When Nothing Created Everything
Dec 8, 2010
Joe Carter
Throughout history people have been awed and thrilled by retellings of their culture’s creation story.
Aztecs would tell of the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes, Phoenicians about the Zophashamin, and Jews and Christians about the one true God—Jehovah. But there is one unfortunate group—the children of atheistic materialists—that has no creation myth to call its own. When an inquisitive tyke asks who created the sun, the animals, and mankind, their materialist parents can only tell them to read a book by Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins.
But what sort of story are they likely to find? Should they be told, as famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking claims in his recent book The Grand Design that “the universe… create[d] itself from nothing”?
Since Hawking's explanation is a bit too drab and nospecific for bedtime reading I’ve decided to take the elements of materialism and shape them into a purportedly accurate, though mythic, narrative. This is what our culture has been missing for far too long—a creation story for young atheistic materialists.
******
In the beginning was Nothing, and Nothing created Everything. When Nothing decided to create Everything, she filled a tiny dot with Time, Chance, and Everything and had it expand. The expansion spread Everything into Everywhere carrying Time and Chance with it to keep it company. The three stretched out together leaving bits of themselves wherever they went. One of those places was the planet Earth.
For no particular Reason—for Reason is rarely particular—Time and Chance took a liking to this little, wet, blue rock and decided to stick around to see what adventures they might have. While the pair found the Earth to be intriguing and pretty, they also found it a bit too quiet, too static. They fixed upon an idea to change Everything (just a little) by creating a special Something. Time and Chance roamed the planet, splashing through the oceans and sloshing through the mud, in search of materials. But though they looked Everywhere, there was a missing ingredient that they needed in order to make a Something that could create more of the same Somethings.
They called to their friend Everything to help. Since Everything had been Everywhere she would no doubt be able to find the missing ingredient. And indeed she did. Hidden away in a small alcove called Somewhere, Everything found what Time and Chance had needed all along: Information. Everything put Information on a piece of ice and rock that happened to be passing by the former planet Pluto and sent it back to her friends on Earth.
Now that they had Information, Time and Chance were finally able to create a self-replicating Something which they called Life. Once they created Life they found that it not only grew into more Somethings, but began to become Otherthings, too! The Somethings and the Otherthings began to fill the Earth—from the bottom of the oceans to the top of the sky. Their creation, which began as a single Something, eventually became millions and billions of Otherthings.
Time and Chance, though, where the bickering sort and were constantly feuding over which of them was the most powerful. One day they began to argue over who had been more responsible for creating Life. Everything (who was forever eavesdropping) overheard the spat and suggested that they settle by putting their creative skills to work on a new creature called Man. They all thought is was a splendid plan—for Man was a dull, hairy beast who would indeed provide a suitable challenge—and began to boast about who could create an ability, which they called Consciousness, that would allow Man to be aware of Chance, Time, Everything, and Nothing.
Chance, always a bit of a dawdler, got off to a slow start, so Time, who never rested, completed the task first. Time rushed around, filling the gooey matter inside each Man’s head with Consciousness. But as he was gloating over his victory he noticed a strange reaction. When Man saw that Everything had been created by Time, Chance, and Nothing, his Consciousness filled with Despair.
Chance immediately saw a solution to the problem and took the remaining materials she was using to make Consciousness to create Beliefs. When Chance mixed Beliefs into the gray goo, Man stopped filling with Despair and started creating Illusions. These Illusions took various forms—God, Purpose, Meaning—and were almost always effective in preventing Man from filling up with Despair.
Nothing, who tended to be rather forgetful, remembered her creation and decided to take a look around Everything. When she saw what Time and Chance had done on planet Earth she was mildly amused, but forbade them to fill any more creatures with Consciousness or Beliefs (which is why Man is the only Something that has both). But Nothing took a fancy to Man and told Time and Chance that when each one’s Life ran out, she would take him or her and make them into Nothing too.
And that is why, children, when Man loses his Life he goes from being a Something created by Time and Chance into becoming like his creator—Nothing.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
Comments:
12.8.2010 | 3:30am
sanpietrini says:
You've missed your calling, Joe. Hopefully, there are millions of Somethings that can now thank you for giving them their own version of Dicken's "Christmas Carol."
12.8.2010 | 4:48am
Chelsea says:
I got goose-bumps when I read that. Fantastic. Everyone is going to be sent that on my email list....!
12.8.2010 | 5:04am
Jason says:
Somewhere an atheist is reading this and thinking "hey, this could be true"
12.8.2010 | 5:15am
Charles says:
This is brilliant. I am going to steal this for my Facebook. Well done, sir!
12.8.2010 | 6:51am
John says:
Interesting reading...now prepare yourself for the deluge of vitriol that is sure to follow. Atheists - especially the Dawkins/Hitchens mob - have proven themselves to be a hatefilled breed. Jerry Falwell had nothing on this lot when it came to spewing venomous bile of people they disagreed with...
12.8.2010 | 7:26am
Judy Bowman says:
How appropriate that you posted this on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception! When a singularity of God's creation and grace and love came into being. Thank you for your reflections.
12.8.2010 | 7:53am
David Nickol says:
John says: "Atheists - especially the Dawkins/Hitchens mob - have proven themselves to be a hatefilled breed. Jerry Falwell had nothing on this lot when it came to spewing venomous bile of people they disagreed with..."
Yes, isn't it terrible how that hate-filled breed -- atheists -- spew venomous bile against people they disagree with. Christians, of course, always speak charitably of atheists.
Yes, isn't it terrible how that hate-filled breed -- atheists -- spew venomous bile against people they disagree with. Christians, of course, always speak charitably of atheists.
12.8.2010 | 8:46am
ricko says:
Mr. Dawkins, when pressed, will be happy to tell you that humankind was created by the germ of aliens from another planet. Just goes to show you how far some people will go to not recognize God...
[I am not making this up.]
[I am not making this up.]
12.8.2010 | 9:00am
The Moz says:
Brilliant! I wish I could send it to my atheist friends, but they're honestly not nearly nuanced enough to appreciate the irony that for all their insistent pleadings that their view is humane it really lacks any and all humanity and is as cold and as terrifying as the something from nothing above.
12.8.2010 | 9:02am
Joe says:
Secularists honestly admit that they do not know how the universe started; while religionists pretend they do know, but they are not honest, here.
Is the religious "answer," really an answer? "God did it"? But then that leaves begging the key question: WHERE DID GOD COME FROM, in turn? To say he is an "uncaused cause," is merely to interject an oxymoron.
ALL cosmogenies in fact, including Christianity, have the very same problem: how did something, appear out of nothing? Or better said - what made their "first cause"? Where did IT come from? The answers are never good enough.
In Anthropology there is a famous tale, about an Anthropologist who asked the local tribe, about where the world came from. And was told that it was on the back of a turtle. But then the anthropologist asked, "well, what's under that turtle"? The answer: "Well, another turtle." But then what's under THAT turtle? The final "answer" of course, is no answer at all: "turtles - all the way down!"
We are used to always having to have some kind of answer, for the next test. But in this case, the best and most honest answer, as to the origin of the universe, is always simply: "We don't know." A frank admission of humility and ignorance.
But Catholics are too Proud, to be really humble. And to say simply, "I don't know.
Is the religious "answer," really an answer? "God did it"? But then that leaves begging the key question: WHERE DID GOD COME FROM, in turn? To say he is an "uncaused cause," is merely to interject an oxymoron.
ALL cosmogenies in fact, including Christianity, have the very same problem: how did something, appear out of nothing? Or better said - what made their "first cause"? Where did IT come from? The answers are never good enough.
In Anthropology there is a famous tale, about an Anthropologist who asked the local tribe, about where the world came from. And was told that it was on the back of a turtle. But then the anthropologist asked, "well, what's under that turtle"? The answer: "Well, another turtle." But then what's under THAT turtle? The final "answer" of course, is no answer at all: "turtles - all the way down!"
We are used to always having to have some kind of answer, for the next test. But in this case, the best and most honest answer, as to the origin of the universe, is always simply: "We don't know." A frank admission of humility and ignorance.
But Catholics are too Proud, to be really humble. And to say simply, "I don't know.
12.8.2010 | 9:30am
Jimbo says:
I am disappointed with Prof. Hawkings recent comments. I suspect that he is "losing it." His comments are clearly subjective and uncalled for.
12.8.2010 | 9:56am
djf says:
As a Jew, I appreciate the friendliness of the Christian writers on this site to Jews and their sensitivity to Jewish concerns. However, contrary to a misconception held by many Christians (apparently including Mr. Carter) and Jewishly uneducated Jews, the Jewish name for the deity was never "Jehovah."
12.8.2010 | 10:10am
Timothius says:
Mr. Carter, good job.
Obviously, "Nothing" and "Everything" are not fully comprehensible. But then neither is God. Your characters "Nothing" and "Everything" are contained within our definition of God.
When I contemplate such things such as:
Who am I?
Who am I meant to be?
What is a full person, a good person, a reaching for the stars, developing in the right way person?
Children, this is what man is. This is the the "good stuff." This is what you want to be passionate about.
And, I connect such things to the sense that there is something in the universe, and not nothing. I connect such things to the sense of the "cosmos." It makes all the difference in the world =who= "Nothing" and "Everything" are.
If "Nothing" and "Everything" don't give a rip, why should I? Why should I care for my fellowman any more than I can exploit and manipulate the situation to my preference, pleasure, and personal satisfaction? "Sacrificial love" is an illogical concept, if "Nothing" and "Everything" reign over the heavens.
But the idea or rationale that "Nothing" and "Everything" are actually contained within a loving God still might only be the "best fit" rational argument/development for what we are experiencing.
=Did= God cross the divide? Immanuel, or not?
=Does= God cross the divide? Ministering Holy Spirit. Miracles today?
Back to the essay. Great mythic story, Mr. Carter. The atheist must hold that this is what they are fighting for.
Obviously, "Nothing" and "Everything" are not fully comprehensible. But then neither is God. Your characters "Nothing" and "Everything" are contained within our definition of God.
When I contemplate such things such as:
Who am I?
Who am I meant to be?
What is a full person, a good person, a reaching for the stars, developing in the right way person?
Children, this is what man is. This is the the "good stuff." This is what you want to be passionate about.
And, I connect such things to the sense that there is something in the universe, and not nothing. I connect such things to the sense of the "cosmos." It makes all the difference in the world =who= "Nothing" and "Everything" are.
If "Nothing" and "Everything" don't give a rip, why should I? Why should I care for my fellowman any more than I can exploit and manipulate the situation to my preference, pleasure, and personal satisfaction? "Sacrificial love" is an illogical concept, if "Nothing" and "Everything" reign over the heavens.
But the idea or rationale that "Nothing" and "Everything" are actually contained within a loving God still might only be the "best fit" rational argument/development for what we are experiencing.
=Did= God cross the divide? Immanuel, or not?
=Does= God cross the divide? Ministering Holy Spirit. Miracles today?
Back to the essay. Great mythic story, Mr. Carter. The atheist must hold that this is what they are fighting for.
12.8.2010 | 10:34am
Joe G says:
You are missing a character- "Poof the Magic Mutant" (not to be confused with Puff The Magic Dragon)
Everybody join in-
Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by ramdomess just to see what he could be
Little Richard Dawkins, loved that rascal Poof
And wrote him books, to appease the kooks , what a silly goof
Oh, Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by ramdomess just to see what he could be
Everybody join in-
Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by ramdomess just to see what he could be
Little Richard Dawkins, loved that rascal Poof
And wrote him books, to appease the kooks , what a silly goof
Oh, Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by ramdomess just to see what he could be
12.8.2010 | 10:57am
Ron Krumpos says:
In "The Grand Design" Hawking says that we are somewhat like goldfish in a curved fishbowl. Our perceptions are limited and warped by the kind of lenses we see through, “the interpretive structure of our human brains.” Albert Einstein rejected this subjective approach, common to much of quantum mechanics, but did admit that our view of reality is distorted.
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity has the surprising consequences that “the same event, when viewed from inertial systems in motion with respect to each other, will seem to occur at different times, bodies will measure out at different lengths, and clocks will run at different speeds.” Light does travel in a curve, due to the gravity of matter, thereby distorting views from each perspective in this Universe. Similarly, mystics’ experience in divine oneness, which might be considered the same "eternal" event, viewed from various historical, cultural and personal perspectives, have occurred with different frequencies, degrees of realization and durations. This might help to explain the diversity in the expressions or reports of that spiritual awareness. What is seen is the same; it is the "seeing" which differs.
