ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
I see little in either the dark matter of the dark energy questions that has much bearing on scientific arguments about whether or not God exists.
I see the partial ignorance of scientists regarding 96% of the universe as comparative to the atheist's certainty regarding the non-existence of God/Creator.
There was time when scientists were provisionally, tentatively and probationary certain about one galaxy, the Milky Way galaxy, being the sum total of the universe. Now scientists are provisionally, tentatively and probationary certain that the universe contains over 125 billion galaxies.
So pardon me if I don't take seriously the Atheist's fraudulent certainty regarding the non-existence of God/Creator.
How about the atheist's lack of a compelling reason to accept the notion of supernatural effects, agencies, or entities at face value?
I make no claims regarding the existence of such things, as I don't know whether they exist or not.
However, I lack a compelling reason to behave as if they do exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbang123
1) OBJECTIVE REALITY – There is a near universal prevalence of religious faith in every human society
(remember, the exception does not disprove the rule – the exception confirms the rule)
2) THEORIES regarding the underlying reason for that objective reality (guesswork)
A) Non-supernatural explanation per the atheist
Religion evolved out of self-interest and the need for an above world umpire and guiding/binding set of rules.
B) Supernatural explanation per the theist and this semi-deist (me)
The result of a mental/spiritual vacuum in humans constructed by the Creator
3) MY PERSONAL CONCLUSION (based on guesswork)
A) Semi-Deism - I am not a pure deist because a pure deist is a complete disbeliever when it comes to any sort of divine intervention after creation, whereas I am more agnostic on that issue.
After a consideration of cause and effect and my theory that global truths are most likely the truest truths.
a) Explanation & Elaboration
The golden rule is proven true by its near universality
The golden rule (in some form or another) clearly is an intuitive, global truth
THE GOLDEN RULE
CHRISTIANITY- "DO TO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO TO YOU" LK 6:31
CONFUCIANISM-"DO NOT DO TO OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE YOURSELF" (ANALECTS X11:2)
TAOISM- A GOOD MAN WILL "REGARD [OTHERS] GAINS AS IF THEY WERE HIS OWN AND THEIR LOSSES IN THE SAME WAY" (THAI SHANG, 3)
ZOROASTRIANISM-"THAT NATURE ONLY IS GOOD WHEN IT SHALL NOT DO TO ANOTHER WHATEVER IS NOT GOOD FOR ITS OWN SELF" (DEDISTAN-I-DINIK 94:4)
HINDUISM-"ONE SHOULD NEVER DO THAT TO ANOTHER WHICH ONE REGARDS AS INJURIOUS TO ONE'S OWN SELF. (ANUSHANA PARVA, 113:7)
JAINISM- ONE SHOULD GO ABOUT "TREATING ALL CREATURES IN THE WORLD AS HE HIMSELF WOULD BE TREATED" (KATANGA SUTRA, BK. 1, LECT. 11:33)
BUDDHISM-"AS A MOTHER CARES FOR HER SON, ALL HER DAYS, SO TOWARDS ALL LIVING THINGS A MAN'S MIND SHOULD BE ALL-EMBRACING" (SUTTA NIPATA, 149)
JUDAISM-"WHAT IS HATEFUL TO YOURSELF DO NOT DO TO YOUR FELLOW MAN" (BABYLONIAN TALMUD, SHABBATH 31A)
ISLAM- MUHAMMAD SAID "NO MAN IS A TRUE BELIEVER UNLESS HE DESIRES FOR HIS BROTHER THAT WHICH HE DESIRES FOR HIMSELF" (IBN MADJA, INTRODUCTION 9)
(Adapted from FOUR VIEWS ON SALVATION IN A PLURALISTIC WORLD, editors dennis okholm and timothy phillips)
maybe the creator of the universe is to be found at the points where all religions converge.
I see your point............................................. ............not.
Location: A spacious corner office overlooking the River Phlegethon
Rep Power: 50251
Atheist
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"Do what thou wilt" shall be the hole in the floor.
Reputation:
April 29th, 2012, 09:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbang123
I see your point............................................. ............not.
All that post shows is that human beings, in the aggregate, tend to think alike.
We humans are, after all, social creatures, and maintaining social cohesion is to the benefit of the group as a whole.
Now, what compelling reason is there for me to behave as if some supernatural entity has a particular interest in human social cohesion, when I need look no further than my fellow human beings for a compelling reason?
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization."
I see the partial ignorance of scientists regarding 96% of the universe as comparative to the atheist's certainty regarding the non-existence of God/Creator.
To each his own. By some logical contortion you relate “partial ignorance” about dark energy and matter – some of which science only recently developed the technical expertise to reliably measure the effects of - to atheist’s conclusions based on documents and testimony about God that has been fervently presented to them for millennia? Wow.
Quote:
There was time when scientists were provisionally, tentatively and probationary certain about one galaxy, the Milky Way galaxy, being the sum total of the universe. Now scientists are provisionally, tentatively and probationary certain that the universe contains over 125 billion galaxies.
