Chonsi quote
What are pirannahas then?
reply
You left out all the other predators. None of the natural predators drove other species to extinction like the human element.
Well, current theory proposes a meteor caused the extinction of the dinosaurs........that is nature destroying itself. Man had nothing to do with it.
Nature as GOD
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Nature as GOD
Galbally
reply
We may appear to be natural but we are too far removed from Nature because of our materialistic orientation and predatory nature which is not natural.
Everything that human beings do is "natural" as their is no way for us to be anything else than exactly what we are, i.e. we didn't invent ourselves!, and we havn't changed since the species first evolved, so everyhing that is in us now was always there from the beginning. We evolved like all creatures into a biological niche, with our strategy being a dependence upon adaptability and intelligence (thus far we have been a wildly sucessful species in biological terms). Human beings act in a materialistic and predatory fashion because thats exactly the way they have evolved to be, just as hippo's like mud and turning over boats. The rest of the biosphere is not aware, and not very interested in any moral interpretation of human behavior, the only thing that matters is if we survive and procreate more human beings and therefore compete with other life. If we don't do that then the species goes extinct, end of story, ad life moves on. However, if we do continue to compete and adapt sucessfully then we shall survive and prosper, thats the only "rule" of nature, how we survive is not important (perhaps to us, but not to the rest of nature).
reply
We may appear to be natural but we are too far removed from Nature because of our materialistic orientation and predatory nature which is not natural.
Everything that human beings do is "natural" as their is no way for us to be anything else than exactly what we are, i.e. we didn't invent ourselves!, and we havn't changed since the species first evolved, so everyhing that is in us now was always there from the beginning. We evolved like all creatures into a biological niche, with our strategy being a dependence upon adaptability and intelligence (thus far we have been a wildly sucessful species in biological terms). Human beings act in a materialistic and predatory fashion because thats exactly the way they have evolved to be, just as hippo's like mud and turning over boats. The rest of the biosphere is not aware, and not very interested in any moral interpretation of human behavior, the only thing that matters is if we survive and procreate more human beings and therefore compete with other life. If we don't do that then the species goes extinct, end of story, ad life moves on. However, if we do continue to compete and adapt sucessfully then we shall survive and prosper, thats the only "rule" of nature, how we survive is not important (perhaps to us, but not to the rest of nature).
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Nature as GOD
Mike CT wrote: [...]
Accountable quote
Which are?
reply
The two major problems in our society are abortion and volentary euthabasia.
Nature allows 'post abortions' and there is no need for volentary euthanasia in Nature since there is no suffering.
Mike CT.:yh_rotfl Where do you get such tripe? Out of all the issues in our society you pick abortion and euthenasia as the most problematic???? Not war, social issues, poverty, global warming, drug abuse, polution, rampant democracy, price gouging, land ownership, eminent domain, gay bashing, racism, religious discrimination, militarism, the French, millionaires, billionaires, over-taxation, under-taxation, Green Party discrimination, SUV's, K'waaannnzaa (sp?), "Under God," the real estate bubble, NAFTA, CAFTA, illegal immigration, welfare, corporate welfare, teen pregnancy, toxic shock syndrome, white chocolate Reese's, mustang roundups, point shaving, or four-bladed razors???
Why are abortion and euthenasia the only major problems?
Accountable quote
Which are?
reply
The two major problems in our society are abortion and volentary euthabasia.
Nature allows 'post abortions' and there is no need for volentary euthanasia in Nature since there is no suffering.
Mike CT.:yh_rotfl Where do you get such tripe? Out of all the issues in our society you pick abortion and euthenasia as the most problematic???? Not war, social issues, poverty, global warming, drug abuse, polution, rampant democracy, price gouging, land ownership, eminent domain, gay bashing, racism, religious discrimination, militarism, the French, millionaires, billionaires, over-taxation, under-taxation, Green Party discrimination, SUV's, K'waaannnzaa (sp?), "Under God," the real estate bubble, NAFTA, CAFTA, illegal immigration, welfare, corporate welfare, teen pregnancy, toxic shock syndrome, white chocolate Reese's, mustang roundups, point shaving, or four-bladed razors???
Why are abortion and euthenasia the only major problems?
Nature as GOD
Chonsi quote
Well, current theory proposes a meteor caused the extinction of the dinosaurs........that is nature destroying itself. Man had nothing to do with it.
reply
Your reply is not convincing. The gigantic whales have small undeveloped hind legs that could be evidence of their evolution from land dinosaurs. I will admit that this is speculation but it could be true. I cannot cite the reference but do remember seeing a picture of it.
Anyway, your reply involves a physical event and does not apply to the living Nature.
Globally
reply
Guns and cannon, drugs, toys and candy do not represent a natural evolvement.
Accountable quote
Why are abortion and euthenasia the only major problems?
reply
Because these are highly volitile personal freedoms that religion has forbidden. When these anti-abortionists commit murder of abortion doctors and bombings of abortion clinics, that should tell you this is a very emotional denial of freedom .
The case in Florida involving that terminally injured woman that the anti-euthanasia people tried to stop the removal of the life support systems, should give you an idea of these religious fanatics.
The government invovement in this conflict created a great response from the people that the government was wrong in getting involved in this personal issue.
Mike CT
Well, current theory proposes a meteor caused the extinction of the dinosaurs........that is nature destroying itself. Man had nothing to do with it.
reply
Your reply is not convincing. The gigantic whales have small undeveloped hind legs that could be evidence of their evolution from land dinosaurs. I will admit that this is speculation but it could be true. I cannot cite the reference but do remember seeing a picture of it.
Anyway, your reply involves a physical event and does not apply to the living Nature.
Globally
reply
Guns and cannon, drugs, toys and candy do not represent a natural evolvement.
Accountable quote
Why are abortion and euthenasia the only major problems?
reply
Because these are highly volitile personal freedoms that religion has forbidden. When these anti-abortionists commit murder of abortion doctors and bombings of abortion clinics, that should tell you this is a very emotional denial of freedom .
The case in Florida involving that terminally injured woman that the anti-euthanasia people tried to stop the removal of the life support systems, should give you an idea of these religious fanatics.
The government invovement in this conflict created a great response from the people that the government was wrong in getting involved in this personal issue.
Mike CT
Nature as GOD
Guns and cannon, drugs, toys and candy do not represent a natural evolvement.
Of course they are natural, as they were invented by humans, who are a species of mammals native to this planet. To be sure we are the only species of animal that can manipulate our environemnt in any sophisticated way, but we can only do that because we evolved to have intelligence, language, good memories, and opposable thumbs. We are just as much a product of natural selection as whales or spiders or anything else. To think that anything that we do is somehow alien or in opposition to our fundamental nature, dictated by biology plain and simple, is a mireading of the situation.
Of course they are natural, as they were invented by humans, who are a species of mammals native to this planet. To be sure we are the only species of animal that can manipulate our environemnt in any sophisticated way, but we can only do that because we evolved to have intelligence, language, good memories, and opposable thumbs. We are just as much a product of natural selection as whales or spiders or anything else. To think that anything that we do is somehow alien or in opposition to our fundamental nature, dictated by biology plain and simple, is a mireading of the situation.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Nature as GOD
Mike CT wrote:
Accountable quote
Why are abortion and euthenasia the only major problems?
reply
Because these are highly volitile personal freedoms that religion has forbidden. When these anti-abortionists commit murder of abortion doctors and bombings of abortion clinics, that should tell you this is a very emotional denial of freedom .
The case in Florida involving that terminally injured woman that the anti-euthanasia people tried to stop the removal of the life support systems, should give you an idea of these religious fanatics.
The government invovement in this conflict created a great response from the people that the government was wrong in getting involved in this personal issue.
Mike CT
Okay I'll try again. Why do you consider them the only major problems?
Accountable quote
Why are abortion and euthenasia the only major problems?
reply
Because these are highly volitile personal freedoms that religion has forbidden. When these anti-abortionists commit murder of abortion doctors and bombings of abortion clinics, that should tell you this is a very emotional denial of freedom .
The case in Florida involving that terminally injured woman that the anti-euthanasia people tried to stop the removal of the life support systems, should give you an idea of these religious fanatics.
The government invovement in this conflict created a great response from the people that the government was wrong in getting involved in this personal issue.
Mike CT
Okay I'll try again. Why do you consider them the only major problems?
Nature as GOD
Mike CT wrote: reply
Your reply is not convincing. The gigantic whales have small undeveloped hind legs that could be evidence of their evolution from land dinosaurs. I will admit that this is speculation but it could be true. I cannot cite the reference but do remember seeing a picture of it.
Anyway, your reply involves a physical event and does not apply to the living Nature.
Globally
Mike CT
Most science you are touching on is ALL speculation ie.. dinosaurs
You say:
"I cannot cite the reference but do remember seeing a picture of it."
Ya and I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night..........
Your reply is not convincing. The gigantic whales have small undeveloped hind legs that could be evidence of their evolution from land dinosaurs. I will admit that this is speculation but it could be true. I cannot cite the reference but do remember seeing a picture of it.
Anyway, your reply involves a physical event and does not apply to the living Nature.
Globally
Mike CT
Most science you are touching on is ALL speculation ie.. dinosaurs
You say:
"I cannot cite the reference but do remember seeing a picture of it."
Ya and I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night..........
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Nature as GOD
[QUOTE=BTS]Most science you are touching on is ALL speculation ie.. dinosaurs
Come again? Dinosaurs are speculation? Erm, have you ever visited a natural history museum?, those 25 metre long fossilized skeletons that they have taken out of 100 million year old rock strata do not seem very speculative to me.
