the difference is this: God, by difinition IS the Creator. Not a created entity. the universe is a created entity it does not create anything. does it? it just exists and works according to the laws that control it. none of these laws include a law that create anything from nothing. that is the difference. A creator can logically exist all-along, a creation can not. because it is a creation. why is it a creation? because it does not create anything. what else is there? either a creator or a creation. is there a third logical alternative? not that anyone can think of. this like a charge it is either positive or negative. a charge cant be neutral. if it is a charge it is either + or -. If it is an entity it is either a creation or a creator.

as a scientist, did you really need me to tell you the above. You know it as well as i do. you really didnt see the answer to your own question? may be, again, your bias against the idea of "GOD" is blocking the logic you normaly use.

Okay, I can accept that. But, you are doing no less by assuming a God existed outside of the universe in the first place. You don't *know* that a God existed. Sure you can make all kinds of theoretical assumptions about this God existing, but not really logical then hmm? You say he IS the creator, but that is only your theory. I can spout theories on how the universe may have existed. Really I could even have a universe that is a sentient one, no evidence to suggest that it isn't. I mean, does my individual brain cell recognize that my brain as a whole in sentient. Nope, not as far as my understanding goes.



Yes, you have a point there. However, your knowing that God exists is based off the premise that the universe is created. I'll have little argument with you that if the universe were indeed *created* that there would likely be a creator. And some will probably label this creator as God. As you said, we can't make any random assumptions about what things might have been like before the universe existed. We can't assume that this is the only universe, we can't assume that God would even know of all the precise mechanisms in the universe (just like a computer engineer wouldn't understand computers to the level of quarks and such). The only thing we'd know about this creator, is that, quite obviously, it created this universe.

But as I said, I'm not convinced that this universe was in fact created. Now, either way, my mind is not able to comprehend most of the things about this universe. In fact, humans for the most part have to get by using very abstract mathematical models to describe the universe. I mean, no human (that I know of) could imagine what an Infared Beam would look like. All we can do is express it mathematically and then sometimes transform the wave onto the visual field to make things such as IR goggles.

I mean, look at an apple. Does that apple exist in the real world? Well, the apple itself is a construct of our minds. The universe does not classify things into macroobjects, our brains do. If he had a different mode of perception, that apple would blend seamlessly with everything else, but that wouldn't be advantageous to our survival.


Am I biased against God? Well, I guess I am, in the same way you might be biased against the idea of invisible little fairies being responsible for the effects of the force that we know of as Gravity. Now, if there were a case where it was shown that fairies were indeed behind gravity, I would accept it, but until then, I see no need, not when you can simplify the process by eliminating fairies from the equation. Likewise, if we truly get to a point where there is nothing else to discover about our universe, and still can't find a way to explain its existence, I guess I'll have little choice but to point to a created universe. Hey, it's always possible that we'll discover something about the universe that proves that it was created.

But to do that, we'll probably need something more accurate than Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. As I might have said before, neither theory is in fact correct, simply very good approximations within their given domain, because neither theory works in the other's domains. Quantum mechanics is not accurate for explaining very large and very fast objects, and Relativity fails to predict thigns accurately in the domain of the very small. Now, so far, there isn't an overall theory to unite the two together, but hey, that's what's being worked on now.

Also, I fail to see how simply because something does not create something, does not imply that it has to be a creation.

To lulapilgrim:



It is not in the nature of science to actively disprove things with no evidence that mandates a God existing in the first place.

To KFC:



Common misconception. The Big Bang is not really a theory for the creation of the universe, but rather a period of massive expansion of the universe (leading to the universe as we know it today).

REUELkb posts:


In some sectors, we see some of the most important branches of science in search of evidence to disprove the existence of God as though science and religion contradict one another. Science doesn't have all the answers, yet it is assiduously used to support the atheist's claim that science proves that the idea of God and religion, particularly Christianity, belong to the realm of myths and legends or based on superstitituous ignorance of men.

In the schools and mass media, our youth are taught that science toward the microcosmos and the macrocosmos have proved we no longer need God to understand them. All I'm saying is that science and religion don't contradict each other. It seems as though some cleverly use science, that is, the false interpretation of it, claiming theory as fact, against God.

When put in its proper perspective, science every time can actually strengthen faith.

But, you are doing no less by assuming a God existed outside of the universe in the first place.

No my friend, i am not doing any such thing. I only concluded hat the universe was created. accordingly it must have a creator. I am not assuming His existance, it is a logical conclusion of the fact that the universe is a creation. why is it a creation? because it does not create anything. and as i said before , any existing entity is either a creation or a creator. there is no third option. again as i said, it is like a charge, it is either positive or negative. that is by definition. a charge cant be neutral. same with entitiies they either creator or creation. since the universe does not create, then it is careation. NO assumption.

You don't *know* that a God existed

i know from the above that our universe and what is in it are creation, they must have a creator and we call that GOD. a creation can not exist without a creator. Can a negative charge exist without a positive charge? if there is a negative charge ther must be a positive one.our universe tells us that. by difinition a creation MUST have a creator no assumption again.

The only thing we'd know about this creator, is that, quite obviously, it created this universe.

As a starting point I Agree completely. and as we do in science ALL the time, we go from there and start investigating what this GOD is and what HE say. and you continue searching as you do in any other scientific topic. Then see if what you discover makes sense or not. That is exactly what I did. and you will be surprised. Very surprised indeed.

But as I said, I'm not convinced that this universe was in fact created

Again this is the problem. In any scientific inquiry, no one starts by saying that. we let things speak for themselves. if logic says it must be a Creation, why exclude that from the search? why it must be a creation? see above. there is no other alternative.

Am I biased against God? Well, I guess I am, in the same way you might be biased against the idea of invisible little fairies being responsible for the effects of the force that we know of as Gravity

no, it is not the same thing. gravity effect could have many alternatives. it is not either a force or fairies. it could be many other things.actually general relativity said it is equivelant to an upward push. not the case with physical entities, they have two options ONLY either created or creator. Based on what WE KNOW, is there any other form for an entity?

Also, I fail to see how simply because something does not create something, does not imply that it has to be a creation

if you cant see that, can you see a charge that is not positive or negative? neutral is not a charge. remeber that. neutral is not a charge it is a state that has no charge.. or for a line it is either straight or not straight, is there a third option? we deal with many many things in this universe like that. How about machine code characters? it is either 1 or 0 is there a third one? if it is machine-code character it is either 1 or 0. you accept that but not a creation or a creator?

another example. by difinition a circle must have a center. How do we know the center? we look at each point inside it and see if it is at the same distance from the points on the circle or not. if it is then it is the center it it is not then it is notthe center. is there any other logical choice? none that anyone know of . same thing with entities either creator or creation. the universe we know does not create anything, it just change things within from one state to another. then we have no option but to describe it as a creation. simple logic. no need to complicate it. no fairy tails no metaphysical assumptions.

what god is and what he created or capable of we have nothing to say. but once we admit , through logic that HE exists. we can start looking for clues about him. That is really what religion is. God never told anyone to believe in him out of the blue. He does not like blind faith. He says " we will show them our signs through themselves and in the horizons around them till they realize that it is the truth". How else can He be more logical? all we have to do is just start and he wil show us. that by the way shows you that he request us to investigate his creation not just say HE created this then no need to be curious and see the magic in what he did

by the way, the above quote is direct translation of what He say not my opinion or interpretation.

but you have to start first by logic and see where it leads.

The Big Bang is not really a theory for the creation of the universe, but rather a period of massive expansion of the universe (leading to the universe as we know it today).

very true. and just by looking at this makes any one with no bias against anything think how did that happen?

what or who intiated that big-bang. that singularity, where did it come from? and what made it explode then exapand ...etc?

we cant logically say it existed by itslef and it started itself. because if that is the case why did it start only 14 billion yrs ago? did stay dormant for eternity then all of a sudden decided to start? and even if we accept that, is this it? there was only one singularity and it existed all along then it started itslef and that is that? a singularity that is sooooo eternal and sooo self-controlling spends allits creative power in just one shot? that is not much of sigulairty that is very capable, is it?

a singularity that is soo powerful must be capable of more creation. and since it revealed itslef to us as a universe we see and feel, why did it stop creating? a creator does not stop being creator? is that logical?

I have declined to get into this too far TA because you cannot convince somebody of the evidences of God. It can't be done without the power of God.

Reason will not be able to take him or anyone there. It's the power of God that we believe because we've gone beyond where reason could ever take us.

The natural man cannot get there. It's like in a diff dimension.

I believe the truth is rational and reasonable but you can't get there from reason and evidence when it comes to the truths of God.

John Calvin, the great reformer said "The word of God is believed when God regenerates the heart. The testimony of the spirit is superior to reason."

I'm thinking of expanding this soon into another blog. Stay tuned...maybe today.

I am not really trying to take anyone anywhere. i am just stating the facts of science as it is known to all. and it always amazes me when people who know how science work just forget all the rules when it comes to God and religion.

If someone doesnt like to believe, it is their choice, just please dont say it is because it is not logical. in fact, logically, it is the otherway around.

in short i just like to emphasize the fact that Religion and Science are not mutually exclusive. they compliment each other and make understanding what goes on in this life more logical and less perplexing.

by the way, religious fanatics do the same thing too, only in reverse. They think science is devil's work. look at the stem cell issue for example.

No wonder a lot of people, specially young ones are so confused and going around shooting everyone in sight. The older generation who are supposed to guide them are not consistent in their thinking.



That is all. no more on this topic.

THINK ALOUD POSTS:


You chose the wrong example in which to close out the discussion. You and I and every living human being were once in our embryonic stem cell stage of life and we were allowed to grow to the next stage of life and then the next and so on.


There is a significant difference between experimenting with adult stem cells and embroyonic stem cells.

Stem cells are primitive human cells that, when they divide, can form a variety of more specialized cells. For example, just one type of stem cell in our bone marrow works to replace all the different types of blood cells (white, red, etc.) when we need them.

Human stem cells hold great promise for the development of therapies to regenerate damaged organs, and to heal people who are suffering from terrible diseases. Most scientific research uses cells obtained from adult tissue, blood from the umbilical cord, and other sources that pose no moral problems. Versatile stem cells have been found in bone marrow, blood, muscle, fat, nerves, amniotic fluid, and even the pulp of baby teeth. Many successful therapies have been developed using these adult stem cells.

We Catholics applaud the vast array of scientific research that is conducted ethically and that respects the dignity of the human person. We strongly support stem cell research using adult and umbilical cord stem cells.

Embryonic stem cell research is an entire different ball game.

Some scientists, however, are interested in doing research using stem cells obtained by killing human embryos when they are about one week old. These embryos are obtained from one of two sources.


Embryonic stem cell research commonly involves harvesting cells from human embryos created in a laboratory by “in vitro” fertilization. The embryos created are frozen and stored for future use. For various reasons, not all the embryos are used. Some people consider these “leftover” embryos as a potential resource for scientific research. This is a morally unacceptable process on many grounds, and the cell harvesting process itself destroys the living embryo.

And this is where human cloning comes in.

Embryonic stem cells might also be harvested from embryos created by cloning, also known as “somatic cell nuclear transfer” (the same process used to create Dolly the sheep). In human cloning, the nucleus from an adult donor cell is inserted into a donated egg cell from which the nucleus has been removed. The inserted nucleus provides the necessary DNA for the new cell to function and divide. The resulting human embryo is allowed to grow for several days, then destroyed to obtain stem cells for experimentation.

Some would distinguish between “therapeutic” cloning and “reproductive” cloning, but the process is the same in both cases. The only difference is what is done with the new embryo created by the cloning process: implant it in a woman’s womb to attempt a live birth; or destroy it to harvest its stem cells. Thus far, however, despite many years of experimentation by scientists all over the world, all attempts to use human cloning for either “so-called” therapeutic or reproductive purposes have failed.

I believe that there are serious moral problems with the destruction of human life and this is my reasoning.

Some hold there is no moral problem with harvesting cells from embryos because they claim that the embryo only holds the potential for human life and is not actually human. But the human embryo is not something other than human; human stem cells can only be harvested from a human being. It is just that this human being was killed instead of allowing it to develop normally. Regardless of whether the human embryo is obtained from “in vitro” fertilization or human cloning, human life is destroyed for the sake of scientific research, in the search for (as yet purely hypothetical) medical therapies. This is a crime against life. It is never morally permissible to destroy one human life, even if it is done in the hope of benefiting other human beings. Laws intended to sanction embryonic stem cell research are immoral because they give legal protection to the violation of the most fundamental of all human rights.



Embryonic stem cell research focuses on the advance of science and the potential of curing diseases, but to the detriment of human life and dignity. Some even say this is a small price to pay for the economic development of Kansas: if we do not permit and promote embryonic stem cell research, they say, we stand to lose the economic benefits promised by the biotechnology industry (a similar argument was used by proponents of slavery, who said that certain states could not survive economically without this despicable institution). Such claims are baseless, as other states and countries that ban human cloning have taken a leadership role in the development of biotechnology. The primary question is whether embryonic stem cell research can be pursued without harming another human being, and our own humanity in the process. The answer to this question is quite clearly “no.”

Some proponents also argue that if the frozen embryo is going to be killed anyway, what can be wrong with using them for the benefit of others. This line of reasoning is flawed. A death-row prisoner, a terminally ill patient, and indeed each living person will die one day, but that does not entitle another to kill human life at will for the purposes of scientific experimentation. What is more, in the case of frozen embryos, they would survive if someone had not decided to give them over to be killed for research purposes, instead of implanting them in their mother’s womb.


Women, too, are victimized by the promotion of embryonic stem cell research. The process of cloning human embryos for research requires a huge number of female eggs. There is a certain amount of inconvenience, pain and substantial health risk associated with the process for harvesting eggs. For this reason, it is likely that only women driven by need (typically the poor, including ethnic minority women, students, and women from developing countries) would donate the eggs needed for experimentation. Advance in research and finding cures for disease would be achieved at the expense not only of human beings at their earliest stage of development, but also of women in desperate circumstances.



As I said at the opening, each of us was once an embryo. This affirmation is based on a clear grasp of the most basic biology, not on religious faith. Once human life begins (which always occurs at fertilization, or at an event that mimics fertilization, like cloning), this new living being is a member of the human race who is worthy of respect and protection from harm threatened by embryonic stem cell research. The human embryo has such a claim on all of us.

As a Catholic, my opposition to embryonic stem cell research is also confirmed and strengthened by my faith. I believe that God became man in the womb of the Virgin Mary, going through all the stages of prenatal human development. This religious truth elevates the dignity of human nature above that of even the angels and sanctifies human life from its beginning at conception to natural death. And if that were not enough, the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross communicates the height and depth, the length and breadth of the love God has for each of us. Jesus, the Son of God, gave himself up to death, shedding his last drop of blood, because each individual human life created by God is of incalculable worth.

How can we value so little what God values so much?

I agree with you on this. Belief in God is very logical. I agree. But it's not logic that's going to get them there. It's only God who can do that. He has to tap them on ths shoulder, so to speak. Anything we say and do is helpful but only when they finally get that tap and have their own encounter with them will they completely get it.



hahahah some may call me a fanatic. Maybe I am. I don't deny that I'm a Jesus Freak in the first degree but I believe that God gave us Science. Science doesn't disprove God at all. I'm not sure how stem cell fits into all this but we can do things that are against God. Killing a human in the name of Science is not something he'd want us to do. I could take out your heart and give it to another but I don't think he'd want us to do that either.

ThinkAloud, since I'm using a public computer (on vacation), I haven't had time to read everything that you read, but I wanted to make a few points from what I read.

You say you can't have a neutral charge, but look up neutrons.

Also, let's say that this universe is "created" through universe building blocks. Let's make an analogy using Lego since that is the first thing that pops up in my head. Well, let's say that a lego building is the universe as we know it, including the laws that govern it in this form (much like the functionality of a computer when it's being built). Well, before this universe was "created" there could be a sea (in the abstract sense) of universal building blocks. Thus, you could have had the universe as we know it through a manipulator rather than a creator, a manipulator of these building blocks of existence.

I'll read through what you and KFC wrote probably tomorrow when I return, and I'll have more time to evaluate both of your thoughts.

Okay, you keep saying how something must either be a creator or created. I can't see how this *must* be the case. To me, that's like saying, something is either a manipulator or manipulated. You say that it's logical that the universe was created. How is that more logical than having the building blocks of the universe always be, and that they were simply manipulated into place by a manipulator? In this case, God wouldn't be a creator either, simply a manipulator going by your definitions.

I mean, created and creator aren't even opposites. If you want to follow this line of thinking, then if there is a creator, shouldn't there be a destroyer?



Well, if we are to have no bias, we'll first look to the theory with the fewest assumptions, and therefore find *natural* means by which the big bang happened. And 14 billion years ago is simply when our dimension of time started to unfold. No one can even comprehend at the moment what it was like before the big bang, because there was no coherent dimension of time as far as we have figured. I mean, what if there were more than one dimension of time? Granted, we cannot comprehend what that would be like, but there are sooooo many things we can't comprehend currently. That doesn't mean we won't ever come to that point (perhaps with work on consciousness and understanding the human mind).

Besides, even if we want to stick to one dimension of time, given that time as we know it started with the big bang, then it doesn't make sense to ask something like what it was like before the big bang (again, using the dimension of time as we know it) because it's like asking what is north of the North Pole. The point is, is that all our laws of science break down completely when describing anything "before" the big bang. We still don't understand all of the properties behind singularities. And given that our minds are so atuned to our scale of things and not to the micro or the macro, common sense doesn't apply in thinking about these things.

Now that isn't to say logic doesn't apply, since the two are seperate things.

And as I said, the big bang was not responsible for "creating" anything using your definition of the word. And if God were responsible for the Big Bang, then It still isn't responsible for "creating" anything, simply manipulating.

Again, I don't see how adding mechanisms such as a God are needed when there could be explanations that could actually help us understand how things were like before the big bang.

How do you know this universe stopped creating (if it created anythign in the first place). Could be creating more universe constantly if you are one that believes in multiple universes.

Overall though, you believe that this universe was created, and I don't believe that is the case. Since there is a lack of evidence that only leads to a created universe, you may call me biased when I say that I choose the simpler of the two hypotheses. But to me, that is only logical.

REUELKB POSTS:


I've been reading Gerard Keane's book, "Creation Rediscovered Evolution and the Importance of the Origins Debate." Even though
the scientific parts of it seem way beyond me, his explanation of the concept of special Creation and the way that ties in with science makes perfect sense to me.


The universe is very perplexing to human intelligence. We don't know whether it's infinite or has a boundary. Or, if it has a boundary what lies beyond that boundary. Adding time to this makes it all the more baffling to contemplate.

The Origins debate is all about beliefs. What one believes is their "faith" system. You have expressed your belief that "14 billion years ago is simply when our dimension of time started to unfold". Where does that number come from that you state so matter of factly? Why is the number not 60 billion or 5 billion years ago?

The point is the fact that the universe is so immense by human standards does not mean that it must be billions of years old in time as measured now on earth. My belief is that God exists beyond time and has unlimited power. Since He created space, time, and matter entirely of His own power, God is quite capable of creating the universe to the size, and order and time frame that so please Him.

As a Christian, I know that Sacred Scripture cannot clash with science. This is because God, who is the principal Author of Sacred Scripture is omniscient, Truth Itself, and free from all error. Since God, who is Eternal, that is: ever was, ever is and ever will be, is both the Creator of the universe and all that's in it including space, time, and matter, and the principal AUthor of Scripture, then the Scripture cannot contradict science.

I know that in my case, Origins beliefs involve faith in the trustworthiness of God as a reliable eye-witness to Creation. It is this way that I see that the inerrant Scripture is relevant to science.

But one of the main differences in our beliefs is that mine is falsifiable. It can be proven wrong. Using the properties of time as we know it, we can demonstrate how 14 billion years is the most probable. However, if we find evidence that shows that this is not entirely correct, I'll throw away my belief in an instant.

The only thing that I would consider myself to believe on faith, would be that what I perceive is derived from reality and that I'm not some "brain in a vat". I consider the two to be about equally likely (50/50), but it doesn't serve any purpose to believe that everything I perceive is fake, and not to mention, it simply isn't falsifiable.

None of our current scientific theories, or laws are considered to be 100% true. We make observations, and devise a hypothesis that can explain these observations. There are an infinite number of hypothesis to explain any observation, so one has to use Ockham's Razor to choose the one with the fewest assumptions. After the hypothesis has been scrutinized and tested heavily, it becomes a theory which in science is regarded as a fact. But all it takes is one observation that cannot be explained by this theory to nullify it. Then, either the theory is modified to explain that hypothesis, or a completely new one is made.

God, as a belief, is not testable. Just like the "brain in a vat" idea, it has no direct evidence that suggests a God being likely to exist, and in no way can one devise a test to check God's existence. But even if we were to know that there was some entity being God, we can't specify any particular attributes to It.

We have to work with what we've got. Our brains allow us to perceive the universe around it. But they are limited however, and the use of abstract mathematics to helpe minimize this limitation can only go so far. Science is quickly arriving at the point where abstractions are becoming so complex to understand everything that it's sooo easy to get lost. I mean, could you imagine contemplating 3 dimensions of time, or 9 spatial dimensions to explain everythign? It's way beyond our perceptions, and even translating what all that means by expressing it through math is getting to be much harder.

As Richard Feynman said "If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics". Our brains were not made for that, but it doesn't mean that we won't ever figure out how to bridge that gap (which is why neuroscience is my favorite subject).

And this is the way it should be.


Unfortunately, it is too often not the way it is out there in the real world. Take Darwin's 150 year old theory of Evolution for example. That has, as you say, been a hypothesis that has been scrutinized and tested heavily. It's been debunked, yet some scientists no matter what regard it as fact. Evolution theory gets into the educational system and taught as fact to unwary students who don't get both sides of the debate unless they are in a private or parochial school. This is what burns me up.

Scientific research has gained many new insights as a result of an immense amount of new discoveries in many disciplines including biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, geology and astronomy. It is now known, with a high degree of certainity, that the Creator's design of DNA will not allow natural macro-Evolution to occur. Yet, even new science textbooks have the usual Evolution icons in their charts, you know the ones attempting to show that we all come from one ancestor. DNA prives we didn't randomly evolve millions of years ago from a primordial slime to an ape-type to who we are now. Enough already, sorry for the rant.

It's been a good discussion. Good luck with your work.