View Full Version : Does God exist or not?
slystaff
08-05-2004, 05:42 PM
Yes, time to revisit an old topic that hasn't been done in a while.
Many who claim to be educated and knowledgeable suggest that the concept of a God is ludicrous. They say that it is kindergarten stuff akin to Santa Clause, Easter bunny and the tooth fairy. They say that it is a concept for those who need a "crutch" to lean on, or who need a simplistic explanation for the origins of life and the universe.
It is claimed that if you pick up a science book and do a little research, then ALL THE ANSWERS are there, and you will realize that the concept of God is laughable and that science itself explains the existence of everything.
The funny thing is...those that say this are in fact the naive ones, they are the ones that are believing in fairy tales that can be likened to Santa Clause. They are the ones who need a "crutch" to lean on. They are the ones that are accepting an ILLOGICAL explanation of the origins of the universe.
Science, logic, philosophy and even mathematics dictate the existence of God. No other option is possible!
Cause and effect!
Every effect, action, occurence is DEPENDANT upon a cause. This is the FIRST RULE, the FOUNDATION of natural logic. Every ideology, belief, doctrine, concept, understanding etc, is based primarily on CAUSE AND EFFECT!
So bearing this in mind, we can reject the concept that something came out of nothing without a cause. If there was ever NOTHING there would never be anything, since there are things, there was NEVER nothing, and if there was never NOTHING there was always SOMETHING!
However everything that changes, is temporal. If it changes over time, it means that it is dependent upon time and if it is dependent upon time...it had a beginning.
Therefore, the ever changing universe..HAD A BEGINNING. If it had a beginning, cause and effect denotes that it had a beginner!
Since there was never nothing there must have been something that existed before the universe that caused it to become.
I submit to you that the first cause was God. God may not be an old man in the sky with a beard...that's not important, what is important is that whatever God may be (an intelligent energy force/source or whatever)...he (it) HAS to exist, or with have a missing piece in the eternal equation of logic.
Could the cause of the universe have been another universe...in a sort of ongoing cycle?
Sure. But regardless...there had to be a FIRST CAUSE that started the cycle initially. Because if the cycle changes over time, it denotes that it had a beginning.
What caused God?
Nothing. He wasn't caused, because he didn't begin. God is not an occurence, an action....he is a constant. Logic doesn't dictate that he had to have had a beginning because the concept of God is that he doesn't change, and is therefore unaffected by time.
Anything that doesn't change is unaffected by time, therefore is outside of time, therefore is eternal.
SOMETHING had to be eternal, because as I said before, there was NEVER NOTHING!!
Feel free to attempt refute my thoughts and ask me any questions.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
Rock on
08-05-2004, 05:51 PM
Convoluted and contradictry post. If u can't spot your contradiction then drop the bottle. :shaneUD12Oscar:
slystaff
08-05-2004, 05:52 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Convoluted and contradictry post. If u can't spot your contradiction then drop the bottle. :shaneUD12Oscar: [/b][/quote]
Please point it out to me. Perhaps it isn't a contradiction at all and I just didn't clarify myself properly.
cupey alto
08-05-2004, 06:03 PM
Come on Sly. We've been through this one time and time again. Geez. You have to be pretty ignorant to think everything happened by chance or that we evolved from apes yet there are still apes. That's silly.
The real question is who's God is True God.
Cupey
slystaff
08-05-2004, 06:04 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
The real question is who's God is True God.
Cupey [/b][/quote]
We can address that if you wish as long as everyone present first accepts that there is a God.
Sir Dice N Slice
08-05-2004, 06:10 PM
Two points I would like to make.
First, humans are not advanced mentally enough to comprehend all that goes on in the universe, we can only speculate, our "logic" is restricted only to our knowledge of our solar system and a little bit beyond. For example, gamma rays seem to blow Einsteins law of relativity out of the window, in fact shatter it completely. If something so basic and fundamental can be proved wrong, so can pretty much any of our "logic", we know next to nothing in the larger scheme of things, so it's foolish to speculate.
Secondly, if there is an "intelligent being" which created all in the universe, I sincerely doubt it is the God depicted in the Bible, or the Q'uran, or whatever. What about the belief in reincarnation Sly? That is just as, if not more, plausible than the theory of everlasting life.
Firstbase
08-05-2004, 06:21 PM
Dont think about so mutch,it´s not good for your brain bro.
Some questions cant be answer, this is one of them.
I liked Morgan Freedman's line in "the big bounce"
"God is an imaginary friend for adults"
I honestly honestly believe that if us (humans) survive another 200 years we will look back and laugh at all this "worship" It is nessary right now and although false it can still be positive
slystaff
08-05-2004, 06:30 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I liked Morgan Freedman's line in "the big bounce"
"God is an imaginary friend for adults"
I honestly honestly believe that if us (humans) survive another 200 years we will look back and laugh at all this "worship" It is nessary right now and although false it can still be positive [/b][/quote]
There is NO WAY to explain the existence of life itself (forget the inorganic matter of the universe), with it's intelligent processes, without an intelligent creator.
Inorganic matter cannot suddenly become alive, even the most primitive forms of life are infinitely more complex than the most advanced computer system.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
BadkittyM
08-05-2004, 06:51 PM
As soon as talk turns to Politics, Sports or Theology, logic is the first thing to depart the region, never to return.
-Marcy
Freddy
08-05-2004, 07:10 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
I honestly honestly believe that if us (humans) survive another 200 years we will look back and laugh at all this "worship" It is nessary right now and although false it can still be positive [/b][/quote]
You reckon? I don't!
Science as a whole may give an illusion of progress, but the individual person on the street is getting dumber and shallower by the day. Most of our "progress" has just given us more toys to play with, less work to do and more ways to avoid using our brain.
Another 200 years of intellectual atrophy will leave us in no positon to "laugh" at anything other than ourselves.
cupey alto
08-05-2004, 07:21 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
I honestly honestly believe that if us (humans) survive another 200 years we will look back and laugh at all this "worship" It is nessary right now and although false it can still be positive [/b][/quote]
You reckon? I don't!
Science as a whole may give an illusion of progress, but the individual person on the street is getting dumber and shallower by the day. Most of our "progress" has just given us more toys to play with, less work to do and more ways to avoid using our brain.
Another 200 years of intellectual atrophy will leave us in no positon to "laugh" at anything other than ourselves. [/b][/quote]
:lol:
cupey alto
08-05-2004, 07:24 PM
I wonder why people say we are living in a progressive society? Does anybody real think the world is getting better? I'm not sure what we've accomplished socially to think that. Unless drive-by shootings and gay marriages is progress I just don't see it
Cupey
D MAN
08-05-2004, 07:32 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Yes, time to revisit an old topic that hasn't been done in a while.
Many who claim to be educated and knowledgeable suggest that the concept of a God is ludicrous. They say that it is kindergarten stuff akin to Santa Clause, Easter bunny and the tooth fairy. They say that it is a concept for those who need a "crutch" to lean on, or who need a simplistic explanation for the origins of life and the universe.
It is claimed that if you pick up a science book and do a little research, then ALL THE ANSWERS are there, and you will realize that the concept of God is laughable and that science itself explains the existence of everything.
The funny thing is...those that say this are in fact the naive ones, they are the ones that are believing in fairy tales that can be likened to Santa Clause. They are the ones who need a "crutch" to lean on. They are the ones that are accepting an ILLOGICAL explanation of the origins of the universe.
Science, logic, philosophy and even mathematics dictate the existence of God. No other option is possible!
Cause and effect!
Every effect, action, occurence is DEPENDANT upon a cause. This is the FIRST RULE, the FOUNDATION of natural logic. Every ideology, belief, doctrine, concept, understanding etc, is based primarily on CAUSE AND EFFECT!
So bearing this in mind, we can reject the concept that something came out of nothing without a cause. If there was ever NOTHING there would never be anything, since there are things, there was NEVER nothing, and if there was never NOTHING there was always SOMETHING!
However everything that changes, is temporal. If it changes over time, it means that it is dependent upon time and if it is dependent upon time...it had a beginning.
Therefore, the ever changing universe..HAD A BEGINNING. If it had a beginning, cause and effect denotes that it had a beginner!
Since there was never nothing there must have been something that existed before the universe that caused it to become.
I submit to you that the first cause was God. God may not be an old man in the sky with a beard...that's not important, what is important is that whatever God may be (an intelligent energy force/source or whatever)...he (it) HAS to exist, or with have a missing piece in the eternal equation of logic.
Could the cause of the universe have been another universe...in a sort of ongoing cycle?
Sure. But regardless...there had to be a FIRST CAUSE that started the cycle initially. Because if the cycle changes over time, it denotes that it had a beginning.
What caused God?
Nothing. He wasn't caused, because he didn't begin. God is not an occurence, an action....he is a constant. Logic doesn't dictate that he had to have had a beginning because the concept of God is that he doesn't change, and is therefore unaffected by time.
Anything that doesn't change is unaffected by time, therefore is outside of time, therefore is eternal.
SOMETHING had to be eternal, because as I said before, there was NEVER NOTHING!!
Feel free to attempt refute my thoughts and ask me any questions.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
Sly, I have used this identical argument every time that the discussion of God has come up... and eventually it has slowly dawned on everyone that I have told.. yes.. there MUST be a God.
Too many people get caught up in evolution, the Bible, re-incarnation, and other religious beliefs during the discussion of God.
People need to realize that these are all simply human interpratations of something that is to us completely foreign.
To believe in God, is not necessarily to be religious.
To deny the existance of God is ludicrous.
black06
08-05-2004, 07:38 PM
I've used this argument too but it's never had that effect for me... it usually just leads to really exotic theories & outright denial by stubborn minded people...I finally concluded people already have their minds made up on things like this by the time they reach a certain age & I should stop stressing myself out trying to show them otherwise
slystaff
08-05-2004, 07:38 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Sly, I have used this identical argument every time that the discussion of God has come up... and eventually it has slowly dawned on everyone that I have told.. yes.. there MUST be a God.
Too many people get caught up in evolution, the Bible, re-incarnation, and other religious beliefs during the discussion of God.
People need to realize that these are all simply human interpratations of something that is to us completely foreign.
To believe in God, is not necessarily to be religious.
To deny the existance of God is ludicrous. [/b][/quote]
I couldn't have put it any better. great post.
The God religion tells us about? No. There's something bigger out there out of our reach of knowledge and understanding with whatever name you wanna give it, that I do believe. Just live your life the best you can and enjoy it because no matter how much you screw up, everything you do is your work and yours only. In the time we have here eveything we do is our own little masterpiece, nobody else in history could've done it but ourselves. And that's a very powerful thought IMO.
BadkittyM
08-05-2004, 07:53 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> The God religion tells us about? No. There's something bigger out there out of our reach of knowledge and understanding with whatever name you wanna give it, that I do believe. Just live your life the best you can and enjoy it because no matter how much you screw up, everything you do is your work and yours only. In the time we have here eveything we do is our own little masterpiece, nobody else in history could've done it but ourselves. And that's a very powerful thought IMO. [/b][/quote]
:lol:
Nice way of putting it. The fact that I tend to agree, is beside the point.
-Marcy
Joe King
08-05-2004, 07:55 PM
I believe in God with all of my heart.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> The God religion tells us about? No. There's something bigger out there out of our reach of knowledge and understanding with whatever name you wanna give it, that I do believe. Just live your life the best you can and enjoy it because no matter how much you screw up, everything you do is your work and yours only. In the time we have here eveything we do is our own little masterpiece, nobody else in history could've done it but ourselves. And that's a very powerful thought IMO. [/b][/quote]
:lol:
Nice way of putting it. The fact that I tend to agree, is beside the point.
-Marcy[/b][/quote]
Thanks. :wink:
Freddy
08-05-2004, 08:08 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I believe in God with all of my heart. [/b][/quote]
And I am given to understand that you have his name inscribed under your avatar...
This is always a great one.. ha ha
Marcy, I like your point about logic.
What always is funny to me is that for people that blindly believe there is just nothing to be said on the matter. That's good. As I said, even if there isn't one, people need SOMETHING to believe in. It has even been suggested that our make up is such that Physically the way our mind works it is almost hard wired in there. To have a "higher power"
Honestly in what I do and practice the existence of a "god" doesn't matter. It isn't really addressed.
WHat is also interesting is the whole argument of "Intelligent life HAD to have a creator"
Says who? and WHO created the Creator? If there is a "being" above all else and this being is "intelligent" then by that very argument he COULD NOT Have just "sprung to life"
For all you that do believe in a higher power let me ask seriously.. "Do you believe in Aliens and if so does a "god" govern them too?
I'm being honest when I say I am somewhat ignorant as far as mainstream church goes, Christians and all, So I don't know their view on this. Was life on other planets, other galaxies.. was that addressed in the Bible?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
I honestly honestly believe that if us (humans) survive another 200 years we will look back and laugh at all this "worship" It is nessary right now and although false it can still be positive [/b][/quote]
You reckon? I don't!
Science as a whole may give an illusion of progress, but the individual person on the street is getting dumber and shallower by the day. Most of our "progress" has just given us more toys to play with, less work to do and more ways to avoid using our brain.
Another 200 years of intellectual atrophy will leave us in no positon to "laugh" at anything other than ourselves. [/b][/quote]
Less than 100 years ago around 1926 or so the first national electric grid was in place
We didn't have TV until '36 or so.
We didn't have the internet really everywhere 15 years ago
200 years is a LONG time! A LOT has happened!
To say we are not learning is silly.
We now understand the brain better than ever. I think as science advances devout religious people will also fade. Science is proving more and more. I have no doubt that we WILL be able to capture dreams on silicon at some point. We are able to monitor the Brain in ways we could never dream of
There is often talk of 19th century legislation meant to close the Patent Office because everything had been invented! We at some point thought there was NOTHING that we didn't have! :rolleyes:
We have no concept of what is to come.
Either way to say 100% for sure weather there IS OR ISN'T a "creator" of some sort is ignorant.
copernicus
08-05-2004, 10:46 PM
In the end, does this discussion really have any bearing on anything at all? If God does exist - what impact does he have, off wherever he is? I can't imagine for an instant that he would pay even the slightest attention to our human fumblings and bumblings. Of course, humankind being the supremely arrogant types that we are, place ourselves at the centre and forefront of his attentions. After all, it took him only about 13 billion years to get around to making us. Obviously we're not his greatest concern, one would think.
And of course, if he didn't exist, it wouldn't matter either. It'd be a silly semantic argument between people with too much time or brainpower on their hands which would have the same impact as a speck of dirt in the sea. Either way, the argument has no impact on us aside from getting people pissed off and worked up about something which, in no way shape or form, can we either prove or disprove. The existence of God is basically a human-created paradox. All it comes down to is belief.
In the end, there are better and more important things to worry about - such as why we still feel the need to kill each other, cause pain to each other, and generally act like fucks all around the world. These sorts of discussions are much more valuable than theological or existential debates.
But, that's my dumb take on things.
Freddy
08-05-2004, 11:07 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Less than 100 years ago around 1926 or so the first national electric grid was in place
We didn't have TV until '36 or so.
We didn't have the internet really everywhere 15 years ago
200 years is a LONG time! A LOT has happened!
To say we are not learning is silly.
We now understand the brain better than ever. I think as science advances devout religious people will also fade. Science is proving more and more. I have no doubt that we WILL be able to capture dreams on silicon at some point. We are able to monitor the Brain in ways we could never dream of
There is often talk of 19th century legislation meant to close the Patent Office because everything had been invented! We at some point thought there was NOTHING that we didn't have! :rolleyes:
We have no concept of what is to come.
Either way to say 100% for sure weather there IS OR ISN'T a "creator" of some sort is ignorant. [/b][/quote]
There is more information around sure. Science as a whole knows way more - I am talking about individual, ordinary people.
We don't need to think anymore. How many kids can add up or do long multiplication or division without a calculator? You used to have to know that stuff, just to get by in life or you'd be considered educationally subnormal.
It won't be long before people on the whole won't be able to write coherent sentences. Already, the Internet, text messages and the like are eroding the basics of grammar and meaning. It might not seem like a big deal at the moment, but I know plenty of kids who think that the shorthand rubbish they send on their mobile phones will also do for writing letters to the wider world in general.
Google searches, instant news and media opinion, mean that a lot of people don't ever really get around to learning the basics of anything. They take information out of context and don't have the fundamental educational tools to put it into a proper perspective, examine it, and arrive at their own considered conclusions.
There is a huge difference between knowledge and understanding and the former is generally pretty dry and useless without a healthy dose of the latter.
Even at this stage if you suddenly took away the average eighteen year old's Internet Connection, Calculator and Spell checker and dumped him back in the Fifties, he'd be considered a dunce.
Yeah, he'd be able to waffle about computers, Video Games, DVD’s or whatever, but he'd never in his life have a clue as how to go about building one. Hell, he wouldn't even be able to use a simple formula to calculate the power consumption of a light bulb.
I shudder to think what the next twenty years will produce, let alone the next two hundred...
Freddy
08-05-2004, 11:14 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Either way to say 100% for sure weather there IS OR ISN'T a "creator" of some sort is ignorant. [/b][/quote]
By the way, I agree with you completely on this.
black06
08-05-2004, 11:14 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Less than 100 years ago around 1926 or so the first national electric grid was in place
We didn't have TV until '36 or so.
We didn't have the internet really everywhere 15 years ago
200 years is a LONG time! A LOT has happened!
To say we are not learning is silly.
We now understand the brain better than ever. I think as science advances devout religious people will also fade. Science is proving more and more. I have no doubt that we WILL be able to capture dreams on silicon at some point. We are able to monitor the Brain in ways we could never dream of
There is often talk of 19th century legislation meant to close the Patent Office because everything had been invented! We at some point thought there was NOTHING that we didn't have! :rolleyes:
We have no concept of what is to come.
Either way to say 100% for sure weather there IS OR ISN'T a "creator" of some sort is ignorant. [/b][/quote]
There is more information around sure. Science as a whole knows way more - I am talking about individual, ordinary people.
We don't need to think anymore. How many kids can add up or do long multiplication or subtraction without a calculator? You used to have to know that stuff, just to get by in life or you'd be considered educationally subnormal.
It won't be long before people on the whole won't be able to write coherent sentences. Already, the Internet, text messages and the like are eroding the basics of grammar and meaning. It might not seem like a big deal at the moment, but I know plenty of kids who think that the shorthand rubbish they send on their mobile phones will also do for writing letters to the wider world in general.
Google searches, instant news and media opinion, mean that a lot of people don't ever really get around to learning the basics of anything. They take information out of context and don't have the fundamental educational tools to put it into a proper perspective, examine it, and arrive at their own considered conclusions.
There is a huge difference between knowledge and understanding and the former is generally pretty dry and useless without a healthy dose of the latter.
Even at this stage if you suddenly took away the average eighteen year old's Internet Connection, Calculator and Spell checker and dumped him back in the Fifties, he'd be considered a dunce.
Yeah, he'd be able to waffle about computers, Video Games, DVD’s or whatever, but he'd never in his life have a clue as how to go about building one. Hell, he wouldn't even be able to use a simple formula to calculate the power consumption of a light bulb.
I shudder to think what the next twenty years will produce, let alone the next two hundred... [/b][/quote]
good post! :lol:
copernicus
08-05-2004, 11:24 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Less than 100 years ago around 1926 or so the first national electric grid was in place
We didn't have TV until '36 or so.
We didn't have the internet really everywhere 15 years ago
200 years is a LONG time! A LOT has happened!
To say we are not learning is silly.
We now understand the brain better than ever. I think as science advances devout religious people will also fade. Science is proving more and more. I have no doubt that we WILL be able to capture dreams on silicon at some point. We are able to monitor the Brain in ways we could never dream of
There is often talk of 19th century legislation meant to close the Patent Office because everything had been invented! We at some point thought there was NOTHING that we didn't have! :rolleyes:
We have no concept of what is to come.
Either way to say 100% for sure weather there IS OR ISN'T a "creator" of some sort is ignorant. [/b][/quote]
There is more information around sure. Science as a whole knows way more - I am talking about individual, ordinary people.
We don't need to think anymore. How many kids can add up or do long multiplication or division without a calculator? You used to have to know that stuff, just to get by in life or you'd be considered educationally subnormal.
It won't be long before people on the whole won't be able to write coherent sentences. Already, the Internet, text messages and the like are eroding the basics of grammar and meaning. It might not seem like a big deal at the moment, but I know plenty of kids who think that the shorthand rubbish they send on their mobile phones will also do for writing letters to the wider world in general.
Google searches, instant news and media opinion, mean that a lot of people don't ever really get around to learning the basics of anything. They take information out of context and don't have the fundamental educational tools to put it into a proper perspective, examine it, and arrive at their own considered conclusions.
There is a huge difference between knowledge and understanding and the former is generally pretty dry and useless without a healthy dose of the latter.
