Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

MONO



Dear spy66:

Thanks, you have appeared again.

Now, you say: "We treat all other living thing that is not human as non worthy living bodies."

For the record, I am not like that at all, I love every living thing, even Neutron, and also all things even - because all existence is good, is true, and is beautiful - why? Simple: God made all things.


Please, let you contribute to my theory of everything which is existence.

What do you say, is there a picture that is more complete than existence?

So that any humans members of the tribe homo sapiens are either forgetful of their membership in the tribe of homo sapiens, or are into dishonest un-intelligent and non-productive thinking, when they start talking about no God, from a platform of anything at all except existence.

What about one Lawrence Krauss, is he into dishonest un-intelligent non-productive thinking with his book, 'A Universe from Nothing', where he waxes most deceptively eloquent with a lot of blah blah blah, starting with space which is supposed to represent nothing-ness, and which after so much blah blah blah, and Voilà, the universe came into being from nothing.

He should have started with the nose on his face and admit that there is existence, no need to get duplicitous with positing space that is according to his duplicitous heart and mind, is nothing-ness, etc etc etc.

spy66 posted on Oct, 10 2020 @ 09:05 AM
a reply to: Pachomius
.

Humans are the only living thing existing that speaks on Gods behalf. We judge other people in the name of God.

We speak as if we are Gods.... With all knowledge... We speak as if we are the only living thing with a mind.

We treat all other living thing that is not human as non worthy living bodies. We treat them as Game, and we treat them as our property. We have no respect for our own existance and we show no respect for any other living thing. And yet we speak on Gods behalf....

==========================
Humans are the only species that pay to live on Earth.

MONO



I say that God (in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning) just loves to create, that certainly gives a purpose for God in His Godly existence.


Hey! God calls back, Hey Pachomius! how do you explain that I am the only one unique God in the whole complete picture of existence?

So, I have to tutor the 'man' how He is the one unique only God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

1. Dear God, first and foremost You are the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

2. Now, dear God, Think: in regard to the question whether (a) there is only one unique numerically one God, or (b) more than one God, needed to have creatively caused the existence of man and the universe and everything with a beginning...

3. You must recall the principle of parsimony, namely, in Latin, Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate.*

4. You will recall also that it was the Third Person of your Triune God-ness, which is the Holy Spirit Who inspired a most honest intelligent productive servant of Yours, one Franciscan monk, Occam (d. 1347), to draw up the principle of parsimony.

5. This principle of parsimony is also observed by atheists, no matter that they are into dishonest un-intelligent non-productive thinking, still they observe the principle of parsimony - otherwise, like with one arch semantic trickster, Bertrand Russell (d. 1970], he would not be able to keep track of his numerous lovers.**

6. At this point God the Father, the First Person of the Triune God-ness, raises His voice and exclaims to the Holy Spirit and to God the Son, the Second Person of the Triune God-ness: "Enough, Enough, we don't need no more than just one unique numerically one God, because we are already three Persons in one Substance, that is our very own mystery of the Holy Trinity.

7. There, end of conversation, to which I utter, Amen.

8. Because I know that with God, one God is more than enough to have creatively caused man and the universe and everything with a beginning, that is the law of existence.

.

*Things need not be multiplied without necessity.

**Google: Bertrand Russell gave up philosophy for gnikcuf (read from right to left).

About 1,260,000 results (0.80 seconds)

Bertrand Russell - Movies - The New York Times
movies2.nytimes.com › books › first › monk-01russell
There is a story that on one of his lecture tours of America, Russell found himself at dinner sitting next to the principal of a respectable girls' college, who asked him: 'Why did you give up philosophy?' To which he is supposed to have replied: 'Because I discovered I preferred gnikcuf (read from right to left).

Russell Biography
www.fermentmagazine.org › essays › russell3
I found it irritating at first that Bertrand Russell in the 20's , who then considered ... of a respectable girls' college, who asked him : ' Why did you give up philosophy?' To which he is supposed to have replied : ' Because I discovered gnikcuf (read from right to left).

a reply to: Pachomius

You

Hey! God calls back, Hey Pachomius! how do you explain that I am the only one unique God in the whole complete picture of existence?

Have a recording? Or you using an imaginary conversation to try to prove the existence of something you clam as real? Isn’t that an example of irony? Not proof of your god?

MONO



What is it to prove something to be or to not be, but first it is only us humans members of the tribe called homo sapiens, i.e. live entities with intelligence, and I add, free will - we are the ones asking ourselves what is it to prove something to be or to not be, and ascertaining to ourselves something to be or to not be, which is the same as to exist or to not exist.

We are not proving to anyone else but to ourselves, and we are the ones wanting to prove, not anyone else wanting to prove to us that something exists or does not exist.

Owing to this fact, there is already a first principle of knowledge, namely, that we exist, and that is an irrefutable principle of knowledge: no need to prove our own existence as the subject from which bothering to engage ourselves to prove, nor as the audience subject to which to accept the proof from ourselves as the subject from which.

1. In a few words, it is self-evident truth that we exist, and anyone challenging that is candidate to the mental asylum.

2. Another self-evident truth, is that everything we know to exist that has a beginning, it is in need of a cause.

3. Still another self-evident truth: there is no such backward process of search for the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause... In other short words: There is a last cause which is the first cause of a series of cause and effect.


At this point in time, it seems to me that a lot of today's thinkers don't accept self-evident truths, or worst, there are no truths for them.*

So, what do I say? I think they should or society should consign them to mental asylums, on an un-avoidable cost to society, for the sake of ridding society of crazies moving among the sane populace.

A rhetorical question, nowadays, no longer is there the entry named sex in questionnaires about personal identity data, but what? What else but 'gender'?**

So that when a baby gets pulled out from its maternal gestation housing, we have to wait for years later to determine its gender.



*COMPARE
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
USA Declaration of Independence July 4 1776


**CURIOSITY
What does the 2 in lgbtq2 mean?
“Two-spirit” refers to a person who identifies as having both a masculine and a feminine spirit, and is used by some Indigenous people to describe their sexual, gender and/or spiritual identity.
Two-Spirit Community - Researching for LGBTQ Health
lgbtqhealth.ca › community › two-spirit
Search for: What does the 2 in lgbtq2 mean?
See, www.google.com...

a reply to: Pachomius

The biggest indication of intelligence is being able to communicate.

Then if god is an intelligent being, what is the language of god?

Why are you using ironic imaginary conversations to “prove” something real exists.

a reply to: Pachomius
Spirit has no gender......not 2.

a reply to: neutronflux
The language of God is what is actually appearing in plain sight.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
The language of God is what is actually appearing in plain sight.

Murder is god’s language. Sexy women posing on billboards is god’s language. The new kitten’s crapping on the carpet is god’s language. A lion taking down prey is god’s language? The fact that animals are like vampires because they must live off other living things is god’s language. God is a vampire?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

And death is god’s language?

a reply to: neutronflux
Descriptions are not God's lauguage.
What is actual is God's language.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Itisnowagain

And death is god’s language?

No thing dies because no thing was born.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Itisnowagain

And death is god’s language?

No thing dies because no thing was born.

If you were never born into a body, how you posting.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

What was my old argument. Your saying those born into slavery never suffered.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
Descriptions are not God's lauguage.
What is actual is God's language.

This was the post...

Murder is god’s language. Sexy women posing on billboards is god’s language. The new kitten’s crapping on the carpet is god’s language. A lion taking down prey is god’s language? The fact that animals are like vampires because they must live off other living things is god’s language. God is a vampire?


What does any of that have to do with “description”. You do eat plants, seeds, animals that once were living and growing?

I hope nobody minds me going back to discussing the evidence for God's existence, or the existence of a Creator of the universe, the earth and life. Cause squabbling over definitions for multiple pages is such a fruitless endeavor, “something of no usefulness at all because it harms* [Or “destroys; overturns.”] those listening.” (2 Tim 2:14)

This will take several comments...

The Awesome Universe—Where Did It Come From? (Awake!—1996)

Why are we here? Where are we going? What is the purpose of it all? Does the big bang theory explain creation? The Hubble telescope raises questions, and cosmologists say something is missing. What is it?

What the Big Bang Explains—What It Doesn’t

Every morning is a miracle. Deep inside the morning sun, hydrogen is being fused into helium at temperatures of millions of degrees. X rays and gamma rays of incredible violence are pouring out of the core into the surrounding layers of the sun. If the sun were transparent, these rays would blast their way to the surface in a few searing seconds. Instead, they begin to bounce from tightly packed atom to atom of solar “insulation,” gradually losing energy. Days, weeks, centuries, pass. Thousands of years later, that once deadly radiation finally emerges from the sun’s surface as a gentle shower of yellow light—no longer a menace but just right for bathing earth with its warmth.

