Is there a GOD?

[tech/a]

Oh I see.You must have theory.

Something presented in the form of a balance sheet maybe.

Your "something" is the reality of the existance of your parents whom you can see and interact with---they are not a belief.
Ask any child who has never met their parent/s wether they believe that they were/are loved by them.

 

[2020hindsight]

[ OK... What he's referring to is the `Aether'. It was concocted during early work on electromagnetism as an explanation of HOW electromagnetic waves (like your radio and TV signals) propagate through apparently empty space............

Reading on, the arguments just get more and more turgid and confused, jumping from fundamental physics to the supernatural to love and hatred to god knows what else.

Thanks for the email, nontheless I really enjoy discussing these kinds of things with people. It really makes you exercise your own rationale. Look forward to more questions discussions, etc.

I take it that the last sentence is yours tech (??) - certainly a very technocratic study of that article - and I'll have to read it further " later" lol.

PS Imagine if you'd shown Matthew Mark Luke or John a modern computer, linking up to the internet with a wireless connection, and communicating about the existence of god with people all over the world... lol - they'd be telling their mates / disciples - sheesh , wait till I tell you about these miracles I've just seen!!

Imagine if you'd shown em that link to youtube with Celine Dion singing with Elvis (risen from the dead lol) !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHqoSuu_0sU
This is creepy !!
Elvis (singing in 1968) on stage with Celine Dion in 2007

I bow to CS Lewis on this one.
.... Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves. Of course this has not always been so. [ presumably devils chatting here? ]

...a belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the enemy. The “Life Force,” the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis may here prove useful.

If once we can produce our perfect work—the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls “Forces” while denying the existence of “spirits”—then the end of the war will be in sight.

.... If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights, and persuade him that since he cannot believe in that (it is an old textbook method of confusing them) he therefore cannot believe in you.

The Screwtape Letters -CS Lewis

Lol, not sure where you're going here retro, but sounds like CS Lewis (Narnia, and others kids books - made into a movie I'm reliably told - about a year ago), anyway hardly likely to be too serious on the topic of the devil.

As I mentioned, talk of this stupid "devil" is why I never had any of my kids christened. In short, I didn't want them to be screwed up by the church. About devils. About having to stoke fires for eternity (let's face it, that's a hell of a lot of stoking !!).

But on the question of a spirit, or rather a human soul...
a) I had an old friendly neighbour when I was a kid, he was 90 , I was about 12... Anyway he was a radiologist at the local hospital in a small town. When he retired he became a Lay Preacher. (deaf as a post poor old man ) - But He was always fascinated with the comparison of Xrays of dead vs live bodies - in the end he had to admit, there wasn't any difference

Finally I'll just add that I find religion a convenient comfort for others - suppose a relative were to need comfort re dying for instance. If they believe it, I'll reinforce it for them. I posted a poem on poetry thread about mercy-euthenasia. And I just posted a song on "favourite lyrics" exactly that sort of thing , beautiful lyrics

- BUT no way will I consider a prayer for my own deliverence to Heavan etc - just don't believe in it, end of story.

PS If man has a soul, so logically so too an ape, a horse - where do you stop? gnat? a sandfly? - then why not a plant? - Just acept that we all have some "lifeforce" within us - and CELEBRATE the fact imho.

"Little flower waving in the breeze, Spare a moment please, you've got me on my knees
teach me on symmetry, teach me your reality, live and breathe with me - Share my EXISTENCE"

 

[retroaugogo]

Your "something" is the reality of the existance of your parents whom you can see and interact with---they are not a belief.
Ask any child who has never met their parent/s wether they believe that they were/are loved by them.

You're thinking only in the physical.There's a spiritual realm that can only really be measured in experiences.Those experiences become just as real to us as those that happen in the physical.

I'm closer to my spirtual father than I am to my physical father.

 

[tech/a]

You're thinking only in the physical.There's a spiritual realm that can only really be measured in experiences.Those experiences become just as real to us as those that happen in the physical.

I'm closer to my spirtual father than I am to my physical father.

Yes and this is where the skeptic in me,sees the Spiritual as a Manifectation of the Physical mind.
There is no evidence that the spirit in any form exists other than in the minds of those who wish to believe in its existance and scripture.

Like religion and God I cant help but agree with the available evidence that these are manifestations of those who need such things.

We look at native tribes and even the ancient greeks who "Foolishly" worshiped all sorts of gods.
Yet we do the same (as a human race) and see it as wise---indeed enlightened.
1000s of years later----hmm whats changed?

 

[Mousie]

QUESTION

Anyone who is 100% sure there is a God care to explain how they are this way?---Other than Faith.

Please read post #57 of this thread.

 

[Julia]

The more I think about why some of us believe in a God and/or a spiritual level of existence, the more I feel it has to do with being comforted.

To accept that we are bits of matter little different from, say, insects and are insignificant in the overall history of the universe is somewhat depressing. So perhaps we look for meaning and point to our existence in the form of being "created by God", said God being the maker of our entire known universe. And likewise, to avoid the nothingness of death we need to have this God bestow on us (in Christian terms) life ever after. Thus, we observe in believers of life after death a willingness and acceptance of their impending end. Why, otherwise, is it that so many prisoners on death row say they experience a profound conversion to religious beliefs?
(To take it to the ridiculous level, remember Michelle Leslie very temporarily becoming a Muslim while in jail in Indonesia! I doubt very much that any genuine beliefs were involved in this instance.)

Personally, when anxious or upset about something I sometimes have the sense of my dead grandmother saying the sort of calming things she did when she was alive. If I were religious or putting a spiritual slant on this, I would say her spirit was with me, giving me comfort and support.
However, if I were not inclined to the spiritual explanation, then I would simply say that my memory is bringing up the phrases she so often used which I found comforting then and still do now when I think about them.

So, I think what I'm attempting to say here is that we will put our own constructs on anything depending on our need at the time.

Perhaps this is why when someone we love has died we sometimes experience a sense of that person's spirit still being with us in almost as real a sense as their physical presence. This may be nothing more than our creation of a means of reducing our grieving, and a form of denial emotionally that that loved person has actually gone for ever

 

[The Mint Man]

i for one, am not going to write my personal experiences which have resulted in my faith being supremely strenthed simply becuase i cannot, on this forum

Even though you said you wouldnt justify your beliefs, I think you have partly answered techs question.... Highlighted in my quote above!
and as for the rest of your rant, ditto what tech said following it. (EDIT) including the part about his partner seeing things!

Cheers

 

[constable]

Even though you said you wouldnt justify your beliefs, I think you have partly answered techs question.... Highlighted in my quote above!
and as for the rest of your rant, ditto what tech said following it.

Cheers

Cmon you guys its been a really thought provolking thread so far.
There is never going to be a definitive answer and even if there is i doubt its going to pop its head up first on ASF!

 

[retroaugogo]

The more I think about why some of us believe in a God and/or a spiritual level of existence, the more I feel it has to do with being comforted.

I've never found getting in touch with the creator to have been a particularly comforting experience despite popular misconception.

Confronting yes,comforting no.He's a pretty hard taskmaster.


God, who foresaw your tribulation, has specially armed you to go through it, not without pain but without stain."
Author: Lewis, C.S

 

[The Mint Man]

I'm not competing to win any arguments, nor did I say that's what I felt. It's just another option. The problem is that people don't question things enough. Or, people like yourself, ignore everything because it sounds stupid to you.

Ok, I think what I was trying to say was... tell us what you are actually trying to say instead of talking in riddles, I find this method of debate to be common amoung religious people. Thats all I was saying, it was not ment to be a direct attack on you, it just happend to remind me of certain people I have come accross over the years.
As for questioning, I think I do... but I want answers in plain english. Also if you read my first post where I mention my answer in the poll then I think it will tell you Im open to opinions.
For the record, I went to a church for 3 years in my teens and had many mates (and still do) that are religious. One of my mates from school actually became the pastor of that very church!

So, I think what I'm attempting to say here is that we will put our own constructs on anything depending on our need at the time.

Well said.

 

[tech/a]

SUMMARY: This is where the "what" gives way to a "who". A mere object could not possibly have such power over both things of the mind and things of the heart. This power, this higher being, has gotta be something capable of relational powers. This has to be GOD...

Well I'm afraid evolution which doesnt have the restraints of time nor the restraints of man---which by the way has only been around to manifest God and religion for a mear 60,000 yrs or so out of the 100s of millions of years in which the cosmos has developed to where it is today and will in 100s of millions of years still be evolving with or without man religion or our gods.

Evolution can and does explain not only this existance but every other existance known or un known.

This power, this higher being, has gotta be something capable of relational powers.

