Big Bang
- Thread starter THEU
- Start date
GT, i believe that Intelligent Design is a valid theory in its infancy. it is not ready to be taught in schools.
i believe that young earth creationism is a completely different thing. i do not believe it should be taught in schools either.
i have read the entire thread and you have yet to give an answer of substance. the problem is that you are not philosophical trained and are not naturally gifted in logic, therefore you believe that what you have posted on this thread is legitimate in terms of a response to arguments put forth. it is not.
i believe that young earth creationism is a completely different thing. i do not believe it should be taught in schools either.
i have read the entire thread and you have yet to give an answer of substance. the problem is that you are not philosophical trained and are not naturally gifted in logic, therefore you believe that what you have posted on this thread is legitimate in terms of a response to arguments put forth. it is not.
FondrenRoad
1,000+ Posts
FondrenRoad
1,000+ Posts
mop,
Who has countered it? The last 6 or 7 pages of this thread have been about the same thing. Nobody's said anything to counter the rigid timeline that is required by an omniscient god. Like I've said, it doesn't matter who makes the choices, if god knows about them, they are already made. They are not being made as they come up. We would just be traveling along according the play that god has already seen.
Acknowledging that doesn't have to weaken your belief in God. mia believes in God and acknowledges that. If you can't accept the logic behind it, then why even discuss it?
Instead your answer is : God can do whatever he wants, so we can choose, and he can know what our choices are going to be. Even though that is a logical fallacy, it doesn't matter to you because you can always fall back on, "we just can't understand God." What you are doing is making an omniscient god play according to your guidelines instead of allowing the hypothetical god to be truly omniscient.
An omniscient god would make the timeline set in stone simply by knowing everything that will ever happen. He cannot be surprised. So you can't make a different choice than what he already knows. You don't have various options. You are going to do whatever god already saw. That's pretty straightforward logic. When you can't counter that with logic, you attack.
Who has countered it? The last 6 or 7 pages of this thread have been about the same thing. Nobody's said anything to counter the rigid timeline that is required by an omniscient god. Like I've said, it doesn't matter who makes the choices, if god knows about them, they are already made. They are not being made as they come up. We would just be traveling along according the play that god has already seen.
Acknowledging that doesn't have to weaken your belief in God. mia believes in God and acknowledges that. If you can't accept the logic behind it, then why even discuss it?
Instead your answer is : God can do whatever he wants, so we can choose, and he can know what our choices are going to be. Even though that is a logical fallacy, it doesn't matter to you because you can always fall back on, "we just can't understand God." What you are doing is making an omniscient god play according to your guidelines instead of allowing the hypothetical god to be truly omniscient.
An omniscient god would make the timeline set in stone simply by knowing everything that will ever happen. He cannot be surprised. So you can't make a different choice than what he already knows. You don't have various options. You are going to do whatever god already saw. That's pretty straightforward logic. When you can't counter that with logic, you attack.
THEU
2,500+ Posts
So let me pose this question. I have no real answer, but it is what I am now pondering because of this thread. Mia has asked why do I assume that time existed before the Big Bang. I never thought of it that way, but I guess there is no reason I can give to say time does or doesn't exist. It seems that all of the matter in the world would time up space though, as it has mass. If there is space being taken up, wouldn't their be time, if time and space are a continuum? Just trying to think through. If all of the matter/energy, were taking up a no space, did they really exist? Also, if time didn't exist before the Big Bang, could it be that at least theoretically there is a 'place' that still exists outside of time/space? And if so could this be the 'place' of God? Could there be a God there? If so, could it be that this God 'caused' the Big Bang from outside an otherwise 'closed' system?
Also, I know that cosmology is very closely related to philosophy, in fact is probably a subset of it. I am just trying to think through the Big Bang in this thread, and not get out into the projection of after the fact is there materialism or supernaturalism (what I would deem non material forces at work in the world, to include a belief in any god/gods/God.)
Also, I know that cosmology is very closely related to philosophy, in fact is probably a subset of it. I am just trying to think through the Big Bang in this thread, and not get out into the projection of after the fact is there materialism or supernaturalism (what I would deem non material forces at work in the world, to include a belief in any god/gods/God.)
Theu is correct.....traditionally cosmology was almost exlusively philosophical, but you are correct that today cosmology (physical cosmology) is not closely related to philosophy. but then again there are plenty of current expressions of cosmology that seem very closely related to philosophy.
Cosmology hasn't been philosophy since Copernicus did away with Ptolomy's elaborate spheres. For the last 400 years when you talk cosmology you aren't discussing philosophy. Healthcare used to be a branch of philosophy as well, but we don't refer to it that way now either. The Big Bang, the subject of this thread, was never even tangentially a result of philosophy and has been an exclusive work of scientists.
FondrenRoad
1,000+ Posts
THEU
2,500+ Posts
mia,
I will say a couple of things here. I think that you and I agree that science, and the Big Bang in particular doesn't have an answer for if there is a God/god/gods or there is not a god/gods/God. I guess that from my point of view the problem of God is just not answered by science. What I see often times here on quacks is that people either try to prove or disprove God/god/gods based on science.
As someone who believes in God, I see that science can support that position, from a particular vantage point. I see many on here arguing that their view is right and trying to out argue each other. Now, I think I am fairly intelligent, but I am not the best at laying out argumentation for God. I personally believe that given the best evidence presented for God v. no god... there is a draw given science alone. I believe that we must dig deeper to answer the question.
Second, mia, I understand where you and mop are both coming from as far as cosmology. I believe that as a discipline it doesn't 'fit' our modernist categories of hard science or philosophy. I will say that I personally hold to a scholastic view that Theology is the Queen of sciences. I believe that philosophy, biology, chemistry, cosmology, physics, all fall UNDER Theology. It is a different perspective from most today to be sure, but I want people to know that is the starting point to me, and not a subset.
Cheers to all who have participated and continue to participate. I am glad I started the thread.
I will say a couple of things here. I think that you and I agree that science, and the Big Bang in particular doesn't have an answer for if there is a God/god/gods or there is not a god/gods/God. I guess that from my point of view the problem of God is just not answered by science. What I see often times here on quacks is that people either try to prove or disprove God/god/gods based on science.
As someone who believes in God, I see that science can support that position, from a particular vantage point. I see many on here arguing that their view is right and trying to out argue each other. Now, I think I am fairly intelligent, but I am not the best at laying out argumentation for God. I personally believe that given the best evidence presented for God v. no god... there is a draw given science alone. I believe that we must dig deeper to answer the question.
Second, mia, I understand where you and mop are both coming from as far as cosmology. I believe that as a discipline it doesn't 'fit' our modernist categories of hard science or philosophy. I will say that I personally hold to a scholastic view that Theology is the Queen of sciences. I believe that philosophy, biology, chemistry, cosmology, physics, all fall UNDER Theology. It is a different perspective from most today to be sure, but I want people to know that is the starting point to me, and not a subset.
Cheers to all who have participated and continue to participate. I am glad I started the thread.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
I'd just like someone to address my argument about negative causation: either show me how it breaks down or give me some credit for making a contribution to our understanding. One of the two. I will be very grateful in either case.
But so far, silence.
But so far, silence.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
How is knowledge obtained? I would think that it is obtained by observation.
But is there not a difference between the knowledge that a tourist has of, say, the Sistine Chapel, and the knowledge that Michelangelo had of the Sistine Chapel? After all, both the tourist and Michelangelo have, at some point, observed the fresco from the floor.
And are they equal in their status as observers? Or is there some other status that Michelangelo has that the tourist lacks? And is there not also some difference between the status of the author and the reader, as they observe a novel? Or between the architect and the resident, as they observe a house?
I would say, and I think others would agree, that there is something of a difference in their status as observers. But what is the nature of that difference? I would say that the difference in their status lies in the fact that one is a mere observer of what is evident, while the other is an observer who – due to his role as creator of the thing – understands both the efficient and final cause of the thing. That is, he not only sees what is evident to observation, but he also – at some point in the past – had to imagine or conceive what was not yet evident and what could not yet be observed. He understands, because of his determining influence on the creative event, the purpose for which the thing was created, and the end to which its design was intended.
Now, what is the end toward which this argument is intended? Merely to demonstrate the following point: True omniscience requires that the knower also be the creator. One cannot be omniscient unless that one is also the creative agent that caused a thing to come into being in the first place. Only then would true knowledge of the efficient and final cause be possible. Therefore an omniscient God must also be the creator of all that is. Even better, omniscience is merely an attribute of the God who created the Universe.
Well, where have I gone with this?
Earlier in the thread I classified the skeptical arguments into two types: those who argued that because God knows the future, free will is not possible (Theory #1), and those who argued that free will is not possible since God, as the creative force in the Universe, is responsible for all decisions and all events (Theory #2).
It appears to me that Theory #1 is no longer a tenable position. Or, if we want to put it more diplomatically, Theory #1 confuses the issue by proposing that one of God’s attributes (omniscience) is the cause a certain effect (lack of free will), when in fact such a proposition really begs the question: what is the nature of God’s creation? What was the efficient and final cause of creation? His omniscience – knowledge of all that is – is dependent upon the answer to the question, “what is?”
And so, not only is the mechanism by which knowledge influences choice problematic for Theory #1, but also, the subordination of God's omniscience to his creative agency really makes the exercise, at best, a diversion. It appears to me that we need to abandon Theory #1 as a pointless exercise and focus instead on Theory #2 in the hopes that we might find a closer approach to the truth.
But is there not a difference between the knowledge that a tourist has of, say, the Sistine Chapel, and the knowledge that Michelangelo had of the Sistine Chapel? After all, both the tourist and Michelangelo have, at some point, observed the fresco from the floor.
And are they equal in their status as observers? Or is there some other status that Michelangelo has that the tourist lacks? And is there not also some difference between the status of the author and the reader, as they observe a novel? Or between the architect and the resident, as they observe a house?
I would say, and I think others would agree, that there is something of a difference in their status as observers. But what is the nature of that difference? I would say that the difference in their status lies in the fact that one is a mere observer of what is evident, while the other is an observer who – due to his role as creator of the thing – understands both the efficient and final cause of the thing. That is, he not only sees what is evident to observation, but he also – at some point in the past – had to imagine or conceive what was not yet evident and what could not yet be observed. He understands, because of his determining influence on the creative event, the purpose for which the thing was created, and the end to which its design was intended.
Now, what is the end toward which this argument is intended? Merely to demonstrate the following point: True omniscience requires that the knower also be the creator. One cannot be omniscient unless that one is also the creative agent that caused a thing to come into being in the first place. Only then would true knowledge of the efficient and final cause be possible. Therefore an omniscient God must also be the creator of all that is. Even better, omniscience is merely an attribute of the God who created the Universe.
Well, where have I gone with this?
Earlier in the thread I classified the skeptical arguments into two types: those who argued that because God knows the future, free will is not possible (Theory #1), and those who argued that free will is not possible since God, as the creative force in the Universe, is responsible for all decisions and all events (Theory #2).
It appears to me that Theory #1 is no longer a tenable position. Or, if we want to put it more diplomatically, Theory #1 confuses the issue by proposing that one of God’s attributes (omniscience) is the cause a certain effect (lack of free will), when in fact such a proposition really begs the question: what is the nature of God’s creation? What was the efficient and final cause of creation? His omniscience – knowledge of all that is – is dependent upon the answer to the question, “what is?”
And so, not only is the mechanism by which knowledge influences choice problematic for Theory #1, but also, the subordination of God's omniscience to his creative agency really makes the exercise, at best, a diversion. It appears to me that we need to abandon Theory #1 as a pointless exercise and focus instead on Theory #2 in the hopes that we might find a closer approach to the truth.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
FondrenRoad
1,000+ Posts
Why are free will and/or an omniscient god necessary to the faithful?
I guess what I'm saying is I don't see why Christians would have a problem with an absence of free will, so long as we have a perception of free will. And I also don't see why Christians would have a problem with an all powerful god who either isn't omniscient or doesn't care to know everything. I think this second view of God was what I always believed of God when I was a believer. He set things in motion, but didn't necessarily know where we would end up. I think it lines up well with the Bible. We can choose to follow or not and after we make our choices we will be judged. The omniscient god would have already judged us long before we were even alive. Nothing in the Bible says we are pre-judged, as far as I know.
I think y'all aren't understanding the argument that an omniscient god and free will aren't compatible because you have a need for both an omniscient god and free will. I'm wondering where that need comes from.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't see why Christians would have a problem with an absence of free will, so long as we have a perception of free will. And I also don't see why Christians would have a problem with an all powerful god who either isn't omniscient or doesn't care to know everything. I think this second view of God was what I always believed of God when I was a believer. He set things in motion, but didn't necessarily know where we would end up. I think it lines up well with the Bible. We can choose to follow or not and after we make our choices we will be judged. The omniscient god would have already judged us long before we were even alive. Nothing in the Bible says we are pre-judged, as far as I know.
I think y'all aren't understanding the argument that an omniscient god and free will aren't compatible because you have a need for both an omniscient god and free will. I'm wondering where that need comes from.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Controversial opinions
- Started by Driver 8
- Replies: 675
- Quackenbush's
-
The Bible was created by man
- Started by Crockett
- Replies: 90
- Quackenbush's
-
Random ignorant comments
- Started by Chop
- Replies: 3
- Quackenbush's
-
Happy Mother’s Day
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 6
- Quackenbush's
-
Reflections on Reaching Age 80
- Started by HornHuskerDad
- Replies: 14
- Quackenbush's
-
Eclipse 2024
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 36
- Quackenbush's
-
PSA
- Started by SabreHorn
- Replies: 12
- Quackenbush's
Prediction Results Threads
