• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Just A Small Part of Creation To Look Upon And Wonder

I ... just want to point out that what troubles me is people who claim to know God's mind and intent and put us (conveniently including themselves) at the center of that intent.
I agree that people claiming to know God's mind and intention is troubling, but people being troublesome is a normal part of life, and some times (not always) the trouble makers are the ones who are right.

You also say "the center of that intent" which is a different thing, because my finding (and I do say) that humanity is indeed the center and the true dynamic of God's intentions, which is basically what I said in posting #8, page 1, of this thread HERE = .

The very idea that humanity is somehow less-than important (less than super important) is an absurdity to my perspective.

Religion is not the line that divides one from the other
I do see religion as that "dividing line" just as was said before:
QUOTE: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ~ Albert Einstein

Of course that is the "dividing line" for me because I embrace both science and religion (as did Einstein) and the one true divider is thereby RELIGION.

It might have been otherwise a thousand or 500 years ago when science was the divider but now the table is turned, IMO.


============================================


a better way would be the total perspective vortex.

When you are put into the Vortex you are given just one momentary glimpse of the entire unimaginable infinity of creation, and somewhere in it a tiny little mark, a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot, which says, "You are here.

It shows exactly our place in the universe as a whole. a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot.
That is correct, but that is misleading.

Being super small or microscopic / tiny in the extreme - does NOT mean less important or less meaningful or less anything.

Science tells us that before the BIG BANG that the entire universe was so small that it had no real substance or size.

The atomic bomb is based on a tiny little atom creating a very LARGE explosion.

Even in the Bible Jesus said to have faith being as small as the smallest mustard seed in order to move mountains, Matthew 17:20, and not large faith because the real power is in the SMALL.

Men have the idea that larger is better and the bigger the better, and sometimes bigger is better, but it appears that idea is not quite right for all things.


================================================


It must have taken 14 billion years for God to make all that stuff.
My understanding is that God must always play by the rules, that the rules are the domain of God.

As such the laws of physics (the correct laws) are the limits of God just as for mankind.
 
I agree that people claiming to know God's mind and intention is troubling, but people being troublesome is a normal part of life, and some times (not always) the trouble makers are the ones who are right.

You also say "the center of that intent" which is a different thing, because my finding (and I do say) that humanity is indeed the center and the true dynamic of God's intentions, which is basically what I said in posting #8, page 1, of this thread HERE = .

The very idea that humanity is somehow less-than important (less than super important) is an absurdity to my perspective.


I do see religion as that "dividing line" just as was said before:
QUOTE: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ~ Albert Einstein

Of course that is the "dividing line" for me because I embrace both science and religion (as did Einstein) and the one true divider is thereby RELIGION.

It might have been otherwise a thousand or 500 years ago when science was the divider but now the table is turned, IMO.


============================================



That is correct, but that is misleading.

Being super small or microscopic / tiny in the extreme - does NOT mean less important or less meaningful or less anything.

Science tells us that before the BIG BANG that the entire universe was so small that it had no real substance or size.

The atomic bomb is based on a tiny little atom creating a very LARGE explosion.

Even in the Bible Jesus said to have faith being as small as the smallest mustard seed in order to move mountains, Matthew 17:20, and not large faith because the real power is in the SMALL.

Men have the idea that larger is better and the bigger the better, and sometimes bigger is better, but it appears that idea is not quite right for all things.


================================================



My understanding is that God must always play by the rules, that the rules are the domain of God.

As such the laws of physics (the correct laws) are the limits of God just as for mankind.

My point was that given the size of the universe as a whole that we are an insignificant portion of that universe. Yet even though we are a microdot on a microdot The lord still loved the world.
 
What makes you so sure that there was a beginning? Maybe the universe has existed through all of time

In fact, there is a good argument to be made that there could not have been a time when the universe did not exist
Both science and religion tells us that there was a "BEGINNING" and the evidence is very convincing.

A sad reality for us though is that it really makes little to no difference whether there was a beginning or not - except that people really do WANT to know.

I like the theories that there might be parallel universes as that explains a lot both religiously and scientifically, and even the "Big Bang" is saying that something completely unknown had to exist before the universe began, which is also what religion is saying too.

My understanding is that the universe is temporary and limited - but whatever came before the universe is the permanent / is the God.


======================================


Why should anyone think that this Earth, and those of us on it, are the sum and center of God's creation? My own religion is clear on the point that God has created worlds without number. How small-minded it seems to me to suppose otherwise.
If I understand you correctly then I do agree with you - with just this one deviation:

Yes God (or whatever it is) must have other worlds and other life-forms and created both the heavens and the earth (separate but united) and so we must not be so vain and egotistical that we would believe that we are everything to God, but my view is that we must NOT view any of this as like a competition because people compete when God and the universe does not compete.

As such all people or any one person might not be the sum and center of God's creation, but we are still (each and all) super important and significant.

It is not a competition as like one person is NOT better than some other person, or the earth is NOT really better than Mars or Jupiter or any other planet, so that the earth and every person is super important in our own ways, just as everyone and everything else is super important too. There is no competition while there still is a degree of significance based on reality and truth.
 
Both science and religion tells us that there was a "BEGINNING" and the evidence is very convincing.

Actually, science does not tell us that there was a beginning. many scientists have hypothesized that there was one, and presented additional hypotheses about its' characteristics, but science has yet to penetrate and illuminate that mystery
 
When I look at nature I cannot help but be mesmerised by the beauty and majesty put here by a kind and loving god.

 
Actually, science does not tell us that there was a beginning. many scientists have hypothesized that there was one, and presented additional hypotheses about its' characteristics, but science has yet to penetrate and illuminate that mystery
You really need to give much more of an explanation or even a link explaining that because that is an outrageous claim indeed.

The "Big Bang" means a beginning of our own universe, and that Big Bang is accepted doctrine today, link Origin of the Universe.



=====================================



When I look at nature I cannot help but be mesmerised by the beauty and majesty put here by a kind and loving god.


What is really shown in that video is a dauphin being abused and mistreated by human beings.

It has nothing to do with God.

That dolphin is out of water and on a chopping block and being filmed so there is nothing natural there.

People blame such things on God and put ignorant claims onto the dauphin while ignoring the human cruelty which overrules the entire scene.
 
You really need to give much more of an explanation or even a link explaining that because that is an outrageous claim indeed.

The "Big Bang" means a beginning of our own universe, and that Big Bang is accepted doctrine today, link Origin of the Universe.

That article supports mt claim. What scientists believe and what scientists can prove are two different things.
 
That article supports mt claim. What scientists believe and what scientists can prove are two different things.
That makes little sense to me, and I surely do not see any point to your words.

If you your-self do not believe either way then why do not you just say whatever your position is?

The Big Bang or Big Expansion has far enough proof for me that there was a beginning and a creation day for our universe and I know of no credible argument contrary to that.

If you believe otherwise then that would be fine - but you are not saying any such thing or otherwise.

Some people want to demand extraordinary "PROOF" and that is not a thing that I require.
 
That makes little sense to me, and I surely do not see any point to your words.

If you your-self do not believe either way then why do not you just say whatever your position is?

My position is that I do not know, nor care, if the universe has a beginning.

The Big Bang or Big Expansion has far enough proof for me that there was a beginning and a creation day for our universe and I know of no credible argument contrary to that.

If you believe otherwise then that would be fine - but you are not saying any such thing or otherwise.

Some people want to demand extraordinary "PROOF" and that is not a thing that I require.

The claim does not have "enough" proof. It has no proof. However, there is evidence to support the belief so I think that it's reasonable for people to believe that the universe has a beginning if they choose to believe so. However, I choose to remain agnostic on the issue.
 
What it tells us is that time has a finite along with an infinite application in the extreme, which thereby demonstrates an infinity and thereby an immortality as another significant proof of God.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. What do you mean by immortality? An afterlife? That is merely a belief.
 
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. What do you mean by immortality? An afterlife? That is merely a belief.
That is really a great observation, and great question too.

