God does exist...

by czarofmischief 348 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  SixofNine

  I still think that "submitting the ego" is the key. Whether that's to a personalised object, or just an internalised change, it seems to be a factor in all the cases that I've thusfar discovered.

  I'm not sure what "cases" you are talking about? If it is "people getting the spirit", then I have to say that from my experience, you, Ross, are one of the very few people (cases) I've come across who could be accused of making an attempt to keep their ego in check, and it's allowed you to go from a "crazy" situation, to a mostly sane guy. You could easily have gone down another path you know. Well, perhaps not easily, perhaps this is just the real Ross, and it's what comes naturally. And as I've watched you do that over the past many months, I've seen your (dogma) host far fewer (tics) ~ to the point that it is unrecognisable in comparison to where you started. I see that as a good thing.

  oops. Rereading your comment, I see that you are speaking of "submitting the ego.... to a personalised object, or... internalised change". I still wonder what you mean by "cases"? Also, wouldn't "submitting the ego" to a personalised object just be sorta silly? I mean, how the hell is that really submitting the ego at all? Just the opposite, it seems to me. Cross your legs, put on a diaper (please!) and enlighten me, fatboy!
• 

  SixofNine

  Seems I?ve already shown my assertion to indeed, be the case (numerous conclusions), and continue to do so. So much for your ?argument?.

  huh? You most certainly have not shown even a fragment of evidence for a benevolent loving and all powerful god. Hell, the best you've come up with is "there is a god cuz there is beautiful stuff in the world". Hey, it used to work for me, and sometimes it still comes close.

  And the bible accurate? Don't bullshit us, we've been there. We wanted it to be accurate back then, just as much as you do now. It isn't, and no intellectually honest person will say it is, after having examined the evidence.
• 

  LittleToe

  Six:You just like to give tongue - not that there's anything wrong with that, as I'm quite partial to giving it myself

  You could easily have gone down another path you know.

  So true. Maybe it's down to how you interpret experiences, but my own seem to infer an inate intelligence, underlying them.

  Regarding "Cases" I mean everyone that I've ever discussed any form of spirituality with (and it's been pretty wide in scope - this is one fat (?) boy who hasn't been sitting around in diapers - LOL). For some strange reason people open up to this kind of conversation with me. It must be the "essence of hay-cart" cologne, that Donkey lent me.

  By personalised object, I mean that someone or something (?) becomes the object of the submission, even adoration (e.g. "Lord"). Some people don't seem to need this, but it somehow seems easier for the human psyche to accept - else maybe I haven't involved enough Eastern folk in my observations. Give me time...

  Occasionally my "ego" rears it's ugly little head, at which point my "connectedness" and "synchronicity" lower.
  It's never disappeared, thusfar, though. Hence I'm kinda hoping that I've already experienced my "dark night of the soul", in the past. If it's inevitable, and yet to come, it may be fearful
• 

  Love_Truth

  LittleToe,

  Yes, I have a strong feeling this thread may turn out to be the longest ever. I never give up. It's part of my character. Especially when we're talking opinions, which encompasses every conclusion known to humankind.

  Abaddon,

  I agree with LT on the Monty Python thought- I thought the same thing when I read that comment. The writing of Joseph of Arimithea on the wall in the cave, you know, it says Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarghhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........

  Six,

  Nothing has convinced me God does not exist to date. Numerous conclusions from the same evidence. My statement stands.

  Love_truth- What fun!
• 

  Love_Truth

  Hunyadi,

  I'm with you- I look out my window, or at how complex mammals or humans are made, and I find it only strengthens my faith in the Creator.

  Cheers,

  Love_Truth
• 

  Abaddon

  Jesus Speaks (extract)

  GREGORY:

  What was that?

  JESUS:

  ...for their possession. How blest are those...

  MR. CHEEKY:

  I don't know. I was too busy talking to Big Nose.

  JESUS:

  ...who hunger and thirst to see...

  MAN #1:

  I think it was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'

  JESUS:

  ...right prevail.

  MRS. GREGORY:

  Ahh, what's so special about the cheesemakers?

  GREGORY:

  Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

  Latin Lesson (whole)
  
  Brian is writing a slogan to a wall, oblivious to the Roman patrol approaching
  from behind. The slogan is "ROMANES EUNT DOMUS".
  
  C: What's this thing?
  "ROMANES EUNT DOMUS"?
  "People called Romanes they go the house"?
  B: It, it says "Romans go home".
  C: No it doesn't. What's Latin for "Roman"?
  B: (hesitates)
  C: Come on, come on!
  B: (uncertain) "ROMANUS".
  C: Goes like?
  B: "-ANUS".
  C: Vocative plural of "-ANUS" is?
  B: "-ANI".
  C: (takes paintbrush from Brian and paints over) "RO-MA-NI".
  "EUNT"? What is "EUNT"?
  B: "Go".
  C: Conjugate the verb "to go"!
  B: "IRE". "EO", "IS", "IT", "IMUS", "ITIS", "EUNT".
  C: So "EUNT" is ...?
  B: Third person plural present indicative, "they go".
  C: But "Romans, go home!" is an order, so you must use the ...?
  (lifts Brian by his hairs)
  B: The ... imperative.
  C: Which is?
  B: Ahm, oh, oh, "I", "I"!
  C: How many romans? (pulls harder)
  B: Plural, plural! "ITE".
  C: (strikes over "EUNT" and paints "ITE" to the wall)
  (satisfied) "I-TE".
  "DOMUS"? Nominative? "Go home", this is motion towards, isn't it, boy?
  B: (very anxious) Dative?
  C: (draws his sword and holds it to Brian's throat)
  B: Ahh! No, ablative, ablative, sir. No, the, accusative, accusative,
  ah, DOMUM, sir.
  C: Except that "DOMUS" takes the ...?
  B: ... the locative, sir!
  C: Which is?
  B: "DOMUM".
  C: (satisfied) "DOMUM" (strikes out "DOMUS" and writes "DOMUM") "-MUM".
  Understand?
  B: Yes sir.
  C: Now write it down a hundred times.
  B: Yes sir, thank you sir, hail Caesar, sir.
  C: (salutes) Hail Caesar.
  If it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.
  B: (very reliefed) Oh thank you sir, thank you sir, hail Caesar and
  everything, sir!
• 

  Love_Truth

  Abaddon,
  

  Oh, Life of Brian- different movie (I was thinking of "MP & theHoly Grail"). Still, good one!
• 

  rem

  Love Truth,
  
  I'm sure Abaddon will respond more fully, but I wanted to point out that your issues with Evolution sound like they came straight out of a Chick Tract:
  
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/68206/1.ashx
  
  Evolution has nothing to do with spontaneous appearance of life or physical laws. It might be worth discussing your misconception of "drastic jumps from one species to another", though, since that's the only one that has anything to do with evolution.
  
  Abiogenesis is the field that talks about spontaneous appearance of life from non-life. Evolution only deals with life that is already started, so it is compatible with creation in that sense.
  
  Evolution does not try to explain physical laws. It is a scientific theory about living things and the change in the genotype over many generations. Newton and Einstien dealt with physical laws, Darwin did not. The only "law" Darwin came up with (and so did many others) was "natural selection", which is basically a logical certainty.
  
  You bring up "drastic jumps from one species to another". I don't think that has ever been observed in laboratories or even in recent historical data. In fact, a creative act has never been observed, only slow change through genetic heredity. Even if you are talking about the fossil record, there is no "drastic" change from species to species. The changes are still relatively small, considering the geological timescales involved. And what gaps there are in the fossil record are explainable by various theories.
  
  I'm not sure how the fossil record could be used to support anything but evolution. Don't you think it's kinda strange that fossils in the geological strata are so conveniently sorted, from the oldest, most primitive organisms at the bottom to modern ones at the top? If not slow evolution, who sorted all these billions of fossils? The flood? (lol) Did god do it just to make it look like he used evolution?
  
  Also, your criticism of dating methods is way out of date. Accurate methods have been used for years now since correcting and fine tuning the methods from the mistakes of the past. In fact, modern dating methods are usually corroborated by multiple independent methods (ice core samples, dendrochronology, carbon/K-AR dating, etc.) That's why you see a margin of error in all dates.
  
  Anyway, I'm off to work.
  
  rem
• 

  Love_Truth

  Rem,
  
  True, evolution does not attempt to explain spontaneous appearance of life (abiogenesis) or physical laws. However, to say it ?has nothing to do with? those is incorrect. It is not a misconception that "drastic jumps from one species to another", occur in the fossil record. That mutation, or adaptation/natural selection occurs both in nature and in experiments supports either conclusion, evolution or Creation..
  
  Physical laws factor into abiogenesis as well as evolution theory, thusly: One must at some point explain from whence came the ?primordial ooze? that produced life, if one believes such (I obviously don?t). One must explain how things came to be. Creation is a much more believable explanation, IMO.

  I don?t think it's strange that fossils in the geological strata are ?so conveniently sorted, from the oldest, most primitive organisms at the bottom to modern ones at the top?. Why? Again, we can theorize that God was experimenting with more primitive forms of created life, and learning from that experience, to mmake increasingly complex ones (just one of many explanations).

  
  My criticism of dating methods is not way out of date. One could argue that dating methods are much more accurate when paired with such methods as dendochronology (which is absolutely correct). Ice core samples are one of the more accurate methods of dating, as well, so I wouldn?t argue too much about that unless you have a specific example. It is carbon/K-AR dating that is subject to a huge margin of error in all dates. Sedimentary analysis is also prone to a large margin of error.

  Incidentally, back to physics, and the Creation of the Universe- have you seen the latest on the ?Big Bang? theory? There?s lots of information currently destroying that theory, such as:

  http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/

  
  
  Have a good day at work,

  Love_Truth
• 

  Abaddon

  Loves_Truth

  That website is well funny! I'm off home now but will take great glee in ripping it to bits if I have time tomorrow.

  A quick purusal of it seems to confirm it won't be that hard; for a start they are postulating an evenly distributed "density of free electrons and/or positrons". They don't mention it would have to be of an even density (if they realise it), but I'm sure you can figure out why...???? Well?

  That's just off the top of my head. When I use a search engine, I can add;

  http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Chromosphere/CHROMOSPHERE.html

  Unlike the angelfire home page (well known despositories of scientific truth!), this would seem to have not been refuted as the silly little theory you advance has been here;

  http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/kierein.html

  I hope your assertions about evolution are better grounded than your assertions about cosmology; if not you seem to be selecting likely sounding theories on the basis of them allowing you to retain a belief structure, rather than theories which are worth a damn.