₦airaland Forum

OkaiCorne:
at Council of Nicaea... Only the Truth can help us out as time unfolds.

As for Jesus growing old and dying somewhere. Let's see if Science has sufficient evidence to back up that assertion.

It's well.

Science finds out what's more important than Jesus. We cannot base science on the study of a man who once lived. Maybe anthropology will do that. Progress is being made though, recently they found a writing in Latin where Jesus made the statement "My wife." I believe we are getting there.

OkaiCorne:
Exactly! There's a book I read, "The unknown years of Jesus".

Jesus was a well travelled man. The Jesus of the Bible is a creation of the council of Nicaea.

It is the real Jesus I was referring to as per our discussion.

Well, since everything is lost in history, I think Jesus himself will have to come and tell us what really happened.

I also believed he married, grew old and died, as against all those BS painted in the bible. But the council of Nicaea no try for the people of the world o.

OkaiCorne:
Jesus had to start with Judaism, complete the requirements of it and start a fresh lifestyle for his followers (who over the course of time have made a disgusting religion out of the lifestyle)

Lemme ask...if Buhdda who lived 600 years before Jesus existed...why do you doubt the existence of Jesus? Or do you doubt Buhdda existed too? What of Moses?

Not like I doubt if Jesus existed per se. But there are many things involved. Yes, there was a man called Jesus 2000 years ago in Nazareth. But a lot of controversies surrounds the whole story. I think Jesus's teachings were not that different from Buddha's though.

If your readings have been deep enough, you would have read that Jesus travelled to India at some point, I personally think it's connected to Buddha. Also that Jesus was in love with Mary Magdalene and they married according to recent findings.

But if Jesus existed, he was definitely not what the new testament said he was.

OkaiCorne:
@ the bolded, The funny thing about theists with that kind of mindset especially Christian theists is that they have a very narrow idea of how life is.

Imagine I rewrite the parable of the good Samaritan to something like, Parable of the good Atheist or Parable of the good Muslim.

I strongly feel that if you had met a personality like Jesus one on one...even if you remain an atheist, you will become friends.

As for me, I am open to working with theists and atheists for a better humanity and world at large. The confused theists can keep on fighting among themselves which is the right religion to help one access heaven in the afterlife. As for me, I'm true with all those type of narrow minded arguments.

Religion can't exist without them and the hatreds that boil in them.

Which brings us to the question what religion did Jesus himself practised? Instincts tell me he was a Judaist because that was the religion of his forefathers. And again the most popular back then when he lived(if he actually lived).

Babacele:
while you rush to celebrate your victory at nothingness it is pertinent to point out your arrogantly stubborn grasp at ignorance. Why nobody has disagreed with your energy gospels which you are almost turning to elegies by your cocky narrow mindedness, we have always maintained that a higher and more intelligent Universal force, Energy or God is at work. While you have held to the profoundly illogic of an unintelligent and unconscious entity giving forth to intelligence and consciousness, we have frowned at the impossibility.
Several fields of have science have dealt extensively with the concept of life force which life many science concept has its conception at the spiritual laboratories of many students of mysteries of life from the pyramids of Egypt to the experimental tables of modern alchemists, metaphysics, etc

so when you say scientists , which are you referring to for there are many who bear that collective name?

There are many other sources that talk about " life force" as shown below:



life force
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical,
Acronyms , Wikipedia .
life force
n.
See élan vital .
American Heritage® Dictionary of
the English Language, Fifth
Edition. Copyright © 2016 by
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company. Published by
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company. All rights
reserved.
é•lan vi•tal ( Fr. eɪ lɑ̃ viˈtal)
n.
(esp. in Bergsonian philosophy)
the vital or creative force in all
organisms that is responsible for
growth and evolution.
[1905–10; < French: literally, vital
ardor]
Random House Kernerman
Webster's College Dictionary, ©
2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright
2005, 1997, 1991 by Random
House, Inc. All rights reserved.
Thesaurus≠ Antonyms ≡Synonyms
Legend:
Switch to new thesaurus
Noun
1.
life force - (biology) a
hypothetical force (not physical or
chemical) once thought by Henri
Bergson to cause the evolution
and development of organisms
≡elan vital , vital force , vitality
↔biological science , biology - the
science that studies living
organisms
↔force - (physics) the influence
that produces a change in a
physical quantity; "force equals
mass times acceleration"
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex
clipart collection. © 2003-2012
Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
life force noun
The vital principle or animating
force within living beings:
[s]≡breath, divine spark , élan vital ,
psyche , soul , spirit , vital force ,
vitality .
[/s]

https://www.gaia.com/article/11-daily-ways-increase-life-force-energy

I am done with you, sir. I have underlined a page for you to see where it was stated categorically and bolded that LIFE FORCE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. If you want to keep seeking opinions outside science(Like English dictionaries and arts) whether science accepts the term please be my guest.

Whether you like it or not, your life force that you are holding beloved is what you have failed to understand as Energy. But that term, "life force" is not a kind of force in science. Stop wasting your time trying to change science.

Meanwhile, I took time to cancel and bolded the errors in your ridiculous research.

OkaiCorne:
Ideally my 5 senses shouldn't conflict with the "6th sense" if not na confusion...every sense has to complement each other before arriving at a sound conclusion.

Unfortunately..."Ideally" in this subject matter of an Eternal Creator is a tough one...even if we argue for the next few months;

Theists have their convincing points...same for Atheists too.

As for me...if you want to improve humanity, whether you are a theist or atheist, we set all those differences aside and work together to achieve a common goal.

Only that science disagrees with the 6th sense. It just does not exist with profound shreds of evidence and facts. We decide to call the others that seem like sense, the mind.

I agree on working together to achieve the greater aim and better humanity. But can theists cope? You know to some, we are unclean, and to some we are infidels. Religion cannot sustain togetherness. We shouldn't bother ourselves with togetherness, it is unachievable where humans are concerned.

OkaiCorne:
My own basis for verification is observation of tried and tested patterns over time.

Science is a very useful tool in the quest for Truth. But its not the Alpha and Omega on every matter under the Sun, as it does not have answers to all questions on life.

Yet in the absence of answers and details...we must make the right choice...Logic vs Intuition again? no thanks...I'll let this one slide.

Well, observation and tests are vital approaches in science. You can hardly do anything without them. You are taking scientific approaches without the knowledge of science. If you are observing, then you must be doing so with your senses. 5 senses vs 6th sense again? Lol, I better let it slide like a hockey bat too

On the Alpha and Omega on matters under the sun that can be observed and tested, brother, science is the answer, no competition.
You can only make such conclusions if you are a scientist.

OkaiCorne:
@ bolded, that's the sad part.

But guess what...thanks to Science, man might just be able to live for a thousand years...slowly but surely humanity is getting there.

Not in our lifetime it seems. But hopefully, because nothing is impossible.

OkaiCorne:
Let me study carefully so I don't give a wrong conclusion.
I will summarize your side of the story and Babecele version.
Also confirm if I did not interpret things out of context.

Graycoder fit help out too... abi Akin1212 wetin you think?

Back to this matter...if Science states clearly there is nothing like life force...then it does not exist judging from the viewpoint of Science alone.

Inasmuch as Science is a rapidly growing body of verifiable knowledge, it still does not have all the answers to life's mysteries as at today.

I am not here to win anybody. I think babacele too has seen that he has been wrong all along.

However, what science is saying is that there is no term as "life force." We understand that people perceive ENERGY as LIFE FORCE. That is exactly what I have been trying to explain to him since, but he keeps arguing it as if he knows this science.

If I agree that science is growing despite being old enough, is religion or your own "truth" ideology growing also? If it is growing, then on what premises? You don't have a way of practising and verifying this truth, how is it growing then?

As it stands, science is still the only thing benefitting humanity.

OkaiCorne:
I concur...it remains a fiction until Science proves otherwise. Let's see how things would unfold with time.

Remember you said Logic will eventually prove whether intuition is fallible or not.

Cheers.

