Is it God or Nature?

[ding]

Red shift due to speed - also a doppler effect/shift:

I get some of what you are talking about, but what about mapping a trip?

We can map our trip to the moon and sun (assuming we do not burn up). However, a trip to Alpha Centauri would be trickier. It would have moved in 4.4 light years. At the rate we are traveling, then we would have to have a computer powerful enough to make the necessary adjustments so that we would reach where the galaxy would be in 4.4 light years. If we cannot accurately calculate where it will be, then we could miss it completely. Thus, one needs to be able to plot the speed,direction, pull of gravity, time dilation, red shift, etc. in where Alpha Centauri is heading and we would have to plot some trajectory course in order to meet it 4.4 light years from now. If we can't map our trip, then it's moot. At some point, we won't be able to do it. So 25,000 light years would be impossible. Maybe 4.4 light years is impossible at 40% the speed of light. Thus, what we are seeing 4.4 light years away or anything we are seeing is misleading. Misleading may not be the proper scientific term, but it's not a straight line to 4.4. light years away as the graph shows. Space and time will be distorted so it would require some special kind of mapping. Traveling at even 20 - 40% the speed of light would change our trajectory. Maybe it is better to picture it as traveling as:

Scottie would have to have the computer calculate the proper coordinates for Captain Jim Kirk to arrive somewhere in Alpha Centauri accurately.

Another could be traveling at warp speed win a space ship and that would require something else which we do not know of yet.



Basically, if we can't map how far something is taking into account the various factors involved, then these light years distances are not correct.

Not to mention time! A quasar whose red shift indicates is 13 billion light years from earth also is plotting where it was 13 billion years ago - it may not even exist now - or may exist in a different form - e.g. a galaxy.

You bring up a good point - how do we date the upcoming merger of Milky Way with Andromeda?

We Finally Know When Our Milky Way Will Crash Into the Andromeda Galaxy

The Milky Way will survive in its current form a bit longer than astronomers had thought, a new study suggests.

www.space.com

"The monster collision between our Milky Way and fellow spiral galaxy Andromeda will occur about 4.5 billion years from now, according to the new research, which is based on observations made by Europe's Gaia spacecraft....

The team's models give a later-than-expected date for the Andromeda-Milky Way smashup and also suggest that it will be more of a sideswipe than a head-on collision. (Because the distances between stars are so great, the odds that our own solar system will be disrupted by the merger are very low. But the crash will definitely liven up the night sky for any creatures that are around on Earth 4.5 billion years from now.)....

By the way, Andromeda won't be the next galaxy our Milky Way slams into: The Large Magellanic Cloud and Milky Way will merge about 2.5 billion years from now, a recent study suggested."

Compare Hebrews 1:10-12 - especially the Greek word for "changed" (ἀλλαγήσονται/allagesontai/allaso/change/transform/make different).

And the word for "wrap up" - ἑλίξεις/elizeis/hilisso/roll up/to coil.

The context therefore means to "perish" as to its present form - Milky Way will be changed/transformed when it "wraps up" with other galaxies and thus will perish as to its present form - not literally go out of existence.

Another example of the gawds “finely tuned” universe.

Rabbi Mordechai Steinman
seems to think so.

The Fine Tuning of the Universe - Aish.com

An amazing array of scientists are bewildered by the design of the universe and admit a possibility of a designer.

www.aish.com

In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind.

.
for what purpose "intentionally for the sake of producing mankind" - seems quite an absurd notion when there is absolutely nothing mankind will ever accomplish on a universal scale ... as well as dishonest to place mankind above other living beings. -

being drunk on their own forgeries is more like it.

You will have to ask the good rabbi.

 

[ding]

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

 

[ding]

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

 

[ding]

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."

 

[ding]

You can find someone with any opinion, if you look hard enough.

Dismissing the opinions of scientists seems to be a habit of yours.

 

[ding]

When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.

 

[ding]

Adds Dr. David D. Deutch:

If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.

 

[ding]

Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning.

The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt:

The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

 

[BreezeWood]

-- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

is that suppose to be your 4th century teddy bear they are talking about, some "divine" influence ...

being trapped on Earth without an atmosphere to explore the universe sortof negates any and all the remarkable coincidences for our existence as falling a bit short of an unlimited and bountiful destiny.

in fact their book of forgeries tells them a lake of fire awaits those that do not worship as they prescribed through their literature - for all eternity. some kind of divine influence.

