Topic awaiting preservation: The existence of God.... (Page 1 of 5)

I know that is accepted here that God can never be proved or disproved. Of course, I'm not out to try and solve that question. I just have a question of my own, and wasn't sure where else to put it...

If the GUT (Grand Unified Theory), or whatever uou choose to name it, were to be found, i.e. the complete set of self-consistent rules that govern the entire universe, would people still consider God to be "outside" that universe, and that everything we have discovered is entirely of his creation?

If so, that somewhat means that the first conclusion I mentioned (that the exitence of God is not provable either way) is not even a conlusion, but an assumption, as we are saying that we do not have the ability to prove him....

Sorry if you were expecting something more from the topic title

Wrayal

My Website (finally! And yes, it uses frames and is evil, but, well, take a look, it's not as evil as you might think )

The GUT would probably point more toward the philosophy of Aristotle - that God is a part of the universe rather than a separate entity. Of course, this was long before Christianity, but I don't know at this time how much the Jewish beliefs about God were known to the Greeks at the time.

I think it is wrong to wonder if God is outside or inside the Universe, as there are loads of probabilities "our" Universe is not the "one and only universe" IMHO.
To me, God is in everything, outside and inside the Universe; His brain would be the global consciousness of every mineral, vegetal and animal put together from every planet (in our or another universe), His existence would come from the global amount of energy and His body from the global amount of material.

In other word, I have always thought it was very simplistic, even childish, to describe God as a whole. It probably makes it a bit easier to understand... IMHO

I really do not know what makes me think that and where I get these ideas from. I would be really grateful if someone could tell me if my thoughts are similar to any religion; I haven't really sorted the religion question out for me yet. This thought above has been my religion so far.

Cheers

quote:

---

wrayal said:

If so, that somewhat means that the first conclusion I mentioned (that the
exitence of God is not provable either way) is not even a conlusion, but an
assumption, as we are saying that we do not have the ability to prove him....

---

YES! Thank you very much for that. I have come to the conclusion that every philosophy and understanding of reality must begin with basic assumption. For me, God is the beginning of wisdom. My entire philosophy begins with, "God is".

Every one else here in this forum has to choose their assumption(s) too. There really is no escaping it. In fact, if we were to take a look at each of our basic assumptions about life, we would be able to see very clearly why we say the things we do in these threads. It helps from getting too upset sometimes to realize that your debate opponent is merely reasoning from his/her basis of understanding. I hope that by sharing these ideas together it will help each of us question and refine those basic assumptions to collectively come closer to the ultimate truth.

wrayal, to answer this:

quote:

---

If the GUT (Grand Unified Theory), or whatever uou choose to name it, were to be found, i.e. the complete set of self-consistent rules that govern the entire
universe, would people still consider God to be "outside" that universe, and that everything we have discovered is entirely of his creation?

---

I would answer this absolutely in the positive. As I understand the God I worship, he created *everything*, whether it be multiple universes or dimensions, and he is independent of his own handiwork.

quote:

---

kimson said:

I would be really grateful if someone could tell me if my thoughts are similar
to any religion

---

Actually, kimson, that sounds very much like basic Pantheism to me. Hindus and Buddhists hold to it to varying degrees. The idea that God is everything and that the Universe, i.e. God, has always existed and always will is more a basis of Eastern religions. I hope that helps a bit.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

As I understand the God I worship, he created *everything*, whether it be multiple universes or dimensions, and he is independent of his own handiwork

---

Actually, this is an argument that has been going os almost since the beginings of the Catholic religion. Did He create everything from scratch, or did He create the universe from "stuff" that has existed al long as He has? Some of the greatest theological minds have been debating this since at least early medeival times.

Yep. The term "ex nihilo" comes to mind.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

http://www.meta-library.net/gengloss/creatnihilo-body.html

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Wow, somebody agrees with me!!

However, I do have to disagree with my earlier statement a little. What I should have said is that with this possibility, it would seem impossible to disprove God. But not for him to be unprovable: if he does exist, he could I suppose show himself to be (though does this preclude the free will of belief or something?)

Whatever

Wrayal

My Website (finally! And yes, it uses frames and is evil, but, well, take a look, it's not as evil as you might think )

Thanks Bugimus. I did not dare mention Pantheism as I was not sure about what it meant. I think you're right.

