Logic tells us that there must be a first cause. The question what that first cause is, and can we ever define it? What do we know? In the case of our universe the best we can do is deduce back to virtually the point of singularity when the universe was approximately 10-43 seconds old, and was infinitesimally small in size, estimated at 10-25 meters (much smaller than the nucleus of an atom). We will never know what existed before, or what set it off. This brief period of time was known as the Planck Epoch, and Stephen Hawking has described it in theory. What we do know that the size and strength of the explosion had to be almost exact if too powerful the plasma would just expand, and stars and the consequent atoms would never form, if to small the universe would just collapse upon itself. The tolerance is so exceedingly small that defies credulity. What we do know it is that just our galaxy alone is about 100,000 light years in diameter. Still, in and of itself while fascinating, can be explained that in an eternity of pulsation, the “perfect storm” allowed for the formation of the universe, despite that statistically, it is incredulous that it all happened so perfectly.
The formation of a habitable planet such as our earth is equally miraculous. The orbit around the sun in the right place and almost perfectly circular (rather then elliptical), a molten iron core, that gives us our magnetic poles, that magnetism is enough to protect us from the solar winds that would blow our atmosphere away, much like mars today, it also helps protect us from harmful radiation from the sun itself. It should be noted that at some point billions of years in the future the earth core will have used up its radiation (heat) producing elements and the iron core will solidify, good-by magnetism, good by atmosphere. In the mean time the earth was given a tilt, more then likely when some planet sized asteroid struck the earth and ripped a good bit of our surface into space creating our moon, leaving the iron behind on earth to gather in greater proportion to the reduced earths mass, but this moon serves another more important function. It is the the moon orbiting around our earth that stabiles’ the earth tilt on its axis, thus giving us our four seasons. Compelling, maybe, but you have to take into account the age of the universe (13.73 billion years), and the fact that there are currently estimated to be 500 billion galaxies in our universe, each with on average 100 billion stars. Now those are big numbers, and thus statistically make our earth possible, but probably unique. If we were to find out all the described set of circumstances routinely made habitable earth like planets, I would put THAT in the intelligent design column.
It is in the realm of the creation of animal life, particularly looking at humans, but can just as easily be applied to all mammals, if not all living things beyond viruses and bacteria. Darwinian Theory only can take us so far, and can not explain all our current complexity by “survival of the fittest”. It is glib to say that some phototropic element in some protozoan type single cell animal developed into the complexity of our eyes. To do that though you would have to show how the eye developed theoretically, and outline in detail how all the parts developed independently, and how each stage of that improvement gave the animal an edge in survival, it would not even have to be a significant edge, just a slight edge would be satisfactory, but no one can do that, there is no sequence of events ever proposed to show how a photosensitive cell could evolve into today’s complex eye. The same thing to a lesser with the complexity of our hearing. Those three tiny bones (malleus, incus, stapes), and the drum all must work in combination, what was the steps?
Now the most potent argument of all for intelligent design, in my opinion. Warm blooded animals can not exist without a functioning blood stream.
A blood clot consists of
• a plug of platelets enmeshed in a
• Network of insoluble fibrin molecules.
Platelet aggregation and fibrin formation both require the proteolytic enzyme thrombin. Clotting also requires:
• calcium ions (Ca2+)(which is why blood banks use a chelating agent to bind the calcium in donated blood so the blood will not clot in the bag).
• About a dozen other protein clotting factors. Most of these circulate in the blood as inactive precursors. They are activated by proteolytic cleavage becoming, in turn, active proteases for other factors in the system.
By tradition, these factors are designated by Roman numerals; to avoid confusing and will use Arabic numerals instead.
Initiating the Clotting Process
• Damaged cells display a surface protein called tissue factor (TF)
• Tissue factor binds to activated Factor 7.
• The TF-7 heterodimer is a protease with two substrates:
o Factor 10 and
o Factor 9
o Let's follow Factor 10 first.
• Factor 10 binds and activates Factor 5. This heterodimer is called prothrombinase because it is a protease that converts prothrombin (also known as Factor II) to thrombin.
• Thrombin has several different activities. Two of them are:
o proteolytic cleavage of fibrinogen (aka "Factor I") to form:
soluble molecules of fibrin and a collection of small
fibrinopeptides
o Activation of Factor 13 which forms covalent bonds between the soluble fibrin molecules converting them into an insoluble meshwork — the clot.
(Thrombin and activated Factors 10 ("Xa") and 11 ("XIa") are serine proteases.
Amplifying the Clotting Process
The clotting process also has several positive feedback loops which quickly magnify a tiny initial event into what may well be a lifesaving plug to stop bleeding.
• The TF-7 complex (which started the process) also activates Factor 9.
o Factor 9 binds to Factor 8, a protein that circulates in the blood stabilized by another protein, von Willebrand Factor (vWF).
o This complex activates more Factor 10.
• As thrombin is generated, it activates more
o Factor 5
o Factor 8, and
o Factor 11
• Factor 11 amplifies the production of activated Factor 9.
In all those tissue factors there are four proteins that serve no independent function neither by themselves nor in any combination of any two or three. Yet if Darwinian Theory were to hold each of those proteins would have had to have had in someway independently contributed to the survival factor of the host, and they do not. In fact there are no proteins floating around in any animal that does not serve a function. These proteins are so complex that any one of them showing up independently through mutation is statistically staggering, for all four you are talking about a length of time exceeding the expected life of our universe at one random mutation/second, and certainly beyond the current life of our universe, let alone our planet. This is similar to the infinite number of monkeys sitting at an infinite number of typewriters eventually reproducing all the works of Shakespeare by randomly hitting the keyboard. If our blood did not coagulate, our first cut would be our last. Add to that if the clotting system is not in perfect harmony, our blood would clot in our bodies, causing death. The odds of all these factors, and others, developing independently and to tie the whole life cycle/system together leads me to the only logical inescapable conclusion that there had to be some form of Intelligent Design behind it all.
No one has an adequate explanation for the Cambrian Explosion that took place about 530 million years ago, at that time there more varied kind of animal life around then the period of time before or since taken in total. 580 million years ago there were only single cell plants and animals, with some simple colonies like algae. Why is it that no new vertebrate families ever showed up after that Cambrian explosion. All species seemed to have formed in that 50 million year period between 530 million years ago, and 580 million years ago. Darwinians have no rational explanation, or theory.
So on balance a compelling case can be made for a prime mover who designed the universe, its component elements from the periodic table, and complex life forms. I have no trouble calling that entity God. It is in the next two steps that the case falls apart, that of an immortal soul, and that there is anything resembling “life after death”. It is literally true “Man, thou are from dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Let us start at the beginning. The universe is estimated to be about 13.73 billion years old. Our planet is a mere 4.54 billion years old. Complex life forms as I pointed out earlier showed up on this planet about 580 million years ago. The early hominids showed up about 2 million years ago. Man has only been around about 200,000 years. All humans on earth can trace their ancestry back to a single “Eve” in Africa some 150,000 years ago; and even then about 70 thousand years ago we had our first ice age, and the human race nearly went extinct. By looking at myocardial DNA geneticists estimate there were only about 3,000 breeding females on this planet at that time. There is more genetic diversity to be found in a family band of chimpanzees in the wild then in comparing Australian Bushmen DNA with the Eskimo DNA. The only other two species I know of that show so little DNA diversity is the tiger, and the cheetah. They probably were even closer to extinction than the human race. Even so, it was only about 35 thousand years ago we find any evidence of true abstract thinking in making carvings of man and animals, cave paintings and the like. We have no idea what sparked this form of thinking, but from that point on mankind truly started to develop a civilization. I guess theologians might say it was at that point God infused an immortal soul into mankind. We jumped from man like animals to animal like men, in a blink of an eye.
The nature of this entity that used intelligent design to create the universe and all its subsequent component parts we probably will never know. It is even probable it does not even know the human race currently exists, and there is no evidence to show it rewards and punishes based on how we behave as individuals. It is possible that we are no more then an experiment in a lab dish, amongst all the Petri dishes in separate galaxies, or even on the tip of each arm. The isolation of each dish is assured by the limitation of the speed of light. There is no theory even proposed that would allow man to travel in a ship faster then that speed of light. There is a theory of worm holes, but even that theory keeps such worm holes at the quantum level (sub atomic), and short in life. There are theoretical models that propose a space ship that could leave our solar system and move to a distant star, but you are talking thousands of years traveling from one point to another, with no current assurance there would be anything habitable to transfer to. The idea that radio waves would be used to communicate between the stars also has some serious problems. The speculation of a radio wave of any current design, being picked up on some distant star is a myth. Such a wave would be long dissipated in the vastness of space before it even reached our closest stellar neighbor. You know what laboratories do with their Petri dishes and lab rats when they are finished with their experiments don’t you?
