One of the remarkable features of the universe is that above a certain scale (about 1024 metres) it is highly uniform in structure. This degree of uniformity is an embarrassment to cosmologists.
According to relativity theory, there should be no causal connection between points separated by distances greater than c multiplied by t (where c is the velocity of light and t is the age of the universe). Extrapolating this back to the Big Bang suggests that the primordial universe was partitioned into about 1080 causally separate regions.
Nevertheless, all these disconnected regions had to expand at the same rate to maintain the observed degree of uniformity! Coincidence or co-operation?
Small wonder that Paul Davies (I hope the atheists know him) comments:“It is hard to resist the impression of something - some influence capable of transcending spacetime and the confinement of relativistic causality - possessing an overview of the entire cosmos at the instant of its creation, and manipulating all the causally disconnected parts to go bang with almost exactly the same vigour at the same time, and yet not so exactly co-ordinated as to preclude the small scale, slight irregularities that eventually formed the galaxies, and us.”
Showing posts with label omnipresent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label omnipresent. Show all posts
Friday, July 10, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
ARE ZEUS AND THOR FORGOTTEN GODS
I read somewhere the Atheists argument that if God was so omnipresent and forever how come no one worships Thor and Zeus, the Gods who were so powerful just a few centuries ago.
What Atheists forget is that the names of Gods like Zeus, Thor and others are just a way of making Gods look human.
Why? You will ask, of course. Why try to humanize God?
I tried to analyze it and my personal explanation is that the attempt to humanize God was made to make people aware of the various attributes and powers of God.
It is clear that appearances are important and even atheist are ready to convert if they can see God. If the educated class (that is what Atheist try to project themselves as) also believe only in the existence of objects that can be seen how can they not understand the needs of the less privileged.
Our ancestors understood this very well that it is easier to explain to people with form. The recognizable attributes were given form to make people connect directly with God.
Slowly, people forgot the purpose of the creation of form for Gods and started worshiping the idols. It is convenient for certain sections that people get attached to idols and forget that God is formless, omnipresent and most powerful.
Religion which starts as a way of life becomes a slave of rituals and diminishes the sanctity of the thought of God.
When people realize that the forms are not needed to worship the forms loose their importance . Zeus and Thor are forms which outlived their utility as people understood that the attributes that Thor and Zeus represent are actually part of the same God everyone wants to be close to.
Zeus and Thor and several other forms just represent the attributes of God who is formless, omnipresent and all powerful.
Manoj
What Atheists forget is that the names of Gods like Zeus, Thor and others are just a way of making Gods look human.
Why? You will ask, of course. Why try to humanize God?
I tried to analyze it and my personal explanation is that the attempt to humanize God was made to make people aware of the various attributes and powers of God.
It is clear that appearances are important and even atheist are ready to convert if they can see God. If the educated class (that is what Atheist try to project themselves as) also believe only in the existence of objects that can be seen how can they not understand the needs of the less privileged.
Our ancestors understood this very well that it is easier to explain to people with form. The recognizable attributes were given form to make people connect directly with God.
Slowly, people forgot the purpose of the creation of form for Gods and started worshiping the idols. It is convenient for certain sections that people get attached to idols and forget that God is formless, omnipresent and most powerful.
Religion which starts as a way of life becomes a slave of rituals and diminishes the sanctity of the thought of God.
When people realize that the forms are not needed to worship the forms loose their importance . Zeus and Thor are forms which outlived their utility as people understood that the attributes that Thor and Zeus represent are actually part of the same God everyone wants to be close to.
Zeus and Thor and several other forms just represent the attributes of God who is formless, omnipresent and all powerful.
Manoj
Friday, July 3, 2009
WHY IS IT DIFFICULT TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Most debates on the existence of the Almighty are based on the inability of theists to provide proof of the existence.
This I agree is difficult. Most of our beliefs are either based on what is always being considered as the acceptable truth or on personal experiences which point out to the existence.
Personal experiences are unique and although a small incident like getting cured of cancer when all hope is lost or unexpectedly meeting someone who helps you through a crisis may be a big event for you, for the non believer, it is just fluke/ chance or coincidence.
There are many events in everyday life which are difficult to explain through science. How events tie up to bring success where it is least expected and how worship alone makes things happen are easy to be pooh poohed and treated as a matter of probability but that may be for someone not involved. For the person involved it is God even when he does not appear in front of us.