Every night is a miracle too. Other suns twinkle at us across the vast expanse of our galaxy. They are a riot of colors, sizes, temperatures, and densities. Some are supergiants so large that if one were centered in the position of our sun, what remained of our planet would be inside the surface of that superstar. Other suns are tiny, white dwarfs—smaller than our earth, yet as heavy as our sun. Some will peacefully drone along for billions of years. Others are poised on the brink of supernova explosions that will obliterate them, briefly outshining entire galaxies.

Primitive peoples spoke of sea monsters and battling gods, of dragons and turtles and elephants, of lotus flowers and dreaming gods. Later, during the so-called Age of Reason, the gods were swept aside by the newfound “magic” of calculus and Newton’s laws. Now we live in an age bereft of the old poetry and legend. The children of today’s atomic age have chosen as their paradigm for creation, not the ancient sea monster, not Newton’s “machine,” but that overarching symbol of the 20th century—the bomb. Their “creator” is an explosion. They call their cosmic fireball the big bang.

What the Big Bang “Explains”

The most popular version of this generation’s view of creation states that some 15 to 20 billion years ago, the universe did not exist, nor did empty space. There was no time, no matter—nothing except an infinitely dense, infinitely small point called a singularity, which exploded into the present universe. That explosion included a brief period during the first tiny fraction of a second when the infant universe inflated, or expanded, much faster than the speed of light.

During the first few minutes of the big bang, nuclear fusion took place on a universal scale, giving rise to the currently measured concentrations of hydrogen and helium and at least part of the lithium in interstellar space. After perhaps 300,000 years, the universewide fireball dropped to a little below the temperature of the surface of the sun, allowing electrons to settle into orbits around atoms and releasing a flash of photons, or light. That primordial flash can be measured today, although greatly cooled off, as universal background radiation at microwave frequencies corresponding to a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin. In fact, it was the discovery of this background radiation in 1964-65 that convinced most scientists that there was something to the big bang theory. The theory also claims to explain why the universe appears to be expanding in all directions, with distant galaxies apparently racing away from us and from each other at high speed.

Since the big bang theory appears to explain so much, why doubt it? Because there is also much that it does not explain. To illustrate: The ancient astronomer Ptolemy had a theory that the sun and planets went around the earth in large circles, making small circles, called epicycles, at the same time. The theory appeared to explain the motion of the planets. For centuries as astronomers gathered more data, the Ptolemaic cosmologists could always add extra epicycles onto their other epicycles and “explain” the new data. But that did not mean the theory was correct. Ultimately there was just too much data to account for, and other theories, such as Copernicus’ idea that the earth went around the sun, explained things better and more simply. Today it is hard to find a Ptolemaic astronomer!

Professor Fred Hoyle likened the efforts of the Ptolemaic cosmologists at patching up their failing theory in the face of new discoveries to the endeavors of big bang believers today to keep their theory afloat. He wrote in his book The Intelligent Universe: “The main efforts of investigators have been in papering over contradictions in the big bang theory, to build up an idea which has become ever more complex and cumbersome.” After referring to Ptolemy’s futile use of epicycles to rescue his theory, Hoyle continued: “I have little hesitation in saying that as a result a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. As I have mentioned earlier, when a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that it rarely recovers.”—Page 186.

The New Scientist magazine of December 22/29, 1990, echoed similar thoughts: “The Ptolemaic method has been lavishly applied to . . . the big bang cosmological model.” It then asks: “How can we achieve real progress in particle physics and cosmology? . . . We must be more honest and forthright about the purely speculative nature of some of our most cherished assumptions.” New observations are now pouring in.

Questions the Big Bang Does Not Answer

A major challenge to the big bang has come from observers using the corrected optics of the Hubble Space Telescope to measure distances to other galaxies. The new data is giving the theorists fits!

Astronomer Wendy Freedman and others recently used the Hubble Space Telescope to measure the distance to a galaxy in the constellation of Virgo, and her measurement suggests that the universe is expanding faster, and therefore is younger, than previously thought. In fact, it “implies a cosmic age as little as eight billion years,” reported Scientific American magazine just last June. While eight billion years sounds like a very long time, it is only about half the currently estimated age of the universe. This creates a special problem, since, as the report goes on to note, “other data indicate that certain stars are at least 14 billion years old.” If Freedman’s numbers hold up, those elderly stars would turn out to be older than the big bang itself!

Still another problem for the big bang has come from steadily mounting evidence of “bubbles” in the universe that are 100 million light-years in size, with galaxies on the outside and voids inside. Margaret Geller, John Huchra, and others at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics have found what they call a great wall of galaxies some 500 million light-years in length across the northern sky. Another group of astronomers, who became known as the Seven Samurai, have found evidence of a different cosmic conglomeration, which they call the Great Attractor, located near the southern constellations of Hydra and Centaurus. Astronomers Marc Postman and Tod Lauer believe something even bigger must lie beyond the constellation Orion, causing hundreds of galaxies, including ours, to stream in that direction like rafts on a sort of “river in space.”

All this structure is baffling. Cosmologists say the blast from the big bang was extremely smooth and uniform, according to the background radiation it allegedly left behind. How could such a smooth start have led to such massive and complex structures? “The latest crop of walls and attractors intensifies the mystery of how so much structure could have formed within the 15-billion-year age of the universe,” admits Scientific American—a problem that only gets worse as Freedman and others roll back the estimated age of the cosmos still more.

“We Are Missing Some Fundamental Element”

Geller’s three-dimensional maps of thousands of clumped, tangled, and bubbled galactic agglomerations have transformed the way scientists picture the universe. She does not pretend to understand what she sees. Gravity alone appears unable to account for her great wall. “I often feel we are missing some fundamental element in our attempts to understand this structure,” she admits.

Geller enlarged on her misgivings: “We clearly do not know how to make large structure in the context of the Big Bang.” Interpretations of cosmic structure on the basis of current mapping of the heavens are far from definitive—more like trying to picture the whole world from a survey of Rhode Island, U.S.A. Geller continued: “Someday we may find that we haven’t been putting the pieces together in the right way, and when we do, it will seem so obvious that we’ll wonder why we hadn’t thought of it much sooner.”

That leads to the biggest question of all: What is supposed to have caused the big bang itself? No less an authority than Andrei Linde, one of the originators of the very popular inflationary version of the big bang theory, frankly admits that the standard theory does not address this fundamental question. “The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang,” he says. “One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? . . . Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.”

An article in Discover magazine recently concluded that “no reasonable cosmologist would claim that the Big Bang is the ultimate theory.”

Let us now go outdoors and contemplate the beauty and the mystery of the starry vault.

So Mysterious, yet So Beautiful

Imagine it's January. This time of the year, the night sky beckons with bejeweled splendor. High overhead strides mighty Orion, easily visible on January evenings from Anchorage, Alaska, to Cape Town, South Africa. Have you had a good look recently at the celestial treasures to be found in well-known constellations, such as Orion? Astronomers took a peek not long ago using the recently repaired Hubble Space Telescope.

From the three stars of Orion’s belt dangles his sword. The fuzzy star in the middle of the sword is not really a star at all but the famous Orion Nebula, an object of striking beauty even when seen through a backyard telescope. Its ethereal glow, however, is not the secret of its fascination for professional astronomers.

“Astronomers investigate the Orion Nebula and its many young stars because it is the largest and most active region of starbirth in our part of the Galaxy,” reports Jean-Pierre Caillault in Astronomy magazine. The nebula appears to be a cosmic maternity ward! When the Hubble telescope photographed the Orion Nebula, capturing details that had never been seen before, astronomers saw not just stars and glowing gas but what Caillault describes as “fuzzy little ovals. Blots of orange light. They resemble specks of one’s lunch dropped accidentally onto the photo.” Scientists believe, however, that rather than darkroom defects, these fuzzy ovals are “protoplanetary disks, the first solar-systems-in-the-making viewed from a distance of 1,500 light-years.” Are stars—indeed, entire solar systems—being born at this moment in the Orion Nebula? Many astronomers believe they are.

