Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
For the better part of a century, socialists (Democrats) have been using science as a weapon to destroy the very fabric of American society. Today they propagate the global warming myth, forty years ago they were sounding the global cooling alarm, and they’ve used junk science to teach evolution in our nation’s schools.
To the socialist it is somehow easier to believe that aliens put us here or that we emerged from some primordial sludge than it is to believe in God. Socialist leadership, under the guise of “organizing”, use the environment, gay rights, immigration, or any number of causes as a form of religion to keep their unwitting masses in line. Their absence of God, and therefore morality, leaves these desperate souls longing to believe in something. How else can you explain a human being that is willing to risk their life to save a tree or a whale, yet they have no qualms about aborting a baby or assisted suicide?
(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...
As I said, 'hubris'. Did His Only Begotten Son say that He came because Earth is (and, by extension, you and I are) special, and "the primary focus of creation and redemption"?
No.
Read His own words in Luke 19:10...
(He came, NOT because we -- of all his creation -- are "special" -- but because we are sinners and in need of redemption.)
LOL! Billions of years is what is the 'spawn of man'. Is good = evil, light = darkess and sweet = bitter now too? Are you saying that Ussher did not use Scripture as his primary source?
"Specifically, it was this chap who, ca 1658 wrote this jewel of logic:"
Ussher's 'The Annals of the World' was used as a primary source document for centuries. Many attempts at a Biblical chronology have been made since Ussher, but all are close to his original and far from 'billions of years'. For you to imply that he was some kind of fool shows who the fool really is.
"Even so, Ussher himself claimed that Genesis was inadequate to his his task, so he depended on five other "authorities" in determining his ca 6,000-year age of Creation..."
Ussher used sources no longer available including first-hand accounts but he always accepted Scripture as the primary source. How are your 'authorities' for billions of years superior?
"Scripture had very little to do with that number.."
So how much does Scripture have to do with a belief in billions of years?
"Please don't blame God for it."
Apparently, mischaracterization is as important to you as 'argument' as credulity is for 'truth'. Interesting.
I said that we are "the primary focus of creation and redemption". You mischaracterized that as 'special'. If you want to say that we are not "the primary focus of creation and redemption", just say so. No need to mischaracterize my statements so that you can 'rebut' something that wasn't said.
"Read His own words in Luke 19:10... (He came, NOT because we -- of all his creation -- are "special" -- but because we are sinners and in need of redemption.)"
I never said 'special'. That's your mischaracterization of what I said. Mischaracterization is very important to you, isn't it?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=339845
These aren't scientists. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true so that they can explain to themselves why they are here, without God. (It's an accident!)
Thanks for the URL to this outstanding article by Ann Coulter, dear MNR!
She definitely "nails" the concerns I have about "Darwinism."
Thank you so much for writing!
I'm not sure I'm following you here, dear MNR. Maybe we could begin with the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth according to best science.
"Best science" gives the age of the universe as ~13.7 billion years; of the Earth, ~4.6 billion years.
Evidently Bishop Usher's estimate of 6,000 years for age of the Creation does not correspond to these figures. And this would be so, even if we take the scriptural insight that "a day is as a thousand years to the Lord" to heart. On that basis, the Creation would be 2.2 billion years old....
But I do not believe that the biblical observation that "a day is as a thousand years to the Lord" is to be taken literally. It is no magical conversion formula that we humans can use to gain an understanding of "divine time," as it were. Indeed, it seems to me the statement is intended to show only that a timeless God's "experience" of Time (the measure here being how we humans experience time) is perfectly inaccessible to human reason, for the simple fact that humans are finite, contingent creatures, and God is eternally Creator and ground and sustainer of Being, Who, as such, absolutely stands outside of all imaginable categories of time that human beings can conceive of.
I am of the mind that God's revelation to us by Holy Scripture bears a deep correspondence to the Creation He made — the "Book of Nature." I believe that the two cannot contradict each other.
Which is why I think Bishop Usher fans need to get back to the drawing board....
To your observation, "with the concept of eternity in mind, going both backward and forward, how is a billion years any different from a day, even in the horizontal realm? Each would just be specs on a horizontal timeline and even those would eventually disappear into irrelevance," I would simply say that there is not a single thing that God ever made that is "irrelevant."
Don't get caught in the "time trap" — especially the one that proceeds along the "horizontal" exclusively. [Interesting that you conceive of this line or extension as "time reversible."]
It seems to me God ever works along the vertical extension, not the horizontal one....
Just some stray thoughts, FWIW.
Thank you so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!
As I have said before, I am not schooled in nor capable of the discussions we participate in. I engage you guys out of total respect and with the anticipation of learning as I go. So far, it has been working extremely well for me. I thank you for disagreeing with me. My thoughts are intuition with little reliable knowledge to support them. They are just my thoughts.
I direct many of my replies to you because your pontifications are exactly what I intuitively believe. I seek your response whether it is favorable or in disagreement. All of it benefits me.
As far as the vertical and horizontal realms go, and God operating in the vertical, all is polarity in God’s creation. He operates inside and outside it all.
The only confusion is our attempt to understand using our limited knowledge and communication skills.
Since you presumably know nothing of pink leprechauns (or of God for that matter), on what basis do you assert this connection?
Answer: Only to insult me, and to disparage God.... Your idea of "debate" seems to be modeled along the lines of a food fight, or combat by spitball....
Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
I think the horizontal/vertical "model" applies very well here: The first three causes unfold horizontally (and irreversibly) in time. But the final cause is not to be found on that line. It can only be understood in terms of "vertical extension" relative to the horizontal one.
Final cause cannot be understood by projecting an arrow of time. Because it deals with purpose, function or meaning it is not merely the final result of a timeline but the reason it exists in the first place.
Rosen closes the line into a circle in his model which is mathematically convenient but of course does not address the philosophical issue of "why this instead of something or nothing at all." To address that issue the vertical aspect must be considered as you have explained.
Various beliefs are in play already on this thread including at least three Young Earth Creationism models: geocentric, heliocentric and Gosse Omphalus (that God created an old looking universe.) Old Earth Creationism is also in play and I imagine there are various degrees of God’s involvement represented, i.e. from simply setting the initial rules and conditions to frequent interventions.
Order cannot arise from chaos in an unguided physical system. Period.
In sum, I agree with Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder that both Young and Old Earth Creationism are true:
The universe is approximately 7 days old (equivalent earth days) at the inception space/time coordinates and the universe is approximately 15 billion years old at our space/time coordinates.. This is based on Relativity and the Inflationary Model.
The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old at its space/time coordinates.
I also perceive this to agree with God’s Name Logos which is translated Word in John 1:1. Logos is also the root word for Logic.
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. - Psalms 33:6
Man is not the sum of his physical parts.
Every molecule in our bodies is replaced every seven years. We are quite literally not the same persons we were seven years ago. But the message of who we are continues.
Physically that message is our DNA. It describes who we physically are. As long as that message is physically communicated we are physically alive.
But that’s not all. By the very fact of our existence on some finite worldline of the space/time continuum, the universe has been physically “informed.” Physically, who we are and our entire lives are “on the record” – written across the cosmos. And God sees all of it.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:15-18
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. –I Corinthians 12:3
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43
To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. – John 10:3-5
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:4-5
Give us this day our daily bread. – Matt 6:11
I am that bread of life. – John 6:48
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63
It is speaking to me of God’s glory:
The Universe may be flat but it is nevertheless musical
Background on the sound file: The Sound of the Big Bang
God’s Name is I AM, The Creator, Alpha and Omega, Logos, YHwH (He IS).
Thanks for the beautiful post.
Dear MNR, I wasn't "disagreeing" with you, just trying to draw out your thoughts. Certainly I wasn't criticizing you. I'm no expert at anything, and sure do hope I'm not pontificating....
Your "just my thoughts" are not to be denigrated, especially since they are intuitions. As such, they are based on "reliable knowledge" — but it's the reliable knowledge of instinctive feeling rather than of conscious reasoning.
The word intuition first appeared in late Middle English, denoting spiritual insight or immediate spiritual communication. (I sense you have this gift.) Later on, it has come to mean "the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning."
Yet in order to articulate and communicate such knowledge in language, it has to be "sifted through" conscious reasoning processes.
And that is not easy, since instinctive knowledge does not just pop up and accrue along the horizontal timeline: It is something innate in man, something prior to actual experience; and thus must involve the vertical extension we've been talking about on this thread....
When you boil it all down intuition, instinctive feeling, is not a directly verifiable "fact." Yet it enables us to see through the eye, not just with the eye — the latter being the modus operandi of science.
It can motivate fides quaerens intellectum, faith in search of understanding, or faith on a quest for its reason....
Or so it seems to me, FWIW, in working through these problems.
I sense you and I are both searchers in this sense, dear brother in Christ.
Which is why I enjoy your essay-posts so much! Thank you ever so much for writing!
Physically that message is our DNA. It describes who we physically are. As long as that message is physically communicated we are physically alive.
But that’s not all. By the very fact of our existence on some finite worldline of the space/time continuum, the universe has been physically “informed.” Physically, who we are and our entire lives are “on the record” — written across the cosmos. And God sees all of it.
Man is part and participant in the cosmic creation....
What a magnificent essay/post, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you ever so much for writing it!
Plantinga endeavors to show
de jure objections by developing this model or theory of warranted Christian Belief. He developes three types of such objections; (1) unjustified, (2) irrational, and (3) unwarranted. His model is built around how we know the truth of various Christian truth claims. He begins by profering God exists be itself part of the foundation of Christian Belief, so that no rational evidence is necessary. The evidentialist atheist replies that only propositions that are properly basic can be part of the foundations of knowledge. Plantinga then asks, what then are the citeria that determine whether or not a proposition is proplerly basic? The materialist will simply assert it must be 'self-evident' or 'incorrigible' to be properly basic. But Plantinga persists and asks 'how do we know' that these are the only proper criteria for foundations of knowledge, because to assert that Evidentialist assertion that ONLY self-evident or incorrigibility are criteria is self-refuting, cannot be taken to be truthful because it is circular in its reasoning and therefore refutes itself. The proposition itself is arbitrary.
Plantinga believes that belief in God is properly basic, not only with respect to justification but also with respect to warrant-warrant being that property which converts mere belief into true knowledge. Plantinga thinks that, apart from evidence, he actually KNOWS that God exists. This is what your references as sensus divinitatis
But he goes on and asks, "How does he know that God exists? We often hold beliefs and have no justification to hold such. So..is our belief that God exists not merely justified, but warranted. He asserts that rational warrant inherently involves the notion of the proper functioning of one's cognitive faculties. So Plantinga asks..."What does it mean for one's cognitive faculties to 'function properly'? Here Plantinga drops the bomb onto mainstream epistemology by proposing that a peculiarly theistic account of rational warrant and proper functioning, namely, that one's cognitive faculties are functioning properly if they are functioning as God designed them.
Now, stay with me! Plantinga profered knowledge as warranted true belief. This is considered a normative action of our neurologic wiring. Since Proper function is normative ( how our faculties ought to work) "proper function" cannot be understood in terms as merely ddscriptive of the statistically usual or normal way human faculties function. The notion of proper function, understood has the way something ought to work makes clear sense for artifacts that are designed by an intelligence. Why? Because the claim something functions the way it ought to is easily understood in terms of functioning the way it was designed to work or function. An engine functions properly in that it functions the way it was designed to function. Now if knowledge presupposes warranted belief, and it warrant belief presupposes that those beliefs were produced by properly functioning faculties, and if the notion of properly functioning faculties denotes being designed to function in a certain way, then knowledge presupposes a designer.
The naturalists owe us an account of what it would mean for humans to have properly functioning cognitive and sensory faculties that can avoid the idea of a designer and, says Plantinga, those accounts have not been successful. Proper function cannot be profered by evolution in terms of survival value or natural selection. So the truth of evolution cannot be required to make sense of proper functining faculties. So Plantinga says, A definition that capture the real essence of something, in this case "properly functioning faculties," cannot contingently apply to the thing being defined depending on whether or not some other factor (evolution) is true. Naturalistic evolutionary theory, human beings, their parts and cognitive faculties, arose by a blind, mindless, purposeless process such as things selected for solely in virtue of survivial value and reproductive advantage is irrational to be believed. If our cognitive faculties arose this way, then their ultimate purpose is to guarantee that we behave in certain ways; i.e. we move, fight, reproduce certain ways) that are enhancing to our survival. From this perspective, our beliefs, certainly our beliefs which are true, take hindmost position as a role it played in survival. Thus naturalistic evolutionary theory gives us reason to doubt that our cognitive system have the production of true beleifs as a purpose or that they do in fact, furnish us with true beliefs.
Simply put, evolution of our congitive function cannot be produced by evolutionary processes and, from an evolutionary viewpoint can not warrant or justify any belief. There seems to be no causal relationship between behavior and purpose of proper function...how our noetic setup ought properly function. As Darwin, himself said, "Why would anyone trust the belief of a monkey?"
Sorry it took so long to get here. But it seems to me that the battle for the past 2 millenia have been the cosmological battle between Christian theist and Epicurus to Darwinian materialism. We must increasingly engage these worldviews because they both must and do give rise to Christian morality and Darwinian morality. Darwin's ideas, as Daniel Dennett says, is a 'universal acid' that eats through just about every traditional Christian moral concept, leaving a revolutionized world in its wake. One of the great problems with allowing them side-by-side status is that this acid leaves in its wake a superfluous diety or a cobbling-together of a hybrid worldview which is not Christian theology. I suppose the war can be described as one or the other. Either we, as part of nature, are ultimately the derivitive of purposeless material forces and should be as moral darwinism has defined it. Or, we are ultimately the result of an intelligent designer, and the morality of that designer must be followed.
Thank you especially for reprising Alan Plantinga's thoughts regarding the present matters. Bottom line, it seems to me he hones in on what constitutes "warranted" belief.
"Warranted belief" necessarily finds its basis or criterion in something indetectable to science, which bases its own method in direct observables.
"Warranted belief" does not have so much to do with the phenomena of observation; it has to do with the observer of same — and as you suggest, with the basic cognitive constitution of the observer. Which has moral implications for human culture and society at large.
A "warranted belief" depends for its soundness on its source of truth. And that is the reason Plantinga draws our attention to what I would call "the ultimate axiom," which can only be God Himself.
In the history of mankind, the expressed universal idea is that God exists. If you get rid of that understanding, then other understandings — such as the metaphysical materialist one — can run riot through human societies, with no discernible limit.
But those engaged in such an enterprise can only succeed by deforming the world that human beings actually live in; and by deforming the structure of the human personality itself.
Above all, by erasing human history altogether....
I'd love to go on here, but am facing family difficulties at the moment.
So please give me a "rain-check?"
Meanwhile, to see how such ideas connect with immediately important trends in contemporary American sociopolitical "reality," please see here.
Thank you so very much for your splendid essay/post. dear Texas Songwriter!
Thanks, that is the key to what I am about.
It is but a linguistic necessity, dear boop. To avoid using the word “cause.”
Really?!
“The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
. . . Professor Richard Dawkins, Debate/Interview excerpt between Professor Dawkins and Dr Collins, conducted at the Time & Life Building in New York City on Sept. 30, 2006.
And in his frequent public statements, Professor Dawkins has been conscientious in crediting the Theory of Evolution for his certainty.
To see, one must look.
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.