Sorry for the delay, I was caught up with other things.

Deep Sight:

Hi Viaro,

Ofcourse the universe predates the Earth, but are you sure it is apt to say that "the angels were there in the created Universe?"

Do angels reside in the physical universe. . .might they be camping on Mars, for example?

The point is: the heavens they dwell in is said to be a transcendental spiritual realm and not any part of the "created universe."

Please DeepSight, I don't think the distractions are necessary. We know that the Bible does not infer any such suggestions about angels dwelling or residing on mars - in as much as we know that mars is a planet, and the Bible actually recognizes PLANETS.

However, if we want to talk about the Universe as a whole, basing my discussion on the references I gave, it should be clear that the angels were observing the creation of the earth after the Universe had been created. Once we take our eyes off the verses cited for this (which I notice obody is discussing anyways), then we run into all sorts - and that is what I don't want to get into.

Deep Sight:

Viaro -

I may be mistaken, but i think with reference to the point about angels, the heavens, and the angels having observed creation. . .

I think what Mazaje was pointing at was the fact that the Stars were mentioned in terms of creation after the Earth was mentioned (for me this is neither here nor there). In attempting to show him that this does not mean that the Stars were not already there, you stated that Angels observed the creation. He, for his part, did not see that that was relevant.

I think this is where a lot of people get it mixed up. If you go back to what I said in reference to the angels, I noted again and again that they were also created; and as such, were already in existence in the created Universe (even though the heavens where they reside are also part of God's creation). . . and as such, the Bible clearly indicates that these created angels who reside in the part of God's created Universe also witnessed the creation of the EARTH. This is why I often quoted Job 38:4-7, here are the relevant verses I was referring to:

[list]⁴Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. ⁵Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? ⁶Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; ⁷When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?[/list]

When God laid the foundations of the EARTH, the angels were there and witnessed this event - but MAN was not yet created at that time. If the angels were already created so as to have witnessed the creation of the EARTH, where could they have been? If we say "heaven", that is correct, but then I ask: were the "HEAVENS" not also CREATED by God?

The point is this: we all should understand that the Universe is MUCH MORE OLDER than the Earth - the angels were there in the created Universe and in time witnessed the formation of the EARTH and other planetary bodies. That is the point I wanted to get across to mazaje.

Therefore, if the angels were there and witnessed the creation of the Earth, where were the stars and the "constellations" already referred to? Some assume they were in a thick/solid dome just above the ground - but is that what Genesis means by "the firmament of HEAVEN"? Of course not! Other verses outside Genesis make it so clear that the CONSTELLATIONS are not on the earth just above the ground - and that is the problem with people who read their own misgivings into the Genesis account. What I am calling for is a collective picture and not biases that simply refuse to be reasonable.

In any case, where is the ORIGINS SCIENCE that mazaje presents for his assertion that God did NOT CREATE the UNIVERSE? That is what he has categorically danced away from and making excuses now that he was not talking about "origins". I have asked him to explain the difference between "origins" and "creation" - and that wait is now eons old.

Deep Sight:

I think the existence of Angels in heaven observing a physical creation cannot prove that the bible teaches that physical stars are said to be in existence before the earth is created. Because if the bible does teach that the Earth was there first, that would by no means prevent angels in heaven from observing any such process. I don't know if I have elucidated Mazaje's point correctly, or if I have misapprehended yours.

No, you did not elucidate mazaje's pioint - more so because you missed out the very fact that I have tried to highlight - that the Bible does not conclude that the Universe and the Earth are of the same age - that was the point in Job 38:4-7. The heavens and the earth did not happen all at once; and the earth came later into the picture, even though Genesis 1:1 announces them in a summary statement as God's creation "in the beginning". This is why I have pointed out the fact that Genesis 2:4 speaks of the epoch of the event as "the generations" of the heavens and the earth when they were created - and we all know that a generation is not the same as a 24 hour day!

mazaje:
Are you lying again? Are angels part of the universe?

Oh comon, you dunce! Are the angels NOT part of CREATION? Did they create themselves? Are they not part of all that were created? Oh, it is convenient for you to talk about man as part of creation because you can't think outside your little box - but even if you never thought of the creation of the angels, don't take a heart attack: I only cited relevant verses to show you what was happening BEFORE the earth was created. Oh dear, mazaje. . . I doubt you even for a minute considered what I wrote before rushing to complain emptily!

mazaje:

I though according to the mythology angels reside in heaven?

Good boy! Did you not read that the heavens were also created?

Wait mazaje! You are just one pitiful grumbler! What exactly is your original argument?? I have waited long and hard to see you show that the UNIVERSE was NOT CREATED! Choose any source for your ORIGINS SCIENCE and show me that the Universe was NOT CREATED. Your pitiful grumbling here is okay if that is what you can produce for all your arguments - but after reading every line of your objections, I notice you have cleverly dodged that one request I offered you! WHY DID YOU JUST EXCUSE THAT ONE, mazaje? WHY?!?

mazaje:

. . . Vairo my man, so the stars of heaven there of and constellations means other stars with solar systems eh? . . .Wetin man no go see for here. . . .Do the writers of the bible know anything about the solar system? . . . My friend you are just trying to hard.

So, this excuse and complaints is all you have for the fact that the Bible recognizes and talks about "constellations"? I'm not even trying at all - without effort I can laugh at your silly jokes!

mazaje:

Here it is. . .

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

If the part you posted is quite different from the one I posted, the one you posted was talking about lights, mine specifically talked about the sun. . .What actually is dubious is when you keep lying through your teeth and saying things that the bible does NOT say, You keep alluding to verses that have nothing to do with the genesis creation account, I wonder why you keep doing these things. . .Keep on lying through your teeth. . .

If one wants to be too technical and pedantic with you, I would say that you're lying and farting all at once. Genesis 1 does not mention a word about the "sun", so what is the verse in Genesis 1 that "specifically" mentioned the SUN? The point is that one could infer that the sun is indirectly inferred in that chapter - and UNLESS YOU GO OUTSIDE Genesis 1, you cannot see that it is actually the sun. That is simply the reason why I went outside Genesis 1 to give you a collective picture of the chronology of Creation. It is for this reason that I mentioned verse 3 that ALREADY mentioned "light" - but no, you will forever ignore that one and pretend that it is not there in the same Genesis 1 you're so eager to force your misgivings into, no?

mazaje:

Actually, I am not really intested in weather the day is 24 hours or not, I'll leave you are your YEC brothers to argue that out, am more intrested in the evidence that says that the universe was created in 6 days.

That's a super-contradiction. If you're not interested in whether a "day" is 24 hours or not, how come you want to force a literal meaning of just 6 "days" for what you argue? It's like saying you don't want to know whether or not we both speak English, but you just want to insist it is English that goes between us! Mazaje, you make me laugh!

The YEC will apply a 24 hr interpretation for all mention of a "day" into the Genesis account for creation - but when it comes to Genesis 2:4 that mentions the "generations" in the "day" when the heavens and the earth were created, they are either so silent, or excuse the meaning of a "generation" and sweep it under accounts/history. NONE of them will apply the same 24hrs-day for "generation"; and that is why people do not like to read beyond Genesis when dealing with all aspects of the creation. . . even when Job 38 shows that the angels witnessed the creation of the earth, even though we know that they (angels) were also created and yet Genesis says not a word about the creation of the angels! What I'm trying to point out is this: one should look at the whole picture to get an understanding of creation - YECs and others may not like to do so, and that is why they often run into problems.

mazaje:
If we are to go by other parts of the bible as you have done, it states that a day in the eyes of the bibleGod is like a thousand years, if that is true then we can conclude that the universe was created in 6000 years, no? Where then is the evidence for this that shows that the universe was created in 6000 years?

