These are two quotes from George MacDonald, a 19th century Christian writer and poet. If you ever come across one of his books please read it; he has inspired me more than any other person in the world.
(The Uses of Nature)
"What notion should we have of the unchanging and unchangeable, without the solidity of matter?...How should we imagine what we may of God without the firmament over our heads, a visible sphere, yet a formless infinitude? What idea could we have of God without the sky?"
(Nature)
"The truth of the flower is, not the facts about it, be they correct as ideal science itself, but the shining, glowing, gladdening, patient thing throne on its stalk--the compeller of smile and tear...The idea of God is the flower: His idea is not the botany of the flower. Its botany is but a thing of ways and means--of canvas and color and brush in relation to the picture in the painter's brain."
It's funny how we are so quick to rip nature apart looking for truth when the real truth has been staring us in the face the entire time. For how can we explain the beauty of nature and all that is pleasing to our senses? What are your thoughts on these two quotes? To all of the atheists: How do you see nature? Why are rivers and beaches and sunsets so beautiful?
Perhaps because they are harmless.
Why earthquakes, floods, etc. are not beautiful? Why tiger tearing apart your child is not beautiful?
It's not right to take all the objects that have the same property(in your case "beautiful") and make conclusions without looking at the opposite.
Why earthquakes, floods, etc. are not beautiful? Why tiger tearing apart your child is not beautiful?
It's not right to take all the objects that have the same property(in your case "beautiful") and make conclusions without looking at the opposite.
What conclusions am I making? Do you not think these things--rivers, trees, flowers--are pleasing to the eye? There are natural disasters in this world just as there are bad people; its a world with free will so it follows that it won't be perfect.
QUOTE (CharlieWeis11+Jan 17 2006, 11:20 PM)
What conclusions am I making? Do you not think these things--rivers, trees, flowers--are pleasing to the eye? There are natural disasters in this world just as there are bad people; its a world with free will so it follows that it won't be perfect.
I'm not talking about you. Generally, it's not good idea to make conclusions on preselected data. It seems the author of the quotations makes the conclusion that there is a God, because there is beauty.
But, you know, the beauty is in the eye of beholder.
I'm not talking about you. Generally, it's not good idea to make conclusions on preselected data. It seems the author of the quotations makes the conclusion that there is a God, because there is beauty.
But, you know, the beauty is in the eye of beholder.
Beholden One, (Upisoft)
The beauty and ruggedness of the Earth satisfies the eye of every beholder in one way or another. The storms, the earthquakes, the volcano's, etc. - are all part of nature - they can be harsh, and at the same time beautiful. But this is something we know. Even still, we choose to live in harm's way.
Our lives on this Earth are nothing more than a blink of the eye when compared to eternity. Dying is not the end of the world. We live to take care of the earth, each other, and to make the world a better place; in addition to our journey to God. A just and loving God made sure of that. Perhaps the job of keeping people out of harm's way is our job, and our challenge.
Wasn't it science that decided that cities could flourish below sea level (in New Orleans for example)? Was that a smart thing to do? Wouldn't it have been better to let the oceans go where they willed to go - and build further inland? Or, would it have been better to build better levees while they still had the chance? A challenge that requires wisdom. We make mistakes, people die. You wish that God would have left us in Paradise, but you fail to understand that you made the choice to leave.
Science knows that California will suffer a devastating earthquake someday. Why don't people move? Whose fault is this? Ours or God's? Ours.
Why do people build million dollar homes in California mud slide areas?
The beauty and ruggedness of the Earth satisfies the eye of every beholder in one way or another. The storms, the earthquakes, the volcano's, etc. - are all part of nature - they can be harsh, and at the same time beautiful. But this is something we know. Even still, we choose to live in harm's way.
Our lives on this Earth are nothing more than a blink of the eye when compared to eternity. Dying is not the end of the world. We live to take care of the earth, each other, and to make the world a better place; in addition to our journey to God. A just and loving God made sure of that. Perhaps the job of keeping people out of harm's way is our job, and our challenge.
Wasn't it science that decided that cities could flourish below sea level (in New Orleans for example)? Was that a smart thing to do? Wouldn't it have been better to let the oceans go where they willed to go - and build further inland? Or, would it have been better to build better levees while they still had the chance? A challenge that requires wisdom. We make mistakes, people die. You wish that God would have left us in Paradise, but you fail to understand that you made the choice to leave.
Science knows that California will suffer a devastating earthquake someday. Why don't people move? Whose fault is this? Ours or God's? Ours.
Why do people build million dollar homes in California mud slide areas?
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 06:57 AM)
Beholden One, (Upisoft)
The beauty and ruggedness of the Earth satisfies the eye of every beholder in one way or another. The storms, the earthquakes, the volcano's, etc. - are all part of nature - they can be harsh, and at the same time beautiful. But this is something we know. Even still, we choose to live in harm's way.
Our lives on this Earth are nothing more than a blink of the eye when compared to eternity. Dying is not the end of the world. We live to take care of the earth, each other, and to make the world a better place; in addition to our journey to God. A just and loving God made sure of that. Perhaps the job of keeping people out of harm's way is our job, and our challenge.
Wasn't it science that decided that cities could flourish below sea level (in New Orleans for example)? Was that a smart thing to do? Wouldn't it have been better to let the oceans go where they willed to go - and build further inland? Or, would it have been better to build better levees while they still had the chance? A challenge that requires wisdom. We make mistakes, people die. You wish that God would have left us in Paradise, but you fail to understand that you made the choice to leave.
Science knows that California will suffer a devastating earthquake someday. Why don't people move? Whose fault is this? Ours or God's? Ours.
Why do people build million dollar homes in California mud slide areas?
Mess,
It is historical/current socio-economics/greed/politics/over-population/ignorance etc that puts people in harm's way. As seismologists, volcanologists and meteorologists, environmentalists etc demonstrate, IT IS SCIENCE WHICH WARNS AGAINST and ATTEMPTS TO MINIMISE (where they can predict) such harm/damage.
And with the world population 6 (or is it 4?...I can't remember offhand) Billion and rising, where do you think people CAN live where they are still near the FERTILE LAND and other resources necessary for their livelihood and economic activities...and NOT near one or other of the numerous DANGER ZONEs?
As usual, you have everything 'religiously' wrong.
RC.
.
The beauty and ruggedness of the Earth satisfies the eye of every beholder in one way or another. The storms, the earthquakes, the volcano's, etc. - are all part of nature - they can be harsh, and at the same time beautiful. But this is something we know. Even still, we choose to live in harm's way.
Our lives on this Earth are nothing more than a blink of the eye when compared to eternity. Dying is not the end of the world. We live to take care of the earth, each other, and to make the world a better place; in addition to our journey to God. A just and loving God made sure of that. Perhaps the job of keeping people out of harm's way is our job, and our challenge.
Wasn't it science that decided that cities could flourish below sea level (in New Orleans for example)? Was that a smart thing to do? Wouldn't it have been better to let the oceans go where they willed to go - and build further inland? Or, would it have been better to build better levees while they still had the chance? A challenge that requires wisdom. We make mistakes, people die. You wish that God would have left us in Paradise, but you fail to understand that you made the choice to leave.
Science knows that California will suffer a devastating earthquake someday. Why don't people move? Whose fault is this? Ours or God's? Ours.
Why do people build million dollar homes in California mud slide areas?
Mess,
It is historical/current socio-economics/greed/politics/over-population/ignorance etc that puts people in harm's way. As seismologists, volcanologists and meteorologists, environmentalists etc demonstrate, IT IS SCIENCE WHICH WARNS AGAINST and ATTEMPTS TO MINIMISE (where they can predict) such harm/damage.
And with the world population 6 (or is it 4?...I can't remember offhand) Billion and rising, where do you think people CAN live where they are still near the FERTILE LAND and other resources necessary for their livelihood and economic activities...and NOT near one or other of the numerous DANGER ZONEs?
As usual, you have everything 'religiously' wrong.
RC.
.
QUOTE
And with the world population 6 (or is it 4?...I can't remember offhand) Billion and rising, where do you think people CAN live where they are still near the FERTILE LAND and other resources necessary for their livelihood and economic activities...and NOT near one or other of the numerous DANGER ZONEs?
Truck Driver,
6 billion.
There is plenty of unoccupied land still remaining. It's all a matter of whether people want to work together or not, or whether they'll continue to be greedy, etc. Like you said before, give them a fish, or teach them to fish.
Land can be transformed. It has been done in many areas throughout the world. Certain areas in Israel for one, and several places in Africa.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And with the world population 6 (or is it 4?...I can't remember offhand) Billion and rising, where do you think people CAN live where they are still near the FERTILE LAND and other resources necessary for their livelihood and economic activities...and NOT near one or other of the numerous DANGER ZONEs? |
Truck Driver,
6 billion.
There is plenty of unoccupied land still remaining. It's all a matter of whether people want to work together or not, or whether they'll continue to be greedy, etc. Like you said before, give them a fish, or teach them to fish.
Land can be transformed. It has been done in many areas throughout the world. Certain areas in Israel for one, and several places in Africa.
It is historical/current socio-economics/greed/politics/over-population/ignorance etc that puts people in harm's way.
People.
QUOTE
As seismologists, volcanologists and meteorologists, environmentalists etc demonstrate, IT IS SCIENCE WHICH WARNS AGAINST and ATTEMPTS TO MINIMISE (where they can predict) such harm/damage.
Yeah, riiight. And that's why they built levees and cities in places like New Orleans.
And again, it's people who choose to live in harms way.
God gives warnings too, and many don't listen to him either - so don't feel so bad.
As usual, you're still on all fours.
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 07:37 AM)
QUOTE
And with the world population 6 (or is it 4?...I can't remember offhand) Billion and rising, where do you think people CAN live where they are still near the FERTILE LAND and other resources necessary for their livelihood and economic activities...and NOT near one or other of the numerous DANGER ZONEs?
Truck Driver,
6 billion.
There is plenty of unoccupied land still remaining. It's all a matter of whether people want to work together or not, or whether they'll continue to be greedy, etc. Like you said before, give them a fish, or teach them to fish.
Land can be transformed. It has been done in many areas throughout the world. Certain areas in Israel for one, and several places in Africa.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And with the world population 6 (or is it 4?...I can't remember offhand) Billion and rising, where do you think people CAN live where they are still near the FERTILE LAND and other resources necessary for their livelihood and economic activities...and NOT near one or other of the numerous DANGER ZONEs? |
Truck Driver,
6 billion.
There is plenty of unoccupied land still remaining. It's all a matter of whether people want to work together or not, or whether they'll continue to be greedy, etc. Like you said before, give them a fish, or teach them to fish.
Land can be transformed. It has been done in many areas throughout the world. Certain areas in Israel for one, and several places in Africa.
It is historical/current socio-economics/greed/politics/over-population/ignorance etc that puts people in harm's way.
People.
QUOTE
As seismologists, volcanologists and meteorologists, environmentalists etc demonstrate, IT IS SCIENCE WHICH WARNS AGAINST and ATTEMPTS TO MINIMISE (where they can predict) such harm/damage.
Yeah, riiight. And that's why they built levees and cities in places like New Orleans.
And again, it's people who choose to live in harms way.
God gives warnings too, and many don't listen to him either - so don't feel so bad.
As usual, you're still on all fours.
Mess,
You have just confirmed/agreed that it is PEOPLE and TECHNOLOGY THEY USE that are involved in everything you allude to that results in danger for the people that avail themselves of that technology.
You obviously HAVE to lose that RELIGIOUS BIAS/HATRED against science and scientists if you are ever to come across as anything like a decent and honest debater here. You constantly mistake science and the scientific method with the USE that PEOPLE make of the KNOWLEDGE so gained.
AND MOREOVER, how do you reconcile the fact that CHIMPS AND OTHER ANIMALS FLEE when threatened by earthquakes and volcanic eruptions while your precious INTELLIGENT HUMANS do NOT; and in gfact choose out of ignorance, greed etc to stay in the danger zones? So much for your HUMANS being BETTER than animals...in every way, heh?
RC.
.
QUOTE
You have just confirmed/agreed that it is PEOPLE and TECHNOLOGY THEY USE that are involved in everything you allude to that results in danger for the people that avail themselves of that technology.
Yes, a sin. Selfish and covetous behavior - something God says is a bad thing for a human to do - because of the consequences.
NOT BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO PUNISH YOU - BUT BECAUSE YOUR ACTIONS CAUSE CONSEQUENCES!
We're stubborn and don't listen.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You have just confirmed/agreed that it is PEOPLE and TECHNOLOGY THEY USE that are involved in everything you allude to that results in danger for the people that avail themselves of that technology. |
Yes, a sin. Selfish and covetous behavior - something God says is a bad thing for a human to do - because of the consequences.
NOT BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO PUNISH YOU - BUT BECAUSE YOUR ACTIONS CAUSE CONSEQUENCES!
We're stubborn and don't listen.
You obviously HAVE to lose that RELIGIOUS BIAS/HATRED against science and scientists if you are ever to come across as anything like a decent and honest debater here. You constantly mistake science and the scientific method with the USE that PEOPLE make of the KNOWLEDGE so gained.
I only have a problem with evolution. Not science. But if you're going to tout science as the be all, end all - then I'm going to disagree with that - because humans are behind science - just like humans use science.
QUOTE
AND MOREOVER, how do you reconcile the fact that CHIMPS AND OTHER ANIMALS FLEE when threatened by earthquakes and volcanic eruptions while your precious INTELLIGENT HUMANS do NOT; and in gfact choose out of ignorance, greed etc to stay in the danger zones? So much for your HUMANS being BETTER than animals...in every way, heh?
What happens to a blind person's hearing and other senses?
What about the idea that God gives his creatures ALL THE NECESSARY INSTINCTS to protect themselves?
Ever thought about using animals for the purposes of assisting humans in these areas? Ever think that animals are useful for something besides eating and hunting?
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 08:27 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
You have just confirmed/agreed that it is PEOPLE and TECHNOLOGY THEY USE that are involved in everything you allude to that results in danger for the people that avail themselves of that technology.
Yes, a sin. Selfish and covetous behavior - something God says is a bad thing for a human to do - because of the consequences.
NOT BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO PUNISH YOU - BUT BECAUSE YOUR ACTIONS CAUSE CONSEQUENCES!
We're stubborn and don't listen.
Intelligent and reasoning animals (including people) don't need 'god' to tell them they will get burned if they disrespect and ignore the dangers of flames/fires after they have once seen/experienced the consequences. That's why even the lowliest animal can be 'trained' (including you if you will only try, hehehe).
Yes, a sin. Selfish and covetous behavior - something God says is a bad thing for a human to do - because of the consequences.
NOT BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO PUNISH YOU - BUT BECAUSE YOUR ACTIONS CAUSE CONSEQUENCES!
We're stubborn and don't listen.
Intelligent and reasoning animals (including people) don't need 'god' to tell them they will get burned if they disrespect and ignore the dangers of flames/fires after they have once seen/experienced the consequences. That's why even the lowliest animal can be 'trained' (including you if you will only try, hehehe).
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 08:27 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
You obviously HAVE to lose that RELIGIOUS BIAS/HATRED against science and scientists if you are ever to come across as anything like a decent and honest debater here. You constantly mistake science and the scientific method with the USE that PEOPLE make of the KNOWLEDGE so gained.
I only have a problem with evolution. Not science. But if you're going to tout science as the be all, end all - then I'm going to disagree with that - because humans are behind science - just like humans use science.
But Mess, don't you see the corollary to your statement about humans being "behind science/using science"? humans are ALSO "behind religion/using religion"....BOTH things are good or bad only in APPLICATION and NOT IN THEMSELVES! They are BOTH HUMAN CONSTRUCTS...the one 'subjective', the other 'objective'. Which human-backed/used system of comprehension of reality would be the least dangerous and most efficacious in the long term and in ALL SOCIETIES irrespective of their cultures/superstitions?
I only have a problem with evolution. Not science. But if you're going to tout science as the be all, end all - then I'm going to disagree with that - because humans are behind science - just like humans use science.
But Mess, don't you see the corollary to your statement about humans being "behind science/using science"? humans are ALSO "behind religion/using religion"....BOTH things are good or bad only in APPLICATION and NOT IN THEMSELVES! They are BOTH HUMAN CONSTRUCTS...the one 'subjective', the other 'objective'. Which human-backed/used system of comprehension of reality would be the least dangerous and most efficacious in the long term and in ALL SOCIETIES irrespective of their cultures/superstitions?
