jump to last post 1-36 of 36 discussions (227 posts)

This all just happened..

  1. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 5 years ago

    After you have had a look at this..

    http://molpath.ucsd.edu/pdf/Domains_Signaling.pdf

    Come back and re-affirm it was all just a mere accident, without any intelligent "cause".

    1. simeonvisser profile image88
      simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "It looks complex to me so God made it."

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That is correct dj. I can see you are angry and I don't blame you - I was when I discovered Christianity was nonsense. Oh well - better late than never.

      Glad you are now claiming to understand molecular biology though. Seeing as you do not believe evolution happened despite the facts. lol

      Will you get more angry as the Winter Solstice approaches?

      1. hanging out profile image59
        hanging outposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        i noted the url was ucsd.edu  University of california San Diego.

        again you are quick to slap at anything. Perhaps the anger is not contained to the person you would like to point it at.

        when i discovered that atheism was pure nonsense (and this mostly i discovered listening to many atheists purport their flimsy and self justifying, ego-centric nihilist versions of idiocy) I embraced a more stable belief.
        Christianity. It has answers and doesn't leave any questions. Of course quoting the bible out of context and relying on carnal and unspiritual interpretations of said book will never reveal to any upright monkey (hairless or otherwise)  the truth of whasup.
        My biggest question is what makes certain people so egotistical as to always be pointing a finger at something or someone while refusing to see the mote in their own eye.
        Since the url you question comes from a university which has good standing i would say that the person who pointed us to this wonderful article DOES NOT HIMSELF have to have an understanding of all the intricacies involved therein, but can by natural faith assume the content to be of reliable source.
        What part of this do you want to take out of context :lol

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          True, we are all well informed and educated in the fine nuances of birth without conceiving, zombification of dead people and the shimmering display of faked deaths by gods. I got no questions. smile

    3. Sufidreamer profile image82
      Sufidreamerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nothing complex about that - pretty basic stuff wink

      Here is an explanation of how such systems probably evolved from simpler systems, also showing how nature is very economical with such mechanism, reusing them over and over again:

      http://www.mun.ca/biology/desmid/brian/ … lution.pdf

      It is a fascinating paper, with lots of avenues for future research smile

      1. 0
        jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        oh Sufidreamer, aka dj is here not to have any rational explanation but to "prove" to himself that there is god. he don't accept any explanation unless there is the word god and bible in it.

  2. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 5 years ago

    Where do you guys get the notion I am angry??
    Beats me? I can't remember the last time I got angry.
    Certainly not with the sad lot of atheists on Hubpages forums.
    If anything, I am greatly amused, how you all believe the nonsense you defend so hard.

    About the article, though, it looks like the most amazing flowchart ever. Don't you think?
    It has taken (intelligent) human minds multiple thousands of manhours and the same in $, just to decipher this.
    And they still have much to learn. I guess thy'll be busy for a while yet.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So - you don't understand it, therefor there must be a god. How sad.

      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I see.
        You DO understand it, so there mustn't be a God.
        Makes sense to me!
        Same evidence, different interpretation!

        BUT, if you are right, then SO am I!

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No dj - I don't fully understand the intricacies of molecular biology. Nor do I have an answer to everything - unlike yourself. But at least you admit the reason you believe is because you do not understand, I just do not need that crutch. Sorry. It was actually peopel such as yourself who showed me that there is not a god. Thank you.

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, I didn't show you that, because it is impossible to "show" anything of the kind.
            You CHOSE to reject any notion of God, and religion, of your own free will. Please don't pretend to be some sort of victim, and blame "them". "They made me do it", nonsense.

            Good night, satellite.
            I'm off to get some beauty sleep!

          2. hanging out profile image59
            hanging outposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            hahahaha

            its actually people like you that make me thank God there is a God, otherwise we all be like you and that would only start wars :lol :lol

        2. simeonvisser profile image88
          simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There's no logical way to go from "it's very complex" to "it must be made by God". It's just that you have no other way to view it and therefore that's what you conclude. Yes it'll take a while to figure it all out but whether God made it or whether a process of millions of years made it, in both cases we can't expect to grasp it in five minutes.

          1. 67
            paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Why should a process start on its own?

            1. skyfire profile image74
              skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Why should a process starts by entity which itself has no cause ?

              1. pisean282311 profile image57
                pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                agreed and what people called god is mere assumption of constant..god created the universe...then who created god...well..hmmm...aahh...HE was always there...PERIOD..no explanations needed...what do you call that?...so god = constant...assumed

  3. frogdropping profile image85
    frogdroppingposted 5 years ago

    So the resulting analysis supports proof of God? That the answer to the question?

    A thorough investigation into bio-molecular science is all it is. It's complicated because most of us don't operate along the lines of the average molecular scientist.

    1. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not proof. Just evidence that can be interpreted any way you want. I choose ...well, you know what I choose!

      As to complexity, I merely point to how unlikely that accidental chemical reactions brought this about.
      I applaud the minds who have figured it out.

      1. frogdropping profile image85
        frogdroppingposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Which is the foundation on which all fights, foul-ups and fall-outs occur between theists and atheists smile

        1. aka-dj profile image79
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Why?

          Every time fights, conflicts and wars are mentioned, it ALWAYS comes from the atheist camp. hmm hmm hmm

          1. frogdropping profile image85
            frogdroppingposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No aka, I disagree. I've seen the same from both sides. Being a believer doesn't remove the mean and nasty from some people. It's the same with atheists.

            You're talking about religious wars, or wars thought to be caused by religion. I was talking about fights generally - not ones on global or national scales.

            The sad fact is that many wars are driven by religion. Cultures have been wiped out or severely decimated simply because an invading nation or culture imposed not just their will but their faith also.

          2. Joy56 profile image59
            Joy56posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I just wanted you to know that i am so proud of your relentless campaign, for the existence of a god.  Where would any of us be with out his creations, and his love and kindness, and well everything really.  Hope you have a great day.

            1. aka-dj profile image79
              aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If that was for me, I thank you!
              You have a gr8 Christmas. smile

              1. Joy56 profile image59
                Joy56posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                it was for you of course, i often read the threads but dont always feel inclined to join in, as it has all been said before, but i really do admire your spirit.  I do not celebrate christmas, but i am so looking forward to getting over to see my dad in England, he is fighting for his life.  His lungs have almost given up, he is on oxygen and is fighting one infection after another.  My sister is his full time carer, and needs my support but i cant get over because of the snow.....  A mention in your prayers would be nice.... I want to be able to get to him on the 26th.

          3. pisean282311 profile image57
            pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            @ak-dj isn't it simple...atheist never fight for my daddy strongest theme...it is work of religion especially abhramic ones...crusader or 9/11 is part of it..imagine people fighting for something which they have never seen and killing those whom they can see , talk , feel about...

            1. aka-dj profile image79
              aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What's with this killing, war & fighting etc obsession?

              I have not ONE TIME condoned, killing and war.
              I have stated many times, that it's not religion that causes war.
              It's MEN!  Men have hate and violence in their hearts, and will kill others to have their way of power and domination over others. religion is but a mere excuse to magnify this self same violent, hateful behaviour.

              Take a look around you. Killing is going on all the time, and it's not all religious in motivation.

              Besides all that, your post is off topic, anyway.

              Do you agree, that all life as we know it today, "just happened"? Or, is it (at least as) that a Higher power is behind it. Though we may not understand (Him).

      2. getitrite profile image80
        getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this



        No offense, but what you choose to believe is irrelevant to reality, and unsubstantiated.  The fact that there has never been any evidence of a designer is the prime reason why your conclusion is nonsense.  People who do this have chosen to reduce the parameters of their minds.



        As to complexity, please explain how likely it is that God created himself from fiat?

        1. aka-dj profile image79
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          God didn't create Himself.
          get it right!

          "parameters of their minds". What's that? Do you have any? Did you limit yours?

          It's OK if you want to base your whole worldview on this "reality". That is more limiting than what I'm suggesting, anyway!

          1. getitrite profile image80
            getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Then there must be a designer who created God.




            neutral



            I guess Goddunnit is the most open-minded and progressive way to discern reality?  No limitations there! 

            I can't stop laughing. lol lol lol lol

            1. aka-dj profile image79
              aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Laughing at your inability to understand, that God is not a created being.

              I'd say you have some serious limitations in thinking ability. (IE you can only think in three dimensions). Even kids can do better than that!

      3. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        In other words, you "choose" to continue to embrace myth because you believe something that is way beyond your level of understanding "unlikely" occurred. LOL!

        That's exactly the same as most other threads you create. smile

  4. wilmiers77 profile image60
    wilmiers77posted 5 years ago

    The orderly nature of the universe suggest that someone made it. The idea that someone made it is much more compelling than it came from nothing and, over a long period of time, arrived at our present state. After all, our experiences in the world is that someone caused or made an observed event. Than, why is what exist derived from randomness over time more logical than someone made or caused it? Creator trumps nothingness.

  5. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    The idea that you are angry might come from the multiple punctuation marks and capital letters.

  6. 67
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    Because He starts the cause.

    1. skyfire profile image74
      skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Prove it.

      1. 67
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You prove otherwise; please.

        1. skyfire profile image74
          skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ever heard of burden of proof ?

          You're spamming hubpages with your ahamadiya spam claims and creator threads, i'm not.

  7. Paul Wingert profile image78
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    God did not create himself. People created God. Since time began, whenever something can't be explained, "God(s) created it" was and apparently still is, with a few out there, the most logical explanation. Stephen Hawkin and other physicists concuded that 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. There's no need for a creator. Physics, not a creator, made the Big Bang.

    1. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Really?

      So, what or who "caused" gravity? How can any man know gravity existed prior to creation/bib bang?

      Physics? What the heck is physics, when NO matter exists(ed)?

      As to man creating God. Phooey to that. Man created idols, called them god, then re-invented them into unseen deities. Mere fakes of the One and Only True God.

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why would think a "who" caused gravity?



        LOL! lol

  8. 0
    Home Girlposted 5 years ago

    Who created Physics then?
    We are still in  darkness and don't have an answer.

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You could probably take that back to the 7th century BC starting with Thales - the "Father of Science". smile

    2. Paul Wingert profile image78
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Physics is not a creation, it's a natural science.

  9. melpor profile image89
    melporposted 5 years ago

    Aka-dj, these are illustrations of biochemical pathways of chemical reactions that take place at the cellular level in a living organism such as us. Scientists have been mapping biochemical pathways for decades to cure diseases and to explain why diseases occur.W ith this knowledge they are able to predict the outcome of some these reactions to develop drugs to change these pathways to cure various ailments in the body.

