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.
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.
first off, agnosticism deals with knowledge not belief. until there is testable, verifiable evidence proving the existence and nature of said God(s), Everyone is agnostic.
as a Deist i'm not so much against special revelation as much as i just don't see any compelling reason to accept it based on absolutely no evidence(or personal experience) to support it.
Orthodoxy is just the Tyranny of the Majority, a Spiritual Despotism where accepted doctrine is Sacred, Untouchable self-evident truth no matter how absurd it may be.
Stripe's explanation is that God makes the galaxies spin and recede at whatever speed He wants them to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbang123
Biblical Nonsense
Jos 10:12-13
On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a human being. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbang123
I don't believe that the bible is anything more than a human invention so don't hang that millstone around my neck.
I know that you don't put me in the same camp with Stripe.
as a Deist i'm not so much against special revelation as much as i just don't see any compelling reason to accept it based on absolutely no evidence(or personal experience) to support it.
I make no reference to special revelation.
Originally Posted by bigbang123
I don't believe that the bible is anything more than a human invention so don't hang that millstone around my neck.
Originally Posted by bigbang123
I prefer the term Semi-deist
This is not necessarily the case. Think outside the temporal box.
Precisely. Which is why I linked to Michael Shermer's article in Scientific American. Scientifically speaking, "something" can indeed come from "nothing." Even Shermer would agree that something and nothing exist together in sort of a tension-relationship and that the sum of all things is zero. Shermer simply fails to recognize that this tension-relationship entails a time-transcending and self-organizing process, which is to say there is no beginning or end to its infinite complexity and that the spacetime universe is an emergent property of this complexity.
These are just word-games. Something can't come from nothing, scientifically or any other way, unless we pervert the meaning of those terms.
In the universe, the "something" is energy. In fact, everything is energy. "Nothing" is then, by logical definition, the lack of energy (the lack of something). To claim that energy can spontaneously just happen is to make a claim that no human can defend, as we don't even know what energy is. Nor do we know how, why, or by what means the expression of energy is being ordered. And science will not likely ever reveal these things to us because to objectively observe 'energy' as a singular phenomena would require the observer to be nothing, and nowhere: to be apart from all that exists. From what perspective could we possibly observe the essence of all that exists?
Originally Posted by bigbang123
I don't believe that the bible is anything more than a human invention so don't hang that millstone around my neck.
Originally Posted by bigbang123
I prefer the term Semi-deist
special revelation = divine revelation
i agree with you on the Bible.
either you're a Deist or you aren't.
Orthodoxy is just the Tyranny of the Majority, a Spiritual Despotism where accepted doctrine is Sacred, Untouchable self-evident truth no matter how absurd it may be.
Slogan/motto:
"The Chief End of Me Is To Love GOD & Enjoy Him Forever!"
Reputation:
April 30th, 2012, 11:27 AM
Let us be not hypocrites. For the atheist will accuse the believer for being ill-logical for believing in something he cannot physically see with his eye's{namely GOD}. But some how it's not "ill-logical" to believe that "something" can come from "nothing". Have you ever "seen" something come from nothing??
You have no power or authority to box me in - i agree with much of deism but I am not a pure deist. Who put you in charge to say that semi-deism is not an acceptable option?
A pure deist says that the Creator after the big bang start has never and will never ever exert any influence in human affairs - I feel no confidence to say that that belief is 100% true.
Last edited by bigbang123; April 30th, 2012 at 11:54 AM.
The assumptions we hold are just as important in determining the conclusions we might reach as the evidence.
I agree. That is why science asks that the evidence be looked at from a stance equally accessible to Hindu and Christian, believer and heathen. When we walk in the lab, we have all agreed on the methodology and how we will interpret the results we get. If your theology accurately describes reality, then you should have no fear in showing that the evidence fits your theology without imposing preconditions.
Quote:
The observation is how fast they rotate.
Correct, and you agreed that the observations are not at issue. The observation is that they rotate too fast. This is important below.
Quote:
You're measuring gravity.
Well, to be a bit more accurate, we are measuring red shifts. From that we can infer the speed of stars in the limbs of the galaxies. And from that we can infer the amount of gravity that would be required.
Stripe links us to where Walt Brown deals with the way galaxies would evolve over eons:
Spiral Galaxies. If spiral galaxies formed billions of years ago, their arms should be wrapped more tightly around their centers than they are. Also, nearer galaxies should show much more “wrap” than more distant spiral galaxies. However, if space was recently stretched out, spiral galaxies could appear as they do.
Let me first comment on the final sentence above from Walt Brown. He is correct, if space was of recent creation and we are somehow privy to seeing the light even from the far reaches of space without the need for it to journey to us, then it matters little how galaxies are twisted, or whether they are collapsing into their centers, or whether they are flying apart, or whether the stars in them are weaving around in an ultra-slow motion square-dance pattern. Since on cosmic scales the last 7000 years is only a moment, then what we would see is pretty much the way they were cobbled together at the moment of creation. No reason to try to make sense of why they cluster into galaxies, or why the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram is populated as it is. Any physical phenomena understood by mainstream science to take more than 10,000 years to occur is pointless to study (unless maybe astrophysics is on the curriculum for new inductees into the eternities in the next life?) That means science’s explanations for stellar evolution are no more than wild guesses, most questions of long-term orbital stability are vacuous, and most cosmologists are working in fairyland.
But more focused on the question we are pursuing, look at what Walt says about the spiral arms of galaxies wrapping up more tightly than actually observed if they are very old. Keep that in mind, and put it alongside the fact that galaxies are spinning too fast (and we will take your claim that the postulated extra mass is an invalid ad-hoc explanation). When a galaxy spins too fast, what will it do? Will the arms tighten up? No, the galaxy will effectively explode, since the stars have more radial velocity than the central gravitational field can counter. Over billions of years it would not yield tightly wound spirals, it would yield a diffuse pattern of stars spread somewhat evenly all across space. The galaxies would be gone.
I don’t know when Walt initially published the part of his book dealing with the spiral galaxies, but I would feel safe in saying it was before the dark matter issue (the galactic spin rate) was realized to be such an issue. I say that because his contention that the spiral arms would “wind up” is predicated on the galaxy as least retaining its basic structure, which is what we know will not be the case if it is spinning too fast.
I understand he is quite responsive to questions. Want to ping him on this one, or do you have an explanation yourself? Perhaps he touches on this elsewhere in his book?
Slogan/motto:
"The Chief End of Me Is To Love GOD & Enjoy Him Forever!"
Reputation:
April 30th, 2012, 11:44 AM
But i am certainly glad for such a theory as this! For it shows me the desperation of what men will go to,too convince themselves that their is no (((GOD))). Which gives me all the more reason for believing in HIM.
Location: A spacious corner office overlooking the River Phlegethon
Rep Power: 50225
Atheist
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"Do what thou wilt" shall be the hole in the floor.
Reputation:
April 30th, 2012, 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbang123
Worldwide, estimates suggest that approximately 88%–93% of the population believes in a God or gods (Zuckerman, 2007). Some have argued that belief in God is intuitive, a natural (by-)product of the human mind given its cognitive structure (Bering, 2011; Bloom, 2005; Boyer, 2001; Guthrie, 1993; Preston & Epley, 2005) and social context (Atran, 2002; Wilson, 2002). More specifically, humans may have a number of early-developing, and possibly innate, cognitive tendencies that support belief in God and other supernatural entities.
In the universe, the "something" is energy. In fact, everything is energy.
Yup, but only in a way. For the sum of all things is zero.
Quote:
"Nothing" is then, by logical definition, the lack of energy (the lack of something).
Logically, both "something" and "nothing" are meaningless without the other. Each defines the other; each gives rise to the other.
Quote:
To claim that energy can spontaneously just happen is to make a claim that no human can defend...
Wrong. Ever hear of the Casimir effect?
“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
You have no power or authority to box me in - i agree with much of deism but I am not a pure deist. Who put you in charge to say that semi-deism is not an acceptable option?
A pure deist says that the Creator after the big bang start has never and will never ever exert any influence in human affairs - I feel no confidence to say that that belief is 100% true.
if you believe that the creator does/might intervene on the behalf of humanity you're a Theist. if someone were to ever prove that divine intervention were true or my personal experience led me in that direction i would no longer be considered a Deist.
i'm not trying to box you in dude but this is a non-negotiable aspect of Deism which doesn't allow for a personal God who intervenes on our behalf.
Orthodoxy is just the Tyranny of the Majority, a Spiritual Despotism where accepted doctrine is Sacred, Untouchable self-evident truth no matter how absurd it may be.
Linear Mode
