Why can't I agree with those same theories of what happened before the big bang? I wouldn't personally limit God to a set number of big bangs, let alone a set number of previous or concurrent universes. If we can develop a model of what happened, then I think we should. Belief in God isn't an alternative to science. It isn't a competing ideology unless you want it to be.
I agree with you on one part. Belief in God isn't an alternative to science. I just take the view that maybe you don't that science can actually be used to find more answers than just scientific ones. We can do it with love and many, many other aspects of life.
The only thing though, if you one believes in God, it isn't limiting the God to Big Bangs. One theory that I know of, theorizes that before the big bang, there was another universe like ours but it collapsed. The proponents of that theory have scientific reasoning to believe it. So I am pretty much talking about the same thing and then we have the possibilities of endless amounts don't we? If we are billions of light years away, and if we use our own manner to measure, if one would want to put God in the idea of 'big bangs' the possibilities are endless.
It's just that I perceive an underlying framework to reality. To my mind, that framework suggests a the work of a creative intelligence... much like a computer program would suggest a programming language and a programmer. Even if we knew everything that we could possibly know about nature, my view would probably remain the same. As a philosophical position, monotheism makes more sense to me than atheism or polytheism. People tell me that I'm a bright guy, that I'm great at pattern recognition etc. I've always loved science, and I can imagine all kinds of SF/Fantasy alternatives so it's not like I lack the imagination to see other points of view. Why shouldn't I go with what seems the most plausible to me? Why should I have to choose between two things that are not mutually exclusive? Why should I accept being told that I'm stupid, delusional, backward etc. by strangers, when such accusations are demonstrably not true IRL? Such nonsense says more about the accuser than it says about myself or my fellow Christians. Quite a few of which who I've known personally are practicing scientists, FWIW. So I see the universe as evidence of God, and you don't. It's more a matter of perspective than anything else. I'll connect the dots as you see fit. If you see things differently, feel free to do so. Your perspective is your perspective, just as my perspective is my perspective.
I will never tell you what to believe. I just won't agree with you at this current time. So when we have our discourse, you will see why I disagree with you, not me trying to change your mind.
The Christian God is portrayed as the beginning and the end, the logical order of things, the language of what holds it all together. In the beginning was the Logos, the Logos was with God and the Logos was God. - John 1:1. That sounds a lot like my idea of a Creator, especially considering the connection between language and coding. He's not a Zeus type character in my book, and there's nothing about him that would lead me to reject things like gravity or evolution.
Moses saw the backside of God. So depending on how you read that verse, yes Jehovah can very well be a character like Zeus. Then we see 'God' Incarnate into the Jewish peasant and the next we will supposedly see this god as a conquering warrior coming from the east. John 1:1 speaks of the essence of god in my opinion simply because the Bible as a whole goes on several different illustrations of God.
What is interesting to me, and I meaning nothing against you with this, I just find it interesting. There are a great number of Christians like you. Then there are a great number of Christians who do see things like evolution, the big bang, etc. as part of antithesis of the faith. It is just an interesting difference to me.
As far as theologians are concerned, it seems to me most modern apologists are involved in an elaborate play. They're handed scripts, and they do their best to play their parts, but the fruits of their labor is disconnected from reality. I feel the similarly about authors like Richard Dawkins. In real life, theists and atheists can easily work side by side in a constructive manner. Believers and nonbelievers alike can contribute to the advancement of science, or whatever it is they feel like doing.
I agree big time there. The public battle between prominent atheists and Christian theologians is nothing short of the tabloid nonsense. The only thing is, for some of us and this topic, we can see things from both sides that we agree with. Christians like people like Ravi Zacharias and C.S. Lewis, and people like me may like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Kind of like rooting for Hulk Hogan or Andre the Giant.
Sorry for rambling. Sometimes, I feel like this is all a matter of reciting the same old same old. Nothing much accomplished, nothing much learned. Two or more people stubbornly refusing to see each other's point of view while occasionally lobbing poorly formulated generalizations and half-truths at each other, punctuated by the occasional insult. Fun stuff despite it all, but not something I plan on doing much longer. Although I do appreciate these conversations.
No reason to apologize.
It is a matter of reciting the same rhetoric. There's no other way around it when discussions like these come about.
One thing I think at least should be noted. We both see each other's point of view loud and clear. That's why we are debating and why the debate continues with this topic.
I don't mind keeping it up either with you at least because you are one of my favorite people on the boards to have this talk with. You make it easy for me at least, to not get so direct because of how you react to me stating my views, or my reasons for not agreeing with you. So thanks
If you don't like the direction the thread is taking, then bring it back on-topic and avoid the moral discussion that has come about.
