Ya know, I have the simplest explanations for things...

[lildreamer316]

that make sense to me. Yet, other people seem to want to make the subject and the argument about such very complicated. Am I just crazy? For example:

Scientific law, which may skeptics and others claim to be the standard by which all should be measured (not arguing that here btw); says that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
As far as I am aware, it has also been scientifically proven that we are all made of energy--atoms (or smaller) and the spaces between those vibrating atoms, right?
So, how can one say there is not life after death?? Aren't you being wrong by scientific definition?
Or am I just oversimplifying the idea??:shrug:

And when it comes to the creation vs. evolution thing, I just don't get it at ALL.
Why is it not perfectly reasonable to believe that GOD created evolution? Doesn't that show "his" infinite wisdom and imagination, as well as love for man and the planet? I really feel that if someone who is arguing the Christian side of that does not believe that God created evolution, you would be insulting the Creator.

Or maybe I'm just blonde.:silly:

[Why Syzygy]

1. Your argument is very scientific ..

and logical. It's called "Occam's Razor" >

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
...
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

My ex-rm, MBA, used to remind me of this principle a lot. I guess I tend to complicate things.

I agree with your energy example. Whatever energy we are composed of will transform, but not be destroyed. I don't believe we can predict what form the energy will take. But it cannot be destroyed or cease to exist.

On the creation vs. evolution debate, I really don't have an opinion. "God" would have to be energy to create evolution. Where did that energy come from? Where did the Source originate? Did it evolve itself? I don't know that there is an answer to these questions.

Good thinking, though. No blondie there.

More links >
http://skepdic.com/occam.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[lildreamer316]

2. Strangely,

I knew about that principle, a la the movie Contact of all things, but had not really delved into it to any degree. I, too, tend to complicate things,but mostly those things that are closest to my emotions.

The evolution argument is actually personally not very important on my spiritual scale, but I just find it kinda amusing that people who bother to argue about it to a serious degree overlook this point. If one is going to insist on an intelligent Creator who "thinks" as such; then how can you ignore this idea? The answer is obvious, and simple; such a one may be missing the big picture.

Ah, well. Just random thoughts. Thanks for the input & links, I'm off to read.................

[hippiechick]

3. I don't recall which 'great scientific mind' it was that said

... and possibly proved (although most any 9th grade science experiment can also prove) that energy never 'dies', it just changes form ... ie, if you heat up water- it changes to gas. If you apply enough heat or water or force to a solid, it becomes a different solid, or a liquid, or small gaseous particles.

So if our 'main force' is also basically electronic in nature (the nervous system and brain wiring/soul), then it would stand to reason that we don't "die" either, we just 'change form'.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[stellanoir]

4. You are being entirely clear about

this totally convoluted issue.

I've said for decades about the creation/evolution debate, "these people don't know the difference between poetry and science."

Then I became a "pastafarian" because it was far funnier and simpler.

May the flying spaghetti monster's noodly appendages be and abide with each and every on of you from this day forward.

Ramen.

[lildreamer316]

5. Eggsactly!

I think I am gonna convert!!:crazy:

[stellanoir]

6. I'll say it like a broken record for the rest of my days.

Humor is the singular unifying force for those of all faiths and is the truly humane spiritual force and I'm sticking to it. . .like pasta to the ceiling.

If I must prostate myself to a flying spaghetti monster to get the point of humane spirituality across I'll happily do so as it sure beats any belief system that espouses that murder and torture are ok or in any way shape or form, excusable, acceptable, or tenable.

Noodle and k-noodle on honey.