Questions For Evolutionists

[Revolg]

This is a little outside topic but...

In light of the beauty in the universe do some of you (evolutionists) acknowledge that there was possibly a God to jumpstart the universe?

Also as one of the foundational principles of astronomy the cosmological principle says that the universe is finite therefore has a cause. But most astronomers say the Big Bang is what this cause is, do you agree? Or was there another possible way the universe came about?

[Blake Reas]

03-08-2003 @ 05:38 PM
Revolg:

This is a little outside topic but...

In light of the beauty in the universe do some of you (evolutionists) acknowledge that there was possibly a God to jumpstart the universe?

Also as one of the foundational principles of astronomy the cosmological principle says that the universe is finite therefore has a cause. But most astronomers say the Big Bang is what this cause is, do you agree? Or was there another possible way the universe came about?

To get around the uncomfortable problem of a Ex Nihilo Universe the Scientist Alan Guth and a guy by the name of Fuchs( I think) have come up with a interesting theory.
They say that we do not live in a universe but multiverse. They take quantum theory and Relativity and say that the only way to wed them together is to postulate a multiverse. There are not just a few multiverses but an infinite amount of them. This also destroys the anthropic principle and the teleological argument, IF it is true. Then again I think it just pushes the question back. WHO created the first universe?
Another interesting thing that they say is that for instance when you read the newpaper or use a computer you do something to atoms (don't remember exactly what was said) and when you do this each time you create a new multiverse.
They admit that this is highly speculative but just like my post in the religion section about presuppositions, they explain it this way because they cannot allow God to get a foot in the door because of Naturalism.

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake
P.S. this is not towards Evolutionist so to speak. I know there are Theistic evolutionist on this site I just thought this would start conversation.

[Revolg]

They take quantum theory and Relativity and say that the only way to wed them together is to postulate a multiverse. There are not just a few multiverses but an infinite amount of them. This also destroys the anthropic principle and the teleological argument, IF it is true. Then again I think it just pushes the question back. WHO created the first universe?

The problem with the concept of infinity has more questions than does it have a answer. Obviously since time is linear and that the concept of entrophy is true; the cosmological & teleological arguments are still employed through science. Although not in any Godly plant is why most astronomers hang onto a finite universe started by a Big Bang explosion billions of years in the past which led to stellar evolution. If a eternal regression is needed to explain all that there is here in the physical world, the question arises where did the eternal regression come from? It can be logically defined as why the teleological and cosmological arguments still run in science today. Probably most scientists realize that the universe is finite except for that fringe group. Albert Einstein (although not a Christian) posed the problems and believed in God later in his life (not Jehovah mind you!). These were based on the systems of argumentation based on Thomas Aquinas and Norman Geisler.

[Gracchus]

03-08-2003 @ 05:38 PM
Revolg:

This is a little outside topic but...

In light of the beauty in the universe do some of you (evolutionists) acknowledge that there was possibly a God to jumpstart the universe?

Also as one of the foundational principles of astronomy the cosmological principle says that the universe is finite therefore has a cause. But most astronomers say the Big Bang is what this cause is, do you agree? Or was there another possible way the universe came about?

At the limits of physics and cosmology strange things happen. down toward absolute zero some non-conductive substances become superconductors; toward the speed of light matter becomes more wave-like; when you study very small things you are unable to determine the total state of a system; too much mass and a singularity forms. By theory there is a finite amount of time between the big bang and the determination of the laws of physics.
And what physics, biology, and chemistry have not demonstrated to my satisfaction, is why I am.

[Stratnerd]

Rev,

the question arises where did the eternal regression come from?

I don't know how a person could answer that. If it is eternal then how could it come from anything since the "from" implies origin and "eternal" makes it not have one.

[Revolg]

Exactly and that's the major reason why I believe in God. I believe eternal regression is flawed because you can do the hook-up with entrophy to all the universes.

[Bubba]

I'm a thiestic evolutionist and yes, I do belive that in essense an intelligent beginning for the universe is not only possible but probable. The best evidence in my mind would be perhaps the fitness of carbon as a basis for life. This however is not a proof of God, it merely shows at a basic level the universe shows finely tuned design.

Bubba

[Blake Reas]

03-08-2003 @ 07:13 PM
Revolg:

They take quantum theory and Relativity and say that the only way to wed them together is to postulate a multiverse. There are not just a few multiverses but an infinite amount of them. This also destroys the anthropic principle and the teleological argument, IF it is true. Then again I think it just pushes the question back. WHO created the first universe?

The problem with the concept of infinity has more questions than does it have a answer. Obviously since time is linear and that the concept of entrophy is true; the cosmological & teleological arguments are still employed through science. Although not in any Godly plant is why most astronomers hang onto a finite universe started by a Big Bang explosion billions of years in the past which led to stellar evolution. If a eternal regression is needed to explain all that there is here in the physical world, the question arises where did the eternal regression come from? It can be logically defined as why the teleological and cosmological arguments still run in science today. Probably most scientists realize that the universe is finite except for that fringe group. Albert Einstein (although not a Christian) posed the problems and believed in God later in his life (not Jehovah mind you!). These were based on the systems of argumentation based on Thomas Aquinas and Norman Geisler.

I agree I just knew it would start conversation!

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

[Gracchus]

Instead of "eternal regression", I would use the phrase "hyperdimensional fractal geometry".

[Yog^sothoth]

:dunce:

I just have one statement to make and it's so weird i don't understand it.

what if time isn't linear?

[The Barbarian]

Would it be considered rude to point out that evolutionary theory makes no claims about the way life or the universe started?

In my experience, a great deal of frustration comes about because of that misunderstanding.

[Socratism]

Today @ 06:53 PM post located here
The Barbarian:

Would it be considered rude to point out that evolutionary theory makes no claims about the way life or the universe started?

In my experience, a great deal of frustration comes about because of that misunderstanding.

Of course they don't, because they have stupidly extrapolated themselves backwards into an impossible dilemma.

The only solution is to cop out.



BTW, Pat, do you still post to CARM? (That is where I first ran into her silly postings).

[garthoverman]

03-08-2003 @ 05:38 PM post located here
Revolg:

This is a little outside topic but...

In light of the beauty in the universe do some of you (evolutionists) acknowledge that there was possibly a God to jumpstart the universe?

Also as one of the foundational principles of astronomy the cosmological principle says that the universe is finite therefore has a cause. But most astronomers say the Big Bang is what this cause is, do you agree? Or was there another possible way the universe came about?

Where the universe is equivalent to the set of everything that exists, in order to discern a beginning of the universe, one would need to observe a state of absolute non-existence so that it might be compared to the state of existence of the set of everything that exists.

Such a state is not observed.

Furthermore, where eternal describes something that exists for all meaningful time values, the universe as it is presently observed certainly qualifies.

Lastly, the cosmological principle says that on average the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. It does not say that the universe is finite, nor does it speak to the existence of a cause to the universe.

Yours,
Garth

[Zeus]

03-08-2003 @ 05:38 PM post located here
Revolg:

This is a little outside topic but...

In light of the beauty in the universe do some of you (evolutionists) acknowledge that there was possibly a God to jumpstart the universe?

Yes - I find the anthropic principle as an argument for God to be compelling.

Also as one of the foundational principles of astronomy the cosmological principle says that the universe is finite therefore has a cause. But most astronomers say the Big Bang is what this cause is, do you agree? Or was there another possible way the universe came about?

I would say most astronomers don't know how the universe came to be. The Big Bang is taken axiomatically. It had to have a cause of some sort. Even if it is the result of a quantum fluctuation (a possibility far from demonstrated scientifically), that does not explain the origin of quantum fluctuations.

Z

[garthoverman]

Today @ 12:22 AM post located here
Socratism:

Of course they don't, because they have stupidly extrapolated themselves backwards into an impossible dilemma.

Who are "they"? If you'll re-read The Barbarian's post, you'll note that he said that evolutionary theory makes no claims to the way the universe may or may not have begun. The theory is about a process (i.e. many, many events aggregated), not any single event like a beginning of the universe.

The only solution is to cop out.

There is no need to "cop out" of a dilemma that only exists in the minds of creationists.

Yours,
Garth