₦airaland Forum

Some people’s blood radiations are so unsuited for their spirits or their spirits are too weak to subjugate their physical bodies in the right manner, hence a departed soul may be able to completely push aside such a soul and take over the physical body. The person is said to possessed then.

Are you certain that such a thing as this is possible? If it is, what karmaic responsibility will the true owner of the body bear for such "possessed" actions? How exactly can a departed one take control of a present one, considering that the functions of the body are controlled by a physical living brain? How is such a connection possible?

And this is what makes a propensity unnatural, because the spirit, naturaly should not urge for gross material enjoyment or indulgence.

Does the message not say that it is that self-same urge that brought us to earth? Does it not speak about the urges of "nipping" and eventually "tasting" being the urges that urge the spirit into this earthlife?

How does it make sense to come into an entire existence on earth from an urge, and then assert that the spirit, naturaly should not urge for gross material enjoyment or indulgence.

One can indulge in any earthly enjoyment, but the individual most make sure that he doesn’t soil his cloaks (subtler bodies) or stain his spirit in so doing. Let’s take intimate intercourse for example. This is a necessity of a healthy matured physical body, and there is absolutely nothing wrong in satisfying this urge. As long as it remains a need arising from the physical body alone; but when this goes beyond the physical body to the extent that the spirit now yearns for it or desires it, it becomes a propensity which has a terrible consequence because it will hold such a spirit earthbound after passing on. Like I said earlier, during such powerful earthly activities, the spirits feels it through radiations; hence over indulgence will make an impact in the spirit or the spiritual intuition, albeit only on the outermost part of the spirit. Hence the spirit now glows predominantly or longs for earthly enjoyments.

Again, same as above. It must be a very harsh creation to push spirits into the world of matter, from the urge for material and other experiencing, and expect that such experiencing will not or should not "stain" the spirit. Particularly the bold in red seems contradictory to me because I assume the the latent and subconscious urge for such things was already there in the spirit and resulted in its incarnation on earth.

I do not say this lightly. I was born with some very strange and inexplicable urges which I began to recognize as early as my toddler years, and I really mean as early as ages 3 - 4. Those urges have dominated my life till date, and it was only when I saw the full impact of those urges on my psyche when I was about 30 years old, that I settled down and stopped fighting them. How can I fight something that I am born with? I also had some dreams which indicated to me that they could be a possible carry over from another life. I don't know.

What I do know, is that those urges are an intrinsic part of my spirit. It would seem a harsh creation to me; that would sprout me into the world of matter with certain inherent urges, and deny me a return to spirit on account of urges that were already there from the beginning, however they may have grown within the world of matter.

This desire to eat physically, which is alien to the spirit, is restricted to the physical body. Hence when the physical body falls away, this desire will fall away along with the physical body. The spirit which is filled with the longing for the luminous heights would strive away from the earth since it desires nothing earthly.

If it is true that all material desires are alien to the spirit, then what is the nipping and tasting referred to in the Grail Message which compels the spirit germ to come to the world of matter as a conscious being? If those urges are NOT material, then surely the spirit only needed to have incarnated in such non-material realms as would have been homogeneous to its natural spiritual urges? No?

However for each earthly incarnation, a new astral body is required, because each physical body is a reflection of an astral body. However the soul can reincarnate with the same body of fine gross matter; just as people can reincarnate with the same ethereal body.

Can you please elaborate on this.

“I am yours forever,” such practices that is very common today, can take on form in the beyond and tie the individuals together. However, the barrier of the physical body will not let them see the consequence of this oat taking, which is a gross material anchoring of an unnatural spiritual attachment. But when the physical body falls away as in death, the individual sees himself always in the vicinity of the girl and will not be able to ascend. He remains earthbound, as long as the girl is on earth. And such mutual oat taking is not very easy to dissolve; so if the girl passes on and is pulled towards hell, the man so attached to her will be pulled to hell along with her. A man who otherwise may never have had to go hell. So be careful with the covenants that you take and the promises that you make; let every word that you speak be guided by your spiritual intuition and you will be saved from unhealthy ethereal or non-physical ties.

Please this one is very important personally to me. What happens in a scenario of pledge to marry? In fact traditional rites completed, and a strong bond felt and affirmed over years to marry. And then few weeks to the final ceremony, the couple have a big misunderstanding and everything goes up in flames. If one party dies (heaven forbid), will such a scenario create an earth-bound condition on account of the pledge (oath) to marry?

The same is applicable to people with unhealthy attachment to earthly things, properties and etc. On passing on, they may be bound to that property which they lived for while on earth.

Chei, I had better tone down my love for my lufly car.

Hence they feel the pains of autopsy, cremation, or decomposition, whatever the case maybe. And just as this unnatural attachment interferes with the ascent of the soul, it also interferes with the normal decomposition of the physical body.

I have always been disturbed by this teaching of the Grail Message. Even in physical life, while physically alive, there are conditions that can render people oblivious to physical pain. Even the mere drugs used to render a person asleep during surgeries accomplishes this. It is VERY hard for me to believe therefore that when the brain has stopped working completely, the body can continue to feel physical pain.

Very hard. Please reflect closely, and also scientifically, on this.

Have intimate intercourse to relive the physical body, and keep it healthy, to procreate, and exchange radiations with a member of the opposite gender with whom you have achieved spiritual harmony which is pure love.

I agree with this and have always taught it to other people as a teaching that I see to be the truth: however I must confess that in my personal life I have hardly ever been se.xually attracted to the women that I have loved with all my heart, and I have hardly ever been romantically or spiritually attracted to the women that I find se.xually irresistible.

Infact, this contradiction has given me many problems. I do not mentally associate my romantic love with se.x. It has therefore caused some of my beloved ones in the past to think that I do not love them or desire them. I do. But not really se.xually. On the other hand, when I see a really worldly woman who I am not romantically attracted to, all my se.xual energies go into overdrive.

In this circumstance I find it hard to pursue the noble teaching of only have se.x with a woman that one loves.

Very hard.

I believe I have said enough here to give you the idea.

Although your response was for Speer, it was a superb write-up. I am already thinking of relevant people in my personal life to share it with. You are a great teacher sir. And no, I am not creating a cult about you. Remember I do not create cults even for Jesus.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Interesting because I put up a similar argument to Plaetton earlier namely "how can the created know what a perfect creation is?"

Ok Martian, so because of our human point of view and human interpretations, we can only observe events in the universe but we cannot recognize if the events are ordered or disordered because we really have no true contrasts for comparison.
One interesting thing to note is that your argument itself implies that human interpretation is limited in that it doesn't have enough information to truly say whether or not the universe is damaged. The question will now arise "limited in contrast to what?"

I put to you that in the same vein, with human interpretation we cannot even know if the universe exists or not or if we are indeed observing anything at all or if we even exist to start with since we don't have a "non-existent" to compare with therefore the universe (including us) neither exists or doesn't exist.
..........we now have dived into the realm of the absurd and meaningless.[/quote]Superb. And the bold last line encapsulates all that the foolish, unintelligent and shallow-thinking atheistic view-point actually represents.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The gospel is basically about who God is and what He has done for us because of His love. I believe you know the details of it and I think your question is not really about "what is the the gospel?" but it is more about "How does the gospel make sense?"

Am I right in my assumption?[/quote]O no: I was wondering if you meant the gospel in the sense of the GOSPEL books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, or in the sense of the specific teaching that Jesus died for our sins and must be accepted as personal lord and Savior, or in the SIMPLE sense that one must love God and love one's neighbor. Or are all collectively and strictly necessary, the abandonment of any one of which results in - - - > Condemnation.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol, you are fueling my ego. I am not as smart as you probably think.....

As for the link you posted, the Op is filled with stereotypes and does not represent Christianity[/quote]O, it was of course meant as an entertaining intro: but please note that I have posed that exact scenario to many christians, and their direct answer was that the monk is going straight to hell.

The truth is that I don't know what their (those who never heard the gospel) fate will be but I trust God to judge righteously. I don't know any better way to answer without excessive speculation.

This is fair enough.

Now this is the second part, If anyone hears the gospel preached but rejects it then the person is condemned. Why is this so? because the core of Christianity is love and charity. I don't see how a person living a life of love (which by the way is impossible to truly live without the aid of the Holy Spirit) can possibly reject the gospel.

What do you refer to as the gospel please?

