• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Design

*de-lurk*

How do you know the reason cats wash themselves incessantly isn't because they believe cleanliness is next to godliness? And that termite mounds aren't their version of churches?

Are you trying to argue that because it doesn't appear as if any creature other than humans have religion, there must be something in it?
I guess? If, in fact God does exist, then it only makes sense that all things should reflect (in some way) that which created it. As to whether any of these other creatures were aware that God existed or not, I would venture to say no. That isn't to say they don't represent some form of "consciousness," however.
 
Last edited:
Predescription implies that you have a source, written before something (whether a species, a planet, a star, or a universe) came into being, describing what would eventually happen.
Yes, exactly, and this happens to be my argument. Of course the whole thing would be contingent upon that, which at the very least, is omniscient.
 
Yet we don't have chickens or, anything else in nature for that matter, telling us to worship anything. Why does religion seem so exclusive to human beings?

we might not have chickens now, but we used to have ibis's, jackels, cats and ourangutangs asking our ancestors to worship them. And some of our ancestors worshiped bears, coyotes, wolves and all manner of animal kind. So, really, worshiping a chicken isn't too far out of sanity for the human race.
 
Yes, exactly, and this happens to be my argument. Of course the whole thing would be contingent upon that, which at the very least, is omniscient.
So, what is your source? If it exists, and is accurate, there is no more precious thing on the planet. Share some predictions with us, if you have any. If you don't, then it is not the source required for your claim.

You claim your source is omniscient "at the very least"? Proving that should not take more than a week. Tell us the headlines of a few major papers over the next few days.

If you can't do that, you must realize that you do not, in fact, have an omniscient source. Which you say "happens to be [your] argument." No onmiscient source, no argument.

So...predictions? Something--anything--before the fact, rather than after? You could prove us all wrong in less than a week.
 
I have several of Joseph Campbells books, and I really enjoyed the TV series, The Power of Myth.
That's a start, although I would never recommend reading only one person's perspective on this subject, no matter how much I liked that person's views. If you liked that stuff, presumably you would like other treatments of the same subject material.
 
So...predictions? Something--anything--before the fact, rather than after? You could prove us all wrong in less than a week.
What, just because the source of all knowing is "all-knowing?" No. I have had dreams and premonitions, however, which have come true. And that's good enough for me. ;)
 
What, just because the source of all knowing is "all-knowing?" No. I have had dreams and premonitions, however, which have come true. And that's good enough for me. ;)
You are easily satisfied, then. A few dreams and premonitions, and you are convinced your source is "all-knowing"? How many of your dreams come true? Do you write them down in sufficient detail to know that they are true and not merely close enough for you to see "faces in clouds"? Or do you interpret your dreams in the same fashion that you interpret numerology, forcing things to fit your preconceived notions?

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but I am dissappointed.
 
Yet we don't have chickens or, anything else in nature for that matter, telling us to worship anything. Why does religion seem so exclusive to human beings?

What ? You think those chicken sounds mean nothing ? Each time they peck at something, they secretly bow to their god-king.

Seriously. Humans seem to be pretty much the only animals that are smart enough to be stupid. That pretty much explains everything about religion.
 
What, just because the source of all knowing is "all-knowing?" No. I have had dreams and premonitions, however, which have come true. And that's good enough for me. ;)

Faith is always "good enough" for the believer. However, faith does not bend reality, and those of us who cling to reality are not so easily swayed either.
 
Consciousness which, is the only thing we really have to perceive this world with, is really nothing more than a highly advanced form of recognition. And when you think about it, this is basically how everything else operates, via some form of recognition. Things don't just happen without their interaction with something else. There must be some "awareness factor" that exists between all things. So, consciousness is none other than the full realization of this awareness factor, at least in terms of our ability to understand "why" things happen.

All things that are conscious interact with things. Not all things that interact with other things are conscious. Can't you see this?
 
I guess? If, in fact God does exist, then it only makes sense that all things should reflect (in some way) that which created it. As to whether any of these other creatures were aware that God existed or not, I would venture to say no. That isn't to say they don't represent some form of "consciousness," however.

How do you know? Perhaps cat's do worship their catty god.
 
All things that are conscious interact with things. Not all things that interact with other things are conscious. Can't you see this?
It is all part of the same continuum, and one interaction. Therefore there must be an "awareness factor" at all levels.
 
Faith is always "good enough" for the believer. However, faith does not bend reality, and those of us who cling to reality are not so easily swayed either.
And there's a difference between believing in something in "blindly," and actually standing witness to something. And if it was just a one shot deal, for example, if I saw a hit and run accident, and there was no way of tracking the driver down, it still doesn't change the fact that somebody was injured and their life was affected as result. Now, for you to ask me to reproduce the whole thing as I if were the one responsible for the accident (albeit I may have been the one who got hit by the car), what do you expect? I am not a magician, and I don't pull rabbits out of my hat just to satisfy somebody else's whim. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. :cool:
 
And there's a difference between believing in something in "blindly," and actually standing witness to something. And if it was just a one shot deal, for example, if I saw a hit and run accident, and there was no way of tracking the driver down, it still doesn't change the fact that somebody was injured and their life was affected as result. Now, for you to ask me to reproduce the whole thing as I if were the one responsible for the accident (albeit I may have been the one who got hit by the car), what do you expect? I am not a magician, and I don't pull rabbits out of my hat just to satisfy somebody else's whim. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. :cool:

Which is to say you have no evidence, but you like your world view and will never, ever, think you are wrong?
 
We are in fact living in a matrix of sorts.

Evidence?

Everything "vibrates" and emits its own signal does it not?

I've not seen a single piece of evidence to suggest this is true, so no.

So, at what level does everything stop vibrating?

Since you've yet to provide any evidence that things do, in fact, vibrate, this question is meaningless.
 
Which is to say you have no evidence, but you like your world view and will never, ever, think you are wrong?
I am not wrong ... at least to the extent that there is a phenomenon called the spiritual world. While hey, there may in fact be a way of reproducing some of these things, but I can assure you, it's not going to happen (any time soon) by you having me submit to a full proctol examination in front of everyone. :cool:
 

Back
Top Bottom