Jesus lost . . . AGAIN!

[Hutch]

there is no Eternal Question.

you live, you die.
accept it folks.

Very well said. We are born, we die, end of story. Why must there be more than that?

if you can't explain it simply say we "dont know". Don't say, "I dont know, it MUST BE GOD"

Again, very well said.

It is highly probable that life itself started through a form of evolution - if I recall, there are two main theories - the first involves the formation of small spheroid lipid 'bubbles', somewhat akin to liposomes This would form a crude cell wall around molecules which would then be separated from the surrounding environment in an ancient cytosol, bringing molecules into close proximity and assisting in the catalysis of reactions which may lead to the development of 'life'. Secondly, life could have 'borrowed' structure from existing natural examples of negative entropy, such as crystals and clay. In a similar way to the ancient liposomes described above, this would form neat ordered structures within which the catalysis of reactions leading to the development of life could occur.

If people want to believe in intelligent design, then let them. Keep it out of the science classroom though - if you want to teach it, only do so in theology.

 

[Mr. Samos]

If we were just organisms, there would be no after life. Theres something MUCH DEEPER than what we percieve. It's eery as a mother fucker.

Think about it.

 

[Mr. Samos]

If people want to believe in intelligent design, then let them. Keep it out of the science classroom though - if you want to teach it, only do so in theology.

Exactly.

 

[Mr. Samos]

If we were just organisms, there would be no after life. Theres something MUCH DEEPER than what we percieve. It's eery as a mother fucker.

Think about it.

What I mean by that to elaborate is, well a perfect example would be ghosts, spirits, or even aliens...

If you truly thought and believed that we were just scientific make-up of our world, Earth, and that was final, you would have to crazy.

There's something much deeper, we did not just appear, we were put here.

But, that's part of my belief.

You can believe in whatever you want, just don't dismiss the inevitable.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

have you ever percieved the fact that life its self was possibly created through the proccess of evolution?

The burden of proof is on you. You say that life arose from material circumstances. Okay, take a dead body and find that chemical that is missing and make the body alive again. Otherwise, your scientific knowledge in this regard is simply cheating.

As soon as a theory proposes that by some material manipulation it would be possible to bring life back, that manipulation must be presented. Theists do not say that life arose from material arrangement. Our conception is that the life principle itself is completely different from the material constituents. Therefore we do not require direct perception to back up our claim. We aren't the ones proposing that such a thing comes about by direct perception. Actually, of all ways of acquiring knowledge, direct perception is one of the worst. We simply observe how the consciousness, the sense of "I" remains the same despite bodily changes and thus can understand that the self is of a different nature than the body. To say that this sustaining sense of self is a product of material arrangement is going out on a limb and therefore requires proof.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

there is no Eternal Question.

you live, you die.
accept it folks.

5000

What does dying have to do with inquiry into the nature of the absolute? Are you saying that because we are subject to death that such inquiry is meaningless?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

if you can't explain it simply say we "dont know". Don't say, "I dont know, it MUST BE GOD".

I don't know who says this. I just say, "I know its GOD". There is no gap in knowledge so there is nothing to be filled. If you think by empirical data that we will ever understand the nature of the absolute then good luck wasting your time. Both the theist and the atheist are assuming a premise. The theist presumes that intelligence is inherent in the universe whereas the atheist presumes that intelligence arose at some point in time due to material arrangement. The problem the atheist has is that by making this theory they are putting the burden of proof on themselves to show this material arrangement. The theist does not have to show anything because he/she is not proposing something that can be subject to laboratory tests. One is either aware of the intelligence behind the universal affairs or one isn't. A lack of awareness means logically only a lack of awareness. It does not deduce that no intelligence is present. We have experience of the sun but sometimes the sun is covered by clouds. Actually, the sun is never covered. This conception of the sun being covered is our foolishness. Our eyes are actually covered and thus there appears to be no sun. Similarly, our perception may be covered by nescience but intelligence is the eternal quality. It is not that intelligence is absent because we lack perception.

 

[Home-E]

whos gonna respond?? lol