"Do you have evidence?"

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 116 discussions (2758 posts)
  1. Oztinato profile image77
    Oztinatoposted 8 years ago

    The law is abundantly clear on this. People have been jailed for exposing themselves to others.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Right, why? I think is the question. Why are there such stringent laws? Why do humans get so up in arms over a little nudity? Each Sunday I watch the Walking Dead. Some of the goriest violence ever put in a movie or show can be seen each week on your television. A woman's stomach can be pulled apart, clawed by bare hands, her entrails pulled out, as she's eaten alive. And nobody has a problem showing that very realistically depicted on television. But her shirt better not flutter up and expose a nipple or everyone will lose their shit.

      Why do people have such a strong reaction to nudity? What's wrong with it? We're all born nude. Yet, unlike the animal world, humans alone are ashamed. To the point that some cultures completely cover their women head to toe. Every other creature on the Earth is perfectly happy living every day of their life just as they came into this world.

      Ego is the difference. Ego is what makes us feel as though we're separate from what's natural. Even our own bodies. Makes it seem as though it's something to be ashamed of.

    2. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, inappropriately.....but why do you ignore what I have explained?
      I have seen man and woman, walking along a sandy sea shore, holding hands, chatting, laughing, obviously loving each other and enjoying fresh air and sunshine bathing their bodies.  Each person was grossly fat and naked.  Some might say ugly.  It was a nudists' beach, legal - totally.  Everything about it was beautiful.
      Now, Oztinato, please tell us why you or your god would read any objection into that situation.
      I saw only innocence.  A child would also, unless corrupted by the guilt-ridden mind of an adult.

      1. profile image0
        Jay C OBrienposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Do you have Evidence (of an afterlife)? Raymond A. Moody, Jr. M.D. wrote books about Near Death Experiences (NDEs). So did Atwater. Some out of body experiences were verified by hospital staff. Would a verified NDE demonstrate a spirit or energy body? Also see website IANDS.

  2. Oztinato profile image77
    Oztinatoposted 8 years ago

    What does it matter: the Seinfeld philosophy of it's about nothing. The real existential questions have propelled all human culture that's all. There would be no Internet to even discuss these matters. What does it matter is the driving force.

  3. Oztinato profile image77
    Oztinatoposted 8 years ago

    Von Noggin
    Careful of being baited by certain unnamed individuals. They're not worth it.
    In my experience even sound scientific arguments don't work. When people don't learn from new information it is labelled as bigotry (by the dictionary meaning).
    Two certain individuals always appear together to bait alternatively. Perhaps a gay couple?

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I can assure you that's not what's going on here.

      1. profile image0
        jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you Headly, handshake on that point.

        Oz, I would be most interested to learn about "sound scientific arguments."  Please teach me and next time you are going to utter one, give fair warning.  I will watch out for it.  I don't have a gay partner or a conspiracy with any Hubber.  My thoughts and principles can stand on their own without any need for supporters.   I am sure anyone who happens, occasionally, to agree with my thoughts also has their own independence. 

        Headly, I likewise have been confused by some of the things you have said recently.  On the one hand you say you are not a church-goer or a member of any particular church.  Fair enough.  Yet you have a strong faith in God.  Ok.  I make the presumption that all of your understanding of the bible, history, science, and the world in general, is influenced by your firm belief that God exists.

        I also get the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that your judgment of anyone who is a-theist is coloured by the belief you have in God.   I got this impression from your recent post,,, let me try to cut and paste it here, as it was difficult to do earlier on my smart phone.  Can't do it even on this IPad, so:

        You mentioned "...the love, the passion, the inspiration, the human spirit, the soul....as if these attributes are only present in someone who believes in a divine creator/God such as you do.  Is my reading of that correct?  If it is correct, then I propose you have made a judgment.   Repeatedly you have given me to understand that having an a-theist point of view leaves me with an empty life, devoid of love, passion (and compassion), lacking human spirit, etc.  And you feel I need to adopt some of your belief(s) in order to lift my life out of the negative hole in which I find myself. (My paraphrasing, here.).

        Well, for a start, you could not be further from the truth.  My life is full of rich history, 75 years of it.  I have been Christian for some of the time.  I have looked into Siddha Yoga, Vipassana, obtaining lots of new information and awareness in the process.  My professional and business activities have been great experiences, with the normal mix of success and failure, all good learning experiences.   I have a kindly disposition towards those who are less fortunate, but could try harder.   So, you see, the absence of a "God" character in my life does not cause any problems at all for me.  However, I do see some beautiful souls around who do have God in their lives and that suits them and people around them.   It's a diverse world, and would be dreary if that were not the case.

        All I ask of you, Headly, is that you simply allow myself and others to follow their lives without the need for a God such as you hold dear.   In the same way that I can live quite happily with you holding onto your beliefs.   But please don't take the presumption the I need any of your beliefs, either in the here and now, or after my demise.

        Now, I have seen other Hubbers discussing matters with you and getting quite irate and wondered why.  I have always given you the benefit of the doubt because, although we disagree on basics, I have always offered you patience and benefit of the doubt.  But if this little charad does not clear up, I will begin to see where others were coming from.   So, can we get back onto a tolerant level of discussion, do you think?

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Of course we can get back to a tolerant level of discussion. It just seems to be a trend here lately, from places I wouldn't expect (like you, for instance), that I'm being accused of having these ulterior motivations. Whether it be judging people, or my faith driving me to do this or that, trying to convert people. Whatever it may be the accusations have worn me a bit thin, I'm afraid. I have no ulterior motive. I'm just discussing what's offered up in these forums. If you publish it I consider it fair game and share my thoughts if reading your posts moves me to do so.

          You - "You mentioned "...the love, the passion, the inspiration, the human spirit, the soul....as if these attributes are only present in someone who believes in a divine creator/God such as you do.  Is my reading of that correct?"

          Not at all. I'm saying these attributes exist in all humans. My point is that these attributes do indeed exist, yet the explanation you subscribe to doesn't account for them. I'm saying that our having been created by a deliberate creator and our having spiritual selves as part of our make-up, accounts for the existence of these things. A purely material explanation does not.

          You - Repeatedly you have given me to understand that having an a-theist point of view leaves me with an empty life, devoid of love, passion (and compassion), lacking human spirit, etc.  And you feel I need to adopt some of your belief(s) in order to lift my life out of the negative hole in which I find myself. (My paraphrasing, here.)."

          No. My point is that the atheist explanation of existence doesn't account for these human characteristics. These are characteristics that all humans have. That's why your more spiritual sounding statements really baffle me at times. You seem like a very thoughtful person, so it confuses me how you make all these things connect in your mind. For instance how you reconcile this recognition in yourself to appreciate being present in every moment and such with the cold materialistic explanation of reality.

          1. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Ok thanks for those explanations.  I will try to give each point a lot of thought during this weekend and get back to you.

            1. profile image51
              paarsurreyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Did you provide any positive evidence that "God does not exist". Maybe I missed it. Kindly repeat it for us. Please
              They say that negatives also can be proved. Right? Please

              Regards

            2. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              It's Saturday evening, after a beautifully sunny early spring day here in Tasmania, so I feel a little more energetic and able to give some thought to our recent discussions, Headly.  It might not be easy but I will give it a go:
              A quote from one of your posts a few hours ago:

              “.....this concept of a full material world that just forms itself. “  I cannot accept this as being assessment of atheist thinking.    Is this not a very limited understanding of the science, it's my understanding that our material world formed out of the infinite.  Although such a concept is almost inconceivable,I can work around this in my mind and arrive at a feeling of, "OK, that's reasonable, I can go along with that theory..."  yet there is no way I could clearly explain it to you.   For me, it's not an incredible understanding, quite reasonable in fact.  I mean, it's not like a bundle of interstellar material suddenly "decided" to become a star.   Instead, I see there being various differences of energy level occurring, leaving room for movement of energy, transfer of energy.  This is just the way my mind finds a way to view things.  Not beholden on anyone else to agree with it.

              2.
              "All your life experience should make it even more apparent to you what I'm trying to help you understand about how your viewpoint just doesn't work. It's the equivalent of claiming robots made humans. Robots made by other robots made humans. Where the only point in the process where the human element was introduced was when the humans were made. Yet there's no way those robots could possibly create that dynamic."   Does this not come from your own pattern of perception, requiring some person or entity to have created our world?  Is this not just a human concept, used when the mental gymnastics get too difficult to handle?

              3.
              “Not at all. I'm saying these attributes exist in all humans. My point is that these attributes do indeed exist, yet the explanation you subscribe to doesn't account for them. “ My materialistic way of looking at things does not negate the potential for human attributes and sensitivities.  Are you suggesting that a God aspect is the only way to appreciate them?  (Maybe you have answered this one already, I'm not sure.)

              Admittedly, my annoyance comes when it is presumed my rational way of thinking is at fault, and I am deemed in need of change in my life, in order to enjoy it more to the full.  You, anyone, are entitled to ask me questions and suggest whatever you wish.  But having asked the question(s), allow the answers to stand on their own merit and not require a change to take place.  That is up to the beholder.   And I do realise that sometimes I am guilty of this also....not being patient enough to let others take their time and options.

              I hope this gives you food for thought also.  This letter had to be finalised early on Sunday morning, I was too tired and my solar battery was running low.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I don't feel comfortable addressing your statements, so I'm just going to address your questions.

                You - "Does this not come from your own pattern of perception, requiring some person or entity to have created our world?  Is this not just a human concept, used when the mental gymnastics get too difficult to handle?"

                This isn't a pattern in my own perception. It's a matter of looking to the natural world and recognizing the human mind as being the one thing in existence to come anywhere close to what would be required to make this universe exist as it does. The brain/mind, like everything else, is also a natural product of this natural world.

                An example. DNA. Complex biological systems were realized through the formation of a system that allows for the retention and passing on of information. The only other example we've seen of this is the human mind which developed written languages to accomplish much the same thing. Again, it's not a need in me. There's this assumption that you and others make, like your statement here about when the "mental gymnastics get too difficult", that basically says belief in a God is just a weakness of a weak mind that can't do any better. It's not a need in me that reaches this conclusion. It's following logic.

                You - "My materialistic way of looking at things does not negate the potential for human attributes and sensitivities.  Are you suggesting that a God aspect is the only way to appreciate them?  (Maybe you have answered this one already, I'm not sure.)"

                No, what I'm saying is that a god aspect is the only way these attributes can exist as they do. Trying to rationalize how the things that make us most human were realized in a causal environment requires a ridiculous amount of "mental gymnastics".

                1. profile image0
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Ok, a couple other aspects in you and I differ but probably not very much:

                  First, accepting the possibility that the complexity and beauty of this world came about as the result of a "mind" which could conceive, design, grow and activate everything is not far-fetched in my eyes.  I feel it's a very reasonable proposition, yet we will never know for sure.  I marvel at the consistent characteristics of our human bodies, along with every other living thing.  The sense of awe for me is adequate reward. 
                  However, I do not in any way equate such a supposed entity with a God that sits in judgement.  That is human desire to control.  There is no such God standing over you or me.

                  Next, DNA.  The knowledge scientists have today, about genetics and the origins of organic molecules, has come about through rigorous study and research.  In 50 or so years knowledge has expanded enormously.  It's not beyond possibility they will make deeper and deeper in-roads and ultimately be able to clearly explain it all.

                  If there is a God such as you believe in, he/she/it is patient and has all the time in the world while we sort out the misunderstandings.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, that's the whole point. For us to live together and sort out the misunderstandings and learn to live harmoniously. What I don't get, with all that humanity has shown itself capable of, why you find it so out of bounds for this God to take an interest in how we choose to behave. Clearly not everyone is deserving of the same outcome. If there's no difference between an innocent life of doing good and treating each other with respect and the other side of that spectrum, then yeah, that's a problem I would think the creator of the universe would take an interest in.

                    As for DNA, it doesn't matter what future insights will bring. The point is it's information. Coded information. That's used as information. That's used in the construction of complex biological systems, capable of duplicating such complexity over and over. That much we know for certain already.

        2. Oztinato profile image77
          Oztinatoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          JCL
          what on earth do you mean? I can't imagine how on earth you came up with that. Just because someone has a moustache doesn't mean a thing! 

          I've been offering scientific evidences for years. Godel's perfect and proven math theorem for one. Of course when it comes to anything to do with God then Godel is seen as just an imbecile. His math is cutting edge and was recently used to conduct the first time travel experiment! Hawking defends Godel incompleteness theorem in a free online essay. Einstein himself only associated personally with Godel in the last year's of his life etc.
          Of course when it comes to Godel's God theorem then ordinary garden variety hubbers are the real geniuses and Godel is suddenly an idiot again. Weird.

          1. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Ok, Oz.   Let me ask you a few questions, in a very disciplined scientific manner.

            1.  Do you understand Godel's "perfect maths theorem?"
            2.  Has that theorem been tested conclusively by various peers of Godel and others?
            3.  Has the theorem been proven to be correct by numerous repeat experiments?
            4.  Has anyone searched extensively for errors in the theorem itself or in results obtained?

            Not being a trained scientist myself, I don't know if this list is valid or complete.  But to me, it seems a reasonable set of questions to ask.

            Having just searched the Web for information, I must say it's way, way beyond my comprehension.  Hopefully you will be explain to us all exactly what the theorem is for and what it does for humanity (let alone for the glory of God.

            Have fun.

  4. A.Villarasa profile image60
    A.Villarasaposted 8 years ago

    Atheists do not believe that God exist, so why would they believe in the teachings of a man named Jesus who claimed he was the Son of God?

    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image71
      wrenchBiscuitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13220236.png

      I see you have a brand new strawman. I never said atheists believe in the teachings of Jesus.  In other words, I said that an atheist who has studied the Bible knows how the story goes, whether they subscribe to the story or not. To further explain:  I don't believe in Don Quixote, but according to the story he was attacking windmills, not high rise hotels. If you are having trouble understanding this, then I fear all of the "evidence" in the world will still leave you groping in the dark.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image60
        A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Why would an atheist study the bible, when  God's name is written all over it... in other words why study a book about a God you do not believe in?  You can read it sure.... but study it? in I suppose, great detail? Now  why would someone study a book in great detail when by just reading the first sentence of Genesis it  makes him throw the book away, in disgust,   into the dustbin of history.

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image71
          wrenchBiscuitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          It has been said that there is no such thing as a stupid question. But there are many here among us who continue to test that theory. Furthermore, a man studies in order to learn; not necessarily to believe.  If all that you study concerning metaphysics is only that which you "believe", then it would explain your lack of understanding, and your confusion. A disbelief in a particular philosophy or religion is no excuse for ignorance. Your disdain for Christianity is irrelevant, and  has nothing to do with the original point that I was making about liars and hypocrites.

          1. PhoenixV profile image66
            PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I think A Villa is a Christian, he's just playing a sort of devils advocate. But lol@ testing the theory. You say some funny things Mr Wrenchbiscuit.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image60
            A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Disdain for Christianity?... now that is a statement as securely abhorrent to me as anything else said  or written on this forum.

      2. profile image0
        jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Pardon me sounding so naïve, but what part is this rather buxom lady playing in this thread of seriousness?  roll  wink

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image71
          wrenchBiscuitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13106922.jpg

          wrenchBiscuit Explains the Fat lady and the Running Man

          First of all, this woman represents the image of God. And this particular image is very important because it reveals the secret of unraveling the mysteries of the universe.  The average person who seeks a deeper understanding of the universe is often defeated before they even start to run the race. Why? Because when we literally think of a man running a race, we do not envision a man wearing a three piece suit and dress shoes running around an athletic track. Instead, we imagine a man wearing very little clothing; usually a sleeveless top with shorts, and athletic shoes. And this needs no further explanation.

          When we are contemplating our mortality, or the mysteries of the universe, we are in many ways like the running man. We can go farther and faster if we are not encumbered with dress shoes and a three piece suit. In this case, formal attire is a metaphor that illustrates cumbersome preconceived notions, and an individual's personal history. We cannot hope to achieve any deeper understanding of the universe while we carry such a burden. Our preconceived notions and personal history only serve to hinder creative thought and critical thinking by placing unnecessary bias, or obstacles in our path.

          The image represents these obstacles that I am referring to. How so? Here so:

          I am sure that many will be distracted by the image, and thus it will color their opinion of the commentary beneath it, as well as the respondent. Many who feel it is inappropriate for the discussion will completely ignore my commentary, especially if it consists of more than twenty words, and they will move on to the next. Some who are white racists (which account for many here on Hubpages) will only see the object of their scorn, and so they too will be reluctant to consider my commentary. And those here who do not, and who most likely have never had an active, or at least exciting sex life, will view the image of a voluptuous half naked woman to be vulgar. Yes, jealousy and sexual frustration are a terrible combination.  In the past I have even been accused of being a misogynist simply for posting such images.

          And so, here I have illustrated with one image why many will go to their grave just as ignorant  as the day they were born, but not nearly as cute. They are not willing, or perhaps even capable of erasing their personal history, or letting go of their preconceived notions, or belief systems even for one moment. Their minds have been locked up and distracted by images, symbols , language, political systems, religious systems, personal identity and personal history.

          But if the truth was where we expected it to be, then so many would not still be searching for the truth. The fat lady not only sings, but she is also pointing us in the right direction long before the dance is over.

          1. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you!   Food for thought there.
            Personally, I've never had much of sex life in general, much less "active," and certainly never witha female.  Thus I was drawn mostly to the somewhat contemptuous, "up-yours" look on the lady's face.  Any economist might be drawn to signs of inflation.
            But I can see how my attraction/distraction is strongly influence by personal history and experience....and it therefore serves to open doors to further discovery.

          2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            You - "And so, here I have illustrated with one image why many will go to their grave just as ignorant  as the day they were born, but not nearly as cute. They are not willing, or perhaps even capable of erasing their personal history, or letting go of their preconceived notions, or belief systems even for one moment."

            Are you at least aware as you make this statement how much this statement applies to you? You are clearly convinced that you've got it all figured out and show no signs of being open to learning anything new.

            Like in the paragraph before, which is an entire paragraph of "preconceived notions" when you explain all the ways certain people will respond to this image. You've got everyone all figured out already, despite how accurate those assessments actually are. Before anyone even begins speaking you've got them painted into this box where they're, of course, not as evolved as you. Where they're simple minded stereotypes. So what could you possibly learn from engaging in discussions with these poor people? Why lower yourself and your high minded ideas to such depths?

            Do you actually consider yourself different than the people you describe?

            I do have to say I like this pic though. It is pretty spelled out for my simple mind, so that's probably why, but I do like it.

            1. wrenchBiscuit profile image71
              wrenchBiscuitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13135534.png

              I am perhaps the most kind-hearted and open-minded person you will never meet.

              There is no paragraph of preconceived notions. And one does not need to possess psychic abilities in order to arrive at the proper conclusions. People who have spent their life studying various disciplines can make accurate projections based on their experience. This is nothing new or remarkable. Of course, such assessments are never expected to be 100%, but they don't have to be when we are simply looking to assess a general trend, attitude, or philosophy. I have read many forum posts, participated in many forums, and have also read many Hubs. My assessment is based on what I have read, along with my life experience with such matters.

              And what did I find out? I discovered that many people who contribute here are sexually frustrated and have a perverted sense of sexuality. I also know that a majority of white respondents on Hubpages are racist. And this is based not only on their commentary, but also on what they  conspicuously fail to acknowledge. I also know, based on commentary, that there are many anal retentive folks on this site who are more concerned with Hubpages protocol and what is "on topic",  than useful, interesting, or creative commentary.

              And so, as I have revealed, I did not come to Hubpages with any preconceived notions. My understanding is simply based on what has been presented here. Finally, I will briefly address your strawman. It is clear that you have a need to cast me in the most unfavorable light. You commented:

              "Before anyone even begins speaking you've got them painted into this box where they're, of course, not as evolved as you. Where they're simple minded stereotypes. So what could you possibly learn from engaging in discussions with these poor people? Why lower yourself and your high minded ideas to such depths?"


              I cannot account for your fiction, nor will I spend any more of my precious time defending myself against what amounts to nothing more than your feeble attempt to paint me as the villain. Suffice it to say that there are often many reasons or motives that explain human  behavior. One reason that I am sure you have overlooked is energy transference. When a man feeds upon a fish or an edible plant, he does not commonly contemplate whether or not the animal or the plant is above or beneath his station. The man simply feeds himself and satisfies his hunger. Everyone has to eat.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I found your conclusions to be decidedly cynical, not enlightened. Like your statement about the majority of white people on this site being racist. I have news for you, everyone is racist in much the same way. It's not a character flaw. It's a simple matter of how the brain operates. The brain compares the self to others and notes differences. Those most similar to us we tend to trust more and align with. This is a simple issue of behaving favorably towards those we share the most in common with genetically. Plants and animals do the same thing. Others who are very different from us are often mysteries to us until we're given the opportunity to be around them and experience them ourselves and begin to recognize commonality that might not be so apparent.

                Me personally, I'm tired of seeing that pic in this thread. What I see is a sad woman trying to conform to an impossible vision of what she thinks she's supposed to be. Someone seeking attention in a very ill-advised fashion. Trying to sexualize herself and put herself out on display to be noticed.

                But yes, these are preconceived notions. Without actually getting any input from the people you've already determined how they'll probably respond. That's exactly what a preconceived notion is. And I'm not trying to paint you as a villain. Just as you reach conclusions based on prior discussions, so do I. And you often speak of yourself as being more evolved and further along in development than the common person. Do you disagree? I'm not judging. I know I often come off as arrogant and egotistical.

                As for your energy transference example, I don't think that's accurate. We view all plant and animal life that we use for food to be below our station. For instance, we could live on eating each other, but we don't do that because we are equal in station. It's not so clear who is better or higher, who should be the eater and who the food. But a cow, we always win. A chicken, same thing. Vegetables, definitely.

                http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13256740.jpg

                1. wrenchBiscuit profile image71
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13256777.jpg

                  First of all, I find that what many consider to be modesty is nothing but false modesty. The selfish, narcissistic character of the average American can be seen in the high divorce rate, the prevalence of plastic surgery,  and the trans-humanism that permeates all aspects of modern society. I have no need for false modesty and pretense, as I am not running for office, trying to make Facebook Friends,  or trying to  influence people. At least not at the moment. Yes, I am more human than human, and I am proud of my perfect design. There are also many here that suffer from an inferiority complex, but I am not numbered among them. If they don't love themselves then that is their problem, and they should go talk to the boss.

                  As far as the woman in the previous pic is concerned: There is nothing sad about her at all, nor the one depicted here. I have always found full figured women to be sexier than the anorexic skin and bones variety that have been held up to the world as "beautiful". I would rather be mounted on someone's wall than atop a bag 'o bones. "Big Love" is in my friend. A woman is the crown of creation, and a  full figured sexy woman is as close to God as a man can get in this world. I have learned much about the mysteries of life, not only by erasing my personal history, but also through sexual intercourse, as it is far more than a means of procreation or superficial pleasure.

                  Finally, because of your rush to judgment, you missed the most important and revealing aspect of my last comment, which explains the "Why" you previously inquired about.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Do you feel judged? Why else publish your thoughts here in this public forum than to garner a response? I respond with what I think and I'm rushing to judge you? Which part do you find judgemental? My comment that your comments are cynical? Well, that's what they sound like.

                    Personally, now that I've reached the age that my sex drive has substantially dropped off, I'm relieved. It's like developing an immunity against a super power. Sexual conquests are such a waste of energy and are all about personal fulfillment.

                    And I'm glad this lady fits your particular bill, but yes, there's plenty sad about that woman. Anyone publishing their barely clad attributes in such a public way, no matter her size, is exemplifying a level of neediness that is not consistent with contentment.

    2. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      That man, if he ever existed as described, did not claim himself to be "The Son Of God."  It's a story concocted by men for political, control purposes.  If a man or woman was so spiritually aware, enlightened, they could/would not set their ego up on high in order to get worshipped.
      What that man, whatever his real name, could have said and ment,  as it's so obviously written, would have been, "I am." The way, the truth, the life can be arrived at via Me; the personal journey that can take any one of us into the realm of honesty and the enlightenment of truely understanding.
      Without that personal quest, there will always be the preference to pass the onus of responsibility onto some one else. 
      Those in power know this. 
      You can take a horse to water, you cannot make it drink.
      That bible's full of fodder, we're not supposed to think.
      There is no god up in the sky,
      Only lie upon lie upon lie.

      1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
        Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Right. That Jesus is god was decided by Constantine. He and his predecessor had a motto: One Emperor, one god. That was a massive departure from Roman tradition which welcomed all gods, the more the better 

        That god was to be Sol ivitigus, the invincible sun. But because Constantine's mother became christian, and because he promised that if he won a particular battle that finally made him sole ruler of Rome that he would convert, He did win, made Christianity a state religion and gave Christians back their land, taken in the last crack down.

        Then he got all the various diverse leaders of the church together. There they made Jesus part of a trinity, which was Roman tradition. Egyptians always matched 2 gods together, the Romans 3. But because Christians believed in a single god it became father son and holy spirit.

        The Arian church of Egypt refused to accept that Jesus was god, and was excommunicated and wiped out by Roman troops in the first Christian against Christian war.Slaughter, actually.

        Constantine continued to worship Sol as well and in a well documented speech, set Sunday aside to worship Sol and the Jewish/Christian god together. This to indicate a relationship between the two. And then Jesus birthday was decided on, the 25th of Dec, to coincide with the Roman armies god's birth from a rock (Mithra)

        He didn't get baptized or take communion until he was on his death bed, just in case. He was heard saying, about Christianity: I think I did the right thing.

        Christians have no way of knowing what Christianity was before Rome forced all factions together in one "universal" church, outlawed most of their over 400 books and scriptures, and left them with their current Paulian Romanized version, which all denominations and cults and sects swear by.

    3. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      So we should ignore the ideas of Buddha or Gandhi or a half dozen other people who had positive ideas for mankind just because they aren't atheists? What are atheists supposed to admire in others or the words of others?

      If Jesus said positive things I can appreciate those, and ignore the fact that he believed in the Jewish god. The man, the ideas concerning humanity and the  religion are all different things.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image60
        A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Well good for you---- that despite being a non-believer,  you would still consider as positive the words of a man who said he is the Son of the God you absolutely do not believe exist.  Other atheists I have come across HubPages are convinced that Jesus was crazily delusional  for having made  that claim.

        1. profile image0
          jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          ...the words of a man who said he is the Son of the God .  Did he?!   Certain human minds choose to believe he said that.  Even if he said that, what did he mean by it?
          It is my bet that humans have carefully and deliberately fostered the traditional beliefs in order to achieve better control of minds.
          You have free choice, Dr.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            John 3:33-38 - When Jesus entered public life he was about thirty years old, the son (in public perception) of Joseph, who was son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melki, son of Jannai, son of Joseph....son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.

            Anyone who's lineage back then could be traced back to Abraham/Noah/Adam was called a "son of God". And as John 3 illustrates, Jesus is a direct descendant of that line. So it wasn't such a bad thing for Jesus, or anyone else, to say he was the son of God. So was his father, and the father before him.

            1. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Ok, that's good to know.  At least it lets A man off the hook having to prove he's something extra-terrestrial.
              smile cool

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Technically it was Adam who was the ET. But they were all part ET by blood.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, considering he was made of terrestrial material, I guess technically he wasn't an ET either. But he was made outside of the normal evolutionary chain.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image60
            A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            You should have said:  "better control of brains", since, as I have read in your  long discussion with Headley,  you firmly believe that the mind is the sole purview of the brain.

            From my own perspective, the veracity of the Nazarene's claim that He is the Son of God, should not be questioned because he is the only one who suffered a gruesome death, because of that claim.  The birth of some  other folks ie Alexander the Great   before him , may have been mythologized with faintly similar narrative as Jesus's birth , but the fact is Jesus  was the only one who actively said and acted as such.

            1. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              "....you firmly believe that the mind is the sole purview of the brain...."

              You have interpreted something I have said so that it can support your arguments?  I have no firm believe such as you describe.  If you think I said the opposite please point me to where.  It's highly probable that our bodily control mechanisms, together with our advanced human memory, are in some way integrated with other aspects of physics which are as yet unknown.

              In my opinion it's a waste of time arguing the toss.  Let scientific inquiry continue.  Let's continue to marvel at and enjoy the world while trying to live with full awareness of what we are blessed with.  It's all before us and only needs an exercise in total consciousness, such as Vipassana meditation, to get us going.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image60
                A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Sorry, I must have mistook you for someone else ... maybe Slarty.

                About the brain.... the human brain specifically. There are no other material objects on earth that could even come close to its integrative complexity, that then makes it the driving force of all the other organ systems in the human body. Its reach goes far and long  into the most basic matrix of matter, the cells that compose the other organ systems ( ie  cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, musculo-skeletal, endocrine, urinary etc. etc...)  aside from its own. So if we assume that abiogenesis, as an empirical postulate, has validity and veracity, how did  simple conglomeration of amino acids in that primordial soup,  devoid of purpose and intent,  become  the most intuitive, instinctive, sentient specie that developed a brain so complex  materialists now refer to as the source of our minds--- minds that are responsible for our total awareness and  full consciousness. In other words how, and most importantly why,  did inchoate chemistry lead to consummate biology?

                1. wilderness profile image76
                  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  How did a god come into being?  How did it's "universe" come about?  How did a god make life OR brains?  Where is that god and why is it undetectable?  All living things die; why didn't the god die billions of years ago?  What does that god use for "food", where is it, and can we use it as well?  What are the smallest details of these questions?

                  Interesting how the other half of the questions, far more difficult to answer or conceive of an answer to, are set aside if favor of "I don't know so goddunnit".

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image60
                    A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    When you meet God, hopefully.... in the after life you could ask him all the silly questions you just posted. Hopefully He would be predisposed to answer them.

          3. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            That is the game. The trick is we each have control of our own minds. We can't be forced to think or believe something. It has to be our choice.

            True, humans throughout the ages have used and manipulated anything they can, including religion, to garner control over the masses. If you can control the minds of the masses you can take and remain in power.

            But that's what's so wonderful about how God set this up. He gave us the choice. Before that everything in the universe had to conform to Him. That's why the natural world is so consistent. By observing behaviors in natural things we can actually define 'laws'. Behaviors that are consistent across all things as if there's a law governing how they behave.

            We humans are the exception to the rule in nearly every regard. Yes, our physical bodies are limited by these same laws, but not our minds. Our minds are free to do as we wish. To think and believe what we want. There is absolutely nothing governing our thoughts.

            That's why it's setup the way it is. We each have to mindfully and willfully choose to do what everything else in the natural world does naturally. We have to be willing to adhere to God's will and God's law. We're not forced. It's our choice.

            Yes, men and religions have come up with devils and hellfire and everything else to try to scare you into thinking as they do. But that's not the deal God has laid out. If you don't want to participate you simply go back to the state you were in before birth. Before you were an individual. Just energy in the universe. You cease to be upon death.

            But if you want to maintain your individuality beyond this material world and this one life, you have to be willing to conform to the necessary rules. Rules designed to protect your independent free will from being trampled by others. If there's going to be a reality filled with individuals, each with their own minds and wills, there will inevitably be conflict. Rules to maintain order is necessary.

            But yes, the mind is the game. It always has been. So, in that regard, your bet is a safe one.

  5. Oztinato profile image77
    Oztinatoposted 8 years ago

    I've  been over and over this dozens of times.  Read over my posts.
    Do the words "goldfish memory" mean anything to you?

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Can you not just cut/paste since you're the one that knows what the pertinent information is? That way everyone will have it all in one place if they need to come learn about it.

    2. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      And yet you get virtually no feedback, let alone agreement, from anyone.  Is the reader always at fault?

  6. Zee Ree profile image55
    Zee Reeposted 8 years ago

    Take child away

  7. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    Saying energy is a creator in the universe is like saying yeast is a creator in a cake.

    There's plenty that can be determined by what the bible says. When taken into consideration with known facts of the material world and simple logic, one can reach numerous accurate conclusions. Conclusions that can be shown accurate when other parts of the bible remain consistent with what was determined. Like anything else.

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      When the term "energy" is seen as a concept arising out of scientic study, and when energy is regarded simply as arising because of difference, then I find energy as very understandable.... and its being the reason and inescapable factor in the existence of our finite universe.
      Without energy, there is nothing.
      How a difference came about in the first place, who knows for certain?  Are we humans integral to the Creation?

    2. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Nothing can be determined by what your bible says except about the primitive minds of its creators, all superstitious uneducated sheep herders. Hardly a source for intelligent answers about  our origins.

      As for saying energy is "god" it's pretty much scientific fact. It is fact that it is what all things are made of, due to it's nature described as the laws of physics. If you define god as that which created/produced all this, energy is god, unless you can produce a conscious god you can prove  created energy.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Just a few short years ago I would have agreed with you that nothing could be determined by what the bible says, but I have sense found that to be very much untrue. But, unlike you, I did not make a proclamation like that. My mind remained open to the possibility. And lo and behold, I made some rather significant determinations. I was able to make very specific predictions about what would be found in the evidence if this hypothesis is true. And over and over I found exactly the evidence that the model predicted. Numerous times. It got a bit surreal after a while, but it just kept happening.

        I can't "produce" or demonstrate a conscious god, for reasons I've covered. This too is an expected result. But I can, through observing the natural world, determine that there is indeed a conscious god. That there is indeed intelligent intent behind the creation of this universe.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          And my imagination is as good as yours and if I allowed it to get the better of me I could make a case for your bible or anyone eases beliefs. Light sucker answers are an art, but not fact. I want facts. I've read the bible and it does not say or imply what you say  it does.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Pure imagination can come up with a model like I did, but pure imagination can't make a model that accurately predicts evidence over and over again unless there's truth to it. That's how I know it's not just an overactive imagination.

  8. Oztinato profile image77
    Oztinatoposted 8 years ago

    Atheist scientists are now currently proving there are in fact numerous alternate universes and dimensions INTERSECTING with ours. It is now becoming accepted by even atheist scientists that God like beings exist and could easily react with us.
    Suddenly old school skeptics are being caught with their math pants down. It's not pretty.
    Certain unnamed regulars on HP are obviously not bothering to catch up on their studies and keep jawing on while their oldmath pants are around their ankles (usually tangled up with their unethical underwear down there too). This exposes their very small minds which shrink even more in the cold light of reality.

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Oztinato, interesting that you think "... scientists are now currently proving...."   So you admit, presumably, they have not yet proved it. 

        Well, that's a new title that I must learn to live with...lol....Old-school I admit to.  Skeptic also.  But my maths pants would look pretty comical if they were down much of the time.  Thanks for lightening my day (evening).

    2. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The one not caught up is you. String theory has not proven a single thing in 35 plus years. Many worlds, many dimensions would exist as a consequence of string theory if it proved true. But it hasn't and many aspects of it aren't testable or falsifiable, which makes it outside science. It's still a "what if" proposition. Unlike QM and Relativity which made predictions out of the box that proved true right away. Others have been proven true over the years since.

      35 years ago two guys were walking down the street and one guy said: What if atoms were vibrating strings? The other guy said: "I don't know." And 35 years later and probably billions of dollars, the answer is the same.

      It's dead. It's sad because 35 years ago I thought it was going to break it all wide open. So did a lot of others. We were wrong.

    3. wrenchBiscuit profile image71
      wrenchBiscuitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13271165.jpg

      Many people are well read. But have they ever had an original thought concerning God and metaphysics? They are quick to cite this "authority" and that "authority" in support of an argument, but rarely express their own ideas. I suppose this could be due to a low self-esteem. I suggest that such individuals could improve their self-esteem by reading "The Little Engine That Could".

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        No, no, see that's where an ego like yours gets you in trouble. While I certainly can't speak for everyone, in my own case, those "authorities" that you're just dismissing, they don't replace thoughts. They support them. Your ego can and often does convince you that something is right that isn't. You "feel" it's right. It feels true. But it isn't. I see it time and again in these forums.

        Somebody quoting "authorities" isn't devoid of original thought. It's important to establish boundaries to your thoughts. To constantly check them against established fact, or at least the latest thoughts on the matter. And it's just plain smart to concede to authorities. Being an authority doesn't guarantee they're right, but they're much more likely to be right than your gut.

        That's that ego. We all  wrestle with it. Some of us have no confidence in it at all and find ways to hide it. Others trust it completely and just go head first into anything and everything. Your in category B. And there's nothing wrong with that. But, like we saw earlier in our discussion, your 'gut' can convince you that you're right about something you're dead wrong about. And when "authorities" are referred to, you dismiss it, knowing you're right in spite of what they say. You don't refer to anything yourself to check yourself or to convince me. You just put your foot down and try to will it into you being right.

        A good example of that whole ego problem happened throughout a days long argument I had with a few people in these forums. Possibly even this thread. I was surprised to find it out too, because my 'gut' told me differently, but humans before the onset of our more pronounced ego, were very non-violent. Early humanity, the hunter/gatherers, rarely came to blows about anything. It's a heavily documented fact, but there were a few here who just knew, you know in their 'gut', that that simply wasn't true. I sited expert after expert, and it didn't matter. They were just sure that we come from violent stock. We've got this idea in mind that we were ravenous cave men at one time, bashing each other. Like in 2001, the ape who first used a weapon to kill. But that just isn't true.

        It's really not a good thing to hold those who site authorities as somehow being inferior in their ability to think. That to me shows thought. Thought that goes beyond the self and trusts others. Trusts those on the fringe of humanity, delving into this topic and that, learning everything they can about something, becoming an expert. We live in an age where we can tap into the work of these people, for whatever topic gets you thinking, and read about what they've found out. I seriously advise you to take a step back, recognize when you're maybe being a little stubborn, and concede to an authority.

        I know that very statement might send a twinge up your spine. That's something I understand. I've always had a problem with authority. I'm that guy that would constantly goad and try to tear down authorities, whoever they were. I just would get bull-headed about it. Often to my detriment. And I still, even today typing the above line, feel that twinge in my gut. But reason must step in and maintain what is wise and what is an overactive ego. The balance of that ego is the tight rope every human walks everyday of their life. It's our biggest gift, and our biggest curse.

        1. profile image0
          jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          "To constantly check them against established fact, or at least the latest thoughts on the matter." 

          Ha - so which is it going to be in order to make it authentic?

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Well, if by 'authentic' you mean true and accurate, only things that can be established as demonstrable fact can be so. But everything else....

      2. A.Villarasa profile image60
        A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Just wondering Wrenchbiscuit ...... can you share with us your original thoughts about God and metaphysics?

        The photo that you posted with your comments on Oztinato's post, is concerning to me because as a Pediatrician I always remind parents to keep their homes safe and secure from toddlers who may have a different conceptualization/comprehension of  what the reality is  of their immediate surrounding. Now if you posted that photo to infer that Oztinato is acting like a toddler who may not have a solid conceptualization/comprehension of what he is contributing to this forum, then I suppose your attempt at metaphorical  hyperbole is safe and secure.

  9. Oztinato profile image77
    Oztinatoposted 8 years ago

    JCL
    for approximately the fourth hundredth time: a "maths proof" is just a maths proof (theorem) it is not final proof. I've been saying this over and over and over.........and over and over etc etc.

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      So why bring it up?  Is there a god who is so mathematical that he can't leave any sensible clues for us to make a good guess at "his" existence?

      Are you hoping that your arguments will help convince me not to be atheist?

      1. Oztinato profile image77
        Oztinatoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Why bring it up?!! Oi vey because you keep acting surprised that I don't see a maths proof as final proof. It's like training goldfish.
        Also you are not technically an atheist: you're a closet agnostic. 
        Sure, any closet agnostic needs to know that atheist science is beginning to offer MATHS proof of God. They will then come out unashamedly as true agnostics and eventually true believers.

        1. profile image0
          jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          You are so funny!

  10. Christy McKee profile image58
    Christy McKeeposted 8 years ago

    They really cant stand it when you say all you know youve experiened and I dont need them to validate anything Ive experienced. Its my belief that one should watch their words if they dont want to be shown. And that is what I think feeds these peoples arguements is fear of the unknown and peoples absolute refusal to not believe in anything they cant see or touch. Where as, as an empath I trust first in what I feel. Being aware of myself and feelings or emotional states most of the time. I believe more things unseen are more real than many things seen (like people for example in that society has programmed the majority to fed the ego and totally mask our truth which is spirit).

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Welcome to HubPages, Christy.  I hope you find an enjoyable interaction and conversation here.

      You speak of feelings.  Yes, they are important and we do well to be aware of them, acknowledge them.   While driving a motor vehicle, we depend a huge amount on feelings, yet the sheer physical nature of the machine, the road, the wind, the rain, other people and vehicles in the vicinity, all make us take careful account of the circumstances and obey a multitude of rules.  If we went simply by feelings, I can guarantee there would be huge pile-ups!

      Feelings cannot be a substitute for honest and sensible observation.

  11. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    Hey all, tonight at 6pm CST I will be playing the role of the in-studio Christian Antagonist on the Dogma Debate podcast.... http://dogmadebate.com/listen/

    Please tune in if you can.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Loved finally hearing your arguments in your own voice. Great stuff. Wish I could have been part of that discussion. There were a few times I could have helped you out. The sacrifice thing for example. It's simple. The sinner owns the sheep. Offering it to god takes it from them and their family. Life was hard. Giving up a sheep or chicken or what ever, particularly a perfect one, showed what the human would give up to please god. Showed their loyalty. Words are cheep. Actions are what counts.

      I could have helped him out too.

      But I enjoyed the show, and finding out you're Texan and have a Baptist background really shed light on who you are and what you are up against.

      I was Catholic. Believe me, I know how hard it is to question and how hard it is to leave, and that it's even harder to leave it behind.

      But it can be done. And it's liberating. But perhaps not for you. Not now anyway.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        That's cool. I'm glad to hear you listened. There's so much I thought later, of course, that I should have said. Like the thing about slavery. I've been kicking myself ever since, which I've done everytime I've been on that show. I'm just not as good in conversation off the cusp as when I'm writing and can actually take time and think about my response.

        What I wish I would have said about slavery is that humanity's experiences, just as is the case in an individual's life, the missteps and mistakes are just as valuable, if not more so, as our good times. Removing or interfering in the practice of slavery would have ultimately done humanity a disservice. We learned from our slave owning past the value of equal rights and mutual respect. Slavery, as ugly as it was, was a building block in humanity's journey to where we are now.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Well I've always said text on debate lines are mind to mind. No distractions, no one cutting you off, and time to think and consider.

          I do understand your position concerning slavery. It was part of our evolution and  it brought us to our present disdain for slavery. But it's your assertion that it wasn't all that bad that caused your interviewer some consternation.

          The idea of bettering the human condition means getting rid of evil, not downplaying it or accepting it as necessary. We've had this conversation before and your stance surprised me too at the time.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not sure what else you guys expect. In that age, before there was an economy, there weren't options. There was a lot of work that needed to be done, and there was limited land suitabale to grow enough food to support a large community. If you didn't have that land, you either were strong enough to take it from who did have it, or you died. The only other option was slavery. Today we think of slavery as a horrible thing. But every culture from the dawn of civilization practiced it. If you were the stronger group, and you had land that needed to be farmed, you used the people you took the land from. It just makes sense. Either that or you slaughtered them. Otherwise they might pick up enough steam to come exact revenge. Not a lot of options.

            Besides, this whole pie in the sky idea of getting rid of evil is ludicrous. You understand reality is only what we experience. If we never experience evil we don't know what it is or even what "bad" is. And you can't get rid of something if you don't know what it is. Yeah, it would be nice if there were no evil. If we could just cover everything in nerf and everyone was safe and happy all the time. But that's not reality. Not yet. That's the goal. But it's not going to happen in this lifetime.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              "I'm not sure what else you guys expect. In that age, before there was an economy, there weren't options. "

              Bull. It was the easy option. Doesn't mean it was the only option. And it doesn't mean it was right. The issue isn't whether it was inevitable due the way we evolved or not. In that cause and effect sense it was the only possible outcome. But saying it wasn't so bad for the slaves is absurd.

              The issue is that your god condoned it and even set rules for it. Stupid rules, in fact.Some loving god you have. What would a hateful one look like? Pretty much the same I should think.


              "Besides, this whole pie in the sky idea of getting rid of evil is ludicrous. You understand reality is only what we experience. If we never experience evil we don't know what it is or even what "bad" is. "

              Utter nonsense. If you know nothing but good who the hell cares what evil is? And you would still be able to imagine it like we can now imagine a world without it, without experiencing that either.

              You are always on about this life being a teaching tool so we know how to act in heaven. Then you admit we don't have the time before we die to learn it all.

              The idea is to try. And by trying we greatly reduced slavery in the world. That's a good thing. We are still wage slaves, but we choose our masters and we have civil rights which include being allowed to quit, and being protected from being beaten or abused by our employers.

              Now it's still slavery for most, but now you can say it's not that bad. But it could be better.

              The idea is to try to get rid of as much as we can and if we were to ever succeed, it would be wonderful. We'd have to then kill you for suggesting we bring evil back just so we know the difference again  LOL..... Would you be happy then?

              You can say what has happened throughout history, good and bad, was inevitable. But you can't defended evil on the basis that if we didn't know evil we wouldn't know good. That's ridiculous. If we didn't know evil..., problem solved. We'd be living in paradise.

              Blame your god for that not being the case if it exists, which isn't at all likely.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Okay, let's say you spent everyday of your life in a room that was exactly 70 degrees. Would you be able to imagine what it would feel like if it were 30 degrees? If you've never in your life felt what cold feels like?

                If you spent everyday of your life in a dark room, could you imagine what light was like?

                Yes God condoned it. It was humanity's choice. He had given us the freedom to do what we want and live how we want. Why give us the choice if He's then going to come and override it?

                If it were not possible to do anything evil, if it were only possible to be good, then we would not be free to be us. There'd be limits to what we could do and what we could choose. That's not free will.

                Yes, we learned over time through the experience of human history that slavery is bad. And how'd we learn that? By experiencing it. No, you can't learn it all in the course of a single lifetime, but we have the accumulated knowledge of all of human history. And we learn as a species just as we learn as individuals. Through experience.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  "Okay, let's say you spent everyday of your life in a room that was exactly 70 degrees. Would you be able to imagine what it would feel like if it were 30 degrees? If you've never in your life felt what cold feels like?"

                  Who cares unless you are suddenly going to throw them into a 30 degree room?  And yes, if I was too hot I would be able to imagine not being too hot. But if I was comfy at 70 I'd have no need to imagine any other temperature and why would I have to unless it changed from optimal?

                  "Yes, we learned over time through the experience of human history that slavery is bad. And how'd we learn that? By experiencing it. No, you can't learn it all in the course of a single lifetime, but we have the accumulated knowledge of all of human history. And we learn as a species just as we learn as individuals. Through experience."

                  That doesn't help anyone who died a thousand years ago. Come on now. If you don't experience evil there is no reason to. The reason we try to rid ourselves of the bad is so we won't experience it any more. You got the cart before the horse there. If we didn't experience it to begin with we would never need to. Which is why we try to do better.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Dang Slarty.

                    "And yes, if I was too hot I would be able to imagine not being too hot. "

                    No you wouldn't. To you what you call "too hot" would be your normal. You'd have no idea you were "too hot". As far as you'd know that's all there was. You wouldn't realize you're uncomfortable in that temperature because you would have no concept of being anything other than that temperature. This really isn't complicated. If you had never in your life been in a pool of water could I just explain to you what it's like and make you understand well enough to accurately imagine it? No, you can only know what it's like through experiencing it.

                    This is just how the mind works. Your whole concept of reality, the way you interact with the physical world around you, is all determined by the information your mind has recorded. You have to experience it for your mind to relate to it. If it's something new that you've never experienced, your mind will try to draw on similar experiences and information.

                    "That doesn't help anyone who died a thousand years ago. Come on now. If you don't experience evil there is no reason to. The reason we try to rid ourselves of the bad is so we won't experience it any more. You got the cart before the horse there. If we didn't experience it to begin with we would never need to. Which is why we try to do better."

                    But if we didn't experience it we'd have no idea it was something we'd want to avoid. You're the one that has the cart before the horse. If all you knew was good, then good would be your normal. That's all there'd be. You'd have no idea you had it good because you'd have no idea of there being anything else. We can actually appreciate when we have it good because we know and have experienced the alternative.

  12. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    Look, about this sheet thing. The text says nothing about a sheet. Aquinas, early Christian scholars, Jewish scholars, everyone who came up with this whole sheet concept, that's a limitation of human understanding. These people in their age didn't understand concepts like atomic weight, or that water in its vapor form is lighter than the lowest levels of our stratosphere which causes it to sit, sheetless, above. The text says nothing about a sheet. That comes from the imagination of the reader who lacks the knowledge to truly understand. In their mind the only way water could stay above us is if something were beneath it holding it up. Now we know that's not necessary and that water truly is above, no sheet required.

    What the text says is right. It is true. Both in what it describes and when it says that particular development occurred in the sequence. It doesn't mention a sheet, and if it had it would then be wrong.

    Another notable Christian scholar, St. Augustine, said it best when he said, "The intepretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge." So, by that reasoning, if Aquinas or any of the other scholars had this information, it would have corrected their interpretation.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      They wrote it because that's how they believed it happened. And yes, in Hebrew the word used means a sheet pounded out. Like a sheet of metal, Solid.

      No they didn't know about anything like gravity, a planet, or very much else. So they didn't write about that. Had a real god told them all this stuff they might have wondered about it, but that's what god said so they would have written that down or passed it on. But you expect me to give credence to the idea that he told them nonsense because they couldn't understand the truth? And then you project current knowledge on nonsense and say everyone but you is reading it wrong.

      That's crazy, plain and simple.It's pretty obvious there was no real god involved in any of this.

      But you refuse to even consider that. You can't, because to you, loosing faith is death. You fear rejecting the idea of god. It's that fear that binds you to this myth. You couldn't escape if you tried thanks to your baptist upbringing.

      Imagion living 4000 years ago. You look up and see a blue sky. It's not illogical to conclude that water was above you. Birds fly high and the sky looks relatively close by.  If water was above, something had to be keeping it there. Stars were small lights put in the sky. we used them as signes so assumed they were put there to help us navigate, tell time, etc.

      Sumerians build towers to allow their gods to step out of heaven on to the tower on their way to the underworld. These people had no idea that there’s a universe out there. The sky was close. It doesn’t look that far away.

      What the Hebrews told each other and eventually wrote down was their interpretation of what they saw. Then they explained how it all got there by blaming a god. But they were wrong. And you are wrong thinking you can make them right.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, back then they thought it was a sheet pounded out because that was the limit of their understanding. We don't have that same limit. We understand. We're not looking for the authors to have some sort of advanced knowledge of physics. So yeah, God could have given them an explanation like you and I could now, but they're still going to write it out the way they comprehend it. So you have to read it in that light. I'm simply comparing what they're describing, of which it's still obvious what they're talking about, and recognizing that it's all the right stuff in the right order. Explained from a surface point of view. That is actually what you'd see, in that order.

        "But you refuse to even consider that. You can't, because to you, loosing faith is death."

        That is not true. That's not what I'm doing. I legitimately see what I'm describing. It's not fear. I completely abandoned my Baptist upbringing. As I'm sure you've noticed, there is a lot different about my view. If I were beholden to my Baptist upbringing, even changing or questioning or even trying to validate it would be one and the same as a lack of faith.

        "And you are wrong thinking you can make them right."
        "That's the problem. It can't."
        You keep saying that, but your reasoning is always based on how you interpret it. I can show how the text itself lines up, but you insist that's not what it means. It means this. But it's still talking about the sky. There really is water above and below. That's all true. There really was a time when the Earth was covered in ocean and shrouded in darkness, just like it describes. And that really did come before land/plants/animals. It really does say there were seas, then light, then water above/below. And you know that. You know and understand that those are the ingredients necessary to establish a water cycle that really does exist. I've shown you references that actually describe these things that way.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          They wrote about what they saw and the then an order for what would have to come first. Land, water, plants animals, light, space to live in is all required before humans could exist. They were smart enough to know that without anyone telling them that. It was common sense.

          Then they wanted to know why life was so hard, and assumed they must have pissed of god really bad, and through reinterpretations of Sumerian myths, came up with Adam and Eve, Lillith's snake in a sacred tree of knowledge, and Bob's your uncle.

          And they got all the sequences wrong. Sun after earth, birds from the sea, animals created on land fully formed, not from the sea, etc,etc,etc.

          Good try but no cigar. And no god required.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Do me a favor, go to your local library and look this stuff up in an older series of encyclopedias. Something early 70's or earlier. You'll find a very different explanation. What you say is common sense very obviously wasn't. The oceans, for example, have been a long standing mystery. Where all the water came from. But it's only been realized rather recently that the oceans were here before anything. it's easy to say now, of course, it all makes sense doesn't it? It's so obvious. But for a very long time it was anything but.

            "Sun after Earth"
            First it says 'heavens', then it says light. Daylight specifically. I know you want to dismiss them as totally ignorant, but it's obvious throughout the bible that the authors understood the sun to be the source of daylight.

            During day 4 is when the sun/moon/stars are first specifically named. Reading the english translation in the way we english speakers are used to, it's not totally apparent, but in Hebrew it's not uncommon for something to be specifically mentioned, like the sun, to then describe something about it. Like, God created it. Reading this in english in the way we're used to things being constructed, it does seem to mean this is when the sun/moon/stars were created, but that's not true. The sun's already been spoken about. It's where the light comes from. It, along with the moon and stars, ARE the heavens. When they say 'heavens', what else do you think they mean?

            "birds from the sea"
            Birds are from the sea. But what's significant here is that the class, or branch, of animal that eventually became birds, did come from this first major wave that began with fish. The Sauropsids. All the land animals that came from this group were the reptiles, which eventually became the dinosaurs, which eventually became the birds. The mammals and other land animals, including us, came from a wave that came later. The synapsids. The sauropsids from the sea, the synapsids from the Earth.

            "animals created on land fully formed"
            It never says that. Like 'birds', the land animals are basically instructed on what to become. Synapsids did originate on land. They began to branch off the reptiles that were already on the land by this point. So when it says 'let the earth bring forth', this is actually very right. That's where this wave came from. The amniotes. They stopped laying eggs, became warm blooded, and then came the mammals.

            "Then they wanted to know why life was so hard, and assumed they must have pissed of god really bad, and through reinterpretations of Sumerian myths, came up with Adam and Eve, Lillith's snake in a sacred tree of knowledge, and Bob's your uncle."
            You make a lot of assumptions here. As long as you can come up with something that sounds reasonable to you, that's the 'truth' in your mind. You don't actually know any of this. It just sounds good. Not really based on anything.

            But it would also make sense that the commonality found in the Sumerian versions isn't because the biblical version was copied from, or inspired by, those texts, but that both versions are speaking of the same events that happened in the same region at the same time.

            See, that makes sense too. So now you've got two competing explanations that both make sense. The only difference is mine is a part of an entire cohesive explanation that ties it all together seamlessly. Yours is a cobbled together explanation to explain how something specific may have come to be.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              "What you say is common sense very obviously wasn't. The oceans, for example, have been a long standing mystery. Where all the water came from. But it's only been realized rather recently that the oceans were here before anything. it's easy to say now, of course, it all makes sense doesn't it? It's so obvious. But for a very long time it was anything but."

              Yeah but water wasn't here from the beginning in ocean form and the earth was never completely covered, and the most important thing to primitive man was water, and dozens of unrelated cultures came up with water above because the sky is blue etc etc etc. Some even came up with evolution as part of their religion.

              Primitives guessed. Sometimes they go it right, sort of, but never completely right. It's wrong to assume some god had to tell them anything. In fact its absurd since you can't show us a god.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                First off, if a "god" were show-able, that would be absurd. That would not be God because we're talking about who/whatever is responsible for creating the universe. So, they're not 'of' this universe, therefore not 'show-able'.

                Water was here from very early on. Now that all depends on what you mean by the "beginning", but water was here since the bombardment phase. it only condensed into oceans once the surface cooled enough to harden and the temperature cooled enough to allow it to. The oceans formed before anything else. And yes, the planet was covered. The only land we see now developed after the fact. Before that, it was all water.

                I know you read it to mean the water above was the blue sky. And you run with the assumption that because it's blue, and water is too, that's what those dumbasses must have thought. But the fact remains, there really is water above. And that water cycle really did develop when the text says it does.

                What you don't seem to get is your arguing against what I'm saying not based on the text, but based on your assumptions about what the text means. And those assumptions are based on nothing. It's irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is correct, there is water above and below, and that system was established right where it's listed chronologically. Done.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Done? Absolute nonsense. Done.

            2. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Sun after Earth"
              "First it says 'heavens', then it says light. Daylight specifically. I know you want to dismiss them as totally ignorant, but it's obvious throughout the bible that the authors understood the sun to be the source of daylight. "

              Sure. But you are ignoring the part where the sun isn't created till after the earth is formed. That's what it says in plain English. And don't try your god's view from earth bull. It doesn't wash.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Plain English huh? Is that what you think we're reading? See, that's part of the problem. You're not treating as you should. It's an ancient text in an ancient language. Hebrew to English is a very clunky translation. This is very much NOT plain English.

                See, during the 'day 4' portion of the text, the sun/moon/stars are first mentioned by name here. They haven't been mentioned yet. They were there. That's where the light came from. But they weren't named. They were just called the 'heavens'. And in Hebrew it's not at all uncommon, when naming something, or bringing up something when first mentioned, to say something about it. To make a statement about it. Like in this case to say God created them. And He did. Not at that moment. It would be like reading a text that then, halfway through, names you. After naming you, it would be common for them to say that your the son of Mr. and Mrs. O'brian. That doesn't mean you were born right then. It's just a statement about you.

                Yes, it's translated to English. But it's still worded the way it's worded in Hebrew. It's important to understand that.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  "See, during the 'day 4' portion of the text, the sun/moon/stars are first mentioned by name here. They haven't been mentioned yet. They were there. That's where the light came from. But they weren't named."

                  Wrong. It say god created them on a specific day and fixed them in the sky on that day. And that day is after the dry land appears. Which is wrong since the planet was made from condensed clouds of dust created by a star that went nova,

                  Part of that cloud reached critical mass. It's ignition is responsible for our planet and all the planets in our system. All failed stars, are it were.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    There's already light. Light that's described as the light of day. Common sense should tell you all you need to know. For what you're saying to be accurate that would mean that they meant this light just existed by itself without a source. Clearly, even to bronze age minds, that's not right. But you run with it anyway.

                    If you were reading a contemporary text that early on says daylight broke, then commented on the sun and how it came into being, you'd use common sense and put together how to read that. But in this case, you're not making that allowance.

        2. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          "God could have given them an explanation like you and I could now, but they're still going to write it out the way they comprehend it. "

          That makes no sense what so ever. They would have written and passed on what they were told even if they didn't understand it. And again you are saying your god is so useless that he couldn't make them understand. I find that a little convenient and a lot unbelievable.

          It makes no sense.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            So you mean to tell me someone could explain to you something way over your head, and you could then turn around and write it all down verbatim? You can only write and convey what you understand. Besides, all the words we associate with these things we came up with way later. These things were explained to them in terms they'd understand. Using words they were familiar with. It's really not that complicated.

          2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Besides, if God could simply make humans understand then there'd be no point to living life. We live life to experience it. To learn. If wisdom could just be given then there'd be no need for any of this.

            It makes plenty of sense.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              So why bother saying anything? Of course knowledge can be just given. That's what schools are for They give technical knowledge most of the time as opposed  to practical experience. I'm very sure that if tier god said the world is a ball in space, they would have simply accepted it and passed it on.

              But no. He tells them a fairy tale and 5000 years later you say it matches current science? No it doesn't. It doesn't make sense that a god would not know how to make the info he wants to pass on perfectly clear to those he chose to pass it on to. It doesn't make sense that a god that create anything by thinking it so would explain things in an ambiguous way.

              It looks exactly like humans trying to find answers over thousands of years. No god involved or required

              If a real god were involved we'd expect to have an astounding document written by people who couldn't have known any of it, and couldn't have guessed. And that's clearly not what we have here

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Yeah, schools give technical knowledge that would be meaningless unless you also have the practical experience of life to associate with what you learn.

                A ball in space? And how are they to know what space is? Describing the Earth as a ball in space isn't relevant to them. They experience the Earth from the surface.

  13. profile image51
    Chakita Rossposted 8 years ago

    Thank you Slarty for your response. I love discussing topics like this. One thing I want to bring to your attention is there were other beings on earth that were demi gods when Adam and Eve were created. When Lucifer fell from heaven, a third of the angels came on earth with him. It was without form and void during the time. The demi gods were are fallen angels who taught the humans technology and advance civilization. All this fills in the gaps in the book of Enoch. You can google it and read it online.

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      This is great!  I'm always open for enlightenment
      ...and always considered myself a demi-god, fallen angel and cousin to Lucifer.  Now we know for certain.   Welcome to my club, eveyone! tongue

  14. profile image54
    LoveLABposted 8 years ago

    A little research and an open mind will show you the real truth.
    fact is man was on Earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. The creation was simply the implanting of the Y chromosome to create a species suitable for the NOMMO to use as a host body.

    All of the so called Gods were NOMMO (non human)

    In Ancient Greek the word host meant a sacraficial offering and the human race was sacrificed to the parasitic NOMMO as hosts.

    Your subconscious is the parasite inside who can take control of your body at any time!
    Anyone who has witnessed the possession during speaking in tongues can have no doubt.

    How many have had the experience of having a friend say they saw them some where they have never been? How many have hours they cannot account for, maybe I just fell asleep! How many have vivid memories of events that never actually happened.

    The sooner nature destroys the evil Y chromosome the better, but will the NOMMO allow it?

    You lost eternal life and freedom from disease to provide a host for these shitbags!

  15. profile image54
    LoveLABposted 8 years ago

    The fact is the west was in contact with Asian people thousands of years before western history claims. Western history was rewritten by the Church to suit their own ends.

  16. profile image54
    LoveLABposted 8 years ago

    Hardship began with the creation and religion, for hundreds of thousands of years humanity lived without pain or suffering.

    1. wilderness profile image76
      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      We know this...how?  What evidence has been found to indicate hundreds of thousands of years without pain or suffering?

      1. profile image54
        LoveLABposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        The evidence is there for all to see! But those who want to keep you under their control will always deny it! Keep your eyes buried in their bible story!
        Their loving god was a horned giant that demanded human flesh, and that is according to their own words. These records are hidden by the Vatican today.

        1. wilderness profile image76
          wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          "The evidence is there for all to see!"

          Then please show it.  Or quit making a claim you cannot support.

          Not that I disagree religion has cause enormous suffering and pain, just that mankind has always had suffering and pain.  From Olduvai Gorge to present, there has been suffering and pain.

      2. profile image54
        LoveLABposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        In case you missed it the fact is modern medical science can rejuvenate your body and cure any disease using your own Renin Angiotensin system!
        This system is shut down by the action of the Y chromosome!
        It was this treatment that cured Lance Armstrong of terminal cancer in just ten weeks and made him super human!
        The facts are there if you want to see!

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Steroids made Lance Armstrong superhuman.

          1. profile image54
            LoveLABposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            And of course he had to get this steroid treatment in secret at Vanderbilt university! Yeah right.
            No steroid treatment cured any cancer! Not even a pimple on your backside!
            And the same steroids created 500 super mice at Case Western!
            Why do you think the pharma will not allow LAB to be sold in amounts which could be used for commercial purposes? And will only allow it to be supplied to research universities!

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Well, if I had to guess, his steroid treatments were done in secret to hide the fact that he was using steroids.

              Pharma, and I assume the FDA, only allow what they allow because they're charged with keeping the populace safe.

              1. profile image54
                LoveLABposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                In the real world we know the pharmaceutical industry runs the FDA!
                There is almost no REAL scientific evidence for the safety or effectiveness of most pharmaceutical drugs.

                But you keep believing in the FDA!

                1. profile image54
                  LoveLABposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  He was on deaths door step without hope and you think he gave a shit about his career or what anybody else thought!

                  Wake up

  17. Oztinato profile image77
    Oztinatoposted 8 years ago

    JCL
    No way. I'll see you in the fields of elysium skipping through fields of cosmic flowers.
    You have compassion therefore you "pass".

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      smile big_smile  lol

      1. Oztinato profile image77
        Oztinatoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        That is assuming you are against Trumpites. For such who enter there need to abandon all hope.

    2. profile image54
      LoveLABposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      You are obviously a lover of your bible story, so why do you reject the part that confirms what I say? Those so blind they will never see the truth!

  18. profile image54
    LoveLABposted 8 years ago

    Before you can prove anything you have to know what you are trying to prove. Have you guys decided what god is yet? If god is a carved wooden statue, then it is easy to prove. If god is undetectable then that is impossible to prove.

    The Elephant is King of beasts. We know this because he has the biggest gun. When a single mature Elephant gets angry a whole pride of lions will run!

    Yet we are told the lion is king of beasts, simply because they want you to believe a carnivore is King?

    It is good business for farmers and religion to convince you that a placid herbivore cannot be King.

    The best evidence to support God is the history of the Doggon in west Africa!
    However their god was a human being who simply sent his own seed to Mother Earth!

    All other gods were invented by the NOMMO who enforced their will by violence, hardly scientific!

    If god = king then where is god? All of the old imperial families claimed their rite to rule because they were direct descendants of god! without the support of the NOMMO they lost their power!

    Today the rite to rule is decided by the power of money, so where does that leave god?

  19. Singh Sagar Singh profile image59
    Singh Sagar Singhposted 8 years ago

    I have evidence

  20. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    Let me make this clear as there seems to be some confusion. I've found recently that flipping things around makes for much more fruitful discussion. Rather than the usual where the non-believer criticizes the beliefs of the believer and the believer tries to explain, let's go the other way around. I'll be playing the role of the critic and non-believers the role of apologist. My claim here is that the atheist viewpoint, meaning a universe that exists without the need of a deliberate creator, does not stand up to scrutiny.

    So no talk of faith or belief or the delusions of a believer and how silly they are. Simply explain to me your beliefs, or uh I mean, viewpoint. Explain to me in your materialistic terms how these conclusions and explanations are logical.

    I have found in my time having these discussions that most people who identify as atheist critically analyzed whatever faith system was forced on them, found it lacking, then landed on the idea that they're atheists as a kind of default stance. Most never seemed to have turned that same critical eye towards this new viewpoint that they so quickly adopted.

    I think you'll find, as I have, that it's at least as far-fetched as any religious beliefs, if not more so.

    This perhaps may be better served in a new forum thread, but we'll just start here for now. Apologies to A.Villarasa as I do not mean to hijack your thread, and will gladly cease/desist and move on if you wish.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image60
      A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Moving on and devising a new forum topic or title is not such a bad idea considering that this particular forum has gone through multiple twists and turns to such a dizzying interlocution, that, frankly left me esotropic and dyspneic.

  21. what up blog profile image55
    what up blogposted 8 years ago

    cool tell me more

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Might help if you said what you want to hear about and from who. ;} Just sayin.

  22. PhoenixV profile image66
    PhoenixVposted 8 years ago

    I mean I can go over to the wall and flip the switch. Of course Ill need an electrician to install it but yea flip it and claim that magic energy dun lit the light without my help flipping the switch. I guess. Id be lying but..Maybe think im just energy and energy flipped the switch. But I made a conscious effort. Unless I chose not to.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, though it goes against our whole concept of the physical world, somehow this universe was the result of a causeless ... something. The dominoes just started falling. It was the damnedest thing. And they fell in this very particular pattern, beautiful really. It was the damnedest thing. It's silly to think there was some 'thing' that caused it. Nothing came from nothing, expanded from a single point, just because. That's the reasonable thing to think. That's what rational people think. That's what the smart people think.

      1. PhoenixV profile image66
        PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        We have examples. Pick up a musical instrument and create a unique never before known song. We may have to sing along or add some instruments until it becomes truly a unique creation. And we can all observe or listen to it. Projected discernible reality with observers. It has a rational explanation. The atheist has a lets take it all for granted and hope no one notices explanation.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Well, we've noticed. As far as I can tell the whole mindset of an atheist is based on the idea that religion is stupid. Because I don't like religion the default stance you end up with is atheist. It's not arrived at logically. It's not discovered. It's option B. If I don't like this, then I must be that.

          We're always being accused of believing what we want to be true. Yet that's exactly what the atheist does. I don't like the idea of someone in the sky watching and judging what I do, so I'm an atheist.

          1. PhoenixV profile image66
            PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            To me it seems like they build their own walls. I can help build them I can help tear them down it doesnt matter, just as soon as a human heart becomes a little exposed or vulnerable up comes the wall. Gods just a concept down the long road ahead. Theyre like busy litte masons. Bricklayers.

        2. profile image0
          jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          This a very simplistic notion of the atheist.  Very far from reality in my case.

          1. PhoenixV profile image66
            PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Specifically in regards to Creation.

          2. PhoenixV profile image66
            PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Honestly Johnny If any of us had it all figured out we'd probably not be here talking about it. A creative will is the logical inference. Even the human mind is similarly capable. In a dream a human mind can create an entire believable reality. So believable your heart will race. You will be creating that reality. A construct. Itsa a creation of a mind. A mind created reality.So, this is not some strange thing that a mind is capable of creation when even our human minds are capable of creating a convincing reality when dreaming.

            1. profile image0
              jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Very true.  And the Believer is very capable of all those gymnastic constructions, without any shred of proof outside of the mind.

              The Un-believer, on the other hand, is also just as capable of mental gymnastics, but looks more deeply for provable explanations....in most cases, I contend, but also reaching the Un-answerable in many cases.

              Check.

              1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                That's why I adopted non-belief. Belief is irrelevant. I don't believe there is a god. I don't believe there isn't one. No way to know. I don't believe in science. I accept facts, and form conditional opinions on them.

                No need for belief at all. Belief in a fact is not required, and belief in speculative ideas is at best ill advised and at worst stupid and dangerous.

                In a forum like this, however, I will take my opinion to the limit. Point being a trial by fire. I learn alot from these exchanges, and push myself to think. I hope others do too.

                Headly does, which is why I still bash his head on his desk. Shows he's putting a lot into it.

                Though I do admit, some arguments are coming to the point of collapsing into frustrated goo.

                But, chin up

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  This discussion has a good chance of going somewhere interesting, but it's going to require you drop a couple of these not very well thought out place holders you insist on keeping in place. We've drilled right down to them, there's more beyond them, but they require you acknowledge something you're clearly reluctant to do. It's that science delusion. I get it, observing the material world through the physical sciences has yielded a lot of knowledge. But that doesn't mean everything is material. We've hit a couple of hard spots that refuse to give because they're not material like everything else. You've rationalized that the answers are just still hidden in those bits we don't understand yet because they're so darn complex or dynamic. That's the science delusion. It's a belief. It's belief in a speculative idea, which you yourself call "ill advised" and "stupid and dangerous". Are we truly interested in progress and truth here, or are we just reaffirming what we already believe to be true?

                  1. profile image0
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    This thread is coming up to the 100th page.  Are we going to have a brainwave for the century?

                    There's been no evidence yet....

                  2. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm not making anything up. From the horses mouth:

                    http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/161207- … at-we-have

                    “Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” -Einstein.

                    I didn't know this quote existed till today. I went by the statement in GR that matter is the energy density tensor momentum, and went by the fact that matter doesn't exist without energy, but energy exists without matter: Photons being a prime example. But I could have misinterpreted something. This quote vindicates me in a big way.

                    Now, you can say what you will, but GR has been proven right every time it's tested. Energy is the source.  It's all there is. Energy creates everything.  No, not everything is material. You are right. Nothing is. It's all energy creating the material world, so matter is a form of energy.

                    Now, is there an outside god? Who knows. But if there isn't, energy is god, creating from self within self.

                    In my opinion, that's most probably the answer. No outside god has yet been proven, and in my opinion has a high probability of not existing.

                    You can remain deluded in thinking science is a belief. It clearly is not. It may be for some people, but not for me and not for most scientists. It is a tool. Logic is a tool. Do I need to believe in my hammer? No. it works. I just have to use it. Belief is irrelevant. It works or it doesn't. Science/ the scientific method works. It's proven itself.  Religion doesn't work. It does not give real knowledge. That too has been proven by all the times science proved it wrong.

                    I'll use science combined with logic and philosophy to find answers till it stops working 

                    And if you can prove GR wrong, it'll be a whole new ball game. Good luck. You'll need it..

          3. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
            Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Just far from reality.

    2. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Let's see your god flip a switch. Not going to happen. Yes, you're energy flipping a switch. Ask yourself why. Because you need to. If you don't, you didn't need to.What does energy need with a switch? You need it, it doesn't.

      But through cause and effect it needed to create you. Neither you or it had a choice in that matter.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        So.... we are energy? We need a switch? But energy doesn't? But ... aren't we energy? Why do we need a switch? So energy doesn't need a switch, until it becomes us, then we do?

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Don't confuse yourself. There is nothing but energy in billions of different forms.One substance that produces all other substances. Each substance has its own needs. It's about context. Light doesn't need a switch. Humans do if they want to control a flow of photons. It's not complicated.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, it's not complicated because there's no need for thought. Just the blanket answer that energy is dynamic and the answer to everything. Instead of Goddunit, it's Energydunit. Fills in all those pesky gaps with it's dynamic properties and capabilities.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Yeah. Well it's science so it has a better chance of being true, And if energy dun it then what's the problem with saying it did? The difference is I know for a fact it exists and much of how it works thanks to GR which has proven true more times than you can shake a stick at.. You can't with any honesty say you know god exists or how it works. So who's position is stronger? Mine, thanks very much.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Yeah. Well it's science so it has a better chance of being true, And if energy dun it then what's the problem with saying it did? The difference is I know for a fact it exists and much of how it works thanks to GR which has proven true more times than you can shake a stick at.. You can't with any honesty say you know god exists or how it works. So who's position is stronger? Mine, thanks very much.


                No, no, no, no it is not science. If you'll notice I've been asking for your evidence for a while now and nothing. Nothing about this is science. It's science fiction.

                Yes, you know for a fact it exists. And you know for a fact consciousness and life and the will exists. Because a handful of base elements and energy is all that can be seen in the head, you just stretch the capability of those elements up over all of those things you need an explanation for. That's not science. That's lying to yourself. As I've said over and over again, there's nothing about what we know about any of these elements, including energy, that even remotely suggests any of them are capable of these behaviors.

                You just bank on complexity. If it's a complex enough system then it all works out. Chemical compounds do amazing things. Energy is dynamic. That's your "scientific" explanation.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  "No, no, no, no it is not science. If you'll notice I've been asking for your evidence for a while now and nothing. Nothing about this is science. It's science fiction. "

                  What can I say about such blatant willful ignorance? Read GR and get back to me. You obviously haven't, and you won't listen to me. So remain ignorant or do something about it.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    What do you mean I don't listen to you? You're not saying anything. I just repeated everything you've actually said, which shows I have been listening. What have you actually said that I'm ignoring? That energy is dynamic? Or that chemical compounds do amazing things?

                    You're the one being willfully ignorant because I'm showing you that not everything can be explained materially, and that there are other things to consider and ways to consider them. But you won't have it. You demand that I only give you verifiable facts, even though the very things you hold to be true, that you insist that I accept as true, are also not verifiable facts.

                    Then, of course, you accuse me of projecting.

                    And enough with these vague references to general relativity. I'm not convinced you've read it, considering it primarily deals with the geometric theory of gravitation. How exactly does that justify your claims about energy? Or chemical compounds?

  23. PhoenixV profile image66
    PhoenixVposted 8 years ago

    The energy theory needs an observer and a conscious mind to project it. EG I have an idea. I willed the idea into existence. I observe it and I project it. Otherwise such things are inexplicable and without reason.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Observer driven reality is nonsense, of course. I'm sure you know that. Something exists or not. Wishing without doing creates nothing at all.

      1. PhoenixV profile image66
        PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        The only thing I am confident in is the confidence you have in your own confidence. I am not confident in if it is deserved.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Well then prove it to yourself one way or the other. Its easy. Anyone can do it. Wish as hard as you like but don't do a thing. See if you can effect reality. But don't hold your breath while doing the experiment. Its not advisable.

  24. PhoenixV profile image66
    PhoenixVposted 8 years ago

    And what do we have for the audience behind door number one? Energy! And its been here forever. Dont even question it. It requires no explanation. It doesnt have enough will to flap a gnats wing. It has built in ingenuity of a selftimer and turned itself on. 14 B years ago.


    It aint much. But the above post is an example of a mind creating something ie a post.

  25. PhoenixV profile image66
    PhoenixVposted 8 years ago

    (Here is my mind creating these words in Parentheses)

    Now I will give energy the same opportunity.

    (                    )


    Nada

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Energy is the existence of difference, nothing more, nothing less.  I suppose it begs the question, "What created difference in the first place?"  The creator of that initial difference obviously and logically needed energy to create that difference.   Thus the proverbial $64,000 question, "Which came first, the chicken (creat-or) or the egg (creat-ed)?"  Neither of us can answer these questions with certainty, therefore the theist and the atheist find a level playing field. 

      Shake hands and play on.  No fowl play.  No underhandedness.  No throwing the ball in each other's face.   No appeals to a biased umpire.

    2. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      How ridiculous you are. Give your god that opportunity. (          ) Whoops...  Oh well.

      1. PhoenixV profile image66
        PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Endless contingent is no answer. Chicken and egg energy all the way down dont work. Sorry.Where theres a will theres a way. That simple. Always been that way

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Well you can say that, but you can't prove it. Lets find out if science can do better than blind superstition, shall we? I'm sure it can do better than bad knee jerk guess.

          1. PhoenixV profile image66
            PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            From a purely logical standpoint I wish you well on your fools errand to the end of an infinite series of events by your own choice.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Same to you.

  26. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    Something interesting I found ....

    Consciousness researcher David Chalmers from the Australian National University says, "All sorts of mental phenomena have yielded to scientific investigation in recent years, but consciousness has stubbornly resisted. Many have tried to explain it, but the explanations always seem to fall short of the target. Some have been led to suppose that the problem is intractable, and that no good explanation can be given."

    Problems that Chalmers has identified that have no explanation include:
    - The ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli
    - The integration of information by a cognitive system
    - The report-ability of mental states
    - The focus of attention
    - The ability of a system to access its own internal states
    - The deliberate control of behavior
    - The difference between wakefulness and sleep.

    He states, :Why should physical processing give rise to a richer inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does."

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Oh good. You found someone that agrees with you. Most don't. I guess he should quit his job now that he's figured out he can't do it. Opinions are like ass wholes. Everyone has one and most of them stink.

      Let me know when he proves it. I won't hold my breath.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I found someone that agrees with me? This isn't just someone. This is one of the foremost experts in the world on this subject in particular. He agrees with me because I'm right.

        David John Chalmers
        > Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Consciousness at the Australian National University
        > University Professor, Professor of Philosophy and Neural Science, and a Director of the Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness at New York University

        - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers

        And there you go again with your holding out until it's proven. YOUR VIEW ISN"T PROVEN EITHER. So stop with the 'wait until it's proven' bullshit. Clearly that isn't a real requirement for you.

        1. PhoenixV profile image66
          PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Im starting to think by GR he means Guns n' Roses because energy matter equivalency is associated with "special relativity" as opposed to general relativity, even though he seems to only throw those two particularly or peculiarly around together, but im no Alfred Einstein.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            No, you're right. Considering all he's been claiming about energy I was surprised to find out he apparently wasn't previously aware of this. Between that and claiming that this statement vindicates him I'm a bit puzzled.

            I mean, yes, energy can do incredible things. The best example I can think of is in relation to bosons at the subatomic level. You always find bosons in pairs. If you attempt to separate a pair, the energy you put into separating them is then transformed into a boson recreating the pair. It's literally matter from energy.

            The fact that it seems he was unaware of all of this tells me he doesn't even have a rough idea as to how his claims could or couldn't be relevant. Yes, energy is dynamic. But it still behaves in specific ways, and a conscious will has nothing to do with it.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              The twisty science blind leading the science dumb. How funny.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Judging by your last 10 posts or so, you have absolutely no room to talk.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  If you can understand this you'll discover your error, not mine. When I said GR it wasn't a mistake.

                  http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/top … neral.html

                  The General Theory of Relativity can actually be described using a very simple equation: R = GE (although Einstein's own formulation of his field equations are much more complex). Unfortunately, the variables in this simple equation are far from simple: R is a complicated mathematical object made up of 16 separate numbers in a matrix or "tensor" that describes the distortion of space-time; G is the gravitational constant; and E is another complicated number, also represented by a tensor, representing the energy of the object (or more accurately the 4-dimensional "energy momentum density"). Given that, though, what the equation says is simple enough: that what gravity really is is not a force but a distortion of space and time, and that the geometry of space and time depends not just on velocity (as the Special Theory of Relativity had indicated) but on the energy of an object. This makes sense when we consider that Newton had already shown that gravity depends on mass, and that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity had shown that mass is equivalent to energy.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, I get that. Do you know what this tells us? How gravity works. How the fabric of space-time, though we can't see it, we can explain what can be seen by understanding it. Elements in the universe, made of both matter and energy, cause fluctuations and bends and waves in that fabric. This helps us understand the apparent distortion in light as it travels across space-time. It explains why the planets and moons move as they do.

                    Nothing in any of that has anything to do with what you're talking about. And the fact that you think it does means you have no idea what you're talking about in relation to GR or SR or energy.

        2. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          You banging your head on the desk again? wink

          Science doesn't jump to conclusions. It tries to find the answers. Saying we may never find them is an opinion. It might be true. Then again we might. That's an opinion too. But you keep trying. Find other ways.

          QM has wanted to find a graviton since it began. No luck. Einstein says they won't. The collider  keeps trying with higher and higher power. They thought they had it, but no. So they will keep trying with even higher power until they find it or find out Albert was right once and for all.

          That's science.

          So this guy, saying he's frustrated after looking for five minutes doesn't impress me. I don't care who you think he is.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Okay, you can't insist I give you facts and evidence, then dismiss an experts quote who's clearly qualified to answer the question. Five minutes? The guy has obviously dedicated his life to this effort. Are you kidding me? If you dismiss my deferment to the experts on the cutting edge of this stuff, then you're clearly not open to being wrong. You're acting like a believer at this point. Dismissing evidence and expert analysis to continue to believe what you think is true. Wake up.

            This guy knows the facts. This guy knows what's known and what isn't. You do not know more than this guy about consciousness. Yet you seem to think you do. That's a problem. That's a clear sign that you're not open to this. We're no longer having a logical discussion. We're bumping up against a delusion you hold and refuse to let go of.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Sure I can. He isn't giving you facts he's giving opinion It's clear you don't understand the difference. Even were he right it doesn't suggest for a second that a god did it.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Uh ... (thud) Head. Desk. Holy shit. Where to start? Okay. First, this is not an opinion. He's listing the things that are yet to be explained. That's not an opinion. These are the capabilities of the conscious mind that still, to this point, have no explanation. He did not say we won't figure these things out. He's simply saying we haven't figured any of this out yet.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  "He's listing the things that are yet to be explained. "

                  You figured that out. Good start. Not yet explained. The rest is opinion. Got it?

  27. Elizabeth Taylore profile image58
    Elizabeth Tayloreposted 8 years ago

    Hello, my name is Elizabeth, i was going through an article and found out about a man called Dr Bomoh. i have been suffering from breakup issues with different guys. i had to contact the spell caster.Steve was on the verge of leaving me for another woman. but i stayed positive and believe i could have him back and make him stay. lo and behold Dr Bomoh helped me.Steve and i are getting married soon. Dr Bomoh is such a nice man, he also helped me stop my cardackarest problem. Thanks to him and thanks to God for the gift given to him. If you have any problem whatsoever, contact him on this email: godbomohspirit@gmail.com

    Contact him for the following and see the great work of Dr Bomoh:
    (1)If you want your ex back.
    {2}If you are searching for a job
    (3)You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4)You want women/men to run after you.
    (5)If you want a child.
    (6)You want to be rich.
    (7)you want to get Marriage Spells
    (8)Remove Sickness from your body Spells
    (9)Business spell
    (10)Lottery winning numbers.
    (11)Bring Back Lost Love
      and many more.......

  28. unnati dhanuka profile image60
    unnati dhanukaposted 8 years ago

    i love youuuu

  29. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago

    We are very entrenched in the brain when in the body.
    We are very attached to operating via the brain/body.
    Such ignorance!

  30. zahidnet24 profile image59
    zahidnet24posted 8 years ago

    thanks

  31. profile image0
    Mansi chaudhryposted 8 years ago

    I agree with you a villarasa

  32. profile image0
    Mansi chaudhryposted 8 years ago

    Yes evidence is there, you just need to broaden your horizons, not just see the things you see

    1. wilderness profile image76
      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Can you present that evidence?  That's the point, after all - simply making a claim that it is there does not mean that it is.

  33. PhoenixV profile image66
    PhoenixVposted 8 years ago

    Well, someone superseded contingent space itself. Therefore God is existing.

    1. wilderness profile image76
      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      No one superseded contingent space - it is possible that it came into being all by itself, "created" by completely natural forces without intelligence.  No need for a god and therefore the statement is a fallacy. 

      That always seems to be the problem - when asked for evidence all that is provided is opinion that cannot be substantiated.

  34. PhoenixV profile image66
    PhoenixVposted 8 years ago

    Also:

    This everything energy theory. Honestly I see some merit. My question is where you gonna put it?

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Put what?

  35. PhoenixV profile image66
    PhoenixVposted 8 years ago

    I mean this phenomenon is popping up all over the place. Truth. logic, space, space-time if you will, the will, moral agency, its endless and everywhere.  Beauty, concepts ideals: it goes on forever. A materialist gotta be busier than a duck on an invisible june bug.

  36. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    New page. Ignore this. That last post I did wasn't showing up because it wasn't creating the new page. So I just did another post so it would create the page so my post would show up. Move on, nothing to see here. Just a glitchy ass forum.

  37. PhoenixV profile image66
    PhoenixVposted 8 years ago

    Just a recapitulation. Theres an underlying, layered, absolute reality, but nobody can see it.

    Hypothetically Leonardo DiCaprio could be down there.

    1. PhoenixV profile image66
      PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Often a believer will offer self evident "the firmament sheweth his handywork." affirmation of God existing.

      Do you have evidence of this underlying, layered, absolute reality that no one can see?

      Keeping in mind Leo is possibly stuck down there. Tick tock

      1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
        Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Sure. subatomic particles, atoms, chemicals, cells, whole animals, societies, cultures, economies, solar systems, and galaxies, the totality. Just to name a few.

        1. PhoenixV profile image66
          PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          These appear to be words describing concepts. Can you provide proof that any of these alleged physical things exist without or outside of perception?

          I have a feeling that you have seen with your eyes, tasted, smelled, heard with your ears, sensed with touch and have been surrounded by others that claim to have also sensed physical things, and I am sure that everyone is convinced or has conviction of this belief. But it is only a belief that physical reality exists outside of perception.

          1. profile image0
            jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I have been watching, spasmodically, this lengthy discussion, but rarely feel a need to chirp in these days.  However, I can see your reasoning here, PhoenixV, but wonder what the objective is.

            You are pointing to a need for us to "believe" what we are told by scientific minds, without us necessarily having first hand "physical" experience which can prove the concepts.  Am I reading it correctly?

            I can appreciate this line of thought and warm to it.  Yes, one could call it a "belief" that physical things are so and as presented to our senses and brains.  The suggestion that all of what I touch, see, hear, feel and smell is not material at all, but the manifestation of forces interacting infinitely in a space/time continuum.....it boggles the mind really, but I find it an acceptable version of mind-play.

            But if I accept that explanation as a belief, does it automatically follow that the beliefs put forward  by religious leanings are just as valid?  No, I don't think it does.  I am referring to the original question of this discussion.  Evidence.  I don't know of any evidence that the theoretical ideas about God as a supernatural being are anything but the products of our human minds.

            Therefore I dismiss any religious beliefs in a deity as not worth arguing about. On the other hand, contemplating an infinite life in an infinite (there! something that's "in" something else cannot be infinite!) universe, is fun and challenging way beyond my favourite Sudoku games.

            1. PhoenixV profile image66
              PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Im on my phone and it wants to reload the page a lot, so I lose long posts / replies. So. I may reply in parts.  I want to reply in detail but its near impossible.

              I have a feeling you see me as some really hard core church goer yet I rarely go.

              Ever since a kid I wanted to understand reality. So this is why these topics intetest me.

              What I have been posting recently about is subjective idealism and its a very rare metaphysical philosophy.  George Berkeley - James Hopwood Jeans.

              1. PhoenixV profile image66
                PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I also like the debate itself. Unfortunately the best debates involve the most divisive topics. But like I believe Mr Slarty has said or someone said, through debate one can refine their own thoughts etc. So, its lotsa politics and metaphysics and religion. The topics interest me and are important and sometimes an opponent will show me a flaw in my thoughts etc.

          2. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
            Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think it's a belief. Perception is irrelevant. Something is or is not. What it is is debatable, to be sure. But thought without action does nothing, has no effect on anything outside self.

            What you are saying is what Fred N said. There is no objective reality or truth. How do I take that? Are you saying that's objectively true? Not just subjectively? Then you falsify your own claim.

            And if it's only subjectively true it's not true at all.

            If you say then: there is no truth. Is that true then? If there is no truth it can't be true that there is no truth.

            I have no problem saying we only see a portion of reality or we see a version of reality, but you can't get away with saying there is no reality. It creates a logical fault that shoots the statement in the foot, showing it must be wrong.

            If the statement is true, then the statement renders itself false. If the statement is not true, it's false. Either way, the statement: There is no objective reality or truth, is false. It can't be true by definition.

  38. PhoenixV profile image66
    PhoenixVposted 8 years ago

    While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

    It seems your theory Mr Slarty sounds almost exactly like my theory. Are we not both believers?

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I'd say we are both of like mind rather than saying we are both believers. It is my opinion that Pantheism has .merit.

      1. PhoenixV profile image66
        PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Pantheism has a lot of merit. I know yours is a slightly different shade, but in respect to the more commonly known pantheism,  I always thought some religious beliefs redundant.  If God were to perform some personal miracle for someone that asked for it in a prayer, would that all somehow come as a surprise to God? For me its all a miracle or not.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Yes my Pantheism is some what different from the old form. But we still share the metaphor of the Brahman of India.: There is nothing but god. But if all is god, there is no god above all else.

          I don't see how any god would be surprised about anything. And to me, the real magic is being able to reach out with our hands and manipulate the world. That's and existence itself is a miracle even if, and particularly if it was not a miracle performed by a being like the Christian god.

          1. PhoenixV profile image66
            PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Yea Brahman has much appeal to me. I think If everyone was completely fair, could we flip a coin for one or two to pointlessly admit they are just one less agnostic to some unknown truth than the other.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I think some things are more probable than others, certainly.

  39. Haider Mama profile image71
    Haider Mamaposted 8 years ago

    The existence of God is so common a debate that I tend to avoid. I have a true story of a person about the existence of God. Once there was a poor man whom people thought mad but the king of that place loved this man because of his intellect and wisdom. One day he is in the palace of king and there is another man who was talking about religion and this person said I don't believe there is a God.  He said God does not existence and if it is why don't we see a sign, symbol or evidence of his being. That poor man stood and asked for soil and water. He then mixed soil and water and made a ball out of it.

    That poor man asked the denier of God again that do you still believe God does not exist. He replied yes I do not believe in His existence. That poor man threw the ball with his power on the deniers face. Suddenly he moaned and started cursing the poor man. The King asked the poor man why did you do that? He replied and asked the denier if that hurts and the denier shouted it hurts badly. The poor man smiled and asked the denier show me your pain so I can believe it hurts. That man gets angry and said you are stupid to ask me about this. How could I show you my pain. He said look at my face don't you see. The poor man replied I can see your face injury but show me your pain.

    And, the poor man explained to the denier that you say you are in pain and I believe you are but you cannot show me your pain, can you? He said same is the case with God's existence. He exists and you can see His creations but you cannot see Him. 

    In addition to this story, I want to say something important. When we express our love for our beloved ones (family, friends,relatives) don't you think this is what love actually is. If a daughter ask her mother, "Mom do you love me?". Her mother would say, "Of course darling I love you". Out of curiosity she asks her mother, "Mom can you show me your love (feeling)". Mother would reply, "Darling you are my daughter and everything I do is for you. This is my love for you. How can I make my feeling visible for you, I cannot do that darling".

    There are things that cannot be seen that are beyond seeing. Indeed, God is beyond that our eyes can see Him. Now we cannot see Him with our eyes but we can see the Universe and His creations. And, the Universe, the Human beings and His creations are strong evidence of His existence.

    I strongly disagree with Atheists but I respect their opinion and beliefs. 
    Thank you

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for respecting my opinion - for I am atheist.

      Each one of us can appreciate having a ball of mud thrown in our face.  We know that it would hurt, possibly get in our eyes, in our mouthe, and generally cause discomfort ... Because we each possess a  genetically programmed set of sensory nerves that each of has used to warn us of pain.  This is obvious, is it not?  And I mean no disrespect to those individuals who have suffered the loss of those senses. 

      In the suggestion that a "God" exists is the presumption that e very one will have a similar and comparable sensation or experience which proves the existence of that God.  Now we can be sure that no two persons can have such a comparable experience.  You have already stated that such a god is not  physical or detectable by our normal earthly senses, so how can there ever be agreement as to the nature, character, attributes or reality of such a supernatural being?

      Thus, Sir, your analogy is not a valid or logical one.  In no way can it be a reasonable argument for the existence of "God." 

      The wonders of this world are evidence of a remarkable, wonderful world and maybe its origin is in some kind of mindful creator, but religious teachings are all, I repeat ALL man-made. 

      Of course you have my respect if you wish to continue in your beliefs, but the beliefs do not have my respect.

  40. PhoenixV profile image66
    PhoenixVposted 8 years ago

    If we were all fooled there is no matter only energy, maybe we are being fooled again. There is no energy. Just a concept or idea of past, present and future energy.

  41. PhoenixV profile image66
    PhoenixVposted 8 years ago

    The observation of Schrödinger's cat did not kill the cat. Our concept of the future determined its outcome.

    1. PhoenixV profile image66
      PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Edit.

      Not "our" concept of the future determined the outcome. "A" concept of the future determined the outcome. Concepts are of the mind. Reality is a concept of past present future reality and is the extension of a mind. Therefore God is existing.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Right. It's not that our conscious mind has an impact or makes a change, it's our perception that is changed. A particle actually exists in its quantum superposition. In all positions simultaneously. Our observation doesn't change the particle itself, only our perception of it. When we observe it, it becomes part of the concept of reality we hold in our mind. When you observe that particle, your mind applies it's grasp of reality onto it. In our experience of reality, it's within time and space. It's a series of moments. So in the particular moment that you observe that particle it has a specific position.

        Reality IS our observation of it. Kind of like the whole does a falling tree make a noise if there's no one there to hear it thing. It exists as it does in our mind because in each moment we observe it it had a definite place in time and space. So reality to us is a strung together set of observations in a series of moments. Like a cartoon. Frame by frame, snapshots of our observances of the universe, strung together and stored in memory. Each time we remember back to one of those snapshots, the universe had a specific time and place and appearance. That was reality in that moment. In 'reality', reality is all of those potential positions and actions and appearances simultaneously. It's all of those things at the same 'time'. But in our perception of reality, it's a series of snapshots.

        So to us THAT's reality. That cartoon we've each watched. Each version different than the other. Each of us has seen a similar, yet different, version of the same cartoon. And we've each come away with different impressions based on what we've observed. There's enough there that's the same that allows us to discuss with one another our various interpretations. But there are differences there that makes each a different experience.

        1. PhoenixV profile image66
          PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I always worry that I am not looking at something from all angles. I see a mind/body argument. I see one side mind I see another side body and I worry that there could be a state of the mind that is similar as an analogy at least, to the state of the cat, neither here nor there which explains the conflict of positions- argument -mind or body mind or physical.Or are we limiting the state of the cat in the box when all of reality is in the box.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Well don't worry. You can't look at something from every angle. If observing you can only look at one perspective at a time. Conceptually, in your mind, you can look at any one snapshot of any one moment from multiple angles. There not actual observances, only imagined snapshots. So it's not actually an observation. Your observing an immaterial snapshot of a moment that can no longer be physically observed.

            We're not limiting the state of the cat. We have no impact on the state of the cat, other than putting it in a deathtrap box. Our observations of the cat are changing the state of our mind's concept of that cat. All outcomes are true outside of the context of time. The cat is alive, true, the cat is dead, also true. The cat, being trapped in the box, cannot change position spatially. Only time determines whether or not the question of alive or dead is true or false. Only with time can there be a false. Our observation applies time. because reality in our mind is what we observed in each moment over time. Both states are true, depending on the snapshot you saw last.

  42. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    I never said weather is predictable longer than 5 days. Anyone who watches the morning news knows that.

    And again, just because I question you doesn't mean you're speaking about something I don't understand. I know what you're suggesting when you refer to complex systems and their dynamics. What I don't get is, again, how you use that to justify what you're suggesting. You seem to think that dynamic systems is enough to turn energy into consciousness. I'd like you to explain that.

    And I don't dismiss systems. I've been going on about DNA, a system.

  43. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    Organized systems self-aligning out of chaos is part of my argument for intelligent intent. I don't dismiss them.

  44. PhoenixV profile image66
    PhoenixVposted 8 years ago

    If Mr Slarty was to pick up a football from the ground and throw it.  We could conclude that Mr Slarty's will caused it.  Reality appears to have motion. I have a working example of a mind willing matter into motion. Therefore motion in reality is more reasonably the will of a mind.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The brain exists because we deal with motion. Things that don't move around don't have one. Some sea plants have tadpoles instead of seeds or spores. Sea squirts have a brain in tadpole mode. When they find a place to grow roots they settle in and eat their brain while waiting.

  45. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago

    But why do people get hooked on drugs?

  46. RockerGinger profile image68
    RockerGingerposted 8 years ago

    The idea of any form of faith having evidence seems like a contradiction in terms. Faith is believing in something/someone without being presented any evidence; to go off of a feeling that you believe to be earnest.
    I personally (and I do not mean this in a judgmental way) do not understand the need for evidence, or if there is even a place for it in anything faith based.

    1. wilderness profile image76
      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely correct - there is nothing wrong with using faith as a basis for a belief system...until that system is forced onto others that DO require evidence for their belief system.  Kim Davis, the KKK and ISIS all come to mind, as does the inquisition, witch hunts and the crusades.

  47. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    That doesn't mean you've got two different conscious entities in your mind. You experience you're mind. You 'are' your mind. There's no other second awareness in the subconscious. The same thought, only having access to one side of the brain or the other in its process of forming, or the brain's process of weighing the possibilities and possible outcomes of a given action, that same thought could and probably would have two very different outcomes once the ability to assess the data in both sides of the brain is interrupted. Nothing strange about that.

    Just think about what happens in your brain when you make a decision. You imagine the possible outcome. You access memories about the parties involved and how you imagine they might respond to something. These things play into your decision. Imagine if only half of them were available to you. You might decide very differently.

    Schizophrenia has more to do with the ego. A person who develops multiple fully formed personalities. We all form our personalities in our formative years. And I, as I'm sure did as well, formed multiple personalities for the various situations I found myself in. I'd act one way with my parents because I feared punishment. So I found a way to act that got me in trouble the least. I've got another for when I'm in an unfamiliar situation amongst strangers. When a person's unable to distinguish between these, when these personalities refuse to let up, that when you find yourself with a mental problem. Might be a chemically induced, or a genetically induced, or caused by some sort of physical damage.



    And that's where we disagree. You're putting all your eggs in one basket. A basket that's unlikely to answer your questions within your lifetime. I can't do that. These are the questions central to who we are and why we're here. In a lot of ways it should inform just how you spend your time here. What you value as truly important. It's kind of a big deal and not just something I can shrug my shoulders at and say, "Eh, science will figure it out eventually."





    No, they're supernatural. Like energy, it's something that pre-exists the universe. It's something not of this material world. It's not material/mechanical. That's what makes free will possible. Because there's an element to who we are that isn't beholden to natural law. That's what free will is. The freedom to act of our own volition and not according to God's will/natural law.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      "The same thought, only having access to one side of the brain or the other in its process of forming, or the brain's process of weighing the possibilities and possible outcomes of a given action, that same thought could and probably would have two very different outcomes once the ability to assess the data in both sides of the brain is interrupted."

      Yet both sides can function on their own? And "you" aren't split? Come now. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's pretty darn likely its a duck. Clearly there is more than one awareness in your brain.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        What makes you think a will emanating from two different places is two different wills? Because they differ? They're decision is formed by data collected and available to them. Of course they're different. Doesn't mean it isn't all the same will. There's not a second will inside you or I. There's just the one.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Cut a worm in half and you get two worms, not one. Cut a brain in half you get two wills from two separate locations. One worm when whole, two when cut in half. One source of will in an integrated brain, two in a separated brain. 

          Again, were the subconscious only a repository it wouldn't try to control the body

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            You're talking like a severed corpus collasum is separating the conscious brain from the subconscious. There's still just the one conscious mind. You've only severed the connection between the two sides. So, with access to only one side or the other the same conscious mind reaches different conclusions. It's as simple as that.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Yet they can function separately? They were one. Now they are two.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                You're thinking in purely material terms. What about quantum entanglement? Is that two separate elements, or are they one?

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Two. One matter and one antimatter. Connected. Not certain how yet.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    The point is the space between doesn't matter.

                  2. PhoenixV profile image66
                    PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAR5AAAAJGFmMDM3OWZhLTQ1ZmUtNGM5MS05ZDcyLWJkNzdkZjRjOThkNw.jpg

    2. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      "Just think about what happens in your brain when you make a decision. You imagine the possible outcome. You access memories about the parties involved and how you imagine they might respond to something. These things play into your decision. Imagine if only half of them were available to you. You might decide very differently."

      Yeah, and beat yourself for it too. Looks like a duck to me. Your description is fine. But this is exactly what one would expect with two competing wills. If one was just a repository it shouldn't be taking control of your body. Quack quack.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        It's all the same will. Same capability. You seem to think it's a material thing so it must occupy just the one space. We're not talking about something material here, so you have to stop thinking in those terms.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          You have to stop telling me what I think. Lol... The mind, conscious and sub are brain. They arise from physical conditions in the brain, as far as we know. I think you have to start thinking more down to earth and less supernatural. But that's just me..

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            If the behaviors of the elements we're speaking of were more consistent with that kind of thinking I would. But they're not. Their behavior tells me we're dealing with something else. Like this behavior in particular that we're discussing now.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Your expectations are skewed by your belief that you already have the answer: it's all supernatural. Well prove the supernatural exists and you might gain some credibility. As of now, natural is the only real game in town.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                As you said, I really wish you'd stop telling me what I'm thinking and why. You're completely off base and are making some pretty stereotypical assumptions along the way.

                "Well prove the supernatural exists and you might gain some credibility."

                Every time you say this you just show that you don't get it. I really don't have it in me to explain it to you again.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Nor do you have to. Because you think there is no way to prove it even in principal you think I should give it credence. That's the most illogical nonsense I've ever heard.

                  Ok. No way to prove it. So it's meaningless because even were it true you are never going to know it with certainty. No one else can either.

                  You must have faith.

                  Sorry. To me it's rubbish.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    No, you're dismissing the logic that's perfectly sound. The fact remains science can't account for anything. You say that if it's unprovable it's meaningless. Not true at all. It's part of reality. Part of the story. Part of the explanation. So it's far from meaningless. To think that all that's provable is all that's meaningful is illogical.

                    Science isn't the only method. It's dealing with physical things so there are absolutes that can be established. That's great. But that's just part of the story. We're talking about all of existence. To limit it to only what can be confirmed through the senses is senseless.

    3. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      "formed multiple personalities for the various situations I found myself in. I'd act one way with my parents because I feared punishment. So I found a way to act that got me in trouble the least. I've got another for when I'm in an unfamiliar situation amongst strangers. When a person's unable to distinguish between these, when these personalities refuse to let up, that when you find yourself with a mental problem. "

      Yup. You got it. We all have multiple integrated personalities.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        But they're not physical things. They're the ego.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Ego is a set of conditions.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, according to your baseless theory.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Baseless only according to you. Everything is a set of conditions. That's what real things are.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                That's just speculation. You have no proof of that, no evidence to support it. That's what I mean by baseless.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  If you think for just one second you'd see it's self evident. A little logic and it becomes clear. Truth itself is a set of conditions.

                  If you turn on your tap right now and get water, you will always get water. Unless... Unless what? Unless something in the system changes. In other words, if one of the conditions that make it possible for you to get water from the tap changes, you may not get water, or you might not like the water you get.

                  If nothing changes, you will always get water from the tap.

                  A tap works because of a water supply, pipes, and a pump put together in a specific way. Those are the conditions needed for indoor running water. What are the conditions required for liquid water? Hydrogen and oxygen fused together., the right temperature. Not below 0 degrees c and not above 100c.

                  Everything that exists, does so due to a set of conditions being true. Even you. Even your god; should it exist.

                  Fact. Not baseless in the least. Though I fully understand you wish it were.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, I get that. That's the difference between free will and determinism. Determinism means all of our actions are determined by conditions. No freedom of choice in the process. It's conditions and conditions alone that determine the outcome.

                    But if you think for just one second you'll see that we're not machines like that. We're more than that. We can't be reduced to that. We can't be nothing but material matter and still be who/what we are.

                    See, this is the problem with theories like conditioning. It makes sense. It's logical. And so is evolution, but there's a danger there. You can literally put anything into the vernacular of evolution and "explain" it. Whether it's true or not. Like ... sweat. Well, it proved beneficial to those who had that trait so that trait propagated. The same goes for conditioning. It makes sense. You can put anything in that vernacular and "explain" it. Like the mind. Sure, it makes sense, but is it actually true? Don't know. Makes sense. Sounds good. But there's no proof in that. Sounding good doesn't mean it's true.

                    "Though I fully understand you wish it were."

                    This is something you clearly don't get about me. No, I don't wish it were. I don't wish for reality to conform to what I think. What I want or wish is irrelevant. In fact, I look forward to anytime something I thought to be true is shown to be wrong. That means I'm learning something I not only didn't know before, but that I was wrong about. Those moments make all these days and days of endless bickering worth it. Every once in a while, I keep poking at someone whose views are diametrically opposed to mine, and they make me realize I didn't have something right. That's where I'm coming from. I'm not who you apparently think I am.

    4. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      "And that's where we disagree. You're putting all your eggs in one basket. A basket that's unlikely to answer your questions within your lifetime. "

      Better that then making stuff up or believing what others made up for the selfish desire to live forever. I know I can't have all the answers in my life time. But you can't either. You get less real certainty than I do.

      Fine for you, not for me. Two competing wills.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        You assume the God the ancient texts are talking about is born of those humans wanting to "selfishly" live forever. Except that I can show historical accuracy in their claims. What they were talking about was real and left a real impression on the world. You can have the answers. You just have to know where to look and what to look for.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          What ever actual history they included doesn't mean the parts about their god are true. And they weren't the ones wanting ever lasting life. That wouldn't become part of it untill the Christians came along. Hebrews just wanted a better life, and by doing what they thought pleased god they were at least not bringing his wrath on them as well.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            It's not the the actual history is accurate, it's that actual history reflects what we should expect to see if the stories they were telling were actually true. It's reflected in the evidence and in the writings of other cultures. We significant strides forward in technology and know how and stories that claim they were taught. And multiple stories from multiple cultures independent of one another that claim these beings were actually part of their history. It goes well beyond some historical events.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Yes I know your opinion. I don't share it for a second. What you see I don't. We never will agree on that.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                This portion isn't opinion. It's based on and supported by known facts.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Your facts. What's the Trump phrase? Alternative facts? I still like spin better.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    No. Again, I created a framework around the specific timeline given and the specific events it pinpoints along that timeline. I then pinpointed a period in history where that timeline and series of events lined up with the geographic locations given. Once I did I was then able to locate other events described as well, including a dramatic shift in human behavior that lines up with what the stories describing.

                    That's how it's done. It's based on facts. Evidence. I didn't twist anything. I created a hypothesis, made predictions against that hypothesis, and they proved true time and time again.

    5. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Energy is supernatural? Cool. I have my proof then.  lol... God has no nature? No method of functioning? Then it can't function. Even a rock has a nature. If it didn't it wouldn't exist. Are you trying to prove god doesn't exist? Energy has a nature.

      If energy is supernatural then everything is; because that's what everything is made of. Hence supernatural is just the natural.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        The difference is energy is detectable. Measurable.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Yes it is. That's because its real.

  48. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago

    Power
    Is this a verb or a noun?
    "power noun:
    1 ability, capacity, capability, potential, faculty, competence.
    2 control, authority, influence, dominance, mastery, domination, dominion, sway, weight, leverage; clout, teeth, drag; puissance.
    3 authority, right, authorization, warrant, license.

    power verb:
    5 strength, powerfulness, might, force, forcefulness, vigor, energy …

    "energy:
    1 the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity:
    2 power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, esp. to provide light and heat or   to work machines.
    3 Physics the property of matter and radiation that is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules)"

    "energy:
    vitality, vigor, life, liveliness, animation, vivacity, spirit, spiritedness, verve, enthusiasm, zest, vibrancy, spark, sparkle, effervescence, ebullience, exuberance, buoyancy, sprightliness; strength, stamina, forcefulness, power, dynamism, drive; fire, passion, ardor, zeal; zip, zing, pep, pizzazz, punch, bounce, oomph, moxie, mojo, go, get-up-and-go, vim and vigor, feistiness."

  49. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago

    Where does this power and energy come from.  We know It comes when a sperm and an egg unite. The big bang must have been similar?  lol
    In a star, hydrogen and helium interact to create its power and light. Perhaps helium is positive and hydrogen is negative. (or vice versa) and of course this was accidental! lol
    Thanks to our star, the sun, we have light and heat, days and nights
    and seasons thanks to the earth spinning on its axis, the moon and planets all holding everything in place... Its all too perfect to be accidental. There has to be a mastermind and a master heart, positive and negative forces swirling and being swirled in perfect order, perfect purpose. Without the bee, we are sunk. And what is the bee doing? pollinating flowers, vegetables and fruits. The bee is programed to go from flower to flower blooming in beautiful colors to attract the bee.

    to attract bees
    which gather nectar
    to leave pollen to
    create seeds
    to propagate LIFE.

    Can't we consider that the processes and products of nature are the direct manifestation of God?
    and that we are part of nature and manifest as God/force/power/life as well? If there is a God force, can we consciously tune into it? But we don't know how to? Of course, the yogis of India have taught how to tune into this power. Even Jesus taught how. I believe in the garden of Eden the first human beings knew how, but lost the ability as time went on. Why does God of the old testament not want man to worship matter (graven images, idols and imaginary gods)? He wants man to to stay focused on Reality/Spirit to avoid the suffering of delusion. Eventually, we will dissipate our human machine and merge back into Spirit to exist one with the Whole. It just makes sense.
    The Way I See It

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I agree at lot with what you are saying. Energy is god. We are energy.

  50. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years ago

    I can and have. Numerous times. You assign all these capabilities to energy with no evidence to support it. That's what's baseless. Your claim that energy generates consciousness. That's what specifically is baseless.




    I have zero evidence to the contrary because there is no evidence. For or against. Nothing to support your claim. Nothing.




    As I've said, this has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. Yes it's baseless. Baseless by anyone's standards.




    No, yours isn't based in reality and fact. You're imagining energy being capable of all these things that there's just no evidence in support of. Nothing to base it on. Yes, energy exists in reality, yes it itself is a fact, but these behaviors you claim it's capable of (consciousness), there's no evidence to support that. At all.




    I haven't given up. I just recognize that the continued stonewall where advances in understanding are concerned is an expected result. I'm just being logical.





    Your claims have nothing to do with GR or SR or physics in general. Nothing about any of those subjects in any way supports what you're saying.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Right. keep lying to yourself.... lol

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Name one thing I lied about. Or, I tell you what. You say that what you claim is based on science. Based on factual information. Show me someone qualified, who knows this information and is informed on the topic, who says what you're saying. I seriously doubt that if your claim is built totally on what's known, whatever it is, if it's feasible, has to have occurred to someone qualified at some point. Show me. I'm sure, if it's so obvious, that it's occurred to more than just you to be how this happened. This must be the explanation. So show me.

        And, as I'm sure you're going to bring it up, I should address the previous article you sent....

        "“The electric charge of an electron doesn’t arise out of more elemental properties. It simply has a charge,” says Koch. “Likewise, I argue that we live in a universe of space, time, mass, energy, and consciousness arising out of complex systems.” "

        This guy is, technically, claiming what you are if I understand you right, except that he lists the phenomenon of consciousness and energy as two separate things. His claim is that it's just an emergent property that naturally emerges anywhere the conditions are right without any sort of more elemental mechanism. That's one of those "laws" that has no explanation as to cause, but because it seems to prove true always and consistently, it's determined to be a law. A phenomenon that occurs, with no conceivable cause, must just emerge naturally somehow. But his claim doesn't appear to be siting energy as being the cause.

        One of us is certainly lying to ourselves. And we're going to expose it and get it sorted. This should just about do it. If you can't find someone who claims what you do, I'd say that should just about do it for your "based on science" obvious theory. Maybe then we can acknowledge the 'baselessness' of what you're claiming.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Let me address the first question. There are several things we are talking about here. Consciousness is one, energy is the source, is an other.  So you said previously there was no basis in science for me to say energy is the source. Now I've already shown you by way of a direct quote that Einstein tells us mass and matter are both created by energy. GR tells us it's the energy tensor density momentum that creates matter. That is to say in simplified terms: the density of energy below light speed.

          This slowing of energy which otherwise would always travel at C and be unable to produce mass, is due to the Higg's field. Itself a form of energy created in the BB.

          Physics is all about energy and it's behavior. It doesn't talk about what energy is because it seems to be the last stop, so we have no where else to go from there. If you ask me what something is, we can describe that object by what it does, and then how it's made, and then what it's made of: cells, proteins, chemicals, then if you keep asking we move to atoms. What are atoms? They are made from subatomic particles like quarks etc. And what are they made of? Energy. And what is energy?

          Well, it's everything. We can talk about smaller and smaller till we get to energy. Then we have no frame of reference to continue except to go forward.

          So even though you aren't going to see science today say energy is the source, because of great physicists like Fineman, (sp?) who objected to saying the implied obvious because we can't say what energy is.

          But it is something like the elephant in the room in physics because Einstein as much as told us it's the source. But that has huge religious implications, so it's left unsaid, though it's obviousely what he meant.

          Now there is another school called QM, which want's everything to be a particle. They, unlike most physicists with the exception of string theorists, don't like Einstein's insistence that gravity isn't a force, isn't caused by a particle, But QM's math not only fails to predict gravitons, it's predictions all fail to match reality, and end up with infinites. Hence why the search for a unified field theory.

          They still have to use Albert's equations for gravity in the mean time. I doubt they will find one and we don't need it. QM, while brilliant, isn't complete. Albert's theory has never been proven wrong, and constantly gets proven correct.

          So I am simply saying what he said, and building a model on it.

          Now as to consciousness. I would not have talked about the article I sent because I don't think he's right. Again, there are several interpretations in science of what consciousness is. Roger Penrose and his team think consciousness is a quantum state that's happening everywhere, but without memory it's just a flash of awareness inherent in the fabric of space time that goes nowhere. It humans it happens over 40,000 times per second as wave function collapse occures over microtubuals in the brain.

          I'm not convinced.

          Eastern mystics tell us everything is based on consciousness/awareness. Energy is consciousness to some, to others it's something different. 

          Some neuroscientists see it as part of the nervous system.

          Christians see it as soul. Materialists, which not all scientists are, see it as probably being an emergent property of the brain. That's my model as well.

          Point is, much of science implies as much, but scientists have wildly varying opinions, all based on science. Anyone could be right, or we could all be wrong.

          But I am investigating the materialist view based on science, from a slightly different perspective than main stream materialism, and in particular the nature of energy, which itself isn't material, but which creates the material world..

          In any event; it's all going to take a lot more study before we have a definitive answer.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)