"Experience of self is not required to be proved"
"God is experience of self"
"Therefore, God is not required to be proved"
"God", an invisible superbeing with unlimited power from another universe, has now been relegated to nothing more than an experience by an insignificant speck of dust in an insignificant galaxy that will soon be destroyed? You have a far different view of what a god is than most people do.
Of course God does not need to be proved. At least not to you; you don't particularly care if the concept is real or not and will believe as you wish. However, should you wish others to believe the myth you must prove it to them, just as they must prove the FSM to you if they wish you to believe it.
wilderness, you and all others could not understand my point of view, experience of self is universal, you know yourself and have belief in yourself how ? how do you know with certainty that you are present ? do you require any evidence to prove yourself ? you are never require to be proved for your self because you have direct knowledge of yourself, you never require to satisfy yourself by the rational arguments to prove your self,your knowledge of yourself is limited,you know simply you are present,you do not know even that who are you? why are you? how are you? , this universal experience of self is experience of God, this is the foundation of all religions, this is the reflection of God, you know yourself and you know your God, God is your self but you are not God,therefore,you have direct knowledge of your God ,denial of God is denial of your self ,this is light within you ,this is heaven within you, you are not losing God ,you are losing your heaven .
Oh, I think we understand just fine. The problem is that you steadfastly refuse to say what you actually mean, trying instead to couch it in terms of logic. Logic that does not work.
Here you claim that God is an experience. You don't say that personal experience is proof of God, which is what you actually mean, you say that the experience IS God in that same misguided effort to use logic to prove God's existence.
So you said God IS an experience - stick with it! Don't go off on a tangent, suddenly asking how I know self or how I'm not required to prove I exist. Just stick with "God is an experience".
Once that is done, and God has been redefined from a supernatural creature that created the universe to a mere human experience of individual self, your conclusion is correct. There are some 7 billion people on earth, each experiencing themselves. There are thus 7 billion gods and no other proof is needed.
Of course, others may disagree with your definition that god is a mere human experience...
wilderness, you do not have complete knowledge of yourself but you lead the whole life with you without finding who are you?, why are you? and how are you? you have full confidence and belief in yourself without complete knowledge of yourself,therefore,God is also not required to be completely defined for maintaining belief in Him , we know He is present because we know we are present.
Pretty much the same as you. I know who I am, just as you do. There is no "why" I am, just as there is none for you. I know minor bits of "How" I am, just as you do. (Note that "goddunit" is not a "how").
I do not have full knowledge of myself, just as you don't. As I cannot sense God with any of my five sense, I do not know He is present any more than you do. You claim different, of course, but cannot back up the claim with proof - the claim is thus value less and defaults to "I don't know" just as mine does.
wilderness,why can I not raise the question that why am I ? Why biological process has brought ''you'' into existence ? if you know who are you then tell me where were ''you'' 100 years ago ? when ''you'' selected your parents? From where'' you'' have come? what is essence of ''you ''? why have ''you ''come to existence? where will ''you'' go after death? you are matter,energy,soul ,unity or combination of all? what will happen in future with you? no body knows these questions and can make only opinion upon the basis of research.therefore,you are'' secrete'' even for you and only know and feel yourself and try to understand your wishes and objectives and struggle to fulfill the same.
Raise the question of "why" you are all you want. You just won't find an answer in nature; only in your own imagination.
100 years ago I was not, and neither were you. I did not select my parents and neither did you. I came from the fusion of two parental cells plus massive quantities of other raw materials necessary to form a body. There is no "why" I exist. I will not "go" anywhere after ceasing to exist.
Define the word soul and I will tell you if I have one. At least if you choose to define something that can be shown to exist; define it is a supernatural, undetectable "something" and no one can answer the question. Not honestly, at least.
wilderness,why are you in hesitation to raise the question of why? if you have no answer to ''why '' ,it does not mean you should close eyes from 'why '' as it is easy way to avoid your wishful thinking of absence of God,what answers you mentioned are not self evident knowledge of you,these are simply your opinions in accordance your research or wishes,you do not know who are you? from where you have come ? and why you have come? you are only suggesting answers after studying thousand years ideas of mankind and that may be correct or wrong,therefore,you are a ''secrete'' but you believe this secrete without evidence why ? similarly, you have no ''knowledge'' even of your essence and now after finding the definition of soul you are interested to ''define''yourself in light of your knowledge and history of mankind,you are not capable to define you even, but you are ''reality'' for you even before making such kind of opinions but God is not a ''reality'' for you,interesting,first provide evidence for your belief of self and then come to God.
wilderness, your whole life is based over a ''belief'' you never adopted after research,application of reason and senses and not even through indoctrination,that is the BELIEF OF YOUR SELF,this is self experience,this is not myth,this is not ''I do not know'' ,this is not story of old religion,this is the essence of you ,this is the essence of every religion and this is the essence of God.
Yes, I believe I am. Yes it is self experience, not it is not myth and it is not "I do not know". It is not an old story.
But neither is my belief that I am the essence of every religion and it certainly isn't the essence of God. God (creator of universes) is not a belief dreamed up by the pattern of electron flows in a human brain. It is not a belief at all, but a very material creature from another universe.
On the other hand, if your definition of God is a construct of the human mind, then it might make some of your "logic" a little more palatable?
Is it? Is God nothing more than an idea, a belief, from individual human minds? Incapable of any action whatsoever as ideas cannot act, only living beings can do that. Is that what a god is? Another fiction like Superman, Bugs Bunny or Batman?
I have said this before and will say it again: We have absolutely NO idea as to whether God is real or the product of some very specific hard-wiring of the human brain.
There is no way to prove (a) that God exists or (b) that God does not exist. God is, essentially, a paradox.
I strongly suggest review of the theory/issue/paradox of "Schrödinger's Cat". Is the cat in the box or not? Was the cat ever in the box or not? Is the cat alive? Dead? Does the cat exist? Not exist? What happens when we open the box or close the box? Was the cat there before we opened the box OR does the cat exist only when we open the box?
Don't tell me - I understand very well that there may not be a God. Or that it is a construct of our mind. Or that it may be a "physical" intelligent creature that made us.
We cannot tell, and I do understand that. You are preaching to the choir - preach to those that do NOT understand it. Sibtain, maybe.
wilderness ''I understand very well that there may not be a God'', I am surprised that you never believe any thing without evidence but here you are not only believing but also understanding as'' knowledge'' that there is no God even without evidence or complete knowledge of ''absence of God'',therefore,I have stated that atheism is not more than a belief in ''absence of God'' or'' self existence of universe'' but pose itself as'' logic ''and'' science'',where is your scientific thought Mr,wilderness ,making this statement of'' blind belief''?
There is no way to prove (a) that Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or (b) that Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. Flying Spaghetti Monster is, essentially, a paradox.
Why is it that mockery is always the strategy in these discussions?
Did it ever occur to you that there is room---and plenty of it, for a serious consideration of these questions.
Personally, I have no idea why anyone opens themselves up to such mockery and ridicule.
How is bringing up a different example of the same premise equal mockery? Just because it makes the initial premise look silly? Maybe it's because the premise IS.
Clearly there is some lack of understanding of the paradox of "Schrödinger's Cat" and its uses in a discussion precisely like this.
That sure makes further discussion appealing.
That was sarcasm. Not mockery.
And yes, I know all about the cat (alive or dead or nonexistent) in the box, thanks.
I don't think you understand. I am attempting to point out to you how silly that statement is when you change what the imaginary thing is. Seeing that one can't prove something doesn't exist, and the fact that people have been trying to prove the existence of God for thousands of years and have been unable to find any evidence at all, should be enough evidence to show that as far as we know God doesn't exist. Just as one might say "as far as we no, The flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist", we can also say "as far as we no, God doesn't exist".
It's called an analogy and the paradox of "Schrödinger's Cat" is the classic analogy for describing and discussion the issue of the presence and probably intervention of an observer in determining whether something is or something is not; in determining the state of being (or state of non-being) of something which we cannot experience in terms of measurable senses.
Schrödinger's thought experiment had nothing to do with the cat existing or not existing. It poses the question, when does a quantum system stop existing as a superposition of states and become one or the other? The Cat is either alive or dead, one just needs to open the box to find out, which is nothing like God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that matter.
And no the cat is NOT simply dead or alive; the cat is dead or alive as a function---MAYBE or MAYBE NOT, of the observer.
The whole point is that observers paradoxically intervene and affect---just by observing, and therefore, we cannot really know anything from observation alone. We cannot know if the cat was dead before we opened the box OR if we killed it when we opened the box OR if we killed it when we observed it.
wilderness,very simple question,why you believe in yourself without requiring any evidence ? why you never argued or doubted any time about your presence ? this belief was even at the stage when you were not capable of arguing and making your food, you never developed this belief even after research ,this belief is in'' self'',this belief is in'' unseen,''this belief is in ''soul'',therefore,you are ''self'',you are'' unseen'',you are ''soul'',you are not ''matter'',you are appearing as '' matter'',your'' space time form'',therefore we can never deny'' unseen'' as we are ''unseen'',we are ''self'' and our life is based over ''self experience''.
You are so right. We believe in ourselves; believe in the reality of our being. And yet, we have no evidence beyond ourselves and perception that we are.
not necessarily true. Haven't you ever had to verify your identity to get a drivers license or a credit card? If you want anyone else to accept the reality of your being, you have to demonstrate that you are who you say you are or you're out of luck.
We have birth certificates. We have dna testing to verify paternity. We have identification that has to be presented to get a job or extend a line of credit or open a bank account. If simply existing was enough to prove that we exist, why are any of these things necessary? If someone steals our identity, does it mean that they are really us because they exist as well? What is required to correct the theft? More proof that we are who we claim to be.
My sense is that this is a metaphysical question and a metaphysical problem, and therefore, one that is not analogous to issues of proving one's identity in terms of birth, paternity, bank accounts, etc.
That said, in terms of the context in which "sibtain bukhari" and I are speaking, identity and proof of existence or identity are not the stuff of government issued pieces of paper. We are speaking of existences and identities that transcend this world and that transcend our material and physical existence.
If one must work through analogies, think "The Matrix" as it has much more in common with the discussion (and the notion of identity and existence) than pieces of paper issued by bureaucracies.
Is there a reason that you feel the need to attempt being condescending to people who disagree with you?
Can you first prove that any metaphysical reality or body exists? We are our physical bodies and our brains. If you're saying there's more to it than that or you're clinging to the idea of a "soul" then you have to prove that what you're talking about is true and factual and not just an idea in your mind.
What I am saying is that atheism is no more rational, if one wants to makes claims about evidence and proof, than is theism.
What I am saying is that we have no evidence or proof as to the nature of our existence/non-existence OR of the nature of existence/non-existence of a god or gods.
What I am saying is simple: We do not know everything. We cannot make proclamations of our personal beliefs---such as atheism or theism, and call either "true and factual". We cannot make proclamations of our personal beliefs and claim that those who agree with us are rational and right and those that disagree with us have "just an idea in [their] mind".
And finally, what I am saying is that analogies do not work. Comparing apples and oranges does not work.
The answer to the question of whether or not any of us exists is not we exist because we have document that says our name is this or that and we were born and this or that day---no more than the answer to the question of the existence or non-existence of god is god exists because there documents that say he does.
As for claim that atheism is "not a personal belief": If atheism is not a belief system, then what is it?
That is nonsense, it shows that one is incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy.
That is a fallacy, we don't need to know everything to understand the difference between reality and fantasy.
Atheism is not a personal belief.
Atheism doesn't make proclamations.
And yet, that is exactly what you're doing.
This is all well and good if atheism made a positive claim. It doesn't. You can't prove the lack of a belief. If a theist wants to evangelize and convert others to their beliefs, they should expect to be asked for evidence that what they are saying is actually true. I do not outrightly reject ant proposed god. I withhold a belief in one until one has been demonstrated to be true. If all that was necessary for a belief in a god was one person proclaiming one, then everyone on earth should be a pantheist. Yet most people who are theists choose one belief to the exclusion of all others. Everyone is an atheist to some degree if they reject any God claim. If You're a Christian, you are most likely an atheist in regards to Allah or krisna. I just take it one step further by withholding belief until something can be demonstrated as true. Why believe in something without truth unless you don't care whether or not your beliefs are actually true?
As in my identity example, if you're not trying to proselytize or evangelize you don't need evidence apart from yourself. If you want others to believe the same thing you do, evidence becomes necessary.
So you must agree then that I could be correct and we are all here because of the kindness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? According to you it's just as rational as any other belief.
Then, based on that, you are both talking nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever regarding transcending this world or our material and physical existence, so you can only speculate fantasies, hence anything goes and you can say whatever you want and it will be equally invalid.
Everything you disagree with is nonsense; anyone who articulates a position you disagree with is talking nonsense.
wilderness,if we wish to escape from God we can never do it as we are ''unseen'',we can deceive our selves by saying that we have no faith in ''unseen'' God but at the same time our whole life is revolving around the ''unseen '' and even it is not possible for us to give up this belief of ''unseen''as we will become abnormal if we will do it, God is not a'' belief'' nor ''an idea'',He is not a deem or imagination,He is an'' absolute reality'' and we can observe His great sign every where and if we try to escape from these signs by closing our eyes we will find Him in our ''selves''therefore,Atheism is not more than a'' deception''.
True. You can deceive yourself by saying that you know a god exists and you can run your whole life around that deceit. You can declare that atheism, we cannot prove a god is out there, is a lie, but anyone with a grain of sense knows better. Only those that voluntarily deceive themselves by convincing themselves that the myth of a god is real and true believe such nonsense.
Sorry, sibtain, but you can only believe; you can NEVER know if there is a god. Only when dead and in heaven can you KNOW. You can produce logical fallacies in a failed effort to prove a god, you can declare one is there a thousand times but you will never prove the unprovable. You will never have knowledge, but only belief. If you cannot live with that, suggest you learn to think critically and rationally, then accept the knowledge you gain as truth instead of making up your own reality.
True for you. Not others. We need to accept others beliefs.
That is a novel word:
A C C E P T
If we could accept that Sibtain Bukhari believes the way he believes, I believe the way I believe, and the atheists believe the way they believe... then we could just share our beliefs without that argumentative attitude that SO creeps in. Wouldn't that be better?
Only if you understand that it will be accepted as a belief. I accept your beliefs, as beliefs. Not as knowledge. Sibtain insists that everyone else accept his belief as reality, or knowledge; it isn't going to happen until he proves it.
Because, atheists don't hold beliefs, because those beliefs have never been shown to be part of reality, so sharing beliefs that are not grounded in reality and only appear as fantasy are as ridiculous as they are irrelevant. Who cares if you believe in an invisible super being, it is still just pure nonsense.
Do you actually think sharing nonsense is productive and worthwhile in some way?
I said accept THAT he believes the way he believes
not WHAT he believes… unless you do.
Did it ever occur to you---if only for the sake of argument, that you may be deceiving yourself wilderness?
How do you know with absolute certainty that there is no god?
How do you know with absolute certainty that what you believe to be true---even if you have arrived at it through reason and critical thinking, is absolutely true?
As noted above: It is true for you. It is what you believe. You have no proof that god does not exist. So, the only thing to do is accept that; accept that you believe what you believe---and without proof, and that others believe what they believe---also without proof.
Remember, reasoning through problems and applying critical thinking got our ancient ancestors---scientists in their time and place, to conclude among other things that the earth was the center of the universe; that there were perfect "forms" of things; that the basic elements were earth, wind, fire, and air; that there was a fifth element "ether"; that the universe is static.
You still don't really get it. Atheism is not about faith or absolute certainty. It does not reach, or strive to reach, that level of fervor.
The disbelief is no different from your disbelieve of deities, prophets etc from other faiths.
Clearly, I understand that atheism is not a faith system or religion.
That said, there are certainly many fervent atheists; many atheists who are activists for atheism.
So, if atheism is not a belief system, then what is it?
Do people not "believe" that there is no god?
They cannot "know" that there is not god; they cannot prove that there is no god.
Can you prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster? If you can do that I'll prove God doesn't exist using your same evidence.
I think I have made myself clear.
One cannot definitively and with absolute certainty prove that something---no matter what that something is (imagined monster or deity), does not exist.
I do not claim that there is no God, and I have never claimed absolute certainty. You don't need absolute certainty to withhold belief. I lack a belief in any God because no God had been proven. I also lack a belief in aliens or Bigfoot or leprechauns. As soon as definitive proof for any of these things is presented, I will no longer withhold belief. It really is that simple, and I'm not sure why it is such a difficult thing to grasp for so many people.
I don't need certainty. I don't need proof to not believe something.
I'm afraid I was not real clear in the thrust of the post; it was as much about using the same logic to show the opposite as anything. Certain claims were made, but without proof the exact opposite can be claimed with just as much certainty.
In addition, the concept that something like the existence of a god can be true for me but not for you is a fallacy. It is either true or it is not; there is only one reality and it is the same reality for everyone. One's perception of reality may differ, but reality does not. Truth is truth irregardless of belief.
Wilderness, let's for a moment consider the possiblity of that situation in which you have proposed a person could actually "know" there is a God. In death then, stripped of all your material senses...how will you "know"? It would have to be a completely spiritual experience, since being a spirit is all you would have at that time. This would be your entire reality.
If someone had been receptive to this spiritual reality during their life, in death they would have validation of what they believed all along. Validation they didn't require, already putting equal weight on the spiritual connection they had in life as they did to the input of their material senses. This is one reason why people may say they "know" now, even if they have no way of sharing "proof" with you. Their current experience is just as real as it will be in that future day when the other senses are no longer contributing input and the spiritual is all they have left.
If it is possible for you to even consider what you yourself proposed as the time when folks would truly know, can you consider that there are folks who "know" now, or is the litmus test for "knowing," being able to share their proof with you?
Do you think it's possible for someone to know there is no afterlife? Do you consider that a possibility?
No, we cannot know with any absolute certainty that there is not some "after life".
Everything is possible.
So you would except the knowledge of someone who says he knows for certain that there is an afterlife, but not except the knowledge of someone who tell you there is no afterlife because anything is possible. But if anything is possible then it's possible for there to be no afterlife and it's possible for someone to know that.
Do you agree with these definitions of "know"?
v. knew (n, ny), known (nn), know·ing, knows
1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
2. To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
3. To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
4. To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
5. To have experience of: "a black stubble that had known no razor" (William Faulkner).
a. To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
b. To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
7. To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
8. To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
9. Archaic To have sexual intercourse with.
1. To possess knowledge, understanding, or information.
2. To be cognizant or aware.
If so, then I would say it is possible for one person to "know" there is no afterlife, and another to "know" that there is.
Both can know, but one is wrong? If someone says they know there will be an afterlife should we except that there is an afterlife or except that they think there will be an afterlife. If I tell you I know for certain there is no afterlife do you except my knowledge or question it?
"Both can know, but one is wrong?" Yes.
Regarding the rest of your post, no. Where do you get the idea that to "know" something makes it true? It just means that based on all you understand, believe and have experienced you see no reason to doubt that it is true. Nobody "knows" anything if only the absolutely true can be considered "known", and if so who bears the standard by which truth is determined? Your entire existence may be the deluded dream of a stoned Wookie, yet you "know" you are real, right? Can you prove you aren't a stoned Wookie imagining your entire existence right now? I am sure you have pretty strong feelings that is not the case. You might say based on the definitions, that you "know" it is not.
When confronted with contradictory data we all apply judgement based on what we "know", "believe", "understand", or however you want to put it, and determine which data to accept or reject. Others may, and often will, judge differently, accepting different data. Both feel certain. Both feel they know. Now they are ready to go into forums to debate or argue about it.
Right, both can know but one is wrong. That's what I said or at least that's what I asked to see if you agree with. Two people come to different conclusions and both claim to have knowledge, but still one must be wrong. So just because someone claims to have knowledge doesn't mean they are correct. It doesn't however mean they think they are correct.
Now can we look at what knowledge one can have for the afterlife?
Here you are speaking of honesty and integrity then. If folks are espousing things they don't truly know, believe, understand, etc then they are disingenuous, so why bother conversing with them?
I realize some here feel that way about me because they find what I know and/or believe so difficult for them. I can't control what folks think, nor do I want to. I may speak sincerely, or for effect facetiously, but never try to veil which method I am employing. A reasonable person should be able to discern, and if not I am happy to verify. I always strive to be honest, but sometimes there are those who take offense.
Just curious. Did you mean to say "It doesn't however mean they don't think they are correct"? If so, my first reply was unnecessary.
Knowledge or proof? Please read my post to Wilderness before replying as it is relevant here: http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2485149
Therein lies our difference, in a matter of semantics.
One cannot "know" anything that is not truth, is not real. Two people cannot, then, "know" diametrically opposed things. One (or at least one, anyway) has a belief, but no knowledge. He does not "know".
Again, you are using your own definition of "know". I see this same definition commonly used in the forums by atheists. Where is it found?
Sharing your own personal definition doesn't make it so. Source please. I am beginning to think it is just the definition the atheists "know."
verb ( past knew |n(y)o͞o|; past participle known |nōn| )
1 [ with clause ] be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information: most people know that CFCs can damage the ozone layer | I know what I'm doing.
• [ with obj. ] have knowledge or information concerning: I would write to him if I knew his address | [ no obj. ] : I know of one local who shot himself.
• be absolutely certain or sure about something: I just knew it was something I wanted to do | [ with obj. ] : I knew it!
Be absolutely certain or sure about something...
Someone being convinced, or absolutely "certain" does not require it be true. It speaks to their conviction, not the validity. Otherwise nobody can be certain, and nobody can "know" anything. You can't be certain the Drunken Wookie Hypothesis does not apply to you. How could you know for certain?
Right again, you think... you know... your right. So why do people say they know God exists? Because they are certain.
Because they do. Of course, the bible asserts that everyone knows God exists. Perhaps this is why it is only a small percent who "say in their heart there is no god". Not an "appeal to popularity" as I am not seeking to change your mind or win an argument based on it, just stating a statistical fact.
Rad Man,This theory that among two conflicting claimers of having knowledge of some thing,one must be always wrong,is not correct,here are situations when both may be wrong or both may be correct,for example ,two individuals standing in opposite directions may give statements differently that mathematical digit written over the paper lying between them is ''6'' and'' 9'' respectively with their positions and both are correct,therefore,''truth'' is a ''whole'' and everyone is approaching towards it partially,therefore,the problem is there where one finds a part of the whole truth and then claim it as a whole truth and declare like religious extremists or atheists that all others having different views are wrong,false and liars and are enemies of ''religion ''or'' knowledge'',this is narrow minded thought or belief and I will use terms for the same ''religious extremism'' or'' secular extremism'' .
Rad Man, Extremism means extreme in their views being hardliners considering and declaring only their views as ''correct'' and ''knowledge'' ,and views of opponents as'' wrong'' and only ''beliefs'' not knowledge or ideas,this type of thinking is narrow minded and perhaps for this lack of ''openness'' ,atheists are not capable to understand the ideas of others and declare in one breath all conflicting ideas as ''nonsense'',''lie'' '',wrong'',and even simply ''beliefs'' because this type of behavior provides a psychological satisfaction for holding their ideas,this is not academic spirit of inquiry for truth ,one searching for truth must welcome all good arguments maintained by thousands of people and must review their rough attitude .
Absolutely the litmus test for knowing is the ability to share the proof.
That would be by your own definition then. How do you "know" yours is right? None of the definitions I listed earlier ( http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2485172 ) require your mandatory litmus test.
"1. To possess knowledge, understanding, or information." does. Information can be passed on, and so can knowledge.
Belief composed of subjective feelings cannot and is not knowledge.
No for two reasons.
First, knowledge, understanding and information are not necessarily true or proof.
Secondly, your litmus test would have to apply to all definitions of "know" to negate someone "knowing" something that isn't true or does not have proof that can be provided.
If you "understand" that the color red has a wavelength of 5 meters, you understand nothing. If you "know" the same, you know nothing. If your "information" the same, your "information" is nothing but a collection of words that, taken together, are a lie instead of information.
So you're back to what I said: that knowledge, information and understanding must all be true and real. No belief systems allowed even though a belief may ([i]may]/i]!) also be true.
wilderness,Kathryn L Hill,mbuggieh,Rad Man,bBerean,The only question involved is that everyone has belief in his self and his presence without requiring any evidence to the effect of the same and even without knowing his definition,why?,everyone is'' secrete''for himself but his whole life is based over the certain belief in this ''secrete'' why? we can never think of a moment to avoid this belief,otherwise,our personality will be imbalanced ,why?, this is not my belief or your belief,this is belief of everyone and therefore,universal,this analysis proves that if we are simply matter and energy or organic formation of matter or brain,then we would not have required this''belief in self'' and we must be ''mechanical'' in our behavior,therefore,this is opening of the metaphysical world or in other words our life is based over metaphysical world..
How do you know organisms such as ourselves can't be self aware without having a soul? It's simply a product of evolution.
Its all beyond words...
yet you keep using them.
Rad Man,do you think matter and energy have characteristics of self conscious ?
I don't think they do I know they do. Look at your hand. Recognize your hand. Self aware. Humans are not the only self aware animals.
Children are not self aware until about 2 years old. This is because of brain development. If self awareness were the result of a soul the children would be born self aware.
Bonobos, Chimpanzees, Orangutans, Gorillas, Bottlenose dolphins, Orcas, Elephants and European Magpies are all self aware. Most are related to humans which shows a genetic and evolutionary link.
Rad Man,If matter is self aware,then raise this question before atom and energy and wait for their reply,perhaps like idols of the age of Ibrahim[as] they whisper in your ears that they are self conscious.Children are born self aware ,therefore,they are crying at that time and if you try to stop his milk then you can observe what will they do with you and it would become impossible for you to face their restlessness and cry for milk.this is result of self conscious.
Sorry Children don't recognize themselves in mirrors until they are about 2 years old. Just because they cry doesn't mean they are aware of themselves. A dog barks and cries, but is not aware of himself.
I'm currently having a conversation with matter and energy in the form of you.
Rad Man,It is surprising for me that you all are so keen for evidence for God and pose yourself so rational as are not ready to accept any thing without evidence but on other hand ,you are providing and accepting the experiment of mirror that is subject to high criticism and is not regarded as the sole criteria for self aware as detailed in the end of this link itself,it is evidence for lack of knowledge of mirror and not for self aware but you are accepting this experiment as'' divine revelation '' for denial of self aware,this shows that how strong belief for absence of God you have and therefore, are ready to accept every thing for the same .
Sibtain Bukhari, It is surprising to me that you are so keen on believing in a God without the slightest of evidence of his existence and deny any science that may cast light on your own theory of what God is.
It's very simple really, when one looks in the mirror one see's one's self. If one looks in the mirror and doesn't see one's self they are not self aware (aware of self). Dogs and cats don't recognize them selves in the mirror while we and a few other animals do. Children start to recognize themselves at around 2 years old, before that they try to play with the person they see in the mirror. If you think that your God gives us souls and souls are given at birth and souls are what make us self aware then the children should be self aware from birth. The fact that they become self aware is proof that self awareness is a product of brain development.
Rad Man,Every organism that has desire,wish,objective,movement,reproduction,struggle is self aware or self conscious to the extent of certain level as all these are characteristics of ''self' and represent a'' feeling of self''',history of life is actually history of evolution of ''ego'' and ultimately it developed in the shape of'' humanity'' ,the ''independent ego'' ,history of life is the ''feeling of self'' '',knowledge of self'' and ''solidarity of self'','Satan' was necessary for awakening of ''self'' ,who realized the man of his independent ego and his capabilities of defiance of commands of God and nature,therefore,you must be thankful to ''Satan'' for awakening yourself and realizing that you are capable of arguing against your God ,this was the wisdom of God and only way for development of human ego.
Please try to stay focused and reply to my last reply without changing the subject.
You problem remains that you are attempting to explain humanity using superstitions. They may have helped a few hundred years ago before we had an understand of us and the universe, but it's just plain silly the that and invisible, undetectable evil doer who can't do anything for our ability to be self aware (recognize one's self).
Rad Man,This was the reason I stated ''Atheism is not more than a deception'',taking mirror for support of its ideas is another example for the same,this is not test for self this is test for understanding mirror,a child does not know what is mirror therefore he will play with it ,he does not know who is behind mirror but he knows himself at certain level ,therefore he will cry for milk feeling himself and will try to fight with you in the shape of loud and noise and moving his hands and legs,you are putting his'' self'' as ''outer experience'' before him through mirror,therefore,he will show feelings of surprisings as he has not seen ''himself'' before this experiment,therefore,this is the experiment of observation of self as outer experience and not for self aware,self conscious or self aware is inner feeling and knowledge of one's presence and not an outer experience of self,these are two different things,mirror test is test for understanding of mirror or of outer experience of self and not criteria for self aware,test for self aware is reaction,understanding,feeling of self through desires and struggle and movement and capability for making dispute with others for one's own desires.
Sorry you are not able to understand. Your religion is preventing you from comprehending even the most simple concepts. I was only able to read a third of your post and will not read any more of them as it's like watching a train wreck. and rather embarrassing. Your religion prevents you from understanding psychology.
Rad Man,my problem is not to explain life upon the basis of superstitions,my problem is that I can never twist my thoughts towards only confinement of ''senses and perceptions'' and can never have a ''narrow concept ''of reality that every thing that may be captured by my perceptions is ''reality ''and all that is beyond the same is'' nothing'',this is only source of knowledge for science supposing that every thing that comes to my senses is reality and all other is not reality,this is the problem of science and not method of finding truth,for finding truth we must have to rely upon all sources of knowledge,senses,reason and intuition ,therefore,Einstein stated ''mystery of wonderful universe is the power of science'' and ''science and religion are very close'' ,as great men like these great scientists can never over view all other sources of truth like you and can never bury their head in the sand for avoiding the ''great mystery ''of the wonderful and scientific universe .
wilderness,for clarification of your objections it is stated that'' experience of God'' does not mean we are ''confining Him'' , it would mean we are ''finding Him'',we have ''light of God ''within us,it would not mean we are confining that ''light.'',moreover. this experience is not individual,it is universal as everyone has self experience.Your presence is invisible for you as you have built a confidence and belief in you without application of reason and outer experience just upon the basis of direct knowledge of yourself,you have not discovered yourself as a ''concept of philosophy'',''argument of logic ''and ''theory of science'' then why are you demanding all that for God? you have recognized yourself as ''experience of self'',therefore,recognize God as your ''self experience'',here, I am not presenting my belief or personal experience ,I am presenting experience of all ,therefore,if'' my presence'' and ''your presence'' is not myth then ,presence of God is also not a myth,He is as real as your self.
Your logical syllogism plainly states that God is an experience.
Not that it is inside each individual, not that we are confining it, not that "we are finding him", and certainly not that "we have light of God". If you mean any of those things, you most definitely need to re-write your syllogism as any and all of those will negate the truth of the logical sequence.
And finally, on another track completely, experiencing myself is NOT indication that I experience God. Not unless you wish to define me, Wilderness, as a god. And I certainly do not "recognize God as my personal self exprience"; wherever do you get such quaint notions? Just because you say it is so?
wilderness,''God is an experience'' means we know Him as self experience it obviously,does not mean that God is not more than experience,I do not need to rewrite because all these self observations are included in the ''self experience'', lastly experience of self is experience of'' unseen'',experience of ''secrete'',experience of metaphysical,therefore,this is direct experience of God,every experience is of matter or energy except experience of self,that is the experience of unseen and without requiring any evidence or any argument,therefore,this metaphysical experience is so important where our whole life is based,wilderness can deny his God but can never deny his self even without any evidence,without knowing him completely and believing himself as'' secrete'',this is why I stated that denial of God is not more than a ''deception'' as one can never deny his'' self''how can we recognize'' unseen'' and'' metaphysical'' in one way and deny the same in an other way,this is ''deception''
I endorse this approach over the previous one of saying God is proved but not providing anything that amounts to proof, leading to torturous pointless debate.
Now maybe OP get get onto writing that second hub?
psycheskinner, God is not required to be proved as we have direct knowledge of our selves ,God is within ourselves but we are not God,we have direct knowledge of ourselves ,therefore,we never require to prove ourselves,knowledge of ourselves is knowledge of our God, reason is an other source of knowledge that may be applied for proving God rationally ,therefore both contentions are correct at the same time .
I don't remember taking crazy pills this morning, so why is this lunacy on my screen?
You propose the existence of something, so yes, you do need to prove that it exists.
Zelkiiro,you can deny my thoughts but you can never deny your self, you can never deny your presence,I am stranger for you but yourself is not ,you have not discovered yourself or your presence by the application of reason as you you have direct conscious of your self,therefore,yourself is proved for your self and never require to be proved rationally,I am not proposing existence of something,I am reminding you that experience of yourself is experience of your God,God is within you but you are not God,consequently ,God being self experience is not required to be proved rationally .,
Its so hard to tell if I agree with you or not. You bob and weave a lot.
Beth37, you can deny my ideas but you can never deny yourself , I am stranger for you but your self is not , after all you are living with yourself since long without knowing who are you, you know only your presence,this self conscious of your presence is light within you , do not agree with me but agree with yourself .
Do you mean self-awareness? If so prove is required as humans are not the only creature that are self aware and not all humans are self-aware.
Does this mean God is self-awareness? That makes no sense at all. Our ability to understand that we are thinking is a product of the mind. No God required.
That apparently is the case for you, however if you want to convince others you will need some evidence.
Rad Man, you require to prove your presence for yourself ? you know yourself directly therefore, never require to prove yourself rationally,you will be rational problem for me but not for yourself as I can never believe in your presence without you being an observable fact but this is not the case for you,you have direct conscious of yourself therefore you are proved for yourself,your knowledge of yourself is knowledge of your God , God is within you but you are not God,therefore,God being self experience is not required to be proved.you have not discovered your self conscious rationally,it is light within you that provides you direct knowledge without any medium that you are present and build a confidence and belief within you.
This is the point where you lost me. You again just from self awareness to self awareness is evidence of God when all self awareness is is evidence of self awareness. For example, my self awareness is not evidence for some guy in Iraq.
Rad Man,you could not understand my point of view,I am not arguing that self awareness is the evidence of God, evidence is not required in this experience,you require evidence for convincing yourself that you are present ? because you have direct knowledge of yourself and that has built in you the confidence and belief in person of you and consequently, you act like a uniformed personality in a normal manner, your this ''direct knowledge of yourself'' is the'' experience of God'',therefore no evidence and no argument is required for God as nothing is required for yourself, as God is within ourselves and we may experience Him then why we search Him in beyond universe ?when you will do it[search in beyond universe] you will demand evidence for your satisfaction.Therefore,open the book of yourself and start to study your God.
That's not true. Sometimes you DO need to prove yourself. I don't need to prove to myself that I exit, but I DO need to prove to other people that I exist and that I am who I say I am.
For example. I cannot walk into the Department of Motor vehicles and say "my name is ___ and I want a driver's license". If I want a driver's license, I have to produce evidence that I am who I say I am. I have to show them a birth certificate, a bank account, a social security card, etc. I have to verify my address. I have to verify my personal information, and then I have to prove that I'm capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.
god may be obvious to you because you believe that you sense him with your awareness, but if you want others to accept/believe in your version of god, it still needs to be proven - just like I have to prove that I exist and that I am who I say I am to others in order to gain a right or privilege.
JMcFarland, you are not borrowing God from me, you are not demanding license from me, you are not taking any thing from me,therefore, you never require ''arguments of God'' from me because you have God within you,you are trying to forget Him and I am reminding only,find yourself you will find your God, I am not claiming that God is present and accept my this argument, my point of view is that find your God within yourself,God is your self experience not my argument,therefore,never required to prove rationally as He is not away from you but within you, you never require to apply for ''driving license'' as you have''driving license'' within you,open your book of self and start to study your ''license''.
"Experience of self is not required to be proved"
"God is experience of self"
"Therefore, God is not required to be proved"
Ah, deductive reasoning. I like deductive reasoning. You start with a statement which is true and deduce information from it.
“All men that are not married are bachelors,”
“Bob is not married”
“Bob is therefore a bachelor.”
The entire thing depends on your first statement being true. If I say that all bachelors wear baseball caps as a first statement, then what follows is going to be wrong. Bob may be a bachelor but he may not like wearing baseball caps. Though if the first sentence was true then it would follow that bob would not feel the way he actually does.
So let’s look at the first statement here. "Experience of self is not required to be proved" Meaning that experience of self is proof of self. Right? At least to yourself. What self is is another matter, of course. But so far I’d say that’s not a bad first statement.
But what happens in this next line? "God is experience of self"
How does that follow? We don’t know how you arrived at this statement. It isn’t one that is self evident. For us to know for certain this is true we would have to know for certain that god exists and forms part of ourselves. It is not self evident and can’t be proven. I will assume you are talking about the Christian version of god. Most Christians will freely admit that they cannot prove god (by the Christian definition) exists. And it does seem to be a fact. I’m not saying it doesn’t only that it can’t be proven either way.
So in essence you are looking for a way to prove god exists by telling us it is in the experience of self or in deed is the experience of self. But that can’t be proven true unless you prove god true as well as being right about its attributes.
"Therefore, God is not required to be proved"
But it is in order to prove your assertion that god is the experience of self. God is not required to be proven only if it is self evident as in that it does not have to be proven that Bob is a bachelor as long as he is not married. That Bob is a bachelor if he is not married requires no extra proof, because it is the proof and is self evident.
So your logic is circular with each statement eating at the tail of the other.
Now, were it true and self evident that god is experience of self, then it would be redundant to say that it is not required to prove god, because you would have already proven god exists before you made the statement that he is experience of self.
The following would be a proper statement of deductive reasoning were the first line true:
We know god exists.
We know he is part of us.
Therefore experience of self is experience of god.
That all follows, and the conclusion would be necessarily true if the first two line were true. But it is not true as we have not proven god exists.
Unfortunately, you have put three unrelated ideas together that do not follow in order to prove god exists by proving he is self evident so requiring no proof. You created a bit of a logical paradox for yourself. Just thought you should know.
Slarty O'Brian,thanks for lengthy and logical comment but my point of view is clear as I have explained in other posts,I am not proving God through arguments this time nor I am stating that God can never be proved rationally, I am simply stating that God has proved Himself in ourselves,and we can discover Him in our selves as an experience not as an argument,therefore,He is not required to be proved as a stranger to self through the application of reason,I have expressed this point of view in logical form as my communication is with the people of logic,there is no circulation in my argument,and second premise is not false as we have observed that thousands of people have discovered God as self experience, but as everyone has self,therefore, this experience is universal,I have not created logical paradox by interlinking three ideas,I have simply stated that God is present in our selves,therefore,it is ridicule to search Him in the beyond universe and even you can never discover Him in your self through the application of reason ,you can only have experience of Him through traveling in the self,our self evident knowledge of our self leads to God.Our self is the mirror of God where we can find His reflection.
I understand your point of view. But the problems I mentioned still remain. What is your definition of god? Perhaps you can start there.
I’ll show you this same argument from perhaps a different perspective. I define god as that which produced all this. Now the first question is, did something produce all this? The self evident answer is yes. We and the universe exist and did not always exist as we are. If there were a time when absolutely nothing existed nothing could now exist. You can’t get something from nothing at all.
But notice I am not saying something created us. Creation presupposes a creator. We have no evidence that what produced us is a conscious being,
But we have ample evidence of the nature of the quantum or energy. We are all made of atoms and they have amazing properties. At the root, all things are made of atoms, because that is how things come to be. Add two atoms together and you have a new substance. Hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms together form water, for instance.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so must always have existed in some form; even as potential. Every can only be transformed and that is what it does. Those transformations, those interactions form all things including us.
And not surprisingly we and all things act like that we are made of. The laws of conservation of energy are the rules by which we live. All atoms attempt to find their balance through their lowest possible output of energy. Humans do this as well. We also interact with each other, pass on information, change each other, merge with each other and form new things like economies, societies, corporations, etc.
So below, so above. The universe or better: the process of existence, the nature of energy, constantly produces mirror images of itself in variegated form, always more and more complex. In fact it is here we see the simple move to the complex very clearly.
So were I to make your claim I could prove first that god exists in the form of energy and its nature, that we are a product of that nature and that our existence allows us to know that nature intimately.
No conscious god required.
It is probable that those who believe in a conscious god have mistaken nature for consciousness.
Slarty O'Brian,This time my argument was that we all have self experience and we never require any rational argument and evidence for our selves and even we are'' secrete'' for ourselves but we believe ourselves,therefore, this self experience is the experience of God,consequently, atheism is a ''deception'' as it can never deny this''self experience'',when it claims for absence of God for lack of knowledge ,actually ,it deceives one's self.Secondly,nature and evolution are laws of a ''law giver'' and can never substitute conscious law giver[ Absolute Ego or Absolute Reason],order and laws of universe require a'' law giver'' as scientists have refereed and nature itself is not sufficient,further, science has not proved that life and universe are self existing, therefore,the same require creator for their being and all arguments of atheists in the absence of such proof have no rationality.
Oh but science has given evidence that life evolved from nonliving matter. Physics shows us how. That does not mean I believe it to be true. I think there is a good probability that it is. I make no claims of belief on the matter.
However, there is no evidence that a law giver is required, and there is none present that we can inquire of. You make a lot of speculative claims and you believe them to be true. But that does not make them true.
Slarty O'Brian, Self existence of universe and life is not proved,however,there are some theories in this respect,that may be correct or may be wrong,Existence of universe and life are facts but eternal existence of the same are not facts and upon the basis of the presumption of eternal or self existence of the same creator is not possible to be denied as'' existence'' will require creator for its being. Laws of nature require law giver,this is not speculation, as laws are not possible to be formulated without'' law giver'',if universe had been a collection of raw material,it would have not required a law giver but how this may be rational that laws of conservation of mass, law of conversation of energy,law of definite propositions,law of gravitation,laws of relativity are without law giver ,simply for the reason that we do not know that law giver? why do you not deny your self when you do not know your self?even we have not seen the force of gravitation,we have not observed the planets being filled by this force,we have not measured and observed this force in all heavenly bodies but we conclude from falling objects and orbits that every heavenly body possess this force Why? If we have not seen'' law giver'',if we have not observed the law giver giving these laws for our limited scope of reason,it would be rational to deny the same and suppose and speculate that these all wonderful laws are just ''miracle'' of nature by self ?
We already covered why you should stop using "self existence" as if it is a term people should understand just by reading it.
Yes. When we say laws we do not mean man made laws or god made laws. Science uses the term laws in a metaphorical way. They are relationships and natural reactions to action.
I never said humans or the universe were eternal, though the universe might well be. I said energy is eternal. So we already have something eternal with a nature that creates the complex from the simple. We do not need a conscious god. And since we can't prove there is one it is just speculation.
I have nothing to contribute to this conversation....I just saw your name and wanted to say hi!
Slarty O'Brian,When I referred the'' laws of nature'' ,it would mean the cosmological order,harmony and discipline as viewed by Einstein and other great scientists for understanding the mystery of universe and Law Giver ,this understanding of laws kept these scientists away from atheist views and they found truth in religion and science both upon the basis of this wonderful universe. Energy is not completely defined by science,it is term used for referring to what matter has been converted and you will be also aware of ''dark energy'',science after the disappearance of matter has come to close religion as it has come to'' unseen'', Einstein, the founder of this theory also viewed of close link of science and religion.Universe requires conscious God for explanation of this ''ordering'' of universe,however, Einstein,has the idea that God can never be imagined as personal God,magnified man, who can interfere these laws.
What you fail to understand is that a conscious god is just a model of how reality could be, but without evidence the model can't be said to be true. To say it is the absolute truth is therefore a lie.
Rationality is how you figure out what is truth and what is lie. You should try it sometime. Saying rationality is ego is just nonsense. Belief is ego.
Faith is ego.
Belief in speculation is useless and belief in fact is redundant. Why believe anything? Instead try to determine truth from fiction using logic and reason. For models try determining probability. To denounce logic is to advocate illogical thinking.
Slarty O'Brian,conscious God is not model but possible logical conclusion of scientific universe and conscious life for which you have no any possible logical justification,we must discover and identify the limits of our reason before declaring the Absolute truth/ reason/ego of the infinite universe and life as'' lie''. reason, conscious,art,religion,knowledge,conscience are not the characteristic of matter and energy but of'' self'' or ''ego'',therefore,ego is the essence of life and matter is the ''appearance ''of the same or'' space time form'' of the same,or'' confinement''of the same.
You are the one declaring the absolute truth of a god even without any evidence for one. I have been very careful not to make absolute claims. I've give alternatives which have a basis in scientific fact.
You do not seem to understand models and why humans make them. But god is just a model like any other. It is a model like the Big Bang is a model. However, the Big Bang has evidence behind it. It may not to turn out to be the right model and it has changed over the years. But because it is built on facts we can work with it.
A conscious god is just speculation and nothing more until it is proven otherwise.
You also place way too much importance on consciousness. Life does not depend on it, Only things that move need some kind of brain. To show this, there is a type of fern as well as a type of sea plant which begins it's life like a tadpole. It swims around like an animal, but then it does something interesting. It finds a place to put down roots, and then eats it's own brain because it no longer needs it.
Humans need brains and consciousness. Consciousness comes from a brain, not something else. So consciousness is not always required.
As to what matter is, it is just energy slowed to below light speed by the Higgs field. Energy/matter are one and the same thing. This is proven in E=Mc squared.
There is nothing but energy, You will now have to prove that consciousness can exist outside of a brain. You are making the claim but as far as I know you have no way to back it up.
Not so sure I agree with this. Several questions come up for me.
It appears that you equate the brain with consciousness. The sensory organs and their associated nerves in some cases would seem to be centered in the brain - sight, sound, smell and taste. The sense of touch would be many places, from the skin to the spinal chord and the resulting reflexes. True or false?
I would see Consciousness (i.e., Awareness) as being intimately related to the sensory organs, and the life form cannot therefore live a life without consciousness. When we presume that only life within the animal kingdom requires Consciousness, and therefore gives rise to the brain and its functions, I believe we are ignorant of the other forms of life, such as plants.
It's difficult for us humans to conceive of plants, inanimate things, as having a consciousness, but we can only presume that in ignorance.
"The sense of touch would be many places, from the skin to the spinal chord and the resulting reflexes. True or false?"
False. All sensations including pain are from the brain. Yes, all those things send signals to the brain, but the brain is where they are interpreted as pain or pleasure or what have you. It is literally all in your head. That is the conclusion neuroscience has come to in the last few years.
You have to be careful how you equate awareness with consciousness. Every biological thing has a rudimentary awareness, but not necessarily a consciousness like ours. Instinct is probably the root of both, as it turns out.
Our subconscious is instinct. Our consciousness is due to many factors, particularly the senses which both allow us to experience what is outside us and going on inside us at times, and give us a sense of being separate from that outside world. Memory or history of the system also gives coherence. We have a strong self identity, and that is consciousness. That we have needs is paramount to this process, of course. Without them we wouldn't even blink. Need forces us to do, and reinforce self identity and self awareness.
The consciousness functions as teacher for the subconscious. The subconscious is where we act from, but the conscious is where we deliberate from.
The conscious mind is too slow to act, so as we learn, we change the way our subconscious acts/reacts.
The human still lives primarily in the subconscious, or the instinctive.
Everything returns there. When you learn to drive you have to think about what your next move will be. You are training your subconscious. When you have mastered driving, the vehicle has become part of you, so to speak. You don't need to think about what you will do next, you just act and react. Skills that we learn become part of our subconscious.
If you take instinct back far enough, you can liken it to a more complex form of automatic reaction like an atom has to a stray electron. It is forced to react, though it doesn't think about it. However, it does need to because of its natural tendency to want to be at it's lowest level of energy output possible. (laws of energy conservation)
So natural reaction eventually becomes instinctive reaction, which becomes rudimentary awareness from where consciousness eventually emerges. Each step brought on by adding hardware and improving on old hardware through evolution and chaos.
If you have an hour I can explain chaos to you. But suffice it to say that there are no random acts. Most systems are chaotic systems based on very specific but very simple rules which eventually take the simple to the complex..
Interesting read, thanks. I still have a reservation about how we tend to view our human existence and our biological background.
My skepticism comes from, and is enhanced by the book I am reading of Frans de Waal. "The Bonobo and the Atheist." I, like many people of my era, have been nurtured with the presumption that we humans are "special." In other words, every other life form on earth can be, and should be measured and judged against our human attributes and abilities. If a dog, or an elephant, or one of the other primates, or an octopus exhibits the slightest of intelligence or awareness beyond the basic animal instincts, it's probably a quirk, a chance happening and therefore not to be equated with human intelligence. From the christian point of view, this is where God and the Divine Creator comes into the picture. "He" made us to be master above all else.
Even someone who is carefully trained in the objective pursuits of science can still be influenced deeply by this sort of schooling. To look away, wider, to other possibilities can sometimes be seen as blasphemy.
Hence, I see this quote from you: "You have to be careful how you equate awareness with consciousness. Every biological thing has a rudimentary awareness, but not necessarily a consciousness like ours. Instinct is probably the root of both, as it turns out" as another concept with which we need to be very careful.
I know we are certainly very clever and perceptive as a species. But presuming we are that much more clever... also needs care with the interpretation.... watch for pre-judice, IMHO.
Our sense of a great "conscience" and "faculty-of-the-mind" that supersedes far beyond that of any other life form is not a factor of prejudice--though there is always some of that. From what we observe, from what we know, this appears to be far more an endowment-of-faculty rather than a notion of prejudice inculcated.
Nope, nope, and nope.
Don't think we're talking about what we don't know about animal-faculty
I wasn’t making a statement about the conscience or intelligence of non-humans. I was making a statement about the known, observable difference in the form of human existence vs. non-human.
How does ignorance of animals apply argument to that? It isn’t relevant to the statement.
How can you make claims about how superior humans are when you have no idea what thoughts anything else has? You admit you don't and make claims of the superiority of our consciousness when you have idea what thoughts anything else has.
It's like claiming you live in the best country in the world, while never visiting or optaining any information about any other country.
For example, by way of observation, we know . . .
Humans have faculty and capability to exploit resources, environment and fathom the laws of nature to create vehicles that can transport us several times faster than our natural capabilities.
Whales, we know by way of observation, do not.
I’m not talking about whales thoughts, we are on different tangents.
You were talking about consciousness and intelligence and now you are pretending you were talking about our ability to make and use tools.
I always find it interesting when believers claim Atheists are arrogant and then go on to make claims of superiority.
We also know that whales can communicate with each other over many hundreds, if not thousands of kilometers, using low-frequency sound. We also know that what we humans are doing here on the planet can seriously interfere with the lives of those whales. We squander the garbage made from those precious resources you mentioned. That garbage gets ingested by the whales and they end up with a huge stomach ache. The noise made by our activities with the propellers of ship; explosion above and under water; sonar; etc., etc., makes the home of the whales a very uncomfortable place to be.
So, if we humans have consciousness and intelligence way above that of whales, why are we not using it?
What I was talking about is the notion of a superior conscience and intelligence based on such observations, which then in turn can be argued is per endowment of greater faculty. Of course I can never say for sure if animals do not have deeply spiritual and introspective thoughts or notions—but that is not the point.
Arrogance would not be derivative of being an atheist or theist. And I have never accused atheists of being arrogant. But if I came across as such, my apologies.
The bowhead whale lives longer than 200 years. The sperm whale has a brain 5 times as heavy as a humans. The sperm whale's cerebrum is the largest in all mammalia, both in absolute and relative terms. Elephants and dolphins also have larger brains than humans. Those are facts that we can observe.
That may well be.
But whales haven’t developed what we understand to be civilization. They don't have cultural aesthetics, national identities, multiple languages, scribed philosophies and reflections, scientific progress etc etc.
They do have multiple languages and dialects. Who cares about national identities? How do you know they don't have cultural aesthetics and who cares? You don't know they don't have philosophical reflections and discussions and you don't understand their language. Why don't you understand their language? I wonder if they understand ours. My dog understands half of what I say and I understand very little of what he says. We are a pathetic bunch of earth killers. We destroy forest and oceans and still millions of us starve to death every year from starvation. We kill each other for land and emotions and sometimes because of the lack of emotions and just fun. Do whales do that?
I suggest to you that whales have not needed those latter faculties. They came about in us simply as reflections of our needs and survival instincts. The whales evolved their own methods for the dense medium they live in; and even more dense medium at greater depths.
Our intelligence is matched by those creature, not of course fully understood by us, but nonetheless to be admired. Nothing to do with any sense of god-bestowed superiorityy
We are using the higher faculty and intelligence. We may not be using it in the right way but that’s a different conversation. You seem to take superiority in a derogatory sense.
What is your premise? That humans commit evils so our conscience/awareness can be characterized in some manner to draw a certain conclusion? We don’t need whales for that. Humans do far worse than what you’ve mentioned i.e. as Rad Man has noted.
Well, those are your beliefs, I’m not asking what you believe—I have a fair sense of that.
I have not seen whales build vehicles and fascinating complexes under the sea. Perhaps they possess the intelligence for that but don’t care to use it—it’s a theory. Still, since we know they don’t do it’ll remain as theory.
Our faculties as reflections of need and survival??? Where is the need and survival in the strive for efficiency, progress, passion, greatness, beautification, refinement, eloquence, aesthetics, productivity, profitability, competition . . . ???
Very much a growth and evolution from primitive survival skills. There has been a lot of observation and research around this subject and I can only commend the reading of "The Bonobo and the Atheist," by Frans de Waal. Not saying you or anyone must agree with any or all of it but it does, for me, open up lots more food for thought.
So, you really have no idea about evolution, but are certainly compelled to ask questions. Of course, the real question is whether or not you'll educate yourself in order to understand those questions?
You have answered you own questions here. Whales don't need such things under the sea, so why would they build them?
Watch a bird flying through the trees. So fast you can hardly see it go. Yet the bird has eyesight and a brain that can see those tiny twigs and branches in tiny spit second and never hit one on the way through that maze. Yours and my brain can't do such a thing...we don't need to so we have not evolved for such ability.
Anyone, continue to believe in your god, your creator, in any way you like.... but in doing so, lift your sense of wonder and awe at the world around you. Then I suggest you will not find a need for doctrine and argument about the "nature" of your god.
That's a good point, but it begs the question, why do we need these things? Or, do we need these things? Humans managed just fine for tens of thousands of years without them, just living in harmony with the natural world the way the rest of the animal kingdom does. Then, all of the sudden it seems, we were no longer content with a simple life. Something changed. If you look at indigenous cultures like the native Americans or the Sub-Saharan African tribes or the Aborigines, they are content beyond anything we can even hardly imagine, and many still are to this day. Like this ...
"The author Edward T. Hall recalls how, when he worked on Indian reservations in the 1930's, the Indians seemed to possess an amazing quality of patience. In contrast to the Europeans, who fidgeted impatiently and become irritable, the Indians he saw waiting at trading posts and hospitals never showed any sign of irritation whatsoever, even if they had to wait for hours. As he writes:
An Indian might come into the agency in the morning and still be sitting patiently outside the superintendent's office in the afternoon. Nothing in his bearing or demeanor would change in the intervening hours... We whites squirmed, got up, sat down, went outside and looked toward the fields where our friends were working, yawned and stretched our legs... The Indians simply sat there, occasionally passing a word to one another." - The Fall, Steve Taylor
They say necessity is the mother of invention, yet these necessities seemed to be non-existent for much of our history. Then, beginning in the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia, we see an onslaught of inventions that apparently weren't necessities before. The wheel, writing, mathematics, astronomy, laws, jails, schools, roads, urbanization, paper, and on and on and on. Within the course of roughly 1000 years or so, during the 4th millennium BC primarily.
"The thousand years or so immediately preceding 3000 BC were perhaps more fertile in inventions and discoveries than any period in human history prior to the sixteenth century AD" - Archaeologist and Philologist V. Gordon Childe
"a tremendous explosion of knowledge took place as writing, mathematics, and astronomy were discovered. It was as if the human mind had suddenly revealed a new dimension of itself." - Anne Baring and Jules Cashford, The Myth of the Goddess
Indigenous people aren't hung up on personal possessions the way we 'civilized' people are. They don't even view land as belonging to them, but belonging to all who live. It's the Europeans and others who originate from that same region who began to take land and force them off. And in doing so native Americans and others became much more aggressive in response, but not before. This change in behavior was significant enough that ancient scribes of Greece and Rome and elsewhere actually wrote about it ...
"There broke out ... all manner of evil, and shame fled, and truth and faith. In place of these came deceits and trickery and treachery and force and the accursed love of possession ... And the land, hitherto a common possession like the light of the sun and the breezes, the careful surveyor now marked out with long boundary lines." - Roman poet Ovid
"It's significant that the Bible tells us that the Fall occurred as a result of Eve eating from the tree of knowledge. This suggests that the Fall was connected to gaining a new intellectual power of awareness. We're told that now Adam and Eve were "given understanding" and, even more significantly, that now they "realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and covered themselves." This suggests that the Fall was linked to the development of a new self-awareness within human beings, which gave them a new ability to observe and judge themselves."
The ancient Indian epic of Mahabharata says that the "holy men of old' were "self-subdued and free from envy," suggesting a lack of self-awareness and self-assertion.
"While according to the Chinese myth of the Age of Perfect Virtue, when human beings fell out of the Tao they developed a new kind of individuality and self-sufficiency. They started to live by their own will rather than the will of nature."
So, what changed? What made us so discontent that we then needed to invent to satisfy necessities that apparently were never before necessary.
Farming changed everything. Communication changed everything. We couldn't want we don't know exists. Thought you might find this interesting.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/stone … -1.1991430
Wow, yeah, thank you for that link. That's fascinating.
Farming and communication were not unique to this region. Farming had been around for over 3000 years prior, and spread all throughout the world. Cultures with populations in the thousands and higher in some places came and went, yet what happened in this age and region didn't happen anywhere else.
Gotta start somewhere.
I was a fascinating article wasn't it.
But that's just it. It didn't have to start. Hunter-gatherers, and even simple horticulture societies, lived simple lives for generations. And despite what you would think, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle amounted to way less work than what we know today. It was a laid back, peaceful life where most lived well into old age and died of natural causes. And it continued on for thousands of years all around the world even beyond the dawn of civilization. There was no 'need'.
But there was a need. Farmers were able to trade and sell goods. Do you think we could maintain our current population without farming?
That just leads us back to that first question. Are these really needs? Yes, farming is a need with this size population, but farming happened apart from these changes. Farming was adopted all over the world. Native Americans farmed long before Europeans came, but didn't behave as they did. Our ancestors showed up, though they were genetically identical, and treated them as if they were some other species entirely. If behavior didn't change at that point then farming alone would be plenty to sustain this size population. There's plenty of resources, plenty of people to do the work, but there's also plenty of people taking more than they need. I'd count myself among them. We 'modern' humans behave more like parasites than mammals.
Those goods and services are not necessities for humanity to survive. Nothing in the animal kingdom requires these kinds of things. Agricultural societies with high populations existed multiple times for hundreds and thousands of years without the need for any of these things. These goods and services were only necessities because the human psyche changed and made them seem so.
So if we're talking about behavioral differences between humans and whales or any other species, then it's these things that are the key difference, and the divergence appears to have happened long after we had reached anatomical modernity as these differences even draw a distinctive dividing line between members of the exact same species who behave completely different than one another. To dismiss this as nothing more than the impact of farming and heightened population, in my mind, is a mistake.
These wants are cultural and are taught. If you plucked a person from 10 000 years ago as an infant and raised them in your culture they would behave and want as we do. My family is from the east coast and I can tell you they don't want the same things as we do. Italians in Italy don't want the same things as we do, they don't even want the same thing that the Italian immigrants here want.
Right, but we at some point created these cultures. There was a beginning where these things first had to be created to then be learned. The explosion of inventions in such a short amount of time points to a change in psyche. For something to prove useful, it first has to exist. To exist it has to be created. Unlike the animal kingdom, which changes in reaction to outside forces and causes, we created our own change.
Hilarious, you make it sound as it all happened overnight or something. It didn't, it took a long time, just like everything else back then.
"The thousand years or so immediately preceding 3000 BC were perhaps more fertile in inventions and discoveries than any period in human history prior to the sixteenth century AD" - Archaeologist and Philologist V. Gordon Childe
"a tremendous explosion of knowledge took place as writing, mathematics, and astronomy were discovered. It was as if the human mind had suddenly revealed a new dimension of itself." - Anne Baring and Jules Cashford, The Myth of the Goddess
It's not me, it's the evidence. We don't see the progression towards these things you'd expect.
So what? Do you have a point?
Again, so what? Do you have a point tossing these out? Do you actually understand the meaning behind those quotes?
We're talking about what most sets us apart from other species in the animal kingdom, right? Well, those things that most set us apart have a traceable origin. A specific time and place in which they happened. And though traditional thought tends to tether these things to the discovery of farming and increased population and social interaction, the evidence says differently. Though farming and population density were not unique to the time/region in which these characteristics were first born, these behaviors were. I believe finding proper understanding of what happened there is integral to understanding who/what we are. So, the point is significant and very much relevant to the discussion, I would think.
No, they don't, they occurred over a long period of time, not overnight.
It's called evolution, try finding out about it sometime.
Of course, you're probably going to go back to your tired old argument of " Godunnit"
Just no? Are you sure? Despite what the experts and the evidence says, you say "no" and that's it? Should I just take your word for it or do you maybe have something more credible than your word?
Sorry, there are no experts or evidence that support your "Goddunnit" assertions. You are just like a crackpot, going around finding irrelevant quotes in a vain attempt to support them.
Did I say that? Am I not allowed to participate in the discussion because of my beliefs? Even if I don't appeal to them? I'm pointing out what I feel is significant information relevant to the discussion. Humans changed in this particular region and time. That is a fact. The evidence shows it, experts agree, and the behavioral changes that either caused them or resulted from them were so significant that the ancient cultures who were around at the time actually wrote about it. The change was recognizable and significant. If we're looking to better understand who/what we are as humans, then this time/place is hugely relevant to that discussion.
Of course, you're allowed to inject your irrational beliefs, no problem.
Duh, humans have been changing for a very long time. That is indeed a fact.
Incoming "Goddunnit" explanation... wait for it...
Headly, we have had discussions, you and I, some time back, and I have expressed my respect for your background studies and knowledge of "the ancient." That respect still applies although, as you know, I don't hold your beliefs.
I would like to just throw in another small pebble here, about the way language itself has perhaps moulded our perceptions.
In particular the English language. We have the expression "I am going to." "I am walking." "I am writing." "I am......." This tends to associate myself, my identity, with the action, in a sort of superior, dominant way. (Others might not see this as I do; open to that of course.)
It is the use of the I am which differs from other languages that I know of.
They would say, simply, "I go to." "I walk." "I write." The "I am" is not involved, and therefore the action itself becomes all important, without the person pushing forward.
"I am buying a house," puts me at a very much higher status than someone who is not able to afford one.
What got me thinking this way? Well, just possibly those changes which you are saying took place centuries ago, where climactic changes influenced people's survival skills, changed at the same time the perceptions which those people had of themselves. They had to become dominant in order to compete successfully with their neighbours. They could not just sit back and "be like the others." There would be no survival benefit in doing that. So language, mannerisms, modes of expression, accepted morals, ethics, expectations, all evolved as the needs changed and adaptations took place. These differences set peoples and communities apart. They brought about conflict as never before.
SO.... if we can explore differences, consider and understand those differences, it might lead to progress, even in the discussions here.
You make a good point. It's a really interesting change in dynamic. Humans had always been a social species. Always operating in small packs, migrating like herds, working in groups. And even after farming and transitioning to settled lifestyles, they were still very much 'pack' minded, and decidedly not individualistic. They worked together and distributed responsibilities evenly. For thousands of years cultures lasting many centuries came and went this way, with populations in the hundreds and thousands, banding together in the face of adversity.
A change to an individualistic mindset of survival goes against everything inherent in human behavior up to that point. What I find so fascinating about this particular change is that the conditions were not all that unique. Considering farming had been adopted throughout the world, for this reaction to happen just this one time in this one place is kind of odd considering adverse conditions that threatened survival happened elsewhere throughout the ages. Competition with one another within the group was never the name of the game. Most indigenous cultures didn't even have dedicated mates, with women having equal say, and possessions were community possessions.
Whatever caused the change in this particular group, it apparently made them more dominant. Everywhere these people went they transformed the culture that was there before. These people that were flushed from the Sahara region migrated towards river banks where established cultures were already in place. Egyptian history begins with the arrival of nomadic travelers from the desert. They'd come in and transform the whole dynamic of the culture. And from those transformed cultures sprang up the first modern civilizations, multiple times. In Sumer, in Egypt, the Indus Valley, Akkad, Greece, Rome. Even as far away as China they write about the change. And though humans had interacted with one another peacefully for many thousands of years, establishing trade routes that covered incredible distances, with no conflict, when these civilizations began to bump into one another they began to war with one another. And they enslaved the indigenous cultures that were still around and took their land as their own. To this point, ownership of a piece of the natural world, or another human, was a completely foreign concept.
It goes so far beyond simply surviving. It made humans more parasitic in behavior than mammalian. Rather than simply living within harmony with nature, they began to devour it. And it spread like a parasite, completely overtaking the world throughout the centuries, transforming it all along the way. And practically pushing indigenous cultures out of existence along the way.
I strongly suggest that our changes have largely come about also as a reaction to outside forces. Those forces are mostly to do with survival instincts. If they differ at all from "other animals" it is only in terms of degree, not in nature.
It is only our egotistical wants/desires that convince us we are higher up the scale.
That is entirely possible. There's the possibility that the dramatic climate change in this region that transformed the Sahara back into desert was directly related (5.9 kiloyear event (3900BC)). That climate change forced humans who had adapted to a settled agricultural life to revert back to nomadism, if that's a word. And it appears to have brought something out of us psychologically because it's directly following that event that we see the dawn of multiple independent civilizations, each with its own unique language and culture, numerous inventions, mathematics, astronomy, writing. It seems to have brought to the surface a stronger sense of "I" that resulted in necessities that weren't previously necessities. Like in the way that writing was invented as a need to keep track of what an individual was owed. It brought about behavioral characteristics and patterns unlike any other mammal.
Are you saying the Italian culture just appeared and doesn't evolve or change? Tell that to the immigrants from the 60's came here and tried to back even twenty years later. Little Italy in Toronto is nothing like Italy. Italy changed from being very conservative to very liberal will the Italians in Canada remained conservative.
No, I'm talking about long before that. The emergence of the first civilizations. The dramatic transition that started it all and eventually led to Italian culture, which then of course continued to morph over the ages. But in all that change they're still a 'civilized' culture showing all the same characteristics as those first civilizations living in cities with class stratification and male dominance. Characteristics that simply didn't exist prior to that.
Whether they are necessities or not, if something is seen as useful in the survival effort, then it will be used, in an opportunistic way.
People who watch a lot of commercial television, or read avidly through the junk mail advertising, may see some item as "attractive" for their particular needs. It's a simple, short step then to see it as "important that I have it." Try to see this with the sophistication of human thought as much as you like, but in reality it's just another one of our animal instincts: our desire for survival. And we use this sort of instinctive process every day, each one of us.
It is only when we try to be superior, as human beings, that the picture becomes obscured, away from reality. Then we concoct all manner of excuses and BS arguments to try and prove we are "above the animals."
That is merely a branch of evolution humans have taken that other species have not. So what? Do you have a point?
Sir, it is you who has self-answered the question— the whales have no ‘need’ for complexes and vehicles.
