DescentBB

God doesn't have a number. People get on their knees all the time, but it doesn't matter because all they end up doing, at best, is communing with their own evil hearts. Their prayers never get past the ceiling, and the reason why is hidden right in front of them in the pages of scripture. People are wicked, and it's only by the grace of God that any of us find him, though the Bible says that he's not far from each one of us.

You can get on your knees all you want, any of you, and all you're going to do is wear your pants out unless you repent.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:God doesn't have a number. People get on their knees all the time, but it doesn't matter because all they end up doing, at best, is communing with their own evil hearts. Their prayers never get past the ceiling, and the reason why is hidden right in front of them in the pages of scripture. People are wicked, and it's only by the grace of God that any of us find him, though the Bible says that he's not far from each one of us.

You can get on your knees all you want, any of you, and all you're going to do is wear your pants out unless you repent.

But He loves you....


Bee

Duper wrote:...don't get hung up on semantics.

Maybe I am, but there are times I wish Christians would be more careful with Christian-ese jargon, especially when in conversation with others, as the meanings can sometimes vary.

"Glory" is a good example, as to Christians it means "something that speaks to the qualities of God", which can differ from the general definition of "acclaim".

So does my dad, but he doesn't accept just anything, and if I go around coming up with my own ideas of what he thinks is acceptable, while disregarding what he has told me in the past, I'll be in for a rude awakening when I finally run into him.

A more complete analogy would be if he had gone away on business and left me with a number to call him about anything I needed to check with him on, and then while he's gone I decide I don't like that number, or the answers I'll get, so I call other numbers--even the psychic hot-line to ask \"him\" whether I can invite my school over for a 3-day block party, if I can take up smoking, or if I can sell his car. And if I don't get anyone I just come up with my own answers--what I think he should say. You know I would be in for a very rude awakening when he got back. So don't get me all hung up on how much he loves me, because I'm still in for an ass whooping.

Your analogy is more about you than your dad but suppose you dialed him like he told you to and he never answered. How many times do you try before you give up and think for yourself.

Bee

Foil wrote:

Duper wrote:...don't get hung up on semantics.

Maybe I am, but there are times I wish Christians would be more careful with Christian-ese jargon, especially when in conversation with others, as the meanings can sometimes vary.

"Glory" is a good example, as to Christians it means "something that speaks to the qualities of God", which can differ from the general definition of "acclaim".

I really do understand where you're coming from. Let me thing about it and see if I can give a good sumation. ... unless Drakona or Lothar gets to it before me. (hint hint)

That's because the analogy concerns us.

The fault is always ours. The Bible is pretty clear about that, and it's even obvious, a lot of the time. Trust me, I've seen it. There is plenty of room for all kinds of fault on our part. We can't truly blame God. If we really "dial" like He tells us to, He will answer, and He has.

2 Chronicles 16 wrote:9 For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him.

The Lord looks at the heart, it says in the Bible (1 Samuel 16:7). The correct words don't mean anything, your heart must be right (sincere). A hint is that if you're not coming to God according to scripture (repentance being part of it), your heart is not right, no matter what you've convinced yourself of.

I know from my own experience that the heart is a tricky thing. The Bible says:

Jeremiah 17 wrote:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:He will answer, and He has.

If you want to say that God listens but doesn't answer then I can buy that, but I can state as fact that their haven't been any two way conversations with God so "He has" is false.

Bettina

Careful, Bet. I know you're a scientist at heart, so watch those epistemological claims.

You can certainly say \"I haven't had any two-way conversations with God\", but it sounds like you're claiming personal knowledge of every other person's experiences as well (which is something you can't know, of course).

Bet51987 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:He will answer, and He has.

If you want to say that God listens but doesn't answer then I can buy that, but I can state as fact that their haven't been any two way conversations with God so "He has" is false.

Bettina

maybe its not that he didnt answer. maybe it was because the answer he gave you was no and you didnt like that.

Bettina wrote:If you want to say that God listens but doesn't answer then I can buy that, but I can state as fact that their haven't been any two way conversations with God so "He has" is false.

Exodus 33:7-34:35 (King James Version)

7And Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the congregation. And it came to pass, that every one which sought the LORD went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp.

8And it came to pass, when Moses went out unto the tabernacle, that all the people rose up, and stood every man at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the tabernacle.

9And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses.

10And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door.

11And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

12And Moses said unto the LORD, See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people: and thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name, and thou hast also found grace in my sight.

13Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people.

14And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.

15And he said unto him, If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.

16For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.

17And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.

18And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

19And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

20And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

21And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

22And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

-----
etc, etc, etc...
Just one example for someone who claims the Bible to be indisputable fact.

Bet51987 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:He will answer, and He has.

If you want to say that God listens but doesn't answer then I can buy that, but I can state as fact that their haven't been any two way conversations with God so "He has" is false.

