Did God really create the world out of nothing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jkiernan56
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
All of the laws of the physical universe are created by God.

Many people study science in order to understand God more fully.

Like it or not…that is a fact.
 
God created darkness and light. Then He *seperated *the light from the darkness.

He seperated the darkness from the light.

He seperated the light from the darkness.

Bada bing. Bada bang. Bada boom…universe/life/existence :thankyou:

What wasn’t and isn’t shall be as if it was.
 
Good. Then you might consider the notion that there is at least one law of physics not invented by God, namely the constancy of energy.

You might also consider the notion that He created the universe from energy.

Or you might have entirely different ideas on the subject.
Anything that science can measure was brought into being by God. Before creation there was only one BEING who existed - God (3 Persons in One Nature).
 
Anything that science can measure was brought into being by God. Before creation there was only one BEING who existed - God (3 Persons in One Nature).
I agree.

God was in a state of being before he created time and space.

So being does not pertain to time and space.

Would our souls be considered our being?

God created our souls out of nothing too.
 
All of the laws of the physical universe are created by God.

Many people study science in order to understand God more fully.

Like it or not…that is a fact.
Fran,
I fear that this is an invented fact. I worked with many professional scientists. None believed in God, and could hardly have been pursuing their profession to learn more about an entity in which they disbelieved.

However, there are some people who subscribe to Discover or Scientific American, or who watch tv information channels, and fancy that they are scientifically pursuing their curiosity about the Creator.

Once upon a time I encountered a Jesuit astronomer on Kitt Peak mountain, working for the Vatican Observatory. I could not engage him in a discussion about the nature of God. Church dogma had told him everything he needed to know about God— he was on the mountain to study “cepheid variables.”

By “many people” do you mean three, or four? Do you know the names of any? I ask because I would like to try for a discourse with them about aspects of the nature of God which are not already covered by Church dogma.

Regarding your statement that all laws of the physical universe are created by God, how do you deal with the obvious contradiction to this statement presented by the First Law of Thermodynamics?
 
Anything that science can measure was brought into being by God. Before creation there was only one BEING who existed - God (3 Persons in One Nature).
Forget about what science can measure. The laws of physics are only confirmed by measurement.

Do you even know what I’m talking about when I use the term “the law of conservation of energy?” Or the first law of thermodynamics?

It’s okay if you don’t. I’m just curious about whether you are coming to this conversation from the perspective of absolute religious dogma, or if you’ve actually studied some basic physics.

If you’ve not studied any physics, I’ll interpret comments you make about science accordingly. If you have studied some physics, we might actually have a coherent discussion on the subject. Either is okay.
 
Forget about what science can measure. The laws of physics are only confirmed by measurement.
.
what did you think of the idea that no time, physical laws, or matter existed prior to the observed expansion at 1x10(-35). that is in line with standard model cosmology and it solves the the thermodynamics question.

further, the idea that conservation of energy discounts its creation implies that energy exists infinitely violates causality, i.e. everything must have a sufficient cause to exist, or happen. energy would need to have sufficient cause to exist.
 
Fran,
I fear that this is an invented fact. I worked with many professional scientists. None believed in God, and could hardly have been pursuing their profession to learn more about an entity in which they disbelieved.

However, there are some people who subscribe to Discover or Scientific American, or who watch tv information channels, and fancy that they are scientifically pursuing their curiosity about the Creator.

Once upon a time I encountered a Jesuit astronomer on Kitt Peak mountain, working for the Vatican Observatory. I could not engage him in a discussion about the nature of God. Church dogma had told him everything he needed to know about God— he was on the mountain to study “cepheid variables.”

By “many people” do you mean three, or four? Do you know the names of any? I ask because I would like to try for a discourse with them about aspects of the nature of God which are not already covered by Church dogma.
unfortunately i know many chemists, physicists, and MDs’ over the years that would never publicly admit to theism, but they believe. atheism is irrational, to believe that something came from nothing does not suit the analytical mind. a good friend of mine is an MD who took a long time to admit he was a theist, if unsure of anything else, i expect him to convert fairly soon. he quit his position to take a job with a Catholic service organization, and i know it was a paycut.

but there is a huge amount of cultural and professional pressure to conform to to a non-theist standard.

its sciences dirty little secret, no rational mind can make 0+0=1, it drives them nuts. but many run around pretending that it doesn’t. who receives tenure if he is an outright theist? who wants to think he is doing something others consider stupid?

you hope that both science and religion are wrong because of that irrationality among other things, i hope together that they can reveal G-d, because of that irrationality among other things.
 
what did you think of the idea that no time, physical laws, or matter existed prior to the observed expansion at 1x10(-35). that is in line with standard model cosmology and it solves the the thermodynamics question.

further, the idea that conservation of energy discounts its creation implies that energy exists infinitely violates causality, i.e. everything must have a sufficient cause to exist, or happen. energy would need to have sufficient cause to exist.
IMO the “standard models” of physics and cosmology pretty much suck, pardon the vernacular. You cannot answer questions about what exists by simply hypothesizing something which, because it is a “singularity”, cannot exist and then declaring that this solves problems.

Kindly note that “standard model cosmology” changes annually. Expect it to continue doing so until physics finally integrates the idea of a creator with its known laws of reality.

As for your second paragraph, I confess that I cannot make out what it means. If you want an answer, kindly take a few moments to clarify. Thanks and best regards!
 
IMO the “standard models” of physics and cosmology pretty much suck, pardon the vernacular.
a mathematical regression from current conditions doesnt change much, all the models from that data posit the 'infinite moment, you may be thinking about various string theories or qauntum theories. they do change all the time. thats why i dont use them
You cannot answer questions about what exists by simply hypothesizing something which, because it is a “singularity”, cannot exist and then declaring that this solves problems.
actually the monobloc, or singularity didnt exist because its not shown in the mathematical regressions, not because cannot exist, but because it did not show up in the data.
i.e. with the ‘infinite moment’, posited by the classical models, time, space, and matter dont show up at all until 1x10(-35) seconds after the big bang.i.e. you cant get to the monobloc from here. i refer you to post #43 on the thread we were discussing. a trained physicist admitted so, in conversation with others the same fact came to light, if you throw out the theories and simply regress from current conditions no monobloc can be shown.
Kindly note that “standard model cosmology” changes annually. Expect it to continue doing so until physics finally integrates the idea of a creator with its known laws of reality.
the ‘classical’ standard model has remained relatively stable for some time now, the more exotic models involving string, supergravity, etc theories are unstable and should not therefore be used in metaphysics
As for your second paragraph, I confess that I cannot make out what it means. If you want an answer, kindly take a few moments to clarify. Thanks and best regards!
there has to be a good enough reason for something to exist, nothing pops out of nowhere, for no reason, it must have a cause, because 0+0=0. there must be an impetus, even if we discount the above arguments regarding the big bang.

i think thats what i mean, im getting a pretty sleepy
 
unfortunately i know many chemists, physicists, and MDs’ over the years that would never publicly admit to theism, but they believe. atheism is irrational, to believe that something came from nothing does not suit the analytical mind. a good friend of mine is an MD who took a long time to admit he was a theist, if unsure of anything else, i expect him to convert fairly soon. he quit his position to take a job with a Catholic service organization, and i know it was a paycut.

but there is a huge amount of cultural and professional pressure to conform to to a non-theist standard.

its sciences dirty little secret, no rational mind can make 0+0=1, it drives them nuts. but many run around pretending that it doesn’t. who receives tenure if he is an outright theist? who wants to think he is doing something others consider stupid?

you hope that both science and religion are wrong because of that irrationality among other things, i hope together that they can reveal G-d, because of that irrationality among other things.
Petey,
You misjudge my position and intentions, which is easy to do.

