In Your Opinion What Defines Evidence Of Creator
This is a question I have yet to see thoroughly answered, here. It is an open question to Atheist, Theist, Agnostic, Gnostic -even Scientist, Philosopher or Other. In your opinion, what constitutes or is [would be] defined as evidence, tangible proof of the existence of Creator [termed God]. Again, not metaphysical, pseudo or theoretical, but actual.
Should you contend to having tangible proof, how did you come by it, the experience. If you do not have tangible proof, how would you -intellectually or scientifically- approach the search for this evidence, as you would any other thing. What parameters of tests did you/would you apply, etc?
Am hoping this can be a more civil, quid pro quo, discussion versus banter or the usual my way is better than your way. Here's hoping.
JamesThe logical mind is exhaustible..finite..
The answer to all "Whys?" is "To Experience"
You want an answer to a question that is and can only be experiential knowledge...
I suggest that you begin with Wumenguan..my opinion only..msorensson,
I thoroughly agree experience is the answer, hence the questions to the collective humanity.
JamesThe answer to any koan is the state of mind of the student reflected perfectly by the Zen Master...therefore, it can be a grunt, a yell, a slap, a movement, a gesture..the point at which the mind of the master and the student merges, as in Spock mind meld, only, it is blissful and peaceful...
Spoken like one who has yet to have an apotheosis. It is not pleasant at all.
It has both pleasure and pain at the time and leaves your sense of duty to be performed and that is a rather thankless job.
Regards
DLI must say I had to look up meaning of apotheosis..Thank you.
From Wikipedia..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis
Apotheosis (from Greek ἀποθέωσις from ἀποθεοῦν, apotheoun "to deify"; in Latin deificatio "making divine"; also called divinization and deification) is the glorification of a subject to divine level. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre.
In theology, the term apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature. In art, the term refers to the treatment of any subject (a figure, group, locale, motif, convention or melody) in a particularly grand or exalted manner.
There are those who desire it, this process.
"It has both pleasure and pain at the time ...."
Yes it is called the dark night of the soul according to St. John.
"and leaves your sense of duty to be performed and that is a rather thankless job.."
"Cui multum, datur multum requiritur.." perhaps you relate to this..so you must examine it.
I still don't see god...only physical exertion that creates a disciplined mind. I believe the question is, "Is there a creator?"
Zen Buddhism is all fine and good...but peace is one thing...a defining being that has created all that is? That's different....let's not stray from the path, grasshopper. To quote a 70's icon named Carradine...who died in a most ungodly position...even after the martial arts training...and years of alcohol abuse. Most un-god-like, thus, still not proving an eternal being.
The "god" molecule would have to be found...quite simply.
The concept of proof for an eternal being can not be performed by science. Scientists could not say..."There is no god." The reason is because you can't prove a negative.
There are species of animals that haven't been discovered yet...on this physical planet...how are you going to discover a spirit being?
Religionists say that one must have faith. Good, have it...but it isn't proof. For all we know, the Martians left DNA on earth millions of years ago and we evolved...like the movie, Mission to Mars.
Existential issues like this are difficult, no, impossible to prove--but hopefully they can be civil.Yes, this is also probable. The Boson Field, theory.
But, would this be proof of Creator?
Much of what I read/hear from the scientist and atheist side {note, they are not the same} is they would require tangible proof, something physic, yes? So, it occurred to me, what by their own definition would constitute said tangible. And how would they approach the search/discovery of it. What experimental methodology would they apply, versus 'going it on faith'. Likewise, the theist {and other non-theists} would impart 'going it on faith', yet say they do have tangible proof. Although I personally can say faith is tangible, physic, because it can only be a practical thing, will refrain from explaining such, in this thread.
James.Faith can NOT be tangible...this is a belief in the invisible...a vow of trust. Sorry, scientists need evidence...as do most beings using logic...one can not say, "I saw a pink tornado...therefore it exists...you didn't see it, but you must have faith."
Those who wish to believe in pink tornadoes must do so with blind trust...ergo...this is faith. There is no evidence but for hearsay...scientists, judges, lawyers, etc., will not go for that kind of proof.That is just the thing, the observer influences what is observed.
I need to brush up on my physics.
Like observing particles like photons or other sub-atomic particles, we observe them we influence what we observe, so how can we objectively know the truth?
For instance, if you had a Christian upbringing and was asked to observe God you would be predisposed to the Christian point of view.
If you were an atheist and asked to observe god you would very likely get a slight headache, but would not see god.
I think this is true for all humanity.
Faith is "the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" Hebrews 11:1 you keep saying faith as if its a bad word or that faith is blind...it isn't also faith has nothing to do with the existence of god you don't need faith to believe in him you just need to research science, faith is for those who already believe in god and they have faith that he will do what he said he is going to do.
Now that was a was science fiction movie!
Hmmm, maybe Mars did seed Earth....
The empirical is based upon observation. Unfortunately we: as the observer and all the we can observe are all one in the same. If reality were clay, all we would see is clay and we would be clay, and any thumbprint ie a creators thumbprint, in the clay would be made of clay of course. I think that inference is close as it may ever get, discounting experiential claims. Personally I feel that reality is discernible information which suggests an intelligence behind the matrix. All the energy of reality has produced self aware beings and that self awareness is very unique in that it also, although confined or handicapped temporally is also empirically "challenged" in somewhat the same way, the biggest difference is that self awareness only lasts 100 years max per individual. I think we would be looking for an intelligence capable of creating reality yet can transcend time, which would also just be part of the created reality.
Intelligence as proof? Hmm, okay, yes, I agree intelligence can be tangible.
James.In the Bhagavad Gita, that which you speak of is what is behind the manifest and unmanifest...The Brahman..
I am undereducated in regards to Bhagavad Gita or Brahman, but what I do know is that they have approached these questions somewhat logically and in-depth. When someone asks for proof and evidence and throws the word - existence - around, I automatically think of someone searching for a blade of straw in a universe of haystacks. Then they seem confused when you explain that straw comes from farmers, seeds, earth, sunshine and rain, not haystacks. Perhaps there is a Bhagavad Gita scripture that says this better?
Indeed I read three different translations of the Bhagavad Gita and they are all different..it is inherent in communication using words...
There is theory and then there is practice. There are Zen books, other religious books (half of my library is about religion, the other half business, Literature and Science). That is for theory.
For practice, there is meditation, prayer, contemplation and interaction with the world. Work.
We are all just travelers on the same journey. The best analogy would be we are all inside Enterprise and we go to the Holodeck and experience what we will, at the moment we entered. The difference is that some are so mesmeized by what they created inside the Holodeck, and forgot that they were just there to play..this remembrance can be a very long time for each..Yep, sounds about right....now where is that Arch?
If a fiery chariot appeared in the skies, and the driver disembarked from it, knocked on my door, claimed to be the Creator, and then said driver took me on a tour of the universe, past, present, and future...
Well, I would probably accept this being as the Creator.
Would it provide absolute proof? No. However, I would almost certainly be convinced, nonetheless.As you well should be...but could you make people believe? Or was the individual a higher form of intelligence, species, etc...and not really a creator? Just a very advanced being...hmmm, things that make one go, "hmmmm."
To be god is one thing, to have technology is another...but god could have both...as could superior race from another dimension, time, plane of existence...you see--the definition of "God" has changed. Especially if we use archaic evidence from an archaic text...in ancient days, what if the writers were simply seeing a superior species? Not God...just a concerned form of life...with incredible powers?How would you know that you weren't exeriencing a hallucination?
your response speaks volumes twosheds1 it proves that even if you did have ABSOLUTE evidence you would still reject it.
Seeing ISN'T believing. I've had hallucinations that have seemed quite real, but upon later reflection couldn't have been, so seeing something like that, that isn't subject to any sort of independent verification, doesn't seem to be evidence of much of anything. If many people saw the phenomenon, and their stories corroborated independently, then maybe there might be something to it.
The trick is to find the balance between open-mindedness and skepticism.
I wouldn't know that I wasn't experiencing a hallucination.
Even still, it would be a very cool event, imo.
The undisputed scientific law of cause and effect, which states that every MATERIAL effect must have a preceding cause that was before it and GREATER than it.
The logical law of design demanding a designer. Including the incredibly vast, diverse, complex and positive symbioses in the universe (especially on earth)
Mans insatiable desire to seek that which transcends him.
The rational mind of man.Interesting "evidence" of God, but it doesn't hold much water. You present:
1. A (non-existent) " scientific law of cause and effect" which would state that God's existence is dependent on something else causing it. In addition there is much in the quantum world that has no cause for observed actions.
2. A (non-existent) "law of design" that again demands a designer and builder for God. As we also know that gravity, time and evolution will give rise to the large and diverse systems of symbioses in the universe, this made-up law is again not necessary for what we see and is thus not evidence at all.
3. Mans insatiable thirst for knowledge is not evidence anything is there - witness the continued search for Bigfoot and Nessie. Look at the untold man hours spent looking for a chemical reaction to turn lead into gold. Rather than evidence somehow of a God it is merely a quirk of man and his evolution.
4. The rational mind of man is very often very irrational in the extreme. As evidence of this, just look at the "evidence" produced for the existence of God - rather than a logical and rational collection of observations it is merely a conglomeration of made up facts that support a desired result.
Man's belief and demand that there is a God has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with desire and ignorance. We don't understand something - make up a God as an explanation. It has been done for millenia, but that doesn't make it evidence. Everyone will believe as they wish, but the word "wish" is key here - no evidence is necessary. Just the desire for that existence to be true.I see your point Wilderness, but still it evades the question.
From your position, given the nature of your statements, how did you/would you test/experiment using your methods to determine the existence of Creator, if said evidence were discovered. Again, belief -or some end result of the discovery is -presently- irrelevant. the conversation is simply attempting to understand, by each ones perspective how they define said evidence and their approach to obtaining that definition, that evidence.
James.Testing and experimentation would, of course, depend on the nature of the evidence.
You're absolutely right - the real problem is finding that evidence in the first place. Evidence that is communicable and observable by all - only then can it be tested. Number one might be to define what "creator" or "God" is - is it a natural law that we haven't found? Is it an intelligent being? A group of beings? Can it exist in our universe, or is it limited to its own?
As is we are merely threshing in the dark, trying to find something that has no presence in the universe, is undetectable by any means, and has no interaction except (maybe) through the emotional makeup of particular individuals." the real problem is finding that evidence in the first place"
Actually, part of the problem is in accepting that an observation constitutes evidence of anything.
There are lots of observations that are held up as 'evidence' of one position or other, but whether they are accepted as evidence is wholly dependent on the point of view of the observer.
Many different people looking at the observable universe have come to different conclusions about what the evidence is telling them.
Evidence is not proof. Evidence is not knowledge. Evidence is what we call an observation that fits our predisposition.
cheersNo, evidence is what we call a repeatable observation available to anyone whether it fits our predisposition or not.
If evidence does not fit with what we want to prove it should never be discarded; rather it is lumped together with evidence that does fit in order to gain an overall conclusion. Predisposition has no place in proving anything or drawing conclusions from evidence collected.you have a predisposition that it is not evidence unless it is a 'repeatable observation available to anyone'.
As far as I know, the proponents of big bang (to take one example) will never be able to test their observations by repetition.
Unique events are no more or less true simply because they only happen once.
"If evidence does not fit with what we want to prove it should never be discarded"
Except we do it all the time when discussing god/no god. Everyone that has a belief in one side or the other is invalidating what the other side is calling evidence, and deciding what constitutes evidence from their personal point of view.
For you, if it is not repeatable by anyone, it doesn't count, no?
For someone who has had what they describe as an interaction that is to them proof of god, they wouldn't expect it to be repeatable by its very nature. So your definition of evidence as above would be meaningless to them, and the argument continues. . .
cheers
hmm...cause and effect is a non existant law?
life only comes from pre existing life and a creation needs a creator is a made up law? hmm well new science must have just spontaneously arrived in that case cause last i checked they where real...Actions produce effects, yes, but "effects" (actions) do not necessarily require a cause. Quantum mechanics is full of such instances.
Your statement that life only comes from pre-existing life is patently false whether by science or belief. Science still states that life most likely began on earth from the primordial soup - dead chemicals that combined to form life. Other theories exist (comets, mars, etc.) but that life still began somewhere and science has not proposed that God did it.
Believers will state unequivocally that God did it (from dead materials) but ignore the next question of where God came from. Eternal life is the most popular claim, but nothing else we know of is eternal and there is no evidence God is, either.
Nor does a creation need an (intelligent) creator - very nice craters are all over the moon and earth with no intelligence being indicated in their creation. Mountains on earth need no creator. Even the tree in my yard has no intelligent creator - just a seed, dirt, water, food, sunlight, etc.
Back to the thread subject - can you produce evidence (or suggest an avenue of investigation) beyond claiming that man does not have all the answers (true enough) and therefore your own answer of a creator is the only one possible?Hmm I'm going to use a atheist methodology of argument against you here...prove to me that life does not only come from pre existing life, can you name the amount of scientists that will actually go on record to say that abio genesis is correct? I think you may be surprised by the outcome.
your tree analogy is also flawed...that seed has information(intelligence) embedded in it so that it knows exactly when to sprout, that dirt is not just dirt but full of nutrients that the tree needs in order to grow, sunlight comes from the sun....all of those things would require a creator to be here so I think you are doing the tree a great injustice there....remember that which we can't create we cannot understand, whether you believe in god or not you should never be ignorant of just how amazing life is and how impossibly "lucky" we are to be alive.There is not a single honest scientist that will claim that abio genesis is correct as there was no one there to witness it and it has never been witnessed since. Nor did I make the claim that it was the only possibility; instead I offered several possibilities. I did not make the claim that there was no creator but instead said that a creator was not necessary with our current knowledge base.
You, on the other hand, seem to be demanding that I cannot prove, with solid evidence, that your statement was false, and that if I can't do it then it has to be true. You obviously don't understand what "evidence" is or how it is used. You made a statement - "all life comes from pre-existing life" with no evidence whatsoever, but that doesn't make it true. That I cannot disprove it doesn't make it true. You made the statement, you provide the supporting evidence.
Or accept, by your own logic and reasoning that "Wilderness is a god, and constructed the Universe with everything in it".i dont think im the only one confused as to what evidence is, everyone is when it comes to this subject because we all have our own agenda.
Proof of a god or lack of is different for each individual it seems.
The theory of evolution does not give an alternative to God, at least not a very good one anyway you cannot seperate abio genesis from evolution so if abiogenesis is wrong then evolution doesnt have a foundation to build its ideas upon...thats exactly what evolutionary scientists have done though.
The theory of evolution is a very new idea and is being fine tuned all of the time and there are at least two major flaws that i can think of... one: abiogenesis as we have already discussed, Two: the cambrian Explosion that is all modern animals and dinosaurs coming into existance very quickly (approx 530 million years). I mention the theory of evolution because your telling me that this flawed and new theory means that there is no need for a god, at least i assume this is what you mean when you say that.
there ae certainly parts of the theory of evolution that are true and thats why the theory has a lot of respect but it cant explain life on earth, only bits of what happens to species after a certain amount of time.
The proof of god for me is intelligence, when i look at the intelligence in the world and universe i attribute that to something higher than me whereas you attribute it to something lower than yourself(not you specifically) that is random chance events: the universe coming into existance with all the laws finely balanced in order to sustain life and planets (so you have to come up with a ridiculous theory such as the multiverse theory which is unobservable and untestable and therefore completely unscientific) then you have abiogenesis another random chance event as well as all of the coincidences that means life on earth is possible, while i cant prove there is a god its still better to believe in a god than chance.
P.S there is so much evidence that life only comes from pre existing life because that is what happens every single minute of the day and because the opposite has not been proven to happen then surely that is proof?Wrong on both counts. The theory of abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, and therefore cannot be a flaw in evolution. There are still some gaps in abiogenesis, but it has not been disproven.
And the Cambrian Explosion - a 20-million year period of relatively rapid evolution - is not an argument against evolution. The sudden appearance of many new creatures in the fossil recod doesn't mean that they popped into existence out of thin air (or water, since they were marine species). It means that they evolved hard parts such as shells and bones that more readily fossilize and leave evidence of their existence.
This is a logical fallacy. Though Creationists like to cite the "coincidences" that allow life as we know it to exist, you ignore the more sensible explanation - life as we know it evolved the way it did to fit the conditions on Earth. If it had been colder or hotter or had a different chemical makeup, it would have evolved differently.
This is a hypothesis for now, but one I think will be proven when we start finding life elsewhere in the solar system.i didnt say that the theory of abiogenesis was part of the theory of evolution i said you cannot seperate them because without abiogenesis being true evolution has no foundation to build its ideas on dont misconstrue what i type scotty boy
as far as the cambrian explosion is concerned i wish it was 20 million years because that would add weight to my argument, i certainly didnt say that it popped out of existance out of thin air.
a logical fallacy you say in one sentence and then a hypothesis you say in another which is jumping the gun a bit on your part, and im no creationist.
Sorry, but evolution does not require abiogenesis in order to work as a process. The Church even accepts evolution and allows them to believe God still kick started everything and evolution took over.
Darwin thought the Cambrian explosion would be an issue, hence he dedicated a substantial portion of an entire chapter to explaining it in his book, "On The Origin of Species" - have you not read this book, yet?haha a troubled man its you again huh, well can you tell me how evolution started up then? it needs a beggining just like everything else, unless by your comment i can assume that YOU believe god kick started everything off?
i have read the origin of the species and if that is the book that you still refer from you are in trouble my friend, while its a great book and it is the genesis of the theory of evolution it is becoming seriously outdated....no more tree of life...no more gradual changes ONLY in species but rapid ones too.
did darwin nail the argument in his book according to you ATM?Two points, 1) abiogenesis is a perfectly viable model. 2) There are many things we don't understand scientifically, there is nothing dumber then to leap to the assumption that god did it because we don't understand something, the only reasonable assumption is we "we don't know lets find out on the basis of evidence" not "in the absence of knowledge let's presume god did it" the ancients believed the gods did all kind of things we now know that are independent chemical and physical processes.
1) no it isnt it is all based on presumption.
2) i have already told you that i believe in god based on what i do know, not on what i dont. i believe god made everything but to find out how he made it and how it works i look to science...i think science needs to learn its place on the food chain.Only the presumption that magic doesn't exist. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption for science to make, since the existence of magic would render science invalid. The whole concept of experimentation and observation is useless if some magical entity is mucking with the measurements.
Given the proven track record of science versus the useless enterprise of magical thinking, I choose science.god is something, ergo no ATM not like genesis
And magic is an illusion. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, it is a trick. The magician is keeping the rabbit in a secret compartment of the hat, or up a sleeve, or under the table. The rabbit isn't actually appearing from nothing. Magic is simply knowing one more fact than everyone else.
Same with the Big Bang, which I assume you're referring to. "Something from nothing" would be magic. However, modern cosmology and quantum physics are demonstrating that there's no such thing as nothing. Empty space is teeming with virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. Why this happens is not yet known. It only looks like magic because we don't understand it.
Like the magician and the rabbit, the facts that explain how something can come from nothing are out there. We just don't know them yet.right ok lets go back to the steady state universe theory then shall we? the universe is eternal great now we are making progress....no like it or not there will be a point where you will have to answer the question where did the physical universe come from.
No, I don't have to answer that question. I don't have to know.
The cosmologists and particle physicists and string theorists are looking into it, though. I'll let them answer the question, since it's their area of expertise, not mine. Whatever they come up with will undoubtedly be more interesting than "Goddidit."
It doesn't matter, evolution does not require abiogenesis in order to work as a process, they are both completely different.
And yet, your claims here would show you did no such thing, not to mention your question about asking how evolution started up.everything needs a beginning a troubled man and evolutions is abiogenesis, true bits of evolution works(adaption) but you need to answer how it started otherwise it doesnt work
A troubled man Darwins ideas are no longer used to the extent you may like to think...just because i read it doesnt mean i agree with everything in it...its not like its the bible or anythingBut, that doesn't mean evolution requires abiogenesis to work as a process, this fact seems to be escaping you.
i understand what your trying to say but if it wasnt abiogenesis then it was god so its either evolution started by god(in which case you are not an atheist) or you have no argument for your beliefs.
Your just eluding the question of a beggining again just like you do with the big bang theory something from nothing...do i see a running trend here?It's not eluding the question to say "I don't know."
The difference between us science-minded people and you creationists is that we're willing to accept "I don't know" as an answer - preferably a temporary one. We don't need to fill the gaps with God.There are other alternatives to gods and abiogenesis, none of which require one to be an atheist, but instead, an open mind.
No, it is you who is focused on only that which you believe and are not entertaining other alternatives.
actually, Nietzsche proposed "Eternal Reoccurence" we keep coming back as matter expands...then shrinks...then expands...over and over again. So the theory is out there.
The Big Bang can happen and then the universe expands until the elasticity of it all starts coming back and it starts all over again.
We keep coming back, but perhaps depending on the make up of the configuration of the Big Bang...we lead very different lives?
It's a theory.It is a theory, and as I grew up was pretty well accepted as likely true. Now it appears to be a false idea, but all the evidence is not in yet.
In answer to
1. Cause and effect is a very real law; observable, testable and patently evident. Something has to have always been. It was either mind or matter. In dealing with uncaused first causes, we have to conclude that it was either matter or mind that always existed and started this universe. If science has established anything, it is that matter cannot create itself and all observable matter had a beginning. Therefore we are left logically with a creative mind behind it all. As creator, such a being is not governed by those rules we apply to our material universe and therefore does not require a cause; for the law of cause and effect applies only to the material universe we see. Quantum physics is a “science” in infancy, therefore not something to draw general conclusions from.
2. Design demanding a designer is a very real law; observable, testable and patently evident. Evolution is a theory and has never been proven, at best it is “scientific” speculation. However, this is not the forum in which to debate this.
3. I did not say knowledge, I said “that which transcends him”. There is a big difference.
4. Rational thought is inexplicable without a rational God behind it. To accept that matter can spontaneously come into existence and then chaotically evolve into high-complexity symbiotic organisms is farcical enough. To then accept that the human mind with its emotions, morals and mental capacity just “developed over time” is beyond comprehension. But, to play the devils advocate, if, as some say, we (body and mind) are just the product of evolutionary progress, then evolution “invented” God and religion for our survival..."If science has established anything, it is that matter cannot create itself and all observable matter had a beginning. Therefore we are left logically with a creative mind behind it all. "
Completely false on the contrary physics has determined that matter can be created and destroyed and in fact this occurs all the time at a quantum level. Scientifically we have a very good idea of how the universe was created and it requires no intelligence or god. This belief persists through ignorance not lack of an answer.
As for your last line I actually agree, we did evolve to need religion at one point in our history. There was a time when humanity was not sufficiently advanced to determine what is right or wrong for itself, that time has passed and religion has become defunct we now see lower crime and imprisonment rates amongst atheists.Can you point me to the research that has proven that matter is being "created" (as opposed to changing states) at the quantum level.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 … tions.html
Simply do some research on gluonsRead the article, really enjoyed the comments section actually; I think they put the article in perspective.
My opinion: very weak evidence. But I will do some reading on gluons.
Since scientifically we know nothingness is just a perfect balance of anti matter and matter all we need to occur is one small quantum level particle appears and disrupts the balance of anti matter and matter, this would cause a violent reaction and a cataclysmic explosion that would separate the two all over the universe (the big bang) and you just created a universe.
BTW yes anti matter is real, we can make it and observe it.
From there abiogenisis without Hoyle's fallacy is very possible, even probable and from there life, evolution to where we are now no god required at any point.It appears to me that you are using quantum physics, which is speculative and little understood at best , to establish a foundation of scientific laws. How can you do that?
Quantum mechanics is not fully understood yet but we understand enough to cover all that is required there, it is not speculative we can prove quantum mechanics occur and all that is needed for that explanation is fully understood and proven by observation and repeatable experiment.
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck. Considered the father of Quantum theory)
Which we now know to simply be a force created by the gravitational pull of a variety of Bosons, so unless you want to call Bosons intelligent, no.
If God chooses to use a Higgs field to set the masses of all particles, He can certainly do so. The fact that such physics is possible or even meaningful would only make sense in a created universe that is controlled by the mind of God. The study of how God upholds the universe today is the very essence of science. So the possible discovery of the Higgs boson falls under operational science, not origins science.
The assumption is completely false, complex processes do not require design they can occur all by themselves.
Err, are you certain of that? For example, Jquery is a complex process; a language which builds web pages and functions within said pages. Its functionality requires extensive design -as stand alone- and requires a base design called html, to even operate. Even further html requires yet another complex design called operating system, server. An even further design and architecture is required to make html possible. The "folksonomy" shared by them is mathematics, obviously. and mathematics is possibly the greatest complex design known to man. So nothing can just occur "randomly" or "spontaneously" from out of nowhere, without a preexisting design or intel behind it. More especially on the ultra chem level, else particles would not be or do what they are and perform so wondrously.
Just sayin`.Yes, once designed, engineered and built, complex operations can occur by themselves, for that is part of their design. However there is no evidence I know of that reveals complex processes occurring by themselves without first being designed, engineered and then built. What repeatable, verifiable experiment can you point to that has shown design is not required. I can point to millions that show the opposite, and I wouldn't even need a specially DESIGNED laboratory to do so.
Well at it's very simplest form collect a bucket of rocks of 2 different colors and throw them across a floor then watch the apparently meaningful patterns appear with no design at all (if that is too much design observe the same in an avalanche) American Indians used this a method of predicting the future.
On a more complex note abiogenesis is a perfect example of undesigned complex processes forming (even if you don't believe abiognenesis occurred we know it can).Even in your example of spontaneous complexity you have had to include a designer/engineer/builder, the one who chose "2 different colours", "collected" them and "threw" them. However this is not an example of the type of complexity we are talking about, because it fails to achieve anything. Thrown stones are thrown stones, nothing more; although still requiring a designer. So all you have succeeded in establishing is that even the most simple random patterns require a level of design, hence a designer. Good job.
Your example of abiogenisis conveniently skips over the "repeatable, verifiable experiment" that I asked for. Abiogenisis is a speculation, nothing more.
The Higgs Field might certainly represent intelligence, as all known energy carries informational properties -if not being information itself. It is therefore highly conceivable that this field carries smaller properties, as do all other energy types {molecule, atoms, subatomic and now ultra subatomic}, like quarks -that are the building blocks of protons. Quarks are not the smallest and are not the totality of all particles.
True, the Higg's Field is one step closer to viewing, or at least getting closer to viewing, the genetic substance that is the universe. Eventually it will reach the spacial level and offer up indications of what this 98% is. Then the investigation begins a new chapter into observing space and its genetic makeup.
Looking at light, the three functions of it, gives us further indication the universe is essentially breathing, as particles within fields expand, contract and intersect -seemingly appear, disappearing and birthing other particles not indigenous to that field. This does not dismiss gravity, it reinforces it. Projection, Absorption {gravity pull} Reflection. That breathing is seen in the gravity pull and massive speed of expansion presently occurring at the universal edge while within, formation is happening.
James
for one anti matter has not been created, however it probably does exist.
i know that your an atheist and you need abiogenesis to be true but you should certainly not say that it is probable for your own sake for fear of looking silly...it is a mathematical impossibility.anti matter is routinely created; your arguments are all based upon random statements like this danny; not the best spokesperson for religion - http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/spo … dd-en.html
I remember reading something some time ago stating that anit-matter was the most expensive thing on earth - several billion dollars to create just a tiny bit of it, but we do create anti-matter = humans are the real gods.So WE can create a universe (eventually, it seems the way the research is presenting itself), and WE can create intelligent beings (we could, this kind of thing is illegal at the moment, but we could). So WE can be gods, but it is impossible that a God could have made us? I don't undersand the logic.
Anti-matter is impossible? New to me...Josak has nailed it with a very simple explanation...no god required. Boom...there goes the dynamite...and the Big Bang...just a big boom...explosions can be spontaneous with no need for a bomb maker...or a god.
To answer that differently there are 3 replies
#1) Yes we have a very good scientific and evidence based idea on how the universe was created.
#2) Even if we did not that would be no reason to assume anything but rather to look for an answer with evidence.
#3) You say rational is impossible without a rational intelligence to create it which simply sets the point back further, obviously god is capable of rationale so what created him?
Basically the argument is completely groundless.No point has been set back. You cannot apply the laws that govern the created to the creator and inventor of those laws.
Atheists are quick to deny the supernatural while at the same time attributing supernatural traits to the material universe. God has always been supernatural, outside of nature, the first uncaused, eternal, all powerful, all knowing not natural being. Atheist argues, "No, you can't say that! You can't have something disobeying natural laws."
However, ask an honest atheist whether natural causes that are in place now were in place at the singularity of the Big Bang, and they'll say something like Hawkins did: "All natural law would break down at the big bang." So, we have the atheistic community now endowing nature with supernatural ability.
In refute of an eternal God they argue, "God is an effect and therefore must also have a cause." And yet, you are telling me it's logical and scientific to accept that matter is the uncaused first cause.
Atheists argue that "If God made everything, then who made God?" Yet, again, I am to accept that matter made everything, but nothing made matter.
The very arguments you use to refute a Supernatural Mind, you ignore to support a supernatural material universe.
And that's scientific!?!No there is nothing supernatural about pre big bang we just don't know how things would have been, since time did not exist yet it's hard to put what happens in context or understand it given the predisposition of our understanding. All our scientific laws are based on what happened after, to tell anyone what happened before or at the singularity we need a whole new area of science. Just because we don't understand it yet does not mean it's supernatural that is an illogical assumption but our laws of science would not apply. Nothing wrong with that.
Matter is not un-caused at all I just explained to you how matter is created without anything supernatural occurring from nothing at all.
God is far more complex than the laws of our material universe (should he exist) so to presume that he was uncreated but matter was not is again illogical the simpler thing is the most rational to assume was an uncaused first cause so a tiny quantum particle or an omnipotent god, if you want to assume there was an uncaused first cause which is probably not true, it is far more reasonable to assume it was a miniscule particle rather than a full fledged god so even with that flawed assumption deism makes no sense.So to believe that this universe is the result of a "minuscule particle" is more "reasonable" than believing that is it was the result of a creative mind. Got it.
When you know exactly how the miniscule particle can create a universe yes.
What is more reasonable, a fully fledged all powerful being with personality, emotions and infinite power is created by nothing at all.
OR
A tiny particle is created by nothing at all?
The universe is the result of a small particle in the same way that a hurricane is the result of a butterflies wings, there is a lot more at play than just the particle but it is the catalyst.
of course this presumes an uncaused event and that is unnecessary.So you reject God because you can only accept that a particle can be the uncaused first cause?
On the contrary I don't think that particle was uncaused it was a hypothetical but I don't believe in god for several reasons.
#1 there is no evidence as to his existence so I don't assume.
#2 If there was a god I very much doubt he would care about our lives in any way.
#3 I don't reject the idea of a god, I just put him in the same category as other mythical beings, if i ever see any evidence of fairies I will believe in them, until then no.
#4 If a god exists I don't believe any of the existing faiths have any idea what he/she/it is like.
You write god with a capital g so I assume you mean the Christian god rather than just some god so:
#1 again no evidence at all
#2 No reason to believe it's this God and not one of the tens of millions people have believed in or one people have not yet thought up/discovered.
#3 The problem of suffering
#4 the idea of a celestial judging dictator does not appeal to me anyway, so even if God existed provably I would acknowledge his existence but not be a follower/worshiper.
#5 I far prefer to rely on compassion and logic to dictate my morality rather than an ancient many times revised text.In response to..
1. But you are willing to assume that we just happened as the result of an unprovable quantum theory.
2. In what way would you expect God to express his care for you and why?
3. Is your "miniscule particle" mythical as well? No one has ever seen it, yet you expressed a willingness to believe in it. Why the disparity?
4. How can you know that?
Faith is not so much the step taken toward accepting there is a maker, to me that is logic. Rather it is the step taken toward actively seeking a relationship with him, to the end that we might know him.
This may fly in the face of many who will not believe in God while difficult questions remain unanswered (difficult to them at least); for example: if there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world. Ironically, maybe he will only answer if they first believe and seek him.
This is the same rule my wife applies to our relationship. In actively pursuing a relationship with her, I come to understand her world - the why's, what's and How's. I would be a fool to demand she first reveal everything to me before I move toward her.
Maybe Josak, the only way to discovering deeper truths about God is to embrace his existence. Our limited logical juggling only gets one so far in understanding the mysteries of our reality, and falls short on many levels. Take the step from doubt to faith.1) I am not assuming that, it's the most logical choice thus far is all.
2) the Christian faith tells that god personally cares about us but I see no indication of that in the continual suffering of innocents.
3) the miniscule particle is not mythical, we know such particle exist and we know that is how they work, we do not know that a god exists.
4) I do not know I said I believe.
There are questions and there is a simple lack of evidence and in combination those are more than sufficient furthermore I cannot develop a relationship with god when i have no idea what God is like, you believe in the Christian one but I see no reason to believe in that particular god of the millions of them, for all I know god is evil, I mean if someone had the power to prevent the misery on our planet with no effort and did not I would call them evil.
For me to embrace gods I could start on an alphabetical scale or something.
it has been thoroughly answered, it just that you are expecting unanimous agreement which will not happen because of the nature of men.
The idea of God is unique to each and every person and the only proof is the man himself,
Therefore when you look for proof is lies in and is the person doing the believing whatsoever he the believer believes and satisfies whatsoever the nature and characteristic of any proof needed, both tangible and intangible.There is nothing I can think of that would be proof of a creator. All natural processes are fairly well understood by science, even if some of the details are not fully known.
But to participate in your thought experiment, I guess evidence for me would be physical properties that defy known natural laws. For example, if planets were perfect spheres, rather than oblate spheroids; if planets' orbits were perfectly circular, rather than elliptical. In other words, suspension of the laws of physics, with no discernible cause.
However, that would merely be evidence of a god, not necessarily Jehovah. It would be equally likely to be the work of Zeus, Wotan, Marduk, Amon-re or many others. The task then at hand would be to determine which god was at work.
Of course, none of this has happened. The physical world has always conformed to known laws of nature. When the physical world has appeared not to conform, such as on the quantum level, the laws of nature have been modified.the fact that nature is well understood can be proof that something intelligent created it surely as opposed to it blindly coming about?
also love the fact that you are using gods real name, kudos.Well, I had to specify which god I was referring to,
But no, the understanding of natural processes would be the opposite of evidence of an intelligent (or any other kind of) creator. Understanding of natural processes shows us how creators are not needed. Like Steven Weinberg said "Science doesn't make it impossible to believe in god, but science makes it possible to not believe in god."thats ridiculous just because you understand how a process works does not mean you know how it came into existance, the fact that we can understand it shows that it was created by an intelligent being because otherwise we as intelligent beings wouldnt be able to understand it.
I understand how the dandelions came up in my yard, but that doesn't mean that they were purposely placed there by an intelligent entity. Knowledge of how a process works usually (though not always, I'll admit) means you know how it originated, otherwise you don't fully understand the process.
Am I missing your point? I feel like I am.Yes I think you are purposely missing the point.
Well, help me to understand. Are you saying that if a natural process was truly a natural process, with no intervention by an outside agency, that it wouldn't be understandable? If so, I think that's totally a matter of opinion, with no evidence to suggest it's true.
Yeah yeah whatever this argument just got stupid if you think your reasoning is logical then by all means stick to it.
In my opinion then the natural needs a supernatural otherwise the world wouldn't be as perfect as it is and the parts of the workd that aren't perfect are explained in the bible as to why they aren't perfect.I'm truly sorry if I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Perhaps we should just agree to differ.
Yeah two sheds I think we should I don't know why I get dragged into these things on hubpages as if we are the ones that are going to find out the ultimate question haha.
Danny, you are not getting it...but that's okay...if your only text of reference is the bible...you never will. One has to look into botany and biology to understand how a plant grows...as to a god being necessary to create it?
Well, maybe...but we don't know...I just can't wrap my head around a deity sitting in an empty vastness, or a "null and void" earth and diddling with his digits rendering a likeness of a daisy...it would seem to me that the development of organic plant life would evolve to elements, climates, etc.
It's a more complex process...but wouldn't a deity take this type of approach if it was so "all mighty?" There is a great deal of assuming going on in this thread and evidentiary process does not allow for assumptions--only facts.
Partially understanding our physical reality now: does not equate to understanding how the natural processes came into being.
"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books . It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranges and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." - Albert Einstein
James,
I just don't think there is anything that we all could agree on that would suffice as solid evidence for a Creator...The best we can come up with would be personal experiences.
-MarkMark,
I cannot disagree. And do not think there is a genuine need for a singular, collective definition. But, yes, those experiences -the experiments themselves- is what I am questioning and how the experiences lead to tangible proof or better said the definition of evidence.
JamesJames,
I would have to say, that for some people the experience they had/have is so strong (at least to them) that it can only be seen as real and concrete. And short of one having an experience such as this, one would never understand/accept it as proof and one who has had the experience can never deny it as proof.
-MarkMany people have personal experiences - this is not proof, this is just someone having a dream or mentally ill...
That really is a sad blow off of a large percentage of the human race, over the course of several millennia. Simply because people have, most probably, fallaciously expanded on an experience doesn't mean the experience itself is an indication of mental illness or hallucination.
It simply means they have attempted to draw too many conclusions from an isolated event.
Tangible proof would suggest the capability to detect God's existence/presence in a tangible/physical way. I do not believe this will be achieved through anything we initiate. Belief in God is an internal/spiritual thing that will not be confirmed through anything external. This is for good reason, I believe. Irrevocable proof would have a significant impact on human behavior, and would thus nullify the whole point.
The God of the the books of Moses is consistently described as having a physical form in our likeness in heaven on His thrown. Because God existed before, and therefore outside of, existence as we know it, He lies beyond our ability to detect Him in any physical sense. Scripture is also consistent in describing God's presence on Earth and interactions with humans as being His spirit.
However, while proof cannot be obtained, there is plenty of evidence that supports His existence. Because God's existence falls outside of the jurisdiction of the natural sciences, the evidence often lies in the gaps in between. Just as the majority of studies of the human mind necessitate a whole other branch of science (the social sciences) because, like God, the conscious human mind cannot be detected physically either. It too lies beyond the jurisdiction of the natural sciences.
Life itself is something else that we know for certain exists, yet cannot be detected. We can detect the biological functions that signify the presence of life in biological matter, but there is no mutually agreed-upon conceptual definition of what life/death really is because it's something that lies beyond our physical/scientific grasp or ability to detect/define. We just know that when life is present ever fiber of a living biological being exhibits a will to continue living and perpetuate life.
This is the one thing that never seems to be accounted for when discussing things like evolution, yet it's this will to survive and perpetuate life that is the driving force behind things like evolution. Without that default state in all living things propelling it to survive and perpetuate, none of us would be here.
So, I look more for consistency between God (the creator) described in the bible and the physical world (His creation). And His fingerprints can be seen on everything. Specifically in those things that lack physical definition, like the conscious human mind and life in general.The only proof of a creator would be a visit by that creator explaining the creation. Nothing else will do, especially a two thousand year old set of documents of dubious origin.
Why do you think this? To me that is like saying what that other fellow did: "God exists, because he is God", but has nothing to substantiate how he came to that definition or determination. Secondly, where is the quest of discovery -even as humans are inspired to discover life on other planets -and even this planet, living now or dead for thousands of years? And for this discussion, we leave out the documents, unless they can be applied to the experiential or the experiment of what defines evidence of Creator.
James.I will be honest, I have no idea how a forum works.
It is like trying to find Waldo.
There are basically two ways of knowing anything--induction (empiricism/ evidence/ experience) and deduction (logic/ reason).
Logically we cannot deduce the existence of God from anything. Countless attempts have been made through history to logically prove or defend the existence of God, and all have failed. Given the laws of logic we understand, the existence of God is illogical. So asking for a logical proof of God is like asking for logical proof that 1+2=5. So that alone pretty much shuts down any further discussion.
But then we have empirical evidence. The problem here is that God is defined as a being not of this world. Yet all empirical evidence is, by definition, completely of this world.
Attempts are often made by theists pointing to specific empirical evidence as evidence for God. For instance, I saw X event, and this event proves God exists. The problem with this approach is that X event is of the natural world, so essentially the natural is being used to prove the supernatural. Yet the central claim of theism is that the supernatural (God) created the natural. So we have circularity. The supernatural is justified by the natural, which is justified by the supernatural.
So before I can answer what would count as legitimate evidence of God, I would need someone to overcome these fundamental logical and evidentiary challenges.And also .... there is no "Proof" that the color purple is recognized the same as purple for everyone.
Some people can not see proof as proof the same way as someone else.I suppose on some level, everything comes down to semantics. Doesn't seem a very useful way of thinking though.
Why do say those things? Do you ever bother looking something up before saying it? Sheesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_visionI have to laugh. You want to make Jarami look stupid, but it backfired on you. The link you left did not take into consideration how different receptors process the wavelengths of light. Every school kid in Florida knows a red snapper only looks red to people. Big fish see them as a neutral. They blend right in to the reef.
Live by science die by science in this argument. Why are you so contrary, anyway? Most times, when somebody works so hard to deny something like whether God is real, they usually have a guilty conscience. Instead of fighting God, just own up and let him forgive you. You will feel a whole lot better when you come clean. You need some joy, and I'm praying you'll get it.Sure it does, right here...
A range of wavelengths of light stimulates each of these receptor types to varying degrees. Yellowish-green light, for example, stimulates both L and M cones equally strongly, but only stimulates S-cones weakly. Red light, on the other hand, stimulates L cones much more than M cones, and S cones hardly at all; blue-green light stimulates M cones more than L cones, and S cones a bit more strongly, and is also the peak stimulant for rod cells; and blue light stimulates S cones more strongly than red or green light, but L and M cones more weakly. The brain combines the information from each type of receptor to give rise to different perceptions of different wavelengths of light.
Sorry, but your God has never been shown to exist, hence there's nothing to fight, other than the followers of that God who do little more than create the fights.I think the original point was about perception. Frequencies of light and how the components of our eyes react to those frequencies does not settle it. If the same frequency of light that appears green to me appeared red to you, there would be no way of ever knowing because I have always perceived it as green and you have always perceived it as red. We can't know how others perceive things because we cannot observe their perception. We have to depend on the words and definitions we assign to things. The rest is our subjective interpretation because it's at least partly based on how we perceive things. This is all because the mind of another is unobservable. You just have to assume that they see things the same way you do because the words assigned to those colors match yours.
Then, what you're saying is that your eyes are different than everyone else or simply are not functioning correctly.
Your lack of understanding on how light and the eyes work have been noted.And your inability to grasp perception is noted as well. Frequencies are values we assign to electromagnetic waves to quantify it. In that narrow portion of the spectrum that's visible to us, colors that are associated with those frequencies are always the same.
So, if I look at something that's reflecting back light at 4×10^14 Hz, it appears red to me. You look at that same thing, reflecting back light at that same frequency, it appears red to you. You call it red, I call it red. Same frequency, same name associated with the color we see at that frequency.
Now, if what I see at that frequency is red to me, and always will be at that frequency, and what you see at that frequency is red to you, and always will be at that frequency, there's still no way of knowing if the color you actually see in your mind is the same red that I see. Your red could be green to me. But it's always been red to you. But there's no way of knowing because you'll never be able to see how things appear to me. Get it?
Obviously, we don't all perceive things the same way or we wouldn't have so many things to debate so vigorously. What if some people don't like particular colors or paintings because they actually look way different to them? What if everyone's favorite color was actually the same color, just called different things?In other words, you're saying that your brain is not functioning correctly to synthesize the data being sent to it.
This has nothing to do with perception and everything to do with science and biology. Get it?Says you, but since we can't see inside your or my mind to see how it's perceived, then there's no verifying that's how it works for everyone. Get it? Remember that comment earlier about reading between the lines. That applies here too.
Ah, so you didn't read the link I provided.
You mean the one that begins by saying " Colors can be measured and quantified in various ways; indeed, a human's perception of colors is a subjective process whereby the brain responds to the stimuli that are produced when incoming light reacts with the several types of cone photoreceptors in the eye."?
And ...
" However, it is important to note that the subjectivity lies in the brain's perception of the color, and not the light itself. The wavelengths of light are the same for all observers."?Actually, this isn't entirely true. The wavelengths of light are only the same for observers moving at the same velocity relative to the object observed. The wavelengths of light are a little bit red or blue shifted depending on whether the observer is moving away from or toward the object.
Sure, it's only perceptible to highly sensitive equipment at distances of millions of light years, but the point remains.
Your premise is flawed and highly opinionated . You cannot define a God's "type" of existence to logically prove or disprove it. Is God's existence like your existence? Your existence last physically only 100 years. Can you show me your self awareness? How much does it weigh, exactly? Does it have color? Can we put your self awareness in a test tube and test to see if it physically exists, even for a short time? Where were you 50 billion years ago? I think you were existentially challenged 50 billion years ago, do you agree or disagree? Your existence seems to come and go. Can you logically prove you existed 100 billion years ago? I find your claims to understanding "any type of existence" dubious.
Logic, the ability to reason, where did you get it? It just randomly happened one day and you decided it made sense? Does that happen to you often? Stumble across immutable immaterial laws that can ONLY be discerned by immaterial introspection? None of it logically exists.
What you seek is something that is existing, not something that erroneously exists.Those are a lot of questions. Not sure which I am expected to answer.
I also don't know where you get this "type of existence" stuff. I thought there was just one type of existence--you either exist, or you don't. Lol.
A lot of the confusion and complexities you bring up just reinforces my point--that God is unprovable because he has been defined as a creature totally not of this world. Therefore evidence based in this world cannot be brought to bear in his favor.In my opinion only one stuff exists. That's energy. IMO, the universe is not filled with things but is just one stuff ie energy and it is in the process of max entropy rather than existent. So when you say: you either exist, or you don't." Well you used to not and you are headed back.
Here is the problem. There are things called concepts like logic and qualia etc. There are things like introspection and self awareness. These two different things are immaterial yet are used symbiotically . Logic does not physically exist. How you feel about or how you discern logic does not physically exist. Self awareness is using logic in conjunction to determine existence within one thing- a universe of energy. We are not separate from this universe of energy, we are part of it, yet our immaterial self awareness is manipulating immaterial concepts like logic. Its a paradox. The only thing that is claiming existence, isn't in a position to be an expert. OR the immaterial things are the only things that truly DO exists in an of themselves apart from everything else. We are extremely biased toward the material. Everything is just information and there are immaterial things comprised of the same information, that can discern that information. I logically deduce that it is "harmonious" and not random noise, random noise receptors and random noise contemplation of inexplicable nature."The only thing that is claiming existence, isn't in a position to be an expert."
That statement requires the assumption that there is something larger out there beyond your own mind. How do you know that? The answer is that you can't. You can't get outside your mind. Lol.
In any case, this statement may be true, but it's irrelevant. Because we are the ones doing the thinking. So we have to work with the tools that we're stuck with.we know that because we do not understand the world we live in and we cannot create even a blade of grass ergo something greater must have.
But something greater can be the incredible forces of nature and physics
yeah but something greater made that....ok lemme guess...well who made god then?
the chain must stop somewhere and i believe it stops with god.If you read the comments on the last two pages the outline of how the universe could have been formed with no creator at all is right there, no god required at all, but yes the spontaneous appearance of a god is even more improbable than the spontaneous appearance of a universe.
i have read a lot of speculation such as "we know nothingness is a perfect balance of matter and anti matter" its not nothing they both vanish but into pure energy which is something.
when it comes to physics atheist views do not have a leg to stand on most people and scientists alike humbly admit this.
ps: i dont want to swamp this forum with my posts as i have selfishly done already haha so ill only respond to specific questions you ask me.No matter and anti matter only turn into energy (which is matter anyway) when they are unbalanced. Frankly even if it just energy that works too but it's simply energy equaled out to nothing. As we know through the mass energy equivalence equation energy and matter are interchangeable, ie matter is potential energy and energy is potential matter.
Actually the vast majority of scientists are atheist/agnostic and while our knowledge of the very beginning of the universe is no complete science is progressing so fast that I have no doubt it will soon be we are definitely getting there and a creator is becoming less and less likely/necessary.your wrong having equal amounts of matter and anti matter would make the universe more dense yes but it certainly is not nothing.
mass cannot be created or destroyed not even in a nuclear reaction (hydrogen bomb) it only changes form but it doesnt completely dissapate, there is far more matter than antimatter and that is why there is so much "stuff" in the universe but when matter was created an equal amount of antimatter was created with it but now that is obviously not still the case.
i have no doubt that most scientists are theist/agnostic but they still humbly admit defeat (for now) when it comes to tryig to explain the universe without a creator and no i am not clinging on to that fact to support my belief i am just making an observation.Um sorry but we do absolutely know for a fact that matter can be created or destroyed, gluons for example can appear and dissapear at will.
You need to define nothing then because it doesn't exist
I've never heard of a scientist admitting defeat on the creation of the universe; they certainly don't think god is a possibility, if they do then they are not very scientific scientists; more like the people who have come up with the 'theory' of intelligent design - that is not a theory, it can only be a theory when based upon empirical evidence. Evolution is based upon actual in front of our own eyes evidence - if you can't base something on that then it is not a credible theory.
So god as a creator of the universe is in no way an accepted possibility for any right minded scientist - no matter what the people in your church tell you...Science and God are not mutually exclusive and there are plenty of scientists who believe in God. For example ...
“By any reasonable analysis, evolution does nothing to distance or to weaken the power of God. We already know that we live in a world of natural causes, explicable by the workings of natural law. All that evolution does is to extend the workings of these natural laws to the novelty of life and to its changes over time. A God who presides over an evolutionary process is not an impotent, passive observer. Rather, He is one whose genius fashioned a fruitful world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of matter itself. He retains the freedom to act, to reveal Himself to His creatures, to inspire, and to teach. He is the master of chance and time, whose actions, both powerful and subtle, respect the independence of His creation and give human beings the genuine freedom to accept or reject His love.”
- Ken Miller, Cell Biologist/Brown University Professor/Christian, from his book 'Finding Darwin's God'
And the man that first introduced the idea of the Big Bang, a Priest by the name of Georges Lemaître. In fact, back when he first published 'hypothesis of the primeval atom' back in the 20's he was criticized for trying to eject theology into the scientific landscape by suggesting the universe had a beginning.Which really is pretty weak, why would an all powerful god choose to spend billions of years fostering Amoebas into human beings when he could simply create the latter. let me guess "we can't know the will of god"/ "he works in mysterious ways" Also it pretty severely contradicts the supposed revealed word of god.
You'd be surprised how much it doesn't contradict the word of God. If you've got a few hours to spare I can show you in excruciating detail how it lines up with Genesis perfectly.
I don't have hours but i would appreciate an overview, I think you have to get very very metaphorical and it seems like a great big stretch, i don't think the book was written to be metaphorical bt rather the literal truth.
Oh no, it's literal truth. I have a few hubs that illustrate it in detail, but I'll see if I can give you the broad strokes....
Creation....
Day 1: Verses 2 through 5 - Hadean Eon - Age when oceans formed and atmosphere from opaque to translucent
Day 2: Verses 6 through 8 - Archaen Eon - Age when water cycle and oxygenated atmosphere were established
Day 3: Verses 9 through 13 - Proterozoic Eon - Age when continents formed; Paleozoic Era - Plantlife on land
Day 4: Verses 14 through 19 - Paleozoic Era - Age when continents moved from beneath planet to between poles. Atmosphere from translucent to transparent
Day 5: Verses 20 through 23 - Mesozoic Era - Age when life from the sea thrived ultimately leading to birds
Day 6: Verses 24 through 31 - Cenozoic Era - Age when modern mammals and humans developed
Then in Genesis 2-11 you've got the story of Adam/Eve/Cain/Noah, which lines up with the dawn of civilization. Cain's city in Gen4 is Eridu, first Sumerian city, established around 5300 BC. Then Gen6 says Adam's descendants started interbreeding with naturally evolved humans. Then the flood, which matches up with a flood that destroyed the Sumerian city of Ur around 4000 BC and completely halted the Ubaid culture there. Then, about a century later, humans at Babel dispersed in all directions. See the 5.9 kiloyear event ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event.Right so the "days" are tens of millions of years... No...
Not to mention it does not address the simple why, why would anybody or anything do that when they could skip the process?The word translated as 'day' is also translated as age or era and often means a span of time. Especially when talking about the ancient past.
Do you mean by "skip the process" that God could have just 'miracled' everything into existence? So, just because God didn't create everything the way you envision, or think He should have, you can dismiss the fact that a document written at least 3000 years ago correctly lists 13 specific creations and 6 major eras in Earth's history in the correct order?The reasoning for that order is simple, the simplest and most basic bodies and organisms towards the most complex, ancient man could figure that out with no trouble, obviously man was the most advanced so he came last.
Your theory does have an interesting consequence though, since days are millions of years Presumably god is still resting on the seventh so that would favor a non involved god.
And as I said no evolving human beings from amoebas instead of simply creating them (out of clay you know) makes no sense.So you're saying it was an educated guess? 13 specific details? Correctly stating that the oceans came first, then the establishment of the earth's water cycle and oxygenated atmosphere, then land, the plantlife, then the ability to see the sun/moon/stars due to the atmosphere becoming transparent and the continents literally moving from deep in the southern hemisphere to between the earth's poles, then life from the sea leading to birds, then mammals/humans? Correctly separating sauropsids (reptiles/birds) from synapsids (mammals)? That's a lot of lucky guessing.
The eras are different spans of time.
Humans created in Genesis 1 and what they were specifically told to do matches up with how homo sapiens populated the planet and established themselves as the dominant species in the animal kingdom.
Adam was a separate event. Created in an already populated world. He was the introduction of free will. The effects of this can be seen in human history starting around 5000 BC in Mesopotamia.Well firstly one would presume that an all knowing god would know that stars came long before the Earth or at the same time, land coming before plant life is well I wouldn't call it a spectacular guess, and yes ancient man would have understood the differences between reptiles and mammals since mammals are more like ourselves it follows they could come later.
As for air and water well yes one would presume fish needed them, there is nothing surprising there at all , the land is more complex than the sea and it is populated by simpler forms less like us so it follows they would come earlier too.
And of course it still makes no sense, god entrusts man with so much and is so interested in them but instead of making them out of clay as the bible says (Adam anyway) he spends hundreds of millions of yeas coaxing other beings into existence just for them to go extinct.Well alright. You wanted an overview, so I gave you that. If you can dismiss all of that then that's cool with me. I'm not going to try to convince you.
Some people just want to provoke you. I figure God can handle business just fine, so I just stay out of it. Why give a demon a chuckle?
"they certainly don't think god is a possibility, if they do then they are not very scientific scientists" I wouldn't say that that's true. I think it's more that gods aren't necessary. Any honest scientist allows for the possibility of gods, but without any evidence there is no reason to include gods in the equation. So possible, but not likely.
Romans 1:20,21 worshipping the creation rather than the creator to me that's proof that even back in those days without any evidence against a god people will still choose not to believe so that isproof that belief in god is certainly not a scientific question.
Danny:
"we know that because we do not understand the world we live in and we cannot create even a blade of grass ergo something greater must have."
It's one thing to say we don't know everything.
But there is no way for you or anyone to prove that there are laws that our mind cannot understand, which is what the previous commenter was suggesting. Because in order to do so, you must employ your mind--the very thing that is supposed to not understand it! You cannot get outside your mind.
BTW, we can create a "blade of grass," but whatever.Doubt we can from scratch create a blade of grass but whatever haha it's just something my mom says anyway.
Ok secularist fine I accept I will always be too limited to answer this question...so in that case I expect everyone else to accept it!
Essentially, Empirical and Esoteric are the two main stakes to the claims of each side of the Theos -that Great Sensational Equation, which is human reason. But, point taken on those events -by whatever parameters applicable to the tester. Which goes back to the purpose of posing the question(s). Still, is there a means to define evidence of without proof itself. Some argue the proof must come first in order for the testing to occur, bringing about a conclusion to the E/E. Others say just the opposite.
Again, my position, or opinion on the subject, is a very tendered phrase called: practical faith. Still, my evidence may or may not be that of another, with respect to their viewpoint or mechanical assistant. This leads me to acquiesce with the fundamental argument which says the human method of thinking is what makes that definition seem impossible, yet not improbable. In short, are we thinking correctly about our definitions, approaches, tests and applied conditions to form a definition of the evidence of Creator? Yes, there can be many variations to the resulting evidence, to the tang, which is expected.
James.I agree. 'Practical faith' as you put it, can inform and steer investigation. I know the thought is often like Wilderness said above. That a God-dun-it answer stumps educational growth. I don't think you have to surrender the quest to understand. i just think acknowledging the possibility of a God shouldn't' be so vehemently rejected.
A strictly material approach has served us well, and will continue to do so. But acknowledging other possibilities, informed/practical possibilities that don't conflict with known facts, could steer toward greater understanding.As far as I can see, there haven't been any better options developed when it comes to these fundamental epistemological frameworks. We perceive things through our five senses, and the rest is our reason and logic. Is it possible there is more to the universe? Of course. But we can imagine many things. That's just the stuff of fiction and novels, not fact.
Some try to introduce non-sense-based norms, but all such attempts have shown themselves to be inadequate because they do not lend themselves to such basic necessities as testability, repeatability or fallibility. An event might seem very real to one person, but if it cannot be observed or repeated in some way by others, nobody can reasonably call that true knowledge.
I've never found anything about faith particularly practical. It seems far more practical to assume that what we see in this natural world is all there is. Until further details. Much simpler.
Jacharless, within the specifications you give, really the only evidence sufficient is to have been there, when the creation happened. No one has that evidence. Other things come into play, and they do for ALL parties on all sides.
When going to a mailbox, and finding mail, we wouldn't ever wonder, what could have accounted for this?! Even if we didn't know mail carriers deliver mail, nor had mailboxes, but saw a package by the door... what can account for it?
What can account for what we see? What kinds of things, before there was anything, COULD account for this discussion happening? Lets step much further back in the "level of difficulty" area..... Too hard to make an eyeball for us, or living cell, but what about a skyscraper....something MUCH more easy. We don't see nature doing that, but we see creators doing that..... It doesn't happen on its own, yet for the much more difficult tasks we can't begin to "do", we expect something much less than ourselves to get it done. I find that unreasonable.
Saying such reasoning doesn't count in a discussion like this, is like pre-setting the rules to win in advance in a game. Its not a real win, even if you think you win. The facts, reasoning, metaphysics, it all matters actually very much. Also, scientists USE faith, belief, and philosophy ALL the time. Have a long discussion with any scientist...ask about the books or papers they have written. Grow a keen eye for when their held beliefs or philosophies creep in, as they always do. Its not bad to use them, but its bad to call them science and rule out less desirable beliefs and philosophies when all should be considered.I'm not sure if there is such a thing as tangible proof, that is, proof that can be done scientifically.
From my point of view it is an entirely personal experience, or lack there of, in which you know god.
For instance, I personally know there is a God, (or perhaps there are more than one God, ah another question), through the experiences I have had through my dreams.
But I can not 'prove' that I had the dream, or that the dream had the presence of God, or that the dreams are the result of some very good pizza and brandy.
No proof what so ever.
But because I'm curious about God and a desire to expand my spirituality, a desire for empowerment and enlightenment, I have chosen my spiritual path for myself based on my experiences and my experience alone.There is no evidence of a 'creator' any more than there is of the tooth fairy -- there never has been and never will be.
Such emphatic statements are very evident of yet another form of indoctrination, and downright dangerous. Still, given your conclusion, and benefit of reasonable doubt: what is your definition of evidence of the existence of Creator? And, how did you come to that conclude -meaning what tests, methods, parameters were applied to reach that definitive? Which is what the topic is about.
James.
Evidence could only be day to day actions that are overt and not questionable. Anything from appearing in a hospital and curing babies to coming into my house for a cup of tea. Basically direct intervention, more than once, witnessed multiple times by every human on earth... then you would have to test the air we breathe though to make sure that a powerful hallucinogenic hadn't been released.
And before anyone says god does visit them everyday - just don't; he doesn't and never will until the day the tooth fairy really does finally come to collect my milk teeth.At this point in civilization, the only proof of a creator would be his physical presence and being seen and heard by the entire world at the same time. Then he can tell us what he did and what he wants to do.
Anything less is just wishful thinking.Well, this is the traditional Epicurean approach, which essentially formed the Greco-Roman, Hindu and nearly every other type of sensationalistic Theos. But, is it really practical, rational to assume Creator is a physical form -as we perceive physical forms? A physical presence would nullify the omni's and sentient ability, no?
Physical form has an underlying framework. What a human being can see with his eyes cannot even be perceived without the theoretical ie. I can see a rock in my hand, I cannot see past the quantum realm, except in theory. The point being, when someone desires "physical evidence" the presumption is they actually have "knowledge" of the physical when in fact they do not. Not even remotely.
What I look for is, intuitively, is something like relationship eg. two people become friends and they have a friendship. Only something similar in geometry or I want to say scalar. I would give anything to have read less Bacon and more Einstein.Allegedly, God can present himself in human form.
The question is why if he exists doesn't he want to show himself, and demonstrate his powers.
He has totally failed using the bibles.People sometimes don't realize they are putting their own parameters, wants, assertions onto such a being that would be a creator. Such a being would be much more than just physical, and it would seem to me only have to be able to produce the physical, not bound by it or exist in it. The idea that it would have to be observed by all people at the same time isn't true at all. Why? Its just an idea, thought or desire really.
We can't make the actual reality of such a being, bend to our own minds and wishes, in order for such a being to be true, is part of my main point. We can't set and apply some kind of parameters to such a being that could accomplish what we see, OR ELSE it not be true. That doesn't follow at all.
As for theoretical things, we might want to note that we apply or allow theoretical things all the time to come into our minds, make a difference as we want. I hope people realize how silly it is to only use that when needed, or try to apply rules of when it is allowed or not. OR to say its valid at certain times and not others.
I do not know what would constitute evidence or tangible proof of the existence of a creator but I feel that existence itself, including that of inteligent beings like ourselves is evidence of something - a fudamental orderlieness or inteligence perhaps. I often think of Creator and God as not being the same thing. Science has more to discover about what happened in the beginning and I will trust future theories just as I do current theories and past discoveries. For me God is more about now than what happened in the beginning, something I experience. I like the above references to music; and I would like to add the beauty in art and nature as similar experiences. Of course it can be argued that it is all about things occurring in our brains, but I feel it goes beyond that and yes, I have no proof. I apologize but it difficult to discuss topics like these without including some intangibles. Have a great day.
"Ah, ha...no," is the right answer. The need for humankind to anthropomorphize a creator into a being like us reveals the insecurity of our race. Sometimes, life begets life...DNA gone wild...the natural progression of natural laws that don't require anything but the space in which to occur.
That aged arguments of Life demands a Life giver, Law demands a Law giver, Earth demands an Earth maker, etc, etc...are puny arguments that don't hold evidence of a god...they are simply tired rantings of people who don't wish to discover the real truth about existence.
Even the bible proves no hell occurred in human psyche until Dante's Divine Comedy came along...the early ideas of Hades come along way before the new testament of the Bible...and it is not described as today's Christian would describe a "place of fire" and "eternal torment."
If, we ever find evidence of a creator...it will be incredible news...but if we don't? Who cares? Life is a gift no matter where it came from...especially a sentient life. Evidence of an IQ, this is...a higher one at that for our species.
What constitutes evidence for the existence of a creator? That is hard to say, you'd have to first define a creator and then show supporting evidence that follows the model that points to the existence of a creator without possible alternative explanations, you'd also have to have peer reviewed papers that has detestable configurable facts supporting your theory.
What constitutes as proof is really unanswerable because you'd have to have something to show that is questioningly proof of something. The answer for me is really i don't know. No one has sufficiently proven even the remotest possibility for the existence or possible existence of such a being.My beliefs are based on nature and what is.
What pushed my apotheosis was realizing that what is said in this clip is basically true and that all about us is evolving perfection or the best that can be going to a better form.
I like to use the term evolving perfection. Otherwise, a perfect God becomes a stagnant pool of information and our souls and consciousness would be useless to the universe.
Evolving, the perfection of whatever God was, to whatever God will be, means we have to think this way.
Unless you see God as somehow losing his initial perfection.
This is not allowed in a perfect God’s repertoire.
When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynical view of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on the anthropic principle.
What do you think?
Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA
This is done by nature and not a God but would be a requirement of a God if he were real.
Regards
DLI always figured that people all have a body, soul, and spirit. We are composed of the tangible and intangible. If we have a spirit that we can not see, then it should be more logical to consider that there is a God (a spirit) whom we can not see right now. Many times, I have felt His presence.
For as long as man has been around, see how long it has taken for man to discover what he has. Science is good, but has made some mistakes and corrections along the way. I believe there is a lot more to me discovered. The truth is, that science may not ever discover or figure out all there is out there... And just because science has not 'figured it out' doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.Now this is a smart lady. She knows the score. I hope I can write as good as her with some more practice. I wish I had said that. It is so true!
Yup. I agree. Relying on Science to "prove" what's true and what isn't won't work. The Scientific Method doesn't prove anything true, it only proves what's not. For example, the world was flat until Science proved it not flat. Until this day, Science has not proven that the world isn't round. So, we just keep saying it's round.
In the end, it's wrong for Science to say that God doesn't exist. God hasn't been proven to not exist, and hasn't been proven to exist. So, nobody should be saying anything.Physics has shown that God is unnecessary for the existence of anything in the universe, history has shown that various Gods are believed to exist and are different depending on the culture from which they originate. God does not exist.
Maybe I didn't explain fully. Sorry. I mean that, currently, we are in agreement, through Science, that Physics has, so far, shown that God is unnecessary for the existence of anything, but, according to the Scientific Method, we must continue testing because we can never actually say for certain that God is unnecessary. But, because of the complicated nature of explaining this every single time we talk about it, we just say... "Physics has shown that God is unnecessary."
Sciences purpose is not to look for evidence for god. That idea has been dismissed and the people in science that believe in go do so out of faith and not out of quest. Science is about looking for the answers to how everything works and came to be. When questions are answered new questions will be asked. But god is no longer an answer physicists are looking for. I have a hub that explains it.
So, if I understand, and if not then correct me, that Science doesn't care about proving there is no God, but is still being used to prove there is no God?
Science is not looking for evidence for or against the idea of a God. There are those who use the evidence found to argue against God just as there would be and are those who would use the evidence found to support the idea of God.
Oh. I see, I think. You mean "Science" as like... an organization or community of scientists that have some set of goals or missions? That group is not looking for evidence for or against God. But, Individual scientists who may be atheist or religious, personally, have used Science as evidence. Is that right? Am I getting it?
From my perspective science is looking to uncover the evidence for how things happen and how old they are or how long ago they happened and other patterns to answer questions. For most scientists the question of god has been answered and for others they believe in god by faith and are not looking to question god. Those like Hawking, specifically decided to use science to answer whether or not god was even necessary and the answer for us was no. But once you answer a question with science why go back and continue to ask the same question? Now we are arguing with people who claim that god exists and we must believe and that dubiously science says he exists, which is done by a misuse of science. Look up people who debunk things, on both sides, just to get the idea.
Yes, I think that's it. Very well articulated. Science cares not for religion. Religion is not relevant to science. Science wants the truth and cares not who's feet are stepped on.
Fair statement, then don't knock on my door to preach or convert me. Don't teach ID in science class, don't impose religious views on anyone, including abortion and stem cell research.
