alphaparticle

Hi alphaparticle, I think I have understood your position just fine. You disagree on a couple of issues with some Christians in your circle; - You think that a consistent world-view can be maintained between the Bible, and secular historical models. The Christians around you disagree. - You think that the issue is unimportant. The Christians around you disagree. So it is likely that you are being challenged on your position – which is a cause of frustration for you. I still think the inconsistency lies with you. Since you consider the issue to be unimportant, you are expecting these Christians to act as if they consider the issue to be unimportant. If I might be so bold as to offer advice – You are not obligated to engage on this issue. Ideally, you would be secure enough to be able to get amongst it on any issue, but since, by your own admission, you are becoming frustrated, you could just say when challenged “I have made a decision that I’m going to leave this issue to God’s correction (if He deems it necessary) because it has become a source of distraction and frustration for me” (or some other polite way of saying “This conversation isn’t going to happen”). If they continue to push, then you can say “So what you are saying is that you have no confidence in God’s capacity to correct me?” “I think it is rather important that people know there are Christians out there who do not dismiss evolution, or the big bang, as they are the accepted scientific models by the vast majority of people in the relevant fields” Ultimately, if you know the Lord, then God is able to correct whichever of us needs it as He deems fit; assuming we are open to correction. However, statements like the one above are a source of sincere concern because they indicate a readiness to accept the world’s story over the Biblical account – without due consideration for the logic employed. For example, creationists do not “dismiss” anything. We disagree that Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology represent the only rational interpretations of the available evidence, and we disagree with the scientifically (and logically) unjustified levels of confidence often expressed in these models, and we disagree with the common claim that our disagreement demonstrates us to be, in any respect, scientifically ignorant. Our disagreement and right to scrutinise any scientific claim is explicitly permitted under the scientific method. Acceptance by the scientific community has never been a legitimate source of scientific confidence – especially when we are dealing with historical models of unobserved claims. Logic simply doesn’t permit confidence from this source. It combines the two logical fallacies Appeal to Consensus and Appeal to Authority. “I find it important to for certain believers and seekers to know this” I’m not sure why. Presumably you think that by conceding these points we make the gospel more appealing to outsiders. I’m not trying to negate your right to an opinion. My disagreement is based on the experience that I have never seen anyone impressed by an attempt to combine the Bible with secular models. Most people have recognised that these secular models are formulated with the intention of explaining reality without God. So they respond by either patronising us as having a half-truth (i.e. we are almost to a point where we’ve figured out that there is no need for God), or by criticising out capacity for reason. Richard Dawkins has demonstrated both of these strategies; in one sense describing Christians as “otherwise sane” or “They half-believe in the Bible but how do they decide which parts to believe literally and which parts are just allegorical?”; yet in another context he describes the attempted combination of secular models with the Bible as “Barking mad”. Since these represent the usual responses (at least in my experience), even if you disagree with us, you must be able to understand why we consider these issues important, and why we feel obligated to passionately defend our position. I empathise that discussing these issues with Christians makes you feel isolated and frustrated – that should not be the case. Christian fellowship should provide a place where we feel safe discussing any issue. No, you don't understand my intentions and you seem to think you understand those a great deal from what are really sparse words. Your entire post above misses what I attempted to communicate with you with my last post, in kind of an enormous way... which further affirms to me you missed the point. Again, I am not blaming you for this, just pointing it out as a matter of fact. I am not effectually communicating to you what I have in mind. You really, have, *seemingly*, no idea what I mean to get at. I think believers in these circles will likely understand it though, and that is why I posted my OP. It's odd insofar as, I find for whatever reason I'd like to be understood on this, insofar as what I am really getting at is absolutely the biggest spiritual struggle I've had, and have had, off and on for the 2 years since I have converted. Yet, on the other hand, I am not sure how to adequately explain it.

Tristen, With regards to your post to me, I think it is the case that you misunderstand my intentions. I acknowledge it may be, and probably is, even, a matter of my not being particularly clearly in my thread. I simply wanted to express frustration and also, express for those who may be in a similar boat as me my veiws so they are aware there are others with similar struggles. It isn't my intention to suggest that everyone else is dumb. Your attempt to read between the lines in that was inaccurate. To everyone, in general, it is simply the case I often find it hard to be a believer and be in the groups that I am in. Maybe you find that frankly irrelevant to the topic, and I understand it if you do, but I think it is rather important that people know there are Christians out there who do not dismiss evolution, or the big bang, as they are the accepted scientific models by the vast majority of people in the relevant fields. I find it important to for certain believers and seekers to know this.

Alright man, maybe another time.

we've had pretty much this exact discussion about faith and science topics before, and others! more than once. If you want to see it as a cop out, feel free.

ladyc, yeah I think you have an important point. shiloh I have heard this from you before, I have responded to it before, and it is the same thing now. Insofar as we aren't exchanging anything new whatsoever I don't really have anything to add.

I remain unconvinced there is an impossible contradiction between the scientific consensus here and the Bible. That is only the case on a very restricted reading of the Bible. As far as the scientific evidence for the big bang goes, I freely admit, and have never hidden, I accept it for scientific reasons. It's not like randomly expecting the world to suddenly appear from an explosion, at all, because this is hardly an explosion in any ordinary sense. In this case, spacetime itself has undergone a rapid expansion as the laws of physics themselves froze out as we know them now. The most extraordinary thing about the big bang is the very low entropy conditions out of which our universe began. The oscillatory model isn't necessary to explain anything and I should point out there are a lot of different multiverse models by which cosmologists, most admittedly atheists, have developed to try to explain the existence of the observable universe and its particular parameters. I think you can have interesting discussions about fine tuning and whatnot, but it becomes subtle pretty fast. However, none of this is a problem for the theist, insofar as someone who believes in God would expect that God has created everything, whether it be through the big bang or not.

It's a matter of fundamentally trying to see what is true about the world and believing what seems true about it. There are a number of well developed lines of evidence that leads to the big bang conclusion. These can't be wished away in the minds of individuals, even if they are inclined to try personally. It is a fact there are many believers in the world who do not have issues with reconciling their faith and their scientific positions such as big bang cosmology. Some see this as impossible, as you do shiloh, but that is hardly the only position possible to hold about these matters.

It's nice the world is so neatly divided and the truth of this matter so clear to you shiloh. I fail to see how these assertions help anyone else discern the truth of the matter. Certainly the blithe attitude of your initial response to me, your amusement, couldn't help.

I find it amusing Christians would feel a need to respond with their assertions of amusements at the efforts of other Christians to make sense out of things. Or, maybe I don't find that amusing, but just unfortunate and immensely disappointing.

I noticed there are a bunch of 'big bang' posts. So, why not throw my hat into the ring. There are a few major reasons the big bang cosmology is accepted. 1. the redshift of clusters of galaxies in a very specific relationship, the ones farther away do so at a faster rate than the ones closer by. Look up the plots. They are beautiful. 2. the relative abundances of elements. Yes, the big bang model specifically predicts that the universe ought to be about 75% hydrogen, 25% helium (with fudge for 'rest', including a bit of lithium). These predictions get a lot more specific about this by the way, predicting also what percentages of isotopes we ought to see. 3. cosmic background radiation, the common afterglow of the fact that the observable universe used to be in very close quarters. The very small perturbations of this are also important. In addition, there is recent evidence for the inflationary model by being able to detect specific kinds of gravitational waves from BICEP. Future looks at gravitational waves could provide additional looks at the very early universe. Why I am posting this-- specifically because this section is taken over by believers with a very narrow viewpoint on what is an acceptable reading of Genesis and limited understanding of the relevant science. While I am hardly an ideal believer, I am still around for one reason or another, and I still think it is important that believers and non believers alike see this diversity in the body of Christ. You do not have to be scientifically illiterate or alternatively reject the scientific consensus to be a member. I don't think this has any direct relevance to God's existence or creative action and find the emphasis put on that distracting and unfortunate, and for some of us, straight up deflating.

One thing we get from observing the content of the world is beauty and greatness. I don't know that that alone would convince anybody that God is worthy of worship, but I don't think any argument is going to do that. Perhaps the most that can be reasonably expected is that people will be thinking about these things in ways they haven't previously.

==================================================================== "Your" Threads?? I didn't know you owned them. This is a Forum, No? Also....every single thread that I ever started or witnessed "Strayed" from the OP.....this is quite self-evident. "Other stuff"? Please be Specific and I will attempt to provide a rationale They stray, but it is nice if they are at least tangentially related to the OP. Talking about the nebular hypothesis, or which stuff Tesla was mistaken about, isn't related. I wouldn't be so uptight except that I'm a little sick of the way these threads have been going lately. I started this to discuss, at least loosely, design in the world and how that is discoverable through scientific inquiry. I didn't even think much 'believer vs believer' debate could be had over what I said in the OP. Perhaps that is boring but it was also by design (pun intended). A dialog about design with jerry? makes sense. Taking issue with my OP because you think that researchers go overboard with mathematical models? misses the point entirely.

====================================================== No. In fact, I'll go a many magnitudes higher than "amazing order"....The "Specific Complexity" is the overriding factor in the matter Well maybe not you personally but it's happening on a Massive Collective Scale as evidenced by the evidences that have been (and will be posted) on these threads. And you can't speak for "Everyone". It was not my intent to derail your OP. Forgive me, I will shut up until spoken to.....caveat: Unless I see Unsupported Conjectures/Falsehoods/or Undermining of the Word Of GOD I'm not speaking for everyone, but I am not interested in having my threads derailed anymore by off topic things. I'm also not interested in you advertising your threads in mine so much. If you agree with what I said, and it seems like you do given your agreement to my questions, I have no idea why you'd import this other stuff here.

=========================================================================== What are you not following Specifically??? The FBI (Government) sure had a "thing" for Tesla. Anti "Tesla-ite"..... that is too funny. This was my point,...... "We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture" Hannes Alfven PhD, Noble Prize Physics 1970 We're gonna touch on some of that "imaginary conjecture" over the next few weeks and beyond. We'll start off today with a subject that, as far as I'm aware, hasn't been talked about @ all....The Nebular Hypothesis. Hopefully, most know it's a Laugher....but you never can tell. We're doing no such thing, but enjoy. Once again none of this is relevant to the observation I made in the OP that I can tell. Do you disagree there is amazing order, on every level we can investigate, in the universe that is hard to explain if atheism is true?

====================================================================================== Sorry, it's just a habit of mine when I see Generalized Unsupported Statements....it's like Pavlov's Dogs. Agreed. But, You really don't need any Math in that "specific" case, "Specific Complexity" takes care of that quite demonstrably. The Importance of Math with Observation and Experiment are each self limiting without the other. ??? I do not follow. And as far as Tesla, I just realized I don't think I really care what people think of him at all. I'm not really an anti Tesla-ite or anything.

============================================================================= . Go ahead and list them. Then list what he was Right about and we'll compare and contrast. I'll bet the List from predicting Absolutely Zilch is even Longer. It's also a Human Construct/Convention and in most cases is Domain Dependent/Specific. However, having said that, It has it's place and we wouldn't be where we are without it. Speaking of Numbers, the most striking patterns IMHO are Fibonacci Sequences/ Spirals in Nature Living and Non-Living. It's absolutely Breath Taking and again, IMHO; one of the Signatures of GOD. Agreed I don't want to get off on a Tesla tangent here (you are free to interpret my recalcitrance however you wish). I am not sure how that would really relate to the OP. If we agree that amazing things have been discovered through mathematic models that is really my only point here. There is no reason to expect that we can do that if atheism is true.

Yes isn't that amazing! God created the forces that make it so, and even today we cannot truly explain gravity. We serve an awesome God! Hey Fez, Gravity......You'll open up a whole can of worms with talk like that LOL. Also I have a Just a couple of questions for all who view. Ok, maybe this is too simple minded but let me just put this out there just from a personal standpoint..... After Basic Training/AIT where you just learn common skills.....the rest of my Combat Arms Career, roughly 98%... was KNOWING YOUR ENEMY. Just a relentless day after day studying tactics and strategies/logistics of the Enemy. Back in those days it was Mother Russia. I guess the principle never left me....it was a Traumatic Experience @ Times LOL. Having said that: What was the First Sin in the Bible: (Genesis 3:1) "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" (Genesis 3:4) "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:" So the obvious #1 Tactic (among many, but for brevity) is to first CREATE DOUBT and then CHANGE THE WORD OF GOD. Moreover from Daniel Chapter 10: (Daniel 10:20) "Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come." There is a dialogue with the Angel Gabriel concerning his fight with the Prince of Persia the needing the Angel Michael's help to get through. Now thay're not talking about the Human Prince's (Persia and Grecia) but Principalities and Powers, Right? Soooo, I'm not saying the evil one doesn't attack Joe Coffee and Betty Breadmaker but If you were in the DIRE Predicament that he's in, just from a Tactical Standpoint to set up the End of Days and following the Modus Operandi ( Create Doubt and Change GOD'S WORD), what would you do?..... Attack: A. The Satellite Repairman B. Jack the Walmart Manager C. WORLD Powers/Establishments/Seminaries/Universities ?? And my final question: What "Establishment" on the Planet Earth attempts to Cast the Most DOUBT of the Existence of GOD Bar None??? I'll give you a Hint, it starts with "S" and ends in "E". as for the OP: “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ” Nikola Tesla Nikola Tesla a home boy, my GrandMother was born in Croatia. Hail to the Motherland!! LOL While I understand that the scientific establishment is not exactly pro-God these days, that doesn't negate the fact that the contents of scientific knowledge support the existence of a supernatural Creator. As far as Tesla, he was profoundly mistaken about several things. I'm pro experiment, entirely, but it seems the most progress is made with balance. The list of stuff predicted from messing with math is impressively long (from anti-matter to time dilation)... it's honestly surprising it can be done at all. That is one fact about the world that always amazed me when I was an atheist. The interplay there between abstract theories and experimental findings is very powerful.

It's an argument from design and if I had to formalize it I would have it something like this: 1. It is highly unlikely to randomly find the world (and by world I mean everything that exists physically) highly ordered. Out of all of the configurations in which the world could be found, finding it highly ordered is going to be much more unlikely than an unordered one. It is much more likely to find the world ordered if it is not the product of random blind chance, but rather the design of an intelligence. 2. The world is highly ordered to the point that we can use abstract mathematics to accurately describe physical reality. We are able to model and make predictions to incredibly precision and accuracy on every scale through this means. 3. Point 2 makes the world we actually observe much more likely on God's existence than on atheism. Therefore it's at least reasonable to expect an intelligent designer is behind the existence of the world. Though I wasn't intending to make a formal argument in my OP per se, maybe for clarification that will help a bit. Mostly though, my main point is that it is really, very amazing and interesting to find things so discoverable, predictable, from the quantum world (yes I am aware the predictions there are probabilistic), to biological scales, to astronomical scales. And, every time we dig deeper into the order, things become more unified, symmetric and arguably beautiful. The fact we can use math to describe all this, and make predictions about what exists physically, speaks to just how tight the organization is. It is wonderful, and at least mysterious, whether or not you believe in God.

Thinking about scientists in the past has made me think about something in nature that always deeply impressed me. How is it that math so nicely models the world? Not only can we use math to model things after the fact, but merely manipulating mathematical symbols according to certain rules leads to incredible predictions about what we do in fact find in nature. An amazing example of this is Einstein's special relativity. A couple postulates followed by exploring their (mathematical) entailment led to the incredible predictions behind time dilation and length contraction as well as mass-energy equivalence. These were subsequently thoroughly tested decades later. How to explain this? On the atheist viewpoint, I don't know that you could answer this question. It is all an incredible coincidence. There is no reasonable expectation, a priori, of finding such tight order and predictability. You certainly couldn't expect to find that abstract mathematics could be used to both model and predict how nature behaves. On the other hand, from the Christian point of view none of this should be surprising. Genesis 1, Romans 1:20 and a multitude of other such verses suggest that God created nature in an orderly fashion. God explains the connection. This makes it all the more surprising to me that modern scientists are so recalcitrant to see God in nature. Great scientists in the past were not so hesitant and they had less reason to suspect something supernatural. The further things are probed, the more amazing some of these discoveries are. The connection between pen and paper (or computer) mathematical predictions and what is actually found in experiment I think at least should give people pause.

That is so Hilarious. I wanted to take a break from Studying Plasma Physics LOL....so I said, what's going on with the forum; click on yours...and you bring up Michael Faraday and Electro- Magnetism. And then evolution...in the same post. I was @ the Highest Point all day then crashed and burned all within 60 seconds. Like that Ski Jumper on Wide World of Sports...."The Thrill of Victory and The Agony of Defeat., you know the one. Get back to the serious stuff Alpha!! Talk to me here....you got all these Astrophysicists Fumbling and Stumbling with: Dark Matter/Dark Energy, searching for Gravitons, conveniently forgetting (accidentally on purpose) Newton's Inverse Square Law, wondering where 97% of the mass of the Universe is and on and on pathetically trying to Prop Up 13th Century Alchemy Theories when they got a BIG CHUNK of some Answers Right in front of their Face.............PLASMA!!!!!!! Hey I'm no expert in this stuff but....R Ya Kiddin Me?? I'm Stupified!! My 10 year old Daughter can take a cursory look @ some of this and @ least say.....this needs a little further Investigation. And They can Replicate alot of the Tenets/Characteristics and TEST these IN A LAB for !##$$##%$^%(&(&*$$!@&&(&*%^#$!@. I'm Close to a Conniption Fit They need to get back in A BIG WAY to: Maxwell, Faraday, Einstein, Bohm, Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Peratt, et al. You need to make this happen Alpha....YOU!!! LOL Make A Stand tell them you'll QUIT if they don't!!! It might help if you read what I said with a calm spirit. You missed the point entirely. ========================================================================== Calm Spirit ? How do you know I didn't..... Special Evolution Mind Powers? Do "Calm Spirits" have Particularly Acute Reading Comprehension Skills? I read it and got the point thanks. Figured with your background you may have some insight into Plasma's .... Nothing more Nothing Less. Sorry for derailing your OP on a tangent, there was no malicious intent. I'm not sure you did get the point, and that may be because I was unclear. No one has really responded to my question. It used to be that not only could you be a great scientist and a Christian, but a particularly committed Christian, and no one thought that peculiar. What I want to know is why that is so different today. The only reason I brought in the term evolution at all was to dismiss it as being relevant for a majority of researchers, e.g. a physical chemist could be a good physical chemist whatever his feelings on evolution. So... it's hard to see it as that being the only difference between then and now. I really do NOT want to get into a discussion about evolution here. Why do you think plasma is a good candidate for darkmatter? To have plasma conditions need to be hot. Also, plasma is not transparent (dark) to light. Its existence in large quantities would be manifest.

Science and faith are not at odds. Never have been. It is Evolution and the Bible that are at odds. It is any attempt by science to explain the origin of our universe and the origin of life in a way that precludes God and factors Him out of the equation entirely, and the Bible that are at odds. What many people don't understand is that this is a battle of worldviews, not a battle of science vs. faith. One thing I noticed after the Nye/Ham debate and even before that debate took place is that Ham received death threats and extremely vulgar comments on his facebook page and on his website. He wasn't merely ridiculed or belittled. He reported all kinds of violently hateful things that people said to him just because of his participation in that debate. That shows that this is not an intellecual issue, but a spritiual one and it shows that there is more going on than a debate over different points of view. Alright, so how and why the change? If it was the case that someone could be a committed Christian and one of the greatest scientists in the world and no one batted an eye, and now there is this incredible discontinuity between the religious beliefs of scientists and the general populace, it seems safe to infer something has changed.

That is so Hilarious. I wanted to take a break from Studying Plasma Physics LOL....so I said, what's going on with the forum; click on yours...and you bring up Michael Faraday and Electro- Magnetism. And then evolution...in the same post. I was @ the Highest Point all day then crashed and burned all within 60 seconds. Like that Ski Jumper on Wide World of Sports...."The Thrill of Victory and The Agony of Defeat., you know the one. Get back to the serious stuff Alpha!! Talk to me here....you got all these Astrophysicists Fumbling and Stumbling with: Dark Matter/Dark Energy, searching for Gravitons, conveniently forgetting (accidentally on purpose) Newton's Inverse Square Law, wondering where 97% of the mass of the Universe is and on and on pathetically trying to Prop Up 13th Century Alchemy Theories when they got a BIG CHUNK of some Answers Right in front of their Face.............PLASMA!!!!!!! Hey I'm no expert in this stuff but....R Ya Kiddin Me?? I'm Stupified!! My 10 year old Daughter can take a cursory look @ some of this and @ least say.....this needs a little further Investigation. And They can Replicate alot of the Tenets/Characteristics and TEST these IN A LAB for !##$$##%$^%(&(&*$$!@&&(&*%^#$!@. I'm Close to a Conniption Fit They need to get back in A BIG WAY to: Maxwell, Faraday, Einstein, Bohm, Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Peratt, et al. You need to make this happen Alpha....YOU!!! LOL Make A Stand tell them you'll QUIT if they don't!!! It might help if you read what I said with a calm spirit. You missed the point entirely.

When replying to one of threads on this board I was inspired to think of past scientists who were believers, and inspired by their faith to study nature. One that came to mind immediately is one of my favorite overall physicists, Michael Faraday. Faraday was a devout lay preacher in a conservative Presbyterian sect aside from making groundbreaking physics discoveries, one of which is a large part of our life now (electromagnetic induction). While I was thinking about sharing this in response to this other thread, I couldn't help but wonder again at the question, why is there animus between the scientific community and community of believers? The reason I find this so odd is that this is clearly a new phenomenon. It seems fundamentally needless that this is the case, and is more a matter of historical accident than a matter of principle. Even if you take evolution into account, why would accepting or rejecting evolution make one a better or worse physical chemist? I don't think that alone explains facts like the number of believers among scientists being so low as compared to the overall general population.

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats. Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God. Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today. Could he have come to his conclusions if he had not known of the Christian God? Many scientists make discoveries that even Enoch would recognize, and know nothing of Jesus. For him, it seems that his belief in God was a motivator for his doing science. Was that a necessary condition for Newton's doing the physics he did? I can't say either way.

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats. Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God. Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today.