Echo

[quote]Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
<strong>Well what do you know..that's the same reason we don't believe in a god! We have more in common than I originally thought.

Now I'll echo everyone else and ask you: What led you to conclude that pink dragons probably do not exist?

-=Vagrant=-

[quote]Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
<strong>But I _feel_ inside me that they DO exist. They are out there, waiting. I've seen them in pictures and there are other people just like me who know and believe that they exist. That is why they are real.

Ion

Assertion #1- "In conscious life there are only logic and reason."
follows:
Proposition #1- "Around you only science and technology builds empirical tangible objects."
and:
Proposition #3- ". . . I see that all highways are built on 100% science and technology."

while:
Assertion #2- "In unconscious life there are other traits, but that's being unconscious."
follows:
Proposition #2- "I haven't seen yet a highway 100% built on prayers . . ."

See, Kam? They follow, but you don't.

How did you manage "...the inference that logic and reason are gods.", Kam? It must be an "...inference..." from your 'intellect'.
"...faith, prayer and spirituality..." do not build any tangible empirical object from raw nature, they do not validate any understanding of nature's laws.
They are subjective human traits, that one shouldn't force on others.
Given my "...demonstrated mastery of logic and reason..." I consciously make 100% of my living in building material tangible objects from raw nature, as a registered Electrical Engineer.
I am not a spiritualist living on mental speculations that don't materialize.

Got it Kam?

Pomp

Ion,

Even if I find Kamchatka's "everything is a god" theology somewhat bizarre, I have to agree with her that your conclusions do not follow from your premises. Can you try another line of reasoning to demonstrate that your assertions are valid?

Ion

In the same line of reasoning, they are valid in the sense that achieving tangible objects from nature, supports a consciousness of how nature's laws do operate.

Not achieving tangible objects from nature, which is the case of "...faith, prayer and spirituality...", doesn't demonstrate a grasp of how nature's laws do operate.
Instead, it's a speculation about human concepts.

It should stay exactly there: a human speculation.

However, it often strays into unconscious human interpretations that promote consequences of murders, mutilations, body sacrifices, wars, resistence to knowledge, disrespect of medicine and lives, in the name of supernatural supreme beings, when it is wrongly advertised as 'understanding' natural laws.

I say, this speculation with no validation by materialization in nature's laws, should be kept subjective to people, not forced onto people.

Gemma Therese

&lt;&lt;&lt;But I _feel_ inside me that they DO exist. They are out there, waiting. I've seen them in pictures and there are other people just like me who know and believe that they exist. That is why they are real.&gt;&gt;&gt;

There's one born every minute.

Unit Offline

A pink dragon?

Ion

Make no mistake,

"...I say, this speculation with no validation by materialization in nature's laws, should be kept subjective to people, not forced onto people."

does apply to:
posted in the starting thread by Gemma, is to me Gemma's mission of unconsciousness here.

brighid

yeap - and you are one of them too. Tell me do you believe in seven headed dragons and unicorns?

Oh - but virgin births and men rising from the dead are to believed??

B

Gemma Therese

Typhon,

You wrote, "So ... how do you justify your belief in nuclear physics if you do not have an understanding of it?"

Because of what people have told me. There are books about it. Courses on it. Typhon, can you really say that if you do not understand something, you do not believe it exists? How do you function this way?

You wrote, "Why do you believe in God if you do not understand God?"

Because I have FAITH in Him.

You wrote, "So, you do not fully understand the mind of God."

No one has, does, or ever will fully understand the mind of God. Typhon, do you fully understand the human mind, even your own?

You wrote, "You admit you are capable of sin."

Yes, and I do sin.

You wrote, "Do you think it is possible to do things unconsciously which are not necessarily for God?"

Yes. Let me make two points. First, not every action I perform is performed with the conscious intent, "I am doing this for God." But to pick up a pin for love can convert a soul (St. Therese). The only actions I commit contrary to God's will are my sins. Because my whole life is dedicated to God, all my actions are for Him, save sins.

Second, I commit venial sins unconsciously. For example, if I bang my elbow and shout, "God!", I have committed a sin. For this reason, when I go to confession, I say, "For these, and all the sins I have forgotten to mention."

You wrote, "Do you ever do things for yourself, others, who are not God?"

Yes, but I do them also for God, whether directly (prayers) or indirectly (charity).

Surely you have free will to do something that is not for God, or do you?

Yes, I have free will, and yes, when I sin, I am "using" my free will. However, I do not wish to go against God's will if I can help it. For example, a husband has the potential to have an affair. But a sense of obligation and love, if he is a decent man, will keep him faithful to his wife. A sense of obligation and love keeps me faithful to God.

If I have left something out or you would like me to elaborate, please tell me.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>