A metaphysical question

[eugler]

Hi everybody,

I'm not at CF regularly but love to pop in from time to time to participate in some of the interessting discussions here. As you can see by the little sign above I'm an atheist but I must admit that I've been an Agnostic for the bigger part of my live since I've always rejected organised religion as a philosophy for myself (although going through the lot of the catholic initiation rites). I'm telling you this because I would be interessted in some religious views of one of the main reasons for my (then) Agnosticism which was (and still is) a paradox from my pov.

Let's assume there is a supernatural entity that we call god and that has created all of this, all that we can see and (according to most religious views) even more than that. The ingraspable vasteness of the whole universe was deliberately brought into existence by this entity which - in order to do this - has at least at some point understood the workings of his creation everywhere and at every scale. It follows logically that the intelligence of this being must be far beyond our human imagination. How on earth could anyone state that he or she understood what this being had in mind when it was creating this, let alone what it wants us to do? Is this not far more questionable than a fly claiming to understand what went through Einstein's mind when he was developing the theory of relativity?

Having stated this question I would like to ask you to answer without refering to your scripture or the revelation given to your specific religion and denomination. This is meant as a general question from a non-believer to a believer and I would be interessted in your personal thoughts, not the thoughts of your church. I'm not trying to convert anyone so please refrain from delivering sermons but see this as a discussion among equals who want to learn more about the way other people think. I'm looking forward to an interessting discussion.

 

[drich0150]

Hi everybody,

Let's assume there is a supernatural entity that we call god and that has created all of this, all that we can see and (according to most religious views) even more than that. The ingraspable vasteness of the whole universe was deliberately brought into existence by this entity which - in order to do this - has at least at some point understood the workings of his creation everywhere and at every scale. It follows logically that the intelligence of this being must be far beyond our human imagination. How on earth could any sane person state that he or she understood what this being had in mind when it was creating this, let alone what it wants us to do? Is this not far more questionable than a fly claiming to understand what went through Einstein's mind when he was developing the theory of relativity?

Let's say Einstein was married and had a legitimate child one that he interacted with daily. How is it do you think that the child could comprehend any interaction between himself and his father?

(Because the father sees the limitations of the child and reduces his interactions with said child on a level that the child can comprehend.)

If earthy fathers are capable of such compassion, then why (In your best estimation) can not our heavenly father also show this compassion??

 

[eugler]

Let's say Einstein was married and had a legitimate child one that he interacted with daily. How is it do you think that the child could comprehend any interaction between himself and his father?

(Because the father sees the limitations of the child and reduces his interactions with said child on a level that the child can comprehend.)

If earthy fathers are capable of such compassion, then why (In your best estimation) can not our heavenly father also show this compassion??

Well, Einstein was married twice and had three legitimate children. I think I see where you are going but it doesn't make sense to me for at least two reasons. Firstly the difference in understanding between Einstein and one of his infants is outrageously smaller than the difference between our understanding (or even potential for understanding) and the understanding of god. Secondly the infant will grow up and will come at least somewhat close to the understanding of his father (which doesn't mean he has to become a genius). It wouldn't make sense to have children if it was otherwise. What purpose would be in having a child that stays an infant for all its lifetime?

 

[drich0150]

Well, Einstein was married twice and had three legitimate children. I think I see where you are going but it doesn't make sense to me for at least two reasons.

Then as you said this should not be such a large leap.

Firstly the difference in understanding between Einstein and one of his infants is outrageously smaller than the difference between our understanding (or even potential for understanding) and the understanding of god.

This "gap" whether it be an inch or a 1000 miles is still one that can be closed by a loving Father. Again, if we have the where with all to close that gap for our children, then why wouldn't an infinitely more loving father not do the same for us?

Secondly the infant will grow up and will come at least somewhat close to the understanding of his father (which doesn't mean he has to become a genius). It wouldn't make sense to have children if it was otherwise. What purpose would be in having a child that stays an infant for all its lifetime.

Who says what you consider to be a life time is anything more than a standard childhood? When you look past the 70 or so years you feel that your entitled to, and view the rest of eternity as close to the proper perspective as your mind will allow. The Seventy years you have designated as a "life time" is little more than a vapor of mist. Here one moment and gone the next. Truthfully, It's all just a matter of perspective.

 

[elopez]

Hi everybody,

I'm not at CF regularly but love to pop in from time to time to participate in some of the interessting discussions here. As you can see by the little sign above I'm an atheist but I must admit that I've been an Agnostic for the bigger part of my live since I've always rejected organised religion as a philosophy for myself (although going through the lot of the catholic initiation rites). I'm telling you this because I would be interessted in some religious views of one of the main reasons for my (then) Agnosticism which was (and still is) a paradox from my pov.

Let's assume there is a supernatural entity that we call god and that has created all of this, all that we can see and (according to most religious views) even more than that. The ingraspable vasteness of the whole universe was deliberately brought into existence by this entity which - in order to do this - has at least at some point understood the workings of his creation everywhere and at every scale. It follows logically that the intelligence of this being must be far beyond our human imagination. How on earth could anyone state that he or she understood what this being had in mind when it was creating this, let alone what it wants us to do? Is this not far more questionable than a fly claiming to understand what went through Einstein's mind when he was developing the theory of relativity?

Having stated this question I would like to ask you to answer without refering to your scripture or the revelation given to your specific religion and denomination. This is meant as a general question from a non-believer to a believer and I would be interessted in your personal thoughts, not the thoughts of your church. I'm not trying to convert anyone so please refrain from delivering sermons but see this as a discussion among equals who want to learn more about the way other people think. I'm looking forward to an interessting discussion.

As far as I'm concerned no Christian claims to know the mind of God, rather that they know things of God. We understand, and only to a certain degree, the nature of God for example. We understand that God is eternal, and we don't have to comprehend this by knowing God's mind. We come to understand this through the reading and interpretation of scripture, which you request that we do not give, so there you have it.

The scenario with the fly you give is not comparable to humanity and God for obvious reasons, so it is not far more questionable at all.

 

[eugler]

Then as you said this should not be such a large leap.


This "gap" whether it be an inch or a 1000 miles is still one that can be closed by a loving Father. Again, if we have the where with all to close that gap for our children, then why wouldn't an infinitely more loving father not do the same for us?

So we do understand his intentions? Then why do so many religions and dominations understand them in such entirely different ways?

Who says what you consider to be a life time is anything more than a standard childhood? When you look past the 70 or so years you feel that your entitled to, and view the rest of eternity as close to the proper perspective as your mind will allow. The Seventy years you have designated as a "life time" is little more than a vapor of mist. Here one moment and gone the next. Truthfully, It's all just a matter of perspective.

This sounds like an interessting thought. If I understand you correctly in your view our life is a kind of infancy while our growing up happens in the afterlife. Do we in the course of eternity grow up to an understanding similar to the understanding of god?

 

[eugler]

As far as I'm concerned no Christian claims to know the mind of God, rather that they know things of God. We understand, and only to a certain degree, the nature of God for example. We understand that God is eternal, and we don't have to comprehend this by knowing God's mind. We come to understand this through the reading and interpretation of scripture, which you request that we do not give, so there you have it.

Scripture was written by men, I think we can agree on that. These men have had to understand god in a pretty detailed way to write down what he wants which just moves the question to an earlier time in history.

The scenario with the fly you give is not comparable to humanity and God for obvious reasons, so it is not far more questionable at all.

So what are these obvious reasons?

 

[drich0150]

So we do understand his intentions? Then why do so many religions and dominations understand them in such entirely different ways?

Because we are all different with different personalities and different gifts. For example a brother who has a very analytical mind would not be able to express a love that encompasses all of his Heart, mind spirit and strength (The greatest command) in a worship service more geared to the charismatic, and vise versa. The charismatic would have a hard time expressing an all encompassing love if left to rot in a line by line explanation of the bible.

In Christ we have been given the freedom to worship as much or as little as our hearts and minds can/will allow.

This sounds like an interesting thought. If I understand you correctly in your view our life is a kind of infancy while our growing up happens in the afterlife. Do we in the course of eternity grow up to an understanding similar to the understanding of god?

As you have already pointed out: All of Einstein's kid's didn't grow up to be geniuses.. I suspect however out Spiritual growth is directly proportional to the level of faithfulness of the gifts and responsibilities that have been entrusted to us in this life. Per a verse you do not want to hear.

 

[elopez]

Scripture was written by men, I think we can agree on that. These men have had to understand god in a pretty detailed way to write down what he wants which just moves the question to an earlier time in history.



So what are these obvious reasons?

Yes, we can agree on that. Though I believe these men were divinely inspired and were writing the words essentially from God by way of revelation. Divine revelation though is just one instance in which man could come to the knowledge of God.

Well I guess they're not so obvious having you questioned it. For one flies do not have the mental capabilities that we humans do. And I think that pretty much says it.

 

[LWB]

Hi Eugler.

There is something fractal like and self-similar about the Universe, and it repeats its pattern seemingly on every level. Therefore knowing a part, I assume to know something of the whole.

I suspect that God's being is actualised across infinite spectrums of reality. Yet it is through the person of Christ that I come to know God, who has not only manifested in my world, but as one of my own species. This is how his ways are intelligble to me. No doubt I would be less than a bacteria is to me, from the perspective of the One who beholds the entire Universe in a glance. God has come down to my level though.

 

[eugler]

Because we are all different with different personalities and different gifts. For example a brother who has a very analytical mind would not be able to express a love that encompasses all of his Heart, mind spirit and strength (The greatest command) in a worship service more geared to the charismatic, and vise versa. The charismatic would have a hard time expressing an all encompassing love if left to rot in a line by line explanation of the bible.

That's actually not what I meant. I was talking about the fact that for instance a Hindu has a completely different view of god than a christian. And this view doesn't depend on what the individual properties of a person are but were it grew up and essentially what he/she was told (once again by people who claim to have understood the nature of god).

In Christ we have been given the freedom to worship as much or as little as our hearts and minds can/will allow.

Which proves the point made above. You were told your saviour is Christ, others were told he is called Krishna (and to prevent any such argument the difference is by far not only the name). By the way I'm pretty sure that many fundamentalist Christians will disagree with you here.

As you have already pointed out: All of Einstein's kid's didn't grow up to be geniuses.. I suspect however out Spiritual growth is directly proportional to the level of faithfulness of the gifts and responsibilities that have been entrusted to us in this life. Per a verse you do not want to hear.

I appreciate you forbearing to use scripture, it would simply not lead to anything since we disagree on its derivation. This is still an interessting trail of thought and a good answer to my question, too. But don't you think it somehow diminishes the importance of this existence if you see it as some kind of foreplay to a much bigger thing?

 

[eugler]

Yes, we can agree on that. Though I believe these men were divinely inspired and were writing the words essentially from God by way of revelation. Divine revelation though is just one instance in which man could come to the knowledge of God.


Well I guess they're not so obvious having you questioned it. For one flies do not have the mental capabilities that we humans do. And I think that pretty much says it.

Actually that's the whole point of the argument. If flies had the mental capabilties of humans it wouldn't make any sense, would it? I was trying to compare the attempt of a human being to grasp the motivation and nature of the supposed creator of the universe with the mental capabilities at his disposal with the attempt of a fly to follow Einstein's thoughts about relativity with the mental capability at its disposal. I guess you misunderstood me here, sorry if I didn't make it clearer.

 

[singpeace]

Hi everybody,


Let's assume there is a supernatural entity that we call god and that has created all of this, all that we can see and (according to most religious views) even more than that. The ingraspable vasteness of the whole universe was deliberately brought into existence by this entity which - in order to do this - has at least at some point understood the workings of his creation everywhere and at every scale. It follows logically that the intelligence of this being must be far beyond our human imagination. How on earth could anyone state that he or she understood what this being had in mind when it was creating this, let alone what it wants us to do? Is this not far more questionable than a fly claiming to understand what went through Einstein's mind when he was developing the theory of relativity?

Having stated this question I would like to ask you to answer without refering to your scripture . . .

Hi eugler.
In case we haven't met, welcome back to CF; and for the record, it makes sense that quoting Scripture isn't always an effective way of relating to Agnostics and Atheists.

What I think I hear you saying is, 'If there is a Divine Creator, it is illogical for anyone to claim, and impossible for anyone to know God's intended purposes for creating both the Universe and mankind.’ I agree, no one was there with God; nor can one claim, "I have all the facts because He told me." And while we haven't an eye-witness; nor any record other than Scripture, we do have evidence which substantiates the claim that we can and do know what was and is God's intended purpose for all of Creation.

My non-Scriptural-not-quite-secular argument for the evidence that we can know God's purpose for Creation:

The source for joy, sorrow, shame, guilt, etc. is that inner thing we all possess - invisible but unmistakably real. The heartache a mom feels when her children learn bitter lessons in the world; the eagerness one has to sacrifice his wants and needs for those he loves, and the longing for a world without disease or death or pain are all evidence of the spiritual. Some call it psyche - but it isn't in the head; it's located and felt in the heart and belly. It can cause the strongest of men to double over in despair over loss or remorse over guilt.

In conclusion, my reason for wanting, having, and loving my children was first God’s reason for having us (his children). All the good in us that is so obviously spiritual is further evidence that He passed his traits to his children who then pass them to theirs. Because He SHOWS me in a way no language can, what is love; l understand his thoughts and feelings and purpose. The same can be said about man’s desire and purpose to create masterpieces or make discoveries like Einstein's Theory of Relativity; God had such desires and purpose first for creating his masterpieces.

I am convinced through years of study that the Scripture is infallible. Still, I am weak and need visuals or a means to associate what I've learned. God in his mercy provides constant evidence in all manner of life what is his nature, his will, and his purpose.

Did my answer raise your eyebrows or make you roll your eyes? I’d like to know as I want to be able to engage with others more effectively.

 

[eugler]

Hi Eugler.

There is something fractal like and self-similar about the Universe, and it repeats its pattern seemingly on every level. Therefore knowing a part, I assume to know something of the whole.

A good argument, although it is pretty speculative there is not much to say against it that would be less speculative. So what you are saying is god doesn't have to be that complex himself since the physical reality could be less complex than it appears. Did I catch your drift?

I suspect that God's being is actualised across infinite spectrums of reality.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, could you please clarify?

Yet it is through the person of Christ that I come to know God, who has not only manifested in my world, but as one of my own species. This is how his ways are intelligble to me. No doubt I would be less than a bacteria is to me, from the perspective of the One who beholds the entire Universe in a glance. God has come down to my level though.

I will have to ask the same that I asked drich0150. What about the others? Why is their perspective of the nature of god and existence itself so different from the Christian one then?

 

[drich0150]

That's actually not what I meant. I was talking about that fact that for instance a Hindu has a completely different view of god than a christian. And this view doesn't depend on what the individual properties of a person are but were it grew up and essentially what he/she was told (once again by people who claim to have understood the nature of god).

I disagree, that view is limited to that persons desire to know God, and their exposure to the gospel. My mother and her family grew up Buddhist. They were devout in their belief till one day someone shared the gospel and their desire to know the true God in whatever form He presented Himself. That desire lead to questions. Those answered questions lead to the conversion of my mother and her family. Not because they were forced to believe, because they sought out God and found Him.

Also note, not all that call out the name of Christ (Those who believe themselves to be Christian) will He recognize. The titles and labels we place on ourselves do not define our status with God. He is our Judge, and it is for Him alone to decide who we are.

Which proves the point made above. You were told your Savior is Christ, others were told he is called Krishna (and to prevent any such argument the difference is by far not only the name). By the way I'm pretty sure that many fundamentalist Christians will disagree with you here.

That is the beautiful thing about Christianity. We are to love God and worship Him to the limits of our understandings, no matter what that looks like for us personally. If that means we can only worship Him through a specific fundamental view, then for them they are bound to Christ by those rules.. If the believer can accept and welcome more freedom in Christ then they are welcome to it. This is not a new concept. Paul in the book of Acts makes the first recorded decision to set up a specific fellowship of believers with one set of rules, that other did not have to live by, simply because he saw what their hearts and mind could not process the freedoms other enjoyed, and he believed that they could not share in the same freedoms as the rest.

If and when we grow, we are given more. If we can not then we are to stay at our stations. If we grow stagnate in our beliefs then we are expelled..

I appreciate you forbearing to use scripture, it would simply not lead to anything since we disagree on its derivation. This is still an interesting trail of thought and a good answer to my question, too. But don't you think it somehow diminishes the importance of this existence if you see it as some kind of foreplay to a much bigger thing?

Absolutely not. Especially if the bigger thing has to do with a one on one relationship with God. God created a race of beings to simply exist with Him, in heaven and apparently allowed them the ability to choose whether or not they wanted to be with Him. a 1/3 or so of them decided that they did not want to be with God anymore..

This life is our proving ground. As spiritual children we know nothing of the "real world." We only have the very basic concepts of what it means to love, hate, to be angry, or to know fear, to feel loss.. These and the rest of our emotions are some of what was meant when we were told that we were made in the image of God. A gift that apparently those who were created to be with Him do not share completely.

