God is the answer to all your problems

hello zausel. that's ###$ outstanding. thank you for your time and your scope.

the mechanics of biology are beyond me and you made it clear.

i've said it before but i'll say it here that there is reason to everything. i happen to agree with many ideas implied by evolution but not necessarily the idea of the fittest of survival, moreso along the lines of what you state regarding small degrees of changes over too much time to comprehend.

i've heard many times of the 'out-of-africa migration' ideaology but i couldn't tell ya if it's solid or just a proposal.

when it comes to reason there are many facets to consider, the two big ones are 'why' and 'how'. for the most part i think evolution attempts to answer the 'how' and one could take this partly to mean 'why' but my personal opinion is that it's just 'how'. the proper form of evolution i mean, not the skewed-public school version that i received. as for 'why' well that is the ultimate question for just about anything. i don't think it's wise to settle short of a resolution on 'why'. note that this goes back millenia.

another thing when it comes to dimensions not our own.

i think if we only take into account what is staring right in our faces (never mind for now that many times even this gets ignored) then we are missing a big opportunity to come to a more plausible reasonability.

too many times scriptures are written off, and the number one reason i hear is 'that was ages ago. none of it applies now.' yet we are essentially just the same as back then. people are people. countries continuously fall. what's so different besides us using electricity?

they were big on divination and sorcery and trances back then. so, was everyone involved just making it up? using an active imagination? people continue the stuff now with the same results (i do not mean the lady at the carnival...). does it only have to do with correctly tuning brain waves? then what is it being tuned into?

nah. every civilization talks about the same stuff essentially. does it have to do with ineducation? who's makin the claim, someone who partook of the same activities?

i think all facets need looked over initially. evolution is one of them certainly. yet more and more people simply denounce scriptures, many without even opening a single page and many more without bothering to try and see the reasoning in it (yes this is written about as well). crude example: 'cain killed his brother abel? i never heard of no "cain", must be bull-shit.'

bear with me one more moment but i think it's necessary to add this.
but it's like seeing a bicycle in front of you. you see the wheels moving. but view is obstructed on the actual peddlar and the chain connected to the gears/wheels.

the problems associated with this? is there's no idea on the method used to the peddling. goin up a hill? or down one? slow and easy pace or full sprint?

we see the mechanics but not the method. and we haphazardly use our own ideas on the method and try and replicate. yet none of us has peddled the bike.

this explains it perfectly to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ela3ChTzFcA&feature=autoplay&list=PL34D69CDB22E27095&lf=plpp&playnext=1

ocular_razor wrote:another thing when it comes to dimensions not our own.

i think if we only take into account what is staring right in our faces (never mind for now that many times even this gets ignored) then we are missing a big opportunity to come to a more plausible reasonability.

too many times scriptures are written off, and the number one reason i hear is 'that was ages ago. none of it applies now.' yet we are essentially just the same as back then. people are people. countries continuously fall. what's so different besides us using electricity?

they were big on divination and sorcery and trances back then. so, was everyone involved just making it up? using an active imagination? people continue the stuff now with the same results (i do not mean the lady at the carnival...). does it only have to do with correctly tuning brain waves? then what is it being tuned into?

nah. every civilization talks about the same stuff essentially. does it have to do with ineducation? who's makin the claim, someone who partook of the same activities?

i think all facets need looked over initially. evolution is one of them certainly. yet more and more people simply denounce scriptures, many without even opening a single page and many more without bothering to try and see the reasoning in it (yes this is written about as well). crude example: 'cain killed his brother abel? i never heard of no "cain", must be bull-shit.'

bear with me one more moment but i think it's necessary to add this.
but it's like seeing a bicycle in front of you. you see the wheels moving. but view is obstructed on the actual peddlar and the chain connected to the gears/wheels.

the problems associated with this? is there's no idea on the method used to the peddling. goin up a hill? or down one? slow and easy pace or full sprint?

we see the mechanics but not the method. and we haphazardly use our own ideas on the method and try and replicate. yet none of us has peddled the bike.

exactly. your obstruction of whats really happening results in religion and the concept of god. You dont see that this transfer of energy from you to the bike in a peddling motion turns a chain to rotate the tires All you see is the tire rotating, thus you conclude" God did it". But now, we have a basic/moderate understanding of the universe and we know realize God isnt moving this bike, but our transfer of energy is.

If you wish to add scripture, then you must also include the scripture were God is a fan of torture, slavery, women opression, homophobia,jealousy and murder. Do you really wish to follow a being that morals consist of those concepts mentioned in the previous sentence? i do not. No amount of "love" will change my mind into accepting a being that would torture, murder, condemn and oppress its children. I refuse.

Ive looked at the reasoning, and my conclusion? there is none of divine purpose. If you wish to follow the teaching of Jesus, fine thats cool, he seemed like he had a decent grasp on some level. But does this mean he is a divine being? no.

the difference is our understanding of the world.

if scripture is to be taken seriously, you need evidence to back it.If i say there is an extroterrestrial alien in my backyard, you most likely will say, prove it. I now return this logic to you. Prove your scripture. But you cannot, thus it has no place in a world of reason and logical thinking.

ocular_razor wrote:I am no genius in the matter, but i have a concept of the matters.


i've said it before but i'll say it here that there is reason to everything. i happen to agree with many ideas implied by evolution but not necessarily the idea of the fittest of survival, moreso along the lines of what you state regarding small degrees of changes over too much time to comprehend.

Survival of the fittest is not a discussable idea. It simply is. Either you survive long enough to procreate and live a full life or you dont. Those who did not were simply not fit enough to survive either by genetic or environmental means. disagree or not, the evidence is shown. Its not disputable.Do you know what scientific theories are?

reason? why must there be? Why cant the universe just be. It has a start and it has an end. What would be the reason for a universe to start only to eventually end? Eventually life in the universe will cease to exist, and never reappear.The universe simply followed the laws of nature and is just doing so. It has no motives, no reasons, no questions. It simply is. We as humans WANT there to be a reason, we NEED there to be. We brainwash ourselves into thinking there MUST be, there NEEDS to be. Your consciousness does not wish to come to terms with an existence without long term reason. We dont want to be a blip in the arrow of time, a simple low entropy conglomerate of matter. This would devastate people. They would rather live a delusion than accept the truth.


when it comes to reason there are many facets to consider, the two big ones are 'why' and 'how'. for the most part i think evolution attempts to answer the 'how' and one could take this partly to mean 'why' but my personal opinion is that it's just 'how'. the proper form of evolution i mean, not the skewed-public school version that i received. as for 'why' well that is the ultimate question for just about anything. i don't think it's wise to settle short of a resolution on 'why'. note that this goes back millenia.

Why something happens is governed by the laws of nature and the universe. At the birth of the universe every law of the universe was set into existence. We simply have not discovered all of them( partical physics as an example).

I think i got this confused a little, so let me know if im off on a tangent on what you said.

Whats staring us in the face? That is religion at work. I dont understand, therfore God did it and i will not question it. Science wishes to question this, and understand the concepts and matters that are not staring us in the face. The Holographic Theory is just this. This isn't a blatantly obvious observation until you start reading between the lines.

hello zausel i will likely end up in a blob of words i hope this is ok.

i didn't watch the video you posted but it's not personal.

i wasn't originally discussing religion but i am glad you brought it up. things can be taken religiously regardless if it involves a god or not. the first paragraph you wrote that starts with 'exactly. your obstruction.....' is pretty much spot on even when 'god did it' is replaced with 'so and so did it'.

it is ok that you think i cherry-pick scriptures but i am well aware of what you speak of regarding 'wrath'. but i also think that you ought not cherry pick as well and only look at the results and not the initiators. you can chalk it up to 'reason' but just like me if everything isn't taken into account then it is not wholly reasonable. i recognize what you say and i've thought a lot about that myself. before i continue, it gets pretty old associating phobias with someone's self-pleasures. i've not once heard someone mention anything regarding addict-phobia and we can mix politics into the discussion if you want but it'll get hairy pretty quick which is what i'm trying to avoid.

it is fine that you refuse to accept something that seems unreasonable i am not talking about this. i would actually be worried if someone accepted something that doesn't seem reasonable.

i do not have a problem going along and trying to reason with you the million different facets of scripture. i can 'prove' a few things but you are right in saying that much cannot be 'proven' in the sense of the different geneologies, perhaps biased-accounts, unfulfilled prophecies and so on and so forth.

having said that, just about every part of it involves reasoning and wisdom. and though it's not the same lines of 'this apple fell from a tree. how fast did it fall...' it is reason just the same. it is even written 'come, let us reason together'. you can dispute seeming injustice that is ok i do not knock anyone down for that, but if there's no reason behind it then i think it's necessary. but i think anyone discussing it should discuss not simply dismiss. and it's ok to disagree.

i can agree with your statement 'if scripture needs to be taken seriously there needs to be evidence'. notsomuch the 'need' part but yea. i ask you this though, how would 'you' go about 'proving' things like 'there is nothing new under the sun' proverbs, or a man surviving being thrown into a den of lions or a women being eaten by dogs? it's a fair statement you, state, sure. but one's whole life of relational reasoning is to be ignored when it comes to scriptures? note i speak of the canon and not religion.

this was a response to just the first post so bear with me i am not terribly great at consolidating words. but i can confidently assert that you do not need to understand how fast an apple falls to the ground to understand that things fall to the ground. many things rightly fall under the radar of scrutiny, but this references the relational reasoning i mentioned.

it is good you brought up refusal and questioning. there is lots written about 'testing' reasonings and messages and spirits along with ensuring the 'heart' isn't put in the hands of the deceitful. the 'age of reason' should recognize that reason itself is not just one 'field of study', and that reason comes about through uncountable associations of relational referencing that enables 'a' to be compared to 'b' and enables the deduction of what 'a' actually is. to even have an understanding of what 'a' is requires its own path of reasoning and all i'm saying here is that ignoring even one degree ultimately skews what 'a' plausibly is. science shouldn't be ignored no no no but science is not the sole constituent of reasoning.

this is in regards to your second response that starts with 'what's staring us in the face?'

i don't see where i implied that questioning something is forbidden and i certainly don't see where i explictly stated that questioning is forbidden.

but i ask you why survival of the fittest is not a questionable idea. i certainly think that if scriptures (along with anything else) is questionable then science should also be questionable. actually science is questionable since it is ever-expanding.

i'm certainly not saying 'survival of the fittest' is 'wrong' but i think it should be freely discussed to be able to gain the full context of it. it is the context of 'fit' that is blurred but i think a factor is not being considered. hypothetically 'animal a' has the genes that will enable dominating the whole earth, but doesn't know about 'poisoned' water and drinks it and dies. sure other animals will learn that lesson without dying but this talks more about 'averages' not 'fittest'.

'fittest' doesn't necessarily imply 'the best suited' it is only a manner of the current availabilities. you ask about scientific theories and if i'm not mistaken it is something with circumstantial evidence to back it up that can be replicated elsewhere.

you ask why there 'must be reason'. would we not reason if we were not meant to? do cats not taste a drop of water before they decide to drink it? whether or not 'reason must be' our foundation is built on reasoning. what you call 'survival of the fittest' is nothing more than reasoning along with the lack of it. reasoning is not wholly complete to start off with it is a progression.

i agree with many of your sentiments on the universe don't get me wrong.

when you say 'we humans want/need reason' well do you chalk it up to evolution that reason is innate? fully developed frontal lobes. even our subconscious 'reasons' on how often to breathe in and out. a reason to reason? it doesn't mean anyone's brainwashed in itself.

i can appreciate how you 'step outside' your own perspective to look at the universe. but i don't think that one can discount their own existence inside this universe to even be able to look at it. note that i am making no reference to 'purpose of existence' here. a blip in time? is an understatement. but i think one fond against reason wouldn't be utilizing it.

