Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, AsianAtHeart said:

The Ouija board earlier mentioned is a special tool used by the demons to sent their nefarious messages to us.  Those who toy with one are putting themselves on Satan's ground.  It is virtually the opposite of the Bible, which would lead us heavenward; the instruments of Satan will direct us in the path toward destruction.

I must be in deep doo-doo as I've worked the Ouija board for 13 years.  Got some great advice.  Never encountered a demon, though.

You provide us with an excellent example of how beliefs operate in the real world.  All information is sifted through the framework of your religious beliefs, to which you are completely blind.  All events are interpreted using that framework of beliefs so that even the most innocent of actions are cast as something sinister.  What you don't yet understand is that it's all made up.  No reality behind it other than the imaginary reality painted by your beliefs.  It's an illusion.

The Ouija board was created in 1890.  Religion interpreted any other-worldly communication as evil.  It was not that the board itself was inherently evil.  But religion declared it such.  No supporting evidence required.  Why was the devil chosen when it could have just as well been angels communicating?

In any case, you've supplied us with an excellent example in the extreme of how one's personal world is continually interpreted according to one's personal beliefs.

I suggest that other posters apply AsianAtHearts beliefs to their own.  Anyone thinking that some of their own beliefs are not as irrational or absurd needs to think again.

[mauGR1]

Uhm, everyone is entitled to his own beliefs, sometimes conflicting parties are both in the right.

Just watch lions chasing gazelles. 

Or fire with water.

Or some war which i don't mention. 

Understanding others is helpful to understand oneself, which is always useful. 

"Look at the beam in your eye"..

It's a good advice. 

[AsianAtHeart]

I will quote an inspirational thought here, of which the bolded paragraph especially seems pertinent to this discussion.

 

Quote

 

     The truth of God will never degrade, but will elevate the receiver. It will refine his taste, sanctify his judgment, and perfect him for the company of the pure and holy angels in the kingdom of God. There are those whom the truth finds coarse, rough, odd, boastful, who take advantage of their neighbors if they can, in order to benefit themselves. They err in many ways, yet when the truth is believed by them from the heart, it will work an entire change in their life. They will immediately commence the work of reformation. The pure influence of truth will elevate the whole man. In his business deal with his fellow men he will have the fear of God before him, and will love his neighbor as himself, and will deal just as he would wish to be dealt by. His conversation will be truthful, chaste and of such an elevating character that unbelievers cannot take advantage, or say evil of him justly, neither be disgusted with his uncourteous ways and unbecoming speech. He will carry the sanctifying influence of the truth into his family, and let his light so shine before them that they by seeing his good works may glorify God. He will in all the walks of life exemplify the life of Christ. 

     The law of God will be satisfied with nothing short of perfection, of perfect and entire obedience to all its claims. To come half way to its requirements, and not render perfect and thorough submission and obedience, will avail nothing. The worldling and the infidel admire consistency, and have ever been powerfully convicted that God was of a truth with his people, when their works correspond with their faith. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Every tree is known by his own fruits. Our words, our actions, are the fruit we bear. There are those who hear the sayings of Christ, but do them not. They profess, but their fruits are such as to disgust unbelievers. They are boastful, and pray and talk in a self-righteous manner, exalting themselves, and virtually thanking God, like the Pharisee, that they are not as other men. They recount their good deeds, yet these very ones are crafty, and overreach in business deal. Their fruits are not good. Their words and acts are wrong, and yet they seem to be blinded to their destitute, wretched condition. 

     I was shown that the following scripture was applicable to such, who go along under such a deception. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity." 

     Here is the greatest deception that can affect the human mind, for persons to believe that they are right when they are wrong. They think that they are doing a great work in their religious life. Finally Jesus tears off their self-righteous covering, and vividly presents before them the true picture of themselves, in all their wrongs and deformity of religious character. They are found wanting when it is forever too late to have their wants supplied. 

     God has provided means to correct the erring, yet if those who err, choose to do as they think best, and follow their own judgment, and despise the means God has ordained to correct the erring and unite them upon the truth, they will be brought into the position described by the words of our Lord quoted above.

     God is bringing out a people and preparing them to stand as one, united, to speak the same things, and carry out the prayer of Christ for his disciples. "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." 

 

 

May you be blessed.

Edited September 20, 2022 by AsianAtHeart
Corrected typos

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Here is the greatest deception that can affect the human mind, for persons to believe that they are right when they are wrong

Isn't that the truth?

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Isn't that the truth?

One day we'll ALL find out how wrong we were. Some more than others.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

One day we'll ALL find out how wrong we were. Some more than others.

Yes, "know yourself " is a ???? basis for spiritual science. 

 

 

[mauGR1]

Rudolf Steiner:  "You can calmly feel the truth as an ideal placed before you at an immeasurable distance yet with the awareness that you are on your way toward it."
 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I get the impression that you don't really understand the 'methodology of science'. 'Science' is never settled. There's always some degree of uncertainty, however small that uncertainty is.

LOL. Tell that to those that say they are CERTAIN that global climate change was caused by us and we have to buy electric cars to save the planet.

I never hear them say that it's an opinion.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Now I'm trying to think of the old joke of a Muslim, a Jew, and a Catholic in a bar arguing and each making claims that their God is the one and only God.  I can't recall now how it goes but in the end they can't all be right.  And perhaps none of them are.

Given that they all have the same God, I don't get the joke.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Tell that to those that say they are CERTAIN that global climate change was caused by us and we have to buy electric cars to save the planet.

I never hear them say that it's an opinion.

This illustrates the point I've been trying to make, and is why I introduced the issue of 'Climate Change' many pages ago in this thread. Most people don't have the ability or interest to do their own research on the internet and check the actual data. They prefer to watch the news on the TV or their iPhone, and accept what they are told, just like those who subscribe to a particular religion tend to accept the authority of the priests.

 

The so-called great authority on the climate issue is the IPCC which has stated in the past that climate is a complex, non-linear, chaotic system and that accurate predictions of future climate are impossible (or at least very challenging). In order to save face, as a result of past, inaccurate predictions, they now use the word 'projection', but such projections still rely upon computer models which cannot take into consideration all of the influences on climate, because all the influences are not known and even those that are known cannot be accurately quantified.

