God is subtle but he is not malicious. – Albert Einstein
Many of our astute and learned intellectuals on BU have been waiting patiently for a discourse on this rather voluminous topic since last year. It would be remiss and foolhardy in denying the pivotal role that science plays in our world today – for ever increasing connectivity has never been so necessary to everyday normal human existence.
Much of modern science starts with Einstein who first proposed his General Theory of Relativity in 1915. It describes how any massive object, such as the Sun, creates gravity by bending space and time around it. Everything in that space is also bent: even rays of light. Consequently, distant light sources, behind the massive object, can appear in a different position or look brighter than they would otherwise. So the total eclipse of 29th May 1919 gave scientists the chance to test the theory for the first time.
Astronomer Professor Pedro Ferreira from the University of Oxford argued that:- “This first observational proof of General Relativity sent shockwaves through the scientific establishment… it changed the goalposts for physics.”
“Einstein’s assumption agreed beautifully with everything else and allowed him to discover a number of great things so that nobody ever questioned it,” said Bahram Mashhoon, Professor of Physics in the MU College of Arts and Science. “All forces need to be of quantum origin, but Einstein’s general relativity theory, which is the modern theory of gravitation, has not yet been brought into conformity with quantum theory. The modern theories of special and general relativity have their origins in the problems associated with the way electromagnetic waves appear to observers in motion.”
However, scientists at Texas A&M University, in the August 24th issue of Physics contend that – “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” sums up fairly well how many scientists have viewed Einstein’s theory of general relativity. But outside of the gamut of Einsteinian mathematical wisdom – what is his position on how the Universe is ordered? Are his philosophical paradigms coherent with his ideas on science and God? Also, what can we deduce from other scientists who hold religious, philosophical as well as empirical scientific knowledge?
This is the CONNUNDRUM? This is the circle that many astute and learned men have been trying to square since the days of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton & Halley to mention but a mere few names.
So what is the answer?
The New York Times reported that 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God to whom they pray. The numbers in Europe are about the same. It is from this vantage point that we examine the thesis of our discourse by drawing upon the foundational paradigms of Prof. John Polkinghorne – noted former Professor of Mathematical & Quantum Physics at Cambridge who in his mid career became an Anglican priest. His books include Science and Creation, Science and Providence, Belief in God in An Age of Science, Serious Talk: Science and Religion in Dialogue, The Faith of a Physicist, The God of Hope and the End of the World, Exploring Reality, and Quantum Physics and Theology.
As the goodly Professor puts it – “Physics is powerless to establish the rational intelligibility of the Universe… It is often felt that in religion you have faith; in science you have fact, and that no faith is involved in science. That is patently false. All science depends and proceeds on the basis of believing that the Universe is rationally intelligible, you wouldn’t do science if you didn’t believe that. But science itself cannot give it to you.” He describes his view of the world as critical realism and believes that there is “One World”, with science and religion both addressing aspects of the same reality.
Professor Polkinghorne considers that “the question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality.” He addresses the questions of “Does the concept of God make sense? If so, do we have reason for believing in such a thing?” But he is “cautious about our powers to assess coherence,” pointing out that in 1900 a “competent… undergraduate could have demonstrated the ‘incoherence’” of Quantum ideas. He suggests that “the nearest analogy in the physical world [to God] would be … the Quantum Vacuum.”
He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz’s great question “why is there something rather than nothing?” The Atheist’s “plain assertion of the world’s existence” is a “grossly impoverished view of reality,” he says, arguing that “Theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address.” He “does not assert that God’s existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God’s non-existence can) but that theism makes more sense of the world, and of human experience, than does atheism.”
Freeman Dyson (Professor of Theoretical Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton with disciplines in Mathematics and Astronomy, a Futurist, famous for his work in Quantum Mechanics) argue that “the more I examine the Universe and the details of its Architecture, the more evidence I find that the Universe in some sense must have known we were coming” and suggests there is a wide consensus amongst physicists that either there are a very large number of other universes in a multiverse or that “there is just one universe which is the way it is in its anthropic fruitfulness because it is the expression of the purposive design of a Creator, who has endowed it with the finely tuned potentiality for life.”
If epistemology follows ontology according to Professor Polkinghorne, then it is logical to infer that different epistemologies have a relationship of verisimilitude hence the relationship of consonance and assimilation.
Professor Polkinghorne says that he is “believer in the unity of knowledge. There is one world of reality – one world of our experience that we’re seeking to describe. Of course, there are different aspects and levels of that reality; we can encounter the same event in a different way. We could describe it in very physical terms, or as a carrier of beauty, or a moment of moral choice; it could be the moment we encounter God. There are these different layers. But somewhere they’ve all got to fit together. I want to put them together in a way that respects the different characters of each level that I experience, as well as the fact that the experience is of one reality. I want a consonant relationship, for example, between science and theology. Science cannot tell theology how to construct a doctrine of creation, but you can’t construct a doctrine of creation without taking account of the age of the universe and the evolutionary character of cosmic history. I also think we need to maintain distinctions – the doctrine of Creation is different from a scientific cosmology, and we should resist the temptation, which sometimes scientists give in to, to try to assimilate the concepts of theology to the concepts of science. There is a distinction that needs to be maintained.”
As Renaissance shift from the dualistic thinking of Descartes and Newton to the present understanding of reality as one – Einsteinian cosmology helps us to appreciate the role that the general theory of relativity, “that space and time and matter are all linked together, so that the world is relational in that sense. That is a very important development, and many theologians have seen in it a suggestion of the relational thinking of a Trinitarian theology.”
Polkinghorne argues that “the discovery of quantum theory, which has brought about a number of changes in our thinking about the world – suggest that the world is no longer tightly deterministic and mechanical; there is a probabilistic character to physical process. And, of course, quantum theory also has its own relational character. Once two quantum entities interact with each other, they retain a very surprising and counterintuitive power to influence each other, however far they separate. Quantum theory also tells us that the world is not simply objective; somehow it’s something more subtle than that. In some sense it is veiled from us, but it has a structure that we can understand.”
In conclusion, Polkinghorne believes that bottom up thinkers try to start from experience and move from experience to understanding. They don’t start with certain general principles they think beforehand are likely to be true; they just hope to find out what reality is like. If the experience of science teaches anything, it’s that the world is very strange and surprising. The many revolutions in science have certainly shown that. If that’s true of our encounter with the physical world, it’s likely to be even truer of our encounter with God.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
221 responses to “Einsteinian Science: “Epistemology Follows Ontology” – Marrying the Conundrum Between Biblical Theology & Quantum Physics”
Georgie Porgie
Some one just sent me this.
I find it vert interesting, and therefore wish to share it. You may agree or disagree (as some of you will most likely do): but here goes anyway.
Top 10 Predictions for 2010
1. The Bible will still have all the answers.
2. Prayer will still be the most powerful thing on Earth…
3. The Holy Spirit will still move.
4. God will still honor the praises of His people.
5. There will still be God-anointed preaching.
6. There will still be singing of praise to God.
7. God will still pour out blessings upon His people.
8. There will still be room at the Cross.
9. Jesus will still love you.
10. Jesus will still save the lost when they come to Him.
Isn’t It Great To Remember Who Is Really In Control,
and that; “the Word of the Lord endures forever.”
( 1 Peter 1:25 )
I hope you found this encouraging! I sure did, sometimes we need the reminder of just “WHO” is really in control.
Loading…
Alex Fergusson
@ Georgie Porgie and Chris Hansall
How is it possible that you could have an earthquake that almost level one country – where two are touching – but the other remains virtually untouched?
LOL
Thats a good question.
Lets say for now that I dont know much anout geology or seismology. LOL.
I’d really love to hear the views of the BU household who were waxing eloquently and emotionally and even sometimes erratically and probably even erroneosly on this matter.
Here is what was said by two religious leaders in Barbados as reported in yesterday’s NATION.
Church must speak out
Published on: 1/15/2010.
THE COMING of the Lenten Season and its observances by the Christian community will cause the annual debate to be raised about whether this island should ban the promotion and production of mass entertainment during the season.
The debate is always sharpened by the fact that in the twin-island republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Ash Wednesday marks the commencement of solemn observances; and a break from such entertainment during the pendency of the season.
On the other hand, this society does not observe any such ban, officially or culturally rooted, during Lent, with the consequence that a host of reggae and calypso shows take place here and are popularly patronised. The irony is that we describe ourselves as a Christian society while there is more diversity of religious denominations in our neighbouring republic, and yet we fail to honour the season as seriously as they do!
A recent contributor to the call-in programme has already raised the topic, continuing a virile tradition from years past, and we can expect a vigorous debate during the next month. Yet, if past history is any guide, those calling for a ban may be as voices crying in the wilderness. One commentator has already opined that short of passing legislation, there is nothing which can be done to stop the promoters of such shows from making money.
This issue flows deep into our way of life and the ways in which we organise the social and legal checks and balances in our country. There are those who advocate the passing of laws to prevent the holding of such shows.
Such objectors are usually drawn from the ranks of those professing the Christian religion, and who take their beliefs seriously. They argue for the strict observance of the season or, at any rate, a ban on the kind of mass entertainment which so blatantly disregards the tenets of beliefs and practices which were once engrained in our social mores. The disappearance of values inherent in our past observances disturbs them greatly.
But we live in a democracy and not in a theocracy, and the “revellers and promoters” argue that everyone is free within reason to follow and to propagate his or her beliefs, including the belief that participating in secular mass entertainment during the Lenten season is their right.
Disputes touching and concerning the law and moral aspects of behaviour have long occupied the attention of laymen as well as philosophers, especially in democracies where one has to balance the rights of the citizen against the rights of the broader society. And while some may say that it may be “old soup warmed over”, the debate is absolutely necessary, and those who raise it year after year are doing this society an enormous favour.
All societies must decide for themselves which customs, behaviours and laws they will tolerate, and public opinion is a dynamic process which should always be in ferment in a constructive way, for views will change from time to time according to the developments in the society.
So far, Barbadian society has developed in a manner which suggests that a “live and let live” attitude has emerged on this issue. A sort of silent compromise exists between those who are observers and those who are not, and that may well be the preferred solution.
But it reminds the church that its voice has to be more prominently heard if the mass of people, both believers and others, are to be persuaded that a ban on mass secular entertainment during the Lenten season is necessary. Such a ban can be achieved by legislation or by popular adoption of a cultural norm, but in either case, persuasion by the church and its sympathisers is necessary.
@Mr. Alex Fergusson (probably not his real name): “How is it possible that you could have an earthquake that almost level one country – where two are touching – but the other remains virtually untouched?
From a scientific perspective, the answers are simple:
1. The epicentre was within Haiti; but only near the DR.
1.2. Energy is radiated according to the “inverse square law”. I.E. the amount of energy experienced drops exponentially the further it is sampled from the source.
2. The DR has *much* better building codes and construction than Haiti.
@Mr. Georgie Porgie (probably not his real name): “1. The Bible will still have all the answers.
Believe it or not, Mr. Porgie, I respect your right to your beliefs.
What I take exception to is you trying to claim that only your beliefs are correct.
For example (from my and many perspectives), your point #1 above, “The Bible will still have all the answers” is demonstrably false.
Did the Bible predict the Haiti earthquake?
Can the Bible predict the mass of the Higgs Boson?
Et al…
If not, then the Bible demonstrably does not have all the answers.
Except, perhaps, only those allowed to be asked.
QED.
Loading…
Alex Fergusson
Thank you Mr. Halsall.
Loading…
Georgie Porgie
likkle hallall
Note that the Olivet Discourse predicted an escalation of the frequency of earthquakes as we approah the eschaton. Common sense would this conclude that———————-?
Loading…
Alex Fergusson
@ Georgie Porgie
Do you agree with Mr. Halsall?
How come the Dominican Republic was hardly touched – yet same land mass?
Lets talk!!!
Loading…
Georgie Porgie
Alex
As I have said before, I dont know much anout geology or seismology, so I am in no position to agree or disagree with likkle halall.
But it is indeed amazing that “one was taken and the other was not.” It makes me wonder. Doesnt it make you wonder, and think too, Sir?
Please observe, and note, the strength of the scientific methodology.
Loading…
Alex Fergusson
@ Georgie Porgie,
Well!!!
Perhaps that is why we must remember that life is short and that there is a creator.
I will not go as far as that Evangelist Fellow though.
All I will say is that we may not pass this way again so if there is any good we can each do today, then we should.
Give thanks and be blessed my friend.
Loading…
Alex Fergusson
@ Halsall and Georgie Porgie
Why do you suppose that our WAIT-AND-SEE Prime Minister decide to TRAVEL-To-SEE, when he could have seen on CNN and BBC World like the rest of us who may even care more?
Isn’t that monumental wastage in the face of a disaster when the funds wasted could have been donated in food, water and medical supplies?
The “MIRACLE” of feeding 5000 with a few loaves of barley bread and a few fish is just that – a MIRACLE!!!
Again, so-called definable reality tries tooth ‘n’ nail to explain phenomena which cannot* be quantified with observable, empirical theory, testing or explanation…
Like the religious Pharisees of Jesus’ day – men are still seeking after “signs” and looking for human philosophical as well as esoteric explanations for spiritual things which are spiritually discerned.
Who can know the mind of God? Even JOB* repented in dust ‘n’ ashes (abhorring himself) for things he spoke that he himself thought he knew but clearly did not understand….Things too wonderful for mortal lips to utter – yet we as “FOOL(s)”, thinking ourselves wise attempt to explain or quantify GOD* by even our feeble means to elucidate Scripture…
WHAT A JOKE!!!
Wisdom and humility would simply respond by saying – “I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION!!!”
(JUST SLIGHTLY OFF MESSAGE TO ANSWER THE CRITICS OF A DAMNABLE SITUATION WHERE FOLKS ARE HURTING BADLY)
Some here in the United States are subsuming that the targeted strike on Haiti was man-made designed to affect the specific land mass around Haiti’s capital (P-A-P) with no seismic reach beyond the locale intended which obviously (they argue) did not affect the Dominican Republic…
Let’s see the science for this claim!!!
The other arguments which are swirling around fast and furious is the historical legacy of VOODOO* and Black Magic practices and how the people of Haiti have sold the soul of their country to the DEVIL – hence the apocalyptic nature of continual destruction and devastation….
The curse upon the land (as PAT ROBERTSON et al) are all saying is retribution from a loving GOD* whose dreadful acts include the killing of babies, ‘ole women and the impoverished…
DO FOLKS ACTUALLY GIVE THEIR HARD-EARNED MONIES TO THESE “JACKASSES”?
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My question to all the “knuckleheads” out here in the “virtual world” of cyberspace who believe that your houses and your so-called world is beyond the reach of calamity – WHAT WILL YOUR ARGUMENT BE WHEN THE “SUDDEN” IMPACT OF DEVASTATION COMES ‘ACALLING’?
We need to stop all the crap and be more sympathetic, empathetic and humble in the way we adjudicate in these given situations, especially where serious loss of human life is involved…
But as always, many of us tend to think we have the “SCOOP” on God’s mind – hence we land on the absolute, rock-solid conclusion that HE* is just “HELL_BENT” on death, destruction and mayhem anytime something of Biblical proportions happens…
Could it be that some things are socially constructed and man-made?
Could it be that the inevitability of certain social consequences is due in large measure to cause and effect based on human callousness, myopia, blind-sidedness and ignorance???
Let us have more CHRISTLIKE* compassion for those who hurt – crying with those who cry, laughing with those who laugh – being all things to all men…
What can be said about Haiti that hasn’t already been said this week?
Already the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere, Tuesday’s earthquake has left tens of thousands dead and injured and trapped hundreds of thousands more in the rubble.
This catastrophe will surely go down as one of the worst natural disasters of all time. Yet events like these tend to occur with depressing regularity.
It seems like only yesterday – in fact, it’s astonishing to realize it was five years ago – that an undersea earthquake off Sumatra caused a tsunami with waves up to 100 feet high, killing nearly 230,000 people in fourteen countries.
As in Haiti, the people in the vicinity were simply going about their business – and had virtually no warning.
Earthquakes aren’t the only culprits, of course. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina slammed the Gulf Coast, leaving more than 2,000 dead.
In 1985, Nevado Del Ruiz claimed more than 25,000 lives in Colombia, mostly from the mudflow that resulted from the volcanic eruption.
Historian David McCullough wrote movingly about one of the great disasters in American history, the Johnstown Flood. After especially heavy rains one year, the South Fork Dam broke, sending 20 million tons of water at 40 mph toward the city of 30,000 below.
According to Victor Heiser, a survivor who rode a section of his barn roof to safety, “I could see a huge wall advancing with incredible rapidity down the diagonal street. It was not recognizable as water, it was a dark mass, seething with houses, freight cars, trees and animals.” Thousands died.
Yet even this disaster pales in comparison to the massive Yellow River Flood of 1931. Historians estimate that it killed between one and four million rural Chinese.
Even if you’re fortunate enough to live in an area where the ground doesn’t shake, hurricanes don’t blow, and tornadoes are unlikely to lift your roof off in the middle of the night, there are other natural threats, including The Big One.
On March 23, 1989, an asteroid bigger than an aircraft carrier – more than a half-mile wide – traveling at 46,000 miles per hour, passed through Earth’s orbit less than 400,000 miles away.
400,000 miles may not sound like a close shave, but in astronomical terms this was a near miss. Earth had been at that point just six hours earlier. Had the asteroid struck our planet, scientists estimate the energy released would have been equivalent to 1,000 to 2,500 megatons of TNT (or 1,000-2,500 one-megaton hydrogen bombs). It could have been what NASA calls, with some understatement, “a civilization-ending event.”
No one saw the asteroid until it had already passed by. And to think you lived to tell your grandkids about it…
Throughout history, tens of millions of our relatives and ancestors have succumbed to earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones, tsunamis, droughts, famines and pandemics. The idea that these are “acts of God” – in the literal sense – is a tough concept to swallow.
Yet if there is anything good to be said about the events in Haiti this week, it is how millions around the world are now putting their troubles and self-interests aside – at least for a moment – to lend a hand.
The situation is dire. Yet money, food, clothing, medicine and other essentials are pouring in.
If you’d like to help, feel free to donate locally, dial the Red Cross, or give to one of the world’s very best agencies for disaster relief – The International Rescue Committee.
Today’s crisis in Haiti can help us put our own lives in perspective. The security of your job, the performance of your 401(k) and the size of your bank account are pretty small potatoes compared to the idea of having a child or grandchild trapped inside a collapsed schoolhouse.
So consider the suffering in Haiti. And express a bit of gratitude.
Except for the sheerest accidents of birth and circumstance, it could be you and your family in the rubble.
@TerrenceM Blackett
In order for you to explain the miracle you must first uderstand the purpose or the reasoning of it.Now when you can figure that out therin lies the answer.
Loading…
Zoe
“The FOOL has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are CORRUPT, They have done abominable works.” (Psa. 14: 1) emphasis added.
A slightly different FOOL, *Agnostic* says…they don’t know if there is a God, or not!
Loading…
Zoe
What does Almighty God say about His Wrath in His Word, the Bible?
Announcement of the Messiah’s Reign.
“The LORD is at Your right hand; He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath. He shall judge among nations, He shall fill places with dead bodies. He shall execute the heads of MANY countries. He shall drink of the brooks by the wayside: Therefore He shall lift up the head.” (Psa. 110: 5-7). emphasis added
“He who BELIEVES in the Son HAS everlasting life; and he who DOES NOT believe the Son shall NOT see life, BUT the *Wrath* of God abides on him.” (John 3:36) emphasis added.
‘Wrath’ is from the Greek word, ‘orge’. The anger or wrath of man (Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; James 1:19, 20).
Of God’s utter abhorance to SIN, but longingly mixed with grief for those who live in it, referring to Divine judgment to be inflicted upon the wicked (Matt. 3:7; Luke 3:7; 21: 23; John 3:36; Rom 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 5:9; 9:22; Eph 2:3; 5:6; Col 3;6; I Thess 1:10; 2:16; 5:9; Rev 6:16, 17: 11: 18; 14:10; 16:19; 19:15).
“For the WRATH of God IS revealed from heaven AGAINST *ALL* ungodliness and unrighteousness of MEN who *suppress* (hold down, DENY) the TRUTH in unrighteousness.” (Rom 1: 18).
Almighty God, IS not Hell-Bent, it IS mankind who IS HELL-BENT, our Loving, Merciful Creator, HAS paid the FULL price for our Redemption, in Christ Jesus, on Calvary, when He bore our SINS, and took the WRATH of His Father on HIMSELF, So, that IF we repent we WILL be forgiven, delivered FROM (Ek. Gk) Hell, into Everlasting Life.
BUT, when mankind WILFULLY reject Almighty God’s Universal offer of Redemption, in Jesus Christ, WE will feel His Wrath!
We have CHOOSEN, volitionally, to be at the receiving end of His absolute Righteousness and Justice, which DEMANDS, that IF, we SCOFF at His Mercy, Love, and Grace, THEN, we feel His eternal Judgment, Wrath!!
@Zoe
I guess you know that the Jews do not believe in the Son “Jesus” which means the are on they way to having another holocaust if i understand your comment.
Loading…
Georgie Porgie
And if you read the prophetic Scriptures you will see that just this has been predicted, and that everything is very much in place for this to happen.
However, the appearance of the Lord Jesus at his REVELATION or ephiphanea will put their enemies to rout.
Let us consider the Universe (within the sphere of man’s acknowledged supposed reality) before God created human beings on planet earth.
Now we can conclude quite safely that in that pre-existent Universe God knows all of the possible outcomes of all of the Quantum Mechanical events that could be played out.
Now, either His Foreknowledge effects these events or it doesn’t.
If it does – then matter will behave in the particle way and the Universe will have one determinate path (let’s call it PATH-A).
If His Foreknowledge does NOT* effect the Quantum Mechanical processes – then matter will behave in wave-like way and the Universe will take a different determinate path (call it PATH-B).
Now suppose that God never decided to create mankind, or any other observers of the physical world.
If He knows [A], then how could He know [B] (that would require that He both know and NOT* know the outcomes).
And if He knows [B], how could He know [A] (that would require that He NOT* know and know the outcomes)…
In Newtonian mechanics we have an UNKNOWN* but why assume that that means NON-PHYSICAL?
Also, why can’t the cause be necessary and sufficient and yet the effect is non-determinate?
I am only trying to present a problem for those who think that God is an All-knowing, All-powerful, All-loving Being who consciously created the Universe and all of those in it – but this only assuming a personified God.
The standard way that sufficient condition is handled in standard first-order logic (i.e. as the material- conditional)…but the point is that IF nature turns out to be stochastic (that is, if it turns out that there are random processes in nature) then we will have to revise our notion of sufficient conditions…one way to do this might be to adopt a three-valued logic (T, F, Neither). This would allow us to keep the insight behind the standard material conditional, being that if Q is true then P isn’t false…P may be true, or it may be neither…this is an empirical question…what the correct account of sufficient conditions turns out to be depends on what we find out about the world…
As Stephen Hawking would say – “When you have the ‘theory of everything’ then you will have seen into ‘the mind of God’.”
The real philosophical problems outlined above presupposes that GOD* is bound by the physical and esoteric laws HE* created – therein lies the dilemmas…
What i understand from the above comments is the foreseen events in
reference to the jews is predestined.
Then the choice of rather they accept Jesus is really mute since predestination has already given the answer.
Loading…
Anonymous
@Terrence Blackett
Have you pursued a formal University program in Physics or are you self-taught and self-examined? I am curious as to what University course of study you have actually pursued – Philosophy, Physics, Theology, Mathematics?.
@Terrence M blackett
On Jan17/2910/9.26.a.m. I gave you an assignment to do.As of now you have not respond. Therefore with all the wrath and indignition I have to give you an”F”.
Hey, I had obvious oversite… More things on the radar screen…
Blame it on the boogie…
Now, it’s Sunday nite – and it’s downtime…
So as not to appear aloof… here goes!!!
THE POST WAS ACTUALLY – THE FOLLOWING!!!
ac // January 17, 2010 at 8:26 AM
@Ter(r)enceM Blackett (appreciate correction)…
“In order for you to explain the miracle you must first uderstand the purpose or the reasoning of it.Now when you can figure that out therin lies the answer…”
THE REASON I COULD NOT RESPOND TO YOUR QUERY WAS SIMPLY THAT IT DID NOT HAVE LOGICAL OR SPIRITUAL COHERENCE…
No human being can explain a MIRACLE*… period!
Do you REALLY* believe in your mind that you have enough cerebral muscle (brains on steroids) to figure out a miracle (so that therein would lie the answer?)…to what – I’m intrigued!
If you can beloved, you’re better man than all the rest of us clumped together…
Allow me, with all due respect to pose a question or two at you…
Who are the true JEWS* today in the 21st century?
Is being JEWISH* a sociopolitical construction or is it based on ethnicity?
Finally, does the Bible give us any exact indication of who these people are given that in REVELATION 7:4; 14:1 – 12,000 from each of the 12 Tribes of Israel are numbered, sealed and do NOT* see death but are alive when JESUS* burst the ajar clouds on HIS* 2nd Advent???
Hopefully, you can beat me and do much better than an “F”….LOL!!!
@Terence Blacket
First let me give you an “A” for your sense of humour.Good job.
Now in reference to the moral of the story regarding the miracle of the 5 thousand. Jesus as I said always gave message .In this story the message is
(a)Sharing . It started with when the little boy gave and as a result others were willing to give what had.Therefore
the final results was that others in the crowd gave what the had and in the end all was fed. This theory is being applied
today as is evident in the Haitian situation.Jesus was the master of intent
and did so with much ease and authority
.
I would venture to say the true Jews are the Ethopian .My reason for that that we black folks are stubborn and do not like to take orders that is why moses had such a hard time leading them.Moreover
I find it hard to see i white person enduring the climatic elements
for one day fartherless hundred of years.
in the wilderness.That is my personnel
opinion,What says you.
Praise him with the sound of the trumpet; Praise him with timbrel and dance;Praise him with stringed instruments and organs; Praise him upon the loud cymbals;Praise him upon the high sounding cymba…
The amount of bovine excrement that is written on BU about the Bible is mind boggling
1 – In the account of the feeding of the five thousand one of the few recorded in all four Gospels a little boy gave his bread and fish. There is NO RECORD that anyone else gave ANYTHING. In fact the text indicates that they were too many folk to easily go and buy bread to feed the multitude estimated at 500o MEN! The women and children were not considered in the count!
It is ridiculous and totally erroneous to suggest that others in the crowd chipped in and contributed. The only sharing that occurred that day was when Jesus got the disciples to SHARE OUT THE BREAD AND FISH THAT HE MULTIPLIED.
THIS MIRACLE TAUGHT THAT JESUS WAS LORD OVER MATEIAL SUBSTANCE.
The tense of the verb distributed (or sharing out as we Bajans would say) clearly indicates that Jesus continued distributing or sharing out.
From Manners & Customs, we know that the folk in that area scarcely had enough food for themselves far less food to contribute to a pot luck.”
But now we have geniuses in Bim who can now interpret a miracle! Hw exciting? How ridiculous!
It is really not funny when Bible illiterates seek to pontificate on the Bible. Call me what ever name you wish. I don’t care. I HATE BAD BIBLE TEACHING & BAD MEDICAL TEACHING! AND BAD CRICKET!
According to John’s gospel the purpose of the feeding of the 5000 was to declare that Jesus was the BREAD OF LIFE! (John 6 ;35)
For Bible novitiates note that John usually follows a miracle of Jesus by an important discourse or declaration by Jesus.
@Terence M. Blackett: “Let us consider the Universe (within the sphere of man’s acknowledged supposed reality) before God created human beings on planet earth.
You are making a critical mistake here TMB. That of the presupposition of a god. And then try to draw conclusions based on this baseless supposition.
Two questions:
1. Are you arguing that a particular god is the creator?
2. Who created god?
@All…
When I was fourteen years old, I tried to be clever with my physics teacher during class, and asked him what would happen if two unstoppable objects collided.
He said simply: “An unstoppable object cannot exist in our Universe. Therefore, your question is meaningless and has no answer.
I learnt a great deal from Mr. Beck….
Loading…
kiki
an agnostic
or a gnostic
knows his gnosis
in an emanational
and eviler manner
Clearly from the rudiments of your language and the expression you give to your thoughts – you seem to value the feeble machinations and flaky opinions of men over the primordial existence of a CREATOR GOD* and the teachings of inspired men of God used under the anointing of the Holy Spirit in revealing mysteries to humankind, removing us out of the darkness of ignorance, superstition and conjecture…
Let me embellish my argument with a classical philosophical strand of DESCARTES*…
After having thought long and hard about your ontological position for a bit I now think there is a serious problem for Cartesian epistemology in your reasoning…
Descartes addresses this worry in Meditation IV – which is more or less an argument that in the strictest sense, it is impossible for us to be anything but self-deceived — that is, that while other things can provide material for error; we can’t actually err unless we misuse our will. For God does allow us to be deceived; but we are always wholly to blame for actually being deceived.
Descartes’ position is generally held out as an example of one form of doxastic voluntarism.
Affirmation and denial are acts of will, not intellect, and so our belief system requires an exercise of free will.
This is why for Descartes, there is such a thing as the ethics of belief–you can be rightly blamed for what you choose to believe and rightly praised for it in same process.
The process of belief-formation is not passive. Since there is for Descartes an ethics of belief, it better not be true that we cannot help but form this or that belief.
There is, for instance, the famous response to Arnauld in Second Replies:- “when I said that we can know nothing for certain until we are aware that God exists, I expressly declared that I was speaking only of knowledge of those conclusions which can be recalled when we are no longer attending to the arguments by means of which we deduced them” (AT VII 140)…
Descartes is a prototypical example of someone who thinks that we have voluntary control over our beliefs and that he gives a version of the free will defense to explain error.
What I mean is that Descartes thinks that we have an ‘overwhelming tendency’ to accept that our experience is caused by objects that exist independently of us.
We could, according to Descartes, and as you point out, withhold credence in the existence of physical objects but even so it is difficult…
@GP
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that .The fact that in a crowd of 5thousand people only i person had food is mindboogling Now You go figure.
Loading…
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.Cancel reply
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.