In our own history one can argue what ‘need’ was there to extend beyond rudimentary animal transportation and rudimentary residential shelter? But that extension goes far far beyond what was just a need.
Evolution or ‘highly evolved states’ as atheists are fond of dubbing human genius and brilliance are no alternative validation to God. Evolution itself is a PROCESS ONLY. It requires material, environment, impetus and natural law that favor the process. Evolution is really only change in inherited attributes over generations. Sorry to say but it is deceptive, ignorant and even foolish to sell it as alternative validation to how we came to exist.
Also, evolution is NOT in conflict with religion—simply because it is process only. The Quran often describes creation to have occurred in stages, which agrees with the process of evolution. The Quran also states that a certain mud or clay-like compound has played a strong role in our creation (thru the process of evolution). Verse 32:7 states that this occurred in the initial stages of creation. Below I quote from a hub titled “Does the Quran support Evolution” . . .
“Strong evidence has been found for the idea that a particular type of clay: montmorillonite, played a key part in the formation of life from inorganic compounds . . . The researchers found that the clay caused a 100-fold acceleration in vesicle (cell-like sacs) formation as well as provide an excellent environment for RNA formation . . . Therefore, the Qu'ran has stated something profoundly true thousands of years before we realized the same thing in the 21st Century.”
I do not seek to prove or disprove evolution as a possible process that brought life to what it is today.
I do not seek to prove or disprove that a designer/creator/consciousness was/is responsible for the world as we know it.
For me, it is sufficient to look on and experience the reality of the world, in awe and with great respect for such wonder and beauty.
I give thought to the possibility that the ability to choose from different options has been built into all manner of living forms.... animals, birds, insects, plants, even bacteria. This is only speculation on my part, because this could be a possible way that so many intricate forms have grown up.
Surely we persons of an atheist persuasion are free to speculate like this. Those who are theist in their thinking can see this as a way that their "god" has worked things out. We don't have to be opposing each other continuously. We all have minds to think with, let's be free and allow each other to share views of what "might be" the truth. We can never know totally, without doubt, so why try to?
The one aspect which I cannot agree to is pretending that such a Divine Creator, "God" is sitting up there or somewhere, watching our every move and judging us in order to inflict punishment upon our death. THIS for me is a man-made function in the pursuit of power and control over others. This is the cause of so much strife in the world, whereas that consideration of a Divine Creator is one we can enjoy, discuss and grow with.
And yet, evolution is a fact and is indeed how we all came to exist, every single living organism on the planet is here as a result of evolution. Sorry, but your God is just one of many gods wrongly attributed to creating all things, that is nothing but a childish fairy tale.
It is in conflict with creationism.
Sorry, but the Quran is a book of myths and superstitions and it does not explain evolution.
Sorry dude, but if the Quran could explain evolution, it would, but it doesn't, at all.
I think you kind of got the wrong idea of what I am saying. I am not saying that humans are superior. I'm saying consciousness is not the be all and end all of existence.
Consciousness is a tool. It is a complex form of automatic reaction, which simply provides the subconscious with a slightly larger set of possible responses to any given situation than it would otherwise have. However, which response is taken depends on which response ends up being dominant at that time. That depends on conditioning, both environmental and genetic.
Like simple automatic reaction the ultimate reaction is forced on the individual through those variables, though we think we are making a “free” will choice. We are making a choice based on will, to be sure. But our will is a manifestation of our conditioning.
So I am far from putting man on a pedestal above animals.
So what is the problem here? Why would a process be insufficient? I’ll show you why it isn’t.
Theists look at the universe from the top down. What is the highest thing we can think of? A conscious god that lives in a heaven, has always existed, is perfect, who decides one day to create mankind. To support mankind he creates all kinds of birds and animals. And the conditions for us to thrive. Incidental is the atomic world.
Science looks at the universe from the bottom up. And there we find something odd. When atoms merge they create new substances. Why? A very simple rule: An atom always tries to find it’s lowest possible level of energy output for any given situation. That is it’s nature.
A process is just like saying this causes that. It is how thing react to each other ending in a new order. Usually a more complex order than before.
Atoms are energy, plain and simple. One of the amazing things we found out is that energy cannot be destroyed. It can’t be created. All it can do and all it does is transform depending on the conditions.
Mass is energy that has slowed to below the speed of light by the Higgs field. Without that field we would not exist, and neither would much of anything else.
So the universe is built from the bottom up, not the top down.
So is a god required? By that I mean a first mover, a conscious eternal being? If all things need a creator what created god? Nothing? It just always was?
Energy can’t be destroyed. Even in big bang theory the singularity that expanded was compressed energy. So is energy god?
So yes, for there to be something now something has always had to exist. That does not mean that substance has always been in the same state. But you can’t get something from nothing at all.
It also does not mean that there has always been a conscious being that created energy or used it to create us. The nature of energy seems to be sufficient. It’s nature is what we see in cause and effect, what works and what doesn’t, what is and what isn’t.
A Christian type god can’t be proven or falsified so it is of no use to speculate about it’s existence unless something is lacking in the process that could only be explained as the work of someone rather than a natural process.
So far that has not been the case. Energy seems perfectly self sufficient, and if it is that which always was, then there is no need for a conscious god to create it.
Is energy conscious? Well we are and we are energy in a specific configuration which creates the conditions for what we call consciousness or self awareness. Most other things are not. And is consciousness important? Not to a process, as far as I can tell.
So this idea makes a perfect alternative for a god because it is based in facts that we can see are true.
Is it the correct or complete model? We don’t know for sure but the probability is good, and in the absence of any real evidence of god, it is the logical model for now.
Slarty O'Brian,''Absolute Truth'' ,may be my opinion in light of ''truth of universe'',you have right to disagree the same but logical conclusion of ''God'' out of order of wonderful universe is the opinion of great scientists.God is not the model in the sense that He may be captured by the reason as He can never be confined nor defined completely but we may conclude Him from the perceivable wonders of universe as ''Mystery'', the most powerful requirement for science as Einstein viewed.Therefore,conscious God is not speculation but ''mystery'' of wonderful universe.
Scientists like ethologist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins?
" but we may conclude Him from the perceivable wonders of universe as ''Mystery''
But no we can not. That is exactly the point. To do so is just a guess, a filling in of the blanks with something that appeals to our senses. It might be nice to believe in a god, but there is no evidence for it even in mystery,
Mystery is wonderful and awe inspiring, but it does not automatically mean god. At least it does not automatically mean a conscious god. God as defined as what produced all this. The process of existence is amazing with or without one and more so to some without a god.
Slarty O'Brian,God is not guess,universe and life are the evidences of God but we have not observed God through our senses nor have observed Him creating universe,therefore,you may argue that we have not'' observed'' and ''experimented'' God as'' outer experience'' but you can never say that there is no evidence of God,in other words you can say that quality of evidence to find God as ''observable fact'' of science is not available but evidence of God for concluding Him rationally ,is available,we can say that according to ''scientific method'' we can not'' prove'' God but we can ''conclude'' God through ''reason'' and we can find Him through ''religious experience'',why atheists insist to prove God through scientific method when they know that scientific method is'' confined'' and God is'' unconfined''?,He can never be even'' captured'' by reason,however,He may be ''recognized ''by reason.
Take 453: Proof of God is the consciousness of each person.
Each individual consciousness is a drop of the ocean of consciousness. We are all one, but separated into individual entities and are thus seemingly separate.
Like a cut glass crystal with many facets. Choose any analogy you want. The essence of our beings is one with God as consciousness and the sense of self. How about that Sir S.B.? I would like a prize for getting what you are saying. I must be the first.
You are suggesting a cosmic consciousness. That would not be proof of a god, even if you could prove it is true.
All things are made of energy. Are you saying energy itself is conscious? It obviously has the potential to make things that are, but those things have to take on a particular configuration to be self aware.
Yes, that is right: God is Cosmic Consciousness. We all have consciousness when our brains are not shut down, so we are part of Cosmic Consciousness. Therefore we don't need proof, as we all are conscious.
But when our brains are shut down?
So are you saying there is nothing but god?
Then you are part of God and He is not part of you.
Moral of the story - never, ever accept a general anesthetic. God will leave you, Satan will enter and make you think you are flying around the room outside of your body.
If you were flying around the room, watching what was being done to your body, maybe you would not wish to step back into it - go find yourself a nicer body!
having had numerous out of body experiences on purpose I can tell you that you are tied to your body.
One technique of getting out is mastering non-thought. That is to say you enter a state of meditation where you focus out thought and instead push up a will you can feel in your solar plexus.
Once out you have to maintain this not thinking awareness. The first conscious thought that enters your mind snaps you back into your body,
Unfortunately, playing Grand Theft Body probably isn't possible. lol...
Yes, when the brain is shut down in sleep, our consciousness is still there. That is such a mystery isn't it? It relates to what happens when the body shuts down/ heart stops beating... what does happen afterwards????
My sources tell me that when you sleep that you are no longer conscious of yourself. That "self" becomes nothing more than an imagined thing, often naked in a group of people. Or flying around the sky.
We are conscious when we are awake and sometimes during elusive dreams. Anesthesiologist bring people in and out of consciousness all the time. Trauma to the head can have the same effect.
Kathryn L Hill, Thanks for comment,remarkable explanation, I am agreed with you . The essence of our beings is one with God as consciousness and the sense of self but perhaps,it was the wisdom of God to be manifested in the world of conflict of individual egos for development of independent egos for recognizing Him with will and freedom ,consequently,cruelty and accidents are possible aspects of ego realized in the world and objected by atheists.
That video is a riot.
Reminds me to keep away from Muslim men and thanks for the warning.
Slarty O'Brian, how do you believe that conscious is the result of brain and not the brain of conscious ? brain is an instrument and conscious is ,perhaps,its programming , brain is related with mechanics,conscious is with dynamics,one more important thing is ''uniformity'' that may be observed in physical and biological world,matter and life,atom and cell , perhaps,this'' uniformity'' has been named as ''soul'' by religion through religious experience,as ''self'' by philosophy through conscious,and as ''energy'' by science through physical perception,still this is mystery.
Very simple. When the body and brain is given anesthesia for surgery the person looses consciousness (awareness of self). The same happens is the brain is injured.
Rad Man,Slarty O'Brian,''very good example'',you mean when you will kill your dog ,he will die,it will be proof that dog is'' matter'', matter and brain are forms of ''uniformity'',when you affect forms,uniformity is affected.Reality is not matter and brain,reality is this uniformity of matter and brain whatever name you may assign to that,and test for the same is that you can never revive matter or brain even after repairing its defect after death as ''uniformity'' has gone or has been converted to the'' silent uniformity ''of matter,therefore,life is not mechanical like your motor car that may be repaired after destruction,it is ''ego'',''self'',''soul'' or ''uniformity'' and therefore dynamic.
When you die the energy that was you still exists but not as an individual. That is the uniformity you are talking about.
That energy dissipates and merges with other systems. Consciousness is a function of brain. Without memory you have no coherence for self.
As to how people die: The brain takes a large percentage of our oxygen to run. Without it the brain shuts down and like an engine without oil the parts become unusable.
Death is usually a cascade effect. One organ or anther shuts down and it causes the system to shut down, one organ after the other.
Now, you talk about the idea that we can’t repair people like we repair cars. By that you mean bring back the dead. And that is true so far. But that does not mean that in the future that won’t be an option in some cases.
We don’t know yet so you can’t categorically state that we can never do it. We will see.
Slarty O'Brian,energy is a mystery for time being for science,it can never define the same except as physical quality for doing work but its requirement as theoretically as dark energy for accelerated expansion of universe,its sameness in quantity in the whole universe,its change into different forms,its zero mass,its essence all are not completely understandable by science,therefore,at this stage of knowledge it is very difficult for us to define energy as we are observing its material aspect as you described its transformation after death that is the conversion of energy of dead body ,but I am unable to understand that how a'' machine'' of brain may produce consciousness,is there any other machine that produces consciousness ? further,if life is not more than a state of mater and machine then why it does not work again automatically when you have repaired it ? if one is died because of heart attack why he never comes to life after maintaining his heart system? if living cells are dead why the same are not brought back to life after treatment ? this confirms that life is not mechanical or chemical or biological but it is ''spiritual'' .its appearance is mechanical, chemical or biological,its essence is spiritual,this is what I stated as UNIFORMITY.
Energy is clearly not just the ability to do work. You are a few years behind in your science. There is nothing but energy.
As to machines not being able to create consciousness, that remains to be seen and the probability is that we will be able to make conscious machines eventually. Consciousness emerges from a set of conditions,
I already answered as to why we can not yet repair dead people. But that does not mean we will not be able to eventually.
There is no evidence for a soul at all. Souls are just a mechanism the imagination has created to cheat death. But no one gets out of here alive.
Slarty O'Brian, If modern science is aware of essence of energy then explain what is energy? it has zero mass,it is infinity ,its conservation in the universe and it has different forms,what is more about energy ? how it has zero mass and what is its meaning? Consciousness is freedom,knowledge,belief and creativity and all aspects of ego,you mean science will make a machine having all that and having ego? in the world of mechanics ,it is possible? Then we must wait for rejection of the concept of soul till our capability of making alive dead? perhaps, no scientific evidence is available for soul,but we have rationale evidence for the same,and that is conscious of self.
Are you incapable of researching this yourself or is this just a classic misdirection tactic?
What is energy? What is anything? I can’t tell you in a meaningful way what anything is. What is an apple, really? I can describe it to you, but each time you can ask: But what is it really? I can even then tell you that at it’s core, an apple is energy. Then you will ask what energy is.
The way we identify things is by how they act/behave. Taste and smells are included in the term behaviour. Energy is every thing. There is no “thing” that is not made of energy. That is to say atoms and atomic particles.
There is nothing but energy. Look in a mirror. There is energy without mass, but there is no mass without energy.
Why does it not have mass? Such a question shows that you need to study physics before arguing against it. Matter is just energy in a variegated form. That is what is meant by E=Mc squared. If you want to know how energy/matter gets mass, I’ll tell you.
The standard model of physics postulates a big bang. That is to say that all the energy now in the universe expanded from a much more condensed state to what it is now. At that time the energy of the universe could not interact to form things as it normally travels at the speed of light.
A few moments after the BB something appeared to change all that. We call it the Higgs field. It was just shown to exist through experiment recently.
What it does is slow some forms of energy to below light speed. All forms in fact except photons (light) and a few other particles. It would be for you like trying to run in water.
The Higgs field is everywhere. At sub light speeds simple atoms can form and eventually stars formed which created all the other atoms we have today.
Through the laws of physics, and in particular the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy, all things have come to be.
These laws are not rules, they are simply the ways in which energy behaves. “If this, then that.” Cause and effect.
So when you ask what energy is I can only tell you what it is by how it behaves.
Matter is not mass and mass is not matter. Again, matter exists because of the Higgs field which gives energy mass. Mass is the amount of resistance to acceleration a thing has, and is often confused with weight. However mass is not weight, as in space mass still exists but is weightless.
Anything else? Just ask.
“ Then we must wait for rejection of the concept of soul till our capability of making alive dead? “
Why? What will that prove? We bring people back from the dead all the time. However this can only happen shortly after death as the body quickly begins to deteriorate upon shut down of vital organs. Why assume a soul either way?
“perhaps, no scientific evidence is available for soul, but we have rationale evidence for the same, and that is conscious of self.”
Consciousness is not evidence of anything but consciousness.
Surely, a "thing" is only "thing" if it has form, as percieved in our human terms.
If energy is without mass and is infinite, then it has no form and is No Thing.
Therefore it is nothing to worry yourself about
Air is not visible and has no form. Would you say it is nothing?
Air has a form. It's just a really big one.
It extends to about 100 km around the earth.
So technically, Air's form is a sphere.
Air most certainly has form. It has weight, creates pressure on its surrounds, has other properties that can be measure and prooven, repeatedly.
Visibility with your eyes is such a limited judgement. Your brain is capable of much more if you allow it
Conscious of self only serves to show the brain is functioning correctly. If someone is in a coma, they are not conscious of anything, let alone themselves.
Based on your claims, a person in a coma has no soul.
A Troubled Man, a person in coma has no conscious of soul,but has soul.absence of conscious is not absence of self,it is simply absence of knowledge of self.
But, you said the conscious is the same as the soul? Are you saying something different now? Changing your claims?
So, you are changing your claims now, the conscious is NOT the soul? Correct?
A Troubled Man,Conscious is the aspect or evidence of soul not the soul,we all are conscious of our selves,therefore,we all know and believe our selves or souls,absence of conscious is not absence of self.
Slarty O'Brian,science does not know that what is energy ? energy is not every thing, energy is in the form of matter, you know matter is made up of atom but energy is made up of what? ,photon has zero mass,if you know form or matter it does not mean you know energy,what is essence of energy? science is not in position to define energy,it is just trying to understand the same through matter and not more than it ,does it exists independent of matter? how ? it is not visible,it is not result of matter,it has zero mass,it is infinity,but it is found in the form of matter,these all attributes are of soul except one,that is the measurement of energy,soul ,perhaps, can never be measured, if we can never measure soul,it does not necessarily mean there is no soul whereas we know we are not only physical and mechanical being,we are more than it,therefore,it will be ridicule to suppose ourselves as'' machines'' just for not having capability of measurement of spiritual being.
Couldn't get through the first half without seeing blatant lies. Because you don't understand something doesn't mean other people don't as well. Energy is well understood.
I think I explained myself rather well. If you can define or explain what matter really is without doing so by telling me what it does and how it behaves then you might have a point.
Your problem is that you need to study physics before you attack it. Otherwise you will remain confused.
Is there energy without matter? Yes. Matter has mass. A photon does not, hence it is energy. So light is pure energy. When matter and anti matter come together they violently destroy each other. What is left? Pure energy. Photons.
So what is a photon? We know what it does. We can give it a name and we can tell a story about it. The story is about how it behaves,
Rad Man,Energy is understood to the extent what I stated not more than it ,science does know essence of energy.
Slarty O'Brian,you can never bring a dead body to life after complete death,why ?,it proves that life is not simple'' order of matter'',it is more than it,it is not a simple chemical composition that may be revived,it is more than it,you must first prove that you can do it,then you may claim that life is not more than material and chemical order.You have conscious of you,you can never deny it,although,you are'' mystery ''for you ,therefore,your conscious is proving yourself not only conscious.apple is not only apple,it is fruit and eaten,your conscious is not only conscious,it is conscious of your self and you are a ''mystery''.
Oh yes, I wanted to say that we are amazing systems. I wouldn't call us machines. But I do not even know that there is a spiritual side to anything.
Can you tell me how that spiritual side behaves and can you show me through experiment?
"Slarty O'Brian,you can never bring a dead body to life after complete death,why ?"
Because the entire system starts to rot and degrade very quickly when the organs fail. They become unusable. The brain becomes damaged the longer it is without oxygen. 5 minutes after death there is already a lot of brain damage but we can still revive some people. After 20 minutes you can forget it. Revive you then and you will no more than a vegetable.
Are you serious here? Are you actually trying to use Slarty's ignorance of how to reanimate as proof that there is something besides matter in a body? I know I've told you over and over that ignorance is evidence of ignorance and nothing else; why are you now trying to use it as evidence of soul, spirit and a god?
It is, after all, only ignorance of the mechanics of reanimation.
wilderness,you never got my point and are trying to take your old defense of ''ignorance'' for protecting atheism,my point is very simple,if life is ''mechanical'' then you must be capable of reviving the same after complete death through treatment of the same,this is not the problem of absence of knowledge,this is the problem of absence of spiritual essence,science can save you from dying to some extent and for some period but can never make you alive after death because essence of life is out of scope of science.
Science has started many hearts that have stopped beating. Unfortunately the brain doesn't like being shut down for long and doesn't do well without oxygen for even a short a period of time.
Make you a deal: you quite trying use ignorance (yours or anyone else's) as proof of your supernatural concepts and I'll quite pointing out that ignorance is only proof of ignorance and nothing else. Quit saying, for instance, that if I don't know how to perform a mechanical function of some kind it shows God, or spirit, or demon or any other irrelevant concept. Quit saying that because I cannot construct a Saturn V rocket and put people on the moon it proves that God lifted the astronauts up there back when we still had a space program.
Slarty O'Brian,The spiritual side is not subject to science otherwise it had been possible for science to make alive the dead body but we have rational evidences for the same,for example,your conscious of yourself, your conscious of justice and truth,your beliefs ,your freedom,your reason etc,all these are not the physical or mechanical or chemical qualities.
Slarty O'Brian,If we are simply body or matter,we must come to life after treatment ,what is death of cell and why science can never bring a cell back to life?
Your proof, please that science will never bring a dead cell back to life? As opposed to not having done so to date?
Bear in mind that science has already partially disassembled the DNA of a living cell, leaving it stone dead, and rebuilt that DNA from off the shelf chemicals whereupon the cell came back to life when you answer. You might take a look at this video, where Ventner is describing artificial life, built by man rather than a pretend god.
http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_u … _life.html
Slight correction there please Wilderness. "Science" is the enquiry, the study, the research and knowledge bit. "Technology," the application of that scientific knowledge is what allows the preservation of life by the human species. There is no "god" involved except that which fills the mind that finds the scientific road too hard going
Exactly. Does a cell have a soul? If not then how is it alive? And if not then it shows that a soul is not required.
Rad Man,Then wait till that when science will be successful to bring back the dead brain for your idea of rejection of spiritual essence and do not do hurry to rule out the possibility of soul.
Slarty O'Brian, My point was inability of science to make alive the dead body or dead cell, it proves for the time being that life is not simply material,chemical or biological order but more than it .
That is a very poor argument. Just because scientists cannot create life or bring dead cells back to life has nothing to do with life being biological and chemical. It does not show at all that there is more to it. Cells and living organisms took many millions of years of evolution to develop, scientist don't have millions of years to work on creating life or bringing dead organisms back to life. Scientists only have laboratories to work in while life was generated on a planetary scale, not even remotely the same thing.
You need to start thinking before making such childish and immature claims.
Wilderness,''Ignorance'' is not my argument but'' inability'' to bring back to life,even after treatment of ''cause of death'',is my argument,for example,one is died due to heart attack,he must come to life after treatment of his heart,if he is not a spiritual being and if he is simply ,a physical ,biological or mechanical being, you can never bring back a mosquito even after removing its disorder because of absence of soul after its expiry, therefore,you must wait till making alive a mosquito for your theory of rejection of spiritual essence .
Many people have been kept alive after a heart attack. The flaw in your argument is that you are attempting to insert superstition and complicate the process and our understanding of brain death. The brain handles thought and bodily functions, but can't store oxogen or glucose. The brain can survive for up to about six minutes after the heart stops. The body of a brain dead person can be kept alive with machines that pump blood and assist breathing. It's really just that simple, when the brain stops functioning all thought stops and decomposition starts. Your superstition can be cut out with Occam's razor and brain death becomes much less complicated and precise. In other words your superstitions are not needed to explain death or why the brain dead can't be brought back to life.
A Troubled Man,It is childish thinking to think that inability of science to bring back to life is very poor argument as science has failed to bring to life a dead body after treatment of its disorder,this is not problem of ignorance of science,this is the problem of inability of science to become successful in this respect even after removing the disorder of cause of death,they just cal for ''soul'' of the expiring person through pumping but when fail in reviving him,they are helpless after his complete death and can never'' set in motion'' the'' life machine''after'' repair'' ,this is ample proof of spiritual essence of life.
Again, many people have survived heart attacks and drowning. Many hearts have been repaired and the person goes on to live good long lives. It's when the person is brain dead that live stops because it's the brian that controls the heart and lungs and thought.
wilderness,There is some debate within the scientific community over whether this cell can be considered completely synthetic on the grounds that:the chemically synthesized genome was an almost 1:1 copy of a naturally occurring genome and, the recipient cell was a naturally occurring bacterium. The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be "creating life from scratch" but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA."
All true, as a matter of definition. Also all irrelevant to the question of "can science create life". A dead cell was brought to life; science made it live without any god touching it. Venter's statement about creating life out of life was a little sloppy; they created life out of a dead organism that used to be alive.
Will the next objection be that if we don't start with pure energy, changing it to mass and forming the needed elements and atoms with it, that it isn't "creating life" as well? This objection is like saying that a chef baking a cake isn't making that cake "from scratch" because he didn't start with wheat seeds but rather with flour.
Wilderness, while this is incredibly fascinating stuff, it's not exactly as you're stating. They're not creating life or bringing a previously dead thing back to life. They're transplanting synthetically formed chromosomes into a host cell. Cells that are very much alive as he explains during a portion of it that some cells have defense mechanisms that work against what they're trying to do. They're replacing the cell's natural blueprint with a synthetic one of their making.
We're simply learning an already established language, trying to decode it and understand it. This would be the equivalent of finally decoding a phrase written on a tablet in an ancient language, learning to read it and write in it, then concluding that these marks were naturally formed by the environment and not by an intelligent being.
You hold in your mind a concept of god that you're then using this example to rule out. But this is only if your concept of a god is one in which this god manually manipulates natural processes in some way, making life some sort of 'un-natural' occurrence. While, in actuality, the 'design' is not in manipulation, but in how these 'natural' components work. It's in the 'chemistry'. It's in how polynucleotides replicate 'naturally', how lipids bind together and form spherical structures that allow nucleotides to pass through going in but don't allow polynucleotides to pass back out. It's in all the 'natural' behaviors that come together to collectively become something far greater than the individual parts. Parts that we may find we're able to put together in a lab and replicate because that's how these things behave... 'naturally'.
If you're looking for God then looking for some invisible hand manipulating natural processes is not the way to go. Why would the creator/designer of the natural world then need to manipulate and override His own design? What you should be looking for are things like an incredibly complex and sophisticated form of language that, much like our own intelligently formed language/writing, facilitates the retention and passing on of information so that what would normally be 'random' occurrences become accumulative so that it can build upon itself and become something truly remarkable. That's a sign of intelligent intent/design.
As I understood it, a bacteria was killed by removing the DNA/RNA. The string was destroyed and rebuilt with off the shelf chemicals, then re-inserted back into the dead cell. Note here that to "live" requires the ability to reproduce; something a cell without DNA cannot do. The collection of chemicals (dead cell) may well have "resisted" the DNA insertion, but that does mean it is alive. Metallic sodium will resist the insertion of water, and most violently, but that does not make it alive.
No, the sequence of chemicals on a DNA string is not a "language". It is not even communication at all, any more that the affinity of hydrogen and oxygen for each other is. Or the north and south poles of magnets. It is "information" only in that humans have assigned it that way; again the "information" in a construction of water, hydrogen ions lead and sulfate ions is not different. Chemicals react is specific ways, but that is not normally considered to be "information".
If you wish to define God as the totality of nature, or as the "laws" that we think nature operates under, that would be your privilege. It is far different than an extra universal creature, loving humanity, that most Christians subscribe to, but it is your privilege. Closer perhaps to the pagan religions of the distant past, worshiping trees, animals, fusing hydrogen and even dead balls of dirt without a hint of life.
The ability to replicate alone does not define something as alive. It's homeostasis, organization, growth, metabolism, adaptation, and response to stimuli, all of which a cell would still have, even without its DNA code. That last one being one and the same as those defense mechanisms.
When something is sequenced in such a patterned way that it can reproduce the same results as previously, that is information/language. DNA accomplishes the exact same thing that language does. It is information that is retained and passed on. Just as language and writing does for us, it allows for accumulation. Much like we learn from and add to our accumulated knowledge through language and writing from one generation to the next, so too does genetic information.
There is no difference between what I'm talking about and the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God. According to them He is the creator of the natural world. He, therefore, exists apart from this universe and is the architect of nature and its laws. A personal God who 'loves humanity' comes with free will, or the capability to behave of our own volition and not just at the whim of nature or of our physical/biological make-up. Science is all about understanding how the natural world 'works/behaves'. If we, unlike anything else in nature, really can behave of our own volition then that is something that A) this God deliberately intended, and B) makes possible/necessary love, commandments, judgement, etc.
Isn't that what is described in the OT? Giving his people rules to live by for a specific outcome? Flooding and killing people and animals for a specific outcome?
No intent/design required, just the evolution of human survival in a hostile environment, much like that of the prairie dog. New research may show that the prairie dog just may be a more effective communicator that us.
Let a prairie dog whistle "DANGER" and the only one left out will be a small pup that hasn't learned to "talk" yet.
Let a person shout it in a crowd and half of them will stick their heads as high as possible, saying "Wha? Wha's a matter?"
Which one communicates better?
Not the best example. Because a group of prairie dogs is a cohesive community. A crowd of people aren't banded together as a community in the same manner. If a group of peopl who were either family, or a group who knew each other as well as a group of prairie dogs does were in a situation where the group knew danger lurked about and someone called out a warning, i doubt even the young who couldn't speak would be left alone to fend for themselves against that danger.
From what I've read the prairie dog communicates the same information we do (about their surrounding) at a much fast less attention grabbing way.
Well, the last prairie dog i talked to stated emphatically that someone grossly over exaggerated their abilities. Maybe he was just being humble. I don't know.
They're language is apparently much to quick for us to understand. I can tell you that my dog understands most of what we say. We continually have to find other ways to talk about going for a walk. I shouldn't have typed that. He's all excited now.
Those rules given in the OT, that flood, that all had to do with free will. That's what the whole thing is about. Human behavior being contrary to God's will is the central theme of the whole thing. The first chapter describes all of creation becoming what He wills it to be without question. Then comes Adam who breaks the one and only rule he was given. It's the ability to behave contrary to God, an ability deliberately given, that makes all the rest of that necessary.
Evolution wouldn't have happened without intelligent intent/design as it first requires matter/chemicals to behave in very particular ways and work together in very particular ways for any of the rest of it to happen. All of this coming into being totally haphazardly, like a sophisticated system of information/language, is highly unlikely.
But he did (according the bible) interfere with us to get a determined result, so why not look for that interference when one looks for God?
Actually evolution could only happen without an IDer. Human survival depended on our ability to adapt, and adapt we did. The designer can be cut out with Occam's razor and the entire process run perfectly. As a matter of fact the number of deadly human parasites precludes a designer, as it suggests the parasites were intended and are just as important or perhaps even more important than us as perhaps we were designed for their feeding. Perhaps humans misunderstood the purpose of the universe. To feed the guinea worm.
Yes, you're right. He did interfere. With us. We're the one exception to the rule. We're the only ones with free will. The only ones that behave, not according to His will/natural law, but according to our own volition. So, it was only necessary where humans were concerned. But the natural world, it isn't necessary, so it doesn't make sense to look for it.
As for evolution and parasites and such, this just has more to do with what you assume should be the case if a designer were involved. In your mind, struggle and parasites and death shouldn't exist. Why? Based on what? Struggle and adaptation are what make us strong. Just as struggle and challenges in life make you stronger emotionally and help shape who you are, so too does struggle for the sake of survival. Challenges, parasites, predators, extreme conditions, these forged us into what we are today. You're assuming there should be no death or struggle or hardship if a designer were involved, but that assumes that the intent of the designer was a place with no death or struggle. But what kind of life experience would that be? There's a saying I heard recently... "Calm sees do not make good captains". What would be the point of all of this if it was just a cakewalk? If life were this ideal that you imagine it should be if it were deliberately intended?
"Why? Based on what? "
Based on a loving god that has the ability to accomplish the same goals without causing pain.
"What would be the point of all of this if it was just a cakewalk?"
But what is the point if it is NOT a cakewalk? Sadism of the creator that, again, could have had the same goals without the pain, hurt and despair.
So, from a parent's perspective, which is the more 'loving' option... to allow your child out into the world knowing full well they will experience hurt and pain and despair? Or shielding your child from that throughout their entire life, never letting them out on their own and sparing them all of that? Which is more loving?
Do you consider it sadism for couples to conceive children? Because both parties, assuming their of sound mind and body, know full well that means they're guaranteeing that child they're creating will experience hurt and pain and despair and heart break and, eventually, they will experience their own death. All of this BECAUSE this couple conceived them. But is it not those things that give the good times in life value? Does death not make life what it is? Pain and suffering and hurt and despair give us the perspective to know when times are good. Sadness defines happiness.
Is this ideal of a 'loving god' you hold really loving?
As a parent with a 3 or 4 year old I would have wished I could have waved a magic wand and taught the child to stay out of the street. Because I am limited in my abilities to teach and don't have a wand, it came to the point (actually hit by a car, which he found hilarious) when that child received a whipping bad enough he could not sit down. In my ignorance and limited abilities I figured better to hurt him quite badly than to buy a coffin.
Does your concept of God include those kinds of limitations then? Or is He, as I was always taught, omnipotent and could have solved the car problem with a figurative wave of His hand?
And sadness does NOT define happiness; it merely gives a point of reference to apply labels with. The emotional feeling of happiness would be there whether one was sad the day before or not; the sadness just points out the difference to us. Much like saying we should beat our head with a hammer because it feels so good when we stop.
That's a perfect example. That boy has a will of his own. If there were a magic wand that would mean you would have had a means of robbing your boy of his own will and forcing him to behave according to yours. Is that really better? Is it not the mistakes we make in life that ultimately shape who we are? Which are the most defining moments in your life that shaped you? Those moments where all was well and you were content, or those moments when you were challenged?
Yes, this ideal life with no pain or death is possible, but only if everything works according to one unified will. But with free will it's a different story.
Happiness would not be happiness without sadness. It would just be the norm. Death gives life urgency. Pain and suffering and eventual death makes those moments with loved ones in good health something to cherish. Because they're fleeting. Because they are not the norm.
He only interferes with us, no need to look elsewhere?
If he purposely puts barriers in our way then he interferes elsewhere. If he created creatures for the sole purpose of torturing us then he did in fact interfere with the natural world. As I said before the only logical reason a God would create a parasite that only feeds on humans would be for the survival of that parasite. Perhaps our sole purpose is to feed the guinea worm. Was the entire universe designed for the guinea worm?
Barriers aren't interference. This is a finite world. There's going to be interaction and there's going to be conflict. These are the things that shape and make life. But that's not interference. That's just inevitable. Interference is when the natural course is altered. Which is exactly what those ancient stories describe. Only when God introduced free will did He have to interfere.
You're right though, ultimately. If existence is as you say, purely material, if there is no spiritual soul that lives on, then yes, ultimately the purpose of humanity is to feed the continuing cycle of life. We'll feed the worms and the cycle will continue until humans are gone forever before the universe eventually just settles into cold nothingness.
You say he doesn't interfere and then say he does and then you say he just puts up barriers, but barriers are not interference. But they are. An Omni everything God must have created cancer and the guinea worm and other parasites that only feed off humans.
Time is not an illusion, the arrow of time explains this in the second law of thermal dynamics. However free will is a necessary illusion for two reasons. As I said earlier the universe will eventually die and is steadily moving from order to disorder. Our will is irrelevant to our destruction. We are victims to our brain chemistry and every decision is based on that chemistry.
Plus stating that we have the free will to chose to submit to Gods will is in direct violation to free will. As we are not given the required information to make an intelligent decision.
I said He only interferes where necessary. The only cases documented were when He initially introduced free will. Those are the stories of Genesis. These are the documented cases of the few times God directly intervened. All else is 'natural'. You speak as if cancer and guinea worms or obstacles are bad. So, are you saying death is bad? Would it be a good thing if we somehow solved every 'problem' that results in our death? Can you maybe see an issue coming from that? Death is necessary. Death makes room for new life and death ensures that nobody, no matter how evil or powerful, lasts for very long.
Besides, we don't know God created cancer. We're not sure what created cancer. It could very well be of our own making. Chemicals we introduce into the environment, additives and preservatives in food, immunization shots. We don't know. But this idea that anything that harms us is bad isn't exactly realistic. The only thing that makes death seem bad is our own ego wanting to avoid something we know to be coming. It's only our ego that has the gall to think we deserve to live longer. It's a rather selfish concept that is yet another example of how we don't fit in the natural world like everything else does.
Time is an illusion and is relative to the observer. Change the speed in which your traversing space and time changes as well. This has very recently become even more clear ...
"An amplituhedron is a geometric structure discovered in 2013 that underlies simplified calculation of particle interactions in some quantum field theories. In planar N = 4 supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory an amplituhedron is defined within a mathematical space known as the Positive Grassmannian.
Amplituhedron theory challenges the notion that space-time locality and unitarity are necessary components of a model of particle interactions. Instead, they are properties that emerge from an underlying phenomenon." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron
"Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality.... No one knows quite what to make of this discovery. But the new amplituhedron research suggests space-time, and therefore dimensions, may be illusory anyway." - https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta … m-physics/
"Plus stating that we have the free will to chose to submit to Gods will is in direct violation to free will. As we are not given the required information to make an intelligent decision."
But we are given the required information. It's all in how you choose to see it.
Which means he does interfere.
I said nothing of death. "All else is natural" But didn't he according to you create everything including evolution in order for us to be here knowing how it would turn out, cancer and parasites included? Why the parasites? Parasites make perfect sense from a world without a God but no sense with a world with a God.
We fit perfectly into the natural world. Everything avoids death and pain and everything is being attacked internally by parasites. Parasites can alter brain chemistry and make us and other animals do things that put us in harms way.
that's no an illusion it's a fact. It's also a fact that the universe is headed in only one directions and that direction is disorder.
We are not given the required information to make an informed decision. A book written a few thousand years ago full of contradictions is no more the required information than the Quran or the Book of Mormon. Prayer doesn't even work. We have no way of know if there is a God or 1000 Gods or which God is the correct version. Not enough information. Let God reveal himself so we can all make an informed decision.
According to me, the entirety of existence is a finite/temporary environment created specifically to create and foster free will. Free will is a dangerous/destructive element. Death, obstacles, parasites, cancer, anything and everything, creates an environment that challenges us. Makes us face things. Face decisions.
I agree the universe is heading for an eventual end and that it's beyond our power to do anything about it. That's the point. There's only one way out and that's through death. And anything not in alignment with the creator cannot traverse that.
We do have the information. And it's not through an ancient book. It's all around you. It's the natural world itself. Views of atheism, as our history clearly shows, are the exception, not the rule. You have to 'reason away' God. We know instinctively that something came before us, something came before our parents, something came before them, etc. And It's also internal. Spiritual. It's all there. Seek and ye shall find. It's found through humility. You're demanding the parameters be to your liking. That's not how it works. You want confirmation before you'll accept. That's not how it works. Life is a test and it always has been. Prayer does work because I've experienced it and have no doubt. That's how I met my wife and how I found the job that's carried me for the past 10 years. God's existence is obvious. The rest, the particulars, is between you and Him.
All of this to experiment with the idea of free will? I get that when it was thought the earth was the centre of the universe and the universe was just this galaxy, but we know that's not the case and we are on but one of billions of planets. Free will is completely irrelevant to our existence and to the existence of the universe. It is however something our relatively advanced brains like to speculate about.
Sorry, I don't have the relevant information to speculate as to wether a God exists as I have no information that suggest we are any different than any other animals. The information we do have suggests we are parasite food.
But that isn't really true. You do have information that suggests we're different. Just look at our behavior compared to other mammals. Look at what we do, what we make, and why. Some of it can be attributed to a more advanced brain, or having opposable thumbs, but not all of it. We actually act more like a virus or a parasite than other mammals, just as it was aptly pointed out by Agent Smith in the Matrix ...
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus."
He's right, though there was a time when humans, like every other mammal species, developed that natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, that changed relatively recently.
As for your statements about free will, keep in mind that space, as well as time, is an illusion. Take, for example, the crystallization of compounds. If you crystallize a particular compound that has not been crystallized previously, it can take a good amount of time. However, if someone on one side of the planet crystallizes that compound, then someone else on the other side of the planet does the same, the second one to do it won't take as long. It's as if these compounds 'learned' from the previous crystallization process and then managed to do the same thing faster, though they were thousands of miles apart from one another. Do it again and it's faster than the first two, regardless of where it was done. So, point being, though to you and I there may seem to be a large impossible to traverse span of space between this point and that, that's really just an illusion we're under.
Rupert Sheldrake suggests this is a sign of what he calls morphic resonance, where two like objects that are structurally/atomically identical have a kind of shared collective memory because the resonance of their vibrations kind of sync up to allow them to in a way 'learn' from one another's experiences, no matter the distance in between. Whether or not there's any truth to this hypothesis is uncertain, but the evidence it points to in support of it is... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
Regardless of how little space or time it may seem we take up in the 'grand scheme', free will is still very much relevant. The universe, like a complex symphony, seems gigantic and complex. Yet, like a symphony which is made up of the same 12 notes (or less) as every other piece of music you've ever heard, the component pieces of this universe aren't actually that numerous. It's still the same fundamental elements. There's a lot of symmetry across these vast expanses of space that we share in common with it. So don't be too quick to deem this or that 'irrelevant'.
All mammals are different from each other. All mammals make decision that can be seen as contrary to nature. All you need to do is look for it. My dog sometimes jumps up on the couch when he thinks we are not looking. He'll steel food when he sometimes knows he will get caught. He barks when he knows he shouldn't. Whales sometimes beach themselves for no reason we can find. Chimps sometimes kill each other.
I'll try to come back to the rest later.
Chemicals are based on atoms and atoms/energy has very specific rules that guide its every reaction to stimulus from other atoms. Those rules/ that nature is what creates chemistry and gives it it's rules/nature to follow.
This is a matter of layer upon layer, each layer creating the next through it's interactions. No intelligence seems to be required to have started it. Life is nature and interaction/cause and effect.
You can argue that a creator god exists, but not that it is mandatory that one does. There is no reason to think so at this point.
There's plenty of reason to think so at this point.
It's exactly as you said. Layer upon layer, with each creating the next, becoming more and more complex. All of it set in motion over 13 billion years ago. Just the interaction between matter/energy and those laws created all the particles, atoms, molecules, elements, stars, planets, complex multi-celled organisms, consciousness, intelligence, reason, etc. All of this in one shot. Like one ripple caused by one single droplet, with everything this universe is being the result of that single event. Only one known universe, one singularity, nothing more than matter/energy reacting to the environment the laws of this universe create, resulted in all of this. Including you and I consciously having a conversation.
Nobody knows the origin of that singularity, but there's good reason the physicists of the world are more and more turning to explanations that involve multiple universes like string and m-theory. It's because of the utter improbability of this one universe being the one and only and forming as it did haphazardly. You're right, nobody can say what is or isn't mandatory for this universe to exist as it does. Nobody knows what is or isn't required. But to say there's no reason to think a creator god exists isn't true. Some postulate entire other universes to try to explain this one. Postulating intelligence, considering intelligence is a natural occurrence, is just as valid, and, in my mind at least, the more likely explanation.
Right, a God created billions of galaxies each with billions of stars and planets for the sole purpose of creating something to worship him. Eventually this universe will die and will remain unchanging for eternity. Rather wasteful I might say.
Both time and space are just an illusion from our perspective, so what you see as wasteful really isn't. And it's not that the sole purpose was to create something to worship Him. The purpose was to create beings with minds/wills of their own. Love isn't love if there's no choice. Your wife willfully choosing to share her life and have a family with you is much more meaningful than just being genetically/biologically predisposed to do so. Doing the 'right' thing, doing a 'good' deed, would just be natural behavior and not a choice you willfully decided to do. The need for us to acknowledge God as the authority and creator is simply a necessity, because of free will, in much the same way that acknowledging the authority of those who set and enforce traffic laws is a necessity for the roadway system to work as it does.
Free will is not very applicable when the alternative becomes too strong. Most certainly I took any "free will" from that child; although he technically could still run into the street, the result was SO negative he would not. From a practical standpoint then, there was no free will because I took it away.
And yes, absolutely I would have done so without the pain if I could have. So can an omnipotent God.
Just as an omnipotent God does not need the fear of Hell to push people to do His bidding. He doesn't need to burn people for eternity as the alternative to following His orders. Either He is omnipotent and can do as He pleases or He is not; if not then the Christian myth of an omnipotent creature out there somewhere is just that; myth.
Free will is still free will. You just created a consequence in an attempt to sway how he chooses in the future. If there were no free will then there'd be no need to create that consequence. So free will is still very much applicable as it's what makes the whole scenario necessary.
Being an omnipotent God means nothing if free will is to be free. Yes God could override our decisions, protect us from bad things ever happening, stop events before anyone gets hurt, but then there'd be no point to creating free will at all. If God intervened all along the way then you no longer have free will. If there's no potential for harmful outcomes then there's no real choice. Sticking your hand into a fire take a loved one out of a painful situation is a choice that matters. Mustard or mayo is a choice that doesn't.
If you could have taught your child without pain then chances are he'd just end up getting hurt somewhere else. Lessons are often learned the hard way. That's just how we do it. We can tell them not to touch the hot stove, but they have to find out what hot even is somehow. You can't explain it. They just have to experience it. Until they do, then they don't really know the danger. It's just a concept you keep carrying on about that they're not familiar with.
As for hell, it says "... that whosoever believes in him will not perish...". Eternal torment is not perishing. People, religious institutions, these are the ones who come up with a concept of eternal punishment in an attempt to control the behavior of the willful masses. When I read it, it is only the fire that is eternal, not the torment. If you do not willfully choose to acknowledge the authority of the creator then you're like a cancerous cell in a body not acknowledging the DNA code of that body. Do you think it's wrong to remove harmful/cancerous cells from a body? Do we remove cancerous cells, or try to eradicate them with radiation, as a way to discourage future cancerous behavior? Or is it a necessity so the body can continue living?
'Perishing' is not a threat to push you to do His bidding. It would be pointless to create free will at all if His desire were for you to only do His bidding. It's simply necessary. Like traffic laws. There must be laws and there must be an authority to establish and enforce those laws so that we can all willfully go where ever we want using those roadways safely. Someone who does not acknowledge those laws and that authority become a danger to everyone else, hindering the whole system.
Seems that that is a part of the problem. You are treating free will as some sort of golden god in an of itself, but in truth there is precious little free will in our lives. We cannot choose whether to believe in a god or not. We cannot choose to seriously harm a child we love. We cannot choose where to work or what to purchase. Our choices are limited everywhere we turn, and very often those choices are merely "yes/no" things that we cannot affect.
Your hot stove is a good analogy and usually apt. But my grandson never had to touch it at all - he is a very cautious child and learned from our words. After listening to several renditions of "Look out! Hot! Will burn!" he was too afraid to come close enough to get burned. What free will did he have? He literally could not overcome that training. No pain necessary to produce that condition of no practical free will, and if I can do it, so can a god.
Add in your god, taking away more of that supposed free will by imposing enormous consequences (yes, hell burns people - all of the major religions say so and I will certainly take their word over a single individual) for "wrong" actions and there is even fewer real instances in which we have a real choice.
Just as I did not (perceive) a real choice in harming that child, so god gives us precious little choice in what He demands. To think otherwise to maintain the fiction that we have free will is wrong.
Belief in God is a choice, because there's no way to factually prove one way or the other.
As for the rest, who really created those limitations you're speaking of? Limitations to where you can work, what you're 'legally' allowed to do, what you can buy, these choices are created by you, me, and every other willful human. Society is a human invention. Created by free will. The only limitations we have are the physical limitations of being made of flesh/matter. But our minds, our minds are free to do whatever we want. We can harm a child, or help a child. We can choose to buy a rifle and shoot into a crowd, or we can choose to buy lunch for a random stranger across the restaurant. Much like we do as parents, laws and consequences are put in place BECAUSE people can do harmful things. So they're created as a deterrent.
I was much like your grandchild from the sounds of it. I was very timid and would take heed what my parents said, to a fault. It was a difficult thing to overcome because ultimately I was so afraid of getting hurt, or of failing, that I wouldn't try anything. It took a long time for me to come into my own because of that. Life is funny that way. No matter your approach, there's still a meaningful lesson to be learned. My lesson was to not be so timid or I'd end up never actually trying anything. And it's only those things you try where there's risk of failure that feels so rewarding.
As for taking the word of religious institutions over an individual, consider this. Which has more motivation to say one thing over another? What good does it do me to tell you that you do, or do not, burn in hell? I'm not trying to drum up attendance. You're welcome to read it however you like or take the word of whoever you like, for whatever reason. But when I read it, and assess as honestly as I know how to, I do not read it at all like those institutions insist it is. I could be totally wrong, but it seems to me an institution is only an institution if you somehow found a way to become/maintain one. Besides, Judaism doesn't believe in hell, because in the OT 'hell' is simply a grave. And I'm not sure Muslims do either. I'm pretty sure that's a purely Christian thing. Mainly Catholicism and all the variations that branched off of that.
"Belief in God is a choice, because there's no way to factually prove one way or the other. "
While a popular Christian claim as it maintains the fiction that their god loves all, it cannot be farther from the truth. A great many people cannot simply decide to believe that particular myth is true, any more than you could decide to really believe there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and spend the rest of your life foregoing your family in a futile search for that pot.
"As for the rest, who really created those limitations you're speaking of? " Not the person you are claiming has the free will to work where they wish or eat what they want to. If you don't have money, you cannot choose to buy that rifle or the dinner for a stranger, either. No free will at all, then.
So for years you had no free will as a child. The emotion of fear overrode all thought and desire, leaving nothing but "Danger! Stay away!". Not much free will there, either.
I understand what you're saying about Hell (and actually agree ), but it is irrelevant to the point. As a non-believer, I must pick which version to believe in and there is no real choice (for me - others will be different). I cannot simply choose to believe the words of a single individual over those of respected and educated scholars the world over - that does not make sense and cannot be done. No free will for me, then - logic dictates what the choice will be. Saying that logic is free will is also illogical (LOL) as is not true. It is built in and cannot simply be ignored.
And that choice says God is a devil, burning people for eternity for his own cause or entertainment. A cause He will not tell me, but does not match the thought that He loves me and does not have to do that.
Money, the economy, society, these are all man-made creations. Both the choices and the limitations are created by choices made. You can choose to steal the money, or the gun. If we did not have the choice then none of these things would even exist. They are not necessary for our species to survive. All the animal kingdom, including humans for tens of thousands of years, existed just fine without any of it. These were not created by God. That's why free will is so powerful. We are creators. God created us capable of creating decisions and actions that are not 'of Him', but are 'of us'. And in doing so we have made a significant impact on our own reality as well as the reality of the rest of the animal kingdom on earth through the result of our choices.
You can decide whether or not to believe in God, or that pot of gold, or whatever. You decide for yourself what is and isn't acceptable, and what parameters qualify this or that as believable. You choose what you accept and why. As for taking an individual's word over "respected and educated scholars the world over", there are respected and educated scholars who also believe in God. A great many of them. You've deemed what you accept as logical, whose word to accept, who's to reject, and why. Through my logic I believe in God and cannot accept a godless existence as, to me, it is illogical.
As a child I had a choice. I had a choice of whether or not to succumb to my fear. And when I finally overcame those fears, that too was a choice. A choice that changed who I am and what I did and did not allow to influence my decisions.
Whether you believe God is loving or not, whether or not you believe God burns people eternally, it is all still due to your ability to choose your own behavior or none of that would be necessary or even possible. And if our assessment of the natural world is any indication, actually having a willful choice in anything is a major capability. Because most of the universe doesn't have a choice how it behaves. And it works because it doesn't have a choice. If matter had the choice whether or not to conform to gravity then we would not exist as we do. So, if it's true, if we have truly been given the ability to willfully choose our actions, then that alone says God is a God of love if He exists because He created us unlike anything else in the universe, making us capable of accepting or rejecting Him of our own volition. After all, even love isn't love if there is no choice. Love would not be possible or even necessary if there were no equivalent. Then it would just be 'natural behavior'.
To you, love is sparing those you love of pain and misery, but to me, while the want to do so is certainly understandable, doing so is ultimately harmful. If the choice had been made for me by people who love me to shield me from all pain and suffering then I wouldn't be who I am today and who I am would not have been my doing. I cherish the good and the bad in my life because both played a role in who I am.
Headly, all that you have written here goes to satisfy myself that "god" is man made.... human-made. As far as we can understand it, all other life forms do not have any conscious consideration of a "god out there somewhere" that directs the life. So, we humans stand alone as having concocted a god that each and any of us can use, manipulate and promote for our own benefit.
I would agree with you if not for a couple of things ...
1) What we see in the natural world is consistent with how God is described in those ancient texts. It makes the distinction between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Or, more accurately, it makes the distinction between Adam/Eve, and all who resulted, than the rest of the animal kingdom, including humans. And this is consistent with history. If it's as described then what we see is exactly what we should expect to see. Humans up until the age in which the Adam/Eve story is set all across the world all behaved in very consistent ways and all believed in a higher power. A spiritual energy that animated all life and the world around them. They saw themselves as being a small part of something much bigger and exhibited that kind of humility in their actions. That all changed in the age the Genesis stories are set, and every story about that age echoes the same. People changed. The Romans talked about it. The Greeks. Even ancient Chinese mythology talks about this fundamental and undesirable change in humanity. Which, again, is an expected result if what's described is true.
2) The consistency of such an old idea to continue to be relevant to the point that we're all here still discussing it is definitely not a characteristic of man-made things. For a story written down at least 3000 years ago, and for a concept of God created at least that long ago, to still be relevant throughout every age of human history from that point until now is not at all consistent with human made things.
I do believe people use God for their own purposes just like everything else. Which is also consistent with what's described. From roughly 5500BC forward we humans have manipulated and completely altered the landscape in pursuit of much more individualistic-minded wants, so it makes sense religion and God would be no different. Those texts are documenting a key event in human history and what we now see is consistent with what it describes if it were true.
When someone else takes the choice away from you, then you don't have the "free will" to make that choice. You're trying to say that because Joe took all my money and tied me up I still have the free will to go and either buy or steal a gun. It doesn't wash - people as well as your god are quite capable of taking away the choices that give you free will.
Likewise, you deny your innate nature when you declare that you can believe anything you wish. You cannot levitate without mechanical means; you (or at least I) cannot choose to believe a fairy tale as true any more that you can levitate. You are giving yourself choices that you do not have and then claiming it to be free will. That doesn't wash either - you do not have free will to act in ways your body OR brain will not allow.
No, love isn't sparing your loved ones any pain. Tough love is a very real and useful concept, always needed in bring up a child. We cannot teach without use of pain, whether on the seat of the pants, in sleepless nights studying, hurt feelings or a burned hand.
But god can, at least IF He is omnipotent, and that is the point. If He is omnipotent then he is causing eternal pain for no gain or has a different agenda and goal than we think He does.
If someone else takes that choice away from you then that's because they too have free will, and their choices, just like yours and mine, have consequences. Both people and God are capable of taking our choices away, because all above have free will of their own. But with few exceptions, God does not. In fact, if the story is true, He went through a whole lot of trouble to make sure you can make your own decisions.
I do not choose to believe a fairy tale is true. You choose to deem what I believe a fairy tale. There's a difference. What you're stating to be illogical and impossible for you to believe you've first altered into a cartoon of sorts. That's why you can make statements like...
"I cannot simply choose to believe the words of a single individual over those of respected and educated scholars the world over - that does not make sense and cannot be done."
If you first convince yourself that this is a fairy tale, then all who do believe are simply being illogical. But that isn't very realistic, is it? I mean there are biologists and physicists and scholars who believe in God. That's half the world's current population and nearly half the scientific community. So, to you, they either have to be delusional or they have to have in some way compartmentalized their beliefs, because in your mind these beliefs are childish cartoons that no rational person would buy into. But that's just the perception you've created and not at all the real truth.
Just as you said, tough love is a very real and useful concept. Always needed in bringing up a child. We cannot teach without pain. You get it. And the bible underlines that parent-child dynamic between us and God. But then you change it up and say God can teach without pain. Why? What makes you think that? Based on what? If God were to use His power, his omnipotence, his whatever, to protect you from harm or make a reality where no harm ever comes to anyone, then that isn't really an environment of free will. If your choices have no real consequences, if nobody ever gets hurt, then you're not making any real decisions. You're living in some nerf-world where all the sharp edges are covered and none of your choices really have any weight. Wisdom must be learned. Just as any parent can tell you and as I'm sure you're already well aware. It can't just be given. We learn through experience. If we're actually making our own choices then we have to learn. And we have to fail here and there. Like riding a bike. That's how you learn.
Fair enough. You seem intelligent enough and well enough versed on the subject to comment rationally.
But again, there is no need to speculate about other universes to explain this one. Yes there always has to have been something for there to now be something. You can't get something from nothing at all.
And I am sure you have realized that if you postulate a conscious god you run into the issue of where it came from and what if anything created it. There are no easy answers here. What ever you believe is pure speculation all the way around.
What I do not understand is why you think intelligence was required. If energy in one form or other is that which always existed, then no intelligence was required. In fact intelligence would be an emergent property of energy in the form of us and other biological forms.
In my opinion the complexity of the universe is too complex for any intelligence to manage or come up with. And why do it this way rather than another way in which not everything must kill just to survive and where all biological things suffer?
In a sense a conscious god could not be forgiven for all this mess. But if it is a natural process then it is just the way it is and no one is to blame. I rather like that idea, personally.
But if you can show that a god does exist then be my guest. We all know that energy and its nature exist. So for now we should probably stick to working with what we know.
That's not necessarily true. In fact, it's becoming more and more apparent that a stand-alone universe that makes total sense on its own is unlikely, which is why so many are beginning to turn to these extra-natural/multiverse explanations....
"Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations."
"In peril is the notion of “naturalness,” Albert Einstein’s dream that the laws of nature are sublimely beautiful, inevitable and self-contained." - http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … hypothesis
But you're right, whatever beliefs we hold about what's beyond the big bang are just that, beliefs. But, much like ideas concerning multiverses and such, you first postulate a possibility that lines up with the data/calculations/evidence, then attempt to test where possible. This is no different than what I'm doing. As for the origin of this conscious god, or whatever else may lie beyond the big bang, considering space-time as we experience it only exists within this universe, there's the possibility that what exists apart from it does not require a beginning as it may exist apart from time. That might just be something we think is necessary because that's how we perceive reality.
I postulate intelligent intent because of properties of things observed in the natural world that in any other scenario would immediately lead us to conclude intelligence was involved. Like our self-organized genetic code, for example. The emergence of consciousness and intelligence/reason at all, for another. The only form of intelligence we know exists is that which we personally experience. We don't so directly experience anything in the natural world so intimately as we do our own brains. Yet by all outward appearances the mental experience we each share does not exist. Other than the observance of firing neurons and oxygenated blood flow changes, there's nothing about a functioning brain that in any way indicates what's really going on in there. So what are the chances that the one lump of matter we each experience mentally is the only intelligent thing in all the universe or elsewhere? Because it's a natural occurrence, combined with the order and organization which we see in the natural world and in biological life, and the apparent fine-tuned nature of this one observable universe, leads me to think intelligent intent was involved.
As for 'why' if a conscious intelligence is involved, I think the 'why' is free will. If we truly are in control of our actions, and are not simply biological machines whose behavior is wholly determined by the chemistry of our brains, then we are an anomaly in the natural world. Much in the same way we learn through life experience throughout adolescence, as do most in the animal kingdom in learning to walk/hunt/fly/etc, gaining wisdom to wield free will would be necessity. So, in my view, this existence and our participation in it, is a means in which this intelligent being is imbuing His creation with the wisdom required to wield free will. In a nutshell.
You've made the assumption that something that exists without time (outside our universe) doesn't need a beginning. Everything we can imagine where time doesn't exist has a beginning. The inside of a black hole has a beginning. When our universe dies, time will no longer exist but that stage in our universe will have had a beginning. For something to exist it needs to have a beginning and without time nothing happens because time is required for events to happen. Further we don't know what exists outside our universe, it's very possible that time exists outside our universe.
A belief in a God complicates the process of the beginning of the universe for a thinking person far beyond the lack of belief in a God. Attempting to insert a God into the natural world to explain it's very existence is not the same today as it was a few hundred years ago, it's not even the same as it was 50 years ago.
I was careful not to state that as a fact or an assumption. Just something to consider. Everything we say as far as what is or isn't 'needed' or 'required' for something to work is all based on what we observe within this one universe. Like saying "for something to exist it needs to have a beginning" or "without time nothing happens because time is required for events to happen". These are true statements within this universe, but beyond this universe we have no idea. It could be as you say, it could be as I suggested. We just know that what you said applies within this one universe.
Besides, 'inserting' God into the equation as a possibility isn't as problematic as you make it seem. For one, if it turns out to be true, but is never considered because it just made everything too complicated, well we've basically guaranteed we'll never reach the ultimate truth because we've already deemed the possibility unfit of 'injection'.
Sure, from the perspective of not knowing how the universe works, one could assume that an intelligence was involved, but after careful study and rigor, science has found that no intelligence was required at all for those things. Science has therefore moved on beyond assuming an intelligence and works towards continued study and rigor of other things, all of which are showing no signs of an intelligence involved.
So explain exactly how we have scientifically concluded that there was no intelligence involved? By what measure, or standards, was it determined what does and does not constitute signs of intelligence? Is it simply because we don't see any manual manipulation of natural processes? Because we find a natural cause that results in something there's therefore no intelligence required?
So, what about the behaviors that these elements exhibit that 'naturally' result in this universe/life/intelligence/consciousness/etc? Like the formation of life, for example. The natural behavior of nucleotides to bond to one another and to replicate. The natural behavior of lipids to form spherical structures, to attract nucleotides and allow them to pass through the walls of their sphere, but not allow polynucleotides to escape, facilitating the process. The clay in which all this occurred being the perfect catalyst for this process. All of these seemingly unrelated components having the natural behaviors necessary for them to come together and interact in a way that results ultimately in the formation and evolution of complex life through a self-organized system of information storage and perpetuation, turning what would only be a randomly mutated system accumulative.
Or what about the fact that all this universe is comes from the interplay between the matter/energy that exists in this environment created by the laws that govern it. Self-sustaining stars and galaxies, planets and planetary systems, forming an environment that then contains all the components that then formed life and genetic structure. Eventually resulting in intelligent consciousness.
To conclude no intelligence was involved you'd first have to define what exactly it is you're looking for to then rule it out. I see intelligent intent in the way in which the elements of this universe behave and interact with one another. What is it that you don't see that leads you to the conclusion that there's no intelligence involved and that I just don't understand how it all works?
The laws of nature, the forces acting on nature are all that science has ever shown to have any and all effects on our universe, nothing more.
That would be a question you need to answer because you are the one advocating intelligence.
None so far. Have you seen any?
None that has been observed so far.
Science describes abiogenesis as the initial formation of life, evolution describes everything afterward.
Do you see an intelligence manipulating that? Scientists don't.
Again, do you see an intelligence? Where is it?
I see no problem there, do you? Do you see an intelligence manipulating it or do you see the natural forces at work? Scientists only see the latter.
Scientists don't see intelligent intent, that would make you wrong.
I see no intelligence. I see what scientists see. What more do you want?
This is exactly my point. You made the statement that "science has found that no intelligence was required". So, if this were established, it would have to be defined what exactly constitutes as intelligence to then rule it out. So I'm asking what that is. You're the one that made that claim.
If you're looking for manual manipulation of natural processes then your concept is flawed from the start. If God were the creator of this universe as we now understand it, then why would He then need to override and manipulate His own creation for a desired outcome?
You're invoking science as if the authority of science backs what you're saying, but this is inaccurate. Half the world's population, including nearly half the scientific community, believes a higher power does exist. If what you are saying were true, if it were simply a proper understanding of the natural world that stands between a typical believer and being 'right', then that wouldn't be the case.
All you're actually doing is ruling out the existence of an invisible cartoon magician floating around in space. If that's what god was then you'd be right. That doesn't exist.
Uh, you are the one advocating intelligence, not me or the scientists. YOU.
That's YOUR concept, not mine.
You tell me, it is your claim, not mine.
Science is the authority to anything scientific. You are not an authority to science.
Appeal to popularity fallacy.
Where did I say that? Those are your words, not mine.
I pointed to things in the natural world that make me think intelligence is involved. Then you came back and said it's been confirmed through science that no intelligence is involved. I'd like you to explain that.
Good for you, however science does not agree with you.
Do you know science? Are you two friends? I know what is known scientifically and what I'm saying doesn't conflict. Stop talking as if the authority of science in any way backs you up. You're an individual just as I am. And science is a tool available to both of us equally.
You know, my explanation requires less assumption than yours. Yours requires that all that existence is happened haphazardly with countless contributing factors and events having to happen in the right sequence to result in what we now observe. Mine says it was deliberately intended by an intelligent being. Intelligence, being something we know to exist, is the most likely explanation given what's observed, and is the more likely answer given all the assumptions you have to swallow for your explanation to work.
No assumption at all. We are here and in a few million years (most likely less) we will be gone. Something similar could have existed millions of years ago if it weren't for the pesky dinos. The time that we have been here is but a dot compared to dinosaurs.
You explanation requires the assumption that something thought of us when they started the universe billions of years ago and for some unknown reason needed to make billions of galaxies just for us to worship him. That's a leap.
There's plenty of assumptions that have to be made to accept your viewpoint. I know because these are the reasons why I could never accept a god-less existence no matter how out of sync the traditional concepts of God seemed with reality. I knew the answer wasn't going to be found going your way.
See, from my viewpoint there's really only one assumption; intelligent purposeful/deliberate intent. Every organized system we see, the inherent self-organizing nature of this place, the way chaos becomes order, becomes complex life, intelligence and reason and self-awareness, none of these things are strange. But from your viewpoint, it's all haphazard. You have to treat each event, each peculiar interaction between elements, each complex system, as its own phenomenon. All of it happening with no deliberate purpose or intent. All of it being the result of the interaction between countless seemingly unrelated elements. It just happens. No explanation for why the chemistry and the physics works as it does. It just does.
You and others make it sound as if postulating an intelligent being is somehow out of bounds. But intelligence does in fact exist. It's a natural product of naturally evolved systems. We only know of it existing in one form, but who's to say that's the only way it can be? Others attempt to explain the particular 'rightness' of this one universe by postulating astronomical numbers of whole other universes. But even then you're back to the exact same problem of how that all started, with each of these universes still requiring a mechanism for forming the singularities that began each one. Here, I'm just postulating one answer, intelligence, something we know to exist. And it's something that fits along with the organized/structured nature of how things work in this reality. If going by the standard of Occam's Razor, it's the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions.
Really? Occams razor says the simplest explanation is a god? From another universe (postulating that other universe as we go) with different laws than ours? And another god (intelligence) that formed that universe and that lives in a third one? And another and another ad infinitum?
That's the simplest explanation? I don't see it that way... Easier to understand and accept that things banged around in our own universe, until the current time, producing the current state of things. Which will change tomorrow.
No, we only know about one observable universe. Those multiverse theories are attempts to explain the exact 'rightness' of this one observable universe and the utter improbability of it sustaining life, or inflating as it did at all in the first place. These are things required to explain what we observe here without intelligent intent. Complex multi-dimensional multiverses. All we know for sure is that there is only one observable universe that seems inexplicably fine-tuned to allow for life to exist, and that everything in it, including matter/energy, space-time, is relative and a product of it. So, in speculating about what 'caused' that singularity, an intelligent being who deliberately intended it to exist as it does requires way less assumption than any other explanations to date.
Yes things bang around to create what it is today, and will continue to change. I'm saying intelligent intent is the more likely explanation for how all that banging around results in organization and complex systems, rather than pure haphazardness.
If not the multiverse, then you have to include the idea that this theorized intelligence created the single universe in which it exists. Before the intelligence existed, it created the universe (and time) that it later came to exist in.
This concept is NOT the most simple that Occam can come up with. Rather, it is an incredibly complex concept that is outside anything we can even imagine; outside the fabric of logic, understanding or even human imagination.
Best just stick with things banging around according to laws produced in the big bang. Laws that may or may not have been the only set possible. Laws that produced what we see, including an intelligence (us), but that may or may not have produced a different intelligence were they different.
Any explanation to explain what's observed is going to be complex. But this one exlanation, intelligent intent, takes away all the assumptions that countless events and interactions just haphazardly became reality require. Without this assumption you still lack a cause behind those laws that shape this place. They're just inexplicably there, fundamental forces that are an inherent part of that singularity. Maybe the only set, maybe one of an infinite number of sets. But with intelligent intent the explanation for these too are included.
It seems pointless to discuss anything with you, then. No amount of factual information is ever going to change your irrational beliefs.
Sure we know intelligence exists and we know that it evolved into what it is for survival. Do you suppose the same for your God? It seems for him everything we know about the natural universe has to be suspended. Do he have a beginning? Will have an ending? Does he have parents?
I'm just making a logical assessment. If God is the creator of this universe, which is finite and has a beginning and of which time-space is a part of, then this creator exists apart from all of that. So, because time and space are both only part of this universe and only experienced by products of this universe, anything that exists apart from that would be exactly the same, unchanged by time, in every moment, everywhere, from our perspective. This is all incredibly consistent with how this particular God was described over 3000 years ago before we knew any of that stuff.
You're still trying to apply things we understand about how this universe works to something that would have to exist apart from it. I'm simply pointing out how what's specifically described about God is actually right on point if He truly is the creator.
None of what you quoted about Time and Space from scriptures has anything to do with your claims about god existing apart from the universe or anything we know about time and space today. In fact, those verses would suggest a god would indeed have to exist in this universe in order to experience time and space. It even states that "The eyes of the Lord are in every place"
Those versus say exactly what you'd expect because they're speaking to people who existed 3000 years before reaching the level of understanding we now have. So they're worded in that context, explained in ways these people would understand. I'm just pointing out that what they said way back then is consistent with what we understand now.
But that's not how it's described in the bible. 1000 years equals a day. Which once again means time passes for him. Did the writers of the bible get it wrong? Even still nothing can be accomplished without time to accomplish it. So even if something exist outside of time, it means time must have existed at some point to have created it. When our universe dies and time no longer exists does that mean the universe didn't have a beginning?
The first explanation is far more credible than yours.
Nothing haphazard about it. The universe is not a random system, it is a chaotic system. It follows very basic rules that create complexity. Have you studied chaos theory yet?
Exactly!! Yes I've studied chaos theory and it just further illustrates what I'm talking about. In this universe even chaos isn't chaotic. Order just 'naturally' emerges from chaos. How anyone looks at these kinds of things we discover about this place and comes away thinking there's no design here, no intelligence involved, is beyond me.
You will have to tell me what free will is as I don't see that we have any. We have plenty of will but none of it is free. In fact it is a manifestation of conditioning.
I'm not even sure what you want with free will or even if it is a meaningful idea in any way.
And no where in the bible does it say god granted us free will at any time. It seems to be something Christians dreamed up.
Free will, in the context of the natural world as we now understand it, would be the capability to behave free of pure chemical/mechanical causation. That you and I actually can and do make our own decisions that are not wholly determined by our physical make-up/conditioning in response to outside stimuli.
The whole theme of the bible has to do with free will, though it's never called "free will" specifically. The story starts off by describing how all of reality, all inanimate and animate matter, behaved exactly according to the will of the creator, becoming exactly what He willed it to become. Then, in the second chapter, it says He created two beings that were only given one rule and they broke it. From that point forward the whole thing is about human behavior being out of sync with the creator.
Perhaps, but again, all guesses attempting to prove a god exists. Guesses are not good enough.
To Rad Man:
For the record: I do not believe in God, but I am smart enough to know that may beliefs are just that---beliefs, and therefore, based on NO proof and NO evidence.
Once upon a time there were twin babies inside the womb. One asked the other:
"Hey brother! Do you believe in life after birth? Do you believe there is a MOM?"
THE OTHER: "Nay -- I don't believe in such things, I mean... have you seen MOM?."
FIRST ONE: "Any idea from where are we getting food?"
THE OTHER: "Yes; our kicking produces it."
The argument will go on....................till the time of birth.
Undernutrition is a contributory factor in the death of 3.1 million children under five every year.
Is there supposed to be evidence that God is feeding us?
ARSHAD MAJID,very good explanation of the problem and in a very simple manner but it is very difficult for atheists to learn from the same as they take it necessary to be confined of'' senses'' for continuation of their'' belief'' of absence of God and are not interested to apply the'' reason'' in this respect as it is not suitable for their narrow thinking,they consider this world a'' reality'' and every other thing or concept as ''nonsense'',they are like ''children'' who are questioning for their'' father'',after long discussion with them, even, still, I could not understand the reasons for their avoidance for God but it is perhaps, a great reaction against the dominance of the religious gods,as possibly,Einstein ,has mentioned anywhere.
Like yourself, ARSHAD provided nothing more than a logical fallacy, not an explanation. Neither one of you appear to be able to explain anything and can only offer fallacies, fairy tales and nonsense. Most likely because you're both uneducated and know very little about the world around you, that which we do indeed call our 'reality'. If you both spent a little more time trying to understand reality and less time fishing fairy tales, you might actually learn something, and your arguments here would be somewhat more intelligent and mature.
Calling us "children" is merely a projection of your own shortcomings because your arguments here don't amount to anything more than what children might offer. In fact, there are most likely children who could show your arguments to be just as nonsensical as we have shown.
We are adults here, not children. It would behoove you to start acting like adults. If not, we can only continue treating you like the little children you are exhibiting so well.
You have this completely wrong. The example shows clearly that assuming things gets you nowhere. You need information to come to rational conclusions about things.
You assume a conscious god. I can not because there is no evidence of said conscious god. I do not believe such a god exists because there is no evidence. I also do not believe it does not exist. Belief is assumption. You can only build logical models from what you know to be facts.
Belief in god is emotional reason, not rational reason. It is what you want existence to be, not necessarily how it is.
I do not care what the truth turns out to be. I just want to know what it is, You invest belief and faith in emotional speculation. I can not.
The way to truth is to give up belief, do not invest yourself in what you want the truth to be, base models of reality on fact, and explore those models where they lead, never excepting those models as fact until they prove themselves to be fact.
If at the end of that process we find a god, then so be it. But assuming one stops the process in it's tracks.
Emile R, I am saying that presence of God is established by the presence of ourselves ,God is our self experience therefore God is universal and we can never deny Him.we never require to prove Him rationally.
I would disagree. God was there before He created us, He would exist if He never had created us and He will exist long after this earth is gone.
Beth37,you are right,God is not dependent upon His creation for His existence,that is not my point of view,I am simply stating that God has proved Himself in our selves ,therefore, He is not required to be proved as stranger to self by the application of reason ,we can discover Him in our selves.Everyone has'' book'' within him,open your ''book'' and start to study God.
Food doesn't have to be cooked.
Fish is food.
Therefore fish doesn't have to be cooked.
(The justification for Sushi)
lol... I like it.
I wonder why they don't make sushi chicken.
People say stupid things.
I am a person saying something.
Therefore I am a stupid person.
We are all people.
Therefore people are all stupid.
I think you are right.
If God is a personal experience with something, and if we cannot know each other's personal experiences with anything (or something), then we really don't need to try to prove to one another the substance or essence of our experiences.
Right, so no one should be telling us there is a God.
Or that there were life preservers on the Titanic?
Well there is a difference between real life preservers on a real boat and someones word that there is a god we will never see while alive said to preserve life if we have faith that when we die we will wake up alive though still dead to all the living.
Such as one sounds far more far fetched than the other? Do you really want to live for ever? What would you do with all that life?
I get the feeling most people don't know what they are asking. This is not directed at you, but I think most people waste the lives they have and are bored much of the time. What in the world would they do with eternity?
I'll be just as happy not to wake up dead, and I love life.
Why can't there be a god that tells us that if we believe in him we can live for ever right here and now and not die first and be perfectly healthy for eternity? Gotta wonder why we have to die first.
Perhaps science is the answer rather than religion if we want that?
I respect that you have different views than I do.
To me, it is not so much "what if" but "what is". I believe after seeking after God for a lifetime, that He is real. He has revealed Himself to me and what the after life holds is a life we cannot imagine. I want nothing more than to be there with God and with loved ones when my times on earth has ended.
I've read your profile page so I won't debate you on this. You need your faith for now it seems. As long as it helps it's all good.
I spent my life looking for truth as well. I wish you luck.
Beth, what you have shared is very believable and inspiring. Thank You.
I think that Shakespeare got it right and that we could all learn something from him:
He said: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Philosophy meaning for Shakespeare: learning.)
- Hamlet (Hamlet to Horatio)
How do you know he got it right when he was writing fiction?
He was writing fiction. If a fiction writer says there is a God or giants or dragons, are they right?
No, why? Shakespeare was writing plays. We can no more assume he believed ghosts were really (like Hamlet) than that they are not (like Horatio). He was making pretty words that expressed all the points of views of all the characters.
Hamlet was referring to his father's ghost, who appeared before him and talked his ears off.
Are you trying to imply that ghosts are real?
I will presume that you understand both the content and context of Shakespeare's statement and that you are engaging in little more than an effort to mock me and the topic of this forum; a topic worthy of intelligent and informed discussion free of mockery.
mbuggieh,God is a personal experience as well as universal for every self.God is within everyone but everyone is not God but everyone has an experience of God
Certainly something more than the flesh and blood we all are is in us all; some spirit, some essence that defines us, some soul.
What it is I do not know, but I do know that something is there.
And it may, after all, be God.
You do understand that children of a young age are not self aware right. Does that mean they have no soul? There brains develop self awareness. No God required.
Rad Man, when child is born he is weeping, why? if you will not provide him milk then you can judge what will he do with you and how great cry and noise he will make,this is because of his self conscious-and self feeling,he can never wait for development of his brain for finding his milk.Even you not feed your dog for a while and then wait what does he do with you ?
Why would you claim that children are not self-aware?
Have you spent no time around young children---even babies? They are most certainly self-aware and act on that self-awareness in many ways.
...especially when one can't prove one's personal experiences or even justify one's reactions to one's personal experiences. And especially considering one can't show others' one's own personal experience directly, since personal experiences are not physically recordable. Unless of course you live in the movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, where one's memory of personal experiences, (i.e. particular devastating relationships,) is actually erasable. However, if instead of being erasable, the experience was recordable and viewable, as on a screen, then there would be proof of... what? memory? brain function? But there is something behind all that...there is something which actually CHOOSES to record or erase and CHOOSES to remember or not remember, and CHOOSES to believe or not believe and CHOOSES to understand (or not!) That something can be defined as: The EGO, The ID, The SELF, which are extensions of the SOUL.
Where does the soul come from?
It is logical to assume that the soul comes from God. But, of course, it is not provable...
- unless the soul of each individual is actually proof of God.
Please separate you definition of the soul and consciousness. Are they one or different? Do you get to take your consciousness with you when you die?
They are one and Yes, you take them with you when you die. Now here is the tricky part. If all you do during your lifetime is identify with your EGO, you will loose that. If you identify with what animates the ego, you will be conscious when you die.
Really? Do you get to keep your consciousness during surgery when your brain is shut off by medication? You would think medication wouldn't affect the soul?
I have read of those who were conscious during surgery. They remained conscious by immersing themselves in the Ocean of Spirit from which every Soul originates. This Ocean of Spirit is what saved Jesus on the cross. He gave his Soul back to the Ocean. The Ocean of Spirit is Bliss. It is not intellectually comprehensible. I only keyboard in defense of the belief of God which is completely justified in light of the *science of consciousness.*
Ba ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ba ha ha ha ha ha. They wanted and chose to remain aware during surgery? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Good one.
Well, the surgery was going wrong, The doctors were operating on the wrong side. Since she was identified with her soul she was able to be aware even though her brain was shut down. But, Divine Mother told her to go to sleep and that she would take care of it. Then she did fall asleep.The doctors discovered their mistake during surgery. When she awoke, the doctors told her she had been chanting God God God during the surgery. I know I am just digging myself a deeper and deeper hole. So, continue on with keyboarding your "Ha" word. (... however, this story was told as a true account.)
As long as we do not equate Jesus teachings with the teachings of the ancient East, we will be arguing until eternity. Better get out now while the getting is good. Thanks for the last word.
PS The woman in the story had a guru who taught her how to become one with Christ consciousness. This takes a life time of practice and devotion to God. And actually Omniscient Spirit doesn't mind what form you worship Him in, Friend, Jesus, Divine Mother, Beloved God...
The harvest is abundant. The harvest is Christ Consciousness.
According to my Sources... which some/many may recognize...
Why is it, when you unfollow a thread, it never seems to stick and you continue getting notifications?
No Rad Man....we waste food, which was their share. God produced enough food.
But I am deeply concerned with the 'colony collapse disorder' of 'Nahl". Honey bee is called 'Nahl' in Arabic language and even a chapter of Quran is named after it. The honey bee is responsible for pollination 70% of crops consumed by humans. Gradual and unexplained decline in bee population is a matter which is much more important that 'Global Warming'. This is a bitter fact that in last ten years of hard work, the researchers failed to find a smoking gun. Sad part of the story is that if all the bees die, we have no technology available today to replace the functioned performed by trillions of bees, to finally provide dinner at our tables.
Who planned this excellent arrangement of pollination and who is now closing the valve, makes me wonder how helpless and dependent we are.
Oh I see, so the God you believe in allows millions of our children to be punished by starvation and death because a few are greedy. He either is a lousy planner or has a complete lack of compassion. He can create a universe, but allows millions of babies to die needless painful deaths. Rather than pointing your finger at other people you should consider why an all powerful God would allow this to happen.
It's my understanding that the bees have been weakened by pollutants and insecticides. Is that more bad planning by your all knowing all powerful God? I have to say the universe makes more sense when you dispense with the notion of a God and understand why these things happen.
Watch all your friends and family die! Hasa diga Eebowai!
I don't think it would be fair to blame God for our own acts. If we could stop unequal distribution of food and resources, those famine related deaths could have been prevented.
Regarding 'colony collapse disorder' of bees; the lead scientist who is investigating the issue has told; if pesticides or virus was the cause, there would have been dead bodies found in bee boxes, but that is not happening. The bees just disappear into thin air such that they go out and never come back. Availability of corpses may have helped in forensic studies leading towards the cause, but sadly even the corpses are also not available. That is really scary. Einstein said that;"bees will disappear 4 years before the end of life on Earth". It is hard to believe that there is a God, but it is even harder to believe there isn't One.
Then, on the other hand, we shouldn't praise gods for our own acts, or any acts for that matter. See how that works?
If we could stop religions from indoctrinating people, many problems in the world would get solved.
That is true if you're entire worldview is based on a belief system as opposed to understanding the world around you.
I'm not blaming any God, for there is no Gods to blame. The only reason why we can maintain this many humans is because of farming. Which God did not teach. If you feel there is a God then you may want to be asking why he allows millions of Children to die a painful death every year. He's the only one who can solve the problem and yet he does nothing.
Uh, no He didn't, nor did He teach mankind anything about agriculture, which is actually where all of our food is produced.
Troubled Man -- I think that we should praise God for making us depend on a small insect (honey bee) which if he makes disappear, we along with all our technology can't even find.
We should praise God for making us depend on an insect?
Rad Man -- Don't you think that would help us control our egos and establish his 'praiseworthiness'.
You should be able to control your ego on your own.
Are you suggesting the survival of all of humanity resting on the survival of bees is a good design decision?
Then, we can blame God as well for all kinds of things.
You think you are going to get your Gods respect by praising him for stuff he doesn't do and not blaming him for stuff he does do? You think you God wouldn't see through that?
Praising God doesn't help either. Gods are irrelevant. And, the moment you and every other believer on the planet realizes that, we might then turn to solving the worlds problems. Until then, your God will only serve to cause problems and solve nothing.
either we believe in God and praise Him, or we don't....the fact that we are so vulnerable and helpless, doesn't change. I learned a lot from 'colony collapse disorder'. Its a good example in my view, through which the boss wants us to wonder ........'who is the boss'.
God is the boss, no doubt about it.
...not arguing, just revealing another viewpoint. Put down the swords and the daggers, men. I say, stand back!
If we praise God, we can blame Him, too. That's only fair.
I am not vulnerable and helpless, speak for yourself.
We are our own bosses.
Low self esteem. They feel they need someone to tell them what to do (a boss).
That's just your opinion that it is just my opinion.
Why not explain to me why it's not low self esteem to feel one needs to be told what to do in order to be happy?
Being told what to do does not make me happy. If you told me what to do, it might irk me a bit.
When my parents told me what to do, Im sure I seldom enjoyed it. I can tell you things like... "Don't hang out with that crowd" (they were doing drugs). Or "Don't date that boy" (he had recently been in a relationship where he was thought to have gotten the girl pregnant while in high school and for some reason my dad didn't want me to date him) or "Don't smoke" as was my desire... didn't make me happy at all, but in the long run, it was good that someone who loved me, was watching out for me. So based on my life experience I can say that I think your statement is opinion... and, in my case, false.
I think you are good with your God telling you what to do because it makes you unaccountable for your own actions. Locked aware in there somewhere that you can't sense is a little program running that makes you think it's God telling you what to do which makes you feel you have to be right and not second guess yourself as you don't think it's you making the decisions. Not wanting to be accountable for your own actions is low self esteem.
Im wondering why you assume I don't feel accountable?
Most Christians thank God for their accomplishments and blame the devil for their downfalls making them completely unaccountable for their actions. If you claim that you are directed by God then you are not accountable.
So you intimately know most Christians?
I don't even know the hearts of most Christians so I find that interesting.
I have failed so many times I couldn't count... I don't know how many times Satan might have actually been hanging around whispering in my ear... but here's the thing... I have the ability to say no. Eve could have turned her back on Satan so... I don't really agree with you there.
I do believe that if there's any good in me, that it is Christ. It has to do with the whole "sinful nature" thing. Left to my own devices, I am more often desirous of things that are opposing to the things of the spirit (love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.) These things don't come naturally to me. When Im not close to God, my desire is to drink... a lot... to be selfish, to be full of lust etc, etc... This is a way of thinking you might disagree with, but it is very basic knowledge to me. I am accountable to God first and foremost.
I am glad that you think you found something that helps, however you display a strong lack of esteem when you claim that left on your own you not a nice person. With all sincerity I think you should get help with that? You seem to have found a way of masking your lack of self esteem by letting your super ego take control, but that has left your ego still weak and vulnerable to your desires. Please consider talking to someone who can help.
lol, thank you.
I have watched a few TV shows, seen a few movies, read a few books, met a few ppl and read a few of your posts as well... I don't think I am obsolete.
I didn't say you were obsolete, I just said you may want to consider some professional help. I'm sure you are a good person on your own because you seem to be doing a fine job on your own, you just don't know your on your own.
God is real; he is author and finishing of our faith, the creator of all things.
That is where the "faith" comes in. You have faith that there is a god.
and why would we have faith in something without knowing that it exists? How do you choose that thing to have faith in? How do you pick? There are thousands upon thousands of gods out there proposed. Do you just pick one run with it? If it's only faith, then it should be simple to stop having faith in one deity and switch to another.
Secondly...you would have to demonstrate that just "having faith" is a good or positive thing in the first place.
Premise 1 is highly dubious. Not required to be proved? In what sense?
Premise 2 is deeply vague. "God is experience of self" how? I don't even know what that means.
God has proven Himself but the problem is- everyone wants proof THEIR way on a silver platter- handed to them in the form of miracles that even if they witness them, they will deny Him. That is my sentiments as Believer in One God.
Since it is obvious God has not proven Himself universally to all, it would appear the proof for your belief must be proof attained YOUR way, hence you contradict yourself.
Exactly. It is harder to disprove that God exists than otherwise. Science has proven that a time space dimension outside of ours exists where God must be. Prophecy in the Bible proves that God is not constrained by time.
It's harder to disprove a purple dragon exists, what your point?
Science has proven that a time space dimension outside ours exists where God must be? Where did you read that?
but no one needs to prove that god DOESN'T exist. It's not possible to prove a negative when it relates to existence. For example, no matter how hard you try, you cannot prove that purple leprechauns do not live in my garage along side my invisible purple dragon.
What needs to happen is that believers need to recognize and accept their burden of proof. It is up to them, regardless of their religion, to prove that their god exists - and no one has done it successfully for thousands of years. If they had, there would only be one religion.
Please provide citations for your claims. If science did prove that, it would be very well known.
It is my opinion that this is where God is. It is though common knowledge that Einstein and others mathmatecally proved that their more than three dimensions of space and time.
My point on denying that God exists is harder to make a case for than the alternative. The universe and its laws, the amazing human genome that had to have been designed by a supreme intelligence simply because of its complexity. My point is something so complex that we cannot fully comprehend to this day could not have just happened randomly. It had to have been done intentionally.
Funny that? Whenever someone doesn't understand something they assume it must have been done by God. That's an assumption. I'm sorry that you can't understand it, but that doesn't mean that others don't.
Saying that something must have been designed because it is complex is a fallacy. And, to say it happened because it was random is another fallacy as well as being not true. Evolution is NOT a random process.
That is an unfair characterization. The proof that God exists is in the Bible where he predicts in advance by hundreds of years for instance the fall of Babylon to Persia then the Greeks then the Romans. This was in print and extremely accurate. This is just one of hundreds of examples of the Bible predicting the future with precision. That is hard to do without being bound by space and time. Actually its impossible. Their is no need to be condescending I get what u r saying. When I speak of things I can't explain I should just say its amazing what some entity is behind and capable of.
So that means we don't have free will. The idea of prophesy negates free will.
No it doesn't. God having the ability to see all time at once does not negate your ability to make a choice in the moment because you're the one making the choice and you're the one living in the moment.
Oh, so even though God can see that something is going to happen, I can stop it from happening?
Here is an arab. In a tent. Inside the walls of Babylon.
It's a simple matter of perspective. If God is the creator of the universe then He exists apart from it, meaning He also exists apart from time and space as we perceive it. Being outside of time there is no span of time between past and future and no span of space between here and there. Therefore God exists, from our perspective, exactly the same in every moment everywhere. Just as described.
We, being the observer and the one making willful decisions, we exist within time and make decisions within time. There is only one timeline and God can see it in its entirety. Whatever you do, you can only do it once in each given moment.
How convenient. So apparently God has a Tardis.
So, when I am faced with a decision, God exists at the moment I choose oatmeal for breakfast... and at the moment I choose eggs... and afterwards at the moment I chose coffee.
Sorry, you cannot choose coffee. God already looked at the timeline and you chose tea - coffee is not an option for your free will. Or anything else, for that matter, except tea.
God would only need a Tardis if He were a product of this universe and thus subject to its laws. But then we wouldn't be talking about the creator, but rather a creation. Don't think of God in such a linear fashion. You and I are products of this universe, made of 'star stuff', and so from our perspective you'd need a Tardis to be able to exist as I'm describing. Think of it more in terms of God being a programmer and existence/reality being a program, with time existing, and you and I existing and making decisions and doing our thing, only when that program is in run-time. All of it right there in front of God, who exists apart from it whether it's running or not, who's able to see it all at once. But you and I, being products of it, we only experience it while running.
If we're talking about a being responsible for the creation of the universe, then we're not talking about a being that's subject to the laws of this universe or a product of it. We're talking about something that exists apart from it. And if that's the case, it's something beyond the big bang. Whether that be a multiverse or the God of the bible or a spaghetti monster, from our perspective it would exist exactly the same, unchanged by time, in every moment, everywhere, from our perspective.
Then, there would have to exist a great many gods, each requiring to occupy every coordinate in the universe at every moment in time, popping in and out of existence for no more than a Plank second in a Plank part of space. That said, those gods are in fact part of the universe if they are able to interact with it, by definition.
Each human is part of the "god" that humans have concocted to serve the selfish desires of humans.
Yes, if whatever it is you're talking about is a product of this universe then it would have to conform as you're describing it. But then whatever it is we're talking about would not be the creator of this universe if it is a product of it. But given what we now understand about the universe, being finite with both time and space as we perceive it being a product of it, If there is something responsible for its creation then that something exists apart from this universe as well as space-time. Thus confirming that what we know about the universe in these modern times through physics offers a plausible explanation that matches up with how the deity described in those ancient texts written at least 3000 years ago was specifically described.
There is no reason why God can't be part of this universe or interact with it. In fact, God MUST interact with the universe if anyone has any idea of God.
Not necessarily. If God were not part of this universe, there would be no God to have any influence over anything. God would be irrelevant.
I have never heard of any physics describing any ancient texts or deities. Where go you get that idea?
According to the people who wrote those ancient texts, there was a time when this God interacted with them and made Himself known. And those events were orally described for generations before finally being written down numerous centuries later.
God would not be irrelevant if He was the cause. Everything this universe is formed because of what that singularity was that began it all. But we do not know the cause, or the origin, of that singularity. We just know that the fundamental laws that arose from it, and the matter/energy that formed as a result, as well as space-time, interacted in such a way as to form the entirety of the universe and everything in it.
Those ancient texts describe a deity who interacted and made Himself known as the creator. It says His perception of time is different than ours, stating that to Him a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day, and it also states that He exists everywhere simultaneously. Concepts that didn't even make sense until we learned about the finite and relative nature of this universe.
And according to those stories the entirety of the natural world formed on its own just by His willing it to become. So discovering that the universe by all appearances seems to have formed on its own is exactly what you should expect to see. It also says this deity formed two beings capable of behaving contrary to His will, unlike anything else in the natural world, and introduced them into this environment. And it was because of this that this God then got directly involved. Because there were beings that existed within this universe, that unlike anything else in this universe, behaved according to their own volition and not strictly by the laws of the natural world. He introduced a volatile element that then required His direct interaction to realize the desired outcome. An impact that can actually be seen in the historical/archaeological record.
A healthy dose of skepticism is required when such things are said, especially during a time when all kinds of gods made themselves known and no one knew anything about anything.
So far, science has not detected, inferred, speculated or hypothesized any gods as the cause.
Where does it say a day is a thousand years? Where does it say God told people His perception of time is different then ours? Citations please.
That sounds more like a fairy tale than a believable story, but you can believe it if it makes you feel good.
I have no idea what you're talking about now.
Psalm 90:4 - A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
2 Peter 3:8 - But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Psalms 139: 7-10 - Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.
Proverbs 15:3 - The eyes of the Lord are in every place, watching the evil and the good.
For something to be detectable via the natural sciences it would have to be a product of this natural world. If it were then we would not be talking about what created it. Science is the naturalistic study of the material world. It's a tool. It defines what the material world is, the laws that govern it, and so on. It's important to recognize it for what it is. You're crossing a line from using science as a tool to subscribing to materialism as a philosophy/worldview/dogma. Big difference.
And I know you know what I'm talking about. Adam and Eve. Beings who, according to the story, behaved contrary to God's will just after it was said that the entirety of the natural world behaved exactly according to His will. I know that traditionally this has been read to mean these were the first humans ever, which we know to be inaccurate. What I'm saying is that if read against the context of actual history, it can be seen that these events may have really happened as described. We can actually see the same timeline described in the archaeological record and the same impact described actually happening.
Nothing in there says that he is without time. I merely states that time passes differently for him. Much like it would as the speed of light, but still within time itself.
Sounds like Santa. Knows when you've been bad or good. I'm sure you know Santa is not possible, but why do you think God is?
Didn't say He's without time, only that He doesn't exist within space-time the same as you and I. What it does say is that He perceives time differently, which is consistent with something that exists apart from this finite universe.
Santa is not described as the creator, therefore he has to abide by the same laws of the universe as the rest of us.
You've told me many times that he exists outside of space time. This says no such thing, it says his perception of time is different, but he is still has time, which means he needs a beginning, which you claim he doesn't.
I only know what it says here. And according to this, with it saying it both ways; 1 day = 1000 years = 1day, it's saying something incredibly profound given when it was written, long before time itself was recognized as a relative dimension. If it just said one half of that, 1 day = 1000 years, then you could come away from that thinking that time runs incredibly slow from God's perspective. The other way, 1000 years = 1 day, it moves incredibly fast. But both? It's saying there's no difference between 1000 years and 1 day. They're equal. Meaning, God does not perceive time as we do. Which is consistent with what we now know.
Right, it say time is different for him, but it doesn't say he is outside time. He can pass a 1000 years like a day, a day is a measure of time. If we do the math 14 billion years is still a lot of days for him. If he exists he must therefor be inside our universe to feel time pass.
It's clearly explaining to humans who only at that time had a very rudimentary grasp of time that how God perceives time is not the same in a way that they could grasp it.
Did they have watches or clocks back then? Or, did they use sundials? What grasp of time exactly did they have?
They had an incredibly good grasp of time, as a matter of fact. That's part of the impact in the evidence that I'm pointing to. The emergence of complex systems of thought, like astronomy and mathematics, in the same region/timeframe as the stories of Genesis. We still today use the same base-60 unit of measurement invented by the Sumerians over 2000 years ago to measure time. I know we modern folks tend to think of these bronze age people as ignorant, but they're the ones that gave us the written language in the first place, as well as the beginning of science, civilization, laws, governments, all of that. They completely changed how humans live on this earth, and how humans observed this place, from that point forward. They were the inventors of tracking time, among many other things.
No, they didn't, in actual fact. They had no understanding whatsoever of time.
Astronomy and mathematics did not exist back then and nothing in Genesis has anything to do wht astronomy and mathematics, where do you come up with these fantasies?
The Ekagi people of Western New Guinea developed a base-60 system, completely unrelated to the Sumerians. Several cultures developed the base-60 unit of measure. What does that have to do with anything? Do you even understand how that system came to be and what it is based on?
What does that have to do with your claims?
It's called evolution. We have evolved and learned things over time.
I really see no point to this discussion, you're just pulling stuff out of thin air.
But you just finished telling how perfectly it was explained and how perfect the explanation is and now you are saying that it must have been dumbed down and that it's not really how it's described.
All I am pointing out is that what is described is actually incredibly consistent with what we now understand. If God is the creator of the universe, He therefore exists apart from it, which we now understand would also mean He exists apart from both space and time. So, what's described here makes more sense in the context of modern knowledge than ever before.
Take a second to have another look at the description please.
1000 years = a day = 1000 years
That description is consistent with being inside space-time and not outside space-time. Notice each variable is a measure of time? In other words time passes for him. You may also notice it doesn't say million or billions of years because the writer had no idea how old the universe was. Which is consistent with someone writing without and knowledge he shouldn't have possessed.
Right, each variable is a measure of time because the intended audience understood time in this way. So, it's saying that to God 1000 years and 1 day are equal. There's no difference.
Just a while ago you told me how profound it was and now you are telling me it was dumbed down so much so that it was not accurate at all.
How is it not profound that a document thousands of years old is talking about time being perceived differently to a being who exists apart from the heavens/earth than it is to people living on the earth? A statement made over 3000 years before the theory of relativity?
And who said it wasn't accurate?
1 day = 1000 years = 1 day
... or ...
x = y = x
... or ...
x = y
In other words, from God's perspective there is no difference. This isn't 'dumbed down'. It's a statement of fact explained in a way that anyone can understand, no matter what age you live in. Even if you don't yet know it's all relative. Now we have physics that makes sense out of that statement. It shows that a being that exists as described actually would perceive time differently.
Now, you're invoking relativity into something that has no relevance to it. More bs.
No relevance? Time is relative, meaning it's a product of this universe, meaning it only exists as we perceive it within this universe, meaning anything that exists apart from this universe would perceive time differently, meaning this is completely relevant.
You invoked Relativity. I'm quite sure now you don't understand it and are just bs'ing again.
Uh-huh. So maybe you can help a brother out and explain how exactly what I'm saying is wrong.
You don't appear to understand very much at all and are just bs'ing everyone, so I'm done with you and your disingenuous magical thinking.
So you can't say what it is that I have wrong that makes it so obvious to you that I 'don't appear to understand much of anything at all'? You've yet to back up a single argument you've made, and what few statements you have made that weren't accusing me of being dishonest or incapable of understanding were factually and demonstrably wrong. Are you sure I'm the one being disingenuous?
Anything outside our universe and time wouldn't perceive time at all.
But it's not accurate at all. If something were outside time, but somehow had the time to look and watch us he could then instantaneously go between billions of years with taking any time at all. But that's not what is described at all.
A better description would have been 1 billion years = 0 = 1 billion years.
I did that and I'm a moron.
That says the exact same thing. It's saying that a short period of time and a long period of time are no different. I'm just pointing out that what's described 3000 years ago is consistent with what we now know. That if there truly were a being who existed apart from the universe, this being would indeed perceive time differently than we do. You're still thinking about things in the context of time and space. Even when you're attempting to grasp something outside of time and space you're still thinking of it in terms of time and space. In your mind something outside of our space-time would have to occupy some other plain of space and time. That's not necessarily true. These rules you're attempting to apply are only rules that apply here. We have no idea what rules apply, if any, beyond this reality. All we do know is that time and space as we experience it is not part of it.
Actually no. It is you who is saying that time would exist outside space-time.
1 billion years = 0 time = 1 billion years
1000 years = 1 day = 1000 years
See the difference? Your is not accurate at all as it implies that time still passes for someone outside space-time.
But it's not talking about time in some other place where God is. It's talking about time here on earth in relation to humans and how God perceives it in comparison. To God there is no difference between one day on the earth and 1000 years on the earth. Both times it says this, in Psalms 90 and in 2 Peter 3, it's speaking of time passing on the earth and how God was there when the mountains were born and is there when we all turn to dust. Now we know, time is only something we experience because we are physical matter made of the same stuff as everything else and are affected by time the same as everything else made of this universe. God is not.
You are saying that it's a description of how God perceives time. And you give (or the bible gives) examples of an amount of time which someone outside time wouldn't have. You are in effect says God does perceive time by saying 1000 years is like a day or a day is like a 1000 years. It's not an accurate description of a God that can perceive all of our times at once. Buy the bibles descriptions it would still take millions of years for God before the first humans showed up.
I'm saying it's a description of how God perceives OUR time. It's saying that to God 1 day is exactly the same as 1000 years. There's no difference to Him between yesterday and a thousand years ago. So, there'd be no difference between yesterday and millions of years ago either.
That is not what scriptures says, that is what you are saying. Scriptures specifies one day to a thousand years, which means time IS being experienced, whether it be a day or a thousand years.
Right and he is equating different unites of time. So he must perceive time, to perceive time one must be in space-time. It says nothing of him jumping from points of time instantaneously. It says he can jump a thousand years in a day. A day. A day is a unite or measurement of time.
To give another example,
If the description was, "to God time is meaningless".
I wouldn't be arguing.
Oh I'm sure you'd still find a way to argue it... haha
Right, it's a unit of measure of time that mortal humans can relate to. The first time it's Solomon talking about God, the second time it's Peter. And they're describing, from their perspective, how God's perspective is different than theirs where time is concerned.
God's perspective is specifically described ...
Psalms 139: 7-10 - Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.
Proverbs 15:3 - The eyes of the Lord are in every place, watching the evil and the good.
Psalms 33: 13-14 - From heaven the Lord looks down and sees all mankind; from his dwelling place he watches all who live on earth
At the beginning of the creation account it says 'God's spirit' was on the face of the waters. Other times God talked to Moses through a burning bush, or talked to the Israelites through the Ark in the Tabernacle, or appeared as a 'stranger'. He often interacted with the earth, most times with humans specifically, by participating in a particular moment in time. So God can participate in and interact with this world, but actually 'dwells' in heaven where He is unaffected by time. So He can 'pop in' where ever/whenever He likes. But no matter if it's millions of years ago when the oceans first formed, or thousands of years from now, He is the same, unchanged by the time experienced within this universe.
Scriptures says that one day is a thousand years for God, you provided those quotes yourself. Even though a thousand years may pass on Earth, God experiences one day, which means God IS indeed affected by time.
Being affected by time and remaining unchanged by time are two different things.
Correction, scripture says one day is a thousand years AND a thousand years is one day for God. So, it's clearly not as you say. If it had just said one or the other, then that would be right. But it doesn't. By saying it the way it does it is clear that it's saying there is no difference to God between one day and one thousand years. Big difference.
LOL. That is exactly the same thing. And, it doesn't change the fact that God experiences time, it confirms that..
Are you kidding? Each alone, in the very same way you put it, would be this ....
1 day is 1000 years = Even though a thousand years may pass on Earth, God experiences one day
1000 years is 1 day = Even though one day may pass on Earth, God experiences a thousand years
So how is that the same?
Both EncephaloiDead and I are attempting to explain to you that a day is measured unit of time. Therefore the description that you give for your God is not the same as the description depicted in the bible.
Right, it is. Because the topic is time they're using measured units of time. Then, they say that to God 1 day, 1 unit, is exactly the same as 365,000 units. In other words, while there is a gigantic difference between 1 day and 365,000 days to us, there is absolutely no difference to God. Because He is unaffected by time.
No, it says he must use 1 day to travel through 1000 to be precise. It is you who says he is unaffected by time.
I've already showed you what a description such as your would have looked like a few times.
What are you talking about? Are you seriously telling me you don't get this? Here's what you just said ...
"it says he must use 1 day to travel through 1000 to be precise"
And here's what 2 Peter says ...
"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
1 day IS LIKE 1000 years AND 1000 years IS LIKE 1 day
What you said only applies to half of that. You didn't account for the whole other half of the statement.
Look, I get that you're trying to say that because this is equating measurements of time to God that God must experience time. I get it. It's wrong, but I get it. You're knit-picking this extremely simple statement to death, missing the proverbial forest for the trees. You're so focused in on the units of measure and such that you're completely missing the point of the statement. To God there is no difference between 1 day and 365,000 days. They use units of measure that humans understand because they are humans explaining to other humans that God's perspective of time is different. Because they're using recognizable units of measure it goes without saying that to us humans there is a significant difference between 1 day and 365,000 days. So, to make a point, they're saying that while there's this gigantic difference to us, to God there's no difference. It's really very simple.
I'm not knit-picking at all. I can think of (and have) many ways to better articulate what you think the statement say as can you, I know, because you just did. So if we can more accurately articulate what you think God's perception of time is, Peter should have been able to do the same if he so desired. But he didn't, he described God as being about to affect time and being in time. One can't honestly jump from that to he is outside time and therefore billions of years can be seen instantaneously. If he wanted to describe that he could have just as I've just done. His description is also consistent with someone thinking the universe is a few thousand years old. Much like almost have the United States.
This is ridiculous. I didn't base all my previous statements about God and His perspective on this one statement. It comes from a combination of all the various statements that describe God, His perspective of time, His perspective of space, His perspective watching from heaven, His being the creator of the universe, His being the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, combined with reality as we now understand it. This one statement you're all hung up on is simply one human explaining to other humans that there is no difference to God between a short amount of time and an extremely long amount of time like there is for the rest of us. They're explaining that God doesn't experience time as we do. Those units of measure, while broadly different to us, are not different to Him.
All of the various places in the bible where it describes God or specifies God's perspective makes more sense now given our modern knowledge than ever before. If we had discovered the universe was actually infinite and did not have a beginning, then that would conflict with what's described. But we didn't. If we had found out that time/space were actually constants that were not simply dimensions that exist within this universe but actually remain consistent beyond it, or are not relative to it, then that would conflict with this statement. But we didn't. The more we figure out the more reality matches up with what was described.
You can continue to read this as if bronze age people knowingly made up a completely false story over the course of numerous generations by numerous different authors just to justify their actions or whatever if you like, but that assumption is causing you to not even be able to comprehend the simplest of statements. You're making an assumption about these texts that you don't and can't know is true or not, and then you're basing how you perceive everything you read on that baseless assumption. I'm not trying to justify beliefs or convince anyone of anything I don't think is true. I have good reason to think this is true, and it's the real truth that matters to me. These people who shaped who we ultimately became, for whatever reason, chose to write these texts. They chose to claim actual interactions with this God. Nobody knows if they're true or not. I don't KNOW they're true. But I haven't already made up my mind. I'm open to possibilities. And in being open to these possibilities I have found ample evidence that supports the idea that these events could very well have actually happened. All we know for sure is that humans in a very short amount of time completely changed how they behaved, completely changed how they functioned as a society, and all of them, the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Indus Valley, the Hittites, the Canaanites, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, every single culture that came from that region began documenting very similar stories of things each culture really believed to be actual history. We can continue to just assume all these people just inexplicably decided to make up these stories and pass them off as real history, or we could recognize that if it walks/talks/quacks like a duck, maybe it really is a duck.
So, what does any of that prove? How does it stand up to the millions and billions of years scientists understand about our world?
You sure like to put words in my mouth, I never said anything of the sort. You are essentially arguing with yourself.
A fairy tale, at best.
What does that prove? Where are these timelines you speak of?
Then, what about these other failed biblical prophecies?
the proof of god exists in the dictionary. it has 5 definitions in mine
No project does not in anyway negate free will. God is omnipresent henceforth can see the future. While we act in free will he can still see what is going to happen in the future and therefore his servants are able to prophecy future events that will come to pass due to the end result of free will. Hard to understand from the human perspective.
Yes, from a human perspective it is indeed hard to see how the future can be observed and written, yet is at the same time completely malleable, subject to change at any time.
It's like saying God saw a goat, he wrote that there was a goat, but we can change that goat to a cow at any time but we won't because God saw a goat.
Is that what happened when God said that Babylon would be utterly destroyed by Persia suddenly and completely, with no one ever living there again... Yet it continued to exist for centuries after the invasion... happily and productively... until it effectively died of old age 600 years later... under the name Babylon at least. People still live there now. Have never stopped living there. Many of the buildings are constructed out of the stone that was prophesied would no longer exist.
Did we exercise free will and therefore make God a liar?
Right, if the future is predetermine we have no free will. The choices are already made.
Then, how are you supposed to understand that?
Has anyone figured out that the invisible is more real than the visible, yet?
There are lots of things that are invisible that are real, it's the undetectable that we should question.
Good point, but I have detected God.
Believe it nor not.
I don't believe that at all. It's not even a choice.
And I have detected Santa.
Believe it nor not.
Really? Honestly now, could you convince yourself that Rad Man has met Santa?
It is my choice to believe him or not. I have many thoughts about the matter depending on my own inner feedback.
For instance, I know that Santa only refers to a mythological figure, therefore to my understanding, Mr. Rad Man probably sat on the lap of a person dressed up like Santa Claus, in a department store as a young child... and has never come to the realization that it was not really Santa.
Don't make excuses or dance around the pole. You know exactly what RadMan is referring to; he has detected the Santa you claim is mythical.
If you really have a choice, can you convince yourself that Rad Man met the mythical Santa of the North Pole that delivers toys to each and every child on earth on Xmas eve?
I am not dancing around on a pole. Or making excuses for not doing so. I am simply saying that according to my own inner feedback… my own ability to reason or come to a conclusion regarding the reality of a particular statement... is based on my own perceptions of what is true. In other words, those who have their own evidence of God will choose to believe that I have indeed detected God. Those who have not detected God will choose not to believe I have detected God.
Of course, it is a choice to believe that I have detected God...
Those who have also detected God will believe me.
Those who have not detected God will not believe me.
Then why would you ever tell Rad Man he has a choice to believe you or not? He plainly does not believe or have evidence in God - by your own statement he does not have any choice in believing your detected Him or not.
Originally I was responding to EncephaloiDead. But when I respond to anyone I am responding to the whole of humanity trying to make a point that any civilized being can comprehend.
Keyboarding words and thoughts is obviously addicting. We are all addicts here. We are all enablers. LOL
What you are really asking is, how have I detected God? Why not just come out and ask me? Because you know you will not believe me based on your own inner thought processes which long ago blocked out any perception/possibility of invisible communication with God.
Yes, but like God, sometimes Santa does not give you what you want. Maybe you weren't a good girl.
I didn't see God feeding the starving, I saw people doing that.
No, I am asking how you can distinguish one mythological figure from another?
Results, results. God I hear. I get a response, a real response. Santa/ EasterBunny I don't.
Believe it or not.
Results, results, the cookies and milk are gone and there are presents under the tree with labels on them that say, "From Santa". Those are real results.
Lots of people "hear" voices in their heads, but it isn't possible to equate those voices with anything or anyone because they have no references, no confirmations of what they're hearing. Some say it's God, others say Napoleon. Most of them get locked up sooner or later.
as I said, it is based on your own experience in life. If you had ever asked God for help, you would get his invisible guidance and you would understand what I say. God is real.
God is real as Spirit.
Without God where would we be????
So you think santa is a myth because you asked him for something and you didn't receive it? Doesn't that also (at least by your logic) make god a myth because millions of people ask him for things that he does not supply?
And Jesus does not refer to a mythological figure?????
God is omnipresent love, will power, intelligence and awareness. God is the force within us, around us and in all creation. How do I know this? Because He helped with my last predicament which has been a very bad concussion from a headlong fall. Few understand how to deal with concussions. I got invisible assistance which has brought me through terrible suffering.
That's better, because it takes away the presumption that "God" is a real being.... now you present "God" as a set of attributes, which we can all subscribe to and aspire to.