bALANCE?

One fact everyone can agree on is the world and all other things in this unvierse act in a balance so we can assume that our Future must be a balanced on too.
along with our past also must be balanced and if a divine being where to create a world of balance why give a very unbalanced race of people a planet or possibly a universe that is in a constant construction. So if u where building a house would u invite a hill of termites to your future home to denigrate and create an unbalanced enviroment, the logic is just not their. At all.
If God is a balance freak then the bible would also so his intent on what he was trying to achieve instead it gives inuendos about legends and opinons handed down from the years.
So what the hell is goin on.

If you are referring to a balance in the reference of good versus evil, I do not agree. This is dualism and I have seen no convincing argument to support that ideal.

Balance in the globe itself a revolving cycle of birds animals wind atmosphere everything in this damn thing not made by man. Has a Balance an opposite we creat good and evil we make our chioice/

[Edited on 22-8-2003 by Emyrs1]

reply to post by Valhall


i got to your post and have to dissagree simplely because when you look at a section of nature that has not been encroached upon by man and what do you see ( balance between every part of that system to keep it flourishing/self sustainable). i am not a terribly religious person but have seen (with my own eyes) some things in my 40+ years that make me think.

in the human world there has to be a balance but with all of our intellect, our weaknessess trancend simple physical survival so there has to be a balance between intent( good or bad) and all that can result from it.

as i see it our main weakness( as a thinking species) is greed and lust for power( to control our personal space). the might makes right attitude has always held a slight advantage but been held at bay by simple faith, by a smaller ( in number)group of ppl willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of all.

for example: this jesus guy, creates a following that snowballs enough to force an empire( roman) to adopt his teachings(as they were, but eventually the power brokers of the time capitalize and corner the market on the "rules" of the faith before the ppl could enjoy a peacefull existance) .

man has always found a way to step on his own d$%^ rather than further the cause of existance. IE: war and super power "one upmanship" has always spawned more advances than simple pooling of intellect. oppenheimer was forced to persue the most destructive form of nuclear energy( rather than first finding a way to crontrol it as an energy source) landing us in a "what do we do with this lethal by-product" thing.

i find your total dismissal of a balance in-flexible.

PS- i love your sig. mine is bourne of 18 years in the military as a cook/soldier lol.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by howie0]

Originally posted by howie0
reply to post by Valhall

 

i got to your post and have to dissagree simplely because when you look at a section of nature that has not been encroached upon by man and what do you see ( balance between every part of that system to keep it flourishing/self sustainable). i am not a terribly religious person but have seen (with my own eyes) some things in my 40+ years that make me think.

This is the equivalent of seeing a ball roll down to the bottom of a hill and claiming that as evidence of a creator.

The ecological settings to which you refer as "balanced" acheived that "balance" through the means of eliminating the occupants of niches that caused the system to be unbalanced.

That is why we note "unbalance" when an ecology is roiled by the introduction of new, prevuiously not present species. For example, the niche filled by rabbits in the U.S. was filled by some other species in Australia. When rabbits were introduced to Australia, they took over the niche there that they occupy here. Problem was, there was no predator in Austalia to control the rabbit population like there are here in the U.S. (wildcats, mountain lions, birds of prey, etc.) This led to an unhealthy overabundance of rabbits, and the accompanying damage they can inflict, basically across the Austalian continent. IOW,a ravaging horde that to this day remains almost out of control.

If rabbits were left alone in Austalia, eventually we would see this "balance" you refer to come to pass there, but at the expense of many other native Australian species.

Similarly, ecosystems in "balance" today acheived this state through elimination of other species that were competing for like ecological niches.

The fact that you yourself weren't here to witness this carnage in no way detracts from its similarity to what is happening in the so-called "unbalanced" ecosystems which you so deplore.

Harte

If you look closer, you see nature is not always so in balance. Animal species explode in population or wither and die from a number of factors, plant species can encroach on another and strangle it out, parasites can even decimate a host species. Bees are just one of the current examples of a species losing its battle to a fungus. We just never take notice of these events. Balance is eventually achieved and if it cant be achieved some species loses out. Hell, Mars most likely supported some form of life in its early history, but it lost that battle - in that case the balance of nature tipped to the extreme.

But from what the OP says in his post, I think they are thinking that there is a balance between acts of good or evil? That all actions work themselves out in the end? Not a good argument to make, becasue like a roll of the dice, you cant predict an outcome based on a previous event. An evil act isnt balanced by a good act. The universe doenst equate one act, object, event, ecosystem, planet or species to anything else, and certainly not in relation to the human species!

The one thing that comes to my mind is mutual attraction. A negative charge is balanced with the positive charge. Where a balanced union produces some sort of result. With the atom it is matter. With the male and female it's offspring, excluding single celled organisms. What of the moutains, rivers and non-living things? They are part of a body that has an attraction to another. The planets are attracted to their star. What is produced from that union?

I have a gut feeling the planets play a part with the sun's energy output. Read about the Electric Sun Theory.