Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

15 minutes ago, ThaiFighterGoWuuur said:

No Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion. He only legalized all religions to be practiced without persecution. 
 

It was Emperor Theodosius who favored Christianity over pagan religions. And is the one credited to making Christianity a state religion

 

Ok, but Constantine was the first emperor to convert to christianity, so it's a bit of cherry picking here ????

Before you were saying that protestants were responsible for editing and possibly corrupt the bible, but protestantism started afaik just 500 years ago.

On 2and thoughts, i  would say that even before Constantine there were changes in the bible. 

Btw, I read some of the apocriph gospels many years ago, quite an interesting read.

[canthai55]

2 hours ago, ThaiFighterGoWuuur said:

Pretty sure the Protestants did that. They removed books and edited a whole bunch of quotes to fit their narrative. 

Much evidence of books removed from the bible

The book of Enoch being just one.

More here -

https://pennbookcenter.com/how-many-books-were-removed-from-the-bible/

 

Spin Doctors are not a new invention

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, ThaiFighterGoWuuur said:

That part is debatable. Sure he may have read some Christian-Esque prayers and it is traditionally known to be a “Christian” but only before his death did he converted because of his skewed thoughts on baptisms. 
 

 

I would disagree here. The Bible was officially compiled during the 4th century. Before that you had numerous letters and essays floating around. For example you had the Gnostic books circulating. When the Bible was officially being compiled the Gnostic books were not included because the council determined at that time they were not “divinely inspired” the Bible that they officially compiled is the same Bible that is used today for Catholics. 
 

In regards to apocryphal books, that is mostly a Protestant term to describe books generally not in the Bible which includes the deuterocanonical books (which Catholics use). 
 

Now going back to when the Bible was officially compiled, there’s a reason why the deuterocanonical books (apocryphal for Protestants) were included BUT not the Gnostic gospels. The council at that affirmed that deuterocanonical books were in fact “divinely inspired” but not the  Gnostic gospels. That’s because people in attendance were disciples of the disciples of apostles. 
 

These books remained unchanged even today. Now during the Protestant reformation, the Protestants took out the deuterocanonical books and labeled them apocryphal. 

Ok, you seem to know something about the bible and its history. 

Yet, sorry for that, what you say is also debatable,

(from the internet)

About Constantine,

Some scholars allege that his main objective was to gain unanimous approval and submission to his authority from all classes, and therefore chose Christianity to conduct his political propaganda, believing that it was the most appropriate religion that could fit with the Imperial cult (see also Sol Invictus).

 

and many parts of the bible belong to very ancient times, long before the invention of the script.

The story of the flood,  for example, must have been transmitted (and translated) orally for 1000s of years before Christ. 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, ThaiFighterGoWuuur said:

This is an ad hominem. Please refrain from using slurs against people. I am not a spin doctor. I’m only presenting historical facts. 

I am quite sure this was not referred to you. 

[thaibeachlovers]

Seems that this thread has finally done it's dash and will fade away into the archives. It was good while it lasted and I learned a lot, both from believers and the non believers.

However, with the loss of one of the 3 regulars and given my increasing reluctance to reply to repetitive posts, one has to ask if the fat lady has finally sung?

 

Anyway, there was a wonderful sunset the other night. Gaia ( God ) is truly glorious.

[canthai55]

That's not god - that's refraction

[mauGR1]

Give some science to a narrow mind, and you'll have indoctrination, dogmas and more narrow-mindedness ????

[Elad]

15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Anyway, there was a wonderful sunset the other night. Gaia ( God ) is truly glorious.

Don't you think that's a little egocentric. I mean, while you were watching that wonderful sunset, the other 90% of people on the planet didn't see it. And what about those people living in Longyearbyen, Norway. For them, in the summer months, the Sun never sets and in the winter months in never rises. No God for them ????

[mauGR1]

17 minutes ago, Elad said:

Don't you think that's a little egocentric. I mean, while you were watching that wonderful sunset, the other 90% of people on the planet didn't see it. And what about those people living in Longyearbyen, Norway. For them, in the summer months, the Sun never sets and in the winter months in never rises. No God for them ????

I'm surprised by your pointless post, although it's obvious that you tried to be funny.

