Theism and astronomy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-07-2016, 02:58 AM
RE: Theism and astronomy
(20-07-2016 02:53 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 02:25 AM)Dworkin Wrote:  So, if God created the ‘world’ for the soul purpose of giving life to humanity, why all this other stuff?

D.

Boredom?

Why not? For an all powerful being, creating all this other stuff isn't any harder and doesn't require any more effort.

Suppose God created just the earth. There would probably be atheists arguing that if God exists and is all powerful, why didn't He create more than just the earth especially when doing so doesn't require any extra effort?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 03:04 AM (This post was last modified: 20-07-2016 03:08 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Theism and astronomy
(20-07-2016 02:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 02:53 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Boredom?

Why not? For an all powerful being, creating all this other stuff isn't any harder and doesn't require any more effort.

Suppose God created just the earth. There would probably be atheists arguing that if God exists and is all powerful, why didn't He create more than just the earth especially when doing so doesn't require any extra effort?

Well that presupposes it's all powerful and wasn't a being that was drained in it's Earth making in some possible way. be

Or perhaps these other planets were trial runs or there are other planets out there with their own adam and eve like origins scattered around the universe it designed.

To the OP more clearly, it doesn't matter, just like Heywood's point here, it works exactly that way for religious theologies, either outcome can be and will be worked around into some new understanding. It's the whole element of what religious belief does to sustain other cultural shifts. It latches on to bits and pieces of society & science to reunderstand its groundwork again. Scientific Research does the same, it just doesn't have a groundwork of the absolute must be this way thousand year old texts and hopefully more researchers of the future won't fall victim into that trap. The 20th century was vastly far more wide ranging in allocating shifts in fields and understanding quicker not in the classic religious manner the "science" field worked in the 17th-19th century

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 04:51 AM
RE: Theism and astronomy
(20-07-2016 02:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Suppose god created just the earth.
So now you're intimating that your god "created" the entire universe?

Quote:There would probably be atheists arguing that if god exists and is all powerful, why didn't he create more than just the earth especially when doing so doesn't require any extra effort?

Uh uh... you asked this question. Why don't you give us the answer now?

—Or are you unable to LOL.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 06:06 AM
RE: Theism and astronomy
(20-07-2016 02:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  For an all powerful being, creating all this other stuff isn't any harder and doesn't require any more effort.

"All powerful" describes two aspects of the Omni-god: Omnipotence and Omniscience.

Creation implies lack and need.

You create something that you need and that you do not have.
You create something that you want that does not exist.

An Omniscient and Omnipotent being would not create.

It would not need anything.
It would not lack anything.
It would not want anything.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 03:38 PM
RE: Theism and astronomy
(19-07-2016 03:08 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Bible says nothing about the creation of a "universe".
In Genesis 1, the deity is "moving over the waters" ... which already exist ... (as it's taken straight from Babylonian mythology .. and the Babylonian creation myth). The Hebrews thought the "universe" (of course they knew nothing about galaxies or anything other than stars) was "capped" with the firmament ... you can Google the Hebrew concept of the universe.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-Look
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid160188

Bucky,

Thanks, this is helpful. Someone has already noted that in Biblical times people didn't know much about the cosmos and beyond. So, obviously, a book of revelation from those times will be limited in some respects. This explains clearly why theists at that time didn't say much about the universe.

This leaves us with theists today. Such a book could have divine truth in it, but be incomplete concerning cosmological discoveries, or it could just be plain wrong. That seems to be where the theism/atheism thing is now.

Interestingly, Krishna, in the Bhagavad Gita, pronounces that what is in the Gita is all that we need to know. I think Krishna means that it is divine truth in any and all circumstances and the whole of divine truth. I would expect Christian theists to hold a similar view on the Bible. Extreme Christian sects, such as 'The Way' advise adherents to read no book other than the Bible, because for them it is pointless.

To me, the real interest in this issue is the difference in mindset between theist and atheist, and how much any kind of facts (however glaringly obvious) can help in understanding what is going on in the mind. For example, I think it is a fact that some people do have faith in God, but that fact doesn't incline me to share their faith. I just can't do it; but why?

D.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 03:52 PM
RE: Theism and astronomy
(20-07-2016 06:06 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  "All powerful" describes two aspects of the Omni-god: Omnipotence and Omniscience.

Creation implies lack and need.

You create something that you need and that you do not have.
You create something that you want that does not exist.

An Omniscient and Omnipotent being would not create.

It would not need anything.
It would not lack anything.
It would not want anything.

fbh,

This is an irresistible digression for me. Smile The poet Rilke wrote something about waking up in the night and wanting to take God "a drink of water" in case God was feeling a bit lonely.

I remember that Rilke was a firm believer, and yet he had no problem thinking of God as 'lonely'. This blows the whole definition thing out of the water and yet does also make the idea of God, at least Rilke's God, more approachable.

D.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 06:44 PM
RE: Theism and astronomy
(20-07-2016 02:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 11:54 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  If you notice on that site humans are 10^0, on the small end it is 10^-35, and on the other approximately 10^26.6
You decided to use a human ovum at 10^-3.5 becuase it suits your weird narrative.

That is called the Texas sharp shooter's fallacy. I could choose the DNA molecule instead of the Ovum too.

But you didn’t and since you have no way to defend your original position you’re doing the Texas Sidestep. Laughat

(20-07-2016 02:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 11:54 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Nice try. Besides, why would we want to be in the middle anyway? What’s so special about the middle? I suppose that a few hundred years ago you would have believed in a Geocentric universe and put DaVinci in a cell. Maybe you still do, how medieval of you.

We can’t be in any other place except around the middle.

You just make shit up as you go don’t you?

(20-07-2016 02:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  There is a goldilocks zone on the scale of the universe. Around the small end, any object would have only a few atoms to make it up. It wouldn't have enough atoms to generate the complexity needed for life. On the large end, the finite speed of light comes into play. It would take too long for information to pass from one spot in an organism to another.

Let me point out that there aren’t only three places in the spectrum of size, the two extreme ends and the exact middle. Apparently this hasn’t occured to you. You’re welcome.

(20-07-2016 02:14 AM)‘Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Your brain can compute the sum 2+2 faster at its current size than it would if it was the size of Jupiter's orbit. The reason being is in a large brain, it would take longer for information to pass from neuron to neuron. It might take hours for a brain that big to come up with a solution to simple problems you can do in blink of the eye....with your tiny tiny brain.

You’re trying to defend an indefensible position but you can’t so you attempt to insult, pretty poorly if I may add. Drinking Beverage

You are the puddle in the following analogy, I point that out in the likely event it isn’t immediately clear to you.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
20-07-2016, 06:50 PM
RE: Theism and astronomy
Ever since the ancients discovered and named the star named Bob,
http://www.space.com/26883-cosmic-dolphi...names.html
the wise among us know it proves Bob is the one true God.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 08:23 PM
RE: Theism and astronomy
(20-07-2016 01:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 10:09 AM)Dworkin Wrote:  Theists are not comfortable with anything pre-existing God's man because it challenges the omnipotence, so they tend to be quiet on the subject of a material universe.

As a theist, I am not bothered one bit that things have existed before man has come into existence.

Yes, willful ignorance is so comforting for you. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 02:57 AM
RE: Theism and astronomy
(20-07-2016 03:04 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Or perhaps these other planets were trial runs or there are other planets out there with their own adam and eve like origins scattered around the universe it designed.

ClydeLee,

Interesting points. However, I find it hard to believe that Mercury, Venus and Pluto were "trial runs" for Earth. At the very least it implies that God did not have a clear grasp of the basics required for us to survive. Omnipotence again?

The second point is intriguing. From a theist perspective I guess its not impossible to imagine other "adam and eve like origins" elsewhere in the universe. However, this does not negate the view that the universe we have managed to discover is a toxic briar patch for human life. Science has shown us the parameters required for human life and we can see a great deal of the universe which doesn't have them. As you mention "design" we might consider the argument from design in this respect.

IMHO it is not at all easy to maintain a human centred view of our setting, given the material facts, athough I can certainly understand the desire for it.

D.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: