When we consider the workings of the human body: the immune system, the continual automatic regulation of its systems, the subconcious workings of the brain, the workings of a cell; does it not seem strange that the body is more intelligent than the person living inside? If there is no God, explain this one.
True a very intelligent designer is involved, way beyond the human mind.
Ehh so people are going to merge with this designer with help of spirituality and they want to understand him with help of religion ? Keyword was "beyond human mind" right ? We all enjoy play of semantics when we have no answer.
To create and design this universe is beyond the human mind abilities.
Playing again with words eh ? There is no "who" behind creation of universe.
For starters try inflation theory, abiogenesis.
'Theories' are by definition, NOT PROOF.
To clear things to you, Both these have proofs in case you've no idea about them. Just cause it is called "inflation theory" doesn't mean it have no proofs. I guess we'll have better discussion if you show me which proof in inflation theory makes you deny it.
Big Bang, Inflation, Amino Acids transforming into living matter...may all be true. None of them by their mere existence are proof that God doesn't exist.
The existence of these concepts or the trueness of them does not cancel the possibility that God used them to create. They may simply be the tools God, or the star goat, used to accomplish creation.
Evolution is for me proof of an Intelligent Design, and subsequently an Intelligent Designer. But evolution is not proof, in and of itself, (either way) of the existence of God.
But - as you now understand evolution, you must accept that there was no end goal?
Is that correct?
The end goal in my opinion is life.
People, humanity was not the goal of creation, per se. The goal of creation was, in my humble opinion, life in what ever form it takes. The more intelligent and more evolved the better.
Creation was not done as a way for humanity to exist, humanity exists as a by-product of creation.
For me God mixed in the ingredients, and is watching and waiting to see what the dish ends up being. (I see the flaw in my thinking here, God knowing everything, God must already know the end result.) Maybe for God knowing the ending to a movie doesn't ruin the movie??...
For me life is about the creation of eternal souls. Our human form is merely a cocoon created expressly to protect and nurture the soul. God doesn't really care about the temporary form, it is the eternal soul that is important.
So - there was no end goal. We agree on something.
Humanity is an accident and we could just as easily have evolved in a completely different direction.
Just exactly how is this a design then? Seems to me you are reaching and trying to fit your belief in a god into what is quite clearly not a design.
And how is this an intelligent way of going about achieving the desired result? - which we both agree could not possibly have been known or predicted.
Unless you throw in a massive assumption about god knowing everything. And then throw in another load of nonsense about souls. And these souls are eternal and important and could just as well have resided in giant cockroaches if we had happened to evolve from bugs.
The end goal in my opinion is life. ????
A massive assumption? Got Proof?
1 a soul doesn't exist.
2 Humanity is an accident.
3 That cockroaches didn't evolve on another planet to the dominate and most intelligent life form on that planet, and that they are just as precious to God as the life forms that evolved on our planet Earth.
4 souls are nonsense.
5 That whatever form life takes isn't the intention, the design.
But it started with life - therefore you have made yet another meaningless statement.
But - we both agree that humanity was not a goal and it is not possible to know what life will come out of the evolutionary process. Right?
You just threw in some nonsense about eternal souls - which I assume plants have also too?
Seeing as they are "life."
That comes from pure of your assumption. The way you claim as tools of good is mere assumption, nowhere on there lines you can back yourself up with empirical evidence, just word salad for designer. Inflation theory, big bang, abiogenesis refers to absence of creator, there is only claims from creationist mix things up without empirical evidence. If you think these are tools then how you going to prove that these are tools of designer ? Besides the point where you said god has no form etc, is another assumption as well.
BURDEN OF PROOF
You cannot claim that "miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
You cannot claim that "souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
You cannot claim that "angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
You cannot claim that "deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X. What is improper is for a person to claim that "X exists" and when asked to prove it the person who made the claim uses as a defense of "X exists" the claim next claim that no one has proven that X does not exist.
If a person claims that X exists and is real then the burden is on that person to supply some support for that claim, some evidence or proof that others can and should examine before accepting it.
It is incorrect to think that X exists and is real until someone can prove that there is no X.
It is also wrong to think that just because you can not prove that X exists that does not mean that X does not exist and therefore X does exist.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scc … -proof.htm
Have you? - Oh that is right - you get to make up anything you like and say it is not possible to disprove it therefore it is written in stone. I see Jesus favors inflicting other people with second hand cigarette smoke - I did not know that one.
Can you tell us what else Jesus thinks, which must be true because no one knows what Jesus said therefore it cannot be disproven.
It is clear the Star Goat vomited us and until such times as you can disprove that - this should be the default theory.
I like this new way of doing things. Much easier than justifying anything I say with logic or evidence.......
The Star Goat did it - please disprove it.
Remember your ruck sack anology?
The burden of proof lies with the one that is trying to convert the other.
Oh - I am not trying to convince you that the Star Goat is real. You cannot disprove it, therefore it is. Thank you. I really like this way of teaching people stuff. Much easier than having a rational conversation.
So - now we agree that the Star Goat vomited us up - this makes anything you say that is contradictory to that an attempt to convert me and will require some proof.
If we were vomited by the star goat, should we all be dreading the coming of the Great Valeda Super Mop?
The End Time Chronicles Speak Of Such A One. Yeah, verily will the mess be cleaned up one day. But this is esoteric knowledge placed directly into the heads of the Chosen Few Who Are Worthy.
And you thought I had no wisdom and insight........
This might help:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scc … -proof.htm
An evidentialist approach to knowledge is not the only approach to knowledge. Check out epistemology, the branch of philosophy dealing with theories of knowledge, belief etc.
An evidentialist approach is useful when you want to build bridges, develop medicine, build new technology etc. Not quite as helpful when dealing with questions where there is no observable empirical data available.
Does having no observable empirical data available about something make it true? Of course not. But likewise having no observable empirical data available about something does not make it false either. Does that mean we should say nothing about things for which there is no empirical data available. That's a choice.
By using proof (in the form of observable empirical data) as the criteria for knowledge, you are restricting yourself to accumulating only very specific types of knowledge.
Should someone choose to not restrict themselves to such a type of knowledge, then they are perfectly entitled to. That doesn't mean they are "bad", "stupid", "ill" of "delusional". It means they have exercised their entitlement as a conscious entity to choose what approach they take to knowledge.
You are of course free to disagree with that approach, but don't think for a minute that because evidentialism as an approach is so useful in helping accumulate a certain kind of knowledge that is the only approach, or indeed the most "sensible". It depends entirely on what is under consideration.
I'm not sure where you're making a connection between evidentialism and the burden of proof fallacy, but one of the key elements with evidence is falsifiability and that the mind is not naturally inclined to form beliefs strictly on evidence alone, that the mind is not naturally inclined to form beliefs that are justified. Evidentialism would seek to determine whether or not the beliefs are justified or not.
Evidentialism is a theory of justification which describes justified belief as that for which there is "proof", i.e. evidence. There is an assumption by some that this is the only valid theory of justification. The burden of proof argument is a manifestation of that assumption.
It assumes an enquirer considers "proof" (evidence) as the single most important criteria for determining the justification of all belief. In many cases, that's a false assumption.
There's no point telling someone "the burden of proof lies with you" if that person subscribes to an entirely different theory of justification for some types of belief.
Indeed for a foundationalist, the idea of "proof" as a criteria for justified beliefs is moot, because that position holds that some beliefs are justified entirely without the requirement of evidence. I wrote a hub about this which goes into a bit more depth.
By stating "the burden of proof lies with you" you are assuming the person you are addressing subscribes to the same theory of justification you do, and that is an assumption on your part.
Why would it be a false assumption in many cases? It works well for science. What are the many cases you refer?
The burden of proof does lie with that person if they're making a claim. Who else should it apply to if not the claimant?
Then, that other person has no argument if they make a claim and then shift the burden of proof.
It shouldn't matter in the least what is under consideration, whether it be the Loch Ness monster or Cosmological Expansion. If they choose an approach of faith in their quest for knowledge, the approach and the beliefs are not justified relative to the purely epistemic goal of having beliefs that are most likely to be true.
I have to disagree. If the belief relates to something for which no empirical data is objectively observable, then what you believe is no more or less likely to be true than what anyone else believes.
But to be honest this is not about whether theistic belief is true or false.
Evidentialist are essentially saying that belief for which there is no available supporting or refuting evidence is "wrong" epistemologically speaking. In such a situation not believing is the only reasonable course. Indeed evidentialism suggests that it is "wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence". This is the axiom of evidentialism.
Yet there is no evidence for this. There is evidence to suggest that it is unhelpful sometimes, in some places and for some people to believe upon insufficient evidence, but there is no evidence that proves the axiom of evidentialism true.
So the axiom of evidentialism is an unjustified belief by its very own standard of justification. This is the issue. Evidentialism is self-refuting.
Therefore it's not about the truth or falsehood of theism. I believe most theists are not rejecting the burden of proof fallacy. They are in fact (perhaps without articulating it as so) rejecting the assertion made by evidentialism altogether. In which case, the burden of proof fallacy is moot, because it relies upon the enquirer having an evidentialist world view, which is an assumption. In the case of many theists, it is a false assumption.
I don't think so, one can take evidentialism at its face value and still understand and maintain that the mind is not naturally inclined to form beliefs based on evidence.
Not in science, it isn't.
Not necessarily. One need not strictly have an evidentialist world view to rely on the burden of proof fallacy. It is simply a fallacy for shifting the proof from the claimant. Evidence may have nothing to do with it.
I baked a cake once. At least I think I did. No wait a minute, it self evolved out of its own base ingredients; acquired its own intelligence; then I disappeared in a puff of logic.
Nice, any better way to put things up if you don't know inch of science ?
Some of the greatest of scientists like Albert Einstein understood their limitations and believed in an intelligent creator.
One cake can't evolve, it takes generations of cakes with very small changes in each cake thereafter. You could start out with an angel food cake and millions of years later end up with a devil cake.
Its the truth not playing with words or you,any intelligent design requires an intelligent creator.
What has the capacity to make a planet spin with such precision for so long?
The human body only shows,(in the case you believe in a god) that this 'creation' is full of flaws.
And Why ?
Because Man, through science have found the means to improve it.
I'm an intelligent person.. I was just given a hot body thats too much for me to handle sometimes
if a divine, hugely powerful being created the Universe and billions of stars and galaxies, it seems to me any human being it created would be perfect and not prone to so many diseases. they would be like Superman. just look at what imperfect humans can create with their limited brain usage and technologies.
p.s. it is only through the advances of modern medicine that Man has prolonged his lifespan. imagine what we could do if we were gods.
And it is through "advances" in economics and political science that we've kept the benefits of modern medicine away from most of the people who need it most.
Don't blame God. Christianity, like atheism, leaves all responsibility for the ills of the world at the feet of ourselves.
Chaos theory- there is order in what seems to be chaos-science.
Does it need to be explained? No. It shouldn't make any difference.
Nothing to explain.
Computerized machines can be hooked up to the body to keep it alive during surgery. Mankind invented those machines.
If God made man in his own image then what you see in the mirror must look like God. You can see a physical image. Why would God design you if he already was the blueprint?
Break it down to cells, molecules or atoms. Does God look like an atom? It can be theoretically infinitely divided or multiplied.
Trying to prove God in the physical world is like wearing a clown costume to a funeral.
Trying to prove God in the spiritual realm is the same because it is invisible...you simply cannot prove it.
Then...possibly...evolution designs living things and possibly...life force (light,water,etc) is the sustenance of those living things.
Perhaps God is the spirit of past, present and future...drawing all living creatures to the perfection of infinite evolution?
If only..... religion would evolve at the same pace.
You still haven't explained why there "is" a God!
I was designed!
"Serendipity" was my designer and creator!
Until that can be disproved, I stand by my belief.
I am open for proofs any "infantile" human creature can provide.
Pls don't ask me to hold-my-breath until that happens. OK?
Apparently not anymore Mohit. Keeping up with science are we? We are well into fixing up quite a few mess-ups in the human body, and controlling some other of "god's" makings that are not up to scratch!
What has to be considered here is that modern science allows us not only to see and understand the structure of the human body, but to alter it, repair it and even prolong life.
This all came from science, and no gods were involved before or now in that understanding.
In biblical days you would maybe be wrapped in cow poo and have a wand waved over your head! Medicine was a bit like prayer in those days.
Knowledge is not a measure of intelligence. we may begin to understand how the body works, but could never have thought it up in the first place.
Science does have a good grasp of the human body and functions but what had the intelligence to create all this millions or billions of years ago.
Now science is building huge particle accelerators to find the building blocks of this universe the god particle, science still doesnt understand creation properly.
Science can't answer the question as to why, or what purpose.
No science does not understand fully, but we have discovered an enzyme that causes aging to commence, and a 17 year old girl with a biological age of three seems to have blown the god theory away as well. Science will have an understanding of what life "is" very soon, and it will not be caused by a psychotic sky fairy! that has a thousand opposing worshipping groups all certain the others beliefs are wrong!
Who has the right fairy?
My, my Earnest, you sure are bitter when it comes to anything religious or godly eh? Why is that? I understand skepticism, but you just seem mad all the time. are you?
anyways, I think we give ourselves way too much credit. Yes, science has brought us a long way, but that scientific genius originated somewhere and that was in the intelligence of humanity. so where did that intelligence come from? There are no easy answers here. There are too many unexplainable things in this world to go with just one kind of logic. Science cannot explain miraculous feats of strength and courage in devastating events. and most doctors will say time and again that childbirth is in fact a miracle.
There is more to us than just science.
God may have been involved in setting an example for human physicians to follow. Your "psychotic sky fairy" incarnate made a big point of healing the sick.
And I really do have such little faith in humanity that we'd be so motivated to do likewise if we didn't have a Jesus saying "follow me."
Oh - the old, "I don't understand how the human body works, therefore there must be an invisible super being in the sky," argument.
Why do you select a location? Especially the sky?
Because that's where any believer locates God
That shows how childish a belief can be!
Like Heaven or Hell
Because that is where ignorant savages in the bronze ages assumed the invisible sky fairy lived. And the ignorant savages of today seem perfectly happy with this explanation, so I was trying to blend in.
Myself? - this is not an acceptable explanation for anything and hasn't been since I began thinking for myself. I was never satisfied with the "well, there are some things we do not understand and this is where god comes in," rubbish that most religionists seem happy with.
Talk about an easy answer. "God did it."
Perhaps you don't like the "God filling in the gaps". But where is your insight? Where is your wisdom? Where have you provided any answers to the mysteries of life? I'd love yo know.
Neither have you sweetie pie. Insight? Wisdom?
You will have to be a tad more specific though - seeing as "mysteries of life," is a little vague and we all know the answer is forty two.
Buy seriously - no - I do not like your easy answer. It is not acceptable and I would rather say "I don't know," than swallow the nonsense you are offering as insight and wisdom. This appears to offend you in some way. Why is that?
The "savages" of the bronze ages first worshiped the sun and that probably paved the way for future generations to refer to and select the same location when the need to give GOD an address arose.
However, today's "savages" (which includes me) are very much different!
God is the sun.....Worship the sun god......son of god....rises after dying.....comes to bring light to the darkness......bringing salvation.........
By Jove! I think we are on to something!
Well, if there's a God, he didn't do a good work!
The human body only shows, that this 'creation' is full of flaws.
And Why ?
Because Man, through science have found the means to improve it.
So what kind of god is this ?
the human body didn't have to be perfect just adequate to live for x amount of years on earth is all. It was never intended by God that man live forever and in perfect health in a fallen state or what i call the animal man. And umans just needed to be complex enough to know knowledge, wisdom and understanding both in Gods realm and animal mans realm. Of course: all things in their proper time which is what animal man calls evolution. If the egyptians had have been given the atomic bomb, would there still be an earth? Only god knows and i believe He reveals medical breakthroughs when he desires, because to God, life only begins here, this is not all there is. So while animal man blames god and speaks badly of God (who holds the keys to eternal life) animal man will have to live his days and then die, without hope of eternal life or even having some of his most vital and important questions answered.
If I was designed then baby I am designer!
*looking for the designer label*
we started as a zygote then we proceed to become humans we are designed to survive in this world, we have brains, the capacity to think and process ideas -- inventions etc for our own needs and to survive
Maybe god was the lump of matter all alone in the universe who decided to explode and changed his name to big-bang and thus became just a theory.
Truly I believe that God (what ever that is) is the first thing that was not nothing...
In the begining there was absolutely nothing, then at some point there was something that was not nothing, since this something was the only thing that was not nothing it was also everything. That for me is God. I also believe that this 'something' created itself and all that followed.
Lol, you've no idea about big-bang. Big bang refers to explosion of universe, not explosion inside universe.
not no idea - no care about semantics when trying to crack a joke into the pointless proving and counter proving of an unproveable idea
By the way, big-bang unprovable idea ? Where you get this from ?
It is still a theory - and like many 'pretty sure to certain' theories before it, like sailing of the end of the world theory, it will get disproved altered and adjusted. This does not mean that I do not have 'faith' in it by the way -
Faith ? Science doesn't work on faith, it is verification and falsification which even you know and that's why you posted about adjustment/alteration. And big-bang has lot of evidence on many grounds but it is inconsistent in many aspects of it and can't be explained and hence inflation seems to be picking up where big-bang is left of.
Is my point - the theory is still just that, you can't say it is proved and then say it is being adjusted. And proved is only a consensus of opinion - so - for my personal situation in the 'don't really care much but interested' camp - my belief that something like this is about right is faith
BTW you are going at this flat out at an awe inspiring rate I have written this slowly so you have a chance to catch your breath
You still don't get it. First you assumed big-bang is process inside universe then you made sweeping statement that it is pure theory without pointing to any specific area of big-bang which is still theory and not yet proved. And then you persist on saying that entire concept as only theory, is where you're wrong.
Anyway - the bang would have been inside the universe by definition as soon as it started
This is the reason i said you've no idea about big-bang. Big-bang refers to singularity there is no way it is inside universe.
Science admits its limitations, it look at things from the Big bang theory but have no idea and do not know what was before that.
http://boingboing.net/2007/11/11/what-c … e-the.html
The Big Bang theory of the origin of our universe is widely accepted by the physics community. The idea that our universe started out as some infinitesimally small point, which expanded out to what we see today, makes a lot of sense. Except for one small thing. That initial point, called a singularity by physicists, is a physical impossibility. According to the models we have today, the temperature of the universe at that first moment would have had to be infinite, which mathematically makes no sense. Also, the singularity doesn't do a good job of explaining where all the matter and energy we see today in the universe came from. So, physicists are increasingly starting to look at other branches of physics to see what they can do to replace the singularity with a more reasonable proposition, one which can actually be explained by existing science.
Science does not know for sure.
I don't *know* if I was designed or not. Simply not enough empirical evidence one way or another. But I *sense* as shallow and unintelligent as that sounds, that I didn't just happen over the course of a long string of evolutions. I think there is a power in the universe that's pretty incredible. Seeing all those photos from the Hubble Telescope is pretty amazing. The universe is alive and in motion. It collides and explodes and reforms all kinds of things, over and over. I don't know if a god or gods do all that. I just know that I'm somehow a part of it, because I live in it.
What I don't understand, honestly, is why those who don't believe in intelligent design think that their lives are worth living. If this life is all there is, and there is completely nothing after, then why live this life? You're not going to take a memory or experience with you once your dead. Unless you rise to the top of the heap, no one will remember you after a generation or less, and this life is filled with a life time of trauma, bad news and crap. So why is it worth it, I wonder?
Life is what YOU make it. It doesn't come from a book.
Wow - no wonder you believe this c**p !! I don't and my life is filled with love, wonder, discovery and the hottest girl in town ! If I lived your life of sin and misery (at the house of the rising sun !! ??) I would want to believe that he will come down with his mighty pooper scooper and whisk it all awy at the end !! You think you will be remembered ? I don't even remember you now and i ma writing back to you
I'm living my life the way I see fit, and making of it what I want. I have no codependence on a person or "being." My question was an honest one. It's not to prove a point. Why is life worth living if you don't believe in intelligent design?
The jury is out for me. I don't know that I was designed intelligently, but I don't discount it entirely. I know why *I* want to live, I just wonder why others who believe all this was by chance seem to have such a drive to live also. Two extremely diverse viewpoints, yet we have a common goal--to live.
The common goal is for every living thing - it is the most simple basic ingredient of life. It is what drives evolution - the drive of every living thing to live, for us as thinking beings we dress this up as desire, love, etc but cellular level drive is where it comes from.
All life looks at things the same way, whether intelligent or sentient,animal or vegetable -
1. Can I eat it
2. Can I mate with it
AFTER this comes the detail from moving to find the food and mate, interaction with other things, testing magic mushrooms to see if they are edible and getting high as a kite and deciding that it is god.
Then hiding this ridiculous certainty by pretending that there is a god somewhere else but you speak for it. But inside you really think you are important enough that the universe is aware of you.
Interesting. I've spent a lot of time reading metaphysical texts, some eastern philosophies, etc., which is principally what you are saying. I can agree because I've read these things. As to whether I fully align myself with them, I don't know. I don't have enough information yet. This journey is rather new to me. I took 50 years of brainwashing and indoctrination and pissed all over it. I'm rebuilding from the ground up, and so far, it's a good experience.
So - the only reason you feel life is worth living is because you are going to live forever? And this is what keeps you going? The "sense" that there MUST be something else.
Therefore there must be a god.
And there is not shortage of empirical evidence to prove that you evolved and were not designed. Pretty lousy design if you ask me though.
That wasn't my question, Mark.
As I mentioned already, the jury is out for me as to whether or not there is intelligent design. People have a *sense* that there is something more. Thus we have these incredibly small particles in the universe that had to be proved, not just sensed. It took time to prove their existence, but it was proven. I have a sense, but I've been wrong before, so I don't put all my eggs in the basket of intelligent design. I'm still trying to gather more facts. So I don't necessarily believe in a sky fairy, as you call it. Nor do I completely discount the possibility of a power or something the permeates the universe, because there isn't enough evidence for me, one way or the other.
Any additional banter or points you may make I will consider, as I usually always do. However, it's sometimes very difficult to wade through the wasteland of condescension to figure out what you say, sometimes. But I'll try.
Why do you want to live, Mark? That was my question.
I want to live because I don't want to die. That is scary and I don't know what happens when you die.
Seriously - I am an animal and all animals want to live. That seems to be our purpose - to live and breed.
But - if your jury is out on the sky fairy - as Earnest calls it. (I prefer "invisible super being,") and you are not putting your eggs in any basket - what is your reason.
I "sense" that I am apart of something bigger. Any fool can see we are a part of something bigger. I cannot deny that. But a god? A purpose? Jesus saves? Live forever? No thanks. Not buying.
Then I think we share more common ground that I even realized.
I don't even know why I don't want to die. I sure as hell tried, but got to the edge and somehow knew there was something else I may want to do. Dammit.
I want to live because I was robbed of a lot of good things, and I'm determined to know what some of those things would be like. Sounds almost like vengeance, but hell, it works for me.
The thing that pisses me off is that my life is what *I* make of it, which is also what others have said. Everytime I've trusted some other a**hole to take me to a wonderful place, it turned out to be shear stupidity on my part. So, it's up to me, and I'm not done. That's what I decided when I was 50 and I'm having a pretty good time, overall. I DON'T believe in sin. It's f****** bullsh**. The only person who's going to save my butt is me. Look in the mirror and get over it.
So much for my religion....
What I don't understand about what you're saying is how you don't believe in sin. What is sin to you? what else should we call it? wrong-doing? sin is all around us but it doesn't mean that we are horrible people. you know right from wrong. you feel it in your soul. tell me that you don't. where does that feeling come from? why do we have that?
Sin is anything that God doesn't want you or I to do.
However, the way I look at it is that once you remove God from the picture, there is no such thing as sin. It's a matter of *anything* that brings harm to you or anyone else, is a negative. It means you need to make a course correction, not grovel to a god for forgiveness. The course correction may include asking for forgiveness of another person, and may include forgiving yourself.
But I don't believe in sin. If there is a God, I'm not an offense to him.
Daniel, I am just curious. What do you believe? You seem to be kind of waffling between wanting to believe and hating that you want to believe.
Why is it such a mystery to you?
No megs78 - I like your hat by the way - he has finally got to the real issue behind it all and got it right. see above to save me writing it again ?
I am not a religious person by any means China Man. But I do know that there is something bigger than us out there but just because that is so, it doesn't mean that we can use that as an excuse at to why we do what we do. We are all accountable to ourselves to others and to our Higher Power. If we weren't, this world would be a lot worse off than it is now. We can philosophize this and that and go on and on and on (drainingly on) about the science of this and that, and say 'you can't prove it, so it can't be true', when the real truth is that the most learned person in the world has no clue! we know nothing. we think we know, but we don't know. The only real thing that we have is what we feel inside. No matter who you are or where you're from, you have it. you feel it no matter how badly you would like to deny or ignore it.
thanks by the way, I like my tuque too. pretty cold up here in Canada so I keep it on indoors as well.
Completely agree - and I don't say anything different above - except - why must there be a higher being? just the huge amazing Universe is enough - and we at least know that is out there to the best of our senses.
The only real thing is yourself and what you feel (for you ) and myself and what I feel (for me). And I agree with you, all the rest is insignificant in the face of that.
Hmmm...why must there be a higher being? good question. But like I said earlier, I think that thats why we know right from wrong. For me, a Higher Power is God. I have no qualms about who he is or where I am going, I just know what I believe and its enough for me. I can't tell you why I feel so strongly about it, I just do and I can't deny it.
It is probably worth your while to ask yourself that question. i.e. "why you feel that strongly about it."
Telling yourself that what you consider to be right from wrong is the instruction from a god is where we get religion, and it invariably ends in conflict because it is not possible to distinguish between what god tells you and what you think up for yourself.
Have you ever noticed how people who think they speak for a god tend to have the same thoughts as this god?
Do you think you could use your own decision making capabilities to determine right from wrong - without a god telling you?
Do you think (as I do not feel a god) I am capable of distinguishing right from wrong?
I am not implying that just because you don't (feel a god), that you are incapable of making good decisions or distinguishing right from wrong. My thing is that I think most people have it ingrained in them from the start. But where does that come from?
Mark, I have no issue with you or your beliefs. Believe what you want. Its honestly ok with me. The only reason I was chatting about it with Daniel is because he seemed to be open to something, but not quite sure what it was. I am interested in that and curious about what makes him think the way he does.
I am not trying to sway anyone to my beliefs. Especially someone who is quite obviously firmly planted in his own, someone like you. I don't like mean and bitter statements and I don't like getting into arguments that I know I can't win.
But you have already decided where it comes from. Why do you mention mean and bitter? I was not mean and bitter - I just asked a straight question. You said Daniel seemed to hate, and that Earnest was angry.
Do you think that anyone who does not believe is mean, bitter and angry?
I do not agree that we have any sense of right or wrong ingrained - if we did - we would all agree what is right or wrong. And more importantly - stick to it.
Mark, I know you're a nice guy, and regardless of my beliefs, I am actually a pretty nice girl. Please don't read me the wrong way. I never said you were mean and bitter, but normally the religion forums get bad and you know it. I am just saying that I don't want to go there and I wasn't trying to engage you in any way. I am not an intellectual and you would pummel me in a war of words, so I won't even try.
As for Ernest, if he is offended at what I said, I hope he would tell me. I rather like Ernest and thought that maybe he would enjoy some banter. and Daniel is not a child and knew exactly what I was talking about. I don't believe he took issue with my words.
I am not taking issue either. I just genuinely think that asking yourself that question would be a worthwhile exercise. I know because I asked it of myself some time ago. And the answer was surprising. And liberating.
I spent the better part of my younger years asking myself tough questions. my father was the pastor of a baptist church so you can imagine what kind of life i led. since coming to the conclusion that religion doesn`t define who i am or dictate how i should be, act, etc, i have felt liberated. i question alot mark, i dont blindly follow although thats how you might picture me by my responses. anyways, im glad you dont take issue. thats a relief to me. i hope that we can keep the chat up
LOL _ I only take issue when people tell me they know all the answers. I still think that if you cannot answer this:
You are taking the easy route that most people take. Once you can answer this question you will understand the way a belief in a god works. Sure - we are part of something bigger than ourselves. Duh!
But - to ascribe it to a "higher power" that gives us the answers magically into our heads? Without any work on our part? Some one else takes care of it if we just follow along and do what is "right"? And you cannot answer why you think this way? You just do? Of course you can't deny it. You have been trained from birth to think like this.
You are doing yourself an injustice.
I never trust any feeling I cannot identify the root cause of.
i see a good point in there -especially where the "R" word is concerned. sheep use instinct to blindly follow a shepherd, else get chased into the fold by dogs, wolves.
one noble quality i have seen in you is that you don't tend to follow the sheep.
but there are millions who do not follow any "R" and still believe.
it is not believing 'god' does everything for us if we follow rule a,b,c. or magically gives us answers; it is we doing with 'god' the things we should and already know how to do.
take instinct, fear, doubt out of the equation and it is very liberating, logically, spiritually and physically.
goes way beyond hoke-poke, mind melding, potion-lotion and baby babble bible books...
Sorry. You are wrong. Because using the GOD word implies an outside force. A being doing things. An actual person. This is incorrect.
Instinct, fear and doubt are a part of us. Fear is what keeps you alive when a threat is present. Without fear you will not survive very long anywhere. Fear is healthy. Fear gives you powers and strength you never knew existed.
Being able to let go the fear after acknowledging it and accepting it is even more powerful.
Doubt is what makes us human and even the bible values doubt.
The sad fact is that when some one claims to believe in a god - they become one of two things. A wolf or a sheep. Look at all the millions of sheeple who do nothing when they watch their "religion" walk all over everyone.
They sit there watching TV, waving a flag and being good for Jesus, as they get eaten by the wolves. And they do not even realize they are being eaten.
And you do not come across as liberated. Logically, physically or spiritually. Quite the opposite. More claiming some esoteric knowledge and attempting to speak in riddles but failing. Sorry.
GOD always has been and always will be the easy answer that leads us to destruction. We have been inexorable headed there for some time. But - the Age of Aquarius is finding it's feet and who knows? Out with the old and in with the new. I rather wish I had been born a little later.
"R" as in "right"?
I told you, I don't have answers. I never claimed to have any. But what is this about sitting around getting eaten by wolves? Mark, can you really be serious? Aren't you putting everyone into the same basket? I don't understand how you talk sometimes. Can you put into terms that I will clearly understand what exactly it is that you are fighting against in what we say?
You do have answers. You have told me yourself that there is a higher power called God. And this is why you know right from wrong. All I did was suggested you ask yourself a question. Why do you feel this way? Up to you if you want to try and answer it.
But those answers are for me alone. That is what I believe. I know that there are other religions and that they all think they have the right one. I can't say for sure that they are wrong,but its a risk I'm willing to take. I'm going with my gut on this one and thats it. My higher power is God. For others it is Allah, etc. But I am not pushing that on you or telling you that my God is the right one. It works for me. Thats all. But exactly what do you mean when you say 'of course there is something bigger than us'
I think the planet qualifies as us being part of something bigger than us.
This is a new journey to me. I threw out the old and am embarking on something completely new. I have strong opinions about everything. However, when it comes to this stuff, I don't jump on bandwagons, I don't trust one person's views and I need to know for myself. I have a sense of things, but I don't know for sure. I'm okay with not having answers to a lot of things. I'm at peace, now about many things that used to trouble me. I'm just curious, and so it's a journey about curiosity.
I totally respect that. Its a continual journey for me as well and I question too. But the one thing that remains constant to me that really kinda surprises me each time, is what I feel. Everything else is a journey. However, I'm not on the fence about what I believe. I know what I believe, I just don't do religion very well. So what is the old thats going in the garbage?
I think we are in similar places. Undecided for me is not sitting on a fence. I don't take up a sword to look flashy. It's irrelevant to me. Curiosity is about discovery, and discovery only strengthens a person when they able to realize the experience. Darwin tipped the world on it's edge in his day, and yet, he really didn't set out to disprove the existence of God, per se. He discovered what he did and wrote about it in the absence of a God. That's all that really happened.
NOW I can agree with that - this is moving from morals that were rules and guides for living in other and ancient times - to ethical behaviour decided through reason and logical argument. NOT ONLY THAT I can agree that the result of this difference is that instead of blaming a god we are faced with being responsible for our own actions.
An example of which is along the divide of opinion about the war on Iraq - morals (christian morals) make it kinda ok enough to fool the gullible of its necessity so that someone could make s**tloads of dosh.
Ethics does not make it ok at all - and in the process of working out the argument it can see where tomorrow's terrorists are going to come from.
Hey China man, please don't suggest that the loopy American Right with their version of morals that allows them to invade a soverign and largely harmless country in order to steal their oil has anything to do with Christian morals.
It's just as loopy to suggest we got or will be getting any cheap oil out of Iraq or that Saddam Hussein was a "largely harmless" dictator.
He was pretty harmless to the world at large. No WMD but he was sitting on some of the largest oil fields in the world.
Sure he killed 250,000 of his own people, but the war in Iraq has been thought to have killed up to a millon. Perhaps Halle Burton and George W reckon that's a good deal.
But it is Christian morals that drives it, the conservative right are predominantly christian and who got the ultra right wing into power. It is also christian morals that in effect validates the war on Islam that is going on. And it is not about stealing oil - it is about controlling it. Saddam's 'sin' was not killing his own people, plenty of other countries that get full US and the UK support kill more and treat their populations worse, his sin was to threaten the oil supply. And it is christian morality of sin and retribution that validated the destruction of that Islamic country.
The 3 major monotheisms represent the acme of human evil.
You haven't seen anything yet.
The future of the human species is not viable. why? The concept of god/allah has so fragmented mankind that it will never come together to work in concert for the benefit of all.
It is "hellbent" on the realization of the "self-fulfilling-prophecy" of armageddon.
All 3 seem to prefer death and a mythical afterlife to life on this incredible planet populated by alledged sinners and infidels.
Overpopulation will drive all 3 to perform a cataclysmic catastrophe that will take the human species to the brink of extinction!
They will do it praying for "god's" blessings.
We are a crazed, infantile species of life inundated in abysmal ignorance and insane activity.
Nature requires adaptability for survival.
To resist Mother Nature is an exercise in futility. She, absolutely, wins.
The will to live is strong. Of course we share a lot. We are the same species. It is all the other crap about god and national pride and politics that gets in between everyone.
Evolution does not preclude the existence of a designer.
Sometimes I think creation is flawed because we're all works in progress, and sometimes I think it's flawed because we choose to stray from the original design.
Whether their is a creator or not creationist ideas and theories that don't take into account the presence of evolution is rubbish. A work in progress sound like evolution to me. We have evolved and we continue to evolve. If we stuck to the original design we would still be one celled creatures swimming in primordial ooze. Mind you we might be happier that way not knowing much or caring about much but that original design is no longer relevant to who we are today and our present needs. If God had a plan then it involved change, lots and lots of change.
theories are man's escape from accountability.
no 'god' no accountability to any but self.
which denies human natural logic and method.
human auto-responder is to seek out anther human, help them learn, grow, what have you. Which contradicts the 'self' proclamation and many other superficial scientific expressions.
Good thing 'science' has 'uncovered' such limited depths of the human body alone. A single cell is more ingenious than ALL human study, knowledge, education, discovery, expression, ideology, experiment, consideration, ad infinitum.
We were designed brilliantly.
'God' did great work.
But somehow only this particular creation seems to think otherwise...humans. Go figure.
Plenty of times people have used the God argument so they would not be totally accountable for their actions. Today the lack of accountability through religion continues. you say we are overpopulating the world and we are dooming all sorts of species to extinction? Hey that's fine! God said we can do that. The oceans are being fished out and there will come a day, because we are not taking proper care of our environment, when there simply won't be any fish to catch but that's okay God said we can do this. Talk about leaning on religion and letting accountability slip by. Right now I see, yes there is a God and we use this got so we don't have to account for our actions.
Straight forward answer for purpose of life, "Learn+Unlearn+Survive+Multiply".
Too much multiplication and we will all be in a sorry mess. Check out Soylent Green (Make Room! Make Room!) or The Population Bomb.
I think Skyfire is exhausted! but I am sure he would want me to point out that he uses the plus sign not multiplication in his model. And one of the problems that form most of the arguments on here is that there are already way too many people on earth.
Nope i'll not ask you for something like that. I made that equation for reply to Daniel as it was satisfactory for his question. You seem to take things way too stretched when it comes to ignorance(that includes your own).
There are already too many people on earth is a pretty good argument only because it happens to be true. What is religion doing about it? As far as I can see the major religions are only making the situation worse. Skyfire did use plus multiply in his argument and I took it from there. Multiply was good once when, many eons ago, humanity was facing extinction from under population. Now that we face extinction from over doing it maybe 'producing same' would be better than plus multiply.
the sense or reason for believing exceeds the question/answer parallels. This is free will in action. Choice, beyond needing to know, beyond thinking/logic/equation. It is beyond consciousness.
this is perhaps 'why' those who 'disbelieve' are still entertaining the notion of "prove it to me so i can believe" else "prove it to me so i can not believe" and have firm conviction/evidence of either or.
but you know (chuckles) that is not going to happen, because the evidence is everywhere and nowhere at the same, alpha/omega which completely defies all human logic.
as long as you look in either direction to 'find' something, the longer it will take you to find it, since point A and point B are infinite.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity
There's no explanation.
I can't see God anywhere. We're not perfect.
Science has made us better
Besides assumptions, what's in stock ?
Truth ? Is it frozens somewhere ? Who's got the secret to the freezer door ?
Life is like a tin of corned beef. We're all looking for the key. XD
and that's just on the 'cell' level!
You assemble some millions and you have a macroscopic view.
i was actually going the other way. if you disassemble them, the energy is infinite. amazing indeed.
I must be a bit thick here, because I can't see what I'm looking at in this picture.
Serendipity: the accidental tourist? lucky 7?
great book by the way -accidental tourist.
fear is condemned by all people -of religion or otherwise
it is the stumbling block of man. sorry to disagree.
just because we acknowledge it, embrace or accept it does not make it a good thing or beneficial. just look at religion -99.9% based on just that, fear.
doubt is just as bad, except doubt can go either way. doubt is the fence most sit on until they make a decision.
i can't validate the book (bible) based on the many varied editions. sorry. nor can one validate the claim of non-existence of 'god'. i mean if we required 100% validity from every point, neither science nor religion would exist. funny, because i would like them both not to exist.
true, tele-jesus is a crock, but that is beside the point.
the wolves eating them are themselves, no one else. each chooses to accept/reject any thing. Like i told my friends a while back: you can put a label on anything and call it "right" but it doesn't make it right. it makes it a box with a label on it.
i really don't see how 'god' would lead us to destruction. Ironically, it seems people are pushing 'god' to destruction.
The New Age is here already: self-everything: self-ideology, self-employed, self-sustaining, self-awareness, self-help, self-gratification, self embodied, self-empowered...
and on and on.
By the time all is said and done, humanity will be so self-indulged, that it will make the days of Babylon look a day at the beach...
And you miss the point. If you understand and accept fear it is not a tool to be used on you. If you deny it - then religion gets you.
Fear is good. Nothing wrong with fear. It is.
Self awareness is even better. But - I see you are not a fan of self-anything and see the "New Age," as a threat. Too bad. It is also.
@ Mark. chuckles. hope i am not discouraging you in any way.
funny though is in reference to the New age 'movement' I used this line to a devote New Ager, he rolled laughing:
physician, heal your-self.
The NA or re-written Aquarius philosophy doesn't bother me so much as the coming together of science-theology after many many moons.
One thing disturbs me greatly is that almost all theologies, all new age hokus-pokus took their 'truths' from our scripts, our writing of history -Hebrew then mixed them with some kind of pagan glue and created these paper machete factories of -as i call it- the Need to Know.
it's all kacang buncis or in french haricot verde, all of it.
i am inclined to accept -that after 5660 + years of Hebrew/Aramaic history, one thing - a thief is still a thief, a liar still a liar, a whore is still a whore, a bunny is a bunny and 'god' is never going away or going to change to fit mans concept.
After reading the full thread, I would say the Atheists won this one.
God is an assumption. How do you know that God is the creators name if there is a creator or creators? If there is a God, don't you think he/she/it would be pissed off if you were calling he/she/it the wrong name this entire time?
why would he-she-it care about names.
name calling is for roll-call, movie stars, bullies and very strangely perfumed English home-tutors, i think.
I don't think he/she/it/they would care if there is a he/she/it/they. I also don't think he/she/it/they would approve of religion and others claiming they know he/she/it/they when they don't even know he/she/it/they's name if there is a he/she/it/they that has a name.
I'm not so sure. "I baptize thee in the name of Harvey" does not sound very powerful or convincing.
When your children are just learning to speak do Fathers get Mad because they are called Da-Da, instead of Daddy?
Maammuh, just sends mothers into a rage when they hear their babies call them that doesn't it....
The belief in God is for our benefit, not God's...It brings comfort to flawed human beings, not God. It pleases us, not God.
Whether our 6 month old baby believes in the existence of the Moon or not, does not anger us nor does it change the truth, whatever that might be.
Being un-provable does not make it an assumption.
Do we have to teach them what to call us or do they already know?
A person can't believe in a higher power with slapping the name God on it? This is an assumption. The assumption there is a higher power is an assumption much less slapping a name on it. I didn't say there is anything wrong with having an imagination or faith, I just think it's wrong to state assumptions as absolute. A claim on the unprovable is an assumption.
Were we born with the word God like we are born with instinct or is it a word that was taught?
religion: keep god in
science: keep god out
pagans: keep the gods in or let the gods out
atheist: what gods?
the new ager: we are all gods; now keep out!
two Zebras were arguing one day. One zebra kept squealing that zebras were a white with black stripes. The other argued against saying zebras were black with white stripes.
a young Jewish boy walked passed an laughed, his wife would love two new striped Z bras. -My Grandpa
I know I was designed! You don't get this pretty by sheer accident!
I believe they call you random mutation.
You know, I could never get that, I'm ugly as sin. Was I designed to be this hideous?
You and I standing next to each other would be like Esmeralda and Quasimodo. Sure, you'd love me for the person I am but you'd never be able to get past the grotesque and monstrous physical aspect.
So fix it...
Work out and get in great shape...
Work hard and get the money needed for plastic surgery...
stop being a victim, blaming everyone that doesn't have the same problems for the problems that you have.
I know it isn't fair....life....isn't fair... but that's life.
That's why there's more than one ugly person.
If God designed us, why do we have biological imperfections?
If we were designed, like a clock or a watch, why are we all different from each other and not the same? Is each design different or are we all imperfections from an original?
Has the design been or will be upgraded or is this body all that there is and ever will be?
It really would be nice to know the answers to these questions.
If we are not intelligent design, would we be able to fix the ignorant design?
I figured I would ask a question to benefit the religious since they were struggling.
This universe and everything it it including humans have and will always be in perfection.
Countless in front are your entity ,
Each having a different identity.
You are made of such fine Light, Love tissue ,
No beginning, No end and ageless issue.
Would someone who "KNOWS." pls define this god thing using fact to define "it" instead of opinion and conjecture?
There is no scripture in any "holy" (tongue-in-cheek) book that factually defines this god thing that you all are chattering about.
If ya can't, yer all insane!
All you are discussing would fall into the category of "absurdity."
It seems to me that ALL of you but a few who challenge the concept, KNOW what "it" is.
Pls enlighten us so that we may enjoy the same epiphany you SEEM to have had.
What IS God...the eternal question....
We don't know.
Then why is it they act as tho they "know?"
Can you 'Prove' that God doesn't exist?
and yet you still 'Believe' that God is an absurdity...
is that your Delusion? Are you insane for believing something you cannot prove?
Is that your answer to me? If it was, you must read with care and understanding.
Where in my comment did I ask for proof?
I asked what is this god thing?
If it can't be factually defined, why would I ask for proofs of it?
Why do people guide their lives by that which cannot be known; cannot be defined? That's insanity.
Then please define your beliefs, and provide all the proof to all of your beliefs.
If there is anything you cannot prove, that you do however believe then by your statements you are insane?
That makes everyone insane. Because people either believe in an unprovable God or they believe in the NON-existence of God which is also un-provable.
People are forced to draw conclusions based on intuition and faith. We cannot prove everything therefore we must decide sometimes on less than proven fact.
You have completely missed the point!
The point is,simply, this: You keep mentioning this "god" thing and I don't know what you are referring to....do you?
I have asked, over and over again for someone who "KNOWS" what "it" is, to define "it" for me in terms other than opinion and conjecture.
Have you missed my queries?
I quote you:
" Because people either believe in an unprovable God or they believe in the NON-existence of God which is also un-provable."
What is this "god" thing you keep mentioning in ref. to proofs?
Once "it" can factually be defined, I can consider it. Until then, all I can do is wonder what all the fuss is about!
There seems to be an abstract concept; "god," which is being touted as being an existential entity.
I am concerned about the sanity of believers in that concept.
To me, to believe in something that exists only in the imaginations of believers and to let "it" guide their lives, is absurd!
Have I cleared that up for you? Define "it" factually and by golly I'll consider it. Fair? I think so....:-)
according to Wiki:
according to me:
For me, personally, God is a name assigned to a concept. The concept being that of the 'Supreme Being', the supreme being, being that entity that is the most highly evolved form of life.
I'd love to be able to prove God exists. But we can't. Athiests always insist that we prove God, but that's just not possible. God is not material so we can't see Him under a microscope, through a telescope, or in a particle accelerator. Every tool we have to measure anything is itself material, so they cannot prove the invisible God.
The best we can offer is argument and philosophical reasoning. But these things cannot persuade an athiest who requires material proof.
I could talk about a prayer that's been answered, but you could say, coincidence.
I could offer you a fullfilled biblical prophecy, but you would say unobjective interpretation.
Even if I could perform a miracle, you would search for some previously unknown scientific phenomenon to explain it.
Does God exist? You have to determine that for yourself. I've heard of former athiests who just as a test said something like "God if you are real, show me in a way that I can't refute". Some people say something happened that convinced them. Others would not be convinced or would not deign themselves to ask even in the privacy of their home.
It takes a measure of faith to believe in God, so for the atheist, this is impossible as they deny that faith in God is logical.
or in a particle accelerator
I agree with you science will fail.
That is because faith in God is not logical. It is a desperate need to appear more important than you are.
Quite honestly - I have no issue with people telling me they believe in an invisible super being. None.
The moment that - people like you - start pretending you know what this invisible super being wants is the moment I discard everything you say.
You don't know. You do not have an answers and have gone with the easy one. God did it. You have not attempted to learn anything. you have no wisdom and strangely enough - a belief in the invisible super being almost always comes with a "knowledge" of what the super being wants. How weird is that?
People who believe in god are invariably intellectually lazy and obstinate to the point of causing wars. See any history book.
Not quite sure how you manage to swallow the idea of an invisible super being who's existence causes more suffering and wars than almost anything known to man.
Scratch that - I do know and have no respect for people who need to imagine they have some special knowledge that makes them better.
It just causes fights and conflicts. Look at Mohit - he is "enlightened" and does nothing but fight with everyone in an attempt to "spread god knowledge." _
There is no pretending, I correct peoples wrong assumptions, that is my job.
Its been ages since we had a fight even though we have opposite viewpoints, I don't force you to believe what I say or threaten you
People have asked me is I am a Muslim or Christian and I say no but I appreciate the truth and wisdom of the prophets and hate it when someone praises their prophet and religion and tries to put down other prophets or religions.
These people do not know god and are the cause for many ugly wars.
A couple issues here.
I can't speak for all, but choosing to believe in God has nothing to do with any sense of self importance. It's just the conclusion that I have come to based on what I have seen, heard and experienced, as well as a peace that I have. And no I can't prove that to you, nor will I try.
As to what God wants, I know nothing beyond what is written, and as your rightly said in an earlier hub, how can people tell the difference between what "God is saying in their heads" and their own minds?
The old religion causes the wars is a tired old one. It can be that way, but in most cases the war is over someones greed and religion is a banner abused to rally people under.
Take away religion and people will find something else. Was the Falklands war about religion? No. Was the first Gulf war about religion? No. The second one was about oil. And not forgetting that the 1st and 2nd World Wars had nothing to do with religion.
Demonstrating a lack of self awareness is not going to convince me of anything. You have probably seen, heard and experienced much the same as I have. But - you need to imagine something more important than yourself that you can quote with some authority.
As you say - you have just decided to believe in a god. No biggie. This god does not actually exist - but it makes you feel better to believe in it. And all you know is "what is written," which means you have no insight and no wisdom. But - you think you do and have told me that I do not because I do not believe. Still - you can now quote from the book and claim some knowledge.
And I still am not getting the "other things cause wars, so therefore it does not matter that religion does," argument.
Who is god?
He, she and it is god. God is, has, was, will.
Where is god?
Everywhere is god, nowhere is god.
What sort of a thing is god?
Everything is god.
God is love, god is the light.
When does god come?
When the madness stops, when death becomes.
How do I see god?
With your eyes closed and with your eyes open.
What have I to do with god?
You are his creation, you are a part of him.
When do I see, meet god?
Whenever you really decide to,
When you want nothing.
Enlightenment means merging with the Light or god, our source.
Us meaning the Human Body? Or the perfect Souls that inhabit those cocoons?
Engineers that 'design' cars don't make them all the same....Why?
Your real questions are why me...and why can't things be the way you want them to be... those are questions you will have to answer on your own.
Engineers design production models, all meant to be produced identical to one another, with various accessories added on afterward to suit the taste of the buyer.
Did God design each one of us individually or as a production model? If the latter, why aren't there identical people walking around?
Can engineers and God be compared to each other?
If we evolved, was there one original design or many?
It sure would be nice if things were the way I wanted them to be but they aren't. I have to face up to the realities of every day life just like everyone else.
I shouldn't have to answer my own questions without asking them first and getting answers from other sources. I'd much rather weigh various alternatives to a problem or idea rather than just sticking to what I might believe to be the one that makes sense or is right.
The original design or model as far as I can see was a one celled creature. Over time it evolved into a two celled creature and so on. To be taken back in time check out bacteria under a microscope. It is more advanced than this original and very primitive one celled thing had been but generally speaking a hell of a lot less complicated than we are. Mind you new designs of bacteria crop up all the time. The more successful live on to cause us lots of trouble. If we do destroy much of the life that exists on this planet including our own the story is that if just one sample of bacteria manages to survive and retain a food source then evolution can start its run all over again.
have never believed humans were flawed.
in fact, or history, not the re-written elements of theology, but recorded history states that at a point, men lived to be more than 800 years old, without any disease.
To this day, science nor religion can explain it, but both are claiming to know the answer 'why'.
if there was/is an evolution of humans it is in REVERSE of our actual design. Why else would our bodies immediately heal/repair damaged tissue if we were supposed to just die.
why has the morality rate increased in the last 500 years?
why is science trying to 'fix' the problem while adding cascades of 'side effects' to the problem.
this should be a wake up call to both mystics -don't "F" with what you don't understand.
Humans are created perfectly, intricate of extremely intelligent design. So why do humans always think less of themselves and use these crutches of the Need To Know as leverage?
simple, to accept they are perfect means they are responsible for that perfection; accountable for every action/reaction instance, whether to one another or to 'god'.
Can a person have an individual belief of God? I don't think it's possible.
well New Age, Buddha-Pseudo-Gouda etc would say yes to that, Marine.
over 6000 years of history proves -not suggests- proves no individual interpretation of 'god' is possible. Which is a grand point.
same as the bible bearing believers who quote history they never even studied, let alone understand.
and chemical shredders who do not even conceive the notion of what it is they are toying with.
Yes but that individual belief is timeless truth encountered by many.
It's all so easy!
Even a "caveman" can do it!
Give it to "Mohitmisra the Primitive."
Ah yees, once again it is prime time to see that a loving god would not want anything but peace at any price.
You can just feel the spiritual loving oozing out of the bible! ... and the quoran...
The bible this time....
"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)
Ya just can't beat unconditional holy love can ya?
Thats why more prophets will be send to correct this situation as there is only one god.
Earnest, i have a question:
why do keep saying 'bible' when you are actually quoting Torah?
sidebar note: those 'conversations' were between Y`weh and the Hebrews.
....A nice way to go about correcting your mistakes god! Kill everything and everyone you made.
Nobody see any nonsense yet?
Great paths have been set by great prophets but foolish man has misused his powers ,its not god who is to blame but man both atheists and believers with foolish egos and limited knowledge.
"Your glory is such,
Man asks for too much. "
I was quoting what god said, his threats, not mans, unless.....
I don't think man needs any help at all in recognising life's pains Mohit.
That a god would be so crazy is really hard to believe.
I know if you look at it with this logic I agree with you but another reality is that you are god and you have materialized yourself and you are playing this game with yourself, referred to as the cosmic joke-- all is god- all is you.
I tell ye you are all gods" Jesus this is his best message.
All a person has is their individual truth and logic until they sacrifice it for a religious group faith. Didn't your boy Jesus say that no other prophets would come until he comes back? Or was Mohammed supposed to be the last? Or, are you the last prophet? It gets confusing with so many wannabe claimed prophets.
What if that individual truth and logic coincides with a religious belief ?
You are an atheist, its like me saying you have no individuality because there are many like you.
Jesus isn't my boy or anyones boy,the prophets do not have all knowledge and there have been many masters after Jesus and Muhammad, this is just foolish ego and attachment.
I don't know If I am the last. In fact many will gain enlightenment after me I am not the first or the last to do so.
All will eventually understand god and their source.
I believe as long as everyone has not gained enlightenment and when the world becomes a mess as it is right now when the prophets and religions are ridiculed ,god will send someone to correct the situation
If an individual belief coincides with a religious belief, more than likely it isn't an individual belief. What is an atheist, no belief in a God or no belief in a higher purpose? There are many people like me, but none share my belief. I am equal to everyone. I don't try to separate myself by saying I know more than anyone else. I also don't claim to be a prophet to boost myself above others. This is foolish ego and attachment.
I was an atheist and the gained enlightenment so now I relate with what the prophets said.
All atheist do not believe in god what makes you so special ?
After you gain enlightenment then you will have god knowledge right now you don't have the knowledge so you cant say you do.
Its the most abusive job in the world being a prophet, many like you who have nothing better to do in life take out your frustration on me and abuse me.
Here we go with "enlightenment" again, now all we need is a mentioning of "ratings" and you will be 100% predictable instead of 99%.
I didn't say I am special or that I beleive in God or a higher power. I also don't say that creation is impossible. Why do you assume so much prophet?
Do you think it's others that abuse you or it's you that abuses yourself?
You do say you are special and individual all the time and people who believe in god or a higher intelligence have no individuality or brains.
Truth mediate gain enlightenment then you will understand perfectly ,until then it will be a fairy tale.
Why should I abuse myself ? Its people like you with limited knowledge who do mots of the abusing.
If you are in a similar vibration you will appreciate what I say.
Jesus was not saying we or anyone was a god. He was being sarcastic to the Pharisees who wanted to stone Him for blasphemy because He claimed to be the Son of God. John 10:25-34. Jesus was quoting Psalm 82:6-7. "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'
7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."
Even here though the sense is that God is using the term sarcastically towards those who made themselves out to be gods.
Now you are important because you can tell us what God says. How very predictable you are sweetie pie. And you think this is "wisdom" and "insight".........
No sarcasm at all this is also Hindu philosophy,god is within man, mans true or higher or inner self is god.
If i get enlightenment then first thing to do is increase adsense, amazon, kontera earnings honestly. I'll stress on Kontera cause it is one of the slowest earner so far.
I will stress no one becomes a poet to make money but a poet needs to eat and live as well.
Balance spiritual with material - perfect living.
Forget about all wisdom mohit, if you get enlightenment you got to tell me how to monetize kontera. That is one hard ad-network which i failed to use in my favor 1 year with low clicks is serious imbalance.
I gave up myself. Took me 400,000 impressions to make the $100.
I have no idea how to monetize Kontera doubt I have made even $1 from it.
Ask me about spirituality and not adsense and Kontera etc.
What has enlightenment got to do with knowledge on monetizing from Kontera?
Ask Mark he is the pro in making money from Hubpages.
And you call enlightenment from god ? Isn't enlightenment a communication with higher being ? oh wait, higher being can't help with monetization but will save humanity. Hmm, i see.
Call enlightenment from god ? what are you talking about ?
Enlightenment is merging with the Light, ones higher self or inner self or god self.
Okay so you want me to give you or show you money and then you will believe me? Till then you will not?
Start a business.
I have helped some who have approached me with their financial problems.
Lol, done with starting business and now you have to talk about monetization. Most of hubbers have content factories (aka business,niche sites/community sites you can say) now enlightened one give me monetization tips will ya ?
And enlightenment is merging with god, then somehow missing some knowledge about monetization during registry merging process ? isn't higher being all knowing-registry ?
So if you have a business why ask me?
I have repeated I don't have all knowledge many times, ask someone who specializes in finance about money and not me, ask me spiritual questions.
This is a religious forum go where people talk about money and finance and ask them, you are in the wrong place.
Let's call it "pwn" when it comes to someone's enlightenment,right ?
Now here is work for you, jot down all that comes under enlightenment. So far you failed to convince me that time travel, monetization doesn't come under enlightenment. So what's the use of enlightenment ? is it "101 tips to relaxation" ?
Ah so people care for opinion of sarcastic prophet ?(err not prophet, son of god who failed to survive crucification).
Did any prophets in the history told u how to earn money ?????
earning money is part of life and prophets preach how to live life right ? and prophets are just faith-marketing people as they control crowd, so is it hard for them to give some marketing tips ?
Exactly so why ask how to make money from Kontera, I added it but haven't checked my account in months.
Earn honestly is what prophets will tell you, dont cheat anyone.
"Money is also a part of god,
Dont commit it by earning a fraud. "
i love this.
Do you mean to say monetization is being a fraud ? Whoa, then 99% SEO industry is fraud on internet.
Were have you gone ? when did I say SEO is a fraud ?
Yeah plenty on God Telly have. Give them all your money and just like a piramid selling scam, money magically comes into your hands.
Oh really ... then All the prophets should have given you the Lottery Numbers... or roulette wheel sequence... or whatever type of money making stuff they had... I guess gambling was always there at the time of prophets.. I never heard any prophet telling you how to make money on that.. Your question sounds really funny...
I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity," says the LORD.
Something you don't understand about this part of it?
Another one who likes to avoid what is said as if it were normal to make threats of this nature, and it is OK cos it's in the torah and so somehow that makes it less psychotic?
It was OK for your god to torture, murder in the OT, but it's all good now. Why is that I wonder?
you are miss interpreting.
i think we would know our own history better than the 'gentiles' and 'enlightened' theist/atheists, yes?
it never says 'god' WANTS to harm us. If you knew covenant language you would understand what is being said.
but again, this was between us and him, not you or the so-called Christians.
interest though that you or any of them have nothing to really go on apart from OUR history, yet so easily use our history book as both your safety and weapons for or against.
in short: get your own history book, ours is already written.
Earnest... What would you do if you bought and paid for ... they are yours...a bag of grapes at the store and a couple a days later they were full of worms and flys.... Would you be psycotic and destroy them or throw them into the trash can ??? Or would you eat and appreciate them as you first intended?
PS, Earnest, et al, based on that passage: did god actually destroy it or did he give them another chance to repent?
Believers: learn the covenant.
to this day, Hebrews are blessed and bountiful, know why? Yup, covenant. FYI: The new covenant is even greater than the first -because it removes that nasty obstacle called sin & death.
think about it, learn it, live it.
What new covenant are you talking about? Was there a later Hebrew one than the Abrahamic? I'm guessing you are not talking about Jesus' new covenant in His blood for the remission of sins.
the fulfillment of the Abram Covenant & Mosaic Law is that New Covenant. All the blessing of the first are made full plus added to it infinitely. I am surprised so many believers do not know it or understand it completely.
Oh I do understand that these were fullfilled by Jesus. It's just your condescending attitude to "so-called" Christians taking your history led me to believe your were banging on about something else.
HD, i say so-called, because if they truly believed in that New covenant, they would not even dare call themselves by such titles.
i do get a little irked by the miss use of Tor`ah by believers & non-believers. Because in all honesty neither truly understands it.
it is all about covenant, blood covenant to be more precise.
Funny how so many of you seem to know the "truth", but can never agree on what it is!
The truth is that we are all insane animals.
I agree absolutely! What we need to get our heads around is that you can change human behaviour however you like by small changes in brain chemistry and not just by taking drugs.
Some aspects of "THINKING" are seen for what they are in the activity created as a direct result of the amount of vasopressin present in the hypothalmus of individuals.
Couldn't agree with you more ernest. When people ask what is the soul, I would suggest they stick their heads in an MRI scanner to find out.
Still God made it in the first place right
You can not touch, see, feel smell or taste LIVE that is within us.
Science does not know what it is.
Science can determine what goes on when it is present and see what goes on when it is not present. Science caint touch, feel, see taste or smell it yet science proclaims that it is real.
Science just "Knows" that it is.
Same as perceptions of God.
And you think your God needs you to spend your entire life promoting him?
Science is finding out, piece by piece, not long to wait now, the religionists must be terryfried!
No, they will just evolve their religion to fit the new science. They are good at using interpretation .
Let science first find the god particle before jumping to such conclusions, they haven't been able to do so till now.
Marine you behave like a scientist with a greater mind than Albert Einstein, he was wrong in saying there is a superior intelligence and you are correct by saying things just happen, intelligent design doesnt require and intelligent creator- happens ha.
Lets leave science out of this as science is spending billions trying to find the god particle, let them do their work you are no scientist.
hey, you know the truth, Earnest. suppose the rest are just starving artists. jeje.
do tell, where did 'stardust' originate, precisely?
(factual evidence, please)
exactly hat i knew, you don't know.
theory upon theory, no fact, no proof, no nothing.
Nah. Just read Lawrence Krauss. Theory, a lot better than the rhubarb sprouted by the religiously unwell. Based on scientific method, not fear and gulliblity. Written by a credible scientist, not a religious apologist. Like most scientists he had no interest in "proving " god does not exists, that only started for scientists when they were told all their double blinds and research amounted to nothing, and "The fairy did it"
Scientists have got together like never before to build these huge particle accelerators to find the god particle.
Because they believe god exists.
Garbage Mohit - utter garbage. The "god particle" is a play on words and meant as a joke. Dear me. And I thought you were supposed to be enlightened......
No it is not a joke .
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/ … nbach-text
At the Heart of All Matter
The hunt for the God particle
Another ignorance from you Mohit, the person who named it as "God particle" is atheist. Theists like you are similar to those shown in movies like " The Mist", The graves".
Ah ignorance , is it the god particle science is hunting for or is it nor?
The higgs bosn is referred as the god particle. go figure crap.
Just to point out that the article was NOT written by a scientist or anyone that works at the Hadron facility. The facilities purpose has nothing to do with finding God.
If you manage to point him about verifiable resource, credibility then you'll get personal attacks. Try it i did one experiment with this spiritual subject.
They are not looking for god Mohit, they are looking for answers to a few interesting questions that have arrived from other experiments. The "god particle" is only a nickname.
There is just as much going on in science medicine and theories of dark matter as the accelerator.
Yes but that is the basic building blocks of this universe4 is what they are trying to find,The higgs bosn is referred as the god particle, yes a nick name but denoting the same.
There are many believers in god who are scientists working with the particle accelerator, many Indians as well.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie … 2/08/54507
Physicists from all over the world are racing to prove the existence of a particle that's surmised to be at the heart of the matter. Literally.
Dubbed the "God particle" by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman, the Higgs boson is a controversial particle believed to bestow mass on all other particles.
Some like the nick name and some do not.
Earnest, you're a hoot, mate.
if i have the chance, i'll pop by Stand books and read up.
Glad to entertain. It is even easier than that. The BBC has the whole set of scientific lectures with questions and answers.
I am so pleased to hear you can read.
Oh, crud, the BBC. At least alphabetically before CNN. lol
I'll pass on that, not a tele-visual fellow at all.
Q & A : parallels of the Need To Know, friend. Have to pass on that. Too many "W's", kinda like the Yank Presidents. lol
Radio friend, radio! The best coverage of world events, politics religion and science in the world today.
Don't want to know a decent theory to replace "the fairy did it" then?
As much as I hate to agree with these two Mohit, They are correct.
It is called the God particle because of it's allusive nature. It isn't because of a belief in God or from a search for God.
Some call it the god particle and some do not like the name.
Its is belief in finding the building blocks of this universe something science has not been able to do similar to finding god.
It will be a big event that is for sure, and an even bigger one if it is not found!
it's not denoting the same. naming something and being something is poles apart. If tomorrow any pasta comes with brand name "Christ" then you'll say Jesus came back ? Your thinking is on these lines.
You have a really weird way of thinking , please argue with the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman.
Why should i ? Nowhere leon mentioned that it is about god. show me single of his journal where he quoted that.
Wow so why did he and why do many other scientist working with the particle accelerator call it the god particle.
did mention it in one of his journals, go figure.
For fun or some sadistic kicks?
He did mention it in one of his journals, go figure.
I notice a lot of people who think there is an invisible super being in the sky are unable to grasp this concept.
I like this.
1. Your links are links to news and blogs. Do you understand meaning of science journal ?
2. Give me a link to his journal, do i need to teach you meaning of science journals ?
I told he has has mentioned it in one of his journals-
When did I say its a link to his journal , again the crap.
I don't think it was for kicks. It is an easy way to make a very complex particle understandable.
Like god, it is invisible and has not been found or proven yet, so a bit of shorthand.
The difference is, that this theory has a tremendous amount of theory that supports the likelihood of it's existence. Either way religionists will make it work for them!
It relates with god which has also been elusive to science although many great scientists have acknowledged a higher intelligence they just don't have so called tangible proof for it.
Deary me. The ability to acknowledge when you are wrong is the sign of an enlightened person.
Albert Einstein believed in a higher intelligence, can you or anyone else here on this forum call yourself a greater scientist ?
You are not Albert Einstein Mo. I bet he could admit when he was wrong.
In any case - I make my own mind up about these things. I don't care that you do not understand what Einstein said any more than you do not understand that the god particle is not an actual search for an actual god.
He believed in a higher intelligence and he was a great scientist, some of you keep saying science.
It is important to make up your own mind.
Here is very hard logical bit to you.
The statement in this post you made is called as "Logical fallacy- Appeal to popularity". Just because Einstein said so doesn't make any thing possible or impossible about universe designer unless he comes up with proof. But oh well, this is what happens when wanna-be's try to decipher science in spiritual way.
Oh and by the way, Einstein was Agnostic and when church threatened him, he made political stand of believing in deity.
Again, go figure those threatening letters to his views if you think he was theist.
50 Nobel Laureates who believed in God , amongst them Albert Einstein please read and educate yourself.
He hated it when a atheist misquoted him .
"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous." ~ Albert Einstein
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, 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."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.
— Einstein to an unidentified adressee, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, p. 97
Atheists Miss the Wonder of the World
You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in anyway. One could (yes one should) expect the world to be subjected to law only to the extent that we order it through our intelligence. Ordering of this kind would be like the alphabetical ordering of the words of a language. By contrast, the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for instance, is wholly different. Even if the axioms of the theory are proposed by man, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the "miracle" which is being constantly re-enforced as our knowledge expands.
There lies the weaknesss of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but "bared the miracles." (That is, explained the miracles. - ed.) Oddly enough, we must be satisfied to acknowledge the "miracle" without there being any legitimate way for us to approach it . I am forced to add that just to keep you from thinking that --weakened by age--I have fallen prey to the clergy …
Can put a lot more quotes this should be enough.
Tripod fan site & einsteinandreligion.com as credible Einstein reference ?
Let's revise again,
1. You failed to give references to leon's journal
2. You failed again when it comes to showing einstein was theist. I asked you to search for link where he got attacked by church/priests,try it. Food for spiritual thoughts.
More quotes(err copy paste) please.
I told you to look it up I am not going to put it, go figure.
Failed to show Einstein was a theist, didn't you read what I just posted,
this is seriously ridiculous.
anyways since you are unable to comprehend easily I will post this one passage only again
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, 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."
I don't need to find anything -go figure
If its someone elses quotes what else do I do but copy paste?
- weird logic.
I repeat again.
1. You failed to give references to leon's journal
2. You failed again when it comes to showing einstein was theist. I asked you to search for link where he got attacked by church/priests,try it. Food for spiritual thoughts.
I repeat I am not going to put up that link, do some research-
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, 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."
You just argue for the sake of it and that gets boring.
Lol, site and quotes you posted are not from credible sources. So you think you'll get away with random copy paste, Mr Google-copy-paste-warrior ?
Come up with credible sources for leon's journal, and einstein's view. Do you understand credible sources ? You do need to research before you make wild wet theistic claims.
I can haz go figure suggestion to you
These quotes are on many sites, what else do I do but copy paste someone else quotes I cannot say they are mine stop being so foolish.
Look up the journal.
wild suggestion , you are seriously full of crap.
Look it up go figure.
Do you post without reading my post Mr.Troll?
Here we go again, as you make claims about leon's stateents, you've burden of proof for that claim, so i need link to his journal, same goes for credible resource for einstein's quotes. Is it hard to get this ?
You are a jerk .
CANT YOU LOOK IT UP JUST SEARCH IN GOOGLE ITS VERY EASY I AM NOT GOING TO PUT IT UP FOR YOU ,
no burden on me at all.
I DON'T LIKE YOU.
YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT FOR ME.
Typical theist pattern, when it comes to burden of proof resort to personal attack.
Here it is for you once again, You made claim about leon's statement on god particle, and you can't even give us link to journal ? Do you even know about journal before asking me to lookup on google ? You've burden of proof when you make wild wet theistic claims like that.
P:S- I like Pseudo wanna-be prophets who have no clue about science and make claims as they know it all.
Sure its your habit to argue just for the sake of it, it does get irritating.
I like intelligence ,dislike stupidity.
Really ? So use your intelligence to find out leon's journal for the statement you made.
Personal attack is sign of intelligence ? ah yes we're arguing with wanna-be enlightened intelligent prophet aren't we ?
Cant you look it up, is that so difficult for you, I don't like you so I don't want to take the effort to show you, simple.
When Mark is sarcastic it so different from you , don't try to copy him, you don't have his sense of humor.
If you are stupid I cant call you intelligent
I seriously find you stupid you just keep finding some silly excuse all the time
don't like to lie
Do you understand meaning of burden of proof ? Burden of proof is on person who makes claim, in this case it is You.
You do love to lie and don't want to admit that you got pwned here
Sarcasm+smiley= typical theistic f--* pattern
Edit: now where comes mark in picture ? Don't you debate alone or you need some shoulders to cry now mr mishra ?
Can you look it up I don't care about you as I don't like you.He mentioned it in one of his journals and that's why the words god particle became popular.
Even If I do put up the link you will again find some stupid excuse as you always do.
You are a jerk , youkeep proving that skyfire , I have rarely met anyone as foolish as you.
the last time you kept this up your comments were deleted and you were banned , learn
and not just mohit's nerves either...
Awww Sweetie - Is it annoying for diddums when people will not believe what you say because are just making it up out of your head and that makes it the word of "A" god which has a 50/50 chance of being right?
by Capable Woman 11 years ago
My question is what's actually wrong with the Intelligent Design theory? I find many aspects of it quite forward thinking and interesting.I know it was roundly disparaged in the media as almost some kind of joke...but why? Is it because those who propound the theory want it taught in place of...
by Cromper 9 years ago
Murphy's Law: If something can go wrong, it WILL go wrong.Periodically, something will go right against all the odds - then it is called a 'MIRACLE'!'Intelligent Design' is the theory that the universe was 'created' by someone/something with 'intelligence'. When I think of the word 'design', I...
by Sean Thomas Gartland 8 years ago
If you have any evidence please present it.
by Cecilia 10 years ago
Can you be an Creationist Atheist or a Religious Scientist? Is it possible or are you either one or the other?
by jaynap01 11 years ago
“I think people who believe that life emerged naturalistically need to have a great deal more faith than people who reasonably infer that there’s an Intelligent Designer…. For the past one hundred and fifty years, scientists have used arguments based on analogies to things we do understand to...
by Prodio 6 years ago
Some people might think that the engineering involved in the creation of the human body is quite basic and primitive. Well, I must ask: Has anyone ever created a biologically functioning human body from scratch? Because if anyone wants to create a perfect human body - then he/she must have the...
Copyright © 2021 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 Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|