Origin of the universe

Yes, science is the search for truth. Otherwise, it’s the search for lies.
There’s only one truth. There aren’t kinds of truth. You’re captive to the modern, Western disintegrated world-view.
Read some Francis Schaeffer.

I agree with your first paragraph.
Note that in Hebrew “eretz” (earth or land) has a broad meaning and can mean “land” as in territory, the “land of Israel” or the region, like we might sing “this land is my land, from California to the New York island.” So the Noah account could refer to a vast, regional flood over the area we call the Levant, or the near east, not necessarily a global flood.

I made the mistake of buying Schaeffer’s collected works. Read the first page and realised what a complete waste it was.

The origin of the universe is in nature. Along with the infinity of others from eternity. Whether God grounds that or not. For as for God and in God, nothing changes.

I guess I can only repeat that science does probabilities,
not Truth or facts. There are no eternal verities in science.
You can educate yourself on that or not as it suits.

As for Noah’s ark, you personal choice is to interpret
it as, what?

It seems an odd Truth that does not actually mean a word of what it actually says.

Science is the search for truth. It does so by seeking to establish particular facts, like the speed of light, the make up of dna, etc. There are no “eternal verities” in science because of the people doing the seeking, not the object they are seeking. People are limited and prone to error. But that has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of truth. There’s only one truth. There aren’t kinds of truth.

Of course, “Truth” means what it says. Ironic that you make such a dogmatic, sweeping statement after trying to argue against such statement, thus showing the inconsistency in the post-modern worldview.

The laws of thermodynamics prove that nature has no capacity to make (or destroy) matter/energy. So it is impossible for nature to produce the universe.

That’s within our [mediocre,] insignificant universe. Nothing changes. Within the context of eternal infinity, nothing does either. As well as infinite entropy there is therefore infinite negentropy. And what is the total amount of (vectored) energy in the universe? (And in all others together come to that?)

As a physicist I am aware of the basis for your claim. But it is incorrect. It is not even self consistent, or did you mean to say… there are probably no eternal verities in science. LOL

It is true that a lot of things are probabilities but not all things are probabilities.

For example…

Methane is not water and that is a truth where probability has no role. And… methane is a chemical combination of carbon and hydrogen, whereas water is a chemical combination of oxygen and hydrogen. These also are not matters of probability.

I suppose you can improve your claim with alterations or caveats of some sort… like… scientific predictions of events are only probabilities. But then, one can argue that probabilities infinitesimally close to zero or to one are good definitions of never and always respectively as we experience them in our finite lives. And anyway here is another example

A container of pure methane at standard temperature and pressure shielded from any radiation will not give you water at any probability whatsoever.

no… try again.

1 Like

Maybe a review of basic principles is in order. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/

Of course in science one seeks after that which is true.
“Truth” capital T is getting into metaphysics.

Im Chinese. Your description of my being trapped in " western"
thought is not only false but a personal remark contrary to forum policy.

“Seeking truth or else seeking lies” is dreadfully binary,
but in the event, science does neither.

Of course many probabilities are very small.
Your gas laws for example seem awfully good.
I dont think though that you would hold that laws are
proven facts.
In the event, you might look at what i was saying about science
doing probabilities, not Truth, and address that rather than observing
theat we dont expect sand to turn to gold.

What did i say that is not supported in this article?What Is a Law in Science? | Definition of Scientific Law | Live Science

And who says that any “law” determined through empirical observation can never have an excepti9n?

Truth does. If something has an exception, it’s not a law of nature.

So, please tell us how adding a yet infinitely more complex entity, that can intentionally summon, conjure up infinite negentropy, explains the eternal infinity of universes better than or as simply as quantum mechanics?

[content removed]

I suppose this is largely a matter of semantics,
“Truth” of a metaphysical sort and everyday truth.
Of course in research one seeks after things that are true.

Are you not thinking of Truth as a metaphysical thing?

Ive not been 'debunked" so much as that my simple
statement needed refining.
Speaking of debunk, the very simplistic ideas you’ve expressed
about truth and lies, laws etc need some debunking, which you
may be loathe to hear from me. Plz review this from U Berkeley,
skipping to the last- “can laws change” -if patience to read all
of it is lacking.

Almost true. See the linked article on physical law.

But the point i am making is no law can ever be proven true.

Then we do not need faith in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. only faith in the Bible. The problem is that faith on the Bible will not bring salvation, while faith on Jesus Christ as the Savior will.

If Jesus is not the Savior, then the Bible is going to do you no good. The scripture is words about God. Only when we take these words to heart and allow them to lead us to God in Jesus will we be saved.

Forum policy is occasionally confused, IMO.
One may say that a person’s claim is silly, but one may not call a person who makes a silly claim “a twit”. One may call a male “patronizing”, but one may not call a female “matronizing”. One may, in fact, criticize a male forum member of being a sexist, but one should never ever criticize a female forum member of being a sexist.

Cool. I am immune to charges of racism and sexism!

What do you mean by “supported?”

I would take to mean “implies” or “logically follows.”

Many people claim that science supports all kinds of religious and subjective claims, but they certainly do not logically follow from what science has demonstrated.

You said,

I guess I can only repeat that science does probabilities, not Truth or facts.

This statement does not logically follow from what that website explains or what science has demonstrated.

What the website says is “we live in a probabilistic world, not a deterministic one.” And that is certainly something I would say and have said many times. But that is not even saying that all scientific laws are probabilistic let alone that science only deals in probabilities and not in any truths or facts.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.