 |
|
|
|
|
March 20th, 2014
11:14 AM ET
Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?Opinion by Leslie A. Wickman, special to CNN (CNN) The remarkable discovery, announced this week, of ripples in the space-time fabric of the universe rocked the world of science - and the world of religion. Touted as evidence for inflation (a faster-than-the-speed-of-light expansion of our universe), the new discovery of traces of gravity waves affirms scientific concepts in the fields of cosmology, general relativity, and particle physics. The new discovery also has significant implications for the Judeo-Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs. Here's how. The prevalent theory of cosmic origins prior to the Big Bang theory was the “Steady State,” which argued that the universe has always existed, without a beginning that necessitated a cause. However, this new evidence strongly suggests that there was a beginning to our universe. If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent – separate and apart from the effect – that caused it. That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused – or created – by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it. MORE ON CNN: Big Bang breakthrough announced; gravitational waves detected Atheist-turned-agnostic astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the term “Big Bang,” famously stated, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics." As Hoyle saw it, the Big Bang was not a chaotic explosion, but rather a very highly ordered event – one that could not have occurred by random chance. We also need to remember that God reveals himself both through scripture and creation. The challenge is in seeing how they fit together. A better understanding of each can inform our understanding of the other. It’s not just about cracking open the Bible and reading whatever we find there from a 21st-century American perspective. We have to study the context, the culture, the genre, the authorship and the original audience to understand the intent. The creation message in Genesis tells us that God created a special place for humans to live and thrive and be in communion with him; that God wants a relationship with us, and makes provisions for us to have fellowship with him, even after we turn away from him. So, we know that Genesis was never intended to be a detailed scientific handbook, describing how God created the universe. It imparts a theological, not a scientific, message. (Imagine how confusing messages about gravity waves and dark matter might be to ancient Hebrew readers.) As a modern believer and a scientist, when I look up at the sky on a clear starry night, I am reminded that “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1). I am in awe of the complexity of the physical world, and how all of its pieces fit together so perfectly and synergistically. In the Old Testament book of Jeremiah, the writer tells us that God “established (his) covenant with day and night, and with the fixed laws of heaven and earth.” These physical laws established by God to govern interactions between matter and energy result in a finely tuned universe that provides the ideal conditions for life on our planet. As we observe the complexity of the cosmos, from subatomic particles to dark matter and dark energy, we quickly conclude that there must be a more satisfying explanation than random chance. Properly practiced, science can be an act of worship in looking at God’s revelation of himself in nature. If God is truly the creator, then he will reveal himself through what he’s created, and science is a tool we can use to uncover those wonders. Leslie Wickman is director of the Center for Research in Science at Azusa Pacific University. Wickman has also been an engineer for Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, where she worked on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and International Space Station programs. The views expressed in this column belong to Wickman. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Why are so many people posting that the Big Bang came from nothing as if it were fact? I understand that is the biblical story, but I have never seen any science of any kind to support the idea. This discovery doesn't either.
It's the anti-science folk who say that. It's a straw-man. There are a few that they often employ, most notably:
1) Science says that in the big bang, something came out of nothing.
2) Science says that the first living cell formed completely by chance.
Science makes neither of those claims.
Then they ask: So how did it happen?
Answer: We don't know.
Response: Aha! Proof of God! (or "Ah, but the Bible tells us")
... which of course is utter nonsense.
I agree that Science does not say that the first living cell formed completely by chance.
"Science does not know how life started on earth" Science does not know if it started by chance or if it was designed by God.
Chance = not designed.
wilburw7: "Chance = not designed."
No. Chance implies not designed, but not vice versa. Deterministic processes can produce order, even things which have very much the appearance of design to those who don't know better, with no designer, and not by chance.
wilburw7: "Science does not know how life started on earth" Science does not know if it started by chance or if it was designed by God.
Or what natural process produced life.
We've no evidence it was designed.
Again, science doesn't get involved in refuting claims made without evidence, such as "designed by God".
nepawoods, Can deterministic processes create a space shuttle? Be careful in answering that question. Think before you type.
And do you agree with this statement:
"Science does not know how life started on earth." – Neil deGrasse Tyson
@nepawoods: We know very many pathways for how life could emerge. Since 2013 submarine alkaline hydrothermal emergence is the most well tested, it obeys phylogeny (trait inheritance) and sits squarely in evolution as a process on the one hand and in known geophysics in the other! So I would say that while the consensus isn't yet convergent, the question is putatively solved.
"Chance" may not be the proper term. Is it just "chance" that an explosion results when gasoline meets a flame? We really don't know enough about the early earth to say that life wasn't inevitable, right? That goes with the beginning of the universe as well. Maybe the Big Bang was just an inevitability, given the forces involved. So, can something that is inevitable really be said to occur by "chance"?
I think given the age of the universe and the size that life arising somewhere in the universe was inevitable.
wilburw7: Can deterministic processes create a space shuttle? Be careful in answering that question. Think before you type.
Yes. First, we don't know that human actions aren't deterministic processes (with some randomness mixed in). Second, robots could be built to build a space shuttle. Granted, that may not go against the point you want to make, but I don't know that point yet.
wilburw7: "Science does not know how life started on earth."
Yes, I've made the point several times in this discussion.
I messed up, my last comment was directed to wilbur7 (about emergence of life).
So where did the "bing bang" (the physical universe) come from?
theo
Is it so difficult to understand that we simply do not know?
Science is looking for the answer to that very question.
Religion claims to have the answer, with nothing to back it up. Religion is accepting a guess as if it were truth.
"Religion is accepting a guess as if it were truth."
--------
What makes you think it is a guess? Our doctrines are passed down from the very word of God from the time when He would speak to His prophets. (Exodus 33:11) That was affirmed by the words of Jesus, and now comes to us through the written word. We now attest to what has been spoken of by the use of reason and logic to speak to things for which no scientist will ever be able to speak of with authority. (Science is observational and testable. Since no one was there at the beginning to observe it, any explanation of it must be taken in faith.)
theo
"What makes you think it is a guess? Our doctrines are passed down from the very word of God from the time when He would speak to His prophets"
That is the guess...that anything you have is from "god" ( and YOUR god specifically)since there is no evidence of any gods. Ignorant men wrote your book, and could just have easily made it up (which considering the myths they borrowed from, is the likely scenario). There is nothing indicating they didn't make it up, yet you GUESS that the were telling the truth.
" Our doctrines are passed down from the very word of God"
Stop right there and prove they come from a god, and are not just "claimed" by other humans, to come from god
Theo Phileo,
Those passed down words also include unicorns, dragons, talking animals, unconsumed burning shrubs, the sun and moon suddenly stopping, people instantly turning into salt, etc.
What was your point?
'Our doctrines are passed down from the very word of God from the time when He would speak to His prophets.'
In other words, the book is right because the book says so.
Theo, that is freaking absurd.
"Since no one was there at the beginning to observe it, any explanation of it must be taken in faith."
More terrible "logic" from Theo. If I find a fallen tree in the woods that no one has ever seen, do you really think I need faith to conclude that it used to be standing up? I don't need to directly observe something to make logical, science-based conclusions about what happened in the past.
Theo Phileo
"Religion is accepting a guess as if it were truth."
It's a guess like all the other creation stories found in world myth.
"I don't need to directly observe something to make logical, science-based conclusions about what happened in the past."
----------
And that is the point of the theist. The difference is based on your paradigm. The one is theistic, and posits a creator God, the other is anti-theist and posits the non-existence of God. BOTH are taken by faith.
Theo Phileo
Not all atheists are anti-theist. Those who are not do not need to posit a counter claim to there being a God. All we need do is reject claims such as yours that God is actually real based on lack of evidence and/or poor argument. God might exist, but the reasons that Christian, Jews and Muslims all put forward are just not convincing, in my opinion. They cannot make a more solid case for their god than ancient Greeks could for their gods, so I really don't see any reason not to put the same label of "myth" on YHWH/God/Allah. That's also why I don't "believe" in God any more than I (and you) believe in Zeus.
"Not all atheists are anti-theist"
---------–
The prefix "anti" does not just mean "against" or "antagonistic to" but the prefix also means "instead of." And atheists offer explanations "instead of" God. So yes, they are anti-theists.
Theo Phileo
That's a rather unique use of the prefix "anti-". I believe that "atheist" still better describes people who just don't believe in any gods as I am not hostile towards people's right to believe in whatever they want, which usual use of the prefix "anti-" suggests. That said, there are some particular instances where I do take issue with people's beliefs, but only to the extent that I happen to disagree with what they believe, and/or I find their beliefs harmful in some way.
In this case I do not actually offer any alternative to a god creating the universe. All I say is that there is no reason to actually believe that one did, yet.
If I was driving through the desert and happened upon a roadrunner killed by a falling rock would I be justified in believing that some coyote used a lever to push that rock over the cliff?
"The one is theistic, and posits a creator God, the other is anti-theist and posits the non-existence of God. BOTH are taken by faith."
Wrong again. I don't have faith in anything, at least in the sense that faith means "believing in things for which you have no evidence". How did the universe start? I don't know. That doesn't require faith to not know the answer. It requires faith to believe you know the answer when you don't.
"And atheists offer explanations "instead of" God. So yes, they are anti-theists."
Wow Theo, you're on a roll. Wrong yet again. I'm not aware of any atheist who has offered an explanation that explains how the universe came to be. We simply reject the preposterous god hypothesis.
Think of it this way. I have a number in my head between zero and infinity. Theists think they can guess that number. Atheists simply say they don't know. I don't pretend to be able to guess with confidence, but I can say with confidence that the chances of you being right are effectively zero.
"I dont know" is a perfectly reasonable answer to the unknown.
A giant weasel farted it out through a funnel.
Are you denying the llama llama pig bang? I have seen the pictures – just google it.
I suggest you read "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.
I already have... And his logic failed miserably when to make his point, he has to redefine what the word "nothing" means. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."
Theo Phileo,
God, however, came from NOTHING and then created EVERYTHING from NOTHING.
"God, however, came from NOTHING and then created EVERYTHING from NOTHING"
-------–
Wrong. God did not "come from" anything, albeit "nothing" or "something." God has the power of being within Himself. God is the uncaused cause. It is the only logical conclusion to explain the existence of the physical universe without infinite regress.
Theo Phileo,
"It is the only logical conclusion to explain the existence of the physical universe without infinite regress."
TERRIBLE "logic". The regression could have ended with whatever created God.
Not so long ago, almost no one believed air was composed of elements or that elements were made up of even smaller particles. Explaining that nothing is not always nothing is merely going a level deeper in our knowledge. Is it possible you reject Krauss' explanation simply because it does not require your (alleged but never proven) god, or any god?
Theo Phileo
So, your solution to infinite regress is to put God as an "uncaused cause" without any explanation of how that could have occurred? Can you really justify that answer? Someone could just as easily say that the universe has always existed in some form or another. I really don't see how you can make a logical case for an incredibly powerful and intelligent being always existing and conjuring up matter out of nothing. You might as well say that Magic has always been, and one day it just decided to make things. "God" is not an answer to this question; it's only a declaration of "end of discussion".
@Theo Phileo,
I don't know and neither do you.
How can you presume to tell me what I do or do not know? If you and I are both stuck in a room surrounded by hundreds of doors with only one of them leading out, if I find that door on my 10th try, is there any reason for me to keep trying the others? Ergo, if you have not found that one door yet, don't assume that no one else has either.
@Theo,
Not a great coparison. You have DECIDED that the 10th door you chose is the right one. You can't prove it, and the reasons you made the decision might not lead the person next to you to making the same decision. You "know" you have the right door, but taht doesn't mean that you do.
So... What specific proof would you need?
To prove to me there was really only one way out you would have to try every single door. Why should I just take your word for it?
@Theo,
Observable, measurable, repeatable evidence that is unique to the existance of the Christian "God". The fact that there is life does not meet the standard, there are any number of explanations. If we manage to find an element of DNA that was clearly manipulated by an outside influence, that could have only been acting conciously and that is consistent across ALL DNA for all plants and organisms, that would lend credence to an intelligent design, but not to Christianity, because any god could have done that (or any incredibly advanced alien race in theory). It has to be somehting that could ONLY be observed if the Christian "God" exists, and acts in the manner described by the bible. Otherwise, you may have picked the wrong door.
@Theo Phileo,
Sorry, I was being partially facetious; best bumper sticker ever was, "Militant Agnostistic: I don't know and YOU DON'T EITHER"
However, to "know" one usually needs more than just va.gue subjective experiences or bible-based sophistry, but you are ultimately correct that I don't 'know' what you 'know'.
Rainer Helmut Braendlein,
Why do you HYPOCRITICALLY CHOOSE negative verses about gays rather CHOOSE the MORE IMPORTANT Golden Rule?
A lot of people use religion to justify hate. One more reason to not believe.
The Golden Rule is valid, of course. If I had a gay workmate, I would not hate him, but really try to be very friendly and objective.
I only resist the legalization of gay lifestyle by the state, and the acceptance of gay people within the church. The Church is the place of delivered people – a gay man is not delivered. Outside the Church I would love (not erotically) my gay neighbour despite his gayness, and invite him to repent, to believe, and to get sacramentally baptized.
We must preserve a feeling of very obscurity for gay lifestyle, otherwise God will judge us soon.
What a terribly ignorant and hateful post.
If you want to be part of a bigoted organization (your church) that discriminates against gays, that's your choice. But suggesting that the state should actively discriminate is one of the things that causes people like me to hate religion and what it does to people. If you kept your views in your church, I would tolerate it. When you start using your religion to discriminate, all bets are off.
God is judging your irrational idea of gay concentration camps already.
You are not the arbiter of doctrine within churches. Thank God.
Rainer Helmut Braendlein,
Of course you'd "love" your gay neighbor, but that would ONLY be if you were ALSO living on the fringe of society as you wish.
Jesus was asked what the MOST IMPORTANT COMMANDMENT was. He mentioned several.
Which of these did Jesus NOT consider worthy for the MOST IMPORTANT COMMANDMENT?
(a) The Golden Rule
(b) Prohibition about the s3xual activities of heteros (adultery, etc.)
(c) Prohibition about the s3xual activities of gays
"legalization of gay lifestyle by the state"
You say that as if "illegalization" were the default, until legalization happens. It is and should be the other way around.
And where did Jesus say that we should have government enforced laws to mandate moral or spiritual goodness, and to punish transgressors?
Interesting that you need to point out that you would love your gay neighbor but "not erotically".
RB: "The Church is the place of delivered people"
I don't see a swarm of UPs or FedEx trucks stopping by the churches in my neighborhood each Sunday.
Doris,
I'll bet that Brink's trucks visit many of them on Monday mornings, though!
♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
This discovery, if confirmed—that would be sometime in August, is the Holy Grail of astrophysical predictions, the expansion of the universe as well as its beginning. The Holy Bible spoke of the expansion of the universe and its beginning millennia past.
Genesis 1:1
"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NASB)
Psalm 19:1
"19 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." (NASB)
Psalm 33:6
"6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
And by the breath of His mouth all their host." (NASB)
Isaiah 44:24
"24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb,
“I, the Lord, am the maker of all things,
Stretching out the heavens by Myself
And spreading out the earth all alone,”" (NASB)
Please visit the hyperlink below.
Early on:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-16/#comment-2971087
p.s. This discovery is superior to the current redshift approach of detecting the expansion of the universe, since some scientists speculate that other unknown reasons can cause the redshift while Gravitational Waves are unique to the Inflation of the Universe—expansion at faster than the speed of light at the beginning.
No. As has been pointed out to you many times this does not have anything to do with the cause of the Big Bang. This just helps explain the rapid expansion AFTER the event.
We know the bible is a work of fiction. Why do you try to mix fantasy with science? Why do you worship a god that we know does not exist?
Poor Vic, talking about the universe that he believes was only created 6000 to 10000 years ago, absolutely asinine.
Also the nations are forming up in their alliances as predicted for the battle of Armageddon. Irving Baxter has done a lot of work on this topic. Go to his website http://www.endtime.com to get caught up on all that is happening. John Kerry and Obama are trying to push through the treaty that will divide Jerusalem and provoke the invasion of Israel by the northern armies. This is not coincidental, friend. Get Ready, Jesus is Coming Back Soon!
Men have been proclaiming the end of days since roughly 40 A.D. They have all been wrong. So are you.
So you Christians have been saying for 2000 years.
Google "Marilyn Agee" to see what one of the very best end times prognosticator has to say.
Even Jesus was wrong about when he would be coming back, and you expect people to take some random guy on the internet seriously?
jknbt
sam stone is not here to provide his sage advise, so I will fill in for him.
Why wait jk.. just swallow a large bottle of Tylenol and wash it down with a bottle of Jack Daniels and you will be with jesus right soon.
Yet another page in the children's book "The boy who cried Armageddon."
Or is it "Christian Little" crying "The Lord is returning! The Lord is returning!"
What an ignorant comment. The Bible is a collection of scriptures, some mythical and some historical. Furthermore, truth can be and is frequently expressed as myth.
I don't see why everyone has to break up the natural and supernatural . Suppose we utilize the set that is everything that exists. Let's call it existance. That means there is still an existance in which there is nothing outside of it. So why make such a big deal about the beginning of what we can see now?
Because believers in the supernatural rarely confine their silliness to their own cult's clubhouses and homes. Most have a desire for all others to share their delusions and to create legislation based on them.
And "supernatural" is an incredibly big tent that includes all kinds of gods, elves, ghosts, monsters, witchcraft and traditional religious beliefs as well. How does one honestly separate the purely fantastical from the potential realities? Without evidence, all really should be treated the same, right?
Reblogged this on APATHEISM and commented:
CNN tells us Fred Hoyle believed in the Big Bang, the Original Prime Mover, the First Cause, ie God.
" Atheist-turned-agnostic astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the term
Big Bang, famously stated, 'A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.' "
Wait. They are twisting that quote. He was mocking the model when he invented the term "Big Bang" and argued against it all his life.
Their main point is correct, though. The more we believe in the Big Bang, the closer we get to Aquinas' First Cause arguement for God. Cosmology is Scientism, something much like a religion.
If you claim to be an atheist, Steady State is your default hypothesis and Big Bang an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof.
"If you claim to be an atheist, Steady State is your default hypothesis and Big Bang an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof."
That is simply false. Steady state is not the default for atheists, and the Big Bang has been proven to have happened. It required proof, whether is be "extraordinary" or not is moot.
The consensus among Big Bang theorists is that the Big Bang really happened. That doesn't make it a dogma for you and I. I don't care if it happened or not. My point is that Scientism is kind of like a religion. The science press conflates 'consensus' with 'fact'. Kudos to CNN for resisting this.
"The consensus among Big Bang theorists is that the Big Bang really happened"
Hilarious.
The Big Bang DID happen, and it has been proven by many different means. It is FACT that it happened. The only thing left is to figure out how.
Truth does not ask to be believed. It asks to be tested. Scientists do not join hands every Saturday and Sunday and sing, “Yes gravity is real! I know gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down! Amen!” If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about the concept.
-Dan Barker
"The only thing left is to figure out how"
---------–
And what caused it. And from what did everything come from?
Theo. "We don't know" does not mean a god did it? If a god can just exist, so can the pre-Big Bang "universe"
Blessed are the cheesemakers ?
Are you referring to Domenico Scandella, who was burnt by the Inquisition in 1599 for maintaining that we came spontaneously into existance like maggots coming out of cheese ?
Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
"If a god can just exist, so can the pre-Big Bang "universe"
-------–
Not really. Because to say that the physical universe can exist eternally is to posit an impossibility, and no one really believes that. That would require an infinite series of causes. A causal chain requires a beginning. And to say that the physical universe had an infinite number of causes OR TO SAY that the "first cause" had an infinite number of causes is to posit infinite regress. SOMETHING is required to be eternal in order not to defy reason and logic – it is either the physical universe that is eternal, or it is it's cause that is eternal. Every piece of observable evidence that we have screams that this physical universe is not eternal, therefore, in order to avoid infinite regress, it's creator MUST be eternal.
Theo
Why would a young earther like you need infinite regress, wouldn't a regress of 6000 to 10000 years make the universe disappear up your gods butt.
and how could he prove that it was infinite and not just a really long chain of events?
"CNN tells us Fred Hoyle believed in the Big Bang"
The article says no such thing. The article suggests Hoyle though a "big bang" origin couldn't be natural.
"Their main point is correct, though. The more we believe in the Big Bang, the closer we get to Aquinas' First Cause arguement for God."
No, the Big Bang is not evidence of a God.
"If you claim to be an atheist, Steady State is your default hypothesis and Big Bang an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof."
It's silly to claim that not believing in the extraordinary claim of a God, with zero evidence, should have a bearing on what one's "default hypothesis" is. I suppose the Big Bang might seem extraordinary at first, but it doesn't logically entail a creator, and it is supported by much evidence.
The fact that the observable universe had a beginning only inplies some "thing" outside the observable universe caused it to be. That "thing" in no way 100% has to be God, much less your God.
Right. By no means 100%. And, as you say, it only implies that. Your 'thing', though, looks like some kind of a god. I mean, it brought everything into existance, didn't it ? Aristotle's Prime Mover and Aquinas' First Cause were proposed as defining attributes of a god. The Big Bang puts us on a slippery road towards religion. It turns Science into Scientism. You want to take that road ? Don't call it a 'fact'. Call it a model. Be careful!
p.c.
The Big Bnag does not put anything on a slippery slope with religion, that is absurd. Yes, something caused the Big Bang ( which is fact), yet we do not know what yet. There is still no indication that any sentience was involved , so your guess that it is some "god" implies sentience, with nothing at all indicating it.
We don't have any evidence that your Big Bang is sentient. Sure, you're safe there. Another attribute of your Big Bang is that it brought everything into being. So did God. That's what makes it god-like. Lots of theists don't know or don't care if their god is sentient. I get this stuff from Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt – a history of doubt through the ages.
Hope you enjoyed your lunch break.
@lunchbreaker
You said, "The fact that the observable universe had a beginning only inplies some "thing" outside the observable universe caused it to be."
Actually, it doesn't. Not everything has a cause. If everything necessarily has a cause, the very first thing could never come into existence. The fact that there is something, rather than nothing means that there must be at least one process that spontaneously occurs without external cause. For all we know, that could be the beginning of space-time.
"The fact that there is something, rather than nothing means that there must be at least one process that spontaneously occurs without external cause"
=>Ha! I see you are wearing your Easter Bunny rainbow colored glasses in preparation for the Passover feast. You just found God. A process without external cause is in fact a good way to describe the kinetic energy of the eternal presence (we call that God to keep it simple).
@believerfred
You said, "You just found God."
Bullshit. It is just as likely that the Easter Bunny farted it into existence as that your imaginary friend did it.
You said, "A process without external cause is in fact a good way to describe the kinetic energy of the eternal presence (we call that God to keep it simple)."
What the fuck is "the eternal presence"? What are the physical properties? What evidence do you have that it is anything at all?
LinCA
"What the fuck is "the eternal presence"?"
=>Moses referred to the eternal presence as an attribute of God.
" What are the physical properties?"
=>eternal presence is one of the properties you referred to as process without cause. Absent causation a process is the beginning and end or is without beginning or end yet existent, there is no other possibility. There can be only one eternal presence.
"What evidence do you have that it is anything at all?"
=>It appears to be self evident as you proclaimed it as FACT without evidence.
@believerfred
You said, "Moses referred to the eternal presence as an attribute of God."
Ah, part of your fairy tale. Are you 5? What is it that makes you unable to shed your delusion?
You said, "eternal presence is one of the properties you referred to as process without cause."
Reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?
You said, "Absent causation a process is the beginning and end or is without beginning or end yet existent, there is no other possibility. "
Nonsense. There is a beginning, just no cause.
You said, "There can be only one eternal presence."
I guess that in your fairy tale everything is possible. But unless someone shares the same delusion, a discussion about it is entirely impossible.
You said, "It appears to be self evident as you proclaimed it as FACT without evidence."
Bullshit. Your "eternal presence is part of your bullshit story. It is an invisible pink Unicorn, while not impossible, there is no reason to believe it exists.
My assertion is simply that, because there is something, the chain of causality must have started with something that was not preceded by something that caused it. The very first "thing" (whatever that may be) must have started without cause.
I make no assumptions about what this first thing is. Since we have no way of even probing the start of our own universe there is no way of knowing whether our universe is this "thing", or whether it was caused by something else.
Jumping past this already unknown part and making unfounded claims that there was an agent that caused the start of the universe is moronic (but not unexpected from dimwitted believers).
If anything here is the "default for atheists" it's the acceptance of where the evidence leads. The evidence leads to an expanding universe that started at a point of singularity. There is no evidence as of yet to suggest that anybody "caused" that singularity to expand. The question of how there ever could be an "anybody" outside of the singularity suggests a far greater mystery than the one we are actually working on, not anything even close to a "logical conclusion".
Was it a mystery to Jesus? Was it a mystery to Abraham, Moses, Danial, Elijah etc............
It is the godless ones, those without knowledge, those without the presence of God that have created the mystery. We see the wonder and awe before us that speaks to eternal nature of creativity out of the Word of God. God said let it be and so it was. John said "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." Take careful note that it was not until John addressed the masculine nature of man in Jesus (Jesus the man) that he shifted from the Word. The singularity is the Word which addresses all that is not of the created things of God (i.e. baryonic matter).
You have chosen to accept only the created things and our understanding of created things to base your understanding of existence. That choice happens for various reasons some of which are biologically inherited or brought about by external cause (i.e. socio economic, emotional trauma etc.). Your suggestion that adding mystery upon mystery is not logical remains simply an excuse or denial protocol. My heart goes out to those who are truly seeking but are incapacitated. As for the all others their issue is rooted in pride not lack of evidence. My heart also goes out to them. Even if we get some of the Gospel wrong there is no doubt concerning the suffering of those without hope, those without assurance of a promise that is centered on eternal love. Rejecting hope speaks for itself.
Why do you continue to pretend to know things you do not? There is no rational basis to continue to believe old and childish myths.
hotairace
Tell me how you know it to be childhood myths
Because I learned them, forcibly, as a child and they have been proven to be wrong or not proven.
hotairace
I hope you are not suggesting that knowledge is limited to scientific consensus. You do realize that facts regarding biology, physics, mathematics, etc. are simply accepted consensus at the time (mathematics not so much due to its nature).
Knowledge is about factual understanding, not stories invented because we are the edge of knowledge.
hotairace
Sorry to hear that. I attribute my rejection of God to abuse at the hands of those who claimed the love of God within them. Later I realized that evil has no limits and remain perplexed as to why God could not figure out a better way to reveal the true soul without allowing the existence of good and evil in all its disguise. These things I put on my check list of unknowns.
I agree with you that where belief is forced it is not real as you only accept it as long as you accept the source. The emperor has no cloths applies to the source of your indoctrination not the object. Those who cause little ones to stumble are at great risk of serious consequence. It will not be well for them if the God they professed exists.
Bullsh!t. I do not believe there are gods because there is no actual evidence for any gods. Period. It is that easy. You can rationalize my disbelief and your delusions all you like, but you cannot overcome the fact that there is no actual evidence for any alleged god or supernatural being. The ones without clothes are god believers.
hotairace
"Knowledge is about factual understanding, not stories invented because we are the edge of knowledge."
=>I agree with you to the extent people have all sorts of things and thoughts they believe real which when observed from an unbiased position are in fact contrived for various reasons.
=>everyone has knowledge that is not factual, it is only assumed factual until known otherwise. This process begins at childhood and ends at death. Please consider what you knew to be true a 13 years of age, 19, 26 etc. Talk to some 90 year olds and ask them what they thought was factually true at 30
You are wordsmithing to give your myths more credibility than they deserve. Beliefs become knowledge when facts are acquired that support the beliefs. There are no facts, actual evidence, to support your myths. They are not knowledge, they are unsupported stories, stories that had they not been drummed into children's heads from birth, would soon go away. In any other domain, such beliefs would have been long discarded given the lack of actual evidence, but religion has a special, albeit undeserved, place in most, too many, societies. And you are blabbering simply to maintain the status quo.
hotairace
" you cannot overcome the fact that there is no actual evidence for any alleged god or supernatural being. The ones without clothes are god believers."
=>Good call perhaps that is why Adam and Eve are naked and God had to clothe them.
=>Actually, all scientific evidence to date points towards something outside of the known natural laws as to origin of life and purpose for existence. You are correct it does not point to God or gods or supernatural being however it remains supernatural by definition alone. This is fact and current scientific consensus. Now, philosophical science goes off into the land of the metaphysical and God or no God becomes a philosophical debate absent evidence.
Outside of the *currently* known natural laws. Science has been spectacularly successful at increasing what is known while religion has added nothing. But thanks for admitting you believe crap for which there is no evidence. You might want to reflect on why you do that, why you pretend to know things you do not.
fred – please list the scientific disciplines that explore "purpose for existence".
hotairace
"stories that had they not been drummed into children's heads from birth, would soon go away"
=>You are correct and new stories would be drummed into children's heads. Since all known history we see mankind worshiping God and gods of all sorts. It is you who without any evidence and driven by personal abusive indoctrination reject a hope and perspective of existence that is outside of self and greater than self. It is you who brings into the world and lives of children a hopeless existence focused on self and somehow think you have knowledge greater than thousands of generations including great men who out of great hope brought about the current predominate world view.
Even great elephant herds die when the knowledge passed down through generations as to finding water is lost. You wish to cut off the spiritual waters 90% of the world knows to exist. You wish to live a life limited to the flesh and the desires that satisfy the flesh. 90% of the world believes there is more to existence then that. It will be interesting to imagine a world devoted to desire of and for self.
Midwest rail
sociology, anthropology, and political science to mention a few
However, I was referring to scientific method that is different for different fields. The debates and assumption of acceptable evidence on this site is constantly twisted by the atheist (belief founded in philosophical naturalism) who must constrain evidence to scientific fields that do not apply.
If you refer to the sub-field of sociocultural anthropology, I might agree. As to evidence, you repeatedly claim evidence of "lives transformed". On these pages, there is little to indicate that as a reality, unless you mean transformed to include arrogance, condescension, and hatred.
hotairace
" Science has been spectacularly successful at increasing what is known while religion has added nothing"
=> Overall, Jews have won a total of 41% of all the Nobel Prizes in economics, 28% of medicine, 26% of Physics, 19% of Chemistry. Keep in mind they are less that 1.7% of the population.
=>Not sure about Canada but our greatest universities were founded by religion. It is only in the last 150 years we try to bury that fact.
You will do or say anything to support your god delusions But let's use your 150 year time horizon. Science has added knowledge exponentially during that period. Religion has added nothing by comparison. But I'm sure you will continue to bucket scientists by their supposed religious cult membership and ignore the fact that until very recently it was career limiting to be an atheist.
believerfred,
Good point. Jews have won a huge proportion of top prizes. Christians haven't done nearly so well.
midwest rail
"there is little to indicate that as a reality, unless you mean transformed to include arrogance, condescension, and hatred"
=>We remain human and inclined towards failure. This is the thread of the Bible since the day God created what was called "very good". In the Old Testament there was the Law which served to point out our inability to do what is right and a way was provided to atone for our failure. In the New Testament Jesus boiled it down to love and gave the Holy Spirit to believers to bring us towards that position of love and personally atoned for our failure.
=>I would agree that I am living proof that I need A Savior and atonement for my failure.
=>Transformed lives are lives that seek to please God, see God's perspective, accept Christ's atonement for our failure to please God. Most of all we love God which makes loving others more than self possible. That would be a transformation from a previous state. Even the best and most loving atheist lacks the ability to love God. If an atheist began to love God that would be a transformation. The transformation is awareness it is God who is good not me and it is because of Gods greatness such good comes about not anything on my account.
hotairace
"ignore the fact that until very recently it was career limiting to be an atheist."
=>An atheist cannot and never has been president of the United States. The Bible says a time is coming when this will happen however. Everything the Bible says will happen has happened
Ummmm, when did your imaginary buddy jesus return?
fred, "Everything the Bible says will happen has happened"
Please provide some specific examples which stated who, what, when, and when; not just the tarot card style generality.
hotairace
Science has added knowledge exponentially during that period. Religion has added nothing by comparison
=>God simply is and always has been God there is no possibility of improvement. The truth of God transforms lives from death to life eternal. Religion always breaks down into what man or some men want out of it and cannot add anything. We are no different than mankind of 10,000 years ago unless and when God enters our heart then we are born again of the Spirit. That Spirit changes everything and set the foundation for our creativity.
fred, do you have anything to backup the above voodoo blathering? Have you noticed how you often revert to nonsensical carpola when it becomes clear that you cannot get past your god delusions?
" >We remain human and inclined towards failure."
Which merely allows you to engage in whatever undesirable behavior you wish, all while claiming the moral high ground.
hotairace
" do you have anything to backup the above voodoo blathering"
=>As to the nature of God we have the writings and traditions carried forward generation after generation up to this day which attest to the attributes of God I described.
=>As to the transforming power of God we have the testimony and observed transformation in the lives of millions of people. If you asked Jesus into your heart and loved God you would also be transformed from death (your current state) to eternal life in Christ.
=>"Religion always breaks down into what man or some men want" – look no further than the RCC, LDS, Islam
=>"We are no different than mankind of 10,000 years ago" -hate, war, greed, selfishness all the same we just dress better
=>"That Spirit changes everything and set the foundation for our creativity." -The knowledge that we can do all things in Christ gives us incentive to do the impossible
As expected, nothing but more mumbo jumbo and "millions believe so it must be true."
midwest rail
" >We remain human and inclined towards failure."
Which merely allows you to engage in whatever undesirable behavior you wish, all while claiming the moral high ground
=>Except for the fact believers in Pauls day thought the same and were put in their place. Even James and Peter commented on being doers of the word not just hearers. We are called to be the lowest in terms of "high thinking of self" and be humble in all things. Take note Jesus stepped it up a notch where murder was not just physically killing another but thinking negative thoughts towards another.
Alleged jesus allegedly stepped ...
" Except for the fact believers in Pauls day thought the same and were put in their place "
Which addresses not at all the point that the vast majority of believers on these pages do not act in accordance with what you claim.
In Santa We Trust
"Everything the Bible says will happen has happened" Please provide some specific examples
=>Jesus said if you seek me with a sincere heart I will be with you. Well this has happened millions of times and to me!
=>About 2500 prophecies appear in the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors see:http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible
midwest rail
" the vast majority of believers on these pages do not act in accordance with what you claim."
=>that would attest to the fact everything Jesus said remains true. Jesus said many will come to me and say I did this and that in your name and I will say "depart from me for I knew you not". Many claim to be Christian but few actually follow Christ and are "in Christ". Jesus also said the path is narrow and few are on it.
=>I am not sure if this site represents a good cross section of believers as many times I have been told not to be on this site. Also, I do not know if there are a representative sample of intellectually honest atheists on this site. What are we doing here going over the same material day after day?
fred, None of those are very specific and as important not verified outside of the bible – the Jesus story was likely written so as to appear to fulfill those prophesies; a good way to convince the flock.
In Santa We Trust
Seriously, you think a wild speculation in a conspiracy theory to concoct such crazy stories for personal gain of a select religious group has more validity than people simply writing about their revelations of God as they saw it?
Come on now do a gut check and ask yourself which is more reasonable.
" I am not sure if this site represents a good cross section of believers "
It does in one very important aspect, fred. Even the ones you disagree with claim the exact same validation that you do. And when challenged, quote the exact same things you do. "Many are called, but few will hear" "Narrow is the path",, etc etc. and all claim o have THE Truth.
Come on now do a gut check and ask yourself which is more reasonable:
That an unwed pregnant girl lied about how she got pregnant in order to avoid being tortured to death by her friends and neighbours or that she had a holy tryst with a divine ghost penis?
Doc
Even that possibility is more reasonable than a grand conspiracy to pull the wool over the eyes of us poor gullible sheep. How about the wild speculations from the grand conspirators at evolution central claiming hominids were from a virgin birth! I don't see the skeptics on this site attacking that Messenger RNA as to the veracity of the information transcribed.
Since the day great scientific minds concluded the sun revolved around the earth science has succeeded in gathering a mound of evidence supporting the fact scientific study gathers around the same rabbit hole while truth is in another place. The problem with scientism is that it has created a belief in godlessness without evidence and contrary to scientific method.
fred
"The problem with scientism is that it has created a belief in godlessness without evidence and contrary to scientific method."
That is hilarious. You actually believe that? Science does not make up gods to explain ewverything like your religion does.
"scientism" didn't create anything. and a belief in godlessness...I can't stop laughing..that is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin.
I hope you join us in reality, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know reality from belief no matter what. Such a shame how you have deluded yourself this badly.
igaftr
The delusion is yours. Let me summarize for you. The mass of evidence created around the rabbit hole of evolution only supports the hypothesis related to that rabbit hole and nothing more. A very significant percentage of agnostic scientists in that field became so because of non scientific methodology. They believe that because life evolved out of inorganic matter God, gods or supernatural process is not needed. This is a false foundation for agnostic belief as evolution theory does not and cannot (as of today) address origin. Even if we move forward in time beginning with multicellular organisms every intellectually honest scientist in the field will tell you that the phylogenetic tree is an inferred relationship between species not necessarily a proven biological relationship. Any belief that someday we will prove that we came from a rock is a statement of faith that is unsupported by science.
The same argument applies to those who gather around the rabbit hole of the big bang. Pre big bang cosmology is simply unsupported speculation.
midwest rail
"Even the ones you disagree with claim the exact same validation that you do. And when challenged, quote the exact same things you do. "Many are called, but few will hear" "Narrow is the path",, etc etc. and all claim o have THE Truth."
=>by the same token your godlessness is one of many forms of godlessness and all claim to have the truth (I doubt you believe you are living out a lie). If we remove the common denominator (everyone including you believe they are on the right path) that we all validate our belief and there is no evidence to support that belief we are left with faith. Would you agree that each of us has some measure of faith?
believerfred
Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Danial, Elijah etc..., if they ever actually existed, would have just accepted the current theology about YHWH at face value, as pagan believers viewed all of their gods and as many believers of God continue to today. The mystery of how any being could have actually done this was easily swept aside back in those days, before science started to actually find the real answers to how the universe works. There really wasn't any alternative answer, so one really would have sounded like a "fool", as the psalm says. Nowadays, it's more like the opposite, where only the fool would say that there's no reason to question God's existence.
It's doubtful that the singularity was this "Word" of which you speak. Jesus didn't expand to form the universe, did he?
Can you describe the physics of how some being could exist outside of the universe, at any time? How could any being have a creative thought without time being invented yet? How is it not a violation of the first law of thermodynamics for your God to "create" energy out of nothing? How can intelligence, or a mind exist without some kind of physical brain? We have no examples of this anywhere, right? If, and this is the tricky part, if you really think about all the stuff that you're just supposed to take for granted with the God hypothesis you'll realize how it's a total logic fail. You're asking people to just accept, without any proof, several presuppositions that are all necessary for a creator being to even sound plausible. That's adding mystery upon mystery. You can just as easily assert that magical dust bunnies created the universe a similar way.
Doesn't it take even more "pride" to assert that you're right despite the lack of evidence than my simply stating that we just don't know the answers to certain things yet. You sound absolutely sure that you're right, and you can't even entertain the thought that you might not be. If that isn't pride, then what is?
Who says that I'm "without hope"? I have lots of hope. I just reject the danger that you're selling.
fred
"Pre big bang cosmology is simply unsupported speculation."
Ah, that would also include the idea that some being had a hand in it, right? God creating the universe, or even "starting" the Big Bang is just unsupported speculation.
kudlak
"It's doubtful that the singularity was this "Word" of which you speak. Jesus didn't expand to form the universe, did he?"
=>I took some liberty with the typical meaning of singularity. It would be akin to me taking notice that current images of the big bang universe looking like a megaphone (or sound amplifying cone) with gravitational waves being compressed at the point of singularity to be representative of the voice of God sound waves speaking creation into existence.
Yes, most likely John was referring to Logos even though God did speak to us through Jesus and in Jesus. Now, just as the flood story does not fit what we understand as to the workings of natural law neither does speaking the creation into existence fit into inflation theory. However, we are deceived if we approach the Word of God with the mindset that the creator is limited or defined by the creation.
=>as to playing the fool I always think about how the High Priests carried out the sacrifice of the perfect lamb of God in accordance with a tradition they practiced for thousands of years yet oblivious that Christ was that perfect lamb until after the fact. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" said Jesus on the cross. The warning is clear that we are easily deceived as to faith and reality. As Pilate said to Jesus "what is truth"
kudlak
"Can you describe the physics of how some being could exist outside of the universe, at any time?"
=>A being would be a manifestation of human thought and as such would be limited by our experiences in our time and space. As to physics the use of the word being to picture what is outside of time and space would be similar to the use of the word dark matter (term for matter that is missing but should be there). In both cases we must infer properties that are currently unknown consist of known properties (i.e. subatomic particles to account for mass in Dark matter and anthropomorphic properties for God).
"How could any being have a creative thought without time being invented yet?"
=>Again being is limited by our creation of that being and cannot be expressed outside of our experiences. As to time we are limited to past, present and future and have been for so long we do not know any different (just as we are insensitive to the speed at which we rotate yet alone the speed at which we move through the galaxy and the galaxy moves through the universe as a whole). Even the present is inferred by awareness of past and future. The future is assumed based on past experience and thanks to Hubble we can look back and estimate how long ago we existed. If there is no observer outside of our time there is no past and we never existed. The good news is there is no time to waste.
believerfred,
Just like discrimination against women, blacks, and gays by Christians is getting over, the same will apply to non-believers. Presidents in the past like Jefferson were accused of being atheists. As seen by their personal letters, many of our most famous presidents aren't nearly as religious as their public image indicates.
I think you are saying discrimination is a human condition and I would agree with that. Jesus did not discriminate and died for all not that his will be done but the Fathers will. Now, the Holy Spirit is given to any that ask so we see the Father, Son and Holy Spirit do not discriminate and thus I can say God does not discriminate.
believerfred,
Of course God discriminates. He didn't even treat local slaves and foreign slaves the same. Women could be prizes of war. God didn't want any handicapped priests near HIS altar, etc..
observer
It is really hard to say which traditions recorded in the Old Testament represent the nature of God or the nature of men and their times unless you take the entire Bible in context. God has order so we know there is order in all relationships. When it says man is over the wife as Christ is head of the church we are speaking about the necessity of order because that is the nature of God. Take note Jesus obeyed the Father and read further the discourse between Jesus and the Apostles over who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
While the theologians argue this out I know God wants all to receive blessings and all do receive mercy and grace. At the same time to each is given a measure of faith yet all are given different gifts and talents.
believerfred,
Are you saying that God put up with bad activities just to be politically correct and not make his true feelings known?
I am not saying that but, God is recorded in the Bible as the people saw revelation of God. Just because God did not tell Solomon 750 wives is wrong does not make it right nor does it say God commands we have many wives and certainly does not say God thinks its a good thing.
Solomon had 1,000 wives and concubines. The Bible praised him as the SMARTEST person.
observer
The Bible did not praise Solomon because of his stable of wives. The Bible reveals in Solomon the smartest of men run astray going after anything other than God to satisfy mans greatest joy and fulfillment. At the conclusion of Solomon even he knew 1,000 wives was one to many.
believerfred
"The Bible did not praise Solomon because of his stable of wives." It did however make him an example of the WISEST person in the world and the Bible NEVER ONCE criticized his morality in having 1,000 wives and concubines. Wonder why it NEVER said "he's the wisest man in the world, but he has a major morality flaw". It wasn't until later that the Bible realized he had been misjudged. Ooops.
@Fred
King David is called "a man after God's own heart" in the Bible.
He was a polygamist (1 Samuel 25:43) who kept a harem of concubines (2 Samuel 5:13).
But more than that, God rewarded him with more wives and concubines!
"Thus says the LORD God of Israel : 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. ' I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!"
– 2 Samuel 12
Doc
That would be in line with Saul of Tarsus who after chasing down Christians with a sword was chosen to establish the Church of Christ.
Now fred, not everyone writes a boring autobiography of themselves.... So it's really no surprise what we think we know of Saul, the motor-mouthed...
Wilbur, I know I've asked this several times, but I may have missed the answer, so please bear with me.
You stated you are a scientist by profession. In what field, may I ask?
I believe it safe to say that he will continue to ignore the question.
Yes, I think so, too. Another case of the Internet Resume being padded.
It reminds me of how Barney Fife use dto put MD behind his name (Maybery Deputy)
Ponderously Boring Rainer Helmut Braendlein, don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.
So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.
Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.
Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond.
Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.
And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.
Was that computer generated?
Raspberries? I don't see any raspberries.
The actual issue is not, if there is a God or not, but the issue is, how we can live as faithful Christians in an antichristian world.
I guess that for many people simply the price they had to pay, if they would follow Jesus, is too high. There is no problem to believe in God's existence, but it is a real problem to obey him in this bad world without facing great loss (money, relations, power, honor, material wealth, etc.)
According to Charles Wright Mills and David Rothkopf the power elite of the Western World has become quite antichristian or materialistic. Former times the Western leaders were not totally antichristian, but today they are. Seemingly, they don't want to be reminded of any Christian faith be any lousy, backward Christians. They prefer "subjects" having more or less an animal behaviour. You are allowed to behave like a beast as long as you work like a horse (only your performance counts, nothing else). Seemingly, they (the power elite) want to deprive us of any opportunity to think about spiritual matters, or to contemplate. It is clear that it is very hard, nearly impossible, for a Christian today to survive in that demonic system, and one can only hope that Jesus will return soon, and kills those godless leaders.
Conclusion: God certainly exists (just watch the sun, the moon and the stars he created). The issue just is, how we can follow his Son Jesus in a totally godless world. At least, we should be so honest, not to deny God's existence, but admit that we are to coward to follow him.
Let us pray that God releases us from any cowardice. Long-term we will get a great reward.
It is foolish to deny God's existence. Don't deceive yourself in order to justify what actually is cowardice.
rainman
"It is foolish to deny God's existence."
No, it is foolish to claim god exists when there is nothing showing any gods exist. I do not "deny" god, just don't see any evidence of such a creature.
Regardless of whether God exists or not, calling the Creator a creature is wrong. There is more evidence that life was intelligently designed, then there is that a fish and human have a common ancestor.
"There is more evidence that life was intelligently designed, then there is that a fish and human have a common ancestor."
There is ZERO evidence of intelligent design, assuming you are not so desperate as to use the teleological argument, which has been refuted for centuries. Just where exactly is this evidence. Certainly not the bible, because that is the claim, not the evidence. This also assumes you are no so desperate as to use the argument from ignornace. That is, you don't know or are not intelligent enough to figure it out, therefore "gawd dunnit". Primitive people used that exactly same argument to explain what create rain and primitive people still use "gawd dunnit" to explain things like planets and abiogenesis.
Evidence for the evolutionary law of common descent is present in DNA analysis. Phylogenetically related creatures have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than those that are distant.
DNA sequencing shows how organisms gradually develop from a founder species – for example, we know that humans and chimps share 98.8% of the same DNA sequences while we have 98.4% convergence with gorillas.
Pseudogenes, or non-coding DNA (sometimes called "non-functional") are further evidence of common descent as they are known to pass from one species to the next.
Modern biological taxonomy is predicated on the understanding that all creatures are related to each other in nested hierarchies based on shared characteristics.
.
So what is the tangible, testable, repeatable, demonstrable evidence for the Creator God hypothesis?
jimmo42, Explain what evidence there is that a fish and human have a common ancestor.
wilbur
The evidence is in our DNA, yours included.
What evidence is there of any "designer"? None.
wilbur, To find out more I recommend "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin; I could provide a whole list if you wish.
@Doc Vestibule
Don't forget that evolution is predictive and we have already verified several of the predictions such as specific characteristics intermediate fossils should have, specific characteristics phylogenetically related should have, chimps "missing" a chromosome, and so forth. God's behaviour is random. (assuming you believe what the bible says about him)
igaftr wrote: "wilbur
The evidence is in our DNA, yours included.
What evidence is there of any "designer"? None."
Why does the DNA say that a fish and a human have a common ancestor more then encoding and decoding the genetic code says that there is a designer? I do not expect you to understand this, but encoding and decoding are about the most proof you could have of design without actually watching it be designed. Let me attempt to explain this. If you take a USB drive formatted on a Linux system, and put it into a windows system, it can read the format. Why? Because it was not DESIGNED to read it. It does not know how. The chances of the Unix or Linux engineers happening to decide to make the format the same as windows was far more likely to happen than for DNA to encode and decode based on combinatorial mathematical probability. the probability of encoding and decoding happening by chance are more like winning the lotto everyday for millions of years. It is evidence of design.
How long will it be before some believer bozo claims it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in some alleged, but never proven, god?
Sorry. I forgot a not. I wrote " it can read the format" it should have been "it can not read the format"
wilbur
It is not evidence of design, since there are countless other possibilities. There is NO logic in your statement.
Evolution is not in disagreement with the idea that life was initially created by design on earth. Evolution does not attempt to explain how life started.
"Science does not know how life started on earth." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
Operating systems evolve constantly to adopt the most beneficial traits of other operating systems. Or do you believe your alleged, but never proven, god also designed The One True OS, perfect at original release, never to be improved upon, only to be corrupted by man's (alleged) sins?
wilbur. There is NO evidence to any design theory. None.
If you follow NdGT, you would know that he thinks you and all Babble Humpers are just making stuff up because you are at the limits of your knowledge, and rather than simply saying "we don't know", have an infantile need to say "some (alleged, but never proven) god did it."
wilbur, This will explain: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
In "Santa We Trust," You do not need to educate me on what evolution is. I already know. I am tying to get him to admit that the evidence that a fish and human had a common ancestor is inferred from DNA. I can also infer things about DNA. We are on equal ground going into the scientific discussion. There is further very strong evidence that things can be designed. The words you are reading at this exact second are designed. These words are proof that something can be designed.
wilbur
You have had many things to say about "desined" life, but none of what you say makes any sense. Your correlations are not really links.
If a flower is growing in a field, it is NOT evidence that someone came along and purposely planted it, which is the same as your argument that since we are here, we were designed. There is no direct cause/effect chain there. You started with an observation, and leapt to a cause, but you do not have enough info to make a LOGICAL step.
You get the logic fail award.
Doc Vestibule, I feel certain that some species have a common ancestor. But there is zero proof that a fish and a human had a common ancestor. It is an unproven hypothesis. I am not arguing against natural selection and variation and an increase in the number of species. I am saying that no physical proof exists that a fish and a human have a common ancestor. It is inferred. Also if it turned out to be true, that would not explain how life started on earth. If you think it is not inferred than you are WRONG.
Once again: "Science does not know how life started on earth' - Neil deGrasse Tyson 2014
Just because something can be designed does not mean that some, alleged but never proven, god did anything. "We don't know" is a way better answer than "some god did it." Why are you pretending to know things you do not?
Ignorance and a lack of understanding of science is not an excuse for accepting a belief of how life evolved. For those of us who have spent our entire life in the realm of science, we are not "believers", we are critical thinkers of the how and why around us.
Accepting creationism is a cop-out. Period. Ancient civilizations made innumerable erroneous assumptions about the sun, planets, stars, meteors, storms etc etc. All because of a basic lack of understanding of science.
Since that time, science has rapidly progressed. Religion and the relics of it's teaching has not.
We have and continue to prove the virtues of science; Religion has proven nothing, as it is nothing more than the teaching of fables from the past due to childhood indoctrination and nothing more.
Oh by the way Wilbur......in which god do you believe in as there are so many man made gods that you can choose from?
wilbur, "... there is zero proof that a fish and a human had a common ancestor. It is an unproven hypothesis."
It is not unproven. Read "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. Read about DNA.
igaftr wrote: "wilbur You have had many things to say about "desined" life, but none of what you say makes any sense. Your correlations are not really links.
If a flower is growing in a field, it is NOT evidence that someone came along and purposely planted it, which is the same as your argument that since we are here, we were designed. There is no direct cause/effect chain there. You started with an observation, and leapt to a cause, but you do not have enough info to make a LOGICAL step.
You get the logic fail award."
_____
You wrote:"If a flower is growing in a field, it is NOT evidence that someone came along and purposely planted it"
That is true. I would be illogical if I concluded that. But if I was walking along and found a computer system, I would not be illogical to conclude that someone must have designed the computer system.
Unless "Your Inner Fish" is a newly created chapter in The Babble, I estimate the probability of a Babble Humper reading it is about the same as them coming up with any actual evidence for their alleged but never proven god(s), that is, virtually zero.
@Wilbur
Perhaps one of the most fascinating recent discoveries in the fossil record that demonstrated common descent, specifically the ancient link between ichthyan and mammalian life, is Tiktaalik.
The creature, informally dubbed a "fishapod", is a perfect example of a transitional species that bridges the gap between aquatic and terrestrial life.
There are more and more paper being published about it, but a nice starting point is here:
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/081023/tiktaalik.shtml
wilbur
If you found a computer, yes, since you know full well what a computer is.
You do not have the same information on life.
Your "logic" reminds me of a tribe in the south Pacific. We accidentally airdropped a jeep onto an inhabited island. The natives could not grasp that the jeep was created by men, so claimed it to be a god. You are doing the same thing. You see life, do not understand it and think it is something that indicates ONE possibility, but ignore all other possibilities. There is NO direct line of logic to lead to a conclusion.
Do you even know what logic is, and how to use it? From your posts, I would say absolutely not.
igaftr, You claim that I am illogical yet you can not even demonstrate that you understand what i am saying. If you are more logical than me, then you should be able to explain what is wrong with my logic. You have not done that yet. I have a hypothesis: You did not take any advanced math classes beyond Calculus. I can always tell. I suspect you slid past with the minimum math you could get. Your rigorousness is about at the College Algebra level but you might have taken Calculus several times before you passed or you took Calculus for liberals Arts and Business majors. Maybe you have a Biology degree at best. Certainly noting in the hard mathematical sciences like me.
wilbur
Hilarious again. I have advanced degrees including one in Mathematics, and have not gotten anything less that an A in several decades, so your assertion is pure BS. THAT is how I show the flaw in your "logic". You like to leap to unjustified conclusions.
There are many possibilities of how life came to be, and many mechanisms within evolution we have yet to fully understand. There continues to be NO indication of any "designer", yet the POSSIBILITY cannot be excluded. To try to push one possibility over any other requires some evidence of the possibility, which you have none.
THAT is your illogic as well, leaping to one possibility simply because it fits in with your belief. That is a bias, and if you did have any advanced education, they should have taught you about how your bias will destroy any science you attempt.
I can tell you are either not working in any science, or you are very bad at it.
wilburw7,
Does your advanced math degree and knowledge of science enable you to LOGICALLY explain how the sun and moon SUDDENLY STOPPED in their orbits for a day according to the Bible?
@Wilburw7
As a math genius, can you solve this for n for me? It's bugged me for ages.
1 + cos (4x) + cos(8x) + cos(12x)....+ (cos nx)
igaftr wrote:'wilbur
Hilarious again. I have advanced degrees including one in Mathematics, and have not gotten anything less that an A in several decades, so your assertion is pure BS. THAT is how I show the flaw in your "logic". You like to leap to unjustified conclusions."
___________________________________
You can prove you have a degree in Math to me. Explain the combinatorial probability of DNA forming by chance. If you have an understanding of Math why didn't you understand the concepts of encoding and decoding? You completely failed. You are not the only one with an opinion. You seem lacking in analytical skill. You must have done a lot of drugs are alcohol since getting your degree. You lack rigorousness in your comments. No one talks about illogical as much as you without explaining the details correctly. Encoding and decoding are very obvious design issues. Dismissing it without acknowledging an understanding of the idea of design is either dishonest or ignorant of Math. So which is it? I suspect you are lying about the Math. You have acknowledged the logic of my argument. You gave examples that did not show an understanding about what I said (i.e., finding a flower). My logic is not flawed. Yours is.
wilburw7,
Grow up. You act like a 5-year-old. All these mindless predictions about a stranger's background just makes you look ridiculous.
Wilbur refuses to disclose his field of study , indeed, has ignored repeated questions about it, yet see fit to attempt to make fun of igaftr's education? Anyone else see anything odd about this scenario?
Igaftr gave his educational backround, Wilbur.
You haven't, yet you've claimed to be a scientist. You have also ignored questions about your field AS a scientist.
Who is really lying?
Doc
cos4nx-cos4(n-1)x+cps4x-1
----------–
2(cos4x-1)
He repeats pasting in the same argument. He doesn't respond to anyone showing him the flaws.
igaftr wrote: "wilbur
It is not evidence of design, since there are countless other possibilities. There is NO logic in your statement."
Your statement is not logical. Other possibilities that encode and decode are the exact same situation. It does not matter what form it is, something encoding and decoding is not expected by random chance. And when I say not expected by random chance, I mean it is less likely than a wind storm blowing through a junk yard and accidentally assembling a full functioning Boeing 747 jet aircraft. Even that would miraculous even if the 747 was not able to make copies of itself .
It's NOT random!!! Why do you fundies keep making that strawman argument. Learn the basics of a subject and afterward post. You are doing it backwards.
Your use of the 747-analogy is more evidence you are ignorant of the basics of evolution as life did NOT evolve from a pile of components into something as complex as humans. (i.e. a 747) That analogy was refuted decades ago! Stop using outdated and refuted arguments!!!
Have you ever read about evolution? Humans took billions of years to evolve – one small change at a time as more complex organisms appeared over a long time.
I'll ask again, what kind a scientist are you, Wilbur?
While it is theoretically possible for a windstorm to create a 747, no sane person is claiming that ever happened. Babble Humpers on the other hand are making even more extraordinary claims, and expecting others to believe their silliness despite no actual evidence being presented. Time for Humpers to deliver the goods, or take their rightful place in history beside astrologers.
Re: what kind of scientist Wilbur is, I'll take a guess. Not a very good one, one limited by his god delusion.
He keeps dodging the question. I wonder what that implies, haa.
wilbur
I see the flaw in your thinking.
DNA is not a code in the way computer language is a code.
DNA is only referred to as code since that is how we have defined it. You assume it is a code as if it was a program.
That is simply you trying to imply something from the word code as if it backs some design theory. It does not.
Henceforth, refer to DNA as DNA, not "code" and you will not fall into that obvious trap.
Akira, I don't think Willie I really a scientist at all. Perhaps he is employed at creation.com.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB-JO2j7MEQ
He got some cajones speculating about anyone else's education if he refuses to state what field he is a scientist in.
Of course, the United States has always been an unwelcoming place for straight, white, land-owning, Christian males.
That poor, oppressed minority have systematically been excluded from all positions of power or influence, forced into ghettoes, denied educational opportunities and suffer undue scrutiny and abuse at the hands of law enforcement.
Oh wait a minute – that would be everybody who ISN'T a straight, white, land-owning, Christian male.
My bad.
"Conclusion: God certainly exists (just watch the sun, the moon and the stars he created)."
That's a logical fallacy called the teleological argument and has been refuted for centuries, if not millenia. The most famous use of that fallacy is William Paley watchmaker argument from 1802. It was refuted then and still is. It is disappointing to see that people are still using that absurd argument, which can easily be refuted if your simply think. We know what creates planets, and saying "gawd dunnit" is as ludicrous as saying "gawd dunnit" about the rain or earthquakes. And you wonder why we laugh at you?
This year we experienced a winter in Germany beggaring any description. It was a winter without snow (nearly in a mathematical sense; nearly zero snow).
I guess if the weather would depend on some items in a mathematical sense, a winter without snow would be impossible. The probability would be zero.
A winter without snow can only explained through God's impact. God simply klicked a certain button on his Administrator-Website (to which we have no access), and consequently Germany experienced a winter without snow.
"A winter without snow can only explained through God's impact."
Völliger schwachsinn!!! (translation for the others: complete idiocy)
"A winter without snow" can be *easily* explained without having to resort to the primitive, illectually layz claim that "gawd dunnit". What are you, a card carrying member of the PBC? Now the ridicule of that party has become international.
You should stick to poking around in dead chicken entrails and leave mathematics alone. A mathematical model for snow that did not allow for no snow would be about as useful as The Babble, that is, not useful at all
"I guess if the weather would depend on some items in a mathematical sense, a winter without snow would be impossible. The probability would be zero"
Exactly what math are you using for your "guess"?
Show your work, and I will show you where your flaw is.
"I guess if the weather would depend on some items in a mathematical sense, a winter without snow would be impossible. The probability would be zero."
Simplest explanation for that: Your guess is wrong.
Perhaps the German people did something to offend Kinak, the Inuit god of the North Wind, and He simply ignored you this year.
You might want to consider sacrificing a caribou in His name.
@Doc Vestibule:
Rainer Helmut Braendlein is certainly not representative of all Germans. On the average they are better educated than Americans and even those that attend church regularly do not believe everything in the bible as 100% true.
As a Canadian, I feel that our gods are under-represented in the realm of mythology.
Kinak is as big as a mountain and His hobbies include punishing abusive husbands.
I spent a few years living in Vahingen, on the outskirts of Stuttgart. Aside from unpleasant dealings with the Polizei and the occasional "Auslanders Raus" rally, I had a wonderful time in Germany.
"Ausländer raus!" is used only for Turks, Bulgars and the like – all the olive-skinned ones.
Nobody would tell that an American or the like.
(that is my personal subjective view)
The Polizei is a plague in Bavaria (too many road checks; unfriendly, stupid personnel; very high charges).
I have heard in Baden-Wuerttemberg (Vahingen) the police would be more kind (the warn you by a sign, if a radar trap approaches).
How is the reputation of the United Church of Canada?
I want to leave bad old Germany (Europe).
You, Doc, as an enemy of Christ, will certainly tell the truth.
Rainer Helmut Braendlein,
See my question above?
Enemy of Christ? Oh my.
Just because I reject the supernatural claims about Him, I'd hardly consider myself an enemy of His teachings or example.
Charity, compassion, humility, forgiveness – these are all qualities that are sorely lacking in most people (Christian or otherwise).
As a matter of fact, a Canadian Reverand from the United Church named Phipps states publicly that he doesn't believe that Christ literally rose from the dead.... but anyways
My mother identifies as a member of the United Church (though she married a Catholic) so I'm fairly well acquainted with them. They're among the most prominent Churches here in Canada and generally have a good reputation.
The Canadian branches are very much in line with the country's values in that they tend to be very open minded and non-judgemental. They welcome everybody to their houses of worship, including Muslims and Atheists.
Along with the Anglicans, their clergy are the most common officiators of same-gender marriage ceremonies, which isn't too surprising given that they have a number of openly gay ministers. Heck, my atheist friends were married last year in one of their churches by a United minister!
They do not scream and preach against abortion, but they do lobby for increased access to s.exual education, birth control and family planning.
Their most prominent black mark has to do with the way in which they treated the indiginous people who were enrolled in their pastoral schools. Though other churches did worse things in their residential schools (Catholics, I'm looking at you!), they were still involved in the systematic abuse and its subsequent cover ups.
Thanks for your answer!
"The actual issue is not, if there is a God or not, but the issue is, how we can live as faithful Christians in an antichristian world."
How is the question as to the existence of a god not part of the issue? If there is no god (and we have already proven the Christian version of god does not exist), what does it even mean to live as a faithful Christian? You worship something that we know doesn't exist.
All religions, save true Christianity, lead to the rule of some criminals using religion as a smokescreen for their malice (the criminals I mean are the leaders of the false religions). False religions just serve their leaders as tools to gain mastery over naive jerks which they want to prey up to the maximum until they finally kiss the a-s-s of the false leaders.
True Christianity would lead to equality of rights and duties of all people. The new mankind is the Christian Church. There is nobody higher than the other one in the Church, only that the most virtous ones would be elected for offices.
I would prefer the religion which the most would promote the happy life of all people (criminals, of course, would responsible themselves for their fate).
As Christianity could lead us all to happiness by its intrinsic structure, I am convinced that Christianity is the true religion, and believe that God became man in Jesus.
"true christianity" LOL.
You have shown countless times you have no idea what that is. That's pretty normal, since no one knows what "true christianity" is.
True Christianity is the faith accepting that the Son of God (one of the three persons of the Godhead) really incarnated, and lived on earth as the meek and humble carpenter Jesus who later became a Jewish preacher man.
If we don't appreciate the meek and humble character of Jesus Christ, we deny the incarnated God.
If you behave meekly and humbly in that world of brutal and proud people, you will face some difficulties, of course. But for the sake of an eternal reward you sould accept that.
But the dead jew zombie cannibal vampire cult aka christianity has not achieved those lofty goals after nearly 2,000 years so most likely it is no better than astrology.
Which of the thousands of different sects is "True Christianity"? Let me guess! By an amazing coincidence "True Christianity" just happens to be what you believe in and despite all of the others claiming to be "True Christianity", your sect got it right. Funn y how things worked out like that.
" But for the sake of an eternal reward you sould accept that."
Again with Pascals Wager.
To REALLY cover yourself, you need to worship ALL of the gods.
"True Christianity is the faith accepting that the Son of God (one of the three persons of the Godhead) really incarnated, and lived on earth as the meek and humble carpenter Jesus who later became a Jewish preacher man."
You ingore the fact that many books available before the bible was created by men (i.e. in the fourth century CE) did not consider Jesus as devine. Your claim about "True Christianity" was invented afterwards. Why is there ZERO references to that in the synoptic gospels? Quite simple: that was NOT part of original Christianity and this NOT part of "True Christianity". Once again the facts stomp on you.
Speaking of malice, you want to round up gays and put them in concentration camps. Is this you practicing your "true Christianity"?
Is it a sign of being a "true Christian" to constantly display religious bigotry?
Of course, Rainy is the judge of what is True Christianity (TM).
True Christianity, of course, is the kind of Christianity which was established be Jesus and his Apostles.
Summarizing, one can say that Christianity is not about keeping certain "Pillars" (the Muslims have to keep the Five Pillars of Islam), but Christianity concerns our real behaviour in daily life. Christianity makes available NOTHING for us which could dispense us from true practical love and righteousness. A Christian really has to love God and his fellow human beings. Nobody who has not practiced love and righteousness will ever get into heaven.
In contrast, a Muslim is allowed (even encouraged) to hate his neighbour (of any distinct religion) – main thing he or she keeps the Five Pillars of Islam (Ramadam, Pilgrimage to Mecca, etc.).
True Christianity simply means to imitate Christ Jesus in daily life. That sounds somehow logical, and it is logical.
All false religion have established certain rituals which dispense their believers from practical love and righeousness. They make their members worse instead of better.
Um Rainer, did you actually mean to respond to my post because what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Again, since we know there is no Christian god, I would say that's a pretty relevant piece of information for those considering being Christian.
Boring Rainer Helmut Braendlein, don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.
So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.
Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.
Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond.
Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.
And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.
Long-winded! Ain't I right?
Well, it sure makes more sense than what YOU have been saying. And no TV is not dumming down of the population (Fernsehen Ist Volksverdummung), the bible is!
Where did you find my most beloved motto?
Indeed, Fernsehen ist Volksverdummung (TV makes people stupid). That's right.
"Where did you find my most beloved motto?"
Something you never do: research.
On the other hand, I must admit I was wrong about something. Reading the bible does *not" make you stupid. It's just the stupid ones who believe it.
No TV, no cry!
She reposts her stuff because you constantly repost yours, Rainier. At least Jill isn't advocating for concentration camps, like you do.
You impute something!
Yes. I stated that she repeats her stuff as a direct cause of you constantly reposting yours. You win a gold star, Rainier. That's not really a negative; that's the truth.
You are using impute incorrectly.
you are very long winded, rainy
Double long-winded! Ain't I right?
All of your posts are extremely disappointing. It's sad to find Germans who still have a bronze-age undestandingof the world. All it really takes is a Mittlere Reife to understand evolution, although I know people who have "only" a Quali who understand it. What's your problem?
Just read the book "The Silver Chair" by C. S. Lewis, and you will get a new view of modern schools: They are more or less nuthouses.
I would wish that every modern pupil could escape to Narnia via a magic gate through Aslans power like Jill and Eustace did.
Considering Lewis died 50 years ago, and school systems throught the world has changed a lot since then, your use of him to discuss "modern schools" is ludicrous, at best. That us simply another logical fallacy on your part called "appeal to authority". Lewis was not an expert in schools in any country and using him to support such a claim just makes you look foolish. Your references to Narnia are simply more proof you live in a fantasy world.
That's as silly as reading Sinclair's "The Jungle" and thinking that's how modern-day workers are treated and meat is processed and packed.
Cowardice? Thank you for the words of wisdom, Der Furher
Off topic. I would have thought the editors would have come up with a story on the Hobby Lobby case the day it is to be heard in front of the SCOTUS.
They'll go the easy route and wait til there is a decision.
Midwest rail
Just learned this morning that Hobby lobby did provide the contraception that they are now fighting before the regulation was passed. What they did was review the employees health plan and removed the coverage after the fact. Rather strange behaviour, it was not against their religion before the regulation was passed, I hope the SCOTUS takes this into account when making a decision.
Do you have a link for that ? Would love to read more...
Midwest rail
Sorry no. Heard it from the talking heads on C-SPAN, Washington Journal, that discussed the topic this morning. They will have it in the video library later, if you are interested.
thanx for the info – C-SPAN it is.
Midwest rail
There are actually two discussions already posted at C-SPAN, it would be the one with Elizabeth Wydra, FYI.
I find the entire birth control thing rather ridiculous.
I can understand those who harbour a moral objection to abortifacients, but not those who are against barrier methods or other such non-blastocysticidal contraceptives.
Are they afraid of disobeying God's command to "be fruitful and multiply"? Do their fear suffering the same fate as Onan?
Given that modern women are already going against god's will if they get an epidural while giving birth (horrible pain in childbirth is God's punishment to womankind for Eve letting the snake talk her into eating the magic apple), what's the big deal about using a diaphragm, condom, sponge, or IUD?
Vic: "Stretching out the heavens by Myself
And spreading out the earth all alone" (from Isaiah)"
I think back in those days they thought of stretching out the earth like a sheet of paper – you know, since they thought it was flat. I suppose if some theists tout and believe that God directed animals to come to the ark, they ought to just go for broke and say that when they needed more room for more people, he just puffed up the flat disc earth into a ball. I'll have to think about that next time I have some puffed rice.
♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
This discovery, if confirmed—that would be sometime in August, is the Holy Grail of astrophysical predictions, the expansion of the universe as well as it beginning. The Holy Bible spoke of the expansion of the universe millennia past.
Genesis 1:1
"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NASB)
Isaiah 44:24
"24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb,
“I, the Lord, am the maker of all things,
Stretching out the heavens by Myself
And spreading out the earth all alone,"" (NASB)
Early on:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-16/#comment-2971087
"...its beginning."
Vic,
Lord of what? The crazy people of the world?
To elaborate for Vic:
Regarding your god Jesus/JC
JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")
Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694.
Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.
Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.
Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!
Reality,
"Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars."
By "most" who else are you referring to other than the Jesus Seminar?
"Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction?"
Do you think people willingly suffer and even possibly die for something they know is a lie? The early New Testament believers (John, Peter, etc.) were in a position to know if Jesus truly had risen from the dead and they were willing to give their lives for the spread of the gospel, regardless of the persecution they faced.
"Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J’s gospel being mostly fiction."
When you say "most", who are you referring to? Are you leaning in the Jesus seminar for this?
"Do you think people willingly suffer and even possibly die for something they know is a lie?"
People suffer and die because of false beliefs all the time. Just because they don't believe it to be a lie does not therefore make it true. That argument falls into the catagory of "false dicotomy".
Dying for faith is not proof of god. It's simply proof that people are willing to die for things they have convinced themselves are true.
"By "most" who else are you referring to other than the Jesus Seminar?"
Mark 3: 21 is accepted as historical basically by all NT scholars, e.g. From Bishop NT Wright, Professors Luke Johnson and Raymond Brown to Professors JD Crossan and Gerd Ludemann.
Regarding being martyrs for your religious beliefs, Muslim "fruit-cakes" do this every day.
For added information: http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb105.html
I think you all are missing a huge distinction between the apostles and people like the terrorists who blew up the World Trade Centers. The 9/11 attackers sincerely believed that what was reported about Mohammed 1400 years or so ago was true. They were 1400 years removed from the events of Mohammed. The apostles were in a position to KNOW 100 percent if Jesus truly did rise from the dead.
I'm inclined to believe that no one thought Jesus rose from the dead until Paul came around and invented a religion based around Jesus. This was about 100 years later and anyone who knew Jesus would have been dead by then. For example the earliest versions of mark don't contain anything about Jesus rising from the dead and sol the last 11 verses were added sometime in the Fourth Century.
@joey3467
It's pretty well established that Paul's writings were less than 50 years after Jesus. I personally think he made up the visits to the Apostles while in Jerusalem, but it is still possible.
Muslims have been martyring themselves since the time of Mohammed so what is your point??
And the martyred apostles? Many legends and embellishments !!!
"The apostles were in a position to KNOW 100 percent if Jesus truly did rise from the dead."
Execpt for the apostles didn't write doewn anything, all we have are what other people wrote about what they think the apostles reported which looks very much like recording a legend. And then people like you dishonestly report it was eye witnesses...selling snake oil.
Jimmo and Joey,
New Testament critic and historian Bart Ehrman indicates that the credal statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 can be traced to 1 year after the cross. I have included the verses below.
1 Corinthians 15:-7
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
If you would like more info on this I would suggest watching "The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars – Gary Habermas at UCSB" on YouTube.
Blessed,
"Execpt for the apostles didn’t write doewn anything, all we have are what other people wrote about what they think the apostles reported which looks very much like recording a legend. And then people like you dishonestly report it was eye witnesses…selling snake oil."
It is recognized there wasn't enough time in between the writings about Jesus and legend to creep in. At the time the New Testament was written, there were still eyewitnesses of Jesus alive! How do you know they didn't write down anything? Please provide evidence for this statement. The New Testament makes eye witness claims (see 1 John 1:1).
Saving Christians from the Resurrection Con Game:
From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15 St. Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."
Even now Catholic/Christian professors of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.
To wit;
From a major Catholic university's theology professor’s grad school white-board notes:
"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly – earth bound distractions.
Jesus and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven.
Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.
Again, the physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.
The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.
Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies." "
"In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."
http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM
With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:
o An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,
o
p.4
o "Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
o p.168. by Ted Peters:
Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "
o So where are the bones"? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.
The non bodily resurrection is a view that does not hold up to scrutiny. According to a leading (if not the leading) scholar in the world on the resurrection of Jesus, Dr. Gary Habermas, "bodily resurrection is the predominate view in the academy". The Bible clearly teaches the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I would suggest a book called "On Guard" by William Lane Craig concerning more info on the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
On a side note, I am not Catholic and do not agree with major Catholic doctrine concerning the exalted role of the Pope nor the exaltation of Mary. Mary was a sinner just like you and I and she recognized God as her Savior (Luke 1:47).
"posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God’s hand"
What evidence do you have for this? Please provide.
"After Jesus’ failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing.”"
Financial security and some standing? Is this what you think they got for following Jesus? Where is your evidence for this? What about persecution and death for some? How do you account for Paul's conversion and James, the brother of Jesus' conversion?
Paul's conversion is pure myth. Ditto for any other supernatural "conversion". e.g. The Search for Paul by Professor JD Crossan and Rabbi Paul by Professor Chilton
Regarding Reimarus' background and views of the historical Jesus:
Hermann Samuel Reimarus (December 22, 1694, Hamburg – March 1, 1768, Hamburg), was a German philosopher and writer of the Enlightenment who is remembered for his Deism, the doctrine that human reason can arrive at a knowledge of God and ethics from a study of nature and our own internal reality, thus eliminating the need for religions based on revelation. He denied the supernatural origin of Christianity,[1] and is credited by some with initiating historians' investigation of the historical Jesus."
Regarding Habermas:
"Habermas is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia" .
And now we know where he is coming from as his job depends on the mythical resurrection of Jesus.
And regarding "sidetracked by embracing a political position", read the studies of Reimarus or simply get out your, bible and read one of the few historical accounts i.e. your leader taking on the Jewish temple authorities via his outburst about the money changers resulting is his quick execution by the Roman political leaders who did not tolerate any unrest in their provinces.
Reality,
"Paul’s conversion is pure myth."
This is serious fringe scholarship. Do you think that the Jesus seminar represent modern scholarly opinion!?!? I hope not! Atheistic professor of philosophy Michael Martin indicates that Paul's testimony is the only eyewitness testimony that we have for a resurrection appearance of Jesus (I would disagree that it's the only eyewitness testimony we have but he thinks so). Also, one of the best known if not the best know critic in the U.S. Bart Ehrman indicates that there are 7 undisputed epistles of Paul, of which 1 Corinthians is in the list. Skeptical scholar G.A. Wells has the same list as Dr. Ehrman but adds Colossians. (See "The Resurrection of Jesus: Religious Invention or Historical Fact? Gary Habermas vs. Ken Hum-phreys" debate on YouTube for the referenced atheist references.)
As a side note concerning the Jesus Seminar, Norman Geisler's and Frank Turek's book, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" indicates that the Jesus Seminar, "have decided that only 18 percent of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are authentic. They don't give any real evidence for the skepticism, just speculative theories about how the faith of the disciples led to their belief in the Resurrection. and just about everything else in the New Testament." "The Jesus seminar, established in 1985, is comprised of seventy-plus "scholars" who are largely on the radical fringe. Some are atheists, and some are not even scholars (one is a filmmaker)." The founder, Robert Funk, was an atheist!
"And now we know where he is coming from as his job depends on the mythical resurrection of Jesus."
Attacking his job does absolutely nothing to disprove the validity of the claim. It certainly still stands.
"And regarding “sidetracked by embracing a political position”,read the studies of Reimarus or simply get out your, bible and read one of the few historical accounts i.e. your leader taking on the Jewish temple authorities via his outburst about the money changers resulting is his quick execution by the Roman political leaders who did not tolerate any unrest in their provinces."
Have you read the Bible as to why Jesus cleansed the temple? Again, please provide evidence to back up the statement: "posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God’s hand"
Regarding the Jesus Seminarians:
"The Jesus Seminarians: Contemporary NT exegetes specializing in historic Jesus studies. Requirements to join, typically a PhD in Religious History or Religion with a proven record of scholarship through reviews of first to third century CE scripture and related docu-ments."
I don't have time to evaluate the backgrounds of all your "experts" but more than likely they are employed by some Christian organization like Liberty University that was founded by Jerry Falwell.
Regarding the political motives of Jesus in his temple tirade, I already addressed the issue but to summarize again:
The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and political in the temple and they nailed him to a tree.
A quick follow-up:
Norman L. Geisler (born 1932) is a Christian apologist and the co-founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary outside Charlotte, North Carolina, where he formerly taught.
If Bart Erhman is right about so many things and worthy of being quoted by delusionals, how do said delusionals explain that Bart E remains an agnostic leaning towards atheism?
"I don’t have time to evaluate the backgrounds of all your “experts” but more than likely they are employed by some Christian organization like Liberty University that was founded by Jerry Falwell."
Are you referring to the skeptic, atheist and agnostic that I referenced?
"The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the “dunking”. The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added “healing” as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and political in the temple and they nailed him to a tree."
Your making the statement. What I'm wanting is the evidence to back it up. Where do we find John was charging? Where do you find Jesus adding healing as an added charge?
What we ultimately have is two opposing sides. One side has all the data and the other side has something to the tune of "Well... I'm just saying." I'm going with the data. I hope you will to.
Please cite your specific data. Doing so, however, puts you at great risk especially if all you have is a book whose authors other than Paul are known only by name and nothing else.
Psalm 19:1
"19 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." (NASB)
Vic: "And their expanse is declaring "
I think in Montana, they would just say "big sky"...
Psalm 33:6
6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
And by the breath of His mouth all their host." (NASB)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07ayIH30yQk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UwvXBadRbw&feature=player_detailpage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzOYQ-ammU&feature=player_detailpage
Really? An illusion? What then is the state of "unconsciousness"?
Alllll- righty then, if consciousness is an "illusion" then unconsciousness must be "reality".
Can illusions even exist without consciousness?
nope!
The "illusion" can be defined by 2 ideas.
1 : the most easy to understand
Is that every thing we see, taste, touch smell hear is an illusion generated by the brain in response to external stimulation of nerve endings. we don't actually "SEE" light! we just experience the nerve impulse generated when a photon of light hits a cone or rod nerve ending in our eye and an electrical signal travels to the brain which then converts that signal into something we can understand.
2: the hardest to wrap minds around.
Everything we know to exist in this universe is a "holographic" projection (not those novelty ones on the front of DVD/Blu-Rays or the ones on credit cards) but a 3 dimensional projection from a 2 dimensional surface. In this case they think our reality is based on a 10 dimensional universe the top 4 are the ones we know and love up/down, in/out, forwards/backwards and time. layers 2 to6 are a bit of a mystery but the really interesting one is the base layer.
The Base is what we call "Quantum string" layer that only has 2 dimensions and no time. the vibrations of the strings form interference patters in the higher dimensions causing our reality to exist in the top 4.
So out 3 dimensional reality is based on a 2 dimensional Base (Quantum layer) that's why the term "holographic" is used.
Testing
Peace...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfPWpEKhgfk
@Doris
LOL!
Peace...
Sorry – I assumed you were an IPA. No, not an India Pale Ale, but a camouflaged Intergalactic Putin Attack...lol
Daniel Dennett at ZURICH.MINDS: Consciousness Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1nmExfgpg
=====
Also check out: Daniel Dennet: Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56VAZNx8HBQ
Professor Dennett talked about his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, published by Viking. He analyzed the purpose of religion and described religion as a cultural phenomenon that was developed by natural, evolutionary processes to explain material phenomenon. He also challenged the idea that belief in religion is an outgrowth of supernatural forces. After his presentation he answered audience members' questions.
Dan Dennett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy and Co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.
@ Doris: note well his reference to the editor of the New Republic's critique of Dennet (& the summation of that argument which follows) starting around the 2:20 mark...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK0mjVcmcIo
"Scientism, the view that science can explain all human conditions and expressions, mental as well as physical, is a superst.ition, one of the dominant superst.itions of our day"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/books/review/19wieseltier.html?_r=0
That "criticism" of Dennett is without merit. One of many problems with it, a la Kurt Gödel, and to paraphrase, is that when science and reason work, they work. It is within the scope of science to say that certain claims of e.g. the Christian bible are false, and it is within the scope of reason to say that the claims about the Christian god are contradictory. We do not need to believe that science will solve every problem, this accused "scientism". The religious crackpots here are just desperately resorting to desperate accusations while their religions die out. It is rather amusing to watch them sling mud, though. It is their hands that are dirty as a result.
@ PeterVN: you didn't watch the video. the quote is directly from the NY Times – summing up the issue. but the video expresses the particulars of the argument here.
the argument in the video is that Dennet's position is not consistent from WITHIN itself.
here is the philosophical quandary:
saying our belief forming faculties (religion) are just byproducts of our ancestors’ traits that helped them survive (as Dennet wants to argue) leads to a problem: “if your belief forming faculties don’t tell you the truth, but only what you need to survive…” then applying that scalpel uniformly destroys ALL knowledge (including a purely naturalistic evolution – the argument Dennet is advancing).
“I believe in God/morality/etc.” – "well, that’s just b/c you were programmed that way”
“I believe in naturalistic evolution" – "well, that’s just b/c you were programmed that way”
Once you begin "seeing through" everything, it equally applies to your own position. it's self defeating (to "see through" EVERYTHING is blindness).
My theories as why religious people continue to push god is because they know that if they don't get new believers, enventually the religion will die out. They realize their is no proof, so they sell the "you gotta believe" angle, twist words, don't answer questions or simply change the subject. This replies to ALL other religions as well.
The other reason is simple. MONEY. Like guns and drugs, their is just tooooo much money to leave out there without trying to get some. I have to admit religion feeds and puts a roof over people's head. Some people eat more and have better roof's than others but it's all the same.
The mistake the religious fundies make is trying to convince us that god is actually monitoring what billions of people are doing and making snap decisions at the time of death. (We're kind of sorted out like UPS packages to our final destination)
That's like telling us the secret to the magic trick and asking us to still believe the magic. If they kept religion on a more personal level (like telling you chicken soup is good for you) and just say that it will make you feel better instead of making outrageous claims (god knows what everyone is doing or god hates gays) maybe they won't be exposed as the emperer with no clothes.
Lets face it. If god is as powerful as they say, why would he/she need mere mortals to get his/her message out?
I just noticed this page!
Here is the entire thread of the discussion of concern starting at 4:12 pm today:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-22/#comment-2972402
Vic
Consciousness is just like Gravity, we don't know what it is but we know what it does, but we can measure it. And taking this back to where it started I asked you to measure god. You then made the false comparison from "god" to "gravity" and then "consciouness" and I thumped your argument.
Still waiting for you to measure god...or ANYTHING supernatural.
=>We have evidence that these Hebrews took pride in their detail of bringing the Word of God forward without error.
I never claimed theydidn't exist. The fact that they existed is not proof they can from a god. Youa re conflating 2 seperate issues.
=>You once claimed to hang your relative moralism hat on social evolution. That is monkey business so you did say it.
It isn't "monkey buisness" evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys. And your religious moral relativism is worse.
Vic said...."I haven't changed anything."
Really? Here is you original question….
“Do you believe "consciousness" exists? Can you empirically account for or measure "consciousness?!"
Now here is how you falsely rephrased it…
“The entire discipline of Empirical Science CANNOT account for nor measure the CAUSE of consciousness.”
Measuring something and accounting for the cause of something is not the same. Your questions are NOT the same. This all started with you saying we can’t account for gravity…I replied by saying we can measure gravity. Then you asked if we could account measure for or MEASURE consciousness. And we can MEASURE it…just like gravity. Your argument and comparison failed so you tried to change the question and you got caught.
There is no one on these pages who more consistently misrepresents science and scientific opinion than Vic does – and shamelessly so.
Vic is fun to observe.
Hate to say it, but in this case he's right. The word 'consciousness' is used in two entirely different ways. One, the way humans (for instance) behave, can definitely be measured and fully explained materialistically. The other, the subjective experience of indescribable qualia, which we experience every waking moment of our lives, can't even be objectively demonstrated to exist, let alone be measured or studied. Google "the hard problem". Consciousness, in the latter sense, is not amenable to scientific study, as nothing about it is intersubjectively verifiable or even describable. Why is it that when these neurons do this, the subjective experience is like X? Can you answer that not knowing what X is?
I can observe your behavior, and you observe mine, including observing each others speaking and writing about their subjective experiences, but we can fully explain how that behavior is produced in terms of deterministic material processes. If we could track every subatomic particle in the brain, we'd see no defying any laws of physics, or see anything that would cause us to posit some sort of indescribable subjective experiences are going on inside.
Consciousness can be measured to "exist"...short of claiming solipsism. My point with Vic in the thread was that it can be demonstrated to be real. He on the other hand was trying to equate his understanding of god to our understanding of gravity or consciousness.