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.

 

For all the Athiests.........

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA
You seem to be missing the point here about getting to the very first empirical "blank mind". So let's try another analogy.


We see that with amnesics. They relearn, we learn. I really don't see the point of what you are trying to make. There are amnesics who forget all complex knowledge every few minutes living minute to minute - read 'the man who mistook his wife for a hat' by Oliver Sacks. It might even make you understand how observation provides knowledge.


We are at a baseball game and through a special gizmo we are able to bring to this game from the far distant past our very first "blank mind" ancestor. What can he tell us about the game through observation alone? What inferences can he make?


Animals learn by conditioning. They associate stimuli with outcomes, this is the most basic form of learning. Most animals have this ability.


Well he can observe that some men are playing on an open field. Yet who told him it's an "open field" and how does he know what "playing" is?

Yet again who told him what a "bat" is let alone what "wood" is? How can he describe to us what "round" is when he has no prior knowledge of it?


Seems a really basic argument you are making. WE give labels to objects. WE learn these labels from our ancestors. If we observe a new object or phenomena, we give it a label. Basic stuff. We can take a feral child with an unsocialised 'blank mind' and they will learn.

I observe a phenomena, say a new type of bird. I give it a name. The new object, in this case an animal, is now known by this name. I observed and provided new knowledge. If i find a new physical mechanism, like gravity, we give it a label.


In fact, he can't even communicate to us anything about what he is observing, why? Because he has no PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of anything. His mind is blank so he could observe that baseball game till the cows come home but he would still never be able to gain any knowledge of or about that game because he doesn't even KNOW he is observing. He would be a drooling moron and not even know he is drooling.


Yes, he could. Just like when we find a new animal. We observe its behaviour and gain knowledge, like any animals with a half-decent brain.


This is what I and Dominicus are seeking to put forth when one holds to an empirical worldview. It is placing the cart before the horse. No observation is possible unless one has prior to that observation "knowledge". Without knowledge being prior to observation how can one KNOW they are observing anything?


Nah, you're both really just making basic errors in reasoning.


Now knowledge could NOT be evolved nor could it be the result of biological process for then no human would be alive today yet knowledge had to come from somewhere, someplace. I gave an example of a blank hard drive and how it can do nothing but sit there until someone programs it to receive information. Likewise our minds, if born blank, can do nothing until it is programed to receive information yet just as no hard drive can program itself no blank mind can program itself either. Why?


But a hard drive is just a place for storing information. It needs a processor to work properly. The brain has a hard-drive and a processor.

We have mechanisms in place that are produced via evolutionary processes. You can ignore this information again if you want but, as I stated earlier, we have examples of behaviour that are hard-wired. A rabbit doesn't need to learn to avoid places in which foxes reside, they have an in-built fear of their odour. We have in-built mechanisms that enable vocalisation and complex language (e.g. FOXP2), these are hard-wired. We learn the complex language of our ancestors that uses these hard-wired mechanisms.

We have mechanisms that enable learning, language, and complex decision-making and problem-solving.

Have you never seen an animal learn? How a chimp shows a younger chimp to perform a complex action - how to break open a hard nut with a rock. At one point, no chimp had this knowledge, then maybe one was playing around and cracked it with a stone and received a reward. He does it again, reward again. an inquisitive conspecific OBSERVES the new behaviour and copies it, he also gets a reward. That is why mammals are very successful, we have mechanisms for flexible complex learning. They can even be taught to show a basic level of communication with us. Observation provides learning even without the labels of language.

You may now say, but how did this first 'blank-mind' (there never was such a thing, we all had ancestors) create language? Answer, by associating vocalisation with objects and actions and teaching another. Even other animals have particular vocal calls for predators and actions. Here's a human example for a new language...


Nicaraguan Sign Language is a signed language spontaneously developed by deaf children in a number of schools in western Nicaragua in the 1970s and 1980s. It is of particular interest to linguists because it offers a unique opportunity to study the "birth" of a new language.

en.wikipedia.org...


Because someone outside of the hard drive must program it and again likewise someone outside of the human mind must pre-program it so that it can take in and write information. So if knowledge did not evolve where then did it come from


Basic errors of reasoning and leaps of logic here. You haven't even made a good argument that knowledge can't be gained by observation. The knowledge is there to be gained. How do you think we learned that the earth is round and not flat, the earth is not the center of the universe? Did god tell us?

Then you jump to a creator from a postion of error. Evolution explains how the brain developed from simpler brains whereas computers don't reproduce. There is no descent with modification for hard-drives.


This is why I argue that before the empiricist can tell me "where morals come from" he or she must first tell me how, through observation alone, we came to have "knowledge"?


We learn? We have mechanisms in place that enable us to learn. We could learn by transmission of information from knowledgeable others, we can learn from observation. We can learn by reasoning and logic

[edit on 28-11-2006 by melatonin]




posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
melatonin,

Again you are placing the cart before the horse. The cart being "observation" and the horse being "knowledge". There can be no observation without knowledge first being present.

It is your presupposition that knowledge is just a given, like it's just "there".

Whether you agree to it or not there had to be a FIRST human, whether it be a sub-human or whatever there had to be a first. You are assuming that this "it" gained knowledge of its world through its senses of sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch. My question, which is not illogical but rather very sound, is how did that first "it" come to KNOW anything without first having knowledge that it was even observing anything....that it was even alive? It's as if you are trying to work on "B and C" and skipped "A".

Your answers, while I apreciate them, are not dealing with how observation can bring about knowledge so that we can know what we are observing. Do you not see the dilemma? To state that observation brings about knowledge so that one can know what they are observing is contradictory and self-refuting.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA
melatonin,

Again you are placing the cart before the horse. The cart being "observation" and the horse being "knowledge". There can be no observation without knowledge first being present.


I think you are just making a strawman.


It is your presupposition that knowledge is just a given, like it's just "there".


Not my words. What I said is that the knowledge is 'out there'. We use observation and scientific method to gain it. Thus, we thought the sun orbited the earth. Pure observation suggests this is true. However, with a little application of science method and better analysis, we find out we orbit the sun.

This knowledge was 'out there' waiting for us to discover it.


Whether you agree to it or not there had to be a FIRST human, whether it be a sub-human or whatever there had to be a first. You are assuming that this "it" gained knowledge of its world through its senses of sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch. My question, which is not illogical but rather very sound, is how did that first "it" come to KNOW anything without first having knowledge that it was even observing anything....that it was even alive? It's as if you are trying to work on "B and C" and skipped "A".

Your answers, while I apreciate them, are not dealing with how observation can bring about knowledge so that we can know what we are observing. Do you not see the dilemma? To state that observation brings about knowledge so that one can know what they are observing is contradictory and self-refuting.


And we could all have been created last thursday by Nac-mac feegles who implanted all pre-exisiting memories...

How does an ape know what it is observing? A bird? An octopuss? Does a bird know its alive? Does it even matter? They are successful, they breed, they have communication, they learn.

There was never a 'first human'. Evolution is not like adam and eve creation. A population of apes evolved over time to homo-sapiens. At no point did a non-human give birth to a human.

I really don't see anything worth discussing in what you are raising, sorry. We use senses and perceive the world around us. We make associations and learn about how things work, this enables more success. We have self-awareness, the ability to differentiate self from other, so do chimps, dolphins and, as recently discovered, elephants.

You seem to just make everything seem so complicated when it's all very simple. What we observe is what we observe, if observations can be repeated and validated by others, we trust them. That is our environment. We learn about it and gain knowledge. Even a chimp can do it. If you spend your time assessing the validity of the observation of the computer in front of you, I pity you, leave it to freshman philosophy undergrads, they have nothing better to do. The success of science and its method is in the results.

If this is an argument in favour of god, it must be based on the chewbacca defense...

[edit on 28-11-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   
neformore,
I understand your view about the Bible as I have successfully recanted every single person who used that argument and have also done so in this thread. It's there if you go back a few pages. My question to you is, how do you know whether or not that's what "certain" people "want" you to think?

Please have more concrete support next time you post a statement like that as it is obviously an uneducated opinion.
_______
Melatonin,
While I do perhaps on occasion fancy the idea of a combination of intelligent design in cooperation with evolution, there are still tremendous holes in the evolutionary theory as I can see why evolutionists think ther are holes in intelligent design.

I hope you do understand that the odds of an explosion such as the big bang randomly occuring to give us the existence we currently occupy are astronomically beyond any odds for anything ever thought of. You would have a better chance to blindly hit a 2-inch target with a bow and arrow on the other side of our universe!!!!! I must say that logically and rationally to think that all of this existence happened randomly seems illogical!!!!

On the other notion, I feel that you and UnrealZa do not understand each other as both your arguments have been going back and forth, as well as the incomprehension to understand the notion of the first observance of man. This failure to understand the notion comes from your evolutionary belief in that it has all been a slow gradual process incorporating every faculty that we hold, i.e. there never was a first human. Understood !

However, for Melatonin...besides the improbability of the randomness of existence, we also have the odds against evolution in the genetic improbablitiy theory. The numbers and odds just keep stacking up. Darwin himself implies his doubts in evolution when he said;

"With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

In an interesting note, Darwin himself eventually became a Christian and was amazed at how quickly the scientific community built a sort of "religion" around his ideas that he basically said that he threw out there when he was young.

I think the worst part of it all when it comes to evolution, is the thought of all of existence forming randomly. Meaning that all of our existences are random and with no point at all. Everything we think, act, say, or do basically has no point what so ever in the grand scheme of things!!!!

To sum up my main point. Since evolution relies blindly on our behavior and nature as to who and what groups continue to evolve, then who's to say that our evolutionary beliefs are accurate? Why do I ask this? Because perhaps we are just like the monkeys behaving the way we do by continually being manipulated by nature.

So...... Since we are continuing on the path that monkeys were on, based on choices and manipulated by nature, then how can we believe that evolution is true? We only believe evolution because we are manipulated through nature to think that way, and we choose so!!!! Well, not all of us do.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA

Flawed argument

You had best look at your own argument first for it is fatally flawed. By you stating that the Bible was NOT written by God but by men and that it was changed and altered many times over implies that you are privy to information that the rest of the academic world is not. Your claim also implies that you know what was in the original autographs of Scripture since you claim it has been changed and altered many times over. Can you please share with us exactly what was changed and what the originals said?? I'm sure you're well versed in Hebrew and Aramaic, correct? Or perhaps it was another language?? You should know, correct?

I suggest you re-think your ignorant statement to go more along the lines of...."It is my OPINION that the Bible was written by men and not God for I BELIEVE it to be re-written to suit the ideas of men."


Historical Background of the Bible:


The Bible was written over a period of 1600 years. The first five books of the Bible are referred to as the Torah, and were written by Moses around 1500 B.C. These books provide the record of God's creation and an outline of the history of man in relation to God. Moses includes in the Torah a record of man's great achievements, as well as his failures -- including his sinful nature and his obedience to God's laws of worship and conduct. After the books of the Torah, the Bible continues on to discuss man's contributions throughout the ages following the descendants of Adam, Noah, Abraham, and David. David composed the majority of the Psalms (Zabur). Many of the books speak of future events -- some which were fulfilled during the lives of the writers, others which were fulfilled during the life of Jesus, and still others which have yet to be fulfilled.


As found here.

Has the bible been changed

Its not ignorance, its education. Its not accepting blindly. Its finding out for yourself. No I don't know the Hebrew and Aramaic - I don't need to. All you have to do is look at history to see how the Church has chopped and changed its belief systems in the name of religion to understand that theres something fishy going on, and if you think things have not been changed to suit the leaders of the various faiths then you are naive about human nature.

You could try here also,

The Bible and Christianity - The Historical Origions

Now I appreciate that you are passionate about the subject, but you if you are arguing along the lines that I can't prove anything then you have to admit that you cannot prove anything either. Sure you WANT to believe, and hey, thats fine, but you need to accept that YOU do not know. You really have no idea about it.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
neformore,
I understand your view about the Bible as I have successfully recanted every single person who used that argument and have also done so in this thread. It's there if you go back a few pages. My question to you is, how do you know whether or not that's what "certain" people "want" you to think?

Please have more concrete support next time you post a statement like that as it is obviously an uneducated opinion.


Its far from an uneducated opinion. And you haven't recanted anything. What you have done is given your version of it. You can't prove anything, you can't show anything. You have given YOUR opinion - not only that but your initial post attempts to challenge the views of others because they don't share it. You claim to be enlightened and yet you have, in effect, resorted to a petty insult in describing my contribution as an uneducated opinion. What if God had told me differently? What if I had been given a message to challenge your way of seeing the world as that of a false prophet? You would never know.

And if you are insulted by the above, you aren't as enlightened as you claim to be.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
Melatonin,
While I do perhaps on occasion fancy the idea of a combination of intelligent design in cooperation with evolution, there are still tremendous holes in the evolutionary theory as I can see why evolutionists think ther are holes in intelligent design.


Difference is, the theory if evolution is science, it makes falsifiable predictions that are tested every day. Intelligent design is not science. You are correct in stating that ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive - it is not impossible that the first organism was created by an intelligent source, but we would never be able to test this. If we conclude an alien, then we expect evolution to apply to them; if we conclude a supernatural being, then we can never test and it explains nothing, just a 'god of the gaps' explanation.

Plus, if you expect ToE to explain everything in a step-by-step fashion after less that 150 yrs, you're asking a bit much. ID is one big hole, in fact, it is better seen as a 'gap filler' - if there is something we can't explain, then ID. Not a very satisfying approach. They are not even comparable, ID is bad science and bad theology.


I hope you do understand that the odds of an explosion such as the big bang randomly occuring to give us the existence we currently occupy are astronomically beyond any odds for anything ever thought of. You would have a better chance to blindly hit a 2-inch target with a bow and arrow on the other side of our universe!!!!! I must say that logically and rationally to think that all of this existence happened randomly seems illogical!!!!


We could never know the odds of such a thing at this point. We need all the variables underlying the process to understand it. Maybe it was inevitable, maybe not. We know little before Planck time (a fraction of a second after the initial beginning of space-time).

There are lots of hypotheses. Maybe we are one of a multitude of universes, maybe new universes are created in black holes, maybe we are but one of a series of cycles of this universe. No-one knows for sure...well some think they do



On the other notion, I feel that you and UnrealZa do not understand each other as both your arguments have been going back and forth, as well as the incomprehension to understand the notion of the first observance of man. This failure to understand the notion comes from your evolutionary belief in that it has all been a slow gradual process incorporating every faculty that we hold, i.e. there never was a first human. Understood !


Yup, that's the important thing - it was a gradual process of genetic change (not always at the same speed mind you) of a population rather than the individual.


However, for Melatonin...besides the improbability of the randomness of existence, we also have the odds against evolution in the genetic improbablitiy theory. The numbers and odds just keep stacking up. Darwin himself implies his doubts in evolution when he said;

"With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

In an interesting note, Darwin himself eventually became a Christian and was amazed at how quickly the scientific community built a sort of "religion" around his ideas that he basically said that he threw out there when he was young.


Nah, Darwin lost his christianity when his daughter died. He never accepted the faith again. But he was not an atheist, he claimed agnosticism. The quote you have was about the origin of the universe not his theory.

[see here - cla.calpoly.edu... ]

Many of Darwin's ideas have been falsified. He was wrong on many counts. The theory of evolution is no more a religion than the theory of relativity or atomic theory. People actually fought against darwin's theory, he even sat on the theory for a few decades before publishing, it wasn't easily accepted by many. It still isn't to this day...


I think the worst part of it all when it comes to evolution, is the thought of all of existence forming randomly. Meaning that all of our existences are random and with no point at all. Everything we think, act, say, or do basically has no point what so ever in the grand scheme of things!!!!


The process underlying evolutionary theory is far from random. From the basic biological level, the meaning is to reproduce. From a pragmatic humanist level, you make your own meaning.

You may think it is a cold, empty life when you lack a religious meaning to life, it is actually far from it. I have aims, I have family, I feel love, I feel happy and sad, I have no fear of non-existence, I don't need external moral prescription. I have one life and will make the most of it.


To sum up my main point. Since evolution relies blindly on our behavior and nature as to who and what groups continue to evolve, then who's to say that our evolutionary beliefs are accurate? Why do I ask this? Because perhaps we are just like the monkeys behaving the way we do by continually being manipulated by nature.


Well, we are far from a complete slave to biology. We can easily overcome some biological instincts and, in response to part of the next quote, we can also shape our environment, making us one of the most successful creatures on earth.


So...... Since we are continuing on the path that monkeys were on, based on choices and manipulated by nature, then how can we believe that evolution is true? We only believe evolution because we are manipulated through nature to think that way, and we choose so!!!! Well, not all of us do.


Just because the evidence suggests it is true. It is not a case of what feels good, it is what the evidence tells us. At one point, no life, no bacteria, no plants; then slowly complex life-forms appear. In the 4.6 billion years of the earth, homonids have existed for a mere few million years.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Neformore,
Nowhere in my replies to you did I say that I was insulted by your post nor did I insult you. Enlightenment allows me to see that you say what you say because it is where you are in your spirituality that you say those words. I am well aware of the history of the Bible. While there are additional books that were in consideration to be, but are not part of the Bible, the Counsel of Nicea choose the books of the modern day canon because of several factors including that of consistencies in messages of the books i.e. no paradoxes and lineages. Yes there was definately politics involved in the counsel and that doesn't change that fact that if God wanted to, we could have an upolluted divine source of teaching. The important factor is how many in the counsel also had Spiritual Enlightenment, which we will never know. Never the less, those additional books are there if anyone wants to read them and if anything, they continually support the message of Jesus and the whole Bible, albeit they are more "gnostic" in origin. Still that doesn't change much in the over all picture.

It was simply that you seemed to blatantly state that what you said about the Bible is true, when you should have mentioned it is your opinion. The truth is, many strong willed and strong minded people come to the Bible to investigate it and give it a skeptical try, only to end up converting to Chrstianity due to divine experiences. I've seen ego filled individuals stating your exact comment (Bible is for weak minded people), who have debated myself and others with much anger, ego, and hatred, only to later convert and humble themselves. Let's not forget that one of the links you posted is very much biased, while the other is just a little bit that way.

As I have stated, what seems like a billion times on this thread, the Bible was written by authors who were both Spiritually Enlightened and had direct communication channels open with God. Divine intervention was at play. Both Protestants and Cathloics have their faults and if you had a bad experience from any of these, then I trully have compassion for you. There are many false representatives in all Religious orders, but still behind that imperfection, there is Divine Spiritual truth. The Bible is again a supernatural Divine book. Reading the words alone has metaphysical and spiritual repurcussions. The only fear I see, is that of there not being a God and us ceasing to exist upon death when you realize how fast this life flies by. We are each but a blink of in eye compared to both millions/billions of years for evolutionists and infinity for thiests.

My friend, in none of my posts have I insulted you nor anyone else. If God has told you something different and made your destiny to go against people like me, then please share with us what other spiritual gifts God has given you to go against those like me. Please show us the fruits of your ego death, instead of posts that indicate angry pressumptions. Where is your universal acceptance and Love towards all? Assuredly I put forth the latter and Love you even though you don't believe!!!



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Melatonin,
As far as odds against existence goes, it really doesn't matter what variables you want to throw into the mix. The odds are still almost unfathomable!!!! I strongly believe our universe is one of an infinite supply of universe clusters and I have a ToE in the works that so far has past every test. Still, the odds would definately be allot better if we add in a Divine creator to the ingrediants.

In "random" I'm reffering to, is existence randomly comming into play as in the origin of the universe(s). So if evolution is true, it is a by product of the randomness of existence for athiests. However, if we look at all the underlying principles that revolve around evolution, it certainly is a clever and intelligent mechanism for the survival and continuance of existence. What I'm implying here is that if evolution is really what is taking place, then it is because of an intelligent force that put existence into play in such a way. How else could existential randomness itself intelligently find a way to exist and progress?

From your last sentence in your last post, you do comprehend that it is theoretically, mathematically, and philosophically impossible to get something out of nothing?

The big hole in evolution is "Genetic Improbability." Basically all organisms need a minnimum of 5 non-harmful mutations in order for there to be new structure in a species. Also each of these mutations has to be the right kind and has to effect 5 other functionally related genes.

A mutation is once in every 100,000 replications.Only 1 out of 10,000 mutations ends up being the non-harmful one. So your odds are 1 in 10,000 that a mutation would effect a particular gene. So you would need 100,000,000 minnimum for a specific gene mutation to occur.

So if existence was multiplying 60,000-trillion bacteria every minute for 5 billion years, you would still only have 1 0f 1,000,000,000 of what you would actually need for the proper mutations of a species to occur.

So now to get a new structure within your species, each of the (1 of 1,000,000,000) mutations must still fall into place and work perfectly with one another.

Bottom Line: Evolution is scientifically improbable because your odds are (1)*300,000 or (1) to the 300,000th power!!! This is scientific and mathematical fact!!!

So to sum it all up, let's say that evolution (against all astronimically high odds) does exist and happen. It would take some kind of intelligent creative force to surpass all odds for creative existential progress. If evolution does not exist, then we can begin to look for other theories that are more credible and more in favor of the odds.

Hence this is why intelligent design(Biblical) seems more probable in my view. The way God created everything definately has a science to it and it is scientifically explainable. However, we are 100's if not thousands of years away from those levels of science. That science is already there, we just need to continue progressing to find it just as it will be a matter of short time before the confirmation of the existance of a "soul." if we don't blow ourselves up by then. Even the "God" part of the brain is a scientific fact, but not everyone's "God" part lights up !!!!!



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
Melatonin,
As far as odds against existence goes, it really doesn't matter what variables you want to throw into the mix. The odds are still almost unfathomable!!!! I strongly believe our universe is one of an infinite supply of universe clusters and I have a ToE in the works that so far has past every test. Still, the odds would definately be allot better if we add in a Divine creator to the ingrediants.


Show me the odds? How did you calculate them?

Just adding a bit of magic will make explanation easier. In fact, historically, we seem to invoke it whenever we can't explain something. Over time and with a little application, we find the real explanation.


In "random" I'm reffering to, is existence randomly comming into play as in the origin of the universe(s). So if evolution is true, it is a by product of the randomness of existence for athiests. However, if we look at all the underlying principles that revolve around evolution, it certainly is a clever and intelligent mechanism for the survival and continuance of existence. What I'm implying here is that if evolution is really what is taking place, then it is because of an intelligent force that put existence into play in such a way. How else could existential randomness itself intelligently find a way to exist and progress?


Chemistry and physics is not totally random. It is rule- and law-based with elements of randomness.

ToE is a good method for development of species. Maybe it was organised by a intelligent force, but it works without needing one, why invoke something not required?. It's quite interesting that whatever the real explanation, you find your 'ghost in the machine'. This is why creation science and ID are not science.


From your last sentence in your last post, you do comprehend that it is theoretically, mathematically, and philosophically impossible to get something out of nothing?


I really don't know if that is the case. Quantum theory may show otherwise. BUT, at no point has science claimed 'something from nothing' for the universe.


The big hole in evolution is "Genetic Improbability." Basically all organisms need a minnimum of 5 non-harmful mutations in order for there to be new structure in a species. Also each of these mutations has to be the right kind and has to effect 5 other functionally related genes.

A mutation is once in every 100,000 replications.Only 1 out of 10,000 mutations ends up being the non-harmful one. So your odds are 1 in 10,000 that a mutation would effect a particular gene. So you would need 100,000,000 minnimum for a specific gene mutation to occur.

So if existence was multiplying 60,000-trillion bacteria every minute for 5 billion years, you would still only have 1 0f 1,000,000,000 of what you would actually need for the proper mutations of a species to occur.

So now to get a new structure within your species, each of the (1 of 1,000,000,000) mutations must still fall into place and work perfectly with one another.

Bottom Line: Evolution is scientifically improbable because your odds are (1)*300,000 or (1) to the 300,000th power!!! This is scientific and mathematical fact!!!


I assume this is based on Henry Morris' calculations...

Firstly, mutation rates are different for different species and sexual recombination speeds up the process. Secondly, mutations need not occur consecutively, thus in a population there is nothing to stop multiple mutations occuring at once. We are not talking about one particular family line acquiring the mutations. Thus, for humans, mutations can be acquired in an australian, american, european, african, asian family all in one generation - then with time, these mutations will permeate the whole population. Whilst these mutations are permeating, multiple new mutations may be occuring etc etc.

Thirdly, the numbers are wrong and the calculation (as shown above) is just smoke and mirrors. For each human sperm cell, we would see an average of 1.6 mutations (4/1000 per genome per replication, 400 replications; see here). That is even before conception.

For bacteria with 5000 genes, for a population of 300,000,000 we are talking about 7,500,000 mutations A DAY. Further, you are targeting a particular mutation, evolution is not teleological, it has no aim in mind.

A recent study suggested that each individual will have approx. 100 mutations (per genome per generation; Kondrashov AS. Human Mutation, 2003 ). Nachman & Crowel (2000) suggest 175 per genome per individual, of which 3 will be harmful. The rest neutral. As with the nylon bug, the environment will determine whether the mutation is harmful, beneficial, or neutral. (i.e. before nylon was synthesised it was harmful, now it is beneficial).


Hence this is why intelligent design(Biblical) seems more probable in my view. The way God created everything definately has a science to it and it is scientifically explainable. However, we are 100's if not thousands of years away from those levels of science. That science is already there, we just need to continue progressing to find it just as it will be a matter of short time before the confirmation of the existance of a "soul." if we don't blow ourselves up by then. Even the "God" part of the brain is a scientific fact, but not everyone's "God" part lights up !!!!!


The science is not there. It will not show there is a soul. Neuroscience is showing that the mind is a product of the brain. If you are interested, read Damasio's 'Descartes Error'.

