Denny is this the jest of your "belief"? http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#m1 The Big Bang; not the other theories?
The big bang is as incontrovertible as anything can be. It's not a matter of Faith, it's a matter of Reason. Numerous experiments and objective observations support it. Numerous experiments designed to disprove it fail to do so. I didn't see anything on the page that disagrees with what I know. However, when scientists talk about life on other planets or elsewhere in the universe, I don't see any Reason involved.
Did I say the "Big Bang" was wrong? Just asking if you believe it. So I take it you do. So anyways, do you think the other theories are wrong? Like Multiverse, expansion and contraction, etc?
can god make a square circle? a free will choice is by definition undetermined before it is made. an undetermined choice is by definition unknowable before it is made. knowing something that is by definition unknowable is a logical contradiction, no different than a square circle. you won't find many christian philosophers that would agree with you that god can make logical contradictions into reality.
Expansion and contraction are not mutually exclusive to the big bang. They just raise the question of whether there is enough gravity to reverse the expansion. Multiverse theory is supported by elegant mathematics, and there is little evidence to support it. The big bang is a feature of multiverse theory, and quantum mechanics is so strange that it suggests multiverse as a possibility. Given that we know that the universe is not only expanding, it is doing so at an accelerated rate, my best guess would be expansion. It is not a certainty, and I don't claim it to be some sort of truth. It's just what seems likely. That said, there is new evidence being explored all the time that makes other theories more likely. Dark matter has only recently been detected. Something is out there surrounding galaxies everywhere we look. It's clearly affecting angular momentum in ways that don't make sense without dark matter's existence. It behaves like matter because of the gravitational effect it has. It can be measured, and there's so much of it that my view of how the universe ends might need to be adjusted. You see, if dark matter can hold galaxies together, the it might be only galaxies that become so far apart from one another that the only stars you'd see in the sky would be those in the same galaxy as you. But all the elements that fuel stars would eventually be converted into elements (e.g.hydrogen -> iron) that won't fuel stars.
So Big Bang has the best evidence; and it's the best evidence. Then when I say my theory sound "reasonable"; why would you mock it? And depending on the other theories, they don't have much evidence to support them as well. But they were once theories too yes? Same as "The Big Bang" before evidence started swaying science to believe this is the best case scenario. So making a joke of being "reasonable", because I was trying to explain God with science; and well in a philosophical way, that doesn't make me reasonable? Because it's God? That may have not been your intention, but I got that from the comment; especially after Maris was basically calling people believing in God, not sophisticated.
Like I said, the Big Bang is as incontrovertible as anything can be. Every bit of evidence and every observation continues to support it. I've not seen any evidence or observation that contradicts it. It is as sure a thing as the earth being round (ish). Just as there is no reason to doubt the earth is round, there's no reason to doubt the big bang. The evidence is just as compelling as sending rockets into orbit with tv cameras; the rockets orbit the earth because it is round, and the tv pictures show something like a sphere from every vantage point. I fully understand faith and reason and the difference between them. Religion teaches that evidence will cause doubt and to believe anyway. That is Faith.
What you are describing is limited omniscience, which is an oxymoron. Either he's timeless and all-knowing, or he's not -- you can't have it both ways, even with a petri dish analogy. (that doesn't make it scientific, btw! ) What you seem to be describing is like a superman/kryptonite situation, where god loses some of his super powers within the very universe he created -- this is simply not consistent with the definitions of omniscience and omnipotence. But I still give you full marks for effort. At least you tried something beyond just throwing up your hands and saying "Because God, that's why!"
Okay how about this? I have been, once again, trying to break this down. And I am going to scratch everything I've said before; just because I tried to explain things "scientifically"; which I believe isn't the angle. I am going to try and approach this more "philosophically" and "theologically". So this will still be a matter of "Faith" moreso than actual "Science". I want to make this clear before I proceed. Okay first thing I did was I wanted to make sure I knew exactly what Omniscient means; so I looked it up So I believe I am right generalizing that being omniscient is to know everything from the past and the future. Or what I remember reading in the bible saying he is the Alpha and Omega. And when I define "free will"; I am going to define it as the Arminians define it. Was a little confused when I read this; but I think I understand it like: "You do not have ultimate "libertarian freedom"; you are allowed the choice to accept God or not. Everything else is pre-disposed. This is like "God has given us the "free will to choose him, by not allowing him to be connected to us until we accept Jesus as our personal savior" I am going to give a scripture that explains this. And this is Jesus answering to Nicodemus. Keep in mind that born from water, means born in the flesh; not baptism. I take this verse like God is disconnected spiritually with us until we call upon the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words; God has chosen to give us the "free-will" to either choose him or not. Until we choose him; then he will not know us. Therefor neither God nor man know each other until we accept Jesus Christ. And other scriptures explain this as well: I see this as another scripture explaining that God can't know us until we are born again in the spirit. In other words; he chooses not to know our choice or us until we choose him. This goes with alot of Christian thinking that believes, you can't fully understand God's word until you are "born again of the spirit". There are two births in Christian thinking. The one of the flesh; which God chooses to give us "free will" in accepting him. Then the birth of the "Spirit"; which is when connection is made with God; and from that day forward; the spirit will be forever connected with God and his power. And to go further in the book; you can read from Genisis: Notice, God said they would die, but they really didn't die Physically. They actually died "Spiritually". Meaning their Spirit discconected itself from God. -- Explaining he doesn't know who we are. So in reality, it would be easy for God to be omniscient; if the one rule of this is we don't exist to God unless we are once again connected in spirit with God. So there really isn't a contridiction of knowing all things; but not knowing us because we have "free will" to choose to know him. Until that time, he will not know.
Now you are breaking timelessness! If god is truly timeless, existing simultaneously in past and future, there is no "until that time" -- he is ALL TIME. If you suddenly accept God on your death bed, he must have known about that eternally just as he knew about your birth before you were born. There is no "waiting" for an omniscient being who exists simultaneously throughout time -- there is only knowing. Which brings us back to the paradox...
I think you are mistaking what the scriptures actually mean. I've explained things that the word giving to us must be understood by us. In our time; this theory works. God's "time" or lack therof; is irrelevant. Taking in the scripture and it's meaning must be explained in ways we can understand. Hence the old cliché "God works in mysterious ways". When he wait's; is only a metaphore. He isn't actually waiting. He is just gonna connect with us or not. We will be the ones "waiting" or using "time" to determine when it actually happens.
I think it's if God is Omnipresent, Omniscience and timeless; then how can we have free-will; if he already knows what we have done, did and will do? I am trying to explain that the meaning "free-will" doesn't necessarily mean "libertarian free will"; but a more Arminian description of "free will".
On the contrary, God's time is the MOST relevant to this discussion. The issue is not whether WE are waiting to see our eventual fate, but whether God knew we would be saved BEFORE HE EVEN CREATED US. Even accepting your extremely limited definition of free will (which implies, by the way, that God had preordained Adam and Eve's fall from paradise), it doesn't avoid the contradiction in a timeless, omniscient CREATOR not knowing whether or not his own creation will love him.
No it's actually quite simple. You are on or off; you exist or don't. Your "body" or physical being exists; but it's as "Natural" as a flower or molecule in the universe. But your "soul"; which is also timeless has no time. Your flesh controls your fate; which is set to the boundries of time. Your soul isn't. Your flesh makes the decision to connect your soul. Your soul is trapped until connection is made.
There's no such thing as a good person. People are people. Good or bad depending om who you ask, I guess.
So Hitler, Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, The Pope during the crusaides, religious leaders burning witches at the stake, the rapist, the murderer are neither good or bad? They just exist?
Our souls are timeless? So they existed, along with God, since the very beginning? What made our souls, if not God? If God created our souls, the problem of free will and omniscience is still there, regardless of what's happening to our bodies. If God did NOT create our souls, then you, sir, have just invented a new religion!
That's what is called the Holy trinity. We are a part of God. We have the Holy spirit in us; which is God.
Getting back to this original question, you also never addressed my earlier counter-argument. How can any act be considered moral if it is done for an infinite reward, and under threat of eternal punishment? Imagine two boys having lunch in their school cafeteria. They see another kid who has nothing to eat. One of the boys has a rich father, who has promised his son a huge birthday feast later that day. The other boy is poor, and has nothing at all but his lunch. He doesn't know where he will get his next meal, or even IF he will get another one. So you tell me -- if both boys share their food with the hungry child, which act is more significant? Which boy's gift is more meaningful? (Hint: Mark 12:41-43) Atheists who give of what they have are giving their all. They don't expect an eternal reward. They don't expect to be compensated by an all-seeing deity. In other words, atheists who quietly give to others are the true Good Samaritans. Ironic, isn't it?
