60,000 years

[Dr Lou Natic]

Originally posted by atheroy
[B"why hurt people in the pursuit of personal significance when we aren't significant to anyone but ourselves"

what makes us so important to have some kind of purpose when we are but tiny little organisms on a tiny little planet, when nothing else has purpose? do we live outside the natural bounds of this universe? or as a species are we blowing our own horns to make ourselves feel important? i believe the latter, and religion is just the manifestation of our belief in our own importance. [/B]

Brilliant.
I agree.
Seeing mars a little closer than usual never would have brought me to this revelation but different strokes for different folks.
What brings me to have similar thoughts is thinking about the extremely short period homo-sapiens have existed. Also the vulnerability of that existence.
A giant meteor could demolish the entire planet at any time andhumans would be gone.
My stars, How would the universe recover after losing its most valuable and significant aspect? Surely the universe would die of grief if such an event took place
As you said, WE are the only things that consider ourselves so damn priceless, yet we insist that it is a universal agreement that human traits are held in higher regard than anything else the universe can produce.
When humans get nominated and seconded by outside parties as the most important and significant aspect of the universe I might consider the possibility.
Obviously we feel as though human traits are important, maybe it has something to do with the fact WE ARE HUMANS?
Try to use that god like human brain of yours objectively, "sentience" and "consciousness" has no more inherit significance than eating your own feces.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
... "sentience" and "consciousness" has no more inherit significance than eating your own feces.

Given the source, that might be considered a worthy self-criticism, but the remark is otherwise inane, serving as an excellent example of something lacking in significance.

 

[invisibleone]

You see the beautiful night sky, the stars, and the red planet? That is all a part of you. It should not make you feel insignificant, but rather a little closer to home.

 

[Balerion]

Jenyar,

If anything, science can be contained in religion

I know that sentance sounded good in your head, but you're going to have to clarify what you mean by that to those of us outside of your brain.

Religion often gets attacked for not being "scientific" or "reasonable", but I have never seen why God should conform to a field it isn't contained in.

But when you consider that science is the means of discovery in the material world, why shouldn't God fit into that? If our purpose here, or at least our ticket to everlasting life, is the discovery and acceptance of God, why shouldn't he make his presence felt in a material way? According to Christianity, he did just that, but left nothing salvagable for the generations to come. There is no proof of Christ's existance, let alone the validity of his claim to the throne of Heaven.

but otherwise, science is just a graveyard for dead religions.

Ok, again, you're going to have to sort that one out, and elaborate, because I'm just not getting it.

Of course there are some very absurd religions and beliefs, but in the end everybody is looking for a God that has been revealing himself since He created the universe.

You have a talent for speaking in oxymorons...

How is it that on one hand you can say that many religions and belief systems are "absurd," then turn right around and say that your belief is in a God that nobody can find despite the fact that he reveals himself all the time? How absurd is that religion? Why is the Creator so hard to find? If he is revealing himself, why can he not do it in a manner that we can see, taste, touch, feel?

If God does indeed exist, and His nature is something abstract like the nature of beauty or love - unseen but very real - I don't understand how science could describe Him, since true science limits itself to observable, repeatable testing.

So love is "very real" now? I don't know your background in chemistry, but I can assure you that as far as we know, love is nothing more than a reaction due to chemical interactions in the brain. That goes for all emotion.

But you are correct, because who is to say what love is? Well, I would imagine, that since every emotion serves a very real purpose, love would play a key role in the protection of offspring and possibly the family unit. We can say we love our neighbor, but do we? Have you held your child in your arms yet? Until you do, and you feel that feeling, I can't say you know what love really is.

I really and truly believe God exists. You can ask me how, why, where, what contains my certainty - but I won't have any more proof than atheroy has for his experience of a sunset or the cosmos.

Apples and oranges, my friend. What you are comparing here is Atheroy's feeling of insignificance due to the sheer immensity of what surrounds him, to your assertion that your God created your universe. That isn't fair, because Atheroy isn't asserting anything; just letting us in on how he feels. No proof needed, because we've all been there. In your case, however, I demand a single shred of proof to the very existance of this God you believe in so firmly.

Even if his camera had the strength and accuracy of the Hubble telescope, it still would not convey the essential truth of his experience - it will just be another glossy postcard to everybody else.

Now you're asserting that no one shares an experience. While that may be true, who's to say? You seem sold on the idea, but on what grounds? Sure, it's a sensible idea, I suppose, that all experiences are strictly objective, but it's just one sensible idea in an ocean of many. Who's to say that when someone looks at the night sky, they don't feel just the same way Atheroy did? I know I described my first "Oh my gosh, I am a speck in a sandbox" the same way Atheroy did when I was younger. (Still never thought of myself as insignificant, though)

Even at its most basic, no one sunset is repeatable in its original form.

But here you are overstating the requirements for scientific research. A sunset doesn't have to cast the same exact shadows every time, nor does it have to set over the same exact part of the ocean every time. But what it does do is happen every time. See, the Earth rotates every day, and the sun rises and sets every day. It's observable, and measurable. This is why we've had accurate calendars dating back to the Mayans.

If only truth weren't also in the eye of the beholder... but that's why we have science - The Single Soul Proprietor of "truth". That thought depresses me much more than my relative size or significance to things great or small.

At UPS, my boss' latest gimmick is asking us everyday what the "Common Denominator" is in our production. That's to say, what problem keeps coming up, no matter how different the flow of packages come from one night to the next. I think I have found a common denominator among many theists...

A severe lack of basic, fundamental knowledge of the purpose of science. I'm not talking the methods, or the terminology, or any of the tech talk involved; I'm talking what exactly science is.

Jenyar may know what a theorum is, or how many atoms it takes to screw in a lightbulb, but does he know just what the hell science does? Look at his statement, the last one I will quote him on in this post. The thought that science is the only means to discover truth in this world depresses him more than his significance in the big picture of the universe...Does that smack of a man who understands science?

Science is the tool in which we study this world. You misunderstand the semantics of the word. It's the study...science isn't a corporation, and it doesn't have a national Headquarters in California. Science is simply the study and validaton of. It's a generalization of the study of the world, and everything in it. Hence, there is no truth to be discovered in this world that is not obtainable through science. Am I getting through yet?

It's the emotionalism of the theists in the world that lead them to these conclusions. They believe in God sometimes for no other reason than the idea of life having no purpose is too depressing for them to bear, as it is for Jenyar. I've learned, during my never-ending quest for knowledge, that religion is very ironic; it is sold as the inspired word of our creator, yet it seems most likely that it was created by us in reaction to the fact that the alternative is too sobering for some.

JD

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by JDawg
----------
But when you consider that science is the means of discovery in the material world, why shouldn't God fit into that? If our purpose here, or at least our ticket to everlasting life, is the discovery and acceptance of God, why shouldn't he make his presence felt in a material way? According to Christianity, he did just that, but left nothing salvagable for the generations to come. There is no proof of Christ's existance, let alone the validity of his claim to the throne of Heaven. How is it that on one hand you can say that many religions and belief systems are "absurd," then turn right around and say that your belief is in a God that nobody can find despite the fact that he reveals himself all the time? How absurd is that religion? Why is the Creator so hard to find? If he is revealing himself, why can he not do it in a manner that we can see, taste, touch, feel?
----------
(JDawg, I edited your message somewhat to save space, but I felt the urge to comment on your valid post. I think that maybe we don't see God, because we're not looking for God in all the right places! What I mean is, I think people believe that God is an unseen entity; therefore, they don't expect to be able to see God. Their God is a distant being who might have created everything at sometime in the past, but now he wields his Godly power from afar. This is not how I see God. Perhaps I did during the time I was 'searching' for God. I kept looking for him, but I couldn't find the proof of God anywhere. During my search for God, I came upon the revelation that God is not "out there," God in "in here!" That is when I developed my theory that the proof of God's existence can be found within the entire human race! God is not "out there," God is alive and breathing in humankind! Just look at the world today. We still have the majestic beauty of our natural resources that give us an awe-inspiring feeling just to observe them! We also have modern inventions that have offered great conveniences in our lives. Sure, they are man-made for our use, but in reality, where does the inspiration come from? We have wonderful cures for diseases that offer hope to those who may have lost hope. Sure, they were invented by scientists, but where did their inspiration come from? There is now hope for the barren to have their own child with the development of fertility procedures. Sure, they were invented by physicians, but who inspired them? When I look around for God, I can't help but see him! The One Spirit of God dwells within the entire human race. When I look for answers from God, I look no further than my own heart. The beauty of this is that when I am in need of answers, sometimes some unknown child at a bus stop will say something to his mother, and I realize that was the answer I was looking for! God was speaking through that child! God speaks through us all because we are the vessel that carries the Spirit of God on the face of the Earth. The human race will never end, but we are still in the last day of creation, and we will continue to evolve. It is beyond me to think that people can't look around and see how much the human race has evolved even from the last century! It's so obvious to me. We're taller, we're heavier, we're more intelligent, we're cleaner, our clothes have been adapted to our lifestyles, we are more mobile, the list can go on forever! People think, "well, God doesn't change." I disagree. God has been changing since the human race as we know it was created (you can give them whatever names you like). Just observe the changes in the human race since 1900. You'd be surprised! The one thing that DOESN'T change is the pure spirit which is God that dwells inside of us. The Spirit of God hasn't changed since the universe was first created. This is how I see God.)
----------
So love is "very real" now? I don't know your background in chemistry, but I can assure you that as far as we know, love is nothing more than a reaction due to chemical interactions in the brain. That goes for all emotion. But you are correct, because who is to say what love is? Well, I would imagine, that since every emotion serves a very real purpose, love would play a key role in the protection of offspring and possibly the family unit. We can say we love our neighbor, but do we? Have you held your child in your arms yet? Until you do, and you feel that feeling, I can't say you know what love really is.
----------
(I put in my two-cents in a previous post about love. I'll try to make it brief here. Love is nothing more than the pure energy of God. The question in the previous post was "could energy be increased?" The scientists on the forum said, "no, energy could not increase or decrease, only change forms." My theory about this is Love=passion=heat=energy=God. Perhaps the energy inspired by love doesn't actually 'increase,' but I believe it 'attracts' more energy, and this energy comes from the Spirit of God within us.)
----------
I demand a single shred of proof to the very existance of this God you believe in so firmly. A severe lack of basic, fundamental knowledge of the purpose of science. I'm not talking the methods, or the terminology, or any of the tech talk involved; I'm talking what exactly science is. Science is the tool in which we study this world. Science is simply the study and validaton of. It's a generalization of the study of the world, and everything in it. Hence, there is no truth to be discovered in this world that is not obtainable through science. It's the emotionalism of the theists in the world that lead them to these conclusions. They believe in God sometimes for no other reason than the idea of life having no purpose is too depressing for them to bear, as it is for Jenyar. I've learned, during my never-ending quest for knowledge, that religion is very ironic; it is sold as the inspired word of our creator, yet it seems most likely that it was created by us in reaction to the fact that the alternative is too sobering for some.
----------
(Yes, JDawg, religions are man-made institutions that explain what they cannot see and to give them hope for what they fear the most--death. They are more willing to believe the lies they have been told than to endeavor to see God in their fellow human beings. I believe this is where science will be able to refute all religious doctrines.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by JDawg
I know that sentance sounded good in your head, but you're going to have to clarify what you mean by that to those of us outside of your brain.

With pleasure. You described the purpose of science yourself, but you left out one crucial word: Science is simply the study and validaton of the observable world. Religion includes the observable world, but points out that there is also a scientifically unobservable world. Science is like our senses: we can only feel what touches us. We can only see what light brings to us. When wind blows, you will not know it unless you can observe its effects or feel it on your skin. But it still blows.

But when you consider that science is the means of discovery in the material world, why shouldn't God fit into that? If our purpose here, or at least our ticket to everlasting life, is the discovery and acceptance of God, why shouldn't he make his presence felt in a material way? According to Christianity, he did just that, but left nothing salvagable for the generations to come. There is no proof of Christ's existance, let alone the validity of his claim to the throne of Heaven.

Because we need to look beyond the material to see God. He is natural, but not part of His creation. If God created nature, He cannot be be nature Himself. But we can "sense" God from nature - from His creation and our interation with it - and that was my argument.

We do have records of that interaction: it's called the Bible. You say there is no proof that Jesus ever existed, but what do you make of the New Testament - of Christianity itself? The manuscripts we have about Him are plenty "salvageable". So is are prophesies about Christ in the Old Testament. They were so powerful that Jews are still waiting for him.

By any other means, you will have a very hard time proving anyone's existence during antiquity. We know people lived in Pompey and Herculaneum, but you won't try to prove "Joe Somebody" lived there, unless you had reason to believe he existed, and the evidence points to those places.

Ok, again, you're going to have to sort that one out, and elaborate, because I'm just not getting it.

Science can be called a graveyard for dead religions because it contains many things that were thought to be "gods" at first. You are aware of this, I'm sure. What I want to point out is that we have simply stripped nature from God - we have realized it isn't God, but that does not rule out the possibility that He created it that way. That He created us autonomous, with free will, independence and autority - but still dependent on Him through His creation.

You have a talent for speaking in oxymorons...

Thank you.

How is it that on one hand you can say that many religions and belief systems are "absurd," then turn right around and say that your belief is in a God that nobody can find despite the fact that he reveals himself all the time? How absurd is that religion? Why is the Creator so hard to find? If he is revealing himself, why can he not do it in a manner that we can see, taste, touch, feel?

There are absurdly contrived religions that force things we know are natural into being "gods". But that a creator is separate from his creation is not absurd at all. We know that from experience.

The Creator is hard to find for two reasons mainly: People don't accept Him for who He is, they want either an unknowable God, which He isn't, or they want a completely knowable God, which He also isn't. We can know only the parts of God that enters into our existence, that interacts with His creation. Like fishes can only "know" the part of your body that is immersed in water.

The manner that we coud see, taste, touch and feel was Jesus. He came into our existence by birth, proved that He had authority over it, and went out of it again through death - but the effect was that now people could know God, know His love and know His means of salvation.

So love is "very real" now? I don't know your background in chemistry, but I can assure you that as far as we know, love is nothing more than a reaction due to chemical interactions in the brain. That goes for all emotion.

Sop when someone tells you they love you, are they lying ot telling the truth? You can't reduce something that contains so much into chemistry without losing most of what it means. The same happens when you reduce God into what you consider is "natural". Love isn't "natural" - it's a choice, among many things. If it is seen as just a chemical reaction, it has no power. If your wife leaves you or cheats on you, it's at most just "natural". When someone is murdered, is it just an unfortunate connection between the chemicals in the murderers brain and the mortality of his victim? Science only describes the dead impersonal parts of life - it can have no respect for it, because that's bias. Some gods are seen like that, but it can't decribe a creator who loves you.

But you are correct, because who is to say what love is? Well, I would imagine, that since every emotion serves a very real purpose, love would play a key role in the protection of offspring and possibly the family unit. We can say we love our neighbor, but do we? Have you held your child in your arms yet? Until you do, and you feel that feeling, I can't say you know what love really is.

