Trouble squaring the Fall and the Cross.

Mathetes the kerux said:

Ya know I was thinking . . . even if Quantum studies and Einstien*ick* physics attribute the beginning of the universe to something along the lines of fluxes and enegry surges . . . it still means nothing. They still have to have some way of starting the fluxes and surges . . . so they still have the same quandry.

Not necessarily so - according to the latest stuff I've been reading up on. (For the record, I don't really understand these theories and I think they're more speculation than "real" science. When real results come in, then I'll take them seriously.)

Basically there are four options to the "beginning" of it all:
1. The universe is eternal (including the fluxes and surges for they still make up the "stuff" of the universe, whether pre or post bang)
This is impossible for we know that everything had a beginning . . . "big bang" theories and studies show that the universe has an origin, unequivocally.

The key words here Mathetes are, "we know". As I understand it, zero information can be conclusively known about anything prior to the Big Bang event. In fact, there is no, "prior" or "before", because the Big Bang is the event in which Space and Time themselves came into existence.

So, we can safely say that "we know" that all things appear to have a point and moment of origin - beyond that, all is speculation and inference, based on what we can discover after the Event. Therefore a cosmologist would reply that it is inadvisable to use the word, "impossible" when talking about the possibility of an eternal universe. Such a scenario might be possible, but currently there is no definitive way of say Yes or No to it.

This hasn't stopped scientists speculating and theorizing about an eternal universe, though. Please don't ask me to explain any of their ideas! I can provide some links, if you're interested, but that's all!


2. The universe is really and illusion
This is impossible for there must BE something in order for it to HAVE and illusion. That thing that therefore IS must then qualify by the other three options . . .

3. The universe created itself
Logic requires that this is impossible . . . something that is not cannot create itself to be . . . IOW a thing that is non-existent cannot force its own existence. Out of nothing, oila, nothing comes.

4. Something created the universe
This is the ONLY logical option. People disregard this option based SOLEY on presupposition instead of obejctive logic.

Points 2, 3 and 4 all rest on the assumption that human logic and reason are capable of producing meaningful answers to these questions. Current cosmological theories and thinking seem to suggest that...

A. Logic and reason may not be able to give us meaningful answers...
B. So we should not rely exclusively upon them to do so. Other paradigms, beyond human understanding, may be needed to successfully comprehend these things. Therefore...
C. These matters may never be comprehensible to us and we should take this possibility into account, when investigating further. Our rationality may have limits, but reality need not. In fact, why should reality conform to our definition of what is comprehensible at all?
D. A hint of the counter-intuitive (non-rational) nature of reality comes from quantum theory, where atomic-scale particles appear to "tunnel" through solid materials or "jump" instantaneously across distances without being seen to travel across them.

Please note, that I am only reporting these things, I do not necessarily agree with them.


The response to this is usually "well if everything must have a beginning and God created it all . . . then who created God?" to which the person making the statement smiles in supposed triumph. Oops.
The problem here then becomes the error commonly called "categorical confusion." It is a matter of apples and oranges. In one category we are speaking of created things that are factually NON eternal (proven quite simply by entropy, EVERYTHING we know is caught in the cycle of degradation . . . we have NOT ONE example [within the box of time space that is] that is contrary to this). The problem is that God is not in this category. If God were, then it would be appropriate to retort with "well then who created God?" . . . but alas HE IS NOT IN THIS CATEGORY so the response is moot.
Whomever (or whatever) it is that was able to create this universe from nothing (aside from that which constitutes its own existence) MUST HAVE THE POWER AND ABILITY OF SELF-EXISTENCE within and of itself . . . IOW it or he must be eternal or it must fall into the category of created. If it falls into the category of created . . . then it is not God and as such remains a part of the normal order of existence and must be subject to the three philosophical options above (minus the eternal deliniation). At that point we are back to square one and are caught into the cycle of ad infinitum regression again, again, again, again, again, et. al.
So . . . logic requires the existence of God . . . regardless of Einstieninian or Quantum theories. Neither of these concepts requires a negation of the Source Eternal (namely YHWH) for neither of them are seeking to define what is beyond our box of time and space.

The above argument holds water MTK and I happen to agree with it, but, given that it relies on logical argumentation, the emboldened points A to D seem to negate it's value.
All of our talk about origins and creation and God, based as they are on human understanding, may well be moot if the universe is non-rational.

Once again, I don't necessarily hold with these ideas. I'm reporting them and trying to keep an open mind on them too.

Pax

MTK

Click to expand...

Chesterton said:

We know that mixing of truth and non-truth has taken place, and still does take place (heard of "The DaVinci Code"?). From early on, there were stories about Christ which were rejected. But the canonization of the New Testament could be a topic of its own I suppose. As a Christian, I believe the non-truth was weeded out during the canonization process, at least enough so that the overall story is reliable.

I hate to sound pedantic, but I think it important to distinguish between "myth", which we were discussing previously, and things like mistakes, lies or exaggerations, which is what I think you're referring to above when you say "myth"?

No. Sorry, but I don't automatically equate myths with lies/mistakes/exaggerations. I value myths differently to historical reportage, that's all.

To address myth - when you speak of "portions of myth mixed into the Gospels", there's really no evidence of that. It's not written like myth, it's not presented as myth, it's presented as "we all saw such and such happen", with very good detail. Accounts of Christ's miracles are accompanied with stuff like "It was in this town, on this day, we had just eaten lunch, James was there, Mary was there, the other James was there, a crowd of others saw it, etc." But most importantly, Christ's death and resurrection, has no mythic meaning, no meaning at all really, apart from it's factuality. The story of the Fall, being myth, tells a story, relates a truth, expresses an idea, but it doesn't do anything. The story of the Cross does something, it affects something important. What I'm trying to say is, there is no reason to tell the story unless it is fact. The Gospel writers could be lying or mistaken, but it makes no sense that they simply invented a meaningful myth (whether with good intentions or bad), because the story of the Cross doesn't relate any idea other than itself. Does that make sense?

The story of the Cross is this: a real event actually took place - a real Christ really died for our sins.

But the same is really true of all Jesus's miracles. I've read good explanations of deeper symbolism involved in each of Jesus's acts, but ultimately, they are all simply about him, not about any wider, deeper truth. What could be the deeper meaning of a man walking on water or a man withering a fig tree? Again, there's no other idea being expressed except - this real man exercises control over the physical world by his mere will - this man is God.

Of course even if the Gospel writers weren't myth-making, there could be non-truth mixed in. Your story about the French non-saint saints doesn't demonstrate that there's no such thing as a real saint. Likewise, if some of Christ's miracles didn't happen, that doesn't demonstrate that he didn't do others. So what do we do? It seems like trusting their factuality is an all-or-nothing proposition. If we knew he healed a leper in this town, but didn't really heal the insane man in the other town, or if we knew he turned water into wine, but didn't multiply the loaves, then what? The narratives seem designed so that you either believe that he had power over nature, or you don't - the miracles are far too numerous and varied. Possibly they could all be outright lies, but they are too numerous and varied for them all to involve exaggeration or mistake.

I've heard skeptics who think Jesus was somehow "exaggerated" into being divine. That he was a very wise and good man, possibly very charismatic, and... and... and what I don't know. I don't know how you exaggerate a man walking on water - it either happened or it didn't. If there were a single such act recounted, sure, I could believe that some mistake had been made, but not numerous acts, and numerous types of acts, seen by many people. It leads me to believe all the accounts of miracles are lies, or else they are true. I think the skeptic's idea of exaggeration or mistake is untenable after you give it a moment's thought.

Those are some reasons I rule out the Gospels being mythic story or exaggeration or misunderstanding. That doesn't rule out the whole story being a lie, and I was going to go into that, but this post is a bit lengthy, and I'm not sure I haven't gotten off-course from what you want to discuss anyway, so I think I'll leave off here and see what you may have to say.



I may be misunderstanding, but it seems all you're saying above is: treating the Genesis account of the Fall literally demands that Genesis be taken literally. And I'm not a literalist so I can't defend that p.o.v.

I believe in the idea and meaning of "The Fall". The idea of the Fall is that man was invented good, including the good feature of a free will, and came to disobey his good Creator, and that there are lasting consequences for every individual. Man was made to be whole and sound, but is now sick, broken or corrupted. I believe that is the meaning of the Fall. Whether it involved a man named Adam, a tree, a fruit or a serpent is really not important. Whether this change in the nature of man took place in an instant, or over the course of millenia doesn't matter.



Yes, I've seen some of that.



The same Science, which once said the Jewish histories were false because there was no such thing as a Hittite people, later, through archeology, proved that there was in fact a great Hittite Empire. Science, which could once claim the Gospels were fiction because there was no such person as Pontius Pilate, proved that there was a Pontius Pilate. Science, which once held the universe could be eternal, now all but proves the idea of the Genesis story - that the universe had a beginning. And if science proves that humans evolved gradually and there really couldn't have been an Adam? Then it's disproving a secondary fact, but not the primary meaning of Adam (universal sin). I guess it depends on what particular points you're looking at, but on many important points, I see that science is an ally, if not to all religion, at least to Christianity. Like any relationship, the one between Science and Religion has its ups and downs, but judging from the track record, my attitude towards science is "keep up the good work". And I'd never want to dump a good ally.



Jesus referring to the moon as a dairy product? I understand the point you made, but goodness, we Christians have enough trouble answering for what's actually in the book. Do we really need to defend make-believe errors?

It did make me think, though, that the fact that you invented a hypothetical error to attribute to Jesus leads me to suspect that maybe you've read the Gospels and didn't find an actual error; otherwise you'd have asked about the actual error?

Once again Chesterton, I'm not looking for errors in the Gospels in this thread. I was simply reporting an instance where I invented a ludicrous question for Colin and Jez and they took it w-a-y too seriously.

If you poisoned them and they both died, what would you conclude? You'd have to be a diligent scientist, and consider all possible conclusions, not just the hypothesis you were testing. Up 'til the end, Judas Iscariot was a Disciple of Christ, and I suspect he'd have keeled over if you spiked his drink. If you can't be sure of a disciple being a true believer, who could you ever be sure of?

Lighten up friend! I was just joking.

Thanks Walter.

Click to expand...

aiki said:

I don't think science ever leads anyone to "atheistic conclusions." Various philosophies do this, but not science itself. This is what I was getting at in my last couple of posts.

W-e-l-l, I dunno about "ever".

If you take a look at what Mathetes the Kerux and I have been discussing, Aiki, you'll see that we mention how a Young Earth seems to be ruled out by the findings of mainstream science. This is the very same science that the Christians at Reasons.com - your online source for Bible Prophecies ! embrace and have no problem with. So, if I were to rephrase what I said about science's "atheistic conclusions" to read, "scientific conclusions that contradict Young Earth Creationism", perhaps that would be more accurate?

Science, held in subjection to the divine authority of Scripture, will never lead ultimately to wrong conclusions. It was the biblical idea that a Creator had made an ordered, rational universe and that that universe could be rationally investigated and understood which greatly contributed to the development of modern science.

There may be periods of time where the facts of science may not be immediately reconcilable with Scripture, but rather than jumping to the conclusion that the Bible is wrong and needs to be "adjusted" to fit with what science presently indicates, a Christian should give God's Word the benefit of the doubt and trust that what Man has come to understand in part will ultimately correspond with Scripture when it is understood in full.
"Random" and "chaotic" are words scientists use to describe what they don't understand. Those things which appear to be this way may be completely ordered and sensible when better understood.

I think the Common Sense scientist's motives for attempting to find an electromagnetic basis for the universe are appropriate for Christians. They may be mistaken (or, they may not) but the fact that they give the Bible, the Word of God, preeminence over naturalist interpretations of science is completely right, in my opinion.

Peace to you.

Click to expand...