
Earthquakes, Hurricane Irene, and Evolution
If you like excitement, it doesn’t get any better than Washington, D.C. this past week — an earthquake and a hurricane in the space of five days. We already had our hands full with a man-made disaster known as the federal government.
Though both of these natural disasters were highly unusual for the nation’s capital, the truth is that D.C. and most of Maryland and Northern Virginia escaped two bullets. The earthquake did very little damage and Hurricane Irene could have been much worse. We had a lot of rain and winds in the twenty-five-mile-an-hour range in our area, but, overall, we were lucky compared to what happened to the Outer Banks in North Carolina, New Jersey, New York City, Long Island, and much of the northeast.
What amazed me was how closely scientists and weather experts were able to track Hurricane Irene with almost pinpoint accuracy. People who experienced the New England Hurricane of 1938 could not have imagined sitting in their living rooms and watching a minute-by-minute update on the hurricane’s path for days on end. (Remember, only Joe Biden thinks television existed when FDR was president.)
But as impressed as I was with how much scientists now know about hurricanes and how far we’ve come technologically (e.g., being able to able watch natural disasters unfold in minute detail on television), in contrast, I also thought about how helpless natural disasters render us.
What will we do when a magnitude 8.0 earthquake rocks Manhattan or a Category 5 hurricane hits the Big Apple head on? Such a disaster would bring the U.S. to its knees for months, and the economic effects would be felt for years. And, according to scientists, such major disasters will occur. It’s only a matter of when.
Hurricane Irene also made me think about the evolution question again. The feedback on my article “Is Evolution a Crazy Idea?” was the kind of thing that makes writing such a fulfilling occupation. I was expecting a lot of nasty comments, but, with the exception of a few out-of-hand dismissals of my irrational thought processes, Voice of Sanity subscribers not only proved once again to be unusually civilized, but highly intelligent as well.
A number of comments were so good that they could have been mistaken for articles from major publications. Clearly, there was a lot of deep thought put into them. I bring this up because there’s a connection between my evolution article and last week’s earthquake and hurricane. They all relate to the question of whether or not there is a Conscious Universal Power Source at the controls or whether everything that happens here on earth is random.
Those who believe in a random Universe really believe in what I would call “atheistic predestination.” That would mean that the so-called Big Bang — the purported massive explosion from whence evolved today’s known Universe — somehow happened without the aid of a Supreme Power.
And if there was, and is, no Supreme Power in the Universe, everything that has been, is, or will be said and done throughout the eons of time was precisely determined approximately 14 billion years ago by the nature of the Big Bang. At the first instant of that unfathomable explosion, every atom was sent flying on an eternal voyage that was predetermined by the intricacies of the explosion itself.
If there is no Supreme Power to intervene, then nothing can be changed by anybody or anything. Every detail of every event has already been set on an unalterable course. This is the ultimate fatalistic view of the Universe. There is no one in control and there is no purpose to life.
Thus, every aspect of last week’s earthquake and hurricane was predetermined by the Big Bang. Ditto with evolution. I get it. But logic always forces an intellectually honest person to get back to that annoying little question that refuses to go away: What caused the Big Bang? Maybe I’m too simplistically logical, but my mind cannot process the notion of a consequence without a preceding action.
Some readers took the position that the first-cause argument doesn’t fly because it leads to the question of what caused the first cause. But I see this unanswerable question as evidence that there is a Supreme Being — a Conscious Universal Power Source that has always existed and will continue to exist throughout eternity.
How can infinity be explained away by simply saying that everything is random? The Supreme Being’s existence is infinite, thus no previous cause was required to bring It into existence. The whole concept of a Supreme Being is outside the realm of science, while, as human beings, our understanding of the Universe is restricted to our scientific knowledge.
So, did this Power Source intervene and cause last week’s earthquake or hurricane to occur? I have no idea. And, though millions would never admit it, neither does anyone else. As I said earlier, it’s amazing what scientists know about earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. But, even with their vast knowledge of how these events occur, not one scientist has any idea as to why they occur.