Come again? Dinosaurs are speculation? Erm, have you ever visited a natural history museum?, those 25 metre long fossilized skeletons that they have taken out of 100 million year old rock strata do not seem very speculative to me.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
Galbally wrote: [quote=BTS]Most science you are touching on is ALL speculation ie.. dinosaurs
Come again? Dinosaurs are speculation? Erm, have you ever visited a natural history museum?, those 25 metre long fossilized skeletons that they have taken out of 100 million year old rock strata do not seem very speculative to me.
I should have been more specific when I said "ie.. dinosaurs"
Yes there are a few bones here and there. But you were saying whales once walked on land... ie dinosaurs........ Hmmm Really? Show me where the whales once lived on land.
Palaeontologist's theories are mostly speculation in my way of thinking.
I do not dispute there were dinosaurs at one time, my problem is with anything they say about them is readily taken as fact when in FACT it is ALL speculation.
Come again? Dinosaurs are speculation? Erm, have you ever visited a natural history museum?, those 25 metre long fossilized skeletons that they have taken out of 100 million year old rock strata do not seem very speculative to me.
I should have been more specific when I said "ie.. dinosaurs"
Yes there are a few bones here and there. But you were saying whales once walked on land... ie dinosaurs........ Hmmm Really? Show me where the whales once lived on land.
Palaeontologist's theories are mostly speculation in my way of thinking.
I do not dispute there were dinosaurs at one time, my problem is with anything they say about them is readily taken as fact when in FACT it is ALL speculation.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Nature as GOD
BTS wrote: [quote=Galbally]
I should have been more specific when I said "ie.. dinosaurs"
Yes there are a few bones here and there. But you were saying whales once walked on land... ie dinosaurs........ Hmmm Really? Show me where the whales once lived on land.
Palaeontologist's theories are mostly speculation in my way of thinking.
I do not dispute there were dinosaurs at one time, my problem is with anything they say about them is readily taken as fact when in FACT it is ALL speculation.
I don't think anything that respectable palentologists say is taken as a fact unless there is compelling evidence that what they are saying is true. As for the whale thing, I think what he meant was that Cetaceans (ocean going mammals like whales and dolphins) are descended from land mammals who returned to an ocean environment, and as mammals and reptiles share a common ancestor in the distant past in a way whales and dionsaurs are part of the same family tree, well all life is related anyway, but mammals and reptiles are most closely related than say mammals and arachnids.
I should have been more specific when I said "ie.. dinosaurs"
Yes there are a few bones here and there. But you were saying whales once walked on land... ie dinosaurs........ Hmmm Really? Show me where the whales once lived on land.
Palaeontologist's theories are mostly speculation in my way of thinking.
I do not dispute there were dinosaurs at one time, my problem is with anything they say about them is readily taken as fact when in FACT it is ALL speculation.
I don't think anything that respectable palentologists say is taken as a fact unless there is compelling evidence that what they are saying is true. As for the whale thing, I think what he meant was that Cetaceans (ocean going mammals like whales and dolphins) are descended from land mammals who returned to an ocean environment, and as mammals and reptiles share a common ancestor in the distant past in a way whales and dionsaurs are part of the same family tree, well all life is related anyway, but mammals and reptiles are most closely related than say mammals and arachnids.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
Far Rider wrote: [QUOTE=Galbally]
Gal, How do you know its 100 million year old rock and strata that the bones were found in?
Because its possible to date rock strata using both comparitive geology and chemical analysis (older rocks have different levels of trace elements in them than newer ones). I just used 100 million as a median, atually dionsaur fossils have been found in rocks dating from roughly several hundred million to 65 million years ago, which is when we believe they apparently died out as the dominant life form (though not completely). Just as a bit of information, the oldest discovered remains of life go back to approx 4,000,000,000 years ago, all life is based on the same basic DNA structure, and humans (homo sapiens) have been in existence (it is reckoned) for about 120,000 to 150,000 years, which in terms of a the lifespan of an average species a very short time indeed, so we are very much the newcomers in the neighbourhood. We are direct relations of the other primates (gorilla's, chimpanzees, oranutang) and all primates share a common anscestor that lived a few million years ago.
Gal, How do you know its 100 million year old rock and strata that the bones were found in?
Because its possible to date rock strata using both comparitive geology and chemical analysis (older rocks have different levels of trace elements in them than newer ones). I just used 100 million as a median, atually dionsaur fossils have been found in rocks dating from roughly several hundred million to 65 million years ago, which is when we believe they apparently died out as the dominant life form (though not completely). Just as a bit of information, the oldest discovered remains of life go back to approx 4,000,000,000 years ago, all life is based on the same basic DNA structure, and humans (homo sapiens) have been in existence (it is reckoned) for about 120,000 to 150,000 years, which in terms of a the lifespan of an average species a very short time indeed, so we are very much the newcomers in the neighbourhood. We are direct relations of the other primates (gorilla's, chimpanzees, oranutang) and all primates share a common anscestor that lived a few million years ago.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
Which tests or test are you relying on to determine the estimated date of the rock in which the dinasaur bones were found?
I'll tell you ahead of time where Im going with this to be fair.
My understanding of the date sytem from which dinasour ages are determined is to date the strata where they are found, but Ive also been told that the dating system of strata has long been in arguement, yet palentologist continue to estimate dates based on the strata method. If the strata age is not certain, then the dinasour age is not certain.
And also for the record I'll state now that I do not belive the world to be more than 14,000 years old. However this is my BELIEF.[/QUOTE]
OK, well I will state for the record that I am not a goelogist or paelotologist so its not my field of expertiese. The most reliable way of dating rock samples is using the radiocarbon dating method, which meaures the amount of radioactive decay that has ocurred in the trace elements of rocks. Radioactive isotopes have a half life, which put simply is the amount of time that it takes for 50 percent of a certain element to decay into another element. This measurement can be quantified with a high degree of accuracy, though how this is then correlated into past timescales is not completely accuracte, though still very good. This is the basline method used to date conroversial or difficult samples, comparitive geoogy looks at natural processes that create rocks, the timescales invovlved, the position of certain rock strata in respect to other already dated rock strata, and so forth. Again it is not an exact science, but its level of accuracy is considered to be relatively good. There are also means of directly identifying the age of the fossils themselves, though this is an involved process, so for general findings, the comapritive method is used as it is the simplist and least expensive. That is how a picture of the age of life is drawn up.
As to the belief that the world is 14,000 years old, it is possible of course, though it would involve a divine being or god to have created the entire universe in situ at that date. That is a perfectly acceptable belief, but I can say that all the physical evidence suggests that this was not the case, or at least if this is the truth of the matter then we cannot trust any measurements or observations we make of the physical universe, and that God for some reason created a world that appears in every respect to be a place that has existed for approximately 4,700,000 years (while actually only being 14,000 years old) in an attempt to fool us. Why he would undergo such a practical joke is beyond me.
I'll tell you ahead of time where Im going with this to be fair.
My understanding of the date sytem from which dinasour ages are determined is to date the strata where they are found, but Ive also been told that the dating system of strata has long been in arguement, yet palentologist continue to estimate dates based on the strata method. If the strata age is not certain, then the dinasour age is not certain.
And also for the record I'll state now that I do not belive the world to be more than 14,000 years old. However this is my BELIEF.[/QUOTE]
OK, well I will state for the record that I am not a goelogist or paelotologist so its not my field of expertiese. The most reliable way of dating rock samples is using the radiocarbon dating method, which meaures the amount of radioactive decay that has ocurred in the trace elements of rocks. Radioactive isotopes have a half life, which put simply is the amount of time that it takes for 50 percent of a certain element to decay into another element. This measurement can be quantified with a high degree of accuracy, though how this is then correlated into past timescales is not completely accuracte, though still very good. This is the basline method used to date conroversial or difficult samples, comparitive geoogy looks at natural processes that create rocks, the timescales invovlved, the position of certain rock strata in respect to other already dated rock strata, and so forth. Again it is not an exact science, but its level of accuracy is considered to be relatively good. There are also means of directly identifying the age of the fossils themselves, though this is an involved process, so for general findings, the comapritive method is used as it is the simplist and least expensive. That is how a picture of the age of life is drawn up.
As to the belief that the world is 14,000 years old, it is possible of course, though it would involve a divine being or god to have created the entire universe in situ at that date. That is a perfectly acceptable belief, but I can say that all the physical evidence suggests that this was not the case, or at least if this is the truth of the matter then we cannot trust any measurements or observations we make of the physical universe, and that God for some reason created a world that appears in every respect to be a place that has existed for approximately 4,700,000 years (while actually only being 14,000 years old) in an attempt to fool us. Why he would undergo such a practical joke is beyond me.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
Far Rider quote
Mike, does chaos reign in the world of nature? or do you see order? Just answer that one question... you seem to not answer my question and head for my comments.
reply.....Well, granted, there is some chaos in Nature but I still think it teaches more than the bible which is considerably more widely accepted.
That is why I try to direct attention to Nature as a teacher which is more rational..
Accountable quote
Okay I'll try again. Why do you consider them the only major problems?
reply....OK, there are other importan issues like pollution of air and water, persistant chemicals (non-biodegradable), greenhouse gases, respect for our Constitution, human population bombs, specie extinctions and corporate corruption to name a few more,
BTS quote
Most science you are touching on is ALL speculation ie.. dinosaurs
You say:
"I cannot cite the reference but do remember seeing a picture of it."Inn last night..
reply.... well, what I cite anove about the great whales is something to think about,........
Mike CT
Mike, does chaos reign in the world of nature? or do you see order? Just answer that one question... you seem to not answer my question and head for my comments.
reply.....Well, granted, there is some chaos in Nature but I still think it teaches more than the bible which is considerably more widely accepted.
That is why I try to direct attention to Nature as a teacher which is more rational..
