Why do people disbelieve in God??

[rameesha]

Hi,

I am Rameesha,and i am new member here,this is my first post,therefore I hope that I will be welcomed here warmly,and we will discuss this topic in friendly enviornment rather then having troll posts and headache!

 

There are many people who asks about God's exsistance,and where we come from?where shall we go?Is there a heven?Or does HELL exsists?and Who are angles?Do they really exsists?Adam and Eve were really first humans?Islam,Christanity,Jewdisim,hinduism,bhuddism etc

Which religion to choose?why to should I choose? I don't trust on anything etc

These are the various questions that spins our mind,we are to scared to discuss this,and whenever we try to research,what we find is troll,as a result of which we become more confused!

 

SO COME ON,LET US TRY TO GET SOME ANSWERS!

DOES GOD EXSIST?I DON'T BELIEVE HIM OR I BELIEVE IN GOD,BUT MY CONCEPT ABOUT HIM IS NOT CLEAR!

 

ANSWER: When we research and study different religions and views,and study different concepts of God,we become confuse as mentally we are not satisfied with the conceptions of various religions!for example,if you are shown a horrifying figure with four tounges and 8 legs and you are told that this is your God then you will definitely run away!

The problem is that how to deal with these issues?

First of all,do not force yourself in the concept which your mind is not acepting!

Imagine for yourself at first that what properties that YOU think God should have.......

..

eg: you imagined that God is powerful,beautiful and all-knower, scientist of all scientist,main programmer and does not look like the idol or figure drawn by people of the past..

Now,the verse which is explained by scholer or clerics of past may have different meanings,instead of following the meanings explained by them try to create your own concept.....eg:

 

2Thessalonians 3:3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one.

 

Now make your own concept: eg:God is faithful,he will protect you...don't go further!

 

just imagine God WITH faithful,protective attributes!

 

IS GOD ALIVE?CAN HE SEE?CAN HE CREATE THINGS?OR JUST SOME PSYCOLOGICAL FORCES ETC...

Well,it is a general common sense,you don't need complex theories in it,

For example,imagine the chair on which you are sitting,how it is made of?wood--the chair is created and who created it?

definitely a human,who is professional in making chairs and tables etc...\

the human who created it,is alive,he can see,he can think of designs, he runs a factory......

so the wood from which your chair is made of is definitely extracted from tree.........

ask to yourself........if chair is created by an alive being then THE TREE DEFINITELY IS CREATED BY A CREATOR WHO SEES,LISTENS,TEACHES,GIVES WHO EXPRESSES AND HAVE POWER TO DOMINATE!

 

HEAVEN OR HELL WHAT ARE THEY???They are places just like earth,stop imaginig those old drawings of your forefathers and create your own imagination!

 

HOW can I choose a religion?i am so confused?

if we are created by God AND our life is programmed then definitely we are monitored,just like a chemical reaction in laboratory is observed by team of scientists who work under the supervision of their boss......

so if you are created,then definitely you are observed.........just imagine the God and ask him if he exsists,ask him to help you to find the right path..a man is born with million stories....and on the basis of his behaviour his story changes.......just like IN COMPUTER PROGRAMME......!

 

WE ALL ARE PROGRAMMED FOR A PURPOSE...TO HELP EACH OTHER AND TO BE KIND WITH EACH OTHER..TO PERFORM AND OBSERVE..AND EVERY MAN IN THIS EARTH IS BORN TO RESAERCH AND LEARN!

 

If you agree then thank you...if you don't agree or dislike then you are welcomed,may be this post of mine helps you out,maybe this is totally useless to you......!well see you then.....

 

Edited December 31, 2012 by rameesha

[immortal]

 

Hi,

I am Rameesha,and i am new member here,this is my first post,therefore I hope that I will be welcomed here warmly,and we will discuss this topic in friendly enviornment rather then having troll posts and headache!

 

Welcome to SFN, I guess the third largest science forums in the world.

 

Imagine for yourself at first that what properties that YOU think God should have.......

 

I go the other way round I figure out what properties God should not have based on recent empirical evidences,this is known as negative theology, for example, if all evidence is pointing to idealism then God should be a personal God.

 

IS GOD ALIVE?

 

Sermo II

 

In the night the dead stood along the wall and cried:

 

We would have knowledge of god. Where is god? Is god dead?

 

God is not dead. Now, as ever, he liveth. God is creatura, for he is something definite, and therefore distinct from the pleroma. God is quality of the pleroma, and everything which I said of creatura also is true concerning him.

 

He is distinguished, however, from created beings through this, that he is more indefinite and indeterminable than they. He is less distinct than created beings, since the ground of his being is effective fullness. Only in so far as he is definite and distinct is he creatura, and in like measure is he the manifestation of the effective fullness of the pleroma.

 

Everything which we do not distinguish falleth into the pleroma and is made void by its opposite. If, therefore, we do not distinguish god, effective fullness is for us extinguished.

 

Moreover god is the pleroma itself, as likewise each smallest point in the created and uncreated is the pleroma itself.

 

Effective void is the nature of the devil. God and devil are the first manifestations of nothingness, which we call the pleroma. It is indifferent whether the pleroma is or is not, since in everything it is balanced and void. Not so creatura. In so far as god and devil are creatura they do not extinguish each other, but stand one against the other as effective opposites. We need no proof of their existence. It is enough that we must always be speaking of them. Even if both were not, creatura, of its own essential distinctiveness, would forever distinguish them anew out of the pleroma.

 

Everything that discrimination taketh out of the pleroma is a pair of opposites. To god, therefore, always belongeth the devil.

 

This inseparability is as close and, as your own life hath made you see, as indissoluble as the pleroma itself. Thus it is that both stand very close to the pleroma, in which all opposites are extinguished and joined.

 

God and devil are distinguished by the qualities fullness and emptiness, generation and destruction. Effectiveness is common to both. Effectiveness joineth them. Effectiveness, therefore, standeth above both; is a god above god, since in its effect it uniteth fullness and emptiness.

 

This is a god whom ye knew not, for mankind forgot it. We name it by its name Abraxas. It is more indefinite still than god and devil.

 

That god may be distinguished from it, we name god Helios or Sun. Abraxas is effect. Nothing standeth opposed to it but the ineffective; hence its effective nature freely unfoldeth itself. The ineffective is not, therefore resisteth not. Abraxas standeth above the sun and above the devil. It is improbable probability, unreal reality. Had the pleroma a being, Abraxas would be its manifestation. It is the effective itself, not any particular effect, but effect in general.

 

It is unreal reality, because it hath no definite effect.

 

It is also creatura, because it is distinct from the pleroma.

 

The sun hath a definite effect, and so hath the devil. Wherefore do they appear to us more effective than indefinite Abraxas.

 

It is force, duration, change.

 

The dead now raised a great tumult, for they were Christians.

 

- Carl Jung, Seven Sermons to the Dead.

http://gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm#Sermo_II

[MonDie]

The main reason I don't believe in a god: Most religious people assume that a god exists before the try to prove its existence. I'll give an example.

 

Certain things are caused by other things. It must be true that such things can be traced back to a first cause. The first cause wasn't caused by anything else. The only thing that fits the criteria for a first cause is God. Thus God exists.

 

The problem is that they have no way of knowing anything about "God," they've just assumed he exists with certain properties. For example, they probably also assume that God is a scentient being.

I know better than to make those assumptions, so my conclusion would be more modest. I'll show you.

 

Certain things are caused by other things. It's possible that such things can be traced back to first causes. Those first causes must have the trait of needing no other cause. I don't know of anything that possesses that trait (because I haven't presupposed the existence of a god).

 

If some first cause were found, some people might decide to call it "God" even if it lacked many of the traits of God, like omniscience, omnipotence, or immutability. However, if it lacked most of the traits ascribed to traditional gods, I would not call it a god.

 

---

 

For example,imagine the chair on which you are sitting,how it is made of?wood--the chair is created and who created it?
definitely a human,who is professional in making chairs and tables etc...\
the human who created it,is alive,he can see,he can think of designs, he runs a factory......
so the wood from which your chair is made of is definitely extracted from tree.........
ask to yourself........if chair is created by an alive being then THE TREE DEFINITELY IS CREATED BY A CREATOR WHO SEES,LISTENS,TEACHES,GIVES WHO EXPRESSES AND HAVE POWER TO DOMINATE!

 

This is the usual logic behind intelligent design.

 

1) Many natural things serve functions.

2) A thing will only serve a function well if it was designed to serve that function. For example, if a bunch of trees toppled onto each other, we wouldn't get a useful table, we would get a useless pile of wood.

3) It follows that natural things must have been designed by a scient being.

Conclusion) The designer must have been something that didn't need to be designed by anything else, so the designer must have been God.

 

Notice that, in the conclusion, there is the mistake of assuming God exists and has certain traits.

Today, we have thoroughly demonstrated the existence of the natural forces behind evolution, and we have no reason to think those forces are scentient.

 

We know that things can serve functions by accident. For example, even though a fire extinguisher was designed to extinguish fires, I can still use it to bash my way through a crowd. It's quite easy. As a scentient being, I decide the purpose of bashing my way through the crowd, then I look for something that is useful for that purpose. Nobody decided that the fire extinguisher should be useful for my purpose, its usefulness to me is an accidental trait.

 

It's true that natural organisms are very adept at survival, but we know how they came to be that way. Organisms get random mutations in their DNA, and this causes populations to have variety. The mutations that are most useful for survival allow the organisms to survive, and survival allows the organisms to reproduce. Because the useful mutations are passed onto the next generation more frequently, they become more prevalent in populations.

Notice that:

(1) The purpose of survival was not decided by a scentient being. Because of natural forces, only things adept at survival were able to reproduce. The things that couldn't survive died off. A theist might argue for the possibility that these forces were scentient, but that idea is unnecessary.

(2) Nothing had to design the organisms. Some mutations were accidentally useful, and some mutations were accidentally counterproductive. The mutations that didn't aid survival were eliminated over time.

 

As we studied evolution, we didn't presuppose anything. We only ascribed properties to these natural forces if we had evidence for these properties. This is the basic idea behind Occam's razor.

 

In physics we use the razor to shave away metaphysical concepts. The canonical example is Einstein's theory of special relativity compared with Lorentz's theory that ruler's contract and clocks slow down when in motion through the ether. Einstein's equations for transforming spacetime are the same as Lorentz's equations for transforming rulers and clocks, but Einstein and Poincaré recognised that the ether could not be detected according to the equations of Lorentz and Maxwell. By Occam's razor it had to be eliminated.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

 

Apply this reasoning to God. Assume God is the first cause of the universe.

If God caused the universe, does that necessarily mean he was scentient? No. Does it necessarily mean he is omnipotent? No.

If you keep going, you will find that this "God" isn't necessarily a god at all.

 

---

 

WE ALL ARE PROGRAMMED FOR A PURPOSE...TO HELP EACH OTHER AND TO BE KIND WITH EACH OTHER..TO PERFORM AND OBSERVE..AND EVERY MAN IN THIS EARTH IS BORN TO RESAERCH AND LEARN!

 

We decide the purpose for ourselves. I help other people because I've decided to serve that purpose.

If you wish to take the biological perspective, we help eachother because a sense of community has helped us survive. Thus random mutations were useful if they promoted a sense of community.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

I don't believe in god(s) for the same reason I don't believe in the tooth fairy or the easter bunny.

[LaurieAG]

When the majority of the global elites have more in common with each other than they do with their own people and the majority of the worlds people have more in common with each other than their elites, the peoples 'god' dies.

 

Pausanias, a greek doctor wrote circa 200AD in Book VIII of his Guide to Greece,

 

Because of their justice and their religion the people of that time entertained gods and sat at tables with them, and the gods visibly rewarded their goodness with favour and their wickedness with wrath: and in those days certain human beings were turned into gods and are still honoured,

...

But in my time when wickedness has increased to the last degree, and populates the whole world and its cities, no human being ever becomes a god, except by a verbal convention and to flatter authority, and the curse of the gods is a long time falling on the wicked, and is stored away for those who have departed from the world.

 

When 'god' loses the plot and becomes a handmaiden to the elites and their endless lust for wealth and power at the expense of uncountable numbers of innocents most honest moral people reject this neo 'god' because it has become their slave master on behalf of the elites. This is what religious people refer to as the anti-christ while most non religious just refer to them as shit kicker politicians, the bane of humanity.

[ZVBXRPL]

man created god in the stone age

I am not a caveman

 

if someone reading this DOES believe in "god", explain EXACTLY what you think this "god" entity is

 

what is he made of? how old is he? did he create just us and earth? or did he create the whole universe? what is a soul? why do only humans get to have a soul? why not animals? who not bacteria? why not rocks? why are we so special, or should I say ARROGANT? who created god? is god good/evil? who is the devil? where is heaven and where is hell? how do we travel there after death? what mode of transport do we take? is every single human who has ever lived and now dead in either heaven or hell? are there ANY other animals in heaven or hell aside from humans? do aliens go to heaven or hell or are they classed as animals? if we go to heaven/hell after we die, do we also come from heaven/hell before we are born? how many heavens and hells are there? is there just one of each or is there on for each of the thousands of different religions from throughout history from prehistoric times to present day? did there used to be more than one god and now there is just one? if i punched god in the face would i go to hell and if i punched the devil would i go to heaven?

[Semjase]

God is a man in high spirit form who rules heaven, at the spirit world that surround this planet.

People who have been declared clinically dead and been brought back to life and who have gone

there while dead and have all told of the same place.The proof to this lies in the fact that people

who are died and who have been brought back, while their soul is hovering above their body have

seen and heard exactly what was going on in the hospital room while dead, information which they could of no

way have got from their physical senses while dead.

 

This is human alien contact information concerning religion and the forces behind our reality.

 

There are also many animal and even plant forms of life which have themselves evolved to high forms of life. So there does exist many sorts, which have reached large knowledge and freed themselves from their planets and travel through the Universe and sometimes come to the Earth.

Many of them are but rather nasty contemporaries and live in a certain barbarism, which is still worse even then yours. Your should be on your guard of these types, because they often fight against and destroy everything that comes along their way. They have often even destroyed whole planets and beaten their inhabitants into barbarous bondage. This is one of our missions, to warn the Earth human about these creatures. Let the human beings know this, because more and more the time approaches where a conflict with these beings becomes unavoidable.

A further mission of ours is aimed at your religions and the connected subdevelopment of the human spirit. Above everything else stands one power that resides over the Life and Death of each creature. This is the Creation alone, who has laid her laws over all. Laws which are irrefutable and own eternal validity. When the human being troubles himself he will recognize them in Nature. They expose for him the way of life and the way towards the spiritual greatness, embodying the goal of life. While the human being continues to indulge himself in his religions and because of that to a wicked heresy, his spirit pines more and more away and finally leads to a bottomless abyss. The human being must recognize that never can a God overtake the part of the

Creation or control the destiny or fate of the human being. A God is only a governor and moreover a human being, who powerfully exercises a reign of tyranny over his fellow creatures. God is not the Creation, but only a creature from her, like all Creation dependent creatures. But the human being hunts after his religious wrong belief and affirms that God is the Creation itself He even goes further and pretends that a normal Earth human being by the name of Jmmanuel, who from conscious heresies also is named Jesus Christ, would be God's son and the Creation itself.

 

[akh]

I think there is an issue with the thread title, if that is an indication of your position. To ask why one disbelieves in god is not proper in my opinion. The question assumes that there is a god, and that some choose not to believe. But the reality is that there is no empirical evidence of god or any gods. So there is no such thing as disbelieving, there is only the lack of evidence. There is only not believing.

 

God is a man in high spirit form who rules heaven, at the spirit world that surround this planet.

People who have been declared clinically dead and been brought back to life and who have gone

there while dead and have all told of the same place.The proof to this lies in the fact that people

who are died and who have been brought back, while their soul is hovering above their body have

seen and heard exactly what was going on in the hospital room while dead, information which they could of no

way have got from their physical senses while dead.

 

 

Sorry, individual testimony does not count as empirical evidence. Even if the individual recollections seem similar there is no way to prove that they are in fact the same. There are many other possible explanations for these testimonies, non of which make god or a spirit world a requirement. Furthermore, one cannot assume god simply for the lack of a better explanation. Remeber, there are many things that were once attributed to the work of god, or gods which have now been fully explained without any need for the supernatural.

[Semjase]

There's evidence to show that this whole reality exists in the frame work

of science. Any structure that exists in our world that could not have evolved

from the natural science of our reality would indicate an intervention from

a higher force and intelligence not known to us, there is evidence of that

in our reality.

People have disbelief in God because they have no evidence

of his existence or the don't agree with the religious information

that exists concerning him.

[MonDie]

Any structure that exists in our world that could not have evolved

from the natural science of our reality would indicate an intervention from

a higher force and intelligence not known to us, there is evidence of that

in our reality.

 

A scientist won't accept a given explanation for some phenomena unless there is evidence that the explanation is correct. This applies to explanations involving natural forces and explanations involving higher intelligence.

 

By the way, how do you go about showing that something couldn't have emerged naturally (thus must have emerged artificially)? That would be a mightily impressive undertaking.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Semjase]

If something is proven not to be able to be

here through natural science then what other

explanation is possible under science.

[MonDie]

My bad. I always forget that the page doesn't refresh every time I edit my post.

 

How do you go about showing that something couldn't have emerged naturally (thus must have emerged artificially)? That would be a mightily impressive undertaking.

[zapatos]

man created god in the stone age

I am not a caveman

 

if someone reading this DOES believe in "god", explain EXACTLY what you think this "god" entity is

 

what is he made of? how old is he? did he create just us and earth? or did he create the whole universe? what is a soul? why do only humans get to have a soul? why not animals? who not bacteria? why not rocks? why are we so special, or should I say ARROGANT? who created god? is god good/evil? who is the devil? where is heaven and where is hell? how do we travel there after death? what mode of transport do we take? is every single human who has ever lived and now dead in either heaven or hell? are there ANY other animals in heaven or hell aside from humans? do aliens go to heaven or hell or are they classed as animals? if we go to heaven/hell after we die, do we also come from heaven/hell before we are born? how many heavens and hells are there? is there just one of each or is there on for each of the thousands of different religions from throughout history from prehistoric times to present day? did there used to be more than one god and now there is just one? if i punched god in the face would i go to hell and if i punched the devil would i go to heaven?

Just because I cannot answer with certainty your mostly ridiculous questions ("if I punched God in the face would I go to heaven?")does not indicate God does not exist. I could ask you just as many questions about dark matter. Just because you couldn't answer them with certainty does not mean it doesn't exist.

[Semjase]

My bad. I always forget that the page doesn't refresh every time I edit my post.

 

How do you go about showing that something couldn't have emerged naturally (thus must have emerged artificially)? That would be a mightily impressive undertaking.

 

Lets take the universe for example the only known way to create charged particles known to science is through

pair creation where charge and mass are conserved. So positrons and electrons, protons and antiprotons

are created in pairs, but the problem is our universe is the missing antimatter from pair creation, so what

happened to it and how can our universe be naturally here without it? Some outside force must of seperated

the matter from the antimatter to prevent the universe from annihilating it's self.

[MonDie]

Lets take the universe for example ...

 

I haven't studied physics at all, but I think I know what you're saying.

 

You did add "known to science." What makes you think there's no way to do this that's unknown to us, just like that unknown "higher intelligence"?

 

Why must it have been an intelligent force that separated the antimatter from the matter?

Because our bodies are bound by the laws of nature, nature can manipulate matter in any way we can. The only difference is that nature does things without intent.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[LaurieAG]

Some outside force must of seperated the matter from the antimatter to prevent the universe from annihilating it's self.

 

That's a good one Semjase, and its probably one of the main reasons why the BB theory is out of favour, apart from those who have already taken a leap of faith.

[Semjase]

Mark this day on the calendar the big bang theory has

been officially acknowleged to have a fatal flaw.

[iNow]

LaurieAG doesn't "officially" speak for "all of science." These threads seem to get dumber and more vacuous by the second.

[Semjase]

It's been officially acknownleged that it's out of favor with

some, maybe its time science officially looked into it.

[iNow]

maybe its time science officially looked into it.

Scientists "look into it" every single day. Your incredulity regarding those research efforts does not mean they aren't occurring.

[ACG52]

LaurieAG doesn't "officially" speak for "all of science." These threads seem to get dumber and more vacuous by the second.

 

Remember this is the religion forum, where any woo-woo goes.

[Semjase]

Scientists "look into it" every single day. Your incredulity regarding those research efforts does not mean they aren't occurring.

I think this antimatter question concerning the origin

of the universe and the big bang theory could be the most

decisive evidence concerning the question of intelligent design.

[MonDie]

I guess the argument is over, but I would like to restate a good point.

 

If some occurence seems to be impossible, that doesn't prove the existence of a god. An impossibility is still impossible whether it was caused with intent (by a god) or caused without intent (by nature).

[Semjase]

Lets say that everything that is here has evolved from the properties of nature

and you find something unnatural in nature considering all the properties envolved

in it's creation, then you look for a creator it's the next logical step.This could be

true for life as well.

 

I think to whether to believe or not to believe in a creator

is a very important question concerning everyone as shown below.

 

 

 

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial is an award-winning NOVA documentary on the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which concentrated on the question of whether or not intelligent design could be viewed as science and taught in school science class. It first aired on PBS on November 13, 2007, and features interviews with the judge, witnesses, and lawyers as well as re-enacted scenes using the official transcript of the trial.^[1]

Judgment Day was produced by NOVA and Vulcan Productions in association with the Big Table Film Company. The senior executive producer was Paula S. Apsell, the executive producer was Richard Hutton, and the producers were Joseph McMaster, Gary Johnstone, and Vanessa Tovell. The senior producer was Susanne Simpson. Johnstone and McMaster served as directors, and McMaster was the writer.^[2]

In April 2008 the documentary won a Peabody Award.^[3] It won the 2008 Science Journalism Award presented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science to honor excellence in science reporting.^[4]

Contents

• 1 Summary
• 2 Response
• 3 See also
• 4 References
• 5 External links

Summary

The documentary combines real-life interviews with those involved in the controversy with reenactments of events in the trial. The school board of Dover, a small rural town in Pennsylvania, passed a policy in which biology teachers in Dover Area High School must read a disclaimer regarding evolution, stating that it is not fact and contains gaps in evidence. It then pointed them to a set of books advocating intelligent design, called Of Pandas and People. Several biology teachers, including featured interviewees Brian and Christy Rehm, refused to read the statement and a lawsuit, Kitzmiller v Dover, was eventually filed to stop the school district from mandating the teaching of intelligent design. The documentary presents the resulting trial as revolving around the validity of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. The defendants, members of the Dover County school board, argued that ID was a scientific theory and thus deserved to be taught in schools alongside evolution. The plaintiffs argued that Intelligent Design was a religious doctrine. Also at issue in the trial was whether the board members who had pushed the teaching of Intelligent Design had knowingly done so in order to inject creationism into the public schools. Previous court rulings had explicitly ruled the teaching of creationism unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of church and state. After hearing testimony from scientists in favor of and opposed to Intelligent Design, Judge John E Jones III rules that Intelligent Design is an inherently religious theory and therefore the teaching of it is not permitted as part of a science curriculum.

[MonDie]

you find something unnatural in nature considering all the properties envolved

in it's creation, then you look for a creator it's the next logical step.

 

You can't say for sure that it's unnatural until you have a 100% complete understanding of nature. If you concede this point, you must alter what you just said.

"you find something [that doesn't fit with our current understanding of nature], then you look for a creator it's the next logical step."

This is actually close to what scientists do, but scientists don't assume the "creator" must be intelligent.

 

Intelligent Design proponents use that argument involving the writing in the sand, or the watch, or whatever man-made thing. You find it, and you know it was made by a person. However, scientists have come to realize that nature creates a lot of the same stuff we create.

Think about what a purpose is. A purpose is an end, which can be achieved with certain means. In nature, an important end is the end of survival, and organisms meet that end with their various adaptions. The only thing special about "purpose" is that it's a "proper" end. The proper end of swinging bats is hitting balls. The proper end of typing is creating a message.

Something is "proper" merely because it is commonly understood by many people. The proper way to construct a watch is to make it circular with 12 numbers or 12 roman numerals. If a watch had a square shape with a foreign number system, it wouldn't look much like a watch to us. In different parts of the world, different languages are considered to be proper. If I wrote a lebanese message in the sand, you'd think, "Who brought their chickens to the beach?" And don't get me started about speaking in tongues.

Now consider this. If we can only detect intelligence through our knowledge of what is proper, how would we know signs of a "higher intelligence" when we found them?

 

---

 

Here is the documentary Semjase spoke of.

 

 

---

 

Sorry for making up the word "scentient" earlier. It was an unintentional fusion of the words "sentient" and "scient."

Edited January 3, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die