Media News Religion

Collectively, New Scientist wonders whether God exists

Spread the love

Collectively, they are, um, dumb. After a while, one gets plumb tired of it.

From Graham Lawton at New Scientist:

IT COST more than $13 billion and took 14 years, but eventually, as expected, God showed up. The joy and relief were immense. That was in 2012, and the evidence has only become stronger. Disbelief is no longer an option. God is real. Not the God of course, but Her particle, aka the Higgs boson.

If only proving the existence of God were that simple. Gallons of ink and blood have been spilled over this question but have largely got us nowhere. Belief in a god or several gods is a leap of faith. So is disbelief. The only coherent and rational position is agnosticism.More.

Do you exist? Do I? If not, whose thoughts are these anyway? Why can we even communicate?

If there was not a designer of the universe, it must be some force that functions very much like that.

One gets uneasy when one realizes that these people actually take all this seriously. They can’t rest until they have completely deconstructed thinking in general.

See also: Evolution bred a sense of reality out of us NPR’s Adam Frank: I find the logic in Hoffman’s ideas both exciting and potentially appealing because of other philosophical biases I carry around in my head. (But he suspects the theory is ultimately wrong.)

and

The war on falsifiability in science continues

Follow UD News at Twitter!

42 Replies to “Collectively, New Scientist wonders whether God exists

  1. 1

    “Belief in a god or several gods is a leap of faith. So is disbelief. The only coherent and rational position is agnosticism.”

    That there is no evidence for the existence of God goes to show it is categorically a matter of opinion, same as what is beautiful is a matter of opinion.

    There is a fundamental part of reality to which objectivity does not apply, which is agency of decisions. Therefore we have subjective terms like love, hate, good, evil, the human spirit, the soul and God to deal with the reality of agency of decisions.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    As to the Higgs Boson, Dr. Craig used the example of Peter Higg’s mathematical prediction of the Higg’s boson itself, which Peter Higg’s had made decades before it was discovered by the LHC, as part of his philosophical proof for Theism from the applicability of mathematics:

    Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – Dr. Craig – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF25AA4dgGg

    1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence.
    2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence.
    3. Therefore, God exists.

    Of interest to theoretical mathematics that are fruitful to the progress of science, it is said that the best mathematical theories, that are later confirmed empirically to be true, were born out of the mathematicians ‘sense of beauty’. Higgs’s work was itself described as ‘beautiful’:

    How the hunt for the Higgs boson began – Nov. 2010
    Excerpt: Higgs collected his papers and, step by step, took the audience through his theory. Dyson listened intently. He thought Higgs’s work was beautiful.
    http://io9.com/5682875/how-the.....oson-began

    Paul Dirac is said to have mathematically discovered the ‘anti-electron’, before it was empirically confirmed, through his mathematical ‘sense of beauty’:

    Graham Farmelo on Paul Dirac and Mathematical Beauty – video (28:12 minute mark – prediction of the ‘anti-electron’)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfYon2WdR40

    As the preceding video highlighted, Paul Dirac was rather adamant that beauty was integral to finding truth through math, even to the point of preferring beauty over empirical confirmation:

    ‘it is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment’
    Paul Dirac

    Albert Einstein was also a big fan of beauty in math. Einstein stated:

    ‘the only physical theories that we are willing to accept are the beautiful ones’
    Albert Einstein

    As well, In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said,

    “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”

    In regards to General Relativity, mathematical physicist Clifford Will said

    “Fiddling with general relativity, he believes, would be tantamount to changing the Fifth Symphony. “General relativity is so unbelievably beautiful and simple – it’s in some ways the most perfect gravitational theory that you could possibly imagine,” he says. All of the alternatives he’s seen so far are “horrendously ugly by comparison”.”
    https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/general-relativity-%E2%80%93-still-ahead-its-time

    He is not alone

    Einstein’s Masterpiece – Michael W. Begun – Fall 2015
    Excerpt: General relativity has served as a paragon of a scientific theory, and generations of physicists have hailed its sublimity. Ernest Rutherford, for instance: “the theory of relativity by Einstein … cannot but be regarded as a magnificent work of art.” Wolfgang Pauli: “it will always remain the pattern of a theory of consummate beauty of the mathematical structure.” Sean Carroll: “General relativity is the most beautiful physical theory ever invented.”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....asterpiece

    Alex Vilenkin, who mathematically proved that all hypothetical inflationary universes must have also have had a beginning, commenting on Euler’s Identity, stated,,,

    “It appears that the Creator shares the mathematicians sense of beauty”
    Alex Vilenkin – Many Worlds in One: (page 201)

    ‘Mathematical beauty’ even had a guiding hand in the discovery of the Amplituhedron:

    The Amplituhedron (mathematical beauty – 21:12 minute mark) – Nima Arkani-Hamed, Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By27M9ommJc#t=1272

    Moreover, it was found when mathematicians were shown equations such as Euler’s identity or the Pythagorean identity the same area of the brain used to appreciate fine art or music lights up:

    Mathematics: Why the brain sees maths as beauty – Feb. 12, 2014
    Excerpt: Mathematicians were shown “ugly” and “beautiful” equations while in a brain scanner at University College London.
    The same emotional brain centres used to appreciate art were being activated by “beautiful” maths.,,,
    One of the researchers, Prof Semir Zeki, told the BBC: “A large number of areas of the brain are involved when viewing equations, but when one looks at a formula rated as beautiful it activates the emotional brain – the medial orbito-frontal cortex – like looking at a great painting or listening to a piece of music.”
    per bbc DOT com

    What is astonishing, in this seemingly deep connection between math and beauty, is the fact that the ‘argument from beauty’ is a Theistic argument.

