|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Super-Scientific Theory
Let me explain. This comes from an argument I had a few weeks ago with Roger, an agnostic here in the dorm, about the existence and/or nature of stuff, God, and the natural or supernatural.
From that argument, I realized a few things:
1) Many scientists are wising up to the fact that they are not going to be able to explain origins - and other things - by scientific methods.
2) You find very few atheists these days who have actually thought about it. Most of them will start thinking - and start calling themselves agnostic.
3) A sort of crazy line of thought that occured to me while reading Lucretius years ago might actually lead somewhere in this argument.
This is my develpment of that line of thought. What I want to know about it:
- Is it clear?
- Is it valid?
- Is it sound?
- Are there arguments I haven't addressed?
With that in mind, I present
The Super-Scientific Argument for the Existence of God
Why "Super-Scientific"?
Science has been unable to come up with any natural principle that can explain how stuff can be created from nothing. Thus, as to the origin of the universe, we must say that there is, not necessarily a supernatural, but a super-material or super-scientific, something "above what we know".
There are two possibilities, then: all matter is in itself eternal, or some thing or things outside nature are eternal and created matter.
Materialism is a Theoretical Possibility
Take the first case. If all matter is eternal, it has a singular essence, or there are plural essences which are co eternal. This has been presented as a philosophical problem, but it is not; a line is by definition infinite in length, but more than one line can exist. Only a truly infinite being (in and above all dimensions) can exclude the possibility of other eternals.
Objections to Materialistic Super-Science
This, then, is one possible explanation - the pantheistic view. While possible, it is inherently improbable, for the following reasons:
1) Being natural, this essence (or these essences) should decay an become unstable. Some undiscovered law may hold them together, but this is no more than hypothesis. If not subject to decay, these essences are supernatural, things responsible for the creation of matter.
2) A single essence does not create the ongoing change we see all around us. Parmenides and Zeno notwithstanding, things do change. Plural essences interacting will produce change, but again, except for the action of some undiscovered law, the essence will not remain the same, thus ruling out its being eternal.
Therefore, the atheistic/pantheistic view is theoretically possible, but not exactly "beyond shadow of a doubt".
Theism is a Theoretical Possibility
Now take the second case, that some thing, outside the realm of physical law, is eternal and has created what we know as nature.
This is easier to believe, for the simple reason that it admits of their being something above what we can know, responsible for what we can not understand. As above with natural essences, there is a possibility for plural supernaturals, but, also as above, it is unlikely.
Therefore, the hypothesis of an eternal supernatural, considered rationally, suggests a single supernatural.
Objection to Theistic Super-Science
The objection here is that we, being natural, can not detect the supernatural. This is true; just like the natural view, the supernatural view of origins relies on an undiscovered thing or principle. However, scientific research to date suggests that such a principle will not be found, and thus the supernatural view is more rational in that it accepts that this "principle", in reality a being, can not be found. Incidentally, this principle or thing is usually referred to as "God" or "god", depending on what sense you use it in.
---
As a final note, there is a second part to this argument, argument partly along similar lines, which attempts to show that, if you accept Theism, Christianity is the most rational. But that bit isn't fully developed yet.
Thanks for reading!
- Jon | | |
| *g* My brain has decided it's my turn to post here . . .
I was reading in the Gospel of Matthew this morning. My plan was just to find a few specific verses I was looking for, but my eyes fell on Matt 5:17-19:
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven."
A while back, I believe it was in Jon's blog, he started a discussion (I don't remember exactly what about, but it must have been something to do with the Old Covenant) and at some point we got onto the topic of the food laws in the OT.
Okay, I am going to state a few things here about myself so you will understand where I am coming from:
1 - The church I attend is an independent Charismatic church, so I might have some ideas that seem strange to some of you, but bear with me.
2 - I have been raised to believe that the Bible says what it means and means what it says. So, there must be a reason for all those cleanliness and food laws in the OT.
3 - I am by no means the most learned person on this subject . . .
k, on to question #1:
Where are people getting the idea that because Jesus came, we don't need to obey the Laws in the OT? Then why are churches teaching the Ten Commandments?
Question #2:
Read Acts 10:9-16, then Acts 10:25-28. Peter, a Jew who followed the Law, did not come to the conclusion that God gave him this vision to let him know that he could now eat whatever he wanted. In fact, all the Jewish Christians in Judea didn't get that meaning from the vision - Acts 11:18. There is a reason for the food laws, a good book to read on the subject is 'What the Bible Says About Healthy Living' by Rex Russell, M.D.
Now, here's where it's going to get . . . interesting. It says in Acts 15:28-29:
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you [the Gentiles] no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
The Gentiles are not required to (for lack of a better term) 'convert to Judaism' to be true Christians. I have seen extremes to both ends within the last few years. Yet, if Jesus' sacrifice was for our total (physical and spiritual) redemption, then what better way is there to treat out bodies as the temple of the Holy Spirit than to obey all God's commands? Obviously, the OT is still of some significance today or else it wouldn't have been included in the Bible! The animal sacrifices are no longer necessary for the covering of our sins, because Jesus' blood remitted our sins. But even though we are redeemed, we still live in a world that is under the curse of the Law. Therefore, if we obey the Law while we are still in this world, will it not produce visible results for the world to see? In what other way could we be a greater witness?
Okay . . . I think that's all . . .
Taeth/Bekah | | |
| Here's the early Church father Cyprian's view of certain teachings of Pope Stephen (whom the Roman Catholic church considers a saint):
"Although I have fully comprised what is to be said concerning the baptism of heretics in the letters of which I sent you copies, yet, since you have desired that what Stephen our brother replied to my letters should be brought to your knowledge, I have sent you a copy of his reply; on the reading of which, you will more and more observe his error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians, and against the Church of God. For among other matters, which were either haughtily assumed, or were not pertaining to the matter, or contradictory to his own view, which he unskilfully and without foresight wrote, he moreover added this saying: ...." [I leave out the quote as superfluous for our purposes.]
--From Cyprian's Epistle LXXIII, section I. Moreover,
"Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error. On which account, let us forsake the error and follow the truth....[I omit here a quote from Esdras, by which Cyprian illustrates that truth conquers error, and pick up with the next sentence after the quote:] This truth Christ showed to us in His Gospel, and said, 'I am the truth.' Wherefore, if we are in Christ, and have Christ in us, if we abide in the truth, and the truth abides in us, let us keep fast those things which are true."
--From the same epistle, section IX. The entire epistle is full of declarations of the Pope's sin. I'd be happy to oblige with further context or examples if desired. 
According to this early Church father, then,
1. Pope St Stephen was sinning by his pronouncements on the baptism of heretics.
2. We must forsake erroneous custom and follow the truth; and Christ showed us that truth in His Gospel when He said "I am the truth." In other words, Cyprian declares the customs of the Church can and do err, and that in such cases we must look to the truth that Christ declared in the Scriptures.
Either the Pope was right and the Church father was wrong, or the Church father was right and the Pope was wrong, or both were wrong. Either way, a Church authourity erred.
Yours,
Kent | | |
| For clarity's sake, could you all provide me with a description of the Roman Catholic view of the authourity of tradition and the infallibility of the Church (or pope)? Just want to make sure I don't build up an elaborate argument to down a straw man who wasn't doing any harm, and who was probably enjoying himself thoroughly while he could.
Much obliged,
Kent | | |
| In response to Court:
We have a problem. I happen not to be particularly Presbyterian in how I think the church should be governed...
See, in Acts and so forth we see what I choose to call a "bishop-and-council" structure. (Elders, bishops, whatever, same difference.) The general teaching is carried out by the bishops (appointed by other bishops, apparently - see Timothy and Titus), and matters that end up disputed are referred to the council of the church.
The one big thing that stands out throughout the early history of the church is that it seems to be a more-or-less flexible structure. No one bishop has overwhelming authority, though the bishop of Rome was given some pre-eminence - but so were the bishops of Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.
Of course, I see that model in practice exactly nowhere in the modern church, which makes me think I might be wrong. But anyway.
Back to the point. On the subject of changed doctrine, most of the stuff Reformed churches have changed is stuff like calling the Pope an antichrist (we usually don't anymore), There's also the point that there was much doctrine never exactly re-settled since the Reformation.
If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church has this thing about indulgences that got changed - or it better have. There were popes that now get called anti-popes.
Finally, yes, practice can change. Spirit and truth, and all that. But what do you say about practices that are in contradiction to Scripture? I mean, the thing that gets me repeatedly is the *mandatory* celibacy of the clergy in the catholic church. Of course it's a "good idea". It just so happens to run counter to Paul's teaching.
In effect, that one count - I can't prove anything else off the top of my head - sets the Church above Scripture. Bad idea.
Really back to the point this time. I'm perfectly willing to accept the decisions of the ecumenical councils in regard to doctrine. Those were, after all, councils of the whole church. But we haven't had one of those for about 1000 years. Well, not unless I'm a heretic, and even then you can argue about what exactly the Council of Trent was.
As to Scripture - I honestly don't know. Was "the canon" ever set by a council, and if so, when? I mean... I don't even know when what we recognize today was adopted.
Sorry for the rather rambling post, I'm a bit tired. No fair picking holes in my logic. 
Jon | | |
|