    1. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for the quick explanation of WHAT it is, and why it is of interest to science and medicine.
      However, you missed the whole point of this thread. That it all just popped into being accidentally.
      It's akin to explaining how the software in my computer works to run my laptop. You can learn all about how and why it works, what it does and how to improve on it, but it says only one thing about it's original inception. Someone wrote it. It didn't just one day appear inside the hardware.

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, but that isn't even remotely akin. smile

        1. aka-dj profile image79
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Why?

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The fact that you have to ask Why to was Beelzedad said isn't too shocking.

            First off- "God" cannot be properly explained or defined.

            Secondly, any computer software on your computer that makes it run, is easily explained and has defined characteristics.

            That's why they are not akin. smile

            1. aka-dj profile image79
              aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So do these chemical pathways.
              They are very specific, and are the "language" the cell uses to function.
              VERY akin!

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                lol lol lol lol

                1. aka-dj profile image79
                  aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You don't agree??

                  Maybe YOU'RE the one who needs to read some relevant information! hmm

                  It's  recently documented fact, (since all you sceptics like facts) that every cell in the body has a "language" and communicates with other cells. It's a chemical language, as one MD (that's a DOCTOR) has described it, it's the "software" that drives cell function.

                  But you already knew that right? lol lol lol

                  1. Cagsil profile image84
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    roll

    2. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Simon. You asked the very question you SHOULD have asked.
      Indeed, who DID program the software?

      I say God did.

      If He didn't, and no-one did, how can that be?

      1. simeonvisser profile image88
        simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Let's take a few steps back here. You're working from the assumption that someone or something must have "programmed" the "software". Why would that be? Why must there necessarily be a being that has programmed our software? In what way does evolution not explain the emergence of these mechanisms to your satisfaction? Why are you ruling out an alternative explanation that provides clear biological mechanisms as to how life develops?

        1. aka-dj profile image79
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Why are you ruling out an alternative explanation that provides clear biological mechanisms as to how life develops?"

          I am not ruling the alternative explanation out. There IS no alternative explanation. To say that it just evolved is not good enough. No acceptable answer is forthcoming on this subject. If there is one, please point me to it!

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Answer the question right above your last post.  Where did god come from?

            1. aka-dj profile image79
              aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I wanted to answer your post (below) but couldn't be bothered.
              I'm surprised I did now! big_smile

              But, to answer your question, God did NOT come from anywhere.
              Your version of god may have come from human imagination, religious icons/paintings, whatever, I don't know. But that's NOT the God I know.

              Eternal means self existant, with no beginning and no end. It is a "super-natural" state. That means of a higher order. So, to apply three/four dimensional language to Him, or Eternity, is both incorrect, and futile.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                But I thought you said something cannot come from nothing.  There is nothing to show god has always been here other than you and other HUMANS saying so.  And neither you nor the other humans can prove otherwise.

                1. aka-dj profile image79
                  aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  This is becoming a circular argument.
                  You demanding "proof".

                  Can I say it loud and clear? THERE IS NO PROOF.
                  Proof requirers no faith.
                  No-one needs to prove to me that my chair is holding me up. The proof is right under my butt!

                  Ask yourself, what proof can you give that your wife loves you?
                  Prove it to me.

                  Same thing. You can give me evidence of her actions and words to support your feeling, or knowing that she just does.

                  God is calling people to believe, (faith). If He chose the way to be, a sign in the clouds, written for all to read, He would have done that.
                  BUT, I guarantee you, that millions would NOT believe that either. They'd come up with some theories, or hypotheses of how that writing came about without the need for a god.

                  Back to the starting point, yea?

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                    pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Perhaps that is because many cannot entertain the idea that Man is not "lord over thee" type thing. To admit that we are limited beings in this finite world would mean Man does not have dominion over what he thinks he has.

                  2. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What does this have to do with your refusal to accept proven scientific facts dj?

                    God is not calling anyone - and you are specifically breaking the admonition to walk away from arguing with non believers. So - obviously you do not believe either - you just want to shout at other people that they should believe.

                    Science has shown there is no need for a God for the universe to come about. I can see why that makes you angry, but arguing that proven scientific facts are lies is not helping your case.

          2. simeonvisser profile image88
            simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Facepalm. If HubPages had signatures in forum posts, this would be signature-worthy.

      2. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The same as who programmed god.  Whatever made the gods anyway?

  10. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Gravity is caused by mass, which came into being with the big bang.

    And it seems a reasonable question to me, if complexity means something is created, God must be created. By whom?

    Or maybe complexity can arise naturally.

  11. 0
    Home Girlposted 5 years ago

    http://serve.mysmiley.net/fighting/fighting0061.gif

    Who created Big Bang then???

    1. 67
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Creator-God set it off as per His design.

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Conjecture.

        1. aka-dj profile image79
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So is Big Bang, or any other hypothesis!

          What makes either/or better/worse?

          Just the individual, and their biased perspective.

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I am not surprised by your statement. However, you can believe what you like. You're only going to confuse the issue.

            This all just happened? Who said anything had to occur to make the Universe. It's endless, so what makes you think something had to occur to make it happen.

            The Universe could just exist. Like your imagined god, just exists. You seem determined to point it in the direction of a god.

            The "cause and effort" theory need not apply to the Universe, because it's a law inside the Universe. What Laws apply to the Universe are outside of the Universe and since the Universe is endless, I guess there isn't presently within human capability of reach it. To believe an all-powerful single entity, regardless of what, created the Universe is not only absurd, but completely irrational.

            So, I will disagree.

          2. skyfire profile image74
            skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Big-bang has evidence, do you've have any evidence for creator being cause itself or creator creating this universe other than stories ? wink

            1. aka-dj profile image79
              aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Big Bang has evidence?
              So does creation!
              I was not talking about origin of the universe, in the OP.
              So, to bring it all back on track, life from non-life is (as Cagsll so aptly put it) "is not only absurd, but completely irrational."

              Of course, you are free to believe it all "just happened".

              1. Beelzedad profile image60
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, the evidence for creationism is believers stating emphatically that god did it. What more evidence do you need? smile

                1. Paul Wingert profile image78
                  Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Life started in a plush garden inhabited by a talking snake. Makes perfect sense to me!

              2. Beelzedad profile image60
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Even if your god did it, he would have had to have created life from non-life, no? And, that's not absurd and completely irrational? smile

                1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                  pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  What is non life to you?

                  1. Beelzedad profile image60
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Anything that is not alive. smile

        2. 67
          paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The Creator-God has claimed it in so many words in Quran and there has been no other claimer.

          [21:31] Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
          http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=30

          1. skyfire profile image74
            skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Creator is jobless to preach his existence to his own created species ? roll

  12. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    Yup

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


    Nope. It's christian preachers evidence, not at all peer-reviewed and lacks empirical proof. Nothing new.



    Want to search 'abiogenesis' for a change ? roll Atleast after knowing that there are arsenic based life forms which are completely originating from non-life resources. Of course you're free to stay in delusion -without empirical evidence as usual. wink

  13. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Beelzedad wrote:
    Even if your god did it, he would have had to have created life from non-life, no? And, that's not absurd and completely irrational?
    - - - - - - - -



        That is the same way as evolution says it happened but if a God did it ??  he would have had something to work from.

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Jerami, evolution has nothing to do with creationism. smile

    2. LondonGirl profile image91
      LondonGirlposted 5 years ago

      I think teeth are very important to the issue of creationism.

      No-one with any damn sense would design the teeth we have.

    3. PieterTheProphet profile image61
      PieterTheProphetposted 5 years ago

      Great comments.  Good discussion.  Of course no one on this planet really understands how the Universe works at all.  (That's the truth of it.) We are teeny-weeny, tiny, little, complex blobs of bio-goo hanging from miniscule calcium frames; whirling around on a spot of moisture; in orbit around a pin-prick sun zipping along a smudgy ray of stars on the edge of a twinkle in the night..Blah, blah.

      The best word I can think of is miracle and it falls waaay short.  How, why, who? Great questions.  The only answer that works really well is: US!

      1. pennyofheaven profile image82
        pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That will work for me!

      2. 0
        china manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        IMO this is at the bottom of it - such funny little pink bio-blobs with such a huge arrogance and high opinion of its own blobbiness that it thinks that all this is made just for ITSELF !  My cat is certain that I exist only for its comfort and entertainment, my dog is convinced that I am the creator of everything - you would have thought that man would have got over itself by now, and started on that grow-up journey away from hiding behind its imaginary father.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image82
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How do you mean? I thought he was pointing to we are all connected? Meaning we are not separate to 'all that is'. Thats the way I read it. I didn't see that he was talking about an imaginary father? I could be wrong?

    4. 67
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

      The Big Bang is mentioned in following verse of Quran by the Creator-God in so many words and there has been no other claimant.

      [21:31] Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
      http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=30

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nope, that's not what the Big Bang was about. Sorry. smile

    5. 0
      Home Girlposted 5 years ago

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/4278296.jpg

      Still fighting over priority, hey?

      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        NO.

        The answer is the one on top.
        Always has been.

        1. skyfire profile image74
          skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not all species lay eggs, there are some mammals as well. In case of mammals either one of the reproducing gender needs to be born first.

          Many fish species on this planet change gender as they mature.

          Saying it always has been shows lack of education.  roll

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I was talking about the chicken.

            No lack of education.


            BTW, Who's teaching, anyway?

            1. skyfire profile image74
              skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              My point still holds true if you read my reply.

    6. David Bowman profile image60
      David Bowmanposted 5 years ago

      As to your original question aka-dj, I would answer it in the following way. . .

      Everyone, including atheists, are in awe of the complexity and order of the natural world. However, the answer theists give for why this order and complexity exist is highly problematic. Hopefully, you can see the irony in claiming that the only thing that could explain the complexity and order of the natural world is a designer that itself would be unimaginably complex and ordered. Where did it come from, and if the answer is that "It was always there" (which is purely conjecture), then how could that not be true of the universe?

      Both prospects - a universe capable of engendering complex and ordered systems, and a complex and ordered creator that has somehow always existed in a fully formed state - are terribly difficult for our minds to grasp. However, I really don't see how the creator hypothesis has more plausibility than the other scenario. They are both absurd. However, one is true and the other false.

      Can you give me a good reason why the creator hypothesis has more plausibility than the other?

      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Both absurd" is your claim. I say yes, because neither can be proven correct/true or false/incorrect.
        Based on our observation, as intelligent, rational beings, we have discovered a huge amount of knowledge about our reality. We can only observe it all in the present. Not the past, and not the future.
        Our knowledge is limited by our three or four dimensions, and anything outside of that is mere speculation. The reason a creator model is more plausible (for me) is that we have shown, by the laws of physics that operate in the same here and now (time/space) that it (all of known creation) is not eternal. It has beginning.
        Hence the hypotheses of "HOW".

        Yours and many others real challenge is not "could God have done it?" but rather "Who is this God, that may have done it? What is this God like?" For Him to be perceived, or understood to be an old, grey haired man, that peaked in power and popularity before the Middle Ages, you'd be justified in dismissing it.

        However, if you understand Him from the revelation of Jesus Christ, you would rather be inclined to give it (creation hypothesis) a whole lot more respect.

        I agree, that ultimately, it's a matter of faith, which you believe to best fit the evidence. Something most, if not all, atheists deny. Their point of view IS a matter of faith. You accept one, or the other.

        Is this plausible to you? I don't know. You have to answer that for yourself. I can't make anyone believe my way. Nobody made me believe. In fact, I was taught all the evolution stuff at school that everyone else did. I had no religious bias at the time either. I chose my position based on the evidence that I have encountered, and continue to encounter. To date nothing has come along to shake that conviction.

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          In other words, you jump to the conclusion some sort of magical being did the creating, the "HOW"... even though the laws of physics and mountains of evidence do not support that conclusion.



          No, you do not accept one or the other, you only accept the conclusion of magical being, the one without any evidence to support it.



          Yet, there is no evidence to support your convictions. None. smile

        2. simeonvisser profile image88
          simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "I chose my position based on the evidence that I have encountered, and continue to encounter."

          What evidence could you cite in favor of your viewpoint that is not an anti-evolution statement? Saying something like "there are missing links" is an argument against evolution but not an argument in favor of creation. Arguing against one thing is not the same as arguing in favor of something else.

    7. skyfire profile image74
      skyfireposted 5 years ago

      ROFL. First sentence assumes that god exist and fails to give proof as usual. Perceive god ? Sure, god who sends his mortal son who can't defend himself in this realm is supposed to be taken seriously ? and are we supposed to ask our own species questions like 'what is this god like' ? that must be height of delusion.



      By following jesus christ and bible model of creation, there are more chances people will not respect creationism. For many reasons, for example salvation isn't necessary if all species are mortals and if universe is as vast as we're perceiving now. Because entity behind creation of this universe can delete any species or planet any time it wishes and entity behind this universe becomes single source and so the stories like satan are debunked easily. That way there is no need to show love towards the entity and no reason to hate it either. It becomes un-interfering entity. Another point is, son of god gets killed on cross like helpless cat shows the level of power that your biblical 'assumed god' can have who created humans in his image.

      Respect comes only in superiority of intellect, power and empathy. Intelligent Humans don't show respect to weaklings who claim themselves to be savior and get pwnd on cross like weak animals.

    8. 67
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

      [21:31] Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

      The Big Bang is mentioned in the above verse of Quran by the Creator-God in so many words and there has been no other claimant.

      1. skyfire profile image74
        skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol by what stretch of imagination that looks big-bang to you.

        1. 67
          paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Why it does not look like a big bang to you? In easy form which everybody could understand; it is like big bang.

          1. skyfire profile image74
            skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            BS. You gotta be deluded to make big-bang out of that.

            It's manipulation of words. Try to write Norton's theory in poetic language in a way people can understand wink

            Problem with your type of people is that they assume everything that is written in their religious book holds some scientific meaning but in reality it's not.

    9. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago

      pennyofheaven wrote:

      Logically thinking though, if scientist says energy cannot be destroyed only changed. Then it would have had to have existed prior to the big bang. Wouldn't it have? 
      - - - -
      Beelzedad wrote ..
      Not necessarily. The aftermath and result of the Big Bang was energy. What scientists say about it does not include what happened prior to the BB.
      = == = == = == = == = ==

      Jerami

        Beelzedad ??  What do you mean by  "Not necessarily" ?
      0seems to be sidestepping the issue !
      ==========================================================


      pennyofheaven wrote:
      If so, for the big bang to occur, it makes sense that to create the bang it would have to use its stored energy from the point of singularity. So that point of singularity was alive.

      - - - - - -

      Beelzedad wrote ..
        Again, there is no reason to suspect or assert that. As well, stored energy is just stored energy. It doesn't mean anything is alive.

      = == = == = == = == = ==

         Jerami  ..   sidestepping again ??  pennyofheaven didn't nention anything being alive,  she simply mde a statement of scientific fact.

      ===================================================
      pennyofheaven wrote:
         It doesn't make sense if energy came into existence after the big bang. That would invalidate the scientists findings that energy is indestructible.

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

         Why doesn't it make sense energy came into existence after the BB and why would that invalidate what scientists have to say about it?

      = == = == = == = == = ==

         Beelzedad;   It is amazing how you can argue and not really say anything.    OR   in other words  ;  What point were you attempting to make ??

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is a point made to clarify a claim may have more than one possible resolution, notwithstanding the claim being made.



        Sorry, but I did not see that scientific fact, please point it out.



        Clarity of any point in a discussion requires agreement from all parties. I was simply moving for clarification.

        Is that okay with you, Jerami? smile

    10. skyfire profile image74
      skyfireposted 5 years ago

      Big Bang theory explains about formation of universe and not about the condition prior to BB. Is it hard to understand,jerami ?

      0 doesn't seems to be sidestepping when you have evidence to BBT. If you claim about anything before 0 then be ready to prove it rather than attempting to debunk BBT with mere words of yours.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So are you saying that nothing was required to cause
          THE  Big Bang?
          I have never disputed the BBT.  But the absolutely nothing caused it part?   Not even energy ?
        Nothing ?   


          Talk about blind faith !

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So god dunnit then? lol

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You keep getting the answer right, but you just don't believe it! sad

            One day you will say it and really mean it!! lol

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Only after a lobotomy.

              1. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That can be arranged. lol

                Are you implying.....???
                NAH, not you. You wouldn't be that mean???

                lol

          2. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            SOMETHING  dunit  IF it got done.   ya think ???????

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Big If - still - you have the answer DONCHA?

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I was walking down the road one day nd saw a turtle laying on its back up on top o a fence post. 

                    I don't have any answers as to how it got there..

                    But I'm pretty sure that it didn't get thee by itself.

    11. gamergirl profile image61
      gamergirlposted 5 years ago

      Did I really just see someone try to compare proof of God's existence to proof of a spouse's love?

      Seriously?!

      Let's see.  There has yet to be, and is unlikely to ever be, proof to validate the claims of intelligent design.  However, the love between a husband and wife (or wife and wife, or husband and husband, or two beings aligned in love no matter their romantic relationship) is easily verifiable.  People express their love (or lack of love) in visible and quantifiable ways every moment of every day.  Getting proof is as simple as opening your eyes.

      However, to reiterate, there has yet to be any proof of a quantifiable, visible nature regarding the existence or not of God.

      The other point that really has me scratching my head is the concept of a process of transformation of creatures/cells/organisms/particles that happens in a complex and fabulous way can be lumped down to "just" happening.  That would be like saying to someone with no education "You 'just' get your Ph.D.  No really, it 'just' happens!"

      But, I forgot.  Intelligent design is the truth, really, just look at how a banana fits in a human hand.

      1. Joy56 profile image59
        Joy56posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        god was in fact the originater of marriage, was he not?

        1. Paul Wingert profile image78
          Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Where did this fact come from?

          1. Joy56 profile image59
            Joy56posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            the bible

      2. pennyofheaven profile image82
        pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No.....the discussion went like this.

        There is no proof of God ...........just as you cannot prove to me your wife loves you.

        Or something like that...but thats the context in which I understood it.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So - yes, some one did compare the two. Hilarious.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image82
            pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ok if you say so.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No - you did. sad

              1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                How so?

                aka, was once again, repeating himself saying there is no proof of God. Because someone asked him to prove it.  To illustrate his point that there is no proof... not to compare...he said what proof can you give that you wife loves you. Prove it.

                That is illustrating how futile it is asking him to prove Gods existence. Not comparing proof of Gods existence with proof of a wifes love....because he said he cannot prove Gods existence.

                Maybe you are seeing something else. Only he will know what he was talking about. That is how I understood it. If you or the other person understood it another way. So be it. We could all be wrong. We won't know till he posts again.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  lol lol

                  1. aka-dj profile image79
                    aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    When you have no more argument left in you
                    you simply give us all these laughing smileys.

                    Very intelligent, logical and rational!

                    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                      Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Do you need proof that I found what she said funny?

    12. gamergirl profile image61
      gamergirlposted 5 years ago

      The concept of marriage is older than Christianity. smile

    13. Joy56 profile image59
      Joy56posted 5 years ago

      hi Mark, one pound of ripe tomatoes please.

    14. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 5 years ago

      Where's beelzedad?

      I haven't seen you post any proof that your wife (if you have one) loves you!

      Waiting...waiting...waiting...

    15. gamergirl profile image61
      gamergirlposted 5 years ago

      God is an invention of the mind.  Being that there is no outward sign of God in the universe, and that nobody who believes in God can provide evidence of a clear outward sign, that means..

      *drumroll*

      God is a creation from the thoughts and words of man.

      If this is the season of goodwill, then why perpetuate lies?

      1. pennyofheaven profile image82
        pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thats is like saying.....The "mind" cannot be proven to exist. Being that there is no outward sign of the mind in the universe. And anyone who believes in the mind cannot provide a clear outward sign that it exists. So the mind is an invention of...?

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not true. There is proof that the mind exists. The mind is simple the brain and conscious thought that is derived from it(brain).

          I've never liked the comparisons people try to use to manipulate their belief into being real.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image82
            pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So where is the evidence? The brain is believed to be the vehicle or that which produces thought. But no one has evidence for thoughts that supposed come from the brain.

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Your post proves you lack the understanding of the mind, including the use of your own which produced the results of proof to begin with.

              WOW! roll

              1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Really? How so? Results yes. Proof no. According to you in one of our  discussions I cannot prove God exists with results.  Yet it is acceptable to prove mind exists with results?

                Edited to add: Oh my apologies I was referring to a discussion with someone else.

                So that should read as According to a discussion I had with someone else.

                1. Cagsil profile image84
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Did you or Did you not just post your thoughts? The thoughts you posted came from the mind, which were generated by the brain and human consciousness.

                  Your actions, that put your thoughts, either spoken or written is literal proof of the mind.

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                    pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes I did. I agreed with you on that when I said "Results yes" My point was there is no tangible evidence that the thoughts or consciousness were generated from within the brain. All the tests show as far as I am aware,  is that the brain reacts when it is thinking, sleeping etc. Indicated by a machine. These are still results.

                    If that is acceptable and I say nature is as a result of Gods existence, is that acceptable too?

                    1. Cagsil profile image84
                      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      roll

    16. gamergirl profile image61
      gamergirlposted 5 years ago

      No, that is not acceptable, because nature is a result of millions upon millions of years of evolution of species both plant and animal alike.  You cannot logically use faith to prove scientific fact.

      The outward evidence of the mind is speech, behavior, reaction to stimuli.  The outward evidence of the existence of God is still lacking.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image82
        pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Didn't think so.

        Who is using faith? Nature is not based on faith. It works. Just because it is a "result" of millions and millions upon millions of years of evolution it cannot be proof of God in your opinion?  Does any one know God's age?

        If I say that is outward evidence and you say it isn't then what you say about mind is equally as invalid as my claim.

      2. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The evidence is you and I.

        Why can't people get that?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Because that is not what the word "evidence," means dj. What you mean is "leap of faith." wink

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I think you have confused evidence with proof, yet again.

        2. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Because, it is a blatant fallacy of logic, regardless. smile

        3. LondonGirl profile image91
          LondonGirlposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Because the fact that we exist proves nothing about how we came to exist.

          (It's "you and me" by the way, not "you and I")

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for the correction.

            You also seem to confuse evidence with proof.

            Anyway, if you have an explanation for the op, please fill us in. It's all too easy to derail the topic with side issues of gramma, spelling and the like.

            TY.

        4. pennyofheaven profile image82
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I get it!

        5. gamergirl profile image61
          gamergirlposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Our existence is not clear, defined evidence of the existence of a deity.  In fact, using humanity as evidence of the existence of God is a rather bad circular bit of reasoning.

          God is real because the bible says so.
          The bible says God created man.
          Therefore man is evidence of God's existence.

          Doesn't really work that way.

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Why doesn't it work that way?

            We see animals live and die.
            We see fossils of dead animals.
            We say it's evidence for evolution.
            We assume it all happened accidentally, by chance.
            Yet, our own understanding of statistical probability tells us it's IMPOSSIBLE.
            Yet, we(well, not me big_smile) promote it as fact!

            Doesn't work for me! hmm

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Odd - our understanding of statistical and mathematical probability quite clearly suggest that there is am almost-certain likelihood of intelligent life arising spontaneously, and Hawking has demonstrated how and why. We also understand how it evolved, although we do have a few gaps - most specifically "how" we became self aware. Therefore it is not IMPOSSIBLE.

              You have not used statistical probabilities to make an argument. You are simply upset that your Invisible Super Being has been shown to be  superfluous.

              Funny that you think life can arise from nothing though. As long as a god dunnit. If you changed tack and sed - OK - it happened spontaneously, and I cannot deny the evidence for evolushun, but god dunnit when he give us self awareness - maybe that one would fly?

              1. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Please let me refer you back to the OP.

                You are absolutely certain that all the necessary chemicals, and their highly complex relationships came about by chance. All at one moment in time. Remembering, that life of this description cannot be called life, if any portion of these chemical relationships are not in place, & functioning simultaneously.
                They constitute an irreducible complexity that will not "fly". (I mean live)

                The real "gap" in our knowledge is "how is information added, to make complex systems more and more and more complex, and yet still functioning".

                You, sir are the man of faith, way more than I.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps several gods got together and created life.  It was a joint effort!  Would you have a problem with this scenario?

                2. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I am waiting for you to prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE, not that it is statistically improbable, or that we were not there to witness the event with a handycam. lol

                  As you are so certain it is not possible. You are the one wot sed it is IMPOSSIBLE. I thought you were referencing statistical probability. Let me reference u back to wot u sed:

                  My mistake. Dear me. No wonder your religion causes so many wars. sad

    17. gamergirl profile image61
      gamergirlposted 5 years ago

      I am not sure if we are having a language barrier problem here, or if you just do not understand the discussion, but what you are suggesting is that because I can prove that the mind exists, and you cannot prove that God exists using the same argument, that neither one of us can be right.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image82
        pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps we are I don't know?

        Using the same argument yes.

        We can both be wrong. We can also both be right.

    18. gamergirl profile image61
      gamergirlposted 5 years ago

      @penny -

      He said "We don't know what existed prior to the BB (Big Bang)."

      This means that there could have been anything prior to the Big Bang, and we don't know, and finding evidence of what existed prior is going to be quite difficult, given the many millions of years that have passed.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image82
        pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes I realize that. The point I was making is that if energy cannot be created or destroyed it would have existed before the big bang. If it didn't exist before the big bang, the belief that it cannot be created or destroyed goes out the window.

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Energy can't be created or detroyed *now*.  We can't assume the same it true before the universe was created.

          Honestly, trying to navigate these issus with no background research, a few assumptions and normal common sense doesn't work. It would be like trying to bake a soffle based on knowing two of the ingredients and having a camp fire at the ready.

          I would suggest trying something like Stephem Hawkings book to get some idea of what physicists have discovered about abiogenesis.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image82
            pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes have read a bit about that. Discussed a bit too.

    19. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

      Of course live things came out of non-live things.  Energy and life are not the same thing.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image82
        pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not according to Beezledad. How do you mean energy and life are different? Without energy we cease to exist as we know we exist for the moment.

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Life processes are a form of energy, but there are types of energy that are not life.  Fire, for example, is not alive.  Gravity is not alive.  Magma is not alive. Earthquakes are not life.

          Life is defined as metabolism, reactivity, growth and the capacity to reproduce.

          Whether you think it is God or evolution, non-life developed into life at some point.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image82
            pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes agree. At least what people will term as non life. Yes.

        2. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Please don't put words in my mouth due to your confusion. smile

          1. pennyofheaven profile image82
            pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            These are your words not mine. From a previous post of yours....

            Even if your god did it, he would have had to have created life from non-life, no? And, that's not absurd and completely irrational?

            Perhaps I misunderstood in what context you were intending the above statement?

            1. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The context is that whether or not a god did it or it came about as a result of physics, life would have had to have been created from non-life. smile

              1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Oh ok I think I understand. The Christian understanding of God is what you were referring to.

                1. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Any religion boasting a creation theme is no different. smile

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                    pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Why? Because it is called religion? Is the word "Religion" the problem here? Perhaps if religion did not have that much social stigma attached to it one might look at what it is pointing to rather than looking at the stigma itself.

                    Evolution boasts the same. We and all things that exist came into being through an evolutionary process. If thats not a form of creation I wonder what it is then?

                    1. Beelzedad profile image60
                      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      You can use the word "cult" if you wish, it's the same thing.



                      We do look at religion for what it is, a belief in myths and superstitions from the Bronze Age. What more do you need?



                      No, evolution does not boast an invisible being waved his magic hand and created everything in it's current form from nothing, which is what religions boast. Big difference. smile

    20. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago

      If I remember correctly ,?  he stated that matter just pops in and out of our reality.
         At the very least, does that not suggest a reality outside of this one that our scientific investigations are at present limited to?.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I would need a reference to even begin to know which of his ideas you are referring to.  But no, I don't think it would imply  that.

        1. Jerami profile image78
          Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I was watching TV interview with (I forget names) this guy that co authored several books with Mr Hawkins, and this was one of the points that he made.

      2. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'll bet the ancient goat herders could have explained it to you better than today's top learned scientists, Jerami.  LOL!

        1. Jerami profile image78
          Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No  I think it would take a Quantum Physics scientist.

            I'll just take his word for it.

      3. pennyofheaven profile image82
        pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes. Science (Quantum physics I think)  discovered  at least 11 dimensions last time I was in a discussion about dimensions. They also discovered that two random particles that are unrelated can react to each other. Mirroring I think it was called no matter the distance.

        Not sure what the last bit had to do with your post haha. Haven't quite connected the dots.

    21. illeagle profile image62
      illeagleposted 5 years ago

      There always one dimension that all these theories fail to incorporate---consciousness.

      If we are not aware, then nothing exists. Before we can even choose to 'believe' something, the question we should be asking is, 'What exactly is consciousness?'. 'Does consciousness spring from life or is consciousness something that life is born into?'

      'Is the universe conscious before living organisms exist?'

      It was Deepak Chopra, I believe, in one of his books, who mentioned something along this order of thought. Perhaps the brain is just the organ that we use to receive the consciousness of the universe and not actually the originator of it.

      Sumptin' to chew on!

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Believe it or not, ..  I have ask my self that very question.

            I know that I have had thoughts or ideas that I know were not my own ...  and wondered ...  where did that come from?
        Knowing that I had never heard or read anything like that before??

           That is the kind of thing that the longer ya chew on it, ...  the bigger it gets  .... til ya can't swallow it.
        And ya can't spit it out.

        1. illeagle profile image62
          illeagleposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Jerami, You just made my day!!! Lol!!!! Merry Christmas!!!

          1. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And a great big Merry Christmas back atcha

      2. pennyofheaven profile image82
        pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Deepak makes sense to me!

      3. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, it is unfortunate that people like Chopra profit by gleaning concepts from science and twisting and molding them into spiritual snakeoil to sell to the gullible.

        Yes, the Oprah crowd will gobble up Chopra when it comes to science, but will poo-poo Hawking and Dawkins.

        Deepak makes sense to me, too!  smile

    22. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago

      pennyofheaven .. Howdy

         There is just so much that we do not know that it seems silly to consider ourselves all that smart, don't ya think ?

      1. pennyofheaven profile image82
        pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes I do agree!

        1. Jerami profile image78
          Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There is just too much information available in the world today that a hundred of the greatest minds can not comprehend it all.

            We as individuals have to be selective in what we choose to absorb into our tiny little minds.
            And then we become overloaded before we get to really comprehend what little we have absorbed.

             I know that my age I have to forget ten things just to remember one new thing. Just joking ( Sorta )

          1. pennyofheaven profile image82
            pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Haha and apparently if we lose all that we learned we would know "all that is". How paradoxical is that!

            1. Jerami profile image78
              Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sounds about right to me,  as best as I can remember.

                I like to think that I am only forgetting the unimportant stuff.
                Maybe when I get to the end of my journey I will be left with only the good stuff also known as truth. (Hopefully)

              I think that paradoxical is a word worth keeping.

              1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes not sweating the small stuff I have heard it said. Sifting out the unimportant seems like a worthwhile task. Perhaps ongoing but who knows till our journey does end.

    23. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

      So... he's not invisible, we just can't see him?

      And if you put Evoltion in place fo God it would make any sense at all.  Evolution doesn't do anything, it isn't a being--just a label for some natural processes.  You can't ask who is evolution, or what does evolution want? That would be nonsensical.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image82
        pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes exactly. It describes a natural process.  It is only nonsensical when you assign gender and a temporal or finite way of existing. How do you define what is infinite and how does one do this with a finite mind? Trying to describe something one does not fully understand because of our own limitations is lacking at best.

        One cannot however condemn those who did try to describe the processes.

    24. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

      The problem is when people divide the word into 'made by design' and 'occured by chance'.

      Evolution is not a random process, that is the point.  It is a process by which compexity and 'fit to environment' occurs in nature.  It is spontaneous, but not random.

     
    working