    Aesthetic Arguments for the Existence of God:
    Excerpt: Beauty,,, can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this `idea’ of beauty were not found in the mind in a more perfect form.
    http://www.quodlibet.net/artic.....etic.shtml

    Of related note: But where this ‘sense of beauty’ in mathematics seems to break down is with string theory, and m-theory:

    The part of the book (‘The Trouble With Physics’) I found most interesting was the part which tells how the string theorists were scammed by Nature (or Mathematics). Of course, Smolin doesn’t put it exactly like this, but imagine the following conversation.———
    String theorists: We’ve got the Standard Model, and it works great, but it doesn’t include gravity, and it doesn’t explain lots of other stuff, like why all the elementary particles have the masses they do. We need a new, broader theory.
    Nature: Here’s a great new theory I can sell you. It combines quantum field theory and gravity, and there’s only one adjustable parameter in it, so all you have to do is find the right value of that parameter, and the Standard Model will pop right out.
    String theorists: We’ll take it.
    String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, our new theory won’t fit into our driveway. String theory has ten dimensions, and our driveway only has four.
    Nature: I can sell you a Calabi-Yau manifold. These are really neat gadgets, and they’ll fold up string theory into four dimensions, no problem.
    String theorists: We’ll take one of those as well, please.
    Nature: Happy to help.
    String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, there’s too many different ways to fold our Calabi-Yao manifold up. And it keeps trying to come unfolded. And string theory is only compatible with a negative cosmological constant, and we own a positive one.
    Nature: No problem. Just let me tie this Calabi-Yao manifold up with some strings and branes, and maybe a little duct tape, and you’ll be all set.
    String theorists: But our beautiful new theory is so ugly now!
    Nature: Ah! But the Anthropic Principle says that all the best theories are ugly.
    String theorists: It does?
    Nature: It does. And once you make it the fashion to be ugly, you’ll ensure that other theories will never beat you in beauty contests.
    String theorists: Hooray! Hooray! Look at our beautiful new theory.
    ———- Okay, I’ve taken a few liberties here. But according to Smolin’s book, string theory did start out looking like a very promising theory. And, like a scam, as it looks less and less promising, it’s hard to resist the temptation to throw good money (or research) after bad in the hope of getting something back for your effort.
    http://www.amazon.com/review/R2H7GVX4BUQQ68/

    Verse and Music:

    Psalm 27:4
    One thing I ask from the LORD, this only do I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze on the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple.

    Hillsong United – Lord of Lords – With Subtitles/Lyrics
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFkY5-Xp710

  3. 3

    “Collectively, they are, um, dumb.” This is not hyperbole. It is true, and I have been saying it for quite some time.

    “They can’t rest until they have completely deconstructed thinking in general.” Another insightful truth. I am no longer shocked by the lunacy of strident atheists. Mildly entertained…but never shocked.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    a few notes on Higgs:

    Is the Higgs Boson (aka the God Particle) also finely tuned for life? So researchers think so!
    Rethinking the universe: – June 17, 2013
    Excerpt: “It all has to do with one of the main theoretical puzzles in fundamental physics,” explains (Stephen M.) Barr. “Why is the mass of the Higgs particle 17 orders of magnitude smaller than its ‘natural’ value?”
    Two explanations have been proposed, and both of them predict new phenomena that should be seen by the LHC. But so far, there is no hint of them. “That is why our radical proposal nearly 15 years ago is attracting increasing attention,” he adds.
    Their idea is that the Higgs boson mass has to have an “unnaturally” small value for life to be possible. In other words, if it didn’t, we wouldn’t be here.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-r.....verse.html

    The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics – Jan. 14, 2016
    Excerpt: Dangerous No. 1: The strength of the Higgs field,,,
    there’s something mysterious about the Higgs field that continues to perturb physicists like Cliff.
    According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics — the two theories in physics that drive our understanding of the cosmos on incredibly large and extremely small scales — the Higgs field should be performing one of two tasks, says Cliff.
    Either it should be turned off, meaning it would have a strength value of zero and wouldn’t be working to give particles mass, or it should be turned on, and, as the theory goes, this “on value” is “absolutely enormous,” Cliff says. But neither of those two scenarios are what physicists observe.
    “In reality, the Higgs field is just slightly on,” says Cliff. “It’s not zero, but it’s ten-thousand-trillion times weaker than it’s fully on value — a bit like a light switch that got stuck just before the ‘off’ position. And this value is crucial. If it were a tiny bit different, then there would be no physical structure in the universe.”
    Why the strength of the Higgs field is so ridiculously weak defies understanding.
    Dangerous No. 2: The strength of dark energy
    ,,, you should be able to sum up all the energy of empty space to get a value representing the strength of dark energy. And although theoretical physicists have done so, there’s one gigantic problem with their answer:
    “Dark energy should be 10^120 times stronger than the value we observe from astronomy,” Cliff said. “This is a number so mind-boggling huge that it’s impossible to get your head around … this number is bigger than any number in astronomy — it’s a thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion times bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. That’s a pretty bad prediction.”
    On the bright side, we’re lucky that dark energy is smaller than theorists predict. If it followed our theoretical models, then the repulsive force of dark energy would be so huge that it would literally rip our universe apart. The fundamental forces that bind atoms together would be powerless against it and nothing could ever form — galaxies, stars, planets, and life as we know it would not exist.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....57366.html
    video – Particle physicist Harry Cliff works on the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, and he has some potentially bad news for people who seek answers to these questions. Despite the best efforts of scientists (and the help of the biggest machine on the planet), we may never be able to explain all the weird features of nature. Is this the end of physics?
    http://www.ted.com/talks/harry.....of_physics

    The Higgs Paradox: A Phenomenal Finding Leads To Many More Questions – June 23rd, 2014 | by Michael Keller
    Excerpt: Discovering the Higgs boson plugs a large hole in the standard model, the highly tested theory that shows all matter is made of a number of elementary particles that interact through four fundamental forces—strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Together, these comprise everything we currently understand about matter.
    “The standard model provides a consistent explanation of the subatomic world,” said Jonathan Bagger,,, “The Higgs boson is at the center of the model. It’s the linchpin. But there’s plenty of the universe that the standard model doesn’t address.”
    In fact, all of the stuff that the standard model explains represents only 4.9 percent of the universe. Dark matter, which physicists and astronomers can’t actually detect with their instruments, makes up 26.8 percent of the universe, and a whopping 68.3 percent is composed of dark energy, a hypothesized form of energy that is also currently undetectable.,,,
    (Moreover),The Higgs particle itself is outside the (standard) model. When its mass is plugged in, Bagger says, the picture goes wonky and the math says that quantum fluctuations over time should destroy the universe. “There are several options to fix the math, but none of them are within the standard model,” he says.
    http://txchnologist.com/post/8.....ds-to-many

    as to the standard model itself:

    The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws – Luke A. Barnes – Fall 2015
    Excerpt: Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature.
    These constants represent the edge of our knowledge. Richard Feynman called one of them — the fine-structure constant, which characterizes the amount of electromagnetic force between charged elementary particles like electrons — “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.” An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics.
    Many have tried and failed. ,,,
    Tweaking the Constants
    Let’s consider a few examples of the many and varied consequences of messing with the fundamental constants of nature, the initial conditions of the universe, and the mathematical form of the laws themselves.
    You are made of cells; cells are made of molecules; molecules of atoms; and atoms of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons, in turn, are made of quarks. We have not seen any evidence that electrons and quarks are made of anything more fundamental (though other fundamental particles, like the Higgs boson of recent fame, have also been discovered in addition to quarks and electrons). The results of all our investigations into the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are summarized in the Standard Model of particle physics, which is essentially one long, imposing equation. Within this equation, there are twenty-six constants, describing the masses of the fifteen fundamental particles, along with values needed for calculating the forces between them, and a few others. We have measured the mass of an electron to be about 9.1 x 10^-28 grams, which is really very small — if each electron in an apple weighed as much as a grain of sand, the apple would weigh more than Mount Everest. The other two fundamental constituents of atoms, the up and down quarks, are a bit bigger, coming in at 4.1 x 10^-27 and 8.6 x 10^-27 grams, respectively. These numbers, relative to each other and to the other constants of the Standard Model, are a mystery to physics. Like the fine-structure constant, we don’t know why they are what they are.
    However, we can calculate all the ways the universe could be disastrously ill-suited for life if the masses of these particles were different. For example, if the down quark’s mass were 2.6 x 10^-26 grams or more, then adios, periodic table! There would be just one chemical element and no chemical compounds, in stark contrast to the approximately 60 million known chemical compounds in our universe.
    With even smaller adjustments to these masses, we can make universes in which the only stable element is hydrogen-like. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we would be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction. If the up quark weighed 2.4 x 10^-26 grams, things would be even worse — a universe of only neutrons, with no elements, no atoms, and no chemistry whatsoever.
    ,,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,,
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....tures-laws

  5. 5
    rvb8 says:

    “The only coherent and rational position is agnosticism.”

    This is probably true, but definately cowardly. I take the position that an entity, God, can not exist because that existance is an insult to the laws of science.

    I can not diprove God, nor do I want to. The proof of the Higgs’ Boson existance, a particle that gives some qualities to other particles, and fills a gap in our understanding of the sub-atomic world, is wonderful. Its discovery, and the existance of God, are completely opposite.

    Two more questions for the faithful: I understand why atheists should wish to debunk the idea, ‘God’! After 2000 years of relentless persecution, atheists see the Wesren world as a relatively safe place to finally be allowed to speak: It was a long and hard fight.

    But why on earth would the faithful wish to ‘prove’ God? Wouldn’t that destroy ‘faith’, the very foundation of religion?

  6. 6
    HeKS says:

    rvb8 @6,

    It looks like you really are a troll after all. You might have just taken the record for ‘most ridiculous comments in the least amount of space’. Every paragraph revolves around a completely absurd claim.

  7. 7
    Querius says:

    rvb8,

    Once again, we are presented with a vase of vacuous views filled with the flatulent flora of feelings unfettered by the cruel chains of evidence and logic.

    The question that still remains unanswered concerns what ethical grounds, if any, would an atheist object to using the flesh of a fetus to feed the desperately hungry. Hmmm?

    The faithful read in the Bible that it’s not praiseworthy for someone to believe in God—that even the devils believe, and they tremble.