 

[ding]

-- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

is that suppose to be your 4th century teddy bear they are talking about, some "divine" influence ...

being trapped on Earth without an atmosphere to explore the universe sortof negates any and all the remarkable coincidences for our existence as falling a bit short of an unlimited and bountiful destiny.

in fact their book of forgeries tells them a lake of fire awaits those that do not worship as they prescribed through their literature - for all eternity. some kind of divine influence.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

You can’t hide your motivations.

 

[ding]

It is a fact that the universe is an intelligence creating machine. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

 

[Meathead]

Is this Covid-19 pandemic a result of God's actions, or an ecological/biological/sociological process that reflects Nature?

If God, then why?
If Nature, is it a "correction" in the balance of life among the human species?
Survival of the "fittest" ... and rich/powerful (access to life-saving resources)?

Perhaps population density, some foul sanitary/eating habits, and easy global travel opportunities are "correcting" overpopulation of humans?
Maybe God wants to give non-human animals a break?
What say you?

I too have had those thoughts. Viruses are renegade units of RNA perhaps designed to correct what nature sees as an imbalance. Medicine has created significant populations of the very old and infirm which nature never intended to survive. Perhaps it had also never intended for billions of people to live in such close quarters to one another.

 

[BreezeWood]

-- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

is that suppose to be your 4th century teddy bear they are talking about, some "divine" influence ...

being trapped on Earth without an atmosphere to explore the universe sortof negates any and all the remarkable coincidences for our existence as falling a bit short of an unlimited and bountiful destiny.

in fact their book of forgeries tells them a lake of fire awaits those that do not worship as they prescribed through their literature - for all eternity. some kind of divine influence.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

You can’t hide your motivations.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

no it is you imposing your 4th century book of forgeries as the divine influence you use for persuasion - in regards to the crucifixion of the 1st century religious itinerant surreptitiously made into your 4th century god.

beginning of your book, there are accreditation's in association with the primary Almighty working together to create life - to bad you have wandered from the truth not for yourself but those you may influence by your corruption.

 

[ding]

-- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

is that suppose to be your 4th century teddy bear they are talking about, some "divine" influence ...

being trapped on Earth without an atmosphere to explore the universe sortof negates any and all the remarkable coincidences for our existence as falling a bit short of an unlimited and bountiful destiny.

in fact their book of forgeries tells them a lake of fire awaits those that do not worship as they prescribed through their literature - for all eternity. some kind of divine influence.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

You can’t hide your motivations.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

no it is you imposing your 4th century book of forgeries as the divine influence you use for persuasion - in regards to the crucifixion of the 1st century religious itinerant surreptitiously made into your 4th century god.

beginning of your book, there are accreditation's in association with the primary Almighty working together to create life - to bad you have wandered from the truth not for yourself but those you may influence by your corruption.

Funny but no one is even remotely talking about that. Except you.

 

[BreezeWood]

-- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

is that suppose to be your 4th century teddy bear they are talking about, some "divine" influence ...

being trapped on Earth without an atmosphere to explore the universe sortof negates any and all the remarkable coincidences for our existence as falling a bit short of an unlimited and bountiful destiny.

in fact their book of forgeries tells them a lake of fire awaits those that do not worship as they prescribed through their literature - for all eternity. some kind of divine influence.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

You can’t hide your motivations.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

no it is you imposing your 4th century book of forgeries as the divine influence you use for persuasion - in regards to the crucifixion of the 1st century religious itinerant surreptitiously made into your 4th century god.

beginning of your book, there are accreditation's in association with the primary Almighty working together to create life - to bad you have wandered from the truth not for yourself but those you may influence by your corruption.

Funny but no one is even remotely talking about that. Except you.

Funny but no one is even remotely talking about that. Except you.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

you are just afraid to equate your religion, christianity with your rhetoric involving science ... nothing new there.

 

[ding]

-- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

is that suppose to be your 4th century teddy bear they are talking about, some "divine" influence ...

being trapped on Earth without an atmosphere to explore the universe sortof negates any and all the remarkable coincidences for our existence as falling a bit short of an unlimited and bountiful destiny.

in fact their book of forgeries tells them a lake of fire awaits those that do not worship as they prescribed through their literature - for all eternity. some kind of divine influence.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

You can’t hide your motivations.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

no it is you imposing your 4th century book of forgeries as the divine influence you use for persuasion - in regards to the crucifixion of the 1st century religious itinerant surreptitiously made into your 4th century god.

beginning of your book, there are accreditation's in association with the primary Almighty working together to create life - to bad you have wandered from the truth not for yourself but those you may influence by your corruption.

Funny but no one is even remotely talking about that. Except you.

Funny but no one is even remotely talking about that. Except you.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

you are just afraid to equate your religion, christianity with your rhetoric involving science ... nothing new there.

Whereas I see it that you are trying to change the subject because it is uncomfortable for you to discuss.

God and religion are two different things. We are discussing God, not religion.

Do you see God’s hand in creation?

 

[ding]

Corner... meet Breezewood.

 

[BreezeWood]

-- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

is that suppose to be your 4th century teddy bear they are talking about, some "divine" influence ...

being trapped on Earth without an atmosphere to explore the universe sortof negates any and all the remarkable coincidences for our existence as falling a bit short of an unlimited and bountiful destiny.

in fact their book of forgeries tells them a lake of fire awaits those that do not worship as they prescribed through their literature - for all eternity. some kind of divine influence.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

You can’t hide your motivations.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

no it is you imposing your 4th century book of forgeries as the divine influence you use for persuasion - in regards to the crucifixion of the 1st century religious itinerant surreptitiously made into your 4th century god.

beginning of your book, there are accreditation's in association with the primary Almighty working together to create life - to bad you have wandered from the truth not for yourself but those you may influence by your corruption.

Funny but no one is even remotely talking about that. Except you.

Funny but no one is even remotely talking about that. Except you.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

you are just afraid to equate your religion, christianity with your rhetoric involving science ... nothing new there.

Whereas I see it that you are trying to change the subject because it is uncomfortable for you to discuss.

God and religion are two different things. We are discussing God, not religion.

Do you see God’s hand in creation?

God and religion are two different things. We are discussing God, not religion.

no it is you imposing your 4th century book of forgeries as the divine influence you use for persuasion - in regards to the crucifixion of the 1st century religious itinerant surreptitiously made into your 4th century god.

Do you see God’s hand in creation?

.
in your case they are the same used in support for nefarious presumptions.

 

[ding]

-- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

is that suppose to be your 4th century teddy bear they are talking about, some "divine" influence ...

being trapped on Earth without an atmosphere to explore the universe sortof negates any and all the remarkable coincidences for our existence as falling a bit short of an unlimited and bountiful destiny.

in fact their book of forgeries tells them a lake of fire awaits those that do not worship as they prescribed through their literature - for all eternity. some kind of divine influence.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

You can’t hide your motivations.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

no it is you imposing your 4th century book of forgeries as the divine influence you use for persuasion - in regards to the crucifixion of the 1st century religious itinerant surreptitiously made into your 4th century god.

beginning of your book, there are accreditation's in association with the primary Almighty working together to create life - to bad you have wandered from the truth not for yourself but those you may influence by your corruption.

Funny but no one is even remotely talking about that. Except you.

Funny but no one is even remotely talking about that. Except you.

You arguing against the evidence of God’s work wasn’t unexpected.

you are just afraid to equate your religion, christianity with your rhetoric involving science ... nothing new there.

Whereas I see it that you are trying to change the subject because it is uncomfortable for you to discuss.

God and religion are two different things. We are discussing God, not religion.

Do you see God’s hand in creation?

God and religion are two different things. We are discussing God, not religion.

no it is you imposing your 4th century book of forgeries as the divine influence you use for persuasion - in regards to the crucifixion of the 1st century religious itinerant surreptitiously made into your 4th century god.

Do you see God’s hand in creation?

.
in your case they are the same used in support for nefarious presumptions.

I knew you wouldn’t answer the question.

You’re a fake. A socialist subversive who projects a persona of someone who believes in God so as to seem like someone criticizing a rival religion but in reality is someone who’s sole mission is to subordinate faith in God, specifically to subordinate the dominant religion of the land for the express purpose of promoting socialism using subversion. Socialism has always tried to subordinate love of family, country and God because those things compete with loyalty to state.

So I will keep asking you this question every chance I get until you answer it or until others start asking you it and we run your fake ass subversive self out of here.

Do you see God’s hand in creation? Yes or no?

 

[ding]

If you read the book, "The Socialist Phenomon" you will discover that the common trait throughout the history of man when it comes to socialism is that it has always sought to subordinate religion. Always. You could read the book to find out why but Dr. Ron Paul summed it up nicely when he said, "Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage."