Feed on Posts or Comments 18 April 2014

Christianity &Science Johnson on 15 Sep 2008 02:12 pm

Question for Christians: Do you believe in the Large Hadron Collider? And what does that mean?

The Large Hadron Collider represents a triumph of science. This video will explain what the collider is hoping to accomplish:

This one explains how it works:

Also see: Large Hadron Collider

The Large Hadron Collider is the “largest and most complex scientific experiment” ever built. Perhaps $10 billion has been spent on its construction. It involves five different accelerators linked in a chain, each bigger than the last, culminating in the main LHC ring which lives in an immense underground tunnel that is 17 miles in circumference. The ring consists of two separate pipes held at near absolute vacuum, each containing protons that are accelerated to 99.999999% the speed of light. More than a thousand superconducting magnets held near absolute zero (1.9 degrees K, the temperature of liquid helium) keep the protons following the circular path.

Once accelerated to full speed, the protons then collide in one of four massive instruments that can detect and measure the debris that comes off the collision. At the moment of collision, a pair of protons has a combined energy of 14 trillion electron volts.

Imagine the amount of science and engineering that went into the creation of a facility like this. Imagine the amount of time spent designing, checking and constructing its millions of parts. Imagine the triumph of having all of it work exactly as expected.

Now the first question: As a Christian, do you believe that The Large Hadron Collider actually exists? You probably do. If you were to seriously doubt its existence, you could actually travel to CERN and see for yourself.

If you do believe in the LHC, here is something to consider. The same kind of scientists and the same scientific process that built the Large Hadron Collider are also working on evolution. Except that there are far more scientists working on evolution, because evolution encompasses so many different disciplines. These scientists work on learning about evolution with the same rigor and determination that went into the LHC. They have amassed a gigantic amount of evidence from many different specialties.

The second question: Why do you believe in the LHC, but you deny the whole idea of the evolution of species? What prevents you from seeing that science is science? Why would you believe that the scientists working on the LHC are so competent and inspired, while those working on evolution are blundering imbeciles bent on a satanic mission? Why are you so afraid of reality that you would take a position like denying the fact of evolution, proven out in thousands of different ways over the span of decades by a truly astonishing amount of evidence? Why won’t you look at the actual evidence so that you can see for yourself that it is real and true, just like the LHC?

Or let’s say that you are an “enlightened Christian”. You believe in evolution AND Christianity. Why can’t you accept the reality that the creation myth in the Bible is just a myth? And so is Noah’s flood. And by simple extrapolation, Jesus and his whole “eternal life” silliness are myths as well, as demonstrated in these two videos:

Everything about Christianity is nothing but mythology. Why do you hold a religion full of meaningless mythology so dear?

Simply think about it for a bit. Either way, your belief in Christianity is meaningless because Christianity is nothing but mythology. The mythology surrounding God and Jesus is no different from the mythology surrounding Zeus or Ra. (If you disagree with this statement, please take a moment to leave a comment and explain your logic, as many people would be very interested in hearing what you have to say.)

On the other hand, if you are a Christian and you are beginning to understand that worshipping a mythological tri-God is a waste of your time, this web site can help lead you down the path of enlightenment:

- Whywontgodhealamputees.com


46 Responses to “Question for Christians: Do you believe in the Large Hadron Collider? And what does that mean?”

  1. on 15 Sep 2008 at 3:07 pm 1.SteveK said …

    Oh, this is just rich!

    So far I’ve spotted the genetic fallacy, begging the question, false dilemma, strawman and appeal to authority. I’m sure there are others. What a waste of cyber ink.

  2. on 15 Sep 2008 at 3:32 pm 2.PSR said …

    “Science is Science”

    Perfect!

  3. on 15 Sep 2008 at 3:32 pm 3.PSR said …

    SteveK,

    Do you believe in the LHC? Why or why not?

  4. on 15 Sep 2008 at 4:07 pm 4.SteveK said …

    I do because I have evidence that justifies this belief.

  5. on 15 Sep 2008 at 4:58 pm 5.kh said …

    Very simple to show the difference here. Evolution of the type you are discussing in the formation of humans is a PAST event, not observable, not provable. It’s not a present scientific construction, but a THEORY.

    INTERSTING side note: You talk of all the effort, precision, intellect and manpower that went into creating the LHC. Do you think that it could have come together randomly, by chance? Now do you think the world, or the human body, could have come together randomly, by chance?

    No Way.

  6. on 15 Sep 2008 at 4:59 pm 6.kh said …

    Nor do I think those brilliant scientists happen ‘by chance.’ :)

  7. on 15 Sep 2008 at 5:40 pm 7.Brian E said …

    kh,

    First, anybody that calls evolution ‘just a theory’ needs to go back to 8th grade science class and understand what this really means. Perhaps you need to start at a page like this.

    Second, you make the pathetic watchmaker argument, which has been refuted a thousand times over. Read, learn, and evolve.

    SteveK, if you’ve ever been to a library you’ve been surrounded by more evidence for evolution than you could hope to absorb in your lifetime. To deny this is as silly as denying that the LHC exists. That’s the point of this post!

  8. on 15 Sep 2008 at 5:44 pm 8.Brian E said …

    Additionally kh, evolution is observed all the time. Here is one recent example that creationists are still scrambling all over themselves trying to disprove and discredit.

  9. on 15 Sep 2008 at 5:52 pm 9.SteveK said …

    “SteveK, if you’ve ever been to a library you’ve been surrounded by more evidence for evolution than you could hope to absorb in your lifetime. To deny this is as silly as denying that the LHC exists. That’s the point of this post! ”

    I never said I don’t believe in evolution. I will say that I don’t believe certain definitions of evolution are correct.

  10. on 15 Sep 2008 at 6:20 pm 10.kh said …

    Brian E,

    So, you really do think the LHC could happen randomly, by chance? And the human body, too?

    And even though Evolution is just a theory, you believe it’s proven fact? You cannot prove that man evolved. IMPOSSIBLE to prove. You can cite theories and evidence, but you cannot prove it.

  11. on 15 Sep 2008 at 9:07 pm 11.lil tom said …

    kh,

    >”You talk of all the effort, precision, intellect and manpower that went into creating the LHC. Do you think that it could have come together randomly, by chance? Now do you think the world, or the human body, could have come together randomly, by chance?”

    the hilarious thing is that science never makes the claim that things evolved randomly by chance. when creationists use this flimsy argument, it only clarifies that they do not understand how natural selection works.

    further, the idea that a creator made us out of dirt is for a thinking person a bit hard to swallow. you are simply left with so much more to explain. who created the creator? did he come from something or nothing? it simply doesn’t explain anything.

    Creationists love to ignore/dodge the most glaring hole in their claim: INFINITE REGRESSION. there is no way around the issue, yet I have never heard a remotely compelling explanation.

    >You cannot prove that man evolved. IMPOSSIBLE to prove. You can cite theories and evidence, but you cannot prove it.

    that is hilarious. I guess you don’t believe in gravity, germ theory, that the earth is round and revolves around the sun…

  12. on 15 Sep 2008 at 9:35 pm 12.Brian E said …

    “kh: So, you really do think the LHC could happen randomly, by chance? And the human body, too?”

    Did you even read the link I gave you? It would help answer your own question. Do I believe the LHC could happen randomly. No. It does not reproduce. It has no mechanism for creation. A human body does. Proteins form, and create cells. Cells that divide. Cells that form organisms that reproduce. Are you truly incapable of understanding this fundamental difference?

    “kh: You cannot prove that man evolved”

    Yes, I can. Every single organism on the planet is evolving, right now. Mutations, genetic drifts, natural selection,and more all play a part in an organism evolution, even for humans, even right now!

    What you have a problem with is getting from single-celled organisms to complex, multi-celled organisms. And there is plenty of proof for this as well.

    What you need to understand is that there will NEVER be any evidence discovered that DISPROVES evolution. We will only find more proof that strengthens the theory; not the other way around.

  13. on 15 Sep 2008 at 9:44 pm 13.lil tom said …

    imagine for a moment a time when humans believed (quite intuitively) that the sun moved around the earth. before the advent of science, we had to accept things as they either seemed to be, or how we imagined them to be. so it would have been perfectly acceptable to assume that the sun was GOD (as historically seems to be the case in many cultures).
    so we have some sungod worshipers. now millenia have passed with this belief firmly in place before science comes along and conclusively proves that we simply aren’t the center of the universe. Experiment after experiment, they can demonstrate this. I think it’s safe to assume that the sun worshipers didn’t abandon their belief as soon as science showed the extreme unlikelihood of a star being their omnipotent ruler. they probably fought the heretics of the sun god, much as the christians are doing now with scientists now. In fact even today, in supposedly educated places like the US, many people still believe the sun moves around the earth, or that the earth is flat.
    Humans simply want to hang on to the idea that they are the reason everything else exists. All of our mythology supports this hope, yet none of it holds up as we learn more about our universe.

  14. on 15 Sep 2008 at 9:52 pm 14.SteveK said …

    “Creationists love to ignore/dodge the most glaring hole in their claim: INFINITE REGRESSION. there is no way around the issue, yet I have never heard a remotely compelling explanation.”

    What the heck? Christians offer an eternal God as the ‘solution’ to this so-called glaring hole that the naturalist believers are trying to plug. The eternal nature of God is at the forefront of the Christian faith so it’s silly to say this issue is ignored. ‘Proclaimed’ would be a better way to put it.

    By contrast, it’s the naturalist that has rather difficult solution to the infinite regress question, who made the dirt? They can point to a belief in a nebulous, eternal natural world that “always was and always will be. An unintelligent world that “in the beginning” created everything, including the dirt. The Church of Naturalism.

  15. on 15 Sep 2008 at 9:57 pm 15.lil tom said …

    AN INTERESTING EXPERIMENT FOR CREATIONISTS TO TRY

    tell you what.. if you are a truly compassionate person, try this experiment. If you consider yourself a fairly rational thinker and you want to get a sense of where these atheists might be coming from (if even only to better your argument) then please…

    visit
    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php

    this is a message board for the flat earth society. try explaining in any rational terms you know how that the earth is indeed spherical and you will be met with the same challenge we atheists are met with here. Your challenge is to try to convince at least ONE flat earther that we truly know the earth is NOT flat. Just try it. You may be amazed.

  16. on 15 Sep 2008 at 10:24 pm 16.SteveK said …

    Johnson is the equivalent of the flat earther so we need not go to other websites to take on this challenge.

  17. on 15 Sep 2008 at 11:50 pm 17.lil tom said …

    steveK, I had a feeling you’d be afraid to try. It was a sincere attempt to level the playing field a bit. You see, I myself was once a religious person. I’ve been on your side of the fence, trying to argue away reason and science. I didn’t have much choice as I was brought up in the faith. I ate every spoonful they fed me until I began to learn how to think rationally and ask the obvious questions (I was of course told that even to ask such questions was to doubt and therefor to sin). I wanted to learn about other religions and was told that was sinful as well.
    I left. needing to fill the void (and it IS hard to accept that a past belief full of promises is not true. Especially when it’s taught to you from birth) I began studying other religions only to find that they all had the same problems. and there are just so many of them! eventually I accepted a fairly non-dogmatic buddhist derived meditation practice that focused 90% of its teachings on meditation technique alone. this helped me understand that it takes no faith whatsoever to have a “spiritual” experience (for lack of a better word). I don’t believe any of the miraculous claims of buddhism any more than those of the quran or the bible. Indeed, through meditation I learned so much about myself and my perception of the world that I could have never learned any other way. The thing is, it worked without presupposing a single thing about the universe or the origin of life. It led me to my love of science and the expansive (and utterly beautiful) view of our universe it allows us.

    the suggestion to try this experiment is genuine.
    if you claim to have an open mind and consider yourself a fairly rational person, capable of explaining something as simple as the shape of the earth, then please take a moment to try it.

    just visit:
    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php
    and simply try to explain the actual shape of the earth to somebody on the forum.

  18. on 16 Sep 2008 at 3:38 am 18.SteveK said …

    “I had a feeling you’d be afraid to try.”

    I tried but so far Johnson doesn’t want to come out from behind the curtain to discuss it. What am I supposed to do?

    “I’ve been on your side of the fence, trying to argue away reason and science.”

    Then you’ve never been on my side of the fence. On my side, I try to argue using common sense logic, reason, science, theology and philosophy as my tools of choice. Quite different than the picture you’ve painted.

    “I didn’t have much choice as I was brought up in the faith.”

    Strange comment this is. I was brought up in the faith and knew I could choose to dump it. I still know that today.

    “this helped me understand that it takes no faith whatsoever to have a “spiritual” experience (for lack of a better word)”

    God doesn’t require faith before the ‘spiritual experience’ starts. If that were the case then I suspect nobody would ever come to understand God.

    “Indeed, through meditation I learned so much about myself and my perception of the world that I could have never learned any other way. ”

    Ahhh, he finally admits that science isn’t the gatekeeper of all knowledge. That ordinary people can have actual knowledge of themselves and the reality they live in without donning a lab coat or firing up a LHC.

    “if you claim to have an open mind and consider yourself a fairly rational person, capable of explaining something as simple as the shape of the earth, then please take a moment to try it.”

    No thanks. You can lead a horse to water, but…well, you know the rest.

  19. on 16 Sep 2008 at 6:09 am 19.lil tom said …

    steveK,

    you have managed to misconstrue every statement I’ve made. you seem to be very good at that.

    >“I didn’t have much choice as I was brought up in the faith.”

    >Strange comment this is. I was brought up in the faith and knew I could choose to dump it. I still know that today.

    I suppose you think it would have been better for me to stay within a faith that taught it was sinful to even begin to question its veracity? yes, you certainly are a fan of reason, aren’t you…
    it is simply unethical to force religion on children. or any dogma for that matter. you poor thing. it is so ingrained in you you don’t even realize it. religion is very much like a disease or a terrible addiction in this way. It’s just that much harder to kick when it was instilled in the most formative years of your life.
    I wonder why you’re here.. you’re obviously not here to try to convert anybody (haha). I sincerely hope you make it out one day.

    >God doesn’t require faith before the ’spiritual experience’ starts. If that were the case then I suspect nobody would ever come to understand God.

    that explains absolutely nothing. if one can have spiritual experience which leads him to understand deeply that there is no god (or to many different gods for various others), then how could you make the claim that the “spirit” is from god?
    why would I only have a spiritual experience AFTER I left the church and began such an unchristian thing as meditation? why was the experience more powerful than anything I’d experienced during my 20 years as a christian?

    >Ahhh, he finally admits that science isn’t the gatekeeper of all knowledge. That ordinary people can have actual knowledge of themselves and the reality they live in without donning a lab coat or firing up a LHC.

    listen up. what I do admit is that it isn’t necessary to believe anything to have what might be called a spiritual experience. I make no claims about science based on my personal experience with meditation. It in no way informs the origin of the universe or the reason for the existence of life. I feel no need to spin tales of my own or believe tales of others that are based on anything other than reality.
    so although I have experienced brain states that have helped me in my life, nothing therein supersedes the knowledge humans have obtained through real science. Insights, yes. Answers to life’s mysteries, no. I’ll leave those to science. I’ll let you in on a secret: the scientific method is available to everyone. no lab coat or LHC required. try it out sometime!

    >On my side, I try to argue using common sense logic, reason, science, theology and philosophy as my tools of choice.

    well, then you should have no problem using those tools to show a flat earther that the world is not flat. until you’ve taken the challenge, you won’t truly understand how futile it is to use REASON and SCIENCE to debate a deluded believer – no matter what the belief and no matter how much evidence you can supply.
    creationism smells a lot like a flat earth theory, and has about as much true science to back it up. good luck!

  20. on 16 Sep 2008 at 1:02 pm 20.SteveK said …

    “I suppose you think it would have been better for me to stay within a faith that taught it was sinful to even begin to question its veracity?”

    Of course not.

    “it is simply unethical to force religion on children. or any dogma for that matter.”

    Unethical according to who or what? Certainly not according to my faith, nor according law nor according to moral relativism.

    “why would I only have a spiritual experience AFTER I left the church and began such an unchristian thing as meditation?”

    I don’t know why. Where did you get the idea that meditation was unchristian? I get the suspicion your parents sold you a bill of goods as a kid and you correctly recognized it was messed up in some way. However you made the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

    “well, then you should have no problem using those tools to show a flat earther that the world is not flat.”

    I’ve tried that in the past. The horse didn’t drink.

    “creationism smells a lot like a flat earth theory, and has about as much true science to back it up.”

    What would the empirical evidence look like for creationism?

  21. on 16 Sep 2008 at 2:45 pm 21.VeridicusX said …

    @SteveK (mostly)

    >> “Creationists love to ignore/dodge the most glaring hole in their claim: INFINITE REGRESSION. there is no way around the issue, yet I have never heard a remotely compelling explanation.”

    > What the heck? Christians offer an eternal God as the ‘solution’ to this so-called glaring hole that the naturalist believers are trying to plug. The eternal nature of God is at the forefront of the Christian faith so it’s silly to say this issue is ignored. ‘Proclaimed’ would be a better way to put it.

    > … I try to argue using common sense logic, reason, science, theology and philosophy as my tools of choice.

    The some dictionary definitions of eternal are:
    - ageless: continuing forever or indefinitely
    - endless: tiresomely long; seemingly without end

    If there was an infinite amount of time before the creation of the Universe then we don’t exist!
    It follows that an eternal God is impossible. God is imaginary.

    If God is the creator of the Universe/Omniverse then God possesses the property of transcendence, existing outside of time, space and everything. This is just another way of saying that *God does not exist* anywhere or at any time!

    Logic and reason and rationality are symbolic analogues of reality. They are expressions of the principle that truth is coherent, that reality is self-consistent.
    If what you believe does not align with *all* the known facts, the evidence and reason, (remembering that reason is subject to the evidence also), then what you believe is false!

    You have no valid reasons for promoting the idea of God. To do so is unethical – it costs lives.

    Every time you make your baseless assertions about God and Jesus you threaten another life. Based on past evidence, it is virtually certain that someone will believe and act on those meritless beliefs to the detriment of themselves and others.

    Faith means believing something despite the evidence. [Heb 11].
    It does not mean a “belief that can’t be 100% scientifically proven” as “Armchair General” said.
    Faith means unethical belief *without evidence* and unethical belief *contrary to the evidence*. There is *no scientific evidence* in support of any articles of faith.

    If I go next door and tell my neighbor that his wife has just been killed, *without evidence*, I am an unethical liar. I might believe “by faith” that she is dead but it doesn’t change the fact that I have unethically put this man in danger of a heart attack *without reason and evidence*.
    Someone might say that I believed, I declared it by faith, I therefore was not lying. But as an adult I know that I can’t shout FIRE in a cinema without evidence.

    Now for all of you *believers* and other haters of truth, this is why your assertions of, “ultimately you must be relying on faith as well” are nonsense:

    The scientific mindset is not about believing, it’s about testable, verifiable evidence! Even when we have tested and cross-checked the evidence we allocate some probability of reliability to our conclusions. Believing is something that children (of necessity) and gullible adults do.

    Those of us who are maturing are replacing their beliefs with verified experience, facts and evidence and probabilities.
    Some of you believers seem to think that we need to hold beliefs after childhood as if life is a sort of “Gullible’s Travels”.

    “It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is– if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.” -Richard Feynman

    If we have some conjecture, hypothesis or theory that is contradicted by JUST ONE FACT, that conjecture, hypothesis or theory is FALSE. So the idea of “proving something true” is moot. Proofs are for the fields of Mathematics and Logic. We can “prove” something *false* though! If a conjecture, hypothesis or theory *contradicts the facts* IT IS FALSE.
    If James says that the elders anointing the sick with oil along with the prayer of faith, in the name of the Lord, will raise them up, and we do not by now have ambulances racing the elders to the sick and seeing them cured, *it is false*.

    Those of us who practice personal integrity, love the truth, have the courage to be honest and practice mental hygiene, act on the principle that truth or reality is self-consistent – that is, Reality is Coherent. If what you believe doesn’t correspond with the facts *it is false*! This is not faith. It is fact. If you think otherwise don’t try to defend your thesis of irrationality with rationality.

    Philip K. Dick: “Reality is what’s left when you stop believing”.

    Creationism is not science because it starts with its conclusions as non-negotiable “Truth” – no amount of physical evidence will change these conclusions if they cannot be made to fit the Bible. Its premises are either false or unfalsifiable and the majority of its initial claims are either provably false or unfalsifiable. In other words, it doesn’t get out of the starting gate.
    (By false we mean that it violates the principle of coherence, the principle that truth is self-consistent. Another way of putting it is that a falsehood is that which contradicts known facts and laws).
    Testable ideas that *have* been put forward based on creationism have been shown to be false.

    So when you make your empty faith-based assertions you should be saying;
    “We believe that God, who not existing anywhere or at any time and who, due to incompatible properties is less likely than a square circle, created the Universe”. Or, “Jesus is Lord but I have no valid evidence that this is true. It is a meritless belief”. Or, “I believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, based on contradictory, disputed and unscientific 1st century writings that have absolutely no corroborating evidence. All the validated evidence that we do have shows that this alleged resurrection event is almost certainly false”.

  22. on 16 Sep 2008 at 5:55 pm 22.SteveK said …

    Verid:
    “If there was an infinite amount of time before the creation of the Universe then we don’t exist!”

    I agree.

    “It follows that an eternal God is impossible.”

    Hardly. It follows that an eternal God, if there is one, exists agelessly and endlessly independent of time. If the idea of an eternal God bothers you, naturalists have an eternal nature to contend with so good luck.

    “You have no valid reasons for promoting the idea of God. To do so is unethical – it costs lives.”

    I have valid, justifiable reasons. For starters, I have the minimal facts surrounding the resurrection event. You’re free to disagree, but you’re in a bit of a bind if you expect to use empirical science to tell us what constitutes ‘justifiable reasons’. That would be like using a map of Kansas to tell you where Maine is.

    “The scientific mindset is not about believing, it’s about testable, verifiable evidence!”

    Of course, science is an empirical *method*. Nobody here is disputing that. The dispute is over the metaphysical beliefs that the empirical method can lead to. Metaphysical beliefs like naturalism, empiricism, materialism, etc.

    “Those of us who are maturing are replacing their beliefs with verified experience, facts and evidence and probabilities.”

    What constitues a verified experience? If me and a group of people repeatedly experience God in the same way, then does that qualify?

    Anyway, logical positivism and/or empiricism is a severly limiting theory of epistemology. I prefer a more ‘thick’ view of epistemolgy, namely Realism.

  23. on 16 Sep 2008 at 7:07 pm 23.VeridicusX said …

    @SteveK #22

    Thanks for responding.

    I am not in a position to reply properly at the moment. I will study your response and reply tomorrow.

  24. on 17 Sep 2008 at 11:41 am 24.VeridicusX said …

    @SteveK #22

    >>“It follows that an eternal God is impossible.”

    > Hardly. It follows that an eternal God, if there is one, exists agelessly and endlessly independent of time. If the idea of an eternal God bothers you …

    The idea of an eternal God does not bother me, it’s a very pleasant idea but it is still incoherent.

    I think this point is very important. While *anything* could actually be the case, in *our* reality truth is self-consistent. We have no rational or ethical basis to make assertions about our reality that violate coherence in our reality.

    Time is not a symbolic mental construct, it is a measure of change.

    To say that something exists “agelessly and endlessly independent of time” is to say that something exists without change. Such an entity *cannot do anything*, much less create a universe, by definition.
    The idea violates the principle that truth/reality is self-consistent.

    If your meaning is simply that this entity exists outside of our spacetime continuum, then that is just another way of saying that this entity does not exist anywhere or at any time in our universe and from our frame of reference. If there are measurable artifacts due to this conjectured entity causing our universe, we don’t yet know of any. In other words, an “eternal God” is simply baseless conjecture.

    This idea also has another problem, if the conjectured entity doesn’t change even in its own frame of reference then *it cannot do anything*. If it is eternal in its own frame of reference then an infinite amount of change would have occurred in its own frame “before” it created our universe.

    Someone might say that such an eternal God is paradoxical rather than contradictory and someone else might reply that such an entity is as paradoxical as square circles.

    > naturalists have an eternal nature to contend with so good luck.

    Here is that word “eternal” again which you’ve used with a different meaning. This time, in relation to nature, you have used it to mean “continuing forever” whereas in relation to God you’ve used it to mean “independent of time”.

    Cosmologists say that observation strongly suggests that the Universe as we know it started with an event called the Big Bang.
    If we thought that the Universe was eternal in the sense that you imply then we would be saying that we don’t exist – we would be saying that an infinite amount of time exists before this moment which is nonsense.

    >> “You have no valid reasons for promoting the idea of God. To do so is unethical – it costs lives.”

    > I have valid, justifiable reasons. For starters, I have the minimal facts surrounding the resurrection event. You’re free to disagree, but you’re in a bit of a bind if you expect to use empirical science to tell us what constitutes ‘justifiable reasons’. That would be like using a map of Kansas to tell you where Maine is.

    I am not interested in “justifiable reasons” and that is not what I said, people “justify” all sorts of things and, I agree, it is hardly my position to tell someone what is justified.
    I said “valid reasons”. “Valid” is related to the word “validated”. My meaning is that we have an ethical responsibility to convey *facts* when we claim that we are doing so. Incoherent conjecture is not fact.

    > I have the minimal facts surrounding the resurrection event. You’re free to disagree …

    That’s interesting because to date there are *no known facts* supporting the alleged resurrection event.
    A fact is a statement that is objectively true and can be verified.

    My information is that the closest we can get to the alleged event is Shaul/Paul from about 56 CE. Paul freely uses language in a “spiritual” and Platonic sense and indeed that seems to have been the early Christians’ worldview. There are *no valid reasons* to assume that early Christianity was not a Jewish Mystery sect, (or something else entirely), “visions” and “appearances” notwithstanding.

    Roman Catholics believe that the wafer, once it is blessed, is the literal “body of Christ”. Christians believe that, “where two of three are gathered together” Christ is really, truly there with them.
    Oral Roberts allegedly “saw” an approximately 900 foot tall Jesus who at a later date blackmailed him for money.

    The Gospels are later works – later than Paul’s writings – which fail the test of validity. The test of validity is conformity to the principle that truth is self-consistent – reality is coherent.
    The Gospels are a narrative accounts of supernatural events that present information that the writers could not possibly have verified, such as the thoughts of people who are not the writer, and events that occurred when someone other than the writer was alone, etc.

    Even if we ignore the fact that there has not been a single scientifically validated miracle, the Gospels not only get testable facts wrong but the five “resurrection accounts”, if we include Paul’s, are contradictory. There is not enough valid information there to convince a rational person of integrity that they are true. (The preceding was not intended to insult anyone by the way).

    > The dispute is over the metaphysical beliefs that the empirical method can lead to.

    I don’t think that we need to believe anything, but you don’t have to believe that. ;-)

    > What constitues a verified experience? If me and a group of people repeatedly experience God in the same way, then does that qualify?

    I would say that it does. I would then want to know what this “God” is that you are experiencing.
    It is reasonable to state that we all share the same neurology, we are all humans. I would expect similar experiences to arise from similar beliefs and practices.
    The question is, “Is what I’m experiencing merely subjective or am I experiencing objective reality”?
    Well, the only thing I have to go on are the scriptures of the various faiths and they *all* fail where they make verifiable predictions of divine action.
    In the Christian case we should expect to notice answered prayer, but there is *no valid evidence* that prayer is answered.

    In short, there is *no valid evidence* that what your group experiences is not merely subjective. And that’s kinda the point of this site.

  25. on 17 Sep 2008 at 1:09 pm 25.SteveK said …

    Verdi,
    I summarized your comments into bullet points/steps and I end with a few questions.

    1) A fact is a statement that is objectively true and can be verified.

    2) > What constitues a verified experience? If me and a group of people repeatedly experience God in the same way, then does that qualify?

    I would say that it does. I would then want to know what this “God” is that you are experiencing.

    3) The question is, “Is what I’m experiencing merely subjective or am I experiencing objective reality”?

    4) In short, there is *no valid evidence* that what your group experiences is not merely subjective.
    ………………..

    I’m trying to understand exactly what you mean by “objectively true” and “verified” so I have a few questions…

    a) Are subjective experiences not real? That’s what you seem to be saying. When I experience the perception of hunger or loud noise am I really not experiencing hunger or loud noise? When I experience God am I really not experiencing God?

    b) It’s been said that subjective experiences like pain, emotion, taste can be objectively measured and verified in the brain. Does that mean these subjective experiences are objectively true?

    c) When a group of people experience a tree, what gets verified and such so that we can conclude the perception is or isn’t subjective?

  26. on 17 Sep 2008 at 5:00 pm 26.VeridicusX said …

    @SteveK #25

    > I’m trying to understand exactly what you mean by “objectively true” and “verified” so I have a few questions…

    > a) Are subjective experiences not real? That’s what you seem to be saying. When I experience the perception of hunger or loud noise am I really not experiencing hunger or loud noise? When I experience God am I really not experiencing God?

    The examples you have given are objective experiences except for the “God” experience.

    Subjective experiences are real, they are real subjective experiences. They are not real objective experiences.
    Real objective experiences are experiences derived from physical, measurable, external sensory inputs.

    Hunger is kinaesthetic information about your physical state it may be true or false, accurate or inaccurate. A “loud noise” contains objective and subjective elements. It’s a “noise”, whether its loud or not is subject to the question, “By whose measure”? This noise is auditory information that may or may not be objectively real.

    You can tell after a while whether your hunger pangs are accurate or not … if you begin gaining or losing weight then your sense of hunger needs calibrating. Or you can note when the last time was that you ate and how much it was that you ate, etc.

    A noise, if it is still there after you’ve stopped believing in it, may be external to you or it may be tinnitus or some neurological problem. You can carry out tests to find out which it is.

    If someone takes an ecstasy tablet or some other kinds of drugs they may experience “God”. On YouTube you can watch Derren Brown elicit the experience of “God” in atheists. He is using standard psychological techniques. In both of these examples “God” is just a brain state. Temporal lobe epilepsy elicits “God” and, of course, psychiatric hospitals have lots of people who are experiencing “God”.

    What is objectively real is what is there whether I believe in it or not or whether my brain is doing that state or not. It is physical, material, verifiable/measurable and falsifiable.

    You can tell whether you are experiencing God or not by using reason and measurement. The concept of God is incoherent, that means that it violates the principle that truth is self-consistent. When people are experiencing “God” there is nothing measurable about “God” that does not emanate from their bodies. Therefore, those people are not experiencing any theistic or dictionary defined god. The “God” they are experiencing is completely subjective.

    The only measurable “God events” that we know of “occurred” in various “Holy Scriptures” where they are safely unverifiable.

    > b) It’s been said that subjective experiences like pain, emotion, taste can be objectively measured and verified in the brain. Does that mean these subjective experiences are objectively true?

    No, the information about the experiences is objectively true. The experiences themselves are subjectively true.

    As the philosopher David Chalmers puts it, “Experience is information from the inside, physics is information from the outside”.

    > c) When a group of people experience a tree, what gets verified and such so that we can conclude the perception is or isn’t subjective?

    For the most part people don’t verify every experience as adults, verification is something that we did as children so that we could tell the difference between subjective and objective information.
    That’s when we discovered that if we close our eyes it doesn’t go dark for everyone, etc.

    If I don’t believe that a tree is there, I can throw a stone at it to see if it bounces off, I can close my eyes and walk into it to see if it breaks my nose or any of a myriad of tests.

    When someone experiences God the only thing that is there is the externally measurable brain state and the subjective experience. There is no corresponding external energy/information that might be causing it.

    In conclusion, the God Concept violates the principle of coherence.
    [See http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=191 #24].

    Where people have looked for any corroborating information outside of believer’s brains, none has been found.

    Where this “God”, or should I say, “Experience” has allegedly promised answered prayers, *absolutely no evidence of answered prayer* has been forthcoming. In many instances, where believers have relied on the information in the Bible, people have died! People have carefully preserved the words that this “God” is supposed to have said and lots of it has subsequently been discovered to be false.

    In accordance with the principle that truth is coherent, absence of evidence is evidence of absence and the falsehood of the evidence is evidence of falsehood.

  27. on 17 Sep 2008 at 6:34 pm 27.SteveK said …

    Verid,
    I’ll break my reply into smaller comments as time permits me.

    “Subjective experiences are real, they are real subjective experiences. They are not real objective experiences.”

    Since there is but one reality that we all share, am I wrong to conlcude both the real subjective experience and the real objective experience are reality-based experiences? If not, explain what you mean by ‘real experience’.

    “A “loud noise” contains objective and subjective elements. This noise is auditory information that may or may not be objectively real.”

    As you said, you can’t objectively verify the subjective element, but you can’t say it’s not real either. If you *know* you thought a thought, the only reasonable conclusion to form is that the subjective experience must correspond to the reality that you *actually* thought a thought. Absent knowledge to the contrary, you have no reason to think otherwise.

    “A noise, if it is still there after you’ve stopped believing in it, may be external to you or it may be tinnitus or some neurological problem. You can carry out tests to find out which it is.”

    The test can confirm the reality of the objective element of noise, but no test is available for the subjective part – yet we all experience it. So the question remains, is the subjective experience a reflection of reality or not? You’d have to be given a reason to think otherwise and that requires knowledge. What can science do to help?

  28. on 17 Sep 2008 at 7:27 pm 28.SteveK said …

    Verid
    “When someone experiences God the only thing that is there is the externally measurable brain state and the subjective experience. There is no corresponding external energy/information that might be causing it.”

    What causes the brain state to form? If it’s another brain state, then what causes that to form, and the one before that, etc.?

    Said another way, either the brain states are self-caused (or uncaused) or an external source caused it to form. You may not be able to identify the external cause, but would a naturalist be comfortable concluding the other available option? You seem to be saying yes here.

  29. on 17 Sep 2008 at 8:35 pm 29.VeridicusX said …

    @SteveK #27

    > Since there is but one reality that we all share, am I wrong to conlcude both the real subjective experience and the real objective experience are reality-based experiences? If not, explain what you mean by ‘real experience’.

    Subjective and Objective experiences are real, yes. They are not both reality-based, no. Reality-based means based on whats out there in the world, not just whats in here in my head.

    There is experience, period. It is now up to you to decide whether it is subjective or objective. You decide wrong and you get to spend time in the hospital.
    Reality-based means based on objective experience. It doesn’t mean any random subjective experience or crazy idea someone may dream up.

    > As you said, you can’t objectively verify the subjective element, but you can’t say it’s not real either. If you *know* you thought a thought, the only reasonable conclusion to form is that the subjective experience must correspond to the reality that you *actually* thought a thought. Absent knowledge to the contrary, you have no reason to think otherwise.

    I did *not* say you can’t objectively verify the subjective element. You seem to be presupposing some magical qualia. All the current evidence is that every experience you have is objectively measurable. Therefore the rest of your paragraph is moot.
    There is *no evidence at all* that the experiences of the mind are not produced by the brain. All the evidence points to this being the case, “The mind is what the brain does”.

    > The test can confirm the reality of the objective element of noise, but no test is available for the subjective part – yet we all experience it. So the question remains, is the subjective experience a reflection of reality or not? You’d have to be given a reason to think otherwise and that requires knowledge.

    Who told you that there is no test for the subjective part? At your local hospital they have very expensive equipment designed to scan your brain. The subjective part can indeed be observed.

    > is the subjective experience a reflection of reality or not?

    (You seem to be using the words “real” and “reality” willy-nilly).

    It depends on where the subjective experience originated. If it originated in your brain then it is a reflection of the reality of your brain, nothing else. It is not a reflection of what everyone else calls reality. If it originated outside of your brain, then it is a reality-based experience.

    > What can science do to help?

    You seems to have presupposed that information and experience are two different things. Give me an example where this is the case. Give me an example of sensory information apart from experience.
    Sensory information that a person has, has been tracked to the brain and correlated with neural activity and EM fields there.

    Answer this question: You are a disembodied “soul”, (I’m not trying to encourage you here ;-), and you’re experiencing a blue cube. Is what you’re experiencing information or not?

    If you are suggesting a dichotomy between information in the brain and experience (qualia), you would need to explain how you’re not setting up an infinite regress.

  30. on 17 Sep 2008 at 8:53 pm 30.SteveK said …

    A quick reply while I have a minute…

    “Subjective and Objective experiences are real, yes. They are not both reality-based, no. Reality-based means based on whats out there in the world, not just whats in here in my head.”

    This makes no sense honestly. Two experiences – both are real, but one is not reality-based. The idea of a tree in your head is not reality-based, but the tree is? You’re saying the idea in your head is outside of reality. Umm, okay.

    I don’t even know what that means in naturalistic terms. How can some real thing be based in non-reality? Clarify your terms.

  31. on 17 Sep 2008 at 9:09 pm 31.VeridicusX said …

    @SteveK #28

    >> When someone experiences God the only thing that is there is the externally measurable brain state and the subjective experience. There is no corresponding external energy/information that might be causing it.

    > What causes the brain state to form? If it’s another brain state, then what causes that to form, and the one before that, etc.?

    Perhaps what caused the brain state to form was something that was read in some book. Perhaps someone is using their imagination.

    One way of explaining how we understand words is to say that we simulate what we hear. If I say, “Giant Pink Elephant”, you will have formed that construct somewhere inside.
    The statement, “Perfection than which none greater is conceivable”, has to be simulated in some way in order to be understood. If someone sits and contemplates it for a while they will experience euphoric states. (I’ve tried it).

    > Said another way, either the brain states are self-caused (or uncaused) or an external source caused it to form. You may not be able to identify the external cause, but would a naturalist be comfortable concluding the other available option? You seem to be saying yes here.

    You seem to have discovered why the concept of “free will” is nonsense we must all comply with nature and with our programming.
    You have also discovered why, if “God” is not measurable it is imaginary.

    We have the ability to process language and to simulate whole worlds in our minds. If God is not noticeable in the world then it is only reasonable to conclude that you and other with you, who believe the same things, are simulating him.

    Harry Potter readers are all experiencing substantially the same things, but they are not telling the world that Harry Potter is real and we should believe in him. (But people will believe the darnedest things).

  32. on 17 Sep 2008 at 9:27 pm 32.VeridicusX said …

    @SteveK #30

    > This makes no sense honestly. Two experiences – both are real, but one is not reality-based. The idea of a tree in your head is not reality-based, but the tree is? You’re saying the idea in your head is outside of reality. Umm, okay.

    Is this where your defense mechanisms are kicking in, or are you really saying that you don’t know the difference between what’s real and what exists only in your head?

    > I don’t even know what that means in naturalistic terms. How can some real thing be based in non-reality? Clarify your terms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

  33. on 17 Sep 2008 at 10:11 pm 33.SteveK said …

    Verid,
    “are you really saying that you don’t know the difference between what’s real and what exists only in your head?”

    I’m asking your to clarify and the link you provided doesn’t help much. It tells me how this community thinks, but it doesn’t tell me what the terms of their thinking mean.

    From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality) we read: “Reality, in everyday usage, means “the state of things as they actually exist”. The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible.”

    From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence) we read: “In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses.”

    This leads me to think you are using the terms ‘reality-based’ and ‘real’ (exist) differently than the way they are most commonly understood.

  34. on 17 Sep 2008 at 10:17 pm 34.SteveK said …

    Verid,
    “Perhaps what caused the brain state to form was something that was read in some book. Perhaps someone is using their imagination.”

    Perhaps. Let’s put this in naturalistic terms. What is ‘something that was read’? That’s a memory, which is a brain state. So is ‘their imagination’ a brain state.

    So we have brain states causing other brain states to form. What caused the first brain state to form? Must be something outside the brain, correct? If not, what causes it?

    “We have the ability to process language and to simulate whole worlds in our minds.”

    Same question.

  35. on 17 Sep 2008 at 10:57 pm 35.SteveK said …

    Continuing…

    I said of the naturalist, the formation of a brain state must be caused by something *outside* the brain. If my brain state is about God and not a tree, then that brain state *must* be caused by something external to the brain.

    The best you can conclude is that *content* of the brain state is about something other than God, because (as you say) you can’t “measure” God. But that leads to other problems….

    For starters, you’ve fallen for Popper’s black swan theory, only with respect to God – God doesn’t exist because we can’t find a way to measure him.

    Next, what sort of measurement data would confirm the existence of God? In other words, if you were able to take physical data of *all* objects, what about that data would lead you to conclude God was or wasn’t found in the data?

    “All the evidence points to this being the case, “The mind is what the brain does”.”

    This is complete hogwash. A bicycle is a bicycle when it does what bicycles *don’t* do – like support your hanging laundry. It doesn’t become something *else* when you put it in a different place or put it into motion. An apple can be *used* as a paperweight, but it is still no less an apple.

    Either the mind and brain are the same thing or they are different things.

  36. on 18 Sep 2008 at 5:21 am 36.lil tom said …

    steveK,

    >A bicycle is a bicycle when it does what bicycles *don’t* do – like support your hanging laundry. It doesn’t become something *else* when you put it in a different place or put it into motion. An apple can be *used* as a paperweight, but it is still no less an apple. Either the mind and brain are the same thing or they are different things.

    perhaps it would help to think of a better analogue than bicycles and apples. think of a fist. when you open your hand from a clenched fist, where did the fist go? is it still there? are the hand and the fist the same thing?

    in a similar sense, the “fist is what the hand does”.

    the problem becomes highly problematic when applied to the mind/brain, though, because it spells our own death. we simply don’t want to accept that our mind, the seat of our existence, is quite literally the simulation of an external real world with which we have fairly limited access to (merely our senses) – and which we’ll have no access to when we die and the brain stops “minding”. which is exactly why we have always invented religions: to fill in these difficult gaps!
    I have to agree with VeridicusX that I’d much rather take good old fear of death than the absolute terror that most religions instill in the event.
    need an example?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10G85aGz5IU

    (I truly, truly feel sorry for those poor children who are exposed to this kind of trash. I look forward to a time when this is seen as the horrific abuse that it is.)

  37. on 18 Sep 2008 at 4:46 pm 37.VeridicusX said …

    @SteveK #34 #35

    > … Let’s put this in naturalistic terms. What is ‘something that was read’? That’s a memory, which is a brain state. So is ‘their imagination’ a brain state.
    > So we have brain states causing other brain states to form. What caused the first brain state to form? Must be something outside the brain, correct? If not, what causes it?

    Yes, that’s what evolution is about.

    > I said of the naturalist, the formation of a brain state must be caused by something *outside* the brain. If my brain state is about God and not a tree, then that brain state *must* be caused by something external to the brain.

    We live in the information age. By your thesis, if someone is experiencing the Invisible Pink Unicorn this must have been caused by said entity external to the brain.

    > The best you can conclude is that *content* of the brain state is about something other than God, because (as you say) you can’t “measure” God. But that leads to other problems…
    > For starters, you’ve fallen for Popper’s black swan theory, only with respect to God – God doesn’t exist because we can’t find a way to measure him.

    Hardly, if I was claiming that all swans are white perhaps. But it is *you* who is claiming that all swans are white. I’m saying that so far all we’ve seen are black ones.

    Theists have been saying, “If you look in that room over there there’s a giant, glowing neon blue elephant”. When we look there isn’t one.

    I’ve said, throughout my various submissions, that *the evidence* as well as the *lack of evidence* speaks for itself.
    Theists make measurable claims about an entity called God. If the measurements don’t align with these claims and if *all* the other facts *contradict* these claims, the claims are false. Of course, we only need the claims to be falsified once.

    Alternatively, someone claims to be experiencing square circles. We know that square circles shouldn’t be able to exist in our reality. This person further claims that we should expect certain changes in the world that would not be there were it not for square circles. The predicted actions of the square circles become part of its definition.
    We find that the predicted changes are not exhibited in the world. We find that all the available evidence contradicts square circles. We find that the idea is incoherent. All that we *do* find are some brains states of Square Circleists.
    We can either abandon rationality or we can conclude that square circles, as defined, do not exist except in the brain states of the Square Circleists.

    Its as if you’ve accused me of taking *an observed god* and then generating a universal statement from it. But *no gods* have been observed. Brain states are not “God”.

    Exodus 15:26 declares a name of God, Yahweh Rapha, The Lord is Healer. According to the Christian scriptures we should be able to observe that believers who pray to this entity and believe are healed. We observe no such thing. The conjectured entity therefore, is non-existent. There are, of course, lots of other statements made in the Bible, (which is supposedly inspired by this entity), that contradict reality.

    > Next, what sort of measurement data would confirm the existence of God? In other words, if you were able to take physical data of *all* objects, what about that data would lead you to conclude God was or wasn’t found in the data?

    We take a “promise” from the Bible or hypothesize as to what we would find if there were a truthful, omnibenevolent, omnipotent entity and then collate the available evidence. We can then look for things which may show up statistically such as healing.
    No such evidence has been forthcoming. There is no elephant in the room.

    >> All the evidence points to this being the case, “The mind is what the brain does”.

    > This is complete hogwash. A bicycle is a bicycle when it does what bicycles *don’t* do – like support your hanging laundry. It doesn’t become something *else* when you put it in a different place or put it into motion. An apple can be *used* as a paperweight, but it is still no less an apple.
    > Either the mind and brain are the same thing or they are different things.

    Your computer and it’s operating system are not the same thing. The pictures on the screen are caused by the computer processing information. When we turn it off the pictures disappear.

    Welcome to the information age.

  38. on 19 Sep 2008 at 8:48 pm 38.lil tom said …

    steveK,

    you seem to be making the claim that if many people believe something, that it must mean it is based in reality. if it can be imagined, then it is reality.

    you fail to consider the implications of this, however. first of all it would mean that all religions would be true (which of course is an impossibility) simply because many people believe them to be true. even all of the world’s dead religions and antiquated belief systems would be true. truth would in fact lose meaning altogether. anything that somebody believed to be true could be true without a shred of evidence. we would open up the weekly world news for our current events and would never be able to question any claim that seemed illogical from one to another because well, that might simply be “their reality”.

    interestingly, when an “alternate reality” is limited to a small number of people (ie. cults or street crazies) we rarely bother to give them a benefit of the doubt. we call out because there is little resistance. there is indeed strength in numbers, but by no means *truth* in numbers.

  39. on 19 Sep 2008 at 8:57 pm 39.SteveK said …

    “you seem to be making the claim that if many people believe something, that it must mean it is based in reality. if it can be imagined, then it is reality.”

    ‘No’ to both of your conclusions.

  40. on 19 Sep 2008 at 11:41 pm 40.lil tom said …

    steveK,

    well then…?

    are you willing to clarify?

  41. on 25 Sep 2008 at 3:59 pm 41.Ray of Happiness said …

    I am amuse of your prove on no one can enter Heaven.
    Ok. But the point I want to say… It is not easy to enter Heaven. But it is not impossible. Before I justify how heaven could exist scientifically, I will first make a statement then I will explain the items you mention in the youtube movie.

    ONE statement I will make boldly is
    “God and God’s creations are one”
    This statement means, everything you can see, feel, touch
    eat, drink, smell, trees, stones, water, computer… and
    even you yourself are formations from God and God and all God’s creations are one, nonetheless, God is the driving forces of all that exist in the pass, exist in now and exist in future.

    And there is a fallacy of thinking that God MUST exist in a human form (eg. Jesus) God must able to speak… God must do this or do that… that is all misconception. God is all there is, even the cockroach you step on, the tree you cut, the poor and helpless, all are God and God creations.

    Then questions springs up, if I am GOD, why don’t I know that ? why I don’t have GOD’s power ? why I cannot turn stone into Gold ? Why I am so miserable, why I am so poor ?
    you know, these questions you are asking from a tiny little human perspective. It is not entire GOD perspective. As a Human, which is part of the GOD. You have limited abilites and limited consciousness, limited power and limited life. But WHO can denied GOD can have GOD’s power, who says GOD cannot turn stone to gold ? that’s all is happening in nature and according to nature. (nature is part of GOD).
    As an analogy is given, car is make up by many parts, those part are manufacture in different factories. GOD is consist of everything that exist and if you insist to split, you can split GOD to Human, Animal, Plants… etc categories. But all that is your own Imagination and your own categorization in your little brain. The prove is, the brain you use to denied everthing, that even yourself cannot understand how it function, how intelligent come to be, because it is not ‘created’ by you, nature creates it and it is part of GOD, and so were you ‘using’ it and denied GOD. Got the idea ?

    Now comes to your prove.

    1 : What must I do to inhereit eternal Life ?
    Love God, Love neighbor, Eternal Life
    So can you Love GOD ? Love neightbor,
    Which is EVERYTHING… if you can LOVE everything
    where is your hatred ? If you do not have hatred
    your love is the love of GOD. GOD is everything.
    and GOD is Eternal. you Get what I mean ?
    Your little human ego perception expanded. And you
    are no longer ego bound limited consciousness. You
    gain the GOD consciousness and GOD is eternal. Do you
    Agree ?

    2 : Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal….
    Do not give false testiment…
    As you are stuck in your tiny human ego, you can only
    think of yourself, your benefits, you own happiness.
    You do not have the GOD perspective eg, everything
    is me, everything is myself, how can I cut my left hand
    with the right hand ? (murder) GOD consider every
    little life, stones, trees, grass as GODSelf. So GOD
    will not do any harm to anything. BUT Human is
    different. Even if you become so evil also GOD forgives
    you, is it not enough prove ?

    3 : Sell everything give to the poor…
    Sell everything, what does it mean ? It mean
    Give all. If you indulge your self as a Human,
    you probably think that is “insane”. IF You think
    again. All those things you have with you is not really
    yours. When you born, you brings nothing. And the more
    you think and the more you gain, you are likely rooted
    into your limited human ego. Because GREED is Human
    nature. and Give all is GOD Nature. GOD gives because
    GOD is all that is, whatever GOD gives is still
    belong’s to GOD. But Human keep, because Human think
    they are on their own. If you can Give All to those
    who need, then you will realize life is actually larger
    then what you think using your little human brain.

    4 : Then come follow me…
    Jesus invite you to follow the way of GOD,
    Which is the way of Heaven.

    5 : Hate father, mother, wife and children, brothers..
    sisters… Hate life itself… Give up everything…
    This is the contradiction you pointed out in the
    youtube. Do you know what is Hate father, Hate mother,
    wife and children really mean ? Let me give you an
    example. If there is an apple tree planted by you.
    some one pass by and cut down the tree you plant for 20
    years. So as a common Human, anger is inevitable. Now
    I expand it to your parents, your children, your wife
    etc. If you possessively LOVE but not genuine GOD’s
    equal love. What will you do if some one hit your
    parents ? you will kill or fight back ? revenge ?
    condemn etc ? because you think my parent is mine.
    such thinking is Human thinking, and Human can only
    best be born in Human world. GOD’s love is, if you
    hit my left cheek, I give you my right, after all
    you and my parents are ONE. For those who cannot Hate
    the possessive love to all you hold dear, but own them,
    cheerish in them, they never realize GOD’s love.
    Without GOD’s love how can you born in
    heaven ? That is what Jesus mean by hate your parents !

    6 : Eat flesh, drink blood.
    For this I no need to explain, GOD’s fresh = your
    bread. GOD’s blood, your bir in the bar. GOD is all
    there is ! You drink and you eat everyday.
    And you still complaint GOD is not good enough to you !
    How ingratitute of you little human ! I (GOD) manifest
    into herds, flocks, fishes… and you consume without
    consider my pain when I were slaughter by your advance
    slaughtering house. Can you little human do the same ?
    become a fish and let me kill for food ?

    7 : Little children..
    Can you be innocent again ? like the little child.
    with little need, little greed, little hatred.
    So I (GOD) don’t have to bleeding with all the killing
    and wars in the world ? Can you be mercy upon me (GOD)
    ?

    8 : Born again… born of water and the spirit. wind
    blows..
    Born of spirit has no forms. Wind here is one of the
    four great elements of nature not the ‘wind’ you see.
    wind here is mean movements. water means fluidity,
    fire mean heat, and earth mean solidity.

    9 : Pharisees. is group of people that tried their best
    to follow the ways of GOD, they have not all perfect
    but at least they try. And you should not mention on
    rules, Suppose there is no Rules that you can have
    WARs, quarrels, hatred but why you still making them ?

    10: Believe in God
    Do you believe in GOD ? do you believe and trust even
    your own wife ? GOD is everything, believe in GOD
    means believe in everything ! in GOD perspective,
    GOD believe everything. why ? because GOD is everything
    ! you cannot grasp it with Human Self centered
    perspective !

    The last, you say ‘heaven’ is just fairy tales, and my answer to you is “Yes, it is for you, and you only.”
    There is place far far better then earth, creature
    far more kind and holy then humans, far more selfless, greedless, happy, cheerful and kind. Where they were close to GOD and that places they live is call Heaven, you cannot go to heaven until you can do what Jesus says. It is not GOD’s punishments, it is your own rejection, your own choice and your own fault. If there is beings in heaven means it is possible to go there, and many kind humans has already born there. Some choose to come back and is stay among us. So you say why Jesus didn’t appear ? and my answer is He doesn’t appear in Jesus form as you know in the bible ! and you actually see GOD with your bright open eyes yet you do not even recognize it !

    I hope my explaination could shade you some lights,
    When in the deep night you cry in your bed, GOD is crying too. When you pray to the stars, GOD hears every words,
    But whatever you pray and do, think… Is it the GOD way or
    Human selfish way ? if 1000 Human do the same selfish deed
    How would GOD feel ? Can you have mercy upon GOD too ?
    If you fail to save the earth, how can GOD grant you
    the key to heaven ?

    Let us be like a little children.
    Ray of Happiness.

  42. on 25 Sep 2008 at 9:24 pm 42.lil tom said …

    ray,

    wow… this is some of the best satire I’ve ever come across. ummm, I’m guessing it’s a joke… either way, I’m converted!

  43. on 26 Sep 2008 at 12:16 am 43.Ray of Happiness said …

    Hi Tom,

    This is not a joke, this is what you will know one day
    as you evolve spiritually. But many children of GOD, even the christians are not willing or prepare to accept of this truth. Mainly due to Human ego and Selfishness. And please also know that everything is GOD, even Atheism is ! GOD plans is to put you thru many tests, trials, ideas so for you to realize and see what you actually are. You may understand this as evolution. And that you also know GOD never forsake anyone.

    This entire website is asking Why GOD didn’t heal amputees, So the answer to this web site is.

    GOD treat everything as equal. And there is a honest question here. Did you amputated or assisted in amputating any thing before ? eg you amputated plants ?, animals ?, fish ? how about chicken chops ? meat ? When they cry and they afraid, do you care a damn on them ? They scream, but they cannot talk, and what you do ? you just cut, cold heartly.

    So this direct effect of you (which is part of GOD), resulting the similarity effect of those torturings in the world such as wars, killings and amputees… etc which is what you (part of GOD) did to yourself due to Ignorance (blind by your human little ego). Eg the example I gave
    which is due to you do not attain GOD consciousness you cut your left hand with right hand and now you ask why my body is bleeding ?! Why there is so much war, insecurity ! You killed so many animals a day in US itself, do you think that has no effect on you (which is part of GOD) ?

    And now you make a website and ask WHY GOD DIDN’T HEAL AMPUTEES ! How sarcastic is that ! you know under no conditions GOD with GOD consciousness will harm any beings ! the Truth is profound and it is bitter too, and you should stop blaming GOD. Look at yourself, see what you do, what you eat, what you speak, what you think everyday and multiply that by hundreds and millionths.. and tell me is the present world conditions is not matching what you all did everyday !?

    Do you really want a peace world ? a heaven on earth ? Dear my little human children ?

    Sincerely,
    Ray of Happiness

  44. on 27 Sep 2008 at 4:36 pm 44.lil tom said …

    wow. you’re a funny guy, ray. I gotta hand it to you. you sure can keep a straight face while delivering some serious humor.

    thank you.

  45. on 01 Oct 2008 at 5:27 pm 45.lil tom said …

    steveK, why do you ignore the question?

  46. on 01 Oct 2008 at 11:11 pm 46.SteveK said …

    what question?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply