Faith Required in Both Creation and Evolution.

[Aslan]

Is it not true that belief in either creation or evolution envolves using faith?

Creationists have faith in the existance of an eternal all powerful God.

Evolutionist have faith in the existance of eternal matter.

[Goat]

I apologize. I suppose what I meant to say is that you either believe that matter was created by something eternal, or you believe that matter itself is eternal.

That is not true either. If the universe formed natually,and is not eternal, matter is part of the formation of the universe, and is not 'created by something' at all, but merely formed when the conditions were proper.

[Aslan]

I apologize. I suppose what I meant to say is that you either believe that matter was created by something eternal, or you believe that matter itself is eternal.

That is not true either. If the universe formed natually,and is not eternal, matter is part of the formation of the universe, and is not 'created by something' at all, but merely formed when the conditions were proper.

Formed from what?

[QED]

I apologize. I suppose what I meant to say is that you either believe that matter was created by something eternal, or you believe that matter itself is eternal.

That is not true either. If the universe formed natually,and is not eternal, matter is part of the formation of the universe, and is not 'created by something' at all, but merely formed when the conditions were proper.

Formed from what?

Einstein felt that matter would turn out to be kinks in something more fundamental -- like geometry. Superstring and M-theory come quite close to this too. If there is a connection between logic and the material, then why should it not be eternal? I find it difficult to conceive of the fundamentals of logic not being eternal. That's not to say that the material will always take on the same forms, i.e. there will be creation-like events, but the appearance of all this to us could be highly illusory. What does size, mass and time really mean? Sure they can all hurt us! But that's because we're playing to those particular rules. An entire world might be expressed in a computer game but the entire thing might flatten into the pits and grooves on a DVD.

[Aslan]

I apologize. I suppose what I meant to say is that you either believe that matter was created by something eternal, or you believe that matter itself is eternal.

That is not true either. If the universe formed natually,and is not eternal, matter is part of the formation of the universe, and is not 'created by something' at all, but merely formed when the conditions were proper.

Formed from what?

Einstein felt that matter would turn out to be kinks in something more fundamental -- like geometry. Superstring and M-theory come quite close to this too. If there is a connection between logic and the material, then why should it not be eternal? I find it difficult to conceive of the fundamentals of logic not being eternal. That's not to say that the material will always take on the same forms, i.e. there will be creation-like events, but the appearance of all this to us could be highly illusory. What does size, mass and time really mean? Sure they can all hurt us! But that's because we're playing to those particular rules. An entire world might be expressed in a computer game but the entire thing might flatten into the pits and grooves on a DVD.

I too find it difficult to conceive the fundamentals of logic being only something that we humans have come up with. I believe that there is a source for that logic, and that that source is eternal. It is part of a fingerprint left on us by Him. Surely that logic is timeless.

I also agree that when you look at size, mass, and time that they seem somehow....oh how to put it...conditional...not permanant...or at least that there could be a reality with out them. I believe that this is because they are created things. I believe that there can be a life outside of time, and in fact that there will be.

It seems that when it comes down to it, that we both believe in the same fundamentals. The only difference is that I belive that those fundamentals are an extension of an eternal and loving God.

[micatala]

I apologize. I suppose what I meant to say is that you either believe that matter was created by something eternal, or you believe that matter itself is eternal.

That is not true either. If the universe formed natually,and is not eternal, matter is part of the formation of the universe, and is not 'created by something' at all, but merely formed when the conditions were proper.

Formed from what?

Einstein felt that matter would turn out to be kinks in something more fundamental -- like geometry. Superstring and M-theory come quite close to this too. If there is a connection between logic and the material, then why should it not be eternal? I find it difficult to conceive of the fundamentals of logic not being eternal. That's not to say that the material will always take on the same forms, i.e. there will be creation-like events, but the appearance of all this to us could be highly illusory. What does size, mass and time really mean? Sure they can all hurt us! But that's because we're playing to those particular rules. An entire world might be expressed in a computer game but the entire thing might flatten into the pits and grooves on a DVD.

I too find it difficult to conceive the fundamentals of logic being only something that we humans have come up with. I believe that there is a source for that logic, and that that source is eternal. It is part of a fingerprint left on us by Him. Surely that logic is timeless.

I also agree that when you look at size, mass, and time that they seem somehow....oh how to put it...conditional...not permanant...or at least that there could be a reality with out them. I believe that this is because they are created things. I believe that there can be a life outside of time, and in fact that there will be.

It seems that when it comes down to it, that we both believe in the same fundamentals. The only difference is that I belive that those fundamentals are an extension of an eternal and loving God.

I look at it in somewhat this way. I accept that the basics of the current scientific models are very likely essentially true. The universe is 15 to 20 billion years old. There was probably a big bang event at the start of our universe. More recently, life has evolved over hundreds of millions of years on earth with humans appearing only recently. However, I also believe in God as the ultimate cause of what exists, and that the 'laws of the universe' are in a sense the 'word' or 'wisdom' of God.

[QED]

OK good theists But what is there to persuade us that it is all the work of some divine being who has set out to deliberately and lovingly produce something to our specifications? If we are in the business of contemplating meta-states to our universe, then of all the potential instantiations of logical possibilities we could easily envisage a state space large enough to make an apparently finely-tuned universe like ours an inevitability.

[Confused]

Is it not true that belief in either creation or evolution envolves using faith?

Creationists have faith in the existance of an eternal all powerful God.

Evolutionist have faith in the existance of eternal matter.

From what I have read so far, it seems to me that everyone has a differing opinion on "eternal matter". Perhaps if you clarified what you are considering "eternal matter" to be and how it relates to an evolutionists faith, then maybe I could grasp your assertion better.

In regards to faith, everything takes faith. You have faith that when you close your eyes, you will wake up in the morning. You have faith that when you clock out of work, you will still have a job to clock in to the next day (though you may not want to). I fail to see what is so special about faith.

[Aslan]

Is it not true that belief in either creation or evolution envolves using faith?

Creationists have faith in the existance of an eternal all powerful God.

Evolutionist have faith in the existance of eternal matter.

From what I have read so far, it seems to me that everyone has a differing opinion on "eternal matter". Perhaps if you clarified what you are considering "eternal matter" to be and how it relates to an evolutionists faith, then maybe I could grasp your assertion better.

In regards to faith, everything takes faith. You have faith that when you close your eyes, you will wake up in the morning. You have faith that when you clock out of work, you will still have a job to clock in to the next day (though you may not want to). I fail to see what is so special about faith.

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

There seems to me (I may be wrong) that non-christian...or to be more broad non- theist scientist look down upon religous thinkers because they have an element of faith in their belief.

My point was to show that

[Confused]

Is it not true that belief in either creation or evolution envolves using faith?

Creationists have faith in the existance of an eternal all powerful God.

Evolutionist have faith in the existance of eternal matter.

From what I have read so far, it seems to me that everyone has a differing opinion on "eternal matter". Perhaps if you clarified what you are considering "eternal matter" to be and how it relates to an evolutionists faith, then maybe I could grasp your assertion better.

In regards to faith, everything takes faith. You have faith that when you close your eyes, you will wake up in the morning. You have faith that when you clock out of work, you will still have a job to clock in to the next day (though you may not want to). I fail to see what is so special about faith.

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

There seems to me (I may be wrong) that non-christian...or to be more broad non- theist scientist look down upon religous thinkers because they have an element of faith in their belief.

My point was to show that

I am not an atheist or a theist, I am to confused to take a stand. I can only see it from a view outside. I don't think anyone looks down on theists due to faith anymore than anyone looks down on atheist due to lack of that same faith. We all have faith. Now, what we have faith in is where our opinions may differ. Do I consider you irrational for believing in a God? No. How can I? I can't disprove Him yet anymore than I can prove Him yet. What I see science looking down on theists about is usually the complete and utter denial of some truths. Such as the age of the earth, such as some inconsistencies between accounts of the life of Christ, etc.... Now, let me say that there are many theists on this site that I respect and they will admit to such issues. It is the ones who downright refuse to acknowledge it and go to an extremist stance and scream "conspiracy theory" that I look down on. I don't care if they are theist or atheist. Science is not out to disprove religion. It is out to find the truth, regardless of what it might be. Usually, what I see is religion out to disprove science (NOTE: I say usually).

Faith isn't a bad thing.

But what is your definition for the evolutionists "eternal matter"?

[Aslan]

Is it not true that belief in either creation or evolution envolves using faith?

Creationists have faith in the existance of an eternal all powerful God.

Evolutionist have faith in the existance of eternal matter.

From what I have read so far, it seems to me that everyone has a differing opinion on "eternal matter". Perhaps if you clarified what you are considering "eternal matter" to be and how it relates to an evolutionists faith, then maybe I could grasp your assertion better.

In regards to faith, everything takes faith. You have faith that when you close your eyes, you will wake up in the morning. You have faith that when you clock out of work, you will still have a job to clock in to the next day (though you may not want to). I fail to see what is so special about faith.

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

There seems to me (I may be wrong) that non-christian...or to be more broad non- theist scientist look down upon religous thinkers because they have an element of faith in their belief.

My point was to show that

I am not an atheist or a theist, I am to confused to take a stand. I can only see it from a view outside. I don't think anyone looks down on theists due to faith anymore than anyone looks down on atheist due to lack of that same faith. We all have faith. Now, what we have faith in is where our opinions may differ. Do I consider you irrational for believing in a God? No. How can I? I can't disprove Him yet anymore than I can prove Him yet. What I see science looking down on theists about is usually the complete and utter denial of some truths. Such as the age of the earth, such as some inconsistencies between accounts of the life of Christ, etc.... Now, let me say that there are many theists on this site that I respect and they will admit to such issues. It is the ones who downright refuse to acknowledge it and go to an extremist stance and scream "conspiracy theory" that I look down on. I don't care if they are theist or atheist. Science is not out to disprove religion. It is out to find the truth, regardless of what it might be. Usually, what I see is religion out to disprove science (NOTE: I say usually).

Faith isn't a bad thing.

But what is your definition for the evolutionists "eternal matter"?

To be truthful, in the end you will feel the truth in your heart...or spirit. I would say to look inward at times. What does your heart say, sometimes we tend to think things through and forget to feel them...now you must have the thought, but the heart must be there as well.

Matthew 13:15
For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

As far as the "eternal matter" goes...all the objects in space are made up of molecules, which are in turn made up of atoms, which are in turn made up of neutral, positive, and negative particles, these are made up of quarks. Thats as far as I know. Even if at the big bang these were all broken down into their lowest forms they would still be under the general term of "matter"...substance...a thing that takes up space. If this "matter" was not created at some point then it is eternal.