Bettina

lol, wait until you have kids. You'll understand God a whole lot better. How many times do you keep asking the for the same thing even if you're told "No" but keep asking anyways as if you never heard it.....

hmm?

SilverFJ wrote:etc, etc, etc...
Just one example for someone who claims the Bible to be indisputable fact.

SilverFJ, maybe you didn't know, but Bet is an atheist. Quoting scripture to her to prove a point isn't going to work.

If you want to counter her claim that there have never been two-way conversations with God, I'd suggest a different tack.

It is MY belief, that the voice in MY head, that addresses ME by name, the one that says, \"Are you an Idiot, DoG?\" When I attempt to do something that is contrary to MY beliefs, is IN FACT God.



Disclaimer*
Sorry no disclaimer.

Bet51987 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:He will answer, and He has.

If you want to say that God listens but doesn't answer then I can buy that, but I can state as fact that their haven't been any two way conversations with God so "He has" is false.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:If you want to say that God listens but doesn't answer then I can buy that, but I can state as fact that their haven't been any two way conversations with God so "He has" is false.

No, that's not a fact.

An answer does not always mean two-way conversation, especially with God. Very few people have talked with God like you and I would talk to each other. As SilverFJ said, the Bible says Moses was one of them...

Numbers 12 wrote:5 Then the LORD came down in the pillar of cloud and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam. And they both went forward. 6 Then He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. 7 Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. 8 I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant Moses?"

Job 33 wrote:12 Behold, in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man. 13 Why dost thou strive against him? for he giveth not account of any of his matters. 14 For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. 15 In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; 16 Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, 17 That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man. 18 He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword.

Isaiah 55 wrote:8 " For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. 9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Foil wrote:

Duper wrote:...don't get hung up on semantics.

Maybe I am, but there are times I wish Christians would be more careful with Christian-ese jargon, especially when in conversation with others, as the meanings can sometimes vary.

"Glory" is a good example, as to Christians it means "something that speaks to the qualities of God", which can differ from the general definition of "acclaim".

Ok, I gave it some thought and prayer. I wasn't able to some up with what I felt was a satisfactory answer. This is one of those things that you deeply understand but in as much, putting words to that understanding becomes very difficult. As is my habit, i was listening the apologist R.C. Sproul's radio show (on-line) and they had a guest speaker that addressed this very thing.

Listen to it
HERE

I want to start by pointing out that this topic "God and the vastness of the Universe", requires the assumption of God's existence. In this case, specifically the Christian Deity. The Atheist argument, that the vastness of the universe disproves the existence of God, must START with the assumption that God exists, and then prove that this results in some absurdity. Reductio ad Adbsurdum.

So, we must first assume the existence of the Christian Deity, the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of EVERYTHING, and then discover whether or not the existence of such a Deity, and of an unbelievably vast universe, are contradictory. If you assume the existence of some Deity other than the one covered in the Bible, and then prove a contradiction from there, you won't have actually proven anything to Christians. (Nor they to you)

I think the arguments for this contradiction have been based on several false assumptions.

Assumption 1: That anything Mankind can not physically contact is pointless.
The center of this earth can not be reached by me, but it is still of use to me. The center of the Sun is inaccessible, but it serves me. And even if I never visit the Andromeda Galaxy, I'm glad it's there. Anything that can affect us in any way is not pointless. It may seem lavishly extravagant to create an entire galaxy for the sole purpose of causing one person looking up at night through a telescope to see a smear of light and say, "wow!" But God is rich. He can afford it.

Assumption 2: That Science dictates we will never be able to reach some portions of the universe.
Now obviously, the laws of physics, as we currently understand them, put strict limits on how much of the universe we can ever visit, or even perceive. Due to the ongoing expansion of the universe, objects beyond a certain distance can NEVER be reached, even at the speed of light. Even if we traveled for eternity. (Assuming that the expansion does not stop or reverse itself)

But do we understand the laws of the universe completely? Newtonian Physics was not wrong, but it was incomplete. Einsteinian Physics does not even claim to be complete. We are still trying to figure out how to integrate Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. We are looking for the Grand Unified Theory. There are legitimate scientist speculating on wormholes and methods for warping space. Quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement and "Spooky action at a distance" have offered strong hints that there MAY be deeper truths than the universal speed limit. Any discovery in these areas MIGHT show some way to bypass the universal speed limit. And there are, of course, new theories every day.

My point is NOT to argue that any of these theories will turn out to be true, they are nowhere NEAR to that yet. But they might. And therefore it is NOT valid to say that because our current understanding of physics does not allow us to bypass the speed of light that we will never be able to. We MAY be bound by that speed limit forever. Or, perhaps not. Using the universal speed limit as an argument against God is arguing based on speculation about the limits of future knowledge. Very shaky grounds indeed.

