> In message <Pine.ULT.3.91.960312110748.4360H-100000@rac8.wam.umd.edu> jeffery
> lynn mullins writes:
>
> >
> > The scientific "Steady State" theory of cosmology would deny that the
> > universe had a beginning, but one could make an argument that it had a
> > large component of philosophy inherent in it.
>
> Even if it didn't have a physical beginning, since time is also a creature that
> view wouldn't rule out God, or an answer to the ontological question. Many
> Christians actually faced this issue back when the Steady State view was in
> vogue.
I agree, it does not answer the question of how an ontologically
dependent thing (the universe, including time) could exist. Thus we
still need God (as Aquinas argued). However, I am not sure if the Steady
State theory can be squared with Genesis 1, unless the universe was
"eternally begotten", which I do not think that Genesis 1 implies.
> The Big Bang theory might
> > be a candidate for a scientific theory that defends the creation of the
> > physical universe out of nothing, as long as one does not posit that the
> > world was eternal before the expansion at 10^(-43) seconds
>
> Atheists will posit an eternal universe, irrespective of the Big Bang (Hawking,
> Linde in a recent article in Scientific American, etc.).
True, but they may be doing this on shaky scientific and philsophical
ground for reasons other than trying to be scientific.
> Concordists will see
> in the Big Bang a vindication of Genesis 1:1. My point is that the fallacy for
> both is the (hidden) assumption that Genesis is talking about cosmology, instead
> of theology.
>
> >
> > This is a theological/hermenutical view not shared by all evangelicals.
>
> That's unfortunately true, and some of us are trying with great difficulty to
> educate the evangelical community about that. We are trying to recover theology
> *as it is*, and warn people who are "mingling things divine with things human",
> as Francis Bacon put it.
>
I don't see anything wrong with "mingling things divine with things human"
if God is to be Lord of all of our lives. I do not think that we have to
put knowledge of God and His actions or the contents of the Bible into
some theological "upper story" or "spiritual" plane of existence that
cannot interact in the "real" or physical world.
>
> P.S. to Juli: Sorry. See why you can't get things cleared up via email?
>
>
>
> Paul Arveson, Research Physicist
> 73367.1236@compuserve.com arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil
> (301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-1914 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)
> Code 724, NSWC, Bethesda, MD 20084
>
>
Jeff