Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nobody asked."Creationists however".
The emotion in your posts speaks much louder than your words.
Christians come in all shapes and sizes. Theists more broadly so.
My thought on sins of the church is that, in scripture itself, we see really extensive efforts by Paul in making efforts to break down the "Sunday best" mentality of the church.
Such as...basically what is observed all throughout Ephesians, Corinthians, Romans, Hebrews etc. Are you familiar with these writings? writings on circumcision of the heart? Have you read these books? And not just read them, but in context, read through them to understand the meaning of Paul's words?
I should also note too that the early church of Christ was never a perfect one. Many of Jesus' followers were broken people. Jesus reached out to the sinners because he knew that we were the ones who needed him most. And part of that remains to this very day. There are sinners in church and that's where they should be.
The need for an external purpose is PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.I don't understand this need for external purpose - what's the purpose of a mountain? a distant galaxy? a tree? a black hole? or ants?
Humans and some other animals have evolved the ability to formulate explicit goals, with intent and purpose. Partly as a result of this, we're predisposed to interpret things in terms of agency and purpose, particularly unpredictable things and things that seem to be progressing towards an end-point (a 'goal'). Hence Aristotelian teleology and Dennett's 'intentional stance'.
This predisposition is apparent from ancient myths to contemporary language and our tendency to personify or anthropomorphise the inanimate - houses, machines, mountains, the weather, countries, rivers, lakes, oceans, etc; it's a deep-rooted animistic tendency, but we generally have the knowledge and understanding to realise that it's metaphorical unless applied to things that really are goal-directed, i.e. the more sophisticated living creatures.
The universe shows no sign of being goal-directed - it's a lot of stars and their planets separated by unimaginably vast distances growing ever more distant from each other with time. We've evolved on one of trillions of planets, that happens to be suitable for life like us.
I suggest the idea that the universe has a purpose or that it was created with a purpose, is a combination of that deep animistic predisposition and a deep underlying insecurity - not least at our lack of knowledge, understanding, and control of it all, giving rise to the sense that someone must have done this, someone must be in control, otherwise it's scarily unknown, unexplained, and unpredictable
There's more than one kind of multiverse. The problem for most people is partly a matter of familiarity - they're not so crazy once you understand how they came about. They're predictions of currently accepted theories, given some simple assumptions.I tend to disregard multiverse theory because personally I think it just sounds kind of crazy.
Don't you love the folks who call things like this crazy while clinging to the idea of an omnipotent all-knowing being who can't be observed in any way? Angels and demons and global floods that leave no trace. That's not crazy at all. But a multiverse ... that's crazy.There's more than one kind of multiverse. The problem for most people is partly a matter of familiarity - they're not so crazy once you understand how they came about. They're predictions of currently accepted theories, given some simple assumptions.
Not so long ago, there wasn't thought to be anything beyond our Milky Way galaxy - then what had been thought to be stars and clusters on its outskirts were discovered to be whole other galaxies unimaginably far away. They called these 'island universes'... Now we're all used to the idea, and it doesn't seem so unbelievable as it once did. The problem for multiverses is that we don't know if they can be observed in any way.
Yeah - I was going to make that comparison, but decided to leave it implicitDon't you love the folks who call things like this crazy while clinging to the idea of an omnipotent all-knowing being who can't be observed in any way? Angels and demons and global floods that leave no trace. That's not crazy at all. But a multiverse ... that's crazy.
Nobody asked.
There's more than one kind of multiverse. The problem for most people is partly a matter of familiarity - they're not so crazy once you understand how they came about. They're predictions of currently accepted theories, given some simple assumptions.
Not so long ago, there wasn't thought to be anything beyond our Milky Way galaxy - then what had been thought to be stars and clusters on its outskirts were discovered to be whole other galaxies unimaginably far away. They called these 'island universes'... Now we're all used to the idea, and it doesn't seem so unbelievable as it once did. The problem for multiverses is that we don't know if they can be observed in any way, so they remain possibilities, but they're consistent with and derived from our best physical theories.
I'm not sure what you're after here - multiverses are predictions of current theories. A multiverse is a [potentially infinite] collection of universes, causally isolated volumes whose properties may vary (depending on the multiverse type).Are there any predictions made by multiverse theory that can be described in lay terms?
So far as I know there's no direct "evidence" for a multiverse, only predictions based upon theoretical models, as outlined above by @FrumiousBandersnatch. (That boy is wicked smart) So I'm in the same boat that you're in, trying to use my limited knowledge to come to a reasonable conclusion, and here's what I've got:Just out of curiosity, do you feel as though evidence for multiverse theory is on par with evidence for the theory of evolution?
I should like to nominate this for Largest Understatement of the Year on Christian Forums award. If there isn't such an award, there should be.None of these multiverses excludes any other - they could, potentially, all coexist - which would be interesting...
And he never did...I am sure I'm not the first to ask - show your work?
What is an "astronomical degree", and who determined this? Show you calculations and make sure to define all variables and to justify the values you chose for them.
Cart before the horse?
Evidence please.Creationism 101
1. The universe as observed by science is statistically improbable to an astronomical degree.
Unwarranted dichotomy. But you forgot2. This inherent improbability suggests God is the best explanation for statistical improbability observed in the world.
...
Not that you will even look at this thread anymore, and if you do, not that you will ever reply in any meaningful way...
Evidence please.
Unwarranted dichotomy. But you forgot
Creationism 101
3. Never try to support anything you claim re: creation or evolution, because you will almost certainly be wrong and will then have to suffer the brain-crushing realization that if you are wrong about silly claim X, you might also be wrong about Faith claim Y, and you are wrong about that.. .well... you could be wrong about... the BIG THINGS!
Quite... and statistics on a sample of oneNot that you will even look at this thread anymore, and if you do, not that you will ever reply in any meaningful way...
Evidence please.Creationism 101
1. The universe as observed by science is statistically improbable to an astronomical degree.
Unwarranted dichotomy.2. This inherent improbability suggests God is the best explanation for statistical improbability observed in the world.
...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?