More than that, scientists (if the natural philosophers of old might be so described) believed the earth was the center of the universe. Why? A literal reading of your Bible so indicates. I suspect even you have followed science at least to expanding the known universe to far beyond our solar system, and hopefully even to galaxies. If you fear to believe in science to that extent, then perhaps the religious stories and traditions recorded by a nomadic society of several millennia ago in the Bible might be your best refuge.
Quote:
So pardon me if I don't take seriously the Atheist's fraudulent certainty regarding the non-existence of God/Creator.
I hold no grudges for being called fraudulent, you are pardoned.
Last edited by DavisBJ; April 29th, 2012 at 10:44 PM.
Reason: black -> dark (energy)
To finite minds such as ours, infinite complexity and chaos are indistinguishable. It is therefore no argument to say that the universe and all the creatures that dwell therein come about by accident or the permutations of blind law and mechanical forces.
“Creatorship,” as one religious source has it, “is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature.” There’s no beginning, no end and no cause. God (infinite complexity) and the universe (effect) just happen. The who made God? argument is therefore a non sequitur and there’s nothing “supernatural” about it, although there is a hierarchical relationship within the whole.
Skeptics don’t have to accept this "infinite complexity" hypothesis, but they cannot logically oppose it. Logic and reason have become bankrupt when they persist, in the face of each recurring universe phenomenon, in basing their objections on referring what is admittedly higher (more complex) back into that which is admittedly lower (more simple).
“Behind the barricades of pre-established structures, the foxes of the intellect may engage in clever reasoning, but the lion of Being continues to roar outside the gate.” ~ Tarthang Tulku
Last edited by Lost Comet; April 30th, 2012 at 02:04 AM.
Well done, Stripe, thank you. I presume you are relying on your source only for the statements you quoted about the assist DE and DM make to the big bang, since some of the alternatives it posits to the big bang are at least as discordant with YEC timelines as the big bang is.
But anyway, let’s pick up with just the info you put on the table. You don’t contest the measurements that lead to proposing DE or DM. You say:
Quote:
Probably not. We just have a better theory.
I think you use the word “theory” here only as a counterpoint to the scientific use of the word theory in “big bang theory.” I say that because I presume you do not hold your “theory” as being an explanation that is subject to being overturned if a more accurate and supported explanation (a better theory) is forthcoming.
Your “better theory”, how does it explain the rotation rate of galaxies and keep it consistent with the identifiable sources of gravity (in other words, how does you theory handle the observations that lead to Dark Matter)? And on the Dark Energy side – how does your theory explain the observed (but unexpected) change in the rate of galactic recession?
Well done, Stripe, thank you. I presume you are relying on your source only for the statements you quoted about the assist DE and DM make to the big bang, since some of the alternatives it posits to the big bang are at least as discordant with YEC timelines as the big bang is.
I worked hard to find a non-YEC source for the challenge.
Quote:
I think you use the word “theory” here only as a counterpoint to the scientific use of the word theory in “big bang theory.” I say that because I presume you do not hold your “theory” as being an explanation that is subject to being overturned if a more accurate and supported explanation (a better theory) is forthcoming.
Uh ... why would you think that?
Quote:
Your “better theory”, how does it explain the rotation rate of galaxies and keep it consistent with the identifiable sources of gravity (in other words, how does you theory handle the observations that lead to Dark Matter)? And on the Dark Energy side – how does your theory explain the observed (but unexpected) change in the rate of galactic recession?
The observations that lead to DM and DE only lead there if you're tied to the big bang model. Without being tied to that model, an alternate explanation for the origin of the universe has to be assumed.
The question is, which explanation is better? One that produces a need for invisible and undetectable "dark" concepts, or one that sticks to what is physically possible with what we can see.
More than that, scientists (if the natural philosophers of old might be so described) believed the earth was the center of the universe. Why? A literal reading of your Bible so indicates. I suspect even you have followed science at least to expanding the known universe to far beyond our solar system, and hopefully even to galaxies. If you fear to believe in science to that extent, then perhaps the religious stories and traditions recorded by a nomadic society of several millennia ago in the Bible might be your best refuge.
I don't believe that the bible is anything more than a human invention so don't hang that millstone around my neck.
All that post shows is that human beings, in the aggregate, tend to think alike.
We humans are, after all, social creatures, and maintaining social cohesion is to the benefit of the group as a whole.
Now, what compelling reason is there for me to behave as if some supernatural entity has a particular interest in human social cohesion, when I need look no further than my fellow human beings for a compelling reason?
OBJECTIVE REALITY – There is a near universal prevalence of religious faith in every human society
You have hit upon the answer - the reason why a majority of unrelated cultures believe in the supernatural.
Or could the following be the reason?
THEORY regarding the underlying reason for that objective reality (guesswork)
Supernatural explanation per the theist and this semi-deist (me)
The result of a mental/spiritual vacuum in humans constructed by the Creator
Linear Mode
