zaangalewa
Gold Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 21,100
- 2,135
- 140
We are creation like all other creatures.
You don't know whether god exists or not exists. And you don't have any idea how strange this typical anglo-american never ending discussion of mad "Christians" and extremistic "scientists" sounds in the ears of the very most Christians and in the ears of many or most scientists. Not to use the argument "god" in context of natural science means not god exists or not exists. (Did god exist when he had created existence?) One of the most stupid ideas I've ever heard in context of natural science were for example the anti-ideas of Richard Dawkins to say the philosophy agnosticism shows that god is not existing. But that's nonsense. Agnosticism is still a philosophy and not a belief and still every agnostics is able to believe in god or not to believe in god.
The perfect is not perfect here. In the best of all possible worlds everything is always able to be more perfect too. Second: It's our job to keep gods creation alive and we (=every single human being without any exception) are responsible for gods living creation. Pope Francis said with every species, which we lose, we will lose a voice of god. I would say we lose not only a voice of god - we lose ourselve too in the loud, louder and loudest howling of strong men all over the world for more and more personal and national might and money. Life is the real important thing: all and every life: Life first!
That’s horse shit. No offense.
Yes, we are creatures. Unlike any other though in that we are beings that know and create.
Yes, we are supposed to be stewards but man is still broken.
As to the rest maybe you should revisit the section on atheism in the catechism.
I do not think you expect a serios answer to this lines from you. But let me give this short answer: I am not a steward, no one and nothing is able to create or to destroy energy and I don't know what you try to speak about when you say "Man is still broken". And I think you try to use the Christian religion for something what has not a lot to do with truth.
You should stop thinking because everything you thought was wrong.
Why do you write such respectless anti-enlightened nonsense sentences?
In fact it describes you and not me. You were the one who wasn’t being serious.
No. I just simple do not see what your unabilty to accept logic and facts and your respectlessness has to do with the Christian religion.
I am very capable of accepting logic and being respectful.
My belief is that Genesis should not be read literally and that the original meaning has been lost through time.
Take your time travel machine. Drive back into the stone age a short time before Göbekli Tepe was built. Sit down with the members of your tribe at the camp fire. And then let tell you from someone of your team there something about the Genesis. Listen what your friends say about. Afterwards go sleeping.
At the heart of Genesis is the belief that God created existence and that man is a product of that creation. The purpose of the OP is to establish that the laws of nature are such that intelligence was predestined even before the creation of space and time.
From the point of view of the expansion of the universe beginning with a big bang, which was not big and was not a bang, space, time and energy were "suddenly" here - including all natural laws. Everything what we see all around us has a structure - and it looks like that everything, what is invisible all around us, has a structure too.
Hence the discussion is the universe an intelligence creating machine.
Personally I don’t see how anyone could see it any other way.
There are many ways. Show at this one for example: A stupid god could create a universe and wait some eternities. Then he takes a look at the result. If he don't like it he will destroy this universe and create a new one. In this case this god has only to be a little more eternal, allmighty and with a sense for beauty.
I don't think this is true. I believe god is our father, who loves us. But no one knows and all thoughts in this context are speculative. When for example all people, who made experiences with god, had a perception error (what I do not believe) then god is perhaps not real. We don't know. No one knows. On the other side is the idea atheism also only an idea. Even if god never spoke with someone: We are also in this case not able to know whether god is not existing or existing.
The "wise" men of our time misinterpret agnostsicism for example in this way, that god could exist with some probability - but to think in such a way is nonsense. Agnosticism - which is a philosophy and not a belief - forces someone to make a choice, because to think a premise is true and false the same time is nothing what can be a base of logic. It's only a psychological problem that we believe sometimes in god - and sometimes we do not believe in god. This says nothing about the existence or not-existence of god.
The strange thing now: God could indeed exist and not exist the same time. But - and that is a very big fat but - we are not able to think so, because to think out of a contradiction makes everything true what someone thinks! And if automatically everything is true, what someone says, then it is worthless.
That's why perhaps lots of people today live in the wrong, worthless opinion "everything is relative". It is not. In the theory of relativity for example space and time behave relatively to the absolute speed of light. (=Whenever we make a measurement of the speed of light, then we measure exactly the speed of light, totally independent from the own speed.) People, who think "everything is relative" say often also there is not only one truth, but there are many truthes. And this is - as far as I can see - just simple wrong. Even natural science - in general every science - knows only one truth. A result in chemistry for example is not able to be in a contradiction with a result in physics - or with a result in biology. Sciene follows the idea it exists only one truth. In physics, chemistry and biology we are able to prove a lots of ideas with facts (experiments) - but this becomes more and more difficult the more complex a phenomenon is. Intelligence is in general the abillity to find the best of all possible solutions (in our best of all possible worlds) for any problem, independent from its complexity.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Albert Einstein
Last edited: