Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does it make sense?

Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 6:45:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I was thinking about the similarities between science theories and religious beliefs regarding the beginning and end of the world and Life on Earth and things which have no absolute proof when it comes to any so called "beginning" in our past history.

Beliefs about these things need to be taken by faith regardless of whether your faith is in religious doctrines or science theories.

Both claim once upon a time where was no Earth and they both have different stories about how the Earth was formed.
Both claim there will come a time when the Earth will be destroyed by fire and both have different stories about how that will ultimately happen.
They argue that one is right and the other is wrong. Obviously the one which is right to each individual personally is the doctrine or theory each individual personally believes.

Very FEW ever ask if BOTH concepts might be totally wrong.

It seems the religious doctrinal beliefs have infiltrated science theories and the scientists simply changed the stories a bit to make them sound scientific instead of religious.

Would it make sense that scientists subconsciously project their religious beliefs into their secular work and that would affect all the non religious scientists as well?

The human subconscious does seem to have an affect on our conscious thoughts and actions, does it not?

There is clear evidence of the Earths existence today. There was evidence of it yesterday and there will still be evidence of it tomorrow.
Since we know for a FACT that our Earth exists and LIFE exists on it, where does the whole idea come from that this planet and every other planet in the universe once did not exist at all and LIFE in general also once did not exist?

Does the whole concept not come from ancestral superstition and myths and religious doctrines?

Lack of evidence of existence in the field of science seems to equate to lack of existence.

However that makes no sense to me at all. Lack of evidence of existence does not equate to lack of existence in my mind. For example, a person might be born and die a few days later in some unknown abandoned location and no one but the mother would be aware of the childs existence. If the mother also died and some animal ate all evidence that both existed, did they exist or not? Lack of evidence of existence would only mean there is lack of evidence. It would not mean they both once lacked existence even if they no longer exist today.

The same principle can be applied to any LIFE at all. Just because there is lack of DIRECT EVIDENCE of past existence of Life does not mean past life did not exist.
LIFE which exists today is indirect evidence of the existence of past life due to the FACT that LIFE comes from LIFE.

It makes no sense that Life came from anything other than Life itself.
Nature itself teaches us the FACT that it takes LIFE to create LIFE and it does it through the process of reproduction.

There is no logical reason to believe that FACT has not always been the case.

It makes sense that LIFE comes from LIFE and always has and always will. It is provable and perfectly observable. It always was provable and observable and always will be.
It makes NO SENSE at all to claim "Once upon a time LIFE in general did not exist".

If you have a logical reason to believe it has not always been the case that LIFE reproduces LIFE, please explain it to me so it makes some kind of sense and you do not need to believe in some magical, mysterious or supernatural event or ancient scientific theory which began the whole scenario in the imaginations of the people who refuse to believe life in general has always existed.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 12:32:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
But you have stated in other posts, that humans can only come from humans. That humans have always existed from all eternity and will continue to exist into all eternity.

You refuse to accept that humans have evolved from proto-humans, which evolved from animal ancestors.

You seem to deny that all that is in existence is in the constant state change, nothing that existed yesterday is the same as it is today, and nothing that exists today will be the same as it will be tomorrow.

We have fossil evidence to prove that there are life forms that existed millions of years ago, that do not exist today, and evidence to prove that the earth was once inhabitable to all physical life-forms. And evidence that the life-forms that do now exist on this earth were created from the elements of this earth.

But still, there are poor disillusioned, ignorant children like yourself, who are blind to the truths that surround them, children who wish to remain blind and to wallow in their sweet ignorance. So I will leave you to quickly return to your little dark dungeon of ignorance, from which you have crawled out into the light of truth, which is too much for you to bear.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 1:39:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 12:32:34 AM, Gentorev wrote:
But you have stated in other posts, that humans can only come from humans. That humans have always existed from all eternity and will continue to exist into all eternity.

Correct. Do you have a problem with the process of human reproduction being eternal?

You refuse to accept that humans have evolved from proto-humans, which evolved from animal ancestors.

Correct. Evolution of humans from something nonhuman makes no sense at all due to evolution being impossible without reproduction and animals have different reproduction cycles to humans. Each reproduction cycle reproduces another after its own kind in the next generation. The process of reproduction does not change or evolve.

You seem to deny that all that is in existence is in the constant state change, nothing that existed yesterday is the same as it is today, and nothing that exists today will be the same as it will be tomorrow.

No, I do not deny the constant state of change at all. I understand there is change and growth in every generation. All things change and grow from immaturity to maturity and the cycle of change repeats itself in every generation.
That does not prove that anything evolved from non human to humans though. That whole idea is a science fiction and fantasy. It is totally ridiculous. It is laughable.

We have fossil evidence to prove that there are life forms that existed millions of years ago, that do not exist today, and evidence to prove that the earth was once inhabitable to all physical life-forms. And evidence that the life-forms that do now exist on this earth were created from the elements of this earth.

Fossil evidence is evidence of fossils and not evidence of anything else. It is not evidence of evolution no matter how many fairy tales you wish to invent about the so called evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is much like a child claiming the presents under a Xmas tree are evidence of Santas existence.
Elements are evidence of elements. They are not evidence that Life was created from the Earth. The fact is that the Life which dies forms the dust of the Earth. It would be more reasonable and logical to say that the Earth was formed by Life since the dust is the end result of decayed living matter. It seems you have it all backwards. Life forms the Earth. The Earth does not form Life. Life forms Life.

But still, there are poor disillusioned, ignorant children like yourself, who are blind to the truths that surround them, children who wish to remain blind and to wallow in their sweet ignorance. So I will leave you to quickly return to your little dark dungeon of ignorance, from which you have crawled out into the light of truth, which is too much for you to bear.

I see you are talking about yourself again. You seem to like to project your own faults onto me and do not realize you are simply the pot calling the kettle black.
I know it is hard for you to face the TRUTH that both science and religion have deceived you all your life with their false doctrines and science fiction.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 4:29:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 1:39:56 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 3/12/2015 12:32:34 AM, Gentorev wrote:
But you have stated in other posts, that humans can only come from humans. That humans have always existed from all eternity and will continue to exist into all eternity.

Correct. Do you have a problem with the process of human reproduction being eternal?

You refuse to accept that humans have evolved from proto-humans, which evolved from animal ancestors.

Correct. Evolution of humans from something nonhuman makes no sense at all due to evolution being impossible without reproduction and animals have different reproduction cycles to humans. Each reproduction cycle reproduces another after its own kind in the next generation. The process of reproduction does not change or evolve.

You seem to deny that all that is in existence is in the constant state change, nothing that existed yesterday is the same as it is today, and nothing that exists today will be the same as it will be tomorrow.

No, I do not deny the constant state of change at all. I understand there is change and growth in every generation. All things change and grow from immaturity to maturity and the cycle of change repeats itself in every generation.
That does not prove that anything evolved from non human to humans though. That whole idea is a science fiction and fantasy. It is totally ridiculous. It is laughable.

We have fossil evidence to prove that there are life forms that existed millions of years ago, that do not exist today, and evidence to prove that the earth was once inhabitable to all physical life-forms. And evidence that the life-forms that do now exist on this earth were created from the elements of this earth.

Fossil evidence is evidence of fossils and not evidence of anything else. It is not evidence of evolution no matter how many fairy tales you wish to invent about the so called evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is much like a child claiming the presents under a Xmas tree are evidence of Santas existence.
Elements are evidence of elements. They are not evidence that Life was created from the Earth. The fact is that the Life which dies forms the dust of the Earth. It would be more reasonable and logical to say that the Earth was formed by Life since the dust is the end result of decayed living matter. It seems you have it all backwards. Life forms the Earth. The Earth does not form Life. Life forms Life.

But still, there are poor disillusioned, ignorant children like yourself, who are blind to the truths that surround them, children who wish to remain blind and to wallow in their sweet ignorance. So I will leave you to quickly return to your little dark dungeon of ignorance, from which you have crawled out into the light of truth, which is too much for you to bear.

I see you are talking about yourself again. You seem to like to project your own faults onto me and do not realize you are simply the pot calling the kettle black.
I know it is hard for you to face the TRUTH that both science and religion have deceived you all your life with their false doctrines and science fiction.

Thank you girly. I have no need to reveal to others on this forum how childish and ignorant you are, you do such a good job of achieving that yourself.

You poor soul, of all people on this forum, which includes MCB and BOG, you are the one to be most pitied. Anyone who believes that the greatest scientific minds on this planet, are inferior to themselves, is definitely suffering from a severe case of Schizophrenia.

Be sure to take your medication in future before responding in this forum.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 4:39:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 4:29:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:

Thank you girly. I have no need to reveal to others on this forum how childish and ignorant you are, you do such a good job of achieving that yourself.

You poor soul, of all people on this forum, which includes MCB and BOG, you are the one to be most pitied. Anyone who believes that the greatest scientific minds on this planet, are inferior to themselves, is definitely suffering from a severe case of Schizophrenia.

Be sure to take your medication in future before responding in this forum.

I have no need to rely on anyone elses mind. I am perfectly capable of thinking and reasoning for myself. Unlike most who prefer to have other people do all their thinking for them and tell them what to believe.

As for suffering from any illness, I am perfectly healthy and sane. I have no need of medication of any kind.
How about you? What medications are you on?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 4:48:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 6:45:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I was thinking about the similarities between science theories and religious beliefs regarding the beginning and end of the world and Life on Earth and things which have no absolute proof when it comes to any so called "beginning" in our past history.
Beliefs about these things need to be taken by faith regardless of whether your faith is in religious doctrines or science theories.

Sky, is this an excluded middle argument?

What do you consider 'absolute proof'? What would you consider 'sufficient evidence'?

For example, do you have absolute proof of who your parents are, or only sufficient evidence?

What makes it sufficient?

Would your standard of evidence change if your leg were diagnosed with a malignant tumour you couldn't see, and the doctor wanted to amputate?

Scientific explanations are the best that can accommodate evidence diligently gathered -- and they change constantly as the evidence grows. But for the most part you don't ever have to make a life decision on them, and you are always invited to judge the evidence for yourself and make up your own mind.

Religious stories however, are explanations looking for evidence, and we don't just commit a leg to them. We commit our time, money, our political votes, our marriages and relationships, our life-choices, our whole lives and the minds of our children -- and not because of evidence, nor even faith in scripture, but because of our faith in the people who told us the scripture was true, and taught us how to interpret it.

And the explanations don't change to accommodate the evidence; they only ever change to attract more faith.

So let me ask you: given the standard of evidence you require before you'd consent to the amputation of a leg, what standard of evidence should be seen as required for the truth of a religious story?

I hope that might shed some light.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 5:35:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 4:48:43 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/11/2015 6:45:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I was thinking about the similarities between science theories and religious beliefs regarding the beginning and end of the world and Life on Earth and things which have no absolute proof when it comes to any so called "beginning" in our past history.
Beliefs about these things need to be taken by faith regardless of whether your faith is in religious doctrines or science theories.

Sky, is this an excluded middle argument?

Not in my opinion but you are free to judge it as you will.

What do you consider 'absolute proof'? What would you consider 'sufficient evidence'?

Reality is sufficient evidence of reality.
Fiction is sufficient evidence of fiction.
All things are sufficient evidence of themselves.
Life is proof of Life. Absence of evidence of life in the past does not equal absence of life. Plenty of people and other life forms have lived and died in the past with no current evidence of their personal existence. The Earth has ways of recycling and hiding evidence.

For example, do you have absolute proof of who your parents are, or only sufficient evidence?
I have my mothers word that she is my mother.

What makes it sufficient?
I have known her all my life so I have no reason to doubt she is my mother. Even if she was only a step mother or a person who had adopted me, I have absolutely no doubt at all that I came from the womb of a female human. All people were born from a mother in reality. Therefore any stories about humans being magically created from dirt are myths. The same goes for any stories about humans evolving from pond scum over billions of years. That is a fantasy.

Would your standard of evidence change if your leg were diagnosed with a malignant tumour you couldn't see, and the doctor wanted to amputate?
What has amputation of a limb got to do with the FACT that humans are born of humans?
Do you doubt humans come from humans?
Is the evidence of reproduction insufficient for you?

Scientific explanations are the best that can accommodate evidence diligently gathered -- and they change constantly as the evidence grows. But for the most part you don't ever have to make a life decision on them, and you are always invited to judge the evidence for yourself and make up your own mind.

The only logical scientific explanation for human life is the human reproduction cycle in reality. There is plenty of scientific evidence regarding how we are formed from a single cell in the womb of a female. People can even watch a baby being formed on video these days. Every stage can be seen and observed from the single cell division to the fetus to the unborn child to the birth and growth to an adult. It does not take billions of years for a single cell to "evolve" into a human. It happens relatively fast... approx 9 months in the correct environment of the human womb.
To believe it took billions of years in some different environment to which we live in today is pure nonsense. It is nothing but speculation from people who want to believe once upon a time life did not exist at all.

Religious stories however, are explanations looking for evidence, and we don't just commit a leg to them. We commit our time, money, our political votes, our marriages and relationships, our life-choices, our whole lives and the minds of our children -- and not because of evidence, nor even faith in scripture, but because of our faith in the people who told us the scripture was true, and taught us how to interpret it.

It just goes to show how gullible most people really are and that very few think for themselves. Most are told what to think and believe and they simply take it for granted that what they are taught is true. Very few question their own beliefs and teachings.

And the explanations don't change to accommodate the evidence; they only ever change to attract more faith.

Humans attempt to explain what they believe to be true and some need evidence to support their claims so they use whatever appears to be evidence regardless of whether it is valid or not. All they need is for their so called evidence to APPEAR to support their story.
Many lies are told in this world by the con artists who make a profit from their lies. Many of them are religious and many are scientific. To trust all people without question is sheer stupidity simply because liars and con artists exist and they take advantage of people who trust them.

So let me ask you: given the standard of evidence you require before you'd consent to the amputation of a leg, what standard of evidence should be seen as required for the truth of a religious story?

The standard of evidence should be tangible, physical, observable and real. Not some speculation, theory, doctrine or story.
The evidence I would require before I agreed to have a leg amputated would be that my leg was unusable to me and causing me a LOT of pain which could not be relieved with medication.
There is absolutely no evidence that any man was ever created from literal dirt. That is a fable which you need to believe by faith or reject because it makes no logical sense. If you believe it you might as well believe a stork brings babies or they are found in a cabbage patch.

There is plenty of evidence that LIFE comes from LIFE.
There is absolutely no evidence that LIFE comes from non life.

I hope that might shed some light.

I already live in the light.
If you let Mother Nature teach you a few things, she might shed some light on a few things for you. Just watch the way she creates LIFE from LIFE naturally. If humans did not exist at all she would still create LIFE from LIFE after its own kind.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 6:07:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 5:35:34 AM, Skyangel wrote:
For example, do you have absolute proof of who your parents are, or only sufficient evidence?
I have my mothers word that she is my mother.
What makes it sufficient?
I have known her all my life

So you trust people you know and believe what they tell you, because you feel that since they don't wish to do you harm, they wouldn't lie.

You're probably right about that.

And you trust what you personally have seen, and what people you personally know have seen, and for you, that's enough.

But I think you're not a person who'd look at two chemicals changing colour and see anything more than the colour changing. It wouldn't bother you why the colour was changing, or how much chemical it took to change the colour, or what happened if you replaced one chemical with something like it -- unless you had some purpose for the colour to change in the first place. So you'll never care that there's a theory about why it changes colour, and that the theory can predict how much you'll need down to a fraction of an ounce.

I think you want your world to act like the things you trust most: kindness, and in-the-moment, tangible practicality.

And perhaps that's why to you, stories about the far past all seem the same. They don't contain people you know, or anything you've seen, so it's nothing to care about and you may as well make it all the same story: science and religion are therefore the same.

That seems a very kind, practical way to live in the now, Skye.

But it also means that whenever someone asks you a question about something you haven't seen, you may answer with something you have seen, so you won't really be answering their question.

But I bet you're a great and loyal friend, and first rate in an emergency. I bet you never miss anything on what's what in your own world. So your competence in your daily life might make you a bit overconfident about things you've never seen.

Thank you for your answers, Sky. :) You asked if your ideas were reasonable, and I'm not going to try to change your mind. I think for the immediate, tangible, practical things you care about, what you're saying makes sense.

But I'd like to ask that if ever anyone asks you for advice about stuff you haven't seen, you don't just tell them what you've seen.

Instead, please direct them to someone careful and cautious and honest, with a burning curiosity about why. Such people spend their lives exploring questions you don't really care about, and can produce amazing inventions from what they learn. And some are nice and kind too, and the good ones won't lie and say they know when they don't. :D
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 4:04:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 6:07:49 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/13/2015 5:35:34 AM, Skyangel wrote:
For example, do you have absolute proof of who your parents are, or only sufficient evidence?
I have my mothers word that she is my mother.
What makes it sufficient?
I have known her all my life

So you trust people you know and believe what they tell you, because you feel that since they don't wish to do you harm, they wouldn't lie.

No, I do not trust everyone I know. I know some people tell lies for various reasons. I trust my mother about the fact that she claims to be my mother. I believe that because I have no reason to disbelieve it.

You're probably right about that.

I am right that most people tell lies or have told lies for various reasons even if they do not call them lies.
Some people tell lies or attempt to hide the truth or whitewash it because they do not want hurt others with the truth which can be painful. Adults teach children to tell the truth except when the truth hurts and offends people. Then they are taught to be politically correct, hypocritical and superficial and tell people what they want to hear rather than the truth of what is really on their minds.

And you trust what you personally have seen, and what people you personally know have seen, and for you, that's enough.

No, it's not enough to simply trust what you see and hear. It is smarter and wiser to question all things and understand WHY you believe whatever you do and WHY you do not believe whatever you do not believe.
Our eyes and ears can deceive us. Illusionists and con artists take advantage of that FACT and use it to make a profit from gullible people.

But I think you're not a person who'd look at two chemicals changing colour and see anything more than the colour changing. It wouldn't bother you why the colour was changing, or how much chemical it took to change the colour, or what happened if you replaced one chemical with something like it -- unless you had some purpose for the colour to change in the first place. So you'll never care that there's a theory about why it changes colour, and that the theory can predict how much you'll need down to a fraction of an ounce.

I understand chemical reactions and how to make different colors. There is nothing magical about it in my mind due to me understanding how it works. I understand many science theories and experiments are very helpful. I have nothing against science in reality. I am opposed to science fiction which gets taught as some kind of possible fact which MIGHT have happened because circumstantial evidence shows it could be a possibility.
I also have nothing against religion in general when religion is defined as a way of life. I am opposed to religious fiction which is taught as some kind of truth when it is nothing but false doctrines. Many religions call their false doctrines Truth when they are speculation in reality. In the same way, many aspects of science are science fiction which gets taught as some kind of Truth and Fact when it is nothing but speculation.
There is the practical aspect of science and religion which has a lot of value and then there is the speculative aspect of both. Just because I oppose the speculative, theoretical aspects does not mean I am opposing the whole lot.
All things have aspects which are practical and valuable as well as aspects which are useless, imaginary and good for nothing but entertainment purposes which can also be used to deceive gullible people.
Science and religion both have good and bad sides. Not all people in either profession can be fully trusted.

I think you want your world to act like the things you trust most: kindness, and in-the-moment, tangible practicality.

Why do you think that? Is that what you want your world to be like so you think everyone else wants the same as you do?
I understand the world is made up of opposites and the opposites balance each other out. That's how things work and they seem to work perfectly well as far as Mother Nature is concerned.

And perhaps that's why to you, stories about the far past all seem the same. They don't contain people you know, or anything you've seen, so it's nothing to care about and you may as well make it all the same story: science and religion are therefore the same.

The stories about "Once upon a time there was NO LIFE" are the same stories with various flavors depending non whether you wish to give it a scientific flavor or a religious flavor. People tend to lean toward the flavor of their personal taste and like to believe that flavor is better than the other one which is not to their taste.
They have a choice between 'Once upon a time there was NO LIFE" .. ie The story with a religious flavor
VS " Once upon a time there was NO LIFE"..ie The story with a scientific flavor.

What other choices are there?
Here is one... LIFE has always existed. There NEVER was a time when LIFE did not exist.
You want evidence? Use the Maths and Logic in your mind. Life comes from LIFE. There is plenty of evidence of THAT all around you.
Which came first? Current LIFE or Past LIFE? That equation applies to ALL past LIFE.
Which came Next ? Current Life or Tomorrows LIFE? Where will Tomorrows Life come from? Will it magically appear from any non life or does TODAYS LIFE create it?

That seems a very kind, practical way to live in the now, Skye.

But it also means that whenever someone asks you a question about something you haven't seen, you may answer with something you have seen, so you won't really be answering their question.

The best way to answer any question is with TRUTH even if the TRUTH is painful and hard to hear.
Many ask questions and do not want to hear the TRUTH anyway. They call it a lie when you tell it to them because it is not what they want as an answer to their question.

But I bet you're a great and loyal friend, and first rate in an emergency. I bet you never miss anything on what's what in your own world. So your competence in your daily life might make you a bit overconfident about things you've never seen.

I am a very loyal friend to those who know me. They all know I am there for them 24 hours of any day and they can call me up in the middle of the night if they need me and I will be there for them.
I have plenty of confidence but I am never over confident since confidence in reality is not something you can ever have too much of. People can have too much confidence in fiction and that can cause trouble and lead them astray but those who really want to know and understand the TRUTH will soon find their way out of their fictions and deceptions and face them for what they are and no longer be led astray by them. Those who love their fictions MORE than Truth will remain in their fictions due to it being more to their taste.

Thank you for your answers, Sky. :) You asked if your ideas were reasonable, and I'm not going to try to change your mind. I think for the immediate, tangible, practical things you care about, what you're saying makes sense.

But I'd like to ask that if ever anyone asks you for advice about stuff you haven't seen, you don't just tell them what you've seen.

Why would anyone ask for advice about things I have never seen or experienced? Would you ask someone for advice about something if you knew they had no knowledge about what you wanted to find out about?

Instead, please direct them to someone careful and cautious and honest, with a burning curiosity about why. Such people spend their lives exploring questions you don't really care about, and can produce amazing inventions from what they learn. And some are nice and kind too, and the good ones won't lie and say they know when they don't. :D

If anyone asks me where LIFE came from, I tell them honestly that I believe Life came from Life. I believe it because I see it happening all around me. Th
Gentorev
Posts: 2,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 4:46:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Actually, all plant life is simply dirt, water, sunlight etc, which has been converted to grass, grain and fruit etc, by the creative forces within the seeds of those plants, which converted dirt, in the form of plants, is eaten by animals whose bodies were created from that converted dirt.

When that dirt, in the converted form of vegetation and meat is consumed by a pregnant woman, those universal elements are used by the creative forces within the female egg and the male sperm and formed into a child, who will grow in size by eating the dirt that has been converted into vegetation and meat products.

It may have taken God/evolution, 6 periods of universal activity, each creative DAY being billions and billions of our years in duration, to create the first human being, which body of humans is currently, (According to our concept of one directional linear time) the Most High in the creation (The one who stands on the top rung of the ladder of evolution) who is Lord of creatures and the prototype of the "Lord of Spirits," who is "The Son of Man,"(the species that evolves from mankind) but from that day on it would take only 9 months to create another human being.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 5:29:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 6:45:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I was thinking about the similarities between science theories and religious beliefs regarding the beginning and end of the world and Life on Earth and things which have no absolute proof when it comes to any so called "beginning" in our past history.

Beliefs about these things need to be taken by faith regardless of whether your faith is in religious doctrines or science theories.

Both claim once upon a time where was no Earth and they both have different stories about how the Earth was formed.
Both claim there will come a time when the Earth will be destroyed by fire and both have different stories about how that will ultimately happen.
They argue that one is right and the other is wrong. Obviously the one which is right to each individual personally is the doctrine or theory each individual personally believes.

Very FEW ever ask if BOTH concepts might be totally wrong.

It seems the religious doctrinal beliefs have infiltrated science theories and the scientists simply changed the stories a bit to make them sound scientific instead of religious.

Would it make sense that scientists subconsciously project their religious beliefs into their secular work and that would affect all the non religious scientists as well?

The human subconscious does seem to have an affect on our conscious thoughts and actions, does it not?

There is clear evidence of the Earths existence today. There was evidence of it yesterday and there will still be evidence of it tomorrow.
Since we know for a FACT that our Earth exists and LIFE exists on it, where does the whole idea come from that this planet and every other planet in the universe once did not exist at all and LIFE in general also once did not exist?

Does the whole concept not come from ancestral superstition and myths and religious doctrines?

Lack of evidence of existence in the field of science seems to equate to lack of existence.

However that makes no sense to me at all. Lack of evidence of existence does not equate to lack of existence in my mind. For example, a person might be born and die a few days later in some unknown abandoned location and no one but the mother would be aware of the childs existence. If the mother also died and some animal ate all evidence that both existed, did they exist or not? Lack of evidence of existence would only mean there is lack of evidence. It would not mean they both once lacked existence even if they no longer exist today.

The same principle can be applied to any LIFE at all. Just because there is lack of DIRECT EVIDENCE of past existence of Life does not mean past life did not exist.
LIFE which exists today is indirect evidence of the existence of past life due to the FACT that LIFE comes from LIFE.

It makes no sense that Life came from anything other than Life itself.
Nature itself teaches us the FACT that it takes LIFE to create LIFE and it does it through the process of reproduction.

There is no logical reason to believe that FACT has not always been the case.

It makes sense that LIFE comes from LIFE and always has and always will. It is provable and perfectly observable. It always was provable and observable and always will be.
It makes NO SENSE at all to claim "Once upon a time LIFE in general did not exist".

If you have a logical reason to believe it has not always been the case that LIFE reproduces LIFE, please explain it to me so it makes some kind of sense and you do not need to believe in some magical, mysterious or supernatural event or ancient scientific theory which began the whole scenario in the imaginations of the people who refuse to believe life in general has always existed.

Only our Creator can explain how we all got into this dream of His. You certainly can't.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 12:03:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 4:46:43 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Actually, all plant life is simply dirt, water, sunlight etc, which has been converted to grass, grain and fruit etc, by the creative forces within the seeds of those plants, which converted dirt, in the form of plants, is eaten by animals whose bodies were created from that converted dirt.

When that dirt, in the converted form of vegetation and meat is consumed by a pregnant woman, those universal elements are used by the creative forces within the female egg and the male sperm and formed into a child, who will grow in size by eating the dirt that has been converted into vegetation and meat products.

It may have taken God/evolution, 6 periods of universal activity, each creative DAY being billions and billions of our years in duration, to create the first human being, which body of humans is currently, (According to our concept of one directional linear time) the Most High in the creation (The one who stands on the top rung of the ladder of evolution) who is Lord of creatures and the prototype of the "Lord of Spirits," who is "The Son of Man,"(the species that evolves from mankind) but from that day on it would take only 9 months to create another human being.

I am trying to understand what you have written so please clarify by answering my questions...

Are you saying your God is the process of evolution or are you saying your God is an invisible supernatural person who created life through the process of evolution which he also created?

Are you saying that all humans who have ever lived and are currently alive make up the body of what you are calling the "first human"?
Are you saying the "first human" is a corporate body rather than an individual man?

When you call the "first human" the Most High in the creation, are you saying humans are God or just saying humans are the highest form of intelligent life which is currently known by humans?

What I basically gather is that you believe humans have not always existed as a corporate body but were tediously formed through the process of evolution rather than through the process of reproduction of the humans before them. Then somehow the process of human evolution was replaced by the process of human reproduction where humans no longer evolve over billions of years from some non human ancestors but are rather quickly reproduced by their own kind ?

Why would your God need to use billions of years of evolution to create a "first human" when Mother Nature only takes nine months to create the current humans? Is Mother Nature more efficient than your God?

As for your concept of one directional linear time. That is where the human mind makes all its mistakes.
Time is nothing but an illusion created by the movement and changes in the process of GROWTH and RECYCLING of nature which is LIFE itself. LIFE creates its own illusions. Time is just one of the illusions which leads linear thinking people astray. You need to learn to think outside the box of linear time if you want to learn anything new in your old age. If not, don't bother even trying. Most elderly people are stuck in some rut anyway which they do not wish to climb out of.

There is no concept of time in eternity due to it being infinite. Eternity has no beginning and end but rather IT IS the beginning and end of all things which is always with us in the sense that LIFE is always ending LIFE as well as always beginning LIFE. Life and death are simply two sides of the same coin of LIFE which is constantly recycling itself. It sometimes leaves evidence of past existence and sometimes does not. However, eventually all past evidence vanished into dust. Nothing physical lasts forever, not even physical evidence of our past. The Earth recycles itself constantly and it does not take long at all compared to eternity. It all happens in the blink of an eye faster than anyone can measure with any human measuring devices.

For believers in God who are reading this.....Do you believe LIFE is eternal or not? If you do how can it have a beginning?
The word Eternal implies it has no beginning or end.
Eternity does not begin at some finite point in time. Eternity is part of INFINITY.

For scientifically minded atheists who are reading this... Do you believe ENERGY can be created or destroyed? Do you think once upon a time ENERGY did not exist? If it did not always exist, it must have been created and can therefore be created again. However, it takes energy to create something in the first place so how could energy have been created without energy?

My point is that either ALL ENERGY has always existed and is ALL eternal and simply changes form from being invisible to being visible to being invisible again. The CYCLE is either eternal and infinite or it is not.

In my mind it makes more sense that something which cannot be created or destroyed must logically be eternal and must have always been eternal and will continue to be eternal in spite of the process of recycling from human visibility into human invisibility. Our eyes play tricks on us. That is why we need to use our minds as well as all the rest of our senses if we want to make sense of what we see and hear and feel. etc.

It is also important to learn to see things from more than just a linear finite perspective.
Life contains a finite aspect as well as an infinite aspect. When you understand both, then you understand the WHOLE TRUTH. As long as people are one sided and think only along a one directional linear time line, they see only partial truths.

Set your mind free from the bondage of that finite line. It has you tied up in knots chasing fantasies, illusions, dreams, false doctrines and science fictions.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 12:43:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 5:29:32 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/11/2015 6:45:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I was thinking about the similarities between science theories and religious beliefs regarding the beginning and end of the world and Life on Earth and things which have no absolute proof when it comes to any so called "beginning" in our past history.

Beliefs about these things need to be taken by faith regardless of whether your faith is in religious doctrines or science theories.

Both claim once upon a time where was no Earth and they both have different stories about how the Earth was formed.
Both claim there will come a time when the Earth will be destroyed by fire and both have different stories about how that will ultimately happen.
They argue that one is right and the other is wrong. Obviously the one which is right to each individual personally is the doctrine or theory each individual personally believes.

Very FEW ever ask if BOTH concepts might be totally wrong.

It seems the religious doctrinal beliefs have infiltrated science theories and the scientists simply changed the stories a bit to make them sound scientific instead of religious.

Would it make sense that scientists subconsciously project their religious beliefs into their secular work and that would affect all the non religious scientists as well?

The human subconscious does seem to have an affect on our conscious thoughts and actions, does it not?

There is clear evidence of the Earths existence today. There was evidence of it yesterday and there will still be evidence of it tomorrow.
Since we know for a FACT that our Earth exists and LIFE exists on it, where does the whole idea come from that this planet and every other planet in the universe once did not exist at all and LIFE in general also once did not exist?

Does the whole concept not come from ancestral superstition and myths and religious doctrines?

Lack of evidence of existence in the field of science seems to equate to lack of existence.

However that makes no sense to me at all. Lack of evidence of existence does not equate to lack of existence in my mind. For example, a person might be born and die a few days later in some unknown abandoned location and no one but the mother would be aware of the childs existence. If the mother also died and some animal ate all evidence that both existed, did they exist or not? Lack of evidence of existence would only mean there is lack of evidence. It would not mean they both once lacked existence even if they no longer exist today.

The same principle can be applied to any LIFE at all. Just because there is lack of DIRECT EVIDENCE of past existence of Life does not mean past life did not exist.
LIFE which exists today is indirect evidence of the existence of past life due to the FACT that LIFE comes from LIFE.

It makes no sense that Life came from anything other than Life itself.
Nature itself teaches us the FACT that it takes LIFE to create LIFE and it does it through the process of reproduction.

There is no logical reason to believe that FACT has not always been the case.

It makes sense that LIFE comes from LIFE and always has and always will. It is provable and perfectly observable. It always was provable and observable and always will be.
It makes NO SENSE at all to claim "Once upon a time LIFE in general did not exist".

If you have a logical reason to believe it has not always been the case that LIFE reproduces LIFE, please explain it to me so it makes some kind of sense and you do not need to believe in some magical, mysterious or supernatural event or ancient scientific theory which began the whole scenario in the imaginations of the people who refuse to believe life in general has always existed.

Only our Creator can explain how we all got into this dream of His. You certainly can't.

Then why don't you get him to explain his own illusions and tell us why he made up all these billions of people as illusions in his dreams instead of creating them in REALITY?
Can't he handle REALITY? He needs to create an illusion of reality because the REAL thing is too hard to face?

You can't even explain how your Creator got into your dreams and imagination which lead you astray Brad.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

My mind has not been damaged like yours. I am far more capable of explaining things which make sense than you are.
You are still trying to convince people that they are nothing but an illusion yet somehow you are a real special illusion which was chosen to teach the rest of the illusions that they are not real at all.
Why don't you simply admit your own unreality to yourself and GET REAL Brad? Face REALITY instead of running away from it for the rest of your sad life. You are deluding yourself with your own dreams and imaginations of your own sainthood.
Keep sleeping Brad and keep dreaming your dreams of some supernatural creator controlling us all and especially pulling your strings and making you do and say what you do. I know it is simply your way of not taking any responsibility for your own stupidity and foolishness.
You are nothing but an illusion in your own mind.

At least I am REAL to myself. I know I exist. My thoughts have always existed in SPIRIT and will always exist in SPIRIT after my flesh has turned to dust.

You seem to want to believe your "next age" after the death of your body will also be an illusion. You don't seem to believe you are ever FREE from being nothing but an illusion.

It seems to me that you simply do not want to face REALITY of any kind. You are too busy escaping from Reality into your self made fantasies where you DREAM your life away and it is not even your own dream but the dream of some supernatural creator who can't even speak for himself but needs to use his own illusions to be "his voice" because he doesn't have a REAL voice. You are nothing but the ILLUSION of the "voice of God," Brad. You are not the REAL voice of anything but your own delusions.

Answer this if you can manage to think at all...
Do you believe God created mankind in his own image?
Do you believe God is REAL?
If so, and you also believe mankind and all of LIFE is just an illusion, does that mean your Creator God is also an illusion which created illusions in the image of the ultimate illusion?
If God is REAL and created mankind in his own image, would it not make more sense that mankind and all other life would also be REAL since they are created in the image of something that is REAL?

If you start with something REAL and then use that original REAL thing as a pattern to create more of the same kind in the image and likeness of the first one, are all the rest not just as REAL as the first one?

If you start with an illusion and create others in the image of the first one, won't all those "reproductions" be just as illusory as the first one since that is the pattern you used to make them?

I just hope you wake up one day Brad.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 12:49:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 12:43:15 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 3/13/2015 5:29:32 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/11/2015 6:45:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I was thinking about the similarities between science theories and religious beliefs regarding the beginning and end of the world and Life on Earth and things which have no absolute proof when it comes to any so called "beginning" in our past history.

Beliefs about these things need to be taken by faith regardless of whether your faith is in religious doctrines or science theories.

Both claim once upon a time where was no Earth and they both have different stories about how the Earth was formed.
Both claim there will come a time when the Earth will be destroyed by fire and both have different stories about how that will ultimately happen.
They argue that one is right and the other is wrong. Obviously the one which is right to each individual personally is the doctrine or theory each individual personally believes.

Very FEW ever ask if BOTH concepts might be totally wrong.

It seems the religious doctrinal beliefs have infiltrated science theories and the scientists simply changed the stories a bit to make them sound scientific instead of religious.

Would it make sense that scientists subconsciously project their religious beliefs into their secular work and that would affect all the non religious scientists as well?

The human subconscious does seem to have an affect on our conscious thoughts and actions, does it not?

There is clear evidence of the Earths existence today. There was evidence of it yesterday and there will still be evidence of it tomorrow.
Since we know for a FACT that our Earth exists and LIFE exists on it, where does the whole idea come from that this planet and every other planet in the universe once did not exist at all and LIFE in general also once did not exist?

Does the whole concept not come from ancestral superstition and myths and religious doctrines?

Lack of evidence of existence in the field of science seems to equate to lack of existence.

However that makes no sense to me at all. Lack of evidence of existence does not equate to lack of existence in my mind. For example, a person might be born and die a few days later in some unknown abandoned location and no one but the mother would be aware of the childs existence. If the mother also died and some animal ate all evidence that both existed, did they exist or not? Lack of evidence of existence would only mean there is lack of evidence. It would not mean they both once lacked existence even if they no longer exist today.

The same principle can be applied to any LIFE at all. Just because there is lack of DIRECT EVIDENCE of past existence of Life does not mean past life did not exist.
LIFE which exists today is indirect evidence of the existence of past life due to the FACT that LIFE comes from LIFE.

It makes no sense that Life came from anything other than Life itself.
Nature itself teaches us the FACT that it takes LIFE to create LIFE and it does it through the process of reproduction.

There is no logical reason to believe that FACT has not always been the case.

It makes sense that LIFE comes from LIFE and always has and always will. It is provable and perfectly observable. It always was provable and observable and always will be.
It makes NO SENSE at all to claim "Once upon a time LIFE in general did not exist".

If you have a logical reason to believe it has not always been the case that LIFE reproduces LIFE, please explain it to me so it makes some kind of sense and you do not need to believe in some magical, mysterious or supernatural event or ancient scientific theory which began the whole scenario in the imaginations of the people who refuse to believe life in general has always existed.

Only our Creator can explain how we all got into this dream of His. You certainly can't.

Then why don't you get him to explain his own illusions and tell us why he made up all these billions of people as illusions in his dreams instead of creating them in REALITY?
Can't he handle REALITY? He needs to create an illusion of reality because the REAL thing is too hard to face?

You can't even explain how your Creator got into your dreams and imagination which lead you astray Brad.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

My mind has not been damaged like yours. I am far more capable of explaining things which make sense than you are.
You are still trying to convince people that they are nothing but an illusion yet somehow you are a real special illusion which was chosen to teach the rest of the illusions that they are not real at all.
Why don't you simply admit your own unreality to yourself and GET REAL Brad? Face REALITY instead of running away from it for the rest of your sad life. You are deluding yourself with your own dreams and imaginations of your own sainthood.
Keep sleeping Brad and keep dreaming your dreams of some supernatural creator controlling us all and especially pulling your strings and making you do and say what you do. I know it is simply your way of not taking any responsibility for your own stupidity and foolishness.
You are nothing but an illusion in your own mind.

At least I am REAL to myself. I know I exist. My thoughts have always existed in SPIRIT and will always exist in SPIRIT after my flesh has turned to dust.

You seem to want to believe your "next age" after the death of your body will also be an illusion. You don't seem to believe you are ever FREE from being nothing but an illusion.

It seems to me that you simply do not want to face REALITY of any kind. You are too busy escaping from Reality into your self made fantasies where you DREAM your life away and it is not even your own dream but the dream of some supernatural creator who can't even speak for himself but needs to use his own illusions to be "his voice" because he doesn't have a REAL voice. You are nothing but the ILLUSION of the "voice of God," Brad. You are not the REAL voice of anything but your own delusions.

Answer this if you can manage to think at all...
Do you believe God created mankind in his own image?
Do you believe God is REAL?
If so, and you also believe mankind and all of LIFE is just an illusion, does that mean your Creator God is also an illusion which created illusions in the image of the ultimate illusion?
If God is REAL and created mankind in his own image, would it not make more sense that mankind and all other life would also be REAL since they are created in the image of something that is REAL?

If you start with something REAL and then use that original REAL thing as a pattern to create more of the same kind in the image and likeness of the first one, are all the rest not just as REAL as the first one?

If you start with an illusion and create others in the image of the first one, won't all those "reproductions" be just as illusory as the first one since that is the pattern you used to make them?

I just hope you wake up one day Brad.

You can't hear His voice.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 1:13:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 12:49:08 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:43:15 AM, Skyangel wrote:

I just hope you wake up one day Brad.

You can't hear His voice.

I hear the voice of LIFE as clearly as I hear the voice of Mother Nature. Life has a very clear voice of its own. It does not need to speak through an illusion of a saint who deluded himself into believing he is a specially chosen person to be the voice of some invisible supernatural Creator who cannot even create any REAL people but can only create illusions of people to control like puppets.
At least you are entertaining Brad even if you do constantly make a fool of yourself and humiliate yourself with your own lies and presumptions that you are someone special.
You are no more special than any other special person who claims to be chosen by God and claims to hear from God, Brad. You are as special as all the rest of the special people in the special institutions which are specially made for all those special people. I think the only reason you are not locked in one is because most people do not see you as a threat to society or to yourself.
You are just a harmless mentally disturbed person who is desperate to be someone he is not so you can feel better about yourself.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 1:39:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 12:03:16 AM, Skyangel wrote............Skyangel wrote............I am trying to understand what you have written so please clarify by answering my questions...

Are you saying your God is the process of evolution or are you saying your God is an invisible supernatural person who created life through the process of evolution which he also created?

Gentorev.........YES! God who is all that exists, is in the eternal process of change=evolution, he is today as he was yesterday and will be into all eternity, he is the only constant, in that he is constantly changing=evolving. You cannot show to me a mind that has ceased to evolve, for such a mind would not exist.
So, let me here repeat what I have said to you before:

The root to the word "BRAHMAN" originally meant "SPEECH", much the same as the "LOGOS" is said to mean "WORD," but both are in fact, the gathered genetic information of every universal body throughout all eternity. Both Brahman and Logos, should be seen as the essential divine reality of the universe the eternal spirit from which all being originates, and to which all must return.

You are body, soul and spirit. Your body is made up from the universal elements, and it is activated by the universal soul, which is the animating principle that pervades the entire universal body, activating everything within the universe, from the wave particles to the subatomic particles that make up the atoms which are the building blocks of the molecules from which the universal body is created. It is to the universal soul=LIFE-FORCE that all information = SPIRIT is gathered.

"YOU" the mind, are spirit. The body in which you, [The mind] are developing as the supreme head and controller of that body, is made up of the universal elements, which is activated by the soul [Animating life force] to which all the spirit [gathered information] of all your ancestors, human and prehuman, has been gathered in the evolution of whatever was in the beginning to become who you are, and that parental spirit dwells behind the veil to the inner most sanctuary of its earthly tabernacle=tent, which is your body.

If that body in which your parental spirit dwells, were born without the sense of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, etc, then no information whatsoever could be taken into the brain, and "YOU" who are spirit [Gathered information] could never have begun to develop and the living body, in which the parental spirit dwells, would soon die, never having developed a personality = "CONTROLLING GODHEAD" to that body.

Then of the Thee in Me who works behind
The veil, I lifted up my hands to find
A lamp amid the Darkness; and I heard,
As from Without__ "The Me within Thee is blind.".... By Omar Khayyam.

When the body in which you [the mind] are being formed, dies, [This is the first death] and your body: "skin, flesh, muscle, blood, bone, brain matter etc, etc," has returned to the universal elements from which it was created, all that remains, is a shadow or rather, a facsimile of YOU = the mind=spirit, that has been imprinted into the universal life force=soul, from which it will be resurrected in the next cycle of universal activity. Unless of course, the information=spirit that is "YOU" is divided from the universal life-force, which is the second death. For the spirit=information that is you, can be divided from the universal soul----------"For the word of God is alive and active, sharper than any two edged sword. It cuts all the way through to the division of the soul and spirit."
'
The term, "THE WORD OF GOD," pertains to the sense that is identical to the term "LOGOS" or the mold. The mold by which the whole sense of a thing is given. In other words, the very plan from the outset. In Sanskrit the similar meaning is given in the use of the word 'vach.' Vach means word. But in Sanskrit teachings of the Sanatana Dharma, vach has many levels. Including where the word is first considered as being in the mind as a thought, not as the spoken word or speech.

We humans, may express in our spoken words, all the information that has been gathered through the senses of our bodies in the creation of the invisible minds=spirits that are "WE". Our word is the expression of "Who we are." Your words are the spirit that is "YOU" the mind.

But the "LOGOS=WORD" and BRAHMAN=SPEECH" who are the gathered information=spirit of the aeons, express the information that has been gathered to the universal soul as another universal body, which is in the image and likeness to the previous universe, [The Resurrection] in which the eternal Spirit=mind has and can continue to evolve.

To be continued.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 2:53:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 1:39:08 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:03:16 AM, Skyangel wrote............Skyangel wrote............I am trying to understand what you have written so please clarify by answering my questions...

Are you saying your God is the process of evolution or are you saying your God is an invisible supernatural person who created life through the process of evolution which he also created?

Gentorev.........YES! God who is all that exists, is in the eternal process of change=evolution, he is today as he was yesterday and will be into all eternity, he is the only constant, in that he is constantly changing=evolving. You cannot show to me a mind that has ceased to evolve, for such a mind would not exist.

Your reply needs clarification. You replied YES to two questions. I read your answer like this...
YES God is the process of evolution.
YES God is an invisible supernatural person.
You call God a "he" as if you are talking about an individual person rather than about a PROCESS.
The process of LIFE and all its changes is the same today as IT was yesterday and will be into all eternity. IT is the only constant, in that IT is constantly changing=evolving.
If you can agree with your statement written that way, using "IT" instead of 'he" then we are beginning to understand each other.
If not, you better explain it in a different way otherwise I will interpret your "He" as "It" the way I wrote it.

You cannot show to me a mind that has ceased to evolve, for such a mind would not exist.

Many people seem to have minds which cease to "evolve" any intelligence due to them not allowing themselves to think beyond that which they are accustomed to thinking. Many are stuck in a rut of their own making and do not seem to be able to escape their self made trap of one way thinking along a finite linear time time which begins at A and ends at Z.
There are people with mental disorders whose minds cannot evolve or get any more intelligent due to their physical disability. Their minds cease to evolve any maturity and remain stuck in immaturity. They need constant care as much as a small child does. How in your opinion does such a mind "evolve", grow or change into anything more than what it is?
Minds can be or become stagnant and stunted and just as disfunctional as any other body parts which can cease to grow, cease to work, cease to function correctly. That does not mean the disfunctional body part has ceased to exist. It still exists till the whole body dies. It just ceases to function correctly.

So, let me here repeat what I have said to you before:

The root to the word "BRAHMAN" originally meant "SPEECH", much the same as the "LOGOS" is said to mean "WORD," but both are in fact, the gathered genetic information of every universal body throughout all eternity. Both Brahman and Logos, should be seen as the essential divine reality of the universe the eternal spirit from which all being originates, and to which all must return.

Your religious jargon might make you believe you are smarter than most people but showing off your carnal minded religious knowledge does not impress me a bit.

Speech and words are nothing but human communication. There is no genetic information in them. Genetic information is passed down through the physical attributes of the life forms. Plants for example have genetic information which they pass down through their own seeds or whatever other reproduction process they happen to use. No words or speech is used by plants to do that.
Only humans use humans words and human speech.

If you are saying the "WORD" and "LOGOS" refers to ALL the knowledge of the universe then those words refer to a LOT more than just human communication and human knowledge. Yet knowledge is a word we mostly use in reference to the human mind and to what humans know and understand. We do not generally use the word "knowledge" in reference to objects without a brain. Brainless objects "know" nothing in reality.

"The essential divine reality of the universe" to me is LIFE itself or EXISTENCE itself or REALITY itself.
"The eternal spirit from which all being originates, and to which all must return" in my perception is the SPIRIT or ENERGY or ESSENCE of LIFE. It is that inner quality or "thing" which makes living things look and sound alive as opposed to looking dead.

That ENERGY has always existed and is eternal in my perception and understanding.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 3:48:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Skyangel wrote............Are you saying that all humans who have ever lived and are currently alive make up the body of what you are calling the "first human"?
Are you saying the "first human" is a corporate body rather than an individual man?

Gentorev.........YES! If you were to take one seed, one life, and plant it on an isolated planet, leaving instructions for your descendants in some thousands of years in the future, to return to that isolated planet and destroy that one life that you planted there, and they would have to destroy the millions of plants that the one life that you planted, had become.

Skyangel wrote............When you call the "first human" the Most High in the creation, are you saying humans are God or just saying humans are the highest form of intelligent life which is currently known by humans?

Gentorev.........Can you prove to all that there is a higher form of intelligent life form occupying our time> If not, then you must admit that mankind is the highest form of intelligent life that is known to you.

Skyangel wrote............What I basically gather is that you believe humans have not always existed as a corporate body but were tediously formed through the process of evolution rather than through the process of reproduction of the humans before them. Then somehow the process of human evolution was replaced by the process of human reproduction where humans no longer evolve over billions of years from some non human ancestors but are rather quickly reproduced by their own kind ?

Gentorev.........No my little ignorant child, it took many cycles of universal activity, or rather many generations of the universe before mankind evolved, once created with the ability of reproduction as received from the animal parents from which man had evolved, it then only took nine month for a copy to be made.

If, as you somehow erroneously believe, that any species of life form can only come from a parent of that same species, and knowing that Dinosaurs, the old upright walking reptiles, which were once the MOST HIGH in the creation, and which ruled the earth for some three million years, had to have been in existence from all eternity according to your ridiculous belief. Because you refuse to accept creation or evolution, so please explain why the eternal dinosaurs are no longer in existence.
Unlike some cults, you cannot claim that god created the fossilised dinosaurs bones and planted them in the earth, simply to confound the scientists, which scientists, you believe are far mentally inferior to yourself.

Skyangel wrote............Why would your God need to use billions of years of evolution to create a "first human" when Mother Nature only takes nine months to create the current humans? Is Mother Nature more efficient than your God?

Gentorev......... How difficult it is to teach little childish minds, who believe that they are more intelligent that the greatest scientific minds on this earth.
It took billions upon billions of years for human "WITH THE ABILITY OF PRO-CREATION, to have developed.

From the ancient abacus, our first primitive computers were created which had to be programmed by human beings, but today"s computers now create and programme their own duplications. Or is that to difficult for a child such as yourself to understand?

Skyangel wrote.,...........As for your concept of one directional linear time. That is where the human mind makes all its mistakes.

Time is nothing but an illusion created by the movement and changes in the process of GROWTH and RECYCLING of nature which is LIFE itself. LIFE creates its own illusions. Time is just one of the illusions which leads linear thinking people astray. You need to learn to think outside the box of linear time if you want to learn anything new in your old age. If not, don't bother even trying. Most elderly people are stuck in some rut anyway which they do not wish to climb out of.

Gentorev.........I realise that childish minds have difficulty in comprehending that which they read, because what I did say, was: Because of the worlds concept of one directional linear time, they do not realise that The SON of MAN who evolves from mankind and is a non-physical being who can travel across, not only space but also time, actually existed before this world began, having descended to the beginnings of time. And many humans (Yourself not included) can and have received a visitation from the mind of the new life form that evolves from mankind, in our future.

Skyangel wrote............There is no concept of time in eternity due to it being infinite. Eternity has no beginning and end but rather IT IS the beginning and end of all things which is always with us in the sense that LIFE is always ending LIFE as well as always beginning LIFE. Life and death are simply two sides of the same coin of LIFE which is constantly recycling itself. It sometimes leaves evidence of past existence and sometimes does not. However, eventually all past evidence vanished into dust. Nothing physical lasts forever, not even physical evidence of our past. The Earth recycles itself constantly and it does not take long at all compared to eternity. It all happens in the blink of an eye faster than anyone can measure with any human measuring devices.

Gentorev.........I, as a separate entity, began when information started to be taken in to the brain through the senses of this created body. I am a potential fourth dimensional being, who, when, the umbilical cord that binds me to this physical body is severed, will be an eternal being, able to travel through time in a multitude of directions.

Now is the beginning of my eternal life in which I will be able to travel back into the past before this world began, or forward in time to where this particular universal body will come to its end, and beyond.

Skyangel wrote............For believers in God who are reading this.....Do you believe LIFE is eternal or not? If you do how can it have a beginning?
The word Eternal implies it has no beginning or end.
Eternity does not begin at some finite point in time. Eternity is part of INFINITY.

Gentorev.........No my childish friend, it was from the inanimate universal elements, that life evolved, which elements are but energy in a frozen state

Skyangel wrote............For scientifically minded atheists who are reading this... Do you believe ENERGY can be created or destroyed? Do you think once upon a time ENERGY did not exist? If it did not always exist, it must have been created and can therefore be created again. However, it takes energy to create something in the first place so how could energy have been created without energy?

Gentorev......... A wave particle which has zero mass and no electric charge and yet carries angular and linear momentum, and which is the quantum of the electromagnetic energy from which this universal body was created, can occupy two positions in space in the one point in time. Perhaps all that exists in reality is one proton which occupies all space in the one period of time.

Skyangel wrote............My point is that either ALL ENERGY has always existed and is ALL eternal and simply changes form from being invisible to being visible to being invisible again. The CYCLE is either eternal and infinite or it is not.

Gentorev.........Of course all energy changes from visible matter into invisible energy, as do human being in their evolution to become the SON of MAN.

To be continued.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 3:52:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
According to the ancient cultures, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time, a living universal being who is all that exists, and in who, all that is, exists. A living universal being who is in a perpetual state of change=evolution, who exists in the two states of visible matter and invisible energy.

"Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence." ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara, or the cycle of manifestation, "The Great Day," which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by "Pralaya," a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity.

"Manvantara," is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, "Pralaya," is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest in which we now exist are referred to in the book of Genesis as the "GENERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE."

The English word "Generation," is translated from the Hebrew "toledoth" which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as "births," or "descendants," such as "These are the generations of Adam," or "these are the generations of Abraham, and

Genesis 2: 4; These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc. And the "Great Day" in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

Enoch the righteous wrote that God created an eighth day also, so that it should be the first after his works, and it is a day eternal with neither hours, days, weeks, months or years, for all time is stuck together in one eon, etc, etc, and all who enter into the generation of the Light beings, are able to visit all those worlds that still exist in space-time, but not in our three dimensional time.

A series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

This is the true resurrection in which all from the previous cycle of universal activity, who still have the judgmental war raging within them, are born again into the cycles of physical manifestation.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 4:37:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 3:48:52 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Skyangel wrote............Are you saying that all humans who have ever lived and are currently alive make up the body of what you are calling the "first human"?
Are you saying the "first human" is a corporate body rather than an individual man?

Gentorev.........YES! If you were to take one seed, one life, and plant it on an isolated planet, leaving instructions for your descendants in some thousands of years in the future, to return to that isolated planet and destroy that one life that you planted there, and they would have to destroy the millions of plants that the one life that you planted, had become.

Yet that one Life cannot reproduce alone. It takes the cooperation of many aspects of life to create life. The seed needs the right conditions of nature to reproduce anything. It also needs to have the quality of fertility within itself. Without that, it will not reproduce at all. Not all seeds are fertile and even some that are, do not always reproduce due to the conditions of the environment not being correct. So your imaginary seed might become many IF your imaginary environmental conditions don't kill it before the imaginary descendants do. If they did end up on your imaginary planet and found nothing to kill, they might conclude that you were imagining it all due to lack of evidence of any seed.

Do you believe that "God" created mankind ( Adam) in "His" own image?
If Adam ( mankind in general) is a corporate body of INNUMERABLE people, would that not also make "God" an INNUMERABLE BODY of people?

The FIRST and the LAST are the same if mankind is indeed innumerable and infinite. The first is as infinite and eternal as the last. They are ONE BODY yet also MANY individuals.

In my mind "God" is that INNUMERABLE INFINITE BODY which contains everything that exists and has always existed in the past present and future.
"God" is eternal existence which simply keeps on existing in spite of the CYCLE of birth and death of all living things constantly repeating itself.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 5:03:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 3:48:52 AM, Gentorev wrote:

Skyangel wrote............When you call the "first human" the Most High in the creation, are you saying humans are God or just saying humans are the highest form of intelligent life which is currently known by humans?

Gentorev.........Can you prove to all that there is a higher form of intelligent life form occupying our time> If not, then you must admit that mankind is the highest form of intelligent life that is known to you.

Some are more intelligent than others. Those who have more intelligence than others are the higher forms of intelligence.

Skyangel wrote............What I basically gather is that you believe humans have not always existed as a corporate body but were tediously formed through the process of evolution rather than through the process of reproduction of the humans before them. Then somehow the process of human evolution was replaced by the process of human reproduction where humans no longer evolve over billions of years from some non human ancestors but are rather quickly reproduced by their own kind ?

Gentorev.........No my little ignorant child, it took many cycles of universal activity, or rather many generations of the universe before mankind evolved, once created with the ability of reproduction as received from the animal parents from which man had evolved, it then only took nine month for a copy to be made.

Your fantasy is not very convincing. You sound like a child who is holding on to his favorite fairy tales and refuses to let them go. You love your "once upon a time....." stories.

If, as you somehow erroneously believe, that any species of life form can only come from a parent of that same species, and knowing that Dinosaurs, the old upright walking reptiles, which were once the MOST HIGH in the creation, and which ruled the earth for some three million years, had to have been in existence from all eternity according to your ridiculous belief. Because you refuse to accept creation or evolution, so please explain why the eternal dinosaurs are no longer in existence.

Because they obviously died faster than they could reproduce. Maybe some natural disaster killed them all and therefore they became extinct. It happens to some life forms. Natural disasters happen. Some species simply become extinct for various reasons. Life is about the survival of the fittest. Not all aspects of life or life forms survive for all eternity but LIFE in general still survives and each species reproduces after its own kind. It does not reproduce a different kind or evolve into a different species over billions of years. Maybe some freak of nature in the future will bring giant forms of life or "dinosaurs" back to Earth. It can happen in a relatively short amount of time of you wish to speculate about past and future events. Freaks of nature happen but those freaks of nature do not always have good reproduction qualities. They an exception to the "norm".
For an example, two headed people exist and four legged people exist and other freaks of nature exist but they are not proof of any evolution of the species. They are proof that Nature makes "mistakes" and reproduction does not always take the correct course to result in what humans consider to be "normal", " natural" or "perfect".
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 5:11:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 3:48:52 AM, Gentorev wrote:

Skyangel wrote............Why would your God need to use billions of years of evolution to create a "first human" when Mother Nature only takes nine months to create the current humans? Is Mother Nature more efficient than your God?

Gentorev......... How difficult it is to teach little childish minds, who believe that they are more intelligent that the greatest scientific minds on this earth.
It took billions upon billions of years for human "WITH THE ABILITY OF PRO-CREATION, to have developed.

How difficult it is for those who are stuck in the rut of carnal minded thinking and brainwashing that "once upon a time life did not exist", to come out of that rut. Many never come out of it, not even after billions upon billions of years. They LOVE their fantasies and FICTIONS MORE than REALITY and TRUTH.
Dream on Gentorev.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 6:06:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 4:37:00 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:48:52 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Skyangel wrote............Are you saying that all humans who have ever lived and are currently alive make up the body of what you are calling the "first human"?
Are you saying the "first human" is a corporate body rather than an individual man?

Gentorev.........YES! If you were to take one seed, one life, and plant it on an isolated planet, leaving instructions for your descendants in some thousands of years in the future, to return to that isolated planet and destroy that one life that you planted there, and they would have to destroy the millions of plants that the one life that you planted, had become.

Yet that one Life cannot reproduce alone. It takes the cooperation of many aspects of life to create life. The seed needs the right conditions of nature to reproduce anything. It also needs to have the quality of fertility within itself. Without that, it will not reproduce at all. Not all seeds are fertile and even some that are, do not always reproduce due to the conditions of the environment not being correct. So your imaginary seed might become many IF your imaginary environmental conditions don't kill it before the imaginary descendants do. If they did end up on your imaginary planet and found nothing to kill, they might conclude that you were imagining it all due to lack of evidence of any seed.

Do you believe that "God" created mankind ( Adam) in "His" own image?
If Adam ( mankind in general) is a corporate body of INNUMERABLE people, would that not also make "God" an INNUMERABLE BODY of people?

The FIRST and the LAST are the same if mankind is indeed innumerable and infinite. The first is as infinite and eternal as the last. They are ONE BODY yet also MANY individuals.

In my mind "God" is that INNUMERABLE INFINITE BODY which contains everything that exists and has always existed in the past present and future.
"God" is eternal existence which simply keeps on existing in spite of the CYCLE of birth and death of all living things constantly repeating itself.

That one seed that you planted was one life which was the compilation of all the information=spirit that was gathered by the millions of parental plants from which it had evolved. The tree that grew from that seed was a wind pollinated plant which had no need of living insects to pollinate it.

Apart from the living information within it, which information had been gathered from the time that the first organic molecule had developed in the primordial pools of inorganic material from which that plant had evolved, it needed only non-living elements, air, water, sunlight, etc, by which to begin its growth and become a massive forest.

God, who is an androgynous and plural being of both male and female aspects, said, "Now let "US" make man in "OUR" image.

God the plural androgynous being, made man in their image, male man and female man they made that plural androgynous being and named that body Adam=Mankind.

Nothing can be repeated in the next cycle, unless it had been created in the previous cycle of the eternal evolving universal body of God who is all that exists, and mankind who did not develop until the sixth cycle of universal activity, currently stands on the top rung of the ladder of evolution, and is currently, according to the worlds concept of one directional linear time, the MOST HIGH in the creation, Lord of Creatures and the prototype of "THE SON OF MAN" who is Lord of Spirits, and the supreme personality of Godhead to have developed within the eternal changing= evolving universal body of God.

God, "THE LOGOS=Gathered information," is an impersonal God sending his rain and produce on the righteous as well as the wicked, and his disasters on the wicked and the righteous alike.

It is the life which is the light of man, (All the knowledge, wisdom and insight gained from the body of Mankind,) who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, that develops within the Logos, "The Son of the Living God," who is given the right to Judge. It is he who warns the righteous of coming disasters, it is He who separates the goats, who will be resurrected into the refining fires of the next cycle of physical universal activity, from the sheep, who will enter into the eighth eternal Cosmic Day, and be able to visit all the past generations of the eternal Universal being, as they continue on into all eternity.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 7:23:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 4:29:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/13/2015 1:39:56 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 3/12/2015 12:32:34 AM, Gentorev wrote:
But you have stated in other posts, that humans can only come from humans. That humans have always existed from all eternity and will continue to exist into all eternity.

Correct. Do you have a problem with the process of human reproduction being eternal?

You refuse to accept that humans have evolved from proto-humans, which evolved from animal ancestors.

Correct. Evolution of humans from something nonhuman makes no sense at all due to evolution being impossible without reproduction and animals have different reproduction cycles to humans. Each reproduction cycle reproduces another after its own kind in the next generation. The process of reproduction does not change or evolve.

You seem to deny that all that is in existence is in the constant state change, nothing that existed yesterday is the same as it is today, and nothing that exists today will be the same as it will be tomorrow.

No, I do not deny the constant state of change at all. I understand there is change and growth in every generation. All things change and grow from immaturity to maturity and the cycle of change repeats itself in every generation.
That does not prove that anything evolved from non human to humans though. That whole idea is a science fiction and fantasy. It is totally ridiculous. It is laughable.

We have fossil evidence to prove that there are life forms that existed millions of years ago, that do not exist today, and evidence to prove that the earth was once inhabitable to all physical life-forms. And evidence that the life-forms that do now exist on this earth were created from the elements of this earth.

Fossil evidence is evidence of fossils and not evidence of anything else. It is not evidence of evolution no matter how many fairy tales you wish to invent about the so called evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is much like a child claiming the presents under a Xmas tree are evidence of Santas existence.
Elements are evidence of elements. They are not evidence that Life was created from the Earth. The fact is that the Life which dies forms the dust of the Earth. It would be more reasonable and logical to say that the Earth was formed by Life since the dust is the end result of decayed living matter. It seems you have it all backwards. Life forms the Earth. The Earth does not form Life. Life forms Life.

But still, there are poor disillusioned, ignorant children like yourself, who are blind to the truths that surround them, children who wish to remain blind and to wallow in their sweet ignorance. So I will leave you to quickly return to your little dark dungeon of ignorance, from which you have crawled out into the light of truth, which is too much for you to bear.

I see you are talking about yourself again. You seem to like to project your own faults onto me and do not realize you are simply the pot calling the kettle black.
I know it is hard for you to face the TRUTH that both science and religion have deceived you all your life with their false doctrines and science fiction.

Thank you girly. I have no need to reveal to others on this forum how childish and ignorant you are, you do such a good job of achieving that yourself.

You poor soul, of all people on this forum, which includes MCB and BOG, you are the one to be most pitied. Anyone who believes that the greatest scientific minds on this planet, are inferior to themselves, is definitely suffering from a severe case of Schizophrenia.

Be sure to take your medication in future before responding in this forum.

Maybe you should take your own advice; you are clearly in need of help if your posts are an indication of your thought processes!
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 4:13:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 6:06:44 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/14/2015 4:37:00 AM, Skyangel wrote:

The FIRST and the LAST are the same if mankind is indeed innumerable and infinite. The first is as infinite and eternal as the last. They are ONE BODY yet also MANY individuals.

In my mind "God" is that INNUMERABLE INFINITE BODY which contains everything that exists and has always existed in the past present and future.
"God" is eternal existence which simply keeps on existing in spite of the CYCLE of birth and death of all living things constantly repeating itself.

That one seed that you planted was one life which was the compilation of all the information=spirit that was gathered by the millions of parental plants from which it had evolved. The tree that grew from that seed was a wind pollinated plant which had no need of living insects to pollinate it.

Apart from the living information within it, which information had been gathered from the time that the first organic molecule had developed in the primordial pools of inorganic material from which that plant had evolved, it needed only non-living elements, air, water, sunlight, etc, by which to begin its growth and become a massive forest.

God, who is an androgynous and plural being of both male and female aspects, said, "Now let "US" make man in "OUR" image.

God the plural androgynous being, made man in their image, male man and female man they made that plural androgynous being and named that body Adam=Mankind.

Nothing can be repeated in the next cycle, unless it had been created in the previous cycle of the eternal evolving universal body of God who is all that exists, and mankind who did not develop until the sixth cycle of universal activity, currently stands on the top rung of the ladder of evolution, and is currently, according to the worlds concept of one directional linear time, the MOST HIGH in the creation, Lord of Creatures and the prototype of "THE SON OF MAN" who is Lord of Spirits, and the supreme personality of Godhead to have developed within the eternal changing= evolving universal body of God.

God, "THE LOGOS=Gathered information," is an impersonal God sending his rain and produce on the righteous as well as the wicked, and his disasters on the wicked and the righteous alike.

It is the life which is the light of man, (All the knowledge, wisdom and insight gained from the body of Mankind,) who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, that develops within the Logos, "The Son of the Living God," who is given the right to Judge. It is he who warns the righteous of coming disasters, it is He who separates the goats, who will be resurrected into the refining fires of the next cycle of physical universal activity, from the sheep, who will enter into the eighth eternal Cosmic Day, and be able to visit all the past generations of the eternal Universal being, as they continue on into all eternity.

Dream on dear space cadet. I hope all your dreams are happy ones and I hope you wake up to reality one day.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 11:01:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 6:45:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I was thinking about the similarities between science theories and religious beliefs regarding the beginning and end of the world and Life on Earth and things which have no absolute proof when it comes to any so called "beginning" in our past history.

Beliefs about these things need to be taken by faith regardless of whether your faith is in religious doctrines or science theories.

Both claim once upon a time where was no Earth and they both have different stories about how the Earth was formed.
Both claim there will come a time when the Earth will be destroyed by fire and both have different stories about how that will ultimately happen.
They argue that one is right and the other is wrong. Obviously the one which is right to each individual personally is the doctrine or theory each individual personally believes.

Very FEW ever ask if BOTH concepts might be totally wrong.

It seems the religious doctrinal beliefs have infiltrated science theories and the scientists simply changed the stories a bit to make them sound scientific instead of religious.

Would it make sense that scientists subconsciously project their religious beliefs into their secular work and that would affect all the non religious scientists as well?

The human subconscious does seem to have an affect on our conscious thoughts and actions, does it not?

There is clear evidence of the Earths existence today. There was evidence of it yesterday and there will still be evidence of it tomorrow.
Since we know for a FACT that our Earth exists and LIFE exists on it, where does the whole idea come from that this planet and every other planet in the universe once did not exist at all and LIFE in general also once did not exist?

Does the whole concept not come from ancestral superstition and myths and religious doctrines?

Lack of evidence of existence in the field of science seems to equate to lack of existence.

However that makes no sense to me at all. Lack of evidence of existence does not equate to lack of existence in my mind. For example, a person might be born and die a few days later in some unknown abandoned location and no one but the mother would be aware of the childs existence. If the mother also died and some animal ate all evidence that both existed, did they exist or not? Lack of evidence of existence would only mean there is lack of evidence. It would not mean they both once lacked existence even if they no longer exist today.

The same principle can be applied to any LIFE at all. Just because there is lack of DIRECT EVIDENCE of past existence of Life does not mean past life did not exist.
LIFE which exists today is indirect evidence of the existence of past life due to the FACT that LIFE comes from LIFE.

It makes no sense that Life came from anything other than Life itself.
Nature itself teaches us the FACT that it takes LIFE to create LIFE and it does it through the process of reproduction.

There is no logical reason to believe that FACT has not always been the case.

It makes sense that LIFE comes from LIFE and always has and always will. It is provable and perfectly observable. It always was provable and observable and always will be.
It makes NO SENSE at all to claim "Once upon a time LIFE in general did not exist".

If you have a logical reason to believe it has not always been the case that LIFE reproduces LIFE, please explain it to me so it makes some kind of sense and you do not need to believe in some magical, mysterious or supernatural event or ancient scientific theory which began the whole scenario in the imaginations of the people who refuse to believe life in general has always existed.
Your idea is completely far removed from theories made by evolutionists. The difference might be that they argue that the Universe always existed (not necessarily life), and you seem to be arguing that life always existed.

First thing to remember, the creation account in Genesis is an historical account given of Creation inspired by a higher power that witnessed the event (the Creator). Whether or not the earth was created in 6 days, 6,000 days, or 6 million years is not tremendously important in an of itself. It has no ultimate bearing on the real issue that bothers many about the Bible, which is the human fallen nature. That's what bothers people. That's why we see the whole Christians need to keep their beliefs to themselves, keep Christianity away from law, out of government, etc. Even if the Bible supported Darwinian evolution, but that man still fell from grace (when the homo sapien evolved), the Bible would still be a big problem because of the issue of human fallen nature.

As far as life always existing, life producing life, etc.; you yourself admitted that life does come to end just by referencing the physical death of an individual human. If a human has a beginning and an end, why would the idea of mankind as a whole having a beginning and an end be such a hard concept to grasp? There are certainly species of the animal kingdom that have come to an end (extinction), why not the animal kingdom as a whole?

What if the Bible indicated that life always existed as you believe, but still gave the sin nature/fallen man scenario? And at the same time, new agers and mother nature proponents were making the arguments I presented in order to counter that notion? What would you believe then?

I can't emphasize enough the problem the Bible presents to the world at large. The sin issue is what drives people mad. It drives people to force the idea that evolution is fact rather than theory in that it's the human claim to the Bible being a fable. And the advantage to that idea is that if the Bible is a fable, so is the fallen man issue. So while it is nice to see someone think outside the box of status quo evolution (a dangling carrot in front of the cart), I would challenge you to consider your view in relation to the issue of fallen mankind.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 11:02:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 11:01:17 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/11/2015 6:45:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I was thinking about the similarities between science theories and religious beliefs regarding the beginning and end of the world and Life on Earth and things which have no absolute proof when it comes to any so called "beginning" in our past history.

Beliefs about these things need to be taken by faith regardless of whether your faith is in religious doctrines or science theories.

Both claim once upon a time where was no Earth and they both have different stories about how the Earth was formed.
Both claim there will come a time when the Earth will be destroyed by fire and both have different stories about how that will ultimately happen.
They argue that one is right and the other is wrong. Obviously the one which is right to each individual personally is the doctrine or theory each individual personally believes.

Very FEW ever ask if BOTH concepts might be totally wrong.

It seems the religious doctrinal beliefs have infiltrated science theories and the scientists simply changed the stories a bit to make them sound scientific instead of religious.

Would it make sense that scientists subconsciously project their religious beliefs into their secular work and that would affect all the non religious scientists as well?

The human subconscious does seem to have an affect on our conscious thoughts and actions, does it not?

There is clear evidence of the Earths existence today. There was evidence of it yesterday and there will still be evidence of it tomorrow.
Since we know for a FACT that our Earth exists and LIFE exists on it, where does the whole idea come from that this planet and every other planet in the universe once did not exist at all and LIFE in general also once did not exist?

Does the whole concept not come from ancestral superstition and myths and religious doctrines?

Lack of evidence of existence in the field of science seems to equate to lack of existence.

However that makes no sense to me at all. Lack of evidence of existence does not equate to lack of existence in my mind. For example, a person might be born and die a few days later in some unknown abandoned location and no one but the mother would be aware of the childs existence. If the mother also died and some animal ate all evidence that both existed, did they exist or not? Lack of evidence of existence would only mean there is lack of evidence. It would not mean they both once lacked existence even if they no longer exist today.

The same principle can be applied to any LIFE at all. Just because there is lack of DIRECT EVIDENCE of past existence of Life does not mean past life did not exist.
LIFE which exists today is indirect evidence of the existence of past life due to the FACT that LIFE comes from LIFE.

It makes no sense that Life came from anything other than Life itself.
Nature itself teaches us the FACT that it takes LIFE to create LIFE and it does it through the process of reproduction.

There is no logical reason to believe that FACT has not always been the case.

It makes sense that LIFE comes from LIFE and always has and always will. It is provable and perfectly observable. It always was provable and observable and always will be.
It makes NO SENSE at all to claim "Once upon a time LIFE in general did not exist".

If you have a logical reason to believe it has not always been the case that LIFE reproduces LIFE, please explain it to me so it makes some kind of sense and you do not need to believe in some magical, mysterious or supernatural event or ancient scientific theory which began the whole scenario in the imaginations of the people who refuse to believe life in general has always existed.
Your idea is completely far removed from theories made by evolutionists. The difference might be that they argue that the Universe always existed (not necessarily life), and you seem to be arguing that life always existed.
Correction: your idea is not completely far removed from theories made by evolutionists.
q3qerf34rf
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:20:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 6:45:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I was thinking about the similarities between science theories and religious beliefs regarding the beginning and end of the world and Life on Earth and things which have no absolute proof when it comes to any so called "beginning" in our past history.

Beliefs about these things need to be taken by faith regardless of whether your faith is in religious doctrines or science theories.

Both claim once upon a time where was no Earth and they both have different stories about how the Earth was formed.
Both claim there will come a time when the Earth will be destroyed by fire and both have different stories about how that will ultimately happen.
They argue that one is right and the other is wrong. Obviously the one which is right to each individual personally is the doctrine or theory each individual personally believes.

Very FEW ever ask if BOTH concepts might be totally wrong.

It seems the religious doctrinal beliefs have infiltrated science theories and the scientists simply changed the stories a bit to make them sound scientific instead of religious.

Would it make sense that scientists subconsciously project their religious beliefs into their secular work and that would affect all the non religious scientists as well?

The human subconscious does seem to have an affect on our conscious thoughts and actions, does it not?

There is clear evidence of the Earths existence today. There was evidence of it yesterday and there will still be evidence of it tomorrow.
Since we know for a FACT that our Earth exists and LIFE exists on it, where does the whole idea come from that this planet and every other planet in the universe once did not exist at all and LIFE in general also once did not exist?

Does the whole concept not come from ancestral superstition and myths and religious doctrines?

Lack of evidence of existence in the field of science seems to equate to lack of existence.

However that makes no sense to me at all. Lack of evidence of existence does not equate to lack of existence in my mind. For example, a person might be born and die a few days later in some unknown abandoned location and no one but the mother would be aware of the childs existence. If the mother also died and some animal ate all evidence that both existed, did they exist or not? Lack of evidence of existence would only mean there is lack of evidence. It would not mean they both once lacked existence even if they no longer exist today.

The same principle can be applied to any LIFE at all. Just because there is lack of DIRECT EVIDENCE of past existence of Life does not mean past life did not exist.
LIFE which exists today is indirect evidence of the existence of past life due to the FACT that LIFE comes from LIFE.

It makes no sense that Life came from anything other than Life itself.
Nature itself teaches us the FACT that it takes LIFE to create LIFE and it does it through the process of reproduction.

There is no logical reason to believe that FACT has not always been the case.

It makes sense that LIFE comes from LIFE and always has and always will. It is provable and perfectly observable. It always was provable and observable and always will be.
It makes NO SENSE at all to claim "Once upon a time LIFE in general did not exist".

If you have a logical reason to believe it has not always been the case that LIFE reproduces LIFE, please explain it to me so it makes some kind of sense and you do not need to believe in some magical, mysterious or supernatural event or ancient scientific theory which began the whole scenario in the imaginations of the people who refuse to believe life in general has always existed.

The problem is, that whilst what your saying is correct in relation to the fact it doesn't appear to makes sense that at some point there could be no life, based on the fact life appears to create life. You will still eventually reach a point where that life had to have come from somewhere. How could you have always just had life if life has to create life? You'd reach a point where that life came from somewhere.
It makes no logical sense that LIFE exists in general. That's what makes it so complex.

Absolutely anything which has been witnessed and processed by humankind has shown confirmation in relation to the fact you need something in order to create something. (ie you can't create something out of nothing). This concept itself is incredibly complex based on the fact, if you spin back the clock you theoretically eventually reach a point of nothingness, or a single something. Whch in relation to that single something it's virtually impossible to explain where that something came from.

Therefore
1. Nothingness can somehow create something
OR
2. Nothingness is not a possibility and something always exists

There is also 2 types of "somethings" the conscious (life), and the not. Which again is INCREDIBLY confusing since the conscious is scientifically speaking entirely made up of the exact same things which compose non-life, yet without using life to create new life, the things which comprise that new life can't create life.

In relation to your comparisons of religion and science, it's incredibly flawed, science isn't claiming anything, science doesn't believe something, they 100% conclusively know certain aspects regarding the universe.
One being that it is growing, and therefore if you reverse time, it shrinks. When something continues to shrink, it's pretty self explanatory what eventually happens. Which in theory science has determined that if it were theoretically possible you could split an atom infinitely, and that concept would also apply to the shrinking of the universe (which contradicts my last statement that you'd theoretically eventually reach nothing). Even so that means it's conclusive the earth didn't always exist, meaning life on this planet didn't either. So we're now at a point where we determine where life came from, and how non-conscious elements gained consciousness.

This leaves a lot of questions.
If Life needs to come from life how could life have always existed?
If something needs to create something how can anything be?
If Life didn't exist at some point, how does something gain consciousness?
If nothingness is possible, how does it create something?

As you can see it's going to take a pretty incredible mind to solve the problem.
There may be other contradictions in what I've said so feel free to point them out lol.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 8:41:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 8:20:00 PM, q3qerf34rf wrote:
At 3/11/2015 6:45:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I was thinking about the similarities between science theories and religious beliefs regarding the beginning and end of the world and Life on Earth and things which have no absolute proof when it comes to any so called "beginning" in our past history.

Beliefs about these things need to be taken by faith regardless of whether your faith is in religious doctrines or science theories.

Both claim once upon a time where was no Earth and they both have different stories about how the Earth was formed.
Both claim there will come a time when the Earth will be destroyed by fire and both have different stories about how that will ultimately happen.
They argue that one is right and the other is wrong. Obviously the one which is right to each individual personally is the doctrine or theory each individual personally believes.

Very FEW ever ask if BOTH concepts might be totally wrong.

It seems the religious doctrinal beliefs have infiltrated science theories and the scientists simply changed the stories a bit to make them sound scientific instead of religious.

Would it make sense that scientists subconsciously project their religious beliefs into their secular work and that would affect all the non religious scientists as well?

The human subconscious does seem to have an affect on our conscious thoughts and actions, does it not?

There is clear evidence of the Earths existence today. There was evidence of it yesterday and there will still be evidence of it tomorrow.
Since we know for a FACT that our Earth exists and LIFE exists on it, where does the whole idea come from that this planet and every other planet in the universe once did not exist at all and LIFE in general also once did not exist?

Does the whole concept not come from ancestral superstition and myths and religious doctrines?

Lack of evidence of existence in the field of science seems to equate to lack of existence.

However that makes no sense to me at all. Lack of evidence of existence does not equate to lack of existence in my mind. For example, a person might be born and die a few days later in some unknown abandoned location and no one but the mother would be aware of the childs existence. If the mother also died and some animal ate all evidence that both existed, did they exist or not? Lack of evidence of existence would only mean there is lack of evidence. It would not mean they both once lacked existence even if they no longer exist today.

The same principle can be applied to any LIFE at all. Just because there is lack of DIRECT EVIDENCE of past existence of Life does not mean past life did not exist.
LIFE which exists today is indirect evidence of the existence of past life due to the FACT that LIFE comes from LIFE.

It makes no sense that Life came from anything other than Life itself.
Nature itself teaches us the FACT that it takes LIFE to create LIFE and it does it through the process of reproduction.

There is no logical reason to believe that FACT has not always been the case.

It makes sense that LIFE comes from LIFE and always has and always will. It is provable and perfectly observable. It always was provable and observable and always will be.
It makes NO SENSE at all to claim "Once upon a time LIFE in general did not exist".

If you have a logical reason to believe it has not always been the case that LIFE reproduces LIFE, please explain it to me so it makes some kind of sense and you do not need to believe in some magical, mysterious or supernatural event or ancient scientific theory which began the whole scenario in the imaginations of the people who refuse to believe life in general has always existed.

The problem is, that whilst what your saying is correct in relation to the fact it doesn't appear to makes sense that at some point there could be no life, based on the fact life appears to create life. You will still eventually reach a point where that life had to have come from somewhere. How could you have always just had life if life has to create life? You'd reach a point where that life came from somewhere.
It makes no logical sense that LIFE exists in general. That's what makes it so complex.

Absolutely anything which has been witnessed and processed by humankind has shown confirmation in relation to the fact you need something in order to create something. (ie you can't create something out of nothing). This concept itself is incredibly complex based on the fact, if you spin back the clock you theoretically eventually reach a point of nothingness, or a single something. Whch in relation to that single something it's virtually impossible to explain where that something came from.

Therefore
1. Nothingness can somehow create something
OR
2. Nothingness is not a possibility and something always exists

There is also 2 types of "somethings" the conscious (life), and the not. Which again is INCREDIBLY confusing since the conscious is scientifically speaking entirely made up of the exact same things which compose non-life, yet without using life to create new life, the things which comprise that new life can't create life.

In relation to your comparisons of religion and science, it's incredibly flawed, science isn't claiming anything, science doesn't believe something, they 100% conclusively know certain aspects regarding the universe.
One being that it is growing, and therefore if you reverse time, it shrinks. When something continues to shrink, it's pretty self explanatory what eventually happens. Which in theory science has determined that if it were theoretically possible you could split an atom infinitely, and that concept would also apply to the shrinking of the universe (which contradicts my last statement that you'd theoretically eventually reach nothing). Even so that means it's conclusive the earth didn't always exist, meaning life on this planet didn't either. So we're now at a point where we determine where life came from, and how non-conscious elements gained consciousness.

This leaves a lot of questions.
If Life needs to come from life how could life have always existed?
If something needs to create something how can anything be?
If Life didn't exist at some point, how does something gain consciousness?
If nothingness is possible, how does it create something?

As you can see it's going to take a pretty incredible mind to solve the problem.
There may be other contradictions in what I've said so feel free to point them out lol.

You cannot reason with schizophrenics my friend. This woman believes that mankind has always existed throughout all eternity, never having been created or never having evolved from a lower species. She believes that human beings could only have come from pre-existing human beings.

Rather than attempting to reason with her, you would be better advised to pity her and pray for her.
Electric-Eccentric
Posts: 1,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:18:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
EE: You silly children are so lost within your make believe and pretend that you can't understand HOW Skyangel can be correct as it is so far BEYOND your thinking and reasoning powers.

Life has ALWAYS been, it IS and it will always be.

HOW can that be you may question????

The SAME WAY that outer space can be what it is.

If we can UNDERSTAND that it has to be as from what humans can understand it.

If outer space or what ever you would like to label it, can go on and on forever, OR in some unknown way it is a circular concept that is BEYOND the knowledge of this world.

When we look at ALL that can be known of so called outer space.

It's not hard to UNDERSTAND that Life and humans have ALWAYS existed just as "outer space" goes on and on or in some sort of circular form beyond the thinking and understanding of even the most intelligent humans...

When we are "smart enough" to realize that it really doesn't matter where milk and eggs come from before the store as there will be plenty of others trying to get their milk and eggs to the store then there will be those that want to buy.

Commerce makes the world go around.

So I agree with Sky in that humans and Life has always been, it IS in the NOW and it will always be as that is just the Way that it is in Truth and Life.

Take away the superstitious mindset and programing and the Truth is VERY clear to see for those with the eyes to SEE that Truth.

The MAIN problem in that the world hasn't figured this out is that you have to choose to GROW UP and be responsible for your own thoughts and actions and not spend your TIME trying to justify placing the blame elsewhere.

Come on you turd puppets, I AM pulling on the strings that connect you to your realities. I realize you find it uncomfortable that I have access to the invisible strings that connect you to your realities.

But then I AM a god and a most overly wonderful and then some god at that.
Life is what YOU make it,
Most just try and fake it...