Posted on 05/31/2005 11:07:29 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Tomorrow
save
Read for later
I found it circular and trite.
If all matter originated from the explosion of a single unbelievably dense object (the Big Bang theory)… from where did that dense object originate? And if you explain the origin of that object, then one must also explain the origin of its origin! Do you see the flaw in the circular reasoning of those who deny the existence of a Creator? There must have been a starting point. A First Cause. A Supreme Being. A Creator.
So it’s absurd to believe that an infinitely dense lump of goo just materialized out of nowhere, but it’s nothing but logical to propose that an all-knowing, all-powerful, infinitely intelligent superbeing always existed because we say so.
Religion cannot trump science, and vice versa.
There must have been a starting point. A First Cause. A Supreme Being. A Creator.
To almost quote Roseanne Roseanna-Danna, "There's always something...if it's not one thing, it's another."
What seems to be the likeliest story is that, to the extent that it's meaningful to speak of a universal time in the multiverse, there was never a time when there was nothing, a complete absence of physical being of one sort or another. And, from this perspective, if one waits long enough, pretty astonishing things can (and will) happen. It's likely that there was never a time when this wasn't true nor will there ever be a time when this won't be true.
Not that we'll be around to judge the matter.
So if you're going to postulate that God created the universe, but that God himself is eternal, why not just skip the extra step and say that the universe is eternal? Logically it makes just as much sense and it is a much simpler argument.
Hardly got into the article and this glaring inaccuracy slaps me in the face..
I don't think I have ever heard a scientist say the universe just happened by accident..
Most scientists simply say they "don't know"... and leave it at that..
In much the same vein, the screenwriter Akiva Goldsman summed up the life lessons of Dr. John Nash, the genius mathematician, economist, and schizophrenic in the movie "A Beautiful Mind." This quote was compellingly delivered by the actor Russell Crowe, portraying Dr. Nash delivering his Nobel Prize acceptance speech:
I've always believed in numbers, in the equations and logics that lead to reason; but after a lifetime of such pursuits I ask, what truly is logic? Who decides reason?My quest has taken me through the physical, the metaphysical, the delusional, and back; and I have made the most important discovery of my career, the most important discovery of my life: It is only in the mysterious equations of love that any logical reasons can be found.
let us not try to understand the block we live on, eh?
"The time and effort expended upon this pursuit could be far better spent upon issues that actually lack an answer. "
Convinced me to stop reading right there.
The problem with his argument is if God created it we can stop right there. I believe God created everything, but as a scientist I would like to know more. He has given us a great puzzle which we only have found some of the pieces (mostly the easy ones around the border). He wants us to fill it in.
Is dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality driving ersatz secularists and religious heretics to seek connection with something Eternal through a Universal Truth by constructing an idol out of their own vanity or conceit they label as morality? Is this a self-deceptive replacement of avoiding sin with a synthetic secular morality?
Is dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality driving ersatz secularists and religious heretics to seek connection with something Eternal through a Universal Truth by constructing an idol out of their own vanity or conceit in persuit of knowing the origins of life?
Is the paganist "Big Bang" theory admission the Universe is an Immaculate Conception?
The entire foundation of evolutionary theory rests upon the so-called "Big Bang," where DNA is the biological singularity - - is this another human and Aerial counterfeit for Creation and Immaculate Conception as just another fanciful idolatry?
We do we bother to learn to read and write? Why don't we let all the priests, clerics, and politicians think for us so we can be free to spend 16 hours a day working in the fields?
Scientists may not have communicated with God, but I have. There is the rub. It is not that Christians are guessing about what Science cannot see. Miracles happen, there is plenty of evidence that there is more than what can be seen.
Some just choose to have faith, some choose to have no faith.
Freedom of choice. Kind of like some choose to not put their hands in the fire, some choose to believe that fire does not exist because they cannot weigh it.
>>Some just choose to have faith, some choose to have no faith.
science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
i, for one, do not believe god has anything to hide. had he, he would not have made us in the first place.
It all boils down to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" That's a really hard question we may never know. However, we study the early Universe because it's so easy to do so with our current technology (perhaps God wants it that way). It would actually require more effort to restrain people, especially the smart and curious from studying the Universe.
Yes and when some things are mocked one feels a reluctance to cast pearls before swine.
By Jove, I believe you've got it. Between the article and the many responses I find this simple statement the most meaningful.
What is lost by having faith that we are here by God's plan and not by accident? The scientist serves to discover the details of God's plan. I've seen enormous complicated engineering plans for the creation of a Boeing 747 aircraft but I've never seen the plans for creating a fish.
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.