god slimes people's lungs
- Thread starter harmonica
- Start date
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
well, I don't think that's possible--since there is no godYou can ask him when you see him...if you ever see him......how nice of god to slime people's lungs...slowly suffocating them .....what's his purpose for that?
Coronavirus slathers lungs in sludge that slowly suffocates victims, study finds
Yet another horrifying visual of coronavirus’ path of destruction.nypost.com
Doesn't matter about your feelings. Those are human attributes. You and I and everyone else will have to give an account one day.
No. Intangible is the correct word. It basically means something that is immaterial. Something you can’t put your hands on.
So is God.
Is a Laplace transform clear in your mind? No. It is in mine. So math isn’t necessarily clear to your mind.
A Laplace transformation is not clear to your mind so it can’t be proven to you. No different for God.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 120,011
- 123,508
- 3,645
No shaman, we wont. Put down the dead goat and the beads, bro.
Meriweather
Not all who wander are lost
- Oct 21, 2014
- 22,164
- 4,892
- 165
If you wish to change the topic to the resurrection of Jesus, that is fine. There were witnesses to that. Jesus, Son of God, was fully human, was put to death, and witnesses testified that he rose from the dead.
Life after death did not begin with this event. I believe it was the Egyptians who testified to life after death long before Jesus. In our day and age we have people who have testified to near death experiences. I myself, had a brief experience with death, more like a knowledge of death. Jesus was testifying to life after death before his own. Jesus said that he had to die and ascend so that the Holy Spirit could be sent.
If you are not a Christian, then none of this will be of any interest to you.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 120,011
- 123,508
- 3,645
Meriweather
Not all who wander are lost
- Oct 21, 2014
- 22,164
- 4,892
- 165
Correct. People of faith believe it is a truth about human existence.
LittleNipper
Gold Member
- Jan 3, 2013
- 5,613
- 840
- 130
You've never proven that there is no GOD. You've only proven that you're mad at something.well, I don't think that's possible--since there is no godYou can ask him when you see him...if you ever see him......how nice of god to slime people's lungs...slowly suffocating them .....what's his purpose for that?
Coronavirus slathers lungs in sludge that slowly suffocates victims, study finds
Yet another horrifying visual of coronavirus’ path of destruction.
You prove with almost every post you make that you are emotional and irrational . Don’t make me show how irrational you behave when you speak to others in the parlance of transactional analysis as a spoiled child or a demanding parent. Try behaving like an adult.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 120,011
- 123,508
- 3,645
As independent, ephemeral entities? No. They exist as ideas, which, themselves,are constructs of an introspective, aware mind. And those constructs are expressions of the physical, namely, electrochemical reactions in the brain.
buttercup
Diamond Member
- Apr 9, 2010
- 14,398
- 12,007
- 2,370
Incorrect. Logic is not man-made and it is not subjective. Objective, universal truths do not come from the mind of man. They are discovered. So you’re between a rock and a hard place here. You either have to admit that logic exists, as something real but immaterial… Or you have to deny logic itself, which of course is self-defeating and blatantly illogical. Good luck with that.
I couldn't agree more.
If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.
Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.
If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
A few years ago it occurred to me -- albeit with some shock to my scientific sensibilities -- that my two problems, that of a life‑breeding universe, and that of consciousness that can neither be identified nor located, might be brought together. That would be with the thought that mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.
I have been in experimental science long enough to know that when you have done an experiment that comes out surprisingly well, the thing to do is enjoy it, because the next time you try it, it may not work. So when this idea struck me, I was elated, I enjoyed it immensely. But I was also embarrassed, because this idea violated all my scientific feelings. It took only a few weeks, however, for me to realize that I was in excellent company. That kind of thought is not only deeply embedded in millenia‑old Eastern philosophies; it is stated explicitly or strongly implied in the writings of a number of great and quite recent physicists.
Perhaps it was in part because I am a biologist that the idea at first seemed so strange to me. Biologists tend to be embarrassed by consciousness. As it is an attribute of some living organisms, they feel that they should know about it, and should indeed be in position to straighten out physicists about it, whereas exactly the opposite is true. Physicists live with the problem of consciousness day in and day out. Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”
Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.
Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.
It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”
Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”
I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”
What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.
As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.
SweetSue92
Diamond Member
..how nice of god to slime people's lungs...slowly suffocating them .....what's his purpose for that?
Coronavirus slathers lungs in sludge that slowly suffocates victims, study finds
Yet another horrifying visual of coronavirus’ path of destruction.
Always, posters like this will blame God, and even attempt to damn Him, at the first slight.
But never think to thank and praise Him for every clear and easy breath they ever took. Every meal, every blue sky day, every laugh with friends. Every easily digested meal, every time their limbs worked, every vacation where they saw a different part of the world, every night of restful sleep.
The Bible says "Every good and perfect gift is from above"--James 1:17
But God never gets a thank you card from these folks, can you imagine? Just invective.
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
They Blew Up A Synagogue Because Elderly Jewish Folks Praying Was Too Much For Them To Bear- Started by PoliticalChic
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
Where Is Trump In Our Time Of Need (War, Gas Prices, 92K Jobs Lost)?- Started by citygator
- Replies: 25
Latest Discussions
-
-
Trump: Oil tanker crews must ‘show some guts,’ sail through Strait of Hormuz- Latest: Superbadbrutha
-
