Intelligent Design

@Zetherin,

[quote=Zetherin]Note, I said "You refer as deluded", as conditioning, to me, is not considered the "devil" or necessarily "deluded". In fact, it can be quite useful at times, even essential for many creatures (I noted the gazelle example). Humans deliberately condition themselves for various tasks, in order to be more efficient at those tasks - critically thinking is even a form of conditioning. Conditioning does not seem to be the right word for what you're trying to articulate.[/quote]

Yes, quite correct. I'm talking about that conditioning not under your control.

[quote=Zetherin]How are they not experiencing reality? Of course they're experiencing reality, they just have prejudicial tendencies. Someone could easily be conditioned into Loving something for no reason, and that in my opinion would be just as bad as Hating something for no reason. Even if one doesn't have prejudicial tendencies one can still be conditioned for a variety of things.[/quote]

Again correct, since anything, even a delusion, is part of reality. What I meant, and hoped you would understand without me nitpicking the subject to death, is mistaking one's imagination of an event for a clear, unbiased view of an event.

[quote=Zetherin] I sense you're trying to make this a moral or ethical debate, when I'm trying to stay completely neutral. I'm logically trying to understand this, without any what's "better", "good", "worse", "bad".[/quote]

Wrong. I don't believe in morals or ethics. If you'd read me carefully, you would have noticed I said the still, unconditioned experience makes one good, and so morals are unnecessary.

[quote=Zetherin]Am I supposed to care if Jesus or Buddha said it before you? I'd question them, just as I'd question you. I'd ask: Have you ever considered that you've conditioned your mind by "unconditioning" your mind? That is, the "freeness", happiness, and wiseness you seek could still be a type of conditioning? That's correct, I'd question any one that believes their an elitist. Anyone that refers to others as "fools" simply for not having the state of mind they share.[/quote]

With that unbelievable arrogance, you've offered me what has to be one of the most self-absorbed, ethocentric, narrow, uneducated-outside-one's-expertise conversations I've ever been invited to partake in. Please, let me get out of your way so you can freely stick to what you believe, keep doing what you already know how to do, refuse to question your beliefs, maintain your opinions, and especially make sure to study only that which supports what you already think is true.

0 Replies

@thysin,

Quote:

With that unbelievable arrogance, you've offered me what has to be one of the most self-absorbed, ethocentric, narrow, uneducated-outside-one's-expertise conversations I've ever been invited to partake in. Please, let me get out of your way so you can freely stick to what you believe, keep doing what you already know how to do, refuse to question your beliefs, maintain your opinions, and especially make sure to study only that which supports what you already think is true.

Actually, I advocate consistent critical thought, and the questioning of one's surroundings as often as possible. This is why I'm questioning whether the "unconditioned" mind is even possible, and what encompasses conditioning. And I'm also curious whether or not the "unconditioned" mind you speak is actually a form of conditioning. If you consider my critical questioning as me being arrogant, maintaining my opinions, and refusing to question my beliefs, I must say that is delusional. I've consistently tried to do the opposite throughout this entire conversation.

Stop mudslinging, and please respond to my questions.

1 Reply

@thysin,

Hi guys

I brought up the topic of the possibility of an Intelligent Designer behind the creation of the universe, on a science forum that I was a member of some months ago

I was shot down in angry flames, it beats me why the idea of an ID is so abhorrently terrible to science. Even the great Albert Einstein did not dismiss this possibility, although in essence he was an atheist

"God does not play dice" Quantum mechanics show that Einstein was wrong with that statement.

"God does play dice and he cheats

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I see a hidden implication here that "perfect" means "complete".
You use the wood analogy, but with the wood, we know of a completed, a "perfect" (in the context of completion, fulfilling all it's necessary requirements) product. What is a completed, a "perfect" (in the context of completion, fulfilling all it's necessary requirements) human? Naturally, I then must ask: How do you know we are "undeveloped"?

"Developing force" that is "evolving you"? You mean evolution? How would evolution be "perfect", and are you sure it's a force? How would any forces be "perfect", for that matter? Forces cannot be "perfect", unless we place them in a context such as, "I need X amount of force to propel this object exactly 63 feet. This X amount of force is perfect for this particular job". "Perfect" here is a synonym for "necessary". But this isn't the "perfect" it appears you're referring. It appears your referring to something "greater". "Perfect" doesn't exist outside of context.

What if we don't regard existence as creation, and we don't sit off to the side and complain about what's *wrong*? Why is "God" always referred as an actual substance, object, man? Could it not be "God" is simply metaphor for an authority in regards to "how we ought to live"? Maybe every waking moment we are "Feeling God". What does it even mean to "feel God"? Oh, so many questions, it's all absurd language-games.

I dont think you feel god every waking moment, i feel tired at the moment for eg. I'm talking about creation, creator.

---------- Post added at 07:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 AM ----------

.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

I brought up the topic of the possibility of an Intelligent Designer behind the creation of the universe, on a science forum that I was a member of some months ago

I was shot down in angry flames, it beats me why the idea of an ID is so abhorrently terrible to science.

At the risk of seeming an angry flamer - it's not within science's ambit to speculate on things for which there is no testable evidence.

One might similarly provoke an angry responce from a greengrocer by asking him for some rib-eye steak.

Not to say that there is anything less valid about rib-eye steaks than vegetables - but it's not the preserve of greengrocers to provide them.

Presumably those within the scientific community have had the possibility of an intelligent designer posited to them so often, and with so little scientific evidence, that they are a little sick of the idea - in regards to science.

One might, as click-here does - posit a sort of phenomenological argument that scientific laws may have been different in the past, or that science is yet to make discoveries that might point to ID or Creationism - but such an argument is philosophical in nature rather than scientific. This is because it does not stand up to testing - instead it avoids testing by making a phenomenological dodge.

In terms of philosophy I think this is fair enough, because the importance of doubt and acceptance of the possibility that one may be, and probably is, ignorant of ineffable truth is important in philosophy.

Where science differs from (modern) philosophy is that science works off of a premise that testing a theory brings it closer to the truth. Even rather heretical scientific theories, such as James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis, are given more creedence than theories of ID because they bring hard data with them, and this hard data seems reinforced by subsequent discoveries.

Sceintists have been asked by various religious and political pundits to help find evidence to reinforce their agendas for as long as science has been a going concern (as far as I know). I think the reason scientists might react angrily to fresh demands to consider the possibility is that it's such old news (plus the fact that so many proponents of ID and Creationism lie about science and scientists)!

So, unless you have testable data, going to a scientific forum to ask them to consider ID is like asking a greengrocer for meat or asking a Catholic Priest how to get closer to Vishnu - it's not their job.

I don't know an awful lot about Einstein's context for "god does not play dice" - but most of what I have read points to it being a mere figure of speech - not an argument for ID. Lovelock's hypothesis is named after the greek earth mother - but this does not make him a greek pagan.

2 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave that was a great post, thus my thanking you for it

But all this science closet like boxed in thinking sometimes really frustrates me, even though I am basically a scientist.

Take the example of science trying to prove my existence by repeated empirically scientific testing. Is this possible?, Taking another another problem for science might be asked to prove.

Lest presume that in North Carolina it is said by the locals, that it never rains in March, it sometimes rains in May, it nearly always rained in June but it always rains in October .

Does this prove anything, can science prove by empirical method that it always rains in October in North Carolina?

Of course they can not, unless they could obtain the actual rainfall for that state back thousand of years or millions. And even this is just an indication, perhaps next year it will not rain in NC and the whole experiment would be invalidated

But if it did rain in October in the year of the test it could become an indication and even a theory that the local NC were onto something.

Could we trust the locals and plant our crops? I think we could although is is just a theory passed from mouth to mouth by the local farmers etc

This is the strongest base for an ID looking at the universe we somehow have to believe it did not pop out of nowhere, into somewhere, into somewhen. It had a beginning so someone pushed the button to start time flowing

So,in my opinion what is wring in theorizing the possibly of an ID bases on albeit circumstantial evidence like the extreme exactitude of fundamental constants, that allow for life to evolve on the earth. I am sure you are aware of the Goldilocks idea, etc.

In a court of law people have had the death sentence pronounced on them and died in the electric chair because the jury. judge considered the circumstantial evidence overwhelming.

