English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

There may be up to 400,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy, most could have planetary systems, many with life.

That's just in this one galaxy. There are over 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the visible universe.

Do religious people really believe a god that looked like a human being made the whole thing a few thousand years ago for the purpose of human beings? Honestly?

Religious people talk about the sacred the holy the grandeur of god but they seem to worship a being who for me, is too small, too ignorant, too insignificant - they seem to reject the real greatness of the universe and our tiny place in it. They talk about humility but they can't bring themselves to accept humanity's insignificant role in the universe as a whole.

Please discuss

2007-02-11 01:46:41 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

People don't seem to be answering the question. I'm saying that the Universe is too big and magnificent to be here for us. Let alone the tiny insignificant sky-fairy many of you worship.

2007-02-11 01:55:12 · update #1

11 answers

Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

2007-02-11 02:03:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

This is certainly interesting - I do not believe in the Abramic God - which is the God you seem to refer to here.

I only want to throw up an idea and I do not mean to insult but is it possible that you to yourself are too small, too ignorant, too insignificant and too close minded and shut off to accept anything you cant directly explain (yet?) through science?

Just a thought.

Modern religion (I am talking about the moderates in the Abramic faiths) understands the amazing nature of Gods creation and the small blob of life our planet represents in the universe. They do not take the bible as a literal document, unlike you appear to be doing. Unlike you they see how amazing that life has developed in the environment and harsh realities of our galaxy. The infinitely small changes in atmosphere, distance from the sun etc that would have meant life would never have existed. They don't believe the earth is the center of everything they concentrate more on their personal relationship with their maker and assume that whatever else is out there is getting along very well and that their God knows what it is doing.

Why is it that militant atheists need Christians to be fundamentalist in their approach - so that they can feel superior to them? Can you not accept that you are talking about a very small percentage of Christians - can you not pull your head out of America and see this?

Again just an option of an avenue of thought

Happy contemplating

EDIT

I thought i had tried to help with the original discussion so here goes at a simpler expalination

Not all Christians believe that the earth is the cernter of the universe and as far as i am aware none believe it is there at their convienience and for them. They believe their 'sky-fairy' made it for himself - just to clarify that one point for you.

Also you undermine your own question when you start calling an omnipotent, omipresent, omnibenevolent deity (again assuming we are refering to the Abamic God - you never did clarify) 'sky-fairy - a small being, human in form, playful and having magical powers that according to you lives in out upper atmosphere. It makes it look like you dont have the interlectual capacity to understand such an abstract concept. I understand it is intended to insult but all it does is show you up and undermine any decent discussion or arguement you may have.

2007-02-11 09:51:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

God looks like Anna Nicole. She created the Earth 6,000 years ago.

Yahoo Answers is horrible for discussion though. It is more like a drive by insult factory. I would suggest the Yahoo group Atheist vs Christian for anything with worthwhile content.

But I agree.. They say the world is too magnificent and it could not possibly just happen on it's own. Yet they fail to understand that there are trillions upon trillions of other planets which would kill them in a near instant.. Not to mention the vast amounts of void that we can not exist in as well.

As far as a point, it is not understood if there is even a point yet. My own opinion is that we exist as a result of the big bang. We bring meaning into our lives and into inanimate objects. The Universe just exists.. It does not think for itself, so meaning is pointless. Unless of course the Universe is some sort of organism, but that is not appropriate because there is no evidence to back up such a claim.

If a God did exist, I have a hard time believing he would be physical at all. What purpose would it serve? The human body is not exactly the best means of accomplishing things.

2007-02-11 09:50:52 · answer #3 · answered by purpledinodick 1 · 1 2

According to Einsteins General theory of relativity the universe is either expanding or collapsing. In order to support the theory of evolution he imagined a cosmological constant which held both ideas at bay in order to account for the steady state theory of the universe neccessary to make the mathematical probabilities of Darwinian evolution possible. He later called this the biggest blunder of his career and recanted the constant and agreed with Hubbles discovery of the redshift in galactical discoveries that the universe was expanding and therefore had a beginning. This beginning included the entire spectrum of space, time, matter and energy. I would include consciousness here also for we all know that science can obcerve the actions of intelligent action.
The cosmic background microwave radiation and the measurements by the COBE sattelite have confirmed that there was indeed a beginning.
In light of these nondisputable facts of science and empirical evidence of subjective and objective experience I would rather have you resubmit your question bearing in mind that an alternate explanation for the creative acts of a transcendency which is neccessary in accounting for existence. There are only three options available logically. Choose one....and account for universal benevolence please.

2007-02-11 10:55:24 · answer #4 · answered by messenger 3 · 0 0

Did God said to you that Universe was made only for Humans. Do not ask this stupid question. And did god said that there are no living beings in other Galaxy or do we have any scientific evidence that only Earth is the only place where living beings can exist. You can not give me exact number of asteroids in our solar system or at least tell me how many fishes in oceans with Hundred percent confidence.

But I will tell you with Full confidence and belief that God exists.

2007-02-11 10:25:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

The power behind this universe, behind the creation, sustenance and perhaps dissolution of this cosmos has to be given a name and we call Him God. Human kind cannot relate to an abstract, immense,endlessly powerful cosmic force without giving it a shape or name. We say God created Man in His own image, so have we created God in our own image.

2007-02-11 10:57:15 · answer #6 · answered by Traveller 5 · 0 0

Okay am refreshing my answer:

theres nothing in my faith that says the universe was created for us

rather, theres a verse in the quran that says: God created everything and everyone so we may observe and recognize Him.

So God created it all to be known.

The universe serves that purpose only I reckon. To show us who we really are, no body :D

2007-02-11 09:52:29 · answer #7 · answered by Antares 6 · 2 0

From the book, "Easy Journey to other planets" by A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada,
Foundr-Acharya of ISKCON(International Society for Krishna Consciousness). You are saying, please discuss, and the author of the book is saying at the end WE SHALL TRY TO DISCUSS.
So you have the whole book to read. All the best.

Materialistic science may one day finally discover the eternal antimaterial world which has for so long been unknown to the wranglers of gross materialism. Regarding the scientists' present conception of antimatter, the Times of India (Oct. 27, 1959) published the following news release:
Stockholm, Oct. 26, 1959-Two American atomic scientists were awarded the 1959 Nobel Physics Prize today for the discovery of the antiproton, proving that matter exists in two forms—as particles and antiparticles. They are Italian—born Dr. Emillo Segre, 69, and Dr. Owen Chamberlain, born in San Francisco.... According to one of the fundamental assumptions of the new theory, there may exist another world, or an antiworld, built up of antimatter. This antimaterial world would consist of atomic and subatomic particles spinning in reverse orbits to those of the world we know. If these two worlds should ever clash, they would both be annihilated in one blinding flash.
In this statement, the following propositions are put forward:
1. There is an antimaterial atom or particle which is made up of the antiqualities of material atoms.
2. There is another world besides this material world of which we have only limited experience.
3. The antimaterial and material worlds may clash at a certain period and may annihilate one another.
Out of these three items, we, the students of theistic science, can fully agree with items 1 and 2, but we can agree with item 3 only within the limited scientific definition of antimatter. The difficulty lies in the fact that the scientists' conception of antimatter extends only to another variety of material energy, whereas the real antimatter must be entirely antimaterial. Matter as it is constituted is subjected to annihilation, but antimatter—if it is to be free from all material symptoms—must also be free from annihilation, by its very nature. If matter is destructible or separable, antimatter must be indestructible and inseparable. WE SHALL TRY TO DISCUSS these propositions from the angle of authentic scriptural vision.

WE SHALL TRY TO DISCUSS, the author is saying.
So go ahead and enter in to the discussion by reading the book.

2007-02-11 10:17:43 · answer #8 · answered by Gaura 7 · 0 2

The point of the universe is that things don't need to have a 'point' whatsoever to be great and beautiful.

We have this need to assign 'meaning' to everything - and thus create walking, talking gods to give it 'meaning'. The universe laughs at our attempts to find 'meaning' or 'point' in existence.

2007-02-11 10:00:27 · answer #9 · answered by XYZ 7 · 0 0

The "milk"-y way is for babes (Hebrews 5),
of babe->child->man->perfect man Christ.

The Bible is "allegory" and "mystery" to solve,
kinda like the ultimate matrix to navigate.

It's about hide and seek: "seek and ye shall find" God.
Seek: ye first the kingdom of God & his righteousness.
Find: "grace" at the throne of grace, to "help", in "time".

It's a "shew" (plural of show), about Law vs Grace,
Which is a learning game of life(grace) or death(law);
the stated purpose thereof being "our learning": Rom 15.

The end of the God shew is notably already written:

The GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.

2007-02-11 10:03:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers