and what if God (I rarely use the capitalized version, but in this case I do mean the Christian one) is a race a super beings ...

... and we (creation) is some science project.

There could be countless other 'creations'

Would this idea go against the Bibles teachings ?
1. God is the creator - check
2. The is only one true God - um well sort of (see 1), he's the only one that had involvement in this creation, his own work
3. We (Humans) are the center - while not actually being the actually geographical center, we (as life) could be the focus, maybe even the whole point of the creation
4. God is infinite - this is an interesting one, if space and time are the same thing, then everything in...

and what if God (I rarely use the capitalized version, but in this case I do mean the Christian one) is a race a super beings ...

... and we (creation) is some science project.

There could be countless other 'creations'

Would this idea go against the Bibles teachings ?
1. God is the creator - check
2. The is only one true God - um well sort of (see 1), he's the only one that had involvement in this creation, his own work
3. We (Humans) are the center - while not actually being the actually geographical center, we (as life) could be the focus, maybe even the whole point of the creation
4. God is infinite - this is an interesting one, if space and time are the same thing, then everything inside the 'creation' has its own localised time, in essence God is outside our time, therefore appears to be timeless

Just some thoughts
Don't wish to offend

jatfla said:

And I KNOW that there is *Something* far beyond my comprehension Who has organized and established this World in which we live.

No you don't. Maybe it makes you feel better to believe that, and you can use your imagination to try and conceive of some reality that fits what you think feels right, but you don't KNOW it to be true.

Unless a creator steps forward or undeniable proof is found then all you have is speculation. The same as people elsewhere who make differing claims than yours. When you make claims of knowledge when there is nothing to prove it then you are abandoning reason and embracing a lie out of comfort.

Religion suffers from this and openly embraces...

jatfla said:

And I KNOW that there is *Something* far beyond my comprehension Who has organized and established this World in which we live.

No you don't. Maybe it makes you feel better to believe that, and you can use your imagination to try and conceive of some reality that fits what you think feels right, but you don't KNOW it to be true.

Unless a creator steps forward or undeniable proof is found then all you have is speculation. The same as people elsewhere who make differing claims than yours. When you make claims of knowledge when there is nothing to prove it then you are abandoning reason and embracing a lie out of comfort.

Religion suffers from this and openly embraces falsehood by utilizing "faith" as a means of evading its own flaws. It makes a claim without proof and then depends on people to simply believe in spite of the lack of evidence. To simply accept the belief system as true.

When it come down to it everyone is trying to make claims about how the universe works. But there are those that will try to understand the universe and make conclusions based on its characteristics that are backed by proven finds. Oh, its not all complete, to be sure, but science is a damn site closer to understanding reality than all the good feeling, god fearing, mind rushing, emotionally created ideas out there.

If this universe is so complex as to require a maker, then who made the maker? And if the maker can so easily be accepted as being eternal, then why not the universe?

Seems to me people just like the idea of a consciousness because it makes them feel everything is planned and has a reason. They like to feel that bad things have a reason and simply can't accept that a truck can fall on you tomorrow for no other reason than shit like that just happens and sometimes someone is in the wrong place.

"..and what if God (I rarely use the capitalized version, but in this case I do mean the Christian one) is a race a super beings ..."

Strange you should say that; the original god of Genesis (bible) in the Hebrew is Elohim (meaning literally "gods"), while the singular El means god. But in Genesis the creator is named as the plural Elohim. Thus it is consistent with "Let us make Man in our image.."

"... and we (creation) is some science project."

"Would this idea go against the Bibles teachings ?"

Any thought outside the proverbial box goes outside the bible's teachings. There are thousands of Christian denominations, each believing something dif...

"..and what if God (I rarely use the capitalized version, but in this case I do mean the Christian one) is a race a super beings ..."

Strange you should say that; the original god of Genesis (bible) in the Hebrew is Elohim (meaning literally "gods"), while the singular El means god. But in Genesis the creator is named as the plural Elohim. Thus it is consistent with "Let us make Man in our image.."

"... and we (creation) is some science project."

"Would this idea go against the Bibles teachings ?"

Any thought outside the proverbial box goes outside the bible's teachings. There are thousands of Christian denominations, each believing something different or interpreted different.

Strange how god's word can be so "imperfect" that it causes division even among its own believers.

There may well be intelligent life right next to us (cosmologically speaking) but that doesn't mean we are going to easily make contact with one another. Even if they are spraying radio waves into space like the earth does we still wouldn't be able to pick them up. I think the movie "Contact" exaggerated the ability of our signals to travel far and still be able to be understood.

In other words, even tho the earth has been sending signals into space since the 1940's (I'm guessing at that date, bear with me on the point) that doesn't mean that the signal is recognizable 67 lightyears away. It would be so faint and scattered as to simply mix into the background noise. This article :[url=http:...

There may well be intelligent life right next to us (cosmologically speaking) but that doesn't mean we are going to easily make contact with one another. Even if they are spraying radio waves into space like the earth does we still wouldn't be able to pick them up. I think the movie "Contact" exaggerated the ability of our signals to travel far and still be able to be understood.

In other words, even tho the earth has been sending signals into space since the 1940's (I'm guessing at that date, bear with me on the point) that doesn't mean that the signal is recognizable 67 lightyears away. It would be so faint and scattered as to simply mix into the background noise. This article :Why can't we hear the transmissions of aliens?, explains why we would need a dish the size of the Arecibo dish (the one pictured in "Contact" that is about the size of a mountain) just to clearly pick up a signal at the orbit of Saturn.

I don't think his point is to support the idea of god, merely showing that if you use the idea of a young earth belief then you can apply common physic principals (such as the speed of light) to show how impossible that belief can be. If the Earth is only 12,000 years old then the "universe" would only be 24,000 light years wide. Yet we see objects by the light they emitted that are much MUCH farther away.

The logic flaw would then be those of the "young earth" variety, not the person pointing out the flaw.

The distance and speed restrictions are not placed on god, but on the characteristics of physics that exist in this universe. Light travels 186,000 miles per second and vast distances a...

I don't think his point is to support the idea of god, merely showing that if you use the idea of a young earth belief then you can apply common physic principals (such as the speed of light) to show how impossible that belief can be. If the Earth is only 12,000 years old then the "universe" would only be 24,000 light years wide. Yet we see objects by the light they emitted that are much MUCH farther away.

The logic flaw would then be those of the "young earth" variety, not the person pointing out the flaw.

The distance and speed restrictions are not placed on god, but on the characteristics of physics that exist in this universe. Light travels 186,000 miles per second and vast distances are measured in how far light travels in 1 year. If 1 lightyear is how far light travels in one year and the universe is suppose to only be 12,000 years old, then why do we see objects that are MUCH farther away? By logic the story of creation simply fails.

@n2sooners

I am not saying he is supporting God, just that his logic is flawed. He is trying to place restrictions on God by assuming that God couldn't create the entire universe at once.

You're saying that the light from these distant galaxies was created at the same time as everything else so there is no time lapse due to distance. The objects and the light "from them" and the distance they would have to traverse was all created simultaneously, already at their destinations at the time of creation.

And the author of "The Incredibly Tiny Christian Universe" didn't consider that!

Well, actually the author did. You see...

The chronology of the bible is that earth was made ...

@n2sooners

I am not saying he is supporting God, just that his logic is flawed. He is trying to place restrictions on God by assuming that God couldn't create the entire universe at once.

You're saying that the light from these distant galaxies was created at the same time as everything else so there is no time lapse due to distance. The objects and the light "from them" and the distance they would have to traverse was all created simultaneously, already at their destinations at the time of creation.

And the author of "The Incredibly Tiny Christian Universe" didn't consider that!

Well, actually the author did. You see...

The chronology of the bible is that earth was made about 6-10k years ago. The bible says the earth was made on Day 1, while the stars were made on Day 4.

This means the earth is OLDER than the stars, and was created FIRST. The bible says the stars were created on Day 4.

So, according to the bible, the universe was not all created "at once".

And every now and then, we see new stars being born; their light is just now reaching us. (So that eliminates the idea that "at once" started on Day 4.)

One might suspect that a god would know these things. It is clear, however, that the inspired writer of Genesis did not.

I think you are taking things out of context here. The article is specifically aimed at Christianity and Young Earth Creationist quackery.

While it may be impossible to prove or disprove a creator, it is quite possible to prove or disprove a specific description of the creator. There is not one religion today that can withstand close scrutiny of its writings, theology, or logic. Does this mean there is no god? No. But it does mean that if there is a god then that being is completely unknown to mankind.

It is ridiculous to argue that the universe was created with starlight en route or fossils were pre-buried because religious theology contradicts nature. Just more proof that Christianity i...

I think you are taking things out of context here. The article is specifically aimed at Christianity and Young Earth Creationist quackery.

While it may be impossible to prove or disprove a creator, it is quite possible to prove or disprove a specific description of the creator. There is not one religion today that can withstand close scrutiny of its writings, theology, or logic. Does this mean there is no god? No. But it does mean that if there is a god then that being is completely unknown to mankind.

It is ridiculous to argue that the universe was created with starlight en route or fossils were pre-buried because religious theology contradicts nature. Just more proof that Christianity is the bronze age myth that it is and it needs circular reasoning in order to be accepted.

It would be more logical that a being consciously created reality by using a starting point that then began to progress into today. I mean if such a being has the intellect to create the universe so that it logically made sense to imagine it created during some "big bang" and over time galaxies and star systems formed and life "evolved" over time, then why not just do it?

Instead you would have us believe that such a being used tricks and traps to fool people into not believing in it. Can you not see how ridiculous that sounds? Especially if this same god demands people find "salvation" and believe in him or suffer eternal torment. Talk about illogical!

The arguments of the author are completely rational and logically point out the ridiculous notions presented by creationism to support their claim. Honestly now, do a mental test and simply take god out of the equation and look at how everything suddenly makes sense. No mental gymnastics, no blind faith in ridiculous ideas and myths, and no circular logic required in order to believe in the supernatural. Honestly, try it.

klippety said:

Perhaps, as you say at another point, some things can happen at instant speeds. Whereby I would like to add that humans concepts of time and space appear to be very limited.

But isn't this what religion does? Hides in the unknowns and then condemn humanity because it doesn't know? It attempts to gain a position of authority and superiority by suggesting it has the answers. Oh they might hide it in stuff like "only god knows" or "mankind simply cannot understand" but its still suggesting ownership of the knowledge. It dangles it like a carrot in order to win over and maintain support of the ignorant.

Religion is content to remain ignorant and ascribe unknowns to crea...

klippety said:

Perhaps, as you say at another point, some things can happen at instant speeds. Whereby I would like to add that humans concepts of time and space appear to be very limited.

But isn't this what religion does? Hides in the unknowns and then condemn humanity because it doesn't know? It attempts to gain a position of authority and superiority by suggesting it has the answers. Oh they might hide it in stuff like "only god knows" or "mankind simply cannot understand" but its still suggesting ownership of the knowledge. It dangles it like a carrot in order to win over and maintain support of the ignorant.

Religion is content to remain ignorant and ascribe unknowns to creatures of the fairy world. It actually thrives on the ignorance of mankind. But mankind ignorances are not a permanent flaw. We have the capacity to eradicate our ignorances by exploring and examining the world around us. We can postulate ideas and answers of even the most illusive concepts and eventually discover understanding in all aspects of reality.

You indicate that our ignorance lowers us, and it does if we give in and embrace it. But I think our ignorance is what drives us to a higher enlightenment because humanity has the drive and need to understand. What we don't know we seek to know. This is why religion and science collide. The more we learn and discover the more we realize the inconsistencies, mistakes, and outright lies of religion. When we discover something new in science we can use that to learn more. But that new knowledge then requires new explanations and extraneous reasoning in order to continue religious belief. Far easier for religion just to deny and ban science.

Before I assume more into your meaning can you describe for me what you meant by "some things can happen at instant speed". Sure, some things can happen at an instant speed, however the normal traveling of light is not one of them.

Just to throw some confusion into the mix - I noticed several years ago that the order of creation as discribed in Genisis 1:1 and the order of creation as described by the big bang and the resolution of matter and planets are very close to one another, and if you accept that "a day" is better translated as "a distinct period of time" it congrues about as well as any description that doesn't rely on several pages of "banjo music".

And oddly enough, the hebrew word translated in the King James as "day" means, literally, "a distinct period of time" - it usually means day, but one takes the precise meaning from context.

I've always been amused by the things people say the bible says, as cont...

Just to throw some confusion into the mix - I noticed several years ago that the order of creation as discribed in Genisis 1:1 and the order of creation as described by the big bang and the resolution of matter and planets are very close to one another, and if you accept that "a day" is better translated as "a distinct period of time" it congrues about as well as any description that doesn't rely on several pages of "banjo music".

And oddly enough, the hebrew word translated in the King James as "day" means, literally, "a distinct period of time" - it usually means day, but one takes the precise meaning from context.

I've always been amused by the things people say the bible says, as contrasted with what it actually does say.

And that's completely aside from the question of whether I believe it all.

And oddly enough, the hebrew word translated in the King James as "day" means, literally, "a distinct period of time" - it usually means day, but one takes the precise meaning from context.

You make an interesting observation here. You are pointing out that the earth was created within the "distinct period of time" that came first (a.k.a. Day 1), if the bible were to be correct.

But that certainly does not agree with the "distinct period of time" in which the stars were made (the 4th Day).

I'm not sure how you track the big band theory with the biblical creation story regarding the order of these events. But no matter how you label them (temporally), the Earth does not pr...

And oddly enough, the hebrew word translated in the King James as "day" means, literally, "a distinct period of time" - it usually means day, but one takes the precise meaning from context.

You make an interesting observation here. You are pointing out that the earth was created within the "distinct period of time" that came first (a.k.a. Day 1), if the bible were to be correct.

But that certainly does not agree with the "distinct period of time" in which the stars were made (the 4th Day).

I'm not sure how you track the big band theory with the biblical creation story regarding the order of these events. But no matter how you label them (temporally), the Earth does not predate the existence of stars.

The point the author is making, is that the biblical description is factually incorrect. But considering when, and by who, the bible was written, it is no surprise that these stories would be factually wrong. The are basically cultural folklore stories told over many centuries.