|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.|
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved"
Science comes up with new theories when the old theories fail to answer all the questions that arise based on observations in the everyday world. This is real discovery, not "views" as if it was some form of opinion or something. I don't think that faith is the denial of observation; it just may be something aside from it based on feelings and personal experiences.
There is no science versus religion. Science is not a belief system and based on facts and evidence. Religion is the opposite.
Sorry to disagree, old sport, but just because science has modernized its ritual systems, does not mean it is any less dangerous than its spouse, sensationalism. The new alters may be polished stainless steel but the sacrifices placed on them are still, pardon the pun, lambs to the slaughter. Albeit, now at the genetic level. Indeed science has outshined sensationism one hundred fold just in the last century. Frightening as it sounds, the pendulum is swinging back towards sensation. Given the current uses and applications of the various belief systems of science, can only imagine what horrors are about to occur on a planetary scale. Nukes are going to look like Mickey Mouse in comparison. Science is designing new gods for man to kneel before, because, hey marble and stone as so passé...
Who knows, in a few decade or less we'll have cybernetic, transgender, astronaut drones feeding us alien embryos with private reserve champagne from Plutos darkside.
PAHAHA C'mon man.. The leading individuals in your field STATE BOLDLY their imagination drives them.
You aren't following your leaders very well. Just trying to hide your faith in what you have no proof for. Start explaining the phenomenon of EMF and the Cause of the the "bang"...
What a tired argument. You learn that from the hubpages troll Mark Knowles? lol
Thanks for the laugh though.
Nice to see you again btw Wingert. Old face, same old bologna.
Hopefully you don't get angry. You know I like to play-n-debate with wit and/or sarcasm... I'll refrain from replying again if you don't wanna play.
I won't fret though, lots here carry "chips" on the shoulder.
I always liked your photo truthfully.
A slight change:
Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith adjusts what's observed based on it's views.
(I like symmetry)
I don't know if I feel the vs is appropriate. How familiar are you with Eastern schools of thought. I've noticed that many ideas that come from Eastern religions line up very well with scientific thought.
That is so true. I've been doing meditation and spiritual studies for 15 years based on the Western Esoteric foundation, which meld beautifully with the Eastern schools. It's a disservice to separate them. The rigour it takes to map consciousness is phenomenal, but of course whose who don't have experiences are left way behind.
You might enjoy the book, The Tao of Physics.
I have heard about this book. But still have not read.
They are not contradictory. Are they? Please
Yes they are. Science is a way to try to logically understand the world. Religion make up stories to explain the world.
But fairytale are fun and science forces my brain to think, ouch.
They are working in different domains so there is no contradiction in them. Please
When everything in the world and Universe is connected. How do you blend Science and Religion?
Science deals in the things material and physical. Religion deals in ethical, moral and spiritual domains. Human life is connected to all these domains, hence the connection of science and religion. Humans should have best of all these. There is no contradiction. Is there any? Please
Love would be my God in a metaphor and my Religion is nature. Like a tree that would not fight with it's branches.
Religion is far more concern about war and other people's sexual affairs. It is evident the Religion dose not care about our natural environment. Because Religion has had most control of the earth and in the pass 50 years has killed most of animals and big trees on earth. The natural environment is the greatest threat to mankind , wars are 2nd.
No direct wars in the name of non believers nor destruction of nature in the name of science.
I don't agree with one.
Love or to have mercy is an attribute of God. Nature is just a creation of G-d but not god. Please
Humans and all animals have attribute for love and mercy if it is not on their food menu.
Humans are creators also, that is how they wrote all those Religious books . The only stronger highlight features humans have beyond all others 30 million specie's is diversified brain, eye sight and thumb.
Nothing God has that we don't already have. All God has is books written about him and mostly hearsay.
Could you give me an example of crocodile love and mercy? I'd be very interested.
Part of the time I live Belize where there is plenty of crocodile. There has been people bitten but no known deaths from crocodile, yet many from mosquitoes. Even swam among crocodile in the river playing with native kids.
Mother Crocodile take great care of their young and even play their young and father crocodile protect the territory just like a loving family of humans, except alot less killing by crocodiles overall .
Crossing the crossroad walk is More dangerous for humans than wilderbeast crossing the river among crocodile in Africa.
I love my Crocs
How many people, claiming to be genuine and sincere, mimic the smile of the crocodile? Pretending to have your best interests at heart yet, in truth, waiting for chance to eat you up?
Birds, and expecially a few like eagles, have eyesight and makes us look nearly blind. All the old world monkeys and the great apes have opposable thumbs, as do some other animals, and some add opposable toes as well.
Even the uniqueness of the human brain is debatable, as cetaceans and apes may be nearly as good as ours.
I can't think, however, of any other animal that has the ability to produce the wide range of vocalization that man does - our voice does seem unique.
Yes eagle can see 10 time farther than humans. The word is diversity eyesight with depths perception, color, ability to 180 degrees to 360 quickly. Notice a bird must turn their head because their eyes are on the side of their head.
Apes and monkeys brain lack abstract creative thinking with an ability of a 4 year old. Their abilities to work in cooperation is limited along with their abilities to operate tools because of their thumbs. Or they would be forced and brainwashed to work along with us for even less pay.
Parrots and miners bird have amazing voice diversity. Something new to study more of.
"Apes and monkeys brain lack abstract creative thinking with an ability of a 4 year old. Their abilities to work in cooperation is limited along with their abilities to operate tools because of their thumbs. Or they would be forced and brainwashed to work along with us ...."
This outlook does not reveal "spiritual optimism," Cp!
They have a certain amount of free will, but due to their limited brain capacity not near as much as we do.
Its all about the brain.
And thats the scientific truth.
What is shutting down our access to our own brains?
OUR O W N BRAINS?
Now there is is an interesting question!
Less brains = more capacity/willingness to be controlled from without BY OTHERS (GOVT.,) rather than within by ONESELF, (self-guided FREE WILL)
1 a person's own self:
2 used to emphasize that one does something individually or unaided:
3 in one's normal and individual state of body or mind; not influenced by others:
And yet...a bird without depth perception, and very good depth perception at that, will soon perish. Flight requires it, if nothing else. Birds have color vision, if that is a major plus, and not only see the colors we do but ultraviolet as well. Birds eyes look forward, not to the side: that is a requirement for depth perception. They can also distinguish movement far better than our eyes can.
Do monkeys and apes fail to work cooperatively because they can't imagine doing it...or because they don't want to? And certainly cetaceans work very well in groups - ever see a pod of dolphins go after a school of sardines? The point here is that these species are truly foreign to us and we have only scratched the surface of what we understand of their abilities.
Yes, some birds can mimic speech...to a limited degree. I don't believe that a tonal language could ever be learned, however, as they do not have nearly the range that humans do.
Survival capacities: Developed OR given. What does it appear to be, scientifically speaking?
There are many attributes of many species that we can speculate are survival oriented; the eyes of a bird are one of them. There are also many that do not have any obvious survival characteristics at all - the color of human hair, perhaps, or the color of the iris. And there is little doubt that we have assigned specific survival causes to some attributes that never were there, or were far different than what we thought them to be.
My old studies of eagles are from a few bird handler and are outdated. It seem new studies show eagles do have more overall diversity eyesight, yet human have some better advantages.
So we are left with brain and thumbs, not that great since human abuse their brain with great negative destruction of nature.
There many animals that lived on the planet much longer than humans and and some with a longer lifespan. A worm has a 100 times greater diversity than humans, so humans are so overrated except for creative thinking and destruction.
I don't agree with one.
Quran is not authored by any human being.
How does one know it?
Muhammad did not claim that he authored it. Did he? Please
This brings us right back to what you choose to accept. I do not accept the idea that some supernatural entity caused a book to be written.
You believe what you want to. None of it can be proven and even the slightest bit of good sense will tell you it's not true.
Is it impossible for G-d to author a Recitation (Quran)? One who could create the Universe, could reasonably author the Recitation (Quran) . Please
Work to know your Self. Your God dwells within.
G-d is within everyone with His attributes as is He everywhere within the universe and without it, not physically but with His attributes. Right? Please
You choose the attributes which you prefer your god to have. Then you worship that god.
There is no god to worship except what is in your mind.
That God Within does not require worship. You are already one with that God. You are not separate unless your mind says you are.
When you give that outward, false god worship, you are bowing to the control of other humans. It's your choice if you wish to do so.
Any evidence to support one's point of view. Please
Or it is just one's thought only.
It is a wrong notion. Different discipline of knowledge have different norms of experience. Only in material and physical disciplines one observes the fact with the physical senses, in philosophical disciplines their relevance changes. For instance "Atheism" cannot be observed by one's eyesight, it could be known or otherwise with one's insight, however. Right? Please
Interesting statement, it's just not correct. I believe a more accurate understanding would be:
Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
What is observed is understood through faith.
Just a thought...
I like that statement of yours, Michael. That would be more accurate. Let me make my own statement and not that of another.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed."
What is observed through experiential knowledge through faith is much greater than mere knowledge. - me
Not entirely. Science does base its views by what is observed but many branches of science will not take into account any data that does not fit into their views at that particular time. Many scientists can be compared to artists. Laughed at and scoffed at by their peers throughout most of their careers only to find that their theories are one day accepted. Hugh Everett comes to mind as an example of one who was scoffed at in recent history.
