-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
2 Corinthians 4:18So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
If our human senses can't detect it, we consider it to be nothing. But that doesn't means that it doesn't exist.
Accounts of similar animal anticipation of earthquakes have surfaced across the centuries since. Catfish moving violently, chickens that stop laying eggs and bees leaving their hive in a panic have been reported. Countless pet owners claimed to have witnessed their cats and dogs acting strangely before the ground shook—barking or whining for no apparent reason, or showing signs of nervousness and restlessness.
Can Animals Sense Earthquakes?
If our human senses can't detect it, we consider it to be nothing. But that doesn't means that it doesn't exist.
Accounts of similar animal anticipation of earthquakes have surfaced across the centuries since. Catfish moving violently, chickens that stop laying eggs and bees leaving their hive in a panic have been reported. Countless pet owners claimed to have witnessed their cats and dogs acting strangely before the ground shook—barking or whining for no apparent reason, or showing signs of nervousness and restlessness.
Can Animals Sense Earthquakes?
I don't think that anyone is asserting that "nothing" created the universe. There are plenty of people who assert that the universe doesn't require a creator, but that's not the same thing as saying that it was created by nothing. I personally think it is wise to be skeptical about things that have little or no evidence, such as how the universe came into existence (assuming that it did, as the general belief in God here implies that something can "always have existed").
But let's assume for the sake of argument that the universe had to be created. How do you think that happened? Even if you say that God made something out of nothing, exactly what was God's role in that creation? Genesis makes it appear that God "spoke the universe" into creation, but exactly what was his voice acting upon? You may have heard that correlation doesn't imply causation... even if you could prove that God existed at the same time that the universe was created, how could you prove that He did the creating? What exactly did He do? Causation, as we understand it, requires time; for time to begin to exist, one needs to have time already in place (to "come into existence" there must be both a moment where it does not exist and then a following moment in which is does). How would God cause time, for example, to begin to exist? Can we even speak of such a thing rationally, or is such an idea nonsense?
But let's assume for the sake of argument that the universe had to be created. How do you think that happened? Even if you say that God made something out of nothing, exactly what was God's role in that creation? Genesis makes it appear that God "spoke the universe" into creation, but exactly what was his voice acting upon? You may have heard that correlation doesn't imply causation... even if you could prove that God existed at the same time that the universe was created, how could you prove that He did the creating? What exactly did He do? Causation, as we understand it, requires time; for time to begin to exist, one needs to have time already in place (to "come into existence" there must be both a moment where it does not exist and then a following moment in which is does). How would God cause time, for example, to begin to exist? Can we even speak of such a thing rationally, or is such an idea nonsense?
W
Is it logical to assume that cars, buildings, trees, stars, people, or anything else could come from nothing? I mean think of it, do you ever walk down the street and a random car just happens to pop outta nothing? If you were to wake up one morning with a bouquet of flowers at the foot of your bed with a Valentines letter next to it saying 'I love you', would your first gut reaction be "Wow, these beautiful flowers must've just popped outta nothing!" Why the prejudice toward the beginning of everything popping outta nothing? Why doesn't this happen all the time?
This is literally worse than magic. At least with magic there was a magician to pull a rabbit out of nothing.
The logic goes as follows: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. We know scientifically that the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe had a cause. We also know that that cause had to exist outside the universe in order to create it, therefore it must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Also, it is uncaused because it logically has no beginning, it is the uncaused first cause... Now, that cause can only be one of two things: either a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial object created something out of nothing; or a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial mind created something out of nothing...
You decide which conclusion is more logical... Keep in mind the precise order, complexity, and intelligibility to the universe which is so specifically fine tuned to support life. I just find any explanation other than God to be completely illogical.
That's why many atheists give up and are actually willing to accept such an audaciously ridiculous theory that the universe could actually appear out of nothing...
This is literally worse than magic. At least with magic there was a magician to pull a rabbit out of nothing.
