Here is a good piece of cake .... This is from the book "WHY" By Travis W. Haan.
"It‟s been theorized that the universe could have been designed by some form of intelligence. There‟s no conclusive evidence to back this theory up, but it‟s not entirely without precedent. After all, we ourselves are intelligent beings who arose from inanimate matter. And in a universe where you can‟t get something from nothing it would explain where our intelligence came from. Granted, that still leaves the issue of where the creator came from, which is no small question. Maybe the creator existed forever. Of course, if He did then maybe the universe existed forever as well, but if that were the case then the universe wouldn‟t have needed a creator to create it since it was always there."
What you say?
Cheers,
Tressy
PS: Lifes pretty busy nowadays. It's nothing , but work!!! At times, I feel its hard and the schedules are tight but you know, its interesting. Being sterssed...having no time to waste. The other side of it is , there is not much time to share with friends and read anything.
I always wanted to be occuppied with something all the time. So I like it this way but do miss some valuable moments.
7 comments:
actually annu "guruvaayooorappanu jaladooshamaayirunnooo"............
annu elamkaattil theengaakulakal aadiyirunnoooo"...........
annu platueil vellapokkam aayirunnooo?...........
Writer himself has a confusion here. Defining creator and universe itself is a huge topic. His doubts are worth it and his definition of intelligence at the core is acceptable.
Nothing here doesnt imply vaccum state. Infact nothing as explained by vedanta is not limited by time,space and causality which makes it impossible for us to visualize or even theorize.According to me the creator and universe are entirely different things. Universe as we perceive is defined in a time,space,causality framework but creator cannot be defined under any such framework.
Nothingess as per latest theories is not emptiness as some might visualize. ANd nothingness is a relative concept.
Eg:- We feel there was nothingness while sleeping when we wake up.
Change of states in significant in realizing nothingess and so its very relative.
muralee
@ sateesh,
Thanks. Vellappokkamaarunno ennu krityamaayi orma illa.
@Muralee,
Wat makes the author /you think that there must be a creater for the universe ? Because of the lot many things that we cant precisely define? Or the so called intelligent design?
Intelligent design is a jargon here. i wud simply say that there is lot of intelligence around us. Practically everwhere in nature. From "photosynthesis", "golden ratio" to every phenomenon we see in nature explains this. Chance/probability theories cannot prove these as evolution of intelligence. And intelligent creations without a creator is illogical.
Then the "creator" should be really intelligent to create all these intelligence, according to your logic. If all the "intelligence" need a creator, //u now my qstn//... then what do you say about the evolution of creator?
"Universe as we perceive is defined in a time,space,causality framework but creator cannot be defined under any such framework.", Then, under which/what framework should I perceive the creator?
If there is no such framework to define , then how can i convince myself that there is a creator resposibile for this universe and intelligence?
If you say its beyond our ability to define it, why sould I believe in it ?
Why should I believe in creator???
Post a Comment