Afterlife

[rusmeister]

But (as usual when we talk about any right/wrong thing) we really need to define "wrong" first.

Chesterton disagrees. If you read the first chapter of "What's Wrong With the World", he makes a solid case that what is wrong is that we do not establish what is right.

A book of modern social inquiry has a shape that is somewhat sharply defined. It begins as a rule with an analysis, with statistics, tables of population, decrease of crime among Congregationalists, growth of hysteria among policemen, and similar ascertained facts; it ends with a chapter that is generally called "The Remedy." It is almost wholly due to this careful, solid, and scientific method that "The Remedy" is never found. For this scheme of medical question and answer is a blunder; the first great blunder of sociology. It is always called stating the disease before we find the cure. But it is the whole definition and dignity of man that in social matters we must actually find the cure before we find the disease .

The fallacy is one of the fifty fallacies that come from the modern madness for biological or bodily metaphors. It is convenient to speak of the Social Organism, just as it is convenient to speak of the British Lion. But Britain is no more an organism than Britain is a lion. The moment we begin to give a nation the unity and simplicity of an animal, we begin to think wildly. Because every man is a biped, fifty men are not a centipede. This has produced, for instance, the gaping absurdity of perpetually talking about "young nations" and "dying nations," as if a nation had a fixed and physical span of life. Thus people will say that Spain has entered a final senility; they might as well say that Spain is losing all her teeth. Or people will say that Canada should soon produce a literature; which is like saying that Canada must soon grow a new moustache. Nations consist of people; the first generation may be decrepit, or the ten thousandth may be vigorous. Similar applications of the fallacy are made by those who see in the increasing size of national possessions, a simple increase in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. These people, indeed, even fall short in subtlety of the parallel of a human body. They do not even ask whether an empire is growing taller in its youth, or only growing fatter in its old age. But of all the instances of error arising from this physical fancy, the worst is that we have before us: the habit of exhaustively describing a social sickness, and then propounding a social drug.

Now we do talk first about the disease in cases of bodily breakdown; and that for an excellent reason. Because, though there may be doubt about the way in which the body broke down, there is no doubt at all about the shape in which it should be built up again. No doctor proposes to produce a new kind of man, with a new arrangement of eyes or limbs. The hospital, by necessity, may send a man home with one leg less: but it will not (in a creative rapture) send him home with one leg extra. Medical science is content with the normal human body, and only seeks to restore it.

But social science is by no means always content with the normal human soul; it has all sorts of fancy souls for sale. Man as a social idealist will say "I am tired of being a Puritan; I want to be a Pagan," or "Beyond this dark probation of Individualism I see the shining paradise of Collectivism." Now in bodily ills there is none of this difference about the ultimate ideal. The patient may or may not want quinine; but he certainly wants health. No one says "I am tired of this headache; I want some toothache," or "The only thing for this Russian influenza is a few German measles," or "Through this dark probation of catarrh I see the shining paradise of rheumatism." But exactly the whole difficulty in our public problems is that some men are aiming at cures which other men would regard as worse maladies; are offering ultimate conditions as states of health which others would uncompromisingly call states of disease. Mr. Belloc once said that he would no more part with the idea of property than with his teeth; yet to Mr. Bernard Shaw property is not a tooth, but a toothache. Lord Milner has sincerely attempted to introduce German efficiency; and many of us would as soon welcome German measles. Dr. Saleeby would honestly like to have Eugenics; but I would rather have rheumatics.

This is the arresting and dominant fact about modern social discussion; that the quarrel is not merely about the difficulties, but about the aim. We agree about the evil; it is about the good that we should tear each other's eyes out. We all admit that a lazy aristocracy is a bad thing. We should not by any means all admit that an active aristocracy would be a good thing. We all feel angry with an irreligious priesthood; but some of us would go mad with disgust at a really religious one. Everyone is indignant if our army is weak, including the people who would be even more indignant if it were strong. The social case is exactly the opposite of the medical case. We do not disagree, like doctors, about the precise nature of the illness, while agreeing about the nature of health. On the contrary, we all agree that England is unhealthy, but half of us would not look at her in what the other half would call blooming health . Public abuses are so prominent and pestilent that they sweep all generous people into a sort of fictitious unanimity. We forget that, while we agree about the abuses of things, we should differ very much about the uses of them. Mr. Cadbury and I would agree about the bad public house. It would be precisely in front of the good public-house that our painful personal fracas would occur.