With respect to the theist/atheist position of hard scientists, I think you make my case. And I regret that our world is such that I can make such a case, for I believe that ours is a created universe.

I don’t believe that any of the entities defined by Christianity created it, since their existence is illogical. I seek a definition of The Creator which is logical and which fits perfectly with the available evidence science discovers about our universe.

I don’t “hope” that science and religion are wrong. My position is simply that with respect to fundamental questions about the beginnings of the universe (and its purpose) both science and religion are incorrect. This is not a hope— it is a certainty. But please note (so that you do not misrepresent my ideas again) that this certainty applies to fundamental beliefs/ideas about the beginnings and purpose of the physical universe.

Physics is correct about many details of how the universe works, else we could not build microchips or land robotic probes on mars. This success does not translate to the ideas of speculative physics about the beginning of the universe.

It would be nice to say that religion has had similar success defining the correct laws of human behavior, but alas, that is not the case. Religions are still squabbling (i.e. its members are killing one another) over whose rules of correct human behavior are God’s own personally ordained rules.

Since religion has no particular success in determining the best courses of human action, it is in no better position with respect to speculations about God’s purpose in creation. Religions cannot even competently define the human soul which is supposed to go to heaven or hell.

None of these negative, but unfortunately obvious statements about the failings of a belief system are intended to reflect upon the object of the belief system.

In other words, the inability of astrophysicists to explain the beginning of the universe does not mean that there is no universe or that it had no beginning. Likewise, the inability of religion to competently define the purpose of God or the nature of the soul does not mean that there is no God nor soul.

It is so easy to prove that religions are wrong: Simply examine various religions. They cannot all be right.

And that’s pretty silly. If there is a creator, as I believe, his characteristics and intentions do not change as a function of human preacher, prophet, theologian, or church.
 
I would rather accept the results of a published survey reported by Alister McGrath in his book Twilight of Atheism than the online post of someone about whom I know nothing.

40% of scientists surveyed believed in God (not necessarily the Christian God) and 20% were agnostic. That meant that the minority were atheist.

Your assertion (on the other thread) that your sample of scientists were ‘hard scientists’ (maths, engineers etc) is simply an unverifiable and unsupported statement by an anonymous poster.

As for the first law of thermodynamics I see no contradiction with a belief in God. He has created the physical universe and it is what is - first law and all. It is *our understanding *of the nature of energy, not God’s.

I believe this is a red herring.

As for your encounter with the Jesuit priest, he may have realised that he was dealing with someone who did not want to discuss - only to challenge and argue. There is a difference. I have students myself to whom if I say “Black” they immediately and unthinkingly say “White”. “Yes” generates the response “No”. Its a developmental stage that can sometimes become a character trait.
 
It is so easy to prove that religions are wrong: Simply examine various religions. They cannot all be right.
That is why god belief among more educated persons is so highly compartmentalized. Scientists, for example, are not asking in their peer reviewed articles how gods can change a quantity of zero into a quantity of one, which is basically what creationists claim. An *ex nihilo * creator is just not a scientific possibility.

It is only when science and myth get conflated that we see such things as what happened in Dover.
 
Petey,
You misjudge my position and intentions, which is easy to do
I don’t believe that any of the entities defined by Christianity created it, since their existence is illogical. I seek a definition of The Creator which is logical and which fits perfectly with the available evidence science discovers about our universe.
i assume you mean their existence is illogical because of a violation of the conservation of energy.
I don’t “hope” that science and religion are wrong. My position is simply that with respect to fundamental questions about the beginnings of the universe (and its purpose) both science and religion are incorrect. This is not a hope— it is a certainty.
why are you certain that they are incorrect? you must have specific reasons for certainty, what are they?
But please note (so that you do not misrepresent my ideas again) that this certainty applies to fundamental beliefs/ideas about the beginnings and purpose of the physical universe.
the only difference between our statements seems to be that you do not ‘hope’ but that you are ‘certain’. i dont mean to misrepresent your position, but that still seems to be your position, other than the semantical difference between ‘hope’ and ‘certainty’
Physics is correct about many details of how the universe works, else we could not build microchips or land robotic probes on mars. This success does not translate to the ideas of speculative physics about the beginning of the universe.
a mathematical regression from current observed conditions avoids the ‘speculative physics’ to which you refer. that can be extremely accurate. its not speculative at all. it uses no guesses, it uses observation of current astronomical conditions. that is as accurate as one can be.
It would be nice to say that religion has had similar success defining the correct laws of human behavior, but alas, that is not the case. Religions are still squabbling (i.e. its members are killing one another) over whose rules of correct human behavior are God’s own personally ordained rules.
in fact almost all faiths have extremely similar codes of conduct, not following them is a flaw of the individuals involved, not in the codes themselves, its a function of free will
Since religion has no particular success in determining the best courses of human action, it is in no better position with respect to speculations about God’s purpose in creation. Religions cannot even competently define the human soul which is supposed to go to heaven or hell.
how does the fact that many people do not follow the religious code of conduct affect the theology of of creation? what is incompetent about the definition of the soul?
None of these negative, but unfortunately obvious statements about the failings of a belief system are intended to reflect upon the object of the belief system.
In other words, the inability of astrophysicists to explain the beginning of the universe does not mean that there is no universe or that it had no beginning. Likewise, the inability of religion to competently define the purpose of God or the nature of the soul does not mean that there is no God nor soul.
astrophysicists have explained the beginning of the universe, it just doesnt fit the models they expected perfectly. at the root of the problem is causality. they assume an infinite chain that they cant find a theory to support. if they let that go, we come back to a mathematical regression from current conditions, i.e. all those speculative physics are an attempt to regress causality through the big bang, a Creator is an unacceptable answer to the riddle of the universe. yet it is the only answer that makes sense. and has been since Aquinas’ First Cause.
It is so easy to prove that religions are wrong: Simply examine various religions. They cannot all be right.
true, but here you assume that there is some parity of religion, i.e. that islam is equally as true as b’hai, or hinduism is equally valid as sikhism.

no such parity exists. the Judeo/Christian tradition is True and valid. all others are false.

you may think this a bold statement, but many prophecies written by different people, in different places, in different languages and cultures over the course of millennium were fulfilled in the person of Christ. this is a unique claim to Christianity.

looked at mathematically, if even a few of these prophecies are fullfilled, the truth of our faith becomes a near mathematical certainty.
And that’s pretty silly. If there is a creator, as I believe, his characteristics and intentions do not change as a function of human preacher, prophet, theologian, or church.
here we agree G-ds qualities are not contingent on peoples opinions,
 
I don’t believe that any of the entities defined by Christianity created it, since their existence is illogical. I seek a definition of The Creator which is logical and which fits perfectly with the available evidence science discovers about our universe.

**My position is simply that with respect to fundamental questions about the beginnings of the universe (and its purpose) both science and religion are incorrect. This is not a hope— it is a certainty. **
Logical certainty huh?

I have a different reference point that comes from direct experience. I had a personal experience of God and was acutely aware that all of creation need not exist at all - that God could have continued in BEING for all eternity. I had an interior illumination and understanding that all of creation including me existed only because it was THOUGHT and WILLED by God.
That experience of truth I know cannot be proven by science or logic. That is why I don’t think you have logical “certainty” as you claim to have. Logic in concert with scientific discovery cannot prove the truth that I experienced - it is a truth I know is at direct odds with your assertion of fact that “science and religion are incorrect.”

My experience tells me you are in for a HUGE surprise later on. 🙂
 
You are however, presuming the universe is actually created, which is based on a “belief” that there is a creator, rather than an actual argument for one.

That’s the problem here. The universe could alway’s have existed in one form or another(infinite potential and actualized.)

If something can be infinite, there is no reason to believe it is more than the universe itself…other than, a belief .
This is a fascinating thread. I read a lot of it, and kept waiting for someone to mention a particular argument but don’t see it.
We know that the universe is not infinite because it is mostly insensate matter, and yet human beings have arisen in it. There is no way something intelligent (more or less) could have come from the non-intelligent.
C.S. Lewis mentions this argument for God’s existence. I don’t have the correct terminology, but you get the idea.
Bacteria don’t evolve into homo sapiens without something intelligent directing the evolution. I think this must be a self evident statement, because Lewis seems very sure of it.
 
Logical certainty huh?

I have a different reference point that comes from direct experience. I had a personal experience of God and was acutely aware that all of creation need not exist at all - that God could have continued in BEING for all eternity. I had an interior illumination and understanding that all of creation including me existed only because it was THOUGHT and WILLED by God.
That experience of truth I know cannot be proven by science or logic. That is why I don’t think you have logical “certainty” as you claim to have. Logic in concert with scientific discovery cannot prove the truth that I experienced - it is a truth I know is at direct odds with your assertion of fact that “science and religion are incorrect.”

My experience tells me you are in for a HUGE surprise later on. 🙂
I was tempted to reply to your note with something snotty, like, “How nice for you.” My actual reply is, how wonderful that you have had such an internal revelation! I’ve not had such an internal experience.

I have had an experience, however, which is relevant to the way in which I think and the style through which I handle discourse. Many years ago as a devout Catholic student of physics in a secular university I was called upon by atheists to defend my beliefs. I failed to do so.

Why?

After 12 years of intense Catholic education I thought that I was prepared for every atheist, every philosopher that the secular world could throw against me. But my education did not prepare me for this question:

*Why did an omnipotent God create a planetfull of fools, jerks, pinheads, hypocrites, liars, thieves, and pretentious intellectuals? *

I could not answer that question at the time. I went to bed in my college dorm and stayed awake until about 4am, when I finally figured things out. Since then, I’ve been a believer in a different kind of Creator.

I cannot say that my personal experience was in any way akin to yours. I can only say that it was profound, and that it has affected my entire life. Since then my life has been about understanding the point and purpose of creation (in betwixt keeping a job to feed the kids, etc.)

I accept that I come across to people like yourself who have had a different kind or quality of internalization as “logical.” I’ve fed my kids by working in science and technology. If I wasn’t logical, they’d have starved. But that’s not an excuse; logic and reasoned analysis is what I try my best to do.

What I find it difficult to do is to convince people like you that you need the kind of thoughts my mind produces.

After all, I am not an atheist. After 20 years in the fields of astronomy, physics, and primitive microbiology, I believe that ours is a created universe. I’ve read Darwin, Charles— not the textbooks; and I believe in a created universe. I also believe in cold, hard logic and the laws of thermodynamics.

I believe in the validity of your internal experience, because you care to express it with force of feeling. But I know that neither your experience nor mine, nor those of the millions who have had extraordinary revelations about some aspects of the true nature of being, will stand in the way of the coming atheistic onslaught.

Logic will do that. And that’s my kind of job.

If you look into your own manner of thinking you will see that each new understanding is built upon prior knowledge. So it is with the entire human race. Suppose that space aliens had visited Judea at the time of Christ with a complete set of plans for building microchips and digital computers. Theyd have been laughed out of town.

Had space aliens wanted us to develop digital technology, they’d have been wise enough to introduce a few simple concepts, try to make them relevant to a primitive society, and get out of town before they’re stoned to death for heresy.

What if the truth behind creation is so awesome, so powerful, that the Jews of 30 A.D. could not possibly have understood or accepted it? The best that Christ could have done was exactly what he did— introduce ideas which were right enough to start a religious revolution, intending that revolution to lead to enough freedom of thought so that people can figure out what’s really going on— what the real purpose of the universe is.

People like me have a strange relationship to established religion. I came from within, and remain within. I’ll be attending midnight mass in a few days— but that’s the only religious service I will attend the entire year, except for those which I create within my own mind when I look out at the night sky, or inward at another human being, and marvel at the mind who created these things.

I am not your enemy, nor am I, or the handful of people like me, the enemies of our Creator. If there is a difference between us, it is in our choice of Bibles. Mine is the physical universe, certain to be the absolute word of its creator. Your Bible is the writings of human beings.
 
I realize you’re not addressing this to me.
But I’ll give you my 2 cents worth anyway:
This question, Why did an omnipotent God create a planetfull of fools, jerks, pinheads, hypocrites, liars, thieves, and pretentious intellectuals? is phrased incorrectly.
The real question is: why did an omnipotent God create a planetfull of people with free will, subject to acting dishonestly, irrationally, cruelly, and selfishly?
The short answer is, because the alternative was to create robots, incapable of choosing love, truth and selflessness. Also you have to throw in there the tendency to original sin we’ve inherited.
The free will which we misuse so terribly is actually a great honor, bestowed by God. As to why He thought it worth the risk and suffering, that’s another question.
 
I realize you’re not addressing this to me.
But I’ll give you my 2 cents worth anyway:
This question, Why did an omnipotent God create a planetfull of fools, jerks, pinheads, hypocrites, liars, thieves, and pretentious intellectuals? is phrased incorrectly.
The real question is: why did an omnipotent God create a planetfull of people with free will, subject to acting dishonestly, irrationally, cruelly, and selfishly?
The short answer is, because the alternative was to create robots, incapable of choosing love, truth and selflessness. Also you have to throw in there the tendency to original sin we’ve inherited.
The free will which we misuse so terribly is actually a great honor, bestowed by God. As to why He thought it worth the risk and suffering, that’s another question.
I clearly addressed this to you. How else would you have known to reply?

The real question is the one I asked, not the one which you chose to reword in your own terms so that you could answer it according to your beliefs. Why not try answering my question instead of yours? This will engage your mind instead of your brain and its programmed reactions.

And I understand your answer— the answer you’ve given to your question, not to mine. But how it fits into a universe in which God’s foreknowledge of all thoughts and actions, including future actions, preempts free will, I do not understand. Do you?

Let me rephrase my original question. Why did God create a planetfull of wonderful, thoughtful, brilliant, honorable and generous human beings?
 
I was tempted to reply to your note with something snotty, like, “How nice for you.” My actual reply is, how wonderful that you have had such an internal revelation! I’ve not had such an internal experience.

I am not your enemy, nor am I, or the handful of people like me, the enemies of our Creator. If there is a difference between us, it is in our choice of Bibles. Mine is the physical universe, certain to be the absolute word of its creator. Your Bible is the writings of human beings.
Thank you Greylorn for being so genuine and real - for being human. You disarmed me completely. As far as your question about why did an Omnipotent God create a world full of jerks, fools? … I don’t have an answer to either … but I know how much of a jerk I can be at times and at the same time know I am wanted by God … I accept that I am completely known and this omniscence of God - knowing all things - that He wanted and chose me as well as each of us… otherwise I wouldn’t be.

As far as my earlier experience of knowing I am wanted by God that I mentioned earlier that happened to me, I can only say I don’t know why God did that for me other than how bruised and damaged I was. I don’t want to get into too much detail - but in a nutshell I used to be in a prison of self-hatred and no self worth. The Lord lifted me up and allowed me an experience of His love … that has been slowly changing my life.

I know we are not enemies but fellow travellers on the same path of trying to figure out meaning and purpose. One author I think you would really like is CS Lewis. He is one of my favorites and you remind me a little of him. He thought very clearly, logically, methodically and also shows a very human side. Have you ever read anything by him such as Mere Christianity?

I look forward to hearing from you again … Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top