The logic goes as follows: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. We know scientifically that the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe had a cause. We also know that that cause had to exist outside the universe in order to create it, therefore it must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Also, it is uncaused because it logically has no beginning, it is the uncaused first cause... Now, that cause can only be one of two things: either a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial object created something out of nothing; or a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial mind created something out of nothing...
You decide which conclusion is more logical... Keep in mind the precise order, complexity, and intelligibility to the universe which is so specifically fine tuned to support life. I just find any explanation other than God to be completely illogical.
That's why many atheists give up and are actually willing to accept such an audaciously ridiculous theory that the universe could actually appear out of nothing...
Actually, you can make plenty of somethings out of zero. And there are scientists who argue that such a thing happened.
For example, -1 + 1 = 0. So given nothing, you can make both -1 and 1. The same is true of every integer and its negative counterpart. This is just a metaphor, of course, but it gives a good picture of what scientists believe happened at the beginning of the universe. You may have heard of "antimatter", which is a mirror image of matter. It is said that if matter and antimatter collide, they'll both cancel each other out and become nothing again. There is also the theory of dark energy, which is the mirror counterpart of energy. This is all hypothetical, as neither antimatter nor dark energy have ever been observed, but it is one idea about how matter could have come "from nothing".
For example, -1 + 1 = 0. So given nothing, you can make both -1 and 1. The same is true of every integer and its negative counterpart. This is just a metaphor, of course, but it gives a good picture of what scientists believe happened at the beginning of the universe. You may have heard of "antimatter", which is a mirror image of matter. It is said that if matter and antimatter collide, they'll both cancel each other out and become nothing again. There is also the theory of dark energy, which is the mirror counterpart of energy. This is all hypothetical, as neither antimatter nor dark energy have ever been observed, but it is one idea about how matter could have come "from nothing".
"The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. […] But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. […] This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." 2
Are gaps in scientific knowledge evidence for God? | BioLogos
According to the argument from design, or teleological argument, the design or order found in the universe provides evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (or orderer) usually identified as God. A classic version of this argument appears in William Paley's 1802 Natural Theology, where Paley compares the complexity of living things to the inferior complexity of a watch that we know to be designed by an intelligent being. Just as a watch could not exist without a watchmaker, Paley argued, living things could not exist without an intelligent designer. This argument from analogy runs as follows:
Argument from Design
Are gaps in scientific knowledge evidence for God? | BioLogos
According to the argument from design, or teleological argument, the design or order found in the universe provides evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (or orderer) usually identified as God. A classic version of this argument appears in William Paley's 1802 Natural Theology, where Paley compares the complexity of living things to the inferior complexity of a watch that we know to be designed by an intelligent being. Just as a watch could not exist without a watchmaker, Paley argued, living things could not exist without an intelligent designer. This argument from analogy runs as follows:
Argument from Design
The interesting thing about the Argument from Design is that it claims more than the "watchmaker analogy" makes it sound like it does. For a more accurate analogy, suppose that you stumbled upon a watch in the forest, and you supposed that the watch was too complicated to be mere chance. And also the trees. And the rocks. And the air. You see, Paley compared the watch to nature, which only makes it a scientific conclusion if the control group that you're comparing it to is nature, but those who believe in Design are claiming that there is no control group -- they're claiming that *everything* was Designed, so therefore everything must have evidence of Design. What would something non-Designed look like? If there is no such thing as a non-Design, then how can one know that he or she is observing Design?
W
You're right that most atheists and skeptics don't believe the universe arose literally from 'nothing', however there are some that do. Many believe in the multi-universe 'theory', despite there being no evidence to support that speculation. They simply see a logical and orderly fine-tuned universe and due to their philosophical presupposition that 'God does not exist', then a multiverse must be the answer. There is no evidence past that. The second most popular response is from renowned atheist Stephen Hawking who says the universe did arise from nothing because he sees subatomic particles erupting from what appears to be nothing. However, these particles don't arise from nothing, they arise from the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum is something, and he is therefore being misleading.
There practically isn't one single scientist, atheist or otherwise, who has looked at the evidence and denies the universe had a beginning. Philosophically it doesn't even make sense. If the universe (including time) didn't have a beginning, then we would logically therefore have an infinite past; and if there is an infinite past, the we shouldn't logically exist yet... An always existent universe makes no sense. Besides, it's contrary to all the evidence (which I will skip for the sake of brevity, please look it up.)
Second, God is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. He had no beginning, and as odd as this may be to comprehend, the beginning of the universe truly was the beginning of time.
Let me reiterate that God is the uncaused first cause. The law of causality states that 'everything that has a beginning has a cause.' God did not have a beginning, the universe did. It is true that "correlation doesn't imply causation", however this isn't an argument of correlation, this is an argument of causation. If you read my previous post in this thread, you'd know that logically the best explanation is that God caused the universe and that he is uncaused. In other words, the term "correlation doesn't imply causation" only applies to all things that have existed since the beginning of the universe (space, time, matter, energy, and the laws of physics themselves). God is uncaused, therefore we have a different situation here entirely. Logically God did cause the universe because not only are God and the universe correlated, but God is uncaused therefore logically due to the correlation God caused the universe.
There practically isn't one single scientist, atheist or otherwise, who has looked at the evidence and denies the universe had a beginning. Philosophically it doesn't even make sense. If the universe (including time) didn't have a beginning, then we would logically therefore have an infinite past; and if there is an infinite past, the we shouldn't logically exist yet... An always existent universe makes no sense. Besides, it's contrary to all the evidence (which I will skip for the sake of brevity, please look it up.)
Second, God is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. He had no beginning, and as odd as this may be to comprehend, the beginning of the universe truly was the beginning of time.
Let me reiterate that God is the uncaused first cause. The law of causality states that 'everything that has a beginning has a cause.' God did not have a beginning, the universe did. It is true that "correlation doesn't imply causation", however this isn't an argument of correlation, this is an argument of causation. If you read my previous post in this thread, you'd know that logically the best explanation is that God caused the universe and that he is uncaused. In other words, the term "correlation doesn't imply causation" only applies to all things that have existed since the beginning of the universe (space, time, matter, energy, and the laws of physics themselves). God is uncaused, therefore we have a different situation here entirely. Logically God did cause the universe because not only are God and the universe correlated, but God is uncaused therefore logically due to the correlation God caused the universe.
The physical universe has physical objects that are use to measure the length or age of it's existence and which it is time, and since it is written that this universe has a beginning and so we assume that all life has a beginning. But all through the scriptures it say that God is eternal (Time is at a standstill ) without a beginning or an ending for He is our beginning and our ending. We just can't comprehend a realm, or something, and or any being to be without a rotating schedule to measure its age.
Scientists didn't come up with the multiverse theory in order to try to disprove God. The multiverse was an attempt to answer the "fine-tuning problem", which is a bigger problem for scientists to answer. We'd like a good, sound answer for how the universe began, and it's difficult to do that when creating a universe is not a science experiment that any of us are capable of embarking upon.
While it's true that no scientist thinks the universe "always was", that's because of the positive evidence that demonstrates a Big Bang. Background radiation only makes sense given this explanation, and the "God answer" doesn't even attempt to explain it... or the expansion of the universe... or the distance of stars... or why the universe is mostly empty space that we can't inhabit. Even if you think the Big Bang Theory is a poor explanation for these events, it's comparably a much better explanation than Christianity offers. But it's a false dichotomy, and disbelief in The Big Bang Theory certainly wouldn't necessitate the belief in creation.