I maintain, therefore, that the common sociological method is quite useless: that of first dissecting abject poverty or cataloguing prostitution. We all dislike abject poverty; but it might be another business if we began to discuss independent and dignified poverty. We all disapprove of prostitution; but we do not all approve of purity. The only way to discuss the social evil is to get at once to the social ideal. We can all see the national madness; but what is national sanity? I have called this book "What Is Wrong with the World?" and the upshot of the title can be easily and clearly stated. What is wrong is that we do not ask what is right.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/whats_wrong.html

[rusmeister]

LM: In the tug of war of Creator vs no Creator , I see Occam's razor as making a Creator more probable:

I'm sorry, but invoking Occam's Razor to support the belief that your deity created this universe is extreme. The existence of God is anything but simple, and there are far more simple and elegant theories for the origin of our universe than saying 'God made it'.

I disagree completely on the question of elegance, and I'm not trying to say that God is "simple". What I meant, and put badly, no doubt, is that it is far more probable and less incredible that a Creator that I can hardly comprehend created the universe than that at some mystical point in time (or even outside of time), the universe created itself. Saying it "just happened" "out of nothing" is far more mystical and dogmatic than accepting the idea of God.

[rusmeister]

Yes. Exactly. Opinion. Truth. Is there greater love than that? His sacrifice doesn't prove anything, one way or the other. You might think it's the greatest love. Heck, I might think it's the greatest love. But it's not been proven. That's the way of things with truth.

Obviously we disagree on the concept of "proof" You seem to be placing it on a scientific level. On this level it would be impossible to say that a man proved his loyalty to his country or his love for his wife. We would have to eliminate such language because proof evidently, needs experimental evidence. How many times can you die for someone? What laboratory conditions would you establish?

The Origin of the Universe

It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything.
{Saint Thomas Aquinas, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1933, 174}

I see it the other way around. Here's my thinking...

It seems very contrary to everything I've ever experienced for anything to come from nothing; and the idea of something having always existed is difficult to wrap my mind around. However, clearly, something came from nothing or always existed. Either:
- the universe (and to call it unimaginably complex is the most profound understatement I can think of),
or
- its cause.

So which do I believe?

Well, the universe exists. It is a fact by every definition of the word. I can perceive it with all of my senses. It is not possible to avoid the universe. It can be studied. We can reproduce an uncountable number of situations as many times as we want, and get the same results every time. So, we come to understand the universe's "laws"; how things work. These are things we all agree on. We know the strength of gravity. We know about aerodynamics. We know how internal combustion engines work. (Heck, we invented the darned things.) Therefore, we don't get into an airplane, and say, "I hear these things sometimes transport people from A to B. Nobody knows why they sometimes work, or when. Let's hope today's our lucky day." The universe is here, and we learn more cold, hard facts about it all the time.

None of these things can be said about any cause of the universe.

On top of that, you would tell us that the universe's cause is a being that intimately understood every aspect of this universe, down to the last sub-atomic particle; knowing everything about every one of these aspects and particles, from the beginning of time to the end - knowing all that even before the beginning of time; and intentionally created it all. I think that, if the universe is complex to a degree that is well beyond our ability to contemplate, then a being capable of understanding the universe with absolute perfection, and creating it, is even more complex. If the universe coming from nothing or always existing seems unlikely to me, such a creator seems even more unlikely.

So I either believe in the hideously complex thing or the more complex thing. One is a fact in all ways, and I've never seen evidence for the existence of the other. Which should I believe in?

That's my starting point (and, so far, ending point) of religion.

Your reasoning is excellent, and I agree that God is necessarily more complex than the universe. Your assumption, though, appears to be that a Creating Being must operate under the same general limitations or level of abilities that we do (like Organians or the Q Continuum from Star Trek, for example). If so, then God would indeed be unlikely. I question that assumption, though.

Put another way, one relies only on the facts (meaning the ones we happen to have now) and as a result becomes completely inexplicable (ref the GKC quote above) and therefore mystical. The other accepts mysticism in one thing (God) and everything else becomes clear and explicable. As Lewis said, "(it) is the light by which I see everything else."

Uh, and on airplanes, I do pray and cross myself (something you likely see as superstition, something I see as commending my body and soul to God regardless of the outcome), because sometimes it is not our lucky day. We just have a natural tendency to figure that it only happens to other people. Our vaunted science can't even prevent such tragedies, let alone establish a Star-trekkian utopia. But I digress.

[Fist and Faith]

I'm not assuming anything. Not about any creator or cause, and not about the universe. I simply say the universe exists. I have no explanation for it's seemingly impossible existence, but it exists, nevertheless.

Without evidence of any sort, I will not assume the existence of what must be, probably by definition, the most mystical being conceivable to explain the universe's existence.

And I don't imagine any explanation for that being's existence is more reasonable to me than any for the universe is to you. However, I'm willing to consider applying to the universe any explanation for God that you accept. Some modifications will probably be needed, but likely nothing too drastic.

[rusmeister]

I'm not assuming anything. Not about any creator or cause, and not about the universe. I simply say the universe exists. I have no explanation for it's seemingly impossible existence, but it exists, nevertheless.

Without evidence of any sort, I will not assume the existence of what must be, probably by definition, the most mystical being conceivable to explain the universe's existence.

And I don't imagine any explanation for that being's existence is more reasonable to me than any for the universe is to you. However, I'm willing to consider applying to the universe any explanation for God that you accept. Some modifications will probably be needed, but likely nothing too drastic.

I think that, if the universe is complex to a degree that is well beyond our ability to contemplate, then a being capable of understanding the universe with absolute perfection, and creating it, is even more complex. If the universe coming from nothing or always existing seems unlikely to me, such a creator seems even more unlikely.

There IS an assumption here, and it is based on human limitations - iow, if it is impossible for us, how can it be possible for any Being?

Maybe you don't actually hold that position, but it sure looks like it from that quote.

I do quite agree with you that God's presence is inexplicable. That is the one point of faith that must be accepted mystically (that was mentioned in the Chesterton quote on the origin of the universe). But once accepted, it does explain everything else.
(Maybe you can begin by thinking of Him as a "super-Organian" or "super-Q"...?)

btw, I am curious as to your opinion on that last excerpt from "What's Wrong With the World" (WWWW) - I think it's brilliant!

[Fist and Faith]

There IS an assumption here, and it is based on human limitations - iow, if it is impossible for us, how can it be possible for any Being?

Maybe you don't actually hold that position, but it sure looks like it from that quote.

Ah. I see what you mean. OK, let me try it this way...

It is obviously possible for something to be uncaused. The universe exists. Either it is uncaused, or, somewhere down the line, there is an uncaused cause. Granted, I have no possible way of knowing the limits of what kinds of things can exist without cause. Sure, it could just as easily be that the God you believe in exists uncaused as the universe. How could I possibly claim to know such a thing is not possible? (Fot that matter, the universe could be uncaused, and there could be an uncaused being just like the God you believe in. Heck, there could be billions of uncaused universes and Gods.)

But the universe is a fact. Its existence can be proven in every way anything's existence can be proven. OTOH, the existence of a creator or cause of the universe has never been proven. In fact, there's no evidence whatsoever for any creator or cause. Until there is any evidence for a creator or cause, I will believe the universe is the uncaused thing.

I do quite agree with you that God's presence is inexplicable. That is the one point of faith that must be accepted mystically (that was mentioned in the Chesterton quote on the origin of the universe).

If something is inexplicable, and there is no evidence supporting its existence, I do not believe it exists.

But once accepted, it does explain everything else.
(Maybe you can begin by thinking of Him as a "super-Organian" or "super-Q"...?)

