 |
|
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
Some review reading for Vic follows to help cure him of his daily Jeebus spewing about his nasty "lord":
Vic, your starting point, your "lord" Jesus-sacrifice-salvation story, is nonsense out of the gate. How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there. The core foundation of your silly beliefs is complete rubbish.
Now, as for the bible bile that you keep dumping on us, let's have a closer look at some of the other content in your Christian book of nasty AKA the bible, re some of the demands that your horrid sky fairy is said to make of you:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
if you want to see what God is really like, look at Jesus in the gospels. Your references are out of context. He is the image of God the Father who does good works and heals people every day...including amputees.
"Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him! Ps 34:8....
you are really missing out on the life and happiness that comes from knowing God. Your life is poorer for it.
"you are really missing out on the life and happiness that comes from knowing God. Your life is poorer for it"
Maybe you can't live without an imaginary friend and an out dated book or immorality to guide you but not all are so weak. You have no right to judge what is happiness for another person based solely on belief/disbelief.
My life is far better now that I've dropped the belief and started living in reality-land. No more do I have reason to hate LGBT or speak out against abortion or threaten people that they will burn for not believing. Life is way better when you drop the reigns of religion.
No, jknbt, your claims about your religion and your "god" are plainly false. Again, I have addressed your unfounded "context" remark already in detail. Read again:
if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Beyond that, it is you who is the "poorer" for living within your delusion instead of having the courage to look at it more critically and seeing beyond it. Your belief in the racist, bigoted, and murderous Christian god of the nasty Christian myths is not healthy and you really are poorer for it. It is a dangerous set of delusions, and requires the abandonment of reason. You should ask yourself, to help cure you of your horrid delusions, why it is that even the majority of believers in the world believe in a different god than you do, with wildly different rules to follow, and why your supposedly omnipotent creature can't do a better job of marketing himself over those other beliefs.
Also ask yourself, regarding the text that we clearly disagree about, why we should have to rely on very stale, thousands-of-years-old, multiply-translated and re-transcribed old text, that is only reasonably subject to debates over its meaning. Why is it that your pathetic sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out? Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children. After thousands of years of radio silence, reasonable doubt in the existence of your sky creature is easily justified, to say the least. Your absurd "god" is also apparently less capable at communication than any modern 10 year old.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
you have badddly missed the mark, bobby....Jesus is real, the Bible is true, my proof is in a lifetime of answered prayers...God is good. What god were you exposed to that you can only see the Living God in such a terrible way?
during the break, I did a google search on "god heals amputee miracles"...take a look...there are some startling reports there...
what happened to you that you have so turned against God?
The words you post Bob show the condition of your heart. You post hateful negative words.
The good news is that even you can be redeemed. Most prideful folks who had everything figured out, myself included, had to come to the end of themselves before they could see what lies down the path they had chosen.
God bless.
jknbt, that was a completely specious and baseless comment that you just made. First, explain if you can, how I have "missed the mark" in detail. Actually back up your claims, or else have the guts to retract them if you cannot support them. I'm waiting.
Now, as to your prayers being answered, ah, that old canard. Present your verifiable proof of that, or retract your claim if you cannot. Thus far every scientific test has shown no substantial evidence of a prayer having been answered, and actually the evidence points to prayer having no effect at all other than wasting time.
Also re prayer, think of all the millions of people who have prayed to have their sick relatives cures of horrid diseases (diseases that your nasty sky fairy would have created, according to your folklore), only to have them die agonizing deaths anyway. That their sincere prayers were unanswered demonstrates again that your "loving" personal god clearly does not exist.
Take your disgusting, bigoted religion, and shove it.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
No, Robert. Unlike you, I am being directly, and I think, fairly, critical of the Christian tall tales. It has been the case time and time again in your comments that you can do no better than criticize what you perceive as the "tone" of my criticisms of your religion of your murderous god, rather than the content. So, I reject your comment.
Next time, see if you can say something of substance for a change. No more hackneyed calls to your murderous sky fairy to redeem me, please.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
hey Robert Brown- you are the hypocrite, bud, in dire need of redemption, not me. Don't characterize me as a "hater" because I dare to object to the bigoted nonsense the godless humanists have posted on this blog.
It is not a hate crime to disagree with someone over a religious topic. To characterize as such is unreasonable.
Oh, and why haven't you criticized the last 25 pages of vitriolic hate the godless humanists have put on the Bible believing Christians and God Himself for what it is? Namely, Hatred and Blasphemy...
If you really are that delicate that you got your feelings hurt because I disagreed with Bob, you should stay away from blogs like this. No go home and cry yourself to sleep. You will feel better after a good cry.
Hey Bob, I was wondering what you would say....nothing new here that you put up except you increased your hate levels a little...I was going to offer to take the discussion private and share with you examples of the last 100 or so times that my loving God has answered my prayers....but you are too hardened, bigoted, closed minded, and convinced of your own conceits and self-deceits to ever listen to anything I would say....and I do have some very specific examples....
so I guess it is time for me to stop casting my pearls in your direction. figure it out for yourself..
Post by 'jbknt' presents an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.
http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
Post by 'jknbt' presents an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.
http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
Jknbt,
Sorry about the confusion. My reply was to Bob and not directed at you in any way. While I do tear up on occasion, thank God they are usually tears of joy. God bless.
and you post self-affirming gibberish, robert
Robert Brown:
apologies for the misunderstanding. sorry for any offense. please use an address tag like I did here in future replies.
thanks, Jay
In one book he's a stone-hearted killer, in another a good guy. How do you know which is real?
That's what fatherhood can do.
He chilled out some after becoming His own Ghost Dad.
Apparently, he's come off his mellow again, and has been waiting to reap vengeance upon this world when he returns.
I guess that's what crucifixion will do to you, eh Doc?
jknbt,
Robert Brown was not talking to you, Doofus. It's not surprising, though, that you can't keep up with what's actually going on and are so easily confused.
jknbt, What you believe that you have experienced is not objective evidence – there are people that claim to have been abducted by aliens.
jknbt
"you are really missing out on the life and happiness that comes from knowing God. Your life is poorer for it."
I have family who tell me that my life is poorer for being a hockey fan instead of a football fan. Happiness comes from many places, right?
I think I'm developing stigmata. I have a strange sore spot in the center of each palm. Hmmm, I'll half to consult google aout this one.
Don't consult WebMD. It'll be cancer, like every diagnosis is.
You are being possessed by a demon.
According to the Angel Azarias in the Book of Tobit, you should burn some fish guts to chase them away.
The power of fish compels you!
That's the last thing I need. I wonder if my insurance will cover that.
My magic book says you are suffering from low rum level. It recommends an initial shock treatment of 4 oz of straight Screech followed by Captain Morgan's & Cokes until you cannot see or feel the stigmata.
Could I use Captain Morgan's Cocunut rum on ice?
Only if you are drinking with a woman, and have those little 'brellie things. Captain Morgan's Spiced is ok at any time though. I think. My magic book isn't always clear. Especially the smudged, liquid stained parts. Maybe you should try them all, while singing a pirate song. Ya that's it – you need to chant! Something ...
Screech? You a Newfie?
While I have kissed the cod and have been Schreech'd in, I am but a mere honorary Newfie.
I'm glad ou guys brought up the Screech thing, I was a bit clueless. But apparently I may be to far south to find officail Screech, but I have had some good 'shine down here in Bama.
♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
This discovery, if confirmed†, would rule out 90% of the current Inflationary Models, most of which do not produce detectable levels of Gravitational Waves, e.g. Sting Theory. The discovery would also rule out the Cyclic Universe Theory.
Early on:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-24/#comment-2973312
† I indicated August before, that would be the very earliest possible, it could take up to one to two years to match the results of several instruments set out to detect the Gravitational Waves with BICEP2, BICEP—Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization, the one stationed in the South Pole that made this discovery.
Please explain how it would be inconsistent with String Theory, or inconsistent with a cyclic universe.
From the OP:
"..most of which do not produce detectable levels of Gravitational Waves.."
Even better, the Cyclic Universe Model in particular DOES NOT produce Gravitational Waves at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_LYLxv-laws
Thanks but I'm going with scientists such as Dawkins, Hawking, Neil dGT and Krauss – scientists without theological baggage.
Why would there be no gravitational waves with String Theory?
Vic: "the Cyclic Universe Model in particular DOES NOT produce Gravitational Waves at all"
Explain why the current model does, and the cyclic model doesn't. I'm not seeing it.
"Another cool tidbit: Inflation can be used in theories that suggest the existence of multiple universes, Irwin said, although these results do not directly address such theories." from the original articles suggests that you are at least partially wrong about the potential implications of this discovery. What are you basing your comments on?
PS: "♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰" is 100% Pure Bullshit!
The Multiple Universe, aka Multiverse, Hypothesis is NOT testable, and it also miserably fails the Occam's razor principle.
"Multiple Universes"
Care to share your scientific credentials upon which the above statement rests, or are you just making up sh!t to protect your myths?
Most of the time, Occam's Razor is a conservative tool, cutting out crazy, complicated constructions and assuring that hypotheses are grounded in the science of the day, thus yielding "normal" science: models of explanation and prediction. There are, however, notable exceptions where Occam's Razor turns a conservative scientist into a reluctant revolutionary. For example, Max Planck interpolated between the Wien and Jeans radiation laws and used an Occam's Razor logic to formulate the quantum hypothesis, and even resisting that hypothesis as it became more obvious that it was correct.
Galileo Galilei lampooned the misuse of Occam's Razor in his Dialogue. The principle is represented in the dialogue by Simplicio. The telling point that Galileo presented ironically was that if you really wanted to start from a small number of entities, you could always consider the letters of the alphabet as the fundamental entities, since you could construct the whole of human knowledge out of them.
As a logical principle, Occam's Razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data.
Occam's Razor is often an important heuristic when developing a model of a reaction mechanism. However, while it is useful as a heuristic in developing models of reaction mechanisms, it has been shown to fail as a criterion for selecting among some selected published models. In this context, Einstein himself expressed caution when he formulated Einstein's Constraint.
Anyone else imagining Vic hurriedly going thru the "Believers Guide To Dismissing Science Without Having Any Actual Knowledge or Evidence" and rapidly approaching the terminal box labelled "Run & Hide!"
Finally, please see the Vilenkin interview video posted in response to bostontola at 4:42pm yesterday below. There are some important considerations there in light of various possibilities that Alex warns/hints that should not be ignored.
The multiverse most assuredly does not fail Occam's Razor.
Say we have a mildly complex set of physical laws, a theory of everything – let's call the theory U – that includes a few numerical parameters (let's say those are t,u,v,w,x,y,z) that are fixed at constant values that seem at first somewhat arbitrary, but also seem "fine tuned" to produce a universe that can support life. So the theory is parameterized. U(a,b,c,d,e,f,g) is the theory with value a for t, value b for u, etc.
The multiverse is simply: All U(a,b,c,d,e,f,g) for all possible numerical values of a,b,c,d,e,f,g
How complicated is that?
On the other hand, say there's no universe. There's just one finely tuned universe, U(0.001, 1.264, -1.8, 2.7*10^63, 7.6138, -0.5, 0.000291) ... AND there's this being who chose those values for t,u,v,w,x,y,z. Now, most people just call the being "God" ... a nice short simple name ... but don't be fooled by the name. This "God", now ... how complex is it? Simple things can be explained simply, but most claim God can't be explained at all. God must be very complex.
We go from our universe to the multiverse by adding a tiny bit to the description.
In going from our universe to our universe plus God, we add something that is completely beyond description.
So really, which is the simpler alternative?
Ruuuuuuuuuude!
But given that there is zero actual evidence for any god, not even Vic's precious jesus, it's very likely to be true.
There are more effective ways to share your opinions than through rudeness. At best you are just going to push people farther away from your position.
Oh my that reminds me of how my 12 year old niece and her friends speak. hotair isn't wrong...I know that breaks your wee little heart but it's not time to play with your imaginary friends any more, it's time to grow up.
"There are more effective ways to share your opinions than through rudeness"
Yes, you can always declare your opinion to be fact
If I had been more polite, would you have taken notice?
And if I've managed to chase Vic away (notice he has not responded to questions here and generally runs away when questioned), how strong is his faith or knowledge? Does he really need your protection?
Vic: "Jesus Christ Is Lord"
"of the Greatest Contest Show On Earth!**
**all magic tricks used in the show will be explained in the next lifetime of designated winners; all awards to be awarded in the next lifetime of designated winners; rules and fees will vary
Review reading for Vic follows to help cure him of his daily Jeebus spewing:
Vic, your starting point, your "lord" Jesus-sacrifice-salvation story, is nonsense out of the gate. How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there. The core foundation of your silly beliefs is complete rubbish.
Now, as for the bible bile that you keep dumping on us, let's have a closer look at some of the other content in your Christian book of nasty AKA the bible, re some of the demands that your horrid sky fairy is said to make of you:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Luv how your claimed omniscient deity still needs to test his subjects. Oh ya. What up next, he drowns a whole population and you'll call that loving? Not a smidgen of contradiction there. No really. /s
and for a being that can supposedly create the universe, it's pretty pathetic how he needs people's constant worship and adoration. "oh love me, love me, tell me how wonderful and how great I am!"
Let us praise God. O Lord...
...ooh, You are so big...
...So absolutely huge.
Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and...
And barefaced flattery.
But You are so strong and, well, just so super.
Fantastic.
Amen.
God isn't testing us to learn what we will do. He knows what we will do. He tests us so that we can see what we do and develop our character through our choices.
Do you understand why God flooded the world? I would be extremely impressed if you did. If you are expecting to understand God's ways, you are barking up an extremely tall tree.
If we can't understand his way, then how can we know whether someone is being truthful when they say "this is the word of God"? Maybe it's the word of Satan, the"great deceiver".
When accused of being sent by satan, Jesus responded:
Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Jesus allegedly responded ...
But God is the one who caused division amongst mankind in the first place!
Humanity was split into tribes who could no longer communicate between each other as God's punishment for all of us working together towards a common goal.
Silly boy, imaginary friends are for children. Stop grasping at straws and following out-dated books and join us in reality land!
Will it help me face my fear of mortality by promising an afterlife of eternal bliss for me and torture for everyone who thinks differently than me?
Are there unicorns, dragons, 7 headed amphibious monsters, or talking snakes and donkeys?
Then I reject your reality and substi/tute my own!
Reality is the playground for the unimaginative.
guidedans: if god knows what we are going to do before we do it, and god cannot be wrong, free will does not exist.
if god punishes people who lack free will, he is not just.
in fact, that being would be a vindictive, petty pr1ck.
thanks for playing
A correction
In my OPINION, such a being would not be just, but a vindictive petty pr1ck
now we're good
Do you even get hte irony that you follow this...
"God isn't testing us to learn what we will do. He knows what we will do. He tests us so that we can see what we do and develop our character through our choices."
with this...
"If you are expecting to understand God's ways, you are barking up an extremely tall tree."
You can either understand god's ways or you can't...it's not both
For my Christian friends that doubt Evolution:
ftp://classes.waynesburg.edu/Philosophy/PHL215/finlay.pdf
Dr. Finlay is a devout Christian who happens to be an excellent biologist. You may enjoy reading this piece he wrote. You may also want to look up Dr. Francis Collins, another devout Christian scientist (He led the Human Genome Project), he also has a deep view of evolution (yes I'm talking about full Evolution, new species from common ancestors).
For me, " first cause" has always been the issue. The rest are ancillary details.
Why jump to the conclusion that there is a first cause and that it is your god?
It's not a jump. It has been a long, steady walk involving much thought and consideration.
So you'll have evidence to support both claims then?
For me, yes, evidence. Evidence to your satisfaction, not so much.
They've done experiments where a group of people witness someone demonstrating telepathic ability. Many assume it's a trick, but others believe it's real. Then they are shown another person demonstrating the same telepathic ability, but afterward the person shows them the trick they used. Everyone then believes that the second person was only performing a trick. The interesting part is that some of them will still believe the first person had telepathic ability.
ddeevviinn
You probably wouldn't be satisfied with the evidence for reincarnation, astrology, ghosts, leprechauns, alien abductions, Vishnu, Thetans, and virtually a million other things that people believe based on personal experience, correct? Optical illusions are "personal experiences" as well, yet we generally are convinced that what we see sometimes doesn't map to the reality that we all experience. Minds are often fooled. So, why should your personal experience hold any weight with anyone else?
kudlak
And the reason I wouldn't be satisfied with those evidences is because I find them to be unreliable, invalid and in some instances nonsensical. The evidences I find for my Christian faith are to me reliable, valid and rational.
ddeevviinn, Rationality can be explained. Unless your definition of 'rational' is completely different. But if the words we use have different meanings for you and everyone else, there's no point in using them, as we wouldn't be communicating at all.
"The evidences I find for my Christian faith are to me reliable, valid and rational."
Translation:
"I believe because I want to believe"
Thanks, sparky
ddeevviinn
And plenty of people find your reasons for believing in Christianity unreliable, invalid and in many instances, nonsensical. So, does this just boil down to subjectively favouring whatever seemingly happens to support the particular belief system that you subscribe to?
If that's the case, then I feel more grounded in letting the evidence lead me to the truth and not subscribing to any system that begins with presuming a truth and then selecting evidence to support it.
I think the whole notion that there must be a first cause is terribly misguided. Mathematical truths do not depend on a first cause. They exist, independently, absolutely, though we think of that kind of existence as different from physical existence. I'm not sure they are different.
In that we are discussing tangible, material matter ( the creation and existence of the universe) I would certainly appreciate it if you could list me a few examples of items in existence without first cause.
One thing you forget, before the "big bang" there might not be any concept of time and space as we know it. So the linier cause and effect we see in our reality would not be present before the big bang. Also if the was a God what did he used to create the universe? Himself? Or did he conger it out of nothing. If he did create it out of nothing then we don't need a God. In effect the universe might have cause itself to exist. (No time, no linier cause effect to worry about)
"In that we are discussing tangible, material matter ( the creation and existence of the universe)"
Suppose there's a "theory of everything" (the holy grail of physics is to discover it). In that theory, matter would theoretically exist, and have the theoretical property of being tangible. If a thing that exists in the theory, like a helium atom, does not have the same properties as a real helium atom, the theory is missing something.
There are an infinite number of possible theories. In the correct theory of our universe, there are atoms, and they form molecules, which form people who have brains that ponder and study other things in that theory.
"I would certainly appreciate it if you could list me a few examples of items in existence without first cause."
Take the collection of everything that exists, or ever existed. If there's a God, God is part of that collection. What was the cause of that collection of all that ever was or is?
Now, if you're going to tell me God is his own first cause, fine, but it's somewhat nonsensical. What does it mean for a thing to cause itself? And if it can, why can't the "primeval atom" (as Lemaitre called the thing that was at the start of the big bang) have been its own cause? Assigning properties like sentience to any first cause seems rather arbitrary.
In our everyday experience, where things occur in a causal chain, we really do expect that there must be some "first cause" least things get ridiculous. Yet, isn't that just a failure on our part to be able to conceive of any reality where infinite regression may actually be possible? In a sense, religious people who insist upon there being an infinite god are actually imagining something like this, where a being is infinitely regressed.
The question then is whether it actually makes more sense that something so complicated and intelligent really has a better chance than a simple, unintelligent universe of surviving infinite timelessness and being a "first cause"? Personally, I don't see how intelligence could operate without time in which to process information, or act upon any decision it could have made. God then really could not have created time, if it's intelligent and could act. I don't know how it could have created energy either without violating the first law of thermodynamics.
Of course, if you just want to say "Goddidit" without any expectation of ever understanding how he possibly could have did it then why not give equal credence to the universe being conjured up my magical pixies, or any of the other, less popular, creation creation stories.
ddeevviinn
Where in the real world are there any examples of minds existing without physical 'brains", let alone incorporeal minds powerful enough to create matter and energy from nothing? As far as we know, they only exist in religion, fantasy and science fiction, right? Now, tell me, can we actually determine any real difference between these three mediums? Can anyone prove that God exists anywhere outside of the human imagination?
Yes.based on evidence we can make a distinction between the three. Rational human beings clearly differentiate between the concepts of faith and those of fantasy and science fiction.
As I have stated countless times on this site, proof is a non issue. There is no proof, for either side. It is about reasonable evidence, and it is my opinion that the evidence for the Christian world view is overwhelming.
Overwhelming evidence for the Christian worldview, dev? So you just take Saul's word for what it is with virtually nothing to support his claims?
How about a few examples of this overwhelming evidence?
This is what gets me. ddeevviinn (not to single anyone out – this is common) says things like "The evidences I find for my Christian faith are to me reliable, valid and rational" and "It is about reasonable evidence, and it is my opinion that the evidence for the Christian world view is overwhelming", but I don't get the sense that his idea of the meaning of 'reasonable' and 'rational' are at all like the traditional ones. Reasoning and rationality can be explicated. If not, we're speaking different languages when we use those words. Can we learn to speak the same language? Don't just use 'reasonable' and 'rational' like buzzwords because it seems that's what the other side cares about.
ddeevviinn
You forget that the elements of fantasy very often originated in the old myths, which were simply the faiths of people past. You also seem to not realize that much of science fiction is just a reimagining of the old myths set in some future time. I've read much science fiction where the old gods, and even some current ones, feature as characters. Fantasy and science fiction are very much entwined.
Take Scientology. Is that just science fiction created by a science fiction writer, or is it also fully religion? If heroes and gods of myth as well as comic book characters have powers similar to those of Jesus, where does the rational person draw the line?
It's just your personal opinion that the evidence for Christianity is "reasonable". Many other people will be willing to share their opinion that the evidence for their religion, or alien abduction, or past lives, or encounter with ghosts, or fairies is also "reasonable". They can't all be true, but they certainly all could be false, correct?
Nor will he provide any examples of what he believes is evidence so that we might better understand what he means by his redefined word usage, which might be called babbling.
devin,
If there is a first cause, it could be natural. Do you assume that first cause is supernatural?
But what does natural or supernatural even mean at that level? To mean, natural has much to do with how something came to be, which doesn't apply to a first cause. I'd love to hear some ideas about what 'natural' and 'supernatural' mean, with some precision, as relates to this topic.
bostontola
In a sense I do assume it, but that assumption is based upon the plethora of evidence I find myself coming in contact with each and every day. Where the rub comes in is when what one individual calls " evidence" the other individual calls the product of nature, randomness, and extremely long periods of time. This is where you and I are.
devin. Would you accept such "evidence" when making an investment or a significant purchase or would you do due diligence against known criteria and standards?
santa
Whether it is deciding upon an investment, significant purchase, or if the existence of the universe is the result of an intelligent creator, I would subject all inquires to the information available. This is what I have done and it is what has led to my conclusions.
nepa,
There are hypothesized first cause explanations that conform to general physics (e.g. multiverse, more dimensions, etc.) Those are natural. Supernatural is anything that doesn't conform to physical laws (laws would include those not yet discovered, laws being a mathematical description, that would be my definition).
bostontola, "There are hypothesized first cause explanations that conform to general physics (e.g. multiverse, more dimensions, etc.) Those are natural."
Then maybe I don't understand what we mean by "first cause". Couldn't one ask what caused the multiverse?
Important question, nepa. This video is only 11 mins. Vilenkin has some important things to consider there relating multiverse and other ideas to the concept of fine tuning. It's not presented as if making any grand proclamations – but there are a lot of subtle ideas than make you think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkae8a7gklQ
Doris – Yes, I agree completely with the speaker in the video. The idea of a multiverse doesn't really address "first cause" (what caused the multiverse?), but it does provide a simpler explanation for fine-tuning than proposing there was a designer.
Nepa,
In the context of a multiverse, there may not be a first cause since time and sequence isn't even well defined. It could also be infinite.
What I can't get is how an infinite super being without a physical body with magical powers and a strange interest in what we do in our bedrooms actually makes better sense to some people than an infinite, utterly simple natural universe.
I wonder, if any of them ever saw an actual roadrunner dead on the side of the road, how many of them wouldn't automatically reject the idea that it was just hit by a car for some bipedal coyote dropping an anvil while flying overhead with an ACME rocket strapped to his back?
lol@kudlak. sadly, very true.
Doris
That is the way it is with the traditional explanations we learn as children.
Religion vs. Science. You can decide for yourself if you think religion and science are at odds. Certainly some sects of some religions are at odds with science, but the general question is more open to opinion.
Intuition vs. Reason. This pair are not at odds in general, although it certainly is in particular cases (e.g. evolution). We all need and use both. Ideally, you would use reason where data is available, and intuition where data is lacking. The conflict happens where there is data and people adhere to intuition.
An analogy would be navigation. We navigate through life and we navigate during a trip from one place to another. If you have GPS, you use it and get there with a high probability of success. If the GPS goes out, you use a map if you have one. If you don't have a map, you ask someone for directions, if no one is around, you navigate by intuition. Intuition is the last resort. Most people wouldn't navigate by intuition if they had GPS.
Back when religions were being developed, it was the best we had for navigating life. It was formed almost entirely from intuition. We now have science, ethics, art, literature, etc. to help us navigate on a more advanced level. Why go through life with the GPS turned off?
This article by Dr. Wickman, and some of the commenters are trying to hijack science to bolster their intuition and claim that the Big Bang, or the Anthropic Principle proves God. This is like using a toy GPS to navigate, it doesn't work.
What if you had a GPS and then you also had God telling you to go somewhere?
Which one would you go with?
What if you just thought it was God, but you couldn't be certain?
I would go with God, even if I was unsure. With the GPS, at best, you get to where you want to go. With God, at best, you get to where He wants you to be.
Personally I would go with the GPS over voices in my head that may or may not be god. What if god wants me to drive off a cliff? I think I'll pass.
No you are thinking of "Zen Navigation" :
where you follow someone who looks like they know where they are going. You don't end up where you want to be, but where you are needed.
Douglas Adams
Why would a reasonable, thinking person follow an imaginary, alleged but not proven, god when they can use a proven, tangible and functional GPS? Sounds like lunacy to me!
guideless, that's a pretty pointless theoretical comparison. There is evidence for existence of my GPS and I know its limitations. So far, no one, Christian or other, has produced valid, reproducible, verifiable evidence for their particular god.
Not only that, but the crazy god of the Christians seems too susceptible to exploits by their "Satan", which despite Christian god's supposed omnipotence, that god cannot overcome. So, you would have to remain uncertain whether it is god or satan messaging you, and according to Christian folklore (the bible), you could easily be steered far wrong and then Christian god would have to kill you for something that happened due to weakness in what was his design.
Me, I'll go with GPS, within its limitations and then only when backed by other location cues. Plus some traceable, certificate-backed messaging. No vulnerable BOMITS like the Christian one is required.
guidedans,
You are enti.tled to your choice. To me, following God is intuition, so you make my point for me.
Following the bible, is like following directions written centuries ago by some person helping someone else get from Jerusalem to Damascus, they don't work if you're going from New York to Jersey, or most other places today.
I think that analogy is flawed. The Bible has real-world applications to this day. Read Ecclesiastes 1. It has within it great wisdom regarding the world that remains true.
You are correct that society and cultures have changed dramatically over the ages, but morality and living life in a Christ-centered way have not changed.
A better analogy would be: Using a map that has been used successfully for 2000 years to get from point A to point B versus, using a brand new map that was written by a group of geographers last year, but has not been fully tested.
There is no wisdom in The Babble that can't be found elsewhere, no god (alleged but never proven) required.
As I said, "most places".
While there is some good things still relevant in the bible, there is much that is not good. Slavery, discrimination, subjugation, etc. Now you have to pick and choose. That is not necessary, since we have developed superior secular morals and ethics since then.
"Using a map that has been used successfully for 2000 years to get from point A to point B versus, using a brand new map that was written by a group of geographers last year, but has not been fully tested."
That depends on your definition of "used successfully", as opposed to, say, a Native or African American's definition of that map's successful use a couple of hundred years ago. Or a Ugandan LGBT today.
guidedans
Lots of ancient wisdom has real-world applications today. Confucius, the Buddha, many Greek philosophers and Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", just to name a few, are still widely read today.
how can you seriously claim that morality has not changed? do you feel your view of morality is the same as your great-great grandparents? that is 5 generations. consider the 100 or so since the time of christ
What if you had a son who you love and then you also had God telling you to kill him?
Which one would you go with?
Did my long-barren wife give birth to that son through a miracle of God?
ans. That is not an ans. Long barren means just that – not that a god produced a miracle.
guidedans,,
If a long-barren woman who wants children has (likely) been to doctors and finally became pregnant, you can probably thank modern science. Happens fairly often. No miracle.
For this hypothetical...yes.
As an aside I think it is funny that your wife getting pregnant was the part that you find implausable...not god talking to you or god telling you to kill a family member....
In Abraham's situation, I most likely would not have had the faith that he had to be willing to sacrifice his son per God's instruction.
That's my problem though. You also have to take the whole story into context as it is not as simple as "God telling Abraham to Kill his son" Prior to this, Abraham had many encounters with God and with Angels. Also, Sarah, his wife, was said to be 90 years old at the time of Isaac's birth. This birth was promised by God.
Honestly, if I had the experiences that Abraham had, I don't know what I would do. If you had the experiences that Abraham had, I am not sure you would know what to do either?
I would hope that I would trust God as God clearly had a better plan for Abraham than he had for himself, and God clearly has a better plan for me.
guideless, luv how your claimed omniscient deity still needs to test his subjects. Oh ya. What up next, he drowns a whole population and you'll call that loving? Not a smidgen of contradiction there. No really. /s
"If you had the experiences that Abraham had, I am not sure you would know what to do either?"
That one is easy... I would tell god to go pound sand...what kind of omnipotent psychopath would do that? And why would I want to be a part of that? If god wants him dead he can do it himself.
Unless it is all a myth made up by men, then it makes perfect sense.
"Honestly, if I had the experiences that Abraham had, I don't know what I would do. "
Do you mean experiences like whoring out his sister/wife to pharaohs to save his own hide? Like making his wife/sister to lie and say they were not married to save his own hide? Like raping his sister/wife's slave (oh, but it was Sarah's idea!)? Like banishing his sister/wife's slave into the desert with his child because his sister/wife is now jealous of her slave, because she bore his child?
And this is the guy your god picked as the founder of three major religions? LOL. More evidence that your god is an asshole.
That you would consider murdering your child because you thought God told you to is telling, guidans.
That you call your wife barren is also telling.
I don't suppose you've ever considered (because the ancient Hebrews never did) that the problem may have been with you?
You mean to tell me,
that a Jewish zombie can make me live forever,
if I telepathically accept him as my master…
all because a talking snake convinced a woman created by one rib
to eat from a magical tree?
Really???
- Rainer Braendlein
You keep posting this, and I keep correcting you.
You are going to live forever anyway. If you don't love the zombie and let him eat your brain he will torture you for ever.
He has to beacuse the serpent convinced the woman to eat the knowledge fruit.
When you get this wrong it confuses people.
In that proof of the existence or non-existence of God in unattainable, at some point in time common sense must be factored into the equation. As I'm watching the redheaded wo od pe cker hammering away on the 100 year old white oak outside my window, I cannot help but recognize both the aesthetic beauty and complexity of the moment. I am hard pressed to decide which I find more fascinating, the vibrant beauty of the bird and the majestic stature of the tree, or the realization that my own human brain is simultaneously taking in the scene while reading and typing on the computer.
It is the observation of these daily occurrences of beauty and complexity that scream of an intelligent creator. Obviously there are those who attempt valiantly to attribute these events to naturalism, but it is an attempt void of common sense. Fortunately, common sense will always prevail. From the dawn of civilization, to our current heightened state of technology, the vast majority of human beings on the planet have been fully aware of the obvious.
"It is the observation of these daily occurrences of beauty and complexity that scream of an intelligent creator"
And that is where you unjustifyably jumped the logic train away from common sense. Not having enough inforrmation to make ANY conclusion, and then leaping to a conclusion is not logical, not reasonable, and does not fit into common sense.
It is precisely these constant " daily occurrences" that give me " enough information."
daily life? Funny, but where exactly does it show any "creator" and how have you excluded all other possibilites?
To make your assertions, you must have excluded the other possibilities, otherwise, you are just forwarding belief as if it were true, which is completely dishonest.
" you must have excluded the other possibilities'
On this we agree. You need to understand that this "exclusion" was not determined haphazardly over night, but rather through a lifetime of careful consideration of the available information. Now there is no need attempting to refute that "available information" and what it indicates, this is something upon which we will never agree.
so devin, How did you exclude all other possibilities, and I don't mean ignore them in favor of what you want to be true, I mean actuall explore the possibility and exclude it using logic?
For instance, how did you exclude all of the other gods?
How did you exclude aliens controlling your mind?
How did you exclude the possibility that no gods are involved?
How did you exclude the myriad possibilities you have not even conceived?
Please show your work.
iga
I'll preface the following with the understanding that you have no interest in my actual answers, it's all about refutation.
" exclusion of all other Gods" This is actually very simple. I have considered world views from Animism to Zoroastrianism, and have found the only viable portrayal of God to be that found in the Judeo- Christian scriptures. There is no other account to my understanding that realistically presents the human condition and the nature of God.
" How do you exclude aliens controlling your mind"?
Silly question, but some times I do wonder.
" How do you exclude that no God's are involved"
Entirely too much evidence in the surrounding universe and on this planet for me not to come to the conclusion that is is the result of intelligence. Note that I am not indicating that this in and of itself points to the God of Christianity, simply a Creator.
How do you exclude the myriad of possibilities you have not conceived"
In that I have not "conceived " them it makes it a little hard to "exclude" them.
" Please show your work"
Is that you Mrs. Rice, my Calc 1 professor from years gone by?
devin, How can you claim to know the nature of a god when you cannot show that a god exists? I doubt very much whether you have earnestly embraced all religions in order to decide which god suits you – would I be right in guessing that the majority of your friends and family picked the same god?
" How can you claim to know the nature of God when you cannot show God exists"
" Showing" and believing are two different matters. I claim the knowledge based on the idea that God has revealed information about Himself in both nature and the written word.
" I doubt very much whether you have earnestly embraced all religions in order to decide which God suites you."
You are correct. I have only " earnestly embraced" one. As for the others, I have familiarized myself with the doctrines and tenets of the faith and have found them intellectually unsatisfying.
" would I be correct in guessing the majority of your friends and family have picked the same God?'
Again, you are correct. The fact that 79% of Americans define themselves as " Christian" would make that a pretty safe bet.
devin
How can you claim that aliens controlling your mind is a silly question. Just by saying that you prove you are not using any logic or reason by choosing your particular god. Since there is just as much likelyhood that aliens are controlling your mind as there is for any god ( zero evidence for either).
Face it...all you have is baseless belief, with nothing showing for it. there is no evidence of any gods, you have simply chosen to declare it to yourself, and that is delusion.
Thank you for admitting your belief is based on your own delusions.
ahhhh, the workings of a cult addled mind ...
This leads me to believe that god can't be very complex or he would need a creator.
"but it is an attempt void of common sense."
First you wonder at the complexity, then you think it is described by common sense. That is flawed reasoning. Is Quantum theory common sense, is Relativity theory common sense, is electromagnetic theory common sense, is Newtonian mechanics common sense? Your need to reduce the universe to common sense is your choice. If you think others are persuaded by such primitive reasoning, you're mistaken.
Actually, what appears primitive is your attempt at equating the complexity of the laws of physics with that of your own personal belief in the non-existence of a Creator.
SO is god complex or not?
devin,
Really? "I know you are but what am I" is your retort?
For me if complexity is a sign of a creator then god would need to be created because to create the entire universe and everything in it out of thin air one would need to be a lot more complex than anything on Earth.
Perhaps you've misunderstood my "retort"? Your entire initial reply was contingent upon the notion that your own personal understanding of reality, in this case the reality of existence, is complex and therefore true, much in the same way that the laws of physics are complex and true. I simply don't agree that it is a valid comparison or that "complexity" and "common sense" are mutually exclusive.
Joey
And I would take the opposite approach. The Creator revealed in the biblical literature is defined as the " self-existent One", a concept which to me would seem more plausible.
I never said complexity and common sense are mutually exclusive. That said, the intersection is miniscule. Your argument is completely resting on an assertion that God exists and that is obvious and common sense. Common sense is very poor at finding reality in complex conditions. Your argument is just unsubstantiated assertion.
" Your argument is just unsubstantiated assertion"
On a certain level, in light of lack of proof, I would agree with this statement. If you have read any of my other posts you are aware that, for me, the element of faith is the premise upon which my belief is hinged. It cannot be proven, quantified or verified. It is also a concept that while there are numerous divergent faiths, that fact in and of itself does not exclude the possibility of there being one that is solely true.
" Your argument is resting completely on the assertion that God exists"
I could not have said it better myself.
devin,
That's cool with me, there should be no law against living a faith based life. The fact that you recognize and embrace it should enhance your happiness.
And I'm "cool" with your right to embrace atheism, agnosticism or which ever particular flavor you choose. We are all on this planet together trying to figure this stuff out.
devin,
I think of myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't know if God exists or not (agnostic), but I choose to believe there are no Gods or supernatural phenomena (atheist).
I also happen to believe that no one knows if God exists or not, so in that sense we are all agnostics. Agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, agnostic deists, etc. Given that, we can all just drop the agnostic part (except for the agnostic only that have no beliefs in this area).
bostontola
I have stated previously that on more than one occasion I have heard the siren's call of agnosticism. There are philosophical and theological implications to my faith which cause me uneasiness. But in spite of this concern, when I take into account all the information available, I embrace my faith because I ultimately believe it to be both true and the most intellectually satisfying.
devin,
I think you just agreed that you are an agnostic theist. You don't know there's a God, you believe it with every fiber of your being.
There are those who want to believe that they are smarter than everyone else. That they somehow found out the truth that the world refuses to recognize. They are better than a religion, better than all the mindless followers of the some faith.
God is real. One day, you will give an account to Him of how smart you are. Only, at that time, it will become painfully obvious that you were worshiping your own mind and idolizing your quest for knowledge.
Humble yourselves before Jesus. Admit that you are a sinner, and that you don't have all the answers. Jesus has the power to give you eternal life.
To all you people dumping on ddeevviinn's note, all you have to live for is this life, and you are wasting it getting into arguments on the internet.
Come to Jesus. It is a better life than the one you are living.
You have no rationale reason to believe what you do. Seek help from a mental health professional.
Ruuuuuuuuuude
No more rude than yours above.
In a previous thread, guidedans said,
"The main reason I switched to Christianity however, was that, aside from it making my wife happy, I realized that, without God and Heaven, this life is all there is. "
I guess facing the prospect of a lifetime of nagging, never having "marital relations" again and fear of death is seems rational to some people.
delete the "is".
That's true, I did post that. Thanks for keeping it top of mind.
I went on to say that, after my conversion, the truth was made clear to me. Jesus accepts you as you are and, once filled with the Holy Spirit, you begin to become more Christ-like.
I was not a great person before my conversion. I am still not, but through Christ, I am trying to get there.
I love my wife deeply. She never nagged me, but I knew she genuinely believed I was not saved. I didn't understand what that meant before my conversion. I am sure that, upon your conversion, you would find similar revelations.
Oh, guidedans, how you do assume. I was raised in a religious home and was a spirit filled Christian for more than 50 years. A "good" one. Church attendance 3X a week, teaching Sunday school, teaching in a Christian school for my full time job. Bible study in several languages. My bible tutor (yes, I took private bible classes for about 10 years) told me never to take anyone's word for it when it came to the bible, not even his. And as they say, the best way to become an atheist is to really study the bible.
I am a much better person since I deprogrammed myself. I no longer feel the guilt and pressure from constantly being told that I'm a depraved, wicked sinner who deserves eternal torture. I don't have the unrelenting cloud of self condemnation that comes from believing an innocent human being was sacrificed for something that I was or did. I can now accept my human weaknesses as normal as well as accepting others weaknesses as just part of them being human too. My relationships are much better as a result.
Of course, I don't have the "promise" of eternal life, but since that has no evidence to back it up, I've come to accept my present life as all I'll have and I live it more fully. If I am wrong, and you are right, at least your god will know that I gave it my best shot with the material he gave me.
Guide..
Let me jump in here. I like doobzz was brought up to believe some of the things that were natural, were horrible sins. The guilt trip laid on me eventually caused me to rebel and break away from the brainwashing. I have never felt freer when I realized there was no eternal judgement and I could lead a full moral life without hobbling through life with some supernatural crutch to make me feel good about myself. You have settled for the crutch, so be it.
ausphor, you said it so much better, with fewer words.
guidedans: "To all you people dumping on ddeevviinn's note, all you have to live for is this life, and you are wasting it getting into arguments on the internet. "
lol – you seem to have time for it yourself.
Obviously there is something at stake here or people wouldn't waste their time. could it be that they want to curtail misinformation? (Andrew Snelling anyone?) Could it be that they don't want to see others' lives dirtied up by those who would have you waste this life preparing for some alleged afterlife? Could it be that some want to prevent further damage in developing countries by Christian evangelists (Scott Lively anyone?)??
I got an eternity of bliss to look forward to. I can invest some time now in trying to get you all to enjoy the same fate as me.
Honestly though, if you just have this life to live, there are plenty of more important things to do than argue your points online. Maybe go out and maximize your pleasure in your life. You got nothing beyond this life. Don't waste it here.
I don't consider countering the swindle that is religion a waste of time. I consider it an obligation.
guide..
If your heaven is watching endless reruns of Jim and Tammy Faye, Jimmy Swaggart, Joel Osteen, etc, please, please let me go to hell.
is it fate, guidedans?
"It is the observation of these daily occurrences of beauty and complexity that scream of an intelligent creator. Obviously there are those who attempt valiantly to attribute these events to naturalism, but it is an attempt void of common sense. "
No, beauty and complexity do not scream of an intelligent creator. You're the one screaming, purely out of ignorance. If someone showed you how beauty and complexity could exist without a creator, in defiance of your intuition, you'd be less ignorant, and know that what you're calling common sense is just plain wrong.
View the following image: http://tinyurl.com/qagqczg
You don't see beauty and complexity in that? Yet no creator.
" If someone could show you how beauty and complexity could exist without a creator ..."
But they never have, your anecdotal example not withstanding.
My anecdotal example? What's wrong with it? No beauty in it?
A creator does not imply a heaven or a hell, sin or redemption, or even a God. Those are all man made constructs
If you are telling me you can look at that image, and it not surprise you that there was no designer of the patterns in it, I have to question your sincerity. How do you go about telling what looks like it had a designer, and what does not? I don't think you can, but your argument hinges on that you can.
I look at any given random, singularly unique snowflake and come to the same conclusion: The creator of the universe has expressed his creation often in mathematical, geometric and orderly fashion.
As for my "sincerity," I will leave that for you to decide.
"I look at any given random, singularly unique snowflake and come to the same conclusion: The creator of the universe has expressed his creation often in mathematical, geometric and orderly fashion."
I'm not understanding the relevance. I'm showing you something that had no designer. A beautiful, intricate design without a designer. How are snowflakes relevant to that example of something which looks so much like it would require a designer, but does not?
nepa
When I type in the address I only see an image without description. I assumed the image was that of some "random" natural structure. As far as I know it could be a magnified atom or an endless circle of seahorses visualized through a kaleidoscope.
Please advise.
ddeevviinn: "I assumed the image was that of some "random" natural structure. As far as I know it could be a magnified atom or an endless circle of seahorses visualized through a kaleidoscope."
What it is isn't relevant. The point is, you don't know what it is, you look at it, and do you or don't you see a design? And do you see evidence of a designer? You say in some things you do see evidence of a designer. Do you see it in this?
nepa
Obviously this is a setup, but I'll bite. Yes, at some level design and designer are involved.
Now you can WOW me.
ddeevviinn, "Obviously this is a setup, but I'll bite. Yes, at some level design and designer are involved."
No setup. As I already pointed out, there is no designer of that design. Neither man nor God had any hand in that design. Earlier I wrote: "If someone could show you how beauty and complexity could exist without a creator ..."
And you replied: "But they never have, your anecdotal example not withstanding."
You have been shown. You now see that your intuition is unreliable, regarding what requires a designer.
nepa
Until you identify both the object and the source, your argument is irrelevant.
If the beauty of a woodpe.cker screams of a creator what does the uglyness of children with terminal cancer scream of?
" Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"
Paul
In this present world, the scream of sin is often the loudest scream of all.
So woodpe.ckers are gods doing but somehow cancer is our fault....logically that makes so little sense.....or none at all.
Not to mention devin that unless you are a young earth creationist, which from what I remember you aren't....you know cancer predates humans, there is no possible way you can blame cancer on humans....(ok, I am sure you can rationalize it somehow)
Cheese
Yes, woo d pe ckers good. Cancer bad.
The fall of ho mo sapiens resulted in suffering and death, and yes even in children. This notion of sin and its effects, however, predates the Genesis account.
devin I have no idea how you can connect cancer to sin...and you have done nothing to answer that.
Here is the point....woodpeck.ers good...cancer bad. Using what we know about biology both have been around longer than humans so neither could be caused by humans. The christian view that human sin caused cancer is nonsensical.
Cheese
Yea, that was a partial if not shoddy answer. I was in the middle of something and just quickly fired off a reply. I'll try to clarify, but I'm guessing it won't change our ddisagreement.
The context was human disease, specifically childhood cancer, and its relationship to sin. It's my position that random genetic mutations of DNA that ultimately lead to the formation of tumor growth would theoretically not have developed apart from the advent of human sin. I do not know what environmental or physiological conditions would need to have been present in order to deter such development, but I do not believe the pathophysiology would have been present.
ViciQuotes:
"The Anthropic Principle reveals God."
"This discovery, if confirmed—that would be sometime in August, is the Holy Grail of astrophysical predictions.."
"Whatever scientific discovery pointing to God is but part of the 'Natural Revelation.'"
[Big Bang] "That implies that only a 'Supernatural Power' can do that, hence the "Spoken Word," the "Breath" of God."
"The God hypothesis is the most plausible and extremely LOGICAL explanation for this existence; there is no other explanation for the 'Origin' of the universe and life in it."
====
I guess to Vic, the image of Christ achieved via Silly Putty pressed onto a graphic in the latest church bulletin reveals God. For others, I wonder if that's also idolatry, though. Kids really like their Silly Putty.
Someone commented: "I should qualify that. We can prove mathematics is true and we can prove that something exists. Beyond that, everything is conjecture."
1. This statement is a great example of extreme confidence in false ideas. It is stated like it is a universally accepted fact.
2. What does, "we can prove mathematics" even mean? I will assume he meant "we can prove statements in mathematics".
But it still illuminates the mind set of absolutes. Even in mathematics, we need to be very careful about taking things as truth. Euclid developed Geometry thousands of years ago. It was a towering achievement of human intellect and changed the way humans think. But it isn't True (capital T). If you take its axioms and derive all the proofs, it is all self consistent. For centuries, and even today, people saw the axioms as obviously true. While people tried to reduce the number of axioms, they were held as truths. It wasn't until the 19th century when Gauss and then Lobachevsky found that the axioms didn't have to be true. That fully consistent geometries exist with different axioms.
On our planet, at our scale, everything looks Euclidean. It is self evident. For some time, people even thought the non-euclidean geometries were just interesting mathematical constructions, not reality. The came Einstein. He showed that the universe is fundamentally non-euclidean, and that euclidean geometry is the mathematical construction, the approximation.
What you think is true based on your experience may not be true.
Which kind of geometry, which axioms, if any, match the real world, is not a question of mathematics. Axioms are true in a model. Which model is consistent with the real world is not a mathematical question.
Axioms are defined, not true. They either do or don't create a self consistent body of theorems. The theorems are logically true (if done right).
"Axioms are defined, not true. They either do or don't create a self consistent body of theorems. The theorems are logically true (if done right)."
First, axioms are theorems. They're theorems with very simple proofs, but they're theorems nonetheless.
Seconds, theorems are true in a given model if the axioms are true in that model, and the rules of inference are sound.
Axioms are generally chosen such that they're believed to be true in a model that is of interest (like geometry).
Euclid's axioms are true in Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry not being the geometry of our physical universe is not a mathematical mistake, but a misunderstanding about the universe.
Ok, that is what you were taught. I was taught differently, and I work with quite a few mathematicians. They don't view things your way.
Mathematics is not a model. A model is a mathematical structure that describes something else, usually a physical or conceptual system. The model is designed to emulate that system as closely as possible or affordable.
Axioms are not theorems in any system I have ever seen, they are assumed, i.e. defined.
I'd appreciate a link to a math book that describes axioms as theorems.
"Ok, that is what you were taught. I was taught differently, and I work with quite a few mathematicians. They don't view things your way."
Remind them of the Axiom of Choice (explanation at bottom). You need to find a mathematician who specializes in logic. (yes, they all use logic, but they don't all study it)
Suppose A is an axiom.
A implies (A and A)
(A and A) implies A
I've just given a proof of A. Thus A is a theorem. Of course, there's a shorter proof of A: It's an axiom. Yes, "It's an axiom" is a proof.
"Mathematics is not a model."
Nor was that suggested.
"I'd appreciate a link to a math book that describes axioms as theorems."
I doubt any of the books themselves are available online. I'd have to check my bookshelf, but I'm not home.
Here's something from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system
quote: In an axiomatic system, an axiom is called independent if it is not a theorem that can be derived from other axioms in the system.
So a dependent axiom can be proved using other axioms. But every axiom can be proved using itself.
Also consider the Axiom of Choice in set theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice
This is somewhat famous as its adoption as an axiom was somewhat controversial, and moreso because it took some great mathematicians to prove that the Axiom of Choice is actually independent of the other axioms of set theory. The relevance here is that it was called an axiom before it was known that it was independent, and indeed, one can "assume" a bunch of axioms, and sometimes not know that one of them can be proved using others.
nepa,
Axioms in logic are different, I was discussing mathematics. Non-logical axioms are definitions.
bostontola, "Axioms in logic are different, I was discussing mathematics. Non-logical axioms are definitions."
Axioms are most certainly not definitions. Example: There is a set such that no set is a member of it. That's an axiom. It doesn't define what a set is, or define anything.
There are no "non-logical" axioms. Axioms are the basis of theories, which allow proofs of theorems, and proofs employ logic, either formally or informally. Any known system of proof used in mathematics can be formalized; there's no essential difference between formal logic and the logic used informally in mathematical proofs.
Formal logic is a branch of mathematics, and all mathematics can be expressed in formal logic.
Every axiom is a theorem, albeit having a trivial proof.
But we're drifting off topic. The point is that which geometry (Euclidean or some non-Euclidean one) corresponds to the physical universe is not a question in mathematics. Assuming the wrong one was not a failing of mathematics. Axioms are true in a model, but the physical universe is not a model for Euclidean geometry.
nepa,
There are 2 separate things going on; 1. Genuine disagreement on the philosophy of mathematics/logic (of which there are more than one), and 2. I think we are talking past each other on the point of whether the geometry of the universe is a question of mathematics. It isn't, and I didn't intend to imply that. The point of the OP was that truth in the physical world and the mathematical were historically conflated. Mathematical truth is the result of axioms and logic. The physical world is different, we don't have axioms, just invented science. The point wasn't that Euclidean or non Euclidean geometry is right or wrong, or more right than the other, it is that historically, people prematurely assigned truth to things that were apparently obvious.
Back to 1. We disagree on this. I don't see axioms as even trivial theorems. You can make a trivial theorem out of an axiom. Perhaps I used imprecise language saying an axiom is a definition, I meant axioms are defined, mathematicians define them. A system of mathematics can have different sets of axioms define it. There are questions of what is a minimal set, etc. but they are defined. It is a philosophical point as to whether you regard them as "true". I don't. The logical derivations from them I do regard as true (theorems). This approach of viewing axioms as defined premises (rather than self evident truths) of a mathematical system is the basis of its separation from physical world truth.
If A is an axiom, and B is an axiom, then "A and B" is a theorem. If that theorem is true, then A must be true, and B must be true.
nepa,
I don't think so. Like I said, if the theorem is: If A, and if B then A and B, the truth os A, B is irrelevant. It is a purely philosophical difference. It wouldn't result in any different theorems being true or false, the exact same mathematical system would obtain.
All very interesting but can each of you assure us that no god is hiding amongst your axioms and theorems? :^))
The statement "A and B" is true if and only if A is true and B is true. There's no philosophizing around that most basic bit of logic.
haa,
Pythagoras probably thought God was in mathematics, if there is a God that's where I would look ; )
nepa,
I disagree, it is completely philosophical. Agree to disagree.
What's you definition of the logical connective 'and'? According to every definition I know, if "A and B" is true, then A must be true.
nepa,
Since A is an axiom, and B is an axiom, they are treated as true in the logical expression, in fact they are defined as true within that narrow mathematical/logical structure. That doesn't mean they are true in any other sense. That narrow application of true in that system vs. the broader application of true is part of the point of the OP. Being defined as true within a narrow mathematical or logical system doesn't mean the statement is true in a broader context.
Bostontola,
That was very well put. My comment regarding mathematics and the existence of something being provable was meant to show that there is VERY little in the universe that is provable. I was not trying to argue about mathematics and something's existence, but merely trying to show that, to all those who are putting "proof" on a pedestal, they really have no foundation on which to base that "proof."
What you are saying is correct. Everyone's experience is different, and it is the only thing on which we can base our "truth."
What I am saying is that, Christianity is a valid expression of truth to believers, and when non-believers are demanding "proof" of Christianity, it is a futile exercise. No one can prove Christianity is true. That's why we have faith. No one can prove science is true either. People believe that is true as well.
"What I am saying is that, Christianity is a valid expression of truth to believers, and when non-believers are demanding "proof" of Christianity, it is a futile exercise. No one can prove Christianity is true. That's why we have faith."
This is a respectable position, I have no issue with this.
"No one can prove science is true either. People believe that is true as well."
This however, I cannot support. Science is the best tool we have to create models of what the objective world is actually like. No other system (especially faith based ones) require the level of consitency in results that science does before it may be considered "true". And even then, science allows for, even requires that, people question these truths.
You can get a nobel prize for disproving a well established theory. You would not be made a saint for discovering a flaw in the Bible. For me, that's the difference.
G**T,
The word true is tricky. I don't consider science is the quest for truth. I see it as the human impulse to tame the world for their purposes. The most effective way has been the scientific method. Science doesn't have to be true, it just has to work. When scientists stopped viewing science as truth, and looked at it as a model that predicts the universe's behavior, they did much better. They didn't cling to obsolete ideas as long and science has advanced dramatically.
Personally, I like to avoid the word true as much as possible. I find that keeps me out of trouble.
B – I can appreciate that. Maybe it would be better to say that I think science is a more accurate (as opposed to "true") way of trying to understand what objective reality actually is?
guidedans,
I would never ask for proof of God because I know it doesn't exist for any God. In the same way, you can't prove some god doesn't exist, and you can't prove all Gods don't exist, or you can't prove a subset of gods don't exist. I have no problem with people having faith in their God, loving their God, etc. I only feel the hairs on the back of my neck when a group tries to impress their beliefs on others.
I can respect and appreciate that. I get frustrated as well when people are very forceful with their beliefs.
I try to look at the intent of the person. If the person is just trying to get more people in their club, my hair too stands on end. But if the person genuinely cares about me as a person and is honestly worried about my eternal fate, (either rationally or irrationally) I tend to not be as irritated.
In the Christian world-view, the main commandment is to love one another. But the Bible also states that Jesus is the only way to God, the alternative being Hell. If a Christian truly believes their faith, then they will not want to see anyone perish and will work to try to communicate their beliefs to the world to attempt to save them.
I know some people go too far, and maybe I do too sometimes, but for many (and myself), it is out of concern.
♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
From the article:
[
"The creation message in Genesis tells us that God created a special place for humans to live..."
"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."
"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."
]
The Anthropic Principle reveals God.
Early on:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-24/#comment-2973312
""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.""
The universe exists, and life evolves to meet the conditions that it is in. The life tunes itself to the conditions, not the other way around.
The Fundamental Cosmological Constants are accurately measured with which the universe is finely tuned to accommodate for human life. That's anthropic centered, hence the Anthropic Principle.
Vic, read this again, this time for comprehension:
"The universe exists, and life evolves to meet the conditions that it is in. The life tunes itself to the conditions, not the other way around."
Vic.
Simply observing life destrys the whole notion. If I have a life form that is perfectly happy and thriving, say in a swamp...I then drain the swamp, changing the conditions, the life forms that adapt, live, those that do not adapt, die. This is observed thoughout all life we can observe, clearly showing life adapting to the environment. The environment we are in is continuously trying to kill us, and all life changes to meet the changing environment.
Simply observing life claerly shows that Anthropic Principle is incorrect. They put the horse before the cart and have the cause/effect relationship backwards. I
"The Anthropic Principle reveals God."
Actually, The AP is a natural alternative to the need for a God to explain the observable universe and life. It says that there are so many universes and stars/planets that there has to be one where life and intelligence can form all on it's own. Even though it looks "tuned", it is just the result of large numbers, it had to fall just right somewhere. The intelligence there will think they are special, but they are just lucky, someone had to win the cosmic lottery, and they did.
It denies God.
"The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"
Stephen Hawking
Why does there even have to be a reason why?
I know!
"Cuz God"
Because things exist in the model.
Clearly the universe is fine tuned for life, and that is why as far as we know life only exists in about .0000000000000000000000000001% of the universe. Note: I made that number up. But it has to be pretty small since we are the only life we know of and the universe is freaking huge and still expanding.
Honest heart.
God Bless.
What?
Vic I must say I'm disappointed in you. Joey's counter is a valid one. The fact that less that 1% of the universe (even if there are millions of other planets with life) is able support life is a challenge to AP.
How in your mind does AP counter this challenge?
The anthropic principle is too difficult for you to understand.
Here’s what we know. There are about 400,000,000,000 galaxies in the known Universe. If each was the size of a grain of sand, they would fill every beach in Florida. Each of these galaxies has about 100,000,000,000 stars, each star with, on average, a family of 5-10 planets circling it.
Fifth grade math shows that Earth is one of 5 X 100,000,000,000 X 400,000,000,000 = 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets.
Christianity is the belief that Earth is God’s chosen planet.
There are currently about 8,700,000 species on Earth. It is credibly estimated that 99.9% of species that have ever lived on Earth have gone extinct. Again, fifth grade math shows that about 8,700,000,000 species have ever lived on Earth.
Christianity is the belief that Hom.o Sapiens is God’s favorite species.
There have been thousands of human cultures that have ever lived on Earth. From the southern tip of South America, through South, Central and North America, Australian, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, the Philippines, Indonesia and the rest of South East Asia, China, Ja.pan, Mongolia, Manchuria, India, Pakistan, the other “Stans,” Russia, Europe, Scandinavia, the Middle East, the Mediterranean, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and the many islands scattered around the globe.
Christianity is the belief that the Jews are God’s chosen people.
The Bible has 613 rules scattered throughout it. They go into painstaking detail as to how late Bronze Age Jewish rural life should be led, dictating how they should eat, what they should eat, how they should farm, how they should interact with other late Bronze Age Jews, how they should practice their religion.
Tellingly, this book form the creator of the Universe does not even mention the southern tip of South America, through South, Central and North America, Australian, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, the Philippines, Indonesia and the rest of South East Asia, China, Ja.pan, Mongolia, Manchuria, India, Pakistan, the other “Stans,” Russia, Europe, Scandinavia, sub-Saharan Africa and the many islands scattered around the globe. It also does not mention the 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets; or the other 400,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable Universe.
It is so obvious, beyond any sane doubt, that the Jews made God in their image and not vice-versa. If and when we are ever visited by an alien civilization, I can imagine one of the creature staring incredulously at the Vatican or wailing wall and asking its human hosts, “so, you REALLY thought it was all about you?”
We so need to grow up as a species.
Haha. Nicely done. I love when you imagine the aliens coming to visit and they act like you. You are funny one.
I'm glad Christianity isn't confined to what you imagine it is. Most rational and reasonable adults already know that.
Rational and reasonable adults know that Christianity is one of the great cons of human history. Details available upon written request.
Some have used Christianity to pull scams, yes. But to say all rational and reasonable people believe Christianity in its essence is a scam is a bit of a stretch. There are adults who have demonstrated they are more rational and reasonable than you – and they are Christians and they are not part of any scam.
every Sunday in every single Christian church in the entire world a scam is being run. The scam is getting to believe that they will live forever after they die if they believe in Jesus.
Wow, Joey! That is quite a claim. Ok, what am I being scammed out of? I'm actually told that I'm not to believe "I will live forever after I die if I believe in Jesus", so that kind of puts a damper on your theory/imagination.
The actual scam is pretending that gods exist in order to wield power and control, and/or take in money. What each cult claims as beliefs (you will/will not go to heaven) or does is just story/product differentiation to attract market share. Yes, some cults do some good things (charitable acts) but that's what you have to do to attract some people to your cult.
My cult has no power like that. We give most of our money away to those in need. That is our ideal. We definitely are not running a business or getting rich. And there is no scam.
Dala, The majority of believers state that their god created the universe for them; you seem to be an outlier in many aspects of faith but I can never understand why you associate with a religion when you don't really conform to those beliefs. You could believe in a god but not associate with a religion or with a religion so divergent from your beliefs.
dala
Maybe you are being csammed out of your chance to enter Valhalla.
Maybe you are being scammed out of your chance for a favored view from Mount Olympus.
Maybe you are being scammed off the path of enlightnment.
Maybe you are being scammed into being a lesser animal when you are re-incarnated.
Maybe, you are being scammed out of the time you waste on a religion that may be false.
Maybe you are being scammed out of any of thousands of possibilities.
"I"ll never know from livin', only my dying will tell, only my dying will tell"
Most believers I meet in religious settings don't hold viewpoints that a few anti-theists on here claim they hold. It is not that difficult for me to figure that out. Yes, some religions and some people do hold viewpoints they describe. But I don't. And I'm in a community of people that mostly don't, either. And the ones that do, we welcome and try to love as we would want for ourselves.
I believe in God. And I believe in the ideals that the churches I attend teach. And I have witnessed good examples of how to carry that out. And, yes, I also see bad examples in the very churches I love. But that is ok. I'm sure some people think I'm a bad example, too.
Added details on the infamous Christian con as requested by Dalahäst's comments:
Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations (or “mythicizing” from P, M, M, L and J) and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Ludemann, Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hitt-ites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
earlychristianwritings.com/
For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".
Current RCC problems:
Pedophiliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!
Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).
Current problems:
Adulterous preachers, pedophiliac clerics, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology,
"Ok, what am I being scammed out of?"
Time, money, rationality, love. What AREN'T you being scammed out of?
I'm sure if aliens come visiting, it will be because God gave them directions to the planet that houses His chosen people.
After all, God is anthropocentric and the rest of the Universe is nothing but inconsequential window dressing.
Uh, is that what you believe? Or what you imagine I believe? The rest of the Universe is nothing but inconsequential window dressing?: No way.
@Dalahast
Do you believe that God is anthropocentric and that Humans are the predilect objects of creation?
I don't think God is literally anthropocentric. To get an understanding between the role of creature and Creator, sometimes anthropocentric terms are helpful to illustrate what that looks like.
So Mankind is NOT God's greatest creation?
Are there other that were made in His image?
(note: anthropocentric = primarily concerned with humans. Anthropomorphic = physically resembles a human)
People hold anthropocentric views, both religious and non-religious people demonstrate this. I don't think God is anthropocentric. I can't put those kinds of limits on God.
Which of God's creations is greater and more important to Him than mankind?
The overwhelming majority of Abrahamics are of the opinion that we are God's primary focus....
I've been taught we are just a part of His creation. We study the creation to learn more about it and become creators ourselves. We have evidence that others creatures create things. But I haven't seen any other creature create anything like human beings do.
In my opinion, Hubble did more to discredit the Judeo-Christian superst.ition that Darwin. Darwin ripped the heart out of one of the God of the Gaps arguments (i.e. we don't know how complex life forms arose, therefore the Judeo-Christian god did it) but Hubble showed that the whole idea of there being any cosmic importance to planet Earth is naked parochialism to the highest mathematical degree possible.
Well, the Bible and any branch of Christianity I know of pretty much puts Earth, human beings and, in particular, Bronze Age Jews at the centre of things. That's the beauty of writing "God's Book", you get to chose the star and costar.
Here's what we know:
Nothing
I should qualify that. We can prove mathematics is true and we can prove that something exists.
Beyond that, everything is conjecture.
Christianity has evidence, it has a logic to it, it has a set of beliefs. Christianity is a perspective through which we choose to view the world. From your comment, you have described an alternative perspective. If you are going to argue that your perspective is more true than ours, then you should really take a look at the foundation for your beliefs and see if you can really put faith in that foundation.
I truly believe you have put your faith in this world and in yourself. Both of those things are finite and may not really exist. I really think you should put your faith in the eternal and in Jesus.
No, Christianity is not logical. There are infinite possibilities as to how the universe came to be. Christianity is one guess. There is no evidence supporting that guess and endless evidence opposing it. Believing in Christianity is about as illogical as it gets.
I disagree. I believe there is a logic to Christianity. It all is very logical to me. I believe you are just choosing not to see that logic.
I'm sorry, but if you feel that way, you're delusional.
"I should qualify that. We can prove mathematics is true and we can prove that something exists. Beyond that, everything is conjecture."
guidedans,
That is how you view the world, and it explains your ability to easily dismiss objective evidence and hold onto evidence-free belief as Truth. All elements of knowledge have a degree of confidence, or likelihood of being right. They are not equal. Some things are as certain as the earth is rotating, others are pure speculation, much is in between. Your over simplified view that all is conjecture may help you sustain your belief, but don't fool yourself into thinking it is some truth.
You are entirely correct. I am trying to point out to all the "Proof" mongers out there that your definition of "proof" is highly lacking. Everyone has to live by faith. You seem to live by faith that what you see is real and that science is a good way to understand the world. I live by faith that God is real and that He does not deceive us (thus what we see is real).
I believe all these cries demanding proof in God's existence are as futile as us debating our own existence.
In fact guidedans, it is believers' definition of proof and evidence that is out of whack with all other knowledge domains. Only religion carves out a definition that says its beliefs and alleged but never proven gods cannot be proven, measured, etc. but should be believed as if they are 100% true, and not questioned. But thank you for admitting that you believe and take very seriously things for which there is no actual evidence. Too bad you can't follow that with an admission you are pretending to know things you do not, that you are behaving very illogically or are mentally ill.
"I should qualify that. We can prove mathematics is true and we can prove that something exists."
But you, nor anyone else, can prove your, or any, god exists.
Anyone else see a problem here?
Yes I have a problem with your assumption. Just because somebody can't prove to you God exists, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Or that proof can't exist for other people. Maybe you just are seeking God in the wrong way. Like you are trying to scientifically prove God, when He transcends science. His evidence is spiritual in nature, which isn't limited, like science or our very elementary understanding of science.
guidedans made some claims that appear contradictory. Rather than making assumptions about what I am in search of or am trying to prove, how about dealing with the apparent contradiction or explain why there is no contradiction.
" His evidence is spiritual in nature, which isn't limited, like science or our very elementary understanding of science."
There is no evidence of any gods or anything "spiritual". That is presuppostion with no evidence.There are far too many other possibilities to first make any conclusions, or secondly, make further presuppostions based of of the first presupposition.
Basically you can make up anything you want and believe it is true.
Men like to make up answers to questions we do not yet have the answers for.
Ok, hotairace, I will ignore your contradiction and focus on guidedans contradiction:
I think he is saying that Christianity is the viewpoint he uses to view the world. The atheist, agnostic and anti-theist viewpoints don't work for him. You may see a contradiction because your viewpoint works for you. Sure.
igaftr
I'm testifying that there are spiritual truths that science is incapable of describing or proving. A lot of our human understanding deals with this fact of life.
So proof is whatever someone says it is according to their worldview. Interesting.
"Yes I have a problem with your assumption. Just because somebody can't prove to you God exists, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist."
True. But it does mean that it would be irrational and illogical to believe in a god. Believing in things for which their is no evidence, ie faith, is not very intelligent.
"spritual truths" LOL
What you are really dealing with is humans imaginations.
People imagie a great deal of things, including thousands of gods, the "supernatural", the "spiritual" etc.
You cannot study these things, since the imagination can change things continuously. All existing evidence shows these things only exist in humans imaginations.
What you are really studying is imaginary truths, things you think are real, and it sounds like you have convinced yourself that your "logic" makes sense, but an ACTUAL logical examiniation will find any conclusions baseless, until you can eliminate all other possibilities.
igaftr
We are spiritual beings having a human experience. There is more to life than meets the eye. Science does a very good job of explaining how, but not ultimately why.
And The Babble does a crap job of explaining why, but we should believe it anyway. Not!
"We are spiritual beings having a human experience."
Belief again.
We do not know what the energy is that is life. We do not know how it works, where it comes from nor where it goes on death.
THAT is the truth. Anything else is belief and speculation.
Why does there have to be a why? .
hotairrace. I am saying you can't "Prove" anything.
Stop asking for proof. It will lead nowhere. If you want evidence, look at near-death experiences, or people who report seeing God or angels or Jesus. You may dismiss this evidence as hearsay, but it is still evidence.
You are just choosing to look only at the evidence that supports your beliefs and immediately dismissing ideas that contradict your beliefs. Sounds like something that atheists accuse Christians of doing doesn't it?
"Stop asking for proof. It will lead nowhere."
Finnaly guide says something correct. It will lead nowhere because there is no evidence. There are a lot of people who have an experience they cannot readily explain, and attribute it to gods that are different in each persons imagination. ALl "evidence" leads directly to imagination.
Guide.
Please show any experience that you claim was god, and then show how you excluded all other possibilites. Until then, you have nothing.
guidedans, it was you who claimed to have evidence. If you have evidence, you should be able to produce it. But no, you want to carve out an exception for religion *and* expect us to behave as if your unfounded beliefs are true.
Why should religion (continue to) get a "free pass" and why should we treat your mythology as fact?
igaftr,
I said that there is no proof of anything, not that there is no evidence of anything.
Evidence is everywhere. Proof is impossible in this world.
Why are you asking me to disprove every other explanation before you can accept that something was God's doing?
That is an impossible burden of proof.
You can go the other way too. Disprove completely that God did not do something before I believe your explanation.
Stop asking for proof and when you are provided with evidence, consider every possible explanation before automatically assuming that it was not God.
guidedans,
It should be extremely easy for God to PROVE that he exists. That leaves 3 possible explanations:
(1) God can't do it
(2) God refuses to do it
(3) God doesn't exist
hotairrace.
Do a Google search of Near Death Experiences. Sure it might just the chaotic thoughts of a dying brain, but really, why would humans evolve this trait to, upon death, imagine very similar things?
If evolution promotes "survival of the fittest", what fitness does a near death experience provide?
I'm not going to do your homework for you! You claimed things could be proven to exist. You claimed christianity has evidence. It's up to you to make good on your claims or admit you lied.
observer,
You say, "It should be extremely easy for God to PROVE that he exists."
Oh you mean, like come down to Earth as a man, live a perfect life, then get executed for crimes He didn't commit, resurrect, then show us all that our sins are forgiven and that we all can have eternal life?
Maybe God did "prove" He exists, but you are so blinded to that reality, you choose not to see it.
hotairrace,
you are confused. I never said I had "proof" of Christianity. In fact, I said the opposite. I said nothing can be "proven".
I did say that I had evidence of the truths of Christianity. I gave you some of that evidence, but, if you don't want to do your homework, I am not going to force you to.
Go to Jesus.
guidedans,
That's strange. I thought he impregnated a married woman and was floating around heaven watching his SON Jesus here on earth.
guidedans, it is unfortunate your memory and reading ability sucks. From above:
"guidedans
Here's what we know:
Nothing
I should qualify that. We can prove mathematics is true and we can prove that something exists.
Beyond that, everything is conjecture.
Christianity has evidence ..."
Where did I ask for proof of anything? Where did you provide any actual evidence?
"Christianity has evidence, it has a logic to it, it has a set of beliefs"
well, it does have a set of beliefs. 1 out of 3 is not very good.
I see and experience the evidence. Theology is a systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths. I apply logic and reason to my beliefs.
"I see and experience the evidence"
and then leap to an unjustified conclusion that you know what explains the experience. For all you know, you are walking with Satan, since you would not know the difference. You claim to apply logic, but how exactly is it logical to jump to a conclusion when you have no actaul logic chain for any conclusion at all? That in itself is illogical and unreasonable.
"I apply logic and reason to my beliefs."
How does one apply logic and reason to believing in human sacrifice to appease a deity?
"Christianity has evidence, it has a logic to it"
If it did I ould still be a christian.
+ igaftr
If I apply logic and reason to these passages, you might be correct. I am walking with Satan right now without even realizing it:
"You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
The acts of the flesh are obvious: se.xual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, or.gies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other."
Arguing and insulting others because they insult me is not the way of the spirit.
I need to stop. Thanks for helping me see this. I need to stop wasting my time on this blog and start carrying out the fruits of the spirit.
~
+ How does one apply logic and reason to believing in human sacrifice to appease a deity?
I'm not trying to appease a diety. I'm dealing with the natural consequences of my actions. I'm taking responsibility for my self.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. "
I'm under no law if I practice those spiritual principles. I'm free.
"I'm not trying to appease a diety. I'm dealing with the natural consequences of my actions. I'm taking responsibility for my self."
So why did Jesus die?
As a Chrisitan, in the end you are letting Jesus take responsibility for your actions. There is no way around this other than to stand before god and let him punish you in whatever way you feel god punishes sinners.
Humans killed Jesus, it was unjust and a crime. Jesus, all powerful, refused to lift a finger against the sins that killed him. He would not partake in our unjust games.
"The Gospel is not that some deity takes out its rage on an innocent victim so he doesn't have to take it out on all of us eternally. God doesn't need blood. God doesn't need a mediator. We do!
The Lamb of God is not offered to God by humanity, but is God offered to us to enable a new humanity. God is reconciling the world to God's self through Christ by knowingly becoming our victim, exposing this idolatrous system that promise order, safety, peace and protection in exchange for victims." – Jarrod McKenna
Again, how can the killing of jesus according to the plan of the alleged but never proven god be unjust, or wrong in any way? Surly your god can't do anything unjust or wrong! Pretty soon you will be inciting hatred against the Jews.
Yea, that is the exact opposite of what I've been posting about, HAA.
I gotta stop engaging in this conversation with you. But best to you and all you do. You are a smart guy and are very passionate about your beliefs. I would fight for your right to believe the way you do.
"Humans killed Jesus, it was unjust and a crime."
What if we didn't? What would have happened then? Wasn't that god's plan?
"Humans killed Jesus, it was unjust and a crime. Jesus, all powerful, refused to lift a finger against the sins that killed him. He would not partake in our unjust games."
That may be "what" happened, but that doesn't answer the question of "why" it had to happen.
@observer
If I send it in chunks, paragraph by paragraph (the paragraphs themselves are practically different idea too) would that be okay?
Also can you delete this message? I don't think people like seeing one on ones lol
andreict,
You absolutely don't need my say as any kind of authority on this. All I'm trying to say is that my opinion is that most people completely tune out LONG comments.
A number of tribes of Australian Aboriginals believe that the World was created by a great snake shaking and laying an egg during the dreamtime. They could write an article every bit as infantile as this woman’s, claiming that ripples in space-time sound very much like the faint repercussions of the natal writhing of the dreamtime snake. Just replace Genesis with their creation myth.
The most annoying articles by the Jewish sky-fairy believers are those where they try and dress up their silly superst.ition as being based in logic and science.
Do you get annoyed when Jewish sky-fairy believers are awarded scientific Nobel Prizes? Or when they actually contribute and demonstrate superior logical thinking and understanding of science? If I was like you that would probably annoy me! I'd probably rant and use derogatory terms toward those people any chance I got. Hey, maybe you could try and do some science like those Jewish sky-fairy believers do. Should be easy for you!
And yet another personal attack, this time against Colin, by our local coward Dalahast/AE. No one is surprised.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
No one is surprised you posted that. You are our local hostile anti-theist that hates Christianity. We all get that.
What a dumb rationalization. Go back to posting other people's quotes. Thinking isn't your thing.
Your argument would have merit if any Nobel Prize winner or other scientist ever claimed his Christianity contributed toward the discovery for which he was honored. They don't. They all have star signs too, but none claim that astrology contributed to their achievements.
A person can function in society but still have a part of his psyche that considers itself free of reason and discipline. Heck, virtually every Christian I know, yourself included, believes the most childish of things that they would never contemplate swallowing in their day to day activities – dead men rising, mind reading sky gods, life after death, being under constant supervision for the purposes of reward or punishment in some magic postmortem kingdoms – heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo etc..
That's the thing about religion, it lets grown adults act like children because they are so terrified of their own mortality. Collective insecurity is a powerful societal force.
Good ones. But just because you think or insist that all religion is childish or based in insecurity, doesn't make it so.
It may mean you are very insecure, and you are projecting that belief onto others. That is what the evidence you provide suggests to me. But, that is just my opinion. Like your description of religion is just yours. It is not an argument with a whole lot of merit.
Your comment was absolutely genius; I couldn't agree more. Great satire! Please read my essay long comment that I sent to the purportedly Nuclear Physicist Dalahast. I am curious of your opinion.
where is it, I would like to.
Dalahast, do you really claim to be a nuclear physicist?
No. I have no idea what he is talking about. Other than that Jimmy Carter has a Bachelor's Degree in nuclear physics. He has introduced himself as a nuclear physicist before and some say he shouldn't really claim that.
Seems that my comment never got posted about Dala. Is there a word limit?
My essay long response is literally 1,105 words. Should I post it in chunks?
andreict,
No. Summarize if you want anyone to read it.
Are you new here? There is a word filter. Certain words like t.it you can't post. Even const.itution.
andreict,
Look on page #16 for a longer list of hints about the automatic word filter.
This is a part of series of comments. Comment #1
Are you suggesting that smart, intelligent people cannot be wrong? You claim that this author was a Nobel prize winner, but how do you know that she did not get it in literature? I find your comments humorous and rather naïve. For thousands of years mankind has manipulated history's best seller: The Bible. Your faith giving novel was written by man, not Jesus, not God. I have even heard accounts that Emperor Constantine, being a smart man, decided to take the quote "Religion is the opiate of the masses" (- Karl Marx) to its full meaning by personally writing this fallacy in order to ensure political control (since he practically had power over churches; he was funding them). If you want to go to extremes the only thing remotely possible to be true would be that some advanced being came over to guide the human race by creating a lie for some greater purpose. This is likely the “man” we call Jesus. But I don’t believe in any of that. Most historians admit that Jesus, like Mohammed, was a real person who was extremely influential. He gathered his Facebook followers (excuse my satire) and like a Belieber Shepard gave humanity something to believe in, to hope and love in times of sadness, to fear in times of corruption, and to beg for pardon when immoral issues plague the mind. Think about it…that’s actually ridiculously smart! This man, perhaps not singlehandedly, practically taught the human race what is right and wrong in order to instill morality in a society which at his current time period was suffering extreme corruption, violence, and other forms of suffering. Of course his beliefs pervaded the “Great Book” such as stoning children and woman to death as capital punishment because this was likely was considered “okay” at the time. Hey…I mean…cut him some slack! No one’s perfect! Oh wait don’t forget that he is also the son of God…hmmm that doesn’t make too much sense. Oops! Damn it Constantine you screwed up! You left more potential evidence to be exposed despite your attempt to create history’s greates government coverup…No joke I still think he is pretty smart. The only thing that Jesus and the Emperor did not consider was that every government reform policy whether political, economic, social….or spiritual has side effects. Religion would continue to guide, bamboozle, trick, be tricked by manipulators called Popes and naysayers called scientists, and ultimately…what for it!...cause war. How ironic that such a peaceful mantra would actually serve to cause even more grief and suffering (let me point at the middle east for example, KKK, slavery in the U.S. (to some extent), Holocaust and other forms of religious persecution, and finally the manipulation of peasants to fill up the coffers of child molesting Popes …which makes modern politicians of this day look like a Saint).
+ Are you suggesting that smart, intelligent people cannot be wrong?
No.
+ You claim that this author was a Nobel prize winner, but how do you know that she did not get it in literature?
I didn't claim the author was a Nobel prize "winner". She hasn't been awarded one. I know she hasn't received one in literature either, because I researched it.
+ Your faith giving novel was written by man, not Jesus, not God.
Yes, the Bible was written by human beings. No kidding.
Ok. I gotta stop. You don't know me well enough to write an essay long rant against me. Welcome and thanks for sharing.
" You don't know me well enough to write an essay long rant against me. "
Now THAT'S a dodge, Dala.
Yes! He said he was writing an essay against me.
He got 3 things completely wrong about me within the first 5 lines of his 1,000+ word essay. Of course I'm going to dodge that nonsense.
Ah, so dodging is okay when it's you doing the dodging. Got it.
I actually addressed his points, and didn't completely dodge.
But, 3 strikes and he was out.
Do you ever dodge questions? I've seen atheists freely admit they do dodge questions, so it is not like I'm doing something different than most people do.
LOL, Dala. You're back to "but he did it first" as an argument.
Uh, he claimed I said things I didn't. It is a silly argument he started to construct. He obviously misunderstood what I said and who I am. Oh well, it isn't the first time that has happened.
"He obviously misunderstood what I said and who I am."
LOL, perhaps, but "he did it first" is still weak.
"If you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor- then stop saying that you want a country based on Christian Values, because you don't." Jimmy Carter
Apparently Mr. Carter comes from some magical place where Christian Values aren't infinitely malleable.
He was taking a crack at fundamentalists. Not stating that Christian Values are infinitely malleable.
I was making a joke about how "Christian Values" change with the wind.
I'm not sure what's in the Bible that would suggest Christians should take money from others under threat of imprisonment to feed the poor.
Uh, that was not the meaning of that quote.
What was the meaning of the quote?
Actually, Carter didn't say that.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/carterpoor.asp
But somebody did, and they didn't intend to say what you suggest.
I'm not saying they meant what I said. I'm refuting the quote, whoever said it. Christianity doesn't suggest taking from people by force (taxation) to feed the poor. That's not a Christian value, to my knowledge.
Ok, yes. I agree. That is a secular concept or American ideal.
Quaint quote.
Wow, another irrelevant, misguided quote from Dala – what a surprise!
I think it may have been intended for the new Jimmy Carter article on the blog.
Yep.
Along with the video of some Deliverance style song.
doobz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbMuMjoeJ1E
Nope.
@Dala
Yep.
How is that a "Deliverance" style of song?
This is a different song, Dala. Try to keep your c/p postings straight.
Same group, same style. How was the first song I posted "Deliverance" style? And what does that even mean? That all people from the South. It is good folk music. Is it because the song suggests that the Republicans in power are fascists? Does that make it like "Deliverance"?
Oh good grief, Dala, get the knot out of your underwear. I like the music in Deliverance. Why so serious, too much time on your knees?
I really have no idea what you are talking about most of the time. It seems you like to post negative things at me, so I figured you were trying to make fun of my "Jimmy Carter" song I posted. Not sure why you had to tell people about it on this thread, but that is your choice.
Lol, Dala. So persecuted.
No, I don't feel persecuted by you.
Usually when somebody says something in regards to "Deliverance" it is as an insult. As in: "It was like a scene from out of Deliverance."
I was just asking what you meant. Instead of answering, you insulted me again. Nice. If I did what you just did it would be called "dodging" and "dancing around the question".
How thin skinned are you, Dala? Do you really need reassurance of your musical taste from a stranger on the internet?
If you don't want to be ridiculed, don't post irrelevant quotes and silly music "videos". In the wrong thread. On the internet.
I'm really not being thin-skinned. I'm trying to understanding what you are talking about. I gotta imagine most people wonder what you are talking about sometimes, too.
Why can't you answer my question? What was your point! Or did you not really have one and were just trying to find anything to insult me over?
I really don't care if you constantly insult or criticize me. It doesn't matter what you imagine or try to tell others about me. It says more about you, actually. I do care that you cause that harm to yourself. That is not healthy.
My point is that posting random, irrelevant music videos to make your case is silly, just like posting random, irrelevant quotes is silly.
Don't you get tired of beating dead horses?
Oh, good point.
That video I posted was a song about Jimmy Carter, so it was somewhat relevant.
I'm just as relevant with my posts as others that routinely copy and paste on here. I think you just don't like my posts because I'm not copying and pasting anti-theist quotes and off-topic statements like others do, that I don't see you criticize.
"That video I posted was a song about Jimmy Carter, so it was somewhat relevant."
That was in another thread – the one that is actually about Jimmy Carter. Are you really that dense or just being disingenuous?
Whoops, I posted that in the wrong place.
Here... get outraged over this one:
"Q: How do you approach the passages in the Bible that talk about God’s creation (Genesis 1:1) while maintaining a positive att.itude towards science?"
"I happen to have an advantage there because I am a nuclear physicist by training and a deeply committed Christian. I don’t have any doubt in my own mind about God who created the entire universe. But I don’t adhere to passages that so and so was created 4000 years before Christ, and things of that kind. Today we have shown that the earth and the stars were created millions, even billions, of years before. We are exploring space and sub-atomic particles and learning new facts every day, facts that the Creator has known since the beginning of time."
Jimmy Carter
What outrage? I would expect rationalization from a person trying to square religion and science.
I wasn't referring to you. It was to the anti-theists.
Still, why outrage? (other than his claiming to be a nuclear physicist ... but I think he just didn't know what it meant ... honest mistake)
" I don’t have any doubt in my own mind about God who created the entire universe.'
Lots of people say that, Dala. I don't get why this instance is supposed to matter.
Though I'm also not familiar with these god/religion haters you're talkin' about.
Unfortunately I have experienced some. Luckily not too many. But a few on here demonstrate it to me often.
Okay, well I hope it's not just an easily offended personality assuming things about others.
Oh, I do that, too.
"I happen to have an advantage there because I am a nuclear physicist by training and a deeply committed Christian."
He never said that. He might have said "I happen to have an advantage there because I am a nucular physicist by training and a deeply committed Christian."
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/02/18/bush-and-carters-nuclear-pronunciation-might-be-right
Dalahäst,
The word is spelled NUCLEAR. There is ONLY one "U".
Bush not knowing better is no surprise, but the others should have.
Sarah Palin said "nucular" too, but it would have been positively shocking if she hadn't.
Right. That is why I spelled it "nuclear". But apparently when Carter was working in a nuclear submarine, some nuclear physicists pronounced it as "nuculear" along with him.
–Richard Muller of the University of California says the pronunciation "has been a tradition at some of our weapons labs since World War II." He says it derives from the "combination of 'nuke' with the ending '-ular' inspired by similar words such as spectacular, popular, and molecular." -
Dalahäst,
I understand that it may be common in some areas, kind of like people saying they are going to "aks someone". Still doesn't make it right and there is zero support from the spelling of the word.
Yea, it was nuclear physicist thing. Something they did and people who were involved with weapons and defense picked it up.
"Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-kyə-lər\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers, including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, United States cabinet members, and at least two United States presidents and one vice president. While most common in the United States, these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucular
So you are saying you disapprove when they say it that way. Ok.
I remember learning about this in 6th grade! I say it your way. Yay for us!
Lots of people say stuff like that (though most of the users on this blog seem to be YEC's, so you might get some guff there)
What exactly is there to be outraged over?
Unfortunately suggesting "god did it" (as some anti-theists describe it) causes some to be offended.
I really don't expect most to be outraged by it. I'm talking about the minority of people that hate religion and God, but spend all day long on message boards dedicated to faith, belief and religion.
Suggesting God did it doesn't offend. Offering specious arguments such as in the article to support that ... claiming there's evidence of that when there isn't ... that offends.
Yikes. Being offended is something that should sort of be left behind with early teenhood, from my perspective. What adult would bother? Opinions are opinions. Words are words.
I have a feeling a lot of these alleged haters are actually here because they feel an immense love humanity and rationality. They go for the fence-sitters, the young and the curious.
Did you notice it says "Opinion"? Very clearly we are in a commentary section. So, yes, people will disagree and express that.
Do you know how many times I've been told I simply believe "some god did it", as if I hadn't considered any other viewpoint or seriously questioned that belief? A lot!
Dala....
I have to challenge you on, they spend all day on a religious blog. You do of course realize that people can multi task on computers. I normally have 5 or 6 different websites on the go at one time as does probably many other posters. I drop in from time to time to view comments and make posts. I am on the computer for probably 12 hours a day, part of my semi-retired work, and monitor several sights, mainly financial. I would appreciate it if you do not pigeon hole people as spending all there time on this one particular blog, it is not true.
I see, we just have wildly different definitions of 'outrage'.
That you have arrived on "God did it" to explain the big bang does not imply that you have not considered other viewpoints. It is by definition an irrational position to hold.
Even in an opinion piece, you can see certain things are claimed as fact to support the opinion. When the claims are false, people are justified in being offended.
@ausphor
It is ironic for somone who hates religion, but says they love science to spend so much time on faith and belief blogs. That was my point.
@distrbnce
Thanks for your opinion.
@nepawoods
Yes. And they share their opinions.
Dala...
Really, how much time do you think it takes to drop in, read a comment and reply, not long for me. BTW at the same time I am listening to a Senate Committee on online data security breaches on C-SPAN. Your point is not well taken most of the atheist do not hate religions at all, if the devout would just stay out of trying to run other peoples lives there would be no conflict. I understand your beliefs and you do not do so but you are a very small minority of the Christian cults that do try and impose their beliefs on the population as a whole.
I'm not talking about you, ausphor. You don't need to defend it.
Dala...
Well do not make too many comments by your standards, that would be well....Good Night.
I know most atheists do not hate religion. Some atheists actually belong to a religion.
Just a minority do express hatred toward all religion. And I find it very ironic that the few that really do hate religion spend a lot of time talking about religion. Especially on opinion blogs dedicated to faith, belief and religion.
I can point you to some atheists and non-religious people that talk about this phenomenon if you would like to hear it expressed from a different person.
"That you have arrived on "God did it" to explain the big bang does not imply that you have not considered other viewpoints."
False. I have not arrived on "God did it" to explain the big bang. Is that what you imagined???
Another quote – surprise!
So much easier than thinking for yourself.
"But I don’t adhere to passages that so and so was created 4000 years before Christ, and things of that kind."
Remarkable how every christian has their own theology. Above is the definition of cherry-picking.
Sure. I mean everyone cherry-picks. But one really doesn't have to adhere to every passage in the Bible to be a Christian. Jesus was murdered because he didn't adhere to the religious leader's understandings of passages.
The alleged but not proven divine desert dweller called jesus was not murdered. He was put to death by the duly authorized legal system of the day, allegedly according to a plan put in place by his alleged but never proven divine father.
I believe he was falsely accused and was set up to be beaten and murdered. The Romans were brutal and destroyed anyone who went against the dictatorship of Caesar. The Jewish leaders were hypocrites who didn't serve out of love. If you stood up for truth and justice it would get you killed back then. So what? Just act like a slave and do whatever your oppressor tells you to? Or else get "put to death by the duly authorized legal system of the day."? Thank God those power mongers have no authority over me today.
Let me be clearer. They were just following some alleged but never proven god's plan. They had no choice! This might be the one time that "some god did it" is the right answer. Blame it!!
I think they were not following God's will, but their own will. They were driven by their own selfish desires and motives.
So the basic christian story of some alleged but never proven god impregnating a virgin with himself so that his son can die and take upon it the sins of all men is not true?
I didn't say that or even intend to imply that. I'm talking about the reasons Jesus was put to death. The guilty ones were following their own desires, not the will of God. God used their crimes to accomplish something better than the natural consequences of their actions would dictate.
The desert dweller allegedly called jesus had to die because his alleged supernatural father's alleged plan required it. What was going on in the mind of anyone else is not relevant.
God has a purpose for you, yes. There is meaning to your life. And death will not be the final outcome.
"Sure. I mean everyone cherry-picks."
At least you are one of the few willing to admit to the practice.
"But one really doesn't have to adhere to every passage in the Bible to be a Christian."
Then everyone on earth is a christian and every one of their beliefs (no matter how contradictory to everyone else's) is completely valid? Because otherwise I can say that I believe Jesus saying he was the son of god was the same as saying we are all sons of god. I can disregard everything written by Paul or his followers. I can believe that the OT laws still apply, etc. Where do you draw the line and by what justification do you draw it?
"Jesus was murdered because he didn't adhere to the religious leader's understandings of passages."
He was murdered because his followers claimed he was the messiah, and therefore, the king of the jews. Now the temple incident may have precipitated it, but it was for political reasons that the Romans killed him, they would not have bowed down to the temple priests' will as depicted in the later versions of the tale.
An atheist admitted to me that he was guilty of doing that, which softened my heart and let me admit that I do it too. It seems everyone is guilty of cherry-picking things to meet their standards. Even the non-religious.
+ Then everyone on earth is a christian and every one of their beliefs (no matter how contradictory to everyone else's) is completely valid?
No.
+ Where do you draw the line and by what justification do you draw it?
I draw the line at evil. I don't want to take part in evil.
Care to expand on that a bit D? "No" isn't very explanatory. Nor is "evil". What I was referring to is once you start "cherry-picking" the bible, where do you draw the line? If everyone can have their own "version" of Christianity (which is what the end result of selective interpretation must be) how can anyone be a heretic?
"I don’t have any doubt in my own mind about God who created the entire universe. "
Too bad he can't provide any evidence to support his belief......
I'm sure he has plenty of evidence to believe in God. The same evidence you use to believe in whatever you believe in.
Really? I don't think so. What would you consider to be evidence for god?? .... lets see, I believe my car will start in the morning, but that's based on solid repeatable evidence. Evidence for god? a leap of faith but no evidence.
Your car may not start in the morning, whether you believe it will or not. Just like God exists, whether you believe or not. I do have evidence to believe in God, or else I would be an agnostic or an atheist. The evidence comes from God, not from you or your understanding. Science proves God to me.
Belief in a God is not like believing you car will it will not start in the morning. With a car, you can physically test and investigate it to see why it won't start, You can fix it or replace it. With god, you can't physically test or investigate it's existence,
Speak for yourself. I can physically test God. I can investigate God's existence.
But I know God is not like my car. I can control my car. I can't control God. My car will fail me at some point. God has never failed me.
What is this physical test / investigation you say proves god's existence? (also be wary of conformational bias!)
Would someone who is totally independent of your religion come to the exact same conclusion if they tried to prove or disprove your test or undertook the same type of investigation?
Also your religion is constructed in such a way that your supernatural supreme being is never, and can never, be wrong.
So if something bad happens it's never god' fault! but the victims fault for not believing or that they didn't believe hard enough or it was "part of his plan!" that this bad thing happened.
That's the problem with believing in something that does not exist! You can make up the rules to suit yourself.
That is not how my religion is constructed, sorry. I can see why you would jump to that conclusion, but that doesn't make it right. You can make up your own rules to suit yourself, too. Thanks for demonstrating that.
I'm not following a religion.
Translation = you twist what science has discovered to validate your belief in god.
Evidence = "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"
As I've said before, believers love to twist accepted word definitions to justify their belief that mythology is reality.
Translation = you twist what you imagine to validate your biases against believers.
I don't twist what science has discovered. I strive to fully embrace and support it. Like most Christians do.
I see evidence for God in my life. I live in response to that. Just because you don't doesn't make that evidence invalid.
A minority of people see no evidence for God, they are called atheists. But most people are not atheists. And most atheists do not insist they know what evidence I have or don't have. That is something you do.
"Science proves God to me", Science had not provided any proof of god. You're twisting again...
No, you are twisting.
Science doesn't prove or disprove God. I don't think it is capable of such a feat. But it does personally prove God to me. The order and information that is discovered confirms my personal belief in God. I'm excited for what science will reveal – because it gives me a better understanding of our Creator.
It is just one means that provides evidence of God to me. There are others.
Dala claims to embrace science, but only until the scientific method is applied. Then his "evidence" is just "I feel it in my life".
But he can c/p quotes like a champ.
So science only proves god to you personally, all that says is you have a different definition of the words proof and evidence.
Another common habit of the believer, "this means that"
I do copy and paste quotes by actual scientists who have impressive credentials that share about their belief in God:
“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”
–Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., (who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe.)
I weigh those testimonies against the testimonies of non-scientist anti-theists on religion blogs who try to tell me what science proves and doesn't prove.
"I'm sure he has plenty of evidence to believe in God... ."
Yea, this from the guy that admitted he "sinned" because he lusted after other women in his mind....
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing," ... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going." Stephen Hawking
Dala,, do you notice in the quote Hotair posted there is a specific example given? in the quote you posted some non-specific statement about god and science...
I posted a philosophical quote from Taylor, and HAA followed with a philosophical quote from Hawkins. Hawkins has not proved that the universe created itself without the influence of a higher power. He wrote a book stating so (and made a lot of money off of it), but it was not a science manual. It was a philosophical theory.
Basically that is what we are doing. We are in the message board of an opinion section dedicated to faith, belief and religion. The nature of the conversations are philosophical, not scientific.
Oh, here is someone doing what Hawkins did (stating what he thinks):
“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
–Astronomer, physicist and founder of NASA’s Goddard Insti.tute of Space Studies Robert Jastrow.
"The nature of the conversations are philosophical, not scientific."
Wrong, the nature of the conversations on this blog are both philosophical AND scientific however, this paticular story regarding proof of god completely ignore the scientific method.
The nature of your comments to me have been philosophical. There is nothing to suggest in your claims about me or others that you applied the scientific method to your preconceived notions of believers. But yes, some people do share sound scientific knowledge on this blog. But it is not from you or HotAirAce. You are sharing your opinions and theories about what motivates others. Not science.
On one hand you say;
"Science proves God to me",
Then you state,
"Science doesn't prove or disprove God"
The question I have asked, which you have dodged on more than one occasion, is where is the scientific evidence for god?
Believe what ever you like, but your imagination is not scientific evidence.. nor is the mythology of the bible.
Jesus never said a word about hom0s3xuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things – he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies. Jimmy Carter
Amen.
We can't equate democracy with Christianity because the largest democracy on earth is India, which is primarily Hindu. The third largest democracy is Indonesia, which is Islamic. Democracy and freedom are not dependent on Christian beliefs. Jimmy Carter
Hell yes!
Dala loves him some random Carter quotes.
Yes. I really do like what he has to say. I agree with him on hom0s3xuality, democracy and political authority.
I think there ought to be a strict separation or wall built between our religious faith and our practice of political authority in office. I don't think the President of the United States should extoll Christianity if he happens to be a Christian at the expense of Judaism, Islam or other faiths. Jimmy Carter
Thanks. I was going to post that one.
I'm sure you'll find another one.
And, of course, if Carter were Jewish, he would consider social equity and charity Jewish values; if he were Muslim, he would consider them Islamic values; and if he were Buddhist, he would consider them Buddhist values.
No thinking person believes Christians have a monopoly on charity, nor is charity in anyway supportive of the supernatural nonsense Christians believe.
Nice try.
"We can't equate democracy with Christianity because the largest democracy on earth is India, which is primarily Hindu. The third largest democracy is Indonesia, which is Islamic. Democracy and freedom are not dependent on Christian beliefs." Jimmy Carter
Actually, no thinking person believes that Christians believe they have a monopoly on charity, nor is charity in anyway supportive of the supernatural nonsense Christians believe.
But you do. Thanks for sharing that Colin.
So, you took his quote out of context when you extracted it.
I'm just saying he doesn't believe what you suggested he believed. (if Carter were Jewish, he would consider social equity and charity Jewish values).
"Congressman Stephen Fincher, a Republican from Tennessee, just took the Bible so far out of context he had to apply for a visa.
Fincher is a fierce opponent of food aid for poor Americans. You know, like Jesus. He recently fought to cut $4.1 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. If you only watch Fox, that means 'food stamps.' And thanks to the fine work of Fincher and his colleagues, 2 million working American families, children and seniors have already been cut off from food assistance.
So during a recent House agricultural committee debate, he decided to show how Christian it is to turn your back on unemployed suffering Americans by quoting one of the favorite Bible passages of revoltingly fake right-wing Christians — 2 Thessalonians 3:10 — "anyone unwilling to work should not eat."
Fincher and the GOP ... cut services for the poor and taxes for the rich. And it’s a free country. They're allowed. But if you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying you want a country based on Christian values. Because you don't. And that's why representative Fincher is our 'revoltingly fake Christian of the week'!"
~John Fugelsang
Yea, I caught that error on my part. Whoops. Thanks be to Snopes.
Not really a slight against you; just thought it was interesting in it's entirety.
Snopes rocks.
The first mover arguement reminds me of the underpants gnome's economic strategy:
Step 1: There was a first movement.
Step 2:
Step 3: That mover is God.
HEY, what's step 2?
lunch...
Wipe then flush!
lol
1. Today, we can't explain what, if anything, was before the big bang
2. There are limitless possibilities, it's a wondrous conundrum to curiously engage
3. ????
4. GOD DID IT!
Well, actually, I have this book that loosely interpreted matches this theory that I have never believed and have been fighting against for decades, but now matches what I believe, so MY God did it.
Oh drats, that's a perfectly reasonable tactic for a thinking adult to take!
Your god wins this one!
Maybe we have been misinterpreting data all along and it actually is a very even flowing steady state universe with super novas black holes and galaxies coming and going, extending like this throughout all infinity, basically just trading off between nothingness and somethingness with oddly behaving subatomic particles. Maybe nothingness is the fundamental nature of the universe and that would explain why everything is 99.99999% vacuum. I know, explosions are more exciting! Good luck with that!
When we find something in the vast reaches of space that was not part of the Big Bang it will change the way we see things.
Why does the pre-existing agent (the author's notion of a pre-existing agent) have to be god? Why not just an unexploded universe? Some things explode without a bearded man with a cigarette lighter, volcanoes for example, even stars. I have a feeling everything that we know of everything has always existed and there is no beginning or end as some people would like to have. We like to believe in a God and time as something that started somewhere and moved forward much as we once felt comfortable with such notions as that the earth was flat and the sun went around the earth with the stars. Einstein shows us neither time nor space have direction. Things existing within time and space as we describe them can have direction moving relative to each other. Exploding universes! What ever happened to infinity?
jona....
In theory there should be as much anti-matter as there is matter in our universe, no one has yet to figure out what happened to the anti matter. Suppose, if you will, that enormous black holes of anti matter and matter came in contact in the beginning and annihilated each other in a burst of pure energy, a big bang, perhaps. Far fetched but perhaps not as silly as God did it.
That would mean god created accounting on the 8th day.
Oops.
Funny that a religious blog has not considered editing mistakes.
I still don't get why they don't use Disqus here, CNN uses it elsewhere.
These are the sort that will take a typo as a sign from god. It's dangerous.
IM WAITING FOR A SUPERNATURAL FORCE TO START FIXING MY TYPOS.
I'll convert to *something* when it happens.
It looks like they use Discus on regular stories, but not their blogs.
They don't even require most of the blogs to sign in to WP.
The problems with the troll we had before still remain on the majority of CNN blogs. It's dumb.
If I define something to be natural as a physical object/processes following rules that can be described very closely and repeatedly mathematically, then supernatural is a physical object/process that defies that definition. So far everything we can detect is natural or not shown to be other than natural.
If there is a being with supernatural power (i.e. can do whatever they want, violate any of those laws at any time), could it violate math? Could it make 2+2=7? Not in apples, but in numbers. What would that mean for existence?
That would mean god created accounting on the 8th day.
Funny.
It is interesting that there is nothing we know of that precludes different laws of physics in other universes. I can wrap my head around that. In fact, mathematics has no problem with that. I can't wrap my head around a mathematics in another universe that conflicts with ours (obviously it could have math we haven't thought of yet, but that would be additive).
If it was possible to violate physical law, all scientific measurement would be rendered moot. You would not be able to tell what was an accurate measurement vs one that had been "monkeyed" with.
That's true if the supernatural agent is bent on deception.
It is common when a person deceives himself that he thinks "If I am wrong and there is a God, then He must have intentionally deceived me". However, in reality, if you deceive yourself, you alone are responsible for the deception.
david,
You may want to reread the comment and my response. I said nothing about God being deceptive, only that is supernatural power was used to make it's presence hidden within natural law, that would be deceptive.
Of course under your definition of natural, any supposed Heaven or Hell would still be natural once one is there. Atleast Biblically there are rules there, who can go where, apparently we still have pain receptors if Hell is to be that bad. Streets of gold, trees, mansions crowns...
You're right, I should have been more explicit that the rules have to be verifiable.
I'm more so pointing out how thiests want to claim our observable universe universe is somehow so diffeent from the outside of the universe they believe to exist. If there are rules, there has to be some sort of construct the rules are based on. Not trying to go Euthyphro dilemma, but if God has to obey rules He exists within some construct that simply has always existed. It seems theists claim that outside the universe cannot be understood, but claim to know it is not like our universe. If you know nothing about it, how do you know it is different.
I realize that was kind of random and jumbled. Just thinking outloud, or digitally as it were.