Message boards :
Politics :
What did God do before creation?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 23 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
Before Creation, GOD did a lot of Design Work. Designing takes a lot of thought. Lots of Rough Drafts. All in The Virtual Mind and on Virtual Paper. Yes, yes He did. You do indeed get it for the most part. (smile) |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2430 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
If God was supposed to be the creator of the Universe, then what is our purpose in all of this? We are still locked to our earth and slowly eating up the resources which our planet is able to feed more than 8 billion human beings. As a civilization we have become technically oriented in nature. We strive for the best in all fields, including computer technology, medicine and building of houses and ships (not forgetting nuclear submarines equipped with strategic nuclear missiles which became to costly for everyone to handle). All this development and innovation comes at a cost as mentioned, but there definitely are several advantages and revenues being returned back in return. Right now our eyes have become turned towards the skies because that there are resources existing out there which are not available here on earth. Pure medicines can be obtained in microgravity, mining can be obtained by means of established colonies on the moon and even Ceres and Vesta as well. The problem is weightlessness and lack of both oxygen and water. We think that there exists water on the moon, but is that enough for us to survive on? So in the end there are both possibilities and opportunities around, but not without a cost when it comes to sacrificing of lives, but also when it comes to the time and burden when it comes to innovation and maintenance. It is not always that easy to cope with all factors that may be present. Definitely it is hard to believe in angels when everything around us is natural disasters and other events which does not do us anything good. But does such events make things change at times? Does randomness create new things from old things making everything change all the time? Where are the constants in all of this? |
Robert Waite Send message Joined: 23 Oct 07 Posts: 2417 Credit: 18,192,122 RAC: 59 |
Before Creation, GOD did a lot of Design Work. Designing takes a lot of thought. Lots of Rough Drafts. All in The Virtual Mind and on Virtual Paper. So there's at least two of you that believe God is not perfect and infallible. He had to build rough drafts and make numerous revisions. That doesn't fit with the God they told me about in Sunday School, but knowing that God isn't perfect somehow makes him seem more human. I do not fight fascists because I think I can win. I fight them because they are fascists. Chris Hedges A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2430 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
From a pure theological perspective, it is possible to conclude that we are a product of "a picture which is defined or created by means of God"? Meaning with that - is that what makes us possibly unique in the Universe? Do we happen to know about anything else which we may be able to know about or compare against? If you happen to be a "believer", of course - and not an agnostic or atheist. Our day, if I may quote Robert Waite, is not always perfect. We are living in an "infallible" world. Still, nature is defined by means of both randomness as well as symmetry and perfectionism which is known to be existing. Nature is created by laws and these laws are being sought to be explained by means of mathematics as well as physics. By means of doing it this way, we are assuming that these two approaches are fundamental and can never be "infallible". Did Albert Einstein perhaps come to the same conclusion? His statement was that "God never plays with dices". However, recent scientific work may be showing us that this may not be true. So, the question then becomes as follows: Is symmetry and perfectionism only one way of expressing or defining something which otherwise is not the same, namely randomness and chaos? When do we see chaos and when do we see symmetry? Is orderly chaos a term which might be used (take spiral galaxy NGC 488 as an example of thought symmetry) about certain kinds of objects? BTW: Also better to say ...mining can be achieved... Also order rather than perfectionism. |
Horacio Send message Joined: 14 Jan 00 Posts: 536 Credit: 75,967,266 RAC: 0 |
So there's at least two of you that believe God is not perfect and infallible. If you ask humans about God actions, thoughts or whatever, you will always get antropomorphic biased answers, Those answers might be right (or not), but definatelly biased... Edit: even the question is biased, you are assuming that for God there is such thing of "before" and "after" as if God were experiencing time in the same way as we do... |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11360 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
LOL, Oh Great you are with Fourth who was Dull. |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2430 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
Oh, there are some people here who are either agnostics or atheists. But I have not heard too many complaints here regarding the threads themselves. Almost none are mine. I did not start up too many here. Shouldn't it be just that easy to assume that everything which is supposed to be the Universe since its creation (the big bang) are based on random events or randomness itself? Rather by means of defining randomness a little broader or different in context. We think of randomness and chaos as defined by means of the laws (if any) of mathematics and physics. Random events could be explained by means of trying to explain or predict something which can not be calculated or predicted before it actually happens. Before the big bang, nothing of what we today assume for granted (like mass, energy, space, gravity and time) was not supposed to exist. The Universe is thought of as being created out of nothing, meaning that it was being created by something or someone. Again, it is easy to assume Intelligent Design (by definition). Predictability vs. non-predictability. Everything is so easy to understand and comprehend, still nothing is granted, despite everything being assumed as being based on given rules when it comes to mathematics and physics. In the world of physics you are not supposed to be able to determine the exact position or characteristics of a given elementary particle. This is because the observation of the particle (even indirectly) is affecting its same physical characteristics. The laws of the Universe are not Newtonian laws. They are best explained by the laws of Quantum Theory. Einstein's special relativity theory as well as general relativity theory is mostly dealing with the subject of time and the problems which are related to the space/time curvature. They do not explain the laws of the Universe in the same way as the Quantum Theory is doing. Einstein did not like the Quantum Theory at all. Probably this was his weak point if in anyway the Quantum Theory should be believed at all. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
What if God IS the dice--and--order, at the same time. What looks like chaos is order and what looks like order is chaos. Apparently it takes both. Does it make a difference? We can't even define what time IS, we mark it, that's all. So, indeed, what IS a day for God? Could be 7 divided by 13.7 billion years. I'm going to have to quote msattler ..."LOL, I should think the accomplishment would speak for itself." Here, let me twist your minds a little more---The God Particle would be a lot like pixels on your TV set. We live inside of a 3D TV. And in effect we own nothing but our mass-less souls. Point is, it makes no sense to deny what you see with your own eyes. Design. And there is so much of it that it cannot be chance. And since it cannot be chance, there must be a DESIGNER. It also makes no sense to deny any possibly up to and including the one have just given you. It is NOT science when you come to the table with preconceived notions. Bottom line... |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11360 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
What if God IS the dice--and--order, at the same time. What looks like chaos is order and what looks like order is chaos. Apparently it takes both. ID, your hypotheses is just that, no evidence to turn it into a theory and as a counter point random events are observed commonly which elevates the random thing to theory. |
Johnney Guinness Send message Joined: 11 Sep 06 Posts: 3093 Credit: 2,652,287 RAC: 0 |
Who is God?? Answer - Straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ, God's Son; "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" Read it yourself; John 14:9; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A9&version=NIV John. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11360 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Who is God?? Johnny, quoting a book only proves a degree of literacy not a fact. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11360 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Guy, your beliefs are what they are, I think a major problem comes up when that sort of thing is being taught in science classes rather than philosophy classes or being used as a basis to establish laws which I am supposed to obey. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
What if God IS the dice--and--order, at the same time. What looks like chaos is order and what looks like order is chaos. Apparently it takes both. hypotheses of many types and many in number is being taught in school right now. Math that has not been proven is hypotheses Nice try but no cookie.... |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11360 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
ID, so you agree that intelligent design is a hypothesis and should not be presented as a theory? |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19014 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
ID, so you agree that intelligent design is a hypothesis and should not be presented as a theory? Can intelligent design be even regarded as a hypothesis as it has failed every peer revue. |
The Simonator Send message Joined: 18 Nov 04 Posts: 5700 Credit: 3,855,702 RAC: 50 |
ID, so you agree that intelligent design is a hypothesis and should not be presented as a theory? Only really in America, in the civilised world it's long since been thrown out on its ear. Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge. |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 |
"Intelligent design" can be credited to Nature and the way that evolution works. The problem is when an anthropomorphic uber-being is given the credit. So you could then see nature as 'Intelligent" of even god-like. So it's really a non-issue. one man's Nature is another man's god. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
ID, so you agree that intelligent design is a hypothesis and should not be presented as a theory? LOL, no, it should be taught right along all the rest of the hypothesis being taught in school. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.