I read a lecture by Stephen Hawking about Space and Time Warps. It’s not that I had extra time on my hands (no pun intended) but because of a comment on my post regarding Blind Faith or Logical Reasons to Believe God Exists. His comment was that the laws of physics break down prior to the Big Bang, so the state of things prior to the singularity is irrelevant because there is no standard for measuring them. It’s a great observation and shows he is a well-read person.
In another lecture on the origin of the universe, Hawking says,
“The General Theory of Relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe shattered the old picture of an ever existing and ever lasting universe. Instead, general relativity predicted that the universe, and time itself, would begin in the big bang.”
In the Space and Time lecture, Hawking addresses time travel, technology, wormholes, warped space, and even what I call “Back to the Future” issues. Hawking says:
We thus have experimental evidence from the bending of light, that space-time is curved, and confirmation from the Casimir effect, that we can warp it in the negative direction. So it might seem possible, that as we advance in science and technology, we might be able to construct a wormhole, or warp space and time in some other way, so as to be able to travel into our past. If this were the case, it would raise a whole host of questions and problems. One of these is, if sometime in the future, we learn to travel in time, why hasn’t someone come back from the future, to tell us how to do it.
As a fan of the Sci-Fi Channel, the lecture was definitely interesting for me, but the quote above caught my attention… Hawking, who is perhaps the greatest scientific mind in our generation, admits we have only “experimental evidence” in what he addresses.
Rather than comment on my previous post, I thought a new post regarding this new topic was in order.
If laws of physics break down prior to “creation” of the universe as we know it, does not the Bible also claim to reveal the same information? Genesis 1:2 says that prior to the creation singularity the earth was formless and void, which many biblical commentators would translate “chaos.” OK, let’s leave the Bible out of this since many people do not see it as an authoritative document.
I find myself looking more at the philosophical side of arguments to “prove” God’s existence. The argument from creation (the cosmological argument) states that since science and philosophy would indicate the universe had a beginning (therefore not eternal), and for the universe to have a beginning it would have to be caused by something outside of the known universe. Since infinite regress is not possible, the universe must have been caused by an uncaused, always existing, eternal Being (which many people call God).
As far as the Big Bang and life on this planet, the logical first question would be, “Where did the elements that caused the Big Bang come from?” Hawking’s lecture on Life in the Universe does not seem to address this concern, rather stating, “The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there’s a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions. Maybe there was some simpler form of organisation, which built up DNA.” To me it takes more faith to believe that something spontaneously comes from nothing, unless God (the first uncaused cause) is part of the equation.
But as I read Hawking’s lecture, I was amazed at the wonder of the universe and how much we cannot even fathom. Then came my next logical question, “Since this universe is so vast and complex, and great thinkers like Hawking can communicate such complex ideas, does this not logically indicate that there must be a Designer of all of this?” For example, a walk along the beach might reveal interesting sand designs caused by the waves. On the other hand, if I notice “Billy loves Suzie” written in the sand, I must assume this information came from a literate person who is capable of loving someone else. There is complexity in the message that assumes there is an intelligent sender of the message.
So, when we see the complexity of this universe, or even of the human body (made up of nerve cells, brain cells, skin cells, bone cells, all different from each other, yet similar) we must assume there was an intelligent Designer (which we may call God). Evolution does not explain how life moves from a simple cell organism to what we see in the complexity of, let’s say, an eye. Can the eye and an optic nerve be the product of time + chance?
The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the amount of usable energy in a closed system (like the universe) is decreasing, which means that everything tends to move from order to disorder, complex to simple, life to death. This is why we have to paint the house every few years, things run down rather than get better over time.
To me, this teleological argument also points to a beginning for the universe. And since the universe has a wonderful and complex order, there must be a Designer that set it in motion at some point in the past. Laws of physics do not need to break down before the Big Bang if we recognize a Creator that not only created matter, but also time and space as well.
Blind Faith? It’s a leap of faith, and without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6), but when one chooses to believe in God after proper research, it is anything but blind.
If you assumed for a second that there was a designer, what would be the evidence of only one designer. Why not a dozen, a thousand or even a billion? It’s a big universe and actually makes more sense that there are more than one. Or just maybe something else is going on that we just aren’t smart enough to know. We’re only a few thousdand years out of the caves. Just think about what we are going to know in a billion years.
Steve, an interesting thought, more than one designer. But polytheism requires one to believe in multiple finite gods rather than one infinite God. Logic dictates that there can be only one infinite uncaused first cause of the universe. Why? If there was a second infinite all-powerful creator God; the first one would be neither infinite nor all-powerful.
It comes down to necessary existence. My existence is not necessary. When I die, the world goes on fine without me. God is a necessary Being because He cannot not exist. An infinite God cannot become something new or change (or this God would be neither infinite nor eternal). And without change, time is not possible (because time is just a way to measure change). Since this sort of God cannot not exist, He would have no limits.
So, for a God to be all-knowing, all-powerful, unchanging, and omni-present, this designer God by definition must be in a class by Himself. Without pointing to any particular religious faith, the God of the Bible seems to fit this description pretty well.
The problem with figuring things out by logic is that we have a limited based of knowledge to go with it. If you had an all powerful God, that God could create other Gods otherwise that God wouldn’t be all powerful.
Second if you believe in an all powerful God than anything is possible for example, the entire Universe could have been created last Wednesday to look like it’s older.
Logic could also be something created to lead you in the wrong direction. Therefore, if you have an all powerful God than logic really doesn’t mean anything.
Here’s one for you. If one the first day, God created the heavens and the earth, that’s at least 300 million galaxies with a 100 billion stars in each, than I would say that everything else that took 5 days was insignificant. So I say, God took 6 days off not one. Anyway, if I was the boss, God wouldn’t get a whole weeks pay.
Lastly, until you can answer the question “why”, you really won’t have the answer. “Why” does everything exist is the key question. The answer that it always has means you don’t have the anwer yet.
But why would an all-powerful God create other gods? These lesser gods would not be gods at all, certainly not worthy of worship. I have been in India and Nepal, steeped in religious tradition that adores some 300 million gods. You see shrines all over the place; on sidewalks, in alleys, ornate temples. I suppose each family may be devotees of their personal family gods. Would not a creator God want all that attention for Himself?
I like your idea that God could create something brand new and it appear to be much older! Scientists say the universe is billions of years old. What if God created the universe to look old? He did it with Adam and Eve (formed as adults with no belly buttons), so He could do it with a rock or a planet.
I suppose God could have spoken the whole universe into existence in one day, but perhaps the reason for the six days was for our benefit. God told Moses that we are to work six days and rest on the seventh because that is what God did in creation (Exodus 20:11). So, He set an example.
There was likely a pattern in creation that has some significance… He created light and night on day one, but the heavenly bodies on day four; the heavens and the waters on day two, but the swimming animals on day five; dry land and vegetation on day three, but land creatures and mankind on day six. On day seven He rested, not because He was tired (which would make God needy or changing) but a more accurate translation may be “He ceased from His creating activity.”
I still think logic is still relevant because of the nature of God; He is intelligent (hence the teleological argument). If we are created in His image, I believe it is more in line with a capacity for love, relationship, morality and intelligence, rather than in essence.
The question of why is a good one. According to the Christian faith, God created all things for His own will or pleasure (Revelation 4:11), I guess because He could. An all-powerful God can create whatever He wants because He can do it (as long as it is not contrary to His nature). Some Christians might teach God created all of this because he desired fellowship with mankind (like maybe He was lonely). I reject that because if God had a need (loneliness) and created us to meet that need, He changed and does not deserve to be the infinite God we credit Him for being.
One analysis technique that’s very helpful is the 5 “why” technique. So I ask why did God create things, you say for his own will or pleasure. So I ask, why… you say becuase he wanted to..I say why? Eventually, you probably will get the answer I don’t know.
The argument about loneliness is questionable because God created loneliness. Why? I don’t know. God created please. Why? I don’t know.
Logic may be helpful but there are alot of things that defy logic and are counterintuitive. Part of that is our limited knowledge of how things work. How would your logic change if you knew how an all powerful being actually creates things.
What I’m saying is that the mystery just might be way beyond our comprehension. Those who lived 2000 years ago probably knew a lot more that was wrong than they new that was right. They couldn’t even figure our that if you didn’t have good dental care that you’d probably die before 30 from an infection.
The why question has caused mankind to explore and research from the very beginning. I feel it would be pessimistic or fatalistic to stop inquiring. Theologians from the beginning have sought to understand the meanings of God, man, theology, the universe, and the very meaning of life itself. Obviously, if we had all the answers that would make us the omniscient God that we seek to know and understand. At some point I had to come the realization that my faith needs to be in the God who reveals Himself through the Bible. It makes sense to me, especially when I considered the alternatives. There had to be more to life than just living some 70-80 years and then dying. Mankind must be more than an animal with the drives and instincts to reproduce and eat.
