Which bible do you Read?

[jcribb16]

It's not irrational to me.  If it makes you feel better to call it that, go right ahead.  I could say the same about what your claims, but you are entitled to what you think.  I'm entitled to what I think or believe. 

[falcon9]

It's not irrational to me.  If it makes you feel better to call it that, go right ahead.  I could say the same about what your claims, but you are entitled to what you think.  I'm entitled to what I think or believe. 

Then everyone else can consider themselves most fortunate that you're not on the panel that concurs on the standard definitions of words, (like "irrational").  I'm not sure which "claims" you are imputing to others which you could claim were irrational as well, since you neglected to specify them.  In any case, yes, you are entitled to your thoughts, opinions and beliefs however, once you put them 'out there' in a public forum entitled Debate + Discuss, they're open to debate, discussion, refutation, other people's opinions and logical challenges to asserted claims.  Surely they're strong enough to stand up under such fire, aren't they?

[jcribb16]

Well, then, lets put things in reverse.  Can you explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals?  In other words, how could nothing create our world unless there was something existing?  What I'm saying is that an effect has to resemble its cause.  Are you disagreeing with this?  

[monnee]

The Holy Bible of God.

[falcon9]

Well, then, lets put things in reverse.  Can you explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals?  In other words, how could nothing create our world unless there was something exists?  

You are requesting my theory on life, the universe and everything?  Hrmm ... I suppose the closest thing to that would be a hypothetical version of advanced chaos theory in which islands of stability, (order), and quantum entanglement combine with emergent phenomenon.  A detailed elaboration of that hypothesis would take a great deal of time.  It essentially posits that 'order arose from chaos' by way of proposed "islands of stability" but, does not address how 'unformed chaos' came into existance, (while also taking the a priori assumption that nothing existed prior to an unformed chaos).  

What I'm saying is that an effect has to resemble its cause.  Are you disagreeing with this?  

I'm not sure I'd agree with how your contention is phrased however, emergent phenomenon and chaos theory do account for the "effect" resembling its "cause".

[jcribb16]

I think we both agree that the world had a beginning.  In order to have a beginning, there has to be a cause.  But what I'm understanding you to say is that nothing produced everything, that non-life produces life, that chaos produces information.  Not to mention that would mean you are inferring that non-reason produces reason, and unconsciousness produces consciousness. 

Me?  I believe that mind created these things I listed.  In order for there to be life, reason, consciousness, personality, morals, etc., there has to be something or someone that/who already exists to create these things.  So can you honestly say that nothing produced everything, including the things listed?  Nothing had no mind - there had to be something or someone that/who had a higher mind when it/he/she created.

Jeremiah 32:17  "Ah, Lord GOD, behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm and there is nothing too hard for."

Psalm 147:4-5  "He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names.  Great is our Lord and of great power his understanding is. "

Colossians 1:17 "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

[falcon9]

I think we both agree that the world had a beginning.  In order to have a beginning, there has to be a cause.  But what I'm understanding you to say is that nothing produced everything, that non-life produces life, that chaos produces information.  Not to mention that would mean you are inferring that non-reason produces reason, and unconsciousness produces consciousness. 

Well, no; both chaos and emergent theories are a great deal more complex than that simplification.  If wished, this aspect can be elaborated upon at length, (warning: it's not a few one-liners).

Me?  I believe that mind created these things I listed.  In order for there to be life, reason, consciousness, personality, morals, etc., there has to be something or someone that/who already exists to create these things.  So can you honestly say that nothing produced everything, including the things listed?  Nothing had no mind - there had to be something or someone that/who had a higher mind when it/he/she created.

There are several a priori assumptions inherent in your belief.  My subsequent reply will address these carefully, (insufficient time now).

Jeremiah 32:17  "Ah, Lord GOD, behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm and there is nothing too hard for."

Psalm 147:4-5  "He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names.  Great is our Lord and of great power his understanding is. "

Colossians 1:17 "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Oh my, bible quotes as support, really?  *sighs*  Subsequent reply to follow.

[falcon9]

I think we both agree that the world had a beginning.

Sorry, we can't agree on that as I lean toward the 'omniverse' theory which encompasses 'continuous creation' without a creator, (i.e., the omniverse has always 'existed' in the sense that the physical universe we partly perceive is an emergent phenomenon of the pre-existing 'subspace' of the omniverse.  This particular universe has a point when it first 'emerged' but, the as the theory of the omniverse goes, this was not a "creation" per se, (being an emergent property of the non-physical omniverse).  At the point, things get even more esoteric with "strange attractors", ('order from chaos'), and meta-fractals.  Suffice it to say that the proposed theory does not require a "creator god" since the universe wasn't created.  Of course, this may seem to beg the question of 'what created the omniverse?' however, the question does not apply since the omniverse is posited as having always 'existing' and not requiring a start-point.

But what I'm understanding you to say is that nothing produced everything ...

Nope, what the theory (very) basically proposes is that scaler fractal patterns underlie what appears to be "chaos" on a macro scale as a result of "strange attractors", (which are not hookers on the corner of Hollywood & Vine rather, they are iterated emergent patterns which seem to spontaneously form 'islands of stability/order').  From these 'islands of order, we get the energy patterns which are termed "elementary particles".
These elementary particles interact with one another and change energy states.  Lots of overlapping interacts, (complex systems), can give rise to energectic chemicals - life.  Continued interactions, (such as increases and decreases in ambient radiation resulting in genetic mutations), form the causes for additional effects - like burgeoning awareness.

that non-life produces life

Yep, the physical makeup of life is energetic chemicals, (which are not, themselves "alive" at their basic levels of composition).  What you are likely alluding to is some so-called 'spark of life', no?  Interestingly enough, awareness and consciousness, (although more seemingly limited in plants and animals, not to mention rocks), are considered to be an emergent property of a complex system, (in the case of humans, whales, dolphins - that complex system is the neural network of their brains).  The 'animating force' is likewise posited as an emergent property of different complex, interacting systems.

that chaos produces information.  

Again, (and I know the theory is complex), the aspect of chaos theory which describes "strange attractors" applies since it has been shown experimentally that "order", (coherent information), can arise from apparent chaos/disorder because on a meta-fractal scale, it isn't as chaotic as would first appear.  Therefore, in a way, it could be said that chaos _can_ produce information, (and more chaos as well).

Not to mention that would mean you are inferring that non-reason produces reason, and unconsciousness produces consciousness.  

Well, no; both the chaos and emergent theories are a great deal more complex than that simplification.  Chaos as a substrate is not equivalent to non-reason nor, to unconsciousness.  Initially, non-reason cannot produce reason because illogic and logic are essentially mutually-exclusive.  I used the qualifier, "essentially" due to an odd quirk of that assertion.  That is, while non-reason cannot, (by definition), include reason logic can be used to determine what illogic consists of.  For instance, if someone makes an irrational decision, (one based not in reason but, arises from emotional impetus, or some other random factors, like insanity etc.), such a decision can be analysed logically to determine that it was illogical.
The same does not apply to illogical non-reasoning unless you can produce an example of illogical arriving a a logical conclusion.

Unconsciousness is a state whereby consciousness is lacking, (rather than something which consciousness can be attributed to), so that deduction of yours isn't logical.  This aspect of emergent theory dealing with consciousness arising from a previous state where there was no conscious awareness before is what y'all attribute to that "apple from the tree of knowledge", (which somehow becomes an oddly interpreted metaphor due to a lack of having a theory of the emergent nature of conscious awareness).

Me?  I believe that mind created these things I listed.  In order for there to be life, reason, consciousness, personality, morals, etc., there has to be something or someone that/who already exists to create these things.  So can you honestly say that nothing produced everything, including the things listed?  Nothing had no mind - there had to be something or someone that/who had a higher mind when it/he/she created.

There are several a priori assumptions inherent in your belief.  First, the assumption that a "mind" was necessary is an invalid premise under the pre-existing/continuously-existing omniverse theory.  According to omniverse theory, (from which our universe 'emerged'), wasn't "created", it requires no "creator".  Secondly, I've already presented an alternate theory of "life, reason, consciousness", (albeit in abbreviated form), which does not require "someone" to "create" those elements, (being emergent phenomenon).  "Personality, morals", emotions and the like are derivative aspects of the same emergent phenomenon, (in other words, these aspects emerged, in turn, from prior emergent phenomenon).  Thirdly, yes emergent phenomenon and omniverse theories can account for the apparent "something from nothing" effect.  Although your contention that "nothing had no mind" is a non sequitur since "no mind" is required for the previously described theories to produce the universe.

Jeremiah 32:17  "Ah, Lord GOD, behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm and there is nothing too hard for."

Psalm 147:4-5  "He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names.  Great is our Lord and of great power his understanding is. "

Colossians 1:17 "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Oh my, bible quotes as support, really?  *sighs*  Here's the major problem with attempting to use whichever version of the "bible" you happen to be using, (yeah, there are far more than one and they _don't_ all say the same thing - shocking as that may be, I can corroborate that having spent six years as a bookbinder binding some extremely old family bibles ... did you know that there used to be even older versions than the ones where the "verses" rhymed?).  At any rate, these various variations cannot be considered to be an 'authoritive' source in your quoted appeals to authority because the veracity of that source is self-referential.  That is, it isn't a valid source of the source itself claims to verify it's own validity.  Surely you can see the circular 'non'-reasoning involved in quoting a self-referential source?

[Falconer02]

Falcon-- that was a great read, but I think the majority (if not all) of the christians on this forum who read it will completely misunderstand since they tend to fall for and use the simplest of Watchmaker analogies.

[jcribb16]

There is scientific and philosophical evidence that moves more away from the idea of an eternal universal and more toward an eternal Creator.  There are several scientists, from their scientific view, that have at least admitted that the universe had a beginning.  If something has a beginning, then it is not eternal.  That's why I back the idea that whatever has a beginning has to have a cause.  If the universe had that beginning, then it had to have a cause.

**One fact of that is shown by evidence from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  In the early 1900s the Big Bang discovered the radiation echo.  That proved that the universe is expanding, which in turn proves that there had to be a beginning.  The Hubble Telescope confirmed this, as well.  Not only that, it was shown that the universe wasn't just expanding into space, but space, itself, is also expanding.   

**The second law also states that the universe is running out of usable energy (aging.)  That can only happen if something was energized, or created, from the beginning.  Example: We look in a mirror and see how we are aging - we were started at some point.

**Going back to the radiation echo (discovered by Bell Labs scientists in 1965,)  the "heat afterglow" showed that the universe exploded, which is contrary to an eternal universe being in a steady and eternal state.

**Considering the Big Bang theory is true, then there would have been temperature reactions, "ripples or galaxy seeds," happening in space.  Following that, the enabled matter would then have to collect into and form galaxies.  So, in 1989, the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) was launched to check this out.  Findings were released in 1992.  COBE found "Perfect/precise ripples" that "enable galaxies to form." 

**Albert Einstein is known for his theory of relativity, which says "the universe had a beginning and was not eternal."  He was at first a pantheist and since he, himself, did not like the results of his own theory, he added a "fudge factor" into his theory, which allowed for an eternal universe.  However, that factor required a division by zero in his calculations, which was an error.  He only admitted this error when other mathematicians discovered the error.  He also acknowledged the universe expanding just as his theory predicted.  Afterwards he was quoted as saying, he wanted "to know how God created the world."

So now I go back to effect having to resemble its cause. In other words, it is not possible for something to exist and possess something with out having resemblances to an originator of the same. 

Now, as far as using Bible verses, since I believe God's Word is truth and evidence of God, then you couldn't disagree with me using them to back up points being made. It doesn't really matter which version, although I do prefer KJV because of the history behind it.  I also use, on occasion, the 1599 Geneva Bible, as well as other versions that help with study, clarity, and understanding.   

[falcon9]

Falcon-- that was a great read, but I think the majority (if not all) of the christians on this forum who read it will completely misunderstand since they tend to fall for and use the simplest of Watchmaker analogies.

Thanks, man.  Yeah, as they say, "in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king", or some such.  While I didn't really have great expectations of pursuading a mind clenched like a fist around 'faith', I was asked the question and did answer extensively.  The inconclusive premise some of these folks are riding like a broken-down horse is that of an priori assumption that the 'universe was created', (and the derivitive inference that, there must be a 'creator').  The problem with that is, if a hybrid chaos/fractal/emergent/omniverse theory can account, (by way of what amounts to a Unified Field Theory), for this particular 'universe' as an emergent phenomenon of a substrate of the omniverse, then it only has an emergence point, (rather than a point of 'creation').  This obviates the requirement for a 'creator' - something which bears repeating in my reply to jcribb16, (since she apparently overlooked that significant detail when she replied to my response to her question).  We'll see how that goes.

[falcon9]

There is scientific and philosophical evidence that moves more away from the idea of an eternal universal and more toward an eternal Creator.

"Philosophical evidence"?  References?  As far as scientific evidence goes, I see no evidence to support your claim "that moves more away from the idea of an eternal universal and more toward an eternal Creator".  Each of your examples below can be addressed in turn.

There are several scientists, from their scientific view, that have at least admitted that the universe had a beginning.

Yep, and another bunch of scientists publish completely different theories.  That's why these are called theories, rather that conclusive facts.  My response to your question involved presenting alternate theories, (as opposed to 'creationism'), to account for the universe we find ourselves discussing now.  In these alternate theories, no "beginning" is necessary since the coming into being of the physical universe perceived is posited as an emergent phenomenon, (not as an conscious 'act of creation').  As posited, this theory would not require a 'creator'.

The inconclusive premise you are asserting is that of an priori assumption that, if the 'universe was created', (and the derivitive inference that, there must be a 'creator').  The problem with that is that if it is based upon a false premise, (and that's inconclusive thusfar), and if a hybrid chaos/fractal/emergent/omniverse theory can account, (by way of what amounts to a Unified Field Theory), for this particular 'universe' as an emergent phenomenon of a substrate of the omniverse, then it only has an emergence point, (rather than a point of 'creation').  This obviates the requirement for a 'creator' and the whole argument.  The 'continuous-creation' aspect of this theory referred to a non-physical substrate of the 'omniverse' from which this universe emerged, (like a newborn babe from the womb).  Now, you probably realize that 'mom' didn't "create" baby but, that that process works in another way, aye?

**One fact of that is shown by evidence from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  In the early 1900s the Big Bang discovered the radiation echo.  That proved that the universe is expanding, which in turn proves that there had to be a beginning.  The Hubble Telescope confirmed this, as well.  Not only that, it was shown that the universe wasn't just expanding into space, but space, itself, is also expanding.

Yep, this physical universe has been expanding, (although there may be some indications of cyclical contractions as well) - that applies as an aspect of the emergent properties of an universe popping out of the substrate of teh omniverse, under the auspices of that theory.  By the way, the Second Law of Thermodynamics also predicts the "heat-death" of an expanding universe while the emergent theory encompasses that and allows for another universe to be 'born' if this one bites it in several billion years.

**The second law also states that the universe is running out of usable energy (aging.)  That can only happen if something was energized, or created, from the beginning.  Example: We look in a mirror and see how we are aging - we were started at some point.

Once again, the theory of emergent phenomenon can account for that aspect without the universe having been 'created'.  The analogy you used doesn't actually parallel the universe, (except in a very long stretch of the concept that, there is no universe until the one perceiving it is born - something which isn't factually true since those born before you perceived a universe).  If I may borrow and modify your analogy; an emergent universe is like a child who is born, becomes subject to the physical universe's "laws", grows old and dies.  

