A simple reflection tells us that something must be eternal. After all, if you start with nothing, you’ll always end up with nothing. But we ended up with something, which means we must have started with something. Put another way, since something exists now something must have always existed. There could never be a time when absolutely nothing existed. Something must be eternal, but what is that something?
There are good scientific and philosophical reasons to conclude that physical reality has not always existed, so physical reality can’t be the eternal something. Since things which begin to exist must be caused to exist by something else, physical reality had to be caused by something else, and perhaps the cause of the physical world is the eternal something we are looking for. How would we know?
We can learn a bit about the nature of the cause of the universe by looking at the effect in question, and making inferences about what sort of cause would be necessary to produce the effect. What sort of cause would be required to bring the universe into existence?
Time is part of physical reality, so whatever brought physical reality into existence also brought time into existence. If the cause brought time into existence, it cannot itself be temporal. It must be eternal by definition. So there we have it! Whatever caused the universe is the eternal something we’ve been looking for. But what else can we know about the identity of this cause?
Space and matter are also part of physical reality, so whatever brought physical reality into existence also brought space and matter into existence. If the cause brought space and matter into existence, it itself cannot be spatial or material. It must be spaceless and immaterial.
The cause must be powerful and intelligent as well to explain the origin of massive amounts of energy and the complex organization of physical reality.
Finally, the cause must be a personal agent. There are only two types of possible causes: natural events, personal agents. Either a conscious mind (personal agent) causes a thing, or a mindless, natural process (natural events) causes a thing. The origin of physical reality marks the first temporal event and the beginning of nature. Since you can’t have an event prior to the first event, and there was no “nature” prior to the origin of physical reality, the cause of physical reality could not have been a natural event. It must have been a personal agent.
A personal, intelligent, powerful, eternal, spaceless, and immaterial cause is a perfect description of God, and thus we conclude that God is the eternal something that exists.
May 24, 2017 at 10:18 am
Jason, I agree with your conclusions completely. Dr. Craig in his book “Time and Eternity” adds that God was both timeless and temporal – very interesting topic!
LikeLike
May 24, 2017 at 2:55 pm
Hello Jason,
Thank you for your post which is thought-provoking and interesting.
I was baptised as a Greek Orthodox Christian but I have experienced several other denominations of Christianity, including being ‘confirmed’ as a Congregationalist when I was fourteen after living in Cambridge, England from the age of three. I have attended other churches since.
I have found from experience that being dogmatic about anything led me inevitably to some contradiction so I allow myself the indulgence of fluidity in my beliefs. The last thing I want to do is to become set in my beliefs, arrogant or even solipsistic. For this reason, I try to read widely and think outside of the box, as freely as I can.
If I seem blasphemous at any time, this is not done intentionally; my desire is to be explorative and philosophical. From the age of ten to the age of fourteen I struggled with who was responsible for life and the universe and what was the role of ‘nature’? What did we mean when we said “Nature is cruel?”
Eventually, I reasoned that God created everything, including the laws of Physics and the way animals behaved to one another. Also, I could not figure how God could be alone in God’s own space when God created the universe outside of God’s space only to fill this new space up in order to be omnipresent throughout it! The possibility dawned on me that if God was infinite and greater than everything within God, then the growing but finite universe and all forms of life were brought into existence within God. I did not know of the concept of panentheism at the time but recognised it later in life when I read about it.
More recently, I came across a website that seemed to explain much of the puzzles about God and I invite people to check it out before I express other thoughts about the nature of God, or indeed whether the creative Being has the many ‘Omni’ attributes assigned to God:
http://frimmin.com/faith/godinall.php
Peace and love to all,
Dinos Constantinou
LikeLike
May 24, 2017 at 9:11 pm
Donald, I agree with Craig regarding his view of God’s relationship to time.
LikeLike
May 24, 2017 at 9:20 pm
Dino,
I believe God is metaphysically distinct from the universe.
If panentheism is true, then there is evil within God since there is evil within the world. That’s a deal-breaker since it means God is not The Good. If He’s not The Good, He’s not worthy of being called God since God is the greatest conceivable being, and an all-good being is greater than a partially good and partially evil being.
Jason
LikeLike
May 25, 2017 at 7:30 am
Hello Jason,
Thank you for your response.
I must admit to some puzzlement. I hope you are willing to share with me how you reached your understanding of God and to answer some genuine questions that I have following your response.
What are the sources for your beliefs in God’s attributes? How is it possible for God to be both metaphysically distinct and omnipresent? If God is wholly good and everything God created was good, where did evil come from? What is evil? If evil exists, do you think it is confined to planet earth? Do you use the Holy Bible as a source of information about God? If so, do you consider that the writers were God-inspired and that the Bible contains only the word of God?
I’m sorry if the relatively short list of questions may appear to be burdensome to you but I need to understand more about your beliefs before we can have a meaningful discussion.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
May 25, 2017 at 9:27 am
THINKING OUTSIDE THE RELIGIOUS BOX:
I believe that existence consists of spontaneous generation at the quantum level. The quantum level has been out of sight, out of mind, for a long time. The same goes for the concept “nano”. These modern terms, I believe, are the eternal gears, the eternal functioning aspect of existence and we are only beginning to understand that dimension.
The underlying currents of cosmic activity should never have been called God in the first place nor should they ever have been described in terms of human “macro” perception that inevitably led to the conclusion of the paranormal, the supernatural, miracles and the like.
These nano/quantum pillars of existence have been as inaccessible to our understanding as the reason why roots crawl around the soil seeking nutrients and water. Spontaneous generation is possible and appears and disappears at the quantum level and can be in different places at the same time. The explanations to humans seem capricious, after the fact, because only empirical observations allow us to define “things” by “reverse engineering”.
And as to evolution, never rule Evolution out, out of hand. Evolution must necessarily exist in the human psyche common sense; otherwise, think about it, the cave would still be home and only birds, kites, dust and moisture laden clouds would be able to “fly”.
Labeling the unknown as God was initially based on brute and brawn neanderthal understanding by egotistical men of hate, unhappiness, torture, violence, subjugation and death, the antithesis of religious concepts that espoused happiness, help and caring, kindness, love and compassion. And this grotesque difference is made manifest around the world by bullies oblivious to righteousness. Blinded by their own sense of ego-worth, not the least but latest example, is Manchester, England: a glaring failure of humanity gone wild when humans develop a lifestyle with a few strands missing of a full DNA sequence; colloquially, a few fries short of a happy meal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 25, 2017 at 1:32 pm
Hello LeoTheGreater,
Thank you for your interesting post.
I particularly liked your thought on religious concepts that espoused happiness, help and caring, kindness, love and compassion.
Please comment on the links:
http://frimmin.com/faith/godislove.php
http://frimmin.com/faith/godinall.php
Peace and love to you,
Dinos
LikeLike
May 26, 2017 at 7:15 am
The strength of the Kalam argument is overstated. Good scientific and philosophical reasons to conclude that physical reality has not always existed? Sure, if you conveniently ignore the good scientific and philosophical arguments that the universe is eternal. Must be a personal, designer God? Not necessarily. A “hands-off” deity could just as easily create a bunch of hydrogen (or the quarks that make up hydrogen) and just let gravity and supernovas do their thing, assuming one doesn’t let arguments from incredulity get in the way.
On the flip side, the science based arguments aren’t all that strong either. They are hypotheses based on abject reasoning, the best explanation of the available data. Most non-scientists have an expectation that justified true beliefs represent absolute truth. What they fail to understand is that scientific truth is never absolute, but always tentative, subjective to change as new data becomes available. Non-scientists thus interpret the debate amongst scientists as to what hypothesis represents the best explanation of reality as an indication that the underlying science must be flawed, if not an outright lie, since scientists can’t decide what is true. It is a misinterpretation of a debate over mechanisms of action (big bang, the counter intuitive something from nothing weirdness of quantum mechanics, an eternal, oscillating big bang – big crunch universe, a multiverse) as being representative of the non-validity of the basic science.
I don’t expect that any of this will ever be resolved, at least not to everyone’s satisfaction as to what constitutes justified true belief. Meaning it comes down to whether or not one chooses to believe in an eternal, creator god, irrespective of the available scientific data.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 26, 2017 at 2:47 pm
Dino,
If the universe is contingent, and God is not, then the universe is not God.
To say God is metaphysically distinct from the universe just means that God is not identical to the universe. He transcends it. As for omnipresence, theism does not understand God’s omnipresence to refer to God’s locatedness within every inch of space because theism holds that God is spaceless. What we mean by omnipresence is that God is cognizant of, and causally active at every point in space. God is not physically present in any particular region of space, but is cognizant of and causally active at every point in space.
As for evil, evil is a privation rather than a positive substance, so it was not “created.” That’s not to say it didn’t have a beginning, but it’s not a thing, and thus God did not need to create it. It’s merely the absence of good, and it comes into being when a personal agent exercises their volition in such a way so as to bring about a state of affairs that lacks goodness. Personal agents were responsible for bringing evil into the world, not God.
The inspiration of Scripture is a side-issue. One can discover God’s attributes from philosophy alone.
LikeLike
May 26, 2017 at 2:47 pm
Bob, I did not offer the kalam argument. The kalam argues for a transcendent cause to the universe. I am arguing for God based on the necessity of the eternal. The only correspondence between the two arguments is that both incorporate the premise that the universe is not eternal.
You say there are good scientific and philosophical arguments for the eternality of the universe. Then explain them. And it won’t do to just name some alternative theories. You have to show that they are superior to the scientific and philosophical arguments for the temporality of the universe.
And don’t confuse scientific theories with good scientific arguments. Are there mathematical models of the universe that entail an eternal universe? Yes. But don’t confuse mathematical models with empirical evidence. The only theory for which there is solid empirical evidence is the Big Bang, which entails a temporal beginning to physical reality. Most cosmological models are mere mathematical speculations based on speculative physics. And many of the eternal universe models, when examined more closely, don’t actually entail an eternal universe at all. That’s why Andre Linde tore apart each of the eternal universe models and said all of the evidence points to a beginning. You have either been misinformed or are wishing on scientific fairy tales if you think there is good scientific evidence for an eternal universe.
As for the philosophical evidence, I don’t see how you can get around the philosophical absurdities involved in an actual infinite. If an actual infinite is impossible, and physical eternity requires an infinite amount of time, then an eternal universe is philosophically impossible. So what are the problems with the philosophical arguments for a temporal universe, and what are your philosophical arguments for an eternal universe?
Don’t confuse “personal” for “involved.” Yes, I admit that this argument could equally be satisfied by deism and theism. But I’m not talking about the creator’s current involvement with His creation, but an attribute that is necessary in order to create at all: personality. The eternal being that caused the universe must have mental causal powers. An impersonal force won’t do.
LikeLike
May 27, 2017 at 6:32 pm
Jason:
As to your post 9 reference to theism regarding locatedness,
Jesus said the Kingdom of God is within you. Accordingly, Jesus was not a theist. Another way of saying that is that Jesus was an a-theist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 28, 2017 at 5:24 pm
Our universe is not eternal. For one thing it’s constrained by the Law of Entropy. According to Vilenkin an eternal universe would not allow for complex life forms such as ourselves.: Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
January 12, 2012 Posted by vjtorley
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/
From the above article:
In his presentation, Professor Vilenkin discussed three theories which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos.
One popular theory is eternal inflation. Most readers will be familiar with the theory of inflation, which says that the universe increased in volume by a factor of at least 10^78 in its very early stages (from 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds), before settling into the slower rate of expansion that we see today. The theory of eternal inflation goes further, and holds that the universe is constantly giving birth to smaller “bubble” universes within an ever-expanding multiverse. Each bubble universe undergoes its own initial period of inflation. In some versions of the theory, the bubbles go both backwards and forwards in time, allowing the possibility of an infinite past. Trouble is, the value of one particular cosmic parameter rules out that possibility:
But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn’t work (Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301). “You can’t construct a space-time with this property,” says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past,” says Vilenkin. “There must be some kind of boundary.”
A second option explored by Vilenkin was that of a cyclic universe, where the universe goes through an infinite series of big bangs and crunches, with no specific beginning. It was even claimed that a cyclic universe could explain the low observed value of the cosmological constant. But as Vilenkin found, there’s a problem if you look at the disorder in the universe:
Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists – nothing like the one we see around us.
One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.
However, Vilenkin’s options were not exhausted yet. There was another possibility: that the universe had sprung from an eternal cosmic egg:
Vilenkin’s final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg. This finally “cracked” to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096). If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed – and therefore also after a finite amount of time.
“This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe,” Vilenkin concludes.
So at the end of the day, what is Vilenkin’s verdict?
“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 28, 2017 at 8:31 pm
Jesus most certainly was a theist: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.
As He said, “Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.” (John 14:1) Scripture teaches: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. (Colossians 1:17) What He was not is a mystic.
The Kingdom Of God Is Within You: Was Jesus A Mystic? – Steven Bancarz
Published on Jun 3, 2016 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9FoEXbqHOk
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/reasonsforjesus
Jesus once said “The Kingdom of God is within you”. Was he a mystic? In this video we look at 5 arguments against a mystical interpretation of this verse, along with 1 additional argument proving Jesus was not a mystic.
Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/prmukux
Website: http://www.exposingthenewage.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/stevenbancarz
LikeLike
May 28, 2017 at 9:16 pm
Hi!