This life ultimately is where we get to learn how to deal and develop our basic emotions. Where we get to feel what He feels to a degree. To know what it is to be a Parent, to feel love for our Children, to feel the loss when they rebel and leave. To feel that bond when you find love and that person loves you back. To know what it is God wants in our relationship with Him. Without this intimate knowledge and the emotional connection we spend our life times seeking out and building upon, we will doom ourselves to the same fate as those who came before us. once the majesty of Heaven slips into the everyday.

Our Childhoods help us develop into the people we are or are to become. The same is true Spiritually. We must learn the basics before we can accept the responsibilities of adult life. Most importantly we must decide if we even want to continue on with God for eternity. God does not want to drag anyone kicking and screaming into Heaven to be with Him if they do not want to be there. I believe that is what the other half of this life is about, making that choice in an environment with little to no Divine influence unless you seek it out. That way on your day of judgment there will be no doubt.

 

[Willtor]

Hi everybody,

I'm not at CF regularly but love to pop in from time to time to participate in some of the interessting discussions here. As you can see by the little sign above I'm an atheist but I must admit that I've been an Agnostic for the bigger part of my live since I've always rejected organised religion as a philosophy for myself (although going through the lot of the catholic initiation rites). I'm telling you this because I would be interessted in some religious views of one of the main reasons for my (then) Agnosticism which was (and still is) a paradox from my pov.

Let's assume there is a supernatural entity that we call god and that has created all of this, all that we can see and (according to most religious views) even more than that. The ingraspable vasteness of the whole universe was deliberately brought into existence by this entity which - in order to do this - has at least at some point understood the workings of his creation everywhere and at every scale. It follows logically that the intelligence of this being must be far beyond our human imagination. How on earth could anyone state that he or she understood what this being had in mind when it was creating this, let alone what it wants us to do? Is this not far more questionable than a fly claiming to understand what went through Einstein's mind when he was developing the theory of relativity?

Having stated this question I would like to ask you to answer without refering to your scripture or the revelation given to your specific religion and denomination. This is meant as a general question from a non-believer to a believer and I would be interessted in your personal thoughts, not the thoughts of your church. I'm not trying to convert anyone so please refrain from delivering sermons but see this as a discussion among equals who want to learn more about the way other people think. I'm looking forward to an interessting discussion.

For myself, I don't think there is anything that indicates that one could know anything about God's intentions, a priori, or empirically. I'm a bit skeptical that one can even know there is a God or gods, by either of these methods. To call us flies to the Einstein that is God, is to overstate our position rather dramatically, for the reasons you specify.

 

[eugler]

.

 

[eugler]

Hi eugler.
In case we haven't met, welcome back to CF; and for the record, it makes sense that quoting Scripture isn't always an effective way of relating to Agnostics and Atheists.

Thanks, I appreciate very much that you realise that the citation of scripture doesn't work as an argument to a non-believer without being offended by it.

What I think I hear you saying is, 'If there is a Divine Creator, it is illogical for anyone to claim, and impossible for anyone to know God's intended purposes for creating both the Universe and mankind.’

Exactly.

I agree, no one was there with God; nor can one claim, "I have all the facts because He told me." And while we haven't an eye-witness; nor any record other than Scripture, we do have evidence which substantiates the claim that we can and do know what was and is God's intended purpose for all of Creation.

Unfortunately the majority of religious leaders do claim to know all the facts about specific topics that are important to them. And they are willing to condem and even kill on the basis of this profound understanding (think about gays for example).

My non-Scriptural-not-quite-secular argument for the evidence that we can know God's purpose for Creation:

The source for joy, sorrow, shame, guilt, etc. is that inner thing we all possess - invisible but unmistakably real.

The source of joy, sorrow, shame and guilt is our brain and our psyche, the reason for their existence is our capability to interact in a social context which is basically what makes us human. It is this developement that grands us this special place among the animals, that allowed us to think abstractly and to understand the world around us in a way that makes us able to manipulate it so effectively.

The heartache a mom feels when her children learn bitter lessons in the world; the eagerness one has to sacrifice his wants and needs for those he loves, and the longing for a world without disease or death or pain are all evidence of the spiritual.

The want to protect your loved ones is necessary for the survival of our offspring and one of the things that made it possible for our species to survive. One of the major developements that led to our "intelligence" is the prolongation of childhood which makes it possible for our brains to go on developing from birth to adulthood. Our longing for a world without desease, death or pain derives from us ourselves not wanting to suffer and die.

