Discussions of Mormons and Mormon life, Book of Mormon issues and evidences, and other Latter-day Saint (LDS) topics.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

The Millennium: A Time (Obviously?) of Revelation


Many Christians believe that Christ will return to the earth in glory one day (the Second Coming) and usher in a marvelous era known as the Millennium, a thousand-year period when Christ will rule on the earth and Satan will be bound until a brief period at the end of that era. Revelation 20 is one of the key texts on this topic. We read of resurrected righteous people living and reigning with Christ during that era (Rev. 20: 4). Mortal saints are on the earth during this era, with Christ in their midst. Wow, what an amazing time that will be. Think of all that we will learn, all the great mysteries that will be cleared up, all the great insights into life and the universe and the Creation and the things of God and man that will be shared with us as we live with and learn from Christ year after year! Think of how He could bless us just with a few words of wisdom on health care issues such as cancer treatment and prevention--is it too much to think that the Master Healer won't offer such blessings to us through His knowledge in that time of joy?

I hope such thoughts and dreams do not offend you. I hope you are in the camp that rejoices at such possibilities and would gladly welcome the chance to sit at the feet of Christ and learn from Him. That its, to learn new things from him, with new information and new answers that go beyond our hopelessly limited current understanding. New things that are revealed. Or do you think that Christ will have to pretty much be silent during that era, just smiling at us perhaps but pretty much expecting us to just turn to Genesis when we have questions about the cosmos and the Creation or to Leviticus and Deuteronomy when we have questions about health care? When we are tempted with a desire to know something more, perhaps we will find comfort by pulling out our tattered paperback editions of Dale Crowley's 1948 volume, The Bible Has All of the Answers. Of course, we'll always have Wikipedia, if its servers and databases survive the chaos of the end times.

Well, I hope that's not your view of the Millennium. That would be a far less bright Millennium than the one I believe awaits us. Christ wasn't silent while serving as a mortal on the earth, He wasn't silent immediately after His Resurrection when he showed Himself to many believers, He wasn't silent during his 40-day ministry a short time later (though not a word of all that He taught and revealed is recorded in the records of the Bible). He wasn't silent when He visited the Book of Mormon peoples in the New World who recorded His words and became further eye-witnesses of Christ, and we proclaim that He is not silent in our day. You may not believe our claims about revelation to modern prophets and peoples in the ancient Americas, but if you believe the Bible, I hope you can envision a Millennium in which the Christ who dwells on the earth is not a silent Christ, but one who can continue to speak and teach and reveal great truths that will bless us throughout that era and beyond.

God, the Ultimate Authority and the Source of all wisdom and knowledge (God, not a static printed volume), has much more to say to us someday, and that means that there are many great and wonderful things yet to be revealed. If you can envision a Millennium in which Christ continues to bless us with teachings and revelations, then perhaps you won't be so offended at the very idea of any additional revelation, now or in the future, besides what has been assembled and published in the Bible. Perhaps you might even understand a little more why we LDS folks have the following as one of our 13 Articles of Faith (this is the 9th):
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Perhaps you will join us in looking forward with joy to receiving more revelation, instead of bristling at the thought and grumbling about "denigrating" the Bible by suggesting it does not contain all the knowledge we could ever need or chanting something about the sin of adding or subtracting from the Word of God. God, of course, is free to speak and reveal more anytime He wants, but we mortals have no authority to change the words of God: that is John's meaning in Rev. 22:18-19, something Moses already explained in Deut. 4:2, right before he added many more words to his scriptural record. Adding scripture is something God has his prophets do all the time, with no indication that the revealed word would ever permanently end, not in our day and certainly not in the Millennium. Further prophets and added revelation is something that is not only possible but actually prophesied in the Bible (e.g., Rev. 11 has modern prophets prophesying in the last days in Jerusalem; see also Isaiah 2 and Matt 23:34), and is something that Christians should look forward to with joy.

I hope you join me in looking forward to many more great things yet to be revealed! And frankly, I hope we don't have to wait until the Millennium for some of that. Call me crazy--or call me LDS. Yeah, I know, synonyms....

70 comments:

Jeremy said...

Truly, the Millennium will be an amazing time of learning and progress. However, I have a couple of inquiries that I'd like your thoughts on.

Regarding how much one-on-one time we will have with the Savior, Joseph Smith taught that Jesus and the resurrected Saints will probably not live on the earth all the time but will visit whenever they please or when necessary to help in the governing of the earth (see TPJS, p. 268)? How does this intermittent interaction with the Divine tie into the teaching that at the end of the thousand years Satan will be set free for a short time and many will turn away from Heavenly Father?

While I agree that the Savior will reveal many truths currently not known to humanity, I cannot be certain that he will teach us doctrine much deeper than what we have now since there will still be a time of trial near the end of the Millennium. Will there be a different standard of judging those who lived during the Millennium (or at least the end thereof)?

Bookslinger said...

Things I'm looking forward to finding out in the Millennium:

1. The lost 116 pages.
2. The LARGE plates of Nephi, the source material for the Book of Mormon.
3. The missing books of the Bible: the books of Nathan, Gad, Zenos, Zenock, and the detailed "Chronicles of the Kings" that is often referred to.
4. Who really shot JFK?

Jeremy,

The book of Revelation and I think Section 76 say that _all_ mysteries will be revealed by the Final Judgement Day. And that is the last day of the Millennium. Hence, _everything_ has to be revealed at some point during the Millennium.

I also don't agree that the release of "deeper doctrine" is in opposition to there being a further trial.

We really don't know any detail about what life will be like during the Millennium, or during that period at the end when Satan will be released for a while. We only have hints or a few bits and pieces of Millennial information.

And the Lord has not revealed the full purpose or all the purposes of that final period of Satan's release. It's not clear to me why that needs to be, or what does or will separate people living in that short time-period from people living out their life in the Millennium prior to that time-period.

LuckyMatt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LuckyMatt said...

Revelation 22:18-19 is one of the most common, tired, worn out, old arguments given against further revelation. It is also a fatally flawed argument, and reflects ignorance on the part of those who quote it to refute the existence of the Book of Mormon or other modern-day scripture. Rev 22:18-19 only applies to the book of Revelation itself. The revelation was written LONG before the Bible was compiled in its current form--it cannot possibly refer to the Bible as a whole. It probably appears last in the canonical listing of books in today's Bible because it was the last of the New Testament books to be accepted into the canon--that's right, it's inclusion in the Biblical canon was in dispute for *centuries* after the disappearance of the apostles and hence the ability to declare with authority what was scripture and what wasn't (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Canonical_history>here</a>).

The very saddest part of people rejecting further revelation after the Bible is all the great light, knowledge, and blessings they willfully reject. Like Jeff said, I certainly hope that all the good people of the earth are willing to listen to ALL the Savior has to say when He comes to the earth again, instead of choosing to remain in relative darkness when the sun is shining so brightly around them. And like Jeff, I hope more people will choose to walk in the light today, before the millenium starts!

Señor Dangriga said...

I'd add one thing to Bookslinger's list: Dinosaurs!

Pops said...

Joseph Smith stated that few will recognize the sign of the Savior's Second Coming, but will think it some kind of natural phenomenon. I expect that the first chunk of the millennium will be spent doing serious missionary work, as was the case after Christ visited the American continent. Recall that although the wicked were destroyed, those who remained still insisted on throwing the missionaries into dens of wild beasts, burying them alive, etc. until all were converted. I wouldn't be surprised to see the millennium get off to the same kind of "slow" start. Why? Because God will force no one to heaven. Those good people who survive the burning will retain their agency and the right to choose their course in life rather than to be compelled by the events of the day.

Anonymous said...

