Thread: Who do you "pray" to?

A very Interesting thing about this is also that proof of god is possible. Proof is revelation, if I reveal something to you I subjectivly prove it to you because seeing/experiencing is believing.
Now for a beliver or someone who has had revelation of god they cannot then promise that that is possible for everyone they speak with. Some are simply not worthy or at a level where they will be able to percieve the revelation. When I say not worthy I mean their senses are not at a level to enable the revelation to occur, in the same way a ninja(highly conscious/aware) would run rings around a drunk(awareness/consciousness impared).
So people cannot promise to show god to someone else becuase even though they had the eyes to see it that doesnt mean the next person they meet will.
If you are one of these people who is unworthy how do you go from being unworthy to being worthy?
Well its also the same as how do you go from being a drunk to a ninja...
Discipline, openmindedness to learning, giving up things that promote unconsicousness so you can raise you consciosuness to a level that will allow you to be a ninja or god conscious, whichever one your aiming for.

With that in mind please watch this short clip even though its not in english.
Just try to gain the message without the language.


YouTube - 3 Iron aka "BinJip" Part ( 7/9)

Originally Posted by Seraphim

That gives a good explanation if you take the case of having multiple sets of ancestors.

How about if you go all the way back to The Beginning? Science does a good job of suppporting "recent" history, but does not do so well at Genesis.

Does the scientific explanation of the origin of life say that multiple sets of life happened to spring forth at once, thereby allowing for reproduction as we know it?

From a state of non-living matter, by whatever combination of circumstances (primordial "soup", etc...) let's say life did spring forth by the utmost hapenstance in all it's complexity ("simple" cells are not so "simple" are they?).

So, is the scientific theory that a single cell sprang forth and was able to self replicate, or is it saying that there were multiple cases of life spontaneously happening, and thus they could simply get it on and reproduce as we know have come to know reproduction? For either circumstance, the cell has to be at least complex enough to reproduce, which is no mean feat.

Or is the position that reproduction was not needed as life formation was an easy/common process, and thus multiple early life forms simply came into being? If that is the case, how come we see no evidence of life simply coming into being anywhere else, under any circumstance?

How scientifically valid are any of those positions?

According to the above link, the mitochondrial trail has only been followed back, what was it? 170, 000 years. So, that is as far as the "evidence" goes. After that it is at best extrapolation, and at worst assumption and guesswork, however educated those guesses may be.

They have done a god job at supporting evolution in regards to change over time, but there is plenty of non scientific hand-waving going on when it comes to where life came from to begin with.

Some of these questions relate to Abiogenesis (origin of life) and not Evolution (diversification of life); these are two different fields of science. This doesn't invalidate your questions, I only point it out to make it clear that deficiencies in one area would not impact the other.

Abiogenesis:
How life began from non life is unknown. Further, proving that one particular mechanism was the actual one which happened on Earth may be impossible.

However, "unknown" shouldn't be taken to mean "completely clueless about". Abiogenesis is a young science, and unlike Evolution, there is competition within the field about which hypothesis is the correct one.

You have some misconceptions about Abiogenesis (eg. the first life were not cells, simple or otherwise. Also they did not reproduce sexually). You also allude to spontaneous generation, which hasn't been in a scientific theory since the 1700s. (Ironically, religious abiogenesis does have spontaneous generation, cause by an incantation "Let there be...").

I hope this vid is useful:

YouTube - 3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy

As long as we're likening the "unworthy" to drunks, let me say this: heightened consciousness has nothing to do with how willing one is to accept that which cannot be detected by the senses. Instead, in my experience, it has everything to do with how gullible one is. Because, even through all of this talk in this thread and the other busy thread right now, there is still nothing concrete to prove your case. These are the sensory equivalents to hallucinations. Moses saw a burning bush that spoke?

So, if I'm a drunk, then believers are tripping (figuratively speaking).

Scientific explanations for the parting of the Red Sea, the 10 plagues, and the burning bush. - By Michael Lukas - Slate Magazine

Again, I'm not being confrontational, I'm just playing point/counter-point.

V/R,

Ogie