In some sciences, all existence is described as matter or energy. In some of mysticism, only consciousness exists. Dark matter is 25%, and dark energy about 70%, of the critical density of this Universe. Divine essence, also not visible, emanates and sustains universal matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and cosmic consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). During suprarational consciousness, and beyond, mystics share in that essence to varying extents. [quoted from my e-book on comparative mysticism]
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity has the surprising consequences that “the same event, when viewed from inertial systems in motion with respect to each other, will seem to occur at different times, bodies will measure out at different lengths, and clocks will run at different speeds.” Light does travel in a curve, due to the gravity of matter, thereby distorting views from each perspective in this Universe. Similarly, mystics’ experience in divine oneness, which might be considered the same "eternal" event, viewed from various historical, cultural and personal perspectives, have occurred with different frequencies, degrees of realization and durations. This might help to explain the diversity in the expressions or reports of that spiritual awareness. What is seen is the same; it is the "seeing" which differs.
In some sciences, all existence is described as matter or energy. In some of mysticism, only consciousness exists. Dark matter is 25%, and dark energy about 70%, of the critical density of this Universe. Divine essence, also not visible, emanates and sustains universal matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and cosmic consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). During suprarational consciousness, and beyond, mystics share in that essence to varying extents. [quoted from my e-book on comparative mysticism]
12.8.2010 | 11:32am
matt says:
The first paragraph is cool (in the beginning was Nothing...). I think I want to copy it down somewhere. Sounds like something out of hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. The rest is a little strange and is more obviously poking fun at atheistic evolution.
12.8.2010 | 12:26pm
Larry Tanner says:
It's interesting how Carter's invented myth combines some Genesis and John with a narrative form akin to the creation myths of ancient and aboriginal cultures. But I think this piece actually reflects poorly on both Genesis and John.
No disrespect to Carter, but certainly both Genesis and John are better crafted than this new creation story. Yet their rhetorical superiority highlights that they are themselves tales borne from human imagination. The God of Genesis is a twiddler on earth. He lifts and separates here, gives other things names there. He's not so much creating as cooking and decorating. In contrast, the God of John is far away. John's myth is about the "Word," Jesus. He tells the legend of Jesus, the hero who rode into town to face down the local gang.
Carter's purpose in his pseudo-myth is further undermined by quickly revealing a staggeringly greater depth of knowledge about the universe than either Genesis or John ever held.
More than this, Carter's pseudo-allegory is boring. Apart from allusions to the Scripture it truly vaunts, it imitates little of actual myth. I imagine that Carter deliberately stays away from the Genesis and John exemplars, from the anonymous precursors who wrote the scriptural texts, because a well-wrought mock myth would have reminded us that Genesis and John are myths too. Had Carter followed his models faithfully, he would have underscored the unpleasant issues and questions about the myths available from tax-aided pulpits, television pundits, and tradition-addled parents.
My verdict? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAOxY_nHdew
No disrespect to Carter, but certainly both Genesis and John are better crafted than this new creation story. Yet their rhetorical superiority highlights that they are themselves tales borne from human imagination. The God of Genesis is a twiddler on earth. He lifts and separates here, gives other things names there. He's not so much creating as cooking and decorating. In contrast, the God of John is far away. John's myth is about the "Word," Jesus. He tells the legend of Jesus, the hero who rode into town to face down the local gang.
Carter's purpose in his pseudo-myth is further undermined by quickly revealing a staggeringly greater depth of knowledge about the universe than either Genesis or John ever held.
More than this, Carter's pseudo-allegory is boring. Apart from allusions to the Scripture it truly vaunts, it imitates little of actual myth. I imagine that Carter deliberately stays away from the Genesis and John exemplars, from the anonymous precursors who wrote the scriptural texts, because a well-wrought mock myth would have reminded us that Genesis and John are myths too. Had Carter followed his models faithfully, he would have underscored the unpleasant issues and questions about the myths available from tax-aided pulpits, television pundits, and tradition-addled parents.
My verdict? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAOxY_nHdew
12.8.2010 | 12:42pm
James says:
You need a flood story to explaind the loss of dinasaurs. It would fit into all the other cultural stories!
12.8.2010 | 12:54pm
above says:
Brilliant!
One of the most anusing pieces of writing I've read in a while.
@Joe
-"Secularists honestly admit that they do not know how the universe started; while religionists pretend they do know, but they are not honest, here.
WHERE DID GOD COME FROM"
No, they don't admit anything. atheists claim that the source of it all is some monistic inanimate thing. They just don't know how to disguise that answer well enough to actually sound intelligent.
Also, to ask the question what created God is incomprehensible... So your pathetic attempt at imposing an infinite regress (logical absurdity) or erect a strawman (oxymoron) fails.
One of the most anusing pieces of writing I've read in a while.
@Joe
-"Secularists honestly admit that they do not know how the universe started; while religionists pretend they do know, but they are not honest, here.
WHERE DID GOD COME FROM"
No, they don't admit anything. atheists claim that the source of it all is some monistic inanimate thing. They just don't know how to disguise that answer well enough to actually sound intelligent.
Also, to ask the question what created God is incomprehensible... So your pathetic attempt at imposing an infinite regress (logical absurdity) or erect a strawman (oxymoron) fails.
12.8.2010 | 1:36pm
Domitius says:
@Ron- The problem with saying that our perception of reality is distorted or is warped by the "lenses" we see life through is that the same people who came up with these theories would also be victims of this. How can we be sure they are right if their view of the world is distorted? It is circular reasoning.
12.8.2010 | 1:50pm
Thomas Athanasius says:
@Joe,
"Is the religious 'answer', really an answer? 'God did it"? But then that leaves begging the key question: WHERE DID GOD COME FROM, in turn? To say he is an 'uncaused cause,' is merely to interject an oxymoron."
Um, no.
Our system leaves us with three alternatives.
1) It is absolutely self-contained and linear, with an infinite regression of causes.
2) It is absolutely self-contained and self-referentially cyclic, with a past event somehow being caused by a future event
3) It is not self-contained, with there being a first event which was caused by a cause external to the system
The "religionist", as you put it, has rejected #1 and #2 as workable solutions and has found #3 as the most reasonable.
Having accepted #3, the "religionist" (which would include, e.g., Aristotle) concludes that there being a First Event requires that the cause of that First Event not itself have a cause - an uncaused cause; to reject this is to revert back to scenario #1, but on a larger scale.
You needn't accept such an explanation of reality, but to call it an oxymoron borders on, well, arrogant ignorance.
"Is the religious 'answer', really an answer? 'God did it"? But then that leaves begging the key question: WHERE DID GOD COME FROM, in turn? To say he is an 'uncaused cause,' is merely to interject an oxymoron."
Um, no.
Our system leaves us with three alternatives.
1) It is absolutely self-contained and linear, with an infinite regression of causes.
2) It is absolutely self-contained and self-referentially cyclic, with a past event somehow being caused by a future event
3) It is not self-contained, with there being a first event which was caused by a cause external to the system
The "religionist", as you put it, has rejected #1 and #2 as workable solutions and has found #3 as the most reasonable.
Having accepted #3, the "religionist" (which would include, e.g., Aristotle) concludes that there being a First Event requires that the cause of that First Event not itself have a cause - an uncaused cause; to reject this is to revert back to scenario #1, but on a larger scale.
You needn't accept such an explanation of reality, but to call it an oxymoron borders on, well, arrogant ignorance.
12.8.2010 | 2:06pm
Brian says:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things....
and Nothing, Everything, Time and Chance
and Nothing, Everything, Time and Chance
12.8.2010 | 2:38pm
rab3 says:
Joe asks where does God come from and then states that there can be no un-caused cause. On what does he base this. Nothing. I suggest he read Dr.R.C. Sproll's book "Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology" to see that his plea to God requiring a beginning is no oxymoron. And who cares where he came from anyway if he made the universe he makes the rules so really Joe you beg the question by asking where he came from. He exists or he does not that is what needs to be answered before you ask about his origins. Then there is this why do the atheists, with no objective basis for meaning, or morality, make arguments that only make sense if objective meaning and morality exist? It's not rational.
12.8.2010 | 2:48pm
Quine says:
Thank you, Joe, it's lovely. You got very close in this part: Chance immediately saw a solution to the problem and took the remaining materials she was using to make Consciousness to create Beliefs. When Chance mixed Beliefs into the gray goo, Man stopped filling with Despair and started creating Illusions. These Illusions took various forms—God, Purpose, Meaning—and were almost always effective in preventing Man from filling up with Despair.
Once our ancestors evolved to the point of recognizing death, it must have been very disturbing. Of course, if it was not disturbing to some folks and they did not do everything they could to avoid it and to keep their loved ones from it, they did not pass on as many genes to the next generation, so it is not by Chance alone that we are disturbed by death, she has help from Selection.
Chance also has help from Selection with the evolving of the beliefs. Beliefs that helped folks prosper were passed on better than beliefs that did not. The beliefs could be as wild and crazy as can be, and make the people do wild and crazy things, even hurt each other, as long as the given group that passed on the beliefs kept going.
So, thanks again, it is nice to have more children's stories with more points of view to go, as you noted above, with the myths that have been handed down from ancestors who did not have the tools to uncover the true nature of things.
Once our ancestors evolved to the point of recognizing death, it must have been very disturbing. Of course, if it was not disturbing to some folks and they did not do everything they could to avoid it and to keep their loved ones from it, they did not pass on as many genes to the next generation, so it is not by Chance alone that we are disturbed by death, she has help from Selection.
Chance also has help from Selection with the evolving of the beliefs. Beliefs that helped folks prosper were passed on better than beliefs that did not. The beliefs could be as wild and crazy as can be, and make the people do wild and crazy things, even hurt each other, as long as the given group that passed on the beliefs kept going.
So, thanks again, it is nice to have more children's stories with more points of view to go, as you noted above, with the myths that have been handed down from ancestors who did not have the tools to uncover the true nature of things.
12.8.2010 | 2:58pm
Steve Zara says:
I'll tell you a tale, a tale of ignorance and delusion. A tale of our world, and the foolish words of Dorkins and his earthists.
Here we sit, on our world, look around and we can see our perfect world, the dome of heaven above and the rich earth below. It's all we need to live our lives. It's clearly a gift, this world. Have you looked from the hill? Look around, and see the edge, the edge of our world. We can see no further that that distant edge. What can be beyond, you may ask. We have our answer, passed on from age to age. It is the great snake, curled around the edge, tail in mouth, that sustains our world. How can it not be, for which other being can form such a perfect circle?
You will hear the ranting of Dorkins, and his earthists, "how can the answer be a snake", they yell, "when such animals live, breathe, eat and die in our world?" "It's a circular argument", they proclaim. But, of course it's a circular argument, because the edge is round! What other argument could there be? Because the edge is round, what else could there be but the necessary snake, to cradle our world, to contain the seas, and the air, to provide us with its love and our scales of justice.
They say that there is no edge, they spread foolish talk of spheres. What nonsense! How can a world float on nothing! Nothing supports nothing, and nothing holds a world! What idiocy. How can they not see the edge? All things must have an origin and an end, but where do we start and end on a globe? With no edge, there would be chaos, no absolute up and down, so how could we walk across the land? Without Up to hold it, the sky will fall, the moon will crash into the seas. Without Down, the rain will never fall, and we will suffer and die. And if the world were a sphere, where would we put the snake?
Dorkins and his earthists are nothing, no-people who see no edge, no up, no down, no snake, nothing to cradle our precious land. We give fangs to the great serpent, may it never lose our love but be an adder.
Here we sit, on our world, look around and we can see our perfect world, the dome of heaven above and the rich earth below. It's all we need to live our lives. It's clearly a gift, this world. Have you looked from the hill? Look around, and see the edge, the edge of our world. We can see no further that that distant edge. What can be beyond, you may ask. We have our answer, passed on from age to age. It is the great snake, curled around the edge, tail in mouth, that sustains our world. How can it not be, for which other being can form such a perfect circle?
You will hear the ranting of Dorkins, and his earthists, "how can the answer be a snake", they yell, "when such animals live, breathe, eat and die in our world?" "It's a circular argument", they proclaim. But, of course it's a circular argument, because the edge is round! What other argument could there be? Because the edge is round, what else could there be but the necessary snake, to cradle our world, to contain the seas, and the air, to provide us with its love and our scales of justice.