For example, science can explain how gravity works, but it cannot explain why it works the way it does. We know that gravity makes the planets, stars, galaxies, and other cosmic bodies act on each other in certain predictable ways, but this does nothing to explain how the principle of gravity came into being.
You can offer endless scientific explanations for a natural disaster like a hurricane — high pressure systems, low-pressure systems, unusually warm ocean water, etc. — but eventually you come to what I call the “Why Wall?” Why do these phenomena occur?
It’s kind of like Jim Carrey in the movie The Truman Show. At some point in time, Truman managed to reach a wall with a door in it. After pondering whether or not to venture out of his capsule, he finally opened the door and stepped into the real world.
Could it be that we simply haven’t found the door that leads to the real world, so we continue to live in a secular, humanistic world where we are more comfortable explaining away everything as “random?”
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.





You wrote: “The Supreme Being’s existence is infinite, thus no previous cause was required to bring It into existence”. That statement is straight from Rene Descartes, the refiner of the ontological proof of the existence of God. Aristotle, like a prophet, refuted the ontological proof before it was invented by Anselm: “The definition of a thing and proof of it’s existence are two different and entirely different matters. For through one we learn what is meant, but through the other that such a thing exists”. Your Supreme Being requires no cause for it’s existence. Well, neither does gravity. However, unlike your Supreme Being, not only do we know what is meant by the word gravity, we know that such a thing exists!
I can’t recite any names that are responsible for my Van’s design, but it’s easy to see the skill required when I look more closely at the various parts. Each serves a clearly-discernible purpose. Each is a reflection of the maker’s knowledge AND skill. I don’t have to know the makers in order to estimate and appreciate their knowledge and skill, for such a thing is SELF-EVIDENT.
Likewise so, my own elbow has a clearly-discernible purpose. Every specialized cell within it has a clearly-discernible purpose. Every muscle, every blood cell, every passage way or vessel, every nerve has a clearly-discernible purpose if you study it close enough.
Looking outward, is it just an accident that our Sun’s power output is held in a narrow-enough range (i.e. it is not one of the “variable” stars that we have observed) as to be able to maintain a predominantly liquid water planet that supports corporeal life? Is it an accident that earth orbits in a NEARLY-PERFECT circular orbit with an eccentricity of 0.0167 and a semiminor axis that is 99.98% of the semimajor axis? Is it just an accident that this is also sufficient for maintaining that liquid-water ratio JUST RIGHT for maintaining life?
Is it an accident that our Moon is perfectly massive enough and positioned correctly to keep the planet from severe Wobbling that would be catastrophic to life on Earth had we had no moon so perfectly placed?
I can see a a clearly-discernible purpose to all of these phenomenon and many more because I don’t LIMIT my vision to just what I was taught in the atheistic public school system.
One final question –> if my elbow serves such a clearly-discernible purpose, is it too much to speculate that MY WHOLE BEING serves a a clearly-discernible purpose as well?
I forgot to add this too –> the Earth’s nearly-perfect circular orbit IS ALSO positioned at just *the right distance* (i.e. the correct radius) from the Sun (with it’s narrowly-held power output) in order to maintain a predominantly liquid water planet just perfect for corporeal life as we know it. Accident or by design?
It seems to me that the more parts and pieces that perfectly fit a clearly-discernible purpose, the more obvious that a designer’s mind was behind it.
After all, there comes a point where the chips removed from an arrowhead reveal a design that DEPARTS from it being a “natural” rock and clearly had a skillful designer behind the making of it.
We admire the skill that it took to paint the Mona Lisa, but how much greater was the knowledge and skill behind the creation of THE WOMAN HERSELF – as contrasted to her crude likeness on canvas?
The creator’s mind is clearly apparent in the design being studied, and just as it is easier to see that it took a more knowledgeable and skillful painter to make the Mona Lisa as opposed to your average third-grader’s finger-painting, so can we easily discern a greater MIND and his associated knowledge/skill when we relax and observe HIS creation.
You wrote: ” The Supreme Being’s existence is infinite, thus no previous cause was required to bring It into existence. The whole concept of a Supreme Being is outside the realm of science, while, as human beings, our understanding of the Universe is restricted to our scientific knowledge”
The Universe’s existence is infinite. Therefore, like your Supreme Being, no cause was required to bring the Universe into existence.
There is, however, one huge difference. From where did you get your concept of the Supreme Being? We know where the concept of the Universe came from: the world of perception that we live in. Since you say the concept of the Supreme Being is outside the realm of science, it clearly has no root in the world of perception that we live in. That leaves your own head as the origin of that concept. That’s fine, but as Aristotle said, the definition of a thing does not prove it’s existence.
The question of why the world exists and for what purpose has been asked by many, many, many generations of men. It’s a metaphysical question, not a physical one. Science cannot answer it. However, as Immanuel Kant proved, neither can metaphysics. It is unknowable. But that does not suffice for men, hence the birth of religion, with it’s priests who claim to know the answer.
< But that does not suffice for men, hence the birth of religion, with it’s priests who claim to know the answer.
ummm…who recognize a sweet hustle when they see it (some of them anyway, others are marks, too)…..
i think i've seen something about the con artist's perspective (or astute understanding) that marks want to be taken.
eric…or to paraphrase renee, “i don’t want to think about it, therefore it is”…..
Maybe I misunderstand you, but Descartes was a great man. As someone said, mankind owes him a debt of gratitude, for he taught men to use their brains instead of the Bible. Remember the words of Voltaire: “It is the privilege of genius to make mistakes with impunity”.
just a play on words, eric. “i think, therefore i am” vs the supreme being did it- but i don’t want to think about what did the supreme being, therefore, nothing did….
as for voltaire’s quote, not so fast. “mistakes with impunity” first of all, is a mirage. there may be delay. there may be a chain of events with so many links or so seemingly disparate links that cause-effect is unseen (or it may be willfully unseen, as in bastiat’s broken window – there are experts & sophisticates invoking the broken window fallacy even now, in speaking of hurricane irene’s – is it? – beneficent effects on the economy).
but there is no impunity. i’d say there is a common enough result that comes from this rationalization tho, and mises called it ‘malinvestment’. “budget” applies to everyone. “net” applies to everyone. “mark to market” applies to everyone. and when exceptions are made, or dispensations are purchased (outright, for cash, or via political force), somebody, and often a whole lot of somebodies, is going to be left holding the bag, paying the price, getting screwed…….
Great is great…but no passes from reality (truth) for small, or great…..
I conceptually view The Big Bang Theory and all the other major theories from many angles: To me they are all theories which have—to borrow a phrase from Governor Tricky Perry— “got some gaps in” them— or as The New York Times first printed regarding evolution, “has got some gas in it.”
Frankly, all of the widely accepted theories of evolution and creation have both “gaps” and “gas” in them including but not limited to The Big Bang Theory which, by the way, is used as a premise for argument on both sides of this issue. My position is that there is no concrete premise–including The Big Bang—– that has been proven at this point time and, moreover, I believe that humankind is only in the conceptual stage of discovering the full breadth and depth of reality…….. Sorry Governor Tricky Perry, but your Houston prayer meeting didn’t bring any rain to Texas…..sorry, god missed and hit Washington instead—just not hard enough……but I digress.
None of us even know how many realms even exist. We can’t even prove one way or the other if there is some kind of higher intelligent alien life form. That’s why all of the theories remain theories to me. And that is, in turn, precisely why I continue to remain undecided on this issue. Simply put, “My position concerning God is that of an agnostic.” ……Albert Einstein.
As sceptical and jaded as I am, I will , however, right here and now, take a 50-50 chance that there is a god by bowing my head and clasping my hands before all of you during this The Voice of Sanity discussion…….so join me in prayer if you will please:
……Oh lord in heaven, I implore thee dear god to rebuke all the sinners inside of Washington. Bring on the three woes of Revelation upon them for their treachery against thy people. Woe, woe, woe unto Washington and all of the evildoers inside of the beltway. Washington is a bloated carcass which is ready to split open. It is full of uncleanness, defiled and profaned. Strike them down oh lord! The blasphemous Washingtonnites now require your burning gaze, so I beseech you to reprove them. Strike with thy mighty hand and cause them to fall into their own cunning traps. Cut them off, I beg of thee, and restore amerika to…………America………….Amen.
RS, you seem to make the mistake many do in this day and age of subscribing to the idea that you must either be an atheist or a fundamentalist. While both extremes may be popular, neither are really true. In this I owe a (grudging) debt to John Kenneth Galbraith and his idea of “conventional wisdom”.
There is really nothing that keeps some entity that exists outside the universe (or multivierse, should that prove to be true) from being the causative force of the existence of creation.
Given that fact; a study of history, economics and philosophy is crucial for a seeker of knowledge if they strive to understand the mind of God. It’s interesting to note that both atheists and fundamentalists want to control the levers of power so that they can force people to believe as they do. But, as the history of Communism and Fascism has taught us, such schemes are doomed to fail. Why? Simply put, humanity’s birthright is liberty. No society will exist very long that is tyrannical. At least not in people that ascribe to Western philosophical thought.
rob larson….
a study of history, economics and philosophy is crucial for a seeker of knowledge if they strive to understand ‘the mind of God’. Strikethrough (quotes) is a metaphor, but a poor one, since it connotes the solution, or answer, to the effort of seeking knowledge, and the overwhelming tendency is to curve fit to preconceptions, which is contra knowledge, truth.
< It’s interesting to note that both atheists and fundamentalists want to control the levers of power so that they can force people to believe as they do. “some”, instead of “both”, or you are “either/or’ing”, too. and if some of each are as you say (and they are), then it’s not the “eachness” that tells us anything…it’s powerlust that connects them, and the rest is irrelevant.
And since healthy people, not infected with powerlust, have no desire to control ‘the levers of power’, the only ones who ever do control those levers are the sick-jobs, the addicts. So there’s an either/or that works (reflects reality): those who don’t want any part of it and those who crave it but can’t handle it…sounds like a substance with no redeeming value, and that should be done away with, doesn’t it?
Reality Seeker
In your quest of knowledge, ask yourself, can I find one thing that has been ‘ totally ‘ destroyed.
You used ‘ time ‘ in your post.
Can you give me a definition of time that fits all uses of it?
May I suggest reading a beginners book.
Our Undiscovered Universe
Introducing Null Physics
The Science of Uniform and Unconditional Reality, by Terence Witt
Please do me a small and kind favor, dear sir:
Since you are so well informed about the “Undiscovered Universe,” then, please, if you will, inform and orientate me, as I’m merely god’s humble and ignorant servant seeking proper direction.
Please start my process of enlightenment by pointing out with your finger which way is up, so that I can henceforth face god when I pray to him or her or them….
As usual, Robert, you knocked another one out of the ballpark!
Robert hit nothing out of the ballpark. He merely resurrected from the ashes the Ontological Proof of the existence of God, which was invented over 1000 years ago. I say ashes, because Immanuel Kant utterly and completely destroyed both the Ontological and Cosmological Proofs. I used to be stunned at how those Proofs continue to be trotted out. No longer, as I now realize that no one reads the works of the great thinkers that Nature produced for us.
You falsely presume that I am unfamiliar with those who criticize and reject the ontological argument (Aquinas, Hume, Kant, Russell, among others) but I have read their arguments on this topic and reject THEM.
One of the problems with the concept of “God” is the excessive amount of connotative baggage carried by such a term. Evidence of this baggage is found in the words used to express their arguments, “maximal excellence,” “maximal greatness,” “supremely perfect,” etc.
We really need to get away from such terminology in order to keep what is (1) observable, and (2) measurable to stay true to the strict requirements of science. Existence may not be a predicate, as Kant argued, but when you OBSERVE a superior design, you have not left the realm of POSSIBILITY by postulating a designer with sufficient knowledge and skill to be THE CAUSE.
I say that it is sufficient to observe a design in order to ascertain the MINIMAL knowledge and skill required for creating it. Comparing this to what we are capable of doing SHOULD BE a humbling experience -AND- not one that brings out the arrogance in people.
This method of thinking was demonstrated by no less a thinker than Dr. Carl Sagan himself! While watching the series “Cosmos” by Dr. Carl Sagan, I was particularly astounded by something that he said near the end of the series. While the viewer watched fast motion views of the bustling city of New York, Sagan remarked:
“If you were an observer from an alien world, you would have noticed that something very complicated has been happening here over the last few thousand years. It might take you a while to figure out the details, but you would recognise by its complexity, unmistakable evidence for intelligent life. On closer scrutiny you might even be able to recognise individual intelligent beings. The evolution of the city is due to their concious activity, millions of human beings working more or less together to preserve the city, to reconstruct it, and to change it.”
So, clearly the good doctor has the capacity to recognise the necessity of intelligent life to explain the complexity of New York city, but his religion, evolutionism, will not permit him to accept the same obvious truth about living things themselves.
Robert, you are knocking on the door! I heard someone once say, that “college is the place to go to question everything and determine to know nothing.” i.e. don’t make a decision to believe in anything, for fear you may be wrong. Education is just asking questions and coming up with no answers! Now, I heartily concur that questions and questioning is important, valuable and necessary. It is an integral part of the learning and discovery process. But, determining before-hand that no answers are possible is ignorance. And, it seems that is what we have done with the “original source.”
What if the original source/supreme being has revealed him/herself? Theologians call it general revelation (creation) and specific revelation (God made known through a specific means/person). Who in all of known history (we can only deal with what we are aware of, and its rational to believe that this supreme being is “knowable” vs. being unknowable which is little different than not existing at all to a created being) has lived the life of a god-like creature (not
mythological or fanciful stories)? Who presents Himself as god and has the evidences to back up His claims? What faith is based on historical accuracy as well as solid philisophical and spiritual foundations? Who stands up to skepticism, angry attack, and attempts to classify belief in him with simplistic and jingoistic intents? What literature of antiquity stands up to scrutiny and criticism? What faith is not predominantly characteristic of one culture or part of the world? What existing faith-structure defies and resists mens’ attempts at diluting, changing, adding, or warping its original clarity and message?
I would submit, aware of those who would take issue with his/its fundamental theses, the person and faith of Jesus Christ withstands criticism and the bible scriptures accurately describe God’s attempts to reveal and clarify Himself before man. He does so not on man’s terms, but lifts man up to a godly/heavenly? perspective of what life is truly for and about.
Purpose? Individual worth? Corporate and collective value and function? Personal significance and practical assistance to live life? Jesus spawned Pilate’s inquiry about truth by saying, “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” The apostle Paul responded to King Agrippa’s question, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” with “Short or long–I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am,…” Paul had had his life radically changed by a personal encounter with Christ.
Indeed, that is what “the original source” would have us come to discover.
Whatever.
At the Big Bang our universe became incredibly lucky. Lucky beyond superlatives. Lucky beyond anything we can imagine.
Resolving this luckiness philosophically requires years of thought and research and would take a few hundred pages to carefully examine the nuances of the logic.
But ultimately, can you understand it? Or explain it?
A wise man knows he cannot comprehend everything. At best one can sample life much as an ant can sample a continent and generate a few observations from the sample (which may contradict the points of other ants sampling in other locations).
The question should not be whether the universe is designed, but whether the designer is/was/will be good or evil.
And the follow up question should be: What shall we do about our answer?
Like it or not, the answer affects our culture, language, laws, and whether anyone has a right to his own body, or his labor, or his creativity, or his brokerage account. It also determines whether anyone inside a given system has an obligation to anyone outside the system. Do those outside the system have a “call” or “demand” to protect them from violence? If so, where does the obligation end, and what mechanism exists to prevent the spread of the “outside” system?
For me, change was easy. While still an atheist, I realized I am living through a period when I can get no help from those who believe in atheism. I had to join a working social group to effect the necessary changes one needs in life; friends, mate, job, etc., I would have to seek it from those who believe in the American Way (que the old school versions of Truth and Justice too).
Believe what you want about the Big Bang, and the origins of the universe.
Pray though: May no one, including you, suffer the burden of your beliefs.
Re-reading this, I realize I am being too obtuse. The bottom-line is that best cultures on the planet believe in a Supreme Being. An objective analysis distinguishes those cultures as well.
Which one would you pick to belong to?
“And if there was, and is, no Supreme Power in the Universe, everything that has been, is, or will be said and done throughout the eons of time was precisely determined approximately 14 billion years ago by the nature of the Big Bang. At the first instant of that unfathomable explosion, every atom was sent flying on an eternal voyage that was predetermined by the intricacies of the explosion itself.”
Except for the fact that quantum mechanics got discovered.
“Those who believe in a random Universe really believe in what I would call “atheistic predestination.” “And if there was, and is, no Supreme Power in the Universe, everything that has been, is, or will be said and done throughout the eons of time was precisely determined…”
Which is it – random or predetermined?
“If there is no Supreme Power to intervene, then nothing can be changed by anybody or anything. Every detail of every event has already been set on an unalterable course. This is the ultimate fatalistic view of the Universe. There is no one in control and there is no purpose to life.”
Can this be said differently:
If there is no State, no top down control, then nothing, like human nature, can be changed for the betterment of “society.” The individual simply has no purpose. And if no one is in control, then savage, selfish, random (?), predetermined (?) individuals provide no service to the virtuous collective.”
“It’s kind of like Jim Carrey in the movie The Truman Show. At some point in time, Truman managed to reach a wall with a door in it. After pondering whether or not to venture out of his capsule, he finally opened the door and stepped into the real world.”
Great analogy, but aren’t both sides assuming that they already know what’s behind the door?
pete….yes…w/o the top down control, the invisible hand, so mistrusted by advocates of control, and of being controlled (by something, “please, somebody stop me!”), just materializes, organizes the disorganized. a “gift”, no doubt.
but there is more than two sides, re the door. plugging unknowns into the equation and then using the ‘solution’ as foundation for superstructure may feel good, a salve, but is objectively counterproductive. this may describe the mechanism that has kept mankind very near, if not still at, square one.
Heretofore, the discussion has been based on a single universe. I’d always thought of our universe as being represented by a ball- or balloon that is constantly increasing in diameter. Just for giggles, how about concentric universes? Suppose we live on a shell surface instead of inside a volume of “stuff?” Suppose what we call black-holes are the doorways from one concentric universe to another? Suppose every grain of sand on the beach is, of itself, a unique universe? Infinite number of universes, each of which is infinite?
My formal education in science (physics, chemistry, mathematics) forced me to acknowledge the existence of interrelationships that do not lend themselves to a hap-hazard, random existence. Hence, I must acknowledge some sort of supreme intellect. I chose to express my gratitude to- and for that intellect; not to worship it as humans seem to feel necessary by their worshiping of a “god/God.”
tex…have you (or anybody else) read hawking’s “grand design”?
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553805371/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314806369&sr=1-1
Shame on you ,robert.You’re essentially saying that …no supreme being ,proves there must be a supreme being.How else can you slice it?Once again, all you have to do is ascribe the same pre-set powers….. to random chance that you ascribe to god …and voila…you see it’s all semantics. I DO KNOW ….THAT GOD DOESN’T HELP ME IN ANY WAY–SO HE’S IRRELEVANT.HOW CAN A “SUPREME BEING” BE SO IRRELEVANT? >….It’s a contradiction and sooo…god is a contradiction–not nearly as logical an expl as you advocate.Has anyone expl to me why…if god thought so much of the human race …and loves us sooo much…..WHY SPEND 140 MILLION YEARS W/ DINOSAURS? i know you’re not going to touch that one ,except to rationalize that god’s sense of “time’ is difft from our sense of time.suuure it is,Robert.Just keep kiddin yourself. as always, you’ve completely avoided the issue that Tex raises above of a …persoanl religious god…vs ..an objectified god ,that you push so strongly. this character, god, …hasn’t even had the courtesy to inform us if your objectified god is more acceptable than a “persoanl,religious god. Hey.I’m still waiting for an answer from this crude, uncommunicative SOB we call ,god
Mr. Ringer: There’s an interesting dilemma posed by your recent posts — namely, that evolution must be random, whereas the entire universe is predetermined. Solution: (1) evolution, in fact, _isn’t_ random; its course is chosen by the relentless pounding of the environment on biochemicals. That is to say, if the typing monkeys were _punished_ when they didn’t produce lines of Shakespeare, soon enough we’d have “All’s Well That Ends Well”. (2) The universe isn’t determined; its course is affected by quantum uncertainty and Chaos Theory, both of which introduce, not randomness exactly, but perhaps “spontaneity” … None of the science involved disproves God; in fact, it speaks to God’s subtlety and imagination. Meanwhile, we don’t have to account for “before” the universe, since time itself was created when the universe was formed. There’s no need, then, to deny science when arguing for God.
topeka…
< The question should not be whether the universe is designed, but whether the designer is/was/will be good or evil.
already anthropomorphism, bringing ego into frame. nature is indifferent. plainly.
Then, because ego as basis of control is a very hard sell, with most people, you use/borrow dues ex machina, instead, to determine “whether anyone has a right to his own body, or his labor, or his creativity, or his brokerage account…obligation to anyone outside the system…those outside the system have a “call” or “demand” to protect them from violence…where does the obligation end, and what mechanism exists to prevent the spread of the “outside” system.”
As for, “For me, change was easy. While still an atheist, I realized I am living through a period when I can get no help from those who believe in atheism. I had to join a working social group to effect the necessary changes one needs in life; friends, mate, job, etc., I would have to seek it from those who believe in the American Way (que the old school versions of Truth and Justice too)”…make the necessary substitutions and then decide if the vichy French, for one example, would find anything to disagree with in this statement.
< The bottom-line is that best cultures on the planet believe in a Supreme Being. An objective analysis distinguishes those cultures as well.
Most cultures, present and gone, have any number of cage (culture) bars devoted to this supreme being nonsense (and that includes secularists who place the canard in gov). This is a restatement of the vichy position, and is relativist to the core (whose winning is the only real answer sought). It’s also correlate, not cause (or, to whatever extent it contributed to cause, that chrysalis is long since shed and is, or would be, in a less vichy, less idolatrous, world, an opaque, paper-thin husk returning to dust)….
You’re going to die anyway. Better to be true (as closely as possible), live quality and go down swinging, than to go for quantity with whoever is presently up with whatever recycled trash (as above). Majority chosen delusion never clothed a king (so be the little boy and not the gutless elders). And if you live in topeka, where you just might be all alone with such a perspective, relocate.
“Live quality and go down swinging”….. My sentiments exactly—- may I borrow that one, reunion?
I will add it to “I never found a companion that was so companionable as solitude.” and “Time is but the stream I go a-fishing in.”
sure rs…let me know how it moves in your bait shop…lol
I have to wonder why Ayn Rand, who was a genius, didn’t come to the same logical conclusions RR has.
The Supreme Being (God) ALLOWS things like natural disasters to occur. (And also personal tragedy). Why is a mystery. But, the vast majority of people have free will, so they ultimately influence the outcome of their lives. You may be dealt a bad hand, but it’s how you play the hand that matters most.
Read Ayn’s book, “Philosophy, Who Needs It?”. In it she tells you why. Ayn Rand was firmly rooted in the world of perception. She made that quite clear. She was smart enough not to fall prey to the Ontological Proof. Ayn thought she was a philosopher, but her metaphysics was no metaphysics at all: the world is as it appears to be. She invoked the “needs no cause” axiom, except she applied it to the Universe and not God: the Universe has always existed. As I alluded to earlier, men have a choice in seeking the answer to the great metaphysical question. They can take the route of religion or that of philosophy. Ayn chose philosophy. No surprise there, as she was a true thinker. Don’t take my word for it. Read her book.
Robert Ringer said;
So, did this Power Source intervene and cause last week’s earthquake or hurricane to occur?
—————————–
YES!
What has led to all this trouble, is the rejection of God and His Ways!!!!!!!!!!
Read Dueteronomy 28, about the blessings and cursing of following, or not following God!
He is speaking to Israel, but this applies to any nation who rejects God, in my opinion!
These are not my personal visions, but others.
Reading and studying God’s Word does indeed show me, God Judges nations in the now!
Amos 3:7
7Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
God reveals His Plans to His People!
Here is America’s future.
http://www.unleavenedbreadministries.org/?page=dreamsvisions#America
If Obama goes against Israel at the UN in September, well, we haven’t seen anything yet!!!!
I believe the New Madrid Earthquake will become real and America will be split in half!
A part of a vision, given to this person by God.
http://www.unleavenedbreadministries.org/?page=comingcalamities
Two Separate Countries
The area of water in the middle of . . . the United States was massive, and was widest or most extensive in the north. There were no Great Lakes as I had known them, for all of them had come together into this huge sea that extended northeastward into the ocean. The inland sea also extended southward, filling most of the Mississippi an Missouri River valleys and widening by many, many miles the Mississippi River where it flows into what we know as the Gulf of Mexico. This sea was so vast that I knew it could not be bridged, and so in essence the United States had become as two separate countries.
It is important for us to distinguish among “hypothesis” and “theory,” “axiom” and “law.”
A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. A theory, on the other hand, has already undergone extensive testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn’t mean the theory is correct; only that current testing has not yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood, appears to support it.
A theory will often start out as a hypothesis — an educated guess to explain observable phenomenon. The scientist will attempt to poke holes in his or her hypothesis. If it survives the applied methodologies of science, it begins to take on the significance of a theory to the scientist. The next step is to present the findings to the scientific community for further, independent testing. The more a hypothesis is tested and holds up, the better accepted it becomes as a theory. [cit. WiseGeek.com/2011]
Getting to axioms and laws therefore is far more scientifically rigorous and challenging. The popular culture tends to refer to hypotheses as theories thereby
lending far more scientific credence than deserved. If one supposes for a moment that there is a Supreme Being then scientific method facilitates the journey of discovery toward that being. If one supposes there is no Supreme Being, then the scientific method helps one better understand the world around him. However, each should take care not to let bias interfere with proper, objective discovery. Observe, think, test, test again, then again…I see no conflict here with philosophy and science.
If we choose to seek the truth and dam the ideologies, we might be surprised at all illusions and even superstitions we carry around in our heads. Even Einstein didn’t have last the word on physics, hence quantum physics. And the search for the “God particle” using massive accellerators to smash atoms. We can even search within ourselves by using logic and even some scientific investigation to determine our fallicies. IE a commitment to constantly moving toward the truth.
disillusioned…integrity vs comfy denial, pragmatism, self-dealing (the cheating that is heart of political process), peer conformance, tradition-treasuring/gaming…a stacked slippery slope deck of temptations that too many look around at what others are doing and just moo-emulate (“hey, i want to be individually tattooed/branded too!”)…………
I think earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, financial meltdowns have one purpose: To take away wealth. The universe wants you to rely on her not your wealth.
Could that be a possible theory as to WHY they occur?
Incidentally, if Al Gore’s film AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH were accurate, Mount Kilimanjaro would—as I write this—have NO snow. But—OOPS!—Mount Kilimanjaro still has snow!
Much as I disapprove of Al Gore’s politics, he was right on about global warming and climate change. He had an enlightened professor who influenced him and he admitted it much to Al Gores’s credit. I wish I had been as successful influencing my students about the absurdity of Darwinian evolution.
jadavison.wordpress.com
I pesented my position on the earlier thread “Is evolution a crazy idea?” There is no reason to repeat it here but I will add the summary with which I often terminate my messages on my weblog.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I believe that represents an accurate picture of what is REALLY known about the great mystery of organic evolution.
jadavison.wordpress.com