A Question for Merlyn...

[Bob White]

Interestingly enough some of histories most important mathematicians were devout Christians, who believed that the elegance and perfection of mathematics and physics helped to prove the existence of God. While you on the other hand feel that math replaces God.

 

Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton, were all convinced that nature can be explained by mathematics and that only God could have created the math, bringing order to chaos.

 

If for every action there is a reaction, then for every reaction there was before it, an action. All of these men came to independent conclusions, based on their studies of math and physics, that at some point an initial action that proceeded all other reactions had to have taken place. Their conclusion is that only the existence of God could account for that first action.

 

They realized, understood and accepted the existence of the watchmaker. They knew He had to exist because they could prove the existence of the watch.

 

 

 

 

[Achilleez]

I am perfectly aware of the mathematicians that concluded that the existence of a God was the only possible explanation for the beginning and creation of mathematics. I am also perfectly aware that people used to conclude that angels who pushed the moon and sun around was the only possible explanation for the movement of these objects.

 

Your right, every action has an infinite number of reactions stretching out into the future and also had an infinite number of causes stretching out into the past. As some beleive, that line of causes has to reach a beginning somewhere. But that has not been proven to be true. Resulting from years of research upon meteorites and our own planet, there has been the general conclusion that the universe began somewhere in the area of four and a half billion years ago. However, Steven Hawkings presented the idea that the cosmic 'big bang' was not necessarily the first of its kind to occur. He speculated that the universe was in a continual cosmic cycle of expanding to a certain volume, and then collapsing in upon itself. This cycle has been repeated an infinite number of times and will continue to repeat an infinite number of times. His theory was that we are simply existing along one of those cycles, and that the universe was currently in the process of expaning, similarily to the way the earth is currently in the process of warming (naturally). Einstein's theories about time consisted with Hawking's hypothesis. Einstein stated that time was a dimension unlike any others. It had no beginning and no end, could not be ended or started.

 

Again, all hypothetical. And personally I try not to give myself a headache trying to make sense of it all. The point being, you are stating that the existence of God has to be simply because there had to be an action to begin the infinite number of reactions that followed it. But therein lies the gaping hole in your logic. If God was the creator, who created the creator? I know a watch-maker exists because he was born from parents who pro-created to make him/her. Are you saying to me that the very dimension of time did not exist before the comming of God? Or did God already exist for an infinite spanse of time in which he chose not to create us. And only 30 000 years ago, out of his infinite trillions of years of existence, did he decide to make a universe? My question for you remains unanswered. Where did God come from? What existed prior to 30 000 years ago? Or did this diety just suddenly appear out of thin nothingness for no apparent reason? You know perfectly well that you can't answer that to my satisfaction, just as I know I won't get a satisfactory answer. As for me, I truly and honestly don't beleive that everything just "appeared" out of thin air one day.

[Bob White]

"The point being, you are stating that the existence of God has to be simply because there had to be an action to begin the infinite number of reactions that followed it."

 

If that is your point Achileez then it is a very poor one. If you read the post again you will see that "I" did not say that. I wrote what the mathematicians determined. I never said that that was an element of religious faith.

 

I already answered your question of where God came from. It is a common Judea-Christian belief that God is, was, and always has been. The Alpha and the Omega. He is the origin of everything. God was not created. God IS the creator.

 

Is it your belief that man and the world around us, in all its balance and intricacies exists due to random coincidence? That all the individual mathematical formulas it would take to create, and sustain the universe just happened to work out? That there is no plan that explains the interrelationship of the world around us?

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Achilleez]

So your claim is that God has always been. If that's true then he will exist 1 000 000 years in the future, as well as 1 000 000 years in the past. Tell me, if I took a time machine and went backwards 50 000 years, where would I be? In the infinite darkness of space with no energy or matter anywhere? What I could never understand in the church is why, out of God's infinite life in the cosmos, was the universe created only 30 000 years ago? Why not before, because after all God has existed forever. You want to punch down my arguement by asking how the mathematical formulas were created. Well, the answer is as simple as yours. They have been around forever, they were never created. They were around an infinite number of years ago and they will continue to be around for an infinite number of years. A universe controlled by mathematical formulas is just as plausible as a universe controlled by an all-powerful superghost.

[evmori]

Achilleez,

Yes God always was and always will be. Do you have proof this is not true?

 

Science can't explain everything. If it could, then the theory of evolution would be fact not theory.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

 

[Zahnada]

Here's the problem as I see it. Achileez and Bob want each other to explain their beliefs in such a way that it is rational according to their own belief structure. This is an impossible task (as we've seen). The two sides start at such different points of departure that they can never solve this issue of creationism vs. evolution (and thus God vs. atheism). It's like trying to define an apple by comparing it to a bathtub. There just isn't enough of a connection to even start.

 

Achilleez,

 

Bob did give you a sufficient answer. God is and always has been. Your questions of this answer are very logical, but what you must understand is that God doesn't have to answer to mankind's theories of logic. It is impossible for any of us to visualize what the universe was like before it was created just as it is impossible for us to fully comprehend what a perfect being (God) really is. For instance, what if I were to ask you to imagine a new primary color. One that doesn't exist. You can't do it, but that doesn't mean that God can't create one. We can't fully comprehend the Devine by using our limited, human minds. So Bob's answer is correct. God always has been and this works because He is God.

 

Bob,

 

You must accept that Achilleez's belief in evolution also makes sense if he starts with the assumption that there is no God. There are billions of planets and our planet has been here for billions of years. The laws of probablilty would say that eventually the right mix would have to be attained. Sure the chances were very small that a planet would evolve to hold life in the way that Earth has, but those chances were there.

 

For both of you,

 

Is this a conversation where you hope to gain a better understanding of the belief structure of the other? (note: not acceptance or conversion, but an understanding). Or is this a conversation where you only want to prove the other person wrong?

[mk9750]

Zahanda,

 

Here! Here! (or is it Hear ! Hear!? I just don't know)

 

And not just for this discussion.

 

Any time people are arguing like this, change a few of the words, and then copy and paste your post. It will be appropriate almost every time.

 

And BTW, Bob is right on this one, but it's likely I can't really prove it for another 30 - 60 years. I'll let everyone know when I can prove it what I find out.

 

Mark

 

 

[WHEELER]

From the thought of Anaxagoras (c 500-428 BC):

 

"Other things share in a portion of all things, but Mind is boundless and rules itself, and is mingled with no other thing, but remains apart by itself....For Mind is the slenderest and purest of all things. Mind is the ruling force in all things that have life whether greater or smaller."

 

Aristotle commented that Anaxagoras was the first 'sober' thinker amongst a succession of 'babblers'.

 

For Anaxagoras, nature displays order. Order is only the product of intelligence. That is Mind.

 

The ancient Greeks speculated that there was chaos, and from mind motion was set into that pre-existing chaos causing recognisable forms to seperate from it.

 

There is a Mind out there greater than us.

 

Clinias the Cretan, in the Laws of Plato:

 

"Why, to begin with, think of the earth, and sun, and planets, and everything! And the wonderful and beautiful order of the seasons with its distinctions of years and months! Besides, there is the fact that all mankind, Greek and non-Greeks alike, believe in the existence of gods."

 

Paraphrased: "See nature, Know God."(This message has been edited by WHEELER)

[Achilleez]

For me, I was finding it to be a fascinating debate, stirring up some things that I havn't thought about since philosophy class. My objective is to explain my position while at the same time come to a better understanding of his position.

 

By the way Wheeler, as long as we are using Aristotle to argue for us, it's interesting to note that according to Aristotle's own logic, the existence of a God would be impossible. The 'four causes' model explains that every object in the universe is a result of the material cause, formal cause, essential cause, and final cause. God has no material cause (what is he made of?) God has no formal cause (no plan or design for the creation of him) and God has no essential cause (No person or thing is responsible for putting him together)

Thus, using Aristotle's own logic, I have proved that God cannot exist. I make this ridiculous conclusion in the hopes that Wheeler will stop quoting ancient philosophers.

[Bob White]

"So your claim is that God has always been. If that's true then he will exist 1 000 000 years in the future, as well as 1 000 000 years in the past."

 

That is not my claim, that is the faith of nearly half the world population for over two thousand years.

 

"Tell me, if I took a time machine and went backwards 50 000 years, where would I be?"

Since no one knows for sure, my guess would be that since your are not 50,000-years old, that once you went back to a time before your birth you would no longer exist.

As far as even the most learned scientists and mathematicians are sure of, it is only possible to travel forward in time.... at a rate of one hour every 60-minutes.

 

What I could never understand in the church is why, out of God's infinite life in the cosmos, was the universe created only 30 000 years ago?

By whose watch? Man or Gods? The measure of time is mans creation, used to give himself an understanding of the physical world around him. Who can say what time means to God? A lifetime to us is a fleeting moment of eternity.

 

A universe controlled by mathematical formulas is just as plausible as a universe controlled by an all-powerful superghost.

But what would be the chances that everything would work in such balance. Why not billions of formulas in random chaos? Instead we have billions of interdependent formulas that each had to work in an exact and specific way in order for us to exist. What brought order to the chaos, what made the pattern that allowed everything to happen here, and to our current knowledge nowhere else, anywhere?

 

To Mark and Zahnada,

This is not an argument. Achilleez is asking questions and I am sharing my faith. I do claim to have all the answers, nor to support my faith do I need all the answers. That doesnt mean that the questions arent valid, just that faith does not require all the answers.

 

I am not out to change Achilleez, only Achilleez can do that and only when he is ready. I have tried to explain to him that, as an atheist, my home is closed to him. Scouting has said, that, as an atheist, their home is closed to him. God has said that, as an atheist, His home is closed to him. Unfortunately Achilleez doesnt believe in the only house that matters. I believe that God believes in him, so the next move is up to Achilleez. The difference is God has all the time in the universe, Achilleez does not.

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[packsaddle]

A brief reminder. Evolution does not equate to atheism. I make this observation in the same sense that I observed that science does not equate to atheism.

I grant that most atheists would embrace evolution, possibly for the same good reasons that scientists do. But they are not alone. In fact, a majority of large, organized religions accept evolution. But whether one person accepts it or billions, no matter. Evolution is a rational explanation for observed variation of species that depends on no system of faith whatsoever, atheism or otherwise.

Creationism, on the other hand, is a wonderful view that is manifested by many versions, depending on the faiths of the believers.

OK, back to the raving and ranting...

[Achilleez]

I admire and comend your resolute faith BW. Yet I fear that it may have overwhelmed your sense of decency. Tell me, honestly, if a naked starving man showed up at your doorstop who you somehow knew was an atheist, would you turn him away? Because if you exist in a frame of mind that forbids assisting this man and letting him into your home, then that makes me all the more hesitant to show interest in your religion.

[Bob White]

First is it your scenario that a naked, starving man is going to show up at somebody's door and say "hi, I am an atheist"? Do you mean that you have no problem believing that could happen , but you cannot believe that God may exist? Your scenario seems far more unlikely than God.

 

Now let's take religious belief out for a moment. You have a home where you are responsible for the safety of your wife and children. A naked stranger comes to your door, and you let him in? That is not charity, that's insanity.

 

Is there no other option in your set of acceptable responses. What if I gave him clothes, food, beverage, and payed for a cab to take him to a shelter or the hospital. Would I be less caring than if I endangered my family?

 

I have the right of free association. I have a belief in God. I have a responsibility to help other people. I see no conflict between these. And,I see no obligation to invite into my home to share in my blessings anyone who rejects the source of those blessings.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Achilleez]

Yes Bob, you are free to close your home to anyone you choose. You are also free to be a fornicator and adulterer, but that does not make it right.

 

My question to you is, why? Why have you made the decision to close your home off to atheists? Do you beleive God would disapprove of you helping an atheist? Is it your own personal spite for atheism? Or is it because you have become so prejudiced that you have made the mental connection of atheism with criminal and immoral.

 

I suppose I am to continue living out my crazy mixed up life in which I try to help all and not judge people based soley on their religious beleifs, or lack thereof.

[Bob White]

Achilleez,

If you have no interest in entering into God's house, why would you possibly care about coming into mine?

 

If someone was to be disrespectful to my father, they would not be welcome in my house. If someone is disrespectful to my Father, they are not welcome in my home.