tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post6153393509341957192..comments2023-05-24T05:37:27.382-07:00Comments on Grace and Miracles: Does Our Sinful Nature Come from God?Anette Ackerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-55742178604013373982010-05-08T13:41:55.566-07:002010-05-08T13:41:55.566-07:00Ryk,
Again, God did not create us with these incl...Ryk,<br /><br />Again, God did not create us with these inclinations; some inclinations exist because of generational sin and others come about because we yield to temptation or cultivate bad habits. For example, it is not inevitable that we crave fatty foods and enjoy lying around on the sofa. We can train our bodies to crave healthy food and exercise. So it is the nature of some people to be attracted to laziness and potato chips but not all. But if we compare the two types of lifestyles we will all agree that the active, healthy kind of the best one.<br /><br />There are a lot of sins that I have the free will to commit, but which don't appeal to me at all. I have never smoked, but if I had started earlier in life, I might well have become addicted to cigarettes. Even a person who has alcoholism in the family will never become addicted if he or she avoids drinking. John 8:34, Romans 6:16, and 2 Peter 2:19 all say that we are slaves to whatever it is we are overcome by. This is a fact of nature, and we don't have to be Christians to see the problem. When we are addicted to something harmful, we suffer the consequences. <br /><br />However, Christ offers us freedom from such bondage, so that by his Spirit we can receive victory over all those wrong inclinations. He gives us his strength in place of our own weakness. And instead of willpower he only asks that we humbly receive what he offers--forgiveness and restoration. <br /><br />So yes, we have free will and we are all accountable for our choices. And one of those choices is whether or not to accept the help that is offered us.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-42016950126940999522010-05-06T21:30:45.633-07:002010-05-06T21:30:45.633-07:00It is perfectly possible to have free will without...It is perfectly possible to have free will without having a capacity for "sinfulness" well perhaps a capacity but not an inclination.<br /><br />To illustrate I have the free will to paint myself purple, leap off a tall building and shout "I am a pixie look at me fly." I do not however have any inclination to do so and in fact possess a strong and deed desire not to. If such things as your religion calls "sins" were similarly repellant then there would be complete free will without the problem of sin.<br /><br />It is clear according to the Bible that the God figure made actions it opposes attractive and often desireable. Even the fruit that was supposed to be forbidden was given desireable qualities. Had the first people been made with no particular inclination towards curiosity about good and evil for example then they would have freely chose to not eat the fruit.<br /><br />So the problem of "sin" is not free will but the nature of man to be attracted to such things. As you claim your deity created us, then it follows that it created us with these inclinations when it need not have.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-82914155165874794262010-05-04T10:20:22.088-07:002010-05-04T10:20:22.088-07:00Photosynthesis my friend,
I just want to answer a...Photosynthesis my friend,<br /><br />I just want to answer a question that you raised on AC, and that I never got to. You said, what if we were having this conversation at a time when the idea of gods had never occurred to anyone. <br /><br />You are operating under the assumption that humans only process reality by way of reason and not intuition. But there are many things that we know intuitively even if we can't translate them into the language of reason. This is why "trust your instincts" is often good advice. <br /><br />People have always believed in gods/God, and it's not just because they need something to shove into a gap. Even today, when science explains a lot and there is a lot of confidence in science, atheists are a small minority. People generally have an intuitive sense that there is a God even if they are not particularly religious. <br /><br />Also, did you know that statistically atheists are 79% male and a high percentage of them are scientists? This would probably mean that they are more left-brain oriented than the general population, so they are less likely to rely on intuition. <br /><br />I don't believe that reason and intuition are mutually exclusive; they both serve an important function and we can develop both so that they balance each other out. But of course they are also both fallible. So if we rely on two different ways of apprehending reality rather than just one, and we try to reconcile the two, we are more likely to get it right.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-22173987054395848092010-05-03T17:06:42.975-07:002010-05-03T17:06:42.975-07:00Photosynthesis,