    -Q

  8. 8
    Querius says:

    HeKS,

    You just beat me to the punch! 😉

    -Q

  9. 9
    Querius says:

    And I’m becoming more convinced that some of these posts are actually generated by a troll app.

    One way to tell is in the quality of the responses that it generates. Anyone who has tried to corner Eliza would understand.

    -Q

  10. 10
    bb says:

    “But why on earth would the faithful wish to ‘prove’ God? Wouldn’t that destroy ‘faith’, the very foundation of religion?”

    Define faith rvb8. Maybe offer some verses to support your definition.

  11. 11
    Rennie says:

    @BA77

    Thank you for the related material. Your knowledge of these subjects are amazing. The New Atlantis article is a real gem. thank you.

  12. 12
    rvb8 says:

    The title includes this, ‘New Scientist’ wonders whether God exists.

    As I read this I knew that several posters would arrive and bring some information that supposedly proves a God.

    My question is in no way trollish. Why would the faithful want a proof of God? If such hard physical evidence came to light pointing to the undeniable existance of God, I would be down on my knees begging forgiveness, for my past blindness. No such eveidence exists, and I’ll wager highly, no such evidence will come to light.

    My question remains; ‘Why would the faithful want hard physical proof of God?’ If such came to light all humanity would believe and having faith would become moot. In what way is that trollish? It’s directly linked to this post’s topic.

  13. 13
    Origenes says:

    rvb8: If such hard physical evidence came to light pointing to the undeniable existance of God, I would be down on my knees begging forgiveness, for my past blindness.

    So, if it is shown that the physical constants of the universe are fine tuned, then you would be convinced of God’s existence?

  14. 14
    rvb8 says:

    How can you prove an assertion? I know only one thing for certain in this argument, and it is that you and your supporters have as much evidence that God exists that I have for His non-existance.

    However, I have something you don’t, the fact that no known laws of physics have ever been violated. The only evidence for the flipping of these laws on their heads, comes from ancient religious manuscripts, the minds of story tellers, our collective imaginations and dreams, and hearsay piled upon hearsay.

    This is not trolling, it’s directly addressing the topic that New Scientist and I are on the same boat.

  15. 15
    Marfin says:

    rvb8- Do you believe homeopathy medicines can cure people and if not why not.

  16. 16
    Origenes says:

    rvb8: However, I have something you don’t, the fact that no known laws of physics have ever been violated.

    So you know for a fact that the coming into existence of your post #15 is fully explainable by blind unthinking fermions and bosons, which are not at all interested in producing rational sentences about facts and truth?
    How do you — whatever “you” means in your philosophy — explain that fact?

  17. 17
    Vy says:

    This is probably true, but definately cowardly.

    Have you looked in a mirror lately?

    I take the position that an entity, God, can not exist because that existance is an insult to the laws of science.

    LOL! “Insult to the laws of science”. I didn’t know science had feelings.

    I’d love to know where this Darwinian pseudoscience entity you conflate with actual science lives.

    I can not diprove God, nor do I want to.

    You can’t even prove you’re not a bug in a chat app.

    Two more questions for the faithful: I understand why atheists should wish to debunk the idea, ‘God’! After 2000 years of relentless persecution, atheists see the Wesren world as a relatively safe place to finally be allowed to speak: It was a long and hard fight.

    Please tell me your programmer was drunk when he made you blurt this out.

    But why on earth would the faithful wish to ‘prove’ God? Wouldn’t that destroy ‘faith’, the very foundation of religion?

    Really? You got this from a NS article?

  18. 18
    Rennie says:

    @rvb8

    Inanimate matter (disorder) organizing itself into complex self replicating organisms (order), without the assistance of an outside intelligent directive is a clear case of the some sceintific law being violated.

    http://www.witpress.com/elibra.....es/4/4/420

    Then further I would like you to help us out and explain where the laws of physics came from. How did nothing produce these laws that governs our existance?

  19. 19
    Vy says:

    However, I have something you don’t, the fact that no known laws of physics have ever been violated.

    ????

    The big bang itself breaks all the laws of physics, it existed within non-existence prior to the formation of the laws of physics and the “natural forces”. Miraculously, the singularity knew it was “unstable and hot” and capable of exploding.

    Remember inflation? The ftl imaginary expansion of the universe? How about the nebular hypothesis and it’s miraculous coalescing of imaginary planetesimals on impact when impact in reality leads to break up?

    Please tell your programmer to check your codebase.

    The only evidence for the flipping of these laws on their heads, comes from ancient religious manuscripts, the minds of story tellers, our collective imaginations and dreams, and hearsay piled upon hearsay.

    You just described Atheism and Atheists.

    This is not trolling, it’s directly addressing the topic that New Scientist and I are on the same boat.

    “Drug Addict: This is not drug addiction, it’s just taking a bunch of pills. I can stop whenever I want.”

  20. 20
    Vy says:

    Querius @8, at least his posting of crap is consistent. 🙂

  21. 21
    Eugen says:

    I used to read New Scientist and Scientific American and endure their cheap materialist propaganda. Today it’s easy to inform yourself on many science Web pages. I’m convincing friends to quit reading those magazines as well but some of them are atheists so they don’t see the problem.

  22. 22
    soundburger says:

    I always look forward to a new rv comment!

    It’s always fun to guess whether it will contain more spelling errors, logical errors or factual errors!

