Posted on 06/23/2003 11:31:49 AM PDT by yonif
|
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/The_Big_Bang_and_the_Big_Question_A_Universe_without_God$.asp |
|
|
|
The Big Bang and the Big Question: A Universe without God?
Until the early twentieth century, astronomers entertained three possible models of the universe: 1. The universe could be static.
According to this theory, though the mutual gravitational attractions of stars and planets might hold them together in the form of solar systems and galaxies, each of these stellar-terrestrial groups slide through space along its own random trajectory, unrelated to the courses tracked by other groups of stars and planets.
The static model works for atheists and believers: Such a universe could have been created by God at some point in history, but it also could have existed forever without God. 2. The universe could be oscillating.
It might be a cosmic balloon alternately expanding and contracting. For a few billion years it would inflate, expanding into absolute nothingness. But the gravitational attraction of every star and planet pulling on every other would eventually slow this expansion until the whole process would reverse and the balloon would come crashing back in upon itself. All that existed would eventually smash together at the universe's center, releasing huge amounts of heat and light, spewing everything back out in all directions and beginning the expansion phase all over again.
Such a universe could also have been created by God or could have existed forever without God. 3. Finally, the universe could be open.
It might be a cosmic balloon that never implodes. If the total gravitational attraction of all stars and planets could not halt the initial expansion, as in the oscillating model, the universe would spill out into nothingness forever. Eventually the stars would burn out and a curtain of frozen darkness would enshroud all existence. Such a universe could never bring itself back to life. It would come into existence at a moment in history, blaze gloriously, and then pass into irrevocable night.
Crucially, the latter model proposes that before the one-time explosion, all the universe's matter and energy was contained in a singularity, a tiny dot that sat stable in space for eternity before it detonated.
This model proposes a paradox: Objects at rest -- like the initial singularity -- remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force; and yet, since the initial dot contained all matter and energy, nothing (at least, nothing natural) existed outside of this singularity that could have caused it to explode.
The simplest resolution of the paradox is to posit that something supernatural kicked the universe into being. The open model of the universe thus implies a supernatural Creator -- a God. THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
In 1916 Albert Einstein released the first drafts of his general theory of relativity, and the scientific world went wild. It appeared that Einstein had revealed the deepest secrets of the universe. His equations also caused a few problems -- technical dilemmas, mathematical snags -- but not the sort of thing to interest newspapers or even popular science journals.
Two scientists noticed the glitches. Late in 1917 the Danish astronomer Willem de Sitter reviewed general relativity and returned a detailed response to Einstein, outlining the problem and proposing a radical solution: general relativity could work only if the entire universe was exploding, erupting out in all directions from a central point.
Einstein never responded to de Sitter's critique. Then, in 1922, Soviet mathematician Alexander Friedmann independently derived de Sitter's solution. If Einstein was right, Friedmann predicted, the universe must be expanding in all directions at high speed.
Meanwhile, across the sea, American astronomer Vesto Slipher actually witnessed the universe's explosive outward movement. Using the powerful telescope at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, Slipher discovered that dozens of galaxies were indeed rocketing away from a central point.
Between 1918 and 1922, de Sitter, Friedmann, and Slipher independently shared their findings with Einstein, but he strangely resisted their solution -- as if, in his brilliance, he realized the theological implications of an exploding universe.
Einstein even wrote a letter to Zeitschrift fur Physik, a prestigious technical journal, calling Friedmann's suggestions "suspicious," and to de Sitter Einstein jotted a note, "This circumstance [of an expanding universe] irritates me." In another note, Einstein reassured one of his colleagues, "I have not yet fallen in the hands of priests," a veiled reference to de Sitter, Friedmann, and Slipher. THE HUBBLE DISCOVERY
In 1925, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble dealt the static model of the universe a fatal blow. Using what was then the largest telescope in the world, Hubble revealed that every galaxy within 6 x 1017 miles of the Earth was receding.
Einstein tenaciously refused to acknowledge Hubble's work. He continued teaching the static model for five more years, until, at Hubble's request, he traveled from Berlin to Pasadena to personally examine the evidence. At the trip's conclusion, Einstein reluctantly admitted, "New observations by Hubble ... make it appear likely that the general structure of the universe is not static."
Einstein died in 1955, swayed but still not fully convinced that the universe was expanding. THE SOUND OF THE BIG BANG
Ten years later, in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were calibrating a supersensitive microwave detector at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey. No matter where the two scientists aimed the instrument, it picked up the same unidentified background noise -- a steady, three-degree Kelvin (3K) hum. On a hunch, the two Bell Labs employees looked over an essay on general relativity by a student of Alexander Friedmann. The essay predicted that the remnants of the universe's most recent explosion should be detectable in the form of weak microwave radiation, "around 5K or thereabouts."
The two scientists realized they had discovered the echo of the biggest explosion in history: "the Big Bang." For this discovery, Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize.
The discovery of the "3K hum" undermined the static model of the universe. There were only two models left: one that worked without God and one that did not.
The last issue to be settled was: Had the primordial universe exploded an infinite number of times (the oscillating model) or only once (the open model)?
Researchers knew the issue could be settled by determining the average density of the universe. If the universe contained the equivalent of about one hydrogen atom per ten cubic feet of space, then the gravitational attraction among all the universe's particles would be strong enough to stop and reverse the expansion. Eventually there would be a "big crunch," which would lead to another big bang (and then to another big crunch, etc.). If, on the other hand, the universe contained less than this density, then the big bang's explosive force would overcome all the gravitational pulls, and everything would sail out into nothingness forever. THE PANIC AND ITS RESOLUTION
Curiously, the death of the static model inspired panic in many quarters of the scientific world. Mathematicians, physicists, and astronomers joined forces to prove the eternity of the universe.
Dr. Robert Jastrow, arguably the greatest astrophysicist of the time and director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Center for Space Studies, was named head of the research project. For fifteen years Jastrow and his team tried to demonstrate the validity of the oscillating model, but the data told a different story.
In 1978 Jastrow released NASA's definitive report, shocking the public with his announcement that the open model was probably correct. On June 25 of that year, Jastrow wrote about his findings to the New York Times Magazine:
This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." ... [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
Dr. James Trefil, a physicist at the University of Virginia, independently confirmed Jastrow's discovery in 1983. Drs. John Barrow, an astronomer at the University of Sussex, and Frank Tipler, a mathematician and physicist at Tulane University, published similar results in 1986. GENESIS CONFIRMED
At the 1990 meeting of the American Astronomical Society, Professor John Mather of Columbia University, an astrophysicist who also serves on the staff of NASA's Goddard Center, presented "the most dramatic support ever" for an open universe.
According to the Boston Globe reporter covering the conference, Mather's keynote address was greeted with thunderous applause, which led the meeting's chairman, Dr. Geoffrey Burbridge, to comment: "It seems clear that the audience is in favor of the book of Genesis - at least, the first verse or so, which seems to have been confirmed."
In 1998, Drs. Ruth Daly, Erick Guerra, and Lin Wan of Princeton University announced to the American Astronomical Society, "We can state with 97.5 percent confidence that the universe will continue to expand forever."
Later that year, Dr. Allan Sandage, a world-renowned astrophysicist on the staff of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, was quoted in The New Republic saying, "The big bang is best understood as a miracle triggered by some kind of transcendent power."
Newsweek columnist George Will began his November 9, 1998, column with this quip: "Soon the American Civil Liberties Union or People for the American Way, or some similar faction of litigious secularism, will file suit against NASA, charging that the Hubble Space Telescope unconstitutionally gives comfort to the religiously inclined." PERMISSION TO BELIEVE
The same year, Newsweek reported a recent and unexpected swing of opinion among the once passionately agnostic: "Forty percent of American scientists now believe in a personal God - not merely an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a deity to whom they can pray."
There are, of course, mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists who choose not to believe in God today. For a variety of reasons, they choose instead to have faith that new natural laws will be discovered or that new evidence will appear and overturn the current model of an open, created universe.
But for many in the scientific community, the evidence is persuasive. For many, modern cosmology offers permission to believe.
LAWRENCE KELEMEN is the author of Permission to Believe: Four Rational Approaches to God's Existence (Targum/Feldheim, 1990) and Permission to Receive: Four Rational Approaches to the Torah's Divine Origin (Targum Press, 1996). He studied at U.C.L.A., Yeshiva University of Los Angeles, and Harvard University. He was also a downhill skiing instructor on the staff of the Mammoth Mountain Ski School in California and served as news director and anchorman for KMMT-FM radio station. Currently he teaches medieval and modern Jewish philosophy at Neve Yerushalayim College of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem.
This essay is excerpted from "Jewish Matters: A pocketbook of knowledge and inspiration." "Jewish Matters" includes short essays on topics from relationships, prayer, happiness, and Shabbat, written by top male and female educators from around the world. Deep, funny, and fascinating, "JM" is available in Jewish bookstores, and on Amazon.com , and Chapters.ca. More information and excerpts can be seen at www.jewishmatters.com.
Copyright © 1995 - 2003 Aish.com - http://www.aish.com
1999, eh?
Great, where is it? It's only been 4 years.
That's *your* theory.
No it isn't, but thanks for playing.
It's a very well-established science, based on proper scientific procedures and a great abundance of evidence. Furthermore, if anything it's based on *non*-teloeogical thinking (although even that's stretching it a bit). Are you sure you understand what that word means?
Okay, I'll bite. What is the alleged "scientific logic that is used to disprove the existence of a supernatural being"?
If you think that's what science is all about, or that anyone has published any papers in scientific journals about "here's why God doesn't exist", you're very mistaken.
Our existence defies logic
How so?
No, since there is far more testable evidence for the former than the latter.
You say "An engineer knows design when he sees it", but I'm an engineer, and knowing quite a bit about information science and having run quite a few evolutionary experiments myself, I don't need "faith" to believe that it's responsible for our DNA, I base that belief on a firm understanding of how it works, how it is indeed capable of building quite complex systems by layering breakthrough upon breakthrough (and reconfiguring old ones), and that the sorts of solutions that evolution comes up with look remarkably like the hodge-podge of mechanisms by which our DNA does its operations. That would be enough to convince me by itself, but on top of that there's the massive amount of evidence for common descent and gradual change of species over time. Put it together, and it would take "faith" *not* to believe what the evidence so clearly points to.
Remember Einstein's theory on Relativity? Remember Bigger Mass=Slower time? Now try to comprehend an infinite amount of mass--the singularity, that has no dimensions. Infinite amount of mass=no time.
You have put forth the idea of what's called the "Big Crunch," but let me tell you what would happen the moment this "Big Crunch" took place--when everything in the universe came to it's singularity: Nothing. Not a thing. Time would stop, and it would stay that way forever.
Allow me to use a direct quote from Stephen Hawking, the person with the highest IQ on Earth, and someone who understand this far, far better then you and I:
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity."
Further, you never did answer my question as to any attributes of this 'divine being' (apart from, of course, the ability to make universes).
How would I know? The only attribute I could even contemplate is eternal and everywhere. Are you seriously looking for some measure of strength, of His manner of dress, or perhaps His eye color?
Your unfortunate confusion is that God is a being like us--real, 3 dimensional, restricted by time and space. That somehow we can reach out, slap Him a high-five, and smell His cologne. While it's true we are created in his likeness, I must insist that he is most definitely not George Burns or Morgan Freeman.
God created the Universe, as a painter would create a great picture. That doesn't mean the painter is part of the artwork. But rather, the artist is extrinsic of it. However, it is the artist who controls the form, the composition, and the character of the painting.
wHY IS ACCEPTING A "GOD" SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU? I mean seriously, I've been accused, in this very forum, of being 'Simple-minded" for putting fourth the idea of
::SHUDDER::
A GOD!!
And yet, science has done a U-turn in the past century and come back to what was written in Genesis: There was a beginning. Furthermore, they've even inserted the idea that after hundreds of years of contemplation, where everything science has discovered, there is more NOT understood, then understood. Imagine that.
And as I've not extensively studied Quantum physics, I can agree that it does seem slightly difficult to fully understand, but I don't think that it's as 'random' as you claim."
Let me see if I get you correct--you don't know much about Quantum physics, but you doubt that Quantum Leap exists? Well, fortunately for you, we have the Internet: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr99/923426573.Ph.r.html
http://www.jimloy.com/physics/quantum.htm
I mean, I don't know how much clearer I can make this--A Quantum leap happens when an Electron moves from one Quantum State to another, without bypassing through any other state. It would be like going from your city to another city without traveling. I never said it was "RANDOM." In fact, it's quite predictable.
But it doesn't apply the basic principles of physics, as we know it. For instance, we know that over time, Uranium will degenerate into Lead--and we can measure this with a Geiger Counter. You are literally watching Alchemy happen. But this doesn't apply to electrons.
I also don't understand how our lack of understanding of the workings of Quantum mechanics proves the existence of a god
Again, I try to be as clear as possible--why are there two rules of physics, those for the very, very, very, very tiny, and everything larger? Einstein spent the time until his death seeking a 'Grand Unified Theory' to explain both. But what if there's more to the universe then we can see? And exactly, where is there a lack of understanding? Quantum Mechanics physics is very well understood--as crazy as it sounds. But it doesn't apply to anything larger then an electron.
So...humans happen to come to exist in an environment in which they can survive as opposed to coming to exist in an environment in which they cannot survive. Wow. I'm supposed to be amazed by this?
No, actually, that's not what happen at all, and if you would have bothered to read the rest of what I wrote you would have known that this planet was hostile to life a majority of it's existence. But the assembling of 20 Amino Acids in an exact sequence, at the exact and precise moment when the hospitality of Earth, the hospitality of the Sun, the hospitality of the galaxy, the hospitality of the universe was at it's greatest--with a planet precisely located in it's solar system, in it's galaxy, in the universe. If the Sun had been just a little cooler or hotter, if this galaxy were a little further closer to other galaxies, if this universe were a bit younger--or a bit older when those Amino Acids came together, life would not exist.
Furthermore, if there weren't 5 previously major extinction's, and several minor ones--if there had never been ice ages, if the meteor that hit the Yucatan had just a little more mass--or was traveling anywhere else on Earth, you would not be here to claim "I'm supposed to be amazed by this?" Yes, actually, you are supposed to be impressed--as many scientist smarter then yourself clearly are, because had it not happen at precisely the exact way is stated, you would not be here.
Your conclusion that it's all coincidences is ridiculous
My stance is that I have not seen sufficient evidence for the existence of gods, not "there is no God, and you're stupid for believing it."
So, in other words, you're like the blind man eating an apple. You've been told it's an apple, you know it's smooth like you would imagine an apple to be, and you know it tastes just about what you expect to think an apple would taste like, but you're just not ready to believe it's an apple, because hey, you haven't tasted and touched every other fruit in existence.
Tell you what--just explain to why it COULDN'T be a "God".
No, actually, that's the majorities feeling. More people believe in a divine being then are atheist. Ncie try, and thanks for playing.
I LOVE IT! Excellant post! Thanks!
As they have since Darwin first wrote the "Origin of the Species".
And we've made enormous amounts of progress, thanks for asking.
And exactly how close are they??
Getting pretty darned close, actually. If you think there hasn't been any progress since the Miller-Urey experiment, you're *way* behind on the literature (about half a century behind, in fact).
Most folks just don't hear about it because the "popular science" news channels don't usually go for articles with titles like:
Obcells as Proto-Organisms: Membrane Heredity, Lithophosphorylation, and the Origins of the Genetic Code, the First Cells, and Photosynthesis (Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 53 - Number 4/5, 2001)On the RNA World: Evidence in Favor of an Early Ribonucleopeptide World
Inhibition of Ribozymes by Deoxyribonucleotides and the Origin of DNA
Genetic Code Origin: Are the Pathways of Type Glu-tRNAGln to Gln-tRNAGln Molecular Fossils or Not?
Did the vermicelli wiggle?
No, pasta was not involved.
Listen closely, Frankenstein; we're as close to spontaneously creating life today, as was Darwin.
And you've done exactly how much original research on this topic, please?
If you think that reconstructing the molecular mechanisms of the RNA world is no advance over the state of the art in 1859, there's no hope for you.
Furthermore, the issue is not "spontaneously creating life" in a laboratory, it's reconstructing the process by which life on Earth originally originated.
We don't need to consolidate a new 8000-mile diameter planet out of interstellar material in order to learn how the Earth was formed in the early days of this solar system, and we don't need to "spontaneously" create life in order to learn how that happened either (and we're pretty unlikely to ever have a beaker the size of the Earth itself to try it in, since that's what it would likely take to let life "spontaneously" start again).
The chances of creating life in a laboratory is the same chance that life on Earth would happen.
Right. See above. There are 20 different Amino Acids that make up every living being on Earth, and the chances of them coming together, in such a sequence, along with the other ideal conditions, at the exact premier moment in Earth's history are so remote as to be impossible.
Feel free to show your calcuations, and the premises that underly them, and explain why your model is arguably the correct one versus other proposed models. we'll wait.
Some scientists have concluded that if the history of the Earth were rewound on tape to the point before life started, and played again a trillion times, you still wouldn't have life.
"Some scientists" recommend eating lots of oat bran. So?
More over, there were at least 5 major extinction's, and several minor ones that took place that ensured you would be sitting here reading this post.
No one says we haven't been lucky. On the flip side, the dinosaurs are pretty ticked off.
In short, your chances of being here are very, very slim, OUTSIDE of a Divine Being.
1. Non sequitur.
2. Again, feel free to provide your odds calculations. Show your work.
3. Even if the odds were slim, what of it? Every lottery winner marvels at his win against enormous odds (and many credit God for their luck), but with enough people playing the lottery (or enough planets in the galaxy), *someone's* going to win.
In philosophy, the anthropic principle boils down to, "whatever the odds, if we hadn't made it we wouldn't be here to ponder the question of how we got lucky enough to be here asking the question".
I'm sure I won't be the first to inform you that if that's truly what you think science actually states (and/or is as good a theory as science has on these matters), then you really need a better science education.
Yes, it would, if that were actually an accurate model of how it probably happened. But since it's not, that's a pretty empty straw man you've got there.
We can't explain how exactly everything came together at precisely the correct moment, place and time, and the explanation of all of it, except by divine being, is so remote as to be impossible
Again, feel free to show your work. "It's really unlikely, I swear it" just doesn't seem rigorous enough. Try again.
If the Reel of Life were to be played over a trillion, trillion times, most scientists agree life would have never have happen.
Provide a citation for this amazing claim, or retract it. We'll wait.
And you know this how, please? Show your calculations, and list your premises.
Bearing false witness so soon in the discussion?
Shock (( soon )) -- revelations (( designed universe )) ... awe --- you haven't seen anything - yet !
We had the materials (matter) on earth to create an aircraft for the entire existence of man on this earth. Before the Wright brothers' flight there were plenty of religous zealots scoffing at the idea that man would ever fly.
Any real educated person would have to admit that the beginning of life is beyond our capability to create spontaneously.
Of coarse, only at the present time.
I LOVE IT! Excellant post! Thanks!
You love straw man fallacies? Duly noted.
No, actually, that's the majorities feeling.
Nice non sequitur. Are you under the impression that that somehow makes it *not* a theory (yours, and theirs)? You are mistaken. You've got your theory, I've got mine, Bob has his.
More people believe in a divine being then are atheist.
That's sweet, but why are you suddenly fixating on "atheism"? We were discussing *your* personal "just a theory". And if you really want to play the "truth is determined by the number of people who believe a thing" -- and obviously you do, since you just brought it up out of nowhere -- then note that your "divine being" theory is actually in the minority overall:
Source: Gallup International Millennium Survey
("Personal God" means the belief that there is a God who is some sort of "being")
But in any case, so what? Are you *really* stooping to the implication that if more people believe a thing, it must be true (or that this somehow raises it above the status of being *their* theory on the matter)?
Ncie try, and thanks for playing.
You have yet to even the balls I'm throwing, much less get on base.
You replied, "Tell you what--just explain to why it COULDN'T be a "God"."
I submit that you obviously didn't bother to read what he wrote very carefully, as you have gone flying off on a non sequitur. (And your "eating an apple" analogy was also way off base from what he actually wrote.)
He very clearly said that his position is based on the lack of evidence *for* a god or gods.
This is a very different thing from anyone, much less him, claiming to have any reason to declare that there "COULDN'T" be a god or gods.
The first requirement for being able to critique someone's argument is that you must *understand* it first.
Good post. A few quibbles, however. The customary expression for your first premise (which goes back at least to Aquinas) is that "everything has a cause." Your restatement of the syllogism adds a qualification: "everything which has a beginning ..." This qualification seems contrived to avoid the age-old issue of what caused God. (After all, if everything has a cause, then ... )
Therefore, built into your syllogism is the flat-out a priori assumption that there are two kinds of things, those with a beginning (the universe) and those with no beginning (God). In other words, you've put your conclusions right smack into your very first premise. The outcome is quite predictable, but it strikes me as being a wee bit tautological.
You do a good job on the "beginning" of the universe. But due to a lack of evidence, it's not totally persuasive. The universe *could* be eternal, with just its current configuration having the beginning we observe (the Big Bang). Were that so, the prior state of the universe would be, perhaps, forever hidden from observation, as its evidence would have been obliterated by the BB. Convenient, perhaps, for those who may wish to cling to the idea of an eternal universe, but its something we can't totally rule out.
Therefore it's a possibility (a seemingly remote possibility) that the universe has no cause -- in the sense that it has no beginning. And while this possibility exists, your syllogism is charming, but not conclusive.
Uh, no. Look into it.
As for the Big Bang, I've explained that it doesn't mathematically require a cause, causes presupposing the existence of time, and time presupposing the existence of the universe. Is that what you're after?
Because whether it's evolution or any other naturalist/materialist dogma, anti-Creationists are pretty much all out to paste us Creationists as "fundamentalist, backwoods, right-wing nuts" etc.
Lol! I share your objection to the ‘knuckle-dragging’ part, but other than that, I'd take it as a compliment :)
Amen, Maria! We really must choose wisely.
I don't believe it's possible to think rationally when you're governed by fear.
Christians aren't governed by fear; that's the whole point. By accepting Christ, we are freed from fear, sin and destruction.
Then what did you mean by "We really must choose wisely"? I took it to mean that the consequence of a wrong decision was an eternity of Hell, which is Christian doctrine, after all. That is governance by fear.
And I take the intimations of Hell thrown around on FR science threads to be crude and unchristian attempts to threaten other posters out of their cosmologies.
What I ment was, why must time begin with the creation of THIS universe? Assuming the big bang theory is correct, you must assume there was nothing before it for there to be no time before it. Since no one has any clue of the goings on before the big bang, it is impossible to say.
So you are willing to say everything must be explainable by current physics but god does not have to be? Laughable at best.
When I was little, I was told that believing in god is based on faith and that it is impossible to prove the existance of god. That is one of the tests 'he' has for us. Why must everyone try to come up with faulty logic instead of relying on their own religious beliefs?
No, you're not. You will have no reason to declare "I am" tomorrow, much less twenty years from now within the same context you'd use it today, at this moment. You will age and change - if not spiritually, then certainly physically.
You need also to read the next response He gave Moses for that statement as being the God of the patriarchs. The fact He stated it in this manner, "I am THAT I am", plainly clarifies His unchanging nature, as He never referred to Himself in the past tense.
BTW, Popeye used "what" instead of "that", so he disqualified himself outright. :)
Here is the very next recorded statement God made to Moses after the "I am";
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
Jesus also said:
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
If a robot is what you want, then that is certainly your preference. The Creator of this world, preferred us to have free will, even though it means you might deny He exists because of it.
We must choose to accept Christ in the first place. God being the perfect gentleman, doesn't impose His will by force; rather, He gave us free will. Unfortunately, many use this free will to reject God. They choose poorly! But out of love, God even gives us the freedom to spurn Him. How sad that so many do! Then, as if to add insult, for the last 100 years or so, those schooled in the sciences of men (the intelligentsia, the illuminati, the "smart" folks among us) have totally bought into a theory that denies even God's role as Creator, treating Him instead as a quaint myth or fairytale and relegating Him to the "legends and lore" category.
If I were God, I'd be pretty pi$$ed. But thankfully I'm NOT God, and He IS merciful!
Syllables: un-prec-e-dent-ed
Part of Speech adjective
Pronunciation uhn preh sih dehn tihd
Definition 1. having no precedent; never before observed or experienced.
Related Words prodigious , original , phenomenal , novel , miraculous
Free will is a sham; I noted that previously. Of all the infinite possible decisions I could freely make, I am constrained to only an infinitesimal fraction of those. These constraints were not willed on myself, by myself..
Moreover, the entirety of Time and Space exists for the Infinite from the moment of Creation. There is no question of 'free will' for that which is "the alpha and the omega" because there is nothing undone yet to be done..
So you criticize because He gave you free will and did not force your will to be perfect. And you criticize because he didn't give you complete free will and power over all of your circumstances. In effect, because He did not make you God, you deny Him.
"Moreover, the entirety of Time and Space exists for the Infinite from the moment of Creation. There is no question of 'free will' for that which is "the alpha and the omega" because there is nothing undone yet to be done.."
To Him there is nothing yet to be done, but to you who are constrained by time, there is. That He is not constrained by time and therefore knows what you will choose, does not change the fact that it is indeed your choice.
You intend to use His existence simultaneous through out all time as a crutch for your decisions, to say you are not responsible, because it was preordained. But it was not preordained, you chose. In fact you can only see from your perspective and it should be clear from your perspective that you are choosing, how will you have any excuse?
To say you didn't choose, because God preknew, obviously isn't going to be an adequate defense. To say you didn't think God existed because you couldn't see from His perspective, will have to stand against the evidence He presents that you were aware of, and you will stand condemned. To say that God is unfair because He made the universe and you according to His preferences instead of yours, well...good luck with that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it isn't out of spite. Actions have consequences, and the consequence of sin is death. So in effect, it is we who deny ourselves the benefits of God's mercy.
God's grace (ergo admission into paradise) is a free gift if we desire it. Unfortunately, many people don't, opting instead for self-gratification, sinful living, and ultimate destruction.
Check out Romans 6:23.
I don't know how clearly I can make this--before the Big Bang--there was NO TIME. All indications, and Einstien's Theory on Relativity states that the singularity should have stayed in it's same, exact state forever. Forever. And only something external to the Universe could have begun the Big Bang.
Seriously, this is Physics 101; Time is a part of the universe, not external to it. Therefore, before the Big Bang it didn't exist. And a single second CAN last an internity.
Do God's actions have consequences, or is He still 'all-good' and 'all-merciful' despite the fact that the consequences of his presumed actions created evil and condemn millions to Hell?
Where does evil arise from, if not from God?
Why is this laughable? Every social group in human history has believed in spirits exempt to the laws of physics. In fact, the majority of mankind on Earth still believes in a God.
What's laughable is to look at the overwhelming evidence of how precious and rare life is and conclude it was mere coincidence that it began.
If a professional physicist told you that there is nothing in the theory of evolution that defies any known physical law, would you question your analysis?
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.