Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense! - Part 2

It all starts with very careful planning.
Or not....

Suppose there's a pile of rocks on top of a hill. A variety of natural occurences - lightning, earthqauke, wind - can start one or more of those rocks rolling. The shape of each rock causes it to veer this way or that way on its downhill journey. Different rocks hit different bumps and other obstacles, further altering their pathways. Eventually, all of the rocks are at the bottom of the hill, their gravitational potential energy used up. Then you come along and see them and conclude that somebody planned to arrange them like that.

No, you can't do that. As long as there are natural processes that can explain each step, you can't conclude that the final result was some kind of goal.
 
I disagree with your suggestion that there are reliable methods to meet God. Plenty of people including me sincerely sought God and other supernatural things at various times and was met with nothing. Even in the ideal situation of a sincere person of faith, we cannot know that their personal experience is real. Not even God can provide absolute certainty of his existence because to have absolute certainty, you need omniscience, and nothing is omniscient but (theoretically) God. I've had hallucinatory experiences of deities, so I know it's possible. The fact of human delusion and hallucination provides all the doubt we need to dismiss the reliability of personal experience. The methods of science are provably the only way to know anything with reasonable certainty. I do know there is no reliable evidence of God currently available in popular media, because if so, it would be revolutionary.

I've ruminated over this problem for years. I've had intense experiences of the supernatural that have gone on for weeks. It's powerful, but it's also taxing. I value those experiences and the miracles I've seen. I just can't reconcile the phenomena with logical thinking. It's also hard to live under those conditions. Imagine receiving hours of instructions from a Higher Power (while at work). I remember being instructed that I had to obey the law, to the letter; including speeding limits, even as police cars would suddenly show up and drive along side me. In another experience, I was told that a telepathic communication can be intercepted by evil forces; it was my responsibility to disregard a communication that might be considered dangerous. The example that was taught to me was: what if a telepathic communication tells you to demonstrate your faith in God by closing your eyes while driving down the highway? When this point was drilled into me sufficiently, the Powers that be tested me. While I was driving down the street, a man who was standing on the curb suddenly stepped off the curb. If I had been driving with my eyes closed, I would have hit this pedestrian. I could see that the man had obviously made a mistake in stepping off the curb. I had to slam on my breaks. His buddy pulled him back onto the curb. It looked to me as if the man had received a telepathic command to step off the curb. God had to trust that I had understood what was being taught.

My point is that you have to use good judgement and discernment to tell the difference between a delusion and a communication from a Higher Power. If a Higher power is telling you something that is helpful, healing and wise, while at the same time, an evil person is trying to convince you that life is meaningless, then maybe you should listen to the wise communication and ignore the evil communication.
 
Or not....

Suppose there's a pile of rocks on top of a hill. A variety of natural occurences - lightning, earthqauke, wind - can start one or more of those rocks rolling. The shape of each rock causes it to veer this way or that way on its downhill journey. Different rocks hit different bumps and other obstacles, further altering their pathways. Eventually, all of the rocks are at the bottom of the hill, their gravitational potential energy used up. Then you come along and see them and conclude that somebody planned to arrange them like that.

No, you can't do that. As long as there are natural processes that can explain each step, you can't conclude that the final result was some kind of goal.

Spend some time in nature, then come back and tell us that it was a series of accidents. By the way, where are all of the dud universes?
 
What does this mean? How much is a lot? How much is a little?
Fine tuned universe.

wiki said:
If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[9] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the di-proton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.
 
I've ruminated over this problem for years. I've had intense experiences of the supernatural that have gone on for weeks. It's powerful, but it's also taxing. I value those experiences and the miracles I've seen. I just can't reconcile the phenomena with logical thinking. It's also hard to live under those conditions. Imagine receiving hours of instructions from a Higher Power (while at work). I remember being instructed that I had to obey the law, to the letter; including speeding limits, even as police cars would suddenly show up and drive along side me. In another experience, I was told that a telepathic communication can be intercepted by evil forces; it was my responsibility to disregard a communication that might be considered dangerous. The example that was taught to me was: what if a telepathic communication tells you to demonstrate your faith in God by closing your eyes while driving down the highway? When this point was drilled into me sufficiently, the Powers that be tested me. While I was driving down the street, a man who was standing on the curb suddenly stepped off the curb. If I had been driving with my eyes closed, I would have hit this pedestrian. I could see that the man had obviously made a mistake in stepping off the curb. I had to slam on my breaks. His buddy pulled him back onto the curb. It looked to me as if the man had received a telepathic command to step off the curb. God had to trust that I had understood what was being taught.

My point is that you have to use good judgement and discernment to tell the difference between a delusion and a communication from a Higher Power. If a Higher power is telling you something that is helpful, healing and wise, while at the same time, an evil person is trying to convince you that life is meaningless, then maybe you should listen to the wise communication and ignore the evil communication.

I am really interested to hear what intense supernatural things have happened to you.
 
sideshowbob,

I have to disagree. An individual coming to terms with something is a separate issue from what that something actually is. How one comes to terms with cancer has no bearing on what cancer actually is.

We don't always have the luxury of knowing what ''something actually is'', so even from that standpoint we have to come to terms with the limitation of what we know.

The best way we have to decide what something actually is is to compare our own perceptions with other people's perceptions. When we see something unusual, our first impulse is to ask somebody, "Did you see that?" Confirmation is the basis of confidence.

That's great, but experiences don't alway happen under those circumstances, so when they occurr only to us, we are still a witness to it.
Anybody can be decieved, or deluded, or absolutely correct in their understanding of personal experience.

Agreement is what makes evidence evidence. It has nothng to do with "correctness".

Not really. Because that means non agreement means no evidence.

As far as I understand it, the age of the universe is extrapolated from the observed rate of expansion. You can examine the data yourself and repeat the calculations to confirm what others have done.

Obviously, if I examine the data, and repeat what as already been done, I'm going to come to the same conclusion. But what makes
YOU think it is evidence?

jan.
 
Spend some time in nature, then come back and tell us that it was a series of accidents.
Been there, done that. It's observation of nature that causes me to conclude that no being in its right mind would design such a mess.

By the way, where are all of the dud universes?
They would only be duds if there was a goal. If there are other universes, they are all every bit as "perfect" as this one.
 
They would only be duds if there was a goal. If there are other universes, they are all every bit as "perfect" as this one.
If nobody exists to admire its beauty, or complain incessantly, then what was the point in creating it?

Also, there is no scientific evidence that there are any other universes, there is only this universe. Therefore, this universe exists, we are alive, and life flourishes. What more evidence of a Designer do you need? I want you to address the issue that there is only one universe, and yet life formed ONLY BECAUSE carbon atoms exist.
 
Anybody can be decieved, or deluded, or absolutely correct in their understanding of personal experience.
That's why personal experience is of little value in determining "truth".

Because that means non agreement means no evidence.
That's right.

But what makes YOU think it is evidence?
As I've already said, it's evidence because it's evident to anybody.
 
If nobody exists to admire its beauty, or complain incessantly, then what was the point in creating it?
I'm not the one who thinks it was created. I'm not the one that thinks there is a "pont" to it.

Also, there is no scientific evidence that there are any other universes, there is only this universe. Therefore, this universe exists, we are alive, and life flourishes. What more evidence of a Designer do you need?
The minimum evidence that I would need for any entity is the same kind of evidence I need when the cable guy comes to the door - photo ID.
 
That's why personal experience is of little value in determining "truth".
Here is wiki's definition of the word "truth".
wiki said:
Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality[1] or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal.
If the standard or ideal is that God exists or a Higher Power exists, then personal experience of that power is of great value. There is no better way to experience that value than through personal experience or the experience of others.
 
I want you to address the issue that there is only one universe, and yet life formed ONLY BECAUSE carbon atoms exist.
You're thinking backwards. Life is a result of carbon atoms. So what? There's no reason to think that somebody said to himself, "I wanna create life so I'm gonna need some carbon...."
 
spidergoat,

I disagree with your suggestion that there are reliable methods to meet God. Plenty of people including me sincerely sought God and other supernatural things at various times and was met with nothing.

How do you know ''plenty of people'' were sincere?

And what method did you use to see God, and/or ''other supernatural things''?


Even in the ideal situation of a sincere person of faith, we cannot know that their personal experience is real.


How did you determine that they were sincere people of faith?

Not even God can provide absolute certainty of his existence because to have absolute certainty, you need omniscience, and nothing is omniscient but (theoretically) God.


I'm not talking about ''certainty''.

I've had hallucinatory experiences of deities, so I know it's possible.


You know what's possible?


The fact of human delusion and hallucination provides all the doubt we need to dismiss the reliability of personal experience.


You've made qute a leap here, but never mind for now.

How does human delusion and hallucination povide doubt in YOUR personal experiences.

The methods of science are provably the only way to know anything with reasonable certainty.

Great if you want to know scientific things, but what does this have to do with what we're discussing?

I do know there is no reliable evidence of God currently available in popular media, because if so, it would be revolutionary.

How woud the popular media, like yourself, know what is and is not evidence of God?

jan.
 
You're thinking backwards. Life is a result of carbon atoms. So what? There's no reason to think that somebody said to himself, "I wanna create life so I'm gonna need some carbon...."
It's not "thinking backwards", it's "reverse engineering". If you want a universe that contains life, you have to plan for it.
 
Back
Top