Does God exist?

[IATESOTK]

I don't disagree at all. Although, I'm not sure that 'fast forward' is common. I do believe that time is not constant in the realms of time and space, and that it may be (is) discerned differently at different points in the universe depending upon location (and perhaps other factors). I think earthly science has shown this is true in terms of our perception of time in relation to space travel.

 

Yeah, you are thinking what I'm thinking. . . the "fast forward" prob isn't a good way to look at it. I was just trying to show how in a game, many "decisions" are made by the artificial intelligence--and when you fast forward, those same decisions are made faster, which takes you (as the games controller) less time to see things unfold.

 

Sort of a "what would Earth look like to God"

 

I almost think God has different points in life where he makes the ultimate decision, and we as intelligent beings pretty much decide where we want to go on everything else. For instance, I just chose to go to Taco Bell--knowing that it is not in my body's best interest! lol. But if I decide I want to skip town and leave my family to start another life, I think God may try to counteract that somehow.

[REASON]

Why would you or I or anyone be presumptuous enough so as to preclude the possibility of being analagous to the 3 year in one sense (expected massive intellectual/spiritual growth) while closely modeling the same 3 year in the 'why' game? Doing so would seem a hair misguided (or disingenuous), don't you think?

 

Alright, so you've shown some of your insights into intellectual dialogue. Excellent. :cup: But don't get too caught up in the details of the analogy. It starts to look like avoidance.

 

You have made a very unfinished speculation. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with speculation or conjecture as long as it is specifically recognized as such. I have a great imagination. :rolleyes: But if you're going to speculate on life seeding by highly intelligent beings, it seems unsatisfying to stop at the seeding process for life on this planet and not resolve the origin of the "farmers." It's ultimately a trap. At some point you're going to have to resign yourself to one of the following:

 

• Life on this planet (and potentially throughout the universe) has developed through the natural interactions of matter, energy, and physics.
  
• An eternal, all powerful God, was eternally bored, and decided to create a physical universe with physical life for entertainment and self aggrandizement.
  
• I accept that I have no clue.
  

 

Once you have decided which one is right for you, you are not obligated to that notion for the rest of your life.

 

What do you think of a similar theory that is gaining more acceptance among members of the scientific community that has to do with idea of seeding by comet? Research on comets is showing that they have the potential of carrying the primordial chemicals of life and dispersing them throughout developing solar systems in random fashion.....sort of like celestial sperm, with planets representing celestial ova. To me, this concept has a more plausible, natural flavor to it.

 

I know I shouldn't be leading the discussion this way so I recommend a short reply to this part, and maybe a new thread topic.

[OutsideTheBox]

Alright, so you've shown some of your insights into intellectual dialogue. Excellent. :cup: But don't get to caught up in the details of the analogy. It starts to look like avoidance.

 

I didn't think I got caught up. One response to a comment made by another for furthering discussion hardly constitutes avoidance... :)

 

You have made a very unfinished speculation. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with speculation or conjecture as long as it is specifically recognized as such. I have a great imagination. :rolleyes: But if you're going to speculate on life seeding by highly intelligent beings, it seems unsatisfying to stop at the seeding process for life on this planet and not resolve the origin of the "farmers." It's ultimately a trap. At some point you're going to have to resign yourself to one of the following:

 

• Life on this planet (and potentially throughout the universe) has developed through the natural interactions of matter, energy, and physics.
  
• An eternal, all powerful God, was eternally bored, and decided to create a physical universe with physical life for entertainment and self aggrandizement.
  
• I accept that I have no clue.
  

 

Once you have decided which one is right for you, you are not obligated to that notion for the rest of your life.

 

What do you think of a similar theory that is gaining more acceptance among members of the scientific community that has to do with idea of seeding by comet? Research on comets is showing that they have the potential of carrying the primordial chemicals of life and dispersing them throughout developing solar systems in random fashion.....sort of like celestial sperm, with planets representing celestial ova. To me, this concept has a more plausible, natural flavor to it.

 

I know I shouldn't be leading the discussion this way so I recommend a short reply to this part, and maybe a new thread topic.

 

I'll raise you a conjecture (though I like yours to begin with)... :) In answer to your points regarding the origin of these 'life carriers' and God beyond, I make the following point and then add a question. It's not meant rhetorically.

 

Some people have children accidentally (birds and bees omitted. haha). Some aren't ready, some aren't careful, and some have other reasons for not purposely trying to conceive. But, what of the others? What of those who choose to have children out of a conscious decision? What is it that makes them feel any less complete than they would otherwise, from those poor as dirt who have next to nothing to those who have billions in fortune that they cannot hope to spend in a lifetime? Why do people elect to have children? The answer to this question, I surmise, is little different (though likely distinct from person to person) than the answer about why God (if there is one) would choose to do so as well...

 

The seeding by comet argument is plausible, and who's to say whether it's ever happened? If it has, though, it doesn't preclude the other possibilities. And I would still think it as likely as not that the primordial constituents (or life itself) were intelligently put there on the comet.

 

Finally, a point about mankind as we know it on Earth. Only somewhat based upon conjecture, yet more so based upon a foundation of fact... It hasn't been very long since electricity, the autombile, antibiotics, understanding of genetics, etc. has been existent. An extremely short period of time, in truth. Yet, does anyone doubt that man is now having great success (or at least massive progress) with cloning/genetic manipulation, with nuclear experimention, with space travel, etc? In the current light of what man does on Earth, whether purposed by curiousity, need for expansion, or otherwise and in light of the incredible advances in technology we have witnessed over just the last couple hundred years, and further in recognition of the sometimes strange (yet very clever) ways that man applies science and technology on Earth, is there any doubt that humankind, if it gets the chance, will not relatively soon be doing exactly the same things that we are debating at present in space?

[freeztar]

In the current light of what man does on Earth, whether purposed by curiousity, need for expansion, or otherwise and in light of the incredible advances in technology we have witnessed over just the last couple hundred years, and further in recognition of the sometimes strange (yet very clever) ways that man applies science and technology on Earth, is there any doubt that humankind, if it gets the chance, will not relatively soon be doing exactly the same things that we are debating at present in space?

 

It's possible, but it has to start somewhere. Your argument to me appears to be akin to "it's turtles all the way down". Is this correct?

[OutsideTheBox]

It's possible, but it has to start somewhere. Your argument to me appears to be akin to "it's turtles all the way down"[/url]. Is this correct?

 

 

I wasn't familiar with "it's turtles all the way down' previously. Interesting history. No, I wouldn't say it's consistent with that, though it (the concept of a God which transcends time and space) is virtually impossible to present with direct evidence.

 

I think the best way to argue in favor (for a believer) is to coordinate the argument with one predicated on scientific foundation. For example, we don't know how all of the original energy (demonstrable energy in many ways) came to be, nor its precursors, so we (commonly held science) theorize that the ultimate beginnings came from a sort of big bang. But, the big bang really doesn't seem to work since the non-uniform distribution of matter doesn't exactly fit. Ok, so then new spin-off theories proliferate with minor variances on the big bang theme. Over the course of history man has many times changed his mind (the collective predominating scientific position) about a variety of materially manifested phenomena. The point is that it really can't be argued that we understand even the material realm that we are directly and irrefutably confronted with. It is there, it is undeniable, and yet we do not really understand it (despite understanding much of it, and further concluding in many cases - before changing our mind - that we really do understand all of it). Science has a habit of making temporal yet definitive assertions prior to making new and wholesale changed definitive assertions relating to the same material constructs later.

 

If we don't understand the material realm to begin with (which I argue is clear) then how does science proclaim to refute the existence of that which was was antecedent to that irrefutable material existence we don't understand?

 

So, again, God can't be proven. But those who attempt to disprove fall as flat in their denial (in my view) as those who argue there is proof of existence. It boils down to a personal faith which transcends the material. Though, from where I sit, that transcending of the material shouldn't necessarily be construed as so wacky since we collectively understand very little about the primary causes of the material realm itself...

[REASON]

I didn't think I got caught up. One response to a comment made by another for furthering discussion hardly constitutes avoidance... :)

 

Very good. Your point is well taken. :rolleyes:

 

I'll raise you a conjecture (though I like yours to begin with)... :cup: In answer to your points regarding the origin of these 'life carriers' and God beyond, I make the following point and then add a question. It's not meant rhetorically.

 

Why do people elect to have children? The answer to this question, I surmise, is little different (though likely distinct from person to person) than the answer about why God (if there is one) would choose to do so as well...

 

I'm not sure you can reasonably make the connection. I believe the choice to have children is primarily based on two explantations. First, humans, as with all living beings, are driven by the need to survive. Reproduction is inherent to the survival of all living things. It is so fundamental to existance that reproduction exists at rudimentary levels. Our sexual desire has evolved out of that need to survive because it has been successful. This aspect exists more in our subconscious.

 

Secondly, because we have an advanced intellect and the ability to contemplate, we are able to recognize the joy and fulfillment that others experience in not only having sexual relations, but also having children and grandchildren, etc. We follow the behavior and examples of others as we learn and grow from childhood. Having children is easily identified from a young age simply as something we do. It is recognized as a normal and important part of living a successful and fulfilling life.

 

Neither of these explanations for our decision to have children are applicable to an eternal, all powerful deity since it has no inherent need for survival, and has not learned the joy and value of having sexual relations and children from other gods (assuming you prefer the notion of a single, all powerful god). Speculating as to why a god would want to create the universe and life will remain as nothing more than, well.....speculation. Therefore to me, it makes more sense to focus on more natural and observable explanations.

 

 

The seeding by comet argument is plausible, and who's to say whether it's ever happened? If it has, though, it doesn't preclude the other possibilities. And I would still think it as likely as not that the primordial constituents (or life itself) were intelligently put there on the comet.

 

By whom? At some point you may have to reconcile for yourself why it is necessary to assign some sort of intelligence to the origins of life. The primordial elements conducive to the development of life are born in star formation, and released from stars during it's lifetime and by supernovae. The idea is that comets can have properties that are conducive to the retention and distribution of those elements. It seems impractical for a being advanced enough to traverse the universe seeding life, to seek out comets to plant the seeds, don't you think?

 

 

Finally, a point about mankind as we know it on Earth. ...does anyone doubt that man is now having great success (or at least massive progress) with cloning/genetic manipulation, with nuclear experimention, with space travel, etc? In the current light of what man does on Earth, whether purposed by curiousity, need for expansion, or otherwise and in light of the incredible advances in technology we have witnessed over just the last couple hundred years, and further in recognition of the sometimes strange (yet very clever) ways that man applies science and technology on Earth, is there any doubt that humankind, if it gets the chance, will not relatively soon be doing exactly the same things that we are debating at present in space?

 

I understand your point, but we are likely to ultimately be hindered in our ability to traverse the massive expanse of space and time. Local colonization would be much more practical. What would drive our overall need to expend the enormous amount of energy and cost required just to try and play Johnny Appleseed, with nowhere near enough time available to confirm the outcome of our experiments? This would remain an inherent problem for any advanced beings.....unless you are specifically referring to a god.

[OutsideTheBox]

 

I'm not sure you can reasonably make the connection. I believe the choice to have children is primarily based on two explantations. First, humans, as with all living beings, are driven by the need to survive. Reproduction is inherent to the survival of all living things. It is so fundamental to existance that reproduction exists at rudimentary levels. Our sexual desire has evolved out of that need to survive because it has been successful. This aspect exists more in our subconscious.

 

Secondly, because we have an advanced intellect and the ability to contemplate, we are able to recognize the joy and fulfillment that others experience in not only having sexual relations, but also having children and grandchildren, etc. We follow the behavior and examples of others as we learn and grow from childhood. Having children is easily identified from a young age simply as something we do. It is recognized as a normal and important part of living a successful and fulfilling life.

 

Neither of these explanations for our decision to have children are applicable to an eternal, all powerful deity since it has no inherent need for survival, and has not learned the joy and value of having sexual relations and children from other gods (assuming you prefer the notion of a single, all powerful god). Speculating as to why a god would want to create the universe and life will remain as nothing more than, well.....speculation. Therefore to me, it makes more sense to focus on more natural, and observable explanations.

 

Nothing you wrote is disputable. It all has merit. But, I would argue additionally that there is great joy to be taken by (many) parents in the learning, growth, expression, autonomy, and achievement of their children. That joy often can seem to transcend the joy felt innately in the context of one's own achievements. The fact exists, whether correlatable to God or not, that if you ask a given parent what is the single biggest and most compelling experience of love they've had in this lifetime they are likely to reply with the joy that they experience vicariously through the successes/achievements of their children. Many with more than one child are likely to say that the pinnacle of joy is when their children act wholly selflessly by considering their sibling in advance of themselves in some matter. Not all will answer so, but there is something innately real for those who relate this joy. You can argue it's related to the legacy of parent survival, etc. as you did earlier, but that is no less speculation than the argument about God. Ascribing particular motives or foundations for the actual feelings or motives of others is indeed presumptuous...

 

 

 

By whom? At some point you may have to reconcile for yourself why it is necessary to assign some sort of intelligence to the origins of life. The primordial elements conducive to the development of life are born in star formation, and released from stars during it's lifetime and by supernovae. The idea is that comets can have properties that are conducive to the retention and distribution of those elements. It seems impractical for a being advanced enough to traverse the universe seeding life, to seek out comets to plant the seeds, don't you think?

 

I really don't need to reconcile the way you suggested going forward. I've got a very scientific mind in many respects and have done a tremendous amount of self-searching in this lifetime. Any spiritual or religious belief that is closed to debate or investigation isn't worth its premise, in my view. Life is a constant reconciliation of sorts, from where I sit. I don't find it 'necessary' to ascribe intelligence to the origins of life at all. I fully recognize the psychological construct whereby it can be helpful to those who want to believe to do so and I have often philosophized internally about the process.

 

By the way, the reason I stumbled across this forum was because I was searching for information that debunks my belief in the Urantia Book. So, for what it's worth, I'm a big believer that spiritual reality and intellectual reality are necessarily coordinated and interrelated. Those who refuse to constantly reevaluate their views are only fooling themselves, and I fully recognize this.

 

As it turns out, I'm quite glad I stumbled here since in my very brief tenure thus far I have determined that in general the group of individuals hanging out here collectively appear amongst the brightest group I've personally encountered online...

 

Yes, I agree the comet use wouldn't be likely. I was only pointing at that intelligent placement of life thereon would be as likely as the chaotic non-intelligent existence of such life (or precursors) that you earlier envisaged.

 

 

 

I understand your point, but we are likely to ultimately be hindered in our ability to traverse the massive expanse of space and time. Local colonization would be much more practical. What would drive our overall need to expend the enormous amount of energy and cost required just to try and play Johnny Appleseed, with no where near enough time available to confirm the outcome of our experiments? This would remain an inherent problem for any advanced beings.....unless you are specifically referring to a god.

 

Local or remote really wasn't so much of a concern in the earlier part of the discussion. One life form's local may be another life form's remote. The discussion was based more on the seeding of life (through whatever means) by intelligent processes outside the sphere of that which could be determined by some other intelligent life which was trying to observe the process and then pondering whether or not such a process could even exist.

 

As for the rationale about playing Johnny Appleseed, I see your point. But, it's a demonstrably flawed point, in my view, since precisely the same argument can be made right now with regard to man's travails in space (whether probes planned that won't reach their destination for decades, etc.). There really is no rationale for much of what we do in space today, by that same standard...

