The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

Which leaves us in the position of God and the universe either in opposition or symbiotic. Hadn't thought of the latter before, it's worth considering. Apart from Genessis is it that unbiblical, Dose God say that He will end the world or make it new, is the kingdom to be here or in some ethereal place? Astral planes or Kingdom come?

Well, if God is outside the Universe, i.e., not part of the set of all things, and the Universe is the enbodiment of the nature of God, then by nurturing a positive relationship with the Universe, we would automatically satisfy the will of God.

In other words, a God outside the Universe (whatever that means) does not even have to be considered since consideration for the Universe is the same thing as consideration for God.

tommy2bad

Wh1stler wrote: »

Well, if God is outside the Universe, i.e., not part of the set of all things, and the Universe is the enbodiment of the nature of God, then by nurturing a positive relationship with the Universe, we would automatically satisfy the will of God.

In other words, a God outside the Universe (whatever that means) does not even have to be considered since consideration for the Universe is the same thing as consideration for God.

Would not the conclusion be the same for a God inside the universe?
Heading towards process theology here!:eek:

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

Carbon distribution, without it life doesn't happen.

But God could just have easily put the carbon where it needs to be.

I mean, didn't He create the Earth complete with an atmosphere and a resource of carbon. Didn't he make all life from the dust of the Earth?

In the creation story, there is mention of the creation of heaven and earth but no reference to supernovae. It seems an important detail to leave out considering the amount of detail that goes into other explanations.

It is almost as if the Bible was written with the contempory scientific orthodoxy in mind.

But that's just crazy talk isn't it?

(By the way, sorry about repeating your point about iPods, etc. I was catching up on the thread and answered posts as I came across them.:o)

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

Would not the conclusion be the same for a God inside the universe?
Heading towards process theology here!:eek:

Yes, I think it would. I'm happy to go with a definition that says that God and the nature of the Universe are one and the same thing.

But I think to honour the Universe is better and more useful than worshipping it. Unless of course religion is to be used as a tool of manipulation.:rolleyes:

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

Yes, I think it would. I'm happy to go with a definition that says that God and the nature of the Universe are one and the same thing.

In that case you're probably having this discussion in the wrong forum, for that is most certainly not orthodox Christian belief.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

In that case you're probably having this discussion in the wrong forum, for that is most certainly not orthodox Christian belief.

Are you attempting to stifle this discussion?

Even Christians here can't be pinned down to a single interpretation of the one true religion but do you suggest that they take it somewhere else?

I always find that it is the one who says 'Shut up' that most fears what is being said.

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

Are you attempting to stifle this discussion?

Even Christians here can't be pinned down to a single interpretation of the one true religion but do you suggest that they take it somewhere else?

I always find that it is the one who says 'Shut up' that most fears what is being said.

You are welcome to discuss anything I might post, but I suggest you refrain from making wildly inaccurate imaginations about what I fear or do not fear.

If you want to discuss with Christians what their views are on Creationism then you are free to do so providing you abide by the Forum Charter.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

You are welcome to discuss anything I might post, but I suggest you refrain from making wildly inaccurate imaginations about what I fear or do not fear.

If you want to discuss with Christians what their views are on Creationism then you are free to do so providing you abide by the Forum Charter.

So you were telling me to shut up.

And if you read how the conversation progressed between me and Tommy2Good, you will find that we were establishing common ground from where we could agree on certains prepositions that we can relate to both our position. And, I might add, successfully too.

I offered that if God created the Universe from 'outside' it then it is created to be a certain way and if God is in the Universe, then the Universe will behave in a certain way; the same way.

So, this renders the argument about where God is as irrelevant.

The point is that the components of the Universe interact in particular ways leading to stellar formations and large scale structures etc, that ultimately created the environment in which life could develop.

If the Universe is of God then the nature of the Universe will behave a certain way according to the will of God. And even if it wasn't, it would still behave in the same way.

God may have created all the electrons but God does not have to oversee every interaction of those electrons. They were created with a negative charge and will affect each other without anyone turning knobs and dials.

God doesn't have to keep an account of the masses of stars so that he can cause them to go supernova on an individual basis. Laws about 'critical mass' and 'density' will ensure that stars will automatically go supernova in the right conditions.

The Nature of the Universe' can be taken as synonymous to 'The Will of God'.

And humans can do absolutely nothing about it.

You see? The Christian view is not incompatible with mine at a base level.

So, given that the Universe behaves in a certain way according to the Law, and given the prophecies of say, Revelations, is there any point in doing anything at all?

How can praying and fasting alter the way that electrons interact such as to stop a supernova?

Even if every word of the Bible is true and Creationists are right; even if the Prophecies are God's plan, so what? There is nothing we can do so mightn't we be as well just sitting back and enjoying the ride?

Or should we do everything we can to ensure that the events depicted in Revelations never come to pass?

lmaopml

PDN wrote: »

In that case you're probably having this discussion in the wrong forum, for that is most certainly not orthodox Christian belief.

Wh1stler wrote: »

You see? The Christian view is not incompatible with mine at a base level.

I think PDN just agreed with you Wistler? Christians don't believe the 'Universe is God', or that he is 'contained' in it either, or that he is the laws of the Universe in isolation.....that seemed to be your meeting point in the discussion with Tommy? but it's not the Christian God-

A lot of New Age spirituality is derived from Buddhist practice with a dash of quantum physics also, actually, when the double split experiment revealed that the act of observation changed the outcome of experiments, it was sorely misunderstood and sparked a lot of New Age spirituality and beliefs - and they, for the most part, see God as being contained in the Universe - but that's not Christianity either.

Edit:

Sorry, I misread your quote, I thought you said your view was 'incompatible' - my bad!

Festus

Zombrex wrote: »

Are homo neanderthalens homo sapiens? (hint, the clue is in the name).

Try reading up on taxonomy.

Festus

Zombrex wrote: »

What are you basing that on?

Can you detail something that began to exist and then explain what caused this to happen. Something that actually began to exist, not a simple re-arrangement of things that already existed to form a new type of thing.

The Universe.

Caused by:
Theological answer - a creator.
Scientific answer - created, method unknown.

Festus

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Prove that it did.
Prove that God exists.

Very silly argument, in my opinion.

You're the one making the fact that the universe had a beginning an assumption. So if you disagree that the universe had a beginning and are open to the possibility the universe had no beginning then you should present your case.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

The beginning of the universe explains why there is a God rather than nothing?

The beginning of the universe explains why there is a God rather than nothing. because everything that has a beginning has a cause.

Have you seen nothing do anything? I'm not talking energy filled quantum nothing, I'm talking nothing, the complete absence of anything. No quantum gravity, no quantum energy, no quantum vacuum, Just nothing, as in the absence of anything, completely totally and utterly empty nothing.

We live in a universe for which there is only one valid and reasonable explanation for it being here.

We have no evidence of anything else tangible or real appearing from nothing and existing to the point of observability and measurability unhindered by Heisenberg.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Try reading up on taxonomy.

Well this discussion went down hill fast. Er, your rubber I'm glue... oh wait no its

try reading up on "species" ... burn

Festus wrote: »

The Universe.

Caused by:
Theological answer - a creator.
Scientific answer - created, method unknown.

So in support of the claim that everything that has a beginning has a cause, a claim that you use to support the idea that the universe has a cause since it has a beginning, the example you use to support this claim is the universe

I think you need to think that one through more ...

Festus

Zombrex wrote: »

Well this discussion went down hill fast. Er, your rubber I'm glue... oh wait no its

try reading up on "species" ... burn

"Are homo neanderthalens homo sapiens? " was your question

The Neanderthals, aka homo neanderthalensis or to give their full name homo sapiens neanderthalensis are either a sub-species of homo sapiens or a separate human species depending on how you prefer to classify them but either way they were human.

Now, which non-human sentient species were you talking about?

Zombrex wrote: »

So in support of the claim that everything that has a beginning has a cause, a claim that you use to support the idea that the universe has a cause since it has a beginning, the example you use to support this claim is the universe

I think you need to think that one through more ...

Given your lack of competence in reading and comprehension when it comes to matters biological I'll take it that it stops not there and I'll pass.

Wh1stler

lmaopml wrote: »

I think PDN just agreed with you Wistler? Christians don't believe the 'Universe is God', or that he is 'contained' in it either, or that he is the laws of the Universe in isolation.....that seemed to be your meeting point in the discussion with Tommy? but it's not the Christian God-

A lot of New Age spirituality is derived from Buddhist practice with a dash of quantum physics also, actually, when the double split experiment revealed that the act of observation changed the outcome of experiments, it was sorely misunderstood and sparked a lot of New Age spirituality and beliefs - and they, for the most part, see God as being contained in the Universe - but that's not Christianity either.

Edit:

Sorry, I misread your quote, I thought you said your view was 'incompatible' - my bad!

(Sigh! He gave them ears and they will not listens; eyes but they will not read.)

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION, THE WHEREABOUTS OF GOD IS ACADEMIC AND UNSHOWABLE. YOUR BELIEF AND MY OPINION HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE ACTUAL TRUTH.

Now, would you like to say something about 'The Bible, Creationism and Prophecy' or not.

It seems to me that only the non-Christians here are in fact doing that. Which means that in fact it is Christians who should find another discussion to be involved in.

I AM dealing with the OP.

And if anyone tries to shout me down again, there will be further action.

The level of hypocrisy shown here by YOUR CLIQUE is quite disgusting.

No other forum oppresses free speech quite like the Christian forum does.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Wh1stler

Festus wrote: »

"Are homo neanderthalens homo sapiens? " was your question

The Neanderthals, aka homo neanderthalensis or to give their full name homo sapiens neanderthalensis are either a sub-species of homo sapiens or a separate human species depending on how you prefer to classify them but either way they were human.

Now, which non-human sentient species were you talking about?

Given your lack of competence in reading and comprehension when it comes to matters biological I'll take it that it stops not there and I'll pass.

More hypocrisy; Was Adam a neanderthal or not? Yes or no? Are you afraid to tender an answer? If so say so then we can pass to the next illogical coclusion you have tendered.

Perhap you think that homo sapiens preceded neanderthals?

Festus

Zombrex wrote: »

What are you basing that on?

Can you detail something that began to exist and then explain what caused this to happen. Something that actually began to exist, not a simple re-arrangement of things that already existed to form a new type of thing.

Ok, given that you did not like my earlier example how about a sound wave.
Let's take a simple instrument, say a drum.
Before energy is imparted to the drum no sound is issued.
Impart energy to the drum by beating the drumskin and the energy from the beater hitting the skin causes the skin to vibrate. This in turn vibrates the air generating a pressure wave.

Before hitting the drum the sound of the drum did not exist. The sound is brought into existence by the action of the drummer and the sound persists until all energy is dissipated to the point of being undetectable.

Similarly a light wave. It does not exist until energy is converted - there are various examples the simplest being striking a flint, energy excites the particles to the point that a light wave is emitted.

Festus

Wh1stler wrote: »

More hypocrisy; Was Adam a neanderthal or not? Yes or no? Are you afraid to tender an answer? If so say so then we can pass to the next illogical coclusion you have tendered.

Perhap you think that homo sapiens preceded neanderthals?

What hypocrisy? Neanderthals were early or prehistoric humans.

Given that Adam was a gardener before becoming a farmer I would be confident that he was homo sapiens sapiens and no I do not accept an argument that would suggest that homo sapien sapiens preceded homo sapiens neanderthalensis based on our current scientific knowledge.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Ok, given that you did not like my earlier example how about a sound wave.
Let's take a simple instrument, say a drum.
Before energy is imparted to the drum no sound is issued.
Impart energy to the drum by beating the drumskin and the energy from the beater hitting the skin causes the skin to vibrate. This in turn vibrates the air generating a pressure wave.

Before hitting the drum the sound of the drum did not exist. The sound is brought into existence by the action of the drummer and the sound persists until all energy is dissipated to the point of being undetectable.

Similarly a light wave. It does not exist until energy is converted - there are various examples the simplest being striking a flint, energy excites the particles to the point that a light wave is emitted.

Scientists do not say the universe began ex nihilo. When they say nothing, they mean a topology of 0 space and time, and 0 energy and matter. There is still a quantum structure, expressed mathematically as a Hilbert space of topologies, whose excitation is the universe. This structure transcends space and time (It actually generates space and time), and is atemporal.

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v28/i12/p2960_1

Wh1stler

Festus wrote: »

What hypocrisy? Neanderthals were early or prehistoric humans.

Given that Adam was a gardener before becoming a farmer I would be confident that he was homo sapiens sapiens and no I do not accept an argument that would suggest that homo sapien sapiens preceded homo sapiens neanderthalensis based on our current scientific knowledge.

Well, if Adam was the first human then how can neanderthals be considered human?

Festus

Wh1stler wrote: »

Well, if Adam was the first human then how can neanderthals be considered human?

Are you asking this as a theological question or as a scientific question.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

Scientists do not say the universe began ex nihilo. When they say nothing, they mean a topology of 0 space and time, and 0 energy and matter. There is still a quantum structure, expressed mathematically as a Hilbert space of topologies, whose excitation is the universe. This structure transcends space and time (It actually generates space and time), and is atemporal.

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v28/i12/p2960_1

"
J. B. Hartle
Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637 and Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106
S. W. Hawking
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Silver Street, Cambridge, England and Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106
Received 29 July 1983; published in the issue dated 15 December 1983
The quantum state of a spatially closed universe can be described by a wave function which is a functional on the geometries of compact three-manifolds and on the values of the matter fields on these manifolds. The wave function obeys the Wheeler-DeWitt second-order functional differential equation. We put forward a proposal for the wave function of the "ground state" or state of minimum excitation: the ground-state amplitude for a three-geometry is given by a path integral over all compact positive-definite four-geometries which have the three-geometry as a boundary. The requirement that the Hamiltonian be Hermitian then defines the boundary conditions for the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and the spectrum of possible excited states. To illustrate the above, we calculate the ground and excited states in a simple minisuperspace model in which the scale factor is the only gravitational degree of freedom, a conformally invariant scalar field is the only matter degree of freedom and Λ>0. The ground state corresponds to de Sitter space in the classical limit. There are excited states which represent universes which expand from zero volume, reach a maximum size, and then recollapse but which have a finite (though very small) probability of tunneling through a potential barrier to a de Sitter-type state of continual expansion. The path-integral approach allows us to handle situations in which the topology of the three-manifold changes. We estimate the probability that the ground state in our minisuperspace model contains more than one connected component of the spacelike surface.

© 1983 The American Physical Society"


I am aware of what scientists say which is why I said what I said.
Scientists actually do not say how the universe began other than it was created when a singularity exploded, although some don't like to say created and simply state that the universe began with the Big Bang. This is fine because it is not within the demesne of science to make any statements about what caused the Big Bang or why it happened.
Another thing they won't go into is what created the singularity or where it came from.

Scientists also don't like to deal with the type of nothing I outlined, as in nothing at all, because their theories don't work like that. Their theories need something, at the very least energy and time.

That said I do note that the paper you referred to is a discussion on a closed state universe. Hillbert space is a mathematical concept.
Both of these things are fine, but they say nothing in support of the negation of the concept that the universe was created from nothing by God.

I know you like to present arguments based on quantum mechanics but in all honesty you are doing the science and its practitioners no favours.

“A Creator must exist. The Big Bang ripples and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.” H F. Schaeffer, Quantum chemist

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

I am aware of what scientists say which is why I said what I said. Scientists actually do not say how the universe began other than it was created when a singularity exploded, although some don't like to say created and simply state that the universe began with the Big Bang. This is fine because it is not within the demesne of science to make any statements about what caused the Big Bang or why it happened.
Another thing they won't go into is what created the singularity or where it came from.

Scientists also don't like to deal with the type of nothing I outlined, as in nothing at all, because their theories don't work like that. Their theories need something, at the very least energy and time.

That said I do note that the paper you referred to is a discussion on a closed state universe. Hillbert space is a mathematical concept.
Both of these things are fine, but they say nothing in support of the negation of the concept that the universe was created from nothing by God.

I know you like to present arguments based on quantum mechanics but in all honesty you are doing the science and its practitioners no favours.

“A Creator must exist. The Big Bang ripples and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.” H F. Schaeffer, Quantum chemist

The point of this paper is to argue that the beginning of the universe is within the domain of science. The relevant parts of the paper are:

"In any attempt to apply quantum mechanics to the Universe as a whole the specification of the possible quantum-mechanical states which the Universe can occupy is of central importance. This specification determines the possible dynamical behavior of the Universe."

"The wave functions which result from this specification will not vanish on the singular, zero-volume three-geometries which correspond to the big-bang singularity. This is analogous to the behavior of the wave function of the electron in the hydrogen atom. In a classical treatment, the situation in which the electron is at the proton is singular. However, in a quantum mechanical treatment the wave function in a state of zero angular momentum is finite and nonzero at the proton. This does not cause any problems in the case of the hydrogen atom. In the case of the Universe we would interpret the fact that the wave function can be finite and nonzero at the zero three-geometry as allowing the possibility of topological fluctuations of the three-geometry."

I .e. Even if the topology of the universe is singular (0 space, time, matter, and energy), it can still "give rise" to our universe, with space, time, matter, and energy.

You are right that Hilbert space is a mathematical object, but it is a mathematical object describing an atemporal structure that gives rise to space and time. Our intuitive understanding of the universe, with space and time, and a "beginning" emerges from a deeper, transcendent quantum structure.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

The point of this paper is to argue that the beginning of the universe is within the domain of science. The relevant parts of the paper are:

"In any attempt to apply quantum mechanics to the Universe as a whole the specification of the possible quantum-mechanical states which the Universe can occupy is of central importance. This specification determines the possible dynamical behavior of the Universe."

"The wave functions which result from this specification will not vanish on the singular, zero-volume three-geometries which correspond to the big-bang singularity. This is analogous to the behavior of the wave function of the electron in the hydrogen atom. In a classical treatment, the situation in which the electron is at the proton is singular. However, in a quantum mechanical treatment the wave function in a state of zero angular momentum is finite and nonzero at the proton. This does not cause any problems in the case of the hydrogen atom. In the case of the Universe we would interpret the fact that the wave function can be finite and nonzero at the zero three-geometry as allowing the possibility of topological fluctuations of the three-geometry."

I .e. Even if the topology of the universe is singular (0 space, time, matter, and energy), it can still "give rise" to our universe, with space, time, matter, and energy.

You are right that Hilbert space is a mathematical object, but it is a mathematical object describing an atemporal structure that gives rise to space and time. Our intuitive understanding of the universe, with space and time, and a "beginning" emerges from a deeper, transcendent quantum structure.

Show me a wave function.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Show me a wave function.

Wave functions are quantum states. They tell us what will be observed, but they are not observables themselves. For example, electron wave functions tell us we observe this pattern if we send them through slits in a wall.



Similarly, the wave function of the universe is a mathematical description of the quantum state of the universe, telling us how it evolves and what we observe, without being observable itself.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

"Are homo neanderthalens homo sapiens? " was your question

The Neanderthals, aka homo neanderthalensis or to give their full name homo sapiens neanderthalensis are either a sub-species of homo sapiens or a separate human species depending on how you prefer to classify them but either way they were human.

Now, which non-human sentient species were you talking about?

So if human = homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis is a different species to homo sapiens (again clue is in the name) how are they human?

Festus wrote: »

Given your lack of competence in reading and comprehension when it comes to matters biological I'll take it that it stops not there and I'll pass.

Not my fault you didn't think that through Festus.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

What hypocrisy? Neanderthals were early or prehistoric humans.

Neanderthals existed at the same time as humans.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Ok, given that you did not like my earlier example how about a sound wave.
Let's take a simple instrument, say a drum.
Before energy is imparted to the drum no sound is issued.
Impart energy to the drum by beating the drumskin and the energy from the beater hitting the skin causes the skin to vibrate. This in turn vibrates the air generating a pressure wave.

Before hitting the drum the sound of the drum did not exist. The sound is brought into existence by the action of the drummer and the sound persists until all energy is dissipated to the point of being undetectable.

Sound is not a thing. It is the compression of air molecules at different frequencies. The air molecules already exists, it is simply their arrangement that is altered.

Festus wrote: »

Similarly a light wave. It does not exist until energy is converted - there are various examples the simplest being striking a flint, energy excites the particles to the point that a light wave is emitted.

A light wave is simply an expression of energy. The energy is not created, it is simply converted from one form into another.

Neither of those examples are things that begin to exist, they are re-arrangements of things that already exist. In fact energy can never be created, simply converted.

So again can you provide an example for the claim that everything that begins has a cause.