I think it’s easier to be misunderstood that to be understood correctly when writing on forums, especially when we try to be concise.
I gave my view of God’s relationship to the universe in Post 2. I believe that everything that exists does so within God – the panentheistic view. If true, this would explain how God can be everywhere at once within spacetime. I never suggested that the universe is God. I did say that I thought of God as infinite and the universe as finite but expanding. Also, I believe that God transcends the universe – I don’t think panentheism denies that!
It does seem to me that panentheism is not accepted by Western Christianity. Eastern Christianity seems to be in accord with the view and St Irenaeus (202A.D.) was one of the early Church Fathers to explain this concept; not that I learned it from his writings. Below are a link and a short video that explains it more clearly than I have:
https://jeshua21.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/trinitarian-panentheism/
I have enjoyed all the posts I’ve read on this website and it’s never been my desire to have my opinion prevail over that of another; my desire is to explore the truth if this is possible.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
May 29, 2017 at 5:36 am
“All the evidence we have ……………………..” simply put means we have no evidence, only conjecture………maybe, I suppose, we think…like the pundits on the Sunday talk shows.
LikeLike
May 29, 2017 at 5:41 am
You might want to go see what they’re up to! Perhaps you will like their blog as much as they liked your comment!
Who is the “they” and where are they?
LikeLike
May 29, 2017 at 11:32 am
Hi!
There have been some references to space and time as though they are separate. I have found a suitable link that shows how they combine to affect the GPS system. There are two relativistic effects on how the atomic clocks on board GPSs are affected compared to atomic clocks on earth’s terrain:
1) The time dilation effect due to their relative velocity will make their clocks lose 7mcsecs/24hrs compared to clocks on the ground;
2) Their clocks will be less affected by the spacetime curvature of the earth at an altitude of 12,500 miles allowing them to gain 45mcsecs/24hrs compared to clocks on the ground.
The overall effect will be that the GPS clocks will be 38mcsecs/24hrs ahead of clocks on the ground. A link below refers:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html#note03
The information from the link shows how an accuracy of nanoseconds is required for the system to work satisfactorily, so 38 microseconds is far too great a difference in correspondence between the atomic clocks on board the GPSs and the clocks on the ground. We have to think of space and time as a continuum for some of the technology we are using. I hope this is clear.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
May 31, 2017 at 4:47 am
Frank – The Vilenkin comment is out of context. I’d say he is not as committed to a temporal universe model as you imply, based on the last two questions in this interview:
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning
T.R. – If you wanted to stay true to an Aristotelian cosmological argument, you should have restricted yourself to the top half of your original post. The bottom half is not significantly different from William Lane Craig’s defense of the Kalam version of the argument. Also, please provide a link or reference to the Andre Linde comment. I can’t find anything in the literature that is even close to what you describe about tearing apart the eternal universe models.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 2, 2017 at 8:26 am
Jesus was not a theist; Jesus believed in the existence of the Father who resided in his Kingdom and that Kingdom is within you. In other words Jesus was the ultimate evolutionist and mankind evolved naturally as the invisible Father within provided all the sensory perceptions to understand how man should behave relative to the tools he had been provided. To the Father He said:
“That’s the Jesus life. For every step you take for every new situation, you get out and you let him get in, you vacate and he occupies, You say thank you Father, you may need hands, here they are, you may need feet, here they are, you may need lips, here they are, you may need a mind to think with, a heart to love with and I’m available. And you’re in business. You’re big enough, Thanks.
And he moves into that situation and demonstrates his marvelous integrity and that experience becomes a memory and in the next set of the evolutionary progress into a new situation, you thank him again. Father, you handled the last situation in a most marvelous way and I now have a supreme, unshatterable confidence that you can do now what you did then, thanks, you’re in business. I vacate and you occupy. And once more as the evolution continues, he demonstrates his integrity and now you’ve got two experiences and two memories, two memories to undergo faith on the next situation. And this is really a corker. Ten times worse . Then you say Father, according to Jesus, fantastic, here’s a chance for you to be ten times bigger than you were last time. Marvellous. And so one step at a time you vacate and he occupies, you vacate and he occupies, you vacate and he occupies. You vacate and he occupies and you discover the Jesus life is one vacation after another. Until you’re finally always on vacation and he’s always in business. And you’ve discovered the secret of living miraculously with the Father via the Jesus revolution as the first man who demonstrated the Father within you. That’s not theism, that’s Christism recognizing the Father, God, living within you, not somewhere located outside in the Cosmos.
Living within you. The omnipresence is within you and within me if you recognize what Jesus taught, not the church, not religion because religion still lives in the blind darkness of supernatural belief, the same belief I hasten to add the world was living in when Jesus walked and taught among us and for which the revolutionary thinking he experienced and taught was pursued by the religious zealots of his day for three and a half years as Jesus tried to dodge the zealots of unfounded belief who sought to arrest him, imprison him, throw him over cliffs, flog him, stone him, spit on him, beat him, mock him and crucify him but Jesus “gave them the slip”, “departed into a mountain alone”, hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by”, “slipped through their fingers”,
John 11: 54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness
56 Then sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast?
57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should show it, that they might take him………..”
Jesus said to the regular people: “The (religious)world cannot hate you; but me it hates, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.”
Now tell me this…How has this world and this religious world, changed since the days of Jesus while the religious who pursued him, not to hear the words of wisdom and love, but pursued someone who disagreed with their interpretation of life? Anything? Has anything changed? I don’t think so in most of the religious world still living in pre-fire cave communities.
There are a few enlightened dissidents today, however, trying to tell the world what Jesus was all about and what he actually taught which had nothing to do with supernatural sense but had a lot to do with common sense which seems to elude the dogmatically indoctrinated today especially those who were brainwashed by absolute certainty as children when their brains were malleable like putty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 2, 2017 at 3:03 pm
Hello SonOfMan,
I’m quite happy to be open about my sources and if you read post 1 you will see that I developed my panentheistic concept of God by thinking alone during the period of my life from the age of ten through to the age of fourteen. In a later post, I showed that panentheism is not a view peculiar to me but a doctrinal statement of Eastern Christian Orthodoxy and the link below refers:
https://jeshua21.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/trinitarian-panentheism/
If the “Father” was acting from within me I was unaware of it at the time and it may be that your view explains reality better than mine. All I ask of you is what I ask of myself. How did you develop your view that “…..the Kingdom of God is within you.”? I realise it’s available in Luke 17:21 – “Neither shall they say, ‘Lo here!’ or, ‘lo there!’ for, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.”
However, theologians have shown that “The Scriptures” cannot be wholly relied on to reveal God because of the many contradictory passages, the historical anachronisms and the difficulty of achieving accurate translations and interpretations. An area showing a host of contradictions is that the penalty for breaking some of the Laws detailed in Leviticus 20 was death and it was the people themselves who killed the transgressors thus they broke the sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” KJV of Exodus 20:13!
I don’t want to get too technical about problems with the scriptures but you get the point that there is disagreement about the authenticity and interpretation of some of them. I wondered if your view developed as a result of reading essays from Leo Tolstoy? A link below provides a summary but it omits some of the more important points of the translation I’ve read:
https://www.enotes.com/topics/kingdom-god-within-you
I await your response with patience.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 2, 2017 at 5:11 pm
My understanding hinges only on Jesus and the Gospels….not on Tolstoy or religious interpretations. As to the “the Kingdom of God is within you” is the essence of the Jesus’s teachings as noted throughout the Gospels about the “Father”…..within. This is not to say that the Father within is not the God but it is to say that the essence of a man’s humanity must necessarily be within his reach and that the encapsulation of all that a man is….is what he is, and that in itself, must necessarily be the “Father” Jesus referred to constantly throughout the Gospels ……….except the Gospel of John which is suspect as to it’s authentic translation because it is the only Gospel that refers to “God” instead of the “Father”, which leads me to think that John’s Gospel was embellished or otherwise edited to keep the notion of the supernatural God within the church dogmatic teachings.
I mean, there are so many instances from the Gospels that dispel the notion that God was anything more than the operative essence of the spirit of man within, functioning in common sense not in miraculous events ……in other words, the “Father” as Jesus referred to constantly is the spirit within humanity. That is the only place God can reside.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 2, 2017 at 5:37 pm
Hello SonOfMan,
I’m still unsure how you developed your understanding that the Father is within humanity and whether it can be as true as and co-exist with other concepts of God. If there are other sentient beings in the universe is the Father within them too?
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 2, 2017 at 11:36 pm
dino:
The concept of God as we know it is a concept of man’s creation. Jesus knew that and therefore understood the concept of the spirit that dwells in man with all the virtues and vices as the “Father within you”.
This concept of the Father, God within you, was as alien to the religious community that Jesus spoke about in his time as it is alien to the religious community today which is why the whole world of religious cults believes their particular religion, God and Messenger are the truth and nothing but the truth.
If there are other sentient beings in the universe it would be most interesting to ask them what their concept of “that beyond which a greater cannot be thought” means to them.
The Gods as we understand Gods is unique to mankind and therefore can only reside within the human understanding based on the imaginations of the various denominations…that was the same when the Gods were first imagined in Mythology, Romand and Greek mythology and every people and community developed their own understanding and the strong man of each society enforced their belief on pain of death. The first four commandments if not strictly adhered to were capital offences in the old days of Mosaic law and don’t forget the One God Concept after those Gods named as planets, Mars Saturn etc. are simply morphed from the ancient mythology, the evolution of religion as it were.
It is most difficult to squeeze this idea into man’s psyche after thousands of centuries of brainwashing by the strong man in every community…..miracles for example in Moses day were merely magic tricks to pull the wool over the eyes of the uneducated masses……….
Naturally when Jesus came to understand this he tried to revolutionize religion so that man could understand the “within concept” and start behaving accordingly by taking responsibility for his atrocious behavior instead of blaming it on the God he fallowed or the messenger he followed.
It is no small wonder then why the religious community sought to kill Jesus for interfering in their way of life by uprooting centuries of tradition. Even today people will go to extreme lengths to defend their obstinate beliefs. I get lots of comments belittling me when I speak about Jesus because they don’t understand the concept Jesus espoused outside of their comfortable notion of some supernatural omni this and omni that but those are all man made ideas.
Jesus, not the fanatical supernatural street preacher that religion has made him out to be; Jesus, in my mind was none of those things that people called him, when they tried to kill him and today as they try to venerate him for their own agenda of pence and power. To me Jesus was not supernatural, but he did despise the clergy and only went to the Church for interaction with the people who were so brainwashed by the clergy with the supernatural mindset instilled by deceptive men, Jesus called them the downtrodden, the poor, the uneducated, the common people who were kept in the dark from the truth so that they, unable to understand the events Jesus performed viewed them through the eyes of the supernatural as they were taught from birth; they said he was like a God, the Son of God, claims that Jesus never made, never endorsed and never accepted except as he referenced in the old Testament scriptures,(psalms 82 ex.) the only bible Jesus ever had, not the New Testament, not because he didn’t like it, he just never had it.
It is very difficult to alter someone’s perception of Jesus; aka, the Son of God and even though Christians have long settled for Jesus as the Son of God by the supernatural brainwashing technique of the clergy, did you ever get to know him as the Son of Man? As he claimed to be? Most Christians have long settled for the Deity myth but most Christians never take the time to imagine Jesus as he really was, a human being, like the rest of us.
They never imagine him as a little kid playing with his fellows in the village square, falling and scratching his elbows and knees, clinging to his mother’s skirt as a youngster, crying for comfort. THIS MAN. He was the one who came and fixed your window when it jammed. This man, was too ordinary.
Jesus wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth; he never went to this university and that university only to come home with this Degree and that Diploma. This Man, Jesus, was much too ordinary to be understood on the basis of his mere humanity. His common sense eluded the masses.
And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and they said, “Whence hath this man this wisdom, whence hath this man these mighty words? And you might wonder why they said of him, THIS MAN.
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A man is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house.
The life of Jesus covers the whole spectrum of human experience. The characters he encountered range from tyrants, murderers, bullies, thieves, jealous schemers, liars and assassins to noble kings, tender lovers, doting parents, roistering drunks, swaggering soldiers, philosophers, gravediggers and country bumpkins. How could one man, who lived all his life within a small area of the Middle East, have achieved such an encyclopedic knowledge of mankind?
The answer of course is by looking inside himself. In his own head and heart he found every possible trait of character and twist of emotion. His dialogue rings true because Jesus knew that he himself was Everyman. He had only to consult his own soul to imagine how any character would react in a given situation because he—-as a human being—- was also a microcosm of the whole human race.
Since each of us is a human being, each possesses within himself the whole potential range of emotions, urges, fears, anxieties, appetites, physical and emotional needs, instinctual drives and reactions common to all. This is not just idle philosophizing, it’s a fact of key importance to your own personal life and to your understanding of Jesus, the Son of Man.
Jesus never claimed to be God but alluded to being the “Son of God” as per Psalms. When asked if he was the Son of God, he said: “It is you who say it”. And they did: Jesus was labeled as the Son of God by the masses and hence he was popularly portrayed as something he himself never claimed. Luke 22, 69-71
Then said they all, “Art thou then the Son of God?” And he said unto them, “Ye say that I am”.
And they said, “What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.”
Revisionist historians include erroneous claims that Jesus claimed he was God but that’s not true. Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man. Jesus also referred only to the self witness, within, that was the God he called his Father, not the supernatural gods created by men in every generation before him.
To blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is to go against the very essence of our humanity and thus cannot be forgiven because to go against our natural, “Father, the Conscience”, our internal guide, is to go against our very nature, thus there cannot be any forgiveness for that since one’s very nature itself is being rejected.
Where does the Father live? Well, in heaven. In the Kingdom. And where did Jesus say the Father lived? Where heaven is? You’ll find it in Luke 17, 20-24:
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
Jesus pat answer to the Pharisees when questioned about who he was, Are you the Son of God? Jesus replied succinctly: It is you who say it. “Thou sayest it”. That was not an affirmation but acknowledgment and admission that he knew what they were all saying and Pharisees were merely mimicking the religiously brainwashed villagers. In today’s street language there are instances of name calling especially by children when they call you a stupid, for example or an idiot and the counter to that is: “That’s what you say” or “That’s what you think” without adding but what you say or think is not true; no matter how many times you say a falsehood, it will never be true.
These are some of the things I know because I cannot operate on belief other than to understand that Jesus said ASK and it will be given you; SEEK and you shall find; KNOCK and the door will be open.
Now when you ASK, SEEK and KNOCK what do you suppose Jesus meant by that? Do you find belief or faith or religious awakening? No none of those things; what Jesus meant was that you will find KNOWLEDGE because only knowledge will set you free, belief never can and never will, for never and never amen. You can believe all you want that you can find the asparagus in the veggie section of the supermarket but after walking around three or four times you end up asking the grocery clerk who will then tell you exactly where the asparagus is…then you will go to the place by knowledge and lo and behold there is lies just waiting for someone to pick it up, take it home and cook it up. Knowledge is the principal thing.
Religion says I see it because I believe it and you still only have belief
The non religious says I believe it because I see it, then you have knowledge and that knowledge will set you free and when you believe that message from Jesus is true then that message of knowledge will set you free from the shackles of supernaturalism and the tyranny of supercalifragilisticexpialidociousreligion!
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 2, 2017 at 11:54 pm
Dino:
Have you ever asked yourself why Jesus never expressed anything about the great philosophical questions regarding panentheism. Paul had a lot to say philosophically about what everything, including Jesus, means…(to him) and Christians love quoting Paul but Paul never met Jesus as far as we know unless he was a main hunter of Jesus when the Pharisees were out to get him. The only mention is that rare occasion when Paul claimed to have had an apparition of Jesus which seems quite implausible because he goes on to say that the light blinded him and he could not see anything.
So how do you suppose Paul knows anything about the messages and meaning of Jesus when Jesus never talked very much at all about God’s role in the universe and Paul never met him?
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 3, 2017 at 7:47 am
So good. Timeless, spaceless, immaterial and transcendent reality.
LikeLike
June 3, 2017 at 9:05 am
TR, you said “Since you can’t have an event prior to the first event, and there was no “nature” prior to the origin of physical reality, the cause of physical reality could not have been a natural event. It must have been a personal agent”. I agree, but the question arises, How did this timeless being create the universe If He didn’t become temporal until after the 6 days of creation?
LikeLike
June 5, 2017 at 4:54 pm
Hello SonOfMan,
I find it hard to believe that we can discern which words written in the first century A.D. by writers of the Gospels were actually the words of Jesus. I suppose that if Jesus was a heretic, non-religious man He would be careful not to write His thoughts about ‘understanding’ of the ‘truth’ of human nature. So are we to trust our own instincts about the truth. It would be easier to believe if the writers attended when Jesus was revealing the truth and took notes, much as an old-style reporter did without a recording device.
As I’ve said, I came to the conclusion that everything was within God and that God was infinite but the universe was not – through my own thinking. I wasn’t influenced by Eastern Church doctrine as I attended a liberal church from the age of seven through to fourteen – Congregational (now mostly United Reformed Church). The vicar of the church openly stated that evolution was a better explanation of how we became homo sapiens (wise men) and said he thought the two creation stories of Adam and Eve were ‘allegorical’.
During the four years from ten to fourteen, I had serious doubts that God created the universe, wondering if the Big Bang might have happened without a God, but it didn’t make sense to me, on balance. I do not know how we can have ‘knowledge’ of our true nature. Have you watched the videos presented by David Eagleman? Below is a link:
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 5, 2017 at 6:09 pm
Dino’s:
You said: “I do not know how we can have ‘knowledge’ of our true nature.”
Exactly the same way that Jesus knew.
Consider this scripture in John 2:24-25
While he was in Jerusalem at Passover-time, during the festivities many believed in him as they saw the signs that he gave. But Jesus, on his side, did not trust himself to them—for he knew them all. He did not need anyone to tell him what people were like: he understood human nature.
This is why I said before………Jesus knew he was a microcosm of the whole human race……….
So do you know your own nature?
About the only person I can speak of in the public domain at this time who does not know his own human nature is Donald Trump. He does not know he is stupid, he does not know he is illogical, without reason, has an ego too big for discipline as only dictators and wannabes have, does not have one iota of discretion and missing a companion called compassion and has more money than brains; then, consider his followers and the potential and you can imagine why there is such a place called JONESTOWN.
A total of 909 Americans died in Jonestown, all but two from apparent cyanide poisoning, in an event termed “revolutionary suicide” by Jones and some members. The poisonings in Jonestown followed the murder of five others by Temple members at Port Kaituma, including United States Congressman Leo Ryan, an act that Jones ordered. Four other Temple members committed murder-suicide in Georgetown at Jones’ command.
In other words he is deranged and on the verge of something yet to be determined but very very sinister.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 6, 2017 at 8:49 am
Hello LeoTheGreater,
Thank you for the Biblical reference:
John 2:24-25King James Version (KJV)
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
You should know that I’m inquisitive and sceptical about evidence and I doubt that I truly know myself in the way Jesus Christ was said to know Himself and all humanity.
Are you and the SonOfMan friends?
How can we know what Jesus actually said? We only have translated interpretative accounts of what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about Him on materials that spoiled with age and had to be re-written for their continued life. Do we know by personal reflection?
Did you check the video in my previous post? If the presenter is right about the nature of our brains and our memories, we each have our own constructed view of reality tempered by our individual experiences. I suppose you could say that we each have our own window through which we view ourselves and each other and yet we are all at one with the whole?
I won’t consider that I ‘know’ anything until I’ve examined it fully by asking questions so I hope you accept that’s how I am.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 6, 2017 at 9:52 am
Dino’s:
I the Son of Man and Jesus are one.
As far as understanding scripture: We don’t rely totally on interpretive translation…we have to read between the lines and extrapolate according to the overall picture we envision. I do not read scripture with a supernatural bent.
For example when Jesus compared the Samaritan woman to ” the dogs” because the Jews did not have any dealing with Samaritans as she begged for help regarding her daughter illness:
Mark 7:27
“First let the children have their fill,” He said. “For it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
And her reply:
Matthew 15:27
“Yes, Lord,” she said, “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
This logical answer I understand it embarrassed Jesus and in that humiliation Jesus immediately accepted that rebuttal as sound reasoning and apologized to the woman thusly:
Mark 7:29
Then Jesus told her, “Because of this answer, you may go. The demon has left your daughter.”
The “interpretive” general perception says that this exchange showed the faith of the woman but from where I sit, this did not show the faith of the woman, her faith was already demonstrated in asking for Jesus to help. What it showed was the logic of the woman which could not be denied and thus from the embarrassment of her logic to capitulation to her demands, therefore, proceeded Jesus her request.
There are lots of similar examples in the gospels and the bible generally where reading between the lines, line up with other passages.
Another great example is the betrayal of Jesus when Jesus made it known that it was Judas who was the betrayer. Now Jesus did have special insight to this fact but not because he could read minds or supernatural insight; the insight Jesus had came from his two secret disciples who themselves were high ranking members of the Sanhedrin (THE Jewish Council) who kept Jesus apprised of how the Council was proceeding with their efforts to locate and arrest Jesus: the time, the evening, the betrayer and the betrayal method by which sign (the greeting kiss) the arresting soldiers would know who it was that they were to apprehend.
And how did Jesus know the exact time and day? He found that out at the meeting with (“Moses and Elijah”) the disciples’ traveling with Jesus up the mountain interpretation……….. you’ll find this in the section of the bible called the “Transfiguration” where he met his secret followers for the latest update.)
There are lots of other examples but all denied by Christians, supernaturally 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 6, 2017 at 9:55 am
When you take a step back you can’t believe a word Christians say!
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 6, 2017 at 6:55 pm
Hello LeoTheGreater,
I try hard to check what’s checkable rather than to guess incorrectly.
You wrote, “I the Son of Man and Jesus are one.” Do you mean SonOfMan and LeoTheGreater and Jesus are one?
I am puzzled why you switched to Mt 15:27 in place of Mk 7:28? Reading from Mark alone:
Mark 7:27-29 King James Version (KJV)
27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread and to cast it unto the dogs.
28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.
29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
To me, Mark’s version makes more sense than Matthew’s.
There are many links that support the view that Mark’s gospel was the first and that some of it was reproduced in Matthew’s and some in Luke’s gospel. Below is one link with an extract:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html
The four gospels that we find in the New Testament, are, of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first three of these are usually referred to as the “synoptic gospels,” because they look at things in a similar way, or they are similar in the way that they tell the story. Of these then, Mark is the earliest, probably written between 70 and 75.
I could write more but I prefer to write in manageable chunks where possible.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 6, 2017 at 7:30 pm
Dino’s:
Puzzle no longer. When I researched that particular story two references came up, one (Mark 7:27) popped up and referenced the first part when the woman asked for help and the second(Mt 15:27) consisted of the second part of the story…it was convenient to use both at the same time, to save time; it was the same story.
When I say that I, the son and Jesus are one, is to say that we are of the same understanding that we are at oneness, the one with the other.
By the same token I make the following statement and create the narrative following:
(statement) MOST PEOPLE who speak of Jesus the loudest, know him the least.
(narrative) Scriptures pop into my mind on a regular basis and when they come, they come as a warning, a correction, a reassurance of a deed to do or joy for one already done. This to me was never a religious thing or a supernatural thing but having read the scriptures religiously until I understood the essence of the words (metaphorically and otherwise), the Proverbs, the Parables and the Miracles, I felt a distinct kinship with Jesus not religiously or supernaturally but spiritually, common-sensically and that is how and why I believe Jesus led his life and allowed common sense to dictate his own reasoning, understanding (The Father within) and his interactions communications with others.
I and Jesus are one!
I was with him when he went into the desert to ponder what course of action he should follow with his passion for truth, his common sense for understanding and the reality of nature and what was this thing about supernaturalism? He thought about how the Clergy deceive the masses with magic and trickery to gain their wealth; Christians call this the temptation but it was not temptation, it was recognizing the way of the religious world as the clergy operated.
I was with him when he contemplated the clergy and how they deceived the masses at every turn, at every opportunity they deceive for material gain regardless of the poor they hurt, despite the downtrodden when none of them mattered to religion except for tithing; when the fitting and usual practice was sleight of hand, trickery and magic to deceive and confuse and deny the truth to everyone, preventing them from knowing the truth about the Kingdom, understanding the Kingdom, where it was and going to the Kingdom and refusing to go in themselves for deceit cannot enter the Kingdom of Good; ( FRAUDS: “I’ve had it with you! You’re hopeless, you religion scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God’s kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won’t let anyone else in either.” Matt 23:13, rendered slightly different in the KJV: “woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”
I was with Jesus when he thought “how easy it would be, to use the same ploys of deceit to devour the property of widows and for a pretense make a long and lengthy show of prayer words and excuses to rationalize greed’s insatiable appetite; to encourage the poor to give all they could afford and patiently wait for a supernatural miracle from on high to reward them for giving their all to the clergy; but no, he would never use his talents to do as the clergy did”.
These were some of the thoughts of Jesus we read about that are called the Temptations; this was the spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness, to be tested by his innermost thoughts and plan his campaign
“Sure you can take these stones and with a little magic and sleight of hand you too can cunningly devise a way to switch the stones to loaves of bread and feed the hungry and sure everyone would grovel at your feet and they would all give you their wealth for a touch of your garment for a piece of the supernatural power you have surely been given and that might rub off on them by the great supernatural god of men.
Yes, the ego was flying high when the realization came that one so powerfully more brilliant than the average villager; in fact, so brilliant, as smart as the wealthy members of the Jewish Council for all their deceit that you could see right through them and they would welcome your intelligence. OMG you could throw yourself down the cliff and survive with your physical prowess and strength…… but no!
Jesus was a man of common sense and he would work on behalf of and for, the common man, the poor man, the downtrodden, he would not be part of the deceptive clergy taking people for a ride all their lives under falsehoods and lies about the rewards and treasures in the heaven, in the afterlife which Jesus knew no such afterlife existed.
BUT he did know and accept that the Kingdom of God, the real god he called Father did exist but existed not externally in the supernatural but indeed existed internally, within you, in a place where all men could enter into spiritually but flesh and blood could not go and partake of, if only, if only, the masses knew.
Then would they see that heaven is not a place you go to but a place that you bring here to earth from within and so he coined the famous Lord’s Prayer, Father who art in heaven, (within), hallowed and holy and revered is your name for you are the true God that exists; your Kingdom come, and we ask that thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Jesus headed in to meet with his cousin John The Baptist that would mark the beginning of his ministry to the world. And which he lamented in John 7:1, “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him”; AND, 7:7 “The (religious) world cannot hate you; but me it hates, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
And with these thoughts in mind Jesus accepted his directive from within, knowing full well that the religious establishment would hate him as he left for solitude in the desert.
I disagree that any act Jesus did was supernatural. Jesus was a common sense person. The events that happened are explainable and I can easily explain most but remember that the masses were brainwashed by the clergy to expect that everything not easily understood would be an act of supernaturalism, Jesus debunked this supernaturalism and debunked the supernatural gods of men.
“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.”
Jesus is merely acknowledging that the internal brain is where resides the essence of a man, not that which comes by observation which the religionists always believed. The Kingdom consists of a fantastic organ called the brain with phenomenal functions; it is a bundle of experiences, sensory perceptions, trials and errors, learned behaviors and meticulous observations all housed in a fantastic brain that essentially functions as the guiding spirit within from all of the above and if there ever was a personal god, it is this brain function in conjunction with memory that is the true Father and the true Kingdom of Heaven and indeed the only God and therefore by extension, we too, are Gods. (psalms 82)
This is a chunk of “My Reality”.
LikeLike
June 6, 2017 at 7:37 pm
If the religious based their understanding on knowledge instead of belief, they would not be praying, chanting, finger beading, bowing, hen-pecking and praising the supernatural gods of men; they would reflect on the inner self witness, the righteous conscience Jesus always referred to: the Father, not Zeus or Gods by any name, then would we civilize as a human race at-one-ment (atonement) with each other instead of factions fractured by divisive religions, myths, miracles, magic, murderous mayhem in the imaginative world of Religion and Hollywood; AKA, the Supernatural. The great money getter.
LikeLike
June 6, 2017 at 10:49 pm
Donald W. Eames, to answer your question, God didn’t become temporal after the six days of creation, but with the very act of creation. The act of creation was the first moment of time.
LikeLike
June 6, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Bob Mason,
You say the Vilenkin comment is out of context. How would you know it’s out of context if you are asking me for a link to the context?!? He made the statement in his lecture at Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday “party.” See https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328474.400-why-physicists-cant-avoid-a-creation-event/.
LikeLike
June 7, 2017 at 12:12 pm
TR, In other words, in His transcendent state He existed “logically prior” to the universe, but in His temporal state He is the same age as the universe?
LikeLike
June 10, 2017 at 5:00 am
T.R. – What I was asking for was documentation of your claim in comment 10 that Andre Linde had destroyed the eternal universe arguments. Last I checked, Linde and Vilenkin are two different men, working on opposite sides of the country. If you actually meant Vilenkin rather than Linde, so be it. I am familiar with the New Scientist article of the Vilenkin comment. It is a quote mine favorite of the Christian bloggers. Since I don’t have a subscription to New Scientist, I don’t have access to the entire article to see if he qualified his comment in any way. I’m guessing you and the other bloggers don’t have a New Scientist subscription either. Thus, in order to understand the complete context of what Vilenkin actually thinks about an eternal universe one has to rely on other information sources. I provided one for Frank, but there are others:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/evolution/Why-Creationists-Shouldnt-Gloat-about-Hawkings-God.html
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
Vilenkin’s comments in the philly.com article are just the opposite of what was implied about the need for a beginning of the universe, based on the quote mining of the New Scientist article. The bloggers may think Vilenkin has proven the need for God to initiate the universe but Vilenkin doesn’t go that far. In fact, when quantum mechanics is applied, an eternal model becomes possible.
As to the nature of the physics models for the universe, I am not at all confused. They are nowhere near the standards needed to be considered a scientific theory. They are working hypotheses and, contrary to your claim about the absence of empirical data, each model makes predictions about physical reality, predictions which can be tested for, such as – the interdependence of space and time, the bending of light by large gravitation masses, the slowing of time in the vicinity of those same large masses, the existence of gravitational waves, the mass of the Higgs boson, the spatial density of the matter in the universe, the particle physics search for gravitons and the particle or particles that make up “dark matter” and the spontaneous generation of matter under certain quantum mechanical conditions, just to name a few. What is thus measured in physical reality dictates the relative viability of the competing model hypotheses. Those that don’t match the experimental findings will be discarded, just as it has been in science for the past 350 years.
Polymaths are few and far between and I certainly don’t claim to be one, but it seems to me that the antithesis of the polymath are those with the greatest certitude in their convictions and the least understanding of alternative viewpoints, religious or scientific. I think it is premature to commit to the science models for the universe; there simply isn’t enough data to choose amongst them. On the other hand, I don’t buy the religious arguments either, be they Christian, Hindu, Islam, Hebrew or Buddhist. The ancient writings of men who were utterly clueless as to the scope of the cosmos in which they lived don’t strike me as especially persuasive. The certitude of the convictions is not justified, for any of the world views.
LikeLike
June 13, 2017 at 11:54 am
Here’s what’s eternal: Why did God create us? Why are we here? What is the real meaning of Life? – The Endless Love of Jesus Ministries
Published on Jul 17, 2016
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iksWXKGtpc8 |
Why did God make the earth and us along with it?
He doesn’t really need us, so why did he create anything?
But there is more to God’s plan for us.
We are also part of the war between God and Satan, and God’s ultimate plan to defeat Satan.
Clearly, God means to use us as human beings to overcome Satan’s influence in this world.
The most important part we play in God’s eternal plan is to point people to eternal life with God—through his Son Jesus Christ. God uses us to call others to Himself.
It is clear that our God created us not only to be receivers of His love, but also experience a deep relationship with Him. He wants us to learn more and more of who He is, and share in what He is doing. He is truly a Father like no other.
So what did humanity do with God’s life and love? Our first parents, Adam and Eve, rejected God’s love and forfeited life.
And what did the God who is love do with selfish humanity? He continued to love them because love “does not take into account a wrong suffered…” We see this love displayed in John 3:16 which says,“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
Because God is love, He gave humanity life at creation. And after humanity rejected God’s love, He then offered humanity life again through Christ. God continues to offer humanity His life because He still is love – perfect love. He never changes.
When people are drawn to accept God’s offer of love and life in Christ, they are born again and called children of God. The Apostle John affirms this truth when he writes, “See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God.” God loves us so much He intimately endears us to Himself by calling us His beloved. We are so completely loved by God that nothing will separate us from Him.
We see this clearly through the words of the Apostle Paul when he says, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
God loves you completely in Christ! Go ahead drink deeply of this glorious truth. Gorge yourself with these wonderful words. God loves you completely. Bathe yourself in His unconditional love. Immerse yourself in it. Rest in it. Experience His great love for you to the fullest, and remember God loves you for who you are in Christ not for what you do or have done. Why did God create humanity? He created us because of who He is. He is love.
The only True Beauty comes from a life Fully Surrendered to Jesus Christ.
Jeremiah 29:13 – You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 13, 2017 at 1:04 pm
Dear Frank Adamick,
I consider myself a Christian but not a Fundamentalist.
Certainly, I believe that God created us and that Christ redeemed us. Your post suggests that God has loved us (humanity) since our creation and after the mistakes made by Adam and Eve. Why then did God kill everyone except Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives by way of The Great Flood? Also, if they were the very best stock from all humanity, what went wrong?
I ask in all sincerity and hope you can provide an answer to me and other readers.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 13, 2017 at 2:36 pm
One person presumes the God Concept and comments accordingly………
One person presumes the Evolutionary Concept and comments accordingly….
The God Concept and the Evolutionary Concept are identical except one, the God Concept, also presumes supernatural nonsense;
while the other, the Evolutionary Concept, presumes only common sense.
I am of the Common Sense persuasion………….
LikeLike
June 13, 2017 at 3:00 pm
Dinos:
God did not create us. Humanity is merely the by-product of the life forces in the Cosmos.
God did not kill everyone except Noah, his wife, three sons and their wives…it was the rain that came and TOOK everyone by surprise except Noah who was was enough to see the rising level of the waters in the lakes and other bodies of water over the months and years that would soon overflow their banks and then…….WHOSH A FLOOD… SO NOAH PREPARED FOR THE INEVITABLE COMMON SENSE REMEDY FOR SUCH A FLOOD EVENT…..
LikeLike
June 13, 2017 at 3:07 pm
This: The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life
Eugene V Koonin
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892545/ |
From the above article’s Abstract: “In contrast to the traditional cosmological models of a single, finite universe, this worldview provides for the origin of an infinite number of complex systems by chance, even as the probability of complexity emerging in any given region of the multiverse is EXTREMELY (emphasis added) low.”
vs.
That: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God! – Fact Reality
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er9D00DXQQs |
Published on Dec 25, 2016
How to be Saved from Hell:
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. John 3:17
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Romans 8
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2
LikeLike
June 13, 2017 at 5:30 pm
……….God hath raised him from the (place) of the dead……….. and if you do not believe Jesus this very day you do yet live in the “place” of the dead though you still have life and the potential to be raised…..
It’s all in the understanding, not the literal, textual words but the metaphorical when one thing means another thing…. simple as apple and ice cream..a la mode. Nest ce pas?
Easy to him who has understanding but the blind remain where they are…….place of the dead!
LikeLike
June 14, 2017 at 6:00 am
Frank, I’m confused. How does quoting Koonin help your argument? Infinity (the number of universes in the multiverse model) multiplied by an “extremely” low probability is still a really big number. Two paragraphs later Koonin says, and I’m paraphrasing, in the multiverse scenario, formation of complex biological systems by chance are inevitable. And quoting the final paragraph of the text of his article:
A final comment on “irreducible complexity” and “intelligent design”. By showing that highly complex systems, actually, can emerge by chance and, moreover, are inevitable, if extremely rare, in the universe, the present model sidesteps the issue of irreducibility and leaves no room whatsoever for any form of intelligent design.
How does that help your case?
LikeLike
June 15, 2017 at 11:14 am
Atheistic Naturalism – Where Science goes to Die – Philip C
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCfpFQtEGD8 |
Published on May 13, 2017
Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a foundation of illusions and fantasy
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q…
LikeLike
June 15, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Bob,
Reviewer 4: Itai Yanai (Harvard University)
In this work, Eugene Koonin estimates the probability of arriving at a system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution and comes to a cosmologically small number. With such an improbable event at hand, Koonin turns to a cosmological perspective in order to grasp its feasibility. He cites recent work in cosmology that highlights the vastness of the universe, where any series of events is necessarily played out an infinite number of times. This so-called “many-worlds in one” model essentially reconceives any chance event as a necessary one, where its (absolute) abundance is proportional to its chance of occurring.
The context of this article is framed by the current lack of a complete and plausible scenario for the origin of life. Koonin specifically addresses the front-runner model, that of the RNA-world, where self-replicating RNA molecules precede a translation system. He notes that in addition to the difficulties involved in achieving such a system is the paradox of attaining a translation system through Darwinian selection. That this is indeed a bona-fide paradox is appreciated by the fact that, without a shortage effort, a plausible scenario for translation evolution has not been proposed to date. There have been other models for the origin of life, including the ground-breaking Lipid-world model advanced by Segrè, Lancet and colleagues (reviewed in EMBO Reports (2000), 1(3), 217–222), but despite much ingenuity and effort, it is fair to say that all origin of life models suffer from astoundingly low probabilities of actually occurring.
Koonin’s main contributions in this manuscript are two-fold: 1. a description of a minimal “breakthrough system” capable of priming Darwinian evolution” and most importantly 2. relating the issue of overcoming probability barriers by defaulting to the anthropic principle, which is supported by advances in cosmology. Together these provide for a model of the origin of life where the “breakthrough system” appears by chance and is sufficient to prime Darwinian evolution. Koonin distinguishes between a strong and weak form of this model. In the strong form, the entire “breakthrough system” occurs entirely by chance. While in the weak form, a less complex system (and thus more cosmologically common) is found that is able to achieve Darwinian evolution. Should such a less complex system be discovered, the breakthrough system as Koonin describes it will have been falsified; however, even this less complex system is likely to be vanishingly rare and consequently also requires the anthropic principle to account for its occurrence on Earth. Of course, the model would also be falsified if the “many-worlds in one” model is itself falsified.
Overall, this is a bold manuscript that promises to deeply influence the stream of thought on the origin of life. To my knowledge the present model represents the first one to account for the origin of life by explicitly invoking the anthropic principle. Whereas the sufficiency of time has been questioned for evolving life, invoking the anthropic principle allows for an elegant – albeit science-fiction-like – way out of this chicken and egg problem.
From this perspective, future advances in the field of the origin of life may better estimate the ubiquity of life in the universe by attempting to break down the “breakthrough system” into less complex parts. In the very extreme, future work may show that starting from just a simple assembly of molecules, non-anthropic principles can account for each step along the rise to the threshold of Darwinian evolution. Based upon the new perspective afforded to us by Koonin this now appears unlikely.
Author’s response: I agree with most of the statements in this constructive comment. Once again, however, I should note that, the way I see this situation, it is impossible to shun anthropic reasoning completely, whatever the advances of future work. As Yanai puts it, “in the very extreme”, one could dream of non-anthropically explaining the entire sequence of evolutionary steps from monomers to a RNA-protein world. However, in the preceding history, an anthropic component inevitably will remain.
Perhaps, to complete the discussion, a final comment on the anthropic principle/selection/reasoning is due here. In all four reviews of this work, regardless of the other opinions of the reviewers, there is a strong emphasis on the anthropic principle that, in my view, is somewhat misplaced. Surely, the anthropic principle is important. However, I believe that it is secondary to the actual model of the uni(multi)verse. Indeed, the infinite repetition of all permissible histories in the MWO cosmology makes anthropic selection a straightforward epiphenomenon of the model (see text and Table Table1).1). I should add that I also find it to be more satisfying philosophically that the model is put ahead of a “principle”. Should the model be falsified, the status of the principle will become uncertain, and of course, the entire concept developed here, if not refuted in its entirety, will require a drastic revision (as rightly emphasized by Yanai).
Appendix
Probabilities of the emergence, by chance, of different versions of the breakthrough system in an O-region: a toy calculation of the upper bounds
General assumptions: an O-region contains 1022 stars and every 10th star has a habitable planet, hence 1021 habitable planets (undoubtedly, a gross over-estimation because, in reality, most stars have no planets at all, let alone habitable ones). Each planet is the size of earth and has a 10 kilometer (106 cm) thick habitable layer; hence the volume of the habitable layer is 4/3π[R3-(R-l)3] ≈ 5 × 1024 cm3, where R is the radius of the planet and l is the thickness of the habitable layer. RNA synthesis occurs in 1% of the volume of the habitable layer, i.e., a volume V ≈ 5 × 1022 cm3 is available for RNA synthesis (undoubtedly, a gross over-estimation because, in reality, there would be very few “RNA-making reactors”). Let the concentration of nucleotides in volume V and the rate of the synthesis of RNA molecules of size n (a free parameter depending on the specific model of the breakthrough stage; hereinafter n-mer) be 1 molecule/cm3/second (a gross overestimate for any sizable molecule; furthermore, the inverse dependence on n, which is expected to be strong, is disregarded). The time available after the Big Bang of the given O-region (as an upper bound) of all planets in it is 1010 years ≈ 3 × 1017 seconds. Then, the number of unique n-mers “tried out” during the time after the Big Bang is:
S ≈ 5 × 1022 × 1021 × 3 × 1017 ≈ 1.5 × 1061.
Let us assume that, for the onset of biological evolution, a unique n-mer is required. The number of such sequences is N = 4n ≈100.6n.
Then, the expectation of the number of times a unique n-mer emerges in an O-region is: E = S/N = 1.5 × 1061/100.6n and n = log(E × 1.5 × 1061)/0.6.
Substituting E = 1, we get n ≈102 (nucleotides). Note that, because n is proportional to logS, the estimate is highly robust to the assumptions on the values of the contributing variables; e.g., a order of magnitude change in S will result in an increase or decrease of n by less than 2 nucleotides.
A ribozyme replicase consisting of ~100 nucleotides is conceivable, so, in principle, spontaneous origin of such an entity in a finite universe consisting of a single O-region cannot be ruled out in this toy model (again, the rate of RNA synthesis considered here is a deliberate, gross over-estimate).
The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of:
– two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides
– ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides
– at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound)is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E <10-1018.
In other words, even in this toy model that assumes a deliberately inflated rate of RNA production, the probability that a coupled translation-replication emerges by chance in a single O-region is P < 10-1018. Obviously, this version of the breakthrough stage can be considered only in the context of a universe with an infinite (or, in the very least, extremely vast) number of O-regions.
The model considered here is not supposed to be realistic by any account. It only serves to illustrate the difference in the demands on chance for the origin of different versions of the breakthrough system (see Fig. Fig.1)1) and hence the connections between these versions and different cosmological models of the universe.
LikeLike
June 15, 2017 at 2:59 pm
Makes perfect sense to a believer I suppose, maybe, I think; however, this is as clear as speculative mud to moi.
On the other hand what is absolutely clear as pristine water to moi, is that theism in general, is built entirely upon a foundation of illusions and fantasy that began in the mythology fabric. The myth of mythology is still evident today by the Planets still holding the names of the Myth Gods they were named after. Using Evolution to project Believers’ illusions and fantasy is a convenient scapegoat
Planet names is the foundational cornerstone fiction that morphed (evolved) from Mythology to the Abrahamic One Lump God Theory. Changing one God for another God is a symptom of creative diversion to appease the mindset of the individual in much the same way that converting from one denomination to another denomination. Converting from one insanity to another insanity does not produce sanity.
Jupiter was the king of the Roman gods, and Saturn was the Roman god of agriculture. Uranus was named after an ancient Greek king of the gods. Neptune was the Roman god of the Sea. Pluto, which is now classified as a dwarf planet, was the Roman god of the underworld.
So what’s in a name you might ask?
LikeLike
June 15, 2017 at 3:18 pm
One should be able to explain the God one believes in, not an undefinable, incomprehensible entity humans are incapable of understanding. It’s a ludicrous claim. Scapegoating Evolution or Darwin makes me wonder what or who did believers’ use as a scapegoat before Darwin came along?
The World Before Darwin
Before Darwin was born, most people in England accepted certain ideas about the natural world as given. Species were not linked in a single “family tree.” They were unconnected, unrelated, and unchanged since the moment of their creation. And Earth itself was thought to be so young–perhaps only 6,000 years old–that there would not have been time for species to change. In any case, people were not part of the natural world; they were above and outside it.
These attitudes reflected a broader view of the world as stable and unchanging. There was a natural order to things. Most English people lived in farming communities and did not travel far from where they were born. Their lives were much like the lives of their parents. Soon the Industrial Revolution and democratic reforms would remake society–but before Darwin, it was still possible to see the world as timeless, eternal, and unchanging.
The acceptance of biological evolution click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced is an essential part of the modern scientific explanation of the natural world. Most scientists and major religions in the Western World have long since incorporated it into their understanding of nature and humanity. However, some churches still maintain that there was a special and independent creation of every species and that life forms do not change through time from generation to generation. These “creationists” often share beliefs about the Judeo-Christian Bible that were widely held, even by scientists, during the early 19th century and before.
James Ussher
1581-1656
The traditional Judeo-Christian version of creationism click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced was strongly reinforced by James Ussher click this icon to hear the name pronounced, a 17th century Anglican archbishop of Armagh in Northern Ireland. By counting the generations of the Bible and adding them to modern history, he fixed the date of creation at October 23, 4004 B.C. During Ussher’s lifetime, debate focused only on the details of his calculations rather than on the approach. Dr. Charles Lightfoot of Cambridge University in England had the last word. He proclaimed that the time of creation was 9:00 A.M. on October 23, 4004 B.C.
This belief that the earth and life on it are only about 6000 years old fit neatly with the then prevalent theory of the “Great Chain of Being.” This held that God created an infinite and continuous series of life forms, each one grading into the next, from simplest to most complex, and that all organisms, including humans, were created in their present form relatively recently and that they have remained unchanged since then. Given these strongly held beliefs, it is not surprising that 17th and 18th century European biology consisted mainly of the description of plants and animals as they are with virtually no attempt to explain how they got to be that way.
continue reading here:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_1.htm
LikeLike
June 15, 2017 at 7:54 pm
Humans: Did we Evolve or were we Created? – Philip C
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EcmVGnAzY0 |
Published on Mar 21, 2017
Humans – Are We Accidents or are We Made in the Image of God?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P…
LikeLike
June 16, 2017 at 6:51 am
Frank, granted, when dealing with finite numbers, 10 to the -1018 is a very small probability. But infinity times a very small probability is still infinity, thus the assertion that it is inevitable that the conditions for life will occur by chance somewhere in a multiverse. I find it amusing that the Christian bloggers are so fond of referencing Lisa Grossman’s out of context Vilenkin quote in New Scientist about the need for a starting point for the universe, but completely ignore Vilenkin’s fondness for the multiverse hypothesis.
Personally, I find the multiverse model unsatisfying. It sounds too much like an ad hoc explanation. But then, I don’t find the writings of a Hebrew priest who lived in the Levant 2500 years ago to be all that persuasive either.
By the way, the second link in comment 50 doesn’t work.
LikeLike
June 16, 2017 at 10:54 am
Bob, I don’t have enough faith to go with those long-shot odds. I’ll stick with the Hebrews in the Levant at least they have a falsifiable track record. And if an infinite multiverse does exist then the second link in comment 50 does work – somewhere.
LikeLike
June 16, 2017 at 12:46 pm
It is amazing to me to hear the lengths atheists will go to avoid the possibility of a creator God. If Darwin would have had access to an electron microscope he probably would have wound up being an Anglican Parson.
LikeLike
June 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm
Frank, the link appears to be truncated. Must have collapsed into itself before those fundamental anthropic constants had a chance to fully form.
Don, it’s not avoidance, its skepticism:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
LikeLike
June 16, 2017 at 5:11 pm
I understand, Bob. Nothing wrong with skepticism. I was an atheist until age 43. I shouldn’t have barged in like that.
LikeLike
June 16, 2017 at 5:14 pm
Nothing wrong with barging in, Don, so long as it’s respectful.
LikeLike
June 16, 2017 at 5:24 pm
Thanks
LikeLike
June 17, 2017 at 7:19 am
Creator or the Multiverse – PublicChristianity
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKhwTvqh0eI |
Uploaded on Oct 5, 2008
Series discussion with Professor John Lennox.
LikeLike
June 17, 2017 at 7:22 am
Does the Multiverse Avoid a Cosmic Beginning? – drcraigvideos
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYiuaTu-i7s |
Published on Oct 10, 2016
For more resources visit: http://www.reasonablefaith.org
In the award-winning film The Theory of Everything, the young Stephen Hawking describes cosmology as “a religion for intelligent atheists.” The film then explores the theological implications of two cosmological models defended by Hawking. Do these models in fact have the implications which Hawking attributes to them, and will cosmology play successfully the role of a surrogate religion? In the dialogue between science and theology, philosophy plays a crucial role. In this talk, Dr. Craig will respond to Hawking’s claim to have eliminated the Creator of the Big Bang.
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith’s other channel which contains full-length debates and lectures: http://www.youtube.com/drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: http://twitter.com/rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: https://www.facebook.com/reasonablefa…
LikeLike
June 17, 2017 at 7:28 am
Did the Universe have a Beginning? Alexander Vilenkin – firstcauseargument
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A |
Published on Jun 19, 2012
Physicist and cosmologist Dr. Alexander Vilenkin refutes some scientific models (like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution, and Static Seed (Emergent Universe)) that supposedly argue for a universe without a beginning. He then offers his own explanation (via the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem) why the universe did have a beginning.
LikeLike
June 17, 2017 at 9:13 am
Did the Universe have a beginning?
Leonard The Greater says NO!
Jesus says NO!
LikeLike
June 18, 2017 at 4:55 am
Jesus said that?
LikeLike
June 18, 2017 at 9:23 am
Bob Mason:
Thank you for your question. Here is the Christ Clear Comment about that.
Yes Jesus said that and so many other things about life. Christians by and large can never see the Trees in the Forest of biblical text as they glean the scriptures with supernatural eyes.
Jesus said that, when he exclaimed in Luke 17: 20-22, the following:
Luke 17:20-21King James Version (KJV)
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
If the Kingdom then, is within you and I believe that it is, it must always have been “within you” and therefore had no beginning because Life itself can not have a beginning. Like energy: it cannot be created or destroyed, only changed, by the life forces that morph and transform their wondrous work in spontaneous generation.
Simple eh Bob?
LikeLike
June 18, 2017 at 1:22 pm
Theism compared to Naturalism – Major predictions of each Philosophy
Philip C | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY5ppoqPNVo |
Published on Apr 16, 2017
Theism compared to Naturalism – Major predictions of each Philosophy – paper
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v…
LikeLike
June 18, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Bob, the docs.google.com link in post # 64. works at the youtube video page.
There are 33 pages of documents there. Evidently Jason’s blog doesn’t support the format.
LikeLike
June 19, 2017 at 9:59 am
How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 26 Kalam Cosmological Argument
Tony Reed | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5Rywo_k0Is |
Published on Dec 4, 2015
In this highly requested episode we examine the science that backs the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The argument no atheist or evolutionist can refute!
See the video’s description box for extensive References.
LikeLike
June 19, 2017 at 12:12 pm
The man responsible for the most ingenious synthesis regarding time, motion and energy by way of the calculus of probability in the field of kinetic theory:
Ludwig Boltzmann – The genius of disorder (2007)
Alexander Grothendieck | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hENRIAx-6D4 |
Published on Aug 7, 2015
The 19th-century physicist Ludwig Boltzmann stirred up controversy by proposing that scientists could make intelligent guesses about the behavior of atoms, which, though they moved randomly, could be described by certain probabilistic generalizations.His suggestion to explain thermodynamics by using statistical methods went against the long-standing trend of assuming absolute fixed laws. These were profound and disturbing changes.
The movie is about the engaging story of science and personal struggle of Ludwig Boltzmann, set against the intellectual climate of nineteenth-century Vienna, and shows how science has come to accept the reality of the invisible world.
Credits are in the description.
LikeLike
June 19, 2017 at 1:58 pm
The Multiverse confirms the Ontological Argument for God – Philip C
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgDn_k11ups |
Published on Sep 30, 2016
Simply put, the atheist cannot argue it is logically impossible for God to exist since he has already conceded that it is logically possible for a infinity of other possible worlds to exist in order to try to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of this universe.
What is the Ontological Argument? (William Lane Craig) – video
“It (This argument) puts the atheist in a very awkward position. The atheist must deny, not merely that God exists, he must maintain that it is impossible that God exists. And that is certainly a radical claim that would require great justification.”
Relevant videos are in the description.
LikeLike
June 19, 2017 at 2:51 pm
Just published today, thought you all might be interested:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/06/19/build-a-universe-in-the-lab/
Frank: Thanks. I saved it as a pdf for later reading, the earlier document also.
Leo: That’s an interesting interpretation of scripture, but I’m not willing to go that far. I don’t disagree with your right to make such an interpretation. In the Jewish tradition of Old Testament interpretation it’s known as midrash, the finding of new meaning in old scriptures to meet your current intellectual or emotional needs. I just find your interpretation to be a bit of a stretch.
The alternative is the interpretation of scripture based on the author’s original intent. Since scripture interpretation is not one of my strengths, I have to rely on what I read on the internet, which is itself problematic. How do I judge the validity of the translation as well as the validity of the interpretation? If you Google Luke 17:20-22, you get dozens of articles from dozens of websites describing similar or slightly nuanced differences in interpretation. Some of those differences are due to what is the proper translation of the ancient Greek and others appear to be the substitution of modern day knowledge in place of ancient understanding. For example, when I was searching ancient Hebrew cosmology, I found several Christian blog sites which stated that the ancient authors already “knew” that the Earth was a sphere. Yet every English translation of the Bible texts in question used the word “circle”, not the word sphere. As it turns out, the Hebrew concept of the cosmos was that of a vertical circle, with God at the top:
http://yuriystasyuk.com/bible-science-ancient-hebrew-cosmology/
The commentators had conflated contemporary knowledge of “sphere” with ancient knowledge of “circle” in order to justify their belief in the infallibility of scripture.
Yet, I am still faced with the same problem, how do I know what I read on the internet is true? Frank’s most recent comments notwithstanding, there are almost never any primary, scholarly references cited to support any claims of interpretation. That is especially true for the Christian bloggers, whose primary references are either the Bible (circular logic, using Bible texts to support the validity of Bible texts) or the non-scholarly writings of other Christian bloggers (referencing articles which themselves lack the supporting primary references to validate their conclusions), a sort of because I said so logic, or because he said so. I find it disheartening so many readers, of both science and theology, want to be told what to believe rather than do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
An alternative is to defer to the writings of those who can actually read and understand ancient Green and Hebrew. Thus, when debating the translation and interpretation of a piece of New Testament scripture, I will go with Bart Ehrman’s analysis over that of Ken Ham. However, Ehrman is not infallible and he has admitted as much. So when I read an article critical of his translation of a piece of text I still can’t judge whose interpretation is correct. Frank once suggested, which I took as light hearted, tongue in cheek recommendations, a couple of websites I could go to in order to learn Greek and Hebrew and thus be able to do my own translations and make my own interpretations of the ancient texts. Those were interesting suggestions, but that would require a lifetime of scholarship to make such an undertaking worthwhile and I don’t simply have enough remaining years of life on this planet to justify such an endeavor. Now, it is possible I could live to be 900 years old, but according to some Christian bloggers and some of the readers of this website, the artificial food ingredients in my diet will prevent that from happening.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 19, 2017 at 3:32 pm
Bob Mason:
Even your humor has a wonderful appeal to it. I like the way you communicate. When I begin my life long study of scripture I relied on two things, three if you count the dictionary. The first was common sense and the second was through non supernatural eyes. One of the first crazies I encountered than could not make any sense in my mind was that Ham did something involver his fathers nakedness and for that event Ham’s son Canaan was cursed. Now I can tell you I was perplexed but after twenty years I discovered exactly what Ham did and why Noah condemned Ham’s son Canaan. I actually stumbled upon the phraseology like Salk stumble upon the penicillin for polio….mine was an antibiotic for the a release of a twisted story in thrall by the mind meme poliomyelitis: a severe infection of religious dogma that can never admit a mistake until centuries later, 2 centuries in the case of Galileo shameful arrest.
Since then I’ve plodded and thought and meditated and feel very confident in my interpretation by following, context, circumstances and connecting same through meticulous stringing together of common sense evidence to refute most all of the biblical miracles that began with the claim that the Lord told Moses to go to Pharaoh to declare the power of the Lord. The story goes on The Lord said, “when Pharaoh asks for a miracle throw down your staff and it will turn into a serpent” And so Aaron and Moses go to the Pharaoh and when Pharaoh asked for a miracle Moses threw down his staff and lo and behold it turned into a snake; when he retrieved the serpent it turned back into a staff. On the face of it WOW that was miraculous but as soon as the court magicians and sorcerers figured out the “miracle” and performed the same miracle as Moses, Pharaoh kicked them both out for the magic tricks they used.
Now I don’t simply refute the miracles out of hand but offer plausible explanations to help the reader understand more in keeping with common sense reason than with hocus locus poof poof out of thin air miracles.
One miracle as profoundly inaccurate from the new testament as the miracle of Exodus and the staff snake, I describe in a Youtube video, using dialogue with animated characters. I have posted this on other occasions over the last few years; I don’t know if you ever took the opportunity to view it but nobody on this site ever mentioned anything about it although some comments on Youtube call it, wait for it, “blasphemy”. if you have 5′:33″ minutes maybe you can watch how the event unfolded according to my “perfect interpretation” without supernatural eyes. Called the Miracle of the Loaves and the Fishes feeding thousands, on two new testament occasions, awesome miracles by Jesus that on two occasions were noised throughout the land as “out of thin air miracles”. Nada.
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=aG5zwkaYo8w
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 19, 2017 at 4:28 pm
Bob Mason:
Creating a baby universe?
This paragraph perplexes me the most:
The idea goes that if we could impart enough energy to a monopole, it will start to inflate. Rather than growing in size within our Universe, the expanding monopole would bend spacetime within the accelerator to create a tiny wormhole tunnel leading to a separate region of space. From within our lab we would see only the mouth of the wormhole; it would appear to us as a mini black hole, so small as to be utterly harmless. But if we could travel into that wormhole, we would pass through a gateway into a rapidly expanding baby universe that we had created. (A video illustrating this process provides some further details.)
Wouldn’t that wormhole tunnel leading to a separate region of space still be a separate region of space within our universe?
Otherwise this would be a theory of multiverses and if so, may already exist. Who would think that this might be the first instance of such a baby universe event?
If the event is even possible why would we assume it does not already exist?
This to me would preclude any beginnings and support the theory that we, the universe, life has always existed and there is nothing magical about this generation except the realization the question can we ever understand the scope of the forever horizon which even that is unfathomable for the imagination to comprehend.
Yet, it seems to me that there is an end to knowledge so that one day all things will be understood and nothing more hidden yet even that concept eludes my grasp.
On the other hand would the universe be one with the multiverse and would not the multiverse be one with the universe. In which case we could say we are at once the universe and the multiverse at the same time, like the weirdness of quantum mechanics?
Which in the words of James Comey, when I think about it, makes me mildly nauseous.
LikeLike
June 19, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Hi LeoTheGreater,
I tried to open the link to your video in post #70 but got the message that there are no videos.
Like you, I do not believe in the supernatural. There is so much science still to be learned and the science is getting increasingly harder for lay people to understand. It could be that only the scientists will understand each other and become like a ‘magic circle’ who won’t or can’t explain things in layman’s terms to the rest of us sometime in the future.
Below is a link that deals with the philosophy of the supernatural or miracles:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 19, 2017 at 9:24 pm
Bob Mason and Dinos:
Sorry about the incorrect link …….
I posted the link to my account for editing purposes and not the proper link for user view so here is the proper link
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 20, 2017 at 12:13 am
Bob,
Picking up on your post # 69. I think none of us will make it to 900 years. We not only have the food additives, GMOs and fluoride to try and avoid but then there’re the chemtrails and the Fukushima radiation too. 900 – not a chance. Count your blessings if you make it past 70.
As to your point about the biblical conundrum of the circle vs. the sphere it made me think regarding our modern day consideration of our own location upon the fabric of space-time. I grew up thinking we exist in amongst this vast conglomeration of heavenly bodies that populates our universe. But along the way I happened upon the notion that we actually live on the surface of a dynamic ever-expanding, inflating, amalgam, balloon-like, elastic, shell structure which encompasses an essentially hollow core. This presents a never ending series of sophisticated challenges to the stability & ingenuity of our humble five senses. From wormhole tunnels to gravitational waves we struggle to maintain our equilibrium while steering clear of the myriad celestial minefield. What a life!
I found that DISCOVER article intriguing. In today’s age of technological ethical dilemmas what could be more exhilarating or threatening than creating (really in our case generating) an entire new universe. Of course we wouldn’t have the same predicament as far as cause and effect because this time we’d be in the driver’s seat so to speak. But that for sure would lead to a slew of completely different questions and concerns some of which were addressed in the article.
From the theological aspect I believe as it’s written:
But the LORD/YHWH is the true God;
He is the living God and the everlasting King.
At His wrath the earth quakes,
and the nations cannot endure His indignation.
It is He who made the earth by His power,
Who established the world by His wisdom,
and by His understanding stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 10:10, 12)
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know Him. (John 1:10)
It was the underlying arrow piercing through the author’s sense of trust that caused me to stoke up my resolve. Merali wrote in the article, “Looking back on my numerous conversations with scientists and philosophers on these issues, I’ve concluded that the editors at Nuclear Physics B did a disservice both to physics and to theology. Their little act of censorship served only to stifle an important discussion. The real danger lies in fostering an air of hostility between the two sides, leaving scientists afraid to speak honestly about the religious and ethical consequences of their work out of concerns of professional reprisal or ridicule.” The near future holds critical choices to be made and we cannot make valid wise choices without being well-informed. Without open exercise of clear, full, honest communication among all stakeholders we will not arrive at any viable conclusions or courses of action that solve genuine problems when their time comes due.
On Truth, Censorship & Hostility: London Mosque Attack: How Politicians and the Media Are Killing Muslims – Acts17Apologetics
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN0qxp7E7ZI |
Published on Jun 19, 2017
Early in the morning of June 19, 2017, a 47-year-old man named Darren Osborne plowed a rental van into Muslims who were leaving a mosque after their evening Ramadan prayers. Police are treating the incident as an anti-Muslim terrorist attack. Should we be surprised that certain angry Westerners are launching hate attacks? David Wood explains how politicians and the media are convincing frightened Westerners to abandon peaceful approaches to dealing with Islam.
Thus says the LORD:
“Stand by the roads, and look,
and ask for the ancient paths,
where the good way is; and walk in it,
and find rest for your souls.
But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’” (Jeremiah 6:16)
LikeLike
June 20, 2017 at 8:13 am
In the days when a year was one moon phase after another 900 years (moon phases) was actually 900 divided by 12 which in real years equals….wait for it…wait for it….75 years !!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 20, 2017 at 8:19 am
Tim Wolf:
’nuff said!
LikeLike
June 20, 2017 at 9:04 am
David Wood knows nothing as Frank states.
“David Wood explains how politicians and the media are convincing frightened Westerners to abandon peaceful approaches to dealing with Islam.” This all David Wood’s can del toro.
The reason that some westerners are frightened and becoming retaliatory against Muslims is, in essence, because of terrorist activity that treat everybody as infidels who are not one of their cliche; they treat other Muslims who are of a different Muslim cliche the same way. Westerners( in the terrorist eyes, non-muslims) who are retaliatory believe they have been peaceful diplomats too long and it’s time to take the Mosaic approach “eye for an eye” and give the terrorists what westerners believe they deserve…a ‘taste of their own medicine’.
Now this may involve some Trumpian politicians and it may involve some Trumpian media but politicians and media are not the primary movers here; the primary movers, responsible here, are the terrorists themselves whose war and death activities are being visited on innocent peoples around the world claiming their actions are directed by the Quran; hence, what is written from the Messenger; hence, from God himself. In other words, ancient religious differences popping up its head in modern day society by a group of people scapegoating all other groups of people who are, to the terrorist eye, a few strands short of a full DNA. And they are in a state of war to kill the rest of the world.
History shows us that peaceful diplomacy appeasement has never worked to stop war mongers, love has never stopped a killer from his desire to kill his opponent; killing others who submit is a brain climax that spurs the hatred to reach one climax after another and onward until the final act of self destruction achieves the ultimate climax, Jannah (Arabic: جنّة Jannah) the Islamic concept of paradise.
The descriptions of paradise are mentioned in significant detail in the Qur’an, Hadiths and traditional tafsīr (exegesis). In the Quran, paradise is described as filled with material delights, such as beautiful maidens, precious stones, delicious foods, and constantly flowing water—the latter especially appealing to the desert dwelling Arabs, who spend most of their life in arid lands. Besides the material notion of the paradise, those descriptions are also interpreted as allegories, explaining the state of joy people will get. The Persian theologian Al-Ghazali said: “This life belongs to the world of earth and the world of visibility; the hereafter belongs to the world of transcendental and the world of beings. By this life I understand your state before death, by hereafter I understand your state after death …” However, it is impossible to explain the world of beings in this life by any other means than allegories.
The true beauty of paradise is also understood as the joy of beholding God, the creator.
Now this begs the question: if suicide bombers and terrorists go to heaven who in the world populates hell?
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 20, 2017 at 6:18 pm
Hello Leo,
Below is a link to the recent Finsbury Park attack in London:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/van-pedestrians-hit-run-over-casualties-latest-police-finsbury-park-mosque-muslims-seven-sisters-a7796551.html
After the arrest of the ‘infidel’ from Cardiff, may we infer that it is more likely that non-Muslims terrorists in London will be arrested rather than shot while ISIL terrorists may be shot (50 rounds into three such persons) rather than arrested? We have two types of terrorists in England now: those who maybe shot and those who are unlikely to be shot.
What’s your view of this Leo?
Peace and love to all (Heathens, Infidels and Atheists alike),
Dinos
LikeLike
June 20, 2017 at 6:57 pm
Hello Leo,
Your post #75:
LeoTheGreater Says:
June 20, 2017, at 8:13 am
“In the days when a year was one moon phase after another 900 years (moon phases) was actually 900 divided by 12 which in real years equals….wait for it…wait for it….75 years !!!”
I don’t understand much of the modern Astrophysics but Arithmetic is easy to me. Consider the link and extract:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/skytellers/moon_phases/about.shtml
Our Moon’s shape doesn’t really change — it only appears that way! The “amount” of Moon that we see as we look from Earth changes in cycles that repeat about once a month (29.5 days). The relative positions of our Sun, Earth, and Moon, cause these changes.
By my reckoning, the calculation is:
900 times 29.5 divided by 365, which is about 72 years and 270 days.
This is even closer to Frank’s remark to Bob, ” Count your blessings if you make it past 70.”
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 20, 2017 at 11:44 pm
Dino’s:
“……….may we infer that it is more likely that non-Muslims terrorists in London will be arrested rather than shot while ISIL terrorists may be shot (50 rounds into three such persons) rather than arrested?” No you may not infer such a thing. If you look at ISIL terrorists you will see they brandish large knives and machetes. Ak 47’s, bombs, grenades, suicide vests and car bombs and continue to fight and threaten anybody close by including the security forces. Only a hail of bullets will stop them.
When I hear about this incident I told my wife that this nut job probably drank too much alcohol, was in a drunken frenzy that the spirits of alcohol were unleashed because of recent events and not the spirits of religious terrorism. Further investigation seems to bear that conclusion out.
How many parallels can you find in the following noteworthy points that would lead anybody to the ludicrous inference you asked about?
1. Police were warned the Finsbury Park terror suspect was drunk and unconscious on the front seat of his rented white van 24 hours before he allegedly used it as a weapon to maim Muslims, it was claimed
2. The terrorist from Cardiff had a van and used that benign weapon as the MO of driving a vehicle into a crowd:
3. The crowd that gathered was helping Makram Ali, 52, who fell ill and died minutes later in front of his 26-year-old daughter. ‘He always walked with a stick. His daughter said he’s got a heart problem. After the Mosque service outside, he had fallen over and people were giving him water and trying to help him and then the van came from nowhere and drove over his two legs and that’s when his daughter saw him lying on the road.’
4. heavy drinking dad-of-four terror suspect has been living in a tent after splitting from his partner six months ago
5. Hours earlier he was thrown out of his local pub after a drunken night where he started ‘cursing Muslims’ and vowing to ‘do some damage’.
6.Friends have described him as a ‘bloody psycho’ who had a reputation for drunken fights. He ‘repeatedly yelled: “I’m going to kill all Muslims – I did my bit’ and smiled, waved and blew kisses at public”.
7. Imam and other worshippers pinned the drunken man down as he urged them to ‘kill him’ but they held him until arrest.
8. A neighbour living close to the scene in north London, who wished to remain anonymous, today said that the dead man was in his 50s and had six children.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4618636/Finsbury-Park-terror-suspect-47.html#ixzz4kcGOVhtV
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 21, 2017 at 1:25 am
Hello Leo,
Thank you for providing some of the reasons why non-Muslim terrorists are unlikely to be shot in this country. Random killing of innocent people is still terrorism even if you’re not brandishing a long knife and whatever mitigating reasons you provide for the attack.
The Dail Mail is a paper that stirs up racial hatred in the UK so I’m not surprised they presented facts to encourage people to feel sympathy for the perpetrator, Darren Osborne. Also, the Daily Mail will report any incident that helps their image as a supporter of increased policing in the UK.
Peace and love to all people,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 21, 2017 at 1:32 am
Careful guys. You’re getting off topic.
LikeLike
June 21, 2017 at 9:13 am
Re: post # 74.
SUPREME COURT RULES THAT TRADEMARK LAWS CAN’T DISCRIMINATE BASED ON VIEWPOINT
Posted on June 20, 2017 by David L. Hudson Jr.
The most fundamental of all free-speech principles took center stage earlier this week when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled 8-0 in Matal v. Tam that a federal trademark law prohibiting disparaging trademarks violated the First Amendment. The fundamental principle is that the government should not engage in viewpoint discrimination.
This principle trumped another concept in free-speech law – the government speech doctrine. Under this doctrine, the government has its own free-speech interests and can further its own viewpoints without having to support other viewpoints.
Thus, the question for the Supreme Court was did the government discriminate against viewpoint when it denied trademark registration to musician Simon Tam when he sought to register the mark of his music group The Slants, or was the federal trademark program simply a form of government speech. Stated another way, was the federal law an avenue to censor private speech based on viewpoint or merely a form of government speech.
The question was outcome determinative, because rarely do viewpoint discriminatory laws pass First Amendment review – unless they are considered government speech.
In his opinion for the Court, Justice Samuel Alito explained the law was viewpoint discriminatory and that trademarks are not government speech. Alito explained the law discriminated on the basis of viewpoint, because “giving offense is a viewpoint.” In other words, the law allowed positive speech, but disallowed what it perceived as negative speech. That is viewpoint discrimination.
Justice Anthony Kennedy emphasized the viewpoint discrimination principle in his concurring opinion. “At its most basic, the test for viewpoint discrimination is whether—within the relevant subject category—the government has singled out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views expressed,” he wrote. In this case, Kennedy explained the government denied a trademark because the term was too offensive. “That is the essence of viewpoint discrimination.”
On the government-speech doctrine, Alito rejected the idea that federal trademarks are government speech. When people see a trademark, they principally associate the expression with the holder of the mark, not the government. Justice Alito explained: “Holding that the registration of a trademark converts the mark into government speech would constitute a huge and dangerous extension of the government-speech doctrine.”
The Court’s decision emphasized the importance of combating viewpoint discrimination and over-expanding the government speech doctrine.
http://www.newseuminstitute.org/2017/06/20/supreme-court-rules-that-trademark-laws-cant-discriminate-based-on-viewpoint/
LikeLike
June 21, 2017 at 10:55 am
Re: post # 74.
Developing perspective on the dimension of reality: Alan Guth – How Vast is the Cosmos? – Closer To Truth
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fto2HTtnz6g |
Published on Jul 14, 2014
Everyone knows that the universe is huge, but no one could have imagined how staggeringly immense the universe, or multiple universes, may actually be. It stops your breath. How to get a measure of the size of the cosmos? What would it mean if the cosmos were literally infinite?
[Relevant videos are available in the description.]
LikeLike
June 21, 2017 at 12:25 pm
Hello Frank,
If the universe is expanding as empirical evidence suggests, how can it be infinite?
I like the view that the finite universe is contained within an infinite God whose essence transcends it.I realise that this is not a popular view in Western Christianity but it is essential to the Orthodox Christian doctrine as a means for participation between God the Creator and us humans. This is only a viewpoint but it appeals to my imagination as I glimpsed panentheism without realising it as a child attending a liberal Congregational Church in which I was confirmed at age fourteen.
Peace and love to all mankind,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 21, 2017 at 3:39 pm
Hello Frank and Bob,
I’ve read a lot of dialogue between you and Bob Mason and I freely admit to only a small understanding of the cosmological arguments and why we need multi-universes which seem to contradict the concept of a single universe. It would seem possible to me that such multi-universes are merely different regions of space-time, hardly worthy of the title Universe.
I found this article on the Quora website and it seemed that some of it made sense to me. Below is the extract that I vaguely understood:
“When the radius of a circle increases at a constant rate, the fraction by which the circumference increases per unit time becomes smaller as time progresses.
This has been seen by anyone who has drawn a circle in a graphics program. When the circle is large, it is very easy to expand or contract it to a different size. But when the mouse pointer is near the centre of the circle, the smallest movement of the mouse will cause the circle to expand and contract wildly.
The further one looks into the past, the larger this expansion ratio becomes. For any radius (age) of the universe, space expands by 2π light-seconds per second. Near the Bang, the ratio approaches infinity. The universe doubles in size in almost no time.
With a diameter of many billions of light years, that is not even detectable locally. But when the universe was only 10 light-seconds wide (about 10 million miles, or 10 times the distance to the moon), any object at any distance would be seen (very redshifted) to rapidly double its distance in one second due to the space between it and the observer expanding. (Specifically, 2π (about 6.3) light-seconds of new space would be diluted by only 10 light-seconds of existing space. All distances would nearly double in a single second).
Because c has a constant, finite value, there exists a time very, very close the Bang for which the expansion ratio was unity. For that one moment, light expanded away from any point on a sphere (a 4D null cone) at the same rate that the universe did. An object infinitesimally close to you would recede at the speed of light, and anything at a greater distance would recede superluminally. Gravity waves would never reach you, nor would emitted light. They would be redshifted to an infinite wavelength.”
Below is a link to the article if either you, Bob Mason or both of you care to check it out and comment if you will:
https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-universe-come-from-nothing
I hope to hear from you and Bob as to whether this article reveals anything useful to us.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 22, 2017 at 6:57 am
Dinos, if you’re asking me to explain quantum mechanics, that’s not going to happen. Not my area of expertise. All I know is what I read in the popular science literature, which is that physics, as humans currently understand it, breaks down at the point of the Big Bang and what comes before it, if anything, is conjecture. Take a look at some of the comments at the end of the Quora article as well as some of the discussion links in the upper right corner. There you will find additional discussions related to the premise of Jason’s original post which is that in the physical world, something can’t come from nothing. An infinite regress of causes is not allowed and thus only an eternal God can be the creator of the universe.
Unless it is the universe which is eternal and we are merely residents of the current iteration of an eternal series of cosmic creations and destructions. The Big Bang hypothesis has been the favored paradigm of how the universe as we know it came to be, at least as physicists explain it. It has its roots in Einstein’s theory of general relativity. I suspect that paradigm may be changing. The more recent literature suggests that physicists are spending more of their intellectual energies applying quantum mechanics to their models, leading them to an eternal universe explanation for our existence.
In an earlier comment (# 38), I referenced a philly.com article about Vilenkin’s comments at Hawking’s birthday symposium. Half way down the article is a discussion of how the “God did it” hypothesis is viewed as merely a placeholder for an intellectual gap in our understanding. That is consistent with how science is done today. The scientific method excludes the God hypothesis in the study of nature since it can never be proven false (Karl Popper’s version of the philosophy of science). However, while the atheist has the luxury of arbitrarily rejecting the arguments for the existence of God, technically speaking the scientist cannot. There is still the possibility that God did it, but the standards of proof that science requires to make that an acceptable explanation far exceed those which the theists have been able to provide (Sagan’s dragon in my garage argument). Now, if the Landlord of the movie 2010 were to suddenly make his presence known, that might change things, but I suspect the practitioners of the scientific method would likely demand a meeting with him and a demonstration of his powers to violate our current understanding of medicine and physical science (raise the dead, walk on water, create something from nothing).
LikeLiked by 3 people
June 22, 2017 at 8:53 pm
Hello Bob,
Thank you for your response.
I was not asking you to explain quantum mechanics, nor did I know that it is not your area of expertise until now. I hoped that you might have been able to evaluate it and that you could have indicated a simpler source of material that I could learn from.
I consider myself to be a sceptical Christian in that I do not believe in the so-called miracles from the Holy Bible but I try hard to show love and understanding to people I come into contact with. All the evidence I’ve considered suggests that if there is a God such a Being prefers to act through the Laws of everything that was brought to be, as we perceive it.
To be honest, I often wonder if we invented ‘our’ God to satisfy our perception of humanity’s self-importance. This may be one explanation of why our expectations of our God are so rarely met. We humans war with each other, have contempt for (or dominion over) other life forms and disregard our duties to our offspring to take care of our planet and this may explain why God if God exists, is apparently uninterested in us.
As someone wrote on the Quora website, “Knowledge of the limits of our knowledge is as important as any other knowledge.” I would add that we humans have a propensity to invent things to fill the gaps in our knowledge.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 22, 2017 at 9:12 pm
Dinos:
I was interested to read your comment to Bob, Post 88, especially your comment
“I often wonder if we invented ‘our’ God to satisfy our perception of humanity’s self-importance. This may be one explanation of why our expectations of our God are so rarely met.”
Accordingly I offer my commentary as we seem to be; if not on the same page at least, we have been on the same path as seekers of truth or truism as we understand it within ourselves.
“THE GENESIS OF ATHEISM MANIFESTO:
sets forth the Principle Statements of Understanding.
The MISSION Statement of The Order of Worldwide Reverence (OWR): Humanity Uniting Humans (HUH)
“OWR WORLD”:
When you are wrong be quick to apologize; when you are right, be quick to forgive for it is the Sanctity of Life at Peace in a Clean Healthy Environment for Everything and Everyone, Everywhere on Earth that we strive to attain; bringing heaven to earth fulfills the Proverbial Prayer: “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”, Matt 6:10 for “the Kingdom is within you”, Luke 17:21; bring it out in the open where it can be seen and be a benefit to others in humanity who are of peace, good will and like mind. It is the dream of every man, woman and child.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND a little recognized concept called Pregenesis:
What God is:
God is a Simply Structured System to Shape and Satisfy the Searching Sage who Asks, Seeks and Knocks.
The Will of God IS the Will of Man because the Will of God was created to be the Will of Man; not about the ordinary will of man, the Will of God was created to be about the BEST Will of Man……. which necessitated caveats. In case I said that to fast; you see, we are past masters at complicating the issue;
in other words, the First Seven Assertions of the Will of Man broadly state that at the dawning of intellectual thought of conscious awareness, the question necessarily arose………Why? and then about Self, the answers flowed forth:
CHAPTER 1:
THE DAWNING:
[1] MAN created God in his own image and gave Him the Perfect Attributes of Deity.
[2] THESE are those attributes which Man aspires to but the likes of which Man has also determined to be impossible to achieve
[3] MAN sets the highest standards for his God and then pre-ordains those standards to be unreachable by Man using the phrase “God Willing” thus insuring
[4] THE justification for Man as he goes about his business of being just the opposite of the attributes he has given to his God
[5] BEING stupid, unforgiving, greedy, a liar, a cheat, a stealer, a killer, a deceiver and a most hateful and
[6] MURDEROUS character of which even among his own kind many cannot believe
[7] HE IS capable of the worse acts of atrocity on his fellow man, the environment and the life forms which support him
[8] PRAYING to a god is like praying to yourself.
[9] PRAYER works only when one prays to some one, a person, who can answer prayer: when you have a toothache you pray to the dentist to relieve your pain
[10] YOU pray to the judge to give you justice, to your family or the bank for a financial loan; you call 911 for help
[11] THOSE are prayers that have effect, prayers to a reality capable of answering them, not a caricature concept myth named God
[12] THOUSANDS of gods have been created since before time and events were recorded and they are all relegated to the failed gods of mythology and
[13] LUMPING the failed gods into the one true God, Allah, Jehovah, Yaweh is worse than merely useless
[14] AS mankind fights and kills in the name of their pet myth and cannot get on with living for a cause rather than dying for a cause
[15] EVERY society has it’s religious, mythical symbols and entities
[16] MANY wasted talents have been snuffed out by false religious fanaticism and teachings and
[17] HAVE deceived many throughout the centuries, continuing unto this very day and that’s what’s wrong with mankind
[18] GET prayer to the supernatural out of the mindset along with witchcraft, voodooism and rain dances
[19] SANTA and SATAN are variable spellings of each other but do not exist outside the metaphorical mind concepts .
[20] THEY merely satisfy an emotional crutch, a thumb sucker for adults
[21] THERE is no god but that which was created by man
[22] WE DID NOT understand why it rained, so we created a Rain God. When we came to understand meteorology, the Rain God was sacrificed on the alter of science
[23] WE HAVE abandoned our Gods in the name of progress. Now we have but one left, and when we are a stronger species
[24 WE Will abandon the Singularity too but without neglecting the metaphorical concepts our created Singularity represents
[25] HIGHER POWERS? Almighty powers? Sure! stardust and forces, gravity and electricity, light, magnetism, big matter, small matter, black holes, dark energy, dark matter, no matter.
[26] BUT, personal supernatural gods that intervene in human affairs, occasionally, by prayer, hope, wish, dream, supplication, entreaty, petition, plea, request, do not exist except in the minds of men put there by religious magicians and perpetuated by clergy wannabee mediators.
[27] “OKAY, “OKAY”, you might say, “we get it. You don’t believe in god but at least religious organizations do a lot of good work especially in the third world. Surely you can’t knock that?
[28] SO WHAT are you telling me? If they weren’t religious, they wouldn’t be doing this work? It’s not really coming from their hearts? They’re just doing it because they’re following orders? Is that what you’re saying?
[29] NO, THERE IS GOOD in the world; we know Good, we see and understand Good because there are Good people in the world and these “Good” people are Good despite religion; we know Good by its demonstration and that is the closest metaphor to God you can know, the human spirit as close to a personal god as one can be and children the closest to godlike purity humanity can observe.
[30] RELIGION ALWAYS claim “Good” people as their own and by that association take credit for the Good.
[31] ALL RELIGIONS derive from a person. Jesus said: “The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath, therefore Man is Master of the Sabbath” Mark 2:27. Thus is it that Religion falls within this parameter.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 22, 2017 at 9:18 pm
Dino’s:
To save you time:
Post 89 consist of
1,107 Words
6,193 Characters
7 Sentences
49 Paragraphs
Keyword Density
20 (5%) god
17 (5%) man
11 (3%) good
7 (2%) created
6 (2%) one
6 (2%) when
5 (1%) understand
5 (1%) prayer
5 (1%) gods
5 (1%) religious
🙂 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
June 23, 2017 at 5:13 am
Dinos, sorry for my confusion. I set up a Quora account and logged in, but I find the site somewhat rambling and disorganized. I use the web mostly for information searches. At first blush, Quora is more writers trying to impress others with their knowledge or questioners making obnoxious inquiries than a source of primary information. Still, I’ll add it to my favorites and explore some more.
I would also like to clarify something I said in comment 87 about not being able to prove the God hypothesis is false. What I should have said is one cannot design experiments which have the potential to prove that the God hypothesis is false. It’s how Popper distinguished between what constitutes scientific study and what is pseudoscience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 23, 2017 at 5:29 am
Thank you, Leo, the MISSION statement accords with my own thinking to a large measure.
The length of posts is no longer an issue. I have been a full-time, live-in Carer to my mother in her home for over three years and I’ve come to the point that I can no longer carry on. Her dementia and medical issues have become too challenging for me. She is currently in a medical ward of a General Hospital here in Cambridge, England. She will be discharged from the hospital to a Care Home with Nursing and Dementia facilities within walking distance of my home soon.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 23, 2017 at 5:47 am
Hello Bob,
I re-visited the Quora website and I agree with your assessment that writers are trying to impress others with their knowledge etc. I didn’t intend to use the site to provide answers to my Google search, “Can something come from nothing?” However, one of the early results was from Quora and the writer seemed to have some grasp of the Quantum Mechanics involved. Her work was lengthy and detailed but to me, it was hard to understand or discuss. I was aware of the discussions about the cosmos between you and Frank and that’s why I sought your opinions.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 23, 2017 at 6:52 am
Dino’s:
My wife’s career is taking care of the elderly and special needs individuals. When you first mentioned about your Mom I wanted to suggest the alternative you have now chosen as some elderly really require special care that facilities are designed to accommodate and so at the risk of appearing in compassionate or even arrogant I did not suggest that option at the time. Now however I commend you for having made a wise decision without neglecting the love you understandably have for your Mom.
Best for you both.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 23, 2017 at 3:21 pm
Thank you, Leo, for your thoughtful consideration prior to my decision and your kind words following it. I am optimistic that this move will improve the quality of life for both my mum and for me.
Peace and love to us all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 24, 2017 at 2:15 am
Dinos, I agree with Leo. We spent 11 years dealing with my mother’s Alzheimer’s. For her final 5 years she was in a dedicated Alzheimer’s care facility with 24/7 nursing coverage. You are indeed doing the right thing, for her and for you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 24, 2017 at 5:23 am
Thank you, Bob. It is amazing how long people can live with Alzheimer’s Disease, in you mother’s case, sixteen years. My mother has had it for all the time I’ve looked after her, which is a little over three years. I don’t know how long she’ll live for as she has heart failure and the organ is enlarged. Dementia and her heart failure are too much responsibility and stress for me.
Peace and love to us all,
Dinos
LikeLike
July 9, 2017 at 5:32 pm
Bob, in post # 69. you wrote, “I find it disheartening so many readers, of both science and theology, want to be told what to believe rather than do their own research and come to their own conclusions.”
Here’s another option: How to Read the Bible
The Bible Project | 3 videos | 26,753 views | Last updated on Jun 22, 2017
This ongoing series explores the origins, content, and purpose of the Bible. Here you’ll be introduced to some of the basic skills necessary for reading the bible effectively. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak06MSETeo4&list=PLH0Szn1yYNedn4FbBMMtOlGN-BPLQ54IH |
LikeLike
July 10, 2017 at 11:33 am
With all due respect this is what Bob was talking about in his post by allowing other people to tell you how to read what to read and what to believe while you read….Spurgeon, like many before and after him are good people trying their best to do the right thing but the belief system they espouse is the same belief system their ancestors espoused with very little difference to the substance of the belief and the hinges of its foundation.
So if you want some insight into interpreting the bible you need to talk to people other than Christian preachers and born again believers who wouldn’t recognize Jesus if you tripped over me.
LikeLike
July 11, 2017 at 6:49 am
Leo, I think you are a bit too harsh is your comments, or maybe your expectations are a bit too high. The videos are only about 5-7 minutes each, so you can’t expect a scholarly discussion of JEDP authorship of the Hebrew in the Old Testament or a Bart Ehrman like analysis of the Greek in the New. The approach to the Old Testament is a typical Christian one – interpreting everything there as a pretext to what will come in the New Testament. I can’t fault them for that, with the exception that the practitioners of the Jewish faith would probably disagree with such an assessment. I did find the discussion of the narrative vs. poetic vs. discourse literary styles of the texts interesting; I had never really thought of scripture in that context before. I was also encouraged by the video presenter’s adoption (or at least a claim of adoption) of a metaphorical approach to scripture interpretation. It’s certainly easier to reconcile that approach with modern day knowledge of science and archeological and Bible scholarship, compared to the almost willful ignorance of science and scholarship that is required when adopting an absolute, literal interpretation of scripture.
LikeLike
July 12, 2017 at 1:13 am
Bob Mason:
Mea Culpa Bob. It’s all done in love…tough love sometimes but love nonetheless. Jesus was tougher on them than I am…he was not too kind in his Woe to You commentary in Matthew 23…The whole chapter is very harsh unto damnation altogether, but he always displayed a willingness to welcome the repentant wise; and then, like it never even happened….All correction is grievous to be borne
He who swears from the word of God, cannot stand to be admonished.
“Man unchastised learns naught” Just look at Donald Trump to see the result of that quote.
LikeLike
July 13, 2017 at 5:25 pm
EVIDENCE FOR FAITH
The John 10:10 Project | 9 videos | 134 views | Last updated on May 10, 2017
“Christianity has been successfully attacked and marginalized because those who professed belief were unable to defend their faith.” ~William Wilberforce
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH3TjlIBvoo&list=PLMHh8MRqp2bXdwyWCnW5LndLZfsKJ40ue |
LikeLike
July 13, 2017 at 5:30 pm
THE HEAVENS DECLARE – The John 10:10 Project
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wdILkarfNc |
Published on May 9, 2017
Explore the depths of the universe from the vantage points of the Hubble Space telescope and the International Space Station. Then, reflect on God’s creative power through inspired words from the Psalms, Job and Isaiah. Featuring elegant renditions of O FOR A THOUSAND TONGUES and ODE TO JOY.
This video is an excerpt from the documentary KING OF CREATION.
LikeLike
July 13, 2017 at 6:45 pm
Please stop taking space pushing somebody else’s video; this is a comments section by posters IN THEIR OWN WORDS. How long does it take for a heinz pickle to hear the message…time after time after time.
LikeLike
July 15, 2017 at 3:36 pm
ltg, for the narcissist within you – a lesson in judgment:
| http://www.119ministries.com/teachings/video-teachings/detail/judge-not/ |
LikeLike
July 15, 2017 at 5:47 pm
WHY ARE YOU BEING KEPT IN THE DARK?!: NEW DNA HARD DRIVE TO REVOLUTIONIZE SCIENCE – ron johnson | Streamed live on Jul 14, 2017
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4MpEkUhkJs |
Broadcasting LIVE….
LikeLike
July 16, 2017 at 6:43 am
FA:
If you can’t speak in your own words, it’s because you have nothing to say and I do not chase your videos.
LikeLike
July 16, 2017 at 7:42 am
FA:
The problem with you is the same problem with religious zealots worldwide. You give up your mind and allow religious dogma insanity to do your thinking for you and so whenever you have to say something you can’t; you must resort to other to do your talking for you as if turning your mind over to them supports your argument that allows religious tyrants to use their manipulative psychology to keep you in thrall while sucking any common sense you may have once possessed and now lost as you so clearly demonstrate with each video you post.
Academia knows one thing: how to keep you in the grips of stupidity while trying to sound academic. So lolable. And you just cannot see it.
As Jesus said the blind stay blind lest they come to their senses and repent of their stupidity.
LikeLike
July 16, 2017 at 7:49 am
FA
Here is the extreme of religious insanity you number among the billions worldwide who are in same tyranny to more or lessor degrees. Watch yourself as you watch this bizarre religion……………following their God.
LikeLike
July 18, 2017 at 8:01 am
Did The Past Really Happen? – Vsauce | Published on Feb 6, 2015
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2jkV4BsN6U#t=715.981 |
Greece is full of wonderful new things and wonderful old things. But when WE become old things, will our ruins also be tourist attractions?
**Sources and extra info below [in the description box]!!**
LikeLike
July 16, 2019 at 12:26 pm
Bob writes:
Aristotle argued that matter is eternal. Where are you getting your information?
LikeLike