The debate of whether God exist ( and that he created the Universe, and thus intelligent life on earth) has been the subject of so much debate, rational or otherwise, on HubPages. Atheists base their non-belief mantra solely on the fact that God could not be perceived by their 5 senses. Theists base their belief ,try as they might, on the conclusion that the universe could not have created itself over 12 billion years ago and that it has continued to exist in such a way that assures and assumes that all events that has led to the formation of intelligent life on a non-descript, small but nonetheless beautiful planet we humans call earth was not accidental.
The times are surely changing, but in what direction, no one knows. My best bet is that despite the attempts by atheists (specifically on HubPages, I'd call them the nattering nabobs of negativity) to devalue and degrade Homo Sapiens' existence down to the level of Raphus Cucullatus (the Dodo bird), humans would ultimately secure their destiny not only as a star-gazing specie, but most importantly a star-trekking entity as well.
Excellent presentation on how infinitessimally small humans are compared to the size of the universe...or multiverse for that matter. But that is how far your poster goes. And because of these fact, you and other atheists are willing to devalue/degrade human existence, intelligence, persistence, and insistence? The chance that other similarly intelligence-predisposed entities like us exist out there in the infinite vastness of the universe increases exponentially, and humans have to be open to the odea that we are not the only star-gazing and potentially star-trekking entities.
Is the existence of a Creator (Divine or otherwise) negated by your poster? An emphatic NO, and that is not an absurdity.
Mark, you totally number one of my favorite people on HP. Totally and absolutely. Great piccys.
This is my favorite Universe too. But then again, I don't know any different
Astrophysicists of all stripes and persuasion (religious or otherwise) are now proposing the conceptual possibility, that the universe that our galaxy and our solar sytem belongs to, is only one of several (or incalculably more) universes... what they term multiverse. So don't despair that your are, so far, only aware of the universe that we are in because from my perspective, it is the only universe that matters.
That is an argument from incredulity. It is only those who don't understand and reject out of hand the observations and evidence who make those conclusions.
As, opposed to devaluing and degrading Homo Sapiens to that of sinners?
In a purely religious context "sinning" or being a "sinner" invokes the concept that humans do things that are against their spiritual bent i.e when their ego superscedes the conscientious dictates of their soul.
In a purely secular context, "sinning" or being a "sinner" involve going against societal laws.
In either case, punishment is the end result....one given here on earth, the other, given in the afterlife.
Atheists deny the existence of an afterlife, so whatever "sinning" they do on earth and for whatever reason, they escape punishment during their earthly life, then they escape punishment altogether. Which I suppose is just kosher with them.
Sorry, but spirits and souls have never been shown to exist, hence your point is moot.
Sorry, but that is entirely false. People are called criminals when they go against laws, not sinners.
That is why sane people reject the garbage of religions that punish those simply because they don't accept that garbage.
Atheists don't believe in sin, hence it is a moot point for them. They don't believe we are born evil sinners but instead are born with the capacity for altruism and compassion, concepts your religion denounces in favor of punishments.
You mean you've never been touched by your soul TM? A pity, because, you'd be a better person for it. Not that I'm saying you are a bad person.
You are just too literal for my taste TM...of course when I refer to "sinning" against man made laws I was referring to commiting a crime.
I don't think divine punishment is meant for those who don't believe in the divine... so there is just no pile of garbage there. Not unless you think , as I do, that having a supersized EGO is punishment enough.
Altruism and compassion eh? Having to deal with you and other atheists on HubPages, I don't think those two virtues are applicable.
Once again, souls have never been shown to exist, hence your point is moot.
Sorry, but your imaginative notions of things that have never shown to exist have no bearing on being a better person or not. It is through our own brains we can reason such things.
They are unrelated completely. Sinning has nothing to do with crime or the legal system in general.
If that is what you'll be punished for, it is still good reason to reject it as garbage.
Of course not, you're far to busy showing us we are all evil sinners because we don't accept your religious beliefs. Sorry, if you actually believe you'll receive any compassion for propagating that garbage.
Another person's garbage might be a gold mine for another. It all depends upon one's perspective. That perspective is obviously colored by so many things, the least of which is the belief (garbage in your parlance) that humans are not the total sum of their material/physical parts.... that there is a lot more to us than meets the eyes.
The human soul is part and parcel of that unseen reality... the soul is the energy that directly emanated from the ENIGMATIC ENERGY that created the universe....it is the energy that tempers the licentious urgings of our EGO... it is the energy that propels humans to aspire for a higher level of consciousness.
Odd that you come across as so EGOtistical in that case. A few humble X-tians would go a long way.
Unseen reality huh?
Sorry, but your description of a human soul does not conform to any knowledge or evidence shown by anyone, hence we can conclude you are creating false claims based on your beliefs. That is obvious by the fact you claim it is of the "unseen reality", hence how can anyone know it exists if it's unseen?
The soul tugs at those whose evidentiary knowledge of it does not involve seeing.
In this day and age.... seeing does not alway lead to believing, so why would you even rely on that for you to not believe something exist simply because you do not see?
do you mean seeing with your own eyes ?
as proof of existence of the seen object ?
It has been more than 30 years I haven't heard about such a discussion.
Either you are all about analphabets, or you enjoy playing adolescent games like me.
Just wondering if you are an OBJECTIVIST, i.e one who believes that a material object exist irregardless of whether someone or something is there to perceive and interpret it.
Not entirely from a philosophic perspective but from the scientific as well... the Universe does not and can not "exist" if there are no intelligent entities, humans included, that sees it and interprets it that it exist.
Because, then we must believe everything one can conjure from the imagination. In this day an age, we question those claims of faith.
An untethered imagination does you no good in leading you to ideas and concepts whose possibilities and probabilities are not materially deflated by irrationality.
For imagination to impact reality, it must come from a structured or fully-thought out evaluation of those possibilities and probabilities.
"Sorry, but that is entirely false. People are called criminals when they go against laws, not sinners."
That's about the most legalistic mumbo-jumbo response I've ever seen. You've proven your own argument false in just two sentences. What argument? This one:
"Atheists don't believe in sin, hence it is a moot point for them. They don't believe we are born evil sinners but instead are born with the capacity for altruism and compassion, concepts your religion denounces in favor of punishments."
Sin is to crime, as a criminal is to a sinner. It isn't that you don't believe in sin, it's that you call it something else, and then try to say that evil doesn't exist. Clearly, evil and sin is real, or we'd have no laws at all.
Being born with the capacity for altruism and compassion, isn't the same as being born with the actual trait itself. I don't see a whole lot of it anywhere, in religious institutions or secular ones. This world is so full of pain and suffering, brough on by our own selfish lusts and pride.
You know how much money public health care systems would save, if people would just keep their pants on and not sleep with everyone they can? Treating all those nasty STDs, which by the way are getting more resilient to therapies, costs a lot of money. Lesser countries look at what we spend on our own vanity, and rightfully hate us for it. Are they any better? No, but that doesn't make them wrong for their argument against us. Entire national infrastructures could be rebuilt with the money spent on treating STDs, not even mentioning the cost of abortions.
And that's just one aspect of sin which has a real effect on the world around us, considering the economical impact it has on ourselves. Yet what do we blame? Who do we point the finger at? Not ourselves.
Sorry, but the criminal justice system does not recognize your religious beliefs as valid in regards to sin having anything to do with laws.
Sorry, you are having problems with pain and suffering, however that does not equate to the whole world being born in sin.
Yes, I understand you deal in sins and not reality based concepts such as laws and medical issues.
"Sorry, but the criminal justice system does not recognize your religious beliefs as valid in regards to sin having anything to do with laws."
What does religious beliefs have to do with the concept of crime and punishment? Oh I don't know, maybe uh... Everything? Think about that for a minute.
"Sorry, you are having problems with pain and suffering, however that does not equate to the whole world being born in sin."
I didn't say that, you erroneously made that connection, I am not in pain or suffering right now. Pain and suffering in the world is self-evident. Everyone suffers, and everyone feels pain. Though the two are never far apart, you don't need to feel pain to suffer.
"Yes, I understand you deal in sins and not reality based concepts such as laws and medical issues."
Whatever you say, pal.
Uh, actually, nothing.
Humans have many emotions such as joy and happiness, so what? Do you actually have a point?
"Theists base their belief ,try as they might, on the conclusion that the universe could not have created itself over 12 billion years ago..."
And because they a) don't have the knowledge to understand science and b) can't concede that not knowing something is no reason for inventing a mythical entity to explain it all away, they will continue to invent gods to deal with everything that they cannot conceive.
Like your beloved Mark Knowles, you are, I'm not too happy to say, when spouting the above post, have become a huge echo-chamber of your prophet Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.
Ironically, I have never read either of the two people you mention. My conclusions about there being no god came about strictly as a result of being a fundamentalist Christian for a decade and working it out for myself.
Really?... now where have I read a similar statement like yours?.. Oh yes, Mark Knowles.
Please stop lying about me. I never said any such thing.
Of course you have, in so many ways, in so many directions, in so many evocations.
Nope - never mentioned being a fundamentalist Christian.
Please stop lying about me. I know your religion allows you to bear false witness because you have no moral compass, but still.......
Is there anything that you and Mark Knowles could say with just a slight tinge of originality?
What is there that you have shown to be original to warrant an original response?
The best way to deal with an un-original post is to debunk it with an original post... which you and MK and the others have not been able to do , what with your oft-repeated, ad-nauseam argument that religion has caused so many wars and conflict.
Don't have the ability to understand science? That's painting with an incredibly broad brush and honestly, quite offensive. It's completely possible to believe in both hard scientific evidence and God, what is impossible is believing in human interpretation of certain old testament statements and science side-by-side.
I do love those illustrations. What's the big Christmas bulb right in the middle of God's favourite Universe ?
You certainly contribute to prove with your thread contributions on this same subject for years, that one of the universe's most favourite trajectories is the circle with some of its elliptical declinations.
As to the direction times are a changing, it's very simple :
We're cruising fast towards Vega of the Lyre which will be our pole star in some thousand years. And we are the crew of this vessel. And we have our hands on the bildges valve handles.
Realistically humans are a long, long, long way from achieving "warp speed", so the idea of "star trekking", at least for now, is the sole purvue of Hollywood made science fiction flicks.
I do not think that the leap from fiction to non-fiction is a "pipe-dream".
Reality is but a shared illusion among a group of beings.
This statement is well proven in these pages.
So, if we choose to believe that what our Astronomers see at the ocular of their telescopes and their subsequent calculations, what I said in my post, is considered to be a fact.
So, Captain Kirk could be anyone.
Times they are a changing much faster than people.
Inter-stellar or inter-galactic travel assumes that man would have achieved the technological breakthroughs that such an endeavour requires. Scientists, astrophysicists who are in the forefront of perceptualizing and conceptualizing such an endeavour, still have significant doubts, but that does not mean that man shoud not try.
I thnk they share your optimism. Personally I can only keep my fingers crossed..... so many hurdles to overcome, not the least of which is the distinct possibility of humans self-destructing in multiple nuclear explosions. Nature could be the huge elephant in the room considering that multiple species have become extinct because of natural catastrophies.
yeah, love the graphic you posted.
Examing evidence, and determining the nature of evidence itself, concerning the origin and nature of existence objective and subjective is entertaining at least. At best, personal conclusions may determine the quality of our continuing existence. Meanwhile, too much distraction upon it may result in a dimininishing of the here and now experience. There is much in this world that is delusional mindcontrol, acquired deliberately and accidentally from outside forces as well as our own self thinking upon ourselves, and we can feel sure of that, and much of our religious teachings are a part of that, and it is a huge psychological battle to transcend that teaching and other powerful thought concepts impacted into our infant minds... at one point some one may choose to believe Jesus is hogwash yet Jesus and the church is still in there fearing our behavior on the battleground of clearing our mind and if the mind ever achieves an actualized freedom from the Jesus concept the freedom may feel fragile so one must cling desperately to anti-Jesus concept such as athiesism and such and maybe fear alternative religious ideas from hindu and such maybe look for more liberal religious concepts like Buddism and Zen and such or merge science with our religious concept like quantum and such or simply decide when I'm dead I'm over and done with all in that desperate need not to fall back into the Jesus trance or whatever trance had you asleep and perhaps still has you asleep to whatever agree, and we might say to "awake" is to be present in the here and now as a human being, or perhaps to find the earth and our body both are a matrixform dream where even science and its evidence is false illusion composed of dream substance and faithbased cause empowered by artificial math yielding faithbased effect and just where is the here and now and slip back into Plato's cave... then we die and acquire perhaps better evidence if we're not too asleep to notice and just what is remembered concerning the obvious the universe could not have originally built itself out of nothing therefore there is the Eternal and how can my ego survive that
I was trying mightily to follow the trajectory of your post and was not entirely sure how it will end... thankfully after Platos cave, it became crystal clear.
I have to tell you that atheists have built their EGO to the nth degree that they hope it would be enough for it to survive the realization that indeed the ETERNAL exist.
"The times are surely changing, but in what direction, no one knows. "
With religion being phased out it can only be better than it is now. Less war, less racism, less homophobics, less judgment. Almost everything bad roots itself in religion. Atheists don't go around trying to start wars or have an issue with treating all people equal.
If you believe in what you just posted (and I have no reason to believe that you are just playing the devil's advocate), may I suggest that you review it, (specially the statement "...almost everything bad roots itself in religion.., " )against the background of historical perspectives of the past 2 thousand years. You might come to a different conclusion. Now if you are just spouting another one of those non-sensical idiocy that atheists on HubPages regularly assaults the rest of us with...then God, save us all.
Nobody is "degrading" humanity. Well, okay, take that back, sure, some people do. But, unless you are a fan of big, stupid stereotypes and gross, unthinking arguments based in garbage, fallacy and laziness, you can't argue that the the "failure to believe in a divine being" in and of itself degrades humanity.
YOU might be arguing that it does. Which is fine. You can argue whatever you want. But my point is that the unwillingness to believe in a divine being does NOT "degrade" humanity.
I realize that lots of religious people get all rumpled and put to fits by the arguments PEOPLE make, but then many religious people, if they believe in honesty, will admit that many PEOPLE who follow religions make stupid arguments to support their ideas too. So, in those cases, on both sides, PEOPLE degrade themselves, yes, totally. But, again I must point out in the name of truth, the belief that there are no super natural beings in the universe in no way "degrades" humanity. There is just nothing to support that claim.
Atheists on HubPages, aside from not believing in God, have posited a corollary belief..... and this is that humanity's existence have no higher purpose, any more than the existence of the Dodo bird or any such other animate entities have higher purpose, other than to satisfy their physical needs to survive, eat, breath, micturate, defecate, and procreate.
That my friend is the ultimate betrayal of man's inate dignity and verity... a devaluation and degradation so severe, that it could only be explained by a SUPERSIZED EGO ran amock.
I have a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe. That's why I don't have a SUPERSIZED EGO...
These atheist should understand that until they become SPECIAL enough to have a personal relationship with the CREATOR of the universe, they are just going to have SUPERSIZED EGOS.
I do not subscribe to the notion that humans should feel special, because it injects into the conversation the element of superficiality. Granted that humans have found a niche in the natural order that I would consider close to the top, This has come about neither through his brute force, nor guile nor greed, but through his cerebral capacity to overcome the exigencies of existence; persist through several near extinction events through the millenia, and finally triumph over his own limitations as just one of myriads of living entities on earth.
So do you propose that BELIEF in Gods helped propel man to this status, or an ACTUAL God...or do you simply corroborate evolution?
Both!!!.....As the saying goes:.." God help those who help themselves."
A question for you...Does it really matter if God created humans in one clean swoop (as the Bible says) or through a process ( as the evolutionary theory proposes) through which the laws of nature that He created and promulgated acted on the "primordial soup" that ultimately led to intelligent life on earth, including humans.?
Personally, I don't think Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive.
Evolutionary theory falls apart if there was a predetermined developmental destination. Because - clearly there was not.
Stephen Hawking, in discussing the impossibility of miracles, gave GOD his due (in a somewhat backhanded way) by saying that miracles are againts the laws of nature, so if GOD is able produce miracles, He has to go against the same Laws of Nature that he created and promulgated. Which to Hawking is IRRATIONAL. and NON-SENSICAL.
Now will you argue that since you do not believe in God, then the existence of these Laws of Nature was not God-created... so who then created them. Will you argue that these Laws created themselves? To Hawking's thinking, that is as nonsensical/irrational as God going against his own laws.
That is nonsense. You missed the emphasis on "IF" which makes the idea of a god IRRATIONAL and NONSENSICAL.
Odd - you think the laws of nature needed a creator? How so?
No wonder your religion causes so many fights.
Laws are made i.e. created, but since, I'm sure, YOU did not create them, who did? Are you suggesting that they just came from out of the blue, into thin air and now they pervade and overrides the universe?
Show me that the laws of nature are made i.e. created and need a creator.
The laws of nature came about as a direct result of inflationary expansion and the cooling of the universe according to the evidence. No creators were necessary for that process to occur.
This is the first time I'm reading what your are claiming in your post. Stephen Hawking had not made that claim and so have other reliably on-the-know astrophysicists. It is inconceivable that the expansion and cooling could have led to such diversified manifestations and implications of those laws.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie … verse.html
If it is true that, as Stepehen Hawking avers from your quote, GRAVITY is the Grand Daddy of them all, what made it possible for GRAVITY to pre-exist the UNIVERSE? What would GRAVITY act on when matter itself was non-existent before the BIG BANG?
So - you don't agree with Hawking that a God is unnecessary? Odd - you asked for a reference because you had never heard something and when I provide it you claim a better understanding of physics than Hawking? Gravity pre-existed the Universe - that is interesting. You claim to know what happened before the Universe? Matter was also non-existent huh? I suggest you read Hawking's books before making such outrageous claims.
Spontaneous creation?....whatever does that mean.
In the natutral world, spontaneous creation is as phantasmogorical a concept as fairies and unicorns.
Yes, I understand scientific thought is inconceivable for many believers who must invoke magical super beings to account for their lack of understanding.
"With God, all things are possible"
That completely covers any objections that anyone would have to your assertions, however when I proposed this question to God, He has never come forth and explained if He created man in one clean swoop, or through evolution. I only hear about what God has done from other humans, who are using nothing but speculation...conjecture. That presents a conundrum.
So since humans, in our current form, are but a small link in the evolutionary chain, and that we will eventually evolve into species beyond our comprehension, would that not make us insignificant.
So what would you call the specie that Homo Sapiens is going to evolve into? HOMO ROBOTICUS?....a specie so mechanized and roboticized that it left its soul into the dustbin? I doubt it.
None of us really knows what the future holds, or, for the most part, the past either. Any vision that we have is mainly conjecture.
I find it distressing that most people, alive today, believe that they know what reality is, while basing their perception upon ancient books, written by primitives, who knew MUCH, MUCH less than we know today.
Only if you INSIST that purpose has to come from outside of us, which clearly you do. I disagree, and not only find purpose for myself from within, I know many incredible, beautiful people who do not feel it necessary to credit invisible beings with that sense of purpose. (And yes, you may feel free to insist that it was put there by a magical being, and so the merry-go-round goes on, etc., etc. yawn.)
The fight over "there is a God" or "there isn't one" is really a semantic argument about what some people INSIST that all people should call that purpose (or that it should be called anything at all). If you choose to credit unseen beings as named by whichever of the hundreds of thousands or human made religions, that's awesome; pick your favorite and run with it. But that decision to stop being curious and declare yourself possessed of THE answer does not in anyway give or take value from humanity any more than someone else doing the same thing in a different way.
You talk about "Super egos." Well, anyone who claims to have THE answer, whether by declaring with absolute certainty that there are no invisible super beings, as atheists do, or those who do as you are doing by declaring there are invisible super beings, or in fact, that there is only one and "they" know which one it is ... well, THAT is super ego in BOTH cases. What you seem to miss, is that you are doing the same thing the "atheists" you argue with do: you claim to know something you can't prove in the same way they do. BOTH sides are consumed with arrogance, with "ego" as you say.
When I wrote "...man's inate dignity and verity..." I am referring to man's inherent ability to think and see through beyond his physical self, an ability that was not given to him by any outside force, but by his own power of introspection. Thus the purpose of his life goes beyond satisfying his physical/material needs. If some people find that above man's ability or purpose, then I suppose they can be happy and secure at lumping themselves together with other animate entities that neither have the cerebral capacity nor the perceptual inclination to think of other concerns aside from the purely physical and material.
"But that decision to stop being curious and declare yourself possesed of THE answer..." is a mis-construed and mis-directed statement for several obvious reasons, but the most important of which is the incontrovertible fact that humans will be eternally curious as to the why, the how, and the when of his creation-existence irrespective of his belief in an enigmatic ENTITY, that is non-material and non-physical. Personally the fact that I believe in the existence of such an entity, does not dissuade me in any way from introspecting, intuiting, percepting, and concluding that my life is purposeful and meaningful not only because I make it so but most importantly, because my life's journey is not entirely in my hands, free-will notwithstanding.
I also disagree with your formulation that I, having this belief makes me as EGO driven and blinded as the ones who do not share my belief. Conceptualizing that me as a physical entity could never be as ENIGMATIC as the one that is non-material and non-physical takes a lot of stripping myself of that EGO.
While I can see how you might believe you are being humble in ascribing your creation to this "ENIGMATIC ENTITY," I see it quite the opposite for several reasons.
The first is that you assume you are smart enough to fathom how you were created, even as you admitted earlier that humans have this "innate ability to introspect" etc., a natural born curiosity and desire with which they question their origins. They question those origins because they don't know them. And yet, here you are saying you've figured out the right answer despite having no evidence for it above any other answer, at least no evidence beyond how you feel. Which is great. Feel how you want. But declaring your feelings constitute a basis for answering the ages old question of the origins of life is not humility.
Second, it is vain for men to think that the only thing that could possibly have created them is a God. By separating mankind (as you have done) from what you call "other animate entities," you dismiss all other creations, if you will, as being beneath man. And since man is so amazing, and everything else is crap beneath man, the only thing that could possibly be greater than man is a GOD, an "ENIGMATIC ENTITY" written in all caps. Not only is that "the only way we could have come about" but, imagine a being that amazing having nothing to do but make little old us. How nice of it. Rather than just say, "Hell, I got no clue where we come from, but I'm damn happy to be alive in a beautiful universe, and I'm curious how it happened and like to think and read on it to enjoy the unknowable possibilities," you declare we can only be the creation of an amazing super being, a god. That is raging arrogance.
So, lastly, I'll repeat, to claim you KNOW how life, humanity, the universe came about with absolute certainty requires tremendous ego. You don't know. You think you know. You feel you know. Just like atheists don't know; they only think they know. Nobody knows. Which is fine. But running around claiming you know is definitely an exercise in ego of the highest order, because, in this, you literally have no conclusive evidence at all.
Humility requires admitting you don't know jack. From the nature of this thread and the multiplicity of your replies throughout, I don't think that's where you are coming from. Maybe I'm just missing it, though.
its may be hard for a person to be humble when the greatest biggest most powerful God in all of existence shares a personal relationship with that person and knows that person's first name
I am happy that you feel that way (if in fact you do). I begrudge nobody the source of their comfort. My comments are meant for those who would haughtily besmirch other opinions, which all hold the exact same degree of "accuracy" when it comes to this sort of thing.
My beliefs about God, the Universe, vis-a-vis Homo Sapiens were formulated from the cauldron of my intuition and instincts... the soul searching was not taken shortly or lightly. As such, I could never claim 100% certitude that those beliefs are the only TRUE ones. I state those beliefs heartfully and sincerely, because they are the ones that tugs at my whole being, body and soul.
If it is empirical evidence or knowledge that you are asking me to provide you with as the undergirding principle of those beliefs, then, you and I are not ever going to agree. I will leave it at that.
Superb riposte! Quite simply... superb!
I guess one needs a great deal of humility to accept that man's existence has no higher purpose. In the same way, believing that man's existence has a higher purpose could be seen as a desperate desire for meaning, as well putting oneself above one's station...
I wonder how much pain and suffering has been caused by people committing the sin/crime of working on the Sabbath. Of course, it is a sin, so heinous, that it is punishable by...DEATH!
Everyday I find myself becoming more in awe of the power of atheists. Until I started reading here on this forum, I thought atheists were these people who didn't believe in God and things like miracles and magical powers. But dang, I keep discovering how they are taking over everything and afraid I should be of them because of all their power, I mean, man, these folks don't even believe in supernatural abilities yet have the power to undo creation itself. And I didn't learn about these skills from the atheists. I am officially impressed.
Atheists, I realize I belong to a group that probably hasn't done the best job of following the commandment of the Christ you don't believe exists, but who we are meant to love and do our best to emulate, but I hear you are reasonable people so I'm asking (nicely) for you to please let me know when you're going to make my vestigial tail grow out--I'm gonna have to get a whole new wardrobe to accommodate it, so if you can see yourself clear to doing me a solid on that one, I'd be ever so grateful.
Your post just reminded and at the same time reassured me that the palyful sense of the absurd is alive and well on HubPages. Your reference to Atheists as EGO driven and HUBRISTIC, was right on target.
Expect some irrelevant comments from them to go your way, now that you aroused them with a little sarcasm.
It is interesting that it was assumed my sarcasm was directed towards the atheists.
And I don't recall specifically mentioning the atheists as being filled ego-driven or hubristic.
I hope those two points don't dampen any enthusiasm for playfulness or the sense of the absurd, because I love both very much.
I believe we were called, commanded and created by God. I do not believe that human life came into being just through a chemical or metaphysical journey that is pointless and going nowhere. If there is only me and no god above me then whom will restore me to life after death. For lots of reason I can not and do no let go of my fundamental belief that there is a god up there and outside of human reach.
Scary to think of death being real huh?
Where were you before you were alive?
for a while I did harbor a scary idea... that our tech just isn't good enough, sensitive enough, to detect the life remaining in the body any more so than brain waves, heart beats, breath on a glass and on back were good enough... that, as Time mag did as a cover story a decade back, death is not an event but rather a long process of the cells going out one by one over a long period of time... that life and awareness may remain in the body even as it is lowered into the ground or spent in the fire... months upon months of paralysis in the box with the decay and the parasites and the eaters... carrying on, at best, as absorption into worms... anyway, I shared the scary idea with some scientist chick who worked for a pharm and she said don't worry about such a painful sensation because the nervous system is the first thing to go.
As usual , tuning into any anti-religious forum post and Pooooooof ! The same ones who could never "believe " telling us all about it !. Hummm ! I wonder why they must constantly proclaim such ............? Insecurity ? Guilt ? The magnetic pull of a God ?
Having been a believer, and then a virilantly anti-theist non-believer only to softly re-approach the idea of God (but from a scientific stance) I think I have a fairly rounded view on things. I understand your passion for truth Mark Knowles, and the other atheist who spent a decade as a fundementalist Christian... I understand your anger at feeling as if the faithful ignorent pulled the wool over your eyes when you bought into their ideals. This outraged arguing achieves nothing however.
I think most people can agree (ignoring fundementalists since in denying other's a right to their opinion they efectively void their own right to one) that as man is flawed, and all holy texts are written by men, then all holy texts are in some respects at least, flawed. The doctrines and dogmas are questionable and therefore unsupportable in any real-terms way. The existence of a higher being or conciousness is an open point however. This is a question of the nature of conciousness and matter. This is an area which science - particularly the realm of quantum mechanics could potentially shed light on.
I read something recently which blew me away a bit. It suggested that due to conciousness' special relationship with causality (the observer affecting the outcome of the observed etc) along with other unusual behaviours of subatomic particles noted by quantum physicists, it is possible that matter and conciousness are not really seperate at all. Matter is nothing but a manifestation of self-aware energy acting upon itself to create the appearance of reality. In this theory (and it is a theory) the universe itself is awareness. It is aware and it is a creation of itself. It is God, in other words. There is no such thing a an individual soul as such... but we are each individually aware participants in a greater whole. I think this theory is beautiful. What say you guys?
seems to be the reasonable consensus nowadays
I think it is dishonest to claim anything scientific when defending gods and religions.
I am not defending any God of any religion. I emphatically do not subrcribe to dogma. If you like, don't use the word 'God' as it has too many religio-cultural connotations attatched. I merely posit the possible existence of a higher intelligence based on current scientific theories of physical reality. I do not even suggest that this 'Being' is any kind of creator - merely that there is something 'higher', and it is pervasive throughout the fabric of existence. Again - just a theory of reality - not a defense of any religious dogma.
Sorry, but there is nothing in science to indicate a higher intelligence, gods or what have you, hence it is dishonest to make such claims.
This flat out denial of there being any indication at all is quite frankly irrational and ignorent. I have read a paper, by a scientist speculating about this very thing. It was speculative, but it was with reference to current understanding (limited as that is) of what conciousness is, what matter is, and what the universe is comprised of. Such an attitude of flat denial is a fundementalist attitude such as those religious sorts you yourself are wont to criticise. Take your ignorence somewhere else please. If you would like me to reference my source material I can do so (given a little time).
It is not a denial, it is a fact there is no evidence.
Anyone can speculate on anything, but that doesn't make it valid without evidence.
Sorry, that you have a problem with facts.
Actually, it is your ignorance of facts that is the problem here.
Unless, you can come up with some evidence, your article of speculation is useless.
I never made a statement of fact. Nor did I even say there was solid evidence - merely indications. I.e. factors which one could use inductively to posit the possibility of universal consciousness. To say that speculation is useless is an astoundingly unimaginitive position to hold. All scientific discovery starts with speculation. If the world was peopled with folk as short sighted as that we'd still be in the Stone Age.
Nonsense, there are is no evidence, indications, factors or otherwise that would even remotely suggest the possibility of universal consciousness, it is pure bunkum.
Didn't it ever occur to your mind that WE, human species ARE the consciousness of the universe ?
(untill proven otherwise of course, by some other species)
Anyway, in theory we're the best candidates.
Maybe it is not easy to admit, because it carries the notion of responsibility behind.
I'm back the way I see it "evidence" is merely observed phenomena interpreted by the observer. I have no doubt that you and I could look at the same data about the world we live in and come to different conclusions. Our difference in opinion is not evidential because I can tell you have an excellent grasp of scientific explanations of reality. Our difference is interpretive - a difference in perspective only. There was a recent publication of new-scientist that posited and juxtaposed the most popular current theories of reality. My thoughts are based on a subjective interpretation of some of the ideas bandied about in these articles. The evidence lies in those observed traits of reality discussed in the articles mentioned. Particularly the mathematical theory of reality which posits existence as information. What is consciousness but a series of dynamic informational systems?
Mine are based on objective reality considering subjective interpretation is usually wrong.
Objectivity is broadly impossible. You cannot be objective in observations about a system that you are on the inside of. You have no other comparative frame of reference. This is the inherent problem with scientific endeavour. It claims objectivity - but its objectivity is limited by virtue of the nature of its existence within a closed system.
Yet, science uses objectivity within it's process, it must.
We have everything within that system as a frame of reference. Of course, frames of reference are ALWAYS relative to the observer.
And, that works perfectly well in understanding everything within that system.
You're ace Haven't had a decent debate in ages! I'll get back to you tomoz.
And since God is outside of that system, how can you find evidence of his existence "within that system". You just admitted to the fact that atheism is grasping at "straws" when it denies the existence of God when the basis for such an assertion are all derived within a closed system.
"Frames of reference are always relative to the observer".... My. my. my. an atheists who is not an objectivist and a reductionist. Now that is a stunning revelation.
That is an unsubstantiated claim with no evidence whatsoever, you might as well just say the boogieman is under your bed.
There is none, that's the point.
Your obviously talking about someone else.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you even understand frames of reference?
The existence of individual human souls, as distinct and as unique as the individual human bodies they inhabit, from my own perspective, is an article of faith.
The way I think about it, the soul is part and parcel of the ENERGY that intitiated all of creation, thus a part of the CONSCIOUSNESS that encompass the universe. As far as the concept of "universal consciousness " is concerned, the idea of an afterlife, weave through efforlessly into that fabric of ENERGY and CONSCIOUSNESS.
Though the term "soul" is convenient I'm beginning to think, like the term "god" it has too many cultural and historical connotations to be used in these kind of discussions without causing instant bias on the part of the reader.
This is why I think sticking to "consciousness" as a label is clearer at this stage of the game. I want to answer this fully so will get back to you. Gotta go back to work
Humans possess two different kinds of consciousness...One relies on his 5 physical senses to perceive and interpret material reality; the other relies on his "soul" to perceive non-material reality.
When one dies, the consciousness that relies on one's 5 physical senses dies as well, the brain being the conduit and interpreter of such physical input, having been rendered inoperative. The other consciousness lives on and on and on, and goes back to whence it originally came from...the Creator, the universal energy.
Before the universe existed there was gravity, because Goddunnit?
If gravity existed before the universe, what was it acting on ? Nothing? Matter did not exist before the Big Bang (which is now the current accepted thinking on how the universe got its start), so what is the use of Gravity, if it was not acting upon anything?
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
The Copernican Principle as a philosophical notion posits that humans occupy NO privileged or exceptional position in the universe. This has been the prevailing/reigning paradigm of scientific and societal...
by Claire Evans4 weeks ago
We hear often of atheists claiming that have looked for evidence of God but can find none but what would convince them? How do they go about investigating? How do they expect believers to prove it to them when it can...
by Vapid Maven4 years ago
So I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I've been involved in a lot of discussions on the lack of any physical evidence to the existence of any god (no matter what the religion)and it is always countered with...
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
An article on National Geographic, in discussing "The Multiverse" stated it simply this way: "One can best get a sense of the fine-tuning problem by thinking about the gravitational force. If this...
by The Reluctant Revivalist4 weeks ago
Do you think there is life after death? Or do you think that once you die, that is the end of your existance?
by sibtain bukhari2 years ago
I have made an experience of closing my eyes from the great,wonderful,mysterious and infinite worlds of inside and out side of me and I safely concluded that'' I can never see God,therefore, God is not...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.