I may begin in such a manner if I ever learn of any evidence suggesting God exists.

btw, I am curious as to your opinion on that last excerpt from "What's Wrong With the World" (WWWW) - I think it's brilliant!

Yes, I quite agree with it! The problem is that there may not be any "state of health" that all people agree is a worthy goal. None that have ever been suggested throughout history have been accepted by all.

[rusmeister]

I do quite agree with you that God's presence is inexplicable. That is the one point of faith that must be accepted mystically (that was mentioned in the Chesterton quote on the origin of the universe).

If something is inexplicable, and there is no evidence supporting its existence, I do not believe it exists.

But once accepted, it does explain everything else.
(Maybe you can begin by thinking of Him as a "super-Organian" or "super-Q"...?)

I may begin in such a manner if I ever learn of any evidence suggesting God exists.

And so we come to the dogmatic parting of the ways. I hold that evidence can be something internal as well, based on one's own personal experiences. Over our lives, such evidence runs both ways, at one moment seeming to insist that God IS, at another that He doesn't. So doubt comes to all - the Christian periodically has doubts about his faith (and this is where faith must be trained, like a habit), and the atheist/agnostic has doubts about his unbelief. Point is, you make a conscious choice based on your experience. Faith is a choice, not something impelled externally. You CAN press your 'belief' button - if you choose to. (For years I told myself that I could not choose to believe - that I needed external proof. I later learned the fallacy of that.) Accepting that the universe is uncaused is equally as mystical as the idea that it created itself ("just happened") and at least as mystical (more so, I believe), then the idea of, as GKC put it, and admittedly unthinkable God, and so, requires just as much faith.

btw, I am curious as to your opinion on that last excerpt from "What's Wrong With the World" (WWWW) - I think it's brilliant!

Yes, I quite agree with it! The problem is that there may not be any "state of health" that all people agree is a worthy goal. None that have ever been suggested throughout history have been accepted by all.

Of course, and this is why dreams like Star Trek are patent nonsense. Here we have a logical problem for pluralism, which tries to say that multiple systems all express valid, if incomplete truths, and at the same time that we cannot arrive at complete truth. The logical conclusion is that the human race's problems are insoluble, because some will always disagree. The only solution would be admitting that there is a complete Truth that CAN be arrived at. (A whole elephant, not merely component parts)

Only dogmatic religion offers this. I think it is unacceptable to people because it involves surrendering ourselves (and our selfishness) to it. So there's the problem. We could really solve the problems of the human race. We just don't want to - or perhaps more accurately, we would be fine with everyone else submitting, as long as I can do what I want.
BTW, that very book (WWWW) began with a newspaper challenge - people were asked to write in and say what was wrong with the world. GKC wrote in a short and simple note:
Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely, GK Chesterton

[Fist and Faith]

And so we come to the dogmatic parting of the ways. I hold that evidence can be something internal as well, based on one's own personal experiences.

IMO, that's the most important kind of evidence. I believe humans, by and large, act on what they feel, not what they know. No, it's not at all scientific, but it's impossible to disregard things that seem to resonate in every cell of our bodies. An example that applies to me is (to Loremaster's exasperation ) free will. I don't care that, as far as I can tell, the rules of cause & effect rule this universe. I don't care that I have no explanation for free will. I feel it. I cannot feel otherwise. I see no reason to believe free will is an illusion. (And that premise is... Well, it doesn't make sense to me.)

However, I have no internal evidence for God's existence. I have no feelings of any sort at all. I've never been visited by any sort of angel/spirit/ghost. I've never heard any voice from on high. No doubts or discomfort about my beliefs. There's nothing.

Point is, you make a conscious choice based on your experience. Faith is a choice, not something impelled externally. You CAN press your 'belief' button - if you choose to. (For years I told myself that I could not choose to believe - that I needed external proof. I later learned the fallacy of that.)

Yes, "based on your experience." I have none. You did not press your "belief button" out of the blue. People do not make such life-altering decisions for no reason. There was reason. Maybe it was a feeling you had had for years, even as you tried to deny it. I have no such feeling that I'm denying. Maybe you had a visitation. I have not had one. You did not have to press that button for no reason, because there was something driving you to your faith.

Accepting that the universe is uncaused is equally as mystical as the idea that it created itself ("just happened") and at least as mystical (more so, I believe), then the idea of, as GKC put it, and admittedly unthinkable God, and so, requires just as much faith.

Maybe so. But it takes no faith to believe the universe exists.

Of course, and this is why dreams like Star Trek are patent nonsense. Here we have a logical problem for pluralism, which tries to say that multiple systems all express valid, if incomplete truths, and at the same time that we cannot arrive at complete truth. The logical conclusion is that the human race's problems are insoluble, because some will always disagree. The only solution would be admitting that there is a complete Truth that CAN be arrived at. (A whole elephant, not merely component parts)

Only dogmatic religion offers this. I think it is unacceptable to people because it involves surrendering ourselves (and our selfishness) to it.

In my case, it is unacceptable because I do not believe such a being exists.

If I did, as I've said before, I would not follow a God who insisted on things I feel are wrong. But we're nowhere near that bridge.

So there's the problem. We could really solve the problems of the human race. We just don't want to - or perhaps more accurately, we would be fine with everyone else submitting, as long as I can do what I want.

Yes, there are plenty of people out there who insist nobody else murders, yet they do it whenever they want. Not that belief in your God is needed to not feel as they do. But yes, I agree that that attitude is found everywhere.

[rusmeister]

I see there's a lot we agree on.
Free will, no visitations, the belief button...

Of course that which is seen does not require faith. I think the one value of the debate on the origin of the universe is that it reveals the mystical stands adopted by the agnostic and the atheist just as surely as it does the Christian's.

As far as I'm concerned, I've done all I can do here if some people see that seeing Christianity as a religion merely for 'nice but misguided people' (at best) or whackos (at worst) is a gross oversimplification that does no justice to Christianity. There IS a special bias against it in the West not held against other religions disabling its detractors from fairly judging it (GKC's "The Everlasting Man", introduction), and I have seen that attitude here at KW at full blast.

[Fist and Faith]

Of course that which is seen does not require faith.

True enough. But then, I don't think faith should be required to know about any g/God's existence. I think the faith should be needed to trust that g/God. As I've said, I would most definitely not follow the God that various people I know believe in.

I think the one value of the debate on the origin of the universe is that it reveals the mystical stands adopted by the agnostic and the atheist just as surely as it does the Christian's.

I suppose it often does that. Along the lines of some atheists saying, "There is no God! No creator of any sort!" Which is as positive an assertion as saying there is a God, and I'll ask them what proof they have.

As far as I'm concerned, I've done all I can do here if some people see that seeing Christianity as a religion merely for 'nice but misguided people' (at best) or whackos (at worst) is a gross oversimplification that does no justice to Christianity.

Yes, well, with any luck, people will see that there are nearly as many forms of Christianity as there are Christians, and that not all are like that Phelps guy. Heh.

There IS a special bias against it in the West not held against other religions disabling its detractors from fairly judging it (GKC's "The Everlasting Man", introduction), and I have seen that attitude here at KW at full blast.

Yeah, my relationship with a couple Watchers has suffered because I've spoken out against that attitude.

[rusmeister]

I think we've said what can be said, mostly.

One more thing, though. It is possible to choose to believe in the absence of evidence. That it really IS a choice. (Like I said before, reference Indiana Jones in "The Last Crusade" stepping out onto apparent nothingness - in spite of the evidence of his senses. Faith, and need drove him.)

In the Gospels, you have the father of the dying son saying "I believe, Lord! Help my unbelief!" (Which SRD parodied without really understanding the depth of what it means. If he had, he wouldn't have used it so cynically. For him it was just a useful cultural reference supporting his idea of Covenant's Unbelief.) The father really had a hard time with believing. But he made a choice overriding his "evidence".
It's also like Natalie Wood's character (the little girl) in "Miracle on 34th St", at the very end, when she's sitting in the car, saying to herself, "I believe, I believe, it's silly but I believe..."

Things to ponder that were crucial for me...

Courtesy is like a drink from a mountain stream!

[Zarathustra]

There's something wrong with the world?

The universe can indeed be self-caused. Here's one possible scenario: if we could "rewind" the universe, watch it go backwards in time, we'd see the Big Bang in reverse, and the entire universe shrink down to the size of a subatomic particle. If the universe is the size of a proton (or smaller), then the laws of quantum mechanics apply to the universe as a whole.

We do know for a fact that particles spontaneously appear (along with their anti-particle) and then disappear in the void of space. The universe could be self-caused in this sense of a "quantum fluctuation." We know it happens.

I know, that's not entirely satisfactory. But at least it doesn't contradict known science, and it does provide a mechanism through known laws. At the very least, there is no need to hypothesize an infinite cause (god) for a finite thing (universe). That would be the exact opposite of Occam's Razor.

[Fist and Faith]

I've heard about particles spontaneously appearing, but never heard anything specific about it. Do you know any good links, by chance?

[rusmeister]

There's something wrong with the world?

The universe can indeed be self-caused. Here's one possible scenario: if we could "rewind" the universe, watch it go backwards in time, we'd see the Big Bang in reverse, and the entire universe shrink down to the size of a subatomic particle. If the universe is the size of a proton (or smaller), then the laws of quantum mechanics apply to the universe as a whole.

We do know for a fact that particles spontaneously appear (along with their anti-particle) and then disappear in the void of space. The universe could be self-caused in this sense of a "quantum fluctuation." We know it happens.

I know, that's not entirely satisfactory. But at least it doesn't contradict known science, and it does provide a mechanism through known laws. At the very least, there is no need to hypothesize an infinite cause (god) for a finite thing (universe). That would be the exact opposite of Occam's Razor.

If they spontaneously appear, then they spontaneously appear somewhere. You're smuggling in the idea of pre-existing space.

No matter what you do, Malik, you're going to come up against some kind of dogmatic acceptance of something or other. I find my dogma infinitely more hopeful than yours. It both values this life and says that this is NOT all.

Until you see death as bad news you can't see the Gospel as good news (which is what "gospel" means - although I prefer the Greek "Evangelie" and Russian "blagaya vyest").

[Zarathustra]

I'm not smuggling in the idea of pre-existing space. I was stating the opinion of a physicist. I read it in a book by Paul Davies, THE MIND OF GOD, ironically.

I'm not sure how the details work. I'm not a scientist. But perhaps at the most fundamental level, space/time and matter/energy are the same thing. So spontaneous fluctuation which produces matter might also produce space. After all, the Big Bang isn't merely the expansion of matter through space, it is the expansion of space itself.

I am not dogmatic about the universe. Man, you won't let that go! The universe exists. That's a fact. I don't have to have faith in it, I live in it. Now, what exists beyond it, I have no idea.

You seem to have a problem imagining a universe springing into existence on its own. Fine. It is a fantastic idea. But how in the world does an infinite being spring into existence on its own? Where do you think God came from? What is it about existence that its the kind of place where a vast magical being just exists? Perhaps you're comfortable with that dogmatism, and haven't asked yourself these questions in a while. But I think it's useful to try to recapture that youthful wonder every once in a while. So humor me. How does existence just have a God? Outside, or beyond, or before the universe, this infinite being was just *there*? Always? How does that happen?

It seems to me that God is where your questions, your curiosity, stops. It's just a way to sweep uncertainty under the rug.

I don't understand why anything exists, rather nothing at all. I don't understand why there is a state that we call "existence." These are amazing issues to me . . . but to speculate an all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite being who can create things like this universe is so far beyond the sheer incomprehensible wonder of this place, I can't even begin to imagine it. The fact that some people can believe in something that big, without a shred of evidence, blows my mind. That goes way beyond dogmatism. Considering that none of us--except perhaps Einstein and Hawkins--can come close to comprehending how large and old the universe is, I don't believe any of us actually have faith in God. They have faith in a caricature.

[rusmeister]

I'm not smuggling in the idea of pre-existing space. I was stating the opinion of a physicist. I read it in a book by Paul Davies, THE MIND OF GOD, ironically.

I'm not sure how the details work. I'm not a scientist. But perhaps at the most fundamental level, space/time and matter/energy are the same thing. So spontaneous fluctuation which produces matter might also produce space. After all, the Big Bang isn't merely the expansion of matter through space, it is the expansion of space itself.

I am not dogmatic about the universe. Man, you won't let that go! The universe exists. That's a fact. I don't have to have faith in it, I live in it. Now, what exists beyond it, I have no idea.

You seem to have a problem imagining a universe springing into existence on its own. Fine. It is a fantastic idea. But how in the world does an infinite being spring into existence on its own? Where do you think God came from? What is it about existence that its the kind of place where a vast magical being just exists? Perhaps you're comfortable with that dogmatism, and haven't asked yourself these questions in a while. But I think it's useful to try to recapture that youthful wonder every once in a while. So humor me. How does existence just have a God? Outside, or beyond, or before the universe, this infinite being was just *there*? Always? How does that happen?

It seems to me that God is where your questions, your curiosity, stops. It's just a way to sweep uncertainty under the rug.

I don't understand why anything exists, rather nothing at all. I don't understand why there is a state that we call "existence." These are amazing issues to me . . . but to speculate an all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite being who can create things like this universe is so far beyond the sheer incomprehensible wonder of this place, I can't even begin to imagine it. The fact that some people can believe in something that big, without a shred of evidence, blows my mind. That goes way beyond dogmatism. Considering that none of us--except perhaps Einstein and Hawkins--can come close to comprehending how large and old the universe is, I don't believe any of us actually have faith in God. They have faith in a caricature.

OK. So the physicist smuggled in the idea of pre-existing space, not you.

Malik, the point is, whatever stance you take is ultimately religious. I have been saying this all along. Quoted earlier, and here it is again (since it is obviously needed again,

The Origin of the Universe
It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything.
{Saint Thomas Aquinas, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1933, 174}

i ADMIT that God is unthinkable! You're the one who doesn't admit that the alternative is at least equally unthinkable. To paraphrase,
How does existence just have space? Outside, or beyond, or before the universe, this infinite space was just *there*? Always? How does that happen? The fact that some people can believe in something that big, without a shred of evidence, blows my mind.

Einstein at least had doubts. Dawkins is your priest. I'd much rather take someone like Fr Alexander Schmemann to emulate. Hawkins hasn't died yet, but I sure hope I can die like Schmemann did (1983). Dying of cancer, he could only speak of all the joys he had been given, and talk of giving thanks.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Schmemann
Here is a sample of the things he said/wrote over his last year, knowing that he was dying:
www.schmemann.org/byhim/1982.09.30.hospitalnote.html

[Fist and Faith]

Until you see death as bad news you can't see the Gospel as good news

True enough, I don't see death as bad news. Simply something that eventually happens to all living things.

The Origin of the Universe
It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything.
{Saint Thomas Aquinas, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1933, 174}

i ADMIT that God is unthinkable! You're the one who doesn't admit that the alternative is at least equally unthinkable.

Yes, both are unthinkable, and mystical. But one's existence is a fact. (And, as you pointed out to me, I was operating under the false assumption that I was qualified to decide which is more unthinkable and mystical.)

Here is a sample of the things he said/wrote over his last year, knowing that he was dying:
www.schmemann.org/byhim/1982.09.30.hospitalnote.html

Ever seen this thread?
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1743
Watcher Furls Fire's brother died of AIDS several years back. He did a lot of writing.

[rusmeister]

Until you see death as bad news you can't see the Gospel as good news

True enough, I don't see death as bad news. Simply something that eventually happens to all living things.

My only thought on that is that when it hits personally to a person you care about more than anything, or when your own end comes in sight, it might suddenly move from a theory of what happens to everyone to a fact that is happening in your own immediate circle, and that it suddenly IS bad news.

Here is a sample of the things he said/wrote over his last year, knowing that he was dying:
www.schmemann.org/byhim/1982.09.30.hospitalnote.html

Ever seen this thread?
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1743
Watcher Furls Fire's brother died of AIDS several years back. He did a lot of writing.

Thanks for the link. At 55 pages or so, though, I don't think I'll be able to tackle more than excerpts. A quick ex-cathedra question: Did Stephen hold a faith of any sort? (I'm also wondering how joyful and hopeful the end was for him)

[Fist and Faith]

Until you see death as bad news you can't see the Gospel as good news

True enough, I don't see death as bad news. Simply something that eventually happens to all living things.

My only thought on that is that when it hits personally to a person you care about more than anything, or when your own end comes in sight, it might suddenly move from a theory of what happens to everyone to a fact that is happening in your own immediate circle, and that it suddenly IS bad news.

Well, granted, I don't mean to say I view death as good news. It simply is. As far as my own death goes, I'm not particularly concerned. I hope I make it through at least the next several years, because I don't want my children to be children when their father dies. But other than that, I'm much, much more concerned with the dying than the death.

And my children... There's no possibility that anything could hurt a human being more than the death of their child. But do you think there's any chance I have put enough thought into this over the decades, I know myself well enough, to know that I would not turn to God (or spit venom at him) if I went through it?

Here is a sample of the things he said/wrote over his last year, knowing that he was dying:
www.schmemann.org/byhim/1982.09.30.hospitalnote.html

Ever seen this thread?
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1743
Watcher Furls Fire's brother died of AIDS several years back. He did a lot of writing.

Thanks for the link. At 55 pages or so, though, I don't think I'll be able to tackle more than excerpts. A quick ex-cathedra question: Did Stephen hold a faith of any sort? (I'm also wondering how joyful and hopeful the end was for him)

Yeah, he held a great faith. I mentioned the thread because of the similarity to the Schmemann letter. I predict that you will be captivated by it, more than somewhat. Heh.

Just a tiny bit of background... Furls Fire had mentioned her brother several times. Then she posted a couple excerpts of his poetry, and mentioned that he wrote a lot in journals. After a bit of pestering from a few of us, she started that thread, where she posts many of his journal entries, under an id she made for him. And many of us discuss those entries a LOT!!!

[rusmeister]

True enough, I don't see death as bad news. Simply something that eventually happens to all living things.

My only thought on that is that when it hits personally to a person you care about more than anything, or when your own end comes in sight, it might suddenly move from a theory of what happens to everyone to a fact that is happening in your own immediate circle, and that it suddenly IS bad news.

Well, granted, I don't mean to say I view death as good news. It simply is. As far as my own death goes, I'm not particularly concerned. I hope I make it through at least the next several years, because I don't want my children to be children when their father dies. But other than that, I'm much, much more concerned with the dying than the death.

And my children... There's no possibility that anything could hurt a human being more than the death of their child. But do you think there's any chance I have put enough thought into this over the decades, I know myself well enough, to know that I would not turn to God (or spit venom at him) if I went through it?

Sounds a lot like me, and I'm sure you have.

Ever seen this thread?
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1743
Watcher Furls Fire's brother died of AIDS several years back. He did a lot of writing.

Thanks for the link. At 55 pages or so, though, I don't think I'll be able to tackle more than excerpts. A quick ex-cathedra question: Did Stephen hold a faith of any sort? (I'm also wondering how joyful and hopeful the end was for him)

Yeah, he held a great faith. I mentioned the thread because of the similarity to the Schmemann letter. I predict that you will be captivated by it, more than somewhat. Heh.

Just a tiny bit of background... Furls Fire had mentioned her brother several times. Then she posted a couple excerpts of his poetry, and mentioned that he wrote a lot in journals. After a bit of pestering from a few of us, she started that thread, where she posts many of his journal entries, under an id she made for him. And many of us discuss those entries a LOT!!!

Thanks! I'll try to get around to it!