When missionaries knock on your door, they should just give you the information they're providing and leave the personal decision to accept or decline you. There shouldn't be any forcing, or trying to convince, or using any other type of social or emotion pressure to change your mind. I don't exactly think it's right to say that nobody should ever voice their opinions.
You see how this works? You say it's wrong for science to say God doesn't exist, but you think it's okay for missionaries to knock on my door and tell me he does. This is where the problem starts.
And you should know you've got it wrong. You have to prove God exists, I don't have to disprove anything. Can you disprove the tooth fairy exists? How about purple elephants? The burden is yours. Science works by proving things exist, that's why they keep smashing protons.I was just trying to make it fair. If Science can provide us with their information about the Big Bang, Evolution or whatever else, then it's fair to say that missionaries can, at the very least, share their information. The decision is up to us.
I really meant, not who the burden of proof belongs with, but that it's not clear so therefore the decision on which side to believe is therefore personal.
Hmm. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't really know, but from what I've learned of the Scientific Method, it's only to prove that thinks don't exist, aren't true, or don't work. But, who knows? Haha.Your not understanding. Science does not interfere with Religion. We don't ask evolution to be taught in Religion or Sunday school. We don't knock on any doors. Science doesn't care about religion. Religion wants ID in science class and the do knock on doors. Science goes on about it business about finding out about the universe. Religion doesn't want any information that conflicts with their beliefs. Religion tells you what to think and tells you to not listen to anyone else. Science has an idea, tests it and then tries to prove itself wrong. Does and Religion try to prove itself wrong?
So then... what's going on with this whole conversation? If that was your point, that would've been good to know in the beginning so we could have avoided this whole mess
Anyways, I don't like your attitude. Why is it that "I'm not understanding" and not "You're not explaining good enough."
I'll no longer respond to you, unless we can have a polite, humble conversation.Okay, perhaps I've been not explaining myself properly. I did try every step of the way to articulate my thoughts as best as possible, but maybe I missed something.
In one of your earlier posts you said Science should stop trying to prove God does not exist. I was trying to show you that Science cares not for Religion or God. Science searches for the truth. If that truth steps on the foot of a particular Religion or faith then so be it. Religion continues to try to control science as it did during the dark ages. If it is a valid faith it should stand up to scrutiny. If a particular faith believes the world is only a few thousand years old, then the faithful can either deny the science or except there is a flaw with the faith. Their choice to make. But asking science to not report their finding because it interferes with faith is censorship and would put us back in the middle ages.
I find it confusing that you seem to think science should not report there finding, but it's okay for missionaries to know right on my door and bombard me with information. This what I think you are not understanding. You (seem) to not understand the irony of not wanting to be taught about evolution because it may conflict with the faith that you want everyone to be taught. It's okay to knock on my for but I can't knock on yours. Do you follow?Well thanks for explaining yourself more, and being polite. Apparently, we are both guilty of the same mistake. I must not have explained myself either. I totally agree with being taught about Science and evolution and everything else. In fact, I really enjoy learning about it. It's very interesting. I never meant that I don't want to be taught about evolution. I was really only promoting the freedom of speech, and ultimately the freedom to choose what to believe, even if it is contradicted by Science.
I, also, find the history of Christianity very disgusting. It's very hypocritical and does try to ignore the facts. So, I don't agree with that, which was for a long time carried out by the Catholic church. So I totally agree that Christianity over the long run has done what you describe. That is what I consider the Great Apostasy, if you know anything about Mormons.
Thanks for explaining more. I do not know everything, obviously, so I'm sorry if my ignorance has confused us.
It is possible that a good hypnotist could have a large group of people eating their own shoes believing they are dining on some of the best teriyaki beef jerky they have ever had in their lives. With that in mind, proof of a hypothetical self evident creator could possibly be being suppressed.
This is an easy one. Go out to sea. Sail into a storm and get your mast ripped off by a 45 foot wave. I see you are are praying with all of your heart. Now you know.
That really does not answer the question -or at least answer how you came to have tangible proof based on a sail whizzing off a boat. I recently viewed a film where a person survived nearly three months at sea, with no food and very little if any water. I would not say because he survived that is proof of Creator. Would you?
James.I can't help it if you are oppositional and defiant of good sense. Smooth sailing, then.
I have been through many dangerous situations and never once relied on any imaginary deity to help me. I have a brain to to that.
No, prayer ain't gonna cut it...i'm gonna have to do some very quick survival exercises because I am not named Jonah...think a little harder on this one.
When it comes to the Judeo-Christian teachings there is no tangible proof of God. For me I find tangible proof irrelevant for if one did have proof of God they can simply justify in their mind in a number of scenarios that would preclude God as being a deity.
The Judeo-Christian biblical teaching state and the Bible that God is looking for man to accept him on faith. Consider Jesus walked on earth with all the miracles he performed people constantly doubted him to include many of his disciples. Let's try a human form of faith (hypothetical) let's say you have been down by a falling tree and in fact you are trapped underneath the tree in the forest at least a mile from civilization. There is however a passerby who comes to your aid but what he needs to do is to get help and so he tells you he is going to get help at this point do you spent your time having him outline just exactly how he's going to prove to you he is going to come back would help or do you have faith that he will come back with help?"All things work for good to those who love Him."
This is either a lie in the Bible or all bad things that happen to humans are good...you tell me, is this a crock or just tragically poetic prose that indicate that all things, no matter how bad, are good...if you love God?Well, at the risk of being ostracized by the many, I am of the mind to say good-evil are synonymous. The intent of the viewer is that causality which splits or divides them. Together, good-evil is knowledge. There is no such thing as good or bad knowledge. There is, however, a lot of good and bad judgment. Still, these are just effects of the cause {cause being the indent to divide knowledge}.
Regarding the textual approach, I cannot agree it is proof, no.
James.Jacharless, you approach the yin and yang of life...without evil there is no good...each is necessary. Nuff said.
You got that right . . . 'nuff said. You can only stand so much tripe at one sitting.
Good and evil are merely human conceits. It may seem evil when a person you love is eaten by a bear, but for the bear, that is a good thing, because he got lunch.
If you want to define the evidence and tangible proof of supernatural being, then there isn't. We are natural being living in the nature and we can't reach the supernatural realm (hence the term super-natural). Actual/tangible evidence? No. Metaphysical or theoretical evidence? A lot. This quest for finding tangible proof for creator should be futile, since supernatural realm is not falsifiable. By definition, when something is not falsifiable you cannot use empirical or scientific methods. Try searching for "Parable of the Invisible Gardener".
People claimed either to have faith, experience, or both. Of course, it is better if they are backed with logical reason to believe (but not tangible evidence). I think these are justified since you should approach the supernatural realm with the supernatural aspect of humanity, our spirit and soul. Further, the supernatural and natural aspect of human beings are intertwined together and they can affect each other. That's what makes humanity special.The supernatural is akin to the imaginary. You cannot reach or communicate with imaginary things except with your imagination.
- Emile Rposted 12 years ago
0I think so much hoopla, hype and disinformation has been used over the centuries to sell a few people's visualization of what the term might manifest itself as that it is difficult to discuss the question. Everyone has a different idea imbedded so deeply into their psyche that cross conversation is difficult.
I see what I perceive as the evidence in the intricate tapestry of the universe. The uniformity of all that is observable from images obtained from the Hubble telescope to the fabric itself on the subatomic level. I perceive some personal anecdotal information as evidence and I do take into account the shared experiences of others.
None of this is proof. At this point I consider many theories valid until they prove themselves wrong (mostly because people claim knowledge). As you said in another thread. 98% of the universe is considered to be dark matter. We are truly still shooting in the dark when we ponder the question. Explain faith, void of the metaphysical or pseudo application {i.e. blind faith, childish aloofness} .
faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld...that is the bibles explanation of what faith is (hebrews 11:1) for example evolutionists would say they do not have all the missing links but they have an assured expectation that they will find them based on what they have already, which is the same for people who believe in god although they don't know everything they know enough.
That is a false idea of what evolutionists really think. For instance there is no actual missing link. There are many transitional fossils though you will never have a full fossil record of every life forms transition you will have forms slightly less advanced than the current fossil or living form known. We have sufficient evidence to show that evolutionary theory is a fact.
well if you are missing the full chain then that is a missing link my friend, and its not just one or two fossils missing its thousands so dont try to sugarcoat the problem you face.
There is no problem, there is no need for a "missing link" evolution has better evidence than the need for ANY fossils. If you don't want to look into what evolution actually is, what the evidence is for it and what it means to all life on Earth, that is your problem and I can't help you. You don't have a better explanation for the diversity of life on Earth nor evidence for anything supporting what you believe.
Ok it wouldn't matter what I typed back you would come up with some nonsensical jibber jabber to rebuke it so whatever.
Nonsense to you, like how math looks to people who are bad at math.
Who told you there are missing links? Why don't you do your own research?
"In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.[2] He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.[3] Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now considered to be abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils.[4] Specific examples include humans and other primates, tetrapods and fish, and birds and dinosaurs."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
You are listening to liars telling you we have not found missing links. They lie because they have an agenda. True science does not care about Religion and therefore is not trying to prove there is not God. It just wants knowledge.
Believing in god isn't a scientific question although people alike to paint it as one it's a personal question,
If you asked most people if they believed in something greater than themselves they would probably say yes, but if you asked them if that was god then they would say no which Is just a slightly more complicated way of being disobedient to god.
The physical universe and everything in it is the evidence for a god without a creator there is no creation and life only comes from pre existing life....basic laws of science being ignored here without any convincing counter argument.
The funny thing is that most atheist don't actually come out and say that there is no god, many people think of Richard Dawkins as the biggest atheist in the uk however even he doesn't say that there is no god.There is no evidence to suggest the need for a god/intelligent designer. The lack of knowledge of how something came to be does not conclude the existence of a creator. That would be an argument from ignorance.
Geez. We're all repeating ourselves here, back and forth. You say, "The lack of knowledge of how something came to be does not conclude the existence of a creator" and the others say, "The lack of the lack of knowledge of how something came to be does not conclude that a creator doesn't exist."
In the end, I agree with Dannytaylor02 that believing in God is a personal question. This isn't the only question that humanity can agree on, you know...
Do we work together to come up with a unanimous answer, or do we work individually and come up with our own answer?"Do we work together to come up with a unanimous answer, or do we work individually and come up with our own answer?" If it is a personal question then it should not be placed in a public forum to be discussed. And by what standards do we use to come up with the answers to these questions?
Haha. That's true. Well, I was referring to believing in God. The original poster of this forum was talking about evidence. I meant making a decision is personal. You can discuss it publicly, but, in the end, the one who makes the decision about your own personal belief is you. I should have said, it is a personal answer, you're right. Therefore, you personally set your own standards.
- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago0
If in solving the questioning of evidence of the creator was never anything more than a consciensious attempt of some in mankind to assemble a manifesto of some sort of social, moral and conscience guidline for mankind , you have to admit . It would be the most succesful attempt ever by man to actually hoodwink himself and others into thinking of a God as the answer to everything . Inquiring minds are always going to question everything , accepting minds are always going to accept for the most part ! If accepting by faith alone , so be it ! Thats enough for most ! if you live a life of constant question , so be It ? I chose faith.
Well, so far, this is a very good conversation.
However, despite several ideas looping, seems the questions still remain.
Chasuk actually made an interesting presentation of an Elijah moment, ride around the cosmos which would lead to belief. But belief is not really the point of interest. I am not interested in belief or even blind belief {blind faith} unless of course that is your test/experimental method. And again, in my opinion, faith is not faith unless it is practical. Anything practical is tangible. As someone mentioned about substance of things and evidence of things.
So, to the interest, what by each of your perspectives, is the definition of evidence of the existence of. For example, a person can say nature is their evidence (i.e. a tree is, therefore there is Creator; the Universe is sub & supra, therefore there is Creator). But these are pseudo and metaphysical applications. My question was what parameters were used to bring you to that definitive conclusion without the meta or pseudo. If not having, how would you attain it, or at least the experiments, tests you would apply toward defining it, also without the meta and pseudo.
James.that would require god to be physical and if he was physical he would be part of his own creation so its an impossible question to answer in that case since we do not know enough about teh spiritual realm to prove it exists so the proof remains in nature and the universe...to be honest that should be enough.
Hmm, I will toss this into the mix and see what happens. Let us say, for the sake of conversation, spiritual is merely dark matter or a frequency of light non-solidified, as most perceive non-solid physic. That would mean by solidifying the frequency of light, Creator would then become a physical observance. And, again, my apologies for leaning toward the idea of practical faith which, I suppose, would be my own experiment/test leading to the definition of evidence.
Jamesif spiritual was dark matter then it would be physical i guess and not spiritual but it is an interesting question....if i was a scientist i would tell you
How would you take a "hypothetical" square peg and whittle into a "real" round peg that fits into a round hole? However if you take a "real" round peg and fit it perfectly into a round hole, you can infer a round hole, although holes do not exist physically. Even the "inference" itself does not exist physically either. What is the physical evidence of a round hole? How much does it weigh? Will that physical evidence of that round hole last for an infinite time in the future ie does nothing exist forever? I think , intuitively (another thing that does not exist physically) that the answer lies in frequency. The physical DOES not exist. It "sometimes" exists. ---Sometimes--- is frequency and is the only real thing there is because it stands the test of time, whereas nothing else does.
Discovery of another universe/dimension would be a small bit of evidence (Possibly it is God's home?). Discovery of intelligent life in that universe might add to it (perhaps they are God?). That life claiming to have built the universe would contribute to the evidence (perhaps they aren't lying?). An understanding of how they did it, with a demonstration of building another universe would definitely add to the pile of evidence. Firm records (photos, movies, etc. of the process of building our universe) would nearly cinch the question.
A wee bit unlikely, though.Fair enough. So, in your opinion, how would you approach or experiment to do that?
And again, the discussion is not attempting to win-over any side or define one-way as the only way. It is to clearly define what ways are being used to define that evidence or methods people are using to establish a definition, based on experience.
JamesI have no ideas whatsoever as how to find that other "place". God is defined by humanity in such a way as to be undetectable by any of our senses or devices, and it seems reasonable that that would include His universe as well.
Given that we can only infer the existence of His home by its interaction with this universe and that seems to take place only through God himself. We can only look for actions that violate our natural laws, which we continue to do. Unfortunately, all such actions eventually come to be understood as following the laws of this universe - no God is needed or indicated.
How do you find something undetectable and not of this universe? Wait until He reveals himself in such a way we can detect Him with our senses.
I don't _know_ anything, except that I exist (and the possibility remains that I might be wrong about that). However, this knowledge of my existence is currently my single axiom, right or wrong. Everything else that I believe, I believe on a sliding scale of confidence. Even things that I believe with the greatest confidence -- which are always subject to change -- I refer to as "knowledge" only out of convenience, and not out of absolute certainty.
I don't divide nature into sub or supra parts. What some might consider the supernatural, I consider the "whole show." Actually, my belief is more complicated, but that is an adequate in-a-nutshell definition.
Richard Carrier makes some interesting points here:
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.kr/2007/ … tural.html
For non-subjective truth-claims, inference isn't enough; I require observation and experimentation before I will label it "knowledge."I like the Hume bit.
Now, to the nature of naturalism, in the form of Theostoa.
first, it is no secret anymore why I blabber about the term Theos, because it completely defines the sum-substance of all concepts of discovery regarding the universe within and without, be it from the sensational or equation view, that is 'religion' and science. Theostoa is often defined as the God Consciousness or Consciousness that is called God. A Consciousness independent of the universe -the tangible nature of itself, and dependent of the universe for it to be understood, revealed, expressed to see itself, know itself. In essence to create the creatable. I mentioned this as the Irresistible. The fullness of force and object constantly seeing itself, interacting itself. This has been seen on the subatomic particle level.
Theostoa is made of pneuma, which is Greek for: words or particles of breathe. That alone draws in all kinds of ideas and possibilities for expression. It implies creation is itself the breathe of Consciousness. It contains what philosophy would call the perfect priori. The Hebrew identical term is ruach.
I have issues with this. lol. What possible technology could humans design that would be able to communicate with his mind, since the pneuma is his mind, just in form? Yet, Perhaps this is what science is doing through radio telescopes and such. Perhaps it is also what others do with regard to meditation or prayer, where our consciousness approaches his consciousness and information is shared. I cannot rule either out nor say either is thoroughly adequate.
JamesThe above statements reveal the continuity of our physical structure...a very good explanation of George Lucas' "the force", as it were.
The archaic usages of terms like Pneuma, Ruach, the breath or spirit, of humankind is quite pervasive through all religious/philosophical structures...for what is meditating...but connecting with that concept of universal consciousness.
Where the organizations of theology or philosophy lose me is in there "unproven demands" that they are the one connection with the universe, calm, peace, 'god" if you must.
The metaphor of a bicycle wheel is far more complete as an explanation, in my humble experience. Each of us is travelling a spoke to the centre hub of the wheel...we all come to the centre on different paths, different experiences, different journeys, whatever...but the centre is the wormhole to the next level, plane, dimension, conscious experience.
Terminologies, ancient interpretative theory, human understanding as, and where, it is now is simply at a station on the railway track of Time--who knows what we'll know as a species in 100 years, 1000 years or a million years...or if we'll be a thriving species at all?
My only other contribution would be a modified version of the movie, "Ground Hog Day", in which Bill Murray states that God isn't God, he is just a guy who has been around a very long time, living every version of every moment possible in each living beings' lives.
The modification? That god is an older version of Bill Murray, a guy that just never got the right sequence of events that would set him free from this particular temporal loop.
But is Bill Murray God?
Sadly no, but because he has been around for such a long time, he may have created humans(?)I like what you just went and did. You made up your own God. That will come in handy. Your god is not so sharp. He doesn't know where you were last night when you snuck out the window. We can slide right by him and get into heaven before he closes the gate. You can hide a six pack and we can drink it up when he isn't looking.
Naw, a six pack is nice, but a bottle of brandy is better: only one bottle to carry around and I can hide it under a jacket....
It also means that, if there is a creator god for humans, he may not be a perfect god, or all knowing.Good luck with that!
That Brandy will go good with some some apricot nectar. Let me know when god is off task and we'll party down.Just curious.
What do you think about this question concerning god's existence, and whether or not it can be proven?
I think my version of god would drink a glass or two of brandy or apricot nectar and chill with us.
What do you think?It is a worthy saying that "God gave us beer because he wanted us to be happy".
An acceptable observation.
I wonder though, we humanity can't be happy with diverse beliefs, (including non-belief), is there no middle ground?
One question that the author of this thread asked is if a belief in god is practical. In terms of the exchange of ideas between diverse cultures and scientific backgrounds, it only works if we can simply except the other's observations as their observed reality and not try to convince them of our own.
Without that, where is the practicality?
well if it cant be done scientifically then i guess you would have to start somewhere else...dunno where though
There may not be direct proof of god however there is a lot of proof that people will deny god even when there is no evidence against the existance of god, the bible has countless examples of his own people rejecting him and this generation is no different the problem is NOT proof of god its just the fact that people dont like being told what to do.
this is not a scientific question or a philisophical one its a matter of disobediance and it always has been and because most people dont like being told what to do that means god needs to go...or change which is not the way it works we change for him.Obedience has nothing to do with it...there is a way that a child should go...that's his or her way...it's who they are. Who in the world do they have to obey? And why?
It's a solitary life for all...a very singular existence...it should be a journey of success and connection for all--sadly, many don't understand that and try to obey ancient texts of questionable interpretation and origin.
There is nothing made that has no creator. Except God himself. He is the only Uncreated one.
What evidence can you provide to support those claims? That everything has a creator OR that God does not?
That is the subject in this thread - what evidence is there and/or how can we find evidence. Not simple claims based on nothing but desire for them to be true, but evidence - communicable and observable by all.
Mmmm. God cannot be proven by any physical scientific test because he is not physical. If he was we could drive to his house, knock on his door, and invite ourselves in for a beer.
We cannot use prayer as a proof as in practice it is unreliable as a test. Every Christian here will give examples of unanswered prayer and answered prayer. Considering how much goes unanswered, I guess a statistical study would not show up significant proof.
I have to resort to the footprint idea. If I see a footprint in the garden I know that someone wearing some size nines was there even if I can't see them now. We may observe the universe but just because we understand its processes it does not follow that no God is required. I wrote an asset and configuration management process in work today to ensure that some IT kit gets to where it is supposed to be and gets the right software build. To the IT guy, just because he understands the process it does not mean that I don't exist, the process needed a creator.
Phosophically there is meaning. A universe that auto-evolves a sentient humanity that can marvel at the universe, then one day is lost forever, without the universe knowing it was there, makes no sense. It's just a complete waste of time and effort on behalf of a dumb non-sentient universe.
Finally there is music and art. Just how is it that a collection of sound waves, shapes or colours when so arranged stir such emotion in humanity? Yet randomise them and we just get noise. It's as if sound waves, colours and shapes knew we were coming.Ah, a fellow tech geek. I completely agree.
funny enough, an writing a hub about just that -the mathematics of words, so to speak -the folksonomy of two little code tags, mathematical symbols, that essentially make up the entire internet (<) and (>).
And even more, the music or vibrato idea.
Everything I have found during these few 40 years of living all come back to the same point of origin. Is one of the founding elements of my current work, which I suppose reaffirms sentience, and those pesky particles of ruach-pneuma that have precisely -as HvN said- twelve frequencies {symbols, notes} -in a system of eight fields forming one bit, if the term fits. If the Bose Field is anywhere near accurate, humans have just now looked into the rabbit hole.
James.
I completely agree. I am a musician who always just played by ear for the majority of my life. A few years back I got into music theory and was astounded to find out that music was basically discovered, not invented. It's so perfect it boggles the mind and cannot be mere coincidence.
For example, musical notes are simply different frequencies of sound. An 'A' note is a frequency of 440, meaning that the sound a string makes that's vibrating at 440 times per second is an 'A' note. Double it and you get the same. 880 is also an 'A'. Yet, as you said, notes played randomly can actually be jarring to the listener. Yet, when you play the notes within a particular scale, they all work together to create something that can stir us. Every piece of music you've ever heard is made up of twelve notes or less; A, A#, B, C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#.
The sound a vibrating string makes is nothing more than a byproduct of a physical string vibrating and creating sound waves in the air. Yet these sounds can be arranged and layered in such a way that it can make you cry. Change the key of that same music so that you're using completely different notes and you get the same song, though the tone of the music may effect you differently. It may sound "sadder" or "happier". Though the notes may have changed completely, the separation between each note is still the same, so they still all work together.
The more you learn about music, especially in the context of what musical notes really are, the more astounding it gets. It's a lot like the way the universe conforms to mathematics. Was math invented, or discovered?Brilliant post.
A no-God-required universe cannot explain why the by product of a string vibrating in air can makes us cry. That's probably a better reason to believe than gawping at the universe.Well thank you. I just don't get why some people think all the mysteries of the universe can be found through logic and reason, and this is a perfect example of why that doesn't jive with me. There's no logical explanation why music effects us the way it does if you look at what music is logically. The same goes for art. In my mind, one of the biggest lessons to be learned from science is that the human mind doesn't fit in with the rest of the natural world. It's an anomaly that often doesn't make 'logical' sense. It would be like finding a pocket in the universe that doesn't conform to mathematics or natural law. It just doesn't fit in with everything else.
DH, your own post illustrates perfectly why true evidence is so difficult to accumulate and why it is so misunderstood between believers and non-believers. If I may paraphrase your comment into something more factual:
A no-God-required universe does not with our current knowledge explain why the by product of a string vibrating in air can make us cry. It may be a reason to investigate further the existence of a God and it is certainly a reason to try and find out why it happens.
You make a statement that the universe cannot explain the matter, but you haven't investigated. You haven't checked for resonance in brain cells. You haven't checked to see if it stimulates relatively common memories. You haven't checked to see if certain combinations of sounds stimulates the tear ducts. You haven't checked anything - just made a blanket statement of impossibility out of ignorance. That is not a reason to believe - and is certainly not evidence - it is simply a statement of ignorance that we don't know why the result is tears.
This is probably the most common fallacy of "evidence" of God's existence - "I don't know how something could happen without God and that makes it impossible for anyone else to find out so therefore God exists". Assigning supernatural forces to unknown causes should be far, far in mankind's past; it certainly it has no place in rational thought.
As an example, consider "dark matter" and/or "dark energy". The universe is expanding faster than known causes can explain, but scientists and thinkers don't simply declare that "God is doing it with supernatural capabilities"; they tentatively name the unknown (so that they can talk about it) "dark matter", without knowing what it is, and begin looking for it. Trying to find other effects it produces. Trying to find out where it is, how much of it there is and where it is. Trying to understand.
Using your rationale, the proper response would be to drop all that wasted effort and simply declare "God is doing it and we can't ever understand", but that is not the way of man. We want to understand; we want to learn - to sit back and declare that we can't learn would be the waste, but learning about nature requires evidence. So we look for that evidence rather than declare it is unknowable.And a common fallacy held by atheists is that believers base their belief on the idea that we don't know certain questions but many base their belief in god based on what we do know.
I'm sorry, Danny - that's kind of what I was trying to point out. We have absolutely zero evidence of God existence, let alone of His actions and effects on earth. Because of that we can know nothing - belief without evidence or knowledge is all there is.
Ignorance of such things as the exact time and mechanism for life's beginnings is negative. Evidence is always positive and there just isn't any - because of that we don't know anything of God.No evidence? There will be more than enough soon soon enough, like there isn't enough already. Get while the getting is good. Why perish because of pride?
Yeah I look at suns created by perpetual nuclear reactions in a universe created by the imbalance of dark matter and "normal" matter, evidence is not ignorance, I look up and understand what I see, it doesn't present evidence as to the existence of a god.
why do atheists keep saying because i understand it there is no need for a creator to create it?
i understand a bycycle but i also know that it had a creator that argument is not a valid one against a creator...Because I/we understand how it was formed without a creator.
No, it is not a valid argument for the lack of a creator. That one is not needed does not indicate there wasn't one anyway.
What it is though, is a refutation that because the universe needed a creator then there is a god. The premise is false; the logical conclusion is false as well. Not that there is no god, just that the matter is unknown.Why does something need a creator in order for it to exist? No one created me I was born. Lightning happens because of electrostatic discharges. Raise happens because of condensation. If something needs a cause in order for it to happen, why would that constitute a "creator" a "God"? Can you prove that it had to be a creator? Can you say with any certainty? No. Why do people like us atheists say there is no God or creator? Because there is no evidence to suggest such a thing, saying the universe needs a creator to exist is an anthropomorphised ideological view point. God is created in our image to explain what we don't yet understand. Why not be honest and say instead that you don't know how it happened? "That one is not needed does not indicate there wasn't one anyway." That is a contradiction, because if one is not needed then you need proof that one exists and was the cause, which you need anyway for anything. You don't send someone to prison for murder without evidence that this person was the murderer. So why assign a God to a universe that has not so far shown any sort of need for a creator?
Where were you before you were born? You don't know because you weren't created yet.
*facepalm* seriously? that is your answer... it's completely irrelevant.
It's a good statement, the only problem is you brought an interesting point. You are correct, we don't remember anything before we were born. No time passage or anything. The same will happen after death. Nothing. Our genes live on in our kids if we are lucky enough, but we an not conscious as consciousness is a product of the brain and at death the brain dies. Good bye consciousness.
You bring up a good point as well. Upon death there's one missing element that was always there before. Life.
Your parents were alive, of course, when you were conceived. Each of them the end of an unbroken chain of living organisms that goes all the way back to the primordial pool. Life was always present and passed on. The sperm and the egg were alive. Those first cells after conception were alive, exhibiting those tell-tale signs that show life is present; homeostasis, growth, metabolism, etc. That energy that animates biological matter was always part of the equation... until death.
Life itself is that one element that was always there before, passed on from your parents, passed on to them by theirs, and so on, for countless generations. Like a flame passed on from one olympic torch to the next, the same flame burning since the very beginning. Yet gone when you die. Extinguished. Something to think about.But, as I said if you are lucky enough to have children the circle of life continues. Evolution. When we die we live on in our children or in the energy that is channeled through the process of our bodies decomposing. If you cremate that every is lost in fire. I would prefer to live for eternity in heaven as I was told as a child, but because I want it doesn't make it so. It was a tough pill to swallow as a 12 year old child. It took years to come to terms with it, but I'm better for it. I know and accept the truth.
Yes, if you are fortunate enough to have children (I am not) then you pass that eternal flame of life on. You've successfully continued that unbroken chain. All living things are directly connected to an unbroken chain, generation after generation, that goes all the way back to the beginning. Life is a single, connected flame that connects us all. But once you die, the life that was once an ever-present energy in you, that eternal flame, is gone. I wonder what happens to it....
the energy is burnt in the flame from cremation or the energy is transfer to the bugs and soil through decomposition.
I think we finally agree on something. Lets let it go before we find something to debate.Hahaha!! I wish I could but I have one objection, of course.
The energy is already gone by the time the body reaches the crematorium or the soil. If it wasn't, then cremating the body would be murder. Okay, now I'm done.Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form and state, the mysterious "life energy" you allude to from a scientific perspective does not exist.
'Cannot be detected' and 'does not exist' are not the same thing. There's no difference at the molecular level between living and dead tissue, yet living tissue exhibits behavior that dead tissue does not. We know what it takes for an organism to remain alive, but not how to reanimate it once it's dead.
to add to your comment Josak & even if it does, "life energy" aka "the soul" does not imply a "divine" force. It merely means that we are just not able to measure quantify and understand it yet.
An scientific explanation for the inner workings of photosynthesis eluded science till recently, because the technology which enabled science to observe the quantum mechanics of this process was simply not around.Precisely, we also don't yet understand why gravity exists but I very much doubt that when we do discover it the cause will be god holding us down and there is no reason to assume he has anything to do with it.
Exactly. These remain unanswered questions. Some have faith that life and the laws that bind the universe together are works of God. Others have faith that one day these will be detected/measured/quantified and understood scientifically. Without certainty, you only have faith. In either case it just comes down to what you believe in.
No it's not faith it's logical prediction, of all the things we have discovered that religion told us were direct acts of god not a single one has turned out to be, the logical presumption it that will hold true presuming a god did it is an irrational presumption.
Suzie, I was born, not created, there is a difference, I didn't come from nothing, I grew, I came naturally. A rock doesn't need a creator or someone to make it.
Huh sighs. Wilderness, I wasn't pulling out the old God of the gaps chestnut. I wasn't trying to explain away a lack of scientific understanding as a God dun it. I've been here long enough, I thought you would have understood that. If you read my first post you would see that I do not believe God can be proven or disproven by scientific method either.
I was instead searching for philosophical meaning, as a possible route to answering James' question. Taken for what music is, a mathematically regular pattern of vibrating air molecules, inducing human emotion, commands philosophical consideration because at a scientific level it makes no sense. From a religious perspective it fits rather nicely.To tell you the truth, I was a bit surprised to see such muddy thinking from you of all people. My error, not yours.
Still, the bit of vibrating air molecules inducing human emotion making no scientific sense cannot be considered factual. Not because the statement is true or false (it may be completely true) but because man has not yet exhausted every avenue of research and possible evidence to show it. There very well may be a solid reason for that to happen - we just haven't found it yet.I've got a potentially testable example we could maybe try to explain. Everytime, and I mean everytime, I hear the crescendo in the middle of Radiohead's "Exit Music (For a Film)" I get goose bumps on my arms. It's a physical, bodily reaction that has consistently happened every single time I've listened to that song. And that's a lot. I find that incredibly fascinating and would love to understand what that is.
Disappearinghead, you bring up a very interesting point as to the inept ability of the [presently defined] scientific method to prove-disprove. Likewise a lacking ability beyond [traditional] theistic belief to prove-disprove using the sensational method. And I do not think combining them would formulate a method adequate enough either. Or maybe it would...
James.You can't put the beginning of the universe in a test tube, and test it.
I don't think its possible to empirically test a time when even general relativity breaks down.
If the suggestion is being given, that we can't ask what kinds of thing could account for such a universe with beings that can contemplate such things, that we have NO evidence, then I would disagree.
I think its very smart and wise of us all to consider what could account for what we see, when we don't see things like universes happening even when we DO have all this "stuff" or "ingredients" in place. Its meant to be an evidence in itself, a clue. What does it point to? Using science, logic, reason, and without being unscientific enough to rule any ideas out in advance, what can account for such things?
Not much. Redefining or rewriting rules that tell us what is even allowed to be evidence, has been tried before, but it fails. Good scientists look at everything, and don't rule out undesirable possibilities in advance.
If one is after truth, all things are allowed on "the table for evidence." Getting angry or emotional about certain possibilities that WOULD explain what we see, isn't grounds for ruling it out as even a possibility. Brilliant scientists make mistakes in reasoning all the time, and often don't tell you when they "break" from speaking of science, and here enters "philosophy and more belief". They label it all science. Be smarter than that, that is what I encourage all people to consider....my evidence is the space between - the nothing that allows the everything to exist within it, from which everything arises and returns. there's so much of it, and it permeates everything...even science can agree with that
That is so beautiful. You are right. There is just the right amount of nothiing to make something worthwhile.
Tea, This I like, also. Space is actually not nothing, it is completely full -it is something. It is the greatest something we know of. That something is what holds everything together, even allows anything to appear physic. Could space, itself, be the definition of evidence of Creator? Above everything else, this certainly would be. But, again, my opinion.
James
- scottcgruberposted 12 years ago0
"P.S there is so much evidence that life only comes from pre existing life because that is what happens every single minute of the day and because the opposite has not been proven to happen then surely that is proof?"
Actually, life comes from non-life every single minute of the day. Ribosomes and enzymes assemble non-living amino acids and other organic chemicals into proteins that form living cells. Yes, a living cell provides the materials and the workspace, but non-living chemicals do the work.Of course not. That's why you're a science denier.
I love science I think it's more that your a stone age scientist not open to new ideas
So, in closure,
While each of us -philosophers, scientists, enthusiasts, believers, non-believers, tweens and more- have offered up our approaches to defining evidence of Creator, the consensus seems to be the perspective of the individual. That perspective being their genuine method of testing, observation and ultimately a conclusion of tangible proof or nullification.
Stepping outside of the collective Theos -scientific or sensationalistic- and just viewing the idea, from an unbiased perspective, seems to ease the pressure on the burden of proof itself. Lightening the load, I suppose is the word to use. Despite the many avenues of exploration, and opinions, one thing seems to be very clear: possibility outweighs impossibility of said discovery. Right-wrong are unimportant, hackneyed and redundant limitations. Whether mechanical or organic, our engagement of the search is undeniably more profound than the destination of that discovery -the evidence.
That said, I am grateful we were able to discuss this. And from reading here, it shows a genuine motivation of human thinking; a rather fun, engaging, selfless, exploratory direction. Who knows, with any 'luck' we might discover, through this commonality, the practical reality of that definition, that evidence.
Many thanks to everyone for their vivid and colourful insights!
JamesAnd thank you, James, for a most engaging discussion. Bravo!
God and creation are not like the physical continuity we swim in daily. They are not the coarse clunkiness of these Homo sapiens bodies we wear.
Compare resentment from a perceived wrong with true and perfect forgiveness. The former is built on continuity and commensurability -- the relationship between the act and the reaction. Forgiveness is built on discontinuity -- it is an act of creation -- a breaking with the continuity with the bonds of resentment that weigh us down.
It's God's universe. And we are His children. But I have to point out, God is not Homo sapiens, and we were created in His image and likeness. Too many people forget this, including by late Southern Baptist minister grandfather.So God looks exactly like a clunky hairless ape with the body plan of a bony fish modified through 500 million years of mutational trial and error? And then made us to match?
Interesting. I wonder if "He" ever gets hiccups.Do you think he gets a sore back. We typically have lower back problems because we didn't originally walk upright. The only bones we have holding up most of our weight is a spine. We are kind of week and vulnerable in the lower back. Poor design if you ask me.
This caused a thought to pop into my head, (Imagine that lol)
I wonder how those people who are in my dreams can prove that I truly exist. Or am I just a figmant of their imaginations.Nope...just a "pigment" of their reality...lol.
Like Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." The physical universe exists, therefore He does.
Contrary to the weak logic of Hawking that gravity could create the universe, something had to put gravity, space, time, and energy there for gravity to exist. No physical cog can create cogs. The canvas cannot paint itself, weave itself or stretch itself.
Creation does not come from nothingness and lack of intention.
Proof of God? I suppose I can only intuit God from my own experience, beyond the above simple logic.
From my own experience, I know that I am inherently a spiritual being with a physical body. Most of the time, I feel trapped in my body, but on a few occasions, I've actually been able to get outside and look around -- one time with startling visual acuity.
I've also found miracles easy when I was able to obtain utter humility and perfect confidence. The results each time were instantaneous and positive.
That I am a creator, usually trapped in my own ego and body, it seems only natural that there would be a source of creation that can set, bend or even break the laws of physical reality. Is that source a separate unit? Or is it an aggregate of all the spiritual parts? I can't rightly say. But the fact that I can create miracles just by asking for them (with perfect humility and confidence) only means that a creator exists. If I can create and usually not know the entire universe, then there must be other creators outside of my limited viewpoint.
But proof is counterproductive. And this is a vital point!
Like being in a burning building with a tightrope as your only escape. Fear of falling off of the rope is not an option. Faith in your ability will save you. Ignoring or disbelieving will destroy you. Miracles can be performed only if you have faith first. Those who require proof before they'll "believe" (an imperfect state of confidence) will never have the faith to perform miracles. Proof comes after faith, but then proof is not needed, because faith has already accomplished the miracle. Therefore, proof is inconsequential. It's tough for a scientist to wrap their head around this, I know. It took me the better part of half a century. It seems counterintuitive. Perhaps it is. But creation and God exist in the realm of discontinuity; science and reality exist in the realm of continuity. More different than oil and water.I've pondered the "tangible" evidence for years. Does faith, in this sense, come in the form of something you see or touch? For myself, the answer lies in my childhood. I had but one book in my room, "Good News for Modern Man." You see, my parents, being fixated in a cycle of abuse, decided to remove everything from my room, except for my clothes, the bed, dresser and a charming antique school desk with an attached wooden seat and a true hole for the inkwell in the top right hand corner. It even had a groove next to inkwell for a pen. Anyway, they left that book and I never knew if it was on purpose. In that house, you just didn't ask questions because it would open the door to ridicule, which I'm positive was their favorite pastime.
I read the book, cover to cover, over and over. It was comforting to know it was there when I couldn't sneak in library books, like the Nancy Drew mysteries, for example. I couldn't pronounce most of the names in the book, but I had a general idea of who and what Jesus was from past Sunday School classes. I'm not going to try and persaude anyone to read it because I coveted it as my own. Truly, it got me through some tough times. So can I touch faith? Yes.
Not too long ago, I picked up a copy at a garage sale. The book fits neatly in my beach bag, and every time I reach to grab it, I am at peace.How I became a believer of God? Well when I was a none believer religion and the Bible was a big turn off for me.
The Bible at the time was nothing more than a book and church was nothing more than hypocrites and do gooders to me.
I came to believe in God by experiencing him myself.I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what he's saying. If not proof, life is at least the most compelling evidence for the existence of a creator.
Life as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary:
"The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."
An organism is defined as biologically alive if it exhibits all or most of the following functions...
Homeostasis - Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state.
Organization - organizational complexity, with each "object" being primarily composed of the previous level's basic unit.
Metabolism - Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism).
Growth - Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism.
Adaptation - The ability to change over time in response to the environment.
Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms.
Reproduction - The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
There is no molecular difference between living and dead organic matter. When life is present, organisms from the simplest to the most complex exhibit all or most of the above physiological functions. Functions that appear to be the manifested actions of a willful desire to stay alive, though they obviously cannot be willful acts of volition as they happen in the simplest of life forms.
Both life and death still to this day lack conceptual definition. The presence of life cannot be detected in any other way beyond those observable functions. Abiogenesis attempts to explain how all the physical elements could have come together, but doesn't address life itself.
The manifested biological functions that represent the presence of life are the propelling force that makes life and the evolution of life possible, and all we know about it is that it originates from within the organism.
So, then, what naturally occurring process or event could instill biological matter with a will to live? Genesis describes God instilling life with His will for it to "be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth/seas". Science currently has no explanation.That is a misapprehension entirely, life is simply a series of chemical equations it is not a will or an intangible the first lifeforms had no minds let alone will there is nothing magical or supernatural about being alive it's just a series of reactions.
Organization, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction cannot be reduced to nothing more than "a series of reactions" or "chemical equations". Living organisms behave as if they're compelled to stay alive. This is a default state that manifests in numerous ways from the simplest to the most complex of organisms, but is the common thread in all of those manifestations. Feeding, hunger, reproduction, pheromones, hormones, fight/flight, fear, coughing, sneezing, etc.
Focusing on these functions at a granular level it can be easy to begin to see these things as you do because these reactions and chemical equations have always acted and reacted the way they do. Like the way matter reacts to gravity. But this dismisses the big picture that shows a common theme in all of these manifestations that can be clearly seen as a will (though not individual will) to be.
If it were truly as simple as you suggest, then we wouldn't still lack a conceptual definition of what life/death actually is.Life a s biological process (which is all it is) is easily defined will to live is the again the physical manifestation of chemical reactions, the brain releasing different chemicals which drive us to do things and direct our actions like certain actions release dopamine and other chemicals that make us feel good for example sex and that is why we want to have sex etc.
Again, at a granular level, each of these individual actions/reactions/processes can be seen as simple cause and effect based on stimulation/environment/conditions/whatever. But this view dismisses the collective result of these actions/reactions/processes and the common goal that these functions achieve.
You could speak the same way when looking at the individual components and bits of code in a computer program. Each piece works a particular way, always, sometimes dependent on what value is sent to it to process. But when you look at the program in its entirety, it's obvious that it was designed in such a way, calling these processes in a particular order, to achieve the desired results that are greater than the sum of its parts alone.Or, we evolved randomly and here we are. We are smarter than most, but perhaps not smarter than all. We live in a beautiful but sometimes cruel world so we adapted to adapt. This adaption gave us consciousness which we are not alone with. We are sometimes not at the top of the food chain. That's why we have fear, it keeps us aware of our surroundings. Animals truly at the top of the food chain don't feel fear. Polar bears for example are afraid of nothing. We seem to have the emotions of an animal that preys and is preyed upon.
How we got here, we don't know, but claiming God did it creates many more complexes questions. Science CAN NOT prove God exists, God needs to do that. All he has to do is show himself. Why would he not show himself if he wants worship?
By claiming "God done it" we stop looking and learning. We have no future or past and no more looking for answers because we think there is only one answer. No need to look "God done it". Middle ages anyone?
Don't you wish you were as smart as you think you are? You are getting old, and you still don't know what life is.
Actually I know exactly what life is, I am simply not deluded about it and don't cling to some mysticism about it because I find it comforting and makes me feel better about dying... that is cowardice.
I know more than you do about it. I ride a Harley.
Well, if you ride a Harley you must be right. Harley riders have the reputation as being morally superior and ethically inferior. Right?
Harley's are crap, I can take apart and put one back together and most of the parts are Japanese made. And what does a crappy Harley have to do with anything? Get a real argument.
It is a real argument. You think your on top of life because you race Vespas. When I told my fiance, and showed him your picture, he laughed so hard he chocked on his dip. He said there is no way that any body races scooters, unless it is just little kids. He has a mini bike that will blow that thing off the road.
Why lie? You never took apart a Harley.I disagree. A Vespa could easily blow past a moped or an elderly gentleman that requires a walker or cane. I do not think you would be so bold Miss Crumcakes if you were to go into a latte shop/cappuccino bar speaking this way, that has a bunch of vespas parked outside.
I stand corrected. But please, don't ride up to Malabar Moe's on that Vespa. It won't be pretty.
I think I spell choked wrong. My bad. You can't trust computers.
You have no idea what I think or feel about life you make your random biased judgements on me because I ride scooters rather than crappy Harley's? Why can't you use your brain to actually make a definite point rather than insulting someone's vehicle preference? Do you lack a brain? I could care less what you and your ape brained fiance think of my scooters. What don't you use your brain and look up on the net "Racing Lambrettas" before mindlessly dismissing someones hobby? Or do you lack such abilities? You also lack morals that would show me the failures of your own personal beliefs in a God. Why not get a real argument?
I'm curious HeadlyvonNoggin. I skimmed your profile and a hub and found -You wrote: Recently I had a kind of revelation that tied everything together for me. A single piece of the puzzle I had overlooked countless times before that suddenly made sense out of... well... everything. Suddenly some of the biggest mysteries of mankind weren't so mysterious.
What is this single piece of the puzzle you refer to?
and in regards to one of your hubs, have you ever considered that "let the waters bring forth" or "let the earth bring forth" a possible accurate description of abiogenesis?The piece of the puzzle I was referring to is Genesis 6:1-3...
1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
The one thing that makes Genesis and actual history seem so disconnected is the idea that Adam was the first human. These lines make it clear that he was not. There were humans already in existence when he was created. The biggest clue is where verse 3 describes humans as mortal and only living 120 years just one chapter after listing Adam and his descendants as living for centuries.
If you think about it, Adam/Eve right from the start broke the one rule God gave them. Yet the humans in Genesis 1 were told to be fruitful, multiply, fill and subdue the earth, and establish themselves as the dominant species in the animal kingdom. Then it says God looked on 'all' He created and deemed it 'good'. Humans would have to behave exactly as God commanded for numerous generations to achieve what was commanded of them. If Adam was the first human ever, and was so capable of behaving outside of God's will, then there's no way he and his descendants could have achieved what was commanded of them. The human inability to behave as God commanded is a common theme throughout the rest of the bible from Adam on.
The behaviors and migrating habits of homo sapiens exactly mirror what was commanded of the humans in Genesis 1. They fully populated the planet unlike any other single species, adapting to adverse conditions, and they established themselves as the dominant species in the animal kingdom and the only surviving species of the homo genus. Also unlike any other species.
This one adjustment lines Genesis up with actual history and modern science, and connects countless seemingly unrelated things in human history like ancient civilizations and ancient mythologies. Reading back through making this one adjustment illustrates a very deliberate, very clear theme throughout the rest of the bible that before was often confusing and hard to understand. It even lends a lot towards seeing the meaning of life in general. Once you make this one adjustment to the traditional interpretation of Genesis, everything else falls into place.
As for the "let the water/earth bring forth", I don't see that as describing abiogenesis. I see the "let the water bring forth" portion of 'day' 5 as the Cambrian explosion and God imbuing life with the will that drove evolution. Abiogenesis would have to have happened much sooner, back during 'day' 2 when the oxygenated atmosphere was formed by the appearance of photosynthetic single-celled organisms in the oceans before the continents formed....
Genesis 1:6 - And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”
The fact that I am sentient, have free will, made my decision, and have faith.
I do not need "evidence" to confirm the existence of a creator who could make something as fabulous as me. What arrogance to bring up such a question about such a powerful creator!I'm sure you are fabulous. But why not question if he exists? You being fabulous is not prove of a God, it's only prove that your parents were fabulous. We have a brian that questions, why would it be arrogant to use it?
Presumably you do not need that horrible thing called "evidence" to confirm the existence of a creator who could make something as fabulous as the one we all call "God". Or the one that created it.
Have you named them, too, just as man has named God?
In Your Opinion What Defines Evidence Of Creator?
I don't think I've ever voiced my actual opinion in a religious forum... but in response to this question... In my opinion:
I believe the true answers to many things in Life, Politics and perhaps Religion.. Can ALWAYS be measured by the depth and vastness of its relevant Coprolite!
How many noted the absence of BS at the Olympics? Surely that alone should demonstrate that the people in the world can actually get on together and respect others... without a need for politicians, war-mungers and religion! I wondered if that was because Nike was more prevalent than Crefor Dollar, Bush and Blair!!
Maybe it's because God showing Himself would have a significant impact on human behavior and choices. Remember the parable about the behavior of the servants when the master was away?
Many of the fathers of modern science and its methods were Christians, and they didn't stop looking. They started looking. I often site evidence and research provided by those doing the looking. I use the results of that work to better understand God. Science is the intense, in depth study of God's creation.
Besides, by that same logic, a "God didn't done it" answer could be just as paralyzing. What if the possibility of God wasn't so vehemently rejected and left open as a potential possibility? It could guide research or steer investigation towards possibilities that wouldn't have been considered otherwise.
Like the very real possibility that Genesis is much more on point than it's often given credit for. If it's true it could provide timelines or geographic locations to investigate. Or the idea that Adam's creation was the introduction of free will/human ego. That's potentially testable if we know what we're looking for.
Like you said, science cannot prove God exists, and it cannot prove He doesn't. So why reject a possibility that hasn't been ruled out?if the number of possibilities that hadn't been ruled out was a mere handful, then this might be a reasonable question.
What a rationalization, According to you he left the Bible and Jesus to impact human behaviour and choices. Your logic makes no sense. It's like a father writing his kids a letter telling them he doesn't want to spend time with them because he doesn't want to influence their behaviour. Makes no sense.
Let's have a look at what Christianity has done for science. The dark/middle ages. The Inquisitions. The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: Translation from the Latin: ... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.
How about we let science do what science does and leave religion out of the equation. Religion continues to try to control science as it did with the inquisitions and ID. Science does not try to control Religion, we don't ask for time to speak on the pulpit.
Again that's up to the religious, but the skeptic or non indoctrinated will see through the rationalizations. Stick with the week minded and you may convince a few. Science shows Genesis to be wrong, not something that Christians wanted known. Again back to the inquisitions and dark ages. Have you seen the 1999 remake of Inherit the Wind (directed by my great uncle Daniel Petrie)?
The problem you are not looking elsewhere. God done it and that is that. Don't you ask the what made God? Many find it impossible to image that the universe started on it's own, but never question what started the starter. We can't rule out the easter bunny created the universe, should we ask science to look into that?
- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago0
I always am impressed by the need of non believers , atheists and in general , those of critically challenged questioners of the practices of faith, those nay-sayers of political correctness and seekers of evidentiary proof . Ahh yes ! Keep up the good search . Faith will find you or you may find it ! Just how much time , how many hours and how long the internet search will the strict non- believer seek for everyone elses answer . Oh come all ye of little faith ......stick your toes into the deepest ocean of faith. Prove to me your non belief by questioning someone elses to the point of insult! I know , I know you have to have more faith------ because you don't believe ! Than the man or woman of god has ! Its so easy to spot such a phony being ! You know , because they're always here ! Here in the religious forums .
Or, they could go a different route. Not post a response to anyone in particular. Just attempt to insult an entire group of people with a generic post such as yours. A post designed to leave little to no room for discussion.
At least a discussion leaves room for the possibility of a meeting of the minds. What did you hope to accomplish with your post?You aren't looking for a meeting of the minds, anyway. You just want to convince people that God doesn't exist. Good luck with that, it is impossible.
And yet, believers become atheists. Go figure.
No cigar for you. That just means they never really knew God, not that God doesn't exist. I thought you were Trouble Man the science guy. Apply some of your logic to your last thought and take try.
Grumpy doesn't suit you. Cheer up!There are many Priests and Preachers who became atheists, Supposed Experts, in the Bible and in God, becoming atheists. How are you going to dismiss that? People who know and preached the word of God are now atheists, people who know more than you do about your God are atheists. Hey, I know far more than you do about YOUR God and I'm an atheist and the best defense you can ever come up with is I don't ride a loud obnoxious and overcompensating Harley? You lack the brains to argue here, yet you are still here trolling away.
You can be an expert in the Bible and not know the Lord. Even the demons know scripture better than me or you (which probably isn't saying much). They just don't believe in the Love of God, the poor wretched creatures. What can I say, but, good luck with that!
Troll? I do a lot of trolling offshore with my brothers and Pops. Take my word for it. I got bigger fish to fry than you. You can't hang.
See, you think I'm so dumb that I will fall for your weak game. You are trying to fool me into saying something that I will get in trouble for. You didn't get up early enough, today, for that. Go back to sleep and try again tomorrow. For now, like we say to tourists when we get tired of their malarkey, "C-ya, wouldn't want to be ya!"
I'm out! Gotta go, time for work. That means I have a job. I hope you find one soon.Wow, arrogance and lack of humility, what would Jesus say? Well, then you are a fish and an internet troll. Yes. You probably smell like fish too. And your stories are all "fish" stories as well. I can't hang, not with the fish lady, no. "See, you think I'm so dumb that I will fall for your weak game." You fall for the main game of the imaginary sky daddy. What do they call adults who talk to imaginary friends? Theists. You continue to lack any sort of argument to argue with anyone, the only thing I see from you is more lame insults of manhood. Do you have anything better to do? YOU have a job? Fishing. I think I'd rather be me than you or anyone you would associate with. As far as Jobs go, You can't call it work if you enjoy doing it.
have a nice life.Would not want to, especially not with you.
You have such a rapier wit. I still think you look cute on your Vespa.
Atheists also become believers.....
Even once staunch atheists.......
Interesting how you insult non believers and accuse them of being insulting.
It makes plenty of sense. Humans obviously changed somewhere along the way and became more creative/destructive than any other species. This is exactly what Genesis describes and history reflects as happening in the same time/place it describes. This capability is the whole point to everything that came after.
So, if God were to reveal His existence and remove all doubt, would that not have an impact on you? Would you still be here telling us how dumb you think it all is if He were standing over your shoulder?
Yes, humans have done all kinds of terrible things in the name of Christianity. No arguments from me. It's that whole free will thing.
I don't disagree. I have just as much issue with Christians trying to control what people think as you do. But let's not confuse God with what people do in His name. Religion is not God. God and science do not contradict. Religion and science do.
On the contrary, modern science shows Genesis to be very right. If you didn't have such personal hang-ups clouding your view you'd see it. But you lump it up together with religion and the humans who used this text as justification for their actions, and dismiss it all categorically.
I get your point about the easter bunny thing. My biggest issue is simply not dismissing potentially important and enlightening information because we can't disassociate one thing from another. I know you think I'm rationalizing, but I assure you there's much more to Genesis than you or many others think. It would be a shame to dismiss something that specifically describes how we came to be as we are today in incredible detail just because we can't see past our own hang-ups about it, especially when our hang-ups aren't actually based on that text itself.We may or may not be the most creative species. Have you ever watch how killer whales or dolphins feed. We developed the ability to share what little creativity we have. Did you know that research is being done on the city racoon because it is being discovered that they are becoming far more intelligent then the country counter parts at an alarming rate. Why, because humans give them obstacles and the smarter ones get stronger and procreate. These rodents are similar to us in that they have hands similar to ours. Given enough time could they evolve into something similar to us. Would that be Gods plan? Perhaps we are merely here to help the true children of God evolve.
You've got to let go of this Genesis thing. It's getting embarrassing. Let's see. Heavens and earth (before the sun), light (before the sun), Separate day and night (still no sun), vault between the waters above and called the vault the sky (sky the vault between two waters, not much water up there?) Let the water gather in one place (one place?) Trees with seeds and fruit before Animals to spread the seeds? Stars (oh I think the stars are older than earth) And the lights in the sky give light on the earth? Two great lights (finally the sun and moon, wait the moon is not a light.) and then the stars again. again? Did you know the stars are in a vault in the sky? And know night and day again.
Give me a break. You are basing your life on this.
Nope, I wouldn't. See, you've made my point. If he wants our praise, it's easy to get. Show up and show us the love. Just like good Dads do. Good Dads show up every day and show you how to be a man, they don't dictate letters through others and expect you to turn out well.
Still trying to get in the door though? You admit Christianity was harmful, but still try to bridge the gap between church and state. Leave Science alone and Science leaves you alone.
But you use the bible and the bible is religion.
See above."But you use the bible and the bible is religion."
No, the bible is a book.
Religion is what happens when two or more people agree on their interpretation of a book and then seup a doctrine, behavioural rules and social norms to fit their interpretations. All fine until someone comes up with another book or another interpretation. Then the 'fun' starts.
cheersPerhaps, but since the morals and ethics described in Christianity are human artifacts, you would still have the religion, it would just be based on another book.
cheers
We are clearly the most creative. To even try to argue otherwise is pointless. Animals always have and always will adapt to external conditions. Cities will have an impact on animal behavior. No surprise there. The difference is, our creativity comes from within, not in response to something external.
This is a perfect example of how dismissive you are with this material. I'm pretty sure if it were any other ancient text you'd put effort into trying to understand style in which it was written, context, that sort of thing. Instead you read it like you're reading the back of a cereal box.
What exactly do you think they were referring to when they say the 'heavens'? Just empty space? The sun, the moon, and the stars ARE the heavens. They're not mentioned specifically until day 4 because (as we've only recently learned) A) the atmosphere was translucent, but not transparent, so while there was light you wouldn't be able to see the sun/moon/stars, and B) after the continents formed they moved all the way down to the south pole and back. Just in time to be chronologically correct between the appearance of plant life on land and life from the sea.
(Beginning - Through to end of Hadean Eon)Heavens first, correct. Then the earth, correct. Oceans formed before anything else mentioned, correct.
(Day 1 - End of Hadean/Beginning of Archaen Eon)Light broke through opaque atmosphere after oceans and before water cycle/oxygenated atmosphere, correct.
(Day 2 - Archaen Eon)Then water cycle and oxygenated atmosphere, which both required the oceans and sunlight, correct.
(Day 3 - Proterozoic Eon/Paleozoic Era)Then land, correct. Then plant life on land, correct. Remember God specified what they were to become, seeds/fruit trees/etc, which they did, correct.
(Day 4 - Paleozoic Era)Then, with plant life on land, atmosphere changed from translucent to transparent; sun/moon/stars visible, and continents moved from beneath planet to between poles, positioning the sun/moon/stars in the 'vault of the sky' just as it says, correct.
(Day 5 - Mesozoic Era)Then life from the sea, sauropsids (reptiles/birds), correct.
(Day 6 - Cenozoic Era)Then mammals, synapsids, correct. Then humans, correct. Then horticulture, correct.
Good dads also do what's best for their kids, even if their kids don't agree, don't understand, or don't like it.
I cherish and am deeply appreciative of and fascinated by science. And I wish you and others could understand that. Humans are harmful. It doesn't matter what their beliefs are or what they're blaming their actions on. If humans are involved, harm will be done. It's what we do.
Here you made my point. You can't disassociate the two. One is an ancient text at least 3000 years old, some parts probably much older. Religion as we know it was created around it much later. Even most of the Jewish religion was their best interpretation of these writings that were ancient even then.What makes us human is our ability to adapt to environments using creativity. Our need to adapt is what spawned our creativity. No different than any other animal that is creative.
I do know the difference between the bible and Religion, but without the bible you have nothing. All you talk about is genesis. That is what I was getting, but perhaps I didn't articulate it well.
Good Dads do what best for there kids. No question there, but we both no an absentee father is not what's best for children. The mere fact that you argue against this is a testament to your unwillingness to listen to reason."The difference is, our creativity comes from within, not in response to something external." That's completely false, without the external and our minds ability to connect the dots, which many animals also have the ability to do, we would not be able to be creative.
And you already know how I feel about the rest of your fantasy.
"What makes us human...", "No different than any other animal....". Do you see what I see?
So it was nothing more than the need to adapt to environments that coaxed creativity out of us? So then why is it, even though there were numerous environments populated by humans (and various other creative animals) that presented plenty of creativity inducing challenges, that it's only in Mesopotamia in a short amount of time that humans created large-scale agriculture, government, laws, cities, plows, beer, razors, wheels, sailboats, irrigation systems, canals, the water wheel, copper tools, bronze weapons, sun-dried bricks, the pottery wheel, mythology, astronomy/astrology, the lunar calendar, the sundial, the saw, the chisel, cuneiform(writing), The pulley, the lever, units of measurements, etc.?
If the equation were as simple as you suggest, then this same kind of creativity should have been seen elsewhere, totally independent and unique in language and culture. And we should see a progression that led to that creative boom in the archaeological record.
Now that story above you told about racoons being aided by human interference to one day evolve into God's children, that's creativity. And for nothing more than to entertain yourself and others. What those racoons are doing in city-scapes, that's survival.
Yeah, the books of Moses have had a significant impact on everyone they've come in contact with. They fascinated the Greeks. The Romans went from persecuting Christians, to legalizing Christianity, to making Christianity the only legal religion. And they've continued to play a role in human history ever since. They've incited and inspired all kinds of reactions. Including religion.
What I'm describing is considered heresy by most religious views. I'm simply acknowledging that the books of Moses are incredibly old, they originate in the cradle of civilization, they describe events millions of years before humans existed accurately, and they describe a very deliberate story that matches up with history and explains the onset of free will/ego in humanity.
This whole topic gets more into the philosophical realm, so I can only tell you how I see it. First off, God isn't an absentee father. He's very much present. You just have to find Him by looking inward. He plays an active role in my life. It's spiritual. You're not going to get external, verifiable, conformation. It's all about wielding our ability to create/destroy, our free will/ego, without God peering over our shoulders. Like cells in a body, unless we adhere to the authority of God/DNA, we are a cancer. We must choose to do so, and not because He's standing over us.
Life simply playing out with us behaving however we choose will serve as the perfect example of what not to do and why we must love God and love one another. Like anything that involves large numbers of people, there must be a clear authority/leader that everyone respects as such. It's how humans work best and it's the only way that works.Nope...humans don't need the authority figure...Hitler proved that...along with a few thousand megalomaniacs...duh.
Humans do need food, clothing, shelter...and if they wish to reproduce...love.
Nuff said. don't need paragraphs of bullshit...I'm sure God has hugged you today...if not consider this a hug. I like clear, warm, heart-felt hugs.
Seems like the fourth human need...love.I appreciate the hug, randslam, though it felt more snarky and dismissive than warm and heart-felt.
Any organized effort has to have a clear vision and voice to steer the boat. Whether by individual or by committee, it's how humans work best. In government, in business, where ever.
Hitler and the other thousands of megalomaniacs you referred to simply proved what God said, that all fall short. Give a human too much power and authority and before long they're going all Emperor Palpatine on you.
You can believe whatever you want, doesn't make it true. I would rather believe in reality than fantasy. Because the start of something has to start somewhere. You don't understand how or why so that concludes it must be god is an argument from ignorance. And you are going to argue for someone else's 3000 year old fantasy rather than take anthropology at abuniversity and finding out how and why for real.
Creativity. I know something about creativity... that's my job (graphic designer). And yes my racoon story was creative and of course it was a story, but a story with some truths. Essentially creativity is problem solving. One is given a problem that one has to solve. I think I enjoy these debates because writing is a good exercise for the dyslexic and in many ways it's creative. Given a problem... find a solution. Creativity is problem solving. People had the problem of moving heavy or many things so the wheel was invented.
That being said... How long have humans been creative?
Humans have been decorating their caves with painting for more than 40,000 years and guess what? Over every continent. South America 10,000 years ago. India 12,000 years ago. Australia possible 40,000 years ago. And so on.
Neanderthals on the other hand were not creative. That was there down fall. They lived in Europe for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years and always used the same tools and never painted their walls. They were physically human enough to mate with early humans and as a result if you are not completely African you have Neanderthal DNA. I know for sure many members of my family have a large amount of Neanderthal DNA.
- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago0
This is excactly what I'm talking about . The need to dis-prove what you don't believe in anyway, No need to be civil or answer a question - just throw down on those of faith ! ANSWER ONE SIMPLE QUESTION -non believer ----Why do these forums matter to you .can't tell us ? ummmm, maybe you are really are searching for God ! Anti- God nazi's ! Come on admit it, your searching knowing that no matter how nasty you can be to others , you will be forgiven in the end !......
I can tell you why I throw down against believers. 1900 years of witch hunts, wars, religious oppression, the dark ages, forced to go to church, apostocy, attacks on people of science not for challenging religion but for finding sethimg new and being looked at as going against god even though they were not. Darwin, Galileo, gay bashing, clinic bombing, and people in general being unfriendly to anyone not of that belief system. If that's what it means to be a Christian then F- Jesus.
You need to get educated man ! You're blaming it all on Jesus ..... And not on man ,Hummmm! Just keep drinking the cool-aid !
Actually, no, I am not blaming it on Jesus. Jesus doesn't exist, he was either made up or he died 2000 years ago and either way doesn't matter to the now or the 1900 years and still counting of murder in his name. I am not a group follower and it was the religious cults like Christianity that drank the cool aide. So who is it that needs an education? You need to look in the mirror or stop asking questions you don't want to hear the answers to.
You need to get educated man ! You're blaming it all on Jesus ..... And not on man ,Hummmm! Just keep drinking the cool-aid !
Hmmmm, I don't think he blamed anything on Jesus. Let me look again... No, he said he blamed believers for those atrocities. It was the confused followers of Jesus who drank the cool-aid. The Atheists watched in horror as the blind faith was showing it's ugly dark side again.
Indeed, if Jesus would have seen what the faith he founded did I am sure he would cry... When his name was used to justify the massacre of Muslim children in the holy land, when his name was used to persecute and torture the Jewish people in the inquisition, when his name was used as a reason to burn women to death for being "witches".
I think you forgot slavery. The new testament is not actually that bad, the problem is that the old OT is a nasty piece of literature that condones slavery, rape and murder and people use that to commute atrocities. One needs to look no further than Hitler for that, although Hitler did get confused by the NT as well. Either way Christians would be better people without the OT.
The great Gandhi on Christianity.
"Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."
“If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today,”
After deciding to attend the church service in South Africa, he came across a racial barrier, the church barred his way at the door. "Where do you think you're going, kaffir?" an English man asked Gandhi in a belligerent tone.
Gandhi replied, "I'd like to attend worship here."
The church elder snarled at him, "There's no room for kaffirs in this church. Get out of here or I'll have my assistants throw you down the steps."
ahorseback
Perhaps Art Black is motivated by what motivates me to be here.
It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClU … playnext=1
They also do much harm to their own.
African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXr … re=related
Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBv8tv62yGM
Promoting death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_B … re=related
For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.
Regards
DLWhat an impressive amount of work you put into this. So in other words, you are jousting at windmills like Don Quixote. If anyone follows links on a thread, they are a fool. That's how you get a bug that robs your clicks, or worse.
Yes following youtube links... Soooooo dangerous.
To believers, all information is taboo.
Note that she did not even speak to the issues shown without following the links.
Shades of Galileo.
Regards
DLDoes she ever say anything or do anything remotely intelligent?
Nope.I will have to take your word for that. I do not know her well.
But it does not sound good when one does not like to use the best learning tool that man has come up with.
Regards
DL
- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago0
As an old girlfriend of mine always said .... [this was when I knew I was in for more of IT!],........ "And another thing !".......As to the O.P. -What you see in the answers in the topic you create whenever you post an anti- belief topic ? ......... All you're doing is speaking to and for the GOD snipers in a secret code , gotcha secret ring ?
That's the funniest and weirdest thing i have heard in a bit from you guys.
I don't think you will ever find actual "proof" of it. But ask yourself "How could this happen just with a big bang?" If everyone evolved from monkeys, how are there still monkeys? Wouldn't the all become humans, too? How did the monkeys get there in the first place? It came from an atom? Why aren't all atoms monkeys and why aren't all monkey humans? Why do we still have atoms?
Really Really is this sarcasm? Please tell me it's sarcasm. Don't they teach you this in school?
Variety is the splice, and spice, of life. The healthiest biological environment has many species...that work in a cycle of mutual dependency on bees, or ants, to pollinate...etc, etc.
The whole monkey/human thing is really quite simple...we had a mutual ancestor way, way...waaaaayyyy back...and evolutionary development created two species that developed over millions of years according to physical needs over time. We are not related...but for a link from eons ago.
Why can't religionists figure this out? We don't have the same genetic code...just similar. And "if", and this is a big "if", there is a god--why wouldn't he use developmental evolution to create and continue perfecting his creation.
As for something coming from nothing...it can happen. Start doing nothing for a day--and something will happen.Oh dear... you seem to have a lot of questions. Questions are good and you should question everything, which includes your own religion. Asking how we got here from a massive explosion (big bang) and not asking where God came from is confusing to me. Everything has to come from something. Don't be afraid to ask questions about Christianity.
We didn't evolve from monkeys. I don't know who told you that. We had a common ancestor with a primitive primate a few million years ago. A separation of the groups for a long time will cause changes and the two groups will go in a different direction. Notice how Africans look different then Europeans? Europeans developed lighter skin so they can produce more vitamin D from their skin. People with dark skin living in norther countries take vitamin D pills to compensate.
I don't think you know what an atom is. Everything is made out of atoms. You may want to look that one up. You may also want to read a book or two on evolution or even a google search, but stay away from your paster because they are lying to you. They don't want you to have knowledge and they don't want you to question because they have power over the ignorant.
a counter question to the main topic... what if it turns out that it was some superior race of aliens were the ones who created the genetic code for all life on planet Earth, and they simply sprinkled it in the primordial soup. these little green men were so smart they planned for everything and human life as we know it is a direct result of their design and more importantly... they can prove it.
I am curious to know whether all the religious people out there will recognize & bow down before their creator?Sounds like that movie plot. In fact most modern legends are movie plots.
I am a firm believer that when we finally die, something will be revealed to us, what, is the question. And somehow, I completely understand your question. I myself am a struggling "Carnal Christian" Many will argue that Adam & Eve, were given freedom of choice to eat from the tree, but it is stated directly in Genesis 2:16-17...it was commanded from Him not to eat from the tree of life (knowledge), if you ever do get an educated answer that makes sense to you, please share it because I am still confused why Jesus Himself killed the fig tree?
Just saying, but what if it was God's plan for them to eat it? He didn't want them to sin, obviously, because sin is repulsive to God, since God follows all his own rules. In the end, he wanted them to eat it because that was the only way they could progress, so he provided temptation. That is why he cast Lucifer down to earth, instead of just casting him somewhere else. He provided choices for Adam and Eve, gave them agency, and then provided temptation for both side, Lucifer for the "bad" and the Holy Ghost for the "good".
It makes sense if you think of God's plan as a plan. He "killed the fig tree" because his plan includes a way for that tree to grow again, into something more than a fig tree.
I'd love to get some feedback on this so I'll pose the question again:
What if the answer to those unanswered questions turns out to be YES there is a creator, and he lives on a planet we call Gliese-581G for example & he/she/they/it created us because they enjoy eating human brains...
What then, do we say ok God came back, we misinterpreted the scriptures a bit perhaps, & now we have to marinate ourselves in olive oil so we taste better for the almighty creator..?!Reminds me of that episode of Twilight Zone... "to serve man".
That was a great episode. It's firmly embedding in my brain. Moral : don't trust strangers.
Are you still at this? You must not have much of a social life.
You still insulting? You must not have a social life. Does it make you feel to to put others down?
The word hypocrite comes to mind.... and a whole slew of other words which are not polite to say to the mentally handicapped.
I feel like I should clarify, as the way I put that makes it seem as though I feel the quest to discover and understand through science is pointless. That is not the case. I am very much fascinated by all we've learned and greatly encourage those on the front lines of discovery to continue pushing the boundaries.
In my eyes existence is God's creation and science affords us the most in-depth look into God's work imaginable. It allows us insight like never before possible. My point was more about how something is taken on faith by everyone. We know enough to know there's still a lot we don't know. Yet we've all pretty clearly reached some conclusions that cannot be reached solely by what we can observe and prove.
It's important to make the distinction between religion and God. Religion is people and people are fallible. Having said that, nothing yet discovered has been proven to not be God's work. Unless the only acceptable proof were something like a giant finger print on the surface of a planet or disembodied arms floating out in space forming celestial objects like balls of clay, science is simply ill-equipped to make that call.
However, when you pull back to see the whole picture, His paint strokes can be seen when you know what to look for. That's the primary thing I write about here. Reconciling modern scientific understanding and God.
Well, first off, I'd be hugely disappointed. For all that life is, the love and loss, triumph and tragedy, to be nothing more than the equivalent of grain-feeding cows for a more pleasurable brain eating experience would really be a let down. Being rather obstinate by nature when I feel I'm being bamboozled or made a fool of, though I'm sure it would be a futile effort if this being truly were the creator of me and all existence, I'd do everything in my power to make sure the brain feast where I was concerned did not go to plan. Even if that just means bobbing and weaving or trying to headbutt an incisor just to make it that much more tedious.Here is the problem, and don't get me wrong. You've got your head in the right place in that you are looking to science to solve problems not ignoring science. But, you're under the assumption we have a soul. Why do you assume that? Because it's written in a 2000 year old book. If you stop making that assumption and see the brain for what it is it'll all make sense. If I assume there is a tooth fairy and you can't prove no tooth fairy exists is there a tooth fairy. When all evidence supports parents pretending to be the tooth fairy perhaps I should not assume there is a tooth fairy and see if the world make more sense without a tooth fairy.
There is no evidence of a soul. There is evidence that consciousness can be turned of and when that happens time for us stops. If we had a soul it should still be conscious. Look at the evidence without your assumptions.Not necessarily. I've studied the brain, the components of the brain, the evolutionary progression of the vertebrate brain. The physical brain is what makes up conscious experience; sight, sound, memory, associations, etc. It's how our soul, our spiritual/scientifically undetectable self, relates and interacts with the physical world. The physical functionality has to be there for it to work. This is why it can be turned off.
My instincts/gut tell me I have a soul. Those instincts that find it kind of odd that we have a bag of urine that we carry around and have to drain periodically, or that finds pooping gross. Our ability to dislike ourselves, purposefully harm or even kill ourselves. Nothing about the physical brain makes sense out of our need to come here and debate existential questions. The human condition in general and our ability to consistently beat insurmountable odds through finding it within ourselves to do so.
The effect music has on me, like the goose bumps I get every single time I hear the crescendo in the middle of Radiohead's Exit Music (for a film).... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMqXj-eVCjI
Or the zone I go into when playing music, like when I recorded the guitar solo in the middle of this ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO6-mlqI … ature=plcp
or the fact that others can tell me what I was feeling when I played it.
I have countless reasons to believe we have a soul that are not based on the bible and that are not resolved or explained through our current understanding of the brain.All products of the brain. Like I said before, you've made the assumption we have a soul. Give your brain credit.
The zone. That zone has nothing to do with a soul. It's the same zone that olympic divers go into before they dive. The thinking brain shuts of so the part of the brain that controls muscle memory can activate. It is a great feeling, feeling, another product of the brain.
Ummm, these things can be explained...the whole "soul" definition is so mired in definitive explanation that I won't even touch that whole concept.
We as thinking beings are driven by sounds, adrenaline, the testosterone or progesterone flowing through our bodies...so emotions are completely out of order in discussing "eternity", and the etc. of that.
I'm so glad that you feel. This is a good thing...but little in the realm of evidentiary realm of proving god or not. I love music....thrive on drive...but I know from science what is doing this to me...the adrenaline I work up from a work out...and the experience I've had in life when I weep and the trio of the crew in Les Miz is hitting that harmonic sublimity.
My son played Marius in high school and hit these notes...I know all about emotion...but it still doesn't prove a god...only beauty in humanity.You're right. None of this proves there's a God. My point is that our knowledge of the brain hasn't somehow expanded beyond the possibility of a soul. Watching a brain physically function, whether it be blood flow, neuron pulses, or hormonal secretions, does nothing to settle the matter. The brain's involved in everything physically going on in the body. Of course there's going to be activity attributed to every little physical happening.
Think about it in a purely cause/effect kind of way. Sure, adrenaline serves a natural purpose. Namely survival. But these physical reactions to things like music. The goose bumps I described earlier that hit me during the same swell in a song I've heard a hundred times. The weeping you describe when something is beautiful to you beyond verbal expression. The need to be heard or respected. Pride and passion. These don't serve survival purposes. These don't increase your chances of living over others or protecting young or anything of that nature.
Music beyond percussive instruments hasn't been with us for very long when considering it in those terms. Beauty in general, other than maybe seeing physical beauty 'subconsciously' as genetically favorable in mating, doesn't serve a purpose as far as natural development. Nor does pride nor passion nor self-loathing nor musical/lyrical/artistic expression. And neither does the sadness I feel for anyone who sees everything that makes up the human condition as nothing more than the interplay of bi-products in our evolutionary development.
From my understanding of the standard model in physics, the universe doesn't require nor does it have any evidence that a creator exists or is necessary. The universe is made up of particles and each particle has certain "behaviors" that make up everything and the observable laws that govern it. The smallest of which is the string for which everything is theoretically made. This argument for a creator is over as far as I am concerned. The issue is with the believers and the strict inhuman rules for which they expect everyone to follow.
Agreed. If they kept their ignorance to themselves all would be good, but they insist (not all) in infiltrating politics and education.
Is it then your desire that only those who share your beliefs should be allowed to "infiltrate politics and education"? All "ignorant" others should just keep to themselves.
Is this your desire because you know you are right, and others are wrong, or simply that you don't like others disagreeing with your superior view of the world?
Just wondering.No no no. That is not what I was saying. I'm talking about the IDers or others who don't like a secular society. I personally don't care what religion any one is as long as they don't try to teach religion in science class or demand the Lords payer in a secular school or try to manipulate stem cell research because of a religious point of view.
People should respect the beliefs of others and not subject those to the religious beliefs they hold. Religion, the belief in a God, is a personal belief for which no two are alike. This nation is composed of many beliefs yet those in politics wish to impose their Christian religious standards on a secular society with ill respect to anyone else's beliefs. Secular society is composed on people of all beliefs, religious and otherwise, and does not use the standards of religious beliefs to dictate the laws of the land or the standards of social conduct.
Where have you been?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EYII … re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dspWh9g … re=related
"People should respect the beliefs of others"
Does that include those in these?
It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClU … playnext=1
They also do much harm to their own.
African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXr … re=related
Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBv8tv62yGM
Promoting death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_B … re=related
For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.
Regards
DLYou really missed the point of my statement, didn't you. Or the reason I am here debating people of religious leanings and beliefs. I have seen all those programs btw.
I am constantly fighting.Then don't say things like we should respect the beliefs of others. Respect is something earned, not just given.
I fight as well and fight against your notion.
If we are on the same page, forgive my absentmindedness.
Regards
DL"Respect is something earned, not just given." Yes but it is also assumed. If two people, total strangers meet then the respect they give each other is from having not conversed on their differences. When the differences are stated the respect is neither lost nor earned but mutually given unless one person acts as an aggressor to the others differences of beliefs or opinion, usually by ignoring such conversations or mutual agreeing to disagree. However, once the person attempts to proselytize the other with his beliefs to the contrary of the other both people can say respect is mutually lost and must mutually be earned. It's the social standards by which we must all hold in a civilized society. Do you not agree? Or should we immediately attack someone who is of a different belief regardless?
If we attack those with different beliefs even self respect is lost. Only weak minds attack different ideas...to conquer the fear of the unknown is the highest form of both mutual respect and self respect.
Sad that we live in times when so many desire respect from others...but rarely receive it...usually because the person hoping to be respected has so little of the very thing they desire for themselves.Are you saying that if you attacked those in the clips I gave Art above, you would lose your self-respect?
Are you saying that they and their ideas and ways are not worth fighting?
Regards
DLThere are ideas, like those from outwardly bad people that we should always fight and show much disrespect to, but people just stating their first amendment rights and violating no one else's rights in the process should get as much respect whether or not you agree with their perspective as you feel you deserve when disagreed with.
Art B
"Yes but it is also assumed. If two people, total strangers meet then the respect they give each other is from having not conversed on their differences."
Respect is assumed. Neither is disrespect. Neutrality is assumed if anything and the hope that the other is not a dick.
"Or should we immediately attack someone who is of a different belief regardless?"
Did you respect those in those clips I gave above?
I did not see your reply I guess you did not like your own thoughts.
Would you attack them or respect them?
Regards
DLIf anything anyone does violates anyone's rights then I will attack and fight to the death. If I find what someone does morally repugnant but it doesn't violate anyone's rights I will pretty much tell them I find them morally repugnant but it is their right to be that way, and then I would leave them be. Get it?
The question then becomes: Upon what standards do we base the laws of "secular" society. The difficulty posed by rejecting a standard because it is based upon a belief is that you will have to reject all standards, for all, to some extent or another, are based on a belief system (even unbelief is a belief system). So which belief system do we elevate above the others... Athiesm? It seems you are implying it is only religious beliefs that should be rejected, and that irreligious ones be espoused. But then how do you determine that; who chooses, and upon what criteria? (i.e: is it, as long as it's not in the bible, it's OK?)
I would be interested to hear an example of what standards of secular law there are that do not adhere to the peoples belief system.
As you point out, society consists of many flavours of belief and thought (the secular being a rather small part overall), and these parts can be diametric opposites in areas. However, speaking as a very religious person who considers himself intelligent, reasonable and honest, I find talk of rejecting my input into societies governance merely because I am religious, rather ironic.
I understand. The brain is a mechanism. If you think it, see it, hear it, feel it (touch), feel it (emotion), if you stand, balance, want food, want sex, there is activity in the brain. Specific regions handle specific functions. But that doesn't mean that these are 'products' of the brain. That they originate wholly and completely from the physical brain itself.
One area 'lights up' when you're imagining an outcome, another part when there's an emotional conflict in the decision you're pondering. Neurons fire in sequence on opposite sides of the brain when focused on an image. Those in the occipital lobes that are focused on a particular object fire in sequence with neurons in the frontal lobe, while others attributed to vision but not focused on the same object continue to fire, but don't sync up with the frontal lobe activity. Like lightening in a storm cloud. A flash here, a flash there. Oxygenated blood being routed to each region along the way.
Our physical form was created to interact with the physical world. This includes our brains. It processes light and sound waves and smells and stores memories and images and sounds. It's a mechanism just like every other organ in the body. The soul is spiritual. I'm not sure what you'd expect to see when looking at a brain to say, "Oh, what do you know, there is a soul".
Is everything that makes you YOU nothing more than the product of genetic behavior, learned experiences, environment, memories, and associations? What makes you like this song over that one? What part compels you to debate these topics in forums? What part of the brain makes you feel strongly for this, or passionately for that? Driven to accomplish something meaningful or proud when you've done something well? What makes you want to be recognized as an individual? You have a soul, Rad Man. I can sense it when we have these discussions. It's what drives you. Makes you who you are. It's your "heart".There is no evidence that consciousness exists outside and independent of the physical brain. If a part of the brain is damaged that part of the brain and the memories contained therein cease to exist. Visit a person who has alzheimer's and see what I mean. If a person is also born mentally handicapped is his consciousness whole or part despite of his brain or because of his brain? The heart is just a muscle and it beats faster or slower depending on need or expectation for need, all function for the brain.
I know. As I said before, our physical brains give us the capability to interact with the physical world. It's a mechanism that performs specific functions. And those functions can be hindered by physical damage or chemical alteration or genetic defect. Consciousness itself, as we perceive it, is the culmination of physical brain functions. We need physical eyes and physical occipital lobes to physically process light.
But what makes me me and you you is more than just the sum of these physical parts. Your 'heart', your 'gut', your personality shaped by the interplay between the outside world and your personal wants/desires/likes is not just the culmination of genetic inheritance, memories, associations, and hormones. When you analyze a situation, imagine potential outcomes, form a sentence, construct and articulate an argument, this is all interplay between the functions of your physical brain and the specific wants/desires/likes of your unique/individual soul. The brain provides substance and the soul decides. And if the brain is physically hindered in some way from performing the functions needed to think/act/express, then the physical manifestation of what the soul wants can be obstructed."functions of your physical brain and the specific wants/desires/likes of your unique/individual soul. The brain provides substance and the soul decides...... then the physical manifestation of what the soul wants can be obstructed." You see the problem here, is you are make assumptions based on your assertions that a soul exists. You have no basis for any of these notions of a soul. You have no evidence that a soul exists or is necessary in the consciousness of a human being or any sort of less advanced organism. Your assumption and assertion that a soul exists leads you to conclude the functions of a soul without any basis in fact. Hence, all your assertions about a soul are purely inventions of your imagination.
I know. That's what I've been trying to explain. My whole point to all of this is that the soul is spiritual. You're not going to have verifiable evidence for or against. I'm trying to illustrate how our study of the physical brain has not in any way verified one way or the other whether or not a soul is there. The brain is physical and there will be physical activity in association with whatever physical happenings are going on in the body because the brain is involved.
I'm simply trying to illustrate where in the process the soul would be. I'm not breaking any new ground here and proving something never before proven. Others here, including you, keep talking about no evidence of this or that, that it all appears to be nothing more than physical processes. Like I said earlier, what exactly would you expect to see when looking at the physical brain to determine with certainty that there is, or is not, a spiritual soul?"my whole point to all of this is that the soul is spiritual." This is assumptive because there is by your admittance is "You're not going to have verifiable evidence for or against." So if you cannot verify for or against the premise is completely imaginary. "what exactly would you expect to see when looking at the physical brain to determine with certainty that there is, or is not, a spiritual soul?"..... Ummm, evidence. You are asking what I would require when the fact is you already know what it is we require your questioning something we already know the answer to. EVIDENCE, ANYTHING THAT POINTS TO THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING IS CALLED EVIDENCE! Do you understand? There is nothing that supports the need or existence of a spiritual soul. If you can show anywhere that such a thing exists or is necessary then I will accept it.
See, this is the whole problem with a Materialist viewpoint. The natural sciences are the study of the physical world. That's all. And we know of at least one thing that undoubtedly exists that falls outside of the jurisdiction of the natural sciences. The mind. That's the whole reason there's a whole other branch dedicated to the study of the mind and things born of the mind; the social sciences.
When we observe the physical brain, which we know is where the elements that make up the conscious mind happen, we cannot see a person's mind, thoughts ,or ideas. We know thoughts and ideas exist only because we all experience them. Yet we cannot see anything beyond neuron pulses, rerouted oxygenated blood flow, and chemical/hormonal happenings. Nothing about any of what can be physically observed gives you even a remote indication of the existence of something as dynamic as the human mind. We can only see what's born of the mind when action is taken on an idea. Not the idea itself. The only way you or I even know it's happening, the only way we can even begin to study or understand it, is by using our own experience of our minds to relate.
If you didn't experience a conscious mind for yourself, then there would be no evidence that we could look at and determine that the mind/thoughts/ideas/imagination exists. And if there is even one thing that exists that cannot be observed/detected in any way shape or form by the physical sciences, then it stands to reason there are probably other things that exist that are potentially just as dynamic, yet totally undetectable. The human mind we can study here and now. We know right where it comes from, we know all about it intimately because it's a big part of all of our lives, yet we still cannot detect it. Imagine what else could possibly be out there that's just as potentially dynamic, just as capable of creation, yet just as undetectable.
The mind is the primary example that illustrates that the jurisdiction of the physical sciences does not cover everything that exists.Your assertion that the mind falls outside the materialist sciences is completely false.... How little of the science of the brain do you know... Social Sciences are also a branch of study that has nothing to do with the study of the Brain or the origins of thoughts nor does the apparent lack of visual of thoughts conclude the existence of a soul or of a consciousness apart from the brain or the physicalities of the brain. It's much like a computer, do you see it saving the information? Apart from having a GUI or CMD prompt you wouldn't even see what it was doing. The human's GUI or CMD prompt is our verbal and nonverbal communication. Our Input is our five senses. We are very advanced machines when compared to a computer. However, the information on a computer can be lost as well, the information taken from a computer and put to disk is a copy. All sciences deal with the evidential. This includes the science of the brain, and the social sciences and all science fields. There is no evidence of a NONMATERIAL existence of ANYKIND. We cannot say that a spiritual realm exists because there is no evidence for it and what we don't understand about how something works, like the mind, cannot come to a conclusion that something like a "spiritual soul" exists. Such a statement would be an argument from ignorance.
You're simultaneously getting what I'm saying (by way of your computer example), yet not getting what I'm saying at the same time. Your knee-jerk reaction that I must be ignorant of the science of the brain isn't helping much. Your computer example tells me you get it, you're just not carrying that same thought all the way through.
Think about it this way. Imagine I'm a robot that does not experience a conscious human mind and doesn't believe you when you say you experience it because I've never seen any evidence to make me think it exists. Prove to me it exists. Afterall, the stance of many believers, myself included, is that existence is the output of God's mind. Yet existence as output is not sufficient in your eyes, or the eyes of many others.
So, if input/output is your proof, then you're only seeing a small percentage of what's actually going on in the mind. Like a building is the 'proof' that an architect had an idea to build it and actually did so. Now, imagine that same architect had another idea for a another building all the way down to the most minute detail that he/she never built, drew, or told anyone about. Can you prove that intricate idea existed?
There is no evidence you can provide that can properly illustrate to someone who doesn't have the benefit of their own experience with the human mind to relate that the human mind exists. If you were to actually go through the motions of my 'I'm a robot without a mind' exercise, I think you'd quickly recognize my responses to anything you say as being very similar to yours when you state you have no reason to believe God exists.
I, and other believers, actually experience God. Nothing you say, no evidence you produce, no quote from an expert, is going to convince me otherwise. Just as I could never convince you that you do not have your own mind. You experience it, you know you do, and nothing I say will change that. Same thing.You are taking my example of a computer out of context, WE ARE NATURAL ORGANISMS NOT COMPUTERS!!!! Damn I shouldn't have used such an example on someone like you.... "Afterall, the stance of many believers, myself included, is that existence is the output of God's mind. Yet existence as output is not sufficient " AGAIN, ASSUMPTIVE CONCLUSION!!! You are coming up with this idea of God based on what? That men build things so since we are so complex we must be constructs as well? The constructs that men build are evidence that we built them does not equate to man or any other natural complex system being a construct of someone else, it is evidence that WE are building things based more and more on the sciences that govern the natural world.
"I, and other believers, actually experience God. Nothing you say, no evidence you produce, no quote from an expert, is going to convince me otherwise." All I can say is imagination is experience of the imagined. If you cannot produce evidence to an outside observer, either physical, mathematical then you have a hopeless cause and should quite responding or debating the existence of something that is thoroughly YOURS ALONE! If you cannot prove something then you must question whether what you believe is true, whether what you experience is not just a hallucination. By your standards of "Experiencing God" can you not conclude that EVERYTHING a Schizophrenic sees and feels and experiences is therefor real? That they are then sane? What of other hallucinations of the mind? How can you prove the existence of the intangible? If you cannot prove something with evidence then you must question the logic in which you use to rationalize it's existence.
"Now, imagine that same architect had another idea for a another building all the way down to the most minute detail that he/she never built, drew, or told anyone about. Can you prove that intricate idea existed?" Yes, if this person wrote them down, if not then this persons ideas will cease to exist, ideas are thoughts, they are information, they are not devoid of the physical they are mental representations of the processes of the brain. they cannot exist outside of the brain except as translations on constructs, like paper or buildings or words of the mental manifestations the processes organize.
"I, and other believers, actually experience God. Nothing you say, no evidence you produce, no quote from an expert, is going to convince me otherwise. " Do you see the problem with that, if you were given evidence, or proof that your God does not exist, you would ignore it. You are not a seeker of the truth and you do not wish to consider the truth, you wish to live in your fantasy world because it makes you feel good. Understand this, everything in the world that we have and use on a daily basis has been explained by science to be material. This includes things to the smallest known particle to the largest object in the universe. All technologies we have is due to the science of physics, all of them. The human mind has been explained evolutionarily, what we don't know about it is some detail work but it is basically understood. What is unknown is only unknown until we find evidence to present it as something known.
Your "God" is an inconsistent construct of the human mind and is therefor not a real thing. You can imagine God all you want but You are the creator of God, God has no part in the creation or existence of the universe otherwise.
You don't have evidence otherwise but you believe your mental experiences are evidence for you of God, then maybe you should seek help from a mental health professional.You really don't think very highly of me, do you? I am not attempting to prove the existence of God or a soul, and never claimed to be. I am simply pointing out a flaw in this Materialist 'only physical/detectable evidence counts' mentality when it comes to existential matters that so many here use to dismiss both God and a soul entirely and categorically.
I gave you an example of something that you and I and everyone else knows full well exists, yet is just as undetectable as God or a soul. The body is a physical thing that exists, the brain inside it is a physical thing that exists, and the mind and ideas and thoughts happening inside that brain are non-physical things that also exists. The only reason we even know about or understand them at all is because of our own experience with our own minds. Without that, you've got nothing but neurons firing and blood flowing and no way of knowing what's really going on.
Take Stephen Hawking, for example. Brilliant man. His ideas can be put into practice where they can have a literal impact on humanity. But what if we didn't have the technology that allows him to communicate? He'd still have all these ideas, but we'd never know. That doesn't mean those ideas don't still exist. That just means he'd be unable to communicate them.
"Yes, if this person wrote them down, if not then this persons ideas will cease to exist"
EXACTLY. In other words, at one time, temporary or not, they existed.
"Your "God" is an inconsistent construct ..."
Also not true. God is extremely consistent. He doesn't contradict our scientific understanding, the description of Him and His actions don't contradict history, and plugging Him in as described into history actually resolves some long-standing mysteries about the origin of humanity and the dawn of civilization. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss people who don't agree with you or think differently than you. You might learn something new.Here it is and I leave you to your dilusion. If you cannot question the validity of your own belief then you are dilusional. You have defended the existence of your god despite the fact that you pretend to be a pretty reasonable person you have shown yourself and admitted to being completely irrational when it comes to your beliefs. The fact is you have no defense and you know it. You rationalize the existence of your god using anthropomorphized indications of a cause to the natural phenomenon. For the sake of this dead argument consider this. If we require this god to exist, this grand puppeteer as you have described him then what are his own origins? It would contradict your reasoning to not require an origin for your conclusions for a need or existence oft his god or this spiritual realm.
You jump to conclusions, your belief in god was taught to you by your parents and you feel an emotional attachment to this idea of god. You link anything you can't explain to being proof of god, without questioning it's true origins or the validity of the idea of your experiences being linked to such a being.
I did think highly of you at one time. I thought here is a guy who could give me a truly rational reason behind his belief, however, you completely disappoint me, hence why I erased many of your responses in my hub and why I no longer think very highly of you.First, I want to say that I respect you as an intelligent thinker who's got a lot to say. But I also see an obvious emotional hang-up where religion/believers/God is concerned that really gets in your way. This is the third time you've done this. You may be fooling yourself, but you're not fooling me. When someone who goes from level-headed and rational discussion to attacking my credibility by calling me irrational and delusional like you do, it's pretty clear what's really going on. The same goes for deleting comments. I haven't deleted yours, and I've yet to resort to attacking your credibility.
I know you think you've got me figured out. You want to dismiss me as some poor indoctrinated sap hopelessly blinded from the truth. I am rational. I do question. There's a reason I'm not a church-goer. I refused to reject science and I called out the holes in their explanations. The answers I got from religion alone were inadequate. The answers I got from science were as well. Neither addressed everything. But both had a lot to say. Turns out, they're both mostly right and the truth is lying right there in the middle.
Earlier you were demanding evidence for the existence of a spiritual soul. Obviously, the evidence you seek does not apply to something spiritual. So, instead, I gave you an example of something that you know exists, that I know you know exists, that you cannot provide evidence to prove exists. The door is open and your default/go-to grounds for dismissal has a gaping hole in it.
But I've gone further in previous discussions. I've actually shown you the most compelling evidence you're going to get. No, you won't be able to detect God through the physical sciences, but when I can show you cohesiveness with the bible's description of God and science and history, siting numerous known facts from...
* the entirety of earth's geological formation in chronological order
* the entirety of the evolution of life in the right order
* the discovery of horticulture/farming at the right time and place
* the existence of an actual city built in the right time/place as what's described in Gen4
* ancient/mythological stories that tell the same story about that same city
* an actual flood in the right time/place
* an actual tower located at that same sight that's the oldest ziggeraut known
* mass dispersion of large populations of people just like what's described at Babel, caused by climate change
* archaeological evidence of semetic and old european nomadic tribes from the desert showing up in the settlements around the Nile and Tigris/Euphrates just before the invention boom and eventual dawn of civilization
* a fundamental change in human behavior that mirrors the description of 'the fall', again in the right time/place, and that spread from there
... then it gets to be pretty hard to deny. You can't detect God, so I took the next, most rational/reasonable approach. I removed the fallible human element as much as possible by ignoring everything I was told about what Genesis says and simply laid it side by side with our modern in depth knowledge of science and history and simply compared. If it's true then it'll match up. The 'book of scripture' and the 'book of nature' cannot contradict. And they don't.
These fruitless/pointless debates aren't going to fly for much longer and the dismissive stock arguments, like the one about the origin of God, will not be enough. More and more believers are beginning to see what I see because it's obvious and undeniable. It's only a matter of time.You continue to shove your delusional evidence about Genesis onto people, but dismiss every piece of evidence presented. THAT is what causes frustration. You claim you search out science, but you seem to be only interested in the science that can support your claim. You have as much evidence to support the existence of the tooth fairy as you do God.
I'm assuming you're referring to the one example you gave, Cemetery 117 (23 bodies found in a grave who died due to violent circumstances), as that's the only thing you've provided as evidence that would be relevant to the ties to Genesis. And I acknowledged that example you gave. I even did one better and gave you an additional one in Australia. But any scientist or science-minded individual should understand that examples that are statistically negligible, as these two examples are, should not and do not derail the hypothesis when 99.99% of the evidence supports it. In this case this is on par with what can be found in the animal kingdom, like the chimp and ant examples you like to give.
So, just as you're saying of me, you're looking for something to support your ability to dismiss me completely and you found it. Then you claim I "dismiss every piece of evidence presented".I've showed you evidence that the human brain is very well mapped and we can turn consciousness on and off with meds. I've showed evidence of farming and war way before you think it's possible. I've showed you we are not the only species that invade and kill other tribes for land. The chimps actually do it just like humans. They take the biggest and strongest and invade surrounding tribes (for lack of a better word). I've showed you how ridiculous genesis actually is. You dismiss it all to support your delusion. artback made a very clever comment a while ago. Do we assume schizophrenics are correct when the say they are talking to other or they see others. No, we know they are delusional. For me your delusions are not that much different. You mind is creating them because you want them to be there in spite of all the evidence. I'm sure you are a rational person, but your constant dismissal of evidence to support your irrational claim is irrational.
See, this is part of the problem. It's not just you and it's not just the non-believers. It's a problem practically across the board from what I can tell, with very few exceptions. The goal of many here seems to be more about being right or winning an argument than simply having a discussion that maybe both parties could learn something from. And I think that mentality comes from spending too much time in these forums as I've caught myself a time or two doing the very same thing. A lot can be gained by conversing with those of differing perspectives and views, but it's rare that any conversations here even reach that point.
I'm not interested in being right or proving you wrong. I want to arrive at the truth. Period. This is not about faith for me. I don't just look for evidence to back up my view. I arrived at that view through evidence. And I've been at it for a very long time and have conversed on the topic countless times with many very knowledgeable individuals who have really challenged what I'm saying.
Here, you've again done something you do often. At least in my experience. You don't give enough consideration to first really understand what it is I'm saying. You seem to already have your idea of what my motivation is, apparently based on nothing more than the fact that I'm a believer from what I can tell. Then, when you reply, you state my view as some oversimplified bit of nonsense and then argue against that. For example, this ....
"I've showed evidence of farming and war way before you think it's possible."
In just a handful of words you managed to pack in a wealth of misinformation. Now, instead of maybe being able to really get into the meat of the matter, I instead have to spend time trying to explain the disconnect between what I'm saying and what you apparently think I'm saying.
Again, brain mapping, I'm not arguing with you. I agree. Early in our discussions I'd often use the term 'consciousness' when referring to the mind, which understandably caused confusion. I've since tried to remedy that, per your suggestion. The evidence you've supplied so far regarding farming and war just tells me you don't have much of a grasp on what I'm saying.
I'm not going to continue with this any further. At least not today. I do appreciate our discussions. Like the bit you mentioned in an earlier post about neanderthals not showing even the slightest in creative capability. I didn't know that. I hope in the future you can maybe see that I'm not trying to force an agenda or twist things around to make myself right. I really am only interested in finding the real truth, whether what I'm saying is right or not.My language may have been a little harsh. I do understand Christianity as I once was one and am completely surrounded by Christians. I do respect that fact that you are brave enough to think for yourself and go against the fundamentalist that reject science. I am aware I can't win an argument here and know I will not wake anyone from Religion. For me I'm just interested in the way the mind works when confronted with information and I enjoy writing because it exercises my dyslexic brain. I still very often ask my kids how to spell stuff, but never let them see what I'm writing. I don't mind them being Christians, but I teach them to question what they are told.
That being said, I'm aware you are intelligent and most likely much smarter than I. See what I did there? I just frankly find it frustrating how you appear to dismiss all the evidence given that doesn't support your beliefs. I'm sure we will meet again in conversation elsewhere. I do read all that you write that I find in these forums. And that is saying something because most of your posts are long.
Respect.
I'm not sure who informed you we don't have an understanding of the brain, nor do I care. There is nothing mystical about the brain. As I've said before we know where consciousness is found in the brain and that can be proven. We can watch the brain light up when certain kinds of thinking are activated. Our emotions are a product of the brain which is a product of evolution that's why we have the emotions we do. The idea of a soul worked years ago before humans had an understanding of the brian. My 13 year old kid told me the other day. Dad, I'm aware of my own thinking. That's comes from the left hemisphere. The right brian thinks but is unaware and can't speak. You continue to make the assumption that there is something spiritual or mystical about the brain. That simply is not true. This understanding of the brain doesn't prevent you from believing in God, nor should it.
"As I've said before we know where consciousness is found in the brain and that can be proven. We can watch the brain light up when certain kinds of thinking are activated."
If you're talking about a controlled experiment then how exactly do you confirm with absolute certainty that 'certain kinds of thinking' has been achieved?
"you continue to make the assumption that there is something spiritual or mystical about the brain. That simply is not true."
What proof do you have that makes this statement accurate?Holy cow, there are tonnes of research that shows what's going on in the brain when concentrating or thinking of different things. They have been taking CAT scans and MRI's while they ask patients to perform certain tasks. This is one of the ways they have been mapping the brain. They also study the brain injured and connect the affected areas with impairments. The Broca's area is linked to speech. Please do a little research on this specifically. MRI studies have also identified activation patterns in Broca's area associated with various language tasks. Einstein for example had a particular part of his brain (parietal lobe) that was over developed. He also had a greater ratio of glial cells to most people. You asked how can we know certain kinds of thinking were achieved. Simply put the patients were asked to think about certain things during the MRI for example.
Again you want me to provide proof that there is nothing mystical about the brian, but the burden of proof in on you. I consistently show you that thought and consciousness is a product of the brain. I've showed you that self awareness, thought, consciousness, speech and emotions are a product of the brain. Do you have proof otherwise.Ugh, Rad Man, I was trying to make a point. I know very well the research done on brain activity. It's a topic I find incredibly fascinating. I'm even writing a hub that goes into it in depth, tracking the evolution of the vertebrate brain and the functionality tied to each portion as it developed and the vertebrates those traits are associated with. Like the appearance of the cerebellum in jawed fish and how this is most likely related to newly evolved eating habits and improved locomotion because the cerebellum is associated with balance, coordination of movement, and posture.
The point I was trying to make is that asking patients to think about something in particular, you have no way of verifying they actually did. You can be 99% sure they most probably did if the results you get are similar enough to numerous other examples, but the point is you can't really know. You have to depend on something you can't see and verify for sure. Basically, you have to take the subject's word for it. The point being, you can't see what someone is thinking.
"You continue to make the assumption that there is something spiritual or mystical about the brain. That simply is not true. "
You made a statement here as if it were fact. So, in this case, the burden of proof is on you.
I've said many times now that I understand the physical processes of the brain and how certain functionality is associated with specific regions. I'm not arguing any of this. I agree with you.
What I'm trying to point out is that just because this bit consistently 'lights up' based on specific stimuli only really proves that that region is involved in that thought or reaction, but does not prove that the thought itself wholly originates from that physical source. Do you see what I'm saying?Sure I see what your saying. You're saying in spite of all the evidence you are clinging to fantasy because you started with that assumption. Most likely you were told that the brain was mystical when you were a child and it fits in with your delusions about God. If I told you that I have an invisible monkey on my back and then said prove it's not there, who's burden of proof would it be. You have no evidence at all. I have tonnes.
The difference here is you are making assumptions that we have a soul, but have no proof of it's existence and you describe the soul as consciousness (making decisions). We know consciousness is a function of the brain as well are our emotions. We know consciousness can be turned off with medication and when that happens the brain stops awareness. No thought and no sense of time. Much like before we were born. The brain is an amazing thing when it's working properly. According to you the (soul) of a person with brain damage shouldn't change. Alzheimer patients should remain the same, but I can tell you first hand they do not. With this decease everything in the brain changes, there is no part that remains the same. They do have moments of lucidity, but for the most part who (they) become lost. What happens upon death if the brain shuts down completely? Well, there simply would be nothing left. It's not like consciousness can suddenly rise up and take all the information that the brain was storing and float off somewhere.
@jacharless
Hi, there!
I don't usually do forums, and I'm a little late to this thread, but your question (What, in your opinion, would constitute solid, non-abstract proof of the existence of a Creator termed "God"?) is a curious one. There is much to unpack. The very fact that the question is posed indicates the extremely covert nature of this "God," if "He, She, or It," exists, of course.
First of all, I don't think you, jacharless, are asking: What does "God" have to "do" to "prove" that "He" (let's just use "He" for simplicity) "exists." If there is such an All-Being, I don't think "he" takes notice of all of our energy devoted to this question. After all, would you concern yourself with what the species of ants have to "say" about "you"?
I suppose you might answer that question with a "No, but I did not create them." To which I would reply, "Yes, but they don't know that."
But I know this forum is a higher level of discussion than that. We are not childishly expecting "God" to introduce himself "with a bang," as it were, and so forth.
I suppose your question, jacharless, is more like a philosophical detective's investigation. And here we can give a respectful nod to Descartes and his whole "I think therefore I am" routine. It is useful. I would just offer the following: On this planet of ours, there is a very wide spectrum of being and consciousness from the single-celled amoeba to, well, US.
Why shouldn't there be, in the universe, an equally if not much wider spectrum of being and consciousness (which we may or may not come in contact with physically) between ourselves, human beings and "God"? Are we sure there is not? In other words, implicit in your question, jacharless, is the idea that goes something like this: 'After us, human beings, next stop --- The Lord.'
If we're not sure that there is no higher stages of being and consciousness in the universe than ourselves (who themselves, if they exist, are probably grappling with the same "search for God"), how can we say that any "proof" we come up with is not proof of higher beings and not "God" at all?Hello wingedcentaur,
Appreciate the input! Am still reading the thread and gathering further intel on this definition of evidence.
James.Cool! I think I'll read through the comments myself.
Every day science is proving that there is a God. Do you know what Laminin is? Laminin are major proteins in the basal lamina (one of the layers of the basement membrane), a protein network foundation for most cells and organs. What is my point you might be asking, look up Laminin and you tell me what you see.
If even one scientist did, we would all know it along with the Nobel committee but stating something the way you just did, as a lie, undermines anything else you can follow up with.
Regards
DLYou're right - laminin are the major proteins in the basal lamina. It is a complex protein, but how is that proof of God? Because man is ignorant of how to make it artificially?
While that is a common "proof" offered by believers (ignorance means Goddunnit) it is a false proof without basis in fact. Try again.That is the worst proof of God I have ever heard.... not really, but it's definitely lumped in to, "I dun know hows it dun and nor do them so it musta been Gawd". Laminin will eventually be solved, just keep reading about it, I guarantee it.
Laminin is just another hoax...I wouldn't worry about it. Once more scientists will dissect the contents and we'll be one step closer to the cure for cancer...oh yeah, we already have that...we just aren't making it available to everyone until we make trillions of dollars from the poor victims.
Why can't people who discover stuff be more like Dr. Salk? And if you don't know who that is...google him...he invented a cure and gave it away for free--what an IDIOT! Oh, wait, he'd already make enough money to live...he just wanted to help people.Ah, a conspiracy nut. Almost as bad as religious nuts, but not as long lasting.
Actually, Art, I was being facetious...not conspiratorial...unlike Parrster's comment below...that article is just slanderous and leans to the far right. I don't have much use for conspiracy theories...take up too much time...much like religious dialogues...lol.
Oh, apologies then. I do dislike silly conspiracies. Once someone starts in on conspiracies or UFOs or anything supernatural as something serious the I cease to take them seriously.
I wasn't familiar with Dr Salk, so Googled him as you suggested. Very first page came up with this http://www.naturalnews.com/031564_Jonas … ments.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk
Try this link, parrster. You might find it less biased...and why would you ever go to the first link and consider it to be telling you the truth? Not very wise, but that article was also quite slanderous of the famed doctor...I'd be careful writing about the dead...who knows?
Maybe God will get you for that. Dr. Salk's tireless efforts to save the planet from the onslaught of polio was a human triumph...and accusing him of being a "mad scientist"? Who is that guy? Oh, yeah...he's the "natural" guy...who would take his kid to see a doctor after his appendix burst because god doesn't like doctors, right?
Bunch of silliness...try some other links for your Salk Conspiracy...we might find the real mad men.Ooops..."wouldn't" take his kid to see a doctor...mispelling.
Well, it is true that, back in the 1940s, Dr. Salk participated in some unethical flu vaccine experimentation on mental patients who could not provide informed consent. This was, unfortunately, a pretty common practice at the time. Medical research, in many cases federally-funded, was conducted on prison inmates, soldiers, mental patients, and others who were not fully aware of the risks they were being exposed to. While these practices may have been unethical, they weren't illegal until 1974.
So the article above was based on correct facts, but incorrect in its slanderous spin and gross misinterpretation of the facts. About what I'd expect from anti-vax propaganda.You nailed it, Scott. When we look back in time and judge our predecessors with such disdain and self-righteousness...we become less...it is a sad habit of the world we live in. It's much easier to simply label someone with a black brush and toss them onto the trash heap than to discover what kind of battles they were fighting in the undiscovered arenas of knowledge.
I like an old saying we have here in British Columbia, from the Sylix tribe, "Don't judge a man until you've walked two weeks in his moccasins."
hope you didn't take me too seriously randslam, I was only being facetious. Even the religious can do that you know
These are just threads of reality...I don't get to worked up over this stuff. Just like to share outlooks and find some sort of consensus of opinion...of course, that's easier said than done as people have such wide ranges of personal experience...consensus is a very difficult thing to find.
There is a path for everyone...and generally it isn't the same path...a motto of mine.
No hard feelings...just like to see if IQs are higher than I believe them to be...often I'm surprised...people can be really dumb...but willing to listen if you try to explain reasonably, and without condemnation.
Fair enough answer, Danny.
Related Discussions
- 210
Is Nature Indisputable Evidence Of A Creator?
by David Bowman 14 years ago
Warning: This thread is intended as a serious discussion for those interested in philosophy. Posts that attempt to proselytize or derail the discussion with an unrelated subject matter will not receive a response from me. Now to the topic of this thread: Theists claim that the complexity and order...
- 85
Would proof in the existence of God be enough for you to worship Him?
by Jason2917 13 years ago
I originally posted this as a question... but started thinking It would probably make a better discussion.Would proof in the existence of God be enough for you to worship Him?This is not a trick question, and I'm not looking for a debate e.g.: science vs religion, etc.Consider it this way, if all...
- 56
What evidence would it take to convince you your religion is false?
by Shane Almgren 13 years ago
This is a hypothetical question. If in fact whatever religion you happen to believe in was not true, what would it take to persuade you? Obviously, the more severe the charge, the more evidence we demand in order to accept it. For example, if your buddy told you he had Chinese for dinner last...
- 55
The BIG Questions
by The Grey Wolf 14 years ago
I feel I need to ask these questions just to see what you all think and maybe get a good discusion going.What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? Why are things the way they are? Where did god come from? He can't always have been there. Are there more of him? If so where are they? Does the...
- 119
If nothing can only produce nothing, how did our universe start from nothing wit
by Bill Akers 10 years ago
If nothing can only produce nothing, how did our universe start from nothing without God? There are many unanswered questions in the science and astronomy fields. Since these fields can not have God as an answer, they toss out data that disproves their belief about a Creator. Actually a Creator...
- 45
Nature is ultimate master of science
by paarsurrey 13 years ago
The results of the tests of science are ultimately verified with the laws of nature; already in existence; if an anomaly is detected the tests are repeated with necessary amendments; so the nature is ultimate master of the science as it is set on a system by the Creator-God Allah YHWH.The science...