Reading this drove home that every moment of every day each of us is targeted by thousands of nuclear weapons. The casual insanity of this is profound, and the pathologies behind it, inhuman.
Life is very probable, really inevitable, but development of eukaryotes is extremely improbable. Hence -- in cosmos only prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea like organisms)
Wonderful. Really enjoyed listening to this. Twice.
You seemingly give most of your writing time to exposing the control narrative of the powers-that-be. Maybe - if you are so inclined - you could create a novel or screenplay that conjures an alternate, more resonant, narrative. I'd like to read/watch it.
I see too much criticism of the scientists and engineers for the technologies they develop, and that criticism is terribly misplaced. If it were only scientists and engineers who made the decisions about how their creations were to be used then there would be no threat of nuclear war, or any war, for that matter. The problem of misuse of technology arises because the decisions about its use are made by those who majored in law, business, marketing, journalism, humanities, grievance studies, or perhaps nothing at all.
"We have to cancel Putin because the Bezos Post said he is a homophobe!"
Trust me on this one, it ain't physicists, mathematicians, or engineers saying this!
Creating technologies that are inherently dangerous is something scientists ought to take responsibility for.. I'm sure gain of function research has its benefits, but think of the catastrophic downsides!
Thanks, you just made my point. The missing issue here as always is money -- research funding -- because the density of research proposals in one area has an impact on how the funding agency oligarchs appropriate their fed or state (or Pharma!) funding. But you're quite correct about GOF. Most molecular biologists (I am one) seem to be gung-ho in favor of it, but they're being truly irresponsible in ignoring the downsides, including the fact that humans screw up regularly, even in BSL3/4 lab security environments. Beyond that, to propose that any scientist can predict the impact of genetic engineering on the ultra-complex and densely intertwined cellular and molecular processes within the biosphere is not simply naive; it displays an ignorance of or diversion denial about the complexity of a complex adaptive system.
This is a beautiful story. And it has quite some similarities with what is actually happening in our home universe. Fortunately, the average evolutionary path for planets bringing forth life, which sooner or later reaches the state of intelligent creatures with a conscious consciousness, does not lead to self-destruction. And still, even in our own tiny solar system such a catastrophe has actually occured on a no longer existing planet (Phaeton/Malona), with two groups fighting such a fierce war that the planet exploded and ended up as asteroids still floating around.
The evolutionary path for growth of tech and science knowhow may or may not happen nicely in sync with growth of ethics and humaneness. While most space travelling civilizations will respect the universal law of non-interference, there are also those whom you do not want to meet.
We on Earth are currently fortunate, as a federation of truly civilized planets is observing our corner of home galaxy. Due to our poor maturity regarding the ethical part, the normal course of action would be to leave us alone for another about 800 years before making open contact with then decently developed Earthlings, who are ready to receive then justified development aid. However, our current trajectory of behaviour has all the ingredient for bringing one or two further world wars, with the first one already erasing more than half of the planet’s life, including such a percentage of its human beings. The subsequent circumstances for survivors being miserable.
And then an important comment regarding the story’s assumption about the motivation for civilisations showing care for primitive ones. This relates to the foundational laws of this universe’s existence. The energetic mechanisms at play strive towards steady development, growth, gain. We can all see that when watching what evolution does. All what exists and evolves in the universe is not really doing that in isolation, rather all the material and non-material purely energetic parts are interconnected. So for example what one living being, in the case of humans, thinks positively or suffers from radiates and affects fellow living beings. Bottom line, it is in the natural interest to help other humans and creatures to reap the full development and learning potential from their present life.
Well, that was my answer to Fermi’s paradox too. Radio civilizations last too short and distances are too great, so they rarely overlap and can never communicate.
Philosopher Anthony Flew, one of the foremost advocates of atheism, abandoned it at the age of 81 after a study of DNA declaring that he now believed intelligence must have been at work in creation (yes, creation). When asked if his new line of thought might prove unpopular among scientists he said: 'That's too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle...to follow the evidence, wherever it leads'. (Associated Press Newswires. "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God". by Richard Ostling. December 9 2004)
Francis Crick (Nobel scientist who helped discover DNA's double-helix structure)decided that this molecule is far too organised to have come about through undirected events. He proposed that intelligent extraterrestrials may have sent DNA to help get life started on Earth.
Richard Feynman (Theoretical Physicist) left this note on a blackboard shortly before his death: "What I cannot create, I do not understand". We cannot begin to recreate DNA with all its replication and transcription machinery, nor can we fully understand it. And yet many so called informed people assert that they KNOW that it all came about by undirected chance and accidents. Despite the evidence. Maybe to take that journey is troubling for us but we would be fools to dismiss stuff just because it is ridiculed or unpopular or not cool.
Ignaz Semmelweis was ridiculed and pretty much pilloried for his views on hand washing in obstetrics but he bravely followed the evidence and saved countless mothers and babies from needless death and then he was described as the 'Saviour of mothers'. (of course that was after they had driven him mad with their very wrong but prevailing establishment views ridicule and approbation).
Fitzjames, do you seriously want to claim that the already witnessed and understood laws of physics, biology etc., thus our reality, can and are actively overturned by a Creator figure? Somebody to beg for a special favour and if lucky giving you more than you would following the law of cause and effect deserve to reap?
Just because things in this universe have over trillions of years developed an overwhelming level of sophistication and beauty, for the time being still far beyond our Earth humans’ capability to comprehend, does not mean that there is an ongoing interference by some orchestrator.
The way things unfold in this one and other universes is actually in hands-off, freewill mode. The mechanism must be seen as (per new universe) an initial purely energetic, not yet material, impulse of energy triggering a process that leads to development of space and time, an applicable set of universal laws and ultimately the addition of material components (Big Bang) complementing the energy part of initial universe existence. Part of these foundational laws, call them creational energy laws if you like, is an all-encompassing benevolent, loving drive towards everything and everyone creating positive advancement. In other words, in relation to us human beings, if not counteracting, rather letting things go their natural course, and us thinking, feeling and acting aligned with universal laws and recommendations, we Earthlings would also finally fulfil our genuine purpose, creating a paradise on Earth and beyond.
I am not claiming anything. I was referencing the statements of highly respected and eminent scientists and thinkers of our time. Scientific fact tells us life can only come from life. Life cannot come from non-living matter this has been proven experimentally (sometimes called biogenesis) and is generally attributed to Pasteur.
The mind boggling complexity of a so-called simple cell or even DNA is enough for many a person including some of the most eminent scientists and thinkers I mentioned after examining such to be convinced that there is a creator.
Many scientists believe in a creator for this reason and those that don't kick the problem of natural living complexity into space by saying little green men from space must have done it.
They feel they can't just accept the idea of 'God' something their scientific training/education/culture and maybe prejudice cannot abide. The physicist H.S.Lipson:
"The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it". Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol.31 p.138.
And so they believe that it is quite reasonable to posit that other dimensional beings that they accept may exist were responsible. But my point is: what they may call extraterrestrial or aliens or maybe inter-dimensional beings could they be what the ancients called God and the angels etc. and that the Bible is a very important message that tells us why, how and when things will be reordered and what we need to do to benefit from such a progressive reordering by the powerful beings responsible for such breathtaking creative complexity.
And no, no matter how many trillions of years you throw at it such a simple thing such as aligning those highly specific amino acids and in the highly specific order to enable the formation of the magic enzyme is scientifically impossible (more than 10 to the power of 50) Science cannot make it true. In fact quite the opposite. I believe in science and I believe in the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific text book of course but its prophesies speak in detail about our age of self-destruction and of a hope...but not the Elon Musk silver bullet kind of fake hope or the little green men from Space hope. But hope based on a key thing called evidence. On this we can and must base real hope.
If life can only come from life this would mean there has never not been life. Is that what you are saying? We also have no evidence of immortal life. It seems that one definition of life is "things that die." So is our creator going to die? Already dead? Positing a creator leads to all kinds of incomprehensible notions and raises more questions than answers. In fact it raises no useful or comprehensible answers at all.
That is a good point. Yes, I believe there has always been life, that is if we accept that the Creator is the source of all life. Incidentally the Bible does not teach the idea of an immortal soul. In fact the opposite:
'The living are conscious they will die but as for the dead they are conscious of nothing at all'. Eccl 9:5 etc. So in this the atheist has got it right and I am in agreement.
However if there is a Creator of the Universe (which looks likely as there was a Big Bang from which all the Universe came with all its laws in tact etc. and which indicates a causer of this singularity and a source of immense dynamic energy) it is reasonable that the Creator would exist outside of time and space as we know it. i.e. outside our dimension. Scientist now accept there must be more dimensions.
I know this is hard to understand but the Universe being, to all intents and purposes eternal, would appear to have no boundary or end. And yet we accept it, although baffling, chiefly because we exist in it.
The belief in a creator does raise many questions and the pursuit of truth demands that we seek answers, not foolishly give up and settle for unreasonable although popular conclusions. After all that is why I think we enjoy reading Caitlin's articles. We are sick of lies. Surely we must take a scientific approach. We don't look incomprehensibly at the mysteries of the Universe and conclude it does not exist because of its incomprehensibility. Quite the reverse; we are encouraged by its mysteries to keep learning. God encourages us to keep questioning and learning about him. The answers we seek about the terrible state of the world at this time seem worryingly elusive but the answer may just already be with us in a message written for all mankind and relevant over millennia (not just our lost generation). If God exists this would be consistent with a God of love who wants the best for us and wants to guide us...he left guidance for us.
If there is a Creator he gave us a questioning nature and questions demand answers. It is reasonable that he would give us answers. The misinformation about such a message (I am talking about the Bible here) chiefly propagated by false religion which historically has persecuted violently truth seekers from Galileo to Tyndale to our modern times, should not disincline us to the truth.
We can discern these false propagandists just as with the political world. Christ himself said 'By their fruits you will recognise them' that is his followers. The fruits of Christendom are clear and is the reason why many right hearted people are repelled by such religion. Just as many are repelled by politicians or religious leaders waxing lyrical about human rights and justice and peace and then sanctioning and colluding in atrocities like the starving of Yemen's children. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. Interestingly a Bible expression on identifying false religion and its proponents.
Ha ha. Yes, I apologise for the reply. Probably not the place to be trying to get to grips with the meaning of life. And you are right of course. God was never created. Although that is not what you mean.
You pick and choose what you cite from this Bible. Look at the AT with its cruel, sadistic, revengeful god figure. This is not the god of love. A story of love needs no hell.
Hell is not a Bible teaching. In fact the burning alive of anyone is something detestable to God. Jeremiah 7:30,31. The teaching of the immortal soul and punishment after death is not a Bible teaching. The dead are not conscious at all. Eccl 9:5.
But Stefan, as I said you can tell what kind of 'God' someone worships by their actions. Christendom and the other faiths have a long history of bloodshed and so according to Christ must be rejected. Mathew 7:16 '..by their fruits you will recognise them'. That implies we must seek out the truth about God and religion.
The God of the Hebrew scriptures I believe, is neither cruel nor sadistic. But if you have any specific verses that you disagree with perhaps it may need clarifying. Not all scripture is easily understood. But we must sincerely seek answers if it claims to be of God. He will answer our concerns, he has promised that.
Hello Fitzjames, am a bit short on time right now, but life based on life has long been disproven. Our Earth scientist are already at the stage of creating new life forms in the lab. So no need for a Creator taking care of everything. See for example:
Thanks for that Stefan. I am not able to read the article as I don't subscribe to the Guardian. But tried to look at other articles on the same topic. Which is amazing.
But my point is not that we cannot create bacteria etc. or rudimentary cells. I believe that nothing is impossible for us with technology and advances in knowledge etc.
The question is: Without the intervention of advanced intelligence (in this case highly skilled human scientists) could any of this happen? And proven science says emphatically, no.
Prof.David Berlinski is interesting on this. Despite the dreadful click bait title this short video exposes some fatal flaws in the evolution theory.
For all of our agreements and disagreements, Caitlin, I must say that this is my favorite article of yours. Basically, beyond the global political economy--which is controlled by a very small number of people, giving them control over advanced technologies, much of which are hidden from the 99.99999% for decades, and only then made public in a watered-down version--there are spiritual and evolutionary questions to be answered, and humanity is certainly at its crossroads as far as these defining issues are concerned. In terms of these overriding issues, and given the current state of our understanding of Singularity, Relativity, and Uncertainty (beyond the current accepted models), there are a growing number of people on our planet who have come to grips with the implications that we are light conscious of itself, and that it is our nature to continually evolve to greater levels of consciousness and being, Humanity 3.0, if you will. http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2015/01/taking-humanitys-next-evolutionary-step.html
Certainly there are millions of planets with intelligent life. But to consider travel or two way communication between any of them as possible is denying the basic physics that enable us to realize those different worlds exist. We are simply too far apart and getting further apart at an increasing rate.
For all of our agreements and disagreements, Caitlin, I must say that this is my favorite article of yours. Basically, beyond the global political economy--which is controlled by a very small number of people, giving them control over advanced technologies, much of which are hidden from the 99.99999% for decades, and only then made public in a watered-down version--there are spiritual and evolutionary questions to be answered, and humanity is certainly at its crossroads as far as these defining issues are concerned. In terms of these overriding issues, and given the current state of our understanding of Singularity, Relativity, and Uncertainty (beyond the current accepted models), there are a growing number of people on our planet who have come to grips with the implications that we are light conscious of itself, and that it is our nature to continually evolve to greater levels of consciousness and being, Humanity 3.0, if you will. http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2015/01/taking-humanitys-next-evolutionary-step.html
Reading this drove home that every moment of every day each of us is targeted by thousands of nuclear weapons. The casual insanity of this is profound, and the pathologies behind it, inhuman.
PS: And these thousands are hydrogen (fusion) not merely nuclear (fission) bombs
Thanks.
Nick Lane (famous biochemist) says:
Life is very probable, really inevitable, but development of eukaryotes is extremely improbable. Hence -- in cosmos only prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea like organisms)
Best regards, Boris
So if I read your public domain declaration right I can just go ahead and start writing this into a screenplay?
That's right! Please do.
It's such a great concept for a movie. I'm definitely going to work on an outline for a screenplay and see how I do. Thanks for the inspiration!
Wonderful. Really enjoyed listening to this. Twice.
You seemingly give most of your writing time to exposing the control narrative of the powers-that-be. Maybe - if you are so inclined - you could create a novel or screenplay that conjures an alternate, more resonant, narrative. I'd like to read/watch it.
I see too much criticism of the scientists and engineers for the technologies they develop, and that criticism is terribly misplaced. If it were only scientists and engineers who made the decisions about how their creations were to be used then there would be no threat of nuclear war, or any war, for that matter. The problem of misuse of technology arises because the decisions about its use are made by those who majored in law, business, marketing, journalism, humanities, grievance studies, or perhaps nothing at all.
"We have to cancel Putin because the Bezos Post said he is a homophobe!"
Trust me on this one, it ain't physicists, mathematicians, or engineers saying this!
Creating technologies that are inherently dangerous is something scientists ought to take responsibility for.. I'm sure gain of function research has its benefits, but think of the catastrophic downsides!
Thanks, you just made my point. The missing issue here as always is money -- research funding -- because the density of research proposals in one area has an impact on how the funding agency oligarchs appropriate their fed or state (or Pharma!) funding. But you're quite correct about GOF. Most molecular biologists (I am one) seem to be gung-ho in favor of it, but they're being truly irresponsible in ignoring the downsides, including the fact that humans screw up regularly, even in BSL3/4 lab security environments. Beyond that, to propose that any scientist can predict the impact of genetic engineering on the ultra-complex and densely intertwined cellular and molecular processes within the biosphere is not simply naive; it displays an ignorance of or diversion denial about the complexity of a complex adaptive system.
Very nicely written. Human defense is more "active" -- here is about some of American heroes, not long ago ( the link is worth reading !! ):
A bit of history about US War party – by Dave Lindorff - Aug 4, 2020 ( ThisCantBeHappening.net )
Unsung Heroes of Los Alamos: Rethinking Manhattan Project Spies and the Cold War
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/04/unsung-heroes-of-los-alamos-rethinking-manhattan-project-spies-and-the-cold-war/
• Plans for 300 nuclear bombs on USSR, with minimum 15-20M dead (these estimates were before “nuclear winter” effect was identified)
• US spies are unsung heroes that prevented another US crime of our millennia
This is a beautiful story. And it has quite some similarities with what is actually happening in our home universe. Fortunately, the average evolutionary path for planets bringing forth life, which sooner or later reaches the state of intelligent creatures with a conscious consciousness, does not lead to self-destruction. And still, even in our own tiny solar system such a catastrophe has actually occured on a no longer existing planet (Phaeton/Malona), with two groups fighting such a fierce war that the planet exploded and ended up as asteroids still floating around.
The evolutionary path for growth of tech and science knowhow may or may not happen nicely in sync with growth of ethics and humaneness. While most space travelling civilizations will respect the universal law of non-interference, there are also those whom you do not want to meet.
We on Earth are currently fortunate, as a federation of truly civilized planets is observing our corner of home galaxy. Due to our poor maturity regarding the ethical part, the normal course of action would be to leave us alone for another about 800 years before making open contact with then decently developed Earthlings, who are ready to receive then justified development aid. However, our current trajectory of behaviour has all the ingredient for bringing one or two further world wars, with the first one already erasing more than half of the planet’s life, including such a percentage of its human beings. The subsequent circumstances for survivors being miserable.
And then an important comment regarding the story’s assumption about the motivation for civilisations showing care for primitive ones. This relates to the foundational laws of this universe’s existence. The energetic mechanisms at play strive towards steady development, growth, gain. We can all see that when watching what evolution does. All what exists and evolves in the universe is not really doing that in isolation, rather all the material and non-material purely energetic parts are interconnected. So for example what one living being, in the case of humans, thinks positively or suffers from radiates and affects fellow living beings. Bottom line, it is in the natural interest to help other humans and creatures to reap the full development and learning potential from their present life.
One thing for sure: Adesso non siamo sicuri. La sicurezza è soltanto un'illusione perche l'umanità è pazza.
There seems to be no limit to human self-deception, and desire always leads to trouble.
Seems like an accurate statement to me
Nice recit.
Well, that was my answer to Fermi’s paradox too. Radio civilizations last too short and distances are too great, so they rarely overlap and can never communicate.
Philosopher Anthony Flew, one of the foremost advocates of atheism, abandoned it at the age of 81 after a study of DNA declaring that he now believed intelligence must have been at work in creation (yes, creation). When asked if his new line of thought might prove unpopular among scientists he said: 'That's too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle...to follow the evidence, wherever it leads'. (Associated Press Newswires. "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God". by Richard Ostling. December 9 2004)
Francis Crick (Nobel scientist who helped discover DNA's double-helix structure)decided that this molecule is far too organised to have come about through undirected events. He proposed that intelligent extraterrestrials may have sent DNA to help get life started on Earth.
Richard Feynman (Theoretical Physicist) left this note on a blackboard shortly before his death: "What I cannot create, I do not understand". We cannot begin to recreate DNA with all its replication and transcription machinery, nor can we fully understand it. And yet many so called informed people assert that they KNOW that it all came about by undirected chance and accidents. Despite the evidence. Maybe to take that journey is troubling for us but we would be fools to dismiss stuff just because it is ridiculed or unpopular or not cool.
Ignaz Semmelweis was ridiculed and pretty much pilloried for his views on hand washing in obstetrics but he bravely followed the evidence and saved countless mothers and babies from needless death and then he was described as the 'Saviour of mothers'. (of course that was after they had driven him mad with their very wrong but prevailing establishment views ridicule and approbation).
Fitzjames, do you seriously want to claim that the already witnessed and understood laws of physics, biology etc., thus our reality, can and are actively overturned by a Creator figure? Somebody to beg for a special favour and if lucky giving you more than you would following the law of cause and effect deserve to reap?
Just because things in this universe have over trillions of years developed an overwhelming level of sophistication and beauty, for the time being still far beyond our Earth humans’ capability to comprehend, does not mean that there is an ongoing interference by some orchestrator.
The way things unfold in this one and other universes is actually in hands-off, freewill mode. The mechanism must be seen as (per new universe) an initial purely energetic, not yet material, impulse of energy triggering a process that leads to development of space and time, an applicable set of universal laws and ultimately the addition of material components (Big Bang) complementing the energy part of initial universe existence. Part of these foundational laws, call them creational energy laws if you like, is an all-encompassing benevolent, loving drive towards everything and everyone creating positive advancement. In other words, in relation to us human beings, if not counteracting, rather letting things go their natural course, and us thinking, feeling and acting aligned with universal laws and recommendations, we Earthlings would also finally fulfil our genuine purpose, creating a paradise on Earth and beyond.
I am not claiming anything. I was referencing the statements of highly respected and eminent scientists and thinkers of our time. Scientific fact tells us life can only come from life. Life cannot come from non-living matter this has been proven experimentally (sometimes called biogenesis) and is generally attributed to Pasteur.
The mind boggling complexity of a so-called simple cell or even DNA is enough for many a person including some of the most eminent scientists and thinkers I mentioned after examining such to be convinced that there is a creator.
(see Youtube for some great footage of what is actually happening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hk9jct2ozY): Mutations? Random Accident? Luck?
Many scientists believe in a creator for this reason and those that don't kick the problem of natural living complexity into space by saying little green men from space must have done it.
They feel they can't just accept the idea of 'God' something their scientific training/education/culture and maybe prejudice cannot abide. The physicist H.S.Lipson:
"The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it". Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol.31 p.138.
And so they believe that it is quite reasonable to posit that other dimensional beings that they accept may exist were responsible. But my point is: what they may call extraterrestrial or aliens or maybe inter-dimensional beings could they be what the ancients called God and the angels etc. and that the Bible is a very important message that tells us why, how and when things will be reordered and what we need to do to benefit from such a progressive reordering by the powerful beings responsible for such breathtaking creative complexity.
And no, no matter how many trillions of years you throw at it such a simple thing such as aligning those highly specific amino acids and in the highly specific order to enable the formation of the magic enzyme is scientifically impossible (more than 10 to the power of 50) Science cannot make it true. In fact quite the opposite. I believe in science and I believe in the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific text book of course but its prophesies speak in detail about our age of self-destruction and of a hope...but not the Elon Musk silver bullet kind of fake hope or the little green men from Space hope. But hope based on a key thing called evidence. On this we can and must base real hope.
If life can only come from life this would mean there has never not been life. Is that what you are saying? We also have no evidence of immortal life. It seems that one definition of life is "things that die." So is our creator going to die? Already dead? Positing a creator leads to all kinds of incomprehensible notions and raises more questions than answers. In fact it raises no useful or comprehensible answers at all.
That is a good point. Yes, I believe there has always been life, that is if we accept that the Creator is the source of all life. Incidentally the Bible does not teach the idea of an immortal soul. In fact the opposite:
'The living are conscious they will die but as for the dead they are conscious of nothing at all'. Eccl 9:5 etc. So in this the atheist has got it right and I am in agreement.
However if there is a Creator of the Universe (which looks likely as there was a Big Bang from which all the Universe came with all its laws in tact etc. and which indicates a causer of this singularity and a source of immense dynamic energy) it is reasonable that the Creator would exist outside of time and space as we know it. i.e. outside our dimension. Scientist now accept there must be more dimensions.
I know this is hard to understand but the Universe being, to all intents and purposes eternal, would appear to have no boundary or end. And yet we accept it, although baffling, chiefly because we exist in it.
The belief in a creator does raise many questions and the pursuit of truth demands that we seek answers, not foolishly give up and settle for unreasonable although popular conclusions. After all that is why I think we enjoy reading Caitlin's articles. We are sick of lies. Surely we must take a scientific approach. We don't look incomprehensibly at the mysteries of the Universe and conclude it does not exist because of its incomprehensibility. Quite the reverse; we are encouraged by its mysteries to keep learning. God encourages us to keep questioning and learning about him. The answers we seek about the terrible state of the world at this time seem worryingly elusive but the answer may just already be with us in a message written for all mankind and relevant over millennia (not just our lost generation). If God exists this would be consistent with a God of love who wants the best for us and wants to guide us...he left guidance for us.
If there is a Creator he gave us a questioning nature and questions demand answers. It is reasonable that he would give us answers. The misinformation about such a message (I am talking about the Bible here) chiefly propagated by false religion which historically has persecuted violently truth seekers from Galileo to Tyndale to our modern times, should not disincline us to the truth.