 

The problem is, societies in general do not want uncertainty, and politicians cannot motivate the population to follow an agenda which involves the investment of huge amounts of money, if the true degree of scientific uncertainty is expressed, which is why, of course, every extreme weather event is used by the Mainstream Media (MSM) as a confirmation of human-caused climate change.

 

The distinction between weather and climate is so often confused. How often have you heard the claim in the media that an extreme weather event was caused by 'climate change'? Climate is not a cause, but a result of numerous causes.

 

However, what can be claimed with a high degree of scientific certainty, is that mankind's total effect on the environment, including deforestation, the creation of massive 'concrete jungles' (cities and roads), pollution due to the release of toxic chemicals and massive amounts of plastic garbage which is not recycled, and so on, must have at least some effect on our climate.

 

Precisely quantifying that effect is an impossible task, so demonizing our CO2 emissions is the political solution, because all fossil fuels emit CO2 which is very expensive to sequester in the ground.
 

[Woof999]

13 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

@Woof999

 

Anyone who has raised a child will attest to young children's aversion to new food.  "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"  "But you've haven't tried it, sweet pea."  "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"  "But you haven't tasted it.  How do you know it's not good?"  "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"  In adulthood so many people treat new ideas just as young children do  new foods.  Fortunately children do end up trying new foods . . . and liking much of it once they've tasted it.  Unfortunately, many adults never grow out of that childhood phase when it comes to new ideas.  They're confronted with a new idea and their immediate response is, "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"

Is that who you are Woof999?

 

Since I traveled internationally when I was young I was exposed to a lot of "foreign" food.  Back in the States it's more common for someone to have never left it's borders than not.  Once I worked with a Lebanese guy.  His wife would pack his lunch daily.  He preferred, though, to eat lunch out.  So as not to bring his packed lunch home, or toss it wastefully in the rubbish bin, he would offer it to me.  It was authentic homemade Lebanese food and it was delicious.  Now and again I would offer some to my coworkers.  None of them were interested in even trying any of it because it was "foreign" food.  They were simply unable to get past their preconceived notions that it wouldn't taste good.

Is this how you deal with new ideas, Woof999?

When I was 6 or 7 years old I read a comic book about aliens who had come to Earth.  These aliens had attained advanced knowledge and had come to offer it to the Earthlings.  The Earthlings, driven by their fear of the unknown, surrounded the alien's spaceship with their weapons of war.  The aliens stood at the ramp to their spacecraft when the order was given to blow them back to whence they came.  Having superior knowledge and technology the aliens returned to their spacecraft, unharmed, and flew away.

Are you like the Earthlings, Woof999?

 

Young children are naturally inquisitive.  There is little that they won't hear because they haven't yet been indoctrinated in the beliefs of their elders . . . parents and teachers and all whom they come in contact with.  But conformity takes it's coarse over the years.  They learn, as most do, to reject anything that doesn't fit their prejudiced thinking.  Their inquisitiveness gets thoroughly squashed.  And they live out their lives knowing only what they know.  Or what they think know.

Is this what happened to you, Woof999?

The above are some of the common barriers people face when searching for answers.  A closed mind is a terrible thing.

Really?

 

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Please do elucidate, Hummin.  What evidence do you offer to show that it's dangerous.  And don't give me an opinion.  You've just made a claim that they're dangerous so you must be in possession of solid evidence which supports your claim.

Cult?  Again, provide evidence that this is true.  No opinion.  Evidence only.

 

Unhealthy?  Once again, provide evidence that this is true.  No opinion.  Evidence only.

There you go again with your demands for evidence while you ignore calls for the same.

 

You are starting to come across as someone who sees themselves as a higher intellect than others and struggles to keep that belief out of their ramblings. Is that you?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

This illustrates the point I've been trying to make, and is why I introduced the issue of 'Climate Change' many pages ago in this thread. Most people don't have the ability or interest to do their own research on the internet and check the actual data. They prefer to watch the news on the TV or their iPhone, and accept what they are told, just like those who subscribe to a particular religion tend to accept the authority of the priests.

 

The so-called great authority on the climate issue is the IPCC which has stated in the past that climate is a complex, non-linear, chaotic system and that accurate predictions of future climate are impossible (or at least very challenging). In order to save face, as a result of past, inaccurate predictions, they now use the word 'projection', but such projections still rely upon computer models which cannot take into consideration all of the influences on climate, because all the influences are not known and even those that are known cannot be accurately quantified.

 

The problem is, societies in general do not want uncertainty, and politicians cannot motivate the population to follow an agenda which involves the investment of huge amounts of money, if the true degree of scientific uncertainty is expressed, which is why, of course, every extreme weather event is used by the Mainstream Media (MSM) as a confirmation of human-caused climate change.

 

The distinction between weather and climate is so often confused. How often have you heard the claim in the media that an extreme weather event was caused by 'climate change'? Climate is not a cause, but a result of numerous causes.

 

However, what can be claimed with a high degree of scientific certainty, is that mankind's total effect on the environment, including deforestation, the creation of massive 'concrete jungles' (cities and roads), pollution due to the release of toxic chemicals and massive amounts of plastic garbage which is not recycled, and so on, must have at least some effect on our climate.

 

Precisely quantifying that effect is an impossible task, so demonizing our CO2 emissions is the political solution, because all fossil fuels emit CO2 which is very expensive to sequester in the ground.
 

Just as well I don't subscribe to any religion then.

 

As for the rest, I've had the opinion in the past decade or so that humans have outstayed our welcome ( overpopulation ) on this planet and Gaia ( God of the planet ) is going to eliminate us, which does seem to be happening. IMO the real crisis to come will be lack of drinking water and drought in arable areas, and the numbers of dead from covid will seem like a drop in the bucket in comparison. However, I doubt I'll be around long enough to see it happen.

I certainly believe that humans are not the primary cause of climate change, but rather feedback mechanisms built into climate to respond to triggers, such as pollution ( of any sort- not CO2 which is not a pollutant ), and where did such feedback mechanisms originate? IMO from God, when the universe was designed.

People often say that if we don't scrap fossil fuels, the planet will die, which is of course a nonsense. The planet will do just fine without us. God's creation is truly wondrous.

[Hummin]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I suggest that other posters apply AsianAtHearts beliefs to their own.  Anyone thinking that some of their own beliefs are not as irrational or absurd needs to think again.

I guess that fits most people who in some way thinking about the big questions, and do have a strong opinion about what is real or not, and what is the real absolute truths in life. 
 

Anyone here believe we have to face consequences for what we did in life when we die? 
 

Myself Im quite sure Im not, but if I had kids, Im quite sure they would carry on my heritage for good and bad. So for your kids it is consequences not only from me, but all the ancestor’s before. 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

Anyone here believe we have to face consequences for what we did in life when we die? 

Yes, i believe that, nothing gets lost from the memory of akasha. ( universe)

[Tippaporn]

10 hours ago, Hummin said:

Just a heads up from a previous post, it doesn’t serve me any good to insult you, so I am not here to ridicule you or insult you. 

Jut so you know, Hummin, neither is it the intention of my posts to ridicule or insult you, either.  I will, however, ridicule or disparage your ideas.  But you, nor anyone, is their ideas.  I've said this before.  Ideas are like the paints an artist uses to create his artistic two dimensional masterpiece.  We use ideas to create the three dimensional masterpieces which are our lives.  Yet unlike a static two dimensional painting ours is an interactive one, and one in which the painter paints himself or herself into the medium as well.  Not only do we get to experience the effects of our ideas as manifestations for the purpose of feedback on our ideas but we also get to react to them and manipulate them from within the creations which are our lives.

Again, Ideas are not who we are.  We can change our ideas at any time, and we often do.  The body of ideas which make up anyone's world view, the framework which is then used to view and interpret events and reality, is not a finished product.  It is not static.  It is ever changing as we continually toss out and take in ideas.  Now granted, people often erroneously identify with their beliefs to the extent that they and their beliefs are one and the same.

With that explanation I hope that you realise and understand that it is the beliefs you hold which I challenge.  And admittedly I do tend to continue pressing on with my challenges to you, and everyone here.  While it may seem to you at times that I press you too much just know that I would never do the same to any man or woman I meet out on the street.  Here, however, we have all made the conscious choice to willingly engage in an exchange of ideas about God and all which that entails where we present our ideas.  Those specific ideas which we use quite practically to view and interpret our private reality and then as guides for our thoughts and actions.  We present those ideas here to argue for them and to defend them when challenged.  May the best idea win!  So all is fair here.  Other than attacking and disparaging the individual instead of their ideas.  Which we all know happens now and again.

[ivor bigun]

we are but a passing phase in the world ,its been here billions of years and we are a mere blink of an eye ,then we will be gone while the planet goes on and on.

just like the billions of other planets in the universes, We just invented God same like we invented the wheel ,or the internet,but dont forget many faiths have invented different Gods. 

[Hummin]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Jut so you know, Hummin, neither is it the intention of my posts to ridicule or insult you, either.  I will, however, ridicule or disparage your ideas.  But you, nor anyone, is their ideas.  I've said this before.  Ideas are like the paints an artist uses to create his artistic two dimensional masterpiece.  We use ideas to create the three dimensional masterpieces which are our lives.  Yet unlike a static two dimensional painting ours is an interactive one, and one in which the painter paints himself or herself into the medium as well.  Not only do we get to experience the effects of our ideas as manifestations for the purpose of feedback on our ideas but we also get to react to them and manipulate them from within the creations which are our lives.

Again, Ideas are not who we are.  We can change our ideas at any time, and we often do.  The body of ideas which make up anyone's world view, the framework which is then used to view and interpret events and reality, is not a finished product.  It is not static.  It is ever changing as we continually toss out and take in ideas.  Now granted, people often erroneously identify with their beliefs to the extent that they and their beliefs are one and the same.

With that explanation I hope that you realise and understand that it is the beliefs you hold which I challenge.  And admittedly I do tend to continue pressing on with my challenges to you, and everyone here.  While it may seem to you at times that I press you too much just know that I would never do the same to any man or woman I meet out on the street.  Here, however, we have all made the conscious choice to willingly engage in an exchange of ideas about God and all which that entails where we present our ideas.  Those specific ideas which we use quite practically to view and interpret our private reality and then as guides for our thoughts and actions.  We present those ideas here to argue for them and to defend them when challenged.  May the best idea win!  So all is fair here.  Other than attacking and disparaging the individual instead of their ideas.  Which we all know happens now and again.

I do not see my ideas controversial because we live in the middle  of it, we can see it, we can touch it and we can feel it. There is no hidden ghosts, just purity, beautiful, evil and dangerous. It have all ingredients of reality. I prove it to myself every day I walk out the door no matter where I am, we are here and now!
 

What you constantly challenging us, is not possible to answer, neither you if asked the same questions on the same terms. You fail as much as we do on those complicated questions, even you as Asia at hearth continue to give quotes and d texts from your trustworthy sources. Those sourches mean nothing to other than you, him and those who want to follow same sourches. To us, fiction and fairytales. 

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, Woof999 said:

20 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

@Woof999

 

Anyone who has raised a child will attest to young children's aversion to new food.  "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"  "But you've haven't tried it, sweet pea."  "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"  "But you haven't tasted it.  How do you know it's not good?"  "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"  In adulthood so many people treat new ideas just as young children do  new foods.  Fortunately children do end up trying new foods . . . and liking much of it once they've tasted it.  Unfortunately, many adults never grow out of that childhood phase when it comes to new ideas.  They're confronted with a new idea and their immediate response is, "I don't like it!  It doesn't look good!"

Is that who you are Woof999?

 

Since I traveled internationally when I was young I was exposed to a lot of "foreign" food.  Back in the States it's more common for someone to have never left it's borders than not.  Once I worked with a Lebanese guy.  His wife would pack his lunch daily.  He preferred, though, to eat lunch out.  So as not to bring his packed lunch home, or toss it wastefully in the rubbish bin, he would offer it to me.  It was authentic homemade Lebanese food and it was delicious.  Now and again I would offer some to my coworkers.  None of them were interested in even trying any of it because it was "foreign" food.  They were simply unable to get past their preconceived notions that it wouldn't taste good.

Is this how you deal with new ideas, Woof999?

When I was 6 or 7 years old I read a comic book about aliens who had come to Earth.  These aliens had attained advanced knowledge and had come to offer it to the Earthlings.  The Earthlings, driven by their fear of the unknown, surrounded the alien's spaceship with their weapons of war.  The aliens stood at the ramp to their spacecraft when the order was given to blow them back to whence they came.  Having superior knowledge and technology the aliens returned to their spacecraft, unharmed, and flew away.

Are you like the Earthlings, Woof999?

 

Young children are naturally inquisitive.  There is little that they won't hear because they haven't yet been indoctrinated in the beliefs of their elders . . . parents and teachers and all whom they come in contact with.  But conformity takes it's coarse over the years.  They learn, as most do, to reject anything that doesn't fit their prejudiced thinking.  Their inquisitiveness gets thoroughly squashed.  And they live out their lives knowing only what they know.  Or what they think know.

Is this what happened to you, Woof999?

The above are some of the common barriers people face when searching for answers.  A closed mind is a terrible thing.

Really?

Yes, really.  The post to which you replied is an extension of the below post which preceded it, to which you did not reply.  Go ahead and defend, provide evidence, or justify your position that Seth was a figment of Jane's imagination despite the fact that you know nothing about Seth or Jane.  You're the one claiming something of which you know nothing to be true.  Don't back out now.

The post you responded to was one in which I gave illustration to, by use of analogies, the typical ways in which folks deal with new ideas that don't fit in with their currently held ideas.  I used you as an example.  If you wish to dispute my assessment then do so.  I put those analogies up as truisms.  Just as the truism, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."  That's a truism, which is to say that it a truth which requires no evidence.  It's as plain as the nose on one's face.

  

21 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

22 hours ago, Woof999 said:

Indeed. Seth came to Jane Roberts during an ouija board session. What was that earlier about nothing religious and not believing in fairy tales? I agree that they are not the same. Jane was a human and Seth was a figment of her imagination.

 

Now you're using a Seth quote as if it's established fact.

Do not make the mistake of writing a book review on a book you've never read.  You're making that mistake now.  You know nothing of Seth yet you've concluded he's a figment of Jane Robert's imagination.  Are you in the habit of claiming to know something when in fact you do not?  There's a term for that.  I believe it's an imposter.

Since credentials are important to you then I'll provide some of Seth's.  His technical information is of such quality that he's been visited by a number of scientists.  The Seth material is housed in the Yale University Archives, not by any means an obscure university.  It's said that it is one of the most frequented archives at Yale.

A figment of Jane's imagination, indeed.  With statements like that you expose yourself and do not put yourself in a good light.

 

On the other hand, what is offered by science and religion in terms of a cohesive and comprehensive explanation of who and what we are and the reality we find ourselves is extremely lacking, contradictory and discombobulated to say the least.  So much doesn't fit together, so much information opposes other information, and so much which doesn't work in a practical and functional manner.

Before you laugh and disparage other's knowledge, only because your personal beliefs keep you blind to it and prevent your understanding, take a good, hard look at the whole of contemporary knowledge, much of what you've been taught to believe, and you'll find that most of it makes no sense whatsoever.  Given that then you are in no position to laugh or ridicule, my friend.

 

Edited September 21, 2022 by Tippaporn

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just as well I don't subscribe to any religion then.

 

As for the rest, I've had the opinion in the past decade or so that humans have outstayed our welcome ( overpopulation ) on this planet and Gaia ( God of the planet ) is going to eliminate us, which does seem to be happening. IMO the real crisis to come will be lack of drinking water and drought in arable areas, and the numbers of dead from covid will seem like a drop in the bucket in comparison. However, I doubt I'll be around long enough to see it happen.

I certainly believe that humans are not the primary cause of climate change, but rather feedback mechanisms built into climate to respond to triggers, such as pollution ( of any sort- not CO2 which is not a pollutant ), and where did such feedback mechanisms originate? IMO from God, when the universe was designed.

People often say that if we don't scrap fossil fuels, the planet will die, which is of course a nonsense. The planet will do just fine without us. God's creation is truly wondrous.

One thing about which the IPCC is confident, is that warming will increase rainfall, globally. This should make sense to most people who have only a basic understanding of science. A warmer climate causes more evaporation of the oceans and lakes. The evaporated water does not leave the atmosphere to outer space. It comes back as rain. However, whilst some areas might get wetter, other areas might get drier. Changes in climate are not uniform over the entire planet. 

 

Fortunately, we have the technology to distribute the water from where the rain falls in excess, to where it doesn't fall, by building dams and long-distance water pipes. Increased rain and increased atmospheric CO2, plus a warmer climate, are all excellent for increased plant growth.

 

On the issue of over-population, a friend who was an architect made the comment, a few years ago, that the entire world population, then around 7 billion, could be accommodated on an area of land the size of Tasmania.

 

I thought at the time that was rather fanciful, so I did some calculations. The area of Tasmania is 68,403 square Km. One square Km is one million square metres, so 68.4 thousand square km translates to 68.4 billion square metres.

 

Using a figure of 8 billion for the current population would mean that each person on the planet, (man, woman and child) would be allocated a space of 8.55 square metres at ground level. That's the size of a very small bedroom. A reasonable living area would be, say, 6x that area, which is around 50 square metres. That means a family of four would have more than 200 sqare metres of living area, which is equivalent to a large house.

 

To achieve that allocation would require 6 storey buildings covering the entire area of Tasmania, but that excludes walls and roads, and many other requirements. To create space for these other requirements, one would have to increase the number of storeys. To create room for all the walls, corridors and lifts within each building, the height would be raised to, say, 7 storeys.

 

But of course, one needs a lot of areas for roads, and also parks and recreational areas, otherwise living there would be awful. Thankfully, as a result of modern science and technology we can build 100 storey buildings. If we multiply the 7 storeys by 8, we get 56 storeys. In other words, the total area covered by buildings is just 1/8th of the area of Tasmania if all the buildings are 56 storeys. That leaves plenty of room for roads and parks.

 

However, we still need to create room for shops, supermarkets, warehouses, maintenance areas, manufacturing areas, offices, and so on, so let's add another 10 storeys. We now have 65 storey buildings covering 1/8th of the area of Tasmania, all connected with roads which occupy, say, another 1/8th of the total area of Tasmania. That leaves 3/4ths of the total area for parks and forests.

 

I'd say that any city which allocates 3/4ths of its area to parks and nature is acceptable. I should also add that I'm talking about the application of modern technology. All these skyscrapers would be located in different areas which are interconnected with sophisticaed railway networks. Wherever you live, you could travel quickly to any destination by taking the lift, and/or escalator, to the nearest railway station. Personal cars and electric vehicles would be obsolete in this situation.

 

Also, in this situation where 8 billion people live in an area the size of Tasmania, there would probably be another 8 billion people, or more, living in the rest of the world, who are producing most of the food and various other products. The energy supplies for this vision of the future would have to come from nuclear power. Solar power and wind would not pass muster. ????

[Woof999]

50 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Yes, really.  The post to which you replied is an extension of the below post which preceded it, to which you did not reply.  Go ahead and defend, provide evidence, or justify your position that Seth was a figment of Jane's imagination despite the fact that you know nothing about Seth or Jane.

Please let me get this straight. On a post asking if people believe in supernatural powers, you're asking me to disprove that Jane Roberts' ouija board relationship with a real entity called Seth was in fact something else? I'll get round to that once I disprove the existence of elves in my quest to disprove the existence of unicorns.

 

...but where is Seth. has there been any more contact since Jane Roberts? According to this site: It's on the internet so it must be real we have these gems:

 

"About 20 years ago, I took an 8 week meditation course. Every week we worked on meeting our spirit guide. He starting out just as a ball of loving energy and each week more details were revealed until I had a clear picture of him. He has been with me ever since, mostly in the background but I always feel him" from Complexnatural.

 

"I had a dream a long long time ago where I was attending a party on a New-York rooftop with other people. There was a man there and he was purple(ish) but it was Seth." from ENIAD.

 

"For the past 2 years I have had frequent dream contact with a faculty member, a teacher, from Seth’s greater pyramid energy gestalt, the gestalt that was responsible for Jane’s Seth and Seth Two." from ron

 

I don't often dream, have rarely meditated and have never used a ouija board (13 years less than you), I guess that's why I'm not seeing the world as it really is.

 

50 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The post you responded to was one in which I gave illustration to, by use of analogies, the typical ways in which folks deal with new ideas that don't fit in with their currently held ideas.

Why would you assume that the subject of this thread is a new idea to me? Why would you assume that my position on the same has not changed over the decades in which I've been aware of it?

 

Admittedly, some of the ideas brought up here are new to me. The use of a ouija board to put me on the right track isn't something I'd considered.

 

In all seriousness, if I must discover and believe in the existence of a Seth to understand your absolute certainty that there is a god, then I will continue to fail, even if Jane's ramblings from Seth are archived at Yale and most certainly if "some" say it's among the most visited documents. Not to say that I don't believe that you believe, but there is little point in us discussing further.

 

Have a great day.

 

[Tippaporn]

5 hours ago, Woof999 said:

10 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

12 hours ago, Hummin said:

And also the spin off SethTalks have created an over the edge dangerous cult among many others, that is not healthy at all. 

  What the f?  Over the edge?  Dangerous?  Cult?  Unhealthy?  Lordy, lordy, it certainly is over the top when anyone makes pronunciations on things they know less than zero about.

Please do elucidate, Hummin.  What evidence do you offer to show that it's dangerous.  And don't give me an opinion.  You've just made a claim that they're dangerous so you must be in possession of solid evidence which supports your claim.

Cult?  Again, provide evidence that this is true.  No opinion.  Evidence only.

 

Unhealthy?  Once again, provide evidence that this is true.  No opinion.  Evidence only.

What do you know about Seth, Hummin?  Let's hear it.  I would hope you have in depth knowledge.  For if you don't you just put your foot in your mouth big time with that load of BS.

You're a pretty good poster, Hummin, and I enjoy your posts.  But this statement is a very surprising embarrassment.

There you go again with your demands for evidence while you ignore calls for the same.

  On the contrary.  I state that you create your own reality as fact.  There is only empirical evidence, which can be backed by solid logic, for that fact.  I've pointed out before that science's methodology is incapable of proving it in such a way that it would satisfy their definition of "fact."  Thoughts are purely subjective and therefore science's methodology, which must deal solely with objective reality, cannot possibly be applied.

I've said often enough that the evidence is all around us.  Evidence to show that one creates their own reality lies within ourselves, rather than outside of ourselves.  That evidence can indeed be obtained but it requires that one look for it.  Once one determines in seriousness to look for it they will find it and be able to connect the dots.

Now some events make it easier to see the evidence that we create our own realities.  If you walk across the room then it's patently obvious that you've created the event.  You start with the thought to do so, you add the desire to do so, you apply the intent to so, you generate the emotive force, you hold the belief that it's possible to do so, and you imagine yourself doing so.  Viola!  You've just created your own reality in which you crossed a room.

Not all events are as easily traced back to the specific thoughts, desires, intentions, beliefs, and imaginings as the above most simplistic example.  Some events are much more complex in nature with much more added to the mix.  And therein lies the rub.  Because of this fact then it appears that some events are brought into being by another process, or perhaps some interceding force - be it God or chance or any other designation given to some outside agency.  Yet the appearance is deceiving and the process which is used to walk across a room is the same process used to create all other events in one's life.

 

One of the complexities is the fact that beliefs do not operate in isolation.  For instance, and I'll simplify, you may have a belief that says the individual is fragile and vulnerable.  You may also hold a subsidiary belief that then concludes that the world is a dangerous place.  Another belief might be that the individual is powerless.  Add another belief in which you believe implicitly in your good health.  And another belief that driving in Thailand is dangerous.

Now let's say you're entertaining thoughts of vulnerability which will naturally produce emotions of fear.  Both thoughts and emotions are composed of energy.  If you entertain these thoughts of fragility and vulnerability long enough and with enough intensity then build up enough energy which begins the process of the manifestation of these ideas from subjective reality to the objective world.  But this manifestation must have a pathway from subjective reality to objective reality.

 

In my simple, but more complex example, when the thoughts of vulnerability and the the emotion of fear they produce begin to seek a pathway to manifestation then the energy will follow the path of least resistance (a scientific fact, no?).  If it attempts to produce a manifestation of illness it will encounter a roadblock.  Your supreme belief in good health manifests that reality so the energy of your other beliefs cannot counter it and express itself through ill health.  As a pathway is continued to be searched for this energy finds the belief that driving in Thailand is dangerous.  That belief is in concert and thus allows the energy generated from the belief in fragility and vulnerability , coupled with the belief that the world is a dangerous place, coupled with the belief in powerless to then flow through it.  Those beliefs of similar nature create the pathway.

 

Let's say an accident follows.  The ideas, while each being themselves unique, attract each other due to the similarity in nature.   They are a match.  Like attracts like.  I believe that, too, is a scientific established fact.  Like attracts like is always in operation when creating reality.

By the way, the specific details of the accident -time, place, severity, injurious or not, etc. - will all be determined by yet other beliefs held by the individual.

The individual then reacts to the accident in perplexed fashion.  Their first thought might be the question of how this happened.  Why it happened.  They can see no apparent link between themselves and the event.  And thus they begin to create explanations, based on yet more beliefs, that it was caused by either the will of God, or pure unfortunate luck, or karma, or as punishment for earlier misdeeds.  All sorts of wild theories will be created in an attempt to explain the event.  And once a particular conclusion is settled upon and adopted it becomes another belief in the guise of "truth."

It would be true to say that I cannot produce the evidence of the truth that we create our own realities for anyone else.  Each individual must provide the evidence which confirms the truth for themselves.  And so I can lead a horse to water but I cannot make them drink.  I can point the way but it is up to each individual to make the effort of understanding.

I've also made the claim, stated as fact, that emotions come from thoughts.  Period.  So, for a very easy exercise which anyone can successfully perform and which would produce evidence of that fact I'd ask each poster to pay attention to what thoughts they're entertaining and the emotions they then feel.  Negative thoughts produce negative emotions.  Positive thoughts create positive emotions.  I'll challenge anyone to be brave enough to make this effort and report back their findings.

 

Again, for the same reasons I gave in the above example of creating one's own reality I cannot produce the evidence that emotions flow from thought for anyone other.  That's the job of each individual.

[Tippaporn]

8 hours ago, Woof999 said:

You are starting to come across as someone who sees themselves as a higher intellect than others and struggles to keep that belief out of their ramblings. Is that you?

LOL.  It's typical of people to say, "What makes you think you're so smart?" when confronted with people who have acquired knowledge which they do not as yet possess.  People love to cut other people down to their size.

As I've said before, my intellect is no greater than that of anyone who posts here.  I have, though, acquired knowledge which others do not as yet possess.  Anyone here can acquire for themselves that same knowledge.  Along with the heightened perception which that knowledge brings.  Don't worry, Woof999.  I'm no more special than you are.  I admit it freely with just as much vigor and sincerity as I use for all of my stances.

[Hummin]

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

  On the contrary.  I state that you create your own reality as fact.  There is only empirical evidence, which can be backed by solid logic, for that fact.  I've pointed out before that science's methodology is incapable of proving it in such a way that it would satisfy their definition of "fact."  Thoughts are purely subjective and therefore science's methodology, which must deal solely with objective reality, cannot possibly be applied.

I've said often enough that the evidence is all around us.  Evidence to show that one creates their own reality lies within ourselves, rather than outside of ourselves.  That evidence can indeed be obtained but it requires that one look for it.  Once one determines in seriousness to look for it they will find it and be able to connect the dots.

Now some events make it easier to see the evidence that we create our own realities.  If you walk across the room then it's patently obvious that you've created the event.  You start with the thought to do so, you add the desire to do so, you apply the intent to so, you generate the emotive force, you hold the belief that it's possible to do so, and you imagine yourself doing so.  Viola!  You've just created your own reality in which you crossed a room.

Not all events are as easily traced back to the specific thoughts, desires, intentions, beliefs, and imaginings as the above most simplistic example.  Some events are much more complex in nature with much more added to the mix.  And therein lies the rub.  Because of this fact then it appears that some events are brought into being by another process, or perhaps some interceding force - be it God or chance or any other designation given to some outside agency.  Yet the appearance is deceiving and the process which is used to walk across a room is the same process used to create all other events in one's life.

 

One of the complexities is the fact that beliefs do not operate in isolation.  For instance, and I'll simplify, you may have a belief that says the individual is fragile and vulnerable.  You may also hold a subsidiary belief that then concludes that the world is a dangerous place.  Another belief might be that the individual is powerless.  Add another belief in which you believe implicitly in your good health.  And another belief that driving in Thailand is dangerous.

Now let's say you're entertaining thoughts of vulnerability which will naturally produce emotions of fear.  Both thoughts and emotions are composed of energy.  If you entertain these thoughts of fragility and vulnerability long enough and with enough intensity then build up enough energy which begins the process of the manifestation of these ideas from subjective reality to the objective world.  But this manifestation must have a pathway from subjective reality to objective reality.

 

In my simple, but more complex example, when the thoughts of vulnerability and the the emotion of fear they produce begin to seek a pathway to manifestation then the energy will follow the path of least resistance (a scientific fact, no?).  If it attempts to produce a manifestation of illness it will encounter a roadblock.  Your supreme belief in good health manifests that reality so the energy of your other beliefs cannot counter it and express itself through ill health.  As a pathway is continued to be searched for this energy finds the belief that driving in Thailand is dangerous.  That belief is in concert and thus allows the energy generated from the belief in fragility and vulnerability , coupled with the belief that the world is a dangerous place, coupled with the belief in powerless to then flow through it.  Those beliefs of similar nature create the pathway.

 

Let's say an accident follows.  The ideas, while each being themselves unique, attract each other due to the similarity in nature.   They are a match.  Like attracts like.  I believe that, too, is a scientific established fact.  Like attracts like is always in operation when creating reality.

By the way, the specific details of the accident -time, place, severity, injurious or not, etc. - will all be determined by yet other beliefs held by the individual.

The individual then reacts to the accident in perplexed fashion.  Their first thought might be the question of how this happened.  Why it happened.  They can see no apparent link between themselves and the event.  And thus they begin to create explanations, based on yet more beliefs, that it was caused by either the will of God, or pure unfortunate luck, or karma, or as punishment for earlier misdeeds.  All sorts of wild theories will be created in an attempt to explain the event.  And once a particular conclusion is settled upon and adopted it becomes another belief in the guise of "truth."

It would be true to say that I cannot produce the evidence of the truth that we create our own realities for anyone else.  Each individual must provide the evidence which confirms the truth for themselves.  And so I can lead a horse to water but I cannot make them drink.  I can point the way but it is up to each individual to make the effort of understanding.

I've also made the claim, stated as fact, that emotions come from thoughts.  Period.  So, for a very easy exercise which anyone can successfully perform and which would produce evidence of that fact I'd ask each poster to pay attention to what thoughts they're entertaining and the emotions they then feel.  Negative thoughts produce negative emotions.  Positive thoughts create positive emotions.  I'll challenge anyone to be brave enough to make this effort and report back their findings.

 

Again, for the same reasons I gave in the above example of creating one's own reality I cannot produce the evidence that emotions flow from thought for anyone other.  That's the job of each individual.

Are you saying  my reality and my view is wrong? Are you living in a different reality than me, self proclaimed and created by your self, that what I sense is wrong? The food I collect and fish in the nature do not exist? 
 

Do I create my reality around me, so everyone (except a few who struggle with serious mental issues such as bipolar one as one example) I know who see the same as me is on another «planet»? 
 

Im stretching myself far here to try to understand why you want your reality to be true? Are you not comfortable among us earthlings? 
 

Your post is to be true to much, and not very informative, because you talk about proof, but provide zero. You are at another level. Sorry

[Tippaporn]

20 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I get the impression that you don't really understand the 'methodology of science'.

I've earlier offered an example in which science's methodology fails.  Never seen you comment on it, though.

 

Here's the crux of your dilemma as I see it, VincentRJ.  You are one who is so thoroughly convinced by the belief that only science can provide valid answers to any question involving reality.  You do not recognise your belief as a belief but rather as a condition of reality.  Therefore it seems inconceivable to you that valid answers can be arrived at by any other means.  And certainly not by anyone not entrenched within the framework of science.  And even more certain that the common man, such as myself, is capable of arriving at valid answers.

I believe that sooner or later you'll understand the fallacies of your beliefs.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Are you saying  my reality and my view is wrong? Are you living in a different reality than me, self proclaimed and created by your self, that what I sense is wrong? The food I collect and fish in the nature do not exist? 
 

Do I create my reality around me, so everyone (except a few who struggle with serious mental issues such as bipolar one as one example) I know who see the same as me is on another «planet»? 
 

Im stretching myself far here to try to understand why you want your reality to be true? Are you not comfortable among us earthlings? 
 

Your post is to be true to much, and not very informative, because you talk about proof, but provide zero. You are at another level. Sorry

Reality is what it is.  It functions as it does.  It is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's personal beliefs about what it is or how it functions.  Personal beliefs do not change the nature of reality one whit.

Now that's a basic premise.  And a true one.  And so it goes without saying that there will  be many folks who will have beliefs about reality and how it functions that simply are not a true reflection of true reality.  In other words, they're wrong.  Are we now promoting the establishment of inclusiveness on this thread where everyone gets to be right?

 

Your reality is the reality you create, as is mine and everyone else's, and it is as valid as any other reality.  Your beliefs regarding reality create your particular version it.  Within limits, of course.  I therefore do not attempt to negate your experienced reality.  Again, it has validity.  However, I do disagree with your ideas of what reality is and how it functions.  Do you see the difference?

 

Now I do not at all insist that my version of reality is true because of the sole reason that I want it to be true.  That would be fooling myself, which I'm not in the habit of doing.  I insist that it's true because of the fact that it is true.  You might not like that answer and wish it to be wrong because you want it to be wrong.

 

You might recall that in an earlier post of mine I stated that one of the mass beliefs which most subscribe to is the idea that no one can know the truth.  And anyone making such a claim is a liar.  This idea is pretty much at the heart of what your post is about.  You don't believe that the common man is capable of divining the truth about reality for themselves.  So I must be a liar.  Or possessed of some higher intellect.  Or existing on another level.  Those conclusions are all pure nonsense.

Was my post not very informative or do you have obstacles preventing you from understanding it?  Which is it?  For I guarantee that it makes a whole lot of sense to a whole lot of people out there in the world.  So what would be your trouble?  I've posted yesterday, or the day before, analogies which help illustrate the barriers people create for themselves which inhibit growth and understanding.  You might want to reread that post and ask yourself, with utmost self honesty, whether or not any of those analogies would apply to you.

 

I've stated in the post you quoted that the evidence of truth must come from within yourself.  I can find it in myself and I can help you find the evidence within yourself by pointing you in a specific direction.  But again, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.  You're about as stubborn as horses come. 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Woof999 said:

Please let me get this straight. On a post asking if people believe in supernatural powers, you're asking me to disprove that Jane Roberts' ouija board relationship with a real entity called Seth was in fact something else? I'll get round to that once I disprove the existence of elves in my quest to disprove the existence of unicorns.

I am not aware of any post by anyone asking people to believe in supernatural powers.  And it certainly wouldn't be coming from me.  If you do want to claim, or insinuate, that it was me then you'll have an impossible time trying to find the post on demand because it doesn't exist.  I believe you're making this up.  If you're claiming it was me then I know you're making it up.

 

I've asked you nothing of the sort.  I know you're making this up.  I caught you declaring that you know something of which you know nothing and rather than admit it you're covering it up.  The cover up is always worse than the crime.

 

So far everything you said is a complete distortion and/or fabrication.

 

2 hours ago, Woof999 said:

..but where is Seth. has there been any more contact since Jane Roberts? According to this site: It's on the internet so it must be real we have these gems

Now you're trying to pull a fast one.  You know as well as i know and as well as anyone here knows that you can find anything you want on the Internet.  So you purposely went to what might be a legitimate site about Seth (I don't claim to know since I haven't checked it out myself), picked out of it the most bizarre posts you could find (and you know damn well that even highly legitimate sites can have comments from nutjobs on it), and then use those posts to frame Seth in a derogatory light.  Your post is a deliberate, frame-job hit piece.  And buddy, it's deceptive to the max.  You must seriously think I'm stupid to not recognise what you're doing.  I mean stupid stupid.  I know of some legacy main stream news outlets who would hire you on the spot.
 

2 hours ago, Woof999 said:

. . . but there is little point in us discussing further.

Given the thorough dishonesty of your post then in the end we do agree on something.  Except perhaps a minor point.  Rather than "little point" I would substitute "totally worthless."

[Hummin]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Reality is what it is.  It functions as it does.  It is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's personal beliefs about what it is or how it functions.  Personal beliefs do not change the nature of reality one whit.

Now that's a basic premise.  And a true one.  And so it goes without saying that there will  be many folks who will have beliefs about reality and how it functions that simply are not a true reflection of true reality.  In other words, they're wrong.  Are we now promoting the establishment of inclusiveness on this thread where everyone gets to be right?

 

Your reality is the reality you create, as is mine and everyone else's, and it is as valid as any other reality.  Your beliefs regarding reality create your particular version it.  Within limits, of course.  I therefore do not attempt to negate your experienced reality.  Again, it has validity.  However, I do disagree with your ideas of what reality is and how it functions.  Do you see the difference?

 

Now I do not at all insist that my version of reality is true because of the sole reason that I want it to be true.  That would be fooling myself, which I'm not in the habit of doing.  I insist that it's true because of the fact that it is true.  You might not like that answer and wish it to be wrong because you want it to be wrong.

 

You might recall that in an earlier post of mine I stated that one of the mass beliefs which most subscribe to is the idea that no one can know the truth.  And anyone making such a claim is a liar.  This idea is pretty much at the heart of what your post is about.  You don't believe that the common man is capable of divining the truth about reality for themselves.  So I must be a liar.  Or possessed of some higher intellect.  Or existing on another level.  Those conclusions are all pure nonsense.

Was my post not very informative or do you have obstacles preventing you from understanding it?  Which is it?  For I guarantee that it makes a whole lot of sense to a whole lot of people out there in the world.  So what would be your trouble?  I've posted yesterday, or the day before, analogies which help illustrate the barriers people create for themselves which inhibit growth and understanding.  You might want to reread that post and ask yourself, with utmost self honesty, whether or not any of those analogies would apply to you.

 

I've stated in the post you quoted that the evidence of truth must come from within yourself.  I can find it in myself and I can help you find the evidence within yourself by pointing you in a specific direction.  But again, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.  You're about as stubborn as horses come. 

Well, stubborn? Me? ????

 

How do you look at yourself? I'm more curious about how you did find your way in to this theology or theological theory. Where you where in life, and why you where  converted? 

 

I did listen to Osho when I needed some answers, but did not really fall in to it, as many others.

 

I feel more connected to science theories to be true.

 

Right now following two channels of different level of feeds.

 

https://bigthink.com/

 

https://www.veritasium.com/

 

 

And trust me, I really did give Seth a try, and did look in to it as much I could. Little bit I knew from before, and did see if there where possible to look at it in new light.

 

I doesn't say science is the answer for everything, but I believe we need science in our daily life's,and for the moment alot more interesting than anything else

[Woof999]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I am not aware of any post by anyone asking people to believe in supernatural powers

This whole thread is about a supernatural being with supernatural powers.

 

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I know you're making this up.

You appear to know many things that I would disagree with.

 

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I caught you declaring that you know something of which you know nothing and rather than admit it you're covering it up.  The cover up is always worse than the crime.

You did?

 

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So far everything you said is a complete distortion and/or fabrication.

That is your opinion.

 

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now you're trying to pull a fast one.  You know as well as i know and as well as anyone here knows that you can find anything you want on the Internet.  So you purposely went to what might be a legitimate site about Seth (I don't claim to know since I haven't checked it out myself), picked out of it the most bizarre posts you could find

I Googled "has anyone else spoken to jane roberts seth" and visited one of the very first sites in the first page of the results. The comments I quoted were at the top of the first page, something you would know if you'd done any research, which is exactly what you seem to be accusing me and others of not doing.

 

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

(and you know damn well that even highly legitimate sites can have comments from nutjobs on it)

Rather ironic.

 

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You must seriously think I'm stupid to not recognise what you're doing.  I mean stupid stupid

That was not my first thought.

 

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I know of some legacy main stream news outlets who would hire you on the spot.

If they pay more than $175k per annum then please pass on their details, but I would need to work remotely and maybe get a work permit?

 

I thought the "Have a great day." ending to my previous post might at least calm you.

 

Have a great day.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I've earlier offered an example in which science's methodology fails.  Never seen you comment on it, though.

 

I can't remember reading it, probably because your posts are so long. I can't think of any example where the 'methodology of science' has failed, but there are numerous examples where the 'methodology of science' has not been applied with sufficient rigour, and numerous examples where erroneous assumptions have been made due to insufficient data and evidence, and/or incorrect interpretation of the data.

 

For example, Isaac Newton's theory of gravity implied that the universe should be in a state of collapse, as each body exterts an attractive force on every other body (star and planet). At that time, however, there was no evidence that the universe was either expanding or contracting, so an assuption was made that the stars in the universe were static, and that God was keeping them static, against the laws of gravity. In those days the only observed galaxy was the Milky Way.

 

When Edwin Hubble, using more powerful telescopes, discovered there were other galaxies in the universe and observed, due to the doppler effect (redshift), that the farther apart galaxies are from each other, the faster they move away from each other, it became apparet that the universe is expanding. 

 

It is the application of the 'methodology of science', in conjunction with new and more sophisticated tools and devices, which allows the discovery of errors that are frequently made during scientific enquiry. Got it? ????
 

[Elad]

On 9/19/2022 at 1:34 PM, Tippaporn said:

When the original life form made it's first jump what was it to?  And what was it's next jump?  And so on.  If you can't  get that specific then how about a jump from one species to the creation of an entirely new species?  Since there's no fossil records to show this definitive transmutation could you at least illustrate the metamorphosis?

In evolution there are no sudden jumps from one species to another, its a gradual process of small incremental steps over thousands and millions of years. There never was a first of any species, just like there never was a first human. There was never a moment where a Homo erectus mother gave birth to a Homo sapien child, it doesn't work like that. It's analogous to how a human grows old from a baby to child, adult to middle aged or middle aged to an old man, There's never a moment, you don't go to bed a middle aged man then wake up in the morning an old man, but if you wait a sufficient number of years you become old. That's how evolution works but now we are talking about thousands and millions of years and it's very hard to grasp those time scales.