Do you think science has killed religion and God?

Well, I don't know whether God exists or not, so making a call about whether or not He is dead is a little problematic. Now religion, no, science has not killed religion, though many religionists of all faiths seem determined to do so.

No, not really.

Case in point, the Vatican now officially believes in evolution. Yet, they haven't given up their religion last time I've checked.

Read the writings of Pope John Paul II, and then Cardinal Ratzinger on Faith and Reason.

You mean in the same way that video killed the radio star?

It killed the fabrication of God and fuelled the truth of Science.

God, I love Science.

Sorry...Wow I love Science.

Science cannot undo the history of the Bible. I suspect that many of those that go into the field of science are atheists.

> Science cannot undo the history of the Bible. I suspect that many
> of those that go into the field of science are atheists.

You're right, most scientists are Atheists and this is because they have proved the theory of evolution and used their intelligence to reach a verdict that a God is extremely unlikely.

Religion has died and God is alive

No I don't think so. In fact, I think science proves the existence of God.

> No I don't think so. In fact, I think science proves the existence
> of God.

Really? In what way?

No, but.... video killed the radio star!

No. That's rediculous*

*I mean no disrespect to those that believe that.

*sigh* a voice of reason in a world of small windowless rooms.

In a way, yes. People desperately want explanations for why and how. Without science, people invent various supernatural answers for why the world is the way it is. Science provides natural explanations, making the religious myths less necessary.

In many ways.

Astronomy shows beyond doubt that the universe had to have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.

Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.

What are the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes? The odds are astronomical.. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?

The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?

There is an objective moral standard. Human beings have an inward sense of morality. This presupposes an absolute value and standard to which we make comparisons. Where did right and wrong come from? Who gave us our conscience?

Millions of people - of every race, creed, colour, culture, both men and women, young and old - claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these millions of accounts of divine healing, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Are they all liars?

There is remarkable order in physics. The law of gravity is perfectly fine-tuned to support the existence of life. The combinations of physical constants in our universe are perfectly set for the existence of life. Since an infinite number of combinations and values for the physical constants in our universe are plausible, we can safely assume someone set the conditions for life. And we know that it wasn’t aliens from the planet Zork from the 5th universe that set these conditions, as this would only transfer the problem to the planet Zork, who would require a cause. God is, by definition, that which is uncaused.

Our universe contains too much order for our existence to have been created out of chaos. We are complex beyond our imaginations and when I look at such a complexity, I see God and His creation.

However, the main reason I know that science proves God exists, is that I know God exists. And I know this because He is real - He has proven that to me beyond all doubt. I have seen Him at work over and over again, both in my personal life and in others' lives. Yes, having a relationship with God requires a level of faith - but it is a faith based on real, actual things that I have witnessed. There are things that I don't know, that I don't understand, but if I understood everything, I'd be God. And I'm not

> Astronomy shows beyond doubt that the universe had to have a beginning.
> There was a single moment of creation.

The big bang was the beginning. And if the response if: "Who created the big bang?", then my response back would be: "Who created the creator?"

The question of the beginning is one that no-one in the world can answer!


> Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information
> encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have
> discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines
> at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design
> requires a designer.

I don't see why this proves design? Life came about my evolution, a simple yet complex process over billions of years. This occurs without a designer in the form of natural selection.


> What are the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via
> unintelligent processes? The odds are astronomical.. If life did
> not arise by chance, how did it arise?

You said astronomical: so you believe it is possible!

The odds are fairly astronomical but not as astronomical as the number of planets in the universe. Therefore, this process you mention will occur on some planets. This planet is one of them!

> The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come
> from and what purpose do they serve?

The laws are naturally determined. They don't have to serve a purpose!

> There is an objective moral standard. Human beings have an inward
> sense of morality. This presupposes an absolute value and standard
> to which we make comparisons. Where did right and wrong come from?
> Who gave us our conscience?

One area of natural selection shows how certain groups of animals are more likely to survive if they look after, care and protect their immediate family. Our caring nature stems from this.

As for right and wrong, it is a personal choice. No-one told me not to kill, it is an easy decision for me to make. Human beings made up rules, and if I
were to kill, I would go to prison. However, there is nothing after death, so there isn't really right or wrong!


> Millions of people - of every race, creed, colour, culture, both men
> and women, young and old - claim to have personally experienced something
> of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these millions
> of accounts of divine healing, answered prayer, and other miraculous
> phenomena? Are they all liars?

The human brain is extremely complex. Many things are not understood due to its complexity. Therefore, a lot of things happen which we can't explain. It doesn't make them supernatural.

I don't believe in ghosts, I don't believe in spirits. If there are any of out there, show yourself to me!!

> There is remarkable order in physics. The law of gravity is perfectly
> fine-tuned to support the existence of life.

Is it? There is no life on the sun because of the huge gravitational pull. The reason there is life on earth is because the gravitational pull is perfetc for life. Gravity is different everywhere, it is not perfectly fine tuned for life.



> The combinations of physical constants in our universe are perfectly set for the existence of life.

Really? Then why is there no life on Saturn or other planets?

The reason there is life on earth is because all the conditions for life are perfect. This comes down to luck. Earth was in a lucky place!

> Our universe contains too much order for our existence to have been
> created out of chaos. We are complex beyond our imaginations and when
> I look at such a complexity, I see God and His creation.
>

I see complexity and notice evolution and natural selection. Climbing Mount Improbable in small steps, not just leaping up from bottom to top like God did!


> However, the main reason I know that science proves God exists, is
> that I know God exists.

Now that's a bold statement. Which God are you talking about? Presumerably, if you were born in a different country, you would have ended up worshipping a different God!

> And I know this because He is real - He has proven that to me beyond all doubt.

Where's the proof?

> I have seen Him at work over and over again, both in my personal life and in others' lives.

