[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Okashira)
Can you give me an example of this, so I know how to type from now on.

Most of your posts look like this:

"............


............"

instead of

"...

..."

Just press enter twice

In regards to your post, I don't think there's a reason in believing in something like what you're arguing for (the genesis account) based on probability instead of scientific evidence. Even so, in the future we'd still have good reasons to believe the big bang actually happened.

[Arekkusu]

Well because of something called Boltzmann brains every observation we make about our universe is scientifically invalid as it is.

Boltzmann brains arise in a steady-state universe that lasts for an unimaginable length of time. Eventually randomness will have assembled many complete consciousnesses capable of making an observation, but without any of the sort of observational attributes we can imagine, and in completely different places in the universe from us.

The argument goes that if the universe lasts long enough, the expectation value on these sorts of things renders us net atypical observers.

[Okashira]

(Original post by The Lyceum)
Yes and if new evidence appeared to disprove current theories then that would be the working hypothesis, wouldn't it? Its hardly faith based.

Oh and how the hell does Science does not know everything = therefore religion does. Seriously? are people actually making those humongous leaps of logic?

Faith is simply having trust in someone. That is the definition of faith in Christianity, and it's the truest of definitions of the word. Anything else is blind faith. However, proof of God's existence, that is something that should be empirical. I believe the only way we will know everything, is if God exists.

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Most of your posts look like this:

"............


............"

instead of

"...

..."

Just press enter twice

In regards to your post, I don't think there's a reason in believing in something like what you're arguing for (the genesis account) based on probability instead of scientific evidence. Even so, in the future we'd still have good reasons to believe the big bang actually happened.

Oh, okay. I didn't want my paragraphs to be too close together, making it seem like a wall of text.

[Okashira]

(Original post by S-man10)
Just to mention, you should make it clear about the point of discussion for every thread you create in the OP

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. I have some thoughts concering how Genesis should be viewed, and how the evidence for it could be missing today. This should be a fun thread.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Okashira)
Faith is simply having trust in someone. That is the definition of faith in Christianity, and it's the truest of definitions of the word. Anything else is blind faith. However, proof of God's existence, that is something that should be empirical. I believe the only way we will know everything, is if God exists.

Why must God be conscious and knowledgeable? Also, would god be able to change the body of ultimate knowledge?

Oh, okay. I didn't want my paragraphs to be to close together, making it seem like a wall of text.

You're doing it again. At least you paragraph them unlike some others who love bodies of text.

[KimKallstrom]

(Original post by gateshipone)
Hated it. Poor character development. I never once cared about the protagonist.



uh...what?




Every time we look at the sky we're seeing the past. How is it falling short exactly? We understand how light travels and can therefore do plenty of science based on that to explain what we see.



No because the evidence we have now takes us back to a few hundred million years after the big bang. All our knowledge and observations point towards us getting closer to the beginning of the universe.



Urgh, the "humans are the centre of the Universe" idea again. Surely you understand that the universe is nearly completely hostile to us in every way imaginable. You can't possibly think it was created with us in mind can you?



It's not really a grey area. We have rocks that are older than the Earth to study and planet formation is a well developed science. We know exactly where the Earth came from :s

So, to conclude, OP is phaggot?

[SsEe]

(Original post by Okashira)
...

There are lots of paths that would lead to a universe looking exactly as it does today. God bringing it into existence but rigging it so that we'd all get completely the wrong picture of it is one option. Another is that it appeared 10 seconds ago thanks to a fluke decrease in entropy. Or that I'm a brain in a jar. Etc etc. But in my opinion, the intelligent beings alive 100 billion years in the future would be wrong to believe that the big bang happened without any evidence to back it up. They may have indirect reasons to suspect it happened but that's not really enough. A similar example is the multiverse hypothesis. There are several indirect reasons from different branches of physics to suspect it but it's not something you should believe as there's no evidence for it. It makes some predictions that may one day be tested but the correct thing to do until then is to reserve judgement.

I think it's fine to believe something when you have evidence but it's not fine to believe something when there's no evidence, even if what you believe is actually true. Suppose I flipped a coin and I knew it was heads but another person didn't. If they were willing to bet all their money, their house, their car and the lives of their children that it was heads, I'd call them an idiot.

Oh, and "everything we see in reality might be just an illusion therefore completely insane scenario X may be true" is a crap argument for X. Whether X is Genesis or aliens did it or whatever.

[Alpharius]

Is this just another rubbish "God of the gaps" argument?

That **** got lame years ago.

[Okashira]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Why must God be conscious and knowledgeable? Also, would god be able to change the body of ultimate knowledge?

Well, it's not about what God is or how He do things, only can it be proven that the history of Genesis is true.

The only way we will know it is true, is if it explained what we see today, better than our current models can explain. Now I know a flood of people will come at me and say, "Genesis has already been proven wrong a thousand times over".

However, they are not considering all of what the Bible says. For instance, the conditions that are mentioned, etc. We look at this current world and say Genesis didn't happen, but this current world is not how God originally created it. So this is what I'm looking at.

(Original post by Arekkusu)
Well because of something called Boltzmann brains every observation we make about our universe is scientifically invalid as it is.

Boltzmann brains arise in a steady-state universe that lasts for an unimaginable length of time. Eventually randomness will have assembled many complete consciousnesses capable of making an observation, but without any of the sort of observational attributes we can imagine, and in completely different places in the universe from us.

The argument goes that if the universe lasts long enough, the expectation value on these sorts of things renders us net atypical observers.

Interesting. So is it only possible for someone who's on the outside, who has the view of the whole universe, would have the correct view about the universe?

(Original post by SsEe)
There are lots of paths that would lead to a universe looking exactly as it does today. God bringing it into existence but rigging it so that we'd all get completely the wrong picture of it is one option. Another is that it appeared 10 seconds ago thanks to a fluke decrease in entropy. Or that I'm a brain in a jar. Etc etc. But in my opinion, the intelligent beings alive 100 billion years in the future would be wrong to believe that the big bang happened without any evidence to back it up. They may have indirect reasons to suspect it happened but that's not really enough. A similar example is the multiverse hypothesis. There are several indirect reasons from different branches of physics to suspect it but it's not something you should believe as there's no evidence for it. It makes some predictions that may one day be tested but the correct thing to do until then is to reserve judgement.

I think it's fine to believe something when you have evidence but it's not fine to believe something when there's no evidence, even if what you believe is actually true. Suppose I flipped a coin and I knew it was heads but another person didn't. If they were willing to bet all their money, their house, their car and the lives of their children that it was heads, I'd call them an idiot.

Oh, and "everything we see in reality might be just an illusion therefore completely insane scenario X may be true" is a crap argument for X. Whether X is Genesis or aliens did it or whatever.

I don't attend to leave it there. If what I say is true, I should be able to bring up the evidence for the knowledge of the past. I have reason to believe the Genesis account is true. As I said before, men work science, but God works omniscience.

[Slumpy]

(Original post by Okashira)
The only way we will know it is true, is if it explained what we see today, better than our current models can explain. Now I know a flood of people will come at me and say, "Genesis has already been proven wrong a thousand times over".

No. We wouldn't then know it was 'true', we would think it was a better hypothesis than our current one, and also had evidence, and testable predictions which were found to be correct.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Okashira)
Well, it's not about what God is or how He do things, only can it be proven that the history of Genesis is true.

The only way we will know it is true, is if it explained what we see today, better than our current models can explain. Now I know a flood of people will come at me and say, "Genesis has already been proven wrong a thousand times over".

However, they are not considering all of what the Bible says. For instance, the conditions that are mentioned, etc. We look at this current world and say Genesis didn't happen, but this current world is not how God originally created it. So this is what I'm looking at.

You haven't answered what I'm saying. You seem to be asserting things and leaving them alone.

Can god change the body of knowledge that appears to be absolute? Or would god not be able to do that?

Also, why is god omniscient?

As I said before, men work science, but God works omniscience.

Stop saying that. it's really annoying.

[Okashira]

(Original post by Slumpy)
No. We wouldn't then know it was 'true', we would think it was a better hypothesis than our current one, and also had evidence, and testable predictions which were found to be correct.

That's how the scientific method works. Yet, this would be different because the information that came about from it, didn't come purely based on what we see today. It wouldn't have come from man. It would have come from someone who's on the outside, who saw everything that happened from beginning to this current day. If the Genesis account is proven to be correct, it will be the complete truth.

[Okashira]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
You haven't answered what I'm saying. You seem to be asserting things and leaving them alone.

Can god change the body of knowledge that appears to be absolute? Or would god not be able to do that?

Also, why is god omniscient?

What do you mean by changing the body of knowledge? Like changing the past, or placing supernovas in the night sky that never really happened? Everything concerning God is found written in the Bible. He is not deceptive.

God is omniscient, because He knows everything. Concerning the universe, He created it, and would know everything concerning the laws that govern it.

[Bey Taco]

I completely agree about what you said about some of the evidences being lost through time and it would have been easier to observe about the make up of the universe in the past.

I don't agree with your last paragraphs.

[Slumpy]

(Original post by Okashira)
That's how the scientific method works. Yet, this would be different because the information that came about from it, didn't come purely based on what we see today. It wouldn't have come from man. It would have come from someone who's on the outside, who saw everything that happened from beginning to this current day. If the Genesis account is proven to be correct, it will be the complete truth.

So you start by assuming the bible is the word of god? Brilliant.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Okashira)
What do you mean by changing the body of knowledge? Like changing the past, or placing supernovas in the night sky that never really happened? Everything concerning God is found written in the Bible. He is not deceptive.

God is omniscient, because He knows everything. Concerning the universe, He created it, and would know everything concerning the laws that govern it.

How do you know? (to both of the things you said)

The first point assumes the Bible is true. Prove it.

The second just describes omniscience... I know what it means. How do you know he's omniscient and not something else?

[Banburyhammer]

(Original post by Okashira)
This is what I argue. What if God created this place with the perfect set of laws? There was no death, no natural disasters, or anything like that. Yet once sin entered through our disobedience, everything was thrown out of wack. Now with our current, observational science, all we see are those things (the wacky things), because the world is now corrupt.

Its entirely pointless trying to see what happened before the big bang, as we are blind to events before the big bang. We can hypothesise, but not actually get any concrete evidence.

I therefore see no problem with a universe being set in motion with laws governing it and being left alone - thats more of a philosophical debate which Im not really interested in, modern science cant say anything about it.

However, the idea that sin somehow altered the permanent laws of physics is, well, just hard to fathom. By what mechanism do you propose does sin alter permanent basic and eternal phisical laws of the universe?

That idea you just presented is just untestable and useless as an hypotheseis. It thefore isnt even an issue, scientifically.

Science is simply the means by which we empirically attempt to uderstand the universe? Why people seem to think its a tool for confirming/refuting ideas that it isnt ever meant to answer confuses me. This is a philosophical and not a scientific debate, because its entirely hypothetical.

Science proves what it can, and corrects itself when its is found to be in error - it is not a perfect blemish freee exposition of the universe and all else is irrelevant to it.

[Arekkusu]

(Original post by Okashira)
Interesting. So is it only possible for someone who's on the outside, who has the view of the whole universe, would have the correct view about the universe?

I wouldn't say Boltzmann brains imply that at all, but I do believe a philosophical implementation of the uncertainty principle demands an outside observer construct, because otherwise we couldn't really speak of the universe as an actual object/event.

The other conclusion, that the universe isn't really real but just a superposition, is probably more true, but you need the construct if you want to talk about it as real.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by oo00oo)
Essentially what they are saying is that relying on scientific evidence to uncover the truth about the universe can lead you to incorrect conclusion

Only if you misinterpret the evidence. A solid interpretation of insufficient or non-existent evidence doesn't take you to the "wrong conclusion" as the conclusion will be "we don't know but there's some evidence to suggest xyz".

and by way of example, the OP explains that in 100 billion years there will be no evidence for the big bang theory as, by then, all the galaxies and stars in the universe will have accelerated away from us much faster than the speed of light, and any being in a future civilisation who tells his friends that he believes in a big bang will be called an illogical, irrational fool by his friends.

They would be correct. If there is no evidence for his belief then he is being illogical regardless of whether he is correct or not.

[Okashira]

(Original post by Slumpy)
So you start by assuming the bible is the word of god? Brilliant.

It would be a good place to start, if I want to prove it is correct or not. There's never really been an empirical, experiment done by creationists. Well, I've already have one in mind. So I'm not just saying I believe, but I'm definitely going to test it out.

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
How do you know? (to both of the things you said)

The first point assumes the Bible is true. Prove it.

The second just describes omniscience... I know what it means. How do you know he's omniscient and not something else?

Then maybe it's not so much about proving God is true or not, but proving if the Bible (or any other religious account) is a true account of history.

(Original post by Banburyhammer)
Its entirely pointless trying to see what happened before the big bang, as we are blind to events before the big bang. We can hypothesise, but not actually get any concrete evidence.

I therefore see no problem with a universe being set in motion with laws governing it and being left alone - thats more of a philosophical debate which Im not really interested in, modern science cant say anything about it.

However, the idea that sin somehow altered the permanent laws of physics is, well, just hard to fathom. By what mechanism do you propose does sin alter permanent basic and eternal phisical laws of the universe?

That idea you just presented is just untestable and useless as an hypotheseis. It thefore isnt even an issue, scientifically.

Science is simply the means by which we empirically attempt to uderstand the universe? Why people seem to think its a tool for confirming/refuting ideas that it isnt ever meant to answer confuses me. This is a philosophical and not a scientific debate, because its entirely hypothetical.

Science proves what it can, and corrects itself when its is found to be in error - it is not a perfect blemish freee exposition of the universe and all else is irrelevant to it.

I'm definitely going to do some experimental work with what's written in Genesis. I'll return later and give some details about it, see what you guys think on it.