I’m often struck by the similarity between the response to Jesus of both the Pharisees of Jesus’ day and atheists down through history.
Both of course reject His claims to Godhood.
Both doubt His ability to forgive sins.
Both doubt His need to forgive THEIR sins.
The greatest similarity however is highlighted in a story that I’ve been bouncing back to from time to time; the story of the man whose sins Jesus forgave, and as evidence to prove that He had the authority to forgive someone’s sins, Jesus told this man to pick up his mat and go home. All this took place in a house filled with people listening to Jesus teach. This crowd included some Pharisees who'd come to observe. When the man was instantly healed, it provoked very different reactions in the people present.
The man who was healed naturally went home “giving glory to God.” We aren’t told specifically what this looked like but put yourself in his position. You can imagine how you might express your joy of going from paralysed, possibly from the neck down to running and leaping and getting your life back.
The people in the house who saw this amazing miracle were seized with astonishment. While atheists think that they are smarter than the average person living today and most certainly smarter than anyone living 2,000 years ago, the people of Jesus' day knew that diseases don’t disappear at a command and paralytics don’t start walking just because someone tells them to. Those people also praised God. “We have seen strange things today,” was the best way they could describe it.
And then there were the Pharthesists, or athesees. Someone has just been healed physically. Instantly. Completely. Permanently. A wonderful turn of events has come into a man’s life. He has gone from being a beggar to being able to work and to enjoy his body. Do the Pharisees care? On a different day they might have said something positive but today something unconscionable has taken place. Today, something terribly unfair has been allowed to happen. Today, someone has had his sins forgiven.
Both Pharisees and atheists alike seethe with anger when apparent justice has been denied. The more forgiveness someone needs the angrier it makes Pharisees and atheists that someone has been forgiven. The more desperate the sinner's behaviour the more that these people want to see that person punished.
That’s too bad because some day Pharisees and atheists are going to need forgiving as much as the most heinous criminal who ever walked the earth. And it will be too late. We can know that it will be too late because this side of heaven, neither the Pharisee nor atheists see their need for forgiveness. Don’t you know? They’re good people. Too good to need God. Too good to need forgiveness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Atheists doubt that Jesus had powers, so naturally why would they feel the need to be forgiven by somebody they find to be, nothing beyond mythical? That's like criticizing someone because they don't feel like they need to be protected by Hercules.
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not mak, the atheist isn't an atheist to spite god, the atheist genuinely doesn't find any evidence for god convincing, as strange as that may sound to you. Sure you'd say, "well look at all this evidence!" you'll write about fine tuning and the cosmological arguement. You'll quote some physicist who believes in an intelligent design...
But we'll quote a physicist of our own. We'll tell you that it's not universally accepted as fact, that anything other than the cosmological constant could have even been tuned at all. We'll tell you that your reasoning is subjectively anthropomorphic and that it's perfectly clausible to think that the answer to this problem may be solved by a natural mechanism. We'll tell you that science is more and more taking serious inflation theory, which will nullify any idea of tuning, if proved true. We'll tell you that trying to spin the idea that science has proved that nothing can come before the big bang, is dishonest and untrue. Sure, you'll find scientists who will say things that agree with your ideologies, but it's untrue to tell everyone that these ideas are held by the overwhelming majority of scientists.
So what evidence? Please understand mak, that the atheist isn't a mavrick, but is genuinely trying to do the right thing, and if they want forgiveness, they're not too good to ask for it from those they wronged.
Because atheism isn't an attack on god or the believer, there are no smoke and mirrors, and no suprises. The atheist really doesn't believe based on safe and logical assumptions about existance. I mention that because you strike me as someone who finds that hard to believe.
Oh dear! Gone are the glory days of atheism when lives and even careers rose and fell on hard evidence, evidence that could be observed, tested, verified.
ReplyDeleteAlas, that evidence is guiding us in a decidedly unpleasent direction for atheists. The metaphysical implications of a universe with a beginning are, as one atheist scientist put it “repugnant.”
As a result now any conjecture can and is claimed as worth following as long as it leads away from a universe with a definitive space / time boundary. Atheist origin of the universe mythologies sprout with springtime regularity, eagerly awaiting adherents looking for any way, no matter how implausible (even imaginary time will do), to avoid a universe with a beginning.
Speculation - while always the mainstay and basis of atheism, has come out of the closet and is now the new atheist reality!
