Thursday, July 03, 2008

Red Tory said...

I suspect you're wasting your time on this one. Teh Stupid is powerful in him"

I wrote what I wrote, because theists have a rational reason for trusting in logic and reason, and consistent atheists don't.

The vast majority of atheists are inconsistent. Atheism may work in theory, but it is unworkable in practice. Once it has served its purpose of freeing humans from accountability to a higher moral agent, it's pretty much downhill from there.

What atheist ever held a newborn child in his arms and said to him, "I have feelings of love for you, but these feelings are nothing more than chemical reactions caused by a cruel trick of unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring evolution. And, though my heart may swell with pride and I may wish big things for you, in fact, because you exist in an uncreated universe, you are entirely without ultimate worth or value or purpose or destiny. And, although I value and prize you highly, this is because of a quirk of impersonal evolutionary forces that make me feel this way. In fact, you are no more worth or consequence than a sack of potatoes or a bag of rocks, and, if someone were to bash your head in, that would be of no more consequence in this materialistic, unplanned, undesigned universe, than someone smashing a bag of potatoes or crushing bunch of rocks -- have a nice life".

As I said, it may work in theory, but it is utterly unworkable in practice. I suspect that most atheists have not thought deeply about the logical implications of their belief.

Atheism at its core has a void and a blackness to it that is matched only by their worship of the Void as the "first cause" of both the material universe and of life:

the anthropic "principle" - from a principleless void

the exquisite laws of physics - but no law-giver

logic - from nothing

rational thought - from nothing

consciousness - from unconscious nothing

love - from nothing

beauty -from nothing

life - from non-life

the material universe - from nothing

An atheist's motto might be "from the Void to the Void, with glorious, unexplainable life in between".

The Christian chooses to believe the more reasonable, more probable, and more satisfying answer.

And, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, has a hope of eternal life spent with God that is simply "too good not to be true".

But that's another post for another day. Time to get the 'burgers and 'dogs on the BBQ.

45 comments:

Lore_Weaver said...

"The vast majority of atheists are inconsistent. Atheism may work in theory, but it is unworkable in practice. Once it has served its purpose of freeing humans from accountability to a higher moral agent, it's pretty much downhill from there."

---

How come atheists are under represented in jails then?

Johnathon said...

Red Tory is a 48 year old moonbat from B.C.

They guy thinks he's Canadian but 90% of his posts are about the USA.

He must be smoking that crack again with Ti-Guy.

Lore_Weaver said...

Where in Science does a theory presently say there was nothing?

It NEVER DOES. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion of nothing, it was like an explosion of space itself.

Things didn't just randomly combine together either. Abiogenesis is still not well understood, but it goes something like this.

Space itself explodes. Gravity and "Dark Matter" bring matter together to create the first atomss. These Hydrogen atoms collect together to make stars so dense, that they produce the elements from helium to iron (Iron is the heaviest element that can be produced in a fission reaction). They then collapse in on themselves due to their massive weight and create even heavier elements, then scatter it all around.

A new set of stars form out of the remains, they have clouds of matter around them, these clouds of matter form planets. For us, this happened around 4.5 billion years ago.

Temperatures on Earth were quite rosy to allow particular chemical compounds to get together. Over time, they began to combine in such a way that they could self replicate by absorbing things around them.

This replication lead to a process of evolution by natural selection.

Fast forward another 3 BILLION years, and here we are.

--

It's fine that you disagree with this, but you need "Proof" to disagree with it legitimately. You have to be able to say, "That is impossible because of 'X'". To date, nothing has been shown to not be possible given the above theory. That's why it hasn't been discarded yet.

If you want to contribute, you have to provide a distinct, repeatable observation that shows that the above could not have happened.

The above theory wasn't just created out of thin air either. It's a best guess of what happened based on our available observations. It's the only way we can currently describe our observable reality in one cohesive fashion.

That's not to say there aren't more questions, there are. When something is shown to defy it. Then the theory will be tossed.

So far it hasn't been done. Don't interpret this as us being accidents either. We aren't random, we are decidedly not random. Nothing about our existence is Random.

Which brings me back to the Anthropic principle...

Lore_Weaver said...

Red Tory's point is that your Evidence lacks legitimacy, and he's right.

He said it thrice, therefore it's true. It wasn't true for Lewis Carrol, and it isn't true for anyone else either.

Just because something is written, doesn't mean it's words are true, even if it defines it's words are true, says it's words are true, and claims it's words are infallible.

Lore_Weaver said...

johnathon, ad-hominum doesn't win arguments. If you want to play along, that's fine. If you want to insult everyone, I can play that too. But I don't think it's fair to our gracious host.

Red Tory said...

I have to say that this is one of the most grotesque misrepresentations of atheism I've encountered in a long time.

You're a veritable treasure trove of specious nonsense.

RkBall said...

The math that leads to the Big Bang is just that, math. While I view the regression as generally trustworthy, it runs into problems at its end-point. It is not empirical evidence that space always existed. In fact, my understanding of it (which is admittedly incomplete) is that the universe, prior to the Big Bang, was, according to the math, a singularity of infinite density and I believe also of infinitely small size, although I would have to check this.

Regardless, the universe exploded, either into being, or from its singularity. Cause? Unknown. Results? An exquisite universe finely-tuned in several difference parameters, all essential, to support life on Earth. The odds of this happening by a chance explosion through an unplanned, undesigned explosion? Not even worth contemplating. A much more plausible and likely explanation is that the universe exists, and supports life, and incorporates immaterial elements such as logic, morality, life, happiness, justice, honor, yearning, abstract thought, etc. etc. because it was designed to do so.

"My anthropic principle includes God".

Red Tory said...

That's simply your opinion; nothing more.

Lore_Weaver said...

"An exquisite universe finely-tuned in several difference parameters, all essential, to support life on Earth."

---

errr, how exactly does the number of stars or configuration of planets in a far off galaxy a requirement for life on earth. The universe is far better at creating black holes than it is at creating life.

If there is a God, he sure did a crappy job of Universe creation. I mean, if I was all powerful, why would I waste my time generating all this stuff that my creations could never see or experience. It's pointless.

Lore_Weaver said...

"While I view the regression as generally trustworthy, it runs into problems at its end-point."

You didn't do very well in Calculous did you. Non linear math is a pain. However, your lack of understanding of non-linear math is not proof of God's existence.

Non-linear math is why we are able to describe the universe milliseconds after the big bang.

RkBall said...

" your lack of understanding of non-linear math is not proof of God's existence."

I never suggested it was. Nor am I aiming to prove that God exists. I am merely attempting to offer evidence that points to God's existence, and to show that belief in God is reasonable -- it fits with the total facts of our human experience, taken together, and, in terms of probabilities, is far more probable than the universe and our exquisite existence in it popping into existence by accident.

Red Tory said...

It strikes me that "accident" is a very loaded word and a rather imprecise way of describing the singularity.

Also, you have no basis whatsoever for calculating relative probabilities.

Lore_Weaver said...

Except your God is logically impossible. Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence is impossible in our Universe.

If God has these traits, God cannot come here, nor create here, nor have any effect here, which would defeat the purpose of his existence.

Your God needs limits to exist. Which parts of the Bible are you prepared to discard to provide reasonable evidence for Gods existence?

RkBall said...

"errr, how exactly does the number of stars or configuration of planets in a far off galaxy a requirement for life on earth....

If there is a God, he sure did a crappy job of Universe creation. I mean, if I was all powerful, why would I waste my time generating all this stuff that my creations could never see or experience. It's pointless."

You've got me. I don't know, and any answer I gave you would be speculation on my part.

I suspect that one answer may be because God made the universe for us to discover, and, as we discover just how vast and immense, and complex it is, it increases our wonder at His awesome creative power.

Another suggestion would be simply because it gave Him pleasure to do so.

A third might be, "because I can".

The book of Job covers this pretty decently.

mikmik said...

Sure, and it is likely that some being - god - with even more power and complexity than the universe as we know it, popped into existence.

rkball = "it fits with the total facts of our human experience, taken together, and, in terms of probabilities, is far more probable than the universe and our exquisite existence in it popping into existence by accident"

No it doesn't. Don' you ever get over proclaiming your opinion as fact? I mean, I already know your logic and reasoning is very flawed, so why would I give the slightwest bit of credence to your poorly construed opinion?

It is completely unreasonable and insipid to think that there is a god for there is no evidence of one, just an ad hoc explanation of a very contrived and limited understanding of reality. You think that non belief in something utterly fantastic is loopy, yet you have only your wish for an unsophisticated and banal explanation for your reason to exist.

I maintain that it is because of limited ability to reason and understand that provokes the dull to conjure up fantasies in order not to have to think, and obviously many of you cannot think on a very profound level.

One only has to read first year philosophy to understand that reasoning there is a god is at once falacious and impossible.

RkBall said...

"Also, you have no basis whatsoever for calculating relative probabilities."

I've seen the math on the probabilities that all of the required parameters -- gravity, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, etc. etc. -- would be "just right". And the odds are beyond astronomical.

Which leads people to suggest an infinite number of universes, until one popped into existence that was "just right". Kind of like goldilocks, but instead of three bowls of porridge, there were a gazzilion to choose from.

Of course this is not science. It is speculation for which there is not a shred of evidence, beyond the need to come up with something quick to snuff out the more reasonable explanation -- that the universe we live in is the result of a Creator.

RkBall said...

"Except your God is logically impossible...."

Sorry, I didn't understand this. Please explain, if you have the time.

Thanks.

RkBall said...

" there is no evidence of [God], "

We covered this in the previous post.

If you care to read it, remember, evidence is not the same as proof.

RkBall said...

"I maintain that it is because of limited ability to reason and understand that provokes the dull to conjure up fantasies in order not to have to think, and obviously many of you cannot think on a very profound level."

Well, not as profound as you, at any rate. The point about reason and boolean logic is that they are both immaterial, and atheists put supreme confidence in them. Yet, as has already been pointed out, in a purely materialistic universe consisting of molecules and atoms, immaterial things such as boolean logic, or reason, should not exist. And, if they did exist, there would be no rational reason why they should be trustworthy.

Another point -- Jesus Christ was not a dull or dim-witted person. If I have to choose between following his prescription of reality, or yours, I'll take His.

It's really not me you have to deal with. It is Him.

RkBall said...

"And if everything needs a cause, then so does God. If one wants to say God always existed, I can come back and say that the matter in the universe always existed, although I will admit that I don't know the answer regarding what happened the minute before the big bang, there are quite a few different hypothesis' out there that have nothing to do with God."

I never said that everything needs a cause. The argument is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. My argument is that the universe "began to exist". Lore seems to be arguing that, no, "space" always existed, and, apparently, within it the singularity always existed (?). And then, somehow, "space itself exploded".

God is eternal and therefore never began to exist. Ontologically, God is a necessary being, the universe is contingent.

And, He's a really, really, really great Guy.

BEAJ said...

I've seen the math on the probabilities that all of the required parameters
************************
The odds that I am here are astronomical. My ancestors dating back before they were sponges in the oceans had to survive billions of years of evolution and the possibility of being eaten before they made to procreation. The chances that my line survived even as a human are astronomical (even more so because my most recent ancestors were Jews). Couple that with the chances that you made here as well and the fact that I'm on your blog right now leaving a comment.
There are 6.5 billion people on the planet right now, yet there are only 4 or 5 people commenting on this particular post. What are the odds that it would be me. There are over 30 million atheists in North America alone, so even then, the odds are astronomical.

But the bottom line is that it is happening. I'm here, you are here, despite the astronomical odds, and God has nothing to do with it.

It is like the person who wins a 30 million dollar lottery. Before the lottery his or her chances are astronomical, but afterward the probability he or she won is 100%.

BEAJ said...

God is eternal and therefore never began to exist.
***********************
I can say that the universe is eternal therefore never began to exist just the same.

RkBall said...

"But the bottom line is that it is happening. I'm here, you are here, despite the astronomical odds, and God has nothing to do with it."

Well, we are into probability theory now, and we are both probably over our heads. But no, the odds of it all "just happening" are too astronomically high for a reasonable person to accept. I mean, they are astronomical.

It's like finding an exquisite sandcastle on the beach and saying that the ocean waves "just happened" to produce it. But not just one sandcastle. A whole city of sandcastles, bridges, streets, etc. etc. At some point it becomes "more likely" and easier to accept the idea that "somebody was here and created this sandcastle city on the beach".

RkBall said...

"I can say that the universe is eternal therefore never began to exist just the same."

Indeed you can. And indeed that is exactly what atheistic scientists did say and insisted upon right up until about the middle of the last century-- until the discovery of the Big Bang, which points to a beginning.

The Big Bang, and the subsequent discovery of the fine-tuning of the universe, have atheistic scientists scrambling and coming up with multiverse which, of course, is not science, it is nothing more than philosophical speculation.

Indeed, the foundation of science today is materialism, which is not science, it is philosophy.

BEAJ said...

Wrong about science. There is nothing philosophical about the Big Bang.
And we know that there is no end of time, at least conceivably, and no end of time doesn't need a God either.
And scientists always postulated that there was a beginning to this universe. The Big Bang confirmed it.
Time being eternal is another thing. The beginning of time and where did matter come from are questions that haven't been answered with certainty yet. But I've heard many possible explanations and God is not needed.

As far as being over my head regarding probabilities. I am not. You are just wilfully ignorant regarding the path that led us here. There were infinite amount of possibilities to get us here, and one possibility had to win out.

Regarding the beginning of life. I posted Potholer's video here. I wonder if you watched it.

The same thing could happen on millions and millions of planets throughout the universe though the paths that happened afterwards would never be exact to what happened here on earth.

Raphael Alexander said...

Reason is based on the collection of scientific evidence and compiling them into theories that shift our perception of the way the Universe works.

Faith is based on choosing to believe whatever you feel like.

The two are contradictory of one another. You can continue to believe in God by arguing that faith is a deep personal conviction that says we can't possibly understand the meaning behind the Universe. But you can't argue that God exists by using empirical evidence. None exists.

Purple library guy said...

It doesn't much matter whether the universe began, or whether it's just that the universe as we know it began and there was something else previously, or what. The bottom line is that we have two hypotheses:
1. The universe and everything are just there because they are
or,
2. The universe and everything is there because God created them, and
2a. God is just there because He is.

2a by itself has no more or less fundamental problems than 1, but 2+2a is more complicated than 1 and so basically less likely. Not impossible, no. But less likely.

But it's worse than that, even, on a couple of levels. Really, in 2 + 2a the only even vaguely plausible version would substitute "Some kind of intentional creator/s" for "God". There are infinite possible creators, from "God" to "Zoroaster" to "Odin, Thor and Loki Among Others" to myriad concepts we haven't thought of. That would make the chance of it being "God" in any remotely Christian sense, or even in the sense of some omnipotent, omniscient and good being, amazingly remote. What if it was an omnipotent being that was neither omniscient nor particularly good? What if, while all those things, it was a being which did not relate to any kind of afterlife?
The other problem is that it's worth talking about the universe as having existed forever, or about what might have caused the universe to come into being, because we know that stuff must have happened--we live in the universe. Here it is, so it's at least worth trying to explain how. Even at that, it's not necessary, because again, we can be fairly definite that it did happen one way or another. But when it comes to an entity like God, we don't know it exists. To take its existence at all seriously, some account of how such a thing could happen would be very useful. But since again, we don't know it exists, and have no real way of gathering any information about its hypothetical existence, unlike the universe there's no way to even speculate about origins.

So the very origin questions that we might be able to answer but don't really need to about the universe, we would really need to answer but can't about God.

RkBall said...

"Wrong about science."

No, you are wrong. Science as it is practiced today consists of methodological materialism -- the belief that matter is all that exists. This is philosophy, not science, and it has a lock on scientific enterprise.

"And we know that there is no end of time, at least conceivably, and no end of time doesn't need a God either."

But we do know, from philosophy alone, that time is finite and had a beginning. The scientific Big Bang theory confirms this.


"And scientists always postulated that there was a beginning to this universe. The Big Bang confirmed it."

You could not be more wrong.


"As far as being over my head regarding probabilities. I am not."

You have a degree in probability theory? You are capable of setting up and performing probability theorems.?


"Regarding the beginning of life. I posted Potholer's video here. I wonder if you watched it."

If life emerged from non-life, without any personal, moral agent involved, then life is of no more value or worth than non-life, and the taking of life, be it the cutting of a flower or a human being is of no more moral consequence than smashing a rock. In an uncreated, unintended world, morality is nothing more than delusions caused by weird chemical reactions in the evolved-from-sludge human brain.

RkBall said...

"Faith is based on choosing to believe whatever you feel like."

It is not.

"You can continue to believe in God by arguing that faith is a deep personal conviction that says we can't possibly understand the meaning behind the Universe. But you can't argue that God exists by using empirical evidence. None exists."

If there is no God, there is no meaning to the universe, so get over it. There is empirical evidence for the existence of God in the same way that the existence of a painting is evidence for more than the existence of paint and canvas.

And, if you think that the only way of knowing God is through empirical evidence, maybe you need to adjust your epistemological assumptions.

RkBall said...

purple guy (i detect a bit of dawkins!) -- you are overlooking the possibility that, if there is a God, and he created us, as personal, communicating beings, that he too is capable of communicating with his creatures and perhaps has done exactly that.

Furthermore, it is just possible that as a personal being, he desires to establish a relationship with us (although that would be a stretch -- why would he care?).

Furthermore, if it is true that he is not only personal and caring but also holy (and we are not), it is possible that he might take steps, or take a definitive action to enable us to be restored to him, even an action at great personal cost to himself (but why would he bother-- he is God and we are just creatures).

And yet that is exactly what the Christian message states. That God revealed himself in Christ and redeemed us on the cross.

And the heart of the message is the resurrection of Christ, as an act in time and space (the realm of science) and history.

BEAJ said...

No, you are wrong. Science as it is practiced today consists of methodological materialism -- the belief that matter is all that exists. This is philosophy, not science, and it has a lock on scientific enterprise.
*****************************
Science is a all about our observable universe. It is not a philosophy. Just because you say it is so, doesn't make it so.

But we do know, from philosophy alone, that time is finite and had a beginning. The scientific Big Bang theory confirms this.
*****************************
The Big Bang doesn't confirm that time began when the Big Bang occurred.

You could not be more wrong.
***********************
Man has pondered the beginning of time for as long he could understand the implications of time. The Big Bang confirmed that our universe began 13 billion years ago, but it doesn't mean that this is when time began....maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

You have a degree in probability theory? You are capable of setting up and performing probability theorems.?
************************
I took statistics in university. I know how probabilities work. It is evident that you don't.


If life emerged from non-life, without any personal, moral agent involved, then life is of no more value or worth than non-life, and the taking of life, be it the cutting of a flower or a human being is of no more moral consequence than smashing a rock. In an uncreated, unintended world, morality is nothing more than delusions caused by weird chemical reactions in the evolved-from-sludge human brain.
*****************************
Don't shoot the messenger, but if you want to interpret the implications of facts like that, it is fine with me.
But there are moral consequences. Psychopaths and sociopaths generally are sought out by society and treated as criminals or outcasts. They are less likely to procreate (or raise a child), and usually are taken out (either killed or institutionalized) before they can spread their deranged seed.
Human society rewards good moral behaviour and punishes bad behaviour (again, no God is needed).

RkBall said...

"Science is a all about our observable universe. It is not a philosophy."

I never said that science is a philosophy. I believe that what I said was that the foundation of science today is materialism -- the belief that matter is all that exists -- and that this is not science, it is philosophy.

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

Richard, are you suggesting that genuine emotion (love, for example) is not possible outside of a belief in some sort of God? That would be incorrect.

If you believe that there is a God with awesome creative power and that this God loves us, do you think that He desires that we relative simpletons worship Him?

The fact that you can't figure out how all of this got here (and it is truly wondrous) does not imply that there must be some sort of God who created it all. That's the easiest answer, and it's certainly a comforting one, but the inference is just not there.

Do you disagree?

DLF said...

IF (and that is a real galaxy sized if) there is a god, I still don't care.

Really, I just don't care.

The fact that we don't know how to explain something doesn't mean that god did it. It means that we don't know.

But we all know that believers need to know everything, so they'll make shit up in order to make themselves feel better.

RkBall said...

"Richard, are you suggesting that genuine emotion (love, for example) is not possible outside of a belief in some sort of God?"

Absolutely not! I am arguing that the emotion of love is a genuine emotion, that it is immaterial, and that it therefore constitutes observable evidence for immaterial realities, opening the door to belief in God.

The fact is, people can and do experience the emotion we call love. It is very powerful. And it is very wonderful.

Now, where does it come from?

The CHristian argues that it comes from a wonderful God, who, in his very essence, is love.

The materialistic atheist, on the other hand, is stuck with arguing that love is nothing more than sensations caused by chemical reactions taking place in the undesigned brains, a cruel trick of mindless evolution.

If you believe that there is a God with awesome creative power and that this God loves us, do you think that He desires that we relative simpletons worship Him?

Yes.

The fact that you can't figure out how all of this got here (and it is truly wondrous) does not imply that there must be some sort of God who created it all. That's the easiest answer, and it's certainly a comforting one, but the inference is just not there.

It may not necessitate it, but it makes it probable if not likely, which is all I'm suggesting here.

RkBall said...

"But we all know that believers need to know everything, so they'll make shit up in order to make themselves feel better."

In my case, I just wanted to know what ultimate reality was, god or no god. And I wanted to know whether the youthful longings in my heart for relevance and life beyond this life meant anything, or if, when we died, that was it.

I came to the conviction that God existed somewhat reluctantly, and was even more astonished when I came to the realization that I couldn't just roll my own, but that God was the God whom Christians had talked about for centuries. And believe me, the Christian gospel contains many truths that are inconvenient -- such as the call to sacrifice, humility, etc.

God and I met in the middle. I was astonished to discover that, while I was seeking God, He was seeking me.

I will seek to honor the cross of which Christ died forever.

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

I'm understanding better and better why they call religion "faith".

"The atheist, on the other hand, is stuck with arguing that love is nothing more than sensations caused by chemical reactions..."

No, He is not. The atheist can explain it any way He likes.

You seem to think that one cannot be struck by the wonder and the beauty of the world in any meaningful way without believing in some sort of God-like creature.

The things that you cite as evidence of a God are no more compelling than a tsunami or widespread starvation would be if offered as evidence that there is no God.

And finally, why would an all-powerful and ever-loving God want to be worshipped? If you address only one item in my comment, please let it be this one.

RkBall said...

"The atheist can explain it any way He likes."

Not if he's a materialist, and committed to consistent logical thinking. In a materialistic world, immaterial things do not exist, so the emotion of love cannot transcend the chemicals involved, and these, according to modern atheists, evolved through mindless processes.

You seem to think that one cannot be struck by the wonder and the beauty of the world in any meaningful way without believing in some sort of God-like creature.

Not so. But the consistent atheist must at least beat down any wonderment rising in his breast and remind himself that none of this was planned or designed or caused, and even the eyes in his head with which he sees were never really intended to be there, they just sort of happened, and, at any rate, they are there to ensure mere survival, not to induce senses of beauty, wonder, pleasure, symmetry, etc. The transcendent beauty of life makes darwinism seem a bit cheap and tawdry and a black-and-white view of humanity when it should be in glorious color.

"The things that you cite as evidence of a God are no more compelling than a tsunami or widespread starvation would be if offered as evidence that there is no God."

There is certainly theodicy, including "the problem of evil" to take into account and weigh in the balance.

RkBall said...

"And finally, why would an all-powerful and ever-loving God want to be worshipped? If you address only one item in my comment, please let it be this one."

I do not have a final answer on this. I am speculating. I believe the answer may lie partly in the idea that because worship is a fitting response to the glory of God, it is healthy for worshippers to worship Him. it is certainly a joyful experience. Because God is awesomely good, beautiful, marvelous, powerful, kind, magnificent, wonderful, majestic, etc. worship is the fitting, suitable response to the inexpressible radiance of his being. Because it is the fitting, proper response, when beings respond with worship, it puts them into harmony with the divine, which is very, very healthy.

A second aspect to this would be that, God wishes to be in relationship with his creatures, he desires communion or fellowship with them, and, since worship is the fitting response to such an awesome deity, it puts the worshipper and the deity in communion, or fellowship with each other, and the deity is free to lavish his affection and comfort and joy upon the worshippers in his presence.

Let me see if I can think of some scripture passages.

"In his presence there is fulness of joy".

"God inhabits the praises of his people"

"You are worthy to be praised, O Lord"

You may be interested to know that there is a worship music phenomenon sweeping the world today, with hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of songs of praise and worship being written (and recorded) by young worshippers.

I believe that when the history of the Church is written, this worship music phenomenon will be listed as one of the most significant phenomenon of the late 20th/early 21st cc. church.

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

The scripture passages don't help me much, with due respect to your beliefs.

I do understand a desire for some sort of communion or fellowship, but I can't imagine a vastly superior being wishing for praise and worship. It seems to me that would be the furthest thing from His mind, if I may put it that way.

RkBall said...

" but I can't imagine a vastly superior being wishing for praise and worship. It seems to me that would be the furthest thing from His mind, if I may put it that way."

I can certainly understand your point. It's a very legitimate question, sincerely asked.

I would say, well, it's appropriate, it's an appropriate response to the grandeur of God, and God is very much into appropriate behavior. Given that it is appropriate behavior, it brings the participant into harmony with heaven and with God, and, being in harmony with the divine being, in his presence, is going to be unimaginably wonderful.

We get some glimmers of this in our worship services here on earth, but, of course, they cannot be compared with what awaits us in heaven.

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

Richard, if someone saved you from drowning (for example), it might feel appropriate to thank that person every time you see them for saving your life. At a certain point, that person, if healthy, would no doubt say to you, "look, I understand that you appreciate what I did, but really, would you please stop mentioning it every time I see you? If you want to return the favour, to quit yammering on about this every time we get together would do very nicely."

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

Would continued worship day after day from billions of people not get really old, really quickly?

RkBall said...

"Do you see what I'm getting at here?"

Yes, I definitely do. It's a great point you are making.

"Would continued worship day after day from billions of people not get really old, really quickly?"

I think it's going to be more like pleasure on earth -- do we get tired of eating great meals? Do we have sex a few times and say, "been there- done that" - next!

For my part, as I said, I will be forever grateful. If Christ were to say, "fine, but enough already", he would stifle and crush something inside of me; he would wound me; I don't think he is going to do that.

So, for the worshippers, no. But I think you are asking, "but wouldn't God get bored with it?".

I would go back to my original response. Worship is the appropriate response, when we act appropriately, we are in harmony with God, so whether God is enjoying the worship or not, He is graciously accommodating our need to worship him when in his presence.

But, I suspects He enjoys it. What daddy gets tired of a little child running up and sitting on his lap and saying "I love you!". Do you say, "yeah, yeah, I know. You told me that yesterday. Let's move on."

What lover gets tired of one's lover's kisses?

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

Your analogies aren't really working for me, I just don't see it that way. It's okay if we disagree.

More fundamentally, I have absolutely no idea whether a God or Gods exist, so the discussion is one stop further removed from my reality than from yours.

Anyway, have a good weekend.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"