Exactly. Relationships with people aren't based on the science, but on the real interaction - truth, honesty, love. Just as our relationship with God should be. But no, for some reason He should be scientific - which is against His nature.

Apples and oranges, my friend. What you are comparing here is Atheroy's feeling of insignificance due to the sheer immensity of what surrounds him, to your assertion that your God created your universe. That isn't fair, because Atheroy isn't asserting anything; just letting us in on how he feels. No proof needed, because we've all been there. In your case, however, I demand a single shred of proof to the very existance of this God you believe in so firmly.

I'm comparing the kinds of experience and its validity. Apples with apples. I experience God's reality, no proof needed, because we've all been there. You just don't recognize Him, or don't wish to. I can deny Atheroy's experience very easily, because I wasn't there and because it was subjective. But while I recognize his experience as true and valid, he doesn't recognize mine as true and valid. There was a sunset - there is a God. See?

Now you're asserting that no one shares an experience. While that may be true, who's to say? You seem sold on the idea, but on what grounds? Sure, it's a sensible idea, I suppose, that all experiences are strictly objective, but it's just one sensible idea in an ocean of many. Who's to say that when someone looks at the night sky, they don't feel just the same way Atheroy did? I know I described my first "Oh my gosh, I am a speck in a sandbox" the same way Atheroy did when I was younger. (Still never thought of myself as insignificant, though)

No, I was asserting that the experience does not diminish as the science increases. If what you and atheroy experienced were called "religion" (to which I have shown the similarity), then with each scientific fact I explained your experience, it would supposedly become less and less true. Yet it doesn't, does it?

But here you are overstating the requirements for scientific research. A sunset doesn't have to cast the same exact shadows every time, nor does it have to set over the same exact part of the ocean every time. But what it does do is happen every time. See, the Earth rotates every day, and the sun rises and sets every day. It's observable, and measurable. This is why we've had accurate calendars dating back to the Mayans.

If you compare the Mayan calendar with with Gregorian or the Julian calendars, you'll see more contradictions than accuracies. Does that mean none of them are valid, or pertain to the truth of their observance? No. It means they had different perspectives, different modes of reasoning, held only parts of the whole... Then why do you apply that logic to the Bible?

Were the Mayans and Incas "advanced" and the Israelites and Hebrews "backward"? Look at their gods and how they they acted as a result, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Jenyar may know what a theorum is, or how many atoms it takes to screw in a lightbulb, but does he know just what the hell science does? Look at his statement, the last one I will quote him on in this post. The thought that science is the only means to discover truth in this world depresses him more than his significance in the big picture of the universe...Does that smack of a man who understands science?

Science is the tool in which we study this world. You misunderstand the semantics of the word. It's the study...science isn't a corporation, and it doesn't have a national Headquarters in California. Science is simply the study and validaton of. It's a generalization of the study of the world, and everything in it. Hence, there is no truth to be discovered in this world that is not obtainable through science. Am I getting through yet?

You realized exactly what I wanted you to realize: that science and religion aren't competing, the are doing the same thing on different levels and using different measures. Science describes and explores our relationship with the physical world, religion describes and explores our relationship with God.

But God is in a relationship with science because He created it, and science has to deny God because it can't describe Him. It is for the same reason that science cannot study history, but only the parts history left behind.

It's the emotionalism of the theists in the world that lead them to these conclusions. They believe in God sometimes for no other reason than the idea of life having no purpose is too depressing for them to bear, as it is for Jenyar. I've learned, during my never-ending quest for knowledge, that religion is very ironic; it is sold as the inspired word of our creator, yet it seems most likely that it was created by us in reaction to the fact that the alternative is too sobering for some.

From whom are you most likely to receive love from: someone who compares you with all available choices to decide whether you are fit to breed or play a role in the protection of offspring and possibly the family unit? Or someone who loves you for who you are despite your unpredictable emotions, your physical defects, etc.?

In Star Trek, Mr. Spock and Data were case studies for such thinking - did you realize how quickly they became human? The scientific information you contain is only a small part of what makes you human. We aren't homo logos, we are homo sapiens because God created people, not logical machines. Life has no purpose without meaning, and no meaning without God. You have at least admitted that much.

 

[Balerion]

Medicine Woman,

Thanks for the tought-provoking reply! I'll try to respond accordingly.

I think that maybe we don't see God, because we're not looking for God in all the right places! What I mean is, I think people believe that God is an unseen entity; therefore, they don't expect to be able to see God. Their God is a distant being who might have created everything at sometime in the past, but now he wields his Godly power from afar. This is not how I see God. Perhaps I did during the time I was 'searching' for God. I kept looking for him, but I couldn't find the proof of God anywhere. During my search for God, I came upon the revelation that God is not "out there," God in "in here!"

But let me ask you why you need to attribute what is inside you to a god? Where is the connection? No matter which way you turn, to conclude x=God is a giant leap. Though I respect your belief, and I find it rather beautiful, I can't share it.

The beauty of this is that when I am in need of answers, sometimes some unknown child at a bus stop will say something to his mother, and I realize that was the answer I was looking for! God was speaking through that child!

I can't attribute that to anything other than good luck, but I can't discredit your claim. See, that's the main problem with any god: You can't disprove it.

All that aside, if that's how the ball bounces in your life, that's a pretty awesome deal.

Love is nothing more than the pure energy of God. The question in the previous post was "could energy be increased?" The scientists on the forum said, "no, energy could not increase or decrease, only change forms." My theory about this is Love=passion=heat=energy=God.

This emotionalism you display is something I will get into deeper with Jenyar, but for now I'll just touch on your example. I see how you try to corrolate the scientific...well, I don't know if it's a law or a theory, or what...the observable scientific opinion that energy does not begin or end, and you try to put that together with the idea that "love=God's energy." I appreciate that, but I don't see the connection. You're missing that love, as of all the human emotions, is a chemical reaction. It's a result of stimulants around you, and it can grow or fade, depending on those circumstances.

This, for example, is why a couple may stop loving each other, while family love never seems to end. There is a very real, very practical reason for this, and it has to do with our nature, not the spirit of god. Or at least that is what I believe.

(Yes, JDawg, religions are man-made institutions that explain what they cannot see and to give them hope for what they fear the most--death. They are more willing to believe the lies they have been told than to endeavor to see God in their fellow human beings. I believe this is where science will be able to refute all religious doctrines

You seem very naive, but very innocent. I like that about you, but it makes for a difficult argument. Though, as I read that last quote, I don't see a reason to argue. If everyone's take on god was the same as yours, I can see a much happier, safer, calmer planet. While it doesn't take a deity to keep humanity in check anymore, the millenia-old text-based religions of today are good tools to convince soldiers to go to war, and we would be better off without them. A world with a veiw like yours, Medicine Woman, would be a much better place. Thanks for your time.

JD

 

[Jenyar]

If everyone's take on god was the same as yours, I can see a much happier, safer, calmer planet. While it doesn't take a deity to keep humanity in check anymore, the millenia-old text-based religions of today are good tools to convince soldiers to go to war, and we would be better off without them. A world with a veiw like yours, Medicine Woman, would be a much better place.

I don't want to criticize M*W's worldview, but I want to respond to your conclusion.

What M*W is basically saying is that everybody has the ability of knowing right from wrong in a religious sense, without any "religion". That I agree with, because that is how people were created according to my own beliefs.

What bothers me is that it is not an accountable philosophy. To put in in other words: we have no-one to answer to than our own conscience, and the "god" that unites us is as "strong" as the weakest link. The most depraved rapist on earth is just as much "god" as you are - you see, there is no way he can not be god, because that means there can be people outside "god"- and we are right back in Egyptian and Roman times were some people are "good enough" to be deities and others aren't. The worst he can do is not realize he is god, but what consequence has that to him? Nothing, in fact, he probably already thinks he is a stronger and better informed part of god than the rest of the world.

