Aaron Hancock, our official unofficial Christian representative, has written an interesting retort to the Penn Jillette article posted earlier. Please take a look and post your comments here. I will start us off with my opinion.
RE:RE: There Is No God
I found the first few paragraph rather wordy and misguided. Penn was simply saying that he "believes" there is no God. Aaron needlessly picked apart the word "believe" and ran in circles with it. Believing there is no God simply means, until I see God myself or proof of him/her/it, God doesn’t exist in my mind. He is not definitively saying that God can’t possibly exist. He treating God like Santa Clause… sure many people believe in him, but I don’t because there is just no evidence to the contrary.
As for not having a solid point of reference to make his statement, well quite honestly he doesn’t need one. The onus is on the people who do believe in God, otherwise everything would exist by default. Think about that for a second. The Easter Bunny, Santa, Loch Ness, Bigfoot, and everything else would "truly exist". Now go ahead and prove me wrong….you can’t. That’s what Penn was eluding to when he said you can’t prove a negative. Obviously that’s not true in all cases, but for this it is.
Science in general is extremely unreliable as a reference source for confidence because what we ‘know’ about science is constantly changing. Hundreds of years ago, we ‘knew’ through science that the earth was flat. Within the last few decades, science has changed what we ‘know’ about atoms. Now we know that atoms have quarks and leptons, which are now ‘known’ to be the fundamental particles by which all structures are built. My point is that today we ‘know’ that quarks and leptons are the smallest possible particles and 100 years from now we could very well ‘know’ they are not.
This is wrong in so many ways that it hurts when I read it. People thought the Earth was flat because it looked flat; it was only through science and observation that man proved it was not. Science is like a giant book of knowledge that is constantly growing. With everyday that passes a new chapter is written, corrections are made and more of the "story" is revealed. Sure, our knowledge of particles has changed, and quarks may not be the smallest constituents of matter, but we know for a fact that they do exist and are real. It was part of the story. Will something come along 100 years from now that is smaller? Maybe, but I guarantee that will not change the fact that quarks do exist. Our knowledge gained through science improves and grows everyday. That can’t be easily argued.
I will append the rest of my review after a goodnights sleep :)
No related posts.
You have made some good observations there, but I think you missed my general point about science. The point I was trying to make is that science can’t be used to disprove God. Science, (in most cases, I’m not a scientist) can only be used to prove something and not to disprove it. Until something is proven 100% it is considered scientific theory. I think we all agree that whether or not there is God shouldn’t ever be a scientific question rather a personal one. Maybe I unintentionally misrepresented Penn’s statement to some degree, however, I think the basic concept I mention stands.
As far as the earth being flat, you’re right, it was a general observation, however, science had not yet proven the earth to be round. Not exactly the same thing as “knowing from science that the earth is flat” though. There are many other examples to make this point, but that may be irrelevant.
Regardless, I appreciate all comments as I want to hear what you think and if you think I’m right or wrong so I can re-examine my thinking as I believe we should all constantly do. Re-examining what you believe and why can never hurt anything. If your right you’ll always come to the same conclusion. If you’re wrong (totally or in some specific) then you will see the error and be able to adjust your views.
Thanks for sharing my side of things.
“[...The onus is on the people who do believe in God, otherwise everything would exist by default. Think about that for a second. The Easter Bunny, Santa, Loch Ness, Bigfoot, and everything else would "truly exist". Now go ahead and prove me wrong….you can’t. ...]”
I think you have leaped too far here, perhaps consider that science simply doesn’t have the right tool to observe God, just as the atom and molecule existed before being able to be observed and tested, God could exist and not be observed. Not being able to observe a thing does not conclude that it does not exist.
I think that one of the things Mr. Jillette was trying to say was that, instead of focusing on a faith in God, he focuses on a faith in his own abilities as a human. The author of this article states that “There are deeper elements to every relationship that only the designer of life can give you. I speak from experience. I have experienced God in my life.”
How do you know that this is God that is giving you this great insight, and not for instance, your Pineal Gland?
perhaps ‘faith in no god’ is not as accurate as saying ‘faith in self’, but perhaps I am putting words in Penn’s mouth and I do not mean to do that.
I also find that the idea that someone who believes in a God can experence life more fully then someone else who dosn’t very uncomfortable. I can feel just as deeply as anyone else who does believe in god.
Dan, don’t get me wrong… I believe the existence of God is possible… just not likely. But to say that God definitely exists is akin to saying their are monsters in my closet. Sure I haven’t seen them, but I know they’re there because of the strange noises at night.
