Genesis 1: 3

timothyu · Mar 2, 2024

Secular version of how the lights came on

We Finally Know What Turned The Lights on at The Dawn of Time

We finally know what brought light to the dark and formless void of the early Universe.

www.sciencealert.com

eleos1954 · Mar 4, 2024

timothyu said:
Secular version of how the lights came on

We Finally Know What Turned The Lights on at The Dawn of Time

We finally know what brought light to the dark and formless void of the early Universe.

www.sciencealert.com

more theory

the telescope's observations now suggest that dwarf galaxies are the key player in reionization

Always look for the "loose language"

Suggest
put forward for consideration.
cause one to think that (something) exists or is the case.

durangodawood · Mar 4, 2024

eleos1954 said:
more theory

If it comports well with what can observe and what we can reason, then its a good explanation.

As they note, further observations are necessary to confirm this.

BCP1928 · Mar 4, 2024

timothyu said:
Secular version of how the lights came on

We Finally Know What Turned The Lights on at The Dawn of Time

We finally know what brought light to the dark and formless void of the early Universe.

www.sciencealert.com

It will also be the Christian explanation for most.

timothyu · Mar 4, 2024

durangodawood said:
As they note, further observations are necessary to confirm this.

As does religion.

durangodawood · Mar 4, 2024

timothyu said:
As does religion.

Thats quite disputable around here. Many people say the word of the Bible is enough.

timothyu · Mar 4, 2024

durangodawood said:
Many people say the word of the Bible is enough.

True, but we're still waiting for results.

RileyG · Mar 5, 2024

God did.

ThatRobGuy · Mar 5, 2024

RileyG said:
God did.

Even if someone's an agnostic or theist (or subscribes to intelligent design), there's still the concept of -- and I forget who coined the sentiment -- "The God of Diminishing Margins", I say sentiment because that may not have been the exact phrase (but it was a person who believed in a creator)

In a nutshell, what their sentiment meant was that for believers over time, the things people can't explain (yet) get put on God & miraculous happenings. As people learn more and more how things work, the less they need to put in the default "God did it" bucket. And that doesn't necessarily have to diminish their belief in a creator, it just means there's one more thing with a naturalistic explanation that doesn't have to be attributed to a supernatural default explanation.

For example, there was a time (pre-modern science) when people simply thought all illness was a punishment attributed to a God. From their limited information and vantage point, all they could observe is that this person who was feeling fine the other day is now very sick.

We now know (and it's not even controversial among deeply religious people) that regardless of your behaviors or faith status, if you spend a day in a room with 10 people who have the flu, and you haven't had it yet this season, you're probably gonna get the flu. Much like if you eat a piece of undercooked chicken that's been sitting on a countertop all day, you're going to be having some "digestive discomfort" that's in no way associated to whether or not you committed a particular sin earlier in the day.

They same way we don't need to defer to a deity to explain why it appears that the sun is rising and setting every day. That doesn't mean someone can't believe in an entity that created it all, it's just one more thing humans have discovered the "how?".

RileyG · Mar 5, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
Even if someone's an agnostic or theist (or subscribes to intelligent design), there's still the concept of -- and I forget who coined the sentiment -- "The God of Diminishing Margins", I say sentiment because that may not have been the exact phrase (but it was a person who believed in a creator)

In a nutshell, what their sentiment meant was that for believers over time, the things people can't explain (yet) get put on God & miraculous happenings. As people learn more and more how things work, the less they need to put in the default "God did it" bucket. And that doesn't necessarily have to diminish their belief in a creator, it just means there's one more thing with a naturalistic explanation that doesn't have to be attributed to a supernatural default explanation.

For example, there was a time (pre-modern science) when people simply thought all illness was a punishment attributed to a God. From their limited information and vantage point, all they could observe is that this person who was feeling fine the other day is now very sick.

We now know (and it's not even controversial among deeply religious people) that regardless of your behaviors or faith status, if you walk spend a day in a room with 10 people who have the flu, and you haven't had it yet this season, you're probably gonna get the flu. Much like if you eat a piece of undercooked chicken that's been sitting on a countertop all day, you're going to be having some "digestive discomfort" that's in no way associated to whether or not you committed sin earlier in the day.

Yes, and?

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible"- The Song of Bernadette

ThatRobGuy · Mar 5, 2024

RileyG said:
Yes, and?

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible"- The Song of Bernadette

Actually, I would disagree...

I think an explanation for things that happen in nature are of benefit to both believers and non-believers.

For instance, "this ailment that befalls you is a result of angering God" vs. "Oh yeah, we cultured it and it's strep throat, take 2 of these per day for 7 days and you're good to go" is an advancement that both the faithful and non-believers can enjoy.

Even if we disagree on what happened in a specific millisecond of a time a billion years ago, having an understanding of certain processes that happen now is a benefit to all of us.

This isn't an "all or nothing" situation.

Rejecting certain forms of knowledge because the acquisition of said knowledge could end up leading to people questioning your ultimate assertion isn't a how things should be done. Furthermore, my understanding of the Christian God would lead me to believe the idea of "purposely avoid learning things, I want dumb and obedient" wouldn't the be the ideal situation there either.

BCP1928 · Mar 5, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
Actually, I would disagree...

I think an explanation for things that happen in nature are of benefit to both believers and non-believers.

For instance, "this ailment that befalls you is a result of angering God" vs. "Oh yeah, we cultured it and it's strep throat, take 2 of these per day for 7 days and you're good to go" is an advancement that both the faithful and non-believers can enjoy.

Even if we disagree on what happened in a specific millisecond of a time a billion years ago, having an understanding of certain processes that happen now is a benefit to all of us.

This isn't an "all or nothing" situation.

Rejecting certain forms of knowledge because the acquisition of said knowledge could end up leading to people questioning your ultimate assertion isn't a how things should be done. Furthermore, my understanding of the Christian God would lead me to believe the idea of "purposely avoid learning things, I want dumb and obedient" wouldn't the be the ideal situation there either.

But it is a profitable strategy for clergymen.

RileyG · Mar 5, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
Actually, I would disagree...

I think an explanation for things that happen in nature are of benefit to both believers and non-believers.

For instance, "this ailment that befalls you is a result of angering God" vs. "Oh yeah, we cultured it and it's strep throat, take 2 of these per day for 7 days and you're good to go" is an advancement that both the faithful and non-believers can enjoy.

Even if we disagree on what happened in a specific millisecond of a time a billion years ago, having an understanding of certain processes that happen now is a benefit to all of us.

This isn't an "all or nothing" situation.

Rejecting certain forms of knowledge because the acquisition of said knowledge could end up leading to people questioning your ultimate assertion isn't a how things should be done. Furthermore, my understanding of the Christian God would lead me to believe the idea of "purposely avoid learning things, I want dumb and obedient" wouldn't the be the ideal situation there either.

I ultimately believe in God and trust in his promises. I believe he is loving and faithful.

I respect your unbelief, but I do not agree.

Blessings

RileyG · Mar 5, 2024

BCP1928 said:
But it is a profitable strategy for clergymen.

Once you experience God, no explanation is necessary.

I accept I do not know everything. That’s ok with me on this side of eternity.

Genesis 1: 3

Well-Known Member

God is Love

re Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

re Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Part of the IT crowd

Veteran

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads