25 Jan 19
@proper-knob saidYou are again jumping over the original question, one at a time please.
@KellyJay
So who did it and how did they come into being?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Not everyone does believe that the buck (or the explanation) has to stop somewhere. In Buddhism, for example, whether the universe had a beginning or no beginning is undefined. It is a peculiarity of Judeo-Christianity to think that origins have any special significance.
And what do you believe moonbus ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Don't dodge, who created the intelligence which IDers believe created us?
I didn't dodge. I asked a similar question. Now I will answer as best I can both your question and the one I asked you which you ignored.
1.) As "long" as God has existed the intelligence of God has existed. That is eternally - with no beginning.
2.) As "long" as God has existed the creating ability has existed. And that to is eternally - with no beginning.
I put "long" in quotations as in "long time" because human language is limited to express this.
We are creatures of time and space and can barely imagine the eternal uncreated God.
He always "was" and always "will be". He is uncreated, self existing, ever existing, all uccupying a "realm" to which there is no higher. That is a Life for which a greater cannot be imagined.
"For thus says the high and exalted One, Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy:
I will dwell in the high and holy place, And with the contrite and lowly of spirit,
To revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite." (Isaiah 57:15)
26 Jan 19
@kellyjay saidI think you may have lost the track of our conversation. You posted a video, i watched it and then asked you a question pertaining to what was said on the video. You've been trying not to answer that question ever since.
You are again jumping over the original question, one at a time please.
26 Jan 19
@proper-knob saidI wasn't aware you watched it and have not be been attempting to avoid anything.
I think you may have lost the track of our conversation. You posted a video, i watched it and then asked you a question pertaining to what was said on the video. You've been trying not to answer that question ever since.
"Let's run with this. If intelligence is required to create intelligence - who created the intelligence?"
Where intelligence came from wasn't part of the video, it was simply can we see it in the data. Can we tell the difference between what was done with intelligence and what wasn't. Not much different that the movie "Contact" sound can be heard there is a difference between natural noises and something made with a thought behind them. Listening into deep space is seeking that out, or listening to a bird sing, a dog bark, a cat meow, a person talk.
Who created the intelligence, that question isn't answered by looking at the data it is simply identified as a requirement for cause.
26 Jan 19
@sonship saidPersonally, I believe that it would not help me to know whether the universe had a beginning or did not have a beginning. I have no burning need to know, and even if someone ever did manage to convince me by some irrefutable argument that he knew, it would change nothing for me personally. My purpose in life does not in any way depend on knowing this.
@moonbus
Not everyone does believe that the buck (or the explanation) has to stop somewhere. In Buddhism, for example, whether the universe had a beginning or no beginning is undefined. It is a peculiarity of Judeo-Christianity to think that origins have any special significance.
And what do you believe moonbus ?
Moreover, as I have discussed with several other posters in other threads, even if an irrefutable argument can be produced which shows that the universe must have had a beginning, some sort of unmoved mover, it does not follow from this that the unmoved mover was intelligent, much less that it is still around today or that it is identical with the God of Abraham. Logically, an unmoved mover need only be a blind force external to the universe, something like a match which ignites a fire and is then itself extinguished--assuming any more than is strictly necessary violates Occham's Razor. That is what I believe.
Of course, I am curious what astronomy and cosmology can determine about the age and evolution of the known universe, and I can follow thought experiments which, in imagination, reverse the observed expansion of the universe to some time in the very remote past when the universe was much smaller than it is now. However, our knowledge of the very early universe is limited by the fact that the very early universe was not transparent to light; the very early universe was too hot to propagate light, so anything which happened during that time is invisible to our telescopes and we can probably only speculate about such things. It remains to be seen whether gravitational waves open up for us another window into the very early universe, on the early side of the light-barrier.
26 Jan 19
@moonbus said
Personally, I believe that it would not help me to know whether the universe had a beginning or did not have a beginning. I have no burning need to know, and even if someone ever did manage to convince me by some irrefutable argument that he knew, it would change nothing for me personally. My purpose in life does not in any way depend on knowing this.
Moreover, as I ...[text shortened]... open up for us another window into the very early universe, on the early side of the light-barrier.
Stephen C. Meyer speaks to a beginning
New knowledge can change our current views on anything including meaning of life.
26 Jan 19
@kellyjay saidYes, of course, I am willing to adjust my beliefs in light of better evidence.
[youtube] 64WpGhpjkHg [/youtube]
Stephen C. Meyer speaks to a beginning
New knowledge can change our current views on anything including meaning of life.
It's interesting that Meyer talks about Einstein fudging data to fit a pre-conceived idea. That is exactly what YECs do when they look at fossils and say, "they are only 6,000 years old, God just made them look like they're millions of years old." The difference is, Einstein conceded he was wrong; YECs don't: they cleave to their dogma in defiance of massively coherent evidence that their belief is wrong.
As I pointed out above, the notion that the universe had a beginning does not imply an act of creation, much less intelligence or that the ignitor is identical with the God of Abraham.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
26 Jan 19
@moonbus saidAlthough the universe didn't have a beginning (trust me) I understand why finite creatures like humans feel like there must have been one.
Yes, of course, I am willing to adjust my beliefs in light of better evidence.
It's interesting that Meyer talks about Einstein fudging data to fit a pre-conceived idea. That is exactly what YECs do when they look at fossils and say, "they are only 6,000 years old, God just made them look like they're millions of years old." The difference is, Einstein conceded he w ...[text shortened]... an act of creation, much less intelligence or that the ignitor is identical with the God of Abraham.
Theists will often say that a finite human cannot comprehend an infinite deity. Well, the same applies to an infinite universe.
26 Jan 19
@moonbus saidI'm a YEC, I don't fudge the data I'm perfectly fine saying I don't believe it, but I could be wrong. I also don't think Meyer is a YEC, I've watched him debate with those that believe in evolution from a common ancestor. I found I agreed with him except during the times when he and the one he was debating agreed on the age of the earth.
Yes, of course, I am willing to adjust my beliefs in light of better evidence.
It's interesting that Meyer talks about Einstein fudging data to fit a pre-conceived idea. That is exactly what YECs do when they look at fossils and say, "they are only 6,000 years old, God just made them look like they're millions of years old." The difference is, Einstein conceded he w ...[text shortened]... an act of creation, much less intelligence or that the ignitor is identical with the God of Abraham.
I reject the notion that God made fossils to look millions of years old, they look like fossils nothing more, we assign the dates and ages to them, and if we are right great, if we are wrong its on us.
If you don't believe in a creator which is where many people are, do you have a theory or even care where everything came from?
Also thank you for viewing the link and discussing it.
26 Jan 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidWhat do you do with Einstein and Hubble's theories and findings?
Although the universe didn't have a beginning (trust me) I understand why finite creatures like humans feel like there must have been one.
Theists will often say that a finite human cannot comprehend an infinite deity. Well, the same applies to an infinite universe.
26 Jan 19
1 edit
@kellyjay saidNo, I don't have a theory where everything came from, nor does it trouble me not to have one.
I'm a YEC, I don't fudge the data I'm perfectly fine saying I don't believe it, but I could be wrong. I also don't think Meyer is a YEC, I've watched him debate with those that believe in evolution from a common ancestor. I found I agreed with him except during the times when he and the one he was debating agreed on the age of the earth.
I reject the notion that God made ...[text shortened]... y or even care where everything came from?
Also thank you for viewing the link and discussing it.
It seems quite logical to imagine the observed expansion of the universe in reverse and thereby to arrive at a theoretical age of the universe, reversing the process to when the expansion probably started. Thing is, what we arrive at by this thought experiment is a "singularity", and we simply do not know what goes on inside singularities. Yes, the expansion (which is observable) probably started x-billion years ago, but how long did the singularity lie dormant until it started expanding? Maybe the singularity is timeless in the strictest sense of the word: that is, having neither a beginning nor not-a—beginning. What triggered it to expand when it did and not at some other time? I have no idea and it does not trouble me not to know. Ancient pagan religions held the universe to be an egg; at some point it just hatches and there's no why.
I reject the notion that God made fossils to look millions of years old, they look like fossils nothing more, we assign the dates and ages to them, and if we are right great, if we are wrong its on us.
Oh, so the rings on trees look like rings on trees and nothing more? You don't think the age of a tree can be judged now by counting the rings??
There is massively coherent evidence that fossils were once really living organisms (they did not start out as rocks which merely look like organisms), and that those organisms lived and died millions of years ago. No flood myth explains how they got buried under so much soil with progressive layers of fossils from other species on top of them, all now extinct. These things can be dated very accurately, and I'm not prepared to discuss alleged errors of carbon dating methods because there are so many other methods of dating things. To mention only two, a) the half-lives of radio-active elements are well established and if those measurements are wrong, then we are wrong about every element in the periodic table and every chemical bond. If we were that wrong about chemistry, then antibiotics wouldn't work and bridges wouldn't stand up and airplanes wouldn't fly and computers wouldn't work, because they would all be based on false ideas about metallurgy and electromagnetism and so on.
b) Ice cores, like rings on trees, are evidence of times past and of conditions which obtained in times past--evidence we can see and evaluate now. Ice cores retrieved from arctic and antarctic regions indicate that the climate on Earth was radically different over long periods of time to what it is today and that certain life forms alive today could not have lived during previous ages (for example, for lack of atmospheric oxygen). Some of the fossilized creatures come from those times and would not survive in today's atmosphere. There is no way to rescue the YE hypothesis by saying that there were such radical changes of flora and fauna within the last few thousand years; no geological or meteorological process accounts for such changes over short periods of time.
This is not to say that scientists never make mistakes; of course, sometimes they do. But not across the board about radio-active half-life and chemical bonds and redshift from distant stars and geology and ice cores and literally millions of other bits of evidence taken together.
You really should get your mind round this: the universe is not a few thousand years old, but many billions.
Christian faith does not depend on the YE hypothesis being true. You can abandon the latter and still keep the former. You don't have to trust me on this; trust your fellow Christians.
27 Jan 19
2 edits
@moonbus saidAs I pointed out before, I'm not overly concern about age. If it’s a young earth nothing I can say or do will change anyone's minds, if I'm wrong it isn't a make or break thing either. Age isn't the issues I have with several of the things being discussed. I also don't think age helps things get done either and I believe more time would cause more difficulty than solve.
No, I don't have a theory where everything came from, nor does it trouble me not to have one.
It seems quite logical to imagine the observed expansion of the universe in reverse and thereby to arrive at a theoretical age of the universe, reversing the process to when the expansion probably started. Thing is, what we arrive at by this thought experiment is a "singularity", ...[text shortened]... latter and still keep the former. You don't have to trust me on this; trust your fellow Christians.
If the earth was a billion years old, (just pulling that time out of air.) Would that mean that the earth had a billion years to form life on it, and each moment of time on the earth the dice were rolling, and after some period of time bang, there was life? With a billion years of rolls attempting to make it happen the odds were it was bound to, after all it was just a matter of time?
I can only say I don't believe that for a moment. Time is just a small piece of the process, and more time doesn't overcome any of the show stoppers. A roll of the dice to have life startup from non-life would only really occur if all the necessary ingredients were in the same place, at the same time, in the proper quantities, under the right conditions and so on. That is the only window of opportunity that we can say the dice roll counted, if any of the essentials were not true there isn't even a chance it could occur. Also true, if anything was present that prohibited the event from occurring, that too stops all possibilities of even having a shot of the proper mix for an opportunity at life.
The Fossil record show some odd things, many just show up during one time period and die off, different creatures during different time periods. Do all those fossils in the different times just show up and disappear? It is odd how these creatures all had different shapes, and they just appear fully formed? It’s like each new individual life form that came and went was by itself an explosion of new life in a different time period.
I don't think each creature was a new biological miracle in nature, because nature isn't supposed to have a plan or purpose in forming new life. How could it not directly, direct so many new life forms in each geological time period where new life was found?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 Jan 19
2 edits
Who created God ? Hugh Ross say the question, which he gets all the time, is a questions subject ot the logical fallacy of a category error.
Astrophysicist / Christian Hugh Ross
Hugh Ross - Beyond the Cosmos: How Science Reveals God's Trans-Dimensional Power
(I reserve some endorsement to some of his theological comments)