Sitting on the Throne of God

Festina Lente (Make Haste Slowly): Christian Contemplation of the Arts and Sciences ^ | Jonathan Carson, Ph.D.

[traditio]

Cosmologists have a problem. The universe provides manifold evidence of design. Since design implies a designer and since cosmologists have ruled out a priori any consideration of God as contrary to the scientific method, the universe must not have a design. Therefore, the evidence of design in the universe must be illusory. Since the odds against the design that our universe reveals happening by chance are infinite, there must be an infinity of other universes, each with different laws and different initial conditions, to make the chance occurrence of our apparently designed universe plausible.

[yendu bwam]

One of the most interesting things is that our universe was born with incredibly low entropy (very high order). All the order we see around us (and in us) is due to this intial ordering of the universe. The odds, if the universe were born at random, of it having such a low entropy, are one in a number greater than all the atoms in the universe. Amazing.

[Junior]

Ping.

[balrog666]

The arguments of the opening paragraph are such biased nonsense that there's no point in reading further.

[PatrickHenry]

The arguments of the opening paragraph are such biased nonsense ...

Are you sure? Perhaps that guy is onto something. Chemistry also seems to "rule out" a deity who holds together all those hydrogen and oxygen atoms that combine to make water. Down with Godless chemistry!

[balrog666]

Ugggghh! Fire bad!

[Condorman]

That article is perhaps the most uninspired, unimaginitive, anti-knowledge, anti-investigational, projectionist collection of throw our hands up in the air and quiticisms I've ever seen.

[Alex Murphy]

The arguments of the opening paragraph are such biased nonsense that there's no point in reading further.

Everyone has a bias - I repeat - EVERYONE, including yourself. To say otherwise is like saying everyone speaks with an accent except yourself.

That being said, the article's argument has one thing on it's side - mathmathics. So, do you actually have a counter-argument, or does your modus operandi only call for a vain attempt to embarrass the Universe into being a cosmic accident?

[balrog666]

I meant to say this:

That article is perhaps the most uninspired, unimaginitive, anti-knowledge, anti-investigational, projectionist collection of throw-our-hands-up-in-the-air and quiticisms I've ever seen.

[PatrickHenry]

You've led a sheltered life. I've seen worse. But to be fair, the article is certainly "uninspired, unimaginitive, anti-knowledge, anti-investigational ..." as you say. But the author doesn't have the talent to be at the top of that stagnant heap.

[Alex Murphy]

I meant to say this:
That article is perhaps the most uninspired, unimaginitive, anti-knowledge, anti-investigational, projectionist collection of throw-our-hands-up-in-the-air and quiticisms I've ever seen.

Thanks - that really clarifies the whole argument right there for me. And the BIG FONT thing really makes for such an incredbily strong argument that I couldn't ever hope to counter it. I can't possibly think of any rebuttal whatsoever. You have me completely stymied. You've hands-down won this debate, and sent the Universe spinning haplessly into the Cosmos towards a cold extinction, one without purpose or reason or direction. Touche'.

Oh, except for one thing. Allow me quote you again.

That article is perhaps the most uninspired, unimaginitive, anti-knowledge, anti-investigational, projectionist collection of throw-our-hands-up-in-the-air and quiticisms I've ever seen.

You said "perhaps". Does that mean "perhaps not"?

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

[balrog666]

You said "perhaps". Does that mean "perhaps not"?

Of course. It may be only the 41st worst I ever seen. I don't go out of my way to memorize every ridiculous creationist screed that gets posted.

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian


To: Dimensio

As I see it, evolution is an ideological doctrine. If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.

488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved

Great quote. Thanks for posting it.


294 posted on 10/18/02 11:59 AM Pacific by AnnaZ

[f.Christian]

To: Tribune7

Many posters, even many on this site, have vehmently expressed the view that Christianity held back the advancement of human progress,

The charge that Christianity has held back scientific progress is utterly ridiculous. Perhaps the best example of pagan materialistm is atomism. The fortuitous and mindless joining of atoms holds absolutely no prospects for scientific inquiry and neither does the fortuitous and mindless mutations held by present day materialists.

Only theories which deny mindlessness and propose order can be the source of scientific inquiry. It is this belief in order, in natural laws which as stated in our Declaration come from God that has proven to be the source of the scientific spirit and scientific progress in the Christian West.

12 posted on 9/15/02 6:07 AM Pacific by gore3000

[Condorman]

I don't go out of my way to memorize every ridiculous creationist screed that gets posted.

You mean like using H. G. Wells as a counterargument for a faulty understanding of Kip Thorne?

[Condorman]

[wink]

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin America---the post-modern age

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule for the assurance technocracy and expert rule.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

[f.Christian]

"dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar