.
The theological idea of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) is looking better all
the time as inflation theories increasingly suggest the universe emerged
from no tangible source. And although theorists energetically fantasize an
endless parade of explanations for the origin of the universe, they have been
doing so within the context of the known laws of physics; the meanwhile
having no clue about the origin of those physical laws. In other words: they
cannot explain where those laws came from in the first place-- nor can they
explain why the known laws control matter and energy the way they do
rather than some other way.
When people reach what is commonly called the age of reasoning; some of
their very first questions are: Why am I here? Where did I come from? What
is the meaning of life, and is there a purpose for mine? Am I here by
chance?
I think it's very normal (or at least very common) for people to seek a
justification for their existence; and without it, they can only conclude that
the human experience is futile; which can be roughly defined as serving no
useful purpose; for example:
Nobel Prize winner, author of several best-selling books, and recipient of at
least a dozen honorary degrees, physicist Steven Weinberg (who views
religion as an enemy of science), in his book "The First Three Minutes"
wrote: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems
pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at
least some consolation in the research itself . . . the effort to understand the
universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the
level of a farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.
What a dismal appraisal. In Mr. Weinberg's opinion, the human experience
scarce escapes the categories of farce and tragedy; its quest for knowledge
seems the only thing that gives humanity any justification to exist at all. The
universe? It's just a meaningless void decorated with fascinating objects --a
carnival side show of cosmic curiosities, so to speak.
Wouldn't it be sad if we only lived and died like insects and fungi? I mean,
what would be the point of it all? They say a mind is a terrible thing to
waste. What real advantage is it to have something so useful as a human
mind if it's only going to die and stop working after many years of learning
and experience? And what real advantage is it for the mind of the present to
make the world a better place for the next generation of minds if the mind of
the present doesn't live to see it? That's really no more significant an
existence than that of the individuals in a bee hive or a termite colony.
I think people find comfort in perceiving themselves part of a grand scheme
instead of walking across the stage of their all-too-brief life as an
insignificant speck in a pointless cosmos. Belief that there's someone
somewhere above and beyond themselves gives people's existence value,
meaning, and purpose which, in my opinion, is at least one of the reasons
why supreme beings are so popular.
Galileo felt that science and religion are allies rather than enemies-- two
different languages telling the same story; a story of symmetry and balance:
heaven and hell, positive and negative, weak and strong, right and left, up
and down, night and day, hot and cold, God and Satan. Science and religion
are not at odds; no, in reality, science is just simply too young to
understand.
Dr. Robert Jastow, founder of the Goddard Institute for space studies at
NASA, in his book "God And The Astronomers" says: "Strange developments
are going on in astronomy. One of these is the discovery that the universe
had a beginning. And that means there has to be a beginner. The scientist
has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest
peak, and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of
theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Agnostics and atheists claim there is no empirical evidence supporting the
existence of a supreme being. But they are foolishly invalidating perfectly
good evidence all around them and within easy reach. There exists more
evidence in the world of nature and in the sky to prove the reality of a
supreme being than there does to prove otherwise.
_
The theological idea of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) is looking better all
the time as inflation theories increasingly suggest the universe emerged
from no tangible source. And although theorists energetically fantasize an
endless parade of explanations for the origin of the universe, they have been
doing so within the context of the known laws of physics; the meanwhile
having no clue about the origin of those physical laws. In other words: they
cannot explain where those laws came from in the first place-- nor can they
explain why the known laws control matter and energy the way they do
rather than some other way.
When people reach what is commonly called the age of reasoning; some of
their very first questions are: Why am I here? Where did I come from? What
is the meaning of life, and is there a purpose for mine? Am I here by
chance?
I think it's very normal (or at least very common) for people to seek a
justification for their existence; and without it, they can only conclude that
the human experience is futile; which can be roughly defined as serving no
useful purpose; for example:
Nobel Prize winner, author of several best-selling books, and recipient of at
least a dozen honorary degrees, physicist Steven Weinberg (who views
religion as an enemy of science), in his book "The First Three Minutes"
wrote: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems
pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at
least some consolation in the research itself . . . the effort to understand the
universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the
level of a farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.
What a dismal appraisal. In Mr. Weinberg's opinion, the human experience
scarce escapes the categories of farce and tragedy; its quest for knowledge
seems the only thing that gives humanity any justification to exist at all. The
universe? It's just a meaningless void decorated with fascinating objects --a
carnival side show of cosmic curiosities, so to speak.
Wouldn't it be sad if we only lived and died like insects and fungi? I mean,
what would be the point of it all? They say a mind is a terrible thing to
waste. What real advantage is it to have something so useful as a human
mind if it's only going to die and stop working after many years of learning
and experience? And what real advantage is it for the mind of the present to
make the world a better place for the next generation of minds if the mind of
the present doesn't live to see it? That's really no more significant an
existence than that of the individuals in a bee hive or a termite colony.
I think people find comfort in perceiving themselves part of a grand scheme
instead of walking across the stage of their all-too-brief life as an
insignificant speck in a pointless cosmos. Belief that there's someone
somewhere above and beyond themselves gives people's existence value,
meaning, and purpose which, in my opinion, is at least one of the reasons
why supreme beings are so popular.
Galileo felt that science and religion are allies rather than enemies-- two
different languages telling the same story; a story of symmetry and balance:
heaven and hell, positive and negative, weak and strong, right and left, up
and down, night and day, hot and cold, God and Satan. Science and religion
are not at odds; no, in reality, science is just simply too young to
understand.
Dr. Robert Jastow, founder of the Goddard Institute for space studies at
NASA, in his book "God And The Astronomers" says: "Strange developments
are going on in astronomy. One of these is the discovery that the universe
had a beginning. And that means there has to be a beginner. The scientist
has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest
peak, and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of
theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Agnostics and atheists claim there is no empirical evidence supporting the
existence of a supreme being. But they are foolishly invalidating perfectly
good evidence all around them and within easy reach. There exists more
evidence in the world of nature and in the sky to prove the reality of a
supreme being than there does to prove otherwise.
_