₦airaland Forum

Anchuna:
To all doctors in the house: Since 1994 I have been suffering from malaria parasite; for 16yrs now, it has been my greatest problem and it is really killing. Anytime I go to the hospital, malaria parasite is always diagnosed and malaria drugs always prescribed but after taking those drugs my condition still remain the same, I still feel sick with malaria; body pain, muscle ache, body weakness etc. My concern is, why are those drugs not working for me, why should I be treated and barely a week later still be diagnosed with MP. I have taken all sorts of drugs prescribed by doctors but to no avail. The sickness from this malaria parasite is affecting my productivity at work, my studies, my everything. Please, doctors try and help me, save life.

To elaborate on the point that Dr I has made in his post above, there can be different reasons for your experiences:

1. You don’t have malaria and you are continuously misdiagnosed.

People can be carriers of the malaria parasite without necessarily being sick of it. Such people would probably test positive on the blood smear, and even if they are treated with anti-malarials may still continue to test positive. In such a scenario, the individual may be suffering from something else and don’t get the necessary intervention they need simply because it is assumed that they suffer from malaria after carrying out a quick malaria parasite blood smear, without checking for other things. That’s why Dr I’ advise to get properly investigated is the ideal thing to do.

2. You may actually have malaria.

This is not unlikely given that Malaria is prevalent in Nigeria; the only problem here though is that an attack is not likely to last for 16 years! So it could be that you actually do get adequately treated, but you still get re-infected with the illness because of constant exposures to the parasites. People become exposed to the malaria parasite when they live near water logged areas and other places where the parasite can breed as in dirty gutters etc. Another option may be that you sometimes don’t access the right drugs. If it’s the first scenario (i.e. you do get adequately treated), then you will need to find ways of preventing re-infection. Some things you could do include buying a mosquito net, ensuring that the gutters around you are not stagnant or, if you can, leaving the area! The latter obviously would be rather dramatic. An easier solution would be to see your local doctor for advice on how to prevent re-infection.

3. I wouldn’t want to go down a third route, but what the heck!

The things that you have described like muscle weakness, body pains etc, that have lead to loss of productivity and a general deterioration in your overall level of functioning, may be symptoms of emotional exhaustion, something i may want to call a somatoform disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatoform_disorder. Of course that diagnosis needs to be made by somebody knowledgeable about those types of illnesses and would be ruled out if you have fever in addition to those symptoms, so you may need to stick with points 1 and 2 afterall!

All the best

allycat:
Now back to my hobby horse, Private Medical practice in Nigeria. I have just spent the last 2 weeks in India on a visit to an Indian hospital. I accompanied an ill relative and this visit reinforces what I have always felt about PP in medicine. It is our only saviour. On the street the hospital is there are over20 hospitals all privately owned and the average hospital reminds me of Eko hospital or Havana, about 4 storeys each. This does not include clinics which are smaller. They all have patients and because of competition are affordable to their country men. The doctors work hard. Typically surgery starts at 6.30 am and they close at 7pm with a break of about 3 hours for lunch. Cos I am a colleague they were glad to discuss their system with me and everything they said made it apparent that we need to look more at private practice. The issue of Nigerians depending on Government to run hospitals where a grade level 12 officer that never smelt the gates of medical school decides which equipment you have doesn't occur. I tell you that if more doctors in nija go into pp to give quality service and are ready to work hard and not cut corners you wont believe how much advances we will make. Right now its 8pm and I am in the hospitals library which will dust some teaching hospitals departmental libraries in Nija hands down.

India, like play like play, has grown into a very hot health tourism destination. Even people from the UK now go there as health tourists! Of course one of the attractions for people here is that they're offered 'good quality' care for a fraction of the price they would have been offered the same intervention by a private sector provider here. So they must be doing something right! I wonder what it is that they are doing right that we need to copy?

Allycat, since you dey ground there-even if for a few more day, make you give us your thoughts/observations! I am particularly interested in how they ensure quality clinical standards are met (is there any government parastatal tasked with ensuring that standards are met?-i mean do they actually enforce things and not just exist on paper?; is there a workable partnership between the private hospitals and the teaching hospitals, especially with regards to research and training or do the private hospials do their own things?). I am also curious about how developed their health insurance industry is.

I hope your relative gets well quickly though.

Deep Sight:
It is not fair to say this.

You know very well that Christian faith extends to far more than the apocalypse or after-life: for these basic concepts are shared by most religions – Islam is even recorded to state that it is Isa (Jesus) who shall come again to judge the world.

Cardinally, Christian faith requires a BELIEF that Jesus of Nazareth’s DEATH ON THE CROSS serves as spiritual remission of sins.

It is very difficult to accept this in view of the fact that there is not a single Christian who has bought into that belief that can be said to be “free” from sin – they continue, predictably, in sin, and are judged accordingly on the “last day” which makes one wonder what the point of the sacrifice was, since all remain to be judged by their “sins” – just as was the case before the sacrifice.

Anyhow, the real reason I doubt that Christian faith springs from intuition is this – how come it is that 99% of Christians are people brought up in Christian homes? (Ditto for all religions).

If it was by intuition, Christians would be evenly scattered across the globe: unless you want to suggest to me that the intuition of people in southern Nigeria is better than that of Malaysians, for example.