Martian: I think that parts of the universe can be termed orderly according to human standards, and some of it can be termed disorderly according to the same standards.

How are you my friend? My leader needs to see you.

Mr. Annoy, your attention is needed here -

https://www.nairaland.com/1009338/succinctly-anony

mazaje: Deepsight is here with his oneness of infinity delusion. . . . . .

lol! my chairman sir, i hail oooo! long time, how you dey na?

plaetton: and mr annoy stand.

I AM LAUGHING AND STRUGGLING TO BELIEVE THAT THE BOLD IS NOT DELIBERATE!

is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing:

Jayriginal,

Please look at this statement again. Now I ask you to tell me what it means for something to be theoretically possible.

I say to you that it means that under current accepted theories of applicable science, such a thing could happen, even if it is an unlikely thing.

Not so?

Now, tell me, is it possible for an eye to spring into existence in a single lucky step under currently accepted science?

TELL ME THAT IS NOT BALDERDASH, ADMIT THAT I DID NOT LIE, AND BE OBJECTIVE IN THIS PLEASE!

Ah, yes, here it is indeed. It is the first line that informed my memory, and yes, I state that it is still a nonsensical line. Such nonsense is not even theoretically possible. For him to -

1. Conceive it as theoretically possible

2. Then admit it impossible in practical terms, and then

3. String out the same idea simply interpolating extended time as the pacifier -

Is eminently nonsensical.

Let me ask you - what does it mean to assert anything to be "theoretically" possible?

I say to you that the bold in red in his quote below is NOT even theoretically possible. What follows it in blue bold is nothing but an admission that such would require intelligent programming.

For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable. The quantity of luck involved is much too large. The "correct" recipe involves changes in a huge number of genes simultaneously. The correct recipe is one particular combination of changes out of trillions of equally probable combinations of chances. We can certainly rule out such a miraculous coincidence. But it is perfectly plausible that the modern eye could have sprung from something almost the same as the modern eye but not quite: a very slightly less elaborate eye. By the same argument, this slightly less elaborate eye sprang from a slightly less elaborate eye still, and so on. If you assume a sufficiently large number of sufficiently small differences between each evolutionary stage and its predecessor, you are bound to be able to derive a full, complex, working eye from bare skin. How many intermediate stages are we allowed to postulate? That depends on how much time we have to play with. Has there been enough time for eyes to evolve by little steps from nothing?

And so yes, i retain my position.

jayriginal: Wow! In your hatred for Dawkins, you are willing to take liberties with the truth.

Its quite telling you know?

Here is what the man said.

Ol boy, i will seek out the quote where I saw the thing. Perhaps it was KAG, who was supporting him, that actually said so. I will verify.

plaetton: Yes, ofcourse, the numbers are mind-boggling and the odds are incredible, but, in the same vein pls take time to imagine , on any given second of time, how many collisions of matter occur in the universe. Can you even put a number to it? Can you even imagine how many stars are in the universe?
If particles of matter are colliding at zillions and zillions of any given second, just stretch your imagination a bit and consider that zillions and zillions of collisions or energy interactions per second over a period of 14 billion or more years can can greatly increase the odds of any type of complex configuration of matter occuring.

Its not just the amount of collisions in time. Its not just the mass. Its the intricate networks and systems each dependent on one another within a human body, for example, that render the improbable frankly impossible.

Dear Mr. Anony.

I, as others, have been following your posts on this forum and have been hugely impressed by the quality of your mind, your philosophical depth, and particularly your excellent temperament.

In the past, I took up some basic issues with some prominent Christians on this forum, notably Noetic, Davidylan, Inesqor, Nuclearboy and his excellency, President for life, Field Marshall Alhaji Dr Viaro, C-IN-C, VINCLEAR, Lord of the Beasts of the Earth and Fish of the Sea, Imperial Creator of physical beings in spiritual heavens, and all round conqueror of the Deep Sight Republic in Nairaland in particular and Life in General, Pilgrim number one of the most high, and First Wordtalker of the Universe.

As you appear to have a profound understanding of not just scripture, but philosophy and life in general, I would dearly like to have your take on some of the nagging issues raised in some of those old threads.

A succinct answer on your view on the central issue raised would suffice. We can discuss each, but not tarry too long on each, so that we can address several in teh next few days.

Let us start with this.

Please see here -

https://www.nairaland.com/336988/noetic-interview-questions-humanity-quality

What do you regard as the fate of sincere and conscientuous non-Christians who live lives of love and charity?

plaetton: The thread is asking why there is disease and death in a supposedly perfect creation of your imaginary god.

I already gave you a comprehensive answer in this post, but i noticed you could not respond to it - - ->

Deep Sight: Now let me tell you something. A lot of people imagine God as some sort of creative man in the skies with all powers and as such begin to ask questions like this. This is not a deep, perceptive or nuanced view of what God is. God is the ultimate reality, and as such, only proceeds along the self-existent laws of logic which are the sum of what God itself is. As such, if there is an "up", then in self existence there will be a "down". If there is a "light", then in self existence there will be a "dark", according to the equally self existent principles of duality inherent in reality. This is why we have positive and negative, and this is why we have generation (health) and degeneration (diesease).

In the broad scheme of things, these cancel out as an even reality: which balance of transcendent things is what the perfection (and justice) of GOD rests in.

I expect YOU to appreciate this.



And since God is the logical flow of reality, we do not see God "magicking" things into existence. They proceed along logical lines of existence and process, and this is why we have evolution. Now, in that process, what more perfect way to gradually improve species than have inherent in the process - the self same attributes of duality - generation and degeneration inherent in the system. - - -> [b]which is what then leads to evolution.[/u] It could not be otherwise anyway, being the balance of the existent God.

In fact, on a higher philosophical level i will say that this very reasoning is what renders God existent.

That existent God is not merciful the way the religious person thinks to individuals - but is balanced and adamantine on a cosmic scale.



We know that this is a foolish teaching. But in no way does disease (degeneration) obviate the perfection of God as I have described it to mean. Indeed, that is the cycle of all things even at the cosmic scale. Even stars degenerate for crying out loud.



It is weak, when addressing issues as big as the perfection of God, to attack only religious myths. I would expect you to broaden your discourse to the notion of God as a philosophical and logical construct.

Would you bother to address these questions to a Greek who believed in Zeus? Why then bother with Yahweh?

Addittionally, not all theists believe in original sin.

Why did you ignore these answers sire?

Logicbwoy: You fail on two philosophical grounds

1) Perfection itself doesnt exist. It is like saying ghosts exist because the opposite of ghosts is an alive human being. Wrong

2) Perfection is a subjective construct. Therefore, perfection and imperfection can exist simultaneously as a descripio of something.

-a perfect circle is also an imperfect (incomplete) cylinder

If perfection does not exist, then it is illogical to point at anything and call it imperfect. Because the word imperfection derives from a notion about something NOT being perfect. Simple, boy.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The universe is ordered relative to disorder.

What do I consider orderly? Well, let me see...........
The fact that we are having an intelligible conversation.
let's do a little maths, working from absolute disorder.

It is estimated that if you weigh 70kg, then you are made up of 7x10^27 atoms (not counting electrons, protons, neutrons etc) that is 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. The probability that they come together to form your body is 7x10^27! (seven billion billion billion factorial - you can type that into google and see what result it gives you)

That's just your body, it says nothing of your intelligence and your mind. Now that probability happens 7 billion times(approximate number of people in the universe)
Note I have only accounted for human bodies hanging in empty space. I have not accounted for all the processes that must be in place for you to actually be alive and communicate with me via the internet.

It is infinitely impossible for you and I to exist let alone have an intelligible conversation in a universe of absolute disorder.[/quote]Honestly you already have my nomination for Religion Section Poster of the Year.

This is so lucid and simple, it beats me that the atheist cannot see the ridiculous improbability, nay implausibility and impossibility of his position.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Question is how can science correct anything without first assuming that there is a right order to correct to?[/quote]THANK YOU ! ! ! ! !

Logicbwoy: Millions of christians have moved past this foolishness of debating evolution. Evolution is taught in catholic schools. The Archbishop of Cantebury supports evolution. The Anglican church supports evolution. Evolution is taught in schools. Modern day orthodox Jews support evolution. Modern day conservative Jews support evolution. Evolution is taught in schools in ALL developed countries.

Evolution should not be debated but alas! we have backyard protestant and pentecostal churches (Especially the ones in which pastors have maybacjs and private jets) who still reject evolution. It comes as no suprise as many "black" churches in the USA do not accept evolution. Ironically, the churches that have been existing close to the beginning of christianity accept evolution but the ones formed recently choose not to.


When will my fellow Nigerians on Niaraland wake up and move into the 21st century? If you have time and internet connection, you have no excuse to be ignorant about evolution. Stop this ignorance.

Can you please SHAT AP, overall?

plaetton: What is life? Do you really think you have 100% knowledge of what constitutes life? Is life not just intangible energy(perhaps of a unique kind).
Come to think of it, does life beget consciousness or does consciousness beget life?

If life is pure intangible, uniquely configured energy,then the possibility of life springing spontanously (into view) in certain conditions cannot be far fetched. Since energy is the only thing that is self-existent and eternal(your words), then energy can, over an infinite time,come up with this unique configuration which we call life or consciousness.
So life may just be another energy transformation, something that we all very familiar with.
If you cannot imagine this possibility, then I just wonder how you can come up with the notion of a self-existent eternal conscious god. It just beats my imagination. You believe in one idea when it suites you and then you slam the very same notion when it suites you.

My good friend and brother, you are ducking the issues. Mr. Anony has given you brilliant posers. Deal with them.

Gotta go now. Lawyer don turn to oshodi-marketwoman.

Ol boy, go siddon. Mr "the commandment i attacked is the one about loving God". Even after viciously attacking the commandment to love fellow men.

You no get shame o.

Good afternoon. Gotta go. Lawyer don turn to trader.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Are you serious??!! Do you know the meaning of Absolute Chaos at all.
What you have just done is to imply that all science is flawed because to attempt science, one must assume order.
Your statement is devoid of any evidence whatsoever, in fact it is anti-evidence. You have just shown blind faith in the non-existence of God.

Now I've ranted let me ask you: How do you know for sure that from our vantage point, our imagination of order is false?
To state this with any certainty at all, wouldn't your vantage point need to be from a position where you can observe the entirety of the universe in detail?
i.e God's vantage point?[/quote]Exactemente sir. He actually makes a bold and blind statement from ignorance.

I just said on another thread that one needs a bird's eye view to make such a statement.

Let's just imagine the universe is a human body. Any planet based in the rectum will have its inhabitants conclude that it consists of chaotic faeces.

Any planet based in the brain will have its inhabitants observe the order of the body.

Any planet based outside the body will have its inhabitants observe the full wonder and glory of the complete knowing sentient human being.

Logicbwoy: Huh? imperfection does not always imply that there is a perfect standard. Use your brain. Imperfection could mean that there is a flaw. Correcting the flaw would not still make that thing perfect. Why does bacteria exist? Lets kill bacteria and not more sickeness from bacteria. In doing that, youwould harm other animals that benefit from the bacteria.

There can be no concept of imperfection without a concept of perfection, son!

Just as there is no concept of positive without negative, no concept of light without dark, no concept of up without down.

Do think about it: If there was no "up" could you say that anything is "down"?

As such, if there is no perfection, how can you say that anything is imperfect.

Please put on your philosophical cap on those noodles, this time, dear son.

plaetton: Good. You have done better this time.

He did excellently the first time: and you had NO response to his profound queries.

Chaos is the order of the universe. From our miniscule vantage point in space and time, we falsely imagine order and beauty.

This is an assumption. How do you know this?

But our perceptions are very very limited. Since we imagine beauty and perfect order, we invent an imaginary god to give credit.

Why do we imagine perfect order?

plaetton: Have you heard of dna mutations? Certain conditions can cause dna to mutate(not adapt) to produce completely different strands and structures of protein molecules. As such, an organism can develope new traits and new forms over millions and billions of years. That is a fact.

No, this is a lie. Not without external impetus of an intelligent and directed kind.

The theory of evolution does not have to fully address the origin of the first unicellular life in order to be fact.

I did not say it is not a fact, I have always said it is a fact. I said that it is inchoate. Is this a lie?

You talk so much about infinity, yet you cannot imagine that form and function can actually harmonize together in millions and billions of years of trial and error?

There is nothing, i REPEAT, nothing, in the material universe that would spontaneously conjure life. Much less spontaneously marshal it to arrive at beings such as ourselves. I repeat: NOTHING.

Martian: The person who opened the thread already stopped talking about it.So who's obsessed?

Do you really think he has the time? I just happen to have the time because as y'all know, brick-batting is my thing.

And yes, if being obsessed with an attack on "love your neighbour" is what you accuse me of, believe me, it is a horrendous enough attack for any sensible person to be obsessed with rebutting. So i plead guilty, sir.

You are not my favorite anything. Even if I knew you in real life.

Lol. You take words too seriously. I suspect that this is the bitter effect of being caught in an open attempt at a lie. Don't worry, it has happened to many, myself inclusive. Calm down there and don't become the next bitter anti-deepsightist.

I've just noticed your behavior since that ancient aliens thread, but I may be wrong.

You are wrong: my debating style is well known and notorious on this forum. It did not start with you or with ancient aliens. I am not ashamed of that discussion. The subject still intrigues me, so kill yourself if that amuses you.

But never mind, I've been "exposed" because I find the Jewish carpenter silly.

No: you were exposed sneakily trying to withdraw from your earlier statements and insinuate that you did not make them. That is falsehood.

plaetton: C'mon Deepsight, dont cherry pick to suit your viewpoint. The issue here is not whether perfection exist or not. That is not the debate here. The question is why a supposedly perfect creator(an notion that you subscribe to), who is proud of creation, would create an imperfect, defective species.

Now let me tell you something. A lot of people imagine God as some sort of creative man in the skies with all powers and as such begin to ask questions like this. This is not a deep, perceptive or nuanced view of what God is. God is the ultimate reality, and as such, only proceeds along the self-existent laws of logic which are the sum of what God itself is. As such, if there is an "up", then in self existence there will be a "down". If there is a "light", then in self existence there will be a "dark", according to the equally self existent principles of duality inherent in reality. This is why we have positive and negative, and this is why we have generation (health) and degeneration (diesease).

In the broad scheme of things, these cancel out as an even reality: which balance of transcendent things is what the perfection (and justice) of GOD rests in.

I expect YOU to appreciate this.

Another point of correction: Those of us that subscribe to evolution DO NOT miss the glaring obvious relevance of disease to natural selection and evolution. Infact, that is exactly what I have always argued on many posts on this forum.

And since God is the logical flow of reality, we do not see God "magicking" things into existence. They proceed along logical lines of existence and process, and this is why we have evolution. Now, in that process, what more perfect way to gradually improve species than have inherent in the process - the self same attributes of duality - generation and degeneration inherent in the system. - - -> [b]which is what then leads to evolution.[/u] It could not be otherwise anyway, being the balance of the existent God.

In fact, on a higher philosophical level i will say that this very reasoning is what renders God existent.

That existent God is not merciful the way the religious person thinks to individuals - but is balanced and adamantine on a cosmic scale.

Thiests, on the other hand, always blame adam and man's infinite debt to god as the origin of disease and death.

We know that this is a foolish teaching. But in no way does disease (degeneration) obviate the perfection of God as I have described it to mean. Indeed, that is the cycle of all things even at the cosmic scale. Even stars degenerate for crying out loud.

That is why I called them here to come and defend that claim.
So far, they have all chickened out.

It is weak, when addressing issues as big as the perfection of God, to attack only religious myths. I would expect you to broaden your discourse to the notion of God as a philosophical and logical construct.

Would you bother to address these questions to a Greek who believed in Zeus? Why then bother with Yahweh?

Addittionally, not all theists believe in original sin.

Martian: And so what if I describe it as foolish and silly? Do you score some kind of psychological victory because I don't agree with Jesus? Lol, ever since your ancient alien idiocy,you've been quick to always try to find fault in anything I say.

Ad hominem.

It doesn't take ancient aliens to see how nonsensical your attack on that teaching was. The person who opened this thread - has he ever said anything about ancient aliens?

Abeg stop getting desperate simply because your duplicity and shallowness is being exposed.

Don't worry, you are still one of my favorite posters. I also sense in your reticence on the ex nihilo issue that you are contemplating the possible existence of God. I encourage you in that regard. Incidentally, that was the only line in my other revert toy you, that you stayed away from. Good, Good. Good, God.

Martian: And your logical arguments from god are all arguments from ignorance based on whatever monotheist faith you belonged to.

No it is not. I had first rejected those ideas completely before starting again. Please stop writing my biography for me, when it is time I may do an autobiography - that is only if my life turns out to be relevant enough to warrant an interesting read.

The last time you concluded that god was "infinite apace" and "infinite time" and admitted that you were just separating the space time continuum to fit your ideas.

Yes indeed, God at its intrinsic self-existent level is the "cynosure" or the combination of these.

What are the patterns of living things that point to design by god?

Many. But how about try your brain for size. It's a marvel you know?

Have you ever taken time to really read about its working?

What about music, dance,poetry and philosophy point to design by a god?

They evince a side to our consciousness that is not accounted for by evolution or natural selection alone.

Conciousness not being fully understood points to god?

Consciousness points to God.

If god is natural, how do you go about discovering it using the scientific method?

It is not an animal you may take to the lab: it is rather all things, so simply study all things and you will see God.

Yeah, you will stare God face to face.

I didnt conclude that it's largely chaotic, it's you and MyJoe that infer design and pattern using arguments from ignorance. I only pointed out that what you term " orderly" isn't universal.

And your definite assertion that it is NOT orderly is not an argument from ignorance?

So have you been high up in the stands to "appreciate the patterns" of the universal order, or are using using your sentiments as evidence...as usual.

I simply pointed out to you that only one with a bird's eye view of the universes can make this call. Is this a lie?

As for me, I make the design argument from the one's i see around me - including my own fearfully constructed brain which at least we have a view of.

Martian: Okay then, Inspector gadget, go dig it up.

Why should I do that task? We all know what you said.

Anyway, there is still nothing profound about "love your neighbor"

Scaling down are we? You initially described it as fo.olish and s.illy.

Martian: Check the first page.

Come on, stop stretching your dishonesty to the point of ridicule. You know very well your initial comments which inspired this thread were not on the first page here, but on another preceding thread.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Classic escapism[/quote]I am shocked that Plaetton did not recognize the profound depth of some of the questions you raised.

If perfection does not exist, there would be no basis for complaining about imperfection - it would be the only reality. The very fact that we recognize imperfection and complain about it already evinces recognition of perfection.

And then you asked him how, as a part of creation, he would recognize a perfect creation, being a part of creation already. I was shocked that he did not pause at this one. For heaven's sake I hate the fact that we defecate. Its inconvenient and stinks. But somebody tell me its not perfect biological design suitable for living sustainably on earth as a mammal.

Lastly I am amused that people who subscribe wholeheartedly to evolution miss the glaring obvious relevance of disease to natural selection and evolution. That is JUST AMAZING.

Evil Brain: Evolution is simply natural selection happening over a long time.

I say to you that there is evolution, but natural selection alone is absolutely insufficient to explain it as it has occurred leading up to humans.

Natural selection simply means that inheritable traits that give a living thing a survival advantage tend to become more common in the population over time.

Now note the bold words above. Do you suggest to me that the traits we see in humans today all existed as inheriable traits within the first unicellular organisms? Because its a line you know. If you say "inheritable traits" - then no new traits would have ever developed: only traits already existing and inheritable right from the first unicellular organism.

You would only have had such unicellular organism continuing to adapt its existing traits but not attaining altogether new traits - not inherent in its gene code, such that it one day becomes the ancestor of a staggering thing like a human being.

Aside from the fact that the Theory of Evolution is inherently inchoate as it does not address the origin of the first unicellular life. Why jump to life already existing, and string out the theory from there? Is it not also relevant HOW inanimate chemicals evolved into unicellular organisms - which by the way, are complex in themselves. This is a leap too great for any evolutionist to comtemplate, and as such it is deliberately left out of the scope of the theory - even when it is the root and most important question.

Again, consider something like the EYE. This particular tool of conscious sobservation is far too improbable in evolutioary terms alone, when one looks at the entire scope from unicellular organisms upwards. Even Drawin expressed perplexity at it: but nowadays we have nit wits like Richard Dawkings writing that the eye could have "sprang into existence in a single lucky mutation".

How about that?