I read an article in the May issue of Discover magazine entitled The Biocentric Universe.
It was about, “A radical new view of reality: Life creates time, space, and the cosmos itself.”
First of all I don’t believe that is a new idea, for the God of life who created all life created everything else.
But In the article I found many statements which made little of some of the other theories such as the spring theory and those of many universes.
It also made use of quantum physics and quantum mechanics which has caused some scientist to believe that there is a supreme mind or being involved in the creation of the universe.
Being a believer in Intelligent Design I found much of the article to be very interesting. One such part mentioned the idea that the universe started and came to be what it is today strictly by chance which mathematically is impossible.
Also mentioned were the several seemingly impossible things going on in the subatomic world like particles appearing out of nowhere and disappearing and the fact that observing a particle will cause it to react to being observed and that being in one place that will cause its twin to react in the same way even if miles apart.
Though the article did not deal with the idea of a supreme life bringing all we can see and witness into being I found that the article did that without mentioning it. That is typical of much of science not willing to give God credit for anything I thought.
Yes, I do believe that life created life and everything else, do you?
If so, why so? If not, why not?
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

Hello Arcura!
I like your post very much. You seem to be very intelligent, which is a rarity on these forums.

I do think, that much science that you mention, as the creation of virtual particles (by quantum fluctuations, Casimir effect), quantum wave collapse, entanglement of photons, etc, all these things actually can work with a God!

Science, does not necessarily have to contradict the existence of a God, but science might be the picture of how he created this world. Perhaps, has he found some ways of creating the world much quicker, than details one by one?

If I would be God, I would rather create these vacuum fields, include symmetry breakings, than building piece by piece.

Warm greetings,
Mary.

That is sort of New Age stuff but better
The two best teachers on it are
David Sereda
Harmonic Codes
YouTube - david sereda harmonic codes (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=david+sereda+harmonic+codes+&search_type=&aq=f)

And

Gregg Braden
Fractal Time
YouTube - greg braden fractal time (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=greg+braden+fractal+time&search_type=&aq=0&oq=greg+braden+fra)

MaryJS,
Thanks much for your thots in that.
Fred

But In the article I found many statements which made little of some of the other theories such as the spring theory and those of many universes.


What is spring theory, Fred, I have not heard that one, Is there a giant spring at the centre of the universe?:)

All these theories tell us one thing, the imagination of man is unlimited and in this we reflect a little bit of the Glory of the God who made us

I think these theories are what some have said they mean... God is preparing to start a new thing in a new dispensation.

But In the article I found many statements which made little of some of the other theories such as the spring theory and those of many universes.


Fred from a Christian perspective how could we not make little of the multiverse theory. Are we expected to believe that Jesus Christ died, perhaps just a little bit differently in multiple universes just a little different to our own. Surely this mocks the oneness of God.

Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ was the lamb slain before the beginning of the world, it did not say worlds. So If Jesus Christ exists only in this vast universe, there can be no multiverse, no place to escape to.

Believe what you want but don't expect God to fall into line with theory

It is a fact that there are other universes and who said that if they had people they had an Adam and Eve that fell into temptation?

It is a fact that there are other universes

Where do you get your facts from? Surely you speak of dementions which are all part of this universe

I guess but whatever you want to call it or how ever they want to categorize it the universe is way bigger than we can comprehend.

I guess but whatever you want to call it or how ever they want to categorize it the universe is way bigger than we can comprehend.

No it is important that you separate theory from fact, you made a statement that it is a fact there are multiple universes, this is an unsubstantiated theory. It is also postulated there are eleven dimensions you know length, breadth, thickness, time, etc

However what we know is basically confined to the first three and when you put them together you get the space in the middle which is four

paraclete,
You are right.
In astronomy and cosmology there are a great many theories. It seems that there are almost as many as facts that have been proven.
Of course that is also the case with many other sciences.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

No it is important that you seperate theory from fact, you made a statement that it is a fact there are multiple universes, this is an unsubstantiated theory. It is also postulated there are eleven dimentions you know length, breadth, thickness, time, etc

However what we know is basicly confined to the first three and when you put them together you get the space in the middle which is four

My point is there is way mpre out there than what we have discovered and no telling what is out there,

