1. God exists
2. God does not exist
3. Theist believe 1
4. Atheist believe 2
[Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be
Everybody understand the first two. So I'll be the dummy who do not understand. The following are the questions
1.So where is the agnost?
2.What is god?
3.What is 'exist'?
Hi jomine-LOVE the definition of belief, but I don't have any clue about the questions about existence, either.
PS: You're no dummy.
Atheists dont believe number 2. They disblieve number one. There is a fundamental difference. Atheism is the lack of belief in something, not a belief in something hence your premise is a false one.
I believe your argument is based on a false premise and therefore warrants no counter-argument
You have mistaken my entire argument. Belief is holding a position to be true while existence is by 'definition' as WINSTON points out. So whether anybody believe or not, matter either exist or not. You cannot believe or disbelieve 'something', but only a statement and indirectly you are placing your trust(or lack of) in that person and his opinions
Say the Theists believe god exists, does that make god exists? The atheists does not believe god exists, does that make god non-existent[if he exists]? So if god exists he has to exist by definition of word exist and not by belief.
What about the basis of belief? If someone based their belief on what can be widely accept and defined sets of existing objectivities (evidence), then their belief being based on what was actual then how do you define that? Let's say I know for sure that something does or doesn't exist, like god for example, what word would you use to describe me? That's not to say people can't still agree or disagree or completely deny my knowledge in said subject of god.
Change god to sun. Do you believe sun exists or sun exists.
What me or you believe or 'know for sure' doesn't change it, does it?
Let as call it a fact or statement of fact.
Change god to sun. When you change a word you change it's meaning as well, God (the fictional creator of the universe), the sun (the nuclear ball of light our world revolves around), both different. God, has no evidence for his existence... the sun, we couldn't exist without it, we can see it and feel it, and it can both help and harm us depending on our exposure to it.
It does change the facts a bit and creates certain fictions. Belief doesn't change the facts but the evidence changes what we call facts and what we call fiction.
We agree to a certain point.
You say sun exist, so it is the hypothesis
Now our theory, sun exist hence.......
Now where is the evidence? We don't need any evidence, but only a rational theory with the object in question. The satellite lo existed even before we could see it.
Regarding god, no human ever was able to for a theory with god.
But suppose we are dealing with events, say battle of Waterloo, we need to have evidence to say such an event happened.
So what I say is simple, to say objects exist we should be able to explain the presence, while to say events occurred we need evidence.
We cannot form any rational theory with god, we have no evidence for jesus's life.
oh my haha no evidence for jesus's life now where is my straight jacket i keep for special occasions?
prove to me that alexander the great existed and by the exact same method i will prove to you that jesus existed only far more convincingly...even the most well know atheists would say that jesus never existed jomine so please...just....stop.
I would say that proving Alexander the Great existed for sure isn't possible either. At least not in a way that everyone would agree.
However, No-one claims he is a god either. Nor do they claim he can take away your "sins", Heal the sick, raise the dead, walk on water, or sits at the right hand of God. Nor is anyone being told that they are "going to hell" or are a "sinner" if they don't believe he existed either. There isn't 1/3 of the world believing that he will return and "resurrect" his chosen followers or any of the other attributes attributed to Jesus. No-one is killing others in his name or for his glory, nor are they using his "teachings" to condemn others in how they live they lives.
He is just thought of as someone who was a King/Ruler during his time.
Just thinking outloud...
some of the things you are saying about what jesus was is religion talking not the bible: the bible doesnt say that jesus is god almighty, also hell just means 'the grave' so you believe you are just going there anyway right? i agree with you that people should never kill in jesus name but cant you blame jesus for that when considering that he taught us that we should love our enemies and that anyone who lives by the sword dies by the sword so he in no way advocated that kind of violence.
I didn't say the bible claimed anything...I was just comparing the assumtions of Jesus and appling them to Alexander.
The same amount of "proof" may exist for both of them, But only one is considered to be divine and has a religious following.
I hope we aren't using numbers as a reason for "evidence" of this religion's truth. According to your "1/3" who do, 2/3rds of them don't...
And it is precisely because Alexander the Great is not a God who commands all of those thing that you listed that no one really need care whether he really existed or not. Nothing significant will change about my life if he didn't really exist, or wasn't as big as history books make him seem. (People always make embellishments, especially back in the day, when people found nothing wrong with embellishments within a story. Imagine how bored they were, they had to find a way to occupy their time, and so why not create legends and the like. Men loved it if their name, ideals, and whatever else made them special would "live on forever" because they knew would die physically. What better way to keep the idea of you alive, your ego, if not to have embellished stories written of you, and subservients who would gladly spread such embellishments?
I personally couldn't care less if people remember me or not, I barely care what people think of me now.
But Jesus, a man who was supposedly also God, he BETTER have heap after heap of evidence to expect not be refuted. Or could He not see a future of men who weren't so gullible?
Just thinking out loud...
As you say...People tend to embellish, especially those back in the day...Who's to say the stories and thought of Jesus aren't also embellished.
If the Arisen Christ could appear to Paul and him have no knowledge of him by man or having seen him, Then for what reason does a believer need anything other than the revelation that Christ would have given them...Why would written proof or any other type of proof be required? If Christ can appear to one who didn't believe, he could appear to any who don't believe...Words, or other types of proof wouldn't be neccesary.
The reason Jesus came was to focus on the message of his kingdom not to argue over Wether he existed or not, you can believe that Jesus existed through the prophecies he gave us which have happened over the last hundred odd years and are still happening today on a global scale which is unprecedented
It isn't so important to prove either one of them existed, what is important is the fact that Jesus claimed to be the son of God.
Believers claim that Jesus "claimed" to be the son of God...
Actually, Alexander the great has much more evidence that he existed than Jesus. Alexander was an actual person of unquestionable existence, the people who wrote about him had lived when he lived. Alexander had direct influence over the area in which he ruled and there is direct physical evidence that he existed. The only evidence for Jesus is the Bible and all other writings about Jesus came 50 years after his supposed death. Jesus was supposedly a carpenter, however there is no object that exists that was ever touched or crafted by Jesus or his supposed family. The shroud of turin is not old enough to be of Jesus, and the image of the man is most likely someone who was punished in a similar method, for many were by and because of Christianity... Alexander has direct evidence Jesus has hearsay. I've studied this stuff that is how I know.
Jesus has direct influence over many peoples lives today and has done for thousands of years, also Matthew mark Luke John Peter and a few other bible writers wrote about Jesus lived when he lived. You can't get anymore direct evidence than hundreds of eye witness accounts
Sorry, folks, but I just have to go off-topic for a minute; Jesus, your polar bear/duck endlessly cracks me up!
According to this statement, Atheists believe nothing. Bullpuckey. Atheistic beliefs, unless they are held by someone mentally on a level with Einstein or Hawking (or a thousand others) are based as much on faith as any deist. If you can't prove the math, you have to take their word for it! (The 'geniuses') Atheists vest their faith in man, and man alone. Good luck with that.
You are mistaken once again, many Atheists (me included) came to their own conclusions. I was a teenager in a Christian home. I didn't even know what an Athesit was so I kept my convictions to myself for about 10 years. I thought I was the only one who thought this way.
That's to assume that someone who studies these people can't understand them because they are geniuses. I understand them and the math, it's not unreachable knowledge, anyone can come to their level of knowledge and make discoveries on par with theirs. All one must do is to think and learn and study and desire to know. Thinking is hard for those that don't try. Einstein wanted to know, he asked the questions, Hawkings as well, what neither of them ever did was assume ANYTHING. That is what stops us, when something stumps us instead of finding out for ourselves we assume. I put my faith in no man, I assume nothing and I question everything. I went to school, I questioned not just what was but what I was taught and told... One of the great things about science class is the labs, where you can test what you have been told as being true or false.
The only proof christians have of their god, is the agreement of other sky fairy worshippers. They think, that just because there is a body of believers, that what they believe is absolutely true. Just because there is consensus about the belief, does not make it true.
Actually believers know that what they believe is truth because they have a personal relationship with God, through Christ.
Numbers have nothing to do with it, although 2.3 billion believers IS an impressive number.
This is not an exclusive club, (as 2.3 billion folk know) anyone can have that relationship, but it does mean that SELF and EGO need to be submitted to God and Christ.
So I can understand why some refuse to even consider what they are missing by their recalcitrance, and need to defend their error by attacking those who do hold that relationship.
One can surrender self and ego without a god, it's called being mindful or better yet, taking stock of one's personal position, attitude, emotional content and whatever other state of being you should wish to add.
logic, reasoning and rationality. Why does there have to be a reason, can one not be good or right without a christ, a muhammad or a krishna?
Of course one can be good and right without any God relationship, even a stopped clock is right and good once or twice a day! (depending on whether it is digital 24 hour or analogue)
But you said:
"One can surrender self and ego without a god,"
sur·ren·der [suh-ren-der] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.to yield (something) to the possession or power of another; deliver up possession of on demand or under duress: to surrender the fort to the enemy; to surrender the stolen goods to the police.
2.to give (oneself) up, as to the police.
3.to give (oneself) up to some influence, course, emotion, etc.: He surrendered himself to a life of hardship.
4.to give up, abandon, or relinquish (comfort, hope, etc.).
5.to yield or resign (an office, privilege, etc.) in favor of another.
verb (used without object)
6.to give oneself up, as into the power of another; submit or yield.
Surrender means submission to another's authority, it can be a conditional surrender (i.e. under negotiated terms)and many who surrender self and ego to God think to do so conditionally, on their part at least, but it does require a surrender to something, and as reason and logic are arbitrary thought processes, then I don't see how we can surrender to them, logically....
You ended you statement with:
"it's called being mindful or better yet, taking stock of one's personal position, attitude, emotional content and whatever other state of being you should wish to add.
That bold and red bit indicated that ego and self still ruled the day, self-surrender of ego and self means accepting that the authority you surrender to now has the right to dictate what you do from that point onward.
For believers there can be no dispute over what is correct, there can still be failings to do what is correct, but no dispute.
Yet prisons are populated primarily by people of faith. People of faith struggle with doing right because of gear of salvation or damnation... Sometimes I wonder about that. People of reason use logic and empathy. They do what is right not out of fear or hope but because there are real actual everyday consequences to all actions not fantasy ones of heaven or hell.
A relationship with one fictional character through a relationship with a person with questionable existence neither of which can be proven without a doubt to have existed to anyone who was not indoctrinated into the religion or who has done his research into whether or not Jesus actually existed.
Philisophically I have heard an argument that 'exist' is a very difficult term to describe or prove.
If I believe I see a cow in the woods and the next man to pass by sees a bunch of newspapers blowing around then does my belief that I have seen a cow mean that the cow exists?
Personally I think that 'exist' is fully subjective, but not on a one to one personaly basis. Just because half the population believe in god doesn't mean that god exists for that half. I think that empiricism is the only way to know if something exists. I think that if we all did a 'critical thinking' course (what we call it in the UK) then there would be no belief in the 'existence' of god, which is obviously what this forum is getting at.
Those of us who have that knowledge (i.e. how to reason effectively) are the ones who can decide whether anything 'exists' and should decide upon its definition. People who believe in things without using an effective method of reasoning should have no say...
The only way an object can exist, is if the label is understood by the observer. So then the existance of an object is an illusion, though only in the sense that the object is labelled with words that could mean absolutely nothing, if not attached to something to give it meaning.
I retract my statement in the other thread. I'm not sure dedicating a thread to me was necessary.
I realize agnosticism is an enigma to you, but it isn't really rocket science. Billions of people claim the existence of a supreme being. I don't believe their stated explanations are possible. Religion has been proven to be a lie, but I'm willing to concede that some experience has led them to think it is true. The what remains undetermined.
Until we have clear evidence that billions of people have been deluded, or until we have clear knowledge as to what force they claim to know....I'm afraid we don't have an answer.
As to the question, what is exist.....I honestly think it is either a silly question, or you haven't explained your stance clearly. It always appears that you are arguing for argument's sake. I'm not dodging. I just don't see the point.
Ok let me explain, if I ask you what an apple is, what will you do? If I'm an alien who has not seen an apple your only choice will be to show me an apple or its picture.
Now if I ask you what justice is, you can only define what justice is, can never point to justice or its picture.
Now take the statements. apple exists, justice exists, heat exists and cold exists. Only apple you can point to an name that is only apple is physical and an object.
Cold is Absence of heat, so we cannot then say both heat and cold exist. And neither of the three are physical, and all three are subjective while apple is objective. We call all the three concepts.
Then we'll be forced to make the objective definition of exist as having physical presence.
Now when we say god exist, it means god is an object and not a concept.
Now there are different objects in this universe, so how do we decide which one to call god?
The common supposed qualities of god are creator of everything, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Since the last three are contradictory terms we know god cannot be any of the three. Now for being a creator, we already know from the definition of exist that god has physical matter and Since nothing can self create, at least that matter that is making up god has to exist and then god is not the creator of that matter.(all creation scenarios are ontological contradictions).
Then what else do we got? It is the Theists who came up with the idea of god, but the qualities they attribute are not possible. If I say apple is a fruit that is triangular in shape, salty in smell you can make out from my description that such a fruit can never exist. So why the special privilege be given to god?
Regarding your question whether masses are deluded, I don't think so. Masses do not use critical thinking out of fear. God was the name given to nature and the unknown which humans feared and which later anthropomorphed to be the present god.[history of Hinduism shows it excellentl]
Now tell me where you differ. [I'll keep the religion question to a later time and be contend with god alone, for fear of losing track]
First, you are attempting to limit the parameters of the use of the word exist to ones that suit your argument. I'm afraid I don't agree wholeheartedly. Concepts exist in our minds. Love, hate and injustice exist because we have agreed, to some extent, as to what defines these concepts within our minds. We don't have to be able to point to a concrete form in order to prove their existence because we can feel it.
But, we both agree that God does not exist within the parameters of your definition. You mention qualities that are normally attributed to the concept of God. Omniscience and omnipresence are easily explained when you remove the concept of time. As we have already agreed; remove time from the equation and you have something that appears to have always existed. If there were truly some form of consciousness that we have yet to quantify, that lives outside of the linear parameters of time, I have no doubt that it would be able to give the impression of being all knowing since it has the attribute of being all present.
As far as the questions on the 'creator' I honestly believe we have to get a better handle on the optical delusion of our consciousness before we will have a firm grasp on what, exactly, has been created.
Yes concepts exist in our mind, that is, a mind is needed for that concepts. When there is no mind, then no concept. Objects are not limited by such constraints, it exists irrespective of mind.
There is no condition that my definition should be used, you can give your own definition, the only condition is it should be objective.Omniscience is possible the way you explained, then god is seeing our past, present and future that means our future is gods past, then we can have no free will.
Omnipresence is not possible, for it means god is everywhere, that is god is infinite. There'll be no space left and then we won't be able to move around. An omnipresent god also loses shape which make it exist.
But at the least, the creator has to exist.
Now logic says any decision maker need a mechanism to make the decision hence god should have some stuff on his body.
Now one basic premise universally agreed is that a complex mechanism cannot suddenly come into existence(remember the tornado in junk yard argument). So if we assume this thing is created it'll in ad infinitum and each preceding one had to be more complex which will be a contradiction. Then the only alternative is god has to evolve(by that I only mean assemble from simpler substances).
So the simpler substances and the space that give shape to this has to be present always.
So logically and rationally only space and matter are eternal. God or any sentient being are non contingent and has to evolve and are not eternal.
[creation is an action mediated by one object on another, so we need at least two objects]
So if we can agree in principle that everything is not created and omnipotence and Omnipresence is not possible and omniscience preclude free will, now what other attribute is there with which we can distinguish god?
Actually, I don't think something simply existing outside of the parameters of time would negate free will. If an entity does exist, knowing what happens and changing the course are two different things entirely. It's like a Christian told me in another forum that his wife prayed for a new floor. She felt she had been told they would get a new floor. Apparently, shortly thereafter, there was a massive accident (he said explosion) in the bathroom and they subsequently had to replace the floor.
Taken at face value, assuming she had been given that assurance, what exactly did the entity do...other than let her know she would have a new floor? That's all I'm saying. If I could sit back and see the entirety of your life all at the same time I could certainly make observations that you could believe proved I was omnipotent, without my lifting a finger.
But, I think the creator argument is a pointless one. On both sides. You are correct in everything you say. But, the church has made foolish claims throughout its existence in its attempt to prove cosmic wisdom. The earth was flat; being one example. We define creation as the mass within the universe we perceive. I'm not so sure that this is the true 'creation'. I know it drives people mad that there are those of us who find the oddities of energy so fascinating on a spiritual level, but I'm afraid this fascination will persist until we have additional information.
ehyeh asher ehyeh : אהיה אשר אהיה : I am who am I .
literal expressive translation, like kayak, reading the same front to back.
the connotation suggests a innocuous statement to a innocuous question, else a rhetorical response to a ridiculous question, as in, "Really? you don't know who I am?" kind of thing.
Actually it IS:
I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE Exodus 3:14
...and no amount of bleating will change that.
Well the translation could be different and the interpretation of the translation could change it's meaning. The bible is full of changes in meaning based on different interpretations of the translations, that way someone could understand what it says even if the meaning that the author had intended has changed.
559 way·yō·mer וַיֹּ֤אמֶר said
430 ’ĕ·lō·hîm אֱלֹהִים֙ God
413 ’el- אֶל־ to
4872 mō·šeh, מֹשֶׁ֔ה Moses
1961 ’eh·yeh אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה I am
834 ’ă·šer אֲשֶׁ֣ר WHO
1961 ’eh·yeh; אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה I am
559 way·yō·mer, וַיֹּ֗אמֶר said
3541 kōh כֹּ֤ה Thus
559 ṯō·mar תֹאמַר֙ shall say
Sorry, that one sems to have stayed unchanged....
Which bibles are you comparing that to? Just yours or all of them?
And whether s bible is correctly translated doesn't make it more meaningful to us. That is a different argument.
...as in the trinity you mean, yes that makes sense.
No, that is your interpretation, I don't mean the trinity. Look at the beginning of Genesis, the word Elohim is used. Before the trinity.
I find the concept of the trinity silly.
BIB: נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩
NAS: man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
KJV: man in our image, after our likeness:
INT: make man our image to our likeness rule
Would seem to disagree, in OUR image... so who else was there?
We know that the Holy Spirit was, for He 'moved over the waters'
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
and we can know that Christ was there also:
John 1 1:3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Anyhow, if you think the trinity is silly, you are not alone, just inaccurate.
Not picking, just noting a thought based from how you have worded your response...
It sounds as if there is implications of more than one...Multiple...Not one in the same...
From a reader perspective only....
First Jesus came after the fact, in the New Testament, Jesus is also disputed. not just by many in the history and science and atheist community but by most of the Jews, I will however not argue someones fiction with them. Like you arguing the validity of the Book of Mormon with the Mormons as compared to the New Testament of the Bible, where Jesus says he would be in other lands to teach to others.
However, how will your explanation of Genesis differ before the writing of the New Testament? will there be a Holy Trinity?
The Bible is still written by man, has the errors man makes and is amended by men in the ways men do. This doesn't make the Bible a valid source for truth.
Also when the Bible says God did something, doesn't make it so.
And how is the Trinity being silly inaccurate when it comes to the amount of authors even the believers claim it has and the amount of explanations it is necessary to make in order to defend the Bible? "Oh, you just don't understand what was written" is the defense of works that are badly written.
Not totally relevant to the reply, but indicative of how folk may see their interpretations or dismissal of the bible!
I hope you don't mind me stepping in here a second as I hope to offer an explanation.
While it is true that the idea is to limit the scope of the word "exist", the reason to do so is not to "win the argument". The purpose is establish a precise definition so that there is no confusion as to meaning.
While one can certainly say that "thoughts exist", it is equally certain that a thought is a dynamic action, that the action certainly occurs, but there is no single object named "thought" like there is an object named "apple". The idea of precisely defining exist is so there is no mistaking what is meant when one states "x" exists.
By this definition only real objects exist. This is not word play to win a debate. This definition is applied so that there is no confusion, no ambiguity in our statements. What this does is to mimic nature - in nature, there are no maybes. Nature is binary. Real/Not real. The only thing we can we can all accept as a starting basis is that reality exists, or, existence exists, meaning matter exists. Matter is a real physical presence, i.e., it has shape (even if unknown) and a location (even if moving).
To borrow from an old Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, physical objects are the known knowns.
This start yields a rational conclusion as long as no contradictions are involved. It is not about what ifs and possibilities. It is as objective as is humanly possible, i.e., attempting to remove the observer from the equation if only by imagining him to be gone.
The entire idea is to separate what is known from what might be possible. Debating the "might be possibles" is a function of religion and philosophy. Explaining a rational method to resolve a consumated event is the application of reasoning.
Sorry. You are still asking to be given a handicap. You post in a Religion and Philosophy forum. The whole d*mn discussion revolves around the might be possible. If your only purpose is to argue the possible uses of a single word I'm not the fish you are looking for.
We say thoughts exist, yet we understand they are actions. We say love exists, although we know it is born of an emotion within us. I doubt there is an adult alive in America today that isn't aware of this. None believe these are concrete. None are unaware of the nuances of the meaning of the word. I realize you believe you have a valuable lesson to teach and I believe you are being purposely obtuse.
I don't think He is being obtuse. You are right any English person can know love, thought and justice are concepts but what about the concepts in physics. How many can differentiate the following, energy, field, force, universe, dimension, wave?
Coming to think about it even the word cause is treated as an object as 'uncaused first cause'
We base our deepest concerns on nouns...
No, Emile, I am not being obtuse but clear, as you cannot tell me how it is that love, morality, or any other concept exists. I can tell you how real objects exist - by definition. We define something is a real physical presence if it has shape and occupies a location.
How does one define exist when pertaining to both love and rocks? What definition is equally viable? And keep in mind, definitions explain why something is what it is instead of being something else and a definition is not simply a negation or synomym, exist = to be doesn't work, and dark = absence of light doesn't work.
Some try to solve this dilemma with some claim like, well, if it can be thought of it exists - but that would mean that if it weren't thought of it would not exist - existence would rely on brains to think. I am sure that the fact that no one was there to think them up and therefore they did not exist would be a surprise to the bacteria that predated man.
See, it's not that easy of question. However, one can at least resolve the question to what a basic parameter: object+location=exist.
Everyone accepts the idea that matter exists, and it can be reasoned that the moon existed before any human cast eye on it. Real physical objects can exist outside of man's knowledge or understanding - concepts, i.e., thoughts, are dependent upon man's brain to exist.
That is the separation. That is the entire point.
Rocks are real. Love is not real but an idea that expresses a conceptualized action or feeling or some combination of both.
That we acknowledge that humans think of things like love does not make them real. It makes them human inventions.
I learn a lot from you. Or rather, I realize a lot because of you. That's a way that I've never thought before, and puts things into perspective.
You had a pretty good point, until you ascribed emotions to humans, only. Which made me think about animals who display love, anger, loyalty etc.. Do animals feel these emotions, or do we simply think they do because the behavior patterns imply it. And there it is Winston. Emotions do exist because we not only feel them, we see them. They become real when a being becomes the embodiment of that emotion in our eyes. And when we also become the embodiment of the emotion to the observer through our actions. They take on substance through our actions.
So, love and a rock are not the same; but both exist in the eyes of the observer. Love is sometimes fleetingly observed in the same place, sometimes over long periods. But, it exists just like that rock does.
I don't get why this is so difficult to understand. Whether or not something exists or not is solely a function of definition: what does it mean for something to "exist".
How do emotions exist?
Real objects exist pursuant to this definition: exist=physical presence, that which has shape and location.
How do you define exist so that emotions are said to exist?
(Emotions do exist because we not only feel them, we see them. They become real when a being becomes the embodiment of that emotion in our eyes)
So, to a blind person there is no such thing as emotions? If you are alone on the dessert with no one else, how can you see your own emotions?
Sentience does not cut it as a definition for exist. The only way to answer the question is through pure reasoning.
The answer is not an emotive one.
I'm in complete agreement. This shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Emotions live on several levels. You feel them, you act on them, so others perceive them.
The blind guy argument is bogus. People with handicaps find ways to compensate. Not being blind, I don't know how the mind's eye works in that situation.
Being in a desert is the same question as, 'if a tree falls in the woods with no one there, would it make a sound?'
You say exist = physical presence. When acting out emotions they have a physical presence. You. The observer sees it in you. It may be emotive on one side or both. I can dispassionately observe behavior.
Anyway. You disagree and I concede that you've presented a better argument. I simply don't find it convincing.
It not difficult to understand just difficult to accept...
Exist is a term used as to reference all things, both physical and non physical.....this is the general understanding of most.....including you based on your statements.
So when you define it as you did to propose your argument it is onesided and does not incorporate the other persons view point ...in which their argument lies.
If the argument was merely about words and their definitions then your position in valid.
But the discussion goes way beyond the words...the discussion from the beginning is about Ideas perceptions of the human mind, by which words are used to communicate.
It appears now that the word has become the topic rather than the Ideas....
We understood your position but do you understand ours.....
If the discussion was meant to be along the lines you presented ....there would have been no discussion/argument....for all have already agreed to this.
The discussion is about the existence of God and God is also provable through physical manifestations...just as any and everything else.
It is just that ones unbelief would cause that one to reject it, and it is the same reason why they are unable to see this side of the coin.
It is not about incorporating the opposite idea, it is about expressing oneself clearly.
Proofs are opinions, if your god has to depend on opinions, its a poor show for an omnipotent.
So then you do discuss with one eye closed, yet you ask for proof....
No wonder youre still debating.....
Trust me you would never know unless your mindset changes.
So asking "what did you say" is one eye closed?
Trust me, I never asked proof, if I want an opinion, I can form it myself.
Since the forum purpose is for discussion....sharing ideas, its then neccessary to incorporate the opposite ideas otherwise you wont be discussing but arguing endlessly.....
Unless ofcourse you are here to tell others the Truth.
The opposite idea need to be worth and should be expressed with clarity. If you cannot say what you meant, then what is to be incorporated?
Leaving open ended options is for the charlatan.
If you read carefully it is not ideas that is being discused but whether the idea is expressed clearly or vaguely, whether you are conveying the meaning or whether the listener is deriving the meaning.
I agree, expressing ones ideas with clarity and without confusion may not cater to the psychological needs of wanting to have more when there is none, but filling the psychological gaps is not the purpose of discussion but arriving at a conclusion and discussion progress by accepting only those arguments that has got merit and relevance.
Inteeligence makes sense from even the purest of nonsense.
Evading is a Good art.
Or are you implying that people are to make meaning out of your nonsense? Remember the Oracle of Delphi?
Yep indeed people see what they want to seee
Really I want to see you back up your statement, but it doesn't seem to happen.
That is called religion or deception and those who practise it are called priests by the gullible and charlatans(or fraudsters) by the intelligent.. Now can you be a gentlenman and answe to the point?
...and that is merely your extremely biased opinion.
You claim intelligence and then babble on like this?
Intelligence, true intelligence rather than the hyperbolic style you engage, can define the truth even when there is NOT clear factual 'evidence' (as your limited, spiritually dead mind demands) because it transcends mere knowledge to arrive at discernment and wisdom.
What are you taking about? Kess stated that "God is also provable through physical manifestations", but he doesn't want to show his proof. All he does is talk nonsense. I am open to proof. You seem to be open to insulting others.
So do you not think that the following is insulting, and worth responding to?
"God is also provable through physical manifestations"
Yes, I have seen 'physical manifestation' of Gods power and miracles in action in other people lives, an enlarged heart reduced to normal size by healing prayer, alcoholics restored clean and sober with no side effects from withdrawal with ONLY prayer and spiritual power.
Whatever any believer states, you guys always come back with the same whine, so why bother, I ask myself?
You guys win, you have disrupted any intelligent discussion, feel good, the conversation is over, now you can all throw some inane comments and smileys to each other.
Okay, I see. You can insult him because you feel he insulted you.
You and other don't seem to want to show your proof to anyone who doesn't believe. Just like a healer. It's easy to misinform someone who already is willing to here your lies.
Hospitals are filled with cancer patients who pray. Are Christians exempt from cancer or disease? Perhaps you can show statistics? You know have cancer patients that pray and feel guilty that god is not healing them because they did something wrong. Cancer discriminates again no body.
Instead of the highfalutin twaddle can you address the issue?
And I have told you I'm not interested in your truths and evidences, which are just your opinions.
...and I am not interested in trying to revive spiritually dead people.
Go troll somewhere else.
Who asked you to come here and troll?
You can have as much orgasm with your god as you like, but if you want a discussion, DEFINE YOUR TERMS.
So terribly sorry esteemed gentleman surgeon, I forgot this was your forum post, and as such you may dictate your terms!
Define my terms?
How about you cannot provide evidence (to my satisfaction)that God does NOT exist, and I cannot provide evidence (to your satisfaction) that God DOES exist, so the whole topic is worthless mass debating.
You are again repeating the same thing. You can
1. Define 'exist' objectively.(That is you can clearly and unambiguously state what you mean when you say "god exist").
2. You can say what is 'god', for me when I say god it means only creator.
3. You can explain how at sometime in the past, all these universe suddenly disappeared, that it needs to be created.
4. What we call time is the motion of objects and if you stay outside the galaxies you'll find that the objects are moving in relation to each other, some combining some separating from each other but never disappearing into nothing nor appearing from nothing. So time too is a concept. So you can explain why you assume a beginning.
5. The believers logic is everything needs to be created, then you can tell me how god become an exception to that rule.
6. Now creation is an action mediated by one object on another. So you can tell me which form of creation did god use and how.
Remember, if you have read the op, I said I'm the dummy here, and I know no religion nor philosophy. All I know is that the planets, satellites and stars exist and move. So explain to me all the above or some without contradicting yourself.
And please note, no where I'm asking for evidence.
Please note: I only asked for evidence when someone said they can provide it. If God is provable through physical manifestations as I've been told I'd love to see the statistics.
Have you ever noticed that Theists never answer direct questions?
To be fair some do. It's the ones that believe the bible is all the science we need that I find evasive. Are we supposed to take their word for it? They are only interested in debated like minded people.
2 Corinthians 6:13-15
Amplified Bible (AMP)
By way of return then, do this for me--I speak as to children--open wide your hearts also [to us].
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers [do not make mismated alliances with them or come under a different yoke with them, inconsistent with your faith].
For what partnership have right living and right standing with God with iniquity and lawlessness? Or how can light have fellowship with darkness?
What harmony can there be between Christ and Belial [the devil]?
Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
Just words in a book. Not only that but words that spread discrimination and hatred. Some muslims think the same thing.
Take a look for one second at the phycology of the manipulation behind those words.
Actually I have found them valuable words, whichever book they came in.
When I was 11 years old I was often picked upon, bullied, then I when I reached 13 years, I joined a gang of thugs, they kept me in their midst as a 'weapons carrier' because due to my youth, the police did not search me, and they WERE thugs, bikers and out for trouble any time. Not surprisingly I adopted their persona, so the bullying stopped at school, and other kids knew that if you gave me grief, you got hurt.
Not by me, but by my 'gang' - That was manipulation, and intimidation, and I learned those skills very young.
Then by chance I fell into selling, and learned a whole lot more about manipulation and deception, not to say the psychology of intimidation, that took me deeper into what I now know was in fact 'witchcraft', which is the application of all three of those elementary skills.
Many years later, after a painful 'divorce' I fell in with a crowd of drinkers and dope heads, and was pretty much stoned for seven years.
During that period I also developed a deep spiritual life, on the wrong team, the bad guys who gave me power to control folk with demonic sources.
We are influenced by what and who we mix with.
Once I came to faith, I knew full well that I needed to stop the manipulation, deception and intimidation, and obviously the booze and dope had to go.
So began the 'marination' in spiritual folk of the RIGHT spirit, a marination that slowly changes one.
Divination was replaced with discernment.
With divination I would 'read; your mind, and them use what I 'received' to get what I wanted, (manipulation, deception and intimidation again) but when I surrendered that, when I 'crossed over' to Christ, that was replaced with discernment and words of knowledge.
With discernment, you have no idea what is happening inside someone's head, but God will give you the words to speak that solve their problem, or bring them a resolve to their predicament.
Many times folk have said "You really hit the nail on the head" which is strange when you never even know what words spoken opened the door to solving their conundrum.
We live in different places, you in the world, myself and other believers in the Kingdom, the two do not mix, never will, and any submersion in the others world WILL change the person submersed.
If I step back into the world, then I will get soiled by that world, if you step into the Kingdom, then the world will reject you, and you would reject the world, and gain the influence of the Kingdom over your life.
Don't expect you will follow that thinking, I know I could not for the 42 years I was in the world, but having experienced the Kingdom, there is no way I want or need to go back into the world.
Fundamentalism... I'm not sure that's a good place for anyone. This is what starts wars. The middle east is a prime example.
I think you have not lost your bullying ways, just changed the name. You very quickly revert to burning in hell.
You certainly have had a troubling life and it's just as I thought. If you are right and I am wrong, I'd prefer my chances in front of St. Peter.
LoL I'm not sure he's Catholic. But know where he's coming from, and it's a bit more complicated.
Well guess what, I have managed not to kill anyone since I became a believer, nor start any wars, fight a few battles with folk who want to stop the Gospel being preached, or preach it inaccurately, but it's a certainty that I don't beat up anyone any more with force or the bible.
Where exactly have I 'reverted to burning in hell'? - I know that is standard defence 101 in the secularists handbook, but it frankly wears thin and if you read my hubs you would know that I do not subscribe to the standard 'burn for eternity sinner' stance.
My life was not troubled, it was other people who got troubled lives due to me.
My life was one long and happy sin session.
I wish you well in front of Christ, St Peter is a Catholic invention, and as you noted, I have never been a RCC member, though I have many friends who are.
I don't bully anyone, but I can see that anyone not submitting to your viewpoints would seem to you, to be unreasonable, but that is not my problem.
I may have gotten you and A.S.K.Preacher mixed around in my head. If you haven't been telling everyone that they will burn in hell than I'm mistaken.
I new you weren't Catholic.
This is one of the reasons it becomes so tedious to talk to believers - they invariably pull out quotes from their holy book as an argument. Very tiring, because all you are saying is: here is what I believe.
That is not making a point; it is only a redundancy.
Here is my argument in response from my own holy book: Non-Amplified Catch-22, Chapter 29, page 335: as this sums up my feelings about all religions and all spiritual matters.
Amen to that!
If you have can prove the existence of God through physical manifestations, I'll listen and so will most. Don't assume because your attempt at proof is not excepted that other have a closed mind. Someone praying for a new floor and getting it does not prove the existence of God. It does prove how small minded some people are.
Everything is true if you take it from the perspective of the observer....
It takes a closed mind not to see this.
And even more so when you know exactly what Truth is.
Why the observer see what he sees is the study of neurology and psychiatry. We certainly are not discussing that.
It takes a closed mind to think this.
I know exactly what the Truth is. You should listen to me, I'm right. I believe God exists in a tiny box in my pocket. That must be true according to you because it's from my perspective.
Just because you think you know what the Truth is don't make it true.
You must have forgot to include your proof of the existence of God through physical manifestations?
How much for the tiny box? I'll pay fifty dollars for one.
I think that the Truth is it's worth $100. If I think it's the truth it must be (according to some). For $100 you can have God in a box in your pocket and no one can prove that God is not in the box. I know it's the truth so it is. If you don't believe me you'll burn yourself on a match.
No I did not forget...
just that the doubtful can only accept that which appears as himself....thus unneccessary to take this further
Then don't make claims you can't back up. You got nothing.
Interesting and I agree, but what if we find feeling and consciousness can be attributed to a specific space in ones brain? From what I remember of the study of split brained individuals, consciousness lies in the left hemisphere. The left brain is responsible for the play by play is you will. Some associate the soul with consciousness. If we know which part of the brain is responsible for consciousness, does not consciousness exist while the brain is alive or intact? If we know where feelings come from (part of brain) are they not real? We certainly know why we have feelings from an evolutionary stand point, and if we know what part of the brain they originate from, they must be real while the brain is alive. The definition of the soul changes for individuals, but if the soul is a product of the brain and the brain dies so will the soul.
AKA Winston wrote
The entire idea is to separate what is known from what might be possible. Debating the "might be possibles" is a function of religion and philosophy.
= - = --
"Might be possible" is what science is all about. To establish a list of known possibles which are more or less what we believe them to be, thereby establishing a given set of probabilities which is little more than a posibility, each having varying degrees of probality.
It sometimes requires many words to say nothing and sometimes just a few words to say much.
Good mornin AKA, Emile R and all.
All things ultimately exist internally merely as a peception or concept of mind with or/and without one or more sensory external attributes.
So without the mind there is no existence...
So then what is no existence to the mind?
Existence itself is merely a mind concept and if in it's definition as a word, it incorporates only a portion of that which is is expected to incodporate, then it is made what it is not...
So we see the true nature of a mind concept being limited by written letters. For the letters have the appearrance of incorporating the whole of existence, which is an ippossibilty because it is merely a part of it.
In the discussion, the goal supposedly is to assess so as to discover Truth.
But truth again is merely a mind concept of which each has their own personal interpretation...
So I say unless there is a common understanding of these three, Mind existence and Truth, there can be no fruitful discussion.
Emile I also put it to you that more information (knowledge) is not needed for all it will do is add to the confusion.
What is actually needed is an understanding of how all these things work together seamlessly.
So as long as there is a division in any ones mind about the concept of Truth, Mind, and Existence that one would be as if he is totally ignorant.
But to the one who do not have such a division, to him it is as if he knows all things.
So it not a matter about what you know but a matter of how one thinks.
Dreams have no substance, Nor is there proof. Yet they exist in our memories and thoughts. Prove that you had a dream. You cannot. Yet here they are.
We can not prove what life exists.
We can observe something that we believe has life in it.
We can observe things which we believe doesn't have life in it.
Based upon these unproven beliefs we can observe the differences in the actavities of these things and make assumptions as to the existance of life.
We can even build equiptment which measures different actavities of these things which we assume contains life against the actavities of these things which we assume doesn't.
But we can not measure life itself. I have never even seen a picture of life.
Has anyone held this thing called life in their hands? NO they haven't. They may have held something in their hands that they assume contains life.
But life itself ... no one has ever seen, yet we know that it does exist,
Cause if it doesn't ... We don't
I was going some place with this ... BUT ??
This is quite accurate as the basis for existence is not one of proof but of definition. Existence can only be defined.
Proof is subjective. Proof to the theist that god is real is no proof at all to the atheist. The only way to resolve this dilemma is with reasoning. Reasoning begins with precise definitions of key terms.
Nothing can exist until we understand what it means to exist - in other words, until it is defined.
Did you say, "Nothing can exist until we understand what it means to exist"
Why didn't you just say that in the first place. Now I understand?
=- = - =
Did you say,- in other words, until it is defined.
in other words, once we have determined how we want to describe something it doesn't exist?
I need some help with this,
Until one can find a concrete meaning of what it means to "exist" can one discuss "existence." Otherwise, you'll be talking in circles, possibly using "exist" in different ways. (Not only "exist," but words in general)
Sorry, but have you got any comprehension problem?
Unless you define the word 'exist', what are we to understand when you say love or rock exist?
Love is an emotion that need a being to occur while the rock is there and is not contingent on any being to appreciate or form!
I may have some comprehension problems but this isn't one of them.
Things DO exist whether we know what exist means or not.
" " " " " are aware that they exist or not.
Many things existed long before humans existed. How did that happen?
The question is What do you mean when you say something 'exist'?
That is a little different than what was said.
I might say that my comprehension of something doesn't exist unless I can define what IT is.
But to say that IT doesn't exist unless I can define what exist is, is a bit of an overstatement.
This is how false understandings are created.
What was said was if something exist, it is contingent upon the word exist. You can say love exist or rock exist, love is a concept which need a being to conceive while rock is an object that is there irrespective of the being. That is concepts are mere thought, an action while objects have shape and is not thought, but physical.
Now if you use exist for both love and rock, then how do you differentiate between object and concept?
So it is the proper meaning and use of word 'exist' that differentiate object and concept. It is simply about the proper conveyance of idea.
I must have missed something by not reading every post.
But I would think that the thing itself can exist apart from our understanding of it.
When we are discussing mankinds perseption of a thing, that is another matter.
A rose is still a rose regardless of our consepts.
An eagle is an eagle regardless of what the rabbit thinks.
You are right though, the rabbits concept can not exist without the rabbit.
You are to the point, but still refuse to define 'exist', that is you refuse to tell as what you mean when you say 'exist'.
A 'thing' exist and thing is a synonym for object, the counter is only things exist, not the relation between things, which are called concepts. Human being is a thing which exist while love is the relation between two human beings, which is a concept.
As a side note, this is how religions always survived, purposely keeping clarity out of their teachings that the audience can always interpret according to their wish but still can follow the priests. The only adverse effect was the numerous interpretations that followed and the various sects that appeared each catering to the particular psychological needs of the sect but has no bearing on reality.
You are to the point, but still refuse to define 'exist', that is you refuse to tell as what you mean when you say 'exist'.
= - = -
Does a thing have to be made of matter to exist? I would think so, from a material prospective.
If a thing has a cause and effect I would think that it is real?
Can it exist and not be real. Can it be real and not exist?
Do we now have to define what real is?
Can something be real in one place and not in another?
Airplanes were not real other than as a concept until recently.
Assuming that we develope a better form of transportation in the future, airplanes may someday enter the realm of no longer real.
Am I always going to be that which I used to be.
Yes you do, if you want to be understood clearly, for real is a synonym of exist and both words do not convey its meaning properly.
I'll give you one example.
Now cold is mere absence of heat. So how can both heat and cold exist, only one can exist? So the word has no meaning with respect to cold. Now what is 'heat'? Heat is merely the motion of molecules in a given object. If the motion is more compared to our body(or in relation to each other) we call it hot and if it is less then cold. So it turns out that heat is just a name for the motion of molecules in a given object, the more the motion the higher the temperature. So neither heat exists, but just a name given to a particular motion [I agree the concept is good in ordinary speech to make it easy, but where your meaning should be exact and clear this won't do].
Simply put objects are that which exist, that which got a shape, that which you can point to and name.
I bet you cannot point to anger, but only point to a human or an animal that displays that emotion.
So concepts are that which are conceived by beings, that has no shape and hence do not exist.
If you can point to an airplane, it certainly exists.
it's all just a big matrix. the numbers always tell a secret.
GOD.THE ALL MIGHTY..THE HIGHER POWER...THE ONE....THE CARPENTER.....ALPHA......GOD.......There is a more powerful one that we all have watching over us.That is, the mind that carries the soul through the dark times of life in which every individual is molded from. The choice that a single person on this big dot called Earth makes is based on history of the person making the choice. No matter how pushy the word GOD has become, it is up to the person making the choice to believe in some Higher Power to save the person that really believes in a Savior coming to that believer. So as the 6 billion plus fight over the truth of GOD, what the mind believes is up to the soul to to help guide the body through the dark times in life to find the Faith that makes a sense if reason for all three to be in Harmony.
justuhmaina, only Christians believe this, you could easily replace your god with any other god of any other religion, the people will still agree or disagree with such a statement. One thing that statement will never have is truth, and one day it may even come under the total view of mythology, Zeus did.
[ig-zist] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
to have life or animation; live.
to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.
So when you say heat exists does that mean heat has got life?
With your post you are displaying your personal psychological makeup rather than making any type of valid point. It is obvious your are of the authoritarian/totalitarian type personality. What you are posting with your dictionary response is your considered opinion of an "authority" on language.
Critial thinkers do not blindly accept "authoritative" opinions but look more deeply into the subject.
Unfortunately, you have missed the entire discussion about "existence" - you simply seem not to "get it" at all.
Curious, as you are not alone. Seems many cannot grasp this very simple notion.
It's OK if you don't get it Winston. We still enjoy reading your posts.
If I were to be able to so elequently descripe the faults that others are carrying ... I must have a personal experience with them myself.
Hello, AKA Winston-As a 'critical thinker'-IMO, I would argue that the term 'existence' is not so very simple, if that's what you are truly implying. In my Philosophy courses in College, all definitions of 'existence' were questionable. Agreed?
There are two (at least) types of languages used - everyday speech and what I will call "critical" speech, or scientific speech.
Philosophy and religion adopt common everday language to express their ideas, but that leads to nothing but opinions being stated. Precise critical speech needs something more. It starts with the default position and builds with
The default position is this: existence exists, meaning the one thing we should all be able to agree with is that we are here, i.e., our bodies and all other matter exists.
So, how can we define exist so that it explains this reality? By using reason, we can determine that all matter has some type of shape, even if we don't know that that shape is or cannot see it. We also can reason that at any given instant, matter occupies a position, even if we do not know what it is or where it is. Thus, we have defined how our default position must be: exist = physical presence, that which has shape and location.
It turns out that physical presence is a synonym for objects. This is all we know for 99.9% certainty of our default claim, that existence exists, that matter exists, and matter is objects.
We can reason that matter exists regardless of knowledge of it or belief in its existence. We can reason that matter is completely objective, meaning it exists irrespective of an observer.
Everything past this point is describing a relationship between or among those objects - descrptions are determined by brains, so they cannot be objective and must rely on an observer. Anything reliant upon an observer is dependent upon the lifetime of that observer and could not have preceded the observer.
That is simply sujective information - observer dependent.
Reality (nature) is a binary system: exist/don't exist. There is no other option available. Objects exist objectively (without observer). Nothing else can be said to fulfill this initial criteria (existence minus observer.)
Hope that helps.
Your comment is brilliant, AKA!
"That is simply sujective information - observer dependent."
"Reality (nature) is a binary system: exist/don't exist. There is no other option available. Objects exist objectively (without observer). Nothing else can be said to fulfill this initial criteria (existence minus observer.)"
For example, the old adage about "...does a tree truly fall in the forest if no one is there to hear it?", or "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" The binary system is absolute truth, no question, IMO. Subjectivity/objectivity are the complications inherent in such a 'debate'.
Thank you for your clarification. I do believe we agree here.
Does 'walk' exist?
What is 'love'?
What is 'exist'?
AKA gave a good description of exist which seemed to my primitive mind a fair comment, excepting that in his version I got the impression that for anything to exist it MUST have substance:
"Reality (nature) is a binary system: exist/don't exist. There is no other option available. Objects exist objectively (without observer). Nothing else can be said to fulfill this initial criteria (existence minus observer.)"
My question was simple, by this criterion, does love exist?
Perhaps in your great wisdom you will answer it.
Perhaps in your advanced wisdom you will define "exist" objectively.
Concepts does not exist, it is conceived, that is, it is an action like run, an action which is performed by brain. At least you have the ability to tell whether love is an object or a concept, I wish.
So love is a concept and does not exist?
I wish you would just answer the question?
Was AKA correct in his findings, does love not exist???
The converse will be 'love is an object' and hence exist. I wish I could see that object and it would have been easy for people to take some love out of ones heart and place it in the girls heart!!
Love, run, bounce.......does not exist. They are all actions done by things that exist.
Agreed, it would be pleasant to be able to 'see' love, in the same way as it would be pleasant to 'see' Christ (which we will one day) but for now, we must be content to 'experience' love (Christ)and receive the love that He can take from our hearts and place into other hurting loveless hearts.
So if love (by logical definition) does not exist, yet we feel it, accept it, give it and hope for it daily, it seems Christ should be afforded the same acceptance?
"So if love (by logical definition) does not exist, yet we feel it, accept it, give it and hope for it daily, it seems Christ should be afforded the same acceptance?"
The feeling and the changes in the body that occur with it we generally call love and not the other way round. I bet, you don't mean the same when you say "I love you" to your parents, wife and your kids.
Similarly what is "Christ"?
Is it a person? If he is, he is long dead and we cannot accept him in to our family. Even if he is alive, will you accept anybody other than your family into your home permanently?
Then it turns out what you call "Christ" is a set of ideas. The acceptance is dependent what idea it is. Since it is a set of ideas, we will be forced to take each idea and see whether it is acceptable or not. Again an idea that is applicable at one time may not be applicable at other times.[Say, love your neighbor is good, as long as he does not come after you like a raging bull with a loaded gun]
There are three levels of love:
Agape love, which is the unconditional love of Christ and God and is available to all through Grace, as we grow in Christ this love extends to more and more of humanity, until we accept that even those who harm us are to be loved, for they literally know not what they do, their lives and ignorance allow them to harm folk.
Philos love, which we extend to those we 'love' in a brotherly or familial way.
Eros love, which is sexual in nature.
Naturally we extend the appropriate level of love as required.
Of course, we as a family have Christ as the head of the household, and pray that He will be with us ALL the time, which He is.
A permanent member indeed.
Likewise we have invited alcoholics, drug addicts, and many other characters of 'dubious' (by world standards)folk into our family, are they still living with us, no, they grow and are healed and can then restore their lives, but when you take on a person who needs care, it's an open ended obligation, and NONE have been asked to leave.
When Christ is the head of your home, He brings those who need to be near Him to you.
Sorry, you obviously have no concept of what Christian living is about.
Christ is NOT an idea, and He has given us guidelines to handle ANY situation, even raging bull neighbours wielding loaded guns.
I have seen folk who had ill intent towards me thrown backwards across a room when I commanded them to stop in the name of Christ, without my ever touching them.
When you understand Ephesians 6 10:18, you need fear no evil, and deal with things differently.
Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.
There is much to learn about leaving the world and living in the Kingdom, but it is not hidden from anyone, there are no secrets that cannot be known to anyone who wished to defect from the world and enter into the Kingdom.
It's a simple choice which results in action.
Sorry to be so slow to answer but I have little time at the moment.
The flaw in your notion is that we can feel (as in touch) a concept (a non-object), give it (hand it to someone) and hope for it (like getting it as a birthday present in a box).
Do you see the silliness in the notion now? What you feel is an emotion, a chemical reaction within your body and you name that feeling "love". It is a conceptualized nametag for an emotion. It is not real. It does not exist.
The chemicals are real. The chemical reactions occur. We can explain that activity rationally (scientifically, critically). We have to delve into poetic language or philosophy and religion to explain how the emotion of "love" is felt or given. This is the fallacy of reification - making non-objects into objects. Love cannot be felt - a rock can be felt. One must physically touch an object to feel it - love cannot be touched so it cannot be felt.
Love is a concept. It does not exist by definition, and it is subjective, meaning it is nothing unless defined by an observer.
Hence, love (and all other concepts) cannot be eternal. Only objects could have preceded sentience. Therefore, there could be no eternal love, and a claim that god is love and god is eternal is an ontological contradiction and thus impossible.
In which case I pity your world, and lament that you choose to stay in it, but knowing what I do, you will accept of course that I prefer the Kingdom to the world.
What a dry and inhospitable world you occupy.
This is what most believers I talk to have trouble with - they don't seem to grasp that reasoning is not a worldview but a technique. It is used to try to determine what is real from what is not real.
A person of reason has the same feelings and emotions as anyone else - we just put them in their proper place as subservient to reasoning.
I can do everything that you do and never once hold belief of a god, including going to church, etc. What you have adopted is a mental image, a concept, and as I have shown you, in critical speech and in critical thinking, the only things we can assume are real with 99.9% confidence are objects.
Your belief system is based on subjective claims from authority figures - Saul of Tarsus, primarily for Protestants.
Ahh, what we fail to agree on then, is the proper place, for I put God ABOVE all other aspects of life, which is for any believer THE correct order to view life by.
2 Corinthians 10:5
Amplified Bible (AMP)
5[Inasmuch as we] refute arguments and theories and reasonings and every proud and lofty thing that sets itself up against the [true] knowledge of God; and we lead every thought and purpose away captive into the obedience of Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One).
That will NEVER change.
So, you believe the narrative told by witch doctors.
Some of us get past that. If you don't understand the ruse inherent in the quote you mention (2 Corinthians 10:5), you are doomed to be one of P.T. Barnum's sponsors who are born every minute.
The nature of the ruse is to claim that the position is unknowable, untestable, and unreasonable, yet you are still supposed to accept it to get the gigantic lollypop or avoid the hot poker stuck up your ass. The ruse specifically states you must remain willfully ingnorant or suffer the consequences of false pride.
They must love you in Vegas and in the 3-card Monte games in New York.
Virtually as long as man has walked upright, there have been charlatans who have taken advantage of gullible people. If I were you, I'd check my wallet every 5 minutes or so to make sure it is still there.
I never understood why god(in OT) showed his posterior to mosses. Now I know the author of that book was telling the believers what he considered best to treat them like, A*****es!
Guess you just proved that you are a proud and lofty thing that sets itself up against the [true] knowledge of God.
Oh well, guess we will just need to wait and see.
My wallet is just fine, God has a hold of it, and keeps it well stocked.
...and no, nobody gives me tithes or offerings, everything I do in the Kingdom and for Kingdom people is done for free.
It's a good deal, I let God run my life, and He takes care of business.
Do emotions exist?
Does consciousness exist?
Do functions of the brian exist?
If it can be determined that these functions come from a certain section of the brain, then these functions must exist within that brain because measurement can be made. Studies of split brain patients show that consciousness (the part of the mind that can articulate what the sub-conscious mind is doing) comes from the left hemisphere in over 90% of people. Therefor consciousness is a function of the brain and cannot exist without the brian, therefor consciousness does exist within the brain. If love, jealousy, anger and any other emotion that evolution has given us to survive (fear, anger) and procreate (love and jealousy) can be found to stem from a particular part of the brain, then those emotion exist in the brain, but only within the brain.
To extrapolate, if it can be determined that ones relationship with God can be determined to come from a particular part of the brain or if the sensation of the presence of God can be artificially placed in the brain the God does exist for that person, but only in the brain as with emotions and consciousness.
Agreed, and maybe God does have sections of the brain set aside for His purposes, and just maybe some folk can gain access or be granted access when they are seen to be willing to allow God to access those sections and implant His love and an understanding of Him and His ways?
After all, we are asked on FB if we wish to allow 'access' to certain areas we are offered, when we deny that access, we cannot know what was on offer. When we accept this process in a virtual world, why do we deny it in the spiritual world?.
We would do well to remember that we are souls with a body, not bodies with a soul.
The understanding of this makes it easier to reach God, and allow Him access to our 'hidden parts'
Scientific American state the following:
"What's not understood is how clusters of neurons from the diverse regions of the brain collaborate to form consciousness. So far, there's no evidence that there is one site for consciousness, which leads experts to believe that it is truly a collective neural effort. Another mystery hidden within our crinkled cortices is that out of all the brain's cells, only 10 percent are neurons; the other 90 percent are glial cells, which encapsulate and support neurons, but whose function remains largely unknown. Ultimately, it's not that we use 10 percent of our brains, merely that we only understand about 10 percent of how it functions."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … t-of-brain
Maybe God has reserved some of those uncharted areas for His exclusive use, and we cannot gain access until we ask for them to be unlocked?
1. Then you will have to tell what this 'god' is!!
2. You will have to tell what 'soul' is.
Consciousness, soul, mind are all the same.
What you call consciousness is the totality function of brain.
Now there is one more thing you have not taken into consideration, diseases and disorders which affect brain.
Glia cells function is not a mystery. It helps ion neuronal conduction and helps in protection of neurons . There is a disease called Guillain Barre syndrome, which destroys the myelin sheath of the peripheral nerve cells, the nerves still conduct, but as a very slow rate, result - paralysis.
No Jomine, I will not challenge you on your medical knowledge, you have studied to be approved in that area of knowledge, but equally it's up to YOU to study who God is, what the soul is, but I can tell you that the soul is not the same as the mind.
The brain is a software program that runs the body, the soul is the operating system, when the motherboard fails, neither function, but the soul is eternal, what we are living is a life that determines where that soul spends eternity.
Simplistic maybe, but then most things are in Gods terms.
I have to disagree again Aqua. Regarding god I've not seen god, neither was I present at the supposed time of birth of the universe to see the creator doing it. So either I've to take another's word for it, who just like me is a mortal who has not seen the event, or use my own reasoning. Reason and logic preclude god.[eg: Premise: Everything needs to be created. Conclusion: So the universe is created. But then bound by the premise god also needs to be created. What theists do is ignore that, but I can't]
And theists has not concluded whether god/soul is an object or concept.
Suppose you want to tell me what an apple is, you will just point your finger at an apple and utter the word apple and I'll understand. If it is an invisible object you can draw the picture or you can explain to me its action. On the other hand if it is a concept, you can only define, you can never point your finger or draw a picture.
So what is god/soul, object or concept?
This may be a good time to ask ourselves, what is the most likely scenario?
Evolution has given us all different tools for survival, some feel stronger in certain emotion than other and some perhaps through a function of the brain feel the presence of a God. Perhaps this might calm them down under times of stress, but it could also make them act irrationally at times (not clear yet if evolution favours this function yet).
A God set aside parts of our brain to communicate with him, but this function is clearly stronger in some.
I did try not to be biased one way or another, but you stated that we have to allow access. Perhaps you think my brain function like yours, but it doesn't. It's not that simple. There are people who feel no fear or jealousy. Ever. You can't tell them to open there brain to it and just allow access.
When the brain dies so does consciousness because it is a function of the brain. We can stop consciousness with anesthetics therefor consciousness is a function of the brain and you can't take it with you when you go.
Not stronger, just that some will grant access, and others (as you said) seem to be incapable of doing so.
That's the choice we make, run things our way, or ask God for some input.
There has been scientific study which showed that on death, the body loses 21 grammes of weight, this has shown that when the soul departs, we are left lighter.
Anybody who has been present at a death will also know that 'something' leaves us at that time.
We are souls with a body, the soul departs leaving the redundant body behind.
Where the soul departs to is what we are seeking to know and govern.
What study do you speak of? I've heard of this study and it's just rummers spread around by people trying to convince people that there is a god. And if it were the case we wouldn't know why it happens. We would have to think critically, not just assume.
You can't just tell someone to feel an emotion if they are incapable of doing so.
I have been present at a death. Something did leave me at that time, but it was my mother and her consciousness. The only thing that left her was her last breath. She was in a coma for the last hour of her life. A coma is a loss of consciousness.
All you have is wishful thinking that you consciousness goes with you when you die. Consciousness is a function of the brain, no magic happens when you die. We do live on though, if we are lucky enough to have children.
I am truly sorry that you hold these beliefs, and see no point in distressing you further by discussing something you are incapable of experiencing.
Accept my apologies, and regrets.
I have experienced God as you do but I was young and matured. I had a similar experience with Santa. Perhaps the belief in God is the result of an immature brain or section of the brian. I feel sorry for you and your apparent lack of maturity.
It must be painful to realize that your believe in life after death is just a product of evolution that has not been played out yet.
That experiment was conducted some 50 years before, when precise measuring instruments were not available. The one who did experiment, did it with dog and sheep and found one of it too got soul(I don't remember which one, think it is sheep). And the experiment was never reproduced.
I have seen many deaths(due to all sorts of reason, from newborns to elder people) through out my career starting from 2004. I have not seen anything leaving. In fact, in some cases, it was very difficult to determine death for the very simple reason that different parts of body die at different times.
The choice is very simple, define soul and its function, or accept there is nothing like that. Since the definition of soul(nonphysical aspect of person: the complex of human attributes that manifests as consciousness, thought, feeling, and will) says it is a concept, I have to say there is no soul.
AS I just stated to our other friend, Rad Man, I am sorry that you feel you are soulless and are incapable of experiencing what believers do, so I will leave you in your unbelief and not trouble you further.
Believers has nothing different from non believers, only the difference in interpretation of "experiences" [and if studies are correct a mal-wiring in the temporal lobe, which cause micro-seizures, the more the problem the stauncher the belief].
Believers first "assume" there is a god and fit all their experiences to that bias, while "non-believers", try to find out a logical reason. That is the believers find premises for their conclusion while non-believers conclude based on the premises.
It is as YOU wish. Fears and hopes make human irrational and blind to logic.
Well you said it, and I think it may well be true for you, but hope that one day you will break free from your fears.
I have no fears, God did not give us a spirit of fear, and my hopes are secure... can you say the same?
I hope so.
You Fear death, you Hope for after life, hence you bring up nonexistent beings like god and soul which are irrational and illogical but allay your fear and give you Hope, which you just proved by your above statement. I'm content with my life, I don't need crutches to live. I'm just happy with 'I'M', are you? Can you live without your eternal life Hope?
You seem very sure that you know what I think, feel and experience, which is amazing for someone who has never met me, nor has any knowledge of my life.
You are wrong, I almost welcome my return to the full eternal spiritual life, with only the reservations that missing my family here on earth produce.
"you bring up nonexistent beings like god and soul which are irrational and illogical"
To you obviously, these things are as trying to explain to an Elizabethan sailor the concept of ship to shore communications or GPS satellites and mobile phones:
"I tell you Sir Francis, one day you will not need flags to communicate, you will speak here on Plymouth Sound and your Captains in their ships will reply to you as if they were standing next to you playing bowls"
Your reply MUST be 'irrational and illogical' for there was no evidence YOU would accept to support that concept.
Likewise you will not truly understand until you enter eternity.
I don't have to meet you in person but only read what you are writing in the forums.
"You are wrong, I almost welcome my return to
the full eternal spiritual life"
The eternal Hope!
Your god is the refuge you created, the wish for a life after death, and as you are so sacred of death you'll never be able to use reason, and you'll never leave your only straw and Hope- your god.
I told many times I don't need proof, and your analogy is a misfit for 2 reasons 1. We are not discussing future but past 2. What you said can be EXPLAINED rationally for the person to understand. It is not the fact but the explanation of it that make one understand.
And your reply to Winston resemble that of Claire's.
Frankly, you speak bullshit when you spout this rubbish, but I understand how you MUST try to put words into my mouth or your whole case collapses.
Nice try, but no cigar, you cannot evade the question, had I explained to you telecommunications as a 17th century 'intellectual and educated man' you would have told me exactly the same crap that you spout now.
Because NOBODY could have EXPLAINED rationally telecoms to anyone back then, but they were existing when Drake sailed the world, radio waves have always been here,what we take as normal today was just as possible then, they just lacked the ability to tap into the source, just as you do today.
Why thank you, I take that as a compliment!
Hmmmmm. I feel the love. This is why I have so much respect for your religion and "followers of christ." No angry words or attacks from you. No sirreee bob - nothing but love and rational discourse.
Unless some one does not believe the stuff you believe of course. Makes me want to sign up for the Jesus train right now and do a "walk of faith," like yours. (Insert sarcasm smiley here)
Your false analogy doesn't really work for a number of reasons. Radio waves have always existed we just didn't have the majik Juju to see them. But you do?
Jomine is right - I can smell your fear from here.
Correct Mark, trying to push water uphill can make one frustrated, and yes I should know better than to react to these inane comments you guys make, mea culpa, but thankfully, I can repent of this, and hope to have the wisdom to ignore *cretins in future.
King James Version (KJV)
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.
We all do now, radio waves have been 'discovered' and made a part of our lives, likewise God can be discovered, but like radio waves one needs a receiver to listen to them.
Anyone can access God, but those who are impaired in the hearing department will obviously not be able to hear what is transmitted.
A great shame for those who are so impaired, but a tragedy for those who simply refuse to listen.
Please stop speaking nonsense at me. Your analogy is unsound. Unless of course - you can sell me a receiver that is not in your head? I think not - sadly - your fantasy that you can sense something other people are not capable of is not the same as detecting radio waves.
Wonderful passive/aggressive attack that makes it all the fault of the cretins making inane comments. And once again you are not responsible - you just repent and then start attacking again.
This makes me want to be a follower of christ even more. No responsibilities for my actions. Attack - repent - repeat.
Not attacking you. Simply pointing out your hypocrisy and explaining why I have no respect for your stated beliefs. Your self righteousness is rather off putting. You were the one attacking Jomine.
But - thanks for validating my opinion of your religion once again.
de nada Mark, you will only appreciate things when you stand before Christ.
Nonsense. How funny you feel the need to constantly threaten me with the Invisible Super Being's judgement. And - of course - you appreciate something I am incapable of doing.
Just another form of attack. Go - repent - then you can start all over again.
No morals - that is your problem.
AND, THERE is the threat. And I thought I had you mixed up with Preacher, but NOT.
That is not a threat, it is a statement, if Mark truly believes what he says, then there is no threat to him, if he doubts himself, then yes it could be viewed as a threat, or it could be viewed as a timely warning, with the hope of bringing conviction to a hardened heart.
One of those 'if the cap fits' situations....
Warning, threat what ever...
Why would you think he has a hardened heart? Christians don't have caring market cornered.
Not hardened in that respect, i.e. towards me, or humanity in general, I'm quite sure that in some French bar Mark and I could drink a few beers and find each other agreeable as people, it's God that Mark has hardened his heart towards.
You trust some ancient people have more Knowledge and think whatever they wrote are true. While mark think there is no reason to trust ancient ignoramouses blindly.
You started trusting them to that point that all your subsequent analysis became biased, while Mark's is still level headed. Your premise is false, and hence your conclusion too.
For your information there are so many other books written by so many other people(ancient and modern) that claim god or similar stuff and claim direct revelation and claim as the only route of salvation. You just chose bible for you are familiar with that or your personality is more tuned to that.
Well thank you Jomine for such an in depth analysis which is obviously based upon first hand factual evidence, of which you have NONE.
I really do wonder sometimes how you guys reach all these conclusions, you must be amazingly well trained psychoanalysts and have immense understanding to be able to offer such in depth character profiles from my small comments made here.
I am particularly impressed by your ability to jump to conclusions and express them with such 'clarity'.
Had you learned English as a first language, your remarks would make even more sense I am sure.
With your perception, and intellect, I wonder why you have not been declared a world leader, or risen to the top of the philosophical field in whatever country you hail from.
Maybe in time, when you direct your attention at actually doing something to solve the problems, rather than telling me what you know about my life and how I should be running it, you will achieve something better than second rate slurs and pathetic arguments.
Have a nice day.
argumentum ad hominum.
You cannot even define your words and accuse me of lack of clarity?
Expect better arguments from a 'believer'? I never expect any argument from a believer except ad hominum and nonsense, both of which you excel.
I'm afraid you must be incapable of understanding. You still think we are attacking or turning our back purposely on God, like breaking up with an old friend. This simply is not the case. We simple don't believe in Leprechauns, the lockness monster, santa clause or god. We haven't hardened our hearts to Leprechauns or God.
But you also cannot understand that despite knowing that, from a believers standpoint, i.e. knowing God, you have hardened, or had your heart hardened, anyhow, no point in arguing the point. we agree to differ.
You assume there is something wrong with me and that is insulting.
...and this does not seem insulting or an assumption that something is wrong with me?
" We simple don't believe in Leprechauns, the lockness monster, santa clause or god. "
No, perhaps that is just condescending.
Guess you just proved that you are a proud and
lofty thing that sets itself up against the [true]
knowledge of Leprechauns,.
But, I'm not assuming there is something wrong with you. You assumed I was being condescending which I was not. I'm just telling what's happening in my mind. I said nothing about your character.
Well, your religion tells us all that there's something wrong with all of us. Something from the get go that we basically have no control over... So don't take offense. Jesus makes it all better.
What religion of mine do you speak of?
"Something from the get go that we basically have no control over" What are you taking about?
I didn't take offence, I don't even know what you are taking about.
Modern man is more knowledgeable than the ancient tribes, yet many of us still cling to beliefs those tribes developed that contradict modern understanding.
We do not "harden our hearts". What we do is consciously suppress emotions as we understand that emotions are poor guides and often mislead.
Even believers suppress emotions - you don't always punch someone in the nose simply because you are angry.
Non-believers simply suppress the emotional neediness for magical solutions to problems that is inherent in the young of our species - we grow up - because we understand that emotions are fickle and untrustworthy guides to adult behavior and neediness is based on fear of the unknown and uncontrollable.
In other words you deliberately harden your hearts...you actually set out to suppress emotions, OK, maybe you don't read what you write, but thank you, for just clearly proving that what I said was correct.
I have never struck anyone in my life, so I could not speak about suppressed emotions causing me to thump people, though I have dealt with many people who have found release when they stopped suppressing their emotions.
Suppressing emotions is dangerous ground, nearly always comes back to bite you later.
I bolded the sections above where you insinuate that because I have God in my life, I must be:
have failed to grow up
have neediness based on fear of the unknown and the uncontrollable
Obviously you know me so well!
First I am 60 years old and was as misguided as you for the first 42 years of my life, maybe when you have experienced a few more years you may also realise your foolishness.
As for emotional neediness, actually my lack of emotions is more the problem, I never came to Christ from fear or neediness, I came because I started out to pick the bible apart, and realised as I read the book, that I could not, and the error was with me.
The error always is with the person.
Anyhow, as stated earlier, no point in trying to spiritual discuss matters with dead folk.
Adios amigo, may life treat you well.
It is frustrating how little comprehension there is with the written word. Let me be clear - I did not validate your claim of "hardening hearts". I explained to you that there is no such thing as being able to harden a heart, rather all humans suppress emotions: you, me, everyone.
"Hardening your heart" is taking poetic license with a critical statement and cannot be tolerated without comment.
My comment was addressed to mankind in general and the fear of the unknown that drives our emotions - if you fit that category, so be it.
I stand by my comment. Adults do not allow emotions to drive their actions. To be a slave to feelings is to be gullible to deception.
I agree wholeheartedly that we should not live or make decisions soley on feelings,however it is also emotion that has driven the most gifted artist,musician,actor and even everyday events,be it work,parenting our careers, and in relationships, any act requiring inspiration or emotion is first thought of (mind) then driven by emotion.
Sure, emotions are part of life - but they must be relegated to subservience to reason else you live life as a perpetual adolescent.
If we followed the line of emotional validation you suggest, then a believer, when faced with a cancer diagnosis, should go immediately to the pastor or priest and eschew oncology - after all, it is reason than takes us to the specialist, and it is emotion that says miracles are real and faith can heal.
But I know that is not what you believe or would do unless you are Christian Scientist or such. Therefore, what you must be doing is cherry-picking the times when you abandon emotive-drive in lieu of reason while clinging to emotive-driven ideals when it suits your fancy and there is no immediate negative consequence.
To be fair, we all do this to one degree or another - but I suggest the reality you think you sense is simply a reaction of chemistry inside your body (objects) that you interpret (concept) as reality.
Seriously, where do you think charlatans get their power to dazzle and beguile? They get it from the person they are tricking, from that person's emotional response - the deeper is the belief, hope, or fear, the easier it is to work the con.
Actually if I were ever diagnosed with cancer, God would be my first stop, to establish where the entry point for the attack came from, and get the thing dealt with, next would be the naturopathic doctor to get checked out, and establish the natural way to health restoration.
The cut, burn and poison brigade would not get a look in.
No emotive response there, just plain common sense and knowledge of cancer survival rates from white coat medicine, compared to natural cure methods.
Do you have stats to back up your claim? Unfortunately hospital are riddled with cancer patients that feel they did everything right. They were told to pray and God would answer their prayer. When they don't recover they feel like they did something wrong. Cancer does not discriminate upon any lines. No point making the patients feel guilt as well.
I would like to see your stats because medicine does cure many cancers, I've seen that.
My Doctor (a former white coat Dr and surgeon) has stats, he turned and re-qualified in natural therapies after the got fed up of treating the symptoms and decided he wanted to cure people.
His success ratio with patients who have gone the full white coat route is 75%, that is 75% of people who have been told to go home and die by their hospitals.
And his 75% survive much longer than the five years that white coats view as cured. They lead normal lives.
Can he produce them, absolutely not, if he did, the medical Gestapo would drive him out of practise.
You guys all scream stats, I look at the success ratio.
The success ratio is a stat. Look I've gone to a MD that is also a naturopath and agree that having both disciplines is a better scenario to having just one. Critical thinking would tell you that if he has in fact discovered a way to cure cancer the medical industry would have found a way to make money from it. Just because he tells you his success rate is 75% doesn't make it so. Even Andy Kaufman got taken near the end of his life.
As a very brilliant man recently said "To be a slave to feelings is to be gullible to deception." AKA Winston
This guy has not 'discovered a way to cure cancer' he has correctly recognised that there are many ways, and they vary according to the cancer being treated, and BigPharma do make money from it, by ensuring that the FDA ban or refuse any natural health substance that can make a difference, or at least those that BigPharma cannot chemically duplicate and patent.
Cancer is BIG business for BigPharma and they will not allow anybody to tell the world how to cure it, there are fortunes at stake doing 'Cancer Research' but actually curing your patients or stopping the cancer forming is not cost effective in this world-view.
First the very wise statement is not totally accurate, when I was 'in the business' of conning gullible people I always found that greed was THE key ingredient for exploiting gullibility, hence the preacher telling folks that all you need is membership and a weekly tithe with offerings on top, will make more cash that the guy who tells them the truth, that the way is narrow and the gate is small. Most people will follow the wide path.
Second, despite years of research, billions of dollars invested and the advances of modern technology, we still use methods of cut/burn and poison as the ONLY approved methods to treat cancer, this despite appalling actual cure statistics showing that these treatments kill more than the disease they were supposedly treating.
And you call me liable to gullible emotive opinions? - when all you rational thinkers support white coat medicine JUST because they publish statistics (which are never tested against natural medicines) and TELL you they are on your side.
Look at the death rates, see how many are killed by white coat medicine, and then let me know why I am wrong to actively expose their lies.
Then wonder what else I may just have a more 'in depth' opinion on that world-view you have bought hook line and sinker.
I started off with a non religious world view, was in that condition for 42 years, the last almost 20 years have been very revealing.
What makes you think you are not gullible? You have no evidence that the naturopath helps anyone. Your conspiracy theory is weak. Many of todays medicines come from nature, ASA comes to mind. If Big Pharm could make money from it they have to do research and they would. As I said before even Andy Koufman got taken in the end. Naturopathic has it's place, but I wouldn't rely on them to get ride of cancer. Give me all your money and I'll prey the cancer will go away. Many cancers can be treated successfully.
I know of no ethical Dr. of Naturopathic Medicine nor any herbologist, homeopathic healer, or even practitioners of Kampo (who are fully accredited physicians in Japan) who would EVER suggest that kind of treatment as an exclusive treatment for any cancer.
If ANYBODY claiming ANY type of healing ability (including faith healers) suggests that one should forgo established mainstream medical treatments exclusively in preference to their types of healing they are a quack. And a damn dangerous one as well. I personally believe they should be charged with negligent homicide WHEN (not if) their patient dies.
I hear ya sister. Hopefully aguasilver will read you post.
Oh and to be fair I do know an ethical Dr, of Naturopathic with an MD. He starting with the MD and does a very good job helping kids with autism and adhd. He does what MD's don't do. Look for food sensitivities or allergies as well as deficiencies in the blood and problems with Gut Flora. I must say he was very effective in treating ADHD in one of my kids.
DANS doctors are great! (My daughter is autistic) But they are also complementary medicine... I've never had one tell me I should forgo occupational and developmental therapies for their treatment only.
I love love love natural healing methods and have completed enough hours to be a certified herbologist in many states (my state has no such certification). That's part of what makes me angry about the unethical "I can cure cancer with bat dung" crowd. A saying of mine is: If I have a stomach ache I'm going to drink peppermint tea. If I break my leg I'm going to the freaking ER.
Natural methods of healing are great in unison with mainstream medicine to treat cancer but THERE ARE NO NATURAL CURES CURRENTLY IN KNOWLEDGE THAT CURE CANCER. You WILL die if you rely on this kind of medicine alone.
(Faith is stronger than reason, for most humans!) It's not surprising that when one is susceptible fundamentalism they would be susceptible to a quack. I'm not saying the doctors a quack, but if he says he can cure cancer better than an oncologist the he's a quack and anyone who believes him is not quite right.
I understand you are too old and set in your ways to change, so I am not trying to change your views but to use your worldview to hopefully point out the fallacies so others younger and less set might escape the trap you have fallen into.
What you have done is what all believers do - they accept the narrative without demanding objective evidence. This is an emotionally-based action. Reason has nothing to do with it. Let's look at your statement.
Your doctor c-l-a-i-m-s to have been a physician. (have you phoned his universtity for verification or checked with AMA?) I once knew a guy who claimed to have played the PGA tour, and another who claimed to have been an RN who worked in open heart surgery. Their claims did not make it so - only proper validation of those claims could make it so. Anyone can claim anything. And many do.
Your doctor c-l-a-i-m-s to have a 75% success rate (but he cannot provide objective data to back up those claims) I can claim I have had 1 million holes-in-one or that I taught the Beetles how to play their instruments. Claims are nothing but hot air. Healing requires objective evidence.
And then you believed his alibi - I can't tell the world because the evil medical conspiracy would drive me out of business. Just how gullible are you?
I suppose a UFO landed in New Mexico and NASA faked the moon landing, too?
Old buddy, you have been conned - you simply accepted the word of someone who appeared to you to be an authority figure. If I were you, I'd watch out when the priest whispers in your ear that god wants you to do it to help the priest feel good while he inches a little closer to you in the confessional.
Or read my hub, Out of the Mouth of Babes.
The moral of the story is this: if someone cannot offer you objective, testable evidence of their claim, don't walk, run away as fast as you can, and hold on to your billfold while you run.
If you don't, then don't get cancer.
You need to be "intelligent" to see the emperor's clothes!!
Let me see if I understand exactly what you said, because it is hard to believe.
You said that if you got cancer you would first appeal for guidance to an imaginary, invisible superbeing before going to a witch doctor in order to avoid going to see the one group of professionals who have demonstratable, objective evidence of the ability to cure your condition.
And then you say that is reasonable.
Your Honor, I rest my case.
The word professional just means someone who is paid
That being said, there are some extraordinary professionals out there.
But there are other extrodinary individuals who also have great faith and pray ,intercede on behalf of other people. There are thousands of like Christians who do this silently and quietly. They do not seek honor or glory and in fact the genuine ones will be giving ALL the glory to God- ( if the opposite happens ,its a pretty good sign ,that the act is self seeking and not God seeking.
Are you of the opinion ,that because you do not accept/or understand this ,then it must not be so?
Well,now ,if its true that scientists claim that we only use two thirds of our brains, it is also possible that there is much we do not know.
Yea, I understand now, all the earth quakes occur because of those people who do not pray and people survive because of prayer.
All cancers occur to people who do not pray, and those who survive, survive because of the silent prayers by christians.
In your case even an estimate of 1/3rd won't be wrong!
Have you heard of argumentum ad ignorantiam?
Yes, we do know that prayer alone is ineffective. Get treatment and pray, that's Okay. If what you say were true Christians would make up an abnormally small percentage of cancer patients. Cancer does not discriminate along any lines. Unless of course you have statical evidence that suggests otherwise?
Pointless trying to explain to you, so why bother, I have hubs on cancer, read them, see the videos and comment if you feel you want to.
I can see my doctors certificates on his wall, he works in Spain and is recognised by the Spanish health system.
He was trained in America and the Lebanon.
I have personal experience of his curative abilities.
You are nothing but a contentious man, and I cannot be bothered to waste more time with you.
I concede there are extreme acts of emotion based on nothing more than "God said etc" or extreme acts of sensationalism in the name of God.
It is also very prevalent in many 3rd world countries under the guise 'healing' or magic through black magic,voodooism, mythical practices,etc.
And we see the same kind of 'salesman' type charisma via the marketing world (media)and the flaky ,glitzy side of Hollywood..reality shows ,sitcoms etc.in the Western world.
The Bible speaks and abhors such practices however, Jesus in particular warned than many would make such claims, so just like the salesman or witch doctor who stirs up fear or sensationalism and even ordinary every day people who dont preach 'the whole context' of the lesson,it is up to the individual to make informed choices,and to use their common sense!
There have been instances where medical teams have not been able to explain why a persons health improved ,when clearly their prognosis was negative,so I do not think we should ever rule out divine intervention.
Personally my faith embraces the holistic approach, God can heal in many different ways, and has gifted some very fine people with amazing abilities.
Mans thinking is so limited ,we tend to think ,everything must all be done a certain way ,because that's the way its always been done ,and it must be understood to be factual an not emotion based.
I say ,its both but with a definite balance, for too much intellectualizing ,is just as dangerous as being overly emotive.
I feel grateful for that (emotion) and I have seen and experienced the evidence several times (facts).
We have mentioned extreme left and right thoughts re emotionally charged claims, but a great proportion of believers are thinking intelligent people ,who use different criteria to judge teachings, experiences and observe other believers long before they accept the Son of God into their lives.
"To be a slave to feelings is to be gullible to deception."
That is brilliant. simply brilliant. It should be taught in school alongside addition and to the same age.
How one deals with conflict is a good indicator of character. Immature defences lead to a distortion of reality. Suppression of ones feeling is different than repression in that the negative information is still available to the conscious mind and can be thought of when the person chooses to do so.
So These are not your words ""You are wrong, I almost welcome my return to the full eternal spiritual life"? Well that is what religious people are Good at, always maintaining they meant something else!
You forgot da Vinci. Just because you are incapable of understanding even the simplest statements doesn't mean nobody else can't. You are not asked to explain telecommunications you were asked to define your words, and it is you who are doing the evasion.
Resembling a psychotic is a compliment to you? Then I really doubt your sanity!
There is nothing spiritual about love or similar emotions. Love is a combination of chemical and electrical signals in certain parts of our brain. On occasion it causes the heart rate to increase and body temperature, but these are either by products or evolutionary necessities that occur in tandem with the electrical and chemical movements that are love...
A belief in spirituality is the same, some people are just more predisposed to it than others and of course have had more extreme upbringings or aren't as good at fighting indoctrination.
Love does exist but it is not what you think it is aguasilver we CAN see love (for example when you get a CAT scan), it is basically a physical, evolutionary thing and very important to humans survival to this point, nothing to do with religion or god.
The chemical responsible for love, is oxytosin...
That is more to do with child birth isn't it? I wouldn't say that oxytocin is love exactly but that, and other chemical signals like it trigger reactions in the brain which we interpret as feelings.
Either way though the question of does love exist is no answered and we can see it so it does exist... nothing to do with 'the spirit' though it seems
does love exist? and what is exist?
i think that this in itself is a good case for god because exist is what god made us and love is what god gave so thanks
Why would you ask me when I provided a precise definition of "exist" and explained why in critical speech one should use such a precise definition.
Let's apply our definition to the word "love". Does love have shape? No. Then it is no an object - it does not exist per the definition of exist.
Love is not objective - love requires an observer; ergo, love is subjective and describes a relationship between objects.
The easiest way to think about the structure is this: objects or concepts. Concepts are subjective - they have no meaning without an observer to create their definition. Real physical objects exist irrespective of an observer.
Personally I think that many people would benefit not from asking the question 'does god exist?' but instead asking 'why WOULD god exist'?
Ask yourselves some of the questions brought up here: http://matthewkirk.hubpages.com/hub/Why … -not-exist
Would love to see someone question their faith out of the above.
Reminds me of what Jefferson said.
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." ~Thomas Jefferson
For Shame, Scottye! Dictionary definitions don't always hit on the 'truth'! You know? Still, great reference!
Believing the cross of hatred exists propounds the evidence in proportionate terms of endearment. What casually is admired by the passerbys is vaguely administered as a propagation of terms that are described as follows:
1. God exists in the temple of our bodies
2. God is unbiased in his judgement of good character
3. Gods undying wish is for his dearest devotees only.
4. God doesn't discriminate on the basis of a mindset or form of gods.
5. God is good to those that follow scriptures
6. God loves all his children
I think the English language has too many words sometimes there are several words to describe the same thing ,or one word used over another can be perceived quite differently.
Whatever happened to the 5 main senses?
The of course at why does anything need to be proved to be believed?
i.e I know a certain Boeing flight will touch down in 3 hrs and 10 mins, because someone told me and I believed them.
Believe me, if you give me 1 million dollars you will have eternal life and anything you wish for.
PS: you can paypal me, and Hope you do it in one or two days.
I'm not providing any proof because you said you don't need any.
No Holy Spirit to testify (Its a Spirit thing)
No evidence as seen in changed lives.
God doesn't have to prove anything,yet His creation testifies new life every day.
No, your offer has already been dupiclated by the 'Self Help' industry to the tune of billions.
I will stay with the real deal
Atheist "beliefs" are in fact, not beliefs because they are supported by evidence.
Which atheists choose to believe are accurate, despite the fact that they change regularly as some expert points out why what he presents is now 'evidence' that trumps the 'evidence' which ruled until then.
Sure I can see that basing ones life upon 'evidence' which is shifting sand makes sense, over basing it on personal experience and 'evidence' that has never changed.
That's a point if I'm understanding you correctly.
Evidence for evolution changes based on the times and also wether or not they dig up a new set of bones which contradicts their whole theory so they change it and now the evidenceis replaced whereas with the bIble it has been unchanged since it was made and is still just as true today as it ever was?
If that's what you meant I like it and aim to use plagiarise it as my own:D
So we should still be killing witches and homosexuals?
"You should not let a sorceress live." Exodus 22:17
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Leviticus 20:13
How many homos have YOU killed today?
But be careful because it shows you have no understanding of evolution or science, so quoting it makes you look silly.
The theory of evolution has not changed since Darwin. The theory is the same and all evidence points to it being correct. Science by it's nature is critical and looks for flaws, but none have been found. New finding don't change the theory of evolution it just supports it. When science finds another missing link, lets say "Lucy" it supports the theory of evolution. What may change is that perhaps we thought humans evolved one and it turns out we evolved another. But Evolved is the key word.
Evolution cannot exist in harmony with entropy..
And entropy is fact.
Don't attempt the science lesson.
Irreducible complexity too, just so you know there are still others.
Never been replicated or repeated. [no body transformations, PERIOD]
And if it can't or hasn't been replicated or repeated [now, not when you didn't exist] then it ain't science.
Epic 'fail' is the key word..
DNA written language magically appears!
Go evo team!
Man, this popcorn is SO goood..
Are you Okay? Because you didn't complete one sentence and nothing made any sense.
Yes it can
Of course, because you wont listen due to your closed mind.
That old fallacious argument? I wonder how many times that has been disproven to date? The bacterial flagellum was my personal favourite.
Did you type that by accident?
Did that make any sense in your head becuse it didnt in mine.
Still dont know what you are talking about.
LOL, the irony.
Is that what god did?
DNA has no language. You do like your magic though.
Well as long as you're happy.
DNA HAS NO LANGUAGE?
WOW..LOL, i guess the problem is worse than I thought.
Go genius go..
You got me there!
Please do keep going!
I certainly am happy, and beginning to understand the problem..
I'll be laughing at this one for eons!
As if you could even argue for or against such a premise, Vector 7, you have shown no knowledge for such concepts and you understand none of it.
You are little more than a troll. Laughing and joking about things that you not just disagree with but you have a media induced understanding of. And the Media never gets science right.
Yes, thank you, but your approval is something not required.
And yes, I did intend to keep from letting people think they were looking high and mighy with incorrect information - yet refuse to waste my time getting into depth of lecturing. [as if it would change your mind? I think not]
And I am indeed laughing, as I think it's hilarious and if the mkre I read the more I laugh.
If you weren't in it to 'win' well it might not matter if I laughed, which is why what you think you've got in opposition to me doesn't matter an ounce.
And I don't particularly base my studies from television, but I can see the - assumption/inccorect conclusion - relationship that landed you where you stand.
As I don't watch television much at all, so I suppose I'll let everyone reading conclude on what that means exactly.
I need to show YOU something?
I so, so don't.
I am not here to "win" anything, science has already won this for me. You laugh but for disputing what I say yet offer nothing factual to do so except your laughable interpretation of something you understand little. You sir are a clown troll.
1 The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.
2 Any nonverbal method of expression or communication: "a language of gesture and facial expression".
Indeed, DNA does not have a language, but, as long as you're happy.......
Take it to the bank hippy!
You've got me running, I can't touch your mighty brain!
What is DNA FOR buddy?
While I enjoy your ignorance of fact and your eager willingness to ridicule others in such a childish manner I dont feel you are of a level of intelligence worthy of response.
Your simple lack of knowledge of what the theory of evolution actually says and your constant confusing it with the hypothesis of abiogenesis and the big bang theory simply makes you a laughing stock.
Well, I don't entertain thoughts of you, as I was just addressing the matter.
But it looks to be an adult by your methods I'll have to call you ignorant, confused, and a laughing stock.
I just thought it was funny, and still do.
You're welcome to keep going, if you honestly think it helps or changes anything.
Entropy doesn't contradict Evolution in fact they have very little to do with each other. One describes matter and energy and the other describes organisms.... if Entropy contradicted evolution it would also contradict human development in technology.
And if it can't or hasn't been replicated or repeated [now, not when you didn't exist] then it ain't science."
You have no idea what you are talking about here or what it is in reference to, you are no scientist nor do you understand science, your understanding of science is laughable, a complete comedy. Almost too entertaining to comment on. It would be better not to try and correct you and just watch the comedy unfold.
If Evolution is wrong and creationism is right then why has Evolution always won in EVERY court case it's been subjected to....
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Edwards v. Aguillard
Intelligent Design, aka creationism, has been debunked and shown to be wrong in every aspect. Including "Irreducible complexity"...
Say more, I dare you, you just make a joke of yourself every time.
No formal addressing of my points, and side steppjng doesn't count.
Entropy involves every system in the known universe.
Oh well, looks like I'm not so afraid after all.
Your little threat/dare is quite amusing really.
And I know plenty.
Your assertion is a lie, as are both of your claims involving my points.
Magically replicating first cell from nothing!
You can do nothing but ridicule, you have no basis for your assumption or your assertions. You also have no evidence to the contrary, you have no evidence of anything you believe for that matter. Your only defense is to persist in ad hominem attacks....
you are a very sad person.
Why don't you take Evolution to court? Because you will lose.
"Magically replicating first cell from nothing!"
This statement shows your complete lack of understanding of the concept of not just evolution but of biology and chemistry and physics and so on. You neither understand entropy nor what it refers to or how it works in what it's original intended argument was used for... it had nothing to do with evolution to begin with it was an argument against the Big Bang, not evolution, that was a whole different argument. Entropy? You know nothing.
Yet you want people to believe that a whole population of people came from just two people? Incest?
Come on now, more ad hominem attacks, that's pretty much all you are good at and I have seen NOTHING remotely intelligent from your small mind.
There is much you lack sight to see.
Court? You think that is where 'God" would be?
Sigh.. Well, someone has to stop replying.
I guess I'll do it. [ go on and tell'em you 'won'. lol ]
You are a very hostile fellow.
Where God would be? The only place God will ever be is in your mind and he is just as impotent. I am only hostile to you, know why? You are an a-hole. If you don't get it by now your also an idiot.
You are assuming too much. You are assuming a psychotic is going to understand you!!
That's like saying bowling cannot exist in harmony with woodworking. Completely nonsensical.
Hi TM, sorry to say I have actually missed you, were you away on vacation or just taking a rest?
Thanks aqua. I was banned for saying something, but I have no idea what that was.
Wasn't me! anyway, good to see you back, you may be a pain in the rear end sometimes, but you do keep it interesting
I wish they would tell us, but they have a god complex and judge us heathens, remaining as intangible as any invisible sky fairy.
I would think that the HubPages team think nothing of the sort, I have seen no signs of overt or covert religiosity from them, indeed, I suggest that they probably lean towards the opposing viewpoint, or at least try to stay uninvolved and impartial.
Wait wait wait, you actually believe, that in over 1,000 years, through the hands of 10's of thousands of scribes, as well as an oral tradition in which things indefinitely change, you believe the bible never changed at all? Your either wilfully ignorant, or a liar. Either way I can't really fault you for it. In proverbs your bible tells you that you must not have an understanding for it runs counter to God.
If you would like examples of how it's been changed in just the last 15 years or so I can give you at least one off the top of my head. Job 3:8 said "Rue those who Rue the day who art skilful to rouse leviathan." Currently this passage reads "Mourn those who mourn the day who are skillful to raise up their mourning." These passage have two COMPLETELY different meanings, both in ancient times and now. Wanting something not to change doesn't mean that it doesn't.
findings such as the dead sea scrolls confirm that although some of the wording might have changed slightly the sentences and points are the same
But even assuming the translations were adequate, the message about who Jesus was and how he obtained that position disagree - even the means to salvation do not agree.
Protestantism is an amalgamation of slightly different views into a comphrehensive view that is not supported independently by any single gospel, but requires cherry-picking from each gospel to make it appear as a whole.
In reality, the theology you claim to believe is based on a 5th gospel that was never written.
I agree that the message of who Jesus was changes from religion to religion but the bible itself is clear on the matter that he is the son of god and inferior to god...he is the mediator between humans and god....so screw you pope!
No, Danny, based upon which gospel you read, the bible is not clear on who Jesus was and his relationship to god. Only in the gospel of John is Jesus declared to be equivalent to god, i.e., the word, having been with god when the world was supposedly created. In the gospel according to Mark, if you know anything about scriptural study, Jesus was basically shown to have been adopted at his baptism.
These two versions are not even close.
In Mark, Jesus states that to get into heaven a believer must keep the Jewish laws. But the apostle Paul says the law doesn't matter.
Which version do you believe, Danny?
I know - you believe the invented version of your own holy book - the 5th unwritten gospel, the compilation gospel according to popularity.
This is like someone making up a new story from four different books, about a girl named Dorothy who lived in Kansas with her dog Toto and how a tornado carried her and the dog through a looking glass to Wonderland, and how in Wonderland Toto got rabies and trapped a woman inside her car and how Dorothy developed multiple personality disorder and changed her name to Sibyl and lived happily ever after.
The gospel according to The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Cujo, and Sibyl, amen.
Feel free to, that's exactly what I meant, it's a good posit, and one which they choose to ignore with their inane rants.
Unfortunately, evidence doesn't change. Evidence is collected and a model is formed for the evidence collected. Findings are reported and tested giving science a chance to fix the errors in the conclusions... the media however, will report on it even if the conclusion is not yet made and will often wrongly interpret, quote mine, or even change the meaning of the findings to make more sensational headlines on the science.
I am sure you get your science from TV and not from the source so I am sure everything you know about any science, whether evolution, climate change, or medicine is completely skewed, inaccurate or even an out and out lie. I also don't expect you to say anything accurate about science due to your prejudices towards it because it contradicts your beliefs, that goes for every single believer here.
One thing I can tell you for sure is I was raised a Christian and I was not always an atheist, I came to my conclusions through much thought and research and struggle and ridicule. Because to the believer, it is wrong to even question God.
Evidence does change when it is masqueraded as evidence but is later found to be a lie, just think of the countless skulls that were tampered with to make them look more monkey than human
The only case I know of (and I have looked into this issue as it interests me greatly) is Piltdown Man, which was a hoax created by someone trying to get fame for a new discovery, but this can be expected in religion as well, the only difference is that religious hoaxes never get caught until someone drinks the cool aid.
mhmmm and we who believe in god of course have no evidence and we all have down syndrome and are deluded of course
You have no physical evidence, in fact, all evidence points to the bible being largely fictitious, the stories about Jesus in particular, are contradicted in the bible itself. Don't insult people with down syndrome.
are you sure your not making the contradiction yourself to suit your beleif? now as for the stories of jesus being fictitious a nice little fact for you is that there is more evidence that jesus did the things he did than for alexander the great doing the things he did...by using the exact same method you use to prove he existed the same can be done for jesus only much more convincingly....sorry about the down syndrome comment it was a bit thoughtless....also you say there is no physical evidence but we as human beings are the evidence the fact that we are alive is inconceivable to science....richard dawkins is quoted as saying a good case for a deistic god could be made so if the worlds biggest atheist has to conceed that there is a good case for it what chance do you have?
FYI i do NOT advocate religion so no need to go there with me my argument is for my creator.
Argumentum ad verecundiam.
Have you noticed that the thread is about the meaning of the term 'god' and the definition of the term 'exist'?
yeah but thats a pointless question because we dont know...simple really the rest is philosophical jibberjabber
If you don't know then what you mean when you say 'god exist'? Then aren't you stating gibberish?
you never said the term 'god exist' you said the term 'exist' we dont know how we came about which is a nice argument for 'god exist' actually because thats the only way we can 'eixst'.
then theres the argument then who made god...which i dont know the answer to clearly god is beyond the law of everything comes from something...but i dunno really so what i just said is jibberjabber im not smart enough to know the answer to that one
You may not be smart, but have you come here to prove it?
I didn't ask from where anything came, what I asked was what did YOU mean when you said 'god' and 'exist'?
'god' is what makes things 'exist' and im not the nly one not smart enough to answer the question nobody is
Just because you cannot, doesn't mean nobody else can. If you have read the thread, there is a definition for "exist" - physical presence. So existence doesn't need anybody's help. existence exist.
Now tell me what this god thing is? and whether god exist or not?
how can you say existance doesnt need help?
yes existance exists but only if there is a god to put it into existance so that answers your question on what this 'god thing is'.
also nobody else can explain existance because 'what you cannot create you cannot understand'
apologies btw i have read the title wrong
It's interesting how you've spun this web.
To you things exist only if God put it into existence, otherwise they don't exist. So, a God that we can't prove exists made everything else exist but himself.
What I know is I have 3 kids and me and my wife made them exist. I exist, she exist and the 3 kids exist. God was not in the room when they were made. The kids appear to come from nowhere, but science has taught us they are half me and half my wife.
The much more likely scenario is God and the Soul is a man made answer to a question that is difficult to answer.
I don't want to patronise you but what you did is have sex with your wife you didn't do anything too taxing I don't think your semen is what carries the information to make a baby and the only place information can come from is intelligence so in that sense you didn't make the baby at all
So you are saying god created everything(from nothing, I assume)?
Or you are calling the creator god?
So does god exist?
Well yes I'm saying god exists and yes he created the physical from nothing, i have no idea how god did that of course but neither does anyone and the best explanation science gives is nothing coming from nothing...they just miss the god part out, how about you what's your personal belief?
What has my belief got to do with any of these?
You say god exist, so you agree he is physical. So the matter that make up god is eternal and the space that give shape to god too is eternal. So there is some matter that god didn't create(that which make him). So you agree matter and space are eternal and doesn't need creation.
You do not know how god converted nothing to something though the only creation any human has ever witnessed is something from something, yet you claim something from nothing.
Now, as time is a concept, all that happens is things moving in relation to each other. So what is the rationale of assuming all things cease to exist?
So you only have to tell
1. As matter and space are eternal what exactly did god create?
2. Why do you assume everything will be nothing?
Uhm...I believe god is physical? Huh? I believe god is spiritual (a higher form than physical) and that only a higher form of physical could make the physical because it's impossible to create anything great than yourself....no point trying to be sneaky with words exist is after all just a word and can apply to non physical things......the universe isn't eternal because it's expansion can slow down and stop which is what scientists predict so again why play on words?
I don't assume something from nothing scientists do I assume something from a higher intelligence, a house can't just build itself it needs a builder it's not different with the earth or with the universe.
I don't even know what your talking about when you say I assume all things cease to exist
So going 'circular' again?
You said god exist, and you said god created everything from nothing.
If everything had to be created there is a beginning, a time where everything was absent.
So what made you assume a beginning, as in nature there is nothing called time?
What is 'exist'? Either you do not know what is the meaning of the word, or you are purposefully trying to deceive the audience. God exist. Nonphysical exist are your key statements and your key word is exist. If you do not know the key word, what theory are you presenting?
God is nonphysical? Then god is a concept conceived by intelligent beings, that is, god is only in the mind of beings!
God was created by a desire for a lofty position, one that would draw flies. If I say the only water that's safe to drink is my own, how many people will drink from another? So, if I can convince people that my god is better, then I have built myself an ivory tower, one from which to raise myself above my naive acolytes.
Talking of water:
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Jesus answered her, All who drink of this water will be thirsty again.
But whoever takes a drink of the water that I will give him shall never, no never, be thirsty any more. But the water that I will give him shall become a spring of water welling up (flowing, bubbling) [continually] within him unto (into, for) eternal life.
Christ teaches us how to gain our own unlimited supply of 'Holy Spirit' water that never leaves us thirsty, no more going to the well hoping.
If you want to reject Christ, no problem, but trying to decry Him is not only futile, but shows a doubt in yourself.
It shows a distaste for the inane ramblings of centuries dead primates, struggling for a form of succor. Either that or it was a form of social control, created by government officials to eliminate political and individual opposition.
Talking of futile.
Catch-22, chapter 12, pg 133-134.
Ahhh! but it may very well make a whole lot of difference to someone who is dead, if they got it wrong whilst alive....now, am I threatening you or trying to save your eternal existence?
Sounds like a threat to me.
Does it make you feel like a real man to be able to know something that we don't know? And does it make you feel good to tell people they are "getting it wrong" and will be eternally punished?
Is Ernest burning then? As you seem to know what happens after death? If we "get it wrong" we get punished - right? So Ernest is being burned right now? And you worship this deity? How odd.
Do you tell small children that they need to "get it right or be punished?"
...and did you copy and paste that whole meaningless diatribe from the Mark Knowles Book of Inane Quotes?
"Does it make you feel like a real man to be able to know something that we don't know?" (MK)
No Mark, it makes me sad that the spiritually dead cannot see the spiritual truth, especially when anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear can know exactly what every believer has come to realise.
And does it make you feel good to tell people they are "getting it wrong" and will be eternally punished? (MK)
Not in the least, any more than it would make a Doctor feel good to tell someone they had terminal cancer.
Is Ernest burning then? As you seem to know what happens after death? If we "get it wrong" we get punished - right? So Ernest is being burned right now?
He could be, if YOUR version of hell is correct, surprised that you agree with the RCC interpretation, but then you were a Catholic before your traumatic event that broke your faith and turned it to venom against God.
Ironically I am the one who said that as Earnest had first confessed faith, then been 'lost' to wilful atheism, but continued to act like a believer in his actions, he may have been surprised to find he was saved, when he stood before Christ, but of course I am not the judge of that, only Christ will determine who is saved and who is not, although you seem to relish the thought that Earnest may be burning in eternity more than I do.... strange that!
Do you tell small children that they need to "get it right or be punished?"(MK)
No, not at all, children cannot understand these things normally, they need to have the Christ relationship explained to them, and a review of how the world works, and then let them see the differences between the world and the Kingdom.
We all get punished one way or the other when we get anything wrong, so what is your point?
I personally would not preach to anyone less than the age of puberty, but will explain what the differences are between the world and the Kingdom to anyone who asks questions.
Of course, children assimilate the culture they are raised in, which is presumably why you were a Catholic who rebelled, and why I was a 'nothing' who searched all other faiths mainly to ensure that my 'nothingness' was the right way. I lived in 'nothingness' for many years as a result of my parents token Christianity which taught me nothingness.
Children born into households will adopt, at least temporarily, the spirit that has authority in the household, hence children get born into evil or good spiritual households.
Atheist households seem to be left alone by the evil spirits; which by default occupy any territory not committed to Christ, for the obvious reason that it makes no sense to awaken spiritually dead households, and force them to make a choice between good and evil.
Better to let them blunder along, after all until they awaken spiritually they are already under the enemies authority and are wilfully setting self above anything else.
You could have just said "Yes" instead of that nonsensical diatribe.
So - Ernest got it wrong and is being punished for not believing wot u sed.. And you derive personal power from threatening children. This is child abuse. You should be locked up. Disgusting lack of personal morals.
Mark, you have, as usual failed to respond to what is written, twisted what was said to suit your own perverse version of things, and shown yourself to be nothing more than an internet troll seeking to cause dissension and fights.
Waste of time replying to you.
No I have not. Your false justifications are just that - false. You did not answer my questions and instead dodged the issue and defended your right to abuse children.
Why do you worship a deity that would punish Ernest for not believing the garbage you spout?
Have no fear AKA, I have not voted for 35 years, stopped way before I came to faith, stopped when I already saw through the world-view and corruption that are politics, anyhow, for the last 27 years I have never lived anywhere that I was entitled to vote.
You (of the world, who do vote)are responsible for the mess that the elected officials have made of Gods planet, not me, I am content to accept that the world gets the government it deserves.
Remember, believers live in the Kingdom, not your world, we are merely visitors here trying to reach the lost.
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. Choosing not to vote makes as responsible as those that do vote.
Balderdash, think about that, if I voted I would be endorsing someone's world view opinions and supporting their corruption.
When I was in the UK I knew a lot of politicos, almost succumbed to the temptation myself, but woke up and avoided all contact with them.
As it stands I can honestly state that I care not who gets elected, for God controls all things and if He decides we deserve duff rulers, we get them.
No, I am content to leave all authority to God, any vote I made would be in any case stopping those who live in the world from electing who they wanted.
Sorry, you are stuck with the mess yourself.
So there is no free will according to you. It doesn't matter what we do God'll fix it?
Not exactly, we have free choice, we cannot actually 'will' anything into existence, but God does have all power and authority no matter what, and He elects to allow us to make our own choices, so when we choose duffer rulers, we are stuck with the results.
When we choose God, i.e. when a country or nation has Gods blessings because they follow His ways, then God will ensure that we get good rulers.
Having said that I agree MOST American Christians probably vote with their prejudices, not vote in submission to God.
As for God will fix it, well He already has, He told us from the beginning that as we drew near to the end times iniquity (lawlessness) would increase and men would turn away from Him and call good, evil and declare wickedness as good, that we would have 'unnatural relations' with our own sexes, and that any believer would be hated for being a believer.
I see all that coming to fruition, as well as the rest of the prophesies relating to weather, war and pestilence.
I don't see this with any joy, rather a sadness, and perhaps it has made me more determined to speak out against world views, especially since the prevailing world-view is to castigate anyone who disagrees or speaks against the current thinking, but in the end result, I accept that we are heading downhill fast, and that what was predicted will come to pass.
Hey with that belief you could murder someone and claim god did it.
You'd get sectioned though....
To exist is to be, to have substance, to be accepted by all as real. God has no definite shape, image, meaning, depth, or any totality of acceptance. No one can agree even the believers argue what it is god is. Something that is can be defined and is definite. God doesn't exist except in the minds of the believer. He is a character in the imaginations of those that believe and exists no where else. To them he is truth and only to them. Take someone famous. Madonna. Can you question that she exists or not? Only in a philosophical masterbation where you would question your own existence. Everyone accepts she is real and there is no possibility that she doesnt exist, at least til she dies. But we have actual records of her. Evidence. There is no actual evidence of god. There are words that say he exists, the words even say that he wrote them, but words lie. I can write that something exists but that doesn't make it so. I can believe something exists, but that would only be in my mind. God has no evidence that he exists, that he has definite shape or substance or even spirit. He is nothing. He couldn't even stop me from writing this or you from reading it, he can't do anything. His followers can make empty promise and empty threats of what god will do but they will never be able to prove any of it ever.
http://artblack01.hubpages.com/hub/Aski … -God-Exist
This started out as a response to your question and a response to other people responding here but it became a hub.
ok jomine whatever you say lol clearly you believe that there is only physical and nothing else so anything other than physical is imagination which is fine if thats what you believe but it just means that you wont be able to go further in your thinking in terms of what 'exist' means.
even if i turn out to be wrong and there is no god then i dont care because if the physical did just 'exist' then that is even more amazing and inconceivable than it having a creator...its magic in fact, unfortunately you can seperate the question of is there a god from existance.
God is questionable, he is a character in a story, he is merely a product of a humans inability to look for answers to the hard questions.
If it's too hard, all one must do is say "God did it" no more thinking required.
yeah so just because its the easiest solution to a problem its wrong...stubborn child
No, it's not wrong because it's the easiest solution, it's wrong because everything we have discovered about our universe leaves out the need for such a being. All the evidence we collect about our universe has God as an explanation for it shrinking away.
God is of the gaps and nothing more.
There was a time we attributed all sorts of things to God that we no longer do, solar eclipse, earthquakes (though Pat Robertson and other religious nuts still do), rain, snow, lightning, hurricanes, volcanoes, the tides (sorry Bill O'Reilly, we can explain that), what all matter in the universe is made of so far, how big and far away and how old most objects in space are, how old the known universe is, how old the Earth is, and more.
God is not in there and the Bible is wrong in all those discoveries.
God isn't the easiest solution, he is not a solution at all, he is the product of our inability to actually look for a solution, he is a product of laziness, the easiest solution doesn't even actually include God in it.
Why is it that atheists say every discovery we make takes us away from god but every religious person says the opposite? By even saying that you are proving your bias and are just playing the dogmatic atheist role.
Also I'd like to hear the evidence we collect in the universe that draws us away from god
"Why is it that atheists say every discovery we make takes us away from god but every religious person says the opposite?" Why does the seeker find things while the person just standing there says the opposite?
Dogmatic atheist role?
If you want to hear the evidence then maybe you should take more science classes in school. Hey, I took Christian study classes as a kid and theology in College, it's only right that you shouldn't ask me to be your unpaid teacher. You shouldn't ask me to confirm the knowledge you are too lazy to look for on your own.
That's a fair comment but I was pointing out that what you consider taking away from god others consider as drawing to god....for example the big bang theory, some view this as an argument against god while others view it as an argument for god.
Don't imply that people who believe in god don't seek for understanding that's just silly and I got a B in science so there!
Ha ha, okay, fair enough, but the people who point to something science has found as being "of God" or proof there of have little to no understanding of what it is they are attributing to God or of God. You can pretty much point to anything and say that it's proof for something without it actually being proof for anything. What science did you take? There is more than one. When I say science that's just general... because an anthropologist is not an expert or may not have any knowledge in Astrophysics, and vice versa. So saying you got a B in science doesn't say much... I studies Christian History, I studied other religions, and did many papers on the subject, without any sort of bias towards the possible existence or nonexistence of that particular religions deity.
i got a dual award GCSE in chemistry and physics but my own personal stud of science is largely on evolution because its the most interesting i find. lets say evolution did explain everything there is still a need for god and still a need for someone to make the 'law' of evolution because evolution isnt random on an adaptive level it follows a pattern
LAWL....... GCSE? Dear me. How old are you?
Tell us the pattern. We will win a Nobel Peace Prize fer sure.
That's a very unscientific assumption.
Evolution explains the diversity of life, not "everything there is", also it's a biological process. However, laws, and patterns do not imply a creator... this video explains it pretty well. If you watch the whole show it's even better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs2 … 3469F501E1
God is not required for anything and science has never shown a necessity for a God.
never shown necessity for god apart from their inability to answer simple question such as origin of life and the like
That is a simple question? No wonder you never got past GCSEs.
its simple in the sense that it cant even explain the simplest living organism....and who said i didnt get pas my GCSE's? i just didnt do a Science A level thats all
hmm i think your getting senile old man your not reading what i typed
Abiogenesis does a pretty good job of explaining how life COULD have arisen without a god.
mhm nah it doesnt do justice the the beauty or complexity of life on earth, we were created in a hot pool yeah right
Are you talking about the origin of life or the diversity of life today?
Please make up your mind. I presented the hypothesis of abiogenesis as a possibility for the ORIGIN of life.
The diversity of life is explained by EVOLUTION.
Are you confusing the two or are you justbeing facetious?
im making the point that yes there is an alternative to god doing it, its just not a very good one
also even the simplest living cell is not simple at all and the odds of even that simple living cell coming into appearence anywhere in the universe (even the uninhabitable places) would be a miracle.
That just isn't true. Unless the odds are zero then it would not be a miracle.
Why doesn't abiogenesis do a very "good job" of explaining life on earth?Is it because you just dont like it or do you actually have a valid reason backed up by evidence?
also you cant seperate abiogenesis from evolution because evolution rests on the hope that life can spring from nowhere and without that assumption evolution doesnt have a leg to stand on
No it doesnt. Evolution requires DNA to mutate. Where that DNA came from is irrelevant.
Abiogenesis and evolution have nothing to do with eachother at all and they are not reliant on eachother either.
And cant you just respond in one post instead of 4?
I JUST explained. A miracle must be IMPOSSIBLE. If the odds are not ZERO then it is not a miracle. And by the way, NOONE knows the odds of abiogenesis happening. Please explain how you think you calculated them. I want all the numbers.
Do I need to repost this in 5 minutes when you still dont understand?
That is a very common misunderstanding from those who don't know much about evolution.
do you know the odds of abiogenesis actually happening? isnt that a good reason why it cant surely? it is mathematically impossible 100 times over....isnt that a miracle?
your missing the point...if abiogenesis is impossible then that means evolution cant even begin because it rests on the assumption that life can spring from nowhere so they are absolutely reliant on eachover because evolution as a theory depends upon it...how else can evolution start without a living thing to work with?
now the odds for the proteins of a single amoebae coming into existance is 1 with 40,000 naughts after it according to sir frederick hoyle that is a miracle my friend and i think im right in saying that the chances of a sigle living cell appearing from chance is a higher number than all the atoms in the universe.
What??? If abiogenesis if impossible (which it isn't as far as we know) then life must have started another way. That still won't negate the fact the life will evolve. Evolution rests on NOTHING about how life started. All it rests on is that DNA mutates and nothing more. Evolution requires life to exist it makes no difference HOW it came to exist.
For the third time, a miracle is something that is IMPOSSIBLE Ie the chances of it happening are ZERO. How did I know I would have to repeat that?
And in any case, I asked you to explain how you calculated the number. Not who CLAIMED it.
Hoyle was wrong and so are you, that's why they call it "Hoyles Fallacy"
Now I realize I'm a bit of an interloper here however if you are correct in your assessment that the odds for the proteins of a single amoebae coming into distance is 1 with 40,000 naughts and lets for a second say that you have done extensive research into this matter and you are correct. You should also have stats that show what the chances of a God existing that alway has and always will exist and has created us in his image, but has never showed his self and is made up of three gods that somehow are only one god. Oh, and this god has created everything for us, but does not tolerate us not believing he exists and is forgiving but does not forgive.
hmm jesus was a hippy you are one of those unreasonable folk you come across from time to time so carry on in your own world and have fun
Unreasonable? You're the one giving odds for something other than zero and then claiming it is impossible. I am in the same world as you, the only difference is that I dont take your word for it when you make claims. It is a good job really since when questionned you don't actually have any evidence for your claims.
Were you not here earlier claiming that even a child can understand evolution yet you still seem to be under the deluded impression that abiogenesis and evolution are intrisicly reliant on eachother?
How am I unreasonable? Please explain.
your missing the point if life didnt come about by chance (abiogenesis) then the only other solution is that intelligence put it there, i am aware that evolution and abiogenesis are seperate but i think i have explained pretty well the fact that if abiogenesis cant occur then evolution has no foundation because it is reliant on it to be true otherwise evolution cant even begin...your unreasonable because your asking ME MYSELF to find the method of calculation for this? WTF? whatever i give you as proof you will just say 'that is not proof' or 'thats untrue' richard dawkins is quoted as saying that 'a good case for a deistic god could be made' and he is the biggest atheist in britain (well ever since anthony flew came to his sense that is) so if the biggest atheist in britain says this what chance do you have? totally disregarding an idea that has been around as long as humans have is totally unreasonable.
Again, no, evolution is not reliant on abiogenesis. HOW life started does not bear any relevance whatsoever on the fact that life evolves. Why cant you understand that? And you haven't demonstrated that abiogenesis can't occur. In fact you have given odds that claim it is possible.
Yes because YOU ARE ASSERTING THEM. How is it unreasonable for me to ask you to explain YOUR CLAIMS?
Oh god and now you're quote mining? Really? Do I need to quote what Richard Dawkins REALLY said?
“The deist God would be one that I think it would be - one could make a reasonably respectable case for that, not a case that I would accept, but I think it is a serious discussion that we could have.”
He went on to contrast this idea with Christianity, for which, by implication, not even a “reasonably respectable case” could be made.
Your appeals to authority (biggest atheist in britain) and your appeals to popular belief are both a fallacy.
Do you actally have a REAL argument or are you just typing for the hell of it?
if you cant accept what im saying about abio genesis and evolution then forget it deny it if you want but they are very closely linked and if you cant see that then i think that is a good example of delusion so thank you for showing that to everyone reading these comments.
i said that bit about dawkins because i knew i'd get a response and the fact that you responded within 2 minutes shows me that your an acolyte for your jesus (dawkins) who is himself unreasonable so it would make sense that you would be the same....your even arguing that richard dawkins is not the biggest atheist in britain haha ok whatever have a nice life
How can we accept what you clearly have no understanding of?
One is about how life STARTS, the other is about how life that ALREADY EXISTS evolves.
They are not reliant on eachother. It doesnt matter the slightest bit HOW life starts it will STILL EVOLVE.
What is so complicated to understand? They have nothing at all to do with eachother.
I couldnt care less what Dawkins says or said. Did I not just say that your appeal to authority is a FALLACY?
I also did NOT say anything about your claim of the "biggest atheist". I suggest you learn how to read.
I cannot debate with someone who is incapable of reading a post and constantly makes up what he THINKS he has read as you are doing.
Im not being funny but you have no idea what you are talking about. You are making claims that are CLEARLY not true and you are taking the wrong end of the stick in every case.
your the ones proving that you dont understand the link between abiogenesis and evolution...you either dont understand it or are completely ignoring the problem
also im really being kind with that prediction about proteins because the possibility for one single celled organism coming about is MUCH MUCH higher
yeah the wong end of the stick being the end that you dont agree with anyway in conclusion life needs to first be there before it can evolve so its either abiogensis (which is impossible) or intelligence put life here....aliens or god? hmmm...there is no inbetween im afraid you just dont like seeing the connection between the two even though there clearly is one that needs addressing i suggest looking into it yourself as well as why abiogenesis is impossible and try to lose that unreasonable atheist character because its not becoming of you.
You just gave me odds YOURSELF that claimed it was possible. Is there something wrong with you? Are you on drugs or something?
Which again, has NO RELEVANCE to evolution.
NO THERE IS NOT. If aliens put life here (like you said) then why would evolution need abiogenesis to happen?
YOU GAVE ME THE ODDS OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ABIOGENESIS. How can you say it is IMpossible after giving odds that claim it is POSSIBLE?
Are you retarded or something?
Are you even listening to the nonsense and lies you are coming out with?
the aliens comment was sarcasm lol also i gave odds of a protein coming into existance not the whole living cell if you want to know the number look yourself its not hard to find...some atheists are complete babies 'do you want some food?' NO! 'do you want to go to sleep?' NO!
'STOP WHINING YOU LITTLE BRAT' WAAAAAWAAAAWAAAA
Abiogenesis has long been disproven. It doesn't equal "God" or at least not what Westerners and Middle Easterners mean by "God." It simply means we don't know. But people can't accept that for some reason... so they fill in the gaps... theists, and non-theists alike. Except, many non-theists can accept that the current theory is wrong if it is sufficiently disproven. Theists more often tend to hold onto that stuff for dear life. Them, and non-theists who are just as dogmatic.
yup and isnt it interesting the method in which atheists argue to try and get around it?....it reminds me of delusion plain and simple, of course to them im the one who believes in the invisible man so clearly we are both as lost as eachover.
The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is an academic qualification awarded in a specified subject, generally taken in a number of subjects by students aged 14–16 in secondary education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and is equivalent to a Level 2 (A*- C) and Level 1 (D- G) in Key Skills.
You should go to college before having this kind of discussion with people.
i think thats a very arrogant way to view it anyone can grasp the theory of evolution its all there for us to understand
would you say that evolution is a piece of the puzzle to how life got here or the whole picture?
in which case a troubled man the human race will always be clueless as to how we got here
well i agree so stop clinging on to darwinism...if darwin knew half the things we know today he would admit he was wrong.
mhm sure keep telling yourself that if i remember rightly ATM all you do is blurt out random atheist comments so im not going to discuss with you
No one needs you to teach them anything.
As far as you are concerned if no one replies they all silently agree.
I think I'll stick with logical reasoning rather than your illogical.
The same logic and reasoning that led you to post that evolution and entropy cannot exist together?
"As far as you are concerned if no one replies they all silently agree.
I think I'll stick with logical reasoning rather than your illogical."
That's your assumption, but it's wrong on both counts.
And as far as logic? I have yet to see anything, logical, rational, or even remotely intelligent, much less "Christian"... if someone were to ask me what religion you were I couldn't for the life of me guess, you don't qualify to be anything but a creatard, with no definite idea of what your God is.
You have been rudely dismissing and making fun of everyone who believes in evolution with no basis but religious wishful thinking and a flawed idea of what science says about something.
You sir are not just illogical but idiotic.
I'm not sure if that's aimed at me or not but I hope I haven't given that impression, I think evolution has many strong points and that Darwin has opened our eyes in ways we never thought where possible
Dannytaylor, I am sorry for the confusion, I think we are on the same side, it wasn't aimed at you.
Also, Darwin was just a jumping off point, science has made many discoveries both archeologically and genetically that have moved the understanding of Evolution forward... so much so (to Vector 7's ignorance) that it has practical applications, because evolution is a fact it can have practical applications.... medicine, vaccines, and helping to fight off other human diseases and other conditions that harm us.
If Evolution was not fact, we couldn't fight off, nor would have have to fight off all the NEW flu viruses as well as all the new diseases coming out.
Evolution clearly explains this.... but people like Vector 7 are too stubborn and stupid to accept such facts.
You were serious when you said you were not smart?
So, let me try once more(and the last time)
It is trough the means of language we communicate. A word has several meanings, and in common parlance the meaning is contextual. But when we critically analyse, the key terms cannot be contextual, the meaning should be clearly defined so that the audience will understand exactly what we said. So the purpose of definition is to restrict the meaning of a word that it can be used consistently and unambiguously.So what me or you believe has nothing to do with the matter at hand, it only matters whether the key word "exist"can be objectively defined. So have you got an objective definition for "exist", if not you said nothing.
What is this balderdash all about? What is this 'just exist'? Objects exist. You me the sun and moon all exist? When you assume creation, it is a past act. A past act can only be explained, so make it a rational, ie, plausible explanation.
Oh man I've entered into the world of wanna be philosophers this argument is stupid, let's take it away from the definition of a word and use some good old common sense.
If I place bricks, mortar and a trowel on the floor and leave it there that isn't enough for a wall to be made, those individual parts can't do anything on their own they need someone to put it together. Why is it different with the earth, universe, living things when they are much more complicated than a wall?
Stop using language as a veil and just answer the fucking question normally lol
Ever heard of logic?
Yo can do that with your god!!
ouch that was a bit much...so instead of answering you type obsenities....thats one up for believers in god!
hmm thats funny i dont remember even mentioning jesus i mentioned god? i do find your age to be rather deceptive because your not very wise...
Ah - back to personal insults.
So - you don't believe in the biblical god and Jesus then? That is good. What does your Majikal Super Being tell you into your head?
i dont need a belief in jesus because its a fact he existed and i believe in god but they are seperate all together god is YAHWEH jesus is YEHOSHUA
your not one to cry about insults you do it every comment you make, better to believe in a super being than to expect people like you to answer the ultimate question of how we got here so even if my super being is in my head, my head is still better than your head
dannytaylor02 wrote: and just answer the fucking question
jomine wrote: You can do that with your god
dannytaylor02 wrote: Thanks I willl
jomine wrote:Hope f*¤¤ing your fairy will be Good
dannytaylor02 wrote:ch that was a bit much...so instead of answering you type obsenities....thats one up for believers in god
j: haven't you heard,"as you sow, so you reap"?
And to think that this whole forum was dedicated to Emile R. LoL
Apparently you missed number 4 on that last in favor of number 6. Number 4 shows clearly the point that was being made which went completely over your head.
Was wondering how long it would take you to come over here as well. You never seem to miss one of these discussions after all. As for keeping on going, I don't really need to. There's a whole team of people who have dedicated themselves to correcting mistakes in the Bible. You can read more about it here: http://blog.themonastery.org/2011/08/bi … olars-say/
Which quote would you be talking about? Would it happen to be one of these:
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." -Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
"You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819
"As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819
Would you like some more?
So what your saying is that God is NOT the supreme authority. That the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God all exist as 3 distinct beings instead of 1 being with 3 faces? That's the only way your argument is holding water.
Your right that jesus is not god he is son of god and the holy spirit is just a spiritual beings active force, I commend a non believer who has the common sense to see this and yet people who say they devote their lives to god can't see it ....that one up for common sense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JI-0py- … AAAAAAAGAA
With this I add that one can, just from the testimony and from the accuracy of a grape vine, turn a character into a man into a son of God into a God or a man into a character that is the son of God that is God.... but what it doesn't do is prove that the man was... anything said of him.
Ever play the grape vine game, get 20 people together, one person whispers a set of information of some kind to the next person so that only he can hear it, that person does the same, to the next and so on... eventually when you come full circle, the information has changed so much it doesn't even describe the original statement.
And this, supposedly, before the Bible was even written.
if the game represents religion then yes i agree however the bible itself is pretty watertight and unchanging
Watertight and unchanging? In what respect? Sorry someone redirected my response. The Bible itself after it was written of course cannot change, but supposedly many of the stories came after the fact and from questionable sources. Take the Gospel According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John... most scholars have shown that someone wrote these down in reference to these four people but that these four people did not write down these Gospels... "according to" now, can you remember word for word and name for name stories about someone from four different people and then accurately write them down? I have an awesome memory for stories but couldn't accurately tell you names and dates for the life of me of people that I never even met, just told to me...
Many stories were of oral tradition, so I have been told by many Bible Scholars.
And what of earlier times? So a story is told to your family, that has been passed on from generation to generation, information is bound to be changed and events exaggerated.
This is what I mean by the Grape Vine Game.
Supposedly this, and supposedly that..
Supposedly I am not suprized at the dramatization [drama queen approach]
Out of context. False analogy. Miss the entire point of the Bible anyhow.
It doesn't need science to prove it. The proof is in the completed understanding, which you don't regard. You study "who wrote the pages"...
[Here, I'll help you]
"vector is so ignorant and his mind is so small."
Hmmm. Guess since you said it, it HAS to be true...
Considering you haven't shown any proof to the contrary of anything I have ever said then I need not say it.
Vector 7, if you can not prove any of your claims then you have nothing but ad hominen attacks and hearsay opinions of absolutely no value, except to make us all see you for what you are, a troll clown. I have respect for many people of faith, especially for the well educated ones, but I have lost all respect for you and you are nothing more than an ass clown.
What in the heck is this about? Yes, I still have not read and refuse to do so. Jeez, let it go.
Proof outside of the bible that Jesus existed? Without that you have no FACT that he existed, only belief that he did.
It's quite apparent Danny that you started the Obscenities.
I have always found it funny that people get so offended by the use of certain words they refer to as obscenities. It's not exactly even biblically a sin yet the use of certain words even offends the people they aren't even directed towards. People will go so far as to try an insult the people's intelligence who use them as if that had any sort of true statement. Even the most intelligent person in the world use these words but the most sensitive to this concept of "obscene". What difference does it really make? It doesn't reflect a persons "morality". Take the word shit, if I use the word worthless or crap or poop, it still reflects the same meaning. Words like shit or fuck merely emphasize a certain amount of disrespect towards the object the word is being used.
In other words, who cares that he used obscenities?
your right i did start them so im sorry lol jomine got me there....the quran talks about jesus im sure.
im really not going to get into a discussion about wether jesus existed or not because your just trying to refute what almost every bible scholar or expert in that field have told us (atheist or non atheist)
if you want to go down that route then alexander the great didnt exist, napoleon, genghis khan, aristotle....in fact everyone that we dont have skeletons of according to your logic dont exist
I will say this which I forgot to mention.....my obscenity wasn't directed at anyone in particular I added the ing at the end whereas jomine said i was fing my god so chew on that:D
AN ATHEIST IN THE WOODS
An atheist was walking through the woods.
"What majestic trees!"
"What powerful rivers!"
"What beautiful animals!"
He said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot, grizzly bear charging towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him. He looked over his shoulder again and the bear was even closer.
He tripped and fell on the ground.
He rolled over to pick himself up, but saw that the bear was right on top of him; reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him. At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"
Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent.
As a bright light shone upon the man a voice came out of the sky, "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident. Do you really expect me to help you out of this predicament?"
The atheist looked directly into the light, and said, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?"
"Very well", said the voice.
The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head and spoke:
"Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from Thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."
I heard that story before. Wishful thinking on the part of the faithful that an atheist would react in this way. It really shows their mentality in regards to people who believe different to what they believe.
I have been in many life threatening situations where I probably could have or should have died, not once did I pray to any sort of god for help.
That is the difference between the believer and the atheist. The believer will ask god for help and guidance while the atheist will just use his head. You can solve any problem with your brain.... Use it or lose it.
I can personally attest that I have asked God for help. And that no help was forthcoming. Leastwise not yet.
I certainly hope so. However, that hasn't worked yet either. Still trying though.
You can always ask for help from someone else real or imaginary, but in the end you are responsible for your own personal well being mentally or physically.
I have even heard the believer say, "God helps those that help themselves".
I believe in god and if a bear came at me I would be asking my atheist friend for a gun so I could kill it not god haha
Funny, but I would be willing to bet that less atheists than christians have guns. Just saying.
Why not, they're christians aren't they? Are you discriminating against rednecks? The back bone of this fine country. LOL
your country im british our equivalent are those silly welsh people they dont count either.
Even better I'm Canadian. We've got nothing that compares to hillbillies. We do have trailer types, but you need to be able to read to read the bible. All in fun.
Ever been to New Liskeard? *smiles* It apparently produces hillbillies.
No, It's north of North Bay. Those little towns do produce some interesting people. I would call them hillbillies. I have another word for them that I'm not will to write down, but I will say the don't do justice to people of lighter skin tones.
I know many atheists and I don't know anyone who doesn't at least own one gun.... and I live in the city.
I don't own a gun and the only one I know that has one is a born again.
Well, I must admit that I don't know all atheists in my area, and though all of us have fired guns. There probably are some of us that don't actually own our guns... Meaning, there isn't really a need for anyone to own a gun. I don't feel it's important, they are just fun to shoot.
So I give you two sentences that mean two entirely different things, that come from the same book and the same exact verse, and your argument is that the wording changed but the meaning is still exactly the same? That makes no sense what so ever. Words make the meaning of a sentence, a sentence doesn't denote the meaning of words.
Apparently you don't understand what it is I'm saying. Outside of the earliest manuscripts that we have, which include the dead sea scrolls, and only date to the 4th century A.D, there is no support for a man named Jesus. In a world ruled by Rome, when everything was recorded and filed, we have no evidence of this persons existence. There are no records, not even the record of this person being executed exists. We have records from outside of Alexandria that Alexander the Great existed. We have Roman records that talk about Genghis Khan, we have the writings of Aristotle himself, who existed before Jesus btw, that say he existed. We have the writings of Napolean himself, the other governments, and even the modern sewage system that show Napolean existed. There is no such support for Jesus. The only supposed support comes 4 centuries after his supposed death. I have a hard time buying that.
There are at least two of us still waiting for the Bible quote where Jesus directly says he is the Son of God.
Lets just say that if Jesus did exist and was the product of God and a women that would make him just like Hercules. I've read this story before. In the old testament God tell us to only pray to one God, they he changes his mind and divides in three?
nope he doesnt the trinity is a religious doctrine not a biblical one...
as far as your comment about him being like hercules is concerned im not sure what your point is, unless you mean the nephilim of genesis? where angels from heaven breed with women from earth and create superstrong humans, the men of fame?
Nope I was referring to Greek mythology and how the stories of the bible mirror that of older stories. Hercules was a son of a god and woman, just like Jesus. There was a time when Greek mythology was a real belief system. It was as real to those people as christianity is to some today. Makes you think about the next few thousand years don't it?
dont mean to burst your bubble but the bible is older and its the other way round greek mythology has copied the bible, ironically the nephilim i was talking about is where the greek mythologies come from notice that it says 'men of fame'...genesis was made well before greek mythology
Hate to burst your bubble, but Greek mythology predates the NT by almost 1000 years and it's the NT we are talking about.
ok lets go with that then
jesus is in no way like hercules, with the legend of hercules its all about his might and physical appearence but with jesus its all about what he taught and not a mention about his physical appearence so your comparison is like comparing arnold swarchzenegger to ghandi...
as i have said in genesis the story of the nephilim is exactly like hercules...angels (gods) come down from heaven and have intercourse with women and they produce a breed of hybrid humans called nephilim who are described as the 'mighty ones' and 'men of fame' so really who is copying who if you where to use a little bit of that good old common sense?
You forgot about the part with his "almond collored eyes"... That seems like a partial physical desrciption, not enough to go on to believe any of it though.
Maybe so... Does a boat with holes not sink? If I refused to learn everything I can about a asubject, how can I be critical of what I've observed.
yeah but by being pedantic you totally missed the point i was making which is that the focus wasnt on jesus's physical appearence
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Jesus and Hercules both were the product of a God and a human and did spectacular things, but according to you were nothing alike. Well, having a God as parent does make them somewhat alike. Kind of. LOL.
Then the christians will say how far fetched it is, that zeus came in the form of a bull. They'll try to discredit it, as being an old fantasy. But then, what is the bible?
but the main point is it still copies the bible so whatever lol.
i cant imagine you guys have read the bible because it isnt written as a story at all it gives the names and dates of places and it correctly predicts the destruction of ancient cities so at the very least the bible is an incredible history book
You can't say it predicts the destruction of cities. All you can honestly claim is that it documents that a city was destroyed. You can't prove how it happened either.
Your statement is kind of like if I wrote about a WW II battle and said God had a hand in it; and then claimed I predicted it and it was proof of God.
It predates the cities destruction...
There are modern day prophecies that Jesus prophesied about such as ww1
could you enlighten us as to which prophesies that would be?
I was going to wait, first to see what his answer was ... ??
Though I do think that all of the situations surrounding WWI does coinside with the pouring out of the sixth seal.
It is hard to explain how I come to that conclusion without starting at the beginning of this concept. And this is a long story.
matthew 24:6,7 "you are going to hear of wars and reports of wars see that you are not terrified. for these things must occur but the end is not yet." in other words war will always happen and its not a sign of the end but then in verse 7 "for nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom and there will be food shortages in one place after another" 8 2all these are the BEGGININGS of pangs of distress"
verse seven is talking about a war that involves all nations and all kingdoms of the time which is WW1, notice in verse 8 it says it is the begginings of pangs of distress thats because it was the beggining of the last days which makes sense considering the things that have happened over the last 100 years, everything has accelerated from that point in time.
verse seven is talking about a war that involves all nations and all kingdoms of the time which they were entering into.
Ya gotta remember that 70 weeks are given to the children of Daniels people (starting in 538 BC) Amd 62 of these 70 had passed when the Messiah was cut off (killed). There are only 8 weeks left when this was fulfilled.
"For the Time is At Hand" even At the Door.
That's not a prophesy that's a fact of life. The bible can't correctly predict something that can't be known. I can say that in a few years a new war will come, and it will, but that doesnt make me a prophet that makes me someone who is stating the obvious, reality of human nature. And all the nations, that has also always been happening, anytime any nation knows about any nation they are either allies or enemies and they fight.
The bible also predicts the end of the world within the lifetime of the people who wrote the bible in revelations.
exactly all nations and all kingdoms but dont forget that the apostles asked jesus in verse 3 of 24 "tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and the conlusion of the system of things". so it was talking about the last days.
artblack it doesnt predict the end of the world within their lifetime. also you couldnt predict 2 thousand years before it happens that there would be a world war...you could now but thats a different matter entirely
No jomine because it involves ALL nations the wars you mentioned don't cover the whole globe
well he calls him father numerous times thats a bit of a hint huh?
its simply not true that romans didnt accept jesus's existance, they did, dont forget that during that time rome saw jesus as an enemy and so naturally they would try to blot him out however they couldnt because of all of the eye witness accounts that he actually lived where so numerous, if that many witnesses appeared in court and all coherently said that you where there at the scene then the defense wouldnt even get a chance to speak! unless of course...you know richard dawkins himself says that jesus probably existed so i dunno what your argument for jesus not existing is based on...there is no way someone who didnt exist could have such a massive influence on so many peoples lives...he even has a major influence on yours considering how much you talk about the subject (im not saying that in a negative way)
i cant comment on your comment about that scripture you showed me because in honesty i dont know, not sure if they are in fact from original sources or just different versions of bible
You are in serious need of a history lesson. The Old Testament was written between 1200 B.C and 400 B.C (yes the actually spent that long writing it down). Which means Hercules, the youngest of the Greek Mytho's predated just the Old Testament by at least 1800 years.
As for your previous comment about Rome blotting things out, why didn't they blot out Genghis Kahn? They beat him back several times yet we have all accounts of those? History shows that Rome, no matter the enemy, always Documented them. Trying to make an excuse for Jesus not being there with directly countered lies, doesn't with stand. As I have said before, I can give that certain documents may have gotten lost, but to say Rome directly made him not exist is just stupidity.
I've never once said that Jesus never existed, all I've said is give me proof other than the bible that he did. Thomas Jefferson even said that Jesus may have existed, but that the Bible itself was an embellished lie of the mans life.
To your point of him influencing my life based on how much I talk about him, you could say that. But then you could say the exact same of Nostradamus, Madame Blvatsky, Buddha, Hercules, Anubis, and many others. I am open to discussing all these people, but I'm always sure to put in my own hard research into the subject first. I don't work with assumption and what others told me.
i never said the old testament i said genesis..and im pretty sure your time line is wrong but thats irrelevant for this subject
as long as you dont deny the fact that jesus exists i dont see the need in working out the finer details with you but romans did write about him quite early on.
".... As for your previous comment about Rome blotting things out, why didn't they blot out Genghis Kahn? They beat him back several times yet we have all accounts of those? History shows that Rome, no matter the enemy, always Documented them. Trying to make an excuse for Jesus not being there with directly countered lies, doesn't with stand. As I have said before, I can give that certain documents may have gotten lost, but to say Rome directly made him not exist is just stupidity. ..."
= - = - = -
Don't forget that the Western Roman Empire soon became the Holy Roman Empire.
And all of the Records of such that they could find are hidden in the basement in Vatican City.
I gotta go again for a while, had some company come and go, now they are back.
Genghis Khan invaded in 1232 A.D. They virtually rolled over every adversary. Roman, as in Imperial Rome no longer existed. The Holy Roman Empire was based in Germany at the time. Jesus wasn't mentioned by Imperial Rome because, out of the thousands who were crucified by Rome, he, to them was just another criminal. By the time of Nero (66 A.D.) the followers of Jesus were becoming problematic. Rome never once tried to suggest that Jesus never existed. Josephus, the first century historian does mention him, and his accounts have generally been accepted. (Although, he was said to have been prone to exaggeration.) The only other man who was crucified, again, out of thousands of crucifixions, was Spartacus. I believe that suggesting Jesus never existed is a totally unprovable position.
Spartacus was crucified? That is news to me.
How many thousands were crucified again?
Josephus mentions followers of and it is widely accepted that his accounts were doctored by later Liars For Jesus.
Do you make this crap up or are you simply uneducated?
Thousands were crucified in the Spartacus rebellion. Josephus was the authority whose version of the attack at Masada is generally accepted. He has never been discredited and is often cited. Nero believed in the followers....if there were no followers....then how'd they all get here.. Who widely accepts this "doctoring"? You make a lot of unsupported statements. You must think everyone but yourself is stupid. Just what do you think is made up? Being insulting isn't a very good debate method. Obviously bad parenting.
I see you did not answer my question - just spouted more lies.
I will have to go with uneducated. Sorry if making an observation is being insulting, because you are clearly uneducated.
I am the one making unsupported statement? You post drivel and lies and when I point out actual facts - not Hollywood facts - you attack my parents?
No one knows what happened to Spartacus.
Josephus made no mention of Jesus and his writings were probably doctored by later Liars for Jesus.
There is 100% no evidence outside the majik book for the existence of Jesus.
The attack at Masada has nothing at all to do with the Sun God, nor was it contemporary.
So - it is all made up. I don't think you are stupid - just lazy and uneducated.
You keep saying there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of Jesus. You keep saying it over and over and over and over. Even your good bud A Troubled Man wavered a bit when he appeared to admit Jesus may have existed, but it doesn't matter.
Most Jews believe Christ existed based upon the historical evidence. Most Muslims likewise believe Christ existed. Of Christians believe it.
But they are all wrong, and you are right?
Wow. You know what most Jews believe? Based on historical evidence huh? Most Muslims believe what they are told to believe. I seen them - they believe women are chattels to be owned.
In any case - what historical evidence is this?
If enough people believe that the holocaust did not happen - does that mean it did not happen?
Now show me the historical evidence.
He was crucified in the movie version.
He was crucified in the historical version, too. Crucifixion was a common punishment. The Carthaginians al;so crucified their criminals. Only one single heel bone has ever been found that evidences crucifixion. One heel bone.
What? If facts are inconvenient, you just ignore them. Fine scientific method you've got there.
Where is the evidence for the fact? And don't bring up stories about modern miracles, God's no more responsible for it than the sheer chance. On the off chance God could not be responsible, the devil's to blame. When an occasion is favorable, God did it. There is a level of accountability and reasoning missing from this picture...
What in blue blazes are you rambling about? Talking about crucifixion and the Roman records, which they were quite obsessive about keeping. Crucifixion by chance? What a concept!
Ooopsie. We crucified you by accident! My bad.
Roman records also doesn't have a mention of a Jew named Jesus. If they did this whole "was Jesus real" wouldn't even be an issue, especially not for me.
When we are ignoring the basic facts ... there is no sense in discussing it amy further. That would be just running in circles.
by jomine3 years ago
Exist is defined as having physical presence, that is having shape and location.Energy is defined as the capacity to do work.(No capacities exist, its just the ability of an object)So does energy exists?If yes can...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar4 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So...
by paarsurrey13 months ago
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/51248pisean282311 wrote:do you think god's value would remain if there are no humans..god needs human since humans can only pray , hope and believe..do you agree to this?Paarsurrey...
by jomine6 years ago
To define means, to describe clearly, to convey a word's proper meaning.So I define "Exist" as having shape, a physical presence.Relativist say they never define, and hence can use words ambiguously and...
by Link101033 years ago
I can understand the positives of putting your faith in such and such religion, which is why I do not think religion as a whole should be completely eradicated, however in this day and age I honestly wouldn't mind if it...
by Thom Carnes8 years ago
A few weeks ago I asked what I thought was quite a serious, searching question about the existence of God, and was rather disappointed when it got a very limited response. (This could have been because we were all...
Copyright © 2017 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.