Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 426
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 295
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 607
- Hymns 2.6K
- Hymns Discussion 2.6K
- Technicial Difficulties 369
- Technical Topics 369
Comments
God Bless.
Science has eternally pondered the reality of time and space within its limited scope and ephemeral vantage points of reasoning. Nevertheless, the origin of the universe has been universally accepted as a sound reality to which the physical facets of the universe have been consigned to a necessary beginning and ultimate end. That is to state that the universe is not eternal, but veraciously temporal. Before all of time and space began--in accordance with the Kalaam Cosmological argument—all of life was condensed to a single point of infinite density; often referred to as the point of singularity.
In this single point or initial event all matter and energy was contained condensed to a degree of infinitum proportions....until and explosive beginning was triggered. From that initial singularity the universe exploded into a ravenous bang (often called the Big Bang) ultimately spreading throughout the yet unformed universe in all directions. Significantly, direction or trajected points were composited at the very spread of the Big Bang, for prior to its initiation the universe was simply non-existent. Thus "Creation Ex Nihilio" had commenced.
Yet, as one may logically conclude with every bang that has come to take place--whether large or small—an entailed cause or trigger must have perpetuated its beginning. As philosopher and doctor William Lane Craig explicates "the causal inference is based in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come out of absolutely nothing. A pure potentiality cannot actualize itself." There simply is no logically coherent (even if theoretically sound) scientific explanation accounting for the momentary instance of the Big Bang's origination apart from theological preliminaries. Some antagonists to the theological domain will purport home-woven theories such the infamous multiple universe theory or cosmological quantum flux theory to "debunk" propositions of "Creation Ex Nihlio". However, all such construed notions of cosmological beginnings have proven fallacious after careful scrutinization. Infinite density must have been provoked by an initial first cause of the universe.
Consequentially, certain mathematicians and astronomers cringed at the thought of such discovery; many opposing the theory and ardently subjegating its veritable stance. The great Albert Einstein denied the very principle of black holes for the same intuitive glance into the actual repercussions infinite density had for established physical laws and necessary incontingent actualities. The possibilities for such causation seemed astronomical; ultimately overly transcendent for many entrenched in the scientific domain.
For unlike many current day proponents of the theory and seemingly scientific-based hypothesis the notion of ex nihilio can only philosophically hold muster if one considers the following: for an initial first cause to create the present universe it must hold two particular traits; the cause must be either more or as equally powerful to the present constituents of our majestic reality and the cause must be that of a personal Mind (or Agent).
For, a cause that is not as puissant as the present day universe can not logically harbor enough potentiality to provoke an initial force that creates the present day universe. The cause must hold the same energetic force (if not greater) than our current universe possesses. That is why alternative theories that attempt to replace theologically based hypothesis demand that extra universes or cosmically potent waves trigger the initial point of singularity.
Furthermore, only via a personal Mind can something as grand as the universe emanate from absolute nothingness and can an initial cause exist apart from it's ensuing effect. For an impersonal force can at most accentuate an effect that it is already formulated and that already has its effect follow contingently from the initial cause. Save the very effect itself, the cause cannot be contingent to its effect for we have no direct evidence of the cause as we do of the effect. Yet, a Personal force can prompt (or will for) an effect apart from its own existence to actualize....so long as it is more powerful than or equally powerful to the effect itself.
In conclusive measure one begins to deduce that the only "force" that has enough potentiality and autonomy to initiate the first effect out of nothing must be a Personal Agent who has the capability to will for such an event as the Bib Bang. For an impersonal force cannot will and can not create anything apart form itself. The Originator, then, of the universe must be an all powerful Mind that is forceful enough to mold the facets of the universe into an actual reality; a.k.a. God. There simply lies no feasible explanation for the begging of the universe apart from the existence of a supernatural intervention (to which further argumentation such as the fine-tuning of the universe and existence of moral values yields to the reality of the Christian God).
gman: you seem to be pretty familiar with the theory. Do you know what scientists believe the universe is expanding into?
Other scientists postulate an ultimate wearing down of the universe
lending towards the necessary end of the universe's temporal existence. This ofcourse is in absolute synchronization with the exegetical examination of the Holy Scriptures. All matter and energy must come to inevitable oblivion as Christ establishes a new kingdom measured by the Spirit and not by physical law. While Christ is very clear with the finality of the terrestrial realm, stating: "Heaven and earth will fade away but my words shall never fade away" I am not sure their simply is enough scientific backdrop to evaluate precisely in what manner our universe will cede its vitality. The spirit of natural revelation clearly churns with the reality of proximate ends by any means.
God bless you.
In other words: Is there a flaw in the validity of this theory?
God Bless.
hi everyone, i didn't exactly read the whole thing so i don't kno if someone mentioned this already but, is it possilble that there is evolution through God?
please read the previous posts and u'll find out that evolution is as you say becasue it is against that Holy Bible.
One of my favorite insights was a contemplation on the healing of the blind man, which showed that it could have been that God decided to create instantaneously from dust.
god did create the entire world..................
GOD BLESS
No. We did not find out that evolution is against the Bible. We still do not know how God created the earth. All we know is that he said, and it happened (it didn't say instantaneously nor did it say through the process of evolution). All we need to know for the spiritual part of our lives is the He said and it was. In science we look at how things came to be. The topic is still open for insights.
One of my favorite insights was a contemplation on the healing of the blind man, which showed that it could have been that God decided to create instantaneously from dust.
Davidschanter,
let me ask you one thing, how in the world knowing about evolution will get you back to paradise or heaven where you were originally created. why would you need to know how God created earth as long as it was there for us to enjoy (in it's original purpese of being created).
all you should care about is:
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
if God thought you need to know about how earth was created, wouldn't He list all of that in the bible. that's if you blieve in the bible becasue now i am really having doubts about you.
some ppl divide the word B I B L E in this statment.
Basic
Instructions
Before
Leaving
Earth
i guess you view it in a diffrent way since you really trying to make it much more complected than it is.
please answer my quesions.
They're from coptichymns.net
Here's the link:
http://coptichymns.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sermons&file=index&q=f&f=/English/_Father_Athanasius_Iskander/Science_Creation_Bangs_and_Booms
--and about the Big Bang...do you really think that the wonderful world that we have today is all because of a cosmic accident? in fact, i heard somewhere (cant remember where) that if we were as little as 1 mm closer to the sun we would burn and 1 mm farther from the sun we would freeze. coincidence?
What you are trying to say is that they are not 100% proven.
I agree with David. When we speak about evolution (and bear in mind, I haven't read any of the other posts, so I may be repeating stuff), we have to be specific in what we are talking about. I know that there are two branches of evolution: macro-evolution (commonly called speciation, I believe) and micro-evolution (i.e. evolution within a species). Now, macro-evolution is what people often are talking about and it's the idea that new species arise from pre-existing species. This is what, I feel, is un-Biblical. What I have no problem with is the idea of micro-evolution, in which a species evolves, but not into an entirely new or different species. This is a reality, and can be observed not only within the animal kingdom, but in humans as well. Let's face it, the world today is not the same as it was 1000, 2000 even 4000 years ago, and as such, our bodies have had to adapt to the changing climate and environment as a whole.
Please pray for me.
So often people adopt extreme positions on this. Science consists of hypotheses which can be tested; it does not state dogmatic facts; those who do are usually not actually scientists, but are using 'science' to prove a point they cannot otherwise support; understandable, but hardly something to get worked up about.
We believe that God the Father created Heaven and earth and all that is in both spheres. If our clever scientists think they can get some inkling of parts of how He did it, then that is to His glory; if they say that their very partial and theoretical approaches 'prove' there is no God, then we know that was their starting point anyway, and their work is not of God.
We have the assurance of Our Lord that He loves us, and that if we repent of our sins and walk in His way, then through grace and works and the sacraments of the Holy Church we can be saved. That isn't a 'fact' that can be 'scientifically proven', it is an article of Faith; we are called to have faith in what the Church has received from the Fathers who in turn received it from the Apostles, who received it from Our Lord Himself. Do we believe this? If so we have nothing to fear from any other source.
When will we learn that all that is good is from Him; and that which is evil is not of Him. Let us marvel at His work, and at His mercy and love for sinners such as we are.
In Christ,
John
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
I agree with David. When we speak about evolution (and bear in mind, I haven't read any of the other posts, so I may be repeating stuff), we have to be specific in what we are talking about. I know that there are two branches of evolution: macro-evolution (commonly called speciation, I believe) and micro-evolution (i.e. evolution within a species). Now, macro-evolution is what people often are talking about and it's the idea that new species arise from pre-existing species. This is what, I feel, is un-Biblical. What I have no problem with is the idea of micro-evolution, in which a species evolves, but not into an entirely new or different species. This is a reality, and can be observed not only within the animal kingdom, but in humans as well. Let's face it, the world today is not the same as it was 1000, 2000 even 4000 years ago, and as such, our bodies have had to adapt to the changing climate and environment as a whole.
Please pray for me.
problem here. did God create something that developed into a human or did he just create a human. think about that, if your talking about skin color and what not then ok. but, humans as being human, then i have a problem with that. God created Adam and Eve. Not Two Monkeys that later developed into humans.
I don't see what the problem is. I don't think you read my post clearly. I'm saying that all species were created by God and then they evolved, not into a new species, but they have changed from the way they were originally created (and this goes for humans as well).
Please pray for me.
the background radiation i described there are what i believe davidschanter was referring to as cosmic echoes of the big bang
in regards to micro/macro-evolution
micro-evolution happens regularly among species and is not against any Christian idea or belief
micro-evolution says that there exists within a species small variations that occur over time to help the species adapt to changing environments
an example would be an animal changing its skin color to blend in better with its surroundings.
Macro-evolution is another story; it holds various claims that are against Christianity. i'm in the middle of reading a book about this. i will post another reply later on with a summary of the book's main proofs against evolution.
Evolution does say we were created from apes(monkeys)
rbna ma3akom
sry didnt read all posts but one really stuck with me...
Evolution does say we were created from apes(monkeys)
rbna ma3akom
evolution says that there is a historical origin from which we came. that does not mean we came from monkeys. evolutionists say there is a common link from which stemmed all known species through a process of gradual divergence. the pictures of apes slowly becoming men is a fallacy. the media has butchered the common conception of evolution. it does not say that we came from monkeys.