Big Bang - Evolution

[_MrStakhanovite]

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

I have, and Van Till, John Frame, and Doug Wilson. They all use a similiar method.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey again, Bond

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?

This is unfortunate.


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_honorentheos]

Hi Ceeboo,

I have to admit, you threw me for a loop with your answer to the question. There are many things that I don't think the secular worldview explains well and would agree wholeheartedly with anyone who points them out. I don't think it means the secular paradigm is inferior to the Judeo-Christian paradigm but I can accept that there are things we can observe or experience in life that lie far outside of the sciences immediate ability to explain and may be better explained today via theology. But I don't know that I'd agree with the one's you listed.

Anyway, thanks for sharing that. If I had some steak, I'd probably just chew some of it right about there. ;)

As to my point, I was starting down a path of answering the question and kept finding myself wondering if it made sense to me if I were approaching it from the theological viewpoint. And the answer I came up with depended on one thing - if the believer did not assume that the purpose of the scientific view is to elevate mankind into the place of God. So I decided to circle back.

The short answer to the question, in my opinion, is that God began to become removed in the answer to the questions - where did we come from, how did we get here? As explanations were developed that withstood experimentation to disprove them and we found out more and more about the world we, as a species, found more and more answers that didn't REQUIRE us to frame the explanation in terms of "God said, God did". That doesn't mean we can't fit God into the picture, as we've seen BC demonstrate or as Stak and Bond have suggested.

Ultimately, I think whats happening is people realize the literal interpretation of Genesis has ran into contradictions that aren't easily explained away, while making use of the secular paradigm still allowed room for theists to see God as the grand creator of it all. So, over time, it's been winning the battle for hearts and minds among both theists and non-theists.

[_Buffalo]

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.

This is why you have no credibility.

[_Milesius]

My understanding is that the Big Bang happened around 13.75 billion years ago, not 20. But otherwise, all seems to be in order. And yes, God did it.

CFR.

The Argument from Contingency.

[_mikwut]

Stak:

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.

Not a challenge, but a real interest to hear what your serious disagreements with the impossibility of "actual" infinities are?

mikwut

[_Buffalo]

The Argument from Contingency.

Has nothing to say about what precisely caused the universe to come about. CFR still stands unanswered.

[_mikwut]

Buffalo,

The argument philosophically is deductive, scientifically it is of course inductive. Both ways the argument states that a necessary being is responsible for contingent existence. That necessary being is the precise cause of the universe if the universe is indeed contingent. So it certainly has much to say about the precise cause of the universe.

mikwut

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo,

The argument philosophically is deductive, scientifically it is of course inductive. Both ways the argument states that a necessary being is responsible for contingent existence. That necessary being is the precise cause of the universe if the universe is indeed contingent. So it certainly has much to say about the precise cause of the universe.

mikwut

There's nothing in the argument that necessitates that it was Yahweh, or even an intelligent being. An unintelligent force works just as well in place of God.

CFR stands. Let's see some evidence this time, not philosophy.

[_mikwut]

Buffalo,

There's nothing in the argument that necessitates that it was Yahweh,

Correct. The argument is a theistic one generally not a sectarian one.

or even an intelligent being. An unintelligent force works just as well in place of God.

I don't seen this. The argument is asking about being itself not just interactions amongst matter or forces. It is also being conjoined with Big Bang Cosmology. If as the standard model implies to theists, whatever one's interpretation of the ontological status of the initial singularity, it points to an origin of the universe ex nihilo then intention and mind are essential aspects of the origination or beginning. We can't surmise a "force" having an intention.

Let's see some evidence this time, not philosophy.

The very argument is asking questions about personal explanation. If a tea pot is boiling and I form the argument that someone is making tea because they would like a cup of tea you wouldn't respond to me, nope let's see some evidence not philosophy. I could never answer the very question I am attempting to answer if you force the only acceptable evidence to be the physics and chemistry of water, tea pots, heat and tea?

my regards, mikwut