Assumption 3: That God is limited to following the physics of this universe.
The initial assumption, remember, is in the Christian God who created the universe. Not just created the stuff IN the universe, that is NOT the Christian doctrine. The doctrine is that God created the UNIVERSE. That includes space, time, and all of the laws that affect them. The God who created the laws is not subject to them. He is outside and above them. Christians are also clear that God is Omnipresent (present everywhere at once), Omniscient (all knowing) and Omnipotent (all powerful).

If God's rate of information transferral was limited to the speed of light, He could not be omniscient, since He couldn't know everything happening everywhere at once. This would also cause severe problems with Omnipresence, essentially splitting God into multiple beings out of communication with each other. And, of course, an Omnipotent God can do anything that is not self-contradictory. If He wants to halt the earths rotation to assist Joshua Ben Nun, He can. If He wants to pick someone up on earth and drop them on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy instantly, He can. If we are denying that God can work Miracles then you aren't proving that the existence of the Christian God is incompatible with a vast universe.

So, given that the Christian God is not subject to the rules of this universe, then, even if mankind IS limited to the speed of Light, God could simply move people out beyond the edge of our lightsphere to enjoy His further creations if He so wished.

Assumption 4: That we are the only created beings around to enjoy the universe.
Already had this discussion so I'm only going to touch on it briefly here. The Bible is written from a Human Centric point of view because it was written to Humans. But the Bible NOWHERE states that Humans are God's only creation. Let's take it beyond the controversial "Aliens" point and into the incontrovertible point that God has created Angels. If any areas of the universe are inaccessible to humanity, they could be filled with other created beings who enjoy and appreciate them. If I can never reach some distant Galaxy, God could have created it for the enjoyment of Billions upon Billions of Angels who fly there on a regular basis.

Assumption 5: That God would never have created anything for His own enjoyment only.
Bettina pointed out in another post that while she sings alone, she wouldn't shut the door and stop someone else from listening. But countless artist DO. And they aren't necessarily being selfish. Sometimes a writer writes something in a private journal that they never intend anyone else to see. Sometimes an artist sings songs they do not intend to share. And sometimes an artist creates something that they would LOVE to share, but they know that others can not appreciate it, or will never get to see it. Just because your spouse is tone deaf doesn't mean you quit singing. If all the world were color blind except for you, that wouldn't stop you from painting. My poet friends often write poetry that I simply can not understand. They try to explain, they would love to explain, but I don't have the capacity. That doesn't stop them from writing it. If they were on a desert island and knew that NO ONE would ever read or understand it, still they would write.

Artisans working on the great Cathedrals sometimes spent an enormous amount of time and effort creating beautiful things in distant nooks and crannies that they knew were unlikely to ever be seen or appreciated by another human being. They created them, not to be seen, but just to fill an empty spot with something beautiful. Beauty for beauties sake. And just because we couldn't get to a distant planet doesn't mean God isn't going to make it beautiful.

The Bible makes it clear that God created us for himself. Not the other way around. It's theologically and logically sound to believe He would create beautiful things that no one else would ever know about.

Assumption 6: That mankind would prefer that there be nothing beyond their reach.

Robert Browning wrote:a mans reach should exceed his grasp,Or whats a heaven for?

Even if I could never get there, even if there are parts of the universe I could never even observe, I'm GLAD that it's so vast! The vastness of the universe is not just compatible with the God of Christianity. It's almost a doctrine. God is BIG. Infinite. Well beyond our comprehension. If the universe were small enough to fit within my perceptions, I would not only be disappointed, I would consider it a good argument AGAINST the God of Christianity. The numinous that fills my soul when I think of what an unbelievably vast and incredible universe we live in is a blessing all in itself. If God created billions of galaxies just to make me feel that sense of awe and wonder, wow, what a generous God!

Job 38:1-7

Job 38:1-7 wrote: Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel
by words without knowledge?

Gird up now thy loins like a man;
for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Declare, if thou hast understanding.

Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?
Or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?
Or who laid the corner stone thereof;

when the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Kilarin wrote:... It may seem lavishly extravagant to create an entire galaxy for the sole purpose of causing one person looking up at night through a telescope to see a smear of light and say, "wow!" But God is rich. He can afford it.

A very succinct way to put it.


I give Bettina some grief from time to time, but often it's because some of what she says sounds a lot like things I used to say when I was her age (a couple of decades ago).

But life will not be simple because we wish it to be so.

AlphaDoG wrote:It is MY belief, that the voice in MY head, that addresses ME by name, the one that says, "Are you an Idiot, DoG?" When I attempt to do something that is contrary to MY beliefs, is IN FACT God.

It's very easy for people to believe that God speaks to them on a personal level and claim it as fact but how do they differentiate these messages from God from their own mind verbalizing? I have quite a conversation with myself plenty of times but I know that the voice I hear is coming from me or messages that were stored from my dad or close friends. When I sing on that altar and look at that cross, don't you think I wish that the man nailed there is the real God? Well I think about that every Sunday and I don't mean the Christian God that Lothar and the rest of you believe in, I mean a truly loving God that I would lay down my life for.

My only claim is what I've always claimed. God wouldn't speak to Mother Teresa, He wouldn't speak to Jesus when He was on that cross, and He never spoke to me. From the most worthy to the most unworthy the prepondrance of evidence for no one being on the other end of that phone, for me, is overwhelming. Sadly as it is, no matter how much or how long I wish on that blue fairy, she can never make me a real live boy.

Bettina

Hi Kilarin, I wanted to respond to this earlier but I got a little mental, then sick, then busy. I also want you to know that I consider you my friend so if there is any part of what I say that seems arrogant it's unintentional. I'm typing fast so forgive my spelling and I'm placing a smiley sticker on you before you read this.

Kilarin wrote: Assumption 1: That anything Mankind can not physically contact is pointless.
The center of this earth can not be reached by me, but it is still of use to me. The center of the Sun is inaccessible, but it serves me. And even if I never visit the Andromeda Galaxy, I'm glad it's there. Anything that can affect us in any way is not pointless. It may seem lavishly extravagant to create an entire galaxy for the sole purpose of causing one person looking up at night through a telescope to see a smear of light and say, "wow!" But God is rich. He can afford it.

Obviously, the Earth's internal structure, along with our Sun and Moon serves us, and the planets of our Solar system are also important for the safety of earth. However the assumption that systems beyond our detection are somehow important to us doesn't make any sense. We are only able to view 4% of our observable universe which, according to WMAP, is only 1/1,000,000th of the whole universe created from the big bang. So, how is the vastness of the universe that you can never see, never visit, and if it disappeared tommorrow would go unnoticed, important to you and I? Also, I wouldn't be too glad that Andromeda is there because our Milky Way and Andromeda are racing toward each other in a gravitational death grip. The destruction will be awesome for God to watch.

Kilarin wrote: Assumption 2: That Science dictates we will never be able to reach some portions of the universe.
Now obviously, the laws of physics, as we currently understand them, put strict limits on how much of the universe we can ever visit, or even perceive. Due to the ongoing expansion of the universe, objects beyond a certain distance can NEVER be reached, even at the speed of light. Even if we traveled for eternity. (Assuming that the expansion does not stop or reverse itself) But do we understand the laws of the universe completely? Newtonian Physics was not wrong, but it was incomplete. Einsteinian Physics does not even claim to be complete. We are still trying to figure out how to integrate Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. We are looking for the Grand Unified Theory. There are legitimate scientist speculating on wormholes and methods for warping space. Quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement and "Spooky action at a distance" have offered strong hints that there MAY be deeper truths than the universal speed limit. Any discovery in these areas MIGHT show some way to bypass the universal speed limit. And there are, of course, new theories every day.

My point is NOT to argue that any of these theories will turn out to be true, they are nowhere NEAR to that yet. But they might. And therefore it is NOT valid to say that because our current understanding of physics does not allow us to bypass the speed of light that we will never be able to. We MAY be bound by that speed limit forever. Or, perhaps not. Using the universal speed limit as an argument against God is arguing based on speculation about the limits of future knowledge. Very shaky grounds indeed.

No it isn't. Our observable universe really does operate on a specific set of laws. If they were any different the universe wouldn't act the way it does. Other universes may use different physics but that's speculation. Our physics match what we observe and when I read about experiments breaking the light barrier, I get all smiley until I read the arxiv articles where I find no laws were broken, no new physics was discovered, and the equations still hold solid. Yes, the quantum world is a strange place and equations allow for wierd particles to travel faster than 'c' but those same equations state that they must always travel faster than "c"...if they exist in reality. However, no experiment to date has
caused matter, energy, or information to accelerate to lightspeed. That would require infinite amount of energy which is impossible in our type of universe.

Even if we stretch our imaginations to consider a survivable star-trek wormhole, and none of those have been detected in our Solar System, getting a human being to one that may hypotetically live outside our system, would not only be costly but would take longer than a human lifespan. So, yes we are limited to how fast we can go and ultimately where for this universe.

Kilarin wrote: Assumption 3: That God is limited to following the physics of this universe.
The initial assumption, remember, is in the Christian God who created the universe. Not just created the stuff IN the universe, that is NOT the
Christian doctrine. The doctrine is that God created the UNIVERSE. That includes space, time, and all of the laws that affect them. The God who created the laws is not subject to them. He is outside and above them. Christians are also clear that God is Omnipresent (present everywhere at once), Omniscient (all knowing) and Omnipotent (all powerful).

