Inherent Characteristics of Design

[Midnight Rain]

I'm not really on either side of the evolution vs. creationism debate, as such -but thought this was the most appropriate place to post this thread.

I have heard it said that we are able to know something is designed by comparing it with/against things found in nature.
This is true for things designed by humans which do not resemble nature, but assumes that nature was not designed.

I believe that design must have inherent characteristics (that design is self-evident) but have only begun to try to put them into words.

Is there any way to know whether something absolutely required forethought?

No. Because if everything is "designed" then the term itself would loose meaning. For something to be designed one must know what a non-designed object looks like.

 

[Willamena]

At what point does something become discernible as design?

At the point where intent is realized.

 

[Etritonakin]

Thank you all for the posts

 

[Etritonakin]

No. Because if everything is "designed" then the term itself would loose meaning. For something to be designed one must know what a non-designed object looks like.

Good point.
On a most basic level, there must have been something for an original designer to work with -both something to act upon and someone to act upon it -essentially inseparable.

If we consider ourselves, we are even composed of that which we can act upon.

From our perspective, we have the periodic table of elements, various forces, etc. to manipulate and act upon.
We (every single individual) have not personally seen a being creating them -or heard a being claiming to have created them firsthand -who also demonstrated to us as individuals how it was done or that the being was indeed capable of such. (That is not to say that some individuals have experienced things others have not.)

When I look at the periodic table and all that is built upon it, my mind sees something which it cannot fathom having come into existence without having been designed/intended -for us to in turn learn and use to create.

However, I do understand that not everyone sees it that way -and cannot yet even put what my mind sees and thinks into words. It's actually quite frustrating.

I'm not concerned with convincing others that there was a designer, but with getting my own head around the matter.
I do believe that we will all see evidence of that designer at some point -that we will eventually be aware and knowledgeable enough to rule out any other possibility -by direct interaction with the omniscient -even if we, ourselves, never become completely omniscient.
I also believe that we will be made able to have much greater ability to understand and create. We are now limited by the human mind and bodily interface -and any tools we might create -but I do believe what is written here -partly because it is both possible and is a state of being which logically follows our present state, even if one credits evolution itself rather than God (though other generations would then experience it -not ourselves).... Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

As for perfect systems.... it is true that when we try to correct a perceived imperfection in our environment, we often cause more problems -but that is also due to our current level of knowledge, understanding and ability/interface.

However... I was thinking (doesn't mean I'm correct).... creation and design can -in a way -be perceived as disturbing that which was perfect -making asymmetrical the cosmic symmetry -at least temporarily. Either symmetry can exist again in a different configuration -or an other-than-original configuration requires constant maintenance/exertion to create an artificial symmetry in various forms.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Good point.
On a most basic level, there must have been something for an original designer to work with -both something to act upon and someone to act upon it -essentially inseparable.

If we consider ourselves, we are even composed of that which we can act upon.

From our perspective, we have the periodic table of elements, various forces, etc. to manipulate and act upon.
We (every single individual) have not personally seen a being creating them -or heard a being claiming to have created them firsthand -who also demonstrated to us as individuals how it was done or that the being was indeed capable of such. (That is not to say that some individuals have experienced things others have not.)

When I look at the periodic table and all that is built upon it, my mind sees something which it cannot fathom having come into existence without having been designed/intended -for us to in turn learn and use to create.

However, I do understand that not everyone sees it that way -and cannot yet even put what my mind sees and thinks into words. It's actually quite frustrating.

I'm not concerned with convincing others that there was a designer, but with getting my own head around the matter.
I do believe that we will all see evidence of that designer at some point -that we will eventually be aware and knowledgeable enough to rule out any other possibility -by direct interaction with the omniscient -even if we, ourselves, never become completely omniscient.
I also believe that we will be made able to have much greater ability to understand and create. We are now limited by the human mind and bodily interface -and any tools we might create -but I do believe what is written here -partly because it is both possible and is a state of being which logically follows our present state, even if one credits evolution itself rather than God (though other generations would then experience it -not ourselves).... Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

As for perfect systems.... it is true that when we try to correct a perceived imperfection in our environment, we often cause more problems -but that is also due to our current level of knowledge, understanding and ability/interface.

