jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (397 posts)

Is Intelligent Design a fairy tale?

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Is Natural Selection in Evolution the result of happenstance?
    Are the Laws of Nature directed in an arbitrary way?
    Was the Big Bang a random accident?
    Was Hydrogen created out of Nothing?
    Were the first copied pairs of DNA accidental?
    Was the Destruction of the Dinosaurs an accident?

    Obviously, the answer to each of these questions is "No!"

    Doesn't it make sense that the elements of Water, Fire, Air and Earth were produced by Intelligent Design?
    Isn't Light / Heat / Energy clearly the manifestation of God?
    Isn't Intelligence /Awareness / Consciousness the manifestation of God?

    And, of course, the answers to these questions is "Yes!"

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Good evening, Ms. Hill.

      In reality, the answer to all of your questions is “maybe!”

      Facts are the rational building blocks of knowledge. They help us to separate the things we really know from the things we think we know. The absence of proven facts may explain why your post does not recognize the difference.

      Be well, Ms. Hill, and always follow your bliss.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Good evening, Quilligrapher. The answer to the first seven questions is "Not likely!" And the answer to the last three questions is "...makes absolute sense."

        But, I am glad you said,  "maybe.." smile
        Thank you for reminding me to follow my Bliss.
        You too!

        1. moneymindit profile image71
          moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Kathryn,

          At least you acknowledge that dinosaurs existed.  Tell me, do you think that the universe has only existed for 6,000 years?

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think it is more realistic that there is an intelligence behind everything, over that all we see and know of is a result of undirected, and naturalistic processes only.  The cause has to be sufficient for the effect we see in our universe, so that is something that can't be avoided.  If I see something proposed that can't sufficiently explain what we see, I wouldn't know why I should believe that.  I need to see a reflection of what is being proposed in our own reality whether in humanity, our societies, our history, and science, etc.  Whatever is really true, will line up with all of these things. 

      If we are allowing the evidence we see to lead us to the conclusions, rather than say a preferred conclusion to be driving the endeavor, we are able to get closer to the truths of these matters.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Do you think Science reveals Divine Cause?

        Do you think Science is a reflection of consistent never-changing universal principles?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Science cannot "reveal" Divine Cause until it finds that cause and most modern causes (gods) are defined as to be undetectable.  Unlike religious belief, science does not make conclusions based on "I don't know, so will make up a god".

        2. moneymindit profile image71
          moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Science attempts to reveal the truth.

          Absolutely, science reveals universal principles, such as the laws of physics.

          1. Prodio profile image61
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What reveals science?

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That would be scientists.

              1. Prodio profile image61
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly where - inside a scientist's brain - does science originate?

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Does someone need to explain science to you? Really? The process of science leads scientists to knowledge and understanding. It is exactly what the God of Genesis didn't want for us when he told us not to eat from the tree of knowledge. And now you seem to be attempting to attribute said knowledge to him.

                  1. Prodio profile image61
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You didn't (couldn't) answer my question.

                  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Him.

                2. moneymindit profile image71
                  moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Prodio,

                  Very strange question!  Exactly where in a scientist's brain does science originate?

                  That is like asking in which part of the pot do you cook your dinner?  In which part of the cup do you hold your coffee?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Welcome, moneymindit! The water is cool and refreshing today. Enjoy!

                  2. Prodio profile image61
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Your question has an answer. The atoms (of the pot/cup), kind of, hold other atoms (cooking meal/coffee).



                    My question:  What mechanism allowed you to ask that question?

      2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, and the evidence does not support "an intelligence behind everything", but does support "naturalistic processes only", that is the realistic truth of the matter.

    3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely not. That is a common mistake those who don't understand evolution make and often use as an argument to discredit evolution.



      Again, absolutely not. The laws of nature are not directed at all, they simply occur.



      Unknown.



      No, it was a result of the laws of nature, specifically, gravity and the result of the ocean of electromagnetic radiation that flooded the universe after the Big Bang.



      The first copied pairs? What's that?



      Most likely, it was an inevitable occurrence in nature, one that could easily happen again, the universe is full of objects moving around all over the place.



      Why is that obvious?



      Not at all, not even remotely based on the facts and evidence of our universe.



      Not according to the facts and evidence.



      Nope.



      lol

      1. sonfollowers profile image92
        sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I find it fascinating that you say emphatically that the laws of nature are not directed at all--they simply occur.  They occur with such precision that every organ in our bodies has a specific purpose.  We find cells organized into tissue, tissue into organs, organs into systems, etc.  At each level, we find purpose.  It's a symphony of purpose... with no direction other than just "nature did it." 

        If I were to ask an atheist who created nature, he would clearly say no one.  Nature has always been and it always will be.  The beginning and the end.  Who is the creator?  What is the maker?  Nature, of course.  The Alpha and the Omega.  Who makes the sun rise? Nature.  Who sustains life?  Nature.  Who gave us life?   Nature.

        Nature is the God that you worship--your creator.  Is it possible that something, anything, exists that is the actual source of these laws you love so much?  Of course it is.  But you ridicule such a notion because you have the laws themselves.  And, deep down, you don't want a God to exist who could have set the laws of nature into motion.  Don't you despise the very thought of it?  It's not that the laws of nature disprove the existence of a creator God.  You know they can't.  You just don't want that God to exist.  You don't want someone bigger than you to be messing with your life. 

        That's my opinion.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          But, now you're talking about evolution. And, while the laws of nature simply occur with random results, evolution is not random.



          In other words, nature can operate entirely on it's own. This is not a problem and is in fact what is observed.



          Sorry, but that's just silly, I don't worship nature. We have seen throughout history the negative results of worship.



          Yes, it could very well be a giant lizard that sneezed the universe out of it's nostrils. In fact, there are millions of such possible things happening.

           

          Or, more accurately, nothing has ever been shown beyond the laws themselves.

           

          What I want and what reality shows us can easily be two different things. What is really going on are religious believers reject the facts and evidence about reality and nature.



          I could care less. If you can show me a God/Creator, I'll happily accept it as being true.



          And, I could care less one way or the other. In fact, that entire premise is actually irrelevant because it is non-sequitur.



          Again, show me this God and I'll believe it.

          1. Prodio profile image61
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "Again, show me this God and I'll believe it."


            Thank you for letting us know, after all these days, that you are a believer.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Perhaps, the usage of dictionary may prove to be very useful in helping you understand the definition of words and how they're used in communicating ideas.

              Nowhere did I admit to being a believer.

              1. Prodio profile image61
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Let's say it this way: You are an about to be believer.



                Perhaps you need to, first off, check your own record of consulting a dictionary while communicating with believers over here on the forums.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Nope. Not even remotely close.



                  Yeah, sure. roll

                  1. Prodio profile image61
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Too late now.

          2. sonfollowers profile image92
            sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Here's the thing:  i believe that it's a huge leap to say that the vast complexity in and all around us just happened naturally without some sort of intelligent direction.  You obviously don't.  We don't have to agree, and obviously we're not going to.  No big deal.  This whole discussion is really just the sideshow anyway.  But as an aside to that, with your admission that something could have intentionally set the laws of nature into motion, it seems then that you would have to acknowledge that your knowledge of nature (and science in general) could never disprove the existence of a creator God who could have created and used the very laws which you are trying to use against him. 

            God has nothing to fear from science really.  If you really wanted to shut down Christianity, you'd have to exit the side show and focus on the main event anyway:  the resurrection of Jesus.  But be warned....  Many have tried their hardest.  And, that's where so much evidence is working against you.  The only reason I'm convinced that their is a creator God is because I am convinced that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened and Jesus himself believed in a creator God.  That's the deal.  Discussion about the existence of a creator that ignores the resurrection will never resolve anything.  Neither side can ever convince the other.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The only real problem here is that it doesn't matter HOW convinced you are, you have no proof of either the resurrection OR a god.

              At least others are honest enough to understand that they cannot KNOW the answer to "Is there a god" - you've already decided that you know and there is no possibility of error.  With or without proof or even evidence, you KNOW the answer.

              Sorry - it doesn't work that way, and that very attitude (opinion expressed as knowledge) is the stumbling block you're speaking of.

              1. sonfollowers profile image92
                sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You seem to be misrepresenting what I said.  Your objection doesn't carry much weight, considering how convinced you seem to be that God does not exist.  To be clear, I didn't say the words "I know", as if I am leaning on some internal feeling or intuition.  That argument can be saved for someone else.  I have researched and studied evidence and have reached a conclusion based on that evidence.  I would say that you assume that I failed to reach a reasonable conclusion, I suppose because you do not believe that such evidence exists.  I can only tell you that what I have seen makes me confident in what I believe.  I have been actively researching things specifically related to Christianity for 30 years just as part of my lifestyle.  I am not a sheep who simply follows what he hears.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That being the case, you can certainly present that evidence for others to examine, test and verify.  I await your evidence and rigid, impersonal evaluation of it.  I DO ask that you leave ignorance out of the equation; whether personal or species wide "I/we don't know" is evidence of nothing but ignorance.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    So you, one small little tiny person, especially if observed from the top of a tall building, says with the fullest measure of authority, as though you were as tall as the mentioned building:

                                "THE BIBLE IS NULL AND VOID BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

                    Are you advocating your belief to all of  mankind or just to your one small and tiny self.
                    If it is the former, that is a NO NO.
                    If the latter, then that is fine.
                    Each to their own, of course.

                  2. sonfollowers profile image92
                    sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You're killing me.  smile. Ok, so I'll bite.  I will explain why I believe what I believe.  And yes, I expect disagreement.  That's fine.  Let's try to be civil, guys.  Please remember that none of the things I'm going to present are enough on their own.  I expect you to have an argument for each one.  Still, It's the entire tapestry viewed in its entirety that I found to be so compelling.

                    Here's source #1:

                    Tacitus, who is commonly considered to be a very reliable source as a Roman historian.  While some have attempted to show it as unreliable, it continues to be widely accepted as authentic. Tacitus' writing confirms that Jesus was executed by Pilate and that his movement and following survived his execution, spreading all the way to Rome by at least 64 AD. 

                    Here is one link I found.  There are lots of others.

                    http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.php

                    There are actually 3 other similar references to the death of Jesus written by secular writers around this time.

                  3. sonfollowers profile image92
                    sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I'll go ahead and add this link as well.  Here's some info on the other 3 sources plus a blurb on Tacitus as well.

                    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f … ounts.html

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The thing about conclusive evidence is that anyone and everyone should be able to observe it and agree or disagree if the evidence is compelling or not. So far, no believer has ever offered any substantial evidence to support their beliefs in whatever god they worship.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Because the evidence of God/Spirit is staring you in the face and you refuse to see it. Words are useless. Ideas are useless. Direct perception, however, is useful.

                  2. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    There is evidence of this:

                    Someone happened. He was probably male. He was probably radical. He was probably increasingly radicalized and as he radicalized he tapped into the most pressing problems faced a religious minority (Jews) in the Roman Empire: Poverty, discrimination, disenfranchisement, alienation, diaspora, loss of faith (faith in Judaism and its promises) AND he tapped into the most pressing problems faced by a people watching their government go through a series of crises---many of which threatened the very existence of the state (Rome) to whom they were loyal---not only as Romans, but as colonial people as well.

                    His tapping into very real world, very secular problems was successful and resulted in the accumulation of a following of like-minded, equally radicalized men and women.

                    His success was a problem for the Roman Empire.

                    The Roman Empire, reeling from its own internal problems associated with governance of a large empire and from years of bad government, grew increasingly aggressive in any and all dealings with anyone determined to present a threat to the Empire.

                    This man---along with his followers, presented an existential threat to the Roman Empire.

                    The result: Arrest and execution.

                    The historical record---the facts and documents, show that it took DECADES for all the talk of saviour and divinity to percolate and spread; that it took DECADES and men who were not alive when this radical man was executed to form a cult around fabricated memories of this man. The cult  they formed was successful for a number of very earthly reasons including the attractiveness of what something called a simulacra---a construction and memory of that which never was.

                    Jesus, as he is perceived today, is a simulacrum just as the 1950s "nuclear family" free of anything associated with present is a simulacrum.

                    The story of Jesus---as believed by Christians, is the first edition of "the way we [or things or people] never were".

              2. Ericdierker profile image82
                Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Wilderness take a lesson in evidence. Start with Federal Rules of Evidence. You do not like the proof or evidence but the Bible is in fact evidence by legal standards. Be the jury and like or do not like it but it is evidence of what someone said. Bad evidence, good evidence --- that is for a jurist to decide and not you alone.

                If you want to stick with some "scientific" proof then call it an hypothesis. There is still some evidence to support it. You only write from your witness of accounts, the bible writers only wrote from theirs.

                But claiming "NO" evidence is totally unsophisticated and an ignorant position.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The bible is evidence...of what, specifically?  That a man no one can verify existed turned water into wine?  That the same man came to life after three days dead?  I don't think so.

                  As far as evidence, can you prove who wrote any of it?  Or is it words from unknown authors, an unknown time and for an unknown purpose?  I do believe Federal Rules of Evidence requires such things before accepting written documents as evidence.

                  And that makes it not even evidence.  You cannot cross examine those writers and cannot find corroborating evidence.  You don't know who wrote it, when or why.  You DO know that much of it (the important parts) violate natural law, which makes liars out of the authors and that a great deal was written long after the fact, by people claiming to be eyewitnesses lifetimes after the events delineated.

                  No, Eric, the bible is not evidence of anything.

                  1. Ericdierker profile image82
                    Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You are just plain wrong Wilderness. A writing is evidence that something was written. That something was written lend some evidence that it was understood. That is evidence of the event being witnessed or related. Get over it, that may be lousy evidence but it is evidence.
                    Your sworn testimony that you saw me stop beating my wife is lousy evidence but if you swore you saw it, it is evidence.
                    Your perception is no more valid than Peter's so just get over it and work on a different tact. Because what you see and hear and observe is not more perfect or accurate than what Luke relates. Attack the validity of the evidence all you want but it is still evidence. Just stop denying that and you will be able to relax.

                  2. Ericdierker profile image82
                    Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness you keep arguing the validity and weight of the evidence not whether or not it exists. It exists. Stop arguing that it does not. It exists and therefor is evidence. Is that really that hard for you to grasp?  Do you exist. there is not here and now evidence of your existence? That is crazy! Someone just wrote down something purporting to be some cognizant human being calling himself Wilderness. Of course there is no one name wilderness --- how silly is that. But his writing here is evidence that someone calling themselves that exists and it is very weak evidence he believes his balderdash even though it makes no sense.
                    Do you exist? Who cares? Is there evidence write here and right now that you exist. Well lousy evidence and wilderness is clearly a fake ridiculous avatar wannabe name but somebody wrote this spiel. There is evidence the wilderness exists. Horrible evidence but evidence. Do you not exist because here the evidence of your existence sucks to high heaven. No you exist and probably are a real person.
                    Are you going to tell us there is no evidence of you because the evidence is obscured and lousy.

                    Wilderness you exist and so does your writing and somebody wrote the bible also and it exists and they are all evidence of the existence of something.
                    Stop with the nonsense saying the bible does not exist because then --- neither do you.

                2. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Some legal enlightenment:

                  The Bible has no legal standing in a court as evidence and cannot be exhibited as evidence---as it is hearsay.

                  And, insistent claims that "the voice of god instructed me to do it" are not legitimate legal defenses in and of themselves, but rather grounds for proof of insanity and incompetency to stand trial.

                  Think about that.

                  The use of the Bible in court is limited to declaration or affirmative of an oath. Such affirmation (using a Bible or other religious text) is voluntary.

              3. moneymindit profile image71
                moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Preach Wilderness! Preach!!  Very well said!!!!  Intelligent response.  Funny that those who promote intelligent design are not open to intelligent dialogue.  LOL!!!

                They know because they know.  Wow!  That is intelligent.  NOT!!!

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  He does tend to preach doesn't he…which is very ironic because...

