Everybody is wrong because everybody is right

[Iranaryluch]

People like to argue that god is real or not, but how about if you're just all right...and subsequently all wrong.

Can you fathom eternity? You can attach words to try and explain, but you will always come up short because your words will end and the concept does not. You could use your entire life to think upon eternity along with the rest of the world's population and the collective wouldn't be a notable fraction of the whole. Even the whole is not the whole in essence because a whole unit is a finite measurement, but I digress...

Based on the structure of the universe, which is in essence a bunch of smaller things floating around a bunch of larger things all collectively making a large things, from the galaxies even down to the composition of molecules you can start to see a pattern of design. The edges of galaxies, always touching(for lack of having a definable nothing between them) could even be seen as what we might call bonds in our cellular and molecular compositions. Even breaking bonds does not break this rule as, with the galaxy idea the molecule torn away that breaks the bond could just be a planet stolen by a neighboring galaxy or otherwise when bits of rubble are launched out of a system.

Keeping the above in mind...

God is often called "the eternal", and people are said to be created in God's image. Both of these statements can be deemed true with the above information. The eternal being all that is beyond and existing as our understanding from the largest to smallest bodies we will identify and the image simply being those little things floating around bigger things and so on. It's a rather unbecoming image for the vanity of people, but it fits both arguments soundly. Now I have made God, the eternal, some group of floating things. In essence you are yourself also God, creating and unconsciously designing, potentially, countless universes and beings within yourself.

Intelligent design? No, maybe yes if you consider yourself intelligent and want to go with intelligent design more vaguely. A myth and figment of your imagination? Not really, but also yes. Also, by the same path, thoughts, nerves firing and all that fun stuff is still subject to the 'idea' of God being a bunch of smaller things as part of larger things. Though it's been much harder to prove, the research has already been done to show that even electrons are subject to being even smaller bits of things, which goes right back to the larger things from smaller things bit.

By this end, people were created in God's image, God is still the eternal, God is still part of your imagination and the only questionable point comes in what you want to call intelligent design.

[Leonardo]

The analogising of the universe to a living organism, with galaxies analogous to 'cells', is a bit dated and not very accurate. Where is the organism's immune system? It's nervous system? It's circulatory system?

Where are all the specialised 'cells'? What are the 'stem cells'?

When I consider the universe I see no more 'design' than I see when looking at an inanimate crystal, and I certainly see no possible comparison to a living organism.

I respect what you believe and your right to believe it, but whole-heartedly disagree with that belief. And since "everyone is wrong, because everyone is right" does that make me right and you wrong?

[Emma_Acid]

Based on the structure of the universe, which is in essence a bunch of smaller things floating around a bunch of larger things all collectively making a large things, from the galaxies even down to the composition of molecules you can start to see a pattern of design

Firstly, your assessment of the structure of the universe is dreadful.

Secondly, nothing in nature looks like it's been designed. Nothing in the natural world, in biology, in physics, in cosmology. It would take an extreme amount of willful ignorance to think the universe is designed.

[ellapenella]

People like to argue that god is real or not, but how about if you're just all right...and subsequently all wrong.

Can you fathom eternity? You can attach words to try and explain, but you will always come up short because your words will end and the concept does not. You could use your entire life to think upon eternity along with the rest of the world's population and the collective wouldn't be a notable fraction of the whole. Even the whole is not the whole in essence because a whole unit is a finite measurement, but I digress...

Based on the structure of the universe, which is in essence a bunch of smaller things floating around a bunch of larger things all collectively making a large things, from the galaxies even down to the composition of molecules you can start to see a pattern of design. The edges of galaxies, always touching(for lack of having a definable nothing between them) could even be seen as what we might call bonds in our cellular and molecular compositions. Even breaking bonds does not break this rule as, with the galaxy idea the molecule torn away that breaks the bond could just be a planet stolen by a neighboring galaxy or otherwise when bits of rubble are launched out of a system.

Keeping the above in mind...

God is often called "the eternal", and people are said to be created in God's image. Both of these statements can be deemed true with the above information. The eternal being all that is beyond and existing as our understanding from the largest to smallest bodies we will identify and the image simply being those little things floating around bigger things and so on. It's a rather unbecoming image for the vanity of people, but it fits both arguments soundly. Now I have made God, the eternal, some group of floating things. In essence you are yourself also God, creating and unconsciously designing, potentially, countless universes and beings within yourself.

Intelligent design? No, maybe yes if you consider yourself intelligent and want to go with intelligent design more vaguely. A myth and figment of your imagination? Not really, but also yes. Also, by the same path, thoughts, nerves firing and all that fun stuff is still subject to the 'idea' of God being a bunch of smaller things as part of larger things. Though it's been much harder to prove, the research has already been done to show that even electrons are subject to being even smaller bits of things, which goes right back to the larger things from smaller things bit.

By this end, people were created in God's image, God is still the eternal, God is still part of your imagination and the only questionable point comes in what you want to call intelligent design.

I love your title . Everybody Is Wrong - Because Everybody Is Right..... " trying to simplify this "

Our DNA design . We only use like 5% or 3 % of it. some say the other is worthless. I wouldn't think that t .

I wonder why it's like that or was it always that way ...

[Grey Area]

Firstly, your assessment of the structure of the universe is dreadful.

Well it's not the first time, and lets face it, the current most popular theory on the structure of the universe has a few rather major gaping holes in it, so what would be the ideal?

Secondly, nothing in nature looks like it's been designed. Nothing in the natural world, in biology, in physics, in cosmology. It would take an extreme amount of willful ignorance to think the universe is designed.

I have to disagree here. Don't get me wrong I think people who believe in intelligent design should have paid much more attention during the common sense lessons. However on the face of it, it is very easy to apply a personality to nature, the way organisms have adapted to their environments could very easily be applied to some magical engineer in the sky, add in a few anecdotes like the moon appearing as the same size as the sun in the sky, and for those who are of an ... Impressionable nature, and you have a rather compelling load of rubbish.

[Podo]

I have to disagree here. Don't get me wrong I think people who believe in intelligent design should have paid much more attention during the common sense lessons. However on the face of it, it is very easy to apply a personality to nature, the way organisms have adapted to their environments could very easily be applied to some magical engineer in the sky, add in a few anecdotes like the moon appearing as the same size as the sun in the sky, and for those who are of an ... Impressionable nature, and you have a rather compelling load of rubbish.

This is an interesting point that I've never considered before. Just because the universe was not created intelligently doesn't mean that it doesn't *look* like it was, to some people.

I have nothing to really add to this other than to muse on this subject. Perhaps this flawed perception by impressionable individuals, as you say, is what makes it so easy for such folks to disregard the facts in favour of their own fantasies.

[Iranaryluch]

The analogising of the universe to a living organism, with galaxies analogous to 'cells', is a bit dated and not very accurate. Where is the organism's immune system? It's nervous system? It's circulatory system?

Where are all the specialised 'cells'? What are the 'stem cells'?

When I consider the universe I see no more 'design' than I see when looking at an inanimate crystal, and I certainly see no possible comparison to a living organism.

I respect what you believe and your right to believe it, but whole-heartedly disagree with that belief. And since "everyone is wrong, because everyone is right" does that make me right and you wrong?

Comparing it to a living organism was just to point out some possibilities of for events, and the extention going from the breakdown of electrons to the scale of the universe we know was to give scope that it is possible, to such a degree that humans may never know. Slow and fast are relative to the scale of objects and individual perception, so the billions or trillions of units we may use to label the speed at which things move could very well be nearly unnoticeable to something that is large enough. To assume all organisms behave as the ones we know of is to set up for fallacy already, as has been proven within the past hundred years.

To the second end, yes, I would be wrong as well. What words we know and will know will not do justice to explaining anything that would be eternal by the simple idea that they are finite explainations. The only words we could use to continue describing an eternal idea would be those that are never conclusive so as to evolve to fit what new truths are discovered as an eternity of understanding and resunderstanding reshapes what we "know".

Firstly, your assessment of the structure of the universe is dreadful.

Secondly, nothing in nature looks like it's been designed. Nothing in the natural world, in biology, in physics, in cosmology. It would take an extreme amount of willful ignorance to think the universe is designed.

I believe my thought on the structure of the universe is as sound as any theory. I think I made it somewhat more clear in the above response here as to what scope I was looking at.

The intelligent design end, perhaps I was not clear enough on, in saying that the very process of having intelligence may be in some form designing everything as well. That's not to say the design was created out of intent, but created out of the process of having anything deemed intelligence.

This takes up the definition of: To conceive or fashion in the mind

instead of the standard that is: To formulate a plan for

In essence it turns the phrase to be: something conceived in the mind by having intelligence

Edited February 5, 2015 by Iranaryluch

[Leonardo]

Comparing it to a living organism was just to point out some possibilities of for events, and the extention going from the breakdown of electrons to the scale of the universe we know was to give scope that it is possible, to such a degree that humans may never know. Slow and fast are relative to the scale of objects and individual perception, so the billions or trillions of units we may use to label the speed at which things move could very well be nearly unnoticeable to something that is large enough. To assume all organisms behave as the ones we know of is to set up for fallacy already, as has been proven within the past hundred years.

Regarding the highlighted. I would accept your claim with certain caveats. If we are talking about motion and in particular about distance travelled over time, then I would agree "slow" and "fast" are relative to size (scale) and perception.

However, there is no body of evidence suggesting that the duration of time itself is perceived differently proportionally to relative size. The duration of time we call one hour is still 'perceived' as one hour regardless the observer is an elephant or a mayfly. So, your general claim is actually conditional.

To the second end, yes, I would be wrong as well. What words we know and will know will not do justice to explaining anything that would be eternal by the simple idea that they are finite explainations. The only words we could use to continue describing an eternal idea would be those that are never conclusive so as to evolve to fit what new truths are discovered as an eternity of understanding and resunderstanding reshapes what we "know".

The word "infinite", even though by your standards a "finite explanation", still allows me to have some degree of comprehension regarding discussions involving matters which incorporate such a concept. It's fine that you have your belief regarding this, but your belief does not define my comprehension of "infinite". I hope you appreciate that.

[StarMountainKid]

Wouldn't some mechanism designed by an intelligence have some purpose useful to that intelligence? I can't fathom of what use humans would be to any designing intelligence.

Therefore, A: the universe is not designed at all; B: if humans are its purpose, this negates any intelligence of a designer; or C: there is a higher purpose to the universe, unknown to the irrelevant humans.

Edited February 5, 2015 by StarMountainKid

[Imaginarynumber1]

Firstly, your assessment of the structure of the universe is dreadful.

Secondly, nothing in nature looks like it's been designed. Nothing in the natural world, in biology, in physics, in cosmology. It would take an extreme amount of willful ignorance to think the universe is designed.

And it would have had to be a complete moron that designed it this way.

[Emma_Acid]

Well it's not the first time, and lets face it, the current most popular theory on the structure of the universe has a few rather major gaping holes in it, so what would be the ideal?

So, because the current model of the universe isn't complete, then *any* similarly incomplete description of the universe will also suffice? No, sorry, it doesn't work that way.

In essence it turns the phrase to be: something conceived in the mind by having intelligence

Except an intelligent mind isn't needed for the universe to exist.

[SpiritWriter]

Yes it is undeniable that we are a part of something that is much greater. By accepting that, even if we do not call it God we have greater understanding about who and what God is and have no reason to decline its power but embrace it and let it work through us. By not accepting it, you may still have the ability to live a great, productive and moralistic life which is wonderful, but I do think that so many problems arise, unless you are an accepting person, when you cannot at least understand another persons point of view. This post is helpful and I think most people in their hearts of hearts get it, but are too stubborn to think about it for very long because it causes the soul great irritation. As humans we do desire to know who and what God is, but because that is so vast we get all messed up inside. We are from an age which historically everything had to be cut in stone. In the bible God says that if you are to make an altar for him it should be made of undressed stones. I think this is telling. We know that the bible is seen as forced commandments, does this mean you should make an altar of undressed stone? Sure why not, or maybe not, but you can still understand the symbology of what it is saying...

[StarMountainKid]

Here's my "Everybody is Wrong Because Everybody is Right".

In my view, we can not have any understanding of Existence, God or a Creator or whatever you want to name it (if such a thing actually exists) through knowledge. Our personal internal knowledge is limited to itself. Our knowledge is only a random learned mental construct derived from our narrow and limited experiences, peculiar to ourselves. My knowledge is different from your knowledge, as my life experiences are different from your life experiences.

From this comes our differnt opinions and beliefs, our own personal Truths, our own concepts of my right is your wrong, and "everybody is wrong because everybody is right".

This is the conflict knowledge produces, and does not move us one inch toward understanding. It would be good to remember that understanding is different than knowledge. It could be said that knowledge and understanding have no relationship at all to each other, and that all the knowledge of the world will not produce one ounce of true understanding.

True understanding comes when we discard our knowledge and allow ourselves to just be, in silent and innocent awareness. In this way we do not contaminate ourselves and our environment with thought, as thought can only contemplate thought, and is blind to what lies external to that thought. Knowledge and thought create an illusion of reality that only exists within the mind, and therefore is always separate from what actually is, from the thing itself, which is authentic in its innocence.

Only from an awareness of this innocence, untouched by mind, can we approach understanding.

[Iranaryluch]

I think people are once again getting too caught up on the intelligent design thing in trying to make it an intentional design.

As noted above, the phrase could also be literally taken as "something conceived in the mind by having intelligence".

This does not necessarilly mean that everything was created purposely to be as it is, rather that it could have been created as a by-product of something having intelliegence(thus the creation/conception in the mind/brain of whatever it may be). To this effect intelligent design, as defined above, may only apply our own existence/universe. It could be entirely possible, by this, that there are other universes that are not created by intelligent design, instead being the result of something like changing climate or just being the inside of a rock or whatever the equivalent is in such a circumstance.

Instead of trying to pick apart things to make problems, try looking at everything as a solution first. Then, if you still think it's just not possible, explain why and we can have a discussion.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Iranaryluch

[Grey Area]

So, because the current model of the universe isn't complete, then *any* similarly incomplete description of the universe will also suffice? No, sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Does it not? Don't get me wrong many theories are laughable in my opinion, but at the end of the day it is just opinion. And your statement 'the current model' is an incorrect assertion suggesting that there one single scientific doctrine that must be adhered to. Minds subscribe to different ideas, and I believe the big bang theory is the one that carries the most weight and probably has the most subscribers. However my point is that there are some very big flaws with it, including the fact that researchers working on the theory actually having to make up data to balance equations.

So actually as it stands yes any description of the universe will suffice, perhaps not for you, or me or the majority of free thinkers out there, but as far as I am concerned as long as people are thinking about this stuff, we will make progress, and people who propose the more unrealistic models can be educated about some of the other models of the universe. However education is rarely effective using ridicule.

[MichaelFredrek]

I am not a scientist nor am i as intelegent as many here seems to be very into the universe and other things around us

but i will say what i think from my own life experience so far on this planet at my age

I think that since we are born into families and the decision been made as to how will we be raised

is a critical path that each one of us has taken ever since. Some have been brought up in difficult

environment thus affecting their decision and way of thinking even if they make it through life from the dark

side to the light still it will affect your character, while others where brought up in a very well cared environment

thus having little issue with security but all together is that each one has had his/her side of story and each one of us is the author

of his/her own story.

I don't understand much of what science today said or have to say because for me they seem to take what has been left over

and continue on it which is much easier to do than going back to ground zero to discover it all over again, but science for me is a non

conscious Being that has no feelings or emotions and it does only answer when it has sufficient data to answer otherwise it can

presume or have hypothetical assumptions based on current data, but again it doesn't fully interpret a fair clear vision of what is it all about

so science is a collection of past and present calculations of facts and theories that placed together to give us an answer, but it is not a hundred

percent finding, it is just what we have is what we reached to conclude.

In religion it is a complete surrender to faith based on individual experience or possibly just brainwashed with so much dogma

that over took his cells to the next generation, but again it doesn't make him/her crazy or correct, since nothing here in religion is right

or wrong except that what we call it commandments which again if i look at it i find it a very simple logical constitution that today we follow most of it.

like do not kill, or steal, or lie, ....

conclusion is that, in my opinion, all of us are unaware that with all what we presume to know of knowledge

and with all our diplomas, phd ..etc whatever we hold is still considered nothing but a point of ink in a massive ocean

so all what we debate is nothing but mere earthly past and present data that is not hundred percent true and will always be

a space to add something or take out something, so we can only believe in what want to believe if it makes us better persons

then why not, but i dare anyone to prove hundred percent that all data today is a final conclusion of the main topic... no it will never be

and there will always be space to add something....

life is a mystery yess

life is harsh.. well it cant be a cake walk but not too bad

life is miserable... only if you surrender to it

life is beautiful, ..indeed it is just it is like law..blind

so paranormal is .....us (we know little about us that what around us)

aliens .....are us..... (so far we are the ET of this universe)

ghosts ....we are.....(we are invisible to others when we are so dump and bad)

viruses and diseases... (we are the pests of this universe but in a modern way)

so i will use Morpheus words in matrix

What is real? How do you define real?

is something we physically interact with taste or feel or is it something more than just physical interactive methods?

i rest my case that

i am now and here and i know what i know and that they are enough for me to know i exist, communicate and think