Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0


Only_

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Illyrius said:

Is it possible to arrive to serious discussion about God through philosophy alone, without any tangible "evidences"?

I see philosophy as a great means of ruling out possibilities, and narrowing things down, but not necessarily the greatest means of arriving at the actual truth.

In other words, I can much better express philosophically why I reject certain notions, as opposed to philosophically proposing others.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

Did I say that you have to go outside these threads?

Where did that come from!?

I wouldn’t exactly call some fundamentalists, but then perhaps you have a broader definition of that term than I do. 

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Those of us who don’t remotely agree with the preaching and dictating of what God/a god is, because really that’s what it amounts to, that some prefer to do.  *cough* Will Due *cough* 

cormac

Hang-on..

Will has his beliefs, but I don't think he ever said that he speaks for everyone who believes in God..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

Hang-on..

Will has his beliefs, but I don't think he ever said that he speaks for everyone who believes in God..

He’s made that more than apparent to many of those I’ve gotten to know here over last 8 years or so. 

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

Fixed it for ya. ;)

Well I am rather on the optimistic side...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

Well I am rather on the optimistic side...

I just find it difficult for someone to believe in the incredibly far out there things that fundamentalists believe in who isn't strict in their dogma and theology.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

The reason is that God has many times revealed himself, or through his representatives.

The prophets all said that there is only one God, repeatedly. 

Two thousand years ago the Creator Son himself, the actual being and person who created our local universe said that there's only one God, his Father and our Father.

He also declared because God is One, and there's only one God that:

"He who has seen me has seen the Father."

 

IMHO the confusion being discussed here comes about because some refuse to believe this. Refuse to believe the truth.

That's alright though. But not for me.

 

 

Man...you really are making this stuff up as you go along.  How about this scenario:

In the beginning a Unicorn mated with a Rattlesnake and the heavens and earth came into existence.

How can you people just make stuff up out of thin air and believe it as truth...when the truth is right before your eyes 24/7/365?   Nothing dead gets resurrected.  No one can walk on the surface of the ocean.  You cannot change the chemical elements with your mind....wine into water, etc. and anyone who says they can is a charlatan.

The Physics of the Universe IS the Law of God.  It is always the same, never changing, never true today but not tomorrow.  Gravity is gravity.  The Universe consists of trillions of galaxies....

But we are left now with...well, see...the Local Creator created this and blah blah....which is fine...if you want to believe that ...fine...but if you are really, honestly, searching for the truth?  The truth isn't that.  The truth is found in the reality of things...not the mental constructs of belief.

Edited by joc
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, joc said:

In the beginning a Unicorn mated with a Rattlesnake and the heavens and earth came into existence.

Not that far off from the Bible there honestly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I just find it difficult for someone to believe in the incredibly far out there things that fundamentalists believe in who isn't strict in their dogma and theology.

Well to my mind, it isn't so much what they believe in, more an inability to even consider anything other than Offical Doctrine. Thats the issue in my opinion. 

Im not talking about Will here, just folks in general who are closed off to anything outside their box. 

HH Dalai Lama said, "Be prepared to drop even a long held belief at a moments notice." or words to that affect.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

Well to my mind, it isn't so much what they believe in, more an inability to even consider anything other than Offical Doctrine. Thats the issue in my opinion. 

Im not talking about Will here, just folks in general who are closed off to anything outside their box. 

HH Dalai Lama said, "Be prepared to drop even a long held belief at a moments notice." or words to that affect.

Bingo. :tu: Couldn't agree more.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Who are "the rest of us" you're speaking for?

 

 

Sorry mate, Im a bit slow on the uptake sometimes...lolz

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, joc said:

Maybe I won't leave the thread...that was late last night after driving for hours and hours....perspectives change with a little sleep...

...so...I'll just say...I think you are unwilling to understand that if someone wakes up on the autopsy table, it only means one thing...someone misdiagnosed them as dead.

So I will ask you point blank...do you personally believe the guy had been dead for three days and came back to life suddenly after having had no blood circulate in his body and no air in his lungs ...for 72 hours?  Or...are you the least bit speculative that...possibly he might not have actually been dead?

 

Yes, I am unwilling to understand that if someone wakes up on the operating table, the only possibility is that someone misdiagnosed them as dead.  You are saying that there are no other possibilities and that is not logical.  And, in general, from a medical perspective; they were dead in most cases.  If they have no heartbeat, no respiration and no electrical activity in their brain, they are as dead as dead will ever be.  They are as dead as we know.  Since you deny the existence of the afterlife, life after death, probably deny that there is any such thing as spirit world, God, or anything other than matter, energy, and time existing in the universe (standard Materialist philosophy); your worldview doesn't allow you to consider anything else possible.  It may very well be that people who have survived these types of experiences were not actually dead, but rather in a state that's as seemingly close to dead as possible......but by some chance and/or luck they come back.

Or, it could be that they were in fact just dead, and by some strange phenomenon or divine intervention they were allowed to return to life.  I don't know and don't have the answers, but I do know this.  The definition of what dead means is understood by science, and medical professionals and it was covered in the links I provided.  In those links, you will find that it is generally the case that the brain is unable to survive more than a few minutes of "death" without irreversible consequences.  

Some of the cases that I have studied, read about, or looked up on the internet deny these parameters, and many by a long shot.....like the guy who awoke while an autopsy was being performed on him.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing about unknown things, unexplained phenomenon, etc.......they are UNKNOWN.  Now, scientifically minded people view unknown things or phenomenon as naturally occurring things happening in a natural world.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  In general, it's the right way to think about things.  But when it comes to the realm of possibility - to claim something impossible that it not understood is just foolish.  It's UNKNOWN!  You know what unknown means?  It means no one knows.  So, trying to claim something impossible that you know nothing of, is pretty much just not smart, it is unintelligent and represents cognitive bias.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of people who have died, and returned to life, atheists (materialists) are required to dismiss this as supernatural because their preconceived notions don't allow them to think otherwise. And since, similar circumstances can be replicated or somewhat simulated with drugs under both controlled and uncontrolled conditions, they dismiss the experience as simply the dying brain misfiring some involved swan song.  And maybe they are right; or maybe they are not.

In general, when it pertains to unexplained phenomenon, these closed minded materialists use the old canard of offering possible explanations to the phenomenon, and then just considering the thing explained, or debunked.  This is nonsense.  Offering a possible explanation to a phenomenon in no way demonstrates that the phenomenon is understood.

It demonstrates that the phenomenon has been considered and a POSSIBLE explanation has been contemplated.    

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think the fact that atheists want to debate the existence of God with others; was intelligently designed.

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guyver

But the issue is not whether I can conceive of personal consciousness persisting after death (I just did conceive of it, in telling you what the issue is not), but whether VIBEs are evidence of that.

No, they aren't. They are one kind of evidence that people will sometimes "fill in" gaps in their memories. The scare quotes reflect that the people aren't intentionally fabricating stories (although I believe that some of the stories are intentionally fabricated, now that there is a market for this kind of narrative). Just as "nature abhors a vacuum," so too "long term memory hates gaps."

Quote

In those links, you will find that it is generally the case that the brain is unable to survive more than a few minutes of "death" without irreversible consequences.

Except when it does. One category of false diagnoses of death used to be drowning victims submerged for more than about ten minutes. They looked dead enough, and irreversible brain damage usually sets in after about ten minutes of oxygen deprivation. But, if the water is chilly, then it turns out that humans, too, participate in the mammalian diving reflex. The physiology shifts, and the brain can go for about half an hour without external oxygen and come back fine. If I recall correctly, this discovery was made when somebody given up for dead woke up - unexpectedly, of course.

What we know about VIBE reporters is that they hadn't died and they haven't suffered so much brain damage that they cannot communicate with us now. Natch, anything they say is scarfed up and passed off as reliable information about what happens to people who really die and who can't ever communicate with us (except on the other board here at UM devoted to that).

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Is it possible to arrive to serious discussion about God through philosophy alone, without any tangible "evidences"?

Around here?  Not likely.  Nor would it be helpful, IMHO.  There has to be a reason for believing something in the first place or else it's just nonsense and silly.  We all believe things, and we all believe different things, that seems clear enough.  But to discuss something or someone not really known to exist in the first place is difficult enough....and with no evidence whatsoever?  I guess I just don't see the point. 

I think we all have reasons that we believe what we do believe.  It may be as simple as "that's how I was raised" but that is an explanation.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Guyver said:

Right, but you're comparing physical things with non-physical things.  If God exists, then he's not like a rock, tree, or planet.....since he predates them all and thus must exist outside of space and time. Since there is no physical way to test this, in not a good analogy.  A teapot orbiting the sun is not some impossible notion.  A teapot is a chunk of matter just as an asteroid or other space debris and is subject to the laws of physics.  No one knows what God is, or how spiritual things may work, so by definition any understanding of it would be non-scientific.

So, the question is.....do things exist that are not known scientifically.  The answer is yes.  You know this because new discoveries are being made all the time, so prior to their discovery they were thought to exist but not known to exist.  

In any event, evidence for the afterlife does exist, and it is apparent that some people don't wish to acknowledge this fact.  

Hello G

This reminded me of something.

This is a universe of space, time, and change. Everything is in constant flux, from an atom to a new galaxy, nothing stays still, everything changes. Everything comes together before falling apart. This is what buddhist call "emptiness" because in the universe there is nothing Substanial. Nothing is permanent. It is void of Substanial Reality. Material science has built a whole ideology upon quicksand..

"God" (whatever you think THAT is) on the other hand is Real, Substanial and Unchanging.

The Immoveable.

The Absolute.

THE ALL.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Illyrius said:

One of things to consider maybe. I'm not saying this is some kind of proof, but only worthy of consideration. The text is long and it's fine if you are not interested.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/08/04/5-classic-experiments-showing-extremely-significant-results-for-human-telepathy/

I read it, it was not that long. 

But I don't see why you bother with such trash. It clearly contradicts itself and I can tell you it outright lies. If you put this same effort into understanding physics you would understand it and realise why articles like that are just woo. 

It says science won't study the phenomena but at the same time lists a bunch of old studies to prove its point??? If ever and entire article was an oxymoron, this is it. 

It omits the studies done since, like a Edgar Mitchell doing his own personal ESP experiment when flying to the moon on an apollo mission, it omits the 20 million dollar CIA study, it omits the continuous experiments like the ones I posted on dowsing and horrorscopes. 

It lists older studies because they were the starting point. Science considered the claims genuine. Many tried very hard to verify the claims, imagine what the CIA could have done with remote viewing. They wanted it and bad. Problem was rigorous testing showed nothing more than chance. And that's, why that piece of trash focuses on those pioneers and dissects those early attempts at verifying the phenomena, they were the first experiments, and as such were a learning curve. The flaws that offered the illusion of results 'above chance' could not be repeated no matter how many times we tried. That brings them back down to chance no matter how the author embellished them. Really, whoever wrote that article ought to be tarred and feathered for outright fabricating such a wild claim. 

That's why UFO nuts concentrate on old cases and avoid modern discovery like the Hessdalen phenomena too. They are just snake oil salesmen, not men of science. 

Seriously man, if I have any senses about other people I sense you are smarter than this. Your capable of so much more. I strongly suggest you try reading some of the paperbacks released by physicists who do their best to bring the technical side of it down to layman level and read it 2 or 3 times. I have every confidence that you are more than capable of understanding it. Might I suggest Hawking's a brief history of time as a good starting point. 

You can do better than this. And really if your supporting ancient superstition because it's easy to understand and science is hard, you do yourself the greatest disservice here. I do feel it is wrong if you to argue the superstitious nature of claims when you admit the science is at the moment beyond your understanding. You don't have both sides of the story. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

I think the fact that atheists want to debate the existence of God with others; was intelligently designed.

 

 

Will

When people are talking about evolution or what science has observed there are those that try to bring in the existence of God and intelligently designed because they think people like me are athiests. I see a lot of imagining in your position, imagining that you hold the truth, imagining that people who aren't athiests are, imagining that we should conform to your perspective and imagining that we are in denial.

Your perspective is your personal anchor because you need it to feel safe. I don't need those external perceptual crutches to see the validity in life and you cannot accept that. That cannot and does not affect my life in any way, your refusal to accept that affects you and you alone.

jmccr8

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

At a glance then I would have to say that yes, that looks very similar although it does cover a wide ranging doctrines, so I would be slightly cautiously..

Dude....... an atheist just told you what religion you have been describing. 

11 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Do you have any issues with Pantheism, considering that it a big concept with slightly differing view points? That would help me clarify my own position.

Yes, its completly unessesary. We have good answers that fit the data. There is no good reason to convolute that by forcing a diety into the picture. It's pointless and only achieved propping up ancient superstition. 

There is no good reason to consider any god story as valid. We have better answers. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Hello G

This reminded me of something.

This is a universe of space, time, and change. Everything is in constant flux, from an atom to a new galaxy, nothing stays still, everything changes. Everything comes together before falling apart. This is what buddhist call "emptiness" because in the universe there is nothing Substanial. Nothing is permanent. It is void of Substanial Reality. Material science has built a whole ideology upon quicksand..

"God" (whatever you think THAT is) on the other hand is Real, Substanial and Unchanging.

The Immoveable.

The Absolute.

THE ALL.

I respect what you believe.  But, I hope you can see that in a place like this little weight is given to people's beliefs.  So, if we don't have a way to substantiate our beliefs when we discuss them, we have to be willing to understand that to Materialists it just sounds like nonsense.  I believe in God, but I don't have any way to prove to anyone else that my beliefs make any sense.  I have experiences and this is enough to support my belief, but I also know that it's not going to convince anyone else so I don't really try to.  I'm guessing this is the same for you and all believers.  It would be interesting to see if people like you and me can actually discuss our beliefs, why we believe them, and get anything out of it.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Well Spirit is as spiritual does 

Something like that anyway.....

The mind is the brain, the brain is made of atoms...... You know the rest. 

Nope, its just a trick of the brain adjusting to major instant alterations to the body. 

Some are, Schwazansgger, Dwayne Johnson, heck I even lift. 

Yes, we can maim another with words or actions. words are powerful too. 

Atamarie Psyche ..

Spiritual is as Spiritual Does .. Lols I like .!!!

And yes ..haha..

The Mind is not the Brain.. No matter what studies you do, this is Not true ..it won't be truth ..

The 2 Brains are the Computer, The MIND is the Data Base .. Consciousness..

Maybe a trick of the brain, I doubt it in this case..Its the power of the Mind..

Yes Arnie, The Rock and your good self, have Physical Prowess, powerful beings, Yet The Mind and The Energy we Produce, is More Capable of feats beyond Mass ..

Words affect, Emotionally, these Emotions Direct the Body, and The Actions are produced, be it Rage, Depression, Sadness, Happiness, Depending on Which words are said .. Thats why it Is Important to be In control of What Energy you allow in to yours ..

 Words are Powerful .. Such as, If we are Told continuously, that we are , Just Mass, there's nothing else, going on, No Spiritual Side, Not Powerful,... That is what we believe .. This is what is happening Now .. We are Denied the Truth..... Through the Official, Collective Teachings, of Words, that We are Just Monkeys etc, growing from a cell, to this very day .. No matter what the Data Says.. This is False .. 

We Are Energy Beings first, then Mass ... This is just the Vehicle we are Living in .. 

Mo ..xx..

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
  • This topic was locked and unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.