Exoplanets Extraterrestrial life News

A new Time Book worries, maybe we ARE alone in the universe

Spread the love

Here. “As a new TIME book explains, a cosmos with trillions of planets does not guarantee more than one with life.”

You think that’s bad news? Here’s worse: You are not alone. That other guy is God.

😉

How Do We Grapple with the Idea that ET Might Not Be Out There?

This closes our religion news coverage for the week.

51 Replies to “A new Time Book worries, maybe we ARE alone in the universe

  1. 1
    velikovskys says:

    Interesting

  2. 2
    Mapou says:

    I believe there are trillions of other intelligent and conscious living creatures in the universe besides humans. But not one of them evolved from dirt as so many brain-dead Darwinists and materialists would have us believe.

    I believe that Yahweh Elohim, the God of Jews and Christians, is actually an entire super-united civilization of billions of individuals (Elohim or Lords). Yahweh is not called “Yahweh of hosts” for grins and giggles. And I say this as a Christian.

    PS. And Yahweh is not the only ones. There are others.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    I’m a Trekkie. I believe there are new life-forms and new civilizations out there. Whether we can ever build a starship to go and find them is another matter.

    No, of course there is no guarantee of other life out there. The only thing that seems to be guaranteed guaranteed in life is death. But, as Ellie says to the kids at the end of the movie Contact:

    I’ll tell you one thing about the universe, though. The universe is a pretty big place. It’s bigger than anything anyone has ever dreamed of before. So if it’s just us… seems like an awful waste of space. Right?

  4. 4
    Jim Smith says:

    Yawn…

    Astronauts Say UFOs are Real
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/201.....-real.html

    High Ranking Government and Military Officials Say UFOs are Extraterrestrial Craft Visiting the Earth
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/201.....itary.html

    Video: “Debunking the UFO Debunkers” in which Stanton Friedman explains why you cannot trust the “skeptics”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crg67I276iU

    UFO Witness Testimony
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/201.....tiweb.html

    UFO Experiencers Speak
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/201.....ncers.html

    Exopolitics Lectures from the 2010 X-Conference
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/201.....010-x.html

  5. 5
    not_querius says:

    I believe that Yahweh Elohim, the God of Jews and Christians…”

    And Moslems. Was that omission intentional.

  6. 6
    Mapou says:

    not_querius @5,

    I did not include Muslims, not because they don’t believe in the same God, but because the Quran sees Allah as a single individual. The Quran also denies the existence of other Gods. The Bible teaches that Yahweh is many (Elohim is a plural word) and acknowledges the existence of many other Gods. It even names some of them.

  7. 7
    ppolish says:

    I’m going with Seversky. I’ll boldly go a step further and say there are conscious beings much more advanced than human. Angels for example. Isn’t Holy Spirit “part of this world” with God the Father / God the Son “not of this world”?

  8. 8
    harry says:

    Anyone have any thoughts on the effect it will have on the evolution debate if it is ever verified that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe? By “evolution debate” I mean specifically the debate over whether or not life could have come about mindlessly and accidentally.

  9. 9
    Mapou says:

    Star Trek is part of the sacred philosophy of materialists everywhere. Most of it is crap, though.

  10. 10
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Materialists have their own sacred stories. Like their talking puddle.

  11. 11
    Eric Anderson says:

    Harry, it will have no meaningful impact, as the existence of new life forms (many of which have been discovered in exotic locations and in exotic forms since Darwin’s day) has never had any meaningful impact on the debate.

    However, those who, primarily for religious reasons, have outright rejected the idea of extraterrestrial life will have egg on their face and will have to backtrack or modify their views.

  12. 12
    Mapou says:

    What is an extraterrestrial? What is an alien? Is God an alien? Are demons and angels aliens? Do aliens have to be made of ordinary matter or can they be made of some exotic form of matter?

    In a sense, any religion that worships one or more non-human deities already believes in aliens. Consider that history and archaeology are full of examples of ancient peoples who worshipped powerful beings who, the people claimed, came from the sky. Unfortunately, the modern materialists who control education have chosen to disbelieve the ancient reports and to dismiss them as superstitious myths. Why? Because the idea of aliens on earth in the distant past would jeopardize their carefully crafted worldview, the state religion. But it’s just another castle in the air.

  13. 13
    harry says:

    Eric Anderson @11

    What would be the implications of the extraterrestrial life being digital-information based as it his here on Earth?

    What if alien life is not only digital-information based, but also uses base 4 in its version of a DNA molecule?

    What if it also has a twenty character chemical alphabet, its version of earthly life’s twenty character amino acid alphabet?

    What if each “letter” of that alphabet is represented by the contents of 3 units of memory as it is on Earth?

    Would that mean that life, wherever it exists, had the same designer?

    Is it reasonable to expect that mindless, purposeless processes would accidentally arrive at the same “appearance of design” over and over again?

    At what point would we assume that the only explanation for such similarities in life from various planets was a common designer, not mindless, purposeless processes accidentally doing the very same thing wherever there is life in the Universe?

  14. 14
    tjguy says:

    You think that’s bad news? Here’s worse: You are not alone. That other guy is God.

    I get the point. I guess it is bad news if one chooses to believe that God does not exist.

    But, actually God’s existence is really good news – not bad news. It gives meaning and purpose to life and brings hope for the future!

  15. 15
    velikovskys says:

    SA:

    Materialists have their own sacred stories. Like their talking puddle.

    Kind of like the talking burning bush?

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    velikovskys, the Holy Bible tells us the story that almighty God created man.

    Darwinian evolution tells us the story that unguided material processes created man.

    Science tells us that a single human brain is far more complex than the entire internet combined.

    Which story fits the evidence better?

  17. 17
    Eric Anderson says:

    harry:

    Is it reasonable to expect that mindless, purposeless processes would accidentally arrive at the same “appearance of design” over and over again?

    At what point would we assume that the only explanation for such similarities in life from various planets was a common designer, not mindless, purposeless processes accidentally doing the very same thing wherever there is life in the Universe?

    I hear you, but it won’t make one bit of difference in the debate, I am afraid. After all, the only issue we are dealing with in Earth-bound vs extraterrestrial is location. There have already been numerous discoveries of new life forms in unexpected locations, in exotic locations, in locations that were previously thought uninhabitable. Not one of those discoveries has any meaningful impact on the materialist creation myth.

    The materialist creation myth, after all, is not based on actual empirical evidence, but upon an assumption that molecules bumping into each other can generate living organisms, humans, every living thing we see around us. If life is discovered elsewhere, it will just confirm, in their minds, that this is true.

    And if the code is the same, well, that will just be a wonderful example of “convergent” evolution.

    There is already plenty of evidence that mindless matter in motion did not create what we see around us in biology. Anyone with any reasonable level of objectivity can see this. And yet, people still cling to the myth.

    You ask whether it is “reasonable” to think that such life would arise by mindless, purposeless processes? Of course it is not reasonable. But reasonableness never had anything to do with it in the first place. It is about upholding the materialist creation story at all costs.

    So the materialists have little to fear from discovery of life elsewhere. It will just be taken as another confirmation of their story. Even if that life is eerily similar to life on Earth, it will just be incorporated into the storyline as a wonderful example of convergent evolution. I can see the headlines now: “Convergent Evolution — On a Planetary Scale!”

    Ironically, the greatest risk of such a discovery is to those who have proclaimed that there can be no extraterrestrial life, due to some strained interpretation of sacred text or personal disbelief in such a possibility or otherwise.

  18. 18
    Robert Byers says:

    We are alone. the earth was a special place. Man was created for earth and then , with eternal life, he was to populate the universe. the universe is the original eternal home for mankind. not heaven etc.
    The universe was for eternal mankind to populate. its undeveloped real estate.
    Paradise lost eh.

  19. 19
    sovereign says:

    I get a real sour taste in my mouth everytime I see ‘news’ peddle her own obvious metaphysical opinions. No, not all theists believe we are alone. I certainly don’t.

  20. 20
    velikovskys says:

    BA:

    velikovskys, the Holy Bible tells us the story that almighty God created man.

    True,just not how

    Darwinian evolution tells us the story that unguided material processes created man.