You should know by now, a true believer sees "God " in the sun and in the rain, in the light and in the dark, even in the fortune and in the misfortune. 

Personally, i can see an intelligent design even behind your attempt at being humorous ????

[Skeptic7]

18 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

i can see an intelligent design even behind your attempt at being humorous

And the opposite type of design behind yours. 

[Elad]

33 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You should know by now, a true believer sees "God " in the sun and in the rain, in the light and in the dark, even in the fortune and in the misfortune. 

Personally, i can see an intelligent design even behind your attempt at being humorous ????

For thousands of years, nature has fooled us humans to believe there's an intelligent design at work, but for the last 400 years or so science has slowly revealed that the apparent design of nature is just an illusion.   

[RubbaJohnny]

Since married she leaves me no choice, mere annoys not tolerated as it says slightly differently worded on teh Saudi flag, There is no bod but sinsod and your wife is his messenger.

 

In future eras all will understand what scientists already understand that relgion is a psychiatric illness in less developed places like Makkah Al Qods,Rome, or USA where people feel desperate to feel superior to those who have had different indoctrination as a child.

There are plenty of fine folks who retain the moral messages quietly but dont go round god bothering or slaughtering those of teh wrong religion. nearly all of these people are old men who have tortured women, witches used FGM etc

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Elad said:

For thousands of years, nature has fooled us humans to believe there's an intelligent design at work, but for the last 400 years or so science has slowly revealed that the apparent design of nature is just an illusion.   

Nice try, but the science you're talking about is based just on the physical reality, and thus incomplete and flawed.

[Sudarut]

MAC Proving Evolution is a lie.

 

MAC:                I could stand here and present some egg-head scientific argument based on fact, I'm just a regular dude, I like to drink beer and I love my family. Rock, flag and eagle right Charlie?

CHARLIE:        He's got a point.

DENNIS:          No he doesn't.

MAC:               See Charlie, these liberals are trying to assassinate my character.  I can't change their mind. I wont change my mind, cos I don't have to, because I'm an American.  I wont change my mind on anything regardless of the facts that are set out before me. I'm dug in and I'll never change.

DENNIS:         Mac, look your wasting our time, your not going to get us to not believe in evolution. 

MAC:               And why is that?

DENNIS:         Because the smartest scientists in the entire world all agree that its real.

MAC:              I'm glad you bought that up, because Mr. Reynolds.  Science is a liar "sometimes".

DEE:               Oh boy.

MAC:              This is Aristotle. thought to be the smartest man on the Planet. He believed that the earth was the center of the Universe and everybody believed him be because he was so smart.  Until another smartest guy came around, Galileo, and he disproved that theory making Aristotle and everybody else on Earth look like a BITCH. Of course Galileo then thought Comets were an optical illusion and there was no way that the moon could cause the oceans                  tides and everybody believed that because he was so smart. He was also wrong. Making him and everyone else on earth look like a BITCH again. Then, best of all Sir Isaac Newton gets born and blows everybody's nips off with his big brains. Of course he also thought he could turn metal into gold and died eating mercury making him yet another stupid BITCH.  Are you seeing a pattern?

DENNIS:         No.

MAC:              Mr. Reynolds these were all the smartest scientists on the Planet.  Only problem is they kept being wrong...... "sometimes". 

DENNIS:         Oh this is insane you fool.

MAC:              I'm a fool because I have more faith in the Saints that wrote the Bible? 

DENNIS:         Yeah because you just read the words of a bunch of guys that you never met and you just take it on "faith" that everything they wrote was true.

MAC:               Hmm..... and what makes you think that what your Scientists were writing is any more truer then my Saints?

DENNIS:          Cos there are volumes of proven data, numbers, figures....... there there are fossil records.

MAC:               Oh fossil records....  Ahgg  I didnt even think about the fossil records. I guess I'll concede..... Ahh one more thing before I do Mr. Reynolds have you seen these fossil records?

DENNIS:          Have I....? Huh?

MAC:               Have you poured through the data yourself? the numbers? the figures? 

DENNIS:          Well no... I mean no...

MAC:               Oh interesting.  So let me get this straight Mr. Reynolds. You get your information from a book written by Men you've never met and you take their words as truth based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, a leap of....  Errr....  dare I say it? "Faith"?

DENNIS:         Oh come on look.... I mean I.... I don't even know how I'm supposed to respond to that.... like.... Oh come on that is a... false e... equivalency.

MAC:              Just answer the question Mr. Reynolds. 

DENNIS:         Sure yeah... Ok... 

MAC:              I rest my case.  

Edited September 5, 2021 by Sudarut

[Fat is a type of crazy]

10 hours ago, Sudarut said:

MAC Proving Evolution is a lie.

 

MAC:                I could stand here and present some egg-head scientific argument based on fact, I'm just a regular dude, I like to drink beer and I love my family. Rock, flag and eagle right Charlie?

CHARLIE:        He's got a point.

DENNIS:          No he doesn't.

MAC:               See Charlie, these liberals are trying to assassinate my character.  I can't change their mind. I wont change my mind, cos I don't have to, because I'm an American.  I wont change my mind on anything regardless of the facts that are set out before me. I'm dug in and I'll never change.

DENNIS:         Mac, look your wasting our time, your not going to get us to not believe in evolution. 

MAC:               And why is that?

DENNIS:         Because the smartest scientists in the entire world all agree that its real.

MAC:              I'm glad you bought that up, because Mr. Reynolds.  Science is a liar "sometimes".

DEE:               Oh boy.

MAC:              This is Aristotle. thought to be the smartest man on the Planet. He believed that the earth was the center of the Universe and everybody believed him be because he was so smart.  Until another smartest guy came around, Galileo, and he disproved that theory making Aristotle and everybody else on Earth look like a BITCH. Of course Galileo then thought Comets were an optical illusion and there was no way that the moon could cause the oceans                  tides and everybody believed that because he was so smart. He was also wrong. Making him and everyone else on earth look like a BITCH again. Then, best of all Sir Isaac Newton gets born and blows everybody's nips off with his big brains. Of course he also thought he could turn metal into gold and died eating mercury making him yet another stupid BITCH.  Are you seeing a pattern?

DENNIS:         No.

MAC:              Mr. Reynolds these were all the smartest scientists on the Planet.  Only problem is they kept being wrong...... "sometimes". 

DENNIS:         Oh this is insane you fool.

MAC:              I'm a fool because I have more faith in the Saints that wrote the Bible? 

DENNIS:         Yeah because you just read the words of a bunch of guys that you never met and you just take it on "faith" that everything they wrote was true.

MAC:               Hmm..... and what makes you think that what your Scientists were writing is any more truer then my Saints?

DENNIS:          Cos there are volumes of proven data, numbers, figures....... there there are fossil records.

MAC:               Oh fossil records....  Ahgg  I didnt even think about the fossil records. I guess I'll concede..... Ahh one more thing before I do Mr. Reynolds have you seen these fossil records?

DENNIS:          Have I....? Huh?

MAC:               Have you poured through the data yourself? the numbers? the figures? 

DENNIS:          Well no... I mean no...

MAC:               Oh interesting.  So let me get this straight Mr. Reynolds. You get your information from a book written by Men you've never met and you take their words as truth based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, a leap of....  Errr....  dare I say it? "Faith"?

DENNIS:         Oh come on look.... I mean I.... I don't even know how I'm supposed to respond to that.... like.... Oh come on that is a... false e... equivalency.

MAC:              Just answer the question Mr. Reynolds. 

DENNIS:         Sure yeah... Ok... 

MAC:              I rest my case.  

Science is cool. As you say it doesn't make saints or gods of it's biggest stars such as Aristotle, Galileo, or Newton. Or Darwin. So if the 19th century theory of evolution can be proved wrong, it would be, if you accept that all scientists are not corrupt, lazy, or stupid as some seem to think. At this stage it is holding up. A lay person like you or I do not need to research it ourselves - in life we let the experts do what experts do and if Darwin's theories can be overturned they will be. 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[canthai55]

Just got this on one of my news feeds. Very interesting.

No matter how much we know, new developments just show how very little we DO know

https://interestingengineering.com/new-physics-experiment-indicates-no-objective-reality

[mauGR1]

57 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

if you accept that all scientists are not corrupt, lazy, or stupid as some seem to think. 

Nobody said that, it's just your fantasy.

Although this is not the right place, investigating and discussing corruption in science would be interesting,  don't you think?

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

55 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Nobody said that, it's just your fantasy.

Although this is not the right place, investigating and discussing corruption in science would be interesting,  don't you think?

 

 

I didn't say someone on this topic said that - it just seems to be an excuse people use on a range of topics from warming to covid.

Corruption is something that can affect science - in my opinion mainly on the deniers side e.g. affects of smoking, warming, etc - but it happens across the board in all facets of life where there is a buck to be made.

I do think if science denies the likelihood of your intelligent design theory it is extremely unlikely that it is due to those 3 reasons I mentioned. It's because it does not fit the facts at this time. 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Corruption is something that can affect science - in my opinion mainly on the deniers side e.g. affects of smoking, warming, etc - but it happens across the board in all facets of life where there is a buck to be made.

 

I'm not sure it's mainly on the deniers' side, unless you are combining the term 'denial' with 'skepticism'.

 

Skepticism, perhaps due to a sense of the irrationality of an argument, or the presence of counteracting evidence which casts doubt on the truth of an argument, is the most fundamental aspect of scientific enquiry. Without it, there would be no scientific progress.

 

The behaviour of certain scientists who were earning a living in the tobacco industry, is an illuminating example of the bias that can result when earning a living might be in conflict with a 'potential' scientific truth which is still in the process of investigation, and which could destroy one's career if eventually proven to be correct.

 

The choice would be to either resign immediately and look for another job, perhaps despite having an expensive mortgage to pay on a house and having a wife and 5 young children to support, or to continue working in the tobacco industry and attempt to downplay the significance of smoking on lung cancer, hoping that the evidence for a significant risk will never become conclusive.

 

However, this problem is faced by many scientists in various industries, including the IPCC. Which is more important, complete scientific integrity and honesty, or earning a living?
 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

28 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm not sure it's mainly on the deniers' side, unless you are combining the term 'denial' with 'skepticism'.

 

Skepticism, perhaps due to a sense of the irrationality of an argument, or the presence of counteracting evidence which casts doubt on the truth of an argument, is the most fundamental aspect of scientific enquiry. Without it, there would be no scientific progress.

 

The behaviour of certain scientists who were earning a living in the tobacco industry, is an illuminating example of the bias that can result when earning a living might be in conflict with a 'potential' scientific truth which is still in the process of investigation, and which could destroy one's career if eventually proven to be correct.

 

The choice would be to either resign immediately and look for another job, perhaps despite having an expensive mortgage to pay on a house and having a wife and 5 young children to support, or to continue working in the tobacco industry and attempt to downplay the significance of smoking on lung cancer, hoping that the evidence for a significant risk will never become conclusive.

 

However, this problem is faced by many scientists in various industries, including the IPCC. Which is more important, complete scientific integrity and honesty, or earning a living?
 

There's many ways people sell their souls in life and that would be one of them. I am more sympathetic to people who might lie when their life is on the line. I am not sympathetic to a scientist who could simply take a lower paying job rather than sully the name of science, that  can lead to many more deaths or just a slowing down of progress, so Johnny can go to a good college.

[VincentRJ]

13 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

There's many ways people sell their souls in life and that would be one of them. I am more sympathetic to people who might lie when their life is on the line. I am not sympathetic to a scientist who could simply take a lower paying job rather than sully the name of science, that  can lead to many more deaths or just a slowing down of progress, so Johnny can go to a good college.

If only the situation were that simple. Unfortunately, the complexity of human affairs, such as health concerns and the uncertainty involved in various treatments, and the long-term side effects of approved drugs, and the different life-styles and genetic conditions which can influence the outcome of certain treatments and produce different effects on different individuals, can create a significant degree of uncertainty.

 

One of the major benefits of religious belief, that I've mentioned before in this thread, is the placebo effect. It is perhaps not realized how pervasive this effect is in all societies. It is estimated that, on average, approximately 30% of the effectiveness of treatments administered by doctors, results from a 'belief' in the doctor and the pharmaceutical industry.

 

When new drugs, during their development, are subjected to the 'double-blind' test, where one group of people is administered the real drug, and another group is administered a placebo, and neither the doctor nor the patient knows which is being administered, one might assume that the placebo (sugary pill) would have no effect. However, this is not true. The placebo group generally does experience some degree of improvement in their symptoms, but just not as great an improvement as the drug, if the drug is shown to be successful.

 

Therefore, it should not be difficult to imagine that a person who has a very strong belief in some guru, or authority with claimed magical healing powers, could experience what appears to be a miraculous recovery from their ailment, due to an exceptionally strong placebo effect.

 

Unfortunately, from a scientific perspective, the placebo effect often requires a degree of certainty which cannot be confirmed scientifically. Therefore, in certain circumstances a scientist could face a moral dilemma of either reducing a beneficial effect by honestly declaring the uncertainty, or increasing a beneficial effect by downplaying the uncertainty and exaggerating the certainty.
 

[mauGR1]

18 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

It is estimated that, on average, approximately 30% of the effectiveness of treatments administered by doctors, results from a 'belief' in the doctor and the pharmaceutical industry

For some reason I'd rather put my belief in some sort of universal justice than in some white-dressed drug sellers ????

[mikebike]

On 8/24/2021 at 4:38 PM, mauGR1 said:

Ok, but Constantine was the first emperor to convert to christianity, so it's a bit of cherry picking here ????

Before you were saying that protestants were responsible for editing and possibly corrupt the bible, but protestantism started afaik just 500 years ago.

On 2and thoughts, i  would say that even before Constantine there were changes in the bible. 

Btw, I read some of the apocriph gospels many years ago, quite an interesting read.

Constantine had a vision which he interpreted as coming from the god of Christians. It is historically unclear if he actually converted.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

If only the situation were that simple. Unfortunately, the complexity of human affairs, such as health concerns and the uncertainty involved in various treatments, and the long-term side effects of approved drugs, and the different life-styles and genetic conditions which can influence the outcome of certain treatments and produce different effects on different individuals, can create a significant degree of uncertainty.

 

One of the major benefits of religious belief, that I've mentioned before in this thread, is the placebo effect. It is perhaps not realized how pervasive this effect is in all societies. It is estimated that, on average, approximately 30% of the effectiveness of treatments administered by doctors, results from a 'belief' in the doctor and the pharmaceutical industry.

 

When new drugs, during their development, are subjected to the 'double-blind' test, where one group of people is administered the real drug, and another group is administered a placebo, and neither the doctor nor the patient knows which is being administered, one might assume that the placebo (sugary pill) would have no effect. However, this is not true. The placebo group generally does experience some degree of improvement in their symptoms, but just not as great an improvement as the drug, if the drug is shown to be successful.

 

Therefore, it should not be difficult to imagine that a person who has a very strong belief in some guru, or authority with claimed magical healing powers, could experience what appears to be a miraculous recovery from their ailment, due to an exceptionally strong placebo effect.

 

Unfortunately, from a scientific perspective, the placebo effect often requires a degree of certainty which cannot be confirmed scientifically. Therefore, in certain circumstances a scientist could face a moral dilemma of either reducing a beneficial effect by honestly declaring the uncertainty, or increasing a beneficial effect by downplaying the uncertainty and exaggerating the certainty.
 

I am not sure of the link between your previous post and this one. The previous one seemed to represent a conscious decision by a scientist to put money over truth.

I think this post is talking about whether a scientist, speaking up about a dud medicine or a dud guru say, may result in the negative outcome that the placebo affect of that dud will be less effective. 

The latter would not be relevant for smoking or warming. No placebo affect is going to make them good for you.

But, as you say,  if there is no alternative, a sugar pill may be better than nothing if  the person thinks it is an actual cure.

If I was in prehistoric times and sick,  it may have helped me get better, if a witch doctor gave me a useless elixir as a placebo effect. Even if it didn't help the hope from a potential cure might limit the distress.  

Edited September 7, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Constantine had a vision which he interpreted as coming from the god of Christians. It is historically unclear if he actually converted.

Of course, even the "vision" could have been a lie.

Probably the new monotheistic religion was assumed to be more convenient for the rulers to control the masses. 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I am not sure of the link between your previous post and this one. The previous one seemed to represent a conscious decision by a scientist to put money over truth.

I think this post is talking about whether a scientist, speaking up about a dud medicine or a dud guru say, may result in the negative outcome that the placebo affect of that dud will be less effective. 

