stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Putting God's Design In Perspective
My thought, realizing the vastness of the universe, is, that it's "Putting Men's Ego in Perspective".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Putting God's Design In Perspective
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
My thought, realizing the vastness of the universe, is, that it's "Putting Men's Ego in Perspective".
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
Right, like when humans pretend their silly god fantasies created all that vastness. Super egoistical.
Jollybear
Hey
Use your imagination. Thats like a pet fish saying the living room is not designed because he cant live there. And therefore his fish tank isnt designed either because he cant live in the living room.
As for his owner, he dont exist either says the fish, that big face that shows up over the water, thats nothing more then a "eye of God nebalu".
Heres the evidence. The milky way galaxy is fine tuned and just right for life.
http://factsandfaith.com/just-right-design-of-the-milky-way-galaxy/
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I agree there is lots of ego involved when people say "My God is better than yours". That's arrogance coming from ignorance. I don't call it "silly".
The belief that Genesis is literal does consider Creation taking place in either 7 days or 7 thousand years. Clearly I said the majority. As noted only one argued for a symbolic representation of Creation; St. John Chrysostom. Origin apparently may have believed in Old Age Creationism, but still believed in a literal Genesis.
From: ECG: Creation and the Church Fathers
"These leaders were known as the Church Fathers and they wrote to encourage believers, mainly during the period of AD 96 – 430 (Clement to Augustine). Of the 24 Church Fathers that I examined, 14 clearly accepted the literal days of Creation; 9 did not mention their thoughts on this subject, and only one held to a clearly figurative belief, which he imbued from the Jewish liberal philosopher, Philo, who had, in turn, been greatly influenced by the pagan Greeks.
The first Church Father who mentions the days of Creation is Barnabas (not Paul’s companion) who wrote a letter in AD 130. He says:
“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 15)2.
Barnabas is referring here to the traditional view of both the Jewish Rabbis and the early church leaders, that the days of Creation were literal six days, but that Psalm 90:4 (and for the Christians, 2 Peter 3:8) prophetically pointed to the coming of the Messiah after 6,000 years (and for the Christians, the return of Christ).3 This is not to be confused with the modern idea in the church, which wrenches verses out of context and makes the days of Creation to be evolutionary billions of years. Such a view has nothing to do with traditional Christianity; it is an attempt to make the Bible palatable to the masses who have been indoctrinated by the pagan religion of evolutionism.
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 120 – 202), was discipled by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had himself been taught by the Apostle John. He tells us clearly that a literal Adam and Eve were created and fell into sin on the literal first day of Creation (an idea influenced by the Rabbis). He writes:
“For it is said, 'There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day.' Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die.”4
When he refers to Adam sinning and bringing death to the human race on the sixth day, he also points out that Christ also died on the sixth day in order to redeem us from the curse of sin. It is impossible to manipulate the text to make Irenaeus look as if he believed in the long-age days of the modernist theologians.
Agreeing with Barnabas, he explains that the literal six-day Creation points to six thousand years of history before Christ’s return:
“And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works. This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.”5
Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, near Rome (AD 170 – 236), was trained in the faith by Irenaeus, and like his mentor, he held to literal Creation days. He writes:
“And six thousand years must needs be accomplished… for 'a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.' Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled.”6
Lactantius, a Bible scholar (AD 260 – 330) who tutored Emperor Constantine’s son, Crispus, taught the official Christian doctrine of the traditional church. He wrote:
“To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days…. In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night….”7
As with the other church leaders at the time, he accepted the prophetic days of 2 Peter 3:8, and tells us:
“Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.”8.
The authors that compiled the gospels from other sources do believe in a literal genesis, because of their use of the Cretion account in Genesis. The early Church Fathers were the likely final compilers of the gospels.
More to follow . . .
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
Then you are not agreeing with me, because that is not what I said. People that actually think their fantasies created all this are being egotistical. Religion by its very nature is arrogant.
From: Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia
"Biblical cosmology is the biblical writers' conception of the cosmos as an organised, structured entity, including its origin, order, meaning and destiny.[1][2] The Bible was formed over many centuries, involving many authors, and reflects shifting patterns of religious belief; consequently, its cosmology is not always consistent.[3][4] Nor do the biblical texts necessarily represent the beliefs of all Jews or Christians at the time they were put into writing: the majority of those making up Hebrew Bible or Old Testament in particular represent the beliefs of only a small segment of the ancient Israelite community, the members of a late Judean religious tradition centered in Jerusalem and devoted to the exclusive worship of Yahweh.[5]
The ancient Israelites envisaged a universe made up of a flat disc-shaped earth floating on water, heaven above, underworld below.[6]Humans inhabited earth during life and the underworld after death, and the underworld was morally neutral;[7] only in Hellenistic times (after c.330 BCE) did Jews begin to adopt the Greek idea that it would be a place of punishment for misdeeds, and that the righteous would enjoy an afterlife in heaven.[8] In this period too the older three-level cosmology in large measure gave way to the Greek concept of a spherical earthsuspended in space at the center of a number of concentric heavens.[6]
The opening words of the Genesis creation narrative (Genesis 1:1-26) sum up a view of how the cosmos originated: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"; Yahweh, the God of Israel, was solely responsible for creation and had no rivals.[9] Later Jewish thinkers, adopting ideas from Greek philosophy, concluded that God's Wisdom, Word and Spirit penetrated all things and gave them unity.[10]Christianity in turn adopted these ideas and identified Jesus with the Logos (Word): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1)."
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Obvious that is your opinion. Not a smart opinion IMO; because you make a factual statement about all Religions
Thereby implying you know all religions. Unless you are "Omniscient" that seems quite arrogant to me
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
How can it be an opinion and factual at the same time? You are not making sense.
But you asked the question of all of us, "So, the question is, "Why"? Why did god bother with it all?". That's a question to me as well. But that image of God is how a child thinks. Children think they are the center of the universe, regardless of whether they are raised to think in terms of God or just simply nature. They're all narcissistic. It's part of normal development.
My answer to that is similar to another thread where the question was asked, "What's the difference between God and an anthropomorphic sky fairy". I answered, "The person's level of maturity. Not all images of God are equal. A 3rd grader's Sunday School picture-book image of God, versus that of a mystic is as far apart as spelling blocks in a crib, versus a great work of literary genius."
What your real question should be is how is it that those who imagine themselves as the center of the universe can hold and defend that view rationally as true in the light of all of these things you pointed out? My answer to that is because that is where they are still at developmentally. Examining their beliefs with the eye of reason comes later.
However, that type of thinking is not the destination, nor the natural consequence of belief in God. It's simply a temporary stop along the line of eventually growing up spiritually. Some people just get off the train at that stop and settle in there. Others keep going and can hold all of the things you brought up quite comfortably with their faith in the Divine Reality, or "God". Nothing mentioned in those things challenges that view, and only serves to deepen that sense of faith.
"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?"
~ Ps. 8:3-4
------
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”
~ Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?"
~ Ps. 8:3-4
------
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”
~ Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies
Last edited:
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
No, it doesn't. Other than he acts a whole lot like the humans that created him.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
I don't think that is the case, but if so I don't think I am missing out on much anyways.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Do you mean that "new born babies" already think they are the centre of the universe?
I never thought that "new born babies" think so much ... to me they seem to "witness"
(BUT I'm not baby expert; age 10 I told my mother "I never marry and don't want babies")
If you mean older children then "their thinking to be the centre..." is what the "world" taught them
I met parents who talked all the time about their baby being so beautiful, (more) special etc.
When my parents did this, I corrected them at young age "all are just humans, stop this talking"
Last edited:
The Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is losing popularity. So, it seems consciousness does not play any role at all in determining reality, after all. Which was expected, given that this mysterious collapse induced by observtion is nowhere to be found in the equation of the theory.
Ciao
- viole
No. I said children, not infants or babies.
An infant cannot differentiate itself from its environment yet. It's only just beginning to realize it's own existence, and later on in development is when they start to try to form an understanding of their "self" from the rest of what's around them. It's that later stage where all the objects of the world are seen as all about themselves as the center. An infant doesn't yet even realize the difference between its hand and its blanket. No. Not exactly. It is a natural part of developmental stages that moves outward naturally from complete self-centeredness, to seeing one's self in ever-expanding circles of greater and greater inclusion, all the way up through the developmental stages into adulthood, and beyond. The sense of self starts with an undifferentiated fusion with the world in infancy, to seeing oneself as part of a family group, then part of a peer group, then part of a community, a people, a nation, and much later as part of a global community, and much later part of the cosmos itself, and finally as the cosmos itself, of the Self.
The programming is simply types of views that are adopted by the developing mind at the given stages of growth. They both reflect and reinforce those views, but they are not solely responsible for them. Natural stages of development are. They are universal in nature, and are the same regardless of the cultural programmings between different peoples.
Here's some interesting research that deals with this. Loevinger's stages of ego development - Wikipedia
You shouldn't. The child needs the affirmation of their parents. The parent should however not tell the child how much "better" they are than that bad boy Billy, or some such thing. But they should be taught they are special. The child needs that.
Amen.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
What's the prevalent hypothesis now for what causes the wave function to collapse?
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
If we're looking for nails to close the coffin of "revealed" religions, this is a more important point I feel, and actually what I thought the OP was addressing from the start.
Any religious stories of the creation of the universe end up being garbage when juxtaposed with contemporary knowledge. And if they hadn't been, then there would never have been all the confusion and mis-characterization of what heavenly bodies were, what the structure of it all was, what Earth's place in it was. But instead we see complete and total chaotic ignorance plaguing the writing of the texts and early teachings and explanations - which, in any revealed religion, were supposedly inspired by God, were they not? And if they weren't, then any content deemed "factual" within the written texts of any revealed religion can be taken as nothing more than the claims, opinions and agendas of other human beings - because let's face it, none of the writing of comes with evidentiary support. It's like meeting the requirements of the construction of a syllogism but having absolutely no way to tell if your premises are sound.
Point being, the early failures of religion to explain the universe are damning, whether anyone likes it or not. That they even tried was foolishness, and it backed them into a corner from which there is no return without losing face... which is exactly what has happened. If the religion was "revealed", then changes or the need for sloppy apologetics are a blatant admission that God mis-relayed the details, purposefully deceived us, doesn't exist, or any number of other possibilities that shouldn't leave anyone with a very warm and fuzzy feeling about God or religion.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
.
Up until relatively recently people considered our solar system and the stars above (whatever they were) to be thee center of god's creation. Eventually some of the dots in the sky were recognized to be planets that revolved around our earth, as did the Sun, all of which made up our solar system. This was corrected when it was confirmed that the Earth and these other planets went around the Sun. Some time later it was discovered that the stars were just like our sun: our Sun was star. With better equipment, astronomers then found that some of the other "stars" were actually great "clouds" of light, which they called nebulae. Further investigation revealed that these nebulae were actually tremendous accumulations of stars, which they termed galaxies. (The term "nebula" has since been changed to denote great clouds of interstellar dust and other ionized gasses.) And there are trillions of these galaxies. So our "universe" went from being a solar system, to include the vast reaches of space, But the structure of our universe doesn't end there. The gravity between galaxies has drawn them into enormous clumps, which in turn form galaxy superclusters---our Milky Way galaxy is part of the Laniakea supercluster. Moreover, the distances between all these elements of the universe are enormous, usually denoted in light years; the distance light travels in one year. The closest spiral galaxy to us is the Andromeda Galaxy (M31), which is two million light years away.
To give you an idea of how immense the universe is,
"Right now, the observable universe is thought to consist of roughly:
10 million superclusters
25 billion galaxy groups
350 billion large galaxies
7 trillion dwarf galaxies
30 billion trillion (3×10^22) stars, with almost 30 stars going supernova every second"
source
Within the Milky Way galaxy our star is 1 among 100-400 billion other stars.
And:
So, the question is, "Why"? Why did god bother with it all? While the existence of our plant and the life on it depend on the configuration of our solar system, they don't depend on the existence of neighboring stars, the Milky Way, other galaxies, galaxy superclusters or any other far reaching structures of the universe.
Of course, I don't expect any answer to be more than speculation, but I am looking to see how one squares the enormity of the universe, both in size and content, with the contention that it was all designed by god.
.
Bother?...I'm thinking that God, aka some other dimensional computer nerd who downloaded some app and launched it on his phone hasn't even noticed that our universe, a free demo, is even running in the background on his heavenly device.