Yes, sure. We are at it, bro. We might not be here anymore to see it though.

I still want you to tell me your ideology. I know you got one. Amok, Ekankar, Bhadda, which one?

OkaiCorne:
Mbok...I no fit shout .Make una carry on with una discussions. I no sabi advanced science wey I go judge una o

Oga, why the insincerity na. Do you need advanced science to judge this one? See evidence yakata for your front.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_(esotericism)

There is nothing like life force in SCIENCE. Its based on religion which thrives on ignorance. The first picture proves it.

The second picture, however, should shut you up by the time you read the part I underlined. babacele

I hope the whole of NAIRALAND is reading. I guess we know who is an ignorant between me and babacele now.

OkaiCorne, what do you think?

Babacele:
but you just said in a few posts above that there is nothing like Life force. didn't you? it is obvious who needs to learn here.

I see that you have not been reading what I have been posting.

I can quote several of my posts where I said what YOU understand as LIFE FORCE is ENERGY.

There is nothing like LIFE FORCE in science. It is energy, and that is what I have been calling it.
See the quotes below, I will embolden where I made the statements referring to Energy.

Akin1212:
No scientist in the world will agree with you that there is anything called LIFE FORCE. I don't know why you want to go down this path. Even the link you brought up confirmed my point. There are GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, FRICTIONAL FORCES, HYDRO FORCES, etc etc etc, but which one is LIFE FORCES? Go and search all the databases you can lay your hands on in the world, you will never find it. I am trying to enlighten you that what you understand by life forces is called energy and you are arguing. I'm sorry sir, but there's no reason for me to continue. Would I argue science with someone who doesn't know it? What will that make me?

I don't need to read carefully whatever you are trying to explain from a point of view of someone who does not know science. I am going to repeat it again for educational purposes. A stillbirth is a child born DEAD, not a child that has not drawn its first breath. There are usually delays, and that is why 10 seconds is the standard time given in medicine to decide if there is a delay or not. I also told you that a child who has a delay in breathing is caused by dead energy and nurses or doctors have to go extra miles to make the baby breathe. PLEASE STOP SAYING WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW.


I'm sorry I cannot let you keep abusing science, let's use something else to argue.

THIS WAS EARLIER TODAY.

Akin1212:
The basic explanation of what you don't know is science. The basic conclusion from your inference is lack of science. I have backed all my claims up with science from the beginning.

[b]You have just been posting life force, life force. What is life force? There is nothing like life force when it comes to science, basic and advanced. A born baby which was using its mother's placenta for the exchange of gases in its body will have to draw its first breathe which happens almost all the time. But in the case it doesn't happen due to dead energy, you have to transmit energy to it...[/b]

This was yesterday, I debunked your Life force claims and explained to you that it is Energy you were talking about.

Akin1212:
But you cannot give examples of the things you don't understand. I will like to discuss scientifically with someone who understands the basic laws of science. You cannot just come here and be saying a force is responsible for something, all forces have attributed names in science. Besides, a force is not responsible for anything metabolic. It will be a shame to me if I don't correct that wack knowledge. I am a trained scientist for crying out loud. Will I not correct you when you understand science upside down?

Here I told you that there's no force in science called LIFE FORCE after explaining the capabilities of Energy to you.

I can continue quoting but this is enough evidence for now. There is nothing like life force in science, you are just unknowingly calling Energy. Life Force.

Babacele:
bro materialist scientists can never understand if they do not be like a child. When two waves of the same frequency and wavelength meet oppositely there annihilation or nothingness occurs . Space and time are the reality on this plane.

Lol, you guys are funny. With zero knowledge of science, you're trying to correct science.


Science is not an opinion, it's not religion. Please let it rest abeg.

OkaiCorne:
The bolded part of what you just stated is about the parallel planes of existence I tried explaining earlier. Science can dismiss it as fiction for now...with time, the very same Science will prove it. I don't want to talk much...TIME is always the best judge.

So how did you get to know it now if not through science? Science is the only ideology humans use to study the universe and our physical environment. There's no other ideology

Babacele:
that you do not know means it doesn't exist? How many forces do you know?

So you don't know it is mere statistics when they say 10secs , and does that means after 10 seconds, the baby is a stillbirth we should pronounce the baby dead? but if we can make efforts to bring in the life force into her nko? please go learn more and widen your horizon.

I know all the forces that exist. And mind you, the 10 secs is not statistics. We don't base life matters on statistics in medicine. Ater 10 seconds if the baby does not draw its first breath then something must be done. It is a fixed time.

After 10 secs if the baby does not breathe still, then they try all the methods that can make the baby breathe, they don't pronounce it dead yet. If after doing all the methods in medicine for the baby to breathe, sometimes they even pierce their lungs, if the baby does not respond, then they pronounce it dead. You are the one who is not learning at all. Perhaps you're not even comprehending what I am posting here.

A stillbirth is a baby who is dead, after birth if a baby does not breathe, it is not dead until all methods to make it breathe has been exhausted. Please learn sir.

Babacele:
bro materialist scientists can never understand if they do not be like a child. When two waves of the same frequency and wavelength meet oppositely there annihilation or nothingness occurs . Space and time are the reality on this plane.

If you start accepting you don't know what you don't know, we may have a nice time discussing.

Check what you call LIFE FORCE BELOW. IT IS ENERGY

Babacele:
it is clear you ain't interested in truth for you tried to make mess of my submissions hence I had to include links in my last post which you deliberately ignored, to upbraid your pride when you self acclaimed scientist threw shades at my knowledge of science when everything I have said I have been right.
I had drawn your attention to the fact it is the life force in breathing and not the brain or any muscle that sustains life, and that if this breath is denied a baby as it is being given to despite the presence of muscle and brain, it remains dead or a still birth and there have been several cases of babies born still and assumed dead until a nurse shocks it with a slap or other methods which allows it to taken in the breath of life that pervades the universe. It is you who needs to read carefully.
For example, because you don't understand the principle involved in the Bermuda phenomenon, you threw shade at the Omnipotent rather than asking questions. But there have been a lot of Bermudas even in our folklores of persons disappearing , coming back from strange lands after several years and claiming their disappearance and reappearance happens within few days.

No scientist in the world will agree with you that there is anything called LIFE FORCE. I don't know why you want to go down this path. Even the link you brought up confirmed my point. There are GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, FRICTIONAL FORCES, HYDRO FORCES, etc etc etc, but which one is LIFE FORCES? Go and search all the databases you can lay your hands on in the world, you will never find it. I am trying to enlighten you that what you understand by life forces is called energy and you are arguing. I'm sorry sir, but there's no reason for me to continue. Would I argue science with someone who doesn't know it? What will that make me?

I don't need to read carefully whatever you are trying to explain from a point of view of someone who does not know science. I am going to repeat it again for educational purposes. A stillbirth is a child born DEAD, not a child that has not drawn its first breath. There are usually delays, and that is why 10 seconds is the standard time given in medicine to decide if there is a delay or not. I also told you that a child who has a delay in breathing is caused by dead energy and nurses or doctors have to go extra miles to make the baby breathe. PLEASE STOP SAYING WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW.


I'm sorry I cannot let you keep abusing science, let's use something else to argue.

Babacele:
the baby do not breath before its birth no matter how you want to present and the supply of oxygen and blood through the mother doesn't substitute breathing which the young baby doesn't do except it has a life force through its first breath immediately when given birth to. please check the reference below:

m.parent24.com/parent24/Pregnant/FAQs/when-does-an-unborn-baby-start-to-breathe-20161014
When does an unborn baby start
to breathe? · Your womb baby is
constantly getting oxygen and
nutrients, yet he does not breathe
in ...


There are situations when a new born baby doesn't breath at all or show any sign of life unless an experienced expert quickly intervenes please what medical name is given to such - a baby born without breathing?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stillbirth"
In Germany a stillbirth is defined
as birth of a child of at least 500
g weight without blood circulation
or breath. Details for burial vary
amongst the federal states."

Now, it's very clear that you don't understand anything from the epistle I typed.

First let me ask you, who told you that an UNBORN baby can breathe? Did you read that from me?


I said an unborn baby exchanges air through its mother's PLACENTA. And when the baby is born, it will need to draw its first breath as a consequence of change in temperature in the new environment(outside womb)

I have had enough of people trying to clamp down on science. GO and learn it first before you clamp down on it abeg, I cannot go another round of trying to teach people science.

Besides, you have shown that you're not even following what I am typing at all by what you typed up there.


Now read this and understand, STILLBIRTH is when a baby is born dead after 24 weeks and not when the baby is not breathing when born alive. A baby born alive but couldn't breathe and dies is not a stillbirth. You should understand these things instead of telling us what you think

Babacele:
learnt what? ignorance? that unconsciousness and unintelligence can give birth to consciousness and intelligence?

Yes, learn the possibility and don't say it's impossible through ignorance. You don't have knowledge of science, you cannot tell us how it works.

The traffic on this thread now mehn.

hollandis:
My friend God is not wicked.
If she was in an advanced country she would have been given CPR

God is not wicked? Did you read the old testament at all?

OkaiCorne:
You just nailed it boss!

I have always maintained that we have to intuit, then use logic but the logic has to be 100%.

But you said, even if the logic is not 100%(which is totally an error), we can blend it with intuition...

But if logic is not 100%, then it's not logic and you can't blend it. That's where you're wrong.


No blending, logic must be 100% correct before it can justify your intuition which is fallible

God killed her, isn't he a wonderful killer??


God still pours out his wrath sometimes, he is not all loving.

OkaiCorne:
But that is the topic of the thread na...

All the best boss...

And while it has already been established that a 100% correct logic is what justifies intuition to be right or wrong. Do we need to go back? I think NO.

We all intuit before we become logical. And a 100% correct logic justifies our intuition.

We cannot add wrong logic(as a result of incomplete information) to intuition and make it 100%, we will still be wrong or uncertain.

[b]Theists who are scientists don't use logic where God is concerned. They call it faith and you don't question faith. [/b]Once you start questioning faith, then it's no more faith.

I will change the topic of the thread soon, anyway.

OkaiCorne:
Boss...that is why I have left it to you and the Scientific Theists to slug it out as advanced science is not my field as you rightly said.

As for me, Energy is a very essential part of God, same goes for Consciousness and Intellect.
I do not need to see a SkyDaddy to have that understanding of an Eternal Creator (of which Energy is a vital component).

Cheers

I have said if you know of any, please mention them and let them come here.

Energy is a physical attribute. If a God can use energy then it would be seen, if not by our powerful 5 sense organs, then it would be seen by other sophisticated instruments. But how can a God who created our 5 senses not be sensed by what it created? That's absurd. Unlike energy which has not hidden itself, if God exists then why is he hiding?

If you don't need to see a skydaddy, then how do you understand something you don't know? I don't want to go back to the intuition and logic discussion because that's where we are tending to again.

It was nice having this thread alive with you.

OkaiCorne:
What I am saying is...what happens at the advanced level is a reflection of what occurs at the basic level.


Using a human being as an example of Unconscious and Unintelligent energy being solely responsible for conscious and intelligent life doesn't add up.

I leave advanced Science to prove me wrong on this. Cheers and TGIF

Just to add: I think the best set of people you should argue with are Scientific Theists...kindly quote them so we can all learn. I have engaged you to the best of my abilities as far as Science is concerned

You are taking it the wrong way, I and Graycoder made it clear yesterday that, you cannot just come to the conclusion your coming to like that.

When you look at the formation of life up to our level(humans). You will have to consider a lot of scientific concepts. Speaking of Evolution, Speciation, Chemical bonding, Chemical and Biochemical reactions, Natural selection, Genetics, Heredity etc etc etc. These are the coffers of science. You cannot understand based on Energy alone. These are the modi operandi of Energy

The talk about energy is just to acquaint you with what energy can do and its basic property of being involved in everything. You can see from my post to babacele, heat energy was featured again when they said from the link, that the baby draws its first breath within 10 seconds in response to the change in temperature of its new environment. I will discuss with scientific theists, if you know any please mention them

There is nothing if energy is absent, that's why it cannot be created nor destroyed. It is God, only that we don't worship it and it doesn't care.

OkaiCorne:
The argument of using a human being as a basic example of how unconscious and unintelligent energy can produce conscious and intelligent life does not add up. How can an argument add up at the advanced level if it does not add up at the basic level?

My parents are intelligent and were obviously conscious of what they were doing while exerting energy to birth me to life.

I will sign out at this point and watch from the sidelines. Perhaps advanced science can help explain how this is possible.

Graycoder and Akin1212 ... do have a lovely day and TGIF!!!

You are using a logic that interprets thus.

Your parents are intelligent and conscious and gave birth to you and your siblings, of course, intelligent and conscious.
Universal energy is unconscious and unintelligent and it also gave rise to other forms of energies which are also unconscious and unintelligent.

That is where your logic is lacking bro. You don't understand the concept of energy because you don't have orientation in science. We shouldn't go back to this argument. Because you're not ready to learn science.

You have also failed to address where the logic fell back on you.
If God, intelligent and conscious can also give rise to imbecile_, unconscious and unintelligent.
Then there is no basis for arguing that energy, unconscious and unintelligent can give rise to intelligent and conscious beings. No matter what choices are involved.

I hope you comprehend this basic rule of thumb sir.

Babacele:
when you give birth to an animal and it hasnt taken the first breath - life force, it becomes a stillbirth and may never come into being if urgent interventions are not employed to make it breath. the brain and muscles you have alluded to are there but wouldnt save the animal. This force pervades the universe and gives meaning to life. it is beyond anybody's control but can be cooperated with.
It is an insult to say that the processes are not well coordinated. how? and i shall prove to you that there would be an imbalance with greaT consequences when you "COORDINATE" these well planned processes. Im challenging you right away to expose the so called coordination here .
Science was formed from the experiences of others and the observation of certain natural occurences and patterns in both organic and the inorganic world including occultism,alchemy, as well as cosmic or spiritual laws. so how many of these laws do you know?
im sure you know that water quenches fire but to all adepts water brings forth fire and light and it is not a negation of the fire quenching qualities of water but an independent manifestation . so dont flaunt half baked science as the universal truth when there a million scientific laws you dont know. is not disturbing to your logic that while looking at the cup as half empty and ascribe only evil to the divine intelligence you have refused to attribute to Her the beauty ,forms, consciousness and intelligence to Him? can an unintelligent and unconscious entity give forth intelligence and consciousness. It is a God of our realizations and while you are entitled to your not realizing IT as athe universal intelligence, some other persons have experienced Him especially when all material scientists' claims have closed the doors of opportunity to more life on such persons. These persons have looked up to the heavens for some interventions and the Divine intelligence, the X factor, has surprised us on many occasions by the magic of His solutions. Can you tell such persons that He does not exist? This is a reality that baffles the actualities of material science.
For my ex-lover, as it is in chemical bonding so it goes in marital affairs and relationships: we weren't just meant for each other. Thanks. ;

The basic explanation of what you don't know is science. The basic conclusion from your inference is lack of science. I have backed all my claims up with science from the beginning.

I have bolded some statements in your quotes above, please do check them as I am going to address them one by one again with science.

Firstly, When you give birth to an animal. An animal that was living through its mother placenta before birth will have lungs that were not functioning prior to birth. This means before birth, the oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange is taken care of by the mother's placenta. After birth, the baby needs to exchange with the environment for this purpose. I bet you don't know that. You have just been posting life force, life force. What is life force? There is nothing like life force when it comes to science, basic and advanced. A born baby which was using its mother's placenta for the exchange of gases in its body will have to draw its first breathe which happens almost all the time. But in the case it doesn't happen due to dead energy, you have to transmit energy to it.. The inability of this is not called stillbirth. Don't act like you know what you don't know

Now read this link to educate yourself, sir. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002395.htm

The mother's placenta helps the baby "breathe" while it is growing in the womb. Oxygen and carbon dioxide flow through the blood in the placenta. Most of it goes to the heart and flows through the baby's body.

At birth, the baby's lungs are filled with fluid. They are not inflated. The baby takes the first breath within about 10 seconds after delivery. This breath sounds like a gasp, as the newborn's central nervous system reacts to the sudden change in temperature and environment.


Stillbirth is when the baby was born dead, not when the baby has not drawn its first breath. I cannot be arguing with someone who is falsifying pieces of information here and there because he does not know what he is saying.

If you will please go and learn science first and then if you want to use science to disprove my claims you can bring it back here but that's after you have learned it.

I must confess, I was disappointed and discouraged after your first few lines.

OkaiCorne:
Although I don't see religion in a good light...my major fear is if everyone has an atheistic mindset...morality might be thrown to the dogs. I think what keeps people in check is a combination of penalties stipulated by the Law and Eternal Consequence such as the Fear of Hell like you mentioned...

Take out the fear of hell ... and watch a country like Nigeria descend into chaos and total moral bankruptcy...

Well, I have to agree that religion has its grip on people's moral strength owing to the fear of hell. But religion has also caused a lot of damage that was unprecedented. Speaking of hatred for other sects, slavery among other things. And these damages are far worse than moral bankruptcy.

I think morality is a personal thing. You don't need religion to be moral. But truly it is what most of us depend on when we search how moral we are, due to the fact that we were indoctrinated in it from childhood. I don't believe in God, but I don't go about being amoral.

The law can check our moral banks if it can be tightly regulated, but then that one also has its faults. Hence I suggest parents who don't believe in God can also build the moral banks of their wards from childhood by teaching them morals instead of telling them scary stories of hellfire to scare them into being moral.

OkaiCorne:
Energy isn't my problem, I know it's essential...but whether it is the only thing needed to create things...I am not convinced. I take a bow at this point...but sincerely what is your opinion on Modern day Scientific Theists? Are they wrong to believe in an Eternal Creator despite their deep exposure to Science?

For me, I think believing in God or not is a choice and a decision even if you have all the proofs that he exists or not. You can have all the proofs and still decide what you want to do.
I think emotions, fear, and some other things are considered when believing in God. Some people also say they have nothing to lose by believing in God. You must have read about Pascal's wager.

According to Pascal's wager

“God can’t be proved. But if God exists, the believer gains everything (goes to heaven) and the unbeliever loses everything (goes to hell). If God doesn’t exist, the believer loses nothing and the unbeliever gains nothing. There is, therefore, everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God.”
- Blaise Pascal

Most scientists base their belief in a God on this. They have their rights. Some people practice religion because of morals too.
I also think they are stupid because they are not actually using science to its full capacities.
Had it been they have the same God, then I would say maybe they used scientific concepts to find that God.
But many scientists have different gods. Hence they are stupid


But for me, I think I have gone past that fear level. Hellfire is not reasonable to me and hence the fear is off.

OkaiCorne:
Can I ask more questions or do we end it here? I still can't conclude on the fact that intelligence and consciousness has zero role to play in the creation process...especially if we use living creatures as an example...

The good thing about this conversation is that it has narrowed out a lot of things without having to quote many religious texts to make certain points as most theists would do.

The summary of our argument ENERGY Vs (Consciousness + Intellect + Energy); which is "God"?

YOU'RE THE LANDLORD OF THIS YARD...so what's next?

Seriously I am not here to convince you of the existence and influence of energy in this universe.

I know it's hard to reach a science-based conclusion since you don't have prior knowledge of science. I don't really blame you.

But when it comes to living creatures, the things you have read from me are not enough to convince you, that's why I would have been nice if we are doing this while having some drinks one on one. Typing and reading can't suffice. I will need to talk about speciation, evolution, natural selection etc etc etc. We have only been discussing Chemistry and Physics. There is more to science than that.

Energy cannot be included in the description of God because God cannot power a generator to work. Energy can. Energy does all things.

And yes we are still good, this is just an online forum.