The 'Inteligant Design' website

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by CL8

Hmm, I would love to have a collection of vintage bibles!

I found an interesting statement in your Wikipedia reference (which I have been told Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source because anybody can write anything about any topic, without it being fact checked.)

Well, the author admits the big bang describes the general evolution "process", but CAN NOT explain WHY it exists!

The "why" is where theology and the concept of God come in!

I have referenced Wikipedia articles before about theology. Why have you never questioned their accuracy?
Oh, yes, it's because theology is subjective; it can be interpreted to mean just about anything, so accuracy is not important

Wikipedia is not a perfect reference, but most decent articles have references which can be checked.

Most people I have come across agree that Wikipedia is a great first-step in researching most topics. Furthermore, earlier versions of any article are also available. I have found that most sicentific articles seem to be closely monitored by responsible authors. Often, informed participants do take it upon themselves to review and discuss changes.

Now, just because there is a gap in scientific theory or proof is no justification to start throwing god-fairy-tales into the mix. Science is, by nature, demonstrable and provable, or, in the absence of proof, supportable by known principles and understanding. Theology has none of those and this is not a credible source for such understanding.

There are scientific theories for what existed before the Big Bang..... they were simply not included in scope of that article. And, no the credible ones do not include god.

Such theories state that the universe is cyclical (click here), that is the Big Bang is preceded by the Big Crunch (click here), or the Big Bounce.(click here)

Finally, as for my bibles..... it turns out I have about 10 vintage editions, including one British version (circa 1850 or so) that's entirely in Latin.
Nice to look an but not very useful.

[CL8]

Well MR, as for he accuracy of Wikipedia you did acknowledge the same thing here:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
Yes, I know Wikipedia is not the best source, but it is well referenced;

But I recently heard someone else say the same thing that's why I mentioned it.

As far as those other theories, a quote from the article on cyclical models:
.

The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly over time.[

It still comes into existence at some time, without explaining why.

The "Big Crunch" from the article seems to be a theory of what WILL happen, than what HAS happened.
And still Why and what what would initially cause those forces to crunch or collapse?

It is all dependent on the laws of physics and nature.
Why do all those laws remain constant?
Why are they there in the first place?

Your sources do not answer those questions.

Also what you, Drunken Monkey and other Atheists do, is admit if you can SEE who created something like a car, watch, boat, Etc., then there is a creator of it.

On the other hand, you completely dismiss and even deny the overwhelming evidence of intellectual thought and planning for this universe.

And since you cannot see the creator of it, you deny he exists.
That is completely illogical.

Have you ever been to France to see the Eiffel Tower?

We know it is there and many people do see it.

Yet you or I will never be able to see it's creator, Gustave Eiffel.
You may be told about him, maybe see a picture of him, but the man
is not here on earth, you will not see him or meet him.

Does that mean the Eiffel Tower had no creator, because we can not see him in person?

enough said (for now)

sincerely
CL8

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by CL8

And still Why and what what would initially cause those forces to crunch or collapse?

It is all dependent on the laws of physics and nature.
Why do all those laws remain constant?
Why are they there in the first place?

Your sources do not answer those questions.

Also what you, Drunken Monkey and other Atheists do, is admit if you can SEE who created something like a car, watch, boat, Etc., then there is a creator of it.

On the other hand, you completely dismiss and even deny the overwhelming evidence of intellectual thought and planning for this universe.

And since you cannot see the creator of it, you deny he exists.
That is completely illogical.

Uh, no it is not illogical.

Why not claim that a giant purple polka-dot monster created the universe? Why is it just your god who gets the credit?

Imo, they are equally credible explanations. Neither your god nor a polka-dot monster is more likely, because there is NO evidence that any intellegence created the universe.

Therefore, it is entirely logical to conclude that, in the absence of evidence or credible supporting theory, there is NO creator.... not a god nor a polka-dot monster.

Why do you believe there has to be a reason for this creation? It just exists.

For example, the universe is full of inert items, like trillions of asteriods, rocks etc.... all lifeless, all just orbiting, spinning around etc. We cannot use them..... we cannot see most of them..... so why do we need to say they were created to serve a function? .

You see, many religious people claim god created earth and all its creatures so benefit mankind, right? So who does space rocks a billion light years away from us actually help us? They don't, but for ego-reasons, some people like to claim they have been deliberately put there.

Therefore, I think it is the height of arrogance and misplaced pride to claim that god did create the universe, because it is simply so huge.

The universe is 14.5 billion years old. It has billions of galaxies, each one with billions of stars and planets. All these objects span billions of light years in distance.
And out of all this stuff, some people are so arrogant as to claim that the handful of people who attend independent Baptist churches are somehow the center of the creator's attention?

They claim that, out of the 14.5 billion years of age, only a particular church that has been around just a few decades or so has it right?

That shows some seriously ego-driven delusion!
What might they say??
"Sorry god-creator... out of all the trillions of stars and planets out there, out of the billions of years of history, only WE understand your true nature, because WE are the most important!"

Imo people like that must be so self-righteous and so self assured as to believe anything, so long as they were the center of attention.
Imho such beliefs are purely self-serving arrogance.

(BTW I am not criticizing you personally, I am criticizing the relevant theological interpretation )

[CL8]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Uh, no it is not illogical.

Why not claim that a giant purple polka-dot monster created the universe? Why is it just your god who gets the credit?

Imo, they are equally credible explanations. Neither your god nor a polka-dot monster is more likely, because there is NO evidence that any intellegence created the universe.

MagicRat, MagicRat, MagicRat, You disappoint me, and make me cry for your soul.
You are evidently of high intelligence, and a very well mannered, polite person.
But you, for some reason, do not want to see and admit that the biology of life and laws of physics (subjects only the highly intelligent do well in, in school) shows a highly intelligent person was involved in making the universe.

It's not hard to see.
Isn't the truth, you just don't like the thought of a holy God, because you know your actions would offend him, so you deny his existence?

Why do you believe there has to be a reason for this creation? It just exists.

For example, the universe is full of inert items, like trillions of asteriods, rocks etc.... all lifeless, all just orbiting, spinning around etc. We cannot use them..... we cannot see most of them..... so why do we need to say they were created to serve a function? .
You see, many religious people claim god created earth and all its creatures so benefit mankind, right? So who does space rocks a billion light years away from us actually help us? They don't, but for ego-reasons, some people like to claim they have been deliberately put there.

It's all a way for God to show us who he is, outside of his word.

And out of all this stuff, some people are so arrogant as to claim that the handful of people who attend independent Baptist churches are somehow the center of the creator's attention?

They claim that, out of the 14.5 billion years of age, only a particular church that has been around just a few decades or so has it right?

MR, first, it's not "BAPTISTS" that are the center of Gods attention.
ALL people are the center of Gods focus to save and bring into a right relationship with him.

Second, "Baptists" are well more than a few decades old!
Are you saying the Baptist denomination only got started in the 1970s'?

The Baptist college I graduated from was started in the 1930s!
If you research Baptist history on the internet, most sites agree the first official "Baptist" church started in the early 1600s, however deeper research shows there was always a line of believers, holding the same doctrine as Baptists today, which aligns with the doctrines of the New testament Churches, who were always separate from the state or Catholic church. They were not always called Baptists though.

That shows some seriously ego-driven delusion!
What might they say??
"Sorry god-creator... out of all the trillions of stars and planets out there, out of the billions of years of history, only WE understand your true nature, because WE are the most important!"

Imo people like that must be so self-righteous and so self assured as to believe anything, so long as they were the center of attention.
Imho such beliefs are purely self-serving arrogance.

(BTW I am not criticizing you personally, I am criticizing the relevant theological interpretation )

I realize it's nothing personal, but really aren't we all "ego driven"?

When I wasn't even looking for God, I experienced a miracle of healing by him. His spirit drew me to search for him and his truth.
It ended up leading me to the Baptist church, from Catholicism.

The Lord put a passion in my heart for him and his word.
This is nothing I would have done on my own.

[MagicRat]

Thank you for the insight.

I have read that the Baptist lineage is very old and in part, distinct from the series of events that gave rise to what we know as the Protestant faiths.

Imho there is a strong distinction between religion as a source for hard and fast evidence about the universe; and religion used to enrich our personal lives. One is delusional (sorry) but the other is imo often highly beneficial.

[CL8]

You're welcome MagicRat.

