God is the answer; here are the questions

[it's just me]

Ran across this while perusing C.B. Moss' book, "The Christian Faith". Scientism cannot answer these questions.

3. God is the Best Answer to Four Questions

He is therefore aware of four questions, to each of which God is the true answer.

a) The Problem of Nature – The first is the question, Why was the universe made, and
what is its purpose? The universe shows, as we shall see, many signs of having been
made by design and with very great skill, which seems to show that it was made by
Someone, and that He had a reason for making it.

b) The Problem of Mind – The second is the question, What is the conscious self? We
know of no other self-conscious beings in the whole vast universe of which natural
science tells us. Are we to believe that the human race is a mere accident in a material
universe, or that the universe itself has behind it a Person like, but infinitely greater than,
human beings?

c) The Problem of Conscience – The third is the question, What is the meaning of the
difference, which we all feel, between right and wrong? Every human being possesses
this power to distinguish between right and wrong, which we call the conscience; and it
does not correspond to anything else in nature. Do the words "I ought" belong to
something universal, or are they merely an accidental result of the development of life in
this planet?

d) The Problem of Beauty – The fourth is the question, What is meant by beauty? Is
beauty merely something that gives pleasure to a particular person, or is it a permanent
principle corresponding to something in the nature of the universe?

The right answer to these questions is:

a) God made the universe, for His own glory.

b) God has made us self-conscious beings after His own likeness; man is the crown of
creation.

c) God has made us capable of knowing His will by means of our conscience, or sense of
duty.

d) God is eternal and perfect beauty, and whatever is beautiful is a means by which He
displays His beauty.

Yes, I have heard many alleged "explanations" for nature, consciousness, conscience, and fewer for beauty, but none of them are definitive, no more definitive than the religious explanations. For example, many believe that the universe has always been here or if it did appear suddenly it was purely coincidence, with no cause or purpose. In that universe elements came together accidentally and formed living things, some of which are capable of consciousness and some are not. (It's funny that some would call human beings "animals" leaving out the part that even the most savage among us recognize that there is such a thing as right and wrong, while animals do not have this capacity.)

The question of beauty is the one that really struck me - who has not seen the milky way in a sky not polluted by city light and marveled at the beauty of it?

 

[RAMOSS]

Ran across this while perusing C.B. Moss' book, "The Christian Faith". Scientism cannot answer these questions.

3. God is the Best Answer to Four Questions

He is therefore aware of four questions, to each of which God is the true answer.

a) The Problem of Nature – The first is the question, Why was the universe made, and
what is its purpose? The universe shows, as we shall see, many signs of having been
made by design and with very great skill, which seems to show that it was made by
Someone, and that He had a reason for making it.

b) The Problem of Mind – The second is the question, What is the conscious self? We
know of no other self-conscious beings in the whole vast universe of which natural
science tells us. Are we to believe that the human race is a mere accident in a material
universe, or that the universe itself has behind it a Person like, but infinitely greater than,
human beings?

c) The Problem of Conscience – The third is the question, What is the meaning of the
difference, which we all feel, between right and wrong? Every human being possesses
this power to distinguish between right and wrong, which we call the conscience; and it
does not correspond to anything else in nature. Do the words "I ought" belong to
something universal, or are they merely an accidental result of the development of life in
this planet?

d) The Problem of Beauty – The fourth is the question, What is meant by beauty? Is
beauty merely something that gives pleasure to a particular person, or is it a permanent
principle corresponding to something in the nature of the universe?

The right answer to these questions is:

a) God made the universe, for His own glory.

b) God has made us self-conscious beings after His own likeness; man is the crown of
creation.

c) God has made us capable of knowing His will by means of our conscience, or sense of
duty.

d) God is eternal and perfect beauty, and whatever is beautiful is a means by which He
displays His beauty.

Yes, I have heard many alleged "explanations" for nature, consciousness, conscience, and fewer for beauty, but none of them are definitive, no more definitive than the religious explanations. For example, many believe that the universe has always been here or if it did appear suddenly it was purely coincidence, with no cause or purpose. In that universe elements came together accidentally and formed living things, some of which are capable of consciousness and some are not. (It's funny that some would call human beings "animals" leaving out the part that even the most savage among us recognize that there is such a thing as right and wrong, while animals do not have this capacity.)

The question of beauty is the one that really struck me - who has not seen the milky way in a sky not polluted by city light and marveled at the beauty of it?

How does this actually explain anything? This seems to be the classic argument from ignorance , also known as 'argument from personal belief'. It poses questions that several of them are meanlingless and calls them 'problems', and the jumps to the conclusion of 'God did it'. This kind of metaphysics, where an answer is assumed, and questions are worked backwards to reach that conclusion is horrible philosophy, and even worse theology.

 

[Goshin]

Ran across this while perusing C.B. Moss' book, "The Christian Faith". Scientism cannot answer these questions.

3. God is the Best Answer to Four Questions

He is therefore aware of four questions, to each of which God is the true answer.

a) The Problem of Nature – The first is the question, Why was the universe made, and
what is its purpose? The universe shows, as we shall see, many signs of having been
made by design and with very great skill, which seems to show that it was made by
Someone, and that He had a reason for making it.

b) The Problem of Mind – The second is the question, What is the conscious self? We
know of no other self-conscious beings in the whole vast universe of which natural
science tells us. Are we to believe that the human race is a mere accident in a material
universe, or that the universe itself has behind it a Person like, but infinitely greater than,
human beings?

c) The Problem of Conscience – The third is the question, What is the meaning of the
difference, which we all feel, between right and wrong? Every human being possesses
this power to distinguish between right and wrong, which we call the conscience; and it
does not correspond to anything else in nature. Do the words "I ought" belong to
something universal, or are they merely an accidental result of the development of life in
this planet?

d) The Problem of Beauty – The fourth is the question, What is meant by beauty? Is
beauty merely something that gives pleasure to a particular person, or is it a permanent
principle corresponding to something in the nature of the universe?

The right answer to these questions is:

a) God made the universe, for His own glory.

b) God has made us self-conscious beings after His own likeness; man is the crown of
creation.

c) God has made us capable of knowing His will by means of our conscience, or sense of
duty.

d) God is eternal and perfect beauty, and whatever is beautiful is a means by which He
displays His beauty.

Yes, I have heard many alleged "explanations" for nature, consciousness, conscience, and fewer for beauty, but none of them are definitive, no more definitive than the religious explanations. For example, many believe that the universe has always been here or if it did appear suddenly it was purely coincidence, with no cause or purpose. In that universe elements came together accidentally and formed living things, some of which are capable of consciousness and some are not. (It's funny that some would call human beings "animals" leaving out the part that even the most savage among us recognize that there is such a thing as right and wrong, while animals do not have this capacity.)

The question of beauty is the one that really struck me - who has not seen the milky way in a sky not polluted by city light and marveled at the beauty of it?

Many recent scientific discoveries have led to speculative statements such as "the universe is a simulation" or otherwise an artifact or construct. Findings on certain universal constants have provoked wonder, as they turn out to be exactly what was necessary to have a universe in which life as we know it was possible, and yet there is no evidence to believe that random forces would have preferred such constants... indeed evidence suggests the odds were against it.

Interesting (but not surprising) that more knowledge of the fundamental nature of the universe strongly suggest it isn't as it is by random chance.

 

[it's just me]

How does this actually explain anything? This seems to be the classic argument from ignorance , also known as 'argument from personal belief'. It poses questions that several of them are meanlingless and calls them 'problems', and the jumps to the conclusion of 'God did it'. This kind of metaphysics, where an answer is assumed, and questions are worked backwards to reach that conclusion is horrible philosophy, and even worse theology.

It doesn't explain anything except dogmatic theology, which it was intended to explain. I have given up on trying to explain things like beauty to atheists and faithless religious people.

 

[it's just me]

Many recent scientific discoveries have led to speculative statements such as "the universe is a simulation" or otherwise an artifact or construct. Findings on certain universal constants have provoked wonder, as they turn out to be exactly what was necessary to have a universe in which life as we know it was possible, and yet there is no evidence to believe that random forces would have preferred such constants... indeed evidence suggests the odds were against it.

Interesting (but not surprising) that more knowledge of the fundamental nature of the universe strongly suggest it isn't as it is by random chance.

C.B. Moss didn't know about that at the time, but it has been intuitively obvious to many, many people over the years, including the Apostle Paul.

 

[RAMOSS]

It doesn't explain anything except dogmatic theology, which it was intended to explain. I have given up on trying to explain things like beauty to atheists and faithless religious people.

Please define what you mean by 'faithless'. And it appears to me just because people disagree with your theology doesn't mean that they can not appreciate beauty. They just disagree with you about the why and how of beauty.

 

[it's just me]

Please define what you mean by 'faithless'. And it appears to me just because people disagree with your theology doesn't mean that they can not appreciate beauty. They just disagree with you about the why and how of beauty.

How did you get that out of what I said?

 

[RAMOSS]

Many recent scientific discoveries have led to speculative statements such as "the universe is a simulation" or otherwise an artifact or construct. Findings on certain universal constants have provoked wonder, as they turn out to be exactly what was necessary to have a universe in which life as we know it was possible, and yet there is no evidence to believe that random forces would have preferred such constants... indeed evidence suggests the odds were against it.

Interesting (but not surprising) that more knowledge of the fundamental nature of the universe strongly suggest it isn't as it is by random chance.

If you take a look at the people who have promoted that view, there is several things in common. 1) They are not theoretical physicists. They are either applied physicists, or philosophers. IT will get argued tongue in cheek once in a while, but it certainly isn't taken seriously.

 

[RAMOSS]

How did you get that out of what I said?

Because of your statement you made

I have given up on trying to explain things like beauty to atheists and faithless religious people.

Perhaps you should think about the implications of what you say.

 

[it's just me]

Because of your statement you made


Perhaps you should think about the implications of what you say.

Nope, the thing I hear most often is that beauty has no definition, it's what you think it is, otherwise we wouldn't have the noise that passes for music these days and the profanity that passes for art (and don't tell me you think that a pile of dung is artistic)

 

[Goshin]

If you take a look at the people who have promoted that view, there is several things in common. 1) They are not theoretical physicists. They are either applied physicists, or philosophers. IT will get argued tongue in cheek once in a while, but it certainly isn't taken seriously.

So the opinions of applied physicists don't count?


My that's a narrow view....


httphttp://www.space.com/32543-universe-a-simulation-asimov-debate.html

 

[RAMOSS]

Nope, the thing I hear most often is that beauty has no definition, it's what you think it is, otherwise we wouldn't have the noise that passes for music these days and the profanity that passes for art (and don't tell me you think that a pile of dung is artistic)

I have NEVER heard that one. I have heard many arguments about beauty , but that is one I rather suspect is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

 

[RAMOSS]

So the opinions of applied physicists don't count?


My that's a narrow view....


httphttp://www.space.com/32543-universe-a-simulation-asimov-debate.html

When it comes to theoretical,,.. well, yes.. as for that 'universe is a stimulation, that was a wonderful tongue in cheek discussion.. but many who partook in it said clearly it was silly.

 

[it's just me]

I have NEVER heard that one. I have heard many arguments about beauty , but that is one I rather suspect is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

Well, I suspect that you need to get out more, that's the one argument I hear almost universally.

 

[it's just me]

Definition of faithless:

disloyal, especially to a spouse or partner; untrustworthy:"her faithless lover"

synonyms: unfaithful · disloyal · inconstant · false · untrue ·

 

[RAMOSS]

Well, I suspect that you need to get out more, that's the one argument I hear almost universally.

I know tons of atheists and agnoistics.. and a whole plethora of non-Christians.. so, I personally am skeptical of your claim

 

[RAMOSS]

Definition of faithless:

disloyal, especially to a spouse or partner; untrustworthy:"her faithless lover"

synonyms: unfaithful · disloyal · inconstant · false · untrue ·

And, what do YOU Mean from using that term in your statement. That term is too broad for the context in which you used it.

 

[it's just me]

I know tons of atheists and agnoistics.. and a whole plethora of non-Christians.. so, I personally am skeptical of your claim

Well, I am skeptical of yours, it looks like life has been a disappointment for us both. Goodbye.

 

[it's just me]

And, what do YOU Mean from using that term in your statement. That term is too broad for the context in which you used it.

You have your answer, I will not be drawn into a another food fight with you. If you don't like the OP, go to the next one.

 

[RAMOSS]

You have your answer, I will not be drawn into a another food fight with you. If you don't like the OP, go to the next one.

It appears you do not what to clarify what you mean.. and retreat to vague generalities.

 

[it's just me]

It appears you do not what to clarify what you mean.. and retreat to vague generalities.

No, I think it is quite clear and I am not going to argue about whether it's clear or not. Ramoss, you are a really smart guy, I don't know why you make things more difficult than they have to be.

 

[the_recruit]

Interesting (but not surprising) that more knowledge of the fundamental nature of the universe strongly suggest it isn't as it is by random chance.

Well, no. There are scientific explanations for the 'fine-tuning problem'. The question itself closely mirrors the 'fine-tuning problem' of conditions on earth. Why does the earth happen to have just the right size, temperature, atmosphere, chemical composition for existence of life? If the earth had just been a smidge closer or further from the sun, no life would be possible. What a miracle! Surely this couldn't happen by chance. Right? :roll:

That 'fine-tuning' seems to you to point toward God moreso than the other perfectly plausible scientific explanations (eg multiverse) that fit nicely within (and is even predicted by) the rest of our understanding of the universe (eg inflationary theory) is just textbook confirmation bias.

 

[RAMOSS]

No, I think it is quite clear and I am not going to argue about whether it's clear or not. Ramoss, you are a really smart guy, I don't know why you make things more difficult than they have to be.

Well, I like things to be precise. When someone makes vague claims , I like to have them clarified. I find often vague claims are a method for avoidance of an issue.

 

[it's just me]

Well, I like things to be precise. When someone makes vague claims , I like to have them clarified. I find often vague claims are a method for avoidance of an issue.

Or maybe I'm just not that good at explaining things. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[RAMOSS]

Or maybe I'm just not that good at explaining things. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

That also could be true. That is why I am trying to get clarification.