We can discern these false propagandists just as with the political world. Christ himself said 'By their fruits you will recognise them' that is his followers. The fruits of Christendom are clear and is the reason why many right hearted people are repelled by such religion. Just as many are repelled by politicians or religious leaders waxing lyrical about human rights and justice and peace and then sanctioning and colluding in atrocities like the starving of Yemen's children. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. Interestingly a Bible expression on identifying false religion and its proponents.
If life has always existed then it was never created.
Sorry to be so long winded, I can run on some times.
Ha ha. Yes, I apologise for the reply. Probably not the place to be trying to get to grips with the meaning of life. And you are right of course. God was never created. Although that is not what you mean.
You pick and choose what you cite from this Bible. Look at the AT with its cruel, sadistic, revengeful god figure. This is not the god of love. A story of love needs no hell.
Hell is not a Bible teaching. In fact the burning alive of anyone is something detestable to God. Jeremiah 7:30,31. The teaching of the immortal soul and punishment after death is not a Bible teaching. The dead are not conscious at all. Eccl 9:5.
But Stefan, as I said you can tell what kind of 'God' someone worships by their actions. Christendom and the other faiths have a long history of bloodshed and so according to Christ must be rejected. Mathew 7:16 '..by their fruits you will recognise them'. That implies we must seek out the truth about God and religion.
The God of the Hebrew scriptures I believe, is neither cruel nor sadistic. But if you have any specific verses that you disagree with perhaps it may need clarifying. Not all scripture is easily understood. But we must sincerely seek answers if it claims to be of God. He will answer our concerns, he has promised that.
Hello Fitzjames, am a bit short on time right now, but life based on life has long been disproven. Our Earth scientist are already at the stage of creating new life forms in the lab. So no need for a Creator taking care of everything. See for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/may/15/cambridge-scientists-create-worlds-first-living-organism-with-fully-redesigned-dna
Thanks for that Stefan. I am not able to read the article as I don't subscribe to the Guardian. But tried to look at other articles on the same topic. Which is amazing.
But my point is not that we cannot create bacteria etc. or rudimentary cells. I believe that nothing is impossible for us with technology and advances in knowledge etc.
The question is: Without the intervention of advanced intelligence (in this case highly skilled human scientists) could any of this happen? And proven science says emphatically, no.
Prof.David Berlinski is interesting on this. Despite the dreadful click bait title this short video exposes some fatal flaws in the evolution theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOtGb8hKyWE&list=PLLVWTl6BmDof3TkUy8ePxFkhySDVLFdo3&index=1
Cheers. A wonderful story that rings true.
For all of our agreements and disagreements, Caitlin, I must say that this is my favorite article of yours. Basically, beyond the global political economy--which is controlled by a very small number of people, giving them control over advanced technologies, much of which are hidden from the 99.99999% for decades, and only then made public in a watered-down version--there are spiritual and evolutionary questions to be answered, and humanity is certainly at its crossroads as far as these defining issues are concerned. In terms of these overriding issues, and given the current state of our understanding of Singularity, Relativity, and Uncertainty (beyond the current accepted models), there are a growing number of people on our planet who have come to grips with the implications that we are light conscious of itself, and that it is our nature to continually evolve to greater levels of consciousness and being, Humanity 3.0, if you will. http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2015/01/taking-humanitys-next-evolutionary-step.html
Beautiful
Certainly there are millions of planets with intelligent life. But to consider travel or two way communication between any of them as possible is denying the basic physics that enable us to realize those different worlds exist. We are simply too far apart and getting further apart at an increasing rate.
The "current limits of physics". An advance species could use entanglement to communicate across the universe.
certainly...
For all of our agreements and disagreements, Caitlin, I must say that this is my favorite article of yours. Basically, beyond the global political economy--which is controlled by a very small number of people, giving them control over advanced technologies, much of which are hidden from the 99.99999% for decades, and only then made public in a watered-down version--there are spiritual and evolutionary questions to be answered, and humanity is certainly at its crossroads as far as these defining issues are concerned. In terms of these overriding issues, and given the current state of our understanding of Singularity, Relativity, and Uncertainty (beyond the current accepted models), there are a growing number of people on our planet who have come to grips with the implications that we are light conscious of itself, and that it is our nature to continually evolve to greater levels of consciousness and being, Humanity 3.0, if you will. http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2015/01/taking-humanitys-next-evolutionary-step.html