Do you believe in God?

[FastFurious77]

I know right I don't know whether your being sarcastic or not. But I don't give a hoot LOL. It's just an opinion like anyone else. But some of what I said is backed up by physicists and scientists. What is your opinion?

 

[Spurgy 777]

I know right I don't know whether your being sarcastic or not. But I don't give a hoot LOL. It's just an opinion like anyone else. But some of what I said is backed up by physicists and scientists. What is your opinion?

He thinks you're talking complete nonsense, hence why he is laughing.

 

[Carbonox]

Obviously I was sarcastic. Everyone totally knows that our ancestors led much longer lives than we can even dream of, despite the constant threats from predators and common diseases (hint: modern medicine didn't exist back then).

 

[FastFurious77]

Obviously I was sarcastic. Everyone totally knows that our ancestors led much longer lives than we can even dream of, despite the constant threats from predators and common diseases (hint: modern medicine didn't exist back then).

YESS lol

 

[FastFurious77]

Obviously I was sarcastic. Everyone totally knows that our ancestors led much longer lives than we can even dream of, despite the constant threats from predators and common diseases (hint: modern medicine didn't exist back then).

YESS lol

sorry for double post MB Moderator.

 

[doctorrg]

Many people believe at some time of their life (in certain parts of the world) that the tooth fairy exists. Experientially we see that there is no evidence for the truth being that the tooth fairy exists and we can also identify people who have been involved in inventing and furthering the lie at some time. The context of the lie and the reason for it are explicable through our measured understanding of human nature.

If that was a meaningful analogy, hardly anybody would be believing in God these days. Modern society has evolved to a point where we know that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. If you want to re-clarify why this analogy holds, sure, fire away, but make sure you're not just trying to justify your pre-chosen conclusion.

Solipsism. And it's both nonsensical and common.

I must be missing something here. What has what I've said and you've quoted here possibly got to do with Solipsism?

It has to be adherred to because of this:

Some particular definition has to be adherred to, not because it is the right definition, but simply because if we don't we'll all be talking straight past each other. Then again, it would almost seem like that's what a lot of the arguments within this thread are doing.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Many people believe at some time of their life (in certain parts of the world) that the tooth fairy exists. Experientially we see that there is no evidence for the truth being that the tooth fairy exists and we can also identify people who have been involved in inventing and furthering the lie at some time. The context of the lie and the reason for it are explicable through our measured understanding of human nature.

If that was a meaningful analogy, hardly anybody would be believing in God these days.

Incredible, isn't it?

Modern society has evolved to a point where we know that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

Yup, incredible.

If you want to re-clarify why this analogy holds, sure, fire away, but make sure you're not just trying to justify your pre-chosen conclusion.

Far from pre-chosen, I attended church schools as a child and from a family whose roots are strongly Christian. We had the tooth fairy too, if you're interested.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

And what would the correct tool be?

Well what other tools do you have available to you?

@SuperCobraJet, why do you find it so difficult to give a simple, direct answer to a simple, direct question?

Thats funny, I ask my wife that same thing all the time.
Normally, I don't approach it that way.
It's not primarily difficulty, but rather the question of:
Is it better to attempt to establish it first, as opposed to naming it?
Or is it better to name it, and then attempt to establish it?
I just chose the former this time, I don't know, perhaps for enviromental reasons.
But my preference is usually always the latter.

Over the years I have found that there are basically two types of people in verbalizing an answer to a question.
The first type will start at the beginning and list every detail of their answer, some of which may not be relevant, until they arrive at the end.
The second type, such as myself go to the end first. Then back up as necessary and address details as relevance dictates.
I have also found that depending on the subject at hand the first type can be the better of the two.
But I have to dicipline myself at times to keep that in mind, and not get distracted or fall asleep waiting for the the end to come.

So admittedly what I did there is out of character, and I'm not really sure exactly why I did it that way.
Perhaps, God forbid, I am morphing into the first type as a result of exposure to my wife and a friend and business associate who is the first type as well.

I hope that answers your question.

This exact exchange needs to be seen on every page as the most perfect example of the rambling, run-around, non-answer SCJ always defaults to. Simply stunning.

 

[doctorrg]

Incredible, isn't it?



Yup, incredible.



Far from pre-chosen, I attended church schools as a child and from a family whose roots are strongly Christian. We had the tooth fairy too, if you're interested.

And the point you are trying to make is what exactly?

 

[LeMansAid]

@TenEightyOne The stated details of your upbringing don't suggest a likelihood of you having become a believer. Being an intelligent and thoughtful person, probably the opposite actually.

@doctorrg I think it's an "Ergo, ......." thing at play there. If believing in the God of The Bible is not equal to believing in the Tooth Fairy, it's nigh on. Though as soon as God is expanded to mean myriad things that could potentially be labelled as God, we've got a different playing field.

 

[doctorrg]

@doctorrg I think it's an "Ergo, ......." thing at play there. If believing in the God of The Bible is not equal to believing in the Tooth Fairy, it's nigh on. Though as soon as God is expanded to mean myriad things that could potentially be labelled as God, we've got a different playing field.

Not sure whether believing in the God of The Bible would be all that straight forward either. I know a lot of Catholics who do believe in God, and it would stand to reason that they do believe in the God of the Bible, yet, neither of them seems to believe that God is an actual personal being, i.e. a him, they simply do not take the Bible as a literal account. I simply see no reasonable way to equate the God they believe in with the tooth fairy. If, of course, one would believe God is some old dude sitting on a cloud, then yes, a comparison to the tooth fairy is quite appropriate.

 

[LeMansAid]

I know a lot of Catholics who do believe in God, and it would stand to reason that they do believe in the God of the Bible, yet, neither of them seems to believe that God is an actual personal being, i.e. a him, they simply do not take the Bible as a literal account.

Like saying "I trust in what's written in this scientific paper, but I don't take it literally"? I'm not sure that it's still the God of The Bible for your Catholics.

 

[doctorrg]

Like saying "I trust in what's written in this scientific paper, but I don't take it literally"? I'm not sure that it's still the God of The Bible for your Catholics.

Scientific papers are quite specific, but I thought it wasn't all that uncommon for a non-literal intepretation of scripture, depending on the particular faith. But your point is well taken, maybe it isn't the God of the Bible they believe in.

Edit: This begs the question, could it be that there are a lot of people with a very specific faith, a belief in God, but where they don't actually believe in the God described by their faith, or rather, specific to their faith? Could they have a more general belief, and actually identify their God within other faiths? Naturally, this wouldn't apply to anyone following a literal interpretation of scripture, but is that a majority?

 

[KSaiyu]

There's no such thing as logically improbable. Something is either logically possible or it is not. Logic is a binary system, not a statistical one.

All SCJ's arguments for God are based on the assumption that his God exists. SCJ's God as SCJ has defined him is logically impossible. SCJ's God cannot exist within the rules of logic.

But it can be based on probability, and maybe that's enough for SCJ.

You probably know this so this is for the benefit of those who don't have a rudimentary knowledge of statistics. Since probability is on a scale 0 (Impossible to happen) to 1 (Certain to happen), results can fall anywhere between these numbers depending on the question, and are given as a decimal but can be interpreted as a percentage. Some things are like logic, i.e. are binary. "Is The world flat" has an answer that would be 0, that is "impossible". Some are easy to do off the top of you head. "What are the chances of getting a 5 after rolling a 6 sided die", which would be 0.167 or 16.7% However, some may be surprised to learn that a lot of statistics in medicine aren't quite so simple. Even the most clear as day associations that everyone knows to be true don't have a probability of "1" showing absolute certain association. For this reason we set a threshold to accept the validity of the findings, but as life is never simple this value (called a "p-value" in medicine, and it is usually set at 5%) is used to reject something called a "null-hypothesis", and isn't the same as saying that this is the probability that the findings and therefore the hypothesis must be true. This null hypothesis can be thought of as chaos, in that it is the likelihood of the results being unrelated to what you are testing (the hypothesis) and is purely down to other factors, like chance. Let's taking Drug A as an example.

Drug A is made to lower cholesterol. It is tested on a large group of patients who have their blood cholesterol measured before and after the drug. The hypothesis would be that the drug lowers their serum cholesterol, the null hypothesis would be that the levels change due to something other than the drug. After statistical interpretation the p value is found to be 0.0432. This means there is a 4.3% chance we can't reject the null hypothesis meaning we can be 95.7% (over 95%) sure we can reject it. This is enough to make the results statistically significant, but doesn't prove that the drugs lowered the cholesterol. This means researchers are always striving for a low p-value, so the statistical significance can be stronger.

What's all this got to do with SJC's beliefs? Well consider smoking and lung cancer. Everyone knows there is an association. But what if people chose to believe that it wasn't due to smoking? What if people chose to believe the null hypothesis - maybe even ascribing it to God/Satan etc. Let's look at probably the most influential paper on smoking and lung cancer: Sir Richard Doll's 1950 study.

The most relevant part for us is on page 4. Notice how the p-value is unbelievably small at 0.00000064, or 0.000064% (I can hear @Famine screaming at me. It is true that p-values aren't calculated in this way anymore but we can ignore that for now )? What if we presented this to people who chose to believe there was another cause. We still haven't outright rejected the null-hypothesis, which would mean getting a nice clean 0. We could still have a 0.00000000000000000000001 p-value and that wouldn't be enough as they still believe it is down to chance/God etc.

And that's what I think belief is, scientifically speaking. There will never be a way to disprove the "God hypothesis" sufficiently enough to a believer.

 

[Scaff]

But it can be based on probability, and maybe that's enough for SCJ.

Oh dear this will open a can of worms again, as SCJ has already been down this route.

The problem with using probability with the existence of God is that we have no evidence (to a scientific standard) for the existence of God. Its akin to calculating the probability of throwing a seven on a six sided die numbered 1 to 6.

Possibility theory would be a valid tool to use to discuss it given that allows for variables with zero evidence to be included (well technically you can - but they are always zero - as per your flat world example), but probability theory would require the existence to all variables involved to be known and accepted (and they are not).

Is it possible that God exists? Yes, but we have no evidence to support that, once we do they it would be possible to calculate the probability of it.

Interestingly you could swap the tooth-fairy or Santa for either of those.

 

[Imari]

But it can be based on probability, and maybe that's enough for SCJ.

Except that's just improbable. Logic doesn't come into it. Hence me saying something cannot be logically improbable.

Improbable is fine. Once you bring logic into it, it's either possible or it isn't.

The world being flat is a fine example. Logically, there's no particular reason why the world couldn't be flat. A self-consistent universe in which the world is flat is logically fine, as far as I can tell. There's nothing self-contradictory in that.

In our universe it isn't the case that the world is flat, but the idea is logically self-consistent. There's no probability involved, either something is logically consistent or it isn't.

If you're talking about probabilities, that's an entirely different thing and shouldn't be confused with logic. If you're talking about probability, then you're talking about the chance that a logically consistent idea corresponds with actual reality. You've already assumed that the idea is consistent, which is why it's dangerous to confuse the idea when talking about a logically inconsistent being, such as SCJ's God.

 

[KSaiyu]

Yeah, the post is talking about probabilities and not logic. If SCJ continues to use logic then, well he better have some good arguments.

 

[TenEightyOne]

And the point you are trying to make is what exactly?

I was saying that your warning...

If you want to re-clarify why this analogy holds, sure, fire away, but make sure you're not just trying to justify your pre-chosen conclusion.

...while always welcome was misplaced. I tried to explain that, if anything, my upbringing was more disposed to creating a Christian than the atheist it has. My stance on religion isn't pre-chosen, it's something I've considered at length over many years, even going so far as to study Theology at one point in order to try to understand the disconnect between the texts of my upbringing and the certainty of my conclusions.

In the tooth-fairy analogy I described a legend that has a clear social purpose and a clear social context. The perpetrators of the tooth-fairy lie are known to us but we forgive the lie as necessary in a certain time and place.

Well what other tools do you have available to you?

Humour me. I follow that science isn't the tool to find god in the same way that a 36-acre spanner won't re-grundle a spinion-end, or whatever, it's the wrong tool for the job. I don't know what other tools I have available to me; which would be the correct tool for the job?

Just name it...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

But it can be based on probability, and maybe that's enough for SCJ.

No it's not enough, but it can be a reason or step toward being enough.

Some particular definition has to be adherred to, not because it is the right definition, but simply because if we don't we'll all be talking straight past each other. Then again, it would almost seem like that's what a lot of the arguments within this thread are doing.

Perhaps, but do you see the connection?

Humour me. I follow that science isn't the tool to find god in the same way that a 36-acre spanner won't re-grundle a spinion-end, or whatever, it's the wrong tool for the job. I don't know what other tools I have available to me; which would be the correct tool for the job?

Just name it...

OK to answer the question involving the correct tool............
In reality it would be tools.

The first basic tool needed is the same one used in everything, perception.
Then using perception, apply objective examination and evaluation.
However first you will have to cleanse your perception of any preconcieved judgements or ideas, at least with regard to this area of examination.
The biggest reason of necessity for that is the quest for determination of a different dimension cannot be bound by the borders of the physical dimension. They are wholly unapplicable.
That is precisely why Science as a tool cannot help in this examination, except perhaps as a correlation at times.
You cannot apply physical boundaries to the spiritual dimension in an effort to establish it.
Otherwise you are wasting your time.
The spiritual will never fit within the limitations of physical or carnal concepts and realities.
God does not reside in the physical, but the spiritual.
Therefore, you must be able to get your head around that and again put aside all physical concepts in this application.

Now assuming you can get that far,
The next tool that will be needed is faith.
And before you get all shaky on me, just here me out.
A different dimension requires different tools, just like different dimensional systems of a car do.
You may not be versed at using it, but to go further you will have to start.
And it's not that foreign in reality. It is just a realization of something that you cannot see, like wind or gravity.
The difference is the Holy Spirit is not universal as far as, it is only perceptable and operable among those
that have it, or have recieved it.

Just a note here: Thus far you may find throughout the process, that belief is of assistance as an additional or companion tool.
I think a little objective logic at times helps as well.
Also, keep in mind that God's method and intention here is one of personal appeal and challenge.
Or it is primarily in the relational aspects, to you personally as well as to everyone publically.

So they are the tools you will need.

 

[KSaiyu]

Elizabeth Ann
Said to her Nan:
"Please will you tell me how God began?
Somebody must have made Him. So
Who could it be, 'cos I want to know?"
And Nurse said, "Well!"
And Ann said, "Well?
I know you know, and I wish you'd tell."
And Nurse took pins from her mouth, and said,
"Now then, darling, it's time for bed."

Elizabeth Ann
Had a wonderful plan:
She would run round the world till she found a man
Who knew exactly how God began.

She got up early, she dressed, and ran
Trying to find an Important Man.
She ran to London and knocked at the door
Of the Lord High Doodleum's coach-and-four.
"Please, sir (if there's anyone in),
However-and-ever did God begin?"

But out of the window, large and red,
Came the Lord High Coachman's face instead.
And the Lord High Coachman laughed and said:
"Well, what put that in your quaint little head?"

Elizabeth Ann went home again
And took from the ottoman Jennifer Jane.
"Jenniferjane," said Elizabeth Ann,
"Tell me at once how God began."
And Jane, who didn't much care for speaking,
Replied in her usual way by squeaking.

What did it mean? Well, to be quite candid,
I don't know, but Elizabeth Ann did.
Elizabeth Ann said softly, "Oh!
Thank you Jennifer. Now I know."

 

[doctorrg]

I was saying that your warning...



...while always welcome was misplaced. I tried to explain that, if anything, my upbringing was more disposed to creating a Christian than the atheist it has. My stance on religion isn't pre-chosen, it's something I've considered at length over many years, even going so far as to study Theology at one point in order to try to understand the disconnect between the texts of my upbringing and the certainty of my conclusions.

In the tooth-fairy analogy I described a legend that has a clear social purpose and a clear social context. The perpetrators of the tooth-fairy lie are known to us but we forgive the lie as necessary in a certain time and place.

Fair enough, TenEightyOne. To me, that the tooth-fairy has a clear social purpose and what not doesn't necessarily make it a good analogy. I doubt we'd find many who would argue that the tooth-fairy exists (children's stories excluded). That is not at all the case with respect to God. Irrespective of what may be the truth, there is a fundamental difference between the tooth-fairy and God. This makes such analogy in the context of God's existence somewhat questionable.

As for my "warning", I wasn't even referring to your stance on religion, I was referring to your reasoning for using the analogy of the tooth-fairy when addressing the question of God's existence. It was me asking... you're not simply using the analogy of the tooth-fairy because you've already decided it is just as nonsensical an idea for God to exist as it is for the tooth-fairy to exist, or are you?

With all that said, it's good to see that your upbringing hasn't influenced you to a degree that would have left you with no choice in the matter of religion. Sometimes I wonder whether my upbringing had an influence, even if not the intended.

Perhaps, but do you see the connection?

I could. It doesn't change though, that we need to somehow agree to a common language, a common usage of terms, otherwise we're not really talking to each other. The distinction of knowledge and belief isn't really meaningless, even if knowledge essentially is belief. What I'd really want to ask here is whether you've understood what was meant. And if you did, does it really matter?

