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.

 

Two simple questions for atheists/naturalists

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by followtheevidence
 


Understanding a naturalist viewpoint is very simple; we simply accept that the world is pretty much as it appears to be. There is no higher power casting nets of illusion to prevent us from discerning His feet of clay. We take life as it comes.


Logical enough but even this stance assumes certain axioms that are not proven cases: the external world is real, the universe wasn't created twenty minutes ago with the appearance of age, etc.

Of course, we're still rational to accept your conclusion - but that's not my point. My point is that there are any number of conclusions that we're all rational to accept even if they are not proven cases.


It can, but it would be a great mistake to do so.


This seems to be the scientific consensus on emergence ... /shrug.

I'm not sure how an atom could form absent of organizing forces ... seems rational enough that one presupposes the other. But then again, it's possible I'm wrong.
I guess I don't have a problem accepting that some answers could be simple and self-evident.


They appear to be intrinsic to the physical universe we inhabit.


Just like amino acids seem to be intrinsic to all life on this planet. But there's a reason this is, a cause. I'm theoretically exploring the cause of physical laws.


See previous answer. However, there are only three forces, not four.


I distinguished between the strong and weak nuclear force as they act upon matter differently. But you're right and thanks for the correction.


Why do you think there should be one?


Because the only organizing principle I know of is a mind. Of course, I could be projecting here.


Yes, God squeezes every diamond into a perfect crystal lattice with His omnipotent Fingers.


Not sure why this was necessary?



This thread should be in the Origins & Creationism forum.


Cool, I'll alert the mods




posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
To start with, in response to the first person to reply. Most atheists also consider themselves agnostic. Atheism is not an irrational declaration of absolute knowledge that there are no Gods, but instead not holding any beliefs. Agnostic, is an adjective describing the purely rational stance any Atheist or Theist should have that they could always be wrong. Atheist is a noun for one who doesn't hold belief in any deities.

1.bp.blogspot.com...]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Qd Youfb0UsQ/TAimA3truGI/AAAAAAAAAA4/pcR-muRgp8c/s1600/Agnostic+v+Gnostic+v+Atheist+v+Theist.png

(URL Tags didn't work)


Originally posted by followtheevidence

Where did the laws of physics come from? Where did the four forces of nature come from? Where/what is the organizing principle which gave rise to the laws of nature? I mean, did the laws themselves self-assemble?


Three things. One, to conclude a deity out of this would be an argument out of ignorance. "I don't know the origin of the laws of physics, therefor I know a God did it."

"I don't know, therefor I know."

I'd just stick with an "I don't know." No need to fallaciously act like having an explanation is proof of the explanation.

Two, we have no way of knowing if the Laws are constant. In other words, always there, and not any chance at all. We can't say the laws are well tailored to life(Imagine if we could produce infinite free energy inside us, never starving to death, for example. Or all the Laws that contribute to how dangerous the earth is for us, with the rest of the 99.999999999999999% of the universe being completely uninhabitable.)

There could be many universes with many different sets of laws. We're just in the one where the laws work to have a universe with life.

Third, This is another variation if "Who made the Universe" arguement. If something can be how it is on it's own, we don't need a deity to explain it. If something can't just be how it is without a designer, God can't exist without a prior being making it(and one prior for that one as well.)


Originally posted by followtheevidence


How does unguided, undirected self-assembly account for the uniformity of nature?


You'd have to define uniformity. The laws of physics are constant, and as such, produce patterns. This is especially true in systems where Chaos Theory plays into effect. It's simple emergence. Not only that, but most patterns we see, are only there because we see them. We make sense of things, and as we do, it may appear uniform even if it isn't.

I'd recommend reading up on Chaos Theory and Emergence.

And again, it's an argument out of ignorance. "I don't know how uniformity emerged, therefor I know a God did it." - NO! If we don't know, we don't know.

And, also again, how could a God form from "Unguided and undirected Self-assembly." How can the universe just randomly be perfect enough to generate always having an infinitely complex being. The claim that God resides outside the universe doesn't solve that either, as God's own God-verse would still have to be perfectly built to naturally have a God in it.

~
A Naturalist can look at the information and accept that they don't know every bit, but only what we have. No need to fill in the Gaps with magic. Every Gap we've ever had and filled with magic, got filled with a naturalistic process as we gained more understanding of the universe.
edit on 21-5-2012 by xxsomexpersonxx because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Where did the laws of physics come from? Where did the four forces of nature come from? Where/what is the organizing principle which gave rise to the laws of nature? I mean, did the laws themselves self-assemble?

How does unguided, undirected self-assembly account for the uniformity of nature?



Both questions have the same answer. When something happens, information (a fact cluster of information units) emerges as it is happening (Event A exists) and remains after it has happened (Event A happened) forever. Information is one of two basic forms of physical existence (the event unit is the other form), and unlike the event unit, information persists once it has emerged.

As you can imagine, those information unit clusters (facts) collect after a while, and establish what is known as contextual precedence (or historical fact) and the ramification of this precedence is the determination of what does work and what doesn't work, with the primordial existential imperative (Survival) being served by that which does work being allowed to reoccur, and that which doesn't work NOT being allowed to reoccur. This is done by default management of event trajectories through the symbiotic relationship that the event has with information. Physicists know this, so it's nothing groundbreaking, although physicists are generally tightly focused on specific applications of this general existential tenet, as opposed to studying it as a subject in its own right.

All natural laws (the basics of physics) are formed by default predilections built up over many successes and many failures that were represented by fact clusters of information units as each event trajectory succeeded and failed to achieve Identity survival as integral to the historical context of a larger Identified whole. What works gets established as repeatable (a natural law). What doesn't work isn't established as repeatable. After countless rinses and repeats, the avenues of potential for all event trajectories become extremely defined, and with the survival of event trajectories based on path of least resistance, everything starts channeling appropriately. Just as you'd expect.

Human Intellect is the only form of physical existence (it's an event trajectory/informational continuum hybrid) that doesn't line up alongside of everything else within these channels of assured success, and it has a real problem with accepting that the rest of reality isn't just like it is. So, it invents dramas and mysteries to try and explain how everything has been designed and is controlled by a greater, more powerful version of itself. Maybe because it's not very comfortable with how unique and unlikely it actually is. You'll find this with gifted children too. They honestly have no idea that their little friends aren't anywhere near as brilliant as they are, or that they're brilliant at all. Human Intellect is 100% perception, and perception is 100% subjective. That means that it's always just a little wrong in how it sees things. That's good to remember when you're trying to establish reality anchors.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

To start with, in response to the first person to reply. Most atheists also consider themselves agnostic. Atheism is not an irrational declaration of absolute knowledge that there are no Gods, but instead not holding any beliefs. Agnostic, is an adjective describing the purely rational stance any Atheist or Theist should have that they could always be wrong. Atheist is a noun for one who doesn't hold belief in any deities.

Three things. One, to conclude a deity out of this would be an argument out of ignorance. "I don't know the origin of the laws of physics, therefor I know a God did it."

"I don't know, therefor I know."


Thankfully, I did no such thing. My whole point was merely to show that the belief that an organizing principle, or mind gave rise to natural laws is not irrational. A mind could be responsible or a mind could not be responsible for the universe, for existence itself. There is not evidence of God's impossibility. I've studied Aristotle, I know better than to commit the most obvious and rudimentary of fallacies.


I'd just stick with an "I don't know." No need to fallaciously act like having an explanation is proof of the explanation.


What do you know? What statement can you make that you are absolutely certain of?


Two, we have no way of knowing if the Laws are constant. In other words, always there, and not any chance at all. We can't say the laws are well tailored to life(Imagine if we could produce infinite free energy inside us, never starving to death, for example. Or all the Laws that contribute to how dangerous the earth is for us, with the rest of the 99.999999999999999% of the universe being completely uninhabitable.)


No one said the laws are tailored to life; at most I'd say skewed toward life given the improbability of biotic emergence. But then again, that's just my opinion. In either case, I'd never go so far as to say tailored for life based on observation alone.


Third, This is another variation if "Who made the Universe" arguement. If something can be how it is on it's own, we don't need a deity to explain it. If something can't just be how it is without a designer, God can't exist without a prior being making it(and one prior for that one as well.)


We don't know if the universe is self-contained. If you wish to believe that, fine. It is not a proven case. If God is eternal and infinite then His being demands the absence of time/space. The law of causality exists within the paramaters of time/space. Thus, it is not necessary for God to have had a beginning.


You'd have to define uniformity. The laws of physics are constant, and as such, produce patterns. This is especially true in systems where Chaos Theory plays into effect. It's simple emergence. Not only that, but most patterns we see, are only there because we see them. We make sense of things, and as we do, it may appear uniform even if it isn't.


I did define uniformity according to the standard consensus in a previous post on this thread.


I'd recommend reading up on Chaos Theory and Emergence.

And again, it's an argument out of ignorance. "I don't know how uniformity emerged, therefor I know a God did it." - NO! If we don't know, we don't know.


Again, that was not my argument. I explicitly stated this wasn't a proof for God.


And, also again, how could a God form from "Unguided and undirected Self-assembly." How can the universe just randomly be perfect enough to generate always having an infinitely complex being. The claim that God resides outside the universe doesn't solve that either, as God's own God-verse would still have to be perfectly built to naturally have a God in it.


In this statement you're defining God as a being. If however God is also beingness itself, then your point is moot. If such is the case, God is not constrained by time/space or beginning/end. If this is the case, there is no distinction between God and His "God-verse" because He is both the being (God) and beingness itself (God-verse).

Again, this isn't proof. I'm just speaking theoretically.


A Naturalist can look at the information and accept that they don't know every bit, but only what we have. No need to fill in the Gaps with magic. Every Gap we've ever had and filled with magic, got filled with a naturalistic process as we gained more understanding of the universe.


We'll never have the advantage of the greater narrative - I'm not sure if anyone actually tries to argue otherwise; your point here is redundant.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Every idea—physics, mathematics, religion, organization etc—exists only in the realm of ideas, the only metaphysical plane of existence in the universe. They tell us more about our language and our inner processes than how the universe works.

There is no perfect circle in nature, yet we can imagine a perfect circle in our heads. There is no plurality. One added to one creates two, yet there are no such thing as two exact things in nature. These are fundamental errors in the creation of language, and man wasn't modest enough to think he was only giving names to things and phenomena because he believed he was explaining the universe.

All science, religion, faith etc was born out of these initial errors and assumptions; and thus full of error themselves.

Also: by pigeon-holing oneself into one of these categories such as Atheist, Agnostic or Christian, you must carry the baggage of everyone who's ever walked under and defended the banner of your label. Labels are for people who need to classify others, and a label shouldn't ever be bestowed upon oneself.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by n00bUK
Its unanswerable, we can argue both sides but in the end there's actually no current way of knowing, its all a big guessing game.


I don't believe that one bit, there is obviously an answer that is correct, and an answer that is not.

using the current evidence we have, unequivocally the answer is no.

yes is the answer based in faith, which has no evidence.

the guess lies with the people who have faith...



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by followtheevidence


Thankfully, I did no such thing. My whole point was merely to show that the belief that an organizing principle, or mind gave rise to natural laws is not irrational. A mind could be responsible or a mind could not be responsible for the universe, for existence itself. There is not evidence of God's impossibility. I've studied Aristotle, I know better than to commit the most obvious and rudimentary of fallacies.



Natural Laws don't indicate a creator. They could indeed of been written by a creator, or by many other explanations. Since there's such many ways they could be explained, naturalistic or otherwise, they don't serve as proof of anything.

To believe a Mind was behind, could arguably be called irrational. Without supporting evidence, a belief has no merit, even if it could maybe be possible. If someone were to provide evidences for a creator, then it would be a rational stance.

There is no proof of God's impossibility. It doesn't bother me at all that I can't prove there is no God. I also can't prove we don't live in The Matrix. I can't disprove Russels Teapot, and I can't prove that The Flying Spagetti Monster isn't real.

It's all about burden of proof. I can't prove there wasn't possibly a God did it. I simply don't assume a God did it, or that we live in The Matrix, until there's evidence to support them.



What do you know? What statement can you make that you are absolutely certain of?


The only things I'm certain of, are things that are true by definition. 1 + 1 = 2, because 2 is by definition the sum of 1 and 1. An apple is an apple, because if it's definable as an apple, it's definable as an apple. I can't even say I'm absolutely certain of those either. It may appear logical that they are true, but logic can be wrong. Maybe I'm missing something, I assume I'm not, but I'll never say that I know 100% that I'm not.

I cannot even be sure of my own existence. It would seem something would have the exist to question it's existence, but again, how can I know 100% that logic is true?

Just because there's no certainty in the world, doesn't mean we can't get likely explanations. The most likely explanations(I likely exist, an Apple is likely an Apple, there probably isn't a Magic Sandwich, there probably isn't a God), are never the ones without any supporting evidence.

I'll say again, I am not claiming absolute certainty that everything has a natural explanation. I am not claiming absolute certainty that there is no god. Only that there's no reason to assume otherwise.



We don't know if the universe is self-contained. If you wish to believe that, fine. It is not a proven case. If God is eternal and infinite then His being demands the absence of time/space. The law of causality exists within the paramaters of time/space. Thus, it is not necessary for God to have had a beginning.


If Causality doesn't exist anywhere, then that opens an infinite number of possibilities. If lack of causality can create a God, then lack of causality can create our universe. Every explanation for how a god could exist, also would serve to explain the existence of the universe. In other words, there's no model where God is anything but an extra, unneeded step. An additional unsupported assumption.



Again, that was not my argument. I explicitly stated this wasn't a proof for God.


My standpoint is that it's not rational to assume something without any proof that does as much as indicate it. Yes, it's not a proof for a God, or any other supernatural means. Which means it doesn't pose a threat to a naturalistic perspective.



In this statement you're defining God as a being. If however God is also beingness itself, then your point is moot. If such is the case, God is not constrained by time/space or beginning/end. If this is the case, there is no distinction between God and His "God-verse" because He is both the being (God) and beingness itself (God-verse).

Again, this isn't proof. I'm just speaking theoretically.


Now you're adding definition to the God, in other words, adding more claims that'd need to be substantiated. However, while doing so, you still haven't giving a reason why it's more rational to assume a God could have just happened to exist to make our universe right, instead of our universe just happening to exist.

Theoretically, a God could exist. I'm not disputing that. It's just that there's simply no reason to assume such. That is my standpoint.



We'll never have the advantage of the greater narrative - I'm not sure if anyone actually tries to argue otherwise; your point here is redundant.


Assuming Gods hasn't ever proven accurate, or gotten ourselves anywhere. Instead of assuming, I'd rather follow the evidence and only believe what it supports. How's that redundant?
edit on 21-5-2012 by xxsomexpersonxx because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
P.S. I'm not an atheist. I don't believe in categorization.


Whether you "believe in categorization" or not, you are in a category and always will be. Everyone is.

That's your opinion, not mine.

I have read and/or heard many idiotic comments from people who call themselves Atheists. I'm not going to toss myself into that same group, simply because I don't believe in one particular story. There's all sorts of other crap that I don't believe in either.

For example: I don't believe in the modern version of what many people believe an Atheist is. So regardless of whether or not you think I am, I am not an atheist.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by followtheevidence
 


I wish I could answer as intelligently as you posed the question, but this is all I have:

Did some omnipotent being decide that dust will always gather under a bed, or is it just something that occurs naturally?

If we expand outward, couldn't the same be said for how the matter gathered to create stars, planets, galaxies...
When considering the matter that makes up all of these things, and just like the gathering dust under the bed, couldn't the atoms have come together without any intelligence behind the process? I could go on to photons and quarks and strings, but now I have to go dust under my bed.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


to me ( i enjoy the analogy by the way) this would be viewing the universe in a mechanistic way,an inanimate self propelling equation.,. there are laws for every speck of dust, everything accounted for.. .. but is it that this machine has always been churning in some form or fashion because it cant not operate? where did all the energy of the universe come from and what is its true objective nature?

there are cause and effects and novelty like noreaster speaks of,.,. humans are a small scale version of the energetic mechanistic nature of the universe, potential for life was created with the creation of stars and planets, with the fact that these stars were massive houses of "energy".. the potential turned to actual when "somehow" "biological" devices formed to capture and utilize this energy in simple ways, simple plus simple plus simple times simple is complex,, complex mechanistic devices composed of stored energy, utilizing captured energy,...

there is an inherent freewill with the simplest of organisms,,, the early ones to the large complex creatures of today,,,,, an internal drive to fulfill instinct is the only map, the organism is left to its own to live and reproduce,, or "do whatever".... i believe there is freewill with even the smallest organisms, because in each moment they could have done something different then they had done, make a left wiggle then right then spin then move foward, instead of sit still and then spin..etc..... we can not say the same for the dust under your bed,, we could say there could have been other forces acting on it that could have changed the course of events,,, other external forces may act on an asteroid to change its course but it cannot decide to itself to spin now.....

eventually though it comes down to all external forces dictating what an item will do,,,,, a dolphins fated birth decides that it must spend its life swimming,,,, a man is a slave to the laws of physics, forces stronger then him and equal, energies stronger then him,, and his own body,,



***off topic****
man has no reference to gauge good and evil..... perhaps it is a great accomplishment that simple organisms evolved into the beauty/beast that mankind is... but a man in any time in history might be ashamed of his form and fate,,, wishing to escape himself and this world,,, or as we view what mans progression is, escape previous confines of mans ability,,, to not think about what is holding us back,, to not be satisfied playing in the mud and trees, but move forward without looking back..
edit on 21-5-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by followtheevidence
 


(Your) stance assumes certain axioms that are not proven cases: the external world is real, the universe wasn't created twenty minutes ago with the appearance of age, etc.

Oh, absolutely. All conceptual structures are built on assumptions.


My point is that there are any number of conclusions that we're all rational to accept even if they are not proven cases.

Certainly. However, naturalists tend to prefer making as few assumptions as possible and sticking to the ones that seem, on the whole, most likely to be true. Of course, as you have already shown us, the apparent likelihood of an assumption can vary with a person's viewpoint.


I'm not sure how an atom could form absent of organizing forces.

As Titen-Sxull pointed out earlier, the laws of nature are not like the ones they make in parliaments. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. Space, time, matter and energy have intrinsic properties that cause them to interact in certain predictable ways. We call these the laws of nature, but that name does not give them an existence independent of the physical reality they describe. Insistence on the contrary is the source of many people's difficulties with the concept of emergence.


Astyanax
(The laws of physics) appear to be intrinsic to the physical universe we inhabit.


followtheevidence
Just like amino acids seem to be intrinsic to all life on this planet. But there's a reason this is, a cause. I'm theoretically exploring the cause of physical laws.

I'm afraid the analogy is false. The intrinsic quality of the laws of physics arises from the fact that they merely describe what physical reality is. You cannot give them an existence independent of physical reality. Besides, amino acids are not intrinsic to life, they are essential to it. The two words do not mean quite the same thing.


I distinguished between the strong and weak nuclear force as they act upon matter differently.

The three forces are gravity, the strong force and the electroweak force.


The only organizing principle I know of is a mind.

What about those laws of physics we were talking about? Don't you regard them as organizing principles? And isn't that really the problem? You see organization and you insist on seeing mind, even when mind is clearly absent, as for example in the following:


Astyanax:
God squeezes every diamond into a perfect crystal lattice with His omnipotent Fingers.


followtheevidence
Not sure why this was necessary?

As Jomina understood very readily on Page 1 of the thread, it was my slightly sarcastic way of pointing out that self-assembly is a very simple thing that happens all the time and not some sort of miracle. Diamonds form because carbon atoms have the properties they do. Carbon atoms have the properties they do because they are carbon atoms. And they don't need someone to tell them to be that way. They just are, as jiggerj explains rather elegantly in his or her post.

*


reply to post by jiggerj
 


I wish I could answer as intelligently as you posed the question, but this is all I have: Did some omnipotent being decide that dust will always gather under a bed, or is it just something that occurs naturally?

You are a wicked, deceitful fellow, but I see through your Walter Matthau disguise. In reality you are a hashishin philosopher-commando working for the Old Man of the Mountain.

I'll give you a star if you promise not to kill me.

Oh, what the hell, I'll give you one anyway.


edit on 22/5/12 by Astyanax because: of malapropriata.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

reply to post by jiggerj
 


I wish I could answer as intelligently as you posed the question, but this is all I have: Did some omnipotent being decide that dust will always gather under a bed, or is it just something that occurs naturally?

You are a wicked, deceitful fellow, but I see through your Walter Matthau disguise. In reality you are a hashishin philosopher-commando working for the Old Man of the Mountain.


That's right I am definitely (checking definition) NOT an hashishin. As for the old man of the mountain, I heard my ex was up there when it fell. I TOLD her she was THAT ugly!



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   



Where did the laws of physics come from? Where did the four forces of nature come from? Where/what is the organizing principle which gave rise to the laws of nature? I mean, did the laws themselves self-assemble?


How does unguided, undirected self-assembly account for the uniformity of nature?



we don't know how many times a random occurrence failed; there could have been millions of failed random occurrences and with no success comes no know universe. just because out of the possible infinite random occurrences; one time it produced the universe; that does not mean it could not have failed millions of times before and no guidance was needed .



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by followtheevidence
Where did the laws of physics come from?

Don't know.

How does unguided, undirected self-assembly account for the uniformity of nature?

Don't know.

Now it's your job to prove that "God" did it.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by followtheevidence
Where did the laws of physics come from?

Don't know.

How does unguided, undirected self-assembly account for the uniformity of nature?

Don't know.

Now it's your job to prove that "God" did it.


I made it quite clear this wasn't designed to be a proof for God - as absolute proof of God would actually contradict the claims of my faith.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply though



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by followtheevidence
I made it quite clear this wasn't designed to be a proof for God - as absolute proof of God would actually contradict the claims of my faith.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply though

The implication is there. But that's all right. I say "I don't know." You say "God." Same thing in my book.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by followtheevidence
 

I am an atheist I suppose but I know god exists, my issue with it is not about its existing. But why is god such an asshole, I asked it once. And it told me why. The answers were dam spot on and freaking sensible, the truth is a bitch.



Where did the laws of physics come from? Where did the four forces of nature come from? Where/what is the organizing principle which gave rise to the laws of nature?

I do not think the question matters at all. They all came from inside you minds by a long drawn out process leading back an eternity, the universe, god, and human minds are not really all that separate from each other that's why things that are inward reflect outward and vice versa. Not saying its all one thing, which may be in the long run, but that there is correlation to it all.


I mean, did the laws themselves self-assemble?

That depends on what you mean by laws, and considering the entirety of human knowledge and experience amounts to not even a cup taken from the ocean which we call the universe and existence. Well then what does the milliseconds on the face of eternity know of things in its entirety, and what does that say for all these supposed laws that a group of hairless monkeys made up on a rock free floating in the endlessness of a ocean of stars and galaxies. I mean what do we really know about anything.

A better question would be is why do you all assume that from these laws are so concrete as that when in reality there just things seen from a narrow perspective in what amounts to the blink of an eye on a universal scale of life.

When put that way what do your questions matter op? It is ultimately an exercise in futility, but it is a necessary thing in life as life strives for order out of all the chaos it sees. And if you see a perfect order in everything you look at...Then you just have not looked very deep or far at things.

God is a concept that humans have made, and is in a constant change like everything else in this existence just like the universe and its laws we so mysteriously find or make up every once are always seeming to be oh so minutely changing.

On a side note a interesting profile name you have there op, followtheevidence. You know most people follow the clues which eventually when put together leads them to the evidence. But were do you get at when you follow the evidence? And what constitutes it all as evidence? It could all just be another viewpoint into things, and therefore just another clue or piece of the puzzle. A narrow view.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 


"The answers were dam spot on and freaking sensible, the truth is a bitch. "

do tell



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



do tell

Its against my religion to tell. Or at least tell it all, but it all can be summed up in a two words.....Why not?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by followtheevidence
 


I am an Idontknowist. Whenever I am faced with something I don't know the answer to I say: "I don't know", shrug it of my back and go watch a movie or two.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join