An interesting theory, however, I prefer to base my thinking on what has tangibly been proven.

Your apparent opinion that the soul is immortal is all very fine, but what's the point of it all if we are not conscious of our 'previous incarnations'. Let me put it this way, do you know of anyone who remembers a 'past life'?

By the way, what happens to all of these immortal souls when planet Earth ceases to exist? If the Earth isn't blown to bits by a meteor in the meantime, our planet will surely perish at some point in the future when our sun dies....oh, but of course, by that time humankind may have populated distant planets.

No, the soul is a fanciful notion invented by mankind....and just like Jehovah, exists only in the minds of men. After all, as time goes by, man adapts his idea of what religion is all about, and I foresee that within only sixty years the church itself will admit to the non-existence of 'God'. You see, the teachings of the bible were written in an unenlightened age and are based on superstition, fear and a complete lack of knowledge. Ever since the bible came into being, scientific discovery has constantly undermined and invalidated its teachings, most notably with the discovery that planet Earth is not at the centre of the universe, but most importantly that all life on Earth evolved from the same single-celled organism, and further, that humans are directly descended from apes. Thus, an increasing majority of society now perceives the bible as no more than a fanciful work of fiction and Jesus 'the' Christ as simply an eloquent carpenter.

As far as I am concerned, the existence of a 'divine being' goes hand-in-hand with Santa Claus and alien abductions for sheer ludicrousness.

I mean.....alien abductions...ha, ha.....

There is not one shred of physical evidence to support the delusions of an increasing number of 'cracked' individuals who claim to have been the victim of alien abduction and examination. Many of these people may genuinely believe they had been abducted, but then again, many deluded people claim to see pixies at the end of their garden.

The thing is, if aliens really were present on and around our planet there would have to be some evidence....but, there ain't none. This begs the question, why are there no aliens visiting our planet? If alien life-forms really do exist elsewhere in the universe, where are they?

You see, going by the age of the universe, many, many other worlds on which life could potentially develop would have had a massive head-start over humankind. Remember, there were several periods in Earth's history when a cataclysmic event wiped out the dominant species....the dinosaurs for example. If the dinosaurs had continued to develop, at some point a 'lizard-man' may have developed, with similar appearance, physical abilities and intelligence to ourselves, except reptilian in physiology. If the dinosaurs had lived, and lizard men developed millions and millions of years ago, imagine the stage of their evolution today. In other words, try to imagine how mankind will have evolved in one hundred million years time....it's a safe bet that humankind will bear little or no resemblance to our present selves, intellectually or physically, and such people will look back on history, and see mankind of the year 2001 as being only fractionally more advanced than the amoeba from which we originated.

However, not every planet in the universe that harbours life will have suffered a similarly cataclysmic event to that which extinguished the dinosaur. Therefore, it is quite feasible that some planets harbour lifeforms that are millions of years in advance of humankind.

This leads on to further fundamental questions. If that is the case, this begs the question, why haven’t such infinitely advanced beings contacted us? Either no other planets within out galaxy harbour intelligent lifeforms, or no matter how advanced a species’ evolution and no matter how technologically developed, interstellar space travel will forever remain impossible, or should I say unfeasible, for if the speed of light cannot be exceeded, then a journey to our nearest neighbouring solar systems that possibly harbour life would take millennia. Therefore, though life may exist elsewhere within the universe, it will never be proved.

NP: The Cell, Shore

As for alien abductions ... man, that's a big subject, and, like you, I used to be the biggest sceptic ... but after reading a great deal about this, and seeing hundreds of very ordinary people stand up and bravely face the ridicule that the mainstream media and society at large inflicts on them, I began to wonder. My inclination to dismiss ALL of them began to feel like arrogance. We're not talking about crazies here ... cops, doctors, airline pilots, housewives, soldiers, teachers ... these are otherwise normal people struggling with a bizarre and often terrifying experience - something that has shattered their comfortable reality forever. And do they find their claims greeted with calm, compassionate curiosity? No, they are greeted with derision, hostility, contempt - a totally understandable knee-jerk reaction, given humanity's poor record on accepting any views contrary to the currently-held reality paradigm.

Daniel, may I point the way to some good books on this subject? Start with "Communion" by Whitley Strieber. Don't laugh. Forget the silly movie, read the book. Approach it, if you must, expecting it to be an obnoxious waste of time, the height of lunacy - borrow it from a library if you don't want to waste any money ... but just read it.

On the life after death thing ... scientists are as loathe to stick their necks out on this subject as they are on UFOs or alien abductions - the peer pressure for them NOT to seriously investigate stuff like this is FIERCE. But some scientists are of the healthy view that our present knowledge is far from complete, and that the search for scientific wisdom should be continued no matter how loudly people howl at them. I'd like to point you to an article first run in The Telegraph on 22nd October last year, which I'll reproduce here. It is not designed to convert you, or offer anything conclusive. But you may find it slightly interesting:

"A recent scientific study of "near-death" experiences (NDEs) has found new evidence to suggest that consciousness or the "soul" can continue to exist beyond "death."

The findings, by Dr Peter Fenwick, a consultant neuropsychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, and Dr Sam Parnia, a clinical research fellow and registrar at Southampton General Hospital, were based on a year-long study of heart-attack survivors, and could provoke fresh controversy over that most profound of questions: is there life after death?

Reports of "near death" experiences, in which people close to death have vivid encounters with bright lights and heavenly beings, date back centuries, but the phenomenon has been treated with scepticism by most academics.

The new study concludes, however, that a number of people have almost certainly had these experiences after they were pronounced clinically dead. This would suggest that the mind or consciousness can survive the death of the brain.

During the study period, 63 cardiac arrest patients survived and were interviewed within a week. Seven survivors had NDE memories, but only four passed the Grayson scale - the strict medical criteria for assessing near-death experiences.

Dr Sam Parnia commented: "I started off as a sceptic but, having weighed up all the evidence, I now think that there is something going on.

"Essentially it comes back to the question of whether the mind or consciousness is produced from the brain. If we can prove that the mind is produced by the brain, I don't think there is anything after we die because essentially we are conscious beings.

"If, on the contrary, the brain is like an intermediary which manifests the mind, like a television will act as an intermediary to manifest waves in the air into a picture or sound, we can show that the mind is still there after the brain is dead. And that is what I think these near-death experiences indicate."

Personally (Stephen speaking again) I think we're moving rapidly into a new period of human consciousness. I think it's comparable to the traumatic paradigm shift humanity went through upon discovering the earth wasn't flat; what had seemed perfectly reasonable before - the "consensus" reality if you will - dramatically crumbled and was replaced by a totally new understanding (although it was not immediately accepted - how could it be? Change that profound must have been terrifying). Who knows how many more of those paradigm shifts humanity will go through as it evolves through the coming millennia?

OK. I'm gonna step off my soapbox now.

Sean R - betcha never thought "Goldsmith says F**k" would lead to this!

[Message edited by Stephen Lister on 01-08-2001]

If I claimed the Marshmallow Man spoke to me from Marmalade land, would you believe that too?

Of course not. But that's what your apparent belief in a 'divine being' amounts to. After all, can you prove that the Marshmallow Man doesn't exist, sat there on his enormous Marshmallow ass on Marzipan Hill in the land of Marmalade?

Of course, nobody will ever be able to disprove the existence of 'God', but ever since Christianity was born, with each passing day mounting scientific evidence has continually chipped away at and eroded the fanciful claims of the bible.

But, let's look at it from the other direction. During the past few centuries of scientific discovery, evolution has been proven and planet Earth's humble existence within the universe has been exposed, but, there has not been one shred of scientific evidence forthcoming to support the theory that Jesus 'the' Christ was the son of God, even less that God exists. Even some of the Old Testament fables have been partially explained...there may be a grain of truth in the parting of the sea and the ark, but such fables have been embellished, fashioned and distorted beyond recognition with the passing of the centuries.

You see, it wasn't so long ago that many people wholeheartedly believed in what the Old Testament had to say about the creation of our planet, but today, hardly anyone would take the Old Testament stories literally. By the same token, literal belief in the New Testament is rapidly diminishing, though this is not to say that anyone is questioning the fact that Jesus did exist, or that he was an extraordinary man. Likewise, I am the first to admit that the New Testament teachings are a valuable tool in the moral education of society and its children. But, the bible would be taken a lot more seriously by people today if we dropped the mumbo-jumbo about Lazarus and the fishes and loathes and all of that. Such miraculous incidents as those described in the New Testament are merely confabulations born out of mass hysteria.

However, I admit that attempting to disprove the existence of 'God' is as fruitless an occupation as trying to prove God’s existence....many people believe in God because that's what they want to believe, but, as far as I am concerned, someone (Jehovah himself perhaps) will have to prove the existence of God before I believe.

Thanks for your interesting and thought-provoking comments, and your book recommendation. As John Dunham said, there is so much mankind has to learn about the universe, and near death experiences is just one of a billion phenomena that are yet to be explained – this puts me in mind of that British horror movie THE ASPHYX (1972), in which Sir Robert Stephens played a Victorian scientist who attempts to trap the spirit at the point of death.

Yes, it is amazing how plausible a lot of these people who claim to have been abducted by aliens are. Many come across as ordinary down-to-earth folk, just like the rest of us, and indeed, many of them probably are rational and normally clear-headed folk. Of course, many are bogus to start with, and have merely fabricated their stories out of a desire for publicity or some other obscure reason. But it is obvious that many of these 'abductees' truly believe that they have experienced examination by alien lifeforms.

D2

quote:

---

Of course, nobody will ever be able to disprove the existence of 'God', but ever since Christianity was born, with each passing day mounting scientific evidence has continually chipped away at and eroded the fanciful claims of the Bible

---

well, if that's not bait for a theological debate, I don't what is...

you're certainly entitled to your views, of course, but I respectfully disagree.
Nihilism is belief in nothing; that nothing matters. I find that an utterly depressing outlook on life, and against human nature.

When I look out at the world, I see the geological upheavals of the world, I see mountains and deserts that are equally beautiful, I see awesome canyons, I see life flourishing in the deepest parts the ocean, in the coldest depths, in the hottest places on earth, where it shouldn't.

I see the workings of the human mind of body that defy anything else in the world. If WE are an accident and have no soul, we should be no better than the simians swinging around the trees in zoos. But, we are. We build cities, irrigate our farmland, fly at supersonic speeds, fly into outer space and land on the moon. WE create MUSIC. We have rational thought.
This is not an accident, and I refuse to believe it is. And it is certainly not because of natural selection, that's for damn sure. Indeed, how does natural selection necessarily lead to higher life forms? If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? They say birds came from dinosaurs, yet there are no dinosaurs roaming around.

Indeed, even astronomers are having to concede that they cannot explain just WHY the big bang occured, and are having to turn to supernatural explanations. This is something scientists are not to do, but it is occuring. You can read this in a Newsweek article from 1998 or 1999 I believe.

When everything should be keeping me down (I have neither a job nor the requisite income, nor insurance of any kind), I still have a food, a bed, my computer with which to converse with fine people such as yourself, a roof over my head, a loving family, and great health. Buddha did not do this for me, nor did Mohammed or Zeus. Yes, only God could keep a person with no income well-cared for in a period of uncertainty.
Rather than be like Jonah and run from God, I chose [reluctantly] to come to Las Vegas to search for employment. The first hint was the extreme lack of jobs in the areas of Texas in which I wanted to live.
*note: I am not equating myself to Job.

My faith in God is the proof of God.

God answers prayers.
It isn't always the answer we want, but "no" is still an answer.

I have yet to see in the Bible be refuted with any firmness.
For example, I see the Jews with a state of their own (Israel, as predicted numerous places in the Bible), despite Adolf Hitler.
but I suppose nonbelievers are more likely to chalk this up to Nostradamus than give credit to anything in the Bible.
They're finding charred altars in the Sinai desert. And golden calves painted on the black rocks.

Most of the world's religions, cultures, and mythologies have a great flood story.
even 4 billion Christians, Muslims, and Jews who all believe in the same God can't be wrong.
Indeed, a great catastrophe such a flood would be about the only way in which to obtain fossils that so fiercely fuel Chucky Darwin's theory (a theory he *supposedly* renounced on his death bed). An animal must be covered and compressed upon death to become a fossil. I cannot believe that a meteor strike would have kicked up sufficient dirt or mud to adequately cover all dinosaurs to make them subject to fossilization.
Science explains a lot, but it doesn't explain everything.
God gave us the ability to accomplish everything we have as humans, especially last century. I just do not see why that is such a stretch.

as a believer I am automatically prone to being accused of blind faith and not being "enlightened."
However, everything I see and have seen confirms the existence of God (and Satan) overwhelmingly.

Enjoy the beautiful world God gave us. That's why it's here.

All of these comments are very interesting, and very well-stated, so I will try to keep my input as short and sweet as possible.

*off topic input*

I find it very hard to be sure of anything anymore and try to keep an open mind, and these are my current thoughts which I have yet to change:

1. The natural is not actually natural but rather the only part of the divine we have access to.
2. The supernatural is not actually 'super', but only a part of nature (or the divine)that has yet to be proven.

The really short and sweet version?
Holy stuff + Scientific stuff = it's all the same thing, but we can't link the two.

*end of off topic input*

I'll bow out now, and let the masters (such as the humorous-as-always Andre Lux) resume.

(Just an on-topic comment: The Hollow Man iso score/commentary is very schick! It's funny that the last 30 minutes of the film are so jam-packed with action/suspense music that Jerry is only able to get a final comment in at the end of the end credits.)

NP: Morricone's "Cantico del Giubileo," commissioned by the Catholic Church and included on the album Magnificat. Gorgeous.

If you PREFER to limit yourself to 80 years of existence, that's just fine. I'm a wee bit more ambitious. If I'm wrong ... well, I've still had my fabulous 80 years. If you're wrong ... well, you've still had your 80 years.

But if I'm right ...

quote:

---

2. The supernatural is not actually 'super', but only a part of nature (or the divine)that has yet to be proven.

---

see my post above about the supernatural.

To me, what I have experienced in my youth absolutely certifies the existence of the evil supernatural. I believed in it before, but something solid as this, well, sticks with you.
I have teased you all now, I know, but I will have to leave it there.

(I also contend that these last few posts will ultimately be deleted...sigh)

Like I said before, I think the supernatural, holy, and scientific stuff are probably all part of the same thing. The only reason we have different names for them is because they each contain aspects which we do not have the knowledge to tie together into a cohesive whole--so, naturally, to us they seem like completely different and contrasting ideas.

I think it is fair to say that there is a substantial body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Ask yourself this – If an ostrich has wings and feathers, why can’t it fly?

Please refer to my below response to JJH at which I explain more fully my reasons for accepting the fact that life is meaningless beyond our own individual perception of the universe, and that after our eighty or so years of existence on this planet we are all doomed to oblivion.

You make some very compelling points that clearly indicates that your faith is not blind, and I suppose my puzzlement at your faith in God is matched by your puzzlement at my acceptance of the theory of evolution.

But at the end of the day, nothing matters. Life does not exist to fulfil any particular purpose, there is no point to existence. Mankind is simply making the best of things, and part of that process has and continues to involve the creation of myths, legends and religions that gives invented meaning and purpose to existence. I would strongly agree that to many, religion provides a much needed crutch. To many, the thought of oblivion is too much to contemplate, and religion provides hope of the afterlife that makes their existence at least bearable. This is a completely separate issue to the fact that competition between religious groups has been the cause of millions upon millions of deaths and untold suffering throughout history – religion has been the cause of more death and suffering than any other human institution.

I am of the opinion that God and the afterlife only exists in the imagination of men. Human nature is a complex and multi-faceted state of being, but there is no mystery here. Mankind has developed enough intelligence to recognize his own existence, and to control his ‘human nature’. It is when people lose control of their human instincts that they commit murder or other crimes that contravene society’s rules. Mankind, by understanding the world around him has been able to control and rein in his basic instincts, this is what civilization is all about. People still compete to better themselves, but instead of murdering and mutilating each other with impunity as they did in the Dark Ages, they play it by the rules…..if they don’t they get banged up in clink. Left to his own devices man will revert to his base and animal state. Mankind, not God, created civilization.

I agree, the world is an amazing place, and it is easy to become romantically intoxicated when standing atop a mountain or watching the graceful flight of swans….it is easy to be lulled into thinking, this is the work of God.

But, the mountains, the oceans and the deserts are simply the product of the chaotic, haphazard and dispassionate hand of nature, or more specifically of chance. Planet Earth, and everything on it is a mere fluke.

Like all of the other creatures that inhabit our planet, humankind has merely evolved from the simplest single-cell life forms….and has adapted to the changing environment over the course of millions of years.

The only purpose life has is to sustain itself, and to do that, lifeforms must evolve and adapt. Each species has adapted itself to its surroundings, and each species has done this by natural selection…..the survival of the fittest. Darwin himself realized this when he travelled to those distant islands and found that each individual island had flora and fauna unique to that island’s environment.

You ask – “If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”

Well, that’s simple. Many millennia ago, owing to a change in the environment of overcrowding, some monkey’s moved to the fringes of the forest where they began to spend more and more time within the neighbouring grasslands. As time went by, through natural selection, these apes developed characteristics that best suited them to their new environment – they began to walk upright – and in time, mankind developed. Some of these primitive men wandered across continents, thus the different races of the world developed – the Caucasian, the Negro etc….each with its own physical characteristics depending on the environment……and the same is true of every other lifeform on our planet, from the humble slug to the mighty elephant….where it is possible for life to exist, you will probably find life. None of the animals in our oceans and on our continents were placed there. All of life on Earth originated in the sea, and each creature that inhabits the land migrated from the sea and adapted in many, many stages to its current terrestrial environment, and each species, including man, continues to evolve, improve and adapt to fit the changing or existing environment. Sometimes environmental change can be too sudden and severe - such a fate befell the dinosaurs as most were unable to adapt quickly enough to change. However, the small warm-blooded rodent-like mammals of the time were able to survive the harsher conditions that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs, and with the dominant species out of the way, mammals were able to thrive and develop unimpeded…..thus, mankind was able to evolve.

Who knows how humankind will evolve over the coming thousands of years, but it is certain that he will adapt to his changing environment, and that the brain will continue to grow in power and complexity.

However, when all is said and done, it is up to the individual how he interprets the world around him.

You said – “My faith in God is the proof of God.” – and that is all that matters.

quote:

---

As time went by, through natural selection, these apes developed characteristics that best suited them to their new environment – they began to walk upright

---

I guees it's my partial unfamiliarity with every little thing Darwin wrote, I don't know. But that statement of yours is why I have a problem with evolution. I simply do not see how natural selection in and of itself leads to higher life forms.
it still doesn't address how WE came from a monkey.

How does an lifeform that's inherited a certain set of genes and cells start to change?
doesn't it's genetic identity prevent it from going through huge changes? Aren't certain cells forced into doing what they were designed to do?

A change such as that of a hairy tree-swinging monkey to that of a naked human is pretty huge. I understand a certain need for adaptation, but my limited mind is not allowing me to see these in the grand scale needed.
I don't see why an animal that can climb trees anyway would need to stand on two feet. And in any case, if such a change was necessary, wouldn't they have died anyway? I can't see an animal or it's offspring adapting quickly enough to something in it's surroundings.
Change such as that needs a long time to happen.

I just have to disagree again. Planet Earth is not here by happenstance. a few degrees closer or farther away from the Sun and this planet os toast (or a snowball). Instead, WE have the conditions necessary for sustaining life; for sustaining intelligent life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:

Andre Lux says – [b]DANIEL2: ‘God is dead’.

DANIEL2 says – Since God never existed in the first place, how can ‘God’ be dead?[/B]

---

Indeed a very relevant and profound question DANILELÉ2.

But now I have another one for you:

When one is discussing the theory of evolution it is necessary for one to recognize the broader picture.

Yes, man evolved from apes….but, by the same token, apes had evolved from the small rodent-like mammals that inhabited the Earth at the time of the dinosaurs…..and these small rodent-like mammals evolved from sea creatures that had themselves evolved from microscopic organisms.

Indeed, for mankind, evolution has only just begun, for when one considers the entire history of the planet man has only been around for the ‘blink of an eye’. If mankind does not become extinct in the meantime, by ten million years from now, the human form and intelligence will be unrecognizable from our present day form. Indeed, many people who believe that alien lifeforms are visiting our planet today are of the opinion that these little green men with disproportinately large heads and massive black eyes are our descendants visiting us from the future. Considering the unfeasibility of interstellar space travel at present, to those who believe in alien abductions (I do not) this theory does hold some water. Either way, anyone who may think that mankind in its present state of evolution has reached the pinnacle of development, is woefully wide of the mark.

Mankind’s existence is an incredible fluke….we are a trillion to one chance. Evolution is an unimaginably complex thing, and its course can be altered both by cataclysmic events or simply a gentle gust of wind. Imagine if you will that one of our ape-like ancestors (the father of mankind, if you like) was sleeping under a tree somewhere in Chad three million years ago. Along came a malaria-harbouring mosquito that, just as it was about to pitch on the monkey-man’s arm was blown off course by a gentle gust of wind, thus the monkey-man was allowed to live and procreate. Without this single monkey-man the course of mankind’s evolution may have been interrupted or terminated altogether.

Look at it this way JJH. Imagine that we can replay Earth’s history…...let’s go back a few billion years to when the Earth had just been formed and rerun Earth’s history. The chances of mankind developing (as we know humankind today) would be a trillion-to-one, assuming that any life started at all. There are so many random factors that alter the course of evolution, from cataclysmic colliding meteors to a gentle breeze……mankind is an amazing fluke, but that’s all we are, the product of chance. What is probable, is that whatever lifeform became dominant, as man has become, it would take on a similar form to ourselves at this stage of man’s evolution. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the dinosaurs were beginning to move towards a more humanoid reptile. Therefore, if Earth’s history was replayed, you could end up with either lizard-men, bird-men, fish-men, insect-men or even an alternative mammalian humanoid….rather than evolving from monkeys, humanoids could have evolved from wolves, hogs or lions….indeed, it is quite likely that lifeforms that we would consider as alien may have come into being.

Now, to address the question of how mankind evolved from apes we must go back in time 3 million years to Africa, at that time virtually covered in dense jungles. Then, the great African Rift formed, running down the spine of the continent. To the west, the environment remained virtually unchanged. However, to the east, the climate became dryer and the forests gradually receded and were partially replaced by grassland. All of these environmental changes took place over the course of tens of thousands of years, so there was enough time for the monkeys to adapt to their changing environment. With fewer trees about, the need to walk more upright became imperative, because the apemen had to be able to stand up above the long grass to detect not only their prey, but also predators.

So, JJH, you now know why these apes stranded in east Africa began to evolve into humans, now let me explain how it happened. Basically, those apes that were more able to cope with their newer surroundings survived the longest, and thus were able to reproduce. In other words, those apes with the ability and inclination to stand more upright survived longer than those who continued to scurry around on all fours. The offspring of these more erect apes naturally inherited their parents’ instincts and physical characteristics. And so the process continued. As primitive man learned to use stones and sticks to kill his prey, so he developed greater use of the hands. As you can see, evolution really is a case of adapt or die, but more than that, evolution has allowed man, not just to survive, but also to better himself….mankind will continue to evolve at an ever-increasing rate. Some fear that one day man’s evolution will spiral out of control, or that man will begin to devolve…..as life becomes ever easier for the human, physical strength and agility may be bred out of us and the function of the brain will become ever more powerful and prevalent. It is quite feasible that one day mankind may evolve into a blob of jelly – but probably not, because man is already developing the technology to alter the physical attributes of a developing embryo, and shortly we will be having babies made to order.

Now, let me summarize by taking up some of your specific points -

You said – “A change such as that of a hairy tree-swinging monkey to that of a naked human is pretty huge.”

True, but you must remember that this evolution took place over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.

You said – “I don't see why an animal that can climb trees anyway would need to stand on two feet.”

Well, as I say above, it was a case of adapt or die. When the African rift formed, many groups of apes could not return to the more densely forested west, thus they had to adapt to the more exposed savannah.

You said – “And in any case, if such a change was necessary, wouldn't they have died anyway?”

Many will have died, but conditions remained favourable enough for some of the monkey’s to survive and adapt. No doubt it was tough on them though.

You said – “I can't see an animal or it's offspring adapting quickly enough to something in it's surroundings.”

The dinosaurs didn’t have time to adapt because the environmental change in their case was too sudden, and they perished. With the apes of the savannah, the environmental change was slow enough to allow the apes to evolve into primitive man, as I say, over the course of tens of thousands of years.

D2, I think you are missing a lot of the essential argument. Sure, the entire apes debate can go on forever, as it has, and will render this thread as boring as all previous debates on the subject. To take this discussion to a new level - in other words, not attempting to beat the very flogged, dead horse - try addressing this most powerful statement JJH made:

"My faith in God is the proof of God."

No matter how much science will chip away at what foolish people think are facts in the old testament, JJH's words, which are in essence the fullness of God, will never be destroyed.

I look forward to reactions to JJH's words.

Daniel2 subscribes to the view that science is playing for one particular side. Indeed, this is the popular conception ... that here comes the shining light of science, sweeping away the vagaries of faith and mysticism.

Truly, science can tell us much about the state of the universe. But where metaphysics are concerned, it ALWAYS FALLS SHORT! It is commonly accepted in scientific circles that the Big Bang happened an order of Billions of years ago ... and that the universe does not possess sufficient mass to collapse on itself, but will eventually reach entropy and die.

quote:

---

The dinosaurs didn’t have time to adapt because the environmental change in their case was too sudden, and they perished. With the apes of the savannah, the environmental change was slow enough to allow the apes to evolve into primitive man, as I say, over the course of tens of thousands of years.

---

I still don't see it. how does an animal know
that it's offspring need to, say, grow an extra foot for the sake of finding a few bananas?
changes in thickness of fur, ot hair color, I can understand, but not that. It sounds too rationalized a defense for a theory that is yet to be wholly proven.

quote:

---

life is an unimportant, infinitesimal and pointless aberration.

---

I think you just made the case for all the serial killers out there.

I have never claimed that my theories and opinions stated at this thread are ‘revolutionary’, or even original. And, I am not seeking to add anything new to the debate, because for the vast majority of society, the issue has been resolved….evolution is fact, and God’s existence is being called into question by a rapidly growing majority of society.

Wedge, you said – “The fact remains that religion has a viable defense against this brand of nihilism.”

So you agree then that religion invented a ‘divine being’ to give a purpose for living to the unenlightened masses – how patronizing.

Wedge, you said – “Daniel2 subscribes to the view that science is playing for one particular side.”

Nonsense. I have stated no such opinion. Science is science, and if it happens to contradict the bible, so be it.

Wedge, you said – “….where metaphysics are concerned, it (science) ALWAYS FALLS SHORT!”

Because mankind doesn’t understand something at present, it doesn’t mean to say that that which cannot be explained is supernatural or is in some way relating to a ‘divine being’. Two thousand years ago science couldn’t explain that the world was round, and people invented ideas about falling off of the edge of the world, just as you, Wedge, are inventing reasons to make God’s existence a possibility.

I agree Wedge, at present even our greatest minds are unable to comprehend the limits of the universe – but, that is no reason to invent some sort of ‘divine being’ to explain it.

Now Peter, whilst there is still a tiny minority of society that does not believe that mankind evolved from apes, this particular discussion is very much alive. Indeed, numbers of evolution-sceptics are now so few, there are probably more Goldsmith fans in the world than there are those who prefer to arrogantly believe man to be somehow made in the image of a ‘divine being’, and to such people the debate about evolution is probably dead (I must admit that when I discuss Goldsmith’s outmoded, simplistic and extinct ‘flat-Earth’ approach to scoring movies during the ‘90s, I feel I am verging on necrophilia). But to those who prefer to accept scientific evidence, the fascinating subject of evolution remains littered with unanswered questions and ‘missing links’ – and the fact remains, as far as the vast majority of people are concerned, evolution is fact, and man’s evolution from ape is fact.

Perhaps you Peter are amongst those few who still prefer to ignore the scientific evidence that proves we are descended from apes, in which case, be careful next time you take a long walk….I wouldn’t want you to fall off of the edge of the world, as you blindly walk along.

And, I’ve already responded to JJH’s "My faith in God is the proof of God" statement earlier at this thread, thus –

“However, when all is said and done, it is up to the individual how he interprets the world around him.
You said – “My faith in God is the proof of God.” – and that is all that matters.”

Nobody is trying to destroy JJH’s words – there are many, many far more intelligent and successful people in the world than I who claim to believe implicitly in the existence of God.

The universe is an unimaginably vast and seemingly infinite void sprinkled with fragments of matter, and within this colossal nothingness life is an unimportant, infinitesimal and pointless aberration. – but I like it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
The universe is an unimaginably vast and seemingly infinite void sprinkled with fragments of matter, and within this colossal nothingness life is an unimportant, infinitesimal and pointless aberration. – but I like it.

---

I'm glad you're content with your universe. My universe is much nicer, though. And no, I don't rule out that we're not in the same one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:

[b]Wedge and PeterK

Wedge, you said – “The fact remains that religion has a viable defense against this brand of nihilism.”

So you agree then that religion invented a ‘divine being’ to give a purpose for living to the unenlightened masses – how patronizing.

---

Um ... yes, that's exactly what I said. Of COURSE religion was brought into existence as an oppositional force to nihilism! Any God of good moral fiber would naturally be the antithesis of pandemonium. Nihilism is a corrosive disease eating away at the foundation of Humanity (which, in the sense of the historical majority, has been a belief in Divinity, or something which is sacred.) You see this action as liberating. How much FAITH you must have that Humanity can survive this erosion!

Oh! If only you COULD claim that your argument was the morally correct one! But alas! In your universe, life has no meaning! So I really can't go wrong AT ALL! Now THAT'S LIBERATING!

quote:

---

The universe is an unimaginably vast and seemingly infinite void sprinkled with fragments of matter, and within this colossal nothingness life is an unimportant, infinitesimal and pointless aberration. – but I like it.[/B]

---

How patriotic of you.

Out of curiosity, what's to like? Apart from James Horner's outstanding ability to sublimate himself to the masses. (Maybe we should worship him!)

You said – “I think you just made the case for all the serial killers out there.”

Yes, I’m surprised there aren’t more of them.

But you still didn't answer the most important query of all times:

WHO CAME FIRST: THE EGG OR THE ALIEN?

I am gratified to learn that you now admit God was invented by mankind as a way of ‘explaining’ the mysteries of the universe…..and I agree, in the past, such superstitious beliefs did give mankind a purpose and agenda…..as well as providing the ruling classes with a powerful tool with which to control the common man. But, let us not lose sight of the fact that religion and religious conflict, in all its guises, has caused untold suffering and the death of millions and millions of people through the ages. It follows that a firm belief in one religion, raises the spectre of prejudice against those who practice another religion. The situation in India and Pakistan and the Middle East perfectly illustrates this. Nevertheless, religion, Christianity in particular, did provide a common reference and an amazingly compelling focus for the peoples of many developing European nations during the superstitious and unenlightened past.

But, isn’t it about time mankind stood on in its own two feet without using religion as some sort of crutch?

You characterize nihilism as being ‘destructive’ or ‘evil’….I reject this. Society needs rules, but it doesn’t a bible, although the New Testament has provided a valuable moral guide for our society’s children. But, during the 20th century mankind has begun to come of age, and can start to believe in himself, rather than in a fictional deity. In our enlightened times, religion (in its current form) is more likely to hinder progress, rather than facilitate it.

You said – You see this action (nihilism) as liberating. How much FAITH you must have that Humanity can survive this erosion!

I see the natural evolution of religion over the next decades as rejecting the idea of a ‘divine being’, and within fifty years, many men of the church will openly accept that God does not exist.

You said – If only you COULD claim that your argument was the morally correct one!

My argument is not specifically about morality. Mankind does not need a God to engender civilization, he just needs common sense.

You said – Out of curiosity, what's to like? (about existence as DANIEL2 perceives it)

Mankind’s phenomenal endeavours and nature’s exquisite beauty – and that’s just for starters…..one does not need to have faith in God to appreciate the beauty, scope and wonders of the universe.

I’m sorry that you find the discussion of the origin of the species so uninteresting – but where would we be without evolution?