But my larger point is the double-standard implied here -- if you believe that God didn't need a cause, then logically it is possible for something to exist uncaused. You merely assert that God is spaceless, timeless, and uncaused, but these beliefs aren't from observation... they are simply assumed given the properties a creator would need, if there was a creator. And they are just as assumed as the idea that the universe is not spaceless, timeless, or uncaused. In fact, there is no evidence that the singularity that spawned the Big Bang was in space, in time, or caused, and thus a scientist could honestly assert that the singularity held these same attributes that are philosophically assumed of God.
Finally, let's go to the bible. Is there a passage that says that "God is uncaused"? Is there a passage that claims that God existed "before time"? Or did you run across these attributes of God through a non-biblical source? You seem to be arguing for attributes of God that you couldn't possibly know. It sounds like wishful thinking to me.
While it's true that no scientist thinks the universe "always was", that's because of the positive evidence that demonstrates a Big Bang. Background radiation only makes sense given this explanation, and the "God answer" doesn't even attempt to explain it... or the expansion of the universe... or the distance of stars... or why the universe is mostly empty space that we can't inhabit. Even if you think the Big Bang Theory is a poor explanation for these events, it's comparably a much better explanation than Christianity offers. But it's a false dichotomy, and disbelief in The Big Bang Theory certainly wouldn't necessitate the belief in creation.
But my larger point is the double-standard implied here -- if you believe that God didn't need a cause, then logically it is possible for something to exist uncaused. You merely assert that God is spaceless, timeless, and uncaused, but these beliefs aren't from observation... they are simply assumed given the properties a creator would need, if there was a creator. And they are just as assumed as the idea that the universe is not spaceless, timeless, or uncaused. In fact, there is no evidence that the singularity that spawned the Big Bang was in space, in time, or caused, and thus a scientist could honestly assert that the singularity held these same attributes that are philosophically assumed of God.
Finally, let's go to the bible. Is there a passage that says that "God is uncaused"? Is there a passage that claims that God existed "before time"? Or did you run across these attributes of God through a non-biblical source? You seem to be arguing for attributes of God that you couldn't possibly know. It sounds like wishful thinking to me.
H
People believe whatever they want to believe, whether it be about the origin of the universe or life.
Note what Nobel prize winner, George Wald, (The Origin of Life) said:
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
—Note what Nobel prize winner, George Wald, (The Origin of Life) said:
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
In regards to the universe always being, what you said is not strictly true. It is partially a semantic difference. Some physicists currently say there was a quantum vacuum, or similar, that has always existed (or more precisely, has always spontaneously popped in and out of existence), and at some stage under some specific set of conditions began to produce non-nominal amounts of energy, cascading and eventually forming matter, heat, etc (i.e. cosmological inflation. Most of this turns on whether ontological nothing is a meaningful concept, but regardless, it assumes eternal existence of something, and the non-existence of nothing.
It's worth pointing out, of course, that inflation has its own problems as a theory, and the multiverse is a theoretical gap filler at this stage rather than something based on empirical observation. In fact, for the multiverse theory to actually work, it would probably have to be unobservable and unmeasurable by science according to our physical laws.
But otherwise, I agree with one point that you made, which is that there if one can claim God on the basis of timelessness and non-causality, then one can probably invoke quantum vacuum on more or less the same bases. I'd have to think about it a bit more, but I think I can agree with that. Of course, it cuts the other way as well - the possibility of timeless, causeless 'existence' means that there is such a thing as something without time or cause.
It's worth pointing out, of course, that inflation has its own problems as a theory, and the multiverse is a theoretical gap filler at this stage rather than something based on empirical observation. In fact, for the multiverse theory to actually work, it would probably have to be unobservable and unmeasurable by science according to our physical laws.
But otherwise, I agree with one point that you made, which is that there if one can claim God on the basis of timelessness and non-causality, then one can probably invoke quantum vacuum on more or less the same bases. I'd have to think about it a bit more, but I think I can agree with that. Of course, it cuts the other way as well - the possibility of timeless, causeless 'existence' means that there is such a thing as something without time or cause.
Last edited: