StephenB_{September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson @202,
EA:
SB: Yes. By physical thing, I mean a composite whole. ... All physical things I can conceive of are composite wholes.
Based on this, you conclude that the First Cause must be “simple,” whatever that means in this context.
Your question is addressed to StephenB, but I would like to offer my thoughts. The First Cause must be simple, because if it were the case that the First Cause consists of distinct parts, then those distinct parts are logically prior to the First Cause, which is incoherent. From this StephenB goes on to argue, if I understand him correctly, that the First Cause cannot be physical, since all physical things consist of distinct parts — are "composite wholes."
EA: On what basis can we assume that only one thing is eternal and self-sustaining and without cause? I agree there is a strong argument that there must be a “First Cause,” in the sense of an ultimate cause for whatever has brought about our existence. What I don’t understand is the assumption — usually unstated, never explained — that there can only be one such entity.
Excellent question. I would like to know as well.Origenes_{September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Stephen B @188:
Yes. By physical thing, I mean a composite whole. I assume that this is also what my adversaries mean when they mistakenly posit a physical first cause. All physical things I can conceive of are composite wholes.
Based on this, you conclude that the First Cause must be "simple," whatever that means in this context. On what basis can we assume that only one thing is eternal and self-sustaining and without cause? I agree there is a strong argument that there must be a "First Cause," in the sense of an ultimate cause for whatever has brought about our existence. What I don't understand is the assumption -- usually unstated, never explained -- that there can only be one such entity.Eric Anderson_{September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Querius @200:
From a physics point of view, ALL days have 24 hours, all hours have 60 minutes, all minutes have 60 seconds . . ."
Not really. No current calculations in astronomy view a day as being equal to 24 hours made up of 60-minute hours, and 60-minute seconds. The length of a day depends on whether we are talking about a solar day, a sidereal day, a mean (solar or sidereal) day, or any other number of nuances and permutations. It is true that for standard civil timekeeping (a political and practical convenience, rather than a scientific one), we treat our days as 24, 60-minute hours, made up of 60-second minutes. But then we have to adjust this convenient fiction with leap years; centennial, 400-year, and 1,000-year adjustments; as well as the occasional leap second, and on and on. As to those who hold that Genesis should be taken not only literally in a linguistic sense, but as some kind of scientific treatise laying out the details of creation with precision, inquiring minds presumably might want to know precisely which kind of "day" they are referring to. :)Eric Anderson_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

A couple of thoughts.
A day of 24 hours . . .
From a physics point of view, ALL days have 24 hours, all hours have 60 minutes, all minutes have 60 seconds regardless of how long or short they are in comparison to each other. According to Genesis, the periodic episodes of light and dark defined time. A single one of these periods defined the length of a day. In an absolute sense, the length of time in a day could be shorter or longer depending on your speed. Physicists and cosmologists now generally agree with the Bible that - The universe had a beginning, - Time is relative, and that 1,000 years could pass in a day. - That God stretched out the heavens. - That light existed before the sun. -QQuerius_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Question: Do only YECs go to heaven?bornagain77_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

A brief reading of your quote in 195 leaves me laughing. This especially:
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.
Are you kidding me??! Revelation 21:23
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Apparently God didn't know how long the sun He created needed to offer light to represent daytime. Pathetic.
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?”
Awwwwwwww! Whoever wrote this article must be God's mouthpiece or His PA to know exactly what would have happened had God used a word invented in the 17th century in a conversation with Abraham. Silly God. How dare He use 'big' grammar and confuse those dunderheads, right?
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.
Wow, just wow.
We need to give the early Hebrews of Genesis a break…they didn’t have calculators like we do!
Really? Wouldn't wanna stress their cavemen brains now would we?
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.
Whatever makes you sleep well at night.Vy_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

@ba in 195, you do realize I could post 5 CMI articles in response to yours, right?Vy_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth – Jonathan M. – 2011 Excerpt: If, therefore, it may be considered legitimate to take the seventh day as representative of a much longer period of time, then whence the mandate for supposing a commitment to interpreting the other six days as representative of 24-hour periods?
Considered legitimate by who based on what? Evodelusionists think it 'may be considered legitimate' to conflate adaptation, speciation and whatnot with evodelusionary probablymaybecouldness on a daily basis.
Fourth, there is the multiple-usage of the word “day” in Genesis 1.
You don't say? Kinda like this: 'The day I went to [insert place] was the first time I realized how long a day can seem to be.' Another You seem to think Jonathan has discovered some new unheard of knowledge here. 'Day' can clearly mean a myriad of things even in a single sentence.
Let’s take a look at the manner in which the word “day” is used in the Genesis 1 (up to 2:4) narrative alone: 1. Genesis 1:5a: “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” Here, “day” is contrasted with “night”: Thus, a 24-hour day is not in view, but rather “day” in the sense of “daytime” (i.e. 12 hours).
Shocka!!! Whuda thunk it?
2. Genesis 1:5b: “And there was evening and there was morning — the first day.” Here, the word does indeed mean a 24-hour day.
Ya think?
3. Genesis 2:3: “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” To this, I have already alluded — the key point here is the absence of “evening” and “morning”, which denotes all of the previous six days.
Grasping at straws. Big ones!
4. The correct rendering of the Hebrew with respect to Genesis 2:4 is “This is the account of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”
So?Vy_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
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 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
bornagain77_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

@ba in 192, you claim it's the YECs interpretation of 'Yom', not the OECs in their varied forms from theistic Darwinist to the less popular framework hypothesis champions, that are responsible for "violence to the scripture overall". OK. Your assumption that YECs base their interpretation of creation week as normal days on the presence of 'Yom' is obviously a strawman. It is of course based on several things but also on this:
Naturally this lead to a debate regarding the word yom, which I defended should be properly translated as “day” by its context and plain reading. I explained that every other place in scripture which contained the combination of yom and certain qualifiers such as numbers, or morning and evening, etc., universally rendered yom as a normal day. Moreover, I alleged that God’s creative week formed the basis of the Jewish Sabbath—6 days of work plus 1 day of rest.
But of course you knew that already. 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 ------------ A cursory look at them doesn't indicate that there's a magical difference in meaning of 'third day' in the Bible and 'third day' in everyday life. You're free to ignore the Genesis verses (those ones seem to give several OECs nightmares). Let's not forget there's "evening and morning" in Genesis. :D EDIT: Just went through your previous posts and saw your Jon. M., Hugh Ross etc. quotes and I find it stunning that theistic Darwinists are more honest when it comes to the meaning of 'day' in Genesis when read plainly without (Darwinian) pseudoscientific presuppositions.Vy_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

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.
Shocka!!!
To flip your main defense on its head, If the Bible means a literal 24 hour day every time the word Yom is used in scripture then what about all the times Yom is clearly used referring to a long period of time?
Except of course no YEC says that, ever. Even in the English language, 'day' doesn't always mean a "a literal 24 hour day". It's sad your arguments against YEC on this site tend to be riddled with strawmen. And not even original ones at that.
Are we to somehow, to be consistent Biblical purist, to force fit those square pegs of long periods into your round holes of 24 hours so as to fit your preferred interpretation? Or is it only on this one hill that you want to die for your preferred YEC interpretation of Yom in the Bible?
Even the theistic Darwinists are honest enough to admit that Genesis is referring to normal days if you don't hold any presuppositional mystical meaning of what "first day, second day ... sixth day" should mean here and here:
It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith
Next time, try to make the projection a little less obvious.Vy_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

mw, I did not see your responses to me at 184-187. and 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. i.e. To flip your main defense on its head, If the Bible means a literal 24 hour day every time the word Yom is used in scripture then what about all the times Yom is clearly used referring to a long period of time? Are we to somehow, to be consistent Biblical purist, to force fit those square pegs of long periods into your round holes of 24 hours so as to fit your preferred interpretation? Or is it only on this one hill that you want to die for your preferred YEC interpretation of Yom in the Bible? Question, do you think only YECs go to heaven? That is not a 'gotcha' question, but is a question aimed at focusing on what is truly the hill worth dying on in scripture. Did the Apostles Really Die as Martyrs for their Faith? By Sean McDowell http://magazine.biola.edu/article/13-fall/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs-for-their-f/bornagain77_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

StephenB: All physical things I can conceive of are composite wholes.
Can you please elucidate? Do you mean to say that every physical thing is infinitely "cuttable"? Or do you mean to say that every physical thing cannot exist distinct from laws, space and time and is therefor a composite whole?Origenes_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

StephenB @188 I just dropped in here and saw your post and found it interesting as daveS and KF and I have been having a very similar discussion about very similar points over in the Quotes of the Day thread with respect to the characteristics of a necessary being. I agree with all your points here.HeKS_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

Querius @93:
What is intriguing to think about is that since our consciousness, which seems to have the power of collapsing wavefunctions, does have a small amount of transcendent control, it might actually belong to the extra- super- existence outside our universe! Maybe our spirits do sit in heavenly places!
Yes, interesting indeed! The nature of consciousness is one of the great open questions in all of existence.Eric Anderson_{September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Origines
If by “physical thing” you mean “physical composite whole”, then I agree.
Yes. By physical thing, I mean a composite whole. I assume that this is also what my adversaries mean when they mistakenly posit a physical first cause. All physical things I can conceive of are composite wholes.
The first cause cannot depend for its existence on internal parts, because it must be simple.
Right, though I would express it the other way: The first cause must be simple because it cannot depend for its existence on internal parts.
At the bottom of post #97 I argue that there cannot be something external to the first cause. From this I conclude that the first cause must be outside space, time and laws. I would appreciate your comment
. I fully agree. So much so, that I will express the same point using different words, which means that your statement is true from any perspective. The first cause cannot depend on anything external to itself. It is, by necessity, self-existent. Thus, it is prior to all other things, which necessarily depend on it. Put another way, the self-existent being is being, which means that it gives being to other things which can only receive it and would not otherwise have it. Thus, the self-existent being is necessary and everything else is contingent. The first cause must be prior to (and the cause of) anything outside of it. The law-giver must be outside the physical law; the Creator must be outside the creation; the painter must be outside the painting.StephenB_{July 27, 2016
July
07
Jul
27
27
2016
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply