Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

[EarthScienceguy]

Jim Al-Khalili in his book "Paradox" made the following statement on page 148.

"Both our future and our past -indeed all of time must exist together and are all equally real" He also concluded on page 149, "Time is like a DVD movie in which one can jump around."

Al-Khalili goes on to say that there would be no such thing as free will if this is all there was to the universe because of the fact that past present and future all exist and be equally real."

He proposes a solution to this paradox on page 151 and 152. The quantum multiverse. "An infinite number of parallel universes all piled on top each other. And every time a choice is made you are thrown into that universe that looks exactly the same except for that one different choice that you made.

Question does this help the problem of free will?

There are only 2 possible solutions that can happen here.

1. All the alternative universes have to exist there for their past present and future also have to exist.

This solution only exacerbates the creation problem. Not only would our universe have to be created but every other universe almost infinite number of universes would have to be created.

2. We are all God's and every decision we make creates a new universe. The universe that we all perceive we are in right now is nothing more than someones good decision that they made since Earth Science guy is in this one.
This also brings into question what exactly is a universe if they can be created by the thought of so many beings.

As this options is thought through absurdity soon finds its home.



The only answer to a universe in which we perceive to find ourselves is a a universe in which God created every point on the timeline at the same time. This would give everyone the free will they desire and God the Sovereignty that He says that He has in His word.

Conclusion the only answer to this universe is Yahweh.

[Diagoras]

For the same reason He made a man and not a baby. A baby could not have survived by itself it would need a man to take care of it.

To support human life the universe had to created the way it was.

I’m sure God could have managed to take care of a baby well enough to ensure it survived. However, to the misogynistic thinking of the Bronze Age authors of Genesis, baby-raising is women’s work so it would likely never have occurred to them that God would sully himself with such drudgery.

That aside, your analogy doesn’t address the fact that all the observations of the universe point to a timescale of billions of years, while your creation story tries to somehow shoehorn the same observations into a timescale literally millions of times smaller. And your comment about supporting human life is simply restating the strong anthropic principle - which could just as easily have different solutions than a ‘designed’ universe.

If evolution is your example it is a very poor example. The cambrian explosion falsifies evolution besides for the fact that evolution does not have a beginning point.

Not even a little bit. Creationists are well-known for pointing to the Cambrian era, but the arguments don’t stack up when compared with the evidence.

And of course, as regular readers will recall, the “evolution doesn’t have a beginning� argument is another classic diversion tactic. Biogenesis is not explained by evolution. Neither is star formation or consciousness. Different theories for different problems.

I never said i have strong evidence for a different structure of the universe.

Granted - you never said ‘strong’, but you did say “the evidence is pointing more and more at his model�, so forgive me for interpreting the ‘more and more’ so favourably. I see you’ve provided a link (replying to DrNoGods) so presumably we can evaluate its plausibility to determine whether your belief is in any way justified.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 109 by EarthScienceguy]

Nope it is his new gravity view.

Oh please! This is just more of the same kind of garbage Humphreys puts out with everything else he does, and published (of course) only on Creation.com. The whole thing (as always) is based on his personal interpretation of bible verses and is nonscientific nonsense of the first order.

The Michelson-Morley experiment (and many more like it since) proved that the late 19th century ideas of an aether were wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson ... experiment

Humphreys' conveniently does not mention this, and instead tries to suggest that Einstein supported the idea (he didn't) long after it was proven false. Since Humphreys needs an aether of some sort to exist for this particular "theory" of his, he pretends it is there but simply called by other names which he lists ... none of which have anything to do with "aether" (originally a medium postulated to exist since at the time it was thought that any kind of traveling wave such as light must require a medium to move in).

The article you linked is based on nothing but bible verses chosen to suit his needs, which he interprets randomly to support whatever point he is trying to make. Fortunately for us all, the real world of science ignores this type of garbage and it has zero impact on scientific progress. But it really is amazing that there are people so scientifically illiterate (not just of science, but of the scientific method) that they believe this kind of complete and utter nonsense. The fact that you attempt to defend it really destroys your credibility as someone who could engage in serious debate on any real science topic.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 110 by EarthScienceguy]

If the universe is billions of years old how is that there is a subgiant star in our galaxy that appears older than the universe? Giant stars are suppose to burn much faster than smaller stars. And this subgiant star has been around for over 14 billion years.

The best Hubble measurements of the age of HD 140283, as mentioned in the Wikipedia article you linked, put it at 14.46 +/-0.8 billion years. So the uncertainty in the number overlaps 13.8 billion years, but there are other uncertainties in the calculated age.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubb ... 40283.html

This star is postulated to be temporary visitor to our galaxy, and is certainly an oddball, but there are plenty of other things like this in the world of cosmology. It certainly does not disprove the age of the universe implied by the Plank Satellite measurements.

This is the flaw in your reasoning, because neither has any of your explanations universe.

You are the one who always resorts to origins no matter what the original topic of discussion is. But I can't make any sense of the sentence above. You can't claim, though, that everything science has discovered and shown to be correct is wrong, and supernatural explanations are correct. The supernatural has never been shown to exist, while examples of successful scientific explanations of nature number in the millions or billions. There is no flaw in that simple observation.

Science does not rule out the possibility of a creator.

And science has never demonstrated the existence of a creator, so there is no legitimate reason to believe that such an entity exists.

All the knowledge that we have learned about the origin of the universe and life has pointed to a creator God.

Our knowledge of the origin of the universe and the origin of life are incomplete. That does not mean that the default explanation is a creator god. That is a leap of faith that has no observational or scientific support. Nothing in science has ever pointed to the existence of a creator god.

The creator God is the only mechanism that can produce an universe like we inhabit. Like it or not it is the only game in town!

Well, if you buy into the kind of nonsense people like Russell Humphreys put out then you'll believe anything. There is simply no evidence that any of the thousands of gods that humans have invented exist now, or ever did exist.

What you call holes are impossibilities.

Only in your nonscientific view of things. Yet you are happy to believe that an imaginary being of some type, of which humans have invented thousands but not one has ever been shown to exist, is responsible for everything. I'm simply not that gullible.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy]

Where are all of the young galaxies that are just starting with all of the young stars in them.

You once told me that Google was a useful way to find out things.

Here’s an example:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 144532.htm

�The findings provide the best evidence to date for the cold-flow model of galaxy formation�

Note how the science behind the observations is getting better and better - increased resolution and sensitivity. That’s why the phrase ‘scientific progress’ is fairly common, while ‘creationist progress’ is not.

It can be deduced that the universe was created by a creator by the intricate patterns contained in it.

Woe betide the hasty deduction that leads from ceiling paint to the entire universe! Why not just say “I believe in Aquinas’ teleological argument (subsequently developed by William Paley) and have done with it?

Let us look at just a few of the valid criticisms of that argument:

• It is built upon a faulty analogy as, unlike with man-made objects, we have not witnessed the design of a universe, so do not know whether the universe was the result of design. In other words, the universe is a unique and isolated case so we have nothing to compare it with, and have no basis for making an inference such as we can with individual objects.
  
  Although our experience of the universe is of order, there may be chaos in other parts of the universe. From David Hume’s Dialogues 2:
  

  �A very small part of this great system, during a very short time, is very imperfectly discovered to us; and do we thence pronounce decisively concerning the origin of the whole?�

  There are other ways that order and design can come about such as by purely physical forces or simple mathematical processes, such as snowflakes and crystals.
  
  It begs the question, as an intelligent designer must itself be far more complex and difficult to explain than anything it is capable of designing.
  
  It is impossible to infer the perfect nature of a creator from the nature of its creation. The designer may have been defective or otherwise imperfect, suggesting that the universe may have been a poor first attempt at design.
  
  The world seems better designed for bacteria and insects than for humans - in terms of habitable environments.
  
  The argument does not necessarily lead to the existence of one God: “Why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing the world?�
  
  All things observed in the universe can be explained by material, imperfect, finite beings or forces. There are no known instances of an immaterial, perfect, infinite being creating anything. Bayes Theorem would therefore suggest that it is very improbable that the universe was created by the type of intelligent being theists argue for.

Nothing wrong with your believing in Intelligent Design, but please recognise that most scientists consider it to be deeply flawed and unsatisfying as an explanation for life on earth.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 112 by DrNoGods]

Oh please! This is just more of the same kind of garbage Humphreys puts out with everything else he does, and published (of course) only on Creation.com. The whole thing (as always) is based on his personal interpretation of bible verses and is nonscientific nonsense of the first order.

The Michelson-Morley experiment (and many more like it since) proved that the late 19th century ideas of an aether were wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson ... experiment

Wow, you all love your wikipedia don't you.

I was just saying that his theory would be a good candidate not I never said it was proven. Although the winds of change seem to be flying in the direction I indicated.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... elativity/

Besides what is vacuum energy except another name for aether.

The article you linked is based on nothing but bible verses chosen to suit his needs, which he interprets randomly to support whatever point he is trying to make. Fortunately for us all, the real world of science ignores this type of garbage and it has zero impact on scientific progress. But it really is amazing that there are people so scientifically illiterate (not just of science, but of the scientific method) that they believe this kind of complete and utter nonsense. The fact that you attempt to defend it really destroys your credibility as someone who could engage in serious debate on any real science topic.

The only presumption that gives an universe that man is a real entity is creationism, so why would we not look at the Bible. Science itself is based on the belief that universe is logical and obeys certain laws of nature. Where did those laws of nature come from? You remind me of a scene in the movie Conan. When Conan told his companion that he worshiped "crum that lived on his mountain". But what made the mountain that Conan's god lived on? Your "god' of physical laws that you say created everything needed to be made and set a very specific values for this universe to exist the way we perceive it.

Even our perception of the universe in which we live can only take place by specific chemical reactions. That are govern by the laws that the universe had to have. You worship the god of the mountain not the God who made the mountain.


_________________

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 113 by DrNoGods]

The best Hubble measurements of the age of HD 140283, as mentioned in the Wikipedia article you linked, put it at 14.46 +/-0.8 billion years. So the uncertainty in the number overlaps 13.8 billion years, but there are other uncertainties in the calculated age.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubb ... 40283.html

This star is postulated to be temporary visitor to our galaxy, and is certainly an oddball, but there are plenty of other things like this in the world of cosmology. It certainly does not disprove the age of the universe implied by the Plank Satellite measurements.

Well, of course it has to be minus .8 billion and not plus .8 billion. There is that anthropic God again. He or she sure is active in your theories.

You are the one who always resorts to origins no matter what the original topic of discussion is. But I can't make any sense of the sentence above. You can't claim, though, that everything science has discovered and shown to be correct is wrong, and supernatural explanations are correct. The supernatural has never been shown to exist, while examples of successful scientific explanations of nature number in the millions or billions. There is no flaw in that simple observation.

This whole discussion is about origins. Because that is when God states that He did His miraculous works. A person can admire the beauty of the Sistine chapel or wonder at the intricacies of Vincent van Gogh's "Starry Night". Energy was needed to create these works of art but once they were complete then the input of energy was no longer needed. Modern naturalist theories look at a few of the brush strokes of creation and assume they can recreate the genius of the painter by looking at few brush strokes.

I could make brush strokes on a canvas and nobody would call it a work art only a master painter can put together paint in an ordered way that makes a masterpiece.

And science has never demonstrated the existence of a creator, so there is no legitimate reason to believe that such an entity exists.

That is incorrect logic. Science would have to prove that there is not a creator.
Not that there is a creator.

Our knowledge of the origin of the universe and the origin of life are incomplete. That does not mean that the default explanation is a creator god. That is a leap of faith that has no observational or scientific support. Nothing in science has ever pointed to the existence of a creator god.

But science does point to a Creator God especially at the point of creation. It is not that science has not advanced enough. That is a belief. Science states that it is not possible to form an universe or life in that universe.

You may have faith in some magical force that can overcome what science says is not possible without a Creator God. I choose not to have faith in some magical force that does not follow scientific principles.

[Diagoras]

I was just saying that his theory would be a good candidate not I never said it was proven. Although the winds of change seem to be flying in the direction I indicated.

Curious how the degree to which you walk back your certainty about creationist theories correlates to the demands for evidence!

But what made the mountain that Conan's god lived on?

Sure sounds like we’re angling toward the argument from first cause here, doesn’t it? So who made God, then? Everything has to be made from something, so exempting your god from that is simply special pleading.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 114 by Diagoras]

You once told me that Google was a useful way to find out things.

Here’s an example:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 144532.htm

What does this have to do with where are all the young galaxies and stars of all different ages when we look out to the farthest points in the universe.

Quote:
�The findings provide the best evidence to date for the cold-flow model of galaxy formation�

Note how the science behind the observations is getting better and better - increased resolution and sensitivity. That’s why the phrase ‘scientific progress’ is fairly common, while ‘creationist progress’ is not.

Creationist love scientific progress because most of the time progress points more to a creator God.

Like this one: Could the big bang model be wrong?

https://www.space.com/38496-hunt-for-hu ... model.html

Quote:
It can be deduced that the universe was created by a creator by the intricate patterns contained in it.

Woe betide the hasty deduction that leads from ceiling paint to the entire universe! Why not just say “I believe in Aquinas’ teleological argument (subsequently developed by William Paley) and have done with it?

I wasn't thinking the Teleological argument but I do like Thomas, and his argument will suffice who ever it was that developed it.

Let us look at just a few of the valid criticisms of that argument:

It is built upon a faulty analogy as, unlike with man-made objects, we have not witnessed the design of a universe, so do not know whether the universe was the result of design. In other words, the universe is a unique and isolated case so we have nothing to compare it with, and have no basis for making an inference such as we can with individual objects.

Well, that might be the weakest argument against the Teleological argument I have heard in while.

I do not have a problem with the above statement. The universe is an unique and isolated case, that has always been the position of creationist. The universe is not a man made object that is also correct. And no one but God was there, so no human observed where the universe came from. This statement does not place a Creator God out of the realm of possibility. In fact this line of thinking makes the Creator God a viable option which is the fallacy in thinking of modern science.

The above statement also does not describe where the order in the laws of nature and constants of nature come from either. A naturalistic belief of the origin of the universe is also another possibility but as of yet naturalism has not been able to describe the order in the universe. Or an universe in which individual entities like man can do exist. Random energy floating in space somewhere is the best that naturalistic theories can describe life in this universe as.

Although our experience of the universe is of order, there may be chaos in other parts of the universe. From David Hume’s Dialogues 2:

Good old Hume. He may know philosophy, but he does not know his physics. Because if part of the universe is orderly and part is chaotic then the universe can not be knowable. When we look out into space how would we know whether we are looking at an orderly place in the universe or a chaotic place in the universe. For an area to be chaotic would mean the area is not following the laws of physics that we are observing on our planet. What are those laws in the universe that make a chaotic area in our universe. How do we know that the chaotic area is not in our own thought process.

There are other ways that order and design can come about such as by purely physical forces or simple mathematical processes, such as snowflakes and crystals.

There is a difference between order and complexity. A snowflake does have order. A snowflake is pattern because of the shape that the ice crystal forms. Snowflakes may look different but they always follow the same pattern.

The ice crystals that make up snowflakes are symmetrical (or patterned) because they reflect the internal order of the crystal’s water molecules as they arrange themselves in predetermined spaces (known as “crystallization�) to form a six-sided snowflake. https://www.noaa.gov/stories/how-do-sno ... ehind-snow

Complexity does not follow a pattern. The fundamental constants of nature do not follow a pattern. Written language has rules but it does not have patterns. You did not know what I was going to write before you read it. Therefore writing has complexity or is complex. I can choose which way I want to communicate.

It begs the question, as an intelligent designer must itself be far more complex and difficult to explain than anything it is capable of designing.

Agreed creationist have always maintained this. Even the very nature of God is complex. The idea of the trinity is could never have been thought of by man. It is so counter to anything man experiences.

It is impossible to infer the perfect nature of a creator from the nature of its creation. The designer may have been defective or otherwise imperfect, suggesting that the universe may have been a poor first attempt at design.

It is also impossible to deny the perfect nature of the creator with your line of reasoning. As far as we know the designer was perfect in his creation of the natural order.

The world seems better designed for bacteria and insects than for humans - in terms of habitable environments.

Bacteria and insects are at the bottom of the food chain so the world would have to be designed so that insects and bacteria could survive.

The argument does not necessarily lead to the existence of one God: “Why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing the world?�

Because the Bible states "Hear O Israel the Lord your God is one." Which religion are you speaking of?

All things observed in the universe can be explained by material, imperfect, finite beings or forces. There are no known instances of an immaterial, perfect, infinite being creating anything. Bayes Theorem would therefore suggest that it is very improbable that the universe was created by the type of intelligent being theists argue for.

The universe cannot be explained by material imperfect, finite beings or forces.

Stars cannot be explained.
The origin of the universe cannot be explain.
The origin of life cannot be explain.
The speciation of life cannot be explained.

So Bayes theorem would not apply. Thomas Aquinas teleological argument would.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 117 by Diagoras]

Curious how the degree to which you walk back your certainty about creationist theories correlates to the demands for evidence!

Humphrey's theory on gravity is not specifically stated in the Bible. It is true that creationist believe the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. As a consequence creationist theories will not contradict the Bible if they do then they would not be creationist theories.

Humphrey's used inferences from Scripture to formulate his theory and then checked his theory against astronomical observations and found that they correlated. But the Bible does not say that the universe has the structure that Humphreys is suggesting. Unlike some of his other theories that the physical state of the universe is described.

Quote:
But what made the mountain that Conan's god lived on?

Sure sounds like we’re angling toward the argument from first cause here, doesn’t it? So who made God, then? Everything has to be made from something, so exempting your god from that is simply special pleading.

Incorrect reasoning. You are assuming that time extends out past our universe which Einstein's relativity states that it cannot. Entropy is a function of time if there is no time then entropy will not change. Consequently anything that exists outside of time can exist without a change in entropy.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 115 by EarthScienceguy]

The only presumption that gives an universe that man is a real entity is creationism ...

You'd made this same basic statement many times, but it is obviously false and nonsensical. I have no idea where you get such a ridiculous idea (made it up? ... got it from a creationist website?), but humans are primates that evolved from earlier primates, who evolved from still earlier species, etc. There is nothing hard to understand about that, and nothing in modern science that would prohibit humans from existing now, or from single-celled organisms existing billions of years ago, or anything in between. Or maybe you are following Humphreys' approach of making wild interpretations of bible verses and then drawing erroneous conclusions that way?