Creation Out of Nothing?

[Justice]

We have discussed this before. People have quoted the most brilliant human minds throughout history. Honestly, a lot of it is hard to read, and takes more effort to understand than most are willing to give. So, I want to break it down to very simple terms... the terms I have narrowed down to as being the core logic behind the debate. I want to make it simple enough that anyone can understand and that all may want to participate.

First, I grabbed a video from youtube that shows, simply, the underlying premise of my remarks, so you need to watch this first in order to understand the simple nature of my remarks.

My friend at work, and I assume many other Trinitarians, believe the universe is as old as God says it is in the Bible. My friend at work says it is "6 days" old, admitting it could have existed as long as 6,000 years before Adam was created, if 1 of God's days is as 1,000 of our years. But, he makes it perfectly clear that it's no older than that regardless of what science finds. He thinks mixing the Bible and science in this regard is a test of faith, and anyone who claims to be Christian should side with the Bible because the sides are opposites and you cannot believe both.

After watching the video, and after hearing my friend's remarks, I have but one question, that will lead to one other question when answered the only way possible. The second question required much greater effort to answer.

How can we see the light from stars that are millions or billions of light years away if they were only created thousands of years ago?

In my mind, in my friend's view, the only possible answer is that God wanted us to see His glory and majesty and part of the length and width of His creations so He "stretched" the light when He created them so that we can see them.

OK. I buy that. In order for us to see the lights and signs in the heavens we would need to see them. Got it.

So, my next question is, how then can we "witness" a supernova that had to have happened millions or billions of years ago if the universe only existed thousands of years ago?

If your answer is that "God can do anything," and you respond, be prepard to defend your answer with scripture. I am well aware of that answer. In my mind that's just foolish trickery. By setting it up that way God is fooling us into thinking the universe is older than it is.

If God created the universe all at once, thousands of years ago, then that's what we would see. If not, God cannot hold us accountable for using our brains and basing our opinions and theories from things we can prove. It is not "fatih" to discount what you observe and believe something you can't see. That is not faith, that is blind faith, which is different.

[Justice]

How does this tie in with the "Son of God?" thread?

Before these 2 questions were largely debated by anyone but scholars, a 14 year old farm boy "interpreted"

scripture and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in such a way that both of these most important and most difficult questions are easily and naturally answered, in such a way that even some ancient Hebrew and early Christian fathers taught.

1. Jesus Christ is literally the Son of the Father, in ways so literal it should make any reader of the Bible take notice.

2. The "universe" and the matter that makes it up has always existed. And, even though it is forever changing, it is eternal. "In the beginning" in the Bible is speaking of the beginning of the creation of this heaven and earth, not all heavens and earths (or the universe).

Anyway, back to the video and the questions I asked in the original post...

[FunkyTown]

There are several answers for this:

1) Is the speed of light constant? If it was much faster at the beginning of time, then your argument about being able to see stars that are far distant fades. The light could reach us.

Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicist Suggests

2) If the universe is accelerating, is the acceleration constant?

Accelerating universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the universe began accelerating slowly and was close together, then slowly picked up in acceleration, then we would have been much closer together than our current measurements suggest.

[Justice]

"Much closer..."

We're talking the diffference between thousands...

1,000

and billions...

1,000,000,000

How much of a speed difference would there need to be?

If it is slowing down, what kind of "brakes" would be needed to make light travel billions of years in thousands of years of time? With the distance you're speaking of, the universe would be at a complete stop in less than the time it took me to write this post.

I get what you're saying, and am trying to see where it is possible. But, the needed scale seems way too great to make much difference in my question, even exaggerating as much as I can.

Give me some numbers, or some more information.

[FunkyTown]

"Much closer..."

We're talking the diffference between thousands...

1,000

and billions...

1,000,000,000

How much of a speed difference would there need to be?

If it is slowing down, what kind of "brakes" would be needed to make light travel billions of years in thousands of years of time? With the distance you're speaking of, the universe would be at a complete stop in less than the time it took me to write this post.

I get what you're saying, and am trying to see where it is possible. But, the needed scale seems way too great to make much difference in my question, even exaggerating as much as I can.

Give me some numbers, or some more information.

If the universe had an incredibly high speed of light during the inflationary period of the big bang, which rapidly diminished, it could meet the numbers you're talking about.

Let's use a sample graph of something we know in nature:

If the speed of light degrades similar to the half life of some radioactive materials, we could very well see the kind of numbers drop you're talking about.

[Dravin]

Does ex nihilo require that everything be created at the same time? That is to say does the Bible refer to the creation of the universe or the earth? I honestly don't know, but if it just refers to the creation of the earth in 6 days/6 thousand years then the issue, light from distance sources, is avoided.

[RMGuy]

If the universe had an incredibly high speed of light during the inflationary period of the big bang, which rapidly diminished, it could meet the numbers you're talking about.

Let's use a sample graph of something we know in nature:

If the speed of light degrades similar to the half life of some radioactive materials, we could very well see the kind of numbers drop you're talking about.

Interesting thought FunkyTown, never quite thought of it like that...but if you assumed a rate of decay in the speed of light such as would explain away the OP's question over 6000 years, then it would be a perceptable enough drop that we would be able to detect a continual degredation of that speed.

-RM

[FunkyTown]

Interesting thought FunkyTown, never quite thought of it like that...but if you assumed a rate of decay in the speed of light such as would explain away the OP's question over 6000 years, then it would be a perceptable enough drop that we would be able to detect a continual degredation of that speed.

-RM

Could be. I'm not a proponent of the young earth idea, but if someone's faith is based on that, then I'm not inclined to argue it. I could also argue that the speed of light may have hit an equilibrium, or that the dropoff was perceptible during(Say) the first 1000-10000(Assuming that the earth was created 6000 years after the initial creation, and that was around or prior to 3000 BC).

That would mean that, like the halflife of certain radioactive materials, the decay slowed to near imperceptible levels.

Or we just haven't taken samples of the speed of light for long enough.

Or, like the fact that light behaves as both a wave or a particle depending on the perceptions of the observer, the speed of light is relative to the observer.

[Martain]

There are another couple of interesting concepts which may play a part in this matter as well.

Haven't we been taught that a resurrected being does not have to show themselves in all their glory?

For exampled Christ walked, talked, and ate with his disciples after his resurrection without revealing himself in all his glory.

Herein we then have a principal that celestial resurrected beings, have the capacity to hold light within themselves rather than emanating it.

Have we also not learned that our earth will one day be a celestial sphere?

If resurrected man can so choose who perceives it's light, why not resurrected celestialized spheres as well?

Science proposes that there must be huge amounts of matter in the universe that we can't see. Wouldn't it make sense that the light of such sphere's would be hidden from us?

Another concept is in regards to spirit matter.

Are we not taught that there is spirit matter and that it is simply more fine than physical matter? Would this not account for a large amount of matter in our universe that we are unable to perceive?

[mrmarklin]

I guess this can be argued with sophistry forever but the reality is that God only works in natural ways. He's not trying to "fool" us. He is the Great Scientist, and the universe was created using natural laws, because that's what God has to work with.

If everything is either energy or matter, as we are taught then of course the universe or anything else was not created from "nothing." There is nothing in true religion that is in conflict with any science.

Coming back to my original point: I guess we can argue about the true scientific "facts" forever. but one thing is sure, God never contradicted any laws of science or nature in creation.

[Seminarysnoozer]

For exampled Christ walked, talked, and ate with his disciples after his resurrection without revealing himself in all his glory.

He had a glorified body at that time?

President Kimball: "“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:13–17.)

The Mount of Olives

We then walked laboriously up the rather steep Mount of Olives, possibly the approximate path he walked, a prelude to his ascension after having spent 40 days after resurrection on the earth and having, by many infallible proofs, brought sureness to the hundreds of people who had come now to realize his resurrection was real.

And now he was on the top of the Mount of Olives and was saying to these greatly concerned and loved men, “Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

As we sat at the trunk of an ancient olive tree there and read these scriptures, we could easily imagine the Lord standing near this spot in the group of worried, loving, wondering men; and then the fog rolled in, the cloud settled down over the top of the hill, and he was gone. Then we could almost hear the angels in white apparel saying, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11)."

[Justice]

The "light" or "objects" traveling at great speeds then slowing down at a ramped interval might work.

What won't work is that we have witnessed events like supernovas happen. Stars don't go supernova after just thousands of years of existence. OK, let's say God created a star that was about to go supernova. Fine.

The supernovas we have witnessed were hundreds of millions or even a several billion light years away as we witnessed them. That means it had to happen that long ago in order for us to witness it now (give or take some movement). If God arranged for us to see millions of years into the past like this then, again, He is tricking us into thinking the universe is much older than it is.

A more logical and probable answer is that the universe is that old, or far older.

Science doesn't have a problem with much of what the Bible says, only with many of the traditional interpretations. The creation of "all things" could not have happened only 12 or even 15 thousand years ago based on what we know.

[Martain]

I thought he did... but now I'm not so sure =) thanks seminary

[Traveler]

There are problems with the biblical account of creation that defy rational explanation. Many religious traditionalist try to find empirical rational in the Biblical account. But the temporal order of Biblical creation is obviously wrong. My conclusion as a scientist and engineer is two things:

First that the Biblical account is not complete – there is obviously a lot of very important information missing from the Bible concerning creation. Second is that I am convinced that what we do have is more symbolic than practical and literal. To make my point – let us consider the Genesis account of day 3 and day 4. Obviously plants are not going to produce seeds nor trees fruit without the sun.

I have heard many theologian demand proof from science claiming that much in science is just unproven theory and not completely established to be true then in the next breath say they believe the biblical account when all proof demonstrates complete impossibility. Everything we know about stable ecosystems and the needs animals have for oxygen producing plants and vice versa is completely dismantled by what many think is the Biblical account.

I have never heard even a remotely rational explanation of days 3 and 4 of creation in the Bible from anyone that insists that there is any scientific or remotely empirical aspect to the account. It has to be symbolic in order to come close to any sense at all.

The Traveler

[FunkyTown]

I guess this can be argued with sophistry forever but the reality is that God only works in natural ways. He's not trying to "fool" us. He is the Great Scientist, and the universe was created using natural laws, because that's what God has to work with.

If everything is either energy or matter, as we are taught then of course the universe or anything else was not created from "nothing." There is nothing in true religion that is in conflict with any science.

Coming back to my original point: I guess we can argue about the true scientific "facts" forever. but one thing is sure, God never contradicted any laws of science or nature in creation.

soph·ist·ry/ˈsäfəstrē/

Noun:

The use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving.

A fallacious argument.

Can you explain which fallacy was being used in arguments in this thread? Who was the sophist and which argument were they using that was fallacious?

Also, can you quote source that God is The Great Scientist? Or find evidence that the universe was created using natural means?(Unless you're suggesting God creates natural laws and thus every act he makes, from the parting of the red sea to Jesus walking on water was natural by God's will. In that case, I would say you were being the sophist and point out the cyclical nature of your argument)

If you're going to say it was by natural means, then I would point out that the Big Bang is a singularity - Nobody knows what caused it. This is important, because the Big Bang conflicts with a very well-known and observable phenomenon: Black Holes

1) A Black Hole is a point of immense gravitational pressure, such that nothing - Not even light - Can escape it.

2) The Big Bang consisted of all matter(In fact, all everything) in the universe in a tiny area. This is definitely enough matter to cause a Black Hole, as there are numerous black holes far smaller than the entirety of the universe.

3) Despite what had to be intense gravitational pressure, something happened. The matter had a hyperinflationary period. We don't know why. It just did.

Would you agree with those facts?