A god not bound by space and time


Most likely doesn’t exist!

It is my contention that this post is built on premises that cannot be demonstrated, outright lies and logical fallacies. It seeks to answer

If there is a God, why don’t we see, hear or touch Him?

They tell us

But the answer defies human logic, reasoning and experience.

In simple speak, they are saying the question is unanswerable. One would think they would stop there, but no, they have much more to say.

I argue, we cannot speak of anything that defies logic (it makes no sense qualifying logic as human for that’s all we know), reasoning and experience. For where would we start? We will be in the realm of absurdities where fronkeys are the queens of the jungle and where sense doesn’t rule.

The authors of the article claim, relying on two verses only that

The God of the Bible, however, dwells in a different dimension—the spirit realm—beyond the natural perception of our physical senses.

A statement contradicted by the very bible. For example, when it is written Moses saw the hind side of god, it was a physical behind for what else would he be speaking of? When Adam and Eve are said to be hiding from YHWH, it’s not from a spirit they are hiding and there are several examples one would find in the bible that would demonstrate my point. In passing, I can include the verse, I think, in John that says no one can see me and live. This is not, in my view, talking about something spiritual, whatever that means, but about something physical, material that has extension.

A lot has been written about the non-existence of Jesus that I need not rehash it here. The empty tomb was the subject of this blog. Those who talk about the existence of Jesus should tell us what he did at age 15, 25, or even 27. Or are we to believe he was born, was 12 years, then 30 years and committed suicide at 33?

Genesis that talks about the creation of the world doesn’t talk about a creation ex nihilo. The most we can get from Genesis 1 is that god created the earth. In all instances when humans talk about creating something, the only meaning we give to the word is modification of what already is. We have no conception of a “creation out of nothing”. It is empty of meaning.

The authors write

Many people reject the Bible, the Gospels in particular, because it describes many miraculous occurrences—dramatic healings, resurrections, fire from heaven and spectacular visions, to name a few. They believe these things are impossible because they defy human experience and the laws that govern our physical existence. They thus conclude that biblical accounts of such things cannot be true.

And one is tempted to ask, have they read the old testament where donkeys talk, trumpets bring down walls, one man kills 1000 with a jaw bone, lights fire to the tails of 200+ foxes that he has managed to tie their tails together, the people brought back to life by Elijah, to name just a few! I defer to Jean Messlier’s argument against miracles, but I prefer this by Mark Twain,

The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.

One can also refer to Walter Cassel’s response to Dr. Lightfoot  on miracles which can be found here.

In the paragraph below,

Regrettably, they fail to consider that God the Father and Jesus Christ can operate beyond the bounds of the physical laws that govern the universe. A God who can bring the universe into existence can certainly perform miracles such as those found in the Scriptures!

the authors are again making things up. There is no where in scripture, unless in reference to so-called miraculous feats, which are in themselves doubtful, does the bible talk of god acting out of the laws of nature. It is worth noting also, that to the writers of the bible, they do not refer to the vast universe as we have come to regard it. They know only of the earth around them and it is for this reason, the earth was created when the Sumerians were already in existence. Most creationists believe the earth is 6000+ years old or thereabouts. To believe in an old earth, they have to eschew the bible’s teachings and adopt that which geology has shown.

To their final question,

Where does this leave us?

I will answer, contrary to their claim that

“Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”!

we must demand an answer from deity to believe. The theist has told us the price of disbelief, a grave a crime, is eternal damnation. This subject cannot be treated lightly. The theist has their work set out for them.

It is however important to note the following,

  1. the bible does not tell us what god is
  2. the bible doesn’t talk about a god existing out of time and space
  3. the bible doesn’t talk of creation ex nihilo

and finally, I agree with P. Shelley B, when he writes and I quote

 

god is a hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof; the onus probandi rests on the theist.

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

259 thoughts on “A god not bound by space and time

  1. jim- says:

    It does rest on them but they won’t allow it! They are more concerned with appearing to be right than knowing the truth. That would wreck their infallible nature of the Bible. Scientific method and scrutiny or “falsifiability ” should be SOP for any body of work. Especially a myth with the impact of the Bible.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. John Faupel says:

    Why ask the question ‘Why?’.
    The so-called ‘thinking’ part of the mind is premised on their being some kind of rational about nature (including our own), that it behaves according to rules or laws embedded in it and we need to find them.
    It is often overlooked that the ‘feeling’ part of our mind is not premised on anything, it has no interest in trying to understand anything but has evolved to respond positively or negatively to its ever-changing environmental experiences and, just like other species of flora and fauna, it has done this by chance adaption fairly successfully for millions of years.
    Our own problems began when we started to recognise our selves doing this and ‘thinking’ we could do a better job than chance evolution, without realising all a priori thoughts are inescapably premised on a posteriori experiences.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Is the thinking and feeling different? I think I am happy, so I am happy. I think I am sad and I am sad? Is this not how it goes? It is not possible, in my view to think yourself happy while feeling sad.

      Like

    • Swarn Gill says:

      Your separation of the brain into think and feeling is not something that is supported by modern neuroscience. This categorization might be helpful in some studies, but our thinking and feeling are bound together. The brain does both at the same time and there is communication between them. Let’s say I told you some story that I claimed was factual. However it goes against what you know of the world, you will experience doubt. Now is that doubt in the feeling or thinking part of your brain? It’s likely a bit of both. Also is it not rational to feel fear if an angry tiger is on your path? Is it not rational to be happy when your child is overjoyed opening presents on Christmas morning? Is it not rational to be angry when someone betrays you? You don’t really need neuroscience to tell you that are feeling and thinking parts of our brain work in concert together.

      Our emotions evolved with purpose and thus they must primarily be rational in their function. While we might say a child is being irrational at feeling fear at ghosts because they don’t exist, from their point of view, they have conjured ghosts as real, and thus fear them rationally. The premise that ghosts exists is false. The thinking part of the brain can often create entire chains of excellent logic based on a false premise. The premise that God exists, and that he exists outside physical time and space, is the source of all the argumentation that Mak quotes here, and what follows from this untested premise would be perfectly sensible if the premise were true. But people gain all sorts of rational feelings as a result of believing in the truth of that premise. And believing something to be true with no empirical evidence to support or non-fallacious argument to support it, is also a feeling. People feel something is a fact. Thinking and feeling cannot be unwoven in the way that you describe.

