You have the right to say comical stuff, please continue.
Do you have overwhelming proof that evolution does not exist? We see it every year when the flu virus evolves, for example. But I understand that ancient fairy stories are easier to grasp especially when there's some sort of supreme being that runs everything. Unlike evolution, these cute stories don't use big, complex words that require thought and further research. Evolution is backed with physical evidence like DNA. God is a man made belief. To believe that Genesis is true, one would have to believe that the earth is flat, we all are a product of inbreeding (DNA says no - so where did the blacks, Mongolians, and Polynesians come from?), talking snakes and giants existed and the list goes on. Genesis is a story to tells the creation of one particular group of Semites that lived among many groups of Semites. In Genesis, the earth was already here but formless and that there were other groups of people (the Assyrians) and other gods existing before Adam and Eve. Genesis is also a Jewish version of a much earlier Sumerian creation story called the Eridu Genesis. Genesis was not written by Moses (a metaphor - he doesn't exist out side the Bible as with 99% of the characters) because it was written in the 5th-6th century BC by captured Jews under Babylonian rule. Genesis starts out in classical Babylonian format and there's at least five different writing styles through out. One last thing.The Jews stopped taking the OT literally since the 12th century so why are non Jews still taking these stories literally today? It was written by Jews, for Jews and not meant for non-Jews. It's a how-to book on living like a 1st Century Jew. If one threw some sort of god in Mao's Little Red Book, I'm sure a lot of people would be following that too!
I believe God is behind evolution. Without God there would be no evolution.
Is God not behind evolution? Evolution is proof of God.
Furthermore, nature is proof of God. You are proof of God and so am I.
I am the essence of what God is. I am God… a small portion.
without me I do not evolve. Without God I do not evolve. Why? Because the big Self of all little Selves is real.
"Over-soul has more recently come to be used by Eastern philosophers such as Meher Baba and others as the closest English language equivalent of the Vedic concept of Paramatman. (In Sanskrit the word param means "supreme" and atman means "soul"; thus Paramatman literally means "Supreme-Soul' " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Over-Soul
Kathryn with that logic, I'd be more comfortable watching cannibalism happen. (That was a joke)
You forget to ask questions because you're too biased and cannot make claims because you passionately and desperately believe in a God.
Your logic can't be "I can't figure anything else why, it must be God's doing."
Think about how much your life would change if God didn't exist.
Do you not believe in yourself to come up with ways to live in a certain manner? Look at Atheists, how different are they to you besides the obvious religious differences?
How do you feel, knowing your life is in your hands instead of God's?
my life is in my hands. God allows it. When I ask for God's help, He helps me. He will not give me more help than I want. How do I know? I have experienced it over and over in my life. Enough to indicate it is not the result of random coincidence. Don't forget, I was an atheist in my early twenties.
What I received had to have been the gift of some omnipresent, omniscient intelligence/awareness.
How did you come up with that? Because God?
I think this is God:
"some omnipresent, omniscient intelligence/awareness."
It makes sense to ME. Based on what I have experienced.
Repeating: What I have experienced so many times could not have been coincidence.
This omnipresent awareness is apparently all knowing and all powerful. He will not make Himself more known because he wants us to have free will. Thats what I figure, anyway.
How do you expect others to understand and believe if it's subjective?
That's the problem with the argument, Kathryn. You cannot expect to claim something objectively and use subjective reason.
If God is omniscient and assuming he can predict the future because he's omniscient, then why doesn't God just send "bad" people into Hell before they have the chance to be born and send the "good" people into Heaven already? Why have life on Earth if God can determine the good from the bad and put everyone where they rightfully belong ?
because he made a total playground for humans who have free-will. He seems to cooperate with those who want his help/presence/wisdom. He will instruct on the spot when I ask (and open myself up with total faith) for it. (through intuition)
I would say knowledge of Mighty Triple O (omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient awareness) can only be subjective. That's how he seems to operate. (Otherwise, it would negate free will.)
HE does not allow the bad things… we do. He gave us free will and he will not take it away for ANY reason. We ourselves are responsible for every bad thing that occurs. For instance, when we are asleep, we are like angels.
He knows what's best for people, if people understand the logic that God know everything, then logically, people cannot argue against that because God would be doing them a favor.
Right, we allow bad things to happen. God is aware of who will commit these bad things and should not bother and send us to our respective after living places.
That's a bit cut/dry.
But it really depends on how one defines evolution. If by Darwin or Hawking, yes, I'd agree with you that there is no evolution. However, if we look at what it means to evolve, and take into account many historical references, Genesis being no exception, can clearly see a systematic evolving of this -and every other world. The universe -as quoted by even the farthest hardline science- is continuing to expand, more rapidly on its edges.
Evolution is about expansion, layering, continuing the process of creation. "An ever increasing kingdom."
Look at it from the perspective of the Restoration. Immediately following his loss of immortality the process of evolution back to that stasis began, and has continued to this day. Layer upon layer of recreation and a devolution of what ruined him. The goal is a complete restoration to that stasis for every individual who steps onto that path.
Faith, by its true definition, is evolution. "By faith the worlds were framed..."
Evolution is the visible expression of that creative action. Darwin, albeit an intelligent guy without a doubt, is a product of devolution. He implored the Socratic method to win the masses and credibility of the scientific community. It worked. But then again so did cell phones, cheeseburgers and Twitter.
As for evidence of Moshiach, of course there is. The rest hasn't been discovered, yet, or it has, and someone is doing there best to keep it from the public, until He reappears for the Muslims & Christians as 2nd coming and Jews as 1st coming.
My intention was to proclaim, "Without God, there is no evolution." Thank You for the support.
<" Evolution is the visible expression of that creative action.">
My pleasure, love.
For those reading who are unawares, the first recorded idea of evolution was in the form of a concept derived out of Aristotelian metaphysical ideologies. Although he did not coin the term, his work on the use/disuse mechanism of animal and plant species gave way to the thought that over time items within nature will take/shed certain characteristics, as a form of adaptation, versus mutation from which they do as part of the greater whole. Circa 1776. You might know his name: Monsieur Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.
Second, is not to confuse natural evolution with the current Theory of Evolution, circa 1920 which gave birth to Darwinism. Although Darwin-Wallace proposed common descent and not necessarily use/disuse was the cause of changes to species, they did use much of M. Lamarck ideas and research to establish their own ideologies in order to transition from natural evolution to natural selection. (One item I find remarkable about Darwinism is the use of the same Haeckel's Tree of Life model, with man as the final benefactor of all species before him. Why my remarkability? Simple: according to the Genesis reference, all the other "Days" existed and were formed before man, for man's pleasure and benefit. Man being the last and set as ruler over all of nature. Coincidence or providence?). On a side note, I find it interesting that nature, with man at the helm, had in mind the world we see today. Because, hey, she adapted/muted everything else to form this thing called man and set him loose to execute her "evolutionary" purposes...
Third is to not mix the Big Bang Theory into either without crowning yourself a Creationist, as the BBT, and Hubble theories, were designed, published and lectured by none other than Monsieur Georges Lemaître, a Belgian-born Jesuit priest and senior professor at the acclaimed Catholic University at Leuven (after graduating Cambridge and MIT). Circa 1930. Above all, Georges could easily be dubbed the founder of modern creationism and is believed to have designed the theory to explain how from nothing God fashioned the universe, why it is ever growing, etc. He and Einstein did not see eye-to-eye yet worked extensively on many of their theories together -the most notable being gravity.
Kathryn, I agree...
I do not believe in evolution, I believe God created the Heaven and the Earth and everything was VOID, as the Bible reads.
When a scientist says a finding is millions of years old, I cannot agree...How would one know that?
I will not argue with those who disagree, every individual has a right to his/her opinion.
The above is my opinion/thoughts only.
I believe without God we will not evolve... I think God Himself, as Mighty Triple O (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent) is the force behind evolution. Am I guessing, using my imagination? Yes, but it makes sense to me. The evidence will be coming in. Furthermore, If we do not sense God and cooperate with God and how He made and designed all things natural in the universe, we will reap karma. We must use our intelligence to work harmoniously with Mighty Triple O with respect /reverence. Life is not a joke. Didn't mean to lecture. Just mentioning the facts of the matter as I see them.
"We must use our intelligence..."
I think it's time you stop relying on the bible then. That's not intelligence, that's just reading information and demanding you follow set rules without question because it's God. What if it wasn't God's will and someone extremely wise?
Would you listen just the same?
If you understand God's will then there must of been a process of questioning it first. A naïve and immature answer would be, "God is perfect therefore I follow what the bible says." If you would be so kind as to what got you into religion I'd love to hear it, Kathryn.
I was an atheist for a while. But, I found it impossible to believe there was no force behind all that exists. My belief in God was due to contemplating a tree. I thought to myself: There is energy in that tree…. the same energy that is in me. Jesus said, "The light of the body is the eye: if therefore your eye be single, your whole body shall be full of light." Matthew 6:22
I think he meant if you use your sixth sense of intuition you will perceive that your body is composed of light… which it is. Just as a tree and everything that exists is. Down to the molecular level… God is all, is in all that exists and exists as all. Thats why heaven can be perceived within our very being. "The kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:21
The Way I See It.
You will have to go a lot further down than the molecular level to confirm that you are composed of light. And when you do, you will find no photons at all but instead such things as protons, neutrons, electrons and a dozen or so other subatomic particles.
- subatomic particles have to do with energy... or light. In Jesus' day no one understood the word or reality of "energy." So, he used what they did know: light.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 075152.htm
- who is to say the force of God was not behind this occurence?
"... the exomembrane hypothesis, suggests that the nucleus...originated from a single ancestral cell that evolved a second exterior cell membrane; the interior membrane enclosing the original cell then became the nuclear membrane and evolved increasingly elaborate pore structures for passage of internally synthesized cellular components such as ribosomal subunits."
Odd how it seems to always come down to changing the meaning of the bible to show it's truth, isn't it?
- what was the meaning of the Bible…do YOU suppose?
1. We are told it is God's word
2. We are told God is kind and loves us.
3. From (2) we can deduce he would not lie, and that is implicit in most believers statements anyway.
4) We are told God is omniscient - He does not err. Ever.
5. The bible is not truthful (or is full of errors).
6. From (4) and (5) we can deduce that God did not write (or even oversee the writing) the bible. (1) has to be incorrect.
7. Therefore the bible is wild fantasizing (or outright lies) from the men that DID write it. The assumed meaning is then "Believe what I tell you so I can better control your life for you". Unless you have a different concept in mind from a pack of liars?
So, you think the history of Jesus is not factual?
I think that there is sufficient room and reason to doubt the historical jesus.
Don't know - does your concept of "history" include changing water into wine and zombies walking around?
I've never read about Zombies in the NT! Please cite!
I do not believe in Zombies.
...and I really don't think Jesus mentions them, ever.
You brought up the zombie named Jesus, not I, with the insinuation that the story was "history". Or is the proper term "undead" - you know dead bodies walking around.
ha ha ha…! lets go, on this one… Jesus was not a walking dead. What, exactly, gave you that idea?
*shrug* He died and three days later was seen walking around. Zombie, undead, call it what you will.
"Zombies are real undead creatures, typically depicted as mindless, reanimated human corpses with a hunger for human flesh." Wikipedia Encyclopedia
And this sounds like Jesus to you?
" A common example of a zombie is a corpse re-animated by supernatural forces by the application of the deceased's own life force or that of another being (such as a demon). Undead may be incorporeal like ghosts, or corporeal like vampires and zombies." Wikipedia
The key word is "re-animated" in the above definition. Jesus never died. He was still animated by his own pure life force which He never lost touch with. After his heart stopped beating he was consciously alive in spirit. We can also learn to be alive/conscious in spirit after our hearts stops beating.
As always you come up with a slew of opinions that you cannot support. Which is yet another reason the bible is unreliable as a source of truth; if it doesn't match with reality you will simply change it until it does.
The Bible actually does mention what would have to be zombies Matthew 27:51-53
- pretty amazing.
- know nothing about this incident. Never looked into it before.
Thanks for sharing.
Let's not confuse a foreshadow of the rapture with the brain eaters.
"When a scientist says a finding is millions of years old, I cannot agree...How would one know that?"
There is a huge difference between not agreeing and actively disagreeing. Sadly, too many people DO disagree simply because of ignorance. That one does not know is never a reason to either agree OR disagree.
What I don't believe is the idea that the bible writers intended Genesis to be read as a literal step by step sequence of events like some kind of reportage. It isn't credible to read it with a 21st century mindset and suggest that the party line interpretation somehow trumps scientific enquiry. What Christians fail to do is try to get into the mindset of the bronze age Jewish authors. As I understand it their view of scripture is that there is no requirement for literal truth, as it's purpose is to convey a spiritual truth or principle, much like a parable.
"Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.
Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable."
If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours."
https://www.astrosociety.org/publicatio … m-nothing/
I disagree… it did not come from nothing… it came from the mind of God.
You quoted how that might happened; "something from nothing" is a reasonable concept and has a solid foundation.
Now can you show the same for the mind of your god?
I think you missed her point.
The fact, not theory, that particles appear out of nothing/nowhere and disappear into nothing/nowhere, only to solidify as something entirely different explains better the invisible/unseen. As one theory put it, God, is both the visible and invisible mind/designer. What you see optically is merely a speck/blip of everything that is/ seeable / manifest / created and is not / invisible / un-created. The dance of particles resembles the act of breathing invisible air yet seeing the lungs expand/contract and feeling it pass through you. One moment it was not there and suddenly it is. How do you explain it? You can't. You can only experience it.
Happy eclipse to you, jacharless!
Yet, your hypothesis here (hypothesis, not theory) is that a god does it. Then you go on to say it can't be explained - how does that work just after hypothesizing that a god did it? Just grab an answer and hope it's right?
Like any other theory, it must be tested by practical application.
The best application is experience -bar none, hands-down.
Quantum has already proven much of the theory regarding a force outside-of the visible/tangible universe. This means that those subatomic particles which disappear into "thin air" must go somewhere unknown/unseen with our current -and quite sophisticated equipment. It also displays that upon collision of two opposing particles, both explode/dissolve, like miniature supernova, and an entirely new one appear. So, even on the sub (and ultra sub) atomic levels, energy has a force driving it, directing it. What is that force? Could it be a force defined as God? Yes it could. In nearly every instance of human history/existence, nearly 20,000 years we're talking, the Ineffable is defined as both Everything and Nothing, the Seen and Unseen. Not surprisingly, the most common term associated with God by most ancients is The Breath [ruach, ohm, pneuma]. Quantum would say what they observe is likened to the universe breathing.
Going further, several renowned physicists have proven a direct correlation between subatomic activity and nearly every Eastern philosophy, including Vedic, i-Ching, and so forth. Ideologies as old, if not older, than Christianity and even pre-Judaism. It is hypothesized that these ideologies were handed down by the Sumerians, the first known culture to study the stars and matter. There are documents to support this. Even more so, Quantum has proven that particles are NOT isolated "grains" of matter, but rather PROCESSES -call it CODE in motion if you like. Input/Output. Breathe In/Breathe Out, same-same. The properties of light, which accounts for nearly all composition in the known universe also shows this. My own 2 decades of research show this, and much more. There is, in fact, a definitive Semiotic in each pattern. These patterns do form a type of map -what looks like a genetic map. Yup, like DNA. They also are very closely aligned with chromosome sequences. Again, Coincidence or Providence?
This, therefore supports a sensational ideology that this universe is, in its entirety, the Breath of God. The question to ask is how or why in the world, some 5, 10 or 20 thousand years ago, could/would humans considered such profound concepts and attempt to test such theories, even documenting some? How could such a concept still exist after 20,000 years if there wasn't something to it? Dismissing possibility negates probability -and the increase of understanding, yes? Keep an open mind. Get a little more practical and test, test, test. if not mistaken (and please someone correct me) but even one of the texts specifically instructs people to test God and see for yourself. Again, experience being the best teacher.
"This means that those subatomic particles which disappear into "thin air" must go somewhere unknown/unseen with our current -and quite sophisticated equipment."
Only if you assume they still exist and also assume there is such an unseen place they go to. If, however, they simply no longer exist there is no need for such a place. Show the place, prove it exists, and your hypothesis (that subatomic particles go from this universe to another) has made the first step to becoming a theory. Until then it can be no more than an imaginative "what if" hypothesis without supporting evidence.
Nor has quantuum mechanics proven any such thing as an "out of this universe" place for forces to exist. You assume far too much.
"Going further, several renowned physicists have proven a direct correlation between subatomic activity and nearly every Eastern philosophy"
I very highly doubt this, having never heard any physicist make such a claim. I suspect that what you are referring to is a philosopher or theologian, reading the works of a physicist, exclaims that "Why, the Sumerians knew this millennia ago!" Extremely few "renowned physicists" are recognized for digging around in archeological sites (as in none?)
"The properties of light, which accounts for nearly all composition in the known universe also shows this..." Not true either. There is no indication that photons are a component of matter.
"Get a little more practical and test, test, test." I don't test because there can be no test for the current definition of the Christian god. Others (many, many others) claim that they DO test, but their tests inevitably concludes with "I don't understand, and therefore there is a god" or "I declare that this necessitates a god" without ever providing a supporting "because". If your 20 years of research has done any better it should be written up for peer review.
Seems a preponderance of the evidence for Jesus has been presented by those trying to prove His non-existence. For the most part, believers don't bother trying to prove the existence of God and His Son.
Though one may call this foolishness, another would call it faith based on empirical fact. When one looks to God with a penitent heart and realizes a change in their spiritual life (which reflects somewhat in their physical life), none may disprove the reality of God.
It's not my job to prove god doesn't exist. The burden of proof rests join the person claiming that he does exist with absolute certainty. I'm not claiming he doesn't. I don't even claim that jesus didn't exist. What I do say, however, is that based in the evidence for Jesus, there is sufficient room for doubt. What astounds me are the believers who spend so much time trying to prove he exists to non believers with anything but actual evidence.
Might I say the "burden of proof" rests on the one that takes an opposing view of a postulate, or in this case, a statement of faith. Though empirical proofs do require reason/logic, they do not require any formal study or knowledge outside of that which is experienced by the professor. Therefore, recognizing how my "internal person" now perceives and reacts, I can say Jesus Christ changed my life when I accepted Him as my personal savior. The present day standards for required proofs of the existence of God is not in play as empirical proofs support my beliefs.
Should one choose not to believe, so be it. I would take the opposing view to those that choose not to believe, but I see no point in trying to prove God exists.
That would still put the burden of proof on you, if you're opposing my position of disbelief in Gods. I'm not affirming the opposite or making claims.
That would be true if I were trying to prove to you that God exists. I am not. "There is a God in Heaven," Daniel 2:28. Those that choose to disagree have the so called burden of proof. But we know the standard answer is "you can't prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist."
Are you saying that every word in the bible is true? That it is the bible that must be proven wrong, not you, because you can quote the book as the ultimate reference?
That would be an assertion that places the onus of proof on you - that the bible is the ultimate reference and is always true. Particularly as we already know of false statements therein.
Why on earth would we have the burden of proof for disagreeing with an assertion with no evidence?
That would be like me asserting that you are a murderer, and then telling you that since you disagree with the claim, you must therefore prove that you are not.
As long as one assumes another universe/dimension/whatever that we exist in alongside this one, their faith cannot be shaken? Is that all it takes?
Ahh James;I see you're still at it...and I agree but...As Einsteins other brother from another mother once said"But Albert...how can you be in two places at once when you're really no where at all?". Gotta go buddy.Check ya latter
The "ancient" word of God does not need my help. It is self sustaining and inerrant, and pre-dates the inventions of man. I find no errors in it, even though the many "English" versions disagree in part.
My concern is not proving God exists but in opening the thought processes of errant man. We must all consider each item that affects our lives. The result is some of us draw close to God while others find no value in considering His being. A a reasoned conclusion must be based on all that which is before us.
But I do have a concern for my fellow man, though I cannot make choices for them. Yet, I find In dealing with man's thoughts of God, that those with the greatest dislike for God are those that have been "abused" by the religious organizations, i.e. the "church." This comes out in the responses.
Then, too, I fear many state they do not believe because they refuse to accept God's supremacy. He constraints us but allows us to make decisions. For many, the decision is to obviate their reasoning in favor of doing that which they find convenient. But whatever the reasoning process, if it does not include God in an objective manner, it will be flawed.
Yet...it is completely impossible to be "objective" about God. Everything about the concept, from existence to specific traits or orders/requests/desires is 100% subjective as there is nothing outside our own minds to provide information about any god.
A thing is only subjective if tested or scrutinized by the parameters of objectivity. You're chasing your own tail....
Provide us with a list of your objectives, and parameters used to establish said objectivity and how you came to apply or dismiss the object you observed and tested...
[ sùb jek tívvətee ]
interpretation based on personal opinions or feelings rather than on external facts or evidence
[ əbˈjektiv ]
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with subjective.
I trust you can differentiate between the two definitions?
Exactly, by your own definitions you have shown no object, nor it's correlative subjugate.
Is your tail tired of being chased yet?
Provide the subject tested.
Provide the object tested.
Provide your results of either tests.
I'll wager you have neither.
Sigh....am still bored....
Yes there is, only you haven't felt it. Saints of the Christian religion or religious figures of Eastern religions have felt the response of Spirit within them and have received answers to prayers.
Bible: "God so loved the world that he sent…"
"He loved the world…"
Yogis of the East report sensing His love through intuition.
My life and my young son's psychological life was saved by the timely meeting of a woman who worked directly with Dr. Montessori. I had been searching for a true Montessori teacher and had almost given up hope. But lo and behold such a teacher waltzed, (through fortunate circumstance,) into my life. I feel that it was the influence of Mighty Triple O (omniscient / omnipresent / omnipotent force of mysterious/hidden Spirit) facilitating my determination to understand the true precepts of Montessori teachings. To me the meeting of this woman was a miracle.
"I feel that it was the influence of Mighty Triple O..." (bolding added)
Which is what I said isn't it? The feeling from inside you is all there is. No objective (outside) evidence at all.
Evidence surrounds us in so many ways. But thats all we get. Until we develop our ability to intuit the reality behind it all.
So you claim, over and over and over. But never provide any or even point to any. (That you feel a god pointed you to Montesorri is evidence only of your own desire for a god, certainly not that a god took action).
- how do you know God, (wilderness term: "a god,") did not help me?
How do you know it wasn't planned out before I even came to earth?
I had known the woman who pointed me in the direction of this teacher my whole life! She was a friend of my mother's. When I explained my desperate search for a REAL Montessori teacher for my son, she said "Oh my gosh, there is a Montessori teacher in Pasadena who worked with Dr. Montessori herself!" Mere coincidence? it doesn't seem possible. (Its also possible I was Destined to meet this teacher and learn the secrets of childhood...which I really needed to know.)
In fact, at one point I had called out very loudly… "God, please Help Me!" I had realized I understood nothing about raising my child and I had gotten pregnant... again. Without this teacher's wisdom I would have been a real wreck. How many parents are real wrecks simply because they never called out for God's help?
Most parents today probably need intervention/help in raising their young children. If they don't ask God for help they could suffer, unless common sense kicks in. (Hopefully, they already have it, but I didn't.)
So to conclude: Based on the evidence, God knew that I wanted/needed help and helped me.
This conclusion is a possibility.
Why not just go with it?
Wrong question, as I have never denied the possibility of a god that helps us. The right question, though, is "how do YOU know one did?".
You've made the claim that a god interfered in your life, and as evidence you offer that you asked someone for help (expressing a need) and got it. You also offer the time based correlation that you spoke to the air and it was followed by finding what you wanted. You asked the rhetorical question of how many people are "wrecks" BECAUSE they didn't speak to the air as you did. You state that if people DON'T speak to the air they could suffer, but fail to support the statement at all.
And then you conclude that because of these two correlations and two unsupported and rhetorical statements that there is a god that helped you. Yet you have to know that a correlation in time does NOT indicate causality in any form - that you had pancakes for breakfast and then your car didn't start does not mean that the pancakes caused the failure of the car even though there is a slim possibility the two are connected in some way.
The reason not to "just go with" any possibility is that you cannot know if there is a causal relationship. Belief and imagination are very poor guidelines to make future decisions on - decisions that could be just as important as your need for a teacher.
As support of that statement I offer the case in another thread of believers that were sure a god would help their sick child, right up to the point the child died (whereupon it was surely "God's will" ). "Just going with" their unsupported belief system resulted in the deaths of two children and seems more than sufficient to refute the idea. Similarly, had you failed to mention your need to a friend, it seems quite probable that a simple cry into the air around you would have produced nothing in the way of help from a god - that "help" always seems to require effort on your own part.
LOL… you make perfect sense!
But have you really not wanted something and then fortunate events occurred enabling you to get it?
For instance, I had not spoken to that woman for years, as she was my mothers friend, and then one day (during my search) out of the blue she called ME!
< "You asked the rhetorical question of how many people are "wrecks" BECAUSE they didn't speak to the air as you did. You state that if people DON'T speak to the air they could suffer, but fail to support the statement at all.">
I did not speak to the air. I spoke to Mighty Triple O.
When parents do not understand how to treat their children or what to base discipline on, they need guidance. Perhaps if they could just admit they need help and ask MTO for it, MTO would mysteriously lead them to the right teacher who understands.
I agree, we do need to have common sense and make the effort to find appropriate sources of help. But it seems to me that God helps those who help themselves.
Without God, we would get no help through mysteriously fortunate circumstances, which I believe I have been given more than one time in my life.
After all the discussions we have had, it is hard to believe you would make this statement. It does not fit with the personality and well studied thought processes you so often exhibit. However, it does parallel my theory that those who resist God the most are those who were most "hurt" by organized religion.
Oh? What can possibly be said about a god (truthfully, of course), while remaining completely objective, except "I dunno"?
Not existence (either way)
Not wants or commands
Not actions (specific, general or non-existent)
Not attitude or personality
Nothing we can say about God is objective. It ALL comes from our own personal perceptions of what we would like a god to be. Or not to be in the case of an atheist.
It does depend on which side of the Cross you stand when discussing God in an "objective" manner.
Without a faith in Him, one would always just chalk "it" up to luck and such, "it" being most anything but especially the miraculous. However, one can no longer throw science in as a disprover even though it is said to be ever evolving. Presently even legitimate sciences are moving back toward the presence of God since it is unable to answer certain questions. In point of fact, this is becoming more prevalent. And, much like the "urban legend" of time and space travel, which I do not believe to be legend, btw, science is conceding bits and pieces more often than not so as to either make their point and keep their status or posture for future agreement.
Over hear on my side of the Cross, I believe God though not in the "simplicity of mind" that certain would express ... as a barb. Again, politicians in the guise of clerics, theologians and churches, by word or deed do not and should not dictate the thought process. That is the work of God through the Bible. Yet they have. Folks may assist one in the process but we find that reasoning, i.e., situations and experiences, are a major part of that process which brings about faith, and it is the individuals responsibility to discover, study and apply the proofs, Hebrews 11:1.
Just so; it could be coincidence. Objectively speaking, then, there can be no reason to declare that it is not; only subjective thought can produce such a comment.
But science going to the supernatural because it can't find answers? Not a chance; the very idea negates the whole concept of the scientific method; the means (and ONLY means) science knows to find truth. Scientists may go that route (though they will not retain their veracity long), but never science. To the honest scientist, ignorance simply is not a reason to believe. "I dunno" is 100 times preferable to "Goddunnit because I don't have any other answer".
http://thomasswan.hubpages.com/hub/40-Q … -Christian
Answer all of them, Believers. If you can answer them with good reason and logic without contradiction of any of the questions then there should not be anymore debate.
In the Garden of Eden, all was there… we blew it… We got kicked out. Actually, I believe we fell in consciousness. He wanted us to stay aware of Him… instead, we became enmeshed in each other through love and sex. He gave us free will, though… what can He do... FORCE us to stay conscious of him?
Forcing is taboo.
Mighty Triple O also provides justice through the law of Karma.
What bad things one does will eventually be repaid. Lessons will be learned. He makes sure of that too.
by karobi 8 years ago
Hi every body, posted and read most of hubbers comment on issues of marriage. And also with my experience in marriage counseling I have discovered so many challenges facing these days marriages and of course the high rate of divorce in the world. And with this I want to know is it really...
by Davidsonofjesie 7 years ago
If you believe in your heart there is no God,there is no right or wrong,there is no creator,no absolute truth,no moral authority,then you must believe that nothing turns into chemicals,and chemicals turn into plants,animals and people,with no power,intelligence,purpose or design,leaving no...
by Jenna Ditsch 6 years ago
Let's say that Religion and the concept of the existence of God was erased from the Earth. How would humans, institutions, and ultimately, societies, determine "moral law" if you will? How would it be determined what is right or wrong? What would that process look...
by Debra Allen 9 years ago
When god or the creator of the universe made humans, why was He a He? What happened to the other's that we were made into their image? Why doesn't the Bible ever speak of these things?
by sibtain bukhari 4 years ago
We can see universe of GodWe can see'' matter'' of GodWe can see ''energy'' of GodWe can see ''space'' of GodWe can see ''time'' of God We can see ''nature'' of GodWe can see ''evolution'' of GodWe can see ''systems''of GodWe can see ''laws'' of GodWe can see ''wisdom'' of GodWe can see ''science''...
by atomswifey 9 years ago
Why is it that there are people in the world that seem to not want a world with God in it?When I see all the chaos around me I feel it is an essential part of my life to have the faith that I do in God. Yet when conversating in this forum I most often get verbally attacked by those whom I would...
Copyright © 2018 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.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|