              4. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                But, that is what all the observations, facts, evidence and test results show us, that indeed, there is no intelligent design or direction. None whatsoever.



                That scenario is just as like to have occurred as a giant lizard sneezing out the universe from his nostrils. In essence, there are literally millions of scenarios we could come up with just like that, all based on pure speculation with no supporting evidence.



                Neither does the giant lizard.



                The Resurrection is as likely to have occurred as the giant lizard as well.

                I have no problem if you want to believe that tale or any of the other many mythical tales religions have offered over the millennia. That is entirely your prerogative, I myself, prefer to understand reality rather than succumb to myths and superstitions.

          3. moneymindit profile image71
            moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            sonfollowers,

            The problem with the belief (not evidence of) God, is that it presupposes truth.  If God does exist, then let's see the evidence. 

            Funny thing about those who believe in God.  They only believe in their God and do not accept the belief in other Gods.  Who is right? 

            Christianity
               -Catholics
               -Protestants
               -Jehova's Witnesses
               -Mormons
               -A bunch of others
            Islam
            Hinduism
            Buddhism
            Judaism

            Ay, ay, ay.... I opt for science and the search for and evidence of truth.

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          PS  "The first copied pairs? What's that?" ED

          DNA "Each molecule of DNA consists of two strands coiled around each other to form a double helix, a structure like a spiral ladder." Dictionary

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Excellent, you can use a dictionary. Now, please go and study some more books about DNA to learn from where DNA evolved. That will help you to understand your question about copied pairs.

            1. Prodio profile image61
              Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              How do you know all these things?

              1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The real question is, how do you not?

                1. Prodio profile image61
                  Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  What is a 'real question'?

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So I take it every comet or meteor that has hit the earth or moon was planed? Including the ones that have killed people? I take it as well that cancer, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and tsunamis are all planed by a loving God looking out for us?

        1. moneymindit profile image71
          moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Rad Man,

          I will answer that with the typical religious response, absent logic.  "God works in mysterious ways."

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Which is usually said my the same people who claim to understand and communicate with him.

      3. moneymindit profile image71
        moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Kathryn,

        The correct answer is not "Yes" and it is absolutely not "absolutely".  Go and ask a kid in a third world country, who lives on the sidelines of a stream of feces if she thinks the answer to those questions is yes. 

        The correct answer is we do not know the answer.  And the footnote is, do not look to the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or the Book of Mormon for the answers.

    4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      Magazine article interview with John Lennon's photographer for his album, Walls and Bridges:

      "When I was taking the Walls and Bridges pictures, John asked for a shot of him pointing to where he had seen (a) flying saucer. I believe(d) him. I remember John saying once in an interview that he was willing to believe anything until it was disproved; that open mindedness about the spiritual and mystical carried over to many areas in his life. He was never one to say, "Oh it can't be."

      I've been waiting to use this quote. Seems pertinent here. wink

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Here are some lyrics from John Lennon that are also pertinent here:

        Imagine there's no heaven
        It's easy if you try
        No hell below us
        Above us only sky
        Imagine all the people
        Living for today...

        Imagine there's no countries
        It isn't hard to do
        Nothing to kill or die for
        And no religion too
        Imagine all the people
        Living life in peace...


        smile

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          He meant the misunderstanding of religion.
          There is science behind religion.
          The knowledge has been lost.
          Its time to rediscover it.

        2. Prodio profile image61
          Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          How did Mr. Lennon, so to speak, get his divine inspiration to compose that song?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            He must have read the bible and realized it wasn't needed.

            1. Prodio profile image61
              Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you for believing that.

          2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about, yet again.

            1. Prodio profile image61
              Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you for believing that, too.

      2. moneymindit profile image71
        moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Kathryn,

        Nice use of John Lennon's quote, I think.  You just contradicted yourself.  (And oh boy do contradictions abound in religion and belief in God). You cannot say that God absolutely exists and then say that you are open to anything until it is proven otherwise.  Nice try, though?

    5. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      “Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.” ― Karl Marx

      So not true!
      Religion is a way to live a purposeful life based on Reality.
      (Well, its supposed to be, anyway.)

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        And, worshiping and praising a god is a purposeful life? Seems more a waste of life when there are so many purposes we individually can create ourselves.

        1. Prodio profile image61
          Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          What will they do instead? What 'purposes' are these that you are talking about?

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            lol You can't be serious.

            1. Prodio profile image61
              Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That's a nice belief that you have there.

      2. moneymindit profile image71
        moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Kathryn,

        Purpose exists without God and without religion.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe for you, moneymindit… Maybe I realize I can't take it with me… maybe I go there… where will "I" be after my heart STOPS ?
          Maybe you don't. Have fun with that... and all yer $.

          1. moneymindit profile image71
            moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Kathryn,

            Where were you before your heart STARTED?  There shall you go again when it STOPS.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I have done a lot of research about this matter,  but I perceive you are not open to hearing what I have discovered.
              Each to their Own.

              1. moneymindit profile image71
                moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Kathryn,

                We are all waiting for proof.  Please share it with us.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Some things are not provable! Oh well. We can still discuss our beliefs with out splashing others.

                  1. moneymindit profile image71
                    moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Kathryn,

                    Please name one thing besides God that is not provable.

                    1. bBerean profile image60
                      bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      That our existence is possible without a Creator.

                    2. sonfollowers profile image92
                      sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      Macro-evolution stands tall as the most obvious answer to this question.  Winner winner, chicken dinner.

    6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      Is the Cause of "naturalistic processes" / unfolding of laws of nature beyond words? You and others rely a lot on words, which is understandable as that is what we humans tend to do. 

      Refuting an unseen god is understandable because we have never been offered the words to describe and explain what is behind the processes of nature.

      So, It is really a matter of ignorance to state there is no Divine Intelligent Spirit behind everything that exists.

      Without an open mind as to what is behind the naturalistic processes, we will never find out... or find the words to explain the processes / causes which direct the show of nature and all life, seen and unseen, in the entire universe.

      We owe it to ourselves to have an open mind.

      Is it really so hard to say the one little word Quiligrapher offered:

      "Maybe!"

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes well, we actually need words to communicate with one another, that's why we use them.



        Yes, we have, believers term it as the supernatural, but it is indistinguishable from the non-existent.



        Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or information. If you can produce a shred of it to support your DIS, then we might have something on which to be ignorant. But, so far, there is no DIS behind anything other than a vivid imagination.



        Open minds are not something most believers possess. Their minds are quite closed, especially to knowledge and information.



        Yes, you do. smile

        1. Prodio profile image61
          Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Are you open to the possibility that, maybe, you have not an open mind?

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            My mind is open just fine, thank you. If you have anything of value to demonstrate, my mind will most certainly entertain it.

            The ball's in your court. smile

            1. Prodio profile image61
              Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You have already entertained one.

    7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      "And, worshiping and praising a god is a purposeful life? Seems more a waste of life when there are so many purposes we individually can create ourselves." EncephaloiDead

      Purposes, to what end? How do we know we are not totally wasting our time while on earth? How do we know what we end up choosing will not hurt ourselves or others?


      What do You think is IS the Best use of our time on earth, ED?

      And when you *can't get what you want*  and you become infused with anger, resentment, hatred or filled with feelings of evil revenge? Or you become disabled, or distraught from loosing a loved one, or you are in agony on your death bed… What then?
      What then, ED?

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        One of the many things we have most certainly have accomplished is the wasting of time and resources in the vain pursuit of worship and praise of invisible gods. This has permanently hurt mankind forever and unfortunately, continues to hurt us today.

        Instead, we are using our brains to think and learn and understand the world around us, which is not hurting anyone, but is instead improving our time here.



        To learn and understand our universe, which includes us.



        That's how religions work. People follow the example of their gods who teach them anger, resentment, hatred, revenge, etc.



        lol Turn to religion?

    8. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

      Kathryn Hill,

      People who demand empirical proof of the existence of God , or a supernatural realm; things unseen and unheard of, are naturally handicapped with a mental defect. This disability manifests itself through false notions of superiority; a belief that is bolstered by others with the same disability. The character Lenny in Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men", was put out of his misery by his friend George, who understood that it was better to end Lenny's miserable existence than to allow him to suffer at the hands of an angry mob.

      It is the same with those who deny intelligent design. It is impossible for a stupid man to recognize intelligence when he has none himself. It is unfair to expect that he ever could. No more than we could expect Lennie to understand why he shouldn't squeeze a little puppy dog , or a woman too hard. Unfortunately, it is presently against the law to put these unfortunate souls  out of their misery. As it stands, the rest of us are forced to watch the spectacle, as the ignorant, and the disabled,  go thrashing about through cyber-space; making their grand proclamations and holding up their pedestrian conclusion's, as proof of their "superior" intellect.

      Perhaps one day the primitive science that they worship will find a way to eradicate the "stupid gene", which has apparently infested  the gene pool.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You wrote, "...go thrashing about through cyber-space; making their grand proclamations and holding up their pedestrian conclusion's, as proof of their "superior" intellect."

        They are anonymously writing on the bathroom walls of cyberspace, they have no power what-so-ever… do they? I see it as comic relief. Better ignorant and hilarious scrawlings, than blank bathroom walls...unless you are like Adrian Monk. big_smile

      2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        This is true, I went to several doctors and specialists to find out more about my mental defect. He told me that this mental defect is contagious and has been spreading around the world, he foresees it as eventually becoming a global pandemic.

        He did tell me the medical (Latin) name for this defect, but it was more commonly known by the general public as "Thinking".



        Interestingly enough, the doctors explained that this disability actually blocked out most forms of belief, forcing the brain instead to "understand" the world around us. This had the very unfortunate result in humans actually "knowing things".



        How very true, all we can ever hope for is to become smart so we too can believe instead of understand. We know only too well that thinking is wrong, that thinking leads to stupidity, that we should instead believe that the things we imagine are real and do manifest themselves in reality, because we want them to...

        However, one of the first things we must do is destroy everything science has provided for us and go off to live in a cave. Will you too be joining us and throwing away your computer, disconnecting your internet, destroying everything you own, burning your books, if you actually have any?

    9. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

      Kathryn Hill,
      Lol, I must admit that until now, this comic relief has been one of my secret pleasures.Perhaps we should always keep some of them around; just for the sport of it.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I really hope ED will tell me what he believes his purpose on earth is and whether this purpose will bring him fulfillment in the end. I talked to a self proclaimed "secular humanist." He admitted to me that his only purpose was to live a long life. When he stood up, he was all hunched over and could hardly walk. He insisted on walking with his wife as she pushed his wheel chair. He must have been in his 90's. He has lived a long life alright, but I could tell by his demeanor that he was absolutely confused and unfulfilled by it!

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I have many purposes, as do most other people who use their brains to think. And yes, my purposes are most fulfilling.



          Yes, I'm sure you accurately could tell by his demeanor those things. lol

      2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, please, please, please... let me be one of them. I truly want to change and become a believer. If it means a pre-frontal lobotomy is necessary to do so, I'm up for the challenge.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You Said:
          "I have many purposes, as do most other people who use their brains to think. And yes, my purposes are most fulfilling."

          Well, good!

          I just really wonder why you naysay those who think differently than you? Do you not agree "each to his own?"
          My purpose is based on seeing the bigger picture. A sense of purpose based on life after death.
          I cannot fathom living a life without knowing what will happen to me after my heart stops beating.
          If you do not care about what happens to you after your heart stops beating, than that is what counts.
          Why do you pester those who find reasons to believe in God. Isn't it their choice in all reality?
          Just Wondering.
          ...really, really wondering….

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            If "thinking differently" was indeed the issue, I wouldn't have a problem, but there is little if no thinking at all to those posts.



            Sorry, but glorifying death as a purpose to life is not seeing a bigger picture, that is absurd. It is certainly one of the most dangerous things your religion teaches.



            That would be the result of religious indoctrination and how your religion teaches it's followers the fear and loathing they endure their whole lives.



            You know only too well that is not the issue at all. But, I understand why you would consider anyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs must be pestering you.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              But, you make it so clear!
              WHY?

            2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this
              1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                So, music videos support your claims?

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The first is creepy. The second is beautiful. I just thought that was interesting.
                  Any other random topic you wish to discuss? I could a music video up about that too.

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I thought this thread was about Intelligent Design being a fairy tale, I can only conclude that if you wish to discuss some other random topic, you then agree with that.

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      it happens… why did you go on about death and religious indoctrination?

                      You said, "Sorry, but glorifying death as a purpose to life is not seeing a bigger picture, that is absurd. It is certainly one of the most dangerous things your religion teaches.That would be the result of religious indoctrination and how your religion teaches it's followers the fear and loathing they endure their whole lives."

      3. sonfollowers profile image92
        sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I truly look forward to the day when I find someone in these forums (Christian or otherwise, doesn't matter) who shares their opinion and makes their points without being condescending, belittling, or generally disrespectful.  For Christians in particular, this is a mandate.  I understand that, if you spend enough time here, you eventually get burned enough that it's tempting to fight fire with fire.  I just think it's sad that we sound just like them, when we were specifically instructed to live above the fray.  Something to think about.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          watch it…

    10. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 2 years ago

      If the universe were intelligently designed, you'd think the designer would create a nicer universe.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this
      2. moneymindit profile image71
        moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Or an intelligent one.

    11. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

      Living Proof

      It has been said that religion, or a belief in God and the afterlife, is the opiate of the masses.We can also say that empiricism is the methamphetamine of non-believers. It stirs them up and excites them with the possibility that the great mystery of life will one day be revealed to the rational mind.

      Such a drug appeals to their vanity, and helps to assuage their fear of the unknown. Some of us can run faster and jump higher than others; some are prettier, and smarter. It is not uncommon for someone to become defensive and angry when others can see , understand,or do things that are beyond their reach. For anyone seeking proof of the supernatural I would suggest that the first step is to gain some humility, stop believing that we are at the top of the food chain, and start talking to God. When a bird begins to speak to us, or a dog seems to understand complicated commands, we take notice. That particular animal becomes special to us, and so we are inclined to pay more attention to that animal. In my experience, it appears that there is a force , or higher power that takes notice of the human in a similar fashion.

      I have many proofs of an existence after physical death, but it is no use for me to relate my experiences to anyone who has closed their mind. It is like trying to feed someone who refuses to open their mouth.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Any "proof" that isn't just anecdotes. I'd love to see your proof.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        smile
        ( My dog Atlas could fold up his leash after every walk. He would insist on running home (the last block) with the leash neatly folded up (to about 7 inches.) in his mouth. He would run home wagging his little stump of a tail with absolute joy and pride. He seemed to know that he could do something NO OTHER dog on the face of the earth could do! (He taught himself) He would also sing" These Arms of Mine" by Otis Redding along with me…Why? Cuz he knew it made me so happy.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sBoUZ6g … feature=kp

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
          wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Great song! I never heard that before. Atlas sounds like quite a character.  He obviously had good taste in music.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You know, he was really suffering in the end. He had lost a leg due to cancer, and all his teeth. His paws ballooned up and he could no longer go out to take care of business and he was in tremendous pain. I did not want to put him down. had to. still regret it.. but his spirit of joy was there despite ALL he was enduring. (On the way to vet's, we sang that song one last time.)
            The innate Joy of Life we witness everywhere, all the time, to me, really proves something.
            ( I was given an Otis Redding record by a cop who worked for Led Zeppelin in some capacity. He had picked it up from their hotel after they left. My brothers couldn't believe I loved it! The cop said the record was from John Bonham's room.)
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC3f19zrMg8

      3. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Does "refuses to open their mouth" actually mean "think"?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          last thing: Open to possibilities, using contemplation, observation and intuition…  all Superior to thinking in the end.
          Take It or Leave it

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            As long as "open to possibilities" does not mean "believe whatever we can imagine and makes us feel good" I would agree with you.  Of course, enough millennium of looking and finding nothing and it is time to close off those possibilities, keeping the door open just a tiny crack instead of flung wide.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Who is flinging the door wide open?
              Moi?

        2. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
          wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thinking can be like talking too much. When I was in college there were a few kids who never seemed to do well on tests. It was pretty easy to figure out. They were usually too busy talking, or whispering to each other during important lectures. I always did well on my tests; not because I was necessarily smarter than those students, but because I had learned how to shut up and listen.

          Sometimes humility must take the place of thinking. We must let go of our preconceived notions of what is, and what should be. We must have faith that the universe is not a hostile place, and that we are simply like children who are not capable of comprehending what is beyond our years.

          To better understand the supernatural, as best a mortal man can, we must not think too much about it, since our thoughts, and fears, only serve to muddy the water. The rational mind was obviously designed to engage the material world. But trying to use the rational mind to explain a supernatural world; a world where the natural physical laws, or even mathematics may have no bearing, is like driving a Cadillac over the edge of the Grand Canyon and expecting it to fly. It simply wasn't designed to do that!

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            But you cannot make the claim that a rational mind cannot understand the supernatural; understanding that something does not exist is not difficult at all for such a mind.  It is the irrational mind, using imagination more than reason, that has a problem and ends up believing in imaginary friends and other things that aren't there.

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "It is the irrational mind, using imagination more than reason, that has a problem and
            *ends up believing in imaginary friends and other things that aren't there.* wilderness )

            " *As intuition is based on past experiences and old wives tales*,
            and as neither our own past experience nor that of old wives includes seeing a spirit, it can be of no help here." wilderness

            I would explain that Intuition is VERY fine tuned listening TO REALITY beyond the five senses.
            It is a real ability and it is the most real-time of all abilities.
            I am sorry and VERY surprised you don't acknowledge you have it, wilderness!
            V.S. (Very surprised)

      4. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Then, lets see your proofs?

    12. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      It shows great bravery to post this "When a bird begins to speak to us, or a dog seems to understand complicated commands, we take notice. That particular animal becomes special to us, and so we are inclined to pay more attention to that animal. In my experience, it appears that there is a force , or higher power that takes notice of the human in a similar fashion."
      I would agree..
      based on experience.

      (However, we cannot force those mouths to open… you are right, WB.)

      So, Why do I do this? addiction to the clicks, the lights, the taps, the thoughts. AUGH!!! I must save myself.
      Adieu for now. WrenchBiscuit has said it all.

    13. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

      Yeah, I witnessed one of my dogs being put down some years ago. I haven't had any since. I get too attached. Regardless of the necessity ( terminal cancer) I still participated in killing, even though I just stood there watching as the vet injected the poison. Knowing that it was for the best didn't make it go down any easier.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        No. Actually, intuitively… and the naysayers will bellow ferociously at this: I felt his heart shuttig down. My hand was on his back and as the injection took effect I experienced it as my own heart shutting down. I had to go to the car and to shut off my perceiving!  I know what death is… I KNOW what it is… and it was not my imagination.

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
          wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Naysayers be damned!  Perhaps they are a souless breed who die and simply turn to dust. An afterlife would probably be a big disappointment to many of these "rational" thinkers. I know what you "know". I have experienced it with pets, and with what used to be my family here on Earth. You don't have to prove anything to me. No more than you need to prove that the sun was shining today in Florida. I am here, and unless I was witnessing a holographic insert, it was very real.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            How is the surfing in Florida? Are there waves? (Never been there.)
            "As a surf destination, Florida is seen globally as poor (mostly due to the wide continental shelf that subtracts power form approaching swells), but local surfers enjoy occasional quality (dare I say world class)surf. Surf spots like Reef Road, Pump House, Sebastian Inlet (probably the most consistent wave in Florida)and a host of secret nooks and crannies on the right tide and the right swell can get filthy." Internet source.
            We have consistently great surf up and down the coast. Well, mostly So Cal.
            Because God loves Californians very much.

            1. Prodio profile image61
              Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Golden State!

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                It really is. I would never leave here. I would be miserable. Must be near Pacific Ocean. Of course the ocean will not help much in a drought… ulp! sad is all I have to say about that.

                1. Prodio profile image61
                  Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  What does the Pacific have to say about spirituality?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    The Pacific has this to say::

                    "I comfort with mighty Ocean's welcome hug and Sea's engulfing touch.
                    I provide what is deep, soothing and moving.
                    I inspire with wind and cold...
                    While the moon gives you waves to ride...
                    Pushed by me, ocean vast."
                    1:45 AM.
                    Finis

                    1. Prodio profile image61
                      Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      The Pacific writes excellent poetry!

            2. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
              wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I don't surf but I hang out at the beach a lot. Mostly the Treasure Coast: Melbourne, Sebastion, down to Jupiter. Compared to California, or what I saw in Hawaii, they don't have much going on the East Coast of Florida.

    14. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago

      Some points:

      Water, fire, air, and earth are  not "elements";

      Nothing is "clearly" a manifestation of any god.

      Natural selection is not "happenstance"; the laws are nature---even if one knows only the high school sampling of Newton are NOT arbitrary;

      Accident and randomness are not associated with the Big Bang;

      No cosmological or scientific theory suggests that something comes from nothing;

      There is no suggestion that the replication of DNA or the destruction of the dinosaurs was accidental. In fact, science tells a different story.

      I really do not---and never will, get the point of trying to bolster your god by denying and twisting and misrepresenting the reality of science and scientific explanations for the world in which we live.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Consider:
        "I find it fascinating that you say emphatically that the laws of nature are not directed at all--they simply occur.  They occur with such precision that every organ in our bodies has a specific purpose. We find cells organized into tissue, tissue into organs, organs into systems, etc.  At each level, we find purpose.  It's a symphony of purpose... with no direction other than just "nature did it." sonfollowers

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, I said that the laws of nature (Newtonian physics) are not arbitrary.

          The universe is organized, but organization does not imply design.

          The universe was not designed, but lack of design does not imply arbitrariness.

          As for the concept of "purpose"---that is nothing more than an effort to apply meaning and qualities and value where simply being and being alive is (apparently) not meaningful enough or valuable enough.

          I am glad I am. I don't need a creator or some imagined divinity to give my life purpose. Being and living is reason enough.

          1. Ericdierker profile image82
            Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Purpose is not qualitative.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Is purpose quantitative?

              If yes, exactly how is it measured?

              What instruments?

              What calculus?

              What statistics?

              1. Ericdierker profile image82
                Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Funny you query. Who said that it must be either/or? Like motive it just is and it is not moral and it is not quantitative. Now if you change "purpose" to "reason" there is great room for discussion.

                "the purpose of the stem is to hold the flower" Not quantitative or qualitative. The purpose of words is to convey thought.  -- So?

          2. Prodio profile image61
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What mechanism allowed you to think all of that [what you've just written]?

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              My EVOLVED mind/brain.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, some brains are more evolved than others.  How does this evolution come about?

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Hmmm...

                  Since I do not want to be BANNED again from Hubpages for promoting a scientific worldview, I shall remain silent on this question and suggest that you find an online introductory course or syllabus for course focusing on evolution and read whatever information is offered by the instructors.

                  1. Prodio profile image61
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    We know about all the evolutions.

                  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes , Prodio… We must TAKE A CLASS!

                    That, of course, is how one develops a highly evolved brain. 

                    ( I dropped out of the credential program in college because my psychic abilities kept telling me …" this is all BS!")

                    1. Prodio profile image61
                      Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      hahaha

                    2. 0
                      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      I did not say that taking a class contributes to evolution of the brain.

                      If you want to put some factual information in your brain, rather than half-truths and nonsense, then I suggest reading what the scientists are saying.

                      Promoting science illiteracy may seem funny to you, but it is not. The prevalence of science illiteracy in the United States and its relentless promotion (for reasons unknown to me) is already threatening not only our economy, but our national security. This is not a joke. This is a national tragedy and disgrace.

                    3. bBerean profile image60
                      bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      Perhaps a BS degree is in order?

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  From where did you get that notion?

                  1. Prodio profile image61
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    The same applies to the contrary.

                    1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      I have no idea what you're talking about, a few words strung together is all I see there...

              2. Prodio profile image61
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly where - do all those thoughts [that you've just written down] - reside in that 'EVOLVED mind/brain' of yours?

              3. Prodio profile image61
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Please describe the following highlighted word:



                "My EVOLVED mind/brain."

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Never mind.

                  My father once told me to know when to pack up and leave the party or the battle.

                  Time to pack up and leave.

                  1. Prodio profile image61
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Where exactly - has that (escape) response been generated (by what material exactly?) - in that 'evolved brain'?

          3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What about the The force of Mighty Triple O?
            (omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent Triple O) Don't you think M.T.O. designed all things which science has observed in its exceedingly astute ability to ACCURATELY OBSERVE all you have mentioned?!

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Emphatically no---there is not one shred of evidence of design OR of a designer.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                -well, not to those with evolved brains  Those with finely tuned intellect are not burdened with psychic abilities. Good for them.

          4. sonfollowers profile image92
            sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That's not the purpose I'm talking about.  The purpose of the body's pieces and parts, systems, organs,etc., are defined by what it does or how it benefits the whole.  This is not arbitrary at all, nor is it meaningless.  Everything in the body has a purpose.  You seem to believe that nature itself was able to ensure that everything we needed to survive was where it needed to be and working properly, that valves showed up where they needed to be, that arteries/veins/capillaries branched the way they needed to in order to minimize round trip time, etc.  I've always felt like that was a pretty big leap of faith but I guess if it's the only other option you have then it's better than nothing?

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        PS  "Water, fire, air, and earth are  not "elements"; " Mbuggieh

        Elements:
        "Philosophy
        Classical elements, the ancient belief about the fundamental types of matter (usually four in number), expressed in their Aristotelian forms as fire, earth, air, and water." Thesaurus

    15. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago
    16. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      How can I be civil when there are those who would disregard the traditional literary documents which exist as the foundation of culture, education, philosophy and humanity itself. These ancient texts and revered writings of the centuries include The Bhagavad Gita, The Old Testament of the Bible The Republic and other works by Plato, Aristotle's scientific discoveries, the New Testament of the Bible, etc. etc. etc.

      Yes, the original books of the Bible were passed down first through song, and then word of mouth and finally through writing. Yes, some problems in translating language and understanding the culture of the time are large obstacles in discerning accurate messages and history. These problems come with the territory of deciphering the past. But, I believe the essence of the message and the essence of the truth is absolutely evident and as valid as any one wants to believe. It is their choice.

      No one should attempt to remove the options of belief and thought of others. Thought tyrants are what we are all fighting against.

      1. sonfollowers profile image92
        sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Why does your belief system require someone else's approval?  Believe what you believe!  Take in new information, evaluate that information for validity to the best of your ability, and lean hard in the direction of truth however you understand it right now.  But there's no reason to feel like they are hindering you or have some amount of control over what you believe.  If they do it's because you gave them that power.  Take it away.  It's just words.

        About civility, read 2 Timothy 2:23-25 and see if you still feel that way.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The elders (elder: "leader, senior figure, patriarch, father," Thesaurus) in society, (as wilderness is one and should be respected as such,) must be careful not to take away the traditions of belief which hold a society together. I am alarmed by his stance and the powerful whacks he delivers against you!

          That said, he is really reacting to your instance that how YOU see it, is the way HE has to see it. Maybe if you put down your lance, he will too.

          Seeing the whole picture clearly has calmed me down. I'll read Timothy sometime or other out of curiosity. Thanks.

          1. sonfollowers profile image92
            sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I'm pretty sure there are no whacks, no lances, etc.  smile. We're just talking. It'll be ok.

    17. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      It seems the problem is in the Words and Ideas being put up.  Some refer to "a god." I and others refer to "God"…
      Is "a god" and "the force of God" the same?

      To me "God" is a Force of energy and intelligence. "God" is the creator of all the spirit generated blueprints that end up manifesting due to the processes of nature. I  sometimes call this Force, Tripple O: Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent.

      Others wonder if we are talking about "a god" who relaxes in a throne on a cloud in the sky who somehow directs the show according to willy nilly impulses. They imagine putti and angels with halos and feathered wings hovering about ready to take orders from him. They imagine there is actually a right side of the throne occupied by Jesus in his human form.

      What are we even discussing?

      More importantly, what does the phrase, "May the Force Be With You!" actually mean?

      Now, there is the real question!

    18. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

      What I find most fascinating is that many people would rather believe in nothing at all than believe in God, or Intelligent Design. They wear their ignorance like a badge of honor, as if their non-belief  has elevated them to an imagined superior class of human being. I have never had such a need to feel so self important ,so in control, and so "nothing at all".

      The following sentence was posted in this thread: 

      • The universe is organized, but organization does not imply design.

      The  sentence above proves that the poster can construct a cohesive sentence, but of course, the assertion is demonstrably false. In every creature, and species around us, we see that organization follows design. The ant colony did not just "fall to together". The organization of an ant colony could no more exist without a "design" than an automobile or a submarine. When a pride of Lions go hunting for food we can see an organization that necessarily follows a design. The lion does not simply "feel" hungry and then the squirming, succulent, buttock of an antelope miraculously appears in it's mouth! There is first a design and then organization.

      In our own lives, no organization exists without first a design. It is not reasonable that the macro and micro universes would not follow the same law. We see that even inanimate objects must obey the law of gravity. They are also, just like us, bound by the law of 3 dimensional geometry. It makes no sense that they would be bound by these fundamental laws, but not by the Law of Intelligent Design.  In the world of men there can be no kind of organization without an initial design. It follows that the material universe, and all that it contains, is bound by the same law.

      Organization most certainly implies design! Here is an easy way to prove it :

      wrenchBiscuit's  3 Month Plan To Full Realization of Intelligent Design

      •  Stop paying your bills for 3 months
      •  Don't take a bath for 3 months
      •  Don't brush your teeth for three months
      •  Don't clean your house or wash the dishes for 3 months

      Everyday during the three month period just " think" about doing the four things listed above, but do not take any steps to accomplish your goals. Just "wish" it to be so.I guarantee that at the end of three months, you will see that there is very little organization in your life; that you smell bad, and that your life is falling apart. Why? Simply because there can be no organization without design. We follow a design in our everyday lives; a design that enables us to function in society. Take away the design and it all falls down.

      Am I trying to be funny ? No, not at all! The point I have made should be very clear. In the absence of a design, a human life can fall into disarray after only  3 months. How can we possibly imagine that something as complex as an entire universe could  have maintained order for millions of years without Intelligent Design? Believing in the existence of God is not a matter of fantasy,imagination, or wishful thinking. Simple deductive reasoning cannot explain to us how, or why God exists. But it clearly reveals that God "is".

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, there are plenty of thing that occur naturally with organization without any source of intelligence of being designed.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          which actually explains some people's way of thinking!  - how fitting!

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        -actually, wrenchBiscuit, my life would fall apart in only three days. (And it has: dishes un done, clothes all over the place… I got tired of keeping up on it all… been going to the beach on the beach bus… so cool .. where was I... )  Oh yeah... So, what if Mighty Tripple O removed his Force from earth and from everything IT currently manifests in?  What if Tripple O just withdrew His Love For what He created, (which He created slow but sure through eons of time, through evolution, which is monumental proof of Intelligent Design)

        Furthermore, if you could see the force of Tripple O you would see everything lit up.

        Jesus explained:  If your eye be single your whole body will be full of light…Tripple O is a FORCE! The Force behind nature and the force within us.
        May the Force be with you!
        TWII

        1. Prodio profile image61
          Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          May you BE the Force.

    19. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      Evolution proves Intelligent Design.

        Please explain whether you think this true or not.

      1. Prodio profile image61
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        If it (evolution) indeed happened - then seeing the outcome (our minds and beautiful bodies) - of course I must say that God was behind it.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I think that way too. Evolution does seem plausible to me and not in the least contradictory to Intelligent Design.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Except Intelligent Design implies purpose, specifically our purpose while I can name many creatures who's only purpose is to cause us harm in their survival. The natural world that we can see doesn't care about our survival.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting.  But, I believe we are merely part of nature. That is the challenge…
              Who gave us that challenge? The aliens of course!

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Then you must understand that we are nothing special. We have no purpose. We are as you say part of nature like all other animals. We were not designed and the universe was not designed for us. We could have easily have evolved billions of years ago around a smaller longer burning star. As a designer I can tell you design has purpose, intent and good design is obvious. In other words if the universe was designed for us by a master designer who wanted us to see the design then our placement would be obvious and other galaxies would have been redundant and omitted as they are not needed to us.

            2. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
              wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Human Beings don't seem to care about the chickens, cows, pigs, or fish that they eat. I grew up on a farm. I have seen the cycle close up and first hand. I assure you, none of these animals happily volunteered for the brutality of the slaughterhouse. They all seek to survive, and I have heard them all cry out in fear and pain. I have seen their red blood gushing into the dirty drainpipe, as the butchers tell jokes, and share stories about recent sexual conquests.

              Such scenes that I witnessed as a child, beginning at the age of 5, helped me to understand many things about life. The farmer cannot afford to feel remorse for the slaughter of innocent animals when they are the source of his sustenance, and survival. Their wishes, hopes, and dreams. are of no consequence to the farmer. He may be careful to provide them with a merciful death. But dead is dead, no matter how we arrive at that conclusion.

              Perhaps the cows believed that my father was a benevolent god. After all, he kept the fences mended, not only to keep them in, but also to keep them safe from predators. They had a bounty of fresh green grass to eat in the spring and summer, and in the wintertime: delicious clover hay, corn on the cob, and ground feed with molasses. They also enjoyed a steady supply of salt blocks. When the storms came he herded them to the barnyard where there was shelter.

              Obviously their god (my father) cared about them . For many years, I even cried when they were taken to be butchered. But my tears quickly dried up when I sat down at the table and ate the fresh steak with mashed potatoes,  polk  salad, and  sweet corn. My point is simply this: The assessment of a cow or a pig as to whether my father cared or didn't care about the well being of the farm animals, had no bearing on the fact that my father existed. The lives of the farm animals were bound to follow his design, regardless of what they may have believed to be true.

              I see the human race in a similar predicament. We cannot be 100% sure that the Universe is our friend, or foe. We cannot be certain that we are not a higher form of animal that is being farmed, and used for purposes we do not understand. But the existence of God, and the reality of Intelligent Design, is not dependent upon our sense of well being, or lack thereof. It seems that many of us have confused the concept of God with Santa Claus. For 17 years I talked to the animals, and I listened to what they had say.

              God is great!

              1. Sed-me profile image82
                Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Wow, that's completely awful. I wonder if remorse is preferable or more humane? But then if it were inhumane, then we shouldn't do it at all.

                I remember when I had my first child. She was c-section. There I was, very young, a bit scared and vulnerable, laying on a surgeon's table. As they cut me open, they talked about the bar-b-que they were planning that weekend. A part of me found it disconcerting of course, but another part of me knew it made sense. If they thought about the fact that a naked 18 year old girl lay bleeding on the table in front of them... two lives in their hands... would those thoughts interfere with the task at hand?

                Not all ends have a preferable means.

                God *is great. smile

                1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree, too much "feeling" for a patient could prove to be fatal in such a context. It reminds me of going to the dentist. We are usually glad we went, but nobody seems to be in a hurry to get there; except for the dentist!

                  1. Sed-me profile image82
                    Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    That reminds me... I need to go to the dentist. sad

          2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            And yet, evolution does not support Intelligent Design/Creationism at all. In fact, it has nothing to do with it.

            Kathryn, evolution has two basic requirements, natural selection and diversity of species. Can you figure it out from there?

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this
      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Evolution proves evolution. It's evidence that we are like any other animal, uniquely adapted to survive. There have been many animals that gave gone extinct, does that seem intelligent to you? Would a creator create them without purpose? They evolved, the environment changed and they died off completely without purpose.

        Does it seem reasonable that a loving God would allow some of us to be born with great advantages over others or does it seem like something that would happen naturally as a way of making the species stronger?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That is an interesting point of view.  See? no splashing.

    20. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      For instance, how did all the scientists who contributed to discovering/researching the theory of atoms and then create these amazing instruments to detect them, happen to have such brilliant mind/brains? Where does determination, will-power, mental stamina, dedication, interest, motivation, inspiration and the intense ability to focus / concentrate originate within a human??

      will power + awareness + intelligence = soul.
      How are these attributes measured?

      By how they manifest in action. The soul's presence / existence in a body is provable according to the actions being taken: thinking, breathing, feeling, and moving according to some stimulus. Reacting to stimulus proves the existence of a soul.

      What was God's original stimulus?
      The evidence points to the possibility that it must have been his own joy, love, creativity and intelligence. All of life is within the realm of spontaneous evolution and non-static progression toward something? Actually back to Himself… from the past to the future, always now.

    21. healinghands1668 profile image85
      healinghands1668posted 2 years ago

      A fairy tale? I don't know. I am a hopeful agnostic. I choose to believe there is some higher power in the universe, but I am certainly too small to define Him/Her/It. The scientific evidence supports evolution, but if there is a God, I expect that God is smart enough to have set that process in motion.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        ...and even guides it. This God force is within and without.
        sounds magical? It is.
        (...what? whats wrong with leaping. Its good exercise.)
        TWISI
        PMC

        1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
          Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          What is wrong with leaping is the inevitable consequence of claiming to know things as fact when all you are doing is making it up. See: history. sad

          VAA

      2. Righteous Atheist profile image59
        Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Setting the process in motion would only make sense if there were no predetermined developmental destination. Thus "A" disinterested god might have done so, but one who intended to semi-murder his son for three days to save us from the sins he made sure we committed would not really fit this scenario. big_smile

        1. sonfollowers profile image92
          sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Sir Righteous,

          As I pointed out earlier, it's common descent that Christians generally have a problem with and common descent is supported by a thin layer of computer models and such.  We have not observed anything that would be considered conclusive evidence for common descent.  It's still a theory that gets lumped into this over-arching thing called evolution.  So there really is no need for someone who believes in God to jump on the "setting the process in motion" band wagon.  They could if they wanted to.  It's just not necessary.

          About not fitting the scenario, you don't really seem to know enough about Christian doctrine to make that kind of determination.  God didn't make sure we committed sin.  Adam did.  God gave Adam free will and Adam used it to his (and our) detriment.  Free will is an important component of the human experience.  Athiests knock it but at the same time relish in their free will to be an athiest.  You guys act like we're trying to force you to believe something when, according to the Biblical world view, God went out of His way to ensure that you could in fact be an athiest.  Without free will there is no love because there is no choice.  Without choice, the word "love" would be empty and meaningless.  Hence the tree.  God didn't make Adam do anything.  That, in fact, is the point of the Genesis story (incase you missed it).

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It's always funny to see someone complain that our knowledge of evolution is supported by only very thin layer of evidence and then begin pointing out biblical tales supported by nothing but millenia old tales passed down by word of mouth.

          2. Righteous Atheist profile image59
            Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Adam did not exist. If you understood evolution you would understand why. wink

            Thin  layer of what now? lol lol

            1. sonfollowers profile image92
              sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Your premise assumes that God would somehow be constricted by the laws he put into place to manage the universe he created--that a creator would not be impressive enough to manipulate his own creation.  You need a new argument.  That one is DOA.

              1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
                Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Ah - Majick!. lol

                Evolution does not appear to have been manipulated. But - my oh my what a lousy way of creating us. Couldn't your god just have created us the way we are instead? wink

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Funny how that works. The book they rely on tells them the universe was created in a week and humans moulded out of dirt. Turns out the universe was around 9 or so billion years before the earth or the sun and then we drive billions of years after that.

                  So some change the story, the fact remains we are no longer the centre of the universe. Why again didn't he put us on another planet 13 billion years ago? They say he had the power.

                  1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
                    Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Anyone who thinks god created us by waiting billions of years and then manipulating millions of years of evolution wants their head examined. smile

                  2. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Quotes are from:  http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2646118

                    The thread continued with Mark trying to defend as though you had given any facts, but eventually he abandoned the fruitless pursuit.  Follow the hyperlink to see how it played out.  Now I see your back at it again:

                    [/b]

                    Facts you say?  Or beliefs from your holy books that you have embraced.  Some may be true, others not, but they are not facts.

                    1. 0
                      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      I could spend my time attempting to explain how science has determined the age of the universe and the age of our sun using various techniques always arriving at the same times. I've studied it myself and find it fascinating, perhaps you may want to do the same.

                      I suggest you start with the Planck Mission.
                      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/planc … DQ270tDDW0

                      It may be a little over your head, but if you stick with it you may learn something.

    22. healinghands1668 profile image85
      healinghands1668posted 2 years ago

      If there is a God, It might not be the Christian God at all.

      1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
        Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Way I see it is this. If you accept the possibility of a god, you must accept all possible gods as being equally possible. There is an infinite number of possible gods so - your god is infinitely unlikely.

        infinity:one. big_smile

        1. sonfollowers profile image92
          sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          This argument assumes incorrectly that all religions are created equal--that every religion is equally plausible.  I guess you would also conclude that all NFL teams are equally as likely to win the Super Bowl (Vegas would disagree).  This is lazy thinking on your part.  Clearly you haven't put any effort at all into understanding Christianity or you would recognize that no other religion can even be put in the same category as that one.  No other religion has hundreds of fulfilled prophecies to give it credibility.  No other religion has as it's foundation the resurrection of a single person in history (something so unbelievable that, amidst the Roman persecution, this following should never have made it out of the first century).  Every other religion is wrapped around teaching that could live on without it's founder.  Not Christianity.  Very, very different.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Ahhhh, Islam has better, less vague prophesies that have been fulfilled and someone being raised to heaven for all to see on a horse.

            Are you going to switch team now?

            It's kind of funny really, listening to a grow person bragging about who has the best religion. One would think all those people of other religions would be envious, but somehow, like you, they think they are right.

            1. sonfollowers profile image92
              sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Please tell me you're joking.  smile

              https://www.alislam.org/library/article … ecies.html

              Their book apparently predicted the creation of zoos, dynamite, and the abandonment of camels as a transportation system.  Have you read the Messianic prophecies?  You actually think zoos and camels are more impressive than predicting where, when, and how the Messiah would show up?  That he would die for the sins of the world?  Foreshadowing how he would die?  That the Jewish law would be replaced by a new covenant and a new way to God?  Predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple?  And this is just a sample.  All of that (except for the bit about the temple which was spoken by Jesus) was written by Jewish prophets and the Jews of today still put weight on their predictions.  They still believe that this Messiah is coming one day, just like they did back then.  It's their prophecies.  Christians didn't make them up to validate their cause.  We simply see that they are a tapestry into which was woven the life of Jesus.  He fits perfectly, like Cinderella in the glass slipper.  Even secular writers corroborate where and when Jesus showed up, validating at least two of the prophecies.  The rest are corroborated by four separate ancient texts written in the first century, not counting the many letters we have from that time.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, the stories about Jesus were written well after the fact and written in a way to fill prophesies. Look at the difference between the first gospel written and the others. The first has no virgin birth let alone in a specific town and no resurrection. Funny how the people of his time didn't believe he was a who Christians think he was until years later when people wrote about him.

                Sorry, all religions are equally a collection of superstitions. You are welcome to pretend yours is better but you won't be convincing me of any of that.

              2. Righteous Atheist profile image59
                Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                What Messiah is this?

                There is absolutely no evidence that this Jesus even existed. Certainly nothing contemporary to corroborate anything. sad

                1. sonfollowers profile image92
                  sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Even secular historians don't believe Jesus never existed.  That's a terrible argument.

                  Are you saying that writings from a secular Roman historian that corroborate that he lived and died when and how the gospels say he did are not evidence?  Add to that writings from a Jewish historian?  Add to that references in the Talmud?  Add to that the many other manuscripts that now make up the New Testament from at least 9 distinct authors, none of them disagreeing on who He was or what He did?  Each one of those things separately is evidence.  I'm pretty sure Jesus was a real person.

                  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f … ounts.html

                  1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
                    Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry - nothing contemporary then? OK.

                    Many secular historians don't believe Jesus existed.

                    How odd - for such a famous person that there is absolutely no reference to him at all. wink

                    Not counting the bible as evidence - sorry.

                    What does this have to do with intelligent design again?

                    1. sonfollowers profile image92
                      sonfollowersposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      What do you mean contemporary?  I just listed off things that were written around the time that the events occurred.

          2. Righteous Atheist profile image59
            Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            No it doesn't. Please what I wrote. Your irrational belief system is just lack of thinking on your part. Now try thinking instead of preaching nonsense at us. wink

            Not sure what any of this has to do with intelligent design anyway. What is the relevance here?

        2. healinghands1668 profile image85
          healinghands1668posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I don't claim to have any God. I don't claim to know any God. I have ideas about what I think God would be like that I hope are true. But odds are that I am wrong about some or all of them. Of course, that is true of every human being I meet, so I cannot trust that any human being, theist or atheist knows the whole truth. If there is no higher power, then yes, the atheists are absolutely correct. But until they can provide me with convincing evidence beyond a lack of evidence for one religion's God or another, I will not discount the possibility that they are just as wrong as everyone else. As to the origin of life and existence as we know it, I accept the prevailing scientific wisdom as fact, because there is very strong evidence for it. I would prefer that Intelligent Design is not taught as fact in schools because there is not strong evidence for it--or any evidence, if we're going by the arguments of religious fundamentalists. But I have chosen to stay open to the possibility of a higher power, so I am open to the possibility of and intelligent Creator.

          1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
            Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Ah - you are open to the possibility that there is not a higher power then?

            Because there is a lack of evidence for one.

            What would be "convincing evidence," for a lack of a higher power?

            1. healinghands1668 profile image85
              healinghands1668posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Honestly, I can't really think of anything that would convince me that any higher power at all is impossible. Certainly there is enough evidence against literal interpretations of most holy books I have encountered. But yes, I accept the possibility that there is no higher power, but it would probably take some deep personal experience to convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no higher power. Rationally, I realize the evidence has never pointed to it, but the idea that anyone can know what seems objectively unknowable doesn't really gel with me.

              1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
                Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Personal experience is pretty irrelevant here. Not sure it is objectively unknowable myself. Clearly there is no evidence that points to one. Any "evidence" seems to point to a dumb Creator actually. big_smile

                1. healinghands1668 profile image85
                  healinghands1668posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  What is it that you would like to convince me of?

                  That intelligent design in not fact? Absolutely it is not.

                  That the burden if proof rests with the religious? It absolutely does.

                  That they have thus far done a very poor job? I quite agree.

                  That no one should be forcing their own religious beliefs on others? No argument there.

                  That the failure of the religious to prove their own interpretation of God is proof positive of no higher power at all? Well...

                  If you have reached that conclusion, I don't fault you for it. I just find the idea of God so beyond definition that I don't think anything could convince me that Its existence or nonexistence is objectively knowable.

                  1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
                    Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Ah well - you choose to believe in some thing that defies definition then. OK. Not trying to convince you of anything. You  seem happy where you are. Nothing can convince you of anything so you choose to limit yourself to one possibility. Fair enough. I thought we were having a discussion, but as you say it is beyond definition and objectively unknowable. Except you defined it, "Intelligent Creator". big_smile

                    1. healinghands1668 profile image85
                      healinghands1668posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      I defined that as a possibility. That's the great thing about being agnostic. I really am not limited to anything. I also acknowledge the possibility of a Dumb Creator, as you put it. Though I find that idea pretty terrifying.

                      Thing is...happy as I am choosing not to discount the possibility of one, many, or no gods, my choice seems to bother a lot  of people. Usually atheists. Not all of them, but when my agnosticism is challenged, it is usually by an atheist, even though in terms of the day to day, I tend to agree with them more often than with the religious.

     
    working