If God did not exist why do atheist try so hard to prove it. It should be acceptable to all if there was proof.
Produce it my dear friends or let us live with our faith and belief.
This I agree is difficult. Most of our beliefs are either based on what is always being considered as the acceptable truth or on personal experiences which point out to the existence.
Personal experiences are unique and although a small incident like getting cured of cancer when all hope is lost or unexpectedly meeting someone who helps you through a crisis may be a big event for you, for the non believer, it is just fluke/ chance or coincidence.
There are many events in everyday life which are difficult to explain through science. How events tie up to bring success where it is least expected and how worship alone makes things happen are easy to be pooh poohed and treated as a matter of probability but that may be for someone not involved. For the person involved it is God even when he does not appear in front of us.
If God did not exist why do atheist try so hard to prove it. It should be acceptable to all if there was proof.
Produce it my dear friends or let us live with our faith and belief.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Debate as the Test of Faith
“A debate would bring out the question of proof of God hence the taboo on discussing religious beliefs, that continues to be reinforced by all major and minor religions of the world.”
My friend Mohit writes in http://serialbus.wordpress.com ruing that Adi Shankaracharya lives no more and that there is no one to debate on the question “Does God really exist?”
Now because most ideas today are influenced by western thoughts and discussions, I would be considered out dated if I tell that in India the debate on the existence of God has been eternal. People in India continue to debate the existence of God in the same way as Quantum Physicist debate the cause of the Big Bang in the west.
But debates over God are not unique to India and Adi Shankaracharya.
William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, qualified American academicians, debated on this issue as late as March 22, 1996 on the campus of Southern Methodist University.
It would be a personal judgment as to who won the debate but one thing that comes out clear is that if you do not accept that God is the cause of the Big Bang you do not have any other answer.
Just because God is not a formula does not by any means signify that he does not exist.
After all as science has all the answers let them come out with the mathematical formula that says “God does not exist”. Till then I would let common knowledge prevail.
My friend Mohit writes in http://serialbus.wordpress.com ruing that Adi Shankaracharya lives no more and that there is no one to debate on the question “Does God really exist?”
Now because most ideas today are influenced by western thoughts and discussions, I would be considered out dated if I tell that in India the debate on the existence of God has been eternal. People in India continue to debate the existence of God in the same way as Quantum Physicist debate the cause of the Big Bang in the west.
But debates over God are not unique to India and Adi Shankaracharya.
William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, qualified American academicians, debated on this issue as late as March 22, 1996 on the campus of Southern Methodist University.
It would be a personal judgment as to who won the debate but one thing that comes out clear is that if you do not accept that God is the cause of the Big Bang you do not have any other answer.
Just because God is not a formula does not by any means signify that he does not exist.
After all as science has all the answers let them come out with the mathematical formula that says “God does not exist”. Till then I would let common knowledge prevail.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
DOES GOD ACTUALLY EXIST
Many people question the existence of God, forgetting conveniently that they question their own existence with their doubts.
They ask whether one has seen God and if not then how can one believe in his existence they say.
There are others who are great believers but say that they are yet to see God. These people also forget that when they say that have not seen God they question their own existence.
God is present in every human being. He is omnipresent, he is form and he is formless.
Questioning the presence of God is like questioning the presence of feelings, the joy of triumph, the sorrow on the departure of a loved one, the love for your child, the empathy for a fellow being. This is God. Being Human and feeling Human is part of God.
Man can say he has not seen God only if he can confirm that he has not seen his feelings and if he says he has seen his feelings then he can never dispute the existence of God.
Next time a person asks you if you have seen God ask him in return if he has seen joy, sadness, love and empathy. If his answer is yes then your answer is not required.
They ask whether one has seen God and if not then how can one believe in his existence they say.
There are others who are great believers but say that they are yet to see God. These people also forget that when they say that have not seen God they question their own existence.
God is present in every human being. He is omnipresent, he is form and he is formless.
Questioning the presence of God is like questioning the presence of feelings, the joy of triumph, the sorrow on the departure of a loved one, the love for your child, the empathy for a fellow being. This is God. Being Human and feeling Human is part of God.
Man can say he has not seen God only if he can confirm that he has not seen his feelings and if he says he has seen his feelings then he can never dispute the existence of God.
Next time a person asks you if you have seen God ask him in return if he has seen joy, sadness, love and empathy. If his answer is yes then your answer is not required.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