My point is there is way mpre out there than what we have discovered and no telling what is out there,

That is very different to saying that something like multiple universes is an absolute fact:rolleyes:

I'm not a scientist and I thought they did say there were universes more than ours maybe I am thinking of galaxies??
I'll call it unexplored territories or whatever it was that Star Trek called it

I think the idea of a supreme being existing because of the improbability of random chance having brought the universe into existence is certainly feasible. But at best that gets you to deism and nothing more. Like Christopher Hitchens says, if we concede deism, the theists still have all their work ahead of them (e.g. to say god exists hardly gives anyone any reason to say the god of the bible is the real one, as opposed to Thor, or Poseidon or any number of other deities man has invented over the years).

N0help4u,
Yes, other universes, dimensions, phases of existence, intergalactic strings, the God particles, black matter, and more are all theories.
Fred

To add briefly to what I said, in all the debates between the best and most brilliant atheists and most talented and intelligent theists, the direction (evidence) seems to always wind up pointing to deism- a supreme impersonal force in the universe that does not intervene in human affairs. That's honestly how I see it and I view these debates with an open mind and coming from a Lutheran background.

cadillac59,
I am convinced that there is indeed a supreme intelligence who in responsible for all that is seen and unseen in the universe including all the various universal physics laws.
Also that some religions are extremely worthwhile while some radical members therein are not.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Radical depends on what you mean by radical
My guess is I would be considered radical and I don't see God as some pie in the sky that is distant. I know he is right with me and reveals things to me everyday.

Radical depends on what you mean by radical
My guess is I would be considered radical and I don't see God as some pie in the sky that is distant. I know he is right with me and reveals things to me everyday.

Deism, as I said, is one thing. But theism (an intervening god, one who interacts with people and creation) is a leap of faith of gargantuan proportions. There's no logical reason to pick one god over another and they cannot all be real. That's the problem.

cadillac59,
I am convinced that there is indeed a supreme intelligence who in responsible for all that is seen and unseen in the universe including all the various universal physics laws.
Also that some religions are extremely worthwhile while some radical members therein are not.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Some religions are worthwhile? You mean useful?

Reminds me of what Bertrand Russell had to say about that: "I can respect a man who says that religion ought to be believed because it is true; but, I have nothing but the most profound moral reprobation for the man who says religion ought to be believed because it is useful and to ask whether it is true or not is a waste of time."

I don't think any religion that is untrue-- viz, one that is teaching a lie-- is ever worthwhile. I don't see how anyone can seriously believe that.

I have way more than a leap and bounds of faith in God

I have way more than a leap and bounds of faith in God

All I was saying was that being a theist is a leap of faith because there is no factual or evidentiary basis on which to believe one theistic religion over another.

N0help4u,
I meant radial members to be those in any religion who go to great extremes such as murder, suicide bombings, cutting off the heads of those who refuse to join, and generally cause terrorist events to take place.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Ahhh I was thinking of how Jesus was radical for his day

I think that Cadillac has not done serious study of the history and prophecy of the Bible.

As to the OP, it is interesting to speculate, but that is all it amounts to.

When we leave the Biblical record, we have absolutely nothing to guide us as to our origins. Even scientific speculation is not reliable.

Personally, I speculate that the universe is as infinite as eternity. Also, that the total physical universe is nothing more than controlled energy.

Of course, that is pure speculation and therefore worthless.

Though the article did not deal with the idea of a supreme life bringing all we can see and witness into being I found that the article did that without mentioning it. That is typical of much of science not willing to give God credit for anything I thought.


This is interesting and is all too common. In fact, I think it goes both ways equally. While science doesn't typically associate its theories with "God"... most believers (of any religion or faith) won't associate their "God" with any explanations offered by science.

If God is the "who", "what" and the "why", then why can't science be the "when", "where" and the "how"?

This is interesting and is all too common. In fact, I think it goes both ways equally. While science doesn't typically associate its theories with "God"... most believers (of any religion or faith) won't associate their "God" with any explanations offered by science.

If God is the "who", "what" and the "why", then why can't science be the "when", "where" and the "how"?

