quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

developing yes, fantasy no. Unless you are among the "everything is fantasy" crowd, which is a self-defeating position. It doesnt matter if everything is fantasy if it gives the appearance of reality...you still have to live your life as if it is real. Same as the "free will" argument.

The level of understanding of the World we are talking about does not really affect everyday life. As we are bound to assumptions, the truth can never be found, just different systems can be developed. The truth can only be told. So, you better believe in God (higher level of consciousness).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata




We are born with an innate sense of fairness, and throughout our lives experience distress and anger whenever it is violated. Yes, we learn all too soon that evil often goes unpunished in this world, and good unrewarded. But our nature continues to insist that this should not be, that this is not how things are supposed to be. To believe, therefore, that there must be something more is to take a stand that honors our nature and trusts our deepest intuition about life.

I suspect that the fact we possess a hard-wired sense of justice or fairness is involved here. This was dismissed (above, previous) as merely some kind of "survival instinct," but it is far from being any such thing. In actual fact, it overrides our survival instinct. Millions of people are dead today who wouldn't be if we were wired simply for survival.

I think that our consciousness is built on an innate sense of a supra-personal imperative underlying the workings of the world.
K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

It doesnt matter if everything is fantasy if it gives the appearance of reality...

So fuckkit if we're wrong, eh?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If we are born with an "innate' or "hard-wired" sense of fairness, then how do we account for those who behave in unfair or evil ways?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWriter

Stephen Hawking's, however, not being God, is entirely fallible. His first book was FULL of mistakes, and, many people view his later denial of the existence of God to be related to his trying to recuperate from his failures there, since in the first book, he said that he does believe in God, but, it was, in fact, his believing in God which was the crux of his failure to rationally explain anything, since, his explanations could only POSSIBLY work, if there was no God, EXCEPT that he would then, conveniently, reinstate God to His rightful position,when it seemed there was no other explanation. In other words, it was a big load of hooey, that many people accepted as being correctly and intelligently written based on the fact that they could not understand it.

God never said "I only exist in what you recognize as time." He never said "Time is not relative." and he never said "I did not exist before the Big Bang." He said that in the beginning there was God. Time is not God, the Earth is not God, Stephen Hawkings is not God, and, there is nothing in the Bible, whatsoever, to indicate that any of them existed in the beginning. In the beginning, there was God. End of story. And, coincidentally, beginning of story!

Many scientists, in fact, come to believe in the existence of God, through their studies and experiments, even though they were atheists before they really began. They say if you look deep enough, what you will find is that there are no explanations given by man, that can explain why we age, for instance. They can explain HOW, but, not WHY. There is only one explanation for why that makes sense with what science has discovered, and, that is that there is some outside interference that is outside the ken of Man.

So, no, science does not negate a need for a god. For some, like Stephen Hawkings, science becomes a god. For some, Stephen Hawkings becomes a god. For others, science, in some of its uses, helps to understand God's creations and how truly marvelous they are.
Therefore, the need for "a god" is always there, and, it is always filled. Some simply choose more arrogant, less perfect gods than others do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWriter

Stephen Hawking's, however, not being God, is entirely fallible. His first book was FULL of mistakes, and, many people view his later denial of the existence of God to be related to his trying to recuperate from his failures there, since in the first book, he said that he does believe in God, but, it was, in fact, his believing in God which was the crux of his failure to rationally explain anything, since, his explanations could only POSSIBLY work, if there was no God, EXCEPT that he would then, conveniently, reinstate God to His rightful position,when it seemed there was no other explanation. In other words, it was a big load of hooey, that many people accepted as being correctly and intelligently written based on the fact that they could not understand it.

God never said "I only exist in what you recognize as time." He never said "Time is not relative." and he never said "I did not exist before the Big Bang." He said that in the beginning there was God. Time is not God, the Earth is not God, Stephen Hawkings is not God, and, there is nothing in the Bible, whatsoever, to indicate that any of them existed in the beginning. In the beginning, there was God. End of story. And, coincidentally, beginning of story!