**Going back to the radiation echo (discovered by Bell Labs scientists in 1965,)  the "heat afterglow" showed that the universe exploded, which is contrary to an eternal universe being in a steady and eternal state.

You're referring to the measured "background radiation" being off from the calculated amount?  If so, there is something else called the "missing mass dilemma" which actually supports the emergence theory, (not that _this_ universe is a steady-state phenomenon but, that the posited omniverse is).

**Considering the Big Bang theory is true, then there would have been temperature reactions, "ripples or galaxy seeds," happening in space.  Following that, the enabled matter would then have to collect into and form galaxies.  So, in 1989, the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) was launched to check this out.  Findings were released in 1992.  COBE found "Perfect/precise ripples" that "enable galaxies to form."

Yep, these examples all refer to a physical universe which is posited by other scientists to be an emergent phenomenon.  Your examples aren't applicable to a non-phyiscal omniverse, although I've actually read some xtians attempting to co-opt the omniverse and rename that "god".  You're not headed that way, are you?
 

**Albert Einstein is known for his theory of relativity, which says "the universe had a beginning and was not eternal."

He also asserted his belief that "god does not play dice with the universe", (a reference to apparent randomness, Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle and a precognitive opposition to what would become chaos theory).  That unsupported contention means that this was Al's opinion and that he may have been pissed-off at Heisenberg.

He was at first a pantheist and since he, himself, did not like the results of his own theory, he added a "fudge factor" into his theory, which allowed for an eternal universe.  However, that factor required a division by zero in his calculations, which was an error.  He only admitted this error when other mathematicians discovered the error.  He also acknowledged the universe expanding just as his theory predicted.  Afterwards he was quoted as saying, he wanted "to know how God created the world."

Yep, and since Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, he'd developed his Special Theory of Relativity and began work on a Unified Field Theory because the original theory of relativity couldn't account for several critical aspects of the observed universe.  That's why they're theories.  Al's religious opinions do not stem from substantiated fact, rather they form his own personal religious opinions.

So now I go back to effect having to resemble its cause. In other words, it is not possible for something to exist and possess something with out having resemblances to an originator of the same.  

On the contrary, the observation of such existant examples such as weather patterns mathematically demonstrate chaos theory, (in that "Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same -- their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference." (Lewes 1875, p. 412)(Blitz 1992).

Now, as far as using Bible verses, since I believe God's Word is truth and evidence of God, then you couldn't disagree with me using them to back up points being made. It doesn't really matter which version, although I do prefer KJV because of the history behind it.  I also use, on occasion, the 1599 Geneva Bible, as well as other versions that help with study, clarity, and understanding.  

No, I meant that the reason the various bibles cannot legitimately be used as an 'appeal to authority' is that any such "authority" rests upon 'faith' and that 'faith' is that which lacks conclusive evidence.  You did, however, provide examples of the properties thusfar observed concerning _this_ physical universe and presented the contention that it was created.  I presented alternate theories to account for this physical universe as being an emergent phenomenon.  They're both theories; you have faith in yours while I await further substantiation of the theories I lean toward.  See the difference?

[jcribb16]

I apologize for not responding to you, yet.  Wednesdays are my long days with too many irons in the fire, so-to-speak.  I will be able to get back in here hopefully Thursday.  Hope your week is going well! 

[falcon9]

I apologize for not responding to you, yet.  Wednesdays are my long days with too many irons in the fire, so-to-speak.  I will be able to get back in here hopefully Thursday.  Hope your week is going well! 

No problem.  My week is proceeding well and I trust you'll be able to ease up a bit too.

[AISHASHOFUL]

I read NIV, NKJV, and ESV. Sometimes I read the message because it has a way of phrasing certain verses. I like to use blueletterbible.org to look up the Greek or Hebrew for certain words. It is very useful.