 |
|
|
|
 Pope Francis addressed digital technology and social communications on Thursday.
January 23rd, 2014
10:40 AM ET
Pope: The Internet is a 'gift from God.' But watch out for the trollsBy Daniel Burke, Belief Blog Co-editor (CNN) Careerist clergy. The super rich. And now we can add another pelt to Pope Francis' collection: Internet trolls. In statement released on Thursday, the Pope said the Internet and social media are making people across the world "increasingly interdependent." "The Internet, in particular, offers immense possibilities for encounter and solidarity," Francis said. "This is something truly good, a gift from God." At the same time, though, all those tweets and texts and comment streams can cause people to "lose our bearings," said the 77-year-old pontiff. "The speed with which information is communicated exceeds our capacity for reflection and judgement, and this does not make for more balanced and proper forms of self-expression," Francis said. "The variety of opinions being aired can be seen as helpful," he continued, "but it also enables people to barricade themselves behind sources of information which only confirm their own wishes and ideas, or political and economic interests." There's a tinge of irony to the Pope's comments, considering that his own soaring popularity can be partially traced to the Internet and social media. According to a study released in November, Francis was the most talked about person online last year. MORE ON CNN: Pope Francis won the Internet. Literally. Whether consciously or not, the Pope has become an unlikely poster boy for how stories spread in the modern world. Photos and videos of him washing the feet of Muslim inmates, embracing a severely disfigured man and giving his pal a lift on the Popemobile have gone viral, with hundreds of thousands sharing the images. MORE ON CNN: Pope Francis' greatest hits of 2013 "Goodness always tends to spread," Francis said in his apostolic exhortation, "The Joy of the Gospel," a line that could have been uttered in the boardrooms of savvy online outlets like Upworthy and BuzzFeed. But the Pope's theory of communication seems to derive from a more ancient source: his namesake, St. Francis of Assisi. "Preach the Gospel all the time. Use words when necessary," the 13th century friar is often quoted as saying. (Some call the quote apocryphal.) Rather than "bombarding people with religious messages," the Pope urged Catholics on Thursday to listen patiently and engage their interlocutors' doubts and questions. "Let our communication be a balm which relieves pain and a fine wine which gladdens hearts," Francis said. The Pope also warned against spending too much time online, saying the "desire for digital connectivity" can sometimes isolate people from their friends, family and neighbors. “It is not enough to be passers-by on the digital highways, simply 'connected'; connections need to grow into true encounters," he said. "We cannot live apart, closed in on ourselves. We need to love and to be loved. We need tenderness. Media strategies do not ensure beauty, goodness and truth in communication." Drawbacks aside, the Pope did not argue that people should reject social media, which he said can foster unity and "help us feel closer to each other." Instead he argued that advances in bits and bytes shouldn't distract from the fact that digital communication is, at root, about people connecting with each other. "What is it, then, that helps us, in the digital environment, to grow in humanity and mutual understanding?" the Pope asked. "We need, for example, to recover a certain sense of deliberateness and calm. This calls for time and the ability to be silent and to listen. We need also to be patient if we want to understand those who are different from us."
Next entry »Pope wants to visit U.S. in 2015, sources say
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
The Pope has a Benny Hinn thing going on it that photo.
OH sh!t the devil from ther internet is on my tail !
A dove which was freed by children flanked by Pope Francis during the Angelus prayer, is chased by a black crow in St. Peter's Square, at the Vatican, Sunday, Jan. 26, 2014. AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGggfvJPEiw&list=PL5JS6_HgU8uaVxs1rBSZ4mmzEwtCfay3L
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGggfvJPEiw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_SwD7RveNE
Looks more like they are gang raping that poor man.
hey , was your day today a subjective experience, or an objective experience.
it was subjective till 12:30 PM EST, then I turned the switch 180 degrees.
A positive one !
1objective.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
can the Holy Spirit be an objective experience?
Austin: "can the Holy Spirit be an objective experience?"
Interesting question.
I've not seen anyone prove such or even demonstrate in a reasonable way to anyone else that they have had a purely objective experience. So I think it's possible, highly unlikely, and, at least at this time, very difficult to verify. If an experience registered in our brain is separate from others having a simultaneous perception (where it can somehow be shared without subjectivity and be somehow verified), then should we assume that we understand the full power (fires, misfires, etc.) of our brain enough to fully understand what we think has happened?
No, it is strictly subjective, because it occurs only in the human mind. It cannot be demonstrated, tested or measured in any way.
This is actually a good question, because too many people do not understand what subjective and objective mean. A good clue is to look at the root words. Is it an idea with no actual object to sense and measure? That's subjective. Beauty, justice, and morality are subjective. For some of these things, they are subjective conceptually, but we can set objective standards. Ontologically though, they remain inherently subjective.
"Objective" is that which we can reasonably infer would exist whether a human existed or not. That which is objective is MEASURABLE. It should usually have dimensions. Is it a rock, a chair, a tree, the sun? Those are all objective.
People have come to think of "subjective" as bad, flawed, and invalid, and "objective" as always good and important. This is the wrong way to see things. Also, people tend to reify. That is, think of something that is actually subjective, and think of it and claim it to be objective.
It's good to remember that just because something is subjective, that does not mean it is unimportant. Beauty is important, and subjective. So is justice. They are real, but in a subjective sense. They are human ideas. It's also good to know the difference between subjective and objective.
Keep in mind that "objective" vs "subjective" can also be used to distiguish between things that only exist in our head (subjective) vs those in the "real" world around us "objective". That being said, we can never be truly objective or know the objective world w/ 100% accuracy so for all practical purposes all knowledge is subjective.
The events were objective.
The experience was subjective.
Precisely!
he was god almighty. GOD! IMAGINE!
lot of people in Sunday night service tonight.
Yes, George Burns was quite the comedian.
t "The resurrection of Jesus is the central point of the Christian religion." but dodo, lundie is your hero
Without the resurection story Jesus' followers lost all credibility and their way of life. They had invested everything in this story. The very small number of people who were allowed by a supposedly all-powerful being to see this evidence is the most convincing evidence against the validity of the story. If this god were really powerful and wanted people to believe, he would have provided a heck of a lot more evidence. As it is this looks like just another case of a group of duped people who lost their leader and had to pull together a story to keep things going. They did a pretty good job as it turns out.
Pentecost should have been impressive, but either people were unimpressed or were not moved to write about it.
ONE OF THE THREE GREAT IDIOTS OF ALL TIME, "Pentecost should have been impressive, but either people were unimpressed or were not moved to write about it." Tom tom the who else. I I I, UH, I, UH, OH, wait. She did not say that. i'm dreamin
Hold on. Picked up something nasty on my shoe... Maybe it'll scrape off. People really need to clean up after their pets here.
"Without the resurection story Jesus' followers lost all credibility and their way of life." pharisee
wrong again. what way of life? moron. not a nice try, dodo.
so, agreed, point being- they made up stories that some crucified dude got raised from dead to achieve credibility! it is a true miracle that you are this dumb
Wow...you really need to reread what I wrote and consider some remedial education.
Typical atheist response: name calling, angst, and anger but rarely any rational logic that considers a meaningful dialogue and exchange. It's difficult to carry on a conversation with people who hide behind their anonymous or fictional avatar/user name because then they feel they have license to not be civil with others, which is a shame because everyone misses out on an opportunity to think and/or learn more. Different worldviews reflect different presuppositions about reality, ethics/morality, and knowledge. One worldview places God as the pinnacle of the universe; the other worldview places man and empiricism as the crowning achievement.
Truthprevails100...I recognize the tenor and tone of your posts from other websites and blogs you frequent. I challenge YOU to prove that God does not exist. Can you do it without hurling invectives, hate, and name-calling?
t "The resurrection of Jesus is the central point of the Christian religion."
finding the central point of religion in general is like finding a corner in around room .
dodo, it's not nice to criticize real scholars
William Lane Craig
I agree, in Lüdemann’s words, that "The resurrection of Jesus is the central point of the Christian religion."
So Paul and his followers would have us believe. Too bad really...
William Lane Craig
I agree, in Lüdemann’s words, that "The resurrection of Jesus is the central point of the Christian religion." Second, I agree that if someone asks "What really happened?" it is not enough to be told to "just believe."
well written
William Lane Craig
I agree, in Lüdemann’s words, that "The resurrection of Jesus is the central point of the Christian religion." Second, I agree that if someone asks "What really happened?" it is not enough to be told to "just believe." Third, I agree that the historian’s task is very much like that of the trial lawyer: to examine the witnesses in order to reconstruct the most probable course of events. Fourth, I agree that if someone does not believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus, he should have the honesty to say that Jesus just rotted away and that he should not be persecuted for having had the courage to say it. Fifth, I agree that if someone does not believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus, then he should have the honesty to say that he is not a Christian just as Lüdemann has done. Finally, sixth, I agree that if someone does believe in Jesus's literal resurrection, he should admit that he believes in a miraculous intervention of God in the natural world.
well written
if you are a sinner, and you say that you are not, you are disobeying the only thing God wants you to do. and that is repent and accept the Lord for atonement, and be born again (same process).
one issue. sin. one response. humility.
one problem, rebellion.
" one issue. sin. "
Does being a serial liar count ?
of course, that is the whole entire point. being honest about sin.
Does that mean you're going to quit lying about your claims regarding the Randi Foundation ?
I am going to stick to my testimony. and the gospel.
Well dodged, Austin. Never a straight answer.
the error of Balaam. Hey right now, I visited an old church and they were preaching on the ceasing of the apostolic gifts.
kindof has me wondering where I fall in the category. Here is what the preacher wrote to me.
There are two things I would say are important in light of the matters you are concerned about:
1. Of greatest importance is to be sure you have a genuine relationship with Christ through a settled faith in His death as the payment for your sin. And if you have trusted Him you are assurred of being spiritually raised to new life in Him. This provides the Holy Spirit to enable you to live your life in obedience to Him and His word.
2. As a child of God you are to live your life in submission to the instructions of the Bible. You are creating great confusion for yourself be focusing your mind on the subjective experiences that happen to you. You say that since 2004 you have been writing down your dreams and other experiences. That is not the way that God communicates with His children. Rather it is always through His Word, the bible. You are not focusing your mind on His word but on your subjective experiences. This can only cause greater confusion and unbiblical thinking. Paul wrote in Philippians 4:8 regarding the kind of things you should be focusing your mind upon.
In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Paul said that it is the scripture that come from God and is able to train us in righteousness and prepare us to be all that God wants us to be. Focus your mind on God's word, not on trying to analyze what you see on TV or thinking about a dream you had.
I would encourage you to focus your mind on His word, commit key verses to memory and when these other things come up.
midwest rail.
today, would you say that your day was an objective experience or a subjective experience?
Why would I answer anything you ask when you repeatedly dodge any posed to you ?
Midwest rail, tell me the lie I told about James Randii, I cant remember it any more.
" I can't remember it anymore."
How convenient – spoken like a true apologist.
never was an it anyway. I tricked you.
" never was an it anyway "\
Another lie.
you are in the process of lying repeatedly , because I never lied about James Randii. My dreams last night were this
dreamed that in DC, that there was a secret service shoot out. 3 black agents were down, and 1 of them was about to finish off the other two. outside there was an agent protecting a young woman and said "we better get you inside, the Russians are up to something" and I think it was in DC and I think they were in some hall, with steps.
then I had a dream that I was up on top a super tall watch tower. and a big metal buffet lid fell off the tower. I was scared to be up there to go near the edge. (a week or so ago I had that dream about the tornado in nw Lincoln Nebraska right, well after this watch tower dream I found this.
Isaiah 21
21 A prophecy against the Desert by the Sea:
Like whirlwinds sweeping through the southland,
an invader comes from the desert,
from a land of terror.
2 A dire vision has been shown to me:
The traitor betrays, the looter takes loot.
Elam, attack! Media, lay siege!
I will bring to an end all the groaning she caused.
3 At this my body is racked with pain,
pangs seize me, like those of a woman in labor;
I am staggered by what I hear,
I am bewildered by what I see.
4 My heart falters,
fear makes me tremble;
the twilight I longed for
has become a horror to me.
5 They set the tables,
they spread the rugs,
they eat, they drink!
Get up, you officers,
oil the shields!
ok so basically, there was some as.sasination or attack with black agents (maybe the president) and there was a message that we are going to get invaded from Isaiah 21
just dreams, no conclusions.
" because I never lied about James Randii. "
Indeed you did – again. You claimed you were going to take the Randi Foundation challenge, and their money. You claimed it was going to be easy.. By the next day, you were making excuses why you hadn't done it, and all the excuses were lame. That leaves two possibilities – one, you are a serial liar, or two, your postings here are nothing but trolling. Take your pick.
I can't man. I am not allowed to Prophesy for gain, or to go down to Egypt for help. I have been praying about what God wants, and all I know is the dream about the drug over dose two years ago, and the fact that that came true a week ago as I was at the bookstore, means I am where God wants me, where is will is. I am not supposed to be at James Randii at this moment. and the dreams I am having show turmoil on the horizon. God is not calling me out of the place I am at right now.
these last 2 dreams last night are serious. I could not sleep, and I have been pacing the basement at my house back and forth. I am worried. Peace.
coulndnt get back to sleep.
I have to go for today. Adios.
that means that austin will continue with the same nonsense
Austin does nothing but lie. He's a cowardly little boy afraid to back his claims and keeps coming up with excuses as to why he won't. I'm guessing he knows he'll be shown to be a fraud. People like him, who think they hear god and then do as said god tells them, are a danger and need to be removed from society.
tp: he is every bit the coward gopher is, and that is saying a lot
he has no test-i-t-c-u-l-a-r for-t-i-t-ude to back up his visions
he just blah, blah, fvcking blahs on here
he runs from reason, like gopher, or larry, or pretty much every member of the jeebus c-i-r-c-l-e j-e-r-k
they are amusing and pathetic at the same time
they fervently desire eternity with the vindictive, petty pr1ck from whom they need to be "saved"
but are in no hurry to get there
Se-xual Rebellion no gods required !
what is your phone number? I'll call you.
lol 1-800-tin-ker-bell !
ah ya baby.
Ok, which posts have disappeared this time? We just dropped a whole page #.
dodo deletes only the posts from the one christian who posts here. pure sanctified genius. no one can keep up with whoever it is. what a sign of god's power to convict the sinner, that she has to run from truth.
even the faux christians are intimidated!
For all the long discussions by religious people attempting to debunk science, it really boils down to a single simple reality: Science has enormous moountains supporting its findings, and religion has absolutely none.
None. Nothing. Religious people cannot provide even the slightest credible evidence that what they say is true. All they have is their scripture, which many other religions also have and claim without evidence that they are true, all of which make contradictory or ridiculous claims.
It's all about evidence, and religious people have none.
@ Bottom Line:
Science does not make metaphysical claims. Naturalism does.
you appear to be conflating the two.
Science is not the enemy of metaphysics.
After all, physics cannot speak to metaphysics... because physics *presupposes* metaphysics.
It is your failing to distinguish your metaphysical claims from scientific observation that leads you to falsely assume *science* is the problem when it is actually your underlying faith / beliefs / religion / metaphysical claims that are competing with OTHER metaphysical claims.
in short, it's not science vs. religion, but your "religion" vs. other religions.
"because physics *presupposes* metaphysics"
certainly there are scientists that are believers, but for many, they need not concern themselves with assumptions regarding metaphysics. they can confidently research and apply standard methods and keep most of metaphysics in the same drawer with well-wishing hints from outsiders like "knock on wood", etc. and, as a taxpayer, who wants a scientist to spend hours of each of his/her day rethinking the root history of analytic philosophy. after all, don't we all start the day with quite a number of presuppositions?
@ Pete: i think you misunderstood my critique here.
i have no problem with science. i have a problem with metaphysics being conflated with science. from what you've said here, it is unclear if you see the difference. when science is regarded as competing for the same space as religion (i.e., explicitly metaphysical claims), we are not longer dealing with science but with metaphysics operating under the guise of science.
Perhaps science is not so tame as all that, Russ. Perhaps it will one day address things like whether there is anything eternal, why there are things, why there is order, if there are alternatives to time. Who knows what questions can be asked and answered?
@ TTTOO: that sounds like the inverse of the "God of the gaps" fallacy.
it is exciting to think of all science might discover in the future, but "eternal" is a different category altogether (unless one is a naturalist... but that begs the question). "eternal" draws in metaphysical questions & assumptions that science cannot address because it *presupposes* such things.
True enough, Russ. But if we can ever get a handle on time, perhaps "eternal" might mean something. I'm optimistic. Perennially metaphysical question may not remain so. We may find your God, or there may be ever fewer gaps for it to hide in.
Bottom Line… Actually, you've got it backward. Religious people have all the evidence necessary (Jesus Christ) and scientific people have none. However, if you want to believe that all your scientific theories and false conclusions from bones found in the dirt is evidence, then feel free to do so, but it will not save you…
JTF,
You actually worship a being that you have to be 'saved' from? Ugh, what an eternity that's gonna be... you'll never know when it's going to come up with another goofy 'plan'. Good thing it's not real.
you'd better save yourself from the gory glory sin living within
"Religious people have all the evidence necessary (Jesus Christ)"
Sorry, but no. What you have is faith that a book written across centuries in different languages, times and cultures has somehow been transmitted down the ages to us in a form (regardless of version) is still able to show us the will of God.
That's faith, not evidence. I don't have that much faith I'm afraid...
Let me guess, and satan planted those bones to fool us?
For the nitty-gritty of evolution, see http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02
It's simple enough. The Jesus of the Bible is in no way apparent as a currently living person. There's no reason to think he's not as dead as everyone else who lived two thousand years ago. No God has made itself evident. There is no reason to think that the Universe is created. So, no one can put forward anything more than a baseless assertion that there was Creation and that Jesus in any way "backs it up."
The pope sunk his own god of the bible really – the internet is NOT a gift from god.
They think that *everything* beneficial is a "Gift from God" - see, "God" put those ideas into the heads of the inventors!
The non-beneficial stuff is either from "Satan" or from evil men or is another dandy "Gift from God" so that we can suffer in the name of "Jesus" and earn eternal bliss! 😈
Yeah like the sole of the internet TCP/IP !
And eternity is the internet maybe – as the printed comments might live on long after a bite the bullet – eternity ?
If you expect us to believe you, then please provide us with the "evidence" to support your nonsense. Otherwise, it is only nonsense...
Futurescape – Cheating Time – says that where eternity is going to be – storing our memory on the web !
Speaking of nonsense, where's YOUR evidence for god.... otherwise, as you've said.....
To Bostontola…
Since you see to have all the answers, here are a few questions for you. Answer them if you can…
Question #1 – Assume I'm someone who doesn't know the truth, and assume I'm someone who's still searching for truth. In such a case, then for what possible reason should I believe in the Big Bang theory or the Theory of Evolution over the story of Creationism which is backed up by Jesus Christ? What makes your theories more valid?…
Question #2 – If the Theory of Evolution was true and if mankind had actually "evolved", then God would never have existed and neither would Jesus Christ. So how do you explain his existence?…
Question #3 – In an attempt to disprove Creationism, atheists say they don't believe Jesus Christ was the son of God. Belief is not proof. What proof do you have that Jesus Christ was NOT the son of God?…
Question #4 – In the Book of Job 38:5, Jesus Christ himself stated, "Where was thou when I laid the foundation of the earth? So Jesus Christ was there when the earth was first created. Or are you saying that Jesus Christ is a liar? And if so, then what proof do you have that he was a liar other than your own personal opinion?…
Question #5 – You might be willing to wager your eternal soul on some theory that is chock full of holes and is full of unanswered questions, but I am not. If you cannot successfully answer my questions and explain the giant holes in your theories, then for what possible reason should I believe you?…
Hole #1 – Why has no transitional lifeforms ever been found on earth? And yes, I'm well aware that scientists has found some strange skeleton that they claim is such a lifeform (which is kinda like finding the skeleton of a two-headed baby, which is merely a birth defect). The problem is, if Evolution was true, then there should be millions of transitional lifeforms all over the earth. In fact, there should be many more transitional lifeforms than there are normal lifeforms. And clearly that is not the case. So how do you explain the discrepancy?…
Hole #2 – A chaotic explosion in space would not create order. So how do you explain the order we have in the universe, and where did that order come from?…
Hole #3 – A chaotic explosion would in no wise create perfectly round planets. It might create big chunks of dirt and rock and such, but not perfectly round planets. So how do you explain the near unlimited number of perfectly round planets in our heavens?…
Hole #4 – Scientists say the Big Bang explosion originated from a singularity. Problem is, they have no proof of such a singularity, and all they have is a theory. Can you offer me any explanation that does not rely on a theory?…
Hole #5 – I contend the scientific age dating methods are wrong. They are wrong because they rely on "theories" and "assumptions". For example, scientists have no knowledge of what the universe was like a billion years ago, and can only "theorize" what it was like. Can you provide me with an accurate dating method that doesn't rely on a theory or assumption? And if the answer is No, then why should I believe it?...
Like Austin, you put words in people's mouths. I never said I had all the answers.
In fact, I don't know shows up many times in my response below.
Some people want to make a point so much that the fabricate and project so they can then comment on the fabrication rather than on what people actually wrote. That is very selfish and self centered.
ok, well I apologize. and I care about you and what you ask. I do have faults. I did not mean to cheat you .
I appreciate that Austin, it takes character to apologize. I am quite imperfect, I am fond of many of my imperfections.
ok guy. I just have to trust Him with mine. His blessing are greater than the desires of my flesh. talk to ya later. thanks for the reply.
Bostontala... I said you "seem" to have all the answers, and I was being sarcastic. Not that I believe for a moment that you actually do. Nonetheless, I was putting your knowledge to the test to determine what you know. So please answer my questions if you can and stop evading the issue. Focusing on an irrelevant statement as opposed to answering the questions is nothing more than a evasive tactic. A tactic that is only telling us you don't have a clue. And if you don't have a clue, then why should anyone listen to you...
Just The...
I won't even bother with a critique to tell you how you come off here.
Keep it up, though...
I would try to answer most of your questions, but many of them assume so much stupid sh!t that they aren't even real questions. Your bias is so obvious and so rooted in ignorance, that an intelligent person will recognize that there is only the slightest chance that you would even consider a sensible reply to them.
To provide an an@logy, it's like you're a Fred Phelps character asking why you should give all your money to g@ys since they only arrived on earth from their spaceships last Wednesday. There's no answer, and it's unlikely you'll accept any sensible correction to your fallacious assumptions in order to eventually get to a proper question and its most logical answer.
JTF: You fail to comprehend what a scientific theory and really it doesn't matter if you agree with evolution or the Big Bang Theory-both are facts and are backed with more peer-reviewed data than your bible is.
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."
JTF,
Perhaps someone will take the time to address all of your points, but you're probably going to get individual answers
(you probably know them already... or you should)
Here a bit on the round plants deal:
"All of the planets are round because of gravity. When our Solar System was forming, gravity gathered billions of pieces of gas and dust into clumps which grew larger and larger to become the planets. The force of the collision of these pieces caused the newly forming planets to become hot and molten. The force of gravity, pulled this molten material inwards towards the planet's center into the shape of a sphere. Later, when the planets cooled, they stayed spherical.
Planets are not perfectly spherical because they also spin. The spinning force acts against gravity and causes many planets to bulge out more around their equators." –http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/194-Why-are-all-of-the-planets-round-
No, no, no...they were spiked through the middle and spun on the potters wheel of the goddess Marikala. You can still see the indentations of the fingers from when they were lifted and placed into orbit.
I wonder… Thanks for your response. Most posters won't address certain points only because they have no answer for those points, and it has nothing to do with time. Most will only answer those questions they feel they are capable of answering while avoiding all the rest. I'm under no illusion that anyone can answer them all. Yet, Creationism can…
What you're saying regarding perfectly round planets does sound plausible under certain specific circuumstances (that is, if the particles being attracted are small enough, and if the object at the planet core is more or less round to begin with – both of which are highly unlikely in a chaotic explosion). Nonetheless, I still have other problems with it. For example, any planet that has a gravity field that is strong enough to attract a trillion of tons of cosmic dust to form a single planet would also be strong enough to attract other planets as well. In fact, when any two planets came within range of each other, they would both attract each other because they both have gravity fields. Thus, over time, planets would be colliding with each other all over the universe, and the consequence of those collisions would NOT be perfectly round planets. Yet, we see no evidence of that in our universe. But I'll give you credit for trying…
How the Universe Works – Planets from Hell – Just the Facts look it up.
I'd be offended if someone of your level of ignorance were to thank me for "trying." You make a laughing stock of your lack of knowledge of gravity and the science "behind" your other fallacious questions. Please, please, please, stay on your side, and continue to believe in god and infect other god believers with your style of abject stupidity. Thank you for not being an atheist!!!!!
jtf?
The planets ARE crashing into each other. AS a matter of FACT, entire galaxies are crashing into each other. Incredibly huge energies are being released, and more matter will be thrown from the collisions. These will overcome gravity and rip the matter apart...then the slow effects like gravity will begin to take place again.
You are running down a blind alley on this one, since it is just YOU that can't fathom what we are witnessing all throughout the universe. You seem to not be factoring the BILLIONS of years at work here as well. As one star goes nova, it blasts away the elements of that sun...those peices go flying...immediately each of those peices are effected by gravity and will change course to a degree equal to the effect of gravity on each object..so you have two objects thrown away from a sun on nearly identical paths...over time the two get close due to gravity and eventually become one, has more mass and attracts larger and more distant objects, until such point as it's own gravity starts to shape the matter into a sphere. We see it ALL OVER THE UNIVERSE, including on earth, and on the moon. ( or have you not seen the craters) The moon is not perfectly round either.
Just The Facts,
I think you'll have to take it up with Cal Tech (or other experts on the matter), but things are crashing into other things all the time out there. The collision of 2 planets was observed just a couple of years ago(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080923164646.htm)
And not all objects out in space are round - planets are pretty much so, but asteroids and other things are of many shapes - there's a peanut-shaped one pretty close to us, in fact. Perhaps some will coalesce into planets at some time, or perhaps not.
lgaftr… I am by no means running down a blind alley and I know perfectly well where I am going. And even if you could present me with explanations that were perfectly plausible (which is the only thing I'm really searching for in the first place, is to see how many "plausible" explanations you can offer me) that still doesn't mean your explanations are true. You even stated yourself, there could be multiple possibilities for the very same thing. So why can't you consider the possibility that maybe God created the universe?…
As for me, I am under no illusions about the truth. I know the truth. I know that God exists. And I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that God created the universe. And that all other explanations are nothing but lies. And it doesn't matter how plausible an explanation may seen, and nor does it matter how good that explanation may sound, it still nothing more than a lie, a lie dreamed up by Lucifer, designed to get you to disbelieve in God so you will end up in hell. And do you know how I know this is a world where mankind was "created" rather than "evolved"? There are many way I know that, but the main reason is Jesus Christ himself. This is a world where Jesus Christ came to earth and died on the cross. If mankind had evolved, then God would never have existed and neither would Jesus Christ. So the very fact that Jesus Christ existed is irrefutable proof that the living God exists, and that he created the universe. I need no more proof than that…
As for the rest of what you said, the moment you start mentioning "billions of years" then that's the moment you're getting into theories and speculation. Because no scientist was alive billions of years ago, therefore no scientists knows for certain what really happened and can only offer theories about it. And why should I believe their theories? Heck, even I can theorize. But that doesn't make my theories true. My point is, if you're trying to convince me or someone like me that what you're saying is true, then you're going to have to do better than offer me theories. You're going to have to offer me an explanation that is not based on a theory, but is based on truth and actual fact. And all I'm hearing from you thus far is nothing more than theories…
Secondly, I wasn't referring to supernovas. I was referring to ordinary planets in space. If ordinary planets in space had enough gravity force to form, then those same planets would have enough gravity force to attract other planets as well. In such a case, we'd be seeing far more planetary collisions happening in our universe than we're seeing….
Capt. Obvious…
Okay, smartguy… I'm I'm so ignorant, then why don't you enlighten us with your wisdom by taking a a stab at answering the questions I have asked. And there are plenty to be answered (I've provided 10). Let's see if you can answer those same questions better than everyone else has (and try not to repeat what they said) since you claim to be so much more "intelligent". Any fool can sit back and berate others and talk about how someone else is ignorant. But let's see if you can back it up…
Just,
"Because no scientist was alive billions of years ago, therefore no scientists knows for certain what really happened and can only offer theories about it. And why should I believe their theories?"
Since no current historians were alive in the 1700s is the existence of George Washington "just" a theory? When you close your eye is you beliefe that the room is still there "just" a theory? Theories are ALL you have. There is nothing else. Nothing better. The idea your mother or wife or husband or daughter can think? "Just" a theory. The idea that the telescope you look through reliable portrays what is on the slide? Theory. That your eyes tell you the truth? Theory. Except for pure mathematics, it's all just theory. Everything. Am I getting repetetive?
THEORY THEORY THEORY THEORY THEORY THEORY THEORY THEORY THEORY
That's it. Theories don't become facts, they incorporate facts where are just repeated observations...nothing more.Facts are not proven theories. There is no proof. It doesn't get better than theory.
JTF
Same old trap
"As for me, I am under no illusions about the truth. I know the truth. I know that God exists. And I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that God created the universe."
False. You do not know that, you believe it. HUGE difference.
You have faith...that precludes knowing...if you knew, there would be no reason for faith.
You know nothing regarding how the universe came to be.
There are an infinite number of possibilities...you have only accepted ONE of an infinite number, rejecting the infinity minus one possibilities.
Just as you reject out of hand the other thousands of gods...It is only delusion that makes you think you know.
JTF, are you REALLY that ignorant?
He sure is!!!
not facts at all.
You present a lsit of biased questions so not bothering with that...as far as wholes?
#1) transitional fossils. Since all creatures are undergoing evolution, all fossils are in fact transitional, unless an creature has remained stagnant in one form....the horseshoe crab for instance has changed little. Only a perceived hole, but since we do not have plaster castings of every creature to have ever lived, yes there will be some gaps in the overall knowledge.
#2) order from chaos. Since you have MANY forces acting on things, gravity, attraction of electrical charges etc...those forces act to bring a sort of order to the chaos. It isn't like there was an eplosion and no other energy is in the mix...there are several energy forms acting, so no hole there either.
#3) see #2...and there are very few planets that are perfectly round...gravity is why they are spherical....no hole there.
#4) No. God did it is also a theory ( hypothesis really) plus an infinite number of other possible explainations....no hole there that isn't also a hole to your god hypothesis, and all others as well.
#5)" I contend the scientific age dating methods are wrong"...Too bad...since we use MANY methods for dating and do not rely on any one, your contention is disregarded...no hole there, except for in your education.
If only you would post facts...just another who can't tell fact from belief.
lgaftr…
RE #1 – Nice try, but you still haven't answered the question – Why has no transitional lifeforms been found on earth? And don't pretend you're too stupid to know what I'm talking about. Even traditional science disagrees with you. When has traditional science ever called normal lifeforms "transitional"?…
RE #2 – Your comments are pure theory and speculation and nothing else. Scientists has never been able to create order from chaos even on a small scale. Nor does the idea of doing so even make practical sense. If you disagree, then please provide proof of that fact and I will believe you…
RE #3 – Why do atheists always tell lies? Answer: Because if they told the truth, they'd have no argument. You obviously are someone who has never looked through a telescope of seen pictures of planets in books. Pick up any book that has pictures of the planets and with the exceptions of asteroids and comets, every planet in the universe will be more or less "round". They're not lopsided, nor are they "oblong" like most comets tend to be. No explosion of chaos can generate such perfectly round planets. No matter how much gravity is applied, it still would not create perfectly round planets or anything close…
RE #4 – With God in the equation, infinite possibilities does not exist. You either have the truth and have what God says, or all you have is a lie. And God says he created the earth. So you either believe he's telling the truth, or you believe that he is lying. If you believe he's telling the truth, then none of the other possibilities happened. And if believe he's lying, then where is your proof of that fact?…
RE #5 – I don't care how many various age dating methods there are. I'm saying they are all wrong. And they are all wrong for the very same reason. Because they all rely upon theories and assumptions. And you still didn't answer my question – Can you provide me with an accurate dating method that doesn't rely on a theory or assumption? Why not just say No and admit it...
As for posting "facts", if you feel I'm not posting facts then why don't you provide us with some then. Not theories, not speculations, not assumptions or opinions of your mind, but real and indisputable facts that can be backed up by truth...
Perhaps you're a POE or perhaps you're just a troll but for fvck's sake, I hope you're not really this stupid!! It seems obvious that you're not really interested in the true answers to your stupid questions.
Please stay a god believer, we don't want you on our side. And by all means, keep spouting your silly nonsense. Smarter god believers will recognize that really, when it comes down to it, their questions aren't any better, and that god belief really has no logical underpinning at all.
You're better for our side right where you are. Stay a Christian and keep preaching your silliness!!
You don't like facts do you.
Now you are just making stuff up.
#1) already explained. What part of " we don't have plaster casts of every creature" and ALL creatures are transitional do you not understand.
2)Not theory nor speculation. You do not know what you are talking about. Since there are many attractive forces in nature, and other forces acting...order comes from "chaos"...we see it in every meteor strike on earth....the earth gains mass with each one.
3)Not even close to a lie. Nearly every planet or celestial body is roundish....almost none are perfectly round, and gravity accounts for this. Again, You don't know what you are talking about...and I have spent years looking though telescopes,and seeing the data pour in from many observatories. Good luck finding a non-gaseous planet that is perfectly round.
4)"with god in the equation." There are an inifinite number of possible scenarios that involved a god or gods or something that may be somewhat close to your defintion of god...and an inifinite number of possibilities that involve no gods at all. Just because you say so, does not eliminate the other possibilities.
5) The dating methods are fact...based in theory and then proven countless times. I can't help it if you choose to throw out valid science because it destroys the ridiculous bible. Just because you don't accept them does not mean I have to defend them. They are reliable to a point, and with each new refinement, more accurate. We know for FACT the breakdown of isotopes, and can set our clocks by them. You not accepting reality is not a discussion that is worth having. You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is.
When have you ever offered a fact?
Nothing from the bible qualifies...existance of gods doesn't qualify.existance of spiritual realms or supernatural doesn't qualify so what facts?
lgaftr…
RE #1 – You are avoiding the issue. Stop trying to pretend like you're too dumb to understand. If you cannot understand the term "transitional" then perhaps you can understand the word "intermediate" (meaning a lifeform that in-between this lifeform and that lifeform). Why are there no "intermediate" lifeforms found on earth?…
RE #2 – Please show me even a single clear cut example of order created from chaos…
RE #3 – Since it appears you're still trying to play dumb and act like you have no clue what I'm talking about, I'll rephrase the question – Why are there so many "nearly round" planets in our universe? And since you're too stupid to know what "round" is, allow me to explain even that. For all practical purposes, the Earth is round, the Moon is round, Saturn is round, Jupiter is round, etc. There are countless such round planets in our heavens (and they number in the trillions). My question is, Why are there so many such roundish planets in our heavens? I have stated that a chaotic explosion would not have created such roundish planets…
RE #4 – Wrong. There is only one true and living God (God himself has said so). And he is the only one there is. No other gods, even if they existed, are capable of creating the universe. Therefore, either God created the universe, or he did not not. There is no other possibility.
RE #5 – No dating method is a "fact" if it is even partially based on a theory. And all scientific dating methods are based on a theory. And since you haven't provided me with a method that is NOT based on a theory, I must assume no such methods exist…
The existence of Jesus Christ qualifies everything. It qualifies the scriptures, and it qualifies that God exists. The very existence of Jesus Christ is irrefutable proof that God exists. And it cannot be otherwise…
POE troll is boringly obvious.
"RE #1 – You are avoiding the issue. Stop trying to pretend like you're too dumb to understand. If you cannot understand the term "transitional" then perhaps you can understand the word "intermediate" (meaning a lifeform that in-between this lifeform and that lifeform). Why are there no "intermediate" lifeforms found on earth?…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Regardless of whether you accept a fossil as transitional/intermediate or not, according to the creationist narrative, there should be zero forms with features bridging the specially created "kinds." Yet, we can clearly observe fish with tetrapod features, reptiles with bird features, etc, which are further supported by phylogenetic analyses confirming the relationships.
The true irony of creationist mythology is that it invokes hyper-evolution to account for observable biodiversity stemming from incredibly genetically limited founding pairs departing the ark.
ID/creationists continually present these well-refuted claims apparently incapable of understanding that at each and every opportunity to make their negative case of incredulity and in the absence of any positive supporting physical evidence, they have repeatedly failed, both in the scientific literature and in the courts. To date, there are no mineral/oil companies using "flood geology" to locate deposits, and evolution remains the bedrock biological theory validated in applications ranging from agriculture to medicine. How many patents have been awarded to AIG, ICR v. any medium-sized research university's various biology departments? Why do you think this is?
redzoa… You stated… "Regardless of whether you accept a fossil as transitional/intermediate or not, according to the creationist narrative, there should be zero forms with features bridging the specially created "kinds."…
I never said that and that's not my viewpoint. Nor does it even make rational sense. For example, if some scientist is claiming that one species evolved into another species (and that God did not create each species that way) then as required by the evolutionary process, there would be a a large number of living "intermediate" species in between this species and that species, with each intermediate species representing a stage of the evolution. That is how it would be. But despite the claims of the scientists, that this is not what happened, and no true intermediate lifeforms has been found. The absence of such lifeforms is telling…
Even worse, scientists also argue that most latter stage species would ultimately become the dominant lifeform, and that all early stage lifeforms would die off due to not having the same evolutionary advantages. But if that was the case, and particularly since science has indicated that mankind somehow evolved from fish in the ocean which over time learned how to walk and to come up on dry land etc. If that was the case, then right now, there'd be no more fish the ocean because they would all have evolved into people or died off. But clearly that tis not the case. Which only illustrates that science has no clue what they're talking about…
@JTF – Again, your claims of what should be observable are not what evolution predicts and reflect your miscomprehension of the science. The fossil record is not expected to provide fine scale captures of lower taxonomic level change because the probability of capture as a fossil is incredibly small. This improbability is compounded by the fact that new species populations are themselves very small populations. You are arguing a 19th century anti-evolution claim based on the then expectation of gradualism and a near perfect fossil record. We know acknowledge that PE dominates the fossil record (though examples of gradualism do, in fact ,exist, e.g. the Foraminifera). Still, the absence of smooth change captured in the fossil record is not an issue, because we can and have observed such transitions directly in extant forms, i.e. speciation events. And again, we have the progressive order of the fossil record as conceded by creationists themselves.
By your argument, the following list is purely imagined:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Clearly, none of these fossils actually exist and their discovery, in the correct temporal and morphological context is a vast worldwide conspiracy of scientists whose sole purpose is to undermine your preferred holy book's mythology.
You didn't actually address the fact that there do exist, forms that bridge the major vertebrate classes. The simple fact that they exist refutes your claim that intermediate/transitional forms are completely absent (similarly, ring species provide an extant example of intermediate forms separating related but distinct, non-interbreeding species). Your original question involved contrasting evolution to creationism, which is why I pointed out what the creationist narrative indicates, i.e. specially created kinds which cannot evolve beyond their kind. The presence of fossils simultaneously bearing traits of two different kinds undermines such mythology. You failed to respond to this and I suspect you have no actual response.
Similarly, your understanding of when, where, and how a population may be expected to go extinct betrays that you have no familiarity with the science; frankly, your description of what you believe should happen indicates a middle school understanding of evolution, at best and certainly no actual training or specific education. Species rise and fall based on their environments and a given adaptation may or may not be beneficial as conditions change. The fact remains that this planet began with microbes, continues to be dominated by microbes and will invariably end with microbes remaining the "dominant" species, e.g. bacteria living in and on your own body outnumber your own cells ~ 100:1.
I would also note that you failed to respond to the validation of mainstream geology and evolution in application contrasted to the complete lack of application (beyond apologetics) of ID/creationism to yield novel and useful technology.
Here's some simple creationist homework for you: Please explain the progressive order of the fossil record and why we observe first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals and then birds. You should understand when reviewing AIG, ICR and the other creationist websites, that forms with similar density and similar ecology are separated by many, many layers of strata (thereby rendering "hydrodynamic sorting," "eco-zonation," "differential escape," and "floating biomes" all hopelessly contrary to this observation).
If you'd prefer any easier start, read up on their explanations for why there have been zero human fossils found alongside dinosaur fossils. You could also read their pages praying for god to provide an answer for why the Coconino sandstone defies the global flood myth. Really, there's a wealth of comedy at creationist websites. I always enjoy their ridiculous explanations for the various impact craters and how koalas made it to Australia from Mt. Ararat . . .
"if mankind somehow evolved from fish in the ocean which over time learned how to walk and to come up on dry land etc. If that was the case, then right now, there'd be no more fish the ocean because they would all have evolved into people or died off."
Oh no, not the old, "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" canard again! You've GOT to be kidding!
"There is only one true and living God (God himself has said so). And he is the only one there is. No other gods, even if they existed, are capable of creating the universe. Therefore, either God created the universe, or he did not not. There is no other possibility."
laughable,, absurd and utterly ridiculous....
Sound scientific theories have uses and are reliable for those uses – utility. In some cases we have no way, and possibly can have no way, of knowing if what is theorized is true. We use theories and models of reality that work, look for others when they don't. Does Just The Facts have anything better to offer?
Meteorites from billions of years ago Just the Facts ?
I am a believer in God and an educated man. In my daily life, I employ spirituality, spiritual knowledge, logic, reason, and empirical knowledge, as per applicable. They are all parts and parcel of true science. The etymology of the word "science" is knowledge. Knowledge is not limited to empirical, rather, it includes spiritual and logical.
Everyday we learn more, we evolve and improve our lives if we apply our knowledge wisely, collectively and individually, as well as realizing how much we don't know.
I like Physics a lot; I remember back in college, physics professors used to say "Physics is the mother of all science—empirical, that is," which is true. However, in physics labs, they would say something like "your physics experiments can not yield 100% results even under perfect conditions," which is true as well.
Science discovered by man is approximate and NOT EXACT.
We are sentient beings; we are very perceptive, however, naturally biased. We can observe, test and establish empirical facts regarding this physical existence, approximate however, yet, how we apply those facts can very well be biased. In the meantime, we are very critical about what is presented to us. We can sense & rationalize what is being presented to us.
In a quest for the truth, the human effort can cease or go a full circle. What we might perceive as advancement might very well be what's leading us back to where we started. Everything we have today has always been around just not discovered.
The scientific method is the best tool we have. A christian who says evolution is not correct is basically saying that god is an evil trickster who puts billions and billions of data points in place that make evolution look like the most sensible answer to all the pieces of the puzzle we have found.
Like I said, "Empirical Evidence" is not the only source of knowledge. Meanwhile, 'Evolution of the Species' fails the "Empirical Test.'
I would have to know more about how you define "knowledge." I know that I had pizza last night even though I can't test that fact with an experiment that could be repeated. Science deals with concepts that are able to be tested and measured according to parameters of the experiment. Considering the billions of data points that are able to be tested and measured and verified and reverified by thousands and thousands of repeatable experiments and other confirming data, evolution MUST be true---unless some god is tricking us by providing us with those billions of data points that ALL imply evolution is true when it isn't. What kind of fvcking azzhole god would do that? I can't think of one evil enough to do that unless perhaps its the disgusting creep described as the god of the bible.
"Like I said, "Empirical Evidence" is not the only source of knowledge. Meanwhile, 'Evolution of the Species' fails the "Empirical Test.'"
Except, of course, for the directly observed evidence of significant morphological divergence (e.g. the Pod Mrcaru lizards) and the direct observation of speciation in the lab and in the wild . . .
'Macro Evolution' is but science fiction, it is never empirically proven by any means.
For Evolution to be valid, it requires "the presence of the ancestral fossils prior to the emergence of the first forms of animal life," which are completely missing from Charles Darwin's research and from Evolutionary Biology to date! Meaning, life DID NOT evolve!
Furthermore, "there exists no evidence in the fossil record that any species has ever evolved from another species since no undisputed transitional forms have ever been discovered."
[
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, (why) do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”
Charles Darwin
]
Vic,
Darwin was able to say this because in his time, we had far fewer fossils. We have many, many more now, and we also have a great many transitional forms–many dinosaur species with feathers for example. In fact, every single organism is a transitional form. Evolution is a very gradual process that takes place over a very long period of time–a concept many Creationists seem unable to grasp. There is no real distinction between macro and micro evolution. It is a fiction created by Creationists. What you call macro evolution is just lots and lots of micro evolution taking place over a long period of time.
Look–if you are truly and sincerely interested in evolution–why not take classes in it? You could get an education and understand it fully, and if you feel the hypothesis can be disproven, set up an experiment and try to disprove an evolutionary hypothesis. A Nobel Prize awaits you. Unlike Creationism, or it's faux scientific counterpart "Intelligent Design"–Evolution by Natural Selection does yield hypotheses that can be tested, and so far they have passed the tests. See, that's how science works. Anyone could potentially do the calculations, form the hypotheses, and test them, and then write up their findings for peer review. Go for it.
Vic
"For Evolution to be valid, it requires "the presence of the ancestral fossils "
False. Evolution can be valid with NO FOSSILS AT ALL. We just would not know as much about it as we do.
There is no micro and macro...that is just the fundy trying to break down the science, and doing it incorrectly. When you have small changes to a creature, then magnify it over thousands, millions, billions of years the small change then another, then another, add up until you cannot tell what the creature was to begin with.
You'd realize how mind-numblingly stupid your assumptions are if you had the slightest clue about one hundredth of the facts we knows within the field of genetic research. We don't even need fossils, anymore. Ignorance is your only excuse, but you don't have to use it; the person debating you will understand it's the deciding factor in your delusional stance.
Vic animals too .
From one cell to many: How did multicellularity evolve?
Date:
January 25, 2014
Source:
American Journal of Botany
Summary:
In the beginning there were single cells. Today, many millions of years later, most plants, animals, fungi, and algae are composed of multiple cells that work collaboratively as a single being. Despite the various ways these organisms achieved multicellularity, their conglomeration of cells operate cooperatively to consume energy, survive, and reproduce. But how did multicellularity evolve?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm
Vic
There is no such thing as spirtual knowledge, since no one knows if there is such a thing as spirit. All you have is spirit speculation.
That defies being sentient as well as having consciousnesses!
Vic
Since I am human, and corporeal, the sentience and intelligence I have are also corporeal, meaning that it is interaction between atoms and electricity that I am able to think. There is no indication of any "spirit" that is separatable from the rest. Again...existance of "spirit" is just speculation, and not knowledge.
The manifestation of spirit over matter takes the forms of chemical reaction, and so, so forth, but those chemical reaction are the cause of consciousnesses, mind/cognition, etc. "Empirical Science" is clueless when it comes to "consciousnesses" no matter how Quantum Level Signals they detect, it DOES NOT know the source!
The manifestation of spirit over matter takes the forms of chemical reactions, and so on, so forth, but those chemical reaction are the cause of consciousnesses, mind/cognition, etc. "Empirical Science" is clueless when it comes to "consciousnesses" no matter how Quantum Level Signals they detect, it DOES NOT know the source!
Vic
How do you jump from "do not know the source" to the existance of spirit as knowledge.
DId you even read what you posted? I do not know is NOT knowledge. SO there is no such thing as "spiritual knowledge"...NOT knowing is not knowledge...can it be any more plain?
Edited for missing words, letters and punctuations:
The manifestation of spirit over matter takes the forms of chemical reactions, and so on, so forth, but those chemical reactions are NOT the causes of consciousnesses, mind/cognition, etc. "Empirical Science" is clueless when it comes to "consciousnesses" alone, no matter how Quantum Level Signals it detects; it DOES NOT know the source!
vic
A little slow on the uptake today?
How do you jump from "don't know" to spiritual knowledge.
do not know is NOT KNOWledge....the existance of any "spirit" is speculation and NOT knowledge.
Well, I do this on the fly, pretty much.
Now, how did you come up with that take about knowledge?!
Not from the tree with the snake Vic .
Vic
What take on knowledge...The FACT that not knowing isn't knowledge...seriously?
Your assertion that I make "don't know" into "spiritual knowledge."
Vic asserts that there are facts that can only be accessed through spirit. But spirit isn't defined well enough to make judgments about whether it is a fact that there is anything spiritual.
"The fact is there just aren't enough facts!" – The Brave Little Toaster
Vic, that is mainly a lot of shallow waffling, and it is disgusting as a set of excuses to let you avoid facing up to the reality of what we understand of our universe today. What is clear and certain now is that the Christian god described in the Christian bible does not exist, and that the Christian creation stories are plainly and simply false. The more we learn and the more we understand of our world, the further we move from your crazy religion of talking snakes, animal sacrifice, mustard trees, and young flat earth, and your murderous, racist, se</Ixist, and wholly fictional,monster of a "god". It is a disgusting, obsolete dogma that you cling to in your cowardly ways.
Grow some courage and face the facts.
What exactly is "spiritual knowledge"?
Cognition obtained through non-structured consciousness, mind, sentience, basic instincts, intuition, common sense, etc.
The "fuzzy" aspects of the logic behind human consciousness? That's spirit? If your head suddenly explodes into a fine aerosol those aspects of you will somehow survive, Vic?
Aside of your satire, the body/flesh of the human being won't survive such conditions, and consequently, the spirit immediately departs the body/flesh.
"Aside from your satire.."
And if I run something similar on a machine, Vic, and I turn off the machine the programs will not stop, but will depart and go elsewhere?
That's one of the main problems with atheism, that is reducing everything to matter!
No Vic, there's not just matter! There is energy too! And those two things are an awful lot.
On a subjective level, there is also culture, which covers a very rich range of subjects.
One more thing–atheism does not reduce things to matter. I suppose one can say that about Naturalism–at least in terms of objective reality, but Atheism is strictly the word we use to describe a lack of belief in god–nothing more.
Thanks
What else can you prove to exist other than energy / matter? Why is it a problem to only state that the things exist which we can prove exist? Where's the problem?
@Vic,
"Cognition obtained through..."
So, thoughts?
Vic, that is mainly a lot of shallow waffling, and it is disgusting as a set of excuses to let you avoid facing up to the reality of what we understand of our universe today. What is clear and certain now is that the Christian god described in the Christian bible does not exist, and that the Christian creation stories are plainly and simply false. The more we learn and the more we understand of our world, the further we move from your crazy religion of talking snakes, animal sacrifice, and young flat earth, and your murderous, racist, sexist, and wholly fictional,monster of a "god". It is a disgusting, obsolete dogma that you cling to in your cowardly ways.
Grow some courage and face the facts.
Whatever the human mind fails or succeeds to establish as facts and/or possibilities, "empirical science" CANNOT define nor detect the "Origin" of matter and life, and your very assertion defies the Logical Must by deduction and reason that there is a "First Cause" for the universe, which is empirically proven to have had a beginning, and life in it.
Correct. Science does not explain where the energy for this universe came from, it only describes how the forms of energy and matter arose from the initial conditions.
It's easy and honest to say "I don't know," and that's what we scientists say about where the energy came from. Of course, some people feel the need to believe that some big invisible sky wizard chanted magic spells for six days and wound up with a "perfect" universe that went into muclear meltdown with the slightest twist of one woman's wrist....That seems silly to me. To each their own, I guess.
Vic, enough of your wimpy waffling. Now, summon some your best courage and listen up:
As our understanding has advanced, we have moved further and further from the crazy nonsense of your bible, not back towards it as you dishonestly are claiming What is clear and certain now is that the Christian god described in the Christian bible does not exist, and that the Christian creation stories are plainly and simply false. The more we learn and the more we understand of our world, the further we move from your crazy religion of talking snakes, animal sacrifice, and young flat earth, and your murderous, racist, sexist, and wholly fictional,monster of a "god".
Face the facts.
Alas, one of the most common tactics by opponents is to divert attention to the God of Christianity while it was never brought up in my discussion. Here is the thing: If you leave ALL Scriptures out, the argument of the "First Cause" is the SAME.
The word "fact" is completely misrepresented by evolutionists.
Vic, enough of your wimpy waffling. You are the one who will not directly respond, coward. You are the subject changer.
Now, summon some your best courage and listen up. Same consistent message from me, unlike you, you coward:
As our understanding has advanced, we have moved further and further from the crazy nonsense of your bible, not back towards it as you dishonestly are claiming What is clear and certain now is that the Christian god described in the Christian bible does not exist, and that the Christian creation stories are plainly and simply false. The more we learn and the more we understand of our world, the further we move from your crazy religion of talking snakes, animal sacrifice, and young flat earth, and your murderous, racist, sexist, and wholly fictional,monster of a "god".
Face up to reality. That reality is that we are moving increasingly away from the far-fetched tales in your Christan storybook, not closer to them, despite your dishonest, cowardly claiming.
Truth is Vic the pope sunk the Ark fact.
That's just cute.
Are you hungry for waffles or something? How about Denny's, Perkins, or Waffle House? Or maybe Bob Evan's? My treat. LOL.
Have a good one.
Vic, again you try to change the subject and dodge, rather than respond to what you have been challenged on.
You are a truly spineless coward, and you are despicable.
Oh, on a side note, yeah.. it's me, I just made a New Year's resolution not to use much HTML Tags.
Have a good one everybody.
Begone, Vic, you spineless and despicable coward that you have demonstrated yourself to be, repeatedly..
Hey Vic – primates !
Blue eyes, dark skin: How European hunter-gatherer looked, 7,000-year-old genome shows
Date:
January 26, 2014
Source:
Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)
Sorry to hear that Vic, we were hoping you'd give up your god delusion for new years.
And then there are the JC theories to include the currently held one by Christians.
Added details:
2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations (or “mythicizing” from P, M, M, L and J) and who has been characterized/theorized to be anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Ludemann, Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hitt-ites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
earlychristianwritings.com/ and earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".
Current RCC problems:
Pedophiliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!
2 b., Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).
Current problems:
Adulterous preachers, pedophiliac clerics, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology,
And think infinity and recycling with the Big Bang expansion followed by the shrinking reversal called the Gib Gnab and recycling back to the Big Bang repeating the process on and on forever. Human life and Earth are simply a minute part of this chaotic, stochastic, expanding, shrinking process disappearing in five billion years with the burn out of the Sun and maybe returning in another five billion years with different life forms but still subject to the v-agaries of its local star.
What we do know: (from the fields of astrophysics, biology, biochemistry, archeology, nuclear physics, geology and the history of religion)
1. The Sun will burn out in 3-5 billion years so we have a time frame.
2. Asteroids continue to circle us in the nearby asteroid belt.
3. One wayward rock and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.
4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.
5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.
6. All stars will eventually extinguish as there is a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the universe. When this happens (100 trillion years?), the universe will go dark. If it does not collapse and recycle, the universe will end.
7. Super, dormant volcanoes off the coast of Africa and under Yellowstone Park could explode cataclysmically at any time ending life on Earth.
8. Many of us are part Neanderthal and/or Denisovan.
Bottom line: our apocalypse will start between now and 3-5 billion CE. The universe apocalypse, 100 trillion years?
http://www.universetoday.com/18847/life-of-the-sun/
solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Asteroids
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/us/wus-supervolcanoes-yellowstone
Search for Paul, book by Professor JD Crossan
Rabbi Paul, book by Professor Bruce Chilton
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/
http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/study-finds-star-formation-declining-throughout-the-universe/
@ JTF : Wow. Just wow. Do you understand concepts such as logic? Do you know what evidence is? Do you comprehend the basic format of a persuasive argument? Did you graduate from grade 8? Were you dropped on your head as a child?
"Can you provide me with an accurate dating method that doesn't rely on a theory or assumption?"
LOL!!!!!
I just had to call this one out as it best exemplifies the complete lack of understanding of how science...or even human though...works. This is hysterical.
Could someone point me to a building that stands neither on a foundation nor on the ground?
I don't know where in the thread this came up but here is my 2 cents:
Radioactive Decay and Radioactive Isotopic Dating methods have always been debated to have problems, especially half-life ones, and lack reliability. Whatever projected reliability is only in theory and has not been achieved in practically.
"..in practicality."
Radiometric dating is consistent across multiple parent-child element tests as well as being consistent with other methods such as fission track, paleomagnetic, dendrochrology, etc.
Indeed we can go from counting tree rings to the half life of various radioactive isotopes. They all overlap and they all line up (within normal variation).
@Just The Facts,
Not that I have all the answers, but here’s some thoughts.
Q#1: Because the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of reality that we have.
Q#2: That is not correct. While there is no need for a god in the Theory of Evolution, it does not disprove God.
Q#3” None. Acceptance of evolution has nothing to do with belief in Jesus. However, if your beliefs are in conflict with evolution, then that is your responsibility to reconcile.
Q#4: 1) You claim that Jesus was there, witnessed what happened, told the truth about what happened, and was recorded correctly in what he said. You have not presented any evidence to support those claims.
Q#5: 1) The wager you mention has no bearing on reality. 2) You assume that your “holes” are valid. 3) Whether you “believe” or not has no bearing on whether it is true or not.
Hole1: Technically every fossil is transitional. The “some” that you mention are simply exceptional examples.
Hole2: The Big Bang was not an explosion. However, the laws of physics do not exclude order coming from such an event.
Hole3: 1) The planets are not perfectly round. 2) Nearly round celestial bodies occur in relation to their size because at large masses the gravitational forces, along with other events like coalescence and collisions, smooth out large protuberances.
Hole4: 1) A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of how nature works and, unlike in regular usage, it is not a guess. 2) The evidence, such as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), points to a singularity.
Hole5: 1) A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of how nature works and, unlike in regular usage, it is not a guess. 2) Your contention is incorrect. Besides there being multiple independent methods that are all consistent in dating old ages, the consequences of the universe being young, would cause huge problems in the physics of the universe, such as star light from stars that never existed, boiling of oceans do to evidenced biological activity on earth creating too much heat, etc.
#1: Enormous mountains of evidence versus absolutely no evidence
#2: Unanswerable, based on Argument From Assertion and Argument From Ignorance fallacies. You are claiming without any evidence whatsoever that God exists, then demanding that people who do not believe he exists to explain the existence of something they have no evidence of nor belief in.
#3 Straw Man Fallacy: I have never seen an atheist attempt to discredit creationism based on whether or not Jesus was the son of God. The second part is Shifting The Burdon of Proof fallacy: No one has bothered to provide any evidence that God exists and Jesus, if he existed, was anything supernatural. If the original claim is unprovable, contrary claims are not required until such evidence is provided for the original claim.
#4: Fallacy of Circular Logic. You are saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true, then making another Straw Man about Jesus being a liar, which I have not seen atheists do on that passage.
#5: Ah, the discredited Pascal's wager. Debunked so many times here that it is foolish to repeat it's obvious flaws. As for why you should believe, I doubt any of us care that you do. That wasn't even a question.
"Hole" 1: Many transitional forms have been found. Your claim is patently false. There are many many skeletons from various stages of human development. I've got news for you: we are all a transitional form, because in 100,000 years, our descendants will be different from us.
"Hole" 2: The explosion was not chaotic: it followed the relevant physical laws, as did what followed. Pure chaos would be impossible. No creator necessary.
"Hole" 3: Planets are not round (you meant to say spheres), nor are they perfectly spherical. The Earth for example is and oblate spheriod. and has numerous variations in surface that we call mountains. But gravity acting in a vacuum will tend to accumulate matter in roughly spherical shapes. Not always, of course: at least one planetoid in our system is shaped like an advil caplet.
"Hole" 4: Very few scientists believe this universe was true singularity, Even Hawkings came to the conclusion that it achieved near singularity but not true singularity. As to your request, you are being quite dishonest. It is impossible to discuss science without discussing theory. I cannot even discuss how a plane flies without use of theory, and neither can anyone else. You set an impossible and absurd condition.
"Hole" 5: Same as the last one. You set an impossible and absurd condition denying the use of theory to explain theory. Dating techniques are based on observation that is extrapolated into the past. If you want to discredit them, you must provide some reason why the observed pattern would change. And you can't.
So basically all you have proven is that your ignorance of science and scientific method is the real problem. You clearly don't know what the word theory means. I have news for you. The existence of Jesus and God (much less their doings and attributes) are both totally theoretical, and unlike scientific theory, they have absolutely no evidence to support them. So if you reject theory and assumption, you must reject God and Jesus.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Harvey D. Rabbit, thank you for taking the trouble to make that great post in response to the trite but lengthy garbage from JtF. May you ever have abundant carrots.
Excellent post Harvey.
For the nitty-gritty of evolution, see http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02 .
Might want to read it before asking any more questions about god, science, evolution et. al.
"so then you admit that a soul is not in a person until they are born then, right?"
no it is with us, but our flesh , along with that soul, causes seperation from the Holy father. and so until one ponders and deals with sin through the atoning blood, then we are in a natural state of fallen seperation. Being born again is the birth of the Holy Spirit , salvation, which is redemption, sanctification, and justification for the communion with God.
Do these "souls" have free will from the beginning? Do they get a choice as to whether to come into this "vale of tears"... or are they forced to do so?
If there is no free will then why are there choices on the dollar menu?
sin is a man made religious construct that is only relevant to members of that religion
sorry. meant as a response to austin, below
do you agree that there is sin?
Sin does not exist Austin! It is only in your crazed mind and the bible that it does.
how do you know that sin does not exist?
how do you know that sin does exist?
because a book told you so?
It is only biblical, it does not mean anything to anyone who doesn't follow your path of belief. People make mistakes but mistakes are not sin.
You happen to be one of the greatest 'sinners'. You are crazy; you are a drunken fool who thinks you get a free pass for 'repenting' after acting out in a vicious manner and putting numerous lives at risk...you need psychological help before you harm another human....go see your Dr's before it's too late!
Austin,
I wonder what IS the price of tea in China these days?
Your response in no way addresses my question.
God is a God of promises. that is good news for every one of us. You are forgiven for your sins if you ask for forgiveness. And you can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, who is God.
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
god is mythology
those promises were made by man.
long dead and unable to fulfill those promise
Wait...when does the soul get attached to a person?
Why I trust science.
Scientists get as much recognition for debunking errant results as for discovering a new correct result. That is the kind of distributed power structure that is as trustworthy as you get.
The religion power structure is antiquated. It is roughly the same as the old monarchies and feudal systems. Those power structures are vulnerable to the human frailty of corruption. Power corrupts. Organizations with power structures that are vulnerable to this should not be trusted.
Our Consti.tution is a giant advancement of humanity to create an organization with a distributed power structure and it has endured so far. Science has an even more distributed power structure. It's not perfect, just the the US, but it is more trustworthy than anything else we've devised.
that is as trustworthy as you get.
how does science measure the soul and God? or the resurrection?
if you are wrong about God are you spreading lies based upon false conslusion. if you are wrong about God, is every one of your opinions wrong and sinful, and worse than neutral.
it is only a lie if they know it is wrong, but continue presenting it as truth
try to use words you understand
it's not the responsibility of science to measure mythology
Austin, when we measure our self, we are very small, aren't we.
Maybe you were just in cold water
"It shrinks?"
into self in cold water .
"Like a frightened turtle!"
And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:2-4 ESV)
As a child I believed in Santa.
Then I grew up.
Many children believe in gods...some never grow up.
or born again.
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’
so then you admit that a soul is not in a person until they are born then, right?
The born again stuff is asymbolic of a new soul, right? So you have no issue with abortion since they do not have souls...or are you conceived again...no born again is the way your "scriptures have it" so abortion is ok since there is no soul involved....right?
You will never be able to attain enlightenment until you give up your earthly desires, such as your religion...the desire that it be real.
Also, you won't get into Valhalla unless you die in battle.
Just beliefs austin...your book is laced with that kind of garbage, but nothing to back it up.
isn't that awesome? austin can quote a comic book!
i suppose it beats running your truck into a church, eh?
Austin
"so then you admit that a soul is not in a person until they are born then, right?"
no it is with us, but our flesh , along with that soul, causes separation from the Holy father. and so until one ponders and deals with sin through the atoning blood, then we are in a natural state of fallen separation. Being born again is the birth of the Holy Spirit , salvation, which is redemption, sanctification, and justification for the communion with God.
Austin,
I guess he forgot to tell Paul of Tarsus that act like a child deal:
"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." 1 Corinthians
this implies that there is spiritual growth. not that you approach Jesus for the first time like you are complete.
Do you want mustard with that pretzel, Austin?!
Austin do you drive a white truck?
sure do.
Does you have a bumper sticker reads "Jesus loves my tattoos?"
no I don't have a tattoo. are you looking for me? Im not scared of anything.
No. I'm sorry to freak you out. This morning I passed a guy in a white truck who had a license plate that said "Austin" and those bumper stickers and for some reason I just wondered. I had to ask just for curiosity value. A regular CNN poster isn't a celeb but it would have been cool.
"I'm not scared of anything."
Of course you are.
You are scared of facing an eternity without your god
that did make me wonder about the white truck. and I don't necessarily believe your following responses, nothing would surprise me.
Sam, how you doing today? do you have some warmer weather? my friend in Michigan sent me a picture and they are totally buried in snow, but here the ground is thawed at the top and its nice out.
Austin.
I am sorry. I shouldn't have asked, it was just a weird coincidence. I don't blame you for not believing me but if it makes you feel better about me or my actual intent I've never dogged on you once unlike the other posters here.
Plus don't worry mystery solved it wasn't you.
@ question
cool dude.
I can take getting dogged on because I understand what it is like to not want it to be true, for the sake of those who perish.
And I did begin like Paul, as a skeptical hater. Understanding how faith and the testing of it glorifies God, takes a certain faith and trust that I could not have accomplished without His Spirit.
"... the Pope said the Internet and social media are making people across the world "increasingly interdependent."
– – –
Actually, the Internet and social media are making people across the world "increasingly knowledgeable and informed".
And to religions, that is a scary and damaging thing. Thinking sheep are harder to manipulate.
thats why they try to extinguish spiritual hope in children in the public schools.
Hyperbolic hogwash.
I don't know about hog wash but hyperbolic is probably pretty right on.
But only if it's YOUR god, right, Austin?
Should the public schools teach children that their nightmares are messages from God? Or to watch out for hommosexual demons and dead cats? Or that getting drunk and plowing your truck into a church will help you meet Jeebys?
there is a correct answer to each one of those questions. there is evil , and it does manifest itself. Does the bible talk about Satan?
@Austin
Of course the bible talks about Satan. The bible is full of crazy stuff.
"there is a correct answer to each one of those questions."
You're right again. The answer is "no".
Austin
That is BS...we don't teach religion in public schools because it is unconst!tutional, and not everyone has the same beliefs.
No one is trying to "extinguish spirituality in public schools". Teaching religion is inappropriate in public schools, but the beliefs of each child is not in question.
Your comment is just ignorance. Are we extinguishing spirituality at the workplace? of course not...same with school.
life is not secular. life is sacred. and there is one savior, messiah, and His name is Jesus.
Everyone deserves, like a child brought up in the truth, to have the seed of doctrinal truth enrich their lives. The secular system is a who.re. that worships Satan.
That is the truth. Satan robs children, of truth. those who worship the god of this world do the same.
More hyperbolic nonsense – do you never tire of trolling this idiocy, Austin ?
Austin
That is not truth, it is belief, and many others have other beliefs. You keep that crap out of our schools and I won't go to churches telling them how they have been decieved.
This is how they ( and you ) have been deceived.
The bible...allegedly inspired by god. Then why did god get so many things wrong. Belief in the bible has led to wars, murders, attempted genocides, destruction and death, faster spread of disease. There is chaos in it's interpretation , so much that there are over 40,000 denominations and climbing. No two interpret it the same...chaos ( devils tool).
When you consider the violent and bloody history that belief in your book has caused, it becomes clear that SATAN inspired your bible. The history should be the proof for you.
The greatest trick the devil ever did was to inspire the bible be written, then credit god for it. And you have bought wholeheartedly iinto satan's hands.
"life is not secular. life is sacred. and there is one savior, messiah, and His name is Jesus"
more delusional blather
amusing that you desire eternity with a being from whom you have to be "save"
Public schools are for education
"spiritual hope" (a code word for delusion) is for home, or church
try to keep up
No Austin, stop lying to people! Do the nurses know you've left your room and are using their computer again?
@Austin: "..that's why they try to extinguish spiritual hope in children in the public schools...
– – –
More specifically and correctly, that is why Catholic and other religious madrasses try to brainwash the little ones, the younger the better, before they have developed critical thinking skills. A clear case of child abuse if ever there was one, with parents as accomplices and clergy as perpetrators.
A thinking population, educated to demand answers to their questions, is not in the interest of those whose stories depend on subterfuge, lies, deceit and mumbo jumbo.
New Pope, Old Pope, Pope classic, diet Pope, caffeine free Pope, Pope with lemon and my personal favorite cherry Pope.
Compare and contrast 1 atheist (me) to a fundamentalist Christian friend of mine.
We both are educated, we are both rational at times and irrational at other times, we can be empathetic sometimes, sometimes insensitive. We both are charitable, hard working people. We both apply science and the scientific method to our daily work. We both have great families, friends, and community. We both have great respect for each other and for our other co-workers.
Where we are different is that I can't turn off the analytic perspective when it comes to our origins, my friend can and does. My friend freely admits this. My friend doesn't even try to rationalize the inconsistencies in the bibles origins stories, there is just belief. This same person is a stickler for detail at work, finding the smallest flaws in engineering designs, just turns it off at the end of the day. It reminds me of Ralph E. Sheepdog and Sam Wolf punching out at the end of the day.
Overall, we are very similar. The primary difference being my friend's ability to suspend critical thinking to maintain belief and my inability to do so. I was brought up to believe, but my internal curiosity and drive to understand does not allow me to turn it off.
That drive has brought me to a place where it appears most of humanity has a real life and a fantasy life. If there were 1 common fantasy, I would be concerned that I might be missing something. But there are many different fantasies (religions), so I am quite sure that fantasy is not for me.
I had a similar experience, Boston, when I was working. And I think I still have a similar relationship with one of my children. To me, the key phrases of your post that resonate with me are: "I can't turn off the analytic perspective" and "my internal curiosity and drive to understand does not allow me to turn it off. " This makes me think a bit about Bart Ehrman. Someone whose curiosity lead them, like many of us, to remove a belief in something, but where his curiosity on the very subject of his disbelief moves him to continue researching the same subject.
whose curiosity led him
I like your perspective Doris. My search is likely endless, good thing I enjoy it.
Boston, Iv'e been in the same situation only in the reverse, where my friend does not believe in God and yet we are close friends. We were able to remain close because we respected each other . I didn't belittle him and he treated me the same.I don't have the same quest for uniformity as you ,but I have a need to understand the things of science and cosmology and how things work. I do have a hunger to understand the way people think and reach conclusions . My conclusions about God were reached for me so to speak. I did have a vision and things were explained that left no doubt in my mind. The doubt you feel is what fires your questions and if anyone can find answers it's someone like you who keeps asking.
lngtrmthnkr,
That is great for you. I don't really understand what you mean by uniformity, but if you mean I think we can and should apply critical thinking to everything, including belief, then I agree that should be uniform. I have beliefs. They apply to aspects of the universe and life that we don't have the answers to yet. I am not a pure scientist that ignores all we don't know. I am too impatient for that. I will certainly die before humans know what I wish to know. So I am willing to address those areas with belief. I believe all that exists is natural, life evolved, our observable universe came about naturally without the intention of some conscious being creating it. The difference between my beliefs and most religious beliefs is that mine are based on objective evidence. Religious beliefs are based on ancient beliefs and subjective experience, and many are based on false premises and antiquated (and poor) morality.
Boston, look at the big picture, why was the universe created? Do you think there are reasons for things to be as they are? Or is it just a random occurance with no purpose? If random, why the structure that is observable, or the laws of science that hold true and constant. ? To me it says intelligence.
lngtrm
Why do you think there is a reason for the universe existing, where did that idea come from....just speculation and imagination.
As far as the "laws of science"...these were first observed and then chronicled and passed down. Just because we have defined something and we see it might appear to have intelligence, it is most likely wishful thinking on your part...trying to define something you don't know in terms you are comfortable with. There is nothing that shows any intelligence behind the universe existing.
lngtrmthnkr,
why was the universe created?
I don't know. It's best to talk about the observable universe to start. The observable universe can come about by natural quantum and relativistic reasons. You may want to read "A Universe From Nothing" by Krauss.
Do you think there are reasons for things to be as they are?
Reasons, yes, see the book above. Purpose? I don't know, but I believe there was no purpose.
Or is it just a random occurance with no purpose?
Random is a technical thing, randomness may have played a part along with physical laws. I don't believe there was a purpose, just nature doing its thing.
If random, why the structure that is observable, or the laws of science that hold true and constant. ?
In our local world, randomness and structure are rom mates. Particles decay in a random fashion, but gravity and other laws impose structure. A lot of objective evidence says those laws apply through space and time.
To me it says intelligence.
That could be because of 2 reasons; 1. You are already biased by the simple notion of a creator, and 2. You don't have enough understanding of nature, physics, biology, etc. We all prefer a simple solution to a complex solution. Einstein said everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Excellent advice.
Boston, everything we discover about science or biology helps us to advance in some manner as a civilization and a society.This is a simple statement, but basically true. Discoveries help advance us in medical and scientific fields. What if there were no resources for us to tap and no fields of science for advancement? Why dowe have tools to solve our problems?It seems that everytime we set out to solve a problem, we eventually find a solution. It's like we are in a giant sandbox playing life .
lngtrmthnkr,
When I said that the observable universe has no purpose, I do recognize that living things have evolved purpose. It is clear we are driven to compete.
Some believers I know, and many here, say they draw on a continuing personal experience with God that makes God and the things of God (the Bible is foremost) seem more real than ordinary reality. Things we consider reasonable are in the background for them. Others seem afraid to take their eyes off of their goal of pleasing God and avoiding the consequences of not doing so.
Boston, I like that "driven to complete". What drives us? We have a need to fix and solve,survival seems to be our drive. Tom, I think I would fit into your first category.
"My friend doesn't even try to rationalize the inconsistencies in the bibles origins stories, there is just belief."
and that is not a big suprise for anyone with the gift of faith. and from your perspective, without the gift of faith, then you think like a natural man, and that is to be expected. This is the logical outcome for faith, or the absence of faith.
and you propose that his faith is like a hobby, when in reality it did start as a choice as he understood sin, but then that choice blossoms into the life that the spirit gives.
and this light is no religion,
12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
His mind has been renewed. The Holy spirit then bears the truth and that is supernatural.
my opinion after the confirmation of the Holy Spirit, is that what ever happened during the creation is not going to change what we need to do today. if one day was 20 million years, who cares. that knowledge can't save the soul.
but knowing that God created us in 7 days, however that happened, and that Adam sinned as he was tempted by Satan, leads to salvation. God gave us that version for a reason, we should stick to that. and honor that with loyalty.
Austin,
I politely asked you yesterday to respond to what I wrote, not your projections. I said nothing of a hobby, I went out of my way to say I respect my friend. Your penchant for putting words in other people's mouths so you can make the point you want to make is very selfish and is not conducive to civil discussion.
i did not make up the subject matter. I was responding to the natural mans though process. what is the gift faith from the Holy Spirit Bostontola?