It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The God Who Wasn't There.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
still there is no sign of astronomical deities in the religion of the early Hebrews. Nor in most other cultures, for that matter. And you're still left with India, China, and the native American religious traditions, none of which included astronomically-based deities (although the Mayas did practice astronomy).


From where I sit, it appears you've formed a position based on cursory or nonexistent research. My statement was in regards to modern monotheism, not all religions that have ever existed, although I'm not sure I made that very clear.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
What you're presenting here is pure guesswork, not reason nor evidence.


I already provided references a few posts back to this same challenge. What references have you provided?


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward


2. Those who claim gods exist can not provide anything from which to substantiate that claim - meaning they had no rational basis for making the claim in the first place.

3. The word "god" is almost universally undefined.


Can you see the contradiction in those two statements? If the word "god" is undefined, then it cannot be stated with clarity and certainly what is meant by it. Thus it is impossible to know with certainty what WAS meant by it, and so cannot be ascertained whether there was any rational basis for making the claim.


If the person making the claim does not know what claim they are making, no further analysis is required to conclude it is an irrational claim. For gods that are defined, most have been defined in such a way as to prevent testability, meaning those claims are also irrational.

It's true that there may be definitions of gods out there that are concrete and testable. Anyone who makes claims existence for that type of god may very well be right, but I imagine gods such as that represent a small fraction of the set of gods, and I doubt any of us involved in this discussion have such an ordinary conception of gods. So yes, my position about gods not existing is a generalization, but a pretty solid one I think.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
But I agree, the basis for making the claim that deities exist is not rational. Nor is it irrational. It is non-rational, experiential, primal, rather similar to the claim you might make about the emotional impact of something you have seen or heard.


Experience is the basis of reason. In my mind, the discussion is about the conclusions drawn from such experience, rather than the fact of the experiences.

"I experience yellow, therefor god is the source of that experience" is an irrational conclusion, particularly if I don't know what I mean by the word "god". Some people (such as mystics) refer to god as nothing more than the source of the god experience. Well, ok, but to me that seems to be an attempt to equivocate.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Another point. Atheism only seems to arise in the context of authoritarian, dogmatic religions.


The term "atheist" was coined for Christians, because they rejected the gods of the Greek and Roman pantheon. The first known atheist thinker I believe was Epicurus. Most Buddhists are atheists (but not amythicists).

I agree that authoritarian dogmatic religions probably do help swell the ranks of atheism, but I credit the legality of freethought combined with the encouragement of critical thinking as the ultimate source. It's hard to imagine a more authoritarian dogmatic religion that that of the Holy Roman empire, yet there was little known atheism during that period. After all, how many people are willing to die for their nonfaith?


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Atheism arises as a kind of antibody or natural rebellion against this perversion. In that, atheists serve a potentially useful function. Yet they suffer from a tendency to broaden their antagonism to include all religiosity, however innocent of the sins which drew their ire in the first place.


There certainly are a good percentage of atheists who have left religion for no more rational a reason than why they joined in the first place. I don't see why it would be considered suffering to reject all mythology rather than just some of it. If you conclude "myth" for some of it, the default position switches from "maybe" to "myth" for all similar claims. Experience such as this tends to be revered in nonreligious situations.




posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by spamandham
Because there is no objective evidence of such visitations.


Granted, but there is also no objective evidence of the existence of life on other planets, and you did make a distinction between the two.


It's an inference based on the fact that there is known life on at least one planet, combined with our limited understanding of the liklihood of abiogenesis.

Yes, inferences can be wrong, and in this case the inference is not strong enough to say life exists on other planets, but it's more than sufficient to say it probably does, or even likely does. These are judgement calls of course, but the alternative is to claim that life does not possibly exist on other planets. I don't see how a statement such as that can be supported at all, leaving the former the better conclusion, even though it is only weakly supported.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Say a person has been abducted by aliens, experimented on, and released. He doesn't know why they did it. He doesn't know how they did it, either. Anything he says on those subjects is bound to be wild speculation. But he for sure knows THAT they did it! And he doesn't have to know how or why they did it, to know that they did.


Such a person doesn't know that aliens did it, he only knows he experienced it. Night terrors are common and form a well documented ordinary alternative explanation for that experience.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
If there are people making the claim, then they are not leaving no trace.


There is evidence of the experience, but not evidence that the experience is actually caused by aliens. Many of these experiences involve bizzare primitive sexual experiments. What could possibly motivate these aliens to do these seemingky useless and abundant experiments using what would be primitive techniques even by our standards, when they are supposedly so technologically advanced?

Night terrors fit perfectly with the odd sexual aspects of many of these abduction experiences.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
My statement was in regards to modern monotheism, not all religions that have ever existed, although I'm not sure I made that very clear.


You didn't, but I'll take the modification. What is your reasoning behind the idea that monotheism is planetary? Isn't the clearer association with the cosmos as a whole?



If the person making the claim does not know what claim they are making, no further analysis is required to conclude it is an irrational claim.


The person may know with great precision what claim they are making, but be unable to communicate it except in metaphor. Color to a blind man and all that.



Experience is the basis of reason. In my mind, the discussion is about the conclusions drawn from such experience, rather than the fact of the experiences.


Yet in this case, it's necessary to have shared the experience in question in order to understand the claims made on their basis. You cannot achieve understanding simply from the words used.



"I experience yellow, therefor god is the source of that experience" is an irrational conclusion, particularly if I don't know what I mean by the word "god".


The problem is that not only do you not know what is meant by the word "god," you also don't know what is meant by the word "yellow."

I cannot put the meaning of mystical experience into words that would allow that meaning to be communicated precisely to someone who has not shared it. The best I can do is use metaphor. "God" is a metaphor. But I cannot explain what He/She/It is a metaphor for, except by using another metaphor.



The term "atheist" was coined for Christians, because they rejected the gods of the Greek and Roman pantheon. The first known atheist thinker I believe was Epicurus. Most Buddhists are atheists (but not amythicists).


Technically correct. For that matter, technically I am an atheist. However, in today's culture, a person who calls himself an "atheist" is an amythicist, a believer in classical materialism, and an opponent of dogmatic religion. By extension and association, they are also usually opponents of all human spirituality. It is in that sense that I meant the term.

[edit on 6-1-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Such a person doesn't know that aliens did it, he only knows he experienced it.


True, but . . .



Night terrors are common and form a well documented ordinary alternative explanation for that experience.


I have experienced night terrors myself. I find it impossible to confuse them with anything else.

There is a difference between being skeptical about the explanation of the experience offered by those who have had it (which is indeed offered in some ignorance), and offering an alternative explanation without any firsthand knowledge. It is the dismissal of someone else's experience as trivial, when you do not share that experience yourself, that is arrogant and unwarranted.



What could possibly motivate these aliens to do these seemingky useless and abundant experiments using what would be primitive techniques even by our standards, when they are supposedly so technologically advanced?


I have no idea. Or rather, I have several ideas, none of them supported by any real evidence. My first thought is that the effect of the experience is what is intended, is the reason for the activity. But again, it's a mistake to suppose you know the answer merely because the answer offered at first glance is problematic.

What we have in the abduction experience is a mystery.

In any case, the real point I was getting at in that post was contained in the last couple of paragraphs, not the ones you quoted.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Exactly. In the absence of empirical evidence to support either "yes" or "no" the only logically valid answer is "maybe" or "I don't know."


I agree. Where we disagree is on what qualifies as empirical evidence. For some reason, even though we have a decent history of the development of the mythology of gods, that doesn't count as empirical evidence that the idea is a fantasy, yet...


No-- the point where we appear to disagree is your insistence that "empirical evidence" that the "idea" of gods-- that is, gods as they have historically been defined-- is a fantasy somehow constitutes empirical evidence to support the statement "there are no gods." You're arguing from the specific to the general-- you're asserting that because you believe that you have evidence to support the notion that this or that specific conception of "god(s)" appear to be false, there are in fact, nowhere in all of this vast universe, ANY being(s) that might legitimately be termed "god(s)."

To analogize-- it's as if someone were to state, "there is an animal called a "drup" and it has x-ray vision," and you were to retort, "there's no such thing as x-ray vision, therefore animals do not exist."



Just because no-one has seen the toy factory or the flying reindeer, or the big man himself is not evidence they don't exist according to the standard you yourself set.


False. We have explored virtually every square centimeter of the area around the north pole, and we certainly have satellite imagery of every single one, and there is absolutely no evidence of a toy factory there. We have radars all over the world for the specific purpose of tracking aircraft, and nothing bigger than a seagull flies over any major city without somebody being aware of it. The standard that I have set-- EXPLICITLY-- is that in order to deny the existence of a thing, we must explore every place that it can be and demonstrate that it is not there. That is not the case with "god(s)," but is the case with Santa's toy factory and his sleigh.



The fact that we have a decent history of the development of the modern concept of Santa is also not empirical evidence that he does not exist according to the standard you set.


That's true-- it's not, which is why I didn't refer to it. Straw man.



The fact that there is no consistent definition for Santa (he differs from culture to culture), is also not any kind of empirical evidence according to the standard you set.


You're partially right there. I should have clarified that I was referring to the American concept of Santa Claus, as I assumed you were. I am aware that there are other conceptions, but I'm unfamiliar with them and am therefore unable to state conclusively whether or not they might or might not exist, since I don't know with what attributes they are credited.



You are compelled by your own standards to say "I don't know" regarding Santa.


No-- not really. I would be compelled to say "I don't know" if we were to posit a "Santa Claus" that is not exactly like the specific American conception of Santa Claus, at least until such time as I might collect some actual, verifiable empirical evidence that would either affirm or deny his existence, but the specific American conception of Santa Claus is defined clearly enough and has enough specific attributes that can be demonstrated to be false that that I can logically state that that Santa does not exist.



If you say, "no, santa doesn't exist", it's an act of faith.


No-- as stated above, I can logically state that Santa as depicted in American tradition doesn't exist, as there is sufficient empirical evidence to discount his existence. However, if I were to say that nowhere in all of the universe is/are there any beings that might legitimately fall under any of the many conceptions of "santa," that would be unsubstantiated and would therefore be a belief, and to hold to that belief would be an act of faith.



Now, let's apply the same argument you used against Santa to another concept. On the earth on which I live gods do not talk to people, nor show themselves in any objective way. There are no people rising from their graves, nor walking on water, nor travelling through the seven heavens in flying chariots. On my earth, people can not make mountains move simply by commanding them. In my universe, gravity is not the force of beating angel wings, the earth is not at the center, and it doesn't have corners. The seasons are caused by the tilt of the planet on my earth rather than by appeasing gods with burnt sacrifices or virgins.



True enough, which means that you can feasibly disprove a handful of very specific conceptions of "gods." That, however, does not in any way even imply that there can not be, anywhere in all of the universe, some being, even as yet undescribed, who could legitimately fit any of the many definitions of "gods." Again, you can't argue from the specific to the general. Specific conclusions at most only imply general ones-- they do not prove them.



There is no substantial difference between the types or quality of empirical evidence against Santa vs. gods.


See above.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
It seems that we're not too far apart on some things. Let's see if I can draw you in a bit more.


Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
However, I'll certainly accept, for the sake of discussion, your contention that you can prove a negative. The only reason that I introduced the subject is because one of the more common defenses that atheists use to weasel out of their responsibility to provide evidence to support their contention regarding the possibility of the existence of some manner of god(s) is that they can't be expected to support their contention since "you can't prove a negative." And I apologize for presupposing that you were going to haul that one out, and for attempting to deal with it in advance.


No apology necessary. Though, i'd contend that theists actually bring that "argument" out far, far more than atheists.


Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
I've never made that assertion. My only "assertion" is the obvious and straightforward truth-- I don't know. That's it-- that's the extent of my view on the entire question. I don't know.

