Can the universe be accounted for without a creator?

I think, without God, there can be no such thing as time, let alone a universe. Think about it. What is the past? Oblivion. What is the future? Non-existence. What is the present? The moment where oblivion consumes non-existence. And that moment is --what? By the time you say "now", the "n" sound is already consumed by oblivion.
So there must be Someone who transcends time who holds our times in His hands. He is the One who gives time existence by virtue of His eternity. He exists in the eternal NOW. The past is not oblivion. The future is not non-existence. He conserves time for us. "In Him we live and move and have our being." "By Him all things consist."

 

Great stuff, David.

Jonathan Edwards believed that God was perpetually creating every moment of the universe by his will. Without God willing it into existence second by second, the universe wouldn't exist.

 

To me, it is simply incomprehensible that anything could possibly exist except that it exists in the mind of God. In today's computer saturated world, it is the fashion to think about the universe as a "calculation" or an "idea". And who could possibly "compute" or "visualize" the universe - except God?

His invention of Time is a marvel in itself. We all live in time, we understand what it is to think of the past, the present, and the future, and we also understand that the mysteries of time are beyond our understanding. It is intimately involved with our freedom and ability to choose, another great invention of His.

I've been thinking about time and entropy. Nobody knows what gives time its arrow - what makes one direction the past, the other direction the future. One thing that seems to always follow the arrow of time in one preferred direction is entropy. It always increases, never decreases. Entropy, of course, would mean the death of us all or rather the impossibility of our lives to even live, if there weren't ways to shed it off somewhere. Locally we know how to deal with it, but ultimately God had to deal with it on our behalf. His answer is the completely unexpected and amazing device of the expansion of the universe. Without that expansion, entropy would have no place to go and life would be impossible.

 

Science has found that the smallest and most basic particle of matter known at this time is the quark. It's found in six different types, called "flavors" by scientists for lack of a better name.

But this still begs the same question, "Where did they come from, and how did they each acquire their unique properties?" that was asked when electrons, protons, etc. were discovered.

All matter exerts GRAVITY. Every other everyday force requires a fuel to sustain it, but gravity is automatic, and we have no idea of what it's made of. There's a theory saying there's a boson called the graviton, but it's never been detected, nor has it been explained how it is unaffected by any known force. Gravity is indeed a "perpetual motion machine".(Astronomers have observed that stars exert their gravity on the opposite sides of black holes, the most "solid" known objects in the universe.)

I believe GOD supplies the energy for all the gravity in the universe. He powers every "gluon", the strong force which holds the nuclei of atoms together. Upon reflection, one should realize that the universe, despite its bursts of violence such as supernovae, is very ordered and precise, with certain laws of physics being followed in all the so-far-observed universe. This calls for an Intelligence which can create something from nothing to have ALWAYS existed, else nothing at all WOULD exist. Try as they might, no one can make something from nothing nor destroy anything into nothingness. Burn a paper, and it's changed into heat, gas, & ash, mostly carbon. It may not be a paper any more, but every atom and energy particle of it still exists. I BELIEVE GOD CREATED EACH AND EVERY LAST PARTICLE IN THE UNIVERSE, AND IMBUED EACH ONE WITH ITS SPECIAL PROPERTIES, FORMING EVERYTHING FROM THEM.

Of all the objects of worship that have ever been worshipped upon the earth, ONLY YAHWEH says He has always existed. Read the tales of the Norse gods, and you'll see that even Odin had a beginning. Same for Horus, Isis, Vishnu, Pele, Baal, Asherah, Gilgamesh, Quetzalcoatl, etc...THEIR LEGENDS GIVE A BEGINNING FOR EACH OF THEM!

I thank the REAL GOD, YAHWEH every day for revealing himself to me. I believe we ALL should.

 

Even Isacca Asimov once admitted that there had to be some intelligence involved in the universe today. The balance is too perfect for there not to be. (Of course the coward back tracked on that statement later....)

 

I read the book awhile back myself.

His interviews shoot holes in alternate theories but in the abstract you would have to say "yes" to your question.

You would then have to create some sort of mechanism for the universe itself to be eternal... none of them to date have been any good so if you really want to be the hero of naturalists (and very rich) come up with this mechanism. Science needs a natural, material explanation for everything you know.

 

Let's assume that every single aspect of the created universe can be explained through natural means. That still doesn't mean the universe can be accounted for without a creator.

When did we start adopting the false notion that natural explanations are devoid of God or His handiwork? Last time I checked, God created nature.

 

God is the originator of both the natural and the supernatural.

 

If it is eternal it does. Eternal means that matter and energy are perpetual and have no need of a creator.

BTW, I didn't adopt that notion. Nor did I adopt the notion that if there is a remotely possible natural explanation it must be favored over the supernatural explanation given in God's Word.

 

Agreed. And scripture provides at least part of the dividing line between the two.

 

It sounds like you are suggesting that natural and supernatural explanations are in conflict with each other when both are originated by God.

And it sounds like you are suggesting that the Bible only describes the supernatural and not the natural.

I believe that the natural and supernatural are not in conflict with each other because both are from God and that Genesis describes both the natural and the supernatural.

What is the dividing line between the two and where does scripture divide them? I would say natural and supernatural are both God's creation. The natural is God's creation that humans believe we understand and the supernatural is God's creation that we do not understand as of yet or may never understand.

Many things that we understand to be natural now (flying in helicopters) would be supernatural only a few hundred years ago.

 

It sounds like you are suggesting that natural and supernatural explanations are in conflict with each other when both are originated by God.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope.

Nope.

Yes. And when it says that morning and evening to define a day of creation... that is by necessity action that is not natural but rather supernatural.

What is the dividing line between the two and where does scripture divide them? I would say natural and supernatural are both God's creation.</font>[/QUOTE] In the definitions of the words divinely chosen to recount the events of creation.

Human understanding is not a valid gauge.

The supernatural is what God declared that He did beyond the constraints of natural law.

Some events, like the flood, appear to have had both natural and supernatural elements.

The work performed in the first six days cannot be accounted for by natural processes... so we are left with the choice between what God said happened within a short time frame or what men say must have happened within a long time frame.

 

And the natural is what God declared that He did within the constraints of natural law or at least human understanding of it. There are many things in natural law that we would consider supernatural because we do not understand it as being natural law as of yet.

Why can't God create both naturally (in ways we currently understand) and supernaturally (in ways we currently do not understand)? Why is this sharp delineation made between the natural and the supernatural and restricting God only to use one and not the other in His supernatural act of creation?

 

I am not doing any of that GD. I am saying that when God says a "day" and defines it as a "morning and an evening" then says that all plant life was created on one of those days... that isn't a description of any natural processes... or if it is, they are accelerated to unnatural rates of change thus still super natural.

 

And the natural is what God declared that He did within the constraints of natural law or at least human understanding of it. There are many things in natural law that we would consider supernatural because we do not understand it as being natural law as of yet. </font>[/QUOTE]Speaking things into existence doesn't qualify as one of those things.

 

This is a very interesting statment and it made me think. I am not sure what to think of it.

For one thing, doesn't it negate the fact that God finished creating on the 6th day? Everything was created and put in place, and then God "rested," which indicates He finished creating.

I am not saying He is not interacting with us anymore or that He does not act in the world, but I think he finished creating according to Genesis.

What does anyone think of this?

 

I agree with Gold Dragon that "natural" and "supernatural," while helpful somewhat, are really subjective categories. God should receive all the glory for each breath I take, regardless of whether that can be explained as a "natural" event. I appreciated Edwards' comment.
Marcia, I don't think we want to say that God has stopped creating. Then you have a kind of Deism. You may have pointed out just another problem for those who take the Six Days literally. We know the world is still adapting. All mankind are descendents of Noah, yet the various races have markedly different features. Adaptation is all around us; even the most ardent Creation Scientists agree.

 

But adaptation is not creation. How can you equate the two?

What is God still creating? Did he not finish creating the world even though Genesis seems to say He did? What does it mean, then, to say He "rested?"

I don't this this is Deism to say God finished creating the world. As I stated in my post, God still acts in the world. To be a deist I would have to believe God is not acting anymore in the world (and some other things).

 

no the universe cannot be explained without a creator.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.


if any form of evolution (PE,TE,NS,ND,CD,HM,) are true men have an excuse, they could say to God science clearly says it could have "just" happened.


and just think how many will try that line at the judgement.

thankyou and God Bless