leicsmac Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 Seen it before, but never ceases to amaze me. And this is just the size of the VISIBLE Universe.
Guest kristianity77 Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 And to think.....some still think God created all of that....for us
MooseBreath Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 And to think.....some still think God created all of that....for us 'God' probably did. Just not any of the gods we talk about. And probably not just for us.
Buce Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 And to think.....some still think God created all of that....for us Ah, but since by definition we can only scientifically observe events after the universe began, any disbelief in divine creation is as much an act of faith as a belief in it.
leicsmac Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 Ah, but since by definition we can only scientifically observe events after[\i] the universe began, any disbelief in divine creation is as much an act of faith as a belief in it. This is pretty much right. Any action of a sufficiently onminpotent entity would be indistinguishable from 'natural' events. More to the point, the difference would be irrelevant because it couldn't be spotted.
Harry - LCFC Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 'God' probably did. Just not any of the gods we talk about. And probably not just for us. Any reason for thinking that? What makes it likely that God created the world?
Dan Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 It really is frightening. Still don't believe we're the only planet with life.
leicsmac Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 It really is frightening. Still don't believe we're the only planet with life. Odds are definitely in favour that we are not.
Dan Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 Odds are definitely in favour that we are not. I swear a lot of people have been fooled into thinking there's no life on other planets because they're yet to invade Earth
MooseBreath Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 Any reason for thinking that? What makes it likely that God created the world? What's the alternative?
Harry - LCFC Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 What's the alternative? I don't know what the alternative is but then Dave from Ancient Greece won't have thought tectonic theory might be a good alternative for explaining the smoke coming out of the mountain. Maybe the answer to this problem simply hasn't occurred to us yet, as is the case with many things in the past. I can understand it if you struggle with the idea of a non-created universe though, I don't find it easy either.
MooseBreath Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 I don't know what the alternative is but then Dave from Ancient Greece won't have thought tectonic theory might be a good alternative for explaining the smoke coming out of the mountain. Maybe the answer to this problem simply hasn't occurred to us yet, as is the case with many things in the past. I can understand it if you struggle with the idea of a non-created universe though, I don't find it easy either. I'm quite happy with our explanations for the universe. But beyond that it gets tricky. A whole load of universe's - ok, but again beyond that? Given that we don't know, and probably won't know in our lifetimes, if ever, the full extent of where exactly we are and what exactly we are a part of, I think it's more logical to assume that we are part of something intentional on some level, rather than a part of something that never began and won't ever end.That's if the physical universe is even real. I find it a fair bit easier to imagine that it isn't actually real in the first place.
leicsmac Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 I swear a lot of people have been fooled into thinking there's no life on other planets because they're yet to invade Earth Have a look for the Fermi Paradox on wiki. Gives a few good reasons for the lack of first contact. I'm something of a fan of the Zoo Hypothesis.
The Doctor Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 Ah, but since by definition we can only scientifically observe events after the universe began, any disbelief in divine creation is as much an act of faith as a belief in it. Not really. Disbelief in a deity, certainly in it's most common form (agnostic atheism) is the null hypothesis. It takes no faith to sit on the null hypothesis.
Voll Blau Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 Just been pissing about with that while Black Milk by Massive Attack was playing. Trippy.
lcfc1994 Posted 31 May 2014 Posted 31 May 2014 I'm quite happy with our explanations for the universe. But beyond that it gets tricky. A whole load of universe's - ok, but again beyond that? Given that we don't know, and probably won't know in our lifetimes, if ever, the full extent of where exactly we are and what exactly we are a part of, I think it's more logical to assume that we are part of something intentional on some level, rather than a part of something that never began and won't ever end. That's if the physical universe is even real. I find it a fair bit easier to imagine that it isn't actually real in the first place. Why? I seem to think its more logical (and much more amazing) to assume that everything happened as a result of natural force, following physics and the laws of the universe. In my opinion, even if we do not fully understand these laws, or if the law itself doesn't make sense further down the line for some reason, I do not bring myself to the conclusion that a greater power could be/have been present.
leicsmac Posted 31 May 2014 Posted 31 May 2014 Why? I seem to think its more logical (and much more amazing) to assume that everything happened as a result of natural force, following physics and the laws of the universe. In my opinion, even if we do not fully understand these laws, or if the law itself doesn't make sense further down the line for some reason, I do not bring myself to the conclusion that a greater power could be/have been present. As was said earlier, what would be the difference between an omnipotent entity and the natural acts of Universe? They would be indistinguishable to us.
lcfc1994 Posted 31 May 2014 Posted 31 May 2014 As was said earlier, what would be the difference between an omnipotent entity and the natural acts of Universe? They would be indistinguishable to us.Yes, but then surely in that case we should stick with what we know: that natural acts do occur in the universe. And not something that we have no evidence for whatsoever: an omnipotent entity.To me that is like saying; 'why does gravity pull an apple from a tree to the floor? 'Well.. Gravity'. 'Ah well no, it could be, but it could also be an omnipotent entity which pulls it towards the ground'. What's the difference? How do you know it is not an omnipotent entity?Apart from the fact that you are going to go for the scientificly sound explanation rather than arriving at a conclusion that is that an entity must be making the apple do what it does.
Guest Posted 31 May 2014 Posted 31 May 2014 As was said earlier, what would be the difference between an omnipotent entity and the natural acts of Universe? They would be indistinguishable to us. I guess omnipotent entity infers that choice is involved on their behalf both in what to do and when. Natural acts doesn't.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.