Why is the existence/non-existence of a higher power dependent on the validity of any particular religion? Are we as humans really so arrogant, that we think if none of our gods are real, that must mean there is no such thing as a higher power at all anywhere in the universe? Isn't it possible that there could be a higher power(s) that isn't from any of humanity's religious texts? We are just one race of people, living on a tiny planet, in one galaxy among billions of other galaxies. Our level of science has barely begun to scratch the surface of our reality. How we can claim to know with absolute certainty whether or not there is a higher power?
I rather suspect that there is not a religion on the planet that even comes close to understanding or describing this God concept. We squabble like children over this idea of a higher power or God and the end result often times is death and war, if God gives to figs about us this is likely deeply offensive but hey thats my personal feeling. For those who love being persecuted for their faith and find it shows their god how deeply their faith runs not squabbling would deprive them of their chance for martyrdom, are we not a totally weird species of animal?
I would answer in this way, the larger side of humankind is the spiritual side, our soul. In this day in age it is starving as we fill our days filling the needs of our physical and mental sides. Our soul knows of our creator and desires to be fed by Him. Our reality is we spend little time relatively, seeking Him. We feel we must see Him or rationilize Him to make Him tangible.
Just because we express it as God doesn't mean it is religion or Christianity. This is the problem. If we believe in a higher power, we express it as God and immediately everyone calls it organized religion. All beliefs are religion. Atheist believe and therefore worship Evolution. Some people like me believe in both. It is the origin, where life came from that is conflicting.
Something compelled life. It could have been many stem cells. We all know stem cells in the beginning could become anything. So maybe some decided to become human, others a dog and so on. But where did the molecules, atoms stem cells come from? Why do so many things work together and in order. Scientist have discovered now in the genes what they call written scripture. AGTC
I agree that one can believe in a higher power without subscribing to any particular religion. And by AGTC, are you referring to the Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation?
I don't think it's accurate to state that Atheists worship evolution. Some atheist just reason that belief in an unknown entity is nonsensical-no evolution required to draw that conclusion.
Be careful my friend, God may getr you yet !! I say that in love !
"The Need to Seek a higher power" is hereditary
http://www.the-brights.net/forums/forum … p;p=142407
The arrogance is in thinking that we, with our limited senses, are able to discern anything beyond our own perceptions and imagination. Laugh while you may, it lasts longer that way.
You have a great point here. This is why I am Atheist/Agnostic. I am Atheist in regards to any god in association with theism or creationism. And I am agnostic in regards to Deism, which is the belief in a creator of the universe that doesn't associate or interfere with human affairs. I don't rule this belief out as a possibility.
We can't. In all honesty we must admit that there is a 50/50 chance at best. The validity of any particular religion doesn't rule out or prove the validity of a supreme being. Again 50/50 chance, there have been many "bad" religions and many good ones. Are we that arrogant, absolutely. However I found a simple logic that to me and for me, leads me towards the belief of a supreme being. That logic is: If there is a lowest form of life... Then there has to be a highest form of life. Whatever that highest form of life is (and no we don't know what that lifeform is) but humanity has come to call that highest form of life God. Then we have spent the rest of our time arguing about what God is and isn't and who knows God better than others, and so on and so on... But as for me, I Believe. (your obviously a very intelligent person, I admire you for your responses and I encourage you to continue to ask the tough questions.)
just for the record this is not presigo this is his son. iam only 18 but still consider myself to have some sort of valid understanding of how things, the world and such works. for one to put it bluntly you are wrong. absolutelyh wrong. you arent stating something. you are accusing people of faith to be wrong and arrogant. and that makes you wrong. we do only have a very small understanding of science but what does that have to do with faith and your beleifs and your soul. the soul is everything you beleive and who you are. it has noithing to do with understranding the world around us. that is science. faith is very daring and brave in my opinion because it is going into something with out understanding and just trusting that you in your heart know what is right, and putting your faith in a higher power other than your self and your science. science is for cowards who all they have is to hide behind logic and fact because they are to scared to beleive in something more than themselves that they cant touch nor see. i pity and pray for you that some day you and people like you can find something more in life and something to help you into the next life.
there is more power to this world than you think bro.you need to accept the fact that spiritual comes before physical. humanbeing is also a spiritbeing. in the spiritual there is a controlling power and all power belongs to God
I absolutely Believe in God. I just misunderstood what christians believed. I wasn't aware that name calling degrading people, spreading hate and fear was what christians believed in.
I thought it was peace and Love... you can imagine my confusion...
As you would know Mikel, I do not share your beliefs, but I do share your sense of what is right and wrong.
Earnest you are a much better Christian than many people I know of. I accept your disbelief and your good heart.
The so called 'higher power' wouldn't actually be 'in the texts', but just a human attempt to describe something far beyond their comprehension. This would be especially true of people with very limited scientific comprehension.
It looks a lot to me like the higher powers have been anthropromorphised by us.
Sorry, I kind of overlooked this post. Not too many people will admit to something like this, but it is true of the majority of humanity. Few people have the honesty to admit it though, I greatly admire you for that.
LOL< but you know what I still believe in high powers and HE is a GOD for me, Jesus Christ
A lot of people fail to realize that it is impossible for the mind to operate within the concept of non existence.
What word can one use to explain that concept?
Even when something is considered "non existant" ( an obvious oxy moron), The concept must be discuss in terms of existing things.
Some popular one are: the flying spaghetti monster, pink elephants etc etc.
Will you then realize that every conception of the mind is some form of existing reality (Truth) or existing unreality (false).
It would be best for us to walk with the existing reality.
By existing reality, do you mean only the part of reality that has been revealed through science to humanity so far? Cause that is a very small part of reality, and it leaves the door wide open for theory, hypothesis, and conjecture. The amount of information we don't know is infinitely greater than the amount we do know.
It is impossible to ponder on the things unknown, much less to walk in it's light.
But the things that are see do tell stories of the unseen.
One may come up with all sorts of conjecture theories and hypothesis concerning the things seen and linking them to the unseen.
Can he then reasonably walk in their light?
Only if he did confirm those things as truth, then who is to stop him?
The proof of the pudding then would be in the eating.
Finally you would get to realize that the existing reality that is known is more that enough to occupy ones entire lifetime.
PS Science reveal only one dimension of existing reality and it's conclusion are usually debatable, for usually it's assume a position of denial of an existing reality (A Higher Power) to reach it's conclusion.
It is not impossible to ponder on the unknown. That is something mankind has done throughout history. The nature of science is to discover that which has not yet been discovered. Philosophy itself is mainly driven by what we don't know, or do not yet understand. I definitely agree that the amount of data we currently have is more than enough to fill a whole lifetime. But that is why science is a work in progress, the advancements and discoveries made are passed on from one generation to the next. Future generations will make discoveries that could never be made with this generation's current level of science.
It is impossible to answer a question that was never ask.
Through pondering what is perceived by the senses, we receive revelation of greater things and continue to know greater things in an upward spiral.
But there is always the foundation of knowledge to build upon.
This knowledge must of necessity be truth otherwise you cannot effectively continue to build.
There is the reality of revelation whereby the answers to questions are known without the usual scientific study.
These revelation are usually the base by which new things are discovered and science would delve deeper.
For example, the names and movement of the universe was know and charted without the benefit of modern scientific equipment.
Rubbish. Please provide evidence of these absolutes of which you speak.
I appeal to the reasoning of common sense,
You are free to accept all as rubbish.
Common sense require that a statement such as : "the names and movement of the universe was know and charted without the benefit of modern scientific equipment" requires some evidence.
Because - as every one knows, the gimble who rules the known universe specifically warns against this statement as being worth killing the speaker for.
You did know that - right?
Mark if the fact that scientist are still baffled as to how anceint cultures like the mayan and egyptian cultures have recorded such intricate knowledge of the ways and movements of the stars and planets isn't common knowledge then forgive me.
The Idea that you have concerning "God" I presume is whom you referred to, made it a sin to look towards to heaven to know things is not Quite correct.
Though I do understand why you would believe such, I have heard and read it also.
For it is one thing to look to the stars and learn their movements to understand times and seasons.
But Quite another to look to the stars as if they are the one who dictates the affairs of men.
Remember it is recorded the men from the east followed a star to find Jesus.
Yes but that is nonsense.
The star goat of atuin, following the FSM made it clear that monkeys are the beginning.
Thus if you eat of the banana - you are blessed.
Proven by science just yesterday. I saw it in the stars. This morning.
No - it apples to you also and proves you are wrong. The monkeys knew. Oh yes - they did.
This is about calculation of the movement of planets. Astronomy Not astrology. The Mayans were very accurate and calculated the movements that today's computers are just now able to calculate.
I was watching a scientific show on TV recently. I think it was NOVA and they stated the Mayans were the greatest mathematicians. They said that the Mayans predicted the movement of the planets far into the future. They stated the Mayans calculated it and their own computer system was just now able to calculate the same stuff. They said according to their computers the Mayans has been correct about all of it.
I have absolutely no idea if some superior being rules over us in life and after death. I believe that there could indeed be some god or gods, as we would call them, who might be to us as we are to ants. If ants recognize us as superior, for example, and someday begin to create ant-pleasing religions about human beings, then could/would we not be seen by them as mysterious and non-communicative?
If there is a real god, in the sense that religions make him, her or it out to be, then how could we even hope to comprehend such a thing? How could this being ever hope to let us know in ways we would understand what is going on?
Also, athiests are not the only people who believe in evolution. It is only some people who can't accept the evidence before their eyes and seek to cling to their narrow, unproven beliefs who reject evolution in any form, without even looking at the facts. Whether or not there is a god or gods, evolution is much more realistic than many of the religious ideas I have seen as I have lived my life.
That said, I do like some aspects of basic religion, such as treat others as you expect to be treated and other positive aspects that neither cause us to kill or steal from others. That, alone, should be reason enough to live a life of excellent character and goodness. One does not need to be Christian or Islamic or any other religion to be good, know and practice positive values, or treat others with fairness and respect. Being religious or a true believer does not necessarily meanone lives an excellent life, free of what some people call sin. Being nonreligious does not mean one necessarily lacks those qualities, either.
Now I see what all the hubbub was about, Chef Jeff nailed it on the head. What's more, he has now piqued my interest in procuring an ant farm and creating tiny microphones so that I can pretend to be Zeus for awhile.
"Attention ants, this is your Maker speaking. You are going to need to build an ark made of Cheetos. I will provide for you the Cheetos, and you will construct this vessel with strict dimensions according to the Eight Commandments of Cheetos that you must carve into the most durable Cheeto you can find. I, the almighty Cheeto-weh, have spoken!"
Seriously though, Chef Jeff's post was poignant and heartfelt.
Very Interesting Reading
From: Scientific American Magazine September 2009
By Alonso Ricardo and Jack W. Szostak
Scientists are now aiming at creating fully self-replicating artificial organisms in the laboratory—essentially giving life a second start to understand how it could have started the first time.
It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago. To be sure, under the right conditions some building blocks of proteins, the amino acids, form easily from simpler chemicals, as Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey of the University of Chicago discovered in pioneering experiments in the 1950s. But going from there to proteins and enzymes is a different matter.
A cell’s protein-making process involves complex enzymes pulling apart the strands of DNA’s double helix to extract the information contained in genes (the blueprints for the proteins) and translate it into the finished product. Thus, explaining how life began entails a serious paradox: it seems that it takes proteins—as well as the information now stored in DNA—to make proteins.
On the other hand, the paradox would disappear if the first organisms did not require proteins at all. Recent experiments suggest it would have been possible for genetic molecules similar to DNA or to its close relative RNA to form spontaneously. And because these molecules can curl up in different shapes and act as rudimentary catalysts, they may have become able to copy themselves—to reproduce—without the need for proteins. The earliest forms of life could have been simple membranes made of fatty acids—also structures known to form spontaneously—that enveloped water and these self-replicating genetic molecules
The actual nature of the first organisms and the exact circumstances of the origin of life may be forever lost to science. But research can at least help us understand what is possible. The ultimate challenge is to construct an artificial organism that can reproduce and evolve. Creating life anew will certainly help us understand how life can start, how likely it is that it exists on other worlds and, ultimately, what life is.
This is very interesting indeed. If the experiment is successful, it would certainly be a huge step in understanding more about our universe, and more immediately our world.
Just A question.
And maybe I missed it. But is this suppossed to support that life was created without the help of intelligent desiegn?
Because a bunch a scientists in a lab creating life, sorta is intelligent design by definition. Isn it?
And the Miller Urey Expieriment was wrong in it's atmosphere modeling? Are them leftists still teaching that as fact?
He even stated as much, Miller did. He had based his model on the basis of Jupitor's atmosphere. Composed of Methane, amonia, hydrogen, and water.
That wasn't right. Geophysicists discredited that in the 1970s. The Earth's early atmosphere was probrably nothing like that.
They now say it would most likely have contained more carbon dioxide, almost no hydrogen, and possibly some oxygen.
The 53 miller/Urey expieriment did not prove a thing. Divid Berlinsky's 2006 Commentary on Origins Of Life, speaks to that.
Facts About the Mayans and other ancient peoples mathematical systems
Once we discover the Higg's Boson we will be able to prove the possibility of God existing. :]
We pretty much know how we came in to existence.
We are literally stardust!
But knowing what we are made from doesn't really ultimately solve the question of a higher power. It may prove certain religious texts wrong, but whether we were made from the dust of the earth or the dust in space doesn't really settle the issue.
Where did you learn that sort of hate from, calling people cowards and all! Oh yes, I remember Dad!
Yes, disagreement from others is seen as hate, and the hate they spew is called "love"
I thought they were "Christians"? Doesn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek? I mean if I were to attack them and call them arrogant cowards are they not "required" by Jesus to turn the other cheek and only offer Love and understanding to me in return for my insulting them and their beliefs?
this is me again just nso you know who is about to verbally embaraas you all over this hub page. for one its not hate its pity. as christians we love everyone and try to show that love. this is me saying i feel sorry for people who cant find happiness in anything except what they see and feel. i have no hate in my heart and the fact that all you could retort with was more sarcasm just shows me your inability to express passion of any kind. i really wish for just one moment you would open your eyes. and not the ones on your face. see the joy that can come from god. i hope you find something you can beleive in someday and pray for you in the mean time.
You would do better take the advice I gave your dad.
You are the hater. Just look back through the threads.
It feels like hate to me, it feels exactly like hate. It sure doesn't make me feel loved, or nurtured. And embarrassing me all over this hub is that a christianly way to be? Is that what Jesus teaches?
I mean I could probably understand him saying that he disagrees with what someone else believes, but to call anyone who believes in science a coward... well to me that just doesn't seem "Christianly". It sounds more like a nazi to me.
I move that Chef Jeff made the best contribution so far to this thread, and made it in the spirit of wisdom and understanding.
I do believe there is a higher power at work, it just doesn't have anything to do with Christianity or any other religion.
Can someone repost the CHEF JEFF post you are talking about?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
So many people insist that Atheism is detrimental to society while religion enhanced society. Hmmm, now let us see this objectively instead of subjectively. Religions have been the source of wars and other types of divisions among humankind. Religions have also been the source of...
by James Q smith 14 years ago
Just a question, but it would seem if there really were no God, then Atheists couldn't exist. Is Atheism a religion? They definitely seem to be unified by a common belief.
by JKPenn 10 years ago
Do you believe in organized religion or in a higher power?
by capncrunch 7 years ago
Besides the belief in a higher power, what other differences separate non-believers and believers?What is the agenda of either side?
by Sean Thomas Gartland 11 years ago
If you have any evidence please present it.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 3 years ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|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.|