If God's rate of information transferral was limited to the speed of light, He could not be omniscient, since He couldn't know everything happening everywhere at once. This would also cause severe problems with Omnipresence, essentially splitting God into multiple beings out of communication with each other. And, of course, an Omnipotent God can do anything that is not self-contradictory. If He wants to halt the earths rotation to assist Joshua Ben Nun, He can. If He wants to pick someone up on earth and drop them on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy instantly, He can. If we are denying that God can work Miracles then you aren't proving that the existence of the Christian God is incompatible with a vast universe.

So, given that the Christian God is not subject to the rules of this universe, then, even if mankind IS limited to the speed of Light, God could simply move people out beyond the edge of our lightsphere to enjoy His further creations if He so wished.

Since I don't believe in God anyway, why not. I can't argue the claim that a God used a different set of physics to create this universe. Since He's "God" He can do pretty much what He wants but one thing is for sure... He only gave us a certain set of rules. And, the part about the miracles and being all knowing, all powerful, and everywhere at once, brings up deep moral inconsistencies so I won't go there but as far as God moving people around is just another story like any other supernatural spookyness. You haven't proven anything to me.

Kilarin wrote: Assumption 4: That we are the only created beings around to enjoy the universe.
Already had this discussion so I'm only going to touch on it briefly here. The Bible is written from a Human Centric point of view because it was written to Humans. But the Bible NOWHERE states that Humans are God's only creation. Let's take it beyond the controversial "Aliens" point and into the incontrovertible point that God has created Angels. If any areas of the universe are inaccessible to humanity, they could be filled with other created beings who enjoy and appreciate them. If I can never reach some distant Galaxy, God could have created it for the enjoyment of Billions upon Billions of Angels who fly there on a regular basis.

I can't argue this assumption either but I want to ask this. If humans aren't God's only creation do other aliens on the billions of other planets know of Jesus's death on Earth? Do the other life forms pray in front of a replica of Earth's crucifix? Do they visit a replica of Earth's Holy land? Are those other worlds just for Angels? Do they have a creation museum that shows 1.2 million people a year that the planet they live on is only 6000 years old and teaches the "fact" that man and dinosaour lived at the same time? Do those aliens consider their planet the center?

Kilarin wrote: Assumption 5: That God would never have created anything for His own enjoyment only.
Bettina pointed out in another post that while she sings alone, she wouldn't shut the door and stop someone else from listening. But countless artist DO. And they aren't necessarily being selfish. Sometimes a writer writes something in a private journal that they never intend anyone else to see. Sometimes an artist sings songs they do not intend to share. And sometimes an artist creates something that they would LOVE to share, but they know that others can not appreciate it, or will never get to see it. Just because your spouse is tone deaf doesn't mean you quit singing. If all the world were color blind except for you, that wouldn't stop you from painting. My poet friends often write poetry that I simply can not understand. They try to explain, they would love to explain, but I don't have the capacity. That doesn't stop them from writing it. If they were on a desert island and knew that NO ONE would ever read or understand it, still they would write.

Artisans working on the great Cathedrals sometimes spent an enormous amount of time and effort creating beautiful things in distant nooks and crannies that they knew were unlikely to ever be seen or appreciated by another human being. They created them, not to be seen, but just to fill an empty spot with something beautiful. Beauty for beauties sake. And just because we couldn't get to a distant planet doesn't mean God isn't going to make it beautiful.

The Bible makes it clear that God created us for himself. Not the other way around. It's theologically and logically sound to believe He would create beautiful things that no one else would ever know about.

I don't believe that any loving God would be so selfish as to build a park full of swings, show the little children, then tell them they can't play there. Not only that, but put hostile things in their path so if they dared to go they would die. It may be theologically sound but certainly not logical.

Kilarin wrote: Assumption 6: That mankind would prefer that there be nothing beyond their reach.

Robert Browning wrote:a mans reach should exceed his grasp, Or whats a heaven for?

Even if I could never get there, even if there are parts of the universe I could never even observe, I'm GLAD that it's so vast! The vastness of the universe is not just compatible with the God of Christianity. It's almost a doctrine. God is BIG. Infinite. Well beyond our comprehension. If the universe were small enough to fit within my perceptions, I would not only be disappointed, I would consider it a good argument AGAINST the God of Christianity. The numinous that fills my soul when I think of what an unbelievably vast and incredible universe we live in is a blessing all in itself. If God created billions of galaxies just to make me feel that sense of awe and wonder, wow, what a generous God!

You look up into the night sky and see a universe that was created by God for His viewing pleasure with just a miniscule part being carved out for humans. I look up and see the universe as a progression of a natural event that continues to birth planets and destroy others at the same time. Only after death will you know if you were right all along. Wave to me, I'll be on level B2.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:It's very easy for people to believe that God speaks to them on a personal level and claim it as fact but how do they differentiate these messages from God from their own mind verbalizing? I have quite a conversation with myself plenty of times but I know that the voice I hear is coming from me or messages that were stored from my dad or close friends. When I sing on that altar and look at that cross, don't you think I wish that the man nailed there is the real God? Well I think about that every Sunday and I don't mean the Christian God that Lothar and the rest of you believe in, I mean a truly loving God that I would lay down my life for.

My only claim is what I've always claimed. God wouldn't speak to Mother Teresa, He wouldn't speak to Jesus when He was on that cross, and He never spoke to me. From the most worthy to the most unworthy the prepondrance of evidence for no one being on the other end of that phone, for me, is overwhelming. Sadly as it is, no matter how much or how long I wish on that blue fairy, she can never make me a real live boy.

Bettina

So ... Tell me again, why is it you attend a Church or place of worship (obviously a Christian place) and also sing at that same place? Either there really is something to it that touches you, or you are really, really conflicted with yourself.

Just an observation.

If there really is something to it that touches you, it seems to me that you need to look deeper at that.

Bet51987 wrote: My only claim is what I've always claimed. God wouldn't speak to Mother Teresa, He wouldn't speak to Jesus when He was on that cross, and He never spoke to me. From the most worthy to the most unworthy the prepondrance of evidence for no one being on the other end of that phone, for me, is overwhelming. Sadly as it is, no matter how much or how long I wish on that blue fairy, she can never make me a real live boy.

Bettina

oh come on Bettina. Don't get all emo on us.

Mother Teresa:
How do we KNOW that God NEVER spoke to her?? What do you think sent her to India? (I could elaberate on this to death but I'm not. There's no point)

Jesus on the Cross:
Well of course. It was prophesy and He was reconed as sin at that point. So naturally God wasn't going to speak to Him, What about the other 2 1/2 yers when the Holy Spirit spoke to Him reguarly?

And You:
That I can't answer. I suggest you're not listening. But when you tell someone to "bug off" and then play the hypocrite in the limelight, don't be surprised if you Don't get an answer. An apology and a change of heart is in order first. BTW., anger, hate, unforgiveness, judgementalism are all sufficiant to "Put cotton in your ears"
In short, if you're not hearing God, then the problem starts with YOU, not Him.

Some time he doesn't answer, but it''s my experiance that it's the askers failure to regocnize a "no" when it's spoken.

Now, I hope you're not expecting an audible voice, because it's a fair bet you're not going to get it. Few ever do.

AlphaDoG wrote:It is MY belief, that the voice in MY head, that addresses ME by name, the one that says, "Are you an Idiot, DoG?" When I attempt to do something that is contrary to MY beliefs, is IN FACT God.



Disclaimer*
Sorry no disclaimer.

Yep!

Foil wrote:

Question, paraphrased wrote:If God created humanity, what purpose does the vastness of the universe serve? Why create beautiful planets and stars impossible for anyone to ever see, much less reach?

My first inclination is to throw out... the mistake of assuming creation is only for humanity...

I think that's a fair criticism. The original question is flawed in that it stealthily assumes God created everything for humanity, while Christian theology would state that God created everything, including humanity, for Himself. Seems sensible that He would create a beautiful and interesting universe just for His own enjoyment, whether or not He put intelligent life within it. (Another stealthy assumption: that humans are the only intelligent life in the universe.)

I'm also curious as to why the original question assumes so much of the universe is "impossible" for humans to ever see. Hubble, Compton, Chandra, and Spitzer have given us some pretty impressive looks at far-off galaxies, stars, and even a couple of planets. Are we suddenly going to stop reaching for the stars? It seems the vastness of the universe assures that there's always something more for us to strive towards -- and I'd have a hard time stating that any particular thing is "impossible" for mankind to ever observe. Some things are presently out of reach, but what can you declare is truly impossible?

VonVulcan wrote:The most obvious answer that comes to my mind is, something to reach for.

Hehehe

Duper wrote:Mother Teresa:
How do we KNOW that God NEVER spoke to her??

Her view on this is based on things Mother Teresa said in her letters.

By the way Bettina, I got "Come Be My Light" recently, and I'll be reading it as soon as I finish a series I promised my son I'd read.

Lothar wrote:I'd have a hard time stating that any particular thing is "impossible" for mankind to ever observe. Some things are presently out of reach, but what can you declare is truly impossible?

The universe is expanding. This doesn't mean that objects are moving through it, but that space itself is expanding. Objects can not move faster than the speed of light, but if space is expanding uniformly everywhere, at a certain distance space is expanding between two objects at a rate such that light can NEVER reach between them.

Object A releases a photon towards object B. In one year that photon has traveled one light year of the distance between object A and object B. BUT, in that same year, the space between object A and object B has expanded by a fraction OVER a light year. The photon is actually further from object B than when it started. Even with an eternity to travel, it will never get any closer to object B. Object B might as well be in another universe because no connection between it and object A is possible.

Bettina wrote:I wanted to respond to this earlier

Believe me, I understand! My response times have not exactly been stellar recently. Life gets in the way.

Bettina wrote:I also want you to know that I consider you my friend so if there is any part of what I say that seems arrogant it's unintentional.

