CE- with a grain of salt

[shin]

So says Mantis. So it shall be.

[Thorngrub]

Have any of you heard about this "flat line" of stars at the Milky Way's center?

It popped up on my Verizon Wireless pager yesterday . . . and it left me head scratchin'.

[JACkory]

thorny said:

And In The News:

The Stars Are Held Up By Molecular Wire, Evangelicals Assert

In an unprecedented burst of discovery, Evangelical scientists have confirmed that the stars are held up in the sky by molecular wire that God himself hand-twists about each star's "orb nub", a phenomenon parallel to that area on Christmas Tree ornaments which allows them to be hung from various branches. As of yet, the scientists have not been able to discern the exact nature of the "branches" from which the stars have been hung, but they are relatively convinced that they are, indeed, hanging from nodal areas of quantum space much like our beloved Christmas Tree ornaments.



And so it goes...

More Onion nonsense I suppose?
You really should include sources for and links to this crap.

[Artknocker]

I think Thorn made that one up himself.

[Thorngrub]

jackory said:

thorny said:

And In The News:

The Stars Are Held Up By Molecular Wire, Evangelicals Assert

In an unprecedented burst of discovery, Evangelical scientists have confirmed that the stars are held up in the sky by molecular wire that God himself hand-twists about each star's "orb nub", a phenomenon parallel to that area on Christmas Tree ornaments which allows them to be hung from various branches. As of yet, the scientists have not been able to discern the exact nature of the "branches" from which the stars have been hung, but they are relatively convinced that they are, indeed, hanging from nodal areas of quantum space much like our beloved Christmas Tree ornaments.



And so it goes...

More Onion nonsense I suppose?
You really should include sources for and links to this crap.

lol JAC . . . If I didn't include a link or source, you may rest assured I wrote it .

[Thorngrub]

haha, yeah, what Art said. All very tongue-in-cheek, of course, so no offense taken w/yer lashback JAC, it's all goood...

[Thorngrub]

...& of course, I'm just waitin on the fundys (I really don't know what else to call em - if you can suggest a more PC term JAC, I'll consider it - U should know already that I don't lump all Christians into the term "fundys", & by extension that certainly includes you, of course if you had a hand in shaping the recent "Intelligent Design" theories or the even more recent one disputing the Newtonian theory of gravity, then I s'pose I'd have to take that back) - just waitin on the fundys to come up with an "explanation" for the "bar of stars" that has just been discovered crossing through the center of our galaxy . . . Here, lemme put up that pic again to illustrate:



Just waitin on the newest "Intelligent Design" variant theorem which will surely postulate the "bar of stars" is in fact the Handle by which the supreme being Winds Up the Universe every millenia or so.

[Galactus]

Thorny you're missing the point of Intelligent Design. The point is that anything that is unexplainable (as well everything else) will be explained by simply saying "God did that". It's the exact opposite of science. Science searches for how and why, but does not in it self seek to prove or disprove religion.

[Thorngrub]

ded said:

Thorny you're missing the point of Intelligent Design. The point is that anything that is unexplainable (as well everything else) will be explained by simply saying "God did that". It's the exact opposite of science. Science searches for how and why, but does not in it self seek to prove or disprove religion.

That is a good point, and it will serve as good as any for me to segue into my own frustration with "Intelligent Design": it's the name they've horked for themselves that bothers me, because its a beautiful term to describe some very valid theorizing about the true nature of our universe.

There in all reality could very well BE an "intelligent design" of a sort -- after a fashion -- to our entire galaxy (and/or Universe) -- and now these fundys have jacked the name, giving it a bad reputation amidst circles which might otherwise lend an ear to VALID variations of "intelligent design" which I personally relate to on a very deep level.

I don't know if that made any sense. . . all I can say is I'm shakin my fists @the fundys who coined that term, cuz I'd a liked to have coined it myself for a certain line of theorizing which in fact heads in a direction whence SCIENCE and FAITH actually dovetail in a seamless, interchangeable union.

That is all SCIENCE and FAITH (or "religion", if you prefer) are: 2 distinct methods by which humans may choose to view the exact same thing. 2 seperate windows offering different views from the same House, if you like.

It's like, if you'll pardon this crude analogy, SCIENCE is looking at the nature of reality from the REARVIEW perspective, and RELIGION is looking at the exact same nature of reality from the FRONTVIEW perspective.

They're both attempting to describe the exact same phenomenon. As I mentioned on the other boards recently, all one can do is choose to either ZIG towards Science in order to try and understand it all, or ZAG towards Religion in order to do it, via Faith.

I personally ZIG & ZAG all over the place, happily taking in all the relative & important details each forum has to offer.

I.E, I believe in BOTH Science AND God.
It is just that I believe the true natures of each are not entirely understood by any of us.

When our mutual knowledge of each has grown to the point where we know enough to surmise the general outline they provide, we will then see for ourselves just how GOD and SCIENCE will meet in a common, indisputable ground. That's my take on it

[JACkory]

thorny said:

haha, yeah, what Art said. All very tongue-in-cheek, of course, so no offense taken w/yer lashback JAC, it's all goood...

Hardly a "lashback"...
I just called it "crap".
But definately the work of an imaginitive mind, albeit one with an inexplicable grudge against evangelicals.
You really should consider writing for publication.

[JACkory]

Thorny, I thought you might find this interesting, and would like to know how you would respond to it:

Throughout history, mankind has questioned and reasoned about the existence of God. There have been many methods that have been used, basically boiled down into four major arguments :
1) Teleological – derived from “telos” meaning purpose and referring to the purpose and design in the universe; such a great design implies a great designer. (Psalm 94:9, Proverbs 20:12)
2) Cosmological – derived from “cosmos” meaning universe and referring to the complicated order of it; such order cannot be a cause in itself, but rather an effect from a greater cause; said greater cause is speculated to be God. (Hebrews 3:4)
3) Moral – the existence of objective moral values indicates absolute moral code, to be possessed and embodied by God. (Romans 2:15)
4) Ontological – derived from “ontos” meaning being or existence and referring to the idea that the concept of God must have a counterpart in existence. (Psalm 14:1)

Each argument is advanced as well as complex, containing many facets, rebuttals, and counterarguments. Here we shall focus on the Ontological argument of God, and will describe, defend, and degree this argument.
Ontological arguments, as mentioned above, are arguments that conclude that God exists by a logical process apart from observation of the world; they utilize man’s gift of knowledge and sheer logical manipulation to prove God’s existence. These arguments, by nature, are difficult to establish as they are purely logical and one cannot point to external or physical examples as proofs without overstepping the bounds of pure ontological thinking; others may, although given same logical evidence, come to different conclusions. Simplified, this argument is one of man’s most desperate questions: “Does God exist?” All possible answers are also simplified into either a “yes” or a “no.” Needless to say, if God existed, He would not need to be proven by man to man; He would reveal Himself if personal.
We must first state that absolute truth, if existent, can be proven and known (Psalm 51:6, 119:142, Proverbs 22:21), and that it can be known through reasoning (I Samuel 12:7); this is known as cogito; it draws our attention from drawing truth from our senses and our experience as being truth , and makes us realize there is truth more stable, more accurate, and more absolute than ourselves. There is a right answer and a wrong answer to the question of God’s existence, and it can be known ontologically.
Although not ontological, scripture from the Bible will be given to support the different points presented in this paper (John 17:17b). This is done because if God is a personal being, then He must reveal Himself to His creation; it is a commonly held position that the Bible is the Word of God; as such a powerful revelation, it will be used to support points expressed. This will show the Bible’s perspective and be proof of the ontological argument as a Biblical doctrine. Kenneth Boa has said, “Since the Bible is an infinite revelation, it often brings the reader beyond the limit of his intelligence.”
Simply put the ontological argument for God’s existence asserts that because mankind has a concept, a certain notion of the existence of a higher being, then said higher being must exist (Romans 1:19-22). John Calvin said, “We lay it down as a position not to be controverted (shown false) that the human mind, even by natural instinct, possesses some sense of a Deity.” Charles Ryrie discloses, “Not every idea that people have corresponds to an ontological truth. But ideas do have causes and need to be accounted for…the idea of God exists. How is it to be accounted for?” God exists in the mind of mankind, and must therefore exist now or have existed at one point in time.
Before one can begin to prove or disprove the ontological argument, one must have a definition of God. Anselm, a medieval monk and theologian, defined God as, “that which greater cannot be thought,” and could be also understood as a being of which nothing greater can be perceived.
What is it that keeps one from making any definition of God that one wishes in order to justify any attribute, including existence? Ultimately, the Bible keeps one from doing this, as being the revelation from a personal God to His creation; man, being finite, cannot understand the infinite without the infinites personal contact and/or revelation to him. For purposes of this paper, however, there must be ontological limitations to our definition. It must be understood that one cannot define something other than what it is and still be correct; one cannot call a ball “square” when a ball is round and the name “ball” describes such roundness. Likewise, one cannot define God as anything that they choose when the name “God” conveys certain characteristics.
What are these characteristics, and how does one discern them? The primary assumption for this argument is that the only adequate cause of man’s ideas of the absolute is the original creation of man by an absolute being; in other words, we have a concept of God because we are made in His image (Genesis 1:26). Ontologically, we can only know characteristics about God by looking at ourselves; being created in His image, we possess some of His characteristics, but finitely as opposed to His infinitely. Augustis Strong expresses, “We conclude that, although God is a being not composed of parts, we may yet have a partial knowledge of him, and this knowledge, though not exhaustive, may yet be real, and adequate to the purposes of science.” As human beings, we possess certain distinctives that mirrors God’s, albeit much less forceful:
Mankind (Finite) -------------------------------------} God (Infinite)
Power -------------------------------------} Omnipotence
Presence -------------------------------------} Omnipresence
Knowledge -------------------------------------} Omniscience
Existence -------------------------------------} Infinity

