Gods only allowed this to create

[Firelight]

I see, you admit to having no working knowledge of science.

I “admitted” no such thing. Since that is the way you are going to incorrectly interpret my posts, this is my last response to you on this thread.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Gods only allowed this to create"
Can't get the meaning of the topic title. What Gods? Allowed whom?

Wouldn’t the most “SANE” thing to believe be that existence has no beginning or end?
No. It does not give a reason to the question "why existence may be eternal?"
The best answer at the moment is "Creatio Ex-nihilo". But we do not know completely know the 'how' of it. If it can arise out of nothing, it can also disappear into nothing at one point of time.

"Physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss have offered explanations that rely on quantum mechanics, saying that in a quantum vacuum state, virtual particles and spacetime bubbles will spontaneously come into existence, which is mathematically proven by physicists from Wuhan. Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek is credited with the aphorism that "nothing is unstable." However, this answer has not satisfied physicist Sean Carroll, who argues that Wilczek's aphorism accounts merely for the existence of matter, but not the existence of quantum states, space-time or the universe as a whole.

Physicist Max Tegmark wrote about the mathematical universe hypothesis, which states that all mathematical structures exist physically, and the physical universe is one of these structures. According to the hypothesis, the universe appears fine-tuned for intelligent life because of the anthropic principle, with most universes being devoid of life."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_there_is_anything_at_all

I may add that a hymn of RigVeda (Late Vedic period, around 1000 BCE) mentions a relationship between existence and non-existence:

"THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. ..
Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos. ..
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent. ..
Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation. (Nasadiya Sukta)

 

[ratiocinator]

My timeline is hypothetical, just as the Theory of evolution is.

The theory of evolution is not hypothetical. It is backed up by copious evidence that put it way beyond reasonable doubt. I very much suspect that your timeline doesn't count as a hypothesis either, but for the opposite reasons. How could your proposal be falsified?

I’m saying scientists’ work on the Theory of evolution is incomplete.

Of course there is always more to discover about the details. The overall conclusion that life evolved over billions of years, however, is, as I said, beyond reasonable doubt.

There are millions of years where no fossils exist for those years. Show me a graph that breaks up time into periods of one million years each. Then show me a graph where periods of time are broken down into periods of 100,000 years each. Then 10,000 years per period, then 1000, 100, and finally 1year. Go until there are billions of lines, illustrating one year each with its fossils and discoveries. Can you do it? Can the “experts” make such a graph?

This is neither needed nor expected. Fossilisation is rare. The theory is not just based on fossil evidence, there is, for example, far more evidence for it in genetics. We could make the case for evolution without any reference to fossil evidence at all.

 

[ratiocinator]

Wouldn’t the most “SANE” thing to believe be that existence has no beginning or end?

How do you define "SANE" in this context? We know for certain that human intuition is pretty useless when it comes the fundamentals of reality, just look into relativity or, to an even greater extent, quantum mechanics - yet without quantum mechanics your electronic devices wouldn't work and without relativity, the GPS system wouldn't work.

 

[Brian2]

Why’s it so easy for science buffs to accept people who believe god created existence but not a young earth? Isn’t “CREATING” existence just as “WACKY”? Wouldn’t the most “SANE” thing to believe be that existence has no beginning or end? It’s kind of a joke really.

Existence in the form of God has always been,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and God created everything else.
I am told that matter, on the quantum level is energy. So God, a Spirit, has the ability to do work, He has power and could have turned it into matter,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,because He knows how.

 

[ratiocinator]

I am told that matter, on the quantum level is energy.

You've been told wrong.

Matter and Energy

 

[ChristineM]

Why’s it so easy for science buffs to accept people who believe god created existence but not a young earth? Isn’t “CREATING” existence just as “WACKY”? Wouldn’t the most “SANE” thing to believe be that existence has no beginning or end? It’s kind of a joke really.

Very few scientists belive in god (about 8% to 10%), yet alone god created existence.

Perhaps there is more to the universe than our universe. I know of several multiverse hypothesis, but like everything else beyond the limits of our own universe they are hypothesis.

 

[Brian2]

You've been told wrong.

Matter and Energy

Thanks.

 

[Valjean]

That’s for the scientists to discover and tell us. They haven’t accounted for what existed during each of those billions of years.

You intimated that science had something to hide; that they didn't want certain epochs brought to light. You gave the impression that science has already discovered some inconvenient truth.
So what is that truth? What was going on?

So, again, I'm skeptical. When were these paleontological dead periods, and what do you think was going on during them?
Links?

If I see ground being leveled one day, a foundation being built the next week, framing being set up after that.... and then I take a six month vacation and return to find a completed building. Do I conclude that the origin of the building is a mystery; that whatever happened there, in the intervening time, is unknown or unknowable?
A process to account for it is well known and observed daily. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume the same process probably accounted for the building's present existence, or should some sort of magic poofing be considered?

 

[Valjean]

This thread isn't arguing what is or isn’t reliable evidence and I’m not, either.

This thread discusses contradictory ideas and conclusions. These must needs be based on evidence. This entire question rests on evidence and it's reliability

 

[Valjean]

I called it belief.

It is a belief, but beliefs can be well founded and reasonable, or total fantasies. It's the evidence they're based on, and its analysis, that distinguishes them.

 

[Valjean]

Existence in the form of God has always been,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and God created everything else.
I am told that matter, on the quantum level is energy. So God, a Spirit, has the ability to do work, He has power and could have turned it into matter,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,because He knows how.

Huh?

 

[Firelight]

You intimated that science had something to hide; that they didn't want certain epochs brought to light. You gave the impression that science has already discovered some inconvenient truth.
So what is that truth? What was going on?

So, again, I'm skeptical. When were these paleontological dead periods, and what do you think was going on during them?
Links?

If I see ground being leveled one day, a foundation being built the next week, framing being set up after that.... and then I take a six month vacation and return to find a completed building. Do I conclude that the origin of the building is a mystery; that whatever happened there, in the intervening time, is unknown or unknowable?
A process to account for it is well known and observed daily. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume the same process probably accounted for the building's present existence, or should some sort of magic poofing be considered?

F1fan said this: “The funny think is many creationists are having to push their YEC scenario to about 10,000 years to make the known facts fit their beliefs. To my mind what it the point? The only reason for a YEC scenario is BECAUSE of Ussher. If his timeline doesn't work, throw it whole idea out.”

I responded with this: “Don’t overlook the FACT that scientists conveniently SKIP over MILLIONS and BILLIONS of years for which they have NO fossils and NO discoveries for. They have NOTHING to fill in those humongous gaps of time with. Their theories stretch over these gaps of time to include their dating timetables for the few fossils they do have and to force the evidence to connect. They hope nobody will notice these millions and billions of years that must be skipped over due to no evidence.
Let’s throw out their timeline, it doesn’t work!”

F1fan suggested creationists throw out their timeline because they stretched it. In response, I suggested scientists throw out their timelines because they don’t have fossils to fit all their millions and billions of years they suggest the earth has existed.

Now, you are suggesting, based on your building scenario, that it’s ok for scientists to assume and stretch their fossils to cover these millions/billions of years. I hope you, and other believers of the Theory of evolution, allow others the same flexibility with their timelines as you allow scientists to have.

“What do you think was going on during them?”
I don’t think those billions of years existed in the first place.