  23. 23
    bb says:

    rvb8:

    I take the position that an entity, God, can not exist because that existance is an insult to the laws of science.

    Johann Kepler on science:

    O God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee.

    Who’s right? Hmmmmm. Perhaps the one that actually added to our understanding of the universe?

    Once again rvb8, what is your definition of faith that it would be undermined by proof of God’s existence? I asked in 11, but you either missed or ignored it. Newton saw order in the cosmos as proof for God:

    This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; ,,,
    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 pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,,

    -Isaac Newton, Principia

    There is no indication that his faith was destroyed.

  24. 24
    mw says:

    rvb8 #6: “But why on earth would the faithful wish to ‘prove’ God? Wouldn’t that destroy ‘faith’, the very foundation of religion?”

    rvb8, in my opinion, your last comment @6 is a good question containing a statement of fact.

    Of course, Vy 16, points out that the Big Bang Theory is not natural science at initiation, but a physical impossibility, if we are being truthful.

    See https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/133-big-bang-theory-vs-gods-word-the

    bb, #11, asks us to define faith. Surely such is the belief in the unseen, a conviction, but given with divine authority under divine revelation such as at Sinai.

    Paul said: “Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed.” (Gal 3:23)

    Of course, the law was given through Moses, believed in faith by the rest of the Israelites with their own fair share of daily miracles for forty years.

    “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible….” (Heb 11).

    And faith in name of Jesus is same as faith in the word of Jesus as one God: “And by faith in his name, his name itself has made this man strong, whom you see and know; and the faith that is through Jesus has given him this perfect health in the presence of all of you.” (Acts 3:16)

    According to Hugh Ross, http://www.reasons.org/article.....t-it-first, consensus science has ‘proved’ the literal word of the Judaeo-Christian God inaccurate and highly misleading, hence not needed is a fact of divine law, creation took a true six days. Flawed is the speech of the Holy Trinity set in a divine law.

    Of course, if God really did use the Big Bang, he must at every stage have continuously intervened to make sure everything went in its rightful place over 13.7 billions of years. Surely, needed is more continuous effort and work compared to creating a mature creation in six days?

    However, through the Big Bang scenario, He also should have then have known better than to imply He ‘loosely’ created in six days, and not made to appear as though He is making a ‘porky’ out of divine law and the Ten Commandments.

    One example of a counter to Hugh Ross: https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/ (paste link into top address bar of browser).

    What then the rest of the divine law? Even to love God, we struggle to love his word that He created in six days. Who wants to publicly love something painted ridiculous by powerful theory eagerly accepted?

    Therefore, Yahweh’s credibility at Sinai is definitely reduced by the Big Bang Theory and Darwinism; the very foundation of seven-day worship initiated by a powerful and public miracle and continually witnessed over forty years to set up firm faith as given by a super intelligence who revealed Himself for a good and clear reason. The present fellow Christian evolutionist worldview teaches destructive faith; the very word of the God of Sinai is not necessary to have faith in.

    In summary, rvb8 makes a reasonable statement.

  25. 25
    OldArmy94 says:

    From Luke 16:19-31

    And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’

    A rejection of God is a rejection of common sense and ingrained understanding of reality. I find it ironic that rv8 disparages religion as a compilation of hearsay upon hearsay; there is no more egregious example of that than Darwin’s religion.

  26. 26
    Querius says:

    Vy and soundburger,

    LOL!

    It’s always fun to guess whether it will contain more spelling errors, logical errors or factual errors!

    Indeed! One could probably come up with ratios of E(s), E(L), and E(f) that can then be used in an equation. It will be a simple equation, of course. 😉

    I happened to notice that rvb8 bounces to a new post as soon as there are enough challenges to E(L) and E(f), and uncomfortable questions such as

    “On what grounds do you base your objection to using the flesh from a fetus as protein to supplement the diet of those who are starving?”

    So, I get a distinct feeling that I’m in a silent movie, waving a silver crucifix at a vampire trapped in the morning rays of sunshine! LOL 😉

    -Q

  27. 27
    Querius says:

    OldArmy94 @26,

    I find it ironic that rvb8 disparages religion as a compilation of hearsay upon hearsay; there is no more egregious example of that than Darwin’s religion.

    Yes, but predictable.

    The strategy is to smear your challengers. This dodges the untenable ethics of atheism, the magical appearance of existence from non-existence, and the manufactured mythologies of evolution that defy statistics and chemistry based on the concept of what “must have happened.”

    -Q

  28. 28
    rvb8 says:

    Heh:) Yeah, sorry for the spelling, I am an incredibly lazy speller; shuffles feet and hands behind back.

    However; “Darwin’s religion”? This is just embarassing, as it seems to suggest that every biology department, at every ‘serious’, university in the world, is conspirationally trying to dupe scientists. These duped scientists are also complicit in this fraud, and have been for 150+ years.

    I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but you certainly appear to be.

    Have a nice day, in your strange and rareified existance.

  29. 29
    Querius says:

    If you had cared enough to look them up, the word is “conspiratorially,” and the other word is spelled “existence.”

    Scientific theories inevitably are overturned as new technologies, new discoveries, and intensive study drive scientific knowledge forward against the relentless tides of orthodoxy.

    Except of course that quaint, 19th century theory whose corpse is tied to the mast of a wooden ship wrecked on a mounting reef of evidence and improbabilities—an anachronism in the age of space travel that can be explained only by a fanatical religious attachment based on non-scientific ideological imperatives.

    But getting back to the question that you’ve been dodging:

    “On what grounds do you base your objection to using the flesh from a fetus as protein to supplement the diet of those who are starving?”

    Any chance that you will provide an answer with a rational atheistic justification?

    -Q

  30. 30
    bb says:

    mw @25

    Surely such is the belief in the unseen, a conviction, but given with divine authority under divine revelation such as at Sinai.

    That’s the classic atheist strawman definition of faith. mw, you also quote Hebrews 11:1-3, but none of that applies to God who is “….understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead…” (Romans 1:20).

    Hebrews 11 goes on to describe Moses as a man of faith. Yet, according to Exodus, Moses saw God in the burning bush, saw God destroy Egypt, saw God part the Red Sea, and saw God as a pillar of smoke and fire. Moses also saw God write the 10 commandments.

    Your definition of faith doesn’t fit Moses’ acceptance of God’s existence. In the context of the scripture, he had loads of proof. So did the rest of Israel, but not everyone trusted God and that’s the issue.

    The real definition of faith is trust that God will do what He said. Those are the things unseen because they haven’t happened yet. For those like Abraham, Moses, and John, that trust was based on what they saw God accomplish and what He demonstrated about Himself. For the rest of us, God’s existence is never a matter of faith because it’s so obvious from creation and it makes the most sense. Refusal to reach that conclusion is nothing more than a state of denial. It’s the result of a foolish, darkened heart and a futile mind, as described in Romans 1.

  31. 31
    Marfin says:

    rvb8 You did not reply on homeopathy , the question may have seemed out of context with this discussion but its not.
    I watched a comedian mock religion and all other quacks and homeopathy , he laughed at how people believed at how homeopathy could cure people when all they were taking was basically water as there was nothing of the original element that might cure you left in the potion they took.
    So his basic premise was how could nothing cure you , nothing will do nothing, how logical that is, unfortunately like most atheist`s his logic flies out the window when he then believes the universe came from nothing.
    Homeopathy curing you equals nonsense cause nothing will produce nothing , no results .
    Nothing produces universe`s completely logical as the universe must have come from somewhere and it could not have been God, so nothing produces something.
    Ah the twisted logic of those who will not see.
    NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING is evidence that something was and thats why something is.
    So rvb8 what is the something that was, that is the cause of this something that is, I would love to hear your scientific explanation.

  32. 32
    rvb8 says:

    Marfin,

    homeopathy we agree is not a cure for anything. Then you get into the, ‘where did the universe come from, if there was ‘nothing’ before? Therefore, therefore, therefore, what exactly? I don’t know and I know you don’t either. You have your answer, and I’m pleased it gives you comfort; that’s not a lie!

    I am not satisfied with your answer, and I believe other improbable models are far superior to an impossible answer; forces working beyond nature.

    I’ll qualify my ‘impossible’, by saying it may seem ‘impossible’ today, but as science advances who knows what discoveries may be made. Any discovery however must follow what we already know about, gravity, the other constant forces, matter, and the laws of thermodynamics. Called laws because they can not be broken.

  33. 33
    Autodidaktos says:

    “I take the position that an entity, God, can not exist because that existance is an insult to the laws of science.”
    Is there an argument that seeks to show that this statement is true, or is this simply an emotional outburst?

    “But why on earth would the faithful wish to ‘prove’ God? Wouldn’t that destroy ‘faith’, the very foundation of religion?”
    Faith, as St. Augustine defined it, is belief in the word of a witness. But to know that some person or agency is a witness obviously requires evidence. That said, the existence of God is not something that is known from a witness, it is a truth that can be arrived at via reason.

  34. 34
    Marfin says:

    rvb8- So you agree nothing comes from nothing ,then you proclaim an article of faith “I believe” oh what great faith you have.
    The funny thing is you did not present any evidence to support this faith, you just said you believe science will provide the answers so its a blind faith you have, as you have admitted nothing comes from nothing, but science one day will discover how something came from nothing.
    Why do atheists deny this basic fundamental law of nature when it comes to creation , but in every other aspect of life accept it.
    If I offered you a handful of nothing for 100 dollars on the promise that one day it will be something very valuable I assume you would politely refuse my offer , and we know why dont we.
    Nothing comes from nothing , Please do some basic science work on the first and second laws of thermodynamics .
    First law -matter can neither be created or destroyed.
    Second law -simply put its order to disorder its less and less energy available to do any work , the total amount in the universe remains the same but it will all the become same temperature hence in time a dead universe.
    So how did these unbreakable laws create , design, and order a universe , I await your answer from science.

  35. 35
    Vy says:

    However; “Darwin’s religion”? This is just embarassing, as it seems to suggest that every biology department, at every ‘serious’, university in the world, is conspirationally trying to dupe scientists. These duped scientists are also complicit in this fraud, and have been for 150+ years.

    Finally, the “evolution is true because umpteen scientists around the world believe it” argument. I hope you know it’s fallacious.

    Michael Crichton:

    Ehrlich answered by saying “I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists…”

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

    In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

    There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ”. The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties”. Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor – southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result — despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

    Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology – until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

    And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy? The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

    Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

    I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but you certainly appear to be.

    Really?

  36. 36
    Origenes says:

    rvb8,

    But why on earth would the faithful wish to ‘prove’ God? Wouldn’t that destroy ‘faith’, the very foundation of religion?

    Quite the opposite rvb8, it’s your position which is based on blind faith, since the chasm between the real world and a world consisting of just fermions and bosons can only be bridged by blind faith. A faith so strong and irrational that it allows a (fine-tuned) universe to pop into existence out of nothing and unthinking fermions and bosons to self-organize into life and rationality by sheer dumb luck.

  37. 37
    Vy says:

    I am not satisfied with your answer, and I believe other improbable models are far superior to an impossible answer; forces working beyond nature.

    And the only evidence you have for the alternative answer being impossible is? Oh wait, you don’t.

    I’ll qualify my ‘impossible’, by saying it may seem ‘impossible’ today, but as science advances who knows what discoveries may be made.

    Wild wishful thinking.

    Evolution (cosmic or otherwise) has been impossible since the ancient Greeks (maybe others) thought it up several millennia ago and several stories incorporated it (Norse mythology for example).

    The fact that Erasmus Darwin and friends indoctrinated Charles and others with science-sounding versions of the myths doesn’t make them any less mythical and offers no hope for their mythical status being changed in the future.

    Keep wishing tho

    Any discovery however must follow what we already know about, gravity, the other constant forces, matter, and the laws of thermodynamics.

    Like the big bang, dark energy, dark matter, hairy dark matter, dark photons, dark galaxies…basically the dark legion, the nebular hypothesis, the Oort cloud, evodelusion and a plethora of other probablymaybecouldness pseudoscience myths perpetuated around the world today?

    Called laws because they can not be broken.

    Does nature “obey” our scientific laws or do our scientific laws describe what we observe about nature?

  38. 38
    Vy says:

    I believe other improbable models are far superior to an impossible answer; forces working beyond nature.

    Atheist Bible – ProbablyMaybeCouldness Chapter 1:1:

    “In the beginning was nothing and nothing created something and nothing was something”

    Makes purrfect sense 😀

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    rvb8 at 29 you state:

    However; “Darwin’s religion”? This is just embarassing, as it seems to suggest that every biology department, at every ‘serious’, university in the world, is conspirationally trying to dupe scientists. These duped scientists are also complicit in this fraud, and have been for 150+ years.

    I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but you certainly appear to be.

    And yet, despite your incredulous protestations to the contrary, Darwinian evolution, since it has no real empirical support to establish itself as plausible, is very much dependent on its faulty theological premises to make it seem as if it is scientific.

    Let us be clear, ALL of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and of our ability to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Science was born out of the Judeo-Christian worldview in large measure because it is impossible to practice science as if the universe has no rhyme or reason for its existence as atheists presuppose.

    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

    “Though denying that God had a direct hand in creating species, he (Darwin) did nonetheless indicate that God created the natural laws of the cosmos, including the laws of evolutionary development. He also interpolated a statement about a Creator breathing life into one or a few (primitive) organisms into the 1860 edition of Origin.”
    http://www.americanthinker.com.....n_god.html

    Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and of our mind to comprehend it.

    And since Darwinian evolution denies the reality of the human mind in particular, which is necessary precept for being able to do science in the first place, then, of course, Darwinian evolution winds up in catastrophic epistemological failure. Several references establishing that point can be found in the following article:

    Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a foundation of illusions and fantasy
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit

    Charles Darwin himself used bad liberal theology, (instead of any compelling empirical evidence), extensively in his book “Origin of Species” to try to establish evolution as ‘scientific’.

    Here is a review of a peer reviewed paper that makes exactly that point:

    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

    And here is a lecture video that, in fairly good detail, examines the faulty theological foundation of Darwinian evolution.

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

    To this day, since Darwinian evolution has never established itself as a plausible scientific theory through experimental validation, Darwinian evolution is still very much dependent of its faulty theological premises:

    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

    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint, and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it, the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
    Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics, National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 (May 13, 2000)

    Here is a rather blatant example of Darwinists using bad liberal theology to try to establish evolution as true: At about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, ‘Darwin On Trial’, in the Journal Nature, one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue:

    Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw

    Here is a quote from the Nature article that tried to refute Johnson’s book. A quote that is, as you can see, blatantly theological:

    David Hull, reviewing Darwin on Trial for Nature, was equally severe with me for refusing to concede that Darwinism has finished off theistic religion for good. Hull emphatically proclaimed a Darwinist doctrine of God:

    “What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin’s Galapagos Islands? The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.6”
    http://www.arn.org/docs/orpage.....ngould.htm

    Verse:

    John 15:5
    “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

  40. 40
    mw says:

    bb, thank you for your well-grounded comments #31; you reply to me saying @31, “faith is the belief in the unseen,” by saying: “That’s the classic atheist strawman definition of faith. mw, you also quote Hebrews 11:1-3, but none of that applies to God….”

    And you added that faith is bound by evidence:

    “Hebrews 11 goes on to describe Moses as a man of faith. Yet, according to Exodus, Moses saw God in the burning bush, saw God destroy Egypt, saw God part the Red Sea, and saw God as a pillar of smoke and fire. Moses also saw God write the 10 commandments.”
    __________________________________________________________________

    The context of my correspondence was also in relation to science, the Big Bang Theory and its effects on faith.

    However, there is one event that was not seen; the Creation. Therefore, when you say, “none of that applies to God…” such is not the case by that example alone.

    The Holy Trinity was the only witness to the first act of Creation, and He wrote that it took Him six days. In the same divine law, He commanded us to remember such every seven days, in the same Ten Commandments you rightly mention.

    Are we saying, God give us straw men for laws and a straw creation to have faith in?

    At UD, I have also used the same good arguments you do to maintain that based is the Judaeo-Christian faith on witnessed evidence; truthful and reliable; able to withstand the test of ages and ages.

    However, as mentioned, one singular act over six days was only witnessed by the Judaeo-Christian God, that is allowing for the angels being generated before Adam and Eve according to inspired Genesis, which today is also made as straw, even when corresponding with a divine law.

    Besides, I did clarify that faith is also linked to evidence: “Surely such is the belief in the unseen, a conviction, but given with divine authority under divine revelation such as at Sinai.”

    In addition, at the end of time, Judaeo-Christians have faith in an unseen event; Judgement Day.

    Consider; who wants to wait billions of years for a makeover which entails entrance into eternal heaven or hell through an instantly generated new human species living in a never-ending day or night? Millions and millions of ‘dead’ people (souls minus their bodies) from all ages, instantly regenerated. No evolution theory needed at the end, and in law, none needed at the beginning.

    Of course, rvb8, would not subscribe to such at this time, but at least you know where he stands, and which scripturally, it seems, is better than “luke-warm” Christians (Rev 3:16).

    Another example of the unseen God requiring blind faith is the central worship of Catholics and Orthodox in the Eucharist; consecrated bread and wine becomes the real body and blood of Christ; a few Protestants believe the same: https://churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extraordinary-eucharistic-miracles-with-pictures/

    Also, when gathered together are two or three in His Name, Christians believe in the unseen presence, an act of faith in an unseen God.

    However, it also seems to me; the Big Bang Theory, as used by many fellow Christians, is a means to improve the word of God by fallen created creatures: the implications surely must be hazardous.

    “Blessed are those who have not seen but believe.” (Jn 20:29)

  41. 41
    bb says:

    mw,

    The point of my comment was to show how silly rvb8’s remark was:

    But why on earth would the faithful wish to ‘prove’ God? Wouldn’t that destroy ‘faith’, the very foundation of religion?

    The answer is no and Mr. b8 has a poor definition. Your last post is another matter entirely. You are right to include creation as unseen.

    I know God exists. It’s obvious in everything we see around us. I believe the Bible is His word and it has stood up to tests through the centuries, to the extent we can do that. I can trust that it is also right about our origins and that the world will end as prophesied.

    Many fossil age indicators, like strata, have proven to be misunderstood. What else are we missing? I think the Bible will be right about the age of the earth in the end, as it was with the idea that the universe had a beginning.

    Israel is a nation again and the entire world is against it to greater and lesser degrees, just as scripture foretold. No nation in history has recovered, from being scattered around the globe for 2,600 years, with its language, religion and culture intact. The historic wasteland of Palestine is once again an agricultural giant. Just as scripture said it would.

  42. 42
    mw says:

    bb @41, referring to rvb8’s question, “But why on earth would the faithful wish to ‘prove’ God? Wouldn’t that destroy ‘faith’, the very foundation of religion?”
    _________________________________________________________________

    Thank you for your explanation, though you maintain rvb8 made “a silly remark.”

    We agree the Creation was an unseen event, and I agree with your belief that seen is God in different manners, as St Paul wrote (Heb 11:3) and (Rom 1:20), and in relation to intelligent design being embedded throughout nature and the cosmos.

    Today, the Big Bang Theory and Darwinism, are both given as a reason to believe in God, or not to believe in God (though Darwin demolished Yahweh, so he thought, by saying He was “erroneous,” p. 6, On the Origin, 1859) on the Creation.

    Today, we are in a cosmic eclipse of the God of Sinai and of Christ, and because many theistic Christians say, Jesus was not scientific in His kenosis (excuse me while I pick myself up from the floor).

    Insignificant will be Christianity in Britain where I live by 2067 according to one extrapolation of the National Census. No doubt, led by the Pied Piper of Down and Lemaître (though in fairness to the latter, he apparently made it clear, his was a theory, and said so to Pope Pius the XII).

    My point, if evolutionary theory is true, divine law, written by God in stone, has a flaw of cosmic proportions.

    If ‘proved’ is God by an unprovable theory, no matter how compelling by its daily bread, then ‘proved’ is the God of Sinai wrong against His word verbatim.

    Therefore, there is loss of faith in the Ten Commandments, divine law, and confidence in the Judaeo-Christian God, and His command to remember every seven days He created in six days. If one divine law is not exact, then neither is God and in His prime choice of words. Science so-called as turned the Faith upside down, it has proved God “erroneous.”

    God/Jesus is “the true and faithful witness” and of His creation (Rev 3:14), and a “true witness does not say what is false” (Prov 14:5). “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him:” “flawless” (Prov 30:5). Theory turns and twists scripture to suit its disbelief. If God is truth and faithful witness, we are in one global beguiled mess.

    By ‘proving’ God created in the way of the Big Bang Theory, we have basically ‘proved’ we disbelieve God. Faith is reduced, crumpled is Divine Law written in stone, rebelliousness increased and scripture elasticated; all in the best possible godly or godless taste of course.

    Therefore, in my opinion, rvb8, raised a valid question.

Leave a Reply