Posted on 04/26/2016 4:36:36 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
The argument would be that we are here to see the ONE TIME that everything did come together and lead to us.
the one dot on an infinite line.
Where’s my medical marijuana?
Bookmark
A week ago I was looking at the beauty of Sedona and had no problem discerning the works of God surrounding me.
The more I learn about science, the more I believe in God. I cannot believe the universe exists and life exists by chance. That just doesn't work for me. I believe that cosmology and evolution are the mechanisms by which the Creator chose to bring the universe, and bring life to its current state. I believe scientists get closer over time to understanding these processes.
I regard the Bible as the best effort by men thousands of years ago to explain what happened - the start of that development of understanding.
And I believe God wants us to understand more and more over time. I am not sure if He wants us to understand everything - but if He doesn't, we won't. We'll reach the limits of our understanding.
This is just what I believe. I'm not saying it is right for anybody else. But the idea that to be a Christian, I have to reject science does not sit well with me - and if I believed that, I don't think I could be sitting here typing on a tool created by science.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
The reply would be "Do you mean the one time nothing came together and lead to us?"
good point.
i think the “we see it because” argument is used more to explain Earthlings.
We experience the universe because conditions were just right for this planet to have life.
What? You mean nothing didn’t create everything? Who woulda thought it?
We observe biological life, yet no one can factually say that such life came from lifeless matter. We see that human beings have a moral sense of right and wrong. From whence did that arise? Certainly not from non-moral matter. We see that humans and animals have consciousness, with absolutely no evidence that such consciousness arose from non-conscious matter. We see that human beings are rational beings. There’s never been any evidence that such rationality arose from non-rational matter, nor intelligence from mindless matter, just as there’s no evidence whatsoever that an eternal creation came from temporary matter. We are driven to the conclusion that biological life, moral sense, consciousness, rationality, and intelligence arose from the eternal non-physical entity that created all things. This conclusion is based on “the most secure generalizations of all of science”!These are the very qualities the Bible attributes to God. He is eternal, non-physical, creative, intelligent, rational, conscious, and moral, and the Bible reveals these divine characteristics to us.
The idea doesn't pass any sort of a basic sniff test for logic. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes, nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that. Likewise for a supposedly omniscient God to, at some particular point in time determine that it would be cool to create a universe while the idea had never occurred to him in the semi-infinite expanse of time prior to that, is hugely problematical.
All of that is philosophy however. Halton Arp's findings are real. Arp has destroyed the entire basis for believing in an expanding universe or big bang by demonstrating a number of clear cases in which high and low redshift items are joined together and are part and parcel of the same things. That kills the entire idea of interpreting cosmic redshift as velocity and forces an understanding that it (resshift of cosmic objects) is intrinsic.
You’re not a freethinker if you are forbidden to think yourself into some particular conclusion. You might call yourself a freethinker, but free your thinking is not.
Big bang is how it looks from where we sit. That doesn’t mean that it looks this way from everywhere.
But why are we embracing such a premise. Certainly the bible wouldn’t have us do that. A lot of miracles, not just one. We have to reason the best we can, between the miracles.
Honest science, and scientists, already have. It's only the dishonest science from dishonest scientists that still hold on to their damnable lies.
Science may come up with explanations for the Big Bang involving multiverses etc. The cosmos may be more than the visible universe, so deepening scientific understanding may happen but will not necessarily disprove an ultimate Creator, but just push the issue out further than the creation of the visible universe.
It’s a nice poem; however stubborn souls like I continue to say the display is insufficient to posit that a Darwinian scene wins over a progressive creation scene. It’s not the fossils that are lying; it’s our heads that are presuming.
bump
“In my experience it is something common among atheists: an inexplicable, incongruent and visceral hatred for the very God they imagine does not exist.”
Indeed, because atheists do believe in God, they just reject him.
True non-believers are the agnostics, for they simply admit ignorance on the question and then go about with their lives. Atheists, on the other hand, try to shame others into joining them in rejecting God, in order to have more company in their misery. They like to style themselves as logical, but constantly commit category errors and try to prove a negative, demonstrating that their appeals to logic are just a rationalization for what is really an emotional phenomenon.
Also, atheists are only commonly found in theistic societies. They don’t naturally exist outside of them, because they are only produced by rejecting theism. They have no belief system of their own besides the rejection of their parent culture’s belief system.
“Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes, nothing would ever “bang” its way out of that.”
Bingo. The physicists have to hypothesize that if they went far enough back in time, the physical laws we have deduced from observation and experiment simply cease to function, in order to try to paper over this glaring contradiction.
However, if the physical laws are not consistent over time, then we can make NO conclusions about the past state of the universe, for we have absolutely no means to determine how those laws might have functioned except through observation and experiment. Since we cannot apply those methods retroactively to determine what the laws might have been in the past, the very postulate that they use to prop up the Big Bang theory undermines it even more!
ps... I agree with you about Halton Arp, he was definitely on to something. I’m not in agreement 100% with the Electric Universe guys, but they definitely are addressing major points that the mainstream cosmologists are myopic about.
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.