I beg to differ, dear kosta:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: — Romans 1:20In what way does DNA "build itself?" How do you know this?
A supernova is not a "catastrophe" in my book. A star exploding is simply a star at the end of its stellar life cycle. All things in nature pass away; i.e., die. But the death of a star distributes essential heavy elements into the universe, which, on the large view, has the effect of supporting conditions that maintain life. When humans die, we don't call that a "catastrophe." Why would it be catastrophic for a star to die?
You aver that "Others, however, have to invent god so they can 'create' their own version of truth." To which I reply, God is not "invented." He is discerned. I discern that His truth is already in the world, and that it can be perceived and understood by man. So on this point, we disagree. And probably will continue to disagree.
You know the old saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."
If the horse is thirsty, he will drink. If not, then not. This analogy goes to the recognition that you "are not thirsty," and so don't "drink" the water that is offered to you.
You wrote:
Scientific evidence is a small part of the puzzle. It must never be believed absolutely. Big bang will be replaced in another generation or two with a new theory, each having a little of the truth but none all of it.New scientific theories do not so much "replace" earlier theories; rather they usually build on the existing theories, making corrections based on new evidence and observations.
In any case, Einstein's general relativity theory did not "replace" Newtonian mechanics. Einstein was careful to build on Newton's magnificent formalism; he just showed, among other things, that at very high velocities (i.e., velocities approaching the speed of light, which are not normally observed in ordinary four dimensional spacetime conditions) that the Newtonian physics will not completely account for the behavior observed. Newton's physics still work great in the 4D spacetime "block." Certainly Newtonian theory was not "replaced" by Einstein's work.
Your position seems to be that if you don't "know everything," then you really can't know anything at all (i.e., with reasonable assurance of validity), so why bother? That is an impossible standard, epistemologically speaking.
BTW, I do not "believe" in talking donkeys.... Although they may appear in fictional works and, thus, have a kind of phenomenal reality — though not that which pertains to real flesh-and-blood donkeys.
I hope you're enjoying your visit to Seville! Lucky you!
Thanks so much for writing, dear kosta!
I suggested before to Kosta that he should have a child. Then he might understand much better that the universe says plenty about God and it sure doesn't come from us.
My husband says it was when he first held his son that he finally understood what God's free grace actually meant. Nothing in his life could have merited or earned the splendid gift of a child.
"There is not one blade of grass, there is no color in this world that is not intended to make us rejoice." -- John Calvin""Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee." -- Augustine
BETTY TO KOSTA: Your position seems to be that if you don't "know everything," then you really can't know anything at all (i.e., with reasonable assurance of validity), so why bother? That is an impossible standard, epistemologically speaking.
That does seem to sum up Kosta's view of things which as you've said is a self-defeating exercise in frustration.
I guess it comes down to what we're most comfortable with - doubt or trust.
Betty boop, why should I believe him? Paul gives me no evidence that he can see and understand that which is aoratos, or unseen/invisible—even divinity itself?
If you can see and understand divinity, then describe it for me.
In what way does DNA "build itself?" How do you know this?
DNA can be observed replicating itself. Is DNA "alive"? Viruses, which are nothing but ribonucleic acid, are "alive" only in parasitic form, when they invade a body. Otherwise they are "dead".
A supernova is not a "catastrophe" in my book. A star exploding is simply a star at the end of its stellar life cycle.
In your post 870 you said that Cataclysmic events do not change the underlying structure of the universe. They are temporary departures from it. And when they blow over, we get back to the status quo ante.
I disagreed with this because that which is destroyed in a cataclysmic/catastrophic event (a violent upheaval), there is no return to status quo ante, concluding that cataclysmic events change the reality irreversibly. When you show me that an exploded star can return to status quo ante and be the same star it was before it exploded, I will accept your opinion.
All things in nature pass away; i.e., die. But the death of a star distributes essential heavy elements into the universe, which, on the large view, has the effect of supporting conditions that maintain life.
That is not returning to status quo ante, bb. That is "recycling."
When humans die, we don't call that a "catastrophe."
Because there is no return to status quo ante, bb. I don't see anyone ecstatic when a beloved one dies, especially a young one. Often people say "it's a shame," or "how sad!" and words to that effect. There is no "happy, happy, joy, joy" at death of a beloved one.
No one is ever too joyous at the prospect of that person being "reconstituted" somewhere to the status quo ante and living in bliss. I don't see Christians lining up to die as soon as possible or sending their children to play in traffic. There is an inherent disconnect between what Christians profess and how they react to death. Death is a catastrophe, bb, judging by how people react to it, no matter how much religious or cosmic romanticism is poured out to ease the pain .
You aver that "Others, however, have to invent god so they can 'create' their own version of truth." To which I reply, God is not "invented." He is discerned.
Same thing, different words. The source of this "discernment" is still a human being who claims to "see" and "understand" the invisible. Real things are discerned by everyone, not some. Try a hot stove top and see how many people can touch it without "discernment".
I discern that His truth is already in the world, and that it can be perceived and understood by man. So on this point, we disagree. And probably will continue to disagree.
That is obvious and a given. But since I am the one who is "blind" to, and unable to "understand" the unseen I ask that those who claim they can to please describe what they see and understand in real terms. Until then I will maintain that humans have a limited knowledge and cannot know everthying there is in this world because of its sheer size and complexity.
I will also maintain that we cannot telepathically know what is on other planets until and if we ever reach them physically (fat chance), because there is no magical crystal ball, a cosmic Google search engine, that answers all our questions in an instant.
You know the old saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."
Maybe it's because there is no water to drink bb. :) Maybe it's because the water is only imaginary and, to paraphrase David Frost, "the horse must think it queer to stop and drink without any water near."
New scientific theories do not so much "replace" earlier theories; rather they usually build on the existing theories, making corrections based on new evidence and observations.
That's another sweeping generlaizaiton, imo. Some evidence builds on existing theories, refines them, but other evidence replaces existing theories altogether, such as ism the case with the Steady State Theory, or the theory of infectious disease. The Big Bang of today is for all practical purposes a different theory from the original Big Bang, etc.
Your position seems to be that if you don't "know everything," then you really can't know anything at all (i.e., with reasonable assurance of validity), so why bother? That is an impossible standard, epistemologically speaking.
My position is simply that if we can't know everything we can't know everything, bb. :) That means we know something, but not everything. Given the size of the world and the mystery it holds for us, what we do know is pretty much nothing for all practical purposes. All our knowledge really amounts to a little more than nothing on the cosmic scale. In reality, what we do know cosmologically is pretty much a theory, and an ever-changing one at that.
BTW, I do not "believe" in talking donkeys.... Although they may appear in fictional works and, thus, have a kind of phenomenal reality — though not that which pertains to real flesh [sic]-and-blood donkeys.
Fictional work? A talking donkey is in the Bible, a real "flesh and blood donkey."
I hope you're enjoying your visit to Seville! Lucky you!
Thank you. Beautiful churches, good food, wine that is not dry (!), and air that is incredibly clean and fresh. I am overdosing on oxygen. And music to die for.
Mere mortal minds and sensory perception are quite limited and I believe that, too, is according to God's will.
Thank you for your outstanding essay post, dearest sister in Christ!