The existance of God will not be revealed until you die. If nothing happens, you were right, if you feel very hot, maybe you should have believed in this “God thing.” Me, I believe he exists, I have a hard time believing that I came from crap throwing monkeys. Also I look around and notice there are no other similar creatures. Not one on par with our intellect, seems strange that no other species has reached our level of awareness to even question the existance of God.
If I get sent to hell because I didn’t believe in something you can’t hear, touch, taste (yuck), or smell… yet I was a good person to myself and others, then so be it. I live my life to make myself and others happy, not to please some “God” that may or may not exist.
Aaron Hancock said “Science, (in most cases, I’m not a scientist) can only be used to prove something and not to disprove it.”
Well, you got one thing right, you are not a scientist. Your statement was completely wrong. Science can only be used to disprove something, not prove it. If you say “All members of the Hancock family have 10 toes”, you could probably disprove that. Just show someone with 9, or cut one off. That will disprove the theory. On the other hand, science can never claim to “prove” the 10-toe theory because there might be some long-lost 9-toed family member. When everyone agrees that Mrs. Hancock can account for all her children, and we can study all their feet, it provides sizable evidence toward the theory. Sort of like gravity. We all pretty much count on gravity. But no scientist will ever claim, without a doubt, proof that gravity will always exist, or that there will never be a 9-toed Hancock.
Yea I had that backward, so really that draws the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove God, nor can it prove or disprove evolution… Couldn’t there always be an exception out there that is hiding? It’s kind of like the recent happenings that challenge the laws of quanum physics.
Science is a framework in which others, in fact anyone that wishes to actually can reproduce the test and validate the results. Therefore it can be used to prove and disprove a hypothesis. ‘god did it’ is not a testable hypothesis, hence can not be proven true or false, therefore it’s not a scientific observation.
I agree that the God/No God problem is udecidable ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable for all non-CS’s) at least with the tecniques we have right now…
What we have in the meantime is plausability. The mechinisms of creation that people consider are usually the ones that make the most sense to them.
All we can do is look at the possibilities and gather evidence that supports our preferred set of assumptions.
Personally, I think it is easier to make the assumption that randomness exsists it it is how we were created, as opposed to a completely ordered universe created by some great powerful being.
at least, this is one way that I look at it…
“When you sit down at your computer you are placing your faith in the chair that it will not send you to the floor.”
this old chestnut gets me everytime. when i sit in a chair i assume that it will hold me up because i have experience with the physical world and how it works. i’ve sat in many chairs and i’ve seen people sit in many chairs, and i can be reasonably certain that a chair will hold me up based on previous experience and observation. if i see an old, rickety chair, i don’t blindly assume that because it’s a chair it will hold me up.
So TI3ed, If I take my watch apart into a million little pieces and put it in a paper bag, how long will it take for it to re-assemble into a watch again?
mallen, you make a good point. You have an assumption based on what you have expereinced in the physical world. I also continue to have faith in God because of my experiences. If God never met my needs or if I never experienced Him there’s no way I would keep placing my faith in Him. The catch is that I had to believe and have faith first then I experienced God.
. There isn’t THAT much randomness. Randomness can’t account for large things in a short amount of time.
isn’t it at least somewhat plausable that several elements, all reletivly common to the universe, coalesced into a planet, then created the building blocks of life through their random interaction?
another example: On my way home from work there is a stoplight across a crosswalk, one of those ones where people can push a button to go across. Assuming that when the button is pushed is random (which it largly is), you can see how some days I might hit a red light and others a green. Depending on how I hit that light (and the slowdown of traffic due to it) I may or may not hit another light red. (in other words, a series of events all triggered by one very trivial bt of randomness). Would you suggest that God is determining when these people push the button? After all, being late to get home from work (and trust me… sometimes this can affect a 5 mile journey by 10 minutes in heavy traffic) can have negetive consequences. A tiny bit of randomness can affect things in a very, very sutble way that cascades into bigger things.
Also, randomness seems to have rules and limits, things like entropy always increasing. It is more likly that your watch will break down over time then repair itself.
I am no physicist, but just because I do not know all the rules dosn’t mean that they don’t exsist. Yep, that sounds a lot like dogma. But hey, maybe you are right, maybe all the randomness we observe is caused by a greater being… It just seems more plausible to me that randomness is inharently a part of the universe.
Let’s agree to disagree here because to me it seems less plausible for the randomness of a couple of things to gradually over time, through more and more randomness, generate into a perfectly balanced phyical world where there are laws and things that are infinantely complex beyond our imagination. But it’s funny that you mention entropy… The second law of thermodynamics states that, by nature, order does not come from disorder without work. In other words, a pile of bricks has a tendency to either sit there in a pile or become more disordered by shifting. The natural tendency is not to become ordered. I believe the same can be used to describe how entropy at the “big bang” would not naturally become order. That’s what I believe. Feel free to prove me wrong, as I am always willing to double check myself.
Sounds like a plan and you have some great points. A pile of bricks does not become more ordered, no; but a bunch of sugar molicules in a saturated glass of water DO have the tendency to become more ordered.
but hey, I agree for once. What chance do we have to discover the means of our creation if we cant’ even find the mechinism of gravity?
The thing is, I can not prove you wrong. I have enjoyed the discussion though :)
in other news: I finally regestired!
“The onus is on the people who do believe in God, otherwise everything would exist by default. Think about that for a second. The Easter Bunny, Santa, Loch Ness, Bigfoot, and everything else would “truly exist”.”
I think you’ll find Loch Ness does actually exist. As for the monster, well, that’s another story…
Good catch blk :)
re: paul’s comment about there being no other creatures with his intellect.
by what do you define intellect? is it ability to: kill, survive, communicate, or what? there are examples of other creatures that do these things better than humans.
Don’t be so sure that quarks and leptons will still exist in another hundrd years. Science, as you allude, is growing. That doean’t mean that what it has to say now is *right*. What you call fact is actually generally accepted theories. Scientists aren’t in the business of dishing out facts, that’s what engineers do.
Aaron said “But it’s funny that you mention entropy… The second law of thermodynamics states that, by nature, order does not come from disorder without work. In other words, a pile of bricks has a tendency to either sit there in a pile or become more disordered by shifting. The natural tendency is not to become ordered. I believe the same can be used to describe how entropy at the “big bang†would not naturally become order.”
Once again Aaron, you demonstrate that you are good at using fancy scientific sounding language, but you dont really understand what you are referencing.
Its not your fault that you were misinformed, but I have lost count of how many times I have corrected Christians on this one point when they whip out thermodynamics as evidence.
Please repeat after me everyone:
The second law of thermodynamics roughly states that “In a closed system, entropy(disorder/chaos/heat) increases over time”.
Please note the important first half of this law. IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. This means it applies to a black box experiment. For the duration of the observation, no matter or energy is added or removed.
Thats the problem with your remark. The planet Earth is _not_ a closed system. We have a constant external input of energy (the Sun), not to mention the occasional input of matter in the form of space debris.
Now, would you please go correct your friends who you heard this from? I’m getting tired of explaining this same fact every time they bring up Thermodynamics.
FACT
In the 50 or so times I have explained this, not one Christian who brought up Thermodynamics knew how many laws of thermodynamics there are (answer 3) and none of them could state even one of them accurately.
-DanG
Actually, I brought up thermodynamics. In a roundabout way.
the real question is: is the universe in total a closed system?
According to string theory (M theory, actually) there may be as many as 500 googol universes in existance for some of the details of the theory to work correctly, therefore, no, the universe is not a closed system, but interacts with others in ways we can only indirectly observe.
I was a researcher on M theory at Brown Univirsity. I also research parallel universes
and its more likely that there are an infinite
number of universes in existance, as aposed to just 500. And I would say that our universe interacts with the others in ways that we can only currently indirectly observe, but there
are also phenomenon that can be directly observed but not strictly proven to be caused
by parallel universe interaction.
oh and just so you know the whole M theory thing is based on really really small strings “superstrings” and they are belived to be what make up quarks and leptons and neutrinos and all the other sub sub atomic particles that the article said were the smallest things physists talk about today.
So to answer a few questions.
Yes quarks will most likey be around 100 years from now. and just like they are today they will proably be made out of superstrings.
Notice I say “most likey” because its true us siencetist are not in the bisness of speaking in absolutes. Because there is always the chance that everything we know is totaly wrong. Say for insance that the world we see when we dream is the “real” world. Or the world is something like that in the Matrix. Is it possible? yes but probible? not realy. And that is how I feel about god.
Possble? yes. Probilable not really.
