Very good analysis, Pops. One of the difficulties is that we are all
specialists, and focused to a small or large extent on our specialties. My
training and experience is in the social sciences. I can only attempt to
understand the complexities of the physical sciences, and am completely confused
by the complexities of advanced mathematics. Why should I presume to
"prove", by "logical" arguments, that God does or does not
exist, based on science which lies outside my expertise, or, Heaven forbid (no
pun intended), by the conclusions of various social scientific studies, where
conclusions are always tenuous and open to further research?When are we
going to learn that our knowledge is always governed by faith--either faith in
our open-ended "facts" discovered through empirical studies and peer
review, our faith in God, or perhaps quite a deal of both? "Knowledge"
will never replace "faith" until it becomes perfect--which IMHO only God
There are a few who imply they are scientists, or admirers or followers of
science, who delight in denigrating religion and the religious, but by so doing
reveal at best a profound misunderstanding of what science is, and at worst
something that is rather unrelated to science at all. The one thing science can
say with absolute certainty is "we don't know". Science is, in
essence, the observation of patterns that have not yet been violated and a
collection of educated guesses about why these patterns exist. We know our
observations are imperfect, so we simply do the best we can. Science is useful
when applied appropriately. But when it is used to assert that God does not
exist, well, that is pure silliness, because science cannot prove that God does
not exist - that's not possible - nor can science squeeze him out of the
picture, as that's not possible either due the known absolute limits of
scientific endeavor.There is plenty of room in the universe for God.
If you have an axe to grind against belief in God, please don't
misrepresent science by using it as a pretense.
@Coltakashi, Wow, that is a lot to think about; although it is probably
incompressible to the human mind. But definitely something worth hoping for, I
RE: 2Nephi 4:34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee
forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is
he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth
his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm. Or,Jer17:5 KJV Thus saith
the LORD;Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh=(basar) his
arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.(Basar H 1320)the body of
humans.MT:16:17 Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou,
Simon Barjona:for “flesh”=(sarx)and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my “Father” which is in heaven.(Sarx
G.4561)”flesh” the body of a man. Don’t trust man
who has flesh,VS Trust,God(The “Father”)is Spirit(John 4:24)RE: Coltakashi, “the only immortal things are God's
children.” (Ecc 12:7)… the spirit shall return unto God who gave it
Northbound Zax: "Plate tectonics therefore God… er ok"Is that your summary of what Peterson's article is saying, or are you
responding to somebody else?If you're summarizing Peterson, I
have to respond that it seems to me that that's not even remotely what
God is a person? That explains a lot.
Aside from God, the only immortal things are God's children, us. That means
that compared to your spouse and children, the earth and sun and galaxy will run
down and grow cold, but we will still be here. That is one of the reasons the
most impirtant things in our life should be our relationships with other
@1aggie The laws of Mathematics rest entirely on axioms, which axioms are
chosen either because they seem self-evident or more generally because they are
popular. One axiom in particular, the Axiom of Choice, gives nice results in
some cases, but in others gives what seems to be completely illogical answers
(Banach–Tarski paradox, for instance). There are other axioms that it
could be replaced with and even its contradiction could be used, as with any
independent axiom. It was originally hoped that a set of axioms
could be had that were complete and consistent. Godel however proved that was
impossible, meaning that for any set of axioms there will be unprovable
statements independent of the axioms, which they or their contradiction could be
taken as another axiom (and yet more statements discovered independent of that
new set). It is even possible to create completely different axiomizations of
happy2bhere,",,,,I believe that we as human beings are a little
arrogant to think we are capable of understanding all that is out
central to our nature. It gets clouded with impatience. By the time we're
admiring how smart we are, we’re often too far gone to be able to laugh at
the human comedy.
@happy-2bhere, I agree with you that the world we live in and the universe is a
wonder. But that doesn't mean it is not a natural wonder. And it is
important to understand the difference between organic and inorganic creation.
So if you travel to a far away world and find a Coke can then you would be
correct, some intelligence manufactured it, if you find an ameba, bacteria,
plant, animal or man then you may be encountering the inevitability of nature
the same as gravity etc all here on earth. But if you find a Coke can here on
Mother Earth that was made by a god, please invite me to the show.
Plate tectonics therefore God… er ok.
1aggieI'm getting a little philosophical here, but I agree with you
as far as we are capable of understanding. I don't think you would argue
that as science moves more and more into trying to answer the deepest questions
of the universe we are bound to discover laws that will contradict what we think
we know now. I believe that we as human beings are a little arrogant to think
we are capable of understanding all that is out there. Just as we know that a
chimpanzee cannot understand calculus (neither can I by the way) we as humans
might be just that much incapable of truly understanding the real mysteries of
the universe. That's where I think God comes in. He does understand. SkepticTo me, the very existance of us and the universe around is
evidence of some kind of "prime mover". Otherwise, the universe would
exist in total nothingness. It would be like landing on Mars and discovering a
Coca Cola can laying on the surface. You would know that no way in nature could
that happen. Some intelligent design had to go into its creation.
I have always loved the Kipling poem cited. All five stanzas are worth
@Pops, All things are a witness of nature. So nature must be god, right; and
nature is totally impersonal . So I suppose for the most part we are all pagans
All things are a witness of God.
We are all mortal. Theist or non-theist, we can't escape that reminder of
The laws of Mathematics seem to be the verifiable constant in this world.
The world has a fairly good scientific understanding of natures evolvement and
obvious changes; but, Mr. Peterson s belief of a changing person god will be a
challenge to the senses of many believers. Perhaps if Mr. Peterson could start
by giving us any evidence of any god, period. Then we could have a beginning
speculate on its parts and passions.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."
(Mark 13:31)Those words were spoken two thousand years ago, an eye
blink in the big picture of time as we measure its passage. The one thing you
can count on is change. No one knows what tomorrow will bring, much less
eternity. What is there to do but accept that? Isn’t that what faith is
supposed to be about?