 

[DCP]

You're answering the question as if Christianity applies to a non-believer.

I don't think Sins exist, I don't think God exist and I absolutely think that there is no suck thing as a saviour.

This, to me is just gibberish that I once learned in 2nd Grade,

In grade 2, I was taught that I came from a rock, and then from a monkey / ape.
Till today, no one can tell me truly, why monkeys / apes etc are not changing into humans.
They can't show us where one kind of animal changes into another, yet the bones of animals millions of years ago, were thought to have done it. It's truly shocking how the enemy deceives.

Err....

What exactly to you mean by this? It almost sounds like you are in some kind of suicide cult.

I'd really like to know the answer to this.

Not at all. I am remaining in the presence of my Savior, so that I am removed along with most of the children in this world, when all hell breaks lose on planet earth, all caused by man himself.

So you plan to chicken-out before the party begins? You say that the Rapture is close, but you can't possibly know that:

Bet your godless teachers didn't show you this one:

Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years

Signs and seasons in Hebrew mean signals and appointed times.
I'm sure you've heard about the tetrad / 4 blood moons falling on Gods appointed times. If not, look into it, if you care about your soul. If you choose to believe there is no soul, that's your free will.

**********************************************************************************

@DCP Hey brother, I just want to run a check on something.

Do you find what I am saying to be incoherent?

Not at all bro. I'm just shocked how our enemies (spiritual), are lead into such blindness.
When the bible tells us that this world belongs to satan, and that he is the prince of the air, you can clearly see how satan is actually controlling everything wicked in this fallen world, lies, deception, mockers, scoffers, disobedience and followers of men.

When people say they believe in the big bang, but then still argue that it's not a belief, then they say "something" (Bond/Fairy) started the big bang , yet say they are atheists...

When asked where did the energy come from, where did the laws come from, where did the space come from, and time, they completely ignore it.
When asked where does right from wrong come from, or good and evil. Where did these moral laws come from, they avoid it all the time.

What is gravity or light, and not what it does? Nothing.

I have realized that people are like everyone else, protecting their religion unknowingly, and more so, holding on to their lusts of this world, not wanting God to take it away from them. The beauty of free will.

I still came to believe that God made everything 6000 years ago. Even a mature universe, which means light always shone our way, but was stretched out, just like the bible says. Everyone else is free to believe or follow "whomever" they like.

I'll leave you with my favorite verse.
Stay blessed bro.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

 

[DQuaN]

Wow.

Just wow.

 

[Com Fox]

In grade 2, I was taught that I came from a rock, and then from a monkey / ape.
Till today, no one can tell me truly, why monkeys / apes etc are not changing into humans.
They can't show us where one kind of animal changes into another, yet the bones of animals millions of years ago, were thought to have done it. It's truly shocking how the enemy deceives.




Not at all. I am remaining in the presence of my Savior, so that I am removed along with most of the children in this world, when all hell breaks lose on planet earth, all caused by man himself.



Bet your godless teachers didn't show you this one:

Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years

Signs and seasons in Hebrew mean signals and appointed times.
I'm sure you've heard about the tetrad / 4 blood moons falling on Gods appointed times. If not, look into it, if you care about your soul. If you choose to believe there is no soul, that's your free will.



Not at all bro. I'm just shocked how our enemies (spiritual), are lead into such blindness.
When the bible tells us that this world belongs to satan, and that he is the prince of the air, you can clearly see how satan is actually controlling everything wicked in this fallen world, lies, deception, mockers, scoffers, disobedience and followers of men.

When people say they believe in the big bang, but then still argue that it's not a belief, then they say "something" (Bond/Fairy) started the big bang , yet say they are atheists...

When asked where did the energy come from, where did the laws come from, where did the space come from, and time, they completely ignore it.
When asked where does right from wrong come from, or good and evil. Where did these moral laws come from, they avoid it all the time.

What is gravity or light, and not what it does? Nothing.

I have realized that people are like everyone else, protecting their religion unknowingly, and more so, holding on to their lusts of this world, not wanting God to take it away from them. The beauty of free will.

I still came to believe that God made everything 6000 years ago. Even a mature universe, which means light always shone our way, but was stretched out, just like the bible says. Everyone else is free to believe or follow "whomever" they like.

I'll leave you with my favorite verse.
Stay blessed bro.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

In 2nd Grade, I was told I was made some random being in the sky. No one told how or why he got power or how was his life or any sources to prove heavens existence. It's because evolving comes from adaptation and is usually over an extensive period of time, we don't evolve like Pokemon. According to a documentary I watched in Science, Our ancestors were the first few apes to stand on 2 legs and the reason why they evolved to them believe it or not, to have better sex.

 

[Imari]

In grade 2, I was taught that I came from a rock, and then from a monkey / ape.

No, you weren't. That you continue to peddle this nonsense shows that you still have no understanding of what you're talking about.

Till today, no one can tell me truly, why monkeys / apes etc are not changing into humans.

Because they don't, and no one has claimed that they did. Except for you.

It's called a strawman.

They can't show us where one kind of animal changes into another, yet the bones of animals millions of years ago are thought to have done it.

They can, you just don't want to look.

When asked where did the energy come from, where did the laws come from, where did the space come from, and time, they completely ignore it.

No, we give the honest answer which is "we don't know".

It's a lot better than making up answers to questions that you don't have the answers to.

When asked where does right from wrong come from, or good and evil. Where did these moral laws come from, they avoid it all the time.

There's a whole thread on this very topic. You should read it.

What is gravity or light, and not what it does? Nothing.

We have some ideas, but any competent scientist will be happy to admit that we don't have all the answers. And probably never will.

You keep making that sound like some sort of crime.

Just because someone doesn't know everything, shouldn't prevent him from sharing the things that he has learned. You don't claim to know much at all, and yet it doesn't stop you from sharing what you think you know. So why should the rules be different for anyone else?

 

[Dotini]

God does not reside in the physical, but the spiritual.
Therefore, you must be able to get your head around that and again put aside all physical concepts in this application.

There's a thought worth contemplating.

There are traditional methods for letting go of physical concerns and getting your head into a spiritual place. Gathering in a church, singing, chanting, and praying in time with the choir all come to mind. IMO, these are basic forms of altered states of consciousness. Secular devotees of yoga, meditation, dance and other suitable methods can achieve similar states of heightened awareness or transcendence associated with getting your head into a spiritual place. Most everybody ought to be able to see the benefit of occasional deep states of relaxation and the attainment of spiritual insights or "highs". This is tantamount to the religious experience. Occasionally someone in the near-trance state will have an epiphany which is life-altering in a very positive way. There seems to be an innate tendency in the human animal to attain altered states, contemplate the mysteries, and improve himself by doing so.

 

[DQuaN]

The problem is that @DCP is convinced that whatever you say, or show, or demonstrate, is just the devil being deceitful and trying to corrupt him. He believes that so firmly that no amount of evidence, reason or logic will ever make him look at things any differently.

It's quite sad really.

Even this paragraph is THE DEVIL'S LIES!!!! I AM EVIL!!!!

 

[DCP]

In 2nd Grade, I was told I was made some random being in the sky. No one told how or why he got power or how was his life or any sources to prove heavens existence. It's because evolving comes from adaptation and is usually over an extensive period of time, we don't evolve like Pokemon. According to a documentary I watched in Science, Our ancestors were the first few apes to stand on 2 legs and the reason why they evolved to them believe it or not, to have better sex.

You missed out the "rock" part.

@Imari

Please show me one animal changing into another completely different one. Would love to see the facts.
I mean, you agree that you don't know those questions, but you somehow do know we initially came from an explosion.
How I'm I suppose to take you seriously?

@DQuaN

No I'm not, because I'm telling you this. It's what you want to believe of me.
Show me the facts of your beliefs, not evidence and theories.

 

[Com Fox]

You missed out the "rock" part.

@Imari

Please show me one animal changing into another completely different one. Would love to see the facts.
I mean, you agree that you don't know those questions, but you somehow do know we initially came from an explosion.
How I'm I suppose to take you seriously?

@DQuaN

No I'm not, because I'm telling you this. It's what you want to believe of me.
Show me the facts of your beliefs, not evidence and theories.

All I need to do is this quote

No, you weren't. That you continue to peddle this nonsense shows that you still have no understanding of what you're talking about.

 

[DCP]

All I need to do is this quote

Imari doesn't know me and what I was taught in school, much like the theory he holds onto.
He is his own man, and does whatever he feels, sorry, thinks is right. Feelings should be like the soul, unproven...