The latter would not be relevant for smoking or warming. No placebo affect is going to make them good for you.

But, as you say,  if there is no alternative, a sugar pill may be better than nothing if  the person thinks it is an actual cure.

If I was in prehistoric times and sick,  it may have helped me get better, if a witch doctor gave me a useless elixir as a placebo effect. Even if it didn't help the hope from a potential cure might limit the distress.  

I think it is very relevant for climate change, but not so much for smoking. The opposite of the placebo effect is the nocebo effect. If one actually believes that doing, or not doing something, will cause harm, then it will likely cause some degree of harm, even if only psychologically, despite no 'real' scientific confirmation of resulting harm outside of the nocebo effect.

 

I certainly accept that smoking is bad for health, just as I accept that pollutants emitted from fossils fuels and the agricultural burn-offs that take place in Thailand, are bad for lung health. However, a slight warming of 1 degree C during the past century or so, and a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels to a mere 420 parts per million, which helps most plants to grow better and generally greens the planet, is not bad.

 

Certain scientists, such as Michael Mann, who have attempted to exaggerate the effects of the 'warming', and have tried to hide previous warming and cooling events such as the MWP and LIA in their graphs, such as the graph known as the Hockey Stick, are as bad or even worse than those tobacco scientists. ????

 

The alarm created by such climate scientists is causing psychological harm to the younger generation who are now anxious and depressed about their future because governments are not moving fast enough to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

Attributing to 'anthropogenic climate change', the current devastation in Florida and New York, from Hurricane Ida, is just exacerbating the anxiety of the younger generation. But here's the problem. If the scientists, in conjunction with the media and the politicians, reported these extreme weather events within a historical background, going back to the beginning of human civilization, thus creating a more truthful impression that such extreme weather events have occurred many times before CO2 levels began rising during the industrial revolution, and are therefore, most likely, mostly natural, there could still be anxiety resulting from the very slow progress in the building and re-building of infrastructure and homes to resist extreme weather events, and the slow progress in the building of more dams and better drainage systems in cities and urban areas to avoid flash flooding, and so on.

 

It seems were stuck between a rock and a hard place. In order to adapt and protect ourselves from extreme weather events as soon as possible, we would need to increase our use of fossil fuels, which is totally contrary to the religious demonization of CO2 emissions. ????

[Skeptic7]

On 9/5/2021 at 3:04 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

there was a wonderful sunset the other night. Gaia ( God ) is truly glorious.

I snapped this lovely sunset in Jomtien recently. The red, pink and purple hues are mainly caused by particles in the air...aka nasty ol' air pollution! NO gods required. ????

 

"As sunlight passes through aerosols or smog, it changes the color of our skies and sunsets. Pink, purple, or dark red sunsets are indeed spectacular to watch, but it also indicates our air is heavily polluted."

https://eartheclipse.com/geography/what-causes-pink-sunsets.html

[mauGR1]

19 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

I snapped this lovely sunset in Jomtien recently. The red, pink and purple hues are mainly caused by particles in the air...aka nasty ol' air pollution! NO gods required. ????

 

"As sunlight passes through aerosols or smog, it changes the color of our skies and sunsets. Pink, purple, or dark red sunsets are indeed spectacular to watch, but it also indicates our air is heavily polluted."

https://eartheclipse.com/geography/what-causes-pink-sunsets.html

A typical example of the wrong way to use Google, and more broadly, the fraudulent use of science to fool the gullible. 

I hope that someone, someday,  will explain to you the difference between some scientist's theory and the laws of nature, which,  for those who have eyes to see, are clear evidence of the work of an intelligent design.

A little more search will tell you that clean air is the major "ingredient " for spectacular sunsets and sunrises, sorry if i can't be bothered to post links.

[CharlieH]

This covers the "God" question rather well......

 

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

― Marcus Aurelius

[mauGR1]

7 hours ago, CharlieH said:

This covers the "God" question rather well......

 

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

― Marcus Aurelius

Philosophically indisputable,  yet, just having a look at the countless levels of consciousness,  in the animal realm, and in the mankind alone, one cannot be serious in denying the high probability of mankind being just a stage of evolution, among countless other stages of evolution. 

"As above, as below"

.. Just count the stars that we can see, not to mention the ones we cannot see ????