Just felt like I had to respond to Rachel's post on Chaos:
1.0 If god is not somehow in control of every microscopic detail in the cosmos; what are the consequences?
If God is not in control then the control would be left humankind. I think this would be difficult for humankind to take control. (1) The impact would be catastrophic I think there would be no moral code and possibly very difficult for us and cultures to co-exist.
I think if there is a supernatural existence it is ideal that he intervenes as the characteristics of humanity (Greed, Selfishness etc) would no doubt take over. (2) Having God or the thought of God possibly might give religious people something to aspire to.
If there was no supernatural existence the cosmos would be in constant chaos, there would be no order or place and quite possibly we would not exist or exist for very little time.
I disagree.
(1) Seems to me that humans are doing an okay job by themselves. Sure, a lot of people are religious, but there's also a lot of people who aren't. And if you make the assumption that only the religious people are really letting God into their lives, i.e. letting God 'take control', well.. unless we agree that the world is in a catastrophic or chaotic state today, I would still suggest that humans have the ability to take the reins and organise communities and nations, to some extent. Some are doing a better job at this than others, I'm sure.
(2) The negative characteristics of humanity, such as greed and selfishness, are apparent more than ever in today's society - I would say that they have taken over many people's lives already. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a historian came up to me and told me that the level of corruption and greed in society has always been fairly high throughout the ages. It's the small group of compassionate, empathising, philanthropic people throughout the world that make life a little less bleak - they help the light shine through, and they make each day a bit brighter for those who are in need. Basically what I'm trying to say is that even with the existence of God, I can't imagine there'd be less 'evil' in the world. After all, wasn't Satan a fallen angel?
In any case, I don't think it's possible for God to be in control of everything, unless He actually is everything.
Friday, August 31, 2007
week 5 discussion post #5
On the topic of Creation
Discussion posts below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog
In response to Danielle's comments of:
"Also, a question for people more religious than myself...how does religion explain Neanderthals and other "primitive" humans? Were Adam and Eve created with the intelligence etc that we have today? I had never really thought about this before and realised that I couldn't come up with an answer with my little religious knowledge."
That's a great point she's raised there - unfortunately I can't really help, being fairly un-religious myself, but now I'm asking the same question! And all of a sudden, where the lecture material & readings were making me believe in religion (again), it's all come crashing down because the existence of Neanderthals follows the evolutionist theory, and knocks out the concept of God in some respects (in my mind, at least).
On a tangent, and to get to my original purpose of posting, I thought I'd share this article with everybody, I'm a little surprised that nobody's already mentioned it:
Cosmic Blank Spot Puzzles Astronomers
Basically, astronomers appear to have found a gaping hole in the universe - not a black hole, just a hole. I find this a bit bizarre, of course the investigation is likely to be in its early stages, but I think it could be a relevant piece worthy of discussion in this week's readings, and possibly the next (i.e. Chaos).
To me, apart from the fact that this new revelation is messing with my mind, this article implies that the world has created itself, so to speak.. because if an omnipotent entity had created the universe, how could they leave holes in their work? Otherwise God missed a few spots when he was colouring by numbers. ;)
Discussion posts below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog
In response to Danielle's comments of:
"Also, a question for people more religious than myself...how does religion explain Neanderthals and other "primitive" humans? Were Adam and Eve created with the intelligence etc that we have today? I had never really thought about this before and realised that I couldn't come up with an answer with my little religious knowledge."
That's a great point she's raised there - unfortunately I can't really help, being fairly un-religious myself, but now I'm asking the same question! And all of a sudden, where the lecture material & readings were making me believe in religion (again), it's all come crashing down because the existence of Neanderthals follows the evolutionist theory, and knocks out the concept of God in some respects (in my mind, at least).