That is the meaning of HeartQuest 101, the promise that “You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13). I believe that we are going to be held accountable for what we know, rather than what we don’t know, and what did we do with the knowledge we had.
For me, I had to decide if I was seeking to understand the mysteries of the universe or was I seeking to get to know the creator of that universe? After I did more research, I decided there is credibility regarding the historicity of Jesus, the rationality of His claims (to be God), and the reliability of written records that teach about Him. I intend to write more about all of these as time goes by. Maybe you’ll join me for the ride.
There’s no way to argue faith. I like a country where people are free to believe whatever they want.
Here’s where we part company. You’re finding your answers from people who wrote 2 to 3 thousand years ago. I think the answers lie in the other direction thousands of years from now. We’re in the infancy of discovery, I want to see where the ride takes us rather than getting off and looking back now.
I think you’re still missing the point.
The wormhole example is a complete non-sequitur since the scientific consensus in regard to the absence of laws prior to the singularity is more universally accepted than that of the character of wormholes. If the laws of physics, time, cause and effect, regress and space formed during the Big Bang, we can’t use these concepts in addressing whatever went on before it. That is why, for all practical purposes, scientific knowledge stops at the Big Bang: there is no objective way to know anything prior to it. Therefore, as I have stated before, it is irresponsible to infer an unevidenced, unfalsifiable supernatural agent to do a job we can’t even prove is necessary.
If the laws of physics, time, regress, etc. came into being with the Big Bang, how can you say an infinite series of events is impossible? Perhaps inside the universe, but outside where laws do not apply, asserting such would require pure, blind faith.
What are you asking here? Where did the materials that make up the universe come from? That would be the mathematical singularity where all the mass and energy of the universe were stuffed into the smallest, most dense state possible.
But your quote is dealing with abiogenesis, the formation of life. Even though this is a developing field, discoveries such as the Miller-Urey experiment have shown that under the right conditions, life can come from non-life.
Fan of the Discovery Institute, eh?
We recognize design based on knowledge of the designer, not the other way around. We wouldn’t infer an author because of it’s complexity; we recognize the design because of our knowledge of the english language, and we’ve probably seen other people make similar patterns.
This paragraph demonstrates a strong misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Chance certainly does play a part in genetic mutations, but natural selection is anything but. The eye did not randomly pop into existence. Starting as a simple spot that could detect light, successive mutations over millions of years made the eye what it is today. I might suggest you read up on evolution to clear up any other misconceptions.
Order? Millions of desolate planets are absorbed into blackholes. In however million years, the sun will explode burning up the only planet known to harbor life, which by the way is tucked into a tiny, remote corner of the universe. Eventually, planets and galaxies will expand so far apart that the gravity holding them together will let go, forcing everything to collapse. This is order? Even if there is order, so what? We detect design based on knowledge of the designer, not vice versa.
But we don’t need to recognize something that is wholly unnecessary to understanding cosmic origins.
One last question: how do you define faith, and why is it a good thing?
Oh, one more thing…
Wouldn’t that make God an elaborate jokester? The creator of the universe, hiding his existence, tricking us into using science and reason and our brains which he, himself supposedly created?
Not so omnibenevolent when this is the same guy who punishes non-believers eternally.
If scientific knowledge stops at the Big Bang (whereas I might call it the creation event), does it not force all of us to take a leap of faith in believing whatever we choose to believe? The study of origins is at best a science of theory and is not repeatable. My understanding of science is one takes theory and experiment to support the hypothesis (a layman’s elementary view I know).
While the concept of indoctrination may be offensive, it is done not only by those who choose to pass on their spiritual values to the next generation. When we look at the scientist’s bookcase, do we not find resources that support his/her position (Origin of Species, for instance)? Since the scientist is often predisposed to excluding the concept of God, the mere broach of the subject is unacceptable because it goes against their preconceived ideas. Whereas the scientist calls the creationist uneducated, misinformed, believing in fantasy and ignoring the facts, the creationist often says the same thing (but hopefully in a nicer tone). The creationist should challenge the evolutionist by asking questions that are outside of their biased reading list. From what I have experienced, many evolutionists prefer to label creationists as uneducated, indoctrinated, closed-minded and intolerant. Only evolution should be taught because creation is based on ancient mythology, not on facts. I have not yet had an evolutionist say that even though evolution is a theory as to the origin of life, I choose to believe (or have faith that) evolution was how life originated on this planet. Evolutionists do not even allow an alternative theory like creation.
Between macroevolution and microevolution, I see a difference. I understand animals adapted to their environments, and the survival of the fittest, but I do not believe that one species is able to generate into a totally different species. To my understanding, the fossil record does not show us any transitional forms. Take mankind for example. The ape and man mural at the natural history museum show a lot of transitional images that simply have not been found. Perhaps mankind would have died out long ago in the evolutionary process, eaten by carnivores. After all, infant humans have 2-3 years of total dependence and vulnerability, even if the transitional apes learned to use defensive tools.
Yes, I do see order in the world; not in everything, but plenty of order… the seasons, blood circulation, respiration, photosynthesis, the food chain, gravity, a climate that sustains life. There is a great design. I agree that we recognize design based on knowledge of the designer. Since I have (limited) knowledge of a designing God, I can see His activity where others simply do not. The fate of desolate planets is probably not on most anyone’s radar. Since we live in a fallen world (since Genesis 3), bad things are out there. Murder, corruption, tsunamis and starvation are bad things that happen in our world of order. Yet, the world appears to be moving from order to disorder, even leaving theology out of it. While survival of the fittest weeds out the weak (making the species stronger as a whole), much of the world is decaying. It is also my understanding that genetic mutations in species tend to die out, like the sterility of a mule.
Is God a jokester by creating a full-size human (Adam) instead of an embryo? Could not an all-powerful God create a star 300 million light years away and also have the light arriving here at the same time? Whereas the scientist wants the non-scientist to read more on his subject, it really does work both ways.
My whole point is that people choose to believe the theory that makes the most sense to them. If I am a product of random mutations and chance, this option does not really give me any meaning or purpose in life. If I am an ape that made it, what prevents me from acting on instincts? Take what I want, reproduce at random, kill any personal threats. What constrains one person from reckless, abusive and selfish living while another person lives totally for personal gain? I choose to believe that I will be accountable to a creator God, which causes me to change my way of living. Those who reject God may very well be good people, but it is probably due to fear of being caught by the police, rather than because of any goodness in his nature.
Stephen, I really do appreciate your comments!
Here’s an odd question. Can a person who lives for personal gain end up doing great things for the world? If you ask billionaires how to become rich, they’d say find something that people really want and sell it to them.
Here’s something to contemplate. Who did more for the world, Mother Theresa or Thomas Edison. While you think about the answer, turn off all your lights. Don’t give Edison too big an edge.
In the interest of time, I’m going to stick to use blockquotes, so apologies if I begin to jump around too much.
Well, only if you are declaring anything with absolute certainty. My position is simple: we don’t know what happened, therefore it is irresponsible to use the Big Bang to assert anything: the existence of an unfalsifiable, possibly unnescessary supernatural first-cause or an entirely purposeless universe created ex nihlo. This celestial agnosticism is anything but faith.
Allow me to be the first? I may not be understanding the question correctly, but I do realize that evolution is a theory (well, technically not just a theory, and I still accept the empirical scientific observations associated with it.
Why not? Speciation is an observed fact. If we understand evolution as positive mutations favored by the environment keeping the gene pool adapted, what is the controlling force preventing this from forming new species?
Think of it this way. There’s a herd of ligers living in the valley. There’s an earthquake and they split into a group of two. Each group reproduces and adapts over a course of thousands of years until the two groups can no longer breed together. What’s stopping millions of years of mutations and natural selection from shaping the two species into looking like two completely distinct “kinds?” There is no controlling force to distinguish microevolution from macroevolution.
That’s simply not true. In response to your specific reference to the evolution of man, Talk Origins has a detailed history with about twenty transitions of the hominid species.
Unless they help the organism adapt and reproduce, in which case natural selection will favor the gene.
While these may render the appearance of order, I’m sorry to say that all of these events can be explained by natural science which should have precedence before invoking a supernatural explanation.
It is not my intention to twist your words, but are you suggesting that “bad” things didn’t happen before the fall of man? This is an empirical claim that can be tested through the scientific method. If there is evidence of tsunamis, hurricanes, starving or suffering prior to around 100,000 C.E. or the time of the first humans, a literal interpretation of the Bible could be downright falsified.
I only see one option if the conclusions of contemporary science exist alongside a literal interpretation of Genesis. God wants us to abandon human reason in favor of superstitious special pleading. He is using logic and reasoning as bait to filter out non-believers unworthy of his kingdom from the faithful. Penalizing humans for using the gifts he created, would be a trait of a malevolent trickster.
If there is a biblical concept I am misrepresenting, please let me know. In all seriousness, I try not to attack caricatures or strawmen arguments.
That is possible, but is there not absolute truth? The universe was either created in six days, or it was not. The omnibenevolent creator of the universe who answers prayers, inspires holy books and commands his creation to love him either hides his existence in bacterial flagella, or he does not. I’m not trying to sound condescending or elitist, though I’m sure it will sound that way: I actually care about whether or not my beliefs are true. I am confident that the sum of human knowledge and observation points to a natural universe governed by natural laws. I am confident, based on this same collection of human discovery, that faith and dogma are primeval relics that should be replaced with science and reason as our species enters the 21st century.
Realizing that I have turned a discussion about Craig’s cosmological argument into a full blown Christianity vs. reason debate, I will simply say that a secular, absolute morality can be understood as an attempt to create a cooperative, harmonious society. Reckless behavior has no benefit in achieving that goal, so it should hence be avoided.
Conversely, I think a literal interpretation of the Bible requires belief in a subjective morality. Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 21) once commanded parents to kill disobedient children. If one believes in the absolute truth of the Bible as well as the absolute goodness of God, they must also confess that stoning unruly children was at one time moral. Something else to ponder – is murder wrong because it is taking away another human life, or because God said so?
We’re hitting a lot of topics, and obviously taking up a lot of space here, so I’m not sure how much longer you’d like to go back and forth. Or maybe we could just focus in on a smaller topic and try to find some common ground? It doesn’t really matter to me since I have a long holiday weekend 😉
Stephen
Stephen, I trust you had a great weekend.
Regarding “just a theory,” it was a great article, thanks for including the link. As I read the explanation of scientific theory, the author said, “It’s a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation.”
I love that. While theory is an explanation, the ultimate goal, is it not their interpretation of the facts that leads to the theory? It is a fallacy to believe that the facts speak for themselves because they are always interpreted according to a framework. I suppose think of almost any topic. The author also writes, “The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.” I would add, the phrase, “by those who hold to evolutionary theory.” There is also a long list of scientists who disagree with evolutionary theory and support creationism (along with several interesting articles farther down the page). (BTW, I find AiG interesting but do not necessarily hold to all they teach).
Regarding interpretation of the facts: transitional forms of mankind are still debatable. The Talk Origins article mentions over 20 such findings, but I also found articles that disagree with the main conclusion. Case in point, Toumai and others are not without controversy. I found an article in the Sydney Morning Sun-Herald (14 July 2002) reporting that Dr Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris claims the skull is that of a female guerilla. I read that Australopithecus ramidus fossils (bones, teeth, skull fragments) were collected at 17 different positions spread over 1.55 km and probably represent 17 separate individuals. To have discovered a missing link using such a jigsaw puzzle is finding evidence to support one preconceived ideas.
According to Christian theology, bad things did not happen prior to the fall of mankind (leading to the expulsion from the Garden of Eden). If man has free will and he chose to exercise that free will through disobedience, part of the “curse” became pain, laborious work, shame, fear, guilt, regret. This is a huge topic so please don’t evaluate the sum of Christian teaching on sin by my two sentences. Point is, the Bible does say the world was created good and the garden appears to have been perfect (sinless yet with free will) but eventually fell from that state due to disobedience.
I too believe that this world is governed by natural laws. The difference may be “from where did those laws come?” From the beginning of time mankind has sought the meaning of life and to understand the world in which we live. Science has done a wonderful job explaining much of our natural world and how it works. The primeval relics of Christianity record a history of God and His people, the primary focus being the incarnation of God. Jesus came to help us better understand our place in the world, what it meant to have a relationship with God, and our ultimate destination.
To me, literal interpretation of the Bible is a scary thing. Many who support it also usually have some rationalization for not cutting out the “eye that offends you.” Killing off disobedient children and stoning women caught in the act of adultery is what Jesus came to correct. If the apostle John writes about God being love and light, either He changed since Old Testament times (which would not be possible for the type of God we have earlier described) of our understanding of Him has changed.
In regard to science being based on existing preconceptions: When there are only a few observations, one would expect a wide array of subjective explanations. However, the theory of evolution is a unifying theory based on a surplus of evidence from nearly all fields of science. The distribution of species, comparative anatomy, the fossil record and genetics all suggest common ancestry.
Like any other overcoming theory, evolution wouldn’t have gained universal acceptance if it were only recognized by those who already had accepted it. One must not forget the correcting power of peer-review and its ability to ensure objectivity.
Scientists opposed to evolution are a very small minority. The National Center for Science Education has a list with over 800 scientists (by the name of Steve) who agree that there is “no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence,” so it appears AiG fails at establishing any legitimate controversy.
I’m probably not qualified enough to go further into the details of human evolution. I do know that fossilization itself is a rare event and that we are lucky to have the record we have. That being said, the beauty of such a well-supported theory is that even without the fossil record, we would have sufficient reason to affirm common descent. Again, evolution is based on no single observation; comparative biochemistry, the fossil record (in whole), bacterial resistance to medication and the fact of speciation ensure descent with modification beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would also like to reiterate my previous question: what controlling force prevents two groups of organisms from being separated and adapting to their respective environments – microevolution – for so long that it leads to the formation of new species or taxonomic groups – macroevolution?
If I’m to understand your position correctly, brutal laws were based on misunderstandings of God’s message. What certainty do we have that current interpretation carries any more weight? The ancient Hebrews best understanding of God’s message led to the stoning of unruly children. That would mean God allowed his chosen people to propagate a perverted image of his benevolent character, all while holding their “ultimate destination” in the balance. I consider this beyond sufficient cause to question the definition of an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing deity.
Just look at America and you see a divided nation… red state vs. blue state, global warming vs. climactic cycle, God makes sense vs. God is imaginary, Islamic fundamentalist started the war on terror vs. Bush started it, the USA was founded on Christian values vs. no it was not. I think we are just going to disagree. People look at the evidence and decide for themselves what is right.
I love that movie called, “Babe” about the little talking pig with an unprejudiced heart. Sheep dogs were considered to be wolves and the sheep were nothing more than mindless animals whose will must be broken into submission. There’s a scene when Rex the dog and the sheep must face each other and talk. The narrator says something like this: Rex sat and spoke very slowly because it was a cold fact of nature that sheep where stupid and nothing would ever convince him otherwise. Then the sheep spoke to the dog very slowly because it was a cold fact of nature that dogs where stupid and nothing would ever convince her otherwise. Perhaps it is a matter of perspective more than facts speaking for themselves.
Let’s say two bears are migrate to separate locations, one moves south and the other moves north. After generations, the bears adapt to their environments, the black bear blends well in its environment while the bear going north does the same. The black bear and the polar bear both adapt to their environments, but I believe they are still bears and will never evolve into another species.
I believe it is a cold fact of nature (and history) that people do not like to be under the control of anything or anybody else… a government, the police, a nagging wife, or any sort of deity to whom they must be accountable. For me to say that God exists, I do not need to have absolute knowledge, I need just some knowledge to make such a claim. For me to say there is no God, it would require that I have all the knowledge of the universe (absolute knowledge). At best, an atheist is really an agnostic, one who does not know if there is a God or not.
Blaise Pascal had a logical argument for his time, if you bet our life and destiny there is no God, you have nothing to lose if you are right but everything to lose if you are wrong. If you bet our life and destiny that God exists, then you have everything to gain if we are right and nothing to lose if we are wrong. Although there are plenty of arguments that reject the wager, to me it is a safer bet to believe God exists.
There are a lot of hard sayings in the Bible. While I seek to understand it all, I have to focus on the stuff that is clear with themes that permeate the whole New Testament. A few verses in a list of laws that make me feel as if God is unfair or unreasonable are not going to keep me from embracing the message of hope that I read from cover to cover. If anyone claims to understand God, it makes Him to be much less than He really is, because God is that than which none greater can be conceived. Once I have God figured out, I discover He’s greater than that.
I guess we’ll agree to disagree, then. Just two last points.
The “kind” model fails because it is too ambiguous – any transition can be dismissed with a simple labeling. Bear in mind the evolutionary timescale: there would have to be some sort of biological barrier to prevent millions of years of descent with modification from forming a new species. Like the belief in an intelligently-triggered universe, a microevolution barrier not scientific; it is a matter of faith.
Atheism and theism address belief, agnosticism and gnosticism refer to knowledge. The labels are interchangeable: a nonreligious person can an agnostic atheist, just as a Christian could be an agnostic theist.
It’s always frustrating when little common ground is found, but it was nice to discuss these issues with an open-minded believer.
Stephen
It’s been fun. I like mind-bending every once in a while, it’s good exercise. For me, life is more interesting if I learn something new everyday. I hope this went both ways, too.
There’s a great definition of life that includes knowledge… John 17:3 says that eternal life is in the knowledge of God. So I suppose God is looking for gnostic theists. 😉