Life / Religion / Philosophy / Science / Polictics

Category: Science

Discussion about SCIENCE and ENGINEERING – All SCIENCE and all ENGINEERING. If there is a SCIENCE or ENGINEERING discipline that interests me, you will find it here.

  • God is in control …

    There are mysteries that are paradoxes in life.  And that is by design, we are not meant to understand all things.  This is a difficult thing to accept for most people.  We want to believe we can know it all, discover all things, understand the mysteries of the universe.  But the fact is, we will never have infinite knowledge nor infinite wisdom.  We will always be searching to understand, and to make sense of the great paradoxes we experience in life.  The greatest paradox for me in this life is the reality that mankind possesses free will and God is completely in control at exactly the same time.  One of the hardest concepts for people to wrap their thoughts around is that of their own destiny and the meaning of life.

    For the true Atheist, the ones that are completely honest with themselves and others, there can be no meaning to life.  The fact that one could alter one’s own destiny or that one’s life could hold any meaning when the entire Universe is the random product of physical, chemical, and biological laws is completely ludicrous.  Furthermore the idea of karma within the Atheistic model is completely nonsensical.  There is absolutely no foundation for morals, justice, rewards, or punishment.  How can there be?  Everything that is, or is not, is simply a product of the physical and meta-physical laws of the Universe, be they known or unknown.  Everything we encounter is a product of natural occurrences and the ideas of fate, freewill, or a spiritual life are completely foreign.  So the true Atheist really has no ground upon which to argue destiny or the meaning of life.  And by extension, in the Atheistic model there is no concept of fair, there is no right, no wrong, and justice is pure foolishness.  You live, you die, and you have no control over the process while you are a part of it.  Everything is pre-determined so far in the past it can hardly be comprehended and everything will carry so far into the future there is absolutely no hope whatsoever anyone or anything will ever be remembered.

    For the Agnostic, those that are completely neutral on an Atheistic or Theistic foundation, it really doesn’t matter if there is a destiny or any meaning to life.  And why would it?  The Agnostic doesn’t care one way or the other.  They are simply along for the ride and whatever will be, will be.  There may, or may not, be a destiny and meaning to life but the Agnostic will not care one way or the other.  To do so would actually move them out of the Agnostic camp and into either the Atheistic or Theistic viewpoint.

    And that leaves us with the Theists.  For the Theistic viewpoint, the matter of destiny and the meaning of life is extremely important.  Because it is the bigger picture that counts.  Not just what we see in the here and now, but what is to come and what exists within the Spiritual world.  And it is the Theistic viewpoint that has the hardest struggle with destiny and the meaning of life.  But it shouldn’t.

    The Theist really should start with their definition of God.  Consider the base definition for God: as the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions.  If we were to parse this definition we would quickly realize that God, by definition is the sole – the only one, unique, unsurpassed, matchless, Supreme – highest in rank, authority, paramount, sovereign, chief, foremost, Creator – the one who creates.  And if God is indeed the one and only matchless sovereign Creator, then the Theist is forced to ask the question (as did the Psalmist) who can be compared to God?  Psalm 89:6 “For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?” KJV.  And the only possible answer the Theist is left with is a resounding: “No one can!”  For he is God.  He is the Almighty.  He is the one Supreme Creator who is Infinite in ALL of his Attributes.  The Theist is left with the realization that their God is the one encompassing Deity in all of existence.

    And for the Theist, that means that God is in control.  And how could he not be?  He is God after all.  Let’s try and illustrate the point this way, answer the question “Is there any scenario or outcome in all of creation or the Heavens where God could either lose the battle between good and evil or be surprised by the results?”  Let me ask this question, “Is there anything that God does not know about, is not happy with, or cannot change?”  If there is, then he surly is not God.  Everything that occurs is because it is part of God’s great plan and it is just the way he wants it to be.  If it were not, wouldn’t he change it?  Of course he would.

    But this creates a dilemma.  If God is completely in control, then what about our, mankind’s Free Will?  Do we not have the freedom to choose our own path?  Of course we do.  God himself says we have a choice.  Revelation 3:20 says “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” KJV.   Does this not sound like a choice?  Of course it does.  We do have choices in life.

    But can we ever surprise God with our choices?  No, I don’t think so.  Can we ever make a choice that would alter God’s plan or be a choice that he does not want us to make?  Once again, I would have to say no.

    And yet that makes no sense whatsoever.  It is completely and utterly contradictory and cannot be explained.  So what is the explanation?  For today, there is none.  But wouldn’t you rather be a part of the model where God allows you a choice even though he is in control, instead of the model where there is no hope of a choice because we are all simply random matter bumping into each other and are following a set of described laws?

    I know I would.  And that is why I absolutely assure you these two things are true:  (1) You have free will and you choose your own destiny in the halls of eternity, and (2) God is completely, absolutely, 100% in control and it is his plan that has been executed, is being executed, and will continue to be executed forever and ever.

    Despite your free will and all of the things we see within the world today, GOD IS IN CONTROL …

  • A Woman’s Right To Choose

    A couple of weeks ago, in the U.S.A., on January 22, 2015, the passing of the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade anniversary was marked.  This National case, decided on January 22, 1973, found that a woman possessed the right to choose an abortion as a legal means of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

    A human pregnancy, despite requiring the participation of a male member of the species to accomplish, is a uniquely feminine condition.  To date, it has only been accomplished by those who are naturally born women.  Despite those male members of the species who believe they were somehow cheated and should have been born a female (a fantastic argument for a God by-the-way – WHO cheated them?  Surely not the evolutionary process.  It has no choice but to follow the laws of physics and the natural sciences.  Ergo, if they were cheated, they must have been cheated by God.  And for that to happen, there must first be a God.) but as usual, I digress.  The point is, we have yet to be able to create a reproductive woman through our own means even with all our science and understanding.  Only women, who have been born as women, have had the trait of being able to become pregnant and bear offspring.

    There have been many arguments over the so called “rights” of a person and perhaps those could be debated another time (indeed, I have considered human rights before, just search this blog).  Today I’d rather focus on whether or not a woman should exercise her right to choose when choosing in the affirmative (to terminate a pregnancy with an abortion).  I will pause here to mention once again though, that it continues to amaze me that we, as the human race, continually debate the right of a person, usually without acknowledging where those rights come from.  Specifically WHO granted a woman the RIGHT to an abortion?  It certainly wasn’t me.  I don’t agree with it.  In the case of the U.S.A. it was decided in the highest court of the land.  And that cannot be absolute, because there are people who do not agree with it.  Therefore, without a God, there can be no justice (a point Dr. Ravi Zacharias has made much more eloquently than I).  However, today I simply wish to debate the point as to whether or not a woman should exercise this so called right she has.

    If the woman is an Atheist, whether she has an evolutionary theory world view or not (which would be most odd if she did not), she should consider the ramifications of limiting the population pool.  Evolutionary theory, if you are to follow its primary tenant of natural selection, actually needs a wide descendant base.  I quote:

    “Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from the observation that more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, along with three facts about populations: 1) traits vary among individuals with respect to morphology, physiology, and behaviour (phenotypic variation), 2) different traits confer different rates of survival and reproduction (differential fitness), and 3) traits can be passed from generation to generation (heritability of fitness).[8] Thus, in successive generations members of a population are replaced by progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the biophysical environment in which natural selection takes place.”

    Ergo, by actually aborting potential offspring, one is actually defeating the evolutionary process.  Even worse than that, evolution needs diversity within its hereditary base.  That is to say the gene pool actually needs diversity within it in order to carry forward.  A shocking 85% of abortions within the U.S.A. are performed because some type of genetic defect has been detected in the unborn child during the pregnancy.  By removing these genetic defects from the gene pool through abortion, we are actually harming the evolutionary process,  And anyone who actually believes we know enough to steer the evolutionary process on our own should talk to an animal breeder.  Before you try and help the human evolutionary process along, consider a purebred animal first.  Again, I quote:

    “However, breeding from too small a gene pool, especially direct inbreeding, can lead to the passing on of undesirable characteristics or even a collapse of a breed population due to inbreeding depression. Therefore there is a question, and often heated controversy, as to when or if a breed may need to allow “outside” stock in for the purpose of improving the overall health and vigor of the breed.”

    I don’t care how you slice it, under an evolutionary model, abortion is bad, limiting the gene pool, and removing viable stock from the propagation of the species.  So despite the so called right of the Atheistic woman to seek out the termination of a pregnancy through an abortion, she should consider the fact that the human race is slowly headed towards extinction.

    And don’t argue with me that a certain number of controlled abortions are OK and will not affect the overall population.  Before you try and bring any such argument to the table, I’d like to know several things (not the least of which is the stats on the number you believe could be sustained given the current birth rate) such as who in the world is the controlling authority?  World wide?  Because there is none, and you cannot possibly show that we are either safe or unsafe given the current stats of countries around the world.

    For the Theistic woman, her world view should embrace a God who is the origin of all life.  Given this world view, the Theistic woman could not possibly encompasses any right to terminate a life through an abortion.  Only the God who is the author of that life would hold that right.

    And for the Agnostic, it really doesn’t matter because either side you come down on, it ends up being harmful.  It is either harmful to the evolutionary advancement of the species, or it is harmful in your overreach of rights held only by the God who granted life in the first place.

    A woman’s right to choose?  You may believe such a right exists, but not all choices are healthy choices.  Every one of us has the right to eat nothing but chocolate for every meal for the rest of our lives.  But if you were to exercise that right, how long do you think you would live?

  • My Tastes In Food

     

    Have you ever known a picky eater?  And by picky I do mean finicky.  I have.  Some peoples culinary standards simply cannot be met.  Other people are fastidious in their selections of food as well as its preparation.  Many people in America will cite health reasons as the primary driver behind their particular eating habits.  Some people go absolutely nuts counting calories, checking sugar content, evaluating ingredients on packages, and carefully questioning food preparation (was this dish grilled or fried?).  Some folks stick with what they know and are comfortable with, they are not willing to branch out into new areas and try new things.  Some people only eat according to religious guidelines and govern their eating through close religious standards.

    The commercial world plays off of these eating peculiarities in advertising and marketing.  The Food Network has programming in 150 countries around the world and 24 hour programming in America, Great Britain, India, Asia, and Africa.  Japan has its Iron Chef, Julia Child’s was billed as The French Chef (even though she was American), while All Recipes will bring you cooking techniques from around the world.  And check out this organic food craze from World Cuisine.

    Food.  It is a stable of our lives.  We need food to survive and yet at the same time we immensely enjoy good food.  For the Judeo Christian world food is an interesting thing.  Most Christians around the world do not stop and think about the very first commandment given by God to mankind.  Many hundreds of years (perhaps as long as two or three thousand years) before the Ten Commandments were given to Moses and the nation of Israel, a commandment was given to Adam and Eve (Note: the Wikipedia article erroneously and foolishly refers to Adam and Eve in conjunction with creation myths.  The same weak thinkers that unequivocally establish the story of Adam and Eve as mythical, will just as quickly point out that most mythical stories have some basis in fact.  Except for, apparently, Adam and Eve.  Although they may never quite establish either the basis or the fact in the other stories.  In reality, they believe what they want to believe without any basis in fact simply because it meets their world view.  The difference between them and the religious people of the world is they are not brave enough to admit it.  But I’m chasing rabbits here.)  in the Garden of Eden.  And that commandment was “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:” Genesis 2:16-17.  This is greatly interesting to me.  The very first commandment ever given is embodied in the words “thou shalt not eat“.  And the one thing God said could not be eaten was the fruit of a tree.

    This must have been greatly perplexing to Adam and Eve.  After all, God had told them that he had placed every herb bearing seed and every tree that had fruit that yielded seed, on the Earth for them to eat.  Genesis 1:27-30.  And all of a sudden God is telling them ‘ What I really meant was you can eat of just about any tree in the Garden.  Just don’t eat of this one.  Because this one is kind of poison and if you eat of it, you will die’ (my paraphrase).  Talk about a setup.  The Garden of Eden must have been the equivalent of putting a child in a candy shop and telling them they may eat any of the candy in the entire shop, except for the chocolate bars on this one rack in the center of the store.  Unfortunately Eve’s taste in food was pretty open and she saw the fruit and thought it must be good.  Genesis 3:6.

    And thus the very first commandment ever broken was eating food!  Have you ever considered why food is so important?  And why in the world would God structure the very first test mankind was ever to face around eating, and refraining from eating, food?  And here we are, six thousand years later, still wrapped around our culinary peculiarities.

    I believe the answer is because God specifically designed us to be creatures of replenishment.  God designed us to be renewed in so many ways.  Both Spiritually, Emotionally, and Physically.  And eating is one of the primary ways we are renewed physically.  We are dependent upon food for survival.  And yet Jesus tells us to take no thought of what we are to eat.  Matthew 6:25.  Why?  Because our Father in Heaven knows we need these things and wants to be the supplier of them in our lives.  Matthew 6:32.

    God knows, and God wants to supply the very needs of our lives.  And he wants us to keep coming back to him over and over and over again to have those needs fulfilled.

    Choosey eaters turn me off to some extent.  Because if people display habits or traits in one area of their lives, you can pretty well bet that they exhibit those habits and traits in other areas of their lives.  If we are hard to please in our Physical lives, we are probably hard to please in our Spiritual lives as well.

    God wants us to be renewed in all facets of our beings.  And that means being renewed Spiritually.  Constantly, and consistently, and through wondrous experiences he has designed specifically for us.  And just like eating, when we come to God’s table for Spiritual replenishment, we can get ourselves into trouble.

    We can miss out by being picky and not experiencing all God has for us.  We can over indulge by being chocoholics and not eating our vegetables.  And we can end up unhealthy by not eating a well balanced meal.

    So are you a picky eater?  Because I believe God wants us to be hungry and then filled, hungry and then filled, over and over again.  Each time enjoying a great meal that he has prepared just for us.  And if we are picky eaters, we might miss out on God’s specific treats for our lives.

    As for myself, I’ll eat just about anything.

  • Are You the Salt of the Earth?

    Salt (NaCl), specifically sodium chloride, or common table salt, is a most useful compound.  It is quite common (and necessary) in all cultures and in everyone’s daily lives.  It can be used for many different purposes.  One of the most common purposes that the vast majority of people would be familiar with is as a seasoning for food.  Indeed, salt is the first example listed in most English dictionary definitions of seasoning.  Salt also has preservative capabilities and will keep things fresh for long periods of time.  This is because of salts dehydrating property.  When salt comes into contact with bacteria it will absorb water through the cell walls of the bacteria depriving it of the water it needs to survive (as explained in this Chemistry.com article).  Salt may also be used for certain healing purposes and has been used as a healing agent for sick and injured people for centuries, according to this EHow.com article, and has great medical benefits according to this LiveStrong.com article.  By-the-way, for this particular discussion I am not authenticating the accuracy of these sites.  I am proceeding on the assumption that we may all agree that salt has been recognized and used as a healing agent for many centuries and continues to be used as such today.  These links are provided as examples only.  If you want to debate the specifics of salt as a healing agent, that will have to be a separate discussion.

    Salt also has a Theological connotation, specifically a Biblical one (as you might have surmised from the title of today’s post).  Most Christians, and quite a few other folks are familiar with at least this specific verse from the Sermon on the Mount (containing the Beatitudes).  Specifically, Jesus, teaching his disciples, said that they were the salt of the Earth.  But what was Jesus saying, exactly, when he said his disciples were the salt of the Earth?

    I know many Christians that believe he meant that his disciples are to be the preserving agent of the Earth (in this case Society).  Indeed, I have heard this preached from the pulpits in churches before.  I know some Christians that believe he meant his disciples are to be the healing agent of the Earth (Society).  Very seldom do you hear Christians talk as if they believe he meant that his disciples are to be the seasoning of the Earth (Society).

    The problem is in exactly how you interpret this passage because that is what will govern your actions and shape your interactions with others.  As another aside here, not only Christians may benefit from these principles, even though Jesus specifically said HIS disciples are the salt of the Earth, everyone can learn and apply a lesson to their lives here.

    So how do we interpret Jesus’ words here?  Thayer’s Greek Lexicon tells us that the word salt used here specifically refers to those saline (salty) compounds that act as fertilizers for fields used for growing crops.  Hence SALT of the EARTH.  This seems to be in direct contrast to salt as seasoning since in this context table salt would not be what you would use (table salt would render the field sterile).  However, the second phrase is different and refers to salt directly as a seasoning.  Thayer’s Greek Lexicon also tells us that the emphasis placed within the Greek is such that the second phrase is the important phrase.  This is also supported by the ending phrase.  Specifically, we should interpret the verse as Jesus telling his disciples they are to be the seasoning of the Earth.

    OK.  So what?  What does that have to do with me and my life today?  Well to answer that question, lets look at the different methods and properties of salt in its various uses.

    In the case of salt acting as a preservative it is because of its dehydrating properties, specifically with bacteria that may be on the food.  When YOU (as the salt of the Earth) interact with others as a preservative, you are attacking the bacteria of Society sucking all the water out through the cell walls.  You are killing the bacteria and preserving the food.  The problem with this approach is that it is not our job to preserve the food.  That is the job of the Holy Spirit.  The idea here is that the food being preserved is the Holiness of God himself.  And we, the salt of the Earth, rush right in to kill all the bacteria in order to preserve the status quo.  This is a harsh property of salt and is destructive to the bacteria itself.  God did not put us here to kill all the bacteria on Earth, indeed that is an impossible task, rather God is perfectly capable of defending his own honor.  We are not here as a caustic effect, but rather an enhancing effect.

    Similarly, salt acting as a healing agent has harsh properties attacking bacteria within wounds and cleansing soiled areas.  How many of us have gone swimming in the ocean with an open cut or wound and felt the sting of the salt water against the cut?  We are not here to heal all the wounds of the Earth, nor to sting those with open cuts.  That is not our purpose as salt.

    Rather we are to be the salt that is seasoning.  We are the salt that makes Life taste good.  We should be the salt that everyone is reaching for at the kitchen table.  The salt that is going to add flavor to the food.  The salt that is the spice of Life.  And an interesting note here, too much salt and the food no longer tastes good.  If the salt shaker loses its cap and the salt dumps all over the meat, most of us will cry in anguish.  The food will be too salty.  Flavoring is all about just the right amount.

    So how about you?  Are you the Salt of the Earth?  Are you the caustic preservative out to kill all the bacteria in the world?  Are you the healing agent stinging open wounds?  Or are you the savory seasoning making the Lives of those around you taste good?  Applied in just the right amount?  To the right foods?  Enhancing the flavor of all around you?  Which SALT are you?

  • Man Made Climate Change

    Man made Global Warming has taken us by storm (pun intended).  The media is literally inundated with it.  Take these particular headlines in the last few weeks for example:

    Climate Change Deemed Growing Security Threat by Military Researchers – The New York Times : May 13th 2014

    U.S. Military Plans Policy Shift in Response to Anticipated National Security Threats Caused by Climate Change – US News & World Report : May 16th 2014

    Military Bases Brace for Slow-Motion War With Climate Change – NBC News : June 8th 2014

    U.S. Military Prepares for Global Unrest Amid Climate Fears – Live Science : June 12th 2014

    Terry McAuliffe Says Global Warming Will Submerge Norfolk Naval Base – No More Cocktails : April 11th 2014

    I could literally fill this post with links from recent articles in the past weeks on Climate Change/Global Warming.  I believe it would be fair to say that it is a currently hot topic (pun intended) given the amount of publishing space devoted to it.

    Given the Science of Climate Change, we (the population of the world) have every reason to be dubious.  To begin with the climate models have been decidedly proven to be educated guesses at best.  And with good reason.  It is an amazingly complex problem.  Consider the lengths that the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) went through in order to verify weather for a Space Shuttle launch.  And when you understand the granularity of the models (4 km grids in large scale and 1.33 km grids in small scale), you begin to understand the incredible complexity of data collection and processing.  Secondly, because of the complex nature of the problem, we really don’t have a sensor grid that allows for large earth predictive modeling.  The model is data starved, across all boundaries (hence the fudge factor in the computer code).  Third, it takes a considerable amount of processing power to run those models.  Consider the Earth Simulator, built by Japan at a cost of 7.2 billion Yen ( ~$7 million US dollars) and operational in March of 2002 (now 12 years old).  With weather processing power purported by these types of machines, you would think we would have up to the minute weather forecasting at every square mile of earth someone was standing on, but that is still not the case, and the weather forecasting we do have, for the areas we have them for, is still flawed to some degree.  And lastly, the incredible assumptions that are made within the models themselves are difficult to find any credibility with.  In just the current set of articles, the experts predict sea levels will rise somewhere between 1.5 and 7.5 feet over the next 100 years.  That is quite a spread.  Furthermore it is an incredibly long incubation period.

    The bottom line is we don’t know.  We just can’t say what the weather/climate/or climatic conditions are going to be in 50 years let alone 100 years.  Furthermore we have no idea how the model is going to change over that period of time or what factors will come into play that will have an affect upon it.  Experts have been predicting different sets of outcomes for years now.  And each time the actual conditions do not match up to their predictions, they simply change the model to match the conditions and proceed forward.  Well I could do that, and I’m not even the expert.

    We then have this claim that all of this Climate Change we are observing is Man Made.  And the question then becomes can human activity on the face of the Earth cause the weather to change?

    A Theistic answer might be Yes and No.  Yes, in the sense that it is in direct response to man’s condition that weather changes upon the Earth have been effected.  And No, in the sense that it is not mankind who controls the weather, but rather God.

    A Theist would accept the premise that God created a perfect system to begin with.  Every facet of weather on this Earth was in perfect balance and naturally worked together to the good of the entire system.  This would mean that the temperature was perfect at every point on the Earth, that moisture content was perfect, that oxygen content was perfect, that harmful radiation from the Sun was blocked, that wind, heat, cold, and other factors were all perfectly balanced within the system.  And that this system then supported the exact perfect environment for plant, animal, and human growth on the planet.  And that all of these would naturally thrive in such a system.

    A Christian however, then accepts the premise that mankind’s Sin then altered the system.  Or more precisely, that because of man’s Sin, and the subsequent steps taken by the Creator in response to that Sin, allowed the original (and perfect) system to break down and to enter into a state of entropy.  And that is what we see the result of in the world today.

    God caused the flood of Noah’s time in response to Sin upon the face of the Earth.  So it was not man per se that caused a climatic climate change, but rather God’s actions in response to man’s Sin.  And this breakdown has then led to the natural phenomenon we view around us today.  Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Monsoons, Typhoons, Lightening storms, dust storms, desert heat, and artic colds.  Even the Ice Age itself.  All are results of the breakdown of the original system, that was first allowed, and set in motion by God.

    Man Made Global Warming?  I accept the premise only as far as man’s Sin is a direct result of all the effects of conditions we observe in the world today.  But to consider that it is mankind, and not God, that controls or affects the weather on the planet is a fallacy.

    I will agree with our Climate Scientists on one small point however.  Revelation 11:6 predicts that one day, for a period of time, it will not rain, and water will turn to blood.  One may assume from this that fish will die, thirst will abound, and food plants will be sparse.  And I’m positive that the Global Warming crowd will stand up and proclaim “We TOLD you so!”

    Problem is, it was already written to be so over 2 thousand years ago.  You cannot outwit, second guess, or alter God in anything you do.

     

     

  • Whose Science Is It?

    One of the more amusing aspects of the whole God debate to me is the exclusive territory of science.  As if certain crowds have a lock on particular disciplines.

    When studying the world around us, there are many different facets that can be taken into account.  And there are different theories and interpretations of the data.  But just because one world view doesn’t line up with your world view does not automatically mean that you have a lock on the interpretation of the data.

    There actually is a science of Theology – Theo, of the Greek Theos or God, and ology, primarily of Latin origin for the study of.  Hence, the study of (or the Science of) God.

    Theology is not Religion and not all religions have Theology at their base.  In the strictest sense of the term, Atheism is a religion.  Atheism is, in fact, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.  And those beliefs hold that there is no existence of a God.

    What is interesting then is that atheism (for the most part) tends to claim ownership of all of the realm of science.  The claim is that you cannot mix religion and science (particularly data and facts).  But that is the very thing that Atheism then tends to do.  To my amazement, it tends to do it to exclusion.

    But Atheism, by its very definition has no Theology.  How can it?  It prescribes that there is no God.  And having no Theology, how can it then, evaluate any premises it may form, correctly concerning the existence of God?  In reality, it purports to establish fact based upon evidence it cannot support.

    I do not need to prove the existence of God in order for him to exist.  God either exists or he does not.  But that does not mean that I cannot take a preponderance of the evidence and draw some conclusions one way or the other.

    To say that I cannot infer the existence of God based upon science is preposterous.  My Theology is perfectly capable of forming hypotheses and theories based upon the observable universe around me.  And I should be able to determine which model the evidence better supports.

    The Atheist may determine that the model better supports their particular world view, but that in no way gives them a lock on Science.  Science has neither conclusively proven nor dis-proven the existence of God.  Theists simply believe that the preponderance of the evidence more conclusively supports the existence of a God than not.

    Typically (not always, but in most cases – at least in my experience), people want to argue Religion and not Theology.  But before you can argue Religion, you must first agree upon which Religion you are going to debate.  And there are many of them to debate, and not all equal at that.  Satanism is a Religion.  One might suppose that Satanist at least accept the existence of God since the very concept of Satan comes from God centered religions.  Perhaps not though.  There may be some Satanist that believe there is no other God other than Satan himself, in which case they still accept the existence of a God (albeit, in my world view, the wrong one).

    Atheism is, in and of itself, a religion.  And if one is to undertake a religious debate, one must argue the merits of Atheism compared to other world religions.  However, if one wants to argue the existence of God, one should argue from a Theological standpoint.  Does the evidence better support a model for a God or for no God?  In my world view, the evidence is greatly in favor of a God.

    Once one has determined in his or her own mind as to the existence of God, then the debate as to who or what that God may (or may not) be can take place.  At this point there are many religions that purport to have that answer.  I am satisfied with my aligned Religion (Christianity), but even within that there is a myriad of disparate thought.  I’ve drawn my own conclusions, and at times I am given to deep contemplation over a perceived belief.  But those have never altered my Theology.

    At times I wonder why Atheists even want to debate their position.  Why would it matter?  If there is indeed no God, then where is the derived meaning in Life?  Apparently the Founding Fathers of the United States of America could find no other recourse for the inherent basic truths of life other than that of a Creator (God).  Their preponderance of the evidence led them to believe that a Creator endowed mankind (Human race) with inalienable rights.  If further evidence purports that there is no God, then it fails to establish any rights, liberties, or happiness other than cosmic chaos.  Indeed, even Dr. Richard Dawkins has stated that the appearance of Intelligent Design is actually an illusion of whatever naturally occurs in nature.  Meaning, that there is no meaning behind it all.

    Actually, in my experience, what Atheists really want to debate is not Theology, they have none, since their minds are made up on that point, but rather religions.  Atheists want to have a religious debate because their own religion does not prescribe to what other world religions assert as a basis.

    But even here, I do not believe it fair to lay exclusive hold to the realm of Science.  It is disingenuous to begin with, as if their religion is the only religion that could ever interpret scientific data.  But it also shuts down creativity and growth of the human race.  Exactly what they claim other religions do.

    May I use Science (other Scientific Disciplines) to support my Theology?  Of course I may.  And if my interpretation of the data is different than yours, it does not mean that a differing world view owns the Science and therefore cannot consider my conclusions.  Neither does it mean that my conclusions are wrong or have necessarily been disproven.  It simply means that there are multiple interpretations of that data.

    So whose Science is it anyway?  It is all of our Science.  We are all free to explore and discover and derive our own set of conclusions and beliefs as we learn and grow in life.  So don’t tell me I cannot mix Religion and Science, because at the point of my Theology I can.  Just the same as the Atheists already do.  The only difference is I actually encourage them to use Science to explore and to learn the mysteries of Life and the Universe.  Because I find that data supports my Theology.

  • Where Did The Void (Nothingness) Come From?

    To be honest, I had developed a schedule of sorts for my blog.  I had intended to introduce, and comment on, a series of items that interest me within the topics of Life / Religion / Politics / Science / and Philosophy in some sort of loosely structured but coherent order.  But I am already violating that schedule.  I had also intended to blog about relevant topics of the day as they came up in news sources and general conversations with family and friends.

    But as I write, things occur to me that I feel like ought to be addressed, and they would eventually come up anyway, so why not just deal with them now while they are staring me in the face?  Today is such a day.

    A couple of days ago I mentioned Dr. Stephen Hawking and his latest book The Grand Design.  Dr. Hawking is a fascinating individual to me and he is a brilliant Physicist.  But I find his Theology to be greatly lacking.  In his second latest work he mentions some poignant questions that he himself acknowledges as deserving an answer.  I referenced some of those questions in my previous post.  Specifically:

    “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
    “Why do we exist?”
    “Why this particular set of law and not some other?”

    From this point he goes on to say:

    “Some would claim the answer to these questions is that there is a God who chose to create the universe that way.  It is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God.  In this view it is accepted that some entity exists that needs no creator, and that entity is called God.  We claim, however, that it is possible to answer these questions  purely within the realm of science, and with-out invoking any divine beings.”

    (The Grand Design, pg. 164 – 165)  Dr. Hawking has spent a great deal of his works defining physical interactions based upon known laws and today’s understanding of their relationships with each other.  In The Grand Design, Dr. Hawking brilliantly ties a number of current scientific theory together to explain how something could literally come from nothing.  He does acknowledge that deist need only stop with whatever deity created the universe, but he wants to claim that the universe came from nothing on its own.  If it is fair for Dr. Hawking to ask the question “Who or what created God?” then I believe it only fair to ask “Who or what created nothingness?”

    Before I get to that, allow me to point out that Dr. Hawking bases his work upon a vast amount of theory.  A lot of it is also hypothesis and conjecture.  I reject the definition of a principle, law, or doctrine as synonyms for theory.  A theory is just that, a theory.  It is not a principle, law, or doctrine.  It is not proven, and within its own definition it is recognized to be “commonly regarded as correct” but is in no way, shape, or form, known to be correct.  It is not proven, it is not necessarily repeatable, and it is not established as truth.

    Dr. Hawking has to rest his theory (and theories) on many assumptions that we are only just beginning to explore and know little to nothing about.  Such theories as String Theory, The Big Bang, and Quantum Physics.  All of these Sciences are just what they claim to be, theories.  They are not concrete truths, rather they are a set of beliefs accepted on current observations (the keyword here is current – they are actually in flux as we learn new things each day).  Dr. Hawking accepts these things (as do many, many Scientists) based upon (dare I say it?) faith.  Literally a belief not based upon a proof.  He has no evidence to establish these things as true.  He accepts them based upon faith and is tainted by his own World View.

    Indeed, within String Theory itself is the notion that there are a seemingly infinite numbers of possibilities (and occurrences of) physical laws and physical universes.  A totally unproven and unobserved phenomenon.  Given the current definition of String Theory and its principles, I fail to see how Dr. Hawking could not conceive of a scenario where the physical interactions of the universe actually created (or produced) god (a deity) that then used supernatural capabilities to recreate the process into what is observed today.

    Dr. Hawking does a brilliant job of determining (mathematically) that something did indeed come from nothing as long as that nothing originally existed as both Matter and Anti-Matter (literally a positive – +1 and a negative – -1, which add up to zero, that then exploded into their respective parts.

    However his zero, which is absolutely nothing (a void), only exits with the realm of something – matter and anti-matter).

    One might beg the question as to where that nothingness came from.  Consider the fact that nothing (the vast emptiness of space), the void as it were, is actually as much a part of the physical universe as all of the real matter we can touch, taste, smell, feel, and experience.  We know it is cold, and yet it can be hot.  Light may travel in it and through it.  It allows gravity to work (to be true to its nature).  The emptiness of space is actually a part of the physical.

    So where did the void come from?  Dr. Hawking simply accepts this on faith.  Exactly the same way I accept God on faith.  Dr. Hawking can no more explain the void and its apparent existence, than I can explain God.  It is based upon faith.  His faith just happens to be different than mine.

    Isn’t it funny though that I don’t need to prove the existence of God.  But Dr. Hawking feels compelled to prove the non-existence of God.  In my world view the void is explained by creation.  God is not a physical being.  God created the physical, void included.  Dr. Hawking, for all his science and mathematics has yet to explain where the Zero, the nothingness came from to begin with and why there is so much of it out there.

    To get something from nothing, you have to have nothing to begin with.  There has to be the spark of (in Dr. Hawking’s parlance) matter and anti-matter to create the -1 and the 1.

    Perhaps the something and the nothing (all the physical) came from another, as yet, unknown source.  The Spiritual.  The something that exists outside of the physical.

    And isn’t it interesting that Dr. Hawking will acknowledge an almost infinite number (for all practicable purposes what we would perceive as infinite) of different scenarios of physical laws and physical universes, except for one occurrence and one occurrence only.  The existence of a God.  I am to accept that there may be billions upon billions of different quantum harmonics all over the physical creation, creating a plethora of different possibilities, but I am not to accept that even one of those could have a God.

    Find the void, and then step out of it, out of the physical, and into the other side, and there you will find God.

     

  • Caught My Attention …

    I was definitely NOT thinking about blogging this today – but I was double blind sided on the way home and I have not been able to get it off my mind since.

    What was I blind sided by?  Car emblems.  You know, those magnetic, chrome, cute and witty, little flashy things people like to stick all over their cars (but mainly on the trunk or rear bumper).

    So here I am on my way home and a warning light on my dash tells me I need gas.  So I head to the gas station, but as I get into the turn lane to turn into the station, another car pulls in front of me.  And that is when I noticed it, the emblem on the back.  This one:

    Evolve_Fish

     

     

     

    And I immediately thought, that is what the driver of that car should do, evolve.  Evolve into a caring, thinking, rational human being.  But perhaps I was being a little harsh.  I need to exercise some grace.

    So I turned into the station and pulled up to the pump, but before I could get out of the car, I noticed the car at the pump in front of me also had a car emblem on the back hatch of the vehicle.  This one:

    Darwin_Fish

     

     

     

     

     

    Now our area of the city has about 22,000 residents according to the 2010 census, and only a few of those actually have emblems on their vehicles.  Or to state that a little more accurately, it has been my observation, driving around town, that a small percentage of the vehicles have emblems on them (I contend that my Car/Emblem observation is at least as accurate as Global Climate Change Observations – probably much more so).

    And my not-so-scientific, really rough estimate, totally unregulated observations (Hey!  Exactly like the Global Climate Change data!) have detected that even fewer of the emblems that are on vehicles, are actually emblems promoting Evolution.  But those apparently do.

    And seeing these back-to-back, in the span of just a few minutes, on two totally different vehicles, of which my keen Global Climate Change like data collection abilities discerned had absolutely nothing to do with each other, over powered my attention and stuck with me all the way home and literally forced me to blog about them tonight (OK, so maybe that last part is a slight exaggeration, but trust me, those emblems have been a really, really strong image in my mind this evening).

    So here is the thing about those particular icons.  It is not that I don’t want people to have free speech, I do.  It is not that I don’t think that people shouldn’t be able to express themselves though different means, I do.  It is not even that I am offended or put off by people that drive around with those emblems on their vehicles, I am not.

    What is of amazement to me about people that drive around with those particular emblems on their vehicles is that they are not true to their ideals and they probably don’t even know it.

    Consider that the vast majority of folks that drive around with those emblems on their vehicles are probably not Scientist, Teachers, or Engineers.  I do not know either of the individuals driving the vehicles I found myself behind this afternoon.  And I may be totally wrong, but I would guess that neither one of them could properly define evolution or articulate Darwin’s theories.  But even if I am wrong about those two individuals, it is almost a sure thing that the vast majority of folks that have those on their vehicles could not properly and accurately describe the Science and/or Philosophy they represent.

    What is worse, the individuals most likely could not logically step through the conception of either of those two emblems.  And that is where the real tragedy comes in.

    Think about it.  What is the base foundation of both emblems?  An outline of a fish.  The same fish outline that has been used as a Christian symbol for hundreds of years.  Early Christians may have co-opted the symbol from the use of the day, but that use has died out and is no longer recognized today.  And I doubt that the pagan use of the symbol to represent fertility drew its roots from what the current atheistic crowd is attempting to use it for.

    Rather early Christians transformed the use of the fish symbol and applied meaning drawn directly from their faith: Matthew 4:18 – 20.  They transformed the symbol for their own use and most likely did not denigrate or ridicule its previous use.

    But here, in the forms used today, we have the symbol used to clearly demean, ridicule, poke fun at, or judge harshly, the currently accepted meaning as we know it.

    And it is targeted as well.  It is targeted at one particular group, one particular religion.  While you will find Jewish religious symbols, Muslim religious symbols, Hindu religious symbols, Buddhist religious symbols, etc. altered in a humorous or sharply biting way, you will not see those to the extent of the Christian fish nor in this particular form.  No, these are used in a form and to an extent as to make them bigoted and prejudiced.

    Now you may find it shocking that I would draw that conclusion, but clearly, the fabrication of the evolutionary folks is to:

    (1) Co-opt the symbol.  They start with the base Christian symbol.  One might ask why?  Can they not come up with a symbol of their own?  Can they not convey their message across a wide audience through their own branding?  If not, why not?

    (2) Denigrate and ridicule the symbol.  They clearly alter the symbol in such a way as to mock, or look down upon the previous use (and users) of the symbol.  The symbol they use is a mightier than thou symbol.  It is a form meant to shame the use from which they co-opted it.  One might ask the question: Can they not convey their message in a reasonable, logical, form without stooping to ridicule and mockery?  (That is a rhetorical question).

    (3) Target their use of the symbol.  As I mentioned, while you can find some example of other religious symbols altered in similar manners meant to mock, they are very few and far between and you will hardly ever find this particular symbol modification amongst other groups.  It is targeted in a laser like focus on Christians.  Not Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Hindus, etc.  But Christians are the ones that specifically bear the brunt of their ridicule.

    Obviously that is utterly intolerant of anyone’s belief other than their own.  Thus bigoted.  Thus I stand by my conclusion.

    Oh, but wait-a-minute.  Christians are bigoted as well, right?

    Well, not necessarily in the use of the symbol.  First of all, Christians haven’t denigrated the symbol for their own use and with the purpose of ridicule of others.  Sure, Christians may wear their Faith on their sleeve, but remember, in their World View, people are going to die and spend eternity in hell.  And since they care about their fellow man, they need to share the good news (Gospel) with others.

    Contrast that with the evolutionary viewpoint.  One might ask why they even care (obviously they don’t care when it comes to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.)?  Why in the world would an evolutionist care about the fish symbol on a Christians car?

    In their world view there is no heaven, and there is no hell.  It shouldn’t matter what others think, they are just going to die and go away.  What is it that simply consumes them about the Christian World View and no other?

    Secondly, Christians do not use the symbol in a mocking or a way meant to ridicule others.  They did not denigrate the symbol in any way shape or form.  Others seeing the Christian use of the symbol would not be offended (reference the first century use of the symbol).  They do use the symbol to identify themselves as members of a particular group (Christians) and to identify themselves to other members of that same group.

    And once again, one might ask the question as to why this bothers the evolutionary crowd so much?  Why should they even care?  They are all going to pass away one day and (according to their World View) never, ever know the difference one way or the other.  Why they will probably be forgotten in a couple of hundred years and not even those left will care one way or the other as to the impacts of the symbol use.

    One form and use of the Christian fish symbol is out of love, while the other form is out of hate.  And don’t tell me it is a form of education or correction.  Because if that is the way you educate, I certainly don’t want what you are teaching (and neither will most other people as well).

    Perhaps if we all considered the symbols in our lives a little more carefully, the ones that bring us together, and the ones meant to divide, and we were all a little more tolerant of each others symbols, then we might have a little better communication and perhaps a little more understanding in our world today.

  • LRPSP

    LRPSP. com has been up for over a week now and I thought I’d step back and provide some foundation for the categories, my biases, and the general discussions.  The About page provides an overview of the Blog, however I thought that over time a little more detail might be provided.  This is a short introduction.

    The pillars of the site – Life / Religion / Politics / Science / Philosophy are the foundations we exist upon.  I have collapsed some of the categories for the sake of a short, catchy URL (at least I hope it is catchy), but for the most part the things that make up our world and make us who we are fit into these categories.  They are also the categories where the most passionate debates come from.  These are the discussions about who we are, how did we get here, why are we here, where are we going, what are we supposed to be doing, and what does it all mean?

    if you were to look at an apologetics course such as The Truth Project – hosted at Focus On The Family you will find pretty much the same core of pillars.  These pillars are also where apologists such as Dr. Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Del Tackett, or Josh McDowell might build their cases on.

    I am nowhere near as talented as either one of these three individuals, or others like them, but I do have an understanding of the basics, and I enjoy a heart-to-heart conversation.  And I’d like to invite anyone and everyone to join in the conversations.  Especially those that are dissenters, such as these folks that obviously take issue with Josh McDowell’s book Evidence That Demands A Verdict.

    Of course this is a family oriented site so the rules are somewhat strict.  Of course that doesn’t mean we cannot have adult discussions from time-to-time, but it does mean that a certain level of civility and a language code will be insisted upon.

    The pillars cover the following:

    Life– Everything that animates us that we experience, know, and deal with on a day-to-day basis.  Life covers the physical, our bodies, our world and our interactions with it, our souls, our emotions, thoughts, and what makes us laugh, what makes us cry.  Life covers all the unique characteristics that make you – you and me – me.  These could be hobbies, sports, interests, studies, jobs, interactions, or anything else that makes us the unique creations we are.

    Religion– Everything within the Spiritual world and our connection with God.  Religion may encompass Theology, our innermost selves, Heaven, Hell, Angels, Demons, and all things of a Devine nature.

    Politics– Would cover our Governments, our laws, things that govern our social interactions, or even the application, adjudication, or interpretation of those laws.  Governments (and thus politics) do not necessarily exist at the Capitol buildings and no where else.  They generally permeate our entire lives.  Homeowners Associations are a form of Governance (and are generally found to be the bottom rung of government).  However, Politics may even extend into the home and the family structure.

    Science– Is all the sciences.  Biology, Sociology, Anthropology, Archaeology, Geography, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, etc.  the Sciences are important because they facilitate our discovery and our understanding of the world around us.

    Philosophy– Our Philosophies are what define and establish our World Views.  They help shape how we see things and through what colored lenses we interpret things.

    Obviously by now, if you have followed any of my timeline, or read my blog posts from the beginning, you might surmise that my World View encompasses a God.  I believe Theology (I just grouped this under Religion) is the foundational study of all.  It is the foundation upon which everything else is built.

    It should be clear by now that my Theological Foundation is the ground floor that all other pillars sit upon.

    And I would like to point out that all great minds start out here (not that I am saying that I am a great mind, but rather that I am a good student and have learned from them).

    Even amongst our high level contemporary thinkers, Dr. Richard Dawkins, Dr. Richard Carrier, Dr. Stephen Hawking, and (of course) Dr. Ravi Zacharias, and Dr. Del Tackett, all of these start with Theology.

    What is it that consumes Dr. Dawkins completely?  Why it is to disprove the existence of God.  Dr. Stephen Hawking’s latest book, The Grand Design, states “It is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God.” (The Grand Design, pg. 165, 1st paragraph).  Dr. Carrier is certainly consumed by Christians (if not God), see part of his talk at Skepticon 3 (or just search YouTube for him).  All of these individuals are consumed with Theology, the study of God.  Granted, their study intends to disprove the existence of God, but you cannot disprove that which you do not study.

    Clearly all great minds agree that Theology is foundational to any other study we may pursue.  It provides us insight into other studies and (as Dr. Hawking points out in his book on pg. 164), it is a necessary study to answer the questions: “Why is there something rather than nothing?  Why do we exist?  Why this particular set of law and not some other?” just before he launches into a Theological discussion of God.

    But I hope you don’t think all of my Blog discussions will be some boring, unintelligible diatribe about Religion, or Politics, or Philosophy, or Science.  No, I’d like to discuss the fun parts, the sad parts, and the parts of life that interest you as well.

    It is sincerely my hope you will see the importance and value of these pillars, and that they will help  guide your input, but if not, don’t worry about it.  Either read for fun, or join in to share you opinion.

    But let’s have a conversation about: Life/Religion/Politics/Science/Philosophy!

  • Stacking The Data

    When you analyze things in life you have to be very careful not to allow your world view to stack the data in your favor.  This is extremely difficult to do.  People (humans) have a natural tendency to want things to go their way.  I know I struggle with this constantly.  People just want to be right within their own world.

    Global Climate Change Scientists were discovered to be doing this very thing in 2009.  A fudge factor in code, is a way of stacking the data in order to help influence results to turn out the way you think they should.

    One needs to be extremely careful as well to not believe they’ve seen all the data.  I believe most of us (at least those of any years of maturity) have heard someone say:

    “At my age I’ve seen it all.”

    I always want to say “Really?  Because God is INFINITE.  In ALL directions.  Which means he is infinitely big and infinitely small.  Infinitely loud and infinitely quite.  Infinitely colorful and infinitely monochrome.  God is more than we can possibly imagine, more than we can fathom, more than we can ever possibly know.  And you have seen it all?  I think not.”  We can spend an infinite amount of lifetimes and never fathom the depths of an infinite God.

    King Solomon put it this way in Ecclesiastes 8:16 – 17 pointing out that a wise man may think he knows the works of God, only to find out that he does not.

    Jesus Christ himself said that we must be humble like children in Matthew 18:2-4.  I believe he made this particular comparison because children are mostly full of wonderment.  They are growing, exploring, learning, discovering, depending, needing, wanting, and trusting.  As we get older we become wise and our wisdom leads us to be less dependent, less needy, wanting more than we need, less trusting, and growing less, exploring less, learning less, and discovering less.  We are no longer dependent upon God, but rather upon ourselves and we give God a call whenever we think we need him (which is never because we are certainly wise enough to figure our own way out of situations).

    Do not ever think you have seen it all, because God has more than your lifetime can fill that he wants to show you.

    And thus, having not seen it all, be careful as to how you try and stack the data from what you have seen and do know.

    We all have to make choices in life.  And we are all responsible for those decisions and there are consequences to what we do.  But we do have a choice in how we analyze the data.

    When you leave God out of the picture, you stack the data to influence your particular world view.  When you become humble, like a child, you begin to realize and understand the incredible gifts of knowledge that God has blessed you with.  You want to know him more, you want to explore, you realize how little you have and you want more.

    Funny thing about data analysis, I may generally interpret the data to support any particular view I have.  I believe Weather Scientists the world over are doing just that today.  They couldn’t possibly interpret the data in an unbiased way at this point because they have stacked the data so heavily in their favor, they have tainted the data pool beyond the point of recovery.

    There is one area though where the data will always be sound and firm.  There is one area where you cannot stack the data, where the data cannot be falsely interpreted, and where conclusions will always be validated.

    And that area of study is with God.  There is a catch though, God may only be accepted on Faith and not by Sight.  Yes, that is disconcerting to some.  Some are screaming right now that Faith is not Science.  And yet Science exercises faith each and every day.

    When we seek after God, with all our heart, and with all our strength, and with all our mind, and with all our soul, he will reveal himself to us.  Because he is God.  God actually wants us to discover him, to explore him, to know him.  And thus he will ensure that any who truly seek after him as a child in wonderment, they will find him.

    Those that say there is no God and that they have never found God or evidence of God, have simply stacked the data.  They have never truly sought after God to begin with.  They have been loading up all their data and applying their fudge factors to the data to get it to say what they want it to say.

    I’d like to encourage us all (myself included) to start exploring the riches of God today as if we know absolutely nothing about him.  It would be great if we all became little children and all gazed at the world in wonderment once again.  It would be great if we all stopped believing in how wise we are, and how experienced we are, and how much data we’ve amassed over our lifetimes.

    If we simply stopped stacking the data in our lives, let go of our biases driven by our world views, and began exploring things without an agenda, who knows the types of changes we could really see effected in the world around us?