Religion III

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

You didn't answer the question, "Does the Law of Conservation break down in the Planck era", but rather changed the subject to Woodford's "We don't know what happened before the Planck era, so not nothing." Having seen Hawking and Eric Seigel, et.al., equivocate "nothing" to mean quantum states, or the laws of physics, or gravity (something), I'm not confident in a youtuber to grasp the theist's "ex nihilo".

I'm not much interested in the Kalam argument as a proof of a finite universe. I much prefer the metaphysical arguments which do not depend upon a finite universe.

Correction: Ethan Siegel. He's an astrophysicist.
#4 is relevant to the metaphysician, of which he is not...

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-b...nings-nothing/

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

FTFY

Wishful thinking...

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by Actor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNdwt1gy5xM

Do all atheists believe the above like you do?

Most journalists don't know that the scientist behind the "Big Bang" was a Roman Catholic Priest. At minimum it shows that there is reasonableness and rationality behind the Christian idea of creation.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by porchy44

Do all atheists believe the above like you do?

No. Atheists have no dogma.

Originally Posted by porchy44

Most journalists don't know that the scientist behind the "Big Bang" was a Roman Catholic Priest. At minimum it shows that there is reasonableness and rationality behind the Christian idea of creation.

How does it show that?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Wishful thinking...

That's exactly what religion is.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That's exactly what religion is.

No, that is what atheistic human-secularist evolution is. One huge pipe dream.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, that is what atheistic human-secularist evolution is.

Do you mean biological evolution?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I much prefer the metaphysical arguments which do not depend upon a finite universe.

Do you believe the universe is infinite?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Do you believe the universe is infinite?

No.

I don't follow the latest science the way I follow Gulfstream Park. My latest understanding is that the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth theorum argues to a beginning in time because of entropy measurements that indicate such. Sean Carroll and Jennie Chen have tried to counter with a model that proposes a singularity after the initial early low entropy level which would explain current levels. William Lane Craig and Vilenkin himself have cited its deficiencies. If there are later developments I'm unaware, so I think I'm allowed to prefer the philosophical position of a beginning in time, for a host of other subjective reasons. And I sometimes chuckle at modeling "eternity"...https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology/#LimiScie

Materialists acknowledge that "from nothing, nothing comes" (Aquinas), when they cite an eternal universe, and that the power to bring existence from a previous physical state would be unmeasurable (not relational, unknown) and therefore infinite. The power of a maker (previous physical state, God) is derived from the substance made and the manner in which it is made. I agree with those who cite that the greater the distinction in existence (a previous physical state vs. non-being, ex nihilo), the greater the infinite power. There could be no greater unmeasurable/ infinite power than to create from non-being rather than a previous physical state, which would be arguably measurable in a sense due to a physical entity. Having created from non-being, the First Cause would be an ever-sustaining cause of existence, even now.

From the point of reference for a faith-informed-by-reason worldview, I don't rely on cosmology as much as 1) agape love as described in literature, esp. Judeo-Christian scripture, which I don't see as possible in terms of evolution, due to local maxima. The genetic hill climbing to enable reproduction would stop once it merely eclipsed the neighboring level...https://www.google.com/search?q=imag...-serpresulting in something like generic empathy or altruism, which is nothing like the self-donating love of "agape". Only agape love could describe the manner in which I love my granddaughters. 2)Consciousness. Brilliant materialists like David Chalmers, Raymond Tallis, Thomas Nagel, et.al., have surrendered the idea that modern science captures consciousness, while holding to their physicalism. One can search theirs and others' reasoning. (Chalmers believes the universe is teeming with consciousness-the pixels in your monitor are conscious). 3). Modern science has relocated subjective experience (qualia) to the mind. Since qualitative experience cannot be quantified with precision, it is claimed that it is not a real feature of the external, objective world. That disqualifies it from being a brain function, and so we arguably have an immaterial presence in the physical world...https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/#Irreducible... By its own standards, science has allowed for immateriality alongside physical reality.

Thanks for the discussion, Actor.

[boxcar]

Moved from Dodgers Thread:

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You are playing with words. "Allows/permits".

When I see a criminal act that I can easily put an end to without having any harm come to myself, and I turn my back to it and "permit" it to happen...then I am "allowing" this crime to go on. Especially when I am responsible for the existence of the "criminal". And no sane person can say that I remain "blameless" in the matter.

No, your premise is wrong. God is not responsible for the existence of the "'criminal'". God didn't create defective goods. "God created Adam (mankind) upright but men have gone in search of many schemes" (Eccl 7:29).

Furthermore, God created mankind in his image, which means in part that he created us as free moral agents, as He himself is. Don't you enjoy being a free moral agent, even though you, too, are a "criminal" in God's eyes? You, too, are lawless since you're a sinner as we all are (1Jn 3:4; Rom 3:10). Or do you lament your free will and prefer instead to be a programmed robot?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Moved from Dodgers Thread:



No, your premise is wrong. God is not responsible for the existence of the "'criminal'". God didn't create defective goods. "God created Adam (mankind) upright but men have gone in search of many schemes" (Eccl 7:29).

Furthermore, God created mankind in his image, which means in part that he created us as free moral agents, as He himself is. Don't you enjoy being a free moral agent, even though you, too, are a "criminal" in God's eyes? You, too, are lawless since you're a sinner as we all are (1Jn 3:4; Rom 3:10). Or do you lament your free will and prefer instead to be a programmed robot?

The "criminal" that I was talking about in my hypothetical example was Satan. God created him, he knew what sort of an "influence" Satan would be in the world...and yet he is allowing him free rein to do as he pleases. And God remains "blameless" for this, in your warped mind.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The "criminal" that I was talking about in my hypothetical example was Satan. God created him, he knew what sort of an "influence" Satan would be in the world...and yet he is allowing him free rein to do as he pleases. And God remains "blameless" for this, in your warped mind.

Nothing worse than a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

And God also knew that Adam and Eve would be deceived by the evil one. Now...if our first parents had trusted God instead of the "serpent", things would have been a lot different; for God had created Adam, specifically, to be co-regent with him and also to serve as a "priest" to "keep" and "guard" God's "temple" (the Garden wherein God dwelt with Adam) from [morally/spiritually] unclean beings. But Adam failed miserably. Therefore, Adam, as mankind's federal representative, forfeited dominion over this created planet. The entire world from that time until the advent of the Second Man (a/k/a the Last Adam, i.e. Jesus) was given to Satan and to all the angels who fell with him. While, it may not appear so, we're in the Kingdom Age of Christ, and after Jesus whips his lethargic, apostate Church into shape, the "militant church" will "conquer" the world for the Son of David, just as the Israelites virtually conquered the Promised Land under the leadership of King David.

Of course, at the end of the day, it must still be asked why did God allow Adam and Eve to sin against him? Scripture doesn't tell us so I can only concur with Augustine's theory: God thought it better for mankind to have the knowledge of good and evil, than not to have it. After all, God's ways and thoughts are not like ours!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Nothing worse than a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

And God also knew that Adam and Eve would be deceived by the evil one. Now...if our first parents had trusted God instead of the "serpent", things would have been a lot different; for God had created Adam, specifically, to be co-regent with him and also to serve as a "priest" to "keep" and "guard" God's "temple" (the Garden wherein God dwelt with Adam) from [morally/spiritually] unclean beings. But Adam failed miserably. Therefore, Adam, as mankind's federal representative, forfeited dominion over this created planet. The entire world from that time until the advent of the Second Man (a/k/a the Last Adam, i.e. Jesus) was given to Satan and to all the angels who fell with him. While, it may not appear so, we're in the Kingdom Age of Christ, and after Jesus whips his lethargic, apostate Church into shape, the "militant church" will "conquer" the world for the Son of David, just as the Israelites virtually conquered the Promised Land under the leadership of King David.

Of course, at the end of the day, it must still be asked why did God allow Adam and Eve to sin against him? Scripture doesn't tell us so I can only concur with Augustine's theory: God thought it better for mankind to have the knowledge of good and evil, than not to have it. After all, God's ways and thoughts are not like ours!

It all sounds like a bad movie script to me, Boxcar. None of it makes any sense, except to those poor misguided souls who think like you do. To me, the bible is nothing but the delusional meanderings of some ancient nomads who decided to call themselves the "chosen people" of some imaginary God.

A quick question for you. The bible dictates the harshest punishment for acts like adultery and working on the Sabbath day...but not a single word of condemnation against the heinous act of SLAVERY. Were you aware of that? It's true, I checked. If the bible is the "total and complete Word of God"...how do we explain such an omission? Surely a benevolent God would have considered the act of slavery to be a bigger sin than collecting wood on the Sabbath days...NO?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It all sounds like a bad movie script to me, Boxcar. None of it makes any sense, except to those poor misguided souls who think like you do. To me, the bible is nothing but the delusional meanderings of some ancient nomads who decided to call themselves the "chosen people" of some imaginary God.

The Gospel does not make sense to most in the world (1Cor 1:23). But I can assure you that the story of the bible is one of God's redemption of sinners throughout the whole world in and through his Son Jesus Christ -- from Genesis to Revelation. And God's plan in the story has a very joyous ending; for God's purposes cannot be thwarted (Isa 46:10; Job 42:2). Here's the ending that begins, paradoxically, with God's New World Order:

Rev 21:1-4; 22-27
21:1 Then I saw a NEW heaven and a NEW earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the NEW Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away...22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25 On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26 The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
NIV

I believe that the catholic (universal) Church will come to life through a huge Spirit-led revival that will spearhead an even bigger revival throughout the whole world whereby the majority of mankind will believe the gospel and repent of its sins. And shortly after that happens, Christ will return.

A quick question for you. The bible dictates the harshest punishment for acts like adultery and working on the Sabbath day...but not a single word of condemnation against the heinous act of SLAVERY. Were you aware of that? It's true, I checked. If the bible is the "total and complete Word of God"...how do we explain such an omission? Surely a benevolent God would have considered the act of slavery to be a bigger sin than collecting wood on the Sabbath days...NO?

I have addressed this issue in past years. I will search my archives to see what I have and get back to you.

[boxcar]

Mr. Thask, I resurrected an old post that deals with the slavery question you raised. CH broached the same subject on a Religion thread back in 2016. So, here's the copy of the entire post.

Just remember that slavery back in ancient civilizations had an entirely different connotation to it than slavery did (or even has) in modern times. We must not forget that Back Then...there were no social welfare programs in place to support the poor or the unskilled. Slavery, for the most part, served a good social purpose in the ancient world. Anyway...here's the post, again.

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

boxcar,

How do you reconcile things like slavery in the Bible?

This has been discussed often -- going as far back as 2012. But again...slavery was indigenous to _all_ the ancient NE cultures -- even in Jesus' day. It is noteworthy that Jesus himself never brought up slavery as a moral issue because his mission in the world was not to change politics or cultures, but to save individual sinners. This doesn't mean, however, that the bible is silent on the issue. Under the Old and New Covenants, humane treatment of slaves is mandated. But in this New Covenant dispensation, slaves are encouraged to seek their freedom (1Cor 7:21). So, during first century Christianity, the apostle Paul, under divine revelation, wrote that God preferred freedom over slavery. After all, Christians are already in "bondage" to God, for he redeemed (bought!) them for a very high price when his Son atoned for their sins by shedding his blood on the Cross.

I have also discussed in the past that the alternatives to slavery in those ancient cultures weren't so great. Captives in wars were carried away to be sold as slaves. Also, in most cases as civilizations advanced, owners of slaves discovered a fundamental truth: It was better to treat their "property" with care than not! Why go out and spend good money on slaves only to toss your money away by beating your property to death!? Or abusing them so badly that they can't earn their keep? I suspect that most slave owners treated their slaves with a measure of respect and dignity. Certainly that appeared to be the case with the Roman centurion who sought Jesus out in order to entreat him to heal his slave (Lk 7:2ff.)

Slavery was simply a fact of life in virtually all, if indeed not all, ancient civilizations. After God mandated human government, it was sinful man who ordained slavery, not God. Perhaps the oldest sinful institution known to man is not prostitution but slavery! Slave ownership, with that one NT exception, was not a spiritual/moral issue in the bible, per se. But treatment of slaves was.

==========================

So, basically,what I was getting at in the above post was that the gospel of the kingdom is designed to change one heart at a time, so that over time the redeemed of God would collectively carry out their mission in this world to be "salt" and "light" in order to influence their cultures and societies for the good. Even in Western Civilization, it was Christians who largely influenced the politics of countries to eventually and officially end slavery! Do we not see the very same thing right now going on with abortion? Isn't this one of the big reasons Christians are hated by unbelievers?