    It tells us that is the tentative scientific explanation .

    Science tells us that a single human brain is far more complex than the entire internet combined.

    The material brain

    Which story fits the evidence better?

    Which method provided the evidence ?

  21. 21
    harry says:

    Eric Anderson @17

    Good points. Although since you said:

    You ask whether it is “reasonable” to think that such life would arise by mindless, purposeless processes? Of course it is not reasonable.

    I want to point out that my questions were asked rhetorically. ;o)

    It was irrational to just assume the Universe and the life within it are mindless accidents before Penrose calculated that the odds of the “Big Bang” producing by chance a universe so low in entropy that life would even be a possibility to be 1 in 10^10^123. Afterwards it became a matter of finding a way to convey to the Emperor that his vanity had led him into foolishness.

    The Emperor is stark naked. That is a fact, although not enough people are willing to admit that they are aware of it. Contemporary atheistic materialism will go down in history as the worst case ever of ideological lunacy coming to dominate the institutions of a society. Ultimately, their house will prove to be a house of cards though, and will inevitably collapse. The Truth has infinite power and He is irrepressible. He may get buried for a while but He always rises again in glory.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    velikovskys,

    “Which method provided the evidence ?”

    Contrary to what you seem to believe, it was the Judeo-Christian worldview, and that worldview alone, which brought forth the modern scientific method. Materialism had nothing to do with it. So back to the question, which worldview best explains the fact that a single human brain is far more complex than the entire internet combined? Unguided material processes or almighty God?

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/.....ffd524.pdf

    Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion – Michael Egnor – June 2011
    Excerpt: The scientific method — the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature — has nothing to so with some religious inspirations — Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47431.html

    The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014
    Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing.
    As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed, and as I pointed out in two of my talks at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview.
    http://townhall.com/columnists...../page/full
    Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.

    The truth about science and religion By Terry Scambray – August 14, 2014
    Excerpt: In 1925 the renowned philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead speaking to scholars at Harvard said that science originated in Christian Europe in the 13th century. Whitehead pointed out that science arose from “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher”, from which it follows that human minds created in that image are capable of understanding nature.
    The audience, assuming that science and Christianity are enemies, was astonished.
    http://www.americanthinker.com.....igion.html

  23. 23
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Contrary to what you seem to believe, it was the Judeo-Christian worldview, and that worldview alone, which brought forth the modern scientific method.

    The experimental method is often attributed to Ibn al-Haytham, monotheist, but not Judeo-Christian.

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, I’m sure stillbirths, sparks if you will, to the modern scientific method can be found in every culture that preceded the rise of Christianity in Europe. Mozi in ancient China for example.,,

    Shining Light on the Latest Errors and Omissions in Cosmos – Casey Luskin April 8, 2014
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....84191.html

    ,, But the modern scientific method only caught flame when the proper worldview was in place for the fire to take hold from the spark.

    Previous worldviews extinguished the modern scientific method before it took flame because those cultures did not have the proper worldview in place. The Judeo-Christian worldview of the ‘rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it’. Jaki puts the setting in medieval Europe like this:

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010
    Excerpt: Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pantheist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,,
    If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
    http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

  25. 25
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014

    OT, but Calvin Beisner is not a very attractive person is he? He thinks incidents such as the Joplin tornado tragedy, which killed approximately 160 people, are “little tastes” of God’s judgement.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS,

    Like you, I personally hate the holier than thou attitude of many Christians. But that, unpleasantness of character, does not detract from the facts. The facts are what they regardless of his character.

    I’ve heard said that Newton himself could be unpleasant, and petty, to deal with, but that still does not take away from the fact that he was right.

    Verse:

    Luke 13:2-5
    Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

    Along that line:

    The Good-O-Meter – The Christian Message in a nutshell – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrLzYw6ULYw

    We Believe In God – Amy Grant
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnZuqioqCzw

  27. 27
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: I’m sure stillbirths, sparks if you will, to the modern scientific method can be found in every culture that preceded the rise of Christianity in Europe.

    No. The experimental method wasn’t still-born with Ibn al-Haytham. His work was extremely influential on European scholars, including Bacon, Da Vinci, Galileo, and Descartes. He was often called Ptolemaeus Secundus.

  28. 28
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    Like you, I personally hate the holier than thou attitude of many Christians. But that, unpleasantness of character, does not detract from the facts. The facts are what they regardless of his character.

    I’ve heard said that Newton himself could be unpleasant, and petty, to deal with, but that still does not take away from the fact that he was right.

    Excellent point.

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    So the experimental method wasn’t still-born with the Muslim Ibn al-Haytham because it took root in a Judeo-Christian culture?

    Hmmm, small flaw in your logic, his ‘spark’ was still born in his own Muslim culture and only took flame only in the Judeo-Christian west!

    Your point in all this, other than being trying to discredit Christianity, being what exactly?

    I conceded ‘sparks’ of the scientific method existed in other cultures?!? Aristotle, Plato, etc.. etc.. etc..

    Moreover, to irritate your dislike for the success of Christianity in science even further, I hold that not only was the Judeo-Christian worldview necessary for the viable birth of the modern scientific method into the vibrant enterprise that it is today, but that only Christianity provides for a successful resolution to the number one problem in physics today. Namely, Christianity alone provides a coherent reconciliation of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a ‘theory of everything’:

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life (Jesus Christ) – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

    Of Related Note:

    Two very different ‘eternities’ revealed by physics:
    Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit

    “Einstein’s equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist.”
    Kip S. Thorne – “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” pg. 476

    Verse and Music:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Evanescence – The Other Side (Music-Lyric Video)
    http://www.vevo.com/watch/evan.....tantsearch

  30. 30
    velikovskys says:

    BA:
    Contrary to what you seem to believe, it was the Judeo-Christian worldview, and that worldview alone, which brought forth the modern scientific method.

    That God acts in a rational way? Therefore nature can be comprehended thru reason alone?

    How did the Biblical story of creation of the human brain bring about the scientific method which provided the evidence of the brain’s complexity?

    Materialism had nothing to do with it.

    Never claimed it did, but you don’t need to believe in the Gods of Olympus to do geometry.

    So back to the question, which worldview best explains the fact that a single human brain is far more complex than the entire internet combined?

    Explains? God did it is not a explanation, how God did it is an explanation, How does the Bible say God created the brain? Why is the brain complex per Biblical teaching?

    Unguided material processes or almighty God?

    They are not mutually exclusive . An almighty God is capable of pretty much anything.

  31. 31
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: So the experimental method wasn’t still-born with the Muslim Ibn al-Haytham because it took root in a Judeo-Christian culture?

    Stillborn means dead at birth. Ibn al-Haytham’s work didn’t die at birth, but had progeny.

    bornagain77: I conceded ‘sparks’ of the scientific method existed in other cultures?!? Aristotle, Plato, etc.. etc.. etc..

    The pagan Aristotle and Plato’s work wasn’t stillborn either.

  32. 32
    Joe says:

    An Intelligently Designed cosmos is the only way to guarantee life on more than one planet.

    Unguided evolution isn’t an explanation because no one can say how unguided evolution didit.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, and with such a stunning rebuttal of the point that only Judeo-Christian cultures gave viable birth to a sustained scientific method, I guess I shall slink off with my tail between my legs, since you have shown that sparks existed before the modern scientific fire took hold in Judeo-Christian cultures.

    With such irrefutable logic, you really should try to debate Dr. Craig, or Dr. Meyer, so as to really advance your atheistic worldview! 🙂

    Of related note: Wonder what would happen if one of those ancient Greeks philosophers met Jesus?

    Socrates Meets Jesus – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWxop3Kz8Fg#t=95
    (Recommended by Tim McGrew (whose scholarly defense of biblical reliability I much appreciate and respect)

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    as to: “Unguided material processes or almighty God?

    They are not mutually exclusive . An almighty God is capable of pretty much anything.”

    So if you allow God into your unguided material processes, your answer is that God is the best explanation for the fact that a single human brain is ‘beyond belief’ in its integrated complexity?

    Why not just cut out the unnecessary middle man of unguided material processes and just admit that God is, by far, the best explanation?

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-2708.....2-247.html

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 8, 2012
    Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

  35. 35
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Zachriel, and with such a stunning rebuttal of the point that only Judeo-Christian cultures gave viable birth to a sustained scientific method

    Your original claim was that it was “the Judeo-Christian worldview, and that worldview alone, which brought forth the modern scientific method”. The experimental method was “brought forth” by a non-Judeo-Christian, which was then adopted by scholars in the West.

  36. 36
    velikovskys says:

    BA:
    So if you allow God into your unguided material processes, your answer is that God is the best explanation for the fact that a single human brain is ‘beyond belief’ in its integrated complexity?

    Your parents caused you to exist, but they are not necessarily the best explanation for every action you take.

    Why not just cut out the unnecessary middle man of unguided material processes and just admit that God is, by far, the best explanation?

    Because of two things, one proximate causes are not unnecessary,the best explanation for hurricanes may be God for you , but knowing the material causes are useful for coastal residents, two , finding how things work is interesting for some big complex brains, three, I am even more glad you are not my cardiologist.

  37. 37
    Eric Anderson says:

    @36:

    What do hurricanes have to do with anything?

    “finding how things work is interesting for some big complex brains . . .”
    Which is different than those who think certain things might be here for a purpose in what way exactly?

    “three, I am even more glad you are not my cardiologist.”
    Right, because you wouldn’t want a cardiologist who thinks your heart is actually carefully designed for a purpose. No, you’d be much better off with someone who thinks the heart is an evolutionary quirk, an accident of fate, a lucky coincidence of matter in motion. Someone who thinks that if they they don’t understand why a particular biological part is there, then it probably doesn’t have any function and is just useless junk, an evolutionary side road, a useless vestigial relic, something that can be cut out without any negative impact. Yeah, you’d be a lot better off with someone like that.

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, I never meant to imply that previous sparks for science never existed before the scientific revolution took place. (I think it is uncharitable for you to think that I would deny at least the ancient Greeks a place at the table for providing a ‘spark’). Nor did I mean to imply that those previous sparks did not influence Christian thinkers. (Jaki himself, whom I cited, mentioned that Aristotle’s works were influential). I ‘merely’ meant to claim that ‘the modern scientific method was brought forth from birth to a successful vibrant maturation in the Judeo-Christian worldview, and in that worldview alone” and suffered only stillbirths in other cultures.

    Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD – Tihomir Dimitrov – (pg. 222)
    A few Quotes: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God.”(Newton 1687,Principia)

    “When I reflect on so many profoundly marvellous things that persons have grasped, sought, and done, I recognize even more clearly that human intelligence is a work of God, and one of the most excellent.” (Galileo, as cited in Caputo 2000, 85).

    “To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power, to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more gratifying than knowledge.” (Copernicus, as cited in Neff 1952, 191-192; and in Hubbard 1905, v)

    “Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us tobe thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.” (Kepler, as cited in Morris 1982, 11; see also Graves 1996, 51).

    “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Bacon 1875, 64).

    “And thus I very clearly see that the certitude and truth of all science depends on the knowledge alone of the true God, insomuch that, before I knew him, I could have no perfect knowledge of any other thing. And now that I know him, I possess the means of acquiring a perfect knowledge respecting innumerable matters, as well relative to God himself and other intellectual objects as to corporeal nature.” (Descartes 1901, Meditation V).

    “The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God.” (Faraday, as cited in Seeger 1983, 101).

    “I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of.” (Maxwell, as cited in Campbell and Garnett 1882, 404-405)

    “Overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through Nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler.” (Kelvin 1871; see also Seeger 1985a, 100-101)

    “When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets, when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature’s curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature, I find myself often times reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, ‘How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all!’ ” (Boyle, as cited in Woodall 1997, 32)

    “The examination of the bodies of animals has always been my delight, and I have thought that we might thence not only obtain an insight into the lighter mysteries of nature, but there perceive a kind of image or reflection of the omnipotent Creator Himself.” (Harvey, as cited in Keynes 1966, 330)