You ask me to address JJH’s strong statement – "My faith in God is the proof of God."

I refer you to HARVEY (1950).

You and I live in the same universe, there’s no doubt about that….it is just that my perception of the world around us differs from yours, mine being based in the cruel reality of life, whilst your sheltered existence seems to be dependent on vague and insubstantial symbolism and superstition.

You ask – I still don't see it. how does an animal know that it's offspring need to, say, grow an extra foot for the sake of finding a few bananas?

Evolution is an extraordinarily complex thing, and yet it is also a very simple concept to grasp….however, if you don’t want to believe that men are descended from apes, then no amount of evidence is ever going to convince you of that fact.

Still, let’s assume that you are keeping an open mind, and I will attempt further to explain some of the mysteries surrounding the origin of the species and evolution itself.

When talking of evolution, it might be helpful to bear these examples in mind. Firstly, ask yourself this question – “If the ostrich has wings and feathers, why can’t it fly?” Secondly, think about today’s farm animals – these provide perfect examples of where man has forced and hastened the evolution of the pig, the horse, the chicken, the cow, and so on. Through selective breeding mankind has created cattle that yield the most beef and milk possible, and work continues to further increase the yield from farm animals. This provides further conclusive proof of evolution, because the cattle and sheep of today are completely different from the cattle and sheep of even two hundred years ago, and all of these farm and domestic animals were once wild, and very different in nature and appearance.

Take the good old farmyard duck. Now, I’m a keen duck-keeper, and at present keep over three hundred domestic ducks on my farmland for meat and eggs. I own many varieties of dick, and most of these varieties cannot fly. Take the Aylesbury duck, a big heavy bird, with strong wings and aerodynamic feathers – and yet, it cannot fly, but the ducks from whom the Aylesbury is descended could fly, therefore the Aylesbury has evolved significantly over the past few hundred years, albeit artificially – this is proven by historical record. Now you may begin to see why the ostrich has wings and feathers but cannot fly. Over the course of millions of years, the ostrich has lost the ability to fly because in its natural environment flight became unnecessary….instead it is able to run at a phenomenal speed. However, there is plenty of fossilized evidence of the ostrich’s evolution, its DNA-proven ancestors could fly…..and the ostrich’s evolution took place without mankind’s artificial hastening.

The theory of evolution provides the unifying basis of all biological science. The history of life is a single process of species-splitting and change. Evidence of evolution is found in the distribution of structures considered to be homologous - structures which share the same developmental (embryonic) origin, and perhaps the same relative position, in different species (for example, the wing of a bird, the fore-leg of a dog, a human arm). Homologies can now be identified at the molecular and genetic level of an organism's composition. A hierarchical Linnaean classification can be constructed by studying such similarities and differences. The Englishman Charles Darwin recognized the significance of this natural hierarchy, and argued that it arose from the actual genealogical relationship of organisms. Darwin provided a causal evolutionary mechanism - natural selection.

Many different lines of evidence contribute to current evolutionary theory; genetics provides the scientific basis for the study of heredity and mutation; biogeography supplies evidence of geographical variation within and between species (Galapagos finches are a good example of this variation); palaeontology and geology have revealed the time-span of the history of life on earth (over 3,500 million years), and the sequence of origination of the major groups of organisms.

Evolution as a historical event is now accepted widely as fact, except amongst some theologians, but theories of evolutionary processes continue to be the subject of intense debate. Natural selection leading to the increased adaptation of an organism may be significant only in the short-term of geological time, which encompasses numerous mass-extinction events. The Darwinian model of gradual evolutionary change has been complemented by the theory of short bursts of rapid change which punctuate long periods of evolutionary stasis. Geneticists and developmental biologists are researching the potential of large scale mutations, and possible constraints on the evolving structure of organisms.

But all of these ongoing developments and theorizing are taking place with the complete agreement of all quarters of the scientific community that evolution is a fact.

Finally JJH, with reference to your comment – “I think you just made the case for all the serial killers out there.”

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
I am gratified to learn that you now admit God was invented by mankind as a way of ‘explaining’ the mysteries of the universe…..and I agree.

---

Okay, this is getting old. I said nothing even remotely of the sort, and you durn well know it.

quote:

---

But, let us not lose sight of the fact that religion and religious conflict, in all its guises, has caused untold suffering and the death of millions and millions of people through the ages ... etc ... etc ...

---

Let us not lose sight of the fact that untold suffering has been shown to happen just fine without religion. All you need is an idea to declare ideological war. Should we ban all ideas then? This tired offensive is rhetorical nonsense.

quote:

---

But, isn’t it about time mankind stood on in its own two feet without using religion as some sort of crutch?

---

Again, more rhetoric. Why must you persist in espousing religion as a mere refuge of the weak? You insult the memory of millions of paragons of Human strength. Some unfortunate people use religion as such, true. But I might as well ask: why, when standing on its own two feet, should mankind injure itself by refusing to use all its muscles?

quote:

---

The New Testament has provided a valuable moral guide for our society’s children ...

---

So you admit religion is a source of valuable morality? I agree. If religion is a viable SOURCE, why try to find another one? What concrete ADVANTAGES or IMPROVEMENTS in morality will secularism show? Will people stop hating each other? Will people love their fellow man more or less once the aspect of higher authority has been removed?

quote:

---

But, during the 20th century mankind has begun to come of age, and can start to believe in himself, rather than in a fictional deity. In our enlightened times, religion (in its current form) is more likely to hinder progress, rather than facilitate it.

---

Again, when you say religion you might as well say IDEAS. Change is objectionable enough on its own. And by what measure is mankind "coming of age?" You suggest that the measure of mankind's maturity is the degree to which he rejects Deity. You say rejection of God leads to enlightenment, then define enlightenment as rejection of God. This pattern of circular argument has followed you from your Goldsmith sermons. Show me quantifiable evidence that man gains a GREATER understanding of himself and the universe when he rejects theism. Quantifiable, not circular. Otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on.

quote:

---

I see the natural evolution of religion over the next decades as rejecting the idea of a ‘divine being’, and within fifty years, many men of the church will openly accept that God does not exist.

---

Again you amaze me with your stagnant thinking! "Many men of the church" have been turning away since THE BEGINNING of the church! You seem to think that religion (in its broadest sense, no less!) will falter before the problem of loss of faith, when in reality they have successfully weathered it for millennia! In actuality most major religions are GROWING! Do your research and stop spouting rhetorical jibberish!

quote:

---

It has always been man’s nature to invent idols on whom he can place the responsibility for his own actions.

---

If you refer to religion, your aphorism falls miserably short. God HOLDS man responsible for his actions where man fails to do so. Abuse of deity as a clause to escape accountability is viewed as a most serious sin ... repentance is not enough in most religions; reparations must be made.

quote:

---

Mankind’s phenomenal endeavours and nature’s exquisite beauty – and that’s just for starters…..one does not need to have faith in God to appreciate the beauty, scope and wonders of the universe.

---

I disagree. Nothing is beautiful on its own terms. A crayon drawing done by a little girl is not beautiful because it is symmetrical (it's not.) It is not beautiful because it shows good color balance (it probably doesn't.) It is not beautiful because it exists. Existence is not a measure of beauty. All physical matter "exists" in equal status and a thing can only be called beautiful by contrast. It is not beautiful because there was human intent (re: complexity) behind it. Human intent is not enough. Human intent is also behind a young boy stomping a frog into the pavement, which is not beautiful.

It is beautiful because she made it and she loved it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
if you don’t want to believe that men are descended from apes, then no amount of evidence is ever going to convince you of that fact.

---

Or so you say. I say: you don't want to believe in God, and no amount of evidence is going to convince you of His existence.

NP: Alive Suite, JNH ****

Personally, Wedge has made the best observations, aside from JJH's earlier posts I've recognized. Daniel2 is pinned as a result of saying "I like it" after proclaiming the entire universe is full of no faith at all, rather scientological evidence. If one likes something, it's got an inherent beauty, as Wedge points out, which, if applied to metaphysics, points to only one thing. :::ding::: I've always thought science to be man's best attempt to put Creation on paper. Science will never disprove God, because it comes from God.

Okay, though I believe there is much left unsaid, out of respect for your position as Message Board Administrator I will refrain from posting further off-topic opinions.

Thanks to Wedge, Stephen, John, JJH and Al for making the discussion so interesting while it lasted.

And much as I may disagree with your dismissive attitude to the topics discussed here Peter, without you there would be no Movie Music Message Board, so thanks to you for allowing the discussion to go this far.

By the way Peter. You said – ”Daniel2 is pinned as a result of saying "I like it" after proclaiming the entire universe is full of no faith at all, rather scientological evidence.”

In closing, it's hard for me to realize how you can call my arguments here "dismissive" when you refuse to call Wedge's comments dismissive. I thought I was being clear when I said the debate has gone on forever, and if we unearth it here on these message boards, the result will still be the same. Wedge said "I think what Daniel2 fails to realize is that his 'revolutionary' and 'modern' arguments are nothing new. People have been objecting to theism since they could philosophically conceive of it. The lines were drawn many centuries ago, and Daniel2 is not adding anything new to the debate." If dismissive is the word, Wedge is being far more eloquently dismissive than I. But, I do understand, it's always fun to put the administrator, the guy in charge, el capitano, etc, in the negative light. If I am going to stick to my own rules for the place (with a little slack here and there, I am bound to run in to people who don't have the same rules, but still want freedoms of their own as if this place was theirs. It's all part of the game, I s'pose.

Finally, I will admit, "scientological" is not a real word. But, my use and intent of this word is very different from the religion of "scientology" (another word not found in the dictionary). My use of "scientological" should be read as the "logic of science," which has been your position in this debate, and has absolutely nothing to do with the church of L Ron Hubbard.

As we observe the tangible universe, we see limitless space and endless time. Every atom in the universe is constantly in motion, and all matter exhibits infinite variety.

The LAW of Cause and Effect dictates:

The first Cause of limitless space must be infinite in extent.

The first Cause of endless time must be eternal in duration.

The first Cause of perpetual motion must be omnipotent in power.

The first Cause of infinite variety must be omniscient and omnipresent.

In our tangible universe we find creatures which exhibit consciousness and personality, which must be attributes of the Creator.

Everything in the tangible universe manifests in triunity:

energy/motion/phenomenon

space/time/dimension

past/present/future

spirit/soul/body

Our Creator is a triune Being:

Father/Son/Holy Spirit

The Word of God (The Bible) IS the essence of Life.
Store that Word in your mind and in your heart, and it will manifest positive changes in your physical body.

ALL of DANIEL2's arguments ring false and hollow to me, because many months ago I threw the gauntlet down before him, and he ran away.
God is a personality, and He can be KNOWN by each and every one of us.
When DANIEL2 and I had a debate similar to the one above, I told him HOW he can come into RELATIONSHIP with Almighty God.

DANIEL2 never responded.

He ran away like the coward that he is.