| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/19/2009 5:52:40 PM | Ishaun:
I think the part you were reading in the Bible was in Genesis Chapters 10 and 11.
The Tower was built on the instigation by Nimrod, who was in opposition to God and wanted to dominate. Ultimately humankind has now attained true divisions and does rule to its own detrement and the earth ultimately has suffered as has its inhabitants.
Mostly down to greed and power.  | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/19/2009 9:28:52 PM | To ishaun,
I sounds really funny(about scattering people all over the earth). But the real fact is all the religious books are written by human not by God. So, human wrote these according to their immediate belief, understanding and benefit. Not only in Bible, but also in other religious books like Betha, Kuran and Tripatika, we can get about their own philosophy of creation of the world and living being. But no religion tells about creation of The God and dimension of The God.
Really a question comes in mind, actually where is the God?
definitely, we have to again go back to jesus and Buddha's time. What they did? They scrifice themselve for the better welbeing of the society and they had even loved their enemy. Because, they were aware about the truth 'nothing is yours'. I have no idea how relevant is the time mechine concept, but sometime I think that what we do is just an illusion and when the sequence of happyness breaks, we come to reality and start crying and become sad. | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/21/2009 6:03:28 AM | ^^And if we are real lucky we will adjust to reality and start making the world a better place.
"With or with out God"
which happens to be the title of a really good book worth reading | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/21/2009 8:18:34 AM | | I think you are right. Very well put. You would enjoy reading, Life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East. It says it better than I can. You already understand so many of the teachings already. Thanks for the post. Sophie | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/21/2009 6:42:37 PM | hi.. another point of view on The Tower of Babel
Patriarchs and Prophets by Ellen G White
The Tower of Babel
The men of Babel had determined to establish a government that should be independent of God. There were some among them, however, who feared the Lord, but who had been deceived by the pretensions of the ungodly and drawn into their schemes. For the sake of these faithful ones the Lord delayed His judgments and gave the people time to reveal their true character. As this was developed, the sons of God labored to turn them from their purpose; but the people were fully united in their Heaven-daring undertaking. Had they gone on unchecked, they would have demoralized the world in its infancy. Their confederacy was founded in rebellion; a kingdom established for self-exaltation, but in which God was to have no rule or honor. Had this confederacy been permitted, a mighty power would have borne sway to banish righteousness--and with it peace, happiness, and security--from the earth. For the divine statutes, which are "holy and just and good" (Romans 7:12), men were endeavoring to substitute laws to suit the purpose of their own selfish and cruel hearts.
Those that feared the Lord cried unto Him to interpose. "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded." In mercy to the world He defeated the purpose of the tower builders and overthrew the memorial of their daring. In mercy He confounded their speech, thus putting a check on their purposes of rebellion. God bears long with the perversity of men, giving them ample opportunity for repentance; but He marks all their devices to resist the authority of His just and holy law. From time to time the unseen hand that holds the scepter of government is stretched out to restrain iniquity. Unmistakable evidence is given that the Creator of the universe, the One infinite in wisdom and love and truth, is the Supreme Ruler of heaven and earth, and that none can with impunity defy His power.
The schemes of the Babel builders ended in shame and defeat. The monument to their pride became the memorial of their folly. Yet men are continually pursuing the same course--depending upon self, and rejecting God's law. | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/21/2009 7:05:58 PM | | And yet.. we have never seen/witnessed/tested anything which resembles the tower of babel. | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/21/2009 7:43:57 PM |
I have a nephew who is a rocket scientist, really is, works for Boeing, and one day asked him if there was a way to figure out the odds of "us" becoming what we are through the evolutionary process. His answer was that we don't have numbers big enough to express it.
A Boeing rocket scientist said there exist no numbers big enough to express something?! I think either you heard wrong or you don't actually have a nephew at Boeing.
Is this number big enough:
13 to the power of 548,534,543,887 to the power of 449,001,723 to the power of 85 squared?
