The cause of all of this must be infinite in power, knowledge, and glory. What sustains of all of this must be mighty, sovereign, and loving.
Psalm 19:1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God ; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
9 comments:
No son. It either is or it isn't. If it wasn't, you wouldn't know anything about it but as it is you do.
Merely a random event, like your blog.
Everything has a cause. If you deny such a principle you deny reality. If I run my car into a shop, I can't get out and say, "My car either is or isn't in your shop window, there was no cause."
In an infinite universe every possible event will occur. We are in one of those universes. If we were not, none of us would be here.
Your driving is one of those events in a multiple series of scenarios. In another version, you don't drive into a shop.
Why would an Omnipotent force concern itself with a minor life form in a backwater of space and time. It would be like us trying to have relationship with an Ant.
And yet you have zero evidence for such a position. You take it on faith. Where is the empirical evidence for the infinite universes?
You're working on faith handed down from a time when Mankind's ignorance had barely risen above the stone age. A supreme being conveniently dealt with the unexplainable wonders of life, while also giving power to those with a direct line to it.
I work on logic, reason and the evidence of observable science which provides ever more proof of the natural order of the cosmos. Some would say that nature and God are the same thing but whereas nature has no sympathy or compassion, it cannot be considered as favouring humanity, only acknowledging it's dominance as top flea on a small dog. If Mankind is the only species that is aware of his own mortality and ultimate demise it follows that some will seek a way to avoid that final void by inventing a fantasy afterlife to calm the fear of death.
I would ask again, why would an Omnipotent force concern itself with a minor life form in a backwater of space and time. The disparity between our miniscule intellect and its is a gulf as wide as the heavens, and as unbridgable.
A universe of infinite variation predicts that two people have such diametrically opposed beliefs as us, even when we are looking from the same viewing point as Earth, but our abstract intelligence still allows us to have more in common than divides us. I arrived upon your site by chance and was entranced by the film as you were.
Best wishes and may your God go with you,
Your first sentence is full of unfounded assumptions. First, just because people existed before the invention of the microscope or the scientific method does not automatically make them ignorant/stupid. Second, even if it did automatically make them ignorant/stupid, that does not discredit their eye witness accounts to events that they have recorded. Third, you are being reductionistic and revising history just a tad. Consider Claudius Ptolemaeus or Ptolemy for short, the astrologer. He wrote, around AD 100, the following: "The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point." So I think you are undercutting both Egyptian and Greek peoples who knew arguable more than you and I combined about mathematics, logic, and measurement. If you study the method used by the Jewish people to make papyrus you'll find they were incredibly intelligent. Or study the Hebrew language and you'll find and incredibly logical and sound mathematical nature to the way they wrote. You are committing what I consider to be one of the greatest Western Philosophy fallacies, and that is to believe that the old equals ignorant and the new equals enlightened. And this was all done in just your opening sentence!
Your second paragraph, again, assumes very much. If you work with logic, for instance, you are taking it by faith that constants in the universe will remain constant. 2+2 will not suddenly equal 5 in an hour. You have no empirical evidence to say that constants will remain constant, you simply observe that they are at the present time. Or let us think about "reason" for a moment. You trust your reason despite having no empirical evidence for it's existence or reliability. In other words, your reason was used to arrive at the conclusion that your reason can be trusted. This is circular and should cause an empiricist to have great difficulty in trusting in reason. Then you say that evidence and observable science provides proof of the natural order of the cosmos. Yes, the cosmos is indeed orderly, but this does nothing to support your theory that there are an infinite number of universes and this just happens to be the one with life. There is absolutely ZERO evidence for said theory.
Then you ask the question why would an Omnipotent force concern itself with a minor life form. This question assumes to know what the actions of an Omnipotent life form should be which elevates you to an Omnipotent life form. If you are going to speak about what an Omnipotent life form would do if it existed, this would mean you sit in an Omnipotent place to make such a judgment.
The ancients didn't invent mathematics, they discovered it and adapted their skills accordingly.
Constants are only constants relative to our velocity through space and time. Einstein showed that under extreme conditions, constants break down, hardly the work of a master builder like God. In an infinite universe,logic would suggest that many other life forms exist,separated by the vast gulf between the stars.
So questioning the purpose of God's creation is to assume the mantle of superiority? Only the arrogance of the pious could hold that stance.
Some very interesting comment's here
About the first cause:
http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/celestial/starmaker.htm
Post a Comment