Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Atheist Perversion of Reality
April 5, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

Posted on 04/05/2009 8:10:35 PM PDT by betty boop

The Atheist Perversion of Reality
By Jean F. Drew

Atheism we have always had with us it seems. Going back in time, what was formerly a mere trickle of a stream has in the modern era become a raging torrent. Karl Marx’s gnostic revolt, a paradigm and methodology of atheism, has arguably been the main source feeding that stream in post-modern times.

What do we mean by “gnostic revolt?” Following Eric Voëgelin’s suggestions, our definition here will be: a refusal to accept the human condition, manifesting as a revolt against the Great Hierarchy of Being, the most basic description of the spiritual order of universal reality.

The Great Hierarchy is comprised of four partners: God–Man–World–Society, in their mutually dynamic relations. Arguably all the great world religions incorporate the idea of this hierarchy. It is particularly evident in Judaism and Christianity. One might even say that God’s great revelation to us in the Holy Bible takes this hierarchy and the relations of its partners as its main subject matter. It has also been of great interest to philosophers going back to pre-Socratic times — and evidently even to “anti-philosophers” such as Karl Marx.

In effect, Marx’s anti-philosophy abolishes the Great Hierarchy of Being by focusing attention mainly on the God and Man partners. The World and Society partners are subsidiary to that, and strangely fused: World is simply the total field of human social action, which in turn translates into historical societal forms.

Our principal source regarding the Marxist atheist position is Marx’s doctoral dissertation of 1840–1841. From it, we can deduce his thinking about the Man partner as follows:

(1) The movement of the intellect in man’s consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe. A human self-consciousness is the supreme divinity.

(2) “Faith and the life of the spirit are expressly excluded as an independent source of order in the soul.”

(3) There must be a revolt against “religion,” because it recognizes the existence of a realissimum beyond human consciousness. Marx cannot make man’s self-consciousness “ultimate” if this condition exists.

(4) The logos is not a transcendental spirit descending into man, but the true essence of man that can only be developed and expressed by means of social action in the process of world history. That is, the logos is “immanent” in man himself. Indeed, it must be, if God is abolished. And with God, reason itself is abolished as well: To place the logos in man is to make man the measure of all things. To do so ineluctably leads to the relativization of truth, and to a distorted picture of reality.

(5) “The true essence of man, his divine self-consciousness, is present in the world as the ferment that drives history forward in a meaningful manner.” God is not Lord of history, the Alpha and Omega; man is.

As Voëgelin concluded, “The Marxian spiritual disease … consists in the self-divinization and self-salvation of man; the intramundane logos of human consciousness is substituted for the transcendental logos…. [This] must be understood as the revolt of immanent consciousness against the spiritual order of the world.”

How Marx Bumps Off God
So much for Marx’s revolt. As you can see, it requires the death of God. Marx’s point of theocidal departure takes its further impetus from Ludwig von Feuerbach’s theory that God is an imaginary construction of the human mind, to which is attributed man’s highest values, “his highest thoughts and purest feelings.”

In short, Feuerbach inverts the very idea of the imago Dei — that man is created in the image of God. God is, rather, created by man, in man’s own image — God is only the illusory projection of a subjective human consciousness, a mere reflection of that consciousness and nothing more.

From this Feuerbach deduced that God is really only the projected “essence of man”; and from this, Feuerbach concluded that “the great turning point of history will come when ‘man becomes conscious that the only God of man is man himself.’”

For Marx, so far so good. But Marx didn’t stop there: For Feuerbach said that the “isolated” individual is the creator of the religious illusion, while Marx insisted that the individual has no particular “human essence” by which he could be identified as an isolated individual in the first place. For Marx, the individual in reality is only the sum total of his social actions and relationships: Human subjectivity has been “objectified.” Not only God is gone, but man as a spiritual center, as a soul, is gone, too.

Marx believed that God and all gods have existed only in the measure that they are experienced as “a real force” in the life of man. If gods are imagined as real, then they can be effective as such a force — despite the “fact” that they are not really real. For Marx, it is only in terms of this imaginary efficacy that God or gods can be said to “exist” at all.

Here’s the beautiful thing from Marx’s point of view: Deny that God or the gods can be efficacious as real forces in the life of man — on the grounds that they are the fictitious products of human imagination and nothing more — and you have effectively killed God.

This insight goes to the heart of atheism. In effect, Marx’s prescription boils down to the idea that the atheist can rid himself and the world at large of God simply by denying His efficacy, the only possible “real” basis of His existence. Evidently the atheist expects that, by his subjective act of will, he somehow actually makes God objectively unreal. It’s a kind of magic trick: The “Presto-Changeo!” that makes God “disappear.”

Note that, if God can be gotten rid of by a stratagem like this, so can any other aspect of reality that the atheist dislikes. In effect, the cognitive center which — strangely — has no “human essence” has the power of eliminating whatever sectors of objective reality it wants to, evidently in full expectation that reality itself will allow itself to be “reduced” and “edited down” to the “size” of the atheist’s distorted — and may we add relentlessly imaginary? — conception.

To agree with Marx on this — that the movement of the intellect in man’s “divine” consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe — is to agree that human thought determines the actual structure of reality.

Instead of being a part of and participant in reality, the atheist claims the power to create it as if he himself were transcendent to, or standing outside or “beyond” reality. As if he himself were the creator god.

This type of selective operation goes a long way towards explaining the fanatical hostility of many Darwinists today regarding any idea of design or hierarchy in Nature — which, by the way, have always been directly observable by human beings who have their eyes (and minds) open. What it all boils down to seems to be: If we don’t like something, then it simply doesn’t exist.

We call the products of such selective operations second realities. They are called this because they are attempts to displace and finally eliminate the First Reality of which the Great Hierarchy of Being — God–Man–World–Society — is the paradigmatic core.

First Reality has served as the unifying conceptual foundation of Western culture and civilization for the past two millennia at least. What better way to destroy that culture and civilization than an all-out attack on the Great Hierarchy of Being?

Thus we see how the gnosis (“wisdom”) of the atheist — in this particular case, Marx — becomes the new criterion by which all operations in (the severely reduced and deformed) external reality are to be conducted, understood, and judged.

Conclusion
Marx is the self-proclaimed Paraclete of an a-borning utopia in which man will be “saved” by being reduced to essentially nothing. With God “gone,” man, as we denizens of First Reality know him, disappears also.

But whatever is left of him becomes a tool for social action. He becomes putty in the hands of whatever self-selected, self-proclaimed Paraclete seeking to promote his favored Second Reality du jour (usually for his own personal benefit) manages to stride onto the public stage and command an audience.

Such a charmed person blesses himself with the power to change human society and history forever, to bring about man’s self-salvation in a New Eden — an earthly utopia— by purely human means.

Of course, there’s a catch: As that great denizen of First Reality, Sir Thomas More, eminently recognized, the translation into English of the New Latin word “utopia” is: No-place.

In short, human beings can conjure up alternative realities all day long. But that doesn't mean that they can make them “stick.” Reality proceeds according to its own laws, which are divine in origin, and so cannot be displaced by human desire or volition, individually or collectively.

And yet the Marxian expectation argues otherwise.

Out of such fantastic, idiotic, specifically Marxian/atheist foolishness have great revolutions been made. And probably will continue to be made — so long as psychopaths hold the keys to the asylum.

Note:
All quotations from Eric Voëgelin’s article, “Gnostic Socialism: Marx,” in: The Collected Works of Eric Voëgelin, Volume 26 — History of Political Ideas: Crisis and the Apocalypse of Man. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1999.

©2009 Jean F. Drew

April 4, 2009


TOPICS: Current Events; General Discusssion; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: atheism; atheists; culture; jeandrew; jeanfdrew; marx; reality; voegelin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,101-1,1501,151-1,2001,201-1,2501,251-1,292 next last
To: wagglebee
Thank you so very much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
1,151 posted on 07/01/2009 8:50:24 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1143 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Kant and Newton were contemporaries (~1650). Since their time, seemingly no "Newton of the leaf" has yet appeared....

LOLOL!

Thank you oh so very much for your beautiful insights and these illuminating excerpts, dearest sister in Christ!

1,152 posted on 07/01/2009 8:55:00 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1147 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
[ if you think I ‘worship’ the bible while ‘rationalizing the word worship away’ just come out and state so istead of beating around the bush- ]

I said nothing about you.. Just commenting on people I know and have known.. what appears to me to be so.. They would'nt use the worship themselves, but I do.. after close dealings with them..

My opinion cannot be stolen... I watch it pretty close..

1,153 posted on 07/01/2009 8:57:37 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1149 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Of course! Shannon's mathematical model of communications does not need to entail anywhere near as much as Rosen's in answering the question "What is Life?"

Totally agreed. Shannon's model is about effective or "successful" communication that reduces uncertainty in the receiver. Where I suspect this may fit into the Rosen picture is on the question of how does an efficient cause realize its effect on a material cause — under the "auspices" (so to speak) of a formal cause globally moving the system towards a final cause (not in this context a reference to teleology)?

I do recall that somewhere in Rosen's relational diagrams there's some "chasing" going on. The fact is, however, I don't now recall the details of Rosen's argument.

Please give me a page cite, dearest sister in Christ? I'd like to revisit that very much. I think that's key to understanding of how Shannon Communication Theory "dovetails" with the Rosen theory.

Intuitively, I think it does. [Hypothesis: To actually be effective, the efficient cause ("sender") depends on "successful communication that reduces uncertainty in the receiver" (i.e., the material cause.)]

Thank you ever so much for your thought-provoking essay/post, dearest sister in Christ!

1,154 posted on 07/01/2009 10:36:05 PM PDT by betty boop (One can best feel in dealing with living things how primitive physics still is. — A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1150 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; TXnMA; betty boop
Said Cottshop:
The use of a number with the word “day” is very illuminating. This combination occurs 357 times outside of Genesis 1. The combination is used in four different ways, but each time it is used, it must mean 24-hour periods of time.

Thank you, Cottshop. You are so right. I remember camping out on http://blb.org some time ago and looking at different usages of the Hebrew "yom" and I came to the same conclusion as you - the way Yom is used in the account of the 6 days of creation really can only mean one thing - and that is to speak of real 24 hour days.

As you pointed out, there are several reasons - each of would stand alone - but which all work together to require that Yom means a single 24 hour day here - including the "Morning and the evening" and "The first day".

Thanks,

-Jesse
1,155 posted on 07/01/2009 10:41:00 PM PDT by mrjesse (The big bang and dark matter exist only in black holes that are supposed to be full of gray matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1130 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; TXnMA; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; CottShop
To: hosepipe (in 1127) and Alamo-Girl (in 1129):

Because the two of you both responded similarly and seem in agreement, I'm responding to the both of you at once here.

Said Hosepipe:
I read your "earlier post" and this one too.. there seems to be way to many questions and allusions to questions.. couched in snarky similes.. to approach seriously..
Oh, so first my reasoning falls apart and I'm suckered into something, and now I'm couching alluded questions in snarky similes? oh I wonder what I'll do next! ha ha.

But seriously, have you not done exactly what TXnMA did? Have you not accused me without demonstrating a single one of your accusations as true? What am I to think? How can I honestly come to any other conclusion?

Said Hosepipe:
This forum works best with simple questions not all tangled up like a birds nest..
Well, TXnMA's original question to me about how my reasoning could fall apart to let me get suckered into believing YEC - his original question was simple enough. And I answered it as simply as I could - as a matter of fact I bared my soul so as to speak - for any to poke holes in - if they can - in other words, I explained how I had arrived at my current position on the matter - which is what he had asked.

And besides, I don't believe my questions are tangled up like a bird's nest or whatever you call it. They seemed perfectly logical to me.
Said Hosepipe:
However; the time-line on when/how the earth was "formed" and the time-line of when humans appeared/were created could be different..(Emph. Mine.)
Ahh-huh! Could be?! Hmm. I could be a 747.. Or the king of old England.. or the son of papa-knew-Guinness.. Or a millionaire... But I'm probably not and all the the things I could be but can't demonstrate are sort of besides the point.

As a scientist, I'd rather discuss the facts - the things that we do know - rather then whimsical "could be's".

Said Alamo-Girl:
Thank you both for sharing your insights, dear brothers in Christ!
Thank you kindly for that encouragement! I really appreciate it.
I agree with hosepipe that it is much more productive to simplify the questions you'd like answered and to present them one at a time.
But you see I have found that folks who look at a list of questions and refuse to answer them all are just about as likely to look at any single one of them and refuse to answer that one as well. It's not like my approximately 8 questions were hard, lengthy, or confusing:
Said MrJesse:
1: Did God create Adam and Eve, or did all life start from a single primitive cell?
2: At what point did non-man become man? Has it happened yet?
3: At what point did the generations become literal?
4: Was Noah an actual person?
5: Was Abraham an actual person? What about Issac, Jacob?
6: What about Jacob's 12 sons? King David? Solomon?
It is clear that you don't believe in the 6-day 7k year ago creation. But what exactly do you believe?
7: Do you believe that Noah built the ark?
8: And that God closed the door thereon?
It would be quite easy for someone to just copy those into their reply and insert their answers - and now I've even numbered them so as to make it easier still!

And it doesn't make sense to break those questions across multiple posts because they are really all interrelated, asking "Exactly where do you draw the line between Biblical literalness and allegory?"
Said Alamo-Girl:
It is also helpful to concentrate on the questions themselves ...
Exactly! It is extremely helpful to concentrate on the questions themselves. And that's what I did in explaining how I've arrived at my position when TXnMA wanted to know how my reasoning fell apart such that I could be suckered as he put it. And concentrating on the questions is exactly what I did when I asked about "Was Abraham a real person" and so on.
continued Alamo-Girl:
... rather than the parties involved ...
Again, I agree! But you see, the other parties are refusing to concentrate on the questions. Both TXnMA have accused me of different things like being suckered into things or couching alluded questions, and, with all do respect, and even in your most kind way, you yourself wrote your whole little post almost entirely about the parties involved (myself and hosepipe) and prior dialogs and you completely neglected to address any of the actual questions at hand!

I'm not saying that you were wrong saying that which you did - but that, as you just demonstrated, sometimes it is needful to also talk about the undesirable actions of the parties or prior dialogs.
continued Alamo-Girl:
... or prior dialogues.
I'm not sure what you're talking about on this one. TXnMA's challenge to me was number 837 and my response to it was 874 on the same thread. What's the prior dialog?
Said Alamo-Girl:
These two steps would help all of us to follow and perhaps learn or contribute along the way.
Absolutely! I'm doing my best. But sometimes folks come along and try to prove their point by saying unfounded insulting things, then go away as if they were right and I was wrong, even though they never actually demonstrated that I was wrong. But when we try to have a discussion, but we refuse to discuss certain foundational issues, and if we are silent about dishonesty, we are going to find ourselves working on an unstable foundation - for a house built not upon truth cannot stand.

However, your points are valid and the two steps are good - but I think I can add two more steps to those:

If we wish to insult or decry as wrong someone's views or understanding of science, we MUST be absolutely sure to also demonstrate that our claims are true and explain. And secondly, if we discover that someone was right and we were wrong and we insulted them thinking that they were wrong, we MUST apologize.

In today's world of perverted reality, when the major social theme is "There's no such thing as wrong; just don't get caught", it is extremely important for us to remember that as Christians, we live for a higher calling - that of following Jesus Christ - who calls us to be extremely honest, "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no. Anything beyond that is of evil." Jesus said. (Matthew 5:37)

Dialogging with a dishonest person as if they were honest only hurts them - it does not help them.

Now, let's get on to the facts!

Thanks very much, and you all have a wonderful day!

-Jesse
1,156 posted on 07/02/2009 12:57:32 AM PDT by mrjesse (The big bang and dark matter exist only in black holes that are supposed to be full of gray matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1127 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
mrjesse's reply to this is here
(For those using the "view replies" feature.)
-Jesse
1,157 posted on 07/02/2009 1:00:51 AM PDT by mrjesse (The big bang and dark matter exist only in black holes that are supposed to be full of gray matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1129 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; Alamo-Girl
[ What am I to think? How can I honestly come to any other conclusion? ]

Think whatever you wish.. Its just your opinion..
Conclusions are like elbows.. everybody as a few..

[ And I answered it as simply as I could - as a matter of fact I bared my soul so as to speak - for any to poke holes in - if they can ]

As we all do.. all posts are simply opinions.. not absolute facts..

[ As a scientist, I'd rather discuss the facts - the things that we do know - rather then whimsical "could be's". ]

I would rather discuss "could be's" as opposed to what some consider "facts"..
I am in the right place for that to happen, you are not..
What do you know for sure?, and how do you know its that way and not some other way?..

This forum shows opinion, yours, or some other..
Perhaps you thought you were at some scientific choir meeting..
Or that your opinion should be treated as a Scientific Shaman..
Your opinion of others opinions is just an opinion..
Science is often merely a Cargo Cult.. more often than not..

1,158 posted on 07/02/2009 7:02:37 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1156 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I do recall that somewhere in Rosen's relational diagrams there's some "chasing" going on. The fact is, however, I don't now recall the details of Rosen's argument.

Please give me a page cite, dearest sister in Christ? I'd like to revisit that very much. I think that's key to understanding of how Shannon Communication Theory "dovetails" with the Rosen theory.

Sure, I'd be glad to. The concept is introduced here (underline emphasis mine) and is discussed a few pages later:

It cannot be stressed too strongly that, in these considerations, the hardware f and the flows it induces on software are fundamentally different things; they encode entirely different aspects of the natural system they model. I have tried to make this clear by exhibiting the encoding itself in various ways; I will try one last time by rewriting [9B.6] in terms of the modeling relation itself; see section 3H above. In terms of that discussion we should think of the right-hand box (i.e., the model) as being the form shown in figure 9B.4. That is, all of the states (i.e., hardware plus software) go inside the box, as does the flow from input to output. The generation of that flow by the hardware (i.e., the black arrow) is what sits outside the box as the inferential structure, as indicated. I discuss some of the causal correlates of this picture in subsequent sections.

In any case, we have passed with some difficulty from a natural system that is a machine to a formal representation of it, of the form [9B.6], or, in abbreviated form, [9B.5]. This is what I shall call a relational model of the machine. As we see, there does not seem to be much left of the machine itself in this version of it. For instance, we see no explicit encoding of time, have no dynamics in the diagram. The diagram does, however, embody the basic polarity of the machine, the progression in time from afferent to efferent, from input to output. This will turn out to be the essential temporal feature for us, not time divided into minutes and seconds, but time encoded as a chase through a diagram.

Robert Rosen, “Life Itself”, pgs 222-223

For Lurkers: Shannon's Mathematical Theory of Communications is the foundation theory of the the field of Mathematics called "Information Theory."

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

1,159 posted on 07/02/2009 7:23:18 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1154 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; hosepipe; TXnMA; betty boop; CottShop; allmendream
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, questions and concerns, dear brother in Christ!

You posed a set of questions what would seem to elicit simple, point-by-point answers:

Said MrJesse:
1: Did God create Adam and Eve, or did all life start from a single primitive cell?
2: At what point did non-man become man? Has it happened yet?
3: At what point did the generations become literal?
4: Was Noah an actual person?
5: Was Abraham an actual person? What about Issac, Jacob?
6: What about Jacob's 12 sons? King David? Solomon?
It is clear that you don't believe in the 6-day 7k year ago creation. But what exactly do you believe?
7: Do you believe that Noah built the ark?
8: And that God closed the door thereon?

But I suspect some of your correspondents would react like I do, that this is a line of inquiry, a set, which explores the correspondent's epistemology: what kind of knowledge exists, how do you know what you know and how certain are you that you actually know it?

For a Christian the question reduces to “Who do you believe?”

My reply is that I love God surpassingly above all else, I believe Him and I trust Him.

To the epistemological question, my reply from a previous thread is that I perceive the following types of knowledge and their certainty in this order, top to bottom:

1. Theological knowledge, direct revelation: I have Spiritual understanding directly from God concerning this issue, e.g. that Jesus Christ is the Son of God - it didn't come from me.
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another, i.e. Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.
To clarify: I eschew the doctrines and traditions of men (Mark 7:7) which includes all mortal interpretations of Scriptures, whether by the Pope, Calvin, Arminius, Billy Graham, Joseph Smith or whoever. The mortal scribes (Paul, John, Peter, Daniel, Moses, David, etc.) do not fall in this category since the actual author is the Spirit Himself and He confirms this is so to me personally by His indwelling. Thus I make a hard distinction between the Living Word of God and mere musings - including the geocentricity interpretations of the early church and my own such as in this article.
3. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.
5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know …
9. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that …
11. Determined facts: I accept this as fact because of a consensus or veto determination by others, i.e. I trust that these experts or fact finders know what they are talking about.
12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.

As you can see, my reply to your list of questions will spring from those more basic questions and because of that, it will be quite lengthy:

1: Did God create Adam and Eve, or did all life start from a single primitive cell?

See answer to number 6 below. Also, there are different kinds of life, so again I shall present my understanding of the matter which is rooted in Judeo/Christian theology and relates well to Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Scripture and Jewish tradition speak of the soul/spirit in four levels:

1. nephesh – the will to live, the animal soul, or the soul of all living things (Genesis 1:20) which by Jewish tradition returns to the “earth” after death. In Romans 8, this is seen as a whole, the creation longing for the children of God to be revealed. This is what betty boop and I have often described here as being field-like because it exists in all points of space/time.

2. ruach - the self-will or free will peculiar to man (abstraction, anticipation, intention, etc.) – by Jewish tradition, the pivot wherein a man decides to be Godly minded or earthy minded (also related to Romans 8, choosing)

3. neshama - the breath of God given to Adam (Genesis 2:7) which may also be seen as the “ears to hear” (John 10) - a sense of belonging beyond space/time, a predisposition to seek God and seek answers to the deep questions such as “what is the meaning of life?"

4. ruach Elohim - the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2) which indwells Christians (I Cor 2, John 3) – the presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. (Col 3:3) This is the life in passage : "In him was life, and the life was the light of men..." (John 1)

I suspect only the first two on the list would be manifest in such a way that science might be able to detect them - the last two are specially given gifts of God.

2: At what point did non-man become man? Has it happened yet? See answer to number 6 below.

3: At what point did the generations become literal? After Adam was banished to mortality at the end of Genesis 3

4: Was Noah an actual person? Yes

5: Was Abraham an actual person? What about Issac, Jacob? Yes, yes and yes

6: What about Jacob's 12 sons? King David? Solomon? Yes, yes and yes

It is clear that you don't believe in the 6-day 7k year ago creation. But what exactly do you believe?

The Scriptures are the inerrant words of God. Period. But the words of God must be Spiritually discerned (I Cor 2:6-16.)

I am neither an Old Earth Creationist nor a Young Earth Creationist. Nor do I lean to the Gosse Omphalus Hypothesis which says that the universe only looks old, it could have been created last Thursday.

I see no conflict at all in the revelations of God the Father in (a) Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, (b) the indwelling Holy Spirit (c) Scriptures and (d) Creation, both spiritual and physical.

In sum, I aver that seven equivalent earth days from the inception space/time coordinates (big bang) is equal to roughly fifteen billion years from our space/time coordinates on earth. For more on this point, Scriptures vis-à-vis Inflationary Theory and Relativity see Age of the Universe by Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder.

Incidentally, often at the root of the theological differences over Creation Week we find Romans 5:12–14 and I Corinthians 15:42–48 - one side saying that Adam was the first mortal man (YEC) and the other saying that Adam was the first ensouled man (OEC.)

But I also have no “dog” in that dispute because I see Adam as created in the spiritual realm, the first man to become a “living soul” (Genesis 2) and I do not see him becoming earth bound until he was banished to mortality at the end of Genesis 3.

In other words, I assert that the first three chapters of Scripture deal with the creation not only of the physical realm but the spiritual as well:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. – Genesis 1:1

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. – Genesis 2:4-5

Therefore I see no conflict with the creation of plant life (day 3) – before the creation of the solar system (day 4.) And as further Scriptural evidence I point to these:

The tree of life is in the center of Eden (Gen 2:9) and Paradise (Rev 2:7).

God created the plants and herbs before they were in the earth (Gen 2:4-5)

The intersection or “types” in the physical realm and spiritual realm: Temple, Ark, Tabernacle, Eden/Paradise.

Furthermore, whereas many see Genesis 1 as a historical record only, the leaning I have in the Spirit is that it is prophecy as well.

My understanding of the time appointed to Adamic men is very similar to the Jewish understanding and that of the early Christians - namely, that Adamic man [after he was banished to mortality in Genesis 3) - is appointed 7,000 years (corresponding to Creation week) the last 1,000 years being the Sabbath reign of Christ on earth (Revelation 20.)

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. - Colossians 2:16-17

That is a hidden Spiritual Truth behind these verses:

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. – Psalms 90:4 (a Psalm the Jews attribute to Moses)

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Pet 3:8

It is further shown in this verse and its fulfillment (emphasis mine):

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. – Gen 2:17

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. – Genesis 5:5

That is also the Jewish interpretation (Sanhedrin 97a; Avodah Zarah Sa) of Psalms 90:4

It was also the early Christian understanding. This, from the Epistle of Barnabas 15:3-5:

He speaks of the Sabbath at the beginning of the Creation, "And God made in six days the works of His hands and on the seventh day He made an end, and He rested on the seventh day, and He sanctified it. Consider, my children what this signifies: That He made an end in six days. The meaning of it is this: that in six thousand years the Creator will bring all things to an end, for with Him one day is a thousand years. He Himself testifies, saying, Behold the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, all things shall be accomplished. And He rested on the seventh day: He means this, that when His Son shall come He will destroy the season of the wicked one, and will judge the godless, and will change the sun and the moon and the stars, and then He will truly rest on the seventh day.

It is also recorded in the first verse, chapter 33 of 2 Enoch which is the Slavic:

And I appointed the eighth day also, that the eighth day should be the first-created after my work, and that (the first seven) revolve in the form of the seventh thousand, and that at the beginning of the eighth thousand there should be a time of not-counting, endless, with neither years nor months nor weeks nor days nor hours.

Following this prophetic timetable envisioned by these Jews and early Christians, Adamic man has little time before the end will come and Christ’s 1,000 reign on earth begins. Using Christian dating, it could be any day now. Using Jewish dating, we have about 240 years to go. This is Jewish year 5769 from Adam’s first moment on earth. The difference is a dispute over the amount of time the Jews were exiled in Babylon: The Jewish Calendar’s 240 missing years

Returning to Scripture and evolution, God specifically mentions things He specially created – and He also leaves the door open to evolution theory here:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. – Genesis 1:20

Thus I perceive biological life as a mixture of things specially created by God and mechanisms created by God whereby biological life adapts or evolves.

The Intelligent Design hypothesis is appealing to me and credible on the face. It simply states that “certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” And because animals are known to choose their mates, it is obvious that “certain features” are best explained by those choices.

I find most of the ID disputes to be theological, ideological or political – rarely on the merits on the hypothesis which I consider to be more of an observation.

My main dispute with evolution theory is the improper use of the word and concept of “random” when the correct word and concept is “unpredictable.” Stochastic methods apply to either. But a person cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system “is” – and science does not know – and can never know – the full dimensionality of space/time.

So the use of the word “random” overstates what is known and knowable by the scientific method.

I do however have a very strong objection to those scientists like Dawkins, Pinker, Singer and Lewontin who misappropriate the theory of evolution to proliferate anti-Christ and anti-God sentiment under the color of science.

Because of the self-imposed "methodological naturalism" science does not even look beyond the natural and therefore is way out of bounds to make judgments concerning God, spirit, soul, miracles, etc.

I do not endorse the "irreducible complexity" theory of some Intelligent Design proponents because it looks backwards. However, I do strongly advocate the forward looking point that order cannot arise from chaos in an unguided physical system. Period. There are always guides to the system.

Also, because of scientists who promote anti-God sentiment under the color of science, I do frequently assert several of the open "origin" questions of science to illustrate how little they actually know:

1. Origin of space/time.
2. Origin of life.
3. Origin of inertia.
4. Origin of information (successful communication)
5. Origin of conscience (sense of right v wrong, good v evil, etc.)
6. Origin of consciousness (including decision processes)

The Jewish mystics claim that God will hold us to account if we fail to notice, to inquire, to try and understand the world around us. I agree (emphasis mine):

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. - Romans 1:18-21

The difference, IMHO, is that the Christian or Jew looks at the depth and height of the physical creation – and sees a revelation of the Creator whereas others see a different context (e.g. Buddhism) or no context at all (atheism/agnosticism.)

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3

I, for instance, see the unreasonable effectiveness of math (Wigner) as God's copyright notice on the cosmos.

Nevertheless, no matter what a Christian may see when he looks at Scriptures and the physical Creation, the bottom line is: to God be the glory!

7: Do you believe that Noah built the ark? Yes

8: And that God closed the door thereon? Yes

To sum it up, I could have answered your list of questions by saying these two things:

Man is not the measure of God.

God’s Name is I AM!


1,160 posted on 07/02/2009 8:18:02 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1156 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

[[I would rather discuss “could be’s” as opposed to what some consider “facts”..]]

i can chime in here- and point to a few facts of science-

—it’s a fact species have biological limits that if exceeded result in species degredation to hte point hwere hte species is no logner fit- this isn’t just an opinion, this is a study/tested fact

—Mutations cause stresses o n a system and result in loss of information

—Macroevolution needs icnreases in non species specific information- Nature does not provide that htrough mutaitons

—it’s a fact that the bible said there was no death of spirit or bloodshed before the fall- in order for macroevolution to have happened, were it even a biological possibility, the bible would have to have stated a lie about sin and death

—it’s a fact that it is mathematically impossible for mutaitons to create new non species specific infromation

—it’s a fact that it’s biologically impossibile for chemicals to produce metainformation and hte heirarchal system of information needed before Macroevolution even has a slight chance of being a possibility

—it’s a fact that metainformation NEEDS to be inpalce first before any new non species specific informaiton can be itnroduced- otherwise the species receives nothign but noise that the species system can not cope with- introducing non species specific info also results in again, loss of species specific info, and degrades the species specific info resulting in less fitness for hte species.

—it’s a fact, that when species experience change due to mutaiton, that hwen left to their own, they tend to begin shedding htose changes, and return to their original fitness levels- the do not keep moving away fro mtheir originally created kind as woudl be needed IF mutaitons could possibily result in macroevolution- which it can’t at any rate. this is a studied and tested fact.

— it is a fact that the second law is detrimental to living systems- whether it be in an open system or a closed on, and in order for macroevolution to be possible, the second law woudl have had to have been violated in billions of species trillions of times all through hte process

—it’s a fact that we have no examples of living systems being able to violate the principle of hte second law except in one single species of bacteria, and even there, the species is STILL beholden to hte law, but has hte ability to renew it’s DNA AFTER it’s old DNA gets too degraded to continue on- this is a unique ability however, and is only seen in one bacteria species, and infact is not an actual violation of hte second law, but a delaying due to the unique ability to renew it’s own DNA thus delaying hte inevitable.

—it’s a fact that an objetive look at hte fossil record shows discontinuity, and hte only way to claim continuity, is by assuming naturalism without any evidence to back the assumptions up

—it’s a fact that there was an ‘explosion’ of fully formed species during what is called hte cambrian age- most species which were the same hten as they are now- with perhaps minor trait changes, which as we know is microevolution, not macroevolution

—it’s a fact that micro and macro evolution are two entirely different biological processes- one causes change to info already present, the other is a result of the creation or introduction of new non species specific information

—it’s a fact that macroevolutionists try to equate hte two processes as beign hte same, but they are not.

There’s lots of facts- not just opinions based on beyond reasonable doubt conclusions based on the evidences present.


1,161 posted on 07/02/2009 8:24:44 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1158 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
So then, its your opinion, that these are facts?...
Accurate as you presented them?..

And that you are not "spinning minutia" in abbreviated form to make a point?..

If so, your opinion is your opinion.. and thats a fact.. in my opinion..

1,162 posted on 07/02/2009 8:37:29 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1161 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe
it’s a fact that an objetive look at hte fossil record shows discontinuity, and hte only way to claim continuity, is by assuming naturalism without any evidence to back the assumptions up

The fossil record shows, not only discontinuity, but stasis: the preservation of species morphological form over extended periods of time, unto the hundreds of thousands of years or more. In light of these facts, one wonders where the macroevolutionist got the idea that the evolution of species (as "simulated" by the fossil record) is in any way "continuous" is beyond me. Stasis and continuity are mutually exclusive terms. There seems to be nothing "empirical" about such a claim.

1,163 posted on 07/02/2009 2:57:12 PM PDT by betty boop (One can best feel in dealing with living things how primitive physics still is. — A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1161 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; mrjesse; hosepipe; TXnMA; CottShop; allmendream
I suspect only the first two on the list would be manifest in such a way that science might be able to detect them - the last two are specially given gifts of God.

I question whether science as presently constituted could even reach to (2)....

That, however, is a minor quibble. IMHO, it does not in the least detract from your magnificent, luminous essay/post! Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ!

1,164 posted on 07/02/2009 3:03:29 PM PDT by betty boop (One can best feel in dealing with living things how primitive physics still is. — A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1160 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
This will turn out to be the essential temporal feature for us, not time divided into minutes and seconds, but time encoded as a chase through a diagram.

In other words, in Rosen's model it is counterproductive to think of time as reducible to a series of discrete, "quantized" steps moving irreversibly from past to present to future. Instead, we are invited to think of time in terms of flow — or as Rosen puts it on pages 222–223, i.e., with respect to a class of material objects called "machines" — of time as a transducer of causal events that relate back to a formal cause, the system's "program." Which respecting the class or set of machines is essentially algorithmic in character.

At this point in the text, we have a description of "machine" — a material system in nature classified generically as a mechanism with "special" properties. As such, Rosen regards the machine description as too "impoverished" (a correlative of "special") in the causal entailment department to have much to say about material systems in nature of the class living organisms. (Pardon my redundancy there.)

The figure or diagram in Life Itself that so entrances me is the one that appears on page 251 as [10C.6].

Though conditioned on an "if," it has a certain beauty to it....

Thanks so much for getting back to me with the page cite! I was looking for the "chasing" reference in later chapters, forgetting that in context it referred to Rosen's discussion of machines.

In any case, the Shannon model would seems to apply to whatever case we're looking at. That is, whether from the standpoint is of the machine (e.g., "chasing", as defined by a program or algorithm) or of biological systems (relentlessly non-algorithmic "life"), "efficient cause looking to impress material cause because that's what formal cause specifies and final cause requires" is the rule applying to both. And to inorganic nature also.

I fear these issues are tiresome for most readers, dearest sister in Christ. But I have to say no thinker has excited me more than Robert Rosen since my "discovery" of Eric Voegelen in 1985. :^)

And thus he joins my "pantheon of truly great ones"....

Just to say I think it's time for me to "put a sock in in." :^)

Thank you as ever, dearest sister in Christ, for all your help and able guidance!

1,165 posted on 07/02/2009 5:43:30 PM PDT by betty boop (One can best feel in dealing with living things how primitive physics still is. — A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1159 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I question whether science as presently constituted could even reach to (2)....

You have a point there, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you so much for your encouragements!

1,166 posted on 07/02/2009 8:56:55 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1164 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so very much for your wonderful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

In any case, the Shannon model would seems to apply to whatever case we're looking at. That is, whether from the standpoint is of the machine (e.g., "chasing", as defined by a program or algorithm) or of biological systems (relentlessly non-algorithmic "life"), "efficient cause looking to impress material cause because that's what formal cause specifies and final cause requires" is the rule applying to both. And to inorganic nature also.

Indeed!

I'm very pleased to hear that Rosen is at the top of your list of great ones! He certainly got my attention as well.

For the moment, most all of the Rosen-speak is between you and me. But I expect as the concepts have a chance to sprout and grow, we'll pick up a few more correspondents.

After all, the subject "what is life v non-life/death in nature" seems to come up a lot around here.

1,167 posted on 07/02/2009 9:20:56 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1165 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Alamo-Girl,

Thank you very much for your in-depth post. I did read it through and have lots to say - but I'm out of time at the moment. Just wanted to say thanks and let you know I wasn't ignoring you!

But here's a couple comments anyway:

Said Alamo-Girl:
But I also have no “dog” in that dispute because I see Adam as created in the spiritual realm, the first man to become a “living soul” (Genesis 2) and I do not see him becoming earth bound until he was banished to mortality at the end of Genesis 3.

Ahh, so God created Adam from the dust of the earth, then took'im back to heaven? If Adam was not bound to earth, then where in tarzan was he when he and his wife ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? (Someone once said it's not about the fruit on the tree but the pair on the ground!) (Do you believe that Adam and Eve did eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? That is when sin entered into the world through the one man Adam, right? Or maybe that never happened and sin never entered into the world? ha ha)
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(Romans 5:12, v14 mentions Adam)
That actually raises more interesting questions - if Adam was not earth-bound but rather a non-physical spirit being (formed out of the dust of the earth..?) busy about his tasks of tending a spiritual garden, then did he actually eat the forbidden fruit, or, well, anyway, I'd love to hear your comment on this!

It was also the early Christian understanding. This, from the Epistle of Barnabas 15:3-5:...
Ahh - you're Catholic, right? Hadn't known that. Not that it makes any difference -- except it may be that you take some things as inspired word of God which I do not. I'm non-denominational Bible-believing, God-fearing, if that helps any. And I tend to be skeptical of a scriptural principle if the only way to back it up is with the apochryphia - I'd like to see the same point in the main part of the Bible.

Have a great day,

-Jesse
1,168 posted on 07/03/2009 2:06:07 AM PDT by mrjesse (The big bang and dark matter exist only in black holes that are supposed to be full of gray matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1160 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

[[For the moment, most all of the Rosen-speak is between you and me.]]

Well it wouldn’t be if you two would speak something other than Swahili :) Having trouble following your lines of htought- I think that Rosen was stating that living systems aren’t to be compared to mechanical or software due to ‘chasing’ which occures when the programs search for the best answers (and protect the ‘species’ or program by isolating it from errors that would otherwise affect living systems??) is this correct? If so, that’s about hte bottom line of things as GA’s certainly can’t mimic living systems, and end up artificially protecting the ‘evolving’ systems, and artificially introducing elements not seen in nature such as far greater rapid development minus the negative effects seen in nature.


1,169 posted on 07/03/2009 7:16:16 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1167 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse

[[That actually raises more interesting questions - if Adam was not earth-bound but rather a non-physical spirit being (formed out of the dust of the earth..?) busy about his tasks of tending a spiritual garden, then did he actually eat the forbidden fruit, or, well, anyway, I’d love to hear your comment on this! ]]

This brings up a good point too inthat, Angels had the ability to sin against hteir God before Adam and Eve were created, and if so, if Adam was a spiritual being, he would not have needed the tree of knowledge of good and evil because spiritual beings already knew good AND evil, and could make hte choice between the two- thus no tree was needed needed to make that descision.


1,170 posted on 07/03/2009 7:22:18 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1168 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse

And just a further note- some peopel question why God woudl have created the ‘tree of knowledge of good and evil’ and htus ‘tempt’ man to sin- thinking that God had stacked the deck against man right fro mthe start- However, in order for true love to exist, there MUST be the ability to excercise free will, and htere can’t be an ability to do so without the possibility of being unfaithful- , True love can only flourish deeply when htere is the possibility that another ‘love interest’ could capture the heart- the person dedicated to hte spouse shows true love by stickign to their mate or their one true devotion (Soemthign Sanford seems to have forgotten)

Man could have remained moral had hte tree not been available- had hte ability to sin not been made available, but complete morality without the chance of falling ends in a stale relationship- man HAD to go from morality to mortality in order to experience the ability to show true love toward His Creator


1,171 posted on 07/03/2009 7:44:38 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1168 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; hosepipe; TXnMA; betty boop; CottShop; allmendream
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, dear mrjesse!

First off, no I am not a member of the "Catholic Church" though about half of my family is. I’m just a Christian plain and simple. See number 2 on my twelve point answer to the epistemological question for more.

Secondly, the Epistle of Barnabas is not part of the Deuterocanonical books that the Catholic Church includes in its canon. And it is not to be confused with the late sixteenth century Islamic fraud, “The Gospel of Barnabas.”

The Epistle of Barnabas dates back to the first few centuries after Christ’s resurrection. It is quoted by Clement of Alexandria and also mentioned by Origen. It was part of the Codex Sinaiticus but is not part of the Catholic canon today.

I quote it because it unambiguously informs us how at a major part of the early church viewed Creation week in Genesis vis-à-vis prophecy. Both it and the Pseudepigraphal book, 2 Enoch which is dated to the first century and only preserved in Slavic refer to the new heaven and earth as the “eighth day” – a time of no more counting when God makes everything anew, and that our present age corresponds to Creation Week – 7 days to 7,000 years with the last 1,000 being the Sabbath, Christ's reign on earth (fulfilling the Jewish Messianic prophecies.)

In sum, my Spiritual understanding is that the first three chapters of Genesis are from the Creator’s perspective. He was the only observer of Creation week.

At the top of Genesis 4, the perspective changes to Adamic man – the clock starts clicking, death has entered the world because he was banished to mortality (end of chapter 3.) The death here is not just physical, it is “muwth muwth.” (Genesis 2:17)

Adam was made to be a living soul in paradise, always communicating with God.

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. - Genesis 2:7

The “dust of the ground” does not mean physical to the exclusion of spiritual, earthy to the exclusion of heavenly. Emphasis mine:

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. – Genesis 2:4-5

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. – Genesis 1:1

The difference between the physical and the spiritual is not a “here v there” matter of geometry, e.g. the ark, the tabernacle, the holy mountain, the temple, you and me.

Note that the tree of life is in the center of the garden of Eden and also in the center of Paradise. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is also in the midst of the garden.

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. – Genesis 2:9

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. – Revelation 2:7

But Adam brought upon himself – and thereby, us - the penalty of “death death” by not loving God enough to obey Him (comment emphasized:)

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [literally, muwth muwth or “death death”]. – Genesis 2:17

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matthew 10:28

And so he was banished to mortality, bringing "muwth muwth" - "death death" - into the Creature which now groans and suffers yearning for the children of God to be revealed (Romans 8.)

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. – Genesis 3:22-24

Notice how the time changes along with the perspective:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. – Gen 2:17

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. – Genesis 5:5

The above is the key to understanding the ancient Jewish/Christian belief that Creation week is also prophecy.

Adam did indeed die (muwth muwth) in the “day” he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because a day from God’s perspective in this revelation to us is a thousand years from Adamic man’s perspective.

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. – Psalms 90:4

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Pet 3:8

The penalty is Truth because God said it. Adamic man, now banished to morality - muwth muwth - is doomed. The only way man can live in paradise as a member of God's family, where he belonged in the first place, is that he must be born again.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. - John 3:5-7

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

By the indwelling of the Spirit, we become new creatures – indeed, we are made anew, restoring us not only to the kind of creature man was intended to be, but enlivening us as adopted members of God’s own family.

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Corinthians 15:42-45

Only the Blood of Christ could accomplish this.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20

In my experience, those who view the revelation of God in Genesis chapters one to three as written from man’s perspective – that it is speaking of physical creation and little if any spiritual creation – either end up in the Young Earth Creationism corner by holding Scripture as their most certain source of knowledge - or in the Old Earth Creationism corner by subordinating Scriptural knowledge to knowledge gained from physical evidence.

To me, all of God's revelations are consistent. He is the Creator, the author of Scripture, the only observer of Creation, that He created both spiritual as well as physical and that the observer-perspective of Scripture changes from the Creator’s to Adamic man’s at the end of Genesis 3. That’s when the clock starts clicking.

To God be the glory!

1,172 posted on 07/03/2009 9:07:52 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1168 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; betty boop; allmendream; TXnMA; hosepipe
Well it wouldn’t be if you two would speak something other than Swahili :)

LOLOL!

I’ll try to “sum it up” this way…

There are four different kinds of “causation.” To use an example, the formal cause would be the blueprint for your house. The material cause would be the lumber, nails, etc. The efficient cause would be the construction workers who build it. And the final cause would be the house itself, the reason for the previous three causes.

Since the days of Newton, science has ignored formal and final cause with the assumption that the everything in the universe is a machine that can be understood by material and efficient causes.

Among other things, this allowed them to insist philosophers and theologians stay away to let them do their work.

And their presupposition has been wildly successful for centuries because, with the notable exception of living things, the rest of the universe can be understood as a machine.

Evidently, the scientists always considered biology to be a “special case” – minor in comparison to the rest of the universe – and not really worth their time. The machine presupposition works well in physics and chemistry, so it’s just a matter of time before they can explain life as a machine, too.

The biologists meanwhile didn’t care either. The machine way of looking at things works well enough in the laboratory until people ask inconvenient questions – and besides they can always claim that life is evolution, the historical record itself. Which is to say, it is because here we are (see Anthropic principle.)

Well, enter the mathematical biologists (Rosen and his predecessors) and mathematicians/physicists who dared to ask (vonNeumann, Pattee, Yockey, Chaitin, Wolfram et al) and it becomes glaringly apparent that life is not simply a machine after all.

From Rosen’s outstanding arguments we see there is no (efficient) cause outside of the organism doing the maintenance, repair, metabolizing and building. It’s doing it on its own. And so he has developed a relational biology, a mathematical model looking at the organization itself. And thus Rosen declares that "a material system is an organism if, and only if, it is closed to efficient causation."

That is how he answers the question “What is life?”

His model is not static, the organism doesn’t just sit there dead as a doornail. There is a flow in the organizational model from one element to the next. And that flow involves both encoding and decoding. That is “chasing” in the model. His model is not concerned with time but with the ordering, the flow, the chasing.

The same is true of Shannon’s mathematical model of communications. It is all about the chasing. Information is defined by Shannon as the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver (an element to Rosen’s model) – the chasing, the flow – not the message itself.

My only complaint so far about Rosen’s book is that he did not give enough credit to Shannon even though his theory relies on Shannon’s work.

To compare the two, think of Shannon as a discrete single chase through Rosen’s organization, e.g. it starts with a sender, a message which is encoded and sent through a channel subject to noise whereupon it is decoded and thereby reduces the uncertainty of the receiver. Shannon's has a beginning and an end. It is discrete.

Rosen's is not a discrete instance, his goes endlessly one to another, turning it into a circular model. One flow (input>process>output> to another (input>process>output) seamlessly.

And so, if anyone asks me “What is life?” I will answer them with both.

Under Shannon, that which successfully communicates in nature is alive. If it cannot, it is either dead or non-life. Shannon’s model doesn’t care whether the elements of the model are biological, radios, tvs, computers, non-physical, etc. Thus the Shannon definition applies to biological organisms (nature), alien life forms (cosmos), artificial intelligence (man-made), spiritual beings, etc.

Under Rosen, expanding his above definition beyond the material (nature) - a thing is alive if it is closed to efficient causation. Which is to say, the thing doesn’t need an outsider to do maintenance, repair, etc.

Because of this, Rosen’s definition rejects artificial intelligence and thus has been criticized by some in that camp. It also arguably would only recognize God as having Spiritual life in Himself (as the Scriptures say.)

The two models are not mutually exclusive. Which one I emphasize in a debate will probably depend on the subject matter.

The Shannon model has a track record in pharmaceutical and cancer research. The Rosen model is just now getting some attention and its application is also reaching to physical cosmology (Fineman et al.)

Did that help?

1,173 posted on 07/03/2009 10:40:23 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1169 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; Alamo-Girl; LeGrande; TXnMA; hosepipe; allmendream; freedumb2003
I think that Rosen was stating that living systems aren’t to be compared to mechanical or software due to ‘chasing’ which occures when the programs search for the best answers (and protect the ‘species’ or program by isolating it from errors that would otherwise affect living systems??) is this correct? If so, that’s about the bottom line of things as GA’s certainly can’t mimic living systems, and end up artificially protecting the ‘evolving’ systems, and artificially introducing elements not seen in nature such as far greater rapid development minus the negative effects seen in nature.

I think what Rosen is saying is that living organisms can't meaningfully be compared to mechanisms or machines (though all are material systems in nature) because the latter are "simple" systems (i.e., essentially reducible to their algorithms) while the former are "complex" systems (i.e., not ever so reducible — the causal structure of such systems simply isn't "algorithmic" or "computable").

Rosen's idea of causality comprehends a system of entailments, which relate the events and phenomena occurring within.

The "chasing" behavior A-G pointed out in the context of the machine model is perhaps just Rosen's way of describing the moving input–output character of machine processing. Rosen expresses such notions with relational diagrams that show the system of causal entailment that models a given particular system. The mechanistic models and the machine models he shows all demonstrate situations of "paucity" of causal entailment. That is, there is insufficient causal basis in such systems to account for such real phenomena as life and mind. That's putting it in a (very abstract) nutshell! :^)

Another way to put it is to say all material systems in nature are studied by science (as presently constituted) on the assumption that they can exhaustively be explained in terms of three of the Aristotelian causes: formal, material, and efficient. It is postulated: There can be no final cause!!!

Yet the relational diagrams of living systems are rich with "final causes." The very idea of biological function is related to the idea of final cause. So Rosen argues, science must put the final cause back into its method if it wants to deal with issues of life and consciousness (mind).

In particular, he believes this would be essential to any understanding of the dualistic genotype–phenotype relation, which essentially involves a "cause–effect" relation between two incommensurable phenomena.

The restoration of final cause to science is a suggestion most strenuously resisted nowadays, by physicists and biologists alike.

The reasons given for abolishing formal causes from science: (1) they are not "objective"; (2) they are not computable (i.e., reducible to an algorithm); (3) worst of all, they clearly point to a type of cause which is "anticipatory" in some sense, and this is forbidden by the Newtonian Paradigm, which demands that causation must always flow from past to future.

The book Life Itself largely deals with the inadequacy of contemporary physics to deal with the questions, "What is life?" and "What is mind?" Indeed, you pointed to one of the main strategies — mimesis — WRT your comment regarding "GAs." (I agree with your conclusions there.) The other main strategy (and the more common) is reductionism. Here's a funny story Rosen tells (in "Mind as Phenotype," Essays on Life Itself) about the reductionist strategy:

Many years ago, I heard a routine of Woody Allen that bears on exactly this point. As he told it, he acquired a Rolls-Royce while in England and wanted to return with it to the States. On the other hand, he didn't want to pay the duty on it. So he hit upon the idea of disassembling it, packing the parts into many suitcases, and describing them to the customs inspectors as modern sculpture, not dutiable as art. He was successful, got his many suitcases home, and proceeded to try to reassemble his car. In his first attempt, the parts yielded 200 bicycles. On the second attempt, he got many lawn mowers. And so it went; he never could retrieve the car.

I won't further belabor reductionism here, except to say that what is "lost" in any such reduction is precisely information about how to reconstruct the system to restore it to its original form. No study of the "parts" can give one any notion of this. Analogically speaking, you have the elements of the genotype (i.e., its parts, the genes); but you have no clue how to reconstitute the phenotype (the original phenomenal system and its behavior).

Anyhoot, we see reductionism most clearly today in the way biochemistry and microbiology are usually conducted.

Regarding mimesis [the basic strategy of artificial intelligence and artificial life studies]: What is involved here is to replace the system of interest by some behavioral or phenotypic mimic, then to study the mimic to see what you can learn about the original system.

Case in point: the typical assumption that a mimic capable of demonstrating a sufficient number of "thinking behaviors" is actually, in fact, "thinking." What we learn about its "thinking" is assumed to shed light on how human beings actually think. Or at the very least, the mimetic model is imputed to human thought as the best descriptor of it.

There seems to be a huge "leap of faith" involved in this strategy. The mimic is a (comparatively small) collection of behaviors manifested by the original system. What behaviors one puts into the mimic is largely arbitrary, and no attention is given to the causal underpinnings of such behaviors. Then, as Rosen points out, "something like an Occam's Razor is invoked to argue that explaining these behaviors in the mimic is adequate for explaining them in the original system."

As Rosen points out, both these strategies involve replacing the actual system of interest by some kind of surrogate, and then studying the surrogate.

What is clear to me is that both strategies drain all life and mind aspects from living organisms simply by employing the methods that characterize the strategies themselves. The irony is these strategies are attractive to scientists because they meet the scientific criterion of "objectivity." And yet each strategy, as a model, is relentlessly subjective, a "choice" of how one wants to look at material reality, and an assumption that one's model is up to the task.

Neither reduction nor mimesis looks to be a "wining strategy" if what we want is to answer the question, "What is life?"

Don't know if any of this helps, CottShop, to indicate what Rosen is up to in his work. His insights are rigorous, penetrating, profound, and — among other things — often go straight to the very foundations of mathematics.

1,174 posted on 07/03/2009 1:41:14 PM PDT by betty boop (One can best feel in dealing with living things how primitive physics still is. — A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1169 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; CottShop; LeGrande; TXnMA; hosepipe; allmendream; freedumb2003
My only complaint so far about Rosen’s book is that he did not give enough credit to Shannon even though his theory relies on Shannon’s work.

Astute observation, dearest sister in Christ! Certainly the two theories dovetail nicely — once we understand that Rosen is dealing with the WHAT, and Shannon with the HOW. (If I might put it that way.)

I loved your description of what Rosen meant by "chasing" — indeed, it's far better than my own humble attempt to deal with this issue. You wrote:

His model is not static, the organism doesn’t just sit there dead as a doornail. There is a flow in the organizational model from one element to the next. And that flow involves both encoding and decoding. That is “chasing” in the model. His model is not concerned with time but with the ordering, the flow, the chasing . [Emphasis added.]

The encoding and decoding aspects cry out for Shannon....

I somewhat sheepishly have to tell you that, today, I had what I'd love to dignify as a "Eureka!" moment, but that was really a "Doh!" moment. It concerns this, from your last:

Since the days of Newton, science has ignored formal and final cause with the assumption that the everything in the universe is a machine that can be understood by material and efficient causes.

The "Doh!!!" was my realization that classical (i.e., Newtonian) science actually does recognize formal cause, and in a systematic way. In the context of the Newtonian Paradigm, formal cause can be stated: the physical laws plus initial and boundary conditions. Then there's material cause — understood in this paradigm as "matter"; and efficient cause, understood as "force." BUT NO FINAL CAUSE. That's streng verboten, for reasons mentioned in my last. In the Newtonian model of the universe, the idea of final cause invokes what Rosen calls "the Zeroth Commandment: Thou shalt not allow future state to affect present change of state."

An interesting property of some of Rosen's models (specifically those referring to living systems) is not only do their relational diagrams form closed loops (because all efficient causation arises from within the system, as you point out); but there are closed loops within the diagrams as well. These have been termed "impredicativities" because they invoke the idea of "self-reference" (i.e., they are "subjective"). Science hates them for that reason, and also because they are effectively unanalyzable by computational methods. Yet they also happen to be the relations that express function in these diagrams; which in turn evokes the idea of final cause.

Which remains BANNED from science.

Strictly speaking, a final cause is not something entailed by any other cause or complex of causes within the system; rather it entails them — all of them. There's nothing "mystical" about this observation. Or "subjective" for that matter. Looks pretty "phenomenal" to me; and thus ought to be a proper thing for science to look at.

Oh, there is just so much here, in Rosen's works. It'll take some time to digest it all....

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your outstanding essay/post! We both thought to reply to CottShop virtually at the same time — poor CottShop! LOLOL! There's some "overlap" between our two accounts. Yet you had certain striking insights I hadn't thought of before.... Thank you!!!

1,175 posted on 07/03/2009 2:38:09 PM PDT by betty boop (One can best feel in dealing with living things how primitive physics still is. — A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1173 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
As Rosen points out, both these strategies involve replacing the actual system of interest by some kind of surrogate, and then studying the surrogate.

What is clear to me is that both strategies drain all life and mind aspects from living organisms simply by employing the methods that characterize the strategies themselves. The irony is these strategies are attractive to scientists because they meet the scientific criterion of "objectivity." And yet each strategy, as a model, is relentlessly subjective, a "choice" of how one wants to look at material reality, and an assumption that one's model is up to the task.

Oh so very true!

In life, the whole is truly greater than the sum of its part.

Thank you so very much for all of your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!

1,176 posted on 07/03/2009 8:08:14 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1174 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
The "Doh!!!" was my realization that classical (i.e., Newtonian) science actually does recognize formal cause, and in a systematic way. In the context of the Newtonian Paradigm, formal cause can be stated: the physical laws plus initial and boundary conditions.

Well, "doh!" for me too. I stand corrected.

The physical laws plus initial and boundary conditions do comprise the "blueprint" for the "house" we call the universe.

Now of course I'm going to have to dig back through Rosen's book to see whether he considers his circular model to be the "blueprint" for life in nature.

Thank you again for your outstanding essay-posts and insights, dearest sister in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!

1,177 posted on 07/03/2009 8:17:17 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1175 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Another beautiful sermonette..
No fluff just the FACTS..
1,178 posted on 07/03/2009 8:20:52 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1172 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
1,179 posted on 07/03/2009 8:28:10 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1178 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; CottShop; TXnMA; LeGrande; allmendream; freedumb2003
Just had a thought. RE: the discussion of mimesis, I gave as examples studies of artificial intelligence and artificial life. Then it struck me: "climate change models" are terrific examples of mimesis. We use the mimic to "predict" the future — and the mimic is telling us our future is catastophic if we don't do this and that (i.e., reduce CO2 emissions). Kinda looks like a rigged game to me — and yet we get "cap and trade" anyway. Sigh....

Oh, well.

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY dearest sister in Christ, and to all our FReeper friends!

1,180 posted on 07/04/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by betty boop (One can best feel in dealing with living things how primitive physics still is. — A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1177 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; hosepipe; TXnMA; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; CottShop

Excuse me for easedropping, but I would like to disagree with an assumption here, one that is part of a collection of assumption I call the “false-dichotomy” arguments:

Your’s is an example of one of them:

” 1: Did God create Adam and Eve, or did all life start from a single primitive cell?”

The truth is, these are not the only alternatives to the question, because there is a more fundamental one that has not been answered about any question of origins—which is, why does there have to be an origin? Did things have a beginning or not? For my money, there is just not enough evidence of any kind to conclude that there had to be some kind of instant or gradual origin of things, either the universe, or life, or anything else.

I do not hold to either of the alternatives presented in your question, by the way. Please do not ask me what I believe about “where everything came from.” I don’t know, and only know all those who are promoting what they believe as “absolute truth” don’t know either. The whole problem will go away when people admit, they do not know, and argue what they believe under that honest premise. There is nothing wrong with presenting your views in the form, “this is what I believe about it, and these are my reasons for holding that belief, but to argue one’s beliefs as though they were facts is disingenuous, as far as I’m concerned.

Here’s a thought. Except to back up your beliefs about something (God perhaps, or “no God,” if that’s what you believe) what difference does it make where everything came from.

Cosmology, and all other forms of “historical conjecture” which is what all such “studies” are (none are science, in the classical sense), make not a wit of difference to any science, because what is, is, however it got to be.

To be honest, the first question in your list should have been:

“Did God create Adam and Eve, did all life start from a single primitive cell, or does life exist in some way neither of these addresses?

Excluding the third alternative makes the question a false dichotomy and therefore dishonest.

Hank


1,181 posted on 07/04/2009 10:03:07 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1156 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
[ “Did God create Adam and Eve, did all life start from a single primitive cell, or does life exist in some way neither of these addresses? / Excluding the third alternative makes the question a false dichotomy and therefore dishonest. ]

Adam and Eve having not being "BORN".. but "created" whatever that is/means.. They may be a metaphorical image(bibical instrument) to explain things no human could "Grasp"(creating life forms).. No one I know of, has ever seen a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil or Tree of Life..

Genesis ch 1-3 may be the first science fiction..
Fiction must be logical, reality needs not to be logical(to humans)..
Fiction can be based in reality.. like an Atom consisting of little balls revolving around each other.. like that.. Which is a myth.. but useful..

1,182 posted on 07/04/2009 10:20:58 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1181 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl

and happy independence day to all you’all as well :)


1,183 posted on 07/04/2009 10:45:47 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1180 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

[[Did things have a beginning or not?]]

your question asks if life was eternal- I assume you would then think that somewhere along hte line life became corrupted and thus was imposed limits as to how long life could then last per individual?

There either had to be eternal life of species of gods that somehow became flesh with Nature-imposed limits of beginnings and endings-

At any rate, there is no evidence the earth is eternal either- infact, nature argues strongly against it being that the second law of thermodynamics exists and can be traced back to beginnings (some assume it was the big bang- others that God began nature- but if you’re assuming life always was, then which god created the beginning? Or was it the TRUE God?)

[[I don’t know, and only know all those who are promoting what they believe as “absolute truth” don’t know either. ]]

Yeah we do- We KNOW nature is incapable of creation- We KNOW nature is incapable of creating the necessary metainformaiton, we KNOW nature imposes an inescapable second law of thermodynamics, and we KNOW nature can not create new non species specific information that would be necessary to move each species beyond it’s own kind- We also KNOW the fossil record, which records species, shows discontinuity, and it shows an explosion of fully formed, highly complex, irreducibly complex species, and further, we KNOW Chemicals can not give birth to the highest metainformation witnessed in species of all manner. Tyherefore, we can come to a beyond reasonable doubt conclusion that at some point, species were infact created.

Some holding to naturalism will of course deny the evidences point strongly toward special creation and will insist nature somehow violated several key scientific principles, but that’s their problem- we KNOW what the recors objectively show and don’t show.

If you hold to an ideology that life always existed, you still MUST explain how it became flesh- and the science doesn’t support any kind of eternal life becoming flesh - Your argument is not a deviation from the two ideologies I’m afraid- it STILL boils down to one of two ideologies- either nature created life (in your case, you’re arguing it could have created it from some spiritual, supernatural, eternal life that just always existed) or that God did what He said He did- Created species fully formed and fully functional supernaturally

[[Here’s a thought. Except to back up your beliefs about something (God perhaps, or “no God,” if that’s what you believe) what difference does it make where everything came from.]]

It makes a lot of difference- life STILL had to begin somewhere- and htose that reject God’s special creation, IF they have not accepted Christ as Savior, risk eternal damnation, and htey’ll arrive at that destination denying God created life


1,184 posted on 07/04/2009 11:33:35 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1181 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

[[Genesis ch 1-3 may be the first science fiction..]]

It may be, but judging by the abundance of evidence, from which we can and must draw the most reasonable conlusions, it wasn’t science fiction- things did happen just like God said- In order for it to be science fiction- some other god must have created life because that is where the evidence points- toward special creation- not toward macroevolution which is a serious violation of several key scientific principles, and which is impossible- biologically,m mathematically, chemically- and which violates the second law- just just minuetly, but seriously- trillions of times- the odds of that happening are overwhelming- impossible infact.


1,185 posted on 07/04/2009 11:39:07 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1182 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I deduct that you missed the tenor, mood, demeanor, and point of my post..
Thats not easy..

Not to mention that there is a plethora of "Gods" out there.. The least of which is the "Science God" with the raised eyebrow and snarky patronisms... used for all the non Shamans.. quoting what they or some other Shaman said as if it was fact.. and not opinion.. And when their choir sings in tune that makes something a fact..

It brings out the snarkyness in me.. But then I have a God that will forgive me.. Some people like me are just blessed I guess..

1,186 posted on 07/04/2009 1:56:38 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1185 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
"I think therefore I am" Descartes had to invoke God in order to justify an external reality."

Had to read Descartes, Hume and several Greek philosophers in Philosophy 101.

But saying "I think therefore I am" simply means There are no democrats in the world.."I don't think therefore I am not" We just imagine them....:O)

1,187 posted on 07/04/2009 2:55:18 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Just about to have dinner and will attempt something longer perhaps later. For now:

“life STILL had to begin somewhere”

Why. Give me the argument for that.

No theist believes that or they would have to believe God had a beginning, (unless they do not believe He is alive).

“life had to have a beginning” is an assumption. There is neither evidence or a logical argument for that assumption. As far as science is concerned, the only evidence so far is against a beginning, because life can only come from life.

Hank


1,188 posted on 07/04/2009 3:26:51 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1184 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

[[Why. Give me the argument for that.]]

I already gave you the argument- because we know thigns have a beginning and an end now- this beginning and ending had to begin at some point- or else we’d all still be eternal IF life was always eternal- since it’s not eternal now, it had to start somewhere alogn the line

[[“life had to have a beginning” is an assumption.]]

No, it’s a conclusion based o n the evidence- there is no other rational explanation as outlined above

[[As far as science is concerned, the only evidence so far is against a beginning,]]

This isn’t true- based on what I outlined above- IF life always existed, and the was no ‘beginning’ since we know life indeed does have a beginning and ending, this beginning and ending HAD to begin somewhere. Life gets created, becomes subject to the second law, and burns itself out, ending the life of hte species-


1,189 posted on 07/04/2009 4:58:31 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1188 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

[[quoting what they or some other Shaman said as if it was fact.. and not opinion..]]

Well, there are facts in science- it’s a fact that hte more a species is changed via mutaiton, the more unfit it becomes- and it’s a fact that hte only way to outwiegh the negative effects caused by natural process of mutaitons is via intelligent manipulation (ie: breeding programs) These aren’t opinions, they are dmeonstratable facts-

not sure what you’re gettign at? That there are no facts in science? Only opinions paraded as facts?


1,190 posted on 07/04/2009 5:02:07 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1186 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

“because we know thigns have a beginning and an end now”

Of course entities have a beginning and end, that is, individual organisms do, but life is not an entity, it is an attribute, the attribute of all living organisms. Please give me an example of life that has not come from life. You cannot, because life only comes from life, and that is the only scientific principle we currently have evidence of.

Here is what is wrong with your argument. We know physical things have a beginning and end. Therefore weight and size and color must have a beginning and end. But weight and size and color do not cease to exist as attributes of physical things just because physical things with those attributes have a beginning and end.

Until you can provide one example of a living organism that has arisen “spontaneously” there is no evidence at all for your argument.

You may believe what you like, and I’m not trying to convince you, only outlining what is necessary if you want your argument to be plausible.

Hank


1,191 posted on 07/04/2009 5:19:30 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1189 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Indeed. Great catch, dearest sister in Christ! I pray your Independence Day was blessed.
1,192 posted on 07/04/2009 10:11:17 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1180 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
(belated) Happy Independence Day!!!
1,193 posted on 07/04/2009 10:12:00 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1183 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief; mrjesse; hosepipe; TXnMA; betty boop; CottShop
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, dear Hank Kerchief!

In my reply to the same post I mentioned several open "origin" questions for which science does not have an reasonable answer. They were:

1. Origin of space/time.
2. Origin of life.
3. Origin of inertia.
4. Origin of information (successful communication)
5. Origin of conscience (sense of right v wrong, good v evil, etc.)
6. Origin of consciousness (including decision processes)

The first one on the list necessitates that there is an origin for all the rest because in the absence of space, things cannot exist and in the absence of time, events cannot occur. Physical causality requires space and time.

Measurements of the cosmic background radiation from the 1960's forward agree that there was a beginning of real space and real time. As Jastrow said (paraphrased) that was the most theological statement ever to come out of modern science.


1,194 posted on 07/04/2009 10:27:25 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1181 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; CottShop
"There are four different kinds of “causation.” To use an example, the formal cause would be the blueprint for your house. The material cause would be the lumber, nails, etc. The efficient cause would be the construction workers who build it. And the final cause would be the house itself, the reason for the previous three causes."

~~~~~~~~~~

I aver that there is an obvious cause which precedes all these. In this example, that "original" cause would be the Architect who formulated the "blueprint".

In our broader discussions, I believe that we commonly refer to that "original" 'cause" as, "I AM"...

~~~~~~~~~~

To be even more rigorous, I would interject a "supplier" cause: the source of the materials necessary for your "material" cause to exist.

(See "I AM", above...)

But, then, what do I know? I'm a mere scientist -- not a "Philosopher" -- or a "Swahili" linguist... LOL!!

1,195 posted on 07/04/2009 11:29:48 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1173 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

[[Please give me an example of life that has not come from life. ]]

That’s your opinion- the bible gives you just that- an example of life from non life- Macroevolution claims to have been the process of life from non life, but it’s a natural impossibility for life to have done so on it’s own without divine intervention

[[and that is the only scientific principle we currently have evidence of.]]

We do have evidnece of life coming form non life- whether you accept that evidnece or not is not the quesiton- but to state that we don’t have evidnece isn’t correct- (and just a side not- scientists have been able to create cells from chemicals- however, these cells are not life, but a component of life- but science can not explain how natuere could have created all the other components of actual life via nature)

[[But weight and size and color do not cease to exist as attributes of physical things just because physical things with those attributes have a beginning and end.]]

They DO cease to exist IF life was nothign but spiritual eternal ‘beings’ or life- or whatever you wish to clal it These attributes ONLY came into being when life BEGAN in physical form

[[Until you can provide one example of a living organism that has arisen “spontaneously” there is no evidence at all for your argument.]]

“Spontaniously?’ Or do you mean via creation? Or via some other mechanism/action? You’re losing ground in your argument here- the fact that life and hte earth DID have a beginning proves to us that htere was indeed a beginning for life- but you seem to be arguign that life before the world’s beginning was eternal?


1,196 posted on 07/05/2009 7:05:06 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1191 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

AG said it well here: [[Measurements of the cosmic background radiation from the 1960’s forward agree that there was a beginning of real space and real time.]]

This statement and discovery pretty much defeats your argument I’m afraid- the fact that it can and has been measured, and shows a beginning, shows that life was not eternal- could not be eternal- at least i nthe physical sense (and afterall, life is physical)

[[Physical causality requires space and time.]]

for an event to occure- a begiinning must also occure- if however, everythign always was, is and shall be, no such requirement/beginning is needed- everythign just would have been, is and always will be- but in order for htis to be, death would NEED to be absent, the second law would not exist, and we know both of these ifnact do exist- thereby infering a beginning and end.

Ouch- got a cold this am- will have to think this through a bit- but htere’s the premise basically- in order for life to exist, space and time must have a beginning- in order for events to occure, time must occure- IF everythign just always existed, and always shall- then events would not occure because there would be no possibility of a beginning point for such events that previously did not exist to occure.


1,197 posted on 07/05/2009 7:16:33 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1191 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; mrjesse; hosepipe; TXnMA; betty boop; CottShop

“Measurements of the cosmic background radiation from the 1960’s forward agree that there was a beginning of real space and real time.”

For people who are quick to tell me science cannot prove anything, it surprises me that you readily embrace some supposed “science” to back up your claims. And of all that is called science, it is the mostly-dishonest one called cosmology, which is almost entirely conjecture based on cooked evidence.

“Two of the three vaunted “predictions” of big bang theory - the light element abundances and the temperature of the microwave background are actually retrodictions meaning that big bang theory failed to predict them quantitatively correctly and was then adjusted after the data came in to fit the observational evidence.”

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang. Flandern, T. Van. 2, 2002, Apeiron, Vol. 9

“Virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.”

You get the point.

Hank


1,198 posted on 07/05/2009 8:38:24 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1194 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; mrjesse; hosepipe; TXnMA; betty boop

You quoted me: “Please give me an example of life that has not come from life.”

Then you said, “That’s your opinion.”

Well of course it is. The entire field of sterilization depends on the validity of this scientific principle. It’s my opinion, but I did not make it up.

I’m talking about the scientific principle that abiogensis, or “spontaneous generation of life” does not exist—that, as Pasteur demonstrated, organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not spontaneously appear in sterile, nutrient-rich media. Anything you see that is alive came from a living organism.

You added, “the bible gives you just that...”

By which I assume you mean the, “creation of life,” which, if you believe in it, is an example of life from life, unless you do not believe God is alive.

Instead of guessing what I’m “arguing” why don’t you just bo by what I said. I’m not arguing for any particular position, and certainly not “that life before the world’s beginning was eternal,” because life is not a “thing” but an attribute.

My point is you do not know the physical universe had a beginning, and you do not know that life (which is not physical) had a beginning either. You may believe that, but that belief cannot rest on either reason or evidence.

Hank


1,199 posted on 07/05/2009 8:58:16 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1196 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; betty boop; CottShop
Thank you oh so very much for sharing your testimony and insights, dear brother in Christ!

But, then, what do I know? I'm a mere scientist -- not a "Philosopher" -- or a "Swahili" linguist... LOL!!

LOLOL!

I aver that there is an obvious cause which precedes all these. In this example, that "original" cause would be the Architect who formulated the "blueprint".

In our broader discussions, I believe that we commonly refer to that "original" 'cause" as, "I AM"...

~~~~~~~~~~

To be even more rigorous, I would interject a "supplier" cause: the source of the materials necessary for your "material" cause to exist.

(See "I AM", above...)

Indeed, there had to be a cause of causation itself.

And as you say, His Name is I AM!

1,200 posted on 07/05/2009 9:03:47 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1195 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,101-1,1501,151-1,2001,201-1,2501,251-1,292 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson