Oh that’s easy. It was a transient fluctuation which arose due to the time-energy uncertainty principle. Clever of Him to create that, no?
It seems you wish to make my spirit guide a science experiment.
He respectfully declines saying “I have nothing to prove.”
He thinks it would be like a teacher with a small child for a pupil asking the her to prove two times two equals four when the child knows that two plus two equals four.
Then kindly ask him to shut up already.
:eek:
Did you explain what an awkward position he is putting you in, though?
He put me in no position at all.
I have a tape that explains all, but it may be difficult to understand.
Could you please take your hi-jack elsewhere?
There is not one point in that video where Deepak Chopra explains why lekatt’s spirit guide has left him twisting in the wind.
Maybe you meant to link to a different video?
He is mistaken. Maybe he has nothing to prove to you, but he has a wonderful opportunity here to change the minds, and maybe the lives, of many skeptics.
Just ask him for the last two digits (plus hundredths) of the Dow Jones Industrial Average for next Monday, and post them here before Monday morning. Since the Dow had swings up and down of over 100 points this week, nobody will make any money with this supernatural knowledge, but it will be strong evidence that you are not delusional.
If all he can give you is a warm feeling, but no testable facts, then I think your spirit helper’s name is Jim Beam.
I understand your need for proof. If He did as you said and got the numbers right most skeptics would say blind luck done it. Spiritual guides do not help their humans with money or material things. He is forbidden to do so. He gives spiritual advice and can help with choices, He can not control His human. Free will is in effect. Now we all have spiritual guides who are with us at all times and places. Most cannot connect with them because they don’t know they are there. Within you and all others is a powerful spirit which is you. Clothed in a human body which blocks out spiritual values such as love and compassion. When the human embraces this love and compassion for others then the connection is completed. There is of course much more than can be posted here. If you are really interested Ken Katin books will help.
If you are really interested in persuading anyone that your “spirit helper” is not imaginary, you will offer proof of the kind I suggested. Everybody on this board has ample experience with books about invisible friends, including the Bible, so suggesting yet another is a waste of everyone’s time.
As you wish, it is just another choice.
[QUOTE=So, are there, in fact REAL atheists who believe that life and matter just occurred out of nothing or are these “atheists” like me and are in fact Deists?[/QUOTE]
The above definition is not that of an atheist, the definition of atheist is very precise and it is simply the non belief in God(s).
How the universe came to existence is not part of the definition of Atheism.
Side note:
Since matter is a form of energy, and energy is eternal, there is no reason to even suggest anything came from nothing.
The idea that something comes from nothing is what religion promotes and is not a part of the definition of Atheism.
Well, mechanically speaking, since we cannot see the other side of the big bang, we cannot discern what preceded or precipated the singularity whence sprang the universe. But there kind of had to be something. One does not have to resort to cyclic time to suggest that the universe might be a cyclic entity that undergoes periodic cataclysms.
And that helps address a lot. How is it that all the parameters of natural law work just the way we need them to? Obviously it is because we are living in a universal cycle that gave rise to the proper conditions. Perhaps the putative cycle(s) that preceded this one yielded environments that would not give rise to life (as we know it), we are merely living in the one that suits us in the same way that the Earth is just right for our existence.
So wherefore and whence the putative cyclic universe? Nothing must, by its nature not exist, so something, by its nature must exist.
So why is there existence? Well, why not? At some point, one must let go of the metaphilosophical hall of mirrors and say “it is what it is, now I need to make some coffee and get on with my day.” Or spend one’s dwindling life drooling in the room with the quilted walls.
There is no need to BELIEVE there is no evidence for a deity, none has ever been presented, not ever. So BELIEF is not part of this equation.
Non Belief does not equal BELIEVE no more than bald represents a hair style or NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
So no, an atheist is no basing lack of evidence as a belief, but a non belief.
If one has EVIDENCE there is no need for belief, belief is needed when there is NO evidence.
Huh, this is called Assuming facts not in evidence fallacy.
Your post assumes that Religion is ethical, and there is no evidence religion is ethical.
Religion and Politics were once one and the same thing; I find no ethics in politics just like religion is not ethical.
Atheism is a word that is used for one purpose; it states A Theism or without theism and nothing more.
Since it does not address ethics why should it be expected to promote ethics anymore than the internal combustible engine?
The Scientific Method is used by anybody that chooses to use it. The largest Christian organization in the world uses it. That organization is the RC Church.
Those RC Universities do not teach CREATIONISM they teach EVOLUTION using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
And it is used in other aspects of life such as building a bridge, agriculture, medicine, space travel, Mars rover, the computer you are using, the internet, your car, the bus, the train etc.
hehehe, good thing a label is not needed and one does not have to believe that anything was responsible.
It is a good thing that “I don’t know” is a valid and only honest answer to the question.
On the other hand if we accept the First Law of Thermodynamics, we have no need to even think that anything is responsible since energy is eternal.
The problem with thinking something is responsible is that it is fallacious thinking and one is being intellectually dishonest to themselves. In thinking that something is responsible one is stating there must be a CAUSE to every event and there is no evidence to support such a claim; yet there is evidence to refute the claim.
FYI: You are arguing with someone who was banned and is no longer here.