Yeah I always say that the BIG BANG was God saying ''Let there be... ''
And scientific fact is merely confirming what God already DID and KNEW.

I think that Cadillac has not done serious study of the history and prophecy of the Bible.

As to the OP, it is interesting to speculate, but that is all it amounts to.

When we leave the Biblical record, we have absolutely nothing to guide us as to our origins. Even scientific speculation is not reliable.

Personally, I speculate that the universe is as infinite as eternity. Also, that the total physical universe is nothing more than controlled energy.

Of course, that is pure speculation and therefore worthless.

I think I know enough about the history and prophesy of the Bible to say it's not what believers claim.

As to our origins, the Biblical record is useless. Not only is it untrue (the Adam and Eve fairytale) the bible lessons on morality are the utmost in immorality (condoning slavery and genocide--just to give two examples).

I'm not ready to say god does not exist, which gets me to deism, but I find no reason to make the leap to theism.

DrJ,
There are a number of denominations that do give credit to science.
Some, such as mine, have there own scientists, labs, and even observatories.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

This is interesting and is all too common. In fact, I think it goes both ways equally. While science doesn't typically associate its theories with "God"... most believers (of any religion or faith) won't associate their "God" with any explanations offered by science.

If God is the "who", "what" and the "why", then why can't science be the "when", "where" and the "how"?

If you refer to pure science and not scientific theories, then I am in complete agreement with you on this point.

I think I know enough about the history and prophesy of the Bible to say it's not what believers claim.

As to our origins, the Biblical record is useless. Not only is it untrue (the Adam and Eve fairytale) the bible lessons on morality are the utmost in immorality (condoning slavery and genocide--just to give two examples).

I'm not ready to say god does not exist, which gets me to deism, but I find no reason to make the leap to theism.

I you have done a study of prophecy, then you know that there are many detailed prophecies that have been literally fulfilled after the time of their writing. There is no explanation for this other than what the Bible says. Holy men of old wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

No one other than God can know the future.

I you have done a study of prophecy, then you know that there are many detailed prophecies that have been literally fulfilled after the time of their writing. There is no explaination for this other than what the Bible says. Holy men of old wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

No one other than God can know the future.

Yeah right. I'm not convinced.

There are all sorts of "prophecies" that supposedly have been fulfilled in other religions and other superstitious teachings and, considering the expansive definition of "fulfillment" of any alleged prophecy and room for interpretation of historical events the human mind can invent, this test of "truth" is meaningless.

galveston,
I fear that neither you or I or anyone here can convince cadillac59, his/her mind id made up and only the Holy Spirit can break through that if the Spirit so wants to or decides.
And so, let's all pray that The Holy Spirit does help open cadi's mind to the truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

galveston,
I fear that neither you or I or anyone here can convince cadillac59, his/her mind id made up and only the Holy Spirit can break through that if the Spirit so wants to or decides.
And so, let's all pray that The Holy Spirit does help open cadi's mind to the truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Galveston's fatuous remarks about fulfilled prophecies underscores the shallowness of the arguments advanced by theists. Rest assured that Christianity is not alone in claiming fulfilled prophecies-- astrology has the same claim but nobody takes it seriously.

By the way Fred, I am a male (and I'm gay incidentally, which I thought I mentioned once before). So the Christian world denies the legitimacy of my very existence. Nothing could be more personal than that. They/it rejected me so my choice it rejecting it was easy.

cadillac59,
Not all of Christians will reject you because you are gay.
I do not.
Most denominations that I am aware of reject the pracice of the gay lifestyle but not the person.
I have several friends who are gay, one who once was, and before I retired my supervisor was gay and he and I got along quite well for we liked each other as persons.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

cadillac59,
Not all of Christians will reject you because you are gay.
I do not.
Most denominations that I am aware of reject the pracice of the gay lifestyle but not the person.
I have several friends who are gay, one who once was, and before I retired my supervisor was gay and he and I got along quite well for we liked each other as persons.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

To say you reject the practice of the gay lifestyle is like saying you reject the practice of the heterosexual lifestyle. And I've never heard of the rejection in the church of the heterosexual lifestyle because to say that would mean the rejection of the bulk of the congregation. So it's nonsense to argue you love gay people but reject the very aspect of their being that defines them as gay.