The Law of Parsimony tells us that when there are alternative explanations for events the simplest one is likely to be the correct one. This was derived from Occam’s razor which stated that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
There is absolutely no consensus amongst the various religions as to what “Heaven” is or holds for mortal man. We are now able to mix and match genes between the species, including human genes. It is expected that human body parts will be grown on lab animals for transplant purposes. Clearly there is nothing biologically unique about Homo Sapiens. What makes us unique is the size of our brain relative to our body size. Everything about us can be explained by biologists. What I mean by that is there are no more mysteries about the human anatomy or origins then any other species roaming the earth today. Given all that then the simplest explanation as to what happens to us after we die, is that like all other mammals when we cease to have brain activity we cease to exist we go from “Cogito ergo sum” to “Non cogito ego”.
Can we ever know the true nature of this intelligent design? I seriously doubt it. What makes this a single entity? Why couldn’t it be like an ameba or a paramecium capable of splitting into 2 every now and then, with perfect knowledge in both as to what was known to the “parent”. Why does it’s time frame be the same as ours? We make bread and beer by adding yeast, we know the nature of yeast, how it works, and what it looks like under a microscope, yet when the yeast is working we have no knowledge of the individual yeast particles, all we see or care about is the end product. Could this entity be like the baker or brewer? The DNA of all living things are combinations of just four nucleotide sub units of DNA strands Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine. Think about it every living thing has the same four strands in its DNA in various recombinations’ A G C and T.
Could it be that earth is nothing but a Petri dish where every million years or so, the lab scientist, wipes out the dominant life forms, so that new life forms can evolve. Maybe we are a galactic SIM game, where we reset every now and then, and trod another path. This proposition makes as much sense as any religious beliefs out there, maybe more so, since I just deal with the tangible, the measurable, not this ephemeral soul that can’t be seen, measured, or identified. The fact is I can no more figure out what the ID entity is then I can figure out what existed before the “Big Bang”.
What I can infer about that entity is that there is a semblance of benevolence, just like the lab tech that puts its lab animals to “sleep” when they are no longer serving a purpose, rather the throwing the living animal into a furnace, or stomping them to death. Endorphins are peptide hormones that bind opiate receptors found mainly in the brain. The effect of these endorphins is to reduce the sensation of pain and affect emotions by producing a sensation of euphoria. These endorphins kick in at the time we most need it, when facing death. Cats like to play with their prey (mice) before killing them. They will throw that mouse in the air, let it begin to run, and then recapture it, over and over till bored, and then finishes off that poor mouse. Lab tests show that these mice produce those endorphins at such a time, making it easier to face its ultimate end. It helps explain that sense of peace some folks feel at the time of death. There does not seem to be any “survival” reason for this process to fit into the Darwinian model of “the survival of the fittest”. In fact it seems to me to be counter intuitive. The survival gene would be the one that fought the hardest against that ultimate fate. Could it be it is that intelligent designer just being charitable to that that he created? Is that the reason man has this universal belief in a god that has demands, rewards, punishes?
sweatyBetty
Well of course I believe in God and that he created the Universe and all that is in it
"If the lion lies down with the lamb, the lamb must be replaced frequently." --Attributed to Martin Luther In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist violence of September 11, 2001.
1Just, most people agree with you. What we are attempting to do here is find the justification. Can your beliefs, or if you will non beliefs be sustained intellectually is is it all merely emotional.
2I've always looked to science as humans way of describing how God created the world. My favorite movie quote is "Of all the experiences I've had, I have learned two things. One, there is a God, and 2. I am not him."
3And I have said on numerous occasions... I'm not God, I just look like her.
4By the way, Gramps, I actually read all that. Not that I remember most of it since it took two sittings to get all the way through it, but I have a significant other who I expect would tend to agree with you, or understand it better than me because he's attempted to aquaint me with Occama's (sp?) theory more than once, be it that it's a theory... I still don't understand.
5I did have a nap between the reading of the first part and the last part. Of course, that only tended to let me forget the first part earlier than the second. I'm still puzzling over the protein bit.
Maybe I need to read it again.
I'm not sure what to make of this, and I can’t match your industry in response: my reaction is that you're working too hard and wrongly valuing intellectual over emotional. To me, science is a way to explain the world in which we live, not the way to God, and Intelligent Design, as it's usually explained today, is just a lazy way to avoid learning science.
I doubt there will be definitive, indisputable scientific proof of a God, and at the risk of sounding frivolous, I don’t need it. It totally misses the point of the miracle. When a scientist tries to explain love in terms of hormones and neuroses (sp) – no matter how biologically accurate, it doesn’t come near what real love feels like. They explain attraction, not enduring love and not unspecific love that leads people to do heroic things for people they don’t know and for which they will not be rewarded. Anyone who has felt real love knows Shakespeare describes it better than any scientist.
Religion doesn’t serve God or love much better – I don’t think we find either through any holy book or any rules of behavior. Some of the most hateful people I know describe themselves as religious and I know a few deeply moral non-believers. I think if you could get most people to be truly honest, they don’t like the god religions portray: they claim we’re loved unconditionally, but one step out of line, or worse, don’t subscribe to the right book, and it’s eternal damnation for you.
I think people who believe in reincarnation are on to something – we may go around a couple of times until our soul develops from simpleton to true spiritual being. I think the way to God is most importantly inward. God is more profound than something controlling a petri dish. For every person who experiences peace just before dying, there are dozens of others who die screaming in agony, or frozen in terror as death takes them piece by piece with a machete. That’s physical experience, not God.
For some reason, we’re here – like guests at a party who don’t know who the host is. The party is beautifully catered but rather than do what we should, and be the best guests we can, we spend too much time being lousy detectives: pushing each other around, trying to figure out what makes us worthy of being here and why that jerk over there was allowed in, insisting that our host theory is the best. We should enjoy ourselves, and add to the enjoyment of those around us. Science dissects the food trays, analyses the other guests, samples the air in the room – it can tell us a lot, like what food not to eat because it’s been out too long. Religion creates possible explanations and etiquette for the party, but neither will tell us why we were invited. And I don’t think the answer comes from the outside, or that there’s one answer for all of us.
The simplest answer IS best: God is. I think the only way to truly understand that is to really learn to sit still, stop thinking and Be. It’s an unsatisfactory response to anyone who wants bells, bibles or incense, but if you’ve ever had even a split-second real sense of ‘here’s God’, you know everything else is just noise.
6"my reaction is that you're working too hard and wrongly valuing intellectual over emotional. To me, science is a way to explain the world in which we live, not the way to God, and Intelligent Design, as it's usually explained today, is just a lazy way to avoid learning science."
1) wrongly valuating intellectual over emotional?
So, under your premise mob rule is better then rule based on law and objectivity. I think you have this premise completely reversed, and on reflection, i think you will also.
2) "science is away to explain the world we live in, not the way to God."
Rationality is the highest act of the intellect, how can we separate or compartmentalize rational thought?
3) "Intelligent Design, as it's usually explained today, is just a lazy way to avoid learning science."
7Clearly you are confusing the scientific method, and biblical interpretation, they are not the same. I gather you did not read my entire post. At no point do I make a reference to the bible, or any other scriptural based text. The case I present for intelligent design is based on hard science. Please critically asses what I wrote in my first posting here. I do not dogmatically claim that intelligent design is a proven fact. I posit a well thought out theory (Well I think it is well thought out), based strictly on known science, and using statistical (probability) analyses of a random chance of each event happening. By the way ID and Darwinian evolution are not mutually exclusive. ID is a way of explaining the "jump start" that allowed evolution to begin
gosh! I want to read all this and comment but not sure I'll be able to get through all of it today but thanks for bringing up this very interesting subject. I've heard it debated and in the end, it only strengthened my faith and belief in God.
now off to my quiet room to read!
In the meantime, Happy New Year all!
8Hey, when did this become a homework assignment? I feel as if you've prepared and elaborate banquet, but I've announced I'm happiest with Oreos and milk.
"1) wrongly valuating intellectual over emotional?
So, under your premise mob rule is better then rule based on law and objectivity. I think you have this premise completely reversed, and on reflection, i think you will also."
Classic straw man - if you take what I say to a ridiculous extreme, you get mob rule. You want to impose man's rule based on law and objectivity on God - to me, that's apples and oranges.
2) "Rationality is the highest act of the intellect, how can we separate or compartmentalize rational thought?"
Highest act of man's limited intellect. Does rationality enhance art and music? It has its place, but don't overstate its importance.
3) "Intelligent Design, as it's usually explained today, is just a lazy way to avoid learning science."
Clearly you are confusing the scientific method, and biblical interpretation"
Notice I said 'as it's usually explained today' - I could see you stayed away from biblical references, but that doesn't amount to a significant change. The bottom line, after all the science, is 'how did anything start from nothing' and the answer is, we don't know, most of us think there is some kind of Creator. But I don't think the science adds anything important to THAT discussion. To belabor the party theme, we can learn all kinds of things about the host, imitate the host's entertaining style, but that doesn't mean we will know the host. I can wear Anna Wintour's clothes, but I won't be or know her. It isn't about the physical.
I believe there is some kind of creator, which we can call God, that sparks all life. I think the ID school wants to science to validate that idea and I think that totally misses the point. Science is sex and God is love.
9Stephley, I thought I made it clear at the beginning of the semester, that class participation is worth 20% of your grade, and your paper another 20%.
10There's a small army of nuns who can tell you horror stories about my ability to focus on that kind of detail!
11...fascinating to read Grandpa. but a bit much for my overtaxed brain to digest..to many big words..
.
i never have a way with words, never could debate for the life of me.
would rather shoot my own foot off. but i am interested in reading everyone else's comments.
12I was taught by the Sisters of Charity of Halifax in the 5th and 6th grade
13jessie, if I am using big words, then shame on me. I think you mean, or I hope you mean too many technical terms. If that is the case, I am sorry, there is not a whole lot I can do about it, and still present a cogent argument subject to verification. if you will identify the areas of frustration, I will attempt to simplify through summation.
14Gramdpa, when you attempt to simplify the areas of frustration, subject to verification, a cognant (which I think you meant) argument, through summation, you are not only using big words, but you are putting extra pressure on other's brains to figure out what you meant in the first place. Have you not heard of KISS? (keep it simple, stupid)
15Yes, OK to summarize, a compelling case can be made for God, a Prime Mover, a First Cause, as opposed to a series of random events leading to ..mankind. No such case can be made for an immortal soul or "life after death". Is that simplifying it to its essence? What I first posted was the case for "God", or ID (intelligent design). The case for an immortal soul or life after death leaves a dearth of evidence. I agree with Aristotle, when he described the soul, and made the case that it is mortal, not immortal. We are then left with dealing with hope, desire, and fear. If anyone is interested I can post another lengthy posting of the 45 year year journey and search that led me to these conclusions. It will not provide any additional "proofs", just a map of my travels so to speak. In no way should my conclusions be construed as anti religion, nor do I believe this country is or should be value free with regards to God. Trust me at my age it would be nicer to believe in immortality then to face certain extinction in at best the next few decades
16co·gent
17Pronunciation: \ˈkō-jənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin cogent-, cogens, present participle of cogere to drive together, collect, from co- + agere to drive — more at agent
Date: 1659
1: having power to compel or constrain
2 a: appealing forcibly to the mind or reason : convincing b: pertinent , relevant
co·gent
18Pronunciation: \ˈkō-jənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin cogent-, cogens, present participle of cogere to drive together, collect, from co- + agere to drive — more at agent
Date: 1659
1: having power to compel or constrain
2 a: appealing forcibly to the mind or reason : convincing b: pertinent , relevant
I hate when I do those double posts, but as an aside I am using definition 2, in my use of the word cogent.
19Okay. It's time for me to get serious, here. What was the question? Can we ever prove the existence of God? Probably not. Or do we really need to?
I may joke about not being God, just looking like HER... but there is a reason for that. You must have a positive and a negative in everything. We think of the Holy Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But then there is the Father, Mother and Child.
You have to have the Man, the Woman to create the Child.
If you can spiral with me, creation is something we do. Let's say you want to buy a house. Everybody needs a place to live. So you DECIDE that's what you want to do. You don't know how you can afford to do it, but you have MADE UP YOUR MIND. You mention it to your friends, other members of your family. Then they start laughing at you and you get more DETERMINED. They ask, 'How are you going to afford a down payment?' Well, now you GET YOUR DANDER UP. 'JUST WATCH ME!' you say.
About that time you start hearing about CREATIVE FINANCING. You start driving around and see signs saying 'WILL FINANCE.' You arrange to look at some houses. You see a house you really like, but it needs a little work. You start thinking about what it would be like to live in that house. You can see yourself painting and decorating, placing furniture here and there. You start thinking about how NICE you could make it.
And then the ball starts rolling. You ask about CREATIVE FINANCING... they tell you to make an offer. You get a brainstorm. Offer them more than they are asking, in lieu of a down payment... and SWEAT EQUITY. Before you realize it, the keys are in your hand and they are saying CONGRATULATIONS.
What did you just do? You didn't BUY a house,
20I give up. Twice this has jumped on me. First it published when I wasn't ready, then it sent me thoughts to cyber space. In the meantime, Grandpa, you've added your posts, so just let me say, I never heard the word cogent and thought you meant cognant. You see, I'm not good on big words, either. So I'll post this, then get back to the rest of my story.
21...as I was saying, you didn't BUY a house, you created the WORLD you selected to live in. You made a CHOICE to seek a place of your own. You THOUGHT about how fine it would be, got excited about it and started the Universe working in your favor, by causing little things to become obvious to you as you were thinking about wanting not just A house anymore, but THE (specific) house you liked.
Though this is only an example of how anything can be created, this is almost the way I bought my house, which happens to be a duplex, and not only did I not pay anything down, I literally put $240 in my pocket for 'buying' it. If that's not being like GOD, it's certainly CREATIVE.
The thing is, we are all like GOD, we are all CREATIVE. This is what God truly wants us to do. If you will THINK back... everything that has ever come into existance did so because someone THOUGHT about it.
22Queen, you seem to make it sound like we are all part of a SIM game. When He gets bored, does He set the reset button?
23I want to post in this discussion but confess I have not read all the post(s). Sorry, it is so busy at my house during the holidays, I stay overwhelmed.
However I want to make a "cogent" argument for my belief in God. There are probably many sugars who have studied logic and philosophy but my proof is to simply look around you, open your eyes: look at yourself, the earth 7 its beauty, the universe. This all did not happen by accident.
Grandpa, I'd be depressed if I believed this existence was it..and there way nothing else. We are more than our flesh and blood. For instance, I am still fascinated how we communicate on-line; we don't see each other but we all get a sense of others essence, their character- No bodies, just minds meeting. Very spiritual (well usually).
Anyway, that's my quick & brief & sincere point of view. I could cut and paste Dineesh DiSouza and other great debaters in favor of God's existence but everyone can do that on their own.
Anyway, thank God for all of you sweet sugar friends & may God bless you all
24Nicely said, Pamela! I made this point to young college junior son the other night in reference to what he now believes, due to his what I call "brainwashing" (that I'm paying for) by his profs - evidence can be produced for most arguments (sides). It is the choice of every person to decide what they WANT to believe. As far as the existence of God, it all boils down to faith. Individual faith. The evidence of Him surrounds and intoxicates us and most of the time, we aren't even cognitive of it. As for me, I CHOOSE to believe in His existence. And like Grandpa stated in an earlier post, when the time comes, if I'm wrong, no harm done. But if I'm right.... Whew!!
25Pam, I am familiar with Dineesh DiSousa. I am not trying to prove that God does not exist. In fact when you get a chance to read and analyze my first post. I think I present a thoughtful, logical case for Him/Her/Them (GOD). It is the next step that it starts to fall apart.
26SIM?
27Yes Grandpa you do present that & I will read over your very interesting post carefully as it is of great interest to me.
And thank you for correcting my spelling of Dineesh DiSousa- it was actually my hubby telling me how to spell his name when I hollered at him to remind me how to spell!... but on the bright side, at least my post does not have 168 "you knows" in it--- does that indicate I should consider a run for Senator of NY?
28ccp, dittos on the faith being at the basis of our belief.
Grandpa, I am so happy you have brought up this subject for discussion. Relevant and inspiring!
29Pamela, I'll vote for you! rotfl:
30oops!
(I'm not trying to impersonate Dave....)
31Grandpa, here's something I wrote several years ago, long enough for some of the situations to have changed since then, but the 'essense' is still there. It was, in fact, an essay I titled 'The Essense of Happiness'. What I have posted below is the last half of it. I think it's paralell to this discussion.
My life is not so SWELL... Someone just stole the distributor and then the carborator off my truck I was, and still am, planning to overhaul; I just had to put as much into my car for repairs as I paid for it; I had to rent a car to run my route while my car was in the shop; I am trying to repair the damages from my last tenent to rent out the upper unit of my duplex that has been vacant nearly a year; I live alone with two little dogs (Poms) and still grieve for my Honey who was killed by a big dog a year ago; yet I rejoice at my life and my happiness.
You see, several years ago, I would say close to 15, I went through a serious 'growth' period. I was essentially 'alone' for the first time in my life and, even though it was through my own choice, it was devastating. It took me about 15 months to get it all together. In this time I realized two facts. One - we are always alone. Two - We can choose to be HAPPY.
Of course, that is over-simplification, but it is true. Once I realized we are always alone, I stopped being lonely.
I also found God is always with me. Now I am not a Bible-thumping Christian. I don't even attend church. But when I need to park close to a building (because of my sore feet) I say, 'Okay, God, where's my parking place? Upp! There it will be, or someone will be just backing out. Works every time. (Unless I'm just shopping. Then He makes me walk!)
So, alone is not a burden. Like Lily Tomlin says, 'We're all in this alone.'
As for happiness, it's all in the ole 'attitude adjustment.' You can choose to be or not to be HAPPY. That is the question. Are _you_ happy?
My discovery of this was as I was writing to someone, I said I did not need a man in my life to 'make me happy.' But I would like a man in my life to share my happiness with. And that's when I realized I had, indeed, chosen to be happy.
And like I said, I've had my share of problems, frustrations and losses in these ensuing years, but have become adept at shrugging them off and persuing happiness. And that's what life is all about, the persuit of happiness. As if by magic, once you choose to be happy - you are.
©Vista 15
Written by Tiana Dreymor
June 24, 2005
[Update - 2006] Those of you who know me, know I lost another dear little Pom, Miti, shortly after I wrote this piece. My Hero was so distraught (and I was guided to a Pom breeder) I got another one, Rebel, who is now a year old. I have a SLIDE SHOW for you to see. When you go back to the Palace, click on 'A Tale of Tails.'
Let me see if I can remember the link... in case anyone would like to read the entire piece.
http://vista15.250free.com/Site/Happy.html
32Queen, faith is a wonderful thing.
33LIFE is a wonderful thing. It's MIND-boggling.
34Queen, I LOVE what I just read. Very similar to my own journey the past 7 years.... And I, too, have CHOSEN happiness (and as I stated previously, faith)!
35OK you two, when will I see the video of you moving mountains?
36I've already moved my mountain, Grandpa. But dang if I didn't get any video...
37I can't move mountains very well, but I can walk on water. The trick is to wait till it gets REAL COLD.
38
39
40(Giggle) Good to see I got you both laughing!!
41To back up a few comments, I don't consider Intelligent Design a way to avoid studying science, although that's an interesting point of view. I consider it more the psychology behind the process. Science is the process.
You don't have to understand food chemistry (science) to follow a recipe (design).
However, the two work together, and knowing both contributes to a more effective understanding of what you're doing.
I think the final shred of science that proved for me that there must be an intelligence behind the world was a biology class I had in college. There are just too many creatures that are interdependent, that do not seem capable of evolving separately, but that coexist synergystically, with mutual benefit.
42------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -- Alexis de Tocqueville
When you are all ready for it, I will post my case, that holds that no credible scientific evidence has been presented to even infer life after death. I know it will cause controversy, but at my age I need to presented with evidence I have not discovered on my own.
43be presented
44One question G'pa: If scientists can't agree on climate change/global warming and the general populace is divided on which side to follow, what important difference could science make to the ID question?
45Some of the greatest and smartest men in history believed in the soul and afterlife.
So let the discussion begin...eager to hear every one's thoughts!
46stephley, all you can do is evaluate the data as presented, see how close it adheres to the scientific method if it involves experimentation, and the cogency of the arguments when it doesn't. For example that much publicised computer model that is so often used to justify man made global warming is so seriously flawed it is not even funny. The fact that it was discredited, and why it is discredited has never been properly put forth on any news network that I can remember.
47Pam, I just got my internet service back after a 3 day blackout. I will put forth my arguments re an immortal soul in the next day or two.
48Wondered what happen to our Grandpa! We lost our power all New Year's eve day and into the night so we missed the festivities on tv.
Just for my own clarification Grandpa- you DO believe in God but not an immortal soul or the hereafter?
49Exactly, Pamelox
50Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.