Even at this stage if you suddenly took away the average eighteen year old's Internet Connection, Calculator and Spell checker and dumped him back in the Fifties, he'd be considered a dunce.
Yeah, he'd be able to waffle about computers, Video Games, DVD’s or whatever, but he'd never in his life have a clue as how to go about building one. Hell, he wouldn't even be able to use a simple formula to calculate the power consumption of a light bulb.
I shudder to think what the next twenty years will produce, let alone the next two hundred... [/b][/quote]
You're right. Alas, it's not so much that people are getting any more stupid - it's just that we're so used to having all this stuff around to do tasks for us, that there is simply no need for people to have to think about many things. Not only that, but the glut of information and the whole 'instant gratification' attitude means that people don't really want to sit down and think about something and figure it out for themselves.
It's come down to behavioural habits around the country and many parts of the world, rather than people simply becoming more stupid. Unfortunately, reversing these habits and attitudes is nigh-on impossible now that they're entrenched.
cdogg187
08-05-2004, 11:53 PM
God is a HUMAN invention.
bam^^^
08-06-2004, 12:01 AM
no
cdogg187
08-06-2004, 12:15 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> In the end, does this discussion really have any bearing on anything at all? If God does exist - what impact does he have, off wherever he is? I can't imagine for an instant that he would pay even the slightest attention to our human fumblings and bumblings. Of course, humankind being the supremely arrogant types that we are, place ourselves at the centre and forefront of his attentions. After all, it took him only about 13 billion years to get around to making us. Obviously we're not his greatest concern, one would think.
And of course, if he didn't exist, it wouldn't matter either. It'd be a silly semantic argument between people with too much time or brainpower on their hands which would have the same impact as a speck of dirt in the sea. Either way, the argument has no impact on us aside from getting people pissed off and worked up about something which, in no way shape or form, can we either prove or disprove. The existence of God is basically a human-created paradox. All it comes down to is belief.
In the end, there are better and more important things to worry about - such as why we still feel the need to kill each other, cause pain to each other, and generally act like fucks all around the world. These sorts of discussions are much more valuable than theological or existential debates.
But, that's my dumb take on things. [/b][/quote]
I can't believe you have 647 posts and I don't remember ever talking to you.
You have some good things to say, my friend.
This is the second post of yours I've seen in the last few minutes.
Smart cat, I like that. Keep up the good work.
Ugotabe Kidding
08-06-2004, 01:10 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> In the end, does this discussion really have any bearing on anything at all? If God does exist - what impact does he have, off wherever he is? I can't imagine for an instant that he would pay even the slightest attention to our human fumblings and bumblings. Of course, humankind being the supremely arrogant types that we are, place ourselves at the centre and forefront of his attentions. After all, it took him only about 13 billion years to get around to making us. Obviously we're not his greatest concern, one would think.
And of course, if he didn't exist, it wouldn't matter either. It'd be a silly semantic argument between people with too much time or brainpower on their hands which would have the same impact as a speck of dirt in the sea. Either way, the argument has no impact on us aside from getting people pissed off and worked up about something which, in no way shape or form, can we either prove or disprove. The existence of God is basically a human-created paradox. All it comes down to is belief.
In the end, there are better and more important things to worry about - such as why we still feel the need to kill each other, cause pain to each other, and generally act like fucks all around the world. These sorts of discussions are much more valuable than theological or existential debates.
But, that's my dumb take on things. [/b][/quote]
Wise words.
We have been through this many times in the past so now I'll just say my opinion in short that there can be a creator kind of god, it its difficult to explain the existense of universe without accepting one. But I can't see how there could be a God with personality, that just doesn't fit in.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> In the end, does this discussion really have any bearing on anything at all? If God does exist - what impact does he have, off wherever he is? I can't imagine for an instant that he would pay even the slightest attention to our human fumblings and bumblings. Of course, humankind being the supremely arrogant types that we are, place ourselves at the centre and forefront of his attentions. After all, it took him only about 13 billion years to get around to making us. Obviously we're not his greatest concern, one would think.
And of course, if he didn't exist, it wouldn't matter either. It'd be a silly semantic argument between people with too much time or brainpower on their hands which would have the same impact as a speck of dirt in the sea. Either way, the argument has no impact on us aside from getting people pissed off and worked up about something which, in no way shape or form, can we either prove or disprove. The existence of God is basically a human-created paradox. All it comes down to is belief.
In the end, there are better and more important things to worry about - such as why we still feel the need to kill each other, cause pain to each other, and generally act like fucks all around the world. These sorts of discussions are much more valuable than theological or existential debates.
But, that's my dumb take on things. [/b][/quote]
You still taking photos dude? Keen to see some more.
atomicdOGg34
08-06-2004, 02:22 AM
its illogical for something to come out of nothing yet its totally logical that theres an old man who lives in the sky and magically makes planets and the cosmos come flying out of his ass
i see your point
NeighborMike
08-06-2004, 02:35 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> its illogical for something to come out of nothing yet its totally logical that theres an old man who lives in the sky and magically makes planets and the cosmos come flying out of his ass
i see your point [/b][/quote]
:D
threads about things like this go no place
bam^^^
08-06-2004, 02:37 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> its illogical for something to come out of nothing yet its totally logical that theres an old man who lives in the sky and magically makes planets and the cosmos come flying out of his ass
i see your point [/b][/quote]
:D
threads about things like this go no place [/b][/quote]
where is esk when you need him?
NeighborMike
08-06-2004, 02:41 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> its illogical for something to come out of nothing yet its totally logical that theres an old man who lives in the sky and magically makes planets and the cosmos come flying out of his ass
i see your point [/b][/quote]
:D
threads about things like this go no place [/b][/quote]
where is esk when you need him? [/b][/quote]
gone..........forever
slystaff
08-06-2004, 07:19 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God is a HUMAN invention. [/b][/quote]
How do you figure? This is the most ignorant statement that I have read so far.
Humans were not here forever. Nothing that changes was. Something had to create us....it takes intelligence to produce intelligence.
slystaff
08-06-2004, 07:21 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> its illogical for something to come out of nothing yet its totally logical that theres an old man who lives in the sky and magically makes planets and the cosmos come flying out of his ass
i see your point [/b][/quote]
You are assuming that God is an old man. Who said that?
slystaff
08-06-2004, 07:24 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> In the end, does this discussion really have any bearing on anything at all? If God does exist - what impact does he have, off wherever he is? I can't imagine for an instant that he would pay even the slightest attention to our human fumblings and bumblings. Of course, humankind being the supremely arrogant types that we are, place ourselves at the centre and forefront of his attentions. After all, it took him only about 13 billion years to get around to making us. Obviously we're not his greatest concern, one would think.
And of course, if he didn't exist, it wouldn't matter either. It'd be a silly semantic argument between people with too much time or brainpower on their hands which would have the same impact as a speck of dirt in the sea. Either way, the argument has no impact on us aside from getting people pissed off and worked up about something which, in no way shape or form, can we either prove or disprove. The existence of God is basically a human-created paradox. All it comes down to is belief.
In the end, there are better and more important things to worry about - such as why we still feel the need to kill each other, cause pain to each other, and generally act like fucks all around the world. These sorts of discussions are much more valuable than theological or existential debates.
But, that's my dumb take on things. [/b][/quote]
Nonsense!
The discussion of where we came from and consequently where we are going is of central importance. You just written a paragraphed cliche designed to get some congratulations...but not really well thought out, and certainly doesn't impress me.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
Sir Dice N Slice
08-06-2004, 08:16 AM
Sly, what about the gamma ray problem, I would be interested in hearing your views on it
PetreTG
08-06-2004, 08:33 AM
PROPHECY ..... In the last days many will claim "There is no God"
Darwin .... concluded that with the complexity of such details of the body as the human eye, it is foolish to think this or we simply evolved by chance ... conclusion ... there must be a God
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Either way to say 100% for sure weather there IS OR ISN'T a "creator" of some sort is ignorant. [/b][/quote]
By the way, I agree with you completely on this. [/b][/quote]
Amen :5000:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Less than 100 years ago around 1926 or so the first national electric grid was in place
We didn't have TV until '36 or so.
We didn't have the internet really everywhere 15 years ago
200 years is a LONG time! A LOT has happened!
To say we are not learning is silly.
We now understand the brain better than ever. I think as science advances devout religious people will also fade. Science is proving more and more. I have no doubt that we WILL be able to capture dreams on silicon at some point. We are able to monitor the Brain in ways we could never dream of
There is often talk of 19th century legislation meant to close the Patent Office because everything had been invented! We at some point thought there was NOTHING that we didn't have! :rolleyes:
We have no concept of what is to come.
Either way to say 100% for sure weather there IS OR ISN'T a "creator" of some sort is ignorant. [/b][/quote]
There is more information around sure. Science as a whole knows way more - I am talking about individual, ordinary people.
We don't need to think anymore. How many kids can add up or do long multiplication or division without a calculator? You used to have to know that stuff, just to get by in life or you'd be considered educationally subnormal.
It won't be long before people on the whole won't be able to write coherent sentences. Already, the Internet, text messages and the like are eroding the basics of grammar and meaning. It might not seem like a big deal at the moment, but I know plenty of kids who think that the shorthand rubbish they send on their mobile phones will also do for writing letters to the wider world in general.
Google searches, instant news and media opinion, mean that a lot of people don't ever really get around to learning the basics of anything. They take information out of context and don't have the fundamental educational tools to put it into a proper perspective, examine it, and arrive at their own considered conclusions.
There is a huge difference between knowledge and understanding and the former is generally pretty dry and useless without a healthy dose of the latter.
Even at this stage if you suddenly took away the average eighteen year old's Internet Connection, Calculator and Spell checker and dumped him back in the Fifties, he'd be considered a dunce.
Yeah, he'd be able to waffle about computers, Video Games, DVD’s or whatever, but he'd never in his life have a clue as how to go about building one. Hell, he wouldn't even be able to use a simple formula to calculate the power consumption of a light bulb.
I shudder to think what the next twenty years will produce, let alone the next two hundred... [/b][/quote]
Well, I agree with you too, to a point.
People are losing skills such as "mental" math. It's ironic in a way that by getting "smarter" with technology it is making us "dumber" in a way. It's just so easy to get information that no one retains it.
Also I want to say that I'm all for God. Ironically I love going to church somtimes, black churches mostly. I love the gospel singing. It really is a nice thing and positive so it's good no matter what.
cdogg187
08-06-2004, 10:20 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God is a HUMAN invention. [/b][/quote]
How do you figure? This is the most ignorant statement that I have read so far.
Humans were not here forever. Nothing that changes was. Something had to create us....it takes intelligence to produce intelligence. [/b][/quote]
We created the concept of GOD to answer the unanswerable.
do you see?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God is a HUMAN invention. [/b][/quote]
How do you figure? This is the most ignorant statement that I have read so far.
Humans were not here forever. Nothing that changes was. Something had to create us....it takes intelligence to produce intelligence. [/b][/quote]
We created the concept of GOD to answer the unanswerable.
do you see? [/b][/quote]
:D
"it takes intelligence to produce intelligence"
It's like the old "what came first, the chicken or the egg"
There must have been "intelligence" to Create "the CReator" then ? Or did he just appear and he's the only one allowed to? :D
animal
08-06-2004, 12:18 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> We created the concept of GOD to answer the unanswerable.
do you see? [/b][/quote]
I agree(you too LOK), and all the intricacies of different religion, is just a kind of cultural poetry. Idea of God being a man with a beard and a glow, and creating man in his image, is just poetry. Like in Four Season 'La donna es mobile' saying the woman is fickle, referring to the change of seasons.
This man doesnt exist, literally, but hes a symbol of what DOES, and in that way, he does exist.
I think when people are down, they start to pin their hopes on their God, and it becomes something different. Something desperate and senseless. Thats where the poetry is lost.
In the end, theres nothing but to live well, as far as Im concerned.
joebazooka
08-06-2004, 12:21 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God is a HUMAN invention. [/b][/quote]
HUMAN is a God invention.
animal
08-06-2004, 12:23 PM
I personally dont consider science higher than religion, in fact Id argue its lower.
Its not so much poetry as it is pornography. Its a less graceful way to understand the world, and also incomplete. Science is a long ways from covering what religion covers.
NeighborMike
08-06-2004, 12:30 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God is a HUMAN invention. [/b][/quote]
How do you figure? This is the most ignorant statement that I have read so far.
Humans were not here forever. Nothing that changes was. Something had to create us....it takes intelligence to produce intelligence. [/b][/quote]
god might be a "Human invention"
alot of people believe the "myth" of god was created by some one to controll out of controll humans by striking fear into their eyes..by basically saying if u do this and this wrong u go to hell
PetreTG
08-06-2004, 01:18 PM
:wacko:
Well ..... IF you believe the oldest recorded history , the Bible ..... man used to actually talk to God.
Archaeologists use the Bible on a regular basis for fact finding and dig locations , which has always proven to be accurate ... so atleast THAT part is not made up. :wacko:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :wacko:
Well ..... IF you believe the oldest recorded history , the Bible ..... man used to actually talk to God.
Archaeologists use the Bible on a regular basis for fact finding and dig locations , which has always proven to be accurate ... so atleast THAT part is not made up. :wacko: [/b][/quote]
smoke & mirrors
Muzse
08-06-2004, 02:23 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> PROPHECY ..... In the last days many will claim "There is no God"
Darwin .... concluded that with the complexity of such details of the body as the human eye, it is foolish to think this or we simply evolved by chance ... conclusion ... there must be a God [/b][/quote]
Did you pay Darwin to say that?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :wacko:
Well ..... IF you believe the oldest recorded history , the Bible ..... man used to actually talk to God.
Archaeologists use the Bible on a regular basis for fact finding and dig locations , which has always proven to be accurate ... so atleast THAT part is not made up. :wacko: [/b][/quote]
the bible is not the oldest recorded history
Freddy
08-06-2004, 02:59 PM
I think he meant the oldest recorded "history" of an established religion.
Or perhaps he didn't...
HairysonFord
08-06-2004, 09:42 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I think he meant the oldest recorded "history" of an established religion.
Or perhaps he didn't... [/b][/quote]
Actually, Freddy, parts of some of the Hindu holy writings (Upanashads) are older than the Bible.
HairysonFord
08-06-2004, 09:48 PM
And yes, God exists. How do I know? 'Cause my ex-wife was a demon from hell, and if demons exist, then God exists.
That's the only good thing that creature from Hell ever accomplished - confirming that God exists.
:YeahRight:
Freddy
08-06-2004, 09:48 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I think he meant the oldest recorded "history" of an established religion.
Or perhaps he didn't... [/b][/quote]
Actually, Freddy, parts of some of the Hindu holy writings (Upanashads) are older than the Bible. [/b][/quote]
Really?
Is that including the oldest sections of the Old Testament?
As History is your field, I will defer to your wisdom on this one Hairyson.
Rock on
08-07-2004, 12:44 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :wacko:
Well ..... IF you believe the oldest recorded history , the Bible ..... man used to actually talk to God.
Archaeologists use the Bible on a regular basis for fact finding and dig locations , which has always proven to be accurate ... so atleast THAT part is not made up. :wacko: [/b][/quote]
Typical Western ignorance.
Spider-Man
08-07-2004, 02:28 AM
The question should not be whether God exist or not, but rather how you would define God. Anyone who claims God does not exist are simply closed-minded and blinded by their rejection of the religious definition of a God. Anyone who claims to know God for sure like most religion do are also closed-minded and blinded by their pride. I think the simpliest general definition of a God is the best way to define it. To try and make God into something personal like a being or anything tangible is already going against its nature.
God is merely the first cause, the eternal force behind existance and non-existance. We should just leave it as that.
The world would be a better place if people would stop fighting over who's God is the right God. People need to focus more on improving oneself for the better good of all humanity through respect, love, and goodness to all.
Mr. Blue
08-07-2004, 07:26 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :wacko:
Well ..... IF you believe the oldest recorded history , the Bible ..... man used to actually talk to God.
Archaeologists use the Bible on a regular basis for fact finding and dig locations , which has always proven to be accurate ... so atleast THAT part is not made up. :wacko: [/b][/quote]
:D :rolleyes: :D
Back to the subject, it doesn't affect my life in one way or the other if god exists or not. And contrary to the many delusions that I'm sure some of you have, it doesn't affect your lives either. I certainly don't worship the god depicted in the bible. That was one evil, vendictive, and sanctimonious piece of shit.
If any of you guys are delusional enough to think that you actually talk to god and he listens to you, please give him this message from me. Tell him I said he can fuck right off! He and his son can both fuck right off!
:finger:
slystaff
08-07-2004, 08:11 AM
Mex Radio,
You got problems and so has Juanita.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-07-2004, 08:15 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Sly, what about the gamma ray problem, I would be interested in hearing your views on it [/b][/quote]
I'm not familiar with it. Please enlighten me.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
Mr. Blue
08-07-2004, 08:18 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Mex Radio,
You got problems and so has Juanita.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
Who the hell is Juanita?
Mr. Blue
08-07-2004, 08:54 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Mex Radio,
You got problems and so has Juanita.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
As for me having problems, Sly, I am not the one who is constantly starting threads trying to convince and convert others to think like I do. I let others be. If you want to worship god, satan, jesus, mickey mouse, or whoever, it doesn't matter to me. So be it.
But you on the other hand can not accept the fact that there others who don't think like you. There are those who don't see the truth in what you regard as sacred.
Sooner or later you're going to have to accept that not everyone shares your belief and you can huff and puff about cause and effect all you want to but it doesn't change a thing.
PetreTG
08-07-2004, 11:09 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :wacko:
Well ..... IF you believe the oldest recorded history , the Bible ..... man used to actually talk to God.
Archaeologists use the Bible on a regular basis for fact finding and dig locations , which has always proven to be accurate ... so atleast THAT part is not made up. :wacko: [/b][/quote]
the bible is not the oldest recorded history [/b][/quote]
Really .... what is ? :lol: The Dead Sea Scrolls are part of the bible so don't use that.
PetreTG
08-07-2004, 11:10 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :wacko:
Well ..... IF you believe the oldest recorded history , the Bible ..... man used to actually talk to God.
Archaeologists use the Bible on a regular basis for fact finding and dig locations , which has always proven to be accurate ... so atleast THAT part is not made up. :wacko: [/b][/quote]
smoke & mirrors [/b][/quote]
Notice I used a big <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">IF</span>
The second part of the statement is fact.
PetreTG
08-07-2004, 11:12 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :wacko:
Well ..... IF you believe the oldest recorded history , the Bible ..... man used to actually talk to God.
Archaeologists use the Bible on a regular basis for fact finding and dig locations , which has always proven to be accurate ... so atleast THAT part is not made up. :wacko: [/b][/quote]
:D :rolleyes: :D
Back to the subject, it doesn't affect my life in one way or the other if god exists or not. And contrary to the many delusions that I'm sure some of you have, it doesn't affect your lives either. I certainly don't worship the god depicted in the bible. That was one evil, vendictive, and sanctimonious piece of shit.
If any of you guys are delusional enough to think that you actually talk to god and he listens to you, please give him this message from me. Tell him I said he can fuck right off! He and his son can both fuck right off!
:finger: [/b][/quote]
See post above this one .
Pure genius Mr. Blue ..... they did the same thing right before they drowned .... Moral : History repeats itself because some never learn .
BadkittyM
08-07-2004, 11:16 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :wacko:
Well ..... IF you believe the oldest recorded history , the Bible ..... man used to actually talk to God.
Archaeologists use the Bible on a regular basis for fact finding and dig locations , which has always proven to be accurate ... so atleast THAT part is not made up. :wacko: [/b][/quote]
:D :rolleyes: :D
Back to the subject, it doesn't affect my life in one way or the other if god exists or not. And contrary to the many delusions that I'm sure some of you have, it doesn't affect your lives either. I certainly don't worship the god depicted in the bible. That was one evil, vendictive, and sanctimonious piece of shit.
If any of you guys are delusional enough to think that you actually talk to god and he listens to you, please give him this message from me. Tell him I said he can fuck right off! He and his son can both fuck right off!
:finger: [/b][/quote]
See post above this one .
Pure genius Mr. Blue ..... they did the same thing right before they drowned .... Moral : History repeats itself because some never learn . [/b][/quote]
Yeah...they keep killing each other in the name of God.
:D
PetreTG
08-07-2004, 11:56 AM
:lol:
That too :(
:ontome:
animal
08-07-2004, 12:24 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Yeah...they keep killing each other in the name of God.
:D [/b][/quote]
Thats just a good excuse. We want to kill each other anyway, and there isnt anything wrong with that.
cdogg187
08-07-2004, 01:37 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God is a HUMAN invention. [/b][/quote]
How do you figure? This is the most ignorant statement that I have read so far.
