Creationism takes less faith

Lets start off by saying that the accepted theory for the origins of the universe, as far as I know of, is the Big Bang Theory. Now according to what I understand,at the beginning there was no space, time,laws of nature, or matter. Meaning there was absolutely nothing. I posted a short video of atheist Lawrence Krauss explaining what Nothing actually is.

And I would like to address that the nothing the Bible describes isn't the one involving space, nor do I understand why Krauss thinks it does..... It describes the nothing that was before space, because the Bible says "in the beginning..." meaning before(although before loses its meaning because there is no time) all that we know of existed including space?

The laws of physics do not exist, and cannot exist outside the realm of space, time, and matter....the laws explain how the natural world works. There was no natural world there was nothing for them to explain, they do not exist yet. Within the first plank-time (1 second times 10^-43) the four fundamental laws of nature fall into play. These four laws did not cause the big bang they are its product. These laws came into existence literally from nothing(last flavor from ole Krauss.) The massive amount of energy that caused the explosion that brought these laws into existence in unimaginable amount of time was not caused by any law of nature simply because they came into being after the explosion. Nothing caused this explosion. So in order to say the universe didn't have a Creator, you must BELIEVE(using faith) that we are here by chance and that the universe created you. Now, if we were to revert back in time have another big bang guess what chances of you existing are pretty slim, and according to the video above the laws of physics themselves might even change. So you take it on faith that the world is as it is because of random chance. Theist take it on faith that it wasn't random chance but the plan of a Designer.

I would also like to note that many Atheist claim a mass of energy outside our understanding of time is what caused the Big Bang...Oh so its outside this realm of existence and has the ability to create an entirely new dimension, and does so randomly, and we got lucky and landed the star dust that created us landed in the right place? Well that takes a lot more faith than saying something with intelligence put that course of action into existence and that is why we exist. You are assuming that their is no intelligent life outside this realm of existence, but yet you can assume that their was energy outside this realm of existence...if it was just a mass of energy(Spirit) could it not have a will?

I would like to also add that I only argue from a Christian stand point.

I say "I don't know" to the question of universal origin.

But I trust that those with the relevant qualifications who are specialised and who have, in many cases, spent their entire careers studying these things actually do know what they are talking about. I don't take it on faith, but I do trust them - different concept.

And they tell us, that at present the big bang is the model that best fits the available evidence. I don't profess to know that for certain that it was - but I do say "I trust these guys".

Like any trust, we all apply a level of certainty or uncertainty to it. If I am hearing a theory on the origin of the universe from an ice-cream vendor, then I do not apply a high level of trust to it. If I am hearing it from a cosmologist or an astrophysicist, I am likely to take what they say more seriously, because I recognise they are a specialist in their field and are likely to know a thing or two about their subject.

No matter how much I may trust what they say, that does not mean (no matter how you contort it) that I take it on faith to be true.

Capiche?

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Governing implies accounting, which we know God does. Governing involves being invariant, which we know God is. He does not change. The strong force in physics adheres to invariant symmetry. This is the Proton (+) and the Neutron. The Neutron has two down quarks and one up. The Proton has two up and one down. Imagine the yin / yang for a moment, then consider the nature of two over one in balance.

Now subtract the nucleus. Taking the neutron away, we have one proton (+) and one electron (-) in balance. This is hydrogen. At the onset of our universe, we were a sea of hydrogen in a state of high order and low entropy. Electron and proton in balance. Every other element is governed and bound by the Strong Force and invariant symmetry, which is a law holding the house together so to speak. The electron is governed or there would be total chaos. The settings on forces producing coalescence from chiral states of matter ensures that combinations form by adhesion, cohesion, repulsion and attraction. Laws are the result of design and engineering of each particle and element of creation. All of this is centered on the Strong Nuclear Force that is invariant (Never Changing). Apart from this force, the rest cannot hold together.

Where do we find this in both Physics and the Bible?

Father is Hebrew is Aleph (Strong) Bet (House). Alphabet is a hidden meaning of Aleph Bet (Father).

Mother is Aleph Mem (Strong Waters). To me, this is Hydrogen as well as water itself. For combinations of information (Alphabet / DNA), you need a catalyst. Water is this immersion (Baptism) of the soul into the waters of life.

Son is Bet Nun (House of Seed). What is produced by the letters of creation? WORD!

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

I recently offered this a proof that God exists. This was, of course, scoffed at. Run probabilities that this is an accident.

If this were not enough, check this out: Fundamental Constants e and Pi hidden in Genesis 1 and John 1.

This is no accident or happenstance of nature. It is hidden and left for us to find.

What we fail to remember is that God exists on a spiritual realm and created the physical universe on our behalf. It is impossible to see or understand the spiritual realm from the physical.

Try to explain to an ant that we have a space station. Now try to explain to a man that " In the beginning God created. " As humans, we will never understand God.

I agree with OP that it takes less faith to simply believe in a creator God, than to believe that its all by chance.


Romans 11:33 KJV

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Ecclesiastes 3:11 KJV

11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

For the sake of argument. How does creationism automatically equal Christianity, and not one of the other many religions who believe we were created?

ReturnoftheSonofNothing
I say "I don't know" to the question of universal origin.

But I trust that those with the relevant qualifications who are specialised and who have, in many cases, spent their entire careers studying these things actually do know what they are talking about. I don't take it on faith, but I do trust them - different concept.

And they tell us, that at present the big bang is the model that best fits the available evidence. I don't profess to know that for certain that it was - but I do say "I trust these guys".

Like any trust, we all apply a level of certainty or uncertainty to it. If I am hearing a theory on the origin of the universe from an ice-cream vendor, then I do not apply a high level of trust to it. If I am hearing it from a cosmologist or an astrophysicist, I am likely to take what they say more seriously, because I recognise they are a specialist in their field and are likely to know a thing or two about their subject.

No matter how much I may trust what they say, that does not mean (no matter how you contort it) that I take it on faith to be true.

Capiche?

I am not saying that what they have found is wrong. I trust that they are experts in their field. What I am challenging is their deductions from their findings. If you are atheist you claim God cannot possibly be the reason that the Big Bang happened, and take on faith that all of this is random chance. The reason it would be faith is because their is no evidence that it was not God, so to claim an absolute it would have to be taken on personal faith. If you take the position "I don't know" on the origins of the universe then you are agnostic, but yet still you must believe that you are extremely lucky for the universe to have turned out the way it did, after all according to Krauss if it happened again the laws of physics might even change, so this Earth and it inhabitants would have a very miniscule chance of getting this lucky again wouldnt you agree?

Oh and you "trust these guys." Thats cool. I trust God. You can keep trusting man all you want friend, but the signs are upon us, learn from the fig tree.

klassified
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

For the sake of argument. How does creationism automatically equal Christianity, and not one of the other many religions who believe we were created?

I would discuss this, but its off-topic the only point of this thread is the universe had a Creator. I think Enoch answered some of it with the (e) and (Pi) being hidden in the Scripture of the Bible.

reply to post by klassified


That is a good question. I have always wondered why people would want to have a monopoly on ideas like creation and the concept of God. But you have to understand it's religion and people with strong beliefs would believe what they believe is true.

I understand there is a lot of confusion out there about science in general. You would have to take years of studies to understand anything. Whether if be biology, physics, astronomy, etc. In return you cannot properly express you have learned in years of study in debates with different people. I can understand OP and countless other believers are trying to understand life through their faith. How can their faith fit in with today's world.

I'm like many skeptics critical of creation and the belief of God. But I like to understand what other people believe in their lives and why they believe in whatever.

This is what bugs me with all of these threads. Everyone feels it is religion vs. science. I see no contradiction. Science explains the how. Religion the why. Why is there a debate at all? They are different topics entirely, so it is like saying an apple vs. an orange. These debates don't make much sense, but for some reason people feel a need to have them to rationalize their being right over other people being wrong.

People who believe in science does not necessarily make them an atheist, aka a non-believer. Posting debates like this only show what little you have studied about science. The more about science I learn, the more amazing the world appears to me, which reinforces my faith.

With regards to the big bang, which I believe did occur based on scientific evidience, you keep on forgetting the one question which science has not answered. Who flipped the light switch?

In the beginning, God said let their be light. BANG. There you go. All science does it persue the laws of the universe to figure out what the rules are. God is the one that made those rules. Why the argument?

ServantOfTheLamb
I am not saying that what they have found is wrong. I trust that they are experts in their field. What I am challenging is their deductions from their findings.

And that's fine and everything, but don't expect anyone else with even a modicum of critical thinking ability to take your musings on the same level, unless you too can show that you are an expert in the relevant field with years of hard work and qualifications under your belt.

If you are atheist you claim God cannot possibly be the reason that the Big Bang happened, and take on faith that all of this is random chance.

As I said, I do not take this position. As far as I know, neither do most atheists.

Most atheists are Agnostic Atheists, not Gnostic Atheists.



We take the skeptical position that we do not believe in a thing without good evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the person making the extraordinary claim - not the other way round.

This is true whether you are claiming pixies are in the bottom of your garden, or that a god created the universe. Both are unproven, therefore we do not believe.

Total absence of faith.

reply to post by ReturnoftheSonofNothing

a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

No gods exist

ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik] noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Gods may exist....

Definition: An agnostic atheist is defined as one who does not know for sure if any gods exist or not but who also does not believe in any gods

Gods may exist but I have faith that they don't......

You use faith homie no matter how you want to spin it.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Completely wrong.

Else you similarly have faith that no pixes exist at the bottom of my garden.

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
Gods may exist but I have faith that they don't......

You use faith homie no matter how you want to spin it.

No, your using faith (the word) because it bolsters your argument.

Presonally I would say "God may exist but from what I have seen it doesn't seem likely".

So, someone taking a position on the matter based on the proof available or lack thereof is not the same as having faith. And leaving a door open to examine and accept proof as it becomes available is something that truly religious people rearly do.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

I didn't know that faith was measurable in quantities. I thought you either had it or you didn't.

You've clearly studied the Big Bang in more detail than most of your fellow-creationists, and you put the argument from incredulity – all those chances of our not being here, and yet here we are! – very well.

The argument, however, is easily answered. As long as there existed even the slightest possibility, no matter how slim, that the expansion of the original singularity could produce a universe with beings like us in it, then there is no reason to be surprised at the existence of such a universe. It could have happened – and self-evidently, it did.

As far as I can see it takes absolutely no faith to state that the universe exists.

You point out, correctly, that science can tell us nothing about the conditions that give rise to a big bang event (notice that I don't say 'conditions before the Big Bang'). Science only takes up the story after the event has happened.

A universe came into being. Causality is a principle within that universe, familiar to its residents. They are used to thinking in terms of cause and effect, so they imagine that the universe itself must have a cause.

But that does not necessarily follow.

The universe we live in is not perfectly deterministic. Causality weakens as the scale of things diminishes towards the Planck length. At the level of subatomic particles, the universe exhibits a fundamental randomness. 'Virtual' particles pop in and out of existence randomly, but can have real physical effects while they exist. They offer one possible model for thinking about how the Big Bang might have occurred.

But it is only a model. As the person with the Stratocaster avatar says, it doesn't have to be taken on faith. In fact, it isn't supposed to be believed in. All scientific theories are, in the end, provisional. We acknowledge that we may never receive a final 'right' answer to our questions. We go on looking.

No faith is involved, apart from faith in the power of human perception and understanding.

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
Lets start off by saying that the accepted theory for the origins of the universe, as far as I know of, is the Big Bang Theory. Now according to what I understand,at the beginning there was no space, time,laws of nature, or matter. Meaning there was absolutely nothing. I posted a short video of atheist Lawrence Krauss explaining what Nothing actually is.

And I would like to address that the nothing the Bible describes isn't the one involving space, nor do I understand why Krauss thinks it does..... It describes the nothing that was before space, because the Bible says "in the beginning..." meaning before(although before loses its meaning because there is no time) all that we know of existed including space?

The laws of physics do not exist, and cannot exist outside the realm of space, time, and matter....the laws explain how the natural world works. There was no natural world there was nothing for them to explain, they do not exist yet. Within the first plank-time (1 second times 10^-43) the four fundamental laws of nature fall into play. These four laws did not cause the big bang they are its product. These laws came into existence literally from nothing(last flavor from ole Krauss.) The massive amount of energy that caused the explosion that brought these laws into existence in unimaginable amount of time was not caused by any law of nature simply because they came into being after the explosion. Nothing caused this explosion. So in order to say the universe didn't have a Creator, you must BELIEVE(using faith) that we are here by chance and that the universe created you. Now, if we were to revert back in time have another big bang guess what chances of you existing are pretty slim, and according to the video above the laws of physics themselves might even change. So you take it on faith that the world is as it is because of random chance. Theist take it on faith that it wasn't random chance but the plan of a Designer.

I would also like to note that many Atheist claim a mass of energy outside our understanding of time is what caused the Big Bang...Oh so its outside this realm of existence and has the ability to create an entirely new dimension, and does so randomly, and we got lucky and landed the star dust that created us landed in the right place? Well that takes a lot more faith than saying something with intelligence put that course of action into existence and that is why we exist. You are assuming that their is no intelligent life outside this realm of existence, but yet you can assume that their was energy outside this realm of existence...if it was just a mass of energy(Spirit) could it not have a will?

I would like to also add that I only argue from a Christian stand point.

I sympathize with your perspective because once upon a time, it was mine. Krauss is, IMO, a nitwit, one of many copies of "Dr. Caca" who appear on TV documentaries instead of intelligent, conservative, physicists who would bore viewers into somnambulism if they appeared instead of Krauss and his bobble-headed hench-people, who are hired as loud-mouthed entertainers in the guise of intelligent scientists.

Their job is to compete with the entertainers who show up in church pulpits every Sunday, and on televangelist channels. Consider firing a .45 bullet into your TV set and finding your way to a Library. Your alternative is to remain as ignorant as the programmers on TV and in church pulpits want you to be.

Unless you go elsewhere (Wikipedia is a rich and informative source-- not always accurate, but far superior to the Dr. Caca shows) for your information, you will assume that all cosmologists are as stupid as Krauss. This is not the case, but the good guys do not support the show producers' atheistic agendas.

reply to post by daskakik


So its more likely that absolutely nothing caused all of the events of the Big Bang? That isn't a very logical assumption based on the facts that we do have.

reply to post by Greylorn


Ok, so why did you decide God was the less logical option of creation of the universe? What about physics contradicts the idea of a creator? What am I missing ?

Originally posted by TLomon
This is what bugs me with all of these threads. Everyone feels it is religion vs. science. I see no contradiction. Science explains the how. Religion the why. Why is there a debate at all?

Because too many religionists think they can explain the 'how' and the 'why'.

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by daskakik

 

So its more likely that absolutely nothing caused all of the events of the Big Bang? That isn't a very logical assumption based on the facts that we do have.

I didn't say that. We don't know what caused all of the events of the Big Bang or if it is even the right model.

I don't know what facts you have but, the ones that I have seen lead me to the conclusion I stated above.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I didn't know that faith was measurable in quantities. I thought you either had it or you didn't.

You've clearly studied the Big Bang in more detail than most of your fellow-creationists, and you put the argument from incredulity – all those chances of our not being here, and yet here we are! – very well.

The argument, however, is easily answered. As long as there existed even the slightest possibility, no matter how slim, that the expansion of the original singularity could produce a universe with beings like us in it, then there is no reason to be surprised at the existence of such a universe. It could have happened – and self-evidently, it did.

As far as I can see it takes absolutely no faith to state that the universe exists.

You point out, correctly, that science can tell us nothing about the conditions that give rise to a big bang event (notice that I don't say 'conditions before the Big Bang'). Science only takes up the story after the event has happened.

A universe came into being. Causality is a principle within that universe, familiar to its residents. They are used to thinking in terms of cause and effect, so they imagine that the universe itself must have a cause.

But that does not necessarily follow.

The universe we live in is not perfectly deterministic. Causality weakens as the scale of things diminishes towards the Planck length. At the level of subatomic particles, the universe exhibits a fundamental randomness. 'Virtual' particles pop in and out of existence randomly, but can have real physical effects while they exist. They offer one possible model for thinking about how the Big Bang might have occurred.

But it is only a model. As the person with the Stratocaster avatar says, it doesn't have to be taken on faith. In fact, it isn't supposed to be believed in. All scientific theories are, in the end, provisional. We acknowledge that we may never receive a final 'right' answer to our questions. We go on looking.

No faith is involved, apart from faith in the power of human perception and understanding.

edit on 6/9/13 by Astyanax because: my faith deserted me.

I respect this answer. He has faith in the power of human perception and understanding. This is a very limited thing to have faith in when referring to the Big Bang though is it not? Science explains the natural world, how do you ever expect it to explain a singularity that by the rules of logic has to be of supernatural origin. I only call it supernatural because it is something not of this natural world. Science has its limits.

And my friend you ask God for proof and he makes your entire existence a statistical impossibility to show the universe was created with you in mind....is that not enough?