Final Events of Bible Prophecy

[Splitlink]

Your point is ..... ?

Modern cosmology is pretty much unanimous in support of the big bang theory, which is not to say it can't be wrong, or merely an aspect of some more far reaching understanding yet to be developed. However, it seems it is the best we have for the moment.

According to big bang, the universe just "popped into existence". There was no "before". Time and space did not exist before the singularity. No time and no space = no creator. Creation requires time. You cannot logically be a creationist and accept big bang.

I've heard this theory quite often but can't get my mind around it. There has to have been something before the Big Bang. Something caused it, it can't have started by itself. The ingredients for it happening must have been present in the same way that spontaneous combustion must have the conditions to become a fire.

Whatever! As Atilla suggests,it's too big for most of us to consider and the universe is so immense that the beginning of life--any life, not just human-- on earth until the present time, is smaller than a grain of sand in the formation of it.

Split

 

[rglenn]

Your point is ..... ?

Modern cosmology is pretty much unanimous in support of the big bang theory, which is not to say it can't be wrong, or merely an aspect of some more far reaching understanding yet to be developed. However, it seems it is the best we have for the moment.

According to big bang, the universe just "popped into existence". There was no "before". Time and space did not exist before the singularity. No time and no space = no creator. Creation requires time. You cannot logically be a creationist and accept big bang.

Whichever way you look at it it takes faith to believe in the Big Bang and also to believe that there is a creator. Personally I think that you need more faith to believe in the Big Bang as basically you are saying we are all here by accident and everything that we are- everything that we have are by a bit of luck etc.

 

[trendie]

maybe I am being utilitarian in my perspectives for this thread.
I am personally interested in ESP, mysticism, parapsychology, and altered states of consciousness. but since I cant prove them, I dont put them forward as a belief system, merely something fascinating to explore.

religion is similar to that. great fun, enjoyable, but ultimately, cant be reliable enough to use.

my utilitarian approach, which may appear to be clinical, is: what difference does it make if God exists or not?

God exists, and intervenes all the time.
God exists, and intervenes occasionally, and cares about people, despite tsunamis, earthquakes, pandemics, etc.
God exists, but doesnt care about people.
God does not exist.

How would you feel if doctors prescribed medicines and didnt say how effective they were?
If you were diabetic and you take insulin, and you had no guarantee the jab would control your blood-sugar, would you continue taking it?

if you were ill, and the medicaition was prayer, would you accept it?
what if didnt work all the time?
how would you know where the problem was? (was it the wrong prayer? was it administered enough times? was the priest trained to deliver prayer properly?)
without any metrics, you would have to accept 50/50 or worse odds.

science: all new techniques start off with low success rates, eg, organ transplants, etc. lets say 50/50.
but at each failure, the doctors can ascertain where the procedure failed, and establish new techniques, better instruments, etc, and teach other surgeons. the success rates improve.

Belief in God may help, but cannot be relied upon for a specific outcome.
maybe thats where my problem is. I cannot, in all conscience, offer God as a solution (even if I believed in one), when medicine, engineering, technology give quantifiable anwsers. even if the answer is high risk or low probability of success, we have the capacity to make informed decisions.

when I am ill, I need data to make an informed decision about various therapies to choose.
I could pray, but I have absolutely NO IDEA whether it will work or not, or whether I am praying correctly, or if it should be 4 times a day before meals, etc

The more mystical idea that God really addresses abstracts such as love is fine, and doesnt bother me. the metaphysical nature of things is also fun to explore, but dont expect it to pay the mortgage.

what function does God serve?
what service does God provide that we cannot determine for ourselves?
if God exists, and he tripped over a star-cluster and broke his hip, and died, would we notice any difference here on Earth?

[Trader333s post a few pages back was excellent.]

EDIT: have finished reading a weeks worth of ideas, and lots of stuff to think about, and lots of good ideas posted.

 

[Splitlink]

maybe I am being utilitarian in my perspectives for this thread.
I am personally interested in ESP, mysticism, parapsychology, and altered states of consciousness. but since I cant prove them, I dont put them forward as a belief system, merely something fascinating to explore.

religion is similar to that. great fun, enjoyable, but ultimately, cant be reliable enough to use.

my utilitarian approach, which may appear to be clinical, is: what difference does it make if God exists or not?

God exists, and intervenes all the time.
God exists, and intervenes occasionally, and cares about people, despite tsunamis, earthquakes, pandemics, etc.
God exists, but doesnt care about people.
God does not exist.

How would you feel if doctors prescribed medicines and didnt say how effective they were?
If you were diabetic and you take insulin, and you had no guarantee the jab would control your blood-sugar, would you continue taking it?

if you were ill, and the medicaition was prayer, would you accept it?
what if didnt work all the time?
how would you know where the problem was? (was it the wrong prayer? was it administered enough times? was the priest trained to deliver prayer properly?)
without any metrics, you would have to accept 50/50 or worse odds.

science: all new techniques start off with low success rates, eg, organ transplants, etc. lets say 50/50.
but at each failure, the doctors can ascertain where the procedure failed, and establish new techniques, better instruments, etc, and teach other surgeons. the success rates improve.

Belief in God may help, but cannot be relied upon for a specific outcome.
maybe thats where my problem is. I cannot, in all conscience, offer God as a solution (even if I believed in one), when medicine, engineering, technology give quantifiable anwsers. even if the answer is high risk or low probability of success, we have the capacity to make informed decisions.

when I am ill, I need data to make an informed decision about various therapies to choose.
I could pray, but I have absolutely NO IDEA whether it will work or not, or whether I am praying correctly, or if it should be 4 times a day before meals, etc

The more mystical idea that God really addresses abstracts such as love is fine, and doesnt bother me. the metaphysical nature of things is also fun to explore, but dont expect it to pay the mortgage.

what function does God serve?
what service does God provide that we cannot determine for ourselves?
if God exists, and he tripped over a star-cluster and broke his hip, and died, would we notice any difference here on Earth?

[Trader333s post a few pages back was excellent.]

EDIT: have finished reading a weeks worth of ideas, and lots of stuff to think about, and lots of good ideas posted.

It doesn't matter. Only what I believe matters to me because, as you say, there's no proof.

 

[grantx]

Dcraig,

As a rationalist, and on a philosophical level, I have a problem with "popped into existence". This is no better than “God willed it”, regardless of majority support from the scientific community. I go along with Split.

Laptop,

“There must be some form of higher being than us who made us...” This line is also used by some scientists for that which is inexplicable and beyond comprehension. The problem is, who created the higher being?

“if there was a Big Bang, it would have been silent!”. Why is this; where did you get this?

Paul,

My opinion is that there is no intelligence behind evolution or any other natural phenomena.

You assume that because science can’t approach the level of sophistication present in natural phenomena, there has to be a ‘greater scientist’ at work. This is a quantum leap in deduction – the conclusion doesn’t follow the premise.

You mention DNA as a perfect example of intelligence. But if there was an intelligent designer involved, why are there still flaws, for example the presence of genes allowing the transmission of hereditary diseases? We as mortals know them, so why can’t they be rectified by the designer? Re the F1 example, why isn’t the F1 engine of today the same as twenty years ago? Because it is better – the old one has been succeeded by a ‘fitter’ example developed by (more) intelligent design. Moreover, the design and build can be observed unlike the ‘intelligent designer’

I think we all accept that the mind is a description for the functioning brain, and its existence cannot be doubted. Are the soul and spirit separate entities, or are they all one and the same (I’m not clear on this one)?

In your final paragraph you mention living things evolving by accident and without the involvement of intelligence. How do you differentiate between intelligent assisted design and random generated phenomena? Are there two evolutionary systems?

Trendie,

“ESP, mysticism, parapsychology”. The question is whether the explanations stand up to scrutiny and are therefore justified.

Grant.

 

[Trader333]

But if there was an intelligent designer involved, why are there still flaws

If there is an intelligent designer then the question is really what did they wish to achieve by the design ? I have much deeper views on this whole subject area that I will not be going into. What I will say is that it maybe possible that at any given stage in evolution there could have been options predetermined. IE the design is not fixed but can progress along certain paths depending on the previously determined path progressed along.

In my view I think that random generated phenomena is entirely possible but not on the scale it apparently would have to be able to do if there were no intelligence behind it.


Paul

 

[grantx]

Paul,

“options predetermined...design is not fixed” and contingent on the predecessor.

This is not “intelligent design” , it is an ad hoc design method – trial and error, ie evolution.

Grant.

 

[Trader333]

This is not “intelligent design” , it is an ad hoc design method – trial and error, ie evolution.

Not in my view, this is often how designers work. In fact there are techniques in design that specifically use a multivariate approach such as Taguchi methods but set boundaries and after that you can let the design process take certain steps. There are also modelling techniques where the same thing happens, the designers give a set of boundaries and let the model process operate on its own. The important thing here is that boundaries are set by the designers, the alternative is that somehow the evolutionary steps set their own boundaries which would be unique if it is the case and on a multimillion number of cases.

It is the sheer number of total coincidences that statistically don't add up that make the probability of randomness too great in my view.

I think I have added all I can or wish to say on this thread.


Paul

 

[laptop1]

Laptop,

“if there was a Big Bang, it would have been silent!”. Why is this; where did you get this?

Grant.

If true it would have started with a explosion of matter and energy. It would have been completely silent since there wasn't anything to radiate sound into.

 

[grantx]

Paul,

Variables and boundaries imply degrees of uncertainty (albeit within limits). You constantly refer to the practise of man as a benchmark but fail to make the case for anything “superior”. The implied power of “intelligent design” would not need to make allowances for contingencies.

Laptop,

That’s an interesting point. I think we have an agreement. This won’t do. Similarly (presumably), the explosion would need somewhere in which to explode. Have we just upset the scientific community?

Grant.

 

[frugi]

2) Design. Without intelligence behind evolutionary design means that random chance engineered apparent design. Look at today’s top designers of engineering products maybe a Ferrari F1 Engine. If I said that the Ferrari engine happened by accident and without intelligence behind then I would be laughed at like an idiot. Yet look at the complexity in the engineering of the human hand which is literally infinitely more complex and this happened by accident. What about the human eye ? Again even our top most intelligent scientists cannot come close to the engineering capability of something that again happened by accident.

Hi Paul,

But we don't require evolution to create a Ferrari engine, eye or hand in one fell swoop.

The process involves random chance (mutation) together with cumulative selection, occuring in minuscule steps starting from very humble (and thus imho realistic/credible) beginnings over a huge number of generations. Mutation is random, selection is not.

e.g to use the old eye chestnut, once upon a time a single cell mutated and became sensitive to light. A single photocell gave a small advantage over the creatures with no photocell. So the former became more prevalent, then another mutation improves this most primitive of eyes a weeny bit further; that slightly improved creature again multiplies while the ones with less useful mutations die off. "Heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success" to quote Darwin. So the eye is steadily honed ("climbs mount improbable") into the glorious baby blues we have today, bringing with it the illusion of design.

5) The Mind / Soul / Spirit: If there is no intelligence behind our evolutionary development means that only matter exists and the human mind, the human soul and the human spirit only appear to have a separate conscious ability and existence. If this is not the case then how and where have they come from ? Also without some form of guiding intelligence means that unguided materialistic processes managed to evolve higher human consciousness.

I've never thought of my mind as anything other than a deliciously complex machine. The eye is impressive, the brain even more so, but fundamentally I don't see why the two couldn't have emerged similarly through evolution. The dualistic idea of the mind existing in some way separately from the rest of my flesh 'n bones (I guess what people mean by soul or spirit), or being anything other than matter coursing with chemicals and electricity is alien to me, though I can see the romantic appeal of the notion. Muscles contract, rods and cones are sensitive to light patterns, brain cells process information, simple. Or rather, complex.

PS Where did that top of page smiley come from? I didn't put it there! It looks like I'm laughing at your thought-provoking post which obviously I'm not.

 

[Trader333]

The implied power of “intelligent design” would not need to make allowances for contingencies.

Why would it ? This assumes that the intelligent design is perfect and as I have said it all depends on what the intention of the designers is in the first place. Like I said I have much more knowledge on this than I wish to engage in discussing so I will leave it there I think as it is highly unlikely that anyone will change their views.


Paul

 

[grantx]

Paul,

I will change my view when I read a convincing argument. “I have much more knowledge on this than I wish to engage in discussing”. We can all make such claims.

Grant.

 

[laptop1]

I have just deleted my post regarding vibratory energy & atoms.
I don't think the thread is ready for it just yet, it's a bit to heavy.

 

[rglenn]

Further Research

For those that have read through this thread and think to themselves what if there is a God? But I have a few more puzzling questions.

Check out the link below which give some answers to some difficult questions.

Get Answers

All the best

 

[JTrader]

For those that have read through this thread and think to themselves what if there is a God? But I have a few more puzzling questions.

Check out the link below which give some answers to some difficult questions.

Get Answers

All the best

I've chipped into this thread once or twice, but haven't read it all. Its all a bit mundane for me, and I'm surprised its generated so much interest to be honest, when far more compelling topics IMO are met with a wall of silence . No offence intended anyone, I'm just adding my take no prisoners 2p as per usual (so please don't neg. rep me to death! )

Its mundane to me as we do not know that there is a god for sure, and we can do not know that bible prophecy is not just a made-up/made to fit phenomenon. Therefore it all comes back to just theory & philosophy.

 

[dcraig1]

Get answers my ar*se. It should be called "get religion".

On topics ranging from aliens to mamoths to radioactive dating, there is a single purpose - to push some fundamentalist religious views.

But never mind, the diligent student will come away with "answers" to ... almost everything. And to think that such enlightenment can be achieved with next to no effort at all !

For those that have read through this thread and think to themselves what if there is a God? But I have a few more puzzling questions.

Check out the link below which give some answers to some difficult questions.

Get Answers

All the best

 

[laptop1]

It would seem most on this board are agnostic They think it is impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

Are agnostics atheists?. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism....

So for those who don't belive in a God, listen to this short 2min video and see if it makes you happy and care for others, if it does there is hope for you

Make someone happy, Make just one someone happy
only 2.00 mins long
YouTube - Jason and Elizabeth - Make Someone Happy

Isn't this what life is about.

 

[grantx]

Jtrader,

“we do not know” We know whether something is or isn’t by its terms of reference and/or definition. If you claim X because A, B and C but the grounds for making the claim (the validity of A, B and C) cannot be justified or are illogical then your claim will not stand-up. This isn’t the same as saying something isn’t per se, but by your terms it can’t be.

Grant.

 

[rglenn]

Get answers my ar*se. It should be called "get religion".

On topics ranging from aliens to mamoths to radioactive dating, there is a single purpose - to push some fundamentalist religious views.

But never mind, the diligent student will come away with "answers" to ... almost everything. And to think that such enlightenment can be achieved with next to no effort at all !

“Only fools refuse to be taught. WISDOM shouts in the streets for a
hearing. WISDOM calls out to the crowds at the exchanges, and to the
judges in their courts, and to everyone in all the land:
“‘You simpletons!’ she cries. ‘How long will you go on being fools?
How long will you scoff at WISDOM and fight the facts? Come and
listen to me! I’ll pour out my spirit of WISDOM upon you, and make you
wise. I have called you so often but still you won’t come. I have
pleaded, but all in vain, for you have spurned my counsel and
reproof. I told you, some day you’ll be in trouble, and I’ll laugh! Mock
me, will you? – I’ll mock you! When a storm of terror surrounds you,
and when you are engulfed by anguish and distress, then I will not
answer your cry for help. It will be too late though you search for me
ever so anxiously.’
“For you closed your eyes to the facts and did not choose to
reverence and trust in WISDOM, and you turned your back on me and
spurned my advice. That is why you must eat the bitter fruit of having
your own way, and experience the full terrors of the pathway you
have chosen. For you turned away from me – to death; your own
complacency will kill you. Fools! But all who listen to me – WISDOM –
shall live in peace and safety, unafraid.’”

PEACE