Of course I would! I think fundam...Photosynthesis,<br /><br /><i>Of course I would! I think fundamentalists miss this very part of a belief in God. The creativity and awe, the inspiration to learn more, to go beyond our self-imposed limits in understanding (remember those however few talents?). The beauty of just how marvelously the whole thing works without any need for divine intervention. That would be the ultimate divine intervention!<br /><br />But no, they want their God to be a little god, just as Carl Sagan said.<br /><br />You are my friend Anette.</i><br /><br />Thank you, photosynthesis.<br /><br />You are right that the God who created this world could never be small! As you said, he set things up in a brilliant way. His sovereignty is great enough so that his creatures have free will, and he delegated a lot of responsibilities to them. But he didn't just leave his creation alone after that. The God of the Bible is not the deist creator. <br /><br />There are a lot parallels between the natural world and the Bible, and that's what one would expect if they originated from the same Source. I mentioned how rich the Bible is in deep mysteries--we can keep studying it a lifetime and never stop learning new things. Just in the past few months, I have discovered many deep theological themes in just the first few chapters of Genesis. But the answers are objective; in other words, we can't just interpret the Bible however we want. It is objective Truth, but it takes more than a lifetime to understand and internalize all its nuances, so any one Christian can never say that he or she has it all figured out. This is the same with the natural world--science is an ongoing search for objective truth. <br /><br />I appreciate the book recommendation as well. You're right that I have more books on my list than I have time to read, but that does look interesting. I looked it up on Amazon.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-42330117928211351392010-05-03T10:12:09.162-07:002010-05-03T10:12:09.162-07:00"His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear h..."His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Luke 3:17) <br /><br />"They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power" (2 Thessalonians 1:9) <br /><br />"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Revelation 20:10)<br /><br />So what is clear is that hell itself is eternal, but it is not clear that everyone will spend eternity in hell. The devil certainly will, because the purpose of the lake of fire is to punish him, and “the beast and the false prophet” as well as those who worship the beast will also be tormented forever. <br /><br />I realize that was a very long answer to your question, but the bottom line is that God will act with justice and mercy on the day of judgment, even though we don’t know the details. I think we will see ourselves as we really are for the first time, so in one sense we will judge ourselves. John 12:48 says: “He who rejects Me and does not receive my sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.” So as C.S. Lewis said in <i>The Screwtape Letters,</i> we will have “the peculiar kind of clarity which hell affords.”<br /><br />Lewis illustrates it very well in <i>Till We Have Faces</i>, a retelling of the myth of Eros and Psyche. “The thunder had ceased, I think, the moment the still light came. There was great silence when the god spoke to me. And as there was no anger (what men call anger) in his face, so there was none in his voice. It was unmoved and sweet; like a bird singing on the branch above a hanged man.”Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-78592170770739340212010-05-03T10:09:19.440-07:002010-05-03T10:09:19.440-07:00Malachi 4:1 says: “For behold, the day is coming, ...Malachi 4:1 says: “For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.” Again, this implies total destruction of body and soul. <br /><br />Jude 1:7 talks about Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed by “eternal fire.” But this eternal fire annihilated them. <br /><br />There are also verses that talk about “the second death,” and make it clear that this is the lake of fire. <br /><br />"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death." (Revelation 2:11) <br /><br />"Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." (Revelation 20:6) <br /><br />"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death." (Revelation 20:14) <br /><br />"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." (Revelation 21:8)<br /><br />But some verses indicate that hell is eternal torment:<br /><br />"The unsaved people in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless: "Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?"" (Isaiah 33:14) <br /><br />"He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:10-11) <br /><br />"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’" (Matthew 25:41) <br /><br />"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:46) <br /><br />"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. ... And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' (Mark 9:43-48)Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-61947532986260767042010-05-03T10:08:08.490-07:002010-05-03T10:08:08.490-07:00The Bible also clearly states that God will create...The Bible also clearly states that God will create a new earth where there can be no evil (Isaiah 65:17, 2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1). Nobody who hurts others can have a part in that inheritance (Isaiah 65:25). But we can’t just be “good enough,” because all of us sin and do harm to others. God himself is the one who qualifies us to share in this inheritance. In other words, the inhabitants of that earth will have surrendered the will to receive God's Spirit, and they will be remade Christ's image. At the resurrection, they will therefore be fully free and yet sinless. Because there is no sin in the new earth, there is also no suffering and no death. <br /><br />On the matter of judgment day and the new earth, the Bible is clear, the logic holds up, and this makes sense to me morally. There <i>should</i> be some kind of final judgment, because many injustices are never resolved in this life. And it makes sense that nobody who harms others can have a place in the new earth, because then it could not be a place where “righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13). It would be as evil as this one.<br /><br />But the more challenging question is what exactly happens to those who will not share in that inheritance. In other words, is the traditional view or the annihilation view the biblical one? Some traditionalists take the position that it is “safer” to be as conservative as possible, but from a biblical perspective that’s not always true. If we fall off a horse, it doesn’t matter if we fall to the right or to the left. And since the purpose of the Bible is to save our souls, it would appear that we are in the greatest danger when we quash our moral compasses. Jesus was always confronting the Pharisees (who were very conservative) about doing exactly that. When God came in the flesh, their religious traditions blinded them to his “grace and truth” (John 1:14); instead, they accused him of having an evil spirit (Matthew 12:24). Their moral compasses were so impaired that they were able to look at someone who epitomized love and goodness and call him evil. Jesus warned them against the sin against the Holy Spirit (the unpardonable sin), which has long been debated by theologians, but one interpretation is that it means shutting out the Light so thoroughly that repentance becomes impossible. And without repentance, there is no forgiveness. This interpretation seems to fit the context. <br /><br />So a danger of the traditional view, especially for those who employ fire and brimstone preaching, is to become desensitized to the idea of eternal torment. The risk of the annihilation view is watering down the Bible by explaining away the things we don’t like. I see the biblical tension between these two perspectives as evidence that God will act with perfect justice and mercy on judgment day, and he has the absolute power to do exactly that. <br /><br />Here are some verses that indicate that the lake of fire means judgment, punishment, and then annihilation: <br /><br />Matthew 10:28 says, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” If God destroys the soul, it would cease to exist.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-78926965421364749202010-05-03T10:06:22.447-07:002010-05-03T10:06:22.447-07:00Hi Milo,
I follow your reasoning up until the po...Hi Milo, <br /><br /><i>I follow your reasoning up until the point of eternal torture for following your God given free will.<br /><br />The deck is stacked against us from the beginning. If hell is waiting for the majority of humans then it would have been better for God to have created us all robots or not created us at all.</i><br /><br />This is an excellent question, and truthfully, it's one that I struggle with myself. The idea of eternal torture (which is the traditional view of hell) is abhorrent to me, even with respect to someone like Hitler. I think most people feel the same, one reason, undoubtedly, why the subject of hell rarely comes up in most evangelical churches.<br /><br />The way I approach my theology is like a puzzle, where I'm constantly fitting new pieces into it, but there are still missing pieces. I know that all the pieces fit somewhere (i.e., the Bible is the infallible Word of God), because experience has told me that the Bible is consistent with logic, my moral compass, and experience. But if a piece of the puzzle doesn’t seem to fit, I don’t force it in. I trust God in the matter and continue to ask questions. <br /><br />Some aspects of the doctrine of hell are clear in the Bible and some are not. The Bible clearly talks about hell, or a lake of fire, reserved for Satan and his angels, and it is also the destination of the “wicked.” (Of course this may be a figurative representation of something in the spiritual realm, but if so it is the equivalent of a lake of fire, so it doesn't diminish the severity of those words.) What is not clear in the Bible is whether hell means eternal suffering or a “second death” and annihilation. Some texts seem to imply the latter, but some indicate the former. There is a trend among evangelical Christians to subscribe to the “annihilation view,” which I will discuss in greater detail below. <br /><br />My own position is that if the Bible is unclear, it is unclear for a reason. Perhaps the lake of fire itself is eternal, and it will mean eternal suffering for some (certainly Satan and his angels) but not for others. I firmly believe that God will judge fairly on judgment day, and how he does that is up to him. <br /><br />In some respects the Bible is very clear. All the dead will be resurrected and there will be a day of judgment when Jesus comes again (Matthew 25, Acts 24:15). And during this judgment, God will "render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation" (Romans 2:6-8). This will be the ultimate graduation ceremony, where everything is exposed, and it is in the eternal realm, so the limitations of space-time do not apply. God will set right all injustices on this "day." Every graduation ceremony has some surprises, but judgment day will probably have a lot of surprises because "many who are first will be last, and the last, first" (Matthew 20:16).Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-3447826030748051862010-05-02T16:46:35.225-07:002010-05-02T16:46:35.225-07:00By the way. For your list of reading material (as ...By the way. For your list of reading material (as if you lacked any!):<br /><br />1. What is life by Margulis and Sagan (this is not nor Carl, though).<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-17595438790820958542010-05-02T16:21:45.085-07:002010-05-02T16:21:45.085-07:00Wouldn't you expect that the word of God would...<i>Wouldn't you expect that the word of God would have some profound themes, and that it isn't simply narrating stories? </i><br /><br />Of course I would! I think fundamentalists miss this very part of a belief in God. The creativity and awe, the inspiration to learn more, to go beyond our self-imposed limits in understanding (remember those however few talents?). The beauty of just how marvelously the whole thing works without any need for divine intervention. That would be the ultimate divine intervention!<br /><br />But no, they want their God to be a little god, just as Carl Sagan said.<br /><br />You are my friend Anette.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-61528167087487185352010-05-02T13:38:20.721-07:002010-05-02T13:38:20.721-07:00Photosynthesis,
That's fine that we agree to ...Photosynthesis,<br /><br />That's fine that we agree to disagree. I've enjoyed our discussion.<br /><br />But I just want to stress that I do not cherry pick the Bible. I will admit that I interpret the beginning of Genesis differently than Ray & co., but that's because I don't believe that the purpose of those chapters is to give a detailed instruction in science. They contain deep symbolism of free will, sin and death, the redemption of Christ, and the relationship between Christ and the church. The six days of creation parallel and symbolize Holy Week, where Jesus finished his work of redemption on the sixth day and rested in the grave on the seventh. The first day of the week represented a new beginning. The message here is <i>theological</i>, not cosmological. This is recognized by many conservative OT scholars. <br /><br />And the Bible never describes biological processes, so creating Adam (whose name means "mankind" in Hebrew) out of dust could very well be a shorthand representation of our origins. The Bible says elsewhere that animals were created from dust as well. This is not something one would expect the Bible to describe in detail. <br /><br />But my main point was that with respect to the Big Bang and the origin of life, the existence of God helps explain it. And that is the standard for Occam's Razor as applied to religion. <br /><br />Fundamentalism errs on the side of a superficial reading of the Bible, which is not necessarily the most accurate. Wouldn't you expect that the word of God would have some profound themes, and that it isn't simply narrating stories? Extreme fundamentalists will also zero in on individual verses without putting them in context. This is not an accurate handling of the Bible. <br /><br />But you don't have to reply to that. I just didn't want to give the impression here that I read into the Bible whatever I want. I try to understand it in the most accurate and honest way possible.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-33820876630557964842010-05-02T12:59:30.891-07:002010-05-02T12:59:30.891-07:00Anette my friend,
I think I am going to leave you...Anette my friend,<br /><br />I think I am going to leave you alone. I really don't need to convince you of anything. I am happy to know such a person as yourself. I know many more in real life. Those whose beliefs do not challenge the progress of humanity, or stigmatize those who do not share the beliefs.<br /><br />Many of those mysteries you use today will be solved and shown to be quite the most natural thing. Yet, many questions will remain open. If that is what tells you that there is a god, God, fine by me.<br /><br />Keep enjoying your Sunday!<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-38862494538216732962010-05-02T11:34:18.687-07:002010-05-02T11:34:18.687-07:00Sorry Anette, could not resist this one either:
I...Sorry Anette, could not resist this one either:<br /><br /><i>I checked the unanswered questions again, and they are certainly not problems if there is a creator.</i><br /><br />Well, of course nothing is a problem is there is a creator. This is why creators are non-explanations.<br /><br /><i>They are only problems in the sense of the why being left unanswered.</i><br /><br />Because the Big Bang theory is still under development?<br /><br /><i>As I said before, there are no logical problems, nor is the model inconsistent with the evidence. It simply leaves unanswered questions.</i><br /><br />It is inconsistent. Hawkin shows that other models answer those questions.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-39368753065795418112010-05-02T11:25:48.514-07:002010-05-02T11:25:48.514-07:00Anette,
I had left a very good rebuttal to your O...Anette,<br /><br />I had left a very good rebuttal to your Occam razor thing. But it seems like the browser lost it.<br /><br />So, just the summary:<br /><br />You cherry picked and reinterpreted the Bible as appropriate. Occam's razor does not favor any of that.<br /><br />(I might re-write later, but it was a long exposition of where and how you reinterpret, and of the many things in the Bible that you missed. Example, God breathes life into man's nostrils, not into dust ... dust in the Bible clearly refers to earth's dust, not to star formed dust--the Bible does not say start-formed, thus what is the big deal? ... long et cetera.)<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-22709003141551890232010-05-02T11:07:02.815-07:002010-05-02T11:07:02.815-07:00Photosynthesis,
But this is not a problem with ev...Photosynthesis,<br /><br /><i>But this is not a problem with evolution, is it? It would be a problem for a completely natural history of life, from beginning to today, but not a problem with the part that is explained by evolution.</i><br /><br />I was thinking of it from a naturalistic perspective, but I do know that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis. You're also right that I don't understand punctuated equilibrium. <br /><br />My only point was that the theory of evolution has unanswered questions, and will change. Perhaps I should have left it at that, instead of giving examples?<br /><br />You have a great Sunday, too.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-4010753213179840472010-05-02T10:35:07.784-07:002010-05-02T10:35:07.784-07:00(I am still surprise that you rather ignore Hawkin...(I am still surprise that you rather ignore Hawkin's explanations about how the problems can be solved, and what those answers mean to the fine-tuning argument. But that is fine. I can only repeat so much.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-22923594314036060782010-05-02T10:31:16.770-07:002010-05-02T10:31:16.770-07:00Anette my friend,
I will leave Hawkin alone. His ...Anette my friend,<br /><br />I will leave Hawkin alone. His description of the strong anthropic principle (you are right, by the way, but I am right too, which is weird) makes it sound on one side as opposition to fine-tuning (your quotes), then as if a creationist argument. But does not matter. Upon further reading, this part has a few problems with semantics and construction. Maybe Hawkin did not check well. But most of it, is what you say.<br /><br />But I want to challenge this gem:<br /><br /><i>But so does the theory of evolution. The question of how it all started (abiogenesis) is a big one.</i><br /><br />But this is not a problem with evolution, is it? It would be a problem for a completely natural history of life, from beginning to today, but not a problem with the part that is explained by evolution.<br /><br /><i>And as I understand it, there are no clear answers for punctuated equilibrium.</i><br /><br />Which means you do not understand it. Punctuated equilibrium is about tempo and mode in evolution, not a substitute to evolution. The problem "solved" was an exaggerated understanding of "gradual" in Darwin's explanation. But Darwin himself, in some letters, explains that it is to be expected that changes will not be steady steps, just in steps. Punctuated equilibrium is a strong statement of the lack of rhythm in evolution, which is what we should expect given that the environment does not have a rhythm for changing.<br /><br /><i>So are these problems or unanswered questions?</i><br /><br />Misunderstood questions. Yet, unanswered questions do remain, and those mean that the model for evolution might change drastically. For instance to take into account horizontal gene transfer in unicellular organisms and its consequences to the history of life.<br /><br /><i>Should we expect that the theory that "best fits the evidence" will change?</i><br /><br />Sure. Because it does not fit this important part of the evidence at that level. Evolution will be quite different from what it is now. t is already quite different from what Darwin described. So, it will probably be called the same. Our relationship with other primates and the rest of the animals, and the rest of life will remain. Those are unquestionably true.<br /><br />So, Occham's razor later.<br /><br />Have a great Sunday.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-2812361611926291682010-05-02T09:43:10.320-07:002010-05-02T09:43:10.320-07:00Photosynthesis,
I forgot about your Occham's ...Photosynthesis,<br /><br /><i>I forgot about your Occham's razor. Sorry about it. Want to talk about that?</i><br /><br />Sure, if you have time to read those comments, I would like to hear your thoughts on them.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-36441332824520863022010-05-02T09:25:15.535-07:002010-05-02T09:25:15.535-07:00Milo,
I'm working on the answer to your quest...Milo,<br /><br />I'm working on the answer to your question, but it's getting longer than I thought it would be. <br /><br />Photosynthesis,<br /><br /><i>So, I still think you misunderstand that chapter. The unanswered questions are problems. When questions remain unanswered it commonly means that the theory that "best fits the data" will change, sometimes a lot. Which means there is too much speculation for thinking of fine-tuning.</i><br /><br />I checked the unanswered questions again, and they are certainly not problems if there is a creator. They are only problems in the sense of the <i>why</i> being left unanswered. As I said before, there are no logical problems, nor is the model inconsistent with the evidence. It simply leaves unanswered questions.<br /><br />But so does the theory of evolution. The question of how it all started (abiogenesis) is a big one. And as I understand it, there are no clear answers for punctuated equilibrium. So are these problems or unanswered questions? Should we expect that the theory that "best fits the evidence" will change?<br /><br />Any scientific theory can change, but in spite of many challenges, the Big Bang theory still stands and it still fits the empirical evidence. And it requires precise fine-tuning. <br /><br /><i>I think these two authors mean different things when they talk about a strong anthropic principle. Read carefully, and S. Hawkins is talking about a creationist position. I expect, though I have not read, R. Dawkins to mean something different because Dawkins would not argue for a creationist position.</i><br /><br />This is just a minor point, but I think they mean essentially the same thing. Hawking says: "According to this theory, there are either many different universes or many different regions of a single universe, each with its own initial configurations and, perhaps, with its own set of laws of science." <br /><br />Dawkins says: "The multiverse as a whole has a plethora of alternative sets of by-laws. The anthropic principle kicks in to explain that we have to be in one of those universes (presumably a minority) whose by-laws happened to be propitious to our eventual evolution and hence contemplation of the problem." He specifically points out that this is <i>not</i> a creationist argument, and I agree with him. To me, it argues against a creator.<br /><br />But there is no evidence of a multiverse, so the strong anthropic principle is just speculation.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-57051296740209914012010-05-01T13:54:19.037-07:002010-05-01T13:54:19.037-07:00When he addresses the strong anthropic principle, ...<i>When he addresses the strong anthropic principle, on the other hand (which is what Dawkins argues in favor of)</i><br /><br />I think these two authors mean different things when they talk about a strong anthropic principle. Read carefully, and S. Hawkins is talking about a creationist position. I expect, though I have not read, R. Dawkins to mean something different because Dawkins would not argue for a creationist position.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-5848065361142146462010-05-01T09:25:29.366-07:002010-05-01T09:25:29.366-07:00Hey Anette,
It is nice talking to you actually. A...Hey Anette,<br /><br />It is nice talking to you actually. As I said. I rather not crush anybody's beliefs unless they are crazy (which might be pointless regarding that person, but might dissuade the reasonable ones to take sides with them, and would make the reasonable ones know why the crazy ones are considered crazy).<br /><br />I forgot about your Occham's razor. Sorry about it. Want to talk about that?<br /><br />I agree with you that science, for the philosophical reasons that you mentioned, should not be expected to produce proof for any gods that, by definition, would be beyond the reach of science. Maybe this got lost in my answer.<br /><br />So, I still think you misunderstand that chapter. The unanswered questions are problems. When questions remain unanswered it commonly means that the theory that "best fits the data" will change, sometimes a lot. Which means there is too much speculation for thinking of fine-tuning.<br /><br />Anyway, maybe you will find that sentence that says that there is no reason to think the constants could have been different.<br /><br />As of s god coming and saying "here I am." I doubt that could be explained away. Especially about an omnipresent one. We would have a real and undeniable relationship. Sorry if I mislead you on how I think, or others.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-72450371019375653972010-05-01T06:30:30.965-07:002010-05-01T06:30:30.965-07:00Photosynthesis,
I am sorry that I started answeri...Photosynthesis,<br /><br /><i>I am sorry that I started answering you because I really don't mind if people want to believe in God. It is only the crazy idiots who want to teach creationism as if it were science, or who insult and lie about people who do not share their beliefs, and about the sciences that threaten their religious beliefs, that I find abhorrent.<br /><br />Anyway, I started, I stop when you have had enough, or when we start going too much in circles. Deal?</i><br /><br />Yes, I already knew that about you when we started our discussion, so we can wrap it up here. But I've enjoyed talking with you and I wanted to be challenged if I got the science wrong (but I do not think I misunderstood the Hawking chapter now). <br /><br />After what you said about the problem of evil, I don't think it would do you any good to accept the possibility of a deity. If you can't believe in a good God, you would not accept the Christian God anyway. And Occam's Razor (or logic in general) wouldn't convince you because the problem of evil cannot be reduced to logic. As you said, that often makes it worse. <br /><br /><i>And this is the problem. Why would a god, such as the one you believe, keep itself hidden from its creation? Your description of a god outside of time and space makes it look like an impersonal god. One very different from the one you believe. Why would anybody propose an intelligent creator for nothing else but start the universe with no further anything about it? I say nonsense to that god too.</i><br /><br />I agree with you that deism only makes sense as a launching point for further questions. Why would an intelligence have no purpose? But if you're interested in my answer to your question about God's presence, I give it <a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5823596693953871104&postID=5199078987558220221" rel="nofollow">here</a> on 4/28 @ 7:53 AM.<br /><br />As for your answer to my question to Michael, it only made sense directed to him, because he implied that science could at some time prove the existence of God. I don't know if he meant to imply that or not, but that was what I was challenging. Since you have ruled out the existence of God, of course it made no sense to direct the question to you. <br /><br />My point was that the fine-tuning of the big bang <i>is</i> consistent with a creator, but that is still not proof because scientists will continue to speculate and atheists will call this a God-in-the-gaps argument. So proof is inherently impossible. Even if God did show up and say "hi" to all his creatures (as an atheist on AC proposed that he do), people would still explain that away, so why bother? :)<br /><br /><i>We might have read different editions of this chapter, because when I read it I get these:<br /><br />1. The hot big bang model leaves several questions unanswered (there is a list of problems, such as how the heat got distributed evenly despite there not being time for exchange between one region and another).<br /><br />2. These problems get Hawkins started into proposing solutions.</i><br /><br />I don't think we have different editions. I was aware of the "unanswered questions," but that is not synonymous with "problems." When he addresses the strong anthropic principle, on the other hand (which is what Dawkins argues in favor of), he mentions logical problems as well as the problem that "it runs against the tide of the whole history of science." <br /><br />Based on what you have said, I did understand Hawking correctly, and I stand by what I said about the hot big bang model and fine-tuning. It is "consistent with all the observational evidence we have today," even if it leaves unanswered questions. <br /><br />Although I enjoy talking with you, I don't think continuing this discussion is the best use of our time. But I knew already that you were very sure in your atheism, so you did not in any way mislead me by replying to my comment on AC. I'm glad you did.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-79063526666457588552010-04-30T17:22:53.834-07:002010-04-30T17:22:53.834-07:00Now your question:
How can science prove that God...Now your question:<br /><br /><i>How can science prove that God had something to do with it? If he exists outside of time-space, beyond the reach of science, it would be like characters in a book looking for the author.</i><br /><br />Ah! Got ya. Of course, in principle such a kind of god would be beyond science. Then why do you hung so much to fine-tuning?<br /><br /><i>What would you consider proof?</i><br /><br />Nothing. Only God's presence would be proof. Everything else is mere speculation. Worse, it is mere wishful thinking.<br /><br /><i>If God exists, most likely physicists would continue to speculate and never get past the point where the laws of physics break down.</i><br /><br />I don't think scientists are looking for some god there.<br /><br /><i>Likewise, scientists would continue to research abiogenesis and never get any answers.</i><br /><br />Well, if you think we have this problem because we need some god to explain it, then there is no god, or not that god. Abiogenesis will be solved Anette. Perhaps not with "The" origin of life on Earth, but with many ways in which it could have happened. Not speculation Anette, but by understanding how matter and energy interact, plus our knowledge of the ways matter self-organizes, plus biological clues that will give us probable mechanisms that will be undeniably realistic. I know so.<br /><br /><i>There would never be proof of God.</i><br /><br />And this is the problem. Why would a god, such as the one you believe, keep itself hidden from its creation? Your description of a god outside of time and space makes it look like an impersonal god. One very different from the one you believe. Why would anybody propose an intelligent creator for nothing else but start the universe with no further anything about it? I say nonsense to that god too.<br /><br />For a god of salvation, angry at our sin, condemning us to hell, so bloodthirsty that only divine blood would appease him (or whichever way you want to interpret Jesus' sacrifice), and such stories, he would have to be present right here right now among us. Anything else is mere fantasy.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-47771064926600572322010-04-30T16:54:10.404-07:002010-04-30T16:54:10.404-07:00Hawkins chapter.
We might have read different edi...Hawkins chapter.<br /><br />We might have read different editions of this chapter, because when I read it I get these:<br /><br />1. The hot big bang model leaves several questions unanswered (there is a list of problems, such as how the heat got distributed evenly despite there not being time for exchange between one region and another).<br /><br />2. These problems get Hawkins started into proposing solutions.<br /><br />Example 1. The breaking of the natural laws in the singularity. Hawkins said that this is due to using relativity theory to make the calculations at a point that requires quantum gravitation (an area still in development). He further said that using quantum gravitation the laws do not break at any point.<br /><br />Example 2. The proposal of the universe without an edge. Which was a very early proposal at the time.<br /><br />In his talk of 2005, he seems much more confident about unedged universes, and he talks about further developments that lead to a bubbling thing that seems to take us back to a "soft" anthropic principle.<br /><br />My conclusion Anette, is that the origin of the universe and its expansion are areas still in their infancy. Perhaps because new theories need to be worked out. Thus, it might be too early even to speculate about whether some constant is fine tuned, or it is just the way it can and will be.<br /><br />So, my conclusion is that we can't decide about "fine-tuning." and that such fine-tuning is a desperate attempt at creating a very difficult gap to put God right in there.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-19054943922743168712010-04-30T16:27:09.070-07:002010-04-30T16:27:09.070-07:00Hey Anette,
First Hawkins.
I agree, in one thing...Hey Anette,<br /><br />First Hawkins.<br /><br />I agree, in one thing with you. I would not read this Stenger guy to solve any problem related to the existence of any gods. Though, I have to tell you, I am not looking for any gods. I find the idea of gods, even more so one that looks like the emperor's new clothes (no matter how nice your metaphor of an author and her book, which I regard as a mere rhetorical devise), as nonsensical. If there were a God we would know it.<br /><br />I am sorry that I started answering you because I really don't mind if people want to believe in God. It is only the crazy idiots who want to teach creationism as if it were science, or who insult and lie about people who do not share their beliefs, and about the sciences that threaten their religious beliefs, that I find abhorrent.<br /><br />Anyway, I started, I stop when you have had enough, or when we start going too much in circles. Deal?<br /><br />So, next stop Hawkins chapter.<br /><br />...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com