Some call it psyche - but it isn't in the head; it's located and felt in the heart and belly. It can cause the strongest of men to double over in despair over loss or remorse over guilt.

Since we are entering my area of expertise here I can't resist going into detail. We all know that the majority of our bodily functions are not controlled by our consciouss mind which is located in the Neocortex of our brain. If it was otherwise we would drop dead the minute we forgot to breath. Our nervous system consists of the Zentral Nervous System (inside the skull and the spinal collum) and the Peripheral Nervous System (everywhere else in the body). The nerves that go from the ZNS to the body are not simply wires that control the body. A lot of controlling is going on outside of the ZNS in the PNS/vegetative System especially inside the ganglia around (not inside) our spinal collum and in the vast Plexi in our gut (especially the Plexi epigastricus, mesentericus and solaris) which is why many anatomists refer to the gut by calling it the "Organ Brain". This is why we "feel with our gut" and not with our head. The heart itself is almost entirely autark and with few execptions (namely the Nn. accelerantes) not directly controlled by our nervous system. Although it has its own pacemakers it is influenced by Streßhormons which are excredted from the Vegetative Nervous System and the Hypohysis with Adrenalin and Noradrenalin being the most prominent among them. That's why it so eagerly reacts to physical and psychological distress.

In conclusion, my reason for wanting, having, and loving my children was first God’s reason for having us (his children). All the good in us that is so obviously spiritual is further evidence that He passed his traits to his children who then pass them to theirs. Because He SHOWS me in a way no language can, what is love; l understand his thoughts and feelings and purpose. The same can be said about man’s desire and purpose to create masterpieces or make discoveries like Einstein's Theory of Relativity; God had such desires and purpose first for creating his masterpieces.

I don't see the connection. The purpose of having children is promoting our species, withouth the need to do so none of life would exist. Some philosophers would say it derives from our longing to be eternal but since god already is eternal where is the point? The father child comparison would only make sense to me if god intended at least some of us to become some kind of god ourselves at some point in time.

I am convinced through years of study that the Scripture is infallible. Still, I am weak and need visuals or a means to associate what I've learned. God in his mercy provides constant evidence in all manner of life what is his nature, his will, and his purpose.

If this is truly evidence why do we disagree on its interpretation? Isn't evidence something that should be independent of interpretation?

Did my answer raise your eyebrows or make you roll your eyes? I’d like to know as I want to be able to engage with others more effectively.

A little bit of both I guess. The points I was trying to make are not meant to disprove god and they simply don't. But they show that the phenomena you describe don't prove him either. I very much appreciate your comment and I'm looking forward to see what you think about mine.

 

[singpeace]

Thanks, I appreciate very much that you realise that the citation of scripture doesn't work as an argument to a non-believer without being offended by it.

Exactly.

Unfortunately the majority of religious leaders do claim to know all the facts about specific topics that are important to them. And they are willing to condem and even kill on the basis of this profound understanding.

The source of joy, sorrow, shame and guilt is our brain and our psyche, the reason for their existence is our capability to interact in a social context which is basically what makes us human. It is this developement that grands us this special place among the animals, that allowed us to think abstractly and to understand the world around us in a way that we can manipulate it so effectively.



The want to protect your loved ones is necessary for the survival of our offspring and one of the things that made it possible for our species to survive. One of the major developements that led to our "intelligence" is the prolongation of childhood which makes it possible for our brains to go on developing from birth to adulthood. Our longing for a world without desease, death or pain derives from us ourselves not wanting to suffer and die.

Since we are entering my area of expertise here I can't resist going into detail. We all know that the majority of our bodily functions are not controlled by our consciouss mind which is located in the Neocortex of our brain. If it was otherwise we would drop dead the minute we forgot to breath. Our nervous system consists of the Zentral Nervous System (inside the skull and the spinal collum) and the Peripheral Nervous System (everywhere else in the body). The nerves that go from the ZNS to the body are not simply wires that control the body. A lot of controlling is going on outside of the ZNS in the PNS/vegetative System especially inside the ganglia around (not inside) our spinal collum and in the vast Plexi in our gut (especially the Plexi epigastricus, mesentericus and solaris) which is why many anatomists refer to the gut by calling it the "Organ Brain". This is why we "feel with our gut" and not with our head. The heart itself is almost entirely autark and with few execptions (namely the Nn. accelerantes) not directly controlled by our nervous system. Although it has its own pacemakers it is influenced by Streßhormons which are excredted from the Vegetative Nervous System and the Hypohysis with Adrenalin and Noradrenalin being the most prominent among them. That's why it so eagerly reacts to physical and psychological distress.


I don't see the connection. The purpose of having children is promoting our species, withouth the need to do so none of life would exist. Some philosophers would say it derives from our longing to be eternal but since god already is eternal where is the point? The father child comparison would only make sense to me if god intended at least some of us to become some kind of god ourselves at some point in eternity.

If this is truly evidence why do we disagree on its interpretation? Isn't evidence something that should be independent of interpretation?

A little bit of both I guess. The points I was trying to make are not meant to disprove god and they simply don't. But they show that the phenomena you describe don't prove him either. I very much appreciate your comment and I'm looking forward to see what you think about mine.

Eugler,

Somehow I thought you would see things that way.

I guess we just have to respectfully agree to disagree. Thanks for all your input and feedback, though. It's nice to have civil discussions.

 

[eugler]

I disagree, that view is limited to that persons desire to know God, and their exposure to the gospel. My mother and her family grew up Buddhist. They were devout in their belief till one day someone shared the gospel and their desire to know the true God in whatever form He presented Himself. That desire lead to questions. Those answered questions lead to the conversion of my mother and her family. Not because they were forced to believe, because they sought out God and found Him.

This would work if people would only convert to Christianity from other religions and not vice versa. Since this is not the case there seems to be no point in it.

Also note, not all that call out the name of Christ (Those who believe themselves to be Christian) will He recognize. The titles and labels we place on ourselves do not define our status with God. He is our Judge, and it is for Him alone to decide who we are.

So all religions are the same? Or some people are seen as true believers by god regardless of there religion?

That is the beautiful thing about Christianity. We are to love God and worship Him to the limits of our understandings, no matter what that looks like for us personally. If that means we can only worship Him through a specific fundamental view, then for them they are bound to Christ by those rules.. If the believer can accept and welcome more freedom in Christ then they are welcome to it. This is not a new concept. Paul in the book of Acts makes the first recorded decision to set up a specific fellowship of believers with one set of rules, that other did not have to live by, simply because he saw what their hearts and mind could not process the freedoms other enjoyed, and he believed that they could not share in the same freedoms as the rest.

So faith is more important than moral? Even if Fundamentalism leads to intolerance and its other ugly implications?

If and when we grow, we are given more. If we can not then we are to stay at our stations. If we grow stagnate in our beliefs then we are expelled..


Absolutely not. Especially if the bigger thing has to do with a one on one relationship with God. God created a race of beings to simply exist with Him, in heaven and apparently allowed them the ability to choose whether or not they wanted to be with Him. a 1/3 or so of them decided that they did not want to be with God anymore..

Why only one third? Far less than 1/3 of the people on this planet agree with your view of god. And even if it was only 1/3, no offence, but that doesn't seem to be good work on behalf of god.

This life is our proving ground. As spiritual children we know nothing of the "real world." We only have the very basic concepts of what it means to love, hate, to be angry, or to know fear, to feel loss.. These and the rest of our emotions are some of what was meant when we were told that we were made in the image of God. A gift that apparently those who were created to be with Him do not share completely.

This life ultimately is where we get to learn how to deal and develop our basic emotions. Where we get to feel what He feels to a degree. To know what it is to be a Parent, to feel love for our Children, to feel the loss when they rebel and leave. To feel that bond when you find love and that person loves you back. To know what it is God wants in our relationship with Him. Without this intimate knowledge and the emotional connection we spend our life times seeking out and building upon, we will doom ourselves to the same fate as those who came before us. once the majesty of Heaven slips into the everyday.

Our Childhoods help us develop into the people we are or are to become. The same is true Spiritually. We must learn the basics before we can accept the responsibilities of adult life. Most importantly we must decide if we even want to continue on with God for eternity. God does not want to drag anyone kicking and screaming into Heaven to be with Him if they do not want to be there. I believe that is what the other half of this life is about, making that choice in an environment with little to no Divine influence unless you seek it out. That way on your day of judgment there will be no doubt.

That reminds of a quote from a book. In it the father of a daughter was not sure whether he was the biological father so he was trying to look for differences and clues. It turned out it was his child long after he was convinced otherwise and left. When they meet 20 years later he says to her: "I couldn't stop looking for differences and as it turns out if you look for something long and hard enough, no matter what it is, you will enventually find it."