This chart comes from the realization that the finite must bear witness in some way to the infinite, if the infinite did create it; the witness that it bears is manifest as characteristics that are magnified to the point of perfection in the infinite. These characteristics are general traits for mankind as a whole and not specific attributes of individuals; i.e. “I am evil, so God must be evil, as well.” Carnell testifies, “Man knows that he is finite, dependant, and wretched; but these adjectives would be absolutely meaningless without a prior knowledge of their correlatives, infinity, independence, and felicity.”
Therefore, our definition of God is:
A being that simultaneously exists omnipotently, omnisciently, omnipresently, and infinitely, of which nothing can be greater.
1. Omnipotence to be vastly more powerful over man or anything of man (Psalm 147:5, Genesis 18:14, Revelation 1:18)
2. Omniscience to be vastly more intelligent, knowing, and wise than man or anything of man (Psalm 147:5, Isaiah 55:8)
3. Omnipresence to be everywhere and therefore beyond the ability of man (Psalm 139:7-11, Jeremiah 23:23-24, Acts 17:27-28)
4. Infinity in that always existing, always have existed, and always will exist; not created or an effect, but a cause in Himself thereby being above all men (Exodus 3:14, Psalm 90:2)
All four attributes work together to make a being that is greater than all. If one could be or is greater than He, then He is not greater than all, and could not exist by definition.

The omnipotence of God is to say that if He exists, He must be more powerful than all mankind corporately and individually, as well as anything created by man. As man is continually advancing mentally and technologically, God must be more powerful than anything man could ever be – omnipotent.
Expounding on the omnipotence of God is His omniscience, for if He is to exist as God, he must be all-knowing and infinitely more wise and knowledgeable than all of humanity past, present, and future; He must be more intellectual than the sum of all humanity put together. He must be omniscient in order to be God.
God must also be omnipresent in that He must be physically and conceptually present everywhere at all times, existent outside of the normal confines of space/time, yet still present within space/time continuum. This is a necessity for Godhood as He must be able to view eternity past and future in conjunction with geography past and future in order to be present with all and at all; it is an inevitability for this attribute to be possessed by God if He is a personal God.
Lastly, God is an infinite or omniexistant God; He never began to exist nor will He ever cease to exist – He always is. He is a cause in Himself; He effects things and events, but is never Himself and effect. This attribute is critical because in order for God to be God, He must always be. If He did not exist sometime in the past, then something else might have, thereby being better and therefore being God; if He did not exist sometime in the future, then something else might and therefore be better and be God.
With a definition of God stated and the argument expressed, there are, no doubt, some objections raised. Some of the classic arguments are these:
1. Does everything that exists in the mind then exist in reality?
2. Can I not simply not believe in God, and make Him nonexistent? Afterall, I believe in myself, and exists, why can I not do the opposite?
3. How can one have a concept of God without any experience of Him?
4. Must not God be proved to exist before we can give the definition of Him as “most perfect being” to prove His existence?

These questions are answered in the following ways:
1. What would be stopping one from justifying the existence of anything that they think of (i.e. a unicorn), because of their conception of it in their mind? Again, the definition of said object is not “something greater than which nothing can be conceived,” so said object does not have to exist conceptually and materially, as God would by definition.
2. Geisler answers this one best:
We do understand what the word “God” means as is evidenced by the following facts: 1) it is such a common, familiar word; 2) our faith and conscience provide content for it; 3) conceptions do not have to be in terms of sensible images – abstract concepts are possible; 4) God can be understood indirectly, the way the sun is understood from its rays; 5) we can form the concept of the most perfect by working up from what is less than perfect to the perfect and from there to what is most perfectly possible; and 6) those who deny that they can conceive of God must have some conception of what they are denying.

3. How can one not believe in that which exists and still be truthful? Furthermore, if you carry that thought until its finale, you are saying that you can make yourself nonexistent, simply because you think you don’t exist? How could you do the same with God? R.C. Sprohl states:
When we discuss God, we are not talking about individual religious experience; we are talking about a being that either exists or does not. If He does not, then my actions and philosophies won’t create Him; if He does, then all of your doubt and disbelief won’t kill Him.

4. We can discuss ideal characteristics without knowing of realistic counterparts.

Finally, we must see our need and importance (degree) of the ontological argument. There is a need for it apart from the other three arguments (teleological, moral, cosmological) because it is the only argument that exists in the realm of reason alone. However, because it exists solely in the realm of logic, it must rely on the other three arguments to carry the ideas that it begins and carry them to fruition. Geisler and Brooks explain:
(This argument) is like saying: if there are triangles, then they must have three sides. Of course, there may not be any triangles. You see, the argument never really gets past that initial ‘if.’ It never gets around to proving the big question that it claims to answer. The only way to…prove God exists is…(to use the) argument from Creation (cosmologically). It can be useful, though, because it shows that, if there is a God, He exists in a necessary way.

What is that necessary way? Why a need for a God? Why does man continually either seek out or try to disprove Him? Why is it a desperate question of man to know if God does exist?
The reason why is because we need Him. Deep down, man recognizes his inadequacies and fallibility, and therefore knows that he must have something, someone better than he on and in which to rely on.
We find that which we can rely on without fear to be God. Not just any “god,” but the God of the Bible – Yahweh. We also find that man MUST rely on God, for it is that man’s condition which is worse than he thought: terminal. Man has a sin problem (Romans 3:10, 3:23), and that sin must be paid for (Romans 6:23, Revelation 20:12-15); it always has and it always will. Fortunately, that sin debt has been paid in full by Christ, God’s only Son (John 3:16, Romans 5:8); we must accept that payment or else spend eternity paying for it ourselves in Hell.
And so, we may conclude by saying that God may be known as that which nothing greater can be conceived, and such conception demands a material manifestation as well as a mental one, as one without the other would be a critical lack and therefore violate the characterization of God.

[Artknocker]

I thought this was supposed to be the Grain of Salt board???

[Thorngrub]

I consider writing for publication every single day of my life, JAC.
In the meantime, life tends to overwhelm me & my capacity to
solicit my material. For some unfathomable reason, my priorities
never seem to place solicitation of my manuscripts too high up.
Hanging with friends, biking, reading, writing, going to movies,
going to work, and hanging with friends again always seem to
supercede any ambitions of becoming published.

I am trying to change all that . . . with little success. Friends
still come first. It seems that merely existing takes up most
of my available time; hopefully, some day, I will actually get it
together enough to be published. It is my greatest dream.

[Thorngrub]

wow, JAC . . .I'll be sure to respond to that lengthy post.. . . it might just take some time. Be patient .. .

[phil]

45% of Americans believe that God
created the world along with all creatures
big and small in just 6 days ...

In 2000, 10 states had no mention
of evolution in their curriculum standards.
Now only Florida, Kentucky, Mississipi
and Oklahoma-states with long creationist traditions-
make this omission ...