The ability of natural selection to narrow down the odds has been explained to you in several threads, yet you keep promulgating this obvious untruth.
I think I have found a reason for the divisiveness you alluded to, OP. It's HIDDEN AGENDAS. People who invest their psyche into a dogma because of their own lack of exposure to the tough thing to do called 'science' need everybody else to follow their dogma. They are willing to purport lies to get you to 'join their team.' If they are willing to lie to do that on a dating site, imagine what some could be willing to do in real life when it comes to getting you to follow their dogma.
Violence, lies, terrorism, hatred - all are used as weapons in the struggle to gain control of the populace. | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/21/2009 8:07:17 PM | To Sophie,
Thanks for your feedback. Actually, I am planning to put all of my thought in one book covering concept of birth, life and death and the relation of the supreme power (The God) with our life. I am trying to do more study about after death and re-birth and electromagnetic force of mind with another mind and place. And yes, as Island home said, with and without God! how does it make a difference!! | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/22/2009 2:41:54 AM | With god you give away any power you may posses. comforting while you can maintain the delusion.
With out god. A bit more scary . At least you are at the controls. As much as you are capable. A chance to steer away from calamity and towards peace.
Always with the kids in the back shouting are we there yet | |
|
| |
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/22/2009 3:11:03 AM | Island home,
The concept of ‘with God and without God’ is not so simple, rather much complex and vague then we think. Yes, definitely, when we are with God, we feel secure even though we are more dependent. We are basically assuming that there is a supreme power that operates us or the universe. On the contrary, ‘without God’ means there is no such things as supreme power and we are our own. Really, it’s a bit scary even though we feel like independent.
It’s really very hard to judge the scenario. The world is more than our imagination and we cannot justify every scenario in this world on the basis of fact. So, there is one saying, ‘the science ends, philosophy begins.’ When we try to put these concepts in real world, we may or may not justify all of them. | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/22/2009 3:49:22 AM | I agree milghi it is not so simple
Just as it is not as simple as having an open mind
Being aware of our filters is half the battle
The other half ? well still working on that | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/22/2009 3:55:04 PM | With a Bachelors degree in Aeroautical Engineering and a Masters from Cal Poly San Luis Obisbo for something with "computational fluid dynamics" it its title, allows him to call himself a "rocket scientist". Whether you believe it or not really is not very relevent.
Amazing, when someone disagrees with you, you call them divisive, then bring up violence, lies, terrorism and hatred......... when the original thread was about what you would say to "the God", if you could.
Very relevant.
Paul K | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/22/2009 11:25:20 PM | Words to The God???
Could you be more specific; which god? | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/22/2009 11:47:22 PM |
With a Bachelors degree in Aeroautical Engineering and a Masters from Cal Poly San Luis Obisbo for something with "computational fluid dynamics" it its title, allows him to call himself a "rocket scientist". Whether you believe it or not really is not very relevent.
Whether I believe it is irrelevant, true. Wouldn't someone with all that accreditation know better than to say "there is not a big enough number to communicate " any given idea?
You are saying that the idea that random mutation with natural selection is mathematically impossible, and that your nephew has stated that this should be believed because your nephew is a scientist at Boeing.
I state that you are using your nephew's accreditation disingenuously. If your nephew were fluent in mathematics your nephew would not cite the idea that any number is too big for anything.
Natural selection reduces the need for random mutations to be adaptive. Selection "selects' mutations. It makes the negative mutations disappear and keeps only the adaptive mutations. Even though you know that this is the argument I was saying you are dodging, you use your nephew again as a subterfuge.
You should show more respect to your nephew, who has such mathematical prowess. | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/23/2009 9:04:16 AM | There is no reason to dodge an argument that you make that I believe to not be true. Saying that negative disappear and only positive ones survive is admitting that there is some type of mechanism that automatically eliminates the negative, and that mechanism is beyond their control. And then backing up that argument by saying that the fact that a mutation survived proves that it was meant to survive.......................
Not much logic there either.
Besides, wasn't this a thread on "Words to the God!"?
Paul K | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:14:19 AM | | There is a harmony and pattern and intelligence operating in All That Is. Whatever you want to call it God or Life Force, or Cosmic Light, or Almighty Father, Prana-ether-substance (the trinity) or Spirit. When our attention addresses it there is an electromagnetic connection as there is with anything we focus our attention on. To be with God or speak to God we connect. What better place to put out attention? The problem comes in a lesser mind defining a greater mind. | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:38:28 AM | | Obviously, you are right. There is definitely electromagnetic force binding among us towards that greatest secret power. Basically, our body is also made from elements where electrons move around the nucleus to proton and neutron. All of these elements are bound by some kind of force, we say that as binding force or BOND. The living substance is DNA and it is made from compound organic bond. When we think about something or we go somewhere, we get always conscious of our sense and that makes us difference from non living being. The automotive and repetitive process of living being is one kind of electromagnetic transformation. When our conscious power (sometime we refer it as soul and sometime a light that is in our body) operates towards doing something, it creates a magnetic field. It becomes greater if it can control our electric movement according to its wish... then only we can define it as greater mind or greatest mind... | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/24/2009 11:01:34 AM | Hi Susan
You wrote:
"Words to The God???
Could you be more specific; which god?"
If you were asking me, I would say to your God, whomever or whatever that may be. However if you were asking the OP, then they should answer that question.
Paul K | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/24/2009 5:23:49 PM |
Saying that negative disappear and only positive ones survive is admitting that there is some type of mechanism that automatically eliminates the negative, and that mechanism is beyond their control.
You got it!
Natural selection is the mechanism that eliminates the negative and it is beyond the control of the organisms that get selected!
See, POF forums DO have efficacy!
And then backing up that argument by saying that the fact that a mutation survived proves that it was meant to survive.........
Now I wonder why you misrepresent me. Nobody who reads my posts would think I'd say anything about any idea that evolution 'meant to' do anything. Mutations survive or not based on whether they are beneficial or deleterious to adaptivity in their contemporaneous environment. If it works, it lives. If it doesn't work it does not live. There is no meaning. Meaning behind physiology is the bailiwick of creationists. | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/24/2009 9:35:04 PM | Let me see if I really did understand you correctly, are you saying that natural selection ONLY eliminates the negative mutations/changes?
If that is the case, and these changes/mutations are beyond the control of the organism that is being "selected", HOW does the organism being "selected" know the difference between negative/positive mutations/changes?
I wrote:
''And then backing up that argument by saying that the fact that a mutation survived proves that it was meant to survive.........'', to which you took exception.
Lets do this: substitute the word "supposed" for the word "meant". Better?
Paul K | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/24/2009 10:11:34 PM | Let me see if I really did understand you correctly, are you saying that natural selection ONLY eliminates the negative mutations/changes?
No. If a rock falls out of pure bad luck on an organism that has a mutation that would have been adaptive if it had lived, then natural causes would select this organism, and the mutation, out of the genotype.
However given that RMNS works on populations and not just individuals then as the "bad" mutations are statistically selected out of the gene pool then the population is going to not have those mutations. New mutations will come along, and some will be non-adaptive (bad) and some will be adaptive (good). The ones that die don't reproduce. That is how only the good ones get through.
I'm saying that when you claimed that there is not a big enough number to express the statistical unlikelihood of RMNS being the mechanism of human evolution, you were just using words without consideration of their meaning.
If that is the case, and these changes/mutations are beyond the control of the organism that is being "selected", HOW does the organism being "selected" know the difference between negative/positive mutations/changes?
It doesn't. Why do you think it would?
Nature doesn't think. If a mutation is adaptive then the organism with that mutation will statistically be more likely to reproduce than if it didn't have that mutation. Nobody knows anything in this scenario. No intelligence or thought or knowledge or clairvoyance is involved.
I wrote:
''And then backing up that argument by saying that the fact that a mutation survived proves that it was meant to survive.........'', to which you took exception.
Lets do this: substitute the word "supposed" for the word "meant". Better?
Nothing is "supposed" or "meant" or "hoped" or "planned" or "predestined" to survive. I never said that survival proves or suggests forethought.
Example of hyperbole: let's say a mutation (remember, hyperbole, this is not actually plausible) gave a human individual the ability to fly. Consider 'Angel' in X-Men. Let's say this 'Angel' was the first to have the mutation. If 'Angel' were flying along one day before he had any kids and a thunderstorm's lightning bolt killed him then he would not pass on this mutation. He was not supposed, or destined, or meant to survive. There is no meaning. It's all fluke, luck, and chance.
Now to the real world. If a mutation of one allele, say the ApoE gene that has 3 isomers, happened, and the human that had it luckily didn't die (wasn't naturally selected) then that human would have kids with that gene that provides protection against several diseases, including Hepatitis C. It is a chance event. There is no meaning, nobody "knew" it would help, and it was not "meant", "supposed" nor "destined" to occur.
It doesn't need any meaning. It's all fluke, luck, and chance. | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/24/2009 10:33:24 PM | OK. Since there is no control over what survives or not, then how can it be claimed that we "evolved"? Doesn't that mean we got "better" over time? Or does it just mean that we changed?
If we just changed, then why is it that there is a steady progression towards more complex, and, for lack of a better word, "better"? According to this hypothesis, evolution could have, AT ANY POINT during the ascension out of the murky soup from which we crawled, gone the other way, yet, with all those literally MILLIONS of chances to go towards the bad side, and die out, we get man.
That to me is like going to a casino and going to the roulette table and betting on "red" for whatever number of times it took to get to "MAN".
Or, perhaps, we are the result of many missed opportunities, and could have been much more advanced, yet evolution didn't follow that route.
Paul K | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/24/2009 11:02:08 PM |
OK. Since there is no control over what survives or not
I haven't been clear, obviously. Selection means death. I refer you to my example of the allele that helps protect against Hep C. The control of what survives is death. If an organism with an adaptive mutation lives then it will influence the generations that follow it. They will have that mutation. Other organisms in the population won't and will not be as statistically likely to reproduce. Please, I'm trying to explain. What is unclear about natural selection being the control of the mutations?
, then how can it be claimed that we "evolved"? Doesn't that mean we got "better" over time? Or does it just mean that we changed?
"Better" is a subjective term. Sauropods got quite large and outcompeted their competitors, right? Now they aren't here. At one time T. Rex was doing quite well, but large size and big teeth did nothing for it when Earth's atmosphere was covered in dust from a meteor impact and all T. Rex's food died because there were no plants for T. Rex's prey to eat. So to answer, we, and all other animals, just changed. We are all always just changing. The changing environment will select us.
If we just changed, then why is it that there is a steady progression towards more complex, and, for lack of a better word, "better"? According to this hypothesis, evolution could have, AT ANY POINT during the ascension out of the murky soup from which we crawled, gone the other way, yet, with all those literally MILLIONS of chances to go towards the bad side, and die out, we get man.
What didn't we get? Are you saying man is the best there could have been? Yes, we could have been wiped out at any time, but as Frog said in the thread on pseudoscience
...it is far more likely that the unfortunate beings on the lifeless planets are not whining about their bad luck.
We are the lucky ones who lived. You are the one saying we were predestined. It is not the TOE that is claiming we "should have" survived. Again, we just happened to survive.
That to me is like going to a casino and going to the roulette table and betting on "red" for whatever number of times it took to get to "MAN".
Again, that discounts natural selection. You're not counting all the times black came up. The TOE does.
Or, perhaps, we are the result of many missed opportunities, and could have been much more advanced, yet evolution didn't follow that route.
YES! That's it! | |
|
| Words to The God!
Posted: 9/25/2009 3:46:58 AM | To susan,
[Words to The God???
Could you be more specific; which god?]
The unspecified supernatural supreme power beyond our imagination is The God. | |
|
Home
login 
