Posted on 01/15/2009 6:04:24 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I read Jastrow’s book years ago, and I never forgot that closing line.
Bumpage
The second edition was published in 2000. I read it when it first came out - about 30 years ago. I chuckled at that quote and have remembered it all these years.
But I disagree in two particulars with that otherwise fine closing statement.
First, it's not a "bad dream" to find an answer to a difficult question. It's a good dream come true.
Second, the theologians have not been sitting there for centuries. They've been stumbling around in the general vicinity, arguing with each other (and often killing each other) over minuscule details of their misinterpretations of the nature of Creation. They have less clue than than scientists, who (when they finally confront the necessity of a Prime Mover) recognize that the PM must have certain characteristics, and propose one that matches them. The theologians anthropomorphize their gods based on themselves, and then fantasize that they each were created in God's image. None of them have any idea what God's image is.
My God created the Universe from nothing at the time of the Big Bang, and then has watched The Experiment unfold for billions of years, with infinite patience. I am exceedingly pleased and proud to participate in this Great Experiment.
Your mileage may vary, of course. ;-)
The Big Bang is not consistent with the Biblical account of creation!
Did you read the article?
It points out even agnostic scientists such as Jastrow came to the conclusion that if the universe was created out of nothingness it must have a supernatural cause.
Why couldn’t God have created the universe from a Big Bang? Makes sense to me!
I believe it is a mistake to interpret God’s “image” as God’s material “likeness.” I do not believe God has a material being. Being created in his image, to me, can only mean that I am a creature of his “imagining,” a material projection of his “mental” image of his human creatures. That’s the best I can do, the product of a fallible human mind striving to describe a mystery. If that sounds confused and confounded, so be it.
Science as a proof of the existence of God ping.
Science may demonstrate a first cause but only faith can demonstrate in the mind of man that the first cause of science is one and the same as the eternal God of salvation, the God of religion whose love is so complete that He offers to share eternal life with his lowly and material creatures.
Did you mean - The Big Bang isn’t consistent with my literal interpretation of Biblical creation?
Well,...
> 1. A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.
That's the closest to my belief... as a believer in free will of living things, I believe that God created the initial conditions of the Universe, and the Rules (the laws of physics, etc.), but didn't pre-determine every event or outcome. In that sense, my concept of the "purpose" of the Universe could map loosely onto definition #1 of "experiment".
> A better term to use would be " God's purpose " ... God's plan, or divine will.
I have no issue or argument with that usage.
Incidentally, my view of "free will" does not in any way preclude seeking guidance through prayer, to better understand God's plan for the Universe and how I can best take part in it. At the end of the day, I still have a choice about what I do. But it's clear that some things work a heck of a lot better than others, and I generally interpret those outcomes as whether I'm following God's plan.
bump
It is cool that Scientist can come to terms that there is a creator. But they don't give me hope. God gives me hope. And I took a short cut to the highest peak by just taking up faith in Yeshua. Now, we can just kick back on the highest peak and watch the scientist come to terms with the truth.
It's a tough thing to put in words, I agree. And to be honest, I was being a tad flippant in my comment.
The nature of God is indeed a mystery, and even were I as a human fortunate to stumble upon such knowledge, I'd probably have no way of knowing that I had done so!
Most religions identify God in terms of human form, language, habits, actions, emotions. Other religions prefer non-human animals, or an odd combination of the above. Protests that these aren't meant to be taken literally are mostly ineffective -- if you could get inside most Christians' minds, and tap their idea of God, he'd be a human male, speak English, walk magestically, and probably look a lot like Charleton Heston.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But the article says:
... the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:I think the author is an exception. I would bet a month's rent that most Americans mental image of God is not that far from Zeus. Or at least, Zeus as played by Charleton Heston... ;-)Those are the same attributes of the God of the Bible (which is one reason I believe in a the God of the Bible and not a god of mythology like Zeus).
- spaceless because it created space
- timeless because it created time
- immaterial because it created matter
- powerful because it created out of nothing
- intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed
- personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces don’t make choices).
I liked your statement, and agree that this stuff sure is confusing.
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.