Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/8/2006 7:36:40 PM   
WyrdRich


Posts: 1733
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline
        Fast reply

      I don't understand how anyone could view those pictures and not see evidence of some higher power and order that pathetically insignificant humans label "God."

(in reply to WhipTheHip)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/8/2006 8:08:54 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline
Hmmm...

I don't see evidence of a higher power.  I see a picture.

("Higher power" is just one of those nebulous phrases that people use when they really mean "God" but don't want to have to explain exactly what they think this God is or does or consists of.)

(in reply to WyrdRich)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/8/2006 8:12:55 PM   
cuddleheart50


Posts: 9718
Joined: 2/20/2006
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
I Do see evidence of a higher power, God, in those picutres.

_____________________________

Dance like no one is watching,
Sing like no one is listening.
Love like you've never been hurt
and live like it's heaven on Earth.


(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/8/2006 8:35:46 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Please.  The "some people" you were talking about were atheists.  If you're not going to have the courage to stand by the implications of what you say, don't say anything at all.  Don't go hiding behind the phrase "some people."

I object to any unsanitary use of language and concepts and logic. I therefore reject your argument. You lack either the courage or the perspicacity to see and acknowledge that it is not I who imply, but you who imply, who distorts my words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Wrong again. ... An argument is circular if it attempts to prove a proposition that is in doubt by appealing to the proposition itself.  That is NOT the same thing as reasoning from axioms.

In this you are correct. However...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Besides, in real science, the axioms are up for grabs.  We fall upon the axioms that best fit the world we experience, and dozens of assumptions that used to be regarded as axioms have been discarded along the way because they've been shown to be useless.

Quite. So these discarded axioms in fact were propositions? So aren't all non-discarded axioms also? Axioms after all are assumptions.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Scientists don't assume that something must be true just because billions of people believe it.

Belief? Some or many of them, maybe. Then again: many of them have experienced the acausal effects of spirituality on our physical universe - they do not believe: they know.
 
And as for scientists, I quote: "in real science, the axioms are up for grabs.  We fall upon the axioms that best fit the world we experience, and dozens of assumptions that used to be regarded as axioms have been discarded along the way because they've been shown to be useless". Any assumption of truth is by definition an axiom until discarded. As long as  the acausal effects of spirituality on our physical universe are experienced, its "truth" will not be discarded. What scientists assume or do not assume about that truth therefore is irrelevant.
 
Where there is smoke, there usually is or has been a fire.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

But theists never seem to want to try out the theory that this god they believe in might not really exist.

Whomever these gods were or are, world mythology testifies that they did exist.
 
In geology when we encounter layers with identical fossil species in various locations it is assumed that these layers are in fact the same layer. Such assumptions have enabled geologists to put together a consistent picture of the geological history of Earth.
 
Mythology in that regard is analogous to geology: mythological testimony from many disparate sources paint a consistent picture of "gods" having existed on Earth in our physical universe. That fact has theological as well as cosmological implications.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
I don't see evidence of a higher power.  I see a picture.

I agree. The distribution of matter in our universe is causal in the scientific frame. In the spiritual frame it may be regarded as evidence not of "God", but of the preference for beauty of "God".

< Message edited by Rule -- 9/8/2006 8:52:22 PM >

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/8/2006 8:42:23 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline
Well, this is obviously going nowhere, and I'm not going to start listing one by one the obscure phrases (like "unsanitary use of language") that make it impossible for someone to respond to you.

Suffice it to say that if you think mythology is any kind of confirmation of people's beliefs, you and I are never going to agree.

I'm also going to disagree that any human being "knows" God exists.  You and I have a very different understanding of the word "know."

Finis.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/8/2006 11:50:24 PM   
Kedicat


Posts: 251
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Well, this is obviously going nowhere, and I'm not going to start listing one by one the obscure phrases (like "unsanitary use of language") that make it impossible for someone to respond to you.

Suffice it to say that if you think mythology is any kind of confirmation of people's beliefs, you and I are never going to agree.

I'm also going to disagree that any human being "knows" God exists.  You and I have a very different understanding of the word "know."

Finis.


Grimms Fairy Tales is a nice big book full of mythology. Why hasn't someone gotten a religion goinng on that. It would be fun.

Isn't it the sin of pride to think one knows the mind and machinations of god? Can one who is not a god ever know that god exists?

If you know there is a god. Can you also answer how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 12:56:13 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
An excellent post - particularly liked squabble over land, riches, and philosophical territories and We are all one family of humans on one tiny planet that we must all share with each other and other species. We must stop fighting over the body of mother earth and We teeter on the brink of self-annihilation because of lies told and retold over thousands of years.
 
As said, we're busy squabbling over material wealth and have completely lost sight of what humans need for our well-being.

Regards



 


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 1:17:00 AM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
Even if there is a big daddy god with blueprints for the universe and a vast PDA with all our schedules on it, what makes anyone think they could understand the answer to "why" even if  he told us?

"Why are we here?" comes from the same part of our ego that has to believe we are special; a special species, a special race, a special colour, a special believer in some special interpretation of a special book. Our egos just can't stand the thought that we don't have a purpose or that we will simply die and be no more.

We must live on! How could something so special just cease to be? It's rather sad really, temples are little more than monuments to the neediness of our egos.

@ Rule: Sorry but LaM totally owned you on the "some people" thing (and everything else by default, following your attempt to dodge the obvious). In your theist / atheist duality the "some people" must either be theists or atheists and since they can't be theists... well, you get the picture.
0

_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to Kedicat)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 4:15:16 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee
@ Rule: Sorry but LaM totally owned you on the "some people" thing (and everything else by default, following your attempt to dodge the obvious). In your theist / atheist duality the "some people" must either be theists or atheists and since they can't be theists...

If I had meant (all) theists or (all) atheists, I would have said so clearly and specifically. The exact context and my response was this:
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
I just do not understand how people can state there is no force or power that brought them into consciousness

Some people are inherently unable to recognize nor accept such a power nor the power of acausality affecting reality.

My statement does not exclude theists per sé, as I can well imagine that there are theists as well that "are inherently unable to recognize nor accept such a power [or force that brought them into consciousness], nor the power of acausality affecting reality".
Note that I nowhere used the confusing noun God. Anyone that assumes that I meant to imply his subjective - and confused - interpretation of "God" simply applies his own distorted frame of reference to my words.
 
Nor does my statement refer to any duality between theists and atheist. Where do I refer to such a duality in this statement? Nowhere.
 
Nor does my statement specifically limit itself to atheists. Where does it say atheists? Nowhere. I formulated it exactly as I did to not exclude some theists, some agnocists, some atheists nor any other some -ists.
 
Fourthly - and what I most object to - my statement is not all-inclusive. I specifically did not say ALL people nor ALL atheists. I specifically said "some people" and anyone who infers from those words that I implied ALL atheists is stretching my statement far beyond the breaking point - proving to neither have any insight nor to know me at all. I do not imply. Never. If I have anything to say I do not mince words about it. I doubt that there is a post of mine in these threads that "implies" anything beyond what I typed in black on white. Anyone who finds such an "imply" post of mine most probably has found only a reflection of his own distorted perception of reality.
 
The words and concepts in my statement were chosen extremely carefully. Anyone who generalizes them and / or attributes them with implications not clearly stated, is a sloppy thinker.
 
 

< Message edited by Rule -- 9/9/2006 4:51:32 AM >

(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 4:34:12 AM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah
Logical exploration itself conducted with modest good sense can lead us to see that logical exploration has a finite range of useful application. It isn't logical to apply the tools of logic beyond this range.


Please state the limits of logic. It is not enough to assert that there are limits. What are they, specifically?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah
If there is a there, there as far as popular notions of God are concerned is He/She/It accessible via our emotions?


If it can be said the emotions or feelings are a kind of information then such information can be discussed logically.

If you are talking about things that only you can know, things that you feel and respond to in yourself but that are otherwise irreproducible then please meet my friend Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

BTW, stating the many arguments against a spiritual worldview are "classic" or of great antiquity in no way dispenses with them. They are classic arguments for a reason - namely that they would appear to be logically accurate. There is no current need to rethink the issues as no new information has materialized to challenge the logically veracity of those arguments.

As it turns out, I don't care if you feel with great emotional intensity that an invisible six-foot three-and-a-half-inch tall rabbit exists - if you have no hard evidence for such a belief then you cannot get me to believe in the existence of such a creature.

Okay,Elwood?

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 5:01:46 AM   
SusanofO


Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
We ought not to believe in things that make emotional sense to us?...


Nice post, Chain. Thanks.

When it comes to a finding of fact, such as whether this person did this crime, holding the ideal of dispassionate logic is great. But I think we should make room even there for the sometimes positive role of emotion in attacking highly rational(istic?) challenges.

Does anyone want to say that Logic itself is a condition of existence and so if there is a God he must have been subject to logical constraints when he created the world, or subject to logical constraints upon his very existence? Well fine. Then you only need ask this person what sort of turtle their Turtle of Logic is standing on the back of. Or else compliment them on a faith greater than that of Abraham and surreptitiously touch their hem for luck.

Logical exploration itself conducted with modest good sense can lead us to see that logical exploration has a finite range of useful application. It isn't logical to apply the tools of logic beyond this range. Kind of like walking to the edge of the continent can show us that walking has a limited range of useful application. Real simple.

I mean Aristotle believed that a menstruating woman's image would permanently discolor a mirror toward red. Spinoza though Blacks were a different species. Rove thought Libby would be a good guy to have on the team and Libby thought "Scooter" was a cool name for a world-class power-broker. I'm telling you even really smart guys fuck up royal sometimes.

What about emotional God-searching?

If there is a there, there as far as popular notions of God are concerned is He/She/It accessible via our emotions?

Once again, every argument in favor of such a claim is exactly as non-sensical as every argument against. I'm not saying worthless. At a certain point in life you realize how very subtly worthwhile nonsense can be, some of the time, for some sorts of things. But either way we have already seen that "beyond the reach of logic" is not synonymous with "non-existent."

I mean ... women exist, right?



This is an interesting thread. I am glad it was posted, Chaingang. It has been fun to read. I appreciated the opportunity to be able to read  responses.

I really liked this, Noah. Yours is one of the best summations of this whole "area of disputation" I think I may have ever seen. (really)

 I loved reading all of the examples.  Bingo!  I feel inspired by it.

**For me, reading this thread has me,  for some reason, contemplatng other questions posted on the CM forum such as:

"Do We Believe People Can Change?", "Attitude
" and also "Being "Owned" and the fact that some believe in and practice bdsm Polyamory and some support and practice Monogamy.   Decisions about such things, I believe,  for most people, are not always based on logic to the exclusion of emotion (or vice-versa) - I'd lay odds on it, anyway. 

And, when cloudboy stated, his wife is seeing a blithe Jewish person, and it's made for an interesting dynamic, but if one of them died, what would be left?  Bingo! That got me thinking as well. Is it important to know with certainty why humans exist? I don't believe that it's possible to answer, but of course life can be very enjoyable for some anyway.

Someone asked the other day on a CM thread how to deal with the aspect that "technically" a Master could change into a different person than the one she commited to, possibly. If she said "yes, I am a slave" and then she has agreed to whatever he wants and a slave exists only to serve a Master's needs, and if she cannot ever say the word "No" again, to any request - how does a person settle that question in their mind? She is a smart gal, and had been in a bdsm relationship and felt mis-treated, apprently, to a degree that caused her to leave the relationship eventually. I know Dominants and Masters can also be devastated by leaving, or having someone else leave, a relationship as well. 

Again and again, that question "What is a slave"? comes up on these CM boards. 

She simply wanted to know, intellectually, how she could deal emotionally with the definition she'd heard. She was anything but intellectually imparied, and had read various definitions of the word "slave." She appeared to be trying to settle the question in her mind, outside of advice she'd already read and heard tossed around these boards, that she already knows is good advice (and is trying to take) re: Choosing a good and responsible Master.  I said I thought the difference was a question of semantics, but one to definitly take seriously and never one to walk blindly into, etc., that she'd heard before, I am sure.

That question, in relation ot slicing and dicing the difference technically, between a submissive and a slave, related to me in many ways, to another thread I'd read a few days before, that had meandered into an area about whether "Addiction to a person" can be similar in many ways, to a drug addiction. But the comparison, is, I think, not completely analogous. A drug has to be taken, and people voluntarily take them, sure. A person volunteers for a consensual bdsm relationship to another(s).

I also persoanlly believe people can influence eachother in more pervasive and myriad ways, some almost imperceptibly, some directly and forcefully, for better or worse, more pervasively than a drug, and  that relationships in general are sanctioned and are more prevalent, and have been throughput history, as I perveive it and fromm what I've read, in many societies (since the term society implies two or more people).

But, I may be digressing. Anyway, I am reasoning that -

The connotation of any answer for this gal doesn't have to be "bad".  I can see what Rule is implying in his remarks on this thread, particularly, also. I feel (and think) the answers anyone comes to regarding such questions are going to be limited by the range of the consciousness of the person perceiving the replies, which will be limited, generally by limits of logic and emotion.

I thought I foresaw some potential imagery and discussion about the term "Co-dependency" being tossed around on the thread discussing addiction to a person, and that thread is on the boards here somewhere still, and I haven't gotten back to it. But it was an interesting thread as well. Simply because I think the questions can be construed as similar to this one.

Sometimes I just appreciate being able to read about, and also ask, questions about some topics. Good thread!



- Susan
  

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 9/9/2006 6:02:35 AM >


_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 6:05:02 AM   
SusanofO


Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
Happy Saturday, everyone.

- Susan 

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 9/9/2006 6:16:04 AM >


_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 6:11:54 AM   
WhipTheHip


Posts: 1004
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline
> As your previous statement, this second one is also wrong. ALL interpretations
> of reality are circular. ALL interpretations are based on axioms. Any reasoning
> is only as good as the axioms it is based on. Garbage in, garbage out, as the
> saying is. Thus atheist reasoning by definition also is circular.

Some axioms are more reasonable than others.  The axioms that atheists
use are really pretty basic.  The axioms used by those that believe in
religion are really pretty far-feteched.

If this is the only universe, then it is truly remarkable.  If our universe
is only one out of a near infinite number of universes, then all the order
and complexity is easily explained by the anthropic principle.

> Similarly, I cannot be held responsible for any harm or killing I do,

You are no more responsible for the harm and killing that you do, than
any dangerous beast whose conduct is based on solely genetics and
life experiences.   Nature and nurture are sufficient to explain all
human behavior.

> There is nothing to prevent me doing as I please either, since fear of reprisal

Anyone who is good out of fear of reprisal or reward in some after life is no
better than Al Capone or John Gotti.  If fear and reward completely motivate
your behavior, than you are just an animal.  I do go good for its own sake, even
knowing that  no benefit will acrue to me for it.   I worship compassion and
loving-kindness, because that is who I am.  As a child, I recognized that there
is a war between good and evil in the universe, even as most children and
adults ignored and ignore this war.    There are few of us fighting for good,
and too many evil people.  I can only hope against hope that someday this
will change before it is too late.  I suspect mankind will have to be devestated
before humans learn the importance of compassion.


< Message edited by WhipTheHip -- 9/9/2006 6:25:24 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to WhipTheHip)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 6:14:51 AM   
SusanofO


Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
Happy Saturday, WhiptheHip. I do see what you're saying.

- Susan 

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 9/9/2006 6:19:42 AM >


_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 6:24:02 AM   
WhipTheHip


Posts: 1004
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline
Good morning, Susan,

I hope everything is going well with you.

Love,
Michael


_____________________________



(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 6:40:59 AM   
SusanofO


Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
I'm doing fine (gonna have to learn to get more sleep, but that's another area entirely). Thanks for asking, hope you are, too.

I agree with you WhiptheHip, that, ultmately, all interpretations of "reality" are circular. I also liked what you and Rule had to say about the use of axioms and sanitary language constraints (and that Lady Ellen first implied in what I viewed as a well-thought out post, I might add, in this thread simply by expounding on a view of the bounds of the term 'science').


- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 9/9/2006 7:00:45 AM >


_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to WhipTheHip)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 6:53:55 AM   
WhipTheHip


Posts: 1004
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline
Our universe is clearly exceptional.  Stephen Hawkings NBP, Max Tegmark's AUH, and
Hugh Everett's MWs all propose the necessity of countless other universes.  This is
really the straight forward interpretation of QM.   Hiesenberg and Borh assumed this
is the only universe, and therefore had to devise a rather ad hoc, non-causal, contrived,
arbitrary and capricious interpretation.  If instead we accept the nascient universe was
in the exact same position of Buridan's ass, we can easily understand why it had to
take every possible pathway, and not just one arbitrary pathway.  This being the case,
the exceptional nature of our universe is easily explained by the fact that it takes
a rather complex and fairly exceptional universe to produce conscious life.  The law
of large numbers dictates that even the exceptional becomes likely (and even certain)
given enough cases.  If you played the lottery once, you wouldn't expect to win.  If
you play it a near infinite number of times, it would be shocking if you didn't win
countless times. 
 
People who believe in a Santa Claus God are incapable of acting selflessly, since
they know they will receive 70 naked virgins or no death and eternity in heaven for
their conduct, while if they don't act selflessly, they will spend eternity in agony
in Hell.   What choice does anyone who trully believes this really have?  Mother
Tressa claimed she was no fool, she would not have dedicated her life to helping
the sick and the poor if she was not going to get something better in return for
making this sacrafice.  In my estimation, this sadly undermines all the good
Mother Teressa did. 
 
It is hard to believe any kind, compassionate, loving, merciful, empathic God
could allow all the torture humans have exacted on each other down through
history.   Some say this was necessary to give man free choice, but this is a
fallacious argument.  Few humans have the power to do what Hitler and Stalin
did, does this mean only Hitler and Stalin had free choice.  Yes!  We are
all constrained.   We have fear of physical retribution in this world.  Sure we
could each rob a bank tomorrow, but given the risk-reward-downside consequence
ratio what sane peson would do it.  Most people refrain from robbing banks not
because it is immoral, but rather because it is not in their self-interest to do
so.  This is hardly a matter of free choice.
 
The suffering and agony humans have had to endure the past 30,000 years have
been unimaginable.  I personally don't see how any human who trully understands
the full meaning of torture can possibly believe in God. 
 
Looking at world, what do we see.  We see in nature so many animals having to
eat other sentient animals in order to survive.  What kind of God could have
created such a world?

< Message edited by WhipTheHip -- 9/9/2006 7:21:32 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to WhipTheHip)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 7:05:54 AM   
WhipTheHip


Posts: 1004
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
I'm doing fine (gonna have to learn to get more sleep, but that's another area entirely). Thanks for asking, hope you are, too.
I agree with you WhiptheHip, that, ultmately, all interpreations of "reality" are circular. I also liked what you and Rule had to say about the use of axioms and sanitary language constraints (and that Lady Ellen first implied in what I viewed as a well-thought out post, I might add, in this thread simply by expounding on a view of the bounds of the term 'science').
- Susan


The existence of consciousness tipped the scales and led me
to belief in God.   Grasping the true reality of mankind turned
me into a hard athiest.   Down through the ages, countless humans
have been subjected to extreme torture.  Mothers were tortured
till they condemned all their children, their parents, their husbands,
and all their relatives to the same kind of Mideval torture they
were forced to endure for days and weeks on end.  Humans have
endured torment and agony beyond words.    Any good that came
from all this suffering is posion fruit.  I can't see any truly loving,
compassionate God allowing this to happen.  Nor can I see any
loving, compassionate God creating a universe where beings
have to eat other living beings in order to survive.

Even alligator mothers care more for their offsping than
God seems to care for humans.

How can any decent person enjoy Heaven knowing any
creature let alone any human is being tortured in Hell. 
I'm sorry, but even Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam
and bin Ladin don't deserve to be tortured for all
eternity.  All these people were mere mortals with
the limited understanding and flawed mental processes.
Compared to God, humans are children, and like
children should not be held responsible for their
actions.  All evil done by humans is done 1)
out of ignorance, 2) mental illness,  3) genetic
make-up,  and/or  4) extreme abuse.

Love,
Michael

< Message edited by WhipTheHip -- 9/9/2006 7:20:34 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 7:11:39 AM   
SusanofO


Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
Yes. I liked what Kedicat insinuated in his remark about a book of Grimm's Fairytales being full of myths (I know what he meant, but I'd add to that remark that those myths were created by human conscioussness, and I think he may have implied that and don't intend to insinuate he did not). My conception of a higher power as a causitive for the existence of the universe, is that It tends to be appearing as a "hands-off" power in some ways (because I too have contemplated some of the same horrific occurrences humanity has endured that you mentioned). In many ways, it seems relatively closeby, because I can look outside my window and see pleasant things like trees and beautiful flowers, that I know I could never create from nothing, myself, and that I can appreciate as wonderful (which isn't the same thing as saying humans are not creative, btw). Where this human journey called life is ultimately leading me, I cannot say with certainty.

I completely agree with you that that human conception of a higher force explaining or not the existence of our universe (or not) is bounded by human consciousness and experiences. One could easily feel the universe was created by the Giant Spaghetti Monster (I think I've seen a humorous website about that, too, come to think of it).You are, WhiptheHip,I think, a thoughtful philosopher.
It's clear to me you've thought this through.

- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 9/9/2006 7:24:49 AM >


_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to WhipTheHip)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 9/9/2006 8:13:17 AM   
SusanofO


Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
mnottertail: I thought this was FUNNY. And pretty much sums up the circular reasoning that inevitably surrounds discussion of questioning the existence of a force that created the universe, I think.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The most inappropriate elegant and efficient argument I have found regarding this is:

Of course God forgives me, it's his fuckin' job.

*I will cite the source (written on his tombstone, at some point in the future)
key point, above. - Susan
Ron  


_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.111