Looking for a good christian church

[Guest Guest]

Wow read your own post!!! They are completely different! Quantum vacuums have at rest particles in them while classical vacuums are void of space and time! It says that explicitly in your post...The universe before the Big Bang was a classical vacuum because there was NOTHING! No at rest particles and as theorized by Hawking time had yet to exist since it is one with space! Before you come on here at least understand the theories you are trying to sell!!!

[Guest Guest]

This is far above my capacity but reading what you posted makes me wonder how you can prove the existence of 'nothing'?

 

What is the definition of "nothing"?

 

And if the existence of 'nothing' can be proven, then how was it made and who made it?

 

 

The really interesting thing is you can never truly have nothing. There is no such thing as empty space.

 

"The properties of the Universe come from `nothing', where nothing is the quantum vacuum, which is a very different kind of nothing. If we examine a piece of `empty' space we see it is not truly empty, it is filled with spacetime, for example. Spacetime has curvature and structure, and obeys the laws of quantum physics. Thus, it is filled with potential particles, pairs of virtual matter and anti-matter units, and potential properties at the quantum level."

 

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html

[Guest Guest]

Also while I'm at it the inflation theory has nothing to do with before the Big Bang...it explains observations that occurred after it happened!!!

[Guest Guest]

From the beginning of your article...

Birth of the Universe :

 

Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. its not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus there power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.

 

Our physics can explain most of the evolution of the Universe after the Planck time (approximately 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang).

 

However, events before this time are undefined in our current science and, in particular, we have no solid understanding of the origin of the Universe (i.e. what started or `caused' the Big Bang). At best, we can describe our efforts to date as probing around the `edges' of our understanding in order to define what we don't understand, much like a blind person would explore the edge of a deep hole, learning its diameter without knowing its depth.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

Wow read your own post!!! They are completely different! Quantum vacuums have at rest particles in them while classical vacuums are void of space and time! It says that explicitly in your post...The universe before the Big Bang was a classical vacuum because there was NOTHING! No at rest particles and as theorized by Hawking time had yet to exist since it is one with space! Before you come on here at least understand the theories you are trying to sell!!!

 

First here are my previous posts. I really don't know how you inferred classical vacuum from them.

 

Actually if you understood it, Vacuum Theory DOES explain where the energy comes from... Energy can be spontanouesly formed from nothing at all if quantum theory was applied to the laws governing a vacuum. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

Inflation Theory is much more than the Big Bang. Inflation theory allows for an infinite number of universes to have formed alongside ours. Some of these may have expanded too fast and indeed broke apart, while others may have expanded too slow and collapsed back upon themselves. Humans happened to evolve in one where conditions were just right. It's is just plain luck.

 

 

The "claim" comes from Sephen Hawkings book "Stephen Hawking's Universe- The Cosmos Explained" on page 242. The chapter has to do with Andrei Linde and his Inflation Theory. The idea of something out of nothing is hardly new as quantum mechanics allows for particles (i.e. energy) "to pop into and out of" existence. Remember E=mc^2.

 

Secondly, I really think you are trolling or you just don't understand what a quantum field is.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

In classical physics (appliable to macroscopic phenomena), empty space-time is called the vacuum. The classical vacuum is utterly featureless. However, in quantum mechanics (appliable to microscopic phenomena), the vacuum is a much more complex entity. It is far from featureless and far from empty. The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field (corresponding to some particles). It is the quantum mechanical state in which no field quanta are excited, that is, no particles are present. Hence, it is the "ground state" of the quantum field, the state of minimum energy. The picture on the left illustrates the kind of activities going on in a quantum vacuum. It shows particle pairs appear, lead a brief existence, and then annihilate one another in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle.

 

From your original post...a classical vacuum is the one without space time...

 

http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-q...-particles.html

 

This explains why it is wrong...

 

I'm going to bed but if you find concrete proof about your vacuum post away....

 

 

@

[Jon]

Inflation happened when the Universe got all blowed up out of proportion.

 

You heard it first here, folks!

 

 

@

[Jon]

Interesting observations Jon, but I still can't understand how one, who professes to be an Atheist, can believe in a "First Cause", no matter how raw the form, without admitting to a Supreme Being.

 

As for the fence ... who will be the first to declare which side is the inside and which side is the outside?

Uncle Geo, one of the obstacles to discussing things like this is that 'words' get in the way of communication! 

 

Take your use of "Supreme Being" for example. I do understand why you used it. The same reason a lot of people do ... it has gone into the language in an attempt to describe that which must surely exist and is all-powerful. I too have used the term although increasingly I try to phase it out for the simple reason it prejudices the direction of a discussion. For most of us it conjures up an image of other all-powerful entities who govern our daily lives ... Heads of State, Leaders, Authorities, Overseers, Enforcers etc. All have one thing in common ... they are Human beings albeit with superior power, flawed or not. So the mental modeling is entrenched. Refer to all Creation as the work of a Supreme Being and we are sucked into a mental vortex that spits us out right back at 'square-one' ... specifically: Human traits ... a loop journey that seems inescapable. 

 

For the purpose of impartial analysis "God" as either a noun or pronoun raises the same intuitive dilemma. It is a word hugely pre-loaded with cultural tradition, heavily invested with the same anthropomorphisms as 'Supreme Being' (which has largely failed to escape those preconceptions).

 

So what are we left with? Until something more neutral comes along "First Cause" is about as unbiased as we can get. It delivers up no mental images of sentience ... it could well be inanimate ... leaving those interested to examine Creation objectively without ideological distraction.

 

I hope this offers you a way of understanding how:

an Atheist, can believe in a "First Cause", no matter how raw the form, without admitting to a Supreme Being.

 

As for the fence ... who will be the first to declare which side is the inside and which side is the outside?

Perhaps whoever determines on which side of the fence resides most objective revelation (provided always that a viable definition of 'revelation' can be agreed upon).

[Jon]

First here are my previous posts. I really don't know how you inferred classical vacuum from them......

Not necessarily to 'answer' the contention but perhaps to offer another way of looking at the Quantum concept of a Vacuum that may be more palatable to minds not formally trained in science:

 

If anyone has doubts that a vacuum can in fact contain 'something', consider Light. We all know that Light is in fact surprisingly substantial ... it can bleach curtains, affect photographic negatives ... in fact someone has calculated that Sunlight exerts a physical pressure of a couple of pounds on the total Sunward side of Earth.

 

Light can also travel through a vacuum (how else could we observe stars?).

 

So while light is traversing a vacuum that vacuum in fact contains 'something' ... namely the Light traversing it. Light is an energy. So too are Radio Waves (which 150 years ago nobody knew about). Light and Radio Waves can occupy a vacuum simultaneously, along with many other energies and fields ... some more exotic than others. Considered that way, it would be very hard to find a vacuum anywhere inhabited by nothing at all. At best it might contain no particles of physical matter familiar to us, but it would be absolutely seething with vibrant energies that inhabit it.

 

If that much can be understood, crude though it may be, then it should seem less of a leap to accept that a vacuum can be crowded, even saturated with exotic goings-on, the vast majority of which we can't detect by normal means.        

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

Have you considered the Episcopalian Churches?

 

To make a long story short, if you're an angry Episcopalian, by all means move to a Roman Catholic church. But if you are a Catholic looking for humanitarian Christianity, the doors of the Episcopal church are wide open every Sunday.

 

So while hate-obsessed Episcopalians are heading to their nearby Catholic churches rather than give up their prejudices, Catholics who wish there was another spiritual refuge for their beliefs should come the other direction: to an Episcopal church. There they will find equality, acceptance, and respect. And just so you know, you won't have to be re-baptized into a communion that denigrates the sacraments of other denominations.

 

Now that we have addressed these concerns, let me close with this: you may believe that upon leaving the Roman Catholic communion, you would be leaving the "true church." I know that Catholics have heard that among themselves. But the Episcopal church is fully vested in the Apostolic Succession, their sacraments are valid and they are fully Catholic in every sense of the word. This can be discussed in full with your local Episcopal priest.

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-26492-Tucson-Lib...piscopal-church

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

Have you considered the Episcopalian Churches?

 

Why would someone? It's parent "ecclesial community", the "Anglican "church", was started by King Henry the VIII, an adulterer and murderer, in the mid 1500s. The Episcopal "church" is the American off-shoot.

 

To make a long story short, if you're an angry Episcopalian, by all means move to a Roman Catholic church. But if you are a Catholic looking for humanitarian Christianity, the doors of the Episcopal church are wide open every Sunday.

 

I wouldn't call them angry, per say. I would say they were sick and tired of the Gospels being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and liberalism that has really infected the "church". If the truth is considered hate, so what?

 

So while hate-obsessed Episcopalians are heading to their nearby Catholic churches rather than give up their prejudices, Catholics who wish there was another spiritual refuge for their beliefs should come the other direction: to an Episcopal church. There they will find equality, acceptance, and respect. And just so you know, you won't have to be re-baptized into a communion that denigrates the sacraments of other denominations.

 

Nothing to do with hate at all. It's either the Gospels or bust. Many unacceptable practices and especially teachings have sprung up in the Episcopal "church" that clearly conflict with the Gospel of Christ. If Christ's truth hurts people, so what? People need to conform themselves to the Gospels instead of trying to bend the Gospels to what they believe in. If the truth is considered hate, so what?

 

Now that we have addressed these concerns, let me close with this: you may believe that upon leaving the Roman Catholic communion, you would be leaving the "true church." I know that Catholics have heard that among themselves. But the Episcopal church is fully vested in the Apostolic Succession, their sacraments are valid and they are fully Catholic in every sense of the word. This can be discussed in full with your local Episcopal priest.

 

Christ founded His Church on Pentecost, 33 AD in the Upper Room in Jerusalem, not the 1500s in London.

 

Anglican ordinations are "absolutely null and utterly void". To think you had to steal your version of "Apostolic Succession" from another church is laughable.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

Why would someone? It's parent "ecclesial community", the "Anglican "church", was started by King Henry the VIII, an adulterer and murderer, in the mid 1500s. The Episcopal "church" is the American off-shoot.

 

Why would someone consider the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church was started by some followers of a heretic who claimed he was the Messiah of the Jews when it is clear that he could not have been. The Catholic Church is just an off-shoot of Judaism.

 

I wouldn't call them angry, per say. I would say they were sick and tired of the Gospels being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and liberalism that has really infected the "church". If the truth is considered hate, so what?

 

The Gospels are a story of a false Messiah created by people he mislead. According to Judiasm, he did not meet the requirements of the Messiah. Thus, he cannot be the Messiah.

 

Nothing to do with hate at all. It's either the Gospels or bust. Many unacceptable practices and especially teachings have sprung up in the Episcopal "church" that clearly conflict with the Gospel of Christ. If Christ's truth hurts people, so what? People need to conform themselves to the Gospels instead of trying to bend the Gospels to what they believe in. If the truth is considered hate, so what?

 

Again, your Gospels come from men who followed a heretic and not God. In addition, the Roman Catholic Church chose to add the Deuterocanonical books to the Masoretic Text. You cannot simply pick and choose what parts of the Masoretic Text you want to believe in. The Masoretic Text is the Word of God given to Moses by Divine Inspiration, so you cannot argue that it isn't the Truth.

 

Christ founded His Church on Pentecost, 33 AD in the Upper Room in Jerusalem, not the 1500s in London.

 

He may have founded a Church, but it wasn't with God's permission.

 

Anglican ordinations are "absolutely null and utterly void". To think you had to steal your version of "Apostolic Succession" from another church is laughable.

 

You are correct about one thing, Apostolic Succession from a heretic is laughable.

[Guest Guest]

Why would someone consider the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church was started by some followers of a heretic who claimed he was the Messiah of the Jews when it is clear that he could not have been. The Catholic Church is just an off-shoot of Judaism.

 

Actually it was founded by the "Heretic" Himself: Jesus Christ and not His followers.

 

The Gospels are a story of a false Messiah created by people he mislead. According to Judiasm, he did not meet the requirements of the Messiah. Thus, he cannot be the Messiah.

 

 

 

 

Again, your Gospels come from men who followed a heretic and not God. In addition, the Roman Catholic Church chose to add the Deuterocanonical books to the Masoretic Text. You cannot simply pick and choose what parts of the Masoretic Text you want to believe in. The Masoretic Text is the Word of God given to Moses by Divine Inspiration, so you cannot argue that it isn't the Truth.

 

 

 

He may have founded a Church, but it wasn't with God's permission. (contradicts your first statement)

 

 

You are correct about one thing, Apostolic Succession from a heretic is laughable.

 

 

Who fulfills Isiah 53 more than Jesus Christ? LOL.

 

This thread is about a Christian Church, not an obsolete religion.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

Forget church.

Find yourself a fav charity. Research it, whatever...donate.

Spend your Sundays with your family and/or friends, go outside and enjoy Gods gifts.

[Guest Guest]

Actually it was founded by the "Heretic" Himself: Jesus Christ and not His followers.

 

 

 

 

Who fulfills Isiah 53 more than Jesus Christ? LOL.

 

This thread is about a Christian Church, not an obsolete religion.

 

 

@

 

Without the "obsolete" religion, you would not have your "religious sect." Technically, yours is not a religion since you follow a false Messiah.

 

Was Jesus the Messiah? What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

 

The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.

 

In additon to that: JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH

 

A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET

 

Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

 

B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID

 

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!

 

C. TORAH OBSERVANCE

 

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37)

 

 

Jesus fails as being the True Messiah.

[Guest KoD]

Not necessarily to 'answer' the contention but perhaps to offer another way of looking at the Quantum concept of a Vacuum that may be more palatable to minds not formally trained in science:

 

If anyone has doubts that a vacuum can in fact contain 'something', consider Light. We all know that Light is in fact surprisingly substantial ... it can bleach curtains, affect photographic negatives ... in fact someone has calculated that Sunlight exerts a physical pressure of a couple of pounds on the total Sunward side of Earth.

 

Light can also travel through a vacuum (how else could we observe stars?).

 

So while light is traversing a vacuum that vacuum in fact contains 'something' ... namely the Light traversing it. Light is an energy. So too are Radio Waves (which 150 years ago nobody knew about). Light and Radio Waves can occupy a vacuum simultaneously, along with many other energies and fields ... some more exotic than others. Considered that way, it would be very hard to find a vacuum anywhere inhabited by nothing at all. At best it might contain no particles of physical matter familiar to us, but it would be absolutely seething with vibrant energies that inhabit it.

 

If that much can be understood, crude though it may be, then it should seem less of a leap to accept that a vacuum can be crowded, even saturated with exotic goings-on, the vast majority of which we can't detect by normal means.        

 

 

@

 

Jon, I think we can take your argument even further if we note light and other forms of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum are not only a wave phenomenon, but also exhibit characteristics of particles as well. In fact, recent experiments have shown light exhibiting both wave and particle characteristics simultaneously. So, in a vacuum containing energy, we will also find particles that are familiar to us. Assuming of course the energy itself isn't outside of the normal electromagnetic spectrum.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

Jesus fails as being the True Messiah.

 

Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us pray. Let us kneel. [pause for silent prayer] Arise. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[Guest Guest]

Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us pray. Let us kneel. [pause for silent prayer] Arise. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Let us pray for the misguided Christians that think they have the right to declare "My God is better then your God".

[Guest Guest]

Let us pray for the misguided Christians that think they have the right to declare "My God is better then your God".

 

Why not? Jesus Christ declared it:

 

John 14:6

 

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

[Guest Guest]

Why not? Jesus Christ declared it:

 

John 14:6

 

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Ans so it is written. By humans. So it must be true.

 

 

@

[Jon]

Jon, I think we can take your argument even further if we note light and other forms of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum are not only a wave phenomenon, but also exhibit characteristics of particles as well. In fact, recent experiments have shown light exhibiting both wave and particle characteristics simultaneously. So, in a vacuum containing energy, we will also find particles that are familiar to us. Assuming of course the energy itself isn't outside of the normal electromagnetic spectrum.

Yes, that gets to the next layer of insight  ... the fact that matter & energy are just different forms of the same thing and under certain circumstances can transform back & forth. For the standard model of subatomic Physics the electromagnetic spectrum is usually adequate, but there are gaps remaining in that model that await further scientific breakthroughs. Quantum Physics might offer more promise.

 

But out of consideration for this thread I would add that talk of the underlying structure of reality in this way is relevant inasmuch as the more we learn the less that fundamental source of existence resembles anything like conscious awareness that could be ascribed to a God. The more we probe the more neutral and indifferent it would seem.

 

When the day comes, as I'm confident it will, that our distant descendants encounter intelligent civilizations around far off stars, then it has to raise certain questions. Did a 'God' send a 'Christ-Octopus' down to a planet dominated by multi-tentacled life in that form? Or a 'Christ-Reptile' to a planet intelligently dominated by reptiles? Such questions might seem frivolous, but if we are serious about the whole validity of religions then these sorts of questions and others like them are a logical extension of any quest for truth.

 

Add to that the fact that we interpret our observations according to our circumstances. Imagine a planet somewhere that is enveloped in deep ocean through which no dry land breaks the surface. Imagine a species that has long evolved there to a level that they conduct their exclusively oceanic lives with exquisite intelligence and wisdom perhaps superior to ours .... yet they know nothing of a sky with stars in it nor can they even begin to conceive of one. In fact the very thought of a world beyond theirs has never entered their heads (or whatever passes for their heads). Where in their imagination might they locate a God? In the same way we ourselves struggle with characteristics of reality that lie beyond the horizons of our senses and experiences. We are pushing back those conceptual boundaries yet have no way of knowing how much more 'boundary-pushing' remains to be achieved.

 

So what do we do? Give up and invent stories instead?  

 

Underpinning all this the deal-breaker question persists: if commonsense has evolved for a valid reason, then knowing what we do ... what nature of 'God' is really likely?   

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

Is there a local church where we can go and pass around rattlesnakes and drink strychnine?

 

[Guest Guest]

Yes, that gets to the next layer of insight  ... the fact that matter & energy are just different forms of the same thing and under certain circumstances can transform back & forth. For the standard model of subatomic Physics the electromagnetic spectrum is usually adequate, but there are gaps remaining in that model that await further scientific breakthroughs. Quantum Physics might offer more promise.

 

But out of consideration for this thread I would add that talk of the underlying structure of reality in this way is relevant inasmuch as the more we learn the less that fundamental source of existence resembles anything like conscious awareness that could be ascribed to a God. The more we probe the more neutral and indifferent it would seem.

 

When the day comes, as I'm confident it will, that our distant descendants encounter intelligent civilizations around far off stars, then it has to raise certain questions. Did a 'God' send a 'Christ-Octopus' down to a planet dominated by multi-tentacled life in that form? Or a 'Christ-Reptile' to a planet intelligently dominated by reptiles? Such questions might seem frivolous, but if we are serious about the whole validity of religions then these sorts of questions and others like them are a logical extension of any quest for truth.

 

Add to that the fact that we interpret our observations according to our circumstances. Imagine a planet somewhere that is enveloped in deep ocean through which no dry land breaks the surface. Imagine a species that has long evolved there to a level that they conduct their exclusively oceanic lives with exquisite intelligence and wisdom perhaps superior to ours .... yet they know nothing of a sky with stars in it nor can they even begin to conceive of one. In fact the very thought of a world beyond theirs has never entered their heads (or whatever passes for their heads). Where in their imagination might they locate a God? In the same way we ourselves struggle with characteristics of reality that lie beyond the horizons of our senses and experiences. We are pushing back those conceptual boundaries yet have no way of knowing how much more 'boundary-pushing' remains to be achieved.

 

So what do we do? Give up and invent stories instead?  

 

Underpinning all this the deal-breaker question persists: if commonsense has evolved for a valid reason, then knowing what we do ... what nature of 'God' is really likely?   

 

 

@

 

Carl Sagan wrote this in his book The Varieties oof Scientific Experience.

 

Once upon a time, the best minds of the human species believed that the planets were attached to crystal spheres, which explained their motion both daily and over longer periods of time. We now know this is not true in several ways, one of which is that the Copernican theory explains the observed motion to higher precision and with a more modest investment of assumptions. But we also know this is not true, because we have sent spacecraft to the outer solar system with acoustic micro-meteorite detectors—and there was no sound of tinkling crystal as the spacecraft passed the orbits of Mars or Jupiter or Saturn. We have direct evidence that there are no crystal spheres. Now, Copernicus did not have such evidence, of course, but nevertheless his more indirect approach has been thoroughly validated. Now, when they were believed to exist, how was it that these spheres moved? Did they move on their own? They did not. Both in classic and in medieval times, it was prominently speculated that gods or angels propelled them, gave them a twirl every now and then.

 

The Newtonian gravitational superstructure replaced angels with GMm/r2, which is a little more abstract. And in the course of that transformation, the gods and angels were relegated to more remote times and more distant causality skeins. The history of science in the last five centuries has done that repeatedly, a lot of walking away from divine microintervention in earthly affairs. It used to be that the flowering of every plant was due to direct intervention by the Deity. Now we understand something about plant hormones and phototropism, and virtually no one imagines that God directly commands the individual flowers to bloom.

 

So as science advances, there seems to be less and less for God to do. It's a big universe, of course, so He, She, or It could be profitably employed in many places. But what has clearly been happening is that evolving before our eyes has been a God of the Gaps; that is, whatever it is we cannot explain lately is attributed to God. And then after a while, we explain it, and so that's no longer God's realm. The theologians give that one up, and it walks over onto the science side of the duty roster.

 

So as science advances and we learn more, God's nature is to do less and less.

 

 

@

[Jon]

So as science advances, there seems to be less and less for God to do. It's a big universe, of course, so He, She, or It could be profitably employed in many places. But what has clearly been happening is that evolving before our eyes has been a God of the Gaps; that is, whatever it is we cannot explain lately is attributed to God. And then after a while, we explain it, and so that's no longer God's realm. The theologians give that one up, and it walks over onto the science side of the duty roster.

 

So as science advances and we learn more, God's nature is to do less and less.

By now it's fair to day that "The God Of The Gaps" has become a by-word for "Wishful Thinking" (to put a charitable spin on it). As more gaps in human knowledge are filled by scientific discovery less gaps remain for any 'God' to inhabit. Die-hard believers either ignore the evidence studiously, or are kept constantly busy finding gaps for their God to survive in amid gaps whose number dwindles like "Musical Chairs". Each time a profound scientific insight is confirmed the music stops and one less chair is left. Those bent on defending the indefensible commonly resort to 'shifting their ground'. Skepticism is surely fueled by a 'nomadic' God who is reduced to chasing vanishing gaps in order to survive.

 

So while the nature of a subjective 'God' is to "do less and less", the alternative of an impersonal and objective "First Cause" not only endures but emerges slowly into view feature by feature as our scrutiny of it advances.

 

Understandably, those who find such insight disturbing will cling to religious tradition as their therapy of choice. That will not change any time soon, and lives will continue to be lost in sacrifice to that therapy. That seems a waste.

[Guest Guest]

By now it's fair to day that "The God Of The Gaps" has become a by-word for "Wishful Thinking" (to put a charitable spin on it). As more gaps in human knowledge are filled by scientific discovery less gaps remain for any 'God' to inhabit. Die-hard believers either ignore the evidence studiously, or are kept constantly busy finding gaps for their God to survive in amid gaps whose number dwindles like "Musical Chairs". Each time a profound scientific insight is confirmed the music stops and one less chair is left. Those bent on defending the indefensible commonly resort to 'shifting their ground'. Skepticism is surely fueled by a 'nomadic' God who is reduced to chasing vanishing gaps in order to survive.

 

So while the nature of a subjective 'God' is to "do less and less", the alternative of an impersonal and objective "First Cause" not only endures but emerges slowly into view feature by feature as our scrutiny of it advances.

 

Have you ever noticed how the Theists never mention what Caused their "God." If all things must be have a cause, then their "God" should have a cause as well. If their "God" is uncaused, then why can't other things be uncauses as well? The Theists never mention why he is the exception to the rule.

 

Let's grant them that God is simply the 1st cause. This hardly seems consistent with the attributes they bestow upon their diety: omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence.

 

 

@