The True Meaning of Life

[IamsSon]

IamsSon

In Mr Walker's view, there is a god who is a physical being, "an independently existing, real and powerful entity humans call god." In particular, it was Mr Walker who proposed physical tests of the sort routinely used to explore other physical questions,

My point remains: how would one go about examining evidence of "godhood?" What method would be used? How would the results be validated?

[eight bits]

IamsSon

My point remains: how would one go about examining evidence of "godhood?" What method would be used? How would the results be validated?

I wasn't aware those were points. They, along with your earlier

Given that the scientific method would not be applicable to evidence of the existence of a supernatural being, exactly what process would you use to examine evidence provided by Mr. W?

look like questions, requests for information. I gave you some advice about where, if anywhere, answers might be found, that's all. I didn't realize you weren't asking to find out information, but only making a point.

Anyway, my question to you really was a question.

Do you believe that establishing the existence of supernatural beings, rather than physical beings thought by some to be supernatural, would help us to establish a "true meaning of life?"

I asked, because the matter touches on some of the points raised in my earlier post in this thread, # 67, from a few days ago.

I'll answer first, if you like. No. When I look at Mr Walker's posts in light of what Campbell and Jung explained, it appears that whether Mr Walker's experiences can furnish a true meaning for his own life doesn't depend on whether his experiences are physical or supernatural. That may be important for other reasons, but not so important for the topic.

I am not denying that any fact whatsoever is nice to know, just asserting that not every factual controversy bears on every question that comes up in life.

[Mr Walker]

I don't know what you believe, all I know is you said that you had evidence but you can't provide it .Nothing you have posted is evidence of the existence of God but only your beliefs and no matter how you dress it up it remains the same and trying the old ploy of if you don't have an answer ask a question won.t work with me

fullywired

And not having an answer to a question wont work with me either. I want to know why you dont accept the normal evidences of life for the existence of god but do for more mundane things What would you do when you encountered something nonmundane in your life ? Ths might help me understand why you cant seem to get the concept of having objective personal evidences for every thing we encounter in life which do not and never have require/d "scientific" validation. Most modern educated people employ scientific method as a part of the business of life.They are trained or taught to do so from birth.

Why do you suppose it won't work for gods, or angels, or ghosts, or paranormal abilities? Mnn, (thinking out loud) could it be because you refuse to believe such things exist?

[Mr Walker]

My point remains: how would one go about examining evidence of "godhood?" What method would be used? How would the results be validated?

I have a somewhat unusual, but not unique, perspective on god, coming from my personal experiences. In theory a god such as that known to moses, or abraham or to me, is/can manifest as, real and solid, and its existence could be tested, IF humans had the ability to do so. Certainly and absolutely god can manifest quite solidly, and his miracles and powers are measurable and physical.

But given that we would fail to be able to test a human from a millenia or so in our future, if it did not want to be tested, I think logically, that any testing for/of god (or a being with the powers and abilities of god) will depend on "his" cooperation in the process. Any way, the existence of god is not really the province of science. Or, to put it round the other way, the significance , role, and purpose of god is not affected by whether science can confirm hs existence.

God is a being engaged in a physical, personal relationship and connection, with human beings. It is really only necesary for each individual to KNOW god for gods role in that relationship to work effectively.

And absolute faith works just as effectively (and sometimes better in my experience) than actually living with and "knowing " god in a physical way. Belief is a more effective driver than knowledge in human psychology. I knew my dad was real, but it was my faith and belief in him as my father, which drove me through childhood and adolescence.

Ps god is only a name we give to an entity with certain characteristics or parameters Anyone determined to deny the existence of god can just alter the characteristics or parameters they want to find in god, and say "Well if you can prove its physical existence it can't BE god." To me that is nonsense . God is what god is.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

IamsSon

I wasn't aware those were points. They, along with your earlier

look like questions, requests for information. I gave you some advice about where, if anywhere, answers might be found, that's all. I didn't realize you weren't asking to find out information, but only making a point.

Anyway, my question to you really was a question.

I asked, because the matter touches on some of the points raised in my earlier post in this thread, # 67, from a few days ago.

I'll answer first, if you like. No. When I look at Mr Walker's posts in light of what Campbell and Jung explained, it appears that whether Mr Walker's experiences can furnish a true meaning for his own life doesn't depend on whether his experiences are physical or supernatural. That may be important for other reasons, but not so important for the topic.

I am not denying that any fact whatsoever is nice to know, just asserting that not every factual controversy bears on every question that comes up in life.

The more I read about the personal and professional lives of freud and jung, the more i discount their relevance to modern knolwedge and ethical behaviour or scientific understandings.

Certainly they were the fathers of modern psycho analysis; and much modern psychology and some psychiatry is built from their beginnings, but if a modern professional, or even I, went back and held a discussion with them, I think we could pull a lot of their beliefs, fancies, prejudices and conclusions, apart very easily. They were holding bright candles but they were also surrounded by utter darkness in terms of knowledgege and understanding about the nature of the human mind, compared with a person from today. I dont know enough about Campbell to make the same claim.

[eight bits]

Or, in other words, the progress of knowledge has continued briskly since these pioneers died. That's good news, and something which each of them, I am confident, would be glad to hear.

However, I quoted Campbell and Jung on "philosophical" matters, because they had articulated a viewpoint about those particular things in a way that has stood up well, in my opinion, to the passage of time. Whether they were correct in saying what I quoted is, of course, discussable, which explains why I brought them up here.

This seems to be my thread for quotes. Having quoted the fictional Maximus, I'll quote his boss, the real-life Marcus Aurelius,

(I)f there are gods, (death) is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve you in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, what is it to me to live in a world devoid of gods or devoid of providence?

(Meditations, Book II) Marcus went on to profess belief in the gods of his people, and their benevolent interest in human affairs. The quoted consideration of alternative views beisdes his own nicely illustrates that the search for meaning, icluding coming to terms with death, can be robust to theological opinion.

Edited February 16, 2013 by eight bits

[fullywired]

And not having an answer to a question wont work with me either. I want to know why you dont accept the normal evidences of life for the existence of god but do for more mundane things What would you do when you encountered something nonmundane in your life ? Ths might help me understand why you cant seem to get the concept of having objective personal evidences for every thing we encounter in life which do not and never have require/d "scientific" validation. Most modern educated people employ scientific method as a part of the business of life.They are trained or taught to do so from birth.

Why do you suppose it won't work for gods, or angels, or ghosts, or paranormal abilities? Mnn, (thinking out loud) could it be because you refuse to believe such things exist?

And not having an answer to a question wont work with me either. I want to know why you dont accept the normal evidences of life for the existence of god but do for more mundane things What would you do when you encountered something nonmundane in your life ? Ths might help me understand why you cant seem to get the concept of having objective personal evidences for every thing we encounter in life which do not and never have require/d "scientific" validation. Most modern educated people employ scientific method as a part of the business of life.They are trained or taught to do so from birth.

Why do you suppose it won't work for gods, or angels, or ghosts, or paranormal abilities? Mnn, (thinking out loud) could it be because you refuse to believe such things exist?

Let's go back to my original post , ,after a claim by you that you possessed evidence of the existence of god I requested you to share it .but you seem very reluctant to do that instead you keep waltzing round the houses..However I will answer your last question ,I do not believe in ghosts,or angels and other paranormal abilities ,so if you have evidence for those also ,I would welcome it and remember the criteria no flights of the imagination, to paraphrase Sgt Joe Friday "just the facts ma'm" Verifiable facts please

fullywired

Edited February 16, 2013 by fullywired

[Mr Walker]

Or, in other words, the progress of knowledge has continued briskly since these pioneers died. That's good news, and something which each of them, I am confident, would be glad to hear.

However, I quoted Campbell and Jung on "philosophical" matters, because they had articulated a viewpoint about those particular things in a way that has stood up well, in my opinion, to the passage of time. Whether they were correct in saying what I quoted is, of course, discussable, which explains why I brought them up here.

This seems to be my thread for quotes. Having quoted the fictional Maximus, I'll quote his boss, the real-life Marcus Aurelius,

(I)f there are gods, (death) is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve you in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, what is it to me to live in a world devoid of gods or devoid of providence?

(Meditations, Book II) Marcus went on to profess belief in the gods of his people, and their benevolent interest in human affairs. The quoted consideration of alternative views beisdes his own nicely illustrates that the search for meaning, icluding coming to terms with death, can be robust to theological opinion.

Most definitely. Although my fav. maxim on the topic is, "do not go gentle into that good night, but rage rage against the dying of the light" to slightly paraphrase.

Personally I am still not convinced of the practical uses of either theology or philosophy, apart from exercising the mind. That is valuable and useful in itself of course .

[Mr Walker]

Let's go back to my original post , ,after a claim by you that you possessed evidence of the existence of god I requested you to share it .but you seem very reluctant to do that instead you keep waltzing round the houses..However I will answer your last question ,I do not believe in ghosts,or angels and other paranormal abilities ,so if you have evidence for those also ,I would welcome it and remember the criteria no flights of the imagination, to paraphrase Sgt Joe Friday "just the facts ma'm" Verifiable facts please

fullywired

Let's go back to the beginning. I claimed personal objective evidences for the existence of god and angels, the same as I have personal objective evidences for the existence of my dog and everything else in my life.

I HAVE shared the nature of those objective evidences. So; one can touch an angel,or a manifestation of god, one can see an angel, one can hear an angel. one can converse on various levels with an angel. It can provide information you can not know for yourself. It can supply visions of the future. It can give guidance. It can transfer physical power to you. It can heal These are objective physical evidences of its existence and indeed of its nature and abilities. An angel can be seen by others at the same time you see it. It can be recognosed (like a dog) from established "taxonomical" parameters It interacts in observable and verifiable physical ways with the ordinary mundane world around it casting shadows creating light etc. You can't walk through it. It bruises you when it sticks its finger in your chest to make a point and so on.

Now these are the sort of objective personal evidences by which you and i (and every living human being) establish the solidity, reality, and objective independent existence, of EVERYTHING around us, are they not ? So why should they not work to establish the objective indpendent existence of an angel or of god?

And yes I have personal objective evidences of some paranormal occurences and of ghosts. There are many for which i do not have any personal evidences and on which I still suspend judgement. I do not know what many of these things are( eg ghosts) but they fit the physical classification humans give for ghosts

. I also have personal objective evidences for strange and inexplicable things in the night sky. Not exactly UFOs but certainly unidentified and flyimg or hovering in the night sky. You may be pleased to note tha t i have no personal evidences for big foot yetis or alien beings, although my father once met a very strange creature (unclassified) in the australian bush which was also witnessed by others with him. His best description was that it was big and clumsy and looked like a leafy sea dragon the size of a cow.

He might have been spinning me a yarn. I am open to that possibilty. My mum knew when anyone in the family was badly injured or dying even when it was unexpected and some distance away eg an accident. That was independently verified many times. And no, over her life of ninety years there have been no false alarms. She was always correct.

I dont claim things as objectively existent without personal factual verifications. When i see something without a way of objectively verifying its existence, I suspend belief and disbelief and file it away for future study and reference.

[fullywired]

Let's go back to the beginning. I claimed personal objective evidences for the existence of god and angels, the same as I have personal objective evidences for the existence of my dog and everything else in my life.

I HAVE shared the nature of those objective evidences. So; one can touch an angel,or a manifestation of god, one can see an angel, one can hear an angel. one can converse on various levels with an angel. It can provide information you can not know for yourself. It can supply visions of the future. It can give guidance. It can transfer physical power to you. It can heal These are objective physical evidences of its existence and indeed of its nature and abilities. An angel can be seen by others at the same time you see it. It can be recognosed (like a dog) from established "taxonomical" parameters It interacts in observable and verifiable physical ways with the ordinary mundane world around it casting shadows creating light etc. You can't walk through it. It bruises you when it sticks its finger in your chest to make a point and so on.

Now these are the sort of objective personal evidences by which you and i (and every living human being) establish the solidity, reality, and objective independent existence, of EVERYTHING around us, are they not ? So why should they not work to establish the objective indpendent existence of an angel or of god?

And yes I have personal objective evidences of some paranormal occurences and of ghosts. There are many for which i do not have any personal evidences and on which I still suspend judgement. I do not know what many of these things are( eg ghosts) but they fit the physical classification humans give for ghosts

. I also have personal objective evidences for strange and inexplicable things in the night sky. Not exactly UFOs but certainly unidentified and flyimg or hovering in the night sky. You may be pleased to note tha t i have no personal evidences for big foot yetis or alien beings, although my father once met a very strange creature (unclassified) in the australian bush which was also witnessed by others with him. His best description was that it was big and clumsy and looked like a leafy sea dragon the size of a cow.

He might have been spinning me a yarn. I am open to that possibilty. My mum knew when anyone in the family was badly injured or dying even when it was unexpected and some distance away eg an accident. That was independently verified many times. And no, over her life of ninety years there have been no false alarms. She was always correct.

I dont claim things as objectively existent without personal factual verifications. When i see something without a way of objectively verifying its existence, I suspend belief and disbelief and file it away for future study and reference.

I can see the problem here you are .presenting subjective impressions as objective ,whereas I do not .

I found this excerpt in a longer piece but i will only post the relevant bit, ,this is a quote from that piece

.

Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective

Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.

Subjective : is just the opposite. You can’t point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.

Examples of Objective and Subjective

Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.

Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.

Summary:

1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.

2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.

3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.

. So if you have concrete evidence that can be backed up with data please post it and forget about walls and dogs these are things not in dispute and I don't require evidence of them

fullywired

[Ultima Weapon]

Your entire life meaning works towards death though, the be-all-end-all of the cult of Christ is physical death. Life can have a lot of broad meanings and we can choose that meaning or it may just come along and 'feel' right. Preparing for death through life isn't the kind of life I would like to be living and sucks all the 'life' out of life itself because it's looked at as some speck compared to death and that seducing eternity found in scripture. Like you said, without god, death would just be empty so you're working towards meeting your god and the only way you'll really ever be in his eternal embrace is when you're dead, something Christ's followers seem to veer on obsession over - a life of servitude and serf it seems with constant thoughts of how wonderful it will be to be dead.

Of course, death to Christ's people doesn't matter if they meet him as they simply transist to another part of life; death itself seems to mean being cut off from god according to the bible: "Those who believe in me shall never die."...not very life-fulfilling for the 4 billion non-believers in Christ is it? They might as well make the meaning in the 'now' rather than hope for a meaning in death. Sure you can say that your kids or family give you meaning to live but the whole consensus among Christ's followers is that this life is but a mere preparatory stage for the real deal and that those kids and family members should be saved for the hereafter - their life is spent preparing for death because everything else is futile in the end...**** that, We pay or this life with death, hardship, sadness and sickness; to have the mettle of our souls weighed at the end of something like life, which we were giving without a choice or say in the matter, is sadistic. If i'd have kicked and screamed to become a human then I would have no need for protest...but I didn't choose it.

Matthew 13:44

You may view it as folly for me to put everything I have into the kingdom of heaven, but the end result will prove more fruitful than things may appear to you right now. I only hope and pray that you could see that...

[IamsSon]

I have a somewhat unusual, but not unique, perspective on god, coming from my personal experiences. In theory a god such as that known to moses, or abraham or to me, is/can manifest as, real and solid, and its existence could be tested, IF humans had the ability to do so. Certainly and absolutely god can manifest quite solidly, and his miracles and powers are measurable and physical.

But given that we would fail to be able to test a human from a millenia or so in our future, if it did not want to be tested, I think logically, that any testing for/of god (or a being with the powers and abilities of god) will depend on "his" cooperation in the process. Any way, the existence of god is not really the province of science. Or, to put it round the other way, the significance , role, and purpose of god is not affected by whether science can confirm hs existence.

God is a being engaged in a physical, personal relationship and connection, with human beings. It is really only necesary for each individual to KNOW god for gods role in that relationship to work effectively.

And absolute faith works just as effectively (and sometimes better in my experience) than actually living with and "knowing " god in a physical way. Belief is a more effective driver than knowledge in human psychology. I knew my dad was real, but it was my faith and belief in him as my father, which drove me through childhood and adolescence.

Ps god is only a name we give to an entity with certain characteristics or parameters Anyone determined to deny the existence of god can just alter the characteristics or parameters they want to find in god, and say "Well if you can prove its physical existence it can't BE god." To me that is nonsense . God is what god is.

I think you've hit upon the issue, Mr. W., but it was not quite a direct hit.

I read story online once (and I have since been googling for it, but have not found it again) about God appearing to an atheist and trying to prove to him that He is God. In the end, after God has told the man things he had done that the man thought no one else knew about, had revealed things that would happen in the future, and had transported the man halfway across the world instantaneously, the man was still unconvinced since he could not be sure that God was not simply a very powerful extraterrestrial, a contemporary human with an amazing mutation, or even a visitor from the far future (quoting Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic") . I think any attempt made to prove the existence of even the physical manifestation of God you have interacted with, would meet with the same results.

[Frank Merton]

As a Buddhist atheist with a good deal of contact with Western ideas, including its religions, it occurred to me once what I would do if one fine morning there appeared Jesus Glorified with the Hosts of Heaven in the sky singing his praises in the Second Coming.

Now since I know as surely as I know almost anything that these ideas are nonsense, I would figure some elaborate fraud, maybe for venal purpose, maybe a pious fraud, but at any rate a fraud was under way. I would think even a Christian believer would suspect such a possibility.

So what would I do. Well, I would play along -- obviously these people have an advanced technology and so it would probably be best to keep my head down. Unlike Christians, I have no problem about worshiping false gods. Whatever cooks the goose.

A real God, knowing that divinity is really not a very hard thing to play at, isn't going to be bothered.

[cultanorak]

once you get rid of all the religous spiritual stuff which doesn't have any real evidence whatsover to back it up the meaning of life is just survival of the fittest for every creature to be evolutionarily successful. We live in a meaningless cold and mechanical universe where the strong flourish and prosper at the expense of the weak and although this is savage and cruel it is the natural order. Religon was just one of those things we had to sheild us from the true bleakness of existence and even that has been shown up as the lie it is.

It is impossible to reconcile the concept of a benevolent creator with the abject reality of existence

As the great David Attenborough said when asked about his views on God:

''My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And , 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.^''

^{Can any christian give a satisfactory answer to this? I doubt it.}

Edited February 17, 2013 by yearofthehater

[GoldenWolf]

It is impossible to reconcile the concept of a benevolent creator with the abject reality of existence

Exactly.

[IamsSon]

once you get rid of all the religous spiritual stuff which doesn't have any real evidence whatsover to back it up the meaning of life is just survival of the fittest for every creature to be evolutionarily successful. We live in a meaningless cold and mechanical universe where the strong flourish and prosper at the expense of the weak and although this is savage and cruel it is the natural order. Religon was just one of those things we had to sheild us from the true bleakness of existence and even that has been shown up as the lie it is.

It is impossible to reconcile the concept of a benevolent creator with the abject reality of existence

As the great David Attenborough said when asked about his views on God:

''My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And , 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.^''

^{Can any christian give a satisfactory answer to this? I doubt it.}

OK, let's see, God set up a nice garden for Man to live in. God forbade man one thing: eat from every tree except one. Man decided to eat from that one tree which resulted in him being kicked out of the Garden and into the wild world outside, where not everything was cotton candy and dew drops, where sharks and ebola and eye-eating parasitic worms thrived. So, basically, decisions have consequences, some of them far-reaching and may affect others besides the one making the decision.

[CosmoLogic]

Maybe what you're searching for is enlightenment. Many other people seek this too and its a journey that deals with yourself.

On a side note, "research" shows humans are devolving. We were once 1-dimensional organisms, just something to think about.

[Mr Walker]

I can see the problem here you are .presenting subjective impressions as objective ,whereas I do not .

I found this excerpt in a longer piece but i will only post the relevant bit, ,this is a quote from that piece

.

Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective

Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.

Subjective : is just the opposite. You can’t point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.

Examples of Objective and Subjective

Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.

Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.

Summary:

1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.

2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.

3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.

. So if you have concrete evidence that can be backed up with data please post it and forget about walls and dogs these are things not in dispute and I don't require evidence of them

fullywired

yes I am fully aware of objective and subjective ways of thinking. I use both deliberately. For example I identify an angel using objective evidences as i would identify a dog, but i acknolwedge that naming something has a subjective component.

I go by the normal published parameters for an angel when I talk about angels, as i do for dogs when i talk about dogs.

So god and angels are physical objects/entities, like dogs and walls, which i can describe and discuss objectively as i could a flower or a dog or a wall.

But i also have subjective reactions to and intepretaions of them (as i do for my wife and dog ) EG i like them So my description of a flower is objective but my feeling about a flower is subjective EG "The flower is red" is an objective description. "The flower is pretty" is a subjective one "The flower was 1 cm in diameter" is an objective description. "The flower was petite" is subjective.

I can give you detailed objective descriptions of angels and of god, and of miracles (or objectively) "presently inexplicable manipulations and alterations of matter and energy controlled by sapient purpose."

So you believe in the solidity of walls and dogs via faith do you? How do you KNOW when you see one, that it is not an hallucination?

[Mr Walker]

I think you've hit upon the issue, Mr. W., but it was not quite a direct hit.

I read story online once (and I have since been googling for it, but have not found it again) about God appearing to an atheist and trying to prove to him that He is God. In the end, after God has told the man things he had done that the man thought no one else knew about, had revealed things that would happen in the future, and had transported the man halfway across the world instantaneously, the man was still unconvinced since he could not be sure that God was not simply a very powerful extraterrestrial, a contemporary human with an amazing mutation, or even a visitor from the far future (quoting Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic") . I think any attempt made to prove the existence of even the physical manifestation of God you have interacted with, would meet with the same results.

This is true. I have no problem with god being a very powerful alien entity because, actually that is what god is even in christian terms. God is a name humans have given to such an entity when they either meet him or when they construct such a beingin their minds.

[Mr Walker]

once you get rid of all the religous spiritual stuff which doesn't have any real evidence whatsover to back it up the meaning of life is just survival of the fittest for every creature to be evolutionarily successful. We live in a meaningless cold and mechanical universe where the strong flourish and prosper at the expense of the weak and although this is savage and cruel it is the natural order. Religon was just one of those things we had to sheild us from the true bleakness of existence and even that has been shown up as the lie it is.

It is impossible to reconcile the concept of a benevolent creator with the abject reality of existence

As the great David Attenborough said when asked about his views on God:

''My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And , 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.^''

^{Can any christian give a satisfactory answer to this? I doubt it.}

The fundamentalist christian's response, based on the bible, is simple.

God did not create a world in which that parasitic worm existed in its present form. God created an edenic world with no death, decay, pain, suffering, etc. Humans were connected to, and protected by, the power of god, and the earth was an entirely different ecosystem For example it was all one temp. and much more humid, with a much higher oxygen content, but there was no rain. According to such belief, and from the bible, this world will be recreated after armageddon as a new paradise for humans In fundamentlaist biblical christian terms, ALL pain, suffering, evil, death, decay etc., is a consequence of man separating himself from god.

Obviously this is all impossible under current physics, but indeed tha tis the point. The physics of the world were differnt then. MAn changed the nature of the world in separating himself from god.

I am an evolutionist and dont believe all this, but i do know that, in separating ourselves from god in our lives today, we bring pain, suffering and fear etc., into our lives which dont need to be there.

God can restore us, here and now, to the state in which adam and eve are described as living, if we allow him to enter into our hearts minds and bodies. Ie Without fear, without suffering, without anger, hate, jealousy, envy, greed etc. But filled and empowered with joy, love, courage, and knowing that we are never alone. So empowered, no one needs drugs or alcohol to be ahppy And one is filed with respect for self and others and thus treats themselves and others with the utmost respect. And so one would do things like eat healthily and exercise but also not even think of stealing from another or cheating on a spouse. If you respect yourself and others, you just can't do those things.

