Nope, with that degree in higher education from the U of Minnesota you should be able to figure it out yourself.
- Thread starter frank12
- Start date
Interview with God
Nope, with that degree in higher education from the U of Minnesota you should be able to figure it out yourself.
The point is all those in the video are believers in the theory of evolution, as am I , but not one of them was able to answer the interviewers question on proving evolution based on the rules of scientific evidence.
Bertrand Russell, one of the most brilliant and ruthlessly honest atheists of the 20th century, captured this sense of despair in A Free Man?s Worship:
?
?That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins ? all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's salvation henceforth be safely built.?
?
Guess if you haven't figured it out by this time in your life, you'll probably never get it.
? Looking beyond outer appearances to the deeper significance and soul of everything
If you think that evolution and so called "macro-evolution" are something fundamentally different, then you are mistaken. The only difference is the scale of time. Macro-evolution is a construct used by creationists who think imaginary beings played a part in the existence of the universe.
The soul is an interesting concept. In your concept is it mortal or immortal?
I honestly don't know if there is an essence of live or being that isn't physically manifested by something that is defined as a soul by some people. Because this is something can be neither proved or disproved either way. Spirituality relates more to your personal search, to finding greater meaning and purpose in your existence.
I assure you Canadians are mortal. I know you are trying to be funny, but try harder.
I am still wondering what caused them to give Krauthammer a Pulitzer. He is such a huge phony.
I cannot recall reading a single column of his without thinking "Jeez, what a prick".
I cannot recall reading a single column of his without thinking "Jeez, what a prick".
I think it was Aristotle that said that the soul was immortal, but the memory was not. So your soul lives on, but it is unaware that it was ever you. This is possible, I will admit, being as it cannot be disproven, but it is also quite unsatisfying.
In Tibetan Buddhism, after one dies, his soul spends up to 49 days in bardo, an incorporeal state, seeking a new body to inhabit. The previous life (or lives) of the person affect his ability to ward off the apparitions and images that he encounters in this state. If he has lived his previous life immorally, then he will tend to inhabit a lower order of creatures. There is a minor amount of memory that lives within the soul that allows it to associate it with past lives.
Mostly, Buddhism is about one's present life, since future lives depend on this, and past lives cannot be changed or rectified. Buddha did not have much to say about life after death, and ruled it out as an issue he would discuss. Or so they say.
The Dalai Lama has said that if science could prove that reincarnation was a myth, then Buddhism would abandon the belief in it. But, he added that he thought that this would be very hard to disprove.
In Tibetan Buddhism, after one dies, his soul spends up to 49 days in bardo, an incorporeal state, seeking a new body to inhabit. The previous life (or lives) of the person affect his ability to ward off the apparitions and images that he encounters in this state. If he has lived his previous life immorally, then he will tend to inhabit a lower order of creatures. There is a minor amount of memory that lives within the soul that allows it to associate it with past lives.
Mostly, Buddhism is about one's present life, since future lives depend on this, and past lives cannot be changed or rectified. Buddha did not have much to say about life after death, and ruled it out as an issue he would discuss. Or so they say.
The Dalai Lama has said that if science could prove that reincarnation was a myth, then Buddhism would abandon the belief in it. But, he added that he thought that this would be very hard to disprove.
No one can disprove that Vampires or the Tooth Fairy do not exist...does that mean that they exist?
I have never understood this line of reasoning where someone says..."You cannot disprove that this or that does not exist...therefore, it must exist."
Children think this way. Adults should not be thinking this way, nor should they be using this line of reasoning.
Frank
I have never understood this line of reasoning where someone says..."You cannot disprove that this or that does not exist...therefore, it must exist."
Children think this way. Adults should not be thinking this way, nor should they be using this line of reasoning.
Frank
spirituality means different things to different people. To me a soul is your center and your spirituality is your value system and how you renew your commitment to your principles. Some do it through prayer or meditation, others do it through gardening or communicating with nature. Whatever gives you that sense of inner peace.
David O McKay said " The greatest battles of life are fought out daily in the silent chambers of the soul"
David O McKay said " The greatest battles of life are fought out daily in the silent chambers of the soul"
Religion fills a very necessary hole..
I believe in Richard Dawkins, even though I can't prove it.....