smittyoneeach's Journal: "You cannot provide proof of your creator"

via https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22928926&cid=63608908

Emphasis mine:

You cannot provide proof of your creator

Life remains ambiguous, yes.

We now know that some mountains are vastly younger than others, and also that many are still growing.

That is only one place where we've come to accept that scriptures were wrong.

And yet (emphasis mine, echoing that above)

Your expectation for what biochemistry should tell us about the evolution of life doesn't match what even undergraduates quickly learn in chemistry, either. You've asked for a direct roadmap from the primordial soup to something you could recognize as alive. However those who have taken chemistry know that vanishingly few reactions ever reach 100% completion.

Roadmaps for me, but not for thee.

My "Maslow-3D" hypothesis, which you ignore, seeks to let faith be faith, and knowledge, knowledge, by treating the two as orthogonal. By being clear about which things are of Earth, and "provable" (even if the reactions have not always reach 100% completion) vs. those of heaven, which even those claiming faith continue to thumb-wrestle over, we can at least have an intellectually honest exchange.

Indeed, if one buys off on a Creator, then everything we experience is a subset of that creation. So the example of mountains that you offer is a data point that says more about humans than that Creator.

Stipulating that you are correct and reality "just sort of happened", all I can say is that belief in random stuff is a far larger mountain of faith than I can muster. But do preach on, as the amorality drives the societal destruction currently in view. And lest you think me smug, I would blame the church for failing to carry out the Great Commission first and foremost for these woes.

. Glad that you had a great vacation, sir. We were just at Mt. Ranier

My Existence Is Proof.

[zenlessyank]

Life is not an accident.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Well, now, fustakrakitch on here will tell you that everything is so much chemical reaction. Never have been able to get him to communicate to me how our respective atoms become self-aware and invent communication. He mainly seems to ignore the question.

Yes there is proof

[UnknownSoldier]

As a mystic I will provide a different perspective:

Enlightenment is NOT a destination but a journey. Let me explain...

How do we know Elvis existed? Because people met him. Ditto for The Source.

After you die you will discover 2 things:

* You are NOT your body. You HAD a body, like a container.
* Your consciousness exists independently and outside of any physical medium. It is eternal.

When you go into the light you will (re)discover your relationship with The Source. There is no "proof" needed because you ex

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I'm genuinely interested in your take on the "Maslow-3D" link in the JE, as it may have some resonance with your ideas here. Not buying off on your genealogy of Jesus here, but, as you say, we'll know when we die.

Re:

[UnknownSoldier]

I'm not familiar with those terms. You have a link? Thanks.

It is easy to demonstrate the allegory of holy scripture. For example, in the Genesis creation story:

Q. How is there a day and night when the sun wasn't created until the FOURTH day?
Q. Why is day 2 the ONLY day where it is NOT called "Good"??

These little details are not accidents. They are there to help a person seek a deeper truth.

Church Father Origen was pretty blunt about the literal symbolism of Genesis when he wrote:

What man of sense will ag

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Once more, with feeling:

I'm not familiar with those terms. You have a link? Thanks.

"Maslow-3D" link in the JE [slashdot.org]

Re:

[fustakrakich]

we'll know when we die.

Any "link" between this life and the next is pure wishful thinking. When you're dead, you're dead, until you're not

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Any "link" between this life and the next is pure wishful thinking. When you're dead, you're dead, until you're not

You follow a reasonable declaration that my point is speculative--fair enough--with your own equally nebulous assertion. OK, boss: sure.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Eh, ya go with the most logically plausible. You can follow the pharisees, or think for yourself

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Based upon your previous "life is pure chemistry" arguments, I cannot fathom what "logically plausible" might mean. There is no epistemology above a shrug with you that I have discerned. Possibly I have missed something.

Until you can refute every equation

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Bare minimum intelligence level test for atheism, read this textbook, work out the math, and disprove every equation in it.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833/ [amazon.com]

Until you can disprove every sign that God exists, the burden of proof is very much on the other side.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I just don't think it a matter of "proof" for anyone other than the self. Such books are great exercise, if needed.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What I learned from Fr. Spritzer, is that for an expanding model of the universe and a causal model of time, God is absolutely necessary.

Most atheists aren't smart enough to be atheists.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Indeed, most atheism is a rejection of the soul and the mind, in favor of the flesh.