02 Jun 10
Originally posted by seerSince the fall of man there has been a need to fill the gap of the unknown. That is why gods are invented. And since then, even with the rise of man, these gods are still persisting in the minds of some people.
We exist and all our intelligence is a mere shadow of our maker. ever since the fall of man there has been a need for his creator. Talk to any truly wealthy person and they will tell you that once you have money, there is still the need for fulfillment, so, if we are not complete with riches, what gives us the feeling of fullness and completion? GOD. That is Five
And those feeling which enrich the humans can be reached without god....ask any atheist.
02 Jun 10
3 edits
Originally posted by josephwnevermind
[b]I swear, God will reveal Himself to you. In His time and in His way. Otherwise there is no God.
I swear that when you die you will discover that there is no God. Otherwise there is a God.
"See how silly it sounds?"
No I don't see how silly it sounds. In fact it illustrates a point I've been trying to make here for years.
Two opp No life.
Yes God Yes life.
It takes little imagination to believe in nothing.[/b]
03 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have a friend who is a psychiatrist. We were talking about some things related to what we are talking about here. He said, in response to a comment I made concerning the existence of "God" and "life", that, "otherwise we're just a bag of protoplasm."
And who exactly are you trying to illustrate this point to? Who in this forum disagrees with you?
[b][b]No God No life.
Yes God Yes life.
It takes little imagination to believe in nothing.[/b]
I of course am not sure what you mean by "life" here, nor what you mean by "believe in nothing". Would you care to elaborate?[/b]
Isn't "life" more than just an organism?
We don't say, "I am life", we say, "I have life".
Life is a thing possessed, not merely seen or had.
Believe in nothing? No life is nothing. If one thinks that life ends at death, then that is believing in nothing.
The Bible says that God breathed life into man. Does that life die when the body dies? If it does, then how is it "life"?
03 Jun 10
Originally posted by josephwI generally agree.
I have a friend who is a psychiatrist. We were talking about some things related to what we are talking about here. He said, in response to a comment I made concerning the existence of "God" and "life", that, "otherwise we're just a bag of protoplasm."
Isn't "life" more than just an organism?
We don't say, "I am life", we say, "I have life".
Life is a thing possessed, not merely seen or had.
What I dont see is how you conclude: No God No life.
Where does that come from?
Believe in nothing? No life is nothing. If one thinks that life ends at death, then that is believing in nothing.
Now I am not following you. How can the "life" you described earlier not end in death? I fully agree that life is more than simply the organism that is alive, but it is nevertheless inseparable from said organism.
I would also like to understand why you use the word "nothing" to refer to "no life". Is a rock "nothing"? Why use that word in such an odd way?
By your usage of the word, I believe in nothing. Does this mean that you can conclude that I believe in no thing? Of course not, that would be just foolish word play.
The Bible says that God breathed life into man. Does that life die when the body dies? If it does, then how is it "life"?
How is it not? Or is there more to your understanding of "life" than you gave in the first part of your post? If so, lets hear it.
03 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwYou are arguing semantics. Saying you possess "life" as if it is an entity on its own is just a way of easily describing characteristics that are fundamentally complex.
I have a friend who is a psychiatrist. We were talking about some things related to what we are talking about here. He said, in response to a comment I made concerning the existence of "God" and "life", that, "otherwise we're just a bag of protoplasm."
Isn't "life" more than just an organism?
We don't say, "I am life", we say, "I have life".
Life i ...[text shortened]... man. Does that life die when the body dies? If it does, then how is it "life"?
Robots appear to have "life" but what we perceive as life in a spiritual sense is an illusion. We are we are so much more sophisticated than robots due to millions of years of evolution. The result gives us the illusion that our "life", which have characteristics much more advanced than a robot, is some form of mystical entity.
05 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI generally agree.
I generally agree.
What I dont see is how you conclude: [b]No God No life.
Where does that come from?
Believe in nothing? No life is nothing. If one thinks that life ends at death, then that is believing in nothing.
Now I am not following you. How can the "life" you described earlier not end in death? I fully agree that life is more than tanding of "life" than you gave in the first part of your post? If so, lets hear it.[/b]
What I dont see is how you conclude: No God No life.
Where does that come from?
All life is of God.
Believe in nothing? No life is nothing. If one thinks that life ends at death, then that is believing in nothing.
Now I am not following you. How can the "life" you described earlier not end in death? I fully agree that life is more than simply the organism that is alive, but it is nevertheless inseparable from said organism.
Life is the opposite of death. When I say life I mean life that has no death.
I would also like to understand why you use the word "nothing" to refer to "no life". Is a rock "nothing"? Why use that word in such an odd way?
I used the word "nothing" in conjunction with "believing in". If one believes that life ends upon death, and death results in "nothingness", then believing that life ends is believing in nothing.
By your usage of the word, I believe in nothing. Does this mean that you can conclude that I believe in no thing? Of course not, that would be just foolish word play.
Of course not! I am not saying you believe in nothing in that sense. I am saying that if one does not believe in a creator that gives life that never ends, then that one believes in nothing, because nothing is what one gets when one dies if that's what one believes.
The Bible says that God breathed life into man. Does that life die when the body dies? If it does, then how is it "life"?
How is it not? Or is there more to your understanding of "life" than you gave in the first part of your post? If so, lets hear it.
How is it not you ask? The physical body lives as long as the life that occupies it remains in the body. When the physical body grows to old or weak it gives up the life in it. That life is the real man. The body is merely the vehicle.
If we are only a body, then death has no meaning. But if we are more than just flesh and bone, that is, if we have life within that can continue to live after the body ceases to function, then death to that life is...unthinkable.
05 Jun 10
Originally posted by josephwSo it wan't a conclusion, but merely a statement of fact. I guess thats clearer now.
All life is of God.
Life is the opposite of death. When I say life I mean life that has no death.
You really need to clarify these things up front when you know you are using such non-standard definitions. Even after I asked for clarification you did not mention this unusual property. It took me two tries to get it out of you.
I used the word "nothing" in conjunction with "believing in". If one believes that life ends upon death, and death results in "nothingness", then believing that life ends is believing in nothing.
But one does not therefore believe in nothing anymore than you who believes there is nothing where there is no life believes in nothing.
I think you are deliberately playing with words.
Of course not! I am [b]not saying you believe in nothing in that sense. I am saying that if one does not believe in a creator that gives life that never ends, then that one believes in nothing, because nothing is what one gets when one dies if that's what one believes.[/b]
But that is word play - despite your denials.
How is it not you ask? The physical body lives as long as the life that occupies it remains in the body. When the physical body grows to old or weak it gives up the life in it. That life is the real man. The body is merely the vehicle.
If we are only a body, then death has no meaning. But if we are more than just flesh and bone, that is, if we have life within that can continue to live after the body ceases to function, then death to that life is...unthinkable.
I still don't follow your argument. Why does an infinitely long life have more meaning than a finite one? Does your life now (which is currently finite) have no meaning?
And why is death "unthinkable".
You keep making statements without explanation and expect people to simply agree with you. If they did, then there is no point in the thread in the first place.
08 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuLife is just complex molecules that have the ability to replicate. The properties of life on Earth are these molecules that have DNA (or RNA in some very simple bacterial life forms, although I am no expert and I am sure a geneticist can correct me).
Lausey
Life is consciousness. the spiritual principle,.......without the spiritual principle, your body cannot even be conceived , let alone grow and function.
cheers steve
Synthetic DNA has been created in a laboratory recently and used in a template cell, so effectively a new cell has been synthesised and have the ability to replicate. It is just a matter of time that "life" will be created from scratch in a laboratory (i.e. create relatively simple molecules that replicate). No "spirit" had to be injected there.
How sophisticated do these life forms need to evolve to develop a "spirit"?
08 Jun 10
Originally posted by lauseyto lausey
Life is just complex molecules that have the ability to replicate. The properties of life on Earth are these molecules that have DNA (or RNA in some very simple bacterial life forms, although I am no expert and I am sure a geneticist can correct me).
Synthetic DNA has been created in a laboratory recently and used in a template cell, so effectively a new c ...[text shortened]... cted there.
How sophisticated do these life forms need to evolve to develop a "spirit"?
DNA, RNA, cells, monecules, etc are building blokcs, and are unable to be active , without the spiritual principle being within. (which is the life force) its not material.
one cannot see the spiritual principle or the god force, but we know its there if the cells divide and show symtoms of life.
without the god force (life), within the cells, nothing happens..
man can never create life, because it is eternally exsisting already, and since it is the god force, man could never create it.
cheers vishvahetu
08 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuBut how do you know its there? What are the 'symptoms of life' that you refer to?
one cannot see the spiritual principle or the god force, but we know its there if the cells divide and show symtoms of life.
Is there any way of distinguishing chemical reactions that include it, from those that don't?
Are virus' life?
And how do your new comments relate to your earlier claim: "Life is consciousness."
Are you saying that bacteria are conscious?