| god or not god 20:42 - Jan 26 with 15928 views | Davillin |
Important prefatory notes: I do not accept the description of “God” in any religious writing in the nature of a “bible.” Nor do I accept the description of “heaven,” “hell,” “angels,” or any other tangentials in any religious writing. I do not disrespect the person or opinions of anyone who believes any formal religious tenets, nor anyone who does not.
In my view, all religions have been created by mankind in order to (1) explain the inexplicable, and (2) to provide a set of principles and rules for the conduct of life. I do not disrespect any religion for doing so.
This essay is not about religion, but rather about the source of everything in existence, and in particular about the source of “life.”
____________________
I have been studying religion and religion as philosophy almost all my life. I remember as a 6- or 7-year old boy in Religious Instruction classes being taught from a Catechism. [A catechism is a form of teaching and learning by rote from a logically-arranged series of questions and answers.]
I still remember the first questions in my catechism:
“Q: Who made thee?
“A: God made me.
“Q: Why did God make thee?
“A: God made me to love him and serve him in this life, and to be with him in the next.”
For something being taught to such a young person, with the expectation that it will be understood on his level, that’s actually not a bad start to explaining the inexplicable.
Later in life, however, as I expanded my study of religions of the world and philosophy, it became clearer and clearer to me that those who wrote and taught about religion were trying to explain what they thought they understood to people who did not have the intellect or education to understand it on a philosophical level, so the teachers brought it down to a level they could understand, and often resorted to stories as images of something theoretically more concrete. Importantly, however, the teachers did not tell the faithful that these were poetic stories [fables?] and not reality.
While accepting the concept of a creator and sustainer of life, they were unable to visualize that creator as anything but “a person-like being” with a human-like body, emotions, and thoughts, but with supernatural power, as a simpler description for something so far beyond our ability to conceive.
To complicate my learning process, my study of the sciences and the empirical evidence science provides, gave me an uncomfortable sense that while I could easily reject the fabulous in religious teaching, science kept increasing my conviction that there had to have been a creator and sustainer of life. The longer I lived and the more I learned, the more inescapable that conviction became, as did the other conviction that bible versions of creation were not viable.
I could write for an hour about the observations of Nature which make their origin from a creator beyond question for me. Let me give just a few.
We live in a universe which is literally beyond our comprehension. An untold number of planets are orbiting an untold number of stars in an untold number of galaxies extending across a universe whose immensity is incalculable and actually beyond our imagination. The last numbers I heard are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars. We can’t even imagine the sense of “a billion” anything, let alone hundreds of billions, let alone hundreds of billions of galaxies.
The notion that all of that matter came from nothing is even more difficult to accept; as is the notion that it all came from a “uniformity” — a completely made-up word to name (but not to define, and without proof) what supposedly existed before the universe exploded into existence — and which came into existence all by itself without a creating force named or even defined.
At the same time, we live in a universe which is also small beyond our comprehension. One-celled creatures too small to be seen with the naked eye, yet have life. Bodies in all forms which come into existence from matter that starts with eggs or seeds or parts thereof, also so small as to be unseen with the naked eye, yet having life. Animal bodies which are formed according to a plan to be found in DNA in chromosomes too small to be seen with the naked eye and having distinct parts even smaller. Imagine a distinct life beginning with just two of these chromosomes which combine to begin a process of self-replication followed by self-modification and self-differentiation to make all of the highly-specialized cells in the body.
And those highly-specialized cells cause the most amazing behaviours! Some cells are specifically created to become parts of an eye with connections to other cells which are specifically created to become parts of a brain and allow the animal to “see” everything around it. Others become internal organs which take organic material and turn it into energy, others which burn energy, and others which turn it into waste material, and others which expel it. Others self-differentiate into organs that provide for self-reproduction into organisms exactly like themselves, or more amazingly, into organisms which are not exactly like either parent.
Every organ of the body has its own amazing life story, and all of the “decisions” for all of these characteristics are handed down from the parents within a set of sub-microscope genes within microscopic chromosomes.
And the resulting organisms can live for anywhere from 24 hours (certain insects are hatched, mate, and die within 24 hours) to others which can live for centuries.
[I have not yet scratched the surface of the amazing special characteristics of innumerable astonishingly different species. It would take a good-size library to contain all of the information about distinctive characteristics of different species of animals, plants, and other life forms, all from one lightning strike on some enzymes in a pool of primordial ooze?]
And so we know of things in existence that range in size from sub-atomic to incomprehensibly huge. And we see the outward manifestations of “life” without the faintest knowledge of what life is, where it is, where it came from, or where it goes.
I do know that my body has lived for more than 77 years and that it replaces its own cells in a complex schedule that we can sometimes calculate but can never explain. And it has co-operated in producing three new life forms directly and several others in the next generation, in a process which I can trace in my family back 300 years and which will — or has the capacity to — go on to an unknown moment in future time, and can be expected to continue forward as long as its history is behind.
Did you know that “Otzi,” the man whose frozen body was found in the Alps, who lived over 5,000 years ago, has living “relatives” today, as evidenced by elements of his DNA which have remained unchanged over that time? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24477038
Now. With even that brief statement of the size, complexity, and wonder of this tiny sliver of all creation that we know, how can I imagine that it came about — in all its magnificent complexity — from no cause, or as the result of an accidental lightning strike?
And so I am left with what is difficult for some to accept — a creator and sustainer of life with powers even more beyond our comprehension. [I must repeat here that I am not referring to any biblical “god.”] Some believe that, because we cannot conceive of such powers, and therefore of the nature of any such entity, they must not exist. Tragically, the people who survived the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki could not conceive of such power — or who could have “created” it — yet nevertheless they had empirical evidence that it did exist, and had to have been created by someone. The survivors, like you and me, still don’t know how it works.
I was alive at that time and remember vividly that no-one in my experience had ever heard of an “atomic bomb,” and had no idea what an atomic bomb was, or how it worked, or how much destruction it caused.
This creator/sustainer clearly must be omnipotent — with powers whose effect we can see [if we look with an open mind] but not comprehend — and omnipresent — meaning being everywhere, even within every living organism and thing — and omniscient — knowing all. As a result of having read a number of philosophers on the subject, I see that this creator/sustainer must also exist without reference to time, or is “omnitemporal” in the word I have coined to name it.
Inasmuch as creation continues, with the known creation of more planets, stars, and galaxies, and life itself, it is at least likely that the creator continues also, unless all of creation was set in motion and is simply continuing as designed.
Part of the bewilderment I see in some who do not accept the notion of a creator/sustainer comes from the fact that they cannot comprehend or even imagine such powers; and if they cannot understand the immensity and complexity of creation, they cannot understand a power commensurate with that immensity and complexity. The atomic bomb outcome.
I listen to any of the great pieces of classical music and in my amazed appreciation of what the composer did with nothing but sound, I cannot comprehend how he did it. Imagine Beethovan composing exquisite music while completely deaf, writing on paper the music that he heard only in his mind.
Inventors who were able to use their knowledge of science and their purely awe-inspiring imagination have invented things that we cannot believe can work. Who knew that there was a way to make “radio” waves carry sound across miles — now far out into space and back, demonstrably beyond the limits of our solar system? Who first imagined that radio waves even exist? Or how to harness them, send sound across them, receive them, and turn them back into sound again for our ears? I could go on identifying things man has “discovered” and turned into something useful.
Then explain to me that all of these discovered things — and more — came to be by accident, and how, and from what? Electricity, for example. It’s not a physical entity, but it exists and shocked same puddle of primordial ooze from which life itself emerged, from a random lightning strike?
I first learned from a philosopher whose name has escaped me that it is not the least bit difficult to know that a powerful creator/sustainer brought all of this into existence and sustains it. Just look around you, he suggested. There is nothing but endless empirical evidence that it had to have been created. I add that you have a couple of options — pure chance without impetus, a puddle of ooze, or an unknowable but obvious creator/sustainer.
Some of you will ask me where this creator/sustainer comes from. I don’t know. Neither does anyone who prefers some kind of “big bang” theory know where matter came [comes] from. That the answer, if known, would be astonishing beyond our puny understanding is not a reason to doubt it. The history of mankind is filled with answers beyond our ability to grasp at first, and which have been proven and accepted when known and understood, and those questions are far easier to answer than the source of the creator/sustainer.
Finally, this. Some of you will ask how I know this. I reply by asking how I know that it snowed overnight, inasmuch as it registered in none of my senses, and no-one reported it to me. Well, last night before I retired, the streets, sidewalks, and buildings were clean and dry. This morning everything was covered with snow. I didn’t see the snow fall, but I know it did. Empirical evidence and inductive reasoning. There is no other explanation.
Except perhaps the ever-available puddle of primordial ooze with enzymes struck by lightning — the puddle, the enzymes, and the lightning having come into existence all by themselves in the first place, apparently.
[Post edited 26 Jan 2014 20:54]
|  |
| |  |
| god or not god on 15:47 - Feb 4 with 1372 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 15:07 - Feb 4 by Swanjack10 |
If age makes you think and post like that on a football forum, i want to go now, never underestimate my intelligence via keypad my american friend....... |
In point of fact, it's only on a football forum that I experience the foul language, insults, and closed-mindedness to which I refer.
Your insulting language not only to the poster "Thursday," but to others, is sad.
"Age" does not make me "think and post like that on a football forum," it's good manners and courtesy.
You don't know me to call me "friend," so I'll take that as sarcasm. | |
| |
| god or not god on 18:33 - Feb 4 with 1339 views | Catullus |
Question, where/what is the empirical evidence that God exists exactly.
Take your analogy about snow, we can see it, it is there, we can touch it. We didn't see it come down but the evidence proves it did.
Ok, I'm fine with that. But there is no such evidence God exists. No one has seen him/her/it and although the bible has stories if people God spoke too, anyone who claims to have done so is usually considered quite insane. Even by religious types.
That we know the universe exists is not empirical evidence that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being created it. And where did God come from?
It's the chicken and the egg on a grand scale! If I could accept that God just materialised at some point, I would find it much easier to accept the building blocks of life as we know it came together in a trillions to one chance happening. that started evolution.
Saying that there is empirical evidence that God exists is even less true than saying I'm a genius. The universe exists in a state of anarchy. So much death and destruction. If a supreme deity had designed it, wouldn't it be more organised? |  |
| |
| god or not god on 18:48 - Feb 4 with 1328 views | Swanjack10 |
| god or not god on 15:47 - Feb 4 by Davillin |
In point of fact, it's only on a football forum that I experience the foul language, insults, and closed-mindedness to which I refer.
Your insulting language not only to the poster "Thursday," but to others, is sad.
"Age" does not make me "think and post like that on a football forum," it's good manners and courtesy.
You don't know me to call me "friend," so I'll take that as sarcasm. |
explain to me why your"god"took my child at 5 months old,why give a beautiful life to me and take it away.......it doesnt exist,if so evil exists in it... |  |
| |
| god or not god on 19:11 - Feb 4 with 1306 views | pansypants |
Give it up Dav, you are upsetting people yet again on here. |  |
| |
| god or not god on 01:28 - Feb 5 with 1289 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 18:48 - Feb 4 by Swanjack10 |
explain to me why your"god"took my child at 5 months old,why give a beautiful life to me and take it away.......it doesnt exist,if so evil exists in it... |
I'm sorry for your loss.
You obviously have not read what I wrote about my views of the creator and sustainer of life. I normally do not respond to any poster who has not read what I wrote, or who misunderstands what I wrote - intentionally or for any other reason.
There is no "my 'god'" or, in my opinion, any personal god. Please don't blame me. | |
| |
| god or not god on 01:57 - Feb 5 with 1286 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 18:33 - Feb 4 by Catullus |
Question, where/what is the empirical evidence that God exists exactly.
Take your analogy about snow, we can see it, it is there, we can touch it. We didn't see it come down but the evidence proves it did.
Ok, I'm fine with that. But there is no such evidence God exists. No one has seen him/her/it and although the bible has stories if people God spoke too, anyone who claims to have done so is usually considered quite insane. Even by religious types.
That we know the universe exists is not empirical evidence that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being created it. And where did God come from?
It's the chicken and the egg on a grand scale! If I could accept that God just materialised at some point, I would find it much easier to accept the building blocks of life as we know it came together in a trillions to one chance happening. that started evolution.
Saying that there is empirical evidence that God exists is even less true than saying I'm a genius. The universe exists in a state of anarchy. So much death and destruction. If a supreme deity had designed it, wouldn't it be more organised? |
Most respectfully, I think I addressed most of your concerns in my OP or responses.
You wrote, "That we know the universe exists is not empirical evidence that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being created it," but that is not what I believe or wrote. It's not the mere existence of the universe I wrote about, but the extent of it in time and space and infinite variety, and in the infinite details in the existence of living creatures.
Using my reasoning powers, I cannot even remotely conceive of all of that coming from nothing; the big bangers and the misinterpretations of the theory of evolution, as I went into some detail to address, violate the laws of science and logic.
Life, and not considering for the moment the physical aspects of it, cannot be explained in any way - we don't know what it is, where it is, how it got there, and where it goes when the physical body dies.
You certainly may reject a creator and sustainer of life, but I don't know what other answer there can be,
I completely disagree that the universe exists in a state of anarchy, based on the definition of "anarchy" if for no other reason. Will you agree with me that even death and destruction are not anarchic? And with regard to it being "more organised," I think it is sublimely organized - although perhaps not by our human standards. Forgive the mild cynicism, but it's not all lolly pops and rainbows, but "all that lives must die, passing through nature to eternity."
Consider this: without death there can be no life. All of nature is absolutely dependent upon the breaking down of the physical.
If you're writing about the human condition and our various forms of "destruction," no-one has adequately explained it to my knowledge. It can be explained to some degree on the notion that mankind has free will, as, to be frank, do all animal life forms, but even that explanation is inadequate to some degree.
I vigorously point out, in regard to the above and to all of my OP, that I have never ascribed any "personal" characteristics to what I propose as the creator and sustainer of life. I leave that to religious constructs which needed personal characteristics for their god or gods, conceived as they were in very primitive times. | |
| |
| god or not god on 02:01 - Feb 5 with 1285 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 19:11 - Feb 4 by pansypants |
Give it up Dav, you are upsetting people yet again on here. |
The subject of this thread is obviously beyond you, so you resort to silly posts like the one above, and to inappropriate language.
May I suggest that you find another thread to post your irrelevancies. | |
| |
| god or not god on 09:44 - Feb 5 with 1258 views | pansypants |
| god or not god on 02:01 - Feb 5 by Davillin |
The subject of this thread is obviously beyond you, so you resort to silly posts like the one above, and to inappropriate language.
May I suggest that you find another thread to post your irrelevancies. |
Dav, a year or so ago I may have posted derogatory comments on here to you.
Please point out the "inappropriate language" to me.
As long as I am not banned on here I can post in any section I want.
You think you are so superior to us all dont you?
You bore a large majority on here with your doctrines and silly debates.
Have you no friends in Uncle Sam who are your intellectual equal?
Quite frankly you are a lost soul trying to achieve some perceived greatness over the net because you are in effect a sad little man counting down his days......... [Post edited 5 Feb 2014 9:46]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| god or not god on 15:55 - Feb 5 with 1243 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 09:44 - Feb 5 by pansypants |
Dav, a year or so ago I may have posted derogatory comments on here to you.
Please point out the "inappropriate language" to me.
As long as I am not banned on here I can post in any section I want.
You think you are so superior to us all dont you?
You bore a large majority on here with your doctrines and silly debates.
Have you no friends in Uncle Sam who are your intellectual equal?
Quite frankly you are a lost soul trying to achieve some perceived greatness over the net because you are in effect a sad little man counting down his days......... [Post edited 5 Feb 2014 9:46]
|
Let me see if I can get through your thick skull.
I made a mistake years ago when I tried to ignore people who made discourteous personal comments in reply to my posts. It didn't work.
I do not reply to your posts except when you make discourteous personal comments to me. Now I do.
If you have an observation you wish to make about the content of my posts, and do it in a courteous manner, you won't get any response from me.
If you find my posts "boring," then either don't read them, or better still, just block me. In particular don't pretend to speak for others. They can have the same options as you do,
Your personal comments in this thread alone do nothing but display your inability to be courteous, as well as your ignorance.
Now do both of us a favour and stop it. And if you do, you'll never hear from me again. Otherwise . . . . | |
| |
| god or not god on 16:39 - Feb 5 with 1235 views | Swanjack10 |
| god or not god on 01:28 - Feb 5 by Davillin |
I'm sorry for your loss.
You obviously have not read what I wrote about my views of the creator and sustainer of life. I normally do not respond to any poster who has not read what I wrote, or who misunderstands what I wrote - intentionally or for any other reason.
There is no "my 'god'" or, in my opinion, any personal god. Please don't blame me. |
Not blaming you, blame myself most of time although I did nothing but putthe lovely kid to bed, just dont like the subject and shouldnt have contributed | |
| |
| god or not god on 16:43 - Feb 5 with 1232 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 16:39 - Feb 5 by Swanjack10 |
Not blaming you, blame myself most of time although I did nothing but putthe lovely kid to bed, just dont like the subject and shouldnt have contributed |
My sincere apologies for keeping it going. I definitely should have been more sensitive. | |
| |
| god or not god on 18:09 - Feb 5 with 1210 views | pansypants |
| god or not god on 15:55 - Feb 5 by Davillin |
Let me see if I can get through your thick skull.
I made a mistake years ago when I tried to ignore people who made discourteous personal comments in reply to my posts. It didn't work.
I do not reply to your posts except when you make discourteous personal comments to me. Now I do.
If you have an observation you wish to make about the content of my posts, and do it in a courteous manner, you won't get any response from me.
If you find my posts "boring," then either don't read them, or better still, just block me. In particular don't pretend to speak for others. They can have the same options as you do,
Your personal comments in this thread alone do nothing but display your inability to be courteous, as well as your ignorance.
Now do both of us a favour and stop it. And if you do, you'll never hear from me again. Otherwise . . . . |
"Otherwise" what Dav?
Thick skull you say.... ignorance you bleat....obviously I've hit a raw nerve with you.
I whipped your butt on here last year and got you to apologise.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
How can I speak for others?
I have though read and received PM's saying what a egomaniac you are.
You're doctrines are that of a man who has never been taken seriously, hence you choose a British website to vent your bile.
America is being seen for what it really is recently and people like you are clearly insane.
I'll leave it there Dav.......otherwise...... [Post edited 5 Feb 2014 18:14]
| |
| |
| god or not god on 18:17 - Feb 5 with 1203 views | pansypants |
I don't hit pensioners mun!!!!!!
Arrogant looking berk though.
You ain't so pally with him anymore Dar  | |
| |
| god or not god on 18:20 - Feb 5 with 1207 views | Darran |
| god or not god on 18:17 - Feb 5 by pansypants |
I don't hit pensioners mun!!!!!!
Arrogant looking berk though.
You ain't so pally with him anymore Dar |
He's a very nice man Dicky and the next time he's over I will be organising a drink and YOU WILL be there. |  |
| |
| god or not god on 18:25 - Feb 5 with 1196 views | pansypants |
| god or not god on 18:20 - Feb 5 by Darran |
He's a very nice man Dicky and the next time he's over I will be organising a drink and YOU WILL be there. |
I tell you what Dar, I bet me and him would get on. | |
| |
| god or not god on 18:27 - Feb 5 with 1200 views | Darran |
| god or not god on 18:25 - Feb 5 by pansypants |
I tell you what Dar, I bet me and him would get on. |
It's the internet. | |
| |
| god or not god on 21:20 - Feb 5 with 1173 views | Davillin |
Let him go, Darran. If he is who I think he is [under a different user name, so I can't be certain] he just won't stop. So I will. | |
| |
| god or not god on 19:30 - Feb 6 with 1124 views | Cottsy |
"the big bangers and the misinterpretations of the theory of evolution, as I went into some detail to address, violate the laws of science and logic."
It sometimes helps if you know the difference between scientific theories and scientific laws before you start making claims of what can violate them. |  |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| god or not god on 03:16 - Feb 7 with 1108 views | Catullus |
| god or not god on 18:17 - Feb 5 by pansypants |
I don't hit pensioners mun!!!!!!
Arrogant looking berk though.
You ain't so pally with him anymore Dar |
Arrogant? I don't think so. He seems to me to be an educated man and a deep thinker. I would rather read his posts than the abusive trash I see elsewhere. I quite enjoy a more intelligent thread now and then. It stops my brain from turning completely to sludge. Though the fibrofog does bite some days!
I think Dav has a bit of an older Robin Williams thing going on! Bicentennial man anyone? No insult intended Davillin.
And on subject, Davillin, even scientists refer to the universe as anarchic. Anything can, and regularly does happen. The laws of physics get broken. Rules are updated as more knowledge is gleaned.
And our own planet is very chaotic. Volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes happen with no regard for mankind's rules or timetables. We have learned to predict some things but still regularly get caught out. Michael Fish and his hurricane, Katrina, the Somerset floods are just a tiny reminder of nature's power. But there is nothing and no one guiding these things. They come about by accident, not design.
And the same across the universe. Meteors and comets are subject to gravity and collision. One year Halleys comet won't appear, it will have been hit by something or dragged off course, or maybe it will hit Earth!
We don't know and no one does, not with any certainty.
And if there is a grand deity, I'm sure he/she/it would be laughing at our attempts to explain the universe. So much we don't understand, and may well never do so. | |
| |
| god or not god on 10:11 - Feb 7 with 1100 views | Jackanapes |
| god or not god on 03:16 - Feb 7 by Catullus |
Arrogant? I don't think so. He seems to me to be an educated man and a deep thinker. I would rather read his posts than the abusive trash I see elsewhere. I quite enjoy a more intelligent thread now and then. It stops my brain from turning completely to sludge. Though the fibrofog does bite some days!
I think Dav has a bit of an older Robin Williams thing going on! Bicentennial man anyone? No insult intended Davillin.
And on subject, Davillin, even scientists refer to the universe as anarchic. Anything can, and regularly does happen. The laws of physics get broken. Rules are updated as more knowledge is gleaned.
And our own planet is very chaotic. Volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes happen with no regard for mankind's rules or timetables. We have learned to predict some things but still regularly get caught out. Michael Fish and his hurricane, Katrina, the Somerset floods are just a tiny reminder of nature's power. But there is nothing and no one guiding these things. They come about by accident, not design.
And the same across the universe. Meteors and comets are subject to gravity and collision. One year Halleys comet won't appear, it will have been hit by something or dragged off course, or maybe it will hit Earth!
We don't know and no one does, not with any certainty.
And if there is a grand deity, I'm sure he/she/it would be laughing at our attempts to explain the universe. So much we don't understand, and may well never do so. |
I think dav is a smashing fella. I have to say also that whilst I don't really agree with catullus very often, he at least approaches this whole thing in the correct spirit. |  |
|
“The stupidest thing she knew was for people to act like they knew all about the things they knew absolutely nothing about.†|
| |
| god or not god on 10:11 - Feb 7 with 1099 views | yescomeon |
| god or not god on 01:57 - Feb 5 by Davillin |
Most respectfully, I think I addressed most of your concerns in my OP or responses.
You wrote, "That we know the universe exists is not empirical evidence that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being created it," but that is not what I believe or wrote. It's not the mere existence of the universe I wrote about, but the extent of it in time and space and infinite variety, and in the infinite details in the existence of living creatures.
Using my reasoning powers, I cannot even remotely conceive of all of that coming from nothing; the big bangers and the misinterpretations of the theory of evolution, as I went into some detail to address, violate the laws of science and logic.
Life, and not considering for the moment the physical aspects of it, cannot be explained in any way - we don't know what it is, where it is, how it got there, and where it goes when the physical body dies.