reason is about putting together glimpses. 'must' 'should' 'does' it exist? maybe, maybe not. but we use it/ignore it regardless.

ocular_razor wrote:it is ok that you think i cherry-pick scriptures but i am well aware of what you speak of regarding 'wrath'. but i also think that you ought not cherry pick as well and only look at the results and not the initiators. you can chalk it up to 'reason' but just like me if everything isn't taken into account then it is not wholly reasonable. i recognize what you say and i've thought a lot about that myself. before i continue, it gets pretty old associating phobias with someone's self-pleasures. i've not once heard someone mention anything regarding addict-phobia and we can mix politics into the discussion if you want but it'll get hairy pretty quick which is what i'm trying to avoid.

I know. there is a few great lessons in the Bible. Love everyone equally. great sutff. However the issue arises when you do put his "love all being as you love yourself" into context of the whole Bible. Love everyone....unless they are gay, slaves, women or worshipping another god, in which case murder them and burn em at the stakes.

Whats am i missing when God says ""If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)"

what could possibly justify murdering homosexuals? what needs to be taken into account to make this acceptable?

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)"

What possibly needs to be taken into account to justify murdering those who cheat? sure its wrong, but murder? noooo.

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)"

What needs to be taken into account to justify killing non-christians?

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)"

what about this? what should be taken into account? What justifies murdering an entire town because they worship another god?

These negatives strongly outweigh the positives. I do not wish to be apart of something that is OK with such atrocities no matter how many great things they did. That is highly hypocritical.

having said that, just about every part of it involves reasoning and wisdom. and though it's not the same lines of 'this apple fell from a tree. how fast did it fall...' it is reason just the same. it is even written 'come, let us reason together'. you can dispute seeming injustice that is ok i do not knock anyone down for that, but if there's no reason behind it then i think it's necessary. but i think anyone discussing it should discuss not simply dismiss. and it's ok to disagree.

What reasoning? give me an example that doesnt intertwine a super natural being into its logic.

i can agree with your statement 'if scripture needs to be taken seriously there needs to be evidence'. notsomuch the 'need' part but yea. i ask you this though, how would 'you' go about 'proving' things like 'there is nothing new under the sun' proverbs, or a man surviving being thrown into a den of lions or a women being eaten by dogs? it's a fair statement you, state, sure. but one's whole life of relational reasoning is to be ignored when it comes to scriptures? note i speak of the canon and not religion.

explain please.

this was a response to just the first post so bear with me i am not terribly great at consolidating words. but i can confidently assert that you do not need to understand how fast an apple falls to the ground to understand that things fall to the ground. many things rightly fall under the radar of scrutiny, but this references the relational reasoning i mentioned.

How so?

it is good you brought up refusal and questioning. there is lots written about 'testing' reasonings and messages and spirits along with ensuring the 'heart' isn't put in the hands of the deceitful. the 'age of reason' should recognize that reason itself is not just one 'field of study', and that reason comes about through uncountable associations of relational referencing that enables 'a' to be compared to 'b' and enables the deduction of what 'a' actually is. to even have an understanding of what 'a' is requires its own path of reasoning and all i'm saying here is that ignoring even one degree ultimately skews what 'a' plausibly is. science shouldn't be ignored no no no but science is not the sole constituent of reasoning.

explain please. I dont follow.

ocular_razor wrote:this is in regards to your second response that starts with 'what's staring us in the face?'

i don't see where i implied that questioning something is forbidden and i certainly don't see where i explictly stated that questioning is forbidden.

but i ask you why survival of the fittest is not a questionable idea. i certainly think that if scriptures (along with anything else) is questionable then science should also be questionable. actually science is questionable since it is ever-expanding.

i'm certainly not saying 'survival of the fittest' is 'wrong' but i think it should be freely discussed to be able to gain the full context of it. it is the context of 'fit' that is blurred but i think a factor is not being considered. hypothetically 'animal a' has the genes that will enable dominating the whole earth, but doesn't know about 'poisoned' water and drinks it and dies. sure other animals will learn that lesson without dying but this talks more about 'averages' not 'fittest'.

You are correct, you cna question science. Question the existence of atoms. Evidence after evidence of controlled studies will show you however. Question scripture and you get more scripture thrown at you. Not evidence based on studies. You cnat prove God created the earth in 7 days. We can however prove to you that atoms exist by an experiment. question it and i can show you. Quest theology and all you got is a book written by humans. Ok, lets question this survival of the fittest. Find me evidence of the weakest member of a species surviving and the strong dieing? you would not be able to. Because as soon as the 'weak' is the surviving member it is the strongest member. You cannot have the unfit surviving or they would be considered the fittest. These surviving member who did not drink the water are the fittest because they were able to learn and not repeat the mistake. They now check their water before drinking. They are more fit to living on this planet than the being who drank the water.

If however you are saying Survival of the Fittest is a tautology, we may however can come to an agreement.

'fittest' doesn't necessarily imply 'the best suited' it is only a manner of the current availabilities. you ask about scientific theories and if i'm not mistaken it is something with circumstantial evidence to back it up that can be replicated elsewhere.

fittest in the sense at the current point in time they are the fittest to survive. The fittest change all the time. A cheetah gets faster. Gazelle concept of fittest means they have to become faster than they were. A gazelle thousands of years ago would not be considered the fittest by todays standards. Because of evolution you are constantly highering the bar of what is fit.

you ask why there 'must be reason'. would we not reason if we were not meant to? do cats not taste a drop of water before they decide to drink it? whether or not 'reason must be' our foundation is built on reasoning. what you call 'survival of the fittest' is nothing more than reasoning along with the lack of it. reasoning is not wholly complete to start off with it is a progression.

I believe i misinterpreted your post as a reason for existence, a purpose for living, not reasoning the world around us. I agree with you on this. I apologize.


i can appreciate how you 'step outside' your own perspective to look at the universe. but i don't think that one can discount their own existence inside this universe to even be able to look at it. note that i am making no reference to 'purpose of existence' here. a blip in time? is an understatement. but i think one fond against reason wouldn't be utilizing it.

Care to expand on the underlined?

zausel you certainly bring up good points. for me personally the pentateuch was one of the hardest reads of the scriptures and i myself have more questions than answers. before i delve into this i think it's necessary to address a couple things prior.

What reasoning? give me an example that doesnt intertwine a super natural being into its logic.

much of what earned this response was me referencing laws and hierarchies. there are many laws today that the only reasoning behind them is that leaders want an even more extravagant vacation. much of what i referenced dealt with there being reasonabilities. while 'law and hierarchy' needn't necessarily intertwine a god-figure it can intertwine one just the same. but hold on a second.

.............ignored when it comes to scriptures? note i speak of the canon and not religion.

explain please.

ultimately i deduced that your were asking for proof without also stating an aspect/entirety that you wanted proven so i was hoping you would shed some light. i haven't read too many scientific theories but i don't recall any of them being filled with the amount of words the canon has.

.............many things rightly fall under the radar of scrutiny, but this references the relational reasoning i mentioned.

How so?

you know that an apple falls but since you do not know how fast then it is illogical to dismiss the idea that an apple falls. relationality, you hang onto the stuff that makes sense and throw out the rest at least for a time, not throw everything out. poor choice of words? perhaps. but another aspect of relation, i personally can't think of something unfamiliar without relating it to something else to get a grasp on it. i can't say this is true for anyone else, but i know many times i can describe something someone's not recalling/knowing, without them following. then i can give a similar keyword and then we're on the same page so i assume this is the same for most everyone.

explain please. I dont follow.

i reread this and that is the most appropriate way to put it. if you give me some time i will try and think of a better way to package it but for now it's the best i could do.

this one got long so i will break this up and discuss the old testament. but first in regards to what you said about scriptures having more scriptures thrown at you and science getting more science thrown at you, well doesn't this go along with relational reasoning? what is study besides verification? granted that theological study of consistencies isn't the same as consistency of say a nuclear chain reaction called on-the-spot. i think the point is there.