Ps I am incredibly saddened to hear that you live an abject existence, in a world filled with savagery and cruelty. I live a rich, happy, empowered, loving and loved existence, in a world of love compassion, generosity and many more wonderful human qualities. But then, I share my world all the time, with a very real and powerful god who confers on me. just by living within me, all those benefits and many more. I ensure my world is not cruel or savage, by how I treat others, my environment and animals, and how i expect/allow other people to deal with me. No one on this earth has the power to hurt me, or anger me, or make me jealous or sad or envious, unless i permit them to.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Mr Walker

[White Crane Feather]

The fundamentalist christian's response, based on the bible, is simple.

God did not create a world in which that parasitic worm existed in its present form. God created an edenic world with no death, decay, pain, suffering, etc. Humans were connected to, and protected by, the power of god, and the earth was an entirely different ecosystem For example it was all one temp. and much more humid, with a much higher oxygen content, but there was no rain. According to such belief, and from the bible, this world will be recreated after armageddon as a new paradise for humans In fundamentlaist biblical christian terms, ALL pain, suffering, evil, death, decay etc., is a consequence of man separating himself from god.

Obviously this is all impossible under current physics, but indeed tha tis the point. The physics of the world were differnt then. MAn changed the nature of the world in separating himself from god.

I am an evolutionist and dont believe all this, but i do know that, in separating ourselves from god in our lives today, we bring pain, suffering and fear etc., into our lives which dont need to be there.

God can restore us, here and now, to the state in which adam and eve are described as living, if we allow him to enter into our hearts minds and bodies. Ie Without fear, without suffering, without anger, hate, jealousy, envy, greed etc. But filled and empowered with joy, love, courage, and knowing that we are never alone. So empowered, no one needs drugs or alcohol to be ahppy And one is filed with respect for self and others and thus treats themselves and others with the utmost respect. And so one would do things like eat healthily and exercise but also not even think of stealing from another or cheating on a spouse. If you respect yourself and others, you just can't do those things.

Ps I am incredibly saddened to hear that you live an abject existence, in a world filled with savagery and cruelty. I live a rich, happy, empowered, loving and loved existence, in a world of love compassion, generosity and many more wonderful human qualities. But then, I share my world all the time, with a very real and powerful god who confers on me. just by living within me, all those benefits and many more. I ensure my world is not cruel or savage, by how I treat others, my environment and animals, and how i expect/allow other people to deal with me. No one on this earth has the power to hurt me, or anger me, or make me jealous or sad or envious, unless i permit them to.

I would swear MW, that you are Neale Donald Walch only pretending to be an Australian school teacher

Edited February 18, 2013 by Seeker79

[fullywired]

.

So you believe in the solidity of walls and dogs via faith do you? How do you KNOW when you see one, that it is not an hallucination?

You got to be joking

fullywired

[Mr Walker]

I would swear MW, that you are Neale Donald Walch only pretending to be an Australian school teacher

I'd never heard of the bloke until you mentioned him but he does seem somewhat familiar in looks and philosophy.

This quote especially resonates with me, as indeed it is my own purpose in life.

Neale Donald Walsch was deeply inspired by this message received, "the purpose of life is to recreate ourselves anew in the highest version of the grandest vision we ever had about ourselves."

^{In addition , it is my hope and purpose in life to help other people be all that they can be, as well.}

[Mr Walker]

You got to be joking

fullywired

What evidences do you use to test the reality of a wall Or do you just accept its existence in faith?

Now if those evidences are satisfactory to test the solidity and reality of a wall, why are they not adequate to test the solidity and reality of an angel or a god?

Do you KNOW you can't walk through a wall, or are you just taking that as an article of faith/belief?

If you can know it, then you can also, using the same evidences, know that angels and god are as real as a wall (or insubstantial hallucinations which you can walk straight through) Either way, by using evidences to test, you can find out.

[fullywired]

What evidences do you use to test the reality of a wall Or do you just accept its existence in faith?

Now if those evidences are satisfactory to test the solidity and reality of a wall, why are they not adequate to test the solidity and reality of an angel or a god?

Do you KNOW you can't walk through a wall, or are you just taking that as an article of faith/belief?

If you can know it, then you can also, using the same evidences, know that angels and god are as real as a wall (or insubstantial hallucinations which you can walk straight through) Either way, by using evidences to test, you can find out.

Your waffling again ,just post your objective concrete verifiable evidence about God .I have told you to forget the walls and angels

fullywired