Space science and Cosmology deeply fascinate me and I spent an inordinate amount of time reading about stuff and consuming knowledge. That being said, I still can't totally wrap my head around some of it because all of my learning in that area is just a hobby. While I don't doubt the event that many point as the singularity, and thus, the "everywhere stretch" model, I don't know if that event is a actually a singularity or one of possibly hundreds of thousands of previous "singularities" as each previous Universe has expanded, contractedý, and then expanded again, each time causing a new start point for whatever the present Universe is...
Well, I am pretty much convinced that the theory of a multi verse is more accurate then not, however, like everyone else, it is my opinion, even an educated guess, there is no definitive proof that it exists, but there is no reason why it shouldn't exist either. Yet there are those, within the scientific community, who are self confessed angry atheists, who speak as though it is factual, an absolute, proven. In the UK we have a very popular Professor of Cosmology, call Professor Brian Cox. Our National TV station, who are also self confessed Anti-Christians, have made him an authority on cosmology, paying him big bucks to make cosmological documentaries and at the same time, make God look like yesterday's news, by deceiving the viewer with his pseudo science, science that only the few understand, so most viewers readily believe it, and any chance of them coming to know God, on their own volition, disappears because of lies and deceit. Now, I would not blame you for thinking that I might be a little bias, beings that I am a Christian myself, but he really does tell blatant lies, or, at the very least, stretches the truth. Let me give you an example.
He was discussing the phenomenon of the fine tuning of our universe and was doing exactly what most scientists try to avoid. He was trying to show evidence for the reality of a finely tuned universe. I thought that very unusual, so, I paid greater attention to what was being said, by this deciever of men, who is a outspoken and aggressive atheist, telling us that the universe is finely tuned to allow for organic life to exist. Then he said that there is a multi-verse, or, as he put it, an infinite number of universes. Not that it was a postulation, or hypothesis, but that there was, absolutely, an infinite number of universes, all different to this one, and that by the laws of probability a finely tuned universe is bound to exist somewhere, and that is why our universe is finely tuned, pure chance. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of our universe knows that there is no evidence for an infinite number of universe, or even the concept of infinity, let alone stating it as fact that they are all different when they could, quite as likely, be all the same, yet he used a hypothesis to prove, what he described as, a fact, and then concluding that there is no need of a God as the answer for this supernatural event has now been discovered as being the existence of a multi-universe. That, in my opinion, is not only intentionally deceiving the viewer, but it is also very dishonest. Is it any wonder why christianity is declining in our world when people, like Professor Brian Cox, are aloud, Nay, encouraged, to peddle their duplicitous lies to such a large and impressionable audience. Christianity is declining over the unscrupulous ethics of our media industry and those they gainfully employ to mislead us. It is an unfair battle field where we have pitch forks to fight those with sub-machine guns. Where is the victory? where is the honour?
From a Christians point of view, we do not need a God to explain scientific phenomenon for us, such as fine tuning. We never have. That is not relevant to His existence and our belief in Him. It is his design to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind, in this, His marvelous work and wonder, via the sacred Plan of Redemption. It is not for us to seek for signs of his existence in the stars. That is tantamount to seeking for a sign, a grievous sin.
Matthew 16:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Why, do you think, there are people, in authority, willing to put their credibility on the line with the express desire to denounce a belief that they do not have? That baffles me, why there are those who are proactive in sticking their noses into other people's business. What motivates these people?
As I said with the Calvinist thing, anything that could be considered a deity would have to be the creator of the laws of everything, which, to the best of our knowledge, is discovered through science.
Hmm... That is not how I actually see it. Let me try and explain how I have come to my conclusion. According to scripture, God is perfect, both physically and spiritually. A perfect entity. We know that perfection cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection as either perfection would become defiled rendering it imperfect or imperfection would be destroyed by the majesty of perfection, or both. The Catholic Church makes it clear how they see God as being perfect. "Nothing imperfect can be in Gods presence, NOTHING IMPERFECT. Not the slightest smallest tiniest speck of imperfection. God is so Infinitely Holy and such pure perfection; there are no words in any language to describe God. To be in Gods presence with the slightest blemish on our soul would mean instant death. Nothing imperfect can behold the Beatific Vision no matter how small or tiny the imperfection". On this point I agree with the Catholic doctrine.
That means that there is a law, that is irrevocably decreed, that states that perfection cannot dwell with imperfection, a law no different in nature and veracity to that of gravity or thermodynamics. I realise that this may seem like God has contraints, however, you cannot create a law that has no beginning of days, nor end. I do not believe that God had any say in it. It is an eternal law. All Laws are eternal, whether natural or supernatural. They existed within the singularity and continued their functionality directly after the Big Bang occurred. They have existed in other world. According to Mormonism God said "And worlds without number have I created" An infinite number of world's each possessing universal and eternal laws.
So I completely appreciate this sentiment. And while I see what you're saying about science leading people away from God, I can also point to a very well-written thesis, done by an atheist, which shows how prevalent faith in the supernatural actually is within the scientific community. There are some extremely well educated men who use their knowledge and understanding of the sciences to strengthen their faith - not diminish it. The issue that I believe you are addressing has more to do with the ignorance of the general populace as to knowledge, both religious and scientific, than it does with absolute truth.
Oh, I do not think that science can do that as it is a abstract object, no, it is the scientists who are using science to lead people away from God. But if that is true then there must be a motivating influence that causes these aggressive atheist scientists to use the beautiful gift of scientific discovery to fuel their hatred for anything divine. Brian Cox intentionally lead unsuspecting views astray by giving the impression that there is an absolute infinite number of universes, each slightly different from the other. He actually said that this makes the idea of a God unnecessary. Why would he say that in a cosmology documentary? There has to be some kind of reasoning behind his actions. There is, of course, a multiplicity of reasons, however, I am a Christian so there is one cause that I am naturally drawn to, and which has a major role in the Plan of Salvation - Satan.
You are the first atheist that has said that sciences can strengthen faith. I was astounded how much science strengthened my own testimony of divinity whilst I was at university. I studied Environmental Engineering - Earth Science - and could not help but to see God's hand in the natural world we live in. It was whilst I was in university that I received an epiphany and the eyes of my understanding were opened to see what was always there, but which I could not readily see. But all of this is, in my opinion, to be expected, with things getting far worse before it will get better. So, there is no point in fighting against it anymore. Better to give your way to a dog, then be bitten by it. For me it is like a almost completed jig saw puzzle with just a few pieces left to finish the picture. I am just tasting the coffee in front of a roaring fire whilst the storm rages outside.
Evolution and Religion by Greg Graffin | 9781609844677 | NOOK Book (eBook) | Barnes & Noble
It's somewhere around $9 US
Thanks, I will take a look.
Obviously, the comment was quite tongue in cheek, but the point was that at least you put some thought behind your faith, as opposed to taking up faith and then trying to rationalize everything in your life within a a limited worldview.
For what it's worth, as long as you subscribe to an ancient deistic view of the world, I'll always associate you with a dash of "raving luncatic" and just a pinch of "intelligence."
That is fine. I am not offended. You cannot make a cake with just flour.
in regard to angry atheists - As I mentioned before, there are plenty of angry theists as well. I understand why two philosophies, who are essentially diametrically opposed to each other would be inclined to constantly engage with each other in a negative fashion - but that only leads to more angry responses and doesn't exactly clam the situation so that real conversation can take place, does it?
Yes there are plenty of angry theists, however, they are not trying to make atheism extinct. Everyone has agency to make their own choices. You do a very good job of proving that. You are putting up as good of an argument as any aggressive atheist, better, in fact, but you are not being offensive. If you can do it then so can the aggressive atheist then we can all learn from each other.
It's certainly OK to disagree. People, if they were honest with themselves and honest with those around them, actually disagree about a great number of things. There's nothing wrong with that. The difference between adult conversation and childhood rough-housing is our ability to set aside differences and still be able to communicate. If, at the end of the day, two people still cannot find any common ground to speak of, then they probably shouldn't engage each other at all. I think too often we fall into the trap of wanting to be right in a situation, regardless of whether or not we actually are... Everyone is guilty of that to some degree.
I like what you are saying here, and it is very true.
Opponent concentration is necessary in a proper debate. If you don't do that, then you'll be walked all over by whoever your speaking with. But, in a forum setting, there are far more people who read articles than those who participate in the conversation. I mean in this tread alone there are over 2,000 response but there are 14,000 views... See what I mean? If only 20 people are participating, and even checking it every single day, 14,000 is a HUGE number. How many different individuals are reading?
I hadn't realised that so many were viewing. How very disconcerting yet awesome
Exactly. And even after the fact, new knowledge means that what you once "knew" to be right was completely bogus, and you get to start over with something else that's new that will eventually be supported or dispelled... The wisest thing you've written on here happened just a couple of quotes ago, where you harkened to Socrates in saying that, basically, "All I know is that I don't know nothing."
Thank you. I thought that I had written more, but one compliment is always better then none.
It seems that we are getting back to the root of this thread, eh? Based on what you just said, the Plan of Salvation requires that every link in the chain be dependent upon the preceding links. If one of those is, for example, based on speculation, then doesn't weaken one of the links, thus weakening the Plan?
The entire Plan of Salvation is speculative. There is no perfect knowledge that it exists. I believe it does, through faith in Christ, but I could not show you it working, in action, as it were. Without it the scriptures are meaningless and, therefore, the entirety of theism fails. But that is a foregone conclusion for you. It is only really of any relevance to people like me. Those who believe in deity. It is of no real concern to anybody else, as long as it doesn't encroach on their space.
Since you and I have established the framework of what we accept the Plan to entail, then I'll only address that.
That particular interpretation of the Plan is what makes me question the logical legitimacy of it. It's essentially, "IF God does this, THEN that..." You're ultimately going to be blocked logically,
No, that is not how it works. God is a non interventionary God. He never intervenes. He cannot intervene. That is not my opinion, it is a universal law. The moment that he does, predestination steps in, free agency ceases to exist, and the entire Plan is obliterated. God has provided for us a sacred book of commandments that tells us how to live a life that will lead us back into His presence. But even that book is not tied to him. We have to exercise faith in its pages as there is no evidence of its origins, and very little of its content, however, after studying it, and pondering, praying and building up a picture of it as the whole as well as the individual parts, with the "whole" being the entire Plan of Redemption and the "parts" being the interconnective principles, you will eventually reach a point where you realise that it must have come from divinity. But God gives no ultimatums. He gives agency to choose for ourselves.
I think, in explaining this Plan because their interpretations can vary. What is, as I've said with the Calvinist interpretation, God does know everything that is going to happen, and everything is entirely predetermined? I believe the Calvinist would agree with your concept of the Plan of Salvation's existence and vessel through which the faithful are redeemed - but they would oppose you on the idea of agency while still agreeing with the ultimate premise.
I am not familiar with the Calvinists. Personally, everything must be plausible for me to even consider it's authenticity. The reason for our existence is to be proven in the flesh and gain a physical body of flesh and blood. If there was no choice then their can be no proving of the person, as whatever he does is predetermined. The entire reason for theism would be in a shambles. It just could not work. It is essential for us to have agency. To make our own choices.
That question is the root of religious history, isn't it?
What is the reason for our existence? What if there is no reason for our existence? What if there is a reason for our existence, and we haven't even discovered it yet? What if we don't even exist?
All potentially weak links in a perfect plan, however, as you would expect in a perfect plan, there is a rational answer to it all.
We exist in mortality to be tried and tested in the flesh to see if we choose righteousness and moral accountability, by using the infinite atonement of Christ to blot out our sins, and his resurrection, to receive salvation. That entails dedicating our lives to living the commandments, principles and precepts of the Saviour. It is a mortal probation in which we either prepare to meet God or we denounce Him. Nobody is being forced either way. That was Satan's plan.
If I died tomorrow, and there is nothing, what have I lost in living a Christ like life? I would not know anything so I would not regret anything. If, on the other hand, all that I believed in was true and that by living it I might get to be with God in His Kingdom. Like the first scenario, I would have no regrets. Therefore, if there is no reason for our existence then "so what". Nobody is going to care.
The Plan facilitates for those that do not get the opportunity to discover the existence of divinity. Everyone will be given that opportunity to hear the gospels of Christ and make a decision to except it or deny it. Nobody is given a second chance but everyone is given a chance. Nobody will be left out, otherwise, the whole plan will fail to work.
"What if we don't even exist?" Has the same answer as if "there is no reason for our existence". It will not matter. We will no longer exist in order to care
The only part that I can answer with any certainty is an aside. We weren't always the only higher intelligence on the planet - it just so happens that two of our closest relatives have gone extinct so we live under this illusion that we are the pinnacle of evolution. Also, the vastness of our spacial existence makes it seem like our planet if finely tuned to sustain life, but what we learning even from Mars (not to mention the Earth-like extrasolar planets that we are discovering) shows us that all of the building blocks for like are not even rare, let alone confined to our planet...
For example, the Dawn spacecraft will be entering orbit around Ceres in a little under two months. Ceres is too small to maintain an atmosphere yet it has one. We know from spectro-analysis that it contains more fresh water that we have here at home. One likely reason for the atmosphere being there is because of consistent or continuous release of vapor via geyers - which would mean that there is an active geothermal core to the planet, which means heat. Water plus heat equals...well it equals everything that we know so far...
In all honesty, I know nothing about this so I cannot comment on it, other then to say that, if I were a god I would not waste all that space on just one life permitting planets. I once heard a general authority of the Mormon church, and a cosmologist, say that he estimates that there is 600 million, or billion, I cannot remember which, planets in our universe that can, and probably do, sustain life. It seems good sense to me to utilise the available space efficiently and with order and structure. Fine tuning does not only pertain to our planet but to the entire universe.
I would be interested in the extinct life forms that were more intelligent than us though. Do you have any links readily available?
Granted, that's all speculation at this point. But we're about to rewrite History is half of these speculations are accurate.
We've lived under this premise that we are significant in the Universe for so long that we have developed these ideas about the supernatural that are actually quite egocentric, if you think about it.
I agree that you have asked a lot of questions that beg answers. But I'll also wager that if there were any animal experts among us, then could give insight, for example, into Elephant behavior. Dogs do similar things before storms come, as do birds, for example. It's a natural knowledge that we humans have lost as we've modernized, I'm afraid . Now, I can't tell you what it is specifically, because that's not my area of expertise, but I don't believe it to be supernatural. And consciousness is another interesting topic that I think can be delved into a little more via the study of animal behavior. After doing some light studying of Chimpanzee behavior, specifically their learning on American Sign Language with Dr. Roger Fouts and their independent passing along of that knowledge to their offspring after the study was completed has convinced me that chimps are conscious creatures. Dolphins, likewise, have very similar inclinations towards higher intelligence - as do the aforementioned elephants... When we separate the study of us from the study of where we came from, I think we are doing a great injustice to knowledge.
This is a very interesting topic to discuss. It was not just elephants that left before it struck but almost all of the wild life left. Now you could say that they had warnings, picked up by vibrations, however, feeling vibrations does not tell them that they are in danger so get the hell out of there. It is just a vibration. Something warned them of impending danger and they quietly and calmly left the area. I think that it could be a sixth sense, one that we disbanded, in favour of technology, many years ago.
The chimpanzee is very much a conscious animal, as is the dolphin, however, they are vastly inferior to that of a human who reasons on a far larger scale. I see it as black and white. Humans are vastly more intelligent then any animal in existence. I do not say that animals are unintelligent but that we are so far apart that there has to be a reason for it, other then just chance.
I didn't mean that I was lumping you into that category. I was trying to show how some people of your faith don't put that kind of metaphoric label on those events as you do.
From what I've gathered, you're somewhere in the UK. I don't know how prominent fundamentalism where you are but I'm from the South Eastern US, where fundamentalism seems to be the norm and not the exception... I'm surrounded daily by people who believe that Jesus actually and physically was lifted on a cloud into the sky surrounded by light and angels and I imagine doves, rainbows, bunnies and little floating hearts.
Now I live in a street of terrace houses in South Wales with about a hundred houses each side of the street, situated in a one time thriving mining community. Nobody in my street has a clue as to whether I am atheist or theist. Nobody has ever asked me. The only people who know I am a Christian is my immediate family, and they do not know exactly what I believe in. Indeed, you know more about my actual beliefs then they do. Nobody in the UK ever talks about religion or politics. The majority of church goers here are older people who are facing death, so need it to go without to much fear of the unknown, or, they are edging their bets, which is Ok if it makes things easier for them. Religion is not advertised here or promoted in anyway. We see no religions poster boards and our television is anti religion and pro-gay. I cannot remember the last time I heard the words "God" or "Jesus Christ" mentioned in public. And this in a country where the head of the church is the Queen. Religion here is the exception and not the rule, so, I sympathise with your situation. When you have too many Christians, with their own interpretations of christianity, and within large congregations, who all believe in the same false teachings of men, then you have to expect fundamentalism and disharmony as well. I have my own beliefs, which I keep to myself, apart from when I am on here, and nobody knows what I believe. I have a personal relationship with God not a congregational one, where people tend to live on other congregationalist testimonies. I know what I know and I blame nobody or ask anybody to believe me, but I would tell them if asked. Christianity was never about mens interpretations and congregations ready to believe them. It is about the individual and his/her relationship with God. This is what Jesus meant when he said "wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there shall I be also" . My church is within my heart, the same place as the spirit of God dwells.
If I were to believe such fantasies then I would check myself into a clinic. I do not know how Jesus ascended into heaven, but I do know that it was not magical or that it did not contravene any universal laws. I am guessing that it could have been an illusion, a trick of the mind, similar to the effects of LSD, not that I would know what that is, or special effects on a big screen tv.
As I've said before, I have no doubt about your personal convictions. You know that I don't believe what you believe - and that's OK.
But that really is Ok. I judge no man on his religious convictions because I try not to judge any man. You are what you choose to be. I cannot, will not, interfere with your right to choose.
Deep deep down somewhere inside me I don't see a need for religion at all.
The need is all to noticeable in the UK. Our society has been going through a gradual decline in moral values over several decades now. There have been several surveys and much research has been conducted into why. The overwhelming cause seems to be the decline in religious values being taught in our schools. It inevitably produces a society where nobody seems to feel any moral accountability to anybody else, what with our government being so dishonest and corrupt, displaying very little moral values for us to emulate or use as our role model. So, there really is a need for religion, if not just to create a better environment for us to live in. If you mean that there is no need for us to believe in God, then I would agree, solely on the grounds that believing in divinity should be an individual and personal choice. Nobody should be condemned for their lack of belief, as nobody should be persecuted for their personal beliefs either. It is a basic human right to worship the God of your choice. Nobody has a right to deny that to you. I do not believe in churches being necessary to being a Christian, but I would never consider abolishing them all the time there is just one person who needs them.
In that vein, if I were King of the World, there would be no religion. Just none. I don't see it as necessary for life to exist much like is to does today - with the only difference between men being flown under banners other than that of a Cross or a Crescent and Star... So I understand what you're saying about the more contemptible responses that you get from some atheists. Like we've discussed before, I think there are some people who just love antagonism for antagonism's sake.
I think that if you were a king, you would have to do things that you may not like, to both keep your subjects happy and to keep them under control and avoid mob rule. If I were King I would encourage religion just to help keep my country stabilised. .
Yes, one thing I have learned from these forums is that "trolling" is rife. There are those who relish in being arogantly antagonistic and confrontational.
Our judgement of others based on our previous experiences/hang-ups/baggage usually tend to breed more antagonism - not quell it. I mean, for every antagonistic atheist there is the staunch fundamentalist theist who rejects any and all attempts at adult conversation. This is a cyclic problem that people usually are taught to deal with in Group Dynamics 101, but people usually just don't pay attention because they're too busy trying to be right.
I would be the first to agree. There are some pretty unusual beliefs out there, in the name of Christianity. I tend to fall out with Christians for their strange and bizarre beliefs more than I do with atheists over their disbelief, especially the "Born Again Christians" whose entire belief is based on false doctrines, misinterpretations and outright lies yet their congregation just swallow the illogical tripe. But generally speaking, Christians are not trying to remove atheism from our world but, as you have said, atheists would love to see the back of theism. Living in the UK I can not see why atheists do not just live and let live.
