• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Eden & Geology

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I use "nothing" to mean "nothing".
Logically time cannot have existed forever in the past and so changing energy could not have existed.

There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of 'absolutely nothing.' Science is not dependent on philosophical logic, but 'evidence. You need a basic education on Physics. Time is related to Space/Time continuum, and yes may be dependent on the beginning of the universe and all possible universes. It is well documented that the Quantum level of our physical existence does not have a Space.Time continuum as our physical existence. The Quantum world underlies our physical existence with no evidence of a beginning nor possible end of Quantum scale existence.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Energy is what I was thinking of when I said "material". The energy cannot have existed forever however. Where did it come from?

Where did energy and matter of our space/time universe come from? The Objective verifiable evidence demonstrates the Quantum scale level of our physical existence underlies all of our physical existence and there is no evidence that it has a beginning nor end.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I did not mention the Big Bang as not being science based on evidence.
Wanting the BB to have come from nothing is the problem and also wanting the material of the universe to have existed before the BB is a problem.

Science does not claim the universe originated from 'absolute nothing.'


What is the real evidence for abiogenesis?

What are your scientific qualifications to even ask this question, and have you done a search for peer reviewed scientific research on abiogenesis? I am a scientist qualified to ask such questions and constantly do internet searches on abiogenesis and there are hundreds every year on the subject. Again . . . 'Do have the background to even understand the chemistry and paleogeology behind abiogenesis?
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The assumption (methodological naturalism) is that God did not do it and it happened naturally.

There still remains a severe problem of your lack of basic knowledge of science and Methodological Naturalism (ME). ME makes no such claim as your assertion above. Science is limited to the 'Objective Verifiable Evidence' concerning the physical nature of our existence only. It cannot falsify any hypothesis on the existence of God. ME remains independent of any theological and philosophical questions without physical evidence. Yes science supports our physical existence comes about by Natural Laws and natural processes, but God could have very logically by Natural Laws and natural methods determined by God.

Life from dead matter and the material of the universe from nothing is magic however and is proposed as magicless science, magic without a magician.
And all it will ever be is speculation unless humans start creating things from nothing or bringing dead matter to life.
Science can redefine "nothing" and redefine "life" to get away from the magic but it does not work really.

The above still reflects a deplorable knowledge and attitude toward science. Science does not try to redefine 'nothing.' The philosophical/theological concept of 'absolute nothing is not an evidence based claim. Again . . . there is no physical evidence that absolute nothing ever existed. The Quantum scale level of existence is the present foundation of our physical existence, and it is not 'absolute nothing.'
 
Last edited:

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I did not mention the Big Bang as not being science based on evidence.
Wanting the BB to have come from nothing is the problem and also wanting the material of the universe to have existed before the BB is a problem.
What is the real evidence for abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis is about biology, not astrophysics.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Before 70 AD? No, the only maybe evidence for the existence of a gospel before 70 AD is the possibility of a early Q document which would mean 'redacted'' over time. The gospels themselves represent one using the other and additions 'over time' compiled from in part early oral testimony, and traditional beliefs. No internal evidence does not support external evidence, which is very sketchy.

Why is that the only possibility for most of the gospels before 70AD? Last century scholars were saying before 70AD, what has happened since except the more widespread acceptance of the assumption that the prophecy about the temple destruction was not true. That is the inroads of scientific naturalistic methodology into history and specifically into religious history.
It does not seem right to me to start the study of a religious scriptures with the assumption that the supernatural bits are untrue. It has made for conclusions about the dates of writing and authorship which are certainly at odds with the internal evidence in the Bible, and conclusions that lean more to the idea that the writers did not know what they were talking about.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Why is that the only possibility for most of the gospels before 70AD? Last century scholars were saying before 70AD, what has happened since except the more widespread acceptance of the assumption that the prophecy about the temple destruction was not true. That is the inroads of scientific naturalistic methodology into history and specifically into religious history.
It does not seem right to me to start the study of a religious scriptures with the assumption that the supernatural bits are untrue. It has made for conclusions about the dates of writing and authorship which are certainly at odds with the internal evidence in the Bible, and conclusions that lean more to the idea that the writers did not know what they were talking about.

Why start with the assumption that supernatural bits are true? Don't extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Why is that the only possibility for most of the gospels before 70AD? Last century scholars were saying before 70AD, what has happened since except the more widespread acceptance of the assumption that the prophecy about the temple destruction was not true. That is the inroads of scientific naturalistic methodology into history and specifically into religious history.
It does not seem right to me to start the study of a religious scriptures with the assumption that the supernatural bits are untrue. It has made for conclusions about the dates of writing and authorship which are certainly at odds with the internal evidence in the Bible, and conclusions that lean more to the idea that the writers did not know what they were talking about.
You would have to talk to the scholars that study them. Hmm, let me see. I may be back.

Okay, I am back. Here is a link that explains how they got those dates:

https://bibleoutsidethebox.blog/2017/07/24/when-were-the-gospels-written-and-how-can-we-know/

A small excerpt:

What’s war got to do with it?
As we all know, the Gospels tell us that Jesus was crucified in Judea at around 30-33 CE. This means that the Gospels were necessarily composed after c. 33 CE. But how long after? When it comes to evidence pertinent to establishing a lower date limit for the Gospels, the most glaring evidence would be that the Gospels make explicit reference to the Roman-Jewish War (66 – 73CE). Specifically, the Gospels refer to when Roman soldiers surrounded Jerusalem in 67 CE, and most notably the Gospels mention the complete destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, which happened in 70 CE (see e.g., Luke 21 and Mark 13). According to this scholarship, the Gospels were in all likelihood written after these events since they make direct mention of them. Nevertheless, those who espouse early composition dates for the Gospels ordinarily assert that the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple as mentioned in the Gospels constitutes prophecy, and thus, the Gospels must have been written prior to these events – lest these prophecies attributed to Jesus be rendered as prophecies after-the-fact.

Setting aside for now the circularity of that view, to insist that the mention of the siege and Temple destruction within the Gospels be taken only as evidence of prophecy and not as evidence that the gospel writers had historical knowledge of these events amounts to a methodological double standard – especially when we are not equally charitable with secular/pagan writings attesting to would-be prophecies. If we’re going to appeal to customary academic considerations in our historiographic analysis of texts, then we have to be consistent in our methodology when we do so. We cannot make arbitrary exceptions.
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
Why start with the assumption that supernatural bits are true? Don't extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

To end up with early writing time for the gospels and the authors that the early church claim just requires going by the internal and external evidence for that,,,,,,,,,,,,no assumptions one way or the other.
The assumption that comes in to the analysis to change the dates, and hence the authorship is that the supernatural bits are not true.
The witness of early gospels and authors that knew or had witness evidence for the gospels is extraordinary evidence imo.
The assumption that there is no supernatural is an assumption that the gospels are lies and leads to a reduction in the validity of the evidence of the gospels.
It is a case of circular reasoning,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or BS in BS out.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
To end up with early writing time for the gospels and the authors that the early church claim just requires going by the internal and external evidence for that,,,,,,,,,,,,no assumptions one way or the other.
The assumption that comes in to the analysis to change the dates, and hence the authorship is that the supernatural bits are not true.
The witness of early gospels and authors that knew or had witness evidence for the gospels is extraordinary evidence imo.
The assumption that there is no supernatural is an assumption that the gospels are lies and leads to a reduction in the validity of the evidence of the gospels.
It is a case of circular reasoning,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or BS in BS out.
What "internal evidence"? And didn't you read the link I provided. There were no assumptions as you use the term.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
To end up with early writing time for the gospels and the authors that the early church claim just requires going by the internal and external evidence for that,,,,,,,,,,,,no assumptions one way or the other.
The assumption that comes in to the analysis to change the dates, and hence the authorship is that the supernatural bits are not true.
The witness of early gospels and authors that knew or had witness evidence for the gospels is extraordinary evidence imo.
The assumption that there is no supernatural is an assumption that the gospels are lies and leads to a reduction in the validity of the evidence of the gospels.
It is a case of circular reasoning,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or BS in BS out.

That is pretty black and white thinking. Was the story about George Washington's encounter with an angel during the winter at Valley Forge true? How about his throwing a coin across the Potomac, or the cherry tree incident?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
You would have to talk to the scholars that study them. Hmm, let me see. I may be back.

Okay, I am back. Here is a link that explains how they got those dates:

https://bibleoutsidethebox.blog/2017/07/24/when-were-the-gospels-written-and-how-can-we-know/

A small excerpt:

What’s war got to do with it?
As we all know, the Gospels tell us that Jesus was crucified in Judea at around 30-33 CE. This means that the Gospels were necessarily composed after c. 33 CE. But how long after? When it comes to evidence pertinent to establishing a lower date limit for the Gospels, the most glaring evidence would be that the Gospels make explicit reference to the Roman-Jewish War (66 – 73CE). Specifically, the Gospels refer to when Roman soldiers surrounded Jerusalem in 67 CE, and most notably the Gospels mention the complete destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, which happened in 70 CE (see e.g., Luke 21 and Mark 13). According to this scholarship, the Gospels were in all likelihood written after these events since they make direct mention of them. Nevertheless, those who espouse early composition dates for the Gospels ordinarily assert that the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple as mentioned in the Gospels constitutes prophecy, and thus, the Gospels must have been written prior to these events – lest these prophecies attributed to Jesus be rendered as prophecies after-the-fact.

Setting aside for now the circularity of that view, to insist that the mention of the siege and Temple destruction within the Gospels be taken only as evidence of prophecy and not as evidence that the gospel writers had historical knowledge of these events amounts to a methodological double standard – especially when we are not equally charitable with secular/pagan writings attesting to would-be prophecies. If we’re going to appeal to customary academic considerations in our historiographic analysis of texts, then we have to be consistent in our methodology when we do so. We cannot make arbitrary exceptions.

Interesting quote. Imo it turns the circular reasoning around and makes it look as if the circular reasoning is in seeing the prophecy as true. The dating however can be done with the internal evidence from the New Testament itself without the extra sceptical assumption of the prophecy being false. That assumption is what brings in circular reasoning imo. Assume lies in the gospels and end up saying that you have evidence for them because the gospels were written late and by people who did not know what Jesus said or did.
To assume the prophecy false and so the writing to be after 70AD is to ignore the other evidence to the contrary.
Luke wrote Acts after his gospel and knows historically accurate things from early in the first century in Acts that a later writer would not have know. Luke in Acts does not mention that Jerusalem was destroyed and that would be an important thing to include in his writings if it had happened before he finished writing Acts, which is later than his gospel.
Luke says he got his information from those who were witnesses to Jesus and there from the start. Luke also uses information from Matthew and Mark. To me it looks as if those 3 were all written early.
Interestingly the gospel that was written late, John, is the only one that does not write about the prophecy of the Temple.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
There is evidence that the epistles of Paul were written before 70 AD. And maybe Mark. That is still a lot of time. Errors accumulate quite rapidly in oral tradition.

Errors are eliminated when the writers knew Jesus or heard from those who heard and saw Jesus. The apostles were still alive when the gospels were written and John and Matthew are claimed to have been apostles.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
You might want to talk to a physicist. But I could ask " What energy?". As close as can be measured the total energy of the universe is zero. There is both positive and negative energy. In other words that makes a universe from zero energy not a problem.

It is still a problem with no creator there to extract the negative and positive energy from zero energy.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Talk to Polymath. He can explain it far better than I will ever be able to.

I am comfortable with getting to a point and saying " We don't know yet."

That is still not evidence for a god.

And also is not evidence for no God.
But of course there is evidence for a God in the things that science does not accept as evidence.
And it interesting that people want to bring in the same methodological naturalism into the study of the Bible, which helps eliminate the Bible as evidence.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Before 70 AD? No, the only maybe evidence for the existence of a gospel before 70 AD is the possibility of a early Q document which would mean 'redacted'' over time. The gospels themselves represent one using the other and additions 'over time' compiled from in part early oral testimony, and traditional beliefs. No internal evidence does not support external evidence, which is very sketchy.

Actually it seems that the only evidence that the gospels were written after 70AD is methodological naturalism brought into the study of the New Testament and assumes that the Temple destruction prophecy must have been written after 70AD.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
That's not what methodological naturalism is.

I know what methodological naturalism is.

"Magic" is when natural laws are suspended and the "impossible" happens anyway.
Processes involving chemistry and physics, are the opposite of that.


Natural processes are the opposite of "magic"

If you define "life" as chemistry or as a property of matter then abiogenesis can say it is finding the origins of life. The definition is an assumption however.

There currently is no conclusive and / or accepted answer to these questions.
So I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "speculation".

You just said what I said, that all science has is speculation,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and of course the assumption that life is only chemistry.

Last time I checked, it's creationists who pretend to have answers while they have none.
When there comes agreement on a scientific answer, then the processes will be demonstrable. That's kind of what science is all about...

That's sort of what I said, create life, demonstrate it and it will be more than speculation/hypothesis.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Actually it seems that the only evidence that the gospels were written after 70AD is methodological naturalism brought into the study of the New Testament and assumes that the Temple destruction prophecy must have been written after 70AD.

No, the evidence is the known factual evidence for the gospels,: (1) No known texts of the gospels known before 100 AD. Actually only fragments known later. (2) The evidence of the progressive editing, redacting and compilation of the gospels after that. (3) All historical references to the gospels is later.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
So, you want to use a juvenile / layman defintion of a word in a context where it actually has very narrow and specified scope?

"There is nothing in this box". That's a correct layman use of the word.
However, to a physicist, that simply is a wrong statement. There's LOADS of stuff in the box:
- plenty of atoms / molecules that make up the "air" in the box
- even if it is a vaccuum inside the box, there's still loads of (virtual) particles in there.
- there's space-time in the box
- there's energy in the box.

There's PLENTY of stuff in the box, and there's PLENTY of stuff going on in there as well.

A juvenile / layman / superficial approach to this subject, is only going to end up in confusion and failure.

I think the confusion began with science making nothing actually mean "something". Maybe they should have made up another word.

Whenever there was a universe (with energy), there was time though. And vice versa.
So, it is very correct to say that the energy of the universe has "always" existed. And that goes for the universe itself as well.

Since "always" = a period of time. All of time, to be exact.
And if you go back in time... at ANY point in time, the universe (and all energy contained therein), existed.
There is no point in time when it didn't.

Sounds reasonable to me but gets away from my point that time had a beginning.

And lots of evidence.

For example, back in the day creationists used to say that the "building blocks of life" are "too complex" to have formed naturally.

Today, we know this is not the case at all. We know that these building blocks form all the time in nature. We even find them in space rocks in abundance.

There is evidence for chemistry, that's all, and even that seems to show intelligence was behind it and that it did not happen by chance.
 
Top