      Liked by 1 person

    • unproven dualism and ignorance about evolution. I would guess that John is a Christian who uses willful ignorance.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. nasimolo says:

    It is great that you say God may even not exist, a good place to start because you allow the possibility that he exists.
    Why don’t we see, hear or touch God? We can actually see a glimpse of him, hear him and touch a part of him (him/her doesn’t apply as he he is beyond us, all are within)
    How do we find him?
    We can use many tools, some of which you have mentioned i.e logic, reasoning and experience. But we should keep in mind that we can’t always use all the tools at the same time. Take logic for example, at the frontier of knowledge, logic can’t be the best tool. Take flying as an example, by use of logic, it was not possible to fly because there was the law of gravity. Simply put, logic is an excellent tool with hindsight, but not always the best when it comes to new frontiers. So sometimes it is best to suspend logic (not consiousness).
    The best tool is personal experience and discovery. We can all experience Gods nature as we are part of his own existence and we can even break the time and space loop. We just need to discover the tools and test for ourselves.

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      Personal experience is subjective and one who has not had the experience cannot be expected to believe on based on the claims of another.
      We have not experienced god in any form that I know of. We have had experience and attributed them to god. Two distinct things; we are projecting our very natural experiences to something we can neither experience nor know.
      Even in flying we can’t suspend logic. It is through logic- here I mean mathematics- that we are able to fly.
      Why can’t experience god? Simple. it doesn’t exist

      Liked by 3 people

      • Tish Farrell says:

        That’s a great Shelley quote, and like the clarity of your response here. But apart from the great debate, how are you, dear Mak? Wishing you all the best for 2018.

        Like

      • nasimolo says:

        Experience is subjective to others, not to the person having the experience. My premise is that you can test it yourself to have the experience, not to base our beliefs entirely on the experience of others. You use them as indicators and try to verify if it is indeed true.

        The flight logic (maths) comes after, not before.

        Natural laws are diverse, one law supersedes the other but doesn’t cancel it. We can only master one law when we discover and use a higher law.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          The person having the experience can only describe it subjectively, not objectively because this person is both object and subject. Would you care to give an example of an experience that would lead us to deduce that was the act of deity?

          Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Language can be a hinderance in explaining deep experiences to others. Do you dream at night? That can be a good start to not only show the illusion of time and space, but also have an experience of deity. The simplest can be having a dream about a place or events and forget about it, as it mostly happens. Later in future you physically get to a place or an event and get a feeling that it is a repeat of a past event, or that the place looks familiar yet its your first time being in that place. Any such experience?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Yes, I concede language can be a hindrance in explaining things to others.
            Dreams, occur in time and space but in a state of subconscious. You never have a dream that is unbounded.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Well, the subconscious is the other part of you . In dreams you are unbounded by space and time. But have you ever had the experience I asked? If yes, would you like to explain

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I have given this some thought and the conclusion is that whenever I have a sense of de javu, the event or place is a mix of several disparate pieces of data gathered and stored in the subconscious.

            Liked by 1 person

          • nasimolo says:

            Be more keen on it and follow it keenly, the subconsious is that part of you that transcends space and time. It is able to travel in the past present and future within certain limits. That de javu moment is when you catch it

            Like

        • Swarn Gill says:

          Deja vu can be explained scientifically. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-babble/201208/the-neuroscience-d-j-vu

          And you are incorrect…the equations that would make flight possible were known well before we made the first airplane. Were their people before that, that dreamed of flying machines? I’m quite certain that was the case, but where did they get their inspiration? Birds? Other flying objects? If so then there is some “known” thing that inspires the investigation of something known. A dream? Perhaps, but to suggest that things we know don’t influence our dreams would be incorrect. Also how does that in any way suggest that our subjective imaginings represent any kind of truth? For one dream that was made true there are many more than do not come true. To suggest that in hindsight that a dream represented an unconscious way of divining how things worked is dishonest. The fact that we can imagine possibilities that are at least based on some things we know to be true hardly represents truth, it only represents a path to follow in which may or may not reveal useful results.

          Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Dreams are the realm of getting to the truth, but like any other science in there is an aspect of observers effect.
            Our daily physical lives create our perception /reality and the more we are aware of it, the better we are able to control/direct that influence. That’s why what is true in the physical realm is also very subjective what some refer to as our tunnels of reality

            Like

          • Swarn Gill says:

            Dreams are the realm of getting to the truth

            This is just a belief. There is no science behind this claim. Dreams are a necessary part of the sleep cycle. They can represent many things possible and impossible. They can represent what you are feeling, what is happening to you in your life, what you are worried or anxious about. There is nothing specifically important about the content of dreams. If a dream happens to lead you in some meaningful direction that’s great, but there is no evidence that this is what dreams are trying to do, or that everyone experiences dreams in such a way.

            And just the objective reality is quite different than what any one of us actually perceiving, but that does not mean that any personal experience is real. The blue that I see may be different than the blue you see, but we can still agree that there is a very narrow range of wavelength being sensed by our eyes and processed by our brains. This doesn’t mean we can’t have pure hallucinatory experiences that have no basis in reality whatsoever. One can deprive themselves of sleep and see all sorts of things that aren’t real.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            That tells you there is something right there, you can’t explain it away. One can choose to pursue it and see where it leads, it’s personal inquiry. Yes, our minds can create illusions, but that doesn’t negate it’s ability to find truth. Those who know this walk use it in mind control. Someone said that frontier science is magical, and that is true because regular science has hasn’t accepted edgy science

            Like

          • Swarn Gill says:

            There is no regular science and edgy science. There is science.

            Of course minds can find truth, that doesn’t mean that’s what dreaming is about. Nor does it mean that it is the best way to find truth. Again I can make a 1000 predictions of what will be possible 100 years from now. If 10 of them are right does that mean my mind was exceptionally good at finding the truth, or just that I was lucky? Again you simply ignore all the false intuitions the mind has all the time. Without a systematic method for investigating, imaginings are just imaginings and nothing more. They don’t represent truth.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            In theory no, but in practice their is. There are various strategies used to curtail edgy science

            Like

      • Nan says:

        We have had experience and attributed them to god.

        Bingo!

        Like

    • Swarn Gill says:

      at the frontier of knowledge, logic can’t be the best tool

      This statement here seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of how we acquire new knowledge. Philosophy, which includes logic at it’s core, was historically at the frontier of knowledge in all fields. It was “the” tool for actually increasing our understanding. Yes sometimes knowledge was incomplete, but that’s not a failure of logic, that’s simply not knowing all the pieces of the puzzle to reach the proper conclusion. Logic through mathematics can lead us to conclusions which we have no application for. We can also not reach a logical conclusion based on incorrect assumptions or lack of information. Your example here is a poor one, because if somebody used gravity as the only reason for concluding that flight was not possible, this would be a poor use of logic. Because we observe birds flying and they are subject to the same physical laws. If gravity is not a barrier to them, then there has to be some other reason why we cannot fly. We could also use logic to say, though my claws are not as sharp as a bear’s, I can make a tool that is as sharp as a bear’s claw. Thus it might also be possible for me to create something that allows me to simulate flight. Many hunter-gatherers developed aerodynamic weapons like boomerangs that certainly stayed in the air for long periods of time so it would have been logical to think that something of the right material and shape could also stay airborne and may also be able to hold a human being. In fact logic often dictates what is possible, before we have the technological means to do so. The Bernoulli principle which explains how flight is possible was discovered in 1738. Long before the first flight.

      As Mak says, personal experience is subjective it in no way represents truth. At best personal experience is a means of inspiration for further investigation, and many scientists have used these feelings about what might be true to produce great work. But from a historical perspective we only learn about the intuition that was right. We don’t see how many wrong intuitions they had and scrapped because logic and experimentation could not be reconciled once they started to investigate more carefully. We know that scientists do this all the time. We know that hypotheses are frequently disproven after experimentation. Thus feelings and intuitions are more often wrong than right. This is what science and logic are for. Anything true may be felt, but to be more than just true for that individual must be demonstrable through science and logic.

      Liked by 2 people

      • nasimolo says:

        But logic couldn’t allow us to fathom anything greater than bird’s flying. Logic is used when we have something to hold onto, sometimes that thing is not tangible and we call that illogic because it is more of a gut feeling. Science only catches up and says it’s logical when it is has been made tangible. The general population captured by science dwells on logic, which relies on material evidence and downplaying personal inward experience which is the starting point of all things. Look at the great innovators, they pushed knowledge at the frontiers some of which current science haven’t accepted because they have been unable to replicate.

        Like

        • Swarn Gill says:

          I do not deny the value of personal experiences, only I put personal experiences in the context they belong. I have never said that personal experiences aren’t important or that they don’t sometimes reveal true things about the world. But you ignore the entirety of my argument here, which is that these personal experiences don’t necessarily reveal truths about the world, many intuitions are false. As I already said history remembers the successes, but doesn’t depict any scientist’s many failures and incorrect intuitions about how things work.

          Extrapolation is not an invalid logical argument, but it is probabilistic in nature. Extrapolating far beyond what data reveal can more often lead to errors, but to suggest that our imaginings are not anchored to some knowledge that is more widely accepted would be incorrect. Einstein for all his genius could simply not have done what he did if it wasn’t for the work of many scientists before him. He certainly had a launch point that involved things that were known.

          Furthermore there are numerous examples of logic reaching conclusions that at the time had no practical applications. Mathematics certainly has the ability to describe things that are possible which have not been personally experienced or measured. Ancient India worked out the sine, cosine and tangent functions long before they had any practical use. They saw beauty in many mathematical relationships that they didn’t know how to apply and encoded it into their poetry. Radon transforms were developed in 1917, but they didn’t find application until about 50 years later. Logic absolutely has the ability to lead us in new directions. Analyzing evidence to reach new conclusions is a pretty integral part of learning and investigation, how do we do this if not for logic. Intuition is guesswork, sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. Your personal truth might have value to you, but says nothing about whether it is true objectively.

          Liked by 1 person

          • nasimolo says:

            Personal experience should be Paramount for us to determine the truth, we can’t outsource that to others especially in the current times when making the buck is what matters to most. We can get the idea and try to test it ourselves or with a close circle of friends. What may happen is that in our attempt to run away from religious dogma, we go straight into the hands of science dogma

            Like

          • Swarn Gill says:

            We can’t out source personal experience to others…that I agree…but what does that have to do with determining truth, other than what is true for ourselves? We can test some things, but in the end we have to rely on the expertise of others since there is not enough time to test all things ourselves. I have no need to experience the workings of circuitry to trust that someone knows how it works. As a result I’m able to use my computer.

            Running away from religious dogma in no way means I have to rely on scientific dogma. Not sure exactly what you mean by that anyway. Are you referring to the scientific method? I think that’s a much more reliable thing to believe in. It’s probably worth our time to run towards something that works better than something that is unreliable. We can still have personal experiences that are meaningful, but we don’t have to expect others to find them meaningful. I can enjoy chocolate ice cream, but I don’t expect all people to feel the same joy eating chocolate ice cream, or ice cream in general. Personal feelings of spiritual elation are fine, but they in no way imply that what you are experiencing represents some sort of universal truth. It’s physiological. There is nothing magical about it, even if you perceive it to be so. Continue to take pieces of your brain away and spiritual experiences will soon cease to exist along with yourself.

            Liked by 1 person

          • nasimolo says:

            Physiology is in the physical world, same with brain. Higher perceptions where personal experience is valuable is beyond body the physical and is thought to be louder when brain is silenced. That’s why even when the body I silenced under anaesthesia, some patients can still witness their own surgery

            Like

          • Swarn Gill says:

            There are no “higher perceptions”, everything is processed by the brain. Being under anesthesia doesn’t turn off the brain. Without a brain there are no ‘higher perceptions’. I encourage you to remove someone’s brain and then monitor to them for spiritual experiences.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            There is a difference between brain or mind. Brain can go silent while the mind is still running. If the brain doesn’t go silent one would still feel pain under anaesthesia

            Like

          • Swarn Gill says:

            No, the brain and mind are two different things. This is made up. The brain is absolutely not silent while you are under anesthesia. There is all sorts of brain activity going on. If there wasn’t all your body functions would stop. Sorry it’s clear that you believe in some brand of mystical nonsense and I have no desire to continue this conversation. Believe what you will, but there is no evidence to support your claims. And if you don’t want evidence, that’s fine, but keep your personal beliefs personal.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Thats ok, no offense taken. And I am not offering person belief’s, I was pointing out areas commonly reported and easily perceived by anyone, and points to something beyond what we are used to. That was evidence, which you tried to explain the way you understand it. Telepathy and extrasensory perception are well established phenomenon, science either refutes or downplays it.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I am not sure of what you mean by science dogma when the very claim of science is that all its answers are provisional and open to revision. Dogma is static. The only thing I see the catholic church do is add a prayer here or there but never change dogma

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Science is a great tool but can also be used to hinder progress. The dogma of mainstream science stops scientific. Certain phenomenon are brushed aside simply because science can’t explain them, or doesn’t want them mainstreamed thus stops their inquiry. In a new phenomenon science should study that phenomenon openly. But what we see is that the phenomenon is refuted and every new report of the same are dismissed without even engaging in inquiry. Let’s not forget that science sometimes inquiry in those areas and maligns scientists who who insist on it’s persuit. That is no different from the action of the organized religion you point out.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Science has studied claims of NDEs, efficacy of prayer and I don’t know what else. I would like to know what branch of knowledge science has hindered progress in while religion has advanced it.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            My worry is when science shows religious tendencies of curtailing inquiry while secretly conducting the same. Organized religion curtailed reading of the Bible while those at the helm were reading it. Maligned sciences are still secretly being conducted by those stopping it

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            These studies have been conducted openly. And the John Templeton Foundation has been splashing money to reconcile science and religion and it has failed.
            I don’t know of any maligned science

            Like

    • I would like to point out at the outset that your example regarding flying isn’t accurate. The Wright Brothers – among many others working in the field of aerodynamics at the time – used logic and empiricism to create functioning aircraft. They didn’t shrug and say, “Well, gravity exists so we’ll stick to bicycles.” Instead, they applied principles of scientific inquiry and created an airplane.

      To your greater point regarding experience and discovery, I think you’re making too much out of subjective perception. People are not entitled to personal facts when talking about matters which govern reality. If that were the case, it means anyone can simply wish fantasy into existence.

      Like

      • nasimolo says:

        Many people of couldn’t accept flying anything bigger than a bird was possible, logic is a tool and sad that it most often used as the gate keeper in the search of deeper answer’s.
        Facts are based on the level of perception, we generally accept what we can perceive by our physical senses ascfact, only to discards that same fact when we get acquire more knowledge. What we generally have as facts is collective consensus, that shouldn’t be reason to deny possibility of higher facts that some few people may indicate. Doubt is essential at first, but we should be with test the possibility of it’s existence. Let’s remember that we derive data that establishes facts, with more advanced tools and techniques we are able to discards old facts

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          You are right on the point that with better tools, we get better data. Religionists have been going on about their religions for thousands of years. They have not produced any knowledge to date.

          Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Well, if you are keen you will see that there is lots of discovery from the deep nature. Religions have their own problems, that shouldn’t stop us from inquiring about the unknown world. Don’t throw everything out because it sounds religious, it is not, infact some of the phenomenon are fought by organized religion and mainstream science

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Science is investigating UFOs.
            Religion has reared its ugly head in stem cell research. I am not sure, my friend, what you mean by deep nature.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Mainstream science makes conclusions and demands everybody believes it, but even within science there are those who keep pointing errors or follow a different line of thought but are shut down, that’s when science becomes dogmatic.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            You don’t have to believe string theory. Nothing will be done to you. I don’t know of who has been shut down. One of the fields of inquiry that has had so much heat is evolution and mainly from creationists who have a problem with imagining man descended from higher animals. In other fields not so much.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Nobody stops anybody from believing, true. But inquiry is curtail to some level. Questions have been raised about evolution even within science, the problem is dismissing such question

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            They have not been dismissed. They have been responded to. Unless you have one that has been dismissed

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            That start and current state of evolution are still not water tight. How did it start from nothing and how come some lower animals still exist? Isn’t evolution survival for the fittest, how comes those that didn’t evolve still exist?

            Like

          • keithnoback says:

            “If we cum frum munkies how cum thers still munkies?”
            Holy shit.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            evolution doesn’t seek to answer the question about origins.
            no where does the theory say because evolution takes place, some animals are to be extinct

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            I thought that is what Darwin’s work (The origin of specie’s) sought to answer. Then what does evolution seek to answer?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            No. Origin of life, whatever that means is not observable. Evolution works with what has been observed or found to make deductions on how life has progressed.
            The question of beginnings is the purview of abiogenesis

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Abiogenesis is the strand that Darwinists take to link to the beginning similar to the big bang. That shows lack of clear explanation about the beginning of life. What is observed in evolution is correct, but the deductions are highly debatable. In general, different species share some common features, whether physical or genetic, but that in no way does it mean that they all evolved from a single species.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, at least, as I see it.
            The Big Bang does not explain the beginning of the universe.
            Why, if they share common features, would it be a stretch to deduce they have evolved from a common ancestor?

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            It actually does if you look at it keenly, it would show the origin of the first cell from non living matter and the subsequent evolution to complex multicellular organisms. That deduction is a possibility, yet it is also a possibility that they have nothing to do with same origin. We have to allow and test all possible deductions

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            life from non life would be a metaphysical position that science can only postulate but not answer definitively.
            All answers in science are provisional meaning if you have a better explanation for observed phenomena, give it a go. Saying we must leave room for other explanations but not giving these explanations is not sufficient

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Creation/ higher intelligent deity is the alternative that attempts to explain the similar features between species, thought to be the signature of a common designer. By deduction both theories are possible

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            That, unfortunately is not an alternative. It tells us nothing. The existence of deity, what deity is has not been answered.
            Besides the above problem, how many deities are we talking about if we are going to make inference from design. The person who designs a car is not the same who designs a watch. So do we have a creator for elephants, another for octopus and so on?

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            It is an alternative and it was infact the leaving theory before evolution came to rival it. Thatvwhich man hasn’t created is attributed to deity, infact, man observes that which is nature to inspire his creation, that is what science is all about. It is a collorary then that if man can design and organize his life with such beauty and complexity, that which is above man and creates nature, is super intelligent. How does evolution explain the existence of intelligent design and control of nature?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            No, you are wrong on this in many levels.
            Creationism is not a theory. There are no body of facts to support it.
            All the things man designs have an end. We can not say deity has designed man without knowing what ends.
            Intelligence is about perception. And judgement. We call a person intelligent if their judgement following observe is reasonable. We cannot say this of deity for we don’t know what they are .
            That people attributed to deity things before is only a case of argument from ignorance. Besides not every one did. Democritus among others was a naturalist.
            Why do you think nature is controlled? Or rather, what is your understanding of nature?

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Nature to me is what everything in the world (except man made), we mainly think of it as what physically exists, but we now know that there is that which we can’t see or touch which is what controls nature. Nature is controlled because it acts through cycles, seasons etc, it is not a random or haphazard occurrence. Does it control itself? Possibly, just like a computer can self execute certain functions, but even that requires higher programming. As I said in an earlier post, what we call it is not the issue, it is the awareness that something greater than man exists, by whatever name one chooses.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Everything that exists, does so in nature. There’s nothing we know that exists out of nature. As such talk about of nature being controlled is not reasonable

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            True I everything exists in nature, but some a man’s creation. Their are natural things and artificial/synthetic. How can you explain how life exists/function in nature? Is man the most advanced creator?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            All the things man makes are from naturally occurring substances. He creates nothing from without.
            It would be a mistake to think of man in anyway more than just an animal able to do this or that

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            No doubt its from nature because the fundamental material is the same, but without man’s action, this unique combination of matter into things would not occur. So what causes the combination of matter into the things we find naturally including man himself?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Nature itself does that for everything is bounded within it. When a human acts, it is in nature. When a radioactive element decays, it is a natural act

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            That doesnt explain how complex combination of matter results without mans effort. If the things man creates are cant be out of randomness, those things in nature that are not man made are also not as a result of randomness. If man creates, then he is not the only one with that capability, for we have evidence of more complicated things that he hasn’t created

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Why would you put a limit to what nature can come up with?

            Like

        • the usual woo-rific nonsense that so many people try to validate. No evidence, just hand waving and trying to sound “deep”. Facts are not based on perception. Facts are facts. You don’t get to have your own little reality so you can feel important.

          Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Facts are facts yes, but what you personally haven’t seen doesnt mean in non existent. You can’t then downplay a fact of ones experience because you don’t ‘see’ it. Similar to ‘if the referee did not see it, it didn’t happen’. Not all facts can be physically demonstrated.

            Like

          • I can indeed downplay the baseless claims by someone like you who wants to make claims and then provide no evidence that their “personal experience” is anything more than a personal fantasy.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Well, I am yet to hear your version. deity is that which is assumed to create the world. If man creates things, why should we assume that he is the only one with this capacity. Isn’t what we find in nature more complex in design and function that what man creates? So where do the things in nature come from?

            Like

          • I don’t make up bullshit to make myself feel special. Nasi, where is your evidence such an entity exists, much less has done what you claim? All you have is a really bad version of the “first cause” argument.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            It is a possible deduction. So to you, natures created itself

            Like

          • I don’t know. The evidence points that way. Now where is your evidence to support your claims?

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            What evidence suggests that?

            Like

          • physics. This question is why willful ignorance is the last refuge of someone who wants to pretend magic exists. Do you know anything about the sciences, Nasi?

            Liked by 1 person

          • nasimolo says:

            Quantum physics? Yes, I am

            Like

          • Considering your claims before, I’m going to guess you know about quantum physics about the same way that people like Deepak Chopra know quantum physics. If you do know quantum physics, then what evidence does it give?

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Not sure about that. To me it proves everything is energy and and it responds to conditions around it. It can hold or release energy, just as in biology molecules store energy by bonds which can be released under certain conditions

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            The particles making up matter (atoms and sub-atomic particles) respond to different factors like temperature and pressure.

            Like

          • that’s true. Now how does this work with your claims?

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            To me, the behavior of these particles can be affected by many factors from man. Man interacts with those particles that surround him (he influences them and they also influence him) and more studies are needed to understand this phenomenon. It means that may potentially be able to control his environment if he understands the laws governing it. This would address the issue of nature vs nurture in genetics now that epigenetic is an established mechanism

            Like

          • Everything interacts with everything else, if one accepts the einstenian theory of spacetime/gravity. This is just physics, no supernatural needed. Humans already control their environment so I’m not sure why you think this is only a “potential”.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            That is true generally, but ones influence diminishes with distance so that we easily influence and easily influenced by our immediate environment (Both gross matter and micro particles) compared to those near off. Humans control their microenvironment hasn’t gotten hold of controlling the micro particles. Maybe supernatural/miracle are terms we use to describe what appears impossible. e.g if healing is brought about without use of conventional methods. Mystics use words in incantations (sound vibration) to heal diseases, so rather than wave away their claims, science should seek to understand this phenomenon because we already have enough theoretical knowledge that hints to possible mechanisms. The mystical experience is also another phenomenon that should be followed because we now know that such experience have been described by medical patients under GA, with some of them witnessing their own surgeries (including hearing the doctors conversation).

            Like

          • There is no evidence of magic healing disease. Since my local veterans hospital and children’s hospital are full, and amputations are never healed, there is no reason to believe the lies that mystics tell. Now, if you think you can heal people then empty your local hospitals. If mystics don’t, then they are liars or simply horrible people who don’t give a damn.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            You make me laugh, of course you will find the extreme claims and cases, that’s not what I am talking about. Any phenomenon is first studied and understood before acceptance, I am not asking for any exceptions. This is same for traditional medicine. No single method should be assumed to be the only answer

            Like

          • The cases are not “extreme”, that is just an excuse invented by you. You still are trying to claim the nonsense “teach the controversy” when there is no controversy. Baseless claims aren’t equivalent to well supported ones. the idiocy of “just give it a chance” ends up with Trump as president and dead people.

            Liked by 1 person

          • nasimolo says:

            I don’t see any controversy, thats why I attempt to bring my arguments close to the familiar. Materialistic science hasn’t yet been able to grow limbs, should we say it has failed?

            Like

          • So, you are trying to compare something that has never been shown to be the source of an occurrence, with something that has shown results. How many more thousand years shall we wait to see if your magic works?

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            No we don’t, there are already indicators. The placebo and the observer effects, which materialistic science has recorded (but yet to give a clear answer) point out to the power of individuals to affect their body and environment subliminally.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            why do you say materialistic science? is there any other science that I haven’t heard of?

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            It is the reductionist science, the newtonian model of science.
            http://www.weisbord.org/Materialism.htm

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            is there a different science, that is my question

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            No, science is science. Materialistic science is a description of the view that that matter is the only basis of everything in nature.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            do we have reason to believe otherwise?

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Lots of them. We are aware of placebo effect which science hasn’t clearly explained, in observation experiments we know of observer’s effect. That is evidence that not everything can be explained by matter. How did ancient civilizations discover medicinal plants? Some said they were told through dreams. So how does materialistic science explain all these phenomenon which is in it’s hands?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I don’t see how this is evidence that everything cannot be explained by matter. What I see here is we don’t know how this works but are exploring different avenues. And that we may never know. Do you have a science that explains these observations?

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            There are so many indicators pointing out the existence of several consiousness (existence) apart from the material (matter) world. The arts are some of the areas where most innovations are tapped from that outer existence. In that existence time and space loops are transcended. Everybody can get access to that realm but some are better at it than others. Dreams (e.g seeing a place in a dream then later going to that place physically) demonstrates one can transcend time. Telepathy and psychic powers are not heresy’s, they have been well documented and experimented in science. Those show and prove the existence of an outer world

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Mate, this is not true. No artist draws inspiration from outside the natural world. He/ she combines things existing but never anything outside of the natural world. The experiences we have are very natural things. We may not have a word for them but they take place in our brains.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            By out of nature I mean the non physical realm (unconscious/spiritual). In that realm, not everyone has access to the same regions that allow complete reproduction of the same. This posses a challenge because of reproducibility that material science has held onto. Only the artist has access to it. And yes, it’s in our mind because it gets access to the Universal mind. Prolific innovators and so called geniuses are said to have the ability to easily access the Universal mind (non physical world/spiritual) and bring back some information to the physical world as ideas, songs, products etc.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            they are not out of nature my friend. have you had of people having such experiences under drugs like mushroom? there is nothing special. with weed cookies you may actually think you are floating.
            no genius ever built anything from out of the blues for lack of a better word. Einstein developed his science on the works of others. Hawking too, on the work of others. Even the renaissance man, Da Vinci, either borrowed from nature or from what others had done.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            That’s not disputable (from nature), it’s the unconsious part on nature. That’s where we go back to personal experience as evidence enough in that realm. Because one hasn’t demonstrated those ideas/situations in the physical realm doesn’t disqualify them. The observer’s effect is also to be considered in such matters. We build on other people’s work because it’s deposited in the Universal mind where everything is found. That agrees with what you point out that there in never anything new. But that is only true in the Universal realm, it becomes new in the physical world when it is physically created/manifested in that realm. That’s why we have new discoveries everyday in the physical world

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Yes, I have heard about the mushrooms and other psychotropic drugs. It is now evident that ancient civilizations used them for spiritual practices way before modern science discovered and studied them. This is truly one of the examples where modern reductionist science comes late to the party, and ‘discover’ what had been common knowledge by those whom science sidelines as Savage and non scientific

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            This is, to me, not an argument against science but about doing science badly or failing to acknowledge earlier sources.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            There you are my friend, couldn’t say it better. Only a fool can argue against science

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            To merge that with science, it is postulated that spirit affects matter (observer’s effect) and we can tune ourselves to the outer world by vibrating at it’s frequencies through thought, words and physical movement (drums and dancing in traditional cultures that induced trances in seers and medicine men). airwaves show you can tune a device to a specific frequency and you can only get information within that frequency. So because you can’t hear from those other frequencies doesn’t mean they are non existent

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            the only way we know there are other frequencies is through the science you are trying to denigrate.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            I am fully in science my friend, what I am opposed to is the materialistic view of modern science. Science is an ancient practice that combined spiritualism, philosophy, medicine and technology through alchemy in attempt to find the philosophers stone/elixir of life

            Like

          • Your claim is no more than the “God of the gaps” nonsense. If there is not a known reason yet, you want to pretend magic causes something. Again, when in the last several thousand years has magic been shown to be the reason for anything? The placebo effect and the observer effect are “subliminal”? Tell me how. We’ve known for years that biofeedback works. Individuals can affect their body and environment in many ways, including some pretty obvious ones. How does this work “subliminally”: below the threshold of sensation or consciousness; perceived by or affecting someone’s mind without their being aware of it. How can we know this is happening?

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            In the observer effect, the observer is blind to his effects, he assumes he is neutral. So the effects one induces in the observed events are out of his awareness. The subconscious mind picks messages from the environment and can also send messages out into the environment without the intervention of the conscious mind, that is when it is subliminal influence. We all know close associates (e.g friends) tend to influence each other subliminally, (show me your friends and I will tell you who you are). Subliminal messaging is utilized in marketing (music, movies, advertisements).
            I think the use of the word magic is problematic for you, in real sense, it basically means something very phenomenon (beyond the familiar). We can use science to break down the magic within certain limits. Ancient civilization used magical mushrooms, but now modern science has caught up and described the active ingredients and structure, and also confirming their physiological and psychological effects.

            Like

          • again, where is the evidence for the supernatural you claim, Nasi? That’s what magic is and what you are claiming affects the world. What we do is use science to show that magic doesn’t happen. the subconscious mind isn’t magic, psychoactives aren’t magic. There is nothing to show that a “spirit” or “soul” exists.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Nothing is complete, it is always a work in progress. Are you aware of the work of Dr. Alberto Villoldo?

            Like

          • a wannabee shaman that cannot show that his claims at true.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            These are not my claims, they are out there accessible to all of us. What I am asking is that we carefully observe and study them rather than turn our backs on them without first considering. Quantum physics, neuroscience, psychology etc indicate presence of the spiritual world but materialist science is so attached to its old ideas and beliefs that it is not willing to use available evidence. Some shamans have used psychotropic drugs for thousand of years and modern science has confirmed their pharmacology only a few decades ago. So we can now accept the excellence of their pharmacology but refuse or discredit their spiritual experience? But hasn’t modern science also had same experience in its practice? We know dissociative anesthetics cause experiences similar to those described by shamans. Even the name (Dissociative) suggests the its action as claimed by shamans, i.e it disconnect the spirit from the body. In that state, the spirit is free to move out of the body with varying distances. Patients on dissociative anesthesia have told of their experiences when they observe their bodies as it lays on the bed, they observe the surgery, and even listen to doctors conversations. This account would be unreliable (as you think of that of shamans), but doctors have confirmed the validity of the patients narration (confirm their conversation during surgery when patient is unconscious). The evidence is out here even within science, unless we just close our eyes

            Like

          • They are your claims, Nasi. You’ve made them and now you seem to not want to take responsibility for them. Again, evidence that magic has ever done anything? Yep, we certainly know that some drugs cause some effects, but again, nothing to show that anything but chemistry and physics is happening. Disassociative doesn’t mean magic, or spirit or anything like that, so your argument is built on a intentional misunderstanding. People have made out of body claims and when examined they fail on demonstrating that anything was outside of the body. People still hear and their brains are still active when anesthetized. You keep claiming evidence is out there but you have yet to show this evidence. Tell me why I should believe you when you fail to support your own claims and only make baseless assurances that “evidence” for your claims is out there.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            No one denies that what is on nature is complex. The conclusion that they are not products of nature is unwarranted

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            How do you define nature?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Totality of all that is.

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            So what man creates is an act of nature, and man is nature too.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Man is part of nature. To distinguish a sand dune occurring as a result of wind action over time and kicc, the distinction is man does his to some end

            Like

          • nasimolo says:

            Agreed, man is part of nature. So everything in nature is nature/part of nature.

            Like

  4. shelldigger says:

    Any claims of a spirit realm need to be immediately followed by evidence of such, or the whole thing sounds like a just so story.

    Like

  5. john zande says:

    Mel Wild chooses this argumentative line… and believes it’s compelling. When you point out the logical inconsistencies he merely waves his hand and ignores addressing the issues. For example, for this “extra” god position he must posit something called soft panentheism, but, and it’s a big but, he then claims this god interacts with this world, which requires hard panentheism. The two cannot cooexist. It’s one or the other… except when in the hands of an apologist who cares not.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. keithnoback says:

    The God who operates beyond the bounds, must not operate at all. Such a thing(?) must not have intentionality or even proper parts.
    Once one has proclaimed the beyond-God, it is time to sit down and shut up, because anything you subsequently say on the matter, must be wrong.

    Liked by 3 people

    • makagutu says:

      Keith, how these people know so much of the beyond and what god does there is definitely beyond me

      Liked by 4 people

      • keithnoback says:

        Well, the usual claim is something like what John encountered, which is that they just know, and they can have a feeling ‘about’ a kind of sub-beyond, which is like the actual beyond in all the important ways, especially in that it is infinitely unlike the actual beyond.

        Like

      • Swarn Gill says:

        What’s really funny is that such people will say “Well you can’t possible know the mind of God because he is infinite. Now let me tell you what God, who exists in a plane of existence outside of ours, is like. Let me tell you what he wants and thinks about everything you do. Oh and this is what heaven and hell is like as well.”

        “Oh so how do you know this?”

        “Well it’s in the Bible” (most of the time much of it is not in the Bible).

        “Oh so God tangibly interacted with our current plane of existence to let us know all this? So that means at least some times God is measurable. Great.”

        “No you have to have faith to see him.”

        /facepalm

        Liked by 4 people

  7. With the claims of bible miracles, there is the problem that these miracles that affected the physical world left no physical evidence. Then we get the “but but you can’t test god by requiring evidence”, but the character JC himself had no problem with providing it to Thomas, and ol’ Thomas became a saint (not to mention how this god itself had no problem with being repeatedly tested by Gideon e.g. make the hide wet, now don’t make it wet, now make it wet again just so I’m sure. Real faith there, y’know.

    Like

  8. I once visited a timeless, limitless, yet space-less realm. I didn’t stay long because my watch stopped working there and I got absolutely NO cell phone reception-couldn’t even send a text. Also, God was there and Jesus. They were having a VERY loud argument about “Next time you want some mother f**kers to kill you via crucifixion, do it yourself, you old, lazy bastard! That sh*t sucked!” I simply decided it wasn’t my scene, so I left. So, yeah, this timeless place does exist, Mak. To get there, all you need do is wish, hope and dream. If that doesn’t work, try drinking grain alcohol. That’ll do it. Happy New Year, my friend.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. I’m wondering if it might be better to ask people if they believe anything can exist outside space and time as a precursor, and draw similarities to how people normally talk about reality. It’s not controversial that the sky is blue, both because of the many ways one can demonstrate it, and the fact that it’s really easy to check that fact for oneself. When we get to special cases regarding things that break ordinary reality, matters tend to go off the rails.

    Also, it’s no big deal for people to selectively discount that certain myths affect reality (like Thor and his hammer, or water spirits, etc.). For me, an interesting conundrum is figuring out how to expand that discipline in thought to other myths.

    Like

  10. renudepride says:

    I think that including the comparison quote of Mark Twain an excellent example. We have no concept to associate with any deity of any faith community. Therefore, how can we accept what we can’t understand? It defies comprehension.

    Before I forget, happy 2018, my Kenyan brother! I wish for you the best throughout this year and beyond! Naked hugs! 😉

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      MT was right. We have seen seals, we have not seen mermaids. And miracles fall in the mermaids category, just so stories

      Liked by 1 person

      • John Faupel says:

        To Swarn:
        Yes: ‘our thinking and feeling are bound together’ – at least have become so, but no: ‘the brain does [not do] both at the same time’ [B. Libet, 1999 et al] and yes: ‘there is communication between them’ but only sometimes, as all conceptual consciousness is an a priori neurological process – and a second-order derivative of our first order a posteriori experiences. Logic and maths, for example, indeed the whole construction of verbal and written language could not have been conceptualised unless our pre-linguistic ancestors had lived and survived for thousands of generations according to their sensual experiences alone. Any conceptionally-conscious ‘thoughts’ about ‘god’ or ‘religion’ must have been preceded by sensually-conscious ‘feelings’ about the power of nature and ‘feelings’ about harmonising with nature and with each other.

        Like

      • renudepride says:

        Amen to that, O Exalted Holiness! 😉

        Like

  11. Precious🔥 says:

    Hi. I’ve followed the comments thread. You can get answers from my most recent posts. GOD is Real & indeed He is not bound by time,space or any factor.
    Here’s the link
    https://commonblackgirlblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/15/hearing-the-voice-of-god/

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Wow. You think you finally have the answer to my question? So what is this god that is real that I will find out from your post?
      Could you be kind enough as to enlighten us here how you know that you got the real god?

      Like

  12. Arkenaten says:

    So Precious is a Medium?
    Me too! 34 waist.

    Like

  13. So, what’s your answer to why something exists instead of nothing? Me thinks you protest too much.

    Like

  14. Well, I think I’ll write a long post on why Zeus doesn’t exist.That’ll show old Zeus!

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Please do. Except I don’t know how you think this is of use to me?

      Like

      • Writing a long post about why God can’t exist is pointless if you truly believe he doesn’t or can’t. If you believe he can’t exist, why are you thinking about him?

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          I write what I want, when I want and how I want. Last I checked it was my blog, my time. Now if you have nothing constructive to contribute, fuck off. And I am being very polite

          Like

          • I find your religious fundamentalism amusing. But you made my point, have a good day.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Oh nice. You are the first one to discover I am religious fundamentalist. You really are an idiot. Do you read?

            Like

          • Did someone say, “fundamentalist”? THAT’S ME!!!! Remember the truth: “The Jews and Christians say: ‘We are the children of God and His loved ones.’ Say: ‘Why then does He punish you for your sins?” (Surah 5:18) There is no god but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet! Until the christian realizes this truth, he will be condemned to the fires of Hell! So, my brother, AWAKE!!! See God!!! Follow the Koran, or be condemned. Allahu Akbar

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Jeff, I didn’t know I was a religious fundamentalist. Where should I get my card?

            Like

          • I’ll send you one of mine, you fundamentalist bastard, you!

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Please make it quick, I will have to display it prominently on the blog

            Like

          • It’s coming via Mohammad’s horse.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I don’t know what to be worried for; my card or the horse

            Like

          • Beware the lying tongue of the christian, my friend lest you be trapped into damnation. From the Quran: 3:85: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”

            Like

          • An angry religious Fundamentalist, preaching furiously about the non-existence of God.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            What part of fuck off did you not understand? Should I type it slowly?

            Liked by 1 person

          • Lol, if you really wanted discussion, you would have simply answered my first question. When people have nothing intelligent to say, they respond with rudeness.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            If you read anything and are able to comprehend, that post has upwards of 200 comments. What makes you think I wanted to talk to you? Please, don’t have such delusions of grandeur

            Like

          • A good cult leader always surrounds himself with Yes Men. It is very telling when you respond with rudeness to anyone who disagrees with you.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            So you silly person has read the 200+ comments and they all agree with me? You are a bigger fool than I thought

            Like

          • Does it make you feel strong to cuss people and call them names? What are you trying to prove? That God doesn’t exist and has no authority over your life? You say theists must provide proof, but you have none. It might be convenient to believe God doesn’t exist, but it’s just as much a matter of faith to you as it is for the theist to believe in him. Perhaps you can try and prove that the universe is a myth next. Just because I can see it doesn’t mean it’s really there.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            No, I don’t cuss people generally, in fact that’s why this blog is what it is. I however have no patience for people like you.
            And you brought yourself here, I have told you politely to just leave the way you came, you are unable to do that.
            I have no burden of proof. I have not a claimed to know either what a god is or whether it is.
            Now as to the universe being a myth, that’s a claim you have made not I, and as such it is up to you to demonstrate it.

            Like

          • Obviously, we have different definitions of “politely”.

            Like

          • Nan says:

            Yes, I’ve noticed that. Especially from Christians.

            Liked by 1 person

          • makagutu says:

            Nan, I think this fellow has issues. His very first comment was to claim I protest too much, then to I am a religious fundamentalist but now he is crying about how polite I have been to him!

            Like

          • Nan says:

            Issues, Mak? You mean like JB? LOL!

            Actually, I was responding to the wander’s comment when he wrote “When people have nothing intelligent to say, they respond with rudeness..”

            BTW, do you ever visit Mel’s blog? I just asked a question of Mel and JB couldn’t resist sending me a snarky response. Such a GOOD Christian he is!

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Ark and John Zande represent me at Mel’s. I have never visited and I hope I will not be tempted to do so.
            He has bigger issues. JB and Mel are special

            Liked by 1 person

          • How ’bout Muslims? I think we’re much nicer people. From the Quran: 5:14: “And from those who call themselves Christians, We took their covenant, but they have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. So We planted amongst them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection, and Allâh will inform them of what they used to do.” Beware the trees and the bushes for thou art being watched.

            Liked by 1 person

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s