Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

If you want to converse with any depth Alan, you are going to have to move beyond simple dictionary definitions.  Learn to scratch the surfaces of knowledge; strive to think what lies beneath the ocean.

And what lies beneath our existence?

[torridon]

And what lies beneath our existence?

Study it, dissect it, research it, test it, commission an objective study by experts in their field; this is what we have already been doing with science for three hundred years. Read up on their findings with an open, and above all, dispassionate unbiased mind. That way holds out a hope of advancing our knowledge.  All your ouevre is about merely validating your personal prejudices

[Gordon]

I think you have described very well the difference between automated reaction and conscious perception.

You said recently.

From the dictionary:
Awareness: knowledge or perception of a situation or fact

No mention of reactions or stimuli.

My example was of encountering jazz music and then considering the likely source of this - so I'd say that, and contrary to what you seem to suggest, that my awareness (that there is music being played that fits the category of 'jazz') involves both stimuli (my auditory systems are being stimulated by an external source) and my reaction to this stimuli (I have come to some mental conclusions about what it is I am hearing).

I think you are just making stuff up, Alan, and are playing with language in order to create a faux narrative that you think makes your faith seem rational: fortunately we're not all as susceptible to fallacies as you clearly are. 

[Sassy]

Ever heard of circular reasoning, Alan?

Sin and gods go together, as already outlined. They stand or fall together - I suppose it's possible, just about, to believe in a god but not in sin, but vice versa seems to me an impossible position. Anybody who doesn't believe that any gods exist concomitantly doesn't believe in sin or in any love to be separated from. It's as simple as that and I don't understand what it is that you're not getting about this.

I suppose you not wanting something to be true is not the same as it not actually being true.
Sin and gods do definitely not go together. Since YHWH is the only God who speaks of love and redemption I see no reason for you trying to put all belief systems under the one heading of sin and gods.

The fact some  people, people like yourself, choose not to believe does not make it all go away.
It is like the Ostrich burying it's head in the sand when there is danger thinking the danger cannot see the rest of him.

I think Christianity has the only God of love and forgiveness. But arrogance keeps some people from believing.
With others they just like how they live.

[Sassy]

Dear God,

I understand that you want to forgive me for something.

Well Ta.

Don't know what it is I did as you, apparently, are my manufacturer, so really only doing what you created me to do.

Now what?

Cheers,

Stephen,

PS. Don't know your address but AB seems to know an awful lot about you, despite the fact you are a mystery apparently, so hopefully he will forwards it to you.

As you know so little about God, how do you suppose your decisions are correct?

[Sassy]

Ah, but Alan will here pull out his permanent trump card - free will. (Never mind that such a thing has never been demonstrated to exist, but still ...).

Creation and life, actually give it away that God exists... No other answer been proved. After all we are not evolving are we and haven't done for thousands of years... Why do you think that is? That is the only problem with science...men live long enough to disprove it when it comes to God and the bible.

[Sassy]

So what?

Just because you do not like an answer, it does not make the answer wrong.

Same could be said about you, God and Christianity.

[Sassy]

You can see what a blow to some people's egotism this is.   What?  I'm just molecules and stuff?  No, I'm something ethereal and magical and gossamer-light and pretty.  And baby Jesus luurves me.

You don't even love yourself... I guess that can hurt your ego just a little.
Jesus isn't a baby just thought I would let you know. He was a grown man when died and when he rose from the dead.
Blow to egotism.... not even by any stretch of the imagination could that be true.  Sometimes people don't know what they are capable of doing and never find out. Because they have never learned how to put to use that which they were originally given.

For your body and soul to function at it's best, it needs it's creator on board.  But you are happy to remain believing such nonsense as above. Missing out on what God can do for you.

[Gordon]

Creation and life, actually give it away that God exists... No other answer been proved. After all we are not evolving are we and haven't done for thousands of years... Why do you think that is? That is the only problem with science...men live long enough to disprove it when it comes to God and the bible.

Evolution has stopped for homo sapiens: really?

[Shaker]

Evolution has stopped for homo sapiens: really?

This one is going on the same pile as no gravity on any planet but Earth and weighted spacesuits on the moon

[Sassy]

Evolution has stopped for homo sapiens: really?

Do you not keep up with that the scientist believe?
We spoke about it sometime ago. Man has stopped evolving. Didn't you know. We are what we are and nothing is changing now.
Even Sir David Attenborough has said:-

Sir David, whose new show concentrates on the ascent of man, said he believed humans had now stopped evolving in physical terms, after developing means to keep even the weakest of the species alive.
Saying we are now able to rear up to 99 per cent of our babies, he added people were no longer subject to Darwinian theories natural selection.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1070671/Evolution-stops-Future-Man-look-says-scientist.html

Professor Steve Jones, of University College London, says the forces driving evolution  -  such as natural selection and genetic mutation  -  no longer play an important role in our lives.
The people living one million years from now, should Man survive, will resemble modern-day humans.

Genetic mutation was never a force in the evolution of man. It was proved in the early 80's by American scientist that there has not been enough occurrences to provide the genetic mutations required to bring man to the stages of evolution he is at now.

However, it seems that man has not been evolving for a long time...

[Sassy]

This one is going on the same pile as no gravity on any planet but Earth and weighted spacesuits on the moon

Selective with science too, I see.
Now who looks stupid. You are saying you know better than scientist.

[Shaker]

Now who looks stupid.

You do.

You are saying you know better than scientist.

No - I'm the one who accepts the findings of science, remember - and they don't include (1) no gravity anywhere else but on this planet and (2) astronauts on the moon floating away into space if they're not weighted down 

[Gordon]

However, it seems that man has not been evolving for a long time...

It is a common misconception that humans have stopped evolving and current genetic changes are purely genetic drift. Although selection pressure on some traits has decreased in modern human life (for instance, we are no longer evolving to survive smallpox), humans are still undergoing natural selection for many other traits (for instance, menopause is evolving to occur later).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Recent_and_current_human_evolution

[Bubbles]

I was reading somewhere that nature stops evolving when a species is successful, sharks and crocodiles being an example.
Things evolve because there is a need.
There are enough of us and we are relatively successful enough not to change ATM.

Given a disaster and smaller more separated numbers, who knows.

I guess the same things that dictate how sharks and crocodiles are, is also working on us.

[Stranger]

Genetic mutation was never a force in the evolution of man.

Drivel.

It was proved in the early 80's by American scientist that there has not been enough occurrences to provide the genetic mutations required to bring man to the stages of evolution he is at now.

Reference...?

[Sassy]

You do.
No - I'm the one who accepts the findings of science, remember - and they don't include (1) no gravity anywhere else but on this planet and (2) astronauts on the moon floating away into space if they're not weighted down 

You think I look stupid... I have shown what I clearly meant and addressed it in further posts.
However the only one looking stupid around here is you on this thread. The post relates to your posts on the thread and shows you looking far dumber than you could ever try and make me look.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11651.100

[Shaker]

You think I look stupid...

I don't think you just look stupid, you are stupid. With apologies to Mr G. Marx, you may look like an idiot and write like an idiot, but don't be fooled - you really are an idiot.

[ippy]

Sass if there were no gravity on the moon it wouldn't matter how much weight there was placed in the space suits, think about it Sass, no gravity is just that NO gravity.

ippy

[ekim]

I can't talk to what mental states might be acheived through particular meditation practices, I've always been pretty useless at that, and you clearly have more insight than me there. 

My take is basically extrapolated from what we know about how brains work : a neural network based intelligence does not suggest the notion of an ontologically distinct self but rather an emergent self that arises out of brain functioning. In decision making for instance, there will not be a 'master neuron' acting as commander in charge, but decisions arise out of the competition between rival networks. The idea of a master neuron would not be feasible in terms of evolutionary biology either, it would be far too vulnerable to damage from injury or disease.  A neural networked 'person' however spreads its risk by curating multiple brain regions in any one activity and has the plasticity to conscript novel ares of cortex into use on the fly.  And it is not just the brain, with millions of interconnected neural networks in all major organs throughout the body all talking to each other, we are truly distributed inteligence units. Added to all that, we have memory retention, unique to each individual, a plethora of individual preferences, likes, taste, dislikes, prejudices all of which have a semi permanent character thanks to cell replication; added to all that we have the clever subliminal preconscious brain functiioning that synthesises and synchronises multiple disparate forms of experience into the apparently singular (but retrospective) narrative phenomenon we call conscious experience.  All taken together yields an undeniably compelling sense of self, something produced by brain functioning but which evaporates under hormonal damping down, as in sleep, or disappears when damaged by brain injury or disease such as dementia.

The physiology you describe seems OK to me and 'we are truly distributed intelligence units' fits reasonably well with early stages of meditation practice where there is often an overall awareness of all the cells of the body 'lighting up' as a single unity and there is a feeling of exhilaration.  Upon withdrawing from these sensations the next encounter is with what you describe as the 'compelling sense of self' with its likes, dislikes, fantasies, etc. which does appear to act as if possessing gravity and consciously detaching from it can be difficult until another form of 'dementia' is established, and then, 'Inner Space, the final frontier, to boldly go where one has not gone before', perhaps where one can answer the question you posed in a previous post "Better to ask - what is the quality, or the richness, of its awareness."

[Stranger]

It was proved in the early 80's by American scientist that there has not been enough occurrences to provide the genetic mutations required to bring man to the stages of evolution he is at now.

Reference...?

I guess I'm going to wait a long time for this. Sass, claiming that some American 'proved' something back in the '80s, is hardly convincing...

[Sassy]

Sass if there were no gravity on the moon it wouldn't matter how much weight there was placed in the space suits, think about it Sass, no gravity is just that NO gravity.

ippy

What are you going on about?  Just read through these old posts...
*****

Posts: 8672
View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Was Jesus gay?
« Reply #434 on: March 10, 2016, 09:34:50 AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: Sebastian Toe on March 10, 2016, 03:28:01 AM
What is 'gravity like ours' exactly?

You are desperate aren't you. Clutching at straws.
Modify message
Report to moderator     2.98.56.219
We know we have to work together to abolish war and terrorism to create a compassionate  world in which Justice and peace prevail. Love    Einstein
 "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Sassy
Hero Member
*****
 
Posts: 8672
View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Was Jesus gay?
« Reply #435 on: March 10, 2016, 09:37:42 AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: Sebastian Toe on March 10, 2016, 03:30:57 AM
Glad to hear it.
You must have been a very sceptical child then?

Hmmmm

You have to hum and ahh because at the end of the day you have absolutely nothing to offer up by means of a rebuttal, do you?

Could add an 'Ahhh Bisto' to your post... No gravy train coming through to save you... Little effort and broke when it comes to knowledge and answers.
Modify message
Report to moderator     2.98.56.219
We know we have to work together to abolish war and terrorism to create a compassionate  world in which Justice and peace prevail. Love    Einstein
 "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Sassy

Sassy
Hero Member
*****
 
Posts: 8672
View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Was Jesus gay?
« Reply #427 on: March 10, 2016, 12:59:53 AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: BeRational on March 10, 2016, 12:49:01 AM
I do not know what you are getting at really.

Do you at least understand that the Moon has gravity?
Do you understand that the tenuous atmosphere of the moon does not keep object on the surface.

I think you need to at least comprehend that.

Tell me how you would land on the moon without any gravity?
Is the gravity of earth the same on the moon and throughout the solar system?
So does everywhere have gravity like ours?

I never at any point believed there was an actual man in the moon.
I never believed that fairy tales were true or there was gold at the end of the rainbow.
But I do believe in God and Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


I also know enough to know you only know what you were told. Just the same as us at school.
But I know that the things God does, it not explained by any teachings created by man and his science.









Hero Member
*****
 
Posts: 8672
View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Was Jesus gay?
« Reply #436 on: March 10, 2016, 09:39:21 AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: Sebastian Toe on March 10, 2016, 03:33:25 AM
Where did you pick up your expertise on gravity then?
University? Sunday school? The Beano? 

Your ignorance is showing.... is that the sound of the knowledge gravy train... nah! just someone wishing they had not started the conversation because the only butt getting kicked around here is the one they sit on the Rebuttal train had long left the station...


We know the moon is smaller than the earth so according to the books.... gravity will be less on the moon than it is on the earth. The earth the larger mass of the two...

Just so you don't have to make any more foolish comments. I did read the Beano annual every year. In fact we use to get quite a lot. Mandy, Bunty, Judy and others. But they never did Gravity... Although, desperate Dan did have gravy in his cow pie.
Modify message
« Last Edit: March 10, 2016, 09:43:55 AM by Sassy »

[ippy]

Creation and life, actually give it away that God exists... No other answer been proved. After all we are not evolving are we and haven't done for thousands of years... Why do you think that is? That is the only problem with science...men live long enough to disprove it when it comes to God and the bible.

I would have thought that now there's so many of us in the more forward thinking and educated nations in the world that haven't reverted to the big Ju Ju man in the sky mentality could be a sign of an advantageous advance in human evolution; what do you think Sass?

Ippy

[Sassy]

I would have thought that now there's so many of us in the more forward thinking and educated nations in the world that haven't reverted to the big Ju Ju man in the sky mentality could be a sign of an advantageous advance in human evolution; what do you think Sass?

Ippy

Tell me why despite man advances in thinking nothing has changed?
People still die of diseases. Man is still dying of starvation. Children drinking dirty water which makes them sick.
Remind me of the forward thinking and educated nations in the world and tell me why the above still exists.
Mans forward thinking and educated nations and still half the world is still starving and suffering.

The 700 club and other Christian organisations are feeding and helping the poverty stricken corners of the world.
Seems the people of the JU JU Man the name you give as mockary of YHWH at least show their forward thinking and educated people/nations are actually doing something which eases the suffering of others.

By comparison the advances by man are lacking when it comes to the advances of the people of God.

So those who have no belief are lacking in their humanitarianism.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

As you know so little about God, how do you suppose your decisions are correct?

I beg your pardon? Which decisions?