However... I was thinking (doesn't mean I'm correct).... creation and design can -in a way -be perceived as disturbing that which was perfect -making asymmetrical the cosmic symmetry -at least temporarily. Either symmetry can exist again in a different configuration -or an other-than-original configuration requires constant maintenance/exertion to create an artificial symmetry in various forms.

The point is that even if we were designed there would be no way to know. So it seems rather useless as a theory. Scientifically there would be no evidence for us to compare it with.

So when someone says that its obvious that we were designed or that they have evidence that we are deisnged they are simply confused about the evidence.

But in your case saying that you cannot fathom how it could be without a designer is also not evidence. Simply being ignorant doesn't mean we can conclude something from that ignorance. In fact that seems to be the worst possible thing to do intellectually

 

[Etritonakin]

The point is that even if we were designed there would be no way to know. So it seems rather useless as a theory. Scientifically there would be no evidence for us to compare it with.

So when someone says that its obvious that we were designed or that they have evidence that we are deisnged they are simply confused about the evidence.

But in your case saying that you cannot fathom how it could be without a designer is also not evidence. Simply being ignorant doesn't mean we can conclude something from that ignorance. In fact that seems to be the worst possible thing to do intellectually

I am not yet convinced that there is no way to know it -but even if I find that I am incorrect, I would like to be able to explain to myself exactly why I am incorrect.
I don't understand the evidence -or my own perception -well enough -but the same may possibly be true for those who believe there is no way to know.
You may think otherwise -and even be correct -but I am where I am at present.
I understand my perception is not proof -but the consideration of the matter has increased my understanding of many things.
Whether I am proven to be correct or incorrect, I still learn the truth.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I am not yet convinced that there is no way to know it -but even if I find that I am incorrect, I would like to be able to explain to myself exactly why I am incorrect.
I don't understand the evidence -or my own perception -well enough -but the same may possibly be true for those who believe there is no way to know.
You may think otherwise -and even be correct -but I am where I am at present.
I understand my perception is not proof -but the consideration of the matter has increased my understanding of many things.
Whether I am proven to be correct or incorrect, I still learn the truth.

I simply mean that there is no way to contrast "designed" vs "not designed" if everything we ever observe is "designed". That logically follows no matter what the situation. Perhaps there are ways to find out if things are designed but it would have to be in the backdrop of something that was not.

 

[Ouroboros]

When I look at the periodic table and all that is built upon it, my mind sees something which it cannot fathom having come into existence without having been designed/intended -for us to in turn learn and use to create.

Another view here is that we are (as human designer) part of nature, so essentially, when we see something designed by a human, it is nature that designed through the extension of humans. Designed and non-designed meet somewhere in the middle.

Another thing too to add to this whole discussion, if an artist uses a random patters (from a random number generator or whatever), and produce art that doesn't look designed. Is it designed even if it contains randomness?

 

[Blackmarch]

I'm not really on either side of the evolution vs. creationism debate, as such -but thought this was the most appropriate place to post this thread.

I have heard it said that we are able to know something is designed by comparing it with/against things found in nature.
This is true for things designed by humans which do not resemble nature, but assumes that nature was not designed.

I believe that design must have inherent characteristics (that design is self-evident) but have only begun to try to put them into words.

Is there any way to know whether something absolutely required forethought?

not until one becomes all knowing.

 

[Etritonakin]

not until one becomes all knowing.

Nice 'mech -I play some Mechwarrior: Online myself -free to play if you haven't heard

 

[truthofscripture]

I'm not really on either side of the evolution vs. creationism debate, as such -but thought this was the most appropriate place to post this thread.

I have heard it said that we are able to know something is designed by comparing it with/against things found in nature.
This is true for things designed by humans which do not resemble nature, but assumes that nature was not designed.

I believe that design must have inherent characteristics (that design is self-evident) but have only begun to try to put them into words.

Is there any way to know whether something absolutely required forethought?

It doesn't seem as though there is an empirical way to quantify creationism, but neither is there a way to measure evolution. However, evolution seems like a shot in the dark by wishful thinkers. The things that exist, couldn't possibly have come about by accident as evolutionists would have us believe. However, logically, take the human mind. It's not possible for it to have come about accidentally, as it's capable of remembering millions of years of experiences. The Bible tells us that we were designed to live forever initially. Those two things fit together like a hand in a glove. Take the wings of a bird. They're designed so efficiently that birds can fly non stop for days on end with no undue exertion by the bird. Man has tried to immitate wings of birds in aircraft with little success. when designing aircraft wings, the engineers always rely on the design of birds wings for improvements in lift, reduction in drag, etc. Those things would take billions of billions of years to come about by natural selection. There's no fossil record indicating such. There are no transitional fossils from one form to another either. Each thing existing came about seemingly instantly in the fossil record with little change over millennia. It seems much more likely that the Bible is correct, and science is fumbling for a scientific answer, that it cannot actually find.

 

[Ouroboros]

It doesn't seem as though there is an empirical way to quantify creationism,

Can you explain your use of "quantify" in this phrase? I'm not sure what you mean. Why would you want to count or measure the size of creationism? To quantify something is to measure the quantity of it. 1 creationism. 2 creationism. 3 creationism... ???

but neither is there a way to measure evolution.

Again, not quite sure what you mean. You don't measure evolution. You can test it. You can experiment with it. You can research it. You can measure specific things that perhaps are included in your research, however, like the mass of some sample.

However, evolution seems like a shot in the dark by wishful thinkers.

Uh... no. Really, it's not. It's a solid science that's used as a foundation to understand many other fields of science. Medicine, farming, and even computer networks, oh, and now finance too.

The things that exist, couldn't possibly have come about by accident as evolutionists would have us believe.

Well, accident, smaschident. It's not really a matter of accident or not. It's a bit more complicated than that.

However, logically, take the human mind. It's not possible for it to have come about accidentally, as it's capable of remembering millions of years of experiences.

It can? I can barely remember what I had for breakfast this morning...

The Bible tells us that we were designed to live forever initially.

So the telomeres didn't shorten originally? Interesting. What happened? Genetic mutation?

Those two things fit together like a hand in a glove. Take the wings of a bird. They're designed so efficiently that birds can fly non stop for days on end with no undue exertion by the bird.

Depends on bird. Try to make an ostrich fly for 5 seconds, and you'll see it'll be quite exerted... Or a simple chicken, if you want something more domestic.

Man has tried to immitate wings of birds in aircraft with little success. when designing aircraft wings, the engineers always rely on the design of birds wings for improvements in lift, reduction in drag, etc.

Uhm... we have supersonic jets that fly some thousand times faster than birds, and the airplane wings are designed by aerodynamic rules, math, physics, tests, and only superficially similar to bird wings, but still, not quite bird wings. Are you saying that birds look like a F-19? Really? With small wings in the front, big wings in the back, and some weird tail wings? What kind of birds are you looking at?

Those things would take billions of billions of years to come about by natural selection.

Sure. And? Wait... you said it was only by accident, but now you're mentioning natural selection. Is natural selection accidental? How?

There's no fossil record indicating such.

Except Archaeopteryx.

There are no transitional fossils from one form to another either.

You're a transitional species between your parents and your children. Every individual is. So if we find one fossil, it's essentially a form of transitional fossil.

Each thing existing came about seemingly instantly in the fossil record with little change over millennia.

No, it didn't. There's some 2 billion years of fossil records that has a huge span of changes, all from bacteria up to complex life forms. And we have a lot of change in human form the past 2-3 million years. We only have something like 2-3,000 fossils to prove it.

It seems much more likely that the Bible is correct, and science is fumbling for a scientific answer, that it cannot actually find.

Nope. Geology basically was born out of the failure to prove the Biblical account. It was when they discovered that the flood didn't happen, and that the world was much older, and there are many species of animals that lived a long time ago that do not live today, and species that live today that didn't exist in the past, and so on, that led to many of our modern sciences.

 

[truthofscripture]

Can you explain your use of "quantify" in this phrase? I'm not sure what you mean. Why would you want to count or measure the size of creationism? To quantify something is to measure the quantity of it. 1 creationism. 2 creationism. 3 creationism... ???


Again, not quite sure what you mean. You don't measure evolution. You can test it. You can experiment with it. You can research it. You can measure specific things that perhaps are included in your research, however, like the mass of some sample.


Uh... no. Really, it's not. It's a solid science that's used as a foundation to understand many other fields of science. Medicine, farming, and even computer networks, oh, and now finance too.


Well, accident, smaschident. It's not really a matter of accident or not. It's a bit more complicated than that.


It can? I can barely remember what I had for breakfast this morning...


So the telomeres didn't shorten originally? Interesting. What happened? Genetic mutation?


Depends on bird. Try to make an ostrich fly for 5 seconds, and you'll see it'll be quite exerted... Or a simple chicken, if you want something more domestic.


Uhm... we have supersonic jets that fly some thousand times faster than birds, and the airplane wings are designed by aerodynamic rules, math, physics, tests, and only superficially similar to bird wings, but still, not quite bird wings. Are you saying that birds look like a F-19? Really? With small wings in the front, big wings in the back, and some weird tail wings? What kind of birds are you looking at?


Sure. And? Wait... you said it was only by accident, but now you're mentioning natural selection. Is natural selection accidental? How?


Except Archaeopteryx.


You're a transitional species between your parents and your children. Every individual is. So if we find one fossil, it's essentially a form of transitional fossil.


No, it didn't. There's some 2 billion years of fossil records that has a huge span of changes, all from bacteria up to complex life forms. And we have a lot of change in human form the past 2-3 million years. We only have something like 2-3,000 fossils to prove it.


Nope. Geology basically was born out of the failure to prove the Biblical account. It was when they discovered that the flood didn't happen, and that the world was much older, and there are many species of animals that lived a long time ago that do not live today, and species that live today that didn't exist in the past, and so on, that led to many of our modern sciences.

So far, not one of your points has proven to be valid.

 

[Etritonakin]

It doesn't seem as though there is an empirical way to quantify creationism, but neither is there a way to measure evolution. However, evolution seems like a shot in the dark by wishful thinkers. The things that exist, couldn't possibly have come about by accident as evolutionists would have us believe. However, logically, take the human mind. It's not possible for it to have come about accidentally, as it's capable of remembering millions of years of experiences. The Bible tells us that we were designed to live forever initially. Those two things fit together like a hand in a glove. Take the wings of a bird. They're designed so efficiently that birds can fly non stop for days on end with no undue exertion by the bird. Man has tried to immitate wings of birds in aircraft with little success. when designing aircraft wings, the engineers always rely on the design of birds wings for improvements in lift, reduction in drag, etc. Those things would take billions of billions of years to come about by natural selection. There's no fossil record indicating such. There are no transitional fossils from one form to another either. Each thing existing came about seemingly instantly in the fossil record with little change over millennia. It seems much more likely that the Bible is correct, and science is fumbling for a scientific answer, that it cannot actually find.

Many say that science does not assume things. However, people do -including scientists. If one relies solely on science for their view of things, they should be careful to differentiate between the known and unknown.
Many assume the absence of a creative influence because they have no evidence of such -but then present their conclusions based on both knowns and assumptions as fact.
Using such wording as "all available evidence indicates..." is correct, but stating things as fact which are not confirmed can only hinder discovery.
When one new thing is learned, it can change everything -and make all available evidence indicate something quite different.


Unfortunately, "evolution" is synonymous with "there is no God" in many people's minds.

Someone said something above about geology beginning when it was learned that the flood did not happen -the bible was false, etc....

....but science has not determined there was no flood -and certainly has not determined the bible to be false.

Science should always realize that not all the facts are in.

It is true that science can disprove certain claims based on people's interpretations -such as a 6,000 year old earth (the bible does no say that) -or that there were no humanoids on earth before Adam (the bible does not say that, either) -but true science should really be separate from such things in the first place.

For example... Some say that the Noah's Ark story could not have happened because it is unscientific -but their claims are based only upon evidence that THEY have available -as well as the assumption that miraculous things cannot happen.

It is one thing for an individual or group to doubt, but it is not scientific to accept things as fact -or fiction -based on a LACK of evidence -when it is known that science is inherently ignorant.

Science does not even know what percentage of things which can possible be known are known to science -if it is finite at all.

It is understandable that some become frustrated by religious people who will not accept things which are known, but sad that they close their own minds or believe themselves to be infallible in response.

 

[truthofscripture]

Many say that science does not assume things. However, people do -including scientists. If one relies solely on science for their view of things, they should be careful to differentiate between the known and unknown.
Many assume the absence of a creative influence because they have no evidence of such -but then present their conclusions based on both knowns and assumptions as fact.
Using such wording as "all available evidence indicates..." is correct, but stating things as fact which are not confirmed can only hinder discovery.
When one new thing is learned, it can change everything -and make all available evidence indicate something quite different.

Agreed.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm not really on either side of the evolution vs. creationism debate, as such -but thought this was the most appropriate place to post this thread.

I have heard it said that we are able to know something is designed by comparing it with/against things found in nature.
This is true for things designed by humans which do not resemble nature, but assumes that nature was not designed.

I believe that design must have inherent characteristics (that design is self-evident) but have only begun to try to put them into words.

Is there any way to know whether something absolutely required forethought?

There isn't really a debate so I am starting to think it would be best to phrase it differently. I"m still looking for a good way to put it and if you or anyone else has a word to call it I am all ears.

But no there is no evidence of inherent design characteristics. The approach to this has been irreducible complexity. It would have to have some form or structure of an organism on any scale that would require it to be fully functional with no way to for it to have evolved into that state. There have been many proposals of irreducible complexity but so far zero have passed scrutiny.

 

[Ouroboros]

So far, not one of your points has proven to be valid.

It's still a valid question what you mean by "quantifying creationism" and "measuring evolution" regardless of anything else that I said. I still don't know what you mean with those statements.

 

[Ouroboros]

But no there is no evidence of inherent design characteristics.

I assume you're talking about essentialism (basically, design coming out of the garden, set to specific species). And your absolutely right. That was discarded some 50 years ago or more.

The approach to this has been irreducible complexity. It would have to have some form or structure of an organism on any scale that would require it to be fully functional with no way to for it to have evolved into that state. There have been many proposals of irreducible complexity but so far zero have passed scrutiny.

And experiments have shown that "irreducible complexity" can evolve. Lenski's experiment is an example of that. Creationists attempt to argue that evolution can't be true because IR can't evolve is then disproved.

 

[Ouroboros]

Someone said something above about geology beginning when it was learned that the flood did not happen -the bible was false, etc....

If there had been a flood, we wouldn't have found 500,000 fossils. We should be able to find millions and perhaps billions of them since all animals, plants, and life forms died within the same period. There's no explanation to where they went. Also, in a global flood, all life forms would have organized in the layers by weight and ability to escape, not biological complexity. Now, the strata isn't organized according to what we'd expect from a flood, but they're organized what we would expect from species evolving over time according to the measured age of these strata. Flood doesn't fit.

....but science has not determined there was no flood -and certainly has not determined the bible to be false.

All or nothing, is it? That science has proved that the Bible is wrong when it comes to Genesis and the Deluge isn't the same as "the bible to be false" in totality. There's a difference between "this story is false" or "this story is wrong" and "all of it is wrong." No, geology doesn't say the whole friggin' Bible is wrong, but it does say that it's wrong in the first chapters.

Science should always realize that not all the facts are in.

When it comes to Genesis and Deluge it is.

It is true that science can disprove certain claims based on people's interpretations -such as a 6,000 year old earth (the bible does no say that) -or that there were no humanoids on earth before Adam (the bible does not say that, either) -but true science should really be separate from such things in the first place.

The flood is an interpretation as well. People haven't realized it yet. It's an interpretation of a local flood, made into a global flood. The flood was never world-wide.

For example... Some say that the Noah's Ark story could not have happened because it is unscientific -but their claims are based only upon evidence that THEY have available -as well as the assumption that miraculous things cannot happen.

Really? There's so much science speaking against the Ark that it's not even funny. And miracles? Why? Why would God go through having a man work on a huge boat and have him collect animals into it, just so God can wave his finger and do some magic? Why not do magic from the beginning? Why didn't God give Noah a shrink-ray and animated suspension laboratory to put all animals in a tin-box sleeping, for a year? Why go through the crazy idea of using a wooden boat? God could have instructed Noah how to make aluminum even or carbon-fibre.

It is one thing for an individual or group to doubt, but it is not scientific to accept things as fact -or fiction -based on a LACK of evidence -when it is known that science is inherently ignorant.

A global flood not leaving traces that it must have, that's not evidence against that it was?

It is understandable that some become frustrated by religious people who will not accept things which are known, but sad that they close their own minds or believe themselves to be infallible in response.

I'm not sure how to explain this to you. I was a fundamentalist Christian, a Creationist and anti-evolutionist, for 30 (thirty) years. Then I realized I had to be honest to myself and stop lying in the attempt to keep my faith. Truth is more important than faith. So I started to learn things of what science actually do know for a fact. This take some dedication, but a whole bunch of humble-pills. I was wrong in so many things. Even today, I'm still learning, and most definitely, I'm wrong a lot and change my views a lot. That's a big part of why I discuss in forums like this. What I'm saying is that I don't think I'm infallible, besides, I consider myself having a spiritual side, and also, I don't think religion is bad. It can be bad, but it's not always. So can science. Science can cause a lot of harm, and science can be wrong (and is many times), but don't fool yourself to think that science must be wrong and your specific religion must be right. You need to keep your mind open as well.

 

[Etritonakin]

There isn't really a debate so I am starting to think it would be best to phrase it differently. I"m still looking for a good way to put it and if you or anyone else has a word to call it I am all ears.

But no there is no evidence of inherent design characteristics. The approach to this has been irreducible complexity. It would have to have some form or structure of an organism on any scale that would require it to be fully functional with no way to for it to have evolved into that state. There have been many proposals of irreducible complexity but so far zero have passed scrutiny.

In the following, I use "evolution" in a broad sense..... And am just throwing ideas out there....

It seems to me (now) that design and evolution are inseparable -that, in some form, some thing and someone have always acted upon each other...

....or, that everything Is an inherent characteristic of design.

When we affect something, it also affects us -but one is initiation and another is reaction. Or -when we design something, it also affects our design.

So -an initiator and a reactor must have always existed in some form -but how does this relate to awareness and non-awareness, animate and inanimate?

I will probably be seen as blasphemous for thinking this, but while God says he changes not, it does not mean he does not "evolve" -in a broad sense. He is always perfect, always logical, etc, but certainly God changes outward form and creates new things which in turn affect him, etc.

It is written that of the increase of the government of Christ/God there will be no end -but what does this indicate looking backward in time?

There is the governor and the governed -but how little was initially governed by God?

It is written that he (Melchizedek/I Am/the Word/Christ) is without descent, beginning of days or end of life, but what does that actually mean?
What does God actually mean by what he says?
How can a new human hope to completely and immediately understand all that an eternal God says -and all of the implications?

If God was always aware and self-aware -just what would that mean? He has created more for himself to be aware of -which is an extension of himself -but how little was there for him to be aware of at any point? If by him all things consist, then his changes and the changes in his environment are inseparable.

Was he always aware of infinite possibility?

I am making no assumptions -just wondering. I'm not saying I know the nature of God -just wondering about it. I hope to ask him for specifics later.

That which became what is must have always existed -but in a different form.
Or -God and his government have always existed -but changed form.

I think some error lies in trying to reduce that which is infinite. There was never less -only different -never more -only more ordered in a specific way.
The concept of "beginning" is a product of our own perspective. We tend to believe everything must have a beginning because we did -that which we see does, etc., but perhaps we should also realize that what we are actually seeing is that things infinitely begin and always have -and that those beginnings are rearrangements of that which has always been.

We know this to a certain degree, but perhaps we want an end result where there is none -a final answer to infinite questions -to solve an equation while the numbers, letters and symbols keep jumping from one side to the other.

I was thinking about the quest to find the "theory of everything" ..... And how it might be futile, as everything keeps changing -especially our level of understanding due to our perspective -so the theory would necessarily keep changing.
That is not to say there are not constants, but perhaps there are constantly more to consider in the future and an infinite number to consider in the past.
Certain things apply at certain levels but not at others -and there's nothing wrong with that -no error, no mistake, just a part of the big picture -which keeps getting bigger even as we know more about it (and may yet change because we are able to do more about it).

Infinitely increasing complexity is understandable to us, but Infinitely less complex seems impossible. It might help to consider that when we look at simplicities, we are really ceasing to consider all else.
Living forever forward in time is conceivable to us, but not living forever backward in time......
But it's really just a matter of looking the other way and not considering our own limitations.

We may have to get our head around the fact that we can never get our heads around all that is and has ever been -unless we are made able to do so by one who has been there for it all, caused it all and can make us able to contain and process it all -granting us a God-like perspective.