Fear?

Maybe, maybe not. :shrug:

My point is that those with faith as well as those without, should stop thinking of God in the typical linear or anthropomorphic manner.
Christianity has God as an anthropomorphic figure "man was created in God's image", and anthropomorphic in character and emotion. I'm good with a different concept of God akin to some cosmic identity in the vein of deism vice theism; that said, I don't feel it necessary to entertain concepts like this as it does nothing for me personally, but that's just me.


If the Bible was touted as a science book you'd have a point, but it's not so you don't.
The Bible purports itself to be the one true word of the creator of the universe, therefore representing true reality. Science describes reality thru hypothesis, then validates it's theories via the scientific method. Both describe 'reality'. The difference is, science moves forward. Dogma cannot.


I can only accept that if and when science gives us an explanation for the purpose of existence. Until then, it sucks at the why part. :lol:
Yup. :snooze:


Einstein aside, my point was that scientific theories have been debunked. Are you denying that's the case?
It's the beauty of science. Existing theories will continue to be challenged and superseded by better ones. Without science, you would not have the computer you're typing on or the cellphone you use, or the television you watch. Try debunking the ALL the scientific 'theory' these devices are based on and et me know when you finish... :razz:


According to science, one burst of energy and billions of random chances created a grand stage for such a small life form. Is that so different than saying God created a grand stage for such a small life form? Regardless of your answer, I have no problem with that. Do you? Man, that God Creator of the Universe Singular Point of Energy Thing Whatever the Hell It Is is fascinating, no?
Yes, fascinating, just don't know if any entity is behind it and OK with not knowing.



I will take this opportunity to tell you that your previous synopsis of history had quite a few holes and showed your lack of theological understanding. With that in mind, scientific ignorance or spiritual ignorance doesn't much matter, they're two sides to the same coin.
You can't be serious Rad1? Can you not recognize when something is done tongue in cheek and for fun? Theologically, you may have me, it's been awhile since I did regular study. But thank God (pardon the reference) for the internet when I feel like boning up.


Some things I'd like for you to answer for me, Proxima, because I'm truly curious as to your answers, and by all means take some time to think about them if you have to. Since pre-history mankind has had faith in something that it calls "god", i.e. something other than mankind itself and an unseen world if you will. What makes you think that suddenly in the last couple centuries mankind knows better and is so much more enlightened than men in the previous, say, 1.8 million years? And, if the majority of mankind has faith of some sort, then does that not make existence of faith itself a concrete reality? And, what do you think of the scientists who also have faith? Those very same scientists who give you those theories you rely so heavily on for your world view?
Lots of questions/ I think it is a fallacy to validate anything based on a preponderance of human belief; of course this goes for science too. But it's especially true for the metaphysical or the supernatural or the spiritual. Btw, our brains have hard wiring left over from our ancient ancestors that lend itself to 'belief' because the brain had to come up with something to explain natural phenomena of human surroundings and ground the ancient human in something he/she could 'believe' in. Lacking modern day knowledge, isolated tribal peoples still use myth and superstition to explain their environment and their lives.
Okay, so basic answers from me, but lots of questions and answers can get lengthy, as they should if we were to devote a thread to each question.
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Christianity has God as an anthropomorphic figure "man was created in God's image", and anthropomorphic in character and emotion.
We were created in God's image (whatever that means, right?), but God is not created so He certainly wasn't created in ours! :lol:

I'm good with a different concept of God akin to some cosmic identity in the vein of deism vice theism; that said, I don't feel it necessary to entertain concepts like this as it does nothing for me personally, but that's just me.
Maybe one day someone will take up the scientific inquiry, but that would be research that is loooooong going.

The Bible purports itself to be the one true word of the creator of the universe, therefore representing true reality. Science describes reality thru hypothesis, then validates it's theories via the scientific method. Both describe 'reality'. The difference is, science moves forward. Dogma cannot.
As I'm sure you know, dogma doesn't change because it is considered absolute truth, the same as scientific fact (as opposed to theory). Both theological and scientific understandings are based on those that came before it while dogma and fact remain the same. I don't see much difference in that regard.

It's the beauty of science. Existing theories will continue to be challenged and superseded by better ones.
Then why put so much "faith" in a theory if theories have previously proven to be debunked or disproved? Heck, God may not be able to be proven, but God hasn't been disproven either. It kind of sounds like God is one up when it comes to some scientific theories. :smile:

Without science, you would not have the computer you're typing on or the cellphone you use, or the television you watch. Try debunking the ALL the scientific 'theory' these devices are based on and et me know when you finish...
:lol: No thanks! I wasn't claiming all theories can be debunked, but it only takes one to show that you're putting your faith into something that isn't as solid as you would like to believe.

Yes, fascinating, just don't know if any entity is behind it and OK with not knowing.
Two things come to my mind here. 1) How do we define "entity"? Would you agree that the term means a thing that exists? If so, then wouldn't that singular point of energy be an "entity"? 2) If you're OK with not knowing, then why do you reject God because you can't know for sure of His existence?

You can't be serious Rad1? Can you not recognize when something is done tongue in cheek and for fun? Theologically, you may have me, it's been awhile since I did regular study. But thank God (pardon the reference) for the internet when I feel like boning up.
Yes, I did recognize it as sarcasm. I don't expect everyone to be fully knowledgeable about theology, but at the same time if you aren't, then don't deride what you don't fully understand.

Lots of questions/ I think it is a fallacy to validate anything based on a preponderance of human belief; of course this goes for science too. But it's especially true for the metaphysical or the supernatural or the spiritual.
I disagree only because I don't have some fancy notion that humans are oh so much smarter than humans that came before us. We build on the knowledge of past ages, sure, but (generally speaking) humans in the past were not stupid. So, with your comment in mind, do you reject the soft sciences?

Btw, our brains have hard wiring left over from our ancient ancestors that lend itself to 'belief' because the brain had to come up with something to explain natural phenomena of human surroundings and ground the ancient human in something he/she could 'believe' in. Lacking modern day knowledge, isolated tribal peoples still use myth and superstition to explain their environment and their lives.
Fair enough for your part I suppose, but I don't buy it. You're brain also has that hardwiring, no?

Btw, there is always a grain of truth in myth. Mythological stories were told to impart a truth. Take the book of Genesis for example. In the story of creation, it more or less describes the evolutionary process in a very basic form (which implies ancient man wasn't as stupid as some seem to think). It's this correlation that I found as a kid that got me rejecting this supposed dichotomy between faith and science. In addition, I tend to think in terms of both/and instead of either/or anyway, which of course is why I find quantum fascinating stuff.

Okay, so basic answers from me, but lots of questions and answers can get lengthy, as they should if we were to devote a thread to each question.
Yeah, maybe one day we can sit down for a long cup of coffee. We can talk about the scientific as well as spiritual explanation for the NDE, neuropsychology, and what would appear to be your double-standards. :lol: :buddies:
 
Heck, God may not be able to be proven, but God hasn't been disproven either. It kind of sounds like God is one up when it comes to some scientific theories. :smile:
You can't disprove that angels have not flown out of someone's butt either, but highly unlikely wouldn't you say? Human writings that claim, within the writings, to be "God Inspired" or the "Word of God" serve as no valid evidence of God. In other words, the writings are really from the hand of god because the writings say they are - is circular logic right? So Christianity places all bets on the writings of men that were written anywhere from 20 to 100 years after his Jesus's death. And resurrection myth were a dime a dozen in that time in history and culture. Evidence is extremely weak. What God would have 'believe' on such thin evidence AND offer nothing more in the last 2000 years?

Two things come to my mind here. 1) How do we define "entity"? Would you agree that the term means a thing that exists? If so, then wouldn't that singular point of energy be an "entity"? Loosely defined, I suppose you could class it as an entity but the term "entity" often infers consciousness.

2) If you're OK with not knowing, then why do you reject God because you can't know for sure of His existence? Because I prefer to live my life and base my beliefs on probabilities. But, I am not without the ability to change my mind. If someone can show me where I am wrong, I will happily do it.And, I don't feel as though I need to be rewarded with an afterlife for being a good human being. Being a decent human being is reward enough for me in this life, which can only be known by evidence and reason to be finite.

I disagree only because I don't have some fancy notion that humans are oh so much smarter than humans that came before us. We build on the knowledge of past ages, sure, but (generally speaking) humans in the past were not stupid. So, with your comment in mind, do you reject the soft sciences? What's your definition of the soft sciences?

Fair enough for your part I suppose, but I don't buy it. You're brain also has that hardwiring, no? Yeah, we all have it. It's just a matter of not succumbing to it. Many people, especially those indoctrinated from an early age, make reality fit with their 'belief' system, rather than basing their beliefs on objective reality. Indoctrination is a powerful thing when combined with our inherited psychophysiological tendencies to want to believe. Believing in the metaphysical and spiritual comforts us. Why? Because this is the way hominids comforted themselves in a brutal world they could not possibly begin to understand.

Btw, there is always a grain of truth in myth. Mythological stories were told to impart a truth. Take the book of Genesis for example. In the story of creation, it more or less describes the evolutionary process in a very basic form (which implies ancient man wasn't as stupid as some seem to think). It's this correlation that I found as a kid that got me rejecting this supposed dichotomy between faith and science. In addition, I tend to think in terms of both/and instead of either/or anyway, which of course is why I find quantum fascinating stuff.
We can discuss the creation story and evolution further but just one comment on the subject. Creation implies life is created or pops into existence through the will of a omnipotent creator. Evolution is a very different thing obviously and I'm sure you understand this. We could get into some examples of how the Bible is inaccurate as an evolutionary straw-man, leaves stuff out like dinosaurs, etc., but I'm not keen to do it just now unless you would like to. But we should have the debate on the faith vs science thing. The two are incompatible in a myriad of ways, in my view.

Yeah, maybe one day we can sit down for a long cup of coffee. We can talk about the scientific as well as spiritual explanation for the NDE, neuropsychology, and what would appear to be your double-standards. :lol: :buddies: Would love to.
Rad1, I'm happy we're dialoguing. In the end we both want to be right but if some small part of our brains can remain open, who knows what we might learn?:buddies:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
In the name of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, Fascism, Communism...

Give me a break!
See, that's the thing. If not religion as an organizing principle, something to build, grown and protect a community around, what then? The color of your bandana? Your tribe?

I get dislike of the bad parts of organized religion. At core, it's a tyranny like any other organizing principle that succeeds. I hate to admit it but, men must be governed. We are incapable of peaceful coexistence because we're just not. I mean, maybe some day but, as the torture argument illustrates, once again, we don't even see our own savagery. We, like everyone else, only see self and that is the crux of the thing. Whose principles win? I'm on our side but, we are self destructing. Thus it has always been.
 
See, that's the thing. If not religion as an organizing principle, something to build, grown and protect a community around, what then? The color of your bandana? Your tribe?

I get dislike of the bad parts of organized religion. At core, it's a tyranny like any other organizing principle that succeeds. I hate to admit it but, men must be governed. We are incapable of peaceful coexistence because we're just not. I mean, maybe some day but, as the torture argument illustrates, once again, we don't even see our own savagery. We, like everyone else, only see self and that is the crux of the thing. Whose principles win? I'm on our side but, we are self destructing. Thus it has always been.
If you want an example of a society that does not use religion as an organizing principle, try the swedes. Sweden is one of the least 'religious' countries in the world, but one of the happiest and most prosperous. They rank far above the US in almost every stat...education, upward mobility, happiness, upward mobility of workers.

The US has many issues, but in my opinion close to the top is the religiosity of the US. Religiosity appears to go hand in hand with national elitism, racism, willingness to engage in war on other peoples, and many other negatives.
 

hotcoffee

New Member
Do you fear death?

I don't but I'm wondering if I'm the only one looking forward to meeting Jesus face to face and starting my next great adventure.

:coffee:
So this thread wove all around itself and wound up.. well I'm not sure where it's going.... all because I asked if you fear death....

:coffee:
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Rad1, I'm happy we're dialoguing. In the end we both want to be right but if some small part of our brains can remain open, who knows what we might learn?:buddies:
Who knows.

I can tell you how to quote properly if you like. I disassembled the fubar mess your response was, but it was a pain in the hiney. :lol:

You can't disprove that angels have not flown out of someone's butt either, but highly unlikely wouldn't you say? Human writings that claim, within the writings, to be "God Inspired" or the "Word of God" serve as no valid evidence of God. In other words, the writings are really from the hand of god because the writings say they are - is circular logic right? So Christianity places all bets on the writings of men that were written anywhere from 20 to 100 years after his Jesus's death. And resurrection myth were a dime a dozen in that time in history and culture. Evidence is extremely weak. What God would have 'believe' on such thin evidence AND offer nothing more in the last 2000 years?
I would like for you to respond to the fact that if some theories can be debunked, then all theories are suspect. You kind of dodged that.

I get what you're saying about circular logic regarding the bible, which is why I don't rely on the bible alone -- that is an issue for Sola Scriptura Christians to respond to. And yes, there were a few (not a dime a dozen, which is a gross exaggeration) resurrection stories at the time; it was the Axial Age. I could go into depth a bit more about the Axial Age, but suffice it to say it does not make me disbelieve in a Higher Power. If anything, it's quite the opposite. You are anthropomorphizing God when you ask questions like, "What God would do or allow such and such". Remember, God isn't in our image. If there is a Creator of the law of the universe, is that Creator held by those laws or beyond those laws? Oh and btw, Atheists also place their bets on the observations of men, observations I might add that may or may not be true.

Loosely defined, I suppose you could class it as an entity but the term "entity" often infers consciousness.
My usage of the term came straight from the dictionary. :shrug:

Because I prefer to live my life and base my beliefs on probabilities. But, I am not without the ability to change my mind. If someone can show me where I am wrong, I will happily do it.And, I don't feel as though I need to be rewarded with an afterlife for being a good human being. Being a decent human being is reward enough for me in this life, which can only be known by evidence and reason to be finite.
May I suggest some reading? "The Probability of God" by Steven Unwin who is a physicist. The probability that you or I exist due to random mutations and eons of natural selection is extremely small, but yet here we are never the less.

What's your definition of the soft sciences?
Philosophy, psychiatry, sociology, ontology. I ask because you hold metaphysics to a higher standard, which involves ontology as well as cosmology. You seem to put a lot of faith in cosmology, so thought I'd ask.

Yeah, we all have it. It's just a matter of not succumbing to it. Many people, especially those indoctrinated from an early age, make reality fit with their 'belief' system, rather than basing their beliefs on objective reality. Indoctrination is a powerful thing when combined with our inherited psychophysiological tendencies to want to believe. Believing in the metaphysical and spiritual comforts us. Why? Because this is the way hominids comforted themselves in a brutal world they could not possibly begin to understand.
So, Atheists are strong and those of faith are not? :eyebrow: Do you think that true of the scientists who have faith? If they have succumbed, then where does that leave you believing in what they've discovered? Not everyone who has faith was indoctrinated, Proxima, but even so the same could be said for Atheists. You say, "this is the way hominids comforted themselves in a brutal world" but why do you suppose they chose that method or system? Surely, they could have taken a fancy to some other explanation, so why a higher power? Do you suppose quantum theory could be used to explain things we call supernatural?

We can discuss the creation story and evolution further but just one comment on the subject. Creation implies life is created or pops into existence through the will of an omnipotent creator. Evolution is a very different thing obviously and I'm sure you understand this. We could get into some examples of how the Bible is inaccurate as an evolutionary straw-man, leaves stuff out like dinosaurs, etc., but I'm not keen to do it just now unless you would like to.
No need to discuss the creation story further. As I said, it is myth and it does suggest evolution **in its basic form**. It doesn't go into detail, but it didn't have to as that wasn't the purpose of the story or the truth it was attempting to convey. Perhaps you need to think about creation differently. As for myself, I think God started the process of evolution. I don't think life just popped into existence, and I think that's a rather childish way of thinking about it -- maybe that's half your problem here. As I said before, the bible is not a science book; it wasn't meant to be. It's a story and/or revelation of humanity. Not dinosaurs, etc, but humanity.

But we should have the debate on the faith vs science thing. The two are incompatible in a myriad of ways, in my view.
Yeah well, husbands and wives are incompatible in a myriad of ways, but yet they form a unity and create a marriage. :shrug:
 
Last edited:

Radiant1

Soul Probe
So this thread wove all around itself and wound up.. well I'm not sure where it's going.... all because I asked if you fear death....

:coffee:
That's because your questions begs the question of the existence of God and an after life. Besides, when has a tread on these forums ever stayed directly on topic? :lol: :huggy:
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
If you want an example of a society that does not use religion as an organizing principle, try the swedes. Sweden is one of the least 'religious' countries in the world, but one of the happiest and most prosperous.
This abjectly false:

Sweden - Religions

For hundreds of years, the Church of Sweden, an Evangelical Lutheran church, represented the religion of state. However, in 2000, the Church and government placed into effect a formal separation of church and state, with a stipulation that the Church of Sweden will continue to receive a certain degree of state support. According to recent estimates, about 84% of the population belong to the Church of Sweden. Roman Catholics constitute about 0.02% of the populace, with about 150,000 members. About 100,000 people are members of Christian Orthodox churches, including Greek, Serbian, Syrian, Romanian, and Macedonian. The number of Muslims is at about 350,000, with about 100,000 active practitioners primarily of the Sunni and Shi'a branches. There are also about 20,000 Jews (Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform), with about half being active. Buddhists and Hindus number around 3,000 to 4,000 each. It is estimated that about 15% to 20% of the adult population are atheists.

This is quite comparable to and modeled after the US (which, BTW, has about a 19% atheist population); except the US has no specific church.
 
Last edited:
Raidiant1, I must say I find you to be one of the best spoken posters on this board. You and Ken King always impress me when you debate.
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
So far off track, as usual, this topic has become, yes?

How about (1) one just believes in God, having no need to fear death, or (2) one not believing in God, and their choice to either fear or not fear death. One of those two options will occur.

This endless argument of there is a/is no God that created the universe, and that God determines each individuals destination by their choice, has been going on since the beginning of mankind. This will continue until each individual faces their personal demise into eternity, and then see where their decision has taken them.

I choose option #1 as my way of life.
 
I can tell you how to quote properly if you like. I disassembled the fubar mess your response was, but it was a pain in the hiney. :lol:
If this doesn't work, I'll take you up on that.

I would like for you to respond to the fact that if some theories can be debunked, then all theories are suspect. You kind of dodged that.
Of course, all theories that have not been proven via the scientific method of observation, test, measurement, and analysis would be 'suspect' as to their validity. Just remind yourself that a great number of theories in all areas of science, have been proven to be correct. And many eventually are discredited. This is natural as our knowledge advances.

I get what you're saying about circular logic regarding the bible, which is why I don't rely on the bible alone -- that is an issue for Sola Scriptura Christians to respond to. And yes, there were a few (not a dime a dozen, which is a gross exaggeration) resurrection stories at the time; it was the Axial Age. I could go into depth a bit more about the Axial Age, but suffice it to say it does not make me disbelieve in a Higher Power. If anything, it's quite the opposite. You are anthropomorphizing God when you ask questions like, "What God would do or allow such and such". Remember, God isn't in our image. If there is a Creator of the law of the universe, is that Creator held by those laws or beyond those laws? Oh and btw, Atheists also place their bets on the observations of men, observations I might add that may or may not be true.
I'll just remind you Rad1, that you also rely on "observations of men" to live your daily life. Otherwise, you can reject all advances mankind has made in physics, chemistry, medicine, technology, etc, and go live your life with some tribe in the amazon, and enjoy that! I suspect both of us could learn more about what man really understands about the universe at this point in time. Spectacular advancements in our knowledge have been made in the last 20 years. When we land an exploratory probe spacecraft on a comet hurtling through space, billions of miles away, humanity should celebrate this to the upmost. But it's a collective meh amongst the majority of humanity, as they are more interested in what Kim Kardashian is doing (Americans anyway) or devising new ways to kill each other in the name of their God.

May I suggest some reading? "The Probability of God" by Steven Unwin who is a physicist. The probability that you or I exist due to random mutations and eons of natural selection is extremely small, but yet here we are never the less.
You may. I'll put this on my list, which is growing quite long. Agree that the probability for organic life to evolve in any planetary (including moons) is low. However, we know the building blocks are strewn throughout the universe. Meteorites have been found to contain amino acids.

Philosophy, psychiatry, sociology, ontology. I ask because you hold metaphysics to a higher standard, which involves ontology as well as cosmology. You seem to put a lot of faith in cosmology, so thought I'd ask.
Right, I do put more faith in astrophysics than I do in the soft sciences. Philosophy formed a basis or foundation for science. But there is good science to be found in some of the soft sciences, and some squishy stuff as well.

So, Atheists are strong and those of faith are not? :eyebrow: Do you think that true of the scientists who have faith? If they have succumbed, then where does that leave you believing in what they've discovered? Not everyone who has faith was indoctrinated, Proxima, but even so the same could be said for Atheists. You say, "this is the way hominids comforted themselves in a brutal world" but why do you suppose they chose that method or system? Surely, they could have taken a fancy to some other explanation, so why a higher power? Do you suppose quantum theory could be used to explain things we call supernatural?
Indoctrination is far and away the primary way people of faith come to believe. What do you think the probability of your being a Christian would be if you were brought up in India with Hindu parents and over 1 Billion practicing Hindus? Religion is really more about geography and place of birth, than it is the permeation of some universal truth. And while scientists are susceptible, the number claiming faith in a personal god are far less than non-scientists.

Yeah well, husbands and wives are incompatible in a myriad of ways, but yet they form a unity and create a marriage. :shrug:
:faint: We're definitely on different wavelengths of thinking here, but then again, we both knew that and that's why were debating. For me, I've come to an epiphany lately. It's sometimes more fun to try and understand why you think the way you do, instead of attempting to prove that I'm right.
 
This abjectly false:

This is quite comparable to and modeled after the US (which, BTW, has about a 19% atheist population); except the US has no specific church.
I think you'll find 2 things should you decide to do some balanced research on this... 1) Christianity is in decline in Western Europe; that is to say percentages of the population in Western European countries that profess a belief in the Christian God continue to decline and are far less than the 80%+ in the United States. 2) Sweden has one of the lowest percentages professing belief in a personal god. Their society is very secular when compared with the US.
 
Who knows.
So, Atheists are strong and those of faith are not? :eyebrow: Do you think that true of the scientists who have faith? If they have succumbed, then where does that leave you believing in what they've discovered? Not everyone who has faith was indoctrinated, Proxima, but even so the same could be said for Atheists. You say, "this is the way hominids comforted themselves in a brutal world" but why do you suppose they chose that method or system? Surely, they could have taken a fancy to some other explanation, so why a higher power? Do you suppose quantum theory could be used to explain things we call supernatural?
If you're referring to "mental strength" of an Atheist, strength may not be the best word. I would only say that people of no belief in god, tend to look at the 'God Question' much more analytically than those who would believe.

93% of the members of the National Academy of Scientists self identify as either Atheist or Agnostic. For the others that manage a belief in a personal god, I suspect many variables play into this, such as indoctrination from a young age, personal life experience, a perceived revelation, etc. They know that science is about conforming one's beliefs to the evidence, and not making the evidence, no matter how weak, conform to one's beliefs. But this is exactly what they must do when it comes to belief in a personal God. Some may engage in apologetics, but I'd guess most don't bother, knowing it's a losing proposition in the harsh light of evidence and scientific method based thinking.

Our evolutionary past may explain why our brains are susceptible to belief. It goes back 40 Million years ago, when the "attachment mechanism" took hold in mammals, facilitating the bonding of offspring to parents. Religion uses this human instinct via parental qualities attributed to God; i.e. the father-like figure of God, and the mother-like figure of Mary in the Catholic religion. People who feel the need to have something in 'control' of their lives, other than randomness and their own character, find it comforting to latch on to these perceptions of benevolent parental-like God(s). Additionally, I think you may agree, that the innate fear of death and the belief that a personal God can provide eternal life, is a primary motivator in multiple religions. It's impossible to tell just when this belief began, because it's not like the ancient hominids were writing down their thoughts as writing didn't exist.

It's only been with the rise of modern science over the last few hundred years, where man's knowledge has obviated myth and superstition as a way of life, but not replaced it, as people obviously still stubbornly cling to supernatural beliefs. And myth narratives (and writings) have been passed down for untold generations, from the time when man developed speech. Why humans latched onto the concept(myth) of a god or gods who control things, without simply just relying on their senses and logic, there may be no rock solid "scientific" answers to at the moment. And I have not researched the soft sciences yet on this subject, like human psychology. But, IMO, it's easy to posit that, if raised in a primitive tribe, or by wolves, we would adopt myths to explain the world around us, and maybe even invent our own Gods.
 

hotcoffee

New Member
This is proof positive that there is a God....

Feel that warm feeling in your heart as you watch this.... that's where God is....

[video=youtube;L49VXZwfup8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L49VXZwfup8[/video]

Scientists say that's an electrical charge.... God is that charge...

:coffee:
 
Top