Religion Forum should be renamed "Athiest Forum"

You are saying that there is not a specific cause for emotions such as love, without providing any evidence to support your claim, then proclaiming that I am wrong in my reasoning.

Tell you what, perhaps your education is just insufficient... Allow me to assist:

http://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-the-Hypothalamus.aspx
"Functions of the hypothalamus can be listed as: controls the release of 8 major hormones by the pituitary gland, controls body temperature, control of food and water intake, hunger and thirst, control of sexual behavior and reproduction, control of daily cycles in physiological state and behaviour also known as circadian rhythm, mediation of emotional responses

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/limbicsystem.html
"Emotion involves the entire nervous system, of course. But there are two parts of the nervous system that are especially significant: The limbic system and the autonomic nervous system."

Now, please feel free to provide some contemporary sources that indicate that "a thing that exists in noumenal reality" doesn't have a tangible cause - thereby making the existence of those "things" suitable evidence to support theories of supernatural powers - such as "God".

 

What is the "manifestation" of light?

 

Now here is an interesting consideration: In the above example there is this organic mass which is referred to as a hypothalamus gland. This gland is not the brain but is situated in near proximity to the brain. Because this gland does not have the responsibility of 'reason', then its programming must be coming from some other location. What sources of information will the gland be required in order to make a distinction between the needs of one function that it serves and another function that it serves.

 

You could (under the circumstances mentioned in Genesis) possibly refer to that manifestation of light to be (guess what) Yeppir.... behind curtain number 1 we have.... The Big Bang.... Tremendous amount of light.... stage lighting deluxe. By the way, under the circumstances of Genesis, the switch that turned on the lights is seen in verse 3.... "And God said "Let there be lights" (perhaps it was "Lights, camera, action").

 

So.....God turned on the light switch.....waited a couple million years and went....Ta Da, look at them Purdy lights.

 

Is that what the Bible says? Wow.. what version (translation) are you reading from? My KJV doesn't read anything like that. Couple million years? Where did that come from?

 

science

 

Then you are saying that Science is the equivalent of Theistic religious practices and teachings?

 

no, I said no such thing, one is myth, the other is science

 

That is not what you said either. What you said was "science" in answer to the questions "Is that what the Bible says? Wow.. what version (translation) are you reading from? My KJV doesn't read anything like that. Couple million years? Where did that come from?"

 

Results from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) released in February 2003 show that the first stars formed when the universe was only about 200 million years old.

 

And what means of measuring time was used by the WMAP?

 

You could think it means that if you mistakenly thought the Big Bang was an actual explosion.

 

Yes! One could view it as an "actual explosion", or one could view it as "God did it". What is your preference?

 

Neither, since the Big Bang wasn't an explosion and I don't believe in God.

 

OK! Then you have no Idea?

 

And......neither do you.

The difference being most thinking scientifically accept the fact they do not "Know"......but it seems you actually think you DO.

 

I know what I know and a lot of what I know is based on belief. Therefore, I do have ideas about various things including how reality (as we recognize it) came into being. Others who chose to believe that they "don't know" are IMHO locking themselves into the prison created by materialism. Now if you think you can prove my beliefs to be wrong, then give it your best shot.

 

Yeah, well, once you provide some evidence or solid argument for the existence of something non-material, then we won't lock ourselves in the prison. But you can't and don't.

 

About why Genesis says God created light without a light source existing? No, I have no idea.

 

In the beginning was the word, or was it the mind? All of us and everything in the universe are proof of an incredible organizing power and a creative master inteIligence. That intelligence is what holds the universe together despite the relentless forces of entropy.

If the entire universe is made up of energy and consciousness, then God is consciousness. If we are made in the image of God, then consciousness is one of our links to God.

Since functions of human consciousness exist external as well as internal to the human body (remote viewing as an example of the former), then the implication that scientific progress holds the promise of thoroughly explaining the origins and all of the processes of thought in physiological terms is overoptimistic IMHO. A reliance on scriptural themes warrants caution, but here it seems to work well enough.

 

Pardon my pedantry, but chemical explosions aren't the only types of explosions. I'd say the Big Bang qualifies.

 

Then why do you spend so much time responding to my postings if you don't consider them to be worthy of your time and energy? I have provided evidence and some solid argument that you have not been able to successfully prove to be wrong. So where does that leave us now GfP? With you still spinning your wheels in a vain attempt to accomplish that which you cannot accomplish... convincing me of your silly arguments.

 

What is one argument you have put forth? You have already stated that you don't have to justify your beliefs, which isn't an argument, just a claim that you prefer ignorance.

 

Well I have to admire your honesty in that answer.