Imagine for a moment that you go into your neighbor’s home one day and discover a large homemade bomb sitting in the middle of his living room. “Don’t touch that.” your neighbor tells you, “If you do, the bomb will explode and our entire block will be destroyed.” How would you react? If you have an ounce of common sense, you would probably think your neighbor was the biggest nutcase you have ever met, and you would probably say something like, “Why in the heck did you build that bomb and put it in the middle of your living room, just waiting to go off and incinerate us and the rest of our families? Then you’d probably call the police and demand that the bomb be removed and your neighbor be arrested.
Now, imagine you go to work and discover a bottle of deadly nerve gas sitting on your disk “Don’t touch that bottle of nerve gas,” your boss tells you, “because, if you break the seal on the bottle you will surely die.” Off to the police you go again, screaming in rage at the wantonly dangerous conditions. “What kind of insane world is this? Are these people all idiots?”
Now, let us consider the Tree of Knowledge that God planted “in the middle of the garden of Eden,” intermingled with other trees “that were pleasing to the eye and good for food” (see Genesis 2:8 through 3:6). God placed no fence or other barrier around the Tree of Knowledge, and filled it with appealing fruit that “was good for food and pleasing to the eye.” He then told Adam, “you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it or touch it you will surely die.”
Should we not ask ourselves, “What was God thinking?” Why did God create the Tree of Knowledge, plant it in the middle of the garden of Eden, fill it with attractive fruit, place no fence around it, give Adam and Eve a desire to gain wisdom, indicate that the tree was a source of wisdom, and then merely tell Adam an Eve not to eat of it or touch it? Didn’t God know that verbal warnings are the least effective type of safety precaution, after: (a) safer design, (b) physical barriers, and (3) effective warning labels? Wasn’t the Tree of Knowledge an open and obvious danger — an accident just waiting to happen?
Moreover, how sufficient was God’s verbal warning? God told Adam and Eve that they would “die” by touching or eating of the Tree of Knowledge, but how could they possibly have understood this warning, given that they had no concept of death?
If you were God, and you wanted to protect Adam and Eve from the Tree of Knowledge, would you have done such an inept job? Indeed, according to Genesis, the Fall of Man appears to have occurred on the very same day that God created Adam and Eve. Parents do more to protect their children from matches than God did to protect Adam and Eve from death. Moreover, God is supposedly omniscient — with infinite awareness, infinite knowledge and infinite insight. How is it possible for an omniscient being to have done such a stunningly incompetent job protecting His children from danger?
Dr. Smug (and others), I may not know what happened to you, such that you don't believe in Him anymore. I do hope you have done enough studying and research, or for any matter heard the Scriptures and ponder on them deeply. The answers are all in there, if you just know where to find them, but finding is one thing, understanding (listening) is another.
We know that there are people who uses the Bible (or any holy book) for their bad (intentions), but for me it isn't God's plan or will or intention. Having an "adversary" (satan) makes it all the worse.
The Bible is the food for the soul and spirit. It is spiritual in essence, so to understand it we should have the grace of God (seek and you shall find). I believe that we have spirits and that when we die, it is either to live eternally or be condemned. But then God said:
'For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!' (Ezekiel 18:32 )
I have tried my best to be polite, thereby I apologize for the author (of this blog) if this discussion has come way out of the topic. I have given my opinions on it though, "Why make the Tree of Life?" In summary I said it is because there was Satan and God needs to know if humans are worthy to be part of His family. For God does not rejoice in Satan's (and man's) fall. All heavens mourned. I don't pretend to know God's plans, but I trust in Him. He has written enough (by grace) in the Bible to keep my faith.
For this reason (being out of topic), I humbly suggest that for a more in-depth discussion on God, we can try other forums that deal with every questions we can hurl at the Bible (e.g. http://www.worthyboards.com)
I don't mean to barge in here and "curse" you all for what you believe, for all I know I have been very fair and very critical on what to say. If by any means that this blog doesn't welcome a thought or comment from non-atheists, then I must apologize for sharing.
But in any case, it has come to pass that I must be going because, yeah, being a scientist (geoologist), I work on an oil rig (here in Israel) and it is time for us to go off. Yay! Go home at last! So I may not be able to respond to you here in the near future. I wish that leaving this blog… we did not become enemies, but friends in some way. Sharing thoughts is good, if you approach them positively. I do know that some of you have Christian friends and that they are not "conceited" (same to say with my 'godless' friends). Sinners are we all but being "evil", for me, is something we "civilized" people abhor unanimously (like terrorists, rapists, criminals… etc).
My only say is… of all the "wrong" interpretations of the Bible, there must be one that really speaks the "truth." Much like in science (physics), up to now we have different theories on matter and energy but we know there must be one "unifying theory." I hope I have made myself clear, at least in giving you a hint in my point-of-view. Finally, let me part with you a verse from the Bible and many, many thanks to you all!
'And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.' (2 Timothy 2:24-26)
Sir Man, you take criticism very well, I will study your bible verses. I use the term study a bit loosely here, but indeed, I will try and listen to the messages with faith.
May I suggest that you spend (a larger) part of your bible study time engaging in discourse related to the natural world? Please enjoy the following links in good faith, I don't think God will not be angry if we just take a quick peak into *PANDORA'S BOX*
http://www.worldbestwebsites.com/science.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
http://www.discovery.com/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/
http://www.badastronomy.com/
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/
(Still here!) Thanks Dr. Smug. Though it's not that I don't delight in science my friend. My fave channel is indeed Discovery and National Geographic. I just don't find a problem in having faith and loving science. It just suits me if I may say.
You have made me smile when you said you would "study" some verses. How much more I can say about how my God feels about it? Well, you might stumble indeed upon verses that seem to be problematic but do not hinder them on the "better" things that are written in the Bible. There are many good things in it. Stories of Love, Hope, and Faith. Use these as inspirations. Approach them positively and you will indeed be delighted. Approach them conceitedly and you may end up just like the false prophets, conceited liars, hypocrites, egoistical-maniac, extremist fanatics in this world. Oh we hate them don't we?
But anyway, thank you for sharing some of the links above. I am recommending those to all of my friends either. We do have a responsibility to our planet and to the whole human race as a whole. Peace! ^_^
I am glad that you like science. I imagine life on the rigs takes a certain toughness, mental and physical. Having studied the verses you provided, it is my assertion that the Bible is just a book, like any other. I am sorry if I disappoint you here…
Is it possible that you are confusing the miracles of nature with drunken ramblings on decrepit ancient scrolls?
Today's books of knowledge ALSO contain the valuable messages of love and joy and peace (that YOU were able to find in the Bible) which persons of good upbringing so desperately seek. I have found my savior in the pursuit of knowledge. I was the kid in the back of the class who kept raising his hand, asking questions. I am the one who studies the science and history and philosophy until my questions are answered. Each day, I have one less question about nature and one more question about the integrity of the minds of those who BLINDLY believe.
I congratulate you on your ability to find happiness in Scripture. However, you are sorely mistaken if you believe that Christianity/God is at the root of your happiness. The key element here is that you had a "good" upbringing. People of ALL faiths, whether it be Islam, Muslim, Shinto, Atheist, Lutheran, Six Day Adventist, Polytheistic, Buddist or Jewish will turn out just DANDY with a well-nurtured infancy and childhood.
The one control variable here (which is the SAME in all these cases) is the laws of nature, which NEVER lie. Thus, I "worship" modern Encyclopedias, not Scriptures. And, I think that it would serve EVERYONE better if we spread the ideas of enlightenment in the form of SCIENCE not religion.
Enjoy your hiatus, but try your utmost not to spread diseases like religion.
Just a Man writes: "Do you ever ponder what’s the point of existing when we will just fade away someday? You can say, just live a life to the fullest, no worries. I have tried to live like that, but somehow I feel empty inside. What’s the point in all these things when it’s only “worms” to look forward to?…I don’t believe I will just be worm food when I die. Now, is that so terrible?"
If Christians were merely a group of delusional people who happily anticipated living an imaginary afterlife, then there would be no problem. Unfortunately, a disturbingly large number of these same nice people organize themselves into congregations that try to stone to death (or otherwise ruin the lives of) disbelievers, while the ones who don't actively participate in this reign of terror nevertheless assent to it by sitting quietly on the sidelines, doing nothing to stop it. Perhaps even you, Just a Man, fall into this category yourself?
This article explains Dawkins' (and possibly my own) hostility toward religion…
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20334_1….
Also, please explore the most recent discoveries in science…
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/
Dr. Smug references a beliefnet article that describes how Dawkins distinguishes his atheistic beliefs from those of a fundamentalist religious "wingnut." Dawkins' main point is that his athestic beliefs are subject to revision, and even wholesale dismissal, if contradictory new evidence disproves some aspect of his science; whereas fundamentalist religious wingnuts are arrogantly, even conceitedly, self-assured in their rejection of science in favor of what their holy book tells them.
What Dawkins doesn't mention, but which seems self-evident, is that there is a good reason why fundamentalists can be arrogant and certain: they know, with absolute certainty, that their core beliefs cannot possibly be disproven. Just as we can never disprove the existence of Russell's teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we also cannot disprove most of the stories contained in the Bible. Thus, a fundie can stand on his particular mountain of faith and loudly declare it to be the One Truth Faith, because there is virtually zero probability that anyone can ever prove him wrong. Not because he is, in fact, correct, but because he has availed himself of the huge asymmetry in logic between proving a fact (science) and disproving a non-fact (religion). Moreover, whenever contrary evidence is presented, such as the fossil record to dispel the notion of creationism, the fundie can always unilaterally reject the evidence, in its entirety, on the basis of it being "merely a theory." This, too, is a safe path, because, at some level, all beliefs — even those about our Universe and our own existence in it — can be characterized as "merely a theory."
Thus, as I see things, the main difference between a fundie and an athiest like Dawkins is that a fundie will adopt beliefs he knows can never be disproven, and then will confidently declare absolute certainty in them — a behavior that is, among other things, cowardly — while an athiest will adopt beliefs he knows are speculative, but which at least have provable facts to support them, and then will remain speculative pending contrary evidence — a behavior that is, among other things, honest.
“For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope [expectation] that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.”
Paul makes it clear that the creation had no choice in being subjected to “futility” and to “slavery to corruption.” It was done by the sovereign will of God alone. Futility, vanity, or emptiness describe a path that appears to go nowhere and has no purpose {irrational!!}. When Adam sinned, his sin was imputed to all mankind. We all became liable for Adam’s sin, and thus we are all mortal, paying for a sin which we did not commit. And not only mankind, but ALL OF CREATION was subjected to this “corruption.”
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin. The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
Yet this is precisely what God did with us. The fact that all of Adam’s children are born mortal proves that we are paying for a sin committed by our father. Adam’s children were put to death for the sin of their father Adam. Did God not know that this was unjust? Of course He did! After all, He had prohibited such injustice by His own law, revealed to Moses and confirmed by Ezekiel.
This raises the most basic question about the justice of God. Death was imposed upon us outside our will, and this is the root cause of all personal sins committed after Adam’s original sin. We are being held liable for a sin of our father, Adam. We must not hide this issue and hope it goes unnoticed by God’s critics. Nor should we theologize it away {develop another religion} after God clearly takes the credit for holding us liable.
Attempting to alter His plan to fit what we think He should have done, or simply declaring that He does not exist doesn’t seem rational either.
In considering the way God imputed Adam’s sin to his descendants, and the divine law which prohibits such behavior, I do not hesitate to call God’s action a “temporary injustice,” which is the direct cause of the tension in history. Tension is the result of injustice or disharmony while it is yet unresolved. To swear off any belief in God before one understands how He has promised to resolve things, or assuming that He is incapable {nonexistent} of resolving them, seems rather arrogant and presumptuous.
—Yet this is precisely what God did with us. The fact that all of Adam’s children are born mortal proves that we are paying for a sin committed by our father.—-
Flawed logic at best. It assumes that we ever were anything but mortal. Everything dies that we know about, going back millions, even billions of years. The lamentation of some lost immortality is unsupported by anything real. No sin need have been committed for us to be heir to simple biological necessity.
Thus the entire scripture begins with a fanciful metaphor that has been taken literally—and perhaps that gullibility is the real sin which mankind is still paying for. Not the gullibility of Adam and Eve in regards to the serpent's lies, but the gullibility of humankind that allows so many to swallow whole any balderdash that promises something we can't have but imagine we want.
I wish Larry J. had addressed his comment to the subject matter of my post, instead of merely regurgitating dogma that conspicuously fails to explain anything. Sorry, Larry, but, at this blog, the "believe it because I say so" argument just isn't going to fly, nor is the "believe it because my imaginary god says so" argument. Please try again. Explain, *in your own words*, why the god you worship blames all of humanity for his (?) own negligence. According to your holy book, we have a god who could see the future, who created our planet and populated it with humans, who then created a tree that bore fruit which was lethal to humans (and, apparently, to all other living things) — a tree that served no beneficial purpose and needn't have been created in the first place (and certainly needn't have been situated smack in the center of Eden), and then this 'infinitely benevolent' deity, WHO COULD SEE THE FUTURE AND STILL DID NOT REMOVE THE TREE FROM EDEN, condemned all of humanity for eating the tree's fruit. In your own words, Larry, please explain why an infinitely benevolent deity would do something so insane. And, please, do not suggest that your god was "testing Adam's faith," because no decent human parent would ever deliberately create a lethal situation for their child merely as a test. Come on, Larry, set aside your dogma and give us *your* thoughts.
"Everything dies that we know about" There is hope because you can say "that we know about". We are more than meat.
There was a neat story by Stanilaw Lem several years ago in Omni. Two machine intelligences blundered into this solar system and were looking for signs of life. They were scanning the third planet and one of them was giving the readings from civilization, and found only primitive machines doing very mundane things which could not account for all the activity they saw. There was a debate for months about what was happening.
The speptic was saying that intelligence could not develop from meat. It never had and it never would. The other kept insisting on the evidence and pointing out that the planet was infested with bipedal thinking meat things that used machines as slaves.
If you can find it, the story is hilarious. They ended up leaving the system, no longer on speaking terms, but agreeing to wipe the memory banks of the last twelve orbits.
LOL, Larry! I remember that story. The idea has served as teh basis for a couple of decent Star Trek episodes as well. It's a reverse, of sorts, on the Turing Test.
Key word there is "evidence"—and I grant you, when something is right in front of you and you ignore it because it doesn't fit doctrine, that is a real problem.
Grumpy—to answer your question philosophically, you have to remember Augustine's description of the Fall. He called it "Oh, happy sin!" It can bve argued (philosophically, mind you) that Adam and Eve existed in a non-time. No want, no need, no pain…and nothing else. No growth. The Fall produced everything of value we know of. It even produced the foundations of religion, for those who value it. Without the Fall, no change. No enlightenment. Nothing. Presumably no joy, either. So to ask why this all-seeing god would have done that, you can give two answers—one that he was a malignant thug with the ethics of a spoiled child, or that he knew life was pointless without awareness of struggle, and that humankind would never be anything more than grounds keepers if it didn't get nudged on the road to…well, whatever.
Point being, the story hangs together both ways. But it is still a story.
Also, as a philosophical argument, this would change the nature of Original Sin. It would make it that part of us that will poke our nose into anything, even at the cost of getting it lopped off, just to find out what's there. All of pain and suffering as well as all the beauty and joy spring from this attribute humans have of being unable to leave well enough alone.
"They're Made Out Of Meat"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE
Mark: Your comment intrigues me, because so many Believers crave a chance to go to heaven, which would also seem to be a place in which you exist "in a non-time. No want, no need, no pain…and nothing else. No growth."
"It would make it that part of us that will poke our nose into anything, even at the cost of getting it lopped off, just to find out what’s there. All of pain and suffering as well as all the beauty and joy spring from this attribute humans have of being unable to leave well enough alone."
Humans are not the only mammals who are curious. 'Curiosity killed the cat' is one expression that comes to mind. Also, porpoises, otters, canines, weasels…the list goes on…have all displayed curiosity. Even the lowly octopus shows an affinity for investigating its surroundings. Thus, humans are not unique in this attribute; we're just another version of the thinking meat that inhabits this planet.
Grumpy—come on, I'm not talking about mere curiosity! To put it as broadly and bluntly as possible, humans are the only critters on the planet that build civilizations. We take our curiosity the extra mile, one step further, to higher heights and lower depths. In short, humans remake. And no, I don't count beaver damns, termite mounds, ant hills, or bird's nests. Difference in degree has resulted in difference in kind, for good or ill. Humans make Art. We formalize the creative process. I could on and on, but humans do what no other creature does on this earth, even while we use the same raw bioneural material to do it. That is what I'm talking about when I use the scientific and technical term "poking our nose in."
Mark, the essential difference between us and most other animals is our ability to abstract ideas on multiple levels. This string of dark marks on a light background is a virtual representation of potentially enduring symbols representing the ephemeral string of sounds that are each grouped to interpret as a semantic entity (like "foot") that itself is an abstraction of a somewhat related class of ideas (foot of the line, foot of verse, foot of a chair, left foot, 12", foot the bill, etc) that can then be manipulated.
Some apes have been taught to do this somewhat, and to pass what they learn on to other apes. But they don't yet seem to be able to expand the language that they can learn. Our advantage is that our ancestors invented means of transmitting indirect knowledge over long distances and times.
Civilization rises and falls. It is an inherently unstable system. When a civilization grows big enough to support an idle class, that is entire groups whose purpose is unrelated to producing necessities of survival, that is when we can start poking our noses into abstract issues, like "What was God thinking?" or "Who would design a universe in which the precise ratio between diameter and circumference is irrational?" When civilization grows large enough for most people to forget what civilization gives them, it begins to unravel.
Would that God had planted the tree of Knowledge of Systems Theory rather than of Good and Evil! But if they had stumbled on that, God might have promptly vanished in a cloud of superfluousness.
Sin is the transgression of the Law {1John3:4}, nothing more. The Law was given to Israel to be given to the whole world, by example. The problem arose when they tried to impose it on others rather than live it themselves and teach it by example. God promomised that if they would obey the Law He would bless them beyong what they were able to comprehend; think about that for a while! {The Law is a blessing or a curse – your choice Duet. 28}.
The Law is simply a way to avoid mistakes, unneeded waste of resouces, time and pain. The trick is being able to trust someone who, though not meat, is still well able to teach by demonstaration, and bring good out of evil, if you are simply willing to pay attention {the opposite of curiousity} long enough to have your eyes pried open.
I wonder if any remember the child's story of the caterpillar pillar. The caterpillers had a habit of climbing up on a rock, and when the reached the top they would begin climbing on each other. They more caterpillars that joined the pillar they higher it got, and the rock was lost from view. After several hundred caterpillars were involved the caterpillar pillar reached almost out of sight. But those paying attention, would notice a caterpillar passing by in the opposite direction every once in a while, and wonder why. Even more rarely a caterpillar would be climbing down the pillar instead of up. He would be telling anyone who would listen "there's nothing up there" and "I'm going back down and spin a cocoon, and rest up, I'm tired of this diversion from reality.
"Would that God had planted the tree of Knowledge of Systems Theory rather than of Good and Evil!"
LOL — good one, Dan! Indeed, would that it were so!
Speaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I keep wondering why the serpent gets accused of misleading Eve. God said Adam and Eve would "die" by touching the fruit, whereas the serpent said they would not "die," but rather that their eyes would be opened and they would know good and evil. Plainly, the latter is what happened, thus making the serpent the truthful one and god the one who, apparently, lied.
Adam was created immortal. He died {became mortal – subject to physical death} the day he disobeyed. His body continued to function for almost another nine hundred years, which was still within the "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day" as the Creator sees time.
"Wherefore, as by one man {Adam} sin entered into the world, and death {mortality} by sin; and so death {mortality} passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" [verses 13 -17 follow in parentheses] "Therefore as by the offense of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Romans 5:12,18
He could not become mortal if he were not first immortal. This is part of "the image of God". His descendents inherited their mortality; we were born subject to death, which is the consequence of Adam's sin. Jesus is the "kinsman redeemer" who came to buy back the debt of the Adamites {sin is reckoned as a debt} and restore us to our former estate.
"Knowing good and evil" is a another way of saying deciding good and evil. Because we are not qualified to do this when we follow another god {rulemaker} that is also unqualified to decide good and evil we suffer the consequences. "You {israelites} are to have no other gods {rulemakers} before me."
Jesus brought redemption for His people and salvation for everyone else. You can take it or leave it. The Kingdom of God {a form of government} is coming to a planet near you…
Immortality is one of the least likely aspects of religious dogma. Without time, mortality is a null concept (along with motion, light, etc). With time, everything ends. Unless the universe is cyclic ("big crunch" and its cousins) in which everything is destroyed, it will fade to uselessness; not enough energy concentration to support anything.
Dan K. "With time, everything ends." I think you mean to say that without time everything ends; we have time now and everything exists. Therefore when time ends only things that are timeless, like creatures and creators that have become or had always been immortal. Immortal simply means not subject to death. Time is the fence around our pasture. If you can leap the fence, a pass through a gate {door}, you can move from death bound {time bound} to life bound {time unbound}. Time is that which keeps evrything from happening at once, not that which keeps everything from happening. If you could move to any second of time and spend an eternity there, you could answer any question, solve any problem, implement any remedy, change any course of action, cause any bullett to misfire, etc. you would be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. We may become immortal and still not have control of time. Only control of our own lives.
LJC: Time is not a boundary; it is a measure, an axis of observation. Time is the measure of transitions. If there is a beginning, it is at a time. If there is an ending, it is at a time. If there is a change, it takes place over an interval. Without time, there is no change. Without time, neither photons nor molecules could move.
Review your first couple of years of calculus and physics and you'll recall that matter and energy are meaningless (non-existent) without time.
So I stand by my claim that time is necessary for both life and mortality, and that mortality is meaningless without time. One cannot live, and therefore cannot die without time. If time exists, then everything does have an ending. Even protons spontaneously decay.
Let's look at the odd idea of "everything happening at once". Consider a "AA" alkaline battery. With normal time, it takes about an hour to drain through a short circuit (i.e: warming a paper clip). If you adjust the time continuum to let its chemistry drain it in a millisecond, it is equivalent to a comparable amount of TNT, a blasting cap. If you reduce it to a nanosecond, the burst of energy would take out a city block (and blow out every radio and TV in line-of-sight. Keep going until you let it release all its energy at once, and you see what a silly idea that is.
Simultaneity eviscerates causality.
That is, there is no before or after if there is no time. When we cooled/slowed down atoms so that they have no relative motion, they lost their separate identities. They effectively cease to be individual particles, and actually can cause time itself to stop within their boundaries. Look up Bose-Einstein condensate.
Dan K. "time is necessary for both life and mortality, and that mortality is meaningless without time". I have no doubt that this is true. So you would have to say that death is meaningless without time? And here I speak of death of the physical body.
Measuring things is not the only basis of existence. Things that we have not yet become aware of or even thought of, exisit without our knowing about them. When we become aware of something it does not come into existence at that nanosecond.
We have been promised a body that is not subject to death, immortal, and I draw the conslusion that is is not to be done enmasse. Everyone will not become free of physical constraints at the same time. The physical universe will not be changed into something unmeasureable in an instant.
Spiritual creatures move among us now and are undetected by science and therefore not included in the awareness of most folks. I don't expect much to change by a few people being able to move in and out of physical reality as Jesus did after His resurrection. His new body was "flesh and bones" rather than "flesh and blood". The bible says the {physical} life is in the blood. Something changed.
LJC: I don't believe that to imagine something is to create it. Nor do I assert that to be ignorant of something is to prove it does not exist. Yes, I've read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=richard+bach" target="_blank" title="Amazon: Books by Bach rel="nofollow">the books of Richard Bach, and know about affirmations and many related schools of thought that make either or both of these claims.
If something cannot be detected or measured in itself or by its effects, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor" target="_blank" title="wiki: Occam" rel="nofollow">simplest solution is to assume that it doesn't exist. The Bible, written by and about men in a single culture who were inspired (heard voices), is not a reliable witness about general reality. Believing (however earnestly) in life beyond the physical does not make it real. Reports of promises by inspired individuals don't sway me. Belief is a powerful sociological force; but it doesn't change the natural universe beyond its effects on the infected culture.
Each time that a civilization has decided to base its decisions on the premise that only the measurable is real, it has advanced. Each time the decision was made that immaterial, spiritual things were the important aspect, civilizations stagnated or collapsed.