I believe I have put the best arguments and evidence up that I can for belief in a creator.

At this point, only the spirit of God can change your heart and mind.
I know I can not.

Therefore this discussion has exhausted itself.

Sincerely,
CL8

P.S.
What happened to drunken monkey?

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by CL8

What happened to drunken monkey?

I'm in Venice.
Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.3; U; Series60/3.2 NokiaN96-1/1.20; Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413

[akboss]

I've read a few posts here on and off, interesting stuff. I've made a few remarks but want to make a few more - not trying to make waves, just share my perspective.

I find it interesting that we always try to test our science against God, but when he created the world, do you think he really pulled out a Mayan calendar and did what would make sense to us according to our timelines? I don't think so. We try the best we can to apply our science and math to grasp the magnitude of creation, but are always skeptical (and rightly so) because our Universe is such a vast and intricate place. I don't think we will ever be able to apply science to religion without faith, and to me, that's part of what gives it credibility.

I'm not arrogant enough to say I know how the Universe was created or how we came to be, but I have faith that God is the hand that created it. Beyond that, we are all guessing. The scientific field expands with new information every day, and will continue to do so, and subsequently we will never really have a definitive answer from science. If you look back to the origin of science, it was the study of God's creation. How much our attitudes have changed. Until we 'figure it all out', which is doubtful, our methods of analyzing what happened in the past will be educated guesses at best. And personally speaking, creation makes sense to me, even with what we know about the world around us. Imagine God got the same amount of attention Darwin did in modern biology and chemistry! When 95% of the community is quoting a theory made in 1859, and only 5% are left defending a 2000-year-old truth (and they are ridiculed), it makes articles supporting evolution/unintelligent design very easy to come by.

The modern church is screwed up, no doubt. I think that is maybe the cause of so many credibility issues with the modern church. FOX news is more than happy to post a special on how pastors are caught with child pornography, or nuns are stealing money. And it's shameful. But as I presume atheists aren't proud of Hitler, nor are Christians proud of those that set a bad example. The word is truth! Part of being human is that we make mistakes, we screw up once in a while, and some more than others. And when we remove the ability for people to make mistakes, well, we are paving the way for an intolerant and unjust society.

Anyways, as a faulted and screwed up Christian I write this, to no avail other than to put my own ideas out there. But putting my life daily in the faith that God is not a crutch, nor a weapon, I humbly believe that the world we live in and all good things within it exist because of his grace. I won't tell anybody who believes otherwise that they are stupid or wrong, just that I believe differently. What a great country (countries) we live in where we can share this freely.

Cheers,
Akboss.

[CL8]

Another point Akboss is that God created time, so he does not exist in the confines of time as we do.
Also, Christians don't need to point out the wrong or stupid beliefs of others as much as show how the Christian faith in God makes much more sense.


And Drunken monkey, are you so busy in Venice that you can't respond to posts here?

[drunken monkey]

i) quoting doesn't work on my mobile browse
ii) typing messages on my phone is a pain
iii) i have better things to do here than talk about something that doesn't exist.

As you keep saying, this discussion isn't going anywhere. If i have failed to address anything, excuse me. I do have one other question; if you can't accept that the universe can just exist, why can you instead believe that a god can just exist?
Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.3; U; Series60/3.2 NokiaN96-1/1.20; Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413

[blazee]

Originally Posted by akboss

But as I presume atheists aren't proud of Hitler,

Why would they be? Hitler was a Christian...

[MagicRat]

Okay, CL8, we're having a pleasant discussion here , but I must take issue on these statements.

Originally Posted by CL8

Another point Akboss is that God created time, so he does not exist in the confines of time as we do.

Whoa, hold on there!
Where is this written? How are you attributing god to this?

Time is not matter nor is it energy. Therefore it is not part of the heavens or the earth and can neither be created nor destroyed.

So, where did you get this idea?

Originally Posted by CL8

Also, Christians don't need to point out the wrong or stupid beliefs of others

Well, Christians may not need to do so, but that does not stop many from doing so.
In this thread, you yourself have pointed out the wrong beliefs of the Muslims, Catholics, Jehovas Witnesses, Anglicans and some Baptists.

Just trying to be helpful

[CL8]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Okay, CL8, we're having a pleasant discussion here , but I must take issue on these statements.


Whoa, hold on there!
Where is this written? How are you attributing god to this?

Time is not matter nor is it energy. Therefore it is not part of the heavens or the earth and can neither be created nor destroyed.

So, where did you get this idea?

From a scriptural perspective Genesis 1:1 Says "in the BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth" "beginning" show the start of time.

Add to this the account of creation are 6 "days" , a measure of time.

Take a look at 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."

Of course the emphasis is mine, but seasons, days and years are all measures of TIME. God here is declaring he created the celestial bodies so people could measure TIME. I think this verse might be where God created time!

From a scientific perspective,

MOST theories seem to agree time started at the big bang and is closely associated with space and motion.
here is a good definition from yahoo answers:

Time is not an illusion created by man, it is a measurement of motion between two or more moving objects existing in space. Say you had just the world and absolutely nothing else, just a stationary ball located in space. There is no time, because there is nothing to measure.
Set the ball in motion and set up a point from which to observe this motion and you have time. So time is measured by the rotation of the earth and objects in space. The unit of time, the second, is also the unit of all metric measurements including litres and kilos and grammes etc. And is derived from the motion of the earth orbitting the sun.
There is also evidence that all measurement systems use the second as the basic unit.
So the moment two or more objects in motion existed in space, time began. the end of time would be when all the stars and planets and other space debris vanished for ever. (Including the tiniest of particles)

According to this definition, God created time when he created the first two moving objects in space!

[MagicRat]

Your argument is very good and well thought out, especially considering your material (scripture) was written when understanding of abstract concepts such as time was quite primitive.

I actually had to work at finding flaws (hey, if anything, my behaviour is predictable )

Originally Posted by CL8

From a scriptural perspective Genesis 1:1 Says "in the BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth" "beginning" show the start of time.

Add to this the account of creation are 6 "days" , a measure of time.

Take a look at 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."

Of course the emphasis is mine, but seasons, days and years are all measures of TIME. God here is declaring he created the celestial bodies so people could measure TIME. I think this verse might be where God created time!

Well, scripture says god created items, but does not say anything about god's creation of time.
To me, it says god was present at the beginning of time so he could create tangible stuff, like the heavens and earth etc..... but it says nothing about the creation of time itself.

Furthermore, scripture says god created a source of light and set things in motion to create day/night and the seasons. But, based on scripture, these things were functioning within a framework of moving time.... which scripture still does not acknowledge as his creation.

Originally Posted by CL8

According to this definition, God created time when he created the first two moving objects in space!

I am quite familiar with the recent theories and explanations of time. I am sincerely delighted to see you embrace them as well.
But, how is it that you are so selective in your application of physics and scientific theory?
When it can be used to support a theological discourse, you embrace it. When it is offered as a rational, supportable alternative to theology, you simply dismiss it as being false?

[CL8]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Your argument is very good and well thought out, especially considering your material (scripture) was written when understanding of abstract concepts such as time was quite primitive.

I actually had to work at finding flaws (hey, if anything, my behaviour is predictable )



Well, scripture says god created items

Thanks!
I think you just misspelled the word "TIMES"

, but does not say anything about god's creation of time.
To me, it says god was present at the beginning of time so he could create tangible stuff, like the heavens and earth etc..... but it says nothing about the creation of time itself.

Combine these scriptures with the scientific definition of time I posted, and you have God creating time, when he caused the celestial bodies to move.

Furthermore, scripture says god created a source of light and set things in motion to create day/night and the seasons. But, based on scripture, these things were functioning within a framework of moving time.... which scripture still does not acknowledge as his creation.

Could it possibly be that when God created the earth, he also made it spin on it's axis, BEFORE the sun moon and stars were created, thus creating time? ( The point of measurement would be Gods throne from the third heaven.)

I am quite familiar with the recent theories and explanations of time. I am sincerely delighted to see you embrace them as well.
But, how is it that you are so selective in your application of physics and scientific theory?
When it can be used to support a theological discourse, you embrace it. When it is offered as a rational, supportable alternative to theology, you simply dismiss it as being false?

First, I'm not so sure I "embrace" it, but accept it as a possibility (especially for the sake of argument).
Second, where do you find me dismissing a scientific theory as false?