You certainly may reject a creator and sustainer of life, but I don't know what other answer there can be,
I completely disagree that the universe exists in a state of anarchy, based on the definition of "anarchy" if for no other reason. Will you agree with me that even death and destruction are not anarchic? And with regard to it being "more organised," I think it is sublimely organized - although perhaps not by our human standards. Forgive the mild cynicism, but it's not all lolly pops and rainbows, but "all that lives must die, passing through nature to eternity."
Consider this: without death there can be no life. All of nature is absolutely dependent upon the breaking down of the physical.
If you're writing about the human condition and our various forms of "destruction," no-one has adequately explained it to my knowledge. It can be explained to some degree on the notion that mankind has free will, as, to be frank, do all animal life forms, but even that explanation is inadequate to some degree.
I vigorously point out, in regard to the above and to all of my OP, that I have never ascribed any "personal" characteristics to what I propose as the creator and sustainer of life. I leave that to religious constructs which needed personal characteristics for their god or gods, conceived as they were in very primitive times. |
Would this "organized" nature of the universe that you believe exists not violate the same laws of science and logic that you say the big bang and evolution do? |  |
| |
| god or not god on 12:54 - Feb 7 with 1081 views | Lord_Bony |
| god or not god on 10:11 - Feb 7 by yescomeon |
Would this "organized" nature of the universe that you believe exists not violate the same laws of science and logic that you say the big bang and evolution do? |
Of course it does but again I will say there are so many freakky things in science and physics we don t understand....none of us know the truth... |  |
| |
| god or not god on 12:58 - Feb 7 with 1080 views | MrSwerve |
"Intelligence is knowing that you know nothing." |  |
| |
| god or not god on 18:53 - Feb 7 with 1052 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 03:16 - Feb 7 by Catullus |
Arrogant? I don't think so. He seems to me to be an educated man and a deep thinker. I would rather read his posts than the abusive trash I see elsewhere. I quite enjoy a more intelligent thread now and then. It stops my brain from turning completely to sludge. Though the fibrofog does bite some days!
I think Dav has a bit of an older Robin Williams thing going on! Bicentennial man anyone? No insult intended Davillin.
And on subject, Davillin, even scientists refer to the universe as anarchic. Anything can, and regularly does happen. The laws of physics get broken. Rules are updated as more knowledge is gleaned.
And our own planet is very chaotic. Volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes happen with no regard for mankind's rules or timetables. We have learned to predict some things but still regularly get caught out. Michael Fish and his hurricane, Katrina, the Somerset floods are just a tiny reminder of nature's power. But there is nothing and no one guiding these things. They come about by accident, not design.
And the same across the universe. Meteors and comets are subject to gravity and collision. One year Halleys comet won't appear, it will have been hit by something or dragged off course, or maybe it will hit Earth!
We don't know and no one does, not with any certainty.
And if there is a grand deity, I'm sure he/she/it would be laughing at our attempts to explain the universe. So much we don't understand, and may well never do so. |
I thank you for your kind words. I have the same impression of you and have said so before. And many others, I should add.
I respectfully disagree on three of your points.
1. Anarchy is a condition or state in which there are no rules. There are rules in the universe as it exists, as you admit yourself. And they are written by man after scientific study, but, as you further write, they are "updated as more knowledge is gleaned." If they need to be updated, they are flawed -- and NOT Nature's rules, but man's statement of them.
2. Our own planet is not chaotic. Volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and earthquakes all happen with complete regard to the known rules of Nature. Just because we have not yet dug into them far enough to be able to predict them with perfect accuracy does not mean that they are not following the rules of Nature.
As you further wrote, they "happen with no regard for mankind's rules or timetables." Mankind's rules or timetables are obviously not yet a finished product, let alone perfect.
3. As you also wrote, "meteors and comets are subject to gravity and collision." That does not mean that they are operating in an anarchy. If I drive my car at excessively high speed on the wrong side of the road, I'll probably hit an oncoming car. We don't know when or which car, but we will do it in complete obedience to both the rules of science and logic.
Finally, as you know, I don't believe in a personal god who can laugh, but if I did believe that, I'd also believe that he/she/it "would be laughing at our attempts to explain the universe." But, fool that I am, that notion won't stop me from trying to make sense of it. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
