Putting God's Design In Perspective

[Skwim]

Putting God's Design In Perspective

My thought, realizing the vastness of the universe, is, that it's "Putting Men's Ego in Perspective".

Why?

.

 

[Skwim]

Heres the evidence. The milky way galaxy is fine tuned and just right for life.

Just-Right Design of the Milky Way Galaxy

Assertions are not evidence, particularly when they come with absolutely no confirmation from experts.

.

 

[Jollybear]

Assertions are not evidence, particularly when they come with absolutely no confirmation from experts.

.

Sorry, but i made a logical point and the link uses the expert Hugh ross.

 

[Skwim]

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."

So how one squares the enormity of the universe, both in size and content, with the contention that it was all designed by god is dependent on one's maturity level. Nice, but pretty self evident. I'm looking for something a bit more thoughtful .

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?

You ask your questions. I'll ask mine.

.

​

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, but i made a logical point and the link uses the expert Hugh ross.

Hugh Ross has a heavy bias toward Christian Creationism, even though he does compromise with Old Earth Creationism. I do not consider him and unbiased 'expert.' for the scientific view of the nature of our physical existence. He rejects the science of evolution despite the overwhelming evidence.

Science does not involve questions of logic.

Oddly he does reject Intelligent Design as a science, and rejects it as being taught in schools.

Too often those that are considered experts are in reality 'exspurts' - drips that failed.

 

[Jumi]

Remember, we used to think that the mold was a problem until penicillin was discovered.

Molds were used in ancient times for the same purpose in treating people even in ancient Egypt. Also those tasty moldy cheese. There were scientists writing about their use before penicillin, just that they made a breakthrough where you couldn't go back anymore. Of course people die of molds and even penicillin still today.

 

[Vee]

.

​

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.


.

The right answer is: I don't know. Only God could answer that. Like you said, we can only speculate. However, we humans like to make everything about us, as if nothing is more important than us. What if everything is not about us? What if we're only one part of a much bigger picture?

 

[Skwim]

Sorry, but i made a logical point and the link uses the expert Hugh ross.

Old earth creationist Ross may have a Ph.D. in Astronomy, but some of his unsupported contentions in his "Table 14.1: Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Universe1 are simply ludicrous---and, no, I'm not about to bother pointing them out.

.

 

[Skwim]

The right answer is: I don't know. Only God could answer that. Like you said, we can only speculate. However, we humans like to make everything about us, as if nothing is more important than us. What if everything is not about us? What if we're only one part of a much bigger picture?

And what if there's no picture at all?

.

 

[Jollybear]

Old earth creationist Ross may have a Ph.D. in Astronomy, but some of his unsupported contentions in his "Table 14.1: Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Universe1 are simply ludicrous---and, no, I'm not about to bother pointing them out.

.

The fine tunning of the universe does exist. All your doing is handwaving.

 

[Jollybear]

Hugh Ross has a heavy bias toward Christian Creationism, even though he does compromise with Old Earth Creationism. I do not consider him and unbiased 'expert.' for the scientific view of the nature of our physical existence. He rejects the science of evolution despite the overwhelming evidence.

Science does not involve questions of logic.

Oddly he does reject Intelligent Design as a science, and rejects it as being taught in schools.

Too often those that are considered experts are in reality 'exspurts' - drips that failed.

I think the most important thing is for all of us to just look at and discuss the evidence of design and fine tunning. Anything else loses interest for me.

 

[shunyadragon]

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/

Fine-tuning is an apologist argument that is so circular it will bite you in the butt. The Laws of Nature determine the nature of the universe, the galaxies, and solar systems, and of course our earth. There is absolutely no evidence that our universe is fine-tuned.

If there is any actual evidence beyond the scientific fact of all objective verifiable evidence determines that the cause is the Laws of Nature, please present it and be specific.

 

[1213]

.
...So, the question is, "Why"? Why did god bother with it all? ....

Maybe the reason is that you would understand His greatness.

 

[stvdv]

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.

Thanks for the context. Life is quite complex and all are so different. Makes it all very intriguing.

"They're all narcissistic. It's part of normal development" you mentioned. That part made me question it. I have a narcissitic father. I read that a narcissist was created this way before age 4. Of course not due to natural normal development, but due to "messed up parents" probably (who could not help it either, because their parents made them that way ... before age 4). With your extra context it's more clear, thanks.

My Master always addressed "ALL" people with "Embodyments of the Divine". But He made sure to also say that "so you are special, but never forget that you are therefore never more special than others", because you are all "Embodyments of the Divine". You could call it a "narcissistic boost", but from young age they teach the children humility also and awareness of ego tricks (of course in child stories; not complex psychology). The term narcissist gives me the feeling "I am God and very special", without the realisation that others are same special. That comes from "half education/upbringing" IMO. Hence I started with "a baby does not have this, so it must be learned".

"normal development" is an interesting term in regard to "children are all narcissistic". Seeing so many narcissist nowadays (in high positions) tells us what? They got stuck at that "child age" .... what you called "they are all narcissistic ... part of normal development". But one could also say that this is "normal development" for them. They needed to go through that experiment. Seeing how messed humans are, there is lack of "normal development" (50% divorce, lots of violence etc). But maybe "abnormal development" is also part of "normal development" seen from the "big picture". All part of evolution I guess.

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.

Yes, that seems the "normal" part in "normal development" to me.

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.

Oh yes, I should and I am glad I did. Because my parents were telling "I am more beautiful than other children". Even at young age, I think 6 or 8, I objected to that. That did not feel good, that felt very bad. I was very much aware of this at this very young age.

Yes I agree with your Billy example and telling them they are "special", but it should be balanced by "others are as special as you are". That's why I loved "animal farm" years later so much. Especially the "pig" quote "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others". And that is why I loved my Master so much. Nice to see that certain things are already known at very young age. This was not something my parents told me, quite the opposite. Still I knew. Makes me wonder how much babies already "know" are "aware of" or "capable of understanding" (Can't remember anything about that age though)

I met parents who believed their child was very special. And then I mean "very special". That he was like "Jesus incarnate". That really messed up the child a lot. Because the child of course could never meet their parents expectations. You also see it in sports when a parent wants the child to achieve what he could not.

 

[Skwim]

The fine tunning of the universe does exist. All your doing is handwaving.

If you don't want me to wave my hands then don't put up crap to entice me.

.

 

[stvdv]

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

Yes there seems to be a certain program all humans go through. Good to realize this. Makes me more compassionate when someone does something "foolish", especially remembering my own "foolish mistakes"

 

[Skwim]

Maybe the reason is that you would understand His greatness.

Then in this respect your god has been a complete failure.

.

 

[stvdv]

Why?.

I noticed your banner below you messages. I was just wondering if you agree to "1+1=2"

 

[Skwim]

I noticed your banner below you messages. I was just wondering if you agree to "1+1=2"

.

 

[Jollybear]

If you don't want me to wave my hands then don't put up crap to entice me.

.

Basically, nothing will convince you. Your mind is made up, the best evidence wont sway you and you will merely stick to your agenda which is to keep on keeping on in your attempt to deride God and religion.

I have given you the best evidence in that article that exists. It wont get any better. Perhaps other websites, books can illucidate it more. But, thats it. Dont get any more better then that.