Questions for Evolution-Deniers

[ricmat]

No, I don’t think science gives insight into what Christians refer to as "the end times." But if Fundamentalist Christians want to interpret the “end times” in literal terms, they will at least have to address what science can predict about the future of the earth, the solar system and the universe.

Your statement above in bold is inconsistent with your previous posts, below. But before going to that…

It’s not just fundamentalist Christians who believe that there will be a second coming of Christ. My gosh, we are in the advent season right now. What do you think the weekly and daily mass readings have been about for the last few weeks?

I’m not sure why you are connecting Fundamentalist Christians with “having to address what science can predict…” It seems to me that perhaps that is your view instead? Your posts consistently show a disbelief in any theology which does not have a scientific basis. One can look to science to give insight into Creation (e.g. in the form of awesomness & beauty, or even to sense the hand of God), but to dismiss the revelation of thousands of years because science disagrees with it is a mistake you seem to be making.

Personally, I believe that the end times will come when nobody expects it, least of all science. I do not believe as you do that the universe will “evolve” for billions of years because science says so. God will end the universe when he wants to.

The challenge of a “beatific vision” model is what its relation to the present universe would be: why have this universe at all if it is utterly irrelevant to the “next life” but continues to unroll for a hundred billion years after our deaths?

snip…

As Christians in 2009 our best hope is to read our tradition in light of what we know about the evolving universe we currently inhabit, and see how that maps onto “eternity.”

If you are not looking to science to give you insight into the evolving universe and how that maps onto eternity, then what exactly are you looking to for that insight? It certainly looks from your above quote that you are looking to science.

But I’ll answer your first question - the beatific vision has nothing to do with the universe unrolling for billions of years. Why you would look to science to give you an answer like that is, well, almost beyond comprehension given your job. The beatific vision involves heaven, not the cosmos. The cosmos is not heaven.

(3) It appears the universe will run down in an entropic heat death some tens of billions of years from now. That would be a circumstance not irrelevant to a theological discussion that has often involved speculation on the end of time.

The universe dying an entropic heat death is a scientific concept. You say that it is relevant to theology. Again, you are using science to give you insight into the end times.

Yes, assuming it lasts that long.

Yes, it would be irrelevant to end time theological discussions. Time will end when Christ returns. Christ is not limited by “When the universe dies the heat death in billions of years.” Nobody but the Father knows when the end is. You really think the scientists have it pegged with the 10’s of billions of years number? StA - have they measured the heavens with a span (or the current version thereof?)

Do you even believe that there will be a second coming of Christ?

(3) Cosmology and eschatology are related in a strange way. Every theology presupposes a cosmology, but also presupposes tha God is Lord of that cosmos. Whether God would stop cosmic expansion to meet a terrestrial timetable I don’t know.

From what I’ve read, non Judeo-Christian theologies assume that the cosmos already existed, and that god or gods worked to create (or destroy or modify) things within that cosmos. Our theology is different, as it should be because it is correct. God is certainly lord of the cosmos because he not only worked in the cosmos but created it as well.

So I’ll answer your question above as well - God’s timetable is what matters, not any timetable science comes up with. Science can give us insights into God’s hand working in the past to create the things we see today. But science is beyond it’s limits in predicting the end. Jesus says so specifically.

As an engineer, I use science all the time. I think it is fun and a wonderful gift to society. Science can also give great insight into the works of God as found in creation. But I also realize that science has limits, and I’m not just talking about “we need more time.” We will never understand things “scientifically” at the level that God understands those same things. I also realize that knowledge of science causes much pride in scientists and those who rely on them too much. But as it says in the bible (which you call a book of myths) God will cast down the mighty from their thrones and will scatter the proud in their conceit. The more they say “we’ve found the ultimate answer to reality - the God particle” the more they will fall off their thrones. The more they say “God is not necessary to explain the universe” the more they will be scattered in their conceit.

 

[edwest2]

If one reads what Jesus said and the Book of Revelation, it is clear as to what we should expect. There is a clear and well defined difference between those who disregard these things and those who do not. The recent false statements that Christians desire the destruction of the world should be completely ignored. The end will come on God’s timetable, and certainly not according to anything devised by science.

Politically and socially, what is desired is the worship of the mind of man - only insights from men, especially men untainted by religion, are valid. Religious writings, including the Bible, offer only symbolisms but not a word about reality. As the angels told His disciples, the same Jesus they saw ascending will return.

This obsessive talk and the accompanying marketing campaign are getting heavy rotation. Look at the discussions on amazon.com. it wouldn’t surprise me if a few who post here post there also. The new fascism is science, and the Dictatorship of Relativism.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

If one reads what Jesus said and the Book of Revelation, it is clear as to what we should expect. There is a clear and well defined difference between those who disregard these things and those who do not. The recent false statements that Christians desire the destruction of the world should be completely ignored. The end will come on God’s timetable, and certainly not according to anything devised by science.

Politically and socially, what is desired is the worship of the mind of man - only insights from men, especially men untainted by religion, are valid. Religious writings, including the Bible, offer only symbolisms but not a word about reality. As the angels told His disciples, the same Jesus they saw ascending will return.

This obsessive talk and the accompanying marketing campaign are getting heavy rotation. Look at the discussions on amazon.com. it wouldn’t surprise me if a few who post here post there also. The new fascism is science, and the Dictatorship of Relativism.

Peace,
Ed

I agree.

It is unfortunate that even Catholic Theologians have somehow put more faith in science than in 2000 years of revealed truth. I suspect that they are afraid of their science buddies laughing at them. But as Jesus said

Luk 6:22 Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. (23) Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way.

(26) Woe to you when all speak well of you, for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way.

 

[edwest2]

To ricmat -

At one time, science had a context. It was my favorite class in Catholic school. Now, today, it is the greatest thing ever and we ignore it to our peril ??? When I hear about education, I often hear that we aren’t teaching kids science - which means evolution. Then a bunch of books and articles and scientists go on the campaign trail: “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” (R. Dawkins)

Science is silent about God? No way. Just look up the various posts here saying there is no evidence for a literal Adam and Eve.

Scripture has become symbol, good words or ideas. Only science can guide us. Trust in science. A bunch of fallible men who, in some cases, have lent their time, titles and talents toward dismissing God?

As it says in the Bible, if it’s a work of men it will be overthrown. Sure, science will pick up a few followers but these people will find that is an incomplete view of this world and this life. Witness the anti-theists who post here. Why do they take the time? Jesus died for all men, including them.

We are called to spread the true Gospel to the whole world. Now, the gospel of science is being proposed.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

Leave matters of science to scientists.

Leave matters of faith to the church.

As far as the Big Bang theory goes, where did all the matter come from that exploded at time=0?

Sure a scientist may be able to create life in a test tube, but let him try to do it starting with nothing. No chemicals, no heat source, no test tube.

Peace,
John Marie Philomena

 

[rossum]

As far as the Big Bang theory goes, where did all the matter come from that exploded at time=0?

Read some Stephen Hawking:There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

• A Brief History of Time
  Cosmology is a very very strange place.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

As far as the Big Bang theory goes, where did all the matter come from that exploded at time=0?

Read some Stephen Hawking:There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

• A Brief History of TimeCosmology is a very very strange place.

rossum

The Big Bang was an “explosion” not just of matter & energy, but also of time and space. The total energy of the universe may be zero, but that doesn’t account for where the universe itself came from for the energy to be in. And it doesn’t account for “time.”

 

[edwest2]

Leave matters of science to scientists.

Leave matters of faith to the church.

As far as the Big Bang theory goes, where did all the matter come from that exploded at time=0?

Sure a scientist may be able to create life in a test tube, but let him try to do it starting with nothing. No chemicals, no heat source, no test tube.

Peace,
John Marie Philomena

It cannot be that matters of science should be left to scientists. They have left their labs, overstepped their bounds, and attack something they don’t believe in in the first place. That makes sense? I don’t think so.

If they reject God, that is up to them. If they preach Science against God, then the Church has and will continue to respond.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

The Big Bang was an “explosion” not just of matter & energy, but also of time and space. The total energy of the universe may be zero, but that doesn’t account for where the universe itself came from for the energy to be in. And it doesn’t account for “time.”

See The Myth of the Beginning of Time for the possible explanation by String Theory:So, when did time begin? Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least two potentially testable theories plausibly hold that the universe–and therefore time–existed well before the big bang. If either scenario is right, the cosmos has always been in existence and, even if it recollapses one day, will never end.

As I said, cosmology can get very strange indeed.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

As I said, cosmology can get very strange indeed.

rossum

So can interpretations of cosmology

 

[Techno2000]

My point was that to a Buddhist any form of eternal life is suffering. The longer the life the more tears cried. With an eternal life the ocean of tears is infinite.

It is a good example of where the assumptions behind the posts many Christian write here do not apply to Buddhists.

rossum

Buddhists must be very ignorant of what Christian Heaven is…it is eternal Bliss, there is no suffering at all, that’s why it’s call HEAVEN !!!

 

[Thing]

Read some Stephen Hawking:There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

• A Brief History of Time
  Cosmology is a very very strange place.
  It does’nt help the case at all, at all. If there was zero energy in the beginning what energy then caused the big bang. Zero energy within nothing, sounds infinitely stable.
  rossum

 

[Thing]

I bow to your superior knowledge of Christianity. My point was that to a Buddhist any form of eternal life is suffering. The longer the life the more tears cried. With an eternal life the ocean of tears is infinite.

It is a good example of where the assumptions behind the posts many Christian write here do not apply to Buddhists.

rossum

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away.

 

[rossum]

Buddhists must be very ignorant of what Christian Heaven is…it is eternal Bliss, there is no suffering at all, that’s why it’s call HEAVEN !!!

Part of the definition of suffering goes “separation from the loved is suffering”. Since both Christians and Buddhists are enjoined to “love your neighbour as yourself” and “love others as you love yourself” respectively then all of us should love all other human beings. Since in the Christian heaven I will be separated from those other human beings in hell, whom I love as myself then I will be sad and cry tears in heaven. You can only be happy in heaven if you do not love your neighbours in hell.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It does’nt help the case at all, at all. If there was zero energy in the beginning what energy then caused the big bang. Zero energy within nothing, sounds infinitely stable.

1 The zero energy state is far from stable. Google “quantum foam”.

2 See the link in my post #268 in this thread.

rossum

 

[rossum]

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away.

Then God acts to prevent us loving our fellow humans in hell? Why would I want to follow such an anti-love God?

The Buddha said “love others as you love yourself”. He did not make any exceptions for those in hell. In depictions of the Buddhist Wheel of Life the Buddha is shown preaching to those in the hells. Why do you expect me to stop loving those in hell? Why would I not be sad at being separated from them? Why would I not be sad at their plight?

rossum

 

[Thing]

Then God acts to prevent us loving our fellow humans in hell? Why would I want to follow such an anti-love God?

The Buddha said “love others as you love yourself”. He did not make any exceptions for those in hell. In depictions of the Buddhist Wheel of Life the Buddha is shown preaching to those in the hells. Why do you expect me to stop loving those in hell? Why would I not be sad at being separated from them? Why would I not be sad at their plight?

rossum

What makes you think you would stop loving them. Do you think Christians hate their family in hell. I would say their loved ones are lost in hell beyond help, think of the impassable chasm in hades.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. 23 And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: 24 And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. 25 And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.

22 “Abraham’s bosom”… The place of rest, where the souls of the saints resided, till Christ had opened heaven by his death.

26 And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither. 27 And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren, 28 That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. 29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.

31 And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.

 

[rossum]

What makes you think you would stop loving them. Do you think Christians hate their family in hell.

Since part of the definition of suffering is separation from what is loved then there will be suffering in heaven due to separation from people who are loved.[The Buddha said:] “Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of Suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering; separation from the loved is suffering; not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.” (Emphasis added)

— Samyutta Nikaya 56.11
That is the Buddhist point about the Christian heaven.

rossum

 

[Thing]

1 The zero energy state is far from stable. Google “quantum foam”.

2 See the link in my post #268 in this thread.

rossum

Quantum foam is a speculation caused by an idea of virtual particles. Virtual particles and ‘real’ particles are connected in the sense that they are both the result of excitation in an underlying quantum field. So our ‘real’ particles are the other side of the virtual particle coin. Particles, or this universe, began science says, at the big bang. A point in time and space where everything that exsts began. The paths of all the galaxies and stars traced back return to this one point. Particles began at this point, so also must virtual particles have begun at this point and so too the concept of quantum foam begins at this same point. In the sense that none of these things existed before they created at this point including quantum foam.
This is, of course, my idea, I accept no responsibility etc., etc.

 

[Thing]

Since part of the definition of suffering is separation from what is loved then there will be suffering in heaven due to separation from people who are loved.[The Buddha said:] “Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of Suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering; separation from the loved is suffering; not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.” (Emphasis added)

— Samyutta Nikaya 56.11
That is the Buddhist point about the Christian heaven.

rossum

What makes you think you will be separated from your loved ones. They may be in hell and “there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither” but perhaps you can still see them or know them though they suffer. I would not say there is suffering in heaven. Everything is in Gods hands, even those who must be in hell with the devil are still in Gods hands. And those in heaven are also in Gods hands. Remember everyone must suffer in life - there is nothing unusual in suffering. We support, or ought to support one another while we suffer in life, but we don’t have to be miserable while we suffer. People in hell continue their suffering, there is no reason why we have to be totally separated from them so that we never see them or know them again nor do we necessarily need to be miserable. Those in heaven suffered in life but there was no reason why they should also be miserable. Think of all the little children in 3rd world countries with nothing, no food, no bed to rest their heads, no family, but while they suffer they still smile. Misery and suffering are not joined at the hip.