It was some years ago when I was reading Stephen Hawking’s “A brief history of time”, a great book to understand somethings about our universe in plain English. I was always fascinated by space travel and I still love to read about the universe and how it operates. My single greatest curiosity is still, “whats out there 5 billion light years away?”, and it was the same when I was a child. I still wish I could one day travel into space (highly unlikely), I never was good with maths so despite my love of physics I am not a very technical guy when it comes to calculations and I hear that the guys who go up there have to be very intelligent, oh well, never mind.
What I was reading was that, how Einstein’s general relativity theory predicted the behavior of our universe, and in there hawking also wrote that if the universe had a beginning then an outside agency must be involved, which for the sake of our convenience we may call God. But he also wrote that if quantum physics and general theory of relativity are combined, a universe may have been formed literally out of dense matter, at quantum levels. The math is dense but his point being, that this way the creation of the universe would not need a creator, as time would not matter, his famous line being, the start of the universe is like the south pole, whats south of the south pole? it does not really matter. This way the creation of the universe would be governed by the laws of science. Read more
Thank you all for participating in the discussion and sharing your views whether we agree or not, I appreciate all of your precious feedback. I encourage everyone to speak their mind as they see fit. 🙂
A couple of remarks, first I do not think that the days in genesis, represent ages. As you also noticed, as far yom is concerned, where it does also mean more than a day, I am simply not trying to prove that because I realize that it is unlikely so. I am not arguing with any biblical verses in genesis to mean differently than six literal days. My point is that the story of Genesis is not talking about the age of earth at all. My contention is that is using poetic structure’s to emphasize creation and perhaps make the story more easy to remember, with categorical creation details divided into segments, to be sung and told again to future generations. I would be intellectually dishonest if I do what I am asking you not to do.
Furthermore I also believe that the Genesis authors believed that the six days actually meant six literal days, just like they thought that the Sun and the moon orbit around the Earth and not vice-versa. Their knowledge was limited to their day and age. That is perhaps likely so, because in Exodus 20 when the genesis creation account is again summarized they follow the original six day construct, and that is also for the sake of consistency. Read more
So the most common argument I have come across is that the earth is young but God made it look old. Just like Adam was not made as a baby but as an adult, so it would logically follow that the earth could have been made the same way. But did that really happen?
On the first glance even though I strongly disagree with this position, I can say, yeah sure it may have happened. God is certainly not off- limits to deception. The lord does work in mysterious ways. What if he really made the earth and the entire universe 6000 years ago but made it look like it was 14 billion years old? Can he do it, well if he can do anything yeah, sure.
It is a clever position because it can neither be supported from within the scriptures, nor outside of it. There is no way to really test this claim. I could be accused of holding a similar position, which can not be defended by scriptures, sure, I grant you this. But the fact is, my position is based on observation and science, the only difference is that I am not treating the Genesis account as literal. But on the other hand, the idea that Genesis account of creation should be taken literally, Read more
This is in response to most believers, who I love in Christ, to see why I believe that the Genesis account should not be literal as often a 6-day creation model would imply. Before I start let me make it clear that the purpose of this post is healthy discussion. You can share your thoughts, my aim is not to attack the YEC position but rather clear up some misconceptions and also why I no longer believe in a 6-day creation account (Yes, I used to).
I believe there are ample reasons to simply conclude that the genesis account is not entirely 24 hour periods.
So ladies and gentleman open your bibles because we need to look down somethings. 🙂
First look at day 3, it says
Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth”; and it was so.
And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
Look, God lets the earth bring forth all vegetation. The Hebrew word used is dasha (Strong’s #H1876) which means growing from seeds or seedlings. But this is problematic, because it certainly takes longer than 24 hours to actually have happened. It might take years for some plants to be mature enough. In fact no plant can grow to maturity in 24 hours. That is a proven thing. Worse a new problem arises when we find that the trees and plants are bearing fruits as well. The text, Read more
My recent time was spent reading books on the idea that we would not need a God to have this awesome, beautiful and breath taking Nature and the Universe. While the list is not that long. Mr. Hawking’s “The Grand Design” and Mr. Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” were at the top of the lists.
I personally think of Mr. Hawking as a brilliant human being and that he has earned due respect with his contribution to the field of science. He is no doubt one of the great scientists of our present age.
Where I admire greatly the passion showed by the author in “The Grand Design” and the depth of rationale and knowledge that it summarizes, I found myself asking more questions about what most people bring to the table when they need to argue.
On the topic of “God”, he is quite subtle saying in his previous book, “A Brief History of Time”.
“There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down, and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: “The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.” The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed, It would just BE.”
“However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it
started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”
So the question is thrown back at the reader. It implies that we do not need God to understand this universe and given the appropriate pointers a simple conclusion would agree with what has been proposed.
He practically deduces that if there would only be gravity present and nothing else the universe would create itself, expand and shape up as we see around us. This is based on the premise that if there is a God, we can not know for sure, hence God is not needed
Come on, have you ever seen something really astounding birthed by gravity. Can gravity create a sprawling universe? where did it get the matter, and when did matter developed consciousness or preferences, since almost all of living things inherit one or other of these traits, even plants have preferences.
And while I disagreed on the above, I had to laugh a few times on some of the things I read in the “Grand Design”.
“Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? “
And after some lines…
“Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency7 that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”
Here I could not but fathom reading science fiction. Anyways, you may as well decide if the laws of physics govern, rape murder and necrophilia? But given the implication it might as well conclude that if we are doing what we are programmed to do. no matter what and how deep the level of arbitration and complexity we might see, it would be an automated response, complex, so complex that it is impossible to be calculated, yet instilled in us. And here is where I part ways with this statement.
All life and all the complex beauty of the universe is so diverse that we still haven’t seen much of it. we hope to, in our search of enlightenment but “God” does not seem modern in terms of our quest to understand all that surrounds us. Yet his deduction from the creation hypothesis seems to leave large gaps.
First and foremost as I mentioned in my previous post, what was time zero? and If God was at time zero? there is no way scientifically to disapprove that. What science merely gives as an alternative that we would not need God, but then they do not have all the answers as well.
Quantum Physics, Gravity and M-theory (which is not even universally accepted or completed for that matter) proves a lot of things but parts of them are still to be tested, e.g Quantum Gravity is one thing where a lot of research is still needed, often barred by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and to top that, what these theories (while not wrong) can not redo is the actual event of creation it self. That it has never been duplicated or redone. Why? that is one question which science takes the liberty at telling us that creation or collapse/annihilation is millions and millions of years ahead.
Of course in the event of a black hole or a star exploding we see annihilation but that in itself is not conclusive. what we see in such events is matter transforming in an other form or shape. In simple words, we see transformation not creation since matter can not be produced by nothing. If our universe was born like this than it happened from previous existing matter.
My question still stands.
Where did matter originate? Where did magnetic fields and polarities originated? How do they always follow the same principles and laws of physics and not change or evolve. If they change why is not the change constant? If they do not change than it implies a set of rules programmed. who programmed them?
If I say God, it is thought to be ridiculed. However if someone says, “lets presume the universe was always like this”…bang, we just substituted the argument, nothing else.
I can assure you that if you sit on a beach and hope to cross the ocean with nothing and you wait for 5 billion years, the trees on the beach will not automatically turn or should I say evolve into a boat without a carpenter. Evolution without God, creation without God would be shapeless and chaotic, it would be random and prone to change. Even at grand scales why do we find uniformity?
Matter would be present but not in shape and structure that is organized and follows a pattern. As the stapler on your desk does not become a photocopier even if it is left to do that for a million years, likewise a stunning and complex system cannot be founded without at least someone starting the process. I can even think that God might have started our universe and then never interrupted natural process.
I do not go against scientific findings they are there because they are proven (not talking about hunches and assumptions and theories that can not be tested) but if you are trying to find God through science that is like finding Alexander the great in your mommy’s cook book.
The reason I quote Mr. Stephen Hawking is that he is one of the lead scientists of our day and that many Atheist views spring out of such incomplete theories. I am not against anybody but I must point out the obvious gaps presented in such data, not to be offensive but simply to counter act the fact that such theories and ideas are mostly thrown at people who choose to believe while they do not know that even qualified analysis, must make some assumptions. The same flaw that Theists are accused of making up.
A word or two on Mr. Dawkins is due (soon).
One of the most hotly debated argument when it comes to proving or dis-approving God is “How The Universe was Created?”
Let me begin by saying that I do not think God made this universe in six days and I also conclude that it might have taken billions of years for evolution to take control of our planet.
Thus saying do I concur with science? yes I do.
Do I negate the Biblical story, no. I can only assume that thousands of years ago, man did not have the unblinking, revealing nature and reality of the cosmos.
Do I think that it is an error? certainly not. All discovery is limited by our own perceptions. The Bible is filled with poetry and metaphorical language and though I am sure that there is no hidden pattern or clues hidden in it for a higher truth than the knowledge of science about our universe. I am sure that most of the biblical language is not be taken and interpreted literally, it should be within its context, translated and understood. Read more