If you see it in everything, why not? What is God to you?Perhaps "god" is a fungus living on tree in the Amazon.
If you see it in everything, why not? What is God to you?Perhaps "god" is a fungus living on tree in the Amazon.
Argument from ignorance. "I don't know, therefore God." Lame, and not at all specific as to WHICH god that would be even if there was one.
You can perhaps all you like but for a reasonable understanding of reality one should not perhaps this or that but take time to study nature and science
In God's design you find it along side an eternal presence of suffering.Where do you find extreme happiness?
There are lots of unknowns in science, but that doesn't mean you jump on the supernatural wagon to 'explain' them. If your first model fails, that's tough.But how is "I don't know, therefore physicalistic materialism!" really all that different?
Why do stars explode?In God's design you find it along side an eternal presence of suffering.
If your loved one was hit by a car, your saying you wouldn't phone an ambulance? Since that would be interfering in God's way of letting your loved one experience pain so as to better appreciate the bliss of heaven.
A baby born with severe deformity and dying within minutes of birth is also learning that its pain is in order for it to appreciate bliss?? Are hospitals the devil's work?
Yes, it's different.But how is "I don't know, therefore physicalistic materialism!" really all that different?
Is that your way of saying you don't know why God lets a new born baby die of pain minutes after birth? But, you said you have to experience suffering to know what bliss is. The concept of Bliss and suffering is God's.Why do stars explode?
Well, your view of pain is that it's God's way of letting us appreciate Bliss. So, hospitals doing their best to stop people's pain, is opposed to the work of God.Are hospitals the devil's work? I suppose it depends on how you view them.
I saw a TV show once where somebody died of smallpox and one of the characters said, "I thought smallpox was extinct." I remember thinking at the time that the good or bad of extinction is in the eye of the beholder. If smallpox was cute and cuddly like pandas, we'd have a quandary.Are hospitals the devil's work?
Yes, it's different.
Simplistically, it comes down to Occam's Razor.
There are an infinite number of things that could go in that blank space, if one were fanciful:
"I don't know, therefore God."
"I don't know, therefore unicorns."
"I don't know, therefore magic pixie dust."
The only one that makes any logical sense is:
"I don't know, therefore only what I can gather evidence for, until such time as new evidence is forthcoming."
The OP... ''Universe created by God''I saw a TV show once where somebody died of smallpox and one of the characters said, "I thought smallpox was extinct." I remember thinking at the time that the good or bad of extinction is in the eye of the beholder. If smallpox was cute and cuddly like pandas, we'd have a quandary.
As long as you understand science is just about changing models ( I think you know what a model is?) you don't have to get annoyed.One of the things that annoys me about many of the popular science titles that one finds on bookstore shelves is that they consist of scientists (typically theoretical physicists) throwing out speculations and trying to convince their lay readers that those speculations are definitive answers to some of the deepest and most long-standing questions.
The will of God is beyond our control. We can no longer control our heart beat than we can control life. Agreed? If a meteor were to hit the Earth tomorrow, what could we do about it?Well, your view of pain is that it's God's way of letting us appreciate Bliss. So, hospitals doing their best to stop people's pain, is opposed to the work of God.
What about that call for an ambulance? Would you make it for a suffering loved one and go against the will of your God?
Is that your way of saying you don't know why God lets a new born baby die of pain minutes after birth? But, you said you have to experience suffering to know what bliss is. The concept of Bliss and suffering is God's.
OP ''Universe created by God''How can I deny what we both know is true? Pain and suffering exists. You seem to have a problem accepting this. Just like pleasure and happiness exist, there is also the opposite. Both pass with time.
Pain is the work of God, as is everything in the universe. Yes, if I saw someone in pain, I would try to ease their suffering if it were within my abilities. That does not mean I have the power to end all suffering, because it is a natural phenomena, just like death. Do you accept that?OP ''Universe created by God''
I want to know how deep your belief in God is...That's why I would like you to answer the following... Pain is God's work, would you go against the work of God and call an ambulance for a loved one who is suffering?
Perhaps there is one God with many faces.
Except that it isn't simpler; it raises more questions than it answers.If parsimony is the goal, then "God did it!" would seem to be the best explanation for everything. Just hypothesize one kind of explanatory entity, and one kind of explanation (miraculous) instead of all of physics' particles and forces and equations, or biology's evolutionary histories and genomics. Much simpler.
This is easily subsumed by the concession that God gave us free will.OP ''Universe created by God''
I want to know how deep your belief in God is...That's why I would like you to answer the following... Pain is God's work, would you go against the work of God and call an ambulance for a loved one who is suffering?
These assumptions you mention raise various questions, such as:I don't know. It does seem that some astrophysical observations suggest the action of more gravity than can be explained by the masses of the matter visibly present. The most obvious explanation for that is that there is additional mass present that we can't detect that's having a gravitational effect on things.
There are various assumptions built into that, such as the observed motions being governed entirely by gravity, gravity only being the product of mass, that we are correctly estimating the mass of the luminous stuff we see, and so on.
My understanding is that machos are not considered a serious possibility any more by astrophysicists, but I could be wrong.Accepting those assumptions, the question is what accounts for the additional mass. One school of thought favors so-called 'machos' (massive compact halo objects) which would be things like brown dwarfs, rogue planets and other conventional matter that just happens to be invisible to us at the moment.
Not just stars. Also certain types of supernovae. The possible physics of a supernova is actually quite constrained. In a lot of ways, stars and supernovae are simple objects. The chances that we are quite wrong about their physics are small, I think.I'm more skeptical about dark energy. That hypothesis seems to be dependent on the idea that the expansion of the universe is speeding up slightly. And that in turn is dependent on various assumptions. Among them is the belief that all examples of a certain kind of star have the same constant luminosity. They are referred to as 'standard candles'.