(Is it reasenable,)

[Guest Perry5]

to believe that a universal levil of intelligence (God) would create an ever expanding universe simply so that a band of human animals who call themselves christians and who happen to live on an insignificant planit called earth can beg,borrow,steel or buy there way into mythical places like heaven,hell and the lake of fire???

(Man,)

Mineral,vegetable,or human animal???

[Adstar]

It is reasonable to believe that an all powerful eternal God, holding all perfect wisdom would create whatever He willed to achieve a result He wanted.

All Praise The Ancient of Days

PS: Remember we are talking about GOD here.

[AnotherTraveler]

Hi Ray,

Welcome to Worthy.

mythical places like heaven,hell and the lake of fire???

If you are applying reason to the concept that there is a universal intellegence that created all things (leaving off for just a second His motives), then you would need to do scientific analysis of the facts and materials at hand.

If we could agree that the universe is a little too big for us to place under a microscope for study, and that reason would therefore dictate that we analyze a few smaller things and work our way into larger things, is this ok?

Placing anything, and I do mean anything, under serious analysis we find complex structures on top of complex structures on top of complex structures, down to the subatomic levels, all precisely balanced with and interacting with all other things in a mass influenced field called gravity. Such complexity allows for only one comclusion, intellegent design. More than 50% of the world's leading scientists believe that there is no other possible conclusion, so let us accept the experts at this stage, ok?

If we are to consider things from a human perspective, and I think we must allow that anything that we consider must be from this perspective, in that we are humans, and we have no other creatures available to grant imput directly, here are a few given facts of humans.

We are limited in every way. We are finite. We see a very narrow range of the known and provable color wave spectrum, we hear a very tiny range of the proven sound wave spectrum, and we interact on a personal level with an astonishingly tiny portion of the other known humans on this planet.

As if that were not enough, we use less than 20% of our available brain as we consider all these things, and yet there is nothing that we can do about that limitation either.

We can only conclude that we will not be able to fully analyze even a tiny aspect of humanity or our surrounding environment, and then our conclusions must be funneled into a decreasingly smaller percentage of the available human reasoning, i.e., you and I, so we must agree that our ability to obtain and measure the data is extreemly limited, but we have no other choice.

What have we been able to understand by all this? The probability of there being many things that we simply do not know nor understand is nearly absolute. We are limited in every way.

So the question of..." is there a place (or places) called heaven or hell or the lake of fire?" at this point, by reasoning, we can't say that there is, but the potential of there being such a place or places certainly is there, and our having not seen it none withstanding, we have heard of it, or we would not know of it to discuss it.

All science is based on accumulated information gathered from current and past sources, and many accepted theories from former generations have been disproven by later generations, not because we are so much smarter than the last generation, but because we are able to build from where we are, we don't have to reinvent the wheel, for instance.

The biggest problem with scientific study is the accepted foundational beliefs that keep collapsing under study, trashing entire structures that have been built on them, and damaging all the other related conclusions that we once knew to be true, but turned out to be false.

A little history to the present...

All of the links should be read and considered in order to make use of the scientific theory or values that they try to establish or refute.

General relativity beginning at Aristotle 384-322 BC. Aristotle's notion of the motion of bodies impeded understanding of gravitation for a long time.

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/H...relativity.html

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is a set of two theories in physics: special relativity and general relativity. The core idea of both theories is that two observers who move relative to each other will often measure different time and space intervals for the same events, but the content of physical law will be the same for both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/physics/inflate.html

http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/physics/entropy.html

Einstein realized that if the universe was expanding away from a point, then it had a beginning at that point. If the universe had a beginning then it must have a "Beginner", he surmised. This discovery disturbed Einstein so much that for a time he included an imaginary mathematical "cosmological constant" to his formula. He did this to make the effect of the expanding universe go away. He later stated that this was the biggest error of his entire career.

http://mypage.direct.ca/g/gcramer/relativity.html

Einstein's God

Einstein's "superior reasoning power," however, was not the God of the Bible. Though he confessed to the rabbis and priests who came to congratulate him on his discovery of God that he was convinced God brought the universe into existence and was intelligent and creative, he denied that God was personal.

The thrust of Hawking's philosophizing in A Brief History of Time is to demean God's role in the affairs of the universe and to elevate the role of the human race.

Through the principle of cause and effect, this theorem pointed obviously, perhaps too obviously for Hawking, to the existence of some entity beyond the dimensions of the universe who created the universe and its dimensions of space and time. Hawking's only hope, the, for escaping the beginning, hence the Beginner, lay in finding some possible point in the universe's history where the equations of general relativity (on which his space-time theorem was based) might break down.

Why did I list all this? To point out that the two most renowned physisists to influence modern scientific theory could not escape the FACT that there had to be a "beginner" or "creator", and both acknowledged very reluctantly that they HAD to acknowledge this fact

[Ovedya]

[is it reasonable]to believe that a universal levil of intelligence (God) would create an ever expanding universe simply so that a band of human animals who call themselves christians and who happen to live on an insignificant planit called earth can beg,borrow,steel or buy there way into mythical places like heaven,hell and the lake of fire???

(Man,)

Mineral,vegetable,or human animal???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For something to be considered insignificant there must be something else upon which greater significance is placed. So my question to you is which planet is more significant to you than earth? By what measure are calling the earth "insignificant"? We can address the other problems with your question when we've settled this crucial matter.

[AnotherTraveler]

So if we allow that the scientific fact provide for and even demand the existance of an intellegent creator, could such an being communicate with His creation, and if He did so, could He tell us of places that we have not ourselves experienced?

Professor Stephen Hawking's lecture on The Beginning of Time

http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html

"In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end."

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier."

"There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."

When Professor Hawking had to admit that creation according to the bible book of Genisis required a direct intervention of God for the universe to have begun at that date, he was acknowledging that what Christians say of God (direct intervention) was the ONLY other answer, but he likes the big bang theory better, except for the part that he just MUST cut out of the theory.

Professor Hawking tried to come to some other conclusion, hating the fact that he had to admit that there was a beginning, and his solution is to simply "cut out" the part that he doesn't like, much like the mistake that Einstein admitted making.

Einstein realized that if the universe was expanding away from a point, then it had a beginning at that point. If the universe had a beginning then it must have a "Beginner", he surmised. This discovery disturbed Einstein so much that for a time he included an imaginary mathematical "cosmological constant" to his formula. He did this to make the effect of the expanding universe go away. He later stated that this was the biggest error of his entire career.

Intellegent design is the unavoidable conclusion.

(Rom 1:17 KJV) For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

(Rom 1:18 KJV) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

(Rom 1:19 KJV) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.

(Rom 1:20 KJV) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

(Rom 1:21 KJV) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

(Rom 1:22 KJV) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

(Rom 1:23 KJV) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

(Rom 1:24 KJV) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

(Rom 1:25 KJV) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

(Rom 1:26 KJV) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

(Rom 1:27 KJV) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

(Rom 1:28 KJV) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Just because the answer is not what we want does not make the answer to be a lie.

[AnotherTraveler]

There remains really only two possible plausable explainations for the existance of everything then. One is a theory with lots of missing parts, and the parts that are there violate other parts, and it becomes necessary to cut out certain disagreeable parts OR God does exist and that makes many in sin very uncomfortable.

One is the theory of everything (I am not making this stuff up )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

"Another view is that there are laws which Steven Weinberg calls free floating laws which govern the behavior of complex systems, and while these laws are related to the theory of everything, they cannot be seen as less fundamental than the TOE. Some argue that this explanation would violate Occam's Razor if a completely valid TOE were formulated."

Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called parsimony.

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not take more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the least assumptions.

(1 Tim 6:20 KJV) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

(1 Tim 6:21 KJV) Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Attempts to create theories of everything are common among people outside the professional physics community. These amateur theories are often criticised on the basis of inability to make quantifiable and/or falsifible predictions. For example, a theory of everything would provide some insight into the relative strength of forces, and predictions of particle lifetimes and cross sections. It would need to be shown to explain all known universal phenomena.

Unlike professional physicists, who are generally aware that their proposed theory is incomplete, untested, and likely to be wrong and who are aware of the huge difficulties and challenges involved in creating a TOE, amateurs who create TOE's tend to be unaware of what work has already been done, the mechanisms for testing scientific theories and the fact that most proposed theories (logically, all but one) are wrong.

[nebula]

to believe that a universal levil of intelligence (God) would create an ever expanding universe simply so that a band of human animals who call themselves christians and who happen to live on an insignificant planit called earth can beg,borrow,steel or buy there way into mythical places like heaven,hell and the lake of fire???

(Man,)

Mineral,vegetable,or human animal???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YA-A-A-A-A-W-WN !!!!

[ted]

to believe that a universal levil of intelligence (God) would create an ever expanding universe simply so that a band of human animals who call themselves christians and who happen to live on an insignificant planit called earth can beg,borrow,steel or buy there way into mythical places like heaven,hell and the lake of fire???

(Man,)

Mineral,vegetable,or human animal???

Sure, and it's also reasonable to believe that God brought you here for more than a few simple post and runs.

It's very possible that He led you here to LISTEN to the Word, to repent, and to have you accept Jesus as your Savior.

Isn't god wonderful?

t.

[vitality22004]

Perry

A finite mind cannot comprehend infinity, neither can a carnal mind appreciate the things of the spirit. He that comes to God must believe that He is and until you come to that place of recognising that, it doesn't really matter what your opinion is, God is God and in case you haven't heard a piece of truth: The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

[ann2]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