The ID crowd use this type of argument again and again, I do not agree with them , but like to take their side at times and act as a devils advocate. This endues me with information from both sides of this Berlin wall If the great Albert Einstein did not get all upset and hot under his very untidy collar about this topic, he once said I have no problem why a person could not consider the possibility of an ID even though he was an atheist. He was still open to logic conversation , if sufficient proof were presented to him

But of course just like the rest of us he could be hardheaded and stubborn and would not move into the unstructured uncertain physics of quantum theory God does not play dice, and stubbornly he could not be moved from that position and died rejecting a theory that we now know is true

When scientist get all upper and dogmatic and tell you this and that is impossible, years later many are shamefaced when it is proved possible

The greatest scientist in all history Isaac Newton would have been appalled by the theory of relativity and especially the special theory of grand relativity.

His universe was orderly, structured and time constant, if you could go back in time and tell this enormous intersect, this colossal forward thinker, that time moved slower of Jupiter than it it did on earth, he would have got angry I think, red in the face and possibly even kicked you out of his place of dominance

Peace

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

[SIZE="3"]

Zetherin;57488 wrote:

Actually, I advocate consistent critical thought, and the questioning of one's surroundings as often as possible. This is why I'm questioning whether the "unconditioned" mind is even possible, and what encompasses conditioning. And I'm also curious whether or not the "unconditioned" mind you speak is actually a form of conditioning. If you consider my critical questioning as me being arrogant, maintaining my opinions, and refusing to question my beliefs, I must say that is delusional. I've consistently tried to do the opposite throughout this entire conversation.

Stop mudslinging, and please respond to my questions.

I wasn't mudslinging, but venting. I apologize for that, but not entirely. Why?

I have debated for years online, and run into every sort of debater. More than any other type often seems to be those who want to complicate, doubt, and question to the point of confusing issues.

I answered your questions, but you dismissed or ignored my answers. It is frustrating to be asked again and again to explain, first from one direction and then from another, and then after answering, have the questioner ignore your answer and merely add another question.

In an honest exchange of ideas, you would acknowledge the points I already made, and give reasons why you are having trouble with what I say. That way I would have something to build on.

I've been through this type of senseless debate so often it takes no time at all for me to get irritated at it. You call it "critical questioning," but I call it harassment without offering up the slightest insights yourself or the willingness to first understand before criticizing.

You, as someone inexperienced in the subject under discussion, can't speak with a doubting approach to someone who is experienced making a report as a witness, unless you are trying to insult of course. I would gladly answer sincere questioning if I know you are really trying to understand what I'm saying.

But skepticism when you don't yet understand the issue is arrogant -- you've arrogated a critical position before fully understanding what's being discussed. The humble and sincere critical mind always understands first.

The explanation I gave about stilling the mind, for instance, should have made you think, it should have made sense to anyone trying to understand. It takes movement to create patterns, and conditioning is patterns. A mind that cannot stop is going to have trouble controlling established patterns; and a mind that learns to be still is going to have more control. Yes there are patterns we want and use, such as how we might train our bodies to have a proper tennis stroke, etc.

But there is also a part of us doing the training, or accepting it anyway. That's the part you don't want so overwhelmed by unconscious conditioning (such as that of past environmental conditions) that the controller isn't in control at all.

I understand that functionalists and behaviorists, for example, claim we are nothing but conditioning; but I say, they are merely describing the typical human condition, not what is possible (thus my link to "perfecting").

Today relatively few people understand what the Buddha and others have taught, and just how powerful what they realized was. It was freedom from the very conditioning which is so powerful that many today claim is all we are. Now there's a contrast in visions of humanness for you (between great meditators and behaviorists).

What are you to believe? Well, first I think you have to study the great masters and not think you are going to grasp something so different from your normal state of consciousness that you can understand it on the fly. I've both studied and practiced, so I know how much work it takes. And that is part of the reason I get so quickly impatient with someone who wants to doubt and question without doing much work himself to gain insight into a three thousand year old discipline.
[/SIZE]

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

Dave that was a great post, thus my thanking you for it

That's very nice of you, cheers!

Quote:

But all this science closet like boxed in thinking sometimes really frustrates me, even though I am basically a scientist.

Well I am not - I am a fan of popular science but have no real scientific training. If you are a scientist perhaps you really have a better angle than me on this. It does seem to me that the scientific method is one particular rewarding way of looking at the universe - but not the only one.

What i think the crux of the problem here is is that there are other methods of the universe which look at the universe but are not scientific. I think that because there is a certain cred attached to science that these other methods often claim scientific credentials when they have no right to. I think that is what winds scientists up.

Quote:

Take the example of science trying to prove my existence by repeated empirically scientific testing. Is this possible?

I think so - by the scientific method. We observe you existing - repeat observances confirm that you exist - different people confirm you exist - ergo, by scientific method you exist.

Maybe I am just dreaming you exist - maybe my entire senses are distorted and fooling me. Perhaps, but this line of enquiry lies in philosophical schools which are not (modern conceptions of) science. We take on faith some initial impressions that our reasoning and senses tell us are so, and then reinforce these with evidence and second opinion and work our way towards certainty.

Quote:

Taking another another problem for science might be asked to prove.

Lest presume that in North Carolina it is said by the locals, that it never rains in March, it sometimes rains in May, it nearly always rained in June but it always rains in October .

Does this prove anything, can science prove by empirical method that it always rains in October in North Carolina?

Of course they can not, unless they could obtain the actual rainfall for that state back thousand of years or millions. And even this is just an indication, perhaps next year it will not rain in NC and the whole experiment would be invalidated

But if it did rain in October in the year of the test it could become an indication and even a theory that the local NC were onto something.

Could we trust the locals and plant our crops? I think we could although is is just a theory passed from mouth to mouth by the local farmers etc

Sure, but I don't think taking the story on faith would be scientific - not all trustworthy decisions we make are based on scientific reasoning. I base a huge ammount of decision making on intuition - nothing particularly scientific about that (though science might be used to explain how I intuit).

However, if the theory about rainfall was posited as a scientific hypothesis one could reinforce the initial theory by observing weather patterns, looking at the historical records, measuring rainfall and so on.

And so a decision on when the best time to plant crops is might start out by being influenced by native folk tales, and end up being based on scientific discoveries (which were initiated by curiousity aroused by the tales).

As another example - stories about dropping temperatures due to seasonal changes might have begun with wolves swallowing suns or Persephone being imprisoned in Hades for 6 months of the year - but science ignores them in favour of observations about the position of the Earth's axis relative to the sun.

Quote:

This is the strongest base for an ID looking at the universe we somehow have to believe it did not pop out of nowhere, into somewhere, into somewhen. It had a beginning

With you so far.

Quote:

so someone pushed the button to start time flowing

I just don't agree - because I think the metaphysical egotism of humans is so strong that they simply have to anthropomorphise that which they do not understand.

As I said earlier in the thread - in comparison to the universe humans are very small beans. If someone where able to look at the universe as a whole they would say the purpose was "tiny lights" or "spinning rocks in space".

Just because we are intelligent creators (relatively speaking) we tend to think that all creation must share some sort of value with us. I think we tend to zoom in on intelligence because our own creativity is so fuelled and driven by our mental processes.

But think how creative something like a volcano is, the ammount of things it can produce: mountains, geysers, continental drift, beautiful rock formations, destructive fires, global climate changes.

It can do all that - and is not intelligent as we understand intelligence.

But if someone described the creative force of the universe as essentially volcanic - would it not leave us a little cold - even though volcanoes seem to have had a greater legacy of shaping the earth than we do.

(In typing this I am reminded that many religions worship volcanoes - so perhaps I'm not making the conceptual leap I think I am).

Now, this isn't a scientific rebuttal, it's an untestable theory - just like the untestable theory that the universe had some sort of conscious first cause.

This debate takes place outside of the ambit of science - it is an exchange of ideas and prejudices that cannot be tested by our current understanding, so whilst it is very interesting it can only be a hypothesis for now.

Quote:

So,in my opinion what is wring in theorizing the possibly of an ID bases on albeit circumstantial evidence like the extreme exactitude of fundamental constants, that allow for life to evolve on the earth. I am sure you are aware of the Goldilocks idea, etc.

Not particularly, but I think I have the idea.

The fact is, if in the universe there exists a place for life to grow, however unlikely, from the perspective of that life it must have been a miracle.

What are the chances - trillions to one.

But there are trillions of planets, so the chances of it happening somewhere are odds on, and we got lucky.

It's like the winner of the lottery claiming that it is easy to win the lottery - because he did it.

The other thing is that - because I like evolution - I think we adapted to fit comfortably with our environment rather than have it be good for us.

So if the Goldilocks theory is that everything is pretty much 'just right' - I would say it's largely luck that it is so, and that we are a product of thousands and millions of changes made by processes capitalising on this luck. Therefore things look 'just right' from our vantage - but how could they not?

Quote:

In a court of law people have had the death sentence pronounced on them and died in the electric chair because the jury. judge considered the circumstantial evidence overwhelming.

But legal enquiry is a different set of values again. Scientific evidence is compromised against or with witness testimony, alibis and the intuition of judge and jury - and mistakes sometimes happen.

Quote:

When scientist get all upper and dogmatic and tell you this and that is impossible, years later many are shamefaced when it is proved possible

Sure, but I think this would be a character flaw in the scientist rather than problems with the method.

Most good modern scientists do try and maintain that they may be wrong and that future evidence may force them to change their viewpoint.

Quote:

Peace

And to you. Smile

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

[SIZE="3"]

Dave Allen;57546 wrote:

At the risk of seeming an angry flamer - it's not within science's ambit to speculate on things for which there is no testable evidence. . . . So, unless you have testable data, going to a scientific forum to ask them to consider ID is like asking a greengrocer for meat or asking a Catholic Priest how to get closer to Vishnu - it's not their job. . . . I don't know an awful lot about Einstein's context for "god does not play dice" - but most of what I have read points to it being a mere figure of speech - not an argument for ID.

I agree, and I also think the issue of why we are still looking for answers is important. If science actually could give a good explanation for creation, then who needs God?

Einstein was speaking as a scientist when he said God doesn't play dice. And when it comes to physics, I think he was right. But are we to conclude physicalness is our creator? What does science reveal? Only physicalness. Does that mean there is only physicalness (as many science lovers conclude)? No, it only means science strictly reveals physical factors, not that physicalness is all there is.

The question then becomes, if we can't find out if the universe is conscious through science, how can we ever know? Well, that's why I offered my ideas on God epistemology that I took from the history of meditation.

But, let's say those who've felt a conscious universe wanted to exchange ideas with those who trust science, how might we proceed?

One approach I've used (in my work) has been to look for what physicalness can't account for in creation. One such trait, for instance, is the level of organization found in life. Now, I know physicalists claim they can account for that, but they actually can't. The arguments they advance are so clever one has to dissect them word by word to show there is no real evidence physicalness can self-organize itself as required to create life (nor can adaptive processes be definitively linked to what evolved life forms). This leaves a "foundational gap" in creation and isolates a trait missing from physicalness we might attribute to the creator (i.e., a trait of the creationary consciousness, in this model, is to organize).

It takes honest thinkers to discuss like this, not someone pre-committed to physicalism or God; otherwise all discussions will end defending one's beliefs rather than honest assessments.[/SIZE]

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

But, let's say those who've felt a conscious universe wanted to exchange ideas with those who trust science, how might we proceed?

To be honest I find the most convincing arguments to come from those who claim that matters regarding consciousness or first cause are not currently expressable in scientific terms.

This will put many off, of course, but I don't think it will be as devisive as those who claim that science can be used - and then have to end up either distorting science, or proving themselves ignorant, or having to reform their spiritual ideas.

One of the reasons I wanted to discuss Taoism on another thread was because, whilst I am at heart a rather dogmatic mundanist, there is nothing about the relationship between my feelings and those expressed by Taoist sages that I find jarring.

0 Replies

@thysin,

LWSleeth,

I address some very relevant and reasonable questions, and you respond with this? I've read your post three times, and I still can't get over how condescending it is.

I'm sorry, but I am unable to continue this. Your unwillingness to allow open discussion - your way is the highway, that's that attitude - sorry, that's just not my style. I hope you know none of us have all the answers, and it's very natural to question notions which have been passed down for thousands of years; I haven't "arrogated" anything by not appealing to tradition. If you believe I critically question because I'm arrogant and am simply refusing to understand the 'concept', you're mistaken. Why in the world you'd call me arrogant when I'm the one trying to dissect the actual proposition (instead of believing it at the "face-value" you assume everyone to understand) is beyond me.

But I'm in no mood to argue with one whom types to me in such an abrasive and belittling tone. That will be all.

Be well,

Zeth

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

The mysteries of this universe will never be discovered with the certainties of faith..The fog of religion blinds the faithful and mars the debate.

2 Replies

@xris,

Hey people!

It would take an Intelligent Designers of infinite intelligence to construct a universe according to my instructions below.

"Make me a universe where everything is impossible and nothing is possible, but ensure it exists forever"

0 Replies

@thysin,

Dave Allen: You wouldn't have happened to see my reply to you on page 15?

I noticed there are quite a few pages within this thread now, thought I'd ask.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

The mysteries of this universe will never be discovered with the certainties of faith..The fog of religion blinds the faithful and mars the debate.

xris you can't equate faith with certainties, certainties "you can prove" by empirical repeatable scientific methods, faith on the other hand faith is just a "personal a belief" based on such emotion like hope and trust in "the unprovable" All religions fit into this one box.

There is really nothing certain about the universe, it is surprising us all the time, theoeries are steadily becoming fact. Einstein theorized long ago about the possibility of regions in the universe where gravity and density becomes so enormous and compressed that even light could not escape this almost infinite gravity of "this then hypothetical object'

Now this theory is a fact of science and we call these places in the universe "black holes" Astronomic telescopes have found black holes out there

Peace

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

Now this theory is a fact of science and we call these places in the universe "black holes" Astronomic telescopes have found black holes out there

Correct me if I'm wrong but you can't find a black hole with a telescope but only view the effects of a present one.

How does a singularity follow laws of science as we know them?

I thought there was many things not known about of black holes...

2 Replies

@click here,

click here wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but you can't find a black hole with a telescope but only view the effects of a present one.

How does a singularity follow laws of science as we know them?

I thought there was many things not known about of black holes...

There are proposals to be considered and science gives us those for our consideration..Religion gives us scriptures to either accept or reject..I reject scriptures as they have no authority or any conviction in fact..

1 Reply

@xris,

Xris, do you not trust your ability to interpret scriptures? Can they not be interpreted as the observations of tv physical realm?

0 Replies

@click here,

click here wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but you can't find a black hole with a telescope but only view the effects of a present one.

How does a singularity follow laws of science as we know them?

I thought there was many things not known about of black holes...

You are wrong and right, they can and they do find black holes with telescopes and yes there are many things not known about black holes, just as there are a lot of things not known about the deepest parts of the oceans.

We see the black holes, by the light near its perimeters, a black hole is not a hole, but an unimaginably compacted dense object, whose immense gravitational pull will not allow even light to bounce off its surface

In the singularity that caused the big bang the laws of science, as you call them, did not exist, if they had the universe could not have emerged as it did in the big bang event. In reality the term big bang is really incorrect, a better term could be "primordial emergence", there was no explosion

For instance, conditions in the singularity were much more extrema than that in black hole,. In the singularity heat, temperature, gravity were infinite. So the eternal question begs how did light, matter, energy and matter escape this place of infinite intensity, but was swallowed up by a much less severe happening of a black hole

What drove the infinite singularity against its own intrinsic infinite conditions to impossibly emerge out of its infinite condition?

Why is our universe luckily for us, "asymmetrical", made of matter, instead of what should have happened in the big bang, where equal quantities of matter and antimatter were existed They should have annihilated each other leaving the universe a barren soup of gamma rays, "but no"! this did not happen , something timorously removed the antimatter to allow our universe to come into existence?

When time began to flow, so did the process of entropy, or cause and effect. These two factors led the the universe evolving into what it now looks like

0 Replies

@thysin,

Hi.

First off, I would like to note that I as well am an agnostic, and I would like to accept the idea of a "higher power", but it just seems extremely unlikely that there is.

In my opinion, "God" is everything that is and was and will be, and that what happens and has happened has been produced by mere chance. The universe (maybe multiverse) is such an immense structure, with so much going on all time time. Yet when religions were created, nobody spoke of these things. All they knew of was this planet, and this planet alone. They never questioned "How?" and "Why?", they just decided to explain it without research.

Now, I am not trying to convert anybody, for I completely 100% believe that everybody should be entitled to freedom of expression/religion/etc.

In my eyes, religion (Christianity in particular) should be taken with a different approach than that of the majority of society. They read the Bible and interpret the scriptures literally, when if taken metaphorically, it actually makes quite a bit more sense.

So, back to the topic... My biggest question is, If there really is a God, why does he not communicate, help, or interact with us at all? Sure, in the Bible, it says he spoke to people, but he does not now!
Remember the Armenian Holocaust, and what is happening in the southern United States/Mexico, and the Jewish Holocaust? These are/were unimaginable disasters, yet "God" never intervened.

My conclusion --- There isn't a higher power, or anybody watching over us. And if there is, he/she/they must be completely indifferent to the technological advancements as well as actions of human kind.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know