: 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; 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. 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????? Iwould appreciate anyone bold enough to accept this challenge. : Thank you.

I think I have a somewhat different view of our universe and its origins than most people, although it is one which does not agree with you're version of what we are, how we and our planet exist and the nature of what the universe is. First, I do not think that there is an end to it, which contradicts everything we can observe in every other aspect of nature. I would say that the closest thing to a God would be the universe itself. For it is unending and currently incomprehensable. It has always existed and always will, time has no meaning to it, and then it is also not even there is any material sense of the word. Space, not matter is what I am refering to, it does not exist and its non-existance goes on forever. Now matter is a different story. So seen from this angle, God is unintelligable because we cannot really comprehend nothingness and/or infinity. The most important aspect of this which concerns human beings is the intelligence and/or control factor. We do not wish to live in a chaotic universe, but if chaos is a universe whithout an overseeing intelligence, then this is what we have. The whole notion of control is protection and security, due to a loving creator who has ultimate intelligence. I am satisfied with my own belief system, and see just how lucky I am to exist as I do now, conversing with other intelligent life. What is bewhildering to me is how, if God does exist, it allows us to kill ourselves over differing interpretations of its personality or characteristics or what it wants from us. And to ignore the sincere calls from those such as myself for facts, so that I or others could show them to the people of the world, and meet it, thus preventing wars, starvation, hatred, even death! So, I am open to a meeting, and either I am using the wrong communication devices, or it does not exist in any of the ways humanity holds popular. I may have missed a point or two, so get back to me and we will discuss them. From one who believed, sought in faith, and found that it does not exist or respond.

• RE: Re: Reconciliation Between Religion And Science - Bill Kropp (billkropp@hotmail.com) - April 16, 2000 - 20:41 UTC