The point you made is a good one - and only buttresses the fact that time in these things is relative rather than static. In particular aspects, a day may represent a thousand years (like in 2 Pet. 3:8); or in other instances, it could represent a year (Ezek. 4:6 - "I have appointed thee each day for a year"; but when it comes to "generations" specifically used in reference to the "day" when the heavens and the earth were created, we know that no right thinking person would equate a "generation" to be a 24hr "day". This is why the age of the heavens is not precisely given in the Bible, as it is an indefinite/indertermined period - we know this because no one knows precisely when the angels were created, yet they witnessed the creation of the earth (Job 38:7). The question here is: when were the angels created in any of the 6-days creation week? And, where were they (in the Universe or outside of it) when they witnessed the foundation of the earth being set?

These are issues that those who see excuse the "generation" in Genesis 2:4 should grapple with. I cannot for the life of me understand how any YEC would argue that all things were created in a literal 6-day period amounting to about 6,000 years - and yet they cannot tell you which one of those 6-days the angels were created! Do the YECs not believe in angels also? Why are they saying absolutely nothing about the creation of the angels in the 6-day creation week?

mazaje:

In the footnote of one of the bible I have here (English standard version) it says that the sun and moon were not mentioned in name because when the passage was written people used to worship the sun and the moon. . . .That was why the sun and the moon were reffered to as greater liight to rule the day and lesser light to rule the night. . . .How does the sun and the moon which is a rock rule anything, it makes sense only if there were considred to be gods at that time. . . .The great light there means the sun, lying through your teeth will not do

The authors of the footnote (I also have it) know that no one actually considered the moon to be a living deity at the time when Genesis was written. At best, they could have taken those as representatives of whatever deities anyone chose to worship - BUT we know that LIGHT was already mentioned in verse 3 of Genesis 1 before going on to mention other lights in latter verses of that same Genesis 1. I wonder why people are not seeing this point and are just ignoring it! If verse 3 already mentions "light" as I said, how is that tantamount to lying through your teeth?

mazaje:

You are are LYING, you have nothing up your sleeves you I see why you will want us to dwell only on that, which i pointed out was just rhetorical. .I have said that I agree that the universe had a cause will you let that be?.

How am I lying, mazaje - because you really don't have anything to show for the simple request I made? I don't think the discussions I have been having with you is rhetorical - in fact, if you were not discussing "ORIGINS" as you said, what then are you discussing? What essentially is the difference between "Creation" and "Origin" that you assume is rhetorical? How does arguing along those points translate into a "lie"? What exactly have you shown from "ORIGINS SCIENCE" (you can Google) that shows that God did NOT CREATE the Universe? Fine - you have agreed that the Universe had a cause; but you just want to hang it there while completely evading and prevaricating on the precise terms of our discussion - terms which are "creation" and "origins"?

It's simple really: if you don't want to discuss either creation or origin, I am willing to let it be. But if you want to keep driving your baseless arguments and showing nothing for your assertions, I am also willing to let you drive along your rhetorics and let it be. That does not mean therefore that I was "lying" - in fact, it is such a laugh to read you allege that and yet produce absolutely NOTHING from science to show what you argue on ORIGINS.

mazaje:
It VERY CLEARLY states that, Lying through your teeth and trying to change what is written only shows the extent you will go to keep lying to yourself. The bible VERY CLEARLY states that the sun, moon and the stars were created on the fourth day of creation, when the earth with water and plants was already in existence, Your lies will NOT change that fact. . . .It also states that the plants came into existence on earth on the 3rd day of creation.

It mentions only that "He created the stars also", not that the stars were specifically created after the earth came into existence. This is why I went on to show you other verses and discussed them. I am more interested in you discussing those verses I pointed out rather than exploding all over the place and evading them.

mazaje:
What is this you are doing? What has a passage in Isaiah that is proclaiming disaster against babylong got to do with the creation account in genesis?. . .Constellations is a group of cellestial bodies, The genesis creation account talks the of heavens, no? . . .I am not intrested on your running around, am intrested in what the genesis account ACTUALLY says, not the meaning that you want to give it by drawing from passages in Isaiah that have NOTHING at all to do with the genesis creation account.

I have not made a different meaning in the CREATION account in the Bible - which is why I cited and discussed verses both from Genesis and other verses that point to creation. Even if the verse in Isaiah is your nightmare, what did you say about Genesis 2:4 that shows that the account in Genesis 1 is not a literal 24hr reckoning? In your own tutelage, does a generation amount to just 24hours? And yes, Isaiah mentions "contellations" - since you have been harping like a brainless dump about "other stars" being "solar systems like ours", what is all this flaring up and skidding you're boiling yourself all over again for? Please discuss them - your farting all over the place and polluting the air!

mazaje:
It DOES and VERY CLEARLY, Again lying through your teeth only shows the extent you will go to keep trying to change what has been written and giving it your own meaning, that is actually the reason why there are over 33,000 different sects of your religion. Instead of accepting what was clearly written down as it reads, you prefer to give it a meaning and life of your own, so that it will conform to your views. In genesis we read that the stars were created on the 4th day of creation to give light to the earth which was already in existance, I will go with what the text ACTUALLY says not your merry go round and meaningless equivocations, you can keep on twisting what was written down all you want, but the text is there for all to read.

No verse in Genesis says that the stars were created on the 4th day - it only says that He created the stars also, and I have not changed anything precisely as it is written. You on the other hand are too desperate to read your argument into what is before yours eyes, that is why you cannot show any verse that says that the stars were created SOLELY to give light upon the earth. This is why atheists will jump about anything and yet we have as many different shades of atheism as well, no?

mazaje:

Psalm 90:4 has NOTHING to do with the creation account in genesis.

Oh dude, wake up. I mentioned that Psalm 90:4 shows that time is relative - and here is the verse: "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night" (KJV). That was a reference to show that what people have argued into Genesis does not necessarily make it so - not even your own misplaced atheism argued into the Bible.

mazaje:
When you try to decipher as you have done so far, you only end up giving what was written down a life of its own and changing what was actually written down

That's what you have done - reading your own "SOLELY" repeatedly for the stars and never once showing where it was so written in any verse, no? But when I try to discuss, the best (or worst) you can do is disagree - and I don't give two scoobies besides. I have not tried to change anything, and if in any line I had quoted another thing that was not written, then point them out.

mazaje:

Actually I like the young earth creationist for their sincererity, They say it just as it reads, without trying to change anything that was actually written down. . . . Yom in hebrew means day.

A "day" is NOT ALWAYS a 24hour division of time - I have shown why that is so in Genesis 2:4 which declares "the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" - I don't know how many Young Earth Creationists sincerely tell you that a generation = 24 hours time reckoning! You find one, let me know.

mazaje:
What is this? Some translation bible translation like the NKJV, NIV, NASB etc put it as the history or account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, not the the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created. . . . But that's just by the way.

You're becoming a hypocrite! If a version does not suit you, you say it is by the way. But if something is pointed out, you begin to skid and dance around, no? It may well be suited to some to use other words such as you cited, but just so we don't risk funny games here, I deliberately left you the word translated generation (תּלדה / תּולדה - tôledâh). Okay, the hypocrisy here is also 'by the way', lol.

toba:

DS dont get me wrong. During a long discussion with mazaje yesterday, he said he 'ironically made an assertion with no evidence to support same. Today i dont want to be 'ironically' caught. So its better for me to know his stance before we proceed

Talking with mazaje is a waste of time. It took me long to see that; and when we pointed out to him that his "rhetorics" (as he called it) does not make for serious discussion, he piped up yet again to say he was VERY serious! When a man is skidding like that, you just ignore him. . . since that's actually what he wants.

toba:

High mazaje,Deepsight and viaro, before i join this honorable discussion let me know the basis of the discussion and the view point of each of u

The basis of my discussion with my pal mazaje is what the topic suggests in plain language: CREATION (ie., 'Creating From Nothing'). If there was any other meaning to "creation", let mazaje let us know.

