Does 'God' exist?

[Alex]

God in my opinion is just a made up figure which people used to explain things that they do not understand. Or to control people.

Mostly, I created this topic because I would like to know what the hell the problem is with all these hardcore christians that seem to ignore evolution despite scientific evidence. There's also the fact that it is the only theory of where we came from that makes sense. I will be talking about the Christian version of God in this topic. However, I don't believe in any God, period.

This just makes me sick:
http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html

If you're too lazy to read this, I'll point out some of the more astonishing parts.

A paragraph written by a christian, apparently trying to persuade teachers and parents and whatnot to NOT teach of evolution, and instead teach christianism:

As a Creation Scientist, one of my greatest duties that I take great pleasure in is introducing the works of the Lord to the young generation. The sparkle of wonderment that fills their eyes in knowing the creative power of God fills my heart with the Lord's divine Love. It however saddens me greatly that the proponents of Evolutionism have corrupted this true purpose of science and are instead using it as a propaganda tool to spread Secularism. But what is education for if not to fight against ignorance such as that? Our children are the future face of Science and we must teach them to recognize the truth of the Word of the Lord so as to break the cycle of Evolutionism dogma that is paralyzing scientific development and making higher education a dumping ground for the excesses of materialistic philosophies.

Heres a peice of the paragraph: It however saddens me greatly that the proponents of Evolutionism have corrupted this true purpose of science and are instead using it as a propaganda tool to spread Secularism. But what is education for if not to fight against ignorance such as that?
So basically, hes telling me to fight the 'ignorance' of evolutionism with ignorance and blind faith. Sounds like a plan.

Hmm let me pull out another part: Our children are the future face of Science and we must teach them to recognize the truth of the Word of the Lord so as to break the cycle of Evolutionism dogma that is paralyzing scientific development and making higher education a dumping ground for the excesses of materialistic philosophies.

WHAT NERVE THIS MAN HAS! Referring to Evolutionism as dogma, while supporting the topic of Christianism? Now last time I checked, the definition of dogma was - A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof. Well thats funny, there is plenty of proof supporting evolutionism (see links). But wait..where is the proof that god exists?
Where is the proof that most of the stuff that happened in the bible was caused by a divine source or even really happend. (Yes I can believe that some things in the bible could have actually occured, but everything can be explained scientifically. BTW did anyone see that discovery speical on The Exodus? It explained rationally how all of the plagues in the bible could have occured and lots of other good stuff.)

Some christian organization gave prizes to kids with science fair boards dealing with christian views and beliefs. Here are a couple winners from the middle school level:

1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"
Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

Wow, the 8th grader shoved some nonliving stuff in a jar and expected or believed that someone would expect the material to turn to life. And she got a 1st place medal for it.

2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences shows that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.
The fact that a 7th grade boy is being rewarded for expressing a sexist view makes me want to throw up.

Anyway, I would like to here your opinions on this subject. Im not sure if it has been discussed many times before on this board. If it has, I apoligize. I personally think its very iteresting how some people can isolate themselves from science in ignorance like this.

Links:

Proof supporting evolution
- This site explains how fossil, molecular, biogeographic, and comparative anatomical studies provide evidence for evolution: www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/
- This page provides some of the evidence for evolution
and the common ancestry of all life on earth: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
- Another great page on evolution: http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

Articles NOT supporting Evolution
- An article titled Evolution is a BIG LIE, with a few quotes and passages from the bible: http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/EvolutionisaBIGLIE.html
- An article which seems to start out with a nuetral postion regarding the bible and evolution, then takes the side of the bible about a quarter of the way through stating that the theory of evolution 'lacks proof':
http://www.bibletruthkeys.com/evolution.htm
- And my personal favorite, an article that suggests that Darwin, and his theories are responsible for Adolf Hitler's holocaust and many other horrers:
http://www.mswm.org/sciencebible.htm

More articles/links
A simple search on google will give you all the links you need :)

[jb]

first, general discussion probably isn't the best place for this.

but i always find it ironic that they encourage a certain line of thought to discredit science, when that line of thought would be better suited to discredit their own beliefs. and those science fair awards are just sick.

[maximus]

there have been several links to sites like this in PF history, and each one pisses me off more. these people have the audacity to broadcast their ignorance to kids all around the world who are obviously not at the level to understand evolution.

you should have put this in philosophy or religon forums, by the way.

[Alex]

oh, i didnt even know there was a religion forum. I didnt exactly know where to put this. Can a mod move my topic to the rightful place, or do I delete this thread and create a new one in the appropriate forum?

[maximus]

Originally posted by Alex
oh, i didnt even know there was a religion forum. I didnt exactly know where to put this. Can a mod move my topic to the rightful place, or do I delete this thread and create a new one in the appropriate forum?

just wait a while and a mentor will move it. no, hold on. i'll try to call one.

[Iacchus32]

Does God exist? Yes.

Can people be duped into believing God exists without having a basis for accepting that belief? Yes. It's called "blind faith."

This is why other people have such an aversion to it.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alex ...

As a Creation Scientist, one of my greatest duties that I take great pleasure in is introducing the works of the Lord to the young generation. The sparkle of wonderment that fills their eyes in knowing the creative power of God fills my heart with the Lord's divine Love. It however saddens me greatly that the proponents of Evolutionism have corrupted this true purpose of science and are instead using it as a propaganda tool to spread Secularism. But what is education for if not to fight against ignorance such as that? Our children are the future face of Science and we must teach them to recognize the truth of the Word of the Lord so as to break the cycle of Evolutionism dogma that is paralyzing scientific development and making higher education a dumping ground for the excesses of materialistic philosophies.This is actually well written and, although this may be one of the dupes I'm referring to above, I don't see that it's any worse than the rhetoric I've heard in favor of Science. There are obviously points to be made here. The only thing that really makes it a difficult pill to swallow is the "religious bias."

Whereas the only thing I'm really in favor of arguing for here is morals and ethics. Because if there were no "hereafter" we wouldn't need them. Or else what would be the point?

[DR OF DEATH]

does god exist? un answered.

this is unanswerable becuase people have blind faith and say he does exist but cannot prove it. people without faith say he does not exist but cant prove it. and seeing as god (if he exists) hasnt seen fit to offer us any proof of his existence we dont know either way. i say he does not exist becuase: A:there is no proof of his existence, B: science can explain almost everything, and we are working on finding explainations for the rest.

so why the need for a god?

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Does God exist? Yes.


you should have put, IMO, yes.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by drdeath
does god exist? un answered.

this is unanswerable becuase people have blind faith and say he does exist but cannot prove it. people without faith say he does not exist but cant prove it. and seeing as god (if he exists) hasnt seen fit to offer us any proof of his existence we dont know either way. i say he does not exist becuase: A:there is no proof of his existence, B: science can explain almost everything, and we are working on finding explainations for the rest.Yes, but who has to prove it and to whom? Ultimately the burden of proof lies with "you," the individual.


so why the need for a god? Why the need for understanding the nature of order? Especially when it comes to our "inherent need" for morality. Because if life were to "drop off" after death, with no memory of it, what purpose would it serve? There would be no need for morals in the here and now, and no need for them in the hereafter. Likewise, the "Karma of life" would have no means by which to complete itself.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
you should have put, IMO, yes. But if He does exist, and there's a means of ascertaining it (for oneself), then what other answer could I possibly give? But then again I couldn't expect somebody else to accept it upon my say so. [;)]

I only put it this way to suggest that we inquire about it a little more "deeply."

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why the need for understanding the nature of order? Especially when it comes to our "inherent need" for morality. Because if life were to "drop off" after death, with no memory of it, what purpose would it serve? There would be no need for morals in the here and now, and no need for them in the hereafter. Likewise, the "Karma of life" would have no means by which to complete itself.


that's right, there is no need for morality (in the long run). there is no purpose to life. and i don't believe in karma.

just my humble opinion...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
that's right, there is no need for morality (in the long run). there is no purpose to life. and i don't believe in karma.

just my humble opinion... Then there's no need for being humble about it either.

[Royce]

One thing that is obvious to me about sites like you pointed to is that it is all about mind and thought control. The Christians (with a capital C) are out to control the minds of children to follow their dogma. One of the most used tactics for this in any war over minds is to accuse the opposition of doing exactly what they, the Christians, are trying to do. This averts the subjects attention so they can slip in and start controlling their minds and opinions; and, you have to start when they're young.
If the subject, sap or dupe happens to feel the they are being manipulated hopfully they will think that it is the opposition doing it rather than them and therefore cling to them for protection even more tightly.
It is not just the Christians that do this. The Democrats and Republican do it in this country. The communist and facist do it and have done it in all countries. Remember Hitlers youth camps. It is very machiavellian and every power group that tries to control people and their thoughts do it and use it including the scientific community.
If you don't know what machiavellian means read "The Prince" by Machiavelli. I think that it should be required reading by every 11 or 12 grader or at least every freshman in college. But then that would be giving away their secrets wouldn't it. And, yes, Academia uses it too.

[megashawn]

Whereas the only thing I'm really in favor of arguing for here is morals and ethics. Because if there were no "hereafter" we wouldn't need them. Or else what would be the point?

Well, if you look at it in that way, then I can understand your conclusion. I mean for all we know, the point to everything is:

1) Universe is born
2) Life/conciousness is born
3) Life evolves, constantly improving itself
4) Life reaches a point where it is smart enough to improve itself (ie. Computers)
5) Life learns how to spread life to other parts of the universe.

Perhaps, there is no god. And maybe there is no point to being moral and decent people. But then again, lets do it any damn ways and make the most out of this existance that we all can 100% agree on exists.

And technology is advancing us so far, in such a small amount of time. Think about, since the time of jesus, up to the industrial revolution, things pretty much stayed the same. Anyone who disputed the law/king/religion was killed, slavery run rampant, education halted, and I'm certain crime was a way of life, not just a few out of a thousand. In a very short amount of time, we've advanced further then any other species we know of. We did all this, with out god.

See, I've said it before, if a person needs to believe in an altered reality in order to be a decent person, by all means do so. Do not try to force your altered reality on others. It is your own means of doing what is needed. Some people believe there has to be a god in order for there to be good. Others, who don't see a need for a god can still be good.

Because if life were to "drop off" after death, with no memory of it, what purpose would it serve?

Perhaps, our purpose is to find a way to put an end to this atrocity? There is much work now in controlling computers with human minds. I'm sure it wouldn't be entirely impossible to back up a person's mind to some extent.

I know one thing. If we, and I mean all of us, do not do something to promote education to every person on earth, we're not going to survive. You keep blinding people with unprovable concepts and your religion's prophecy is sure to come to pass. Someone with a big nuke will see to it I'm sure.

And then again, maybe god does exist. Perhaps, he would like to see us be able to take care of ourselves. Maybe he held off the final step of revelations to see if we can figure things out on our own. I'd say were doing a pretty good job, to such an extent god would be a fool to kill us off now.

[Kagmi]

Personal experience aside, assuming that absolutely nothing existed before the Universe (space-time) it's just as likely that a concious being (God) existed and created everything as it is that some hydrogen gas just sort of popped into existence and started inflation. It would make sense, if this God created everything, that he would keep tabs on it afterwards. I've seen plenty of evidence for his existence myself but that's another story....

[maximus]

here's what i ask: where does a god fit it?

for the non-science types this is obvious. god is everything and everywhere and has no limit to his power. he makes things happen, so to speak. but to the religious scientist where does he fit in. if you believe and accept the process of physics and evolution, and the nature of the universe, what place is there for a god. the more you accept science, it seems, the farther you push the existance of a god. in the end (if you are very scientifically knowledgable) what's left for him to do? the creation moment? anything else? is he responcible for our existance, or was it an matter of propobility? if he did create us (with all the laws of probobility still existing and not being infringed upon) what does that imply? is there universal intention, and if so, wouldn't this violate the Uncertainty Principle? or do you not believe that?

i'm honestly currios, so please answer freely

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Well, if you look at it in that way, then I can understand your conclusion. I mean for all we know, the point to everything is:

1) Universe is born
2) Life/conciousness is born
3) Life evolves, constantly improving itself
4) Life reaches a point where it is smart enough to improve itself (ie. Computers)
5) Life learns how to spread life to other parts of the universe.And to whom do we give all the credit? Ourselves? That's what it sounds like.


Perhaps, there is no god. And maybe there is no point to being moral and decent people. But then again, lets do it any damn ways and make the most out of this existance that we all can 100% agree on exists.But that doesn't make any sense. There's nothing "rational" about a statement that suggests no means to end. We just do it for the sake of doing it? Sounds kind of quirky to me. [;)]


And technology is advancing us so far, in such a small amount of time. Think about, since the time of jesus, up to the industrial revolution, things pretty much stayed the same. Anyone who disputed the law/king/religion was killed, slavery run rampant, education halted, and I'm certain crime was a way of life, not just a few out of a thousand. In a very short amount of time, we've advanced further then any other species we know of. We did all this, with out god.And how are you sure we didn't achieve these things with some "outside help?" [;)]


See, I've said it before, if a person needs to believe in an altered reality in order to be a decent person, by all means do so. Do not try to force your altered reality on others. It is your own means of doing what is needed. Some people believe there has to be a god in order for there to be good. Others, who don't see a need for a god can still be good.And yet what is the point of "doing good," if it doesn't fulfill any good?


Perhaps, our purpose is to find a way to put an end to this atrocity? There is much work now in controlling computers with human minds. I'm sure it wouldn't be entirely impossible to back up a person's mind to some extent.Which atrocity is that?


I know one thing. If we, and I mean all of us, do not do something to promote education to every person on earth, we're not going to survive. You keep blinding people with unprovable concepts and your religion's prophecy is sure to come to pass. Someone with a big nuke will see to it I'm sure.But why should we care, if it's all an illusion? Or, maybe just a big joke?


And then again, maybe god does exist. Perhaps, he would like to see us be able to take care of ourselves. Maybe he held off the final step of revelations to see if we can figure things out on our own. I'd say were doing a pretty good job, to such an extent god would be a fool to kill us off now. If there were life after death then it wouldn't matter would it? Then again I don't suppose it would either way, depending on how you look at it.

[greeneagle3000]

there are many gods and even the bible says that. controversy please. they created we humans as an experiments and then we must mutiply...craziness right?

[Royce]

Originally posted by maximus
here's what i ask: where does a god fit it?

for the non-science types this is obvious. god is everything and everywhere and has no limit to his power. he makes things happen, so to speak. but to the religious scientist where does he fit in. if you believe and accept the process of physics and evolution, and the nature of the universe, what place is there for a god. the more you accept science, it seems, the farther you push the existance of a god. in the end (if you are very scientifically knowledgable) what's left for him to do? the creation moment? anything else? is he responcible for our existance, or was it an matter of propobility? if he did create us (with all the laws of probobility still existing and not being infringed upon) what does that imply? is there universal intention, and if so, wouldn't this violate the Uncertainty Principle? or do you not believe that?

i'm honestly currios, so please answer freely

First, I want to make clear that this is my belief only. I'm not trying to sell it or convert anyone nor can I prove any of it. This is the religious Form so I don't think I'm being out of line by stating my beliefs and you asked, maximus, not just here but in another thread.

God exists and created the universe. As I've said before in other threads, God said; "Let there be light." = Big Bang.

God is logical, rational and purposful.

He created the universe with logic, rationalism, and purpose.
The physical laws that we are discovering and determining were all made by God when he created the universe. This is why the universe is logical, mathimatical and ordered and not chaos.

It is God the Holy spirit that controls, governs and pervades the universe.

Our bodies are evolved on earth from more primative forms of life due to God's purpose imprinted on the force of life itself and our DNA which is inherited from the first single cell that lived on earth. How this original DNA came about is still open to question in my mind.
Was it created and then the earth when ready infected with it? Was it brought to earth via comet or meteor? Did it evolve here on earth by God's will and is unique to earth? I don't know the answers to these questions nor have I settled my mind about them.

As I said our bodies are evolved. Our spirit is of the spirit of God and will upon our physical death return to God. Our soul is created and bestowed upon us individually at the first sign of our showing possession of wisdom as young children; ie, we are human beings and not human animals, (See my thread "The Trinity of Man and God") It is our soul that continues on after the death of our physical body.

Our purpose here in this life is, at least in part, to experience life and to grow in character and spirit, to learn to know ourselves and thus come to know God.

As we were/are created in God's image we strive to be logical, rational and mathematical and use these tools to discover and know the logical, rational and mathematical universe and thus come to know ourselves, the universe and God. To know the universe and its laws and mechanisms is to know the mind of God.

As I said these are just my personel beliefs. While I am not a scientist I am a avid student of science. I find know conflict in my belief in God and Jesus Christ and my belief and knowledge of science.
I have resolved that issue long ago by costructing the above belief system that is not all original in any way but derived at by reading and studying from as diverse sources as I can find.

[Kagmi]

I agree with most of Royce's last post. I do believe in evolution and other scientific theories that seem to clash with religious documents. A point I would like to make regarding the story of creation is that this was written some thousands of years ago, and even with divine inspiration I have a hard time seeing someone from that time period write an account of the big bang and then evolution. Taken metaphorically though (i.e. God says let there be light= big bang, etc.), it's really pretty accurate.
As for God's role in the Universe after creation I can only say that I personally have experienced some coincidences that are a little too convienient to be dismissed as coincidences. I have also seen and experienced things that can be given no logical explanation other than that of miracle. In my opinion, the question of God is much like scientific theory in that it should be given extensive consideration before it is dismissed.

[maximus]

royce: i have some further questions:

1) do you believe god has the power to infringe upon the laws of physics in the universe? if he does, why doesn't he?

2) do you atribute emotional feelings such as love, kindness, compassion to god or the evolutionary process?

3) do you believe that our existance was the specific intention of god in creating the universe in the first place?

4) if not, do you believe that our existance is "on accident", or happened out of pure probobility?

(a note on question number 2: i realize that you said god created the evolutionary process, what i'm asking is are the feelings we feel because of god and our being made in his image or the fact that these specific traits have succeded evolutionarily, much in the way that a tail for a tiger succeded evolutionarily?)

again, i'm asking out of curriosity. i'm not trying to back you into a corner.

(and anyone can answer these, not just royce)

[maximus]

Originally posted by Kagmi
As for God's role in the Universe after creation I can only say that I personally have experienced some coincidences that are a little too convienient to be dismissed as coincidences.

i believe that these have nothing to do with "god". think of how many things pass in your life that you never notice? we only take note of those events which are coincidental.

I have also seen and experienced things that can be given no logical explanation other than that of miracle. In my opinion, the question of God is much like scientific theory in that it should be given extensive consideration before it is dismissed.

can you give me an example of one of these unexplainable miracle, becuase i refuse to believe that they are beyond the explaination of science. (unless you convince me, of course)

[Kagmi]

In response to Maximus' question, I witnessed one of these events a few years ago. I was with a friend of mine, her brother who is a preist, and her 2-year-old son, Tony. Because of difficulties during his delivery, one of Tony's arms had been paralyzed since birth. While my friend's brother held Tony and tried to convince his mother (who is atheist) to let him be baptized, Tony waved at his mother with the previously paralyzed arm. He's had full use of it since then, and now loves sports. Tests have been done and it seems that the only explanation is that the central nerve connecting his arm to his spinal cord, which had been severed during his birth, had suddenly healed, and I have yet to hear a plausible medical explanation for this. As I have said before, this is only my personal experience so if anyone can think of an explanation I'd welcome one.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Kagmi
In response to Maximus' question, I witnessed one of these events a few years ago. I was with a friend of mine, her brother who is a preist, and her 2-year-old son, Tony. Because of difficulties during his delivery, one of Tony's arms had been paralyzed since birth. While my friend's brother held Tony and tried to convince his mother (who is atheist) to let him be baptized, Tony waved at his mother with the previously paralyzed arm. He's had full use of it since then, and now loves sports. Tests have been done and it seems that the only explanation is that the central nerve connecting his arm to his spinal cord, which had been severed during his birth, had suddenly healed, and I have yet to hear a plausible medical explanation for this. As I have said before, this is only my personal experience so if anyone can think of an explanation I'd welcome one.



in this case we probobly don't have enough current knowledge to make a clear analasis of what happened. before i would believe anything though i would need to see medical tests of patients during periods of emotional stress, and have more knowledge of the science behind paralisis and the healing rates for such disablilities. i'd also like to know the specifics, like what did he eat that day, where was his arm being touched, and any other relevent matterial. as odd as scenerios like this are, i believe they always have explations. sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

by the way, what did the mother do?

[Kagmi]

I don't know much about medicine either, but I do know that major major nerves tend not to grow back after they've been severed. I also know that the doctors had told the mother that the arm would always be paralyzed. Oh yeah, and the mother screamed [:D] .

[FZ+]

Well... doctors have been known to misdiagnose these things, and I don't think there is a definite neccessity that the nerve will never grow back. In you children, there may even be a higher chance that they would. I think it was just luck, since we don't have the statistics for an overview of this.

[Royce]

Originally posted by maximus
royce: i have some further questions:

1) do you believe god has the power to infringe upon the laws of physics in the universe? if he does, why doesn't he?


That I don't know. He probably could but I don't think he does or has to to perform miracles such as Kagmi mentioned. It all ways amazes me how easy it is the accept the slimest evidence of a scientic hypothasis but impossible to accept evidence of 1000'sof such incidences. Ye you admit that we don't know enough to explain it. "None are so blind as those who refuse to see."

2) do you atribute emotional feelings such as love, kindness, compassion to god or the evolutionary process?

In my belief, God is the sourse of all love. Love is not just an emotion, a feeling. Love is and has power. Power to heal for example. God loves us to teach us about love and how to love. We return that love. The more we love God the more we can love ourselves and others. The more we love the more the power of love we have and can learn to use. It is also said God is Good, all good is from and of God.

3) do you believe that our existance was the specific intention of god in creating the universe in the first place?

No, not just our existence. While I don't believe in UFO's I do believe that we are not the only life or intelligence in this universe.

4) if not, do you believe that our existance is "on accident", or happened out of pure probobility?

No, it wasn't either accident or propapility. It was on purpose and built into the original DNA.

Again this is just my personel belief system. I have proof that is also personel and would mean nothing to you or anyone else. The proof is enough for me to be convinced. I don't have faith as I see and understand it. I am convinced and persuaded.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Royce
No, it wasn't either accident or propapility. It was on purpose and built into the original DNA.

the original DNA? my question pertains more to how did we get that DNA in the first place? how was life created?

[Kagmi]

I probably would have found it somewhat less unusual if it hadn't happened so suddenly or in such a convienient place. That's also not exactly the only unusual event I've witnessed recently. How did life begin.... that's a tough one.... I'm gonna go with the theory that says the first machinery for life arose in the chemical seas of primordial Earth. The actual life as in conciousness is a harder question. If we assume that there was already a concious being in existence at this time I would have to say he did it.

[Iacchus32]

For all I know this is a hoax but I've seen the story on the TV program It's A Miracle. It is pretty captivating. The link refers to the true story which was made into a movie, which gives a general synopsis of the story.

http://www.charitysplace.com/review/review_mermaid.htm

[Royce]

Originally posted by maximus
the original DNA? my question pertains more to how did we get that DNA in the first place? how was life created?

That, of course, I don't know. I, like all of us, speculate.


God could have send an angle servent that selected a warm nutrient rich pool and deposited the original DNA in it to grow, reproduce and diversify endlessly to become all of life on earth including of course us.

The complex chemicals in said pool could have combined radomly unil one compination became self replicating accidently.

Complex chemicals could have combined in outer space in the clouds of dust under the influence of hard and soft radiation unil it became self replicating and grew and multiplied in space to be eventually brought to earth and who knows how many other planets in this galexy
by comets and/or meteors.

An extraterrestial race may have sent out a probe intentionally or accidently contaminated with DNA and it intentionally or accidently landed or crashed on earth and infected it with that DNA.

Take your pick or think up a different scenario. I do know that all life here on earth from the simplest one celled life form to the most complex is one single life form. All life shares the same DNA with the same structure and made up of the same amino acids. Of course it varies in length and sequence but it is the same. We humans have reminents of that single original DNA in our DNA.
We can and do take snips and pieces of our human DNA and splice it into he DNA of bacteria. It grows and reproduces and flourishes and produces human insulin that diabetics inject into themselves keeping them alive and healthy with no obvious harmful side effect to either the bacteria or humans. All life of earth is the same organism in millions of different forms.

[Kagmi]

Quite true.... We'll probably be speculating for quite some time [:D] .

[garytse86]

Questions here:
1) If God is omnipotent, then can God make a rock that God can't lift? Please do not say he would not do such things, this is not the point, it is whether he can do it or not.
2) If God made the Earth, then why do we want to go to heaven?



Religion is like farting: we like our own but hate everyone elses.

[heusdens]

Regarding to the God issue (wether or not He/It exists) what can one say?

First of all, I do not assume that, apart from my mind, and outside and independend of it, a God exists. Not that I can 'proof' that, for how can one proof the non-existence of something not even clearly defined.

How I arrive at that conclusion is that acc. to my mind, we can conceive of the material, objective world as having been there all the time, having no begin or end. Since there is a world now, and we can not possibly conceive of a world popping into existence from nothing, that is why we can not conceive of a beginning of time.
However, reality shows us, that we can not look back infinitely far, all we will ever measure are finit spatial extends and finite duration.
All things that exist (being specific formations of matter) exists within a finite space and time extend. But since all matter is in motion always, there will be always material causes for some specific material configuration coming into existence (for instance the formation of a stellar object, a galaxy, a planet, a bacteria) and all material formations will leave traces of their existence after that specific material configuration has gone extinct.
This is how we observe the world to be.

Now one other thing is that, even when we have good grounds to assume that the history of the universe has no begin, reality presents us with the fact that there are observational limits. So any concrete assumption on how the universe looked like prior to a specific point, becomes less know, the more we look back in time, and observational evidence prior to a certain point even blurs out completely.
Nevertheless we have some grounds to make models and theories for what happeneded before that time, which are not just wild guesses, but bases itself on predictions that can be made from that model, the describe how the current observable universe would look like.
As far as that is concerned, we can at least differentiate between some models, and rule out some possibilities.

There is nevertheless and always will be a limit to our knowledge, even when that limit has been shifted forwards in the course of history.

What to claim then about something we miss factual knowledge about?

It is a well known fact that for our human organism to survive, we must react on dangers and outside stimuli, which sometimes do not provide enough data to make a specific assumption on the thing we observe. Here is where belief comes into play. Our brains are wired in such a way that even when no sufficient data is available, we will make some assumption as to what the nature of the incoming data reflects upon. Sometimes this is done using prior experiences, to make something out of this insufficient data.

Let us face a human dilemma. You are in the middle of a desert without water, and have no clue as to what direction you will find the nearest well. The human mind will then make a 'best guess' even if no data is available to sustain the guess. But we can know for sure that not making any guess will kill us, and making a guess will at least provide for the chance that we picked the right direction.

This means that to 'believe' something, in the absence of real knowledge is the better choice. In the absence of real knowledge about how nature works, the believe in a god could not be considered to be something wrong.
But as we know human knowledge increased drastically. For most things the explenation that 'God did it' will not be a good explenation, since we have actual knowledge that could explain these phenomena.

The question is however, that even when our knowledge is increasing, fact is we will never reach a point in which we know everything about anything. Taking material history to be infinite (without an actual beginning in time, but only a observational limit) would indicate that all we can go for is a limited amount of knowledge.

Not understanding part of the factors that caused us to be here, will always be the case. Does this imply we should then belief in a God, cause we will indeed have an important part of our knowledge missing?

My argument against it would be, that even when a profound understanding of the material history prior to a certain point in time is a fact, even when new developments in cosmology, physics and other sciences, might reveal some more about this history, will be lacking, a belief in God is realy not much more then a placeholder for missing knowledge. It's not an actual or factual explenation, it does not make us understand anything at all.
Missing knowledge in the field of pre-big bang cosmology or abiology (formation of the first life forms) and missing links in evolution, are not realy a crucial factor in every day life. We will eventually fill those gaps with actual knowledge, despite that we will never conceive of all knowledge about everything, but at least we will have enough knowledge to reduce the amount of "wild guesses" or speculations which absolutely have no grounds, like the theistic doctrines.
Fundamental principles or absolute ideas or deities, residing at the bottom layer of existence, do not make it into the real world as real entities, rather they are fixations of the mind, an idealization of reality itself.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Royce
That, of course, I don't know. I, like all of us, speculate.


God could have send an angle servent that selected a warm nutrient rich pool and deposited the original DNA in it to grow, reproduce and diversify endlessly to become all of life on earth including of course us.

The next question would obviously be... Where did the original DNA come from? And research I see suggests that it is unlikely that life was initially just DNA. There probably was an initial RNA stage, as RNA was better equipped to grow in the early earth conditions.

And doesn't this strike you as a little inefficient? It is more plausible that God simply accelerated time, or just waited until life arose on it's own. What's the hurry for an immortal?

[Dave]

These days there's no particular reason for God to exist, apart from, to create wars...

I don't know God doesn't exist, but I doubt he does.


There are so many variations on the truth about God that I woudln't know which one was right.

[Dx]

I say, Yeah!

[Dave]

I'd hate to think anyone believed in God just because Einstien said he did...

[PhysicsRocks88]

Of course God, of any type, doesn't exist.

It still sickens me that in 2003 people still believe in mythology and superstition.

Grow up, use your brain properly. Religious people have probably never actual had a single thought process whatsoever - burn them alive!

[Dave]

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
Of course God, of any type, doesn't exist.

It still sickens me that in 2003 people still believe in mythology and superstition.

Grow up, use your brain properly. Religious people have probably never actual had a single thought process whatsoever - burn them alive!

How can you say God doesn't exist: For sure...

[maximus]

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
Of course God, of any type, doesn't exist.

It still sickens me that in 2003 people still believe in mythology and superstition.

Grow up, use your brain properly. Religious people have probably never actual had a single thought process whatsoever - burn them alive!


[o)] buddy, i'm tempted to report this, even if you are joking. i'm not religious myself, but this is going to get you kicked out pretty fast. this isn't the only thread in which i've seen you talk like this. i'm just warning you...

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by maximus
[o)] buddy, i'm tempted to report this, even if you are joking. i'm not religious myself, but this is going to get you kicked out pretty fast. this isn't the only thread in which i've seen you talk like this. i'm just warning you...


First off I'm not your buddy. Secondly, shut up and mind your own business. Thirdly, I already reported it myself to save you the trouble - quit your whining newbie.

[drag]

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
Of course God, of any type, doesn't exist.

It still sickens me that in 2003 people still believe in mythology and superstition.

Grow up, use your brain properly. Religious people have probably never actual had a single thought process whatsoever - burn them alive!
Hmmm....[:D] Reminds me why I almost never post in this forum... [;)]
If I did I'd risk occassionaly expressing myself in the above manner which would be highly unfotunate for everybody's nervous systems including mine. [:D]

Anyway, PR88, you should see the full half of the glass -
in our over-populated and highly competative world it's
good to have a head-start on some people. [;)] [:D]

Peace and long life.

[Royce]

Originally posted by FZ+
The next question would obviously be... Where did the original DNA come from? And research I see suggests that it is unlikely that life was initially just DNA. There probably was an initial RNA stage, as RNA was better equipped to grow in the early earth conditions.

And doesn't this strike you as a little inefficient? It is more plausible that God simply accelerated time, or just waited until life arose on it's own. What's the hurry for an immortal?

All of what you say is possible of course. My feeling is that there may indeed have been RNA which I would think means some form of self replicating "life". However If God wanted to control the kindof life here on this planet and give preprogramed direction, then the DNA would have been created possibly even in a Lab by his minions and brought here. This really beyound speculation going into pure imagination.
If he is immortal why would he bother speeding up time but simply wait until conditions were right?

Anouther question just popped into my mind. Has there ever been any kind of determination of when cells began haveing mitachondria in them time wise? I haven't heard of any and wonder if someone else has.

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by Royce
All of what you say is possible of course. My feeling is that there may indeed have been RNA which I would think means some form of self replicating "life". However If God wanted to control the kindof life here on this planet and give preprogramed direction, then the DNA would have been created possibly even in a Lab by his minions and brought here. This really beyound speculation going into pure imagination.
If he is immortal why would he bother speeding up time but simply wait until conditions were right?

Anouther question just popped into my mind. Has there ever been any kind of determination of when cells began haveing mitachondria in them time wise? I haven't heard of any and wonder if someone else has.


On mitochondria....

...bacteria were at one point just mitochondria.

Other than bacteria - all life that has a mitochondria in it, has the mitochondria identical to a bacteria. For example, human mitochondria IS ACTUALLY bacteria mitochondria. That is why it is RNA, and so is bacteria.

SO the answer is life was initially a mitochondria itself, and then further life in fact contained the mitochondria of that life in it.

[Royce]

I'd hears that it was thought that it might have originally been a symbiotic relationship or parasitic that developed into one. Maybe a single celled animal ate a mitachondria but couldn't digest it. Any way this is way of the subject. thanks and sorry.

[quantumcarl]

If you say so.

What you believe is true...... for you.

Next question.

[maximus]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
If you say so.

What you believe is true...... for you.

this is true in a personal growth sense, but as i've said before there can only be one truth in the universe. the universe does not change for every person's belief. god cannot exist and not exist at the same time. this is a basic logical contradiction. one answer must be right.

[FZ+]

I'd hate to think anyone believed in God just because Einstien said he did...
It's worth noting that this is a common misconception. Einstein's god was not the conventional guy with beard, but the god of Spinoza. In short, his god was simply the personification of his belief in the beauty and order at the heart of the universe. Einstein left organised religion. Hence the context of his assertion that "god does not play dice". He means that he cannot belief that a beautiful and ordered universe would have a random and inexplicable basis.

[Dave]

OK, I thought that, because of his belief in God he tryed to hard to prove the UPs wrong...

[The Grimmus]

personaly i think god was, yes as siad before, used to control and set morals and laws for people and yes give people reason, explantion and hope. But now all that seperates those who belive and dont beilve is the hope and explantion parts (the goverment aka american jesus has taken over morals and control and reason quite nicely) Those who dont need hope dont need religion if your ok about not really haveing a will or a "soul" that after you die you kind of dont exist. But, i dont think that people who dont beilve should be going around telling eveyrone god dosent exist (unless it is here where everyone is entiteled to their opinions) becuase that will disalusion them and make their meaningless existence apperant and that ofcourse would be bad for the american jesus becuase it will make their workers unhappy.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
It's worth noting that this is a common misconception. Einstein's god was not the conventional guy with beard, but the god of Spinoza. In short, his god was simply the personification of his belief in the beauty and order at the heart of the universe. Einstein left organised religion. Hence the context of his assertion that "god does not play dice". He means that he cannot belief that a beautiful and ordered universe would have a random and inexplicable basis. And yet this is the same belief a lot of people hold (myself included), which speaks more of God "in essence" (spiritually), as opposed to customs and rituals which are practiced by religion.

This is very well put FZ+! [;)]

[MasterBlaster]

That original post Alex, is effing sickening. I know to you as to me, I wonder why it is I have to live in a time period where I am so much more advanced in logic and reason than this scum.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
That original post Alex, is effing sickening. I know to you as to me, I wonder why it is I have to live in a time period where I am so much more advanced in logic and reason than this scum.
Erm... I don't think we need quite that great an ego, hmm? Always to ready to accept being wrong, regardless of probabilities. When talking about God, it helps not to elevate oneself to a position of omniscient entity as well.... Watch out, you might disprove yourself....[;)]

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by FZ+
Erm... I don't think we need quite that great an ego, hmm? Always to ready to accept being wrong, regardless of probabilities. When talking about God, it helps not to elevate oneself to a position of omniscient entity as well.... Watch out, you might disprove yourself....[;)]

I have no more ego than I have worked for by being rational and logical.

I'm not omniscient - I have plenty of very worth colleages. However some people are certainly of a greater ability than others. There is scum in the world, it's the hate-filled maniacs who try to enslave others into their world.

[Iacchus32]

I wonder whatever happened to Logical Atheist? Hmm ... [;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I wonder whatever happened to Logical Atheist? Hmm ... [;)]

Wonder no more!

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
If you say so.

What you believe is true...... for you.

Next question.

NO. What is true is true - weather you effin' like it or not.

Deal with it. There is NO such thing as a God.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
NO. What is true is true - weather you effin' like it or not.

Deal with it. There is NO such thing as a God.

When dealing with the issue of existence, it is perhaps trivial to ask as to what existence category a certain 'thing' or 'concept' belongs.

When one is asked wether or not a duck that can talk exists, the answer given by most people will be no.

But when it is asked wether or not one is familiar with the comic figure Donals Duck (who, as we know, is a duck that can talk), then most people will answer yes.

So, does a duck that can talk exist?

Conclusion:

It is important to know what we define as our existence category, in order to answer the question. If that is not given implicitly, we need to ask and define for it explicitly.

So, does God exist?

No, since there does not exist a 'creator' of the universe. God has no real physical existence.

Yes, since God is defined as such in books as the Bible, and therefore does exist.

Like in the previous example, there is no real contradiction. Even though a duck that realy can talk is not something we can conceive of, we have no problem in accepting the existence of Donald Duck.

In the same way, for the real world, which exists objectively, apart from and outside of our mind, we can not conceive of that it was 'created' by a mere concept of the mind itself. Despite that, some pepople nevertheless seem to have no problem to believe in such deities, to fullfill there 'spiritual needs'.

[TENYEARS]

If two damm fools agree on a topic what do we have? And three four five. And so the fish continue to swim in the tank. Their unconciousness spewing garbage upon the planet as long as their video games, CD players, etc... are functional. They have no clue about god, the universe or what it is made of and yet we have these wonderful senseless conversations. None of you have found the truth because it is to scary to go there.

It would be better if every conversation was focused upon the wheather because on issues like these you do not comprehend. The truth is not a polling place children and adults alike where we can say oh yea I believe or I don't. Either you understand what the universe is made of or you don't. If you do, we would not be having this conversation. It is better to believe nothing and walk in a vacum than to settle for an answer. What you are doing is just like playing russian rollete and the gun is fully loaded with mountains of loaded clips.

Please continue.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
these wonderful senseless conversations.
Such irony...

[megashawn]

Tenyears:

They have no clue about god, the universe or what it is made of and yet we have these wonderful senseless conversations. None of you have found the truth because it is to scary to go there.

Lemme tell ya something. I've seen your POV, I was raised with your religous beliefs, I know your truth.

You do nothing but sit around and make blind speculations, based on blind faith and come up with rediculous conclusions. Things such as there is no afterlife being supported by christian beliefs and the bible. I assure you, if this was preached at a church, people would not be christian.

You've got no more evidence on whether or not a god exists then anyone else on this forum. The difference is, I'm willing to accept that I may never know if there is some all powerfull being or not, and try to live a good, decent life.

If there are any more requirments on me then that, I cannot comply. If I'm to spend minutes or hours praying nightly and dedicate my sundays to some being that can't even take the time to say "Hey, hows it going?", and this method you and/or others propose is infact the true path, then I can't wait to meet satan and start plotting the holy war on heaven.

But if all you care to do is come here and tell us we are all wrong and are going to burn in hell ("playing russian roulette", I speak in metaphors as well) then why do you bother? I think that no idea can reach its fullest state without arguement, or as I told my mechanic buddy when I was playing devils advocate and arguing with him on something I agree, "No cylinder can be honed, without resistance."

In fact, it is people such as yourself who drive me further from religion. Your bullish attitude and your "My way or the highway to hell" approach is rediculous to say the least. Then the way you manipulate beliefs, apparently to suit your own personal agenda.

But again, unless you've got some kind of solid evidence to support your claim, you should not speak from a position like you are already correct. Frankly, you don't know (neither do I). Honestly, claiming you do only reveals how deep the ignorance flows.

And to the whole lil Russian roulette line of reasoning, it does make sense. I've seen it worded like:

If god exists, and you don't believe in him, you suffer eternally

If God doesn't exist, and you did believe in him, you've nothing to lose.

And people really cling to this as there last line of hope in a world that is more and more losing there religous restrictions.

Now, here is one to shoot your russian roulette thing up out the water, and smash it in a few pieces.

If god doesn't exist, and I did believe in him, worshipping, and die believing I'm going to heaven, only to never have another cognitive thought, then a great atrocity has been committed as I and countless others have been duped into living a restricted life in hopes of having a awesome afterlife.

In fact, that is what God is all about nowadays. People don't wanna die. People are afraid to die, with good reason with all the horror stories about it.

In deed, you do not know if your particular flavor of religion is the correct path as well. There are many religions, and many versions of the same religion. Are you absolutly certain your beliefs are correct and will earn you a seat in heaven? Or is there a little nagging doubt that maybe you should go mormon or protestant, maybe southern babtist? I know your answer, but I also know the truth.

[Iacchus32]

Excerpt from Emanuel Swedenborg's (http://www.swedenborg.com/) work, Heaven and Hell ...

There is a general opinion that those born outside of the church, who are caled the nations, or heathen, cannot be saved, because not having the Word they know nothing about the Lord, and apart from the Lord there is no salvation. But that these are also saved this alone makes certain, that the mercy of the Lord is universal, that is, extends to every individual; that these equally with those within the church, who are few in comparison, are born men, and that their ignorance of the Lord is not their fault. Any one who thinks from any enlightened reason can see that no man is born for hell, for the Lord is love itself and His love is to will the salvation of all. Therefore He has provided a religion for every one, and by it acknowledment of the Divine and interior life; for to live in accordance with one's religion is to live interiorly, since one then looks to the Divine, and so far as he looks to the Divine he does not look to the world but separates himself from the world, that is, from the life of the world, which is exterior life.

[TENYEARS]

I am not recuiting believers or condeming anyone and never have. There is not eternal hell and there is not eternal heavean. Truth does exist and it is 100% in accordance with science. I find truth in many religions, christian, hindu, Zen budist, tao, american indian, south american, voodoo, science, atheism, etc..... There are only misunderstanings in all of the interpetations of these religions. This I know. Megashawn, in 1987 I witnessed god, I became enlightened and understood the meaning of life, satori, shamdi whatever you would like to call it.

If a person is a pure atheist in my opinion this is good. In my opinion what this should mean is they do not "belive in god" this is ok as long as they do not say god does not exist because this would not be logical. It would be like saying I have never seen whatever but that does not mean that whatever does not exist. So I can say I do not belive it exists because my experience to this point and time has not come accross it. I cannot deny it's existance but I can say I do not believe it exists. There is a difference than saying god does not exist. You are just being honest.

A person like this would be no different than one who goes to church and belives but does not understand. There is the possibility that the atheist is actually closer to a real experience of truth than the one who socalled goes to church. Nothing is in stone. (Try the parable about the vineyard owner who is hiring workers).

The problem my friend is that we create paths of action in life. The path humanity is taking is destroying the planet in the name of materialism because they want to defer responsibility to the next generation. If they knew the truth of an after life, would they continue to do what they do? I must try.

I have seen oceans of sludge with lifeless ocean.

I was once told something by someone who was told by someone. I said I don't belive in that crap and I am the master of my destiny. There came a day that event happened and I was about to incur the event which was spoken and in a split second realization of memory turned the event into a non event. Sometime life is a razors edge. Good movie you should probably see it the Bill Murray version.

Megashawn, do me a favor. A little experiment if you would. Blank your mind and then say you were a witness to god. You knew god was real and that a human being had incredible potential and that the afterlife was real. You also had visions or whatever.

What would you do with this? You don't have to believe here just place yourself in these shoes. What would you do? Hell any of you what would you do?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
I am not recuiting believers or condeming anyone and never have. There is not eternal hell and there is not eternal heavean. Truth does exist and it is 100% in accordance with science. I find truth in many religions, christian, hindu, Zen budist, tao, american indian, south american, voodoo, science, atheism, etc..... There are only misunderstanings in all of the interpetations of these religions. This I know. Megashawn, in 1987 I witnessed god, I became enlightened and understood the meaning of life, satori, shamdi whatever you would like to call it. What's the point of religion, besides teaching us morals, if not to prepare us for an afterlife? Are you saying you don't believe an afterlife exists? Why would God even "tease us" with such an idea?

[TENYEARS]

The afterlife exists, but heaven and hell are not eternal. They will always exist but the relative experience of them will not as the relative mind becomes less relative(process of what the hindus call reincarnation). Would you believe that there is perfect physics behind this.

[Iacchus32]

Physics is one thing and metaphysics is another, at least in the sense that metaphysics is the cause of which physics is the effect. So I think we need to go beneath the surface a little in order to answer to your question.

[megashawn]

Truth does exist and it is 100% in accordance with science. I find truth in many religions, christian, hindu, Zen budist, tao, american indian, south american, voodoo, science, atheism, etc..... There are only misunderstanings in all of the interpetations of these religions.

Get something right about me. I do not say "God does not exist." I say that God in this christian idea of him CANNOT exist. I've often agreed that there is good things to learn from all religions. It is the foundation that has helped humanity advance so far.

A favorite quote of mine, not sure of the writer is "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it". Religous texts, while they may or may not be historically accurate, do reflect humanity at that point in time. There are good things to learn even from the most atrocicous and graphic stories. Regardless of the truthfullness, one can learn a valueble lesson from almost any religous belief. Hence, the purpose of the religion.

If a person is a pure atheist in my opinion this is good. In my opinion what this should mean is they do not "belive in god" this is ok as long as they do not say god does not exist because this would not be logical.

As I said above, I'm not so bold as to say God does not exist. My typical answer is "I don't know if god does or does not exist, none can prove it." This is, IMO, the most honest answer one can give regarding said matters.

Of course, if a person has had some personal expieriance that has swayed them to one belief or another, then they develop a bias. Even if this personal expieriance has left the person empty handed only with a "Big one that got away" story.

I know there is more to life then what we are aware of. I often think of reincarnation as being the most viable afterlife solution. And reincarnation is an afterlife, its just a never ending cycle of life and death, and rebirth. Do you also believe in Karma? If so, does this not make christian "sinning" irrellavent?

Reincarnation, as hindus described it, is an automated type system. It does not require a god type figure to ensure the operation of it. Karma is used as the reward/punishment system. A good person reincarnates into a higher life, while the evil person reincarnates into a lesser lifeform. Reincarnation also agrees more with reality, and the stress in that religion is your present life, not some eternal dream state where all is happy.

A person like this would be no different than one who goes to church and belives but does not understand. There is the possibility that the atheist is actually closer to a real experience of truth than the one who socalled goes to church. Nothing is in stone. (Try the parable about the vineyard owner who is hiring workers).

This I have to disagree on. A person who acknowledges the fact that we, as a whole, have no idea if there is or is not a god, and cannot prove it is in no ways comparable to a person who goes to church, believes in that churches version of god, and uses that churches religous texts as there scientific understanding of the world around them.

A person who goes to church will likely believe in creation over evolution. This person will likely believe there was a great flood that covered the earth, although lacking any true evidence of how this feat was pulled off. This person is also likely to believe a man, just like you and me, was sentanced to death, killed, and come back to life.

You see, a person, atheist, such as you described, or by my response to the "Is there a god" question, is not nearly the same. The person who goes to church already has the answer to all his/her questions, and anything that contradicts those answers is considered wrong and evil, simply because it doesn't agree with what they learned in church.

The problem my friend is that we create paths of action in life. The path humanity is taking is destroying the planet in the name of materialism because they want to defer responsibility to the next generation. If they knew the truth of an after life, would they continue to do what they do? I must try.

This is garbage. I agree that humanity is destroying the earth. In the name of materialism??? If anything, I'd think the earth would be the absolute most precious possesion to a materialist. No, I'd be more inclined to believe that the destruction of this earth is at the hands of people who believe God will be back at anytime now, and do not see any purpose in striving to protect our planet.

In fact, the bible tells us that we have dominion over the planet, essentially saying it is ours to do with as we please.

In reality, we are the planets possesion, atleast, this much we can both agree to be true, I'd hope.

I was once told something by someone who was told by someone. I said I don't belive in that crap and I am the master of my destiny. There came a day that event happened and I was about to incur the event which was spoken and in a split second realization of memory turned the event into a non event. Sometime life is a razors edge. Good movie you should probably see it the Bill Murray version

Huh?

Megashawn, do me a favor. A little experiment if you would. Blank your mind and then say you were a witness to god. You knew god was real and that a human being had incredible potential and that the afterlife was real. You also had visions or whatever.

Hmm. I can blank my mind. I can not force myself into having some contact, make believe or not, with a supreme being. I should not have to. Such an all powerfull being should be able to snap his fingers and make us all understand his plan for us.

I personally believe all human beings have unlimited potential. That is, unlimited within our bounds of course. But with our newest friend, technology, we are forever more changning the boundries.

I really wish you'd quit contradicting yourself. First you tell me there is no hell, no heaven. Then you say you believe in reincarnation. Now your telling me to convince myself that the afterlife is real. What gives Cletus?

And if this is much the same way you had your meeting with god, then I would say this is merely your innerself, sub-concious, whatever, that has told you exactly what you wanted to hear.

Do please remember that I'm not a stranger to religion. I grew up believe in god, jesus, holy ghost, etc. I've ventured out and tried a few other belief systems. One thing is always true between any religion. If you sit around and wait on your god to get things done for you, you'll sit there till you die.

Well, I think this may very well be my largest post ever.

[megashawn]

Physics is one thing and metaphysics is another, at least in the sense that metaphysics is the cause of which physics is the effect. So I think we need to go beneath the surface a little in order to answer to your question.

I agree with the bolded section, but from there on I've got issues.

Yes, physics and metaphysics is 2 different things.

Physics is proven, substantiated, and operates on the principles described in a physics book.

Metaphysics is much more complex, as any piece of fiction is. There is no proof for metaphysical claims (got some???) and no basis in the real world.

And if there was, then why hasnt The amazing Randy hand over the million bucks?

[TENYEARS]

Megashawn, if you asked any elightened human being a question they would all answer from the same source no matter what the relgion. God does not rule us, god is part of all things becuase "God Is Everything". This was what I witnessed.

Truth may only be found in a place where you are afraid to go. Our egos keep us from it with incredible tricks, but it does exist.

Technology will not save us, only the truth will set anyone free.

And yes the messiah is comming again, the jews as well as the christians as well as the hindus, etc.. are all waiting. The messiah must be born from one place. You will find that place tomarrow morning when you wake up and wash you face in the mirror.

This is the truth of all christians, hindus, buddists, etc... Only a dam fools of each religion would argue the points.

[megashawn]

So then, essentially what your telling me is I'm god and pretty much the majority of the population is a bunch of idiots.


This is the truth of all christians, hindus, buddists, etc... Only a dam fools of each religion would argue the points

Because by the above logic, and noting the violence of one religion towards another, that most of them are complete fools.

You see, if things actually worked like you claim they do, things would in fact be much better then they are.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
I agree with the bolded section, but from there on I've got issues.

Yes, physics and metaphysics is 2 different things.

Physics is proven, substantiated, and operates on the principles described in a physics book.

Metaphysics is much more complex, as any piece of fiction is. There is no proof for metaphysical claims (got some???) and no basis in the real world.

And if there was, then why hasnt The amazing Randy hand over the million bucks? Well let's just say that out of the blue I happened to be a philanthropic billionaire who had the desire to hand over a million bucks to the next person I saw at random which, happened to be "you." But let's say I didn't want to be found out, so I would follow you home and wait for the opportunity to slip "the package" into your mailbox. Which I would, and I would leave, without none being the wiser.

So here you are, when you go out to check the mail the next day, you find yourself the beneficiary of a million bucks (the effect), but you haven't a clue as to how it got there? (the cause). Doesn't this kind of belie the way life works in general? Where we have the whole of creation in front of us (the effect), but without truly understanding the "hidden hand" that put it there? (the cause). This is really all that metaphysics is supposed entail -- be it spiritual or otherwise -- an attempt to understand the "first cause" of things. Or at least this is one of the definitions in the dictionary.

Oh, if you would like to read a different take on James Randi's million bucks, please follow this thread ... Tonight I Visit The The Bowlless Bowl (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2414) (originally posted by TENYEARS).

[TENYEARS]

Iacchus32, your post about a vision of chief Joesph intrigues me. I know it's quality of experience and for some reason it repeats upon me and I do know know why. Maybe this is the way in which it must be done. It can, the question is should it? Maybe the fishbowls are there for a reason? Maybe humankind is not ready for the truth or maybe it is I do not know. It seems in 5000 years humanity has not changed much.

There are a few where I work that have asked of visions which I have had. One day my response was why should I say anything anymore, you have not learned and only avoid things so you don't have to learn. People sometimes have to walk through the fire in order to learn.

[megashawn]

So here you are, when you go out to check the mail the next day, you find yourself the beneficiary of a million bucks (the effect), but you haven't a clue as to how it got there? (the cause).

Well, because I might happen to have a security camera on my mailbox. Lot of ppl are doing it to catch mailbox vandals.

I understand your point of view.

edit: My dog would definetly bark as well.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Iacchus32, your post about a vision of chief Joesph intrigues me. I know it's quality of experience and for some reason it repeats upon me and I do know know why. Maybe this is the way in which it must be done. It can, the question is should it? Maybe the fishbowls are there for a reason? Maybe humankind is not ready for the truth or maybe it is I do not know. It seems in 5000 years humanity has not changed much.

There are a few where I work that have asked of visions which I have had. One day my response was why should I say anything anymore, you have not learned and only avoid things so you don't have to learn. People sometimes have to walk through the fire in order to learn. And then again, what does a grub know about being a butterfly, that is, until that time comes? ... Which isn't to say it shouldn't be alluded to from to time to time, but maybe this is the purpose behind myths and fables?

[Zero]

What if there are no gods, no magic? That single thought seems to scare people more than anything, except one other thought: what if there are no answers?

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
...except one other thought: what if there are no answers?

Better no answers, than no questions.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
What if there are no gods, no magic? That single thought seems to scare people more than anything, except one other thought: what if there are no answers? Life itself is magic. And yet if there were no wonder or sense of awe about it, then what's the point? Why endow us with such a large brain and extensive nervous system, if not for the sake of realizing "the experience?"

[megashawn]

Life itself is magic. And yet if there were no wonder or sense of awe about it, then what's the point? Why endow us with such a large brain and extensive nervous system, if not for the sake of realizing "the experience?"

Perhaps, not only realizing the experience, but maybe someday being able to create our own "experience".

I mean, why would god create a society, knowing he'll have to destroy it, only to take the good ones out and start a new one, while torturing the bad.

It seems more our duty to turn our society into the dreams of the people who wrote the bible.

We can wait for god to do it.

Or we can try to get it done without him.

Don't you think god would be so proud?

I don't really see what you mean by saying life is magic. Life is understood. Magic is just another word for trick.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Perhaps, not only realizing the experience, but maybe someday being able to create our own "experience".

I mean, why would god create a society, knowing he'll have to destroy it, only to take the good ones out and start a new one, while torturing the bad.Why separate the wheat from the chaff? It's not God who tortures the bad, it's the bad who torture themselves. This is the only reason why hell was created.


It seems more our duty to turn our society into the dreams of the people who wrote the bible.In which case you would have to acknowledge there was a God.


We can wait for god to do it.

Or we can try to get it done without him.

Don't you think god would be so proud?If you mean something similar to what the founding fathers did when founding this country, then I would say you had the right idea. [;)]


I don't really see what you mean by saying life is magic. Life is understood. Magic is just another word for trick. With all the beauty, the splendor and diversity that exists, I would have to say yes, life is magical.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Life itself is magic. And yet if there were no wonder or sense of awe about it, then what's the point? Why endow us with such a large brain and extensive nervous system, if not for the sake of realizing "the experience?"

And why is it that everything with you has to be mystical? Why does there have to be 'magic' beyond tables and cars and Chex Mix?

[Zero]

Originally posted by radagast
Better no answers, than no questions.

Better to ask useful questions, than to ask 'questions' for which we just make up answers.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And why is it that everything with you has to be mystical? Why does there have to be 'magic' beyond tables and cars and Chex Mix? Hey I don't get a 'buzz' out of everything I do in life. Nor do I hit on the 'bong' every five minutes, as another of the PF Mentors 'implied.' And yet for the sake of consistency on this forum, this is one of those questions which can only be answered with a 'yes' or a 'no.'

Does God exist? Yes. Is the means by which we understand God mystical? Yes. If this is true and always has been true, then is there another means by which I can explain it? No.

If on the other hand God didn't exist, then the only answer could be 'no.'

[maximus]

IACCHUS32: i believe your problem (no offense meant) is that you are unable to abandon the idea of a purpose to life. in thread after thread you ask "why do we exist, if not for a Purpose?". i would ask you, do you believe what science proves (<<i use this word lightly<<)? becuase purpose is impossible in QM, because no intended result can come from comlete randomness. therefore, life is an accident. will you respond, please? i wonder how it can be that you won't accept this.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
IACCHUS32: i believe your problem (no offense meant) is that you are unable to abandon the idea of a purpose to life. in thread after thread you ask "why do we exist, if not for a Purpose?". i would ask you, do you believe what science proves (<<i use this word lightly<<)? becuase purpose is impossible in QM, because no intended result can come from comlete randomness. therefore, life is an accident. will you respond, please? i wonder how it can be that you won't accept this. Hey, no offense taken. And yet I'm not prepared to accept that which is unfounded and illogical. [;)] Ha ha ha!

You see the argument exists between what we deem "external reality" (the science aspect) and "internal reality" (the religious aspect), which I don't necessarily see as disparaging, but rather that of a relationship, between "essence and form." And, while it's entirely possible to have a totally "objective reality" (i.e., as form), it could only happen if the subjective reality (the life within or essence) had died and there was nothing to animate or give life to the form, in which case it would be considered a "dead reality."

In other words, what is reality without the life (or soul) to animate it?

While consider what it would be like stumbling across the ruins of an acient civilization, bereft of the "actual life" that it entailed. It would be a "dead civilization" now wouldn't it?

This I think is the danger with science today, in its attempts to "objectify" everything and "cancel out" any notion of a "life within" (which to most of us is represented by God). Indeed one of these days it will be the ruins of our own civilization that someone will be "gawking at." [;)]

Remember, the founding of the United States was based upon one very important principle, The Freedom of Religion.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Remember, the founding of the United States was based upon one very important principle, The Freedom of Religion.

Seems as if this principle has recently been updated.
It has now been added to this principle the Freedom to Conquer Others .....

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Seems as if this principle has recently been updated.
It has now been added to this principle the Freedom to Conquer Others ..... Do you mean like when Iraq tried to conquer Iran, and proceeded to invade Kuwait? It's not like we arrived at their doorstep arbitrarily.

Besides that, you just side-stepped my whole argument! Hmm ... although it basically reiterates what I said in the previous thread, Think! (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=50364#post50364) [;)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
[B]Do you mean like when Iraq tried to conquer Iran, and proceeded to invade Kuwait? It's not like we arrived at their doorstep arbitrarily.


I mean exactly that yes, when the US was helping Iraq in their conquering Iran, and at some instant later, US was helping Iran to conquer Iraq, and thereafter, US had no problems Iraq invading Kuwait, but thereafter started a war against Iraq to liberate Kuwait.

And that is why the US is now occupying , ehhh liberating Iraq.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
I mean exactly that yes, when the US was helping Iraq in their conquering Iran, and at some instant later, US was helping Iran to conquer Iraq, and thereafter, US had no problems Iraq invading Kuwait, but thereafter started a war against Iraq to liberate Kuwait.

And that is why the US is now occupying , ehhh liberating Iraq. So what does this really have to do with you side-stepping my previous post? This is all politics anyway, and has very little to do with the "ethics" of religion.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This I think is the danger with science today, in its attempts to "objectify" everything and "cancel out" any notion of a "life within" (which to most of us is represented by God). [;)]


It seems as if this is an anthropomorphizing of science. Science is a means to determine information about the objective, the internal (as in subjective) is outside the domain of science in that it cannot be deemed repeatable by others, it doesn't seem to be something which theories can be created and falsifiable predictions made.

It could also be said that the study of navel lint "objectify" navel lint and "cancel out" any notion of a "life within". Given the "life within" would be outside the domain of navel lint, is perhaps, an important consideration.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
It seems as if this is an anthropomorphizing of science. Science is a means to determine information about the objective, the internal (as in subjective) is outside the domain of science in that it cannot be deemed repeatable by others, it doesn't seem to be something which theories can be created and falsifiable predictions made.If, by and large science is a result of the "human endeavor," and by and large effects its outcome, then what can I say? Are you saying science is a non-human agency, run by non-humans? Then hey, why don't we just pass a law, saying only monkeys can be scientists?


It could also be said that the study of navel lint "objectify" navel lint and "cancel out" any notion of a "life within". Given the "life within" would be outside the domain of navel lint, is perhaps, an important consideration. The subjective reality is "you" man. The subjective reality is "me." If you wish to cancel out your own existence, then I guess that's your choice. Of course if you believe in determinism then I suppose that means there is no choice. Too bad.

See what I mean by "canceling out?"

And by the way, the "objective reality" is only the aftermath, of a lot of "internal things" at work which, have come and gone. In which case I would say you're living in the past. Aren't we all? This is why we can't find God, because He only exists in The Present.

[Ejderha]

First of all HELLO to all. I am new here. I didn't know where to begin. So I post my opinion about god. English is not my mother language, so I am sorry for mistakes and everybody welcome for any correction.

In my opinion god is simply created by human beings for control. Of course by the help of holly books, surely they served some good purposes in the past as law...(!) They look different in the surface and in practice but all the books are telling the same thing. There is a god and he is unquestionably the creator... Honestly I have to say that it makes me sick. With all respect to believers...
The idea of a mighty god is simply pointing the arrogance of human being. "God created us and gave us our most precious abilities to worship himself" Well, everything about the god and the religions today serve for money and a domination fight over the planet. It is a very good basic to force people to murder and do horrible things also.
Of course there are lots of things to discuss about the god thing. In the terms of philosophy or science... But in my opinion the most important thing about god and the religion that they are the most dangerous socialogical problems. Social drugs. They provide the needed adrenaline and anger for war, peace and harmony for an ordered social life, which are infact only a kind of a mental terrorism practised on countless people.
By religion I mean all of them...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32


Does God exist? Yes. Is the means by which we understand God mystical? Yes. If this is true and always has been true, then is there another means by which I can explain it? No.



So you can't explain or justify it at all. We knew this, of course, since your mode of debate is a hallmark of religious thought. Intellectual laziness combined with a desire for pretty ideas to be true combine to form most religious and philisophical thought. 'God exists, therefore God exists' should be your sig line.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
So you can't explain or justify it at all. We knew this, of course, since your mode of debate is a hallmark of religious thought. Intellectual laziness combined with a desire for pretty ideas to be true combine to form most religious and philisophical thought. 'God exists, therefore God exists' should be your sig line. Are you trying to tell me God doesn't exist? It's like I said it's either yes or no.


Originally posted by Iacchus32
If on the other hand God didn't exist, then the only answer could be 'no.'And yet neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that He doesn't exist. So who or "what" am I supposed to believe?

[Royce]

Yes, God exists. No, it does not take a mystical experience to know that he exist or to know or talk with him. Can I prove it? Yes and have to myself nearly every day. Can I prove it to you? No.
That is something that only you can do for yourself. Even if I could you wouldn't accept it and would be right not to.

"If you see the Buddha walking down the street, kill it."

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you trying to tell me God doesn't exist? It's like I said it's either yes or no.


And yet neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that He doesn't exist. So who or "what" am I supposed to believe?

Believe as little as possible...that will get you farther than your current 'believe in the pretty lies' attitude.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that He doesn't exist. So who or "what" am I supposed to believe?

Assuming this was a debating point, this would be considered a "Shifting the Burden of Proof" argument flaw.

With regards to debating the point:
The default position, with regards to existence of a god, where god doesn't have characteristics that allow for a simple, straightforward demonstration of her/his existence, is the negative. The reason for this is basic common sense. To prove her/his existence, only requires demonstrating unequivocal and unambiguious evidence of said existence, yet the proof that he/her doesn't exist requires the searching of all possible places of said existence [simultaneously] - which is both impractical and blatently impossible.

Just as with the question of the existence of Unicorns - the default is that they don't. It would only take one to prove such, but the searching of all possible places, in the universe, simultaneously, to prove they didn't.

If you have proven to yourself that god exists, fine, but in an argument where the evidence isn't unambiguous and unequivocal by all parties, then the rational default position for god existence has to be the negative. The argument for his existence would be require the debator to provide evidence for said argument.

This only pertains to debate. As to what you believe, the criteria for what you believe is strickly up to you.


Originally posted by Royce
If you meet the Buddha walking down the street, kill it

Picky point: The quote is 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him'.

I know very few in the west that understand the intent of this quote, though you may.

[Royce]

I stand corrected. I obviously westernized unintentionally. Yes I understand its full meaning. BTW, years ago I read a book of that title. That's where I got the quote. It's one of my favorites. If I need to say it, we can only find the Buddha (or God) within ourselves, which we all have within us. If we encounter a/the Buddha outside of ourselves "it" is an imposter and probably in their words a demon or evil spirit bent on deceiving us. That was my point.

This is completely off topic, but everytime I think of that quote, I think that that is exactly what we (the Jews and Romans at least) did to Jesus. I don't yet know what to think of that or what the connection is other than the obvious. There is some deeper meaning or connection there or at least I feel there is. Any thoughts on that one?

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ejderha
In my opinion god is simply created by human beings for control. Of course by the help of holly books, surely they served some good purposes in the past as law...(!) They look different in the surface and in practice but all the books are telling the same thing. There is a god and he is unquestionably the creator... Honestly I have to say that it makes me sick. With all respect to believers...
The idea of a mighty god is simply pointing the arrogance of human being. "God created us and gave us our most precious abilities to worship himself" Well, everything about the god and the religions today serve for money and a domination fight over the planet. It is a very good basic to force people to murder and do horrible things also.
Of course there are lots of things to discuss about the god thing. In the terms of philosophy or science... But in my opinion the most important thing about god and the religion that they are the most dangerous socialogical problems. Social drugs. They provide the needed adrenaline and anger for war, peace and harmony for an ordered social life, which are infact only a kind of a mental terrorism practised on countless people.
By religion I mean all of them...

Hello,

Since you say you mean all of them, answer me this:

1) Explain how Buddhism and Taoism have been used to 'murder and do horrible things'. How about Jainism?

2) Considering Buddhism and Taoism do not have the concept of sin, how have they been used to control humans?

3) Buddhism and Taoism have no god, no creator, or actual supernatural beings, how does this fit with what you just wrote?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Believe as little as possible...that will get you farther than your current 'believe in the pretty lies' attitude. Beauty. Yes, what is wrong with beauty? And you're right, if it weren't for beauty, I probably wouldn't believe. And yet this is one thing that science seems to have the inability to explain, "beauty."

How does science go about explaining beauty? It would be so much easier if it didn't exist wouldn't it? [;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Beauty. Yes, what is wrong with beauty? And you're right, if it weren't for beauty, I probably wouldn't believe. And yet this is one thing that science seems to have the inability to explain, "beauty."

How does science go about explaining beauty? It would be so much easier if it didn't exist wouldn't it? [;)] What are you talking about?!? Science explains beauty just fine, thank you.

My problem is that science may be cold to you(not to me), but it is solid. Your 'beauty' is a thin veneer covering nothing at all.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
What are you talking about?!? Science explains beauty just fine, thank you.

My problem is that science may be cold to you(not to me), but it is solid. Your 'beauty' is a thin veneer covering nothing at all. Okay, explain to me how science "appreciates" (and hence acknowledges) beauty? Isn't beauty one of those things science deems "subjective?"

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If, by and large science is a result of the "human endeavor," and by and large effects its outcome, then what can I say? Are you saying science is a non-human agency, run by non-humans? Then hey, why don't we just pass a law, saying only monkeys can be scientists?


My intent was that you were 'personifying' science, as if it were a monolithic entity with a personality. If you wish to resort to ridicule to try and win your points, fine, but I must point out that it is an argument flaw, and unlikely to bother me either way. [;)]


The subjective reality is "you" man. The subjective reality is "me." If you wish to cancel out your own existence, then I guess that's your choice. Of course if you believe in determinism then I suppose that means there is no choice. Too bad.

See what I mean by "canceling out?"

And by the way, the "objective reality" is only the aftermath, of a lot of "internal things" at work which, have come and gone. In which case I would say you're living in the past. Aren't we all? This is why we can't find God, because He only exists in The Present.

Hmmm, all reality is in the present - does that mean we cannot find anything in reality?

Since I cannot produce evidence of how I experience or feel things, it is not readily observable to others and cannot be independently verified, is, by the definitions of science, outside the domain of science. That doesn't mean what I am feeling or what I experience internally isn't real, only outside the domain of science.

Saying science is trying to objectify everything is a little absurd, given the main definitions of science restrict it to the quest for knowledge about the objective.

Some here seem to forget that science, as a protocol for determining objective truth, has a focus which is narrowed such that many things are outside it's domain. Determining the existence of god [assuming no easily verifiable attributes, like living on Mount Olympus], is one of the things outside that domain. Determining one's own reasons for life is another. Finding a meaning in life, yet another. This doesn't mean they don't exist, only that it's outside the domain of science to investigate.

My own religious practice deals extremely intimately with being and living in the present, as well as my own subjective reality. I've never found any conflict with investigating the objective and living in the present, nor any problem with it 'cancelling me out'. I do try to maintain a level of clarity, with respect to what is agreed reality (the objective) and my subjective reality.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Okay, explain to me how science "appreciates" (and hence acknowledges) beauty? Isn't beauty one of those things science deems "subjective?"

So what if it does? Just because medicine calls pain subjective, that doesn't mean medicine disregards it. Us rational folks just don't think subjective equals supernatural, the way you do. A thing can have perfectly rational, materialistic reasons, and still be good.



For instance, we know that food tastes good because we ned it to eat, and 'good' flavor is our brain's way of driving the body. The same goes for 'bad' flavors. 'Good' and 'bad' taste is a subjective thing with a biological explanation...that doesn't mean I can't also absolutely love a juicy steak, just because I know why I love it.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Assuming this was a debating point, this would be considered a "Shifting the Burden of Proof" argument flaw. No, what I'm saying is that if no one can provide any proof to the contrary, then ultimately it's up to me to decide, and no one has any business trying to sway my opinion one way or the other.

In which case I could say God exists and it would be true or, I would very likely be under a delusion. In either case, who's going to prove otherwise?

Are you saying I have no business believing in God because I can see it for myself?

And why does science seem to be so unwilling to even consider the possibility?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, what I'm saying is that if no one can provide any proof to the contrary, then ultimately it's up to me to decide, and no one has any business trying to sway my opinion one way or the other.

In which case I could say God exists and it would be true or, I would very likely be under a delusion. In either case, who's going to prove otherwise?

Are you saying I have no business believing in God because I can see it for myself?

And why does science seem to be so unwilling to even consider the possibility?
Well, you can't disprove that I am God, can you? Therefore, I can decide that I am, and demand that you all worship me?

I'm saying that you have no business stating as a fact that supernatural beings exist.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, what I'm saying is that if no one can provide any proof to the contrary, then ultimately it's up to me to decide, and no one has any business trying to sway my opinion one way or the other.


If you finished reading my post, I said the same thing. Burden of proof regards the burden one bears when debating, if you're not debating then there is no such burden.

In which case I could say God exists and it would be true or, I would very likely be under a delusion. In either case, who's going to prove otherwise?

Are you saying I have no business believing in God because I can see it for myself?


I agree completely , if you finished reading my post, it concerned [i]debating. If you are not trying to convince others that god exists, then there is no debate, thus no burden of proof, et. al.



And why does science seem to be so unwilling to even consider the possibility?

'Why does cooking seem so unwilling to even consider the possibility that god exists'

Sounds kinda odd, right?

My point is, science is a branch of endeavor that has, by it's definition and method, restricted itself to only that which can be agreed on [the definition of objective reality], and which is repeatable or can make used to make falsifiable predictions. The proof or disproof of god is outside this domain. Science can't say anything about them either way.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
So what if it does? Just because medicine calls pain subjective, that doesn't mean medicine disregards it. Us rational folks just don't think subjective equals supernatural, the way you do. A thing can have perfectly rational, materialistic reasons, and still be good.

For instance, we know that food tastes good because we ned it to eat, and 'good' flavor is our brain's way of driving the body. The same goes for 'bad' flavors. 'Good' and 'bad' taste is a subjective thing with a biological explanation...that doesn't mean I can't also absolutely love a juicy steak, just because I know why I love it. A Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit ...

"In answer to a question about the meaning of Reality an old master simply held up his fly-whisk, and another master asked one of his monks to explain the action. "The master's idea," replied the monk, "was to elucidate the spiritual along with the material, to reveal truth by means of an objective reality." "Your understanding," said the master, "is alright as far as it goes. But why are you in such a hurry to make theories about it?" At this the monk asked, "What, then, will be your explanation?" The master held up his own fly-whisk.What can I say? ... [;)]

[Zero]

BTW...science HAS considered the existance of the supernatural, and so far there is little evidence to back it up. Show someone some new evidence, and the case is reopened.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
A Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit ...

What can I say? ... [;)]

Mu! [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, you can't disprove that I am God, can you? Therefore, I can decide that I am, and demand that you all worship me?LOL! [:D]
I'm saying that you have no business stating as a fact that supernatural beings exist. Oh, speaking of one's opinion? And yet if it "were" a fact that God exists, then how can it be stated otherwise?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
LOL! [:D]
Oh, speaking of one's opinion? And yet if it "were" a fact that God exists, then how can it be stated otherwise?

But you don't have any proof!!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
BTW...science HAS considered the existance of the supernatural, and so far there is little evidence to back it up. Show someone some new evidence, and the case is reopened. So, if there are those of us who wish to believe in the supernatural, then I guess it would require a "second opinion" now wouldn't it? [;)]

And yet it's like I keep telling everybody, I don't necessarily have a problem with science ... at least "as far as it goes."

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
But you don't have any proof!! This miraculous thing we call the human mind has been around for thousands of years, and all this time processing information, which is a lot longer than science has been around!

Are you saying that until recently, the human mind hasn't been fully functional?

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
LOL! [:D]
Oh, speaking of one's opinion? And yet if it "were" a fact that God exists, then how can it be stated otherwise?


By saying "I believe..."

or

"IMO, ..."

Both these prefaces make it clear you believe something, not that you are claiming something (as in the start of a debate).

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
But you don't have any proof!!

I think the disconnect is coming from Iacchus32 stating something he believes, in such a way that we consider it a claim he will back up, or is something he's trying to convince us.

Obviously he needs to prove nothing to us, just for him to believe something. His own criterion for internal truth is his own.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
By saying "I believe..."

or

"IMO, ..."

Both these prefaces make it clear you believe something, not that you are claiming something (as in the start of a debate). And yet what if it's possible to ascertain something, without being able to explain it? Should I say I believe this is so? Or, should I say I know this is so? ... Mu? [;)]

By the way what does Mu mean?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This miraculous thing we call the human mind has been around for thousands of years, and all this time processing information, which is a lot longer than science has been around!

Are you saying that until recently, the human mind hasn't been fully functional? What are you talking about? Do you believe that the merit of an idea rests in how long it has been around?

People have believed the wrong things for much longer than they have known the right things. The fact that religion is an old idea works against it, frankly.

[bogdan]

Yes...God exists...end of story...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
What are you talking about? Do you believe that the merit of an idea rests in how long it has been around? No. But it does make it more plausible, and hence more consistent (historically).


People have believed the wrong things for much longer than they have known the right things. The fact that religion is an old idea works against it, frankly. And what I'm telling you is that there's a great many things about "the experience" that you're not taking into account.

Recommended reading: The Power of Myth, by Joseph Campbell. Or better yet get ahold of the video or DVD ... from the PBS series that came out about 15 years ago. You'd be amazed at the similarities between one religion and the next clear across the globe, even in reomote and isolated areas. It's just too uncanny to believe that it could have happened by chance.

But then again I don't base everything upon this, because I have had an "original experience" ... and more than once. [;)]

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet what if it's possible to ascertain something, without being able to explain it? Should I say I believe this is so? Or, should I say I know this is so? ... Mu? [;)]

By the way what does Mu mean?

Yes, I agree. Its possible to be certain of things without being able to explain them.

When you say you believe something is so, then anyone here has to 'cross the line' into your subjective territory to try and contradict it, more importantly, you are telling them what 'is', not matter how certainly you accept it as true. If you say you know it's true, then you're liable to get questions relating to how you know it's true, but still - I would it as a personal truth and not have a problem with it. When someone here, say 'bogdan' for instance, makes a flat statement, in effect they are claiming something not commonly accepted by all, something that I would accept as needing justification - as in debate.


Mu. The reply was sort of a zen joke. A zen koan had been put out in a post, so my response was Mu (the question 'what is mu?' is the most basic of koans in most lines of zen that practice koan training. The answer I would give to you wouldn't make any sense to you - it's one of those things that I could ascertain for myself, but not communicate to someone that hasn't experienced solving the koan.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No. But it does make it more plausible, and hence more consistent (historically). No, it doesn't, at the fact that you think it does shows that you are willing to throw truth in the garbage if it suits your fantasies. Old ideas are generally wrong; this is why they are replaced by new ones. If religion was worth anything, there would have been no need for science to come along and kick it in the sensitives.


And what I'm telling you is that there's a great many things about "the experience" that you're not taking into account.

Recommended reading: The Power of Myth, by Joseph Campbell. Or better yet get ahold of the video or DVD ... from the PBS series that came out about 15 years ago. You'd be amazed at the similarities between one religion and the next clear across the globe, even in reomote and isolated areas. It's just too uncanny to believe that it could have happened by chance.
Again with the nonsensical interpretation of facts to support your untruth. In reality, most religions are similar not because of coincidence, or because religion has and basis in reality, but because human psychology is the same all over, and we tend to create similar myths. It is the same with alot of other things common to all people; not because of some magical connection, but simple genetic and physiological similarity between all people, combined with mostly common experience.

But then again I don't base everything upon this, because I have had an "original experience" ... and more than once. [;)]

Didn't we already suggest that you lay off the drugs?;)

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
No, it doesn't, at the fact that you think it does shows that you are willing to throw truth in the garbage if it suits your fantasies. Old ideas are generally wrong; this is why they are replaced by new ones. If religion was worth anything, there would have been no need for science to come along and kick it in the sensitives.Or, perhaps science has come along in order for us to understand it in the "rational sense?" Perhaps so we don't have to rely on somebody else to tell us that it's so?

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:33-34).Huh? ... No more sermonizing?


Again with the nonsensical interpretation of facts to support your untruth. In reality, most religions are similar not because of coincidence, or because religion has and basis in reality, but because human psychology is the same all over, and we tend to create similar myths. It is the same with alot of other things common to all people; not because of some magical connection, but simple genetic and physiological similarity between all people, combined with mostly common experience.So what you're saying then is that people are generically stupid in nature. [;)]


Didn't we already suggest that you lay off the drugs?;) What? ... Lay off on the dopamine? [:D]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Yes, I agree. Its possible to be certain of things without being able to explain them. So what alternatives do you have when those around you are trying to dismiss them?


When you say you believe something is so, then anyone here has to 'cross the line' into your subjective territory to try and contradict it, more importantly, you are telling them what 'is', not matter how certainly you accept it as true. If you say you know it's true, then you're liable to get questions relating to how you know it's true, but still - I would it as a personal truth and not have a problem with it. When someone here, say 'bogdan' for instance, makes a flat statement, in effect they are claiming something not commonly accepted by all, something that I would accept as needing justification - as in debate.And yet even in trying to define the "objective reality," it can only be understood -- and hence conveyed -- by subjective means.


Mu. The reply was sort of a zen joke. A zen koan had been put out in a post, so my response was Mu (the question 'what is mu?' is the most basic of koans in most lines of zen that practice koan training. The answer I would give to you wouldn't make any sense to you - it's one of those things that I could ascertain for myself, but not communicate to someone that hasn't experienced solving the koan. Aha! ... [;)]

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
Old ideas are generally wrong; this is why they are replaced by new ones.

The above is an argument flaw. Argumentum ad novitatem. The argument that newer ideas are better or more valid than old is a logical flaw, when used in debate.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So what alternatives do you have when those around you are trying to dismiss them?


They are fully within their capabilities to dismiss them, the same as you are within your's to dismiss theirs. The contention comes about when one of you crosses the boundary between you and states the other is wrong. For them to state you are wrong, they have to be able to weigh the evidence you have. Since much is subjective, they cannot do so - hence no further rational progress can be made.

A simplified version of the above, somewhere on www.infidels.org, basically paraphrases the above in the context of belief - i.e. it is entirely possible for someone to believe in god because of evidence they experienced subjectively. No rational argument can say they are incorrect, without being able to demonstrate the subjective experience was of a mundane source - which is virtually impossible, without access to blood tests and the detection of certain drugs.

By the same reasoning, the believer, no matter how certain, cannot rationally say the unbeliever is incorrect then back it up rationally - being the unbeliever doesn't have access to what the believer accepts to be evidence.


And yet even in trying to define the "objective reality," it can only be understood -- and hence conveyed -- by subjective means.


But part of that definition includes 'that which is generally agreed upon'. W/o question it requires being filtered thru the subjective, that's just the way of things. I'm not certain of the conflict here.

[Zero]

Originally posted by radagast
The above is an argument flaw. Argumentum ad novitatem. The argument that newer ideas are better or more valid than old is a logical flaw, when used in debate. Yep, you got me there...but I was only using it to counter his argument in the opposite direction. I should have said that old ideas don't get any points for being old, and left it at that.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Yep, you got me there...but I was only using it to counter his argument in the opposite direction. I should have said that old ideas don't get any points for being old, and left it at that. Except for the fact that there must have been an "acceptable" reason for it existing in the first place.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except for the fact that there must have been an "acceptable" reason for it existing in the first place.
Yep. The psychology of ignorant people.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
By the same reasoning, the believer, no matter how certain, cannot rationally say the unbeliever is incorrect then back it up rationally - being the unbeliever doesn't have access to what the believer accepts to be evidence.This is why I typically use the word believe, because I don't expect the other person to understand it, unless of course they can see it for themselves. But then there are times, particularly when dealing with obstinate people, that it comes time to up the ante, and say, deal with that ... At least it might get them to think about it a little. [;)]

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
Yep. The psychology of ignorant people.

While I understand your feelings and I have no belief in a diety, you haven't experienced the things they have. Referring to believers as ignorant is unjust at best, and abusive at worst.

It is extremely easy to fall into the trap of feeling that someone with a contrary point of view is not just accepting something different, but trying to tell us that we are wrong (unlike saying that they believe we are wrong). It can end up with both parties arguing from a point of view that they are defending themselves - a little ironic to say the least -, and often starts to generate frustration and anger. To allow this emotion to let insults and spite slip into the discussion, reduces a rational debate to simple name calling and venting of anger.

This is not productive. If I need to feel my anger emotionally manipulated, I'll watch the WWF or a soap opera. [:)]

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This is why I typically use the word believe, because I don't expect the other person to understand it, unless of course they can see it for themselves. But then there are times, particularly when dealing with obstinate people, that it comes time to up the ante, and say, deal with that ... At least it might get them to think about it a little. [;)]

I understand you feelings, but I suspect that when you 'up the ante', you are triggering defensive mechanisms that will do a lot more to prevent them from actually thinking about it, than thinking about it. While it may feel better emotionally, it will, IMO, likely lead to two iron-clad camps, neither of which will budge in their views. Just something to think about.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
I understand you feelings, but I suspect that when you 'up the ante', you are triggering defensive mechanisms that will do a lot more to prevent them from actually thinking about it, than thinking about it. While it may feel better emotionally, it will, IMO, likely lead to two iron-clad camps, neither of which will budge in their views. Just something to think about. And yet if it weren't for the fact that I've had an "original experience," I probably wouldn't be talking about it.

[Royce]

Yet, because they have not had such an experience, they call us ignorant. This reveals their ignorance far more that it effects our personal knowledge. Go figure.
We've been here before my friend. Good luck.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Royce
Yet, because they have not had such an experience, they call us ignorant. This reveals their ignorance far more that it effects our personal knowledge. Go figure.
We've been here before my friend. Good luck.


Who is they???

I don't have a belief in dietie(s), and I haven't called anyone ignorant.

It is all too easy to get into the trap of both parties in a debate percieving an attack from the other party, usually because emotions and frustrations started rising, leading to statements that are overly broad - as in 'they call us ignorant'. This, if unchecked, will cause the discussion to denigrate into name calling and entrenched positions.

I suspect I've experienced some of the things you may have, if you also include 'being saved' as one of them. My interpretation of the experience has changed, since. That doesn't mean I denigrate those I disagree with, nor try to change them. Two people can see the same data and come to completely different logical conclusions. We all bring a set of unacknowledged assumptions to the party.

That said, when flat statements of 'Truth' [and I want to emphasize the quotations] is made, it is easily seen as an attack by those who do not share the acceptance of 'said' truth.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Who is they???

I don't have a belief in dietie(s), and I haven't called anyone ignorant.No, I think he was referring to Zero's post, which you just replied to a few posts back. [;)]

[Royce]

Glenn, I was replying to Zero's post not yours. Nor did I mean any offense. You are relatively new to PF, Iacchus32 and I have been here a bit longer. Discussions of this type have been going on since I found these forums back in March. I am sure that they had being going on much longer before I got here. "They" are those whom I've come to call scientific objective realist who typically attack any beliefs other than those "proven facts" of science and ridicule and those who believe in them.
You are right of course in all that you say. I meant it in more in humor than derision. We have been here before facing the same type of stone wall complete with spikes and broken glass on top.
A voice of reason and open mindedness is quite rare and unexpected. We have, I'm afraid, forgotten how to respond to such reason and openness.
I apolagize for the misunderstanding. I respect you wrinting and thoughts too much to intentional offend or call names.
We do not always agree in out thoughts but I have not found any occation to disagree.

Zero on occation likes to play the devils advocate and rabbel rouser.

[pace]

B. Spinoza's take from his book 'Ethics':


Explanations:

* By absurd I understand by him something that is almost as untrue as you can come.

* The chapters in the book is: Of God(I), Of the Mind(II), Of the Affects(III), Of Human Bondage(IV), and Of Human Freedom or the Power of the Intellect (V).
So: (IIIP= (III=Chapter 3, Of the Affects) + P= Proposition)
I.e. IIIP7=Chapter 3, Proposition 7. If only 'P' is mentioned, then Proposition is from the same chapter)

* NS= A previous version of translation from latin, but it is controversial


* If 'Or' is marked as 'or' it means 'or/and', as in something that is equivalent, not as alternative.

* 'q.e.d.' = 'And thus it is proven'

If you want some info on the other P's or A's (Propositions or Axioms), what they say, just ask. It helps me remember the book better writing it down, besides my sucky languages skills

Below is written directly from english to here, so it's no translation faults from me.

Ethics:

IP15:Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God.
-Dem.: Except for God, there neither is, nor can be conceived, any substance (by P14), that is (by D3), thing that is in itself and is conceived through itself. But modes (by D5) can neither be nor be conceived without substance. So they can be in the divine nature alone, and can be conceived through it alone. But except for substances and modes there is nothing (by A1). Therefore, [NS: everything is in God] nothing can be or be conceived without God, q.e.d.
-Schol.: [I.] There are those who feign a God, like man, consisting of a body and a mind, and subject to passions. But how far they wander from the true knowledge from God, is suffieciently established by what has already been demonstrated. Them I dismiss. For everyone who has to any extent contemplated the divine nature denies that God is corporeal. They prove this best from the fact that by body we understand any quantity, with lenght, breadth, and depth, limited by some certain figure. Nothing more absurd than this can be said of God, namely, of a being absolutely infinite. But meanwhile, by the other arguments by which they strive to demonstrate this same conclusion they clearly show thay they entirely remove corporeal, or extended, substance itself from the divine nature. And they maintain that it's been created by God. But by what divine power could it be created ? They are completely ignorant of that. And this shows clearly that they do not understand what they themselves say. At any rate, I have demonstrated clearly enough - in my judgement, at least - that no substance can be produced or be created by another thing (see P6C and P8S2). Next we have shown (P14) that except for God, no substance can either be or be conceived, and hence [in P14C2] we have concluded that extended substance is one of God's infinite attributes. But to provide a fuller explanation, I shall refute my opponents arguments, which all reduce to these.
-- [II.] First, they think that corporeal substance, insofar as it is substance, consists of parts. And therefore they deny that it can be infinite, and consequently, that it can be pertain to God. They explain this by many examples, of which I shall mention one or two.
---[1] If corporeal substance is infinite, they say, let us coneive it to be divided in two parts. Each part will be either finite or infinite. If the former, then an infinite is composed of two finite parts, which is absurd. If the latter [NS: i.e., if each part is infinite], then there is one infinite twice as large as another, which is also absurd. [2] Again, if an infinite quantity is measured by parts [each] equal to a foot, it will consist of infinitely many such parts, as it will also, if it is measured by parts [each] equal to an inch. And therefore, one infinite number will be twelve times greater than another[NS: which is no less absurd]. [3] Finaly, if we conceive that from one point of a certain infinite quantity two lines, say AB and AC, are extended to infinity, it is certain that, although in the beginning there are certain, determine distance apart, the distance between B and C is continuously increased, and at last, from being determinate, it will become indeterminable. Since these absurdities follow - so they think - from the fact that an infinite quantity is supposed, they infer that corporeal substance must be infinite, and consequantly cannot pertain God's essence.
---[III.] Their second argument is also drawn from God's supreme perfection. For God, they say, since he is a supremely perfect being, cannot be acted on. But corporeal substance, since it is divisible, can be acted on. It follows, therefore, that it does not pertain to God's essence.
--[IV.] There are arguments which I find Authors using, to try to show that corporeal substance is unworthy to the divine nature, and cannot pertain to it. But anyone who is properly attentive will find that I have already replied to them, since these arguments are founded only on their supposition that corporeal substance is composed of parts, which I have already (by P12 and P13C) shown to be absurd. And then anyone who wishes to consider the matter rightly will see that all those absurdities (if indeed they are all absurd, which I am not now disputing), from which they wish to infer that extended substance is finite, do not follow at all from the fact that an infinite quantity is supposed, but from the fact that they suppose an infinite quantity to be measurable and composed of finite parts. So from the absurdities which follow from that they can infer only that infinite quantity is not measurable, and that it is not composed of finite parts. This is the same thing we have already demonstrated above (P12, etc.). So the weapon they aim at us, they really turn against themselves. If, therefore, they still wish to infer from this absurdity of theirs that extended substance must be finite, they are indeed doing nothing more than if someone feigned that a circle has the properties of a square, and inferred from that the circle has no center, from which all lines drawn to the circumference are equal. For corporeal substance, which cannot be conceived except as infinite, unique, and indivisable (see P8, 4, and 12), they conceivve to be composed of finite parts, to be many, and to be divisable, in order to infer that it is finite.
-- So also others, after they feign is composed of points, know how to invent many arguments, by which they show that a line cannot be divided to infinity. And indeed it is no less aburd to assert that corporeal substance is composed of bodies, or parts, than that a body is composed of surfaces, the surfaces of lines, and the lines, finally, of points. All those who know that clear reason is infallible must confess this - particularly those who deny that there is a vacuum. For if corporeal substance could be so divided that its parts where really distinct, why, then, could one part not be annihilated, the rest remaining connected with one another as before? And why must they all be so fitted together that there is no vacuum? Truly, of things which are really distinct from one another, one can be, and remain in its condition, without the other. Since, therefore, there is no vacuum in Nature (a subject I discuss elsewhere), but all its parts must so concur that there is no vacuum, it follows also that they cannot be really distinguished, that is, that corporeal substance, insofar as it is a substance, cannot be divided.
--- [V.] If someone should now ask why we are, by nature, so inclined to divide quantity, I shall answer that we conceive quantity in two ways: abstractly, or superficially, as we [NS: commonly] imagine it, or as substance, which is done by the intellect alone [NS: without the help of the imagination]. So if we attend to quantity as it is in the imagination, which we do often and more easily, it will be found to be finite, divisible, and composed of parts; but if we attend to it as it is in the intellect, and conceive it insofar as it is a substance, which happens [NS: seldom and] with great difficulty, then (as we have already sufficiently demonstrated) it will be found to be infinite, unique, and indivisable.
-- This will be sufficiently plain to everyone who knows how to distinguish between the intellect and the imagination - particularly if it is also noted that matter is everywhere the same, and that parts are distinguished in it only insofar as we conceive matter to be affected in different ways, so that its parts are distinguished only modally, but not really.
- For example, we conceive that water is divided and its parts seperated from one another - insofar as it is water, but not insofar as it is corporeal substance. For insofar as it is substance, it is neither seperated nor divided. Again, water, insofar as it is water, is generated and corrupted, but insofar as it is substance, it is neither generated nor corrupted.
---- [VI.] And with this I think I have replied to the second argument also, since it is based on the supposition that matter, insofar as it is substance, is divisible, and composed of parts. Even if this [reply] were not [sufficient], I do not know why [matter] would be unworthy of the divine nature. For (by P14) apart from God there can be no substance by which [the divine nature] would be acted upon. All things, I say, are in God, and all things that happen, happen only through the laws of God's infinite nature and follow (as I shall show) from the necessity of his essence. So it cannot be said in any way that God is acted on by another, or that extended substance is unworthy of the divine nature, even if it is supposed to be divisible, so long as it is granted to be eternal and infinite. But enough of this for the present.

[TENYEARS]

Zero, to your response:

What makes you think anyone knows anything. I witness on a daily basis that they do not know what they know they beleive or they do not believe. So you tell me that Joe blow scientist says whatever and 50 idiots nod there heads suddenly ah yes. Now we know. No you believe. What has changed.

I am not debating god here I am debating the word know. And that is the difference between englightenment and not. Knowing you don't know and only then can knowing occur.

If you have a glass filled with belief how do you have room for what there really is. If it is belief and you are content with that what will really happen when the metal is tested?

Tell me this zero or anyone. What will happen if tomarrow some science figure says yep we didn't understand before but it's real. What would you say on this forum then or anywhere else. Yep I belive. What has changed?

[pace]

It is one of the wonderful things about christianity I think, is that is is about belief. And thus you don't fool yourself to think you know. Although it seems to me many christians try to find some proof. But as vague I find it when people start to talk about proof about religion, cause religion isn't about proof, but belief.

[TENYEARS]

The truth may be much closer than you think just around the bend.

[pace]

One of the strongest reasons I felt I was a christian was what he did, but maybe even more on what he said. I remember when I both read about him in a cartoon version at our home, and i.e. his bergspeech in the bible. I was at that time in belief that he was God, so I really remember how much his words of Ethics really struck me, how hard they felt to come by, but also how much truth I found in them.
And I still recommend anyone to read these small parts about his life, not only because what he did and said made so much sense, but also it's of very important history.

[TENYEARS]

I have had visions of the future. They came to pass and I told people of them long sometimes shortly before they occured and sometimes long before they occured. The truth is real to me and my family. They have witnessed it as well as coworkers, friends and extended family members. This is not super it is just a function of the human connection with the universe. I also understand what gravity is I figured it out in 1991.

People can go beyond belief and in life and get to the core of existance. It is within all people to be able to do this.

A vision I had is going to come to pass concerning this proof that people want. I am leaving it vauge in case I decide to write a book yea right.

[pace]

Originally posted by TENYEARS


People can go beyond belief and in life and get to the core of existance. It is within all people to be able to do this.



Personally I don't agree with you here. I don't believe you can 'know' anything better than say 99.9%.
But when you reach up to very strong certainty, you just say 'know'.

Religion isn't about knowing something strong though, and therefore I think everyone has an religion, a belief, in something very crucial about existence.

A denial of religion in modern days, seems to me is something that has become a social/political struggle, and not truth hunting.

[TENYEARS]

That would be your experience with the word know. Mine is a little different. If you would have witnessed just 1% of my experiences you would change your mind instantly. I do not believe this, I know it because the nature of it is reality itself. It requires no one to confirm or unconfirm. There is a great paradox here, the more you understand, the more you realize you don't understand and this occurs in the midst of certainty.

In my community right now I have spoken of an event which will occur which I have no control and is so outrageous relative not only to the area but by nature of what has already occured. I have given the precursor to the events my state of mind and a few other things. Then a description of the event and my interpretation of what I saw in the vision. This was a Type A vision. There is a better chance of you being visited by aliens, finding bigfoot and winning the lottery on the same day than of this not comming true.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by pace
It is one of the wonderful things about christianity I think, is that is is about belief. And thus you don't fool yourself to think you know. Although it seems to me many christians try to find some proof. But as vague I find it when people start to talk about proof about religion, cause religion isn't about proof, but belief. No, I think it's all about being able to verify (prove) it for yourself ...


"And when Jesus asked the disciples, Whom do ye say that I am? Simon Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered, Blessed art thou Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)What this is saying is that the new church will be built upon the foundation that one is capable of acknowledging God for oneself.


"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:33-34).While this pretty much reiterates the above.

[TENYEARS]

Human beings are churches to the conciousness which we realize. When the Jews went nuts against Jesus it was because he said I am and they found it sacreligous because they percieved it as an absolute expression. What it really was was a relative expression of an absolute realization which in terms of experience is as absolute as one can get and still be human.

Of course I never met Jesus or any other biblical figure so maybe it's all a lie and they never existed. Maybe albert never existed either I never saw him. Maybe it's all a scam.

The reality is the truth that one fights to understand and amist the rubble the pheinx is born. Joeseph, Elisha, Jesus Infinity

[radagast]

Royce,
There was not offense taken.

I guess I mistook your pronoun 'they' to mean those that were not theist, here.

[radagast]

Originally posted by pace
Personally I don't agree with you here. I don't believe you can 'know' anything better than say 99.9%.
But when you reach up to very strong certainty, you just say 'know'.

Religion isn't about knowing something strong though, and therefore I think everyone has an religion, a belief, in something very crucial about existence.


I think you live in a different world from most I know. Your world seems to contain much certainty. I live in a world with very little. My world is populated by probabilities, each and everything I accept as likely true is, in my mind, more probable that the alternatives.

If you think I have beliefs (as in defined similarly to faith) then you are quite mistaken.


A denial of religion in modern days, seems to me is something that has become a social/political struggle, and not truth hunting.

I believe you have allowed your own religious beliefs to influence your judgement on the above. Many see no reason to accept a deity. They don't start becoming antagonistic until they are ostracized, ridiculed, shunned, and occasionally persucuted by those who feeled threatened that there are those that don't 'believe'. Most atheist would be happy to 'live and let live', but the crap that is piled on them by society can't help but have an affect. When your own pledge of alligence forces you to choose between voicing your alligence to your country and being honest, when your president claims that atheists are not any of 'his' citizens, when atheism is commonly (and completely without any justification) associated with immorality, dishonesty, and rebellion, yes there are atheist that stoop to the level of feeling anger back.

[pace]

Many christians claim that religion is only defined through a personified God. But it isn't. Buddhism is one of those which is counted as a religion, even with no personified God.

Religion, and as I meant it above, is something of an idea you have of some essential belief about how the world is built up, but as such it's not something you know and never will, and therefore we call it a belief. I get the feeling things is being mixed up when many talk about religion about something you belive in strongly, because this implys that what you have is a very certain oppinion, but it's not meant as this, but rather a belief that means much, as I explained above.

I believe almost any human, whether how strong or weak or how little this little idea might seem to them, have some counscious or mostly unconscious belief in some essential issue about the world, but won't admit it because of social pressing difficulties.

[Zero]

Originally posted by radagast
While I understand your feelings and I have no belief in a diety, you haven't experienced the things they have. Referring to believers as ignorant is unjust at best, and abusive at worst.

It is extremely easy to fall into the trap of feeling that someone with a contrary point of view is not just accepting something different, but trying to tell us that we are wrong (unlike saying that they believe we are wrong). It can end up with both parties arguing from a point of view that they are defending themselves - a little ironic to say the least -, and often starts to generate frustration and anger. To allow this emotion to let insults and spite slip into the discussion, reduces a rational debate to simple name calling and venting of anger.

This is not productive. If I need to feel my anger emotionally manipulated, I'll watch the WWF or a soap opera. [:)]

That was in reference to the ancient folks who invented religion in the first place, not at current believers. I can't even begin to guess at the psychology of a modern human being who believes in fairy tales.

[Zero]

And, hell, who do you attack something like religion? It doesn't contain anything solid enough to attack. However, I do have a problem with intellectual laziness. The 'justifications' for a belief in fairy tales are not always as weak as the ones that I have read here.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And, hell, who do you attack something like religion? It doesn't contain anything solid enough to attack. However, I do have a problem with intellectual laziness. The 'justifications' for a belief in fairy tales are not always as weak as the ones that I have read here. And yet the thing is, once you know something, it doesn't require a lot of speculation -- and hence intellectual "unlaziness" -- to back it up. You know, how many times do you have to "affirm" that 1 + 1 = 2?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the thing is, once you know something, it doesn't require a lot of speculation -- and hence intellectual "unlaziness" -- to back it up. You know, how many times do you have to "affirm" that 1 + 1 = 2? I would say that where you came up with the 'knowledge' is where the laziness pops up...not to mention that once you've convinced yourself, you need never think again.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the thing is, once you know something, it doesn't require a lot of speculation -- and hence intellectual "unlaziness" -- to back it up. You know, how many times do you have to "affirm" that 1 + 1 = 2? Hey, I "know" that 1 + 1 = 2. You gotta give me at least that much credit. [;)]

But you're right, I don't speculate on a whole lot of things, I don't find the need to. But, rather I tend to focus on the experience of "my being" (existence).

[pace]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
[B]Hey, I "know" that 1 + 1 = 2. You gotta give me at least that much credit. [;)]


As Immanuel Kant explained, it's prior to experience. It is both an strict allknowingly thing. And also a necessity, something that cannot be different.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by pace
As Immanuel Kant explained, it's prior to experience. It is both an strict allknowingly thing. And also a necessity, something that cannot be different. Perhaps we're beginning to approach "the standard" by which all things are measured then?

[Zero]

1+1=2 only exists as a concept...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
1+1=2 only exists as a concept... Do you believe that standards exist? That's about as absolute a statement as you're going to get!

[Iacchus32]

It looks like I missed this one. Hmm ...


Originally posted by radagast
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If, by and large science is a result of the "human endeavor," and by and large effects its outcome, then what can I say? Are you saying science is a non-human agency, run by non-humans? Then hey, why don't we just pass a law, saying only monkeys can be scientists?My intent was that you were 'personifying' science, as if it were a monolithic entity with a personality. If you wish to resort to ridicule to try and win your points, fine, but I must point out that it is an argument flaw, and unlikely to bother me either way. Perhaps it was your reference to the navel lint? And yes, in the way it effects society, I do think science has a bit too much clout. Because life itself is all about "the experience" -- which we "live" subjectively -- not the "objectified view" of the experience.


Originally posted by radagast
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The subjective reality is "you" man. The subjective reality is "me." If you wish to cancel out your own existence, then I guess that's your choice. Of course if you believe in determinism then I suppose that means there is no choice. Too bad.

See what I mean by "canceling out?"

And by the way, the "objective reality" is only the aftermath, of a lot of "internal things" at work which, have come and gone. In which case I would say you're living in the past. Aren't we all? This is why we can't find God, because He only exists in The Present.Hmmm, all reality is in the present - does that mean we cannot find anything in reality?It almost sounds like I'm contradicting myself here doesn't it, by saying the external reality, which indeed does exist in the present, is the aftermath of the internal reality which also exists in the present (although rarely seen, except "subjectively"). Even so, the observation is only the acknowledgment of the act which came before. Whereas God is an experience which is to be felt, in "the present," and not over-analyzed.


Originally posted by radagast
Since I cannot produce evidence of how I experience or feel things, it is not readily observable to others and cannot be independently verified, is, by the definitions of science, outside the domain of science. That doesn't mean what I am feeling or what I experience internally isn't real, only outside the domain of science.Except as human beings, we're all pretty much capable of experiencing the same things.


Saying science is trying to objectify everything is a little absurd, given the main definitions of science restrict it to the quest for knowledge about the objective.Nope, afraid you gotta stick with the "scientific facts" on this one ...


Some here seem to forget that science, as a protocol for determining objective truth, has a focus which is narrowed such that many things are outside it's domain. Determining the existence of god [assuming no easily verifiable attributes, like living on Mount Olympus], is one of the things outside that domain. Determining one's own reasons for life is another. Finding a meaning in life, yet another. This doesn't mean they don't exist, only that it's outside the domain of science to investigate.And yet if science were established outside of the "human domain," by "non-humans," there would be no problem here. If you're saying science doesn't affect changes in human policy -- and hence you, me and everyone else -- then you're sadly mistaken. Whereas how can science begin to acknowledge that anything is complete, unless it makes some sort of concession towards the "other reality?"


My own religious practice deals extremely intimately with being and living in the present, as well as my own subjective reality. I've never found any conflict with investigating the objective and living in the present, nor any problem with it 'cancelling me out'. I do try to maintain a level of clarity, with respect to what is agreed reality (the objective) and my subjective reality.Yes, in fact I think this is what's called for, and integration of "both realities."

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you believe that standards exist? That's about as absolute a statement as you're going to get!

And, like many other absolutes, it only applies in a limited manner. It certainly doesn't apply in every case. Sometimes, when you combine things, you get less or more(of what you want) than the sum of the two parts.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And, like many other absolutes, it only applies in a limited manner. It certainly doesn't apply in every case. Sometimes, when you combine things, you get less or more(of what you want) than the sum of the two parts. But it does suggest that absolutes exist, and that they are ascertainable.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But it does suggest that absolutes exist, and that they are ascertainable. It aqlso suggests that absolutes exist mostly on paper, or in your head, and have no objective reality.

[radagast]

Originally posted by pace
Many christians claim that religion is only defined through a personified God. But it isn't. Buddhism is one of those which is counted as a religion, even with no personified God.

Religion, and as I meant it above, is something of an idea you have of some essential belief about how the world is built up, but as such it's not something you know and never will, and therefore we call it a belief. I get the feeling things is being mixed up when many talk about religion about something you belive in strongly, because this implys that what you have is a very certain oppinion, but it's not meant as this, but rather a belief that means much, as I explained above.

I believe almost any human, whether how strong or weak or how little this little idea might seem to them, have some counscious or mostly unconscious belief in some essential issue about the world, but won't admit it because of social pressing difficulties.


There is a little trouble with what you've said. You include Buddhism, yet Buddhism, depending on the school of Buddhism you pick, may or may not have any 'beliefs' (as in dogma) and few of any about how reality, outside of your head, is. Much less how the world is made up.

[pace]

Originally posted by radagast
There is a little trouble with what you've said. You include Buddhism, yet Buddhism, depending on the school of Buddhism you pick, may or may not have any 'beliefs' (as in dogma) and few of any about how reality, outside of your head, is. Much less how the world is made up.

One is not in doubt Gotama Buddha was an historical character who lived from aboutly 563-483 B.C. (read somewhere else for his life )

In the history of philosophy the expression -buddhism- doesn't stand for one certain, limited belief, but with many strongly branched directions in religion and philosophy. An essential things they have in common is that they all point back to G. Buddha as their founder. The many structures has in different countries and in different times shown a very different image.

There are certain points in buddhism which has certain philosophical interests:

1. Everything, without exception, is passing. This also goes for souls, spirits or godlike creations.

2. The world is more defined by actions(processes) rather than things(substances). All change happens with amalgamation(integration) and desintegration through law-abiding means. The World as understood by change lasts forever. There is no thing that happened first.

3. The Illution of Self. The human is no permanent I. The feeling of an absolute dividation between The I/Self and the rest of the world is an illusion: There exist nothing other than temporary fleeting connections between all the different elements that constantly makes up the human personae.

4. All suffering comes from a deep surging drive trying to seperate your own self as much as possible from the rest of the world. Every splitting such as this, drives towards suffering because nothing is permanent, and every positioning the human is seeking as to feel permanent, divided from all, will cease to exist. And as such, should the tendency to go towards independendtly individual excistance, be fought against as much as possible. Nirvana is the name when you manage to free yourself completely from the illusion of total independent self. Later on, it seemingly went towards being more pessimistic, especially the direction which was grounded by strongly ascetic monks.

5. The Illution of Self is being fought neither by life in pleasure nor in self torment. The correct path goes through insight(through the points 1-4 and their deepening), and actions according with this insight. This&nbsp; include kindness, openess, love for truth, and peacefullness. The demand to take no life, is implicit. One shall refrain from kill or harm anything that's alive.(Humurous comment by Naess: On Buddhas time, the absence of a microscope made this difficult)


It seems like G. Buddha put great weight upon good conduct of life as sign that you had understood your Self. Later traditions shall have removed themself from the eldest tradition and put more weight upon theoretical knowledge and on the outer techniques of meditation(yoga as technique). And as such, it became a more dividation between the professional trained buddhists, and 'amateur' buddhists. The first ones moved towards being ascetics monks, which you can find today in Tibet and Himalaya.

Buddhism is today counted as an religion, even though it has no definition of God.


- The History of Philosophy, Arne Naess. Previous professor in Philosophy, Oslo (2001)

Oh buddhism is very much so about how the world is built up. And so how you should live it.

[radagast]

by radagast
Saying science is trying to objectify everything is a little absurd, given the main definitions of science restrict it to the quest for knowledge about the objective.

Iacchus32
Nope, afraid you gotta stick with the "scientific facts" on this one ...

Huh?!?!? I can't make heads or tails of what you mean, from your reply.

Facts cannot 'do' anything, nor objectify anything. The methodology, that science is, may seem to - but as I said, it's scope is specifically narrowed to the objective.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet if science were established outside of the "human domain," by "non-humans," there would be no problem here. If you're saying science doesn't affect changes in human policy -- and hence you, me and everyone else -- then you're sadly mistaken. Whereas how can science begin to acknowledge that anything is complete, unless it makes some sort of concession towards the "other reality?"


Affecting human policy is outside of any portion of the argument I was making.


YES! Science is, by definition, not meant to be complete - by narrowing it's scope of inquiry to the natural and objective, it cannot investigate certain areas of knowledge.

The only folk who consider science to the the only source of knowledge are severely mislead. It would be as if Zoology were being equivalenced with Biology. Zoology, by definition, narrows it's scope, excluding plants - if one considered Zoology to be the only source of biological information, then they would be seriously mistaken.

I thought that this was obviously what I was saying about science - If you can find anywhere, where I state that science is the only method for gaining information, please show this. It's not a position I've ever taken.

[radagast]

Dear Pace,
As both a Buddhist and one working toward becoming a priest, I appreciate the dissertation on Buddhism. [:)]

I would only agree, with respect to the world from inside our heads. It says little about how the world came about or what the world is. Saying it tells us how we should live is only partially true, it says that if you live in this way, you will experience much less suffering, if you don't then you will experience more. It doesn't try to place the rules of action on you, merely present causes and effects of how we act and the methods of allivieating suffering (Karma). For Buddhism to set out rules to be followed, it would fall into the trap of dualism, one of the primary causes of suffering. These are not simple topics that are easily understood by reading of them, they are exquisitely sensitive to misunderstanding - intuitive understanding will only comes thru meditation.

Understanding, intuitively, Buddhist practice by reading a philosophy paper is like learning tennis strickly from a book.

[pace]

No prob[:D]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Huh?!?!? I can't make heads or tails of what you mean, from your reply.A general statement about those who rely exclusively on scientific fact, and hence objectification.


Facts cannot 'do' anything, nor objectify anything. The methodology, that science is, may seem to - but as I said, it's scope is specifically narrowed to the objective.Except that a fact doesn't become a fact unless it has been "objectively" viewed as such. In which case it does belie that which is objective.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Affecting human policy is outside of any portion of the argument I was making. And yet this is very much apart of my argument, the fact that science claims to be outside of a certain domain, and yet this is the very domain that it effects -- "you and me."


YES! Science is, by definition, not meant to be complete - by narrowing it's scope of inquiry to the natural and objective, it cannot investigate certain areas of knowledge.This is like describing the mechanics of something without understanding how it truly functions as a whole. Indeed without the whole, there would be nothing to "dissect."


The only folk who consider science to the the only source of knowledge are severely mislead. It would be as if Zoology were being equivalenced with Biology. Zoology, by definition, narrows it's scope, excluding plants - if one considered Zoology to be the only source of biological information, then they would be seriously mistaken.What about "most" (of course I could be wrong here) Atheists then, who rely almost exclusively on science?


I thought that this was obviously what I was saying about science - If you can find anywhere, where I state that science is the only method for gaining information, please show this. It's not a position I've ever taken.Well then you're obviously an exception to the rule, at least on this forum anyway. [;)]

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet this is very much apart of my argument, the fact that science claims to be outside of a certain domain, and yet this is the very domain that it effects -- "you and me."


Yes, the implications of science and what it finds does effect us, but the argument I understood you to make was that 'Science' as in the methodology, was 'objectifying' things. Rather than people that take what science states and use it to objectify. To me, this sounds analogous to the folks that blame religion for wars.



This is like describing the mechanics of something without understanding how it truly functions as a whole. Indeed without the whole, there would be nothing to "dissect."

So we are to take any persons word that something IS?!? Who's shall we take? Yours? Mine? The problem you've unearthed is that once you enter the realm of the subjective, the rules for 'agreeing' on observed phenomena, for replication, for making certain someone isn't intentionally or unintentionally blowing smoke up your ***, disappears.

You can apply a hammer to the task of putting in a screw, but it does a piss poor job. If you want science to investigate god, you'll get a piss poor job.


What about "most" (of course I could be wrong here) Atheists then, who rely almost exclusively on science?


That they rely on science to determine the objective - what is the problem there? I know of no atheist that relies on science to determine their prospective mates, to kiss their daughter goodnight, or to find meaning for their lives. Just because they rely on science for understanding the objective, doesn't imply that science is the only aspect of their universe.



Well then you're obviously an exception to the rule, at least on this forum anyway. [;)]

I think what you're seeing is a result of frustration, at what they see as a constant stream of attacks by the vast ocean of theists, which make up society.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Yes, the implications of science and what it finds does effect us, but the argument I understood you to make was that 'Science' as in the methodology, was 'objectifying' things. Rather than people that take what science states and use it to objectify. To me, this sounds analogous to the folks that blame religion for wars.And what else does science do besides "objectify things?" And why do I keep hearing, "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if we could finally 'objectify' God out of a job?"


So we are to take any persons word that something IS?!? Who's shall we take? Yours? Mine? The problem you've unearthed is that once you enter the realm of the subjective, the rules for 'agreeing' on observed phenomena, for replication, for making certain someone isn't intentionally or unintentionally blowing smoke up your ***, disappears. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And by no means do I ask anybody to take my word for anything! [;)]


You can apply a hammer to the task of putting in a screw, but it does a piss poor job. If you want science to investigate god, you'll get a piss poor job.It would be a long wait indeed, if we had to wait for science to say it was okay to believe in God.


That they rely on science to determine the objective - what is the problem there?No problem, in so far as it goes. [;)]


I know of no atheist that relies on science to determine their prospective mates, to kiss their daughter goodnight, or to find meaning for their lives. Just because they rely on science for understanding the objective, doesn't imply that science is the only aspect of their universe.And yet why do so many of these avowed Atheists claim that there is no sense of purpose (and hence meaning) in life? Also, if you're scientifically aligned in your thinking, then chances are you're not going to have a problem with the way it affects your life.


I think what you're seeing is a result of frustration, at what they see as a constant stream of attacks by the vast ocean of theists, which make up society. Let's not forget it's a two-way street. Or is it? ...

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And what else does science do besides "objectify things?" And why do I keep hearing, "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if we could finally 'objectify' God out of a job?"

This is starting to devolve into a semantics debate, something I can do without.


The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And by no means do I ask anybody to take my word for anything! [;)]


But you avoided the main question. Should our science, that which discovers objective information about our environment and universe now descend into personal opinion. Would you be willing to ride in a plane, where the engineering was based on the popular opinion of the strength of the planes aluminum airframe, or the engineers opinion of the thrust of the engines, or would you rather they be measured and confirmable, by anyone using a set methodology? How about living next door to a nuclear reactor where the half lives and fission breakdown products were not measured, they were determined by philosophical debate?



It would be a long wait indeed, if we had to wait for science to say it was okay to believe in God.

How about Zeus, or Thor, or Oden. But why restrict it to science? Lets wait until Karate ok's the belief in God, or maybe French Cooking, music, or Macrame Ok'ing the belief in god. All of these are activities/systems orthogonal to the belief in god, the same as science!

You, no doubt would be the first to say it was illogical to blame Christianity for the Spanish Inquisition, yet you are doing the same thing here with science. Christianity didn't justify the spanish inquisition, anymore than science justifies the attack on any religious belief that doesn't contradict physically verified information.


And yet why do so many of these avowed Atheists claim that there is no sense of purpose (and hence meaning) in life? Also, if you're scientifically aligned in your thinking, then chances are you're not going to have a problem with the way it affects your life.

NO INHERENT PURPOSE OR MEANING

Iacchus32, it is apparent you are an intelligent person, yet the above seems to be intentionally avoiding the obvious. Please stick to an intellectually honest debate. If you want to win this debate, at all costs, let me know now, I'll bow out. I am here for an honest exchange of ideas, not a pissing contest.



Let's not forget it's a two-way street. Or is it? ...

Just out of curiosity, are there any minority groups to which you belong?

Having been both in the majority and minority over the theism issue, I've seen that many in the theist majority are blithly ignorant of how it is to be in the minority.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Originally posted by Iacchus32
This is like describing the mechanics of something without understanding how it truly functions as a whole. Indeed without the whole, there would be nothing to "dissect."So we are to take any persons word that something IS?!? Who's shall we take? Yours? Mine? The problem you've unearthed is that once you enter the realm of the subjective, the rules for 'agreeing' on observed phenomena, for replication, for making certain someone isn't intentionally or unintentionally blowing smoke up your ***, disappears.

You can apply a hammer to the task of putting in a screw, but it does a piss poor job. If you want science to investigate god, you'll get a piss poor job.What would be wrong with trying to approach things from the standpoint of wholeness, or at least maintain this view overall, rather than break everything down into its "dysfunctional" component level? Hmm ... Is it possible that this is the problem with society today, with all its dysfunctionality in general? Yes, perhaps. And where do we send people when they get this way? Indeed, to one of the many "compartmentalized agencies" which have sprung up overnight -- like the mushrooms that they are -- to handle our "dysfunctional needs."

EDIT: It used to be the church that handled all these functions (primarily), and now we have all these government sponsored agencies (charities or whatever).

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What would be wrong with trying to approach things from the standpoint of wholeness, or at least maintain this view overall, rather than break everything down into its "dysfunctional" component level? Hmm ... Is it possible that this is the problem with society today, with all its dysfunctionality in general? Yes, and where do we send people when they get this way? Indeed, to one of the many "compartmentalized agencies" which have sprung up overnight (like mushrooms) to handle our "dysfunctional needs."

If I want to understand complex systems, it helps to first look at the components. That they should always be dealt with as just components is usually a mistake.

To say "dysfunctional" component, you're are emotionally biasing your argument.

Have you studied science, more than a course or two in college? The way you write would lead me to believe no, lacking other information.

If you've never studied science, then I cannot address a distorted view of it. The scope of the undertaking would be too much, but I have noticed a strong tendency [in you and others] to view atheists as charactures, often making straw men arguments. That I do have something for: a link that might help understand who we are - certain something you won't normally get from a debate online.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

[Phobos]

ok, I'm joining this topic late. At least I planned to...but then I read the first post and my blood pressure rose too high. [s(]
Think happy thoughts...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
If I want to understand complex systems, it helps to first look at the components. That they should always be dealt with as just components is usually a mistake.

To say "dysfunctional" component, you're are emotionally biasing your argument. And yet the human mind and human body were here a long time, and fully functional, before science came along to pick it apart.


Have you studied science, more than a course or two in college? The way you write would lead me to believe no, lacking other information.I think it would be reasonable to say that I'm scientifically aware, but don't have an extensive background in it. I would probably make a good lab technician though. [;)]


If you've never studied science, then I cannot address a distorted view of it. The scope of the undertaking would be too much, but I have noticed a strong tendency [in you and others] to view atheists as charactures, often making straw men arguments. That I do have something for: a link that might help understand who we are - certain something you won't normally get from a debate online.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html It seems I've been to this site before, and they do have some interesting things to say, but have very little to offer in terms of what I believe about God.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
But you avoided the main question. Should our science, that which discovers objective information about our environment and universe now descend into personal opinion. Would you be willing to ride in a plane, where the engineering was based on the popular opinion of the strength of the planes aluminum airframe, or the engineers opinion of the thrust of the engines, or would you rather they be measured and confirmable, by anyone using a set methodology? How about living next door to a nuclear reactor where the half lives and fission breakdown products were not measured, they were determined by philosophical debate?As I've stated any number of times before, I have no problem with science per se', in fact I probably wouldn't have anything to say about it if it weren't for one thing, "religious experience." And I'm sorry, there is more to reality than what is physical.


Just out of curiosity, are there any minority groups to which you belong?That would be a minority of one -- one who "sees things for himself."


Having been both in the majority and minority over the theism issue, I've seen that many in the theist majority are blithly ignorant of how it is to be in the minority. Actually I don't care to go to "either extreme." [;)]

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the human mind and human body were here a long time, and fully functional, before science came along to pick it apart.


And numbers of cows existed before mathematics. Does that mean that counting is a bad idea?



I think it would be reasonable to say that I'm scientifically aware, but don't have an extensive background in it. I would probably make a good lab technician though. [;)]


The reason I brought that up is that it seems, from your arguments, you don't know a lot about how much of actual science is done and why. It could just be a skewed perception, on my part.


It seems I've been to this site before, and they do have some interesting things to say, but have very little to offer in terms of what I believe about God.

Good. I, and I'm sure the writers, were trying to present why and what atheists are, not trying to convert others.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
As I've stated any number of times before, I have no problem with science per se', in fact I probably wouldn't have anything to say about it if it weren't for one thing, "religious experience." And I'm sorry, there is more to reality than what is physical.

The reason I asked earlier if you had any scientific background has a lot to do with the above statement.

I have said before, as would anybody with an understanding of the philosophy of science or a strong scientific education, that you are absolutely correct in that science doesn't address "religious experience", just as the study of music isn't used to determine the tensile strength of 12 gauge copper wire, or sunday morning services the place to delve into high-energy particle physics.

Science doesn't address "religious experience" at all, positively or negatively, because it is outside it's scope of inquiry.

By implying science should address "religious experience", you're trying to apply a hammer when a socket wrench is needed.

Just because there are people that feel that the physical plane is all there is and that there is a particular branch of study that is intended to explore this physical plane are two orthogonal issues. The former can be incorrect (depending on your choice of values applied) irrespective of the reasonableness of the latter.

I suspect this is one of the last posts, to you, that I will make on this subject. I have repeated myself half a dozen different ways, and it seems you do not want to see what I'm saying. While in your right to do so, I have little desire to beat my head against a wall. As I've said earlier, I'm here for an honest exchange of ideas, once the exchange is obviously stalled, I see no point in continuing it.


--------
Having been both in the majority and minority over the theism issue, I've seen that many in the theist majority are blithly ignorant of how it is to be in the minority.
--------

Actually I don't care to go to "either extreme."


Yet you rant and rave at the actions of those who are reacting to such "majority against minority" hatred, with no attempt to understand where it comes from. I'm not defending the unreasonable actions of atheists, but knowing the source does help when talking with them.

[Iacchus32]

radagast,

The problem is -- and don't I know why you don't seem to be able to grasp what I'm trying to say -- is that the difference between science and religion is that they are two "opposing views" about the ultimate nature of reality. And indeed, depending on which view we accept, it's going to change the way we ultimately interact with each other on this planet.

Therefore, if science wishes to uphold it's "objective reality" and say this is it folks, there's no need to look any further, that indeed "this is reality," then it becomes a fallacy. Because they won't even consider the other side of the issue, which speaks of an "internal reality," and makes very similar claims regarding the ultimately reality.

And neither do I care much for the views of religion (the western church) on this matter. Because it's like acknowledging we have two sides to our brain, and yet both sides working against each other, as opposed to working together. This at the very least is dysfunctional, and speaks about the schizophrenic nature of our society.

I started a thread a while back called The Center of Existence (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1869), which deals with this issue of science and religion, while suggesting some possible alternatives in how they could relate to each other. By all means check it out. [;)]

While there's one other thing that you need to understand about my background, that it's more metaphysical, obviously, in which case if I were to say that God does exists, then it's quite possible that I'm one step ahead of everyone else, and indeed am putting the horse in front of the cart, which is as it should be. [;)]

[radagast]

Iacchus,
I've understood what you've been saying about science and religion being opposing views - what doesn't seem to be coming across from me, is that I've been disagreeing with this. Science doesn't say that this is all there is [and never has], it says that this is all that we will look at as part of this methodology [science]. The fact that you don't seem to be aware of this has lead me to question you having any significant scientific education. [no insult intended]

When people state that science is telling us there is no god (unless they specify characteristics of (a) god that are tangible and checkable) then they are trying to use science in a way in which it becomes invalid. Analogous to someone saying logic states 'x', but has an invalid premise or flawed argument.

The only times that science and religion come into conflict is when religion states something is 'x' with relation to the objective, tangible universe, which contradicts what has been determined scientifically - like the earth being the center of the universe, like the earth being 6000 years old. If science were to make judgements on things metaphysical, it would cease to be scientific, because it would be outside the defined scope of science.

As a Buddhist, I don't accept the physical as all there is. My priest doesn't either. She holds a PhD in physics and biophysics, and worked for NASA for a while. Science is not seen by her, or myself, to be in conflict with there being something besides the physical. It is almost as if you have read my past posts, but not actually listened to what was said. You haven't directly said you disagreed when I say that science doesn't say 'the physical is all there is', yet you keep repeating just that.

Iacchus, before you reply to this post, reread it a couple of times. Think about it, if you plan to reply. From your above post, it is painfully apparent you are missing the main, crucial point of all my posts in this thread.

This is the last time I will address this in an open forum. This horse is way past dead. It's pulped and ready to be juiced.

[Zero]

Your real problem with science, Iacchus32, is that it has rules. Your pretend philosophy and intellectualism is in reality no more than wishful thinging, and science doesn't allow your emotional wants or needs to supercede rational thought. You don't want, need, or seek truth or reality; you seek to claim that your pseudo-religious mish-mash be respected as anything more than the creation of a mind out of touch with reality.

[Iacchus32]

Ladies and gentlemen, "the moment" has just been crucified.

I'm sorry, I can't go on any more about this. And you can forget about time and space because it no longer exists. [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Iacchus,
I've understood what you've been saying about science and religion being opposing views - what doesn't seem to be coming across from me, is that I've been disagreeing with this. Science doesn't say that this is all there is [and never has], it says that this is all that we will look at as part of this methodology [science]. The fact that you don't seem to be aware of this has lead me to question you having any significant scientific education. [no insult intended]What's the difference? Especially when religion no longer has the clout to back up its claims? Not that these claims were all that easy to back up in the first place? The ball is now in Science's court, and people are looking more and more towards science as the "ultimate answer" which, does not entail "internal truth." This is what we call the world of materialism. Ineed, it's much easier to provide the "concrete proof," than to put up with an answer that's "iffy" at best.

Hence it would seem that science is winning "the debate" (it's much easier to cultivate the obvious), and yet at the demise of the church. Whereas by focusing exclusively on the outside, without focusing in the inside, what do we have? Life bereft of meaning. Which, is okay with science, because it doesn't believe there is any meaning in life.

Therefore, if people don't want to believe in the church, and put all "their faith" in science, then what does that suggest? That science "is" the church. Or, at least it's taken over the responsibility of the church -- like it or not. Which would be akin to having your wife die and you saying you would be responsible for bringing up the children. Of course you may or may not be bound to continue with their education as they were taught (regarding their mother's values), but I think the responsible thing to do would be to at least make allowances for it.


From the thread, The Heart of Reality (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1649) ...

What is life, if not that which is held internally? What is essence, if not that which is contained within form? Doesn't this suggest that life is an "interior process," by which the external "material world" exists to serve? And, that perhaps we should spend some time focusing on our "interior selves" as well? Why doesn't science seem to get the idea? With its exclusive focus on material existence. Doesn't it know that the "heart of reality" exists within us?

It used to be religion regarded the truth about our "inner selves," but now we rely almost exclusively on science to provide "the truth," which is nowhere near providing these kind of answers. Why is that? And why are we so bound on material existence?The church is fading away and science has now come into the forefront. And the way I see it, this trend towards materialism in society is going to spell the end of it if, we don't begin to focus on the quality (or essence) of life.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What's the difference? Especially when religion no longer has the clout to back up its claims? Not that these claims were all that easy to back up in the first place? The ball is now in Science's court, and people are looking more and more towards science as the "ultimate answer" which, does not entail "internal truth." This is what we call the world of materialism. Ineed, it's much easier to provide the "concrete proof," than to put up with an answer that's "iffy" at best.

Hence it would seem that science is winning "the debate" (it's much easier to cultivate the obvious), and yet at the demise of the church. Whereas by focusing exclusively on the outside, without focusing in the inside, what do we have? Life bereft of meaning. Which, is okay with science, because it doesn't believe there is any meaning in life.

Therefore, if people don't want to believe in the church, and put all "their faith" in science, then what does that suggest? That science "is" the church. Or, at least it's taken over the responsibility of the church -- like it or not. Which would be akin to having your wife die and you saying you would be responsible for bringing up the children. Of course you may or may not be bound to continue with their education as they were taught (regarding their mother's values), but I think the responsible thing to do would be to at least make allowances for it.


From the thread, The Heart of Reality (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1649) ...

The church is fading away and science has now come into the forefront. And the way I see it, this trend towards materialism in society is going to spell the end of it if, we don't begin to focus on the quality (or essence) of life.

The essence of life and everything that exists IS matter, my dear Iacchus32.

And your claim that the material existence of EVERYTHING can only be proved from the OUTSIDE and not from the INSIDE, is a false claim.

I established WITHIN myself, that is within my own conscioussness, the truth that a material world, infinite and eternal, HAS to exist, using nothing but my mind, to establish proof for that.

So I give you ALL the proof, that matter is the way in which the world exists, both from OUTSIDE and from INSIDE.

Where do you go now, to disproof or deny that?
Where?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
The essence of life and everything that exists IS matter, my dear Iacchus32.

And your claim that the material existence of EVERYTHING can only be proved from the OUTSIDE and not from the INSIDE, is a false claim.

I established WITHIN myself, that is within my own conscioussness, the truth that a material world, infinite and eternal, HAS to exist, using nothing but my mind, to establish proof for that.

So I give you ALL the proof, that matter is the way in which the world exists, both from OUTSIDE and from INSIDE.

Where do you go now, to disproof or deny that?
Where? Except I know that The Spirit exists. If as you say, everything that exists is matter, then it's quite possible that this very thing we call energy -- which, reisides on the "interior of things" -- is also another word for spirit. All I know is that both exist, and both possess similar properties. At the very least it suggests there must be a relationship between the two. And, just as the spirit exists in another dimension -- i.e., "interiorly" -- so does energy, right?

I also understand that spirits (disembodied souls) associate themselves with our inner thoughts and feelings which, is another form of energy, right? This is why the body is called the "living temple," because spirits derive their essence or being through us. Whereas everytime we have a thought or feeling, a spiritual connection is being made.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except I know that The Spirit exists. If as you say, everything that exists is matter, then it's quite possible that this very thing we call energy -- which, reisides on the "interior of things" -- is also another word for spirit. All I know is that both exist, and both possess similar properties. At the very least it suggests there must be a relationship between the two. And, just as the spirit exists in another dimension -- i.e., "interiorly" -- so does energy, right?

I also understand that spirits (disembodied souls) associate themselves with our inner thoughts and feelings which, is another form of energy, right? This is why the body is called the "living temple," because spirits derive their essence or being through us. Whereas everytime we have a thought or feeling, a spiritual connection is being made.

A spirit is towards the brain as a wind is toward air molecules.

Wind without air molecules forming and constituing the wind, does not exist. Neither does spirit or consciousness reside outside the brain.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
A spirit is towards the brain as a wind is toward air molecules.

Wind without air molecules forming and constituing the wind, does not exist. Neither does spirit or consciousness reside outside the brain. Am not sure how to respond? Are you saying spirits exist, but only as figments of our imagination?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Am not sure how to respond? Are you saying spirits exist, but only as figments of our imagination?

If we would adopt instead of spirit a mindly pattern, then it could be said that it does not have independend existence.

How does music exist? It can be stored in different formats, but only becomes "real" when it is played / performed.

So the only way in which spirit as a mindly pattern becomes real, is when it exists in the mind.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
If we would adopt instead of spirit a mindly pattern, then it could be said that it does not have independend existence.Actually you are correct in the sense that if a spirit were to conform to anything, it would be a "mindly pattern." Which is why such a thing would be barely discernable to us, because we think that we're looking at a part of our own minds, which we are. And yet this is the key to unlocking the spiritual experience, by recognizing and learning to work with these mindly patterns.

And yet how about "interdependent existence?"


How does music exist? It can be stored in different formats, but only becomes "real" when it is played / performed.The only question is, "Is it live or is it Memorex?" ...


So the only way in which spirit as a mindly pattern becomes real, is when it exists in the mind. And yet who's to say that there isn't a genuine spirit behind the notion of it? Or, perhaps that this is what it's alluding to?

Whereas don't you think the spirit exists to itself as real? -- i.e., in its own "spiritual medium?" -- which, extends beyond our "natural perception" of things? ... Why not?

[radagast]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
NO. What is true is true - weather you effin' like it or not.


Yes, what is true is true. That said, much of what is true is not easily determinable, if at all.

I've found that those that do claim to have a corner on such truths are either fools or fanatics, or both.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually you are correct in the sense that if a spirit were to conform to anything, it would be a "mindly pattern." Which is why such a thing would be barely discernable to us, because we think that we're looking at a part of our own minds, which we are. And yet this is the key to unlocking the spiritual experience, by recognizing and learning to work with these mindly patterns.

And yet how about "interdependent existence?"


Well mindly patterns, the word already reveals it, have only real significance and existence in the mind and to the mind itself.
Such patterns can exist outside the mind, like a piece of music when not played and listened to, can be stored on CD or on paper.
But the enjoyment of music is not the storage in written form or recording on CD, but the actual performing or listening to music.
Music does not play or perform itself. Mindly patterns need a mind too, to become that what we call 'spirit'.


And yet who's to say that there isn't a genuine spirit behind the notion of it? Or, perhaps that this is what it's alluding to?

Whereas don't you think the spirit exists to itself as real? -- i.e., in its own "spiritual medium?" -- which, extends beyond our "natural perception" of things? ... Why not?

The idea that the world in primary instance is spiritual in essence, is a notion about reality that is indeed behind all forms of religion, and what is based on a philisophical outlook on reality which is called Idealism.

This all drops down to one of the basics questions in philosphy which is the question as to what is primary: matter or consciousness.

A primary substance or entity means that this substance or entity is not dependend on something else. That substance would be the primary thing in the world, without which the world would not exist. Everything else would dependend on the existence of that substance or entity.

We know about matter, since it forms the substance of which the ordinary things are made which we see in our daility lifes, and we know about consciousness, which is our reasoning capacity and reflection on our self and the world, etc.

Without knowing what the world in total is, we can already derive the notion that our consciousness is not the primary substance or entity of the world, since our consciousness happens to have come into existence at a certain time, at which the world itself already existed.

Another question is can it be conceived of that consciousness (in some other then human form) has existed before there was a material world?

Let us suppose there was an eternal and infinity being that existed in consciouss form at a time before the material world existed.

This consciouss being would however have to face the situation that there was no objective material world. So it could not be consciouss of anything outside, apart and independend of itself.
But for the same reason this being could not be consciouss of itself, since it could not in any way distinguish between self and not-self.
So, that excludes the possiblity of being consciouss about anything.
Which makes this consciouss being something of an impossibility.

Could it then be conceived of that the material world in total, as an infinite and eternal being, is a consciouss form of existence?

For the same reasons we already gave above, neither this being could exist in consciouss form.

Which leaves as the only possibility that on the basis of an already existing material and objective world, conscioussness in subjective form can exists, that can be consciouss of the objective world, and consciouss of it self, cause it can distinguish between itself, and something that is apart, independend and outside of it (not self).

We - the human conscioussness - are the expression and development products of the material world, in which the world exists in consciouss and subjective form, which can know about and reflect on the objective world, and can be selfconsciousness.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Let us suppose there was an eternal and infinity being that existed in consciouss form at a time before the material world existed.

This consciouss being would however have to face the situation that there was no objective material world. So it could not be consciouss of anything outside, apart and independend of itself.
But for the same reason this being could not be consciouss of itself, since it could not in any way distinguish between self and not-self.
So, that excludes the possiblity of being consciouss about anything.
Which makes this consciouss being something of an impossibility.Not unless there was another dimension.


We - the human conscioussness - are the expression and development products of the material world, in which the world exists in consciouss and subjective form, which can know about and reflect on the objective world, and can be selfconsciousness. And yet, much as evidenced by the growth rings of a tree, life begins and renews itself from within. Which is to say the essence of life is invisible (or intangible). And indeed, is not God Himself called the "invisible one?" And that in essence He has been here all this time, and remained conscious?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Not unless there was another dimension.

What difference would that make?

The point is that God is said to have existence in consciouss form at a time in which there was not yet a material world.

If you state then that God acted from another dimension, you can only overcome the trouble of the 'solipstic' state of that God, by stating that already a world did exist.

So, if you can not overcome the fact that there must have been always an existing material world, in whatever form, what then is the need for this 'creator' all together?



And yet, much as evidenced by the growth rings of a tree, life begins and renews itself from within. Which is to say the essence of life is invisible (or intangible). And indeed, is not God Himself called the "invisible one?" And that in essence He has been here all this time, and remained conscious?

Yeah. It is in your head and nowhere else!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
What difference would that make?

The point is that God is said to have existence in consciouss form at a time in which there was not yet a material world.

If you state then that God acted from another dimension, you can only overcome the trouble of the 'solipstic' state of that God, by stating that already a world did exist.

So, if you can not overcome the fact that there must have been always an existing material world, in whatever form, what then is the need for this 'creator' all together?I'm just going by the evidence that I have been able to ascertain myself, that a "spiritual dimension" does exist. Indeed this is where it begins with me (and probably where it should begin with all of us), because I have no idea what happened in the beginning. Albeit the Big Bang theory does sound plausible ... and yet who's to say exactly what happened?


Yeah. It is in your head and nowhere else! And when you close your eyes and look inside your brain, is it possible that you're peering into another dimension?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I'm just going by the evidence that I have been able to ascertain myself, that a "spiritual dimension" does exist. Indeed this is where it begins with me (and probably where it should begin with all of us), because I have no idea what happened in the beginning. Albeit the Big Bang theory does sound plausible ... and yet who's to say exactly what happened?

You seem very uneducated. We already know how it all began.
It began with an egg-cell and a sperm, and that became a cell, that grew into a human being, became fully functional, and became aware of the world. A true "creation"!


Or do you want to know what happened "before" the Big Bang?

There is no "before", you know that Iacchus32!

(at least not that I am allowed to talk about on here, I don't know your age!)


And when you close your eyes and look inside your brain, is it possible that you're peering into another dimension?

Figuratively speaking.

And btw. I have been in all those dimensions. No God in anyone of them. Sorry!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
You seem very uneducated. We already know how it all began.
It began with an egg-cell and a sperm, and that became a cell, that grew into a human being, became fully functional, and became aware of the world. A true "creation"!Yes, this is where we should all begin to look, inside of ourselves.


Or do you want to know what happened "before" the Big Bang?

There is no "before", you know that Iacchus32!

(at least not that I am allowed to talk about on here, I don't know your age!)Oh, are you implying that God had a sweetheart? [;)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, this is where we should all begin to look, inside of ourselves.

Yes, and sometimes you don't find the answers THERE and have to actually look outside of yourself. At least, to find the "causes" for your own existence, urges one to look form them outside of oneself, since you can not find the causes for your own existence withing yourself (you can only invent a 'Deity' for that!) but outside of yourself!


Oh, are you implying that God had a sweetheart? [;)]

No, st*p*d, but your father/mother had one (supposedly each other!), causing YOUR existence!