Why did God create so many galaxies?

[PruePhillip]

In short, there is no evidence for a god, so no reason to think a god does exist.
Some will say god doesn't exist.
Some will say no evidence shows a god does exist.
Some will say I have no reason to think a god does exist.

Saying I don't believe a god exists is borderline belief because one has the belief god doesn't exist.

It depends upon WHAT EVIDENCE YOU CHOSE YOU SEE OR IGNORE.
You go for any set of facts, for instance

Social:
Nietzsche with his "death of God" debated with Dostoevsky over whether the world
would become totalitarian or whether it would become nihilist. It became both.
As my profile below shows - you cannot say the world is getting an ethically better
place. This suggests the great experiment of discarding religion hasn't work as it
was supposed to.

Scientific:
Genesis 1 gives, in symbolic seven day form, the actual steps to formation of us.
Science supports those steps, though not Genesis.
But the universe did not create itself. It had to have formed from outside. Science
dodges this, sometimes in very clever ways.

History
The bible gives a parallel story to its claims - that of the Promised Land and God's
Chosen People through the Jews and Palestine. You are living in a time when the
Jews are going home to Israel - as foretold three thousand years ago.
And the historic claim of the bible from when the Hebrews migrated to Israel is
largely validated.

There are a multitude of ways of looking at these things. We chose the ones we
are comfortable with.

 

[PruePhillip]

Do you, can you, understand how ugly and false this is?

I don't think you are able, based on reading your posts.
Bless Your Heart!
Tom

You have made a statement without backing it up.
You can't say, as some 16th Century Europeans said, "Black swans do not exist"
All you say is, "I do not believe there are black swans."

Of course, my country is full of black swans.

And some used to say "There is no such person as King David in the bible"
but then we found evidence of King David.

 

[columbus]

You have made a statement without backing it up.

What statement is that?
Tom

 

[PruePhillip]

What statement is that?
Tom

Do you, can you, understand how ugly and false this is?
I don't think you are able, based on reading your posts.
Bless Your Heart!

 

[Spiderman]

How have you come to the conclusion that there are any galaxies that are not inhabited by any creatures, let alone many of them?

Because, there is evidence for it.

 

[We Never Know]

It depends upon WHAT EVIDENCE YOU CHOSE YOU SEE OR IGNORE.
You go for any set of facts, for instance

Social:
Nietzsche with his "death of God" debated with Dostoevsky over whether the world
would become totalitarian or whether it would become nihilist. It became both.
As my profile below shows - you cannot say the world is getting an ethically better
place. This suggests the great experiment of discarding religion hasn't work as it
was supposed to.

Scientific:
Genesis 1 gives, in symbolic seven day form, the actual steps to formation of us.
Science supports those steps, though not Genesis.
But the universe did not create itself. It had to have formed from outside. Science
dodges this, sometimes in very clever ways.

History
The bible gives a parallel story to its claims - that of the Promised Land and God's
Chosen People through the Jews and Palestine. You are living in a time when the
Jews are going home to Israel - as foretold three thousand years ago.
And the historic claim of the bible from when the Hebrews migrated to Israel is
largely validated.

There are a multitude of ways of looking at these things. We chose the ones we
are comfortable with.

The stories about Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer is a good book too. Just because it's written about doesn't make it true.

 

[PruePhillip]

The stories about Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer is a good book too. Just because it's written about doesn't make it true.

So when they find the graves of Finn and Sawyer; chase down their genealogies;
examine their DNA; find the people in their stories etc you can begin to ask yourself
"Maybe there WAS a Huck Finn?"

As it is we have no hard evidence for the Carthagian General Hannibal. The story
of him invading Rome, across the mountains with African elephants is a bit too far
fetched, don't you think?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It depends upon WHAT EVIDENCE YOU CHOSE YOU SEE OR IGNORE.
You go for any set of facts, for instance

Social:
Nietzsche with his "death of God" debated with Dostoevsky over whether the world
would become totalitarian or whether it would become nihilist. It became both.
As my profile below shows - you cannot say the world is getting an ethically better
place. This suggests the great experiment of discarding religion hasn't work as it
was supposed to.

Scientific:
Genesis 1 gives, in symbolic seven day form, the actual steps to formation of us.
Science supports those steps, though not Genesis.
But the universe did not create itself. It had to have formed from outside. Science
dodges this, sometimes in very clever ways.

History
The bible gives a parallel story to its claims - that of the Promised Land and God's
Chosen People through the Jews and Palestine. You are living in a time when the
Jews are going home to Israel - as foretold three thousand years ago.
And the historic claim of the bible from when the Hebrews migrated to Israel is
largely validated.

There are a multitude of ways of looking at these things. We chose the ones we
are comfortable with.

Genesis is not supported by the evidence and there is nothing in science supporting the validity of Genesis. There is no correspondence. You have been over this many times with many people, but I see that did not help.

 

[We Never Know]

So when they find the graves of Finn and Sawyer; chase down their genealogies;
examine their DNA; find the people in their stories etc you can begin to ask yourself
"Maybe there WAS a Huck Finn?"

As it is we have no hard evidence for the Carthagian General Hannibal. The story
of him invading Rome, across the mountains with African elephants is a bit too far
fetched, don't you think?

If you want to believe something because it's written in a book, that is your choice. I will look at you no differently than someone who doesn't believe the same.
It is your choice to make and I'm not going to tell anyone their choice is wrong or right. It's their choice.

 

[columbus]

And some used to say "There is no such person as King David in the bible"
but then we found evidence of King David.

Who is that, who said "There is no such person as King David in the Bible"?
I've never heard of such a person.

Did you actually hear someone say that? Or did somebody tell you that somebody said that? The difference is subtle, but important.
Tom

 

[PruePhillip]

Who is that, who said "There is no such person as King David in the Bible"?
I've never heard of such a person.

Did you actually hear someone say that? Or did somebody tell you that somebody said that? The difference is subtle, but important.
Tom

Actually, a lot of people once said there's no evidence for King David.
It was taught in universities. It was in the text books. It was a common
debating point. And as a result it harmed people's belief in the bible
because if there was no King David - with his history, his Psalms, his
genealogy to Jesus - then is anything in the bible true?
But now we have the evidence, not that people of faith needed it.

 

[PruePhillip]

If you want to believe something because it's written in a book, that is your choice. I will look at you no differently than someone who doesn't believe the same.
It is your choice to make and I'm not going to tell anyone their choice is wrong or right. It's their choice.

Sure, it all depends on the book.
And how you read it.
You can read A Brief History of Time by Hawkins. Hard to read, for sure,
but you don't have to swallow Hawkins' atheism.
Huckleberry Finn is fiction, it claims to be fiction.
You can say the Greek gods were fiction - no-one has been searching
Mount Olympus for the home of Zeus, for instance. But people are
trawling the Levant, studying the archaeology of that land - and a lot
of biblical stuff turns up. Last week it was a town to the far north of
Galilee that "skeptics" said couldn't possibly be a part of Israel at
that time - only it was.

 

[columbus]

Actually, a lot of people once said there's no evidence for King David.
It was taught in universities. It was in the text books. It was a common
debating point. And as a result it harmed people's belief in the bible
because if there was no King David - with his history, his Psalms, his
genealogy to Jesus - then is anything in the bible true?
But now we have the evidence, not that people of faith needed it.

Did you actually hear this, or did somebody tell you this was commonly taught? Do you have one of these textbooks?

I've never heard anybody credible claim that King David didn't exist. I don't remember anybody claiming it at all. I think someone told you this, but it isn't true.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Show me a quote. A textbook. Anything credible demonstrating that this was a widespread teaching. I don't think you can.
Tom

 

[We Never Know]

Sure, it all depends on the book.
And how you read it.
You can read A Brief History of Time by Hawkins. Hard to read, for sure,
but you don't have to swallow Hawkins' atheism.
Huckleberry Finn is fiction, it claims to be fiction.
You can say the Greek gods were fiction - no-one has been searching
Mount Olympus for the home of Zeus, for instance. But people are
trawling the Levant, studying the archaeology of that land - and a lot
of biblical stuff turns up. Last week it was a town to the far north of
Galilee that "skeptics" said couldn't possibly be a part of Israel at
that time - only it was.

There are many stories and books about Zeus, Poseidon, Athena, Apollo, etc. What makes them less believable?

You can tell me strawberry ice cream is the best. I can disagree and say to me it's chocolate that is the best. It doesn't make you or me wrong.

 

[PruePhillip]

There are many stories and books about Zeus, Poseidon, Athena, Apollo, etc. What makes them less believable?

You can tell me strawberry ice cream is the best. I can disagree and say to me it's chocolate that is the best. It doesn't make you or me wrong.

So who is more believable to you, King Solomon or Zeus?

 

[We Never Know]

So who is more believable to you, King Solomon or Zeus?

Neither.

 

[PruePhillip]

Neither.

Neither, seriously?
We have the evidence for Solomon's dynasty the "House of David"
we have a lot of archaeology belonging to Solomon.

Tell me about the evidence for Zeus.

 

[We Never Know]

Neither, seriously?
We have the evidence for Solomon's dynasty the "House of David"
we have a lot of archaeology belonging to Solomon.

Tell me about the evidence for Zeus.

Your straw man brought forth a answer to your straw man. We were speaking of gods. Was King Solomon a god?
If not why bring a mortal into a conversation about gods?

 

[PruePhillip]

Your straw man brought forth a answer to your straw man. We were speaking of gods. Was King Solomon a god?
If not why bring a mortal into a conversation about gods?

No, I am talking about verifying things in the bible that CAN be verified.
We can't prove that God spoke to Solomon (other than when God made
prophecies that are born out in history) but we can prove there was a
king called Solomon.

 

[Ayjaydee]

No, I am talking about verifying things in the bible that CAN be verified.
We can't prove that God spoke to Solomon (other than when God made
prophecies that are born out in history) but we can prove there was a
king called Solomon.

Correlation does not equal causation