Scientific knowledge cannot be based on anything other than scientific method. That is what scientific knowledge is, by definition. And this rigour is why science is such a successful method of aquiring knowledge.
I will disagree with you here. Science is often influenced by money. Data can be "tweaked" and other data can be ignored to meet an end. But, in my opinion, any "scientist" that take's part in such things is no scientist.
Is there not more money into Religion than there is into science?
I think there's too much going into religion, but what does one have to with the other? I love science. I love the scientific method. I love it in its purest form. But that doesn't change the fact that companies do their own studies, which is always suspect. Not to mention that money discourages studies that may make their own findings questionable or show the efficieny of an alternative, natural remedy (if we're talking medicine) . Why else would pharmaceuticals be so widespread and there be so little empirical research done on natural herbs and remedies? Because you can't patent nature (unless you genetically modify it).
Anyone can develop an hypothesis about anything within the scope of science, and they do, for all sorts of reasons. That's not the same as something being accepted as scientific theory though. Unless an hypothesis is falsifiable, testable, repeatable, peer reviewed, parsimonious and able to make consistent, accurate predictions based on observed data, then it isn't, and can't be, scientific theory. It can only ever be just another hypothesis, along with all the others. Going the other way, data can definately be ignored but that doesn't prevent something becoming scientific theory, regardless of how much money people spend trying to prevent that from happening (think tobacco and cancer, think climate change etc).
At the end of the day, however, money talks. Otherwise there would be much more empirical research done on alternative medicine. (No I'm not talking about homeopathic, but I am talking naturopathic)
"Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices. Much of the ideology and methodological underpinnings of naturopathy are in conflict with the paradigm of evidence-based medicine" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturopathy
Do you think that might be the reason for the lack of scientific interest?
In a perfect world, yes. However, 'science' is used to manipulate our beliefs on a daily basis. It's a joke around here that you can find scientific studies to back up anything you want to believe. And, although we all know this, we still base many of our beliefs on one study or the other.
Many branches of science have helped foster the incredible reality we enjoy. The success of these branches, unfortunately, have allowed others to be simply rubber stamped as irrevocable truth. This is unfortunate because there are so many minds closed to any thought processes which don't begin at a certain point. Those which refuse to allow themselves to ponder 'what if'. And, 'what if' is the first step to discovery.
For the individual, the scientific method is a wonderful thing to test, discover and come to conclusions about reality. But, those who insist that main stream, text book science is the only definer of reality and current conclusions are to be trusted implicitly are voluntarily deciding to let others test, discover and not only come to conclusions on their reality, but also prohibiting their experience from being used to help understand reality.
Science has, since its inception, come to some incredibly erroneous conclusions. Granted, through the method it has corrected these fallacies when enough evidence is presented which forces the model to change but generations are fed lies as truth, only to slowly, ever slowly correct these fallacies. Human ego factors in greatly during scientific research and it does, very often, result in human error being passed off as truth.
Interesting post live to learn
Always thought of science and Religions means to an End, were often too extremes. Yet often think of science as a branch to everything and Religion too lost in space yet with some good metaphor stories.
But religions have evolved through time, from it's morality to what it considers true. Most of Christianity now accepts evolution and an ancient earth. Morals have changed as well, with women (for the most part) being accepted as real people and a handful offering gay marriage.
Religion has thus "adjusted" it's "understanding" to match what is known as well as what is considered "right".
Tim Minchins quote is totally at odds with his websites extremely intolerant comments about religion. It is filled with the most vile pornagraphic and decidedly unscientific verbal diahorrea you can get.
As usual the unbridled hypocrisy of another atheist "leader" leads the pack with gross unscientific bigotry on a scale seldom seen in history.
Well sorry, I didn't know anything about that guy before I posted the quote.
Verbal diahorrea is that mental or phyical illness? Anything like happy ass BS.
Pastors are the world champions of BS. Why are most people so enslaved by these fairytales.
Not only that Minchin and other atheist leaders use a parasitic reliance on religious intolerance to further their careers which is highly unethical and grossly materialistic.
Minchin takes the cake for obscenely gross comments about religion and pursues an agenda of total intolerance.
Yes there are BS pastors out there but the sheer vileness and depth of Minchins personal vindictive hatred of all religion goes way beyond a little BS and into the strastospheric realms of human ugliness.
He is no where near a scientist and is basically just a comedian who makes a buck riding the wave of fashionable new atheism.
All Science begins on faith, not fact. Facts are gathered after the step of jumping into the unknown (blind faith) occurs. Once a fact is prepared, a hypothesis is formed, resulting in testing/experimentation until no other test can be performed or is exhausted of effort -and often funding.
Science is merely the equative side of the Moral Dilemma. Sensationalism the other side. In today's society, Science has taken the lead, whereas Sensation did some time ago. Both need each other to survive. Data does not excite the masses, but liking a photo on a smartphone does. So, Science uses Sensation to sell the masses and Sensation uses Science to keep them in control. The race goes back and forth, but can never end, unless both are eliminated.
You have a very strange view of how scientists operate. I assume you have never been trained in the sciences or the scientific method?
I assumed since he ended with cheers that some heavy drinking went into formulating that opinion.
Could be. Is heavy drinking a scientific method of making conclusions?
Still playing the role of antagonist, I see.
By the way, assumption is the mother of --well, you already know...
Before the scientific method came into use many people believed that it was possible for nonliving matter to come to life. Contrary to that belief experimental evidence always demonstrates that this never happens. Nevertheless, Naturalists must believe that life comes from non-living matter. Why? Because it's one of the guiding tenets of their philosophy (faith).
Naturalism is the guiding philosophy of science. Science (as currently defined) can never question the strictures of Naturalism. When experimental data contravenes it's philosophical strictures ... that data is ignored.
"Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved" Absolutely correct.
Methodological naturalism is a limitation of the scope of science to nature. Nothing more. Metaphysical naturalism is the idea that only natural (not supernatural) phenomena exist. This is a very important distinction. Methodological naturalism means that someone can be a naturalist, and also hold religious beliefs. It is methodological naturalism that is the guiding philosophy of science. That is why there are many scientists who also have religious beliefs, and many people with religious beliefs who also happen to have good scientific knowledge.
In relation to metaphysical naturalism, can you share some examples of scientific data that "contravenes" that philosophy?
I already shared an example. Didn't you notice?
The idea that life can come from non-life contradicts scientific evidence. Spontaneous generation is in the same class of beliefs as the flat earth belief. Nevertheless those who have made Naturalism their religion must ignore the scientific evidence and insist that a method of investigation which only accepts Naturalistic causes will be adequate to ultimately explain the origin of life.
If some Naturalistic scientists also hold "religious" beliefs I would say that there is a problem since both are not likely to be true (cognitive dissonance). The logical principle of Non-Contradiction also comes to mind.
Methodological Naturalism has been useful but it also has glaring limitations if scientific knowledge is to evolve.
"The idea that life can come from non-life contradicts scientific evidence."
Really? And yet science has already performed that - has made life from non-life.
Yeah, I read that book ... Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
That isn't life from non-life. The cell was already living.
You mean the cell without any DNA in it? Living?
I didn't realize that (on earth) cells could be alive without DNA instructions. Still don't - can you give any examples?
Yes. A carp cell had it's dna removed, the dna was replaced with goldfish dna,and a hybrid was formed. The resulting hybrid was a mix of both fish. There must have been some kind of coding from the egg of the carp cell with the dna removed. This is proof that dna isn't the only thing that encodes for life processes. If the carp egg cell had been dead when the dna was removed, then it was resurrected. Would you say resurrection is possible?
It appears that resurrection (supplying life to a collection of chemicals that does not live) is possible, yes. Of course, those chemicals must be in the proper proportion (so far) and still (so far) with the proper chemical connections life demands.
Future work will undoubtedly find that off-the-shelf chemicals will be combined without ever having been alive. After all, it is obviously impossible to create life by inserting the "spark" of DNA...
(I might add that putting carp DNA+cytoplasm into a goldfish (another carp) is not quite the same as making that DNA by hand. Nor is it particularly surprising that a hybrid was the result as both were carp and the DNA difference was quite small. Is that really different in type from introducing a horse egg to a donkey sperm? A little more difficult, yes, but the same type of activity.)
Notice that a careful reading of what synthetic biology involves reveals that these engineers are designing and constructing new biological parts, not life. They are redesigning existing biological systems (highlight the word "existing"). Not bringing systems to life or creating life from scratch with non-organic chemicals as would be required to get the first life started.
Man made DNA (which requires intelligence) is injected into an already living cell. The DNA was modeled on a natural organism which already existed.
The irony here is that even if man does create life he is using intelligence to do so. Intelligence is what Naturalism must avoid if it is to be proven correct.
*Shrug* You can claim that making life from chemicals and dead protoplasm isn't making life, but it can only be an excuse to maintain the fiction of a god as the only life giver.
And you can then continue in the same vein, saying that because it took intelligence to do it we should therefore assume that intelligence did not evolve, and for the same reason. It still is only an excuse to continue the god myth, nothing else.
No, life arising from non-living matter (abiogenesis) does not refute the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism. The non-living matter referred to in abiogenesis is thought to be a combination of organic compounds (compounds that contain carbon). Such compounds are natural, not supernatural.
And no, abiogenesis does not "contradict scientific evidence". On the contrary, scientific evidence is being used to determine which specific model of abiogenesis is most likely to be correct. This is a scientific question. No reference to the supernatural is needed.
And no, having scientific knowledge and holding religious beliefs is not an example of cognitive dissonance. Someone can adhere to the limited scope of science, in their capacity as a scientist, but also consider beliefs and ideas outside the scope of science, in their capacity as a thinking, feeling person (yes scientists are people). That's what distinguishes methodological naturalism from metaphysical naturalism. A scientist does not have to believe the supernatural does not exist (metaphysical naturalism). They just need to understand that the supernatural is outside the scope of scientific inquiry (methodological naturalism). Such naturalism is not dogma or "religion". It is a practical and necessary aspect of scientific method. To suggest otherwise is disengenous.
Could you provide examples of life coming from non-life Naturalistically in a laboratory??? Sounds sort of impossible to me.
"And no, having scientific knowledge and holding religious beliefs is not an example of cognitive dissonance."
Believing things wherein one excludes the rational prerogatives of the other IS cognitive dissonance. Artificially limiting the scope of scientific inquiry and interpretation to the ideological strictures of Naturalism is disengenous especially when evidence obtained under the auspices of methodological naturalism indicates otherwise.
" ... scientific evidence is being used to determine which specific model of abiogenesis is most likely to be correct. This is a scientific question. No reference to the supernatural is needed."
Those scientists who use the "scientific" method and also hold religious beliefs probably realize that no model of abiogenesis works without supernatural intervention. Naturalists through the work week and church goers on Sunday or whatever ... not against hedging their bets when the Naturalistic chips are down. LOL
At least Anthony Flew was honest enough to come forward with the truth.
"Could you provide examples of life coming from non-life Naturalistically in a laboratory??? Sounds sort of impossible to me."
You want a "natural" result from the "unnatural" environment of a laboratory? Sounds like you're deliberately setting up an experiment to fail in order to make some kind of point.
"Artificially limiting the scope of scientific inquiry and interpretation to the ideological strictures of Naturalism..."
What would you have science study? the (undefined), located at (undefined) and possessing the qualities of (undefined)?
"Those scientists who use the "scientific" method and also hold religious beliefs probably realize that no model of abiogenesis works without supernatural intervention."
What makes you think so? Because you think a god did it all? Seems insufficient to then say that everyone agrees, particularly as you refuse to prove your claim. Disliking the scientific method of inquiry, you won't even supply a different method!
"You want a "natural" result from the "unnatural" environment of a laboratory? Sounds like you're deliberately setting up an experiment to fail in order to make some kind of point."
Sort of ... the point I was making is that you can't get a natural result from the unnatural environment of a laboratory. Wait! What?! Did you just say what I was trying to get you to realize?
"What would you have science study? the (undefined), located at (undefined) and possessing the qualities of (undefined)?"
*What science has always studied of course. Then follow the evidence where it leads rather than reinterpreting the evidence according to the absolutist strictures of Naturalism. After all that's where some poor deluded ideologues get the idea that there is zero evidence for the existence of God.
"What makes you think so? Because you think a god did it all? Seems insufficient to then say that everyone agrees, particularly as you refuse to prove your claim."
The scientists who are able to hold mutually exclusive beliefs to be sufficiently or equally true if such is the case (I wasn't the one who implied that some Naturalistic scientists are religious). In fact I don't really care. But if these are the same scientists whose thinking we trust to reach logical scientific conclusions there just might be a problem LOL.
Specifically, what claim? That God did "it all"? I don't remember making that claim. The claim I will stand behind is that Naturalistic processes did not do it all. Specifically create life from non-living chemicals.
"Disliking the scientific method of inquiry, you won't even supply a different method!"
See asterisk above.
Simple. Unless there's a particular ideology (Naturalism) that's more important than the truth.
For sure you can't get a "natural" action in a laboratory, not when it happens in a beaker. At least I presume that's the excuse to be used - comes from setting up artificial requirements and definitions that have nothing to do with reality, which is what I said.
For sure they should follow evidence. But evidence of what? A god? Guess that's where simpletons get the idea that science fails, because they imagine there is some when there is not.
My own experience is that people use different methods and reasoning to find things. Some use science to find knowledge while at the same time use imagination and desire to find their god. No problem - the two are different things (fact and opinion) and an honest scientist will always present them that way.
I understand your claim that something unnatural (call it a god) made life. What I don't understand is the reasoning that makes that opinion - is it more than ignorance ("I don't understand") or a mere desire that it be so?
See asterisk for a methodology to be used in research? And the answer is to study the same things always studied? Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense, particularly as the subject was a dislike of the scientific method.
You're so accommodating in making my case for me.
"For sure you can't get a "natural" action in a laboratory, not when it happens in a beaker. "
"At least I presume that's the excuse to be used - comes from setting up artificial requirements and definitions that have nothing to do with reality ..."
So much for trying to force a Naturalistic cause to design life! Right? When the obvious answer is that it's just simply not possible? Right?
"For sure they should follow evidence. But evidence of what?
Whatever the evidence is of course! Should evidence be summarily dismissed if it isn't ideologically acceptable to Naturalistic philosophy?
A god? Guess that's where simpletons get the idea that science fails, because they imagine there is some when there is not.
An a priori adherence to Naturalistic philosophy is not a search for truth ... which is what science should be about. Does truth matter? Not when ideology comes first.
"My own experience is that people use different methods and reasoning to find things. Some use science to find knowledge while at the same time use imagination and desire to find their god."
Thanks for this admission. You create an artificial dichotomy between science and a desire for the truth by equating anything outside the strictures of Naturalism as imagination and desire.
Imagination and desire are the obvious source of the "just so" stories Naturalists are substituting for real science in the case of origins of life and the universe itself!
"No problem - the two are different things (fact and opinion) and an honest scientist will always present them that way."
I think that you just excluded Naturalism from the true mission of science.
"I understand your claim that something unnatural (call it a god) made life. What I don't understand is the reasoning that makes that opinion - is it more than ignorance ("I don't understand") or a mere desire that it be so?"
It's evidence. Evidence of design is evidence of a designer. If scientists are not smart enough to suss out the origin of life from Naturalistic causes because of the incredible complexity existing in the simplest forms of life then that indicates that there is a intelligent cause.
"See asterisk for a methodology to be used in research? And the answer is to study the same things always studied? Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense, particularly as the subject was a dislike of the scientific method."
When did I say that I dislike the scientific method? What I don't like is ideological Naturalism having a Hitlerian authority over interpretation of evidence especially since it's proven itself wrong.
"When the obvious answer is that it's just simply not possible? Right?"
Of course it's not possible to have a "natural" event, not when the location, environment and events are all set up so as to be "unnatural". Of course, that says nothing of what CAN happen "naturally".
Sorry, but ignorance is evidence of nothing but ignorance. That we are ignorant of the details of abiogenesis does not indicate a god. I presume you have nothing else to offer here - that the only "evidence" you have to offer is "I don't know", which you think shows a god?
Yes you said you didn't like the scientific method and that there are better was of discovery. You still haven't provided one, though...
"I understand your claim that something unnatural (call it a god) made life. What I don't understand is the reasoning that makes that opinion - is it more than ignorance ("I don't understand") or a mere desire that it be so?"
May I ask if that is a joke, or a serious inquiry?..
Do tell, if you have intelligence.. which is "evidence of intelligence existing".. undeniable evidence.. cough cough, HERE.. you are trying to imply theists ignorant for taking the stand there could be an INTELLIGENT cause?
[ -_- I certainly feel like this post is a waste of typing, but couldn't resist pointing out the obvious... ]
I have never said there could not be an intelligent cause; just that there is zero evidence pointing to one. The theist will always claim that they know there is, but that is patently false on the face of it. Not particularly ignorance, then (although they don't know in spite of their claim) but rather just muddy thinking. An inability to understand the difference between faith or opinion and knowledge.
So, repeating, is there anything more than ignorance "I don't know" or a mere desire that it be so that points to a god?
"I have never said there could not be an intelligent cause; just that there is zero evidence pointing to one. The theist will always claim that they know there is, but that is patently false on the face of it."
So what you are telling me.. is that intelligence exists here.. verifiably on earth as proof it exists.. and this intelligence had to come from somewhere.. and there is "ZERO EVIDENCE" something intelligent could have engineered something as complex as the human brain, regarded as one of the two most complex structures known to man.. the other being the universe itself.....
So let me get simple here:
Intelligence exists = No evidence for possibility that intelligence caused intelligence..
I'm hoping I need not take this any further.. because I won't! End of replies for this subject!
But thx for the giggles.. I think you are actually serious. Which means you need time alone to think. Granted.
PS, don't take offense. I enjoy sarcasm and fun debate. (to a point) No disrespect intended.
"Intelligence exists = No evidence for possibility that intelligence caused intelligence.."
No. Intelligence exists = Intelligence exists. It does not equal intelligence caused intelligence. That's just a guess.
Intelligence seems to be an emergent property of consciousness which is an emergent property of awareness which is an emergent property of auto response. Each step emerging from increasingly complex systems by way of evolution and the laws of physics.
That's a model based on science and logic. It has a good probability of being true.
To say intelligence caused intelligence is probable at all, you have to show that this obviously super intelligence exists. Otherwise it's just a guess. Maybe Zeus did it? How likely would you say that is?
No more or less likely than other intelligent agent you might like to put forward. Zero probability unless the intelligence comes out of hiding and tells us.
Ok ok.. You're displaying some intellect. Don't go crazy with it though, I did say "some." lol (it's a curse i swear.. I can't stop.)
"Intelligence exists = No evidence for possibility that intelligence caused intelligence.."
For starters, you're getting ahead of yourself. Though I will admit my stance is that of your assumption.. I certainly made no claim to debate proof of it. Capeesh?
Second, your claim of the OPPOSITE of intelligence bringing forth intellect far outweighs mine in lack of rational reasoning from a logical standpoint. (regardless who "likes" to admit it, I'm a logic/numbers man as well. Faith isn't blind, and is generally misunderstood.. or should I say NOT understood whatsoever lol)
Third, you are also adding weight to my argument with every organized complexity you add to the formula.
And last, I don't have to do a blessed thing!! It's all there for the taking. Just some people bite the fake worm like the bass, and well.. It's their own fault for not being unbiased.
There is ample indication of everything I know. And I may share, or may not share what I know. I won't argue with a blind man about the stars not existing because he can't see them and I can't prove they exist to him..
Intelligence doesn't hide, nor does truth. Intelligence is in every atom in the universe friend, Electromagnetic Force on it's own is a problem you'll have to riddle me to even begin to gain ground on my position.
And please, by all means save the "Zeus" bit for a troll? lol I find the comparison hard to take seriously considering no one in the academic community would even reply to such desperate grasping monologues. Because we both know that it wasn't an actual question now don't we?
Thank you for the allusion to the laws of physics. You'll need to explain how the "laws" and "directed organized energy" EVOLVED.
I made an exception to my decree of no reply due to your post. It intrigued me.. Inspired me actually. Gracias
[ edit - I glanced at your page. Though my craving for intelligent sarcasm is never full (apparently) and it may seem I don't due to this fact, but I am actually looking forward to your reply. This doesn't generally happen lol, sry.. cursed i am, slave to laughter? Flip, idk.. I need sleep.. ]
"Thank you for the allusion to the laws of physics. You'll need to explain how the "laws" and "directed organized energy" EVOLVED. "
But isn't that what I said? We don't know so it must be a god? Ignorance as evidence of an ET making us?
The problem is you can't know. I don't mean you in particular.. To say you know is a lie. Perhaps one you tell yourself and believe, but a lie nun the less.
"Thank you for the allusion to the laws of physics. You'll need to explain how the "laws" and "directed organized energy" EVOLVED"
It didn't. it's always existed in one form or other. It can't be created or destroyed. It's what the singularity you live in is and always was made of. The laws are energy's nature, and the thing people refer to, know it or not, when they say "nature".
No offense taken. I have lived in intimate contact with believers all my life and fully understand that the desire for a god overrides any rational investigation or discourse into showing that one exists.
Kathryn, I don't think you will ever understand what proof is, or evidence. But it is not opinion, and that is all you offer.
You statement is, in fact, a very good example of what I said.
And you will never understand the logic behind what I say. The soul = a unit of life. LOGICALLY!
If so, you can develop that into a syllogism or other logical structure. I await the result.
If the guiding force of the body is (the individualized force of) life and life equals soul, then soul guides the growth and development of the body.
Without this (individualized force of) life, (soul) there would be no growth,
as growth is due to LIFE.
lol, ahh you want to play the sarcastic troll huh?
Well it's funny you mention "desire for a god" because I HAVE one! And it's funny the blind man is still telling me the stars don't exist and I have NO PROOF!!!
But then, I could forget my eyes altogether since he has none right? lololol
BTW, don't ignore the laws of physics and turn IT into personal fun too now.. THAT is my ONLYYYY kryptonite. (right... )
We know you can't overcome that hurdle, it's not possible. We understand your "going around this one" approach and won't beat you up about it.
This is how I like it. If you can keep up without tripping.. (again) lol
No sarcasm intended, or offense. You have repeatedly demanded answers that are unknown, trying to use it as an indication the gods exist. It doesn't work, but I don't expect you to "get" that, any more than those of my past experience do.
Don't worry, Wilderness, he's calling everyone a troll who doesn't agree with him.
You might have a point. Maybe it is a joke, but a joke is better than nothing if the truth is unacceptable.
Speculative fantasy attains respectability if it is consistent with Naturalistic doctrine and evidence obtained under the auspices of naturalistic methodology is shunned if it corroborates an intelligent cause.
Don't tire of pointing out the obvious. Somebody has to do it.
Am sorry, but must strongly disagree. Faith is not the denial of observation, myth is. And there is a massive difference between them.
In order for Faith to activate, something must be observed, experienced -be it an event, an object or sensation.
And, with regard to Science, how is that any different? In order for the Method to activate, something must be observed, experienced -be it an event, an object or sensation.
Belief does not make things true anymore than Facts makes things true. Yet Faith enables both to exist and express themselves as they do.
Both Science and Sensation begin with Faith. Two expressions of a singular -the human condition. To deny it is pure ignorance and just plain ole dumbness of an individual.
"Faith is not the denial of observation"
Really? We observe evolution happening, but faith requires that it not be so, so it isn't.
We observe that being gay is genetically cause, but faith requires that it not be so, so it isn't.
We observed long ago that the earth was not the center of the universe, but faith required that it was, so it was.
We observe that there is zero confirmation of any god, let alone a specific one, but faith requires it be there, so it is "proven" to exist.
Faith ignores observation and fact just as long as possible; as long as it doesn't hurt church membership in other words. Only after that happens does faith suddenly change and accept observation.
Are you mad? Apparently you know little of the thing defined as faith and even less regarding the applications of Science and Sensation.
I have no idea how this is relevant to the convo, and therefore must conclude you have some ulterior issue or motive for its mention. Science has already proven sexuality is NOT genetic/hereditary, therefore it can only be presumed that it is a conscious decision, based on whichever personal events have manifested the sensation, etc.
Again, madness. YOU or WE did not observe a bloody thing. We assumed, based on previous analogies/testing said event. Is the test conclusive as being acceptable? yes.
Ugh. the 0 calculation is currently inconclusive. Hypothetically, the theory says the equation must equal zero. Therefore between 1 and -1 the probability for "something" can exist which inspired the Big Band. Why do YOU assume it is a god scenario?
This is merely self ambiguity and very dangerous. Faith by its very nature is an action. It is therefore required to be the a priori, else posteriori to an event, be it Science or Sensation.
Again, I am sorry, but your "logic" is stupid and makes no true rational case, nevermind a thorough investigation leading to a determination -a factually considered scenario. Word salad is tasty, yes, but it isn't worth anything after eaten. In fact, like Chinese food, it leaves one hungry 20 minutes later...
SMH. Humans, the strangest animals I ever met.
For me learning to distinguish between when someone is parroting the party line and when they are forwarding a legitimate argument saves time. Do you think that anyone has ever really observed evolution happening? Or that there is zero confirmed evidence for the existence of God?
When either approach is asked, not demanded, to produce the experiential, both dissolve in rhetoric or fall back on their laurals of some pseudo-clastic series of inconclusive "experiments", on a variety of things within nature, be they planets, comets or microbes, else some predesigned "fact" which is nothing short of experimentation gone a mock, leading to dead end questions...
The zero probability is inconclusive, therefore one, of a truly curious and discovery passionate mind, cannot rule out the probability of a mediator, a Creator.
In my personal experience, the term G/god is not applicable, because anything humans put their intense focus on can be defined as a G/god. In our current society Science is the latest go, whereas a hundred years ago Sensation was.
Plus the original term itself is of a pagan origin. Take for example Hindu philosophy which contains nearly 3 million G/gods....
There is, however, overwhelming support of the existence of a Creator. Nature itself provides the tangible evidence, proving randomness or chance are not true claims, but false flags of the human condition. Something made this entire experience we define as life. And no matter how the spin doctors of Science or Sensation bend and twist it, the evidence remains....
"There is, however, overwhelming support of the existence of a Creator. "
Fascinating. Can you give just two examples of evidence for an intelligent creator?
You've been presented with the cosmological evidence a number of times. In this thread you've been presented with the obvious necessity of an intelligent designer at the micro-biological level. Which btw was enough to ultimately convince the renowned and ardent atheist Anthony Flew of the existence of God.
There are more. I lack the time or patience to continue if someone refuses to apply an evenhanded analysis to what has already been presented.
No, I've been presented with "I don't know, so it has to be a god". Ignorance, in other words, followed by a made up solution that answers all questions without regard to truth.
The evenhanded analysis is still absent. Even when evidence is obtained under the auspices of methodological naturalism it cannot be interpreted rationally if rationality points to non-Naturalistic causes.
But where is that "cosmological evidence" of a god? And the "obvious necessity", so apparently obvious to the believer, isn't apparent at all to anyone else. At absolute best it falls back to "I don't know, so will make up a god that satisfies the question". Including the opinion of Flew: he doesn't understand how else it might have happened, so a god did it.
I think you are forgetting that you are among the VERY FEW that it isn't obvious to.
I haven't seen where it is actually "obvious" to anyone at all - that they want a god for themselves does not make it obvious there is one. It is expressed that way (as it is here), but when the chips are down the only thing they can support it with is ignorance of what happened, and that does not make anything "obvious".
Even militant atheists, like Richard Dawkins, admits to the "appearance" of design. I doubt Dawkins wants a God, yet he sees it.
Absolutely! With just a little imagination the appearance certainly does support a god. Appearance, though, is very often misleading, and when coupled with almost total ignorance of what DID happen...well, it just doesn't support the conclusion. "Obvious", then, only to those that are more interested in an answer than in the RIGHT answer.
Talk to a dog breeder. They are quite familiar with evolution in action.
Talk to a microbiologist. They are quite familiar with evolution in action.
Talk to doctors. They are quite familiar with evolution in action.
Talk to companies "breeding" for a better strain of wheat. They are quite familiar with evolution in action.
You have some interesting ideas as to what constitutes evolution. Dogs, from what I have read, if their breeding is left unguided would result in a complete collapse of identifiable breeds within about 20 generations. So, no evolution in action. Only selective breeding. Not the same thing.
I suppose with doctors you are talking about super bugs and different strains of virus mutating? Not sure that fits the bill of what the standard person defines as evolution. It may be a good example of survival of the fittest but, we are still battling the same types of organisms. If we see a virus become something other than a virus....maybe.
You should probably define better, as to the strains of wheat. Yes, they are selectively modifying these plants but we still have wheat. It isn't evolution as much as it is artificially ensuring that certain traits desirable for higher yield are dominant in the final result. Non GMO is beginning to be the mantra of those who are eating these strains so better might not fit as a good classification for them.
I think the problem is where each person sets the bar. What we observe and what we are capable of manipulating is obvious. It is not so obvious that this would automatically mean life sprang from non life which is the beginning premise of the theory of evolution.
Evolution is the result of an environment affecting the reproductive capabilities of an animal (or plant, or man). That the environment includes another species is inevitable in this world; that the other species includes man is also inevitable.
A dog breeder or wheat researcher, then, is as much a part of the environment as a volcano and can (and does) affect the evolution of a species as much as any other environmental cause.
Ah, yes - the old, old argument that if it doesn't meet the believers definition of change it isn't evolution. I once had a discussion on evolution with a die hard denier who, given increasingly complex examples of evolution in action finally said that she would believe only when she could see, on every street corner, a dog giving birth to a cat. Very much like saying that when a bacteria evolves into something it was not it isn't evolution because it is still a bacteria, isn't it? I don't care what the "standard person" (read believer that denies nature exists) thinks the definition is - evolution is the changing of a species into what it was not. And that includes genetically gaining abilities it did not have, like resisting penicillin.
"It is not so obvious that this would automatically mean life sprang from non life which is the beginning premise of the theory of evolution."
This single statement is an absolute indicator that you, yourself, have no concept of what evolution is or how it works. The concept of evolution does NOT have anything to do with the formation of the first life, and that formation is NOT the "beginning premise of the theory of evolution". Evolution concerns itself ONLY with the change within a species - one life from another. The study of abiogenesis is NOT the study of evolution.
I'm afraid they must go hand in hand. Yes,abiogenesis would have to come first. But, evolution theory assumes we can trace life back to the first life on this planet. I would think the first life on this planet would be a result of abiogenesis. Unless, we assume it is of alien origin. Then, we'd have to start all over again tracing where that came from.
Seriously, do you honestly believe evolution concerns itself ONLY with the change within a species? If so, I can see why you would think that dog breeding might qualify. Evolution is as much about the branching out of new species from one as it is about the minor changes in one specific species.
No, they do not go hand in hand. The father of evolution (Charles Darwin) made it very clear that his (then) new theory did not address that question and it has not changed since. They are two very different questions, with causes/events/answers completely unrelated to each other.
Yes, it is only within a species. Eventually, of course, that species changes to the point that it can no longer be called the same species as the one 1,000 generations ago that gave rise to it, but any two intermediate organisms are still the same species as the other. Is that the problem? That you think mother and child should be two different species and you've never seen that happen?
I don't have a problem. It appears, from your comments, that you don't think all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Simply species getting longer noses or shorter legs.
But, to say they are completely unrelated is interesting. If (if you agree) that all life on earth must have evolved from a common ancestor...where did the ancestor originate?
Why one? Why not 100 or 1,000?
Given: a "soup" of chemicals that, while it would have locally differing concentrations of specific chemicals, should be similar all over the world, why not find life being created multiple times? Even if most died out, why not even similar DNA being formed?
Or even life without DNA, eventually (given similar environments) developing DNA later on? That all life we know of has DNA certainly does not mean that ALL life is DNA based; that would be egocentricity at it's extreme.
(This does not mean that I think life was created multiple times - I have no data either way and thus no real opinion. Just an "if", or "why not". Nor does that mean it was terrestrial in origin, and to ask "Where then?" is a foolish question. It is convenient and easier to assume an earthly origin, but it is not necessarily so.)
Since, right now evidence points to a common origin then I would think we should follow the evidence. Although what ifs are very important. They could easily lead to new answers. As could questions like 'where then?' The only foolish question is one which attempts to make others look foolish when questioning.
"Live to Learn" is correct. None of the examples you provided show evolution in action. By the standard Naturalistic evolution provides the process of evolution takes million of years. A human life-span is not long enough to to observe a species actually evolving.
Fossil evidence is required to assess whether a species has evolved over time and thus far that evidence is not above dispute.
And yet we do see bacteria evolving. Fruit flies, too.
Evolution does not necessarily take millions of years, only a large number of generations (to form a truly new species, not a single new individual). Not all species have generations that take 20+ years; some take only minutes.
Speciation has never once been seen in fruit flies or bacteria.
Faith: 1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
Presumably trust is required to have complete confidence because proof is lacking to some degree.
I would say that the amount of faith required for me to remain an atheist became insupportable because of evidence that contravened my atheistic beliefs. That's the sense in which I use the word faith and by which I equate it with a philosophy (Naturalism) that is by my reckoning no longer worthy as a methodology by which to evaluate the ultimate scientific questions involving existence and experience.
So if science is honest, why does medical science have people sent home from hospital to die with no hope. Cancer research has not changed since the 50's and the progress made is at a snails pace. Google the "renegade doctors or miracle doctors" they are MD's who speak out regardless of the danger it could have on their careers. And what about the science of energy, we are still paying through the nose for vehicles powered by fossil fuels and we could be travelling at unbelievable speeds at no cost by technology being suppressed by the powers that be. This is only one example of energy produced by magnetics... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBGJnG-00Gc So in conclusion, the practice of religion dishonestly will yield the same result as science practised dishonestly. It will yield very little and will be used as an excuse by those who wish to avoid what the pinnacle of knowledge has to offer if approached with honesty. The human component of vices and passions has interfered with the progress of scientific progress just as it has with the growth of holiness and spiritual freedom in God.
"why does medical science have people sent home from hospital to die with no hope"
Probably because the doctors have no hope of recovery.
"Cancer research has not changed since the 50's "
Meaning we understand no more now or that research is still continuing?
"we could be travelling at unbelievable speeds at no cost by technology being suppressed by the powers that be"
Have you fallen for yet another perpetual motion myth? Energy from nothing? Yes, it is a dishonest myth.
Hi Wilderness, thank you for your comment. The information on cancer research was obtained from MacMillan Cancer Research group UK. The research is continuing but not to find a cure, but rather a treatment which is not the same as a cure. Check Dr. Joel Wallach and his book "Dead doctors don't lie".
The link on Free Energy I provided is not about perpetual motion, but rather harnessing electrons to provide an electrical charge to illuminate a light bulb. This could be used to provide full spectrum light to grow vegetable plants in a 1/3 of the normal time taken to do so, which might help in situations of food shortage etc. Check aquaponics on google search. Words like quack, scam and myth were used freely and frequently regarding Nikola Tesla, the gentleman who inverted Thomas Edison's DC charge into an AC charge which revolutionised the electrical energy industry. The organisations and personages who bandied about these insults converged on the hotel room Tesla occupied in his last few weeks before his death. These organisations were from a myriad of governments. Governments who refused Tesla funding, when J.P Morgan halted Tesla's funding due to the fact that Tesla intended to provide electricity free for everyone on the planet via the Tesla Coil, the planet is a huge magnet also...north pole...south pole etc. Tesla's research was taken but some of his creations are well documented and are not regarded as myth. Once again thanks for your opinion and comment.
I'm sorry, but "harnessing" electrons - removing them from their orbits in atoms - takes energy. Energy which could have been used the light the light bulb without the intervening steps and without the inevitable energy loss those steps take. There IS no "free" energy to be had, although such things as tidal, lightening, etc. could be harnessed. It, too, is not free, but at least it takes no actions of man to create it.
As far as not searching for a "cure" for cancer - is that because it is neither virus nor bacteria and thus cannot be "cured" in the sense of being eradicated?
You are correct cancer is a mold and mold is destroyed by soda bicarbonate, ask the Italian doctor who is injecting his female patients with breast cancer with off the chart success!
Wilderness, I would like to retract the link to the video which shows the magnetic generated light for the lamp. It's a fake, and was exposed. I'm not convinced there is no such thing as free energy, but this is not an example of that. Sorry...peace wilderness...p
I heard an interview with a doctor on the radio the other day. He said he got to thinking about it and he knew no doctor who died in the hospital. They all died at home. It was strange, because there are so many people dying in the hospitals. Doctors, when they know there is nothing more that can be done, go home to die in the comfort of their own homes. Unlike the rest of us, who they will insist stay in the hospital to be poked and prodded and tested; only to be resuscitated to start the process again until nature insists on having its way.
Medical science is not the marvel the commercials lead you to believe. An honest doctor will tell you, honestly, when there is nothing more they can do.
I think religion and science go hand-in-hand one without the other is lost. Even though the scientist without religion out of ego will like to say "religion holds sciences back" and the one with limited knowledge of science will say "science leads people away from god"
In reality though these two strands in our life lead us to the truth...the more you explore science leads you to realise that there is more to life than what we currently know. The more you study religion and practice the more you become aware that there is a greater purpose of being alive.
Yes, sciences us how ignorant we are.
But religion teaches there is a purpose? Outside of our decision to declare that there must, somehow, be a purpose, how? Yes, we like to think there is some deep purpose in our existence, but how does religion teach that?
The essence of religion and true Christ-ianity introduces faith in the unseen. "Church-ianity" is another matter.
But faith, while taught, does not teach anything. Devoid of any necessary connection to reality or truth, it cannot.
Faith in the unseen.
Strangely, it is the unseen that sets us free.
And it teaches the truth.
Don't ask me how.
It just does.
For instance I once had an art teacher that could sense the ghosts of dead artists helping him as he painted.
Like they gave him insights and bits of truth to painting while he painted.
One time I had a large poster of a painting by Monet.
Like 6ft by four.
I taped it on the wall since I could not afford such a big glass frame.
Strangely, I could not get it to stay on the wall.
Finally, I put it upside down. It stayed on the wall.
Then, as I analyzed the painting upside down, I could see clear as day that he had actually painted parts of it while the canvas was UPSIDE DOWN!
I believe that was Monet throwing the poster off the wall and then giving me the idea of putting it upside down.
He wanted to teach me something.
No, you had an art teacher who said he could sense ghosts that helped him. That doesn't mean he actually did - it doesn't mean that faith in those ghosts taught him anything at all. Far more likely is that his own mind taught him.
That a poster wouldn't stick to the wall taught you...what? That you should turn all posters upside down? That you should turn all Monet's upside down? And where does faith come into it?
No: that he painted parts of it when the canvas was upside down. His pictures of reflections in water were painted that way I believe. He wanted to share this technique. Or I just somehow was able to tune into this technique.
Faith is tuning into the unseen, the invisible realm of reality.
My art teacher/university professor's mind was tuned into knowledge retained in the minds (?) of those who had passed on.
The prof: how do you know that? Because you have faith - because you want it to be true?
Because he knew things! He did not get them from books. He got them from painting.
He got them from the beyond while painting … ! Why would he tell us this if it wasn't something he believed? He did not feel the source of his knowlege came from himself, but from beyond himself.
Extra sensory perception is kind of hit and miss at this point in evolution. I believe we used it to a greater extent long ago. It is easy to say I have ESP, when actually you are surmising something based on probability.
But Ideally, we can know God through sensing God.
This, to me, is faith.
That appears to imply you know nothing of faith; or you were raised in some religion which obviously had great expectations as to how far your faith was supposed to take you. Faith is connected to reality and truth. Some faiths, anyway.
Faith connected to reality and truth isn't faith anymore; the proper term is knowledge.
One might have faith their spouse will come home tonight, and it is faith. When the spouse does come home it is now connected to reality and becomes knowledge. It might be true, it might be real, but until it becomes knowledge there is no connection - only faith.
What about sensing when your husband is going to come home?
Even as a kid, when I babysat, the house would be in horrible disarray and the kids not in bed, but it was past their bed time.
I would always seem to know when the parents were about to arrive and manage to get everything in order/ kids in bed, just before they walked in the door.
This happened to me often. I could sense when someone would arrive, even though I was not sure exactly when.
Sorry, the future is not fixed. There is no predestination (I have faith ).
While it is possible that telepathy is real and true, I wasn't speaking of "just before they walked in", but of hours before. Similarly it is possible (again, through telepathy) that you sense people have an intention of visiting, but that does not mean they will make it to your door.
Faith in the existence of God; because of the reality you experience is still faith. Unless someone can prove his existence. But, the truth of your belief is constantly validated by the reality of your experience. It doesn't mean any more than that your faith is validated daily.
I hope I'm never put into the position of having to have faith my spouse will come home. It's a somewhat shaky relationship if such a simple thing requires faith.
- he means faith as in KNOWING, based on concrete facts.
I am talking about faith based on KNOWING non-concrete facts.
I think what he meant was there is no faith when you have concrete facts. But, yes, I do get that you are talking about having no facts.
"Non-concrete facts". As in something you hope is true but have no idea if it is or not?
No, the "truth" of your belief is "validated" by your decision to associate it with a god. It is not, so your "truth" is not necessarily truth at all. The "validation" is nothing more than your own faulty conclusions that the experience shows a god. Thus faith has no necessary connection to reality; it may have or it may not, but your validation is nothing more that an increase of faith.
A little difference in outlook and philosophy; I have faith every day that my wife will come home. She may not: she may have a car accident, she may leave me or ISIS may get her. But I have faith that none of those things will happen; I have to or I'll go crazy with worry.
I'm afraid I can just as easily state that anyone's statement that there is no god is simply the result of faulty conclusions. I'm not certain saying it would necessarily make me right; just as your statement only validates your opinion on the subject.
That would be correct - any statement that there is no god is based on faith and on little (or nothing) else. There is no more supporting data for such a conclusion than there is to support that there IS a god.
But, of course, I have not made that statement for I recognize that I don't know any more than anyone else does.
Well, my mistake. I assumed when you were accusing me of coming to faulty conclusions you were basically saying you had come to an opposite conclusion; so my conclusion was, therefor, wrong.
faith: "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something" … based on intuitional knowing.
Why do you say the future is not fixed?
The future is fixed based on the will of individuals and chains of events which occur accidentally or intentionally. Certain futures are eventualities.
Like, at some point, my heart will stop beating. This is fixed.
WHEN it gives out may or may not be predestined.
Some believe it is!
Faith in the "unseen" is applicable.
Again, because Faith, the action of pure application, supercedes Reason: the genetically provided data/information, in every human being. Faith supercedes because it is validated by application.
Faith is void of necessity. Where there is Faith there is no need. Where there is need there is Reason. And as we all know, Reason is the constant conflict defined as the human condition, the Moral Dilemma, the stumbling, the blockade of experience.
For those who disagree, I ask, which tests have you genuinely performed regarding evolution, regarding natural selection (Darwinism), regarding the theologies of Science and Sensation?
I wager you have done no organic analysis but have relied solely on information provided by others to justify your position, which makes you a drone, a robot, a lifeless expression of someone else ideology....
Interesting philosophy. Those that learn from others are drones and lifeless while those that make up stories and believe them to be true are driving the knowledge of the race.
Mincing words again?
Knowledge is not the correct term for fact either. Knowledge is the collection of information. How that information is engaged, spliced and diced is called Reason. Every experiment done by Science or Sensation exists from within the realm of Reason because, generally, people have a "need to know", to unravel said information in a way it makes "sense" to them.
Faith supersedes Necessity, Knowledge and Reason because it is the action of application of information without the indulgence of it. It is not at all void of knowledge. But, in order to be called Faith it must be purely applied and experienced.
Science isn't experiencing anything, neither is Sensation. Both may think they are, but by their own history, have scads of proof to show they are not. Both lack the one important thing that would satisfy them: pure experience. Experience would reveal that genetic information correctly, and there would be no "yeah, but what if". Why? Because it would be void of necessity to know, void of questions, doubts. It would be understood. It would be a tangible experience.
Let me see any scientist or sensationalist do that in their laboratories of choice. Choice, get it. Lol
Haha. Oh man...why is it that generally the anti religious folks like to get into it like this online? Why can't we all just LOVE ourselves and EACH OTHER. Oh, but that would mean you'd have to respect our views as well...that is such a pathetically easy quote to say so many "shut down" responses for that I am not going to waste my time. If you're going to post a quote like that, at least find one that makes you think.
Oh but hold on, I don't THINK!?! I'm HIGHLY spiritual! Oh but that's not "religious" is that...huh...goodness, I guess this is confusing. Being that you can't be religious or keen to certain religious beliefs without being labeled anti intellectual. IF you're an atheist, stop being a wimp and hiding behind religious-hate-posts. I mean, who ... cares? This isn't and never has been a topic that even has relevance. You're comparing cats and dogs while trying to say "YOU'RE ALL WRONG YOU DOGS! YOU'RE A DOG OK WELL YOU'RE JUST, YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT. HA!"
Who cares if I and many others that have ever known me believe and have experienced that I can connect with the other side and with actual Angels...that I've heard dead men whisper to me. That's not science though.
Look up Doreen Virtue. reading the first two lines of her bio are much more intellectually stimulating than this quote, haha.
Yep, I'm sure you have had "dead men" whisper to you. Too bad you don't have a clue who you're REALLY talking to.. lol (sry, personal experience and opinion statement, just for the record not debating)
Yes, you're highly spiritual, I can certainly agree and believe it. You're also highly emotional which extra-dimensional (yes, dimension.. i.e. spirit) beings find as a trait to exploit when looking for a sucker to deceive.
Second paragraph debatable.. I hope the joke here was recognized. Though the post is a serious one. Believing whispers just because they are supernatural does not imply true counsel. Actually, rationally speaking the opposite is generally held by those who are aware of what you communicate with. I've seen their nature. It was my first personal proof of good & evil, spirit, God etc.
Just um.. pouring thoughts here. Like water?
PS, don't get emotional on me! (just kidding)
""Thank you for the allusion to the laws of physics. You'll need to explain how the "laws" and "directed organized energy" EVOLVED. "
But isn't that what I said? We don't know so it must be a god? Ignorance as evidence of an ET making us?"
Well, you're about an inch away from never receiving another productive reply. lol
Because repeating, repeating, repeating... and at that avoiding due to lack of validity, avoiding due to lack of validity, avoiding due to lack of validity.. (or in other words any real truth at all lol)
I don't have time for stupidity. Some people in the world like to carry productive conversation. I may play, but in case you haven't noticed, I'm very much into understanding what it is I'm discussing. If I don't understand it I research and don't discuss. No point looking like a fool when one is aware they are ignorant regarding a particular subject.
Being I've mentioned that, looking silly and all.. Please at least be SOMEWHAT diligent to contribute productive behavior and stop cluttering the thread and wasting my time with redundant retreat from the subject.
If you can't do anything but run when confronted with the truths in life.. I'm respectfully going to make it a point to bring the childishness into the light, and I will stoop levels, or at least have been known to. I'm better than most trolls here because well, though I hate to admit this.... I was taught by the best troll ever to exist on hubpages. lol But I prefer not to stoop, and may just vanish if the trolling gets plain void of any intelligence. There has to be wit and fun in it, otherwise.. mm it's more like your repeated repeated repeated repeated... ( <-- I'm trying to make my irritation understandable here.. because it is. lol )
By all means, play, have fun, be sarcastic and stubborn... All acceptable (at least by me) But with all sincerity please stop wasting my time, the notifications are getting ridiculous as there is never anything to reply to when I open the page and see your name.
I hope to not have to stop conversing on this site again so soon. This was the reason I left for two years.. lol
This is all meant with sincere intent and honest respect. I mean no disrespect, but it is irritating.
If you have a rebuttal that is valid, or explanation rather.. now is the time. Unless?
LOL If you want a rebuttal you're going to have to give something to rebut. Beyond an unsupported opinion, that is. We can both give that all day long, but it does get rather boring when the reasoning to reach that opinion is never detailed.
You have data supporting the existence of your god (or any other god, for that matter), present it for rebuttal. We can discuss your evidence that way, and you'll either get a rebuttal or an agreement.
"or explanation rather" - no rebuttal necessary. Burden of proof is resting on you here.... Your claims, your explanations. You adopt it, you explain it child of darwinian logic.........
Are you suffering amnesia.. The subjects are:
One] Electromagnetic Force and it's "evolution", origin, or cause.
Two] Laws of Physics and it's "evolution", origin, or cause.
You are proving your lack of any true "ground" regarding anything you hold as "truth."
And btw, your straw man arguments and cowardly insults have gotten completely beyond my grasp.
I BEG YOU TO CONTINUE SO I MAY USE IT AS AN ONGOING EXAMPLE!
PS, If you can't reply regarding the two subjects I posted.. I'll take that as you have absolutely no answer whatsoever and are not worth my time. Though I forseen this from your other trolling posts I gave you an opportunity. lol)
Got an explanation for either oh scientific one? [NOPE]
No, the topic is the insinuation that not knowing the cause, origin or mechanics of EMF shows there is a god. You still haven't provided anything but the statement itself, which is nonsense as far as I can tell.
I've repeatedly asked for evidence of a god, but gotten nowhere. And that's the only real "claim" I've made - that there is nothing but our ignorance being offered and that isn't enough.
Thank you troll. I will gladly shed light upon the trolling for the community to see the insanity..
PS... pahahhaha [I'm really laughing.. serious.. you have no idea.. it almost makes me... sad, just not that sad...]
Please refrain from replying to my posts, as you will be wasting your time. You will receive no reply.
Good day sir.
Fair enough - I never did expect a reply. At least not one that addressed the topic.
You have a fine day as well.
One exception, but not one post after!
I apologize for seeming so rude. I am entirely too addicted to sarcasm and consumed in being young at heart. But I don't hate you, or even dislike you.
But I'm still keeping my word. I hope you accept my apology if I have offended you. I typically don't catch how some of my posts come off toward people.. (rare breed i am, many offended by me.. life sucks? lol)
Take care wilderness, I actually really like your name.
The problem is you can't know. I don't mean you in particular.. To say you know is a lie. Perhaps one you tell yourself and believe, but a lie nun the less.
"Thank you for the allusion to the laws of physics. You'll need to explain how the "laws" and "directed organized energy" EVOLVED"
It didn't. it's always existed in one form or other. It can't be created or destroyed. It's what the singularity you live in is and always was made of. The laws are energy's nature, and the thing people refer to, know it or not, when they say "nature".
"it's always existed"
Going to need to know how you "know" that, since my "know" is a "lie" that "you(i) tell yourself(myself)" lol
Plus I believe you are um.. making a claim you cannot validate. I would very much like to see it if you do though. I know the Laws.. Please don't give me the 5th grade re-run while you're at it, just saying.
If it ALWAYS existed by the way.. Could you explain why when theists claim God "always" existed they are um... "ignorant and delusional" i think is what i catch from the trolls typically. I am always asked how such is possible. I now direct the question they have asked me for over ten years....
To you. lol
How is it possible something always existed. (no beginning, no end - btw if it sounds familiar it's from THE BIBLE. lolol true, but yes i'm goofing off, sorry)
If you manage this.. well, I'm going to get up and dance like a flipn jester man.. and no I'm not being sarcastic. I'm serious as death by stroke right now. It may be hilarious to me, but I WILL be dancing
If you don't mind may I have a go.
"How is it possible something always existed. (no beginning, no end ..."
From our present physically oriented framework it's difficult if not impossible to conceptualize time as being non-existent. Yet Einstein's GTR which is accepted as being scientifically established shows that time, space and matter are co-relative. One does not exist in the absence of the others. We also know that the natural realm ... space, time, and matter did begin to exist simultaneously. The fact that they began to exist demonstrates that they had a cause that was timeless (outside of time).
I've covered this in more detail in other posts. The problem here is that scientific evidence is strongly at odds with Naturalistic philosophy.
"The fact that they began to exist demonstrates that they had a cause that was timeless (outside of time)."
Can you support this idea with something more than that everything in the modern universe has a cause (which is, in itself, untrue)? You ARE talking about something that is completely outside of our experience; how do you know that it required a cause?
The First Principles of Logic. Logic is based on the presupposition of universal truth in the form of the First Principles.
Can something / anything BEGIN to exist without a cause? Every effect has a cause that is both necessary and sufficient.
But there is no "First Principle of Logic". And if there were it would not address natural as that has nothing to do with logic.
Now add in that we already know events/actions that happen on a random basis and that the Big Bang did not happen while current natural laws were in effect, and that First Principle has quite a problem.
Recognize any of these?
Identity. If it is true, then it is true; if it exists, then it exists.
Non-Contradiction. If it is true, then it cannot be false; if it exists, it cannot NOT exist.
Excluded Middle. A (singular, unity) concept cannot be somewhat true and somewhat false; a (singular, unity) thing cannot somewhat exist and somewhat not exist.
Cause and effect. Every effect has a cause that is both necessary and sufficient.
Cogito (Descartes). Because I doubt my own doubt, it is true that I think; because I think (truth), I must exist (fact).
These are known as the intuitive principles without which rational thought is impossible.
"And if there were it would not address natural as that has nothing to do with logic"
If you're saying that Naturalism has forsaken logic ... I agree. It shouldn't be necessary for me to defend logic. If you want to argue against cause and effect it might interest you to know that The Principle of Causality is the fundamental principle of science. Francis Bacon said, "True knowledge is knowledge by causes". David Hume said, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause."
"Now add in that we already know events/actions that happen on a random basis and that the Big Bang did not happen while current natural laws were in effect, and that First Principle has quite a problem."
What problem? That there were no natural laws pre-existing the natural realm (time, space, matter)? Why would they?
Great! Now let's discuss intuition - that "feeling" of truth without evidence. Sometimes true, sometimes eventually shown to be false after more information surfaces.
Like the intuitive "logic" that everything requires a cause. This is the one out of the bunch that is not about a statement being true or false - it is itself a statement about nature and is not a logical relationship at all. It does not concern itself with the reasoning process, but is a statement of natural "law". It does not belong in a list of logical processes, and doubly so as recent information shows that it is false.
Never forget GIGO. Impeccable logic with a false premise (all events require a cause) will produce garbage as a conclusion from the argument. (You could almost include GIGO in your list, in fact!).
But don't blame poor Bacon or Hume - both died long before the information was known. Their world - everything known about it - indicated a causal effect for every action. It may have been an unwarranted conclusion to declare that because they had never found anything different that there WAS nothing different (much like declaring that because we never discovered a god there isn't one), but it's hard to blame them. Everything they looked at had a cause (although we're likely to find that some of those things only had an assumed cause).
wilderness: "Great! Now let's discuss intuition - that "feeling" of truth without evidence. Sometimes true, sometimes eventually shown to be false after more information surfaces."
Do you really think that principles of logic will be eventually be shown to be false??? LOL! I don't know why I'm even discussing this with you, you're obviously just obfuscating because you don't have a real counter argument. The reason the "intuitive" principles of logic are so called is because they are so profoundly obvious and fundamental that they can't be proven by more fundamental principles.
wilderness: "Like the intuitive "logic" that everything requires a cause. This is the one out of the bunch that is not about a statement being true or false - it is itself a statement about nature and is not a logical relationship at all. It does not concern itself with the reasoning process, but is a statement of natural "law". It does not belong in a list of logical processes, and doubly so as recent information shows that it is false."
Do you realize the absurdity of that statement? Or were you just hoping I would let it slide? Cause and effect is absolutely fundamental to the reasoning process! Without the First Principles (ALL OF THEM) rationality is not possible ... as you're so ably demonstrating.
The words of Hume and Bacon still stand. Nothing has ever been discovered to nullify the fact that, "Every effect has a cause that is both necessary and sufficient." If something had been discovered to that effect then all reasoning, all rationality and science itself would be invalidated! Irrationality would be unavoidable. But I'll abet you in this ridiculous folly ... tell me what recent information nullifies logic in general and causality in particular? What does your randomness hypothesis do to Determinism? A lot of atheists are going to be unhappy to discover that we do have free will. And even if an event does appear to be random that doesn't mean it was uncaused! Randomness is a transparent ruse.
The fact that you're arguing against causality shows the desperation of the situation you've put yourself in. Why don't you argue against truth??? It amounts to the same thing. What are you afraid of?
You go ahead and take your stance with irrationality ... it proves my point that atheism is irrational.
Ever argued a definitive point with a magic eight ball?
The results are the same. It's scientific fact.
(The opposition almost never comprehends objectivity/subjectivity. The redundant appearance of "god" sarcasm as a debating point being the indication.)
Alluding to the "time" in the space, time, and matter;(which is in itself concentrated energy I believe, if my years old memory of the research is holding together, which it MAY NOT. And it's morning so will correct later if needed. lol)
From what I've studied concerning relativity.. isn't time merely the "tool" used to calculate the relations and interactions of all that is within "space" and "matter"... ?
e.g. ~ A "day" is a measurement of rotation of the earth. The velocity of the earth determines much of nothing regarding our "time" measurement though. If we for example apply another method to measuring the complete rotation of the earth it could be a "ten hour day" if say our measurement system [aka time] was not composed of seconds, minutes, and hours. Instead, the system could be based metrically, and the "24 hours" would be "ten sections" which in turn (metric) would be broken into ten again, until we had increments all based on a decimal system. Or to push the point home, another example could be binary ( which would suck for us )... etc..
So then, (to me) "always existing" has never been an issue. Because though I cannot prove nor understand not having a beginning I can certainly see the possibility considering my above views, however far from my grasp or understanding it may be. Especially considering I am very able to envision something never ending.
[edit ~ I know that time is based on the constant of the speed of light in the theory, but I have also observed theories that suggest time is constant here and now where we observe it. The theories are based on light years and the fact we can see light from distances that, if E=mc² were true for the entire existence of the universe.. we would not be beholding the light from stars so distant. This is just a general summery though.]
"From what I've studied concerning relativity.. isn't time merely the "tool" used to calculate the relations and interactions of all that is within "space" and "matter"... ?"
Yes, I suppose that's a reasonable way to reference time within a physical system. But it's something of an aside to the main point in that something timeless, spaceless, and immaterial preceded the natural realm. That something is the natural realm's necessary and sufficient cause. What atheists balk at is the obvious conclusion to be drawn, to wit, the idea that only natural laws and forces have ever been in effect is disproved by accepted scientific discovery.
Ok. So as I said, to say you know for a fact when it comes to origins is a lie because we can’t yet. But we can and do build models. The god model exists, and the science model is coming along nicely if we ignore string theory.
I’m interested in science philosophy.
Lets start with some logic. For there to be anything that exists now, something has always had to exist. Existence is the default state. Were it not, nothing would exist because you simply can’t get something from absolutely nothing.
Hence why people say god has always existed.
Now, I can prove logically that a god must exist, as long as we define god as that which produced all this. Obviously we didn’t produce ourselves, so something out of necessity produced us. Simple. That something is what we call god.
But, the proof doesn’t tell us if this god is intelligent or not.
In the past most people would assume it is. But there is an alternative. Again, something must have always existed. Until recently no one could say what that might be besides a conscious god. A guess, but really the one around.
Since the advent of modern science, however, we found another candidate for the uncaused cause: energy.
Energy can’t be created or destroyed. The only thing energy does, is transform. It has, in fact, transformed into everything we can think of.
The universe is made of it. The BB is said to have been the universe in a highly dense state. What was this compressed substance? Energy.
Energy meets all the requirements of the first and second part of the argument. Energy is as far as we know: eternal, having always existed in one form or the other. It’s expansion created the universe, stars, planets, biology, and everything else, from itself.
The way energy produces things is in layers. The atomic layer is it’s home. It formed atoms which when bonded in various combinations produce the material we see and experience in this layer. This layer interacts affecting the atomic layers, creating more diverse substances We and all things exist and function by the rules set down by the nature of energy.
Again, when we say nature, we are saying the nature of energy. Contrary to the belief that energy is just work done by matter, Relativity tells us that condensed energy creates matter.
Cause and effect is the result of energy’s nature.
God is everywhere they say. Well, energy is everywhere and in all things. In fact there is nothing but energy. God is light. Energy is light.
In fact most of the claims about god are true of energy.
Reincarnation of a sort is an ongoing thing through life. As energy that was part of you joins with other systems. This process goes on after death. An individual thing may no longer exist, but all the energy that made up that thing never dies, is never destroyed, it just goes on to form part of other things.
Does it retain any memory of us? We don’t know, though it’s possible. We can record information in the form of energy.
Still, I can’t promise anyone heaven much less a soul. Nature doesn’t seem to work that way.
But how much more personal can a god be? You’re a literal part of it, made from it; not just in its image.
Is energy perfect? No, but nothing is ultimately perfect. If a god creates, it has a need to create. Anything with needs is not perfect by definition. Creation of any kind comes as a response to the fulfillment of need. A perfect thing has no needs and no need to create anything.
Besides which, imperfection causes conflict, so until everything is perfect, nothing can be truly perfect.
But from the standpoint of human beings who cherish creativity, it’s the perfect creative force.
Is it omnipotent? Well what does that mean? Is it all powerful? In the sense that it is the most powerful force in existence, yes.
Does it provide morality? Sure does. I’ve written a lot about natural morality.
Is it conscious? No. But it doesn’t have to be. Neuroscience shows us that consciousness is a tool that helps educate the subconscious. What in the world would energy need to learn? We are the ones who need to learn cause and effect for our survival. God doesn’t need consciousness. It has its nature. It is its nature.
Is there a purpose for all this? Well there seems to be. Energy keeps refining its creations. They evolve from the simple to the complex. Again, creativity is a response to conflict and conflict demands a resolution. That new resolution is always a new order. It seems as if the universe is trying to work out its problems through creation. Hence, it seems to be looking for perfection. Probably with no chance of reaching it, but who knows?
After all, creation only comes as response to need. And all this from the ramifications of the laws of thermodynamics and conservation.
So for those who need to have a purpose in life, what more noble purpose can there be than working to toward perfection for all, with everything you do, know it or not. Everyone is doing god’s will, so to speak.
And death is just giving up self for a higher cause. Nothing that was you is dead, it’s just not an individual anymore. You are sill part of the all.
So what if it actually reached perfection? It would have created the god-state. The totality creating god, rather than a god creating totality.
Now all of the above was written in such a way as to be able to relate this story to the religious. But all of it is based on science and the laws of nature to show that there is an alternative to a conscious god.
This is creation from the bottom up; from energy, the smallest of the small creates the most complex. From imperfection to perfection.
Not a universe from the top down where a super being creates from the most complex down to the smallest of the small, and from “perfection” to imperfection.
I hope all this gave you a laugh. Part of it is from a hub I wrote on the subject. I specifically didn’t write it as a science lesson, as requested.
All to much in life is confused by interpretation ,much like all this mumbo jumbo ! I had a science teacher that began his home room morning ritual by praying ! If you wanted to join him , you were welcome , Now there is a wise man ! Sorry folks if its good enough for him .....it is for me !
by Phocas Vincent3 years ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys,...
by marinealways248 years ago
Where is common ground between science and religion? Will there always be science vs religion for their opposing views? I think science and religion have a lot more in common than some would like to believe.
by Hujiki8 years ago
I want to write a blog about Science Vs Religion but can't get any starting points so i though to se
by A Troubled Man6 years ago
by Phocas Vincent3 years ago
With the recent discoveries of planet upon planet in the habitable zones of their respective energy source stars, what do you suppose would come of modern religions if the scientific endeavors of astronomers and...
by aka-dj2 years ago
A worldwide flood (like described by Noah's flood) is said to be part of many cultures folklore.Creationist proponents belive geological evidence "supports " such an event. Atheists (and others) do not. What...
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.