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 08:27 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
AND MOREOVER, how do you reconcile the fact that CHIMPS AND OTHER ANIMALS FLEE when threatened by earthquakes and volcanic eruptions while your precious INTELLIGENT HUMANS do NOT; and in fact choose out of ignorance, greed etc to stay in the danger zones? So much for your HUMANS being BETTER than animals...in every way, heh?
What happens to a blind person's hearing and other senses?
What about the idea that God gives his creatures ALL THE NECESSARY INSTINCTS to protect themselves?
Ever thought about using animals for the purposes of assisting humans in these areas? Ever think that animals are useful for something besides eating and hunting?
All the necessary instincts? I thought you said we were NOT ANIMALS. I thought you said we were DIFFERENT from animals because THEY work on instinct while WE work with 'god given' intelligence? You can't have it all ways, Mess. Be consistent; or you will never get out of that 'religious maze' you find yourself in. And animals have been 'used' since time immemorial in most areas of human activity. The most recent examples being, 'seeing-eye' and 'hearing assist' dogs'; 'canary-in-the-mine' as noxious gas warning system; and SCIENTISTS and INTELLIGENT LOCALS often use the fact that 'animals/birds' fall silent/depart to conclude that danger is imminent from earthquakes/eruptions/storms/floods etc etc. etc etc.
RealityCheck.
.
What happens to a blind person's hearing and other senses?
What about the idea that God gives his creatures ALL THE NECESSARY INSTINCTS to protect themselves?
Ever thought about using animals for the purposes of assisting humans in these areas? Ever think that animals are useful for something besides eating and hunting?
All the necessary instincts? I thought you said we were NOT ANIMALS. I thought you said we were DIFFERENT from animals because THEY work on instinct while WE work with 'god given' intelligence? You can't have it all ways, Mess. Be consistent; or you will never get out of that 'religious maze' you find yourself in. And animals have been 'used' since time immemorial in most areas of human activity. The most recent examples being, 'seeing-eye' and 'hearing assist' dogs'; 'canary-in-the-mine' as noxious gas warning system; and SCIENTISTS and INTELLIGENT LOCALS often use the fact that 'animals/birds' fall silent/depart to conclude that danger is imminent from earthquakes/eruptions/storms/floods etc etc. etc etc.
RealityCheck.
.
Messenger,
Do you think there is an absolutely safe place on Earth?
Do you think there is an absolutely safe place on Earth?
Our lives on this Earth are nothing more than a blink of the eye when compared to eternity.
You can't compare anything to eternity, because it doesn't matter what you compare. 60 years are less than eternity in the same way as 10^1000 years are less than eternity.
And who said that? Dying is only one's end. The world will hardly notice it.
And who said that? Dying is only one's end. The world will hardly notice it.
Wasn't it science that decided that cities could flourish below sea level (in New Orleans for example)?
Last time I've checked the science had no power to take responsible decisions. The people, often called leaders, do it. If you were right, then Bush must be one of the best scientist.
QUOTE
The beauty and ruggedness of the Earth satisfies the eye of every beholder in one way or another. The storms, the earthquakes, the volcano's, etc. - are all part of nature - they can be harsh, and at the same time beautiful. But this is something we know. Even still, we choose to live in harm's way.
Do you think there is an absolutely safe place on Earth?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The beauty and ruggedness of the Earth satisfies the eye of every beholder in one way or another. The storms, the earthquakes, the volcano's, etc. - are all part of nature - they can be harsh, and at the same time beautiful. But this is something we know. Even still, we choose to live in harm's way. |
Do you think there is an absolutely safe place on Earth?
Our lives on this Earth are nothing more than a blink of the eye when compared to eternity.
You can't compare anything to eternity, because it doesn't matter what you compare. 60 years are less than eternity in the same way as 10^1000 years are less than eternity.
QUOTE
Dying is not the end of the world.
And who said that? Dying is only one's end. The world will hardly notice it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Dying is not the end of the world. |
And who said that? Dying is only one's end. The world will hardly notice it.
Wasn't it science that decided that cities could flourish below sea level (in New Orleans for example)?
Last time I've checked the science had no power to take responsible decisions. The people, often called leaders, do it. If you were right, then Bush must be one of the best scientist.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.