Why cannot it be that Dinosaures became extinct and man simply evolved.
From cave dwelling existance to the modern man of today and tommorow.
our evolution has been and will be inspite of any God not because of it.

What did God create the first Dinosaure in his own image?

Man was no where to be seen for Millions of years.

 

[nomore4s]

Well I'm afraid evolution which doesnt have the restraints of time nor the restraints of man---which by the way has only been around to manifest God and religion for a mear 60,000 yrs or so out of the 100s of millions of years in which the cosmos has developed to where it is today and will in 100s of millions of years still be evolving with or without man religion or our gods.

Evolution can and does explain not only this existance but every other existance known or un known.



Why cannot it be that Dinosaures became extinct and man simply evolved.
From cave dwelling existance to the modern man of today and tommorow.
our evolution has been and will be inspite of any God not because of it.

What did God create the first Dinosaure in his own image?

Man was no where to be seen for Millions of years.

Very good post Tech, makes you wonder what will happen to God when man is becomes extinct.

 

[tech/a]

Very good post Tech, makes you wonder what will happen to God when man is becomes extinct.

(A) Well I'm sure it would be said that he would allow the complete destruction of the human race because they had sinned and sinned---
Then would simply create another better Adam and Eve.

(B) When simply by manifestation of God in the heavenly skies above would through sheer power of vision have every sinner to their knees and every disbeliever a preacher,Every skeptic an advocate,every scientist a willing pupil!

Strange how A seems more practical and best applied doesnt it?

 

[Wysiwyg]

Great posting ,Some more thoughts.

The common denominator in life is survival.To all other forms of life on this planet survival is instinctive (no thought processing).Man is physically small & vulnerable in comparison to other creatures and without mind would not have reached such numbers on the earth.
The thing I don`t get is when did smart man begin?That turning point is what does not make sense.If the product of smart man is concrete,steel,plastic,glass etcetera (all made from the earth) then/now the nature balance has broken down.The ultimate consumer is us and the survival meme/gene has no significance to the continuation of human species.

Believing in a god is a safe haven (group numbers) and something to hold onto.The contribution on a practical level is little... but pomp,ceremony and self or group aggrandization is important for the group to stay together and to reinforce the fears and faith.With our thoughts we create physical and emotional life.The destructive nature of man has no rhyme or reason.

People will go on believing (there is that word again) in a god until we humans are consumed or we consume the planet.

 

[2020hindsight]

What did God create the first Dinosaure in his own image?

Man was no where to be seen for Millions of years.

If horses could draw, they would draw their gods as horses - Xenophanes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes Xenophanes of Colophon (Greek Ξενοφάνης ὁ Κολοφώνιος, Xenophánes; 570 – 480 BC) was a Greek philosopher, poet, and social and religious critic. Our knowledge of his views comes from his surviving poetry, all of which are fragments passed down as quotations by later Greek writers. His poetry criticized and satirized a wide range of ideas, including the belief in the pantheon of anthropomorphic gods and the Greeks' veneration of athleticism. He is the earliest Greek poet who claims explicitly to be writing for future generations, creating "fame that will reach all of Greece, and never die while the Greek kind of songs survives."[1]

Xenophanes rejected the idea that the gods resembled humans in form. One famous passage ridiculed the idea by claiming that, if oxen were able to imagine gods, then those gods would be in the image of oxen:

“ The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpture like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.[2] ”

Because of his development of the concept of a "one god greatest among gods and men" that is abstract, universal, unchanging, immobile and always present, Xenophanes is often seen as one of the first monotheists, in the Western philosophy of religion. This vision is not undisputed; while it seems clear that Xenophanes differed markedly from the commonly held cosmology of his contemporaries, it is less clear that his ideas were congruent with monotheism per se, as he seemed to admit the existence of other gods ("among gods and men"), albeit different gods than the ones represented in the works of Homer and Hesiod.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/x/x-phanes.htm
..... Xenophanes found the weapons he required for his attack on polytheism in the science of the time. Here are traces of Anaximander's cosmology in the fragments, and Xenophanes may easily have been his disciple before he left Ionia. He seems to have taken the gods of mythology one by one and reduced them to meteorological phenomena, and especially to clouds. And he maintained there was only one god -- namely, the world. God is one incorporeal eternal being, and, like the universe, spherical in form; that he is of the same nature with the universe, comprehending all things within himself; is intelligent, and pervades all things, but bears no resemblance to human nature either in body or mind.

He taught that if there had ever been a time when nothing existed, nothing could ever have existed. Whatever is, always has been from eternity, without deriving its existence from any prior principles. Nature, he believed, is one and without limit; that what is one is similar in all its parts, else it would be many; that the one infinite, eternal, and homogeneous universe is immutable and incapable of change. His position is often classified as pantheistic, although his use of the term 'god' simply follows the use characteristic of the early cosmologists generally. There is no evidence that Xenophanes regarded this 'god' with any religious feeling, and all we are told about him (or rather about it) is purely negative. He is quite unlike a man, and has no special organs of sense, but 'sees all over, thinks all over, hears all over' (fr. 24). Further, he does not go about from place to place (fr. 26), but does everything 'without toil (fr. 25). It is not safe to go beyond this; for Xenophanes himself tells us no more. It is pretty certain that if he had said anything more positive or more definitely religious in its bearing it would have been quoted by later writers.

 

[macca]

And then we have the Chariots theory....................

If you read the descriptions in the bible, with an allowance for the fact that the witnesses would not have had a clue what they were, they could well have been spacecraft.

The theory is that intelligent man was created by the interbreeding with "gods" from another planet or another spiritual realm.

We can also consider the fact that to an ant we are huge, to a microbe we absolutely gigantic, could we be living on "Gods Ant Farm" ?

Maybe the stars at night are actually windows where beings pay 10 @*# to view the earth.

They may be reading this and laughing at us right now

Me ? I am happy with the knowledge that the spirit lives on after the body stops and I also believe in karma,

I feel we each must decide for ourself and it is a very personal decision to make.

 

[Mousie]

Well I'm afraid evolution which doesnt have the restraints of time nor the restraints of man---which by the way has only been around to manifest God and religion for a mear 60,000 yrs or so out of the 100s of millions of years in which the cosmos has developed to where it is today and will in 100s of millions of years still be evolving with or without man religion or our gods.

Evolution can and does explain not only this existance but every other existance known or un known.



Why cannot it be that Dinosaures became extinct and man simply evolved.
From cave dwelling existance to the modern man of today and tommorow.
our evolution has been and will be inspite of any God not because of it.

What did God create the first Dinosaure in his own image?

Man was no where to be seen for Millions of years.

This is now encroaching into another creationism vs evolutionism battle, where (again!) each side will believe what they want to believe.

I cannot explain what I can't see, ie whether we existed as a result of evolution or creation. FWIW, believing in creationism or evolutionism or anything at all, involves faith in the accuracy of your judgment of the (academic/scientific/etc.) material presented to you. Yes, including the "The God Delusion" book you're currently reading!

But what I can see is that nature is the purest form of life itself; no one can claim to have manipulated nature (save genetic modification) and its seasons, and the way it makes you feel toward everything else nature since the day you're born to present you their beliefs and worldview. And that is how I know God exists; as simple, as pure and as unadulterated as that.

 

[wayneL]

Kris ("The Physist's reply") to Wayne's papers.
Which I sent over by email this morning.

Hi Dad,

I'll just comment on the `paper' as I read it...

The part of the title `SURVIVAL AFTER DEATH' makes me laugh; an oxymoron if ever I've seen one. Not really advancing the cause of circumventing skepticism...

Firstly, whoever wrote this has taken the typical paranormal stance and is defensive right off the bat. Also, typical of most crackpots, they are developing conspiracy theories from the beginning (suppression of free thought by the media etc.). Why must they need the media anyway. If it's a real phenomenon, then what does television and radio have to do with it? Strange...

What's up with the quote taken from: Michael Scott BSc. Graduate in Astrophysics, Edinburgh University. I mean, the guy graduated only with a BSc.
There are so many of these guys that there has to be at least one willing to spout baseless flawed `logic' like this. I HATE it when people don't give correct, albeit surprising, theories like quantum the respect they deserve. i.e.
they don't go to the effort to actually learn them.

