tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34249799.post5027555485387893409..comments2024-03-29T16:58:01.576+13:00Comments on AmeriNZ Blog: Arthur Answers, Part 6 – On the other sideArthur Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10568299067544221996noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34249799.post-37501754885212602402020-07-14T12:14:24.219+12:002020-07-14T12:14:24.219+12:00Obviously, probably, I don't believe in things...Obviously, probably, I don't believe in things for which there is no verifiable evidence, including the existence of a god or many gods. However, I never say a thing (like a god or gods) doesn't exist, or that it can't exist, just that for me to accept that such a thing exists, there has has to be evidence that can be verified.<br /><br />For me, everything that happens in the universe happens by chance in accordance with the laws of nature, no divine entity or entities required. For me, personally, this does a far better job of explaining things than religion does or can.<br /><br />Personally, I don't believe in a heaven or an afterlife, except in the sense of physics: Our atoms are returned to the universe, where they came from in the first place, to be recycled and reused endlessly. I'm not sure if other dimensions exist, though, logically, I can imagine how they might. But whether they do or not, I'm personally confident that they, too, have nothing to do with any god or gods.<br /><br />The "something out of nothing" thing is actually a frequent line of attack from Creationists, and the experts in refuting them have explained it far better than I ever could. But the gist is that something <i>can</i> be created out of nothing, though whether a human can do it is probably more a matter of semantics or even philosophy than it is of science.<br /><br /><br />You may have noticed that I often used the qualifier "personally". That because the only thing about this subject that does matter, I think, is that everyone keeps in their minds the possibility that they may be wrong. I know many religionists, particularly fundamentalists, have some trouble doing that, as do some atheists. Neither of which is my problem or concern.<br /><br /><br />What I think that religionists sometimes don't fully appreciate is that believers and non-believers have one massive thing in common: We're all seekers of the truth. Sure, we have different ways of getting there, and we won't see eye-to-eye on much, but, well, what fun would it be if we did?!Arthur Schenck (AmeriNZ)http://amerinz.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34249799.post-17773787897465468102020-07-14T12:14:22.112+12:002020-07-14T12:14:22.112+12:00I remember going down a long highway on one of our...I remember going down a long highway on one of our family vacations and trying to understand how God could have no beginning. The more I thought about it, the more dizzy I became. Luckily, I was just a kid sitting in the back of our wagon and wasn't the driver behind the wheel!! I guess I never will understand it...at least not in this life.<br />I also don't know where Heaven is although of this I am certain. There is a place, possibly in another dimension as DaChieftain suggests, where God does exist AND you can feel his all encompassing love. I know this to be true. And I agree, He can move freely through time. <br />As far as creation goes, God sure has a wonderful imagination!!! One only has to look at nature to see that. I know it's not scientific, but rather my opinion, but I believe that God is the creator of all life. I know of no human who has ever really created anything. The word create is used loosely, but nothing "new" is made. Man has only manipulated what already exists by joining, separating or doing whatever to display what he calls his creation or invention. Nobody can make something out of nothing. Except God, of course.AmeriNZ's Sisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34249799.post-72636358158077938852020-07-14T12:14:17.092+12:002020-07-14T12:14:17.092+12:00When I was a Christian, I believed the same as you...When I was a Christian, I believed the same as you do, so I have no trouble at all seeing how what you're saying works in people's lives. I no longer share that view, of course, but I certainly do understand it.<br /><br />You're right that science doesn't seek to answer the "why" in philosophical terms, because that's not its role. However, it can answer the "why" in terms of one process leads to another that leads to another and so on. You (and other believers) may see that more as a "how" explanation.<br /><br />Science doesn't try to "disprove" Creationism, although presenting the scientific evidence is seen that way by some of the more ardent religionists, of course. Instead, Science says, "this is what the evidence shows; if you have contradictory evidence, then by all means, share it so it can be tested."<br /><br />I can't comment on all the dimensional stuff, because I'm simply not well-versed in the scientific side of that. BUT, I think you should find a way to expand on that, because, as you know, I'm curious about pretty much everything!Arthur Schenck (AmeriNZ)http://amerinz.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34249799.post-58121918463898190132020-07-14T12:14:16.656+12:002020-07-14T12:14:16.656+12:00On the "creationism" front, I'd like...On the "creationism" front, I'd like to offer an answer. I believe in creationism because I do not believe it is at all contradictory to science, or to the theory of evolution.<br /><br />Science in general, and Evolution in specific, seek to answer a fairly important question: "How did all of this come to be?"<br /><br />The answers that Science and Evolution arrive at aren't complete or perfect, but they are pretty good guesses -- and are being constantly refined. And, over time, we come closer to answering this "How?" question.<br /><br />Creationism isn't really interested in solving the "How?" question. It answers a different question instead: "Why did all of this come to be?" And it provides its own answer: because God wanted it that way.<br /><br />The "How?" question and the "Why?" question are not mutually-exclusive. They are two very different questions, with two very different, non-mutually-exclusive suites of answers.<br /><br />This is basic set theory.<br /><br />I happen to believe God used the methods described by Science and Evolution to give effect to His creation, in a manner similar to the one described by those who believe in Intelligent Design.<br /><br />Therefore it is a pointless argument, trying to disprove Science/Evolution with Creationism, and it is a pointless argument, trying to disprove Creationism with Science/Evolution. I believe there is a God, and that He uses Science and Evolution to carry out His creation, on an ongoing basis.<br /><br />(I also believe He exists in the 4+ Dimension, which means he is not constrained by Time. I believe that concept is mathematically sound -- in fact, it is the only way His Eternal Nature can be adequately explained, and it is the only way Immortality can be adequately explained, and it is the only way the concept of Prophecy can be adequately explained. All of these concepts would require a Being that could move freely thru time. This cannot happen within the confines of 3 Dimensions (which we exist in). However, this can easily happen in the 4+ Dimensions -- in fact, they happen by definition.)DaChieftainnoreply@blogger.com