Accountable quote
Okay I'll try again. Why do you consider them the only major problems?
reply....OK, there are other importan issues like pollution of air and water, persistant chemicals (non-biodegradable), greenhouse gases, respect for our Constitution, human population bombs, specie extinctions and corporate corruption to name a few more,
BTS quote
Most science you are touching on is ALL speculation ie.. dinosaurs
You say:
"I cannot cite the reference but do remember seeing a picture of it."Inn last night..
reply.... well, what I cite anove about the great whales is something to think about,........
Mike CT
Nature as GOD
The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on 1949, 1954, and 1975 lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K–Ar analytical work. Argon gas, brought up from deep inside the earth within the molten rock, was already present in the lavas when they cooled. We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form less than 50 years ago. Yet they yield ‘ages’ up to 3.5 million years which are thus false. How can we trust the use of this same ‘dating’ method on rocks whose ages we don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?
However, we do know Someone who was present when all the earth’s rocks formedâ€the Creator Himself. He has told us when that was, in His eyewitness account in the Bible’s first book, Genesis, so we know how old all the rocks are. How much better to place our confidence in the Creator who made and knows everything, and who never fails or tells lies, than in a radioactive dating method that has been repeatedly demonstrated to fail and to yield false ages for the earth’s rocks.
I have seen several such reports that call into question radio carbon dating, sesium clocks, DNA testing, and various other techniques used for analysis. Such concerns are of course important and need to be investigated; however, as of yet there has been no substantial or compelling evidence that such methods are inherently flawed, but merely that on occasion there are technical problems either associated with them or inconsistencies in the assumptions made regarding samples and the sampling techniques used. This would appear to be the problem with the New Zealand case.
Of course this is all very interesting from a technical perspective if this was simply an arguent about techniques and sampling, but we both know it isn't. What I find to be the massive and damning problem is that the types of conclusions as those underlined in red above are subsequently made by those with basically an agenda that involves somehow "proving" using scientific means (or put another way a campaign of disinformation) that the new and old testament of the judaeo-christian bible is the literal and absolute truth and that no question can be made of that assumption. Consider the first line of the paragraph in red.
However, we do know Someone who was present when all the earth’s rocks formedâ€the Creator Himself.
How do we "know" this? How is that assumption made, I've never seen any photographs, have you?
He has told us when that was, in His eyewitness account in the Bible’s first book, Genesis, so we know how old all the rocks are.
Yes, if you believe absolutley that the bible (a book written by a group of human beings in the middle east a couple of thousand years ago outlining their relgious beliefs) is the source of all truth and that everything else, all other human ideas, including all the physical evidence, (and I mean all the physical evidence) is false.
[
COLOR=Red]How much better to place our confidence in the Creator who made and knows everything, and who never fails or tells lies, than in a radioactive dating method that has been repeatedly demonstrated to fail and to yield false ages for the earth’s rocks.
And this is the real heart of the matter, how much better to believe in comfotable old ideas that we have lived with for thousands of years, instead of actually taking facts and difficult ideas seriously, and finding out that most of the cozy notions that humanity has held for so long about its own uniqueness and its special place in the universe guaranteed by the God of Israel does not tally with the realities of the world or indeed universe we live in.
You have to ask yourself, is it really logical to interpret the facts in such a manner that denies their credibility in order to service a narrow human agenda, or would it be more prudent to accept reality at face value and take the consequences (whatever they may be for us) as they are?
However, we do know Someone who was present when all the earth’s rocks formedâ€the Creator Himself. He has told us when that was, in His eyewitness account in the Bible’s first book, Genesis, so we know how old all the rocks are. How much better to place our confidence in the Creator who made and knows everything, and who never fails or tells lies, than in a radioactive dating method that has been repeatedly demonstrated to fail and to yield false ages for the earth’s rocks.
I have seen several such reports that call into question radio carbon dating, sesium clocks, DNA testing, and various other techniques used for analysis. Such concerns are of course important and need to be investigated; however, as of yet there has been no substantial or compelling evidence that such methods are inherently flawed, but merely that on occasion there are technical problems either associated with them or inconsistencies in the assumptions made regarding samples and the sampling techniques used. This would appear to be the problem with the New Zealand case.
Of course this is all very interesting from a technical perspective if this was simply an arguent about techniques and sampling, but we both know it isn't. What I find to be the massive and damning problem is that the types of conclusions as those underlined in red above are subsequently made by those with basically an agenda that involves somehow "proving" using scientific means (or put another way a campaign of disinformation) that the new and old testament of the judaeo-christian bible is the literal and absolute truth and that no question can be made of that assumption. Consider the first line of the paragraph in red.
However, we do know Someone who was present when all the earth’s rocks formedâ€the Creator Himself.
How do we "know" this? How is that assumption made, I've never seen any photographs, have you?
He has told us when that was, in His eyewitness account in the Bible’s first book, Genesis, so we know how old all the rocks are.
Yes, if you believe absolutley that the bible (a book written by a group of human beings in the middle east a couple of thousand years ago outlining their relgious beliefs) is the source of all truth and that everything else, all other human ideas, including all the physical evidence, (and I mean all the physical evidence) is false.
[
COLOR=Red]How much better to place our confidence in the Creator who made and knows everything, and who never fails or tells lies, than in a radioactive dating method that has been repeatedly demonstrated to fail and to yield false ages for the earth’s rocks.
And this is the real heart of the matter, how much better to believe in comfotable old ideas that we have lived with for thousands of years, instead of actually taking facts and difficult ideas seriously, and finding out that most of the cozy notions that humanity has held for so long about its own uniqueness and its special place in the universe guaranteed by the God of Israel does not tally with the realities of the world or indeed universe we live in.
You have to ask yourself, is it really logical to interpret the facts in such a manner that denies their credibility in order to service a narrow human agenda, or would it be more prudent to accept reality at face value and take the consequences (whatever they may be for us) as they are?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
Well, to be honest Far Rider it would be very difficult for me to have a serious debate about the scientific validity of ideas such as that the earth and life is only 14,000 years old as their is no technical basis for having such an argument and there is no evidence that supports this idea in any way. In fact for the Earth to be only that age we would have to start from a position in which almost all technical, experiemntal, and theoretical science is completely errouneous and this may indeed be the case, but I honestly don't think it is. Its not just geoology or paleontolgy that would have to jettisoned, you would have to disregard biology, genetics, zoology, physics, astronomy, and even chemistry, which is my field. So it would have to be in essence a religious or metaphyical discussion, which are interesting, but not really anything to do with science. I'm not trying to be condescending or anything, I'm just trying to explain why it is impossible to frame such ideas in any sort of objetcive or scientfic truth.
I will have a better look at the case you outline in NZ, as it is important to establish if there is something specific going on here in terms of the rocks, or argon capture, or sampling, or whatever that is going wrong or calls into question the correlations being made between trace elements in primeval rocks or modern rocks. I can't just do that off the top of my head, but I will have a look at it, and see what the facts are.
I will have a better look at the case you outline in NZ, as it is important to establish if there is something specific going on here in terms of the rocks, or argon capture, or sampling, or whatever that is going wrong or calls into question the correlations being made between trace elements in primeval rocks or modern rocks. I can't just do that off the top of my head, but I will have a look at it, and see what the facts are.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
What Id like to see is all the evidence gone over with a fine tooth comb, throw out any evidence that is questionable, in essence put it on trial, apply the rules of evidence in a court of law, discard all refutable or false evidence, keep the pure stuff and then decide.
Youre laughing Im sure, maybe?
I know, Im' nuts. But I wish.
I'm not laughing at all, I respect people's beliefs, and I'm not arrogant enough to think that science has all the answers, I just have a more scientific outlook on life and not a religious one. I beleive that in all countries children should be taught the scientific approach and the current models that scientists have come up with to explain the world. Children should also recieve religious instruction according to their parents wishes, but that the 2 shouldn't be mixed. By this I mean science teachers shouldn't tell kids there is no such thing as god or that Jesus was not his son because theres no evidence of that, its just speculation. While on the other religious techers shouldn't mislead children and say that there is scientific proof that backs up the bible or the koran or any religious belief because there simply isn't any.
I think that one thing that science has done wrong is to allow itself to become too removed from ordinary people, that it appears to cold and intellectual, where this isn't really the case. Credible scientists are not out to knock religion, or destroy people's faith, all they are interested in doing is in finding out why things are they the way they are. This has led to findings that people find uncomfortable like evoluton or the big bang and a host of other things, but the only reason that ideas like these have been put forward is that they seem to tally with the evidence that we have found so far. I wouldn't advise people not to have the beliefs that they do, but simply to honestly engage with the evdience and think about what it implies in a non-partisan manner.
Youre laughing Im sure, maybe?
I know, Im' nuts. But I wish.
I'm not laughing at all, I respect people's beliefs, and I'm not arrogant enough to think that science has all the answers, I just have a more scientific outlook on life and not a religious one. I beleive that in all countries children should be taught the scientific approach and the current models that scientists have come up with to explain the world. Children should also recieve religious instruction according to their parents wishes, but that the 2 shouldn't be mixed. By this I mean science teachers shouldn't tell kids there is no such thing as god or that Jesus was not his son because theres no evidence of that, its just speculation. While on the other religious techers shouldn't mislead children and say that there is scientific proof that backs up the bible or the koran or any religious belief because there simply isn't any.
