Big Bang - Evolution

[_Nightlion]

I am not saying God did not create the universe. He claims to own it all. It just did not begin with the beginning of this planet. Who do we think we are?

[Guest]

Hi Ceeboo,
Maybe we could advance the discussion by exploring two points you brought up, one a question I'd like to ask you and by answering one you posed to me. In order of how they came up -

They seem to do a good job of explaining the evidence available without causing too many problems.

We see things very different (perhaps it has to do with the glasses we choose to wear while looking)

Would you mind expanding on this? I'm curious where you see the problems that the more secular worldview fails to address and how this might play into explanations for the origin of creation.

and why does Western civilization seem to be accepting it at an increasing rate while the acceptance of the older explanatory structure is losing ground?"

I am not comfortable in posting my personal thoughts on this, other than to say that I believe there are many reasons.

What do you think the reasons are?

This may relate to your answer above, but I'll do my best and we'll see where we end up.

First, I think it's important for both sides to acknowledge that neither explanatory structure necessitates placing human beings at the center of the process. In the case of the religious structure, I'd suggest that while to the theist it goes without saying that this structure is transcendent of human beings, many non-theists might argue that this deity is a creation of human ego writ large. I don't think that this position allows room for a conversation to take place as neither side can even agree on the initial conditions.

But the same is true for the second structure. To the non-theist who relies on it, the failings in human sense-data gathering and bias require mitigation and, while far from perfect, the second explanatory structure is built on a foundation that also transcends the individual. Yet there are many theists who won't accept that this explanatory structure is not ego-driven, either. I would argue that beginning from this position as a theist leaves a person without a sufficiently reasonable understanding of this structure to even discuss it. So, to begin with we have to accept that neither structure is founded in ego-centrism. They are both attempts to transcend the individual to get at something greater.

So, perhaps before we go on past this point would you agree with this as well, or is there something either missing or an impasse yet to be breached?

[_bcspace]

Yes. You've never been right on anything. In this case, the Hebrews have God creating the abode of the stars. Therefore, the universe was created by God.

Just admit you were wrong and I was right.

I admit that the Hebrew Shamayim in Genesis 1:1 includes the abode of the stars and so, no matter how the Hebrews perceived the universe, God created it.

[Guest]

Hi honor (Hope this finds you well)

Would you mind expanding on this?

Sure.

I'm curious where you see the problems that the more secular worldview fails to address and how this might play into explanations for the origin of creation.

As I view it, everything that begins to exist has a cause. Being that I am certain that the universe exists, I find the "more secular" worlview (Big Bang theory) severely lacking in providing this cause. I absolutely do not believe in the Big Bang theory.(I believe that a Creator/God is the cause. In addition, since I do not believe that the Creator/God has a beginning, I also reject the infinite regress of who caused God).

I also believe that the "more secular" worldview has enormous challenges when it comes to life just "arising" from non-life (spontaneous life boggles the mind of Ceeboo). In our entire observable history of our world, has life ever arose from non-life? (I would offer that the answer is no). I do not believe that life just happened billions of years ago. I would suggest that life exists and it had to have a cause.

After we get past these gigantic worlview hurdles, I believe that there are entire oceans full of other issues with this wordview/belief.

This may relate to your answer above, but I'll do my best and we'll see where we end up.

Fair enough.

First, I think it's important for both sides to acknowledge that neither explanatory structure necessitates placing human beings at the center of the process. In the case of the religious structure, I'd suggest that while to the theist it goes without saying that this structure is transcendent of human beings, many non-theists might argue that this deity is a creation of human ego writ large. I don't think that this position allows room for a conversation to take place as neither side can even agree on the initial conditions.

But the same is true for the second structure. To the non-theist who relies on it, the failings in human sense-data gathering and bias require mitigation and, while far from perfect, the second explanatory structure is built on a foundation that also transcends the individual. Yet there are many theists who won't accept that this explanatory structure is not ego-driven, either. I would argue that beginning from this position as a theist leaves a person without a sufficiently reasonable understanding of this structure to even discuss it. So, to begin with we have to accept that neither structure is founded in ego-centrism. They are both attempts to transcend the individual to get at something greater.

So, perhaps before we go on past this point would you agree with this as well, or is there something either missing or an impasse yet to be breached?

Whaaaaaat? LOL :)

Sorry, I really don't understand what you are getting at.

I appreciate the dialouge.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Bond James Bond]

To answer your question, I am (and have been for a long time) agnostic concerning the age of the earth. Having said that, I believe that the positions and stances that are held by my beloved YEC friends are, at the very least, extremely interesting and most worthy of simple consideration.
This is to say that I do not find agreement with many of my beloved friends who label the YEC position as "ignorant", "silly", or "laughable". (Clearly, I allow room for those who wish to do so, I simply do not)

Ceeboo if a person says the universe/Earth is 6,000 years old and all evidence (including the rocks out in your driveway) points towards the universe being billions of years old what exactly do you call that person if not totally wrong?

Lastly, as a believer in a Creator/God of all we see, I find the belief/explanation itself to be at least as reasonable and/or as plausible as the countering worldview is. (They are both simply and only beliefs----------- as I see it with my Creator/God goggles firmly cemented to my ears) :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

I don't get too hung up on the Creator/no Creator part of the discussion since it really doesn't matter. If God set off the Big Bang or if the Big Bang just happened "because" either hypothesis doesn't argue that the Big Bang actually happened billions of years ago. Where I disagree is when people start claiming the Big Bang didn't happen and evolution didn't happen because the earth is only 6,000ish years old. I'm personally an atheist, but if you can reconcile theism and scientific knowledge I have no problem with that. I only worry about people whose theism forces them to reject scientific knowledge.

[_Ceeboo]

Hi again, Bond......James Bond

I don't get too hung up on the Creator/no Creator part of the discussion since it really doesn't matter.

OK!

If God set off the Big Bang or if the Big Bang just happened "because" either hypothesis doesn't argue that the Big Bang actually happened billions of years ago. Where I disagree is when people start claiming the Big Bang didn't happen

I am not comfortable "claiming" the Big Bang did't happen, but I surely do not believe the Big Bang happened.

and evolution didn't happen

If your definition of evolution is single cell life 390 billion years ago to human beings then you can put me on that non-believing list too. :)

because the earth is only 6,000ish years old.

Again, as I have stated earlier in this thread, I am agnostic here.

I'm personally an atheist

I would have never guessed. :)

but if you can reconcile theism and scientific knowledge I have no problem with that.

That strikes me as a loaded statement.

I only worry about people whose theism forces them to reject scientific knowledge.

I guess that would be me, yes? :)

Anyway, I do appreciate your contributions. I have long enjoyed your wit that you display on the boards. I have laughed often at your humor. And I do indeed find your posts very enjoyable (With the exception of this one) LOL! :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Bond James Bond]

I am not comfortable "claiming" the Big Bang did't happen, but I surely do not believe the Big Bang happened.

Even if God set it into action?

If your definition of evolution is single cell life 390 billion years ago to human beings then you can put me on that non-believing list too. :)

What'll really flip your lid is that any gold on your wife's finger was probably created through fusion in a star at some point billions of years ago.

but if you can reconcile theism and scientific knowledge I have no problem with that.

That strikes me as a loaded statement.

Not really. The evidence is right there in front of you after all. Or are all the geologists and astronomers in the world wrong when they say that rocks are millions of years old and the universe is billions of years old? When I was a believer it seemed really easy to say "God did it" and accept science with a shrug.

I only worry about people whose theism forces them to reject scientific knowledge.

I guess that would be me, yes? :)

I guess that's you. Does your rejection of science extend to things like "this computer is sooooo complex. How could it have come into being without the help of God?

Anyway, I do appreciate your contributions. I have long enjoyed your wit that you display on the boards. I have laughed often at your humor. And I do indeed find your posts very enjoyable (With the exception of this one) LOL! :)

It's okay. I find your agnosticism about science rather enjoyable. I think it means you might be open minded, kinda, maybe.

[_MrStakhanovite]

As I view it, everything that begins to exist has a cause. Being that I am certain that the universe exists, I find the "more secular" worlview (Big Bang theory) severely lacking in providing this cause. I absolutely do not believe in the Big Bang theory.(I believe that a Creator/God is the cause. In addition, since I do not believe that the Creator/God has a beginning, I also reject the infinite regress of who caused God).

Hey Ceebs, if you don't already know, William Lane Craig has a good body of work out there on how the Big Bang is consistent with Theism.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Here is an example:

Of course, as Grünbaum reminds us, it is an empirical question as to whether classical Big Bang cosmogeny is a realistic account of the origin of the universe. But alternative models, whether quantum models [Craig (1993)] or plasma models [Kevles (1991)], have not yet proved to be convincing. Therefore, it seems to me that, like it or not, currently accepted cosmological theory does lend tangible support to the theistic doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.

I have some serious disagreements with Craig over his A-theory of time and the impossibility of "actual" infinities, but it is a route you might consider.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Stak! (PM me the latest on your relationship status. The suspense is killing me)

Hey Ceebs, if you don't already know, William Lane Craig has a good body of work out there on how the Big Bang is consistent with Theism.

Yea, I have seen a few of his debates on this (as well as work of his)

I have several God/Creator believing friends that adhere to the Big Bang theory. I do not.

Have you seen any of the late Dr Bahnsen's work?

Anyway, thanks for the suggestion.

Peace,
Ceeboo