Oh dear... I can see where this is going: `This is the reason why we are forced to work with a human medium in order to prove survival after death. No machine invented so far is as sophisticated as the human mind and brain.' Sure, the latter comment is true, but come on... I'm pretty sure the `medium' would be a willing participant. It's remarkable how even the presence of a skeptic can alter the results of these tests

OK... Now I'm laughing! This guy's a loon. Once again he proves how little he knows about physics (the logical study of fundamental reality). I can't believe I'm reading this: `Lodge said the people from the "next world" who are appearing at the experiments must possess bodies that are made of the same invisible matter as our radio and television signals. He called it an etheric substance.' OK... What he's referring to is the `Aether'. It was concocted during early work on electromagnetism as an explanation of HOW electromagnetic waves (like your radio and TV signals) propagate through apparently empty space.
However, essentially every physicist nowadays agrees that the Aether is an absurd concept (there are extremely good reasons for this). These arguments were settled over a century ago! But even if it DID exist, how the hell does one jump to the conclusion that `ethereal' being are made of the same stuff? The lack of logic abounds.

Also, as soon as he talk of the neutrino he somehow jumps to an explanation of ghosts walking through walls. Neutrinos are the most weakly interacting particles known to man; that is why they can pass through so much matter without interaction. They're also almost massless (hence travel VERY close to the speed of light). So how then can the humble neutrino manage to collude with its friends to create a slow moving visible spectre? Uuuugh...

OH DEAR LORD!!! Now I'm just getting mad!: `If only our contemporary physicists had shared Einstein's scepticism (sic) then we would not have wasted so much time and money trying to match up Niels Bohr's quantum mechanics with relativity.' WTF!?! OK, to begin with, Neils Bohr was certainly a big player in the construction of quantum theory, but he was only a part of it. Indeed, Einstein himself is often considered as one of the grandfathers of quantum theory, thanks to his work on the photoelectric effect (which incidentally won him the Nobel prize in physics, not relativity). EVEN SO, quantum theory and SPECIAL relativity HAVE been reconciled; they form what is known as `relativistic quantum mechanics' . This theory then leads on to the infinitely successful quantum electrodynamics (QED) which this moron actually references as a good point later on. And that's only the beginning. It's only GENERAL relativity that has so far proven irreconcilable with the quantum. This is the pursuit of a `quantum theory of gravity'. And it's no big secret, either!

I'm stopping the commentary now. This is an insult to work of thousands of good scientists. There really is no logic to the thinking and it's all borne from the usual conspiracy theorist perspective of crackpot fringe `thinkers'. Another dead give-away is the pick-and-choose technique they're employing, mostly from quotes of famous and respected scientists.

Also, while it's true that there are issues with the peer-review process, illogical ranting is certainly no substitute.

Reading on, the arguments just get more and more turgid and confused, jumping from fundamental physics to the supernatural to love and hatred to god knows what else.

Thanks for the email, nontheless I really enjoy discussing these kinds of things with people. It really makes you exercise your own rationale. Look forward to more questions discussions, etc.

Kris




> Getting into Dawkins book.
> He is definitely passionate.
>
> Here is some "Scientific Proof" of the Existance of something after
> death.
>
> Interested in your learned comments.
>
> DAD.
> The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
>
> cfpf-scientific-proof.pdf
>
>
> Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent
> sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your
> e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
>


@-----------------------------@
| |
| Kris |
| |
| Photonics Ph.D. Student |
|School of Chemistry & Physics|
| University of Adelaide |
| Adelaide SA 5005 |
| Australia |
| Tel: +61 (0)8 8303 5357 |
@-----------------------------@

Hi Tech,

Kris's comments are remarkably Dawkins-like, as per my previous comments. Take from that what you will, but lets say it is not surprising.

My own comments: Trying to "prove" anything "paranormal" is going to be problematic in the extreme in the scientific sense. This paper based on my own experiences remains interesting, however not rigourous enough to satisfy the "learned".

I have some friends of similar education which makes for interesting discussions on this topic. My observation is that their opinions remain fairly rigid along their lines of teaching... natural I suppose. I notice similar satirical responses to each other when there are discussions of big-bang, electric universe and string theory for example. They play the man not the ball, spending more time denigrating each others education rather than discussing possibilities. We have seen that right throughout the ages, with many concepts initially ridiculed. In other words, we should not take one students views as necessarily authoritative, particularly when the modus operandi is ridicule.

Scientists seem to become remarkably close minded IMO.

That said, I have no idea whether the science is even valid, not my field, and I must admit I have only skimmed briefly through it.

**
In the continuing discussion, I note people defaulting to the judeo/christian meme and accompanying man-created religion in their references to God concepts.

Therefore I personally cannot take the ensuing logic to disparage the possibilty of "a God of some sort" seriously as it fails to regard alternative concepts. Religion is a fair target however; in my experience, religion is less about the spiritual and more about control. Apologies to those of a particular faith, but I think that is readily demonstrable.

Regarding evolution, as stated before there is no question that there is some gradual unfolding of life on this planet. So evolution is a fact? Well yes. However the biological mechanism can only be postulated. That life could have happened as a random accident would appear to be absolutely absurd to a great many.

If you look at the mechanisms and complexities for even a single cell organism to survive (eg respiration, photosynthesis/consumption of sustainance, elimination, procreation etc) it would seem rather absurd that an organism with such capabilities could spontaneously spring forth from some primordial cocktail of muck.

Just more waffle.

Cheers

 

[Rafa]

There is never going to be a definitive answer and even if there is i doubt its going to pop its head up first on ASF!

well said...

God can't be seen or touched... and unless you are willing to actually let go of yourself, be silent and listen... there is a good chance you'll never hear God either!

so, when it comes to faith in God, don't exepct logical arguements and reasoning...

heck, its hard enought to work out the logic and reasoning of the stock market! and thats man made!


PS: and i agree with WayneL between the distinction between religion and faith in God.

 

[tech/a]

Wayne

Hi Tech,

Kris's comments are remarkably Dawkins-like, as per my previous comments. Take from that what you will, but lets say it is not surprising.

Yes noticed that.

My own comments: Trying to "prove" anything "paranormal" is going to be problematic in the extreme in the scientific sense. This paper based on my own experiences remains interesting, however not rigourous enough to satisfy the "learned".

Frankly I didnt find anything compelling and also note that most of the study took place in the early 1900s. When science was hardly where it is today.

I have some friends of similar education which makes for interesting discussions on this topic. My observation is that their opinions remain fairly rigid along their lines of teaching... natural I suppose. I notice similar satirical responses to each other when there are discussions of big-bang, electric universe and string theory for example. They play the man not the ball, spending more time denigrating each others education rather than discussing possibilities. We have seen that right throughout the ages, with many concepts initially ridiculed. In other words, we should not take one students views as necessarily authoritative, particularly when the modus operandi is ridicule.

Scientists seem to become remarkably close minded IMO.

I'd agree to a point. If you can follow them--which is difficult as they are less than patient---and they spend enough time with you its amazing what is being investigated and what is found. but in general terms I agree.
No different to a priest or any fanatic really.

That said, I have no idea whether the science is even valid, not my field, and I must admit I have only skimmed briefly through it.

I didnt see any evidence of science only quotes of findings.

**

In the continuing discussion, I note people defaulting to the judeo/christian meme and accompanying man-created religion in their references to God concepts.

Therefore I personally cannot take the ensuing logic to disparage the possibilty of "a God of some sort" seriously as it fails to regard alternative concepts.

God of some sort---define some sort.

Religion is a fair target however; in my experience, religion is less about the spiritual and more about control. Apologies to those of a particular faith, but I think that is readily demonstrable.

Common ground I see.

Regarding evolution, as stated before there is no question that there is some gradual unfolding of life on this planet. So evolution is a fact? Well yes. However the biological mechanism can only be postulated. That life could have happened as a random accident would appear to be absolutely absurd to a great many.

If you look at the mechanisms and complexities for even a single cell organism to survive (eg respiration, photosynthesis/consumption of sustainance, elimination, procreation etc) it would seem rather absurd that an organism with such capabilities could spontaneously spring forth from some primordial cocktail of muck.

I think you fall well short limiting evolution to just the developement of our species.I encompass from beginning to infinety as evolution,we are just a consequence on THIS planet in THIS universe.Evolution isnt limited to this place of Muck.
Literally Billions of Mucks all capable of the same fluke in a similar form.
Is a God or our God exclusive to this spec of dust?
Seems the other Billions of specs are overlooked when God and his teachings are bought up.

I'll see your waffling and raise you a thought process.


Mousie

But what I can see is that nature is the purest form of life itself; no one can claim to have manipulated nature (save genetic modification) and its seasons, and the way it makes you feel toward everything else nature since the day you're born to present you their beliefs and worldview. And that is how I know God exists; as simple, as pure and as unadulterated as that.

Why cannot this be as possible as all other seasons on the millions of other uninhabited planets---without the intervention of a God.Why cannot it be possible that other wonders not known to us on other planets and stars are just evolving without any God intevention and that our SUN will snuff out purely because it will burn its own fuel.(as an example of how everything will go on long after we as the human race and this discussion are forgotten).