I think that one thing that science has done wrong is to allow itself to become too removed from ordinary people, that it appears to cold and intellectual, where this isn't really the case. Credible scientists are not out to knock religion, or destroy people's faith, all they are interested in doing is in finding out why things are they the way they are. This has led to findings that people find uncomfortable like evoluton or the big bang and a host of other things, but the only reason that ideas like these have been put forward is that they seem to tally with the evidence that we have found so far. I wouldn't advise people not to have the beliefs that they do, but simply to honestly engage with the evdience and think about what it implies in a non-partisan manner.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
OK my take on this Nature vs God thing:
I think they are one and the same in this sense:
God (or a higher power for non-believers) created nature, and nature is a set of rules created by God such as:
DNA
No two finger prints are the same. (Similar but not the same)
No two voices are the same. (Similar but not the same)
No two rocks are the same. (Similar but not the same)
No 2 grains of sand are the same. (Similar but not the same)
Awsome huh?
I could go on and on but thru all time no two things are exacly the same.
Is this all just a accident?
I think not.
I believe in evolution in the sense that God created nature (ALL things) with the ability to adjust (mutate) to their enviroment. Hence dogs that we have been bobbing their tails for years will everyonce and a while kick out a pup with no tail... even tho it was not in their DNA make up in the beginning of their existince.
There is a tribe (I forget where) in Africa that has climbed trees for so long they have their big toe and next toe growing spead apart......
Awsome!!!
Accident?
I think not.
Our universe.
Accident that planets line up just right? Gravity holds us on earth?
I could go on and on.........
Again I repeat:
no two finger prints the same...........................
AWSOME!!!!!!
I think they are one and the same in this sense:
God (or a higher power for non-believers) created nature, and nature is a set of rules created by God such as:
DNA
No two finger prints are the same. (Similar but not the same)
No two voices are the same. (Similar but not the same)
No two rocks are the same. (Similar but not the same)
No 2 grains of sand are the same. (Similar but not the same)
Awsome huh?
I could go on and on but thru all time no two things are exacly the same.
Is this all just a accident?
I think not.
I believe in evolution in the sense that God created nature (ALL things) with the ability to adjust (mutate) to their enviroment. Hence dogs that we have been bobbing their tails for years will everyonce and a while kick out a pup with no tail... even tho it was not in their DNA make up in the beginning of their existince.
There is a tribe (I forget where) in Africa that has climbed trees for so long they have their big toe and next toe growing spead apart......
Awsome!!!
Accident?
I think not.
Our universe.
Accident that planets line up just right? Gravity holds us on earth?
I could go on and on.........
Again I repeat:
no two finger prints the same...........................
AWSOME!!!!!!
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Nature as GOD
BTS wrote: God (or a higher power for non-believers) created nature, and nature is a set of rules created by God
There is the crux of this argument well-stated by BTS. It's not an argument at all.
God (or the Creator) set up the rules and the rest follows...naturally.
Gravity is 32 feet per second per second. Any faster or slower and planets will not form.
Light is 186,000 miles per hour.
Everything from atomic forces to Plank's constant were set up in the first few microseconds of Creation.
If even one of these values were changed in the slightest then the entire Universe would not work.
So trying to look at the processes and naming them "God" is like listening to a song and thinking that the music is the artist. This whole thread is illogical.
There is the crux of this argument well-stated by BTS. It's not an argument at all.
God (or the Creator) set up the rules and the rest follows...naturally.
Gravity is 32 feet per second per second. Any faster or slower and planets will not form.
Light is 186,000 miles per hour.
Everything from atomic forces to Plank's constant were set up in the first few microseconds of Creation.
If even one of these values were changed in the slightest then the entire Universe would not work.
So trying to look at the processes and naming them "God" is like listening to a song and thinking that the music is the artist. This whole thread is illogical.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Nature as GOD
Jives wrote: There is the crux of this argument well-stated by BTS. It's not an argument at all.
God (or the Creator) set up the rules and the rest follows...naturally.
Gravity is 32 feet per second per second. Any faster or slower and planets will not form.
Light is 186,000 miles per hour.
Everything from atomic forces to Plank's constant were set up in the first few microseconds of Creation.
If even one of these values were changed in the slightest then the entire Universe would not work.
So trying to look at the processes and naming them "God" is like listening to a song and thinking that the music is the artist. This whole thread is illogical.
Yes that type of deduction is based on what is known as the anthropic principal, but it has a counter argument. This is that although our universe has laws that seem perfect for life such as ourselves, there is nothing to state that there are not a myriad of different universes in which laws are not amicable to life, and that the only reason that we are able to exist at all is that this one fits us so perfectly (or we it) and that if it were not, we would not be here to ask the question in the first place, "how come the universe is so perfect for us?" and such problems wouldn't arise. Human beings have a problem in that they inevitably see everything in relation to themselves and their own desires and they naturally implant the universe with a special "meaning" or purpose when in fact there may be none at all. Its like when people look at cloulds long enough they start to see castles and dogs and all sorts formed in the clouds, when of course they aren't really there, its just that a random pattern seems visually familiar, we do it all the time actually.
God (or the Creator) set up the rules and the rest follows...naturally.
Gravity is 32 feet per second per second. Any faster or slower and planets will not form.
Light is 186,000 miles per hour.
Everything from atomic forces to Plank's constant were set up in the first few microseconds of Creation.
If even one of these values were changed in the slightest then the entire Universe would not work.
So trying to look at the processes and naming them "God" is like listening to a song and thinking that the music is the artist. This whole thread is illogical.
Yes that type of deduction is based on what is known as the anthropic principal, but it has a counter argument. This is that although our universe has laws that seem perfect for life such as ourselves, there is nothing to state that there are not a myriad of different universes in which laws are not amicable to life, and that the only reason that we are able to exist at all is that this one fits us so perfectly (or we it) and that if it were not, we would not be here to ask the question in the first place, "how come the universe is so perfect for us?" and such problems wouldn't arise. Human beings have a problem in that they inevitably see everything in relation to themselves and their own desires and they naturally implant the universe with a special "meaning" or purpose when in fact there may be none at all. Its like when people look at cloulds long enough they start to see castles and dogs and all sorts formed in the clouds, when of course they aren't really there, its just that a random pattern seems visually familiar, we do it all the time actually.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Nature as GOD
Jives wrote: There is the crux of this argument well-stated by BTS. It's not an argument at all.
God (or the Creator) set up the rules and the rest follows...naturally.
Gravity is 32 feet per second per second. Any faster or slower and planets will not form.
Light is 186,000 miles per hour.
Everything from atomic forces to Plank's constant were set up in the first few microseconds of Creation.
If even one of these values were changed in the slightest then the entire Universe would not work.
So trying to look at the processes and naming them "God" is like listening to a song and thinking that the music is the artist. This whole thread is illogical.
So it comes down to what came first ......the chicken or the egg. I have no idea who said that first but it does beg at the question. The physicists can't answer the question ....... yet. It may very well turn out they will never answer it in my lifetime. How sad - I really wanted the answer ...........soooooooooooo...........I will have answer at the end of my life. Does my mind/soul move on to a higher realm or do I just wink out. I think that either way, at my deathbed I will feel good about how I lived this life and I can only hope I will meet the end of my life with grace.
God (or the Creator) set up the rules and the rest follows...naturally.
Gravity is 32 feet per second per second. Any faster or slower and planets will not form.
Light is 186,000 miles per hour.
Everything from atomic forces to Plank's constant were set up in the first few microseconds of Creation.
If even one of these values were changed in the slightest then the entire Universe would not work.
So trying to look at the processes and naming them "God" is like listening to a song and thinking that the music is the artist. This whole thread is illogical.
So it comes down to what came first ......the chicken or the egg. I have no idea who said that first but it does beg at the question. The physicists can't answer the question ....... yet. It may very well turn out they will never answer it in my lifetime. How sad - I really wanted the answer ...........soooooooooooo...........I will have answer at the end of my life. Does my mind/soul move on to a higher realm or do I just wink out. I think that either way, at my deathbed I will feel good about how I lived this life and I can only hope I will meet the end of my life with grace.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Nature as GOD
Well in terms of the chicken and the egg, it was the egg first, as reptiles laid eggs and replites existed before chickens.....so....
As for life after death, god, the afterlife, a meaning for it all. It is very very unlikely that science will ever be able to provide people with answers for such questions as we can only deal with things that exist in this physical universe, and if such things do exist they are likely to be ouside the bounds of physical reality and basically unknowable. But like you said, you will find out one way or the other at the moment of death. Hopefully, it will not be a letdown.
As for life after death, god, the afterlife, a meaning for it all. It is very very unlikely that science will ever be able to provide people with answers for such questions as we can only deal with things that exist in this physical universe, and if such things do exist they are likely to be ouside the bounds of physical reality and basically unknowable. But like you said, you will find out one way or the other at the moment of death. Hopefully, it will not be a letdown.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
I've died before and seen what is on the other side quite clearly...it's not a disappointment at all.
And as to your cynical attitude as to the meaning of Creation. Let me ask you, why do you think Creation exists at all? The constants of the Universe seem designed to create life, and where life exists it will always grow towards intelligence, since intelligence is the ultimate survival trait.
Therefore the reason for the Universe is to create intelligence. It was designed that way and is working perfectly. Now the question is, "Why create intelligence?"
And as to your cynical attitude as to the meaning of Creation. Let me ask you, why do you think Creation exists at all? The constants of the Universe seem designed to create life, and where life exists it will always grow towards intelligence, since intelligence is the ultimate survival trait.
Therefore the reason for the Universe is to create intelligence. It was designed that way and is working perfectly. Now the question is, "Why create intelligence?"
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Nature as GOD
Mike CT comment
I would like to reiterate some of what I said previously or include some new beliefs.
The egg came first. The smallest life form currently making news is the 'stem cell'.
This cell looks like an egg to me and can reproduce into other forms. That is why I consider the females as the 'creator GODS'.
They created the males later as servants and protectors because of these necessities.
This biological portion of the universe is not governed by laws as the physical
nature is. That is why each organism is individualized as BTK pointed out.
Actually, even the snowflakes have single identities.
But the important thing to consider here is that the living can reproduce as the stem cell does and all its descendants do that do not comply to any physical laws because of certain necassities..
The physical part cannot reproduce as the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy' say. This implies that there was no creator of the physical part.
However, I believe that there is a spirit. Both good and bad. This bad spirit can influence lifeforms to some extant.
The good spirit can also. It can also influece the physical portion in a limited degree.
I have determined this by observing events as they happen and the probability of their occurence.
However, You MUST give preference to the physical portion of your life rather than the observered portion or else you may be at odds with family anf friends.
Mike CT
I would like to reiterate some of what I said previously or include some new beliefs.
The egg came first. The smallest life form currently making news is the 'stem cell'.
This cell looks like an egg to me and can reproduce into other forms. That is why I consider the females as the 'creator GODS'.
They created the males later as servants and protectors because of these necessities.
This biological portion of the universe is not governed by laws as the physical
nature is. That is why each organism is individualized as BTK pointed out.
Actually, even the snowflakes have single identities.
But the important thing to consider here is that the living can reproduce as the stem cell does and all its descendants do that do not comply to any physical laws because of certain necassities..
The physical part cannot reproduce as the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy' say. This implies that there was no creator of the physical part.
However, I believe that there is a spirit. Both good and bad. This bad spirit can influence lifeforms to some extant.
The good spirit can also. It can also influece the physical portion in a limited degree.
I have determined this by observing events as they happen and the probability of their occurence.
However, You MUST give preference to the physical portion of your life rather than the observered portion or else you may be at odds with family anf friends.
Mike CT
Nature as GOD
Jives wrote: I've died before and seen what is on the other side quite clearly...it's not a disappointment at all.
And as to your cynical attitude as to the meaning of Creation. Let me ask you, why do you think Creation exists at all? The constants of the Universe seem designed to create life, and where life exists it will always grow towards intelligence, since intelligence is the ultimate survival trait.
Therefore the reason for the Universe is to create intelligence. It was designed that way and is working perfectly. Now the question is, "Why create intelligence?"
I'm not cynical at all, I'm just not going to spout off about something of which I have no knowledge. I (as far as I am aware) have never been dead so really I have no idea if there is an afterlife or a god, and I've never met anyone who has come back from the land of the dead (yet) so again I can't comment on it. I would be interested to know if you managed to take any photographs while you were in the afterlife?
As to the creation thing, I'm not denying that it is a good argument that their should be a meaning to all this, I feel that myself, but I'm just stating the obvious that there may not intrinsically be a meaning, we may just need one, I think it is prudent to examine all the options.
And as to your cynical attitude as to the meaning of Creation. Let me ask you, why do you think Creation exists at all? The constants of the Universe seem designed to create life, and where life exists it will always grow towards intelligence, since intelligence is the ultimate survival trait.
Therefore the reason for the Universe is to create intelligence. It was designed that way and is working perfectly. Now the question is, "Why create intelligence?"
I'm not cynical at all, I'm just not going to spout off about something of which I have no knowledge. I (as far as I am aware) have never been dead so really I have no idea if there is an afterlife or a god, and I've never met anyone who has come back from the land of the dead (yet) so again I can't comment on it. I would be interested to know if you managed to take any photographs while you were in the afterlife?
As to the creation thing, I'm not denying that it is a good argument that their should be a meaning to all this, I feel that myself, but I'm just stating the obvious that there may not intrinsically be a meaning, we may just need one, I think it is prudent to examine all the options.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
Galbally wrote: I've never met anyone who has come back from the land of the dead.
Now you have! (Jives raises his hand)
I would be interested to know if you managed to take any photographs while you were in the afterlife?
Nope...I wasn't expecting to go, so I forgot. Then, once I was on the other side, I was so worried I'd pop myself like a soap bubble that i was afraid to move around too much!
But my memory of the event is as clear as ever!:o
Now you have! (Jives raises his hand)
I would be interested to know if you managed to take any photographs while you were in the afterlife?
Nope...I wasn't expecting to go, so I forgot. Then, once I was on the other side, I was so worried I'd pop myself like a soap bubble that i was afraid to move around too much!
But my memory of the event is as clear as ever!:o
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Nature as GOD
For a year, I was getting sicker. The doctors couldn't figure it out. I felt like I was filed with wet cement, I was getting stiffer and stiffer, and the pain was incredible. (They tell me now that it compares to childbirth) By the time the year was up, I literally couldn't walk. I had to use a cane and I could barely shuffle, and if I sat down, I couldn't get up. I was even beginning to have trouble focusing my eyes. Since I couldn't eat due to the pain, I had lost over 70 lbs. and looked like a Holocaust survivor. My friends told me I looked like a living skeleton.
One night, about midnight, I woke with a terrible feeling. I was sick! Something was desperately wrong with me! Not just the pain I had been feeling, but something much, much worse! I tried to call out to my wife, but my voice wouldn't work. I fell out of the bed and managed to crawly upwards to a standing position using the dresser handles. As I stood there holding on to the dresser, suddenly....I was outside my body!
I was standing behind myself. I could see the back of my own head. And that's weird, because usually you don't get to see that angle. I was looking at the curls that I have back there and my first thought was, "Geez, I need a haircut."
Then, my body lost its hold on the dresser, fingernails scratching the top as the body collapsed heavily to the floor in a heap. It didn't even try to catch itself. I stood there shocked thinking, "Wow, that looked like it hurt!"
Then I realized it...I was outside my body. The recognition was instant and hit me like a wave. Suddenly, I was afraid to move. I felt like I might pop myself like a soap bubble. I turned my "head" slowly to the left...the room was quiet. My wife was still in the bed, sleeping softly. A feeling washed over me. It was a feeling of calm and peace. I was so relieved, the pain of my body was completely gone, I thought, "Oh, that feels so much better!" (I hadn't truly realized just how much pain I had been in until it was lifted.)
Then I saw them....
They looked a lot like candle flames, larger at the bottom and tapering to a smaller and rounded top, but not flickering at all, just softly glowing a warm, white light. They were a little bigger than a football and were hovering all around the room at various heights.
I kept scanning and noticed that they were also out on the lawn, and in the street. Through the trees, I could see that they were even on the next block. There were thousands of them! That's when I suddenly realized I was looking right through the wall! Now, you have to understand, this was not some hazy, out of focus vision. Everything was crystal clear. The details of the room were crisp, even more than normal, my sight seemed to have improved.
I realized that these were people, and that they were my people. I wonder, "Why do I have so many people?" The answer came to me as a thought, "down the generations" I got it right away, a family goes back in time thousands of years, these were all my people from all time.
For what seemed like an eternity, I stood there, feeling the cool night air and drinking in the sensation of being free of the pain. I don't remember breathing, though. I wasn't hungry, thirsty, or anything else in fact. Funny thing that.
The little candles flames did nothing however. They seemed to be waiting for something.
But i still felt the love coming from them.
I looked to my left slowly, to see my body huddled on the floor motionless. The next second there was a flash of light and BAM! I was back in my body. I was a little disoriented and it took a second for me to realized where I was, the angle was strange as i could see under the bed and the room was very dark again. I realized I was back in my body. My first thought was, "Damn! That DID hurt!" My body was aching in a hundred places from the fall and the pain had returned.
My wife heard my moans and woke up. I told her to take me to the hospital and with great effort we managed to drag my body to the car and drive to the hospital.
The doctors told me that I had had a "coronary incident" and that my heart had stopped beating for as much as two minutes. (I didn't suffer any brain damage, thought, since I'm an avid swimmer, and can hold my breath easily for that amount of time.) Since I had technically "died", they decided there might actually be something wrong with me.
They ran 300 blood tests, every one in the book. When they came back the answer was as clear as a bell...RA. Rheumatoid Arthritus, the worst kind. It's not just an inflammation of the joints, it's the exact opposite of AIDS and in the old days, every bit as lethal. My own white blood cells could no longer tell the difference between bad bacteria and my own tissues. They were literally eating me alive.
Once they got to the internal organs, I suffered the heart attack. it was no problem after that, a dose of steroids, an auto-immune suppressor and I was literally dancing a jig (on atrophied muscles) by the end of the day.
I'm back to normal now, a strapping, barrel-chested 240 lbs. I can swim, run a short distance, and I'm even hoping to ski again next year. But I'm changed in a big way. I really never took life for granted, I always knew that every day was precious, but now it's not an abstract concept to me. I smell the flowers. I ride my bike, I make sure to kiss my girl and tell her I love her every day. I made a tire swing for my grand-children and I swing in it myself every chance I get.
I was certainly never afraid of death, but it's different now. I find it of infinite comfort[U/] to know that you don't cease to exist when your body dies. I had faith before, but it's infinitely stronger now. God was very kind to me for some reason.
I guess I still have something to do here!
One night, about midnight, I woke with a terrible feeling. I was sick! Something was desperately wrong with me! Not just the pain I had been feeling, but something much, much worse! I tried to call out to my wife, but my voice wouldn't work. I fell out of the bed and managed to crawly upwards to a standing position using the dresser handles. As I stood there holding on to the dresser, suddenly....I was outside my body!
I was standing behind myself. I could see the back of my own head. And that's weird, because usually you don't get to see that angle. I was looking at the curls that I have back there and my first thought was, "Geez, I need a haircut."
Then, my body lost its hold on the dresser, fingernails scratching the top as the body collapsed heavily to the floor in a heap. It didn't even try to catch itself. I stood there shocked thinking, "Wow, that looked like it hurt!"
Then I realized it...I was outside my body. The recognition was instant and hit me like a wave. Suddenly, I was afraid to move. I felt like I might pop myself like a soap bubble. I turned my "head" slowly to the left...the room was quiet. My wife was still in the bed, sleeping softly. A feeling washed over me. It was a feeling of calm and peace. I was so relieved, the pain of my body was completely gone, I thought, "Oh, that feels so much better!" (I hadn't truly realized just how much pain I had been in until it was lifted.)
Then I saw them....
They looked a lot like candle flames, larger at the bottom and tapering to a smaller and rounded top, but not flickering at all, just softly glowing a warm, white light. They were a little bigger than a football and were hovering all around the room at various heights.
I kept scanning and noticed that they were also out on the lawn, and in the street. Through the trees, I could see that they were even on the next block. There were thousands of them! That's when I suddenly realized I was looking right through the wall! Now, you have to understand, this was not some hazy, out of focus vision. Everything was crystal clear. The details of the room were crisp, even more than normal, my sight seemed to have improved.
I realized that these were people, and that they were my people. I wonder, "Why do I have so many people?" The answer came to me as a thought, "down the generations" I got it right away, a family goes back in time thousands of years, these were all my people from all time.
For what seemed like an eternity, I stood there, feeling the cool night air and drinking in the sensation of being free of the pain. I don't remember breathing, though. I wasn't hungry, thirsty, or anything else in fact. Funny thing that.
The little candles flames did nothing however. They seemed to be waiting for something.
But i still felt the love coming from them.
I looked to my left slowly, to see my body huddled on the floor motionless. The next second there was a flash of light and BAM! I was back in my body. I was a little disoriented and it took a second for me to realized where I was, the angle was strange as i could see under the bed and the room was very dark again. I realized I was back in my body. My first thought was, "Damn! That DID hurt!" My body was aching in a hundred places from the fall and the pain had returned.
My wife heard my moans and woke up. I told her to take me to the hospital and with great effort we managed to drag my body to the car and drive to the hospital.
The doctors told me that I had had a "coronary incident" and that my heart had stopped beating for as much as two minutes. (I didn't suffer any brain damage, thought, since I'm an avid swimmer, and can hold my breath easily for that amount of time.) Since I had technically "died", they decided there might actually be something wrong with me.
They ran 300 blood tests, every one in the book. When they came back the answer was as clear as a bell...RA. Rheumatoid Arthritus, the worst kind. It's not just an inflammation of the joints, it's the exact opposite of AIDS and in the old days, every bit as lethal. My own white blood cells could no longer tell the difference between bad bacteria and my own tissues. They were literally eating me alive.
Once they got to the internal organs, I suffered the heart attack. it was no problem after that, a dose of steroids, an auto-immune suppressor and I was literally dancing a jig (on atrophied muscles) by the end of the day.
I'm back to normal now, a strapping, barrel-chested 240 lbs. I can swim, run a short distance, and I'm even hoping to ski again next year. But I'm changed in a big way. I really never took life for granted, I always knew that every day was precious, but now it's not an abstract concept to me. I smell the flowers. I ride my bike, I make sure to kiss my girl and tell her I love her every day. I made a tire swing for my grand-children and I swing in it myself every chance I get.
I was certainly never afraid of death, but it's different now. I find it of infinite comfort[U/] to know that you don't cease to exist when your body dies. I had faith before, but it's infinitely stronger now. God was very kind to me for some reason.
I guess I still have something to do here!
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Nature as GOD
Seriously did you have one of those "near death" experiences or do you have a memory of a previous life, I find that stuff fascinating, and I promise not to rubbish your claims, though I shall remain skeptical at all times I'm afraid, I can't help that, its my nature.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
Thats a very interesting experience indeed. I nearly died at childbirth apparently, though I (naturally) do not remember it. I did almost die of anaphaltic shock once as well, I am alergic to aspirin, its a long story. But I experienced nothing like that, just tunnel vision and a state of disassociation from things in general, strange but not magical or anything.
There definetly seems to be a phenomena that some people experience when close to death, I've read lots of accounts, but I've never been able to speak to anyone who actually had one. I was just wondering.
Could you "feel" your body, either the one on the floor, or the one in which you apeared to be projected into?
Did you feel any extreme emotions like love or benevolence or such like?
How would you describe your conciousness at that time, was it normal or hightened, or say intoxicated or something like that?
Did you feel that this was your "time to die"
Do you recall any other senses such as smell, or hearing, or touch, did you feel cold or warm?
Were the entities of light you described communicating with you?
Did you sense the actual personalities of your relatives in these entities?
Were you aware of time passing?
Did you attempt to communicate anything during this experience?
Did you see anything else, such as a light, a tunnel, or a different place?
Could you attempt to explain how you felt, what makes you think this was a "real" experience, it is probably very hard to explain, but many people claim to have percieved a deeper reality during such events, could you describe such, if this was part of your experience?
Were you thinking about what was happening to you during this event as you would say in a normal, though strange experience?
I would love to hear what you think, this is a remarkable experience to have gone through.
There definetly seems to be a phenomena that some people experience when close to death, I've read lots of accounts, but I've never been able to speak to anyone who actually had one. I was just wondering.
Could you "feel" your body, either the one on the floor, or the one in which you apeared to be projected into?
Did you feel any extreme emotions like love or benevolence or such like?
How would you describe your conciousness at that time, was it normal or hightened, or say intoxicated or something like that?
Did you feel that this was your "time to die"
Do you recall any other senses such as smell, or hearing, or touch, did you feel cold or warm?
Were the entities of light you described communicating with you?
Did you sense the actual personalities of your relatives in these entities?
Were you aware of time passing?
Did you attempt to communicate anything during this experience?
Did you see anything else, such as a light, a tunnel, or a different place?
Could you attempt to explain how you felt, what makes you think this was a "real" experience, it is probably very hard to explain, but many people claim to have percieved a deeper reality during such events, could you describe such, if this was part of your experience?
Were you thinking about what was happening to you during this event as you would say in a normal, though strange experience?
I would love to hear what you think, this is a remarkable experience to have gone through.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
Galbally wrote: Could you "feel" your body, either the one on the floor, or the one in which you apeared to be projected into?
Nope. I felt great, and since I had been in crushing, debilitating pain, that was a wonderful feeling! I could clearly see my own body on the floor, and before it fell, I got a good look at the back of my own head. That was fascinating, since it's an angle you never get to see.
Did you feel any extreme emotions like love or benevolence or such like?
Absolutely. The feeling of joy and relief were almost tangible. Along with a kind of an "expectation" or suspense. I alswo realized I wasn't breathing, I wasn't hungry, thirsty, cold, or hot. But it didn't seem to matter. I just felt good all over.
How would you describe your conciousness at that time, was it normal or hightened, or say intoxicated or something like that?
Heightened is a good word for it. My senses were crystal clear, my hearing was acute, my vison was supernatural. The pitch black of the room seemed not much more than a slight dimness, as if I was wearing night vision goggles. i could see straight through the walls if I desired.
Did you feel that this was your "time to die"
I was certainly wondering. As soon as I realized I was outside my own body, (right after I saw it hit the floor!) I thought, "Am I dead?" I didn't seem too concerned with that thought. But I realized that I did not want to look at my hands, in case I ceased to be. As a matter of fact, i even turned my "head" carefully, as if I would pop like a soap bubble.
When I saw the lights, however, I got the feeling that they were waiting, that something was going to happen, but not right now. The feeling was overwhelming, but it wasn't a bad feeling. Kind of like the feeling you get before you open presents on Christmas. Beffore I could process exactly what it was, I was snapped back into the body.
Do you recall any other senses such as smell, or hearing, or touch, did you feel cold or warm?
Ever been entirely relaxed, fully satisfied, and then you take a dep breath and feel good all over. It was like that. Not a single ache, pain, or awareness of a body intruded into it. After the withering pain I had been in, it was like diving on a hot and sweaty day into cool, deep water.
Were the entities of light you described communicating with you?
Yes, absolutely. i knew right away that they were people. The next second came the thought, "your people". The communication was almost "telepathic" but was more "empathic" since it was mostly just feelings, not information that was being conveyed.
Did you sense the actual personalities of your relatives in these entities?
Were you aware of time passing?
It's funny you should ask that...I hadn't thought of that before. I seem to recall a man dressed in deerskins when I scanned the lights, but that's just a flash...I may have just made that up thanks to your suggestion. Hmmm...I'll have to think on that harder. This much I am certain of, there was a leader. He was the light closest to me. Just to my right and about shoulder level. Far closer than most of the other lights, and brighter too. I got the distinct impression that he was watching me carefully. Why, I have no idea. After the fact I hypothesize that although, I didn't know the stay was temporary, they did and were watching to see me go back to my body.
Did you attempt to communicate anything during this experience?
Not really. I was astounded and curious. Mostly I just soaked it all up like a sponge. Fascinated to see my own body on the ground, marveling at the ability to see through walls, and relieved that the nightmarish pain was completely gone.
Did you see anything else, such as a light, a tunnel, or a different place?
No. And this is where conjecture comes in. If I had stayed would I have seen more? Would the lights have done more? I get the feeling that the answer is yes.
Could you attempt to explain how you felt, what makes you think this was a "real" experience, it is probably very hard to explain, but many people claim to have percieved a deeper reality during such events, could you describe such, if this was part of your experience?
I've had others "pooh-pooh" me, but the fact remains this entire episode is crystal clear in my mind. I can recall ever second I was out of my body. It was as real to me as taking a shower. At no time did I get a "hazy" or unclear view. Everything was completely lucid. I guess that's what surprised me the most. In movies, when you are a spirit, everything is hazy and dark. But in reality, everything is clear and bright. Things did get dark and hazy...the second I snapped back into my body. The pain rushed back, the room was again pitch black and I was disoriented from it. It took several seconds, as a matter of fact, to realize that I was lying on my side, where my body had been, looking at a crazy angle under the bed.
As I said before, I communicated with myself freely while I was out of my body.