    “There is for a free man no occupation more worth and delightful than to contemplate the beauteous works of nature and honor the infinite wisdom and goodness of God.” (Ray, as cited in Graves 1996, 66; see also Yahya 2002)

    “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God.” (Pasteur, as cited in Lamont 1995; see also Tiner 1990, 75)
    http://www.academia.edu/273960.....OD_Journal

    of related note:

    Bruce Charlton’s Miscellany – October 2011
    Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be – if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?
    http://charltonteaching.blogsp.....-wife.html

    The History of Christian Education in America
    Excerpt: The first colleges in America were founded by Christians and approximately 106 out of the first 108 colleges were Christian colleges. In fact, Harvard University, which is considered today as one of the leading universities in America and the world was founded by Christians. One of the original precepts of the then Harvard College stated that students should be instructed in knowing God and that Christ is the only foundation of all “sound knowledge and learning.”
    http://www.ehow.com/about_6544.....erica.html

    also of related note: Atheistic Scientists live in denial of the purpose they see in nature:

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

  39. 39
    tjguy says:

    Velikovsky @15

    Materialists have their own sacred stories. Like their talking puddle.

    Kind of like the talking burning bush?

    Right, except there is no God to talk through the puddle. Oh, and the bush didn’t talk. It was burning but did not burn up. God did the speaking.

  40. 40
    tjguy says:

    I get a real sour taste in my mouth everytime I see ‘news’ peddle her own obvious metaphysical opinions. No, not all theists believe we are alone. I certainly don’t.

    It is interesting that atheists are happy to believe in aliens which they can’t see and have no evidence of, but they absolutely refuse to believe in God.

    So, it’s not that they are anti-faith. It is that they are anti-faith when the object of the faith is a supernatural being.

    I think there is far more evidence for God’s existence than for aliens, but then, that’s just my opinion. It’s how I see it.

  41. 41
    velikovskys says:

    Eric:
    What do hurricanes have to do with anything?

    Hypothesis per BA:Why not just cut out the unnecessary middle man of unguided material processes and just admit that God is, by far, the best explanation?

    Just following the logic. All natural phenomenon are best explained by God. God is the best explanation for example why hurricanes form, what direction they move, the devastion they produce. Material explanations and processes are unnecessary.

    v
    “finding how things work is interesting for some big complex brains . . .”<

    Eric
    Which is different than those who think certain things might be here for a purpose in what way exactly?

    That is a different question. The question was if God is the best explanation for all things and material processes are unnecessary, what is lost. And that is the ” how” , which many big complex brains find interesting.

    v
    “three, I am even more glad you are not my cardiologist.

    Eric
    Right, because you wouldn’t want a cardiologist who thinks your heart is actually carefully designed for a purpose

    I am not sure who you are arguing with but it isn’t me. It is true I would be a little off put by a cardiologist who thought heart disease was carefully designed for a purpose, but if he was adept in modifying the design I would have no objection.

    My feeling is I would not want a cardiologist who believed material processes were unnecessary, I prefer that he believed they were quite necessary and that material processes could keep other material processes from happening. But maybe that is just me.

    No, you’d be much better off with someone who thinks the heart is an evolutionary quirk, an accident of fate, a lucky coincidence of matter in motion.

    Frankly that would be fine too, if he was a good plumber

    Someone who thinks that if they they don’t understand why a particular biological part is there, then it probably doesn’t have any function and is just useless junk, an evolutionary side road, a useless vestigial relic,

    I am trying to avoid that particular biological part becoming a piece of useless junk, a relic.

    something that can be cut out without any negative impact. Yeah, you’d be a lot better off with someone like that.

    I am thinking if you get far enough to be called a cardiologist you realize what a negative impact cutting out a patient’s heart would be, plus the bad yelp reviews would be disastrous as well for the bottom line

  42. 42
    velikovskys says:

    Tiguy:
    Right, except there is no God to talk through the puddle. Oh, and the bush didn’t talk. It was burning but did not burn up. God did the speaking.

    That is because the puddle doesn’t talk, just like the burning bush.Someone’s else is speaking.

  43. 43
    velikovskys says:

    Tiguy,
    It is interesting that atheists are happy to believe in aliens which they can’t see and have no evidence of, but they absolutely refuse to believe in God.

    Read your own quote, Sovereign is a theist

  44. 44
    Eric Anderson says:

    velikovskys:

    All natural phenomenon are best explained by God.

    Where did you come up with that caricature?

    The rest of your comments about the heart are just sarcastic and not addressing substance, which I probably should have expected, since your original comment about the cardiologist was just a jab.

    Anyway . . . between you and BA. Carry on . . .

  45. 45
    velikovskys says:

    Eric:
    Where did you come up with that caricature?

    Perhaps you are right, BA may have been referring to only one specific instance of ignoring material processes as unnecessary, the brain. I read it as a general rule that God was the best explanation for all things, the middle man was unnecessary.

    The rest of your comments about the heart are just sarcastic and not addressing substance

    Not just sarcastic , why is the heart designed for a purpose and the production of plaque which clogs up the arteries not designed?

  46. 46
    Joe says:

    Why are cars designed but car accidents are not?

  47. 47
    bornagain77 says:

    velikovskys, so let me get this straight. Your agree that the human brain, which is, by far, more complex than the entire internet combined, is best explained by almighty God, but that you are invoking the ‘middle man’ of unguided material processes between God and the human brain, because of evil that is present in the world???

    But what is the best explanation for evil in the world?

    In order to judge whether something is evil or not, you must have some objective standard of good that has been departed from. In other words, you need God in order to deny that God is necessary to ‘directly’ create the human brain.

    In other words, you are using a theological argument that directly presupposes God in its premises in order to deny God is directly necessary. It is a self defeating theological argument!

    Somehow, I was hoping for something a bit more scientific from you. Not a sophomoric theological argument.

    Isaiah 45:7
    I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
    – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):

    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    Since Darwin’s book ‘Origin of Species’, besides being bad science, is also rife with bad theology, it is not surprising that the liberal ‘unscientific’ clergy of Darwin’s day were very eager to jump on the Darwinian bandwagon from the beginning, whilst the ‘scientific’ clergy shunned it:

    “Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....of_Species

    Also of note, Darwin’s degree was in theology, not science

    The Descent of Darwin – Pastor Joe Boot – video – 16:30 minute mark
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996

  48. 48
    KRock says:

    Jim Smith@ #4

    Except that three of the most noted researchers (Keel, Hynek and Vallee) in the UFO phenomenon all came to the same conclusion that the origin of whatever it is that’s occurring, is likely inter-dimensional, not extra-terrestrial. I will also note that none of the above researchers were theists.

  49. 49
    velikovskys says:

    Joe:

    Why are cars designed but car accidents are not?

    Heart disease is the result of chance?

  50. 50
    velikovskys says:

    BA:
    velikovskys, so let me get this straight. Your agree that the human brain, which is, by far, more complex than the entire internet combined, is best explained by almighty God

    Nope. 0 for 1. Not unless you know how God created the material form of the brain.

    but that you are invoking the ‘middle man’ of unguided material processes between God and the human brain, because of evil that is present in the world???

    Nope. 0 for 2. So I was correct, God is the best explanation for all ” natural” phenomenon for you. And remember you said unnecessary middle man

    But what is the best explanation for evil in the world?

    Good question , for whom?

    In order to judge whether something is evil or not, you must have some objective standard of good that has been departed from

    Nope.You just need a standard.

    . In other words, you need God in order to deny that God is necessary to ‘directly’ create the human brain.

    Nope, faulty premises lead to a faulty conclusion even if the logic is correct

    In other words, you are using a theological argument that directly presupposes God in its premises in order to deny God is directly necessary. It is a self defeating theological argument!

    It would be if I had but I am not arguing that since evil exists that God must not be the direct cause of natural phenomenon,I do believe that is the theological argument used by those Christian founders of scientific method, an argument which has been abandoned. For more of a bottom up approach.

    Somehow, I was hoping for something a bit more scientific from you. Not a sophomoric theological argument.

    Thank you for your high expectations

  51. 51
    Joe says:

    Heart disease is the result of chance?

    Could be. An unlucky mutation or mutations could be the cause of heart disease.

Leave a Reply