Many scientists, in fact, come to believe in the existence of God, through their studies and experiments, even though they were atheists before they really began. They say if you look deep enough, what you will find is that there are no explanations given by man, that can explain why we age, for instance. They can explain HOW, but, not WHY. There is only one explanation for why that makes sense with what science has discovered, and, that is that there is some outside interference that is outside the ken of Man.

So, no, science does not negate a need for a god. For some, like Stephen Hawkings, science becomes a god. For some, Stephen Hawkings becomes a god. For others, science, in some of its uses, helps to understand God's creations and how truly marvelous they are.
Therefore, the need for "a god" is always there, and, it is always filled. Some simply choose more arrogant, less perfect gods than others do.

Yeah, I've decided on Apollo.

What's your choice?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrSprocket

Humans are considered mammals. Like all our other mammal brethren, we are animals. Animals don't have a sense of fairness.

That sort of thing is taught to us by whomever tends to us. A sense of fairness is a phenotypical thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWriter

Stephen Hawking's, however, not being God, is entirely fallible. His first book was FULL of mistakes, and, many people view his later denial of the existence of God to be related to his trying to recuperate from his failures there, since in the first book, he said that he does believe in God, but, it was, in fact, his believing in God which was the crux of his failure to rationally explain anything, since, his explanations could only POSSIBLY work, if there was no God, EXCEPT that he would then, conveniently, reinstate God to His rightful position,when it seemed there was no other explanation. In other words, it was a big load of hooey, that many people accepted as being correctly and intelligently written based on the fact that they could not understand it.

God never said "I only exist in what you recognize as time." He never said "Time is not relative." and he never said "I did not exist before the Big Bang." He said that in the beginning there was God. Time is not God, the Earth is not God, Stephen Hawkings is not God, and, there is nothing in the Bible, whatsoever, to indicate that any of them existed in the beginning. In the beginning, there was God. End of story. And, coincidentally, beginning of story!

Many scientists, in fact, come to believe in the existence of God, through their studies and experiments, even though they were atheists before they really began. They say if you look deep enough, what you will find is that there are no explanations given by man, that can explain why we age, for instance. They can explain HOW, but, not WHY. There is only one explanation for why that makes sense with what science has discovered, and, that is that there is some outside interference that is outside the ken of Man.

So, no, science does not negate a need for a god. For some, like Stephen Hawkings, science becomes a god. For some, Stephen Hawkings becomes a god. For others, science, in some of its uses, helps to understand God's creations and how truly marvelous they are.
Therefore, the need for "a god" is always there, and, it is always filled. Some simply choose more arrogant, less perfect gods than others do.

Yeah, I've decided on Apollo.

What's your choice?

Apollo Creed? or Apollo Ohno?

I'm standing on the leading edge
The Eastern seaboard spread before my eyes
"Jump" says Yoko..Oh no!
"I'm too scared and too good looking" I cried
"Go on", she says
"Why don't you give it a try?
Why prolong the agony all men must die"

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrSprocket

Humans are considered mammals. Like all our other mammal brethren, we are animals. Animals don't have a sense of fairness.

That sort of thing is taught to us by whomever tends to us. A sense of fairness is a phenotypical thing.

Bullshit.

On so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

Let's start with this, have you ever had any pets?

They do have an innate sense of fairness interacting with other pets and with the people in their lives.

Otherwise your dog would be biting you when he wanted something and your cat would be clawing at you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrSprocket

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrSprocket

Humans are considered mammals. Like all our other mammal brethren, we are animals. Animals don't have a sense of fairness.

That sort of thing is taught to us by whomever tends to us. A sense of fairness is a phenotypical thing.

Bullshit.

On so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

Let's start with this, have you ever had any pets?

They do have an innate sense of fairness interacting with other pets and with the people in their lives.

Otherwise your dog would be biting you when he wanted something and your cat would be clawing at you.

I have had a decent amount of pets in my time. If I didn't train them to be fair and kind to each other, the smaller ones would have died a lot sooner than they did. Otherwise, I am quite sure that little dog I had would have loved to turn that hamster into dinner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Yeah, I've decided on Apollo.

Cool... that'll work.

But whatever the form of worship, if the devotee have faith, then upon his faith in that worship do I set My own seal. ~Krishna

K.