1) “The laws of science..."
2) Still waiting for real life examples of "...very, very merciful..."
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
The monstrous Christian / Islamic God
- Thread starter samsara15
- Start date
2) Still waiting for real life examples of "...very, very merciful..."
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Re: Dr. Who
“On Earth, a long sequence of improbable events transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row. Contrary to the prevailing belief, maybe we are special …. It seems prudent to conclude that we are alone in a vast cosmic ocean, that in one important sense, we ourselves are special in that we go against the Copernican grain.”
Robert Naeye
“On Earth, a long sequence of improbable events transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row. Contrary to the prevailing belief, maybe we are special …. It seems prudent to conclude that we are alone in a vast cosmic ocean, that in one important sense, we ourselves are special in that we go against the Copernican grain.”
Robert Naeye
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
If God did not intervene to cause the universe to be conducive to life it would be completely and utterly inhospitable.
Were you swallowed by a black hole this morning? If not thank God.
Were you swallowed by a black bear this morning? If not thank God.
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
to dahermit
Re: Laws of science and God's mercy
While NOTHING in science is carved in stone for all eternity, we do accept certain propositions as "laws". Laws are laws because there have never been any exceptions found.
Theories often have exceptions. Evolution is not a law but is a theory. Beacuse "laws" have no known exceptions, they are considered to be more reliable than theories. Laws are accepted as absolute and will continue in this status until/if someone finds an exception. Theories are constantly in flux and are adjusted as new findings must be incorporated.
There are 3 laws of thermodynamics. They are accepted as laws because no exception to them has ever been found. One of those laws, #2, deals with entropy. To paraphrase, it says the universe is slowly winding down. Over time the total amount of energy remains constant but the amount of that energy that is available for useful work is shrinking. This is a "law" of science because no exception has ever been found.
There are 3 laws of biogenesis. They are laws because NO EXCEPTION has ever been found.
Hawking is correct in his reference to "laws of science".
Because of the finetuning present throughout the universe, many scholars (and the number is growing by leaps and bounds each day) have concluded that the universe is not a random event but rather a deliberate act. You asked for examples of God's mercy. How about:
1. It rains on earth so we can drink water and grow crops and go water skiing and brew beer.
2. The air is breathable and filters out UV rays. Not just breathable for humans but also for animals and plankton and whales.
3. The earth is an optimal distance from the sun. Just the right amount of heat and just the right composition to put a golden tan on young and shapely ladies, enhancing their appeal.
4. The earth has a moon which creates cleansing tides and results in a daily migration of shrimp in and out of channels. This provide opportunities for amateurs like me to put a tasty cocktail on the table from time to time.
5. Conditions for life are so optimal on earth that there are literally millions and millions of different species. (I happen to like golden retrievers and brown pelicans the best).
God didn't provide any of the above on Mercury or Titan. He did provide the above for our planet.
Examples of God's mercy are all around but you can only see them if you chose to do so.
Re: Laws of science and God's mercy
While NOTHING in science is carved in stone for all eternity, we do accept certain propositions as "laws". Laws are laws because there have never been any exceptions found.
Theories often have exceptions. Evolution is not a law but is a theory. Beacuse "laws" have no known exceptions, they are considered to be more reliable than theories. Laws are accepted as absolute and will continue in this status until/if someone finds an exception. Theories are constantly in flux and are adjusted as new findings must be incorporated.
There are 3 laws of thermodynamics. They are accepted as laws because no exception to them has ever been found. One of those laws, #2, deals with entropy. To paraphrase, it says the universe is slowly winding down. Over time the total amount of energy remains constant but the amount of that energy that is available for useful work is shrinking. This is a "law" of science because no exception has ever been found.
There are 3 laws of biogenesis. They are laws because NO EXCEPTION has ever been found.
Hawking is correct in his reference to "laws of science".
Because of the finetuning present throughout the universe, many scholars (and the number is growing by leaps and bounds each day) have concluded that the universe is not a random event but rather a deliberate act. You asked for examples of God's mercy. How about:
1. It rains on earth so we can drink water and grow crops and go water skiing and brew beer.
2. The air is breathable and filters out UV rays. Not just breathable for humans but also for animals and plankton and whales.
3. The earth is an optimal distance from the sun. Just the right amount of heat and just the right composition to put a golden tan on young and shapely ladies, enhancing their appeal.
4. The earth has a moon which creates cleansing tides and results in a daily migration of shrimp in and out of channels. This provide opportunities for amateurs like me to put a tasty cocktail on the table from time to time.
5. Conditions for life are so optimal on earth that there are literally millions and millions of different species. (I happen to like golden retrievers and brown pelicans the best).
God didn't provide any of the above on Mercury or Titan. He did provide the above for our planet.
Examples of God's mercy are all around but you can only see them if you chose to do so.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Re: to dahermit
So few people understand that. You are heads and tails above most just by saying that alone.
"Laws are laws because there has never been an exception found." You might as well have taken that straight from an old science textbook. Back when science textbooks still said that. Today it is glossed over.
That is a beautiful example of inductive reasoning. Here are some others:
No one has ever seen a purple spotted goose so they don't exist.
I have never seen a black swan so they don't exist.
My son has never seen an appaloosa so they don't exist.
The son has always risen so it always will.
Some obvious flaws:
We have never examined the whole universe so a purple spotted goose may be in some part of it we have not seen.
Black swans do exist. So do appaloosas. Again our failure to observe all the data does not make it so.
The sun will burn out some day. (well probably since that is an inductive statement too)
So taking what we have learned from the flaws mentioned above and applying it to the laws of nature:
Man has been observing the universe for a great many thousands of years but the universe is probably billions of years old. We have been observing it for a very brief period of time. Furthermore, we have only observed a tiny speck of the whole thing.
And in that tiny amount of time and tiny amount of space that we have observed we have stated a law -
Let's look at the first law often called the conservation of matter: (paraphrased) Matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed.
Now an obvious example of that law not being followed would be the creation of the universe itself. First there was nothing and then - bang - there was a universe. Matter suddenly existed. We have a choice to say that this is a violation of the first law, or to say that the first law did not apply at that time (an admission of one of it's limits), or to say that the universe did not begin from nothing. As a rule scientist reject the first and third in favor of the second.
So now that there is an accepted exception to the first law of thermodynamics might there be others? This opens the door nicely to the very real possibility of miracles. In other words since the creation of the universe itself was a miracle then any other miracle is also possible.
Did you people know that scientist don't stop at saying that at the beginning matter was created ex nihilo? They also say that matter is continually popping into and out of existence. So now matter is created all the time. The laws of science have regular exceptions and the possibilities of miracles as a regular part of reality is very real.
I always knew that science would catch up with religion.
Here is a relevant quote from a cosmologist ( for you laypeople that is a scientist who studies the origins of the universe.):
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Robert Jastrow
So few people understand that. You are heads and tails above most just by saying that alone.
"Laws are laws because there has never been an exception found." You might as well have taken that straight from an old science textbook. Back when science textbooks still said that. Today it is glossed over.
That is a beautiful example of inductive reasoning. Here are some others:
No one has ever seen a purple spotted goose so they don't exist.
I have never seen a black swan so they don't exist.
My son has never seen an appaloosa so they don't exist.
The son has always risen so it always will.
Some obvious flaws:
We have never examined the whole universe so a purple spotted goose may be in some part of it we have not seen.
Black swans do exist. So do appaloosas. Again our failure to observe all the data does not make it so.
The sun will burn out some day. (well probably since that is an inductive statement too)
So taking what we have learned from the flaws mentioned above and applying it to the laws of nature:
Man has been observing the universe for a great many thousands of years but the universe is probably billions of years old. We have been observing it for a very brief period of time. Furthermore, we have only observed a tiny speck of the whole thing.
And in that tiny amount of time and tiny amount of space that we have observed we have stated a law -
Let's look at the first law often called the conservation of matter: (paraphrased) Matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed.
Now an obvious example of that law not being followed would be the creation of the universe itself. First there was nothing and then - bang - there was a universe. Matter suddenly existed. We have a choice to say that this is a violation of the first law, or to say that the first law did not apply at that time (an admission of one of it's limits), or to say that the universe did not begin from nothing. As a rule scientist reject the first and third in favor of the second.
So now that there is an accepted exception to the first law of thermodynamics might there be others? This opens the door nicely to the very real possibility of miracles. In other words since the creation of the universe itself was a miracle then any other miracle is also possible.
Did you people know that scientist don't stop at saying that at the beginning matter was created ex nihilo? They also say that matter is continually popping into and out of existence. So now matter is created all the time. The laws of science have regular exceptions and the possibilities of miracles as a regular part of reality is very real.
I always knew that science would catch up with religion.
Here is a relevant quote from a cosmologist ( for you laypeople that is a scientist who studies the origins of the universe.):
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Robert Jastrow
Most of the universe completely and utterly inhospitable, albeit very much varied. How then is the condions on earth just not a random function of the distance from the sun?
If I were swallowed by a black bear this morning should I blame God? Or, do good things always get credited to God and bad things always credited to something else? Is not God responsable for everything?
What dr who meant is that you need to fine-tune the initial conditions of the big bang to derive a flat space-time geometry since only a flat space-time geometry could sustain a longevity of 13 billion years -- the amount of time necessary to form the structures of the universe (and life) we see today.
And to achieve these exact conditions is roughly equivalent to the probability of you hitting the lottery jackpot for a week straight.
That is what you would have reasonable people believe when you talk of your random nonsense.
Please show me, in quotes, where I said that a "big bang" created the universe.
numinus,
You are obviously are a very intelligent with an impressive command of the sciences.
In a college environment, participants in a debate class or club are often required to debate, from the position opposite of their own stand on an issue for the purpose of testing their logic and debating skills.
It is obvious that your believe in God and the creation by God of the universe. Just as an indulgence, and a demonstration of your capabilities and knowledge of the sciences, would you present your most convincing argument, based on the sciences, that there is no God and that the universe was not the result of a supreme being?
You are obviously are a very intelligent with an impressive command of the sciences.
In a college environment, participants in a debate class or club are often required to debate, from the position opposite of their own stand on an issue for the purpose of testing their logic and debating skills.
It is obvious that your believe in God and the creation by God of the universe. Just as an indulgence, and a demonstration of your capabilities and knowledge of the sciences, would you present your most convincing argument, based on the sciences, that there is no God and that the universe was not the result of a supreme being?
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I'll bite too.
"In all the hundreds of years that science has been observing the universe many people have never seen objective and repeatable evidence of God's existence."
Now you list the flaws with that.
Being killed by a bear is the result of who's sin. The victum's or the bear's?
Is there any observation made by any astronomer to even suggest that the universe did not come from a hot big bang?
LOL.
How about this:
Heisenberg's uncertainty, including all the 'quantum fluctuations' lagboltz had been babbling about is nothing more than an epistemic limitation of the human condition. Given enough time and scientific advancement, we would eventually figure it out. You can let your speculative imagination loose from this point.
Of course, such an argument would entail a healthy amount of faith in the scientific method, not to mention the re-interpretation of what quantum mechanics really means.
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
When you are in a loving relationship with God, when you walk with him and you talk with him, when you are in communion with God, then your will is aligned with His and He can do what is best for you and your receive blessings beyond that which is common to man.
When you reject His love and rebel against his ways then you are out of communion with God. You do not follow his will and often do not understand it. This is the process of sin.
When you sin, God because He is Holy, is restrained by His nature (He cannot stop being Holy which means as one sense of the word 'separate'). He cannot be in the presence of sin or it would destroy the sin and the sinner. (I am sure that is not what you would want.) When you sin He is far from you.
God restrains the universe on your behalf. He holds it together and causes it to function in ways that are good for you. He also restrains nature and causes it to function in ways that are good for you. He does that both on a sociological level by doing things that benefit all mankind in general and by doing things that benefit individuals. But when you are far from God, when you rebel (sin), when you do not walk with Him, when you are out of His will, then He is not able to offer you the same blessings. Additionally, he corrects you and punishes you as a method of bringing you near again (though sometimes you receive blessings as a way of bringing you closer). Additionally, some individuals receive the punishment they deserve as a message to others.
When Elisha was walking near a city that was well known for rejecting God a group of delinquents came out to taunt him and throw rocks at him. Elisha called on God to make an example of them and to remove His blessing from them. Prior to that even though they did not walk with God they received a certain amount of favor. After that God removed what little favor they had and the result was that an angry bear came and mauled them ( the bear was just doing what bears do but with bit less restraint). The story stands as a testimony for you and I about the dangers of removing oneself from the protections of God through our rebellion and sin.
Similar threads
