Religious paradox

[magicmiles]

That strikes me as being a strange question. You're asking for an explanation of what created designed looks like if it wasn't designed. How is that possible? How is the fact that it isn't possible compelling?

It's being claimed that design can be clearly discerned in certain things based on function alone, implying that it can be distinguished from things which aren't. But since this shell game leaves no consideration for even the mere possibility of undesigned things to exist it clearly isn't a valid indicator of design in anything. To put it simply, it's like claiming to have a foolproof method of distinguishing the contents of column A from the contents of column B while simultaneously maintaining that column B can't even exist.

OK, I see what you're saying. My brain is a bit dead this morning, so I will try and respond to you when I'm a bit more rested. Thanks. (If I forget, please just message me)

[burnish]

It actually *is* plausible based on our current understanding of physics. We know that virtual particles appear and disappear constantly in empty space. It's allowed under quantum mechanics as long as the product of the particle's energy (mass) and the time that it exists is less than Planck's constant. Recent measurements have shown that for the universe, delta E = 0. This means that delta T can be infinite, i.e., the universe can exist forever. What the universe spawned from could be a multiverse that has existed forever, or where time is meaningless.

Empty space isn't empty, though.  Virtual particles do not make something from nothing plausible, because empty space is *something*.  As far as the Universe existing forever, what happened to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?   

Do I find this utterly convincing? No. But adding a deity into the mix just adds one more (unnecessary and unproven) layer of complication to the problem. You have to wave your hand and give the deity special dispensation (everything but god requires a creator) or else it's just another piece of the chain that you have to explain.

Just because the Universe requires a creator doesn't mean everything does. So it's not a special dispensation, and I think having an eternal first cause only makes logical sense.  Otherwise, you have the little problem of trying to conjure something from nothing as we are discussing.

[magicmiles]

That strikes me as being a strange question. You're asking for an explanation of what created designed looks like if it wasn't designed. How is that possible? How is the fact that it isn't possible compelling?

It's being claimed that design can be clearly discerned in certain things based on function alone, implying that it can be distinguished from things which aren't. But since this shell game leaves no consideration for even the mere possibility of undesigned things to exist it clearly isn't a valid indicator of design in anything.

I disagree. Randomness can exist a designed world. It's this randomness we can look at and compare with design. We recognise design because we see random all the time. We might see water in a puddle whilst cycling[1] to swim in water in a swimming pool. Random and design.

1.	which we should all do. I never miss a chance to say it

[JeffPT]

I disagree. Randomness can exist a designed world. It's this randomness we can look at and compare with design. We recognise design because we see random all the time. We might see water in a puddle whilst cycling[1] to swim in water in a swimming pool. Random and design.

1.	which we should all do. I never miss a chance to say it

Douglas Adams....

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

It's all about perspective, mm.  If you're a puddle, the hole you're in seems like it was designed with you in mind.  You see design in the world around you because of your preconceived notion that the world was built for you; but this is nothing more than a self-imposed limitation on your field of view.  Yours is an ancient mentality that has no business in the 21st century.  It just holds you back from understanding what's really going on. 

The world would be very different if it were built with us in mind.  This is not news to you.  I'm sure of it.

[Aspie]

I disagree. Randomness can exist a designed world. It's this randomness we can look at and compare with design. We recognise design because we see random all the time. We might see water in a puddle whilst cycling[1] to swim in water in a swimming pool. Random and design.

1.	which we should all do. I never miss a chance to say it

The only way this can be true is if the designer isn't God because omniscience rules out any possibility of randomness. By positing a creator that not only created water and every force that acts upon it, but can see into the future as though it were part of the present you leave no room for anything that he can't take into account at creation, hence nothing that is beyond the scope of his design. For an omnipotent, omniscient creator there can be no bugs, only intended features.

Moreover, I'm going to have to object to the implicit false dichotomy you've presented. The implication that order cannot exist without intelligent agency by posing chaos as the only possible alternative is completely unjustified. It's odd that you should refer to water as random, considering that it follows natural processes all too orderly. I would hardly consider the process of water forming into puddles to be random considering the role of well-understood natural environmental factors towards a very predictable outcome. However, if instead of forming into puddles the water would occasionally leap out of the hole, spontaneously combust, or run for public office, you'd have an air-tight case. Plus we'd have to reconsider our design for drinking cups.

[bertatberts]

I disagree. Randomness can exist a designed world. It's this randomness we can look at and compare with design. We recognise design because we see random all the time. We might see water in a puddle whilst cycling[1] to swim in water in a swimming pool. Random and design.

1.	which we should all do. I never miss a chance to say it

The only way this can be true is if the designer isn't God because omniscience rules out any possibility of randomness. By positing a creator that not only created water and every force that acts upon it, but can see into the future as though it were part of the present you leave no room for anything that he can't take into account at creation, hence nothing that is beyond the scope of his design. For an omnipotent, omniscient creator there can be no bugs, only intended features.

Moreover, I'm going to have to object to the implicit false dichotomy you've presented. The implication that order cannot exist without intelligent agency by posing chaos as the only possible alternative is completely unjustified.

This cornflake analogy, by Dr Robert Stovold proves that "Sandwiched between a plagiarised biography and biased references are several canards from the Creationist canon, such as (and I paraphrase) “evolution is simply a matter of chance”, and “the complexity of living things requires a designer”.  I’ve refuted both lies with an analogy that I’ve used for years, which I’ll share with Freethinker readers in the form of an amusing conversation I once had with a Creationist:

Creationist: Design requires a designer – it couldn’t arise by random chance!

Me: Would you say that order requires an orderer?

Creationist: Yes.

Me: So why is it that all the small cornflakes tend to settle at the base of the box?  Do you think it’s because God put them there?

Creationist: No – it must be, well, gravity pulling the small flakes down.

Me: Wouldn’t gravity have pulled the large flakes down as well?  Why do the small flakes fall further?

Creationist: I don’t know.

Me: It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps.  The flakes sieve themselves.  Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required.  Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”.  Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively.  Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.

Creationist: There must be more to it than that?  There must be!  There has to be!

[Walks away scratching his head....]

A more detailed refutation of Comfort’s nonsense is beyond the scope of this blog, but will appear in a future print edition of The Freethinker.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/11/30/on-the-origin-of-specious-arguments/
Dr Robert Stovold" 

[JohnKurwa]

It actually *is* plausible based on our current understanding of physics. We know that virtual particles appear and disappear constantly in empty space. It's allowed under quantum mechanics as long as the product of the particle's energy (mass) and the time that it exists is less than Planck's constant. Recent measurements have shown that for the universe, delta E = 0. This means that delta T can be infinite, i.e., the universe can exist forever. What the universe spawned from could be a multiverse that has existed forever, or where time is meaningless.

Empty space isn't empty, though.  Virtual particles do not make something from nothing plausible, because empty space is *something*.  As far as the Universe existing forever, what happened to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?   

Do I find this utterly convincing? No. But adding a deity into the mix just adds one more (unnecessary and unproven) layer of complication to the problem. You have to wave your hand and give the deity special dispensation (everything but god requires a creator) or else it's just another piece of the chain that you have to explain.

Just because the Universe requires a creator doesn't mean everything does. So it's not a special dispensation, and I think having an eternal first cause only makes logical sense.  Otherwise, you have the little problem of trying to conjure something from nothing as we are discussing.

Can you please explain the thing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Never heard of this.

Bold part: This just seems strange to me, how can you think that this first cause has to be supernatural? Just because we can't understand? Just because we will probably never know exactly? On the other hand, you are saying that we have a "little problem of trying to conjure something from nothing as we are discussing". Do you see the irony? Where does your God come from? Why you don't hesitate when it comes to the origins of your God? Then just everything is clear, he exists, point. But when it comes to other discussions, yeah we have a little problem with conjuring something from nothing, for me this is kind of the same what you are doing with your believe, you are exactly conjuring something from nothing.

I am saying that you must explain origins before you can say God isn't involved.  Also, science really doesn't have an opinion either way. 

But we just assume that God exists without any single evidence. Yeah, religion has the explanation of "in 6 days he created that shit and then chilled for a day".
For me this is even more hilarious than to say "we don't know exactly at the moment".

What I mean is, that science has nothing much to say about origins.  Nothing it can prove, anyway.  Even if you perfectly described everything in the Universe, you still wouldn't have a case against God until you also described the ultimate first cause of the Universe.  You must explain the entire creation event if you want to encroach on Gods territory.

As is stated above, what religion states is just so fucking hilarious, I mean come on, everything in 6 days? But science can prove anything else, where religion has not a single proof for anything to do with God/Jesus.

So I can sum up the bold part:

Even if you describe everything apart from the beginning, Science/Nature has just a limited influence, whereas Relegion does not explain anything but well God created the whole universe. Also: "Nothing it can prove, anyway. " Well that fits pretty good for religion, don't you think?

Also: If God came from nothing and just existed, or as you say he is "eternal", why can't the universe have emerged from something eternal?

[Brakeman]

Just because the Universe requires a creator doesn't mean everything does.

I'm sure that you didn't intend for this to be funny, but I surely laughed!
Uhmm.. what other things are there that aren't part of the universe that doesn't need a creator?

Why do all things 13 billion years ago need a creator but not all things Today?

[screwtape]

That isn't true.  Here is an example of supernatural explanations making accurate predictions:

http://www.icr.org/article/329/

Here are some others:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

answers in genesis?  They have a track record of getting science horribly wrong.  Please don't waste my time. 

Continental drift was predicted by Antonio Snider in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10

No, it was not based on that. 

He based this theory on the fact that he had found plant fossils in both Europe and the United States that were identical. He found matching fossils on all of the continents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Snider-Pellegrini

He attributed the movement of plates to the flood. But there is nothing about a flood that would indicate drift. So, he was making an error common to people of his time and culture.  And nothing indicates the continents were that close together 4000 years ago.

Interestingly, though, the bible was ahead of science by around 2500 years on washing hands, cleanliness in general, and quarantine procedures. 

Given that the OT predates the scientific method by 2000 years, it is bound to get one or two things right.  You have to understand the OT is a culture dump.  It included a lot about canaanite life.  And there were a couple of things people figured out to survive. One of them was some sanitary practices. However, it was not a prediction and did not predict why. 

And this does not damage my point.  The supernatural has no predictive power. You seem to be glossing over the inconvenient parts.  Why is that?

So, just because it's good for some things doesn't mean it is good for everything. 

what would it not be good for?

Do you know that gravity works the same way, every time, every where, all the time? 

Not the point.  But so far, every time it was measured, yes.

The constancy of our observation of the physical laws does not rule out agency;

It does and I pointed out why.

what you're assuming is the uniformity in nature.  Why should there be uniformity in nature in the first place?

omg! Is it because of an agent?  That is awesome!  Either way you slice it, you have an argument for agency.  If nature is heterogeneous, then that reflects the capriciousness and will of an agent.  If nature is homogeneous, that reflects the will of an agent.  Protip for you: if opposite arguments still lead to your conclusion, you have a problem somewhere.

No, I am not saying that.  I am saying that you must explain origins before you can say God isn't involved.   

No I don't.   Do you need to explain origins before you can say Chronos[1] isn't involved?  Do you need to explain origins before you can say Odin isn't involved?  Do you need to explain origins before you can say Brahma isn't involved?  Do you need to explain origins before you can say Thunderbird isn't involved?

Do you need to rule out every other god before you can say godidit?  If so, have you done that?  If so, please show your work.

What I mean is, that science has nothing much to say about origins.  Nothing it can prove, anyway.  Even if you perfectly described everything in the Universe, you still wouldn't have a case against God until you also described the ultimate first cause of the Universe.  You must explain the entire creation event if you want to encroach on Gods territory.

I have a feeling even if the entire creation event were to be explained, you would still find a place to insert god and say "oh yeah, well disprove this".   You are using god as a place holder for better explanations.  Your god only exists where there are no and can be no explanation.  Which is bad for you because that makes ignorance your god.  Your god's symbol ought to be a question mark or a picture of a guy shrugging his shoulders.

You are defining god as something utterly out of reach, undisproveable.  Which is also bad for you because that also makes him unproveable.

The mind of God didn't come from anywhere, as scripture describes God to be eternal.

I don't put any stock in scripture.  They are the handiwork of god's PR guys, and they are pretty unreliable as far as reality goes.  If god didn't come from anywhere, why is it so outrageous to you that the universe didn't come from anywhere?  Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

I say you have one because you have a spirit.

Then you need to demonstrate spirits. 

They used to say this about sickness. Then they found better explanations.

Funnily enough, science has minimized the necessity of the brain in regards to the mind:

http://www.rense.com/general63/brain.htm

This is more of you injecting supernaturalism into the knowledge gaps.

You say if the brain dies so does the mind.  How do you know that? 

Okay, back up then.  Where is the mind before you were born?  If the mind is not a product of the brain, then why does brain damage often cause personality changes? 

As far as disembodied personalities go, the definition of the word person includes a rational being, which says nothing of whether they need a body or not.

Ah, so now the dictionary is the expert on this.  I think you are out of gas. 

1.	the titan, not the forum member

[Graybeard]

Hi weirdword,

I believe the infinite regress makes more sense without the belief that a magical deity was always around. Your thoughts?

I disagree.  A deity is at least an attempt to find an answer to the question of origin, while infinite regress postpones the search.

The problem with theists is that they wll tell you that God has always been there. However, they don't seem to agree that the universe could have "always have been there."

The other problem is that knowledge, in the Bible, is frozen circa 100AD. Civilisation has revised and reconsidered the statements and explanations made in the Bible but, with malicious and willful ignorance, the theist has not. Or at least, if he has, then he has denied the Bible and The Word of God.

Since The Enlightenment, theists have been wrong; they know they are wrong. Their ideas are dead but will not lie down.

[burnish]

It doesn't mean there is none, it just means that there is no evidence to say that there is.  I  would also say there is scientific evidence of God, such as the fine tuning of the physical  laws and information in DNA.

Right, there is no evidence to say that there is. We can state this. As well as we can state  that there is no scientific evidence of God, such as the tuning of the physical laws and  information in DNA. Can you accept this?

I can certainly accept that this is your point of view.  At that point, I would discuss the particular evidence with you more in depth.

It doesn't mean that there isn't, but you also have to recognize that it is speculatory.  You  cannot empirically prove it, and since naturalists value empirical proofs above all else, how  can you dismiss supernatural claims when naturalistic ones can't always be empirically proved  either?

This is true. It is, at the moment speculatory. But can you also accept: how can you dismiss  scientific claims when theist ones can never be empirically proved either?

I have disagreements about certain claims, but I support science as a whole.  I have no doubt that science works and is accurate for some things, but I don't think it can tell us everything.  Neither do I see a fundamental dichotomy between science and religion.  I think it is a false dichotomy. 

I never said it *has* to be as a matter of argument, although I don't believe Universes happen  by themselves, with a purely naturalistic explanation.  There are lots of things we don't  know..while I think God created everything, and is in control, it doesn't mean that I attribute  everything we don't understand to a supernatural explanation.  I think however that we need to  understand God to interpret what we see in the world.

Ok, nothing to state here. If you say it in this way, it seems illogical to me that you believe  in a God of the gaps. But this is your way of thinking.

Could you restate this in another way?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

I was making the statement that, in the theory of God,  He created everything.

And I am making the statement that, in the theory (or better said hypothesis as at the moment  we don't have a theory in the scientific way about the origin of the universe) of science,  there is no God.

Right, but my point was that when we are talking about the agency of God, we are talking about the creative force behind the Universe.  Describing the Universe isn't proving or disproving agency.

If God exists, the entire Universe is evidence of His existence.

Right, the IF is the point. IF he exists. But as by today we do not have any single evidence  that he exists. Not a single thing would lead to the assumption that there is a God. Just,  nothing.

My question to you would be, how would you know which Universe you were in?  How could you tell if the Universe you are in was or wasn't designed?

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for  a purpose. 

Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker p.1

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel Laureate
What Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

The Universe looks designed, and something like a catepillar metamorphosing into a butterfly I  would say is miraclous.  When you factor in DNA, which meets the criteria for being a coded  language:  grammar, syntax, alphabet, compression, error correction, storage, etc..why wouldn't  you suspect a design?  Do you have something inherently against the idea of design?

Yes, I have something inherently against the idea of a design. For example, why, assumed God is  almighty/omnipotent, why are there so many errors in his designs?

The Christian explanation for this is that the errors are due to the sins of mankind, and that the Universe was originally created in perfection;  it only became corrupted when man disobeyed God.

Before I came to know God, I wasn't sure what to think.  I just said "I don't know" and didn't  go much further than that.  I didn't see any evidence of the supernatural, but I couldn't rule  it out.  When I started investigating the truth God gave me revelation and that's why I  believe.

Now you are just going that way: God exists. Point.

Can you describe this "God gave me revelation" did he speak to you in person?

After accepting Jesus Christ as my Savior, He sent me the Holy Spirit as scripture promises.  I had a supernatural transformation of my entire being, on the spot.  All addiction and depression was wiped away in an instant, as if it were just some dirt on my soul removed by a cloth.  I became a new person with new desires and real love, peace and joy in my heart. 

My whole point here is. At the current state of knowledge, we have neither evidence for nor  against God or the influence of something supernatural. The big difference here is. Religion  says, that God exists. And they are so fucking certain in it. I am not saying, that we can  state that there is no God, I just have really big worries going with that thought. But  relegious people damn all who do not believe what they believe. There would be no moral and all  people who do not believe are idiots and will burn for ever.

Do you see the difference and can AND will you understand my point as I am accepting yours. The  problem is not what is true or right. Because we'll probably never find out. The problem is the  ignorance and narrow mindedness of some people which causes so much additional suffering in  this not even perfectly created world by an assumed omnipotent God.

I hope you can understand my point now.

I think I do understand your point.  What I will say is that only God could prove His existence to you. That's why you ask God to come into your life because He isn't going to kick your door down.  I will also say that religious people do some very awful things.  I don't believe in religion, I believe in a personal, experiential relationship with God.

[burnish]

I didn't see any evidence of the supernatural, but I couldn't rule it out.  When I started investigating the truth God gave me revelation and that's why I believe.

So how did "god" give you a revelation, and how was that different than a self induced delusion? Can you describe the moment of revelation?
Did god speak to to you? If not, why not?

The revelation was a supernatural transformation of my being, when I received the Holy Spirit.  I'll repeat what I said to John:

I had a supernatural transformation of my entire being, on the spot.  All addiction and depression was wiped away in an instant, as if it were just some dirt on my soul removed by a cloth.  I became a new person with new desires and real love, peace and joy in my heart.

How is it different than a self-induced delusion?  I had no expectation for such a thing to happen, number one.  Two, it excised some large issues from my life with no effort on my part what so ever.  Three, it introduced many quantifiably good things into my life, a restoration of my ability to love, to feel joy, hope and such, again all in an instant.  It was exactly as scripture described;  it made me a new person.  So, considering all of that, I don't think you could describe it as a delusion.

That said, I understand that you have no route to seeing it as anything other than a delusion.  You are going to conclude it is a delusion, most likely, no matter what I say.

[burnish]

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for  a purpose. 

Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker p.1

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel Laureate
What Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

The Universe looks designed, and something like a catepillar metamorphosing into a butterfly I  would say is miraclous.  When you factor in DNA, which meets the criteria for being a coded  language:  grammar, syntax, alphabet, compression, error correction, storage, etc..why wouldn't  you suspect a design? 

The problem with the "looks designed" assertion is that it doesn't even work in the context of  what you are arguing. In a universe where everything was magicked into existence by God, where  nothing could possibly exist unless it was created by God, what would something "not designed"  even look like? What is the basis for comparison here? You're left with nothing but the  tautology of "everything that was designed by God was designed", leaving your  less-than-objective assessment of design with much to be desired.

I don't think "looks designed' proves a design, necessarily.  The fact that it looks designed does mean though that there is some cause to believe that there could be a designer.  Either the Universe was designed or it wasn't.  The question is, what is a better explanation for the evidence? 

Do you have something inherently against the idea of design?

I have something inherently against the idea of using anthropocentric bias to support  anthropocentric conceit. For example, the comparison of DNA to coded language only works  because we process everything through associations, patterns, and concepts. DNA itself is not  language, that's simply a communicable concept that we can reduce it to. That's how  subjectivity works - by interpreting things in ways that are the most meaningful to us.

Using your completely arbitrary metric of 'design' I can conclude that the rock in my backyard  must have been created specifically to be used in my argument. It may not look like something  that was masterfully crafted by an omnipotent deity, but the fact that something so seemingly  mundane can be used as an example of how silly this whole exercise is evidence that a designer  must have made it just for me. It fits so perfectly, too, like it was designed for my  convenience.

It isn't just convenient to contrast DNA to a language, because it meets all of the fundamental requirements of being one.  If you found a drawing of a coca-cola logo on the beach, you would know instantly that there was a mind behind that, because it carries semiotic meaning.  It is something that only a mind could produce, and that is the same kind of argument that identifies DNA as something only a mind could produce.   Here is an article which describes how and why:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/language-design-product-mental-process/

Here is more about design in the Universe:

I never said it *has* to be as a matter of argument, although I don't believe Universes happen  by themselves, with a purely naturalistic explanation.  There are lots of things we don't  know..while I think God created everything, and is in control, it doesn't mean that I attribute  everything we don't understand to a supernatural explanation.  I think however that we need to  understand God to interpret what we see in the world.

Well the problem here is that "supernatural explanation" is an oxymoron - it doesn't explain  anything, it just employs an unfalsifiable, unsupportable assertion. By definition the  supernatural is beyond what is explainable. Simply saying "Goddidit" and insisting that God is  magic and therefore requires no explanation doesn't explain anything at all, it just hand-waves  away many additional questions that such postulates raise. And the ultimate irony of this kind  of "explanation" is that it relies entirely upon ignorance. Indeed, the whole gist of your  design argument rests upon the facts that A) science can't explain it and B) science can't  disprove it. Why should ignorance be a compelling case for anything other than admitting we  don't know? Why should an unfalsifiable, unsupportable assertion suffice as an explanation for  anything?

First, Christianity is falsifiable.  Second, how do you think science progresses?  It purposes theories of things it can't see or explain to explain things it can.  Can scientists explain or see dark matter, or dark energy?  According to your logic, we should throw those theories away.  The fact is, you don't need absolute proof of a theory for it to be valid;  what matters is whether it is a better explanation for the evidence we do have.

Science is obviously limited to describing the physical Universe, and doesn't have much to say about things that cannot be empirically proven.  So why would you limit yourself to this line of inquiry?  Where do you get the faith from that says that only material explanations are possible, or valid?  Are you saying that everything can be empirically proven? Do you agree with these quotations?

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism.  ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

[JohnKurwa]

I can certainly accept that this is your point of view.  At that point, I would discuss the particular evidence with you more in depth.

With pleasure, you want to do it in a new thread/personal discussion? Or per PM?

I have disagreements about certain claims, but I support science as a whole.  I have no doubt that science works and is accurate for some things, but I don't think it can tell us everything.  Neither do I see a fundamental dichotomy between science and religion.  I think it is a false dichotomy.

With which claims in particular? Ok, glad to hear this  . Yeah, I also think that science cannot tell us everything but because of a different reason. I think you think that something supernatural exists and science cannot explain this, whereas I think that science cannot explain everything exactly because some actions happened too long ago and for example other things we will maybe never be able to prove.

Ok, nothing to state here. If you say it in this way, it seems illogical to me that you believe  in a God of the gaps. But this is your way of thinking.

Could you restate this in another way?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

For me it seems strange, that your God you believe in has just a 'tangible'/close to reality[1] when it comes to the origin of the universe. Or do you think your God has/had any other influence? It seems just  not to make sense for me, that you say that God only has influence in such a restricted area. Maybe I am just misunderstanding you, so some examples would be nice  .

And I am making the statement that, in the theory (or better said hypothesis as at the moment  we don't have a theory in the scientific way about the origin of the universe) of science,  there is no God.

Right, but my point was that when we are talking about the agency of God, we are talking about the creative force behind the Universe.  Describing the Universe isn't proving or disproving agency.

Ah okay, just applied on this. Well, yes how it stands there for me, it seems true.

My question to you would be, how would you know which Universe you were in?  How could you tell if the Universe you are in was or wasn't designed?

I quess we cannot know. But, apart from curiosity, why would this matter? We cannot change it and we do not have any influence on it so why should it bother us which universe we're in? (thats my subjective point of view). If we look at the 'omnipotent pardox' it seems plausible to me that there can't by any omnipotent being/entity, thus in my opinion, I can not imagine ha a being/entity that is not omnipotent has created our whole universe and everything in it, physical laws, DNA, animals, stars, other stellar systems, even if you imagen how much water there is on the earth it just seems strange that one single being would have created this and the universe we're living in is obviously much bigger than just our earth, and even our earth is enormous, even some countries are enormous, even some cities are really big, how can one single being have created all this? This is not really an argument, as we discussed before, that you cannot rule out agency (it don't say it is so, but it is my opinion that), but it just seems very strange to me.

Yes, I have something inherently against the idea of a design. For example, why, assumed God is  almighty/omnipotent, why are there so many errors in his designs?

The Christian explanation for this is that the errors are due to the sins of mankind, and that the Universe was originally created in perfection;  it only became corrupted when man disobeyed God.

Ok, but this is not really convincing to me as there existed errors before humans lived in the universe. Do you agree to this or not?

Can you describe this "God gave me revelation" did he speak to you in person?

After accepting Jesus Christ as my Savior, He sent me the Holy Spirit as scripture promises.  I had a supernatural transformation of my entire being, on the spot.  All addiction and depression was wiped away in an instant, as if it were just some dirt on my soul removed by a cloth.  I became a new person with new desires and real love, peace and joy in my heart.

Now it is getting a bit strange. In my opinion, this does not necessarily have to do with something supernatural. Have you thaught, that believing in Christ gave you some new motivation and maybe a purpose for your life and therefore had a good feeling?

I think I do understand your point.  What I will say is that only God could prove His existence to you. That's why you ask God to come into your life because He isn't going to kick your door down.  I will also say that religious people do some very awful things.  I don't believe in religion, I believe in a personal, experiential relationship with God.

Mhh. Apparently he is not willing to show up so we will (probably) never know if he really exists, thus living in a Christian way seems (to me personally) like there is no purpose at all in your life.

Your are saying that you do not believe in religion, but above you are saying something about Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, this is quite contradictory.

1.	also if the origin of our universe is also not really 'close to reality'

[burnish]

Can you please explain the thing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Never heard of this.

It is the law that says that everything is tending towards disorder, and ultimately a maximum entropy.  For instance, your room will continue to become more and more messy if you never impose order by expending energy to clean it.  We can see this everywhere, that everything is breaking down and dying and being destroyed.  Another way of putting it is, there is a limited amount of energy in the Universe, and eventually it will be all used up and the Universe will have reached maximum entropy, which means everything will be uniform (the heat energy) and no work can be done any longer.  This is also why we cannot construct a perpetual motion machine.

Bold part: This just seems strange to me, how can you think that this first cause has to be  supernatural? Just because we can't understand? Just because we will probably never know  exactly? On the other hand, you are saying that we have a "little problem of trying to conjure  something from nothing as we are discussing". Do you see the irony? Where does your God come  from? Why you don't hesitate when it comes to the origins of your God? Then just everything is  clear, he exists, point. But when it comes to other discussions, yeah we have a little problem  with conjuring something from nothing, for me this is kind of the same what you are doing with  your believe, you are exactly conjuring something from nothing.

You really have two choices here, which is to believe that something came from nothing, or that there has always been something (ie, an eternal first cause).  There are logical reasons for believing that this is God. There is a philosophical argument called the "Kalam Cosmological Argument" which gives logical argumentation for this.  I think it is illogical to believe something came from nothing, and therefore there must be something eternal.  I believe for various reasons that this eternal something is God.

I am saying that you must explain origins before you can say God isn't involved.  Also, science  really doesn't have an opinion either way. 

But we just assume that God exists without any single evidence. Yeah, religion has the  explanation of "in 6 days he created that shit and then chilled for a day".
For me this is even more hilarious than to say "we don't know exactly at the moment".

I think there are many evidences for Gods existence, such as fulfilled bible prophecy.  Why do you think it is impossible God created in 6 days?

What I mean is, that science has nothing much to say about origins.  Nothing it can prove,  anyway.  Even if you perfectly described everything in the Universe, you still wouldn't have  a case against God until you also described the ultimate first cause of the Universe.  You must  explain the entire creation event if you want to encroach on Gods territory.

As is stated above, what religion states is just so fucking hilarious, I mean come on,  everything in 6 days? But science can prove anything else, where religion has not a single  proof for anything to do with God/Jesus.

I think there is evidence a reason person can believe.  Whether you agree or not, I don't think it is fair to say there is no evidence.  I would be more fair to say there is no evidence that you currently accept. 

So I can sum up the bold part:

Even if you describe everything apart from the beginning, Science/Nature has just a limited  influence, whereas Relegion does not explain anything but well God created the whole universe.  Also: "Nothing it can prove, anyway. " Well that fits pretty good for religion, don't you  think?

Also: If God came from nothing and just existed, or as you say he is "eternal", why can't the  universe have emerged from something eternal?

I think the evidence, especially from the Kalam Cosmological Argument indicates the Universe came from a *something* that matches God very closely.  Here is some info about it:

[burnish]

Just because the Universe requires a creator doesn't mean everything does.

I'm sure that you didn't intend for this to be funny, but I surely laughed!
Uhmm.. what other things are there that aren't part of the universe that doesn't need a creator?

Why do all things 13 billion years ago need a creator but not all things Today?

What I mean by that is, we cannot necessarily impose a general principle that everything which could exist requires a creator.  This is to rule out the possibility of some things which are eternal.

[One Above All]

What I mean by that is, we cannot necessarily impose a general principle that everything which could exist requires a creator.  This is to rule out the possibility of some things which are eternal.

So Special pleading^Wiki. "The rules of logic apply to everything, except the things that I don't want them to". Excellent argument.

[burnish]

That isn't true.  Here is an example of supernatural explanations making accurate predictions:

http://www.icr.org/article/329/

Here are some others:   http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

answers in genesis?  They have a track record of getting science horribly wrong.  Please don't  waste my time.

You asked for examples of supernatural explanations making accurate predictions, which I provided.  If you refuse to evaluate that evidence because of your bias against this organization, then you no longer have a valid point.  We are at an impasse here. 

Continental drift was predicted by Antonio Snider in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10

No, it was not based on that. 

He based this theory on the fact that he had found plant fossils in both Europe and the  United States that were identical. He found matching fossils on all of the continents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Snider-Pellegrini

Yes, it was based on Genesis 1:9-10.  Look at the top of page 91:

http://books.google.com/books?id=l_0l0KOdHLoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=twopage&q&f=false

He attributed the movement of plates to the flood. But there is nothing about a flood  that would indicate drift. So, he was making an error common to people of his time and culture.   And nothing indicates the continents were that close together 4000 years ago.

He attributed the breakup of pangea to the bursting open of the "fountains of the deep".  The rate of the drifting is calculated using uniformitarian assumptions.  It is assumed that the rate we see the same has always been the same, going back millions and millions of year, an unprovable assumption by the way.  If that assumption is thrown away, and the evidence includes potential catastrophes, then there are things to indicate that they were close together 4000 years ago.

Interestingly, though, the bible was ahead of science by around 2500 years on washing hands,  cleanliness in general, and quarantine procedures. 

Given that the OT predates the scientific method by 2000 years, it is bound to get one or two  things right.  You have to understand the OT is a culture dump.  It included a lot about  canaanite life.  And there were a couple of things people figured out to survive. One of them  was some sanitary practices. However, it was not a prediction and did not predict why.

It got more than a few things right.  The interesting thing is, Eygpt had the most advanced institutions in the entire world, including medicine, at the time.  Many of their techniques are detailed in the Ebers Papyrus.  You'll find that much of their medicine involves spell casting and rubbing dung into your wound.  Now, it is written that Moses was educated in all of knowledge of the day, yet you won't find a single iota of their medical practices in the bible. The bible in fact repudiates much of their superstitutions. 

And this does not damage my point.  The supernatural has no predictive power. You seem to be  glossing over the inconvenient parts.  Why is that?

I haven't glossed over anything;  I provided evidence and you refuse to look at it.  The one proof you did address, I refuted your refutation, and it still stands.

So, just because it's good for some things doesn't mean it is good for everything. 

what would it not be good for?

That which cannot be empirically proven.

Do you know that gravity works the same way, every time, every where, all the time? 

Not the point.  But so far, every time it was measured, yes.

It is halfway the point because you are basing your point on the assumption of the uniformity of nature. 

The constancy of our observation of the physical laws does not rule out agency;

It does and I pointed out why.

You didn't, though.  We can never know if there is uniformity in nature no matter how many times we observe something.  Why should the future be like the past?  Because of the past?  Therefore, the constancy of our observations cannot rule out agency because we don't know if it has ever changed or ever will change. 

what you're assuming is the uniformity in nature.  Why should there be uniformity in nature in  the first place?

omg! Is it because of an agent?  That is awesome!  Either way you slice it, you have an  argument for agency.  If nature is heterogeneous, then that reflects the capriciousness and  will of an agent.  If nature is homogeneous, that reflects the will of an agent.  Protip for  you: if opposite arguments still lead to your conclusion, you have a problem somewhere.

I'm not using either, or any argument to prove agency here.  My entire contention is that you cannot disprove it by describing how the Universe works, and this is partly the reason.  If you cannot differentiate between a natural law and agency, then you cannot use the argument to disprove agency. 

No, I am not saying that.  I am saying that you must explain origins before you can say God  isn't involved.   

No I don't.   Do you need to explain origins before you can say Chronos[1] isn't involved?  Do you need to explain origins before you can say Odin isn't  involved?  Do you need to explain origins before you can say Brahma isn't involved?  Do you  need to explain origins before you can say Thunderbird isn't involved?

Do you need to rule out every other god before you can say godidit?  If so, have you done that?   If so, please show your work.

1.	the titan, not the  forum member

You can just boil the question down to its most basic forms, such as: "Was the Universe designed?".  To put it another way, you cannot rule out a designer until you describe origins.

What I mean is, that science has nothing much to say about origins.  Nothing it can prove,  anyway.  Even if you perfectly described everything in the Universe, you still wouldn't have a  case against God until you also described the ultimate first cause of the Universe.  You must  explain the entire creation event if you want to encroach on Gods territory.

I have a feeling even if the entire creation event were to be explained, you would still find a  place to insert god and say "oh yeah, well disprove this".   You are using god as a place  holder for better explanations.  Your god only exists where there are no and can be no  explanation.  Which is bad for you because that makes ignorance your god.  Your god's symbol  ought to be a question mark or a picture of a guy shrugging his shoulders.

You are defining god as something utterly out of reach, undisproveable.  Which is also bad for  you because that also makes him unproveable.

You could rule out God by explaining how something came from nothing or describing the eternal first cause of everything.

The mind of God didn't come from anywhere, as scripture describes God to be eternal.

I don't put any stock in scripture.  They are the handiwork of god's PR guys, and they are  pretty unreliable as far as reality goes.  If god didn't come from anywhere, why is it so  outrageous to you that the universe didn't come from anywhere?  Are you familiar with Occam's  Razor?

Because there is ample evidence the Universe is not eternal and has a beginning.

http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/stephen70/talks/swh70_vilenkin.pdf

I say you have one because you have a spirit.

Then you need to demonstrate spirits. 

They used to say this about sickness. Then they found better explanations.

You stated something you couldn't prove, and so did I.

Funnily enough, science has minimized the necessity of the brain in regards to the mind:

http://www.rense.com/general63/brain.htm

This is more of you injecting supernaturalism into the knowledge gaps.

How so?  If a man can have 129 iq and pass college courses and live a normal live with 5 millimeters of cerebral tissue on his spinal cord, how does this not minimize the idea that you need a brain to have a mind?

You say if the brain dies so does the mind.  How do you know that? 

Okay, back up then.  Where is the mind before you were born?  If the mind is not a product of  the brain, then why does brain damage often cause personality changes?

Because our spirit uses the brain to interact with the world and if the conduit is damaged then the connection will get screwy. 

As far as disembodied personalities go, the definition of the word person includes a rational  being, which says nothing of whether they need a body or not.

Ah, so now the dictionary is the expert on this.  I think you are out of gas.

I'm pointing out that according to the dictionary, there is nothing wrong with ascribing a mind to something non-physical.  A being doesn't necessarily need a physical body.

[Brakeman]

Here are some others:   http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

I took the first one, a college student pretty much obliterates the guy.
http://prism.texarkanacollege.edu/topics/youngearth.html

[JohnKurwa]

It is the law that says that everything is tending towards disorder, and ultimately a maximum entropy.  For instance, your room will continue to become more and more messy if you never impose order by expending energy to clean it.  We can see this everywhere, that everything is breaking down and dying and being destroyed.  Another way of putting it is, there is a limited amount of energy in the Universe, and eventually it will be all used up and the Universe will have reached maximum entropy, which means everything will be uniform (the heat energy) and no work can be done any longer.  This is also why we cannot construct a perpetual motion machine.

Thanks for the explanation, done some research to myself now. So what you want do say is that the universe can't be eternal because at a certain point there would be no more 'energy' which could be used?

You really have two choices here, which is to believe that something came from nothing, or that there has always been something (ie, an eternal first cause).  There are logical reasons for believing that this is God. There is a philosophical argument called the "Kalam Cosmological Argument" which gives logical argumentation for this.  I think it is illogical to believe something came from nothing, and therefore there must be something eternal.  I believe for various reasons that this eternal something is God.

Yes, there are these two choices, I agree. Can you explain those 'logical reasons'? For me it seems more logical that the big bang theory applies. I'll have a look at this and do some research, gimme some time  .

I think there are many evidences for Gods existence, such as fulfilled bible prophecy.  Why do you think it is impossible God created in 6 days?

Just imagine, how could anyone have created everything? There are about 100Billion galxies! ONEHUNDREDBILLIONS! Even our stellar system is unimaginably big, how do you think anyone could creat all this in 6 days. In one single galaxy there are so many stellar systems and in this stellar system so many planets and these planets all are individual. How could anyone creat this in 6 days?

Fulfilled bible prophecy? You say fulfilled bible prophecy exists, but you also say this: "We can never know if there is uniformity in nature no matter how many times we observe something." You say it cannot be said on no matter how many times we observe something, but a fulfilled bible prophecy, as you call it, which once occured, you let count? This is not very consistent. Even there are some problems with bible prophecies, can you give a good example as I can see if it could possibly count as an 'evidence'? There are also some that did not come true for example the rebuilding of some cities.

I think there is evidence a reason person can believe.  Whether you agree or not, I don't think it is fair to say there is no evidence.  I would be more fair to say there is no evidence that you currently accept.

Mh, was a bit harsh what I said. I would say that there is no scientific or reliable evidence. As there is no against it. For me faith is not evidence nor is an old book which was written by men. Maybe I cannot accept this, but if it is an evidence for you, then, with all due respect, your not a reason person.

I think the evidence, especially from the Kalam Cosmological Argument indicates the Universe came from a *something* that matches God very closely.  Here is some info about it:

youtube.com/watch?v=N80AjfHTvQY

I cannot watch this with sound at work, but I'm trying to do at home. If you can provide a good link for something written would be nice, otherwise I'll find it myself. Let's see if this is a good explanation .

[screwtape]

You asked for examples of supernatural explanations making accurate predictions, which I provided.  If you refuse to evaluate that evidence because of your bias against this organization, then you no longer have a valid point.  We are at an impasse here. 

Then we are at an impasse.  I have visited AIG in the past and every time have found their "science" to be malarkey and wishful thinking.  Sometimes it is outright deception.  So, we are going to have to look at the point from another perspective. 

We use science.  We apply it.  People crab about relativity being wrong, but then why is it successfully applied to telecommunications?  We rely on general relativity and its predictions about time for our telecommunication satellites to function.  Science uses theories of light refraction to make computer chips.  If the science was wrong, computers would not function.  Science uses  germ theory to combat illness.  We no longer try to exorcise evil spirits to affect people's health because it is a monumental failure.  At least, most of us recognize that.

How does anything rely on creation predictions in a similar fashion?

If that assumption is thrown away, and the evidence includes potential catastrophes, then there are things to indicate that they were close together 4000 years ago.

?  things?  What things?  Everything I have seen indicates otherwise.  According to most YECs I've talked to, the Flood allegedly laid down the strata in which fossils are encased.  If that is true, where are the human fossils?  Why is Stonehenge (build in the 25th century BCE) not buried?  Why was it not disturbed by the massive earthquakes that would accompany a fast continental drift?

Sorry, burnish, but this is baloney.

It got more than a few things right.  The interesting thing is, Eygpt had the most advanced institutions in the entire world, including medicine, at the time.  Many of their techniques are detailed in the Ebers Papyrus.  You'll find that much of their medicine involves spell casting and rubbing dung into your wound.  Now, it is written that Moses was educated in all of knowledge of the day, yet you won't find a single iota of their medical practices in the bible. The bible in fact repudiates much of their superstitutions. 

So not including a neighbor's superstitious claptrap counts as getting things right?  For one, the bible does not repudiate superstition.  It just promotes a different brand of it.  What is a prayer but casting a spell?  Begging the supernatural to alter reality is working magic. Numbers 5 includes instructions how to make a magic truth potion.

And for two, the point that the hebrew religion made no major or minor contribution to general knowledge or understanding of the universe still stands.

I haven't glossed over anything;  I provided evidence and you refuse to look at it. 

I've seen your evidence before and it is bogus. You have avoided the point that whenever natural explanations have gone up against supernatural ones, natural has won.  Radios are not powered by angels or faeries. Lightning is not sent from either Zeus or Thor. Mental illness is caused by chemical or structural problems in the brain and not by demonic possession.

That which cannot be empirically proven.

I took that to be your meaning.  I was looking for examples.

It is halfway the point because you are basing your point on the assumption of the uniformity of nature. 

That is how theories work.  You look for cases where they fail.

You didn't, though.  We can never know if there is uniformity in nature no matter how many times we observe something.  Why should the future be like the past?  Because of the past?  Therefore, the constancy of our observations cannot rule out agency because we don't know if it has ever changed or ever will change. 

Your agents appear to function as laws, so there is no reason to posit them in the first place.  They are unnecessary and do not add to the explanation. 

I'm not using either, or any argument to prove agency here.  My entire contention is that you cannot disprove it by describing how the Universe works, and this is partly the reason.

I don't need to disprove it because there is no reason to consider it in the first place.  The only reason you consider agents in the first place is because of tradition.  If we believe mermaids created the oceans since the dawn of time, you would be arguing with me we cannot rule them out.  Yet, there is no good reason to believe mermaids exist in the first place.  So we end up spinning our wheels arguing about pointless agents that have been designed to be impossible to disprove because their promoters are emotionally attached to them.  Thank you and your ilk for holding back human progress.

And that is the problem with your position and with the idea of disproving entities.  You keep pushing an imaginary solution and then saying it has to be considered.  But if that is true, then every imaginary hobgoblin also has to be considered.  And an infinite number of imaginary people can be construed that are impossible to disprove.  Do you say the same for Thor?  Quetzacouatal?  The Flying Spaghetti Monster?  Must they really be considered until disproven?  If not, you are not being consistent.

 

You can just boil the question down to its most basic forms, such as: "Was the Universe designed?".  To put it another way, you cannot rule out a designer until you describe origins.

That is a dodge.

And if you are correct, then you cannot rule out a whole team of designers.  Nor the contractors they hired to build the universe.  Nor the subcontractors. Nor the code enforcement agents.  Nor the financiers.  Who financed the universe, burnish?  Until you describe origins, you cannot rule them out.

You could rule out God by explaining how something came from nothing or describing the eternal first cause of everything.

Unlikely.  I kind of feel like I can rule god out by asking how god came from nothing or what it's first cause was.  when you say, "nothing, god just always was," I do not get the impression I am talking to an adult.

Because there is ample evidence the Universe is not eternal and has a beginning.

http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/stephen70/talks/swh70_vilenkin.pdf

Explain this to me.  I have no idea what any of that means.  I suspect you don't either.  Geodesically incomplete?   Unless you actually understand the physics, you are just linking something that appears to agree with you and attempting to baffle me with bullshit.

You stated something you couldn't prove, and so did I.

No, no.  I said something with strong evidence for it - brain damage, brain diseases, etc. - that has some cases that warrant more investigation. 

You said something utterly unprovable by definition.

How so?  If a man can have 129 iq and pass college courses and live a normal live with 5 millimeters of cerebral tissue on his spinal cord, how does this not minimize the idea that you need a brain to have a mind?

Then I guess you won't mind me removing all but 5mm of your brain?

Because our spirit uses the brain to interact with the world and if the conduit is damaged then the connection will get screwy. 

But you've not yet demonstrated a spirit.  You have posited something without cause to.  It is a gaps argument based on primitive tradition.   

I'm pointing out that according to the dictionary, there is nothing wrong with ascribing a mind to something non-physical.  A being doesn't necessarily need a physical body.

But the dictionary does not show that this is so.  Until you can demonstrate a bodyless personality, you are up shit creek.



edit - forgot blue text in OP.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

There have been a couple mentions of the Bible's account of six literal days of creation.  I just want to point out that not all Christians believe this is what the Bible teaches.  Furthermore, the belief that these days were instead extended periods of time is not a modern belief.

Theophilus of Antioch

"All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books" (ibid., 3:28–29).

Clement of Alexandria
 
"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen
 
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally.

"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world" (ibid., 6:60).
 
"For he [the pagan Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep the festival with God who have done all their work in their six days" (ibid., 6:61).

Cyprian

"The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years" (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).

Augustine

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).
 
"For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

[JohnKurwa]

There have been a couple mentions of the Bible's account of six literal days of creation.  I just want to point out that not all Christians believe this is what the Bible teaches.  Furthermore, the belief that these days were instead extended periods of time is not a modern belief.

Theophilus of Antioch

"All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books" (ibid., 3:28–29).

Clement of Alexandria
 
"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen
 
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally.

"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world" (ibid., 6:60).
 
"For he [the pagan Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep the festival with God who have done all their work in their six days" (ibid., 6:61).

Cyprian

"The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years" (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).

Augustine

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).
 
"For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

So you are implying that your omnipotent, omnicscient god, which would know that people will doubt this, did not want that it is written down that he did not mean this literally?

If we assume, that it even were 7000 years (instead of 7 days) he would have still creat things pretty fast:

At current state we assume that there are about 100 Billion Galaxies in our universe and it is estimated that there are about 70 sextillion stars in them.

So there would be about 70'000'000'000'000'000'000'000 stars. 7000 years = 2'555'000 days = 153'300'000 hours = 9'198'000'000 minutes = 551'880'000'000 seconds

So he would still ned to create about 126'839'167'935 stars per second. Still pretty fast creating these 126 trillion stars, per second.



Also, how would he create the stars? Did they just emerge from... nothing?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

So you are implying that your omnipotent, omnicscient god, which would know that people will doubt this, did not want that it is written down that he did not mean this literally?

Yes that's entirely possible.  He would also know that some people would look deeper.  And considering that Jesus spoke in parables, it's seems even more likely.

And I am not asserting each day was 1000 years long.  I am just asserting there is scriptural reason to believe the days were not 24 hour days.  Genesis 2:4 lumps all six days into one "day".  Frequently in the Bible, a day is not a literal day.  A day is likened to 1000 years.  Revelation is fullfilled in the "Lord's Day", which is an extended period. 

I also wanted to show that people thought this long before the age of the earth was known.  Instead of discrediting the Bible, science has actually vindicated this belief.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Also, how would he create the stars? Did they just emerge from... nothing?

According to the big bang they emerged from nothing.  The bible neither confirms nor denies the Big Bang theory.  All it's says on the matter is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  From there were are taken to the earth and it's preparation.  When he created the heavens and the earth preceeds even the first day.  The first day begins with the preparation of the earth that was already in existence for an unknown period of time. 

The Bible asserts that he is the provider of energy for the stars.  Beyond that it doesn't have much to say about the universe or how it was formed.  The Bible gives no reason to disbelieve the Big Bang.

[screwtape]

From there were are taken to the earth and it's preparation. 

I'll skip there being day and night before the earth had "form"

How is that preparation described?

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

what is firmament?  From Strong's Concordance:

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
  a) expanse (flat as base, support)
  b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
    1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above
...
the firmament of heaven spread out like a hemisphere above the earth (from the root ????) like a splendid and pellucid sapphire (Ex 24:10, compare Dann 12:3), to which the stars were supposed to be fixed, and over which the Hebrews believed there was a heavenly ocean (Gen 1:7; 7:11; Ps 104:3; 148:4, compare however Gen 2:6).

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7549&t=KJV

Notice, it separated waters above from waters below.  There is no firmament.  There is no ocean above.

Science only vindicates this in your wildest dreams.

The Bible gives no reason to disbelieve the Big Bang.

Atually, I think it is completely contradictory.  Nothing about genesis resembles actual cosmology.  I would say, The Big Bang gives us no reason to believe genesis.

[stuffin]

Also, how would he create the stars? Did they just emerge from... nothing?

According to the big bang they emerged from nothing.  The bible neither confirms nor denies the Big Bang theory.  All it's says on the matter is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  From there were are taken to the earth and it's preparation.  When he created the heavens and the earth preceeds even the first day.  The first day begins with the preparation of the earth that was already in existence for an unknown period of time. 

The Bible asserts that he is the provider of energy for the stars.  Beyond that it doesn't have much to say about the universe or how it was formed.  The Bible gives no reason to disbelieve the Big Bang.

That might be because mankind had not a clue about the universe back when they writing the OT. They thought the earth was flat and god lived in some kind of space above earth. They also didn't realize many of the stars in the night sky were really planets just refecting light.

What mankind knows about the universe today versus what they wrote back then about the creation isn't even an close. You can twist and reinvent the words of the bible to try and prove  god created the universe but it still doesn't stand up to scientific scrunity.

[stuffin]

And I am not asserting each day was 1000 years long.  I am just asserting there is scriptural reason to believe the days were not 24 hour days.  Genesis 2:4 lumps all six days into one "day".  Frequently in the Bible, a day is not a literal day.  A day is likened to 1000 years.  Revelation is fullfilled in the "Lord's Day", which is an extended period. 

I also wanted to show that people thought this long before the age of the earth was known.  Instead of discrediting the Bible, science has actually vindicated this belief.

We are not playing dodge ball.

When you can prove an exact time measurement which the bible uses maybe we can take a closer look at what the bible is saying. Until that happens, christians will keep changing timelines to suit their particular point.

Until further notice, mankind will measure time using the speed of light.

[stuffin]

burnish said;
After accepting Jesus Christ as my Savior, He sent me the Holy Spirit as scripture promises.  I had a supernatural transformation of my entire being, on the spot.

Spirit, promises and supernatural all sound like words used in a fortune telling. I guess yours is different because your spirit was "Holy".