juantoo3's comments in 'Proofs for God's Non-Existence' thread

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kelcie, and welcome to CR!

Wanting to prove Gods existence seems to be a pursuit of our intellects or our ego. It can be likened to a cat chasing its tail. An endless pursuit if you will.

Not quite sure I follow. Yes, it requires a degree of intellect to rationally discuss a subject as wide and deep as God. So your point is...?

If one holds a concept of God no amount of circmstantial, religion, texts will prove to someone who cannot conceive the concept of god. Therefore, what one cannot conceive he will not believe. Also, if one has an experience with "God" (if thats what they want to call it) this too cannot be proved with all the language available in the world today.

While in the most general terms I can agree, still we grow in our knowledge and understanding of the subject. What we know today is not what we knew 5 years ago, and what we know 5 years from now is not what we know today. That is called "growth."

Whether it is a concept of God or an experience of God one embraces, no one is right or wrong. They are just on a path to unfolding the best way they know how. If they have no belief in God at all then that is fine too. For truth will always find a way to express and reveal itself no matter what our minds choose to believe.

My faithful mind can hear and accept without question. My curious mind demands proof. You can easily satisfy my faithful mind. My curious mind is not so easily satisfied. It is all too easy to simply ask you here for proof. Not personal, subjective proof. Objective, universally observable proof. That is what I have been trying to deal with in this discussion.

Trying to prove God does not exist, for me is also a path that will eventually lead to truth. As the old saying goes. It is not the destination but the journey that counts (or something like that)

Since you came a little late to the party, I will help clarify. The original thread dealt with "proof" of God's existence, which as anybody who has spent any time in sincere discussion on the subject knows, cannot be done either way. Some comments I made in that thread were pulled aside for clarification here. The other thread still exists. In fact, there is another thread besides dealing with the opposite conundrum, equally frivolous. So that we are clear, my point has always been the demonstration of "something" being out there, not the reverse. I see far too much circumstantial evidence to rationally see otherwise. And that has been my point all along.

 

[juantoo3]

Thanks, Earl!

If I'm feeling particularly spunky some day might even return to this thread to heretically point out ways in which 1 could interpret Buddhist notions of "karma/enlightenment" in spiral ways.

I can relate to "heretic." I am thinking of changing my username...how about "Harry Tich?"

 

[Kelcie]

Hi jantoo3,

Kindest Regards, Kelcie, and welcome to CR!

Thank you for you welcome, it is good to be here

Not quite sure I follow. Yes, it requires a degree of intellect to rationally discuss a subject as wide and deep as God. So your point is...?

Okay let me explain....When a cat chases his tail, does he ever catch it? No. Is the tail on something other than the cat? No. Therefore when the intellect keeps trying to prove GODs existence "out there" when in fact GOD is "in here" do you think that the intellect will find the GOD it seeks?

While in the most general terms I can agree, still we grow in our knowledge and understanding of the subject. What we know today is not what we knew 5 years ago, and what we know 5 years from now is not what we know today. That is called "growth."

I agree, life is about growth, however we must move beyond the intellect to "be" with GOD. I am not saying we cannot discuss GOD, normally this is how the wisdom of GOD is imparted and yes it is through the intellect, but wisdom is only given in order for you to "know" of GOD. There is a difference between "knowing" and "being".

My faithful mind can hear and accept without question. My curious mind demands proof. You can easily satisfy my faithful mind. My curious mind is not so easily satisfied. It is all too easy to simply ask you here for proof. Not personal, subjective proof. Objective, universally observable proof. That is what I have been trying to deal with in this discussion.

I agree, the mind of man in its nature is curious. But isnt life and the myriad of creations proof in itself. Although these things GOD created people still need proof. Perhaps one is waiting for a human to come and say I am GOD the creator. Can you imagine the response? The objective proof has always been there, it is that many have not had the eyes to see it. But if you want to "be" in communion with GOD unfortunately it is subjective. It cannot be found anywhere other than inside ourselves. Of course this is my truth and I dont expect any one to adopt it as theirs.

Since you came a little late to the party, I will help clarify. The original thread dealt with "proof" of God's existence, which as anybody who has spent any time in sincere discussion on the subject knows, cannot be done either way. Some comments I made in that thread were pulled aside for clarification here. The other thread still exists. In fact, there is another thread besides dealing with the opposite conundrum, equally frivolous. So that we are clear, my point has always been the demonstration of "something" being out there, not the reverse. I see far too much circumstantial evidence to rationally see otherwise. And that has been my point all along.

Sorry about being late to the party obviously I missed the fun parts. They were my opinions from the posts that I did read, and you may take them as you wish. Your point is well noted.

Kelcie

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kelcie!

When a cat chases his tail, does he ever catch it? No. Is the tail on something other than the cat? No. Therefore when the intellect keeps trying to prove GODs existence "out there" when in fact GOD is "in here" do you think that the intellect will find the GOD it seeks?

OK. This is addressed a little better further on, so for now I will agree intellect alone is insufficient. However, how does one confer experience in a logical manner to another, particularly one who demands proof?

I agree, life is about growth, however we must move beyond the intellect to "be" with GOD. I am not saying we cannot discuss GOD, normally this is how the wisdom of GOD is imparted and yes it is through the intellect, but wisdom is only given in order for you to "know" of GOD. There is a difference between "knowing" and "being".

Absolutely, yet "knowing" is the door to "being."

I agree, the mind of man in its nature is curious. But isnt life and the myriad of creations proof in itself.

In a word, no. If one holds that creation is of God, then you will find agreement. How do you approach those who do not believe or understand a creator, to whom "life and the myriad of creations" is the result of chance and circumstance from a primordial cesspool? This flirts with the boundaries of the old evolution vs. creation argument, wherein "God" as creator is not sufficient evidence in and of "Himself" for those who do not acknowledge "His" authority. It may be sufficient for me, but not for all, and certainly not for those who began this thread.

Although these things GOD created people still need proof.

Proof is an element of logic. Proof is another word for evidence. Kinda hard to convict someone without evidence.

Perhaps one is waiting for a human to come and say I am GOD the creator. Can you imagine the response?

What bearing does this have on the discussion? I do not see the bearing. Those who acknowledge the Divine, will do so, without a "man" stepping up to fill those shoes. Those who do not acknowledge the Divine, will only laugh and enjoy what they will view as a good joke. Either way, I do not see any relevence.

The objective proof has always been there, it is that many have not had the eyes to see it.

Quite the contrary, objective proof in this is elusive, very elusive, as in "none." That is why this argument has continued for centuries. There are some hints, and allegations, but all so far is circumstantial. Including what I have written here. I cannot point to God and say to anyone, "see, there is God!"

But if you want to "be" in communion with GOD unfortunately it is subjective. It cannot be found anywhere other than inside ourselves. Of course this is my truth and I dont expect any one to adopt it as theirs.

You will find me in agreement, and I said as much earlier. But our subjective experiences, however profound they may be, do not serve as objective proof to another, no matter how eloquent our speech. We can give an impassioned speech of love and mercy, or fire and brimstone, but these are not objective reality in the sense of demonstrable and reproducable at will, particularly to those who do not share the same memetic paradigm. We can plead and implore, and emote until we are blue in the face, but still we have not and cannot present objective proof. We have nothing of spirit to hold in our hands and show to another.

One can point to cave paintings in France, and any can see. One cannot point to "being filled with the Holy Ghost" and expect someone who does not or cannot agree with the concept to understand, let alone agree it serves as proof. In this, I find agreement with you and others here, that logic of itself is insufficient to fully describe the IS, the reality beyond which our human eyes (and so far, scientific tools) cannot penetrate. Experience has a vital role to play. But much like S.J.Gould pointed out in distinguishing and trying to separate the two magisteria of religion and science, experience is not logical. The two are fundamentally incompatible beyond the personal, subjective level. One cannot utilize scientific means to fully describe religion and religious experience, just as one cannot utilize religious means to fully describe science and scientific evidences. They are, for the most part, mutually exclusive.

My struggle in this is in flirting with the boundary that divides the two disciplines. I knew it would be a tough row to hoe, but I have fun with it just the same. In that sense, perhaps I am chasing my tail. But I am having fun while I do so.

Sorry about being late to the party obviously I missed the fun parts.

No worries, the other threads, and a great many other very interesting ones, are still very available. It just takes a little digging, and looking in the right places.

 

[Kelcie]

Hi Juantoo3

Absolutely, yet "knowing" is the door to "being."

Agreed! You cannot have one without the other.

how does one confer experience in a logical manner to another, particularly one who demands proof?

For me, no matter what you confer logically if they are not ready to recieve proof will always be insufficient for the logic.

It may be sufficient for me, but not for all, and certainly not for those who began this thread.

Agreed.

Proof is an element of logic. Proof is another word for evidence. Kinda hard to convict someone without evidence.

Yet this is what is done to God all the time.

What bearing does this have on the discussion? I do not see the bearing. Those who acknowledge the Divine, will do so, without a "man" stepping up to fill those shoes. Those who do not acknowledge the Divine, will only laugh and enjoy what they will view as a good joke. Either way, I do not see any relevence.

That was my tangent. Does it have to have relevance?

I cannot point to God and say to anyone, "see, there is God!"

Why not? There are ways to say there is God without actually saying the word God.

We can plead and implore, and emote until we are blue in the face, but still we have not and cannot present objective proof. We have nothing of spirit to hold in our hands and show to another.

Exactly!

But I am having fun while I do so.

I like having fun too!, you are not alone.

No worries, the other threads, and a great many other very interesting ones, are still very available. It just takes a little digging, and looking in the right places.

Thanks.

Kelcie

 

[Vajradhara]

of course well all know that Evolution never, ever, proposes anything by "chance", right? that is a typical CreationISM adherent argument.

metta,

~v

 

[Kelcie]

of course well all know that Evolution never, ever, proposes anything by "chance", right? that is a typical CreationISM adherent argument.

metta,

~v

Hi Vajradhara,

Ive pondered over your comments however I dont understand what they mean Would you like to elaborate please. Perhaps these are new concepts to me I dont know??

Thanks
Kelcie

 

[earl]

Eisnstein had said "God doesn't play dice with the universe" to which Stephen Hawking replied that not only did God play dice with the universe, but sometimes threw them where they couldn't be seen, (don't actually know what their own religious views were but they obviously had no trouble using the term God-do know Einstein was rather impressed with Buddhism). Of course, I don't buy into traditional creationist thesis-life is too mysterious for that. But "chance" may be looked at from many angles and levels of meaning; e.g., when chance ultimately leads to something deemed positive regardless of how many steps & phases it passes through to get there, in retrospect, seems like a wise & sentient, perhaps even loving & compassionate thing to have occurred . In fact, a rather intriguing concept which applies Juan to that notion of "spiral time" as contained in that web article I had recently noted is one taught by a contemporary teacher of advaita vedanta: Andrew Cohen, he calls "evolutionary enlightenment." For those curious re his use of this term, I'd advise you to check his discussion of this concept out at his personal website:
http://www.andrewcohen.org/teachings/evolutionary.asp

Have a good one, Earl

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kelcie!

For me, no matter what you confer logically if they are not ready to recieve proof will always be insufficient for the logic.

True. However, are not Christians taught to plant a seed? If it is meant for the seed to grow, it will in its own good time.

Logic works much the same way. If I can give a brief as to how I arrived at my presentation thus far, it began in the 7th grade, way back when. For a science fair, I tried to harmonize the Biblical account of creation with Darwinian evolution. Mind you, to this point I had heard of no other efforts in this direction, and I sure had no idea how controversial the matter would come to be. I was 12.

Needless to say, my project was universally panned by all of the judges. So, now you had a honor student accustomed to getting high marks in class, being effectively humiliated in a public forum like a school science fair. No reason given, just basically laughed out the door (figuratively).

Ordinarily, I would probably have dropped the subject and gone on to other things. But the subject strikes two central points of my being, my belief and my understanding. If my belief is not true, in the sense of factual and real, then why believe? If my understanding is ommitting certain elements for lack of "proof," then that must too be considered. I wish to believe the truth, whatever that truth turns out to be. Not a manufactured and convenient truth (this applies to both sides of the equation), but the factual reality of what really composes the universe we live in. I grew to not accept "truth" without "fact." That is where I stand today.

Over the years I have come to realize the politics and emotions that play into the subject. I try very hard to divorce myself from such nonsense. It gets very frustrating when I get repeatedly accused of some ulterior agenda, when such has never been the case. Yes, I am sure certain buzz words and catch phrases have made their way into my vocabulary, it is impossible not to. Certain logical phrases are bound to arise of their own. What people do with those phrases politically, is another story altogether I have gone to lengths to avoid. Still, I frequently get accused, or "labelled." Yet, my study is, and always has been, independent. I refuse to be subservient either to science or institutional religion in this seach.

(*Proof is an element of logic. Proof is another word for evidence. Kinda hard to convict someone without evidence.-jt3) Yet this is what is done to God all the time.

You lost me. Are you trying to say God is convicted without evidence all the time?

If God in some sense is real, and I have personal subjective experience that leads me in that direction, then "He" can handle being questioned. And I would think there would be circumstantial evidence that points in "His" direction. It is about interpretation. Science will not interpret evidence towards God for a list of reasons, not least of which is political undermining of the underlying premise that God is not required. Institutional religion likewise will not interpret evidence against God for political reasons that would undermine the underlying infrastructure and premise institutional religion is built upon. There is a great deal at stake for both, and neither is prepared to submit to the authority of the other.

Frankly, I do not see why either one has to submit. But that is the political choice both sides have made.

In fairness, I do realize now that there are some within both disciplines that have come to the same realization, that neither science nor religion must submit to the other. But even then it appears to me this is a matter of convenience, of trying to keep the peace between the two. I am beyond all of that, I could care less. My search is not about proving one or the other "wrong." My search is for the truth. The real, hard, genuine, factual truth. Everything else is superfluous.

That was my tangent. Does it have to have relevance?

Very well, I still do not follow the tangent.

There are ways to say there is God without actually saying the word God.

OK, how do you suggest? That is the question I have posed of our Buddhist friends. So if you have a better solution, I'm all ears.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

of course well all know that Evolution never, ever, proposes anything by "chance", right? that is a typical CreationISM adherent argument.

Oh, do we? What is chaos and randomness if not chance? What is a cosmic crapshoot if not chance?

You wish myself and others not to attribute things to you or label you. The same courtesy would be appreciated, thanks.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Earl!

Eisnstein had said "God doesn't play dice with the universe" to which Stephen Hawking replied that not only did God play dice with the universe, but sometimes threw them where they couldn't be seen, (don't actually know what their own religious views were but they obviously had no trouble using the term God-do know Einstein was rather impressed with Buddhism).

From what I understand, and I am open to correction, Einstein was Jewish. I have also heard of his interest in Buddhist philosophy. Hawking, from what little I have seen, is an academic raw atheist. Brilliant man, no doubt, but I sense the term "God" to him was an abstract impossibility to begin with...so the use of the term in the quote rendered I would think to imply not belief, but aquiescense, of appeal to a common mythos.

I don't buy into traditional creationist thesis-life is too mysterious for that.

I suspect it may surprize many here that I too do not "buy into" traditional creationist ideas.

But "chance" may be looked at from many angles and levels of meaning; e.g., when chance ultimately leads to something deemed positive regardless of how many steps & phases it passes through to get there, in retrospect, seems like a wise & sentient, perhaps even loving & compassionate thing to have occurred .

An interesting view I had not considered.

 

[Vajradhara]

b'shalom juan,

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!


Oh, do we? What is chaos and randomness if not chance? What is a cosmic crapshoot if not chance?

yes, Juan, we do. of course, this is true only if we have studied Evolutionary theory. i suppose that if that hasn't happened, then those beings could labor under the misconception that Evolution proposes some sort of "randomness" or "chance" in how it works.

nevertheless, it is a common CreationISM adherent strawman about how evolution is understood to work.

clearly, as science isn't in the business of making static statements, when our information changes and our understanding increases, we will (i am sure) continue to update and modify the ToE to correspond with the continuing data that we are collecting.

also, let us not confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis, though i understand that this is often done by CreationISM adherents. i really cannot understand why this is so since these theories are quite different things and talk about wholly different subjects.

You wish myself and others not to attribute things to you or label you. The same courtesy would be appreciated, thanks.

and if you could find where i have done that, i would apologize and cease in such activity. however, i have not labled you nor anyone else, Juan. i have, rather, described a "generic" group of beings which you may or may not be part of.

the comment that precipitated my post was this:

"How do you approach those who do not believe or understand a creator, to whom "life and the myriad of creations" is the result of chance and circumstance from a primordial cesspool? "

which seems to be a mischaracterization of the views of beings like myself.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Kelcie,

thank you for the post.

Hi Vajradhara,

Ive pondered over your comments however I dont understand what they mean Would you like to elaborate please. Perhaps these are new concepts to me I dont know??

Thanks
Kelcie

well.... basically, Abiogenesis and Evolution are different theories that talk about different stuff.

more directly, the ToE does not propose that evolution is random or a result of chance, which seems to be the view put forth in the comment which i was addressing.

this is, however, a subject which is more properly discussed in the Science forum as it were. however, as we are here... you may be interested in this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

metta,

~v

 

[earl]

Kindest Regards, Earl!


From what I understand, and I am open to correction, Einstein was Jewish. I have also heard of his interest in Buddhist philosophy. Hawking, from what little I have seen, is an academic raw atheist. Brilliant man, no doubt, but I sense the term "God" to him was an abstract impossibility to begin with...so the use of the term in the quote rendered I would think to imply not belief, but aquiescense, of appeal to a common mythos.


I suspect it may surprize many here that I too do not "buy into" traditional creationist ideas.


An interesting view I had not considered.

I have heard it said about tapestries that, of course, when 1 looks on the non-pictoral or non-patterned side of them, we see nothing but meaningless threads. It is only when we look at the other side that a meaningful picture emerges. I think of God as being the pattern which connects the seemingly unrelated and "chance" elements into some form of patterned whole. The tough thing for humanity is that while God supplies the thread, (& if we're sufficiently attuned, the pattern), we are expected to do the sewing. God probably is in the details if we only know how and where to look, whether that tapestry thread is the endless Celtic knot or endless threads of Tantra-sorry V but when it comes to this topic just love getting poetic, metaphoric, & tend to look for how to tie up seemingly disparate "threads" into the single tapestry. Take care, Earl

 

[earl]

I neglected to add an important caveat when I mentioned in passing Andrew Cohen & his notion of evoultionary elightenment, which I think has great merit: this is not necessarily an endorsement of the man himself. There are some recent articles exposing the personal side of the man to suggest he is a con man at best & may even meet the definition of a cult leader, so before you send the man any money or join his organization, buyer beware He publishes a decently respected magazine, though, "What is Enlightenment?" While he puts himself forth as enlightened-i am automatically skeptical of any self-promoter, but especially 1 advertizing him or herself as enlightened-his actual behavior might call that into doubt at the least, though when 1 thinks of all the more legitimate supposedly enlightened eastern buddhist teachers who started teaching organizations in the US in late 60's, early 70's & displayed various significant personal ethical problems over the years, not to mention similar home-grown american buddhist teachers, the entire notion of whether 1 can be enlightened and still screw up almost becomes an interesting theoretical possiblity which has been a topic in various Buddhists media, but I digress-simply wanted to share with any who may check this A. Cohen out in any depth that what he says on paper may be worthwhile to ponder, but beware of the man himself! Don't want to inadvertently be the cause of anyone getting sucked into a cult-or even have their $ ripped off Take care, Earl

 

[Kelcie]

Hi juantoo3

Excellent Points!

True. However, are not Christians taught to plant a seed? If it is meant for the seed to grow, it will in its own good time.

Yes we may plant the seeds of truth and with enough water and sunlight to nourish the seed it will begin to grow. Often times more than not however, when one wants to offer nourishment to the seed, a little too much water can do a lot of damage to the potential of that seed and the seed can very well die from over watering. Nature in its wisdom knows if or when the seeds need nurturing and takes care of this process accordingly.
In other words, when Christians and the true nature of man work in unison the results can be very beneficial for the seeds growth. Regardless, each seed grows at a different rate and as you say in its own time.

Logic works much the same way. .

Agreed but all too often the logic negates that there is a true nature of man, and therefore does not work with it and the growth is less beneficial.

I get repeatedly accused of some ulterior agenda, when such has never been the case.

Am I accusing you of something? Or perhaps this just your tangent?

Yet, my study is, and always has been, independent. I refuse to be subservient either to science or institutional religion in this seach.

I am a great believer in independent study. I see this as a good thing.

You lost me. Are you trying to say God is convicted without evidence all the time?

Yes. The bible and history has shown that God has been blamed for all sorts of non- niceties that have occurred. Is this not convicting him without evidence? Where is the evidence except, that which was written about or spoken of by man? We both know you cannot prove Gods existence objectively, yet we are led to believe by man that their word is evidence enough?

My search is for the truth. The real, hard, genuine, factual truth.

Thats great. This is inherent in everyone.

OK, how do you suggest?

Okay…. they are not necessarily better solutions you may take them as you wish. Some off the cuff examples to try to illustrate my meaning.

Isn’t the power of creation marvellous – When you are seeing a newborn babe being delivered (creation=God)

Or
The power of love is a truly powerful force – When you are watching a person perform selfless acts of love. (Love=God)

Or
The inherent healing ability in you has bought about a very speedy recovery for you hasn’t it? – When you observe a person getting well a lot quicker than most others would. (Healing=God)


For me it does not have to be a powerful sermon to point out where God dwells. As the bible says “the simple will confound the wise” (or something like that) and it is in this simpleness that we can learn about and dwell with God. God is not as complex as we think; it is us that make God complex.


Kelcie

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

the comment that precipitated my post was this:

"How do you approach those who do not believe or understand a creator, to whom "life and the myriad of creations" is the result of chance and circumstance from a primordial cesspool? "

which seems to be a mischaracterization of the views of beings like myself.

Ah...now it begins to make sense. I am sorry if you took my comment as a slight, I assure it was not in any way intended as such. In fact, in my mind at the time I wrote I was specifically thinking of raw atheists, not including Buddhism.

Of course, I struggle with things like this often. Sadly, it seems mostly with you. I try. I mean, I really sit and think about what I wish to say in the most unoffensive way, and be damned if I don't still get it wrong! There is no winning. Those who are determined to find fault will never be satisfied. No matter how I word a phrase, it will be turned back 180 degrees and thrown in my face. I guess that's what I get for trying to write a thesis by committee. Seems Ayn Rand must have been right afterall.

Now, I want very much to move on. I have tried my level best, including cooling my heels for a couple of days, and still there is no winning with you. I reach out to you, you bite my hand. How many more times will I continue to reach out? As long as you continue to see slights where none are intended, or in fact implied, there is no way to have a meaningful dialogue. I got the tit for tat stuff out of my system already. Move along.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Earl!

I have heard it said about tapestries that, of course, when 1 looks on the non-pictoral or non-patterned side of them, we see nothing but meaningless threads. It is only when we look at the other side that a meaningful picture emerges. I think of God as being the pattern which connects the seemingly unrelated and "chance" elements into some form of patterned whole. The tough thing for humanity is that while God supplies the thread, (& if we're sufficiently attuned, the pattern), we are expected to do the sewing. God probably is in the details if we only know how and where to look, whether that tapestry thread is the endless Celtic knot or endless threads of Tantra-sorry V but when it comes to this topic just love getting poetic, metaphoric, & tend to look for how to tie up seemingly disparate "threads" into the single tapestry. Take care, Earl

Awesome! Love it. Especially about "God probably is in the details." That is perhaps the most poetic way I have heard my thoughts in this expressed to date. Thanks.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kelcie!

we may plant the seeds of truth and with enough water and sunlight to nourish the seed it will begin to grow. Often times more than not however, when one wants to offer nourishment to the seed, a little too much water can do a lot of damage to the potential of that seed and the seed can very well die from over watering. Nature in its wisdom knows if or when the seeds need nurturing and takes care of this process accordingly.
In other words, when Christians and the true nature of man work in unison the results can be very beneficial for the seeds growth. Regardless, each seed grows at a different rate and as you say in its own time.

I have a little bit different take on this, I hope you will not mind me sharing. Nobody, Christians included, can make a seed grow. That is up to God. If, and I stress the word "if," it is part of our course to tend that seed, then we have opportunity to, as you say, water it. Much more often, in my experience, the seed is planted as we travel. I have a mental image of Johnny Appleseed, hiking along the path of life, busily planting seeds where it seemed good to do so. Sometimes he might have opportunity to come back around and look after a tree he planted, but most he never sees again. The growing is in God's hands. Nobody can force a seed to grow. Nobody can claim that they are the reason a seed sprouts. When given the opportunity, they can be thankful they have been blessed to tend a seed, to nurture it and watch it grow. But the growing is God's.

Agreed but all too often the logic negates that there is a true nature of man, and therefore does not work with it and the growth is less beneficial.

OK, so I am clear, "true nature of man?" Do you mean "human nature?" Because, if anything, I see science and logic working specifically, some might even say only, with human nature.

Or perhaps this just your tangent?

Yeah. Sorry.

The bible and history has shown that God has been blamed for all sorts of non- niceties that have occurred. Is this not convicting him without evidence? Where is the evidence except, that which was written about or spoken of by man? We both know you cannot prove Gods existence objectively, yet we are led to believe by man that their word is evidence enough?

Ah! I see where you are going now. Good point.

I thought about adding a disclaimer earlier, but I felt it would distract from what I wanted to get at. Yes, in practice people are convicted a lot of the time on hearsay and emotion. In principle it is not supposed to be that way. But it happens. Chalk yet another up to human nature. We are very easily swayed by emotional appeals. Just like cattle...

(*My search is for the truth. The real, hard, genuine, factual truth.-jt3) Thats great. This is inherent in everyone.

Oh, that it were so...

Okay…. they are not necessarily better solutions you may take them as you wish. Some off the cuff examples to try to illustrate my meaning.

Yeah, ummm, these are appeals to authority, like I said earlier. Nice when in the confines of one faith. Useless outside of that preset box of parameters.

So yes, I am sure the awe and majesty of nature, something like a birth, has an inherent meaning to any person with a soul and drawing breath. But that inherent meaning is not necessarily God, at least not in the Christian sense.

For me it does not have to be a powerful sermon to point out where God dwells. As the bible says “the simple will confound the wise” (or something like that) and it is in this simpleness that we can learn about and dwell with God. God is not as complex as we think; it is us that make God complex.

I find myself in agreement with you here, on a personal level. Yes, we tend to make God more complex than He really needs to be. I think we add to and take away from, and over time paint Him in our own image, the image we desire Him to be, rather than appreciating Him as He IS. Rough spots, warts and all.

 

[Kelcie]

you may be interested in this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

metta,

~v

Hi Vjradhara,

Thank you for the link.

Kelcie