Your "much happier, safer, calmer planet" depends too much on a person's own sense of righteousness, rather than on an absolute set of morals that ensures such a world. Perhaps such universal "enlightenment" is possible, but it has taken humanity thousands (millions?) of years to reach this point - and there is no sign of such inherent "godliness" becoming more apparent, on the contrary, people seem to become less and less human.

 

[Balerion]

Jenyar,

Religion includes the observable world, but points out that there is also a scientifically unobservable world.

Where, my dear friend, does it say that there is an unobservable world? And please explain how if science cannot observe it, humans have any hope to observe it?

Because we need to look beyond the material to see God. He is natural, but not part of His creation.

But there is nothing past the material. And if there was, humans would have no way to see it, because we ourselves are material.

We do have records of that interaction: it's called the Bible.

There is nothing to say the Bible isn't a collection of works of fiction. Nor is there anything to say that any of it hasn't changed drastically over the millenia. To take the Bible at face value is to take any old text at face value. Why, then, do you not believe that the Sumerian texts are older and more accurate? Haven't we been through this already?

You say there is no proof that Jesus ever existed, but what do you make of the New Testament - of Christianity itself?

That logic does not work with your argument, simply because you yourself stated that there are plenty of religions out there that are rediculous and untrue. Yet they exist. The existance of Xianity does not prove the existance of Christ. Nor does an ancient text of which we have no way to validate. And since you asked what I make of the New Testament, I'll tell you: If this man who may or may not have existed was actually the Savior, then why isn't his presence more palpable. He was God's final attempt to prove himself to the people, right? So he made a man, and yet that man didn't write anything? Didn't create anything that we could touch, taste, smell, hear, feel? He effectively came and went without leaving a footprint or a fingerprint on this planet whatsoever. If he had been the true son of God, with the intentions of clearing the air once and for all about his father, then why didn't he do something that could leave no doubt, that would eliminate the need for a "leap of faith?" That is where the doubt lies, Jenyar.

By any other means, you will have a very hard time proving anyone's existence during antiquity.

This is true. Trying to find a single person today is tough, imagine from partial remains millenia old.

That He created us autonomous, with free will, independence and autority

That contradicts what many others say about him. If we have free will, and autonomous, how does he already know what is going to become of us?

We can know only the parts of God that enters into our existence, that interacts with His creation.

The Bible even tells a story of where he walks around in front of a man on Earth. The Bible describes God's garments, and gives him a physical body. Things like that happened regularly, yet today, nothing of the sort. Why is that? Apparently, man did not have to look anywhere for god, because he came to them plain as day. Yet today, if you are to believe, you have to do so out of faith, and not knowledge.

The manner that we coud see, taste, touch and feel was Jesus. He came into our existence by birth, proved that He had authority over it, and went out of it again through death - but the effect was that now people could know God, know His love and know His means of salvation.

We? I can't see, taste, touch or feel Jesus. This is what I'm talking about. Jesus' logic was flawed, because even if he did exist to prove once and for all that God was real, he only did so to the people he encountered and proved it to (This is assuming, for argument's sake, that Jesus existed). Because today, I am no more enlightened than the people who lived the day before Jesus was born. I know no more about the validity of God than they did. I am no more in touch, or proven wrong about God's existance than they were. Jesus affected those back then, and only back then, during the years of his life.

Maybe "Affected" isn't the proper word...Proved might be better. Because Jesus' point was to prove to them that God was real. If he existed, he only proved to those who saw him, not me, nor anyone after me.

Sop when someone tells you they love you, are they lying ot telling the truth?

You are an overly-emotional being. You attribute everything in life to passion, and nothing to nature. This is the wrong way to look at things.

You can't reduce something that contains so much into chemistry without losing most of what it means.

Oh no? Well, I just did, and it hasn't lost any of it's luster to me. In your logic, you cannot explain what something actually is without losing the magic. I can understand that. It's like reading the ingredients to a hot dog...you just won't ever look at them the same way again. I'm sorry that you have to live you life in this haze, but in reality, love is nothing more than a chemical reaction.

Love isn't "natural" - it's a choice, among many things.

You are just flat-out wrong. There is no choise in the matter. You cannot decide not to love your child, or your wife, or your parents. YOu either do or you don't, and it's not up to you. And it is completely natural.

If it is seen as just a chemical reaction, it has no power.

And why is that? Knowing it's cause or being does not diminish it's power. Are you saying that because I know what love is, I cannot experience it? Jenyar, the fact of the matter is that the description of the thing is just that: it's description. The chemical reaction still occurs, and I will still be woozy and crazy in love, and during that process, probobly attribute it to something else!

If your wife leaves you or cheats on you, it's at most just "natural". When someone is murdered, is it just an unfortunate connection between the chemicals in the murderers brain and the mortality of his victim?

Yes and yes. If your wife cheats on you, it's because she acted upon her completely natural urge to have sex with a partner who she is attracted to. If someone murders you, it's because they are acting on their anger or hatred (which is anger with focus and a longer lifespan).

Science only describes the dead impersonal parts of life - it can have no respect for it, because that's bias.

Dead impersonal parts of life? How is the chemical reactions which cause all these emotions and spawn these actions dead and impersonal? They are the very reasons which we feel the way we do, the reasons we do the things we do. They aren't dead and impersonal; they are very alive and the makeup of our being.

Some gods are seen like that, but it can't decribe a creator who loves you.

Ahh, the emotionalism shines through. So because science describes the actual how's and why's, it cannot be accepted by you because it does not provide you with an alpha God? Because it doesn't include a merciful, loving entity which is responsible for your creation and holds the key to your everlasting life, it isn't worhty of you? I'm sorry that the truth isn't as peachy keen as your fragile mind would like, but since when is life ideal?

Exactly. Relationships with people aren't based on the science, but on the real interaction - truth, honesty, love

But everything that is felt because of the relationship (including the relationship itself) is based on the genetic and chemical makeup of your brain. The interactions happen and they cause reactions in the brain. If they are suitable people, they will earn your respect and love and trust; all things that you cannot decide. Yes, the quickest way to a relationship is through truth and honesty, in most cases, and that's why we make such a big deal out of those qualities.

Just as our relationship with God should be. But no, for some reason He should be scientific - which is against His nature.

But any interaction with anything is scientific. You have to touch, feel, hear, see, or taste anything you encounter. According to you, God created this nature, but it is against his nature to make himself at least temporarily visible through it. Well, first of all, if you are a believer in the Bible, you are wrong. He did appear, at least once phsyically before a major Biblical character. So to say that for him to come down and say "Hey, here I am! I'm real!" isn't against his nature, it would be, according to the recorded history, something he is very capable of, and was at one point willing to do.

I experience God's reality, no proof needed, because we've all been there. You just don't recognize Him, or don't wish to.

Pure conjecture. You speak on behalf of me, now? I wished to see him for many years, just to know that he was there, and he never showed. I never saw him. And yes, proof is needed, because those who ask for it are very willing to believe once they see it.

I can deny Atheroy's experience very easily, because I wasn't there and because it was subjective. But while I recognize his experience as true and valid, he doesn't recognize mine as true and valid. There was a sunset - there is a God. See?

No, I dont' see. There was a sunset, and we know that because we can see it. To say there is a god is to say it unkowingly. You do not, I repeat, do not know that there is a god. You do not know. You can only hope, and believe on faith, with no proof, nor any sign of god to show.

And he shouldn't recognize your experience as true and valid, because your experience could very easily be something else. Much in the same way that you see a shadow and think you see a man in with a knife, you might have felt something that you thought was god, but was really fear, or joy at the thought of never dying.

No, I was asserting that the experience does not diminish as the science increases. If what you and atheroy experienced were called "religion" (to which I have shown the similarity), then with each scientific fact I explained your experience, it would supposedly become less and less true. Yet it doesn't, does it?

But you had said earlier that love becomes powerless once you attribute it to chemical reactions in the brain. You said that to bring up the "dead impersonal" aspect of the brain's functions is to diminish everything about your experiences. But now you say it doesn't? Which is it?

And to say that religion does not diminish once you bring the scientific aspect to the table...nothing should ever be diminished by it's origin. Maybe you wouldn't call the experience "religious" anymore, but you would still feel it. Like the sunset, for example. Just because I know how it happens doesn't make it any less beautiful. (And just for the record, beauty is not just an optical effect. Haven't you ever heard a beautiful song or a beautiful voice?)

If you compare the Mayan calendar with with Gregorian or the Julian calendars, you'll see more contradictions than accuracies.

What contradictions? And the Mayan calendar is the most accurate in the world, even more accurate than the one we use today.

Does that mean none of them are valid, or pertain to the truth of their observance? No. It means they had different perspectives, different modes of reasoning, held only parts of the whole

Well, the Mayans held most of "The whole" and still are more accurate than the calendars we use today.

And it isn't different perspectives, it's just means that no one else had enough time to get as far as the Mayans did, or that something held them back from advancing in their studies. (Maybe religion?)

Then why do you apply that logic to the Bible?

Because our rotation and orbit is measurable, and the numbers can be proven wrong or right. The Bible, on the other hand, claims to be the inspired word of God, and are accounts of our supposed creator. Yet, they contradict what we know to be true in many cases (like how we know that there is no vast ocean in the sky, the Earth is not set in place, the sun provides our light, and it gets dark because the Earth rotates). I apply that logic to the Bible because the book is suspect on all levels, and cannot be validated by anything other than this god coming down and doing so in person. (Which, according to the Bible, he has done before, so why not now?)

Science describes and explores our relationship with the physical world, religion describes and explores our relationship with God.

Yeah, but the physical world is real.

But God is in a relationship with science because He created it, and science has to deny God because it can't describe Him.

Yes it can. Science describes him as a creation of man in order to give more meaning to their lives. Or at least that's how I describe him.

It is for the same reason that science cannot study history, but only the parts history left behind.

Right, but we can draw conclusions about history from the things left behind. As we have done with religion and creationism, and we have found it to be a myth, based on what has been left behind.

From whom are you most likely to receive love from: someone who compares you with all available choices to decide whether you are fit to breed or play a role in the protection of offspring and possibly the family unit? Or someone who loves you for who you are despite your unpredictable emotions, your physical defects, etc.?

Again, you are uninformed and confused. You talk like there is a choise in the matter, when there isn't. You cannot chose who you love, just as no one can chose to love you. It just happens, based on interactions and chemical reactions from those interactions.

In Star Trek, Mr. Spock and Data were case studies for such thinking - did you realize how quickly they became human?

Case studies?? Dude, Star Trek wasn't real! It was fiction, and those were characters in it! They became human out of the creative minds of the writers, not out of the natural process! Jesus Christ, dude!

The scientific information you contain is only a small part of what makes you human.

Again, wrong. It is ALL that makes you human. There is a Simian race that is 98% human, genetically. Because of the differences in our DNA, we are human and they are not.

We aren't homo logos, we are homo sapiens because God created people, not logical machines.

No, we're homo sapians because we evolved that way. And for the record, without logic, you would not be where you are today. You would still be grunting in a cave. Actually, without logic, you would not have made it to the cave.

Life has no purpose without meaning, and no meaning without God. You have at least admitted that much.

Oh no I have not. I have admitted that there is not the grand purpose that Christians purpose. There is a very real purpose to life, and that is no different than any other speices of anything on this planet: Survive and procreate. And each individual life does shares that purpose, and many other personal goals and purposes which add to the life experience. My life is not empty, nor is it bleak. I have purpose and meaning, but I'm smart enough to know it isn't worshping an unseen diety that doesn't really exist.

It is obvious, though this interaction, that you haven't studied the sciences, nor do you even have a basic knowledge of anything scientific. You don't know that emotion is a chemical reaction, nor do you know that we are logic machines. You don't know that life has meaning without this God which did not come into existance until long after man evolved, and you ignore every shred of evidence of evolution. You are an uninformed, unintelligent person, Jenyar, and no match for a person with even a grade-school knowledge of how things work.

Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you do. But that is much scarier a thought, becuase it would mean that when you did find God, you threw away all your knowledge in favor of a utopia that you cannot see or feel.

JD

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by JDawg
Where, my dear friend, does it say that there is an unobservable world? And please explain how if science cannot observe it, humans have any hope to observe it?

But there is nothing past the material. And if there was, humans would have no way to see it, because we ourselves are material.

Everything has an observable side, but very little of nature is observable. Love might just be chemical reactions to you, but can you reproduce those reactions in a lab, say in a rat? If you did, is it possible to be happily married to it? Have you every measured happiness, beauty or attraction? Sure, there is theory and psychology behind it, but really they just describe what we can observe - they by no means limit its reality to what is observable.

Our powers of verifiability are limited to scientific observability and our ability to reproduce the results - but our powers of experience definitely aren't. We only interact with a physical world, but we don't live in an exclusively physical one. The reason science and study even exists, is because we don't stop at what we see.

Of course, you may think that everything is ultimately observable in its native form - that representation and theory are just temporary solutions until we can adjust our glasses. But my guess is that you will either be blind to anything more, or you will be surprised at some point. I for one have never "seen" justice or morality, but our whole practice of law is built around their existence.

There is nothing to say the Bible isn't a collection of works of fiction. Nor is there anything to say that any of it hasn't changed drastically over the millenia. To take the Bible at face value is to take any old text at face value. Why, then, do you not believe that the Sumerian texts are older and more accurate? Haven't we been through this already?

The Bible speaks for itself. The Babylonian exile under King Nebuchadnessar happened for example, and nothing can "change" that. If you are referring to its message, it has remained very consistent and deliberate throughout. Its content is as varied as human experience, but it is about human experience. What those people wrote and believed is exactly what you see. It "changed" onlt in the sense that "time" changes - from one experience to the next - from knowledge to knowledge, and faith to faith. I do not "believe" the Bible or any old text unless I have reason to believe that what is said is true and valid. The Sumerian texts contain many things that remind me why the Bible is so unique. I only believe them as far as they affect my life and are relevant to it, and to be honest, if their gods exist they can fight their own fights. If there were any indication that the Bible was about a different God or a different reality than the one it proposed to be about, I would definitely investigate it. But as it stands, the God was our creator, and the world was His creation.

That logic does not work with your argument, simply because you yourself stated that there are plenty of religions out there that are rediculous and untrue. Yet they exist. The existance of Xianity does not prove the existance of Christ. Nor does an ancient text of which we have no way to validate.

The existence of a man is hardly far-fetched. I have no doubt Muhammed lived. What He said and proposed to be, the testimony and behaviour of his followers, and by what authority he acted, is a different story.

While you seem to queston it - how did Christianity originate, according to the evidence? Dismissing the New Testament has biased is hardly sufficient, it consists of too many independent documents - and there are many people who would have denied his existence if they could have, but instead tried to explain his actions away.

