TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Big bang is out!,

Lets look at the big bang from a distance. Outer space!, if you were to explode a large planet or sun, what would the pieces look like? Sharp, jagged pieces of rocks and debris, right??? The planets in our solor system are round and not sharp or jagged. Why? God!! He is the intelligence that magnificantly designed our place of existance. Imagine living on a sharp, jagged rock, you would fall off every edge that you walked over to. Water would run off the edges etc.... I have blown up stuff as a kid and never saw a piece of material perfectly round after detonation. Agree? God, jesus and all we have been taught as a child exsist. I believed as a child in Santa, the Easter bunny, tooth fairy but learned that my parents were all of them. Why is it that so many people still believe in god and visit Rome every year and many religous sites if they did not believe in a supreme being? Life after death....sounds crazy I know, but this cant be the only stop before the end. Why go through life to learn, live, suffer and die just to be eaten by worms and be forgotton unless, " there is more to it!!" Please comment.


Closing Statement from Dave McManus

Well, now that all the college educated scientists put their opinions in, I will say this. Yes, there is science behind every origin or birth of a planet, person, animal or what have you, but behind science, there is god. God allowed the science to take place to start the b.b or any other birth of a gallaxy, person, star, planet etc....but when god meets each of you down the road, you better tell him that you were always believing in him, just trying to figure out how he did it.. He may laugh and he may push the down button, but god is the real scientist that has figured it all out. You college people that have spent years exhausting theories, may never know the real answer when it has been in front of your noses all along!! ;-)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 10 2013: Perhaps each sun and planet, and we creatures upon them, as pebbles in the ocean or the stream, rounded through time, are equal parts of God.
    • Nov 10 2013: Perhaps the notion of being equal parts of God keeps us from playing our part with God.
      recognize and do what ought to be done,
      choose the absolute better possibly rather than one of the alternatives
      Yea, they all seem equal; it's just that one seems to be real because it be real
      make sure to pick the real one because it be the real one, do that independent of what it may look like.
      and the rest will be seem at it is possibilities that remain as possibilities as it ought to be

      Hint: if one thinks to be god then what does that do with one's relationship to the real one?


      Perhaps the idea of being equal parts of God stems from:
      - a creature wanting to be the creator, rather than with the creator.
      - a drop of water wanting to be the ocean, rather than in the ocean
      - the stream wanting to be the flow, rather than flowing with the flow (still in the same place)
      - a moment wanting to be the eternal, rather than persisting with, in, and throughout eternity
      - a possibility that ought to remain as a possibility wanting to be made real by...
      ... making the real unreal and the unreal real;
      without recognizing that they are, and ought to be a possibility
      - inaction wanting to act, and not acting out their part of inaction by remain still

      Perhaps that idea stems from 'something' wanting to be 'someone', and 'someone without a buddy nor body' wanting to be 'with a body and a buddy'; or seeking that 'someone with a body and a buddy' do something to become like them rather than being someone with a buddy independent of having a body or not.

      like a muscle hurts when exercised my head hurts now, still one ought to exercise to remain strong
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2013: ...or perhaps the idea of being separate from God stems from a reluctance to assume full and absolute responsibility for one's own thoughts and actions.
        • Nov 11 2013: ... and perhaps the idea of being separate from God stems from
          ------ a choice to shift from 1- your will vs my will, into 2- whatever be the best alternative
          ( that is let us each choose the will of God; the best alternative, whichever that happens to be)
          It could also be framed as
          ------ a choice to shift from 1- what you say is vs what I say is, into 2- whatever be.

          I heard several individuals express the idea " 'That' stems from a reluctance to assume full and absolute responsibility for one's own thoughts and actions". I realize each shares what they carry; often telling others what they ought to recognize in themselves. The way I see it the experience that results in a dialogue involves several parts, there is what one said, there is what the other heard and there is what was shared. That you mentioned: " ...a reluctance to assume full and absolute responsibility for one's own thoughts and actions" to me reflects what you need to observe in yourself. Claiming each is responsible for one's actions can lead into wondering about what part each holds and each assuming full and absolute responsibly for one's own thoughts, actions, feelings, beliefs including choices of words one uses. (just to clarify the point here I deliberately chose certain words as you chose certain words can you see which ones of your words I replaced?) Why would I use the word 'reluctance' that you used when I prefer to cultivate 'clarity' 'understanding' 'responsibility'? Do notice the three words I chose to use in that sentence to atone for using the one you used.

          Of course maybe the idea of being separate from God stems from being separate from God; and wanting to be a part of God without recognizing God being God may reflect an attitude towards God... being with God can make that separation from God irrelevant...

          Those already with God and partakers

          a reluctance to assume full and absolute responsibility for one's own thoughts and actions
    • thumb
      Nov 11 2013: I don't understand what you mean. Can you expand?
      • Nov 11 2013: I wonder if you are asking don or me... if me then succinctly put seeking to be an equal part of God in a way seeks to usurp the place of God rather than just recognizing one's singular importance...
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2013: Thanks et.

          Who is seeking to usurp the place of gods?

          To me the thousands of different god concepts are most likely created by humans. As far as we know there is no compelling evidence for any.

          However I see myself as a human, a mammal with the most complex and powerful minds we know to exist. With all the strengths and weaknesses that entails. I strive to lead a good life.

          Not being convinced of any god concept is not usurping god. Just like not believing in invisible unicorns or nature spirits is not usurping anything. But I guess it means we have to look to ourselves rather than cultural god concepts and associated dogmas like what to eat and who to kill and how to beat slaves.
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2013: I am suggesting here that we are all fashioned from the same 'clay'; suns, planets, stones, beings (human and otherwise) and God (or lesser gods). Physically, with the exception of God(s) perhaps, we are comprised of the same elements and share some of the same history in time and space. It may be that our cosmos is a sub-atomic particle on one of God's eyelashes, as we are supposed to be made in his own image, and our relentless search for God's truth may, in fact, be our compulsion to understand our own nature.
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2013: Yes, according to science we are made from star stuff. Amazing.
      • Nov 11 2013: Obey,

        I think that the thousands of different god concepts are most likely created by someone to complicate the choice of choosing the right one. Looking to ourselves when we ought to be looking to God in a way does place ourselves in the place of God; we take the place of God when we ought to be looking at God.

        The thing with dogmas is that they require to be laid down by 'an authority with true authority' which involves stating the actual truth as truth; and sometimes individuals in a position claim to actually tell the truth while claiming something else. Some references to dogma seek to establish as incontrovertibly true something to be accepted until one realizes its veracity given its actual veracity. (and as in the first thought of this message... some individuals resort to create different claims while claiming them to be dogmas for multiple reasons including to complicate recognizing the right ones as right ones).


        I was suggesting that a part of a cell in a body while being part of it isn't it; and the compulsion to understand itself and it's relationship to the cell and the being that the cell is part of seems distant from the notion of 'equal parts of God'. Then there is the whole issue of the whole actually being more than the sum of the parts... of course each ones singular uniqueness both distinguish them from everyone else while also uniting them to everyone else by including them in the set of the singular unique. I just wanted to point to the distinction between a creature and one's Creator especially when endowed with certain of The Creator's capacities... to create, to love, to appreciate beauty, to choose... Keep in mind we can choose the better way or some other way (note how that hardly means we can change what be the better way). In more mundane ways, stuff happens and we choose which direction to take...
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2013: Hi ET, not sure if your beliefs lean toward Christian sects that believe in a devil or Satan that is going around deceiving people.

          Or it could just be religions are cultural constructs that build on the weaknesses or misfirings of our cognative processes, to assume agency, to hallucinate, to have different mind states, to have dreams. I've had religious and non religious personal experiences. The experiences seem quite similar across different religions or via meditation or drugs or simple dreams etc.

          It seems reasonable to look to ourselves and not gods, goddesses, or spirits to appease when there is no evidence or sound reason to believe in any of them.

          It's like your telling me to look to invisible unicorns or follow the conflicting teachings of this or that prophet of this or that god or goddess concept.

          What gets me is all the people with conflicting beliefs that believe they have the truth from a genuine authority, and no proof, or compelling evidence to support this. They usually come down to faith propositions, beliefs not supported by evidence, emotional responses, psychological and cognitive experiences informed by cultural indoctrination or study etc.

          How do you know you beliefs about all this are correct. Do you believe in some old religious scriptures, a particular interpretation of these, backed by some feeling about the presence of god?

          Does god speak to you?

          How do you know your beliefs are true?
        • thumb
          Nov 12 2013: A number of eminent current thinkers, including physicist David Bohm and neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, believe that the universe itself may be a giant hologram. The interesting, and for this discussion, pertinent aspect of a hologram is that each distinct portion of the hologram does contain the whole.

          This new model of reality, this new vision, gives us not only a new perspective on our cosmos, but also on the relationship of the individual to the whole, and perhaps to God.
      • Nov 12 2013: Obey,

        I will work my way from the end to the beginning of your response questions and then comment...

        o:How do you know your beliefs are true?
        ++Implicitly you consider that I know my beliefs are true... fact is I have no way of knowing for myself if my beliefs are true or false. 'My stand' does not depend on being right or wrong, either way it remains. A particular example may clarify this point, My stand is to learn the truth, If I am right I learn something true about myself, if I am wrong I learn something true about myself, either way I learn something true about myself... and in many occasions I learn about what is right regardless of confirming of disconfirming something I thought to know.

        o:Does god speak to you?
        ++Again I have no way of knowing for myself if 'the person speaking to me' is just 'the person specking to me' or is God speaking to me through them (even without them knowing it) or if such a person is God himself. Would you recognize God if/when He contacts you? How would you know?

        o: How do you know you beliefs about all this are correct. Do you believe in some old religious scriptures, a particular interpretation of these, backed by some feeling about the presence of god?
        ++Again implicitly you consider that I know my beliefs are correct... the fact is I hedge my beliefs so that the choices I make are the best alternative regardless of being right or being wrong ... Yes, I do believe in some old religious scriptures, yes a particular interpretation of these, though I would have to say that they are basically backed by a certain rational evaluation process of events, data, circumstances and additional stuff... Succinctly put ensuring that what one thinks to be does corresponds to what happens to be.

        My beliefs do not lean towards Christian sects. I am Catholic. You might consider that to be a Christian sect and might have all sort of misconceptions of what I actually believe based on what you associate to Catholics.
        • thumb
          Nov 12 2013: Thanks et.

          appreciate you are not claiming to be certain.

          it helps when you start to define your theistic background toothe are so many different beliefs related to gods and the supernatural it helps to narrow it down.

          I understand a bit about Catholicism, but far from an expert. I expect their would still be some diversity in detailed beliefs in the billion who are part of that church.

          my working hypothesis is that what some refer to as divine revelation may just be the natural workings of our mind on some extreme state. I don't know. I do know that there many conflicting revelations. Now I understand your view on that better. Sir it could be the devil or maybe the good are just having fun, or the messages aren't clear, or they are hallucinations.

          I understand the catholic church largely accepts the science around evolution. Which is positive.

          for many who consider themselves Christian I guess. tiger believe in the resurrection and gospels, even though they tend to contradict each other etc. Personally I'm not convinced there was a resurrection. And even if there was out doesn't make all the other claims true.

          But I support freedom of religion
      • Nov 12 2013: Obey and Don

        note that the holograph notion implies that by changing oneself one changes the universe and by changing the universe one changes oneself...

        Obey sure it may just be 'that' to be the case just as ....it just may be that that is that and the case is the case. (it may just be that the case be the case because the case happens to be the case ..)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.