As I watched my body fall heavily to the ground without catching itself, I clearly remember thinking, "Ouch! That looked like it hurt!" Then again, when I snapped back into my body, I thought, "Man! That DID hurt!" It's details like this that convince me that the experience was completely real.
Were you thinking about what was happening to you during this event as you would say in a normal, though strange experience?
Yes, I was a little astonished, but absolutely fearless. I ws surprised to see the lights most of all, but they did not frighten me, instead I felt much better that they were there and waiting for me. I was just on the brink of deciding to go with them, where? I have no clue... when I was snapped back to my body.
Nope. I felt great, and since I had been in crushing, debilitating pain, that was a wonderful feeling! I could clearly see my own body on the floor, and before it fell, I got a good look at the back of my own head. That was fascinating, since it's an angle you never get to see.
Did you feel any extreme emotions like love or benevolence or such like?
Absolutely. The feeling of joy and relief were almost tangible. Along with a kind of an "expectation" or suspense. I alswo realized I wasn't breathing, I wasn't hungry, thirsty, cold, or hot. But it didn't seem to matter. I just felt good all over.
How would you describe your conciousness at that time, was it normal or hightened, or say intoxicated or something like that?
Heightened is a good word for it. My senses were crystal clear, my hearing was acute, my vison was supernatural. The pitch black of the room seemed not much more than a slight dimness, as if I was wearing night vision goggles. i could see straight through the walls if I desired.
Did you feel that this was your "time to die"
I was certainly wondering. As soon as I realized I was outside my own body, (right after I saw it hit the floor!) I thought, "Am I dead?" I didn't seem too concerned with that thought. But I realized that I did not want to look at my hands, in case I ceased to be. As a matter of fact, i even turned my "head" carefully, as if I would pop like a soap bubble.
When I saw the lights, however, I got the feeling that they were waiting, that something was going to happen, but not right now. The feeling was overwhelming, but it wasn't a bad feeling. Kind of like the feeling you get before you open presents on Christmas. Beffore I could process exactly what it was, I was snapped back into the body.
Do you recall any other senses such as smell, or hearing, or touch, did you feel cold or warm?
Ever been entirely relaxed, fully satisfied, and then you take a dep breath and feel good all over. It was like that. Not a single ache, pain, or awareness of a body intruded into it. After the withering pain I had been in, it was like diving on a hot and sweaty day into cool, deep water.
Were the entities of light you described communicating with you?
Yes, absolutely. i knew right away that they were people. The next second came the thought, "your people". The communication was almost "telepathic" but was more "empathic" since it was mostly just feelings, not information that was being conveyed.
Did you sense the actual personalities of your relatives in these entities?
Were you aware of time passing?
It's funny you should ask that...I hadn't thought of that before. I seem to recall a man dressed in deerskins when I scanned the lights, but that's just a flash...I may have just made that up thanks to your suggestion. Hmmm...I'll have to think on that harder. This much I am certain of, there was a leader. He was the light closest to me. Just to my right and about shoulder level. Far closer than most of the other lights, and brighter too. I got the distinct impression that he was watching me carefully. Why, I have no idea. After the fact I hypothesize that although, I didn't know the stay was temporary, they did and were watching to see me go back to my body.
Did you attempt to communicate anything during this experience?
Not really. I was astounded and curious. Mostly I just soaked it all up like a sponge. Fascinated to see my own body on the ground, marveling at the ability to see through walls, and relieved that the nightmarish pain was completely gone.
Did you see anything else, such as a light, a tunnel, or a different place?
No. And this is where conjecture comes in. If I had stayed would I have seen more? Would the lights have done more? I get the feeling that the answer is yes.
Could you attempt to explain how you felt, what makes you think this was a "real" experience, it is probably very hard to explain, but many people claim to have percieved a deeper reality during such events, could you describe such, if this was part of your experience?
I've had others "pooh-pooh" me, but the fact remains this entire episode is crystal clear in my mind. I can recall ever second I was out of my body. It was as real to me as taking a shower. At no time did I get a "hazy" or unclear view. Everything was completely lucid. I guess that's what surprised me the most. In movies, when you are a spirit, everything is hazy and dark. But in reality, everything is clear and bright. Things did get dark and hazy...the second I snapped back into my body. The pain rushed back, the room was again pitch black and I was disoriented from it. It took several seconds, as a matter of fact, to realize that I was lying on my side, where my body had been, looking at a crazy angle under the bed.
As I said before, I communicated with myself freely while I was out of my body.
As I watched my body fall heavily to the ground without catching itself, I clearly remember thinking, "Ouch! That looked like it hurt!" Then again, when I snapped back into my body, I thought, "Man! That DID hurt!" It's details like this that convince me that the experience was completely real.
Were you thinking about what was happening to you during this event as you would say in a normal, though strange experience?
Yes, I was a little astonished, but absolutely fearless. I ws surprised to see the lights most of all, but they did not frighten me, instead I felt much better that they were there and waiting for me. I was just on the brink of deciding to go with them, where? I have no clue... when I was snapped back to my body.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Nature as GOD
This truly is very interesting. Well I will say for a start that from your previous posts there is nothing to suggest that you would be simply making up such a story for you own purposes (though thats never certain), so I think that you are describing a real experience. You have of course drawn your own conclusions from it and yours are the most relevant as you are the only one who knows what actually happened. From my perspective.
There are divided opinions in science as to the truth of these near death experiences with people who are reductionists and skeptics giving valid biological explanations for such occurences, but I think that although this accounts for much of what people say it does not count for all. I think the part in which you describe seeing the back of your head is interesting, as others have described "floating" into other rooms in a hospital or seeing beyond walls and can later describe things that they could not have seen normally, but were definetly there. Sometimes people are given messages about rather prosaic things in their personal lives that turn out to be accurate, and there are other rather strange events associated with near death experiences. It is also interesting how much these events truly seem to change people, or alter their perceptions of life, in most cases people who have had no previous religious or spiritual agenda who are altered by their experience, testifying to its power (whether real or not) as an event. Of course being scientific about it there is no way that such things can be physically proven or measured or such, so it is impossible for science to give any explanations except to investigate what might be experienced by an individual undergoing brain death. Which, to the point, means that such experiences cannot be endorsed or even really studied excpet anecdotally from people who have undergone them.
I do wish that as a scientist it was possible to make a meaningful study of such phenomenon, scientists would love actually to be able to investigate supernatural occurences, but it turns out to be generally impossible as such things to not seem to have any physical manifestation or are subjective to the witness, which does not mean they don't happen, it just means its impossible to study them in a meaningful way. And you can't use hearsay as scientific evidence. Also, dubious work in the past conducted by people who have subsequently been discredited and the use of such experiences by the religious to promote one docrine or another makes scientists in general very wary of even offering opinions on such matters, but some are intriguing thats for sure.
So what now is your general belief following this experience, are you more religious, or more spiritual, do you feel that there is a purpose to this existence, how has your concept of what God may be, or immortality, or concepts such as heaven and hell, good and evil, free will, mysticism, science, all that stuff, changed? I know thats a lot of questions, but I would be interested in knowing how you percieve the world and yourself now.
There are divided opinions in science as to the truth of these near death experiences with people who are reductionists and skeptics giving valid biological explanations for such occurences, but I think that although this accounts for much of what people say it does not count for all. I think the part in which you describe seeing the back of your head is interesting, as others have described "floating" into other rooms in a hospital or seeing beyond walls and can later describe things that they could not have seen normally, but were definetly there. Sometimes people are given messages about rather prosaic things in their personal lives that turn out to be accurate, and there are other rather strange events associated with near death experiences. It is also interesting how much these events truly seem to change people, or alter their perceptions of life, in most cases people who have had no previous religious or spiritual agenda who are altered by their experience, testifying to its power (whether real or not) as an event. Of course being scientific about it there is no way that such things can be physically proven or measured or such, so it is impossible for science to give any explanations except to investigate what might be experienced by an individual undergoing brain death. Which, to the point, means that such experiences cannot be endorsed or even really studied excpet anecdotally from people who have undergone them.
I do wish that as a scientist it was possible to make a meaningful study of such phenomenon, scientists would love actually to be able to investigate supernatural occurences, but it turns out to be generally impossible as such things to not seem to have any physical manifestation or are subjective to the witness, which does not mean they don't happen, it just means its impossible to study them in a meaningful way. And you can't use hearsay as scientific evidence. Also, dubious work in the past conducted by people who have subsequently been discredited and the use of such experiences by the religious to promote one docrine or another makes scientists in general very wary of even offering opinions on such matters, but some are intriguing thats for sure.
So what now is your general belief following this experience, are you more religious, or more spiritual, do you feel that there is a purpose to this existence, how has your concept of what God may be, or immortality, or concepts such as heaven and hell, good and evil, free will, mysticism, science, all that stuff, changed? I know thats a lot of questions, but I would be interested in knowing how you percieve the world and yourself now.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
Galbally wrote: I think the part in which you describe seeing the back of your head is interesting, as others have described "floating" into other rooms in a hospital or seeing beyond walls and can later describe things that they could not have seen normally, but were definetly there.
Yeah, and although I had seen the back of my head before, it had been decades since I had, and I found that I had grown a wave that travels diagonally down and to the right that I never knew about. When I checked it in two mirrors the next week (the next few days being spent in a hospital for a "coronary event".) I found that it really was there, even though I never suspected it.
So what now is your general belief following this experience, are you more religious,
Not really, no. I'm a dedicated Christian, and I always believed in life after death. So I still believe in Jesus, but I don't attend church any more than I ever did.
or more spiritual,
that has changed greatly. I am very, very careful to try to do good in this world now. Small evil things I used to do I have dropped totally, like lying and cheating at pool.
do you feel that there is a purpose to this existence,
I've always had a feeling that there is a purpose to all things. It's just impossible for us to see, like the thread trying to comprehend the majesty of the tapestry from where it lies intertwined with it's fellows.
I've also noticed that "karma", for lack of a better word really exists. When I am nice to people and do good, good things and "lucky" breaks just seem to come my way. The reverse is true too. When I am mean-spirited and unneighborly, bad things just seem to come my way.
how has your concept of what God may be,
the fact that their is another plane of existance coexisting with ours right now, that all of us are unable to see implies that there is much, much more to the universe than I thought. So I am adamant that God exists now. I believed it before, I am certain now. Too bad I didn't get to meet him yet. I've got some interesting questions for him.
or immortality,
The fact that I traveled out and back into my body implies that life itself, is not just a collection of electrical impulses, but is, instead, something much greater and much more lasting. I've suspected this ever since I saw my first kirlian photograph. Our bodies have an energy field that is not connected to the electrical nervous system.
As a scientist (which I am by the way, I hold two electrical engineering degrees) this suggests to me that there is a "soul" and it does not cease to exist when the atoms carrying it around stop working together.
I know it for a fact, now.
It is infinitely comfroting to me, now to know that I will live (or exist) after I die. Before death seemed vaguely frightening to me, but now I know it's just another step on the road.
Yeah, and although I had seen the back of my head before, it had been decades since I had, and I found that I had grown a wave that travels diagonally down and to the right that I never knew about. When I checked it in two mirrors the next week (the next few days being spent in a hospital for a "coronary event".) I found that it really was there, even though I never suspected it.
So what now is your general belief following this experience, are you more religious,
Not really, no. I'm a dedicated Christian, and I always believed in life after death. So I still believe in Jesus, but I don't attend church any more than I ever did.
or more spiritual,
that has changed greatly. I am very, very careful to try to do good in this world now. Small evil things I used to do I have dropped totally, like lying and cheating at pool.
do you feel that there is a purpose to this existence,
I've always had a feeling that there is a purpose to all things. It's just impossible for us to see, like the thread trying to comprehend the majesty of the tapestry from where it lies intertwined with it's fellows.
I've also noticed that "karma", for lack of a better word really exists. When I am nice to people and do good, good things and "lucky" breaks just seem to come my way. The reverse is true too. When I am mean-spirited and unneighborly, bad things just seem to come my way.
how has your concept of what God may be,
the fact that their is another plane of existance coexisting with ours right now, that all of us are unable to see implies that there is much, much more to the universe than I thought. So I am adamant that God exists now. I believed it before, I am certain now. Too bad I didn't get to meet him yet. I've got some interesting questions for him.
or immortality,
The fact that I traveled out and back into my body implies that life itself, is not just a collection of electrical impulses, but is, instead, something much greater and much more lasting. I've suspected this ever since I saw my first kirlian photograph. Our bodies have an energy field that is not connected to the electrical nervous system.
As a scientist (which I am by the way, I hold two electrical engineering degrees) this suggests to me that there is a "soul" and it does not cease to exist when the atoms carrying it around stop working together.
I know it for a fact, now.
It is infinitely comfroting to me, now to know that I will live (or exist) after I die. Before death seemed vaguely frightening to me, but now I know it's just another step on the road.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Nature as GOD
Thank you Jives I appreciate that you answered those questions so thoroughly, it is a very very interesting subject, and your posts have been by far the most interesting on what is usually a hoplessesly inane debate between people who have either mystical or scientific viewpoints (I would consider myself the latter, I'm not an atheist, but I am deeply skeptical about most things religious, spiritual, or paranormal). Its interesting that you have a scientific or is it engineering background (I'm a chemist by trade, physicist if I could do the math!) so it goes to show that science professionals are not all godless heathens, which anyone who knew any scientists would know immeadiatly. I had a feeling that you had stuied some sort of technical discipline from the way you described your experiences actually, like good reporting plenty of facts low on hyperbole.
Seeing as you have studied engineering, do you think there is any way in which such phenomena could be assessed? I know it would be hard to find willing subjects on the brink of death who could somehow be revived!, just wondering if you had any ideas?
Seeing as you have studied engineering, do you think there is any way in which such phenomena could be assessed? I know it would be hard to find willing subjects on the brink of death who could somehow be revived!, just wondering if you had any ideas?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
It seems to me that nature reflects the creativity of God. God is also throughout all of nature including man. However, this does not support the contention that nature=God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
Nature as GOD
Ted quote
It seems to me that nature reflects the creativity of God. God is also throughout all of nature including man. However, this does not support the contention that nature=God.
reply
How would you define GOD? I define GOD as the 'creator of life'. Nature is the ONLY creator of life.
Our ability to reproduce is a gift of Nature, not any spirit that found its origin in the bible.
Give Nature the 'reverence' it is entitled to, not humanity. Humanity can only produce the 'material things, not the living.
As far as spirit is concerned, it does exist but this is inherent in all beings.
See my new post on a 'Universal mind'.
Mike CT
It seems to me that nature reflects the creativity of God. God is also throughout all of nature including man. However, this does not support the contention that nature=God.
reply
How would you define GOD? I define GOD as the 'creator of life'. Nature is the ONLY creator of life.
Our ability to reproduce is a gift of Nature, not any spirit that found its origin in the bible.
Give Nature the 'reverence' it is entitled to, not humanity. Humanity can only produce the 'material things, not the living.
As far as spirit is concerned, it does exist but this is inherent in all beings.
See my new post on a 'Universal mind'.
Mike CT
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Nature as GOD
Mike CT wrote: Ted quote
It seems to me that nature reflects the creativity of God. God is also throughout all of nature including man. However, this does not support the contention that nature=God.
reply
How would you define GOD? I define GOD as the 'creator of life'. Nature is the ONLY creator of life.
Our ability to reproduce is a gift of Nature, not any spirit that found its origin in the bible.
Give Nature the 'reverence' it is entitled to, not humanity. Humanity can only produce the 'material things, not the living.
As far as spirit is concerned, it does exist but this is inherent in all beings.
See my new post on a 'Universal mind'.
Mike CTGod is the Creator of nature.
It seems to me that nature reflects the creativity of God. God is also throughout all of nature including man. However, this does not support the contention that nature=God.
reply
How would you define GOD? I define GOD as the 'creator of life'. Nature is the ONLY creator of life.
Our ability to reproduce is a gift of Nature, not any spirit that found its origin in the bible.
Give Nature the 'reverence' it is entitled to, not humanity. Humanity can only produce the 'material things, not the living.
As far as spirit is concerned, it does exist but this is inherent in all beings.
See my new post on a 'Universal mind'.
Mike CTGod is the Creator of nature.
Nature as GOD
I have to agree with Accountable on this one. God is the creator of all.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
Nature as GOD
To Accountable
How do you define GOD?
Is God a spirit because that would have to be your definition.
Mike CT
How do you define GOD?
Is God a spirit because that would have to be your definition.
Mike CT
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Nature as GOD
Mike CT wrote: To Accountable
How do you define GOD?
Is God a spirit because that would have to be your definition.
Mike CT
Spooky! I had a long and eloquent message typed up, but lost connection when I submitted it. I'll try again.
Why does God have to be defined? In my simple mind, order does not come from chaos; therefore, something intelligent created it. It matters not whether that something is spirit, animal, vegetable, or mineral. I call it God.
Nature is a set of rules, nothing more. Everthing obeys those rules because everything comes from and because of those rules.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dammit! I had a really good paragraph about my ability to choose but can't remember it adequately. I wish my ability to remember was as strong as my ability to choose. I'll post later if the muse come back.
How do you define GOD?
Is God a spirit because that would have to be your definition.
Mike CT
Spooky!
I had a long and eloquent message typed up, but lost connection when I submitted it. I'll try again.Why does God have to be defined? In my simple mind, order does not come from chaos; therefore, something intelligent created it. It matters not whether that something is spirit, animal, vegetable, or mineral. I call it God.
Nature is a set of rules, nothing more. Everthing obeys those rules because everything comes from and because of those rules.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dammit! I had a really good paragraph about my ability to choose but can't remember it adequately. I wish my ability to remember was as strong as my ability to choose.
I'll post later if the muse come back.Nature as GOD
[QUOTE=Accountable]Spooky! I had a long and eloquent message typed up, but lost connection when I submitted it. I'll try again.
Why does God have to be defined? In my simple mind, order does not come from chaos; therefore, something intelligent created it. It matters not whether that something is spirit, animal, vegetable, or mineral. I call it God.
Nature is a set of rules, nothing more. Everthing obeys those rules because everything comes from and because of those rules.
Good post, order does not come from chaos indeed, as anyone familar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics would know. But have to put a damp squib on it and say that this doesn't imply that there is a god though, just that we seem to need one.
I had a long and eloquent message typed up, but lost connection when I submitted it. I'll try again.Why does God have to be defined? In my simple mind, order does not come from chaos; therefore, something intelligent created it. It matters not whether that something is spirit, animal, vegetable, or mineral. I call it God.
Nature is a set of rules, nothing more. Everthing obeys those rules because everything comes from and because of those rules.
Good post, order does not come from chaos indeed, as anyone familar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics would know. But have to put a damp squib on it and say that this doesn't imply that there is a god though, just that we seem to need one.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
Mike CT comment
I introduced the idea of Nature as GOD because of the biblical followers that are attacking our political Constitution, our schools, our sciences and our freedoms here in the USA.
These people are fanatics and that is why I want them to get straightend out about the real creator.
Mike CT
I introduced the idea of Nature as GOD because of the biblical followers that are attacking our political Constitution, our schools, our sciences and our freedoms here in the USA.
These people are fanatics and that is why I want them to get straightend out about the real creator.
Mike CT