Bible verse by verse

[_LittleNipper]

This everyone who considers GOD must conclude: That at the very least GOD has the power to create anything He wishes in the blink of an eye. If one cannot move beyond this, he is placing a "god" in a box of his own imagination and setting artificial limitations on THE CREATOR GOD.
.......
To this Gunnar asked,
"Why did he feel a need to deliberately make it look like it took billions of years if he wanted us to believe that it only happened 6,000 years ago?"
''''
Nipper replied,

God didn't deliberately make things appear to be billions of years old. However, God may have presented the Universe and its vastness as a illustration of Himself for Adam. If someone wishes to formulate a "natural" reason for everything that exists to exist, then that individual is likely being unfair to God while lying to himself and fabricating his own pretentious theories.

Choosing one question at a time, If God didn't deliberately make things appear billions of years old then why is the illusion that the world is very old so complete? Why create all the different layers and portions of rock formation and rock removal to describe multiple ages of the earth when one flood and one set of rocks would do?

I can understand the idea of the vastness of the universe being a creation to reflect Gods glory. A great swath of time fits vast dimension and also would reflect Gods glory. Why run from the possiblity that God wants us to see something of himself therein? I see as of yet no reason to deny the real existence of vast time beyond an insistence that use of days in the Genesis account be read as 24 hr time periods instead of representations of a larger process. If the evidence of reality said young earth I have no trouble with Gods ability to do that. I think God has the right to choose what time frame would be appropriate to his revelation of his glory however.[/quot
I believe some of the layering has to do directly or indirectly as a result of the Deluge. We have at least one major asteroid strike. We have a meteorite bombardment. We have crust fracturing, multiple gigantic tidal waves, and worldwide volcanic eruptions. At the end of the Flood, we have several major inland dammed up lakes that spill out creating gorges and canyons.

Satan is still in place as the ruler of this world (as he must be until the end of this Age) and so he strives as the master of confusion. Part of this confusion involves making it difficult for man to trust the Word of God. He has done this through deception: biological, geological, philosophical, and even instigating the creation of "counterfeit so called "inspired scripture". Yes there were what we now call dinosaurs, but I feel that Satan has been allowed by God to place them during the Flood, etc., to seem as though they are much older than man --- when in fact they existed at the same time as man (given a day or two).

God allows Satan his due at this time, while building the faith of His chosen. People who choose not to believe in God have always existed. Atheism is nothing new, even before Darwinism. It just is an excuse of convenience today... However, life remains unexplainable. The Jews continue to be a thorn in the side of so called "World Peace". The historical influence of Christ Jesus simply cannot be ignored. And the changed lives of simple believers towards helping the helpless and standing in the way of total depravity cannot be swept under the bed of Atheistic Humanism.

[_LittleNipper]

Psalm 29:1-11 A song of David.

Acknowledge the Lord, beings of heaven, acknowledge the Lord’s impressiveness and strength!

Acknowledge the dignity of the Lord’s renown! Worship the Lord in modest clothing!

The Lord’s shout is heard above the roar of water; the superior God thunders,the Lord appears above the raging water.

The Lord’s exclamation is powerful, and majestic.

The Lord’s shout breaks down cedars, shattering the cedars of Lebanon.

He makes the cedars of Lebanon buck like a calf
and Mount Hermon move like a young ox.

The Lord’s shout strikes with flames.

The Lord’s shout shakes the wilderness of Qadesh.

The Lord’s shout bends large trees --- stripping the leaves from the forests.
Everyone in his temple says, “Majestic!”

The Lord sits enthroned over the sweeping waters,
the Lord sits enthroned the eternal king.