The "afterlife" is indeed just a belief because it is unknown and so-far unprovable, and any "afterlife" is really rather meaningless when our primary function is here and now in this lifetime.

This is the reason that I stated earlier in posting #8 that the existence of God is not a "belief" as we do have evidence and thereby proof of a real God, see post #10.

So again - any afterlife is all speculation and "belief" or possibly just nonsense or rubbish.

But the things like infinite and immortality are knowable just as we can see the universe as being infinite along with whatever might be outside the universe would also be infinite and thereby SOME -THING(S) do exist forever and ever, and that is a proof of some form(s) of immortality.

That "immortality" does not have to include human being as immortal, but it includes that other things do last forever and ever and beyond which is thereby immortality, and based on that then the claims of some immortal afterlife has a big added validity to that belief.

If we go back and research the worldwide scriptures then people today claim that dreaming up some fantastic afterlife was a normal human superstition, and I find that to be a scientific "belief" which is not sustainable. For primitive humans to think of such a grandiose ideals of immortality based on nothing is not really a logical deduction. The people who created the Pyramids of Egypt were NOT stupid nor were they blind to common sense, and other cultures were more primitive then ancient Egypt, so they saw people die and would have seen the body decay and seen animals eating the bodies of the dead so people way back THEN dreaming up some afterlife of immortality is not really a logical nor sensible belief that we have today.

The proof and the evidence of both immortality (infinity) and even of a God (a creator) is really a modern day invention of modern science. We today know about the Big Bang and the beginning of the universe as established truth (truth for me) while way back in the ancient days it had to be a far searching belief and it would be fantastic to learn whatever they based their beliefs on.

Many people today claim that the ancients dreamed up immortality and God based on their superstitious fears, but the evidence says otherwise, because human being do not take our superstitious fears and add on a happy ending - well no - fear does not work that way.
 
But the things like infinite and immortality are knowable just as we can see the universe as being infinite along with whatever might be outside the universe would also be infinite and thereby SOME -THING(S) do exist forever and ever, and that is a proof of some form(s) of immortality.

I have a problem with that part. Nothing has ever been proven to be infinite so you are speculating. Nothing wrong with that of course. As for an infinite universe, here are the words of Joseph Silk.
''No. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not. To give you an example, imagine the geometry of the Universe in two dimensions as a plane. It is flat, and a plane is normally infinite. But you can take a sheet of paper [an 'infinite' sheet of paper] and you can roll it up and make a cylinder, and you can roll the cylinder again and make a torus [like the shape of a doughnut]. The surface of the torus is also spatially flat, but it is finite. So you have two possibilities for a flat Universe: one infinite, like a plane, and one finite, like a torus, which is also flat. ''
 
I have a problem with that part. Nothing has ever been proven to be infinite so you are speculating. Nothing wrong with that of course. As for an infinite universe, here are the words of Joseph Silk.
''No. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not. To give you an example, imagine the geometry of the Universe in two dimensions as a plane. It is flat, and a plane is normally infinite. But you can take a sheet of paper [an 'infinite' sheet of paper] and you can roll it up and make a cylinder, and you can roll the cylinder again and make a torus [like the shape of a doughnut]. The surface of the torus is also spatially flat, but it is finite. So you have two possibilities for a flat Universe: one infinite, like a plane, and one finite, like a torus, which is also flat. ''
The thing about a finite universe still leaves the problem of whatever could be outside of any finite universe - which simply must be infinite, and if some how it is not infinite then there is something going on that is way far outside of our human comprehension.

I myself have already accepted the idea of having parallel universes as that explains a lot of things which otherwise make no sense.

Since we can not determine some such things by factual proof (as like infinity) then we simply must take an educated guess or reasonable speculation and I see those when done correctly as being the marvelous ability of the human mind. Before anyone proved that the earth was round then other people speculated, and as such they knew the truth before it was discovered, and we too must use that same kind of vision.

The known universe is said to be around 14 billion years old, and just 1 billion years is close enough to infinity or immortal to me, because just one billion (1B) years is such a long time that 14 billion years is an eternity even if it is factually seen as being finite.

Accepting our limitations is a rather comfortable place to rest - IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom