o Om vry en/of regverdig, onder andere, Aangename uitkomste, mee te bereik.
o En/of asook, Mark groei daarmee, aan te dui.
o Ek hys die benodige kleur vlag - ek gee oor.
o Om interpreteer te word, om ondersteuning te lewer, en/of
o Verby gesteek te word.
Vir groter Aangename uitkomste (Inisiatiew(e)), die lig te sien.
o Ek stel voor, die kuur vir miv en/of vigs, 'losgelaat te word uit
haar/sy hok', (indien wel bestaan, indien wel).
o En elke familie te 'red' / ondersteun,
om (beter en/of) nuwe uitgawes, aan te gaan,
en/of verkryging van bate(s).
o Bv. Self-help en/of Groep-help materiaal en/of kursus(se).
o Om die vervorming,
van vrede, vriendskap, (gesondheid), welstand,
voorspoed, (sekuriteit), (veiligheid),
((tegnologiese) (teokratiese) moderniteit), ens. ),
(op die persoonlike, familie en/of arms uitgestrekte familie
vlak(ke)),
te verhoog, van, (verby), en/of na hoër vlak(ke).
(ondersteun) Hoop dit help.
(ondersteun) Saam vir 'n (beter en/of) Nuwe (Toekoms en/of) Era.
(ondersteun) Almal vir Een, en/of Een vir Almal.
Christene sê net hulle gaan hemel toe, Moslems sê net hulle gaan hemel
toe, ander gelowe glo nie aan
die hemel of 'n god nie soos budhisme en volgens die christene
gaan hulle almal hel toe al lewe
hulle 'n baie voorbeeldige lewe in baie meer 'n mate as meeste christene.
Die bybel sê jy is met my of jy is teen my d.w.s. ek is klaar verdoem tot die hel al help
ek my medemens waar ek kan en doen ek niemand kwaad aan want
ek is 'n ateïs! As dit so was dat die siel na die dood na 'n hemel sou gaan dan sou dit ook
geld vir alle diere want aan die einde van die dag is die mens tog afkomstig van die
aap d.m.v evolusie. Christene moet 'n slag gaan stilstaan en die "skille" van hul oë laat
afval en kyk na die diereryk. 'n Onlangse program op National Geographic het getoon
dat bobbejane baie dieselfde karakter eienskappe as mense toon wat betref haat, afguns,
trots, liefde en al daardie emosies wat ons aan onsself toegeien het. Ons is toe nie so spesiaal
of uniek nie. Ag nee wat hierdie hele debat oor godsdiens laat 'n suur smaak in my mond
ek het nou besluit hulle kan maar stry onder mekaar oor die katkesismes, groot doop,
klein doop, beelde in die kerk en moeder Maria maar ek gaan nie my kop breek oor
hierdie goedjies nie. Ons gaan dood en ons liggame gaan terug in die aarde of atmosfeer
en die atome vorm dalk later deel van 'n pragtige boom of wildsbok, dis hoe ons die ewige
lewe be-erwe. Al ooit die gevoel gehad dat jy vlieg of dat jy op 'n plek vantevore was? Groetnis
en strerkte met die stryery en bakleiery oor godsdiens terwyl jy die waarheid miskyk.
"You can't prove God exists and you can't prove God doesn't exist."
This is the response one often hears when the question of God's
existence is raised.
It is true in one trivial sense, but quite misleading in another
critical sense. If we are using "prove" in the strict sense of
absolute certainty, it is true that we can't prove or disprove God's
existence. But this does not mean that there is no good evidence or
arguments for God, which might make belief in God's existence very
reasonable. We know very little (if anything) with absolute
mathematical certainty, so certainty is neither a reasonable or
necessary standard. Like virtually all of our other knowledge, I think
we can show that it is highly probable that God exists.
It is also important for us to note that merely having a possible
alternative explanation does not defeat the argument. What one needs
is a more probable alternative explanation. For example, most people
believe the earth is a sphere; but a small minority still insist the
earth is flat. Should the "spheroids" abandon their theory just
because the "flat-earthers" have come up with an alternative? Of
course not. The only way this would be necessary is if the
flat-earthers were able to offer overwhelming evidence that theirs is
the more probable theory. And that is unlikely in the extreme.
Good arguments for God's existence are in abundant supply. Alvin
Plantinga, arguably one of the world's more brilliant living
philosophers, recently delivered a paper outlining two dozen or so
theistic arguments. Space will limit me to two.
Argument #1: God Is the Best Explanation for the Beginning of the
Universe
Premise 1) Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
Premise 2) The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause.
Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Most of us have no problem
accepting this principle. We assume its truth in virtually every
aspect in our daily lives. Our experience always confirms it and never
denies it. But surprisingly, philosophers have been unable to prove
its veracity.
Nevertheless, it has always been a fundamental first principle of
philosophy and science that "from nothing, nothing comes." Even the
atheist philosopher David Hume, who showed that we could not prove
with certainty that the causal principle was true, still believed it
to be true and thought so with certainty.
Surely it is more reasonable to hold to this premise than to believe
that things pop into existence out of nothing and by nothing.
Scientific Confirmation
Secondly, we have both scientific confirmation and logical argument
for the universe having a beginning. According to the standard Big
Bang model, space, time, matter and energy all came into existence
simultaneously around 15 billion years ago.
Furthermore, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, given
enough time the universe will eventually reach a state of
equilibrium-a cold, dark, dead, virtually motionless state. Clearly,
if the universe is without beginning, then there has been an infinite
length of time preceding this present moment. If this is the case,
then the universe should already be in a state of equilibrium. This
should be a cold, dark, dead, virtually motionless universe. There
should be no galaxies, solar systems, stars or planets-not to mention
living organisms. Since there is obviously plenty of heat, light,
movement and life, the past must be finite. The universe had a
beginning.
The third and strongest piece of support for the beginning of the
universe comes from the impossibility of an infinite past. This is
because an actual infinite number of anything cannot exist in the real
world.
We might think that since we use the concept of infinity in
mathematics there would be no problem here. But mathematicians who
work with the concept of infinity, do so by adopting some arbitrary
rules to avoid the absurdities and contradictions that come with an
infinite number of anything. And these rules don't apply to the real
world. Infinity only works in the abstract realm and only with some
special rules.
To see the absurdity and contradictions of an actual infinite number
of things in the real world, imagine a library having an infinite
number of black books and an infinite number of green books
alternating colours on the shelves and numbered consecutively on the
spines.
Does it make any sense to say that there are as many black books as
there are black plus green books together? Not really, but that is
what you would have to say if you want to claim the infinite is
possible in the real world.
Suppose we withdrew all the green books. How many books are there left
in the library? There would still be an infinite number of books in
the library even though we just withdrew an infinite number and found
a way to get them home! Suppose we withdrew the books numbered
4,5,6... and so on. Now how many books are left? Three! Something
surely is wrong here! One time we subtract an infinite number of books
and we're left with an infinite number; the next time we subtract an
infinite number and we're left with three-a clear logical
contradiction. Since our hypothesis leads to a contradiction, the
hypothesis must be false-a library with an infinite number of books
cannot exist.
While we can avoid these contradictions in the mathematical realm by
making up rules like not allowing ourselves to subtract or divide when
using infinity, we cannot in the real world prevent people from taking
books out of libraries.
Therefore, since a beginningless past would be an actual infinite
number of things (events) and since an infinite number of things
cannot exist in the real world, it follows logically that the past is
not infinite. The universe had a beginning.
Furthermore, an infinite past is impossible, because an actual
infinite cannot be formed by adding one member after another. It's
like counting to infinity-you just never get there. Just like we can
never finish counting to infinity, we can never begin to count down to
a negative infinity. But to have a universe with no beginning, you
would have to have an infinite number of past events leading up to the
present. But this is impossible, because, by implication, the present
could never have come to exist.
Thus the Big Bang Theory, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the
impossibility of an infinite past all support the universe having a
beginning.
Since whatever begins to exist must have a cause, it follows logically
that the universe has a cause.
What Caused God?
The most common objection to this argument is "What caused God?" But
the question "What caused X?" only makes sense if there was some
indication that "X" had a beginning. In this case, there is nothing
that indicates that the cause of the Big Bang had a beginning. In
fact, since time did not exist beyond the Big Bang, the cause of the
Big Bang must have existed timelessly. Thus, it could have no
beginning, and hence no cause. We may want to say this about the
universe, but we can't, since as we have seen, the evidence points
toward the universe having a beginning.
Argument #2: God Is the Best Explanation for a Universe that Supports
Life
Astrophysicists have been discovering that the Big Bang appears to
have been incredibly fine tuned. The numerical values of the different
natural forces like gravity, electromagnetism, subatomic forces and
the charges of electrons "just happened" to fall into an extremely
narrow range that is conducive for life to exist. Minute changes in
any one of these forces would have destroyed the possibility for life
and, in most cases, destroyed the universe.
Stephen Hawking, probably the best known name in contemporary physics,
has written,
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many
fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the
electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the
electron....The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers
seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the
development of life."(A Brief History of Time, 1988, p. 125)
Sir Fred Hoyle, the astrophysicist, well known for his anti-theistic
feelings tell us that,
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry
and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about
in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond
question."(Engineering and Science, Nov 1981, cited in The World
Treasury of Physics, ed. By Timothy Ferris, 1991, p. 392)
Consider these examples:
1. If the charge of the Proton and Electron not been Exactly Equal
hydrogen atoms would repel one another and there would be no galaxies.
2. If the Relative Strength of the Four Fundamental Forces-gravity,
electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces-were slightly
different, no life would be possible. If the strong force (the force
that binds protons and neutrons in the nucleus) was just two per cent
less, it would have destroyed all nuclei essential to life. If it was
two per cent more, it would have prevented the formation of protons
and, therefore, matter.
3. If the Proton/Electron Mass Ratio of 1836 to 1 had been slightly
different, there would be no chemistry.
4. If the Balance Between the Gravitational Force and the
Electromagnetic Force in Stars had been altered by a mere 1 in 1040,
it would have produced a universe composed entirely of blue giants and
red dwarfs-stars that don't support life.
5. Given the second law of thermodynamics, a big bang should have
produced a universe with zero order (maximum entropy), and yet our
universe came out very orderly (Low Entropy).
6. If expansion rate of the universe was slower by 1 part in a million
million, the universe would have collapsed very early. If the
expansion rate was greater by 1 part in a million, galaxies stars and
planets never would have formed.
7. If the Centrifugal Force did not Perfectly Balances the
Gravitational Force, every galaxy and solar system would come crashing
in upon itself.
8. If the Resonance (energy) Level of the Carbon 12 Nucleus was
slightly lower, carbon would not form. A slightly higher level would
instantly destroy it. Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and the other heavy
elements required for life all depend upon this.
If the Big Bang was merely a chance happening it is virtually
impossible that all the values of all of these forces would have been
exactly right to ensure the survival of the universe and to allow
life. Given the potentially infinite number of other values these
forces could have taken, it is much more likely that they would have
fallen outside the very narrow range that is conducive to life. As
John Leslie, the philosopher of science has put it, "Life prohibiting
universes are much more probable than life permitting universes." This
is evidence of an intelligent designer behind the Big Bang who ensured
that it happened in such a way that the universe could support life.
The Observer Objection
There is one main objection to this argument. It goes something like
this: "It is not surprising that we observe the initial conditions of
the universe to be conducive to life because those are obviously the
only conditions that could precede our existence."
This is only the case if one assumes beforehand that our existence
itself is not surprising. But our argument is that, given the
potentially infinite number of non-life values the forces could have
taken, it is extremely surprising that the entire scenario has taken
place, i.e., the right initial conditions and the existence of
observers. If one assumes that the second part is not surprising, then
of course it follows that the first part is also not surprising. But
that clearly begs the question.
Summary and Conclusion
Just like two cords wound together become a strong rope, so the
cumulative effect of these two arguments provide us with a powerful
case for the existence of God.
Taken together, these two arguments tell us that the cause and
designer of the universe is an intelligent, immaterial, powerful,
changeless being that existed in a timeless, eternal state beyond the
beginning of the universe. This, I suggest, is close enough to the
traditional Judeo-Christian concept of God that we can justifiably
conclude that indeed, God does exist.
Bush en sy oorblywende Wit Huis gespuis probeer nou
vir almal te oortuig dat die surge werk en dat die Amerikaners
nie vir hulle moet onttrek van die moeras van Irak nie. Volgens
hom is daar nou minder geweld as vantevore in Baghdad.
Maar nou kom dit uit dat die ware rede vir die bietjie minder
geweld in die hoofstad is dat omtrent al die Sunnis uit die
stad gevlug het en duisende van hulle buite Irak sit. Die
Shiites daarenteen se posisie is so versterk dat hulle nou
die dominante faktor in die politiek van Suid-Irak geword
het. Dit is nou alles wel en goed, miskien. Maar dit moet
onthou word dat die Shiites kop in een mus is met Iran,
wat volgens Bush agente van die duiwel is. So wat het
Bush en Cheney nou bereik met hulle oorlog in Irak -
hulle het Iran se vuilwerk vir hulle gedoen. He, he.
Twee Vrydae gelede toe
-- virrie eerste keer in 'n laaaaang tyd --
maak 'n meisie 'n pass op my --
veral eers na sy gehoor het
dat ek van ver gekom het vir 'n ander vrou.
Sy sê dis wonderlik,
jy't jou hart gevolg.
O, as iemand so iets vir haar sou doen...
Sy sê sy's moeg om Sondae alleen wakker te word.
En ek sê maar ek's dalk bietjie dronk,
maar dit werkie so nie.
Die hart is 'n erdwurm --
jy kan hom nie volg nie.
Jy sny net stukkies wurm af,
aspris of per ongeluk,
en hulle sukkel-wriemel blind "weiter"
in die seesand van kleintyd
in ander tale
in jou ouma se Bybel
in jou ma'le se bedkassie
in ou girl friends se foto's
in ou vriende se bier ...
Ek sê snags assie huise asem-ophou luister,
hoe die maan ou geheime in kat-ore fluister,
weet jy die hart se brûe bly onverbrand,
selfs al woon jy ver in 'n an-
der land.
Supertaal
Blog
Soek
Hulp
Lede
Registreer
Teken aan
Tuis
RSS