[REASON]

Nothing you wrote is disputable. It all has merit. But, I would argue additionally that there is great joy to be taken by (many) parents in the learning, growth, expression, autonomy, and achievement of their children. That joy often can seem to transcend the joy felt innately in the context of one's own achievements. The fact exists, whether correlatable to God or not, that if you ask a given parent what is the single biggest and most compelling experience of love they've had in this lifetime they are likely to reply with the joy that they experience vicariously through the successes/achievements of their children. Many with more than one child are likely to say that the pinnacle of joy is when their children act wholly selflessly by considering their sibling in advance of themselves in some matter. Not all will answer so, but there is something innately real for those who relate this joy.

 

The points I made regarding the joy, success, and fulfillment of parenting in no way exclude the observations you make above.

 

 

You can argue it's related to the legacy of parent survival, etc. as you did earlier, but that is no less speculation than the argument about God. Ascribing particular motives or foundations for the actual feelings or motives of others is indeed presumptuous...

 

Indeed. And no less so by the argument you make above regarding the joy of parenting. As opposed to god, these types of speculations and presumtions about humans, or the behaviors of all life forms, is observable and testable, giving credence to subsequent explanations and theories. The need of living things to survive may on the surface be speculative, but the enormous amont of observable evidence in support of it at a micro and macro level, move speculation to virtual certainty.

 

 

Yes, I agree the comet use wouldn't be likely. I was only pointing at that intelligent placement of life thereon would be as likely as the chaotic non-intelligent existence of such life (or precursors) that you earlier envisaged.

 

And my point was to refute that notion based on impracticality, which you have confirmed in your first sentence here.

 

 

Local or remote really wasn't so much of a concern in the earlier part of the discussion. One life form's local may be another life form's remote. The discussion was based more on the seeding of life (through whatever means) by intelligent processes outside the sphere of that which could be determined by some other intelligent life which was trying to observe the process and then pondering whether or not such a process could even exist.

 

I agree. My point was more to refute the notion of beings wandering around the galaxy or universe with the sole purpose of seeding solar systems, again based on impracticality.

 

 

As for the rationale about playing Johnny Appleseed, I see your point. But, it's a demonstrably flawed point, in my view, since precisely the same argument can be made right now with regard to man's travails in space (whether probes planned that won't reach their destination for decades, etc.). There really is no rationale for much of what we do in space today, by that same standard...

 

Oh, but I disaree with that. Our past and current travails in space, like our past travails across every corner of the Earth, is driven by our insatiable thirst for knowledge and understanding of our natural surroundings. And while some may consider the vast complexity of nature complicated to the point of finding it necessary to assign a god as the explanation, there will always be those among us that are not content with that reasoning, and will continue to utilize scientific exploration in that quest for knowledge and understanding. The motivations of exploration and seeding life are not necessarily congruent, and feasibiltiy will always be a consideration in these matters.

[OutsideTheBox]

The points I made regarding the joy, success, and fulfillment of parenting in no way exclude the observations you make above.

 

 

 

 

Indeed. And no less so by the argument you make above regarding the joy of parenting. As opposed to god, these types of speculations and presumtions about humans, or the behaviors of all life forms, is observable and testable, giving credence to subsequent explanations and theories. The need of living things to survive may on the surface be speculative, but the enormous amont of observable evidence in support of it at a micro and macro level, move speculation to virtual certainty.

 

Agreed about the need to survive. I never asserted or intended to imply otherwise. My point was that it doesn't make sense to ascribe that rationale as an exclusive one when discussing why parents have children. It is true and real, yet it is not appropriate to attribute it to all parents to the exclusion of other possible reasons...

 

And my point was to refute that notion based on impracticality, which you have confirmed in your first sentence here.

 

Well, now things are getting off course. The context of the comet angle has been lost now. You brought it up originally when noting that it may have more merit (non-intelligent seeding) than the concept of intelligent seeding. I only pointed out that I didn't see randomness as any more likely than intelligent outworkings. I never implied it would be the practical choice for intelligent seeding, as you seem to imply that I did above...

 

 

I agree. My point was more to refute the notion of beings wandering around the galaxy or universe with the sole purpose of seeding solar systems, again based on impracticality.

 

I'm not sure I follow your assertions of impracticality. Why do people seed new fields? For a variety of reasons, I argue. Whether because old fields no longer provide the necessary natural environment for the crops, or because they want to test a new genetically modified (or hybrid) crop, or because expansionism tends to be an innate quality of many humans and of human civilization itself, etc. Any number of practical reasons *could* be ascribed to such intelligent seeding, in my view. The impracticality of space travel is something I don't buy into. The progress we've made in space travel in an incredibly short period of time surely pales by orders of magnitude when contrasted with the likely technical advancements of other long since evolved life forms on other planets (if you believe they exist).

 

Oh, but I disaree with that. Our past and current travails in space, like our past travails across every corner of the Earth, is driven by our insatiable thirst for knowledge and understanding of our natural surroundings. And while some may consider the vast complexity of nature complicated to the point of finding it necessary to assign a god as the explanation, there will always be those among us that are not content with that reasoning, and will continue to utilize scientific exploration in that quest for knowledge and understanding. The motivations of exploration and seeding life are not necessarily congruent, and feasibiltiy will always be a consideration in these matters.

 

 

Interesting that I note a measure of conflict in your earlier responses about the impracticality and unlikelihood in the context of another intelligent civilization seeding planets, while at the same time you write about the insatiable thirst for knowledge exhibited by mankind. Why is it that that you would expect anything different than exactly such behavior by another intelligent civilization? Or maybe I misunderstood somehow...

 

I guess we can agree to disagree on the point regarding the lack of congruence between exploration and the expansion of life. Mankind has essentially left forms of life virtually everywhere he has gone on this planet, whether purposefully (as in crops) or inadvertantly (as in rats, disease, snakefish, etc.). He is also experimenting on the very edge of biological morality (or biological potential, if you don't buy the morality angle). And that's just the stuff the mainstream media tells us about. I'd be willing to be the governments are in secret doing much more therein than the citizens are being told.

 

Where we go we will bring life, whether intending to or not. It's only a matter of time. The expectation should be no different for other intelligent life forms. In terms of feasibility, I'm reticent to ascribe man's present notions of feasibility to other intelligent civilizations who may (and likely do) have technology that our physics models do not comprehend...

[REASON]

Agreed about the need to survive. I never asserted or intended to imply otherwise. My point was that it doesn't make sense to ascribe that rationale as an exclusive one when discussing why parents have children. It is true and real, yet it is not appropriate to attribute it to all parents to the exclusion of other possible reasons...

 

I'll try and keep these responses short since I have to leave and feel as though this discussion is becoming more of a battle of wills than substance. That's not my intention.

 

I'm not sure if you read my entire statement about why we choose to reproduce. I did not suggest the need to survive exclusively. It was one of two aspects, the second being one of learned behavior that is reinforced by joy, success, and fulfillment. That clarification is important, since I also felt your statements about the joy of raising children were included as part my statement.

 

 

Well, now things are getting off course. The context of the comet angle has been lost now. You brought it up originally when noting that it may have more merit (non-intelligent seeding) than the concept of intelligent seeding. I only pointed out that I didn't see randomness as any more likely than intelligent outworkings. I never implied it would be the practical choice for intelligent seeding, as you seem to imply that I did above...

 

I didn't claim that you implied it was practical. I used practicality as an argument for why a natural process might make more sense than an intelligent being seeding process. Obviously, you can believe whatever you want. I'm not attacking you.

 

 

I'm not sure I follow your assertions of impracticality. Why do people seed new fields? For a variety of reasons, I argue. Whether because old fields no longer provide the necessary natural environment for the crops, or because they want to test a new genetically modified (or hybrid) crop, or because expansionism tends to be an innate quality of many humans and of human civilization itself, etc. Any number of practical reasons *could* be ascribed to such intelligent seeding, in my view. The impracticality of space travel is something I don't buy into. The progress we've made in space travel in an incredibly short period of time surely pales by orders of magnitude when contrasted with the likely technical advancements of other long since evolved life forms on other planets (if you believe they exist).

 

The practicality of seeding fields bears no real comparison to the practicality of skipping across the space time continuum spreading the seeds of life. This is my opinion. I tried to make such an argument. It appears it wasn't very convincing. :rant:

 

 

Interesting that I note a measure of conflict in your earlier responses about the impracticality and unlikelihood in the context of another intelligent civilization seeding planets, while at the same time you write about the insatiable thirst for knowledge exhibited by mankind. Why is it that that you would expect anything different than exactly such behavior by another intelligent civilization? Or maybe I misunderstood somehow...

 

I guess we can agree to disagree on the point regarding the lack of congruence between exploration and the expansion of life. Mankind has essentially left forms of life virtually everywhere he has gone on this planet, whether purposefully (as in crops) or inadvertantly (as in rats, disease, snakefish, etc.). He is also experimenting on the very edge of biological morality (or biological potential, if you don't buy the morality angle). And that's just the stuff the mainstream media tells us about. I'd be willing to be the governments are in secret doing much more therein than the citizens are being told.

 

Where we go we will bring life, whether intending to or not. It's only a matter of time. The expectation should be no different for other intelligent life forms. In terms of feasibility, I'm reticent to ascribe man's present notions of feasibility to other intelligent civilizations who may (and likely do) have technology that our physics models do not comprehend...

 

You're correct. It is presumptuous for me to suggest that I have any way of knowing the characteristics, capabilities, or motivations of any advanced intelligent beings that we have no knowledge of existing in reality. I'm aware that conjecture is often more appealing in the formation of beliefs. It isn't really my style. :confused:

[goku]

i know that there is pain because i can feel it

i know there is joy because i can feel it

i know there is love because i can feel it

i know God because i can feel him

i know God because of the things he has done for me

i know God because of the things i've seen him do for other people

[InfiniteNow]

And the fact that you use your feelings as evidence shows the fault in your logic. As well all know, slight disturbances and changes in otherwise normal brain function can result in serious misperceptions of reality.

 

I cite the man who mistook his wife for a hat as a classic example of my point.

 

 

Further, the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes," not "evidence." <special thanks to swansont for that>

[goku]

And the fact that you use your feelings as evidence

 

oh, evidence, life comes from life.

any scientist knows that.

[Moontanman]

I wrestle with the question of whether or not there is a God. It seems like I can prove it both ways and disprove it both ways. Does the universe need a creator to exist? Or is this just an idea inside man-made theology? Man yearns for the eternal. He wants to live forever and be strong forever. He is the only animal as far as we know which builds churches and contemplates the infinite. This in itself may be an indication that immortality resides in a soul of some kind. If there is truth in religion, I accept the premises of the New Testament.

 

Jim Colyer

Jim Colyer :: News

 

I'd like to see your proof or disproof, either one is like nailing jello to a tree. It can't be done, it's like trying to prove I don't have a magical dragon in a box, if you look in the box then I just say he has magicly gone to another box and won't be back until you close it.

[REASON]

oh, evidence, life comes from life.

any scientist knows that.

 

I fail to see how "life comes from life" is the evidence that proves God exists.

 

Can you explain what you mean?

[goku]

I fail to see how "life comes from life" is the evidence that proves God exists.

 

Can you explain what you mean?

 

God is alive, and me as well.

 

dead is not alive, nor can rocks suddenly start living, it's impossible.

you can't git blood from a turnip.

[Moontanman]

God is alive, and me as well.

 

dead is not alive, nor can rocks suddenly start living, it's impossible.

you can't git blood from a turnip.

 

Life can indeed come from non life, as long as the conditions are correct and established life isn't around to supress the process. Life is as inevitable as the result of mixing hydrogen with oxygen is inevitable. When the conditions are right for a long enough period of time life will develope. It works that way for all stages of life as well. Resistance is futile:doh: