Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
No. I was told of it from a very reliable source!
Then how come you believe it?
Because of the testimony of the Bible, the historical evidence, and my own personal experience with the risen Lord.
If you were not there, the only proof you have is someone telling you or reading it in a book. What if they were lying?
Hmmm, yes. But the Bible is the Word of God. As such, there is no question that one is reading the truth when one reads the Bible.
This is the basis of the argument that you creationists throw at ecolution. We have no proof, we cannot see it. We have plenty of facts, fossils, DNA, etc etc, but we have no REAL proof that it happened that way because we were not there. It makes evolution just as likely as your faith in the fact that someone said, that someone said, that he rose from the dead. As a matter of fact, it makes it all that much more likely. Because we do not have it third hand, we have it directly from fossil evidence.
Not so fast, friend. There is no proof of evolution, but there is a wealth of proof for the Bible.
I don't know if the Aztecs, Incas, Romans, Greeks, Goths, Huns, Scythians, Iroquis, Vikings, Druids, Celts, Hitties, Jebusites, Cartheginians or any other pagan people that I can think of really put that teaching into practice.
Hi Nebullis!
I loved this remark from Gill, from the link you give:
"...Perhaps... the world was built 'according to quantum mechanics but quantum mechanics itself prevents us from ever being sure.'"
I imagine that our putative prime mover may simply be a set of initial conditions plus an algorithm that states the rules of evolution of the universe. In this sense, it is "deterministic." But the interesting thing that Wolfram demonstrates is that (for Class 4 cellular automata at least, such as his "universal emulator," Rule 110), given a simple set of initial conditions, the iteration of even very simple rules over indefinitely long time periods can "spontaneously" generate systematic behavior that appears to be quite random.
I gather it all has to do with the ability of earlier iterations to convey information to later states of the system. If at later iterations we find that information has been "lost" along the way, apparent randomness is the result in at least parts of the total system.
The system as a whole will display local ordered structures throughout its evolution (which structures cannot be precisely anticipated or predicted with certainty), like little islands of order in a sea of apparent chaos. These "islands" preserve information and transmit it to future iterations. Now these little islands may themselves become attenuated, or they may themselves die out. But if all they are is "attenuated" (and not extinct) then they may cast forth a little thread into the future (so to speak), and at some later stage, bloom forth as yet another little island of order -- amid a roiling sea of chaos.
What we have is extraordinarily complex behavior, evolving from "simple" initial conditions and a fairly "simple" instruction set (i.e., algorithm.)
I probably haven't explained this very well. And things are about to get worse:
In any case, to the extent that natural selection seems to depend (at least in part) on the preservation of information and its transmission to "later iterations" of the system, perhaps Wolfram's insight that its role may not be the decisive role is analogous to whether we, as observers, "encounter" an island of order or a patch of apparent chaos at any given iteration of the systemic evolution, which is essentially unpredictable. And we don't occupy an "Archemedian point" outside the system from which we can view it in toto, so as to see "where is the order" and "where is the apparent randomness".
I gather that's why Wolfram sets such store by his cellular automata -- they let us see what the evolution of a system in toto "looks like," even if our "viewing" is only an imaginary act.
Take a look at the Rule 110 cellular automaton. It's the "picture" I'm trying to describe.
Every religion makes claims about history. Some of them are untrue. I count myself as one whose life has been changed by the story of Jesus. I just don't believe that all of the story is literally true. There is quite a difference in my mind between accepting the truth of moral statements and accepting assertions about history.
As for the state of my soul, I am not particularly impressed by people whose moral behavior is regimented by carrot and stick. I suppose psychopaths and people born without the capacity for empathy need an outside force, but I have empathizing with such people. ;^)
Just because you can produce a natural explanation for an event, does not mean you have ruled out God's intervention in that event. No explanation of a natural phenomenon can ever be proved to be the only explanation.
Was that a dig at exmarine's argument?
Under the law of cause and effect, you can only go back so far with that argument. At the earliest point, you run out of natural scenarios. What do you do then? At the earliest point, either God caused it, or....what? Besides, you and I both know that the naturalists who came up with the BB theory presuppose the non-existence of God. The Genesis account just doesn't wash for a naturalist, you see, one must come up with an alternative. Thus, the BB.
Can you say circular?
It wasn't always so. This type of thinking did not start occuring until the Rennaissance, when man became the measure of all things (rationalism) and the particulars (all physical things) were divorced from God as if the two have no relationship with each other whatsoever. You are exactly right though - the attitude that God is not needed is atheistic in its presuppositions.
Your problem seems to be the methodological naturalism used by scientists (even by those who believe in a god).
There are those who call themselves Christians who, for some irreconcilable reasons, choose to believe in evolution, and I love to talk to those types because evolution is not compatible with Christianity, and it can be demonstrated easily enough.
Science deals only with the natural world, the supernatural (if something liek this exists) is beyond its scope. So if you drag the supernatural into science you're no longer doing science.
Science deals with the ordered universe as God made it. God made it ordered so we could live and function in it. The two (God and physical laws) are not mutually exclusive as naturalists would have everyone believe. Newton was a theist who believed in the supernatural but was able to come up with calculus and other important discoveries. Conversely, it would logically follow that an atheist would pressuppose chaos, not order as Newton did. Just because someone believes in the supernatural does not require that person to come up with a supernatural explanation - such people like myself recognize that God made the ordered universe such as it is. How is this in any way incompatible with true scientific discovery? It is a non-rational leap to presuppose that natural laws (speed of gravity, of light, Hubble constant, laws of motion, and on and on) just sprang into being by chance+time+matter+energy, isn't it?
It wasn't always so. This type of thinking did not start occuring until the Rennaissance, when man became the measure of all things (rationalism) and the particulars (all physical things) were divorced from God as if the two have no relationship with each other whatsoever. You are exactly right though - the attitude that God is not needed is atheistic in its presuppositions.
Your problem seems to be the methodological naturalism used by scientists (even by those who believe in a god).
It is an inescapable fact that one's worldview dictates the rest of their beliefs. For example, an atheist's only refuge are the philosophies of materialism, empiricism and rationalism. First he is an atheist, then he becomes a materialist, not vice versa. What about you? What is your epistimology and metaphysics? How do you "know"? What is "real" to you? Belief or non-belief in God dictates what these will be every time.
There are also those who call themselves Christians who, for some irreconcilable reasons, choose to believe in evolution, and I love to talk to those types because evolution is not compatible with Christianity, and it can be demonstrated easily enough.
Science deals only with the natural world, the supernatural (if something liek this exists) is beyond its scope. So if you drag the supernatural into science you're no longer doing science.
Science deals with the ordered universe as God made it. God made it ordered so we could live and function in it. The two (God and physical laws) are not mutually exclusive as naturalists would have everyone believe. Newton was a theist who believed in the supernatural but was able to come up with calculus and other important discoveries. Conversely, it would logically follow that an atheist would pressuppose chaos, not order as Newton did. Just because someone believes in the supernatural does not require that person to come up with a supernatural explanation - such people like myself recognize that God made the ordered universe such as it is. How is this in any way incompatible with true scientific discovery? It is a non-rational leap to presuppose that natural laws (speed of gravity, of light, Hubble constant, laws of motion, and on and on) just sprang into being by chance+time+matter+energy, isn't it?
I would like to add this prediction to your analysis:
It appears that very large structures can be directly related to the very tiny: Stability and Size of Galaxies from Planck’s Constant (PDF). We can look back so far in history, that we are able to see the Harmonics in the Early Universe.
As time passes, our ability to discern information from the cosmos should increase, IMHO, exponentially.
The information gathered from such efforts (e.g. Cosmological Patterns and Galaxy Biasing (pdf)) - will converge with the findings of the experiments by High Energy Particle Physicists and the entire collection will mulled over by the Mathematical Physicists.
Correlations between quantum and astronomical will surely not be missed, and since the cosmos is a record of the early universe – IMHO, some of that missing information just might be found after all.
Hahaha. Not hardly. All it proves is that some Christian ideas may predate Christianity. It says nothing about the source of moral absolutes.
As I have stated repeatedly, if moral absolutes do not come from God, then they MUST COME FROM MAN. If they come from man, they are relative to man. If they are relative to man, then they are mere preferences and have no universal or objective existence. Those are your only two choices - either morals are relative or they are from God. You must either choose one of these two or give me a third option. Choose. I'll wait for your answer.
Ahh, this is where logic and evidence come in to play. For one thing, not all gods can be real. The law of contradiction does not allow it (e.g. Allah and Christ cannot both be real - one must be false, or two could be false logically, but both can't be true). Once this is recognized, one must determine which, if any, of the deities has credible evidence to support it. There is only one that I have ever found that has credible supporting evidence - Christianity.
You cannot, except in your own mind, claim that anyone who doubts the literal inerrancy of the bible is therefore an atheist.
Didn't say that. There are those who call themselves theists who do not accept the bible - many mainline Christian churches for example. But, in the case of, say, the Episcopaleans, they are left with no authority for their beliefs in the absence of biblical authority. A Christian cannot pick and choose which parts of the bible are true on his own whim. Either it is authoritative or it isn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.