Humans were not here forever. Nothing that changes was. Something had to create us....it takes intelligence to produce intelligence. [/b][/quote]
We created the concept of GOD to answer the unanswerable.
do you see? [/b][/quote]
:D
"it takes intelligence to produce intelligence"
It's like the old "what came first, the chicken or the egg"
There must have been "intelligence" to Create "the CReator" then ? Or did he just appear and he's the only one allowed to? :D [/b][/quote]
exactly :D
It's an unproveable point.
cdogg187
08-07-2004, 01:38 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God is a HUMAN invention. [/b][/quote]
HUMAN is a God invention. [/b][/quote]
do animals worship GOD?
NOPE.
That didn't start until our kind started appearing. Our big brains created the whole concept to answer the unanswerable.
copernicus
08-07-2004, 03:49 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> In the end, does this discussion really have any bearing on anything at all? If God does exist - what impact does he have, off wherever he is? I can't imagine for an instant that he would pay even the slightest attention to our human fumblings and bumblings. Of course, humankind being the supremely arrogant types that we are, place ourselves at the centre and forefront of his attentions. After all, it took him only about 13 billion years to get around to making us. Obviously we're not his greatest concern, one would think.
And of course, if he didn't exist, it wouldn't matter either. It'd be a silly semantic argument between people with too much time or brainpower on their hands which would have the same impact as a speck of dirt in the sea. Either way, the argument has no impact on us aside from getting people pissed off and worked up about something which, in no way shape or form, can we either prove or disprove. The existence of God is basically a human-created paradox. All it comes down to is belief.
In the end, there are better and more important things to worry about - such as why we still feel the need to kill each other, cause pain to each other, and generally act like fucks all around the world. These sorts of discussions are much more valuable than theological or existential debates.
But, that's my dumb take on things. [/b][/quote]
Nonsense!
The discussion of where we came from and consequently where we are going is of central importance. You just written a paragraphed cliche designed to get some congratulations...but not really well thought out, and certainly doesn't impress me.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
I didn't write it to impress you, did I? You may think of it as cliche if you wish - no one here can persuade you out of your dogma, and I certainly wouldn't want to try. Just because you do not agree with what I say doesn't imply that it wasn't thought out.
Why is it of consequence to work out where we came from? We are here, and that is of prime importance. What we do with our time, and what sort of impact we have, as individuals and collectively, on each other and the world around us, is far more important than ridiculous - or otherwise - theories about our origin. It's all well and good to wonder, but in the end, it makes little to no difference whatsoever. We're better off concerning ourselves with the here and now.
Cdogg - I've been here off and on, so my presence comes and goes with the winds, but I'm gonna try and stick around!
slystaff
08-07-2004, 03:52 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
As for me having problems, Sly, I am not the one who is constantly starting threads trying to convince and convert others to think like I do. I let others be. If you want to worship god, satan, jesus, mickey mouse, or whoever, it doesn't matter to me. So be it.
But you on the other hand can not accept the fact that there others who don't think like you. There are those who don't see the truth in what you regard as sacred.
Sooner or later you're going to have to accept that not everyone shares your belief and you can huff and puff about cause and effect all you want to but it doesn't change a thing. [/b][/quote]
What does this have to do with anything? We discuss boxing don't we. We do not all have the same views. We discuss politics, women, social issues. Why do YOU have such a "hangup" about discussing God? I accept the fact that we all have different viewpoints, but what's wrong with sharing my own.
When we are discussing boxing no one complains that anyone is "constantly starting threads trying to convince and convert others to think like I do". But when God comes up all of the athiests get offended. Why is that?
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-07-2004, 03:58 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
:D
"it takes intelligence to produce intelligence"
It's like the old "what came first, the chicken or the egg"
There must have been "intelligence" to Create "the CReator" then ? Or did he just appear and he's the only one allowed to? :D [/b][/quote]
I've already explained this. The creator was not created, therefore the same rules don't apply to him. The creator is a constant; an unchanging entity outside of time. Therefore he didn't "appear" he just IS. If I was saying that he did come into existence at a poiont in time, your point would be valid. But I'm not saying that.
It is obvious that the universe isn't a constant, as it is always changing, denoting that it had a beginning and thusly leaving the only conclusion that it was caused.
However something that is constant, didn't have a beginning and therefore the issues of being caused and/or created do not apply to it.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
HairysonFord
08-07-2004, 04:00 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I think he meant the oldest recorded "history" of an established religion.
Or perhaps he didn't... [/b][/quote]
Actually, Freddy, parts of some of the Hindu holy writings (Upanashads) are older than the Bible. [/b][/quote]
Really?
Is that including the oldest sections of the Old Testament?
As History is your field, I will defer to your wisdom on this one Hairyson. [/b][/quote]
Yes, its true. Genisis isn't even the oldest book in the Bible, Job is. Job is a transliteration of an older Sumerian folktale, and can be traced back to about 2000 BC.
Parts of the Upanashads were carried with the Dravidians when they established dominace in India around 2000 BC. They came from the much older Indus River Civilization (most famous city was probably Mojenhodero) which had copies of the Upanshads as early as 2500 BC, and some scholars believe they (Hinduism which sprang from the Upanashads) were part of a tribal religion of the early tribes of ancient Sumer, perhaps as early as 4500 BC.
The Bible - the Christian Bible- is a johnny come lately as far as holy scripture, not really being completed until after the the Great Council in the 4th century.
The Torah - older than the Christian Bible but having the Books of Moses (which it is doubtful he actually wrote them) - oldest parts only go back to the 13th century BC.
Some of the vocal traditions - not written down till about 500 years ago - of the oldest known religion still in paractice go back maybe 7000 years.
Believe it or not, that religion (still practiced in some parts of Africa) contains what we in the US refer to as Santeria, or Voodoo.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
:D
"it takes intelligence to produce intelligence"
It's like the old "what came first, the chicken or the egg"
There must have been "intelligence" to Create "the CReator" then ? Or did he just appear and he's the only one allowed to? :D [/b][/quote]
I've already explained this. The creator was not created, therefore the same rules don't apply to him. The creator is a constant; an unchanging entity outside of time. Therefore he didn't "appear" he just IS. If I was saying that he did come into existence at a poiont in time, your point would be valid. But I'm not saying that.
It is obvious that the universe isn't a constant, as it is always changing, denoting that it had a beginning and thusly leaving the only conclusion that it was caused.
However something that is constant, didn't have a beginning and therefore the issues of being caused and/or created do not apply to it.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
:rolleyes:
slystaff
08-07-2004, 04:04 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
:rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
I don't understand the " :rolleyes: ". Try to refute my points with sound logic, I like an intelligent discussion, don't just respond with a :rolleyes: . That makes it seem like you cannot communicate your thoughts properly.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
black06
08-07-2004, 04:09 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
:D
"it takes intelligence to produce intelligence"
It's like the old "what came first, the chicken or the egg"
There must have been "intelligence" to Create "the CReator" then ? Or did he just appear and he's the only one allowed to? :D [/b][/quote]
I've already explained this. The creator was not created, therefore the same rules don't apply to him. The creator is a constant; an unchanging entity outside of time. Therefore he didn't "appear" he just IS. If I was saying that he did come into existence at a poiont in time, your point would be valid. But I'm not saying that.
It is obvious that the universe isn't a constant, as it is always changing, denoting that it had a beginning and thusly leaving the only conclusion that it was caused.
However something that is constant, didn't have a beginning and therefore the issues of being caused and/or created do not apply to it.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
:rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
:wacko: So you don't see what he's saying?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
:D
"it takes intelligence to produce intelligence"
It's like the old "what came first, the chicken or the egg"
There must have been "intelligence" to Create "the CReator" then ? Or did he just appear and he's the only one allowed to? :D [/b][/quote]
I've already explained this. The creator was not created, therefore the same rules don't apply to him. The creator is a constant; an unchanging entity outside of time. Therefore he didn't "appear" he just IS. If I was saying that he did come into existence at a poiont in time, your point would be valid. But I'm not saying that.
It is obvious that the universe isn't a constant, as it is always changing, denoting that it had a beginning and thusly leaving the only conclusion that it was caused.
However something that is constant, didn't have a beginning and therefore the issues of being caused and/or created do not apply to it.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
:rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
:wacko: So you don't see what he's saying? [/b][/quote]
OH I see
black06
08-07-2004, 04:12 PM
Maybe he should have said, the creator doesn't change with respect to time and is "timeless" or "outside of time" so to speak but everything in our observable universe including the universe itself changes with respect to time meaning it had to have had a beginning.... that probably doesn't make it any clearer... :ontome:
slystaff
08-07-2004, 04:15 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Maybe he should have said, the creator doesn't change with respect to time and is "timeless" or "outside of time" so to speak but everything in our observable universe including the universe itself changes with respect to time meaning it had to have had a beginning.... that probably doesn't make it any clearer... :ontome: [/b][/quote]
Well said, you understand my point. I don't think that LOK can graso it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Maybe he should have said, the creator doesn't change with respect to time and is "timeless" or "outside of time" so to speak but everything in our observable universe including the universe itself changes with respect to time meaning it had to have had a beginning.... that probably doesn't make it any clearer... :ontome: [/b][/quote]
Well said, you understand my point. I don't think that LOK can graso it. [/b][/quote]
I see you cant see that I see....
I should have wrote it..
OH, (coma) "I" see...
as in "believe me"
maybe you need me to draw it in crayons for you :D
slystaff
08-07-2004, 04:37 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
I see you cant see that I see....
I should have wrote it..
OH, (coma) "I" see...
as in "believe me"
maybe you need me to draw it in crayons for you :D [/b][/quote]
:wacko: You are too deep for me.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
joebazooka
08-07-2004, 05:07 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God is a HUMAN invention. [/b][/quote]
HUMAN is a God invention. [/b][/quote]
do animals worship GOD?
[/b][/quote]
Yep. Humans are animals. And many humans worship God.
Sir Dice N Slice
08-07-2004, 05:50 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God is a HUMAN invention. [/b][/quote]
HUMAN is a God invention. [/b][/quote]
do animals worship GOD?
[/b][/quote]
Yep. Humans are animals. And many humans worship God. [/b][/quote]
Clever guy :YeahRight:
By the way, if there is a God, what is the use in worshipping Him? What good would it do anything? Nothing would change if we did or didn't worship Him.
HairysonFord
08-07-2004, 06:07 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God is a HUMAN invention. [/b][/quote]
HUMAN is a God invention. [/b][/quote]
do animals worship GOD?
[/b][/quote]
Yep. Humans are animals. And many humans worship God. [/b][/quote]
Clever guy :YeahRight:
By the way, if there is a God, what is the use in worshipping Him? What good would it do anything? Nothing would change if we did or didn't worship Him. [/b][/quote]
Sir Slice, I have come to the same conclusion.
If there is a God, and by definition, he knows all, then He knows who will or won't make it to heaven, and there is not a thing you can do to change it, because God's will is God's will, then why bother.
Good point. :lol:
slystaff
08-07-2004, 06:56 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> By the way, if there is a God, what is the use in worshipping Him? What good would it do anything? Nothing would change if we did or didn't worship Him. [/b][/quote]
Whether we should worship him or not is irrelevant to this thread...but I'll adress that anyway.
Let's say there is a God, and by virtue of being God he is all powerful. Let's say that this God commands us to worship him or else he'll punish us. If he's all powerful he can make good his promise and there'll be nothing that we can do about it (because we are NOT all powerful). Therefore in such a situation it would make sense to worship him don't you think?
But that's going off the topic.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-07-2004, 06:59 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Sir Slice, I have come to the same conclusion.
If there is a God, and by definition, he knows all, then He knows who will or won't make it to heaven, and there is not a thing you can do to change it, because God's will is God's will, then why bother.
Good point. :lol: [/b][/quote]
In a sense you are correct...but to further explain that is going too deep.
Why bother? You should only "bother" if that is what you want to do. If you want to do it and do it, it would mean that you are one of the people that he already knew would make it.
He would know the end from the beginning, in eternity, but we have the ability to choose or choose not, in time.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
Rock on
08-07-2004, 07:26 PM
I like the way believers make excuses for a non-entity who goes by the name of god.
Who's fooling who?
Freddy
08-07-2004, 07:29 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Let's say there is a God, and by virtue of being God he is all powerful. Let's say that this God commands us to worship him or else he'll punish us. If he's all powerful he can make good his promise and there'll be nothing that we can do about it (because we are NOT all powerful). Therefore in such a situation it would make sense to worship him don't you think?
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
:D :D :D :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Black Market Baby
08-07-2004, 07:31 PM
it might be logical that there is a higher being, but it is illogical to think that it wants/needs our adoration or praise. Personally I don't believe in a higher being, especially one that was first "materialized within the last 5000 years. I'm not a scientist either so don't ask me how it all started, but it has been fairly recent in mankinds history that the concept of one god came into existence. That doesn't preclude there wasn't anything before, but it certainly puts a bad slant on all the religious writings that came up within the last 2-5000 years.
Sir Dice N Slice
08-07-2004, 09:20 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God is a HUMAN invention. [/b][/quote]
HUMAN is a God invention. [/b][/quote]
do animals worship GOD?
[/b][/quote]
Yep. Humans are animals. And many humans worship God. [/b][/quote]
Clever guy :YeahRight:
By the way, if there is a God, what is the use in worshipping Him? What good would it do anything? Nothing would change if we did or didn't worship Him. [/b][/quote]
Sir Slice, I have come to the same conclusion.
If there is a God, and by definition, he knows all, then He knows who will or won't make it to heaven, and there is not a thing you can do to change it, because God's will is God's will, then why bother.
Good point. :lol: [/b][/quote]
Why thank you very much Hairy :cool:
Sir Dice N Slice
08-07-2004, 09:30 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> By the way, if there is a God, what is the use in worshipping Him? What good would it do anything? Nothing would change if we did or didn't worship Him. [/b][/quote]
Whether we should worship him or not is irrelevant to this thread...but I'll adress that anyway.
Let's say there is a God, and by virtue of being God he is all powerful. Let's say that this God commands us to worship him or else he'll punish us. If he's all powerful he can make good his promise and there'll be nothing that we can do about it (because we are NOT all powerful). Therefore in such a situation it would make sense to worship him don't you think?
But that's going off the topic.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
Just to adress this;
It would make sense if it was proven there was a God, but it hasn't BEEN proven, and we haven't been threatened in any such way, so it doesn't make sense.
Also, back to my Gamma ray thing. Gamma rays are incredibly huge bursts of energy which have come from approx. 8 billion light years away, the energy flow is STILL constant to this day and as far as we know are still going just as strong, which has never been seen before. The bursts are so old, that scientists believe they have come from the very edge of the universe, hence them taking so long to reach us. The problem here is, the bursts are SO huge, their energy FAR exceeds their mass, which defies the most fundamental law in physics...E=mc2. Scientists are baffled, they have come up with alot of theories but none can explain it 100%.
My point here is, you use "logic" to explain the presence of an intelligent God, but as I said, our "logic" is restricted only to within the knowledge of our own solar system, which is but a grain of sand on the vast beach which is space. Gamma rays defy logic, which means you can't rely on it to explain the presence of a God. We simply don't know enough about the universe and we most likely never will.
BadkittyM
08-07-2004, 09:42 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> By the way, if there is a God, what is the use in worshipping Him? What good would it do anything? Nothing would change if we did or didn't worship Him. [/b][/quote]
Whether we should worship him or not is irrelevant to this thread...but I'll adress that anyway.
Let's say there is a God, and by virtue of being God he is all powerful. Let's say that this God commands us to worship him or else he'll punish us. If he's all powerful he can make good his promise and there'll be nothing that we can do about it (because we are NOT all powerful). Therefore in such a situation it would make sense to worship him don't you think?
But that's going off the topic.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
Sly-baby...if a thing/being/entity powerful enough to have created all that surrounds us, needs the adoration and blind worship of a bunch of neo-chimps who keep slaughtering each other and everything ELSE alive (that it also created), then that's a being that embodies the worst traits of human beings, that we are supposed to fight against and overcome - at least, according to the Bible.
The 'God' shown in the Bible, is petty, vengeful, murderous, angry, jealous, covetous...everything deemed evil or bad. It picks sides in conflicts, blindly slaughters millions, then threatens "eternal damnation" to any being who does not adore it.
HARDLY anything to worship. One would be far better off worshipping only Jesus, the son of God, who preached and also demonstrated love of ALL mankind; he didn't pick and choose, nor kill anyone who didn't follow his teachings. I've always found that an interesting conundrum, and strange to say the least.
God hates?
Jesus Loves.
Jesus speaks for God, but God will torture you if you don't believe?
:wacko:
Sounds suspiciously like HUMAN traits being transposed onto a Creator, by those who wish to control via fear.
That's why I don't believe in the "God" that organized religion created, but I DO believe in a Creator.
-Marcy
copernicus
08-07-2004, 10:37 PM
I'm pretty much with you on that, Marcy - it's a bit hard to go against your points. Though, I'm not so sure about the existence of a creator anyway. It's almost as much of a philosophical question than it is a question based in any kind of reality. One never really knows, though.
BadkittyM
08-07-2004, 10:53 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I'm pretty much with you on that, Marcy - it's a bit hard to go against your points. Though, I'm not so sure about the existence of a creator anyway. It's almost as much of a philosophical question than it is a question based in any kind of reality. One never really knows, though. [/b][/quote]
Whassup, C?
Hell - it's all Neo-Chimp speculation anyway, right?
What we don't know and never will know, FAR outweighs what we'd like to THINK we know, or have guessed. I just look for logic, and failing that, try to see the larger picture. Speculation is fun!
-Marcy
slystaff
08-08-2004, 12:38 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Sly-baby...if a thing/being/entity powerful enough to have created all that surrounds us, needs the adoration and blind worship of a bunch of neo-chimps who keep slaughtering each other and everything ELSE alive (that it also created), then that's a being that embodies the worst traits of human beings, that we are supposed to fight against and overcome - at least, according to the Bible.
The 'God' shown in the Bible, is petty, vengeful, murderous, angry, jealous, covetous...everything deemed evil or bad. It picks sides in conflicts, blindly slaughters millions, then threatens "eternal damnation" to any being who does not adore it.
HARDLY anything to worship. One would be far better off worshipping only Jesus, the son of God, who preached and also demonstrated love of ALL mankind; he didn't pick and choose, nor kill anyone who didn't follow his teachings. I've always found that an interesting conundrum, and strange to say the least.
God hates?
Jesus Loves.
Jesus speaks for God, but God will torture you if you don't believe?
:wacko:
Sounds suspiciously like HUMAN traits being transposed onto a Creator, by those who wish to control via fear.
That's why I don't believe in the "God" that organized religion created, but I DO believe in a Creator.
-Marcy [/b][/quote]
Hmm...interesting. You are a very smart girl Marcy, I like you. :cheek:
Marcy, this is not a "cop out" but the Scriptures (Bible) isn't easy to understand. It literally takes God to explain certain things.
Now....God has shown that he is vengeful, "murderous", angry and jealous etc...but you have to understand that in its context and then understand WHY it is CORRECT for him to exhibit these traits but not necessarily for men.
God is LOVE, but he HATES sin. That's the simple answer I guess. Sin is disobedience. Disobedience is going against God's word.
God is not bound by the laws that we are simply because he is perfect and everything is dependent upon him. He sees the end from the beginning and knows everything so he is the perfect judge. As such he has THE RIGHT to avenge sin. He has THE RIGHT to be Jealous if the men that he created try to worship false Gods. He has THE RIGHT to kill those that he created if they are doing wrong. HE has the right....WE don't. It's that simple. We don't because we are imperfect, weak, limited and so we CANNOT take the law into our own hands...so to speak.
As to why he needs the adoration...he wants it. Nothing wrong in that. On the human level, if we achieve something great we want to be recognized. If there is a God and he did create all things by himself...he wants the recognition and the respect from his creation. That's his right. He doesn't NEED to prove himself but nevertheless he wants to be recognised and loved. Nothing wrong in that.
By the way...you are wrong in your depection of Jesus. This "gentle Jesus" is a Myth. Jesus preached love but he also said that Many would go to hell, that many were snakes and vipers and of their father the devil, that unless he was followed they couldn't get to heaven, that people must sin no more or be condemned...etc.
Marcy, Jesus wasn't popular in his time, like the myth, there was a reason why they wanted him crucified. He offended people. He spoke of wrath and condemnation and everything else that the God of the OT spoke of. In the end of his ministry only the TWELVE followed him (and he said that ONE was a devil).
There is no contradiction between jesus and God if you truly read the scriptures. That is a Myth. No such thing as a "gentle Jesus"
It's good that you believe in a creator....because that is the only thing that makes sense. I can understand why you choose not to believe in religion because religion as a WHOLE is corrupt. However, if there is an intelligent creator it stands to reason that he would communicate with us at some point and through some medium. To me it makes sense. Therefore while the vast majority of religion is corrupt and incorrect....there must be something out there (JUST ONE mind you) that has to be true.
Just one other thought. God doesn't have human traits, he just has personal traits. He is without sin, but being a self-aware individual, he has emotion. If he is a personal deity he will have personal traits, not human (although humans may share some) just personal. To me a creator would HAVE to be a person (as opposed to impersonal energy I don't mean human) in order to design and create.
Just a few thoughts...
The Sly One has Spoken!!
Mr. Blue
08-08-2004, 02:51 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
As for me having problems, Sly, I am not the one who is constantly starting threads trying to convince and convert others to think like I do. I let others be. If you want to worship god, satan, jesus, mickey mouse, or whoever, it doesn't matter to me. So be it.
But you on the other hand can not accept the fact that there others who don't think like you. There are those who don't see the truth in what you regard as sacred.
Sooner or later you're going to have to accept that not everyone shares your belief and you can huff and puff about cause and effect all you want to but it doesn't change a thing. [/b][/quote]
What does this have to do with anything? We discuss boxing don't we. We do not all have the same views. We discuss politics, women, social issues. Why do YOU have such a "hangup" about discussing God? I accept the fact that we all have different viewpoints, but what's wrong with sharing my own.
When we are discussing boxing no one complains that anyone is "constantly starting threads trying to convince and convert others to think like I do". But when God comes up all of the athiests get offended. Why is that?
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
So you say the Atheists are the people who are always getting offended about this type of talk? That shows how clueless you are.
What do we atheists have to be offended about? Our beliefs are always discriminated against and under attack.
To quote the British band Starsailor "When you're so sensitive, there's a long way to fall."
Now, someone like you who believes that a higher being controls everything we do, doesn't have a leg to stand on in this type of conversation.
I don't wish to convert people into Atheists. Religious people still serve a great purpose in my life. Comic relief! I view the religious as weak, hypocritical, and corny.
Who knows. Maybe at one time in my life I'll feel so helpless and weak that I'll nail up a crucifix of some dead naked biker and convince myself that if I pray to it and worship it that I'll have a better life and he'll watch out for me.
:D :rolleyes: :D
Until then I'll continue living in reality if that's okay, your holiness!
:crybaby:
slystaff
08-08-2004, 07:55 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
So you say the Atheists are the people who are always getting offended about this type of talk? That shows how clueless you are.
What do we atheists have to be offended about? Our beliefs are always discriminated against and under attack.
To quote the British band Starsailor "When you're so sensitive, there's a long way to fall."
Now, someone like you who believes that a higher being controls everything we do, doesn't have a leg to stand on in this type of conversation.
I don't wish to convert people into Atheists. Religious people still serve a great purpose in my life. Comic relief! I view the religious as weak, hypocritical, and corny.
Who knows. Maybe at one time in my life I'll feel so helpless and weak that I'll nail up a crucifix of some dead naked biker and convince myself that if I pray to it and worship it that I'll have a better life and he'll watch out for me.
:D :rolleyes: :D
Until then I'll continue living in reality if that's okay, your holiness!
:crybaby: [/b][/quote]
You got problems dude.
And if you think that "reality" is that we all just happened to appear with perfectly working bodies, the ability to eat, think and reproduce etc...by chance and without any intelligence behind it....
you're blind, deaf, dumb, helpless and weak.
No offense buddy.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
Sir Dice N Slice
08-08-2004, 08:09 AM
Sly, I would really be interested in hearing your views on the Gamma ray thing.
You're a smart guy just wanna hear your side of the arguement.
BTW, I love these kind of debates.
slystaff
08-08-2004, 10:55 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Sly, I would really be interested in hearing your views on the Gamma ray thing.
You're a smart guy just wanna hear your side of the arguement.
BTW, I love these kind of debates. [/b][/quote]
Let me look at your posts again I'm not too familiar with Gamma Rays and the implications thereof.
BadkittyM
08-08-2004, 11:05 AM
Hey Sly - you may just accomplish the one thing I never, EVER would have thought I'd do again in this lifetime.
Re-read the Bible.
:D
I read it (especially the Old Testament) several times as a kid, but have not cracked those pages since. Of course, I would be doing this with a specific purpose in mind - hunting 'The Big Picture' and also seeing if what you said about Jesus actually holds water, since the Jesus I remember reading about preached the importance of accepting ALL people, no matter what they had done in the past, but there ya go.
I think the most difficult part, will be locating a version as UN-rewritten as possible. There is far too long a history of whichever Pope was at the helm, having offending passages reworded to suit his preferences and mindframe.
At any rate, thanks for a mentally engaging give and take. It is most appreciated.
-Marcy
slystaff
08-08-2004, 11:07 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Just to adress this;
It would make sense if it was proven there was a God, but it hasn't BEEN proven, and we haven't been threatened in any such way, so it doesn't make sense.
Also, back to my Gamma ray thing. Gamma rays are incredibly huge bursts of energy which have come from approx. 8 billion light years away, the energy flow is STILL constant to this day and as far as we know are still going just as strong, which has never been seen before. The bursts are so old, that scientists believe they have come from the very edge of the universe, hence them taking so long to reach us. The problem here is, the bursts are SO huge, their energy FAR exceeds their mass, which defies the most fundamental law in physics...E=mc2. Scientists are baffled, they have come up with alot of theories but none can explain it 100%.
My point here is, you use "logic" to explain the presence of an intelligent God, but as I said, our "logic" is restricted only to within the knowledge of our own solar system, which is but a grain of sand on the vast beach which is space. Gamma rays defy logic, which means you can't rely on it to explain the presence of a God. We simply don't know enough about the universe and we most likely never will. [/b][/quote]
I haven't research it as yet but I take your word for it. Gamma Ray may defy known science, but they do not defy logic. That's the difference.
Let me explain the difference.
Science is constantly in motion and evolving. Mankind learns more and more about the environment around him (including the universe) as he progresses. Theories come and go and change constantly.
Logic is different. Logic counters contradiction. Logic is the basis of understanding. Nothing illogical can be true.
Examples of logic.
Something Red IS RED.
If someone died, there must be a reason.
If a man has only two apples he cannot have three.
This is simple logic. Logic is basic intelligence.
Cause and effect is simple logic. It is not a scientific theory...it is a universal principle. Everything thought, every idea, every learning is dependent on this principle.
So...the concept of Gamma Rays is a theory (it could change) but the concept there being a higher intelligence and first cause is LOGICAL, the opposite is ILLOGICAL (in other words impossible/contradictory etc). Following the principles of simple logic leads to a definite conclusion....just like 1+1+1=3.
That's the difference.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-08-2004, 11:16 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Hey Sly - you may just accomplish the one thing I never, EVER would have thought I'd do again in this lifetime.
Re-read the Bible.
:D
I read it (especially the Old Testament) several times as a kid, but have not cracked those pages since. Of course, I would be doing this with a specific purpose in mind - hunting 'The Big Picture' and also seeing if what you said about Jesus actually holds water, since the Jesus I remember reading about preached the importance of accepting ALL people, no matter what they had done in the past, but there ya go.
I think the most difficult part, will be locating a version as UN-rewritten as possible. There is far too long a history of whichever Pope was at the helm, having offending passages reworded to suit his preferences and mindframe.
At any rate, thanks for a mentally engaging give and take. It is most appreciated.
-Marcy [/b][/quote]
You are very welcome.
A few points.
Jesus did indeed accept anyone from any background...as long as they followed him and decided to sin no more. That is the part that everyone forgets about.
Jesus would accept prostitutes, homosexuals, murderers and whoever.....as long as they repented, followed him and decided to sin no more.
That is not in contradiction with the God of the Old Testament. David slept with Basheba, a married woman, and had her husband killed. What can be worse than that. God, through a prophet, rebuked him and David repented. God forgave him.
This God is consistent with Jesus wouldn't you say.
Conversely, the Pharisees followed the law to a "T", obeyed all of the commandments and lived very Holy Lives....MUCH better than some of thieves and prostitutes that Jesus had accepted. Jesus however CONDEMNED THEM TO HELL, if they didn't accept that he was the son of God.
Again this is consistent with the God of the Old Testament. It's not so much what you have done before, it more what you do when he calls you.
You are right, sometimes we need to re-read and understand for ourselves. Truthfully, the scriptures say that only the spiritual man can understand them. However, anyone in any condition could attempt to understand them and if their heart is pure and their intentions good they WILL be given understanding.
It's been a pleasure.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
salaco
08-08-2004, 01:13 PM
Damn sly, you resurrect this topic every year just like clockwork..is there anypoint in arguing with you given that you conveniently forget each counterpoint each time you resurrect it??
I think thats the most salient question in this case.
black06
08-08-2004, 01:25 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> By the way, if there is a God, what is the use in worshipping Him? What good would it do anything? Nothing would change if we did or didn't worship Him. [/b][/quote]
Whether we should worship him or not is irrelevant to this thread...but I'll adress that anyway.
Let's say there is a God, and by virtue of being God he is all powerful. Let's say that this God commands us to worship him or else he'll punish us. If he's all powerful he can make good his promise and there'll be nothing that we can do about it (because we are NOT all powerful). Therefore in such a situation it would make sense to worship him don't you think?
But that's going off the topic.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
:huh: I didn't like this response Sly... I think for the Christian, worship is more for us than for Him... God wouldn't even accept insincere worship... where in the Bible does God command EVERYONE to worship Him?
BadkittyM
08-08-2004, 01:31 PM
Well, Black - I think it takes a bit of interpretation, but I have always gotten that same impression, though not in a positive manner. Especially in the Old Testament, 'God' was always embroiled in some sort of war, on the side of whomever sacrificed the most in His name. Laid waste to entire regions, and all that. Walls of Jericho, Sodom and Gemorrah, etc. Since He was always willing to lay the permanent smack-down on non-believers, it could well be interpreted in that manner.
-M
slystaff
08-08-2004, 02:20 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
:huh: I didn't like this response Sly... I think for the Christian, worship is more for us than for Him... God wouldn't even accept insincere worship... where in the Bible does God command EVERYONE to worship Him? [/b][/quote]
"the hour cometh and now is when the TRUE worshippers shall worship The Father in Spirit and Truth. God is a Spirit and those that worship him are to worship him in Spirit and Truth."
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word COMMAND, but unless we worship God we are lost, according to the scriptures. Therefore it is tantamount to the same thing. Sure God only accepts sincere worship and doesn't BULLY us into worshipping him...but those that are his would worship him.
Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly. But really I was using a somewhat hypothetical situation to illustrate a point to Sir Slice N Dice.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-08-2004, 02:29 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Damn sly, you resurrect this topic every year just like clockwork..is there anypoint in arguing with you given that you conveniently forget each counterpoint each time you resurrect it??
I think thats the most salient question in this case. [/b][/quote]
You HAVE no counterpoint Salaco! :huh: Every attempt of a counterpoint from your direction on this topic is EASILY refuted by me. You entire basis last time out was in the theory of quantum mechanics (contradictory unproven mess), infinite causal chains (not possible) and the possibility of causeless events (another contradictory mess). I refuted those using simple logic and you simply decided to agree to disagree. You said that such things are only "counterintuitive" but not "illogical" and I showed you the error in logic.
Try me again...I'm just getting warmed up!! :fro:
The Sly One has Spoken!!
Mr. Blue
08-08-2004, 02:31 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Damn sly, you resurrect this topic every year just like clockwork..is there anypoint in arguing with you given that you conveniently forget each counterpoint each time you resurrect it??
I think thats the most salient question in this case. [/b][/quote]
That's why I can't believe people are still taking this guy seriously. Last time he had one of these topics he was pretty much laughed out of this forum and yet he's back like it didn't happen.
He's persistent, I'll give him that. And with that 3 x convicted wifebeater in his avatar he represents your hypocritical Christian to a tee. "Do as I say, not as I do."
:Calvin Brock:
slystaff
08-08-2004, 02:39 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
That's why I can't believe people are still taking this guy seriously. Last time he had one of these topics he was pretty much laughed out of this forum and yet he's back like it didn't happen.
He's persistent, I'll give him that. And with that 3 x convicted wifebeater in his avatar he represents your hypocritical Christian to a tee. "Do as I say, not as I do."
:Calvin Brock: [/b][/quote]
:D
You live in a DREAM WORLD son. :spadafora:
"Laughed out of the forum"?? Have you lost your mind!! No one could refute my points and then they simply disappeared off topic. Where did you get that from?
If I remember correctly, all you did was use profanity and blasphemy but you had NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE to contribute.
You got problems man. Something musta happened to you as a kid that you still blame God for. That's your problem dude don't take it out on me.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
Sir Dice N Slice
08-08-2004, 02:51 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Just to adress this;
It would make sense if it was proven there was a God, but it hasn't BEEN proven, and we haven't been threatened in any such way, so it doesn't make sense.
Also, back to my Gamma ray thing. Gamma rays are incredibly huge bursts of energy which have come from approx. 8 billion light years away, the energy flow is STILL constant to this day and as far as we know are still going just as strong, which has never been seen before. The bursts are so old, that scientists believe they have come from the very edge of the universe, hence them taking so long to reach us. The problem here is, the bursts are SO huge, their energy FAR exceeds their mass, which defies the most fundamental law in physics...E=mc2. Scientists are baffled, they have come up with alot of theories but none can explain it 100%.
My point here is, you use "logic" to explain the presence of an intelligent God, but as I said, our "logic" is restricted only to within the knowledge of our own solar system, which is but a grain of sand on the vast beach which is space. Gamma rays defy logic, which means you can't rely on it to explain the presence of a God. We simply don't know enough about the universe and we most likely never will. [/b][/quote]
I haven't research it as yet but I take your word for it. Gamma Ray may defy known science, but they do not defy logic. That's the difference.
Let me explain the difference.
Science is constantly in motion and evolving. Mankind learns more and more about the environment around him (including the universe) as he progresses. Theories come and go and change constantly.
Logic is different. Logic counters contradiction. Logic is the basis of understanding. Nothing illogical can be true.
Examples of logic.
Something Red IS RED.
If someone died, there must be a reason.
If a man has only two apples he cannot have three.
This is simple logic. Logic is basic intelligence.
Cause and effect is simple logic. It is not a scientific theory...it is a universal principle. Everything thought, every idea, every learning is dependent on this principle.
So...the concept of Gamma Rays is a theory (it could change) but the concept there being a higher intelligence and first cause is LOGICAL, the opposite is ILLOGICAL (in other words impossible/contradictory etc). Following the principles of simple logic leads to a definite conclusion....just like 1+1+1=3.
That's the difference.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
The two can overlap.
For things as advanced as the universe, we rely on science to provide us with logic.
For example, it would be illogical to say next year will last 500 days, why? Because science has proven it takes the earth 365/66 days to orbit the sun.
Our intelligence is based on discoveries, even religion. If no one had told you about what goes on in the bible, and there was no mention of it on television or in books or whatever, would you still have thought about it, by yourself?
I doubt it.
slystaff
08-08-2004, 03:00 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
The two can overlap.
For things as advanced as the universe, we rely on science to provide us with logic.
For example, it would be illogical to say next year will last 500 days, why? Because science has proven it takes the earth 365/66 days to orbit the sun.
Our intelligence is based on discoveries, even religion. If no one had told you about what goes on in the bible, and there was no mention of it on television or in books or whatever, would you still have thought about it, by yourself?
I doubt it. [/b][/quote]
Good attempt you are a smart man, but this example is wrong:
"For example, it would be illogical to say next year will last 500 days, why? Because science has proven it takes the earth 365/66 days to orbit the sun." - SIR Dice N Slice
Nice try. But it's not a logical/illogical issue. It would NOT be illogical for the Earth to have 500 days in a year. It would be IMPROBABLE and COUNTERINTUITIVE but NOT illogical. It is theoretically possible. The Earth could shift orbit for some reason. The gravitational pull of the Sun could diminish for some reason. The point is, there can be a reason for it to happen if it did happen. It's not impossible.
What would be illogical is IF the earth STOPPED MOVING (relative to the sun) through space but yet still had a 365 day year. THAT is an example of illogical....because if the Earth was stationary....a year would be INFINITE!!
Do you see the difference?
The Sly One has Spoken!!
Mr. Blue
08-08-2004, 03:12 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
That's why I can't believe people are still taking this guy seriously. Last time he had one of these topics he was pretty much laughed out of this forum and yet he's back like it didn't happen.
He's persistent, I'll give him that. And with that 3 x convicted wifebeater in his avatar he represents your hypocritical Christian to a tee. "Do as I say, not as I do."
:Calvin Brock: [/b][/quote]
:D
You live in a DREAM WORLD son. :spadafora:
"Laughed out of the forum"?? Have you lost your mind!! No one could refute my points and then they simply disappeared off topic. Where did you get that from?
If I remember correctly, all you did was use profanity and blasphemy but you had NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE to contribute.
You got problems man. Something musta happened to you as a kid that you still blame God for. That's your problem dude don't take it out on me.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
You're whole life revolves around the idea that your "savior" (who couldn't save himself froma humiliating death) is going to come back to earth and save you from eternal damnation.(2,000 years and counting)
You live your life according to a book that depicts snakes talking to men.
You believe that mortal men can talk to god and he'll listen and talk back to us.
:D
Yet, I am the guy who is living in a dream world?
rooster
08-08-2004, 03:20 PM
you say "The existence of causeless events is 'illogical' ", and some of us reject that, slystaff.
the whole neat little distinction between "logical" & "illogical" is dubious
have you read hume on causation, or quine's 'two dogmas'?
rooster
08-08-2004, 03:23 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> your "savior" (who couldn't save himself froma humiliating death) [/b][/quote]
in the story, he coulda saved himself. he chose to be crucified, in order to atone for our sins.
slystaff
08-08-2004, 03:26 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you say "The existence of causeless events is 'illogical' ", and some of us reject that, slystaff.
the whole neat little distinction between "logical" & "illogical" is dubious
have you read hume on causation, or quine's 'two dogmas'? [/b][/quote]
Rooster,
I haven;t read those books but you explain it to me. How can causeless events be possible??
We've been down this road before. IF causeless events are possible...THEN we'll have to throw science out of the window. We'll have to throw any logic out of the window.
IF causeless events were possible...at any moment in time for no given reason a BLUE tree could spring out of the ground with read leaves and the fruit that it bares would be GOLDEN apples. A dinosaur the size of texas could suddenly fall out of the sky. The sky itself could turn red with green stripes and thunder could sound like one of Beethoven's songs.
ANY THING WOULD BE POSSIBLE and there would be NO REASON for anything. It would be ANARCHY and we may as well not think!!!!!!!!
Do you think that all of the above is possible????
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-08-2004, 03:26 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
in the story, he coulda saved himself. he chose to be crucified, in order to atone for our sins. [/b][/quote]
Correct.
rooster
08-08-2004, 03:28 PM
haha i think you might just be a devil's advocate to get people thinking. i'll have you MURDERED
slystaff
08-08-2004, 03:30 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
You're whole life revolves around the idea that your "savior" (who couldn't save himself froma humiliating death) is going to come back to earth and save you from eternal damnation.(2,000 years and counting)
You live your life according to a book that depicts snakes talking to men.
You believe that mortal men can talk to god and he'll listen and talk back to us.
:D
Yet, I am the guy who is living in a dream world? [/b][/quote]
Ya got problems dude.
Yep, I believe that book and I believe in miracles. But that's irrelevant. Forget about the book, what is so unreasonable about believing in an intelligent creator??
You can't answer THAT simple question! Why? Because you are simple minded.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-08-2004, 03:31 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> haha i think you might just be a devil's advocate to get people thinking. i'll have you MURDERED [/b][/quote]
Do your worst!!! :bag:
The Sly One is ready!!
Mr. Blue
08-08-2004, 03:33 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> your "savior" (who couldn't save himself froma humiliating death) [/b][/quote]
in the story, he coulda saved himself. he chose to be crucified, in order to atone for our sins. [/b][/quote]
How does that atone for our sins? I've heard the story but it makes no sense. God is supposed to be capable of anything but he couldn't forgive humans for their sins unless his son came down and suffered a miserable death. :wacko:
Also the whole ordeal on heaven and hell is out of whack. If you listen to the devil and obey him then you are sent to hell where the devil is supposed to punish you. :wacko: He's punishing you for obeying him. Let me guess, he's working the man upstairs also.
rooster
08-08-2004, 03:33 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> IF causeless events were possible...at any moment in time for no given reason a BLUE tree could spring out of the ground with read leaves and the fruit that it bares would be GOLDEN apples. A dinosaur the size of texas could suddenly fall out of the sky. The sky itself could turn red with green stripes and thunder could sound like one of Beethoven's songs.
ANY THING WOULD BE POSSIBLE and there would be NO REASON for anything. It would be ANARCHY and we may as well not think!!!!!!!!
Do you think that all of the above is possible???? [/b][/quote]
yes they are all possible. they're just not actual. i didn't say causeless events were common or noticeable. (and the same way, you don't think that gods are common.)
slystaff
08-08-2004, 03:36 PM
Mr Blue,
LIFE itself is a miracle. To this day Scientists (who choose not to believe in God) cannot explain it. They cannot explain how it started. They cannot explain the intelligence behind it. LIFE is a MIRACLE. If LIFE could have started in the beginning, if a simple sperm and an egg could cause a living breathing thinking human being with a multitude of bodily functions, organs, senses with everything working perfectly then SURE...I can accept God speaking to men, Snakes speaking to men and whatever else.
You are too simple minded to realize the miracle that YOU are...yes YOU Mr Blue. You think you just happened by chance without a designer. You think that you owe your existance to a mere chance that arose out of nothing???
If you do....and you honestly think that everything happened by chance....then you DO believe in miracles after all. Why ridicule the thought of snakes speaking or God communcating with men...if you believe that life happened by itself??? :wacko:
Think about it!!!
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-08-2004, 03:38 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> IF causeless events were possible...at any moment in time for no given reason a BLUE tree could spring out of the ground with read leaves and the fruit that it bares would be GOLDEN apples. A dinosaur the size of texas could suddenly fall out of the sky. The sky itself could turn red with green stripes and thunder could sound like one of Beethoven's songs.
ANY THING WOULD BE POSSIBLE and there would be NO REASON for anything. It would be ANARCHY and we may as well not think!!!!!!!!
Do you think that all of the above is possible???? [/b][/quote]
yes they are all possible. they're just not actual. i didn't say causeless events were common or noticeable. (and the same way, you don't think that gods are common.) [/b][/quote]
WHAT?????
So you are telling me that ANYTHING could happen without reason? Is that really what you are telling me Rooster? Then why oh why is the universe BOUND by laws? WHY OH WHY don't these causeless event just keep happening randomly...WHAT WOULD STOP THEM?????????
The Sly One needs answers!!
animal
08-08-2004, 03:39 PM
Rooster, are you applying the implications of quantum physics to the visible mechanics of the world?(sorry for wording, I never finished highschool)
If so, how can you, when the whole revelation of quantum physics is that it defies the old rules we knew. Wouldnt it go without saying that goes both ways?
Please enlighten me if Im off base, I find this very interesting.
rooster
08-08-2004, 03:41 PM
hume (or humeans) reckons it's hard to prove that 'necessitating causation' exists. all we see is conjunction of events. since causation is (perceptibly) nothing more than conjunction, it's conceivable for the effect to happen without the cause - i.e. the second conjunct without the first conjunct. the only basis we have to beleiev in necessary causal relationships is inductive generalisation, i.e. 'every event i've seen has had a cause. therefore all events must have a cause'.
quine rejected the neat distinction between 'logic' and 'illogic'. our perceptions of what is illogical have changed over time, and it's possible to adopt a completely different set of 'illogical statements'.
slystaff
08-08-2004, 03:43 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
How does that atone for our sins? I've heard the story but it makes no sense. God is supposed to be capable of anything but he couldn't forgive humans for their sins unless his son came down and suffered a miserable death. :wacko:
[/b][/quote]
From the beginning, BLOOD was the atonement for sin. Blood signifies life in the NATURAL and in the SPIRITUAL. To bridge the gulf between God and Men, God had to incar............
....nah....no more pearls.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-08-2004, 03:48 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> hume (or humeans) reckons it's hard to prove that 'necessitating causation' exists. all we see is conjunction of events. since causation is (perceptibly) nothing more than conjunction, it's conceivable for the effect to happen without the cause - i.e. the second conjunct without the first conjunct. the only basis we have to beleiev in necessary causal relationships is inductive generalisation, i.e. 'every event i've seen has had a cause. therefore all events must have a cause'.
quine rejected the neat distinction between 'logic' and 'illogic'. our perceptions of what is illogical have changed over time, and it's possible to adopt a completely different set of 'illogical statements'. [/b][/quote]
:shaneUD12Oscar:
It's worse that ancient Greek. Hume and Quin are just confusing themselves. They are going around in circles using all sort of philosophy (which is itself based on causation...go figure) and never reaching a definite conclusion.
Rooster. Forget "conjunctions" and all of that malarky, whenever something happens we know that there is a reason for it. There is ALWAYS a reason. If there is a forest fire...it happened because the woods was too dray or the sun was too hot, someone started it...OR SOMETHING. There is always a reason.
Quin is confusing logic/illogical with expected/not expected. That's all. I can see through it straight away.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-08-2004, 03:52 PM
WHAT WOULD STOP RANDOM CAUSELESS EVENTS FROM HAPPENING FREQUENTLY????
If they are random with no cause then there should be no prevention either.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
rooster
08-08-2004, 03:53 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> are you applying the implications of quantum physics to the visible mechanics of the world?(sorry for wording, I never finished highschool)
If so, how can you, when the whole revelation of quantum physics is that it defies the old rules we knew. Wouldnt it go without saying that goes both ways? [/b][/quote]
i dont know anything about quantum mechanics
last time this topic came up i ended up feeling a bit sheepish, and realised that i'd overrated my knowledge and understanding of cosmology.
i guess nobody is being 'stupid', nobody on any side in any argument is ever just being 'stupid'.
i think i'm going to step deftly out of this topic and not come back until i do some more reading. and being as i dont have much free time, that may be a long while.
rooster
08-08-2004, 03:55 PM
i see balck06 has come into the thread. he's the guy who made me feel ike a bit of a pompous dickhead last time we had the god discussion. :Calvin Brock:
black06
08-08-2004, 03:56 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Rooster, are you applying the implications of quantum physics to the visible mechanics of the world?(sorry for wording, I never finished highschool)
If so, how can you, when the whole revelation of quantum physics is that it defies the old rules we knew. Wouldnt it go without saying that goes both ways?
Please enlighten me if Im off base, I find this very interesting. [/b][/quote]
Good point!
slystaff
08-08-2004, 03:56 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
i dont know anything about quantum mechanics
last time this topic came up i ended up feeling a bit sheepish, and realised that i'd overrated my knowledge and understanding of cosmology.
i guess nobody is being 'stupid', nobody on any side in any argument is ever just being 'stupid'.
i think i'm going to step deftly out of this topic and not come back until i do some more reading. and being as i dont have much free time, that may be a long while. [/b][/quote]
Come on...don't give up so soon. You don't want me to call you Acelino Frietas now do you? :D
Seriously though...I respect that.
The Sly One is sad that Rooster has to retire!!
black06
08-08-2004, 03:56 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> i see balck06 has come into the thread. he's the guy who made me feel ike a bit of a pompous dickhead last time we had the god discussion. :Calvin Brock: [/b][/quote]
:D how so man?
rooster
08-08-2004, 04:00 PM
no worries
slystaff
08-08-2004, 04:03 PM
Who's that anonymous person lurking on this topic? SHOW YOURSELF!! :teh angry:
:ontome:
The Sly One has Spoken!!
HairysonFord
08-08-2004, 04:33 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Sir Slice, I have come to the same conclusion.
If there is a God, and by definition, he knows all, then He knows who will or won't make it to heaven, and there is not a thing you can do to change it, because God's will is God's will, then why bother.
Good point. :lol: [/b][/quote]
In a sense you are correct...but to further explain that is going too deep.
Why bother? You should only "bother" if that is what you want to do. If you want to do it and do it, it would mean that you are one of the people that he already knew would make it.
He would know the end from the beginning, in eternity, but we have the ability to choose or choose not, in time.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
But since He would know if you will choose Him or not, then it is pre-ordained, and not really your choice. If you are one who was chosen to worship Him, you will, if not, you won't.
So again, why bother? Either way it is your destiny.
Whaler
08-08-2004, 05:06 PM
Some quick thoughts on this topic....
1. Big Bang Theory - anyone that's done some reading on the topic is familiar with it's major problems (horizon, flatness, magnetic monopole, etc). A big bang is likely to have occurred, but almost certainly not in the sequence or manner as described in the standard theory. The circumstances surrounding the initiation are very fuzzy....possibly involving dark matter and other unknown forces.
2. Evolution - there's no doubt that micro-evolution has and continues to occur. Macro-evolution is on somewhat shaky ground, but even if it's true there's big questions about the very beginning. The prevailing explanation is the primordial soup (giving rise to the first single cell organisms), but again the theory can be poked full of holes.
I believe the nature of God involves the initiation of these events, and that God could be described from a physics standpoint if we had sufficient knowledge (which we may never have). I have an abstract concept of God involving dark matter, functioning in non-euclidean dimensions, etc.
It's just as likely that I'm full of crap.
Sir Dice N Slice
08-08-2004, 05:23 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
The two can overlap.
For things as advanced as the universe, we rely on science to provide us with logic.
For example, it would be illogical to say next year will last 500 days, why? Because science has proven it takes the earth 365/66 days to orbit the sun.
Our intelligence is based on discoveries, even religion. If no one had told you about what goes on in the bible, and there was no mention of it on television or in books or whatever, would you still have thought about it, by yourself?
I doubt it. [/b][/quote]
Good attempt you are a smart man, but this example is wrong:
"For example, it would be illogical to say next year will last 500 days, why? Because science has proven it takes the earth 365/66 days to orbit the sun." - SIR Dice N Slice
Nice try. But it's not a logical/illogical issue. It would NOT be illogical for the Earth to have 500 days in a year. It would be IMPROBABLE and COUNTERINTUITIVE but NOT illogical. It is theoretically possible. The Earth could shift orbit for some reason. The gravitational pull of the Sun could diminish for some reason. The point is, there can be a reason for it to happen if it did happen. It's not impossible.
What would be illogical is IF the earth STOPPED MOVING (relative to the sun) through space but yet still had a 365 day year. THAT is an example of illogical....because if the Earth was stationary....a year would be INFINITE!!
Do you see the difference?
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
First off, thanks for the compliment, same to you, you obviously know what you're talking about.
The earth year thing come to think of it was a very bad example, I could have done better than that.
My point is, logic constantly changes with science, and new scientific discoveries. 2,000 years ago, for example, sailing off the east coast of America and coming back to dock on the west coast was illogical, because the world was flat, and your boat would have fallen off the face of the earth. We now know different, because of new discoveries. Which brings me back to the Gamma ray problem, if as it seems, Gamma rays defy Einsteins law of relativity, then one of the most important and fundamental laws of physics is wrong, which would have a knock on effect on any other law based on it. These rays in their very existence are illogical, because in no case, should an objects energy exceed its mass, according to our "logic" at least, anyway.
That's my point, you tried to use logic as a way of explaining the exsistence of a God, when it might be totally unreliable, as we simply don't know enough.
One more thing, Mr Blue made a good point, is a talking serpent or people being brought back to life as well as virgins giving birth not as illogical as multi-coloured dinosaurs the size of Texas falling from the sky?
HairysonFord
08-08-2004, 05:57 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Some quick thoughts on this topic....
1. Big Bang Theory - anyone that's done some reading on the topic is familiar with it's major problems (horizon, flatness, magnetic monopole, etc). A big bang is likely to have occurred, but almost certainly not in the sequence or manner as described in the standard theory. The circumstances surrounding the initiation are very fuzzy....possibly involving dark matter and other unknown forces.
2. Evolution - there's no doubt that micro-evolution has and continues to occur. Macro-evolution is on somewhat shaky ground, but even if it's true there's big questions about the very beginning. The prevailing explanation is the primordial soup (giving rise to the first single cell organisms), but again the theory can be poked full of holes.
I believe the nature of God involves the initiation of these events, and that God could be described from a physics standpoint if we had sufficient knowledge (which we may never have). I have an abstract concept of God involving dark matter, functioning in non-euclidean dimensions, etc.
It's just as likely that I'm full of crap. [/b][/quote]
No, you are not full of crap. I believe in God, was raised in church (yep :D ) and long ago came to the conclusion that the truth of the creation of the universe was simply OK, God created it, but Evolution (including the Big Bang) was the tool He used.
Any other explanation puts the two at odds. Evolution by itself cannot stand and some of the unanswered questions point to a diety. But scientific fact cannot be ignored, and some of the contradictions of fanatical Creationists are ludicrous because of these facts.
A melding of the two, to me, seems to fit the bill.
Sir Dice N Slice
08-08-2004, 06:05 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Some quick thoughts on this topic....
1. Big Bang Theory - anyone that's done some reading on the topic is familiar with it's major problems (horizon, flatness, magnetic monopole, etc). A big bang is likely to have occurred, but almost certainly not in the sequence or manner as described in the standard theory. The circumstances surrounding the initiation are very fuzzy....possibly involving dark matter and other unknown forces.
2. Evolution - there's no doubt that micro-evolution has and continues to occur. Macro-evolution is on somewhat shaky ground, but even if it's true there's big questions about the very beginning. The prevailing explanation is the primordial soup (giving rise to the first single cell organisms), but again the theory can be poked full of holes.
I believe the nature of God involves the initiation of these events, and that God could be described from a physics standpoint if we had sufficient knowledge (which we may never have). I have an abstract concept of God involving dark matter, functioning in non-euclidean dimensions, etc.
It's just as likely that I'm full of crap. [/b][/quote]
No, you are not full of crap. I believe in God, was raised in church (yep :D ) and long ago came to the conclusion that the truth of the creation of the universe was simply OK, God created it, but Evolution (including the Big Bang) was the tool He used.
Any other explanation puts the two at odds. Evolution by itself cannot stand and some of the unanswered questions point to a diety. But scientific fact cannot be ignored, and some of the contradictions of fanatical Creationists are ludicrous because of these facts.
A melding of the two, to me, seems to fit the bill. [/b][/quote]
Good point Hairy, btw, I am not saying there is no "higher power" of some sort which creates and conducts the flow of life, I just don't consign to the theory of God as depicted in organised religions.
The theory of evolution is very probable, in Italy they found the remains of a lesser known homo-sapien, (I know I will get the spelling of this completely wrong!), called homo-hyperthegansis, which when studied by scientists, was found to have very nearly the same amount of intelligence as a modern day human. It used tools, and what's more, MANUFACTURED tools, to trade to others (most likely in exchange for food). As well as having oversized tools which were used as show-pieces to show off their handiwork, all distinct human traits. They weren't completely human though, and more than likely resembled an ape of some sort.
slystaff
08-08-2004, 10:30 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
But since He would know if you will choose Him or not, then it is pre-ordained, and not really your choice. If you are one who was chosen to worship Him, you will, if not, you won't.
So again, why bother? Either way it is your destiny. [/b][/quote]
True. What you say is the absolute truth. However pre-destination is based on foreknowledge..."Those he foreknew he also pre-destinated" - Romans 8. So destiny is still in our hands, in a sense, he just KNOWS what we would do with the choices that we have.
If you don't "bother", then you are proving that your predestination is that you are not one of his. If you "bother" then your predestination is that you are one of his. So you still have somewhat of a choice in the matter if you think about it...nevertheless what you say is true.
Depends upon which way you look at it.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-08-2004, 10:35 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
No, you are not full of crap. I believe in God, was raised in church (yep :D ) and long ago came to the conclusion that the truth of the creation of the universe was simply OK, God created it, but Evolution (including the Big Bang) was the tool He used.
Any other explanation puts the two at odds. Evolution by itself cannot stand and some of the unanswered questions point to a diety. But scientific fact cannot be ignored, and some of the contradictions of fanatical Creationists are ludicrous because of these facts.
A melding of the two, to me, seems to fit the bill. [/b][/quote]
There is no reason why the concepts of God and Evolution cannot co-exist per se, BUT evolution has TOO MANY HOLES in it to be taken as fact. FAR TOO MANY. Creationism makes far more sense, and I'll discuss that at length shortly.
Big Bang makes no sense either...because black holes cannot explode.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-08-2004, 10:48 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Good point Hairy, btw, I am not saying there is no "higher power" of some sort which creates and conducts the flow of life, I just don't consign to the theory of God as depicted in organised religions.
The theory of evolution is very probable, in Italy they found the remains of a lesser known homo-sapien, (I know I will get the spelling of this completely wrong!), called homo-hyperthegansis, which when studied by scientists, was found to have very nearly the same amount of intelligence as a modern day human. It used tools, and what's more, MANUFACTURED tools, to trade to others (most likely in exchange for food). As well as having oversized tools which were used as show-pieces to show off their handiwork, all distinct human traits. They weren't completely human though, and more than likely resembled an ape of some sort. [/b][/quote]
Fossils of "ancient man" are NO EVIDENCE of evolution....they are just USED as evidence if evolution is the premise. Remove the premise, and there can be a variety of explanations.
For example:
Tigers seem to be going out of existance. There are only a few thousand left in the wild. Suppose they do go out of existence and are eventually forgotten about.
Suppose, in a few thousand years or so, scientists dig up a Tiger fossil and study it. They would realize that this creature is a big cat of some sort but not a Lion. Using the same logic, they may suggest that the Lion evolved from the Tiger.
However, the truth would be, that the tiger was simply another "race" of cat the went out of existence.
There is NO evidence for evolution if you apply this logic. Evolution is JUST a theory.
btw....it takes TWO humans, male and female to make a human. This is SCIENTIFIC FACT. Go back one thousand years and it's STILL A FACT. Go back 2000 years and IT'S STILL THE FACT. Go back a few million years and IT'S STILL THE FACT. Every seed brings forth after it's kind. Human spawns human...NOTHING ELSE can spawn a human.
That in itself shows the problem with the theory that we all came from zooplankton, fishes, amphibians, Birds, reptiles, apes etc.
NONSENSE!!
The Sly One has Spoken!!
atomicdOGg34
08-08-2004, 10:53 PM
is sly still quoting fanatical chrisitian websites like last time we had this discussion?
slystaff
08-08-2004, 10:57 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> is sly still quoting fanatical chrisitian websites like last time we had this discussion? [/b][/quote]
Boy,
You proved your IGNORANCE the last time we had this discussion so I suggest that you run along before you get e-hurt.
This is way above your head. Leave this for the adults to discuss.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
copernicus
08-08-2004, 11:19 PM
I think we'll find that the theory of evolution has more solid basis in fact and observation than any wild ideas about the Earth being created around the time of the Mesopotamians has. Biblical creation has as much credence as the Aboriginal dreamtime, with their giant snakes and weird stick-men demons or whatever the hell they are. But, I guess if you wish to make it up as you go along, that's up to you.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I think we'll find that the theory of evolution has more solid basis in fact and observation than any wild ideas about the Earth being created around the time of the Mesopotamians has. Biblical creation has as much credence as the Aboriginal dreamtime, with their giant snakes and weird stick-men demons or whatever the hell they are. But, I guess if you wish to make it up as you go along, that's up to you. [/b][/quote]
Amen.
atomicdOGg34
08-09-2004, 12:26 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> is sly still quoting fanatical chrisitian websites like last time we had this discussion? [/b][/quote]
Boy,
You proved your IGNORANCE the last time we had this discussion so I suggest that you run along before you get e-hurt.
This is way above your head. Leave this for the adults to discuss.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
:YeahRight:
hey if you wanna post "facts" from www.iblowjesusandswallow.com then be my guest
just dont expect anyone to take you seriously
HairysonFord
08-09-2004, 01:31 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
But since He would know if you will choose Him or not, then it is pre-ordained, and not really your choice. If you are one who was chosen to worship Him, you will, if not, you won't.
So again, why bother? Either way it is your destiny. [/b][/quote]
True. What you say is the absolute truth. However pre-destination is based on foreknowledge..."Those he foreknew he also pre-destinated" - Romans 8. So destiny is still in our hands, in a sense, he just KNOWS what we would do with the choices that we have.
If you don't "bother", then you are proving that your predestination is that you are not one of his. If you "bother" then your predestination is that you are one of his. So you still have somewhat of a choice in the matter if you think about it...nevertheless what you say is true.
Depends upon which way you look at it.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
But if He predestined, then there was no choice. The choice you made was not yours but His for you.
So again. Why bother?
Z-man
08-09-2004, 12:45 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
As for me having problems, Sly, I am not the one who is constantly starting threads trying to convince and convert others to think like I do. I let others be. If you want to worship god, satan, jesus, mickey mouse, or whoever, it doesn't matter to me. So be it.
But you on the other hand can not accept the fact that there others who don't think like you. There are those who don't see the truth in what you regard as sacred.
Sooner or later you're going to have to accept that not everyone shares your belief and you can huff and puff about cause and effect all you want to but it doesn't change a thing. [/b][/quote]
What does this have to do with anything? We discuss boxing don't we. We do not all have the same views. We discuss politics, women, social issues. Why do YOU have such a "hangup" about discussing God? I accept the fact that we all have different viewpoints, but what's wrong with sharing my own.
When we are discussing boxing no one complains that anyone is "constantly starting threads trying to convince and convert others to think like I do". But when God comes up all of the athiests get offended. Why is that?
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol:
Alham Dullila Allah brother!
Every subject is open for discussion but when GOD is brought up the same people try to stifle your expression.
joebazooka
08-09-2004, 02:23 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> God is a HUMAN invention. [/b][/quote]
HUMAN is a God invention. [/b][/quote]
do animals worship GOD?
[/b][/quote]
Yep. Humans are animals. And many humans worship God. [/b][/quote]
Clever guy :YeahRight:
By the way, if there is a God, what is the use in worshipping Him? What good would it do anything? Nothing would change if we did or didn't worship Him. [/b][/quote]
For practical, pragmatic purposes.
BadkittyM
08-09-2004, 02:26 PM
Ah, but if you are only doing it to try and hedge your bets, you're screwed. "God" knows what is in one's heart, and whether or not a person TRULY believes.
-M
joebazooka
08-09-2004, 03:06 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Ah, but if you are only doing it to try and hedge your bets, you're screwed. "God" knows what is in one's heart, and whether or not a person TRULY believes.
-M [/b][/quote]
It must be true because I have been blackmailing God with "if you make me hit the California Jackpot, I will give a huge donation to any charity of your choice" strategy for a while now, but so far he has not taken the bait.
cdogg187
08-09-2004, 04:12 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I think we'll find that the theory of evolution has more solid basis in fact and observation than any wild ideas about the Earth being created around the time of the Mesopotamians has. Biblical creation has as much credence as the Aboriginal dreamtime, with their giant snakes and weird stick-men demons or whatever the hell they are. But, I guess if you wish to make it up as you go along, that's up to you. [/b][/quote]
Again, well said.
Sir Dice N Slice
08-09-2004, 05:07 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
The two can overlap.
For things as advanced as the universe, we rely on science to provide us with logic.
For example, it would be illogical to say next year will last 500 days, why? Because science has proven it takes the earth 365/66 days to orbit the sun.
Our intelligence is based on discoveries, even religion. If no one had told you about what goes on in the bible, and there was no mention of it on television or in books or whatever, would you still have thought about it, by yourself?
I doubt it. [/b][/quote]
Good attempt you are a smart man, but this example is wrong:
"For example, it would be illogical to say next year will last 500 days, why? Because science has proven it takes the earth 365/66 days to orbit the sun." - SIR Dice N Slice
Nice try. But it's not a logical/illogical issue. It would NOT be illogical for the Earth to have 500 days in a year. It would be IMPROBABLE and COUNTERINTUITIVE but NOT illogical. It is theoretically possible. The Earth could shift orbit for some reason. The gravitational pull of the Sun could diminish for some reason. The point is, there can be a reason for it to happen if it did happen. It's not impossible.
What would be illogical is IF the earth STOPPED MOVING (relative to the sun) through space but yet still had a 365 day year. THAT is an example of illogical....because if the Earth was stationary....a year would be INFINITE!!
Do you see the difference?
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
First off, thanks for the compliment, same to you, you obviously know what you're talking about.
The earth year thing come to think of it was a very bad example, I could have done better than that.
My point is, logic constantly changes with science, and new scientific discoveries. 2,000 years ago, for example, sailing off the east coast of America and coming back to dock on the west coast was illogical, because the world was flat, and your boat would have fallen off the face of the earth. We now know different, because of new discoveries. Which brings me back to the Gamma ray problem, if as it seems, Gamma rays defy Einsteins law of relativity, then one of the most important and fundamental laws of physics is wrong, which would have a knock on effect on any other law based on it. These rays in their very existence are illogical, because in no case, should an objects energy exceed its mass, according to our "logic" at least, anyway.
That's my point, you tried to use logic as a way of explaining the exsistence of a God, when it might be totally unreliable, as we simply don't know enough.
One more thing, Mr Blue made a good point, is a talking serpent or people being brought back to life as well as virgins giving birth not as illogical as multi-coloured dinosaurs the size of Texas falling from the sky? [/b][/quote]
Sly I would be interested in hearing your response to this
slystaff
08-09-2004, 06:00 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I think we'll find that the theory of evolution has more solid basis in fact and observation than any wild ideas about the Earth being created around the time of the Mesopotamians has. Biblical creation has as much credence as the Aboriginal dreamtime, with their giant snakes and weird stick-men demons or whatever the hell they are. But, I guess if you wish to make it up as you go along, that's up to you. [/b][/quote]
Nonsense.
Evolution has NO BASIS. The theory that the Earth is billions of years old has NO basis. The "young Earth" theory makes FAR MORE SENSE.
For example, all we know is that it takes two humans to produce a human....this is a SCIENTIFIC FACT. We also know that there are roughly 7 BILLION people on the planet. We also know the approximate rate of population growth.
Therefore...if we work backwards mathematically, starting with the present population, using the rate of population expansion, allowing for wars and famines, natural disasters...etc...ect...you will find that you can go back no more than 8 thousand years AT THE MOST to arrive at a number of just TWO.
Question....where did these TWO come from?
Try it out if you wish and stop sprouting this pseudo-science hocus pocus.
I have more more to say and to elaborate on, but I'll let you consider this for now until I return in a few hours.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
cdogg187
08-09-2004, 06:01 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I think we'll find that the theory of evolution has more solid basis in fact and observation than any wild ideas about the Earth being created around the time of the Mesopotamians has. Biblical creation has as much credence as the Aboriginal dreamtime, with their giant snakes and weird stick-men demons or whatever the hell they are. But, I guess if you wish to make it up as you go along, that's up to you. [/b][/quote]
Nonsense.
Evolution has NO BASIS. The theory that the Earth is billions of years old has NO basis. The "young Earth" theory makes FAR MORE SENSE.
For example, all we know is that it takes two humans to produce a human....this is a SCIENTIFIC FACT. We also know that there are roughly 7 BILLION people on the planet. We also know the approximate rate of population growth.
Therefore...if we work backwards mathematically, starting with the present population, using the rate of population expansion, allowing for wars and famines, natural disasters...etc...ect...you will find that you can go back no more than 8 thousand years AT THE MOST to arrive at a number of just TWO.
Question....where did these TWO come from?
Try it out if you wish and stop sprouting this pseudo-science hocus pocus.
I have more more to say and to elaborate on, but I'll let you consider this for now until I return in a few hours.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
This is insane, Sly.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, it just is.
Ugotabe Kidding
08-09-2004, 06:05 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I think we'll find that the theory of evolution has more solid basis in fact and observation than any wild ideas about the Earth being created around the time of the Mesopotamians has. Biblical creation has as much credence as the Aboriginal dreamtime, with their giant snakes and weird stick-men demons or whatever the hell they are. But, I guess if you wish to make it up as you go along, that's up to you. [/b][/quote]
Nonsense.
Evolution has NO BASIS. The theory that the Earth is billions of years old has NO basis. The "young Earth" theory makes FAR MORE SENSE.
For example, all we know is that it takes two humans to produce a human....this is a SCIENTIFIC FACT. We also know that there are roughly 7 BILLION people on the planet. We also know the approximate rate of population growth.
Therefore...if we work backwards mathematically, starting with the present population, using the rate of population expansion, allowing for wars and famines, natural disasters...etc...ect...you will find that you can go back no more than 8 thousand years AT THE MOST to arrive at a number of just TWO.
Question....where did these TWO come from?
Try it out if you wish and stop sprouting this pseudo-science hocus pocus.
I have more more to say and to elaborate on, but I'll let you consider this for now until I return in a few hours.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
Sorry, I lost your point completely with this one.
Human is not as old as the earth, in fact, man has existed a fraction of that time. That is a scientific fact too
cdogg187
08-09-2004, 06:26 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I think we'll find that the theory of evolution has more solid basis in fact and observation than any wild ideas about the Earth being created around the time of the Mesopotamians has. Biblical creation has as much credence as the Aboriginal dreamtime, with their giant snakes and weird stick-men demons or whatever the hell they are. But, I guess if you wish to make it up as you go along, that's up to you. [/b][/quote]
Nonsense.
Evolution has NO BASIS. The theory that the Earth is billions of years old has NO basis. The "young Earth" theory makes FAR MORE SENSE.
For example, all we know is that it takes two humans to produce a human....this is a SCIENTIFIC FACT. We also know that there are roughly 7 BILLION people on the planet. We also know the approximate rate of population growth.
Therefore...if we work backwards mathematically, starting with the present population, using the rate of population expansion, allowing for wars and famines, natural disasters...etc...ect...you will find that you can go back no more than 8 thousand years AT THE MOST to arrive at a number of just TWO.
Question....where did these TWO come from?
Try it out if you wish and stop sprouting this pseudo-science hocus pocus.
I have more more to say and to elaborate on, but I'll let you consider this for now until I return in a few hours.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
Sorry, I lost your point completely with this one.
Human is not as old as the earth, in fact, man has existed a fraction of that time. That is a scientific fact too [/b][/quote]
that's what I'm screaming.
Sir Dice N Slice
08-09-2004, 06:33 PM
No offence intended Sly, but the big contradiction that is screaming out at me here, is that you so adamantly label all theories of evolution as nonsense, yet will readily accept the Bibles theories which include virgins giving birth, men living for 900 years, men being brought back to life, men parting seas into two...etc
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Therefore...if we work backwards mathematically, starting with the present population, using the rate of population expansion, allowing for wars and famines, natural disasters...etc...ect...you will find that you can go back no more than 8 thousand years AT THE MOST to arrive at a number of just TWO.
[/b][/quote]
Oh yeah, brilliant mate. Post up your full methodology for this little calculation, I've got my slide rule and abacus out ready to check it. :rolleyes:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> No offence intended Sly, but the big contradiction that is screaming out at me here, is that you so adamantly label all theories of evolution as nonsense, yet will readily accept the Bibles theories which include virgins giving birth, men living for 900 years, men being brought back to life, men parting seas into two...etc [/b][/quote]
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
slystaff
08-09-2004, 08:40 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Sorry, I lost your point completely with this one.
Human is not as old as the earth, in fact, man has existed a fraction of that time. That is a scientific fact too [/b][/quote]
True. I didn't mean to say that humans are as old as the earth. I was in a rush so I didn't clarify my point well. I'll have some time in a second....
black06
08-09-2004, 11:53 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> The theory that the Earth is billions of years old has NO basis. The "young Earth" theory makes FAR MORE SENSE.
[/b][/quote]
This is where we part company BIG TIME sly... I just hope you don't believe that because you THINK the bible says so. The last time we had this discussion I pointed out biblically how an "Old Earth" makes more sense as confirmed by virtually endless mounds of scientific evidence if you only use a different interpretation than 24 hours for the Hebrew word "yom" or day (it has 3 meanings). Young earth creationism has absolutely NO basis in biblical or scientific fact & you're going to loose tons of people there who simply aren't willing to throw their brain out of the window to continue the discussion.
I just want everyone to know that believing that the earth (& the universe for that matter) is only 8,000 years old isn't biblical at all. Sly is just plain wrong here & is operating on blind faith, a misguided interpretation of the bible, and/or some seriously botched science. That view is NOT common with all Christians.
"Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thess. 5:21)
atomicdOGg34
08-10-2004, 12:28 AM
human existance goes back only 8000 years sly?
we have archaeological proof of humans far older than that, try again
Dobie G
08-10-2004, 12:43 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I think we'll find that the theory of evolution has more solid basis in fact and observation than any wild ideas about the Earth being created around the time of the Mesopotamians has. Biblical creation has as much credence as the Aboriginal dreamtime, with their giant snakes and weird stick-men demons or whatever the hell they are. But, I guess if you wish to make it up as you go along, that's up to you. [/b][/quote]
Nonsense.
Evolution has NO BASIS. The theory that the Earth is billions of years old has NO basis. The "young Earth" theory makes FAR MORE SENSE.
For example, all we know is that it takes two humans to produce a human....this is a SCIENTIFIC FACT. We also know that there are roughly 7 BILLION people on the planet. We also know the approximate rate of population growth.
Therefore...if we work backwards mathematically, starting with the present population, using the rate of population expansion, allowing for wars and famines, natural disasters...etc...ect...you will find that you can go back no more than 8 thousand years AT THE MOST to arrive at a number of just TWO.
Question....where did these TWO come from?
Try it out if you wish and stop sprouting this pseudo-science hocus pocus.
I have more more to say and to elaborate on, but I'll let you consider this for now until I return in a few hours.
The Sly One has Spoken!![/b][/quote]
Universal Pictures presents...
<span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:100%">JURASSIC PARK</span>
Based off of a true story!
:rolleyes:
Mr. Blue
08-10-2004, 05:54 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
As for me having problems, Sly, I am not the one who is constantly starting threads trying to convince and convert others to think like I do. I let others be. If you want to worship god, satan, jesus, mickey mouse, or whoever, it doesn't matter to me. So be it.
But you on the other hand can not accept the fact that there others who don't think like you. There are those who don't see the truth in what you regard as sacred.
Sooner or later you're going to have to accept that not everyone shares your belief and you can huff and puff about cause and effect all you want to but it doesn't change a thing. [/b][/quote]
What does this have to do with anything? We discuss boxing don't we. We do not all have the same views. We discuss politics, women, social issues. Why do YOU have such a "hangup" about discussing God? I accept the fact that we all have different viewpoints, but what's wrong with sharing my own.
When we are discussing boxing no one complains that anyone is "constantly starting threads trying to convince and convert others to think like I do". But when God comes up all of the athiests get offended. Why is that?
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol:
Alham Dullila Allah brother!
Every subject is open for discussion but when GOD is brought up the same people try to stifle your expression. [/b][/quote]
Zero-man, the thing is any of us who have been here for a while know that it;s the same conversation started by the same joker over and over again.
Has he converted anyone by this. No, not even close. He doesn't even win any of the arguments that are presented to him. So what's the point? To spread outright religious propaganda?
Ropadope
08-10-2004, 01:19 PM
When God and religion are separated, religion can be disproven but God can't. Whether you believe in God or not, you can't prove or disprove his existence.
copernicus
08-10-2004, 04:22 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I think we'll find that the theory of evolution has more solid basis in fact and observation than any wild ideas about the Earth being created around the time of the Mesopotamians has. Biblical creation has as much credence as the Aboriginal dreamtime, with their giant snakes and weird stick-men demons or whatever the hell they are. But, I guess if you wish to make it up as you go along, that's up to you. [/b][/quote]
Nonsense.
Evolution has NO BASIS. The theory that the Earth is billions of years old has NO basis. The "young Earth" theory makes FAR MORE SENSE.
For example, all we know is that it takes two humans to produce a human....this is a SCIENTIFIC FACT. We also know that there are roughly 7 BILLION people on the planet. We also know the approximate rate of population growth.
Therefore...if we work backwards mathematically, starting with the present population, using the rate of population expansion, allowing for wars and famines, natural disasters...etc...ect...you will find that you can go back no more than 8 thousand years AT THE MOST to arrive at a number of just TWO.
Question....where did these TWO come from?
Try it out if you wish and stop sprouting this pseudo-science hocus pocus.
I have more more to say and to elaborate on, but I'll let you consider this for now until I return in a few hours.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
So what, our population comes down to an exponential with a base of two? Is this what you're saying?
And you say the evolutionary theory is nonsense? Come on. It may have holes in it, but I'll put that down to human ignorance and the fact we haven't had enough time to find out every single last fact about it. That's why it's called a theory. The Adam & Eve theory is one gigantic black hole of the ridiculous.
animal
08-10-2004, 04:43 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> For example, all we know is that it takes two humans to produce a human....this is a SCIENTIFIC FACT. We also know that there are roughly 7 BILLION people on the planet. We also know the approximate rate of population growth.
Therefore...if we work backwards mathematically, starting with the present population, using the rate of population expansion, allowing for wars and famines, natural disasters...etc...ect...you will find that you can go back no more than 8 thousand years AT THE MOST to arrive at a number of just TWO.
Question....where did these TWO come from?
Try it out if you wish and stop sprouting this pseudo-science hocus pocus.
I have more more to say and to elaborate on, but I'll let you consider this for now until I return in a few hours.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
What about the great flood? Can you possibly have any idea how many people were alive before it?
slystaff
08-10-2004, 10:19 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
This is where we part company BIG TIME sly... I just hope you don't believe that because you THINK the bible says so. The last time we had this discussion I pointed out biblically how an "Old Earth" makes more sense as confirmed by virtually endless mounds of scientific evidence if you only use a different interpretation than 24 hours for the Hebrew word "yom" or day (it has 3 meanings). Young earth creationism has absolutely NO basis in biblical or scientific fact & you're going to loose tons of people there who simply aren't willing to throw their brain out of the window to continue the discussion.
I just want everyone to know that believing that the earth (& the universe for that matter) is only 8,000 years old isn't biblical at all. Sly is just plain wrong here & is operating on blind faith, a misguided interpretation of the bible, and/or some seriously botched science. That view is NOT common with all Christians.
"Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thess. 5:21) [/b][/quote]
Ah....nevermind Black, we can't agree on everything. :D
Black, I am well aware of the scriptures and the meaning of "yom". I am also well aware that there is a growing movement on Christians that are trying to adopt the modern day scientific notions and somehow try to make the Bible agree with what the fallible scientists are suggesting.
As such many "bible believers" are suggesting that the was a big bang (caused by God of course) and there was evolution (started by God of course) and this way they please both the scientists and the "christians".
Now I'm not suggesting that you are a hypocrite or even one of the extremes that I have just mentioned...but your argument simply reminds me of that.
Now...I'm not suggesting that the Earth is 6000-8000 years old. Neither am I basing my "young earth" belief strictly upon what I think is the interpretation of scripture.
Firstly, it's very possible that the first 6 days, spken of in Genesis were 1000 year periods...."day is a thousand years and thousand years is a day" etc...
But it doesn't HAVE to mean that and we shouldn't TRY to make it mean that JUST to please the scientists.
Neverthelessss, even if it is a 6000 year first 6 days (since the re-creation of the earth)....I believe that the earth was in existence for thousands of years before that (an unquantified amount).
However...the Earth is THOUSANDS of years old (maybe 20,000).....NOT BILLIONS of years old like they are claiming.
You see, evolutionists accuse creationists of trying to shorten the age of the earth in order to fit the "creation theory" but in ACTUALITY it is the evolutionists that have tried to lengthen the age of the Earth to extraordinary lengths BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WOULD BE POSSIBLE.
Truthfully, billions of years wouldn't even be enough to support this very slow process...but that is a point for another time.
I'm digressing BIG TIME (sorry :sulk: )...
This is my point.
Recorded human history can only be traced back about 6 thousand years....what happened in the previous few millions years. If the human race were even millions of years old....mathematically the current population would be 1000 X what it is today. This is common sense and it is the modern scientists that are operating in BLIND FAITH in their unproven theories and forgetting the simple facts and logic.
You quoted scripture....so take this one:
"He has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes"
There are many reaosns why the earth cannot be as old as the 4 billion years that scientists and their inconsistent, fallible dating methods have suggested....but this post is already too long for me to list them (I've listed them before). I'll do it in a later post.
In conclusion...
The previous response was really about humans and evolution. The only TESTABLE fact regarding the generation of humans is that it takes the sperm and an egg from two humans to create a human. This is the ONLY PROVEN FACT. Therefore humans could not have come from something else...any other thought is merely conjecture and unproven fantasy. There had to be two humans at the beginning in order to start the species and those two humans couldn't have just "popped out of thin air"...SOMEONE must have CREATED THEM!!
At the end of the day...LIFE had to be CREATED at some point....
Hence CREATIONISM!!!!!!!!!!! :huh: :stick:
The Sly One has Spoken!!
atomicdOGg34
08-10-2004, 10:25 PM
:YeahRight:
slystaff
08-10-2004, 10:29 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
So what, our population comes down to an exponential with a base of two? Is this what you're saying?
And you say the evolutionary theory is nonsense? Come on. It may have holes in it, but I'll put that down to human ignorance and the fact we haven't had enough time to find out every single last fact about it. That's why it's called a theory. The Adam & Eve theory is one gigantic black hole of the ridiculous. [/b][/quote]
It's the names "Adam and Eve" that are throwing you off. It's conjures up thoughts of little kids in Sunday school and no adult who claims he's educated wants to say that he's adopting a Sunday School theory. :D
HOWEVER....merely substitute "Adam and Eve" for "one man and one woman" and you will soon realize that this is the only thing that makes sense. Why? Because like I have already stated humans can only be generated by humans. This is the only thing that has been proven by science.
Therefore saying that humans are descended from FISHES etc..., after what we've observed and tested in science is the real....
"one gigantic black hole of the ridiculous.". :D
It's the blind leading the blind.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-10-2004, 10:30 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :YeahRight: [/b][/quote]
Good counterpoint.