And since you asked what I make of the New Testament, I'll tell you: If this man who may or may not have existed was actually the Savior, then why isn't his presence more palpable. He was God's final attempt to prove himself to the people, right? So he made a man, and yet that man didn't write anything? Didn't create anything that we could touch, taste, smell, hear, feel? He effectively came and went without leaving a footprint or a fingerprint on this planet whatsoever. If he had been the true son of God, with the intentions of clearing the air once and for all about his father, then why didn't he do something that could leave no doubt, that would eliminate the need for a "leap of faith?" That is where the doubt lies, Jenyar.

Unfortunately, trust is something you have to earn personally. And it is also something you have to have personally. Trust can't be touched, tasted, smelt, heard or felt. God did instill trust, and faith was the footprint He left. When we act in accordance to God's will, we are God's fingerprints. A forensic scientist wouldn't know Jesus from a carpenter, but His disciplies could.

23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.

And God's intention was not to prove His existence, but to save those who would believe in Him. He would have been just another writer with a claim among many Greek philosophers, but instead He acted - He did things and said things. And people believed Him because of those things. He proved His authority. No writing could do that - what we have in the New Testamant are writings of people to whom He proved His authority. Who would you rather believe: someone who claims to be someone, or someone who was convinced that he was who he said he was?

"17If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. 18He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth" (John 7)

John 5
36"I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. 37And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.

This is true. Trying to find a single person today is tough, imagine from partial remains millenia old.

The epistles of Paul and the gospels are some of the most immediate and complete extant records pointing to a person's existence we have. They are only controversial because they are religious, not because they are "partial". We have less evidence about Plato from his contemporaries than we have of Jesus, and no one doubts Plato existed.

That contradicts what many others say about him. If we have free will, and autonomous, how does he already know what is going to become of us?

He can knows the effects our decisions will have. Even an idiot can tell that if someone stays on a path that leads over a cliff, he will fall off. All paths are visible to God, He knows the "lay of the land", especially ours, since He created it. He created cliffs, very beautiful and awe-inspiring ones, but that doesn't mean He intended us to fall off them. So we climb them with ropes and gear, and put upo signs saying "at your own risk". We keep on sinning at our own risk, He warned us of the danger.

The Bible even tells a story of where he walks around in front of a man on Earth. The Bible describes God's garments, and gives him a physical body. Things like that happened regularly, yet today, nothing of the sort. Why is that? Apparently, man did not have to look anywhere for god, because he came to them plain as day. Yet today, if you are to believe, you have to do so out of faith, and not knowledge.

It defintely did not happen regularly. I would like to see the passage you are referring to. God is often described using terms we understand, and it is very acceptable because we understand Him through His creation, but as for God's own form:
Ex.33:20 But," [God] said [to Moses], "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

And when Moses came down from the mountain, he wore a veil to shield the people from God's radiance. The law is like that veil, pointing to Jesus, who "shielded" us from God's presence.

Because today, I am no more enlightened than the people who lived the day before Jesus was born. I know no more about the validity of God than they did. I am no more in touch, or proven wrong about God's existance than they were. Jesus affected those back then, and only back then, during the years of his life.

Maybe "Affected" isn't the proper word...Proved might be better. Because Jesus' point was to prove to them that God was real. If he existed, he only proved to those who saw him, not me, nor anyone after me.

Yes you do: you have the benefit of their testimony after Jesus arrived. You can have the same revelation they had. Jesus was not the proof, but the fulfilment of the "proof", the law. Whenever you realize love is the "right" thing to do, you hear the burning bush - the fire that does not consume - calling you.

This is the dialogue:

Moses: Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" (Exodus 3:13)
God: "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers-the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob-has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation. (Exodus 3:14-15)
Moses: "What if they do not believe me or listen to me and say, 'The LORD did not appear to you'?" (Exodus 4:1)
God: "How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the miraculous signs I have performed among them? (Numbers 14:11)
Later...
Jesus: 45"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. (2 Corinthians 3).

You are an overly-emotional being. You attribute everything in life to passion, and nothing to nature. This is the wrong way to look at things.

And also the worng way to look at me. I can assure you I'm very rational, but I have realized that reason isn't what makes the world go round. It isn't all there is - it's just a way of looking at things. Emotion is not inferior to reason, it is a valid part of our existence (and a major part, at that). Your rejection of God is an emotional one, not a reasonable one. Think about that for a moment. Look at all your aguments: they are based on distrust of the evidence, not lack of evidence. "Emotion" has a stigma in our modern world because of the emphasis on science.

I always find it very strange that "love is just a chemical reaction", but "suffering" is enough proof that God is worth believing in. When God appeals to our humanity you dismiss Him, when He appeals to your reason you sitrust Him, when He appeals to your senses you explain them away. All I want to do is point out the hypocrisy when you say "God lets suffering happen". I have news for you: "suffering" is just a subjective experience based on information received by our senses creating chemical reactions which the brain interprets as alien and unwelcome.

You must either accept my "emotional" argument of love, or let go of your equally emotional argument of suffering. God creates us aware, and we can experience and produce both emotions. The only difference between them is based on other intangible realities: morality and justice.

God is closer to your existance than you think.

Oh no? Well, I just did, and it hasn't lost any of it's luster to me. In your logic, you cannot explain what something actually is without losing the magic. I can understand that. It's like reading the ingredients to a hot dog...you just won't ever look at them the same way again. I'm sorry that you have to live you life in this haze, but in reality, love is nothing more than a chemical reaction.

You are just flat-out wrong. There is no choise in the matter. You cannot decide not to love your child, or your wife, or your parents. YOu either do or you don't, and it's not up to you. And it is completely natural.

And people wonder why marriages don't work out anymore... It's because they are "unnatural". We would all be able to sleep around and form no attachments if we could let go of our emotional sides, wouldn't we? Think about what you are saying! Crimes of passion are not crimes anymore. What's the difference between saying "Satan made me do it" and "evolution made me do it"? None. But you can't say "God made me do it", because He already said what He approves of and what not. When I meet a Christian, I know exactly how he or she will act under certain circumstances if they take their faith serously. My girlfriend could trust me without question, because she knew I answer to a higher authority. I would never cheat on her, even when a "better proposition" came along. Self control isn't a myth, you know, but it takes practice. It's not against the law to cheat on someone, it isn't right or wrong - but it says a lot about your character, and it is your character that God is interested in. It is also your character that sometimes disappoints you, but you keep working at it, because you know God knows who you are trying to be. You can only pray you don't hurt too many people in the process of growing up. But the road has a way of avoiding such situations.

Are you married, JD? Have you ever been in love? You might have a vague notion how complete your world seems then, how one person can make the rest of the world fir into place. And then shatter it again with one lie, one infidelity.

Those tears, my dear friend, were very real. Dismiss it as emotion if you will, but cry you will. That's a taste of hell, just like love was a taste of heaven. Not the emotion - the reality of it.

Yes and yes. If your wife cheats on you, it's because she acted upon her completely natural urge to have sex with a partner who she is attracted to. If someone murders you, it's because they are acting on their anger or hatred (which is anger with focus and a longer lifespan).

Dead impersonal parts of life? How is the chemical reactions which cause all these emotions and spawn these actions dead and impersonal? They are the very reasons which we feel the way we do, the reasons we do the things we do. They aren't dead and impersonal; they are very alive and the makeup of our being.

They can also make our lives a lie. They can make a mockery out of something like "justice", since nobody is really right or wrong - they just are.

I'm confused here. I don't believe our paths are programmed but you do? Are our lives the result of our genetic make-up, and we have very little control over it? Yes, they have chemical processes, visible impulses in your brain. So what? You don't know a person by studying his Cat scan. If anything, it shows that we are all made of the same stuff, function in generally the same way. But it cannot not rob us of our uniqueness.

Ahh, the emotionalism shines through. So because science describes the actual how's and why's, it cannot be accepted by you because it does not provide you with an alpha God? Because it doesn't include a merciful, loving entity which is responsible for your creation and holds the key to your everlasting life, it isn't worhty of you? I'm sorry that the truth isn't as peachy keen as your fragile mind would like, but since when is life ideal?

The reason why I am appealing to your emotional side is because I want to remind you that you are human - not because I want you to "burst out in tears and give your heart to God", but because you simply explain it away as the result of who we are and the reason why we are who we are - but you don't just see it for what it is: the part of a person you can observe.

You aren't just a series of cogs and whistles. You are somatic, psychological, social, emotional, chemical, moral, rational - you are everything that makes you an individual. If you were just a collection of organs and chemicals, you have no more value dead or alive. And as I have indicated before: that kind of reasoning makes whatever we attribute to living beings - human rights, truth, justice, beauty, love, honour - all lies, because they are artificial.

I say that the worth and integrity a person has is just as true a reflection of his character and humanity as the electrical impulses and chemical reaction in his brain. You don't send a person to jail because he is chemically imbalanced, you send him to hospital or a psychiatrist - because we know it is not who he is. The difference isn't just circumstantial, it is crucial and real.

But everything that is felt because of the relationship (including the relationship itself) is based on the genetic and chemical makeup of your brain. The interactions happen and they cause reactions in the brain. If they are suitable people, they will earn your respect and love and trust; all things that you cannot decide. Yes, the quickest way to a relationship is through truth and honesty, in most cases, and that's why we make such a big deal out of those qualities.

As long as a relationship is practical, right? When a relationship doesn't work out, what do you say, you were chemically incompatible? No, because then sex would have been enough wouldn't it? Children would just have to grow up with whomever and with whatever values were closest when the urge took you.

Think hard on this question: What nature are you nurturing?

But any interaction with anything is scientific. You have to touch, feel, hear, see, or taste anything you encounter. According to you, God created this nature, but it is against his nature to make himself at least temporarily visible through it. Well, first of all, if you are a believer in the Bible, you are wrong. He did appear, at least once phsyically before a major Biblical character. So to say that for him to come down and say "Hey, here I am! I'm real!" isn't against his nature, it would be, according to the recorded history, something he is very capable of, and was at one point willing to do.

Jesus appeared physically to many people, and many still didn;t believe. Would you believe in God if you could subject Him to scientific scrutiny - if you could hold the power of knowledge over Him? I doubt it. You would probably feel great about being chosen to be the lucky scientist for a few moments, and then remember not to become emotional about it.

Pure conjecture. You speak on behalf of me, now? I wished to see him for many years, just to know that he was there, and he never showed. I never saw him. And yes, proof is needed, because those who ask for it are very willing to believe once they see it.

No, you're not willing - you explained that to me over and over. You are willing to see a God you can observe, but no more. If you can only see people as a collection of juices in a petri dish, what hope have you of seeing their creator?

You will experience God if you listen to Him, not before. He does not appear just to satisfy your needs, but he is present when you recognize Him. Depending on whether you think God is a liar or sincere, you will be one step closer or further away from Him.

No, I dont' see. There was a sunset, and we know that because we can see it. To say there is a god is to say it unkowingly. You do not, I repeat, do not know that there is a god. You do not know. You can only hope, and believe on faith, with no proof, nor any sign of god to show.

Why can we see it? Because its light was reflected through the atmosphere - because of its own light. Have you ever seen the sun at night? Wondered why? We need it to see it. I know there is a God - what's more: I know who He is and wht He did for me. I don't need Him in a test tube to know that. I have enough signs, and so do you. The difference is I believe them and you don't.

And he shouldn't recognize your experience as true and valid, because your experience could very easily be something else. Much in the same way that you see a shadow and think you see a man in with a knife, you might have felt something that you thought was god, but was really fear, or joy at the thought of never dying.

No it can't. I am no different than you - we share the same basic anatomy and functioning. My experience is just as true and valid as your experience of the sunset. Not because it is a personal, emotional thing, but because it is an experiential thing. My whole life runs along the same lines I read about in the Bible, even though my situation is different. I can testify about what I read there, and that makes what it says true. I can only say: do what God asks, and you will see Him in your life. If you deny that, you'll have to call yourself a liar - and that's something I can't do.

If I have any doubt, it is not about whether God exists, or even who He really is, it is whether I am living the life He created me for.

But you had said earlier that love becomes powerless once you attribute it to chemical reactions in the brain. You said that to bring up the "dead impersonal" aspect of the brain's functions is to diminish everything about your experiences. But now you say it doesn't? Which is it?

And to say that religion does not diminish once you bring the scientific aspect to the table...nothing should ever be diminished by it's origin. Maybe you wouldn't call the experience "religious" anymore, but you would still feel it. Like the sunset, for example. Just because I know how it happens doesn't make it any less beautiful. (And just for the record, beauty is not just an optical effect. Haven't you ever heard a beautiful song or a beautiful voice?)

"Nothing can be diminished by its origin", how right you are. You can reduce life to its principle ingredients, but you can't diminish it by doing that. A beautiful song is "just" a vibration of your inner ear interpreted positively, but that isn't all it is. It doesn't even come close to describing what it is. It merely reduces it to the bones we can observe, stripped of is emotional flesh. You can rip the heart out of any experience like that if you wish.

What contradictions? And the Mayan calendar is the most accurate in the world, even more accurate than the one we use today.

Well, the Mayans held most of "The whole" and still are more accurate than the calendars we use today.

And it isn't different perspectives, it's just means that no one else had enough time to get as far as the Mayans did, or that something held them back from advancing in their studies. (Maybe religion?)

LOL. All we have left of them pertains to their religion, including the calendar. There whole life revolved around pleasing their gods. Religion surely didn't hold them back from creating such an accurate calendar.

If you say "accurate", to what purpose was it accurate? Did they set their Palm pilots to it? Something reduced to its most basic is always more "accurate" than something that has to be valid for everybody. Maybe because "accuracy" depends on what you want to do with it. Did they have the scientific instruments to measure the orbit of the moon and earth to the last decimal? Did it stop them from being able to "see" it? Why do you do the same with God?

The Bible, on the other hand, claims to be the inspired word of God, and are accounts of our supposed creator. Yet, they contradict what we know to be true in many cases (like how we know that there is no vast ocean in the sky, the Earth is not set in place, the sun provides our light, and it gets dark because the Earth rotates). I apply that logic to the Bible because the book is suspect on all levels, and cannot be validated by anything other than this god coming down and doing so in person. (Which, according to the Bible, he has done before, so why not now?)

God only came down once and for all. If you mean Jesus - He lived and died and fulfilled His purpose. You didn't miss it, because we know what happened. His revelation is still continuing, so you can fall in whenever you're ready - or never.

Hebrews 9
24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. (Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.) 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hydro="water", as in "Hydrogen", but the authors of Genesis didn't know any "elements". The earth is set in place - its called an "orbit". The sun has always provided light, that is why God created it (and why it says so in Genesis). If you know it gets dark because the earth rotates, why do you still call it a "sunset" ?? If you can still do it with all your knowledge, then I see nothing wrong with people in the Bible describing the sun as setting.

On the "many other levels", it doesn't "contradict" - it decribes from different perspectives. But you knew that. History often "contradicts" itself - even the Bible says that. The Bible is a history. If you think those chemicals... I mean, people were lying, then just say so and move on.

Case studies?? Dude, Star Trek wasn't real! It was fiction, and those were characters in it! They became human out of the creative minds of the writers, not out of the natural process! Jesus Christ, dude!

Have you never heard of a hypothesis before? We are the control group, and that makes those valid "case studies".

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Accountability to God

Originally posted by Jenyar
----------
I don't want to criticize M*W's worldview, but I want to respond to your (JDawg's) conclusion.
----------
What M*W is basically saying is that everybody has the ability of knowing right from wrong in a religious sense, without any "religion". That I agree with, because that is how people were created according to my own beliefs.
----------
(No, what I am saying has absolutely NOTHING to do with a "religious sense without any religion.")
----------
What bothers me is that it is not an accountable philosophy. To put in in other words: we have no-one to answer to than our own conscience, and the "god" that unites us is as "strong" as the weakest link. The most depraved rapist on earth is just as much "god" as you are - you see, there is no way he can not be god, because that means there can be people outside "god"- and we are right back in Egyptian and Roman times were some people are "good enough" to be deities and others aren't. The worst he can do is not realize he is god, but what consequence has that to him? Nothing, in fact, he probably already thinks he is a stronger and better informed part of god than the rest of the world.
----------
(Of course, Jenyar, you wouldn't recognize the accountability in this philosophhy, because it doesn't have anything to do with Jesus. We ARE accountable to ourselves and our fellow man for our actions. You seem to think that your God and my God are two different entities, but they're NOT! The most depraved rapist on Earth is just as accountable for his actions as you and I are. Your viewpoint is tremendously judgmental, and that is the reason your understanding is limited within the narrow boundaries of your learned religion. Although this has already been discussed elsewhere in the forum, sin is when one removes themselves from God. Simply put, the depraved rapist obviously does not see or feel the need to have God in his life. He has removed his conscience from the creative force of energy in his life. He has become horrendously negative = evil. Of course, he doesn't see himself as "God," and neither does his fellow mankind. What one "thinks" about himself doesn't necessarily mean that he is in tune with the creative spirit in his life. That's delusional thinking. I don't know why I am wasting my breath, because I know you don't have the capacity to understand what I'm trying to say.)
----------
Your "much happier, safer, calmer planet" depends too much on a person's own sense of righteousness, rather than on an absolute set of morals that ensures such a world.
---------
(So what's wrong with a person's "own sense of righteousness?" I would consider this to be one's conscience at work. I also believe this to have been given to us as human beings. Why do we need an "absolute set of morals" handed to us by some man-made organization if we were really in tune with our Creator? That just doesn't make sense at all! Humans were created (evolved) to be the most intelligent being (that we know of today). We were given an instinctive knowledge and understanding of what is right and what is wrong. To doubt this is to doubt God's creation. To doubt this is to doubt that the Spirit of God dwells within the human race. Your "absolute set of morals" tends to bind people to certain man-made philosophies because the interpretations of these morals can be defined in a zillion different ways. Human wisdom is indwelling. There is no need to conform to different sets of morals. The problem is that the human race has been brainwashed for so long, we have forgotten the capacity of the gift of our infinite wisdom! Some of us don't know how to recognize it or use it. It's always been there from the beginning of time. The wisdom was with God and we were created in God's spiritual image. Wisdom is ours.)
----------
Perhaps such universal "enlightenment" is possible, but it has taken humanity thousands (millions?) of years to reach this point - and there is no sign of such inherent "godliness" becoming more apparent, on the contrary, people seem to become less and less human.
----------
(Spoken by a true Xian! The reason you see no sign of "godliness" in the human race is because, from all your previous posts, you are surely not looking for godliness in the human race! Your "God" is somewhere "out there." You have admitted in so many words that the kingdom of God does not dwell in you. Perhaps you are one of the many Xians who don't have an intimate relationship with your Creator. However, I will agree with your point that "people seem to become less and less human." That means that people are growing more distant to the Creative Spirit within them. We rely on digital alarm clocks to wake us up in the morning. We drive to car in a high-tech machine. We work on computers and other cutting-edge technologies for our sustenance. We have so many high-tech novelties in our lives that our cumulative human Spirit has become so disassociated with the very basic creative force in our lives. We need to just pause for a time and reflect on what we have, because WE created it. The innermost Spirit of God has lead us to these technologies, but we as the cumulative vessel for the One Spirit of God have forgotten from where our wisdom came. Man-made religions have lured the human race away from our Creator by giving us a savior to whom we are indebted. Somewhere, God has gotten lost in the shuffle. We don't know God anymore, and we certainly cannot define or prove God's existence. He seems to be getting farther and farther away from our focus. How many of us really think about the reason we are here? Well, probably lot's of people, but how many people really know why they're here? Probably not too many know, because they have removed themselves from their understanding of their creator, and thus their purpose, in this life. Yes, we're are becoming more and more inhuman as a species. We need to go back to our spiritual creation, for that is what we really are--pure positive creative spirit. We need to reclaim our wisdom. We need to reclaim God.)

 

[Nasor]

Originally posted by atheroy
so what am i driving at? we are not significant. what i saw was much greater than i am, much greater than anyone will ever be.

Great as it was, would it have had any value or meaning whatsoever if we hadn't been around to appreciate it?

 

[atheroy]

Great as it was, would it have had any value or meaning whatsoever if we hadn't been around to appreciate it?

apply that to everything in the world and you can conclude that humans aren't important.

 

[coolsoldier]

Re: Re: 60,000 years

Originally posted by Nasor
Great as it was, would it have had any value or meaning whatsoever if we hadn't been around to appreciate it?

Your logic would imply that nothing has any meaning or value other than our interpretation of it, which simply doesn't make sense. The world would be as valuable to whoever inhabited it as it is to us. If it weren't for us, "meaning" and "value" would just be stated in terms of whatever being was here to interpret things.

 

[Nasor]

Re: Re: Re: 60,000 years

Originally posted by coolsoldier
The world would be as valuable to whoever inhabited it as it is to us. If it weren't for us, "meaning" and "value" would just be stated in terms of whatever being was here to interpret things.

My point was that it only has value if someone is around to appreciate it. I wasn't trying to imply that only humans are able to appreciate things. I imagine that some race of super-intelligent dogs, or whatever, might be equally capable of appreciating a close approach by Mars.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Re: Re: 60,000 years

Originally posted by Nasor
Great as it was, would it have had any value or meaning whatsoever if we hadn't been around to appreciate it?

Who knows?
We are clearly in no position to say whether an event has any universal value or lack there of.
We only have the human perspective, so all we can say is whether or not the event was meaningful TO HUMANS.
In which case you are correct, this event would have been meaningless to humans if no humans were around to see it
The universe saw it regardless, so its meaning and value in the universe would remain unscathed with or without us.

 

[everneo]

Re: Re: Re: 60,000 years

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
The universe saw it regardless, so its meaning and value in the universe would remain unscathed with or without us.

without us ( or any sentinent / intelligent beings ), what is meaning of 'meaning and value'.? universe will remain as it is, unaware, blindly follwing the natural laws, without any loaded values.

 

[Jenyar]

Just as the first man would have just been a collection of cells and chemicals with no value if God did not value him or give him meaning.

 

[everneo]

Jenyar,

you just screwed up my post.

actually there is no need to bring in God here. i am talking abount what is called 'physical / material' universe and its own product - sentinent beings , claimed to be evloved from matters of the same blind universe and its natural forces, but being ridiculed as having less value and unimportant blah blah..

 

[Jenyar]

Didn't mean to. Sorry

But to some people here, humans are just glorified rocks. My point is just as we give meaning to the world around us (which would otherwise be just blind and unaware), the same can be said for us. We can give each other meaning, but only God could give the first man meaning!