G'day. Why Did God Create The Universe And The Planets - And God Does Know That Humans Is Living On

I am just wondering. God created this HUGE Universe, but he knows that humans are living in this planet, called Earth. Then why did he create other planets knowing that they wouldn't be "used-lived on" by Humans? Or, does God likes the collection of junk?

Originally posted by gordonwest
I am just wondering. God created this HUGE Universe, but he knows that humans are living in this planet, called Earth. Then why did he create other planets knowing that they wouldn't be "used-lived on" by Humans? Or, does God likes the collection of junk?

Not to sound flippant, but how do you know they aren't inhabited?

reply to post by asmeone2


I understand your Question, but that is the thing...Humans do NOT know. It is like, God only told us Humans that this planet Earth is the only planet he created life on.

reply to post by gordonwest


Well assuming that God does exist, other planets were made most likely be a test. If we would go and seek other planets for life we would in a sense be disobeying God by further looking into the ideology of evolution and stepping away from creationism.

That's my opinion anyway not really worth much since I don't know a lot about the religion.

-Ign0RanT

Originally posted by gordonwest
reply to post by asmeone2

 

I understand your Question, but that is the thing...Humans do NOT know. It is like, God only told us Humans that this planet Earth is the only planet he created life on.

See, thats exactly why im not religious.

Originally posted by gordonwest
reply to post by asmeone2

 

I understand your Question, but that is the thing...Humans do NOT know. It is like, God only told us Humans that this planet Earth is the only planet he created life on.

I think if you read the bible with an open mind, you can see the possibility that there are other forms of life out there, definitely interdimensional life.

One possibility is that at the time the bible was written, all the planets had a low level of technology, and there really was no interaction, so why bother metioning it?

Another possibility of course is man flubbed or edited the whole thing, for control purposes, so of course they wouldn't mention a thing like that.

The Question is really not for religionist thoughts, more list knowing for a general Questions of life.

reply to post by Ign0rant

reply to post by asmeone2


I am not a christian, but I have read the different bible(s). And one of the first few words mentioned in the books is that God created all different types of life. The bible does not say what types of life. Yeah...Earth was not the first planet to be made. So did God thinking about his own evolution, but he did not want Humans to know?

Originally posted by gordonwest
reply to post by asmeone2

 

I am not a christian, but I have read the different bible(s). And one of the first few words mentioned in the books is that God created all different types of life. The bible does not say what types of life. Yeah...Earth was not the first planet to be made. So did God thinking about his own evolution, but he did not want Humans to know?

To play God's advocate for a second and assume the Bible is true,

I think that God reveals himself to different groups of people in different ways. THe Bible was specifically for one group of people, other scriptures are for other groups.

The problem is not that they all exist and contain small diffrences, but that the adherents of each one insist that it is more right.

I suppose that the same kind of thing could be true on other planets, they know God in their own way which is tailor made to how they think.

I'm liking the interdementional theory brought up earlier... it fits more within the latest theoretical physics theories.

reply to post by gordonwest

God created this HUGE Universe

Huge is major understatement.



While I do believe in a creator god, I do not necessarily believe it crafted the universe in the traditional religious mindset - nor do I believe that God may even acknowledge or care for our presence in the universe. If he is omnipotent and all powerful, that is. If God is not all-powerful and all-knowing, it very well may cherish our presence in this experiment - but apparently chooses not to engage in a personal relationship with us. For what reason, I do not know. God may see us much like a scientist looking down a microscope at a cell culture. We may simply be a byproduct of a much grander scheme.

For much of humanity's history - we believed that the Earth was at the center of our universe. That everything in creation revolved around us and for our benefit. We now know differently. As knowledge and understanding progresses, I think theology will have to undergo a similar shift in perception. As it is now, we still think in geocentric terms. That even if the Earth is not the center of the universe, we are the center of god's universe - in his thoughts and in his heart always. In my mind, this simply does not appear to be the case. That just as we are a part of the universe, not the axis by which it revolves - that we may share in a part of God's love, but are not his sole focus (or even a very large part) of his attention.

As for the video, he is right. The only thing that makes mankind in any way significant is that we can recognize our own insignificance in the universe. As a product of this universe - we are essentially an ember, the first sparks of the universe becoming self-aware. Even if we are not the first, or are found to be insignificant in even this regard - it's the same process of emerging consciousness by which the universe is waking up to and to which we are endowed with that makes our species special.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic


While I agree with the science and scope of it. We have a tiny tiny perspective of the universe. I do disagree with 1 thing. And that is we are a product of this universe.

This physical universes is all action and reaction. And we are said to be the produce of simple action and reactions. How does consciousness and the randomness of consciousness form as a product of action and reaction?

A computer can't even generate a truly random number. Every number it generates is predictable. The formulas we use to generate random numbers while predictable do suit our needs in programming. But they are not truly random. You can not program consciousness, and you can not create actual intelligence as a result. It will merely be following the patterns created for it. There is no observer in it.

Science breaks down when things do not fit into action and reaction. Newtons basic laws depend on these things. But they say nothing of the observer and consciousness. Even psychology merely studies behavior patterns, and puts them into groups. But never truly tackles consciousness. Science can't even really agree on what the definition of consciousness it.

The brain and our senses for example. Takes in information, converts them into electrical signals, where they travel in the brain and are then converted again to be presented to what? To you. How can those things be anything more than a temporary possession/attachment if they are merely things used to present reality to you? Exactly who is the observer?

reply to post by badmedia


Why do you believe that the development of consciousness was a random event? Is it only consciousness, or do you think that toxins, spinal columns, photosynthesis, bi-lateral symmetry, and other segments of the biological spectrum are all random events? If that's the case, then it would seem to suggest that you think that evolution is a random process - which it's not. Mutation is random, but the process of selection is extremely deterministic. It's so deterministic, in fact, that we've even started using simplistic Evolutionary Algorithms to help design everything from aerodynamic automobiles to cochlear implants.

We cannot program consciousness? Who says? We haven't been able to do it yet, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. After all, at it's basest constituents, our brains are merely firing electrical discharges. On or Off. 1's and 0's. We've yet to be able to fully and comprehensively network our brains to our computer systems, but we've made great strides in implementing Brain Computer Interfaces which allow a computer to read brain activity and translate that into a set of instructions for the computer to follow. This also works in reverse, taking outside stimuli and translating it into something the brain can understand to give certain blind people limited sight.

Further, would you deny that the possibility of brain emulation? If we could accurately model each and every interaction of the cells within the brain and replicate that within a simulation... would the replication have the same functional consciousness as the individual it's emulating? If not, then why do you feel that way? Do you believe that consciousness is some mystical force beyond human understanding? It's true that we haven't yet been able to even truly affirm our own consciousness, so who's to say that we are? By that same token, who's to say that a computer cannot accomplish this as well? Can you prove to me beyond any means a computer ever could, that you yourself are conscious?

Who is the observer? It's possible that there is no observer - and that who you are is merely an illusion of multiple interdependent and networked areas of the brain working in parallel.

Wow. Some people are useing big words to describe the Universe. I am lost for words. I always belived the meaning of life is life. I could also talk about the stuff in the Universe, besides other planets. What about 'other dimensions', and the different types of life. What do the Humans "knows-understands" about life? Is life as we know it just being Human? Or "alien"in ways that we havenot seen to belive.

reply to post by gordonwest


I honestly don't think there is a single or comprehensive answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?". We have a good idea about how the universe started, how life started, and how it diversified into eventually us - and may well diversify beyond. I don't necessarily think that the universe has a set desired outcome, any special purpose, that we should be working towards - or that we have a significant role in it. It simply is. If we do have a place in a purposeful universe, then it's scope and desired outcomes are beyond us at the present time.

In the meantime, the best we can do is to ask not "What is the meaning of life", but "To what meaning do you assign your own life?".