THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on December 19, 2009 at 6:59pm

The doctrine of creation is the doctrine that separates the secular world from the Christian world. The world has been busy, extremely busy in trying to prove that the Genesis account of the creation is myth. They understand that if they can cut down the theology of creation then the bible will collapse, for there is no creator. Creation is the main debate.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The 3 fundamental assertions in this verse are being challenge.
So 1. There is a beginning 2. There is A God and 3rd. that there is a creation. One will think that if we can establish the first step, that there is a beginning, then the other two will logical follow. But even though the contemporary groups challenging the biblical account, acknowledged a beginning of the universe, they do not go on to believe there is a God who created it. The big bang is supposedly the beginning of the universe, of course they cannot explain what cause the explosion or where did the matter and antimatter present at that point came from, but this absurd idea Is preferable than to accept a God we must be accountable to, if we believe He exist.
Scientist will say that 15 to 18 billion years ago the universe exploded into being, so what did it explode out of, none being? That is an absurd idea. It goes againts one of the fundamental laws of epistomolgogy, the law of noncontradiction.


In logic, the Principle of contradiction (principium contradictionis in Latin) is the second of the so-called three classic laws of thought. The oldest statement of the law is that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive. A may be B at one time, and not at another; A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time; but it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, the absence and the presence of the same quality. This is the statement of the law given by Aristotle. It takes no account of the truth of either proposition; if one is true, the other is not; one of the two must be true. From wikipediaNow those that believe this whole thing is just an illusion. This begs the question that nothing exists, but if nothing exist and there is an illusion of things, at the least there is one being having the illusion, so again this is a nonsense statement.

Permalink Reply by Jeremy Brown on December 19, 2009 at 8:44pm

Uni, meaning one; verse being a single spoken sentence: therefore we all live withing a single spoken sentence. God said let there be and there was! I must believe God when I think about the origin universe; the Bible gives a clear account in the book of Genesis, stating how everything was spoken into being by God.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on December 19, 2009 at 9:04pm

Well done Jeremy ` good to have you here bro.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on December 19, 2009 at 9:07pm

Given the truth that there is a universe, Theologians and Philosophers have asked the question why is there something rather than nothing?
1. The universe is self-existent and eternal. The majority believes that the universe does have a beginning, but there are those who do believe that the universe is eternal, that it has always been there and it has the power to self sustain itself.

2. Created – by something that is self existent and eternal.

The first two options argue that something is self existent and self eternal.

3. Self creation. By its own power the universe pops into being. Now most that hold this concept will not use the term Self creation because they understand that this concept is a logical absurdity and an analytical false statement. How can something create itself? It would mean that the thing (universe) existed before it made itself. It would have to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship, which violates again the law of nonecontradiction THIS WOULD BE IRRATIONAL AND BAD THEOLOGY, PHYLOSOPHY AND SCIENCE, WHICH SCHOOLS REST ON THE LAWS OF REASON. MOST FOLKS THAT HOLD THIS CONCEPT call it Spontaneous Generation without an interceding cause. It just pop into existence, which is the same stupidity and has been laughed at now by the scientific world.

4. Chance creation – This falls into the fallacy of equivocation. Look at the discussion about Chance to get a more detail explanation.

Now they call it gradual spontaneous generation – so now they say that given enough time and enough nothingness something can come up from there.

So if we eliminate number 3 and 4, then we are left with options 1 and 2. The universe is either Self created or created. BUT WE CANNOT GET SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING. SOMETHING MUST BE SELF EXISTANT AND SELF SUBSTAIN.
ALMOST EVERYTHING/everything WE SEE IS BEING CHANGE, SO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ARGUES THAT THERE IS SOMETHING OUT THER, IN AN UNRCHARTED AND UNDISCOVERED AREA OF THE UNIVERSE THAT IS SELF EXISTANT AND SELF SUBSTAINED AND ETERNAL. BUT IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR THING EXISTED IT WOULD BE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT than all we know now.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on December 27, 2009 at 7:37pm

Thanks for sharing your thoughts brother; I am happy to see you here. This topic lends its self for numerous theories and much speculation.

Is one of those topics in which we do have limited biblical impute, but all that we have is accurate.

Isaiah was well ahead of his time by the enlightenment of the Lord in His life when he wrote:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in," (Isaiah 40:22, NIV).

The spherical shape of the earth.

Multiple universes are today explained by the numerous string theories being considered by scientist today. String theories are criticized for not providing any quantitative experimental predictions. Up to now it continues to be just a theory.

I said all that to say the following: Personally I rather not go beyond our known universe, but the existence of Black Holes as you stated does make one wonder.

Permalink Reply by Ginnybee on December 29, 2009 at 5:31pm

When someone asks who created God if He created the universe, I say the universe is an obviously complex system that had to be built or put together, sort of like a large puzzle. Someone had to create the picture by putting all the pieces together in their proper order. As for God, we cannot observe the scope of His majestic tangibility, for it is too great for our tools of observance. But from all the evidence we do have of Him, we can gather that God is neither a complex system that needs putting together, nor a simple rock with no imagination. Thus, God just is. He is whom He is. He is simply "I AM."

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on December 30, 2009 at 12:07am

Wow - beauty and brains hahaahha Hey sis love your imput, good to see you here beloved in the Lord.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on January 6, 2010 at 12:10am

I thought I share this with you guys:

Prominent Atheist Professor of Law and Philosophy Thomas Nagel Calls Intelligent Design Scientific and Constitutional to "Mention" in Science Classes Prof. Thomas Nagel, a self-declared atheist who earned his PhD. in philosophy at Harvard 45 years ago, who has been a professor at U.C. Berkeley, Princeton, and the last 28 years at New York University, and who has published ten books and more than 60 articles, has published an important essay, "Public Education and Intelligent Design," in the Wiley InterScience Journal Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 36, issue 2).
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118493933/home

Prof. Nagel's paper is a significant and substantial opening, at America's highest intellectual level, that encourages all intelligent, educated, informed individuals — particularly those whose interest in this issue derives from intellectual curiosity, not the emotional advocacy excitement for any side — that it is legitimate as a matter of data, science, and logic, divorced from all religious texts and doctrines, to consider that intelligent design may be a valid scientific approach to understanding how DNA and the complex chemical systems of life came to attain their present form. Prof. Nagel's article is well worth the price to put it in the library of any inquiring mind.
http://www.apologetics.org/ThomasNagelCallsIntelligentDesignScienti...

As anyone who has watched TV's Crime Scene Investigation knows, scientific investigation of a set of data (the data at the scene of a man's death) may lead to the conclusion that the event that produced the data (the death) was not the product of natural causes — not an accident, in other words — but was the product of an intelligence — a perpetrator.

Permalink Reply by Jacob Daniel Souchak on January 10, 2010 at 10:58am

I believe Albert Einstien said that the big bang theory was mathamatically impossible. I could be wrong he might have said it was impossible for the universe to have been created by chance. Does anyone know what Einstien said about creation?

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on January 10, 2010 at 1:28pm

Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
by Rich Deem
IntroductionI get a fair amount of e-mail about Albert Einstein's quote1 on the homepage of Evidence for God from Science, so I thought it would be good to clarify the matter. Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic.2 Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

No personal GodSo, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Why no personal God?It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Einstein's errorEinstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html#xwVAVUXR7s6L

Permalink Reply by Jacob Daniel Souchak on January 10, 2010 at 1:46pm

Obviously I didn"t understand correctly or what I was told was Questionable at best. Thank you for the information. I did not Know Einstein's beliefes. Your insight was very helpful. Thank you and God bless.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on January 10, 2010 at 2:06pm

Albert Einstein: God, Religion & Theology
Explaining Einstein's understanding of God as the Universe / Reality
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page