Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven
|
|
| Sunny Days in Heaven Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven |
|
|
Tuesday, November 04, 2003 A running debate I've been having an email exchange with the atheist, Steven Den Beste, regarding physics and the impossibility of gravity curving Space as some models insist upon. You can read it in detail at my other site here. Steven generally tends to cut and run when the going gets tough for him, since he cannot define Truth, nor accept logic when it leads where he doesn't want to go. As an atheist, he refuses to answer the question - how can you get something from nothing (a universe, for example)? Nor will he comprehend the Kalam Argument which proves there can be no such things as an actual infinity (as many mathemeticians also point out). Infinity only exists in reality as a potential, although it exists in math as an imaginary idea that can be represented. His answer on the something from nothing question is to say it doesn't interest him. (How convenient.) Same with the question of Truth. He can't answer it, or rather won't, since he knows his answer will be shredded for illogic and contradiction, so he evades it. Just as in our exchange he refuses to answer how - if Space is nothing, how can force or gravity or anything act upon it and curve it? In other words, how can SOMEthing act on NOthing? The principle object of Steven is that he doesn't want the universe to make sense. There is a class of scientists (among others like philosophers) who don't want the Universe to be sensible and comprehensible. That which we understand tends to lose its awe and novelty. It loses, mystery, complexity, and wonder like magic tricks we figure out. Once we get it, it no longer amuses. For an atheist to see the Universe as coherent sense relatively easy to grasp is for him to lose the god he worships - his belief in a greater Mystery: himself and the bigger incomprehensible Self - the Cosmos. Occam's Razor becomes the enemy of such a person. Their dogmas depend on uncertainty, indeterminancy, and probability. 20th century physics was a graveyard for rationality, just as it was for moral verities. Steven, and others like him, do everything they can to not think about facts and obvious truths to preserve their illusion of an unfathomable Cosmos. That's how they avoid God, by making God a Thing (and not a person) which they insist is ultimately incomprehensible. The marvelous thing about God is that he is personable, comprehensible, demonstrative. There is nothing which he will not reveal. It requires patience is all. (Yes, I know people often claim God is beyond our comprehension as he is, but how would they know? All my experience of God shows me that God hides nothing; and has a way of exposing his nature. We are not God, of course, but we will be as gods. I can know my father perfectly as he is, but I may not be able to exhaust all that he knows.) posted by Mark Butterworth | 10:06 PM | |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