The 'god' part of the brain is given to an area of the neocortex that is active during strange experiences that can be called religious, spiritual or unusual. This area is a major focal point for epileptics, some of whom seem to have such experiences quite often. The god spot suggests that 'god' is in our brain - it is a mental construction. Psychedelic mushrooms also activate this spot. Considering mental life is based in the brain, it would surprising that such experiences did not have a neural correlate. It would be more interesting for you if they didn't...

i.e. delusionals who believe they are napoleon show particular neural activity. It does not validate that they are napoleon. It would be more interesting if they didn't show neural activity related to schizophrenia.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I believe I was very clear in demonstrating how no knowledge can come from observation alone for without knowledge prior to observation, whether it be by sight, sound, smell, taste or touch one cannot KNOW what they are observing.

I can't believe that's such a hard concept yet I should also grasp that your presupposition is that there is no God, nothing supernatural, no metaphysical.

So let's look at the moral issue with knowledge and observation as a given.

Do you hold to morals being absolute for all people everywhere at all times?

Or do you hold them to be relative?

I hold that murder is universally wrong for all people at all times. I hold that there is no where humans can go, even to the ends of the universe, where murder, rape, stealing, lying, etc. is not wrong for all individuals.

Now if you hold to relativism then why are you even telling others who hold to absolutes they are wrong?

Where do you even get the notion that something is wrong without a universal right? We know a line to be crooked because we know what a straight one looks like. We compare the crooked line to what we know to be straight so that we can correct it.

Do you not see that relativism (if you hold to such a worldview) is self-refuting?



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA
I believe I was very clear in demonstrating how no knowledge can come from observation alone for without knowledge prior to observation, whether it be by sight, sound, smell, taste or touch one cannot KNOW what they are observing.


I don't think you did. It just seems a convoluted argument to me. Maybe if you have a link to an external example of this issue I might see what you're getting at.

A chimp doesn't need to know that the nut it is hitting is called a nut, it just knows that that round thing gives a food reward when hit with the bigger hard thing, which it doesn't know is called a rock. It still knows that hitting one thing with the other produces a nibbly-thing that feels good, which it doesn't know is called tasting. Hard-wiring and learning is sufficient.


I can't believe that's such a hard concept yet I should also grasp that your presupposition is that there is no God, nothing supernatural, no metaphysical.


I don't claim that. I claim there is no evidence for such things. I give a small insignificant probability to such things.


So let's look at the moral issue with knowledge and observation as a given.

Do you hold to morals being absolute for all people everywhere at all times?

Or do you hold them to be relative?


I think if we compare morals across the human species we see that morals are relative. If we assess morals across time within particular social groups, we see morals change.

I am not a personal relativist. I have my own 'absolute' morals they are likely different to yours.


I hold that murder is universally wrong for all people at all times. I hold that there is no where humans can go, even to the ends of the universe, where murder, rape, stealing, lying, etc. is not wrong for all individuals.


What is murder?

As I stated earlier, lying can be used for good. If it saves a lives, then it is not immoral to me. Telling a wife her bum doesn't look big in that skirt, is not immoral.


Now if you hold to relativism then why are you even telling others who hold to absolutes they are wrong?

Where do you even get the notion that something is wrong without a universal right? We know a line to be crooked because we know what a straight one looks like. We compare the crooked line to what we know to be straight so that we can correct it.

Do you not see that relativism (if you hold to such a worldview) is self-refuting?


Pure absolute morality is not real and neither is pure moral relativism. It is a mixture. We can make our own 'absolute' moral standards, but they are relative. I'm probably somewhere between a relativist and a pluralist.

Why don't you explain why the Jewish kids I gave an example for found their own groups' behaviour in the case of genocide to be morally acceptable but the same behaviour for an out-group to be immoral?

The problem with the idea of absolute morality is firstly, the reality shows it doesn't exist; secondly, attempts to impose it result in a a code that is inflexible and unchanging, with no checks and balances, and no regard for the human condition. For example, homosexuality is not immoral, it hurts no-one, no-one suffers, it is another source of love in this world. Yet some want to suggest an absolute moral exists that states it is wrong.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
The odds I mention based on genetic improbability were mathematically shown in my last post. In the situation we are speaking on, we can only use the odds in correlation to tiny micro-organisms, since according to evolution, humans weren't here first - but a gradual process. Right off the bat, let's throw human mutations out the window. Still I suggest you do more research in regards to genetic improbaility because there are really no ways to explain this situation away, being that you have to keep into account non-harmful muatations as well as the right ones in conjunction with each other.

The science, formulas, and equations are all out there that prove everything that I'm speaking of as far as a spiritual realm, a soul, God, and so forth. It's up to human individuals and advanced instruments to show this truth. The theory of relativity, quantumm theory, big bang theory, have always existed, but it just took somebody to think of an idea that has already existed. Gravity has always been here even back when man did not comprehend it. It jsut to the right mind to grasp a concept around it that can be proven.

One thing I think we can both agree on is the "evolution of science" and that's about it. Whereas the scientific foundations are constantly changing, shifting, and loopholes are being found in all scientific standards. With the advent of quantumm theory/physics/mechanics we now introduce into the picture, the possibility of other dimensions, along which we can also inculde the likelyhood of spirtual dimensions, of which would be within the realm that God exists, along with overlapping all others.

Agnostic is the best view if you scoff at the idea of a God, because science doesnt and never will know everything. I do love scientific discoveries and keep up with what the community is finding and discussing, but it only goes so far and the foundations always shift.

Either way, there are too many anomolies within our existence that are unexplainable such as medical miracles (against ALL odds), near death experiences (such as those where the patient was able to read the manufacturer's lable on the opposite side of the surgicagl light hood or the heliopad landing number and design without ever having access to these places) You also have cattle mutations, psychic phenomenon, as well as countless inviduals who claim spirtual experiences based off prayer or other spiritually based excercises.

Also, about haunted places where you can actually discernably measure the presence of somethig invisible and unexplainable to us all. Such a topic and field is scoffed at by the scientific community because of the prevelance of athieism/agnosticism. As soon as a researcher begins to do any credible work in such a field, he/she is automatically regarded as an outsider and the researcher is no longer taken serious as goes for anyone in the community that dares go against the grain of any "established train of thought." In these cases all grants and support is wthdrawn from the individual as there numerous examples of such cases which I can post links to warrant if need be.

There is some serious research being done in the East where Monks chanting around a glass of water, produce water that has 4 oxygen molecules which has been impossible by scientists to synthesize. Of course science will tell you that it is only a by-product of sound waves and certain frequencies (as it is also now possible to levitate objects using sound waves), however the monks doing the chanting will tell you that it's all about your heart being focused on God when singing these chants. It would be interesting to see if scientists can re-produce the same effect just using sound waves....

Either way, Evolution or not, everything around us works in an intelligent manner regardless of which way we got here. Its simply enough to look at and ponder the vastness and complexity of existence, of which it all points to something intelligent being behind it all.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
The odds I mention based on genetic improbability were mathematically shown in my last post. In the situation we are speaking on, we can only use the odds in correlation to tiny micro-organisms, since according to evolution, humans weren't here first - but a gradual process. Right off the bat, let's throw human mutations out the window. Still I suggest you do more research in regards to genetic improbaility because there are really no ways to explain this situation away, being that you have to keep into account non-harmful muatations as well as the right ones in conjunction with each other.


I have.

A long string of numbers were multiplied, that's about it. I've already give examples of why the argument is wrong. 5 mutations need to occur consecutively to produce new features, why? Evolution just uses old structures and alters them, the estimation of harmful mutations is wrong, most are neutral, it then depends on the environment. It is just a smoke and mirrors probability calculation. I'm sorry that you don''t understand why this is wrong, do you really think that the christian biologists, like Kenneth Miller, who are scientifically literate would have missed this? What about Michael Behe? Even he accepts common descent, the evidence is irrefutable.

The chances of the particular sperm that conceived you was 1/600,000,000 to get to the egg, the chances of a fetus coming to full term is 1/5.

So 1/600,000,000x/5 = 1 in 3,000,000,000.

Therefore you don't exist.

Post-hoc calculations are the provence of creationists who understand little about statistics and also don't understand the science. The nylon bug needed a single mutation to produce a new adaptive trait, it has been replicated again and again in the lab. Not so improbable.



The science, formulas, and equations are all out there that prove everything that I'm speaking of as far as a spiritual realm, a soul, God, and so forth. It's up to human individuals and advanced instruments to show this truth. The theory of relativity, quantumm theory, big bang theory, have always existed, but it just took somebody to think of an idea that has already existed. Gravity has always been here even back when man did not comprehend it. It jsut to the right mind to grasp a concept around it that can be proven.


Sorry if I don't accept what you say at face value, you seem to understand science very little. You don't start with a conclusion and then find evidence. You follow where the evidence takes you and let the data speak for itself. Darwin didn't wake up one day and think 'today I'm going to create a theory that refutes creationism', he observed the real-world evidence forming inferences and building a theory around them.


One thing I think we can both agree on is the "evolution of science" and that's about it. Whereas the scientific foundations are constantly changing, shifting, and loopholes are being found in all scientific standards. With the advent of quantumm theory/physics/mechanics we now introduce into the picture, the possibility of other dimensions, along which we can also inculde the likelyhood of spirtual dimensions, of which would be within the realm that God exists, along with overlapping all others.

Agnostic is the best view if you scoff at the idea of a God, because science doesnt and never will know everything. I do love scientific discoveries and keep up with what the community is finding and discussing, but it only goes so far and the foundations always shift.


Do you scoff at the idea of pink unicorns? Or do you just want to see some evidence?

Scientific foundations are not constantly shifting. Shifts in paradigms are rare but science does evolve, it adds to past knowledge with new knowledge. This is an adavantage of science, we are not stuck with absolute Truth(TM).


Either way, there are too many anomolies within our existence that are unexplainable such as medical miracles (against ALL odds), near death experiences (such as those where the patient was able to read the manufacturer's lable on the opposite side of the surgicagl light hood or the heliopad landing number and design without ever having access to these places) You also have cattle mutations, psychic phenomenon, as well as countless inviduals who claim spirtual experiences based off prayer or other spiritually based excercises.


And alien abductions, don't forget them...

Schizophrenics have many strange experiences, we don't see them as valid. NDE's are being assessed and are slowly being shown to be a consequence of a fading brain with added personal interpretation, maybe there is more to it, maybe not.

Recovery from medical diagnoses happen, medicine is more an art-form than science. Hence why many people are misdiagnosed. When an amputee spontaneously grows a new limb, then you may get my attention.


Also, about haunted places where you can actually discernably measure the presence of somethig invisible and unexplainable to us all. Such a topic and field is scoffed at by the scientific community because of the prevelance of athieism/agnosticism.

There is some serious research being done in the East where Monks chanting around a glass of water, produce water that has 4 oxygen molecules which has been impossible by scientists to synthesize. Of course science will tell you that it is only a by-product of sound waves and certain frequencies (as it is also now possible to levitate objects using sound waves), however the monks doing the chanting will tell you that it's all about your heart being focused on God when singing these chants. It would be interesting to see if scientists can re-produce the same effect just using sound waves....


I doubt any of it will be shown to be scientifically valid. There are research departments that have been assessing such things, the PEAR institute is one. It's closing now, it failed miserably, spending millions of someones dollars.


Either way, Evolution or not, everything around us works in an intelligent manner regardless of which way we got here. Its simply enough to look at and ponder the vastness and complexity of existence, of which it all points to something intelligent being behind it all.


I don't know. I think I could design a better human...

[edit on 1-12-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
As with Schizophrenics, who's to say that they have a "medical condition" and not that they have access to spiritual and other dimensions? It just so happens that the majority of Schizophrenics all report the same things, which coincidentally is also reported by sages and mystics who have hit "spiritual enlightenment" as a possible by product of the enlightenment is if it is not taken under control.

I don't see how you can sceintifically describe away some-one who is clinically dead (NDE's) that can report, upon returning, model numbers of lights, medical equipment, where different thigns are located in the hospital and the design of the landing pad on the roof. I'm sure this cana also be explained by a certain part of our brain accessing information about remote areas upon clinical death.

That's the problem with science, which I must say is a cool point about it, is that there is no absolute truth in the scientific community. At any time and any date, a new theory can come out that completely dismisses and rejects everything that the scientific community has built up. There is no absolute truth in science. And even though I love science and keep up with it, in the Bibluical ways, you have an absolute truth and anchor that remains no matter what theories or findings come about.

I don't see how you can scientificaly explain how thousands if not millions are experiencing spiritual enlightenment through spiritual excercises and focusing thoughts on God!!!

Again there are too many anomolies and additional theories(quantumm) that oint to the existence of possible spiritual realms and God. Again, since everything around us and us ourselves are all so intelligently and complexly put together, doesn't that make you wonder what intelligence put existence into play?????

Even if aliens got us started, doesn't that still point to an intelligence that created aliens that gave them the technology to make our existence possible? It is simply enough to look around us and realize that we know nothing in the grand scheme of things, and yet there are those with additional faculties. And at the edn of it all, until you give God a try, you just won't know the truth the way many of us do, that Enlightenment is real and upon this Enlightenment, God reveals himself to you.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
As with Schizophrenics, who's to say that they have a "medical condition" and not that they have access to spiritual and other dimensions? It just so happens that the majority of Schizophrenics all report the same things, which coincidentally is also reported by sages and mystics who have hit "spiritual enlightenment" as a possible by product of the enlightenment is if it is not taken under control.


Have you ever met a schizophrenic? They do not report the same things, it is a very heterogenous condition and a disabling one at that, associated with serious social and neurological deficits.


I don't see how you can sceintifically describe away some-one who is clinically dead (NDE's) that can report, upon returning, model numbers of lights, medical equipment, where different thigns are located in the hospital and the design of the landing pad on the roof. I'm sure this cana also be explained by a certain part of our brain accessing information about remote areas upon clinical death.


They are not brain dead. If they were they would not be alive and they would not call it a near-death experience


Brain cells die pretty quick without oxygen. Hypoxia will lead to hippocampal damage and possibility dense amnesia.


That's the problem with science, which I must say is a cool point about it, is that there is no absolute truth in the scientific community. At any time and any date, a new theory can come out that completely dismisses and rejects everything that the scientific community has built up. There is no absolute truth in science. And even though I love science and keep up with it, in the Bibluical ways, you have an absolute truth and anchor that remains no matter what theories or findings come about.


I think many laws in physics can be considered almost absolute. I do wonder why you need to deal in absolutes...life and the universe is a little bit more complicated than black and white.


I don't see how you can scientificaly explain how thousands if not millions are experiencing spiritual enlightenment through spiritual excercises and focusing thoughts on God!!!


The brain produces some strange effects under certain circumstances. Even just laughing can improve mood, making an angry face results in negative emotion. If you focus thoughts on pink elephants they will exist in your mind.

I have similar 'spritual' experiences when I listen to good music. When I see radiohead in concert, I feel a oneness with the crowd and the music. I feel spritiually uplifted. But I don't claim Thom Yorke is god, he's a very creative man though.


Again there are too many anomolies and additional theories(quantumm) that oint to the existence of possible spiritual realms and God. Again, since everything around us and us ourselves are all so intelligently and complexly put together, doesn't that make you wonder what intelligence put existence into play?????


They don't point to spiritual realms, that is just your interpretation of the possibility of multiple dimensions, quantum theory does not point to god.


Even if aliens got us started, doesn't that still point to an intelligence that created aliens that gave them the technology to make our existence possible? It is simply enough to look around us and realize that we know nothing in the grand scheme of things, and yet there are those with additional faculties. And at the edn of it all, until you give God a try, you just won't know the truth the way many of us do, that Enlightenment is real and upon this Enlightenment, God reveals himself to you.


'give god a try'....you sound almost like a drug-pusher

(only joking).

many christians have become atheists, I'll take their word that this enlightenment I seem to miss out on is nothing special.

As for the alien business - No, it need not be. We could get to a point where we can create new life-forms from biotechnological techniques. We could then place basic life-forms on distant planets. It doesn't mean that we had to be produced that way. We could even produce new universes in the lab. It still wouldn't make us your type of personal god. This is the only god I see room for, a sort of deist version that has nada to do with us - even then it would be unlikely and not much of an issue anyway.

[edit on 1-12-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
There are also social and nuerological effects with Spiritual Enlightenment, and yes I have worked in a hospital environment and happen to meet some schizophrenics that were under the control of what-ever prescription at the time. The first few weeks upon reaching Enlightenment I had to quit my job at the time just so I can spend all my time, focus, and energy to get used to and function in this new way of being and all the faculties that come with it. If you get a "spritual feeling" at a Radiohead (I gotta say, Thom Yorke's Eraser album is great) concert by feeling connected to all the people there and uplifted, then I will coincide the enlightenment I speak of, to a total destruction of your being and having to start all over with an overwhelming connectedness with all things everywhere. The bad part is that if you are around negative people, you can just feel the waves of negativity breathing off of them and effecting you. No only that, you become equipped to see things with your eyes that very few people see, like auruas, ether, and spiritual beings(good and bad) along with the spirits of the dead passing by and taking up all of the sapce that we occupy today. There is stuff literally going on in your house and everyone elses' as we speak.

I've been to concerts and felt what you've descrbe. On a scale of "spiritual feeling" I would equate that with a 40-60 out of 100, while the Christian Enlightenment I speak of, completely destroys the scale surpassing 100 and reaching towards infinity.

With NDE's, no matter how you try to explain away, you can't find anything to refute the proof that these people have viewed remote locations from their death beds, while clinically dead. Definately shows that consciousness continues no matter what and can go anywhere and see anything.

"Almost absolute" in physics is still too far from absolute. Life is more complicated than black and white and that's why it tends to point it's finger towards something bigger, smarter, and more powerful than us all. I feel it's innate that we all search for absolutes knowingly or unkowingly. So for athiests, the only absolute seems to be existence and death which just seems like such a bleek way to live. While for others like myself, who has searched and asked God to show himself, I've been trully blessed with a state of enlightenment that lets me know that the morals that are Biblical are already innate in us all. Yet there are moral deformaties from complicated upbringings and cultural influence.

How does quantumm theory not point to spiritual realms and God. According to the definition of your choice to this theory, it is very much possible for such a place, since the rules/laws of other dimensions are subject to change or perhaps one of them could be the chief governing dimension over all overlapping others !!! All I speak of is possible within this theory.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
There are also social and nuerological effects with Spiritual Enlightenment, and yes I have worked in a hospital environment and happen to meet some schizophrenics that were under the control of what-ever prescription at the time. The first few weeks upon reaching Enlightenment I had to quit my job at the time just so I can spend all my time, focus, and energy to get used to and function in this new way of being and all the faculties that come with it. If you get a "spritual feeling" at a Radiohead (I gotta say, Thom Yorke's Eraser album is great) concert by feeling connected to all the people there and uplifted, then I will coincide the enlightenment I speak of, to a total destruction of your being and having to start all over with an overwhelming connectedness with all things everywhere. The bad part is that if you are around negative people, you can just feel the waves of negativity breathing off of them and effecting you. No only that, you become equipped to see things with your eyes that very few people see, like auruas, ether, and spiritual beings(good and bad) along with the spirits of the dead passing by and taking up all of the sapce that we occupy today. There is stuff literally going on in your house and everyone elses' as we speak.

I've been to concerts and felt what you've descrbe. On a scale of "spiritual feeling" I would equate that with a 40-60 out of 100, while the Christian Enlightenment I speak of, completely destroys the scale surpassing 100 and reaching towards infinity.

With NDE's, no matter how you try to explain away, you can't find anything to refute the proof that these people have viewed remote locations from their death beds, while clinically dead. Definately shows that consciousness continues no matter what and can go anywhere and see anything.

"Almost absolute" in physics is still too far from absolute. Life is more complicated than black and white and that's why it tends to point it's finger towards something bigger, smarter, and more powerful than us all. I feel it's innate that we all search for absolutes knowingly or unkowingly. So for athiests, the only absolute seems to be existence and death which just seems like such a bleek way to live. While for others like myself, who has searched and asked God to show himself, I've been trully blessed with a state of enlightenment that lets me know that the morals that are Biblical are already innate in us all. Yet there are moral deformaties from complicated upbringings and cultural influence.

How does quantumm theory not point to spiritual realms and God. According to the definition of your choice to this theory, it is very much possible for such a place, since the rules/laws of other dimensions are subject to change or perhaps one of them could be the chief governing dimension over all overlapping others !!! All I speak of is possible within this theory.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Part 2,

Ah yes, ex-Christian athiests. Call it what you want, but there are many victims of empty denominations, churches too big to handle one-on-one guidance, false teaching, or no genuineness in the seekers heart and because of these and a vast array of other reasons, you have the emptiness of the search, never having found what is promised, which is Enlightenment.

I myself, along with others like me in the minority, have been sharply criticised by theologians and others in the faith for claiming that not all believers have the Enlightenment of the Spirit. These same people are the one's who themselves are not "there" sharing in the enlightenment I speak of because you can see this based on their actions and words in the community. Again not all but most are not "there."

Now what other believers try to refute me on and always fail, I refer to the "Baptism of the Spirit", which is when God blesses you with this overwhelming and over-taking spiritual enlightenment experience. Just saying and believing what the Bible says, does not give you this enlightenment. This experience is mind-bendingly life changing and there is nothing like it. There is nothing that can come close to or anything that can fulfill you in all ways the way this experience does, and once you get a taste of it, you would do anything it takes to get more of it. This is one reason why people leave everything behind to enter monasteries, and I am also currently looking into this.

It's not you that gets into the Enlightenment, but a gift from God. For many people it happens while they are at church, for others while doing house chores and they fall to the ground from the power of it, and still for others it happens at other times. It is a result of seeking out God, belieiving in him, and making God the number one priority in your heart, mind, body, and soul that in due time he hits you with his enlightenment of knowing him.

It is in this enlightenment that prayers get answered seemingly over-night, because in this state you are already content with everything, and only basic needs or spiritual needs come up and are asked for.

I can see why you would see me as "a drug pusher" type, as this enlightenment of God, is like the greatest drug in all of existence. It is pure Love indwelling in your being, one that is invisible, yet can be felt, and sometimes manifestations of it can be seen by others. This Pure Love makes you content and it doesn't matter whether you have a girlfriend/wife or not, because the Love relationship between you and God fulfills you in all ways. It is so Pure that it makes yo automatically Love all people including starngers. Such a thing is not possible to do by yourself because of the "ego."

So why would I not want to push this to everyone in the world. It is with this experience that all wars and famines and other negativitiess would cease. You can introduce me to every single person on the planet and I can tell you which one also has this spiritual enlightenemtn, and they all can tell that I posses this too, and yet it is a gift given, not a state reached by yourself.

So that's what troubles me, is that yourself and others that share your view would go your whole existence without experieincing this awsome beyond words state and oneness with God. I don't know you personally, but I would give away all my belongings and sacrifice myself for you to taste God in the way that I speak of.

It is a real experieince that let's you know first-hand that God exists and makes you bow down to the overwhelming power of Love. God is pure inifinite Love and yet non of our minds can even comprehend that. If you have a wife and parents that you Love dearly, it is not even a fraction of what God feels like.

I enjoy our debates, but if you come away with one thing form what I have said, let it be that I know the truth to be that God is real. I searched for and God showed himself. This search is available to all and very few genuinely do so.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
There are also social and nuerological effects with Spiritual Enlightenment, and yes I have worked in a hospital environment and happen to meet some schizophrenics that were under the control of what-ever prescription at the time. The first few weeks upon reaching Enlightenment I had to quit my job at the time just so I can spend all my time, focus, and energy to get used to and function in this new way of being and all the faculties that come with it. If you get a "spritual feeling" at a Radiohead (I gotta say, Thom Yorke's Eraser album is great) concert by feeling connected to all the people there and uplifted, then I will coincide the enlightenment I speak of, to a total destruction of your being and having to start all over with an overwhelming connectedness with all things everywhere. The bad part is that if you are around negative people, you can just feel the waves of negativity breathing off of them and effecting you. No only that, you become equipped to see things with your eyes that very few people see, like auruas, ether, and spiritual beings(good and bad) along with the spirits of the dead passing by and taking up all of the sapce that we occupy today. There is stuff literally going on in your house and everyone elses' as we speak.


Doesn't sound so full of love really. Sounds similar to what most people feel. Thye may not see 'waves of negativity' but I'm sure they can still feel the negativity of some people. Also, schizophrenia is not just an effect, it is a brain disorder, associated with malfunction in neurological systems.

Yup, Eraser is a good album. He played 'Clocks' on Jools Holland last night in the UK. You can probably watch it on youtube.



With NDE's, no matter how you try to explain away, you can't find anything to refute the proof that these people have viewed remote locations from their death beds, while clinically dead. Definately shows that consciousness continues no matter what and can go anywhere and see anything.


I know there is one doctor who is trying such a thing but from what I know he has found no one who has fulfilled the set requirements for an out-of-body experience during an NDE. Maybe time will show otherwise.


"Almost absolute" in physics is still too far from absolute. Life is more complicated than black and white and that's why it tends to point it's finger towards something bigger, smarter, and more powerful than us all. I feel it's innate that we all search for absolutes knowingly or unkowingly. So for athiests, the only absolute seems to be existence and death which just seems like such a bleek way to live.


Kidding ourselves that consciousness will exist after death, when there is no evidence to suggest it to be so, would just be wishful-thinking. How can a life be bleak when you have the love of family, friends, a good career, aims, good food & music, happiness etc.

I say 'almost absolute' because the laws of physics do not apply under certain circumstances - singularity. Otherwise, we know that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. For all intents and purposes, it is absolute with this universe. However, we accept that it is possible that other circumstances do exist in which this breaks down.



How does quantumm theory not point to spiritual realms and God. According to the definition of your choice to this theory, it is very much possible for such a place, since the rules/laws of other dimensions are subject to change or perhaps one of them could be the chief governing dimension over all overlapping others !!! All I speak of is possible within this theory.


It is possible. All things are possible, some things are just more probable than others


[edit on 2-12-2006 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join