This alone shows that what people are BROUGHT UP TO BELIEVE more often than not determines their “faith” and not intuition.

Very valid points you've raised. Apologies Pastor Aio, if it comes across that we are distracting from the gist of this post.

I think that there is a difference however between 'Christian faith' and faith as a Christian. While your point is relevant when discussing the doctrines of Christianity, it misses the point in the latter. There are over 2 billion adherents of the ‘Christian faith’, but of these very few actually exercise ‘faith’ as described in Hebrews 11.1, which is not about ‘doctrines’. I think that that ‘faith’ is about a way of living in spite of the doctrines.

In my understanding of that verse, ‘faith’, should transcend doctrine. It is an ongoing thing, a journey of revelations-if you prefer-towards a better connection with God. In that context you can then understand why it is written that it was by 'faith' that Abel offered a better sacrifice to God than his brother Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he is 'righteous' (Hebrews 11.4)

Doctrines, however, are legalistic religious interpretations of the letters. The interpretations change with the politics of the times because most are based on superficial readings and cultural values. So, a Church in middle England, for instance, will have different interpretation of the gospels to a Church in rural South America. That’s not what the Christ was about. And that’s why he didn’t get along with the legalistic Pharisees; even though they were scholars of the letters, their interpretations of these letters were embellished by interpretations based on their own traditional values.

So when I say that ‘faith’ is ‘nous’-ish, the faith I am talking about has little to do with ‘doctrines’ but more to do with transcendental ‘knowledge’.

Deep Sight:
The problem really is as indicated in your excellent write-up: faith has taken the place of the Nous for many people and faith itself is not to be equated with intuition necessarily; for faith very often indicates a slavish adherence to dogmas or ideas set forth by others: in which circumstances the faculty of intuition may be said to be dead.

Very informative write-up, pastor.

Regarding the issue of 'faith' and it's relationship with the 'Nous', i would suggest that some peoples 'faith' would actually equate more to the 'Nous', and not to the 'slavish adherence to dogmas or ideas set forth by others' that you mention, Deepsight.

Is 'faith', in Christian doctrines, for instance, not more about 'intuitively' apprehending the spiritual and the eternal? The definition given in Hebrews 11:1(NLT) of it being 'the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen. The evidence of things we cannot yet see', sounds 'reasonably' 'Nous'-ish to me. But then that's my interpretation of the meaning of 'faith'.

mazaje:
My atheistic assertion is as simple and it is as follows it is the disbelieve in the existence in the gods of religion because they are man made. . . .

The ‘gods of religion’ you say. The fact that you are always qualifying these ‘gods’ (gods of religion, man made etc) suggests to me that you probably want to tell us some thing about the gods you DO believe in. Perhaps you believe in ‘gods’ that are not ‘man made’ or ‘of religions’? Is that what you are trying to tell us? Why not come out and say it!

mazaje:
I believe that his point is very valid.

Your prerogative, my dear friend. I don’t agree with you though.

mazaje:
When Christians get cut up and are unable to defend their assertions they begin to re-define who their god is or throw the allegory or literal card. People are now saying that some of the miracles attributed to jesus are not to be taken literally but are mere allegorical narratives. . . How long will these hide and sick continue?. . . .Various stories like the story of Johna and the whale, and many other stuff are now said to be allegorical narratives. . . .Why should people not read the bible literally?. . . .Why are Christians that accept the literal meaning of the bible wrong? So an all knowing and all good deity who is alleged to want every body to get to know him and his wishes inspired men to write words that can not be agreed upon by simple reading?

When you say ‘Christians’ remember that you are talking about 2 billion odd people world wide!  The scriptures mean different things to different people. The unifying thing that binds ‘Christians’ together is the belief in the Christ as an incarnation of God on earth through whom salvation is open to all men. Different Christian sects-different individuals within these sects- have different interpretations of the gospels, so saying that ‘Christians re-define who their god is’ , is inaccurate.

mazaje:
And the mathematics or statistics that says life came from a supernatural process is what?

My good friend, mathematics and statistics are tools of the scientific process. It’s the bread and butter of the naturalist scientists and the atheists. The onus is on them to use their tools to prove their assertions not on the Theists. Those that believe in God use faith, something that is completely alien to the word view of the ‘naturalists’.

mazaje:
The are odds stacked against birds coming to life fully formed from the uttering of words from and undetected deity as toneyb has said but theist can go ahead believing it all the want despite all the odds stacked against it. . . .

That’s why we believe in miracles!

In my worldview, for instance, the world is alive with the symphony of miracles! I see and experience them regularly! A miracle, in case you were wondering, is when natural processes are circumvented due to divine intervention. So when the odds are stacked up against you, my unbelieving friend, try calling on God, He may actually show you mercy and head your ungrateful call!

Much as toneyb asks some very interesting questions regarding his interpretation of Christian beliefs, I think that using these questions as a front to avoid the topic in hand is, shall we say, rather disingenuous. Must all atheists really go down that route when cornered with the improbabilities of their assertions?

First we read of how Mr. Dawkins admitted that abiogenesis is improbable (perhaps not in those exact words) and then went ahead to give his own interpretation of what a God must be able to do or not do, as if anybody asked him!

At the risk of derailing this thread, let me just say that a lot of the things written in the holy books (the bible for instance) should not be read literarily. When you do so, you lose the meaning. A lot of atheists started on the path of losing their ‘religion’ simply because they were not able to grasp the deeper meanings of the religions they professed, and thus left believing in superficialities and misconceptions that have very little to do with the religions they so like to criticize.

But that’s not the issue here. The issue here is not about biblical metaphors and misunderstood meanings. The issue is about whether life came out of dust as a random process. Mathematics (or statistics, if you will) says it’s improbable.

So, the gist here is that for life to come out of dust, something out of the ordinary has to happen. Deists (or Theists, whatever) argue that what happened is that God intervened in natural processes for man to appear. Atheists can go on believing that it was all by chance in spite of the odds stacked against it!

PS: Thanks Viaro for the input about the source of what Mr Dawkins said (or did not say)!

ancel:
JeSoul, how u dey today? Happy New Year, dear

Beneli, I think Deists are examples of theists (who are exclusive to atheists), just like Christians are examples of theists. But then, you can be a Christian and a Deist at once, cos Deists believe in God on the basis of reason (not revelation) and Christians believe in God on the basis of revelation. I guess maybe you do the two?

I don't like to be 'boxed in' as Jesoul suggested.

So if there is an umbrella term for people who believe in God, then that's what i should be using instead of 'deism'. I try to make an argument for the existence of God against His non existence. 'Atheism' should not segregate. It's either God exists or He doesn't. The nature of that God is left to the different interpretations of the individual that believe in Him, subject to their own exposure; culture; traditions and yes, revelation. The 'atheist' ideally should not busy themselves with arguing about His nature as they don't even accept that He exists!

With regards to the place of 'reason' and 'revelation', I would say that there is a limit to what reason can do for us in our attempts to walk with God. Revelation plays a great role as well; but i think the starting point is 'Faith'. Without 'faith' its impossible to even start on the journey. So for me it has been first of all faith, then came revelation and then reason. People should sort out issues of their faith first. Revelation will come to those who are earnest and honest.

Deep Sight:
Are evolution and creation mutually exclusive?

I think it depends on who you ask and what you mean by 'evolution'. It's irrefutable that man interacts with his environment and is changed by it, both socially and-indeed-biologically.

Some creationsists, like myself, would say that 'evolution' and creation are not mutually exclusive. Where there is a problem is the point at which 'evolution' started. My personal opinion is that people who shout from their rooftops about how they 'evolved' from apes, derive some sort of perverse sexual gratification-at par with bestialism-from that belief! But then i encounter people who nurse all sorts of unconventional and, at times-outrightly perverse and deranged-thoughts everyday in my line of job, so i can be excused for thinking that way!

I use the word 'deism' loosely, to highlight belief in God as opposed to those who do not believe in God-the 'atheists'. But within that vague 'umbrella' of 'deism', i consider myself a Christian. Why do you ask?

@Mazaje and tonyb,

Tell me one thing; If i were to show you that Mr Dawkins did actually say what i wrote that he said, would you believe it? I doubt it.

You know why i doubt that you would? It’s because that’s the way we are. Most of us like to hold on, as strongly as possible, to whatever it is that confirms our world views; and would deny, even at the risk of coming across as dogmatic, those things that contradict our beliefs. Both deists and atheists are guilty.

The statistical improbability-or probability-depending on which side you break your boiled egg from- of abiogenesis happening would make more sense if life had already been created out of dust in a laboratory environment and the questions now was about the probability of this event being able to happen in nature, as a random event. That’s when all this would make sense to me. But life has not been brewed in laboratory conditions out of dust-or nonorganic matter. No matter how much scientists try to modulate and regulate laboratory conditions to enable them to try out new improved versions of the Miller-Urey experiment, in nature or in the laboratory, dust has only yielded dust. Life breeds life. Life out of dust would be a supernatural event.

The contention here is that the renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, said what he said, which seemed to give credence to Mr Borel’s calculation. This is why the source of the statement and Mr Borel’s credentials are questioned. But Richard Dawkins did say what he said and Mr Borel is quite competent to do his calculations.

Let’s start with Emile Borel.

Statistics and probability are within the remits of mathematics.  Emile Borel, who gave the disputed probability figures that i mentioned, was a mathematician and a renowned one at that. In addition to the much debated law (which i will admit is merely a  ‘suggestion’, as some websites say, and not a mathematical ‘law’ per se), Mr Borel had a lot of other things named after him, so i doubt he was the charlatan that is being insinuated here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Borel

Now on to what the renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins did or did not say. 

Mazaje, if the link that i gave does not lead to a ‘creationist website’ would you accept that Mr Dawkins said those words? Well, the link actually is from the Telegraph. Here’s what it says; ‘It is true, Dawkins responds, that the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard. But how much more improbable is the idea of an intelligent designer capable of taking all that scrap and turning it into a 747? After all, that intelligent designer, a far more complex entity than a Jumbo Jet, had himself somehow to be created’. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3655792/I-dont-believe-in-Richard-Dawkins.html

I wonder where the renowned biologist and atheists got it from that an ‘intelligent designer’ ‘had himself somehow to be created’? Is that his mental block?  Perhaps he got it from his prejudiced rich imaginations of what an ‘intelligent designer’ can or cannot be. The same place that he got the assumption that those who believe in God must be deluded. I vote that the esteemed professor is not competent to make such a statement. He should leave the aspect of what God should be able to do or not do to philosophers, and let Psychiatrists decide whether that belief constitutes a delusion or not, 

But let’s be honest with ourselves here. Does it really matter what Mr Dawkins said or did not say? Does it really matter if abiogenesis is mathematically improbable or not? To be honest, it doesn’t to me. The materialist scientist does not want to believe that anything supernatural is divine in origin. For them it must be a coincidence in spite of all odds of such a coincidence not happening; if it is not a coincidence, then it has to be an unexplained phenomenon on the brinks of being understood by ‘science’.  That’s their world view. It leaves no room for an Intelligent ‘designer’ greater than man.

For the deist, the supernatural is an act of the divine: be it what happened at the dawn of time when out of nothing, the wonders of creation were born; be it the transformation of a human being whose existence had been so violated by the tragedies of living, that she loses the ‘humanity’ to love and trust again, until an act of kindness nudges her back on the path of believing in humanity again; be it a barren woman who suddenly finds herself pregnant. The deist believes that God works through man and through nature. He can intervene ‘naturally’ or ‘supernaturally’.

God does not need man to tell Him how to intervene in the affairs of man. He can show Himself in the little things-some of which can be explained away by science; He can also show himself through the big things, like in giving life to dust; a phenomenon which others may just dismiss as coincidence.

But let’s agree that it’s about what we want to believe or not believe in. It’s not about the ‘science’-or lack of science-behind our belief systems.



Ps: My use of the masculine gender for God is one of those traditions of man.

I have been trying to look up on the possible evidence people would have for believing that life can emerge from dust.


The Miller-Urey experiment, which Mazaje mentioned above, is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. It turns out that this study has done much more to show that abiogenesis is not possible on Earth (1) than what the believers of abiogenesis claim. Hence the search for alternative sites for the origin of life outside of earth.

There is however evidence against living organisms randomly evolving out of dust, whether it is stardust or earthbound dust mixed with water to form an 'organic' soup. This evidence can be found in one of the tools of the scientific process itself-the probability of such an event happening.

In the days when it was thought that the universe has always been there, the idea of abiogenesis could be defended by the fact that dust had literarily all the time in the world to go through an infinity of random relationships, of which one would spark off the process of complex life evolving. Unfortunately, we did not have all the ‘time’ in the world for this to happen.

We now believe that the universe is time-limited and as such even Richard Dawkins, one of the atheist’s messiahs, admits that "the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard."(2)

Let’s look at this probability thing a little closer. How low a probability do mathematicians believe makes an event essentially impossible? The French Mathematician Émile Borel has estimated 10 (raised to the power minus 50); and William Dembski , a research professor in philosophy and mathematician has calculated a lower limit of 10 (raised to the power minus 150), based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the age of the universe (3).

The probability of abiogenesis is far, far less! Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated a probability of ~10 (to the power minus 313) to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins (4). Simple self-sustaining life requires ~1,500-2,000 gene products, and Sir Fred Hoyle-English astronomer, known for his contributions in stellar nucleosynthesis, estimated a probability of ~10(raised to the power minus 40,000) to obtain 2,000 enzymes in a random trial! (5).


The summary is that abiogenesis is not only unproven, it is mathematically impossible!

Sources:
1.http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
2.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3655792/I-dont-believe-in-Richard-Dawkins.html
3.William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 5, 209, 210.
4.Murray Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," in Mathematical Challenge to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. Paul S. Moorhead (Philadelphia: Wistar Institute, 1967), 109-10.
5.Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 24.

Let’s continue with our exploration of some of the ridiculous assertions of materialistic ‘scientists’. Let’s throw our gaze on the alleged random evolution of complex single cell organisms from inanimate matter.

Some ‘evolutionists’ espouse the idea that several billions of years ago-approximately 5 billion years after the first ‘miracle’, when matter popped out of nothingness-lightening struck a pool of water, causing organic elements such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc to combine in a random way to form the first living single cell organism.

It has been believed by a lot of materialistic scientists that this 'simple' form of life later evolved-over millions of years into our more complex primate ancestors! This is the gist of evolution, though a lot of 'evolutionists  have become increasingly more embarrassed about the springing forth of living organisms out of dust part, so have decided that chemical evolution-or abiogenesis-should be separate from the more 'respectable' evolution. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp

This is almost like the trend that came out of our discussion about the doctrine of cosmogony, as opposed to the science of cosmology https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-373106.0.html

Sadly, a lot of banner carrying evolutionists continue to ignorantly espouse the philosophical ideas of abiogenesis that have no scientific evidence at all. The contemporary understanding of the science of evolution is that it studies how organisms change over time, and not how life started on earth. But they don’t teach you that at school do they?! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis.

The truth is that abiogenesis, or chemical evolution as it was once called before it was disowned by a lot of evolutionists, is scientifically improbable.

For contextual purposes, let’s hear what the Encyclopedia Britannica has to say about the complexity of a living cell; “A living cell is a marvel of detailed and complex architecture. . . . The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 1012 bits, comparable to about one hundred million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. The human body comprises a conglomeration of some 100,000,000,000,000 (1014) cells which work together in perfect harmony to maintain human life”. “Life,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?eu=109621&sctn=1

Even leading evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that, “There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over,  ” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York, NY: Norton 1986), p. 115.                                       

Why abiogenesis is improbable is that the odds of it happening are comparable to ‘the odds of rolling double-sixes 50,000 times in a row with unloaded dice’- Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1983).

Perhaps that’s why some materialistic scientists are finding the doctrine of abiogenesis to be increasingly embarrassing and have started to reach for the stars in search of the stardust from which earthlings were spawned! But even then-even if water is to be found on Mars or on Jupiters moon, Europa or even beyond the reaches of the milky way-stardust is still essentially dust and is not capable of spontaneously generating life.

My honest concern is that some people still decide to tenaciously believe that there can be no God. One would have thought that the most enlightened thing to do in the light of all these uncertainties and with the unfolding knowledge available to man, is for the so called 'atheists' to agree that they don't know if there is a God or not and to do the 'reasonable' thing of converting to the less dogmatic agnosticism. I would, if i hadn't done that journey already and come full circle right back to where i started as a Deist!



“Life could never have evolved by chance on planet earth." -Nobel Prize winner Dr. Francis Crick (co-discoverer of one of the most important discoveries of 20th century biology

ROSSIKE:
image123 said:

''The Lord Jesus'' is a mythical entity whose character and storyline were derived from earlier 'saviour-gods' such as Horus, Mythra, Dionosyus, and Krishna. You need to put down your bible for a second and read proper history. Afterall information on this is widely available in these days of internet, and you don't even have to pay for it!

You mean information like this one below?:

'The Christ-Myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles, biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive of it,[40] viewing it as pseudo-scholarship,[32] with some going so far as to compare the theory's advocates with Holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, and people who believe the moon landing was faked.[43].' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Another point.

When we say that science can explain the 'origin' of the universe 'without the need for a deity', we are just playing with words. Yet what 'scientists' describe in their explanation is still a supernatural event!

Scientists acknowledge that something happened just before the big bang, which does not obey all known natural laws, and which lead to the universe as we know it, springing into existence. One would have thought that an event which does not obey natural laws would be acknowledged to be nothing other than a supernatural event! 

But let us agree, just this once if no other time, that 'A rose by any other name, would smell just as sweet'!

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man.

O, be some other name!

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title.

Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.
                       -William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet


May God bless all of us in this coming year. Amen

@tonyb,
With regards to your question to Viaro as to whether modern 'science' can explain the 'origin' of the universe. The answer is both yes and no.

'Yes' in that it can give an explanation as it already is doing. But whether the 'explanation' is valid when tested using scientific methodologies is another story altogether. If we want to be honest, there are currently no physical models that exist that can be used to replicate the exact conditions around the time of the 'big bang' or the the period of the 'exponential expansion' that preceded the big bang. As mentioned earlier, most of the models are subject to a lot of biases, which would lead to errors. So, the answer can also be 'No'.

toneyb:
@ Beneli Your write up is quite interesting.


I thought you were the one that brought up the idea that science seems to favor your views? In your discussion with Mazaje on another thread, weren't you the person that was talking about modern discoveries in science supporting your position until mazaje called you out on it?

You are right.

Modern 'science', especially, the one that tries to talk about the 'nature' of the universe is beginning to acknowledge that there may be more to matter than meets the eye! My stance still remains. When science starts to talk about extracorporeal and extratemporal dimensions, they are encroaching into the field of metaphysics and spirituality. These new developments are quite interesting, to say the least!

I tried finding a coherent ‘scientific’ argument for some of the ‘findings’ out there relating to ‘how’ the universe works and ‘why’ it does so, but the honest truth is that most of the interpretations and working models are prejudiced in favour of preconceived philosophical/religious ideas and not based on ‘objective’ scientific evidence!

A lot of the recent hypotheses don’t even sound ‘scientific’ anymore. We’re gradually leaving the clearly scientific field of cosmology http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_cosmology and getting more and more involved in the more philosophical cosmogony! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony

The fact is, few scientists want to admit this. Here is what internationally renowned Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis has to say about the various models of the universe being espoused:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

Currently there are different variants of the revised ‘big bang theory’ out there. Some suggest up to 50 variants of the so called Inflationary Universe Theories, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology), which has replaced the old model. It’s agreed, however, that in an ideal world Cosmology should really focus on ‘science’ and not get involved in metaphysical/philosophical issues.

With regards to whether the universe is ‘open’ or ‘closed’, the truth is that we don’t know. Albert Einstein had suggested ‘an infinite closed universe’. A sort of ‘finite’ spherical universe that is encased in ‘infinite space’! People have since moved on from there and are now suggesting an infinity of finite spacetime continuums, making up what they describe as ‘a multiverse’, which is ‘closed’ or ‘open’ depending on how you want to look at it!

The interesting thing about these new directions in cosmological thinking-which by the way are not evidence-based-is that it is encroaching more and more into other domains of philosophy and spirituality. The idea of multiple realities and non physical dimensions for instance has been there for a long time. All you need to do is to open up any book on religion!

Bottomline:
‘Attempts to create a naturalistic cosmogony are subject to two separate limitations. One is based in the philosophy of science and the epistemological constraints of science itself, especially with regards to whether scientific inquiry can ask questions of "why" the universe exists. Another more pragmatic problem is that there is no physical model that can explain the earliest moments of the universe's existence (Planck time) because of a lack of a consistent theory of quantum gravity’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony.

