Posted on 09/04/2010 7:57:38 AM PDT by mattstat
Everybody knows the following story: At one time, long ago, most or all people believed that when a tree branch fell and caused damage that a god or other spiritual entity caused the branch to fall. This belief was animate, in the sense that the god himself was pictured as pulling the branch or otherwise knocking it off the tree.
Reasons for the god’s behavior were ascribed, usually to sin, and perhaps a ceremony of propitiation was performed to forestall future baleful consequence. But over anything else, it was the fact of the branch falling that was used as evidence for the god’s existence. The branch fell, something caused it to, we can think of no cause, therefore it must be the god.
As time went on and fewer people imagined actually witnessing the god yanking on the tree, but they did not discard the idea that, somehow, that branch fell because the god willed it. Branches falling were still evidence of the god’s existence, but now weaker evidence. Some branches might have fallen on their own, who cares why.
Of course, magical thinking of this kind applied to physical events of all kinds; disasters were called, and not that long ago, “Acts of God.” Once more, these “acts” were a proof of God’s existence, but recently only in a vague sense. The causation really went one way: God to act, and not so much act to God.
Man’s existence, crucially his uniqueness and superiority over all other animals was, and still is, used by few, but a diminishing few, to infer the existence of God. The reasoning goes: because the universe is, God is...
(Excerpt) Read more at wmbriggs.com ...
Small, arrogant, pathetic. What can you tell me about a cube of casimir boxes? The space inside.
Stephen Hawking vs. God.
Hmm....
GOD.
Next!
And he will immediately be an evangelist seeking to warn his loved ones.
Don’t start insults with the master.
But since you insist.
You sound weak. Are you born again?
What do you believe in. Arguements?
Hawking has his view, everyone else has theirs.
What is your proof of anything besides your confrontational view. Fine by me. I thrive on confrontation.
Norm Geisler, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
Great book.
Yea right...go grab your geritol or pablum lad.
I know you are one of two extremes.
You’ll need it. I’ll be back later in the day.
Maybe by then you’ll have had your epiphany Elmer.
Matthew 21:18-22
Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.
Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”
You are too stupid to grasp post #21. Acting like a troll...
-Why are there these forces rather than nothing?
-Why are these forces the way they are (able to create a universe) rather than some other way?
Be thankul to God you don’t run into me peewee.
Stay safe. And yes I am an ogre. Not a troll.
Did you read the full article? The focus, at the end, reveals how despite all the layers and layers of facts to explain scientific "miracles", not one of them answers the essential question: Why? What is it all for?
In short, there will always be room for God, not matter how much science tries to squeeze Him out.
"incorporeal; supernatural; having the form of an empirical hypothesis, but in fact immune from empirical testing""Many scientists do believe in both science and God, the God of revelation, in a perfectly consistent way" - Feynman.
"In matters of religion, the problem of validating metaphysical claims is most readily seen in all of the "proofs" for the existence of God. Like trying to prove the existence of a "soul" or "spirit" in the human, attempts to scientifically prove the existence of God and other nonobjective, nonhuman realities is seemingly impossible. The difficulty arises out of the attempt to scientifically study and objectify something which, by its very nature, cannot become an object of our scientific studies. This reigning belief that everything can be explained scientifically in terms of natural causes - referred to as naturalism - compels many to think that only what is seen or sensed, only what can be hypothesized and tested can be true, and therefore, meaningful to us as humans."
Interesting. You make big claims.
Define “claims” in your view.
Stephen Hawking’s Universe Implodes
Only the God of the Bible tells the future with accuracy and specificity.
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.