On a tangent, and to get to my original purpose of posting, I thought I'd share this article with everybody, I'm a little surprised that nobody's already mentioned it:
Cosmic Blank Spot Puzzles Astronomers
Basically, astronomers appear to have found a gaping hole in the universe - not a black hole, just a hole. I find this a bit bizarre, of course the investigation is likely to be in its early stages, but I think it could be a relevant piece worthy of discussion in this week's readings, and possibly the next (i.e. Chaos).
To me, apart from the fact that this new revelation is messing with my mind, this article implies that the world has created itself, so to speak.. because if an omnipotent entity had created the universe, how could they leave holes in their work? Otherwise God missed a few spots when he was colouring by numbers. ;)
coincidence - or a messenger of God?
I read about this a while ago,
But there's this cat who was adopted by a nursing home when he was but a wee kitten, and he has a knack for predicting when people are about to pass away from this world. According to the article, once Oscar (the cat) chooses to sit by a old person's bedside, they only have a few hours left to live. And he sits with them until they close their eyes for the final time.. and then he moves on.
I'm astounded by this. I can only marvel at this feline's ability.
And as the title of this post suggests, to me it poses the question of whether this cat's talents are a sheer coincidence, inexplicable by any means, or perhaps explicable by vigorous scientific research and theorising;
OR,
whether this cat is some kind of modern angel, sent by God. An unconventional messenger, that's for sure - but the cat is considered to be one of God's creations, is it not? So there's really no reason why God couldn't have chosen an animal to bring peace and solace to people in their final hours.
In any case, this is truly bizarre, and it does raise some interesting ponderments on the existence of God (or lack thereof).
A response to the article "Nursing home cat predicts death"
But there's this cat who was adopted by a nursing home when he was but a wee kitten, and he has a knack for predicting when people are about to pass away from this world. According to the article, once Oscar (the cat) chooses to sit by a old person's bedside, they only have a few hours left to live. And he sits with them until they close their eyes for the final time.. and then he moves on.
I'm astounded by this. I can only marvel at this feline's ability.
And as the title of this post suggests, to me it poses the question of whether this cat's talents are a sheer coincidence, inexplicable by any means, or perhaps explicable by vigorous scientific research and theorising;
OR,
whether this cat is some kind of modern angel, sent by God. An unconventional messenger, that's for sure - but the cat is considered to be one of God's creations, is it not? So there's really no reason why God couldn't have chosen an animal to bring peace and solace to people in their final hours.
In any case, this is truly bizarre, and it does raise some interesting ponderments on the existence of God (or lack thereof).
A response to the article "Nursing home cat predicts death"
imagine toi (the real thing)
Julien Cottereau.
One voice, one stage, one body.
Believe. Trust. See.
---
It was a great show. From the start you were transported into a magical land, of giants, chewing gum, bouncy balls, catwalks, crazy dogs, scary chambers, damsels-in-distress and rich men with wobbly guts.
Julien Cottereau has an amazing talent for mime. He brings his world to life so effectively, with the addition of a unique array of vocal effects, which make you do a double-take and ask "Is that really him? Are you sure it's not a recording, or people backstage making those sounds?"
But really, there is no way it could be anybody but him. His moves are fast, dynamic, unpredictable - and you can't help but be mesmerised by his storytelling.
If you haven't understood this post by now, you have to realise that Julien does not use ANY physical props.
The broom? Imaginary.
The ball? Imaginary.
The dogs? Imaginary.
And that's the amazing thing about it. He's so expressive, and so genuine, you find yourself seeing that broom he's sweeping, and the skipping rope that he makes from a piece of old chewing gum, and the bouncy ball that he plays with.
The audience interaction is great as well. Throughout the show he was getting people involved, helping them believe in his magic, playing hackey sack with a young boy from the audience, handing over a camera to a young girl so that she could take photos of him, asking a father to help him play out a scene of swords and trapped princesses..
It was great.
Truly something special.
Julien Cottereau, if you ever read this, I want to say thank you. For bringing magic into people's lives, for just that brief moment, making them smile, and opening the window in their hearts so the sun can shine in and warm their souls.
You are blessed.
One voice, one stage, one body.
Believe. Trust. See.
---
It was a great show. From the start you were transported into a magical land, of giants, chewing gum, bouncy balls, catwalks, crazy dogs, scary chambers, damsels-in-distress and rich men with wobbly guts.
Julien Cottereau has an amazing talent for mime. He brings his world to life so effectively, with the addition of a unique array of vocal effects, which make you do a double-take and ask "Is that really him? Are you sure it's not a recording, or people backstage making those sounds?"
But really, there is no way it could be anybody but him. His moves are fast, dynamic, unpredictable - and you can't help but be mesmerised by his storytelling.
If you haven't understood this post by now, you have to realise that Julien does not use ANY physical props.
The broom? Imaginary.
The ball? Imaginary.
The dogs? Imaginary.
And that's the amazing thing about it. He's so expressive, and so genuine, you find yourself seeing that broom he's sweeping, and the skipping rope that he makes from a piece of old chewing gum, and the bouncy ball that he plays with.
The audience interaction is great as well. Throughout the show he was getting people involved, helping them believe in his magic, playing hackey sack with a young boy from the audience, handing over a camera to a young girl so that she could take photos of him, asking a father to help him play out a scene of swords and trapped princesses..
It was great.
Truly something special.
Julien Cottereau, if you ever read this, I want to say thank you. For bringing magic into people's lives, for just that brief moment, making them smile, and opening the window in their hearts so the sun can shine in and warm their souls.
You are blessed.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
the true you; the essence of our being
Earlier this month, this random thought came along and knocked on the door of my mind.
So I wrote it down in this blog, saved it as a draft, and promised myself to come back to it later.
Instead, I ended up discussing the thought with a friend of mine, who is currently living in Scotland- and it was a great conversation we had!
Disclaimer: We click in a strange way, so I don't blame you if you don't understand what we're talking about :)
A: People are constantly affected and changed by their experiences and their environments, so is there such a thing as the 'true' you? How can there be an essence to you if people are constantly everchanging...?
B: I suppose the ego is you, your perception of yourself - because if you look at it, 'you' as anything more than a collection of atoms is purely an intellectual construct really... so arguably doesn't even exist!
When you think about it, you being you is no more real than an imaginary friend.
A: Hmm makes sense I suppose.
B: It does, but it's stupid.
A: But we refer to it so often, like "That's so you", or "That's so him"
B: Well, that's where I think intelligence and perception come into it - I mean I have an idea of who 'you' are - Joan in my perception may be quite different to who you think 'you' are, so for each of us, the idea of a true 'you' is different.
A: We seem to have traits that become typical and predictable. Does that make the true you? Or perhaps the true you also shifts and changes - but then that skews the concept of the true.. Hmmmmmmm
B: Ah yes, another question - what is truth?
A: Indeed. I wouldn't know where to begin with that one
B: The trouble with perception though, is that I perceive who you are according to how I've interacted with you and observed you (as you have with me). So I measure who you are (subconsciously probably) against an idea of Joan I've got in my mind, so when you change, I say things like "That's not like you", whereas YOUR idea of you is ALWAYS changing cos you're living the change. So chances are you won't know what I'm talking about.
A: Whereas somebody else might know me for something else.
B: Exactly.
A: But I think I do know, sometimes, and I check myself; I think, hang on, I wouldn't usually do this - but then there's the question again:
If I havent been in this kind of a situation before, how can I say that I wouldn't "usually" do this?
B: Well, when you're as amazing as you are Joan, you have to ability to perceive yourself as others do. Not all of us can do that. You can anticipate what you might do.
A: Ridiculous! What do you mean?
B: I guess I mean that you're the kind of person who is generally aware of what others think of them. Not in a verbal way, but just aware.
A: You know, I kind of wonder whether people put themselves in others shoes as often I feel like I do sometimes. Like, I see somebody walk past, and then I see out of their eyes.. I imagine holding that book, with that bag, looking at me, or whoever else is walking by..
I probably don't do it as often as I'm implying, but I do it nonetheless.
B: Haha no they don't.. I reckon almost nobody does. Not many people have that kind of awareness. Consideration I guess you call it.
A: Who knows, maybe they do, you just havent talked about it with them ;)
B: Hehe ok that's true. But you can always take a guess. I just get the impression that if people did think like that then more people would be more considerate to each other.
A: Hmm, maybe.
B: Ever find yourself wishing you told someone "Well, how would YOU feel if you were so and so"... I reckon I want to say it at least twice a day, to some schmuck who couldnt care less about the person next to them.
A: But to that question, I might say "Well toughen up", or somebody else might feel that way, because they've been through worse. Of course, its all relative..
B: True, it is, but that's my point...
A: ...and your experiences make you a certain toughness
B: If someone were to reply 'toughen up' well, they're not really considering the other person at all, are they? So that's why I reckon not many people think like that.
A: Or, they're considering the situation of that person, but applying it to their own standard.
B: How so?
A: So, a kind of deluded consideration. Say for example, conversation between three people. Friends, but one's the mediator in the conversation, another's upset, another's being toughnuts. And the mediator's trying to make Mr Toughnuts understand by explaining the sorry situation Mr Upset is in. So the mediator's empathising, he's really putting himself into Mr Upset's shoes. But Mr Toughnuts, having been told the story, is kinda thinking "Well if *I* were in that situation, I'd do this and this etc", so rather than being in the other person's shoes, he's put himself in the scene...? Does that make sense?
B: Yes but Mr Toughnuts isn't really being considerate is he? He's thinking "If I were in that situation", not "Mr Upset is in the situation"
A: Yeah, deluded consideration...? Considering the wrong aspect of the situation..? Hmm maybe my logic is illogic, hehe!
B: Well, what is logic anyway? ;)
A: *slaps head & laughs* Hehe
B: Change topic please...
So I wrote it down in this blog, saved it as a draft, and promised myself to come back to it later.
Instead, I ended up discussing the thought with a friend of mine, who is currently living in Scotland- and it was a great conversation we had!
Disclaimer: We click in a strange way, so I don't blame you if you don't understand what we're talking about :)
A: People are constantly affected and changed by their experiences and their environments, so is there such a thing as the 'true' you? How can there be an essence to you if people are constantly everchanging...?
B: I suppose the ego is you, your perception of yourself - because if you look at it, 'you' as anything more than a collection of atoms is purely an intellectual construct really... so arguably doesn't even exist!
When you think about it, you being you is no more real than an imaginary friend.
A: Hmm makes sense I suppose.
B: It does, but it's stupid.
A: But we refer to it so often, like "That's so you", or "That's so him"
B: Well, that's where I think intelligence and perception come into it - I mean I have an idea of who 'you' are - Joan in my perception may be quite different to who you think 'you' are, so for each of us, the idea of a true 'you' is different.
A: We seem to have traits that become typical and predictable. Does that make the true you? Or perhaps the true you also shifts and changes - but then that skews the concept of the true.. Hmmmmmmm
B: Ah yes, another question - what is truth?
A: Indeed. I wouldn't know where to begin with that one
B: The trouble with perception though, is that I perceive who you are according to how I've interacted with you and observed you (as you have with me). So I measure who you are (subconsciously probably) against an idea of Joan I've got in my mind, so when you change, I say things like "That's not like you", whereas YOUR idea of you is ALWAYS changing cos you're living the change. So chances are you won't know what I'm talking about.
A: Whereas somebody else might know me for something else.
B: Exactly.
A: But I think I do know, sometimes, and I check myself; I think, hang on, I wouldn't usually do this - but then there's the question again:
If I havent been in this kind of a situation before, how can I say that I wouldn't "usually" do this?
B: Well, when you're as amazing as you are Joan, you have to ability to perceive yourself as others do. Not all of us can do that. You can anticipate what you might do.
A: Ridiculous! What do you mean?
B: I guess I mean that you're the kind of person who is generally aware of what others think of them. Not in a verbal way, but just aware.
A: You know, I kind of wonder whether people put themselves in others shoes as often I feel like I do sometimes. Like, I see somebody walk past, and then I see out of their eyes.. I imagine holding that book, with that bag, looking at me, or whoever else is walking by..
I probably don't do it as often as I'm implying, but I do it nonetheless.
B: Haha no they don't.. I reckon almost nobody does. Not many people have that kind of awareness. Consideration I guess you call it.
A: Who knows, maybe they do, you just havent talked about it with them ;)
B: Hehe ok that's true. But you can always take a guess. I just get the impression that if people did think like that then more people would be more considerate to each other.
A: Hmm, maybe.
B: Ever find yourself wishing you told someone "Well, how would YOU feel if you were so and so"... I reckon I want to say it at least twice a day, to some schmuck who couldnt care less about the person next to them.
A: But to that question, I might say "Well toughen up", or somebody else might feel that way, because they've been through worse. Of course, its all relative..
B: True, it is, but that's my point...
A: ...and your experiences make you a certain toughness
B: If someone were to reply 'toughen up' well, they're not really considering the other person at all, are they? So that's why I reckon not many people think like that.
A: Or, they're considering the situation of that person, but applying it to their own standard.
B: How so?
A: So, a kind of deluded consideration. Say for example, conversation between three people. Friends, but one's the mediator in the conversation, another's upset, another's being toughnuts. And the mediator's trying to make Mr Toughnuts understand by explaining the sorry situation Mr Upset is in. So the mediator's empathising, he's really putting himself into Mr Upset's shoes. But Mr Toughnuts, having been told the story, is kinda thinking "Well if *I* were in that situation, I'd do this and this etc", so rather than being in the other person's shoes, he's put himself in the scene...? Does that make sense?
B: Yes but Mr Toughnuts isn't really being considerate is he? He's thinking "If I were in that situation", not "Mr Upset is in the situation"
A: Yeah, deluded consideration...? Considering the wrong aspect of the situation..? Hmm maybe my logic is illogic, hehe!
B: Well, what is logic anyway? ;)
A: *slaps head & laughs* Hehe
B: Change topic please...
free or not free? that is the question
Today,
Mum found $20 lying in the grass next to our parked car.
Nothing had been prepared for dinner yet, so we said "Haha! Let's get KFC then!" And we used that $20 to buy ourselves dinner.
So.
My question is-
Was the dinner really a free dinner?
I mean, you can take it one of two ways. We found the money, so now it's ours, and we chose to spend it when really, we could have saved it to be better off by $20. Or alternatively, we've just spent somebody else's money, so the only difference between the moments of pre-discovery and post-discovery of the $20 note was the dinner that we acquired. There was no financial gain nor loss when we ordered that Dinner for Two.
Hmmm.. such a strange ponderment.
Mum found $20 lying in the grass next to our parked car.
Nothing had been prepared for dinner yet, so we said "Haha! Let's get KFC then!" And we used that $20 to buy ourselves dinner.
So.
My question is-
Was the dinner really a free dinner?
I mean, you can take it one of two ways. We found the money, so now it's ours, and we chose to spend it when really, we could have saved it to be better off by $20. Or alternatively, we've just spent somebody else's money, so the only difference between the moments of pre-discovery and post-discovery of the $20 note was the dinner that we acquired. There was no financial gain nor loss when we ordered that Dinner for Two.
Hmmm.. such a strange ponderment.
week 5 discussion posts #1-4
On the topic of Creation
Discussion post below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog
Snez makes an interesting comment:
"Obviously we all believe the world was created, so the process of creation is self evident, regardless was it an act of God, or scientific process. Thus we all agree on one - there was a creation! "
Having read the week's course material (purple booklet), I want to raise an counter-point, that some people have beliefs of a cyclical cosmology - which means there is no beginning or end, just as a circle has no beginning and end. What I'm trying to say is, maybe there was no creation at all, and we didn't just suddenly come into existence.. what's around us has always been around, someway somehow.. Even as I suggest this, I'm finding the idea immensely difficult to comprehend!
I like the thought of cyclical cosmology, mostly because it soothes my fear of mortality and that all things must come to an end one day, but at the same time its almost as bizarre a concept as trying to understand how everything was created (i.e. Big Bang theory)!
-----------
In response to Ariella's post, where she mentions that religious beliefs could be damaged by proof of the non-existence of time prior to the Big-Bang - I'm not entirely sure of what she's trying to explain; however, I agree with her idea that religious beliefs could be enhanced by such a proof. When I read the excerpt of Davies' writings, his concept of God being *outside* of time was really fascinating, and strangely enough made perfect sense to me! Surely if He is omnipotent, then wouldn't it be quite possible for Him to have created Time itself :)
I think the question that always stumps me though, is where did God come from? Perhaps it's beyond human comprehension (or at least my own) to understand how and why God exists; the creation of the universe is one question, but the creation of the Creator is a far greater curiosity. (Or is it blasphemous to question this? Any advice from the religious people?)
----------
From Stuart's post:
"I don't think time as mentioned in scripture [i.e. that time started at the moment of the big bang] can be taken literally. ...it's not like we've had these 365 day years since the beginning of the universe."
I think it's possible that time did begin with the creation of the universe/the Big Bang, because Time and its measurement is a human concept. We use clocks and stopwatches et al to measure time, so that we can bring about some sense of order to our lives; after all, the Sun and the Moon (and the stars :) ) would still be around even if we didn't have clocks to gauge the time.
And I agree, we haven't had 365-day years since forever. On an interesting but mostly unrelated tangent to this topic, there is, in fact, a country that is actually about 7 years behind the rest of us; scroll down to "Ethiopan Calendar Year" at the following link: http://rs6.loc.gov/frd/cs/ethiopia/et_glos.html
But back to Stuart:
"the order in which God created things could simply be the order in which they were revealed to him after the dust after the Big Bang settled so to speak."
To me, this comment seems to imply that God is not the Creator of *everything*, because things were 'revealed' to Him. Doesn't that mean that there were things He didn't know about, in which case there must be a greater omnipotent being, who then created God to create the universe.. Ok this is quite the trippy!
And on the point of "if the universe is as old as science suggests, there is no way it could have progressed as much as it has through random events" - maybe the world did progress through random events, but our minds have developed in such a way that our logic (as we know it) cannot accept the possibility of such an occurrence..
Just throwing around crazy ideas folks :)
----------
In response to Ariella, who replied to my comment on cyclical cosmology and how she felt she could believe in it if she were to set aside her religious beliefs:
Yeah this is all a huge mindspin hey- trying to comprehend what exists beyond our visual perceptions.. because there's so many ideas people can come up with, and as much as science claims to prove this, that and the other, you could take science to be a commonly accepted fact as well - what I mean is that there could be as much truth to science as there is to religion, which could be zero truth for either, who knows for sure. But then there's the question of "what is truth?", which I don't even want to start thinking about.. that's just way too much!
-----------
Discussion post below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog
Snez makes an interesting comment:
"Obviously we all believe the world was created, so the process of creation is self evident, regardless was it an act of God, or scientific process. Thus we all agree on one - there was a creation! "
Having read the week's course material (purple booklet), I want to raise an counter-point, that some people have beliefs of a cyclical cosmology - which means there is no beginning or end, just as a circle has no beginning and end. What I'm trying to say is, maybe there was no creation at all, and we didn't just suddenly come into existence.. what's around us has always been around, someway somehow.. Even as I suggest this, I'm finding the idea immensely difficult to comprehend!
I like the thought of cyclical cosmology, mostly because it soothes my fear of mortality and that all things must come to an end one day, but at the same time its almost as bizarre a concept as trying to understand how everything was created (i.e. Big Bang theory)!
-----------
In response to Ariella's post, where she mentions that religious beliefs could be damaged by proof of the non-existence of time prior to the Big-Bang - I'm not entirely sure of what she's trying to explain; however, I agree with her idea that religious beliefs could be enhanced by such a proof. When I read the excerpt of Davies' writings, his concept of God being *outside* of time was really fascinating, and strangely enough made perfect sense to me! Surely if He is omnipotent, then wouldn't it be quite possible for Him to have created Time itself :)
I think the question that always stumps me though, is where did God come from? Perhaps it's beyond human comprehension (or at least my own) to understand how and why God exists; the creation of the universe is one question, but the creation of the Creator is a far greater curiosity. (Or is it blasphemous to question this? Any advice from the religious people?)
----------
From Stuart's post:
"I don't think time as mentioned in scripture [i.e. that time started at the moment of the big bang] can be taken literally. ...it's not like we've had these 365 day years since the beginning of the universe."
I think it's possible that time did begin with the creation of the universe/the Big Bang, because Time and its measurement is a human concept. We use clocks and stopwatches et al to measure time, so that we can bring about some sense of order to our lives; after all, the Sun and the Moon (and the stars :) ) would still be around even if we didn't have clocks to gauge the time.
And I agree, we haven't had 365-day years since forever. On an interesting but mostly unrelated tangent to this topic, there is, in fact, a country that is actually about 7 years behind the rest of us; scroll down to "Ethiopan Calendar Year" at the following link: http://rs6.loc.gov/frd/cs/ethiopia/et_glos.html
But back to Stuart:
"the order in which God created things could simply be the order in which they were revealed to him after the dust after the Big Bang settled so to speak."
To me, this comment seems to imply that God is not the Creator of *everything*, because things were 'revealed' to Him. Doesn't that mean that there were things He didn't know about, in which case there must be a greater omnipotent being, who then created God to create the universe.. Ok this is quite the trippy!
And on the point of "if the universe is as old as science suggests, there is no way it could have progressed as much as it has through random events" - maybe the world did progress through random events, but our minds have developed in such a way that our logic (as we know it) cannot accept the possibility of such an occurrence..
Just throwing around crazy ideas folks :)
----------
In response to Ariella, who replied to my comment on cyclical cosmology and how she felt she could believe in it if she were to set aside her religious beliefs:
Yeah this is all a huge mindspin hey- trying to comprehend what exists beyond our visual perceptions.. because there's so many ideas people can come up with, and as much as science claims to prove this, that and the other, you could take science to be a commonly accepted fact as well - what I mean is that there could be as much truth to science as there is to religion, which could be zero truth for either, who knows for sure. But then there's the question of "what is truth?", which I don't even want to start thinking about.. that's just way too much!
-----------
Saturday, August 25, 2007
ideas on Creation
As I was reading the beginning of the week's material on the train (i.e. the excerpt from Davies' writings), I had a few ideas pop into my head:
God is a fantastical being; for all we know, He could be imaginary. After all, He doesn't really appear before us - I'm sure somebody could easily argue that He doesn't exist at all. Where's the solid proof?
(But then again, perhaps He does appear before us, just not in a form that I'd be expecting.)
In any case, what I'm trying to say is, that it's curious how God could well be a fantasy, and yet He is probably one of the most discussed and debated topics/characters in society.
Funny how we can spend so much time on a presence that is exactly that - merely a presence, an intangible being.
And perhaps the problem is that we have humanised the concept of God. God is "He, Him, His" - God is assumed (on my part at least) to have human attributes and emotions, a physical constitution akin to that of a human. Maybe that's the limit of my conceptuality of God.
Maybe that's why it's difficult to accept that He exists or has existed prior to Time or the Universe.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense that God is a concept outsde of Time, strangely enough!
I was having a brief discussion with Mum about this, and she mentioned an idea that Dad had, and I've elaborated on it a bit in the following paragraph.
If God is so almighty and powerful (and if He really does exist), there's no reason for him to have made such a tiny thing like Earth, with all its inhabitable features, and nothing else. There must be something else out there, a world like ours, one that's inhabited by living beings, perhaps totally different in constitution to ourselves, but communities of beings nonetheless. Perhaps the story is that there are a number of "Earths" out there - but God created these existences in such a way that we would never collide with another of the Earths - communities living in an isolated peace from stranger nations. Like island nations, but on a universal, planetary level.
So there's another thought to ponder. However, to continue onto other areas-
Reading through the week's materials, I now have an understanding of the different "isms" - deism, theism, pantheism, and panentheism (I didn't know that last one existed). I would have to say that the concept I like best is contained within pantheism - the belief that God is not a separate entity, but an intrinsic part of the all aspects of nature we see around us - the leaves, the clouds, the rivers, the cliffs, the fish, the birds, the canines and felines.. and so on and so forth. This then removes the idea that I don't seem to be comfortable with - the conceptualisation of God as being contained within a physical form such as a human's.
I went through a phase during high school where I was very much in love with nature. I still am, I suppose, but I spend so much time in the city, and commuting to and fro in a train surrounded by lots of people, I don't really get much opportunity to observe natural surroundings. The trees and their individual fronds, the morning frost in winter, and the balmy breeze in the summer; the intricacies and the simplicities of nature that I walked by on my way to school each morning, and on my way home each afternoon.
Nature makes me smile. It's the Romantic in me.
God is a fantastical being; for all we know, He could be imaginary. After all, He doesn't really appear before us - I'm sure somebody could easily argue that He doesn't exist at all. Where's the solid proof?
(But then again, perhaps He does appear before us, just not in a form that I'd be expecting.)
In any case, what I'm trying to say is, that it's curious how God could well be a fantasy, and yet He is probably one of the most discussed and debated topics/characters in society.
Funny how we can spend so much time on a presence that is exactly that - merely a presence, an intangible being.
And perhaps the problem is that we have humanised the concept of God. God is "He, Him, His" - God is assumed (on my part at least) to have human attributes and emotions, a physical constitution akin to that of a human. Maybe that's the limit of my conceptuality of God.
Maybe that's why it's difficult to accept that He exists or has existed prior to Time or the Universe.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense that God is a concept outsde of Time, strangely enough!
I was having a brief discussion with Mum about this, and she mentioned an idea that Dad had, and I've elaborated on it a bit in the following paragraph.
If God is so almighty and powerful (and if He really does exist), there's no reason for him to have made such a tiny thing like Earth, with all its inhabitable features, and nothing else. There must be something else out there, a world like ours, one that's inhabited by living beings, perhaps totally different in constitution to ourselves, but communities of beings nonetheless. Perhaps the story is that there are a number of "Earths" out there - but God created these existences in such a way that we would never collide with another of the Earths - communities living in an isolated peace from stranger nations. Like island nations, but on a universal, planetary level.
So there's another thought to ponder. However, to continue onto other areas-
Reading through the week's materials, I now have an understanding of the different "isms" - deism, theism, pantheism, and panentheism (I didn't know that last one existed). I would have to say that the concept I like best is contained within pantheism - the belief that God is not a separate entity, but an intrinsic part of the all aspects of nature we see around us - the leaves, the clouds, the rivers, the cliffs, the fish, the birds, the canines and felines.. and so on and so forth. This then removes the idea that I don't seem to be comfortable with - the conceptualisation of God as being contained within a physical form such as a human's.
I went through a phase during high school where I was very much in love with nature. I still am, I suppose, but I spend so much time in the city, and commuting to and fro in a train surrounded by lots of people, I don't really get much opportunity to observe natural surroundings. The trees and their individual fronds, the morning frost in winter, and the balmy breeze in the summer; the intricacies and the simplicities of nature that I walked by on my way to school each morning, and on my way home each afternoon.
Nature makes me smile. It's the Romantic in me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)