I have a question to all the inmates. Sorry if it's already been asked, I know there are loads of threads about God already, but: Does anyone think there is no form of superior or allmighty existance, and - what is more interesting to me - how does it feel like, believing this?!

I absolutely believe that there is no higher form of existence!
However, I do see that brane theory/multiverse theory could be correct - in a pedantic way a higher form of existence.
How does it feel? Pretty good actually. Knowing that eveery time a preacher drums the 10 commandments into me and so forth they are lying, and that my conscience need not take heed, is awesome. Of course, that is not to say I do not have a conscience. It simply means that I always though that the "evilness" of saying "OMG" was an imbecilic concept when I was a christian. Now I can say it happily and without restraint
Basically, it wasn't life changing per-se (death changing perhaps? ), but I prefer it, a lot. If you're wondering about the afterlife, well, lets not go there. The last thread I started about that degenerated somewhat :\

Wrayal

My Website (finally! And yes, it uses frames and is evil, but, well, take a look, it's not as evil as you might think )

kimson: To me there is no superior or allmighty existence. Until I'm proved wrong I refuse to believe in some fairy tales and myths.

How does it feel ? I'm fine thank you. Is there a single reason why I should feel otherwise ? Forms of life have spawned on this planet and probably on others too. We know that it has in some hazardous environments and that pre-biotic moleculles and amino acids are not that hard to produce ( crush a comet at high speed and voilà ). And here I am, alive, in shape and ready to go. My relatives are fine too. I'm trying my best at what I do, to learn/understand new things all the time, ...

Actually the only thing I don't feel fine with is the fact that my parents baptized me, obviously without my concent, when I was a child and that though they didn't really believed in "God" too. I'm not bitter toward them, let's put their act on the social/cultural pressure. But recently I've discovered I can apostatize, and I will.



(Edited by poi on 03-01-2005 11:58)

To get it right: I was not talking about Christianism. The preachers in question do not interest me the slightest!
For me you can reject all form of religion and still think there's someone or something actually pulling the strings. This is "my religion".
I never put one foot in any church, because preachers' sermons it always end up getting me sick (I have never been able to grab anything for myslef in their floods of absurd and irritating words) but I still feel I do not always choose anything I do, there must be something called "fate" somewhere, IMO

My last paragraph was aimed at the religion my parents hooked me to without my concent. It may well have been judaism, islam, rael, scientology, ... it'd be same. I don't believe in a superior being and don't want to be assimilated to one of those weirdos.

[edit]

quote:

---

I still feel I do not always choose anything I do, there must be something called "fate" somewhere, IMO

---

Sure, our life not only depends of the very choice we do, but is also influenced by that of the others. Therefore we don't fully control our life. That's probably what you call "fate". And as for "fatality", "fate" leading to negative events, I label that "shit happens".

[/edit]



(Edited by poi on 03-01-2005 12:26)

quote:

---

but is also influenced by that of the others

---

No doubt about this.
But I have to say my (still short) life so far has been full of coincidences neither due to me nor the people I've met, nor the wether or politics. I have met people who have played a decisive role in my life. You may call it luck or fatality if you want, but I am convinced that some things happen in a very purpose which does not depend on the current "universal and overall situation", if I may call it like that, but well on some supreme "creature's" will. Of course this is my opinion.

quote:

---

I refuse to believe in some fairy tales and myths

---

This is, of course, your most fundamental right. However I am not sure you can call religion (any or all of them) a tale or a myth, since religion seems to come straight out of a collective conscience (or subconscient, to name it right), unlike myths and tales which have been fully invented by real people to validate History.

To me, religion has never been invented but only discovered. Everybody is free to believe in it or not. If they do believe in it, ther are free to take it as it is decribed presented or in a personal way.

I am with Poi for the most part. Seems to me if there was a god, he/she/it would make itself known.

I don't agree with religion springing from the collective conscious. If that were so, we would all believe in the same god and enjoying universal agreement, there would be fewer wars.

It is wonderful being a realist instead of mythicist, no guilt and no sins.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

I am going to respond to kimson's earlier question

quote:

---

Does anyone think there is no form of superior or almighty existence, and - what is more interesting to me - how does it feel like, believing this?!

---

I can start off by saying that I do not have a believe in a higher power. An contrary to what others say about their current feelings on thing being grand, it doesn't start out that way. When I was much younger I had the idea that there is no god. This idea is well and good for someone who is young to have, you don't think on it much, you are young, the idea doesn't go much further than "There is no god." As I got older I started questioning things (this is around 14-16 years old). The big question is well what happens after you die. This was a hard one to work through, because you really don't know, and it is something that is inevitable. You have to deal with it eventually. I think the hard part about thinking on death for someone without faith is trying to figure out the concept of "Nothingness." It is not an easy concept. I like to describe is to someone in steps.

1. Go into a darkroom
2. Shut your eyes
3. Stop Thinking

You can't really do #3 but it gives some kind of idea as to what it is like. Really coming to terms with death is a big thing, and I think that this is the hardest thing for those without a faith that has an afterlife. However, once you come to terms with death you are really free to do anything. I think that this is what confuses those who have a religion. The idea that you are free to do anything without having bounds on yourself. The truth is that your morals are not defined by your faith. You can have your own moral compass without faith. I think that your morals really have little to do with your faith. I know doers of great good who have no faith, and I know people who do really evil stuff and have faith. You can justify your actions anyway you want to.

After the initial phase of discovery I think that we all are pretty equal in terms of quality of life. I don't sit constantly wondering about what could have been, and what will happen. It is really immaterial. I am living now, I am having fun, I am being productive, and I am helping people. That is really good enough for me.

You have to remember, that you are not really believing anything. This discussion has come up before. It is not that I have an active belief in nothing, it is that I don't have belief. Beliefs don't even play a part of my existence. An exercise to try and accept this is,

1. Do the things you normally do
2. Have fun, be a good person
3. Stop having any beliefs in something greater than yourself

It might not be that good an exercise. The point is, I can do all of the same things that a person with faith and a belief system does, I can just do it without having the belief. You can be find and have fun and joy just like anyone else can without having faith.

Dan @ Code Town

Well thought out WS.

As well, I always wish I could be there when the faithful die and find out god dosn't believe in them.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

meh, I'm 16, and you're right: I think about these things to an extent, albeit admittedly less than I used to. When I was a Christian, death was of much greater importance. Now, well, I'm a scientific person, and a pragmatic view tells me that worry about death is something of a paradox; like wondering how to do soemthing clearly impossible.
What happens when I die? Heart stops, brain functions die, necrosis of cells, and so forth. In all honesty, what true atheist can care form a "spiritual" view? There's nothing there, so don't waste time thinking about it

Wrayal

My Website (finally! And yes, it uses frames and is evil, but, well, take a look, it's not as evil as you might think )

What are we here for then? (I know, it's a bit of a provocation)

Ehtheist: you mean WM, not WS

kimson:

quote:

---

What are we here for then?

---

Why do people absolutely want the things/forms of life that exist have a purpose ? We are. Period. It's up to you to define your own goals if you need some.



(Edited by poi on 03-01-2005 18:28)

quote:

---

However I am not sure you can call religion (any or all of them) a tale or a myth, since religion seems to come straight out of a collective conscience (or subconscient, to name it right), unlike myths and tales which have been fully invented by real people to validate History.

---

I'd be interested in seeing any form of logic or reasoning behind that statement.

I see no evidence whatsoever that myths upon which currently existent religions are built on are any different from the myths of religions that we no longer call religion.

It is very apparent that many of the things we call myth are the same documents/stories that mnay of the biblical stories are based on...or that they are based on the same source.

But we call one myth, and we call the other religion. Why? Because people still cling to one set of myths....so we have to call it something else...

The religions that are built upon these myths are every bit as much a pure human creation as are the myths themselves (even if you insist that the god in these myths is real, and that jesus was his son, it still undeniable that the religious intstituions built around these ideas are purely human constructs). The history of the major religions makes it very clear, through the often stilted growth patterns and complex political maneuverings, that they do not spring from a "collective conscience" of any kind. The courses of these religions has been determined inteh same ways that any other political issues are determined (whether in the form of some sort of limited 'democracy' or outright dictatorship).

quote:

---

What are we here for then? (I know, it's a bit of a provocation)

---

Provocation? Hardly.

We, like every other species of living being, are here for one purpose: to recreate and die.

Anything beyond that is, again, a purely human construct.


As of the initial question -

for starters, I don't think such a thing as the GUT could ever exist.

However, given that it did, I don't see how it's mere existence could say anything one way or another about the existence (or the ability to prove/disprove the existence) of 'god'.
It would rather depend a great deal on what exactly these 'rules' were, wouldn't it?

Now, as for proving/disproving god: as has been said many times, the burden of proof is on those who would claim that god does exist. If it exists, there must be evidence of it.

We have no such evidence, and so there is no reason and basis on which to attempt to disprove it.

I cannot disprove the idea that we are all actually living in the fungus-infected toenail of a giant pink dragon.

And there is as much evidence of that as there is of the judeo-christian god.

=)






(Edited by DL-44 on 03-01-2005 18:49)

Ehtheist, I really think you could benifit from not being so intollerant. You show a real distain for those who have a structured system of beliefs. I used to be similar when I was a bit younger (I am not all that old now), I was angered by the fact that people could believe in something that was so obviously false, I was angered that people could be so stupid as to follow some dogma which existed only to rob them of their goods, and to take joy away from them. I was angered that these same people felt it was their duty to tell me that I was wrong for my beliefs, and that these same people felt it was their duty to change how I thought. I was even further angered that I knew more about their religion than they did, and they would try to teach me.

All of this stuff made me really mad, it made me bitter, and I said things to people that I should not have said. I was being the same thing that was causing my anger. This was not what I wanted to be.

I can not be certain that when someone dies that they will not meet with their creator in green pastures of love and candy, or whatever they want to get. It could be that they will be the one laughing at me for my stupid lack of fiath that will damn me for all eternity. I don't know. I don't really care. But I certainly don't want to be the one laughing at someone else because their faith was a lie. That is truely horrible. I just can't imagine laughing at someone as a main focus of their life was invalidated.

If someone has a faith and it makes them happy, and it causes them to lead a better life than they would otherwise I would encourage their faith. Their faith is a good thing for them, and everyone around them no matter who they are or what they believe should encourage it. I would believe that you are an Aethist of some breed, and as such, the only place for us to find our enjoyment is in the here and now. Why would you wish to ruin someone elses enjoyment in the here and now? It doesn't make sense to me.

Live and let live, their ideas on the afterlife can't hurt you, it is their ideas, and only ideas at that.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

I am not sure you can call religion (any or all of them) a tale or a myth, since religion seems to come straight out of a collective conscience (or subconscient, to name it right), unlike myths and tales which have been fully invented by real people to validate History

---

If religion came out of a "collective conscience", then all of us would be of the same religion and we wouldn't need to send kids to Sunday School to teach it to them, they would already know it.

Gasp! Sorry WM, no excuse for the egregious error of giving WS credit for your post, mea culpa. Thanks Poi.

WM (got it right this time), I am not the least bit intolerant, almost never get angry and am far too sweet a person to be bitter.

I do have strong views on certain matters and when in the presence of others also expressing strong views, am only to happy to share mine.

That I speak more plainly than most usually leads others to the same conclusions at which you have arrived.

However, I am tolerant of that fact and it bothers me not at all.

If people are not strong enough in their faith to survive a little reality and criticism, that is hardly my concern. In such a case, they shouldn't be out playing with the grown-ups.

That you and others are so concened about how I express my views and the subject upon which I express them, tells me I am saying things which are hitting home.

Making you think?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

First of all a few definitions i found here

Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

Main Entry: tale
Pronunciation: 'tA(&)l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English talu; akin to Old Norse tala talk
1 obsolete : DISCOURSE, TALK
2 a : a series of events or facts told or presented : ACCOUNT b (1) : a report of a private or confidential matter <dead men tell no tales> (2) : a libelous report or piece of gossip
3 a : a usually imaginative narrative of an event : STORY b : an intentionally untrue report : FALSEHOOD <always preferred the tale to the truth -- Sir Winston Churchill>
4 a : COUNT, TALLY b : TOTAL

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

quote:

---

I'd be interested in seeing any form of logic or reasoning behind that statement.

---

There is, as you can see, no reasoning behing that statement, as I dare mention this on a pure language (english) basis

quote:

---

it still undeniable that the religious intstituions built around these ideas are purely human constructs

---

yes, absolutely. All this shit arroud it - arround spirituality - is also crap to me. But I understand some people need all these pictures and gimmicks to live their spirituality.

quote:

---

We, like every other species of living being, are here for one purpose: to recreate and die.

---

Tis is not a purpose

quote:

---

We have no such evidence, and so there is no reason and basis on which to attempt to disprove it.

---

It all depend on the way you see any event on earth. Again it's only a matter of point of view.

briggl: to precise my view a bit further, I shouldn't have said religion but spirituality. The tendency to spirituality is a collective subonscient movement IMO

(Edited by kimson on 03-02-2005 11:05)

kimson: When I said : " Until I'm proved wrong I refuse to believe in some fairy tales and myths. ", by fairy tales and myths I designed the "stories" the religious beliefs are based on.

Stupidity is also a collective subconscient movement.

I do not think there is need for such agressivity poi. Until I am certain you have at least tried to understand what I mean, I will not let you insinuate I am stupid. Thanks very much.

quote:

---

Until I'm proved wrong I refuse to believe in some fairy tales and myths

---

I'm afraid I can't think of anything to prove you wrong and will not even try to since there's no point doing that.

quote:

---

by fairy tales and myths I designed the "stories" the religious beliefs are based on

---

I know what you were talking about. i don't believe in them either, so what's the point? I don't think you really got what i was thinking about.

No offence meant.

Cheers

kimson: I just wanted to point that your phrase " The tendency to spirituality is a collective subonscient movement IMO " also works if you replace "spirituality" by "stupidity". I'm sorry if I didn't made this allusion clear enough and let you thought I was insulting you. It was not the case. Really. I'm sorry you felt otherwise. Mea culpa.

I get your point about the collective subconscient movement to lean toward spirituality. I wonder to which degree that movement is actually cultural/determinist instead of innate.



Let's get back to the fairy tales point. If/Since the religions are based on fairy tales, myths and other bed time stories which credit shall we accord to them ? Sure they sounds good and may please some people but I need more, something more tangible, to believe in a superior being.



(Edited by poi on 03-02-2005 15:31)

quote:

---

Tis is not a purpose

---

You may not like the implications, and you may wish to attach a more personally appropriate purpose to your existence, but this is indeed a purpose, and it is the only one that is inherent in our existence.

As for the definitions, I'm not seeing what you're trying to say.

I know very well the definitions of such words, as I am sure most people do. My point, as well as Poi's, I assume, is that the myths are the basis for the religion, and as such, religion is equatable to myth. For me there is no differentiation between greek, egyption, norse, Assyrian, or hebrew myth.

quote:

---

The tendency to spirituality is a collective subonscient movement IMO

---

I still disagree completely.

The ability to look at our own existence and question it's purpose is something all human's have in common.

That does not equate to spirituality, nor is there anything truly collective or subconscious about it. I would classify it as purely intellectual on its basic level.

I prefer this poi I thought you were actually meaning that I was part of the "tendency to stupidity"... Thanks for making your allusion clearer.

quote:

---

I wonder to which degree that movement is actually cultural/determinist instead of innate.

---

This is very interesting indeed. I do believe this is mostly innate, but have no proof about this, it's rather like an intuition... So no arguments about that i'm afraid Might think about it a bit further on eventually.

quote:

---

Let's get back to the fairy tales point. If/Since the religions are based on fairy tales, myths and other bed time stories which credit shall we accord to them ? Sure they sounds good and may please some people but I need more, something more tangible, to believe in a superior being.

---

I've got a bit of a... begining of answer:

- Some of these stories have "miraculously" appeared in different parts of the world and at the same time; although they were sometimes rather different from each other, their key points were similar. Again I'll dig a bit further to find examples.

- How come these stories coming from very different cultures present similar points when the ways of communications at those times were so less developped, almost inexistant?

quote:

---

You may not like the implications

---

Of course I don't, but this isn't the point.

quote:

---

may wish to attach a more personally appropriate purpose to your existence

---

Contrariwise it is important to me to attach a more global purpose to my as well as everyone's existance, no matter my only existence on its one

I think you can take this latest staement as a summary of my point of view.



(P.S DL-44: By the way, I just wanted to thank you very much for your tutorial about creating shapes and 3D effects, I've learned loads and enojed myself a lot)

IMHO the tendency to spirituality is rather cultural/determinist. Since we no longer have to hunt to eat, and are surounded by believers and places of cult we have the time to and are influenced to question our existence. Does the other animals having social behavior and aware of themselves have a spirituality ? To my knowledge we've never seen a group of chimps, dolphins, macaques, ... praying.

quote:

---

- How come these stories coming from very different cultures present similar points when the ways of communications at those times were so less developped, almost inexistant?

---

Maybe because science was as little developped as the communications means. Involving miracles was a pretty and fit-everything reason to explain the ununderstandable.

quote:

---

Some of these stories have "miraculously" appeared in different parts of the world and at the same time; although they were sometimes rather different from each other, their key points were similar.

---

Many stories have arisen in various cultures around the world. The most well know example is that most cultures have a flood story. However, they did not all appear at the same time.

quote:

---

- Some of these stories have "miraculously" appeared in different parts of the world and at the same time; although they were sometimes rather different from each other, their key points were similar. Again I'll dig a bit further to find examples.

---

There are plenty of cultures with somewhat similar stories.

Almost all of these varied cultures developed at (in many cases) drastically different times. Often the stories are also drastically different. There are certainly similarities in the types of stories told in many cases as well. Remember that we are still one species, and are physiologically the same. This means our brains will essentially work the same across the board, even though there will be some pretty big differences in the conclusions we come to.

quote:

---

- How come these stories coming from very different cultures present similar points when the ways of communications at those times were so less developped, almost inexistant?

---

For starters, as mentioned above, we are the same species. We are physiologically the same. This is significant.
It's also important to note that our species originated in one basic location, and spread from there. Many of these stories, or the concepts that formed them, came about during the long course of migration. Some of the concepts are simply observations of nature -- the idea of man being made from mud is a common one. Why? It is very easy to observe that something dead "returns" to the earth...decomposes and becomes part of the soil. Not a huge leap in logic for primitive man to assume that he is therefore made from the stuff he turns into when he dies...

Back to being the same species.
All manner of animal species, no matter what part of the world you find them in, no matter if it is now or 1,000 years ago (or in some acses, 1,000,000 years ago...), will act in essentially the same way as other members of the same species, or even the same genus, in any other geographical or chronological location will.

Does this equate to a 'collective subconscious' connectiing through the millenia among all of the species of lizard, or horse, or falcon, or hornet?

Point being, man, like any other species, has a certain place in the world around him. We respond to that world in very similar ways, based on the place we hold in it, whether we are in one location or another.

It is not, in itself, indicitive of anything more grand than that.

No more than our existence is indicitive of any purpose grander than that given the rest of the animal world.



(Edited by DL-44 on 03-03-2005 00:55)

quote:

---

the idea of man being made from mud is a common one.

---

This story might also come from the first forms of arts. Our ancestors certainly noticed they can shape a ball of mud, and especially give it the shape of a mate. Therefore the idea of bringing life to it is not a huge leap. ... who said Pinnochio ?

All the above is most reasoned and rational, I like it.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

something interesting to me in this thread is the reference by several people to a similar thought of "if God was real He would show Himself to us". is it all that farfetched to believe that He has shown Himself to some people in one form or another?

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

is it all that farfetched to believe that He has shown Himself to some people in one form or another?

---

Yes.

=)

This is where the death, burial and resurrection really becomes critical. If that indeed happened, then it is *highly* likely that Jesus was who he claimed to be. That means that not only did God appear to selected individuals throughout the Old Testament times, but lived among us ~2000 years ago. Is it far fetched? Well, I would say that it is extarordinary indeed. So the extraordinary proof of its validity would have to come from something on the magnitude of the resurrection.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Farfetched? People who see things are often housed by the state in nice surroundings and given cool jackets with very long arms and nifty buckles.

The rest see divinity in grilled cheese sandwiches and random mould growths.

Farfetched?

Really!

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)