Why do Gods

[SithDoughnut]

Was I the only one who thought "suddenly appear..." when I read the thread title?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Genetic drift is only the varied expression of various traits comprising of existing information. To gain the ability or to acquire completely new information there needs to be a complete reconstructing. This is where random mutations come in. This is why it is unpractical.

This is an attempt at mental conditioning as no matter where you place random mutation, no matter how many phrases cloak it, it is still the means through which Darwinism is built. And has to be built.

Reconstruction would not necessarily be required if mutations can add new genetic material or alter existing genetic material on small levels. Randomness in science seems to me to be rooted in predictability or coherence as opposed to mathematical randomness where there is no real order at all. Evolutionary adaptation through random mutation and genetic drift (both important as they affect sampling of alleles and other aspects of genes over time and not just in a single organism as mutation would technically be initially) is random in that we don't necessarily see a humanly directed order to it or a sense of progress that we can understand on a human level. There is orderliness in genes, but there is always the possibility of inexplicable changes in the genes through environment or genetic recombination that occurs in virtually every reproduction of organic beings on some level or another. And it doesn't imply building in a mechanical sense. If anything, it implies the organic equivalent of building, generating. Something metamorphoses from existing forms and in evolution, over time, species differentiate from each other within the evolutionary process that takes random mutation and genetic drift and weeds out generally inferior species within the environment.

The probability argument is the underlying basis for atheistic belief. The attempt to imbue it on people takes on various forms given the occasion and/or discovery.
The defining factor is that the odds against chance are not falling but rising. At this point it is just plain ridiculous. And from what I have seen, there is something on the burner which is going to make it even worse.

Probability is something we deal with on some level day by day anyway. We don't have to confront it on such a large scale, but we do have to approach choices and possibilities of the future. Chance is not necessarily even a possibility within certain theological worldviews, where everything is subject to "God" 's will. But assuming this "God" allows chance, what is the nature of chance in God's perception? Is it chance at all? Doesn't God know every occurrence? Therefore it's not chance to God, but inevitability. Your critique of evolutionary theory as well as abiogenesis and big bang theory by some association fails due to an excessive presupposition that just because a worldview acknowledges uncertainty in regards to either the past or the future, it must somehow degenerate into anomie and nihilism, which is not true. Skepticism is quite healthy in regards to many aspects of our lives.

Frirst of all, there's no such thing as a "Christian God". You are again attempting isolation and segregation. All force emanates from one source. Every entity is a child of the same Father.

I'm attempting categorization. I'm only isolating and segregating the God of Christianity from Islam and Judaism for clarity and coherence in discussing both similarities and differences within the faiths.

The carnal eye has it's limits. The three dimensional mind has its limits. But within man is the image of God. Not the carnal body alone, but the body mind and spirit, working in unison, connects the entity to his/her maker. The corporeal body is a manifestation of mind, as are all things. Its state is attributed to differentiation in vibration and frequency. With this state comes the corollaries of the three dimensional plane, the 3 dimensional mind, which deals primarily with the sustenance of the physical body. Primal instincts, separation, selfishness, only the strong survive, the will to procreate, and all concepts of the like has its roots here. Though the material mind is a manifestation of that one force, thus inseparable from that basic substrate, the mind is also of the spiritual.

Corporeality and physicality are self sufficient on one level, but on another, they do arise from our mental appropriation of them. I see my hand, I see my reflection, I thus recognize that it exists. The mind is the spiritual to the extent that it generates the spiritual, it isn't the spiritual itself absolutely, since spirituality is particular to each individual in the manifestation, no matter the similarities. Universality is difficult to appropriate with regards to spiritual aspects, such as purpose, etc.

Any projection into the universal concept grants one the ability to reach their Father. The Christ is embodied by Jesus. The Son of God is a universal concept. Jesus was able to reach that state because of who he was, but who he was is not something that only Christians can be and not others. Your appeal to culture and environment is the "if you were born in india" argument by Richard Dawkins. This in itself is a fallacy. Though by culture and environment one is a Christian, one is connected to each and every person not through subjective ideas, but the ideals. Ideals of this kind are of the spiritual nature, and ideas have descended from that common source, the ideal, not vice versa. Whether your path is for the attainment of that Krishna consciousness or the Christ consciousness, given that the ideal is related, as they often are, the destination is the same.

You are using presuppositional apologetics, therefore you already fail by making an unnecessary presumption beyond what is basic to defending your faith. I didn't appeal absolutely to culture and environment, I only noted that it is a factor. I am not a strict behaviorist either. We are a combination of our genetic predisposition and environment/culture. Attainment of nibbana is hardly the same as attaining salvation, seems to me. The end goal is not a god on the one hand, the other is centered around the god in question.

Stochastic events, whether it be of the general nature or its incorporation into biological or cosmological revelations , remain undirected. Evolutionary biologists would be hard pressed to compare the biological application of chance to the mechanical application of chance in a 747 as it would be quite difficult to swallow. But its the same thing in another form. For the sake of natural objects I will use a wooden house.

If nature is undirected, then where is your God in all of this? No one doubts that houses and such need human designers, No wonder most people have stopped deliberating this with you, you don't see to be able to find common ground, but only division

What if it was dated at having been first built 720 million years ago. When Darwinists hold that there was no intelligent life capable of doing such. This changes everything. Rock throwing to build a pyramid becomes "science".

Dating is tentative and not perfect. Your claim is therefore moot except if we considered such a possibility with more extensive evidence.

Man is a created being. The manifestation of the mind which is man was and is, always man. "The agent behind the process can still be God" line is merely the latest attempt to conjoin accidental origin, which has always been the pride of atheism now taking the form of Darwinism, and the design of life. Though it is now cloaked in a new form, which adds appeal to it, which makes it less noticeable, it is the same thing. Chance origin. Further, that Christians have accepted it, is not a form of argument. It is the past which supplements the present. It is the root from which the tree grows and persists. Though this is a more subtle presentation seems to be working, it remains what it is. Chance origin. A flower removed from the earth will dry up. And those who have been uprooted from their past will soon come under confusion about their present. When the time is ripe, they will be picked off one by one.

You are free to believe this, but it is not as if one cannot forge a purpose within an otherwise absurd existence. Humanistic ideals are sufficient in regards to promoting unity and respect of all humans at least in part.

Kind sir, the usage of emotions and colors are analogical comparisons to Man's need to "see" God and what God is. Not only as a representation but a reality in all planes of existence manifested in what we can perceive. I was not saying that emotions are contingent upon God. Thats a completely different topic. Read previous post again.

Emotions are contingent upon recognition of human pathos and experience more primarily than any deity proposed by humans in their pathos

A random number generator's purpose is to generate random numbers. I would not use it in systems where predictable outcomes are required. Like the human body. Also, Ive already pointed out to you that adaptation itself, is a coded feature

No one is forcing you to use random number generators

Not coded, but possessing a goal of survival, yes. To say it has programming is to assume it is always predictable. Evolutionary adaptations vary widely by environment and particular species.

 

[awitch]

Was I the only one who thought "suddenly appear..." when I read the thread title?

(No, and even worse, now I can't get the song out of my head)

 

[AcornThornpicker]

Yup, I'd agree with the last point. I also affirm some of us do KNOW what you don't. Yet. The difference here is is whether it affects our mortal world, or not.

Do you practice Asatru?

If you want a specific "Church" within Heathenism, Asatru is pretty close to my metaphysical beliefs, if not my religious practice.

You've heard the "Brain in a vat" arguments, yes? Personally I don't give them much weight, but the point that our knowledge is only because of experience is undeniable -- we don't know any real thing, only what we experience.

Again, I hold experience as valid and the Truth as absolute and immutable by that very experience, but this is all under that first assumption that experience IS valid. You and I seem to agree here, but once we tie in a few Atheists I'm sure there will be a bit of discord to that idea.

For a moment, I'm tossing out the idea that experience is valid, even though I know** it to be True, in the hopes that agreements can still be reached, just as I adopt the idea that there is one God the manifestation of G*d as told by the Christians in the hopes of discovering whatever is valuable along that line of thinking.

My arguments may not always run along the same line as my beliefs -- sometimes I am just a devil's advocate. ;-) But Christianity has a lot of lovely material and if more people are holding to the idea of loving their neighbour then I'm quite happy even if they aren't Pagan.

 

[bling]

keep themselves so well hidden? what are they afraid of?

I have written on, taught and discussed this topic before and would like to address your question.
“Believing in the existence of God” to begin with:
Is it even logical, fair and/or just, for God to establish a system (by which you can fulfill your earthly objective) that is dependent on “faith”? Would you prefer to have a system based on knowledge so those that studied and learned enough would then “know” without having faith? Or would you prefer a system where God is made obvious and you are required to do some great physical achievement?
The “faith” method means that the lowliest person could turn to and trust (faith in) a loving creator (something no one can disproof) to relief them of their burden, have hope in some future wonderful place, and answer their longing for meaning and purpose. Actually the lowly person might find this easier than the proud person, so is that better or worse?
There has to be a logical benefit to requiring faith in the existence of God that helps a willing mature adult human fulfill his earthly objective or this Loving God would make Himself known.
I use the word “willing” in the previous sentence, because God is not helping those that refuse His help. If you do not “want” God and repeatedly repel His advances God will not bother you and will let you go. It would not be Loving of God to just pester you if you have no possibility of changing (God can figure when you are beyond hope). Those that refuse can also serve a purpose in helping those that are will fulfill their objective.
Man’s and God’s purpose need to be understood, but require explaining, so for the sake of time we assume man’s purpose is to Love and God’s purpose is to do all He can to help willing individuals to Love like He Loves. Love is defined by Christ.
1. You actually need to “want” there to be a Loving Creator prior to trusting in His existence. The stronger the “want” the easier it is to “trust”, but we are not talking about a lot of faith, but just a small amount of trust.
2. All mature adults that live for even a short amount of time experience tragedies (directly or indirectly) they hurt themselves and especially others and may even feel they disappoint their creator. This burden of “guilt” cannot be removed or overwhelmed by any other means, than through seeking and receiving forgiveness from their creator. Thus the need to believe in a creator.
3. The creator is not trying to get something from you, but give something to you and that is the greatest most powerful gift He could give Godly type Love (a force so great it compels God to do all He does). That gift is initially given in the easiest way to be accepted in the form of forgiveness, but it must be received correctly to complete the transaction. You must receive the gift as a free undeserving unconditional gift (this is accepting charity which requires humility). “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”
4. If you have a need then you will look around you (especially at God Loving Christ like people) and say; “there must be a creator or this all happened without a creator”. Just allowing yourself to accept the evidence to the point of trusting God to be loving enough to forgive you will allow God into your life and relieve the burden, give you security, and feel his partnership.
5. Once you have accepted God’s forgiveness then He will send the indwelling Holy Spirit to you as a guarantee.

 

[Penumbra]

This shows some good thought, but your analogy excludes revelation so it doesn't hold.

It doesn't exclude revelation. Revelation fits in with the type of god that wants to be known. A god that wishes to remain hidden wouldn't, by definition, reveal himself.

Things can get a little messy when a god wants to reveal himself to certain people and hide from others.

-Lyn

 

[razeontherock]

But, then we have to take out the "All-loving" component. That one is the only really tricky piece to work into the plan. Take that out and G*d is 100% paradox-free.

If you're really having trouble with that, I can fix that for you. I could provide probably pages worth of quotes from Scripture, but the point remains: He is Love, but is also a G-d of Judgment.

 

[Greg1234]

-...Randomness in science seems to me to be rooted in predictability or coherence as opposed to mathematical randomness where there is no real order at all...
-...Evolutionary adaptation through random mutation...
-...is random in that we don't necessarily see a humanly directed order to it or a sense of progress that we can understand on a human level...
-...evolutionary process that takes random mutation and genetic drift...
-...but there is always the possibility of inexplicable changes in the genes...

Thats all its about. Thats all it ever has been about. Random origin. Not that I have a problem with that. But had you said that man was created by randomly hitting DNA with a pogo stick or random mutation, it is still recognized as atheistic philosophy. The innate need for stochastic events rather than being "a science project". Like Ive said form the beginning, i do not believe that chance can build the great Pyramid, a wooden house or a human. You attempt to detract from these examples but in regards to the integrated complexity of the biological system, this is what they are compared to. In most cases, they surpass these references. The wiring of the nervous system, its insulation, the pump, the computer with automation like breathing, air intake, the mixture of combustive gases, fuel intake, its assimilation and distribution, fuel lines, and so forth. These are not arbitrary comparisons any more than me comparing a two story wooden house with a two story mostly carbon fiber house. The usage of material used is irrelevant. The instructions on building the house scraped on the side of a rock with another rock using a specific language is the same as the instructions written in English in Microsoft word. Genetic recombination occurs. Random mutation, randomly crashing a gnome into the genome, or random recombination is still the human body being built through chance. Is still the great pyramid being built through chance. Youve merely taken this philosophy and imbued it within, not that there is a problem with that. The factor to watch for, is that the probability argument, though it does not change, it continues to get more and more unpractical with each passing discovery. We are at the point where men are in comparison claiming that the great pyramid can assemble itself. We once thought that it was a hut, there was the probability argument, with science we moved to house, we are now at a condo and it is about to get more complex. Though the atheist argument may take a slight change, it will still be the same probability argument.

Probability is something we deal with on some level day by day anyway. We don't have to confront it on such a large scale, but we do have to approach choices and possibilities of the future.

You are forgetting that the pyramid is built one stone at a time. "Small changes" is not an argument, nor does randomly throwing a single stone a time compensate for the assembly of the great pyramid.

Chance is not necessarily even a possibility within certain theological worldviews, where everything is subject to "God" 's will. But assuming this "God" allows chance, what is the nature of chance in God's perception? Is it chance at all? Doesn't God know every occurrence? Therefore it's not chance to God, but inevitability.

Ah now you've turned to God. When you do that, recognize firstly that it is written that man was created by God. The attempt to take a certain aspect in a given context and place it in an occurrence where there is already given an explanation is not recommended. There is what is said. Not the substitution with what you want there to be said. God's will [for his creation]or plan is the opportunities presented which leads the will of the entity back in accordance with the creator. Though this is just a simplistic rendering, it is not random mutation to create a man. This is right on par with "the agent behind this can still be God" line. The inclusion of God only becomes apparent when it can be done your way.

I Your critique of evolutionary theory as well as abiogenesis and big bang theory by some association fails due to an excessive presupposition that just because a worldview acknowledges uncertainty in regards to either the past or the future, it must somehow degenerate into anomie and nihilism, which is not true. Skepticism is quite healthy in regards to many aspects of our lives.

I have as much skepticism about the creation of the material man as I do about the creation of a 720 million year old pyramid. Yes there are many "aarchitects" (those who dont believe that that pyramid was built) who come here every day to proclaim that it could assemble itself. Just because I entertain the thought that lightning could strike the same place over a thousand times to cut the rocks, the pictorials and hieroglyphics on the wall which are decoded to tell a story about the assembly of said structure, could have just been there by chance, does not mean I believe it. You may spend you life believing that but thats just fine.

I'm attempting categorization. I'm only isolating and segregating the God of Christianity from Islam and Judaism for clarity and coherence in discussing both similarities and differences within the faiths.