A universe with a beginning does not prove the existence of any gods. All you do is apply a label on that unknown cause, defining it as being out of the space/time boundary.
ReplyDeleteNext you jump to Jesus who could not have possibly lied, or make his followers lie, so that first cause must be what Jesus was talking about when referring to a god who's the creator of the universe...
We need to believe these points on faith, or delude ourselves in believing that 2,000 year-old scripture is good evidence, but not the other comparable evidence or religious explanations that claim the exact same freaking thing.
I think that's the only left for me to understand over here... why don't you admit that you have faith, instead of evidence, in your god, and that this is this faith that gives meaning to your life, shows morale guidelines and give hope for the afterlife, which makes you feel good...
Well, we both use faith to guide our lives Hugo. There's nothing wrong with that. It's how we have to live. We can't know everything.
ReplyDeleteKnowing that the cause of the beginning of the universe existed outside of space, time, matter and the laws of physics has nothing to do with faith. That's just a logical step based on what we know re: big bang cosmology.
Parents come before their children,
The builders of cars exist prior to the cars they build etc.
Since that type of cause and effect is what we consistently observe we have have good reason to believe that's how things come into being.
In my mind, it's logical to say that the cause of matter existed before matter or preceeded the existence of matter.
I know some atheists who say that matter created itself or pre existed itself but that takes a lot more faith than I could muster.
In my mind if the cause of of matter existed before matter came into being, then that cause was likely immaterial. That's not faith. That's logic.
Atheists say that the cause that brought matter into existence was itself material. That takes a lot more faith than I can muster!
Which sounds more reasonable
ReplyDeleteBig bang singularity = Jesus is the son of God
or
Big bang singularity = possibility of other
such singularities given that we know one existed.
You confuse the situation, mak. The believers are still clinging on to whatever god of the gaps theory they can, while the results of scientific progress show no results favoring human significance. If we went back in time, youd be ranting on about a goldielocks radius, and how if the earth didn't meet so many improbible criteria, life could not exists. Before that you might rant on about irreducible complexity and the human eye. Or maybe you'd just hold up a banana, and call it devine intervention, like some genius theists. But throughout this debate you guys are always hanging on by a thread. And anytime you think you have a solid arguement, science eventually destroys your anthropomorphic, desperate, god of the gaps, baised, delusional hypothesis. And fine tuning is no exception.
You should count the times your guilty of the things you accuse people of. Your saying Atheists hold biased views towards the origin of the universe. Are you suggesting that you don’t? Your gonna cling onto anything that even remotely suggests your agenda, and that includes toast with jesus's face on it. In fact, how long of a bridge must we build to connect your theory of fine tuning with the holy bible? That's a longer bridge than you have materials for, mak. And you wanna point at the atheists and yell "agenda"?
When we get articles like this EVERYDAY...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627573.900-life-inevitably-how-the-first-ancestor-booted-up.html
...you can't tell me that atheists gravitate towards anything away from religion. Science itself gravitates away from religion.
No mak, there has always been an edge to scientific discovery that gets pushed back every year. And there has always been religious leeches hanging around that edge, and not for scientific discovery, but for some confused confirmation in the validity of their beliefs from science. But after the theist has camped in the shadowy area a while, science comes along to map the area and find no god, like usual.
by the way, in quantum mechanics, something can LITERALLY come from nothing. You no longer need faith for that one mak.
ReplyDelete"Knowing that the cause of the beginning of the universe existed outside of space, time, matter and the laws of physics has nothing to do with faith. That's just a logical step based on what we know re: big bang cosmology."
ReplyDeleteWait, action and reaction is logical, sure. But where does god fit in? Your making a pretty large assumption. You'll say, "well the cause must have been timeless and spaceless, therefore the ONLY thing it can be is God."
Wait a second, who said it has to be spaceless and timeless? just because it didn't occur in our bubble of space/time, doesnt mean it cannot have occured from a black or white hole, it doesn't mean it could not be part of bubble universes, or even from a cause unrelated to space/time in a way that by constrictions of space/time itself, human minds may be incapable of assuming its cause.
and I'm not saying it's any of those, I'm saying we're in no position to throw god into this gap.
Big bang singularity = Jesus is the son of God”
ReplyDeleteAre you not able to stick to the topic or just don’t feel like it?
============
“Big bang singularity = possibility of other
such singularities given that we know one existed.”
Unless you’re saying that there CAN be an infinite regress of cause AND that the material infinite CAN exist (both would be contradictions of what science and philosophy say) you will eventually arrive at the first singularity. Are you able to understand that? Yes? No?
================
“Atheists hold biased views towards the origin of the universe. Are you suggesting that you don’t?”
Not at all. In fact I say that agnostics are the only ones who go as far as the evidence will allow. Both Christians and atheists take that evidence, and combine that with their own bias to form conclusions. That’s why I call atheists irrational agnostics :-)
========
“ ...you can't tell me that atheists gravitate towards anything away from religion.”
Interesting how I say, ‘atheists gravitate away from anything that points to a universe with a beginning,’ and you insert “religion.” The conclusion may be more obvious than you think.
=========
So why don’t you just respond to what I wrote?
The cause of matter that obviously pre existed matter would most logically be immaterial. Or do you propose that one of the boundaries that science is pushing back to is the soon to be discovered fact that matter CAN pre exist itself, or that matter CAN bring itself into being?
=============
“by the way, in quantum mechanics, something can LITERALLY come from nothing.”
Quantum events take place in a vacuum. Surely you’re not going to suggest:
a ) that a vacuum is nothing.
b) that the universe is a quantum event
c) that this little bitty invisible vacuum was surrounded by a little bitty ring of space way back when?
Or perhaps you just don't understand that gap between something and nothing?
==============
“But where does god fit in?”
Where did I say God? That is your preoccupation. Why else would you so desperately cling to atheist origin of the universe mythologies that have no grounding in science and desperately avoid where the evidence is pointing, to a singularity where time, space, matter and the laws of physics all came into being from LITERALLY nothing?
===========
You said, “just because it didn't occur in our bubble of space/time, doesnt mean it cannot have occured from a black or white hole, it doesn't mean it could not be part of bubble universes,”
I said, “you will eventually arrive at the first singularity. Are you able to understand that? Yes? No?”
I guess the answer would be “no.”
[Enter Post Title Here]
ReplyDeleteI bet you’re a fan of William lane Craig…
Okay… first off…
The first thing I wrote, the “Singularity=” thing was to illustrate the leap you make. You can call me on straying from the topic, but I do find it odd that you’re a Christian whom brings up big bang cosmology when someone asks for evidence for your ideology (Christianity). It’s an enormous bridge that you need get from point a to b, when assuming your whole lifestyle upon the validity of point b. It is very relevant, whether or not it pertains to this exact post. You’re a theist, not a deist. To ignore this point is to hide from argument.
Before I get to the main point, let me address this…
“Interesting how I say, ‘atheists gravitate away from anything that points to a universe with a beginning,’ and you insert “religion.” The conclusion may be more obvious than you think.”
This is not some psychology test mak, I’m posting on a Jesus blog. Your not arguing that the universe has a beginning because you prefer pepsi to coke, lets not waste time with crap like that, yes?
Now, to get on to the topic, which seems to be at this point, the cosmological argument. Good, lets address this…
The logic of your argument, as you know, is like this
1. Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe exists and began to exist.
3. The universe must have a cause.
4. The cause of the universe is God.
Well, there’s a big leap between 3 and 4. Again, its very anthropomorphic and it takes advantage of a gap in science. But you’ll reason this…
1. God is timeless
2. God is spaceless
3. God did not have a cause
4. Therefore, God qualifies as the prime mover
Those qualifications are completely made up. They’re based on Christian mythology and have nothing to do with science. If we’re going to scientifically prove that god exists, lets stick to science. Now that we’ve dismissed god’s qualifications we can get into the point…
There is no reason to prefer that god not have a cause, over the universe. To propose that god exists is to create an infinite regress, because then we need to explain god’s cause. And you can’t scientifically claim that god doesn’t need a cause, because that’s folklore, not science.
You understand right? Yes? no? maybe? Caucasian? all of the above?
Secondly, Being that time “began” with the singularity, something cannot have a beginning before time, as a beginning is relative to another point in time, which of course, requires time. I hate to sound like a broken record, but its anthropomorphic thinking on your part. Science becomes counterintuitive at the edges, not common sense. Your assigning your own “common sense” properties to the singularity, without summoning science. We don’t know if the singularity had a cause, or if matter existed in a different form, just that it expanded due to inflation. We don’t know the mechanics at the "BEGINNING" of the singularity.. unless you do, unless you’ve unified the fields and are awaiting your Nobel prize, mak.
“The cause of matter that obviously pre existed matter would most logically be immaterial.”
Why immaterial, why not some made up word that has no meaning? Why not a medium not related to existence at all, and therefore incomprehensible by conscious agents of matter? Where does immaterial even come up? We could say; “related to material, it must be immaterial”, but given that it “exists” “outside” the realm of the singularity, what would that even mean? We’d need to define terms before leaping into conclusions like that.
“Well, there’s a big leap between 3 and 4.”
ReplyDeleteI would NEVER suggest that you could get to point 4 from this 1 - 3.
==============
“4. Therefore, God qualifies as the prime mover”
Neither would I suggest that you could get to this #4 from the previous 1 - 3
============
“And you can’t scientifically claim that god doesn’t need a cause,”
Would you agree that either matter is eternal or the cause of matter is eternal? If you respond to nothing else, please answer this question.
Atheists with whom I've spoken have had no problem with saying that something is infinite, or that it has always existed, or that it’s eternal, as long as that something isn’t Creator God. However, if God exists, then He exists outside of and prior to the universe.
. God is not material. He is Spirit. This is not myth it’s logic. Matter did not exist. They it did exist. It could not have been something material that created matter.
. God does not need a cause. He has always been. He is infinite. He is eternal. The material infinite cannot and does not exist. Therefore that cause of the universe is immaterial and eternal.
Asking, “What caused an infinite or eternal Being to begin?” or, “When did an eternal being begin to exist?” is illogical and incoherent.
Illogical statements are something that atheists usually take great pains to avoid, except when they’re confronted with the reality of Creator God. Then, it seems, all bets are off.
The fact remains, and it remains a fact that is based on what science tells us is true, that everything that begins to exist, including the universe, had its cause from something outside of itself. There are no known exceptions to this observed and consistently verified rule.
Atheists used to hold this principle in high esteem.
It's fine with me if you want to have 100,000,000 universes prior to this one. The fact remains and reason dictates that the cause was immaterial and eternal because:
. Matter cannot be eternal
. Matter cannot pre-exist itself either physically or chronologically,
. Matter cannot bring itself into existence or create itself.
=============
“Why immaterial, why not some made up word that has no meaning? Why not a medium not related to existence at all, and therefore incomprehensible by conscious agents of matter? Where does immaterial even come up? We could say; “related to material, it must be immaterial”, but given that it “exists” “outside” the realm of the singularity, what would that even mean? We’d need to define terms before leaping into conclusions like that.”
This from the man who says, "Let's stick to science."
Like I said, the golden age of atheism is over. Following the evidence, which used to practically be a mantra for scientifically minded atheists has been casually tossed aside and blind faith in pure unadulterated speculation is the new reality.
Sad and pathetic are two words that come to mind.
I forgot, besides wanting to know whether you agree that -
ReplyDeleteEither matter is eternal or the cause of matter is eternal,
I'd also like to know the answer to a question that you avoided answering earlier -
Do you think that a vacuum is nothing?
IT'S ALL MAGIC, YOU GUYS! M A G I C !
ReplyDeleteAtheists with whom I've spoken have had no problem with saying that something is infinite
ReplyDelete[...]
God does not need a cause. He has always been. He is infinite. He is eternal.
Being one of those Atheists you have spoken to, I can tell you right away, even if you more or less ignore me these days, that I do NOT, and will NEVER, say that something is infinite.
Infinity is a mathematical concept that we use to describe some things that cannot be described otherwise.
It is not something real, it is an abstract concept, something that is useful to solve other abstract conceptual problems, like resolving limits in mathematical equations.
You, Mr. Holmgren, on the other had, claim that infinity DOES exist, because the god you believe in has the property of being the cause of everything, by definition.
Either this god is the cause of our universe or the cause of the previous universes that give rise to ours. It does not matter. The important, as you said, is that there must be an ETERNAL, i.e. INFINITE, first cause, timeless, immaterial.
That is the definition of something infinite, and you, Rod, are the part of these people who believe than an infinite X can exist. Atheists, generally speaking, are not part of this group.
The fact remains, and it remains a fact that is based on what science tells us is true, that everything that begins to exist, including the universe, had its cause from something outside of itself. There are no known exceptions to this observed and consistently verified rule.
Give me ONE example of something that was created. Just one.
There is none...
Only in the real of quantum mechanics can you have particles coming out of nothing, which cast doubt on the uniqueness of our own space-time, or universe...
But does it really matter anyway? No, because the point is that all of this "First cause" argument is bogus, because the core principle is bogus. It is simply NOT true that everything we see has a cause. Actually, nothing has a cause, in the sense that all we see is a re-arrangements of already existing mater or energy, nothing else.
Nothing that we observe is ever created or annihilated. That is a fact. (Except with quantum events but I don't think we need to go down this line, do we?). So to postulate a cause for things that we are not even sure have a clear cause is bogus.
You can claim that the source of matter was immaterial, but it could have been energy, as matter can be converted in energy, and vice versa. But the cause of energy could be matter too, for the same reason. So which one is it? Which one came first, matter or energy?
Would God required to be both immaterial and energy-less, or only one of the two? Who knows anyway?
At this point, it's not a matter of what we believe or not, it's simply a matter of being honest and admitting that we will most likely never know what caused energy and/or matter to start the space-time causality chain...
"Would you agree that either matter is eternal or the cause of matter is eternal? If you respond to nothing else, please answer this question."
ReplyDelete...Nope, I would not agree.
"Do you think that a vacuum is nothing?"
Depends...
In a strictly philosophical sense, No, a vacuum contains energy.
In a cosmological sense, it can be, depending on which theory ultimately proves correct. Under models of inflation theory a pure vacuum may exist from which our universe popped into existence. Under the conditions of these models, there is nothing more close to nothing than the vacuum. Basically, actual nothing would not exist, like actual infinity.
"This from the man who says, "Let's stick to science."
The item your commenting on was not me suggesting possible definitions for immaterial, rather questioning where you get yours. I'm commenting on your qualifications for god. Like this gem of a statement...
"God is not material. He is Spirit. This is not myth it’s logic"
Well, god is a spirit... as opposed to banshee... pure science there mak.
And I'd like to comment on how you say infinity cannot exist and then turn around and call god infinite, but it looks like Hugo beat me to it. lol
Let's break down this part of your reply real quick before i let you go for today...
"God does not need a cause. He has always been. He is infinite. He is eternal. The material infinite cannot and does not exist. Therefore that cause of the universe is immaterial and eternal."
Let's start at the top.
"God does not need a cause."
hmm... based on Maxwell's equations or something? Did I miss something, where did you get this from? How would you know? The Koran?
"He has always been."
He, She, It, does god have a male sexual organ? Stuff like this illustrates the flow of your logic.
"He is infinite"
...well I think Hugo took care of that one.
"He is eternal."
same thing as infinite.
"Therefore the cause of the universe is immaterial and eternal."
Wow, wait, what did I miss? one moment we were talking about god, and somehow a connection was made between the universe and god creating it. Another big leap? from "he is eternal" to "THEREFORE"? You put an equal sine where there should be a question mark. And before I let you go, how can the mind of God be an active mind, being that there is no time to grant its activity? No movement of thoughts, no time. You'll have to explain this one to me.
And I'd like to comment on how you say infinity cannot exist"
ReplyDeleteWhere did I say that? You're missing a fairly significant word. Can you guess what it is? Or did you leave it out on purpose?
And I'd like to comment on how you say infinity cannot exist and then turn around and call god infinite, but it looks like Hugo beat me to it. lol
ReplyDeleteSorry ;)
"Where did I say that? You're missing a fairly significant word. Can you guess what it is? Or did you leave it out on purpose?"
ReplyDeleteLOL... why would i leave it out on purpose mak, huh? what do you think I'm afraid of? Am I afraid of calling you on the fact that you seem to actually believe that your qualified to comment on the attributes of the immaterial?
Am I afraid your gonna come up with some "clever" premise like,
"Asking, “What caused an infinite or eternal Being to begin?” or, “When did an eternal being begin to exist?” is illogical and incoherent."
umm... did you not catch yourself typing "eternal being" and bother to wonder whether I was the illogical one, or yourself?
Oh wait, perhaps it was max Planck that proved that there is an intelligent being that transcends space and time and "he's" immaterial and infinite.
We don't know what immaterial means with respect to a "beginning" of a singularity. Your biased mind, imagines an entity without a material body, yet relies on a temporal dimension. It must also rely on some governing physics, if we're to suggest that it designs. If it designs, it has urges. If it punishes, it has feelings. If it intervenes, it's design needs tampering.
This sounds like a human, not whatever you think it is. Humans are influenced by existence itself. there will always influence attached to us, we are in custody of reality. It is this influence that leeks out into our world religions. That is the anthropomorphic way we think... especially you.
Have anymore "therefores" to share with us?