So in our arguments on this topic, let’s admit that our positions have very little to do with science. It's about what we want to believe in-our individual life philosophies!

Very interesting discussion so far, i must say!

I have not run away. I am just caught up in some 'crazy' reports that i have to sort out before the new year, but will most certainly respond later today. Especially on the interesting subject of whether the universe is 'closed' or 'open'.

Catch you guys later!

I see that you've just added the part about the age of the universe and whether i believe it is 6 thousand years old.

There is nowhere in the bible that it says that the universe is 6000 years old! Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is a long time. We don't know how long.  The question about the legitimacy of the Christian bible, which is probably at the back of your mind when you sprang that question is for another topic. This one is about the evidence for or against the existence of God in current scientific discourse. And the verdict, as i summarised above, is that there is none!

But in case you are wondering, i do believe that through the bible, God has clearly communicated to man, in words and in symbols, that we can understand. His revealed word is both simple and complex. And yet it communicates to us all-the barely literate peasant; the world-weary businessman; the scientist; the philosopher; the priest. We all are able to come to the well-spring of His revealed word. Those of us who believe, have our thirsts quenched by the revelations that we recieve there through faith. That is what i believe. I am happy with this.

mantraa:
As a theist do you believe that you already know how we all got here?

Of course i don't know HOW we got here!

As someone who believes in God i accept that God PUT us here. In the book of beginnings (Genesis) the process by which he put man on the earth is described as Him 'moulding us from the dust of the ground'. It doesn't matter if we are spawned from celestial dust. What matters is that God made it so.

He created man from 'dust' and breathed into us an essence that is not 'dust'. And man became a 'living soul'. When the part of man which is 'dust' decays, the part of him which is essentially in God's image, lives on. I accept this by faith and i am happy with it!

My problem is when 'atheists' attack me for my faith and claim that 'reason' and 'science' demands that God does not exist. My response is a post like this to show to them that they absolutely do not know that God does NOT exist. Who told them that he does not exist?! It's not science; it's not philosophy; it's not even archeology!

Those of us who believe in God, do so because we want to. Anybody claiming that God does not exist does so, not because of science, but because they have chosen not to believe in God. Their evidence is as fragile as ours, so it all boils down to making choices either on a whim for some, and on faith for others!

That's my point really!

'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy'.
                                                    -WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE / Hamlet Act 1. Scene V abt. 1601

viaro:
Oh lawd!! I should've guessed that's where you were going! That was just too clever! The only thing was that at first glance it may not be apparent to the reader (which happened to me, and I guess also happened in toneyb's first reading). I may be wrong though. . I tend to often misread people until later.

I wasn't trying to be clever though! I had actually given the link for the whole entropy thing in the initial post! Thanks again.

@Viaro,
You've answered for me, a lot better than i would have done myself. Thanks!

@tonyb,

I didn't come up with the whole entropy thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

In case you missed it, it was the law of entropy i was on about there. The entropy thing is articulated in the second law of thermodynamics, which says something along the lines that in a 'closed system' (for example the 'universe') chaos increases! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics. Another way of putting it, is that in a closed system, things go from a state of higher organisation to a state of lowest organisation. I am too lazy to google. It's all there at the click of your mouse!

Seriously though, the understanding-from a scientific point of view-is that the universe, as a 'closed system', should be answerable to the laws of thermodynamics but from the very beginning something interfered with the 'natural' processes of entropy!

Unless of course, as some suggest, the 'universe' is no longer a closed system, which would be giving creationists like myself more guns for our arsenal!

mantraa:
Noboby knows what was before the big bang, or what caused it. All that is known for definite is that the universe is expanding. There are many questions which the answers have not been found yet. The big bang theory is just a result of observations that all galaxies are moving away from each other. This is an undeniable fact.
To ask a scientist what caused it or what was before it is like asking if it is possible to build a time machine. The answer may be discovered one day the more we search for it. If it wasnt for scientists we would not have known that we are part of an immense expanding universe in the first place.

I don't have any beaf with scientists. I even call myself one, sometimes!

The purpose of the piece i started is to highlight the fact that it's arrogant of 'atheist' scientists to assume that they know enough to disparage the position of those that believe that creation happened because something-which they prefer to call God-made it happen. That's all. Those that don't want to accept this are liberty to subsribe to the position that 'something' came out of 'nothing'.

Now about the universe 'expanding'. There's a lot of talk about this isn't there.

Some might tell you that the 'universe'-if by it we mean all known creation-is not expanding. But then that's some. These days the concept of the 'universe' is becoming increasingly more blurred. Because some will ask, 'is the universe just the spacetime continuum that we see out there?',  'if that's the 'universe' then what is it expanding into?'; others who are adept at the mathematics of the stars may even tell you that something is wrong with their calculations, because evidence would suggest that by now, this  expanding universe should have long started collapsing on itself!

To get around all this 'science', we-by which i mean 'intelligent' human beings-have come up with something called Dark energy and Dark matter!

The current thinking is that everything ever observed by all our instruments and all 'normal' matter adds up to barely 5% of the 'universe'! The other 95% is made up of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'. Now the interesting thing about all this is that nobody seems to be sure what 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' are!

Did i mention that i don't have any beaf with scientists? I sure don't. It's only arrogant humans i have problems with. That's all.

About 16billion years ago ‘something’ happened.

According to scientists, ‘something’ literarily popped out of ‘nothingness’. And that ‘something’ continued to expand, giving birth to what is now known as the Universe. This is what scientists call the ‘big bang’ theory.  http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

When asked about what existed before the big bang, some scientists try to wiggle out of the question by saying that ‘nothing’ actually existed. They elaborate on this answer by saying that ‘time’ as a concept came into existence with the ‘big bang’, so scientifically speaking, ‘nothing’ could have happened before time came into existence! Yeah right!

Okay, so ‘nothing’ existed before the ‘big bang’? Right? Well, kind of ‘nothing’.

Some say that to understand the idea of ‘nothingness’, we may need to look closely at how subatomic particles behave.

Okay, so how do subatomic particles behave? Well we now know, for instance, that at the level of particle physics, ‘virtual particles’ continuously form and disappear. In other words, at this level energy and matter are created out of ‘nothingness’! ‘Nothingness’ some concede may actually be other-dimensional space.  http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/physics/string.html . That’s progress if one where to look at it from the perspective that there was some kind of other-dimensional ‘existence’ before the ‘big bang’, even if in ‘scientific’ terms it would be called ‘nothing’. Well, not 'nothing' as in 'nothing'. But, yeah, something like 'nothing'.

So it is likely that if we were to go back 16 billion years ago, when ‘everything’ we know can be compressed into the size of, say, a pea, then scientifically speaking the primordial substance could have behaved like ‘virtual particles’ and instead of just disappearing, as it sometimes does, into nothing; it did an unusual thing and continued to expand! Well this is ‘understandable’, because at this level anything can happen. At least that’s one of the inferences one can make from the ‘uncertainty principle’, which we now ‘know virtual particles are subject to. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

Obviously a lot of atheists start to sweat under the armpits when confronted with the implausibility of all this.

Most atheists that i know, subscribe to the ‘religion’ of scientific determinism, yet cannot see that believing that matter just popped out of ‘nothingness’ and then calling this a ‘natural’ occurrence, is almost as natural as believing that ‘magicians’ can actually pull out rabbits out of their hats!

Let’s also bear in mind that at the level of quantum mechanics-a cutting edge field of science, let’s not forget-the uncertainty in the position and velocity of virtual particles actually changes when there is an observer there to measure their movements and velocity. In other words at that level of quantum mechanics, chaos becomes more orderly and vice versa!. Quite peculiar. I’d say!

So, I am curious to see the atheists here defend their position that everything has come out of nothing, in spite of the ‘fact’ that in an ideal natural world where there is no supernatural interference, nature should tend towards chaos and not order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

toneyb:
Interesting topic. If I were still a believer I would have
1. Still believed in too much superstition like witches, wizards, satan, demons.

I believe in dimensions that are extra temporal and extracorporeal. This is not superstitions. Science tells us that outside of the 4-dimensional construct that we are familiar with are other dimensions that are not necessarily subject to space-time physics.

I don’t believe in witches and wizards. I do believe in beings that are not limited by space and time.

toneyb:
2. Would have been homophobic too.

I  am not.

toneyb:
3 Would have not been responsible for some my own actions and push the responsiblity unto imaginary demons, satan etc and blaming them for making me act in certain ways.

I don’t. I take full responsibility for my actions.

toneyb:
4. Would have been afraid of so many things and believe in so many anecdoctal stories that do not agree with what I know. Would also believe that there are some imaginary enemies out there trying to get me and stop me from prospering or becoming happy.

I am not afraid of ‘so many things’ either. I don’t believe in ‘imaginary enemies’ out there trying to get me. That’s paranoia and though common in a lot of developing societies, has nothing to do with being Christian or not. I have treated a lot of atheists who suffer from paranoid delusions.

toneyb:
5. Would have still been giving my money to Pastors and their fellow church workers while believing I am giving it unto God.

I don’t pay my tithes as regularly as I should. I understand the need for it, but I also understand that a lot of pastors misappropriate money meant for the things of God.  Misappropriation of funds is not unique to church ‘businesses. It’s a universal thing; found in every human industry irrespective of whether it’s managed by Deists or atheists. 

toneyb:
6. Would have depended on others who know no better than me to help me in explaining all the things I see because they claim they have some divine guidence and knowledge.

I don’t. I search the scriptures for answers. I meditate on the things I discover and study to show myself approved of the Lord. Ignorance is found everywhere, in both the house of God and outside it.

toneyb:
7. Would have been looking down at others that do not share my beliefs with some sense of pity thinking that they are not saved while I am.

I don’t.

toneyb:
8. Would not have been too curious and would have accepted non answers for answers as long as they seem plausible to me or in line with my subjective beliefs. Would have been spending time apologizing for nonsense and irrational theories, doctorines and religious meme.

I am very curious and continue to search for answers. My quest is to separate Truth from the embellishments and traditions of men. My quest is to find God true, even if all men are liars (Romans 3:4)

toneyb:
9. Would have been wasting too much time thinking about not offending some imaginary god and thinking about the after life and what will happen to me when I die. Would also have believed that the world will end during mylife time.

I don’t. With regards to when the world will end nobody knows. As an atheist you should actually be more concerned about this, seeing that an asteroid could hit us at any minute!

toneyb:
Now that I am an atheist I am now more interested in people, animals, the universe, science and the scientific process, and the origins of religions. I now take responsiblity for my own actions and I am now never afraid of death and other mythical and superstitious beliefs. I do things that I wouldn't be able to do when I was a believer, I walk alone at night, sleep alone in empty houses, walk pass grave yards on my way home without any fear something that I wouldn't be able to do before. Love life and love the people I see around me more, I don't Judge people any more and I am more optimistic about life and the Human race than I ever would have been.

As a Christian I am very interested in people. This informs my choice of a career in trying to understand human nature and its frailties. I am interested in God’s creation and with the new discoveries in science I am filled with even greater awe of his magnificence. God’s majesty humbles me.

I am not afraid of death because when 'I walk through the valley of the shadow of death’, the one I call my Lord comforts me. I walk alone at night (the neighbourhood I live in allows this anyway. Perhaps if I lived in the more deprived areas of London, I would have thought twice about this!)

I walk pass graveyards without any fears. I feel regret sometimes that so many die without quite understanding the Truth of God, allowing their prejudices and misconceptions to cloud out His light from their lives. So I feel regret not fear.

I don’t judge people. I understand that we are all on a journey. Those that are less fortunate than me, I try to offer help when I can because I know that for the grace of God, I could have been them.



But as Christmas has come upon us, my sincere hope is that we make choices concerning the eternal things not based on prejudice or because of some unresolved issues spilling over from childhood or relationships we’ve had, but based on the Truth that we have come to know. 

May the good Lord shine the light of Truth in our hearts and guide us all to the place of peace. Amen.


Merry Xmas!

mazaje:
According to who? This statement is false. . .We now know that all what we used to ascribe to supernatural like lightining, rainbow, thunder, storms, diseases are all natural processes caused by mindless natural agents. . .So what do you mean that we do not know what is natural any more. . . We now know what nature is and how it works more than any period of human civilization through out human existence

Scientist are only trying to see if those claims are true. . . .And so far they have found out that there is NO evidence at all to show that any part of human existence survives bodily death. . . .Which discoveries are telling us that we may no be just boilogy? Care to show us those discoveries so far all the conventional scientific papers peer reviewed documents that are mainstream have shown that we are just biology and that man evolved over time. . .Your scientific peer reviewed papers that say other wise are?

The problem is that all theist attribute everything to their various gods, When they discover that their scientific understanding goes against their religious inclinations they try to castigate science in other to uphold their beliefs. . . .We do not claim to have more information than you guys we just point out to where the available information points to. . .So far ALL the empirical and scientific discoveries have shown that all the religious books and their theories are false. . .Geology disproves the Noah's flood. . . Astronomy shows that the moon was Never divided by mohammed. . .Astronomy disproves so many biblical assertions. . .Science has continued to show that this primitive religious Ideas and stories are out dated and were merely thoughts of men nothing more. . .Belief is not a choice, it is a result. And for people like me, it has to be a result of observation, study, and evidence, Belief can be the result of mental deception, of simply wanting to believe something is true because of indoctrination through emotional attachments. . . That is why I believe in empirically verifiable assertions not wishful thoughts, hypothesis,traditions and mere fantasies that have been shown to be FALSE over and over again. . . . And that is what you have with religion. . .

This discussion can continue ad nauseatum!

It's been going on for thousands of years already and has not been resolved. Scientific 'debates', numerous critically appraised academic papers etc, have been thrashing these issues for ages so i doubt you and I will shed any new light that would make people to start revising what they already believe (or don't believe) in!

The bottom line is that i believe that God created and you believe that creation is a random occurence. Fine. Now back to  the topic of this particular thread: Why did God create?

mazaje:
But what of natural processes?
They surround us; every moment of our lives is encased by them. We are entirely subject to them. They account for all the brute facts we must negotiate in our lives, from the daily dawning of the sun to its setting.

Commonsense dictates (to me) that they account for the universe and all that we observe, and therefore it is sensible to conclude that Life has progressed to its present state of incomprehensible complexity via natural processes that have layered complexity upon complexity in billions upon billions upon billions of incremental steps. Even the actions of what you call the mind are all part of the natural process no?

Because we don't understand them is no reason to attribute them to an unseen, non-physical god is it? A god which the mind alone thinks it detects.

The problem is that we no longer know what 'natural' processes are.

Who would have ever thought that 'Scientists' would be discussing the 'extended mind' and 'consciousness' that continues beyond death?! Our understanding of 'Life' is changing. Discoveries are telling us that man may not be just 'biology' and that  'evolution' may not be it afterall! The quantum collapse theory and the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics are other cogs in the wheel of so called 'natural processes'.

Our not understanding these things is not a license to make external attributions to an unseen god. The 'attribution' is a choice thing that has little to do with a better intelligence, which a lot of 'atheists' claim. The problem i have, reading some of the posts by 'atheist, is that a lot of them assume that they have more information than those of us who believe in God. The truth is that you don't.

@mazaje,
Have you had a look at the link i gave you on the discussions about the mind? I don't want you to keep silent about it. Note the discussions there represent the latest understanding concerning the 'mind'. And yes, it's all science Not religion!

mazaje:
The problem is that theist say that their various deities are physical beings that can be seen sometimes. . .

The last time i checked, most deists, including Christians, see their gods as 'spiritual beings'.