Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on April 19, 2007, 01:42:42 AM
-
Howdy Nilsen,
Sorry about the late start on that thread I promised regarding proof for the existence of God, I got sidetracked into spending time reading about income taxes, but I digress.
I wanted to start by defining some of the rules for the discussion, in the hopes that this will make it more profitable. Frankly, I don’t expect any level of evidence alone to convert you to a belief in the God of the bible, as I believe that requires a supernatural work of God, but I do hope that at least we’ll have a good conversation about the subject.
First lets start by talking about worldviews and presuppositions. There are certain worldviews that can act to make the discussion of God nearly impossible, one of them is materialism. For instance in our previous discussion you argued that religion was a crutch for the weak. This argument is an answer to the question “since there isn’t a God, why is there religion?” The question itself assumes that God doesn’t exist. In fact it stems from a worldview that states as Carl Sagan did “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” It pictures the universe as a closed system in which there is only matter, there is nothing and no one outside the box, no such thing as the spiritual or souls or a creator or an afterlife. Life is merely a brief blip between oblivions and death really is personal extinction. It also implies other things, among them that life is ultimately meaningless, and that ethics are only human constructs.
Now obviously I don’t accept the materialist (or naturalist if you prefer) worldview. I believe the universe is an open system, that it was created, that there is a personal God who is “outside of the box” and has the ability to interact with and affect his creation and who can be known, that history has meaning and purpose, that ethics have a basis in absolutes established by the creator, that humans are not merely matter but body AND soul and that there is a spiritual realm.
Now for the materialist, miracles are inherently impossible, so for every report of a miraculous event, there has to be a “natural explanation” because the assumption is that there is no creator able to directly affect his creation. No amount of evidence that something is genuinely without a natural explanation will satisfy him. The theist on the other hand, accepts that there is a God and that therefore we should expect him to work directly as well as indirectly in his creation, and since he is not “in the box” or bound by its constraints he can do whatever is in accordance with his nature.
Now obviously I can’t force you to adopt a theistic worldview for the discussion, but what I would ask is that you be willing to at least move to the theoretical position “if there is a God, then what we would call miracles are possible.” Without at least the willingness to accept the possibility of a theistic worldview, we’d be unable to talk about the existence of God in a meaningful way. I would invite you to argue for or defend materialism if you wish, that would also be a round-about way of discussing the existence of God.
Anyway, regarding the actual evidence, I’m going to be starting from the classical philosophical standpoint, which probably won’t convince you, then I’ll try to persuade you of the truth of the witness of the bible, which is actually more persuasive.
First let me start out with an argument based on observation and logic.
The universe could not have been self-created or spontaneously generated from nothing. If at one time there really was nothing, there would always only be nothing, because from nothing, nothing comes. Additionally, the second law of thermodynamics (the entropy of the universe is increasing) makes the idea of an eternal or infinite universe impossible. Therefore the universe was caused or begun, and since matter cannot bring itself into existence, or the creation of matter to have been a spontaneous and uncaused event (the necessary and sufficient conditions for creation could not have existed forever in a timeless, changeless state and then suddenly occurred) something had to create that matter ex nihilo, that is from nothing. That is a timeless agent deliberately decided to create the universe. Such a decision can only be made by a person. This only conceivable timeless and immutable agent with the ability to make a decision and the power to bring it about, is God.
- SEAGOON
-
Morning Seagoon.
As you said you can not prove the existence of God with hard evidence, just as I can't prove that there is no God. What you belive in is based on input from other people and/or some other experience that you have had and that you have chosen to give God credit for ,and that is evidence enough for you.
Discussing religion is abit like discussing what color is best. If you belive in it then you find evidence that is good enough for you on a daily basis and vice versa.
Yes i belive that the "universe" has created humanity and all other things around us, and I belive it has an open architecture based on open-source software. Its full of bugs and unexplained crashes but every now and then a string of code is made that boots up something that sorta works.
Space and time is never ending and at some point things just comes together. I belive that every second somewere an infinate ammount of new life, planets and whatnot is created somewere in space and always has been and always will. I do not belive there is a god out there that controls it all, and if it is then he is a sadistical sob based on proof you can see around you every day.
-
Quiet heathen. :p There is a book that I think you should read, it is called One Heartbeat Away: Your Journey into Eternity by Mark Cahill
http://www.amazon.com/One-Heartbeat-Away-Journey-Eternity/dp/0964366576
It is an amazing book. It reads fast and was a real eye opener for me. Being somewhat of a realist, I have always struggled with my faith. More so after coming home from Iraq.
This book really helped me. It put things into prospective for me. The book made things easy to understand. It is also loaded with really neat facts. You don't even have to buy it. PM me your address and I will mail you my copy. I feel you really want to believe, you just don't know how. If you didn't, you wouldn't want to engage in these types of discussions. I was the same way once.
-Sp0t
-
I'd like a copy too. Does it resolve the impossibility to rationaly conclude anything from something irrational as religion is?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
This argument is an answer to the question “since there isn’t a God, why is there religion?”
religion does not require a god to exist. See buddhism.
-
I thought I might step in on this one and add a reply to Seagoon.
Given your arguements above "
The universe could not have been self-created or spontaneously generated from nothing", Seagoon, I will assume that you believe something similar to the following:
Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz uses the Principle of Sufficient Reason to explain the existence of a monotheistic god. He uses the example of a book. The first copy of the book provides the reason for the existence of the following book (in that the following book is copied from the previous copy) and that this will continue in a series such as:
“Book ‘A’ creates ----> book ‘B’ -----> which creates book ‘C’ ----> which then creates book ‘D’ etc”. However, no book in this series provides a sufficient reason for the existence of the series itself, nowhere in this series is there an explanation for the existence of the series or for book ‘A’. Thus, Leibniz proposes that the reason for the existence of this series resides outside in something ‘extra-mundane’ or extraordinary, a God (a metaphysical necessary entity).
To clarify before I give my response, a contingent entity is an entity that does not provide a reason for its own existence (as a metaphysically necessary entity does), such as a person, the book used in the example given above... etc
Now, I say that Leibniz seems to assume the truth of his premises in order to reach his conclusion; that there is a monotheistic God. Leibniz assumes that contingent entities exist and that they need a sufficient reason to exist. He also puts forward the notion that a metaphysical necessary entity provides a sufficient reason for itself and also provides a sufficient reason for contingent entities. If this is the case and the metaphysically necessary being must exist… if a metaphysically necessary entity provides an explanation for the existence of a contingent being the reason for the contingent being entails metaphysical necessity. This leads to removal on contingency from Leibniz’s argument and devastates Leibniz’s argument for the principle of sufficient reason.
I'd be interested to know what you think of this
Regards
-Archaius
-
The best explanation of God I have heard is that Human beings have the irresistable need to be in charge, and lacking that efficacy, put an imaginary human being in charge of everything.
Science fits all known definitions for religion: Therefore, Science is a religion.
The Scientific Method is the only path to success in that religion. The true Scientific Method draws no conclusions, only results or data. Human beings interpret the result or data according to their present need and validate it by calling it Science.
The only experiance we know is that of a Human Being, We have not made contact with anyone outside our Solar System. We cannot know anything else until we do get an outside perspective.
We could very well BE wrong.
God grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
-
Originally posted by Stegahorse
Science is a religion.
False.
religion Show phonetics
noun
1 [C or U] the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship:
the Christian religion
2 [C] INFORMAL an activity which someone is extremely enthusiastic about and does regularly:
Football is a religion for these people.
Science the informal activity-'religion' is a machine made by the same sort of dogmatic people who have made a machine out of Religion the idea.
-
Seagoon, that logical argument is facinating. Could you explain this a bit more:
Additionally, the second law of thermodynamics (the entropy of the universe is increasing) makes the idea of an eternal or infinite universe impossible.
how would increasing entropy make the idea of an eternal universe impossible? because the universe is becoming more disorganized?
-
I believe that the behavior of atoms and, in particular, atomic decay suggests that nature need not obey 'natural laws' at all times.
I am not sure of this, I have only heard it discussed briefly and from a philosophical stand-point, not a scientific one.
-
some discredit the belief of god by saying he cannot be everywhere at once, yet scientists last year proved that electrons can BE IN TWO PLACES AT ONCE,
and at the end of the day, who knows?
we know almost nothing about the universe we live in and the grander scheme of things
-
Hello Nilsen,
My apologies for slow replies, this week is turning out to be a real occurence of the old conundrum; "The more I do, the further behind I get."
Originally posted by Nilsen
Morning Seagoon.
As you said you can not prove the existence of God with hard evidence, just as I can't prove that there is no God.
That is not quite true. I would say that there is hard evidence for the existence of God, and that it is even available in three different categories, the physical (or general revelation of his existence and glory), the personal (or special revelation of his nature and will) and the logical (which can be seen in the problems inherent in presupposing he doesn't exist and all the transcendent categories that we can only have or understand if he does exist).
The evidence that we perceive is precisely the evidence that we would expect to find for a God who is both personal and spiritual, who made the universe, is ordering it, and makes himself known to his creation through revelation. We see this in the very existence of creation itself, as Psalm 19:1-3 puts it “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Additionally, as our progress in science continues, and we continue to find that the universe is amazingly orderly with closely defined laws governing all its interactions, rather than chaotic and random the evidence for design continues to pile up. As we learn, for instance, more about the interior workings of cells, and see the irreducible complexity of their mechanisms, learn that the DNA strands in a single cell contain more information than all the libraries of the world and contemplate the fact that matter has no means of having generated that information and that it cannot be accounted for with the sleight of hand of simply saying “time+chance=everything” or as we learn that life on our planet required an impossibly long list of things to come together, the idea of random, unthinking, chaotic matter creating so much finely balanced order and design becomes more and more impossible.
The evidence for His existence is there and always has been, the problem is that for well over 100 years now, our interpretation of that data has been inextricably wed to the naturalist presupposition that states “matter is all there is” and that regardless of what we find, the hypothesis that the universe is designed is unacceptable. As one biochemist put it to me, I realized that if the universe is designed then we have closed and locked the very doors that would allow us to understand the structure of the universe. While still not anything close to a Christian , what he has discovered as a biochemists about the structure of life has caused him to abandon the idea of non-directed origins for that life. As he put it, “I guess like someone has said, I got tired of looking a Mt. Rushmore and saying 'I wonder how the random action of wind and rain acted to make the mountain look like the faces of Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln.' "
What you belive in is based on input from other people and/or some other experience that you have had and that you have chosen to give God credit for ,and that is evidence enough for you.
Nilsen, I grew up in an atmosphere so soaked with Naturalistic presuppositions that they were part of the very air I breathed. I expressed them on a daily basis without even knowing that I did, most people do. The very belief in the non-existence of God has become so ingrained in our academia, that to even suggest otherwise or present why you think that might be the case is to face instant and terrible excommunication from the scientific establishment. In literature I read I absorbed and accepted elements of existentialist and nihilist philosophy based on the naturalism almost uncritically. In fact it was the process of examination of those worldviews, and especially running those systems, that began to turn me against those explanations and I ended up drifting closer to and then getting involved in Eastern mysticism and the occult, because while those systems were no “tighter” or better able to explain the data, at least they weren’t quite as hopeless. Throughout all of this personal journeying, I continued to despise and ridicule Christianity and Christians. It wasn’t merely a personal experience or a credulous acceptance of the irrational that changed me, like C.S. Lewis I know what it is to feel the experience of being forced against one’s natural inclination to accept as truth that which we most fervently want to deny. You are free to dismiss my conversion however you will, but it was not quite the free-fall into credulity or the merely the desire to avoid reality. Actually it was the end of the unexamined life for me.
Yes i belive that the "universe" has created humanity and all other things around us, and I belive it has an open architecture based on open-source software. Its full of bugs and unexplained crashes but every now and then a string of code is made that boots up something that sorta works.
Space and time is never ending and at some point things just comes together. I belive that every second somewere an infinate ammount of new life, planets and whatnot is created somewere in space and always has been and always will. I do not belive there is a god out there that controls it all, and if it is then he is a sadistical sob based on proof you can see around you every day.
Clearly the parameters of the universe are not infinite, therefore an infinite amount of material cannot be being created anywhere. And actually, I think you’ll find that if you run your own system the idea of that system being open is not possible. In order to be “reprogrammed” new information would have to be created, new laws brought into existence, something that matter cannot do, and you have dismissed the possibility of a divine writer and editor. Therefore the “code” that we have is all that we have, all that there is now is all that there is and merely adding in an unexplained “source” for “new code” and new creation ex nihilo is importing your own Deus ex Machina – creating a god inside the system to replace the one outside the system whose existence is denied.
As far as God being a “sadistical sob” (I’m reminded here of Yossarian’s dialogue with Lt. Sch**sskopf’s wife in Catch-22) that might be arguable if as deists and naturalists argue “whatever is, is right.” In other words, if the universe is right as it is, there is something wrong with the creator. The Christian theist however, argues from special revelation that the universe is not right as it is that rather it is fallen, and suffering from the consequences of rebellion against the creator in the form of sin and evil and all their by products (disease, death, corruption, etc.) and that this is of grave concern to the creator, and that he is actively involved in the process of redeeming both his creatures and that creation in a way consistant with his nature so that neither love nor justice are lost.
- SEAGOON
-
Hi Xasthur,
(BTW- Did you get your handle from the band of that name?)
Originally posted by Xasthur
I thought I might step in on this one and add a reply to Seagoon.
Given your arguements above "
The universe could not have been self-created or spontaneously generated from nothing", Seagoon, I will assume that you believe something similar to the following:
Now, I say that Leibniz seems to assume the truth of his premises in order to reach his conclusion; that there is a monotheistic God. Leibniz assumes that contingent entities exist and that they need a sufficient reason to exist. He also puts forward the notion that a metaphysical necessary entity provides a sufficient reason for itself and also provides a sufficient reason for contingent entities. If this is the case and the metaphysically necessary being must exist… if a metaphysically necessary entity provides an explanation for the existence of a contingent being the reason for the contingent being entails metaphysical necessity. This leads to removal on contingency from Leibniz’s argument and devastates Leibniz’s argument for the principle of sufficient reason.
I'd be interested to know what you think of this
Regards
-Archaius
Archaius, forgive me if I give you a relatively short answer,as I'm out of time for replies today. If I were a naturalist or an existentialist, then no, there would be no way that I could prove contigent entities, or any other entity for that matter really exist, therefore my belief in them would be at best an unprovable supposition (as all true knowledge would be) and I'd be like the man in Crane's poem:
I saw a man pursuing the horizon;
Round and round they sped.
I was disturbed at this;
I accosted the man.
"It is futile," I said,
"You can never -"
"You lie," he cried,
And ran on.
I do however believe that there are contingent entities that they do not have the power of self-existence, and that an infinite regression of contingent entities is logically impossible (I also believe in laws of logic which also cannot really exist if matter is all there is) and that therefore there must be a self-existent entity that brought these dependent entities into existence.
If your presupposition is that there is no one outside the box and no possible source of objective information about reality than I admit that all we have possible is a epistemological tail chasing exercise. I got done with that kind of tail chasing in 1993.
Sir.
- SEAGOON
-
Hi Gunthr,
Originally posted by Gunthr
Seagoon, that logical argument is facinating. Could you explain this a bit more: how would increasing entropy make the idea of an eternal universe impossible? because the universe is becoming more disorganized?
Please forgive me if I wimp out of writing my own explanation for the above (I'm out of time) and defer to the explanation of this principle offered by J.P. Moreland:
Thermodynamics is an exact science which deals with energy. The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental, best-established laws in all of science. The second law involves a concept known as entropy. Entropy can be understood in terms of energy, disorder, or information. The second law states that the entropy of the universe for any closed system therein, where an isolated system is one which has neither mass nor energy flow in or out of the system) is increasing. Put differently, the amount of energy available to do work is decreasing and becoming uniformly distributed. The universe is moving irreversibly toward a state of maximum disorder and minimum energy.
An example may be helpful. Suppose someone enters a room and discovers a cup of coffee which is still warm. He would be able to tell that it had not been there forever; in fact, given the right information, he could even calculate how long it had been cooling off. The second law states that the cup will cool off and the temperature of the room will move toward a state of uniform temperature distribution.
Consider a second example. If someone opens a bottle of perfume in a room, the perfume will leave the bottle and disperse in such a way that it will become uniformly distributed throughout the room. The second law tells us that neither of these examples should happen in reverse order. It is highly improbable that a cup in equilibrium with the temperature of the room will suddenly become hot. Similarly, a room full of perfume evenly distributed will not suddenly change spontaneously in such a way that the perfume will all go into an empty bottle.
Applied to the universe as a whole, the second law tells us that the universe is wearing down irreversibly. It is heading toward a state of maximum disorder and uniform energy distribution. The sun will burn up and all other localized sources of energy will burn up as well. But since a state of maximum entropy has not yet been reached, the universe has not been here forever. If the universe had already undergone an infinite past, it would have reached such a state by now. As theoretical physicist Paul Davies puts it: "If the universe has a finite stock of order, and is changing irreversibly towards disorder—ultimately to thermodynamic equilibrium—two very deep inferences follow immediately. The first is that the universe will eventually die, wallowing, as it were, in its own entropy. This is known among physicists as the 'heat death' of the universe. The second is that the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist."
It would seem, then, that the second law implies a beginning to the universe when the universe was, as it were, wound up and energy and order were put into it.
[Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, Baker 1987, pp.34-35]
Hope that makes it clearer.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Clearly the parameters of the universe are not infinite, therefore an infinite amount of material cannot be being created anywhere. And actually, I think you’ll find that if you run your own system the idea of that system being open is not possible. In order to be “reprogrammed” new information would have to be created, new laws brought into existence, something that matter cannot do, and you have dismissed the possibility of a divine writer and editor. Therefore the “code” that we have is all that we have, all that there is now is all that there is and merely adding in an unexplained “source” for “new code” and new creation ex nihilo is importing your own Deus ex Machina – creating a god inside the system to replace the one outside the system whose existence is denied.
- SEAGOON
Hi Seagoon
This is a fascinating thread, particularly because you are exceptionally well spoken and have clearly put a lot of thought, effort, and introspection into your posts. For that you have my utmost respect.
However, I would like to disagree with part of your statement listed above... forgive me if I am quoting you out of context, or getting caught on something trivial outside of you larger point.
When evaluating the open source code metaphor, you stated that In order to be “reprogrammed” new information would have to be created, new laws brought into existence, something that matter cannot do, and you have dismissed the possibility of a divine writer and editor.
I have to say that I think you are underestimating the scale of the code if you feel that it would require outside manipulation to achieve results (life, physical laws, etc).
We can see this if we shrink this back down to a human scale... for example: Every day, scientists create new compounds or inventions. These are not achieved by writing new physical laws.... they are achieved by bringing assets together (be they chemicals, energy, matter, etc) that previously had not interacted. These separate assets existed before their combination to create something new. No laws of physics were rewritten. No material conjured. Theoretically, this new creation could have naturally occurred given that the proper conditions were in place to allow it.
Granted, in my example there was a guiding force (the scientist). However, if we go back to the larger scale... that scientist is simply another asset. Or if you will... simply another part of the open source code. The code itself has accounted for it.
There is one last thing that I think is important to remember, and that is that just because there is Chaos, that does not negate consequence. In a vast system such as the Universe, should material randomly combine to create something new, that system is now forever changed. New possibilities are now available, as a new asset is now open for interaction. The system has not been manipulated by an outside source, yet through its very existence new possibilities are available. And this will continue.
Thanks for your time-
-Dyna
-
Seagoon why your god?
Why not one of the original gods from say ancient egyptian times (that predates christianity), or mayan gods and so on?
If you prove that it is possible for a god to exist why does it have to be christian defined god (and not gods)?
-
Seagoon...
Clearly what we view as evidence are very different. None of what you listed in either category is evidence in my book.
What you belive in is based on input from other people and books. If you had lived on an island all your life without access to the religion you have now you would not have had it. You may have had similar experiences but you would not have added those experiences to the things you had learned from books to form the belives you have now. Everything we do and experience in life forms us as people and if you take away key elements of it your persona will change too.
Now... go fly some and don't spend your spare time trying to convince or explain something to someone like me. It is rather hopeless until someone can find evidence. People in my life that i love with a far better chanse of succeding in that department has failed. :)
-
Hope that makes it clearer.
- SEAGOON
it does. i never heard of this concept before. it is actually an astounding idea, i think supported by science, that seems to point to God.
-
Sorry Seagoon, but the entropy argument don't fly. Entropy assumes a closed system. There are parts of the universe that are far from closed (the Earth for example), and assuming the entire Universe to be a closed system is a mighty stretch. The warm coffee in the room could have been heated by a ray of sunlight through the window. The window built by those beings who evolved on that planet and built that room.;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Seagoon why your god?
Why not one of the original gods from say ancient egyptian times (that predates christianity), or mayan gods and so on?
If you prove that it is possible for a god to exist why does it have to be christian defined god (and not gods)?
It is interesting that the majority of people believe and follow the religion of their parents and society.
-
Many religions, especially Christianity, maintain belief that there are two realms (at least) that are separate from each other and that one of these, the spiritual realm, is undetectable from the viewpoint of the other, the physical. At least undetectable using only facilities inherent in that realm.
I agree with Seagoon that only by God's revelation can we sense the spiritual. There are many ways to explain man's need for belief in the supernatural. However, those who earnestly seek God find him in ways that cannot be understood except through acceptance of a spiritual realm. It's one of those things that must be experienced to be understood or believed. Much like understanding what color is, a man blind from birth cannot perceive it.
I read an interesting allegory recently. Belief in life after death is much like twins in the womb. One may have an unfounded belief that there exists something beyond their current environment. The other believes that what he is currently experiencing is all there is. When the first is born into a world of smiling parents and joy the latter feels only loss and tragedy at the disappearance and presumed end of his sibling. Soon, he too discovers his "reality" was not as he earlier perceived.
-
Hi MT, Dyna,
I think amongst other things we have a problem with definitions here when it comes to "closed" and "open" systems. Dynamite, let me go ahead and answer MTs objection and if that doesn't adequately respond to your objection, feel free to say so, and I'll try to respond again tomorrow. I'm on "baby time" at present, so I'm only up till the littleist 'un is done feeding.
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry Seagoon, but the entropy argument don't fly. Entropy assumes a closed system. There are parts of the universe that are far from closed (the Earth for example), and assuming the entire Universe to be a closed system is a mighty stretch. The warm coffee in the room could have been heated by a ray of sunlight through the window. The window built by those beings who evolved on that planet and built that room.;)
MT when we're talking about Closed systems and particularly the second law of thermodynamics, we are actually talking about something that naturalists agree on. Entropy, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a creation of Christian Apologists, its a universal law discovered in the 19th century and first formulated in its current form by Rudolph Clausius. It is today generally accepted even in the field of Quantum Mechanics. Indeed the brilliant Nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi wrote exstensively on the subject in his book "Thermodynamics." Simply put the Second Law states: "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
So as far as that goes, I could simply respond if you don't like Entropy, then your beef is with the physicists, not me.
Also, when I write about the Universe being Open or Closed I am using terms that are generally accepted in philosophical discourse.
Naturalists (also known as materialists) have long affirmed that the Universe is a Closed System of Cause and Effect. This means that they believe that while there are things about the universe that may be seen as mysterious and complex, that is only because we do not yet (and in some cases may never be able to due to relations and complexities beyond our ability to comprehend) understand them. Despite these complexities the universe is essentially closed, it is not open to fundamentally reordering from the outside by a transcendent being or from the inside by self-transcendent or autonomous humans. This worldview rejects the miraculous, the spiritual, and the supernatural. Hence Sagan’s sweeping “Cosmos is all there is” commentary. David Jobling reflecting this worldview described the universe as “a continuity of space, time, and matter, held together, as it were from within…God is not ‘outside” time and space, nor does he stand apart from matter, communicating with the spiritual part of man.” This worldview, which is seen in the writings of modern atheistic philosophers like Dawkins and Dennet also implies determinism, but we can get to that later.
Against this “closed universe” (or closed box) worldview Christian philosophers like Francis Schaeffer and C.S. Lewis have maintained that the universe is an Open System of Cause and Effect. To quote James Sire from The Universe Next Door on the meaning of this phrase:
“First, it signifies that the cosmos was not created to be chaotic. Isaiah states this magnificently “For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, In a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, 'Seek Me in vain'; I, the LORD, speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.” (Isaiah. 45:18-19)
The universe is orderly and God does not present us with confusion but with clarity. The nature of God's universe and God's character are, thus closely related. The world is as it is at least in part because God is as He is…. the fall qualifies this observation. Here it is sufficient to note that there is an orderliness, a regularity to the universe. We can expect the earth to turn so the sun will “rise” every day.
But another important notion is buried in this shorthand phrase. The system is open and that means it is not programmed. God is constantly involved in the unfolding pattern of the ongoing operation of the universe. And so are we human beings! The course of the creation is open to constant reordering by either. … Each action of each of us, each decision to pursue one course rather than another, changes or rather “produces” the future. … If the universe were not orderly, our decisions would have no effect. If the course of events were determined, our decisions would have no significance. So theism declares that the universe is orderly but not determined.
Hence the “open vs. closed box distinction.” Even in your example MT, entropy nor the closed system is not affected, the energy from the sun warms the cup, that is what we (and indeed thermodynamics) would expect. The sun sets and the cup becomes cold again. The cup never spontaneously regains its lost energy however, I don’t expect a cup I set down to suddenly reheat as the process of entropy reverses and the naturalist does not allow for a force from outside the system to miraculously reheat it. Humans are within the system, to the naturalist they are as much a part of the box as the coffee and they have no capacity to reverse the laws of the universe or fundamentally reprogram the system they are part of.
- SEAGOON
-
I believe that todays religions, like the vast vast majority of religions/beliefs which have gone before it in the history of mankind, will be outdated before too long.
If this was a discussion 2,000 years ago, can you imagine how absurd you would be made to look if you argued the point of a single God to a Roman?
I saw a picture a few weeks ago, it was from a space probe (the name escapes me at the moment), when it reached the far reaches of the solar system, they turned the camera around to look towards the Sun.
Amongst the tiny glints of light was Earth... amongst the 7 metre or so image, was a glint of light half a pixel in size, which is Earth. It made me realise then just how small and insignificant our planet really is.
-
Seagoon, can you (as time allows) refute that religion is irrational, and therefore cannot be rationaly argued in any conclusive way?
-
nice posts seagoon, i agree totally :aok
-
I'll grant the Universe to be a closed system, but this still proves nothing. If you are going to hang your hat on Entropy then you are using the hatrack of the 1st law... Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. A "Natural Law" that required no God yet explains a universe that has always been.
-
I'm an Athieist....wheres Richard Dwarkins when you need him;)
-
Hi Vulcan,
Incidentally, I think I'll be taking Nilsen's advice and trying to get some flight time in, so my apologies to anyone I don't get a chance to respond to.
Originally posted by Vulcan
Seagoon why your god?
Why not one of the original gods from say ancient egyptian times (that predates christianity), or mayan gods and so on?
If you prove that it is possible for a god to exist why does it have to be christian defined god (and not gods)?
Ah, there's the rub with evidentialist apologetics (arguments for the existence of God that appeal to general revelation - i.e. nature, science, logic) even if you can prove that there is a God, the most you have generally proved is the existence of Aristotle's "First Mover." Hence when Antony Flew, the great atheist philosopher and debater, was finally convinced by years of arguments that there was a God, all he became was a deist and not a Christian.
But to answer your question, I could say that a careful examination of the evidence would eliminate many of the ancient or eastern "gods" from the running (for instance some religions have an impersonal god ultiamtely incapable of creating, others posit a god who used pre-existing material to shape the universe, others are obviously anthropomorphisms - "man writ large" and simply could not fit the bill for the awesome creator and sustainer of the universe, others are obviously written about as mythical from the very beginning, rather than being historical, the Upanishads are an example of this) but none of those are the reason I would argue for that the God who created the universe is the Triune God of the Bible.
I will freely admit that it wasn't via evidence in natural revelation that I was persuaded that "Yahweh, He is God!" (to quote the Israelites on Mt. Carmel after the "great debate" of 1 Kings 18) , it was actually being convinced that the witness of the New Testament to the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ was true. It wasn't evidence alone, obviously, evidence of itself will never convince anyone to believe anything much less the testimony of scripture. As B.B. Warfield put it in On Faith in its Psychological Aspects:
Something more, then, is needed to produce belief, faith, besides the evidence which constitutes its ground. The evidence may be objectively sufficient, adequate, overwhelming. The subjective effect of belief, faith is not produced unless this evidence is also adapted to the mind, and to the present state of that mind, which is to be convinced. The mind, itself, therefore — and the varying states of the mind —have their parts to play in the production of belief, faith; and the effect which is so designated is not the mechanical result of the adduction of the evidence.
That something more was a supernatural work that the naturalist denies is possible because his worldview forbids it, but if God does exist, then nothing logically precludes this, in fact revelation requires this supernatural change of heart in order for true faith to occur.
Anyway, so there it is, I believe that the Creator was the God of the Bible because I believe the testimony of Jesus and the eyewitness evidence presented by his Apostles. All of my subsequent examination of the manuscript and historical evidence since has confirmed that belief (and please believe me I try to read as widely as possible on both sides of the issue), so my trust in the authority of that word has only been strengthened and increased. In fact I've found that if we were merely talking secular history, then the manuscript and internal evidence to the historicity of the events in the NT would be found to be overwhelming by any reasonably objective historian, the fact that supernatural events and monumental truth claims are made however impells men to seek reasons not to believe the testimony (that I also know from personal experience).
Anyway, my tiny braincell is overheating, I'll try to write more in a little while. In the meantime, I'm going to go let the N00bs totally pwn the rusty old man online.
-
I'm rereading some of CS Lewis' works and reading The Problem of Pain tonight. I have greatly enjoyed both his fiction and nonfiction over the years. For insight and depth of thought he's hard to beat.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
But to answer your question, I could say that a careful examination of the evidence would eliminate many of the ancient or eastern "gods" from the running (for instance some religions have an impersonal god ultiamtely incapable of creating, others posit a god who used pre-existing material to shape the universe, others are obviously anthropomorphisms - "man writ large" and simply could not fit the bill for the awesome creator and sustainer of the universe, others are obviously written about as mythical from the very beginning, rather than being historical, the Upanishads are an example of this) but none of those are the reason I would argue for that the God who created the universe is the Triune God of the Bible.
Interesting isn't it. Some religions don't require a god to create the universe, some go as far as to openly state they do not fully understand the universe (honesty in religion is such a rare thing) . Even more interesting is how some religions readily label other older religions as mythical despite the supernatural beliefs of their own religion.
But of course nearly every religion thinks it is the 'special one'. Some even go as far to actively discriminate against those that do not agree with their religion.
-
(http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5242492,00.jpg)
Nilsen... Nilsen.....NILSEN!!!!
There is a GOD
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Interesting isn't it. Some religions don't require a god to create the universe, some go as far as to openly state they do not fully understand the universe (honesty in religion is such a rare thing) . Even more interesting is how some religions readily label other older religions as mythical despite the supernatural beliefs of their own religion.
But of course nearly every religion thinks it is the 'special one'. Some even go as far to actively discriminate against those that do not agree with their religion.
I find it interesting that there is a common theme through most current and ancient religions, that of the need for a sacrifice. That there is somehing wrong with us which must be atoned for is a belief much older than Christianity and also Judaism. I think Christianity is the only religion wherein God sacrificed himself for us to bring us back to himself.
-
I am no fan of religion but...I believe that there is a creator and that there is a god who can give us strength that we couldn't possibly have on our own.
I also believe that one of the worst religions is atheism.. I believe that atheists are amoung the most fervent and angry of all religious acolytes.. they preach the most and are the most vocal.. It always smacks of a complex to me.
lazs
-
Atheism isn't a Religion:aok
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Xasthur,
(BTW- Did you get your handle from the band of that name?)
I do however believe that there are contingent entities that they do not have the power of self-existence, and that an infinite regression of contingent entities is logically impossible (I also believe in laws of logic which also cannot really exist if matter is all there is) and that therefore there must be a self-existent entity that brought these dependent entities into existence.
If your presupposition is that there is no one outside the box and no possible source of objective information about reality than I admit that all we have possible is a epistemological tail chasing exercise. I got done with that kind of tail chasing in 1993.
Sir.
- SEAGOON
Hello Seagoon.
Yes, I did take the band name Xasthur as my handle. (I assume that we both speak of the 1-man black metal band)
Thanks for responding. I do agree with that you say about the epistemological tail chasing, I was just interested in what your response would be.
This is a matter that I have not yet formed a strong position on, so i'm still trying subject myself to as many arguements for and against that I can.
Thanks for your time
Regards
-Archaius
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
Atheism isn't a Religion:aok
a·the·ism
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
re·li·gion –noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
-
If you have no proof that there is no god yet say that there is not based soley on faith...
It is a religion.
Look how fervent the atheists are! they constantly attack the beliefs of christians and other theists and try to advance their beliefs. They refuse to admit that they are a faith based religion.
lazs
-
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If you have no proof that there is no god yet say that there is not based soley on faith...
It is a religion.
Look how fervent the atheists are! they constantly attack the beliefs of christians and other theists and try to advance their beliefs. They refuse to admit that they are a faith based religion.
lazs
Lazs,
The problem isn't so much with Christianity, as it is with the individuals abusing it .A good example. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html)
-
I look at it like this; either you believe & have faith or you don't. If you don't & God is real then you're in deep trouble. If you do & God is real; at least you have a shot & you haven't lost a thing in the process.
My faith gives me the strength to live through pain & keeps the fear of death at bay. I find comfort in it & I do not understand how human beings can cope with the loss of; say....their child, if they don't have that faith.
Maybe it's a mental safety net devised by mankind to cope with the un-explainable; but I find it impossible to believe what "science" says happened. I find it easier to believe in creation; scientific theories on creation & life have way too many holes in them.
Take for instance the big bang theory; how big would the mass that exploded have to be to create everything in the universe? :confused:
Where did IT come from?
And I could go on. I like the analogy a country preacher once used that I heard speaking, he said;
"The big bang would be like taking a fine Swiss watch apart down to the last screw & spring; placing all the parts into a box & shaking it for a billion years. Upon opening the box you find the watch assembled with the correct time displayed, the spring wound & no scratches or damage to any of the parts; in fact you find them in better condition than they were in when you put them in the box."
Again I say, it's just a matter of faith folks; either you have it or you don't. :aok
-
words will never create the faith in people who do not have it
living a life and adhering to a code of conduct can influence it
you can lead a horse to water.. and so on
-
So to sum it up:
A) Everything needs to be created.
B) Therefore the universe was created.
C) By something that doesn't need to be created but always have existed.
D) This something is the Christian God, because this is what Seagoon believes and have faith in.
There's really not much more to it, and it's fine by me. As an argument it's not very convincing however. I mean A and C contradict each other for starters and there's no supporting arguments for D.
There's no support for A). I haven't seen conclusive evidence that then universe might not have existed for ever in some form or state - no argument for or against. So B) is based on A) being true, which hasn't been proven.
Perhaps sometimes it is better to say "I don't know, but my heart, gut feeling, faith, whatever you may call it, tells me it is this way".
To me faith and spirituality are inherently personal, reflecting inwards and always just a tad outside the reach of the conscious mind. Your mileage may vary.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
I look at it like this; either you believe & have faith or you don't. If you don't & God is real then you're in deep trouble. If you do & God is real; at least you have a shot & you haven't lost a thing in the process.
Therein lies one of the amusing pieces of christianity. Doesn't matter if you're a good person or not, as long as you 'accept the lorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd' and you get into heaven. But if you're a good person as don't accept the lorrrrrrrrrd then its off the hell with you.
And don't get me started on the 'you don't have faith you evil sinner' stuff.
If I were going to find relgiion I'd go buddhist, far less of the lies and mythological mumbo jumbo the christians try to dish out. Second would be islam, mohammah was a good businessman, some of those ideas about keeping the woman in the kitchen aren't so bad (ducks), and them virgins in the afterlife.... hmmm.
-
how about listing some of those "lies" you are refering too.
NOT
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Therein lies one of the amusing pieces of christianity. Doesn't matter if you're a good person or not, as long as you 'accept the lorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd' and you get into heaven. But if you're a good person as don't accept the lorrrrrrrrrd then its off the hell with you.
And don't get me started on the 'you don't have faith you evil sinner' stuff.
If I were going to find relgiion I'd go buddhist, far less of the lies and mythological mumbo jumbo the christians try to dish out. Second would be islam, mohammah was a good businessman, some of those ideas about keeping the woman in the kitchen aren't so bad (ducks), and them virgins in the afterlife.... hmmm.
Hardly; you read a lot into that sentence that was not there. Don't quote me if you're not addressing what I said.
My faith is just that...mine. The religious sect that my family raised me in conflicts with your statement as follows:
"Doesn't matter if you're a good person or not, as long as you 'accept the lorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd' and you get into heaven."
I am Christian by definition & that statement is false; you must believe in Jesus Christ as your Saviour but that's not all there is to it. Too bad it's not that simple; most people who have never studied the Holy Bible say the same things over & over as proof so don't feel alone in that.
But if you're a good person as don't accept the lorrrrrrrrrd then its off the hell with you.
Quite possibly. The Bible addresses the subject of "good people" who are unbelievers & the risk of damnation they face.
If I were going to find relgiion I'd go buddhist, far less of the lies and mythological mumbo jumbo the christians try to dish out.
Lies & mythical mumbo jumbo? No more so than any other religion. Buddhism has the noble truths & the precepts etc. They pretty much mirror the teachings in the Christian Bible, they just don't center on God as Alpha & Omega.
Second would be islam, mohammah was a good businessman, some of those ideas about keeping the woman in the kitchen aren't so bad (ducks), and them virgins in the afterlife.... hmmm.
WoW...If I thought you were serious then I would just have to shake my head in disbelief; Islam & Christianity are so close to each other in the belief system it's not funny. Why not at least try Hinduism, at least they're an "ism".
-
For myself my morality is based on judeo christian thinking wether I like it or not.I believe in the ethics not the mumbo jumbo.
I understand that many people find comfort in their belief,and respect that and have no wish to force my lack of belief on someone else.That includes my lovely wife...err... God bless her.;)
-
Hi Moot,
I was surprised to see that this thread is still going, especially since it was originally intended to just be a brief dialogue with Nilsen. Then again, I should have known that things around here have a life of their own. Anyway, I'll try to respond to the questions in thread as I have the time (which is unfortunately, very seldom) I'm trying to squeeze this one in, for instance, before doing marriage counseling. So please forgive me if the answer isn’t as full as it could be.
Originally posted by moot
Seagoon, can you (as time allows) refute that religion is irrational, and therefore cannot be rationaly argued in any conclusive way?
Obviously a book could be written about this. But I’ll try to give you a succinct answer. First, in your question you seem to have two assumptions in place:
1) Science is Absolutely Rational and Real
2) The Law of Verification is True
As a philosophy major friend of mine once commented speaking of the work of Richard Dawkins, he wished that practical scientists would stay out of philosophy, because they inevitably make a host of assumptions that philosophers of science (even atheistic ones) wince at. One is the idea that Science is provably all about Rational Realism, when there is a huge debate going on over whether Science rests on a foundation of Rational Realism, Rational Nonrealism, Nonrational Nonrealism, or one of the associated offshoots. I don’t have the time to explain the differences between them, but I’ll try to give you an example that shows the problems with assuming that science is all about “brute facts” and that Science is all about empirically true descriptions of the universe. Truth does not change and therefore it is about ontology (the way things are), truth is truth whether or not anyone knows it or agrees with it. A rational belief on the other hand is about epistemology (or human knowledge). Our beliefs may be rational without necessarily being true, and our knowledge changes as additional evidence comes to light.
So for instance, Science is actually an Epistemological pursuit not an ontological pursuit. It is about forming paradigms that explain the evidence as we have it. They are not “truth” or they would not be able to change. Actually, without a truly all-knowing, objective (outside the box) observer, it can be shown that knowing that something is TRUE with 100% accuracy is impossible. Darwin doubted that human brains were built for that kind of thing, and Nietzsche described our view of reality as the artificial order we impose on Chaos in order to make life livable. Interestingly, he argued that Science and logic and all explanations were ultimately comforting lies we tell ourselves. Philosophically speaking, we might play at being God and kid ourselves that we can know truth, but unless there really is an omniscient being who can tell us what truth is, then there is actually no way of making the leap between “I believe that” and “the truth is.”
Secondly, the Law of Verification, which you seem to have so much confidence in, states that “only what can be known by science or quantified and empirically tested is rational and true” is, and has been demonstrated to be, self-refuting. There is SIMPLY NO WAY TO VERIFY THAT STATEMENT! This is a philosophical statement and not a scientific one, and we don't use science to verify its own philosophical presuppositions. If the only statements that are rational are those that can be empirically verified, then almost all of philosophy, logic, and life becomes meaningless. For instance, a statement like “I Love You” is not capable of being empirically verified, but that does not make it irrational OR untrue.
Additionally, no one, not even scientists, really live this way - insisting moment by moment on empirical verification of everything before it can have any meaning. 9 times out 10 when they act, they act on the basis of faith and trust in authority. Often these things are more reliable than our senses in any event. I’ll try to explain why, in the next post, trust in these things is not irrational
- SEAGOON
-
Moot,
Regarding the reasonableness of faith and authority (for instance, you'd probably be amazed at the number of things you take on faith - rather than empirical evidence - and via trust in authorities in any given day if you quantified them) and why the Christian faith is rational, let me quote briefly from BB Warfield (first) and RC Sproul (second) for the sake of time:
The limitation which is placed upon our knowledge by our very nature as finite beings is greatly aggravated by the circumstance that we are not only finite but immature beings. We do not come into existence in the maturity of our powers; indeed, we remain throughout life, or we would better say throughout eternity, creatures whose very characteristic is change, or, to put it at its best, ever-progressing growth. At no given point in this development, of course, are we all that even we shall become. For the attainment, then, in our immaturity, of such knowledge as belongs to us as finite beings, there is obvious need of help from without. In other words, there is place for authority, and its correlate, faith. This is an ordinance of nature. Those who are first infants, then children, and only through the several stages of gradual ripening attain the maturity of their powers, will need at every step of their growth the guidance of those who are more mature than they, that they may accept on their authority, by faith, what they are not yet in a position to ascertain for themselves, by reason. And, as it is inevitable even among mature men, that some should outrun others in the attainment of knowledge; and especially that some should become particularly knowing in this or that sphere of knowledge, to which they have given unusual attention, or for which they have enjoyed uncommon facilities; there will always remain for creatures subject to change and developing progressively in their powers, not only a legitimate but a necessary place for authority on the one hand and for faith on the other. Not, of course, as if faith should, or could, supplant reason, or be set in opposition to reason. On the one hand, a right faith is always a reasonable faith; that is to say, it is accorded only to an authority which cornmends itself to reason as a sound authority, which it would be unreasonable not to trust.
The biblical record of the existence of God and the truth claims of Jesus appeal again and again to empirical evidence. It is based on what is seen with the eye and heard with the ear. Why then does Hebrews speak of faith as evidence of the unseen?
The author of Hebrews had no intention of divorcing faith from reason or faith from empirical evidence. Faith is based upon evidence; it is based upon what is seen, but it goes beyond what is seen. In summary it works like this. We trust Christ, who is seen, about matters which are unseen.
God displays Himself in creation. He reveals Himself in history. History is the arena of the seen. But much remains unseen. For example, I cannot see tomorrow. No crystal ball is strong enough to see the future. But God knows the future. When God tells us about the future we trust that what He is saying is true. We cannot see it. We have no empirical data available to us from the future. But we believe God’s Word about the future because in the past He has proven Himself, both rationally and empirically to be utterly trustworthy. Our faith in the future is established by the evidence of the past. Scientific predictions can and have been wrong. God’s predictions cannot be and have never been wrong.
To trust God in matters of things unseen is not a matter of blind faith. It is not credulity. It is a reasonable faith. Indeed, to not believe one as well as attested as God for the future is to crucify the intellect. It is foolish not to trust Him when He has evidenced Himself to be utterly trustworthy.
In the final analysis positivism offers a truncated science, a science so limited in scope that it ignores the wider realm of truth. It seeks to make science independent of other closely related fields of inquiry. It cuts us off from ultimate meaning. If that is what Comte meant by cultural maturity it means we pay an awfully high price to grow up.
(RC Sproul, Lifeviews, "Positivism", Fleming Revell, 1986)
-
something pretty out of this world and divine HAS to have started the UNIVERSE and been the 'first cause' a theory which is thought to prove the existemce of a greater force.
SOMETHING with powers we cannot imagine to understand started the ball rolling. if you just keep going back and back and back you eventually come to the piont where... whats outside the unvierse..... what put it here... what started it all off? this is why i still have believe that there IS a god, whatever religion he may be. i feel that different religions are just different ways off attempting to contact and be in sync with this god or force.
something must have amde The very forst atom, It CANNOT have come from nowhere.
we simply do not know anyway near enough to dismiss the existence of a god and most of what we do not seems to suggest that maybe there is if you choose to believe it.
-
Therein lies one of the amusing pieces of christianity. Doesn't matter if you're a good person or not, as long as you 'accept the lorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd' and you get into heaven. But if you're a good person as don't accept the lorrrrrrrrrd then its off the hell with you.
The God that I believe in doesn't consider a little white lie to be any less evil than a murder. Both are equal offenses in His eyes. This is how Jeffrey Damher (sp), if he had found his Salvation through Christ could still get into Heaven while a good person that never found his Salvation could be left out. God loves each of us no matter how bad we have been.
We can compare this to a father that has children. When his children disobey him, does he suddenly dislike them or disown them or stop loving them? Of course not. He continues to love them simply because they are his children.
Salvation itself is a gift from God, given freely. All we have to do is accept it.
-
Ehh:
" look at it like this; either you believe & have faith or you don't. If you don't & God is real then you're in deep trouble. If you do & God is real; at least you have a shot & you haven't lost a thing in the process."
And if you do, and there is no God, you've been hoaxed?
Watch it when you put your saddle on the bible, for the bible you have isn't quite the full version. There are, after all, some good chunks that were chipped off.
For it looks you have fallen for the fear of the unbeliver not entering God's kingdom, while the centerline of what Jesus preaches is charity, - CHARITY.
So, look better into the bible seagoon.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ehh:
" look at it like this; either you believe & have faith or you don't. If you don't & God is real then you're in deep trouble. If you do & God is real; at least you have a shot & you haven't lost a thing in the process."
And if you do, and there is no God, you've been hoaxed?
And my point is still valid. You've lost nothing by believing. So you were a little nicer to people, so you tried to watch your language a little more & stay out of trouble...is that bad?
:lol
I'd rather believe & be wrong than not believe & be wrong.
-
The world, IMHO, has way too many people that consider them selves belivers enough to enter the golden gate with a smile - yet their real life efforts do not demonstrate that they pay any heed to the main centre of what Jesus preached.
(Not to mention those God belivers who excercize the certain virtues that will insure them to have a bunch of virgins in the afterlife)
-
this post could go on forever...but idont thinkany one willchange their beliefs just becuase they are told to. I am a christian, but that doesnt mean i think less of nonchristians. Rather than words people need to be shown through example and be spoken to one on one.
I know where im going when i die......do u?
-
Originally posted by Angus
The world, IMHO, has way too many people that consider them selves belivers enough to enter the golden gate with a smile - yet their real life efforts do not demonstrate that they pay any heed to the main centre of what Jesus preached.
I agree 100% with that statement.
-
"I know where im going when i die......do u?"
So you have a grave ordered?
Anyway Brenjen, TY ;)
-
nah...i was kinda hoping on getting strapped to a bomb and dropped out of a plane. >:)
-
Hello MT,
As above, I'm trying to respond to all the posts that interact with me directly (incidently, ty Flame Boy for your comment to me) but I'm still several days behind. Anyway, you wrote:
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'll grant the Universe to be a closed system, but this still proves nothing. If you are going to hang your hat on Entropy then you are using the hatrack of the 1st law... Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. A "Natural Law" that required no God yet explains a universe that has always been.
Respectfully, here you are setting the First and Second laws of Thermodynamics in opposition to one another. Properly understood they do not contradict, but build on one another; the first law states that the amount of energy in a closed system remains constant but is transformed into different states, the second states that this energy is being transformed into less usable energy. The energy remains constant but is subject to the unstoppable force of entropy, therefore eventually in any closed system, the Second Law states that eventually all the usable energy will be expended. To put it in non-technical terms, the laws of Thermodynamics state that Universe is "running down." This is why Astronomers like Jastrow in his Until the Sun Dies affirm that it is impossible for the universe to be eternal either as to it's beginning or its end. That is why the "Big Bang" theory ending eventually millenia from now "not with a bang but a whimper" (to quote T.S. Elliot) is the current favorite of naturalist science. Existence is for them a brief blip between two oblivions.
There are really only three possibilities to explain the existence of the Universe:
1) It Was Spontaneously Generated - Nothing Generated Everything. This violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
2) It is Eternal - This violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the amount of energy in a closed system is constant and that energy and that energy while not lost is becoming less and less usable, entropy as I quoted earlier means that "the amount of energy available to do work is decreasing and becoming uniformly distributed. The universe is moving irreversibly toward a state of maximum disorder and minimum energy."
Had the Universe always been here entropy would have been completed - you'd already have maximum disorder and minimum energy.
3) It Was Created - this violates neither of the Laws of Thermodynamics, but it does obviously upset a great number of people who don't like the implications. I can sympathize having been there myself.
Anyway, MT all that to say, its not Creation which messes with the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, its actually the attempts at alternate explanations.
-
Hi Nilsen,
Originally posted by Nilsen
Clearly what we view as evidence are very different. None of what you listed in either category is evidence in my book.
Please forgive me but I've just realized I never asked you what would you consider to be "evidence." It might be immensely profitable if you could help me to understand that.
- SEAGOON
-
Hi Vulcan,
Originally posted by Vulcan
Interesting isn't it. Some religions don't require a god to create the universe, some go as far as to openly state they do not fully understand the universe (honesty in religion is such a rare thing) . Even more interesting is how some religions readily label other older religions as mythical despite the supernatural beliefs of their own religion.
But of course nearly every religion thinks it is the 'special one'. Some even go as far to actively discriminate against those that do not agree with their religion.
One of the essential differences between say Pantheistic Monist religions like Hinduism and Buddhism and Christianity is over their view of history. For the Pantheistic Monist world history is to a great extent merely Maya or illusion. Like Siddharta in Herman Hesse’s novel of that name, they would say that those who believe in “history” in the Western linear sense are standing on the bank and looking at the river at a single point without seeing that it is all really part of the continuous vapor/rain/spring/stream/river/ocean/vapor cycle in which all things eventually lose their individuation and blend together. So for them a Myth that helps us to understand is more valuable than a historical event. Therefore, for instance, the Upanishads make no claim at being “history” nor do the Gurus who teach from them. They would say that such a claim is missing the point. In Western terms they would say these myths are still true even though the events did not happen in the linear sense that we frame history in.
Christianity, on the other hand, claims to be built on the testimony of eyewitnesses to actual events, as Peter put it “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16) In other words, this is not, “once upon a time” stories designed to teach a pithy truisms but rather, ‘let me tell you what happened to us.’” Explained with John’s end in mind: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:30-31)
I know that the idea of one form of religion viewing itself as “special” or not merely “a way” but “THE way” is inherently offensive to many, because they either see all religions as equally true or equally false. A position which while it seems normal we wouldn’t think of applying to other spheres ”All Political systems are equally true: Democracy, Tyranny, Anarchy, Fascism, Communism, they are all the same so in the end it doesn’t matter one wit if we have Western democratic republics or one world ruled by Sharia law.”
Now if I can boil it down via a crass analogy, Christianity says that mankind is rather like people locked in a house that is on fire. One religion says that the fire is inevitable so its best if we just go back to sleep, another says that there really is no fire, another says that we must all stay put and think the fire away, while yet another says that the best thing to do is to attempt to claw our way out through the brick wall. On the other hand, Christianity says, there is fire door out of this place, I know the way to it, and I have the key to unlock it when I get there it was given to us by someone whose already been through that door, follow me.
-
Originally posted by Angus
"I know where im going when i die......do u?"
So you have a grave ordered?
Anyway Brenjen, TY ;)
I never said that myself with the "do you" part. I'm not sure if you were referring to me with that statement but.....
I have said I have a feeling I know where I'm going when I die; but that's because I'm a sinner. I believe; but that doesn't mean I obey very well. In fact quite the opposite, I don't have a forgiving bone in my entire body & I'm a rotten person to be around.
-
Only for Nilsen (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/kenya/)
Dance with me Lil Buddy.
:D
Mac
-
Seagoon, your PM box is full !
I will have a reply sometime soon, which I would be glad to have your thoughts on.
Take care,
m.
-
Hi Moot,
Sorry about that, I just cleaned out about 5 slots. I'll try to keep it from overflowing in future. I look forward to hearing from you.
- SEAGOON