YOU think you're God? Then I must be God to...That raises a question...

If I don't believe in myself, is that blasphemy?

This can get quite deep. Depending on what you mean by 'design'.

If you design a pair of dice and you toss them and a four comes up. Did you "design" the four?

Well, clearly if you designed the dice, you designed them in a way that a four could potentially come up. But when you rolled the dice, even you as the designer did not know that a four would necessarily come up. Although you did know that it was a possibility and that something like 3.5 was not.

If this universe was 'designed' it was designed in it's ability to evolve into many different things. Evolution IS a process of design in the very same way that rolling a pair of dice is a process of design. Only numbers on the dice can come up. So that's the 'design'. In this way, evolution IS a process of design.

The real question is, did someone design the dice? Or did they just occur by accident?

Blasphemy is nothing more than disrespect. If you don't believe in yourself then yes, you are disrespecting yourself, and so that would be blaspheme.

Um abra...Don't tell anyone this but, that was joke. I never wanted anyone to take it seriously.

The hippie movement was embracing bliss and ignorance or one in the same, although with good intentions.

There is an actual church in Egypt whose original founder was one of the apostles of Jesus. Imagine a bible that was unchanged by the power hungry of the past and now ignored by mainstream religion.

Once upon a time, there was a place that people could meet and learn about the world and other people's beliefs and customs, the sharing of scientfic knowledge and the philosophy of the world. Anybody, regardless of race or belief could travel there and learn.

Sounds like the internet right? See how far we have come with understanding each other and communicating in the last 15 years? Imagine if that free sharing of knowledge was available in some form for the last Two Thousand years. What kind of world would we now live in? But it was destroyed and it's curator's hunted down, all for the sake of control.

I could argue that YES the dice did occur by accident.

You see there was this tornado and it went through a plastic factory it then blew into the office where people do paper work and knocked over some ink which then blew onto the dice and made perfect dots.

That's evolution.

good points

the context in which I use design is this
to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan

when I qualify that with the 'intelligent', I am implying that the outcome is intentional and not merely circumstantial

IS there a third option, where God created things to EVOLVE, certainly

but when used as mutually exclusive concepts, the thought that the world merely APPEARED and people merely CAME INTO our facilities and capabilities by chance is no more logical/illogical than the thought that a Creator DESIGNED the world as it is and the people and everything else that inhabits it

There are endless examples. I'll just give you a few.

1 Adam and Eve supposedly didn't possess the knowledge of Good and Evil before they ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore it would have been impossible for them to have understood that to disobey God and eat that fruit would be an evil thing to do. So they could only have committed that act in a state of pure innocence. This kills the entire fable before it even gets off the ground.

2. The Hebrews accused the Egyptians and Canaanites of refusing to worship and obey their creator God, yet both of these cultures were indeed worshiping what they believed to be their creator God.

3. These fables claim that God is unchanging. Yet this God deals with the sins of mankind at one point by flooding out all the sinners, then later he supposedly sends his only begotten son to be crucified to pay for the sins of man. That would be a total character reversal for a supposedly unchanging God to have undergone.

So their is nothing about these stories in the big picture that makes any logical sense at all.

And like I say the list goes on and on, there are tons of illogical things about these stories. The very fact that a supposedly "righteous God" would condemn souls for simply no believing in these convoluted hearsay rumors of the New Testament is a gross absurdity and contradiction to the very meaning of "righteousness" IMHO.

And the entire New Testament is indeed nothing more than hearsay rumors. It doesn't contain an single solitary word that was actually written by Jesus himself.

That, to me, is just yet another blatant absurdity and something that I feel would be totally illogical for a God to do. If Jesus had such an important message for all of mankind why not write it down in his own words? Why leave it up to belated hearsay rumors? Rumors that even the Jews themselves did not accept!

Also, why would the creator of ALL HUMANITY only speak to the Jews?

Why not speak to all cultures all over the world? All religions should say the same thing if there was any truly conscious God who is attempting to communicate with humanity as a whole. But we don't see this.

In fact, even the Jews themselves reject Christianity and the idea that Jesus was the ultimate sacrificial lamb of God.

God's favorite people don't even buy into Christianity?

That's about as illogical as things can get!

We're supposed to believe that all Jews have turned against God and hate God?

Clearly they don't!

Clearly they continue to worship their old doctrine.

So there's nothing even remotely logical or consistent about Christianity.

Does anybody ever entertain the thought of trying to prove the existance of a supreme being aka God with the use of science?

Typical arguements for God are bereft of scientific like explaination while typical arguements against the existance of God ignore the possibility of the unexplained.

Truly, if God does exist, and we were created in his or should we say it's image(what need would God have for a gender?) would not all of the possible answers be within us? If so, we have the ability to prove God, to explain God, or to dismiss God.

Well that's truly a shame.

Why is that shame? Jokes make people feel good for a short time.

umm.... yes it is.

You have to define "GOD" first.



All the answers are within us. Extracting the information is the problem.

It's a shame that you think it's a joke.

If you have no respect or love for yourself, how are you ever going to have respect or love for anyone else?

Disbelief in yourself is indeed blaspheme. It's no joke.

I agree with Jeanniebean. Before you can prove anything using a scientific method you must first have a very clear definition of what it is your are attempting to prove or disprove.

Using a pantheistic definition of "god" or "spirit" I feel confident that I can show plausibility arguments for spirit based on the scientific method and on our current understanding of physics.

From that's my point of view that's all I need to do. I don't need to prove existence, I only need to show plausibility (or scientific possibility) which then leaves the case OPEN from a scientific perspective. And that is sufficient for me.

Of course, it would be nice to be able to proof specific properties about the true nature of spirit, but our current scientific knowledge of physics simply doesn't permit those kind of proofs, but it doesn't rule them out either.

Now when we turn to the biblical picture of God, I feel no need to even bring science into the picture. As far as I'm concerned the story is self-contradicting and has not self-merit and can easily be disproved because it violates it's own premises of what God must be like.

If we then turn Scientific knowledge toward the Biblical stories they vaporize even further. For example, death, disease and natural disasters (and thorns on plants) existed long before mankind appeared on planet Earth. So the idea that mankind's fall from grace was responsible for bringing these things into the world is not tenable. That's merely one example, there are many others.

So from a scientific point of view it's my conclusion that a pantheistic view of spirit is at least plausible.

The biblical fables of God (at least taken as the verbatim word of the entire biblical cannon) is totally out of the question. Having said that, there may be some spiritual truths mingled in among these fables, just as their may be some spiritual truths mixed in with any creation fables. But that doesn't automatically make the entire biblical cannon of fables the "verbatim word of God". I passionately reject that notion on the grounds that it's not even remotely reasonable in it's own stories, much less when compared with scientific knowledge.

So pantheism - maybe.

The Abrahamic religions - no way.

I'm an Unbeliever/agnostic, and I did, in fact, die briefly. And if anything, the experience left me more agnostic than ever.

As to the 'anger' part of your statement, consider that some places STILL have unconstitutional laws that attempt to ban taxpaying atheist citizens from being elected officials. If the atheists tried this, the Christians would be HOWLINGLY MAD at the injustice. But many seem to think this is ok, that it's 'God's Will'.


-Kerry O.

You are god. (in the same way as is Abra... Or in the same way the I AM...

Belief in oneself can only come from I am.

If we are god, who created us then? Who/what created the matter that makes up all the universe. Who/what created everything that even made it possible for us to sprout up out of no where? Basically who/what created all the matter in the universe, planets, molecules, atoms, ect?

Why the very same source that gives God existence, of course.

That should be obvious.

Think about that question for a while Cowboy.

"If we are god, who created us then?"

Well, if God is God who created God then?

It's the very same question. Just change "we" to "God" and it doesn't change a thing.