They say that there is no edge, they spread foolish talk of spheres. What nonsense! How can a world float on nothing! Nothing supports nothing, and nothing holds a world! What idiocy. How can they not see the edge? All things must have an origin and an end, but where do we start and end on a globe? With no edge, there would be chaos, no absolute up and down, so how could we walk across the land? Without Up to hold it, the sky will fall, the moon will crash into the seas. Without Down, the rain will never fall, and we will suffer and die. And if the world were a sphere, where would we put the snake?
Dorkins and his earthists are nothing, no-people who see no edge, no up, no down, no snake, nothing to cradle our precious land. We give fangs to the great serpent, may it never lose our love but be an adder.
12.8.2010 | 4:17pm
Joe Fenech says:
Intellectual musings about the existence of God are unnecessary. We find God with our hearts not our minds. Look with your heart . . .
12.8.2010 | 5:14pm
Rob G says:
This reminds of an old SCTV bit with a priest on one of those late-night TV reflections: "In the beginning, there was nothin'. And God said, Let there be light. And there was still nothin.' But now you could see it."
12.8.2010 | 5:33pm
FIH says:
"In 'The Grand Design' Hawking says that we are somewhat like goldfish in a curved fishbowl. Our perceptions are limited and warped by the kind of lenses we see through, 'the interpretive structure of our human brains.' Albert Einstein rejected this subjective approach, common to much of quantum mechanics, but did admit that our view of reality is distorted."
Like Domitius said above (and I'm glad to see someone else noticed this), if no one knows what undistorted reality looks like, how can we know our view is distorted?
Like Domitius said above (and I'm glad to see someone else noticed this), if no one knows what undistorted reality looks like, how can we know our view is distorted?
12.8.2010 | 7:05pm
Ray Ingles says:
Strawmen are simple to make, and so easy to knock over! Ever hear the one about telepathically pledging your allegiance to an immaterial Jewish zombie?
It's a lot harder to accurately understand and convey a position. And even harder to tackle an argument on its merits, of course.
It's a lot harder to accurately understand and convey a position. And even harder to tackle an argument on its merits, of course.
12.8.2010 | 7:08pm
Caudimordax says:
@ Steve - I'd never thought about it that way before! I thought Carter's essay would have been funnier if he sounded more like he understood the concepts behind the materialistic view.
12.8.2010 | 8:38pm
Kenny Gee says:
why are you so worried about what atheist think about you? You all seem like kids screaming "are to".
If you all focussed on living the values you say you believe in then the world will be a better place. Problems is you all seem to worried about how other people are living their lives. You can only save yourself no one else.
If you all focussed on living the values you say you believe in then the world will be a better place. Problems is you all seem to worried about how other people are living their lives. You can only save yourself no one else.
12.8.2010 | 9:00pm
Dblade says:
Ray, I've heard that one a lot of times, to be honest. Can't fault them for striking back once in awhile. Too many atheists in too many forums making cracks about needing sky gods and stuff.
12.9.2010 | 12:12am
thurgood says:
In the beginning there was nothing. And then God created Everything. When God decided to create everything, he filled a tiny dot with time, chance, and everything and had it expand. The expansion spread everything into everywhere carrying time and chance with it to keep it company. The three stretched out together leaving bits of themselves wherever they went. One of those places was the planet Earth. Earth is privileged, yada yada…
You get the idea. Saying God instead of Nothing is no explanation. We pagans and heathens would rather say we don't know.
To quote the late great Sagan,
[[Hinduism is the only ancient religious tradition on the Earth which talks about the right time-scale. In the West, people have the sense that what is natural is for the universe to be a few thousand years old, and that billions are numbers no one can understand. The Hindu concept is very clear. Here is a great world culture which has always talked about billions of years.]]
It is to Jainism the other great dharmic tradition that we owe two other ideas - infinity and atomism. Buddhism has given us the earliest formulation of uncertainty.
You get the idea. Saying God instead of Nothing is no explanation. We pagans and heathens would rather say we don't know.
To quote the late great Sagan,
[[Hinduism is the only ancient religious tradition on the Earth which talks about the right time-scale. In the West, people have the sense that what is natural is for the universe to be a few thousand years old, and that billions are numbers no one can understand. The Hindu concept is very clear. Here is a great world culture which has always talked about billions of years.]]
It is to Jainism the other great dharmic tradition that we owe two other ideas - infinity and atomism. Buddhism has given us the earliest formulation of uncertainty.
12.9.2010 | 12:43am
Skeptic says:
Well, it's a pity that atheists don't have a creation story, but surely it's better to not have a creation story than to have one that is patently false, like most creation myths. If I don't know what the moon is made of, I don't presume it's made of green cheese just so I'll have a "moon material story".
As for the atheist creation story not making sense -- first of all, the universe doesn't CARE if its creation makes sense to us or not. Second, it DOES make sense (the caricature of it in the article doesn't, but that's another issue). What it lacks is something else entirely: it does not give human beings a sense of self-importance and of being in the middle of the universe's (or its creator's) concern.
As for the atheist creation story not making sense -- first of all, the universe doesn't CARE if its creation makes sense to us or not. Second, it DOES make sense (the caricature of it in the article doesn't, but that's another issue). What it lacks is something else entirely: it does not give human beings a sense of self-importance and of being in the middle of the universe's (or its creator's) concern.
12.9.2010 | 1:47am
Dave Mullenix says:
ricko said: "Mr. Dawkins, when pressed, will be happy to tell you that humankind was created by the germ of aliens from another planet. Just goes to show you how far some people will go to not recognize God...
[I am not making this up.]"
But the people who told you that story did make it up.
http://io9.com/375766/richard-dawkins-the-rap-video?mail2=true
"Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred.
.....
... I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett).
Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE." "
Mr. Dawkins, or anybody else with a reasonable amount of knowledge, will tell you that panspermia is logically possible, though highly unlilkely, but it will not provide any final answer to the "where did we come from?" question because you would still have to explain where the alien life came from.
Saying that God made us (or the universe) has a similar problem: The next question is, "Then where did God come from?" This question has never been successfully answered.
[I am not making this up.]"
But the people who told you that story did make it up.
http://io9.com/375766/richard-dawkins-the-rap-video?mail2=true
"Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred.
.....
... I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett).
Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE." "
Mr. Dawkins, or anybody else with a reasonable amount of knowledge, will tell you that panspermia is logically possible, though highly unlilkely, but it will not provide any final answer to the "where did we come from?" question because you would still have to explain where the alien life came from.
Saying that God made us (or the universe) has a similar problem: The next question is, "Then where did God come from?" This question has never been successfully answered.
12.9.2010 | 2:12am
Dave Mullenix says:
Joe Carter, when a pair of virtual particles pop out of a vacuum, what creates them?
12.9.2010 | 2:22am
Joe Carter says:
@Dave Mullenix ***Joe Carter, when a pair of virtual particles pop out of a vacuum, what creates them?***
I don't know. But I do know they don't come out of "Nothing." There are no perfect vacuums, so they are not coming out of Nothingness.
I don't know. But I do know they don't come out of "Nothing." There are no perfect vacuums, so they are not coming out of Nothingness.
12.9.2010 | 5:23am
Daniel C says:
"But there is one unfortunate group—the children of atheistic materialists—that has no creation myth to call its own."
Having no creation myth is not a misfortune. It leaves the creative person to make up whatever stories they like for their children and because they have no religious dogma to stick to, when the child questions the parent on inconsistancies, the parent knows the child is growing up and finding their powers of reason.
I think the problem with books by Dawkins and Hawking etc is that they were never intended to be childrens stories in the way the bible was.
I wish I were an atheist sometimes but then I remember that they're a hateful breed and return to my bible.
Having no creation myth is not a misfortune. It leaves the creative person to make up whatever stories they like for their children and because they have no religious dogma to stick to, when the child questions the parent on inconsistancies, the parent knows the child is growing up and finding their powers of reason.
I think the problem with books by Dawkins and Hawking etc is that they were never intended to be childrens stories in the way the bible was.
I wish I were an atheist sometimes but then I remember that they're a hateful breed and return to my bible.
12.9.2010 | 6:45am
Neal says:
"The Moz says: ... their view is as cold and as terrifying as the something from nothing above. "
Um... just because YOU find something terrifying doesn't mean it isn't true. It's nice to know you have the sky fairly to reassure you though.
Um... just because YOU find something terrifying doesn't mean it isn't true. It's nice to know you have the sky fairly to reassure you though.
12.9.2010 | 7:04am
Seraphina says:
Creationists, myself included, will enjoy your witty article. However, as Christians, we should all take care not to insult nonbelievers enough to remove any desire to rethink their position.
12.9.2010 | 7:41am
Caudimordax says:
@Daniel C "I wish I were an atheist sometimes but then I remember that they're a hateful breed and return to my bible."
Atheists are not a "breed." It's possible to be an atheist without being "hateful." You should give it a try.
Atheists are not a "breed." It's possible to be an atheist without being "hateful." You should give it a try.
12.9.2010 | 9:35am
Steve Hedger says:
"...But there is one unfortunate group—the children of atheistic materialists—that has no creation myth to call its own..."
We don't have a creation myth, we have science; we have cosmology, astrophysics, quantum mechanics and the like. We have the beautiful, mathematical symmetry of quarks, mesons, bosons and the differentiating spin of forces and matter in quanta.
I was never inspired, as a child, by the disjointed, unrealistic depiction of predators and prey nestling down in an open-fronted byre for a Virgin birth...
The first time, though, I went through the mathematical formulation of Newton's laws of motion and gravitation and saw why it is that the mass of an object is irrelevant to the acceleration under gravity, I was inspired.
That's the sort of beauty that reality has, if you can see it. And if you can see it, you don't need to go looking for mythology for an explanation for where we all came from, there's already plenty to wonder at in the reality we have, and the explorations for its beginnings.
S.
We don't have a creation myth, we have science; we have cosmology, astrophysics, quantum mechanics and the like. We have the beautiful, mathematical symmetry of quarks, mesons, bosons and the differentiating spin of forces and matter in quanta.
I was never inspired, as a child, by the disjointed, unrealistic depiction of predators and prey nestling down in an open-fronted byre for a Virgin birth...
The first time, though, I went through the mathematical formulation of Newton's laws of motion and gravitation and saw why it is that the mass of an object is irrelevant to the acceleration under gravity, I was inspired.
That's the sort of beauty that reality has, if you can see it. And if you can see it, you don't need to go looking for mythology for an explanation for where we all came from, there's already plenty to wonder at in the reality we have, and the explorations for its beginnings.
S.
12.9.2010 | 9:59am
Qoheleth says:
"For no particular reason - for Reason is rarely particular..."
That line deserves a place next to the best things in the "Just-So Stories" and "The Little Prince".
That line deserves a place next to the best things in the "Just-So Stories" and "The Little Prince".
12.9.2010 | 10:36am
Quine says:
[[Joe Carter says:
@Dave Mullenix ***Joe Carter, when a pair of virtual particles pop out of a vacuum, what creates them?***
I don't know. But I do know they don't come out of "Nothing." There are no perfect vacuums, so they are not coming out of Nothingness.]]
Joe, when physicists talk about this, they are well past anything like a vacuum in a bell jar; they *are* going for Nothingness but find that our big world ideas of a box being empty do not correspond to reality in the staggering tiny world of quantum distances. (Google "Theory of Nothing" if you want to get into this) So, our life experiences lead us to posit metaphysical "nothingness" but when we go look for evidence we find that it is not there. Part of the human condition is the ability to formulate fictitious ideas that make us feel good, and then sometimes find evidence that the ideas are even true; but not this time.
@Dave Mullenix ***Joe Carter, when a pair of virtual particles pop out of a vacuum, what creates them?***
I don't know. But I do know they don't come out of "Nothing." There are no perfect vacuums, so they are not coming out of Nothingness.]]
Joe, when physicists talk about this, they are well past anything like a vacuum in a bell jar; they *are* going for Nothingness but find that our big world ideas of a box being empty do not correspond to reality in the staggering tiny world of quantum distances. (Google "Theory of Nothing" if you want to get into this) So, our life experiences lead us to posit metaphysical "nothingness" but when we go look for evidence we find that it is not there. Part of the human condition is the ability to formulate fictitious ideas that make us feel good, and then sometimes find evidence that the ideas are even true; but not this time.
12.9.2010 | 10:46am
mike says:
Wow! I never pitied my future children, who will be raised by materialistic atheist parents, until now! How joyless and bleak their lives will be without learning a rich creation or any other myth in their formative years, like these people:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40587353/ns/us_news-life/?fb_ref=story_header&fb_source=profile_multiline
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40587353/ns/us_news-life/?fb_ref=story_header&fb_source=profile_multiline
12.9.2010 | 10:50am
severalspeciesof says:
Mr. Carter says:
"I’ve decided to take the elements of materialism and shape them into a purportedly accurate, though mythic, narrative. "
Well, your story is definitely mythic, and it's a narrative, but where's the accuracy?
So I'll begin by correcting your last part of the last sentence which reads:
"... when Man loses his Life he goes from being a Something created by Time and Chance into becoming like his creator—Nothing."
To:
"... when Man loses his Life he goes from being a Something created by stardust into becoming--- stardust."
"I’ve decided to take the elements of materialism and shape them into a purportedly accurate, though mythic, narrative. "
Well, your story is definitely mythic, and it's a narrative, but where's the accuracy?
So I'll begin by correcting your last part of the last sentence which reads:
"... when Man loses his Life he goes from being a Something created by Time and Chance into becoming like his creator—Nothing."
To:
"... when Man loses his Life he goes from being a Something created by stardust into becoming--- stardust."
12.9.2010 | 11:07am
Christopher Benson says:
I enjoyed reading this creation myth, but the author is mistaken to claim that atheistic materialists have lacked such a myth. Evolution, in the mythical imaginations of Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, Edward O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins, fills gaps in the desacralized world-picture of the West, becoming what British philosopher Mary Midgley calls "the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. It influences not just our thought, but our feelings and actions too, in a way which goes far beyond its official function as a biological theory. To call it a myth does not of course mean that it is a false story. It means that it has great symbolic power, which is independent of its truth."
12.9.2010 | 12:20pm
Matt says:
@steve hedger - I am a person who loves the consistency of mathematics and logic as well. But does it not concern you that there is absolutely no place in nature that we can show perfect order coming from utter chaos? That, in and of itself, is illogical. So, if you're a lover of the logic as you claim to be, it would seem to me that the only logical explanation to the perfection of mathematics and logic, is a designer.
We have, for 150 years since Pastuer showed there was no spontaneous generation occurring on a daily basis, tried to show how life would have formed accidentally. Keep in mind, what we're actually trying to do is create life by an intelligent designer (humans). But we can't. And the idea that we would just throw a bunch of stuff in a chamber and expect to come back some time later and find life is too ridiculous a proposition for even the poeple who believe it to experiment with. Designer is necessary for order.
We have, for 150 years since Pastuer showed there was no spontaneous generation occurring on a daily basis, tried to show how life would have formed accidentally. Keep in mind, what we're actually trying to do is create life by an intelligent designer (humans). But we can't. And the idea that we would just throw a bunch of stuff in a chamber and expect to come back some time later and find life is too ridiculous a proposition for even the poeple who believe it to experiment with. Designer is necessary for order.
12.9.2010 | 1:32pm
severalspeciesof says:
Matt says:
"But does it not concern you that there is absolutely no place in nature that we can show perfect order coming from utter chaos? That, in and of itself, is illogical."
First question...
Why would there be?
Let me rephrase your statement:
"But does it not concern you that there is absolutely no place in nature that we can show that a circle comes from a square? That, in and of itself, is illogical."
Second question...
Does the above make sense?
"But does it not concern you that there is absolutely no place in nature that we can show perfect order coming from utter chaos? That, in and of itself, is illogical."
First question...
Why would there be?
Let me rephrase your statement:
"But does it not concern you that there is absolutely no place in nature that we can show that a circle comes from a square? That, in and of itself, is illogical."
Second question...
Does the above make sense?
12.9.2010 | 1:32pm
Quine says:
@Matt - Mathematics is perfect because we throw out any answer that is not perfect. If you answer anything other than 4 when the teacher wants the sum of two plus two, you will be marked wrong. The consistency of Mathematics is self-fulfilling.
Also it is no wonder that we find ourselves in a Universe with some corresponding level of consistency, because our brains could not have evolved to see it, otherwise. Continuing, that such consistency can be modeled to ever increasing fidelity by Mathematics is no big deal, because as we make higher and higher resolution measurements of the the physical properties of the World, we refine the mathematical models to match (again, self-fulfilling).
Here is a link to research that may lead to actively punching something like a hole in space-time where we would expect to see the active creation of something from nothing:
http://ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=8167
Also it is no wonder that we find ourselves in a Universe with some corresponding level of consistency, because our brains could not have evolved to see it, otherwise. Continuing, that such consistency can be modeled to ever increasing fidelity by Mathematics is no big deal, because as we make higher and higher resolution measurements of the the physical properties of the World, we refine the mathematical models to match (again, self-fulfilling).
Here is a link to research that may lead to actively punching something like a hole in space-time where we would expect to see the active creation of something from nothing:
http://ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=8167
12.9.2010 | 2:35pm
Steve Hedger says:
"...does it not concern you that there is absolutely no place in nature that we can show perfect order coming from utter chaos..."
I'm not sure that absolutes such as 'perfect order' or 'utter chaos' really apply at the macroscopic of level of the world that I deal with - I confess, for all my love of the mathematical depiction of the world I've never taken my science education into the depths of cosmology and particle physics where the rules are different, I'm merely a dabbler.
Putting into a context I can speak a little about, let's look at the weather. At the small scale, individual atoms are reasonably predictable, within certain statistical ranges - on a larger scale, we simply cannot compute enough separate instances to use that information to predict accurately.
Historically, though, we can predict a few days in advance, from experience and experimentation on a larger scale. Beyond a few days, though, the information becomes sketchy again, and weather appears, once more, unpredictable and chaotic.
And then we up the scale again, and we know that, for the northern hemisphere at least, winter will be significantly colder than summer. But next winter against this? Though there is some evidence of an eleven year sunspot pattern, and so on up the scale again, and again.
Chaos and order aren't mutual oppositions, they are merely matters of scale on the same spectrum - it depends on what magnitude you are looking and working. So I suspect there isn't a 'perfect order' or an 'utter chaos'.
If there were such things as 'perfect' order or chaos then, it seems to me, it would be logical to assume that 'perfection' would include an unchanging nature - perfect order would never be broken down, and perfect chaos would never be forced to predictability.
And whether that mathematical wonder of universal forces contains within its confinesa fragment of absolute randomness or crystalline perfection or not, I still don't see the leap from intersecting mathematical depictions of statistical probability to a completely independent, indescribable, unsubstantiable arbitrary start-value that we call 'God'.
I'm not sure that absolutes such as 'perfect order' or 'utter chaos' really apply at the macroscopic of level of the world that I deal with - I confess, for all my love of the mathematical depiction of the world I've never taken my science education into the depths of cosmology and particle physics where the rules are different, I'm merely a dabbler.
Putting into a context I can speak a little about, let's look at the weather. At the small scale, individual atoms are reasonably predictable, within certain statistical ranges - on a larger scale, we simply cannot compute enough separate instances to use that information to predict accurately.
Historically, though, we can predict a few days in advance, from experience and experimentation on a larger scale. Beyond a few days, though, the information becomes sketchy again, and weather appears, once more, unpredictable and chaotic.
And then we up the scale again, and we know that, for the northern hemisphere at least, winter will be significantly colder than summer. But next winter against this? Though there is some evidence of an eleven year sunspot pattern, and so on up the scale again, and again.
Chaos and order aren't mutual oppositions, they are merely matters of scale on the same spectrum - it depends on what magnitude you are looking and working. So I suspect there isn't a 'perfect order' or an 'utter chaos'.
If there were such things as 'perfect' order or chaos then, it seems to me, it would be logical to assume that 'perfection' would include an unchanging nature - perfect order would never be broken down, and perfect chaos would never be forced to predictability.
And whether that mathematical wonder of universal forces contains within its confinesa fragment of absolute randomness or crystalline perfection or not, I still don't see the leap from intersecting mathematical depictions of statistical probability to a completely independent, indescribable, unsubstantiable arbitrary start-value that we call 'God'.
12.9.2010 | 3:42pm
Paul from Australia says:
I'm a bit concerned after only getting to ricko's comment when he claims to be not making this up about claims on Dawkins
I'm afraid sir (or madam) you are, perhaps not making it up, but the people who made that claim to you are (refer to another comment on this forum, not by me, just noticed it covered the point I was about to make)
As to the vitriol from the atheists (myself included there) - It's looking a lot like the vitriol is going one way & it's not from the atheists
Please just admit your belief system has no basis in evidence & I can accept that & move on.
I'm equally impressed with the comment that Hawkings is losing it (thanks Jimbo) - I would tend to side with one of the greatest minds of the 20th & 21st centuries than (& sorry, I have to get a tad personal here) someoone called Jimbo (I did a quick search using google & haven't noticed any scientific works by a Jimbo or a Professor Jimbo
I guess you all just read it in a book somewhere (ignored the inconsistencies in said book - try the 3 gospels for the birth of Jesus alone) & it must be true because my parents believed, their parents believed it.......
I'm afraid sir (or madam) you are, perhaps not making it up, but the people who made that claim to you are (refer to another comment on this forum, not by me, just noticed it covered the point I was about to make)
As to the vitriol from the atheists (myself included there) - It's looking a lot like the vitriol is going one way & it's not from the atheists
Please just admit your belief system has no basis in evidence & I can accept that & move on.
I'm equally impressed with the comment that Hawkings is losing it (thanks Jimbo) - I would tend to side with one of the greatest minds of the 20th & 21st centuries than (& sorry, I have to get a tad personal here) someoone called Jimbo (I did a quick search using google & haven't noticed any scientific works by a Jimbo or a Professor Jimbo
I guess you all just read it in a book somewhere (ignored the inconsistencies in said book - try the 3 gospels for the birth of Jesus alone) & it must be true because my parents believed, their parents believed it.......
12.9.2010 | 4:31pm
Andrew says:
This article is less insulting to athiests as it is to Christians, really. But to those that believe in a talking snake or a bush that burns as it speaks, probably lack the basic understandings of infant human psychology that perpetuate the need for a "god" (divine father figure) anyway, will likely gloss over the inherent self-insult of this article anyway. No matter, it's to be expected.
The reasons for one to believe in god or intelligent design are many, but what seperates thinking athiests from emotional believers is that they are smart enough to understand that our human condition--our very place in the universe--limits us from being able to explain existence in one fell swoop as religion does.
Any rationalization of belief will suffice so long as it makes the believer comfortable. Athiests are atheists because they are humble enough to admit a lack of explanation, but hold the strongest desire for truth. Those of faith, particularly Christianity, believe because they fear the unknown. They can not accept death, and cannot accept the idea of chaos, and for that will never advance to practice higher concepts of human and social progress. They believe out of fear. "Hell is real . . ."
Why do you think as Jesus's followers you are referred to as his "flock?"
For the record on Dawkins, the alien comment was pointing out that such a concept is more likely, and more importantly something that could be scientifically researched and potentially proven compared to proving a god as Christians define Him. We've recently found life on other planets in the form of bacteria. Space is composed of all sizes of rock and dust zipping around. What happens when that frozen comet lands on a life-sustaining planet? The bacteria is by definition "alien," as it's not of this earth. We are not talking about gray men from Zebulox 5, here, people.
Though most won't for fear of thinking for themselves, if you actually read Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris or the like, you'd at the very least have an appreciation for the atheistic viewpoint, if not a bit of answers to the doubts you've been having about the voids you feel in your own line of faith. If you don't feel any voids, ignore this message completely because you're already lost to the circus.
-Andrew
The reasons for one to believe in god or intelligent design are many, but what seperates thinking athiests from emotional believers is that they are smart enough to understand that our human condition--our very place in the universe--limits us from being able to explain existence in one fell swoop as religion does.
Any rationalization of belief will suffice so long as it makes the believer comfortable. Athiests are atheists because they are humble enough to admit a lack of explanation, but hold the strongest desire for truth. Those of faith, particularly Christianity, believe because they fear the unknown. They can not accept death, and cannot accept the idea of chaos, and for that will never advance to practice higher concepts of human and social progress. They believe out of fear. "Hell is real . . ."
Why do you think as Jesus's followers you are referred to as his "flock?"
For the record on Dawkins, the alien comment was pointing out that such a concept is more likely, and more importantly something that could be scientifically researched and potentially proven compared to proving a god as Christians define Him. We've recently found life on other planets in the form of bacteria. Space is composed of all sizes of rock and dust zipping around. What happens when that frozen comet lands on a life-sustaining planet? The bacteria is by definition "alien," as it's not of this earth. We are not talking about gray men from Zebulox 5, here, people.
Though most won't for fear of thinking for themselves, if you actually read Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris or the like, you'd at the very least have an appreciation for the atheistic viewpoint, if not a bit of answers to the doubts you've been having about the voids you feel in your own line of faith. If you don't feel any voids, ignore this message completely because you're already lost to the circus.
-Andrew
12.9.2010 | 7:05pm
Chris says:
Lol, I'm sorry but although it was cleverly written it was almost entirely contrary to atheists beliefs right from the start. Starting with the fact that atheism isn't a belief system and therefore doesn't claim anything about the universe other than there probably isn't a God. This is a non-belief based on a lack of evidence.
Next, you lack any understanding of evolution and chance and therefore your story is full of complete nonsense. I would suggest reading an eighth grade biology book.
A lot of what you say happened for no reason has already been explained and you are just unaware of it. A lot of other things have yet to be explained, although an answer could be made up, scientists and rational thinkers don't have the luxury of such like theists do. We are stuck with this thing called evidence, something that God doesn't have a single shred of and is therefore an immediate non-explanation.
And LOL at those who try to explain God's existence by saying "We are just not intelligent to understand". I can say the very same thing about the universe. I have evidence that the universe exists, you have none for God.
Next, you lack any understanding of evolution and chance and therefore your story is full of complete nonsense. I would suggest reading an eighth grade biology book.
A lot of what you say happened for no reason has already been explained and you are just unaware of it. A lot of other things have yet to be explained, although an answer could be made up, scientists and rational thinkers don't have the luxury of such like theists do. We are stuck with this thing called evidence, something that God doesn't have a single shred of and is therefore an immediate non-explanation.
And LOL at those who try to explain God's existence by saying "We are just not intelligent to understand". I can say the very same thing about the universe. I have evidence that the universe exists, you have none for God.
12.9.2010 | 8:14pm
Paul from Australia says:
@Matt says: "Designer is necessary for order."
If we (& the rest of the animal kingdom is designed) can I claim a refund from my church then (as god's local reps)?
I need it to pay for the fact I can't see without these glasses, even what I can see has blind spots due to the poor design of the eye & it's location in the brain.
Can I claim back re the bad back & stomach problems caused by the back bone & stomach intestines having the design better based for a 4 legged animal.
I'm sure all koalas wish to also claim back on their mother's pouches, mainly because they point down (suggesting they may have evolved from a burrowing type creature, but you have them designed - so it must be god's plan that they fall out onto their heads from high up a tree)
So you really want to get a detailed list of all the design flaws in humans, let alone in nature to suggest if there is this wonderful god & his intelligent design, then he was off his game the week he spent on us (so maybe earth 2 or earth 3 might have animals with a few less design flaws)
I often wonder why he didn't get all the mammals of the sea together & just give them gills back (it'd be easier) they could even have swum with the side motion of your fish type animals as against the up & down mottion that they look to have received when they were land animals (again, your logic shows this wouldn't have happened - I guess he tried something, found it worked perfectly well for fish & just went, hey that works I won't use that again)
If we (& the rest of the animal kingdom is designed) can I claim a refund from my church then (as god's local reps)?
I need it to pay for the fact I can't see without these glasses, even what I can see has blind spots due to the poor design of the eye & it's location in the brain.
Can I claim back re the bad back & stomach problems caused by the back bone & stomach intestines having the design better based for a 4 legged animal.
I'm sure all koalas wish to also claim back on their mother's pouches, mainly because they point down (suggesting they may have evolved from a burrowing type creature, but you have them designed - so it must be god's plan that they fall out onto their heads from high up a tree)
So you really want to get a detailed list of all the design flaws in humans, let alone in nature to suggest if there is this wonderful god & his intelligent design, then he was off his game the week he spent on us (so maybe earth 2 or earth 3 might have animals with a few less design flaws)
I often wonder why he didn't get all the mammals of the sea together & just give them gills back (it'd be easier) they could even have swum with the side motion of your fish type animals as against the up & down mottion that they look to have received when they were land animals (again, your logic shows this wouldn't have happened - I guess he tried something, found it worked perfectly well for fish & just went, hey that works I won't use that again)
12.9.2010 | 9:07pm
severalspeciesof says:
@Andrew,
Generally a good comment, but I must ask, where did you hear/read of finding bacteria on other planets?
Generally a good comment, but I must ask, where did you hear/read of finding bacteria on other planets?
12.9.2010 | 10:19pm
Steve Z says:
I had to stop reading after this :
"In the beginning was Nothing, and Nothing created Everything. "
What is the evidence for :
1. In the beginning there was nothing.
2. Nothing created everything.
Produce evidence for those two and you may collect your Nobel Prize.
We just don't know. Someone in this thread said atheists "won't admit to not knowing", but as an atheist I am here to tell you we have no idea at this point.
I have pointed out to people countless times that there is no justification at all for assuming the universe started from nothing - this is making some sort of presumption that "nothing" is the natural state, and "something" would then need an explanation. For all we know, "something" may be the natural state and if there was instead "nothing" then THAT would need an explanation.
The joke goes like this. Two philosophers are sitting at a conference entitled "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The first philosopher says to the second one "If there was nothing, he would still be unhappy."
Anyway, I couldn't go any further because anything starting from such a unsupported premise can't be any good. Alot of people appeared to think it was wonderful, but mostly I suppose it was the Christians who are used to not worrying over things like evidence, reasons, and proof. As an atheist, I won't be able to get passed the first sentence, sorry.
"In the beginning was Nothing, and Nothing created Everything. "
What is the evidence for :
1. In the beginning there was nothing.
2. Nothing created everything.
Produce evidence for those two and you may collect your Nobel Prize.
We just don't know. Someone in this thread said atheists "won't admit to not knowing", but as an atheist I am here to tell you we have no idea at this point.
I have pointed out to people countless times that there is no justification at all for assuming the universe started from nothing - this is making some sort of presumption that "nothing" is the natural state, and "something" would then need an explanation. For all we know, "something" may be the natural state and if there was instead "nothing" then THAT would need an explanation.
The joke goes like this. Two philosophers are sitting at a conference entitled "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The first philosopher says to the second one "If there was nothing, he would still be unhappy."
Anyway, I couldn't go any further because anything starting from such a unsupported premise can't be any good. Alot of people appeared to think it was wonderful, but mostly I suppose it was the Christians who are used to not worrying over things like evidence, reasons, and proof. As an atheist, I won't be able to get passed the first sentence, sorry.
12.10.2010 | 4:25am
Babrock says:
Besides those previose problems noted by Mr. Z there is also how consioosnes and intentionality are attributed to time, chance, and everything.
Still tho, I found this quite lovely.
Still tho, I found this quite lovely.
12.10.2010 | 4:38am
Daniel Clear says:
Cardimordax
"Atheists are not a "breed." It's possible to be an atheist without being "hateful." You should give it a try. "
The comment above clearly states Atheists are a Hateful Breed. that's what I was quoting.
btw. did you not guess that I am an atheist? I know I don't belong to a "breed" and indeed find the suggestion as offensive as being labelled "hateful" but i don't let it spoil my capacity for humour
"Atheists are not a "breed." It's possible to be an atheist without being "hateful." You should give it a try. "
The comment above clearly states Atheists are a Hateful Breed. that's what I was quoting.
btw. did you not guess that I am an atheist? I know I don't belong to a "breed" and indeed find the suggestion as offensive as being labelled "hateful" but i don't let it spoil my capacity for humour
12.10.2010 | 6:21am
Joe the Human says:
So the question is, causal: what is the cause of the universe. But in that case, "God" fails.
Because .. WHERE did God in turn, come from? Out of nothing? To say he just always was, is just to be arbitrary. And to fail to give any reasonable explanation. Technically, it is a form of question-begging. Remember, we're looking for a causal explanation ... but then suddenly, you've given that up.
Is existence, the string of causes, circular, or self-caused? That's just circularity deified. God created himself? Circularity again. God just is? Arbitrariness; giving up on explanations.
"God" is not the answer; it is what we say when we haven't got an answer .. And don't care. Why is the sky blue? I dunno: god did it. Why is the earth round? Dunno: God did it. Why do trees have leaves: dunno; God.
It is the word people to end all curiosity. And all intellectual exploration. Some would say, it, and love of "mystery," just deifies ignorance.
Because .. WHERE did God in turn, come from? Out of nothing? To say he just always was, is just to be arbitrary. And to fail to give any reasonable explanation. Technically, it is a form of question-begging. Remember, we're looking for a causal explanation ... but then suddenly, you've given that up.
Is existence, the string of causes, circular, or self-caused? That's just circularity deified. God created himself? Circularity again. God just is? Arbitrariness; giving up on explanations.
"God" is not the answer; it is what we say when we haven't got an answer .. And don't care. Why is the sky blue? I dunno: god did it. Why is the earth round? Dunno: God did it. Why do trees have leaves: dunno; God.
It is the word people to end all curiosity. And all intellectual exploration. Some would say, it, and love of "mystery," just deifies ignorance.
12.10.2010 | 7:20am
Spencer says:
Steve Z, I had to stop reading your reply after you claimed that you had to stop reading after the creation story's first sentence. This was because I have no proof that you stopped reading at that point. I only have your word for it, and that is not sufficient evidence. I don't think I'm being unreasonable, but you have no proof of that.
12.10.2010 | 8:23am
cnocspeireag says:
ricko, common politeness would require the title Dr. Dawkins and, yes, you are making it up.
12.10.2010 | 10:34am
karl says:
Nice little creation story, well done. Unfortunately I regret to inform the writer that there seems to be an inconsistency with the creation story and the title 'When Nothing created Everything'. For atheist and scientists the observations of nature have shown that around the time the universe came into existence and long after that nothing much existed. Certainly there were no planets, because there were no stars for them to orbit. There was no life, as there were no planets for them to live on, there wasn't even any elements heavier than Helium because again there was no stars to make them. The early universe was very simple, so the idea of nothing creating everything is simply inconsistent with a creation story for atheist and scientist as it does not follow from the observation of nature that the universe contained everything when it came into existence. The universe contained nearly nothing and the complex universe we see today arose over a long period of time from the basic constituents.
12.10.2010 | 10:45am
R. says:
It's a cute little story and nothing more. Religion and all that it entails, is an artifact of man's creation. There is no sadness, emptiness or despair in living without religion. There is great joy and awe in the world's wonders and contemtment in uderstanding the origins of the "family tree" of life.
12.10.2010 | 11:20am
Shelby says:
Great post, I plan on posting this on my blog. Thanks for sharing -Blessings
12.10.2010 | 11:29am
larry a b says:
thanks, thats all i needed to become an atheist. now like --karl says-- i can follow from the observation of nature that the universe contained everything when it came into existence. Sounds eerily like creation. Anyway now I just need to know where i can observe nature go from nearly nothing to the complex universe we see today. Maybe looking through a telescope at billions of years old light fragments that will surely give me a good way to observe nature. oops, If i just had something more recent. Sounding alot more like evolution, where life just sprang into existant and no transition. Well i know if i believe anything long enough it will eventually become true, that's the ticket.
12.10.2010 | 1:27pm
Matt says:
@severalspecies - rephrasing my (or others') questions to suit you better does not answer the question. As to you "where does a circle become a square" - I can answer. It doesn't. Just like order does not come from chaos.
@ Paul - first of all, there are no inconsistencies in the gospels on Christ's birth - they're just given with differnt audiences in mind and so with different details in each. But none of the details is inconsistent with the details in any other gospel. As for the evolution of upside down pouches: evolutionists, necessarily for the theory, try to extend the fact of evolution within a "kind" of animal to the theory of evolution of a "kind" of animal (I use the word "kind" because I cannot find scientific agreement on any other terms and "kind" is the word the bible uses). There is no question that and animal can evolve into another animal in the same "kind". This involves the increase, decrease, or removal of a trait that already exists.
But there has been no observation of any evolution between "kinds". That would require the evolution of a new characteristic not held by the mother and father. As an example (and this will probably not endear me to you as it will indicate that I am a southern Christian and, therefore, ignorant) - if you keep breeding the short headed, short legged hound dogs, eventually you'll get a beagle. But I don't care how many dogs of any sort you breed, you're not going to get a penguin or a turtle - because dogs don't have feathers or a shell. Certainly the existing characteristics of the parents can be altered. But there is absolutely zero evidence that new characteristics can be evolved.
The funny thing is, in his original paper entitled "on the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life", Darwin said (I'm not using quotes, but this is really close to a quote) - This theory, no matter how well founded, will be wholly unsatisfactory if we cannot show how. 150 years later, we (that being academia) cannot even begin to guess "how", yet we treat the theory as fact. At least he had the guts to question his own theory. (see also "to suppose that the eye, with all its immutable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" Darwin in Chapter 6). And yet, after 150 years of nothing, we insist not only that the eye came by natural selection, but that it is absurd not to accept it.
I also think it's funny that everyone who believes Darwin was so right, purposefully ignores the fact that the paper necessarily concludes that some races are more evolved than others. He was brilliant, no question. And he understood that such evolution as he was proposing necessarily ended with favored races. Hmmm - we'll see if that gets any takers.
@ Paul - first of all, there are no inconsistencies in the gospels on Christ's birth - they're just given with differnt audiences in mind and so with different details in each. But none of the details is inconsistent with the details in any other gospel. As for the evolution of upside down pouches: evolutionists, necessarily for the theory, try to extend the fact of evolution within a "kind" of animal to the theory of evolution of a "kind" of animal (I use the word "kind" because I cannot find scientific agreement on any other terms and "kind" is the word the bible uses). There is no question that and animal can evolve into another animal in the same "kind". This involves the increase, decrease, or removal of a trait that already exists.
But there has been no observation of any evolution between "kinds". That would require the evolution of a new characteristic not held by the mother and father. As an example (and this will probably not endear me to you as it will indicate that I am a southern Christian and, therefore, ignorant) - if you keep breeding the short headed, short legged hound dogs, eventually you'll get a beagle. But I don't care how many dogs of any sort you breed, you're not going to get a penguin or a turtle - because dogs don't have feathers or a shell. Certainly the existing characteristics of the parents can be altered. But there is absolutely zero evidence that new characteristics can be evolved.
The funny thing is, in his original paper entitled "on the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life", Darwin said (I'm not using quotes, but this is really close to a quote) - This theory, no matter how well founded, will be wholly unsatisfactory if we cannot show how. 150 years later, we (that being academia) cannot even begin to guess "how", yet we treat the theory as fact. At least he had the guts to question his own theory. (see also "to suppose that the eye, with all its immutable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" Darwin in Chapter 6). And yet, after 150 years of nothing, we insist not only that the eye came by natural selection, but that it is absurd not to accept it.
I also think it's funny that everyone who believes Darwin was so right, purposefully ignores the fact that the paper necessarily concludes that some races are more evolved than others. He was brilliant, no question. And he understood that such evolution as he was proposing necessarily ended with favored races. Hmmm - we'll see if that gets any takers.
12.10.2010 | 2:43pm
Caudimordax says:
@Matt – “And yet, after 150 years of nothing, we insist not only that the eye came by natural selection, but that it is absurd not to accept it.”
“Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
That doesn’t look like “nothing” to me.
“Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
That doesn’t look like “nothing” to me.
12.10.2010 | 2:55pm
severalspeciesof says:
@Matt
Cool, I got top billing... ;-)
I see you failed to answer my first question "Why would there be" perfect order coming from utter chaos? (very 'telling' in my mind) I rephrased it to show the idea that definitions will be needed. In other words, I think you need to define "perfect order" and "utter chaos" (as opposed to "semi" chaos? How does that work?)
Cool, I got top billing... ;-)
I see you failed to answer my first question "Why would there be" perfect order coming from utter chaos? (very 'telling' in my mind) I rephrased it to show the idea that definitions will be needed. In other words, I think you need to define "perfect order" and "utter chaos" (as opposed to "semi" chaos? How does that work?)
12.10.2010 | 4:22pm
Coexistence=!Religion says:
@Matt
"to suppose that the eye, with all its immutable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree"
Read the next sentence and you'll find:
"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real"
Quote Mining 101:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKFtNuGt4rw
"to suppose that the eye, with all its immutable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree"
Read the next sentence and you'll find:
"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real"
Quote Mining 101:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKFtNuGt4rw
12.10.2010 | 4:58pm
Steve Z says:
@Matt - You are engaging in brazen quote mining in Darwin's ""to suppose that the eye, with all its immutable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree"
The rest of Darwin's paragraph should make his meaning quite clear:
"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. "
My question - was the above continuation of Darwin's quote simply unknown to you, or were you aware of it an intentionally covering it up and hoping no one was familar enough with Darwin to refute it?
The rest of Darwin's paragraph should make his meaning quite clear:
"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. "
My question - was the above continuation of Darwin's quote simply unknown to you, or were you aware of it an intentionally covering it up and hoping no one was familar enough with Darwin to refute it?
12.10.2010 | 5:13pm
Steve Zara says:
"But there has been no observation of any evolution between "kinds"."
"But I don't care how many dogs of any sort you breed, you're not going to get a penguin or a turtle"
There's an old farmer lives way up in North Arkansas, between Little Rock and Memphis. He sees two great rivers, the Arkansas and the Mississippi. He drives back and forth, this old farmer, Little Rock and Memphis. That's his world. It's all the world he knows, and all the world he wants to know.
One day, his hydrologist son comes to visit. He warns of a coming flood, coming down from the South. There are warnings for both the Arkansas and the Mississippi. "Don't be a fool" the old farmer says, "there are just two kinds of river, the Arkansas and the Mississippi. You never see one kind of river flow into another. Don't talk to me about hundreds of miles South. That's not my world. There are only two kinds of river. You don't see a fish leap from the Arkansas into the Mississippi. Don't bother me with your highfalutin liberal nonsense about tributaries and seas. God created the kinds of river, and they flow thanks to his grace and mercy."
Dogs and Penguins. Kinds of animal. Follow the dog river back, all the way south, through the smaller ancestors, and you will find a small but active reptile, not much unlike a lizard. Follow the penguin river back, and it will pass through the flying-bird rapids, then through the meanderings of the small feathered dinosaurs, and eventually back to a small but active reptile, not much unlike a lizard. The rivers meet, then travel further back towards the amphibian delta together.
Of course dog-kind can change into penguin-kind. You have to navigate the river back to where it joins and then up the other branch. You can get from the Arkansas to the Mississippi.
But you can't go from one kind of river to another if you refuse to accept the geography. If you say there is no land hundreds of miles to the south.
Of course you can't go changing one kind of animal to the other if you refuse to accept the lay of the biological land, and refuse to accept anything beyond 10,000 years.
To expect a dog to change into a penguin today is like expecting a fish could leap out of the Arkansas near little Rock and land in the Mississippi near Memphis. The rivers of genes have flown too far apart. But a very long time ago, they were just a few drops away.
"But I don't care how many dogs of any sort you breed, you're not going to get a penguin or a turtle"
There's an old farmer lives way up in North Arkansas, between Little Rock and Memphis. He sees two great rivers, the Arkansas and the Mississippi. He drives back and forth, this old farmer, Little Rock and Memphis. That's his world. It's all the world he knows, and all the world he wants to know.
One day, his hydrologist son comes to visit. He warns of a coming flood, coming down from the South. There are warnings for both the Arkansas and the Mississippi. "Don't be a fool" the old farmer says, "there are just two kinds of river, the Arkansas and the Mississippi. You never see one kind of river flow into another. Don't talk to me about hundreds of miles South. That's not my world. There are only two kinds of river. You don't see a fish leap from the Arkansas into the Mississippi. Don't bother me with your highfalutin liberal nonsense about tributaries and seas. God created the kinds of river, and they flow thanks to his grace and mercy."
Dogs and Penguins. Kinds of animal. Follow the dog river back, all the way south, through the smaller ancestors, and you will find a small but active reptile, not much unlike a lizard. Follow the penguin river back, and it will pass through the flying-bird rapids, then through the meanderings of the small feathered dinosaurs, and eventually back to a small but active reptile, not much unlike a lizard. The rivers meet, then travel further back towards the amphibian delta together.
Of course dog-kind can change into penguin-kind. You have to navigate the river back to where it joins and then up the other branch. You can get from the Arkansas to the Mississippi.
But you can't go from one kind of river to another if you refuse to accept the geography. If you say there is no land hundreds of miles to the south.
Of course you can't go changing one kind of animal to the other if you refuse to accept the lay of the biological land, and refuse to accept anything beyond 10,000 years.
To expect a dog to change into a penguin today is like expecting a fish could leap out of the Arkansas near little Rock and land in the Mississippi near Memphis. The rivers of genes have flown too far apart. But a very long time ago, they were just a few drops away.
12.10.2010 | 6:22pm
Caudimordax says:
@Steve Z - Brilliant! Terrific analogy - but I don't think Matt, or any other willfully ignorant creationist, will get it. But it explains it very nicely.
12.11.2010 | 4:37am
Karl says:
I don't fully understand all this talk on evolution. Yes, Life in this universe is truly marvelous and a very important part of it but the article discusses the creation of the universe. This happened a long long time before human life appeared on Earth, around 9.3 billion years before. So the two events are completely unrelated, that is, creation of the universe, and the evolution of life on earth. The Earth itself didn't form until about 8.3 billion years after the start of the universe.
I would recommend to anyone to read up on evolution first before making some of the comments above. Read up on something more recent, not 'On The Origin Of Species' as this is 150 years old. Newer books are easier to understand and have 150 years more of observation's of nature, therefore more examples. Then discuss your findings on the relevant web pages.
A point to larry a b, did you read what I said, "the universe contained nearly nothing" at the beginning not! contained everything at the beginning. Observations I mention are not always present observations, for example, 'I look out of the window and see that it is snowing', but also, ' I look out of the window and see snow on the ground, therefore I conclude from my observation that it as snowed since I last looked out of the window'.
God sprang into existence, or existed for ever, HE EXIST! None of you have an explanation for this, an entity that can create an entire universe exist, WOW! Any explanation!!! As he talked to you? Dose he tuck you into bed at night? What as he done for you? Everything I observe in this world is done through natural processes, I have not seen God do anything, my breakfast was made by somebody in a factory, farmers dug the ingredients up, the plants grew the cereal, the water precipitated out of the sky, the sun supplied the energy for the earth, the nuclear reactions supplied the energy for the sun to give out, gravity supplied the energy to create the sun, the universe supplied the energy to create gravity.
I can't give a full explanation, tens of thousands of people over the centuries have worked thousands of hours to observe nature and have written it down in books for everyone to see, there is a lot of information, its takes years to read, they continue to had new information, go and have a look, its amazing! its beautiful! If God created the universe, then this is his work, admire it! love it!
I CAN'T, believe, I care too much for myself, my family and friends, and every other human being, to believe. I observe how the world works and I work with it to please other people. I want it to be better so everyone has an enjoyable life. This can't happen by believing. 'God did it' explains nothing, including God itself. You criticize people for their observations that the complex universe came from nothing but feel no shame for God's existence AND fail to recognize the simplicity, NOT COMPLEXITY of the early universe.
I do believe in some things, I believe in humanity, I believe in it to overcome its problems and make life wonderful for everyone, This can be done by working together with an understanding of how nature works and not being ignorant of it. Nature is complex and hard to understand, thats part of how you know it's true, and is part of it's beauty. For your benefit in your life KNOW 'NOTHING CAN create very little' 'DID create very little' SPACE, ENERGY, vast amounts of the stuff!! NOTHING existed, then SOMETHING existed, marvel in it! ponder what it means that NOTHING once existed. It blows your mind as much as the idea of a GOD and it is based on observations of the universe we are actually in. These basic constituents of space and energy then went on to create time and develop to increase the size of space and form particles witch behaved together with simple rules over eons of time to build large and complex beautiful structures that we see today in this universe, such as galaxies, stars, planets, and yourselves.
I would recommend to anyone to read up on evolution first before making some of the comments above. Read up on something more recent, not 'On The Origin Of Species' as this is 150 years old. Newer books are easier to understand and have 150 years more of observation's of nature, therefore more examples. Then discuss your findings on the relevant web pages.
A point to larry a b, did you read what I said, "the universe contained nearly nothing" at the beginning not! contained everything at the beginning. Observations I mention are not always present observations, for example, 'I look out of the window and see that it is snowing', but also, ' I look out of the window and see snow on the ground, therefore I conclude from my observation that it as snowed since I last looked out of the window'.
God sprang into existence, or existed for ever, HE EXIST! None of you have an explanation for this, an entity that can create an entire universe exist, WOW! Any explanation!!! As he talked to you? Dose he tuck you into bed at night? What as he done for you? Everything I observe in this world is done through natural processes, I have not seen God do anything, my breakfast was made by somebody in a factory, farmers dug the ingredients up, the plants grew the cereal, the water precipitated out of the sky, the sun supplied the energy for the earth, the nuclear reactions supplied the energy for the sun to give out, gravity supplied the energy to create the sun, the universe supplied the energy to create gravity.
I can't give a full explanation, tens of thousands of people over the centuries have worked thousands of hours to observe nature and have written it down in books for everyone to see, there is a lot of information, its takes years to read, they continue to had new information, go and have a look, its amazing! its beautiful! If God created the universe, then this is his work, admire it! love it!
I CAN'T, believe, I care too much for myself, my family and friends, and every other human being, to believe. I observe how the world works and I work with it to please other people. I want it to be better so everyone has an enjoyable life. This can't happen by believing. 'God did it' explains nothing, including God itself. You criticize people for their observations that the complex universe came from nothing but feel no shame for God's existence AND fail to recognize the simplicity, NOT COMPLEXITY of the early universe.
I do believe in some things, I believe in humanity, I believe in it to overcome its problems and make life wonderful for everyone, This can be done by working together with an understanding of how nature works and not being ignorant of it. Nature is complex and hard to understand, thats part of how you know it's true, and is part of it's beauty. For your benefit in your life KNOW 'NOTHING CAN create very little' 'DID create very little' SPACE, ENERGY, vast amounts of the stuff!! NOTHING existed, then SOMETHING existed, marvel in it! ponder what it means that NOTHING once existed. It blows your mind as much as the idea of a GOD and it is based on observations of the universe we are actually in. These basic constituents of space and energy then went on to create time and develop to increase the size of space and form particles witch behaved together with simple rules over eons of time to build large and complex beautiful structures that we see today in this universe, such as galaxies, stars, planets, and yourselves.
12.11.2010 | 7:41am
matt says:
OK, it appears y'all have an idea of how the eye came about. No facts, but an idea. But that's my point - it's all an idea, no more well founded than the creation theory. The problem I have with the scientific world is that, in believing in the theory of evolution, it claims intellectual superiority to creation theory - and it teaches evolution as fact. It simply ignores the facts that don't fit in with it's theory (see, for examply, the Glen Rose Texas digs).
You don't find Christ with your mind, you find him with your soul and spirit. I hope, and I pray whether you want me to or not, that you will realize there is no intellectual inferiority in believing in God. That idea is every bit as reasonable as evolution. Once you do that, then you are free to search your conscience, and whether your conscience evolved or was given by God, and see whether you have a soul. I'll pray for y'all. Merry Christmas.
You don't find Christ with your mind, you find him with your soul and spirit. I hope, and I pray whether you want me to or not, that you will realize there is no intellectual inferiority in believing in God. That idea is every bit as reasonable as evolution. Once you do that, then you are free to search your conscience, and whether your conscience evolved or was given by God, and see whether you have a soul. I'll pray for y'all. Merry Christmas.
12.11.2010 | 10:12am
Carol Wigent says:
Looks to me that, in spite of the thousands upon thousands of words that have been thrown at the question of God or No God, there isn't an answer. The more I read, the more I see that it is a matter of faith. When I peer inside myself, as much as I can do, I find only a little sprout of this 'knowing.' I sometimes have grave doubts and have, at one time, given up on God. But the quirky pleasant feeling that I choose to accept and favor with nurture is a hope-faith entity that seems to pop up serendipitously. I speculate that is the same primeval instinct that a baby has for its own survival: there is a Mother who will feed me; she will warm me if I am cold and she will come if I cry. I worry that maybe she won't come to me; maybe I have disappointed her enough to cause her to despair of me. But when the tears are dry, the little thought reforms--"Oh-h, she'll be back She's there somewhere. I don't have to worry." I don't know where God is. Can't see Him. I surely wonder how He could tolerate hovering over humanity with its unbelievable cruelty and narcissistic demeanor dominant in so many places. I wonder if the seeking and sharing of impressions in discussions like this one are actually a perceptible whisper of God's existence. I mean this considering that the word 'God' comes from 'good' and that the Bible says "God is Love." Jesus of Nazareth lived the message of Love, and the narcissists of His day couldn't do less than kill Him. Jesus could never have told us all there is to the Creation question; there was not nearly enough science to help us understand. So He just told us to trust Him, like we trust life itself to persist. And least of all, don't expect to understand.
12.11.2010 | 4:25pm
Quine says:
Matt asks us to look to the Glen Rose Texas digs. This has been done extensively:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm
It is important to understand that great honor is given to scientists who present evidence that our current theories don't work in all cases or are even totally wrong. That is how you "make your stripes" in the world of science. Ignoring evidence will sink your career.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm
It is important to understand that great honor is given to scientists who present evidence that our current theories don't work in all cases or are even totally wrong. That is how you "make your stripes" in the world of science. Ignoring evidence will sink your career.
12.11.2010 | 5:05pm
Supernova says:
People have so much trouble picturing something coming from nothing, but at some point, it simply had to be so. Even if you believe in a creationist god, that god also came from nothing. There had to be a starting point, and just because we can't picture a universe "pre-starting point" doesn't mean that it never was.
It's like the days when we, as a species, believed in a flat Earth... we also believed that the Earth had edges that ships could sail off from. It's not because anybody had every seen the edges of the Earth (obviously) but because we couldn't picture a flat surface that didn't end at some point. But our ignorance of such an idea, and our limited comprehension of it, doesn't mean that it's impossible - it's just inconceivable.
It's like the days when we, as a species, believed in a flat Earth... we also believed that the Earth had edges that ships could sail off from. It's not because anybody had every seen the edges of the Earth (obviously) but because we couldn't picture a flat surface that didn't end at some point. But our ignorance of such an idea, and our limited comprehension of it, doesn't mean that it's impossible - it's just inconceivable.
12.11.2010 | 8:33pm
Arthur says:
When humanity as a whole realizes that all "creation myths" are just that: myths, humankind will advance jusk like we have since language and writing were invented.
12.11.2010 | 11:42pm
Steve Z says:
I have to disagree with Supernova : "People have so much trouble picturing something coming from nothing, but at some point, it simply had to be so."
While the universe may indeed have "come from nothing" for all we know right now, there is no way we can state this as neccesary.
As I pointed out earlier, this is just a bias in favor nf nothingness as the natural state from which all things spring. How do you know this?
if your problem is looking at an infinite regress of a material universe and saying "well it can't have always existed, it must have sprung from nothing", this doesn't solve the issue at all because you have the same problem with regards to nothingness. Was there nothing for an infinite amount of time before there was something? If so, you have the same infinite regress, you may just as well have applied it to something as to nothing.
(Incidentally god faces the exact same issues - it is not a solution to the "It couldn't have been here forever where did it all come from " question because you can apply all the same problems to a creator, it is just pushed back one level of abstraction further).
I think the best thing is to admit we don't know. Was there always something, or was there nothing and then something? Or some third alternative that perhaps our monkey brains, like the characters in flatland, cannot conceive of yet? No clue.
While the universe may indeed have "come from nothing" for all we know right now, there is no way we can state this as neccesary.
As I pointed out earlier, this is just a bias in favor nf nothingness as the natural state from which all things spring. How do you know this?
if your problem is looking at an infinite regress of a material universe and saying "well it can't have always existed, it must have sprung from nothing", this doesn't solve the issue at all because you have the same problem with regards to nothingness. Was there nothing for an infinite amount of time before there was something? If so, you have the same infinite regress, you may just as well have applied it to something as to nothing.
(Incidentally god faces the exact same issues - it is not a solution to the "It couldn't have been here forever where did it all come from " question because you can apply all the same problems to a creator, it is just pushed back one level of abstraction further).
I think the best thing is to admit we don't know. Was there always something, or was there nothing and then something? Or some third alternative that perhaps our monkey brains, like the characters in flatland, cannot conceive of yet? No clue.
12.12.2010 | 7:43am
Joe says:
Arthur:
Well said.
The best and most honest answer, to who or what, created the universe, will always be, "We don't know."
Well said.
The best and most honest answer, to who or what, created the universe, will always be, "We don't know."
12.12.2010 | 9:33am
Caudimordax says:
@ Matt:
“OK, it appears y'all have an idea of how the eye came about. No facts, but an idea. But that's my point - it's all an idea, no more well founded than the creation theory.”
One account of the “creation” of the eye lies the eye structure of various types of creatures now living, and in the the fossil record. In this account there are FACTS (evidence) to support the “idea” that the eye evolved. The other “account,” if the meaning of the word can be strectched so far, is in a book written by semi-literate bronze-age goat-herders who thought that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. There IS no evidence in the real world to support this account. One account is there to be discovered in nature and was not put there by the hand of man. The other account was invented, or, if you insist, “channeled” through ignorant men and garbled through repeated retellings over a few thousand years.
I’m not a believer myself, but I always liked the argument presented by Rabbi Nathan Slifkin here: “God essentially created two conflicting accounts of Creation: one in nature, and one in the Torah. How can it be determined which is the real story, and which is the fake designed to mislead us? One could equally propose that it is nature which presents the real story, and that the Torah was devised by God to test us with a fake history! One has to be able to rely on God's truthfulness if religion is to function. Or, to put it another way—if God went to enormous lengths to convince us that the world is billions of years old, who are we to disagree?”
@Matt:
“The problem I have with the scientific world is that, in believing in the theory of evolution, it claims intellectual superiority to creation theory - and it teaches evolution as fact.”
Evolution by natural selection actually does have “intellectual superiority” over creationism, being the best and most coherent explanation of the relationship amongst all living creatures on earth. Belief in creationism is purely a religious faith position. Believe in it if you want to, but don’t try to pretend that is has any intellectual merit or evidence to support it.”
@Matt:
“It simply ignores the facts that don't fit in with it's theory (see, for examply, the Glen Rose Texas digs).”
And that is simply not true (see Quine’s post).
BTW, I didn't realize that Steve Zara and Steve Z are not the same person!
“OK, it appears y'all have an idea of how the eye came about. No facts, but an idea. But that's my point - it's all an idea, no more well founded than the creation theory.”
One account of the “creation” of the eye lies the eye structure of various types of creatures now living, and in the the fossil record. In this account there are FACTS (evidence) to support the “idea” that the eye evolved. The other “account,” if the meaning of the word can be strectched so far, is in a book written by semi-literate bronze-age goat-herders who thought that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. There IS no evidence in the real world to support this account. One account is there to be discovered in nature and was not put there by the hand of man. The other account was invented, or, if you insist, “channeled” through ignorant men and garbled through repeated retellings over a few thousand years.
I’m not a believer myself, but I always liked the argument presented by Rabbi Nathan Slifkin here: “God essentially created two conflicting accounts of Creation: one in nature, and one in the Torah. How can it be determined which is the real story, and which is the fake designed to mislead us? One could equally propose that it is nature which presents the real story, and that the Torah was devised by God to test us with a fake history! One has to be able to rely on God's truthfulness if religion is to function. Or, to put it another way—if God went to enormous lengths to convince us that the world is billions of years old, who are we to disagree?”
@Matt:
“The problem I have with the scientific world is that, in believing in the theory of evolution, it claims intellectual superiority to creation theory - and it teaches evolution as fact.”
Evolution by natural selection actually does have “intellectual superiority” over creationism, being the best and most coherent explanation of the relationship amongst all living creatures on earth. Belief in creationism is purely a religious faith position. Believe in it if you want to, but don’t try to pretend that is has any intellectual merit or evidence to support it.”
@Matt:
“It simply ignores the facts that don't fit in with it's theory (see, for examply, the Glen Rose Texas digs).”
And that is simply not true (see Quine’s post).
BTW, I didn't realize that Steve Zara and Steve Z are not the same person!
12.12.2010 | 3:42pm
Paul from Australia says:
@Matt
If you are going to claim that there is now understanding of the evolution of the eye - then can you just say:-
"I accept what my priest tells me because he reads the good book"
Please take some time to actually research the book
& yes the bible is incosistent in its explanations of Jesus birth - we will just have to disagree on that one - I've read it often, have you?
Try reading the whole passages where there are different numbers of ancestors in Luke & Mark - pls don't go with the - they were aimed at different audiences, either they are accurate or they aren't - my silver car doesn't become a green one because my girlfriend prefers that colour. It's just the clergy justifying differences to explain things to the gullible
If you are going to claim that there is now understanding of the evolution of the eye - then can you just say:-
"I accept what my priest tells me because he reads the good book"
Please take some time to actually research the book
& yes the bible is incosistent in its explanations of Jesus birth - we will just have to disagree on that one - I've read it often, have you?
Try reading the whole passages where there are different numbers of ancestors in Luke & Mark - pls don't go with the - they were aimed at different audiences, either they are accurate or they aren't - my silver car doesn't become a green one because my girlfriend prefers that colour. It's just the clergy justifying differences to explain things to the gullible
12.12.2010 | 8:52pm
Supernova says:
But, Joe and Steve Z, we do know that the universe had a start... the Big Bang. This isn't just hypothesis, it is well-evidenced fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_big_bang#Observational_evidence). Of course you're skeptical of science, as religious observers often are, but the movement of light and celestial bodies suggests that the universe didn't simply always exist. Just because you weren't there to see it happen doesn't mean that evidence wasn't left behind to tell us how it happened.
Whether or not you're willing to look at the evidence for the Big Bang, you won't find evidence of a creator. Never mind the infinite regress - science doesn't support the hypothesis of a creator god because there has never been evidence to support it. Christianity (as well as the other religions) attack the Big Bang and believe that if they can disprove it, then a creator god must lurk at the start of the universe for lack of another alternative... simply because they're too arrogant to consider that there is an infinite number of other possibilities (if you're willing to theorize anything without supporting evidence).
Finally, let's talk about this "nothingness" that we can't prove. Atheists believe that there was nothing before the Big Bang only as an educated guess. We're not fundamentalists on the issue, and when evidence arrives to support a better theory then the prevailing view will change. We can only base our theories on the evidence at hand, but it is the evidence that will guide us, not faith-based belief.
Whether or not you're willing to look at the evidence for the Big Bang, you won't find evidence of a creator. Never mind the infinite regress - science doesn't support the hypothesis of a creator god because there has never been evidence to support it. Christianity (as well as the other religions) attack the Big Bang and believe that if they can disprove it, then a creator god must lurk at the start of the universe for lack of another alternative... simply because they're too arrogant to consider that there is an infinite number of other possibilities (if you're willing to theorize anything without supporting evidence).
Finally, let's talk about this "nothingness" that we can't prove. Atheists believe that there was nothing before the Big Bang only as an educated guess. We're not fundamentalists on the issue, and when evidence arrives to support a better theory then the prevailing view will change. We can only base our theories on the evidence at hand, but it is the evidence that will guide us, not faith-based belief.
12.13.2010 | 8:18pm
T. Ray ~ Akaei says:
The problem with caricature is that we may base our judgment and response to the true subject based on the features of the caricature. By accepting the caricature as the true subject we deliberately misinform ourselves about the true subject. How then can one claim to make an informed decision?
When lampoon and satire misrepresent the subject the only merit is entertainment. Entertainment value is doubled when secondary audience views the credulity of the primary audience.
When lampoon and satire misrepresent the subject the only merit is entertainment. Entertainment value is doubled when secondary audience views the credulity of the primary audience.
12.14.2010 | 3:03pm
Paul from Australia says:
@Matt "that the paper necessarily concludes that some races are more evolved than others"
Quotes please - I'm sure (as in 100% sure) you have never read the book but are going on what you have been told by others, who are quote mining with an agenda to convincve you to follow them.
Your earlier part quote of Dawkins, follows these same lines.
The policy seems to be - let's quote the beginning of the sentance only & ignore the bit that not only refutes the part quote or differs from the religious beliefs.
Your arguments work on the week mind only (as in those that are willing to accept what their priest or parents tell them about religion without questioning why they are telling me this)
There has been a suggestion that we have evolved to accept what we are told by our elders as a defence mechanism - How does a child know the difference between fact (eg - don't touch that spider as they may bite & kill you) or made up junk - eg If you sacrifice a goat on the second full moon of the year we will get a bumper harvest.
Religion falls into the second category here
Quotes please - I'm sure (as in 100% sure) you have never read the book but are going on what you have been told by others, who are quote mining with an agenda to convincve you to follow them.
Your earlier part quote of Dawkins, follows these same lines.
The policy seems to be - let's quote the beginning of the sentance only & ignore the bit that not only refutes the part quote or differs from the religious beliefs.
Your arguments work on the week mind only (as in those that are willing to accept what their priest or parents tell them about religion without questioning why they are telling me this)
There has been a suggestion that we have evolved to accept what we are told by our elders as a defence mechanism - How does a child know the difference between fact (eg - don't touch that spider as they may bite & kill you) or made up junk - eg If you sacrifice a goat on the second full moon of the year we will get a bumper harvest.
Religion falls into the second category here
12.15.2010 | 8:55am
Joe the Human says:
This article, foregrounding the foundational idea upon which First Things is probably based, is in trouble; the whole Christian/Aristotelian idea of a "first thing" doesn't work.
Probably we need a better idea of "God" here; "god" as an "uncaused first cause," simply, arbitrarily, 1) begs the question of what caused the universe. By stipulating that there was something uncaused, in the start. Thereby giving up on causation. Where did God come from after all.
That is called "question-begging" in Philosophy. And 2) is also probably itself also simply "incoherent." Or as they say in current Analytic Philosophy, it "cannot be located in Logical Space": can anyone really tell us, get a clear idea, of what an "uncaused cause," would really be like? The concept in fact, doesn't clarify anything at all; but merely poses one more incomprehensibility.
Not much better than "something appeared out of nothing," after all.
By the way, I like the Big Bang theory, as an explanation of most of the visible universe. Still, that theory really does foreground another problem: how DOES "nothing" explode, and create something.? Those "mathematical" theories that "prove" this can be done, are simply, in my humble opinion, nonsense as well.
Regarding the origin of the universe, therefore? Why don't Christians and Rationalists both at last genuinely adopt, the Christian virtue of ... real humility?
Let us just be honest for once. And just say ... "I don't know."
Probably we need a better idea of "God" here; "god" as an "uncaused first cause," simply, arbitrarily, 1) begs the question of what caused the universe. By stipulating that there was something uncaused, in the start. Thereby giving up on causation. Where did God come from after all.
That is called "question-begging" in Philosophy. And 2) is also probably itself also simply "incoherent." Or as they say in current Analytic Philosophy, it "cannot be located in Logical Space": can anyone really tell us, get a clear idea, of what an "uncaused cause," would really be like? The concept in fact, doesn't clarify anything at all; but merely poses one more incomprehensibility.
Not much better than "something appeared out of nothing," after all.
By the way, I like the Big Bang theory, as an explanation of most of the visible universe. Still, that theory really does foreground another problem: how DOES "nothing" explode, and create something.? Those "mathematical" theories that "prove" this can be done, are simply, in my humble opinion, nonsense as well.
Regarding the origin of the universe, therefore? Why don't Christians and Rationalists both at last genuinely adopt, the Christian virtue of ... real humility?
Let us just be honest for once. And just say ... "I don't know."
12.16.2010 | 6:40am
Nathan says:
God created the heavens and the earth.. the end.
Very well done. I enjoyed it a lot! =]
Very well done. I enjoyed it a lot! =]
12.20.2010 | 3:45am
Tunde says:
Thumbs up Joe. Agnostics are the most honest of peoples: they do not pretend to know what they do not know. I fail to understand how "God did it" answers any questions. It begs the question of origins. If nothing can come from nothing, then "God" couldn't have been the "Uncaused Cause". This is argument from ignorance, which just uses "God" as a fill-gap. If God could exist without a beginning, why not the Universe?
12.21.2010 | 11:23am
Mike D'Virgilio says:
Loved the story. I haven't been able to read every comment, but I love you atheists/agnostics. Especially the gentleman who says atheism is not a faith. Atheists/agnostics are so proud of themselves, that they are the lone rigorously logical creatures on earth, who plant their flag on the land of "I don't know," therefore it isn't important to know. I don't want to call such people stupid, because most atheists/agnostics who care about what they "believe" are usually very intelligent. But it kind of amazes me that they don't understand that you have to begin with faith, that you must hold certain assumptions, and that all your conclusions logically follow. They vehemently deny this, but they are absolutely totally and completely wrong. Period.
I, being more honest than any agnostic, believe that the God of the Bible is a possibility. None of us can "know" anything definitively about an ultimate, transcendent reality. If we claim that matter is all that exists and all that matters, and that anything beyond matter is unknowable and therefore irrelevant, that is simply a matter, no pun intended, of faith. It is simply an assertion which no evidence can "prove." Period. No debate. End of story.
With those two assumptions honestly stated, to me, the all powerful, sovereign, eternal beneficent creator God of the Bible makes infinitely more sense and is infinitely more plausible. But because of Satan's temptation, that we can "be like God, knowing good and evil," the atheist/agnostic refuses the obvious, That "since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so men are without excuse." Amen!
I, being more honest than any agnostic, believe that the God of the Bible is a possibility. None of us can "know" anything definitively about an ultimate, transcendent reality. If we claim that matter is all that exists and all that matters, and that anything beyond matter is unknowable and therefore irrelevant, that is simply a matter, no pun intended, of faith. It is simply an assertion which no evidence can "prove." Period. No debate. End of story.
With those two assumptions honestly stated, to me, the all powerful, sovereign, eternal beneficent creator God of the Bible makes infinitely more sense and is infinitely more plausible. But because of Satan's temptation, that we can "be like God, knowing good and evil," the atheist/agnostic refuses the obvious, That "since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so men are without excuse." Amen!
1.18.2011 | 10:21am
nick says:
I find it funny how you people have the need for a force greater than yourself(something you can't and will never fully understand) must possess human traits! Its the only way you can find an understanding and maintain faith. So you can find comfort with existence. This way we all are the apple of an omnipotent creators eye, because we assume our scriptures are undoubtedly true and correct and he possess human traits(or was we possess godly traits?). Either way, magical creation is far more understandable than one that stems from the laws of physics... I find the sarcasm and scrutiny throughout all of your comments nothing but typical of "christians". You are all so blinded by your faith and proposed divine favor, you miss your own hypocrisy(which keep in mind, your hypocrisy is only possible because of your faith)
2.6.2011 | 11:46pm
Rosamond Daloisio says:
Finally, let's talk about this "nothingness" that we can't prove. Atheists believe that there was nothing before the Big Bang only as an educated guess. We're not fundamentalists on the issue, and when evidence arrives to support a better theory then the prevailing view will change. We can only base our theories on the evidence at hand, but it is the evidence that will guide us, not faith-based belief. Dogs and Penguins. Kinds of animal. Follow the dog river back, all the way south, through the smaller ancestors, and you will find a small but active reptile, not much unlike a lizard. Follow the penguin river back, and it will pass through the flying-bird rapids, then through the meanderings of the small feathered dinosaurs, and eventually back to a small but active reptile, not much unlike a lizard. The rivers meet, then travel further back towards the amphibian delta together.
4.30.2011 | 10:29pm
Spano Wanda says:
You've missed your calling, Joe. Hopefully, there are millions of Somethings that can now thank you for giving them their own version of Dicken's "Christmas Carol." I'm sure all koalas wish to also claim back on their mother's pouches, mainly because they point down (suggesting they may have evolved from a burrowing type creature, but you have them designed - so it must be god's plan that they fall out onto their heads from high up a tree)
7.19.2011 | 4:47pm
Hitch says:
Great article.
Atheism is a belief that doesn't even matter. It is empty of substance, reason, logic and purpose.
It says, the universe was created from nothing, by nothing.
The universe is going nowhere.
There is no grand scheme of things and so existence is meaningless and futile.
Believe it or not, many of these blind, followers of the blind, are willingly to die for this empty, feckless belief. They would be pitiful if not so adamantly stubborn and immune to reason.
It is not mere lack of belief, as they pretend. It is a chosen stance to refuse to accept any and all evidence of God.
The atheist cannot know there is no God, therefore theirs is a position held by blind faith alone.
"Bragging to themselves about being so wise, they became utter morons" - Rom 1
Atheism is a belief that doesn't even matter. It is empty of substance, reason, logic and purpose.
It says, the universe was created from nothing, by nothing.
The universe is going nowhere.
There is no grand scheme of things and so existence is meaningless and futile.
Believe it or not, many of these blind, followers of the blind, are willingly to die for this empty, feckless belief. They would be pitiful if not so adamantly stubborn and immune to reason.
It is not mere lack of belief, as they pretend. It is a chosen stance to refuse to accept any and all evidence of God.
The atheist cannot know there is no God, therefore theirs is a position held by blind faith alone.
"Bragging to themselves about being so wise, they became utter morons" - Rom 1
