was your parents created DNA? (Revelation, agnostics, ghosts, bible)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no such thing as chance . . . it is a formulation of our ignorance using our artificial mathematics. It is a non-explanation pretending to be an explanation for a causal chain we haven't the foggiest idea about. This is a symptom of the euphemistic jargon science uses to cover our ignorance while pretending to explain it so God can be ignored AS IF it is scientific.
Here is your answer - natural forces aren't providing guidance. Guidance would indicate that the forces intend a certain outcome, and they don't. The water and wind and sand did not intend to make the Grand Canyon. They did not provide guidance. They simply did what they do. The wind blows due to pressure differentials in the atmosphere caused by uneven heating of the earth's surface. Water falls on the earth in the form of rain and then is pulled by gravity to lower elevations. Wind and water pick up sand. Nobody tells it to do that. When sand is pushed against rock by wind and water, it causes more sand to break free from rock. Water seeps into cracks in the rocks and freezes overnight causing huge slabs to break off, etc. All natural forces, no guiding hand.
The same goes for molecular chains (DNA just being one example).
The forces whose existence and function you have no ultimate explanation for cannot be the ultimate explanation for anything else . . . yet you routinely pretend that they can to avoid the hard questions and reject the only feasible Source . . . God. That we cannot discern any pattern or guidance in what we puny creatures are able to observe is a problem of our limitations . . . not the absence of such guidance. Calling our ignorance about that "chance" or "natural" and pretending it is the ultimate explanation is disingenuous . . . if not outright deception.
The forces whose existence and function you have no ultimate explanation for cannot be the ultimate explanation for anything else . . . yet you routinely pretend that they can to avoid the hard questions and reject the only feasible Source . . . God. That we cannot discern any pattern or guidance in what we puny creatures are able to observe is a problem of our limitations . . . not the absence of such guidance. Calling our ignorance about that "chance" or "natural" and pretending it is the ultimate explanation is disingenuous . . . if not outright deception.
You are so sure of yourself, yet your surety is baseless.
God is not a feasible source. It is a pitiful explanation for anything. It only gives the illusion of being an explanation. It causes more problems than it solves. Please see: https://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...uses-more.html
I don't pretend to have the ultimate explanation. We still have some discoveries ahead of us. A grand unified theory would be a great step forward in our understanding. It would also be great if we could make observations in the multiverse, outside of our own universe. I look forward to understanding consciousness better. But, one thing is for sure, people who are falsely sure of themselves, thinking they already know the ultimate source, and the source is this undefined concept they call god, are more of a hindrance than a help in helping us get closer to the truth.
Biofeedback has been around for a while. And it is well-established in mainstream science that some people have been able to raise and lower their body temperature and threshhold for pain through standard cognitive processes like mental relaxation techniques. We understand that through normal materialist, neural processes. We evolved a sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system specifically to mobilize our bodies for fight or flight and then to restore us to a restful state. Meditation and biofeedback just utilizes that same system.
As for modern science's assumption of materialism, let me just note that science has had a number of paradigm shifts in the past, so it is possible that at some point in the future we might undergo a paradigm shift away from materialism. True students of the philosophy of science are keenly aware of the assumptions modern science is working under and are aware of the likelihood of paradigm shifts. Having said that, I took graduate classes that had a unit specifically on monoism vs dualism and materialism versus its alternatives (everything from Plato's world of ideas to spiritualism, etc). At the time I took the class I was a dualist, believing we had souls made of a spiritual substance inside this material body of ours, but I was very open minded to entertaining various options. We studied a number of readings written by proponents of the various views. They definitely made me think. Throughout my life I had had many experiences that I thought could best be accounted for through dualism. But, then I learned more and I am very persuaded by the materialist/monist worldview.
To get me to leave that worldview, I would need more than vague accusations that monism can't explain certain things or even the vague promise that some other worldview can explain things monism can't. I would need specifics. How specifically can this alternate worldview explain things that monism can't? For example, conventional Newtonian physics cannot explain how light bends around massive celestial objects like the sun. Newtonian physics can't account for the slowing down of time of objects that travel near the speed of light. The theory of relativity can, very specifically and mathematically.
I don't think any theory outside of materialism is developed enough to adequately explain anything. Anyone can hide behind vagueness. I could say that gremlins are the true source of our consciousness. But, if I don't break down the mechanics of how or even define in detail what gremlins are or show any independent support that they even exist, then I've got nothing.
There is no such thing as chance . . . it is a formulation of our ignorance using our artificial mathematics. It is a non-explanation pretending to be an explanation for a causal chain we haven't the foggiest idea about. This is a symptom of the euphemistic jargon science uses to cover our ignorance while pretending to explain it so God can be ignored AS IF it is scientific.
are you serious? so change doesnt exist?
that is not how science works... you should read a little about science and how it comes to a theory...
Science never use a non explanation, that would be religion, science always explain why, how and when. Religion on the other hand, just tell you with no explanation just believe it, with nothing to back it up.
The forces whose existence and function you have no ultimate explanation for cannot be the ultimate explanation for anything else . . . yet you routinely pretend that they can to avoid the hard questions and reject the only feasible Source . . . God. That we cannot discern any pattern or guidance in what we puny creatures are able to observe is a problem of our limitations . . . not the absence of such guidance. Calling our ignorance about that "chance" or "natural" and pretending it is the ultimate explanation is disingenuous . . . if not outright deception.
This is like a person that never studies biology, it is already explained and actually proven, how the dna come to be.
No, what I'm referring to is inherited fallen condition passed on to us by the first pair. Everyone born is born defective in comparison to the original condition of that first human pair who enjoyed physical perfection and whose bodies would never run down age or sicken. Their rebellion or request to go it on their own resulted in their disqualification for eternal life and their bodies ceased to function properly. In fact, they began a slow but certain progression toward death. Being defective they passed that dying condition on to us.
BTW
The punishment for sin is death or the cessation of all the senses period and not eternal torture. But that's for another thread. Adam knew exactly what death involved since he had been senseless before being created.
The punishment for sin is death or the cessation of all the senses period and not eternal torture.
Well that is great then, as that is exactly what I am expecting to get anyway, and I have my peace with that, and it is much preferred over praising god for all eternity.
We have found some common ground! You and I both believe that when I die I'll be dead forever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
