|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4798 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why'd you do it that way, God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
"According to science, the universe is HUGE, and we are but a mere speck."
But then "Science" is no less biased or based on hope and faith than the Pope. Science has "Faith" that a majority of "lab coats" will agree that they have followed a good process and that all these white coats will agree with the conclusions drawn from the data. But valid conclusions can be swept under the rug and ignored if they don't fit the biases of the majority. To suggest we are a "mere speck" is not accurate and shows a huge ego. According to "Science" the universe is infinite. That means we are so small that we don't actually exist in the grand scheme of things. In fact, "Science" is nothing and knows nothing about nothing compared to the infinite amount of universe outside of what we know. Ahh, but that would be going too far. Science isn't ready to admit that we know nothing. That doesn't leave room for the man-ego to boast that science knows just about all that there is to know. Yet, I just illustrated that we know less than nothing. Especially about the infinite that we don't know. That's why there must be a Creator. Because if there isn't, then we know nothing at all. But if there is, then we aren't just less than a speck. Then we are actually the reason for the rest to exist. And clearly we still don't know everything there is to know. But at least we can relax and look forward to being with The One who does. Carl Sagan seems like such a pleasant fellow. I wonder if his three wives have the same opinion? They didn't seem too happy. Being a Pot-smoking Stoner, I would think he'd be easier to get along with. What a great drug-induced smile....eh? Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18248 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Is it any less egotistical to believe in a Creator who lifts humanity up as His "special" creation over every other single known and unknown lifeform in the known universe? Going even further, is it not egotistical to believe that only certain folks are saved and the rest are forever lost??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jasonlang Member (Idle past 3393 days) Posts: 51 From: Australia Joined: |
Have you read or come across the ideas of James N Gardners book "Biocosm"? I obtained a copy of this book and it's a great read! Not sure I can fully accept his 'Selfish Biocosm' thesis, but it's perhaps the most mind-blowing and ambitious physical hypotheses I've ever come across!
I've lent it to a number of friends, both atheist ad deist. Most approached it with knowing smirk, but once they were into it became highly enthusiastic about the depth of the ideas. He looks at evidence for the universe being "bio-friendly" eg physics paprameters which appear to be specifically tweaked for evolution of life and intelligence to occur, and hypothesises what this would mean in a cyclic universe. His idea - an evolutionary process like the one we see around us could have occured in the previous universe cycle(s), and over billions of years of technological development the inhabitants gained the knowledge and control over inanimate matter to be able to 'tweak' the physical parameters themselves. So in this theory the universe itself is not designed so much as it is terraformed, and evidence for this terraforming is indistuinguishable from evidence for design. His idea is naturalistic and also darwinian in that terraformed universes are subsequently more likely to give rise to intelligent life which can further terraform and guarantee the stability of the universe, his title 'self biocosm' is drawn from Dawkins 'selfish gene'. So universes with intelligent life have a selective advantage, yet there isn't any mystical sense to the theory. Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given. Edited by jasonlang, : had authors middle initial wrong. D'oh!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
" Is it any less egotistical to believe in a Creator who lifts humanity up as His "special" creation over every other single known and unknown lifeform in the known universe? Going even further, is it not egotistical to believe that only certain folks are saved and the rest are forever lost?? "
- When cornered - change the subject- Putting something or somebody in charge is common. Anything with a brain has appreciation for the value of having a brain in charge. Or should. - The lost can always count on Reincarnation to pull them from the lost soul pile and stick them into a bug or something. Why would non-believers want to spend all eternity worshiping God? No fun for them. THAT would be Hell, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jasonlang Member (Idle past 3393 days) Posts: 51 From: Australia Joined: |
And then there's the fact that knowing what the outcome might be is different than seeing it happen before your eyes. Perhaps God started from the Big Bang just to see what kind of life would arise. An omnipotent and omniscient God could have created the universe as-is 5 minutes ago with all memories etc intact. For such a God, imagining something would be as good as creating it (perhaps he is imagining us right now). Therefore he could have already divined the lifetimes of all sentient beings worthy of going to Heaven and actually created them in Heaven to start with. No need for hell or suffering, no need to separate the wheat from the chaff when you can create the wheat full-grown with false memories of the life they would have led, had you actually created them. We can only divine that he did things the way he did because he wanted them to happen like this, so if there is a Hell it's because God wanted there to be a Hell. Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jasonlang Member (Idle past 3393 days) Posts: 51 From: Australia Joined: |
Take our moon for example. All of the brightest minds in the world have reached no conclusion on how it was formed. And that's after hand delivery of 100's of pounds of surface and core samples. No, if the group you call "Science" can't reach agreement on how our moon was formed with samples in their hands, I'm not going to give them ANY credit for theories on how anything else came into being. Scientists in general seem to be happy with the impact hypothesis, and as the scientist near the end of the video states it's in all the textbooks and I haven't heard any reputable scientist really disputing the model or having an alternative (maybe I'm wrong though). Also, it's well backed up by computer simullations originally developed to model impacts between Saturns moons, but if there's anything less than total 100% agreement by "All of the brightest minds in the world" you won't accept the theory and say we must posit magic as the only rational cause? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibV4MdN5wo0&NR=1Giant-impact hypothesis - Wikipedia BTW : The rings of Saturn seem to be about 100 million years old, not 1 billion, so what you say is a a straw man argument about the age of the moons being wrong. Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given. Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
(maybe I'm wrong though)
Correct. The subject is avoided not because of consensus but because all the current theories have about the same amount of support and about the same amount of contradictory evidence. It's really quite an embarrassment (for "Science") to have so much hard data and no solid conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
"An omnipotent and omniscient God could have created the universe as-is 5 minutes ago with all memories etc intact."
