I just don't *want* to believe!

[Brightmoon]

.
Then your answer is, in Hypothetical fact, there was no big BANG ! ! !

I’m not a physicist my degree is in biology. I only captured one and picked his brains one day
Picture all of the matter, energy, space and time in the universe squashed into something less than the size of a period. Now picture that letting go. That’s why they call it the Big Bang even though it wasn’t really an explosion.

 

[mark kennedy]

One famous line in philosophy is "Cogito, ergo sum" which means "I think, therefore I am" from Rene Descartes related to the "mind-body problem" of philosophy and out of skepticism. He could doubt all external reality, but could not doubt his own existence, the internal source necessary to doubt all external reality. Now, this of course assumes an autonomy which does not exist, but it does demonstrates several things like the interpretation involved in external facts, and it brings to the forefront the "other minds problem" in philosophy. It is a perspective of pure relativism, that is helpful in so far as it brings out the need for contact with an external reality to indeed give justification and grounds for knowing external or objective that is reality outside of one's own existence. This is where being made in the image of God comes into play, such that our Creator has endowed us with an innate ability to be interpreters of reality, and our justification comes from the point of contact with the mind of God Himself. In this we are as it were, thinking God's thoughts after Him, for every true interpretive thought concerning reality. Of course the anthropological doctrine of being made in the image of God comes from the external Revelation from God in Scripture, it is how our Creator made us, to be dependent on Him, and so it is. All of this is to say that very very little can be proven 100% especially with regards to natural material reality. The only proofs that come to mind which are absurd and insane to deny, are immaterial conceptual reality, such as the laws of logic, mathematics, and so on, which are necessary for language, and interpretation of external material reality. So it is what it is, and what it is, is a kind of Creator-creature dependency that is theonomous, however the fallen nature of creatures such as us lends towards hiding from God, which for the mind amounts to suppressing the truth, while the Heavens declare the glory of God.

Oh the famous "Cogito, ergo sum", what on earth does that mean? A guy sitting around a pot belly stove trying to figure out what reality is, during the Thirty Years War. What do I really know, and according to René Descartes it was the fact that I was asking the question, that doesn't really do it for me. Meanwhile back in Cambridge Sir Isaac Newton is figuring out how light works, there are seven elements which he proves conclusively, or at least empirically, that's pretty great. Newton goes on to show how the Y squared works in motion, and calculus was born, again really great.

The same Cognto, ergo sum, still poses a question to this day, how do I sitting here thinking about it make me understand. Don't get me wrong, I love the insight and introspection, but how is me sitting here thinking about it the key to knowledge? I think therefore I am, that's the basic meaning. With 1 plus 2 I have 3 unless I'm mistaken, that seems an obvious fact so there is the sum. I can understand that so there goes the cognito, which is the fact that I understand it. Newton didn't like Descartes because he said it was too atheistic, I kind of agree. But Descartes kind of has a point, reality comes to me sitting here thinking about it, that's got to mean something.

 

[Brightmoon]

Cogito ergo sum means, I think therefore I am, in English . He’s saying that since he can think of himself, he must exist.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I've been thinking a lot about the whole evolution/creation thing and as a result I recently learned something about myself. I was thinking, even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where nothing became something, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where non-life gave rise to life, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that irreducible complexity is not an issue with evolution, etc., the fact of the matter is, I still wouldn't accept the theories being taught by the evolutionists. Why? Because I simply don't want to believe it.

This realization has made me wonder if there might be others (on either side of the fence) who refuse to believe something just because they don't want to? Since it's true for me, I imagine it's true for others, too. (It's rather liberating to learn something about yourself.)

Sure and GOOD and GREAT !
as without FAITH in JESUS, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be saved or to please Yahweh.

But , FAITH in men, brings Yahweh's curse .

There's no necessary nor any reasonable nor any right reason to believe what is not of faith -
in fact, whatever is not of faith is sin. See?

So rather have faith, and please Yahweh, than to trust men, and be cursed by Him.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Except that in the case of the painting we already have demonstrable evidence of the existence of painters, the tools they use, how paintings are created, and so on. Can't exactly say the same for the origin of the universe as a result of creation via a supernatural being.

Otherwise people would be easily able to answer how the universe was created.

From the illustration we can deduce several things:

The painting is not the painter
The painter is outside the painting
The painting is subject to the painter (the painter can choose to paint more or not, he can choose to paint over, change colors)
The painter is not limited by the painting (he can paint however many of whatever he chooses)
The painting originates from the painter

With this illustration, the painter is likened to Creator, the interaction of the painter with the painting is likened to the supernatural, and the painting to Creation. Without the painter, there is no painting, it has no beginning, no ability no elements of self-cause in itself, the existence of the painting moves (think on paint moving across a canvas) and has being in the painter. Kinda weird huh?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I agree - it seems likely that we can't be certain of anything - but I'm not sure

WHOEVER,
trusts in Yahweh and relies on Yahweh with certainty
is never disappointed.

 

[JIMINZ]

I’m not a physicist my degree is in biology. I only captured one and picked his brains one day
Picture all of the matter, energy, space and time in the universe squashed into something less than the size of a period. Now picture that letting go. That’s why they call it the Big Bang even though it wasn’t really an explosion.

.
I'm attempting to be as precise as those that would say science is precise, science does not say something if it isn't proven fact.

The term Big Bang denotes the beginning of the process of everything we see today, including people.

This is an ongoing, never ending debate.

Personally, I do not see how it relates to the questions asked in the OP.

There was his mentioning he thought about the whole evolution / creation thing. but that was as far as his comments went, but some people have turned this into a Big Bang thing and Science, these were not what the OP was about.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Cogito ergo sum means, I think therefore I am, in English . He’s saying that since he can think of himself, he must exist.

Yes it's kind of an answer to total and complete skepticism of everything. However he only accounted for the internal, without accounting for the external, well at least so far as the famous short saying goes. I used it as a kind of springboard.

 

[pitabread]

With this illustration, the painter is likened to Creator, the interaction of the painter with the painting is likened to the supernatural, and the painting to Creation.

Except that both the painting and painter occupy the same physical universe and are operating under the constraint of the same physical laws. And as mentioned, we already have third party observation (also occupying the same universe) of said painters creating paintings and an understanding of how said paintings are created.

The analogy doesn't hold up.

 

[dysert]

.
I'm attempting to be as precise as those that would say science is precise, science does not say something if it isn't proven fact.

The term Big Bang denotes the beginning of the process of everything we see today, including people.

This is an ongoing, never ending debate.

Personally, I do not see how it relates to the questions asked in the OP.

There was his mentioning he thought about the whole evolution / creation thing. but that was as far as his comments went, but some people have turned this into a Big Bang thing and Science, these were not what the OP was about.

Kudos to you for identifying this.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Except that both the painting and painter occupy the same physical universe and are operating under the constraint of the same physical laws. And as mentioned, we already have third party observation (also occupying the same universe) of said painters creating paintings and an understanding of how said paintings are created.

The analogy doesn't hold up.

It holds up so far as it goes, it's just not a perfect analogy, meaning incomplete. The painter can go in another room and travel far away from his painting though.

 

[sfs]

>> When scientists do not know the answer to something, they do two things: admit "I don't know" and say "let's find out". <<

Close but not quite dead on. The actual second response is, "Give me a grant and we'll find out."

 

[sfs]

The term Big Bang denotes the beginning of the process of everything we see today, including people.

"Big Bang" denotes the idea that the observable universe was, billions of years ago, much, much smaller, hotter and denser, and that it expanded rapidly from that state.

 

[sfs]

Name something that you believe is true, but choose not to believe it's true.

I can't name such a thing. That's my point. I can't choose not to believe something I know is true. Now, if you'll show me some evidence that all belief is a matter of choice, then I'll have a basis for believing your statement. Until you do, it's just your assertion vs my experience.

 

[JIMINZ]

Kudos to you for identifying this.

.
Look at my post #31 and we can begin this thread again.

Ps Thanks

 

[JIMINZ]

"Big Bang" denotes the idea that the observable universe was, billions of years ago, much, much smaller, hotter and denser, and that it expanded rapidly from that state.

.

And because of that BB we arrive at evolution.
That's my point, it has nothing to do with the OP

 

[JIMINZ]

I can't name such a thing. That's my point. I can't choose not to believe something I know is true. Now, if you'll show me some evidence that all belief is a matter of choice, then I'll have a basis for believing your statement. Until you do, it's just your assertion vs my experience.

Isn't truth only relative to one's own experience?

 

[sfs]

And because of that BB we arrive at evolution.
That's my point, it has nothing to do with the OP

Both the Big Bang and evolution are relevant to the OP, since scientific theories of evolution and the origin of the universe are listed by the author as things he refuses to believe. Your post #31, on the other hand, seems to have nothing to do with the OP.

 

[sfs]

Isn't truth only relative to one's own experience?

a) No. There might be some post-modernists or the like who would claim that, but I certainly wouldn't expect a Christian to support that point of view.
b) What the heck does that question have to do with my request for someone to provide evidence for his claim?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Isn't truth only relative to one's own experience?

Back to "I think therefore I am"....