So I dought its was a sientist that said quarks are as small as it gets. Some one must of misintperted. Its more the style of a sientist to say “quarks eh? Hey I wonder what they are made of?” Thats our job. We wonder. If sitensits did dish out absolutes and accept everthing as is, then yes 100 years from now quarks would be as small as it gets. Or maybe even we would still belive the world to be flat.
this is my disclammer I am an ok sientist but a not a great writer so if you are goingto critisize me, please shoot down
my thoughts and not my grammer/spelling.
lhommemagique Says:
I was a researcher on M theory at Brown Univirsity…
wow… cool. That must have been interesting. I understand very little about the whole thing (it would probably take me years to learn all the mathmatics behind it all to be able to fully understand it…) but it seems like an interesting concept. The implications are mind blowing…
So how is the existence of an infinite number of universes that began from nothing more believable than there being an infinite creator? We all agree that space goes far beyond anything that we can measure, but is there an end to space? Is there a brick wall somewhere out there with a sign on it that says “the end”? I don’t think any of us would say that there is. But do we know that? No, not for sure. We have faith that space goes on and on and on.
Now, in my opinion, believing that there is a God that began out of nothing is just as reasonable as believing that the infinite universe began out of nothing. Both seem completely illogical to the human mind if you think about it.
I think Thomas Edison, (one of the greatest scientists who ever lived), made a good point when he said, “We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything.” If that is true, which I believe it is, it is impossible for us to disprove God. To disprove God, we would have to know 100% of what there is to know about everything so that you could prove absolutely that there wasn’t proof of God anywhere. We don’t have the luxury of knowing everything, and as Edison says, we don’t know a millionth of one percent about anything. This being the case, and knowing it only takes one proven fact to prove the existence of God, how can anyone even begin to claim that there is no God? After all, we only know a millionth of one percent about anything… what about the other 99.999999% of stuff we don’t know… isn’t there a good possibility that there is at least one strand of proof for the existence of God in the stuff that we don’t know? I would say that based on that, the possibility (or probability) of God existing is higher than many of you think. Just some thoughts.
One other note, DanG, you get a cookie for knowing more than I do about the laws of thermodynamics… however, wouldn’t a non-closed system bring more variation and greater entropy? And please note that I am not referring to the Earth as a closed system or even as the place of entropy. What greater closed system is there than the universe… there isn’t one… thus at the time of the “big bang”, there was complete and total disorder which would not have had any other influence because there was nothing else to influence it. It was what it was… and it was chaos in a closed system.
Now, I’ll say it again and use your words. The second law of thermodynamics says that there is a tendency for entropy not to decrease in a closed system…
*Note* – Just so you’ll know I’m not the moron you think I am, let me explain a little bit about what I know about the SLoTD.
I understand that scientist bases the edge of chaos on the observation that there are occasions where complex structures spontaneously appear in systems where energy flows from high temp origins to areas of low temperature. Even if this is true, it does not account for the initial origins of matter and antimatter, which is where we all must cross the path of faith.
Ouch, my head is aching. Why does this always happen when I get into this conversation. I am truly one of those people who are “looking” for any answer. The Universe cannot be there, Neither can God. Both are supernatural events and whether you believe in BigBang or ID, neither happened…Where did it start? from nothing? what is nothing, and where did it come from?
Found this website via Slashdot. Great read.
I grew up in a religious Christian family, and when I reached the “age of reason”, around 14 or so, I just stopped believeing. I won’t bore you guys with the details of why and how, but here are some thoughts on the topic at hand.
1) _IF_ there is a God, I doubt we can comprehend what he (or she) is thinking. As Aaron said, we can’t disprove that God exists etc. If that is true, how do we know that human interpretations of God’s words like the Bible, Koran and so on, are in fact meant to be read literally? Maybe they are just code books? Maybe, it was God’s intent to test our faith in ourselves, our curiosity, by providing a competiting faith-based view of the world to drag us from logic?
All I am trying to say is, believing in God tends to have people say things in God’s name or on his behalf, either directly or indirectly. I think the greatest being ever doesn’t need our help to prove or disprove him.
2) I am a PhD student doing Computer Vision and Robotics at Monash in Australia. I am no where near the top of my field, but I know a bit about human psychology, especially dealing with how we tend to interpret images and process sensory data.
The more we know about the brain, the more it appears that we are just being controlled by a large neural network, in the Computer Science sense. Many visual processes, like pattern recognition, can already be achieved by digital neural networks, which work in a way similar to our brain. Many of our visual processes and behaviour, like the Gestalt theories and such, have been used or simulated successfully in Robotics and Machine Learning (AI). Genetic algorithms, which mimic evolution, have also been used to solve a variety of optimization problems successfully. If you see survival as a goal in nature to be optimized for, this goes to show, at least for myself, that Evolution is a viable theory.
Overall, the more I learn about the way we think, and hear about robotic advances, the more I feel that religion is dated and pointless. We, as a human race, should be focusing on learning about the world and ourselves scientifically. I would rather have a world view presented to me in a state where I or anyone else can disprove and alter, than a rigid one which requires great leaps of believe without evidence (aka faith). I would rather believe that we are all in a wonderfully crafted simulation as alien test subjects, than God. There is probably more evidence to support the former than the latter.
3) Something unrelated, but interesting. I can’t remember which monk said this in medieval days, but it goes something like this:
i) Assuming something is greater if it exists than if it does not;
ii) AND God is the greatest of all
ii) THEN God must exist
Of course, those assumptions have to be true for the argument to hold. Personally, I feel both (i) and (ii) depends on ones view on how religion and a believe in God have changed our society, for better or worse.
I find this whole arguement a little confusing. Surely to argue the existance/non-existance of God you must first define what you mean by God.
Nobody knows for sure how the universe operates or even how it was created (popular belief in the big-bang is not necessarily held by all theoretical physicists for instance) and it is only right that our understanding and knowledge be allowed to change and evolve as we as a species evlolve, develop and are subject to new experiences. Religion, however, intinisically commands that we believe in an “absolute truth”, devine deity etc which is never really defined- we just have to accept that this black box of universal power exists that we attach far too many human traits to in a vain attempt to feel we understand what is being talked about. This raises the question, in my mind anyway, that if God created/controls/is the universe (and if we accept that we don’t fully understand what the nature of the universe is outside of a 2000 year old document stating that we lived in the garden of Eden) then is science the study of God as it is undeniably the study of the universe?
For those kind people that are still reading should the question not be “why does anything exist”, rather than “does God exist”?
>For those kind people that are still reading
>should the question not be “why does
>anything existâ€, rather than “does God
>exist�
Assuming infinite universes, only the ones that have stuff in them have people to observe them. Because we’re here to observe it, matter exists. It may sound unintuitive, but it is simple conditional math.
Assuming there’s only one universe, then yeah, the problem is harder. Especially if you doubt the existance of God.
I think there is a god, life without one is no thing, simply because we are creatures who created by god. In Islam a grand religious asked to prove the god, he replayed ” imagine you are in the middle of the sea traveling by boat and a big storm blown your boat and you almost sinking and you thought you are going to die , don’t you feel that you should ask an unseen power to risqué you , if you think that, so that is the god” . So god is unseen power control our lives , we created by him, we born by him , we die by him and we will return to the last day by him and we will set to his justice and a team of use will punished by fire and the other team will go to paradise , that is all of the story of the life , so OH people… : believe on god the only one god.
why believe in god?
I know this is now an old topic, but the pedant in me couldn’t let it go.
Contrary to what you have heard, people were not holding onto some misguided belief that the Earth was flat “hundreds of years ago”. The ancient Greeks knew it was round , and one Greek mathematician whose name I’ve forgotten calculated its circumference much for accurately than Columbus did. I suggest everyone read “Lies My Teacher Told Me” by James Loewen. http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/
In my studies of M Theory and Black Holes I had an interesting thought…doesn’t the Big Bang sound an awfully lot like a black hole evaporating? If that is the case then in the observable universe, every Sun that has enough mass could at sometime in the future create a new Universe. One might ask “Well, who created the first Bang to set the other Bangs in motion?” I would ask in response, “Would the answer affect who and what you are right now?”
It is my observation that if there is no God then there is no point in believing in it. It there is a God, it is my observation that it has really screwed the pooch on this one and doesn’t deserve to be believed in.
Marc, so you believe in a self-caused universe?
I believe that it doesn’t matter either way how it got here. Fact is, we are here and it’s up to us to decide what we do now.
How does anything at all matter including yourself and your beliefs and an assumed responsibility or freedom to decide your own destiny?
Because a linear time line is an illogical model, and because of that the idea that your destiny if fixed is also illogical. Let me describe to you a simple model. You have a particle that is moving in a given direction making lefts and rights. A right has a value of 1 and a left has a value of 2. Now, as you can see 1+2 equals 3 just like 2+1 equals 3. There are two possible paths to the same point. This continuity continues indefinitely 1+2+2+1+2 equal 8 just like 2+1+1+2+2 equals 8. Simple because your perception of time is linear does not mean that the other paths do not exist simultaneously.
How do you know that the perceptions you have in your mind of time, personal identity, mathematics, logic, models, sensory data, etc., are of or about anything?
You said “Fact is, we are here and it’s up to us to decide what we do now.” How, from a physicalist POV, does this proposition stack up?
I use them therefore they are there. That’s the beauty of physics. It runs along the same train of thought as “I think therefore I am,” Rene Descartes. Since we have nothing else to use, only each other to gain perspective from, and since we all use the same senses, then what we perceive is what we have for reality. That is how I know my perceptions of the listed things are of or about anything. They are, in fact, everything. A great example of something being because man believes is The Philip Experiment.
As far as my quote goes, I don’t see how it could not fit into a physicalist POV since it deals with the physical substance of things. We are here, we make decisions, therefore it is our decision as to what we will do while we are here.
If you are a physicalist, i.e., a naturalist with regard to human persons as with everything else, you will hold to the “closure thesis” that the system of physics is closed and that only physics can explain where any particle is at any time. Also that physics is mechanistic and not purposive, and that all states in time and space, whether electrochemical, biological or psychological, are fully explicable by physics.
This means that your consciousness and awareness of your own existence, apparent ability to “decide what to do now,” your processing of data presented to your senses, your beliefs about the world, etc., are all explicable in terms of physics. All are but a part of a causal chain of events that operate according to the laws of physics. And if you are part of a causal chain, all that you are is an effect.
That your thoughts appear to correspond to others could simply be that the thoughts you and they have in common have some common causes in the chain. Not that you perceive them in any transcendent way.
It is not like Descartes, he held to a form of dualism. He held that his mind could cause events in the world and that his thoughts about the world could be true or false. He did not hold that his mind was merely an effect of physical processes.
Marc, I am not questioning the fact of your experiencing and cognition of reality, but how it is that you speak as a realist (as I am) and yet believe as a physicalist. How, from a physicalist POV can our “thoughts cause one another in virtue of their content and of the logical relationships in which they stand?” (Reppert)
I am a realist for the majority of cases, however I do acknowledge that what we understand of science and reality is continually evolving. Take, for example, the new model for the atom and the hydrino that has emerged in the new millennium. I do not have a reply for Reppert’s statement, but it makes more sense to me to hold to physicalism rather than believe in a God. God makes less sense to me that trying to explain “reason in terms of something nonrational.”
homeowners flood insurance…
joining Manama demographic annoyer!…
liverpool victoria car insurance…
internalized optimizer sparest?somnolent …
auto free insurance nj quote…
Rawlins?Genesco.simpler!instituters jealousy punishing …
payday loans savings ok deposit inone hour…
Puritanizers:engrossed royally:corpulent racers?bureaucratic?…
alabama social security medicaid…
recursively?wantonness necking …
I am an atheist, and can to some extent disprove allot of religious “facts” Heaven/ hell- Church etc will tell you that if your good or bad you will, after you die be sent to either heaven or hell. However, how can you feel the fires of hell with no nerves? How can you see all the clouds up in heaven with no eyes? The argument to that of curse is “well you’ve got a soul so you ill be reincarnated” However, that is very easy to disprove. If you were to damage your frontal lobes (the part of your brain that tells you what is right and whats wrong, and makes you not act on impulses) then even a mild mannered quite person, may suddenly become a brash rude thug. However a soul is supposed to be a “you” that has all your personality etc within it. and all that needs to happen is that you float in to a body and hey presto YOU ARE REBORN! Or so the hindus say… However,The frontal lobes are the only part of the modern human that has changed drastically internally apart from the bone structure etc. And by religious standard all the previous “homo erectus” (bipedal mammals, like apes etc) aren’t human, so that also disproves allot of other aspects of the faith. But what I’m getting at is that your brain is the “you” and souls dont exist. Therefor thee is no heaven or afterlife, and jesus can’t have been the son of god as apparently he came from heaven, and back up there again to meet him. So god is in heaven, but if it do sent exist then neither can he!
Hello, perhaps this post is off topic but anyways, Having gone browsing around your weblog and it looks really cool. It is obvious that you know your subject and you seem fervent about it. I’m creating a new web site and I am attempting to make it look good, and also present the best blog posts. I?ve acquired a good deal from this site and I anticipate additional articles and will be returning soon. Many thanks.