“It just happened” or “it’s always just been happening” is not a reasonable answer for anything – does that not go without saying?
That’s not the reasoning behind why I stand in awe at the Creator’s work, though – my reasoning behind that has to do with how He saved me and continues to relate with me. Also, there are two threads I posted that got moved to the Essays and Theses forum if you want to check them out – they didn’t help me when I was losing faith, but they’re there.
Agreed, which is why science and atheists alike say “We don’t know, but we’re going to try to find out!” And in most cases, we have, and in others we’re still working on it.
But you are saying you KNOW it was a Creator. Nobody on the other side of the argument is claiming to know anything without proof: instead, they simply remain satisfied with not knowing right now, and leaving all possibilities open until all the evidence is in.
I do know. That I can’t prove it to you does not negate that fact. That I can’t prove it to you does not mean I’m going to stop believing, stop standing in awe. I pray you find out. I pray everybody finds out. That way I won’t feel like such a freak when I post threads like this, and more importantly you’ll all know genuine love. That would be something to stand in awe about…
By fathoming eternity and infinity, a single enzyme would come about eventually. And once there is a progression of that enzyme, there could be enzymes all over the universe in time.
Assuming that your God is “something” and is not “nothing,” then another way of asking your question is this: “Why God rather than no God?”
If you can answer this question, then you’ve also answered the question “Why something rather than nothing?”
If you say that you don’t know the answer to the question “Why God rather than no God?” then why not simply admit your ignorance in the case of the question, “Why something rather than nothing?”, rather than to ‘invent’ an answer to it (i.e., goddidit) with not a shred of evidence to support it?
Although the stats and numbers seem impressive, our minds are relatively unimpressive so this so big vast number is relatively small in comparison to the vastness of the totality of the numbers in all of space.
=D>
–Murex
So you’re saying the first enzyme came about by … fathoming eternity and infinity? An enzyme cannot fathom (nor create itself), therefore who was doing the fathoming (about eternity and infinity) that brought about this enzyme? And why not just fathom up an enzyme?
– Reality Check
God is an uncreated something, whereas the something referred to in my signature and in this post is a created something. A created something needs an explanation for why it exists. An uncreated something can not not exist – if it did not exist, then it would need an explanation for why it didn’t exist (not only “what is missing from this picture” but – “why is this missing?”). However, this is crazy talk, because an uncreated something exists, and will never not exist, and so will never need an explanation for why it does not exist.
For example, there is no rational explanation for a prophet receiving the future if both A) past, present, and future are fixed (necessary to accept when accepting fulfilled prophecy) and B) there is no God to inform the prophet of the future. Why? Because if the past, present, and future are fixed, they cannot “unfix” without God’s allowing it. Prophecy is a form of unfixing, in that a prophet is informed of the future, rather than the future being beyond the prophet. [And I am not talking about coincidences, good guesses or manipulating states of affairs so that they come about the way they are ‘predicted’ to come about.] This won’t have any meaning for you if you have never experienced fulfilled prophecy, or don’t have faith in the fulfilled prophecy of the Bible. But – if there is fulfilled prophecy (if you can grant that), that means the past, present, and future are fixed, and there is a God to inform the prophet of the future. If there is no God – then one is justified in asking for an explanation. If there IS a God, however, it makes perfect sense. And there is a God.
Everything said about fulfilled prophecy could and has been said about all “created somethings” – if there is no God, there is something missing from the picture that the picture implies by its mere existence. It is an absurdity to even think “if there is no God”.
The only thing left is to say the past, present, and future are not fixed, and explain how the future leaked into the past (present) (via the prophet’s mind)… and why, everytime it does that, it just somehow comes out sounding like a message from God! (Kinda like fathoming up an enzyme… .)
– joekoba
Our minds are actually pretty impressive. And what “so big vast number” are you talking about (the biggest number humanly conceivable?). I guess you’re right that the numbers I spoke of (if that’s what you’re talking about) are just a sample of some things about the universe, and that there are other things about the universe that could be even more mind-boggling when quantified. Isn’t God amazing? I kinda like thinking of Him as the biggest geek to ever exist. With the utmost respect and admiration. And love.
No, if a person can fathom eternity and infinity, they can come to the conclusion that life can be created randomly somewhere. From that point on, it can be spread throught a galaxy or a universe.
Murex…
Oh. Okay. However, that leaves unanswered why something exists rather than nothing.
I think it’s pretty cool that humans can’t make life from scratch, the way the universe can. We can only reproduce the already existent raw material, naturally or with technology (test tube, cloning) – but never once have we made life from scratch. We do not have tools tiny enough for such a big project.
And I wonder if any human has considered making conditions favorable in some part of space in order to birth a star? Yeah right, like we’ll ever be able to do that. All we can do is watch the Master.
What? You mean like why is there anything?
I mean both ‘how’ and ‘why’. I already know, of course. See my signature.
“It just happened” does not answer “how,” much less “why” – and is not an acceptable answer for anything, much less everything (just thought I’d cover all the bases… which is kinda like going in circles, if you think about it in terms of baseball!).
What´s wrong with not having the “answer”, whatever that would be, if even communicable or intelligible? Putting it all down to this “God” character is a cop-out.
Well, if the great mystery is attributed to God, that doesn’t solve it. The mystery is still a mystery. What is God? How does He / She / it work? It may be a somewhat challenging question, but not necessarily fruitless. Einstein said he basically tried to understand and formulate God’s thoughts, and he came up with some pretty solid stuff. Newton called gravity ‘the love of God’. So attributing the world to God for lack of a better explanation is one thing, but then ceasing to think about what, technically, God is? Come on man. Even Mohamed, the prophet of arguably the most rigid religion in the world, said ‘The ink of the scientist is worth more than the blood of a thousand martyrs.’
When operating under the banner of science, proposing God as the cause of self-organization of cells is taking on the responsibility to scientifically explain God.
– Standard23
You miss the real point of your whole life, if you don’t have the answer. I assume you are in this forum because you at least wonder about the point. Do I assume incorrectly?
– Standard 23
God, by definition, is the only One who could do it. No, it is not a cop-out. It is the only rational explanation.
Jakob –
You can study the creation with science. To study the Creator, you can study how He has acted in history, and you can let Him in to teach you… and perhaps make history through you.
Attributing it all to God sure doesn’t essentially solve anything. You can add some additional substance to the universe and investigate it instead if you want. But I’d rather pose your “What is…” and “How does it work” questions to just the universe itself. I certainly do enjoy presupposing some sort of God as a starting point from which to interpret everything else, but do so merely hypothetically. I’ll accept it as a possibility, but will generally interpret the universe itself, without recourse to some other magical entity. In my view it only complicates things further.
I’m sure many scientists’ allusions to God were merely metaphorical. Referring to the entire operations of the universe as God must not entail some sort of separate, self-conscious entity. Why must we insist there is some higher level of consciousness over and above everything else? Nice idea, but far from necessary. The beauty of science is by no means undermined by the absence of some sort of collective awareness; in fact it would, in my view, be more awe-inspiring. If I twisted the meaning of God enough, I’m sure I could be said to be thinking about Him in a sense similar to you. But I doubt that would please you, given what I presume your sense of the term is.
Scientists don’t need to propose God to do what they do. Their results would be the same; the only difference would be the presence of an additional entity to whom we attribute awe. My awe is simply directed upon the universe itself.
I miss the whole point if I don’t have an answer?! That’s a really scary and weak attitude which displays why you are so adamant you have the answer. On the contrary, deluding yourself into thinking you have such unfothamable answers shatters the potential for an honest, humble and thrilling living experience. Isn’t the journey the real experience worth having, rather than some end-point which never really cuts the mustard when you get to it? How boring would life be with no mystery, no tests for humanity? If I had the answer I may as well back my backs and go home, bewildered by my newfound lack of direction. The “point” of my life is riddled with dubious, misguided notions. My point in this forum is to share with others’ experiences and ideas and hopefully enrich my own. You I guess have come here to show peope the one true way! So how dare I turn my nose up at the truth! Or have I assumed incorrectly?
By definition indeed. What else would God be? But that does not necessarily mean it has objective truth. I don´t suppose perfect geometrical shapes float about in objective reality simply because we can conceive them. “The only rational explanation”? Is not the concept of God riddled with the same paradoxes you fled from when “rationally” explaining the universe? Too troubled by seemingly unsolvable paradoxes? Scared to live with a bit of uncertainty?
One sure could. Or one could simply study science, religion, philosophy, history, anthropology, etc. etc., and enjoy all on offer therein.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.â€
[size=75]Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.[/size]
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.â€
[size=75]Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.[/size]
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.â€
[size=75]Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.[/size]
“I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.â€
[size=75]Albert Einstein, replying to a letter in 1954 or 1955; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.[/size]
“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.… This is a somewhat new kind of religion.â€
[size=75]Albert Einstein, in a letter to Hans Muehsam, March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 218.[/size]
“Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.â€
[size=75]Albert Einstein in responce to a child who had written him in 1936 and asked if scientists pray; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 32.[/size]
And finally, my favorite:
“The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.â€[size=75]
Albert Einstein, in a letter February 5, 1921; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 40.[/size]
Amen to that, Erlir.
I guess not. Belief in God is not the same as believing that He exists. Without “belief in” God – you won’t solve anything.
Why? What are you talking about?
You will miss the point. The universe cannot love you.
How does the presupposed possibility of a Creator “complicate things further” exactly, in your view? Why do you use the word “magical”?
Because there can be no mixing without a Mixer (for one). I said this earlier, if you’ll recall. But, it won’t register if you’ve never experienced or had faith in the mixing (of past, present, future). Just to be clear, God is not merely transcendent – He is also presently involved in this creation.
They may not need to ‘propose’ God to do what they do, but without God’s creating, there would be no material for them to study. Studies of the creation itself would still not answer the most important question: Why?
You are scared by what you perceive as weakness in my thinking you’ll miss the point if you don’t have the answer? I am not “adamant” I am “confident”. I was given the answer freely, and I share it freely. I didn’t “journey” there – I had given up by the time the End Point reached me. I wish (pray) you knew how wrong you are about Him. The journey starts there, not ends there. I was in this forum for years and degenerated rather than growing, sad and hard to say. I have come back because I will not keep to myself Who saved me. I haven’t yet said “how dare you?”.
I didn’t suppose God just because I could. I acknowledged Him because He made Himself unavoidably obvious.
What paradoxes are you talking about? Was I “explaining the universe”? Hm. Wow.
What paradoxes?
What – when my closest friend is omniscient? Nah.
Man… that’s like saying, “One could visit Disney Land and ride all the rides, or one could simply read commentaries written on Disney Land and view the brochures – all put together by people who have no experience with Disney Land.” No thanks. I like studying all those things, but they never were as exciting as when I studied them after He saved me. I took astronomy, history, biology, and logic for my first “saved” semester – like looking at His creation from four different perspectives… from a whole new perspective. Totally fascinating, awesome, and any other word that would better describe it.
[size=75]My official position on Standard23’s avatar and certain ad banners on ILP: I hate the avatar and certain ad banners. I hope they cease to muck up the environment.[/size]