C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
That’s the wonderful thing science does correct itself and refines our understanding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
AndyHolland
Guest
If you ignore the extraordinary evidence all around you, why do you require more?Im not convinced by stories, they do not constitute evidence for supernatural claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What does entropy have to do with anything?
Study cells and the immense structures, information flow, reproductive qualities, protein synthesis etc…
An “ordinary” single celled creature is extraordinary.
Entropy (death) is ordinary, life is extraordinary. Every sunrise is extraordinary.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I know plenty about cells, there a product of evolution.If you ignore the extraordinary evidence all around you, why do you require more?
Study cells and the immense structures, information flow, reproductive qualities, protein synthesis etc…
An “ordinary” single celled creature is extraordinary.
Entropy (death) is ordinary, life is extraordinary. Every sunrise is extraordinary.
In what sense as a sunrise extraordinary evidence for the existence of an omnipotent creature?
A sunrise is good evidence for a heliocentric system.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Have you ever heard of the ineffable?A sunrise is good evidence for a heliocentric system.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Yes, carry on?Have you ever heard of the ineffable?
T
twb1621
Guest
But when do you know the result is the final and correct solution. If you could know that, there would never be a need to correct any. Anyway, good luke with the links.That’s the wonderful thing science does correct itself and refines our understanding.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Just because you refine a theory does not mean you dismiss what you had before. It just futheres ones understanding of the cosmos. For example when general relativity came along, we did not throw aways newtons law’s.But when do you know the result is the final and correct solution. If you could know that, there would never be a need to correct any. Anyway, good luke with the links.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
To reduce the sunrise to its physical attributes is to reject the *phenomenon *of a sunset. This phenomenon is ineffably wonderful, and that “wonderfulness” merits an explanation. You may choose to say that it is explained by our evolutionary capacity to appreciate beauty, but how do sunsets help us reproduce? There is a beyond-ness, as it were, to the sunset.Yes, carry on?
I cannot believe that anyone who has really seen a sunset, with his eyes open, does not believe – or, at very least, want to believe – that there is something greater than himself. The ineffable experience is a proof of spiritual reality, which operates beyond the realm of reasoning.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
There is something greater than me, its called the cosmos. Its a mind blowing place and the real explanations surrounding the cosmos are infinitely greater and more wonderful than silly myths. We are the stuff of stars, what can compare to that.To reduce the sunrise to its physical attributes is to reject the *phenomenon *of a sunset. This phenomenon is ineffably wonderful, and that “wonderfulness” merits an explanation. You may choose to say that it is explained by our evolutionary capacity to appreciate beauty, but how do sunsets help us reproduce? There is a beyond-ness, as it were, to the sunset.
I cannot believe that anyone who has really seen a sunset, with his eyes open, does not believe – or, at very least, want to believe – that there is something greater than himself. The ineffable experience is a proof of spiritual reality, which operates beyond the realm of reasoning.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
You said there are real explanations surrounding the cosmos. But what is the explanation for the cosmos? You would say it needs none; it just is. But I say that if the cosmos is greater than you (a being with consciousness), you must attribute to the cosmos something more than vastness. I assume that you do, although what that something is is beyond me.There is something greater than me, its called the cosmos. Its a mind blowing place and the real explanations surrounding the cosmos are infinitely greater and more wonderful than silly myths. We are the stuff of stars, what can compare to that.
What you call cosmos, I call God. So, in my mind, you’re a theist; you just haven’t realized it yet.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Your great at telling me what i’d say, but you haven’t been correct one. Haha, not im not a theist. We don’t know the origin of the cosmos, ANY of us. At least i can admit it.You said there are real explanations surrounding the cosmos. But what is the explanation for the cosmos? You would say it needs none; it just is. But I say that if the cosmos is greater than you (a being with consciousness), you must attribute to the cosmos something more than vastness. I assume that you do, although what that something is is beyond me.
What you call cosmos, I call God. So, in my mind, you’re a theist; you just haven’t realized it yet.
T
twb1621
Guest
I agree in some cases and in other cases they have been dismissed. But that is science. I am anxious to here what you may think of the information I offered you when you get the chance. I know there is a lot to refer to and it is only a small collection. I don’t know what your primary interests are but I think I offered a decent spectrum.Just because you refine a theory does not mean you dismiss what you had before. It just futheres ones understanding of the cosmos. For example when general relativity came along, we did not throw aways newtons law’s.
A
AndyHolland
Guest
Consider a video response - Hubbel photos and some music:I know plenty about cells, there a product of evolution.
In what sense as a sunrise extraordinary evidence for the existence of an omnipotent creature?
A sunrise is good evidence for a heliocentric system.
youtube.com/watch?v=6-QLuRraA1c&feature=related
With all our universities, computers, refinaries, factories, we have yet to come close to anything as marvelous, complex, balanced, elegant, adaptive, reproduct and useful as a cell.
We experience God in our Liturgy. Come and see. God became man so man could become like God.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Amazing isn’t it? With the click of a button you are looking at pictures of billions of years in the past. Your loooking through billions and billions of miles. Your seeing pictures that every other generation of man could only dream about. Down to the combination of Rockets, satelites, telescopes, computers, flat screen TVs, electricity… i could go on and own. That video is shows exactly why i have so much repect for science. That video was brought to you by SCIENCE, that video is a testament to SCIENCE. With out modern sceince you would be like every other generation that has every lived, and only be able to dream about seeing such things.Consider a video response - Hubbel photos and some music:
youtube.com/watch?v=6-QLuRraA1c&feature=related
With all our universities, computers, refinaries, factories, we have yet to come close to anything as marvelous, complex, balanced, elegant, adaptive, reproduct and useful as a cell.
We experience God in our Liturgy. Come and see. God became man so man could become like God.
But you can dismiss all that at the drop of a hat, and somehow warp your mind into thanking a “god” for that? Don’t thank a god for that, thank the PEOPLE that brought you those images, THANK SCIENCE!
With all our universities, computers, refinaries, factories, we have yet to come close to anything as marvelous, complex, balanced, elegant, adaptive, reproduct and useful as a cell.
Oh you mean the cells discovered by SCIENCE??? Yes they are wonderful products of evolution.
G
gamorgan
Guest
Darwin, in fairness, regardless of how much “SCIENCE” (in your emphasis) has shown us, and no matter how justifiable it is, the magnificence of the cosmos can hardly be shoved to the side as a way of elevating science over religion. As Hawking is well aware, and Heidegger before him, and Putnam as well come to think of it today, science is and must always work with that which already exists in a descriptive sort of way. (According to Heisenburg and Popper, it can’t even create new paradigms when data contradicts belief, but must rely upon philosophical imagination!). Science, for this reason, can never explain why, as Heidegger put it, there is “something rather than nothing.” This is the ultimate question of philosophy, and it hinges directly to the answer which man gives to himself about the meaning of his existence. Religion, in general, across human cultures, always shows, through its symbols and myths, a reverence for that intractable mystery of existence. It doesn’t matter if Hawking’s model is right, and the universe has existed for 13 billion years. The energy in that singularity is still presupposed, and no scientific model can “get beneath” the presupposition of energy in some shape or fashion. So do not mistaken tertiary questions about particular things with the ultimate question about why there is something rather than nothing. The question about God is such an ultimate question. Likewise the question of life’s origins.
On the same note, let us not suppose we can speak of whether or not God “exists.” This foolish exorcise can only be undertaken by someone who thinks of God as a being somewhere in the sky Who caused everything to come into being in a mechanical way, like Aquinas’ first cause. The scientist can rightly contest this line of argument and say that, instead of God as the brute fact, why not the universe itself? Or energy? Besides the obviously problematic materialism of the first suggestion, the theist in the proper sense is still powerless to refute this line of argument because he has already improperly framed the question. Further, if God is a being, He is not the source of being, and must have been created himself. The Christian belief in creation ex nihilo is supposed to protect from just this sort of foolish exorcise in thought about God. It, obviously, has not been sufficient in itself…
A little philosophical insight recognizes that there must be “something” posited as the brute fact somewhere along the way of our thought. Since the question is ultimately about being, I, and many thinkers like Tillich, think that “being-itself,” though a highly metaphorical phrase, is a good place to start. This allows science to, perhaps, discover something of a better category than “quantum energy,” if exploration in the future takes us in that direction. In an analogous way in the religious sphere, the question about God or not God is not a question of whether or not, but what. Something must be the brute fact which resists total non-being. The question, in other words, is this: is the ground of being personal or not?
Now I think it fair to assert that that which emerges in the universe says something about its source, ground, or origin. Matter points to energy, Life to matter, Psyche to life. In each case, though, something completely new has emerged which could not have been imagined by the rules of the lower level in one’s wildest imagination. This led the philosopher Immanuel Kant to posit that life, as a principle, must be present already in matter (science was decidedly materialist in Kant’s day, so life being inherent in matter was a radical assertion). This is called hylozoism. However, all life processes, as Aristotle was aware, have an inner telos or aim. It cannot ever be completely reduced, in other words, to matter, because matter shows no such teleology. Thus, something behind or below each must be presupposed from which the principles of spontaneity can draw. This is especially pointed at the level of the self.
The scientist, by definition, tries to remove himself, and for that reason the personal, from the universe he studies. This is what the scientist is supposed to do. But at what point does the scientist stop looking honestly at that very universe which has personal beings in it? The scientist cannot remove himself, or the rest of those personal beings whom the universe has given rise. From whence their origin? They can hardly be reduced to biological processes, just as life cannot be reduced to mechanical material processes, and now that we see more profoundly, neither can mechanistic materialism be reduced to the quantum level, a highly spontaneous place. In other words, the question of the personal is also coincidental with the question of being itself. It cannot be reduced to some other estimable procedure definable by science. It is thus left to the realm of the ultimate, and therefore the question as to whether the ground of being is personal, that is, the “I AM,” must be left to the theologians.
GM
On the same note, let us not suppose we can speak of whether or not God “exists.” This foolish exorcise can only be undertaken by someone who thinks of God as a being somewhere in the sky Who caused everything to come into being in a mechanical way, like Aquinas’ first cause. The scientist can rightly contest this line of argument and say that, instead of God as the brute fact, why not the universe itself? Or energy? Besides the obviously problematic materialism of the first suggestion, the theist in the proper sense is still powerless to refute this line of argument because he has already improperly framed the question. Further, if God is a being, He is not the source of being, and must have been created himself. The Christian belief in creation ex nihilo is supposed to protect from just this sort of foolish exorcise in thought about God. It, obviously, has not been sufficient in itself…
A little philosophical insight recognizes that there must be “something” posited as the brute fact somewhere along the way of our thought. Since the question is ultimately about being, I, and many thinkers like Tillich, think that “being-itself,” though a highly metaphorical phrase, is a good place to start. This allows science to, perhaps, discover something of a better category than “quantum energy,” if exploration in the future takes us in that direction. In an analogous way in the religious sphere, the question about God or not God is not a question of whether or not, but what. Something must be the brute fact which resists total non-being. The question, in other words, is this: is the ground of being personal or not?
Now I think it fair to assert that that which emerges in the universe says something about its source, ground, or origin. Matter points to energy, Life to matter, Psyche to life. In each case, though, something completely new has emerged which could not have been imagined by the rules of the lower level in one’s wildest imagination. This led the philosopher Immanuel Kant to posit that life, as a principle, must be present already in matter (science was decidedly materialist in Kant’s day, so life being inherent in matter was a radical assertion). This is called hylozoism. However, all life processes, as Aristotle was aware, have an inner telos or aim. It cannot ever be completely reduced, in other words, to matter, because matter shows no such teleology. Thus, something behind or below each must be presupposed from which the principles of spontaneity can draw. This is especially pointed at the level of the self.
The scientist, by definition, tries to remove himself, and for that reason the personal, from the universe he studies. This is what the scientist is supposed to do. But at what point does the scientist stop looking honestly at that very universe which has personal beings in it? The scientist cannot remove himself, or the rest of those personal beings whom the universe has given rise. From whence their origin? They can hardly be reduced to biological processes, just as life cannot be reduced to mechanical material processes, and now that we see more profoundly, neither can mechanistic materialism be reduced to the quantum level, a highly spontaneous place. In other words, the question of the personal is also coincidental with the question of being itself. It cannot be reduced to some other estimable procedure definable by science. It is thus left to the realm of the ultimate, and therefore the question as to whether the ground of being is personal, that is, the “I AM,” must be left to the theologians.
GM
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I’m not trying to shove to the side the magnificence of the cosmos. The cosmos is a magnificent place, but that does not mean it was created by a “god”.
I’m pointing out the irony of posting a video of what science has revealed about the cosmos as evidence for an omnipotent creature. That video is a testament to science.
On the same note, let us not suppose we can speak of whether or not God “exists.” This foolish exorcise can only be undertaken by someone who thinks of God as a being somewhere in the sky Who caused everything to come into being in a mechanical way, like Aquinas’ first cause. The scientist can rightly contest this line of argument and say that, instead of God as the brute fact, why not the universe itself? Or energy? Besides the obviously problematic materialism of the first suggestion, the theist in the proper sense is still powerless to refute this line of argument because he has already improperly framed the question. Further, if God is a being, He is not the source of being, and must have been created himself. The Christian belief in creation ex nihilo is supposed to protect from just this sort of foolish exorcise in thought about God. It, obviously, has not been sufficient in itself…
This i agree with. It is pointless to speculate about the existence of a god, we just dont have enough evidence.
How do you as a christian couple this “This foolish exorcise can only be undertaken by someone who thinks of God as a being somewhere in the sky Who caused everything to come into being in a mechanical way,” with the fact that’s pretty much what christianity does say. That god was a man running about earth, healing sick, performing miracles etc.
I’m pointing out the irony of posting a video of what science has revealed about the cosmos as evidence for an omnipotent creature. That video is a testament to science.
On the same note, let us not suppose we can speak of whether or not God “exists.” This foolish exorcise can only be undertaken by someone who thinks of God as a being somewhere in the sky Who caused everything to come into being in a mechanical way, like Aquinas’ first cause. The scientist can rightly contest this line of argument and say that, instead of God as the brute fact, why not the universe itself? Or energy? Besides the obviously problematic materialism of the first suggestion, the theist in the proper sense is still powerless to refute this line of argument because he has already improperly framed the question. Further, if God is a being, He is not the source of being, and must have been created himself. The Christian belief in creation ex nihilo is supposed to protect from just this sort of foolish exorcise in thought about God. It, obviously, has not been sufficient in itself…
This i agree with. It is pointless to speculate about the existence of a god, we just dont have enough evidence.
How do you as a christian couple this “This foolish exorcise can only be undertaken by someone who thinks of God as a being somewhere in the sky Who caused everything to come into being in a mechanical way,” with the fact that’s pretty much what christianity does say. That god was a man running about earth, healing sick, performing miracles etc.
B
bobzills
Guest
I don’t see this as a “proof” that God exists. Many Protestants, for example, do not believe in the Real Presence, and furthermore, there are Protestants who would say that Jesus was less than God the Father.We experience God in our Liturgy. Come and see. God became man so man could become like God.
G
gamorgan
Guest
In a way, Darwin, and I mean no offense to you personally by this, but at some level I am asserting that mere theism and mere atheism are not exactly different. They both define God in a limited way. What we need is a better way of talking about it. You keep bringing up evidence, as if that could answer it. This leads me to believe that you did not understand the closing paragraph in my post. Since every emerging level of reality cannot be reduced to the former, and because science, regardless of proof, can never explain “why there is something rather than nothing,” the question as to whether the ground of being is personal or not is coincidental with the question of being. This means it can be reasoned about to some degree. Ultimately, however, one must experience it. Read your William James, and you will see belief in God as a reality (not as a particular being) is not in conflict with empiricism. Faith is not belief in something about which you have no evidence, it is an openness to a whole dimension of reality to which you were previously closed. Beyond this, I cannot say much to you Darwin. Further, do not presume that there is only one version of Christianity. Again, this is the mistake I hear so many atheists make. They presume the version of religion defined by their local fundy is it. I recommend reading some Paul Tillich for another picture.
The Apostle John asserts that “God is love.” How foolish would it be to engage in argumentation about whether love exists. Again, the question is not about whether it exists, but about whether we have the courage to live by it, and where that courage comes from.
GM
The Apostle John asserts that “God is love.” How foolish would it be to engage in argumentation about whether love exists. Again, the question is not about whether it exists, but about whether we have the courage to live by it, and where that courage comes from.
GM
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I like your reading recommendations, GM. Tillich’s idea is to affirm meaning over meaninglessness, which is an act of courage, not intellect. The intellect can discard (or thinks it can discard) certain ideas about God – certain “gods” – but it cannot find in itself anything but doubt. The universe demands to be radically accepted or radically rejected, on its own terms.In a way, Darwin, and I mean no offense to you personally by this, but at some level I am asserting that mere theism and mere atheism are not exactly different. They both define God in a limited way. What we need is a better way of talking about it. You keep bringing up evidence, as if that could answer it. This leads me to believe that you did not understand the closing paragraph in my post. Since every emerging level of reality cannot be reduced to the former, and because science, regardless of proof, can never explain “why there is something rather than nothing,” the question as to whether the ground of being is personal or not is coincidental with the question of being. This means it can be reasoned about to some degree. Ultimately, however, one must experience it. Read your William James, and you will see belief in God as a reality (not as a particular being) is not in conflict with empiricism. Faith is not belief in something about which you have no evidence, it is an openness to a whole dimension of reality to which you were previously closed. Beyond this, I cannot say much to you Darwin. Further, do not presume that there is only one version of Christianity. Again, this is the mistake I hear so many atheists make. They presume the version of religion defined by their local fundy is it. I recommend reading some Paul Tillich for another picture.
The Apostle John asserts that “God is love.” How foolish would it be to engage in argumentation about whether love exists. Again, the question is not about whether it exists, but about whether we have the courage to live by it, and where that courage comes from.
GM
You tell me that the cosmos is beautiful, Charles, but unless the universe contains meaning, it is not. It is ugly as ugly can be, because all it has for me is pain, forever, without ceasing, till I die.
I choose to affirm meaning in the cosmos, and I am not aware of what other source there can be for that meaning except God.
A
AndyHolland
Guest
Met an old dear lady in Church who had a multi-PhD biology genius nephew in-law. He confronted her because she would simply say “Thank God all the time” and he got irritated at her ‘ignorance.’I don’t see this as a “proof” that God exists. Many Protestants, for example, do not believe in the Real Presence, and furthermore, there are Protestants who would say that Jesus was less than God the Father.
Filled with the All Good Holy and Life Giving Spirit, she asked him a simple question, ‘if you don’t believe in God, where did all this stuff come from.’ - the genius then asked what stuff, and she said all the stuff - where did it all come from?
He dismissed her and walked off in a huff.
Some significant time later, he humbly said to her - ‘you know, you were right, I thought about what you said, there is a God.’ A couple months after that he was diagnosed with cancer and did not live long.
There is a God, Father, Intelligence, Simple, Compound, Universal - whose Icon is the Universe itself - a Son, eternally begotten of the Father before all Universes and the very Word, [pattern , DNA] of God who became man for our redemption from death, and the All Good Holy and Life Giving Spirit - the very Spirit of Truth that you can experience today if you really want to know the truth.
For all those who seek, find.
But if you know all things, why would you need to learn something, experience something, find something? If you know all things, why would you bother here? To make converts of us?
Scientists are truth seekers, or they are shams. Scientists know the limits of their science and study its limitations to know its potential - or they are hacks. Scientists are humbled by their science, or they are fools.
Its reality - taught by history, experience, and confirmed by rigor, scholarship and work…
The wise men came to the shepherd’s field on the last leg of their journey and asked the humble shepherds where the Christ was, and they took them that last distance to Bethlehem - the humble town of the King, and those who loved the stars followed a star to worship the day-spring from on-high.
It is telling that you can tell a man’s life in music, like Handel’s Messiah, using texts mostly written 700-1400 years before his birth. But if you will not believe the Scripture, why would you believe a man, even a man raised from the dead?..
- Status
- Not open for further replies.