From Maternity Ward to Stellar Graveyard

As Orion strides forward, bow in hand, he seems to confront the constellation Taurus, the bull. A small telescope will reveal, near the tip of the bull’s southern horn, a faint patch of light. It is called the Crab Nebula, and in a large telescope, it appears to be an explosion in progress. If the Orion Nebula is a stellar nursery, then the Crab Nebula next door may be the grave site of a star that suffered a death of unimaginable violence.

That heavenly cataclysm may have been recorded by Chinese astronomers who described a “Guest Star” in Taurus that suddenly appeared on July 4, 1054, and shone so brightly that it was seen during the daytime for 23 days. “For a few weeks,” notes astronomer Robert Burnham, “the star was blazing with the light of about 400 million suns.” Astronomers call such a spectacular stellar suicide a supernova. Even now, nearly a thousand years after the observation, the bombshards from that blast are racing through space at a speed estimated at 50 million miles [80 million km] per day.

The Hubble Space Telescope has been at work in this area too, peering deep into the heart of the nebula and discovering “details in the Crab that astronomers never expected,” according to Astronomy magazine. Astronomer Paul Scowen says the discoveries “should have theoretical astronomers scratching their heads for some time to come.”

Astronomers, such as Harvard’s Robert Kirshner, believe that understanding supernova remnants like the Crab Nebula is important because they can be used to measure the distance to other galaxies, which is currently an area of intense research. As we have seen, disagreements over the distances to other galaxies have recently touched off a lively debate over the big bang model of the creation of the universe.

Beyond Taurus, but still visible in the Northern Hemisphere in the western January sky, is a soft glow in the Andromeda constellation. That glow is the Andromeda galaxy, the most distant object visible to the naked eye. The wonders of Orion and Taurus are in our own cosmic backyard—within a few thousand light-years of Earth. Now, however, we gaze across an estimated two million light-years at a great spiral of stars much like our own galaxy, the Milky Way, but even larger—some 180,000 light-years from end to end. As you look at the gentle glow of Andromeda, your eyes are bathed in light that may be over two million years old!

In recent years Margaret Geller and others have embarked on ambitious programs to map all the galaxies around us in three dimensions, and the results have raised serious questions for the big bang theory. Instead of seeing a smooth distribution of galaxies in every direction, the cosmic cartographers discovered a “tapestry of galaxies” in a structure extending for millions of light-years. “How that tapestry was woven from the nearly uniform matter of the newborn universe is one of the most pressing questions in cosmology,” according to a recent report in the respected journal Science.

We began this evening with a look at our January night sky and quickly discovered not only heart-stopping beauty but also questions and mysteries that pertain to the very nature and origin of the universe. How did it begin? How did it arrive at its present stage of complexity? What will happen to the celestial wonders that surround us? Can anybody say? Let us see.

‘Something Is Missing’—What?

After gazing at the stars on a clear, dark night, we come inside, chilly and blinking, our minds spinning with vast beauty and a multitude of queries. Why is the universe here? Where did it come from? Where is it going? These are the questions that many try to answer.

After five years of research into cosmology, which carried him to scientific conferences and research centers all over the globe, science writer Dennis Overbye described a conversation with world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking: “In the end what I wanted to know from Hawking is what I have always wanted to know from Hawking: Where we go when we die.”

Although tinged with irony, these words reveal much about our age. The queries are not so much on the stars themselves and the theories and conflicting views of the cosmologists that study them. People today still hunger for answers to the basic questions that have haunted mankind for millenniums: Why are we here? Is there a God? Where do we go when we die? Where are the answers to these questions? Are they to be found in the stars?

Another science writer, John Boslough, observed that as people have left religion, scientists such as cosmologists have become “the perfect priesthood for a secular age. They, not religious leaders, were the ones who would now reveal all the secrets of the universe bit by precious bit, not in the guise of spiritual epiphany but in the form of equations obscure to all but the anointed.” But will they reveal all the secrets of the universe and answer all the questions that have haunted mankind for ages?

What are the cosmologists revealing now? Most espouse some version of the big bang “theology,” which has become the secular religion of our time, even as they quibble incessantly over the details. “Yet,” Boslough noted, “in the context of new and contradictory observations, the big bang theory begins to appear more and more like an overly simplistic model in search of a creation event. By the early 1990s the big bang model was. . . increasingly unable to answer the most fundamental questions.” He added that “more than a few theorists have expressed the opinion that it would not even last out the 1990s.”

Perhaps some of the current cosmological guesswork will turn out to be correct, perhaps not—just as perhaps there really are planets coalescing in the ghostly glow of Orion’s nebula, perhaps not. The undeniable fact is that no one on this earth really knows for sure. Theories abound, but honest observers echo Margaret Geller’s astute observation that despite the glib talk, something fundamental seems to be missing in science’s current understanding of the cosmos.

Missing—The Willingness to Face Unpalatable Facts

Most scientists—and this includes most cosmologists—subscribe to the theory of evolution. They find talk unpalatable that gives intelligence and purpose a role in creation, and they shudder at the mere mention of God as Creator. They refuse even to consider such heresy. Psalm 10:4 speaks disparagingly of the supercilious person who “makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’” His creative deity is Chance. But as knowledge increases and chance and also coincidence collapse under the growing load, the scientist begins to turn more and more to such no-no’s as intelligence and design. Consider the following examples:

“A component has evidently been missing from cosmological studies. The origin of the Universe, like the solution of the Rubik cube, requires an intelligence,” wrote astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in his book The Intelligent Universe, page 189.

“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”—Disturbing the Universe, by Freeman Dyson, page 250.

“What features of the Universe were essential for the emergence of creatures such as ourselves, and is it through coincidence, or for some deeper reason, that our Universe has these features? . . . Is there some deeper plan that ensures that the Universe is tailor-made for humankind?”—Cosmic Coincidences, by John Gribbin and Martin Rees, pages xiv, 4.

Fred Hoyle also comments on these properties, on page 220 of his book quoted above: “Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy accidents. But there are so many of these odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.”

“It is not only that man is adapted to the universe. The universe is adapted to man. Imagine a universe in which one or another of the fundamental dimensionless constants of physics is altered by a few percent one way or the other? Man could never come into being in such a universe. That is the central point of the anthropic principle. According to this principle, a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.”—The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,” by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, page vii.

God, Design, and the Constants of Physics

What are some of these fundamental constants of physics that are essential for life to exist in the universe? A report in The Orange County Register of January 8, 1995, listed a few of these constants. It stressed how fine-tuned these features must be, stating: “The quantitative values of many basic physical constants defining the universe—for example, the charge of an electron, or the fixed velocity of light, or the ratio of the strengths of fundamental forces in nature—are ravishingly precise, some to 120 decimal places. The development of a life-breeding universe is exceedingly sensitive to these specifications. Any tiny variation—a nanosecond here, an angstrom there—and the universe might well have been dead and barren.”

The author of this report then mentioned the usually unmentionable: “It seems more reasonable to assume that some mysterious bias lurks within the process, perhaps in the action of an intelligent and intentional power who fine-tuned the universe in preparation for our arrival.”

George Greenstein, professor of astronomy and cosmology, gave a longer list of these physical constants in his book The Symbiotic Universe. Among those listed were constants so fine-tuned that if they were off to the very slightest degree, no atoms, no stars, no universe, would have ever been possible. The details of these relationships are listed at the end of the comment below. They must exist for physical life to be possible. They are complex and may not be understood by all readers, but they are recognized, along with many others, by astrophysicists trained in these areas.

As this list lengthened, Greenstein became overwhelmed. He said: “So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance. But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. . . . Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Sickened and horrified by the thought, Greenstein quickly recanted, recovered his scientifically religious orthodoxy, and proclaimed: “God is not an explanation.” No reason—it was just so unpalatable that he could not stomach the thought!

A Natural Human Need

None of this is to disparage the hard work of sincere scientists, including cosmologists. Especially do I appreciate their many discoveries concerning creation that reveal the power and the wisdom and the love of the true God, Jehovah. Romans 1:20 declares: “His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.”

The inquiries and labors of scientists are the natural human response to a need that is as basic to mankind as the need for food, shelter, and clothing. It is the need to know answers to certain questions concerning the future and the purpose of life. God has “set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.”—Ecclesiastes 3:11, The Holy Bible—New International Version.

This is not such bad news. It means that mankind will never know it all, but neither will they ever run out of new things to learn: “I saw all the work of the true God, how mankind are not able to find out the work that has been done under the sun; however much mankind keep working hard to seek, yet they do not find out. And even if they should say they are wise enough to know, they would be unable to find out.”—Ecclesiastes 8:17.

Some scientists object that making God the “solution” to a problem kills the incentive for further research. However, a person who recognizes God as the Creator of the heavens and the earth has an abundance of further fascinating details to discover and intriguing mysteries to probe. It’s as though he has a green light to move on into a delightful adventure of discovery and learning!

Who can resist the invitation of Isaiah 40:26? “Raise your eyes high up and see.” I and those who wrote this have raised our eyes high up with these few comments, and what we have seen is the ‘something missing’ that has eluded the cosmologists. We have also located the fundamental answers to those recurring questions that have nagged the mind of man throughout the ages.

The Answers Are Found in a Book

The answers have always been there, but like the religionists of Jesus’ day, many people have blinded their eyes, shut their ears, and hardened their hearts to answers that did not match their human theories or their chosen life-style. (Matthew 13:14, 15) Jehovah has told us where the universe came from, how the earth got here, and who will live on it. He has told us that earth’s human inhabitants must cultivate it and lovingly care for the plants and animals that share it with them. He has also told us what happens when people die, that they can come back to life, and what they must do to live upon the earth forever.

If you are interested in having the answers given to you in the language of God’s inspired Word, the Bible, please read the following scriptures: Genesis 1:1, 26-28; 2:15; Proverbs 12:10; Matthew 10:29; Isaiah 11:6-9; 45:18; Genesis 3:19; Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5; Acts 24:15; John 5:28, 29; 17:3; Psalm 37:10, 11; Revelation 21:3-5.

Why not read these scriptures with your family or with a neighbor or with a group of friends in your home some evening? Be assured it will make for an informative and lively discussion!

Are you intrigued by the mysteries of the universe and moved by its beauty? Why not get to know better the One who created it? Our curiosity and wonder mean nothing to the inanimate heavens, but Jehovah God, their Creator, is also our Creator, and he cares for those meek ones who are interested in learning about him and his creations. The invitation is now being given throughout the earth: “‘Come!’ And let anyone hearing say: ‘Come!’ And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life’s water free.”—Revelation 22:17.

What a heartwarming invitation this is from Jehovah! Rather than by a mindless, purposeless explosion, the universe was created by a God of infinite intelligence and definite purpose who had you in mind from the beginning. His reserves of unlimited energy are carefully controlled and always available to sustain his servants. (Isaiah 40:28-31) Your reward for getting to know him will be as endless as the majestic universe itself!

“The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.”—Psalm 19:1.

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? 1 of 2 (playlist)


A Listing of Some of the Physical Constants Necessary for Life to Exist

The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite; the neutron must outweigh the proton by a tiny percent; a matching must exist between temperature of the sun and the absorptive properties of chlorophyll before photosynthesis can occur; if the strong force were a little weaker, the sun could not generate energy by nuclear reactions, but if it were a little stronger, the fuel needed to generate energy would be violently unstable; without two separate remarkable resonances between nuclei in the cores of red giant stars, no element beyond helium could have been formed; had space been less than three dimensions, the interconnections for blood flow and the nervous system would be impossible; and if space had been more than three dimensions, planets could not orbit the sun stably.—The Symbiotic Universe, pages 256-7.

And then we haven't even talked about...

But I already did that in the first 10 pages of this thread and later on, if I remember correctly. I think the evidence in favor of a Creator is even greater and more obvious in the field of biology. Details:

Molecular Machinery of Life (playlist)

MONO



Thanks dear whereislogic, for a most enlightening and edifying essay.

I concur with you:

There has got to be someone in charge, amen.





a reply to: whereislogic

a reply to: whereislogic

God is not going to change anything... because God is resting.

God already knows what is going to happened. God new that the moment he formed the firmament/singularity... The moment God said: Let there be light.

chapter 2...And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Can it be any more clear than this....?

Who ever Lord God is... It sure aint thee God of genesis chapter 1. God would never have created the serphent and called it good and it was morning the seventh day......

God would never have created the Garden East Of Eden and called it good... and rested the eight day, because God never created a garden east of eden.. God never created thee Eden that is to the west of the garden, it must be to the west since the garden Lord God created is to the east... Because Eden is not a good place because the serphent is living there and was never cast out. And Lord God is walking among the threes in the garden as well.... The Dragon and devil him self.....