Para rever e pensar


Baseado no video de Richard Dawkins:

Joshua Patrick 6 days ago (hoje: Out/23/2016)
We know for a fact there are lower forms of life than humans so let us look at an insect, in this example a sugar ant. Now, that ant has senses and can communicate with its own kind but if it were to run up to your big toe which is several times larger than it by several orders of magnitude, you then pick up the ant and it crawls on your figure and you draw it in close to your face, does the ant know the different parts of your body it sees one at a time are connected to a larger whole?
If God exists, if any “supernatural” entity exists, would it not be plausible to consider that just like forms of life “lower” than us, we wouldn’t be able to identify higher forms with any ease if at all? To reject them utterly because there is no “physical evidence” assumes that man is the pinnacle of existence, and for all we do know that could be true, but it really is depressing and quite narrow minded that people reject the possibility in an almost dogmatic fury, such as hitchens did, and Dawkins does. I am not advocating any religion, but am saying that the two are not mutually exclusive and to say that they are shows a very narrow and closed view of the world.
We know that there are air pressure fluctuations beyond the range of human hearing, and the visible spectrum of light is a narrow slice of all of it as a whole. Our senses are equipped to see and hear only a certain range, and while we can certainly design instruments to measure beyond that range, we cannot possibly hope to make sense of it, because it is beyond our perception. What Dawkins espouses is that the range of human perception is all there is to reality, and surely that is true from a personal perspective, but as a whole, it doesn’t even begin to wash because scientists have been making inferences for years about what lies beyond our perception, whether the cosmic, or the microscopic. They cannot prove them in a scientific sense because the truly are not observable phenomenon so the question then becomes what is reality?
Is reality only observable phenomenon or is reality the sum total of all existence including all unknown and unobserved. I would say the latter because I believe that there are forces we cannot directly observe, but that do have a very real impact on our lives day to day, the most obvious example being gravity. The newest theory of gravity by the TP’s is that it is super dimensional, meaning not bound by the dimensions we know of, or at least has the ability to reach from one to the other. With these answers to the questions of life, reality and so forth, how can you possibly say there is no higher form of life, higher form of existence, no cosmic super-intelligence? If there were, like an ant to a human, its doubtful you would be able to see the whole of it all at once.Maybe that is what God meant when he said no man can look on him and live?
Good point, Joshua. Atheism – I think – is the other face of the same coin, with creationism. Both are mythos. I know the limits of our perception, but you don.t. Yous said “… what God meant when he said…”. Oh, com’on! God said nothing, and yours limited perception can not guarantee that a god exists. I am sure, you never listening gods saying something. There is no way for humans discovering by themselves if there are super-natural intelligentsias, we can’t jump to their dimensions – if it exists. But our limited perceptions feeds curiosity and we build imaginative theories, like religions, included atheism and scientific theories. I built my own “theory of everything”, called “The Matrix/DNA World View”. There are no known facts and evidences showed by you that could convince me my world view is not the best. But, I don’t believe that my theory is the final thru or not. Limited brains can not reach the final thru and who is inside a system, like the Universe, can not know the thru about it. When you says that ” god said” you believe in theories made by limited brains as able to reach the final thru. What is yours rational problem with logics