Posted on 03/05/2015 8:19:37 AM PST by SeekAndFind
You [stoics] would surely have no need of the activity of such a figure [a skilled craftsman] if you would only observe how unlimited, unbounded tracts of space extend in all directions. When the mind strains and stretches itself to observe these distances, it journeys abroad so far that it can observe no ultimate limit at which to halt. It is in this boundless extent of breadth, length, and height, then, that innumerable atoms of infinite quantity flit around. … There is space between them, yet they latch on to each other. In gripping each other they form a chain, as a result of which are fashioned the shapes and forms of things which you Stoics believe cannot be created without bellows and anvils. So you have implanted in our heads the notion of an external lord whom we are to fear day and night; for who would not stand in awe of a god who is a prying busybody, who foresees and reflects upon and observes all things, believing that everything is his business?
Not at all because we freely acknowledge, indeed we define, God as transcending the natural empirical would. It is the other side which finds itself in the unsupportable position of offering a supernatural explanation to rationalize a naturalist world view.
The point here is that “we” don’t define that ... God REVEALS that to us, telling us what we CANNOT KNOW, but can only speculate, if we were totally on our own.
The fact of the matter is that we’re not totally on our own, and what we “have defined” (as you put is) is what “God has defined” for us ... and NOT us.
We couldn’t have defined that with any degree of certainty, as it would be TOTAL SPECULATION on our part. Fortunately “God has revealed it to us” ... which is why He gave us his inerrant and infallible word ... so that we could know the things that he wanted us to know.
HOW can one be the “eternal self-existent being” which is outside of all things created and outside of even the “existence” of the parameter of time??!! I have NO IDEA AT ALL!
BUT ... God has revealed that to us, and he has come down to earth and become a human being to talk directly to us. That is how we know.
An interesting take on this is found in Jewish Kabbalah.
The universe began because God had a question that He could not answer, effectively: “Does anything exist that is not God?” So the universe was created, and once it reaches its maximum, it will act as a mirror, reflecting God. Having done so, it will cease to exist.
To begin this process, God created a place of contraction, an emptiness in which there was no God. Then into this he sent something akin to a bolt of lightning that created a single particle, vastly smaller than the smallest particle known to man.
This particle could occupy more than one place at the same time, cloning itself at immense speed, then these particles would combine to form more complex particles. This continues in the universe as part of its basic construction.
Keeping the mirror analogy, this formed the glass part of the mirror. Additional involvement by God was needed to create the “shiny backing” of the mirror that will eventually reflect His image.
Well, certainly all we can know about God is what he chooses to reveal through general and special revelation.
The point to that, is that it is not subject to futile speculations of the mind of mankind (which is totally futile in the end). What we know is revealed to us ... and thank goodness for that, or else we would be chasing our tails around in a circle just like these “scientists” who do so with their “fantastic speculations”.
“Thank God” for God ... :-) ...
You have the theory of evolution which deals with life and changes in organisms. It is separate from abiogenesis which is the study of the origin of life from naturally occurring chemicals. It is also separate from the Big Bang theory of the formation of the universe. There is nothing in the theory of evolution about spontaneous change without a cause. It does not contain any observation of something coming from nothing. It is all about reasons for change.
This entire article consists of making up definitions for scientific theories that are so nonsensical that no one would accept them. Anyone who believes this article has no idea about the philosophical basis for the scientific method nor could they possibly understand the practical application of that method.
Satan just turned on the projector and Wala! The physical universe appeared and all the fools of the Ego mind that perceive thought it was real.
From the paper:
At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.
...
The vacuum isn’t “nothing,” therefore the title of the paper is incorrect.
Strange coincidence coming across this post...
I just picked up a book by Cicero from a thrift store for 25 cents titled “The Nature Of The God”. It discusses the three prevelant theories of his days - the Epicurean, Stoic and the Academy. What’s fascinating is how little has changed in over 2000 years.
The point the author makes is that evolution of life, the origin of life, as well as the origin and development of the universe rely on the same basic underlying process. That being random asssociation of material and some preferential selection for survival of certain “associations” as a result of natural forces.
The Epicureans of today are the atheistic scientists.
Evolutionists believe not only that giraffes, sharks, violets and moles spontaneously arose; they not only believe consciousness, love and emotion spontaneously arose; they not only believe life itself spontaneously arose; they not only believe the Sun, stars and cosmos spontaneously arose; they believe the entire universe itself spontaneously arose.
That looks like a pretty succinct summary of what we find in Genesis. Or, to be more precise, it looks like some versions of Genesis in which all mention of God has been stripped out, for the purpose of trying to get around the restrictions against teaching religion in school while teaching the basics of Genesis as if it were science. Of course, the intent of such efforts is for children to learn a Godless version of Genesis, and spontaneously conclude that there must be some creator, since such a thing could not have happened by itself.
In fact, I do not know a single scientist who thinks that evolution is anything other than the slow accumulation of mutations over time, which leads to genetic differences between separate populations that have descended from a common ancestral population.
Also, in trying to denigrate scientific opinion and theory as "beliefs"--as if science is a religion--the author of this piece is, in fact, denigrating religion. If, for example, you notice that your neighbor entertains shady-looking visitors at all hours of the night, and you are trying to come up with some way to describe that neighbor, you would not compare her to Mother Theresa--because, in doing so, you would be inferring that Mother Theresa embodies those shady qualities that you are trying to describe.
Religion is a moral framework. Science is a framework for describing physical reality. Religion and science may have effects on each other, but neither can substitute for the other.
I guess my point is that very little is truly random in that there are physical laws limiting and controlling the association of materials. Discovering those laws and the theoretical construct in which they operate is the province of science. Science is agnostic in that it cannot deal with the supernatural by definition. Thus science cannot be atheistic either. Science is not all inclusive though some scientist mistakenly think it is.
It’s easier to believe in a Supreme Being than that nonsense.
Ah, yes, it’s that magical, invisible force called evolution that the progs love to believe in. They can’t point to it, can’t see it, take it on faith alone that it exists because they believe they can point to its “evidence.” But they’ll call Christianity a fairy tale and do it with a straight face, unmindful of the irony.
Bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.