Don't waste time worrying that you might offend me. If a friendship can't handle disagreements, it wont last very long. And besides, discussing things with people who agree with me only occasionally adds anything to my pool of knowledge. However, I almost always learn something when discussing things with people who DISAGREE with me. Either I solidify the foundation of what I believe in, or I discover something flaw in my beliefs that must be discarded. Either way, I'm better off than I was before.

Bettina wrote:the assumption that systems beyond our detection are somehow important to us doesn't make any sense. We are only able to view 4% of our observable universe which, according to WMAP, is only 1/1,000,000th of the whole universe created from the big bang. So, how is the vastness of the universe that you can never see, never visit, and if it disappeared tommorrow would go unnoticed, important to you and I?

The observable universe is important just because it can be observed. If that were the only reason for its existence, that would be adequate. As I stated in my previous message, the unobservable universe is useful to us for pure inspiration.

Of course, just to be perverse, I have to point out that, by definition, we cannot prove that the unobservable universe even exists. As far as we know, the universe ends at the edge of our lightsphere. I DON'T believe that, but it is an amusing concept.

Of course, the universe doesn't HAVE to have meaning to US to have meaning and purpose, but that's part of the rest of the discussion.

Bettina wrote:

Kilarin wrote:Using the universal speed limit as an argument against God is arguing based on speculation about the limits of future knowledge. Very shaky grounds indeed.

No it isn't. Our observable universe really does operate on a specific set of laws. If they were any different the universe wouldn't act the way it does.

Absolutely. My objection is in the assertion that because we understand some of those laws, we have an absolute understanding of how the universe works.

For example, if you had suggested to any reputable scientist before 1905 that space and time were not absolute they would have laughed at you, and presented ample evidence to prove that Newtonian physics were FACTS. They were, of course, they just weren't ALL the facts.

Will we find a way around the light speed barrier? I have my doubts. Almost everything we have seen so far points against it. The most promising answers seem entirely impractical. But to exclude the possibility is incredibly presumptuous. Science has a LONG way to go before it really understands the universe. And there are a significant number of legitimate scientist who consider the question worth further research. I can provide a list if you'd like.

Bettina wrote:...but as far as God moving people around is just another story like any other supernatural spookyness. You haven't proven anything to me.

But I'm not TRYING to prove that God can work miracles, only that Christians believe that He can. I'm not even trying to prove that a vast universe proves God exists. It doesn't. If the universe is uncaused, it could be big and uncaused, or small and uncaused. I don't see that it's size makes any logical difference.

But you ARE making the opposite argument, that a vast universe is inconsistent with the existence of the Christian God. The God that Christians believe in can, obviously, take people anywhere in His creation that He wants. This makes the argument "We can't get there so it's pointless", pointless.

Assuming a God who can work miracles, a vast universe is certainly not contradictory with His existence. If your argument is that God can't work miracles, then the vastness of the universe has nothing to do with it.

Christian theology believes in a vast God, compared to whom we are entirely insignificant.

Isaiah 40:12-17 wrote:Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counselor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.

You might be able to make some arguments against the Christian God from "The universe is small", but "The universe is vast" fits in with Christian theology without a hitch.

Bettina wrote:If humans aren't God's only creation do other aliens on the billions of other planets know of Jesus's death on Earth? Do the other life forms pray in front of a replica of Earth's crucifix? Do they visit a replica of Earth's Holy land?

If they aren't fallen, then they would not be in need of redemption from their sins. If they ARE fallen, Christ may have a separate plan (and sacrifice) just for them. Or perhaps not. The Bible does not confirm or deny the existence of other people on other worlds, so while any speculation about them is a lot of fun, it is ONLY speculation. We aren't told their story.

Bettina wrote:Are those other worlds just for Angels?

Certainly possible, although not necessary.

Bettina wrote:Do they have a creation museum that shows 1.2 million people a year that the planet they live on is only 6000 years old and teaches the "fact" that man and dinosaour lived at the same time?

Now you are drifting off topic...

Bettina wrote:Do those aliens consider their planet the center?

IF they exist, then Probably, and they ARE. Have you, by any chance, read C. S. Lewis' "Perelandra"? Where is the center of the expanding universe? Everywhere is the center. And where God is concerned, everyone is at the center of the universe. You, me, some alien on another world, we are ALL the center. He has attention to spare.

Bettina wrote:I don't believe that any loving God would be so selfish as to build a park full of swings, show the little children, then tell them they can't play there. Not only that, but put hostile things in their path so if they dared to go they would die. It may be theologically sound but certainly not logical.

I think Lothar answered this one very well. There have been times my son has come home from school and discovered that one of his favorite dishes had been cooked at lunch while he wasn't home to enjoy it. I tell him, "I didn't cook it for YOU!" My wife and I cook lots of good things for him, but not everything we cook is for him, nor does he have the right to expect that it should be.

Bettina wrote:You look up into the night sky and see a universe that was created by God for His viewing pleasure with just a miniscule part being carved out for humans. I look up and see the universe as a progression of a natural event that continues to birth planets and destroy others at the same time. Only after death will you know if you were right all along. Wave to me, I'll be on level B2.

Exactly! The vastness of the universe does not prove or disprove the existence of God. It is compatible with the position of the universe as caused or uncaused. It gives us no help in answering the question either way.

Exactly! The vastness of the universe does not prove or disprove the existence of God.

I think the Universe and all Creation goes a long way to support the existence of God. Everywhere I look, I see perfection. In the way the outer planets protect us, the way our magnetic field shields us, the way the earth is self sufficient and renews itself. I'm sure that everyone here, can look at some aspect of Creation and say that. All around, in everything I see perfection. The only flaw being man himself.

flip wrote:I think the Universe and all Creation goes a long way to support the existence of God.

I don't disagree, allow me to clarify: Specifically the VASTNESS of the universe does not prove there is a God. A small universe might be good evidence AGAINST the Christian God, but the fact that the universe is very large does not prove that God exists. I know of no logical reason why an uncaused universe should be small. (assuming it existed at all that is)

The magnitude of the universe is not directly linked to it's causality.

Or, to put it to a more popular phrase:

Size doesn't really matter.

Kilarin wrote:

Duper wrote:Mother Teresa:
How do we KNOW that God NEVER spoke to her??

Her view on this is based on things Mother Teresa said in her letters.

Yup, that much I know. But she wrote those when she was especially troubled and overwhelmed. I think it's fair to say that this wasn't the norm for her. Doing that kind of work is stressful and the stress tends to peek from time to time and you need an outlet. (I've done this kind of work so I've "been there") This is why I used the all caps; to imply the superlative.

Kilarin wrote:Size doesn't really matter.

That's not what my mom says...

Duper wrote:

Kilarin wrote:

Duper wrote:Mother Teresa:
How do we KNOW that God NEVER spoke to her??

Her view on this is based on things Mother Teresa said in her letters.

Yup, that much I know. But she wrote those when she was especially troubled and overwhelmed. I think it's fair to say that this wasn't the norm for her. Doing that kind of work is stressful and the stress tends to peek from time to time and you need an outlet. (I've done this kind of work so I've "been there") This is why I used the all caps; to imply the superlative.

Duper... You've hit a nerve and with all due respect you haven't a clue. Believe me when I say that compared to Mother Teresa you haven't "been there" and I suggest you read her letters before making a comment like that. I've read her life story and her letters and let me bold this part for you so you can understand what her "norm" was.. For the last half century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever, neither in her heart or in the eucharist. I'm certainly not Mother Teresa but I can relate to the emptiness she felt. So, tell me, why does your "God" talk to most on this forum but wouldn't talk to her. No, let me tell you. They listen to what their own mind tell them what they want to hear.

Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear.
--Mother Teresa--

Bettina

Techpro... I sent you a PM..

Bee

..

I removed this for my own personal reasons.

Bet, Duper... you both need to chill out for a bit.

--------------

Bet, you need to understand that when you said you \"know\" about every single person's experience with God, that's not only a flawed epistemological claim, but it's highly personal. It evoked some pretty strong words, and for good reason. You're a scientist and a humanitarian at heart, Bet; talk about experiences you know (e.g. your own, or your study of Teresa's), don't make unsupported inferences about others you don't know.

--------------

And, Duper, just own up to what you said. You made the claim that feeling troubled wasn't the norm for Mother Teresa... and you got called out on that claim by someone who has done more study on her personal life (and who feels pretty strongly about it as well). [Edit: removed further response to now-deleted post]

---------------

I have more I'd like to add, hopefully to get things back on topic - perhaps I'll manage a post during my lunch today.

Ok, back on topic.

Will the REAL Tycho Brahe please stand up!!

todays NASA APOD Clik!

Edited, because of split.

Duper wrote:..

I removed this for my own personal reasons.

Duper, I don't know what you said but it's ok. It was my fault and I'm sorry.

Bettina

Kilarin wrote:

flip wrote:I think the Universe and all Creation goes a long way to support the existence of God.

I don't disagree, allow me to clarify: Specifically the VASTNESS of the universe does not prove there is a God. A small universe might be good evidence AGAINST the Christian God, but the fact that the universe is very large does not prove that God exists. I know of no logical reason why an uncaused universe should be small. (assuming it existed at all that is)

The magnitude of the universe is not directly linked to it's causality.

Or, to put it to a more popular phrase:

Size doesn't really matter.

Kilarin, we aren't going to agree on why God needed a universe of ungodly proportions when everthing about the bible is earth centered so I just rest my case as you will rest yours.

Bettina

actually everything in the Bible is God centered and happens on earth