Evidence for theistic evolution

[Kenny]

K wrote:
What then do you make of an expanding universe, and following it backwards to the "big bang" singularity?
Isn't it a sensible question to ask, "where did it come from?" and equally sensible to think "something other"...?

This must feel like the theme of the day for you Ken

No; these are the same questions I ask as well

Ken wrote:
I don't think they were calling the singularity that expanded into the Universe as the Universe.

The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation".

Again; these are all complicated questions nobody has answers for, but science is looking for answers as we speak.

Ken

[Kenny]

Multiverse is just a concept; there is no proof it exists in reality. If I were going to go around making those kind of assumptions; might as well assume God right??? The Universe on the other hand; does exist in reality.

Ken

I didn't know that was your position.

What then do you make of an expanding universe, and following it backwards to the "big bang" singularity?
Isn't it a sensible question to ask, "where did it come from?" and equally sensible to think "something other"...?

Audie, from the exchanges I've seen of hers on this board, seems to disagree with you here re: multiverse/parallel universes.
At least as far as she is concerned, it seems that she thinks such scenarios are for some reason less absurd than assuming creation.

BUT, you're your own person of course. You see both as equally absurd.
However, now you are in a sticky position since science reveals that the universe appears to have a singular beginning point in time.



What then are we to make of this... or is it really a case that you're not interested to answer such?

I'm not in a sticky situation because I've never professed to know the answer. I am interested in knowing but I don't think anyone knows. From what I know; science says the Universe as we know it has a beginning. I don't think they were calling the singularity that expanded into the Universe as the Universe.

Ken

]So then, am I and others here less admirable?
That is, in being someone who questions and desires an answer to the beginning...

Of course not. I ask such questions as well.

... and as such to believe that in the beginning God really did create the entire universe.

Even to be ridoculed for belief in a creator, as though such is really some far fetched belief.

Just because that answer doesn't work for me doesn't mean I have a problem with it working for you or someone else.

You know, I think that we can and do know. But, whether we know that our knowledge is 100% correct
-- obviously such certainty can never be had by subjective beings on anything.

Good point! Just because one knows doesn't mean they are correct.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

You know, I think that we can and do know. But, whether we know that our knowledge is 100% correct
-- obviously such certainty can never be had by subjective beings on anything.

Good point! Just because one knows doesn't mean they are correct.

To clarify this last point --
the difference I see between "knowledge" and "lack of knowledge" is that knowledge carries with it reasonable justification.
One can still be reasonably justified, even justified in their belief beyond all reasonable doubt, and still be wrong.

It is how the court of law ends up giving the death penalty to innocent people, right? (even when due process is followed)
In such cases, it's just that the court, jury and legal system ended up with a wrong knowledge resulting in a failure of justice.

So when I say that I believe God created the universe, and that I know this to be the case,
I'm saying my belief is based upon reasonable evidence and arguments that lead to this conclusion being rationally justified.

[Kenny]

You know, I think that we can and do know. But, whether we know that our knowledge is 100% correct
-- obviously such certainty can never be had by subjective beings on anything.

Good point! Just because one knows doesn't mean they are correct.

To clarify this last point --
the difference I see between "knowledge" and "lack of knowledge" is that knowledge carries with it reasonable justification.
One can still be reasonably justified, even justified in their belief beyond all reasonable doubt, and still be wrong.

It is how the court of law ends up giving the death penalty to innocent people, right? (even when due process is followed)
In such cases, it's just that the court, jury and legal system ended up with a wrong knowledge resulting in a failure of justice.

So when I say that I believe God created the universe, and that I know this to be the case,
I'm saying my belief is based upon reasonable evidence and arguments that lead to this conclusion being rationally justified.

I agree! Of course, "reasonable justification" is subjective; what one person considers reasonable may not be to another, but your points are well stated; I agree.

Ken

[EssentialSacrifice]

Ken wrote:
Again; these are all complicated questions nobody has answers for, but science is looking for answers as we speak

Complete agreement Ken... but it is also true that right or wrong, your talking with people on this site who believe science will always be in the back seat "catching up" mode to God in regards to new information learned every day. As far as we're concerned, what new thing we have learned to day is nothing more than observation of something God has actually done, created from the past.

so ...

Of course, "reasonable justification" is subjective;

only carries so much water unless by "subjective" you mean through the eyes of God, as we do,and not men, (as best they can !)who observe through the looking glass of Alice.

[Kurieuo]

You know, I think that we can and do know. But, whether we know that our knowledge is 100% correct
-- obviously such certainty can never be had by subjective beings on anything.

Good point! Just because one knows doesn't mean they are correct.

To clarify this last point --
the difference I see between "knowledge" and "lack of knowledge" is that knowledge carries with it reasonable justification.
One can still be reasonably justified, even justified in their belief beyond all reasonable doubt, and still be wrong.

It is how the court of law ends up giving the death penalty to innocent people, right? (even when due process is followed)
In such cases, it's just that the court, jury and legal system ended up with a wrong knowledge resulting in a failure of justice.

So when I say that I believe God created the universe, and that I know this to be the case,
I'm saying my belief is based upon reasonable evidence and arguments that lead to this conclusion being rationally justified.

I agree! Of course, "reasonable justification" is subjective; what one person considers reasonable may not be to another, but your points are well stated; I agree.

Ken

Subjective, but also objective.

For example, argumentative proofs are quite objective.
A -> B, A therefore B.

If someone asserts A implies B, A therefore C -- well that just doesn't follow no matter how much they think it reasonable.

There are many informal fallacies too which help to identify suspect arguments.
For example, if the first cat I saw was orange, I'd then be wrong to hastily generalise that all cats are orange.

In addition to formal and informal logic, mathematics is universal knowledge.
It is quite objective, right?

Then we have experiential knowledge, which we accept as empirical justification.
But, by no means is such the only way we can gain knowledge.

So our beliefs and ideas can be put to the test in more objective ways.
The belief in, for example, the spaghetti monster, is no where near as justified as belief in God.
Or the belief in the universe coming from absolutely nothing, something so absurd couldn't be as justified as believing God created.
No matter how confused and convoluted some zealous Atheists try to express to the contrary, it's better going with a multiverse than that!

In any case, we may find arguments for/against God's existence more or less convincing.
BUT, then, I don't believe it will do to simply ignore them, or to reject them based upon our subjective tastes.
Preferring one belief over another because we like chocolate more than strawberry isn't "reasonable justification".
Rather, the arguments themselves should be dealt with in a logical and rational manner.

Many on boards like this, think they always have to be right, and not give into any argument (I include myself in that).
If they admit an argument on the opposing side is very good then such is the just terrible - the worst thing imaginable.
Really, when gloves are off and we walk away, if we can't think of one good argument for the other side, then that probably shows an unhealthy bias.
We should be able to admit to a good argument when we see one, even if ultimately we think it must be wrong for whatever other reasons.

[Kenny]

Ken wrote:
Again; these are all complicated questions nobody has answers for, but science is looking for answers as we speak

Complete agreement Ken... but it is also true that right or wrong, your talking with people on this site who believe science will always be in the back seat "catching up" mode to God in regards to new information learned every day. As far as we're concerned, what new thing we have learned to day is nothing more than observation of something God has actually done, created from the past.

so ...

Yes! I understand many on this site do believe this way.

Of course, "reasonable justification" is subjective; only carries so much water unless by "subjective" you mean through the eyes of God, as we do,and not men, (as best they can !)who observe through the looking glass of Alice.

We were discussing reasonable justification in the context of still being wrong. If it was reasonable justified in the eyes of an all knowing, perfect, omniscient diety, how could it still be wrong?

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

Kenny

It requires more faith to not believe in a creator even if you don't know which God to believe in yet.How is it believable to you that we can have this vast universe and everything in it without a creator?If you reject a creator the things one must believe is much harder to believe.It is easy to believe Almighty God created this universe and everything in it but much harder to believe it could happen some other way.Once you can understand this then we can discuss which God is the true God.

[Kenny]

Kenny

It requires more faith to not believe in a creator even if you don't know which God to believe in yet.

You should only speak for yourself; you aren ’t qualified to speak for everybody else.

How is it believable to you that we can have this vast universe and everything in it without a creator?

Not much of an imagination eh? Look; there are too many other options to list than God did it. Just because God did it works for you doesn’t mean it works for everyone else,.

If you reject a creator the things one must believe is much harder to believe.It is easy to believe Almighty God created this universe and everything in it but much harder to believe it could happen some other way.

It used to be easier to believe thunder was caused by Thor and his hammer. Just because it is easier, doesn’t make it right.

What you need to understand is, for some people; the truth is more important than what's easy. Once you can understand that, then you might be able to understand why not everybody is going to be content with God did it.

Ken

[EssentialSacrifice]

K wrote:

You know, I think that we can and do know. But, whether we know that our knowledge is 100% correct
-- obviously such certainty can never be had by subjective beings on anything.

Ken wrote:
We were discussing reasonable justification in the context of still being wrong. If it was reasonable justified in the eyes of an all knowing, perfect, omniscient Deity, how could it still be wrong?

I misunderstood here. I thought K was saying that "we" as humans (subjectively) must understand we cannot know our knowledge is 100% correct, see... looking through Alice's eyeglass. By having the ability to look through the eyes of God, through prayer and revelation we acknowledge that parameters of the beginning of the universe such as these:

the inflation model in only micro seconds (plank time of about 10 to the minus 36 seconds) is proof the material traveled faster than the speed of light because of the inflation of space created from the material existing within the "singularity". The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation". Prime mover, God is in control to such exacting definition that defies all odds of natural causation.

cannot reasonable be attained through natural process. They must be accomplished by that perfect omniscient Deity, The Prime Mover and not by rules of chance.

[Kenny]

the inflation model in only micro seconds (plank time of about 10 to the minus 36 seconds) is proof the material traveled faster than the speed of light because of the inflation of space created from the material existing within the "singularity". The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation"

Now if you can provide an answer that does not require faith in order to believe, you would have something. Otherwise I think it's best to admit; we don't know

Ken

[Kurieuo]

the inflation model in only micro seconds (plank time of about 10 to the minus 36 seconds) is proof the material traveled faster than the speed of light because of the inflation of space created from the material existing within the "singularity". The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation"

Now if you can provide an answer that does not require faith in order to believe, you would have something. Otherwise I think it's best to admit; we don't know

Ken

But, every belief requires faith Kenny.

[RickD]

the inflation model in only micro seconds (plank time of about 10 to the minus 36 seconds) is proof the material traveled faster than the speed of light because of the inflation of space created from the material existing within the "singularity". The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation"

Now if you can provide an answer that does not require faith in order to believe, you would have something. Otherwise I think it's best to admit; we don't know

Ken

But, every belief requires faith Kenny.

K,

You'll get nowhere with logic and common sense. Kenny will just deny that he has any beliefs. He has already denied that atheism is a belief that God doesn't exist. He just claims atheism is a lack of belief, therefore finding an excuse not to have to justify the belief that God doesn't exist.

[Kenny]

the inflation model in only micro seconds (plank time of about 10 to the minus 36 seconds) is proof the material traveled faster than the speed of light because of the inflation of space created from the material existing within the "singularity". The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation"

Now if you can provide an answer that does not require faith in order to believe, you would have something. Otherwise I think it's best to admit; we don't know

Ken

But, every belief requires faith Kenny.

I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".

Ken

[RickD]

the inflation model in only micro seconds (plank time of about 10 to the minus 36 seconds) is proof the material traveled faster than the speed of light because of the inflation of space created from the material existing within the "singularity". The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation"

Now if you can provide an answer that does not require faith in order to believe, you would have something. Otherwise I think it's best to admit; we don't know

Ken

But, every belief requires faith Kenny.

I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".

Ken

Kenny,

Biblical faith is based on reasonable justification.