The sun is not an artificial thing. It is a natural phenomenon. You are not a human being. You are a natural phenomenon, an evidence of creation.
You don't see yourself as a natural phenomenon. You see yourselves as a created thing, an artificial thing called a human being created by science.
But you are not a natural phenomenon. You see yourself as a human being which is an idea created by science.
Make up your mind. First you say we are a natural phenomenon and then lastly you say but you are not a natural phenomenon. So which is it?
So now you're saying science created human beings. They are just now making AI, so please tell me how scientists made human beings from the very beginning when they didn't even have the technology of AI at that time. Please enlighten us. Made all the intricate parts of a human being, seeing eyes, hearing ears, all the organs and capillaries etc.
Scientists made human beings? Now that's a good one. Then why does what initiated or drove the emergence of these fundamental laws and processes, still remain an ongoing topic of much scientific speculation, exploration, and philosophical debate? This seems to be another attempt by yourself to deny God, is what this amounts to.
Ultimately, the origins of evolutionary processes are a mystery that lies beyond human comprehension, sparking ongoing scientific investigation, philosophical inquiry, and existential exploration. But God didn't leave us to guess. Jesus came in person and over 500 witnessed him and his miracles, including his death and resurrection, and don't tell me all 500 were delusional. He told us exactly where He came from, where we come from, and exactly why He came to save the human race. Your theory that scientists made something out of nothing, will never hold up. Even a child knows better than that.
Make up your mind. First you say we are a natural phenomenon and then lastly you say but you are not a natural phenomenon. So which is it?
We are a natural phenomenon but the moment you perceive yourself as a human being, you become an artificial thing created by science. In other words, we see through the filter of the mind formed by knowledge. For us, who are educated, there is no direct perception. We have lost the innocence of the child.
Does the following quote rings a bell?
“Leave the children alone, and don't try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.”
Does a two year-old see itself as a human being? Does a bird see itself as a bird as identified by science? Humanity is one indefinable holistic phenomenon encompassing not just people but everything. Science has broken it up into billions of separate individual pieces called human beings and other things to populated its artificial mind-made material world.
So now you're saying science created human beings. Have you gone mad? They are just now making AI, so please tell me how scientists made human beings from the very beginning when they didn't even have the technology of AI at that time. Please enlighten us. Made all the intricate parts of a human being, seeing eyes, hearing ears, all the organs and capillaries etc.
Is this conversation between two human beings, namely you and I? Do you see how the use of language sets up a scenario of two separate entities in a verbal exchange? I am aware of this set up. In other words, this is a recipe for conflict.
Science is perceived as the objective acquisition of knowledge. This is a delusion because the acquirer of knowledge is the subjective observer. Therefore, all knowledge is subjective. This is so obvious. It is the observer who discovered that he is a human being living on Planet Earth! So far, there has been no corroboration of this from a third party who is not a human being.
The natural phenomenon created the human being and transformed itself into one. It is the make-belief of knowledge. It is the height of arrogance when man materialized and separated himself from the immaculate state of nothingness: the atheist.
@sree251 Hardly. The "have you gone mad" remark was meant as a joke. I actually meant to delete that as I was afraid you would take it as an insult but I forgot. I will do so now.
Yours is just an excuse to disengage because you don't know the answer. It's always that way with you. Answer my questions. You have so much to say yet you never answer our questions. Let's hear them. Give us a good reason why your theories hold up. We're waiting.
Scientists made human beings? Now that's a good one. Then why does what initiated or drove the emergence of these fundamental laws and processes, still remain an ongoing topic of much scientific speculation, exploration, and philosophical debate? This seems to be another attempt by yourself to deny God, is what this amounts to
Ultimately, the origins of evolutionary processes are a mystery that lies beyond human comprehension, sparking ongoing scientific investigation, philosophical inquiry, and existential exploration.
Why do you buy into this evolutionary nonsense? Fossil studies? Carbon dating? They are just connecting dots to create a pattern. It is similar to reading tea leaves.
But God didn't leave us to guess. Jesus came in person and over 500 witnessed him and his miracles, including his death and resurrection, and don't tell me all 500 were delusional. He told us exactly where He came from, where we come from, and exactly why He came to save the human race. Your theory that scientists made something out of nothing, will never hold up. Even a child knows better than that.
Jesus said good things with regard to right relationship and living in freedom from conflict. The awareness of conflict should stay front and center every moment. We have to save ourselves. No crutches.
Scientists are us. We are the scientists.We invented science. We made something out of nothing.
I never said I believed in evolutionary process. Everything I have said was against evolutionary process. Stop putting words in my mouth. Scientists will never make "something out of nothing".
@sree251 I see nothing whatsoever similar between evolution and calling the Devil by his name. Where are you getting this from? So what, if I call the Devil by his name? Sure has nothing to do with evolution. And why are you all of a sudden changing your tune and saying evolution is a made-up fairy tale, when before, you supported it?
@sree251 I think everything you have said in this post points to that. Unless you just express yourself in a way I don't understand because you're all over the place you change your mind a million times and then you wonder why people are confused at what you say. For example, you said:
You see yourself as a human being which is an idea created by science.
Well if human beings are an idea created by science then it surely does not say that God created us.
I think everything you have said in this post points to that. Unless you just express yourself in a way I don't understand because you're all over the place you change your mind a million times and then you wonder why people are confused at what you say.
I do express myself in a way nobody understands because I use a common language (i.e. English) to express my perceptions, not yours. I don't share your perceptions which are conventional. Take Jesus, for example. Turn the other cheek, he said. All the folks here, especially atheists, would make fun of that teaching. Even Christians go to war. Right now, despite the fact that we are a nation of Christians who profess to follow Jesus, we are supporting an eye for an eye retribution in Gaza.
Well if human beings are an idea created by science then it surely does not say that God created us.
My definition of science is not the same as yours. Your definition of science is the systematic study of the natural world. Who is doing the studying? You would say it is the scientist who is doing the studying. How does the scientist study himself who is part of the natural world? He looks at the mirror and compares the form of his body to that of the chimp's, sees commonality in bodily form and conclude that there is a connection. Compare and conclude. And the scientist is the only one doing the study. Is there any other party checking his work to corroborate and validate his findings? I don't mean his peers but a third party that neither looks like him or the chimp. None, right? The chimp is not going to succeed in contradicting him even if it could. It's an ape. So the scientist get to call the ape the chimp and calls himself the human being. He does that arbitrarily without any evidence-based proof. How did he cook up the word "human", the etymological source of that word? Do you get my point now when I said that the human being is an idea created by science?
I have not touch on the difficult part of this inquiry yet. The scientist looks at the mirror and compares the form of his body to that of a chimp. It's the body he is using for comparison. The body is the human being. What about the scientist? This idiot is using the wrong evidence as proof for basing his conclusion on.