The Lord provides strength and grants his people security.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

1 A Psalm of David. Ascribe to Jehovah, ye sons of the mighty, Ascribe to Jehovah honour and strength.

2 Ascribe to Jehovah the honour of His name, Bow yourselves to Jehovah, In the beauty of holiness.

3 The voice of Jehovah [is] on the waters, The God of glory hath thundered, Jehovah [is] on many waters.

4 The voice of Jehovah [is] with power, The voice of Jehovah [is] with majesty,

5 The voice of Jehovah [is] shivering cedars, Yea, Jehovah shivers the cedars of Lebanon.

6 And He causeth them to skip as a calf, Lebanon and Sirion as a son of Reems,

7 The voice of Jehovah is hewing fiery flames,

8 The voice of Jehovah paineth a wilderness, Jehovah paineth the wilderness of Kadesh.

9 The voice of Jehovah paineth the oaks, And maketh bare the forests, And in His temple every one saith, `Glory.'

10 Jehovah on the deluge hath sat, And Jehovah sitteth king -- to the age,

11 Jehovah strength to his people giveth, Jehovah blesseth His people with peace!

[_ludwigm]

I was first thinking of phases of the moon but that that is only an approximate comparison. The actual lunar cycle, 29 and a fraction days is awkward to divide into simple parts.

I compared the moon and menstruation.
In the case of menstrual period there are only two simple part. See La dame aux Camélias (Marguerite Gautier) and/or La Traviata (Violetta Valéry). The courtisane wears a white camellia when she is available to her lover(s) and a red one when her delicate condition precludes making love...

I suspect you are correct about what was the deciding factor for seven day weeks. In any case people have been fiddling around with calendar methods since well before the Bible was written.

Certainly.

For keeping track of time the moon is nice and regular and easily visible, It does not quite fit days or years so some sort of compromise must be come up with.

It will be a little long, but it makes more sense than blabbering of our Beloved LittleNipper ...

You should not read it, but I recommend to do !
Sorry for the spelling errors, they are not my ones; the text comes from a scanned text.