No, that would have bypassed the option for man to choose Sin....which he did choose. You know the old saying ... If you love something, set it free.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
It's really quite an embarrassment (for "Science") to have so much hard data and no solid conclusions.
As opposed to religious belief, which has no hard data and dogmatic conclusions? Thanks, I'll take science any day. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 275 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Correct. The subject is avoided ... No.
... not because of consensus but because all the current theories have about the same amount of support and about the same amount of contradictory evidence. It's really quite an embarrassment (for "Science") to have so much hard data and no solid conclusions. Scientists are not embarrassed by behaving rationally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 275 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"According to science, the universe is HUGE, and we are but a mere speck." But then "Science" is no less biased or based on hope and faith than the Pope. Science has "Faith" that a majority of "lab coats" will agree that they have followed a good process and that all these white coats will agree with the conclusions drawn from the data. But valid conclusions can be swept under the rug and ignored if they don't fit the biases of the majority. To suggest we are a "mere speck" is not accurate and shows a huge ego. According to "Science" the universe is infinite. That means we are so small that we don't actually exist in the grand scheme of things. In fact, "Science" is nothing and knows nothing about nothing compared to the infinite amount of universe outside of what we know. Ahh, but that would be going too far. Science isn't ready to admit that we know nothing. That doesn't leave room for the man-ego to boast that science knows just about all that there is to know. Yet, I just illustrated that we know less than nothing. Especially about the infinite that we don't know. That's why there must be a Creator. Because if there isn't, then we know nothing at all. But if there is, then we aren't just less than a speck. Then we are actually the reason for the rest to exist. And clearly we still don't know everything there is to know. But at least we can relax and look forward to being with The One who does. Carl Sagan seems like such a pleasant fellow. I wonder if his three wives have the same opinion? They didn't seem too happy. Being a Pot-smoking Stoner, I would think he'd be easier to get along with. What a great drug-induced smile....eh? Well, that was incoherent. But you seem to be taking the assurance of scientists that they don't know everything as meaning that you know "less than nothing". You may, indeed, know less than nothing --- indeed, your post appears to confirm this hypothesis. But this disability does not follow from the fact that scientists say that they don't know everything. It seems, in fact, to follow from you swallowing a load of half-baked tripe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 275 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"An omnipotent and omniscient God could have created the universe as-is 5 minutes ago with all memories etc intact." No, that would have bypassed the option for man to choose Sin.... You would in fact have that option whether the world was magicked into existence five minutes ago or six thousand years ago, since your capacity to exercise your free will has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
"Scientists are not embarrassed by behaving rationally. "
LOL! You've not been around Scientists! I've seen them escorted by security out of the building after throwing chairs. I've seem them escorted out for lieing, cheating, and even stealing. Just like the rest of the population. Rational thought is very far from the scientific method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
"....since your capacity to exercise your free will has nothing to do with the age of the Earth."
Yes it does. Not that I care about our observed age of the earth, just that history, as told in the scriptures, is important in that it tells what has taken place. At a certain time in the past, we chose sin, so God had to do something to make up for our choice. We chose Death. So God had to fix that problem. That's actually when time started. The clock didn't start ticking till we choose not to be in fellowship with God. Before that, time didn't exist... As we know it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
"Well,thatwasincoherent.Butyoseemtobetaking the assurance of scientists that they don't know everything as meaning that you know "less than nothing".You mayindeed,knowlessthan nothing-indeed, your post appears to confirm this hypothesis.But this disability does not follow from the fact that scientists say that they don't know everything.It seems, in fact, to follow from you swallowing a load of half-baked tripe. "
Well you cleared that up. Anyway, I'll restate: If the REST of the universe is INFINITE,then the SPECK of information that we know is INFINITELY SMALL. (Ego's have a hard time with this idea.) .
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024