The usage of" Christian God" and the like often gives the impression of a favored isolated entity. God is the Father Son and spirit. With such a categorization it would be wise to follow up with some kind of specificity. In regards to God the Father, there is no categorization, though the label for such may be different.

Corporeality and physicality are self sufficient on one level, but on another, they do arise from our mental appropriation of them. I see my hand, I see my reflection, I thus recognize that it exists. The mind is the spiritual to the extent that it generates the spiritual, it isn't the spiritual itself absolutely, since spirituality is particular to each individual in the manifestation, no matter the similarities. Universality is difficult to appropriate with regards to spiritual aspects, such as purpose, etc.

No one is denying that our perception, from what we see, to what we touch is at the very most, electrical signals. When you delve into the spiritual aspect things get blurred. You do not think blue. You are blue. You are connected to each and every thing. The eyes nose ears and other receptors are negated. These, as are most material components, a reflection of what is real. Meant to simulate an experience. You have never truly seen blue. Neither has your friend. What you see as blue is merely electrical signals. The two of you can argue all day about which of you has seen real blue but the answer is still none. When people undergo certain experiences, they say things like "that was the whitest white I have ever seen, that was the purest light, that was the most beautiful most harmonious sound I have ever heard" The sound is not filtered through the channels nor manifest as electrical signals, neither the light. The way you see hear feel is not like the physical. Regarding universality, this is separated by differing ideas, but the way to the Father is through the Son. In China and in Mexico. The Father is the same over there and here. The attunment of mind through prayer and other practices, and will to be at one with with the creator is the starting point. The Father, which is in each and every individual, will do the rest.

The end goal is not a god on the one hand, the other is centered around the god in question.

And what is God? The reach for the attributes of God, or the attainment of the higher self within, and the will in accordance with God is the same thing. "The Kingdom of God is both within and outside of you"

If nature is undirected, then where is your God in all of this? No one doubts that houses and such need human designers, No wonder most people have stopped deliberating this with you, you don't see to be able to find common ground, but only division

Now youre speaking for people. The material is a reflection of the spiritual. Nature is of its own, so is the man. You dont deny that a wooden house was built. Why not? Don't you believe that humans are a random event? Isnt that what you are here to preach? You try to separate the two when there is no separation. The usage of material is irrelevant. A tree can fall on its own. A falling tree cannot build a house. That is my belief. Neither a tree rolling rocking slamming swinging or any other event nature can concoct. You are free to believe such though. Nobody is stopping you.

Dating is tentative and not perfect. Your claim is therefore moot except if we considered such a possibility with more extensive evidence.

The 720 million year old pyramid was presented as an example. We have not found one, yet you have already gone into chastising the dating method used on said structure. Well if we ever found one we already know whats going to happen. And you guys have the audacity to call this "science"

You are free to believe this, but it is not as if one cannot forge a purpose within an otherwise absurd existence.

Ah yes, my absurd existence. Well may my absurd existence remain as absurd as it is. And may it not get any more absurd through the attributing of chance to biological systems. I doubt I could survive another shift in absurdity. All you want is that I bow and accept your God, the almighty random chance, who cannot even build a pyramid, as my lord and creator.

Emotions are contingent upon recognition of human pathos and experience more primarily than any deity proposed by humans in their pathos

I asked yo to cite where I said that emotions were contingent on God, and that an atheist cannot experience love and trust. You havent. Youve completely removed the analogy from context and now you on a course only you know where to. Godspeed.

No one is forcing you to use random number generators

Never said anyone was.

Not coded, but possessing a goal of survival, yes. To say it has programming is to assume it is always predictable. Evolutionary adaptations vary widely by environment and particular species.

Yes, coded. Its a feature. It was initially thought to be the result of random mutations.

 

[SkyWriting]

keep themselves so well hidden? what are they afraid of?

God is waiting for you to invite Him into your life. He's not hiding. You need to open the door.
[SIZE=+1]Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him and he with me. [/SIZE]REVELATION 3:20

 

[Penumbra]

God is waiting for you to invite Him into your life. He's not hiding. You need to open the door.

I've heard that one before.

When people of a religion other than the person saying it states that such a thing did not work, the person of that religion almost always explains that they didn't try hard enough. So they make their claims non-falsifiable.

-Lyn

 

[razeontherock]

Server issues are making this process a bit more difficult than need be, but:

If I was simply told, "This is what is True. Believe!", then I should never have searched ... I wouldn't have found exactly WHY this made sense, or WHY I so utterly believe in this.

Sure, I can tell you "This heating element is hot, do not touch it!", but odds are you are going to touch it. Why? Because it becomes entirely abstract unless we have proven to ourselves that it is true.

if we can prove to ourselves that a given item of Faith is valid to us, then that makes it all the more relevant in our lives regardless of whether you believe in the hot quality of the element.

The ability to explore Mystery is a gift.

I also like to think that G*d wants us to pull the leg work;

If more Christians would challenge the teaching of whatever denomination they were brought up in along the lines of the thinking here, the Church would be a lot stronger. This is why I say Faith needs to be compatible with reason. I hope our OP read that post.

 

[razeontherock]

It doesn't exclude revelation. Revelation fits in with the type of god that wants to be known. A god that wishes to remain hidden wouldn't, by definition, reveal himself.

Things can get a little messy when a god wants to reveal himself to certain people and hide from others.

-Lyn

Ah, messy it is! Perfectly understandable though. What patterns emerge btw those He chooses to reveal Himself to, and not? Take Moses as an example. Why did G-d choose to reveal Himself to Him?

 

[Penumbra]

Ah, messy it is! Perfectly understandable though. What patterns emerge btw those He chooses to reveal Himself to, and not?

The most apparent pattern to me in regards to religion is geographic location.

Take Moses as an example. Why did G-d choose to reveal Himself to Him?

If I don't believe in your deity, the question isn't particularly valid to me.

-Lyn

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Thats all its about. Thats all it ever has been about. Random origin. Not that I have a problem with that. But had you said that man was created by randomly hitting DNA with a pogo stick or random mutation, it is still recognized as atheistic philosophy. The innate need for stochastic events rather than being "a science project". Like Ive said form the beginning, i do not believe that chance can build the great Pyramid, a wooden house or a human. You attempt to detract from these examples but in regards to the integrated complexity of the biological system, this is what they are compared to.
These are not arbitrary comparisons any more than me comparing a two story wooden house with a two story mostly carbon fiber house. The usage of material used is irrelevant. The instructions on building the house scraped on the side of a rock with another rock using a specific language is the same as the instructions written in English in Microsoft word. Genetic recombination occurs. Random mutation, randomly crashing a gnome into the genome, or random recombination is still the human body being built through chance. Youve merely taken this philosophy and imbued it within, not that there is a problem with that. Though the atheist argument may take a slight change, it will still be the same probability argument.

You really aren't getting this. No one is saying the pyramid came about by chance, nor is anyone saying a house or anything that is mechanical or synthetic came about by chance. I don't know where you're getting this idea that anyone's saying this, and I'd appreciate it if you'd actually cite these claims from within this topic in particular.

And the claims of irreducible biological complexity tend to fail, especially when one considers the relatively common examples of the eye or other allegedly complex organs actually coming to be over time through gradated forms. Evolution should not be seen as large leaps or a straight ladder of tiers, but a branching tree that like any organism, grows and changes over time, even doing unpredictable things at times. This analogy is problematic because it makes the issue more confusing to a non scientist in that one would confuse metamorphosis with speciation, when they aren't the same in any sense except general change.

You are forgetting that the pyramid is built one stone at a time. "Small changes" is not an argument, nor does randomly throwing a single stone a time compensate for the assembly of the great pyramid.

No one said otherwise and no one has compared your fallacious example to evolution, which is frankly quite sound and logical on its own as a process of gradation and changes over time with regards to environment and genetic disposition.

Ah now you've turned to God. When you do that, recognize firstly that it is written that man was created by God. The attempt to take a certain aspect in a given context and place it in an occurrence where there is already given an explanation is not recommended. There is what is said. Not the substitution with what you want there to be said. God's will [for his creation]or plan is the opportunities presented which leads the will of the entity back in accordance with the creator. Though this is just a simplistic rendering, it is not random mutation to create a man. This is right on par with "the agent behind this can still be God" line. The inclusion of God only becomes apparent when it can be done your way.

And you're not doing the very thing you accuse me of when you say the big bang has to be "God" when the explanation at present is sufficient? Or are you not saying that? Random mutation is not all that "creates" anything and you don't seem to understand the interrelation of the various aspects of evolutionary theory as they are. You can't simply posit random mutation as anything significant for speciation or adaptation without a complementary feature of nature in the form of natural selection to balance out the issues of predictability.

I have as much skepticism about the creation of the material man as I do about the creation of a 720 million year old pyramid. Yes there are many "aarchitects" (those who dont believe that that pyramid was built) who come here every day to proclaim that it could assemble itself. Just because I entertain the thought that lightning could strike the same place over a thousand times to cut the rocks, the pictorials and hieroglyphics on the wall which are decoded to tell a story about the assembly of said structure, could have just been there by chance, does not mean I believe it. You may spend you life believing that but thats just fine.

I think I've made it clear (though you may be unintentionally unable to read this in my statements) that I don't believe the pyramid came forth by chance. I would agree that mechanical and synthetic structures require a designer. Humans and other organic entities, however, are where we disagree on how they came to be.

The usage of" Christian God" and the like often gives the impression of a favored isolated entity. God is the Father Son and spirit. With such a categorization it would be wise to follow up with some kind of specificity. In regards to God the Father, there is no categorization, though the label for such may be different.

Not everyone chooses to call "God" Father, so your term has to be clarified as one used within the Christian faith. I don't see how it is insulting to be clear about what one is talking about. In this case, I'm distinguishing the God of say Sikhism from the God of "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"

No one is denying that our perception, from what we see, to what we touch is at the very most, electrical signals. When you delve into the spiritual aspect things get blurred. You do not think blue. You are blue. You are connected to each and every thing. The eyes nose ears and other receptors are negated. These, as are most material components, a reflection of what is real. Meant to simulate an experience. You have never truly seen blue. Neither has your friend. What you see as blue is merely electrical signals.
And what is God? The reach for the attributes of God, or the attainment of the higher self within, and the will in accordance with God is the same thing. "The Kingdom of God is both within and outside of you"

When you think I'm reducing things to pure materialism, you are mistaken. I don't deny epiphenomena as extant and experientially valid. Their subjectivity is what concerns me.

I reach for attributes of awakening, if you will, which is not something that is elite or special to certain entities. But then I suppose we wouldn't see eye to eye on how Buddhism is a great equalizer in a sense different from Christianity, but similar in some sense as well.

Now youre speaking for people. The material is a reflection of the spiritual. Nature is of its own, so is the man. You dont deny that a wooden house was built. Why not? Don't you believe that humans are a random event? Isnt that what you are here to preach? You try to separate the two when there is no separation. The usage of material is irrelevant. A tree can fall on its own. A falling tree cannot build a house. That is my belief. Neither a tree rolling rocking slamming swinging or any other event nature can concoct. You are free to believe such though. Nobody is stopping you.

I'm not preaching anything, as frankly you seem to be more counter cultural here in insisting that evolution is not real or not scientifically valid because you want to stand against the dominant culture or even against all reason that would sugegst that you're somehow mistaken about that little detail that doesn't negate people's belief in God as can be evidenced by evolution believing Christians in the scientific professions.

The 720 million year old pyramid was presented as an example. We have not found one, yet you have already gone into chastising the dating method used on said structure. Well if we ever found one we already know whats going to happen. And you guys have the audacity to call this "science"
Ah yes, my absurd existence. Well may my absurd existence remain as absurd as it is. And may it not get any more absurd through the attributing of chance to biological systems. I doubt I could survive another shift in absurdity. All you want is that I bow and accept your God, the almighty random chance, who cannot even build a pyramid, as my lord and creator.

Science never claimed to be perfect and it makes mistakes. Maybe evolutionary theory will be further improved in the future, I don't know. Absurdist existence doesn't equate to nihilism. And I don't want you to bow to anything that you don't accept willingly as something worth bowing to. Please understand this.

I asked yo to cite where I said that emotions were contingent on God, and that an atheist cannot experience love and trust. You havent. Youve completely removed the analogy from context and now you on a course only you know where to. Godspeed.

We can move on past this, but frankly I would conclude this overall in suggesting that we're merely detracting mostly from the overall OP's topic with this derailing issue of evolution/creation/intelligent design tripe.

Yes, coded. Its a feature. It was initially thought to be the result of random mutations.

Natural selection itself is not required to be coded to exist as an innate law within nature that allows for random mutations to survive or to perish within different contexts.

 

[ukgrace]

I have written on, taught and discussed this topic before and would like to address your question.
“Believing in the existence of God” to begin with:
Is it even logical, fair and/or just, for God to establish a system (by which you can fulfill your earthly objective) that is dependent on “faith”? Would you prefer to have a system based on knowledge so those that studied and learned enough would then “know” without having faith? Or would you prefer a system where God is made obvious and you are required to do some great physical achievement?
The “faith” method means that the lowliest person could turn to and trust (faith in) a loving creator (something no one can disproof) to relief them of their burden, have hope in some future wonderful place, and answer their longing for meaning and purpose. Actually the lowly person might find this easier than the proud person, so is that better or worse?
There has to be a logical benefit to requiring faith in the existence of God that helps a willing mature adult human fulfill his earthly objective or this Loving God would make Himself known.
I use the word “willing” in the previous sentence, because God is not helping those that refuse His help. If you do not “want” God and repeatedly repel His advances God will not bother you and will let you go. It would not be Loving of God to just pester you if you have no possibility of changing (God can figure when you are beyond hope). Those that refuse can also serve a purpose in helping those that are will fulfill their objective.
Man’s and God’s purpose need to be understood, but require explaining, so for the sake of time we assume man’s purpose is to Love and God’s purpose is to do all He can to help willing individuals to Love like He Loves. Love is defined by Christ.
1. You actually need to “want” there to be a Loving Creator prior to trusting in His existence. The stronger the “want” the easier it is to “trust”, but we are not talking about a lot of faith, but just a small amount of trust.
2. All mature adults that live for even a short amount of time experience tragedies (directly or indirectly) they hurt themselves and especially others and may even feel they disappoint their creator. This burden of “guilt” cannot be removed or overwhelmed by any other means, than through seeking and receiving forgiveness from their creator. Thus the need to believe in a creator.
3. The creator is not trying to get something from you, but give something to you and that is the greatest most powerful gift He could give Godly type Love (a force so great it compels God to do all He does). That gift is initially given in the easiest way to be accepted in the form of forgiveness, but it must be received correctly to complete the transaction. You must receive the gift as a free undeserving unconditional gift (this is accepting charity which requires humility). “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”
4. If you have a need then you will look around you (especially at God Loving Christ like people) and say; “there must be a creator or this all happened without a creator”. Just allowing yourself to accept the evidence to the point of trusting God to be loving enough to forgive you will allow God into your life and relieve the burden, give you security, and feel his partnership.
5. Once you have accepted God’s forgiveness then He will send the indwelling Holy Spirit to you as a guarantee.

Highlights mine........

As I understand it what you're saying is that only the 'needy' and the 'indoctrinated' can know a God, if you are not one of those two a God could pass right over your head.

Also a God is handy if/when a loved one dies, a bit like a childs pacifier (in the UK it's called a dummy)

I also read that Gods can give a meaning to life, although how fooling yourself into believing something is true when everything around you tells you that it's not can give something a meaning is beyond me.

Everything becomes clear when you believe, like believing in ghosts, when you believe in ghost you start to see ghosts, yes that makes sense because auto suggestion works along the same lines, if you are told something is true often enough you will eventually start to believe that it is until you reach a point where nothing would convinced you that it's not true.

Once you have convinced yourself that there is a God you spend the rest of the time rationalising it to yourself until
[to you] it's the most obvious truth there is, why everyone can't see what you see seems crazy to you, and most of the convincing was done by yourself in your own mind.

The best part of all as you see it is that it's all for nothing, Gods love cost you nothing.
For the rest of us though the price is way too high.

 

[Mahammad]

They're shy.


My belief is they don't bother you if you're not sincerely interested. (Actually, they don't bother some people who do seem interested).

If someone became very interested would they reveal themselves? Did they reveal themselves to you?

 

[bling]

UKGrace said:

As I understand it what you're saying is that only the 'needy' and the 'indoctrinated' can know a God, if you are not one of those two a God could pass right over your head

What you have to remember as soon as we become mature adults we do wrong (things that hurt others) and our conscience reminds us of these wrongs that accumulate and become a burden to us. Everyone is needy, some chose to unsuccessfully work on it on their own or try to seek other methods of relieve which can include false religions.

]

UKGrace said

Also a God is handy if/when a loved one dies, a bit like a childs pacifier (in the UK it's called a dummy)

I also read that Gods can give a meaning to life, although how fooling yourself into believing something is true when everything around you tells you that it's not can give something a meaning is beyond me

.[/

Has someone close to you died? If so forget what I have said or am talking about and get with a sincere Christian around you and let them help you. This world is not a pleasant place filled with many tragedies, but this is not our home.
]Everything around me points to a loving creator.

]

UKGrace said
Everything becomes clear when you believe, like believing in ghosts, when you believe in ghost you start to see ghosts, yes that makes sense because auto suggestion works along the same lines, if you are told something is true often enough you will eventually start to believe that it is until you reach a point where nothing would convinced you that it's not true.

Once you have convinced yourself that there is a God you spend the rest of the time rationalising it to yourself until
][to you] it's the most obvious truth there is, why everyone can't see what you see seems crazy to you, and most of the convincing was done by yourself in your own mind

[/
People who do not see Christ living in me are not at fault, but that is my fault. They do not have to know Christ, just see something working inside me that is good and wonderful. They may not like what they see, if they see Christ in me and do not like Him.

]

UKGrace said:
The best part of all as you see it is that it's all for nothing, Gods love cost you nothing.
]For the rest of us though the price is way too high.[/quote]
God’s Love is given as a free undeserving and unconditional gift. All I have to do is humbly accept charity from a giver that made a huge sacrifice to provide me with this gift.
The price you must pay is less than nothing since, just humble yourself to accept charity you desperately desire. God took the first huge step in giving up His “pride” and humbling Himself to take the form of a servant (washing the feet of even Judas), being unjustly tortured and murdered.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

It's not as if people can't find solace and comfort in fellow human beings as they suffer through various difficulties that occur: death, illness, etc. To say every person that sees God in everything is somehow more comforted is making a loaded emotional appeal more than anything. Psychologically, people could feel more comforted, but comfort in general comes from many sources. And if we want to be more precise, then even healthy comfort can come from non-theistic sources. The psychological aspect of comfort should be considered in more detail here to investigate how this relates to one's view of "why things happen"

 

[Greg1234]

You really aren't getting this. No one is saying the pyramid came about by chance, nor is anyone saying a house or anything that is mechanical or synthetic came about by chance. I don't know where you're getting this idea that anyone's saying this, and I'd appreciate it if you'd actually cite these claims from within this topic in particular.

The argumentation is the same. The random formation of biological structures. Attributing the origin of reality to chance. Whether it is through a pogo stick a lightning bolt or wherever opportunity may present itself, it has been something atheism always wanted to smuggle into the mainstream. The current belief in Darwinism is just that. It is not an outright proclamation. You dont just come out and say that the human body arranged itself randomly. You sugar coat it. But the usage of existing processes to explain the formation of a system like the human body is no different than the use of gravity to explain the how a wooden house can be built.

That man emerged through the random mutation of previous life forms is the same as man originating randomly, in less conspicuous terminology. As to not give one's self away. You still have all the integrated systems being built through random processes. Gradualism does not diminish this. The chance formation of a human through a gradual process is the same as the chance formation of the great pyramid through a chance process. Somehow, by endowing chance with gradualism, it 1ups. But chance is chance no matter in what form atheism attempts to put it, it is chance.

Natural selection is not an active agent. It just happens. If the pyramid is structurally unstable it will fall to the ground. Sections which are properly built and integrated will stand up. It isnt a force which comes and corrects the pyramid. It doesnt change the structure so that it will stand. The structure just stands if it is stable. Natural selection does not rationalize chance. In fact I doubt it has any significance in being stated other than to act as a cloak.

And you're not doing the very thing you accuse me of when you say the big bang has to be "God" when the explanation at present is sufficient? Or are you not saying that? Random mutation is not all that "creates" anything and you don't seem to understand the interrelation of the various aspects of evolutionary theory as they are. You can't simply posit random mutation as anything significant for speciation or adaptation without a complementary feature of nature in the form of natural selection to balance out the issues of predictability.

We will remain on biological structures. I am positing what the core tenets of Darwinism, and atheism in general posits. Its not an issue of whether it is through random events or not. It needs to be random. Thats the whole purpose. The whole point. Take away random and atheism moves away from it. Natural selection is passive. In fact, you dont even have to utter it. You say Darwinism is a result of random mutations, you yell natural selection. This is of no purpose. You are merely hiding behind natural selection. Because in truth, Darwinism laid out bare for what it truly is, is no different that the assembly of a wooden house or the great pyramid. But people should not see this.

I think I've made it clear (though you may be unintentionally unable to read this in my statements) that I don't believe the pyramid came forth by chance. I would agree that mechanical and synthetic structures require a designer. Humans and other organic entities, however, are where we disagree on how they came to be.

I never said that you believed it. Why would you believe something like that. But I guarantee you that given enough time, I could make you believe it. Given that the Great Pyramid was dated at 720 million years old, and Darwinists no longer had the power to change dates at will, then the alternative is chance formation. I could come here every day like a ringer, and tell you about the rocks breaking into the appropriate pieces just by chance. From meteor showers to volcanic eruptions, heating and cooling of the surface, rising water levels creating slight buoyancy which moves the rocks, i'll hit you from every angle. In the end you have a sparkling great pyramid (dont ak me how or I'll erupt and issue personal attacks). Is your mind changing yet about the pyramid being able to be made through chance? It should be. That's how it works. Thats what happened to you and the reason why atheists come here every day. The weak minds will fall first. The rest will be naturally selected.

Not everyone chooses to call "God" Father, so your term has to be clarified as one used within the Christian faith.

"In regards to God the Father, there is no categorization, though the label for such may be different." (Last post)

I'm not preaching anything, as frankly you seem to be more counter cultural here in insisting that evolution is not real or not scientifically valid

To refrain from getting into what is scientifically valid observable and tested and claims of Darwinism and its integration with long circulated atheistic tenets...

because you want to stand against the dominant culture or even against all reason that would sugegst that you're somehow mistaken about that little detail that doesn't negate people's belief in God as can be evidenced by evolution believing Christians in the scientific professions.

Again the "that doesnt negate people's belief in God" line is a tactic. A ploy. Its no different than than walking up to somebody and telling them to come in the van. They ask you where are we going, you look at her gucci bag and you say to a gucci store. She asks if there will be shoes there you say yes. She asks if there will be refreshments because she likes refreshments. You say yes. She asks if there it will be within her price range you say yes yes anything just get in the van. But once she gets into the van, you as well as I know that there isnt a gucci store. I'm not going to get into the false claims of Darwinism but from adaptation being a result of random mutation to the neat time line the fossil records is put on display as, its a sight to behold.

A Christian will expect one thing, no different than a certain antibody for a particular virus. But when you cloak that virus in something which seems harmless then it passes freely through. And then it wreaks havoc internally and kills from the inside out. There are Christians today who say that they can't read their bible anymore. They can't have faith in Christ. They don't know whats happening to them. But you do. Don't you.

Science never claimed to be perfect and it makes mistakes. Maybe evolutionary theory will be further improved in the future, I don't know. Absurdist existence doesn't equate to nihilism. And I don't want you to bow to anything that you don't accept willingly as something worth bowing to. Please understand this.
Natural selection itself is not required to be coded to exist as an innate law within nature that allows for random mutations to survive or to perish within different contexts.

Again, Natural selection is not an active agent. It just happens. When did natural selection get all this power? And yes adaptation is a coded feature. As in coded within DNA. It is not natural selection which is coded but the ability to make minor changes is not a result of random mutation as we once thought but an intelligent event. And trying to rationalize an "absurdist existence" with my belief will not work either. Life is what it is. If you believe that you came from a primordial soup through chance then to the primordial soup you believe you will return. I do not hold this belief. The design of the human system is only a fraction of the evidence yet stands to be used. It is the past which defines the persistence in the present.

"The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?" Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.
Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."'



This stands to be interpreted.

 

[Greg1234]

Everything becomes clear when you believe, like believing in ghosts, when you believe in ghost you start to see ghosts, yes that makes sense because auto suggestion works along the same lines, if you are told something is true often enough you will eventually start to believe that it is until you reach a point where nothing would convinced you that it's not true.

It seems discarnates only exists if you want them to exist. Go over to those who have experienced them first hand. Tell them they had move out and declare bankruptcy having spent all their money on that house because they wanted to. Who endured the physiological and even physical turmoil. Tell them it never happened, it was all in their head. They wanted it. Be sure to wear a helmet.