I suppose there's no question but that the earliest unit
of time-telling was the day. It forces itself upon the aware-
ness of even the most primitive of humanoids. However,
the day is not convenient for long intervals of time. Even
allowing a primitive life-span of @ years, a man would
live some 11,000 days and it is very easy to lose track
among all those days.
Since the Sun governs the day-unit, it seems natural to
turn to the next most prominent heavenly body, the Moon,
for another unit. One offers itself at once, ready-made-
the period of the phases. The Moon waxes from nothing to
a full Moon and back to nothing in a definite period of
time. This period of time is called the "month" in English
(clearly from the word "mooif') or, more specifically, the
"lunar month," since we have other months, representing
periods of time slightly shorter or slightly longer than the
one that is strictly tied to the phases of the moon.
The lunar month is roughly equal to 291/2 days. More
exactly, it is equal to 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 2.8
seconds, or 29.5306 days.
...
In fact, there has been speculation that the extended
lifetimes of the patriarchs reported in the fifth chapter of
the Book of Genesis may have arisen out of a confusion
of years with lunar months. For instance, suppose Me-
thuselah had lived 969 lunar months. This would be just
about 79 years, a very reasonable figure. However, once
that got twisted to 969 years by later tradition, we gained
the "old as Methuselah" bit.
...
It is not surprising then, that the lunar month grew to
have enormous religious significance. There were new
Moon festivals and special priestly proclamations of each
one of them, so that the lunar month came to be called
the "synodic month."
The cycle of seasons is called the "year" and twelve
lunar months therefore make up a "lunar year." The use
of lunar years in measuring time is referred to as the use
of a "lunar calendar." The only important group of people
in modem times, using a strict lunar calendar, are the
Moh ammedans. Each of the Moharmnedan years is made
up of 12 months which are, in turn, usually made up of
29 and 30 days in alternation.
Such months average 29.5 days, but the length of the
true lunar month is, as I've pointed out, 29.5306 days.
The lunar year built up out of twelve 29.5-day months is
354 days long, whereas twelve lunar months are actually
354.37 days long.
You may say "So what?" but don't. A true lunar year
should always start on the day of the new Moon. If, how-
ever, you start one lunar year on the day of the new Moon
and then simply alternate 29-day and 30-day months, the
third year will start the day before the new Moon, and the
sixth year will start two days before the new Moon. To
properly religious people, this would be unthinkable.
Now it so happens that 30 true lunar years come out to
be almost exactly an even number of days-10,631.016.
Thirty years built up out of 29.5-day months come to
10,620 days-just 1 1 days short of keeping time with the
Moon' For that reason, the Mohammedans scatter 1 1 days
through the 30 years in some fixed pattern which prevents
any individual year from starting as much, as a full day
ahead or behind the new Moon. In each 30-year cycle
there are nineteen 354-day years and eleven 355-day
years, and the calendar remains even with the Moon.
An extra day, inserted in this way to keep the calendar
even with the movements of a heavenly body, is called an
"intercalary day"; a day inserted "between the calendar,"
so to speak.
The lunar year, whether it is 354 or 355 days in length,
does not, however, match the cycle of the seasons. By the
dawn of historic times the Babylonian astronomers had
noted that the Sun moved against the background of stars
(see Chapter 4). This passage was followed with absorp-
tion because it grew apparent that a complete circle of the
sky by the Sun matched the complete cycle of the seasons
closely. (This apparent influence of the stars on the sea-
sons probably started the Babylonian fad of astrology-
which is still with us today.)
The Sun makes its complete cycle about the zodiac in
roughly 365 days, so that the lunar year is'about II days
shorter than the season-cycle, or "solar year." Three lunar
years fall 33 days, or a little more than a full month be-
hind the season-cycle.
This is important. If you use a lunar calendar and start
it so that the first day of the year is planting time, then
three years later you are planting a month too soon, and
by the time a decade has passed you are planting in mid-
winter. After 33 years the first day of the year is back
where it is supposed to be, having traveled through the
entire solar year.
This is exactly what happens in the Mohammedan
year. The ninth month of the Mohammedan year is named
Ramadan, and it is especially holy because it was the
month in which Mohammed began to receive the revela-
tion of the Koran. In Ramadan, therefore, Moslems ab-
stain from food and water during the daylight hours.
But each year, Ramadan falls a bit earlier in the cycle of
the seasons, and at 33-year intervals it is to be found in
the hot season of the year; at this time abstaining from
drink is particularly wearing, and Moslem tempers grow
particularly short.
The Mohammedan years are numbered from the Hegira;
that is, from the date when Mohammed fled from Mecca
to Medina. That event took place in A.D. 622. Ordinarily,
you nught suppose, therefore, that to find the number of
the Mohammedan year, one need only subtract 622 from
the number of the Christian year. This is not quite so,
since the Mohammedan year is shorter than ours. I write
this chapter in A.D. 1964 and it is now 1342 solar years
since the Hegira. However, it is 1384 lunar years since the
Hegira, so that, as I write, the Moslem year is A.H. 1384.
I've calculated that the Mohammedan year will catch
up to the Christian year in about nineteen millennia. The
year A.D. 20,874 will also be A.H. 20,874, and the Moslems
will then be able to switch to our year with a minimum of
trouble.
But what can we do about the lunar year in order to
make it keep even with the seasons and the solar year? We
can't just add II days at the end, for then the next year
would not start with the new Moon and to the ancient
Babylonians, for instance, a new Moon start was essential.
However, if we start a solar year with the new Moon
and wait, we will find that the twentieth solar year there-
after starts once again on the day of the new Moon. You
see, 19 solar years contain just about 235 lunar months.
Concentrate on those 235 lunar months. That is equiva-
lent to 19 lunar years (made up of 12 lunar months each)
plus 7 lunar months left over. We could, then, if we
wanted to, let the lunar years progress as the Moham-
medans do, until 19 such years had passed. At this time
the calendar would be exactly 7 months behind the sea-
sons, and by adding 7 months to the 19th year (a 19th
year of 19 months-very neat) we could start a new 19-
year cycle, exactly even with both the Moon and the sea-
sons.
The Babylonians were unwilling, however, to let them-
selves fall 7 months behind the seasons. Instead, they
added that 7-month discrepancy through the 19-year cycle,
one month at a time and as nearly evenly as possible. Each
cycle had twelve 12-month years and seven 13-montb
years. The "intercalary month" was added in the 3rd, 6th,
8tb, I lth, 14th, 17th, and 19th year of each cycle, so that
the year was never more than about 20 days behind or
ahead of the Sun.
Such a calendar, based on the lunar months, but gim-
micked so as to keep up with the Sun, is a "lunar-solar
calendar."
The Babylonian lunar-solar calendar was popular in
ancient times since it adjusted the seasons while preserving
the sanctity of the Moon. The Hebrews and Greeks both
adopted this calendar and, in fact, it is still the basis for
the Jewish calendar today. The individual dates in the
Jewish calendar are allowed to fall slightly behind the Sun
until the intercalary month is added, when they suddenly
shoot slightly ahead of the Sun. That is why holidays like
Passover and Yom Kippur occur on different days of the
civil calendar (kept strictly even with the Sun) each year.
These holidays occur on the same day of the year each
year in the Jewish calendar.
The early Christians continued to use the Jewish calen-
dar for three centuries, and established the dayof Easter
on that basis. As the centuries passed, matters grew some-
what complicated, for the Romans (who were becoming
Christian in swelling numbers) were no longer used to a
lunar-solar calendar and were puzzled at the erratic jump-
ing about of Easter. Some formula had to be found by
which the correct date for Easter could be calculated in
advance, using the Roman calendar.
It was decided at the Council of Nicaea, in A.D. 325
(by which time Rome had become officially Christian),
that Easter was to fall on the Sunday after the first full
Moon after the vernal equinox, the date of the vernal
equinox being established as March 21. However, the full
Moon referred to is not the actual full Moon, but a fic-
titious one called the "Paschal Full Moon" ("Paschal"
being derived from Pesach, which is the Hebrew word for
Passover). The date of the Paschal Full Moon is calcu-
lated according to a formula involving Golden Numbers
and Dominical Letters, which I won't go into.
The result is that Easter still jumps about the days of
the civil year and can fall as early as March 22 and as
late as April 25. Many other church holidays are tied to
Easter and likewise move about from year to year.
Moreover, all Christians have not always agreed on the
exact formula by which the date of Easter was to be cal-
culated. Disagreement on this detail was one of the reasons
for the schism between the Catholic Church of the West
and the Orthodox Church of the East. In the early Middle
Ages there was a strong Celtic Church which had its own
formula.
Our own calendar is inherited from Egypt, where sea-
sons were unimportant. The one great event of the year
was the Nile flood, and this took place (on the average)
every 365 days. From a very early date, certainly as early
as 2781 B.C., the Moon was abandoned and a "solar calen-
dar," adapted to a constant-length 365-day year, was
adopted.
The solar calendar kept to the tradition of 12 months,
however. As the year was of constant length, the months
were of constant length, too-30 days each. This meant
that the new Moon could fall on any day of the month,
but the Egyptians didn't care. (A month not based on the
Moon is a "calendar month.")
Of course 12 months of 30 days each add up only to
360 days, so at the end of each 12-month cycle, 5 addi-
tional days were added and treated as holidays.
The solar year, however, is not exactly 365 days long.
There are several kinds of solar years, differing slightly in
length, but the one upon which the seasons depend is the
"tropical year," and this is about 3651/4 days long.
This means that each year, the Egyptian 365-day year
falls 1/4 day behind the Sun. As time went on the Nile
flood occurred later and later in the year, until finally it
had made a complete circuit of the year. In 1460 tropical
years, in other words, there would be 1461 Egyptian years.
This period of 1461 Egyptian yea'Relief Society was called the
"Sothic cycle," from Sothis, the Egyptian name for the
star Sirius. If, at the beginning of one Sothic cycle, Sirius
rose with the Sun on the first day of the Egyptian year, it
would rise later and later during each succeeding year
until finally, 1461 Egyptian years later, a new cycle would
begin as Sothis rose with the Sun on New Year's Day once
more.
The Greeks bad learned about that extra quarter day as
early as 380 B.C., when Eudoxus of Cnidus made the
discovery. In 239 B.c. Ptolemy Euergetes, the Macedonian
king of Egypt, tried to adjust the Egyptian calendar to
take that quarttr day into account, but the ultra-conserva-
tive Egyptians would have none of such a radical innova-
tion.
Meanwhile, the Roman Republic had a lunar-solar
calendar, one in which an intercalary month was added
every once in a while. The priestly officials in charge were
elected politicians, however, and were by no means as con-
scientious as those in the East. The Roman priests added
a month or not according to whether they wanted a long
year (when the other annually elected officials in power
were of their own party) or a short one (when they were
not). By 46 B.C., the Roman calendar was 80 days behind
the Sun.
Julius Caesar was in power then and decided to put an
end to this nonsense. He had just returned from Egypt
where he had observed the convenience and simplicity of
a solar year, and imported an Egyptian astronomer, Sosig-
enes, to help him. Together, they let 46 B.C. continue for
445 days so that it was later known as "The Year of Con-
fusion." However, this brought the calendar even with
the Sun so that 46 B.C. was the last year of confusion.
With 45 B.C. the Romans adopted a modified Egyptian
calendar in which the five extra days at the end of the year
were distributed throughout the year, giving us our months
of uneven length. Ideally, we should have seven 30-day
months and five 31-day months. Unfortunately, the Ro-
mans considered February an unlucky month and short-
ened it, so that we ended with a silly arrangement of seven
31-day months, four 30-day months, and one 28-day
month.
In order to take care of that extra 1/4 day, Caesar and
Sosigenes established every fourth year with a length of
366 days. (Under the numbering of the years of the Chris-
tian era, every year divisible by 4 has the intercalary day
-set as February 29. Since 1964 divided by 4 is 491,
without a remainder, there is a February 29 in 1964.)
This is the "Julian year," after Julius Caesar' At the
Council of Nicaea, the Christian Church adopted the
Julian calendar. Christmas was finally accepted as a
Church holiday after the Council of Nicaea, and given a
date in the Julian year. It does not, therefore, bounce
about from year to year as Easter does.
The 365-day year is just 52 weeks and I day long. This
means that if February 6, for instance, is on a Sunday in
one year, it is on a Monday the next year, on a Tuesday
the year after, and so on. If there were only 365-day years,
then any given date would move through the days of the
week in steady progression. If a 366-day year is involved,
however, that year is 52 weeks and 2 days long, and if
February 6 is on Tuesday that year, it is on Thursday the
year after. The day has leaped over Wednesday. It is for
that reason that the 366-day year is called "leap yearip
and February 29 is "leap day."
All would have been well if the tropical year were
really exactly 365.25 days long; but it isn't. The tropical
year is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 46 seconds, or
365.24220 days long. The Julian year is, on the average,
11 minutes 14 seconds, or 0.0078 days, too long.
This may not seem much, but it means that the Julian
year gains a full day on the tropical year in 128 years. As
the Julian year gains, the vernal equinox, falling behind,
comes earlier and earlier in the year. At the Council of
Nicaea in A.D. 325, the vernal equinox was on March 21.
By A.D. 453 it was on March 20, by A.D. 581 on March
19, and so on. By A.D. 1263, in the lifetime of Roger
Bacon, the Julian year had gained eight days on the Sun
and the vernal equinox was on March 13.
Still not fatal, but the Church looked forward to an
indefinite future and Easter was tied to a vernal equinox
at March 21. If this were allowed to go on, Easter would
come to be celebrated in midsummer, while Christmas
would ed e into the spring. In 1263, therefore, Roger
Bacon wrote a letter to Pope Urban IV explaining the
situation. The Church, however, took over three centuries
to consider the matter.
By 1582 the Julian calendar had gained two more days
and the vernal equinox was falling on March I 1. Pope
Gregory XIII finally took action. First, he dropped ten
days, changing October 5, 1582 to October 15, 1582. That
brought the calendar even with the Sun and the vernal
equinox in 1583 fell on March 21 as the Council of Nicaea
had decided it should.
The next step was to prevent the calendar from getting
out of step again. Since the Julian year gains a full day
every 128 years, it gains three full days in 384 years or,
to approximate slightly, three full days in four centuries.
That means that every 400 years, three leap years (accord-
ing to the Julian system) ought to be omitted..
Consider the century years-1500, 1600, 1700, and so
on. In the Julian year, all century years are divisible by
4 and are therefore leap years. Every 400 years there are
4 such century years, so why not keep 3 of them ordinary
years, and allow onl one of them (the one that is divisible
by 400) to be a leap year? This arrangement will match
the year more closely to the Sun and give us the "Gre-
'gorian calendar."
To summarize: Every 400 years, the Julian calendar
allows 100 leap years for a total of 146,100 days. In that
same 400 years, the Gregorian calendar allows only 97
leap years for a total of 146,097 days. Compare these
lengths with that of 400 tropical years, which comes to
146,096.88. Whereas, in that stretch of time, the Julian
year had gained 3.12 days on the Sun, the Gregorian year
had gained only 0.12 days.
Still, 0.12 days is nearly 3 hours, and this means that
in 3400 years the Gregorian calendar will have gained a
full day on the Sun. Around A.D. 5000 we will have to
consider dropping out one extra leap year.,
But the Church had waited a little too long to take
action. Had it done the job a century earlier, all western
Europe would have changed calendars without trouble.
By A.D. 1582, however, much of northern Europe bad
turned Protestant. These nations would far sooner remain
out of step with the Sun in accordance with the dictates of
the pagan Caesar, than consent to be corrected by the
Pope. Therefore they kept the Julian year.
The year 1600 introduced no crisis. It was a century
year but one that was divisible by 400. Therefore, it was
a leap year by both the Julian and Gregorian calendars.
But 1700 was a different matter. The Julian calendar had
it as a leap year and the Gregorian di 'd not. By March 1,
1700, the Julian calendar was going to be an additional
day ahead of the Sun (eleven days altogether). Denmark,
the Netherlands, and Protestant Germany gave in and
adopted the Gregorian calendar.
Great Britain and the American colonies held out until
1752 before giving in. Because of the additional day
gained in 1700, they had to drop eleven days and changed
September 2, 1752 to September 13, 1752. There were
riots all over England as a result, for many people came
quickly to the conclusion that they had suddenly been
made eleven days older by legislation.
"Give us back our eleven days!" they cried in despair.
(A more rational objection was the fact that although
the third quarter of 1752 was short eleven days, landlords
calmly charged a full quarter's rent.)
As a result of this, it turns out that Washington was not
born on "Washington's birthday." He was born on Febru-
ary 22, 1732 on the Gregorian calendar, to be sure, but
the date recorded in the family Bible had to be the Julian
date, February 11, 1732. When the changeover took place,
Washington-a remarkably sensible man changed the
date of his birthday and thus preserved the actual day.
The Eastern Orthodox nations of Europe were more
stubborn than the Protestant nations. The years 1800 and
1900 went by. Both were leap years by the Julian calendar,
but not by the Gregorian calendar. By 1900, then, the
Julian vernal equinox was on March 8 and the Julian
calendar was 13 days ahead of the Sun. It was not until
after World War I that the Soviet Union, for instance,
adopted the Gregorian calendar. (In doing so, the Soviets
made a slight modification of the leap year pattern which
made matters even more accurate. The Soviet calendar will
not gain a day on the Sun until fully 35,000 years pass.)
The Orthodox churches themselves, however, still cling
to the Julian year, which is why the Orthodox Christmas
falls on January 6 on our calendar. It is still December
25 by their calendar.

