Creationists' theory in detail

[ding]

So you believe the universe has existed forever?

I don't know, I don't think there is any evidence for what came before the BB.

Exactly, which is why you can't know that God can be proven through reason and experience.

The evidence for what came before the BB is from the evidence that came after the BB. Specifically, red shift, CMB, SLoT, FLoT, quantum mechanics and Friedmann's solutions to Einsteins field equations.

So there's my evidence.

It appears that your position is to ignore the evidence.

So the laws of nature are your evidence for God? OK, fine by me, as I said I'm agnostic on this point. What I still fail to see is how this evidence for God tells us anything about God.

That’s part of it. I looked at the physical, biological and moral laws of nature before I accepted it.

what does it tell us about God? That God is beyond energy and matter, that God is no thing, that the best we say about the nature of God is that God is more like consciousness without form, that God is love, that God is truth, that God is existence and the material world is a contingent reality.

 

[alang1216]

I know less about moral law than I do about singularities and vacuum energy. If there are moral laws of the universe I have yet to see them.

You have. You just never realized it before.

I'm pretty sure the universe cares nothing for us.

 

[ding]

When you say something like we don't know where it comes from implies that you believe it is a physical phenomenon or event. It isn't. The singularity is merely the point (in mathematics) when Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yields infinite values.

So it literally has nothing to do with the FLoT and the SLoT.

Would you like to learn the role that the FLoT and the SLoT play in this discussion?

A black hole is a singularity but it is very real and has a real effect on the universe. The black hole had a beginning but it existed as normal matter before it became a black hole.

Yes, I would you like to learn the role that the FLoT and the SLoT you believe play in this discussion.

Yes, the black hole is a real stellar structure and yes, it has a gravitational effect on other objects in the universe. The singularity of a black hole is the point on the event horizon of the black hole where the mathematics (which are based upon Einstein's general theory of relativity) yield infinite values. It's the point where the equations break down so to speak. That's it. Yes, the black hole had a beginning so to speak when the star collapsed but all the matter contained in the black hole was created when the universe was created. In fact, all matter and energy in the universe was created when the universe was created ~14 billion years ago.

The SLoT tells us that the universe has not existed forever. There are several different ways to look at entropy. So it can be very confusing but the best way to look at entropy in the context of this discussion is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter conversion there will be a loss of usable energy (heat) to the system. This cannot be avoided and is the reason there will never be a perpetual motion machine. At least not without supplying energy from the outside, but I digress. The upstart of this is that as time approaches infinity all objects will equilibrate. This we do not see so we know the universe has not existed forever (i.e. infinite time). I should probably point out that just because usable energy was lost to the system that does not mean the FLoT was violated. It just means that matter/energy are no longer usable to do work.

Which then leads us to the problem of the FLoT. If matter and energy has not existed forever and matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did it get here and why isn't everything equilibrated? The answer to that is that it is possible for matter to have a beginning or be created but only under a certain situation. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

OK. My head hurts and I don't know enough to dispute what you said. It sounds like through natural processes the universe could just pop into existence. You didn't even need to mention God.

Why do you need to dispute it?

Of course I never mentioned God. So what?

I thought your goal was to prove God exists. You appear to have shown he played no role in creation.

You mean besides willing space and time into existence?

 

[ding]

I know less about moral law than I do about singularities and vacuum energy. If there are moral laws of the universe I have yet to see them.

You have. You just never realized it before.

I'm pretty sure the universe cares nothing for us.

It doesn’t. God isn’t the universe.

 

[alang1216]

what does it tell us about God? That God is beyond energy and matter, that God is no thing, that the best we say about the nature of God is that God is more like consciousness without form, that God is love, that God is truth, that God is existence and the material world is a contingent reality.

Your God is what you wish him to be. You have any evidence of consciousness or love or 'truth'? Neither Google nor I know what a 'contingent reality' is.

 

[ding]

what does it tell us about God? That God is beyond energy and matter, that God is no thing, that the best we say about the nature of God is that God is more like consciousness without form, that God is love, that God is truth, that God is existence and the material world is a contingent reality.

Your God is what you wish him to be. You have any evidence of consciousness or love or 'truth'? Neither Google nor I know what a 'contingent reality' is.

I can almost see the smirk on your face when you say "your" God. What evidence will you accept?

Try googling each word separately and see if that helps.

 

[Picaro]

That’s not a fact. Your cut and paste slogans about social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler and the rise of Nazism leading to socialism and communism are stereotypical falsehoods you stole from fundie xtian websites.

It’s just remarkable how fundie xtians will use dishonesty and falsehoods to press their agenda.

It's historical fact. Survival of the fittest which isn't even science should be lumped in with social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler and the rise of Nazism, and atheism leads to secular humanism, socialism, and communism.

Isn't this why you and the atheists come unglued when people point out the political power and evil of your leftist politics. Why else would people who do not believe in God or gods participate so heavily in the Religion and Ethics forum? You people do not have much morality nor ethics?

Your claimed “phacts” are not facts at all. You’re simply reiterating libels that are promoted by your fundie xtian ministries. I notice your usual lack of supporting evidence that accompanies your hysterical claims. While you can’t admit it, creationism is the true bigotry. It is founded on religious bigotry and supremacist.ideology, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.

The only one coming unglued is you. It’s comical that the religious extremists will use the “eugenics” slogan to smear science when eugenics was much more a product of racial bigotry than of anything properly describable as science. Let’s remember it was the good xtians who have a long, lurid history of oppression and human slaughter through the Dark Ages, conquest and promotion of slavery while claiming to act in the will of the gods.

I would tread elsewhere when trying to equate Hitlerian ideology and Nazi ideology. Hitler and Nazism were deeply rooted in christianity with a bit of favoritism to the occult. Did you know the SS wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles? Do a search for the translation.

lol Hollie proves beyond doubt she know nothing about 'science', Christianity, Nazism, or anything else, and is just another ignorant troll and is just sniveling about 'religion' because it frowns on mindless self-indulgence. If any out there in the Peanut Gallery is seriously interested in Hitler's and the Nazis' view on Christians, they can go find for themselves the Hither Youth Handbook for starters, and their agenda of a Christian free Germany; archive,org has a copy one can download, iirc. They can also find biographies of the early Nazi intellectuals, like the Strasserites, Goebbels, Himmler, and their admiration and mimicking of Soviet Marxism, the atheists' favorite Hero Lenin, and other left wing sociological wonders. 'Eugenics' was a pseudo-science invented by Progressives, including abortion advocates, socialists, commies, and right wing totalitarians as well. all of whom despised Christians and Jews alike, as Hollie here and the other 'atheists' do.

 

[Picaro]

So you believe the universe has existed forever?

I don't know, I don't think there is any evidence for what came before the BB.

Exactly, which is why you can't know that God can be proven through reason and experience.

The evidence for what came before the BB is from the evidence that came after the BB. Specifically, red shift, CMB, SLoT, FLoT, quantum mechanics and Friedmann's solutions to Einsteins field equations.

So there's my evidence.

It appears that your position is to ignore the evidence.

So the laws of nature are your evidence for God? OK, fine by me, as I said I'm agnostic on this point. What I still fail to see is how this evidence for God tells us anything about God.

You claim there is evidence for evolution, so why would we take it at face value you would know what evidence even means, regardless of the topic?

 

[ding]

what does it tell us about God? That God is beyond energy and matter, that God is no thing, that the best we say about the nature of God is that God is more like consciousness without form, that God is love, that God is truth, that God is existence and the material world is a contingent reality.

Your God is what you wish him to be. You have any evidence of consciousness or love or 'truth'? Neither Google nor I know what a 'contingent reality' is.

Let's take them one at a time. Let's start with consciousness.

Whatever created space and time is beyond energy and matter because energy and matter cannot exist outside of space and time because the presence of energy and matter creates space and time. Not to mention that whatever created space and time must be infinite lest we have an infinite regression of what came next (i.e. first cause conundrum). So the only solution to the first cause conundrum is some "thing" (which in reality must be no thing because of the aforementioned reasons) that has existed forever and is unchanging because if it changes it cannot be infinite. The only thing that fits that bill is consciousness without form. Therefore, Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

Let me know when you are ready to move on to truth.

 

[alang1216]

I can almost see the smirk on your face when you say "your" God. What evidence will you accept?

Try googling each word separately and see if that helps.

Any physical evidence I could check or recreate for myself will do. The words I know, the phrase I don't know. Contingent on what?

 

[ding]

I can almost see the smirk on your face when you say "your" God. What evidence will you accept?

Try googling each word separately and see if that helps.

Any physical evidence I could check or recreate for myself will do. The words I know, the phrase I don't know. Contingent on what?

I've already provided the physical evidence. You said it made your head hurt.

Contingent upon God. God is reality. The material world is contingent upon God.

Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[alang1216]

You claim there is evidence for evolution, so why would we take it at face value you would know what evidence even means, regardless of the topic?

The difference between science and religion is that any evidence I provide, you can verify it for yourself. Anything you tell me about God I have to accept at face value, just as you have.

 

[ding]

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

"...It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious..."

 

[ding]

You claim there is evidence for evolution, so why would we take it at face value you would know what evidence even means, regardless of the topic?

The difference between science and religion is that any evidence I provide, you can verify it for yourself. Anything you tell me about God I have to accept at face value, just as you have.

What physical evidence do you expect to find for a multi-dimensional being that is beyond space and time and matter and energy?

I am afraid all we have to study is what he created. And from that any logical thinking man should conclude God exists.

 

[alang1216]

I've already provided the physical evidence. You said it made your head hurt.

Contingent upon God. God is reality. The material world is contingent upon God.

Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

None of the evidence you provided even mentioned God or the supernatural. Now you make this leap into some spiritual realm saying things without providing any link to the real world, at least the one I know. It's like you built a solid platform in the physical world then you jumped off.

 

[ding]

I've already provided the physical evidence. You said it made your head hurt.

Contingent upon God. God is reality. The material world is contingent upon God.

Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

None of the evidence you provided even mentioned God or the supernatural. Now you make this leap into some spiritual realm saying things without providing any link to the real world, at least the one I know. It's like you built a solid platform in the physical world then you jumped off.

I am sorry you were unable to make the connection that the universe was created out of nothing by God. When we started this conversation you believing the universe being created out of nothing was unthinkable and you were violently opposed to believing it, and I intentionally left God out of it.

But let me make the connection clearer for you since you really don't want to believe God exists.

So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described to you was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[ding]

I've already provided the physical evidence. You said it made your head hurt.

Contingent upon God. God is reality. The material world is contingent upon God.

Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

None of the evidence you provided even mentioned God or the supernatural. Now you make this leap into some spiritual realm saying things without providing any link to the real world, at least the one I know. It's like you built a solid platform in the physical world then you jumped off.

Additionally, did you see post # 473?

And you could also look at post # 469 for why the first cause was something beyond energy and matter.

 

[ding]

what does it tell us about God? That God is beyond energy and matter, that God is no thing, that the best we say about the nature of God is that God is more like consciousness without form, that God is love, that God is truth, that God is existence and the material world is a contingent reality.

Your God is what you wish him to be. You have any evidence of consciousness or love or 'truth'? Neither Google nor I know what a 'contingent reality' is.

The reality is that it is you who wished there to be no God. I have evidence and reason for my beliefs. God isn't what I want God to be. God is. I just used reason to discover him.

The only argument you have for your belief is when you were 12 years old you noticed that there was more than one religion so you concluded there could be no God which is the preposterous argument of a child.

So tell me, who has more evidence and reasoning behind their beliefs? You or me?

 

[BreezeWood]

As we've seen, you cannot identify a single instance of supernaturalism

Nor could you ever. That's the thing...there can never be evidence of the "supernatural", inherently and by definition. If no physical determinism, then cause and effect ceases to exist. If no cause and effect, then nothing could ever be evidence for or against.

Once someone introduces magic, the discussion is over. They could never produce evidence for the magic, nor could you ever produce evidence against it. This should be everyone's first clue what a useless idea magic is.

.

Nor could you ever. That's the thing...there can never be evidence of the "supernatural", inherently and by definition. If no physical determinism, then cause and effect ceases to exist. If no cause and effect, then nothing could ever be evidence for or against.

the physiology of living beings is a supernatural, metaphysical, physical substance that disappears when its spiritual content is removed.

physiology is not native to planet Earth and will evolve anywhere in the universe and may assume different properties to its environment to sustain life which may or may not be the same as our own. all of which is directed by the metaphysical spiritual content assumed into the physical properties.

Yeah, um...not buying any of that.

.

As we've seen, you cannot identify a single instance of supernaturalism - something in the natural world that has supernatural underpinnings.

Nor could you ever. That's the thing...there can never be evidence of the "supernatural", inherently and by definition. If no physical determinism, then cause and effect ceases to exist. If no cause and effect, then nothing could ever be evidence for or against.

Yeah, um...not buying any of that.

that's your problem not mine.

you are both wrong, physiology is not native to planet Earth and is a supernatural, metaphysical substance associated with the universe and will appear anywhere the environment is conducive for its development and does not exist without a metaphysical spiritual content, disappearing when that content is removed.

you asked for proof of a physical, supernatural presence that is likewise proof of the metaphysical origin of its existence, not an issue if you are unwilling to accept a fact but do not claim a proof was not provided.

 

[BreezeWood]

You claim there is evidence for evolution, so why would we take it at face value you would know what evidence even means, regardless of the topic?

The difference between science and religion is that any evidence I provide, you can verify it for yourself. Anything you tell me about God I have to accept at face value, just as you have.

What physical evidence do you expect to find for a multi-dimensional being that is beyond space and time and matter and energy?

I am afraid all we have to study is what he created. And from that any logical thinking man should conclude God exists.

.

What physical evidence do you expect to find for a multi-dimensional being that is beyond space and time and matter and energy?

according to your book of forgeries they were born a baby, grew for 30 years and then was crucified but no one knows what the charges were against them ... and you think he is going to come back and save you even though you are a hopeless sinner.

* there is one truth to your scenario - hint, its near the end.