Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Posted on 01/25/2006 11:00:41 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
So Bloom’s scientific studies, carefully conducted as they seem to be, prove only what he wants them to prove if one starts from a materialist point of view—the same materialist point of view that has tried and failed to disprove religion for so many years. When it comes to tempting “new” theories to explain away religion, it looks like there really is nothing new under the sun after all.
Right on target. Excellent point, thanks.
I don't see where Colson is saying we can understand God, only that we can reasonably assume He exists.
The problem with this theory is that there is NO WAY a baby being born sees anything remotely like the visual experiences reported by NDE patients. The child's face is pressed against the forward (forward if the mother was standing up) wall of the birth canal, and the amount of light coming in through the vaginal opening would be negligible anyway.
Tell Him that when you meet Him. I think He'll be amused.
Seriously, what you're saying is like saying that before you can build a boeing 707 you need to have a 747. God is of a different stuff than the Universe, just as the Boeing engineers are of a different stuff from their planes. He has set up rules in this universe, but that doesn't mean He is bound by them any more than the guy who invented Monopoly has to pay rent every time he walks down Indiana Avenue in Atlantic City.
Hear hear. "Where did God come from" is a valid question, but "Where did the Universal 'seed' for the Big Bang come from" is every bit as valid. Muir, for you to claim that "He always was" is deus ex machina may seem like good argument, but a Universe that arose from nothing is hardly logical.
Perhaps but you have yet to demonstrate it.
Not proven, merely asserted. If the nature of G-d is something you can demonstrate conclusively and logically please do so. Otherwise we are simply dealing with conjecture.
To see it as the product of a Creator bothers my sense of logic not at all either. I make no case for either because my sense of logic sees no evidence in creation for either. That was and is my point in all of this discussion. To attempt to say there must be a G-d because the universe is so complex is faulty because the supposed complexities are all logical when properly viewed. Remember, the mind of man is the measure here and if the complexity astounds us it may say more about our limits than it says about the universe.
One cannot, it seems to me, prove the existence of G-d logically. Aquinas failed and I've seen no better effort.
What is it I'm supposed to demonstrate? Your intentional vagueness on the origin of the universe doesn't give me any place to start. But evasion is not the same as persuasion.
Let's save some time. You're going to have to go back to some nebulous theory of a "cosmic egg" to explain a Big Bang. And that poses the same thorny dilemma that you've pointed out arises in my deo-centric theory. So in that sense, your argument is no stronger than mine. In fact, at its highest level, it's essentially the same argument.
Then you may ignore my previous post. I misunderstood you to be elevating the Big Bang argument over creationism due to the former's imagined logical superiority. If your measure is the ABSENCE of logic in both arguments, then my criticism is invalid.
To attempt to say there must be a G-d because the universe is so complex is faulty because the supposed complexities are all logical when properly viewed.
The fact that a universe appears logical does not defeat the notion of a Creator. How ELSE would an intelligently designed universe appear?
To return to logical parsimony, the Big Bang embraces all the shortcomings of the creationist theory (e.g., prime causes). But it adds one more logical burden that creationism doesn't: randomness. Therefore, Occam's Razor suggests that the least burdensome construct -- creationism -- is the correct one.
I am also troubled by your qualification that the universe be "properly viewed." That assigns a propriety to the perspective, and that requires a point of reference. From a logical standpoint, no one can claim that position with any degree of authority.
But Bloom is arguing from emotion not reason.
All I hafta say is that I am going back to school so I can change careers. I'm in an A&P class right now and we're discussing atoms, cells and cell division, etc. I asked the Prof the other day about the exchanging of electrons between atoms so one atom become stable and said it was like a mystery and he even acknowledged that "yes, a lot of this stuff is a mystery." The entire process of mitosis is so amazingly complex. If anything, my faith gets stronger and stronger every day while I learn more and more of life and how it works.
These bozos can believe whatever they want but boy are they going to be in for the shocker of their post-earthly lives when they get that little tap on the shoulder to come to the Principal's office.
Those were AWESOME! I'm in an A&P class now and all of this stuff just convinces me more and more not only of God's existence but of his total awesomeness and matchless creativity.
My wife is an RN. She was a committed creationist before that, but A&P and some of the chemistry classes opened up a whole new world for her. Just the (Boy I hope I'm not screwing this up) ATP cycle is too complex to be non-designed, in her opinion.
No you have it right Mr. S. I'm learning about ATP right now, though not on the level yet that it seems your wife went through. It's just cool is all I can say. I think God is cool too for designing things with complexity (He surely could have made things as simple as He wanted) so that we could use the minds He gave us to not only learn but be amazed.
Thanks for the comment. It's nice to know a lot of other people are as excited about this stuff as I am.
Wow, marvelous observation. Thanks!
Science is cool, and as my wife says, "God created science."
That's why it's called faith. We know it's unprovable by materialist standards. I can't speak for others, but I have learned to trust through 1. reading the scriptures and 2. revelations received during meditation and prayer. These are experiential, and cannot be replicated, since God is part of the consciousness of each unique individual. There is no substitute for looking within your own mind for answers instead of demanding them from others. If you have already determined the answers, no amount of proof will satisfy you, nor will you hear the "still, small voice."
I have no idea of how the universe began. That lack of information doesn't drive me to accept a superstition nor does it equip me to understand anyone who would.
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
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.