From Of Time and Space and Other Things by Isaac Asimov
See the original: https://7chan.org/lit/src/Isaac_Asimov- ... hings_.pdf for more!

[_Gaelan_Ainsworth]

Nothing is too much for God. Look at it this way: The Sistine Chapel ceiling took about 4 whole years for Michelangelo to paint ---- when it could've just as well have been simply whitewashed. God worked for a mere 6 days on the entire Universe and what is that to Him? And He provided for us a far more spectacular ceiling than ever could Michelangelo. Yet, still it seems that skeptics abound who dare point up at the work of an artist and say, "This is just a product of chance. Give an ape a pallet and a brush and he too could paint a comparable ceiling to that of Michelangelo."

Psalm 29:1-11 A song of David.

Acknowledge the Lord, beings of heaven, acknowledge the Lord’s impressiveness and strength!

Your analogy is an interesting approach on the Watchmaker analogy, but much like Paley's watch it falls down to many of the same flaws.

For a start an ape was given a palette and a brush, and did paint something comparable to the Sistine Chapel. Michaelangelo; when he painted the Sistine Chapel. Part of the Genus Homo. However I'm going to assume you mean an ape like that of an orangutan or a gorilla, in which, yes many of the great apes, being tool using, much like humanity, can, and do paint.

Art however is subjective, what appears beautiful to one might be a travesty to another, and art's worth is defined by comparison to other pieces of artwork. That is to say, you can internally decide that a crayon line-art by a young child is of sufficiently less complex, attractive, or valuable than that of the Mona Lisa, and from this you reason that da Vinci was a great artist, because of the ability to compare him to lesser artists. Indeed your analogy discussing apes to men channels this point well, a statement that the apes would produce a lesser work to Michaelangelo, thus Michaelangelo is a better artist.

This, consequently leads to a problem. If I accept the thesis that God created the universe, that doesn't prove the universe is in any way great or majestic. The universe isn't inherently impressive, impressiveness not being a defining factor of a universe. So, if I follow with this thought and consider the universe like that of a painting, certainly, it's more impressive than any universe I've made recently, so yes, we could agree that God has more universe creating prowess than I, but unlike art, where we have galleries full of the stuff, we have but one universe.

I would require a collection of universe specialists, akin to art specialists, a compendium of universes to analyse, much like that of an art gallery, and a deal of subjective reasoning, but without this, there is no way of knowing if our universe is but the crayon line-art of universes, or is a work of a great artist.

I digress however, onto the analogy being flawed. Much like Paley's watch, the premise relies on stating that we can see design in something made, and we can see complexity in something ascribed as being made.

To whit:
1) A watch (or in your case a painting) is something known to be made
2) A universe is something which some ascribe being made

How the argument follows is that watches, or in your case, paintings, we have thousands of, humans have been making them for a while, we can watch them being made, we can make them ourselves with sufficient time and training, and we can replicate the processes involved in making one. However what we have not seen is a watch coming together by pure chance, although, and I loathe to say it, technically possible with eternity. The reason I loathe to say it is because applying infinite to any problem instantly compounds the problem further.

A universe however, we have never witnessed being made. While we can make observations about the universe, and even speculate as to the origins, making universes is not something that has been done, to human knowledge, and we have only one universe to observe for that query. For Paley's watch to work as an analogy, we have to assume that universes are made, while we know watches are made, and while a universe is undoubtedly complex, complexity is but a sign of design. More conclusive evidence that the universe was designed, made, formed, framed or similar would be, much like many paintings, finding a signature, finding the artist proofs, the initial sketches, the false attempts, other examples of the artist's work (i.e. other universes) following a pattern and trend between characteristics like brush strokes, and of course, the best proof for a watch, painting, or universe being made is to observe one being made. We have watched many people of differing skills paint, but we have never watched a single universe be formed.

[Guest]

LittleNipper, the idea that God created the incredible vastness of the Universe mainly to impress mankind, one of his creations, with God's own greatness and majesty only compounds the silliness, the arrogance and the hubris. Besides that, that God apparently so desperately craves our worship and admiration strongly implies an obsessive, neurotic insecurity and narcissism on God's part. I can't believe that God would create us mainly because he wanted something or someone to worship and praise him and validate his existence, and created the vast universe mainly to inspire that awe and worship. It makes not the slightest bit of sense.

[_Gunnar]

From Of Time and Space and Other Things by Isaac Asimov
See the original: https://7chan.org/lit/src/Isaac_Asimov- ... hings_.pdf for more!

Ludwig, thanks for posting a link to that informative and interesting article by Isaac Asimov. It has been a long time since I last read it. He has long been my favorite author. Few, if any, meet the description of "polymath" as well or better than he did, and few equaled his ability to clearly explain complex concepts.

[_ludwigm]

From Of Time and Space and Other Things by Isaac Asimov
See the original: https://7chan.org/lit/src/Isaac_Asimov- ... hings_.pdf for more!

Ludwig, thanks for posting a link to that informative and interesting article by Isaac Asimov. It has been a long time since I last read it. He has long been my favorite author. Few, if any, meet the description of "polymath" as well or better than he did, and few equaled his ability to clearly explain complex concepts.

Kids, court jesters and squiffs always say the truth. (I am no more a kid; a little after 70, by the way). Court jester? Sometimes. Drunken? Take Your pick...

Today's court jesters are the scifi writers. They can say "it is not a projection, --- and all words are without political bias --- it is only a story".

by the way someway Your quoting killed the link; please use my original comment to follow it!

[_LittleNipper]

LittleNipper, the idea that God created the incredible vastness of the Universe mainly to impress mankind, one of his creations, with God's own greatness and majesty only compounds the silliness, the arrogance and the hubris. Besides that, that God apparently so desperately craves our worship and admiration strongly implies an obsessive, neurotic insecurity and narcissism on God's part. I can't believe that God would create us mainly because he wanted something or someone to worship and praise him and validate his existence, and created the vast universe mainly to inspire that awe and worship. It makes not the slightest bit of sense.

Please see: http://wonderofcreation.org/2009/10/30/ ... hrough-it/


God desperately craves to save those that are lost from eternal separation. Those that choose to not believe are allowed to do so and accept the consequences for their actions.

[_Gunnar]

LittleNipper, the idea that God created the incredible vastness of the Universe mainly to impress mankind, one of his creations, with God's own greatness and majesty only compounds the silliness, the arrogance and the hubris. Besides that, that God apparently so desperately craves our worship and admiration strongly implies an obsessive, neurotic insecurity and narcissism on God's part. I can't believe that God would create us mainly because he wanted something or someone to worship and praise him and validate his existence, and created the vast universe mainly to inspire that awe and worship. It makes not the slightest bit of sense.

Please see: http://wonderofcreation.org/2009/10/30/ ... hrough-it/


God desperately craves to save those that are lost from eternal separation. Those that choose to not believe are allowed to do so and accept the consequences for their actions.

Sorry, LittleNipper. There is no way that I am ever going to accept the idiotic premise that God would punish anyone for all eternity merely for having honest doubts about his existence, or even merely about which of the many mutually contradictory concepts of God is the right one.

[_huckelberry]

Gunnar, there is a possibility that God seeking to impress us with the beauty of creation is not just selfishly greasing his own need but instead is a desire to open our minds to a world beyond our selfish desire . If we look through that window we might see the beauty which is potential in our relationships with others.