Don't you find the whole thing a little comic booky?
You know? Ultimate bad, ultimate evil. Good triumph over evil. The wicked and the righteous.
How many people do you really know that are one or the other? The whole thing reads like a fairy tale or children's novel.
The whole book of mormon reminds me of a really long Lord Of The Rings book, except it is not that exciting. I think if you read the BOM more on those terms, you would see how it can not be taken seriously and is more of a joke.
BTW, I don't get it. What is with this whole Missionary effort? How many missionaries are there now compared to 30-40 years ago? I saw some figures that show it is almost the same. How can that be with the Church being the fastest growing religion in the US? If you don't believe that, ask any LDS, they are quick to tell you that fallacy.
Whew, TGIF! Let's all have a great weekend. Outside!

LuckyMatt said...

Pops, I'd love a reference to the JS teaching you mention.

Keep in mind that throwing disciples into pits all occurred at the end of the time of peace (4 Nephi 1:27-34), when things started downhill again.

Those who were spared because they were "more righteous" at the beginning (see 3 Nephi 10:12), while still needing a time of warm-up to the full truth (which only took three years, see 4 Nephi 1:2), weren't the type to attempt to murder prophets.

I would expect it will be similar during Christ's millenial reign: a fairly sudden, drastic change that will quickly become a universal change.

Pops said...

Here's the quote from History of the Church 5:337. The occasion was a speech by the Prophet as recorded by Willard Richards. I snagged it from last year's Priesthood manual.

“Judah must return, Jerusalem must be rebuilt, and the temple, and water come out from under the temple, and the waters of the Dead Sea be healed [see Ezekiel 47:1–9]. It will take some time to rebuild the walls of the city and the temple, etc.; and all this must be done before the Son of Man will make His appearance. There will be wars and rumors of wars, signs in the heavens above and on the earth beneath, the sun turned into darkness and the moon to blood, earthquakes in divers places, the seas heaving beyond their bounds; then will appear one grand sign of the Son of Man in heaven. But what will the world do? They will say it is a planet, a comet, etc. But the Son of Man will come as the sign of the coming of the Son of Man, which will be as the light of the morning cometh out of the east [see Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:26].”

I may also be misinterpreting what is being said. Will the world misinterpret the onset of the sign only, or the whole thing? It's hard to tell.

Thanks for the correction on the travails of Christ's disciples in the Americas. I "misremembered" that bit, perhaps because of the close proximity to the conversion of all the people. That's one more thing I can take out of the "what's with that?!?" bucket and discard.

Jared said...

Anonymous,

"Don't you find the whole thing a little comic booky?" Where do you think comic books got the whole "good versus evil" thing in the first place? As for the Book of Mormon being like LOTR; of course the epic themes are somewhat similar but the Book of Mormon only predates LOTR by 100 years (in English). But if you read the Book of Mormon expecting an action/adventure story (which it certainly has) you are missing the point of the book. Just like if you read the Bible only for its stories and not for its doctrines.

As far as missionary numbers, I have no idea if that is true. I know that there were about 60,000 out at a time when I was a missionary 10 years ago and now there are closer to 51,000. It's not always the quantity that counts but the quality.

Bookslinger said...

Jared, I've seen several analyses of the number of missionaries before and after they "raised the bar."

If I remember correctly, the prior group baptized more total converts per year, but I don't think they baptized more converts per missionary. Though I may be wrong on the latter part.

However, if the one analysis I read is correct, and if I'm remembering it correctly, the post-raise-the-bar missionaries are baptizing more people who stay active after 1 year, both in terms of converts per missionary and total number of converts. However, this may also have something to do with other changes in the missionary program such as membership requirements (number of times someone needs to attend sac meeting, etc.) and the fellowshipping of new members.

So in terms of real-growth, those who stay active, the smaller number of missionaries since raise-the-bar went into effect are growing the church more than the prior group.

Prior to raise-the-bar, 15% of the missionaries did nothing, and it took another 15% of the mission force to "babysit" them, so in effect, 30% of missionaries prior to raising the bar were ineffective or essentially unproductive.

By the way, I've decided to not respond to the nattering nabobs of negativism when they post anonymously and won't even choose a consistent handle. It's a hobby for people from a certain anti and ex-mo web site to come here and yank Jeff's (and the readers') chain. I don't think we are obligated to respond to pure snark.

Anonymous said...

Jared, I just re-read my post, I came off as a bit nasty, sorry about that, I certainly could have worded most of it better.
But, to the point of comic booky, I just think it reads like bad literature. The characters in the BOM are so one sided, and as you know, people are not that way. No normal person is evil, or so righteous. So, it reads like a Lord of the Rings type of book.
Can you name any group/nation/tribe of people today that are pure evil? I can certainly name some groups that I disagree with, but none like are described in the BOM.
As to LDS Missionaries, it is about 50,000 world wide and went up to 60,000 I think at some point but is back down to 50,000 or so. I think it is a good indication of how much the church grows. I remember seeing it was at 50,000 back in the early 80s. Why still at that number?
OK, anyway, be well, and sorry again for some of my word usage.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zerabp said...

@ Anon

I don't think you know what one-sided means as the only character remotely one sided is Nephi and coincidentally that's because everything is written from his point of view. He does show us momentarily though that there are sides we don't read about in his lament. I doubt you'll find to many journals that show a person in a multifaceted light. Now if you meant one-sided as in good and or evil, considering it's the various authors of the books goals to show the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, righteousness and unrighteousness, why would they go over the good points of a bad guy or the bad points of a good guy? In case you didn't know while grays exist and are prevalent all around they are utterly useless for contrast, this is both for color and behavior. Anyone who's purpose is to make a contrast is going to show the blacks and the whites because the grays will only muddy their point and blur the contrast being made. Also you obviously haven't read The Lord of the Rings as the characters presented are very far from Black and white and all of them including some of the, bad guys remain blatantly in the gray, but I digress..... Although its funny that you chose to compare what is universally thought of by critics, professors, writers, scholars etc. As a masterpiece of literary achievement on every scale (aka one of the best pieces of literature written rivaling even Shakespeare) as an example of poor literature. You must not read much.

Anonymous said...

Z, sorry, could not understand half of what you said. Your run on sentences and bad grammar make it difficult to understand. Sorry, I do not rate Lord of the Rings as a "literary achievement on every scale " LOL But that you do tells me more about you.
I will take my Tolstoy any day over Tolkien. From the little that was comprehensible in your writing, you assume a lot and know very little.
Sounds more like you are having a fit someone dared to criticize the BOM for being boring. Sorry, it is a sleeper.
And FYI, I read the LOTR series sitting on a beach in Bali one wonderful summer. Good books, but reading about good and evil in such black and white terms does not do it for me. I prefer a little more Dostoyevsky in my life than comic book reading, aka the BOM.

Pops said...

@anon - you need to get more into the text and stop relying on memory. [I learned that lesson the hard way in a previous comment.] For example, I just read this morning how Lehi murmured against the Lord, then was chastened and humbled and repented. Sounds pretty human to me. That's just one example.

Bear in mind that the Book of Mormon is largely a "Reader's Digest Condensed Book" that was written for a specific purpose. If you want the full narrative, you'll have to wait along with the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Pops, I am going to go back and 'try' to read it again.
Z, "Although its funny that you chose to compare what is universally thought of by critics, professors, writers, scholars etc. As a masterpiece of literary achievement on every scale (aka one of the best pieces of literature written rivaling even Shakespeare) as an example of poor literature. You must not read much."
WOW! Amazing anyone can understand half of that. But I digress, besides making little to no sense You are obviously guilty of what you accuse me of. I said "No normal person is evil, or so righteous. So, it reads like a Lord of the Rings type of book. "
Never once did I say LOTR was poor literature.
Oh the irony of your comment. LOL " YOU must not read much"

Anonymous said...

@anon 10:57am

*Shakes head in shame at the utter contempt, arrogance, and atrociously vague comments made by this sad poster. I think everyone here would do well to ignore, pity, and pray for him/her.

Tom the Younger said...

No need to feed the trolls.

Anonymous said...

@2:01 AM
What arrogance to assume someone needs your prayers because they think your book is boring.
"atrociously vague comments "
Nothing vague about it, your book is a sleeper. It reads like a bad comic book. What part of that is not clear to you?
Face it, people leave your religion more for that book than for being offended by some rude or ignorant members.
That you think someone is sad because they don't believe in magic, says more about your mental state than anything else.
Here is a hint, people in cults, don't know they are in cults. Everyone on the outside recognizes what it is, but those inside just think it is an elite group of people in possession of some sacred eternal truths.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Well the most obvious answer I would give to anyone leveraging Revelations 22 as being some sort of commandment saying you can't add anything to the Bible is a simple one. One that seems to elude most people making such an argument.

At the time John wrote that, there was no "Bible".

So if a person is happy getting all of their information from the Catholic Church via the Council of Nicea and the Council of Trent, where they, the Roman church decided what books we ought or ought not read, then that's fine.

Of course my next question to them would naturally be, "they why aren't you Catholic". lol

Personally, I think if one wants to consider themselves Christian, then let that person focus on the teachings of Christ, as they appear in the 4 Gospels. That's where the meat of Christianity lies. From a Biblical perspective its the only place where his teachings actually exist. Of course if you're Mormon you can read the same things in the Book of Mormon, with minor additions or clarifications.

But regardless I think focusing on the teachings of Jesus would be the first place for someone wanting to call themselves "Christian" would want to begin.

Get that down, and then let them come talk to me about the mysteries.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous said...

That you think someone is sad because they don't believe in magic,



You believe in magic too. Of course you probably don't know it. But you do.

You believe that 14.5 billion years ago, a tiny sub atomic particle known as a "quark" or more aptly put, "the Primordial quark" was acted on by some unknown force, superheated and expanded creating all matter in the known universe, including space and time.

Yet you cannot name the force that acted on this sub atomic particle, and you can't identify the action that generated the force. Nor can you name the "stuff" that caused the action that acted on the particle. Nor can you name the process that created the stuff, that created the action that acted on the particle. Nor can you identify....

See how it works?

God, whoever, whatever that may be, left a token for us all if we'd just ask the question, honestly and with a real desire to know. He left a roadmap to the supernatural, right there for anyone who bothers to examine it for a moment. That answer, ultimately leads us to the supernatural, whatever that might be. Whatever it is, its supernatural. Beyond the comprehension of our mortal brains to fathom or even speculate on. That one question dogging all of science since before Lamatra, before Socrates.

Where did it all begin?

You can go back to the Plank Epoch, back to the Big Bang if you like. And perhaps some day we can even go back further.

But we'll never go back, all the way. Without the introduction of the supernatural then there is just no point to which we will ever be able to simply state "it all started here".

Because there will always be a before that. There has to be. And there cannot be. And that's the divine conundrum God left for every person thinking themselves of a scientific mind to ponder.

Because ultimately, the answer is going to lead to something divine, beyond our mortal comprehension. And that's when the idea of God, becomes a scientific one.

Anonymous said...

WOW, so that which we have not yet discovered is called magic?? I would have to disagree with you on that, but of course, Religion has always called things that could not yet be explained, Magic. Thunder, lightning, earthquakes, floods, All magical and done because of some mood God was in according to Religion. Of course, later when science could explain these things, we no longer blamed it on God. I see you continue to follow in that early tradition though. So, to answer your question, I do see how that works.

Sorry, not being able to name the force that acted on this sub atomic particle does not mean someone believes in magic.
Magic is believing that "Enoch built a city which ascended to heaven with him. Joseph Smith said the City of Enoch was taken up from the Gulf of Mexico leaving only the water, so the land under the city also ascended. That City of Enoch (or Zion) will return to earth in the last days and join with the people in the New Jerusalem yet to be built in Jackson County, Missouri, by Mormons. While the earth is being cleansed or renewed for the millennial reign of Christ, the City of Enoch will be taken off of the earth again along with Old Jerusalem and New Jerusalem."
That is one example of magic. You do believe in that right? ( I prefer to ask what you believe rather than TELL you what you believe, as you just did to me )
That science has not yet been able to name the force that acted on "the Primordial quark" is not magic.
I'm going to guess you can't see the difference though. You seem to take facts and bend them around your conclusions. Which is what religion is good at doing. There is water to drink, therefore there is a God that gave it to us. Not very good science if you ask me. But makes for a great all encompassing belief system.

J said...

Revelations 22:18-19 is one of the weakest claims against the Book of Mormon.

The funny thing about Revelations 22:18-22 is that various Christians have used that passage against other Christians simply because their bible version/translation is not the one they use.

I wrote a blog about about this very topic: http://ldsphronistery.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-wars.html

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous said...

WOW, so that which we have not yet discovered is called magic?? I would have to disagree with you on that, but of course, Religion has always called things that could not yet be explained, Magic. Thunder, lightning, earthquakes, floods, All magical and done because of some mood God was in according to Religion. Of course, later when science could explain these things, we no longer blamed it on God. I see you continue to follow in that early tradition though. So, to answer your question, I do see how that works.

Sorry, not being able to name the force that acted on this sub atomic particle does not mean someone believes in magic.



Sure it does. Because I didn't ask you to simply "name the force that acted on the sub atomic particle".

I asked you to identify that, then identify the stuff that created the force, then identify the process that created the stuff, and on down the line.

I asked you a question, ...that the human mind can not only not fathom, but cannot even speculate upon.

If you took all the computers in the world and all the scientists in the world, and worked on the question full time for 50 years you could not even begin to speculate as to the answer, ...without moving into the realm of the supernatural.

What you call magic.

There is not only no answer to this question, there is no plausible scientific hypothesis to answer it.

So I call it supernatural, you call it magic. But magic it is.

But like most atheists, you'll simply "stop" at one point. You'll never bother to really ask the question, because the answer does not fit neatly with need to dismiss the notion of a deity. You'll simply sit back and do like early flat earthers and declare "its beyond me" and "it doesn't matter".

When you can confront that question, not the pruned question you asked, but the actual question I posed, then you'll be on your way to opening your mind.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous said...That is one example of magic. You do believe in that right?

Nope.

I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. Don't know. Unlike those of religion who have made up their minds, and unlike the atheists who have made up their minds, I'm of the persuasion of those who actually are able to admit they do not know things that they do not know.

I know no more that that event happened, then I know what force acted on the sub atomic particle to create all matter in the universe, or what reaction that generated that force, or what stuff that caused the reaction, or what process created that stuff, or wha....

Being able to ask questions, I mean really ask questions, and put off our desires to know it all, (or act like we do)is in my humble estimation, the only way to find actual answers.

Flavius Noseephus said...

And with regards to telling you what you believe, I'm just going off what you said. You don't believe in a God.

Fine. No ones asking you to. At least I'm not.

But that leaves you with a Universe, that created itself. That leaves you with sub atomic particles that some force acted on, a force which has no origins. Which cannot be traced back to any source, and with no beginnings. Matter that creates itself. Actions without actors. Energy without reactions.

And that my friend, is as magical as it gets.

Sherry said...

J,

The trouble with your blog, http://ldsphronistery.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-wars.html, is that you constantly refer to the differences between Christians and LDS. What's that all about?

Anonymous said...

Flavius, "And with regards to telling you what you believe, I'm just going off what you said. You don't believe in a God."
Actually you are not. As I never said that, you can copy paste and quote me where you think I did though. Never said it, so you just assumed it, made it up, like Magic :).

"But that leaves you with a Universe, that created itself. That leaves you with sub atomic particles that some force acted on, a force which has no origins. Which cannot be traced back to any source, and with no beginnings. Matter that creates itself. Actions without actors. Energy without reactions. "

That is quite a straw man you just built. Piece by flawed piece. It is wonderful to look at when you step back and see it all. A tower built on assumptions. A marvelous work and a wonder. A sight to behold. OK OK, so you like to build straw men. Fine. Sorry, your little story does not work though. You claim science says one thing, then beat it up for what you think it said. That does not really work.

Because you don't know, or can't find, or it is not yet known, you believe God did it all. We are back to the, There is water for us to drink, therefore God has given it to us. I would love to see your empirical evidence showing that God was that force that created the universe. You demand it of science, so you must demand it of your own belief system. Or is rational thought thrown out when buying into a belief system?

Because science has not yet discovered the answer to many things, you claim there is no answer other than a mystical magical man that lives in the air.
As I stated before, Man has been doing this since the beginning of time. And you are here doing it again today. Kinda cavemanish isn't it?
Here is a question for you. When was Religion ever right in describing a natural event? When was religion ever found to be correct, where science held an opposing view? In the physical world, when has religion ever been able to accurately define something that science has not?
Science does not try to define the spiritual, but Religion sure likes to define the physical world. Problem is, they get it wrong all the time. If that is not the case, please show me.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous said...

Flavius, "And with regards to telling you what you believe, I'm just going off what you said. You don't believe in a God."
Actually you are not. As I never said that, you can copy paste and quote me where you think I did though. Never said it, so you just assumed it, made it up, like Magic :).



I didn't make anything up, particularly "magic".

Here, since you don't recall your own words.

Anonymous said...

That you think someone is sad because they don't believe in magic, says more about your mental state than anything else.



When you ridicule someones religious beliefs its a reasonable assumption to conclude you are an atheist. People of faith tend to have more class than that.

And considering you just made the argument that the universe was not created by a deity, ridiculing the idea that it might have been,....well....whether atheist by intent or design doesn't really matter at that point.

Of course feel free to share your rich belief system with me if you like, to show me you're not an atheist if that's what you want. I could really care less mind you, but since you're so intent now on trying to ridicule my making a natural assumption based on your words, that's fine. You assumed I was a believer and incorrectly so, so I guess we're even.

Feel free to tell me what your beliefs are since I was so wrong in concluding that a guy who mocks the beliefs of others as "magic" and who argues against the notion of the universe being created by a deity was an atheist.

The nerve of me.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous said...

Because you don't know, or can't find, or it is not yet known, you believe God did it all



lol, didn't you just climb up on your high horse to lecture me about making assumptions about the beliefs of others?

Where exactly did I make that statement Mr Non DePlume?

Where exactly did I state that I "believe God did it all"?

I said I didn't know.

And neither do you.

It is however a common trait of atheists I've found, to label anyone willing to pose the notion a believer in something. Of course, we know you're not an atheist because you so vehemently ridiculed the notion, but just by way of mention.

What I did say was that the answer ultimately leads to the supernatural, that beyond the comprehension of the human brain.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous said...

Science does not try to define the spiritual, but Religion sure likes to define the physical world. Problem is, they get it wrong all the time. If that is not the case, please show me.


Please show you? Ok. Not a problem.

The Big Bang theory we currently still hold true from a scientific perspective,(although there are some variations on it) was brought to you courtesy of a Roman Catholic Priest named Georges Lemaître.

So there's an instance of where the religionists got their religion in our science, and got it right.

Problem with some religionists, and most atheists, is they think there's no room for the two to collaborate. And that's just not a good approach to science.

True science wants the truth. The facts. And it doesn't care where they come from, or what they consist of.

Atheists however tend to not like the idea of religion being involved in science. Of course not saying that's you...just sayin...

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous Here is a question for you. When was Religion ever right in describing a natural event? When was religion ever found to be correct, where science held an opposing view?

Just being redundant here, as again we turn to a Roman Catholic Priest, and his desire to support his church's teachings by disproving the then contemporary theory of a cosmological constant. A universe which always existed did not correlate with the Roman Catholic belief in the Genesis creation, so Lemaître set out to disprove science and their theory while supporting his own church doctrine.

Surprised you didn't know this, but oh well. Now you do.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous said...


Because science has not yet discovered the answer to many things, you claim there is no answer other than a mystical magical man that lives in the air.


First, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that for someone who doesn't like being called an atheist, you sure seem to have their coined phrases down.

"magical man that lives in the air"?

Oh but you're not an atheist...no sir, you just ridicule the idea of a God by belittling the belief systems of billions by reducing it to nonsense, then mocking the nonsense you create.

It never ceases to amaze me the atheists tactic of defining for the believers the deity they themselves claim not to believe in. Of course you're not an atheist, right? You just talk exactly like one.

Now, as to the part of "science has yet to discover", I've got news for you and the god of science you worship. Science won't answer that question. They can't. Because there is no answer the human mind is capable of contemplating.

With most things, science can at least speculate. Hypothesize. Theorize. We may not yet have figured it out, but we can at least speculate.

Except for two questions that have haunted mankind since the dawn of recorded history.

Question 1. How far does the universe go, and what's beyond that, and then that, and then that.....

Question 2. Where did it all begin..and when we find that beginning, what's beyond that? What started that, then that, then that, then that.....


Where is the actual edge of everything, and what got it all started.

Two questions that not only do we not have answers to, but we cannot even begin to speculate on.

There is no process of thought, no area of our consciousness that is capable of even speculating on a theory. And that's where the supernatural comes in. Doesn't mean its a god but it doesn't mean its not. What it does mean is something supernatural, beyond what our natural minds can fathom. Ever. If we could, there would at least be theories by now. There are none.

The greatest minds of this world have come and gone without ever posing even a remotely plausible, however fantastic hypothesis for these 2 simple questions.

And that's why I am able to comfortably answer when someone asks me mockingly, do you believe the story of Noah, or the city of Enoch, etc, I can look them square in the eye (or keyboard, lol)and say truthfully, 'I just don't know'. Because I don't.

And neither do you.

Anonymous said...

Wow F, you sure post lots, just to prove you got it wrong. I missed the part where you copy pasted me saying "I don't believe in a God."
Rather than be so verbose spouting nonsense, how about an actual apology? You know, like saying, UH UH, well I just assumed it cause you used the word magic, huh huh huh. Funny how you equate my using the word magic with God. Magic had nothing to do with his belief in God. But you being the king of assumptions, would not understand that. You prefer to assume then act as if it were fact. More bad science. Says a lot about your thought process or lack of one.
"There is no process of thought, no area of our consciousness that is capable of even speculating on a theory. And that's where the supernatural comes in. " More nonsense.
In fact most of what you post is nonsense, and has no basis in fact.
A Roman Catholic Priest now represents religion and its views on the physical world? Rather than post nonsense, the smart thing to do would be to just admit you assume a lot, don't know much about science, and blame everything you don't know on the supernatural.
"When you ridicule someones religious beliefs its a reasonable assumption to conclude you are an atheist. People of faith tend to have more class than that."
Please don't use big words like class that you seem to know little about. From what you said I would have to assume you are an atheist too.
BTW, unlike you, I can say with certainty that there was no Global flood that killed everything that had the breath of life other than what was on the ark.
But you are free to continue on your supernatural believing way, seeing magic and undefined forces in all the things your mind can't comprehend. "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Anonymous said...

"The greatest minds of this world have come and gone without ever posing even a remotely plausible, however fantastic hypothesis for these 2 simple questions. " WOW! amazing.
One of the most interesting questions considered by astrophysicists deals with the start of our universe. Indeed, there is a great deal of speculation on the subject, with different theories about how the universe began, and what may have existed before the universe came into being.

a-new-theory-of-the-universe/
woooooooo

Flavius Noseephus said...

At 3:17 AM, May 04, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow F, you sure post lots, just to prove you got it wrong. I missed the part where you copy pasted me saying "I don't believe in a God."



I instead posted where you mocked and ridiculed the notion of one, as a "magic man in the air".

When you ridicule the notion of God, then ridicule the notion that he created the heavens and the earth, you've painted yourself into a corner with regards to atheism.

Whether by intent or design, your words are what I addressed.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous said...

Wow F, you sure post lots, just to prove you got it wrong. I missed the part where you copy pasted me saying "I don't believe in a God."
Rather than be so verbose spouting nonsense, how about an actual apology? You know, like saying, UH UH, well I just assumed it cause you used the word magic, huh huh huh. Funny how you equate my using the word magic with God. Magic had nothing to do with his belief in God. But you being the king of assumptions, would not understand that. You prefer to assume then act as if it were fact. More bad science. Says a lot about your thought process or lack of one.
"There is no process of thought, no area of our consciousness that is capable of even speculating on a theory. And that's where the supernatural comes in. " More nonsense.
In fact most of what you post is nonsense, and has no basis in fact.
A Roman Catholic Priest now represents religion and its views on the physical world? Rather than post nonsense, the smart thing to do would be to just admit you assume a lot, don't know much about science, and blame everything you don't know on the supernatural.


You're the one who apparently is ignorant of science, or even of what you write one minute from the next.

You asked for an example of where religion corrected science.

I gave you a prime example. One where a mans religious convictions drove him to correct the current scientific notion of the cosmological constant, and introduced the "Big Bang" theory correcting Einstein.

And the fact you call it nonsense shows your ignorance of the events, not mine. That's something most kids in school know, surprised you didn't.

So the only nonsense is your vague generalities and personal insults that you offer in response to the factual information I responded to your challenge with.

You asked for just one case where religion corrected science.

I gave you one, one every school kid likely is aware of, and you come back with insults, demands for apologies and general dismissals without actually addressing any of the facts presented to you.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous said...

Indeed, there is a great deal of speculation on the subject, with different theories about how the universe began, and what may have existed before the universe came into being.


Wrong.

There are none.

You're talking about "POINTS IN CREATION".

I'm talking about the "BEGINNING".

And there are NO speculations, theories, hypothesis, etc that address this.

You can go to a POINT in creation, but you cannot go to the very beginning of it.

But feel free to "wow" us with your wisdom. Feel free to give me one plausible theory as to how it all began.

Points in creation, points in pre creation, do not even remotely address the issue of the absolute beginning. That's where science breaks down, (and your arguments) and the supernatural begins.

Alan said...

Acts 28:24 - "And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not."


Anyway, great post about the Millenium!

Flavius Noseephus said...

Agreed Alan, although you're leaving out one group. Those of us who don't know, and who are willing to admit they don't know and instead are asking questions, rather than answering them.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous

BTW, unlike you, I can say with certainty that there was no Global flood that killed everything that had the breath of life other than what was on the ark.



You can say it. You say a lot with certainty that you obviously know little about. Like not knowing that a Roman Catholic Priest corrected the entire scientific community on the origins of the universe.

And here you're painfully unaware of some of the evidence providing at least for the possibility of a global flood. In fact evidence of a massive influx of salt water into the Dead Sea pointing to a flood of some epic proportions occurring roughly 7500 years ago. In fact, go back 2 billion years or so and you'll find our planet was a "waterworld".

So no, you don't know that the great flood did not occur, anymore than others know that it did. But there is evidence to support it, and evidence against it. So the juries out on the matter, and for many Christians and Jews its a matter of faith. Others assume its an allegorical tale, and atheists of course mock and ridicule the story while professing to "know it did not happen".

Of course now you've made it clear you're not an atheist, you just happen to sound exactly like one, and use the same insulting phrases and terms they use, to mock the belief systems of others.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Here, don't know if this is an appropriate venue, casting my pearls before the swine as it were, (come on, lighten up, lil joke there) but here's a piece I wrote a while back that touches on our discussion here and the scientific logic behind the plausibility of a deity as well as the problems with bad science like creationism.

I have to post it in several comments because its so long. Hope this helps.

Part 1.

--------------------------

In 1633 Pope Urban the VIII ordered a Tuscan Physicist and Astronomer named Galileo Galilei to stand trial under the auspices of the Holy Inquisition, for the crime of Heresy. Like many of his predecessors, Galileo's findings often ran contrary to church teachings, including several key passages of scripture which defined the earth as a stationary object in which all other heavenly objects must revolve. Galileo's findings enhanced by the use of the first modern astronomical telescopes and the theories of Copernicus taught the blasphemous contention that the Sun was the center of the known universe and that the earth merely revolved around it. This concept, known as "heliocentric" was in direct contrast to the Bible which taught the earth is stationary and the other celestial bodies moved around it.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. -
Ecclesiastes 1:5

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved - 1
Chronicles 16:30

Galileo was subsequently confined to house arrest for the remainder of his life, and he was compelled to publicly recant his assertions of a sun centered universe. And unfortunately this wasn't the only case of Church's influence in science, as expressed by the "Suppression of Heresy" throughout the ages. Keppler, Copernicus, and many others all felt the influence of the church in their attempts to enlighten mankind as to the true nature of the universe in which we reside. Scientific knowledge it seemed, was an enemy to religion.

Today the enmity between science and religion continues, and unfortunately, a belief system that has recently gained widespread support seeks to once more silence or impede mankind's understanding of the cosmos, and the universe in which we live by imposing its own untested and unproven belief system into the classroom and the courtroom. That unproved belief system is generally referred to as "atheism".

Atheism is defined as either a "lack of belief in a deity or deities" or a "belief that there is no deity or deities". But don't let an Atheist hear that last one. Learning their lack of belief is actually a form of belief is more than most atheist minds can handle. Spell it out for them and most will blow a head gasket. But it is nonetheless a form of belief. After all, the atheist can neither prove his claims that a deity or deities do not exist any more than the theist can prove that a deity or deities do exist. And a claim that cannot be proved must be relegated to a belief.

ATHEISM:

The doctrine that there is no deity - Mirriam-Webster Dictionary

The doctrine or belief that there is no God - Princeton University Wordnet

The doctrine or belief that there is no God - Dictionary.com

Flavius Noseephus said...

While atheists will no doubt balk at the concept that what to them constitutes science is to the rest of the world merely a belief, like the beliefs of the theists which can be neither proved nor disproved which is why they are both belief systems. Only one is a belief system of hope, and one is a belief system of despair. In theistic belief systems, the glass is usually at least half full. In Atheism, there isn't any glass at all. Atheism thrives on the here and now, which for many is an unbearable existence. Think of the starving, abused, diseased, etc of the world. Those who live harsh, cruel lives in third world countries, die young, having never seen a day of joy in their lives. What does Atheism say for them and their lives? They lived, they suffered, and now they're worm food. Perhaps, but to most people who have lived a few years, this is unseemly, particularly once we delve a little deeper into our own existence, and the unlikelihood of it all.This is a depressing and gloomy view of life, and while the atheist will proclaim as loudly as the religious zealot the veracity of his "beliefs", they are nonetheless based in mere speculation and do not withstand the acid test of science.

Science on the other hand makes more specific observations, and good science does not seek to credit nor discredit the existence of a deity or deities but instead seeks to show us what can be demonstrated or proved and help expand our minds to ponder that which cannot. Unfortunately science does not stop there, and today, like the partisan politics of the ultra-conservative republican Christian right, and the liberals who tend to posses the majority of the atheist population, science, or at least its advocates are now essentially at war with the theists and religionist's, primarily due to the actions of a growing misguided ultra conservative and ultra ignorant branch of Christianity known as "evangelicalism" and a new ultra liberal movement presenting itself under the misnomer of "Progressivism". On the one hand, Evangelical Christians for some reason have decided to focus on the Torah, a book that was written for the Jews, instead of the New Testament, which contains the deeds and words of he who's name they claim to bear. And in doing so have seemingly based their faith on several untenable positions including the unfortunate conclusion that the earth upon which we dwell spun into existence a brief 6000 years ago, which of course anyone with a 6th grade education and a modicum of reason knows is incorrect. The earth is approximately 4.5 Billion years old, give or take a few millenia, and the universe about 3 times that figure, or some 13 billion years old. There is no doubt that the earth is definitely older than 6000 years and our current calculations which have held up for decades are most likely correct.

In fact, this contention is the key factor driving science and religion apart today. The religious doctrine of "intelligent design" being forced in the classroom, the introduction of museums claiming to be scientific that teach the 6000 year creation and sport exhibits of early man riding saddled dinosaurs, along with other attempts by the ultra Conservative "evangelical" Christians to compel the rest of us to accept their infantile accounts of creation and explanations that were disproved in the dark ages is fueling this polarization between the two schools of thought, and modern science propped up by progressive atheism is committed to muzzle any talk of the spiritual or supernatural. After all, science, still smarting from a few thousand years of stifling persecution that slowed and often halted mankind's knowledge by the mother church at Rome is not keen at giving the religionists any leverage in the classroom again, particularly given recent attempts to reopen such debates as the Scopes Monkey Trials and the forcing of intelligent design in the classroom.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Thus an ever widening chasm between those in science convinced that atheism is the only valid conclusion and the "pseudo-educated" who's education is hampered by the teachings of a few misguided religionists who declare their interpretations of the scriptures to be above science, as well as all other interpretations, and thus substitute faith for untenable positions like the 6000 year creation period.



On the other hand we have the new "progressives" in which atheism has become the standard, and those not ascribing to this belief system are mocked, ridiculed and ultimately driven out of progressive blogs and groups by the closed mindedness of those calling themselves progressive. Religion and faith have become a subject of ridicule and scorn among the new progressive liberals, and making sport of the spiritual is the mainstay of the movement. All one needs do to confirm this is mention personal beliefs in a progressive blog, or turn on shows like "Real Time", with Bill Maher and observe as Maher mocks the very notion of a deity as ignorance, and superstition.

The fact is however, neither position is truly "open" nor intellectually honest. These are both "belief systems" that empower the believer to conclude the matter within their own minds and settle into the comfortable complacency of religious or atheistic fanaticism. The closed mind is after all a mind at peace with itself. It has concluded its quest for knowledge and now seeks to only reinforce those conclusions that it has already settled upon, regardless of how nonfactual those conclusions may turn out to be. Science requires an open mind until something has been proved or disproved. Thus the conclusion that a deity or deities do not exist is in fact an unscientific one. It is arrived at by the lack of conclusive demonstrable proof which is not a valid foundation for basing such a sweeping conclusion upon. The lack of proof that a God or god's exist is not in and of itself a scientific benchmark for concluding that one or all does not. After all, many correct scientific theories were made long before proof or even demonstrable evidence could be shown indicating their validity.

Example. Around 1800 a German physician named Franz Joseph Gall developed a theory known as Phrenology, which speculated as to the localization of brain function. At the time there was no demonstrable evidence of this new science, and it was entirely based on Gall's observations that essentially equated to reading the bumps on peoples heads. In fact Gall got it all wrong with regards to the functional areas of the brain and their respective locations. Nonetheless, the concept was correct. Localized function was indeed true and valid science, and Dr Gall's "intuitions" were indeed right on target, at least with regards to the concept of localization. The fact that it had not yet been proved did not diminish the veracity of localized brain function. And this is just one example in a long line of theories based on intuition and general observation that later were proved by demonstrable experiments and or evidence.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Another example can be found in the observations of the Greek Astronomer Aristarchus who lived almost 2000 years before the first astronomical telescopes were invented. During the time of Aristarchus, astronomy consisted of what could be seen with the naked eye, and was mingled with astrology and the occult. To the naked eye, the earth is stationary and the planets, and stars seem to rise and fall around us, thus astronomy at the time of Aristarchus concluded that the earth was the center of the known universe and all else revolved around us. Aristarchus however concluded that the sun and not the earth was the central object of the cosmos, and that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around. And while Aristarchus had no valid demonstrable science to demonstrate this theory, in fact most of his calculations were wrong and were indeed based on incorrect observations and conclusions, he nonetheless was correct in that the earth indeed orbits the sun and not the other way around. Of course it wasn't until close to 2000 years later that his theory known as heliocentricity was proved correct by demonstrable and verifiable scientific observation, calculation and experiment. But that didn't negate the validity of the conclusion. Thus we see that the lack of demonstrable evidence does not necessarily disprove a theory and thus cannot be relied upon to reperesent any sort of theory as fact.

On the other hand,the appearance of demonstrable evidence does not always confirm a theory either. Several centuries after the death of the Greek astronomer Aristarchus who's accurate yet flawed methods correctly placed the sun and not the earth at the center of the known universe (which now constitutes merely our solar system), the Roman astronomer, Ptolemy, (Claudius Ptolemaeus) presented the world with his own geocentric model of the universe which ignored the hypotheses of Aristarchus and instead placed the earth back at the center of the universe, like Aristotle. However unlike Aristotle, Ptolemy's model actually provided accurate predictions of the positions of the planets, the stars and even accurately predicted eclipses. Ptolemy's model was thus widely adapted, even by the Arab world as it accurately provided a literal "celestial almanac" (which he actually published) that foretold the exact positions of the planets, stars and other heavenly objects and occurrences, on a provable, observable basis. There was in fact just one problem with Ptolemy's model of the solar system.

It was all wrong.

While his method could accurately tell us precisely where the planets would be at any given moment, as well as the positions of the stars and times of eclipse events, the method he used was inherently flawed. It required the earth to be at the center of the solar system and that, as Aristarchus accurately deduced, was not the case. This required Ptolemy to invent a complex and convoluted orbit for the planets, which included staggered loops in orbit at key intervals to make the math work. But it did work.

Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system was not at all accurate in its content, but in its predictive capabilities, it was spot on, thus demonstrating that just because a scientific theory works, doesn't mean it's good science. Ptolemy's predictions were right, but his formula was all wrong.

Given the above examples, its clear that bad science can sometimes produce good results, and good science can sometimes produce bad results. Therefore, the concept of a supernatural or supreme intelligence, or a spiritual plain of existence of some sort, falls at least in the category of reasonable hypotheses. After all, there is some peripheral evidence and reasonable conclusions that lead to the possibility of the existence of a deity, deities or at least, the supernatural.

Flavius Noseephus said...

One example would be the testimonies of billions of human beings over the expanse of recorded time. True their descriptions and explanations differ but most of them point to a deity or deities and a spiritual plain of existence of some kind and thus share a common discernible thread. One can dismiss them all as collectively deluded if one chooses but that doesn't remove their testimonies nor does it discredit them. The fact is one characteristic that humans seem to possess is a belief in the supernatural, and life before and or after this life. Its a common thread shared by most civilizations (although not all) throughout recorded time. And we can also recognize that human intuition often is demonstrated to be correct, regardless of the validity of the supporting data. Unsupported intuition is often correct as we saw so plainly with the deductions of Aristarchus and Dr Gall. And supported intuition as demonstrated by Ptolemy can be based on incorrect foundations. Therefore to dismiss the theists because of poor evidence, or even a lack thereof is to act in an unscientific manner. And this is what the A-Theist does.

In fact, science ultimately points to the existence of the supernatural, at least with regards to creation of space-time, matter and all existence.

Science teaches us that some 13.73 billion years ago our universe as we know it came into existence through an event known commonly as the "big bang", which consisted of a sub atomic particle known as a quark (Higgs-Boson Quark) being highly compressed to an "infinite density" while simultaneously being super-heated to an incredible temperature not measurable in modern science. A heat so hot that it cannot literally be described. This caused the mass to expand creating the compounds and noble gases that created all the matter existing today. In fact science can describe events to within nano seconds of this event to a period known as the Planck Epoch, which literally lasted about a trillionth of a second, where space time and gravity separated creating separate forces. And of course some science goes even further, with theories like the "Big Bounce" which contests that "our big bang" was not the "first" big bang, but merely a link in a chain of events where the universe is created and destroyed in an infinite cycle of expansion and implosion. But none of these theories addresses answers the one question that faith and religion has sought to answer since the dawn of recorded history. Creation after all must define the moment when matter itself came into existence. Not "our" matter but all matter. After all, if the first sub atomic particle was compressed and super-heated until it rapidly expanded from some yet un-theorized force creating all of the known universe, where did it come from? Where did the matter for the "primordial atom" come from, and how was it created? Science stops there, or more accurately, a few nanoseconds from that point. Prior to the big bang, science does not seem to want to tread. Sure the super collider experiments hope to produce a Higgs-Boson particle by smashing atoms together at near the speed of light, hoping to demonstrate that random creation of sub atomic particles is possible. Atheists point to this on blogs throughout the web asserting that this proves a God does not exist because this "random occurrence of matter" was proven in the laboratory (if they manage to produce one, which as of this writing, they have not). The irony here of course should be evident to even the most casual reader.

Flavius Noseephus said...

What is random about a multi billion dollar machine, all of the men, resources and materials required to build it, and the massive amounts of energy required to build it? How is this "something from nothing"? Its as if the atheists are not aware of the presence of the "experimentors" in the experiement, or their required involvement to make this "random occurance of matter" occur. So too they ignore the obvious when it comes to the big bang theory, and the creation of space time and all matter in it. They ignore the obvious question, i.e. what created that first sub atomic particle, and what force of energy caused it to expand. And of course when they find that, they'll need to ask what action or reaction created that energy. And when they find that.... you get the point.

That they "always existed" is likewise not an answer. Not a scientific one anyway. This explanation offered by a atheist (with a straight face) is in and of itself, supernatural. How long in an "always"? When does an "always" begin? If an always never began, then we are defining matter, or our universe, as "eternal". And the concept of "eternal" existence, even if we're just referring to a sub-atomic particle, is just about as supernatural of a concept as one could produce. For something to be "eternal" is beyond the realm of science as demonstrated in the disproving of Einstein's "cosmological constant" and thus cannot be demonstrated nor comprehended in the pretext of human understanding. Science teaches of actions and reactions, cause and effect. Not "forever". But what is even more difficult to correlate is the concept of trying to explain what force or energy first stirred in the early morning dawn of creation, that caused the first expansion of matter and the creation of space-time. In order for whatever reaction occurred, some "action" must have occurred prior to the initial event in order for the event to have occurred in the first place. If the original "stuff" was superheated then where did the energy come from to create the heat? These questions point to the logical deduction that the matter was not created from "nothing" and the event was not singular at all but merely a naturally occurring (albeit infrequent) process that most likely has occurred before and will occur again. After all, the concept of "something from nothing" is usually the argument made by the theist, and not the atheist, or the scientist. Yet when cornered on the question of pre-primordial matter and energy most atheists and scientists are reduced to the something from nothing theory which is no theory at all, but merely capitulation to the looming supernatural possibilities that are evident at that point. Some will attempt to delay the inevitable by hypothesizing on the "Big Bounce" theory and others that point to "our" big bang being only one of many but ultimately they all arrive at the same point. What happened before that? And what created that, caused that, etc... The question is binary. Either all things appeared from nothing in some manner that can only be described as supernatural from our perspective, or something always existed, which of course demands the eternal which is also a supernatural concept from our temporal, physical perspective.

Flavius Noseephus said...

I recently read an article by an apparent atheist trying to discredit these questions as "the questions of children" while he went on to explain the natural condition of "space-time being created from nothing". In his strained logic he attempts to discredit the supernatural while in the same breath concluding that all matter, including space time and gravity sprang forth from nothing. He used the fact that sub atomic particles randomly appear in a particle accelerator to validate his claim that there was "nothing" before the big bang, and that all matter was literally created from "nothing", albeit minus a creator. He concludes therefore that it is perfectly natural for matter to just randomly appear out of nothing and purports this scientifically untenable position as fact. This of course is an intellectually lazy argument that ends where it should begin. Concluding that because the sub atomic particle "seems" to appear from nothing, that it must therefore be natural for matter to be created from nothing is neither a scientific nor even a logical deduction. In fact it dismisses several schools of scientific thought, including dimensional theory, which is the most likely explanation for the random appearance of sub atomic particles in the super collider.

Clearly logic dictates that this confirms not the absurd notion of something from nothing, but instead the validity of a multi-dimensional universe. After all, scientists have speculated for decades that gravity is actually seeping into our universe from another, perhaps master dimension, not to mention that black holes themselves also support the existence of a multi-dimensional universe. Black holes are created when a massive star collapses upon itself and becomes infinitely dense, and hot (sound familiar?) and thus explodes, appearing to rip a hole in the fabric of space time. The spinning hole literally draws in all matter unlucky enough to move within its gravitational pull. This matter includes even light and gravity, which like all matter drawn in, disappears once passing the edge of the black hole, referred to as the Event Horizon. It does not eject from the other side. It does not "burn up" and leave gas or residual matter. It simply seems to "disappear" beyond the Event Horizon, no more to be seen or measured, which could indicate the presence of other dimensions, not visible to the physical dimension in which we exist, yet that are nonetheless real.

Thus the supernatural is just that which cannot be explained by natural laws of this universe, which something in another dimension of course cannot be, until that dimension can be measured or observed. And if that dimension cannot be directly observed, then perhaps its effect on this dimension can be, so some might argue, like the author of the above referenced article attempts to, that this makes it not "supernatural" but simply natural yet advanced. This of course constitutes merely a word game designed to distract from the obvious significance of other dimensions, and their implications with regards to the idea of a "spiritual" plain of existence that may indeed be real, just difficult to quantify in this physical dimension in which we exist.

In other words, science, quantum theory, string theory, standard theory, all point to at least the possibility of another dimension in which one might define the "spiritual" places which religion has for so long testified to the existence of. While it may not be a correct deduction, it certainly is a plausible deduction that one could make given the information available. After all if a dimension in which we can neither see, nor measure, does indeed exist and accounts for the spontaneous appearance of matter in this dimension, then its certainly viable that this dimension that may exist in parallel with ours could therefore provide a foundation for the "spirit world" belief held by so many religions and belief systems throughout recorded history.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Clearly science does neither prove nor disprove the existence of a deity or an afterlife or the existence of a spiritual plane of existence. But when one examines the current collective knowledge and wisdom on the matter of creation, clearly science does at least permit for the possibility of the spiritual, and not in a mystical, but in a natural and real sense, only to be understood as our understanding of dimensional theory expands as does our ability to observe and or measure dimensional impact. Until that time, the presentation of atheism as scientific deduction is an erroneous assumption and is not conducive to learning, but in fact is a catalyst for intellectual stagnation and conclusions that are based not on science, but on personal beliefs that do not always hold up in the light of science.

Belief in a deity, an afterlife, a primordial existence, etc, are thus no longer relegated to the realm of the theists but instead offer new and challenging questions for science and the rest of us to examine and contemplate.

Flavius Noseephus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

F, I would have to give you a failing grade on all accounts. You continue to perpetuate the notion that something unknown has supernatural forces working on it. How about some evidence of that? Real evidence this time, not a billion people can't be wrong type of evidence. You post a lot but say nothing. You need to be schooled in the difference between religious beliefs and one catholic priest opposing the belief of his religion. It is ignorance of this difference that allows you to spout nonsense, with little understanding of science and lots of understanding of assuming everything you don't know can be explained away by the term 'supernatural'. You yourself call the supernatural magic, and your belief in magic disqualifies you from ever finding out the real answer to things. It is all Unfathomable to you, and beyond your understanding, so you just take a short cut and call it supernatural. That allows you to run around saying it is OK not to know things, as they are incomprehensible. You should also not assume someone does not know something because they didn't say it. You failed to answer the question where religion was correct about the natural world and science had it wrong. No idea how you think a catholic priest correcting the church ( religion) proves that. "Like not knowing that a Roman Catholic Priest corrected the entire scientific community on the origins of the universe." ASSumputions, more of them don't make you look smart, just make you look unread. You have no idea what I know and what I don't. That you call me an atheist because I said someone's book is boring, and the magic was a reference to the magic that brought about the book, not in a God. But since you failed to ask what you did not know, you started building straw men and then proceed to knock them down. Your whole belief system is based on your belief in magic. You work incidentals around that belief system so you can prop it up and continue on thinking the same way. Which would of course be, bad science. You talk a lot about science, but show you know little about it.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous said...

F, I would have to give you a failing grade on all accounts. You continue to perpetuate the notion that something unknown has supernatural forces working on it



Then I'd have to give you a failing grade on reading comprehension.

Because either you are illiterate, and cannot read or you are purposely and repeatedly misrepresenting everything I've written.

Go back and read what I wrote.

Find the part where I state that anything is proven.

Then try cleaning your glasses, and reading all the places where I repeatedly state I have no answers, only questions.

Lying about what I wrote and then pretending to dismiss it hardly constitutes an argument.

Flavius Noseephus said...

It is ignorance of this difference that allows you to spout nonsense, with little understanding of science and lots of understanding of assuming everything you don't know can be explained away by the term 'supernatural'.


Its ignorance to repeatedly lie about what I wrote.

And ignorance is repeatedly pretending to offer a counter argument without ever offering an actual argument.

Spouting vague general dismissals and lots of "Nuh uhs" is not an argument. When you've got some actual science to discredit the scientific facts, reasoning and logic I produced instead of just attacking me personally, you let me know.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous said...

Your whole belief system is based on your belief in magic.


I don't have a belief system genius.

I've repeatedly stated that.

How many times do you need that written for you before your superior intellect is able to actually read English?

Bookslinger said...

Flavious-Flave:

Dude, get a life.

Alan said...

One should not have to be super intelligent to have faith to believe. A child can do it.
I hope you find the answers you need.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Hi Alan, thanks for your advice however I guess the concept of my posts are lost here.

The position I purport, and the one that my comments spells out is not a matter of faith, belief or disbelief.

Its an honest look at logical plausibility of the existence of a deity, afterlife, spirit world, etc.

It is not an argument for nor against these things, I merely made the case for the possibility from a logical perspective.

If I had faith, I wouldn't drag it through the internet for all the knuckleheads to deride and ridicule as we've seen the propensity here to do. Sort of casting ones pearls before the swine as it were. I simply made a clear and thus far irrefutable case for at least the possibility of the existence of these things, in contrast to the atheist like claims to "know they are not real".

Sorry that concept was lost on this crowd. Thought there was a little more cerebral activity in here. Guess I was mistaken.

Anonymous said...

Flatulence Noseephus, It is either lying on your part of pure loss of memory as you continue to counter anything I say with nonsense. See, I had never said 'magic man in the sky" before you claimed me an Atheist. Bad memory or just covering your butt on your untested assumptions, not sure which. Stating that religion had it right where science did not by bringing up Lemaître is either pure ignorance or willful misdirection. Stating that the Biblical flood as read in the bible, which is what I had said, could not have happened and then changing it to say a world wide flood to fit your argument, is more misdirection. I said you believe in magic, which is what you equate supernatural with, you then knock down that argument by stating you have no belief system. Which is not what I said at all. More building straw men and knocking them down. More intellectual dishonesty. You expect me to refute straw men, and nonsensical arguments that are not based on any known facts, but on what you hypothesize? Sorry, there is nothing logical about a perspective that says that because there is an unknown, it was caused by a supernatural force. You should go back and learn what the scientific method is, and practice it as your 'irrefutable" case has been knocked down several times. You either do not possess the cognitive skills to understand it or are willfully ignorant.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mormanity said...

Ouch, have had very limited Internet access for a few days and I see that the comments here are out of control. Flavius, appreciate the zeal but let's keep things short and not take page with so many posts. And some of the ugly comments from some anonymous poster deserve to be deleted. Might take a couple out.

This is a place for civil dialog, not cheap shots. Or cheap shorts.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about that Mormanity. I apologize for my rudeness. Go ahead and delete any of mine where I was over the line.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Anonymous, you're clearly just an internet troll, something I've had my fill of.

First I assumed you were an atheist when you said this; Anonymous said...

That you think someone is sad because they don't believe in magic, says more about your mental state than anything else.


That was the comment I was responding to so once more you're clearly lying, omitting your actual comments trying to play some stupid personal attack game.

I simply addressed your words. If you're not an atheist then fine, I said it did not matter to me. But every comment of yours since then seems to indicate that you are an atheist. After all if you ridicule the notion of God being the creator, then that's a pretty deep corner you've painted yourself into.

Either way you keep calling me ignorant yet you've yet to produce one iota of actual factual or logical rebuttal. Just more of the juvenile "nuh uhs" you toss out.

I haven't time nor the inclination to waste my time with another ignorant troll who's purpose is not to discuss, but instead just mire folks down in personal insults, attacks etc.

All I did was pose a logical argument for the plausibility of a deity. You in turn twisted it to my arguing for the existence of one, so you could mock and ridicule it like most ignorant blog trolls.

So have at it. I've wasted all the time I'm going to waste in here.

And as for calling someone ignorant who produced voluminous data and logic when you yourself have produced not one iota of rebuttal other than to state "nuh uh", is laughable.

You wouldn't last a minute in my 9th grade science class, my students are smarter than you.

Have a nice life troll, I've wasted all the time I'm going to waste on the likes of you.

Flavius Noseephus said...

Mormanity said...

Flavius, appreciate the zeal but let's keep things short and not take page with so many posts.


Zeal? I posted a paper I wrote a few years back Jeff. It was an attempt to show this anonymous character that I was only interested in a logical discussion dealing with facts, etc. His response was simply to repeatedly say "nuh uh" and to repeatedly insult my intelligence without offering any actual data in response whatsoever.

The reason the posts were so many was because your blog limits to 4096 characters per post and the paper itself was over 4000 words alone, so I had to break it up into smaller posts. I explained that, perhaps you overlooked that in your "zeal" to reprimand me.

But no worries, I can tell this is not the erudite environment that I first deduced when I came in, I was looking for a place for a decent discussion with some smart, interesting people.

I've found none of that here so coupled with your telling me to curtail my comments I'll go you one better.

I'll find somewhere else to make them. Trolls like this anonymous fellow here who do nothing but try to tangle people into personal attacks, insults etc are a scourge to the spirit, and a drain on a persons intellect, reason and joy. And that's something I can find anywhere on the internet. So thanks, but no thanks.

I'll be moving on.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Flavius Noseephus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Flavius Noseephus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Flavius Noseephus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mormanity said...

Well, this has been a loss. Last time I ever go more than 12 minutes without Internet access.