Let's be honest. Christianity sees the world through rose colored glasses. That's the problem. It rejects reality in favor of a make-believe reality that fits its preconceived view of the world, one where dinosaurs lived alongside humans and baby dinosaurs or dinosaur eggs were brought onto the mythical Arc. Or, where gay people don't exist, only people with bad [gay] habits who need to mend their ways. Nonsense. It's time Christians and other theists overcame this childish way of thinking.

By the way Fred, I am a male (and I'm gay incidentally, which I thought I mentioned once before). So the Christian world denies the legitimacy of my very existence. Nothing could be more personal than that. They/it rejected me so my choice it rejecting it was easy.

The Christian world does not deny your existence, however the Scriptures are clear regarding homosexual acts, just as they are clear about hetrosexual acts which are immoral. The Christian biblical view is that God intended that man and woman should cohabit together in a relationship called marriage, any other form of sexual relationship is proscribed. What you are saying to us is that any acceptance of you is an acceptance of you to behave any way you want to. Sorry, but we cannot give that license to anyone. As a single Christian male I am not entitled to engage in sexual acts without recognising the proscribed nature of such acts and the need for repentance, why should you be exempt. No, the reality is you can have the same love and fellowship as I have within the boundries set by the Christian relationship with Christ.

The Christian world does not deny your existence, however the Scriptures are clear regarding homosexual acts, just as they are clear about hetrosexual acts which are immoral. The Christian biblical view is that God intended that man and woman should cohabit together in a relationship called marriage, any other form of sexual relationship is proscribed. What you are saying to us is that any acceptance of you is an acceptance of you to behave any way you want to. Sorry, but we cannot give that license to anyone. As a single Christian male I am not entitled to engage in sexual acts without recognising the proscribed nature of such acts and the need for repentance, why should you be exempt. No, the reality is you can have the same love and fellowship as I have within the boundries set by the Christian relationship with Christ.

Thanks, but I don't need your permission to live my life the way I want to. You may place whatever restrictions on your own life that you wish. Go right ahead. But keep me out of it. I will not tolerate other mammalian primates telling me how to live my life because of what their god supposedly told them. No.

Perhaps you can undestand my point by looking at it this way: Imagine a racist church that taught that those of African descent were second class citizens, second class human beings (it's not as far-fetched as you might think... some churches have taught this in the past) and, although such a church allowed blacks into their churches, what if they refused to ordain them as pastors, refused to allow them to take communion, made them sit in segregated seating in the church building, refused to allow them to marry and taught that they had to remain celibate their entire lives? Who would put up with such an institution? Who would sit still for that? No self-respecting person of African descent would for 5 seconds. This is exactly what is going in with gay people in the church. Our right to exist is denied for a condition we did not choose and cannot change and should not want to change (did it ever dawn on you that many gay men actually like being gay and are glad they are not straight?).

Thanks, but I don't need your permission to live my life the way I want to. You may place whatever restrictions on your own life that you wish. Go right ahead. But keep me out of it. I will not tolerate other mammalian primates telling me how to live my life because of what their god supposedly told them. No.

Perhaps you can undestand my point by looking at it this way: Imagine a racist church that taught that those of African descent were second class citizens, second class human beings (it's not as far-fetched as you might think...some churches have taught this in the past) and, although such a church allowed blacks into their churches, what if they refused to ordain them as pastors, refused to allow them to take communion, made them sit in segregated seating in the church building, refused to allow them to marry and taught that they had to remain celibate their entire lives? Who would put up with such an institution? Who would sit still for that? No self-respecting person of African descent would for 5 seconds. This is exactly what is going in with gay people in the church. Our right to exist is denied for a condition we did not choose and cannot change and should not want to change (did it ever dawn on you that many gay men actually like being gay and are glad they are not straight?).

I think your analogy is incorrect, racism is wrong and also proscribed in Christain Scripture. Paul tells us that in Christ there is no longer Jew or Gentile (dealing with race), male or female (dealing with gender) but he didn't tell us there was no longer sin (actions against the wishes of God). Just because there have been people who interpreted the Scriptures for their own purposes does not invalidate them, rather it is a consequence of giving access to the Scriptures to a select few and lording it over the people

I don't doubt gays may like what they do and so are unrepentant, so do hetrosexuals who perform licencious acts, it doesn't make them right. Restrictions are placed on you is when you seek Christian fellowship but also seek to continue your lifestyle. You must realise that what you are objecting to is that anyone should suggest that your alternative lifestyle is outside God's ordinances. You argument is with God not me, don't shoot the messenger, but realise that when God decided Adam needed a companion he did not provide a male companion because his purpose was that the planet should be populated. The relationship you speak of produces no offspring, it is self centred not God centred.

I think your analogy is incorrect, racism is wrong and also proscribed in Christain Scripture. Paul tells us that in Christ there is no longer Jew or Gentile (dealing with race), male or female (dealing with gender) but he didn't tell us there was no longer sin (actions against the wishes of God). Just because there have been people who interpreted the Scriptures for their own purposes does not invalidate them, rather it is a consequence of giving access to the Scriptures to a select few and lording it over the people

I don't doubt gays may like what they do and so are unrepentant, so do hetrosexuals who perform licencious acts, it doesn't make them right. Restrictions are placed on you is when you seek Christian fellowship but also seek to continue your lifestyle. You must realise that what you are objecting to is that anyone should suggest that your alternative lifestyle is outside God's ordinances. You argument is with God not me, don't shoot the messenger, but realise that when God decided Adam needed a companion he did not provide a male companion because his purpose was that the planet should be populated. The relationship you speak of produces no offspring, it is self centred not God centred.

My argument is with the god of your imagination and invention you mean. Of course I might be arguing with any number of other people's mythical god as well, but frankly I'm not too concerned about that, anymore than you would be if a Mormon told you his god was angry with you for not accepting Joseph Smith's teachings.

You're not seriously making that fatuous argument about the purpose of sex being baby-making are you? I'll keep it in mind to scold a childless heterosexual married couple for having sex without doing their duty of reproducing next chance I get.

What did you say, a relationship that produces no offspring is self-centered not god-centered? Ahem. Right. Tell it to post-menopausal women who still have the audacity to have sex or to men who have had vasectomies or use condoms. Self-centered all the way. Right?

And you wonder why thinking individuals don't take people like you seriously?

OK Fellas, let's get back to the subject of this thread; The Biocentric Universe.
Do you believe that life created it or that life could do so?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

OK Fellas, let's get back to the subject of this thread; The Biocentric Universe.
Do you believe that life created it or that life could do so?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred we know the answer is 42, that is the answer to life, the universe and all that, and should you require a translation I will be happy to give it to you.

Just to address some details, life as we know it, that is biological life could not have created the universe.

Fred we know the answer is 42, that is the answer to life, the universe and all that, and should you require a translation I will be happy to give it to you.

Just to address some details, life as we know it, that is biological life could not have created the universe.

Even if you say "god did it" that only gets you to deism (an impersonal god that does not intervene in human affairs), not that childish Adam and Eve fairytale that your god of the Middle East that promotes slavery, genocide and other barbarisms, invented my a group of ignorant homophobic and racist sheepherders who thought the earth was flat, is the right one. Give me a break.

paraclete,
The answer is 42?
Please explain that. Enlighten me.
Thanks,
Fred

paraclete,
The answer is 42?
Please explain that. Enlighten me.
Thanks,
Fred

The answer is 42--just about as rational as the answer to my questions about Christian homophobia.

cadillac59,
It seems that way but I'll wait to see paraclete's answer.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I'v noticed through the years that those who choose to follow a lifestyle that is condemned by the Bible always choose to attack the veracity of it, especially the supernatural aspects.

However, since the supernatural aspects are still with us today, that approach merely shows a closed mind and only proves the prejudices of that mind.

The OP asked (if I understand it properly) is, which came first?

To inject the issue of perverted sex is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

The answer is 42?
Please explain that. Enlighten me.
Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything#Answe r_to_Life.2C_the_Universe.2C_and_Everything_.2842. 29)
Consider yourself Enlightened.

I have a feeling that this isn't the Ultimate Question... just saying.


Anyway, did "life create life"? Well, to even begin down that road (yes, NK... one of 42 that a man must walk down :D) we would have to determine what constitutes "life". There are many definitions of the word "life". However, with such a question as this, you have to use the same definition for both instances of the word.

So what constitutes life? Is God alive.. The same way that we are alive.. The same way that a rock is alive.. The same way that space particles are alive..

I'v noticed through the years that those who choose to follow a lifestyle that is condemned by the Bible always choose to attack the veracity of it, especially the supernatural aspects.

However, since the supernatural aspects are still with us today, that approach merely shows a closed mind and only proves the prejudices of that mind.

The OP asked (if I understand it properly) is, which came first?

To inject the issue of perverted sex is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

As a Christian, your idea of "perverted sex" is a married couple having sex with no intention of baby-making or no ability to do so. Right? I just heard someone identifying as a Christian say that.

As a Christian, your idea of "perverted sex" is a married couple having sex with no intention of baby-making or no ability to do so. Right? I just heard someone identifying as a Christian say that.

Your argument is weak, to say the least.

The primary reason for hetro sex is for the purpose of reproduction. Obviously, if there was no pleasure in it, there would be no people on this planet. So, yes, there are is a secondary reason for sex.

If everyone shared your opinion, you wouldn't even be here. And there will be no one carrying on your personal family line, you are the end of the line. Personal extinction!

That is sort of like that hole in the water that remains after you take your finger out, ain't it?

Your argument is weak, to say the least.

The primary reason for hetro sex is for the purpose of reproduction. Obviously, if there was no pleasure in it, there would be no people on this planet. So, yes, there are is a secondary reason for sex.

If everyone shared your opinion, you wouldn't even be here. And there will be no one carrying on your personal family line, you are the end of the line. Personal extinction!

That is sorta like that hole in the water that remains after you take your finger out, ain't it?

Excuse me. It's not an opinion. It's a reality. There are and always have been gay people in the world. And there always will be. It's a normal and naturally occurring state of being in human beings (not to mention other species as well). Reproduction is something that not everyone chooses. That's got nothing to do with morality.

Incidentally, many gay people in the world do in fact have children and have reproduced. Does that make you feel better?

Sooooo... about that whole Biocentric Universe thing...

galveston,
I agree with you.
Fred

I read an article in the May issue of Discover magazine entitled The Biocentric Universe.
It was about, “A radical new view of reality: Life creates time, space, and the cosmos itself.”
First of all I don’t believe that is a new idea, for the God of life who created all life created everything else.
But In the article I found many statements which made little of some of the other theories such as the spring theory and those of many universes.
It also made use of quantum physics and quantum mechanics which has caused some scientist to believe that there is a supreme mind or being involved in the creation of the universe.
Being a believer in Intelligent Design I found much of the article to be very interesting. One such part mentioned the idea that the universe started out and came to be what it is today strictly by chance which mathematically is impossible.
Also mentioned were the several seemingly impossible things going on in the subatomic world like particles appearing out of nowhere and disappearing and the fact that observing a particle will cause it to react to being observed and that being in one place that will cause its twin to react in the same way even if miles apart.
Though the article did not deal with the idea of a supreme life bringing all we can see and witness into being I found that the article did that without mentioning it. That is typical of much of science not willing to give God credit for anything I thought.
Yes, I do believe that life created life and everything else, do you?
If so, why so? If not, why not?
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

Well, it is certainly circular logic if ever I have heard it! I am a science major with a Masters and a devout Christian. I have found that contrary to popular belief, most scientists are Christians! The problem seems to be that a lot of Christian sects cannot believe in science.

I would say to them that their God is to small! The Big Band theory fits perfectly with the Biblical account of the Creation of the Earth and Heaven. And do the really believe that an Eternal God operates on a 24-hour day. I purpose they rethink that supposition

A simple answer to "did life create life and everything else" Sure! The next logical question is "Where did the original life come from?" For me - that is a no brainer!

Mollie "I, for one, do not believe two molecules got together just to dance!"

I read an article in the May issue of Discover magazine entitled The Biocentric Universe.
It was about, “A radical new view of reality: Life creates time, space, and the cosmos itself.”
First of all I don’t believe that is a new idea, for the God of life who created all life created everything else.
But In the article I found many statements which made little of some of the other theories such as the spring theory and those of many universes.
It also made use of quantum physics and quantum mechanics which has caused some scientist to believe that there is a supreme mind or being involved in the creation of the universe.
Being a believer in Intelligent Design I found much of the article to be very interesting. One such part mentioned the idea that the universe started out and came to be what it is today strictly by chance which mathematically is impossible.
Also mentioned were the several seemingly impossible things going on in the subatomic world like particles appearing out of nowhere and disappearing and the fact that observing a particle will cause it to react to being observed and that being in one place that will cause its twin to react in the same way even if miles apart.
Though the article did not deal with the idea of a supreme life bringing all we can see and witness into being I found that the article did that without mentioning it. That is typical of much of science not willing to give God credit for anything I thought.
Yes, I do believe that life created life and everything else, do you?
If so, why so? If not, why not?
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

Well, it is certainly circuitous logic if ever I have heard it! I am a science major with a Masters and a devout Christian. I have found that contrary to popular belief, most scientists are Christians! The problem seems to be that a lot of Christian sects cannot believe in science.

I would say to them that their God is to small! The Big Bang theory fits perfectly with the Biblical account of the Creation of the Earth and Heaven. And do they really believe that an Eternal God operates on a 24-hour day. I purpose they rethink that supposition

A simple answer to "did life create life and everything else" Sure! The next logical question is "Where did the original life come from?" For me - that is a no brainer!

Mollie "I, for one, do not believe two molecules got together just to dance!"

MollieB327,
Thanks much for toy post on this.
I agree that life created life and everything else.
It was the author of life and existence that did the work.
I believe He designed it to become what we see today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

galveston,
I agree with you.
Fred

You agree with him about what? Just curious.

In reading some of the threads on this board I am convinced more than ever that religion, whatever form it takes, is dangerous to everyone and everything: your health, your mind, and the well-being of others. It's disgusting and appalling the things people believe and push on others.

Rom 1:18-22
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 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:
21 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.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
(KJV)

20 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:

Can you explain that one please? How are invisible things seen?

...religion, whatever form it takes, is dangerous to everyone and everything...

I couldn't agree more...

However, whether "they" are usually speaking the truth. The problem is that they (and often the listeners) don't really understand the true meaning of what they are saying...

MollieB327,
Thanks much for toy post on this.
I agree that life created life and everything else.
It was the author of life and existence that did the work.
I believe He designed it to become what we see today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

A few things here... not that I disagree with you, Fred, but for the purposes of a discussion like this, I don't see the value (especially in helping "non-believers" to become "believers") in summing it up as "yes, life created life."

And while we can argue how God defies all logic, no one will believe He does and still remain that saying "life created life" is simply not possible. The problem here, as I started before, is that this statements portrays that the word "life" means the same thing in both instances when, in fact, it cannot... and does not. The "life" possessed by God is not the same as "life" as we tend to perceive it today. That is why one would be left with questions like Mollie's: "Where did the original life come from?"

If we were to redefine "life" as it pertains to God (and us... but on a different level than we tend to assume), then we wouldn't be left with the redundancy of the original question.


Another thing is that, as poetic as it can be to those that understand it that way, I think a LOT of credibility is lost in helping others to understand or believe when we rely on clichés such as "It was the author of life and existence that did the work," and "I believe He designed it to become what we see today." Personally, I don't have mind them anymore... but as a lot of people are looking to faith for answers, they are painted a picture of this bearded guy in a robe floating around in the clouds, constructing the universe on his drafting table with a pencil and a ruler, zapping lightning bolts out of his finger, "speaking" to us daily, "watching" our every move, "listening" to our every thought...

I think the more we try to personify God, the less believable He becomes.

DrJ,
It seems that many people picture God differently. The painting you posted is but one of them when the fact is that God is mostly spirit with the exception of the incarnated word in the form of Jesus Christ which took place about 2000 years ago.
As far as forms of life are concerned I do believe that the life God first gave we humans was very much like His life. It is we who have changed it to be what life is today.
Over the centuries we have polluted it more and more.
That's the way I think about it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred