I have undoubtedly felt the presence of God in my life. I've seen miracles, on both a personal and a social level. I've had my prayers answered in the right place and at the right time, and my life has been blessed.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world, and I know this because I have fasted and prayed, and have in reality received an answer.
How do you Know he exists?
A few years ago, there was a tsunami that wiped out a quarter million believers in god, all of whom most likely prayed to be saved from the tsunami, but quickly found their prayers were unanswered.
Would this be considered something that demonstrates gods existence?
I would ask how it is that you have had your prayers answered and have received an answer while a quarter million others were swept to their deaths?
Have you ever heard the song "some of GODS greatest gifts are unanswered prayers" A continuing life in this physical world is not Gods greatest gift. Sometimes I think that we can worship this physical existence too much. The creation more than the Creator??
This sounds cold hearted but in a limited physical world death is a necessity to sustain a cycle of birth. If we were able to make the choice between the two, which would you choose
The people that are alive to never die or the end of new beginnings.
I'm not sure what you're implying here, but could it be that you're saying those quarter million people were justified to die, that they were supposed to die, that it was all part of a plan?
I wasn't intentially implying anything but making an observation. I do think that physical death must be a part of Gods plan. As if he sits around with a voyeuristic mentality? I seariously doubt that. I am saying that for someone that believes in a hereafter; death is a nessary event to arive at the desired destination.
While I understand the journey is supposed to be life and the desired destination requires death to get there, many of those swept away had yet to barely begin such a journey, infants and children.
It's interesting to note the sheer magnitude in numbers of such an event in consideration of a gods plan. So many, so quickly, for a desired destination they all most likely weren't desiring at the time.
It truly was a devastating event. There is no answer for any tragedy. I just try to keep an attitude such similar to what I expressed earlier especially when someone close to me is involved. I believe the tsunami was not an act of god per sa, but a sign of the times.
So, if god had nothing to do with causing the tsunami, why didn't he stop it from killing so many of his children? Could he not stop it? Did he want them to all die?
As you can see, it gets very confusing when the claims for god doing this and doing that are made redundant by such an event.
What do mean by "a sign of the times?"
This is exactly what happens when people start a discussion about an imaginary being. How can there be a rational discussion about an imaginary being? Delusion wins by default!
I understand how difficult that can be especially when no consistent reference points have been established. Getting to the heart of such a discussion eventually begins to reveal those reference points, but they usually are not found where the proponent expected them to be and is forced to rethink his imaginary beings position.
No one knows all of the answers. Everyone is going to die at some time, someplace, some way. How many people die everyday someplace in the world? It is no less of a tragedy if one person dies in an auto accident to that persons family than if 200,000 people die while gathered together on the coast lines or whether 200,000 people die in individual occurrences it is not any more or less of a tragedy. That number of surviving family members suffering their loss would be the same.
As I posted earlier, If people stop dieing the cycle of new beginnings would have to cease.
The event of one new life; living in a state of becoming, learning new things, experiencing new experiences are worth as much or more than than a dozen old farts such as myself sitting in a rocker remembering past living.
Why were the young also taken?? I have no clue.
All that I know is that in a limited space the rate of birth and death has to resemble some kind of over all balance or at some point the whole life event must come to its conclusion. I do not think that God necessarily selects those that falls into the minus column. Balance must be maintained within certain boundaries.
Well thats a pretty tough question. I don't know why God would wipe out all of those people, but I think that in times of disaster it is usually the people and organizations who believe in God that respond with the most force, giving aid to the surviving families. I know that when the tsunami hit the coast a few years ago, stock shelves were emptied, and cash by the millions was dispensed to those in need of it by my church.
But I think that God has a purpose for everything that he does, and when I die, I won't be the one that is suffering, it will be my family who will need the help.
In times of disaster all too many people ask why God would do this to them, but I would rather pray for the strength to bear and endure all things.
In regards to disastrous events whether they be caused by nature mass murder or whatever those are always tough situations. and when i was a young Christian i would always wonder why God did that. But as i matured in my Christianity i learned that God does not control every event that happens on His Creation. If He did then we could never put a murderer on trial because ultimately God would have been responsible.I know that is an extreme example but God Does not always cause things to happen,sometimes it just does its all a part of a mortal existence.I would not want anything to do with a god who did things like that.as mortals we tend to blame things we have no control over on God. here is a parting thought. remember on 9/11 the towers and surrounding area only had a fraction of the people there that usually occupied the area on any given day but because of several traffic and other situations people were late and not there when the towers were attacked. thousands of lives were spared.That was God.
It is a question that probably would never get answered but it is also a question deserving of an answer. If it be gods will then the installation of tsunami warning systems might not be a good idea.
If it's just nature working entirely on it's own, we can take as many necessary precautions our technologies will support.
We should probably check on that. I wouldn't want to begin questioning a gods unconditional love for his children when so many were needlessly wasted and their surviving families are torn asunder with grief.
Yes, it is indeed a question deserving of an answer.
Perhaps that's just a similar correlation between people who helped out and their religious beliefs and a correlation between the people who helped out that didn't hold religious beliefs. It would be rather presumptuous to claim believers are more compassionate than non-believers, especially in times of catastrophe.
Do you feel that's a better alternative to creating tsunami early warning systems? Should scientists not be working towards creating and deploying such systems if we consider gods will?
The question "How could God allow this" has been invoked often since nine-eleven, the Indonesian tsunami, and the election of President Obama. We're horrified by the sudden and massive loss of life in a moment. But for a timeless Being like God, He does not view it that way. From God's perspective, He sees thousands die every day across the planet, not to mention the death of other living things. In fact, given that He is unaffected by the passage of time like we are, He simply is not phased by the "sudden and unexpected event."
It's death that's the culprit here, not the number of people who are dying in a moment. We're all going to die at some point. We deal with death better if it's spread out over time. But, it's just as tragic from God's perspective to lose one in a moment as to lose a million.
I dont get your point. So what if they died ? What if God wanted them to? (btw the stats are too big lol)
See life this way, all challenges in your life are created by God as tests and its up to you how you deal with them.
I have felt the presence of a divine force many many times, maybe ill publish a hub about my experience some time, but i feel that there is some force out there looking after us
It seems he is only "looking after us" if we are born in a rich country!
I would much rather live in a godless world in which natural disasters are part of it rather than having to live in fear knowing that a god will snuff out my life whenever he feels the urge.
What "test" was there in killing a quarter million people?
Was he also "looking after" the people who died in the tsunami?
I would be interested to read your experiences with divine forces.
As long as people continue to believe that life ends with the death of the body, it will continue to seem cruel for people to die. I believe death is as much a part of life as birth and thus part of the one continuing cycle. Just as a seed must "die" to grow, we must also "die" to grow. It's not easy to accept in a society that values life more than anything. We don't know how to deal with death and we are afraid to ask. One of my favorite stories to explain "life" and "death" is the waterbug story. You can read it here [http://www.healingheart.net/stories/waterbug.html].
One thing to remember is that even though the dragon fly went on, he still experienced life, but in a different way. Still the cycle continues.
So, for example, he'll say yes to some mediocre request like winning a bingo game, but will say no to a quarter million people keeping their lives?
Is that what you mean?
What your question requires of me is to question Gods Will. How could I know the answer? Do I think it would be better morally to think as you do about quarter million saved. Sure. But what does that have to do with Gods Will. Is the belief in God to be predicated on a reward? I think not. Do I defend Gods decisions? I don't think it would matter. Gods will is His own. Ours is merely to discover our own place in it.
Check the bible, you'll find gods word there and your answers.
No idea. I just thought it would be an important question to ask considering a quarter million people lost their lives in a single event. I think you would most certainly be asking that question if your loved ones were lost in it.
So, if we found that it was gods will to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single blow, we might want to reconsider installing tsunami pre-warning systems. We wouldn't want to go against gods will by warning us the next time he decides on a partial genocide, would we?
It would appear, evidently, that those who died found their own place as fish food.
Hate to tell you this, but you are arriving at an erroneous conclusion, by assuming the "presence" you felt, and a perceived answer to your prayers defaults to God or Jesus. That's the very same thing as saying that Thor helped me start my car! THE SAME THING, BECAUSE, I COULD TELL YOU "I KNOW THOR EXISTS!"
Exactly! nobody really knows whether GOD exist,thats where faith begins...but, I personally am convinced that GOD exist, and convicted to live believing in GOD-Jesus Christ and try harder to be a good christian,rather than die not believing and later find out that there is really GOD, that for me could be so devastating.
Hi maudine, are you serious LOL< jk? BTW, congrats on your new job, Maita
Yeah! serious this time its about GOD so need to be...
God is not an external being to be observed, by his nature he can be found in us. Where there is love there is God. When we give of ourselves we share God with another.
I was raised in the Pentacostal religion and they believed in miracles and the laying on of hands,speaking in tongues,ect... So being RAISED IN IT i was a believer in God. If any of you have been to some of there services you understand what i talking about. These were very emotinal church services and you FELT it and we called it Gods presence. Well now im 32 yrs old and as i look back and reflect, to say God is real based on a FEELING is the most deceptive thing ever. Im telling you that feelings and emotions will decieve you and people call it God. Trust me i was a die hard believer. But now i realize it was just EMOTIONALISM!! Ive prayed to God and he never talked to me once, it doesnt work. Its all in peoples heads trust me!!! People say i KNOW God but they have never met him face to face. You cant have a relationship with someone you cant see. Ever have a friend try to have a long distance relationship guess what IT DOESNT WORK!! It makes me sick people saying they know God and they base that on a FEELING CMON!! For example you can read a bio on George Washington and learn all about his life. But to say you KNOW HIM WOULD BE A LIE!!! See what im saying. Think about it peace!!
Being raised in church is not salvation. There is a time when one must accept or reject the gospel of Christ.
You saw emotions in the services I am sure. It is hard not to get emotional whern the presence of God comes. Just look at how emotional girls got when Elvis showed his face. God is much greater than he ever could be.
Did you even read the comment? WOW!!! I was also raised in the Pentecostal Church(Asylum) I know exactly what this poster is writing about. Oh yeah! I was just as 'saved' as you are, my friend, so don't give me that cr_p about not really being a Christian. But like this poster, I had enough courage to think. Try thinking--if you've got any courage, you'll see that your God is a fraud.
You know, I read every word. Just because you aren't man enough to handle being a follower of Jesus doesn't mean the pentecostal church is wrong or ignorant.
If you want to go to any church GO i cant stop you! I was just telling my expierence in the pentecostal church. You can follow Jesus if you want. But i followed him faithfully i thought at the time until i relized you cant follow something you cant see, can u understand that simple statement. People think their following Jesus but their really just following a book. Im not hear to change peoples beliefs i learned its not possible. But there was a time when i was as you. I was a big time holy roller!! I witnessed i prayed i fasted i did it all that foolishness! FOLLOWING A BOOK CALLED THE BIBLE DOES NOT MEAN YOU KNOW GOD!!! Are there good priciples in the bible YES, but all religious book have some good priciples! BIG DEAL!!! IN ORDER TO KNOW GOD YOU HAVE TO MEET GOD AND COMMUNICATE MOUTH TO MOUTH. Common sense tells you that!
Man enough? Yeah like a slave on my knees worshipping my invisible master. Go ahead Mr. BRAVE follower. This is extremely ILLOGICAL!!!
BTW, I consider the Pentecostal Church wrong, ignorant, primitive, stupid, irrational, abusive, insane...
Man enough to be a follower of Jesus?
You think being a follower of jesus requires you to be a"man"?
Incredible. Jesus would be proud of this attack on your fellow "woman"? "little girl"? "homo sapiens"?
Thank you for reminding us all of the true value of your belief system.
I appreciate it.
Oh yeah...that burning in hell for eternity thing, YIKES!!!
But, what if you found yourself standing before Allah, for example, and it was Islam that was the correct religion? What would you do then?
The last post here has to be the most cheap copout i've heard of. At best its a poor loser's hedge.
You are going with the theory that if you can't see Him then He does not exist.....hmmmm we can't see your brain, so by your theory it does not exist. God IS real and you must open your heart to Him or you will spend eternity in Hell when you die, and I promise you that's not somewhere you want to be!!!
This is ridiculous. There is no such place as hell!!! That is insanity!!! And, my friend, you can't promise me anything, based on your pure delusional garbage.
By the way, if you cut my skull open you will find my brain. It is composed of gray matter. Your god is imaginary, and your argument is baseless, illiogcal and lacks any merit.
Can we can one thing straight? The topic says- How do you know God exist?
There is a single person in the world, who can honestly say that God exists and science has already dismissed the 'god' concept from reality.
So, I'm going to side with getitrite on this one. There is NO way that you can say 'god' exists, when YOU can't even prove it to yourself- 100%.
And, if you're thinking that you can or that you have, please save your breath. I have science that will call you a liar and I wouldn't want to see that happen in a public forum. It wouldn't be cool.
And, just so you know- science has defined the human body, all of it's organs and each exists in reality, regardless of whether or not you can see them. If a human being is alive and talking, then obviously their brain is functioning.
Since science has defined the human body, including the brain, it's also TOLD us what our Consciousness is, and what our conscience is and what our subconscious is- and if that's not good enough and you need more information- YOU can not FOOL your consciousness or your conscience or even your subconscious into believing the B.S. you're pedaling here.
It is impossible for you to convince yourself 100% that god really exists, because it's human nature to apply sense to things that are real. Yes, I know you have doubts. I don't need to be told- it's biology.
I'm very sorry but it's not likely someone is going to "open (their) heart" under threats such as that. Essentially, you are saying, "Love me or fry for an eternity"
Isn't that something an insane murderous despot would do and not something a god would do?
you will find god in any dictionary,Its in the G's
I've boubt had it with this stupid religious schit...same ole stuff day in and day out...hell...it'll get one banned.
I know He exists because He revealed Himself to me. The Bible didn't reveal Him to me. Men didn't reveal Him to me.
Many of us have felt the presence of 'God'in our lives, but why put the label of Jesus Christ on 'HIM'?
We all call this power by a different name. It works whatever name you give 'Him'.
I know that "Gods" (cosmic principles etc.) exist, because I'm still alive after 61 years of experiences in a dangerous world! (d.48) ...
I see him in the mirror every morning when I shave!
how do you know it doesn't? does it matter?
He/she doesn't in my world. I believe in something far more powerful and rewarding.
But no matter what "god" anyone believes in, as long as it provides them clarity of life, then it isn't wrong
this is a poem I came across when my Friesian horse was killed in an accident. I consistently asked...."why him and NOT ME....he was so innocent". This poem did provide some answers. On Tuesday, I found my Goat who we loved so very much deceased at the very young age of 2 years. This poem provides the answer for me WHY he was taken from us so quickly....he'd learned his lessons that he needed to learn and it was time to move on. As difficult as it is to believe, I think this poem applies to all living things that have been lost due to what ever type of death. You can define "GOD" in this poem as whatever or whomever you'd like. I'm providing this simply as a demonstration of looking at why maybe some are saved while some are not (i.e. my horse and myself).
THE GRANDEST FOAL
I'll lend you for a little while,
My grandest foal, God said.
For you to love while he's alive,
And mourn for when he's dead.
It may be one or twenty years,
Or days or months, you see.
But will you, til I take him back,
Take care of him for me?
He'll bring his charms to gladden you
And should his stay be brief,
You'll have those treasured memories,
As solace for your grief.
I cannot promise he will stay,
Since all from earth return.
But there are lessons taught on earth
I want this foal to learn.
I've looked the wide world over
In my search for teachers true.
And from the throngs that crowd life's lanes,
With trust, I have selected you.
Now will you give him all your love?
Nor think the labor vain,
Nor hate me when I come
To take him back again?
I know you'll give him tenderness
And love will bloom each day.
And for the happiness you've known,
You will forever-grateful stay.
But should I come and call for him
Much sooner than you'd planned.
You'll brave the bitter grief that comes,
And maybe understand.
You would rather die before a horse? Doesn't that go against your religion or god-entity?
Tim, you and I are on the same page as far as this whole topic goes. So, No, it doesn't go against my beliefs. My beliefs are very similar to what you've described as being yours. I, personally, regardless of my beliefs, would rather sacrifice my life to save one of my "family" members. All of those who've I've brought into my home are my family.
It is rare I comment on this forum, but I felt moved to say "well done" for posting this, and it certainly touched my heart as a fellow animal lover.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm detecting a hint of apathy here towards the religous stuff.You guys seem to have rationalized God out of existance in your minds, I however will continue to believe in God and Christ because They have made my life better, when the things of the world have taken the back seat and people become selfless they feel right, because it is in our nature (by Godly design)to do good and feel good, and when we do wrong we instinctively feel out of sync with with our true nature.
But I'm not here to win an argument over my beliefs, that stuff is counter productive. If you see somthing as a bad thing then it will be bad to you, no matter what anyone says, you get to make that decision.
But, he made the lives of hundreds of thousands of people grievous by allowing a tsunami to kill their beloved ones. Why didn't Christ save them from a horrible death and instead made your life better?
It isn't so much as seeing a quarter million people get washed away to their deaths in a single day as a good thing especially when gods sit idly by as it happens. Then, we have to hear about how good life is with those same gods.
I'm seeing some serious contradiction here.
I have said it before and I have I will say it again , a finite mind like ours no matter how brilliant you may think you are cannot possibly articulate something greater then ourselves . Our thinking is far too limited ! I cannot fathom omnipotence
that's a good question, how does one know when all we have is a book written (in short) by our selves, meaning humanity? i'd say look around at nature and outer space, but then science comes in and gives the textbook answers on such things. however, when hearing of things like people helping others in times of need and when disaster strikes people ban together to help and rebuild, science can't fully explain that desire to help someone, so I think that can only come from a higher calling
Science is still in it's infancy and has a lot of growing to do. It's not so much that science can't fully explain something, it's just that science can't explain it yet. It will, some day, just as it is explaining a great many other things and continues to do each day.
It's really not fair to default to a supernatural explanation simply because the real explanation hasn't presented itself yet. There have been beliefs over the centuries shown to be wrong where people were forced to change their minds in the light of real explanations.
That "higher calling" is nothing more than a human trait.
The Day the Tsunami came and a quarter of a million people were wipped off their feet and swept to death, I was so distressed and searched for ansers too, why why why? all those people died through that Tasunami!
really even I can't answer that question, besides, I hate flying as your feet are never on the solid ground that I thought was the safest place anywhere, I never felt at ease in a plane,its a man made object and can develop a fault and fall out of sky and kill all on board!! so I could not wait for the plane to land back on ground and until then I never felt safe even for a second! I never felt safer anywhere other than on the ground!!
But the day the Tasunami came, I lost my trust even in this ground that I took it for granted!!
so there you go, life and death is beyond our control!
I guess you do not like my thought process?
To answer your question as to what I base my thinking on....
I don't know why I should but why not.
I have been widowed twice, once at the age of 21.
Lost a five year old daughter unexpectedly a coupla years later.
And that is just the tip of the iceburg.
Been asking myself ?WHY? about a lotta thingsfor a long long time.
It seems that .. Cause .. is sometimes the only answer that you are goina get!! If we think that we can find the answer and we will be able and willing to do something about it, we should keep on worrying and looking for that answer. If you can't or won't do anything probuctive about it, why worry about it.
Sometimes we should shrug our shoulders and tell ourselves ... "CAUSE IT IS". And keep on living.
I see an interesting view you have there...about 'cause it is'?
You claim to use this for only selective things. How ever, since you haven't said 'cause it is' before, I am now intrigued to ask you something else.
And, I want you to think about applying that exact same answer to the next two questions.
Why does the universe exist?
Why does mankind exist?
And, I'll leave it to you to ponder - Why I asked to do this? Once you figure it out, let me know.
Thank you for this opportunity. Without your view 'cause it is', I couldn't have presented you with this thought.
for this first question.
Why does the universe exist. I really do not know with all certainty that it does exist as it is portrayed. I have seen little glimpses of it while lying on my back looking up at it from here on earth. I have been told how vast that it is. I have not seen it's grandeur. I have seen pictures that they say are pictures of it. I choose to take their word for it and have faith that it does exist as they say that it does
"cause it is".
The same way that I have seen little glimpses of the creator I choose to believe and have faith that he is,,,
"CAUSE IT IS"
FOR THE SECOND QUESTION Why does man kind exist..
"Cause it does"
If you see the morning sun, if you see, the moon in the light of day, if you recognize the mirror imagery, of the absolution, of the miracles of life of the halieluas at the churches at the morning breeze, in the scientific methodology, if you study the metaphoric meaning you would really actuate the idealism of hold your breath when you get up set, for the G is the core of earth, now remember God is more than but he is the fullimentation of a collection of mind is not a state of mind, in the idealism, we are the uniuge, of the mirror image of the signia of the mind is the membrain of the earth core to the challenge of the atmosherical oxegenated perfectory, of the o to the D of and wich nis the barrier between heaven and hell of
If you were to analize the forums of the triangular design of the chemical design you would a triangular mind of nuet, pos, neg, this holds among all minds of institutions and to think God does not exists, you are bipolar fool,
for the collections of mind of the realm of infinite minds of space and time you will see the eye of infinite mind, and if you real nice you maybe able to feel the anti thunder of fathers mime of his mother mind, of and is not celebrated in thee days and time, for he does not give this priceless gift untill heaven exists.
Faith is not the final frontier of the imagery perceptional circumstances, of your last crash to the acknowledgement of the existence of heaven, for to remember we are here for a purpose beyond the existence of pain, is to remember who we are in the eye of the goodness of the spiritual essence of peace and harmony, this said if your weak and weery, slow it down, in the essence of a meditative healing cylinder of the miracle of the absolutions, to the mirage of the oceans, its still faith for God is everything you want to be, the ideology that there is war among bretherens of a different faith is the fellowship of loss self enduced streams of sleepless conciences, for the 7 streams of Budda, is the systems of peace of no loss, in faith the energy of the halieluuas, is the pragmatic induced forum of healing of faith of lifting the soul, its a process of mirrors to the acknowledgement of formulations of proffused energy reversly mezmorized infinite stimuli, of the absolutions of phrases is the silence of the rythmic sounds of the oceans without, the sorrounding waters, to the soul, is the uplifting serum of the mirrors uplifting you to the essence of and beyond the highlite of mystisisms, is the mirrors of water streamss of the river falls, of the unuige, absolutions of the abstractions of the painting on the wall, to the unveiling of the essence of the beauty of the neck of the perfum of the women of love of the essence of a smile in the morning un expectedly, keep your faith, this you will hold on, for the serum of life is the peace harmony of love of life.
I just read one of your hubs. It was as nonsensical as this post.
Mother Father son
Soul, Heart, Mind
mime, Concience, sub concience
Atmoshere, Earth, Man
Heaven, Existence, Life
mother, God, Cross
The cross stands for the ten commandments, and the ten horns of the sworded tounge is the subconcience affect of the other sons eye. to the battle of the con to the sub con.
heaven cross, life, you have to passs the cross of life.
The tree of life is the image of life existence of mirrors to the presence of life begins to the forum of mirrors our the imagery forums to the brilliance of faith for the tree is the forum of life among the breaze of the wind acros the forum the tree, is finning amonmg the mime of life in the mime of a tree, we will simulate the presence of life longevity of peacefull breazes, with the forum of life is more than a state of confusions among the walk of life is the life blood of our bretherens the definning forums or our we the profused confused of our necessary serums of the desire to succeed, of life is more than the forums of serums of death for the uniuge forum is the tree is here when the absence of visual essence the trees aare the mezmorizing serum of healing of germs of the anti serums of lost loves, to the forums your faith is the serum of heaven everly essence of breathingly, blowing sweeping the serums this is thyne own kingdom among the very nerves, of the mirrors to the mirage of the life of mirages to the fopal of day to day we are the finning tune of life longevity, to the fine tunning of life blood of serums of longevity of the heavens masses
Here is a prime example of the FALSEHOOD of religion!
Notice- where it says- "mime, Conscience, Subconscious", in particular.
What is a mime? It mimics others actions.
Do REALIZE: It does not recognize "Consciousness!" at all. How can this be?
They don't want you to be conscious about your life.
Thank you so kindly for putting that post up. They don't want you to recognize your consciousness or be a conscious person, so they can tell how to live and how to behave.
That worked out well. Thank you again.
There is not even a spot of evidence for a god. All conjecture and myth from one book, that followed a book that followed a book that ....
There isn't a spot of evidence that HE doesn't exist! Look around you. This earth is so perfectly in order that it couldn't possibly exist without God.
I know God exists cause my girlfriend told me so
and she is NEVER wrong...
she told me that too.
I love her very much...
Yep,she told me that too...
There is something about the guidance of the Holy Spirit that quickens the pulse and opens ones understanding. When I hear people without eloquence, or talent for public speaking, who can only say, "I know by the power of the Holy Spirit that the gosple is true." that same spirit manifests itsself to me, and light, glory, and immortality are laid out infront of me, and I know for myself that the testimonies of those people are true.
It doesn't matter how the persons words are presented, if they are flared up or not, or if they are good or bad speakers, what matters is that they speak the truth, by the power of God.
The Christian (I can't speak for other faiths) has the experience of "God with us." He has approached God on the basis of faith and God has fulfilled His promise that He will make himself real to that person in an experiential way. I know that God is real in my life.
This is not an argument for God per se. Rather it's the point that you can know God irrespective of arguments. I don't need the argument to personally validate His existence. The evidence for His existence as expressed in arguments (like the cosmological, ontological, teleological, moral, the church itself) is to show those that have not yet experienced God personally.
Men know that there's a God. Those that protest and say He doesn't exist have rejected His witness in nature. As the Bible puts it, they "hold the truth in unrighteousness." Of course, they will protest this too, saying things like "I was born an atheist." But the Bible says "let God be true and every man a liar."
Sadly - I doubt the veracity of your claim because of your actions and words. This is called using reason over faith.
A shame you propose to ignore that in favor of blind belief and self righteousness.
I was born an atheist.
Now call me a liar.
I know you do. And you wonder why the christian religion is the cause of so many wars.
Jesus must be very proud of you.
Do you need me to go back in the forums and show the proof?
You people invited me back Sir Dent. I graciously accepted.
But thank your for once again using semantics to remind us why the christian religion is so despised and so responsible for so much conflict. God tells you to do this I assume?
Got any good dead baby pictures for us today?
Typical atheist tactic. Get off topic to try and make everyone else look bad.
It doesn't matter if you were invited back or not. You said you were leaving then came back. Does being invited back negate the promise you made? NO!
I was born an atheist.
Now call me a liar for saying that.
Or shall we discuss going off topic?
You invited me back and - unlike you religionists - I can be flexible and adapt.I do not get my instructions form an invisible super being.
Sorry it upsets you to see me back. Why is that? And s[peaking of broken promises - you promise you love me - yet are behaving this way.
You were born depending on soemone greater than you because you were unable to care for yourself. You knew that someone was there even though you had no idea who it was. So you are a liar for saying that.
Am I your enemy because I tell you the truth? You can go back through all the forum posts you want and you will never see at anytime where I said I love you.
Another typical atheist tactic is to point out spelling errors and typos. Should I do so now?
It doesn't upset me that you came back. You never left. Two alter egos that are you. You asked to be called a liar and I did it.
Now go and cry to management so I can get banned for a few days.
I have not pointed out spelling errors or typos. And have never done so.
I was born depending on my mother to feed me annd keep me warm.
Lst time I checked - she was not an invisible super being and I could actually see her.,.
I did not then and do not now believe in an invisible super being who thinks it is wrong for gays to marry or women to choose an abortion.
I was born an atheist. As we all are until daddy tells you to say your prayers to baby jesus. You have no idea and are blinded by fear of jesus.
As for the banning? :lol;
Read this - I even linked to one of your hubs where you tell us god told you you are qualified to judge others:
As for calling people a "liar," I think you just called me one. I don't think you're telling the truth of the matter, but I don't necessarily think you are being deceitful. People can deceive themselves to the point that they actually believe their own lies. So, that could also be a possibility in your case. You have (or had) a knowledge of God at some point, but you have suppressed that knowledge (perhaps because of your experiences).
And you base all this on the psychotic words written in a book by men. Horrible controlling men at that!
Buddy, I'm starting to get the idea we are not dealing with adults, but mere children, using adult avatars to confuse us all.
These are "schoolyard taunts" that are SSSSOOOOO childish. Makes me shake my head with amazement.
Excellent passive aggressive attack dj. You are a genuine christian all right.
For some he exists when many believe that there is nothing like God. Yet. I know that if there is someone like God he will let us explain the way we feel about him.For the time being I think maybe there is some intelligent design or some thing like that.Proving his existence has nothing to do with this world except our mind which always seeking evidence so as we can get a concrete evidence about the existence of god.I think we all should respect everyone's opinion on this matter.If god existence then I will like to say thanks to him for giving me this wonderful life and of course giving me the opportunity to discuss about him in hubpages.If he does not existence it does not make any difference neither in my life nor anyone else's life.
You will never know for sure, you just feel it like when you feel love at first sight love for your husband/partner etc..
There are just some things which you cant explain, do you need always to explain how you feel,depends on you
Does that mean you only know God exists in the throes of passion?
No, I can never explain the existence of GOD epistemologically or experiential/phenomenology, but I believe that a superatural being exists....my belief may be superficial to others but like I said I dont need to justify it..
I believe in set of tecahings of mores of values so that I may use it for my sake, for societys sake. Non believers have values too which they chose to believe...
Well I'll admit it. I believe in a supernatural being in the throes of passion!!! And I thank that supernatural being for it too
hmmm, flight, you ok! LOL....
it is not passion it is the heart, thats why at times we tend to be always logical, how about use the heart at times...you can never go wrong...if we always are logic we tend to become selfish..
If your feelings include supernatural beings, they most certainly need explanation when others have no such feelings.
Why do I need to explain to anybody the way I feel, if I pose a danger to them right, why do we always have to justify whether we are Christians or non Christians, why cant we just leave each other alone and live harmoniously without hurting each other? Please....
But Pretty, they really really really want to know!!
That would be wonderful. Unfortunately, that's not the case. If religions did leave everyone alone, they wouldn't exist and maybe then we would live harmoniously. At this time though, we have multitudes of religions that conquer and divide the world. Harmony is non-existent as wars plague the world, some are holy wars not yet settled.
Then again, if it's found your feelings are just a bit of cheese rumbling in your tummy, then we don't have much to worry about.
How about if it isnt? Is religion the culprit or the people?
People are the culprit. They created religion. And, yes, I'm sure your invisible supernatural being does not exist, but stomachs do exist. I'll go with rumbling in the tummy.
Currently, religion is the culprit. Human beings are filled with compassion and understanding but are being held captive by the absolutes of religions. Long ago, we believed in all types of myths and superstitions, many of which have gone the way of the dodo. However, there are some myths and superstitions that still remain, in the form of the current version of gods and their supernatural realm.
My Dear friend the absence of heart is the serum of no mind for to say is to mean wat you say. In the dialoug of heart it is the motive of language of loving and caring amongst the fellowship of friends the language of life is the fellowship of all living in the message of Am I My brothers keepr to the knowledge we are still infants to the heavens above and to the historical mind of history space and time.
Is the tolstoy of religion he is the dynamic nature of all who has created he is the maturity to the absolute justice of mirrors of the absedence of faith, he is the mirror of the whats been written on know dome of every astro-dome beyond any epilog or eulogy for he is the absolution of anti discriminations of how do I? or how did? or heaven or hell, among the terror of non belief is the value of anti-simatism, of the uelogy of life non existance prior to the Richard Pryers of today, He eminsible he is forgiving far and beyond the Revalations of the christianity of faith for the only Tolstoy is the dire need to find the orica of the dawning epilogu of the apologies amongst the defined uelogy of mirrors against the power an the glory, for ever and ever A men are chrismatic characterization of the epologue of tere own justivications of truth, fore the men are and always be responcible to the faith of all women and children among the bretheren of love and life and freedom of expressions of the loving passages all religion is sacrid and sanctified except for the Anti-religous mind of death of the notorious KKK
Believing in God is fine. But placing religions ahead of people, and even ahead of morality is the real problem.People have (and still do) burned witches, drown them, killed infidels, attack other countries because they have a different religion, fought, oppose multi-religious marriages, sold people as slaves, and so many immoral and anti-humanity actions, all in name of religion. Before soldiers go to war, they all pray to God to protect them. If they are shooting at each other, who is God going to protect.
All those Jesus lovers are not so loving of shoeless, long hair, bearded guys walking around in rags. Would they really invite a guy like Jesus to their home? I have never seen it happen.
How about people start getting more realistic and honest with themselves? God has simply become a tool for self interest. If you love God, then show it in actions. Does God want our people going and killing their people? Does God want us to impose our thoughts on others? Well, I could go on and on. But I think the picture is clear now.
This may not be a good answer, but i believe in GOD because GOD wanted me to believe in HIM.
I know he does otherwise we wouldn't have all these atheists.
When science defined reality, it eliminated him from being in existence, because if you have to go to a mystical reality, other than the one you live in, then it isn't real.
Hence, mystical leap of faith.
Religion itself is a code of ethics bound to a higher cause.
You are told how to live. You are told how to act. All for a mystical entity, which doesn't exist in reality.
Religion is man-made. It was found accidentally and used to force people to work against their own nature, for the hopes of ending up in a fantasy destination.
If you were to strictly live by religious doctrines and tried to stay within the confines- you would see the hoax for what it is. Each doctrine has a goal for which is impossible to obtain.
It's not even funny.
In your own mind. And, I am happy for you. I'm not getting in to with you tonight. You probably wouldn't like what I have to say. So, I'm being nice and not responding, except this post.
I'm not up for your supreme power or so-called, "Enlightenment" stuff, either. I know what you are? And, I know the facts I need to know about you. Sooner or later, when truth is known, you'll become no more.
Here is a link that explains why many believe that God exists and I for one do http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html this does not mean that others will agree and that is o.k. too."_
This is just another push for Intelligent Design. No. Sorry!
This is not real evidence. I want to see Jesus walk on water and raise himself from the dead.
You ask any believer if they believe in Santa AND every dam one of them will say, he's just a made up being!! Whats the difference??? It just proves how gullable people are LOL!!!
You plebians need to really study science AND history have both proven the existence of God and if you think otherwise you are a satanic fool. But that is ok. I will still pray for the salvation of your lost souls
Whatever you do, don't waste your measly effort praying to a false god. How can you live your life thinking like you do?
I mean, come on. I've done my own research, for a great many years I might add and I FOUND him to be non-existent.
He became non-existent, when SCIENCE defined what 'reality' was and is. DUH! Is that too difficult for you to understand. I mean, I don't think I can get any more lyman terms, as to inform you.
Just in case, I refer you back to the post you most likely didn't read. You're unbelieveable.
The methods of science certainly tell us something about reality, but how could you possibly know that its methods yield the total knowledge of reality? If his claims are delusional, yours are equally so, if not more so. At least prima facially, it's reasonable to assume that the universe was created, but you have no grounds--none--to believe the claim that the deliverances of scientific methods yield a total picture of reality.
Nonsense. This is the only assumption that fits your pre-conceived, bible-based notion that there was a creator.
"Reasonable"? Not in the slightest.
"Irrational," is the word you are seeking.
How many ways can you guys come up with to say "I do not accept any burden of proof?"
And yet you mock scientific "beliefs". Can anyone say Irony.
It's a reasonable initial assumption that the universe had a creator as opposed to believing that it sprang from nothing. Any explanation is more plausible than the latter.
You are saying that it sprang from nothing.
It just needed a magical super being to do it.
Because you already know a magical super being did it. Because you have all the answers you need from a bronze age book which says so.
Not exactly convincing - or reasonable. As I said, I think the word you seek is "irrational."
If you want to claim the belief that the universe came from nothing rather than originating from something, then you go girl because there's nothing more absurd than that.
At least with magic, we have a rabbit and we have a hat. But what you're asking people to believe is that (1) the universe just "winked" into existence, uncaused and (2) it is more rational to believe such a thing.
Some atheists will say anything to avoid the possibility of God. This thread is evidence of it.
Um no. You are the one saying that the universe winked into existence. But a god winked it.
I prefer the two other far more reasonable scientific theories that have nothing to do with winking. I am also comfortable saying "I don't know." Which does not give you an in by the way. You say you do know when clearly you have no clue.
Seriously - I give up. Now you are just lying about what I did or did not say. I know that lying for jesus is one of the basic ethical and moral standards of your faith, but still........
Why it's always the same thing with 'believers' ?
then they get angry when someone points out their mistakes.
You give up--good. Best news I've heard all day. Now, I expect you to keep to it. You wouldn't want to lie and be like those big, fat, hypocrites that lie for Jesus.
But I haven't lied; I have stated the conclusion of your position. If you don’t like those results, then change positions. Either the universe came as a result of a creator or it did not. The universe began to exist. If there is no creator, it winked into existence from nothing. A creator of infinite power and intelligence is the best explanation to date.
But, what do you offer?: two scientific theories (unnamed) and an "I don't know." Look, could you just pick one. I mean, I'd be glad to shoot you if you'd just stand still.
You know, it seems to be this conversation has once again turned in the WRONG direction and I am seeing myself, putting it back on the correct path.
First off- let's deal with the reality of the situation.
We have some people who are believers.
We have some people who are religious followers, but no god.
We have some people who believe in GOD, but aren't religious.
We have some people who are non-believers.
Then, we have ME- where I hereby reject all religions.
Now- before I get started- Reality is where this conversation is taking place. For those of you, who have a faith for something mystical, then I'm sorry. This conversation is in reality.
Reality exists. Reality exists free of independent thoughts, desires, will, or wishes. Reality is ALL KNOWABLE! Got it!
There is NO scientific evidence of "GOD" in our human race objective reality. Science has not FOUND God, therefore God doesn't exist within the confines of our reality.
Religion is a business, based on a code of 'ethics', bound to a 'higher' cause. The "Ethics" are to be learned through scriptures(out-dated by centuries) and you are to be selfless, because you are NOT worthy, so you sacrifice your life, heart and mind to God. A higher power, all-mighty, all-powerful entity.
What many are missing is that the argument Bibowen has presented, has reversed the purpose of the forum. The purpose of the forum, was for people to provide proof of how they know God exists. Unfortunately, no single human being on Earth can tell you how they know God exists, because NO ONE has seen him or heard from him or smelled him, or anything else.
This burden of proof is on YOU sir "Bibowen". And, on one last note- I'll have to agree with Mark Knowles on this- You Lose!
Because you can NOT prove God exist. When can prove he doesn't exist- Science says so, presently in our reality. Should science find "GOD" some time in future, who is to know? But, to actively look for him is stupid and completely irrelevant to the human race's survival.
But, isn't it claimed that a god created the universe? From what was the universe created? From nothing? Isn't THAT the equivalent of magic?
It depends on what you mean by "magic." Do you mean "magic" as in an illusion, like where you're misdirecting attention? "Magic" as in hexes and curses?
The biblical concept is that of a miracle, not magic. In the case of creation, God created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing.
Magic, by definition as in, supernatural powers. They are one and the same.
Those are also one and the same.
But, didn't you just say it was absurd to have created the universe from nothing?
Are those definitions from consulted sources or did you make that up? Any standard dictionary will reveal that they are two distinct concepts, although there are some similarities.
It's ridiculous to say that the universe came into being, uncaused, out of nothing. The atheist has to believe that the universe just popped into existence (unless he believes that the universe always existed which is fraught with problems). But it's not ridiculous to believe that a timeless and maximally-powerful being created the universe from nothing. Furthermore, the cause would have to be a "super" natural one since all of nature came into existence at the beginning of the universe.
In terms of keeping a discussion on topic and making sure the point gets across, I tend to refer to dictionaries for definitions.
I agree with you. Anyone who simply blurts that out without some sort of understanding as to how it could work is most certainly ridiculous. The same would apply to someone who simply dismisses the idea as ridiculous without understanding how it could work is also... well... ridiculous.
I think you're misunderstanding something here, it's not a matter of "believing" the universe came into existence on it's own, but more along the lines of "understanding" how such a phenomenon could occur.
Again, I agree completely. But, what's ridiculous to believe for many is the existence of a "timeless and maximally-powerful being."
That might be a reasonable conclusion, except for one important fact, that the universe would have had to exist; ie, nature would have had to exist before you could invoke a "super" natural explanation.
Merriam-Webster says the supernatural is "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil." The "supernatural" would be that which is "beyond" the universe itself. Such a state of existence is something "other than" nature.
But let's not get too bogged down in semantics. The problem for the atheist is that he has to believe that all of nature came into being at a single moment where there was nothing previously. Regardless of what problems there are for us grasping the power that God would have to possess to bring a universe into existence from where there was nothing previously, it pales in comparison to the absurdity that all of nature just suddenly arrived, uncaused, out of nothing. And, back to the main point, it is far more plausible to believe that a timeless, changeless, maximally-powerful divine agent brought the universe into existence as opposed to believing that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.
One of the definitions of magic is the invoking of the supernatural. Of course, no evidence to magic or the supernatural has ever been demonstrated.
Again, please understand that the concept is understood, not believed. And again, the same applies to theists, however they are the ones who believe the universe came from nothing without any understanding of the phenomenon.
They are one and the same, except for the difference of understanding vs. belief.
Only if you don't understand the phenomenon would it be more plausible that a timeless, changeless, maximally-powerful divine agent brought the universe into existence. Of course, you would be believing in magic. And, then you can invoke anything you want.
I think there is one version of creation where the universe was blown out the nose of a sneezing giant serpent.
I think I understand the point you're trying to make when you say that the supernatural has not been demonstrated. The methods of science have the investigator looking for natural events that are repeatable and testable. If that is what your methods are designed for, that's what you are going to find. It's not that you can say (with confidence) that there has never been a supernatural event (like the resurrection of Jesus), but rather that the methods that you use won't find such phenomena, no more than a barometer can measure a person's height. Your instruments are going to determine what you find. So, your claim that there never has been a demonstration of the supernatural, I believe, needs to be more modest here.
Armchairs scientists that naively claim that the only thing that exists is what is demonstrable by the methods of science are making a claim that the methods of science themselves cannot surmount. The claim is self-refuting.
I might remark on some of your other comments later.
Science is about a methodology believed true, through test, after test, after test, then set forth to be disputed. If unchallenged, then it's to be part of our objective reality.
I do find that your actions here of comparing something that is real to something that isn't real, is ridiculous.
The 'resurrection', as claimed by the bible, has no evidence, other what is stated in the bible. It can not be supported in any manner otherwise. Since, it can't be supported, it isn't considered a fact or truth.
Science, in essence, is what you are challenging, yet science has defined our reality to be knowable. That means, "GOD" or anything else not supported by FACTUAL truths is not part of reality.
A myth is simply that..a myth.
A rumor is simply that...a rumor.
Truth is not subjective to one's perception or perspective, because truth is based on facts. Facts is hard evidence.
You might be dead to right except for one very important thing, and that is whether or not gods do in fact interact with nature. If so, then their interactions will have an effect on nature, hence those effects can be tested. Since no effects of those interactions have been shown to have occurred, we can safely assume they don't interact with nature and we can ignore them.
The methods of science are only as good as the data presented, no data, no methods are required. Anyone is free to demonstrate the effects of the supernatural, if they can. Anyone.
On your first comment above, I think you contradict yourself, so I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.
Second, you arbitrarily assert this distinction between "understanding v. belief" wherever it pleases you. I find this distinction unconvincing. At any rate, there is no comparison between the view that the universe was created and that it just winked into existence. None of our experiences--none--would lead us to believe that the universe was self-created, that it just popped into existence. On the other hand, all of our experiences tell us that events have causes. The beginning of the universe is an event, so it needs a cause.
Third, you are conflating the terms "magic" and "miracle." These are two distinct concepts. To call the creation of the universe "magic" is pejorative.
Finally, this serpent is a physical entity. He needs a creator too.
I am amazed at how someone can use his intellect, to such a degree, to support a fairy tale. Shocking!!!
I was trying to say that the phenomenon of the universe coming into existence is a concept that is understood and not just believed. If the information that helps one to understand this process is readily available, one might comprehend how the universe could in fact come into existence on it's own.
Why do you find it unconvincing? Are you saying that believing in something you have never seen, heard or touched is something you can understand? Are you saying you completely understand your god and what he thinks?
I agree, one came into existence entirely on it's own without breaking any physical laws while the other came into existence by the waving of a magic hand.
What experiences? What are you talking about? There are mountains of information on how the universe came into existence which had nothing to do with "experiences"
Yes, and when I look out my window, the earth most certainly appears flat. Is that a logical conclusion from my "experience" of looking out the window?
It is succinct, not pejorative.
You're fond of saying this, but it's not true. Our inability, thus far, to come up with a convincing theory of the origin of the universe does not mean that we have to believe it just popped into existence. It simply means that the apparent origin of our universe is still beyond the frontier of our knowledge.
The difference is that some people, faced with the inexplicable, have a psychological need to invent an answer, instead of continuing to research and refine the questions. Saying God did it is not adding anything. It's merely applying the name of God to our ignorance, something that people have done through aeons past.
That is an interesting point. It makes you wonder. I mean - if everybody accepted this easy answer, "God did it."
Would we ever ask any questions about anything ever again?
Thank god for the non believers say I.
It is odd though, because it seems to go like this.
1. The Universe winked into existence one day.
2. That is not possible.
3. Therefore it was magic.
4. That doesn't sound very impressive.
5. God created the heavens and the earth.
6. Much better - now I can go around telling everyone my morals are better than theirs because god tells me what to do.
Lying is OK though. As long as it is for Jesus.......
We have a convincing theory: the universe was created a finite time ago by an omnipotent, timeless being. "Well, we just can't know" is hardly a response. I don't know why you even bother giving it. In every area of life we proceed with less than sufficient information. We draw conclusions based on available evidence. Yes, we may hold those conclusions loosely and await further evidence. But what you're suggesting is that we simply shrug our shoulders and say "who knows"? Theories are always inconclusive; there is always another investigation or different take on the evidence waiting out there in the wings. My suggestion is that those that say that "we cannot know" probably don't like the obvious conclusion. It doesn't fit with their paradigm of reality.
Certainly, given our experience that events have causes, you will at least admit that a created universe is more plausible than one that just "happened" into existence, won't you?
Second, the suggestion that the universe came into existence via a creator is not the renaming of our ignorance; rather, it's what flows from information. Given the metaphysical absurdity of self-creation, that the universe more than likely had a beginning, and the apparent fine tuning of the universe point to an supremely intelligent, all-powerful agent. I know you'd like to throw in here that old cliche about the "God-in-the-Gaps," but that dog won't hunt.
BTW, unbelievers are notorious for filling in the gaps by saying things like "Science has the answers" or "Nature did it" that are used as fillers for ignorance.
Finally, why don't you address the proposition at hand instead of resorting to this amateurish psychological drivel about our great need to "invent an answer" when faced with the "inexplicable." It's your assumption that the universe is "inexplicable." Whether or not we have a great "need" to offer an answer is irrelevant as to the veracity of the claim that the universe began with a personal agent a finite time ago.
Perhaps, you're not acquainted with the definition of a theory. It is a "well substantiated explanation" of the natural world or a particular phenomenon. What you refer to is an "assertion."
There is a theory of how the universe came about that does in fact have a "well substantiated explanation" and it does not required invisible magical beings.
Simple, it is an intelligent response to conclude something is unknown as opposed to supplanting it with assertions of invisible magical beings.
Like your alleged theory of an invisible magical being?
Of course, magic does not fit with reality.
The fact that the universe came into existence on it's own does not preclude there was not a cause.
What fine tuning? We are a result of our environment, not the other way round. That's like saying a pothole's shape formed because of the shape of the water within it.
I don't recall science ever proving the supernatural exists. Can you please explain which branch of science and what experiments were undertaken? Thanks.
The most ancient spiritual text the Holy Vedas means science which was started by the sages, the enlightened ones and looks at the aspect of the soul and god as well.
No, science started with the employment of the scientific method, which ancient spiritual sages did not know about.
Science isn't that interested in phenomena it can't test, like souls and gods, for example.
Sorry but the sage were no fools, mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology are all the results or creation by sages.Someone who was not enlightened could not possibly come out with the concept of Zero or Shuniya or the void or god or enlightenment.
Aarybahtta is credited with the concept of Zero and he was regarded as a sage.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Aryabhatta,-T … ;id=580066
Whatever this origin, it cannot be argued that he lived in Patliputra where he wrote his famous treatise the "Aryabhatta-siddhanta" but more famously the "Aryabhatiya", the only work to have survived. It contains mathematical and astronomical theories that have been revealed to be quite accurate in modern mathematics. For instance he wrote that if 4 is added to 100 and then multiplied by 8 then added to 62,000 then divided by 20,000 the answer will be equal to the circumference of a circle of diameter twenty thousand. This calculates to 3.1416 close to the actual value Pi (3.14159). But his greatest contribution has to be zero. His other works include algebra, arithmetic, trigonometry, quadratic equations and the sine table.
He already knew that the earth spins on its axis, the earth moves round the sun and the moon rotates round the earth. He talks about the position of the planets in relation to its movement around the sun. He refers to the light of the planets and the moon as reflection from the sun. He goes as far as to explain the eclipse of the moon and the sun, day and night, the contours of the earth, the length of the year exactly as 365 days.
He even computed the circumference of the earth as 24835 miles which is close to modern day calculation of 24900 miles.
This remarkable man was a genius and continues to baffle many mathematicians of today. His works was then later adopted by the Greeks and then the Arabs.
Now days science or western science is not interested but that is not how science started.
But Mohit, it's not called science because they didn't use the "scientific method".
If I hadn't read it I wouldn't have believed it.
Mohit, you're very nice to try to patiently explain it.
scientific methods, thanks its what I have to do
Congratulations, you've identified a mathematician.
Sorry, try again.
Are you talking with yourself?
Do you know the meaning of enlightenment ?
Could you possibly come out with the concept of Zero?
The oldest spiritual text the Holy Vedas means science or to know.
I am very sure you have no read the Vedas.
http://go.webassistant.com/wa/upload/us … ndex.lhtml
The word veda signifies "wisdom" or "knowledge". More generally it means "Sacred knowledge, holy learning, the scriptures of the Hindus."
It is derived from the root vid-, Sanskrit for "to know". This is in turn reconstructed as being derived from the Proto-Indo-European root "*weid-", meaning "see" or "know".
"The Vedas have always been lauded as containing the secrets of cosmogenesis. Raja Roy in his remarkable book shows how this is true not only from the yogic vision but according to the latest insights of modern physics. The book takes the reader on a vast panoramic journey through the universe of matter, mind and human history as well." David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri) Director, American Institute of Vedic Studies
"Roy presents a new framework for the understanding of the Vedic hymns from the point of view of physics and then he draws parallels with recent theories on the nature of the universe. We celebrate the new path he has hewn through the bush of old scholarship." Professor Subhash Kak Louisiana State University
Yes, once again, it's a nice attempt to demonstrate that modern science came from ancient scriptures, but that's like saying mothers milk leads to crack cocaine.
Its the truth and has nothing to do with mothers milk and cocaine, that is so absurd.Please read the post this is how many modern scientists think.
"The Vedas have always been lauded as containing the secrets of cosmogenesis. Raja Roy in his remarkable book shows how this is true not only from the yogic vision but according to the latest insights of modern physics. The book takes the reader on a vast panoramic journey through the universe of matter, mind and human history as well." David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri) Director, American Institute of Vedic Studies
"Roy presents a new framework for the understanding of the Vedic hymns from the point of view of physics and then he draws parallels with recent theories on the nature of the universe. We celebrate the new path he has hewn through the bush of old scholarship." Professor Subhash Kak Louisiana State University
I can look up and give you more posts but this is enough.
What has mothers milk and cocaine go to do with science and the vedas? Fail to understand the humor in this.
The simple fact that you have to ask is, somewhat surprising. How ever, since you haven't learned anything yet today, I guess I can teach you something, so you can make thru the rest of your day-
Mother's milk to crack cocaine - the JUMP - one would have to make to understand it, is just as unbelieveable of anything you have to say.
Please look at my profile before calling me ignorant.
I am not the only one saying the humans used their brains earlier on and not just in the last couple of hundred years. They had a lot more knowledge than you do .
They knew the essence and source of this cosmos which you don't know, they were a lot smarter than you are.
Do you really think earlier these great architectural marvels were build with no understanding of mathematics and science.?
There is a clear distinction between what was understood then and what is understood now as science. The term 'scientist' has only been around for 150 years or so while versions of the scientific method have been around a couple hundred years more.
Some empirical based methods have been around for centuries, like recording observations and taking measurements.
Mathematics have also been around for centuries.
The word science was around 15,000 BC and not just 150 years old, the Holy Vedas are supposedly 15,000 BC.
Because it is a masterpiece full of knowledge.Read it and gain some for yourself before saying the term science was used just 150 years ago, this is such a immature statement.
Have you ever heard of Astronomy? The sages have charted the stars for thousands of years with mind blowing accuracy.Astronomy is considered a science.
Evolution is mentioned in these ancient texts which falls in the category of Biology also called science.
As I have posted earlier on even Physics was written about.
Then, perhaps you can take it up with whoever coined the term 150 years ago. Your claim that the term existed 15000 years ago is laughable.
Evolution, you say? Thousands of years before Darwin?
You are laughing at your own ignorance and not mine, if you read a little you will stop laughing.
Evolution, you say? Thousands of years before Darwin?
Yes thousands of years before him.
Nope, still laughing.
Mu goodness, that would make Darwin absolutely irrelevant. Why haven't the Vespas been accredited with discovering evolution?
No satan, just another fairy, and I think we know who the fool may be.
Though the objective of the common militant atheist is to mock, disrupt, and destroy all things of a spiritual nature, their words are as an agent of the devil, powerless and weak. They are in a state of misery, in fact their misery is so great that they persistently continue to drag men down to Hell by taking offense from every word spoken in kindness and affection in regards to our belief in a loving and perfect God.
I continue to believe in God as long as he speaks back, and he truly does speak to his children, if they will listen. Is what I say offensive to atheists? Why am I not surprised?!
When people are struggling to know what to believe and what not to believe, they become distracted by men of the world, and they fall off course, they raise their defenses and are left alone, robbed of their spirituality, as they squander away their heritage with the lord.
Rebuttals have been done to death, so here’s what I have to say; I give thanks to the Lord who keeps me and preserves me, and continues to preserve me from one moment to the next by lending me breath. Be charitable and holy, pray to God and you will be blessed. If you lack wisdom ask of God who gives to men liberally, but ask in faith nothing wavering.
Just in case, you were talking to me. I'm not of any religious affiliation or prescribe of any form of religious faith.
I REJECT All Religions! I Reject All Foolish Notion of a God!
Your god threatens us with eternal damnation and hellfire. Are you saying that those threats are much less offensive than mockery? How do those threats equate to a "loving and perfect God?"
I don't think it's offensive as much as it is unbelievable. A great many people do not hear the same voices as you. It leads one to suspect that gods are either not talking to them and that people like yourself are special cases. I don't buy into the excuse that they're not listening as any god worth his salt would most definitely make sure we are heard if he is in fact speaking to us.
Prehaps, that's true. However, the rebuttals from the believers camp are based entirely on scriptures and their "experiences". Those not in the believers camp are therefore also in the same position to quote scriptures and base their rebuttals on the lack of these "experiences"
It's rather difficult to take that into consideration as many others have had their breath taken away from them or live under the very worst of conditions, despite their prayers.
Please do not preach such things in the future as you do little more than insult those less fortunate than yourself. And please remember, it was science that brought much of that fortune into your life.
Question. I understand there are many who do not believe in an all powerful, all knowing God. But what makes you think that if He does'nt exist, that YOU are all knowing?
You attempt at rationale is intriguing, to say the least.
Science has defined 'Reality'. Reality exists free of independent thoughts, desires, will or wishes. It is all knowable.
Under this definition- GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
Because, for you to get to "GOD" you must LEAVE reality. Science hasn't proven his existence in reality. Therefore he doesn't exist.
You want to get in all the unanswered questions you have about life....look inside yourself for the answer. Don't seek a mystical figure, you can never be sure even exists.
It's debiliating to your body and detrimental to your life.
Stay within the confines what is reality, as known. There's no reason to go outside it, unless your dreaming.
Okay. Thank you.
Let's keep it real people.
Let me try to answer the question in a reasonable manner.
I do not believe in an all powerful, all knowing God.
I do not believe that I am all knowing.
You see, your supposition that not to believe in God entails claiming for one's self the attributes of God is simply invalid. There is no logical progression from the first to the second part of your assumption.
Does that help?
That would be this god.
"I will sweep away everything in all your land," says the LORD. "I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die. I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity," says the LORD. "I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship. I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear. For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars. They claim to follow the LORD, but then they worship Molech, too. So now I will destroy them! And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do. They no longer ask for the LORD's guidance or seek my blessings." (Zephaniah 1:2-6 NLT)
Nice little neurotic psychopath!
could you (for my benefit) give me the text book definitions of nuerotic and psychopathic?
psychopathic-Relating to or affected with an antisocial personality disorder that is usually characterized by aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior.
neurotic-1.adj. affected with neurosis
2.n. An emotionallly unstable individual
Question 2. Why would a bunch of people who does'nt believe in God, hang out in a christian forum? Unless of course you have an obssessive need to ponder your opinions on to other people, which I believe is exactly what you accuse us of.
What good is a forum without different ideals?
I came here to find the "proof of the existence of God" but, again, you religionist failed, miserably. Please give me proof that God exist, and keep it real, as Cagsil says.
HubPages Religion & Beliefs forum is not a Christian forum. When starting a post, if you want, you can place it in the Christianity sub-forum. But some of us are interested in epistemology (theory of knowledge), and, pending the introduction of a Philosophy forum (which some have asked for) this is the nearest we have.
I don't have a need to ponder my beliefs, for which I have none to speak of, with regardless to religion.
Because, I have no religious beliefs, whatsoever. As for why? Am I in the forums, is to learn how people are and exist, so I can better understand humanity.
Since religion has one of the most controversial myths in the world, why not study people and the way they form their beliefs. How ever, in my studies, I must say, I've come to the understanding that people don't really believe in 'god' and those who are really religious, know that getting into an argument- already knows it's not going to go anywhere and wouldn't engage.
Those who engage, are the people who choose to step up and reinforce their own beliefs, by defending against those who speak against 'god'. It's a pathetic attempt at having faith in 'god'.
The only other people who would engage are the righteous cheating liars, who perpetuate religion as though it's fact. When, the truth is it's not factual, because in the end, it asks you to give up control of your life for a higher cause.
Religion is nothing but a business, so the Elite religious leaders can reap the rewards from the masses, so they can live better than those who don't know any better.
Yeah right, I want back that party system. NOT!
Let's keep it real people.
First, it is my hope that we are having a discussion, at the most a debate, not an arguement. So let me ask, how can one NOT believe in inteligent design when there is so much order and balance in the universe?
Fair question, but is the premise true?
There are pockets of localised order, e.g. the solar system, but there is infinitely more chaos, in background radiation, expanding galaxies, exploding supernovae, collapsing masses, black hole formation.
Yes, but certain theorys in physics such as M Theory give order to the chaos you speak of. AND these theories are mathematically sound.
Order is there, amid chaos, to be discovered and described. But description doesn't imply causation. And it certainly doesn't imply design.
Cagsil is correct in saying that the onus of proof of a creator's existence lies squarely with those who believe and want others to believe in such a being.
This is old territory - check out Bertrand Russell's china teapot analogy.
You do realize both Isach Newton, and Albert Einstien, mankinds two greatest KNOWN scientific minds both believed in an intelligent creator.
Sir Issac Newton and Albert Einstein were men ahead of the time, but both human and flawed. Newton's theories continue to get pounded by the religious community, because of hack who distest science. And, Albert Einstein's work was never completely finished, because he never factored into consideration the human consciousness.
So, that's not going to help your cause, as for proof of a creator. But, thanks for your continued conversation. I'm off to bed.
Good night - Paraglider and Earnest, and everyone else.
Enjoy and Keep it real.
Newton was a religious man, his work was not based on relgion.
Einstein never claimed to believe in an intelligent creator. In fact, he made it well know he as not a theist.
Einstein hated the fact that people would use his name to back up their claims of being an atheist and did see the intelligence in this universe.
"God does not play dice with the universe"" Albert Einstein
The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the source of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms -- this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religion. --Einstein said ("Einstein, Albert" in The Enlightened Mind, ed. Stephen Mitchell; New York: Harper Collins, 1991):
[Albert] Einstein's theism, such as it was, was his faith that God does not play dice with the universe -- that there are elegant, eventually discoverable laws, not randomness, at work. Saying "I'm not an atheist," he explained:
That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
Einstein was wonderfully eclectic and, if not religious, at least deeply spiritual. Lots of quotes for and against the existence of God are there and surely many will be posted here.
Here's something different: when asked directly if he was an atheist, he always replied angrily.
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
Yes, I know theists falsely attempt to paint Einstein as a believer. Sorry, it doesn't fly. Most don't even know he actually said, "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice" and was referring to Quantum Mechanics.
Thanks for trying, though.
Man or science has a lot to learn as yet.We are trying to find the god particle with the particle accelerator, science is still searching for answers.
Hi Mohit. The God particle is a joke name of course that stuck when it escaped from the labs and received undue publicity.
Hi Paraglider the purpose of the particle accelerator is to find the building blocks of this universe, didnt know god particle was a joke, thanks
Intelligent design? Is a mythical assumption, based on a fictious being, which isn't in existence in our objective reality, as science has defined it.
There is a lot of chaos, but what you do not realize is that there is such a thing as ordered chaos. Simple things that randomly happen, but you wouldn't or couldn't see it ever happening.
Science has proven anything is possible, within the confines of reality. If you think something can not happen, not only will have happened already, but hundreds of times and you're not any more the ware of it.
So, please don't start saying the what if game? The proof is on you to provide that "GOD" does exist, because as of right now. Science says he doesn't in reality.
Simple, there ISN'T order and balance in the universe.
You off? If so, have a good day or night, can never remember.
Its come from my soul, that he exists whether anyone trust or not.
Really? You have a soul?
Can you prove that please?
It the scientific community who is responsible to prove that he does'nt.
That he doesn't have a soul?
It's already been done. And, you know what- it's even been defined. Look in a dictionary.
Soul is a man-made word, brought about by religious text or scripture.
If it wasn't for religion or it's scriptures...Would the word even exist? Not likely.
That's a fallacy. One is not in a position to prove a negative. It would be like me asking you to prove unicorns and leprechauns don't exist? Can you do it?
I proved that awhile ago. Soul is a word for the psyche, easily explained. Just a title. You have one also, not an arguable point.
OK. Maybe it's unfair of me to cite Russell's teapot. Let's try something else:
Freud and his contemporaries started talking about the ego, the self, the id, as if these had any real existence. They, and their public, fully convinced themselves that their fanciful creations were real. Whereas, in fact, the ego, self and id are simply convenient labels for observable characteristics.
It is unreasonable for a post-Freudian to say "Prove the ego does not exist". If he believes it does, let him prove it.
It is no different with the soul, except that the concept is much older so we can't trace the human inventor of the term.
Those of us who say that the soul is an aspect of consciousness that depends on a living brain have science on our side. Those who insist it is a separate entity carry the onus of proof.
It was never intended to be a separate entity, not from the original meaning of the term.
I agree. It is an aspect of consciousness or sentience. And that is why if someone says 'I think X', the responses 'I disagree' and 'I know in my soul you are wrong' are simple equivalents. You can't appeal to your soul and offer it as proof.
Sure I can. Although you may not accept it. But remember, there was a time when people did'nt accept that the world was round either.
I agree Paraglider, I needed to use more context with the explanation. The term soul is equal to the psyche which is convinced of something - hence belief. It's the mind and emotions.
In esoteric teachings, it is the soul that is subject to transformation - like the cleansing of the mind really.
We're in agreement, I think. I'm not denying the soul is a useful concept. More useful, in my opinion, than the Freudian constructs mentioned earlier. It's just that when people say the soul has eternal life (or similar), the onus is on them to prove it (if they want to) not on the skeptic to disprove it.
Seems three of us are in agreement at this point. My understanding is the same.
Great minds think alike..
(Waiting for aka-dj to pop in and complete the quotation!)
Great minds think alike.....
They just end up with different conclusions.
I honestly believe we DO all think alike, in the sense that we all have the same faculties, but use them differently. We all have "faith" faculties, as well as "reason" and "logic". The rationals among us may lean more heavily on logic and reason, and less on faith, whereas believers would do opposite.
You cannot live without faith, and I cannot live without reason and logic. Make sense?
Not at all dj.
You seem quite happy to re-write the meaning of the terms "logic" and "reason" to be "whatever I can think up to deny the fact that I believe things by faith."
So you are living without reason and logic.
What is wrong with believing something by faith anyway? I see a lot of you believers trying to convince people you are using reason when you are not. Is there something wrong with admitting you believe by faith alone?
We all live by BOTH!
You seem to hold logic and reason in such high esteem, right.
So, from your many posts here is the progress of your logic and reason as I have come to understand it.
The church in the past has caused wars and killed people in the name of their religion. Those churches called themselves "christian". All people who call themselves christian start wars. All christians are killers (by being followers of their religion). Therefore, I too must be a warmonger and killer by association.
Please set me straight if that "logical" progression of thought is wrong.
It's very wrong, logically. It comletely ignores the difference between All and Some.
I agree with you. I am simply refuting Marks constant harping of how all christians are warmongers and disseminators of hate. Why should I be tarred with the same brush as the purpotrators of the Inquisition, for example.
Then why would you embrace the same religious philosopy as the perpetrators of the Inquisition?
Why do you assume I did, (or do)? Are you also associating me with them simply because I say I am a Christian?
Didn't you know Jesus was a sadistic , psychotic killer who spread hate instead of peace and love
Yeah, and he has THE warmongering book to back it up!
Hi Tantrum! I've seen fleeting glimpses of you this weekend but haven't been able to catch you. I'm fine. Having a good time at the forums as always. How are you?
Fine, thanks !
not much in the forum, I see
I'll begin a thread in fashion & beauty lol
But - from your behavior and my observations rather than by logical deduction. I especially liked your condescending statement about being glad your wife had not been test driven by anyone else. not that you were implying other people were not as good as you or anything.
Having said that - I have read the same book you have. It is war mongering at it's very finest. You believe in that book, therefore you are a war monger.
And shouting at me that I live by BOTH, when I do not, is not really persuading me of anything dj. I am not going to redefine these words to suit you.
Is there something wrong with believing in something through faith alone?
"My behavior"? That is an action. You have seen NONE. What you HAVE seen are words on a computer screen. The rest is your assumption! I guess that's a step up from being a liar?
Do I have to go out and start a war now?
Ah, so you believe absolutely NOTHING at all. Nada, zipp, zero?Not at all, provided you know why?
Not necessarily, however you did join an organization with that exact history as it's legacy. The question would be, Why would anyone join such an organization with such a legacy?
It would similar to joining the Nazi party, so to speak.
BINGO. Tell'em what he's won Johnny! It's silly for a Christian to get involved in these arguments.
"So you are living without reason and logic."
Mark, I can tell you from personal experience...some are. Its sad. For so many their religion paralyzes them. They do noting while stating "I'm waiting on God" Its sick....
Well, thanks for the more charitable completion than the one I set up for you!
I'll agree that there is a continuum between much faith and little faith, and another continuum between much logic and little logic. But I won't agree that faith and logic are opposite ends of the same continuum.
I had no intention on presenting it that way. I simply implied that, for want of a simpler clarification, something like th 80:20 principle, and by inference, 20:80.
But I have known people of virtually no faith and no logic, and others high in both. The two are not mutually exclusive.
No argument from me on that point. Trouble is, that if you are a believer, you are constantly accused oflack of reason and logic. I have never, (to the best of my recollection) accused people of being totally devoid of faith. A person cannot live without it. PERIOD.
Yes, but without qualification, faith is just another word for expectation. I expect the floor to take my weight. If you want, you can say I have faith in the floor. That has absolutely nothing to do with a metaphysical belief system.
Yes, they can, easily, comfortably and without guilt or fear in wondering if they'll end up in an eternal hellfire.
You miss my point, (as most "open minded" thinkers seem to)!
What scientific evidence do you have that guarantees you that you will not get killed in a head-on collision next time you leave home? Or that a random shooter (probably a religious fanatic ) does not shoot you dead on the street?
You have none, RIGHT?
But you go about your daily activity, in "faith", believing that these possible events will NOT happen.
There seems to be this perception around here that faith is a religious word. Though it's used in that context often, it is not exclusively so.
Is there some reason why you felt the need to insult me?
True, however I certainly don't need to leave my house wondering if your god is going to decide to kill me today.
I briefly explained in another thread two of the distinct definitions of faith. There is faith in the supernatural or things that are claimed to be there when no evidence supports the claim, while there is the faith in consistency, that the earth will spin and the sun will come up tomorrow. Big difference.
Not really, as reason and logic would dictate faith as an assumption, not a conclusion. Once logic and reason are applied to the claims of faith, those claims dissolve into the realm of the unknown as they have no evidence to support them.
By claiming that logic and reason supports faith in the invisible and undetectable, we have distinguished the very foundations logic and reason stand.
Freud was the delver of all things psyche (soul). His red book will tell more on his esoteric experiences. Mind you proving psychedelic from esoteric would be an impossibility also.
Part of Freud's legacy was to turn everyone into an amateur psychologist, with or without the will or ability to make a good job of it. Not sure that's been useful!
I'm not sure either Paraglider. One of the biggest concerns of Rudolph Steiner was the dominance of the mind and it's impact, meaning that mysteries and wonder would be lost because of the stranglehold of the logical mind.
Secondly, the psychology courses at universities are very hard to get into, so it's all the rage to understand all things to do with the mind. Unfortunately, it's often their own minds they are trying to fathom, and trying to fix someone else's is their unconscious way of not having to deal with their own neurosis!
I think that could be true of the lazy logical mind. But if you actively apply rational inquiry to your limit, you are bound to reach a place where there is nothing but wonder and mystery. So I don't fully buy into the either/or model.
That's very true re the lazy logical mind. Those that put it all in the box and seal it as complete - no room for the mysterious.
My experiences with rhyme and reason always lead me to a point of clarity, then has to open to the mysterious, always does.
By the way, I love the result of A Rational Code of Ethics. I've nothing to add in terms of improvement so haven't commented. Please know I've not been ignoring it.
And, by symmetry, the lazy mystical mind is content to see mysteries and wonders where in fact there are none, as they have been explained already. That is a form of denial too.
Thanks, re the Rational Code. It was generally as well received as I could have wished.
I agree, though I doubt it's provable regardless of whether there is belief or not. Same circular arguments apply
Uh, the mind is the mind and emotions are emotions. No other entities have been discovered.
You can't have emotions without reactions from the mind, hence there is no separation. Emotions are created by a grasping of the mind.
Sure I can. Although you may not accept it. But remember, at one time people did'nt accept that the world was round either.
what the 'Q' stands for?
queer,questioner quip ?
You've been talking to yourself for ages !
You're very funny!
enjoyed reading you !
Hi! It stands for a great many things. Often, I am asked if it's the character from the Star Trek series or the Quartermaster in James Bond or the Q scriptures that everyone is searching for.
In physics, Q is the "quality factor" of a system.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I do think my posts are read by those they are directed, but it would appear responses to them are lacking. That could be seen as a good thing.
by Link10103 3 years ago
Do you believe more than one god exists?Or just the singular one you were raised to believe in? I asked this of someone else and they deleted the comment for whatever reason, so I decided to make a question of it. If you only believe in your specific god and denounce all others, then you are...
by Link10103 4 years ago
I can understand the positives of putting your faith in such and such religion, which is why I do not think religion as a whole should be completely eradicated, however in this day and age I honestly wouldn't mind if it was.My question is this: why does religion NEED to exist? If you say "So...
by Thom Carnes 9 years ago
A few weeks ago I asked what I thought was quite a serious, searching question about the existence of God, and was rather disappointed when it got a very limited response. (This could have been because we were all wrestling this other equally important issues at the time.)Peter Lopez made a valiant...
by Kiss andTales 6 years ago
Many all over the world believe in somthing or someone greater than themselfs ,so much so that even local we tend to always seek good advice from others who we feel will answer our concerns!many religions believe that man can not solve all our problems! and that is family ,finacial,social, basic...
by Donaisabella 6 years ago
Have you ever had your prayers answered? Would care to share?All of us pray at some point in our lives whether we mean it or not. And some people are blessed with the awareness of answer to prayer that many do not possess. Would you share your experiences. I personally believe in prayers that are...
by Michael Ward 5 years ago
What Would You Do If You Were Faced With Completely Irrefutable Evidence That There Was No God?And I mean completely. As irrefutable as 1+1=2. I asked my friend about this and he had a mini-breakdown so I thought I'd ask you guys. Still not certain if I'm just unsatisfied with his answer or I'm...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|