Christianity All Power Seized

[Nimos]

In the end I see this is the key.

Matthew 7:7-8
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

I see the first step in knowing is asking. I see It is the heart that must ask.

Regards Tony

It is not really what this means, I think, don't get me wrong, because I do agree with what you say, that we should ask questions as the first step in our pursuit of knowledge. I totally agree with that.

However I think the verse is taken out of context, in regards to what Jesus actually mean here. If you read the whole passage:

Matthew 7:7-11
7 - “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
8 - For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
9 - Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?
10 - Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?
11 - If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Then this most likely refer to that of answering prayers, since that is how you "talk" with God. So the really good stuff comes from God if you ask/pray for it, and therefore have nothing to do with knowledge.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Tony an correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that humans evolved from the apes but a certain point in time humans became a separate species separate from the apes. That happened when God instilled humans with a soul, which is what differentiates humans from animals.

This is the answer from Abdul'baha

".... As the completeness of man stems entirely from the component elements, their measure, their manner of combination, and the mutual action and interaction of other beings—and since man was produced ten or a hundred thousand years ago from the same earthly elements, with the same measures and quantities, the same manner of composition and combination, and the same interactions with other beings—it follows that man was exactly the same then as exists now. This is a self-evident truth and cannot be doubted. And if a thousand million years hence, the component elements of man are brought together, measured out in the same proportion, combined in the same manner, and subjected to the same interaction with other beings, exactly the same man will come into existence. For example, if a hundred thousand years hence one were to bring together oil, flame, wick, lamp, and a lighter of the lamp—briefly, if all that is needed now be combined then—exactly the same lamp will be produced... "

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is not really what this means, I think, don't get me wrong, because I do agree with what you say, that we should ask questions as the first step in our pursuit of knowledge. I totally agree with that.

However I think the verse is taken out of context, in regards to what Jesus actually mean here. If you read the whole passage:

Matthew 7:7-11
7 - “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
8 - For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
9 - Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?
10 - Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?
11 - If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Then this most likely refer to that of answering prayers, since that is how you "talk" with God. So the really good stuff comes from God if you ask/pray for it, and therefore have nothing to do with knowledge.

That is a great post.

I see It is what we ask for that is the key.

To me the best prayer is asking all good for all others, to me there is no asking for material self in prayer as I have found that material means are only a means to an end and are given when needed.

We can ask to be more spiritual based self, which to me is finding within the image God made us in, or the self of God within us.

I see when our motive for life is based in God, then all we do is for the good of all. When that is our motive the world of science also opens new doors in our heart, nothing is impossible.

Regards Tony

 

[Nimos]

Tony an correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that humans evolved from the apes but a certain point in time humans became a separate species separate from the apes. That happened when God instilled humans with a soul, which is what differentiates humans from animals.

You almost got it correct

Imagine I took a dog and gave it an evolutionary overhaul, so I shaved it, made eat only grass and a new type of stomach that could handle it, gave it a couple of more legs and a very short tail... and then called it a Doborus and classified it as belonging to the Dobos family. Then it is a Dobos, but it is still a dog as i evolved it from that family... and it would belong to all the ancestors as well, since dogs evolved from them. If the Doborus, split into two new species, it would be the common ancestor to those, but these new ones, would still belong to the dog family as well. Does that make sense?

 

[Trailblazer]

You almost got it correct

Imagine I took a dog and gave it an evolutionary overhaul, so I shaved it, made eat only grass and a new type of stomach that could handle it, gave it a couple of more legs and a very short tail... and then called it a Doborus and classified it as belonging to the Dobos family. Then it is a Dobos, but it is still a dog as i evolved it from that family... and it would belong to all the ancestors as well, since dogs evolved from them. If the Doborus, split into two new species, it would be the common ancestor to those, but these new ones, would still belong to the dog family as well. Does that make sense?

I try to stay out of the evolution stuff since I am NOT a science person.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You almost got it correct

Imagine I took a dog and gave it an evolutionary overhaul, so I shaved it, made eat only grass and a new type of stomach that could handle it, gave it a couple of more legs and a very short tail... and then called it a Doborus and classified it as belonging to the Dobos family. Then it is a Dobos, but it is still a dog as i evolved it from that family... and it would belong to all the ancestors as well, since dogs evolved from them. If the Doborus, split into two new species, it would be the common ancestor to those, but these new ones, would still belong to the dog family as well. Does that make sense?

Are we mixing species with breed?

Is not the Dorbus still a breed of Dog?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I try to stay out of the evolution stuff since I am NOT a science person.

I should too

But I have Faith in what Abdul'baha offered, as such, I see science can learn from what was offered.

It may take a couple of generations to ss that bounty in those writings.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

It may take a couple of generations to ss that bounty in those writings.

A couple of generations or more.

 

[Nimos]

That is a great post.

I see It is what we ask for that is the key.

To me the best prayer is asking all good for all others, to me there is no asking for material self in prayer as I have found that material means are only a means to an end and are given when needed.

We can ask to be more spiritual based self, which to me is finding within the image God made us in, or the self of God within us.

I see when our motive for life is based in God, then all we do is for the good of all. When that is our motive the world of science also opens new doors in our heart, nothing is impossible.

Regards Tony

I heard Startalk earlier with Prof. Brian Greene as a guest.... Just in case you don't know him:

Brian Randolph Greene (born February 9, 1963) is an American theoretical physicist, mathematician, and string theorist. He has been a professor at Columbia University since 1996 and chairman of the World Science Festival since co-founding it in 2008. Greene has worked on mirror symmetry, relating two different Calabi–Yau manifolds (concretely, relating the conifold to one of its orbifolds). He also described the flop transition, a mild form of topology change, showing that topology in string theory can change at the conifold point.

So, he knows his science right

Anyway I, honestly think he made the best point in regards to religion, that I have heard, which kind of echos my own view, at least to some degree, which is that people can believe whatever they want.

But you can hear it here (Start around 27.50, if I didn't get it into the link correctly):

 

[Nimos]

Are we mixing species with breed?

Is not the Dorbus still a breed of Dog?

Regards Tony

I don't think it's either to be honest, since I gave it an "Evolutionary overhaul" which obviously is not really possible in the extremes I did it. So not really sure what it should be called, maybe it's a node/common ancestor. Its not really that important I think, for the meaning.

But it doesn't really fit that of a species or breed. Depending on whether that would be possible or not.

Breeds are different varieties of domestic animals of the same species. For example, German Shepherd and Rottweiler are different breeds, but the same species - dogs. ... A species is usually defined as a group of animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

 

[thomas t]

Occam’s razor is not intended to be a substitute for critical thinking.

but didn't use it as a substitute for critical thinking, neither did I make an unjustified claim. You simply disagree, that's all.

My claim is as justified as claiming the LUCA to be the ancestor of all life on earth.
So Occam's razor perfectly applies, as I explained before.

But you can trace it back through evolution,

you can't test nor observe anything like the LUCA. Grab all these fossiles in the museums, count the DNA in the labs you have tested... you won't find it.
By using imagination people say the LUCA was at the start, they say "it is traced back", that's how I see it. Your picture is beautiful. Yet LUCA isn't even identified therein.

A conclusion can’t rely just on its simplicity. It must be backed by empirical evidence.

But the beauty IS the evidence. So my conclusion goes: the proposition that a loving God did it... is backed by evidence.

You God or my alien claim doesn't do any of this. Because you haven't observed, measured, whatever God and the same goes with my aliens, therefore we can't claim that they are part of reality, wouldn't you agree with that?

same applies to the LUCA.

"Most people oversimplify Occam’s razor to mean the simplest answer is usually correct.

but I didn't do this. I merely said there is evidence for my claim.
All I tend to say about God as a person... is that I believe God to be correct.

 

[Nimos]

you can't test nor observe anything like the LUCA. Grab all these fossiles in the museums, count the DNA in the labs you have tested... you won't find it.
By using imagination people say the LUCA was at the start, they say "it is traced back", that's how I see it. Your picture is beautiful. Yet LUCA isn't even identified therein.

It's not based on imagination, it is based on what the evidence shows...

The black line is what you arrive at if you follow the DNA path from all the major groups, from animals like us to all the bacteria etc. You simply wouldn't draw the conclusion that we just spontaneous came into existences.

All known forms of life are based on the same fundamental biochemical organization: genetic information encoded in DNA, transcribed into RNA, through the effect of protein- and RNA-enzymes, then translated into proteins by (highly similar) ribosomes, with ATP, NADPH and others as energy sources. Analysis of small sequence differences in widely shared substances such as cytochrome c further supports universal common descent. Some 23 proteins are found in all organisms, serving as enzymes carrying out core functions like DNA replication. The fact that only one such set of enzymes exists is convincing evidence of a single ancestry. 6,331 genes common to all living animals have been identified; these may have arisen from a single common ancestor that lived 650 million years ago in the Precambrian.

With our current understanding of the evidence and the knowledge we have, this offers the best explanation. Is it 100% absolutely certain? No, nothing is absolute, but it is as certain as it can be with the what we know.

It's like saying that the biblical creation story is equally as good an explanation as the big bang theory, because no one was around to observe it happen. Well no one was around to observe God create anything either... and the evidence that we have simply suggest that the big bang is true.

Science is not only about telling you what is reasonable to believe in, it's mostly about telling you what is definitely not true.

But the beauty IS the evidence. So my conclusion goes: the proposition that a loving God did it... is backed by evidence.

Explain to me, how beauty suggest God? Don't just say it, demonstrate how it leads to a loving God?

same applies to the LUCA.

It just doesn't, look at what is written above and if you cared to examine why scientists draw that conclusion, you would see that it is not just a random guess like yours.

 

[thomas t]

it is based on what the evidence shows...

and this evidence you cite for the LUCA as being the ancestor of all modern life... is of the same quality as the evidence I present for a loving creator-God. There are other beautiful landscapes out there, too. They all point to a loving God, as I see it.
When I present landscapes, I don't do this in a attempt to provide evidence for the creation story of the first chapters of Genesis, though.

Explain to me, how beauty suggest God? Don't just say it, demonstrate how it leads to a loving God?

actually, I didn't just say it. I presented the evidence - the landscape.
Demonstrate? Tic for tac, please. You demonstrate how life evolved from one LUCA... and then, trying to copy your way of demonstrating how LUCA was the offspring, I demonstrate how God made it.

you would see that it is not just a random guess like yours.

it's not a random guess.

You simply wouldn't draw the conclusion that we just spontaneous came into existences.

That wasn't what I suggested.

 

[Trailblazer]

I give up, this is beyond reason and common sense. But anyway if it makes sense to you, and you think that is a great explanation, then good for you.

Believers and atheists just see evidence differently... and never the twain shall meet.
I sit somewhere in the middle between believers and atheists, even though I am a believer.
That is because I listen to both sides and give them both due consideration.

 

[Nimos]

Believers and atheists just see evidence differently... and never the twain shall meet.
I sit somewhere in the middle between believers and atheists, even though I am a believer.
That is because I listen to both sides and give them both due consideration.

There shouldn't be any difference in how atheists and religious people see evidence, if you ask me, and for the most part there is none. To me it just seems like some religious people, think it's like a defeat to admit that there is no or no good evidence for a God and therefore having to rely on faith is somehow bad. It's not like the possibility of God existing goes away, because there is no evidence, simply that we don't know.

I used this image in another post in another context, but think it works well as an illustration of how it feels sometimes to discuss with some religious people:

For some reason the impression you get some times is that a religious person, would argue how an image like this would prove, how amazing God is, that he is able to put an animal beneath some paint. Because only a God would be able to lift paint off the road like this and push an animal in there. I just don't get, this way of approaching evidence, when it's obviously not a rational explanation.

I want to stress that it is far from all religious people that does this, by far the majority approach arguments with a rational mind and common sense. But it simply amazes me, how far some people are willing to go in order to defend their beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

There shouldn't be any difference in how atheists and religious people see evidence, if you ask me, and for the most part there is none. To me it just seems like some religious people, think it's like a defeat to admit that there is no or no good evidence for a God and therefore having to rely on faith is somehow bad. It's not like the possibility of God existing goes away, because there is no evidence, simply that we don't know.

Well, we have been down this read before haven't we?
As I always say, there is no proof that God exists, only evidence.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

I used this image in another post in another context, but think it works well as an illustration of how it feels sometimes to discuss with some religious people:

For some reason the impression you get some times is that a religious person, would argue how an image like this would prove, how amazing God is, that he is able to put an animal beneath some paint. Because only a God would be able to lift paint off the road like this and push an animal in there. I just don't get, this way of approaching evidence, when it's obviously not a rational explanation.

I do not get it either and I would never say that.

There
I want to stress that it is far from all religious people that does this, by far the majority approach arguments with a rational mind and common sense. But it simply amazes me, how far some people are willing to go in order to defend their beliefs.

I fully agree.