So why isn't he in my personal life. Has he chosen you over me?


> Yes, having a relationship with God requires a level of faith

A level? I think it requires full, 100% committed faith. I see faith as illogical and a lack of independent thinking.

> but it is a faith based on real, actual things that I have witnessed.

Why are these real actual things never recorded on camera so they can be validated?

> There are things that I don't know, that I don't understand, but if I understood
> everything, I'd be God. And I'm not

This is where religion doesn't work with me. It is obsessed with the unknown and when a answer can't be provided, the word faith is brought up. I chose to study scientific evidence, a process that uses hypothesis, that changes constantly. Religion, to me, is stuck in the primeval period of life, where primitive views are kept and when the science world contridicts it, it relies upon faith.

I hope you don't think I am attacking you. I like you smurf.

Nope, I don't think you are attacking. I'm happy to agree to disagree with people, 'cos not all of us think the same way
And these 'disagreements' are good for us - they keep our minds open to others' ways of thinking, and make us think outside our own little universe once in a while!

I'm in a bit of a hurry today, so I haven't fully read your reply. But I promise I'll get back to you when I have a few minutes

No. Science can't kill God.

No. First of all, you can't kill an idea. Second of all, science is not a question of faith. The two exist in different realms.

I'm sure the survey creator doesn't mean in a literal way, with a gun, and a chalk body outline.

Also, science has not totally eliminated god in the world, but I think it might, eventually.

Your brains are hawt.

So are my bodacious tatas.

Far from.

Even if we became integrated thought forms travelling through a planet of matter we reform at will, we'd still have the same level of God inspiration and mystery in our lives.

I couldn't believe it. I asked my new dentist how long he'd been there. A month. Later during the appt. I overheard him say "I just noticed, there aren't any windows here."

ooooOOOOoooo!

He must be a very very busy man. Dr Oblivious.

Mostly speaking to Wicksy here:

> |> Astronomy shows beyond doubt that the universe had to have a
> beginning.
> |> There was a single moment of creation.
>
> The big bang was the beginning. And if the response if: "Who created
> the big bang?", then my response back would be: "Who created the creator?"
>
There will also be a big anti-bang when the universes center of gravity finally overcomes the inertia of the expanding universe. It's a safe bet that the cycle will keep repeating too. Infinite universes.
>
>
> |> Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of
> information
> |> encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists
> have
> |> discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed
> machines
> |> at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and
> design
> |> requires a designer.
>
> I don't see why this proves design? Life came about my evolution,
> a simple yet complex process over billions of years. This occurs without
> a designer in the form of natural selection.

..and how is it a natural law that the world should prefer to be algae or flying marsupials instead of just water and rocks?
Survival of the fittest? Rocks were pretty dang fit.


> |> What are the odds against life arising from non-life naturally
> via
> |> unintelligent processes? The odds are astronomical.. If life
> did
> |> not arise by chance, how did it arise?
>
> You said astronomical: so you believe it is possible!
>
> The odds are fairly astronomical but not as astronomical as the number
> of planets in the universe. Therefore, this process you mention will
> occur on some planets. This planet is one of them!
>
> |> The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws
> come
> |> from and what purpose do they serve?
>
> The laws are naturally determined. They don't have to serve a purpose!
>

Naturally 'determined'? The universe could just as likely have been two trillion mile long space worms or intelligent UV-magnetic glow networks, or consisted entirely of senses or thoughts different form the current universe which consists of matter, energy, motion, dimension, and such. All this had to come from somewhere.
Not to mention, it's all infinite. You can measure empty space, therefore it's a thing. An infinitely large thing. Faster than we can imagine it, it's already there, as if ever abundantly created on the fly faster than time. I figure we also have infinite complexity and detail. The scientists of each generation will probably find new Boson particles which make up whatever the smallest quark or meson of their days is.

> |> There is an objective moral standard. Human beings have an
> inward
> |> sense of morality. This presupposes an absolute value and standard
> |> to which we make comparisons. Where did right and wrong come
> from?
> |> Who gave us our conscience?
>

Morality is mostly just thought and feeling, explainable like computers. Consciousness is not though. No degree of inputs, outputs, or thought complexity will make computers see that they see, think that they think, as we do. Consciousness is like an outside observor resident within the machine.

>
> |> Millions of people - of every race, creed, colour, culture,
> both men
> |> and women, young and old - claim to have personally experienced
> something
> |> of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these
> millions
> |> of accounts of divine healing, answered prayer, and other miraculous
> |> phenomena? Are they all liars?
>
> The human brain is extremely complex. Many things are not understood
> due to its complexity. Therefore, a lot of things happen which we
> can't explain. It doesn't make them supernatural.

Supernatural really isn't a point anyhow. If everyone agreed that we see ghosts, have telekenesis, or talk to some all knowing force, we'd just call it another poorly understood aspect of physics anyhow.

It is the existence of this physics, whatever it's laws, which from it's very origin was the seed of creating this vast delightful universe which is God. We may not know it's thought proccesses, mechanisms, motives, or anything (or if it has any of these at all beyond what it flowered in our own human creation), but whatever the case, it apparently either created 'ALL THIS' from nothing, or established something similar infinitely back into the past and eternally into the future. I consider that a rather impressive trick. Just look at your hand or the wall, keeping in mind that there's not so much as an explanation for even empty space with dimension existing, let alone things like physics.

>
> |> There is remarkable order in physics. The law of gravity is
> perfectly
> |> fine-tuned to support the existence of life.
>
> Is it? There is no life on the sun because of the huge gravitational
> pull. The reason there is life on earth is because the gravitational
> pull is perfetc for life. Gravity is different everywhere, it is not
> perfectly fine tuned for life.
>

Consider yourself an incidental accidental quirk if you wish, I guess.
I've been inventing all sorts of flying machines lately, and I'm amazed that each time I think up some new law of physics to exploit, I realize some sort of bat, eel, or insect has done so already. An example critter for each concept of motion.

>
>
> |> The combinations of physical constants in our universe are perfectly
> set for the existence of life.
>
> Really? Then why is there no life on Saturn or other planets?
>

It exists here. That alone validates the principle. An airplane is based on centuries of math evolution, even if the ancients had no jumbo jets.

Saturn and other planets are in perfect balance to create the marvellous things which occur there.

>
> I see complexity and notice evolution and natural selection. Climbing
> Mount Improbable in small steps, not just leaping up from bottom to
> top like God did!
>

It's unknown whether or not God also evolves. The invention of eternity and recombinant electrons was all it took to create this. I were God, I'm not so sure I'd come up with such a cool idea.

>
> |> However, the main reason I know that science proves God exists,
> is
> |> that I know God exists.
>
> Now that's a bold statement. Which God are you talking about? Presumerably,
> if you were born in a different country, you would have ended up worshipping
> a different God!

There is a knowing, not unlike consciousness itself, independent of any religious descriptions of God.

>
> |> And I know this because He is real - He has proven that to me
> beyond all doubt.
>
> Where's the proof?
>
> |> I have seen Him at work over and over again, both in my personal
> life and in others' lives.
>
> So why isn't he in my personal life. Has he chosen you over me?
>

We get what we believe in. People who like horses have a lot of horses walking into their life, in proportions inexplicable merely by the situations their behavior choices put them in. People who believe they can witness miracles of epic scale are the ones who see such things. It's not about being chosen, it's about your choice.

>
> |> Yes, having a relationship with God requires a level of faith
>
>
> A level? I think it requires full, 100% committed faith. I see faith
> as illogical and a lack of independent thinking.

'independent thinking' - well there's your fundamental problem right there. God is everything. If you wish to believe you are something independent, that's the illusion of the universe you will be granted. It's the most popular choice, of course.

Logic is a man-made contruction, inherently limited, unable to see outside of it's own arbitrary box. By 'limiting' what it acknowleges as it's foundation, it can be used to prove or refute anything. You could be talking to a roommate every day, and logic can tell you that you are halucinating because you saw them die a year ago, and it never occurred to you that their twin moved in. That type of logic can deny any supernatural experience, because for instance that the notion that
of a single creator synchronizing otherwise disconnected events isn't part of your accepted limited foundation to base logic upon.

While we have red, green, & blue eye sensors, hummingbirds also have near and far ultraviolet sensors, and moreovor have individual markings that are only visible in the UV spectrum. There are critters which perceive electricity and magnetism. Limiting our notions of what is real even to our perception is a huge fallacy. It wasn't until comparatively rather recently that humans even realized air existed, though it's quite obvious now in retrospect.

>
> |> but it is a faith based on real, actual things that I have witnessed.
>
>
> Why are these real actual things never recorded on camera so they
> can be validated?
>
> |> There are things that I don't know, that I don't understand,
> but if I understood
> |> everything, I'd be God. And I'm not
>
> This is where religion doesn't work with me. It is obsessed with the
> unknown and when a answer can't be provided, the word faith is brought
> up. I chose to study scientific evidence, a process that uses hypothesis,
> that changes constantly. Religion, to me, is stuck in the primeval
> period of life, where primitive views are kept and when the science
> world contridicts it, it relies upon faith.

Yeah, but where does that get you? 10,000 more years of science won't answer your questions, you'll just have more knowledge of the laws of nature to call science. We humans could reach a state of evolution in which we create planets from scratch, create test-tube animals from minerals, teleport between planets, read thoughts around the planet with remote magnetic-sonar, learn the secrets of manipulating time, be what our primitive ancestors would have called Gods, and still not believe in God.

It really comes down to how you define God. Different definitons might include:
Something that created (including created throughout infinite past and future) matter, time, energy, and dimension.
Something which decides the fate of the universe.
Some unified thing which observes or 'be's the entire universe.
Something which creates laws of nature and physics.
Something responsible for consciousness.
Something with intelligence, motives, morals, or decison making above or integral with the laws of physics.
Something greater than the whole of humanity or encompasssing the whole of humanity which communes with humanity directly or indirectly, including conversation, affectation of morals, faith, demonstration of miracles, setting of guidelines, etc etc.

Personally my experience and logical contemplations indicate all of this is going on, but anyone of these would indicate the existence of God of some sort or another.

Really, I can't see how its possible to not believe in God, except by turning god into some easily dismissable human fantasy abstraction like Santa Claus.

A more interesting question in the context of this post is just what is it you don't wish to believe in, and why?
People all have their own reasons. Some people don't wish to believe there is a force greater than themselves. Others are adverse to the thought that something would intentionally create us then let us suffer in wars and hurricanes.

I suspect the majority of atheists are either turned of by biblical stuff, or are hung up on seeing God as a human-centric thing, and not considering that from the perspective of God that even a universe of perpetual intense suffering could be a beautiful creation experience of a sort, in much the same way as people enjoy horror movies.

>
> I hope you don't think I am attacking you. I like you smurf.
>
>
>
>
>

I like us all.

I can't walk into any setting without taking in all that sort of instantly and basing my feelings about the place on such.

Not that I'm never oblivious.

Once every month or two month I take a routine path 35 minute bike ride to my psychiatrist, and guage my wound-up-edness by how long into the ride I stop composing thoughts and start noticing flowers, architecture, and such.

I'm developing an invention prototype for a medical practioner client who takes the cake, like talking to a brick. I spent some 30 hours discussing a simpler alternative device, after which he comes up with the notion of making 'the simpler alternative device'. I can only be grateful that communications were on my hourly rate chart. How it will go when I get to the parts which involve advanced theoretical computing, I can only imagine. We got hung up on discussing a mechanical switch.

I have a similar relationship with my younger brother. He often explains things to me that I explained to him years earlier. I just let it go and let him imagine he has a stockpile of novel wisdom.

> I'm developing an invention prototype for a medical practioner client who takes the cake, like talking to a brick.

Medical proffesionals take a class in school "Deer in the Headlight Look 101"
> I have a similar relationship with my younger brother. He often explains things to me that I explained to him years earlier. I just let it go and let him imagine he has a stockpile of novel wisdom.

You are a doll for that

>
> There is an objective moral standard. Human beings have an inward
> sense of morality. This presupposes an absolute value and standard
> to which we make comparisons. Where did right and wrong come from?
> Who gave us our conscience?
>

I don't disagree that there is an objective moral standard, but I don't think it has been adequately formulated yet. Robert Heinlein made a start on this with his essay "The Pragmatics of Patriotism" in Expanded Universe: More Worlds of Robert Heinlein.

But it is not true that human beings have an innate sense of morality. The only other place I have come across this claim was a book by Lee Sobel, "The Case for a Creator". Have you read it? I found it interesting, but it has some serious flaws and this is one of them.
There have been several documented cases of humans being raised by animals, a few of which occurred in modern times. Depending on how young these people were when they were cut off from human contact, there is usually little that can be done for them. If they were actually raised by animals from an extremely young age, the best that can be done is to keep them confined in decent surroundings. There is no hope of retraining them to fit into human society. They have no moral values beyond simple self-interest and survival. I am not denigrating these qualities at all, but in order to fit into a human society, you need a broader-based moral code than simple self-interest. This broader-based moral code is something that must learned through human interaction in a human society at a very young age.

Right and wrong do exist as well, but not all of it is as absolute as you might think. Consider the case of Lot in Sodom from the book of Genesis. Peter (2 Peter ch. 2 v. 6) holds Lot up as an example of a holy man, sickened by the wicked ways of those amongst whom he lived. What exactly was it that made Lot so holy though? When the city of Sodom was about to be destroyed, God sent some angels into Sodom to warn Lot to get out of Dodge and right smartly. When these angels came into Lot's house, the Sodomites gathered round and demanded of Lot that he hand these strangers over to them, "That we may know them." Lot refused to do this. Instead, he offered up his two young daughters, "virgins, who have not known man", to this crowd of lechers. "Take them and do with them what you will, only leave these men alone forasmuch as they are come under my roof." What would we think today if someone offered up their daughters to a crowd of hoodlums to be raped and abused? I would think we would think that was wrong. Apparently though, Lot, Peter and God all seemed to think this was the right thing to do. This is something I do not understand. The point here is that what we deem right or wrong varies widely from culture to culture and from era to era. So it's rather difficult to say that there is an absolute standard for right and wrong that can apply to all humans at all times.

I think 'the standard' of right and wrong is merely the greater welfare of the society one identifies with. If individualism is seen as good forthe overall benefit of society, standards change. If we can afford to identify with animals, standards of right and wrong change.

In the future, genders might not even exist, making gender and marriage roles obsolete. Whether or not we identify with clones grown for body parts might come into play (btw, watch 'The Island', a sci-fi clone movie which builds upon all it's predecessors like Logan's Run).

Prior to Christ's teachings, women and children were seen more as property. The bible was written in context of that society and wasn't an absolute. It was written by (possibly holy) men raised in that context who made no claim of being all-knowing god themselves. The Golden Rule was the only thing written then that could stand the test of time for a human society context. Combine it with 'what you did for the beggar, you did for me', and you get the universal intrinsic god concept, 'what one experiences, we all experience'.

I read last night that in old sea law that homicidal cannibalism during a ship wreck was only murder if there was not unanimous consent to draw lots. If every member of that society figures that a 20% chance of death and 80% chance of life is better than a 95% likelihood of death then we have both rules operating, the greater good of society, and that of each personal experience being the sort one would most kindly wish upon themselves and others (that chance of life).

Every once in awhile someone here throws out survey of the sort:
'Would you save someone even though it will result in the deaths of unseen others to come?'
'Would you kill someone to save unseen others?'

People generally weigh the known immediate circumstances above the grander repurcusions, saving or not killing someone immediate at the cost of others to come.

From a view-point of Hindu cosmology, that's the way to go anyhow. Your experience is with God in the moment, who can change the future accordingly.

This stuff can get kind of serious. For a few minutes in a sort of bizarre much-out-of-character rage, I disowned my beloved but long-distance type son and wondered why I even had him. The next day he killed himself.

Thanks for your response. I don't wish to reply to it but wanted to acknowledge it anyway. You seem extremely intelligent, but I knew this anyway!

I wish, but alas NO.

> Medical proffesionals take a class in school "Deer in the Headlight
> Look 101"

That's a good class, but not as good as "Illegible Handwriting" or "How to Accidentally Kill Patients And Go On Living With Yourself" (also known as "Teach Yourself Substance Abuse")

Even I am growing a little tired of complaining about religion.

Is that a fox pup?

> Is that a fox pup?

Yep, cute eh!?

Foxes, along with polar bears are my favourite animal.

What's yours?

Kangaroos, Frogs, Tigers, all kinds of Birds.

No, science has not killed God and religion; it's impossible to kill God. Science tries to make people think that there is no God and attempts to make everyone believe in the crazy theories they fabricate like evolution which can never be proved just like creation will never be disproved.

> In many ways.
>
> Astronomy shows beyond doubt that the universe had to have a beginning.
> There was a single moment of creation.
>
> Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information
> encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have
> discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines
> at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design
> requires a designer.
>
> What are the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via
> unintelligent processes? The odds are astronomical.. If life did
> not arise by chance, how did it arise?
>
> The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come
> from and what purpose do they serve?
>
> There is an objective moral standard. Human beings have an inward
> sense of morality. This presupposes an absolute value and standard
> to which we make comparisons. Where did right and wrong come from?
> Who gave us our conscience?
>
> Millions of people - of every race, creed, colour, culture, both men
> and women, young and old - claim to have personally experienced something
> of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these millions
> of accounts of divine healing, answered prayer, and other miraculous
> phenomena? Are they all liars?
>
> There is remarkable order in physics. The law of gravity is perfectly
> fine-tuned to support the existence of life. The combinations of physical
> constants in our universe are perfectly set for the existence of life.
> Since an infinite number of combinations and values for the physical
> constants in our universe are plausible, we can safely assume someone
> set the conditions for life. And we know that it wasn’t aliens from
> the planet Zork from the 5th universe that set these conditions, as
> this would only transfer the problem to the planet Zork, who would
> require a cause. God is, by definition, that which is uncaused.
>
> Our universe contains too much order for our existence to have been
> created out of chaos. We are complex beyond our imaginations and when
> I look at such a complexity, I see God and His creation.
>
> However, the main reason I know that science proves God exists, is
> that I know God exists. And I know this because He is real - He has
> proven that to me beyond all doubt. I have seen Him at work over
> and over again, both in my personal life and in others' lives. Yes,
> having a relationship with God requires a level of faith - but it
> is a faith based on real, actual things that I have witnessed. There
> are things that I don't know, that I don't understand, but if I understood
> everything, I'd be God. And I'm not
>

Very well stated, I totally agree. I have all the proof I will ever need about the existence of God. God has blessed me in many ways and I've seen Him at work in many other peoples' lives as well. How anyone can deny the existence of God and Jesus is way beyond my understanding.

"Science tries to make people think that there is no God and attempts to make everyone believe in the crazy theories they fabricate like evolution..."

Actually, the last time I've checked, the Vatican officially recognizes evolution to be true. Its such a crazy theory, yet the pope (arguably the most religious person on earth) believes it.

Me too!

You can't kill God, can you?

He's invincible! He made tsunamis for Christ sake.

I was raised as a Catholic and remember being taught about creation and I also heard recently that they recognize evolution. I left the Catholic Church more than 22 years ago and explored other Christian denominations. Most Christian denominations don't teach or believe in evolution. It's definitely a crazy theory that will be debated for as long as humans are on this earth.

Everything else evolves at rates we can witness in our own lives. Why should species be any different? Games, sports, business, ethics, invention, culture, location of species.. They evolve because of the merging of information in the context of new and developed circumstances. DNA is merging information too.

If only red-haired blue-eyed people mate, guess what? In three hundred years there will only be red-haired blue-eyed people, and most of the ancient bizarre DNA artifacts will be lost from history. Some anomalies will occur over the next millenium, like resistance to AIDS, and those people will probably eventually become a significant share of the gene pool.

We can easily observe that dominant genes prosper over recessive ones. It's immediately apparent that people select mates, and that people pass on their genes to their off-spring. The only missing ingredient is that genetic anomalies occur, and there's tons of scientific evidence for that too. What do you think cancers are? Useless destructive genetic anomalies! People dying young of cancer are less likely to breed. On the other hand, people with dexterous fingers or refined hearing are more likely to breed.

A fifth grader can see the scientific sense of the theory of evolution. What part of all I've described do you think is not happening? Breeds of dogs and mixes of human races which did not exist 1000 years ago exist today. Do you deny this?

A few years ago they cross-bred camels and llamas. Those never existed before. Isn't that a sort of evolution? If llamas lived in China, and Camels in the mid-east, it would have happened naturally eventually.

What about fossils? I'd like to know your explanation as to why the bones and shells of today's animals don't quite match those found deep in the earth. It's one thing to claim a few missing-link human skeletons were really just anomalies, and quite another to dismiss the entire fossil record of Earth.

Perhaps you only mean that humans don't evolve, or perhaps just that creationists don't evolve. I won't argue with you there.

I'm sure your belief is purely biblical, but even then, have you ever heard of metaphors and story-telling? Read some native american pre-history. Am I to believe the world was built on the backs of seven giant tortoises? No, if anything I'm to believe it was built on the backs of seven continental shelves, and suspect that their prehistoric story-tellers may have once actually known that somehow.

Presuming you do believe the Bible is the direct word of God, do you mind telling me your criteria about when it becomes so? Is it with the first transcribing into handwriting, the first publication, or does it date back to all the people who passed on the stories before it ever reached that point. Is the King James version still the direct word of God? If I edit my own version, does that become the direct word of God? - Don't get me wrong, I do believe there were mystically inspired authors of the bible, and that for the most they part, they document 2nd hand tales of actual events. Why anyone should take a single word of it as inalienable fact though is beyond me. You do realize it was written by people, don't you? I've never met any infallable people, some minor saints perhaps, but no one infallable. Why should we take the (often 2nd hand) word of Peter, Paul, John, or Luke above what the pope or dalai lama has to say, if they choose to become authors as well?
I can't say if I'll argue your response or not, but I seriously would like to know. No one has given me any sort of answer to this question yet. Somehow it usually comes down to their faith not even questioning facts documented in history, like men writing the bible. They treat the bible like the tablets of Moses. Frankly the divine scriptural revelations to the founding Mormons is more bullet-proof. At least it can't be denied by history. Affirmed, no, but at least not denied. I don't recall one single biblical author except that of Revelations making any claim to divine intercession in their authorship content, and his testimony is the one I doubt most of all, as do many others.

You do believe in history dont you? If you believe the world was a dream created just before your birth, I will honorably excuse you from arguing any position, and wish you the best. As is, I kind of lump you in the same category already, unless I finally hear something that makes some sense to me on the matter.

BTW, it's your beliefs, not you, I have a problem with. I might still enjoy a drink or game of tennis with you even though I find your beliefs bordering on ludicrous.

Have you ever heard of "God of the gaps"?

No

Not making any judgements, but I see alot of propaganda education and drugs speaking. The enemy knows once you dumb down a subject, injected with drugs, it's an easier kill.

Who is on drugs?

Many of the people from the 60's until now.

> Not making any judgements, but I see alot of propaganda education
> and drugs speaking. The enemy knows once you dumb down a subject,
> injected with drugs, it's an easier kill.

I don't inject any drugs. Can't stand the sight of blood, particularly my own. I can barely tolerate a Dr drawing blood or giving me a shot.

I'm glad you don't inject any drugs...illegal drugs, and most legal drugs are poison

> I'm glad you don't inject any drugs...illegal drugs, and most legal
> drugs are poison

From your earlier statement: but I see alot of propaganda education
> and drugs speaking.

What precisely do you mean by poison? The drugs I have had most experience with, marijuana and LSD, cannot be considered "poisonous" in any physiological consideration. Surprisingly, LSD, from a purely physiological perspective, is less toxic than many food items generally regarded as "healthy". Spinach, for example, has fairly high levels of oxalic acid in it, which, aside from being toxic itself, also blocks the absorption of iron by the human body. The propaganda that surrounded the oulawing of both of these drugs has long been recognized as just that, propaganda. In many cases, outright lies in fact. This is unfortunate, because there are in fact real dangers that later on, you will have difficulty educating people about, because so many lies have been told. One example, the danger of birth defects caused by LSD. This was a "fact" about LSD that was widely disseminated for a long time. It was based on the observation, not of actual birth defects caused by LSD, but of chromosome damage in long time LSD users. That chromosome damage, or more accurately, breakage was later found to be caused by wide range substances, including aspirin and vitamin C. There is though, a very real danger inherent in a pregnant woman taking LSD. That danger is the increased chance of premature labor and subsequent fatal hemorrhage. That danger has never been widely publicized and probably would not be believed after all the lies that have been told in order to scare people into obeying an unreasonable law. But it is one of the real dangers inherent in many substances derived from ergot.

These kinds of propaganda lies about certain drugs continue to circulate. The Partnership for a Drug Free America several years ago had an article on their Web page warning parents about DMT in cough medicine. Now DMT is an indole alkaloid psychedelic found in many plants and oddly enough, in the blood, urine and cerebro-spinal fluid of human beings as a normal constituent: http://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/de... But it is an illegal substance and won't be found in any legally marketed medication of any kind. What cough medicines do contain is DXM or dextromethorphan, a synthetic opiate which suppresses cough but is less likely to cause addiction than most other opiates. In high doses (a bottle or two of cough medicine, for instance) it is also a dissociative which produces for many an interesting "trip" similar to ketamine or PCP. I wrote them an email explaining the differences between DXM and DMT, pointed out that if they were seriously interested in educating people about the dangers of drugs they had to be careful to tell the truth. My email was never even acknowledged by them, but the next day the article about DMT in cough medicine was gone from their site. Too bad though that they never posted an article about the real dangers of drinking a bottle or two of cough medicine. Those medicines often contain the expectorant guafenesin and the pain reliever acetominophen, which in doses as high as those represented by a bottle or two of cough medicine can cause serious damage to the liver. But people are so concerned about imaginary dangers of psychtropic experiences that they never get around to the real physical dangers of ingesting large quantities of real toxins.

Cprasky, thank you for the information, I'll keep it.. I think back, and think of the medicines I've given my children, legal prescriptions, cough medicines,...worries me. Now I have a great-granddaughter, I have to think about.

In essence, from what I have learned, a cold is a way for the body to dispel impurities from the body. Drugs are used for the "quick fix", instead of allowing the body to heal itself. Drugs, generally speaking, don't cure, don't heal the root of the cause.

I ask you, why do people search out illegal drugs? Liver issues I suspect. Probably the same reason people take legal ones, to self medicate, instead of letting nature take its course. I'm not saying that there isn't room for some legal drugs in some instances..

Again, thank you for the information.

> I ask you, why do people search out illegal drugs? Liver issues I
> suspect. Probably the same reason people take legal ones, to self
> medicate, instead of letting nature take its course. I'm not saying
> that there isn't room for some legal drugs in some instances..
>
> Again, thank you for the information.

People take illegal drugs, first and foremost, out of curiosity. This is a basic human drive to explore and learn and experience new things that some people have more than others. This is the drive that leads to the exploration of unknown areas of our planet and space.

Beyond simple curiosity, once having sampled certain drugs, people continue taking them for a great variety of reasons. Some, perhaps too many, continue out of a need to escape. This path, to my mind, is pointless and can lead straight to addiction, do not pass go, do not collect a life.

For most though, they continue because they perceive some value or benefit in those drugs. In my case, I cannot imagine what the quality of my life might now be if I did not have access to psychedelics in coming to terms with my sexuality or the year-long depression that took hold of me following my father's death. I see enlightening hints though in my mother in law. She seems incapable of opening her mouth without uttering an unending stream of complaints about how awful life is, how terrible any given situation is or how rotten and filthy something or someone or other is. Five minutes in her company is almost enough to drive anyone into an endless bottle of 151 proof rum.
I don't really understand how she tolerates her own company.

Now, as I said, I personally see some benefit in certain drugs like LSD and marijuana. Do not imagine for a moment though that I spend my life in a perpetual haze of marijuana smoke and LSD induced hallucinations. Whatever else you may think of me because of my readily admitted drug use, understand that I am no idiot. I realize you cannot deal with life on an effective level in a constant, or even frequent state of inebriation, regardless of what the particular drug may be. The overwhelmingly vast portion of my time is spent in a perfectly lucid and sober state of mind.

What I fail to understand is the rationale in outlawing some drugs but not others. When I fall ill from some viral or other infection, I treat myself with a variety of herbs with a fairly consistent rate of success. I have looked into a number of different herbs for a variety issues. I found one which is useful for easing anxiety and aiding sleep, called mugwort. This herb is also known as motherwort and lion's tail. I found that smoking this herb induces a very mild euphoric relaxation similar to very weak marijuana. It is perfectly legal and can be had in any herb store. However, pregnant women should not use it. It belongs to a class of herbs known as emmenagogues. These are herbs which can be used in instances when a pubescent girl's menses seem to be overly delayed. They work by inducing uterine contractions which stimulates the onset of menstrual flow. And that is why pregnant women should not use it. The danger here is again an increased risk of premature labor and possibly uncontrollable hemorrhage. Marijuana, used as a relaxant though, presents no such risk. Other herbs which belong to the emmenagogue class are peppermint, pennyroyal and black cohosh. Pregnant women who want to control nausea naturally may be tempted by the stomachic qualities of peppermint tea, but they would be well advised to avoid it. Ginger is better used to settle the stomach in pregnant women.

You're very knowledgable on chemistry, a bright person.. Are you by chance related to Kristal Rose? I have used mugwort. before, after I had a nervous breakdown in 1997.

I consider myself a curious person, but never wanted to try drugs....I never heard of drugs when in school. I think drugs are a curse on this nation. Yes, kids are curious, three of my four children tried drugs,...I was mortified.

Sorry about your mother-in-law...perhaps you can sit down and talk to her about your concerns.

> You're very knowledgable on chemistry, a bright person.. Are you
> by chance related to Kristal Rose? I have used mugwort.
> before, after I had a nervous breakdown in 1997.

Thank you.

So far as I know, Kristal and I are not related. She and I share some common interests, though we approach them from different perspectives. I suspect she may be of Jewish descent like myself, so in that sense we may be very distantly related.

> I think drugs are a curse on
> this nation. Yes, kids are curious, three of my four children tried
> drugs,...I was mortified.

You might consider the possibility that the curse is made worse by making some of them illegal. There is a perception that outlawing something makes it easier to control. Nothing could be further from the truth. When you outlaw something that people, for whatever reason, actually want, you abdicate control to the criminal element in society. Even so, deaths caused by all drug use, licit and illicit, are far from being a major cause of death in the US. Check out: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30 and: http://www.drug-rehabs.org/articles.php?aid=438 (scroll down to the paragraph headed The Bottom Line here).

I understand though you are not solely concerned with death as a bad effect of drug use. Quality of life is also an issue. But bear in mind that a large portion of the stigma of drug use resulting in lower life quality derives from the illegality of certain drugs far more than it does from any direct effect of those drugs themselves.

There are few things in the world that are either entirely bad or entirely good. Most of the time, it depends on what use is made of whatever and for what reasons.

>
> Sorry about your mother-in-law...perhaps you can sit down and talk
> to her about your concerns.


Don't think this hasn't been tried, more than once. And not just by myself. In the end, it's easier to just tune her out, bury my nose deeper in a book or turn up the television.

Thank you for the information. The drug issues in this country are so foreign to me, was never involved, know nothing. Drugs scare me to no end.

Yes, sometimes, less said, the better in family relationships. I always held my tongue with my mother-in-law, was respectful, no matter how uncomfortable I was with her. I talked to my husband about her behavior, to no avail. I'm so sorry I couldn't have had a relationship with her, it was painful.

I wish you well.

Nope, not even close, it's only strengthened it.

I was just emailed a bunch of turn-of-the-19th-century advertisements for Bayer heroin, coca-wines, opium cough syrups. These products were all recommended for everything from infant care to energy boosters, job stress tonics, or really any excuse for frequent usage.

Your idea LJD that drugs are some new problem isn't true. Rather the existence of all those common legally over-the-counter available products of the sorts most illegal now backs up cprasky's view that it's having forced a culture of illegality around these substances which has caused the problem we have today. Marijuana grew wild all across the nation with no prohibitions, and yet a fraction of the percentage of marijuana smokers today had any interest in it. With all those legal options, alcohol was the big problem even then. Mushrooms, peyote, and mescaline were legal too, but I think only people who hung out with natives were even aware of that territory. People wanted to relax or perk up, not go on vision quests.

Heroin, cocaine, and opium were foreign industries. Weed grew freely everywhere. Alcohol distilleries were the only local profitable industry. It's a fair guess that they are the ones behind our current laws.

Prohibition targeted alcohol (a further reminder that that was the problem back then). Apparently the distilleries came back with a vengeance, realizing they had to control laws. It's just when prohibition was repealed that narcotics were restricted. That should indicate what was up as well.

Grass was popular amongst sailors who couldn't carry a three months supply of alcohol. (The same reasoning explains their history of hard liquor over beer and wine).

The current issue we have industry promoting psychiatric drugs while trying to make herbal cures and vitamins illegal is the exact same thing happening all over again.

The medical marijuana movement is basically a war against industry monopolies.

Your own interest in preserving herbal medicine rights is hardly disimilar. What I am suggesting to you is that your fears of drugs are the product of media manipulation and legal lobbying and infiltration of the alcohol industry.

Public interest in the continued use of psychedelic drugs is as rare as an interest in living on the road. The only reason it is illegal is that some people are threatened by the existence of alternative lifestyles, and likewise, they in fact make many laws to prevent people from living on the road as well.

> Marijuana grew wild all across the nation
> with no prohibitions, and yet a fraction of the percentage of marijuana
> smokers today had any interest in it.


A few months ago I was reading an article about the initial passage of the Marijuana Tax Act somewhere, I don't even remember if it was in a magazine or online. Harry Anslinger had just agreed to take on the job of enforcing the law. He was walking along the banks of the Potomac in Washington, D.C. trying to figure out his strategy when he noticed the bank of the river was just covered with wild marijuana plants, right in sight of the Capitol. He thought to himself, "So they want me to wipe this out?"





> Prohibition targeted alcohol (a further reminder that that was the
> problem back then). Apparently the distilleries came back with a vengeance,
> realizing they had to control laws. It's just when prohibition was
> repealed that narcotics were restricted. That should indicate what
> was up as well.

I believe the Harrison Narcotics Act, restricting heroin and cocaine was actually passed in 1914.: http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/library/studie... I'm not sure how seriously it was being enforced before alcohol prohibition though.

> The current issue we have industry promoting psychiatric drugs while
> trying to make herbal cures and vitamins illegal is the exact same
> thing happening all over again.

Back when we were teenagers, one of our friends had particularly strict/fearful parents. When they found out he was still smoking pot after numerous episodes of restriction, punishments, etc., they had him committed to an institution to keep him away from pot. My brothers visited him a few years later, still in that institution (I was in San Francisco by this time). Our friend was an empty shell, being medicated into apathy with thorazine, barely able to shuffle from his room to the recreation area. Well, better than smoking pot, right?

Eventually one figures out what drives the world, and only the details are in question. I had one history professor say that history is really the history of war, but I think more accurately, it is mostly the history of commerce, and always has been. Religion, racism, and spread of culture probably come in second. From those are derived wars.

I preferred pre-engineered weeds. I think the engineered ones are also the result of an underground market looking to increase profits, reduce smuggling space and such.

> Eventually one figures out what drives the world, and only the details
> are in question. I had one history professor say that history is really
> the history of war, but I think more accurately, it is mostly the
> history of commerce, and always has been. Religion, racism, and spread
> of culture probably come in second. From those are derived wars.

Well, war and commerce are fairly closely intertwined as well. One of the driving forces behind the wars between Rome and Carthage was commerce in the Mediterranean. Rome was hell bent on controlling shipping over as much of the Mediterranean as possible. They wanted to inspect (and tax) as much of the shipping as they could. The Carthaginians, on the other hand, were derived from "the Sea Peoples", the same group that the Bible called the Philistines. They were very much interested in keeping shipping free and open.

That's what I was trying to say. War steps in where entities don't get what they wanted in commerce.

Yes, although "god" did a great job of killing it too... I mean you pray and the so called "god" doesn't answer. After a while you learn not to pray because it doesn't do any good and therefore why worship a "god" who does nothing for you...

No, I don't believe there was a God to kill - and the amount of warfare in the world currently proves that religion is alive and kicking.

Science is Facts, Religion is Faith, and God is amused.

Science, if anything, has actually helped to affirm God. We see how complex our world and the universe is through the eyes of science. How can all this be without some supreme intelligence? Is this world, humans, animals, plants, the galaxy, the millions of other galaxies we know of just some kind of weird fluke? I don't think so. Einstein himself believed in some supreme intelligence. I am not speaking of God according to the typical understanding (ie. some man in the sky that judges you). That is man's interpretation of God.

Science has no power to destroy "God" because God is all things. There is no beginning and no end. Only humans think that God can be destroyed by them rejecting the premise of God. They do not reject God...they reject a part of themselves.

>| Einstein
> himself believed in some supreme intelligence. I am not speaking of
> God according to the typical understanding (ie. some man in the sky
> that judges you). That is man's interpretation of God.

Actually, he didn't. This is one reason Einstein favored the "steady state" theory of cosmology (the idea that the Universe has always existed pretty much as we see it today) and never did fully accept the Big Bang theory on an emotional level. His thought was that if the Universe had a beginning, it implied an actual act of creation and therefore, a Creator. Unfortunately for Einstein and the "steady state" theory, his own equations with regard to relativity implied an expanding Universe, which implied the Big Bang... This did not fit with Einstein's world view. It is true that Einstein said things like, "God doesn't play dice with the Universe." But when he talked like this, he was employing idiomatic expression. At the most, Einstein was likely agnostic.

But he was looking for one orderly unified formula of physics to rule them all. That he even sought such a thing implies to me that this would have been for him the equivalent of a single god. Someone less cosmologically ideological would have been content with a variety of separate laws of physics at work.

I am eager to see what sciences come into being when they accept his relativity, yet dismiss his arbitrary speculative notion that light has only one constant speed.

I could be wrong, as I can't recall a single source, but it seems to me that Einstein was a mystic of the scientific kabballist sort, not believing perhaps in a conscious creator persona god, but still believing in God as the force behind creation of time and space, and as with the kaballah, that force operating by laws which work out from the creation & perception of anything at all, to the laws of atomic specifics.

By that definition of god, the phrase "God doesn't play dice with the Universe" can't really even be reduced to some non-spiritual counterpart. The force, in his book, is 'orderly', and such a reckoning is arbitrarily cosmological in nature.

His work (relativity) actually implies both the kaballistic and hindu mystic notions of God. In E=MC^2, C is the constant of light dD/dT. Distance and time (particularly the latter) are meaningless without the relative perspective of consciousness. If you go juggling the eqation, it indicates that creation is the product of consciousness; With the existence of time (consciousness), light, matter, and space come into being.

If you go a step further and look at the integral limits as one approaches the source of consciouness, you can gather more insights as to the nature of concrete reality and frames of time. The exact moment of creation is formless, but at it's very edge it leaves a trail of (infinitely incremental) frames of concrete reality.

I don't think one invents such formulae without an affinity to mystical consciousness to begin with. What he came up wih is a magnatude or two more powerfully significant than he even realized.

Throw in elastic time-consciousness and you have a formula for the power of God. Of course it's based on 'In the beginning there was consciouness', which, given primitive languages, is possibly what one would term 'light' (as in shedding light on a subject, being aware of it).

The founders of modern Israel were believers. I doubt they would have invited Einstein to be president if he weren't populary perceived by the influential insiders as being a believer as well.

As I see it, his work speaks for itself.

It killed off a lot of people belief in it