: : Astronomy, if probed into delicately, would only mesmerise mankind and leave him bewildered. Pondering upon the endless stream of questions that recent astronomical findings pose, mankind refuses to admit his immediate shortcoming; : True, there are many questions out there to be answered. But withing those answers are knowledge, and eventually, wisdom, about the place of human beings in the universe (be it special or commonplace). To disqualify science because of the number of questions involved is to say "it's not worth trying", and trying to answer the impossible has always been the human endeavor.

: : that human intelligence has its preset limitations. Nobody has ever witnessed the Big Bang, thus it remains a theory and will do so forever. Although it has been widely accepted among astronomers, some see its failure to account for other phenomenas which take place in the heavens and propose an improvised version of it, the Inflationary Theory. This bears outstanding testimony to the limitations of the "intelligent" human mind. We would never know when another astronomer would propose a new improvised version of the Inflationary Theory itself. : Although I don't understand exactly what you are getting at, let me see if I see what your saying. I think you are trying to bring up the delimma of the Theory of Everything, which is currently being sought out as a unification of scientific laws. In Theory, the TOE would be able to predict its own discovery, but this is only in theory. Such a calculation is beyond the computational and energy power capabilities known to man. So yes, the humans are limited in that physical sense. Secondly, the very Inflationary model you propose is one of the main reasons why science today is beginning to discount God, and even the big bang. When coming up with a model for the Universe, we noticed that the universe had to "inflate" instead of just expand at a constant rate. To do this, we had to introduce a inflation constant that had an imaginary time component (just math here). This would suggest that the universe has a real time and imaginary time, and that a "big bang" in real time would actually be smooth and : constant in imaginary time. The net result is the idea of a "no boundary" universe, in which there may be 11 different dimensia. So it begs the question, "was there ever really a Creator?" If there was, he didn't need to be quite particular (although somewhat) about the initial conditions, and he hasn't ever noticeably interfered with the laws that he set up since then. (ugh, too long a paragraph)

: :The question then is "Why?" would the human mind despite its undisputed intelligence suffer any form of limitations? Simply because there is undoubtedly a Supreme Being, the "Creator" of this human intelligence who has that unquestionned "Supemacy" over mankind or any of His creations. Fellow brothers in humanity and readers of astronomy, would you like to believe that 1400 years ago, when any form of astronomical instrument if ever existed would have been primitive and incapable of deep-sky probing, and when there were no computers to churn out chunks of mathematical calculations and solve complex equations, a book well-preserved in the minds of about 1000 people at that time TELLS US THAT THE UNIVERSE ORIGINATED FROM THE BIG BANG!!!!!AND ALL PLANETS INCUDING THE SUN HAVE THEIR OWN ORBITS!!! My question then is IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY THAT THE AUTHOR OF THAT BOOK IS A HUMAN EVEN WITH THE PRESENT INTELLIGENCE AND COMPLICATED EQUIPMENTS????? : The human mind has always had limitations, and always will, forever confined to a three dimensional space and one dimension time. And to exist we cannot "experience" those other dimensia (thus, it will always remain a theory). But that does not stop us from understanding those other places, at least mathmatically (and hopefully physically soon). I would propose that those limitations of the human intelligence is only bounded by those conditions (without bringing up smaller physical limitations). There is no "simply" and "unquestioned" part about God, and his "limitations" on us. I think that is a failure on your part to see how far science has taken us in so short an amount of time, and it will take us to places unimagined yet. : Many historical texts have made blind guesses at physical phonomena and guessed "right" under the "right" interpretation. But for each interpretation, there are hundreds of others that could be made, we only accept the one that is close to what we know. Why is that? Why can't we just let go of meaningless interpretations of a ancient text that has been proven wrong many times, and it's standards are not NEARLY upheld like it says they should. Why can't we just go for broke and trust our beliefs to fact and our morality to humanity?

: :Iwould appreciate anyone bold enough to accept this challenge. : : Thank you. : Your welcome. Try not to be so sure about something that you may not have questioned enough to qualify your remarks.

• Pls read this for clarification - Fajari/">Fajari - July 24, 1998 - 03:45 UTC
  • Re: Pls read this for clarification - Nick_Mostek/">Nick Mostek - July 24, 1998 - 15:54 UTC
  • Hi Nick! - Elmo - July 24, 1998 - 15:55 UTC
    • Re: Hi Elmo ! - E.T. - July 27, 1998 - 10:41 UTC
      • RE: Re: Hi Elmo ! - Rachel - June 9, 2000 - 05:46 UTC