Sure, I don't consider myself Christian though I think there are some truths about reality in the Bible. God is a loaded word, call it the univere, creator, source of life, life energy. My point is everyone is getting wrapped up in naming and describing an experience that connects you with the energy field around us that we are all a part of. This energy field is the same infinite energy field that permeates the entire universe and we can't separate ourselves from it. Anything you label or name is a part of it, my point was simply to focus on the holistic experience of tapping into that without a need to judge and label the process.

Being an atheist is kind of the epitome of judging and labeling it bc you're looking around at all these things that are that energy and saying, that's not God, that's not God, that definitely isn't God. My point was more, it's all God/Universe/Source/life energy. Beyond your mind you can't actually separate any of it.

I guess you're not a big Quantum Physics guy

I'm a big quantum physics guy - I studied it in undergrad. I'm a not a big "lets make up the same mystical claims that ancient tribesmen did and then try to give a sheen of credibility by making up bull**** about quantum mechanics" guy.

The above labels and judges the experience. I just go with the zone when im in it and dont think or label it God or the source or life energy.

So, you believe that all life on planet earth came from primordial swamp goo,
which came from... rocks, which came from nothing?

Which takes more faith, to believe that, or to believe that there is an
actual designer/creator of the universe.

Once you've answered that question, answer where the information came
from that is in DNA, which is like an operating system for a computer,
but much more complicated:

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”


― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

(Please don't say it came from nothing, and then evolved due to random mutations)

any creator would have to be more complicated and involved than the things he created

so how does that help explain anything?

We don't know the origin of life; there are many hypotheses with some supporting evidence. We do know how complex life evolved from relatively simple beginnings. This process took billions of years

The creator you assume must have been a complex entity itself. Where did this creator come from?

Even if we postulate a creator, this does not in any way provide additional support for a particular religion.

"We do know how complex life evolved from relatively simple beginnings"

Um, no we don't. Not even close.

And, throwing out the "where did the creator come from? Adds nothing to the discussion, as the brilliant Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has aptly pointed out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U7Zwju9vAM

[ 8:00 mark ]

A more correct statement is that we have a framework under which we can understand how complex life evolved from relatively simple beginnings.

"Billions of years"; how can anyone even begin to make such a statement ?

The other thing, you know that thing, that other thing, is that you referenced an article on abiogenesis which is was more of a fluff piece . the amount of empty space placed upon what some call knowledge is frightening.

Its a speculation where one keeps saying the same thing, put it into rotation and then send it back in an disconnected idea of time . That piece is the stuff of inconsolable pathos; an illness of the mind.

There is no abiogenesis and never was; in truth it(the article ) did mention Francesco Redi who denied abiogenesis and debunked the theories of "life creation from the mud". He came out of his head and let his findings speak to him; a scientist for sure.

There is no surety in this approach, merely used to dismiss all those who find fault with the scientific establishment who embellish a superstition. lol

Oh the irony

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

WLC is a very intelligent person but he is also a master at misrepresentation and circular reasoning.

Why do you ask? Are we in a "faith off", where the person with the belief that takes "more faith" loses?

What a ridiculous argument.

And besides, it actually takes no faith to not believe in something that has zero evidence.

(But, congratulations, your screen name is one of the most apt I've ever seen.)

How old do you think the earth is?

Why are you still pushing this strawman, after its been debunked numerous times?

when there aren't any rational arguments to support a position you're committed to, you have to try something else

I'm saying the mind is very powerful when it needs to be. If a crazy person interprets that as "god intervening", then that's up to them, doesn't make it true.

I love creationists. The logical thought required to go from "we still don't know much about evolution" to "therefore god created everything" is incredible.

Again, the brain can be very powerful, no end to what you can make yourself believe and make yourself ignore to avoid admitting you've wasted your life on something.

It's not a strawman at all, and it hasn't been debunked.

Nice try though.

I love atheists. The logical thought required to believe in abiogenesis, and that DNA evolved magically by "random" mutations is incredible.

They bow down to the altar of "logical" brilliance like this, by Hawking:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Wheeeee!!!!!!

Do you have a dog? Look at him, he is descended from wolfs like we are descended from monkeys. We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees.

These are facts, while we don't understand everything about evolution we do know that its happening.

I can't answer that question. Perusing the literature I can glean that the number of years is a function of background radiation and the fact that there is a red shift which displays that the universe is expanding.

By backwards projection and assuming that the "big bang' is a point focus of the densest matter which expands the age has been calculated to be 13.1 billion years.

Apparently, the clustering of aging stars has produced a figure of about 11 billion years.

The people who produce these results are in agreement that thee are many assumptions made in this calculation and they can live with this complexity, so to speak.

Now, in this thread and others in Religion, God and Theology the religion bashers come aboard and call to question the religious mind who cannot see this clearly, who in the main are like the people who have produced these results. It is not so clear that this figure or the method is "Gospel" but the uninformed come aboard and decry and call foolish anyone who dares to question any figure as if they had lost their minds. the only minds that are lost are the absolutists who demand subservience via epithets and create a monstrant imbroglio; totally unnecessary.

The second part of my answer to the "millions of years" is as noted frequently the concept of "abiogenesis". This does call to question the figure for the numbers are consequential to a mineral consideration of what happens after the "big bang".

Scientists and especially biologists( not all of course), long ago, denied the concept of abiogenesis . If one believes that this is a reality in the past,present, or the future then we are dealing with "magical thinking". Its hard to leave it for all of our scientific considerations are creations of the mineral thought and it would only be natural to think of plants secondary to the mineral kingdom.

Francesco Redi stated it clearly "life only comes from life ". this also calls to question the idea that all the higher animals move up to the pinnacle, that of Man. The cry comes "do you believe in evolution", if you don;t believe or question it you are placed to the realm of the foolish. This is the politicization of a good science by the those that think less than adequately ( the magical mumsters).

Do I believe in evolution ? Yes I do, as I see the entire kingdoms of nature within Man as more of an negative "excretion" as mankind "rejects" finishing off into an animal type but still carries , within him, the template or the negative for all of the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms.

Darwin wasn't wrong for he saw the connection and i suspect the "others" made this connection into a facilitated movement from mineral to plant to animal to man, that of easy facile thought process, no work involved.

Punch line: you can't come to this "reverse evolution" without considering Man as a supersensible being of soul and spirit who has evolved without the minerality of our present times. Man was first, and all else is as of a mighty spread of this being of soul and spirit. QED

Not exactly, No. Also "I/We dont know" is a perfectly acceptable answer

Even if I did believe your strawman position, there is nothing about your position that makes it more believable. "God" has no explanatory power. We dont know where he came from, or how he made the universe. Potentially he made it from "nothing", since either there was "nothing" and then he made the universe, or else something was already there( how?) and he used that




You are just showing how little you understand. What information that is in DNA?
also,Its perfectly possible that DNA evolved.

So you are saying all animals came from man? Dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago when there were no men and life is considerably older then them.

How can believe that man came first?

Man was supersensible . Sit on it, let it percolate; no one has to believe, just try to comprehend it. The best to you.

Not exactly what I'd like to say. Man and the earth began as supersensible beings and there was an evolution of all creatures with mankind being the last to enter the earth(sensibly) as the other creatures, in some form, precipitated(better word here ?) to the earth .

He was still first but last to enter into what we might call earth. the dates and times are not necessarily related to what anthropology states about man and animal origins. This type of thing can only be clarified with a trained clairvoyant consciousness but can be understood with appreciative thinking.