@mazaje,

There's something which I wanted to point out to you - it might've skipped my mind as I was trying to focus on the objections you offered earlier.

When I said this:

viaro:

. . . What exactly am I to take from your rejoinder - that all what you argued are to show that the Universe was NOT CREATED?

. . . I just wanted to be sure that we're not just filling pages and arguing aimlessly. Indeed, my concerns in engaging you was all about whether you have anything from any science (particularly ORIGINS SCIENCE) to show that the Universe was NOT CREATED - that's what seems to be what we've been trying to find out from whatever arguments you may propound.

So, let me go back and post you a reminder about this:

(1)  this was the basic argument in yours (highlighted) which drew my concerns:

mazaje:

According to the bible Yahweh created the universe from nothing, how exactly he did it, no body even wants to attempt to answer it, the mantra is that Yahweh just created the universe from nothing even when observable evidence clearly says and shows that he did not create the universe in which we live, because the way he said he created the universe does not agree with what has been seen and observed.

. . .^^ that is, your argument was that "observable evidence clearly says and shows that he did not create the universe in which we live," -

(2)  and I wanted you to answer these two questions for me:

viaro:

Please mazaje, can you point us to two simple things:

(1)  how does "observable evidence" say and show that God did not create the Universe in which we live?

(2)  what then is the logical conclusions about the "observable evidence" in regards to the origin of the Universe: did it create itself? If not, what then?

I know you have tried to reply to them - but from all that has gone before, you did not show anywhere by any science at all that God did not create the Universe; you did not show that the Universe was NOT CREATED; you did not show anything about the ORIGINS of the Universe in regards to CREATION; - infact, you did not provide me with anything that shows a solid point in your assertion that the Universe was NOT CREATED.

The reason I set those two questions is simple: if your assertion stands in the first premise that God did not create the Universe; the simple logical inference would be the second point that perhaps the Universe created itself. Of course, you didn't argue in favour of the first or the second; but what is particularly interesting is that you didn't seem to have any solid position besides claiming "I don't know" - and that being so, I wonder how you would be maintaining such an assertive position like someone who knows that the Universe was not created.

Yes, you may hold the view that you "don't know" anything about the ORIGINS of the Universe - and I also hold the view that I "don't know" the DETAILS in these things. But like I said, I'm persuaded that God created the Universe - basically from the point of reference: (a) that the Universe did not create itself; (b) that the Universe was created indeed; (c) that no origins science asserts or concludes anywhere that God "DID NOT" create the Universe; (d) that no origins science has concluded that was "not created" - all these are basically different ways of saying the same thing (but that is not arguing that science has concluded any research about "God", therefore, we cannot be using science to make assertions about "God" where science says nothing about Him).

Instead, because I was concerned that you have been trying to make "science" say what it has never said about "God", that prolly was how you drew the argument that "observable evidence clearly says and shows that he did not create the universe in which we live". If anyone was to take the basic point in such an assertion, it would simply mean that you're asserting that the Universe was NOT CREATED - which is not what science at any instance has concluded. The whole point I have tried to make repeatedly is this: NO SCIENCE anywhere has said that God created OR did not create the Universe - which is why I have as well repeatedly asked you for the science of ORIGINS researches where such a statement as you asserted has been made.

It is one thing to use your atheism to argue under "science"; but it is quite another to assert that 'science' says this and that, where in fact 'science' did not say any such thing. If we even leave 'God' out of the discussion for now (since science says nothing about 'God'), WHERE do we read any research paper particularly in ORIGINS SCIENCE asserting what you have asserted?

MOG2009:

Thanks @Jenwitemi and Viaro. I conducted an interview of three people who claim to be spiritual and not religious, to get a general idea of their opinions and input on this subject. Based on the information I gathered from them, these people don't want to be burdened by such stifling obligation, i.e., being associated with organized church. They want to be exempted from paying tithes or offerings and not subjected to church laws. In a nutshell, they want to be liberated or free from religious obligations. But they claimed to practice meditations such as yoga, pray and other forms.

Do you think the above mentioned people are better off spirituality than church goers?

Well, I don't think that one group is "better off spiritually" than the other. Some people who attend church services or are active in Church in one way or the other are very spiritual indeed; others may be in church and still be carnal (compare 1 Cor. 3:1-4). Infact, some of the things which we tend to use as the criteria for spirituality are often shown to be leading the other way round.

For those who want to be liberated from "religious obligations", what exactly do they mean by that? If they see fellowship as a burden, then that speaks sad volumes indeed - for we cannot be truly spiritual in the Biblical sense until we begin to be committed in fellowship with other believers. This fellowship of sorts is often established by guiding principles agreed upon by participating members in any particular fellowship - and whatever activities occur in service (whether outreaches, Bible studies, relief efforts, educational services for communities), they would be based on those principles. It would be hard indeed to grow spiritually in the Biblical sense if we want to be free-lancers in our spiritual journeys.

123jml:

you that you have read about what the holy spirit is in the scripture i think is not too bad if you brief us,but without doing so how can we trusted you while nothing provided from you as a fact?

I don't claim to know more than anybody on this thread or forum; but I am very concerned indeed to read someone claim that the Holy Spirit is God's "active force" while completely ignoring the attributes of Personality given in Scripture about the Holy Spirit. And that was why I gave just one example: the Holy Spirit SPEAKS (Acts 13:2 - "the Holy Ghost said" - do you have something else against that, or you are tacitly acknowledging that "small man" was in error?

mazaje:

Still chasing your tail eh? There are so many atheist that do NOT hold that view so what exactly are you crying about here? . . . .Every science everywhere has contradicted their claim that the earth with water and plants in it was created before the sun and all the stars, no? Every scientific observation also contradicted their claim of the stars created solely for the purpose of giving light on the earth, no? . . .Every scientific observation also contradicts their claim that the universe was not created in 6 days, no?

Your noise has been addressed above - the '6 days' are NOT 24hr divisions (see Psa. 90:4 and Gen. 2:4 - we know that "generations" are far more than a 24 hr reckoning; and also see Isaiah 41:4 - God has been "calling the generations from the beginning". I also addressed the fact that the account does not conclude that the stars were SOLELY for giving light upon the earth (even where you quoted Genesis 1:14, you still missed it - can you tell us what was on your mind?). Meanwhile, I would appreciate that you stop waving that redundant excuse and stop denying the fact that atheists held that the Universe was eternal - that does not say that ALL atheists everywhere held the same view, so why do you keep begging the question?

mazaje:
When did the said God appear to you personally and told you that he created the universe?.

Did I claim any such personal appearance? Where?

mazaje:
Your God is not man made as you say, pls can you point to the said God or anything it said or did, that is independent of man made stories, influence, traditions and culture?. . . .Will you just point to the said God and show that he exist  on his own independent of human influence?

Yes. Without any religion or cultural inferences, the Universe was CREATED by God. Even scientists who have tried to pry into the epoch before the singularity cannot dismiss the fact that the Universe was created rather than the Universe creating itself - I gave an example of Stephen Hawkings who uses "God" without meaning it in the religious sense. If you have anything science anywhere that the Universe created itself, please let me know - even if you can produce "proof" from your wild atheism, I will listen to what you produce and discuss.

mazaje:

And why is this not also part of the main points of the discussion?

Because you keep skidding and never sounding serious - on the one hand, you are not talking about "origins" (so you claimed); but on the other hand, you want to use all wild statements and your personal drama to argue issues around ORIGINS! Seeing you are so confused and cannot show anything from ORIGINS SCIENCE for your wild assertions, the best you can do is offer is terse ignorance that is beyond a joke!

mazaje:
The universe was created, don't you have any other thing else to say beside this?

No - because I have been discussing ORIGINS with you and nothing else. What are you doing here if you didn't want to discuss CREATION? Em, tsk-tsk: look again at the topic of the thread: "CREATING from Nothing", No? Should I leave that and come play your skidding up and down the street?

mazaje:

My friend since when did you become a deist? . . . .On a serious note now, Sure the universe did not self create, I believe it had a cause, what that cause is remains UNKNOWN to us, Scientist have ended with a singularity, What cause the singularity remains unknown.

Hahaha!! I'm not a deist, mazaje. The fact that I mentioned "supernatural Agency" should be clear to you that I was careful to not set my points on deistic coasters. Why? Because deism actually does not incline to anything "supernatural" - but that just shows you really haven't got these things sorted for yourself.

However, scientists might've ended with a singularity - but that does not mean that the singularity is all there is to ORIGINS of our Universe. Please see above my comments on said singularity.

Enjoy.

mazaje:

Evidence about planetary formations,

. . . and what infact shows in the Bible that the planets were not formed? Not only do we read of the sun, the moon, the planets, and all the host of heaven (2 Kings 23:5) and the "contellations" of heaven (Isaiah 13:10), we also read that even where God was creating what exists, He did so by ALSO "forming" them:
[list][li]the LORD God formed (יצר - yâtsar) man of the dust of the ground [Gen. 2:7][/li]
[li]out of the ground the LORD God formed (יצר - yâtsar) every beast of the field [Gen. 2:19][/li]
[li]God 'formed (יצר - yâtsar) the earth and the world' [Psalm 90:2][/li]
[li]He is "The great God that formed (יצר - yâtsar) all things" [Prov. 26:10][/li]
[li]'For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed (יצר - yâtsar) the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed (יצר - yâtsar) it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else' [Isaiah 45:18][/li][/list]

The argument about "planetary formations" just does not cut it for you. Planets were "formed", and so what? That "proves" that they were NOT CREATED? In fact, we understand that some of these cosmological entities are called "planets" by arbitrary rules, which is why some hold that there are 9 planets rather than 12 planets held by some (a recent concensus says that Pluto is no longer to be regarded as a "planet". The so-called "evidence" of planetray formations does not negate what we read in Scripture about God "forming" these things.

mazaje:
evidence that shows that the stars are not placed or hanging in some elusive firmament as the bible puts it. . . .etc.

I laugh at your last line above ^^ : 'evidence that shows that the stars are not placed or hanging in some elusive firmament as the bible puts it' - that is a big whopper, dude. What is the firmament, mazaje? From Roget's Thesaurus, the firmament is known as 'the celestial regions as seen from the earth', which yields the understanding of the heavens or space. [Wikipedia - 'The term "heaven" may refer to the physical heavens, the sky or the seemingly endless expanse of the universe beyond, the traditional literal meaning of the term in English']. So, if the stars are not placed in the firmament as the Bible puts it, where are they placed, mazaje?

mazaje:

Its is VERY CLEARLY stated in the passage that the earth was in existence with water and plants in it before all the stars were created after words. . . .It also very clearly states that the stars were created specifically to give light upon the earth

Both these questions/objections have been addressed above - but as we can see, not in one verse does the Bible concludes that the stars were created SOLELY (or "specifically" as you now argue) just for giving light upon the earth - unless you just want to skip Genesis 1:14 which you quoted, so you can keep arguing your misgivings unfairly into the texts in front of your eyes.

mazaje:



Here is the picture of the milky way galaxy with its hundreds of billions of stars (which is just one out of the many billions of the other galaxies around) that indicates the position of our solar system in the milky way, how exactly was the earth created before all the billions of stars in this galaxy? How exactly were all the billions of stars many of which are solar systems with planets revolving around them created solely to give light upon the earth as written in the bible?

Thanks for that lecture - but dude, you tend to argue blindly these days. Although you may never have read the Bible talking about the "CONSTELLATIONS" of the heavens (Isaiah 13:10) apart from other cosmological entities like the sun, the moon, the stars, etc.; yet in very plain fact the Bible actually recognizes these extensions of the galaxies as in that verse just quoted. I have also pointed out that the earth was not created before the stars, in so far as the Bible acknowledges that the angels were already present in the created Universe and witnessed the creation of the Earth (Job 38:4-7).

mazaje:

OK agreed the universe had a cause, Do you know what the cause of the universe is? Saying that you know what the cause of the universe is with out providing any evidence for your claims is pure bull. . . .The universe has a cause and your evidence to show that Yahweh is the cause of the universe and not something else is WHAT?.

The Universe did not just have a "cause" - to let it stand at that is sheepish indeed, because we know that even astronomy and cosmology talk about this "cause" and point to a 'singularity'; yet they know that the singularity did not create itself, and the only thing we can safely say now from their researches is that they are unable to formulate theories that go back before or earlier than the singularity.

What people like me are interested in, however, is not the pretentious argument you've been making and then excusing yourself from ORIGINS SCIENCE. The densest thing to ever appear in your post is for you to argue about "origins" and yet say that you are not arguing "origins" - when I asked you to explain the difference, I don't read ANYWHERE that you have tried to explain any difference, or have you?

mazaje:
. . .
Most other tribal people have also stated that the universe was created and that there God created the universe so what's new there?

Nothing new - but at least they all know that the Universe did not create itself; nor did it emerge completely on its own without having been brought into existence. You hide behind your atheist excuse and produce nothing other than the noise so far that makes me laugh.

mazaje:

You are still biting your tail and crying eh? Which atheistic assumption is it that says that the universe is eternal?. . .There are some theist that believe and have also stated that the earth is flat, does that represent the entire theistic position?

Please stop skidding with your repeated excuses. Just flat out deny as you did earlier that NO ATHEIST ever thought the Universe was eternal - just try. I did not conclude that ALL atheists everywhere made the same inference; but you keep waving this excuse everytime I challenge previous assertion, and something just tells me you're either deliberately being mischievous or just plain ignorant of what you tend to argue.

@mazaje,

I really wish I had the time all day to walk you through your arguments. However, between my busy schedule the coming weeks, I shall try and pop in and out as much as I can manage.

It appears you actually blew hot and cold and lost your way around. Instead of muddling things up, it would have helped you to make your case simple enough and point out what your concerns were. What exactly am I to take from your rejoinder - that all what you argued are to show that the Universe was NOT CREATED? You don't seem to really grasp this point, but I didn't expect you would anyways.

mazaje:

Aren't you tried of crying all over the place and sounding like the broken record that you truly are?. . . .I am talking about observable evidence that shows that the earth was NOT created before all the stars,

I don't think that the Bible concludes that the earth was created before the stars. Often when people read Genesis, they assume a literal chronology that ignores certain points mentioned elsewhere. For one, Isaiah 13:10 indeed mentions "the constellations" of the heavens besides having mentioned the stars, but this 'constellations' is not specifically mentioned in Genesis. The point is that Genesis does not say that God made the earth before the stars; but merely mentioned that He made the stars also (Gen. 1:16), whereas we know from the same Genesis that "light" was already long mentioned in [Gen. 1:3] before other 'lights' mentioned in latter verses [Gen. 1:14]. I'll expound on this latter.

mazaje:

Evidence that show that the universe was not created in 6 days,

I'm not one of those who interprets the chronology of 'day' in Genesis 1 as a literal 24hr reckoning of time. For one, Psalm 90:4 shows us that time is relative and not static, and it is only when we look at the context and the big picture that we understand the passages we are trying to decipher.

Yes, I know that those who pander to the YEC (Y[/b]oung [b]E[/b]arth [b]C[/b]reationism) see those verses in Genesis 1 as amounting to nothing other than literal 24-hour divisions; but Genesis 2:4 infact specifically declares "[b]the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" as in the "day" they were made - and we know that a "generation" (תּלדה / תּולדה - tôledâh), whether of humanity or of cosmological entities, is far beyond a literal 24-hour day. Isaiah 41:4 also tacitly declares that God has been 'calling the generations from the beginning', and this should have been clear to those who force a literal 24-hr 'day' into Genesis 1 creation. There is not a single verse in the Bible that concludes that the UNIVERSE was created in just 6 days of literal 24 hour divisons.

mazaje:

evidence that shows that the earth was NOT created before the sun,

Genesis 1:3 mentions 'light' and 'day' before talking about other lights (greater light, lesser lights) in verses 14 - 16. There is no verse that one can sincerely draw upon to conclude that the earth was chronologically created before the sun. Job 38:4-7 shows that the Universe had already been created before the earth was created - the angels witnessed the creation of the earth. Isaiah 13:10 mentions 'the constellations' as well, even though we don't read them precisely in Genesis; and in Moses' blessing of the Tribes of Israel, he indeed mentions something akin to photosynthesis in "the precious fruits brought forth by the sun" (Deut. 33:14) - which makes us understand that the fruits of any plant would not in fact be there in the first place had the sun been a later arrival in the creation of the Universe.

mazaje:

evidence that shows that some of the other stars are solar systems like ours, not some things that were created solely to produce light on the earth.

I will mention Isaiah 13:10 once again - "the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof" - this should help you understand that the Bible recognizes what you're on about the "other stars" being "solar systems like ours".

And I have asked for any verse to show where the Bible says the stars were created SOLELY to give light upon the earth - where is that verse? The Bible does not draw such a conclusion; and infact, the verses you quoted do not lead to that inference. What we do read is that the stars with the other entities are ALSO meant "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" (Gen. 1:14). Of course, this does not mean indeed that such were the only things defining the purposes for which they were created; but it is quite dubious to force your own misgivings into the text and argue repeatedly that the stars were created SOLELY to give light upon the earth! You just can't see what's in front of your eyes even when you quoted the verses and rushed to bolden some. ha!

Joagbaje:

What has divinity got to do with. Speaking faith! see what i'm saying.

That there is really funny! If divinity has got nothing to do with speaking faith, I wonder why Wof (or 'Wofers') have been making the connection furtively!

mazaje:

I have not been dribbling, and am VERY serious here, The fact that the irony of what has transpired escapes you is completely unbelievable to me. . .Any I know, why you keep running around chasing your tail, you have nothing of value to say so dancing around my rhetorical statement is the only thing that you have left. . . .Enjoy dancing around. . .I might learn a few dance moves from you. . .

This guy^^ is one funny chap.

First, you're VERY serious. . . but when you're asked serious questions, then you sweep your assertions under "rhetorics", no? Why are you skidding like this?

Look, if we take you seriously WITHOUT your rhetorics and ask you to stand to your assertion that the Universe created itself, would we expect to read again that we should laugh it off as one of your rhetorics? That is most interesting. . . because it makes me wonder that you're happy to be neither here nor there - and I don't know how many people you read here who are changing positions and claining rhetorics in this thread.

Bottomline is that we don't see any consistency in your position. Forget the drama of all that unnecessary 'rhetos' and then coming back to say you're VERY serious - it won't wash.

mazaje:

The bible creation account does not agree with what I see and what has been observed,

No problem - if what you see is "evidence" that the Universe was not created at all, please let's see that evidence of what you allegedly saw. You have said you're not talking about ORIGINS, and I'm waiting for you to explain precisely what it is you're on about.

mazaje:
Was the earth with plants in it alone in existence before all the other stars, planets, asteroids, comets, galaxy and other cosmic bodies were created as clearly written in the bible?

Please let me know where you find it "clearly written" the way you so described above^^. Is it possible that you're trying to force your own ideas in here somewhere and then assuming that is what is "clearly written in the Bible"? In any case, please share with me.

mazaje:

Saying that your God created the universe is just an assumption, since you do not have any evidence like a video recording of the said God creating the universe or the God himself appearing to you and personally telling you that he created the universe or any of his signatures that bares his name on anything that you see around to show that he created that thing.

For your sake, I would tacitly oblige you that it would be an assumption that the Universe was created - but there again, it is a very STRONG assumption for which I offer no apology at all. The reason for that is this: there is no science showing anywhere that the Universe was not created. NONE. In fact, when some have tried to deeply research and theorise about this, they use the term "God" affirmatively but not in the religious sense. The point is that, it is hard for such researchers and theoretical physicists to conclude that the Universe was not created, or that God did not create the Universe, or even that the Universe created itself! This is why I am asking you to show me any substance about any counter arguments to these three basic premises or any other assumptions you may make to the contrary. WHERE is it?

mazaje:

You base your entire assumptions on what? Mythical narratives and assumptions written by unknown tribal people very long ago? People who did not even know what the stars really are?. . . . .Interesting.

Isn't it ironical that these "tribal people" had the common sense to say that the Universe was created? Isn't it ironic that these tribal people have made the atheistic assumption of an eternal universe an absolutely redundant and most illiterate assertion that has long been abandoned? To assure you, I base my "assumption"  on what has not been refuted about what those "tribal people" asserted about the Universe having been created - more so, because NO SCIENCE ANYWHERE has contradicted them at any level! It is quite interesting that the irony escapes you that it is the atheistic assumption that was baseless and have now been abadoned, no? Let's laugh. . . three cheers!

mazaje:

I believe that the universe was NOT created by any God(by God I mean the Gods of man made religion), since NO God has ever claimed he created the universe,

Thankfully, the God I worship and believe in is not man-made (nevermind that you so like to assert the contrary). Even at that, the same God has indeed claimed that He created the Universe. I don't have any problem with your belief - I know you hold on to it in a most tenacious manner just like any religious person would; but that holds no consequences at all in the face of the fact that you have yet argued to no avail beyond your merely asserting things into science that science does not say.

mazaje:

Men claim that their various Gods created the universe. . . . .Sure the universe did not create it self but it wasn't also created by any of the Gods of man made religions.

I've heard you - you don't have to keep repeating that refrain as if that is what is at the heart of our discussion. I don't really like you turning round in circles and dancing away from the main points we're discussing.

mazaje:

We don't know what created the universe and that remains a FACT, if you claim you know then, provide evidence simple, pointing to age long myths (that have no evidence to support them) written by men is laughable since almost every religion and culture have their own age long myths about their various Gods creating the universe.

That you don't know what created the Universe is NOT a "fact" but an excuse. It's either you're wishing that it is a 'FACT' so that no one would have to admit the obvious (that the Universe was created indeed); or you just wish to keep asserting it over and over again and appeal to absolutely nothing to commit to your postulations.

mazaje:
On a serious note now no kiddo, The universe did not create it self that I know. But I posit that no one knows the true origin of the universe and how it was created, You can only hypothesize. If you insist that you know the true origin of the universe then its up to you to provide objective evidence to show for it.

I think this is the fine point that I would like to leave it at. I don't know if I ever claimed anywhere to know HOW the Universe was created in terms of the details (I know a few in theoretical physics who play with such hypothesis - but it's become fashionable to hear them say that science is only a guess, the 'best gues'). Anyways, I am persuaded that a supernatural Agency created the Universe - and that supernatural Agency is what we know as God. Not only are we agreed that the Universe did not create itself; but it is most probable from many cutting edge thinking and research that "something" other than the Universe itself might have caused its origin (Stephen Hawkings, for instance, is one example I've had in mind who uses 'God' loosely without a religious connotation). Whether this is theoretically 'provable' is open to debate.

Thanks for the time, enjoy.

small man:

Fat lie,
first of all the holy spirit is God's active force it is not a being.

I seriously worry over people who fart out hugely false statements while assuming that others are saying what is not true.

What do you mean by an "active force"? Have you ever taken the time to read about WHO the Holy Spirit is in Scripture? What do you have to say about the fact that the Holy Spirit is presented as a Divine Personage having attributes which we find expressed about God (such as speaking to His people - "the Holy Spirit said", Acts 13:2)?

___________

chakula:



 



Is "the Holy Spirit" is mere "force" in your Islam? I know you like to applaud whatever you like, even though many times you plainly do not have a clue about what is being discussed.

mazaje:

What exactly are you arguing about? That the universe had a beginning or that your God created the universe?. . .As for the universe having a begging, all scientific explanations points to that. So that's a non starter. Are you still insisting that you God created the universe?. . . .If you are still insisting can you provide evidence for your claims?. . . .Thank you.

I think my premise has been presented in many ways than one so you can easily digest. It is not an argument that the Universe had a beginning (which is a given), or that the Universe having a beginning is explained by science (another given) - but the point is this: the Universe DID NOT create itself, and as such it was created by God.

If your argument is saying that God DID NOT create the Universe, I have expressed my willingness to consider your evidence for that. I don't see you presenting anything remotely close to that other than complaining here and there about which God would have created the Universe.

You can't keep hiding under excuses and rhetorics - it is the best thing I know an atheist would ever do so as to escape responsibility of arguing any substance at any time. Yes, we can both say "we don't know" - that is, you don't know anything about the ORIGIN of the Universe; while I don't know the DETAILS about the origins of the Universe. But we can't both escape the basic point: was the Universe created or did it created itself. You seem to argue yourself out of the latter (the Universe created itself); and I am persuaded that the Universe was created by God.

Coming back to pretend that you were only making your assertions merely on "rhetorics" makes one wonder why you even bother to argue long and hard on absolutely NOTHING. First, you told us that NOTHING created the Universe - and your evidence? NOTHING. Next you "concluded" that the Universe created itself - and your evidence? RHETORICS. If this type of behaviour is the quitessential display we should read in your approach to issues, let's all slap our backs and retire to our evening baths, yes? Yay!

Mazaje my guy, you've been fun to talk with. . . nevermind that it took me all this time to see your dribbling was all a joke. Next time, I won't even waste this much time trying to catch up with your rhetorics.

Have fun.

toba:

Lailai the guy is doing this seriously and hes not joking.

Well, what can I say. . . I've had a good laugh at him anyways, so I don't take anything he says seriously (since he's not presenting anything serious).

Jenwitemi:

So, why did he not speak Adam and Eve into existence also? Why did he not create them both "exnihilo" as he did the entire universe? If he could create something as huge as the universe out of nothing, what stopped him from creating the tiny and insignificant "first couple" the same way? Why did he need dusts of the earth and a rib bone?

I think you have completely missed the point and seem to be arguing against yourself. But let me help you come to terms with the flawed assumptions you are presenting:

(1)  Originally, your argument was that not even God could create something out of nothing  - that has been trashed, because you simply did not consider the weakness of your own argument was that it was ill-formulated and ill-informed. To this end, I presented two things to you: creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia - you don't seem to have said anything to counter that, have you?

(2)   As regards the creation of Adam and Eve and why it was not ex nihilo, your problem is that you don't seem to catch the drift as to what is meant by ex materia. Let's even for the sake of argument assume any validity in your argument (which is not even an argument), my question to you is this: in what universe would creation from ex materia be found? For Adam and Eve to have existed, there should be a Universe predating them - they cannot emerge outside the created Universe; and that is why they were created ex materia within the Universe that came from ex nihilo.

(3)   As to the materials from which Adam and Eve were created, your argument does nothing against the ability of God to create any other thing ex nihilo following creation of the Universe. Whether small or great, He created them - ex nihilo and ex materia. How does either of these (ex nihilo or ex materia) establish any substance in your argument about what He is able to do?

(4)   Again, back to your basic argument in the OP - you were concerned that "scientists can't create out of nothing", and that is the point: we can't argue against that, for no scientist has honestly said in clear terms that they are creating anything ex nihilo. If therefore that was your initial premise, and we have seen that your equating them is baseless, where does your argument lead?

mazaje:

I keep telling you that your God gave a detailed account of how he said he created the universe, Modern cosmology with its observable evidence says that account is flat out wrong.

Modern cosmoslogy does not argue about or against or in favour of God or a supernatural Agency. . .  unless you don't have a clue what modern cosmology is all about. I find your cheap statements rather entertaining than serious.

mazaje:
Its not conclusive for now, progress is always made, I am not even talking about origins but observable evidence about what we see. The origins card is the only thing you have up your sleeve.

Dude, you just happen to flatter yourself far too much. Yes, I admit that the ORIGINS card is what I have always consistently presented - and for good reasons:

(1) Because you also have been arguing about ORIGINS and making statements about the origins of the Universe. I asked somewhere that if what you are saying is different from 'origins', then please explain - you don't seem to have done so.

(2)  When we talk about "creation", we know we're talking about ORIGINS - so, if you have any other idea apart from ORIGINS when we talk about the creation of the Universe, I would have expected you to show it. You have not done so - which makes me wonder why you are now complaining about "ORIGINS".

Consequently, if you are not talking about origins but rather about "observable evidence", I would also be interested in how you are trying to use that same "observable evidence" for the same ORIGINS that you are shying away from - what is the correlation between them such that you tend to find an exclusivism between them now?

mazaje:

I am aware of christian cosmologist denying what their God actually said with regards to HOW he allegedly created the universe.

That is not even a point - it is rather an excuse. I am also aware of many so-called "Christians" denying the Christian faith wholesale - so what is the big deal there that seem to be so important and heavily weighs on this argument?

You remind me of Dawkins and his miserly approach to an arguement of this sort. The moment he realises he's not making any sense, he twists the whole thing quickly to strawmen about what some 'Christian-this-and-that' has said on this and the other - as if that has anything in itself to do with what he's been presented with. You, in the same manner, are using this excuse that just because some so-called 'Christian' cosmologists deny this and that, therefore . . . what? I could also resort to the same kind of baseless argument that I know of some non-religious scientists who talk about 'God' affirmatively - would that prove that they agree there's a God somewhere?

mazaje:
Where in the bible does the creation account says that it is an allegory?

I don't know - you tell me, since it is from you and your hinted 'cosmologists' that have been parading that idea. What I have basically argued is not an allegory - but the point that the Universe was CREATED and did not create itself.

mazaje:

You keep talking about evidence as if you have ever provided any . . . .Your evidence to show that the universe did not create itself is WHAT?

The Universe DID NOT create itself - no science I am aware of would argue for a self-created Universe. I cannot provide any so-called "evidence" that shows or points to a Universe that created itself. Therefore, if your argument is to the contrary view that the Universe created itself, you have all the freedom in the cosmos to show me your evidence for that!

mazaje:

viaro link=topic=451756.msg6097254#msg6097254 date=1274885962:

He spoke the Universe into existence.

Really? I will like to see the evidence you have that show your God speaking the universe into existence.

Yes, really. If you want to read it, we can show you in the Bible; if you are asking for another type of 'evidence', please let us know. This brash use of the word "evidence" that you have no clue about but just like to hide behind, we shall deal with it here and NOW.

mazaje:

. . .Or is this one of the baseless assertions that have no evidence for them?. . . .What language did he use? How does voice turn into matter?. . . .I will really like to know these things.

I'm sure this is all another one of your priceless jokes. I believe the Universe was CREATED BY GOD - you believe otherwise. I am very, very willing to discuss anything with you on that subject (minus the jokes) - if you are willing to discuss. It would therefore mean that you are willing also to show evidence for your own counter argument, rather than hiding behind excuses of feigned ignorance. The Universe did NOT create itself, it did NOT emerge completely on its own - the science affirm that the Universe had a beginning and did not self-create. . . these are issues before us. If you have anything else to counter these premises, please have the freedom to share with us and play it less on the jokes you have been posting all along.

mazaje:

Again the irony escapes you. . . .I will be right there with what I have to show as soon as you show me that the universe did not create itself.

Okay, let's have it your way. If you want to argue that the Universe created itself, let's discuss that - please show us how your theories or postulations for a Universe that created itself. . . leave your irony of escapism out on this one.

toba:

@ viaro it would be very hard to find a sincere atheist and mazaje is just confirming that with his ridiculous posts, by trying to twist things around in his favour rather than from the side of truth. This might not even get anywhere due to his actions

I think mazaje is a cool guy, though. . . it took me this long to realise he's just taking us on a wild run while sitting back laughing behind the PC. Good for kicks, though. . . the guy is one hell of an interesting bloke - just don't take him any seriously.

mazaje:

Here you are asking me for evidence when you are yet to provide a SINGLE evidence for your own assertions. Again your evidence to show that the universe did not create it self is WHAT

If your argument is that the Universe created itself, please show me the evidence - from ANY SCIENCE.

I think your atheism has become such a bore - you make so muhc noise up and down the street, but never stay on course to address one assumption in what you argue. You can't escape this point, mazaje (unless escapism is now your forté) - if the Universe created itself, please show us your evidence. Coming back to shout that it was another one of your rhetorics would simply mean you're quite a mischievous fellow indeed.

mazaje:

My position with regards to the origin of the universe as always been that nobody truly KNOWS, how the universe came about. I fact we do not fully know what the universe is talk more of fully knowing about its origins.

Okay, nobody truly knows about what you have been so confidently asserting about the origins of the Universe, no? Yet, you have been talking about "observable evidence" to the contrary! This is the most brainless discussion I ever had the fortune to read from you - it is worse than a joke or your rhetorics!! 

In other words, you've been having the pleasure of kidding yourself and making fun of your readers:

mazaje:
. . .I JUST LOVE playing the games you guys love playing that is asserting things without evidence so that you guys will see how illogical it sounds.

Thank you . .  at least, when I discuss with you, I point you to what researchers are saying and not what they are NOT saying. So, if they have not been saying that the Universe created itself, nor have they argued anything against the possibility of the Universe having been created, what are you on about, mazaje? You're the only one who wants to believe you're logical by making assertions that are neither here nor there - only to end up marking time on the same spot!

mazaje:
.Your God said he created the universe and he gave a detail account of how he allegedly created the universe in genesis no? Science has shown that, that hypothesis is flat out wrong.

Science has not shown any thing about what you assert - that is just another joke you want to cheaply chip in and let your atheism run wild. This is why you cannot show us anything about where science asserts that the Universe was not created - rather, the prevailing atheistic assumption that the Universe had always existed has been abandoned and relagated to a blackhole, go figure. It's fun seeing how you are foisting your own blank statements upon "science" . . .  dude, why do atheists like cheating like that? How long are you going to keep spreading this gangrene about science saying what it does not say?

mazaje:

I laugh, So because some atheist hold the view that the universe was eternal means all atheist hold the same view eh?. . . .Some theist also believe that the universe is eternal, no?

That's an unusual excuse that is becoming a bore. I DID NOT assert or infer that 'ALL ATHEISTS' held the same view; but you cannot deny that the prevailing atheistic view (among many atheists) was that the Universe had always existed. I don't know how many "theists" held the view that the Universe was eternal (in the sense that it had no beginning); but as far as I can remember, the prevailing worldview among theists is that the Universe had a beginning.

However, you cleverly ducked the question I offered you directly: What do you mean by 'NOT the views of atheist', mazaje? I very much wanted you to deal with that issue, although I will not press it upon you. It so happens that it seems you were denying flat out that the atheistic assumption at one time was that the Universe always existed - that view, after failing to show any basis for it, has collapsed upon itself and is no longer confidently asserted as it once was. . . nevermind that some atheists are trying to find ways of reharshing the same baseless arguments in new clichés and neologisms.

mazaje:

Maybe. But that again does not mean that NO ATHEIST held the view that the Universe had always existed, if that is what you trying to tell us here.

So what exactly are you arguing about?

Please tell me, mazaje, what you meant by the argument that the view that the Universe had always existed was "NOT the views of atheist" - just let me know what you were trying to argue there. I have made clear that such an assertion from you was plainly denying the fact; so let me know if you are trying to keep up that false assertion of yours, or you're going to tacitly admit you were in error.

mazaje:

That's all you want to do it seems arguing around chasing shadows. . .My position on this is well know, I have stated MANY times that no body fully knows for sure how the universe came about. My statement was just a rhetorical statement, The fact that the irony escapes you is truly laughable. Your posit that Your God created the universe, Without providing a SINGLE evidence to show, I also posited that the universe created it self rhetorically to show you how illogical your argument is. . . .I have always stated that NO one knows how the universe came about, and as such I will prefer when people say that they don't know instead of positing hypothesis that they themselves can not defend.

I have not posited what I was not ready to defend. On the other hand, it is laughable that you could make an assertion and when called up for it, make endless excuses that you were making a rhetorical statement. What a laugh indeed! The simple point that has often eluded you (and we know why) is this: the Universe was created - it did not emerge on its own. We may disagree on details as regarding "origins"; but it is even far laughable to keep trumpeting ignorance as if it was the grandest thing about what you assert. The usual atheistic thing is to feign ignorance under agnosticism (I don't know), and yet never seek to address what is in front of him: the Universe did not self-exist, that is the point. You argue to the contrary; and I'm all ears to consider what you have to say that establishes your argument - but rather than man up to it, you go on and on about assertions that you have never sat down to discuss after several pages!

mazaje:
Scientist have provided some empirical evidence (at least) with regards to the nature of the universe and how its is evolving, Some of them even theorize their own origin of earth with some evidence to show for they theories, Those evidence can be observed and verified to some extent, when those observable evidence are compared with the way your God said he created the universe we see that your God's account of creation does not match any of the observable evidence and as such can be said to have been shown to be flat out wrong by scientific findings and observations.

I think it's clear that it's eaither you're getting your marbles all confused or you just like to repeat these statements that are quite not up to scratch on course. Let me try to see if I can help:

Although not a scientist or cosmologist, I am very aware of 'Origins Science' in various places (eg., UCL Institute of Origins; McMaster Origins Institute, Canada; and Institute for the Science of Origins, among others). The point is: I'm not aware of any of these established institutions or their researches coming to the conclusion that the Universe self-existed or emerged completely on its own or was not created at any point. NONE of them draw such a conclusion - there is no science or research to such a conclusion. Now, mazaje, if you know of any origins science that proclaims a self-existent Universe, please please and please, let us read such a paper from you . . it is possible that viaro might've missed it.

These origins science insititutes are not into details of trying to falsify 'creation', nor are they into details of how or not a supernatural Being or Agent brought the Universe into existence point-by-point. Basically, what we are asking you is simple enough: do the sciences lead to the atheistic argument you have been making all along to suppose that the Universe would have come into existence entirely on its own? If you can show us a clear scientific paper on that assumption, please do so without further ado.

mazaje:
Still chasing after your tail? . . . .Ohh so the creation accounts in genesis is truly how the universe came around eh?. . . Why does the observable and scientific evidence point to another direction?

Just show us how the Universe came into existence entirely on its own.

mazaje:

According to the bible Yahweh created the universe from nothing, how exactly he did it, no body even wants to attempt to answer it, the mantra is that Yahweh just created the universe from nothing even when observable evidence clearly says and shows that he did not create the universe in which we live, because the way he said he created the universe does not agree with what has been seen and observed.

Please mazaje, can you point us to two simple things:

(1)  how does "observable evidence" say and show that God did not create the Universe in which we live?

(2)  what then is the logical conclusions about the "observable evidence" in regards to the origin of the Universe: did it create itself? If not, what then?

The implications of your answer would be pivotal and huge indeed - for one, it would help us understand whether you understand the meaning of origins; as well, it would help us see precisely what the "observable evidence" is saying and showing without your own interpolations.

mazaje:
Christian cosmologist agree that the creation accounts in the bible are mythical but they still insist that yahweh created the universe even when they themselves have relegated the creation accounts of Yahweh to the realm of mytholgy(allegory). . . .I just don't understand how they do these things. . .They seem to enjoy speaking from both sides of their mouths. . . .

I'm unaware of any Christian cosmologist denying the creation of the Universe. Interpretating it as an allegory is not to say that the Universe was not created - these are vastly two different things. However, it is one thing for the atheist to keep hiding behind these excuses of what he/she thinks 'Christian cosmologists' agree or disagree on, just as the assertions of any atheist does not establish any conclusions.

What we want to know is this: whatever the atheist concludes, we want simple and reasoned evidence for such assertions: if the assertion is such that the Universe created itself (not minding HOW it did so), please let the atheist simply show us evidence for a Universe that created itself - for now, the details are not really the big concern.

mazaje:

How did the bible God create the milky way galaxy for example from nothing?

He spoke the Universe into existence. If you have anything to show that the Universe created itself, I am willing to consider what evidence you may have.

mrmayor:

How and where did Yahweh, Allah etc come from; did he/they just appear out of nothing in space and without cause? Please reduce the latin.

As always, I enjoy your queries, mrmayor. And here is my answer:

(1) First, what is 'space'? If you're talking about what is "in space", then you're mixing up issues for yourself, because you're setting the Creator after the creation. Why? Well, does science not tell you that space had a beginning? I tend to think that this is the inference that is making the rounds in current scientific thinking: that, space has not always existed, but rather had a finite beginning.

(2) As such, if you could look beyond the very beginning of all things, then derive your equation from before that point, perhaps then you could start talking about 'true origins' of anything in particular that you want to examine. It would be interesting to see your theoretical equations on that.

mazaje:

You are getting it wrongly my friend. This is just a rhetorical question, Since you guys boldly asserts things without ANY evidence I also can assert things without evidence, no?

Absolutely NOT. . . unless you want to tell us that the best that the atheist can do is resort to rhetorics where he/she is running out of steam. It says nothing about your telling us anything about the knowledge you possess of any 'origins science' (make your pick, there are many "origins sciences" today). The basic question is this: did the Universe create itself? No one needs any 'rhetorics' to make any informed statements on that - and any "conclusions" you draw should also be questioned, NO?

mazaje:

You are also getting it wrongly the science does not say any God created them, That is the point I was trying to make. . . .

Pardon me (I know you're addressing beneli); but I wonder if any science says that God did NOT create them? That is the point we have been trying to make, mazaje - don't make science say what it does not say, for to do so is to boldly mislead your readers. If science has made any statements about "God" or "creation", then you would have a point; but to foist your own argument and plaster it on "science" saying this and that (which it does not say) becomes quite a worrisome trend to read in your posts.

mazaje:

According to the hypothesis your God created the earth with plants in it before the sun and all the stars out there. . .Very interesting. . ,

And your hypothesis that the Universe created itself is even far more interesting, no?

mazaje:

This was the view of many cosmologist in the past NOT the views of atheist.

What do you mean by 'NOT the views of atheist', mazaje? Are you trying to deny that NO ATHEIST ever held that view? What then was the prevailing view of the atheist (if any different) when such an idea was making the rounds? I really don't know what you're trying to deny here in plain sight.

mazaje:

Different atheist have different views on the origin of the universe.

Maybe. But that again does not mean that NO ATHEIST held the view that the Universe had always existed, if that is what you trying to tell us here.

mazaje:

Ohh so now its about arguing about the origins of the universe again, And here I was thinking you had evidence to show that a particular version of God created the universe.

Mazaje, what have I been trying to bring to your attention? If you do have anything else to show that NOTHING created the Universe, please show us your evidence. You're the only person I have come across drawing the conclusion that "the Universe created it" - and if that is different from the "origin of the Universe", please explain the difference. What I see you doing here is running wild with cheap statements and producing nothing - so, if you have anything, anywhere, any science, any other substance for concluding that the Universe created itself, please show us.

mazaje:

Which of the Gods created the universe?  I am not really interested in any vague or wild claim of God created the universe. I am interested in specific claims. All the Gods that we constantly talk about on this forum(Allah and Yahweh) have talked about how they created the world in details. . . .Scientific and observable observations say those accounts are false.

You must either be one mischievous fellow if you keep repeating that obvious lie. WHAT 'science' has ever made any statement on "GOD", mazaje? Does the irony escape you up until now? Look, it's easy enough: if science says nothing about God (as you yourself have admitted several times), then what is this repeated drivel foisted upon "science" to make it say what it does not? And where infact did science now affirm your own fallacy that the Universe created itself? You keep making very cheap statements and have held on to your own wild assertions for far too long - that, my dear friend, is a faith thicker than my finger.

mazaje:
Just like other christian cosmologist, you on one hand discard the supposed words of your God on how he SAID he created the universe because the account is ridiculous and has NO evidence to support it, but still claim that your God still created the universe.

Please don't put words in my mouth, otherwise you will be showing how desperate you are! I did not discount the word of the God I worship - and yes, I affirm that God created the Universe. You, on the other hand are seriously breaking wind all over the place with strawman that even you cannot defend. Where is your evidence that the Universe created itself?

mazaje:
How so. . . .The genesis creation account is FLAT OUT WRONG when compared to the observable and scientific evidence.

More piffling from you. Even if for the sake of an argument, I let you set God aside from the discussion for the moment, please show me your own evidence for your assertion that the Universe created itself - that is what we want to see you prove FLAT OUT RIGHT! If you cannot show this, then shut up - I told you before that you don't pay tax for making noise, especially on things you can't defend.

mrmayor:

@Viaro,

I noticed how you picked on a small portion of my post, maybe I should have stated ASSUMING THAT GOD EXIST. how did he come to be?

1. Did God, All Knowing, All Powerful just appeared in empty space without cause, just like Big Bang?

Howdy mrmayor,

I'm sorry to have highlighted a "small portion" of your post to base my queries upon. However, small or huge part, the inference is the same - you cannot assert so confidently that something seems to be as you say when infact you use such terms as "must have" - that is no longer an enquiry based on being agnostic (I don't know); but it translates into one of affirmative atheism (thus, "it must be so".

However, leaving that aside, let's take your explanatory re-statement: "assuming that God exists", then what? If the question is how He came to be, then the basic inference still leads to just one thing: "God exists". Whether or not anyone is able to explicate how He came to be, the underlying premise is still that He exists. Just because no one is able to explain the "how" of His existence, does not therefore remove all questions of His existence.

mrmayor:

I don deride any faith system, I only critique people who use faith based teachings to control billions in the world

Okay, I won't try to hang anything on you that you decline from. However, if you want to talk about critiquing people who use faith based teachings to control people, that is already being done in many belief systems, including atheism. Faith is a personal thing - no one needs to be "controlled"; but trying to critique what you don't feel inclined to, does not mean therefore that you can just make assertions that are deeply flawed.

mazaje:

So far NOTHING has been shown to have created the universe. . . .NOTHING. . . .If you have any evidence to show that anything created the universe just point to that thing and show how or when it was creating or when it created the universe. . . .Your evidence to show that the universe did not create it self is WHAT?. . . .

You're quibbling. The choice is simple and you can't be falling all over yourself on that. It is either the Universe has always existed (which many atheists have held until that idea self-destroyed and became redundant), or the Universe had a beginning and was brought into existence. The best you can do is quibble forever on the basic question and deny all you want - but after all your arguments, you will still have to come back again to the starting point: the Universe did not emerge on its own. Beyond that point, just quibble on.

mazaje:

Since nothing has ever been shown to have created the universe i concluded that It created it self(my opinion of course). . .

And your evidence for that personal conclusion of yours is . . . WHAT?

You see the problem with letting your atheism run wild. You blow hot and cold about the creation of the Universe; when others give their own persuasion that the Universe did not emerge on its own but was created by God, you ask for evidence. Meanwhile, you conclude that the Universe created itself . . . and your evidence is . . . NOTHING! Well done, my man! Your faith is superior to the last thing I heard yesterday!