“Gunning for God; Why the new atheists are missing the target” and, “Seven Days that divided the world (with a great index) both by John C Lennox. Gunning for God is worth the price for the notes alone. Isn’t it interesting that the (new) atheists debate and search to define a reality devoid of God. Their lives revolve around the proposition that “there is no God” which in essence means they function with a center of “not God”… a belief if you will in God - a god they must rid themselves of… cockeyed as it is, it is a religious system kept intact by study however abstract.
Lightning and sodomy are intrinsically related along your gap theory... Lightning thunder and rainbows are all related to Atmosphere contraction which we don't want in a flooded oceanic world where we are supposed to be get the atmosphere back to the heavens!!! Wait till the expanding universe starts coming at us when the planet flips... Give it 4 to 6 years to do a barrel roll even if we are pulling on the brakes!! 🍏 🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎
" . . . it all radiated a profound sense of intentional design. To me, it wasn’t a gap screaming for a filler. It was evidence pointing unmistakably to a Creator."
WE (humans, intelligence, consciousness) exist because God exists--in His image and likeness. WE are proof He exists. No proof of other equally intelligent creatures (or greater, all political jokes aside) around anywhere else in this "Universe."
The biggest gap that will perhaps never be filled even should humanity survive forever: scientific proof and full understanding of God's nature.
However, one thing I believe that will increasingly be accepted is that applying the things that have been understood about God for millennia underlie our likelihood of ever getting to that place.
I fully agree with your conclusions about the fine tuning of the universe pointing to a creator. There are so many physical properties that have to be as they are in order for us to be here. However, I don't agree with "the origin of life and the emergence of human consciousness" as falling in this same category. For example, we know that amino acids form in space, and we know that more complex organic molecules can form in water where energy is also present. We don't fully understand yet how this got to molecules that could self-replicate, but isn't that a "god of the gaps" argument? God created the universe as well as all the physical laws. This includes the physical laws that cause species to evolve. Evolution is established science with many independent lines of evidence. God created the universe such that we would get the amazing diversity and beauty of life through evolution, and it could be that on certain planets elsewhere in the universe there is more amazing diversity of life that is different from ours. Atheist scientists say that evolution is random and godless. It's true that each individual mutation is random, but the overall direction of evolution towards more diversity, complexity, and ultimately intelligence is not random at all. It is as God intended. I'm not claiming that absolutely everything about human capabilities is explainable by evolution (for example, our love of music may have been a direct gift from God), but it is a "god of the gaps" argument to say that because we don't have it fully explained that God must have stepped in at that point.
First of all, the tribes who cobbled together the old testament scriptures recognized that they were stories , not actual events. One cannot and should not rely on anything contained in those stories for scientific purposes. To do so results in failure to convince anyone learned in the various sciences. And to completely ignore the miracles of the conical Gospels is a fatal failure to establish credibility of one's scientific views that there is a God. And Christian scientist often used the God of the gaps argument when their understanding of the universe came to a dead end. Famously Newton had to fall back on that view when his math could not explain what Einstein theories eventually concluded. Currently Creationist have one issue to support their Godly view. Something from nothing. They simply give up trying to figure that one out. Perhaps because Lennox and other apologists are nearing the end of their lives. And they need a view that helps them to find peace. Or perhaps notoriety. He is a smug person. Unable to admit that there are mysteries that might not be solved. And thus he remains firm in his Godly views. Never quite explaining how the religious scriptures are reliable, trustworthy or possible. I get tired of pointing out that a created world requires some cause to create the creator. I have no idea if the Universe never had a begining. But that is not a sufficient reason to believe in a creator.
Well done for sticking your neck out 👍 You'll love my forthcoming book. It explores the relationship between science and theist and atheist arguments, flushing out some very interesting new discoveries which are likely to get people talking 😉
You articulated my thoughts on this topic very well! I have always had a hard time putting my feelings on science and God into words, so this piece resonates strongly with me. I'm an artist not a scientist and I am Jewish, not Christian, but regardless I feel seen and not alone. Thank you for sharing. 💜🌌
Well said. I agree that the origin of life and the origin of human consciousness are points where science seems incapable of coming up with an explanation, due to its materialistic limitations. Yet it isn’t what we don’t know, but what we have discovered that points to a Divine Designer.
This piece explains and justifies a belief in God, and indeed touches on why I realize I am not agnostic, really. But a belief in a Substance, an Underpinning, of the Universe is not the same, at all, as being a Christian. Obviously, a single article on Substack cannot march the entire trail; this is but a single step. I would like to see at least a map of the whole way. There must be many detours and dead ends. Perhaps you have already written such a guide, or are in the process of doing so.
“Gunning for God; Why the new atheists are missing the target” and, “Seven Days that divided the world (with a great index) both by John C Lennox. Gunning for God is worth the price for the notes alone. Isn’t it interesting that the (new) atheists debate and search to define a reality devoid of God. Their lives revolve around the proposition that “there is no God” which in essence means they function with a center of “not God”… a belief if you will in God - a god they must rid themselves of… cockeyed as it is, it is a religious system kept intact by study however abstract.
Lightning and sodomy are intrinsically related along your gap theory... Lightning thunder and rainbows are all related to Atmosphere contraction which we don't want in a flooded oceanic world where we are supposed to be get the atmosphere back to the heavens!!! Wait till the expanding universe starts coming at us when the planet flips... Give it 4 to 6 years to do a barrel roll even if we are pulling on the brakes!! 🍏 🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎
I thought of you while reading "Cosmic Chemistry" by Lennox.
How as it?
" . . . it all radiated a profound sense of intentional design. To me, it wasn’t a gap screaming for a filler. It was evidence pointing unmistakably to a Creator."
WE (humans, intelligence, consciousness) exist because God exists--in His image and likeness. WE are proof He exists. No proof of other equally intelligent creatures (or greater, all political jokes aside) around anywhere else in this "Universe."
So, yes.
I tell my skeptical followers that even without any other evidence, my existence alone would convince me of God's existence.
The biggest gap that will perhaps never be filled even should humanity survive forever: scientific proof and full understanding of God's nature.
However, one thing I believe that will increasingly be accepted is that applying the things that have been understood about God for millennia underlie our likelihood of ever getting to that place.
I fully agree with your conclusions about the fine tuning of the universe pointing to a creator. There are so many physical properties that have to be as they are in order for us to be here. However, I don't agree with "the origin of life and the emergence of human consciousness" as falling in this same category. For example, we know that amino acids form in space, and we know that more complex organic molecules can form in water where energy is also present. We don't fully understand yet how this got to molecules that could self-replicate, but isn't that a "god of the gaps" argument? God created the universe as well as all the physical laws. This includes the physical laws that cause species to evolve. Evolution is established science with many independent lines of evidence. God created the universe such that we would get the amazing diversity and beauty of life through evolution, and it could be that on certain planets elsewhere in the universe there is more amazing diversity of life that is different from ours. Atheist scientists say that evolution is random and godless. It's true that each individual mutation is random, but the overall direction of evolution towards more diversity, complexity, and ultimately intelligence is not random at all. It is as God intended. I'm not claiming that absolutely everything about human capabilities is explainable by evolution (for example, our love of music may have been a direct gift from God), but it is a "god of the gaps" argument to say that because we don't have it fully explained that God must have stepped in at that point.
First of all, the tribes who cobbled together the old testament scriptures recognized that they were stories , not actual events. One cannot and should not rely on anything contained in those stories for scientific purposes. To do so results in failure to convince anyone learned in the various sciences. And to completely ignore the miracles of the conical Gospels is a fatal failure to establish credibility of one's scientific views that there is a God. And Christian scientist often used the God of the gaps argument when their understanding of the universe came to a dead end. Famously Newton had to fall back on that view when his math could not explain what Einstein theories eventually concluded. Currently Creationist have one issue to support their Godly view. Something from nothing. They simply give up trying to figure that one out. Perhaps because Lennox and other apologists are nearing the end of their lives. And they need a view that helps them to find peace. Or perhaps notoriety. He is a smug person. Unable to admit that there are mysteries that might not be solved. And thus he remains firm in his Godly views. Never quite explaining how the religious scriptures are reliable, trustworthy or possible. I get tired of pointing out that a created world requires some cause to create the creator. I have no idea if the Universe never had a begining. But that is not a sufficient reason to believe in a creator.
Well done for sticking your neck out 👍 You'll love my forthcoming book. It explores the relationship between science and theist and atheist arguments, flushing out some very interesting new discoveries which are likely to get people talking 😉
You articulated my thoughts on this topic very well! I have always had a hard time putting my feelings on science and God into words, so this piece resonates strongly with me. I'm an artist not a scientist and I am Jewish, not Christian, but regardless I feel seen and not alone. Thank you for sharing. 💜🌌
I'm so glad it resonates with you.
Well said. I agree that the origin of life and the origin of human consciousness are points where science seems incapable of coming up with an explanation, due to its materialistic limitations. Yet it isn’t what we don’t know, but what we have discovered that points to a Divine Designer.
Precisely
I have waited over 40 years to see that cartoon in use! I first saw it in my textbook on non-Euclidean geometry.
It's a classic.
There is absolutely no guarantee that the sun will still be there tomorrow. We take it on well informed 'faith' that it most likely will be.
So true
This piece explains and justifies a belief in God, and indeed touches on why I realize I am not agnostic, really. But a belief in a Substance, an Underpinning, of the Universe is not the same, at all, as being a Christian. Obviously, a single article on Substack cannot march the entire trail; this is but a single step. I would like to see at least a map of the whole way. There must be many detours and dead ends. Perhaps you have already written such a guide, or are in the process of doing so.
I've written many pieces on various aspects of what got me from atheism to Christianity, but not a comprehensive guide. That's a good idea, Jackson.