I've read a few forums about God lately questioning whether God exists or not, well I'm no expert but my answer would be YES. You don't have to be a geniuses to understand that there is a higher form of life that created you in its image. It really doesn't matter what you call it but some prefer to call it God
And many thinking themselves to be wise, rejects this and dig deeper
thus exposing the truth about their wisdom.
How do you understand that?
Why should there be higher forms of life?
Will one need to be a genius to understand that there is a "higher higher form" of life that created the higher form of life, with another "higher higher higher form" life that created the "higher higher" form of life?
Oh god! shet again!!
Kess was more than enough.
Actually, his reasoning is spot on.
If one excepts that a higher power/being must have made us then logically one would have to except an even higher power must have made what made us and so on and so on and so on.
In your teaser you mentioned logic, but yet you have failed to provide any. Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike) is the use and study of valid reasoning. This is a simple pasted definition of logic. The next time you use the word you may want to use this as a guide.
I'm not seeing much "logic" in your statement, only a belief based solely on the desire that there be a god. Logic requires not only certain thought processes, but a true premise to begin with - both are missing when you declare simply that "You don't have to be a geniuses to understand that there is a higher form of life that created you in its image"
All that statement says is that you believe without logic or evidence - not that it is a logical conclusion. Or can you flesh out the statement with facts and develop it into something that logically follows from those facts?
Are human beings capable to C R E A T I N G any form of life (let alone a human being) themselves? You'll have to begin with atoms and particles (as far as we know right now).
Sounds like you're trying to go from "we don't know how to create life, therefore there is a god that did it". Unfortunately, logic cannot use ignorance to develop a conclusion - that there is a god does not follow logically from a basis of ignorance.
(And man has ALREADY made life from molecules - not much different than from atoms.)
Not sure what 'created-life' you're talking about.
Anyway, if a few ants were as 'intelligent' as us ~ and if they had seen a broken television ~ they might have said what you have just said:
Sounds like you're trying to go from "we don't know how to create a television, therefore there is a man that did it".
Man has created bacterial life from partial molecules of totally dead DNA.
Those are YOUR words; I did not indicate any form of creator. There is nothing we know of in physical laws preventing formation of life from inert materials, and without an intelligence behind the process.
Please rephrase your reply to make it a bit more understandable. And add a little more detail about that 'life-creation' thing.
I understood you to ask if man could create life (we can), and assuming we can't it proves a god did it. The logic of the reasoning is badly flawed; whether man can make life or not has nothing to do with a god making it. Was I mistaken?
A television? Would the ants look at a fly and say, "well we don't know how to make a fly therefor men must had made it?
Can you please explain to me how man makes life
Take the DNA from a bacteria and partially destroy it. The bacteria is now dead, without any DNA at all. Reconstruct the partial DNA string from off the shelf chemicals and re-insert it into the dead body. It comes to life.
'life', 'death', 'dead DNA', 'reverse engineering' a bacteria ~ what are these?
The 'example' that you have provided for 'man making life' ~ is too elementary and commonplace: not even fundamentally any different from the phenomena of 'eye replacement' or a 'kidney transplant' (should I need to remind you that we can not create an 'eye' or a 'kidney' ourselves?).
Sorry to say, but you're losing respect.
OK - let's define what "life" is - at the point "death" should be relatively easy as the opposite of life.
Care to give it a whirl? Can you define "life" in such a way that we can test for that quality and determine if a mass is alive or not?
As far as I know, 'life' and 'consciousness' are synonymous. As long as a 'body' contains consciousness, that body then appears to be alive, to us.
Contrary to popular belief, 'consciousness' or 'spirit' does not reside solely inside the brain. As far as I know, 'consciousness' inhabits the entire body - from the top of head to the fingers of the feet - consciousness is distributed and attached to the physical organs by the virtue of some (unknown) mechanism.
Something needs to be said here: the Head, the Heart, the Arms, and the Lowers parts of the body, and the Feet ~ do not contain the same qualities of the 'consciousness'. I'll expand here if necessary.
The bottom line: There is no 'life' as such. There exists only 'matter' and 'consciousness'.
Then a bacteria or virus is not alive, nor any simple animal (amoeba, plankton, etc.). Few biologists would agree with you, and neither would I - I define not only those simple animals as "alive" but plants as well and there is no indication that they are "conscious" at all.
Nor does your definition meet the requirements; there is no way of testing for "consciousness" I'm aware of and you will thus have to give your own personal evaluation of every mass on earth to determine if it is alive.
Well, as it happens, 'bacteria', trees etc - they do have 'consciousness' as well. But it must be clarified here that 'we' shall encounter variations of intensely and quality (and a whole array of such 'differences') while dealing with the 'consciousness' or various species and entities.
No need to go further ~ even inside our home, if we have two or more siblings, if we observe them closely, we would find them to be totally different from in each other, in their aptitudes, habits etc - and in the general level and quality of their 'consciousness'.
How do you test for the consciousness of a bacteria? You're skipping over that part of the required definition, but it IS important for any reasonable discussion. To be honest, it seems as though you're trying to set it up to declare anything "dead" that doesn't fit into your desired conclusions.
Not really so. YOU do not need to be relying on MY repertoire ~ to convince YOURSELF to determine whether an entity possesses consciousness or whether it does not.
Both of US are fundamentally 'consciousness' - and if I can differentiate 'the existence of consciousness' or the lack of thereof - you can too.
Oh, I can and do. It's just that any conversation about things must have a common referent; to discuss what "death" is we must have a common definition of it.
I'm just trying to find out what your definition is, but when you say "It's whatever I decide at the moment, based on what I want the conclusion to be" it isn't much help and in fact grossly inhibits any meaningful dialogue.
I don't doubt that at all. After all, when one wishes to convince others of their god and those others insist that any dialogue be meaningful and useful it kind of all falls apart, doesn't it? It's a pretty common response after a few exchanges; "I don't like you because you won't accept my belief just because I say it is true".
You wished to define creating life as nothing more than an eye transplant, whereupon I asked for your definition of life. The only thing you've said since then is that you will define it as you wish, untestable and changing according to a pre-set eventual conclusion of a god making all life. It doesn't work, it doesn't promote dialogue, and it is ONLY self-serving to your own ends instead of actually learning something or stimulating thought.
And when it is recognized as such, your response is "I don't respect you any more". Well done - I had thought we might actually have a conversation but you've followed in the footsteps of your predecessors; the "Don't confuse me with facts and reason" crowd.
Your problem is that you (seemingly) can't think beyond a fixed border (of thinking). I appreciate the fact that no one is going to earn a penny by keyboarding over the internet. My life won't significantly change whether I say the last word or whether it's you. In a sense, all these dialogues are fruitless endeavors. Even signing up on this site is fruitless in a way.
But as human beings, we want to know more and have the need to communicate. That's it. I can not entertain someone when they want to screw a conversation repeatedly, following a very recognizable pattern of communication. No one should. And no one will.
OK. I would apologize for dislodging your reasoning towards "Believe in a god because I say it is there" if I didn't understand that line of thought already, but it's far too common to be anything new.
Then unfortunately you don't no very far. There are only a few animals alive that are aware of themselves as we are or even close to as we are.
You'll have to back that up. If we shut down the brain we lose consciousness, but we can shut down other organs and still have consciousness.
I think Wilderness is once again very right. We are going to have to agree on some definitions before we can educate you on some of the simplest of concepts.
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/jan-fe … ell-future
Perhaps you should learn before you post.
Believers in God (named Yahweh) will be in for a rude awakening if they ever study Hebrew mythology. God had a wife and about 70 kids (kind of like the trailer trash welfare warriors of the deep south today). They, like the rest of the Mesopotamian cultures believed in multiple gods up until the Babylonian exile in 600 BC. Hint's of Jews believing in multiple gods are present in the Bible although most of it was edited out over the years. It's hilarious to think that God is the only true god that is real while all others are made up rubbish.
"People don't want other people to get high, because if you get high, you might see the falsity of the fabric of the society we live in."
~ Ken Kesey (author of the novel "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest")
by Felixedet20005 years ago
People nowadays are so indifferent about God in so many ways, most people prefer not to talk about God completely.What do you think is responsible for this?
by LewSethics5 years ago
This god so many people insist is real sounds like a complex thing. Complex things don't just spring out of nowhere or assemble themselves, so it was probably created by a higher form, because nothing complex can...
by A Thousand Words3 years ago
I argued with a professor today about why the example he gave of this law was insufficient. He is a religious Professor that likes to teach Western Civ as though it's Bible study at a secular institution, so I'm not a...
by riddle6664 years ago
There is this fellow who said god created a body then killed it and then resurrected it to forgive humans.If you want to forgive somebody, will you dance(or do any nonsensical act) before forgiving or you simply...
by Tony Lawrence6 years ago
A theist asked me to start a separate thread for this. I refused at first, but then I thought "why not?"Let's understand first that I am not against religion per se. I believe it can help some people. I do not...
by Elliott_T6 years ago
So here's an interesting question, whether you believe in God or not: How big of a deal is it if you're wrong?Atheist: If you believed there was no God and then you died and met him, how big of a deal do you think that...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.