Actually, I take that back-- that's not my entire view. My entire view is "I don't know and neither does anyone else."


So, would I be safe in assuming you'd call yourself an "agnostic"?


Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
I'm going to pass over your nitpicking of my definition, as it's not pertinent. I am not positing any specific type of being, but rather ONLY the possibility of some manner of being(s) that could legitimately fall into that admittedly large and vague class of beings about which people throughout history have speculated, theorized and fought with each other.

For the record though, I would submit that if it's held to be true that the notion of "god" is so poorly defined as to make any statement regarding his/her/its existence necessarily invalid, then that would hold not only for statements asserting his/her/its existence, but for statements denying it. If one doesn't know what it is that one is discussing, then one CERTAINLY doesn't know that he/she/it either exists or does not exist.


Nitpicking? How do you claim to not know if something exists when you can't even give it meaning? Hypothetically, suppose we could hop out of material reality, if this thing doesn't even have a meaning then what would you look for?

When any theist says that word, I truly have no clue what they are talking about. Insofar as the context in which they are using the word, I can vaguely follow, but as to the word, it means nothing. In my mind, it's akin to me saying "bluzotork rocks, man! ". That means nothing to you right? So, skipping over what you deem to be "nitpicking" to this illogical concept of "god" is a tad irresponsible.


Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
You didn't answer the question. Is there life on other planets?


Very well, based on the data at hand, no. However, since this question is pertaining to our material reality, speculating on such - the orbits of other planets similiar to our own and so on - holds much more weight with me. Though, I wouldn't pretend to have a preconceived notion of what life on another planet might be.

There have been some hints of microbial life on Mars, but nothing concrete, I think.


Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
I don't. I simply maintain that it is illogical to entirely discount the possibility of the existence of some such being(s).


Again, why do you posit it as illogical? You can't even define these "beings" suficiently enough to give them meaning. Something without meaning can't exist. So how come you're still undecided on this magical immaterial thing-a-majiggies? This makes no sense.


Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
That's a fairly good summation of my question, with one alteration:

Where is the evidence? Claiming there is NOT something greater than the material reality leaves you with the job of proving it's NOT there.


As petty as this will sound initially, theists were first in their positing that there was something above the material reality. Atheists refute their initial claim.


Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
No-- you need to go back and actually read what I've written. I have made no claims at all regarding either what is there or what is not there.


You're right, you made no such claim and I apologize for saying such.

Pardon for the repeated asking of this question; would you call yourself an "agnostic"?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Obscure
As petty as this will sound initially, theists were first in their positing that there was something above the material reality. Atheists refute their initial claim.


Religion is far older than supernaturalism. Supernaturalism (the idea of something "above material reality") is a response to classical materialism, and classical materialism did not exist before Newton. Before that, gods were regarded as natural phenomena.

The idea of God does not require the supernatural unless one has a very restricted view of the possibilities inherent in material reality.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by Obscure
As petty as this will sound initially, theists were first in their positing that there was something above the material reality. Atheists refute their initial claim.


Religion is far older than supernaturalism. Supernaturalism (the idea of something "above material reality") is a response to classical materialism, and classical materialism did not exist before Newton. Before that, gods were regarded as natural phenomena.

The idea of God does not require the supernatural unless one has a very restricted view of the possibilities inherent in material reality.


I agree. This doesn't equate to atheists claiming that gods, or the supernatural, don't exist before the theist/deist did though. It's quite the opposite.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Can't we all just live together, in harmony? Atheists, agnostics, buddhists, Deists, Christians, muslims, hindis? I mean, we're all people first, religious second. We have more in common then we have apart. In the end, no matter what you believe, we're all searching for answers, albiet in different places. We're all looking for the answers of life, and how to live well.

As Buddha once said.

Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we did not learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we did not learn a little, at least we did not get sick, and if we got sick, at least we did not die; so, let us all be thankful.




posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Its not the path that is important it is the way you conduct yourself on the path that matters. i know alot of "athiest" who are awsome people and do many good things and are a valuable asset to the world, they just choose not to believe there is a god. god gave them a freewill and the choice to do so. SO WHO ARE WE TO GO AGAINST GODS WILL????



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Yet in this case, it's necessary to have shared the experience in question in order to understand the claims made on their basis. You cannot achieve understanding simply from the words used.


As a former believer, I have had the experiences you refer to. I am not colorblind. The only difference is what I attribute as the source of those experiences.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
By extension and association, they [atheists] are also usually opponents of all human spirituality.


I'm not sure I agree that atheists are oponents of spirituality, I'm certainly not. I'm only opposed to the objectification of that spirituality and projecting it onto an external source rather than realizing it comes from within.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
I have experienced night terrors myself. I find it impossible to confuse them with anything else.


Does that mean others don't?


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
It is the dismissal of someone else's experience as trivial, when you do not share that experience yourself, that is arrogant and unwarranted.


It isn't arrgant or unwarranted to dismiss that which can not be objectively validated. A tremendous amount of effort has been expended on alien investigations. The investigations either hit a dead end or turn up ordinary explanations. How many times must such a fire drill be repeated before it becomes reasonable to reject that entire class of claims? I think that threshold has already been crossed.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
I have no idea. Or rather, I have several ideas, none of them supported by any real evidence.


The 'psychological malfunction' explanation does not suffer from this mystery. Night terrors and temporal lobe epilepsy often involve sexual aspects. We have an ordinary explanation that explains all the mysteries vs. an unordinary explanation filled with unknowns. Occam's razor...



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   


I'm not sure I agree that atheists are oponents of spirituality, I'm certainly not. I'm only opposed to the objectification of that spirituality and projecting it onto an external source rather than realizing it comes from within.


Are you sure there is a solid line between within and without, so that it is meaningful to make an absolute distinction between the two? If so, on what basis are you sure?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
It isn't arrgant or unwarranted to dismiss that which can not be objectively validated.


It is arrogant and unwarranted to dismiss an experience with a nothing-but when you have not had that experience yourself. There are options other than accepting the "alien visitor" explanation at face value, and reducing the whole thing to a form of mental illness. As I said, I have not personally encountered UFOs. But I do know people who have, and none of them have been diagnosed as mentally ill, nor do they exhibit obvious signs of mental illness other than (in your view) their insistence on having had these experiences.

I don't know what causes them. I am not prepared to assert that we are being visited by space-travelling aliens -- or time travellers from our own future, or reality-voyagers from an alternate timeline, or any of the other non-trivial explanations that have been offered. But nor am I prepared to offer an insulting explanation arising from nothing more than my own ignorance and desire for something to explain it away.



A tremendous amount of effort has been expended on alien investigations. The investigations either hit a dead end or turn up ordinary explanations. How many times must such a fire drill be repeated before it becomes reasonable to reject that entire class of claims? I think that threshold has already been crossed.


Under the circumstances, it is impossible to cross that threshhold.

I mentioned that the last two paragraphs from my former post were the main point -- since I really don't know all that much about UFOs and have no dog in that specific hunt. An "extraordinary" claim -- if one is being honest -- is one that would require an unacceptable revision of one's world view. In practice, the term is usually used by skeptical investigators of the so-called "supernatural," who are usually believers in the metaphysical position I call classical materialism. In practice, it means: "I reserve the right to reject any evidence for these phenomena whatsoever, on the grounds that it is insufficiently extraordinary to qualify as proof."

Now, UFOs could conceivably have been something in perfect harmony with classical materialism, but they're not, because people who have encountered them keep insisting on radically weird effects, defiance of inertia by the alleged spacecraft, telepathic and other psychic phenomena exhibited by the alleged aliens, and so on. This becomes something that a believer in classical materialism cannot and will not accept no matter how good the evidence might be.

By which I do not mean that I know the evidence to be good. I don't know anything of the kind. I just know that whether it is good or not, the conclusion will be the same.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
you're asserting that because you believe that you have evidence to support the notion that this or that specific conception of "god(s)" appear to be false, there are in fact, nowhere in all of this vast universe, ANY being(s) that might legitimately be termed "god(s)."


If we know where the idea of gods came from, and we know it was a faulty conclusion, then we need look no further, it is false by default just like all other claims.


Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
We have explored virtually every square centimeter of the area around the north pole, and we certainly have satellite imagery of every single one, and there is absolutely no evidence of a toy factory there.


You're forgetting that it's invisible.


Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
We have radars all over the world for the specific purpose of tracking aircraft, and nothing bigger than a seagull flies over any major city without somebody being aware of it.


Uhm, Santa is magic. You can only see him if he wants you to.


Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
No-- not really. I would be compelled to say "I don't know" if we were to posit a "Santa Claus" that is not exactly like the specific American conception of Santa Claus,


In that conception, Santa is magic.

Keeping in mind that Santa is magic and keeps all evidence of himself hidden from nonbelievers, I repeat the question again.


Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
True enough, which means that you can feasibly disprove a handful of very specific conceptions of "gods." That, however, does not in any way even imply that there can not be, anywhere in all of the universe, some being, even as yet undescribed, who could legitimately fit any of the many definitions of "gods."


I not going to play the game of "does something undefined exist in some undefined way". That question is meaningless, and is not the question I'm addressing.

When I say "god does not exist", I'm referring to what most people mean when they say the word "god". I would have thought that's obvious.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Are you sure there is a solid line between within and without, so that it is meaningful to make an absolute distinction between the two? If so, on what basis are you sure?


There are no wires going into our brains, and neurons follow the same physical laws we have observed in nonliving matter.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
But I do know people who have, and none of them have been diagnosed as mentally ill, nor do they exhibit obvious signs of mental illness other than (in your view) their insistence on having had these experiences.


Night terrors and temporal lobe epilepsy are not generally considered mental illness.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
By which I do not mean that I know the evidence to be good. I don't know anything of the kind. I just know that whether it is good or not, the conclusion will be the same.


Do you really know that?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
There are no wires going into our brains, and neurons follow the same physical laws we have observed in nonliving matter.


And you think you know what those are, and all the implications of them, so that you can close your accounts with reality?

To be specific. Do you agree or disagree that most processes in nature are indeterminate?

Assuming the latter (which would be correct), are you convinced that probability itself is determinate and fixed? And if so, why?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Night terrors and temporal lobe epilepsy are not generally considered mental illness.


None of the people I've known who claimed to have encountered UFOs suffered from epilepsy, either.





Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
By which I do not mean that I know the evidence to be good. I don't know anything of the kind. I just know that whether it is good or not, the conclusion will be the same.


Do you really know that?


Yes, I do. That's what is meant by calling a claim "extraordinary": that no amount of evidence for it will be considered sufficient. It's an excuse for dismissal.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Absolutely-- I am agnostic. So, for that matter, is everyone else-- I simply admit to my lack of knowledge.


We human beings live on an exceedingly tiny bit of matter in a universe vast beyond our reckoning. We are beginning to develop some workable theories as to how our species came to exist, but we have nothing other than the vaguest guesses as to how the first spark of life came to exist on this planet, and for how the universe itself came to be, or for that matter just what the true nature of the universe is. Among the many conjectures regarding these unanswered questions is the notion, common throughout history and to this day, that some manner of being(s) with powers far exceeding our own is/are/was/were in some way responsible for the existence of the universe that we perceive, and/or for the existence of life on this planet and/or even for at least guiding if not controlling the rise of life in such a way that our species came to be. Those theoretical beings, in all their many guises, and, nominally, in guises not yet postulated, are collectively referred to, in the English language, as "gods." The theory that these "gods," in whatever form, actually exist, in whatever manner, is something that I consider relatively unlikely, but that, logically, cannot be entirely discounted.

That's the whole deal, right there.


A quote that sums up my viewpoint-- "When I say 'I know,' I stop thinking." --Albert Einstein



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join