I concede to you and your wisdom.
The Sly One has Spoken!! :D
atomicdOGg34
08-10-2004, 10:32 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
So what, our population comes down to an exponential with a base of two? Is this what you're saying?
And you say the evolutionary theory is nonsense? Come on. It may have holes in it, but I'll put that down to human ignorance and the fact we haven't had enough time to find out every single last fact about it. That's why it's called a theory. The Adam & Eve theory is one gigantic black hole of the ridiculous. [/b][/quote]
It's the names "Adam and Eve" that are throwing you off. It's conjures up thoughts of little kids in Sunday school and no adult who claims he's educated wants to say that he's adopting a Sunday School theory. :D
HOWEVER....merely substitute "Adam and Eve" for "one man and one woman" and you will soon realize that this is the only thing that makes sense. Why? Because like I have already stated humans can only be generated by humans. This is the only thing that has been proven by science.
Therefore saying that humans are descended from FISHES etc..., after what we've observed and tested in science is the real....
"one gigantic black hole of the ridiculous.". :D
It's the blind leading the blind.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
humans can only be generated by humans through sexual reproduction
your line of thinking is totally ridiculous
atomicdOGg34
08-10-2004, 10:32 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :YeahRight: [/b][/quote]
Good counterpoint.
I concede to you and your wisdom.
The Sly One has Spoken!! :D [/b][/quote]
as always
atomicdOGg34
08-10-2004, 10:54 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
For example:
Tigers seem to be going out of existance. There are only a few thousand left in the wild. Suppose they do go out of existence and are eventually forgotten about.
Suppose, in a few thousand years or so, scientists dig up a Tiger fossil and study it. They would realize that this creature is a big cat of some sort but not a Lion. Using the same logic, they may suggest that the Lion evolved from the Tiger.
[/b][/quote]
should we also assume that they dont find any LION bones and date them to precisely the same period as the tiger?
black06
08-11-2004, 01:55 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Truthfully, billions of years wouldn't even be enough to support this very slow process...but that is a point for another time.
[/b][/quote]
I agree, it's still nonsense to say that the earth is only a few thousand years old on sooooo many levels. Yom can be interpreted (rightfully so) to mean an indefinite (long, not nessecarily 1000 years possibly much longer) period of time. If you notice in Genesis it says "...and there was the beginning & then end, the Xth day" (roughly paraphrasing) for days one through six. So, to me, it's saying this time period started here, God did all these things in this time period and then it ended. Notice that the 7th "day" is the only day that it doesn't use the beginning and ending markers it only says God rested... I believe we're still in the seventh day which started when God was done creating & continues until now which would also confirm the creation "days" are very long periods of time (I can explain why further if you want).
I'm just saying you don't have to reject indisputable scientific fact to be a believer (for the record I don't believe we evolved from primates either, like you I believe we were created only thousands of years ago during the sixth day) "test all things..." and the truth will set you free in that you'll find that there is no conflict between the bible (which we know is true) & established facts that we know are true. Why would there be if they're both right?
Ugotabe Kidding
08-11-2004, 04:01 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
So what, our population comes down to an exponential with a base of two? Is this what you're saying?
And you say the evolutionary theory is nonsense? Come on. It may have holes in it, but I'll put that down to human ignorance and the fact we haven't had enough time to find out every single last fact about it. That's why it's called a theory. The Adam & Eve theory is one gigantic black hole of the ridiculous. [/b][/quote]
It's the names "Adam and Eve" that are throwing you off. It's conjures up thoughts of little kids in Sunday school and no adult who claims he's educated wants to say that he's adopting a Sunday School theory. :D
HOWEVER....merely substitute "Adam and Eve" for "one man and one woman" and you will soon realize that this is the only thing that makes sense. Why? Because like I have already stated humans can only be generated by humans. This is the only thing that has been proven by science.
Therefore saying that humans are descended from FISHES etc..., after what we've observed and tested in science is the real....
"one gigantic black hole of the ridiculous.". :D
It's the blind leading the blind.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
If there was just one man and one woman at first (those Adam and Eve), then how didi black people develop (or white people if those two were black)?. Where did the indians and chinese come from?
Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that people have been born around the world and there has never been just two human?
Now if you think that man has changed during these years from white to black because of nature (black skin can take sun better so it is better to hot places), that is very plausible. If this is not your opinion of how it happened, then I'd like to hear your version. Now if a man has been able to change his colour because of natural development (evolution), then you are not too far from ape developing to a human. Even these days ape's and human's DNA is 98% the same, their differences are very small. As the archeologists have shown, earlier apes and men have been even closer to each other.
Spaceman
08-11-2004, 07:55 AM
there is no god.
life on earth was created in complete irrelevance to the big bang, but We are the result of an alien "stellar winnebago" waste dump on Earth.
i'm sure in good time, man will return the favor to another planet which we will soil and in a few more million years, life will appear there too. maybe we can wage interplanetary wars and prolong the destruction outside of our own World.
:cool:
PetreTG
08-11-2004, 09:57 AM
The most well known and most absolute dating technique , Carbon-14 dating , has a half-life of about 5,730 years . This means it can only date with accuraccy to that point and is absolutely useless beyond 50-70,000 years.
Whooops ! :D
MORAL : NO ONE knows of anything older than this and the accuracy beyond it's half life is considerably varied as has been proven by multiple tests on the same matter with different results.
Science ... Gotta love it.
PetreTG
08-11-2004, 10:06 AM
Oh ... let me add to this that scientists can not even prove they have figured out accurately it's rate of decay beyond a few thousand years , only that the most accurate dating method is not that accurate beyond recorded history :D
BUT it's a fact ! Nonetheless!!! :wub:
:YeahRight:
black06
08-11-2004, 01:29 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> The most well known and most absolute dating technique , Carbon-14 dating , has a half-life of about 5,730 years . This means it can only date with accuraccy to that point and is absolutely useless beyond 50-70,000 years.
Whooops ! :D
MORAL : NO ONE knows of anything older than this and the accuracy beyond it's half life is considerably varied as has been proven by multiple tests on the same matter with different results.
Science ... Gotta love it. [/b][/quote]
You mean something physical on earth that can be dated with Carbon-14 correct? In that case you're probably correct (don't know exact numbers) but knowing the speed of light and the distance between stars, planets & other galaxies we can very safely conclude that the universe is on the order of billions of years old & we can then make ballpark estimations of the age of our galaxy, the sun, the earth etc. which puts the numbers for the latter waaaay beyond the 20,000 years mark. This is just a rough example but it's not hard to see the point.
Socrates
08-11-2004, 01:56 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
You mean something physical on earth that can be dated with Carbon-14 correct? In that case you're probably correct (don't know exact numbers) but knowing the speed of light and the distance between stars, planets & other galaxies we can very safely conclude that the universe is on the order of billions of years old & we can then make ballpark estimations of the age of our galaxy, the sun, the earth etc. which puts the numbers for the latter waaaay beyond the 20,000 years mark. This is just a rough example but it's not hard to see the point. [/b][/quote]
The age of the universe has no baring on the age of the sun or the earth. :huh: Even if the universe were billions of years old as you suggest, the Solar system could be much younger and the Earth younger still. No one knows for sure how far away the furthest stars that are visible to the naked eye are from Earth. For all we know every visible star could be within 20-30 thousand light years away. Who are you to say otherwise?
PetreTG
08-11-2004, 02:05 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> The most well known and most absolute dating technique , Carbon-14 dating , has a half-life of about 5,730 years . This means it can only date with accuraccy to that point and is absolutely useless beyond 50-70,000 years.
Whooops !  :D
MORAL : NO ONE knows of anything older than this and the accuracy beyond it's half life is considerably varied as has been proven by multiple tests on the same matter with different results.
Science ... Gotta love it. [/b][/quote]
You mean something physical on earth that can be dated with Carbon-14 correct? In that case you're probably correct (don't know exact numbers) but knowing the speed of light and the distance between stars, planets & other galaxies we can very safely conclude that the universe is on the order of billions of years old & we can then make ballpark estimations of the age of our galaxy, the sun, the earth etc. which puts the numbers for the latter waaaay beyond the 20,000 years mark. This is just a rough example but it's not hard to see the point. [/b][/quote]
Only if you believe the "Big Bang" theory and think the earth is the center of the universe :D Further you cannot account for decelration from the initial bang where the velocity of "particles" if you will, traveled at many thousands of times their currently decelerating speed :bonker:
Much the way a bullet leaves a gun at high velocity which instantly begins to decelrate many many multiples of it's original velocity until it stops completely , point being the distance it first travels is much greater than that towards it's end in the same time frame. :gavel:
:blink:
Ropadope
08-11-2004, 02:11 PM
If there was just one man and one woman at first (those Adam and Eve), then how didi black people develop (or white people if those two were black)?. Where did the indians and chinese come from?
Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that people have been born around the world and there has never been just two human?
Now if you think that man has changed during these years from white to black because of nature (black skin can take sun better so it is better to hot places), that is very plausible. If this is not your opinion of how it happened, then I'd like to hear your version. Now if a man has been able to change his colour because of natural development (evolution), then you are not too far from ape developing to a human. Even these days ape's and human's DNA is 98% the same, their differences are very small. As the archeologists have shown, earlier apes and men have been even closer to each other. [/quote]
Are you saying that the first humans were white, and that blacks evolved from them? Brace yourself because this thread may be around for a long while.
Ugotabe Kidding
08-11-2004, 02:18 PM
If there was just one man and one woman at first (those Adam and Eve), then how didi black people develop (or white people if those two were black)?. Where did the indians and chinese come from?
Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that people have been born around the world and there has never been just two human?
Now if you think that man has changed during these years from white to black because of nature (black skin can take sun better so it is better to hot places), that is very plausible. If this is not your opinion of how it happened, then I'd like to hear your version. Now if a man has been able to change his colour because of natural development (evolution), then you are not too far from ape developing to a human. Even these days ape's and human's DNA is 98% the same, their differences are very small. As the archeologists have shown, earlier apes and men have been even closer to each other.
Are you saying that the first humans were white, and that blacks evolved from them? Brace yourself because this thread may be around for a long while. [/quote]
:stick: No
I did not say that. I only said that if there were two people first (like Sly suggested), they have had to be either white or black and the others have had to develop from them. Or is there another chance if it comes down to just two human beings?
What I believe (and I think most scientists believe too) is that human has developed slowly and in many places. There have been tribes of ape-men (the men that were before the man of today). Because of the nature, they developed (evolution) to their recent form because like that they could survive better in the world. The humans that stayed in warm areas probably became black because black pigment can take sun better while the ones who lived in north had lighter skin colours.
black06
08-11-2004, 02:22 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> The most well known and most absolute dating technique , Carbon-14 dating , has a half-life of about 5,730 years . This means it can only date with accuraccy to that point and is absolutely useless beyond 50-70,000 years.
Whooops ! :D
MORAL : NO ONE knows of anything older than this and the accuracy beyond it's half life is considerably varied as has been proven by multiple tests on the same matter with different results.
Science ... Gotta love it. [/b][/quote]
You mean something physical on earth that can be dated with Carbon-14 correct? In that case you're probably correct (don't know exact numbers) but knowing the speed of light and the distance between stars, planets & other galaxies we can very safely conclude that the universe is on the order of billions of years old & we can then make ballpark estimations of the age of our galaxy, the sun, the earth etc. which puts the numbers for the latter waaaay beyond the 20,000 years mark. This is just a rough example but it's not hard to see the point. [/b][/quote]
Only if you believ the "Big Bang" theory and think the earth is the center of the universe :D Further you cannot account for decelration from the initial bang where the velocity of "particles" is you will traveled at many thousands of times their currently decelerating speed :bonker:
:blink: [/b][/quote]
:wacko: What does that have to do with matter of fact calculations using the speed of light to estimate the age of visible stars, galaxies, heck even quasars, and thus our universe?
Ropadope
08-11-2004, 02:23 PM
:stick: No
I did not say that. I only said that if there were two people first (like Sly suggested), they have had to be either white or black and the others have had to develop from them. Or is there another chance if it comes down to just two human beings?
What I believe (and I think most scientists believe too) is that human has developed slowly and in many places. There have been tribes of ape-men (the men that were before the man of today). Because of the nature, they developed (evolution) to their recent form because like that they could survive better in the world. The humans that stayed in warm areas probably became black because black pigment can take sun better while the ones who lived in north had lighter skin colours. [/quote]
I'm joking with you, Ugo.
Ugotabe Kidding
08-11-2004, 02:24 PM
:stick: No
I did not say that. I only said that if there were two people first (like Sly suggested), they have had to be either white or black and the others have had to develop from them. Or is there another chance if it comes down to just two human beings?
What I believe (and I think most scientists believe too) is that human has developed slowly and in many places. There have been tribes of ape-men (the men that were before the man of today). Because of the nature, they developed (evolution) to their recent form because like that they could survive better in the world. The humans that stayed in warm areas probably became black because black pigment can take sun better while the ones who lived in north had lighter skin colours.
I'm joking with you, Ugo. [/quote]
oh :(
:D
:ontome:
Ropadope
08-11-2004, 02:34 PM
:stick: No
I did not say that. I only said that if there were two people first (like Sly suggested), they have had to be either white or black and the others have had to develop from them. Or is there another chance if it comes down to just two human beings?
What I believe (and I think most scientists believe too) is that human has developed slowly and in many places. There have been tribes of ape-men (the men that were before the man of today). Because of the nature, they developed (evolution) to their recent form because like that they could survive better in the world. The humans that stayed in warm areas probably became black because black pigment can take sun better while the ones who lived in north had lighter skin colours.
I'm joking with you, Ugo.
oh :(
:D
:ontome: [/quote]
I guess there is no way that you could have known, but you could have geven me the benefit of the doubt!
atomicdOGg34
08-11-2004, 05:59 PM
science can give us a very close estimate of how old things are (using carbon-14 dating-which is only good for things with carbon in them, ie organic, or uranium 234 (and other forms of uranium and other elements) have longer half lives, uranium 234 for instance has a half life of 248,000 years, samarium 147 has a half life of 106 billion years :shaneUD12Oscar: )
though times maybe be off be several thousand years, in the grand scheme thats a VERY small percentage
its alot better method and accurate than using genealogies to determine the earths age, or better yet trying to interpret a word (yom in this case) where it could be ANYTHING!
slystaff
08-11-2004, 06:04 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> science can give us a very close estimate of how old things are (using carbon-14 dating-which is only good for things with carbon in them, ie organic, or uranium 234 (and other forms of uranium and other elements) have longer half lives, uranium 234 for instance has a half life of 248,000 years, samarium 147 has a half life of 106 billion years :shaneUD12Oscar: )
though times maybe be off be several thousand years, in the grand scheme thats a VERY small percentage
its alot better method and accurate than using genealogies to determine the earths age, or better yet trying to interpret a word (yom in this case) where it could be ANYTHING! [/b][/quote]
I agree with you that science can give us a very close estimate and it is BECAUSE of science that I believe that the Earth is young. It depends of course on your aplication of science....
The Sly One has Spoken!!
atomicdOGg34
08-11-2004, 06:06 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> science can give us a very close estimate of how old things are (using carbon-14 dating-which is only good for things with carbon in them, ie organic, or uranium 234 (and other forms of uranium and other elements) have longer half lives, uranium 234 for instance has a half life of 248,000 years, samarium 147 has a half life of 106 billion years :shaneUD12Oscar: )
though times maybe be off be several thousand years, in the grand scheme thats a VERY small percentage
its alot better method and accurate than using genealogies to determine the earths age, or better yet trying to interpret a word (yom in this case) where it could be ANYTHING! [/b][/quote]
I agree with you that science can give us a very close estimate and it is BECAUSE of science that I believe that the Earth is young. It depends of course on your aplication of science....
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
science tells us the earth is like 4 and a half BILLION years old
i guess thats young, depends on your perspective
slystaff
08-11-2004, 06:23 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
science tells us the earth is like 4 and a half BILLION years old
i guess thats young, depends on your perspective [/b][/quote]
Nope. Science doesn't tell us that. Some scientists have told us that basing their THEORIES on a bunch of inconsistent and unproven dating techniques and false ASSumptions.
Simple science such as looking at the rate of erosion of sediment into the oceans, the earth's magnetic field, the distance of the moon from the earth and how it is gradually moving away, the level of dust on the moon and an entire host of other things shows that the Earth cannot possibly be BILLIONS of years old.
You must realize that the concept of EVOLUTION was only invented because men were trying to explain the existence of life without a creator. However the inventor of the theory, Darwin, rejected it himself because he realized that it didn't work. Following this, the concept of an OLD EARTH was only invented in order to support the porous concept of evolution....and based upon this premise many scientists are TRYING to find ways to prove this theory while conveniently forgetting proven empirical evidence that supports the contrary.
In the end of the day, evolution or not, it would take a CREATOR to create life (even the most primitive form) in the first place. So one way or another we have to reconclie to the fact that there is a creator...old earth or not.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
atomicdOGg34
08-11-2004, 06:26 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
science tells us the earth is like 4 and a half BILLION years old
i guess thats young, depends on your perspective [/b][/quote]
Nope. Science doesn't tell us that. Some scientists have told us that basing their THEORIES on a bunch of inconsistent and unproven dating techniques and false ASSumptions.
Simple science such as looking at the rate of erosion of sediment into the oceans, the earth's magnetic field, the distance of the moon from the earth and how it is gradually moving away, the level of dust on the moon and an entire host of other things shows that the Earth cannot possibly be BILLIONS of years old.
You must realize that the concept of EVOLUTION was only invented because men were trying to explain the existence of life without a creator. However the inventor of the theory, Darwin, rejected it himself because he realized that it didn't work. Following this, the concept of an OLD EARTH was only invented in order to support the porous concept of evolution....and based upon this premise many scientists are TRYING to find ways to prove this theory while conveniently forgetting proven empirical evidence that supports the contrary.
In the end of the day, evolution or not, it would take a CREATOR to create life (even the most primitive form) in the first place. So one way or another we have to reconclie to the fact that there is a creator...old earth or not.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
:YeahRight:
and scientists dont use SCIENCE??
and i have never seen ANY study that refers to what you just did as an aging technique for the earth
you are using some fucked up pseudoscience bordering on a couple guys in masks doing dances around a bonfire while reading the bones
id like to see what scientists (since they are the ones who practice science) have determined the earths age by saying what youve just told me
and why would it take a creator to create life?? because you say so??
and going back to your original problem, that something cannot come out of nothing, where the fuck did God come from then??
slystaff
08-11-2004, 06:35 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
:YeahRight:
and scientists dont use SCIENCE??
and i have never seen ANY study that refers to what you just did as an aging technique for the earth
you are using some fucked up pseudoscience bordering on a couple guys in masks doing dances around a bonfire while reading the bones
id like to see what scientists (since they are the ones who practice science) have determined the earths age by saying what youve just told me
and why would it take a creator to create life?? because you say so??
and going back to your original problem, that something cannot come out of nothing, where the fuck did God come from then?? [/b][/quote]
:huh:
You haven't been paying attention. :stick:
God didn't come from anywhere, he ("it" if you prefer) was ALWAYS there.
If the universe was ALWAYS THERE....there wouldn't be the need for a creator. But we KNOW that it wasn't always there simply because it is changing, expanding etc. It started, so something (one) must have started it. God didn't start, the concept of him is that he doesn't change and is a constant. There had/has to be at least ONE constant in existence because there could never have been nothing.
Is any of this staying between your ears? :wacko:
Why would it take a creator to create life? :D You actually answered that in your question. It takes a creator to create!!
Life is so complex and is based on so many intelligent processes that only a complete fool would suggest that it happened merely by chance. It requires a creator, plain and simple.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
atomicdOGg34
08-11-2004, 06:37 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
:YeahRight:
and scientists dont use SCIENCE??
and i have never seen ANY study that refers to what you just did as an aging technique for the earth
you are using some fucked up pseudoscience bordering on a couple guys in masks doing dances around a bonfire while reading the bones
id like to see what scientists (since they are the ones who practice science) have determined the earths age by saying what youve just told me
and why would it take a creator to create life?? because you say so??
and going back to your original problem, that something cannot come out of nothing, where the fuck did God come from then?? [/b][/quote]
:huh:
You haven't been paying attention. :stick:
God didn't come from anywhere, he ("it" if you prefer) was ALWAYS there.
If the universe was ALWAYS THERE....there wouldn't be the need for a creator. But we KNOW that it wasn't always there simply because it is changing, expanding etc. It started, so something (one) must have started it. God didn't start, the concept of him is that he doesn't change and is a constant. There had/has to be at least ONE constant in existence because there could never have been nothing.
Is any of this staying between your ears? :wacko:
Why would it take a creator to create life? :D You actually answered that in your question. It takes a creator to create!!
Life is so complex and is based on so many intelligent processes that only a complete fool would suggest that it happened merely by chance. It requires a creator, plain and simple. [/b][/quote]
sure, so God was just there, thats it, just floating around for eons then he suddenly has the urge to make life, rrriiiggghhhhttt
how come you never hear of god in ancient ancient cultures then?
BadkittyM
08-11-2004, 06:50 PM
You did...he/she/it was simply called different names. All Gods are One, and all that rot. Christianity also appropriated many pagan holidays and called them something else, like Easter, All Saints Day and Christmas.
That's the easiest way to convert people, is to take something they are used to celebrating already, and renaming it.
-M
atomicdOGg34
08-11-2004, 06:52 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> You did...he/she/it was simply called different names. All Gods are One, and all that rot. Christianity also appropriated many pagan holidays and called them something else, like Easter, All Saints Day and Christmas.
That's the easiest way to convert people, is to take something they are used to celebrating already, and renaming it.
-M [/b][/quote]
wtf?
greeks didnt believe in one God, they had a whole system of gods
many other cultures as well, would you say that its all the same thing even though their main scriptures, writings etc are different from "gods word" the bible
BadkittyM
08-11-2004, 06:56 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> You did...he/she/it was simply called different names. All Gods are One, and all that rot. Christianity also appropriated many pagan holidays and called them something else, like Easter, All Saints Day and Christmas.
That's the easiest way to convert people, is to take something they are used to celebrating already, and renaming it.
-M [/b][/quote]
wtf?
greeks didnt believe in one God, they had a whole system of gods
many other cultures as well, would you say that its all the same thing even though their main scriptures, writings etc are different from "gods word" the bible [/b][/quote]
:huh:
I didn't say I agreed with it...yes, there were myriad 'Gods', but have you not heard that all Gods are but one God?
-M
black06
08-11-2004, 07:01 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you are using some f*#ked up pseudoscience...
[/b][/quote]
That's basically what I was saying & that's my disagreement with Sly. All of the young earth creation "science" is easily disprovable & is downright dishonest & most importantly UNECCESSARY. The answers are all there you just have to dig a little deeper.
atomicdOGg34
08-11-2004, 07:03 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> You did...he/she/it was simply called different names. All Gods are One, and all that rot. Christianity also appropriated many pagan holidays and called them something else, like Easter, All Saints Day and Christmas.
That's the easiest way to convert people, is to take something they are used to celebrating already, and renaming it.
-M [/b][/quote]
wtf?
greeks didnt believe in one God, they had a whole system of gods
many other cultures as well, would you say that its all the same thing even though their main scriptures, writings etc are different from "gods word" the bible [/b][/quote]
:huh:
I didn't say I agreed with it...yes, there were myriad 'Gods', but have you not heard that all Gods are but one God?
-M [/b][/quote]
apparently not
never in any class, whether it be history or mythology class have i ever heard that
atomicdOGg34
08-11-2004, 07:05 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you are using some f*#ked up pseudoscience...
[/b][/quote]
That's basically what I was saying & that's my disagreement with Sly. All of the young earth creation "science" is easily disprovable & is downright dishonest & most importantly UNECCESSARY. The answers are all there you just have to dig a little deeper. [/b][/quote]
sly is a fanatic, takes the bibles word as literal, not translateable
which i mean, is stupid to begin with because, lets say it IS gods word (we're assuming god is real), the bible is only mans interpretation of the word, man wrote it, theres bound to be some inaccuracies, things that dont make sense, etc etc
atomicdOGg34
08-11-2004, 07:13 PM
sly, this guy shits all over you
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
black06
08-11-2004, 07:16 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you are using some f*#ked up pseudoscience...
[/b][/quote]
That's basically what I was saying & that's my disagreement with Sly. All of the young earth creation "science" is easily disprovable & is downright dishonest & most importantly UNECCESSARY. The answers are all there you just have to dig a little deeper. [/b][/quote]
sly is a fanatic, takes the bibles word as literal, not translateable
which i mean, is stupid to begin with because, lets say it IS gods word (we're assuming god is real), the bible is only mans interpretation of the word, man wrote it, theres bound to be some inaccuracies, things that dont make sense, etc etc [/b][/quote]
That's a simplistic way to look at it... IMO it's ok to take the bible literally (but I'm a bible believing Christian) you just have to take it literally in the language it was written in. Most of the inaccuracies & misunderstandings come from the translation to other languages.
atomicdOGg34
08-11-2004, 07:17 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you are using some f*#ked up pseudoscience...
[/b][/quote]
That's basically what I was saying & that's my disagreement with Sly. All of the young earth creation "science" is easily disprovable & is downright dishonest & most importantly UNECCESSARY. The answers are all there you just have to dig a little deeper. [/b][/quote]
sly is a fanatic, takes the bibles word as literal, not translateable
which i mean, is stupid to begin with because, lets say it IS gods word (we're assuming god is real), the bible is only mans interpretation of the word, man wrote it, theres bound to be some inaccuracies, things that dont make sense, etc etc [/b][/quote]
That's a simplistic way to look at it... IMO it's ok to take the bible literally (but I'm a bible believing Christian) you just have to take it literally in the language it was written in. Most of the inaccuracies & misunderstandings come from the translation to other languages. [/b][/quote]
simplistic??
muthafucka ill kill you!!
:D
black06
08-11-2004, 07:21 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you are using some f*#ked up pseudoscience...
[/b][/quote]
That's basically what I was saying & that's my disagreement with Sly. All of the young earth creation "science" is easily disprovable & is downright dishonest & most importantly UNECCESSARY. The answers are all there you just have to dig a little deeper. [/b][/quote]
sly is a fanatic, takes the bibles word as literal, not translateable
which i mean, is stupid to begin with because, lets say it IS gods word (we're assuming god is real), the bible is only mans interpretation of the word, man wrote it, theres bound to be some inaccuracies, things that dont make sense, etc etc [/b][/quote]
That's a simplistic way to look at it... IMO it's ok to take the bible literally (but I'm a bible believing Christian) you just have to take it literally in the language it was written in. Most of the inaccuracies & misunderstandings come from the translation to other languages. [/b][/quote]
simplistic??
muthafucka ill kill you!!
:D [/b][/quote]
:shaneUD12Oscar: :ontome: :D
slystaff
08-11-2004, 07:52 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
That's basically what I was saying & that's my disagreement with Sly. All of the young earth creation "science" is easily disprovable & is downright dishonest & most importantly UNECCESSARY. The answers are all there you just have to dig a little deeper. [/b][/quote]
This is the problem. If science suddenly said that the Earth is actually only thousands of years old (which is possible since scientists change their minds all the time) YOU would suddenly start interpreting the Bible differently.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-11-2004, 07:59 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
sly is a fanatic, takes the bibles word as literal, not translateable
which i mean, is stupid to begin with because, lets say it IS gods word (we're assuming god is real), the bible is only mans interpretation of the word, man wrote it, theres bound to be some inaccuracies, things that dont make sense, etc etc [/b][/quote]
I am no more a fanatic than your are. I have a belief and I have communicated it with you and you disagree. Difference is that I have sound logic and arguments based on actual research and facts...you just disagree because you want to.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
black06
08-11-2004, 08:21 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> which is possible since scientists change their minds all the time [/b][/quote]
again we disagree, sure almost anything's possible but it's as improbable as some of the scenarios you described earlier in response to rooster's comments... but in a sense you're correct in that if a proven scientific FACT (the evolution of man is not a proven fact by the way) surfaces that has no conflict with the bible (which is true) why would I disregard the scientific fact? In that sense I believe CORRECT science (facts) & the bible will always agree, sly you more than anyone should see why.
here is the difference between the scientific method (not necessarily "science") & young earth creation "science":
the scientific method doesn't start with an assumption, it just attempts to find out what is
young earth creation "science" starts with the assumption that the earth MUST be very young because (we think) the bible says so... therefore we must show using science why this is so...
the former is a much more honest approach to finding out the truth
Whaler
08-11-2004, 08:48 PM
Whether God exists or not, a literal interpretation of the Bible is about as simple-minded as it gets.
And if God does exist, it's certainly nothing like what's described in the bible. Believe that.
joebazooka
08-11-2004, 09:51 PM
In a debate at Oxford one time, Thomas Huxley is reported to have stated that if enough monkeys randomly pressed typewriter keys for a long enough time, sooner or later Psalm 23 would emerge. Huxley believed that life was created by chance, just as Darwin had suggested and, life being a chance ocurrance Divine intervention had nothing to do with it.
Of course, not all atheists use this argument, and not everybody who supports Darwin's Theory of Evolution is an atheist, but this interpretation accurately represents the darwininan proposition that with enough time and enough solar systems, after much trial and error, eventually we will all land here. It could be described as an inevitable fate of nature. In some ways, it is a deterministic approach to explaining life.
Trying to imagine the beginning of all things that surround us has been a task that has ocuppied man since the dawn of time. There has never been a philosopher who has not tried to broach the subject in one way or another. But the belief that matter is eternal, and that life is inevitable, has always struck me as rather implausible. The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any sort of intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have some kind of a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism.
The theist position has its challenges, too. For those who advance the idea of a just God, creator of the whole universe, and Answer to all our prayers, they also have to deal with many observable, uncomfortable facts. Life is often unfair, random, brutal, and painful. How could a God of Mercy create such a world of injustice and miseries?
But no intellectually honest atheist should deny the great challenge to atheism, either. For instance, let's look at the existence of design and intelligence in all the things that are relative to life. The belief that Stravinsky's music randomly evolved from a paramecium should strike anyone as so fantastic as to be absurd, even more absurd than the belief that a monkey could monkey Shakespeare, or President Bush. (Shut up.)
No matter how you look at it, the finite number of years in the universe's existence and the finite number of planets known and unknown to man would not come close to producing a few sentences, let alone the Sermon of the Mountain, or a Shakespearean play.
But if you want proof, let's look at the experiment just reported by an English University in which it is clearly proved that the number of monkeys and the amount of time are irrelevant for the case, no matter how hard these monkeys type. Psalm 23, or let alone, The Bible, would never be written. Why? Because the monkeys probably wouldn't do any typing to begin with, that's why.
According to a news report from a few years back, instructors at Plymouth University put six Sulawesi crested macaque monkeys in a room with a computer and keyboards for four weeks. Then, the scientists waited to see what happened. If they had asked Joebazooka, I would have told them what would happen. But they didn't ask me.
Though one of the monkeys frequently typed the letter "s", the other monkeys ignored the keyboard, preferring to play with one another and masturbate. Sometimes they also dangled from the ropes and toys placed there. When they did pay attention to the keyboard, one smashed it with a stone and the others repeatedly urinated and shat on it.
Thank you.
To the amazement of the atheists at hand, the monkyes didn't write Hamlet. But of course, the instructors hastened to note that the study was not really scientific, considering the short duration of time and the small number of monkeys, and the fact that the damned animals were constantly unplugging the computer so, if Hamlet had been written by one of the simians while the computer was unplugged, unfortunately it could conceivably have been lost to the ages.
Of course, if they had asked me, I would have told them. Some of us find this "study" to be a hilarious vindication of the theistic view that "enough monkeys for enough time" argument ain't hold a candle to "God made it happen, and he happens to be American."
As we all know, there are many intellectually honest atheists, and there are many intellectually dishonest believers in the Divine. Nevertheless, I believe that any objective person would have to conclude that the belief that everything came about by itself and that randomness is the creator of everything created is infinitely less intellectually sound than the belief in a Creator/Designer.
However, many people come to doubt the existence of a Divine Creator simply because so many powerful, influential intellectuals are atheists. It is also necessary to admit that God fearing people are usually viewed with barely held contempt by intellectuals who have the tendency to regard Jeovah or Allah on the same level as Santa.
But it was a major scientist, Professor Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, who best explained the atheism which is easily found amongst many scientists.
In his book "G-d and the Astronomers," Jastrow tells of his surprise when so many fellow astronomers refused to accept the Big Bang hypothesis for the origins of the universe. "How could this be?" wondered Mr. Jastrow. Well, Jastrow writes, many astronomers were actually unhappy about it because the Big Bang implied abeginning to the universe. And a beginning implies a Creator. And a Creator is not something many scientists are willing to believe in.
From Jastrow's perspective then, many scientists have vested, non-scientific interests in some of their beliefs and especially to the non-existence of God. Their position is of a psychological or emotional nature not intellectual one, and that's why many scientists prefer to believe that given enough monkeys, enough time, and enough typewriters, one of them will eventually type out a Don Quixote and another one will be able to read it.
But from my miserable, ignorant station in life, it seems to me that neither math nor science argues that all the crap that surrounds us came about randomly, by pure accident, and without Divine intervention. Only a keen desire to deny God explains such a belief; it couldn't possibly be anything else. And it is a belief that perhaps we would better lay to rest beneath a large pile of monkey shit and pee as soon as the next random chance allows us to do so.
BadkittyM
08-11-2004, 10:17 PM
"Though one of the monkeys frequently typed the letter "s", the other monkeys ignored the keyboard, preferring to play with one another and masturbate. Sometimes they also dangled from the ropes and toys placed there. When they did pay attention to the keyboard, one smashed it with a stone and the others repeatedly urinated and shat on it. "
OH MY GOD...FIGHTWORLD HAS BEEN USED IN AN EPERIMENT BY PLYMOUTH UNIVERSITY!!!
:shaneUD12Oscar:
-M
slystaff
08-11-2004, 10:19 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
again we disagree, sure almost anything's possible but it's as improbable as some of the scenarios you described earlier in response to rooster's comments... but in a sense you're correct in that if a proven scientific FACT (the evolution of man is not a proven fact by the way) surfaces that has no conflict with the bible (which is true) why would I disregard the scientific fact? In that sense I believe CORRECT science (facts) & the bible will always agree, sly you more than anyone should see why.
here is the difference between the scientific method (not necessarily "science") & young earth creation "science":
the scientific method doesn't start with an assumption, it just attempts to find out what is
young earth creation "science" starts with the assumption that the earth MUST be very young because (we think) the bible says so... therefore we must show using science why this is so...
the former is a much more honest approach to finding out the truth [/b][/quote]
Actually Black it is the other way around. The scientists that try to use information to prove evolution and subsequently OLD EARTH are the ones that start with the assumption. Everything that is testable leads to creation as opposed to Evolution and young earth as opposed to Old Earth.
I can assure you that my approach is honest because I was once an OLD Earth/evolution adventist. I started to see the obvious problems and the assumptions. I am one who wants to find the truth at all costs. I would not believe the Bible just because I'm supposed to. I've rejected many beliefs that I had when I was young and in teh search of the truth came to my present beliefs.
I do not belive in "young earth" because the Bible suggests it. Furthermore I agree with you that the Bible can be argued to suggest an OLD earth. However, I believe it because it makes sense...simple and plain.
I fear that your approach is the dishonest one. I fear that you simply want to MAKE the Bible resemble what the widely acceptable viewpoint is....so that you do not seem old fashioned or a "fanatic". Remember error is error even if 99% believe it and truth is truth even if one person believes it.
I also believe that CORRECT scientific fact will ALWAYS agree with the Bible...my point of contention is that you are taking THEORIES and calling them facts. They are FAR from facts my friend.
Keep an open mind.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-11-2004, 10:34 PM
Joe basooka I didn't read your entire post (too long for me) but it seemed rather interesting so I shall read it at a later date. In the meantime I did notice the "monkey/typewriter" thing and wanted to discuss this with everyone.
Philosophically, if you take an infinite amount of Monkeys, Typewriters and time...eventually they will be able to type up the entire works of Shakespeare. The amount of time this will take, considering the amounts of cominations and permutaions is likely to be a number far bigger than anyone of us has ever conceived...but it would happen eventually in an eternity.
As complex as the works of shakepeare is....life itself (even the most primitive type) is FAR MORE COMPLEX THAN THAT!
For life, with it's intelligent systems, digestive system, reproductive system, nervous system...etc to have begun...from where there was NO LIFE BEFORE....let's forget for a moment that it is impossible (which it is) and let's pretend that it could have happened by itself given enough time...
...do you realize how much time it would take for random events to eventually produce a life form that could eat, function have all of the processes required for survival and reproduction and live long enough to reproduce itself?????
Think about it? It would take a number far bigger than any we have presently talked about.
Forget 4 Billions years. That would be a second compared to how long it would take. :D
For random processes to turn non living matter into an organic entity would take waaaaay beyong any number that we can conceive. Then add to that the INCREDIBLY slow process of evolution to arrive where we are today and you will realize that the 4 BILLIONS years that scientists are currently suggesting is not even long enough. :shaneUD12Oscar:
You see, BLACK and others, these super intelligent scientists really didn't think this one through hard enough. :D They should have started with at least a thousand trillion years.
That's probably what they'll try next..... :YeahRight:
The Sly One has Spoken!!
atomicdOGg34
08-11-2004, 10:45 PM
sly conveniently ignores the post where i posted a link to a guy that totally trashes his "young earth" ideal and how he thinks dating methods are inaccurate
slystaff
08-11-2004, 10:46 PM
Just read your entire post Joe Basooka...excellent stuff!
The Sly One has Spoken!!
black06
08-11-2004, 10:46 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I do not belive in "young earth" because the Bible suggests it. Furthermore I agree with you that the Bible can be argued to suggest an OLD earth. However, I believe it because it makes sense...simple and plain. [/b][/quote]
I think this could go on forever, if this is really your stance I respect that... however I reserve the right to start this discussion up again when I get bored enough at work :D
Inside Whiskey's sister 24/7
08-11-2004, 10:47 PM
Does God exist or not?
here is the answer....WHO GIVES A FUCK!!!!? if he does cool..if he doesn't?? well you just spend your entire life afraid of going 2 hell.... :Whip:
black06
08-11-2004, 10:47 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> In a debate at Oxford one time, Thomas Huxley is reported to have stated that if enough monkeys randomly pressed typewriter keys for a long enough time, sooner or later Psalm 23 would emerge. Huxley believed that life was created by chance, just as Darwin had suggested and, life being a chance ocurrance Divine intervention had nothing to do with it.
Of course, not all atheists use this argument, and not everybody who supports Darwin's Theory of Evolution is an atheist, but this interpretation accurately represents the darwininan proposition that with enough time and enough solar systems, after much trial and error, eventually we will all land here. It could be described as an inevitable fate of nature. In some ways, it is a deterministic approach to explaining life.
Trying to imagine the beginning of all things that surround us has been a task that has ocuppied man since the dawn of time. There has never been a philosopher who has not tried to broach the subject in one way or another. But the belief that matter is eternal, and that life is inevitable, has always struck me as rather implausible. The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any sort of intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have some kind of a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism.
The theist position has its challenges, too. For those who advance the idea of a just God, creator of the whole universe, and Answer to all our prayers, they also have to deal with many observable, uncomfortable facts. Life is often unfair, random, brutal, and painful. How could a God of Mercy create such a world of injustice and miseries?
But no intellectually honest atheist should deny the great challenge to atheism, either. For instance, let's look at the existence of design and intelligence in all the things that are relative to life. The belief that Stravinsky's music randomly evolved from a paramecium should strike anyone as so fantastic as to be absurd, even more absurd than the belief that a monkey could monkey Shakespeare, or President Bush. (Shut up.)
No matter how you look at it, the finite number of years in the universe's existence and the finite number of planets known and unknown to man would not come close to producing a few sentences, let alone the Sermon of the Mountain, or a Shakespearean play.
But if you want proof, let's look at the experiment just reported by an English University in which it is clearly proved that the number of monkeys and the amount of time are irrelevant for the case, no matter how hard these monkeys type. Psalm 23, or let alone, The Bible, would never be written. Why? Because the monkeys probably wouldn't do any typing to begin with, that's why.
According to a news report from a few years back, instructors at Plymouth University put six Sulawesi crested macaque monkeys in a room with a computer and keyboards for four weeks. Then, the scientists waited to see what happened. If they had asked Joebazooka, I would have told them what would happen. But they didn't ask me.
Though one of the monkeys frequently typed the letter "s", the other monkeys ignored the keyboard, preferring to play with one another and masturbate. Sometimes they also dangled from the ropes and toys placed there. When they did pay attention to the keyboard, one smashed it with a stone and the others repeatedly urinated and shat on it.
Thank you.
To the amazement of the atheists at hand, the monkyes didn't write Hamlet. But of course, the instructors hastened to note that the study was not really scientific, considering the short duration of time and the small number of monkeys, and the fact that the damned animals were constantly unplugging the computer so, if Hamlet had been written by one of the simians while the computer was unplugged, unfortunately it could conceivably have been lost to the ages.
Of course, if they had asked me, I would have told them. Some of us find this "study" to be a hilarious vindication of the theistic view that "enough monkeys for enough time" argument ain't hold a candle to "God made it happen, and he happens to be American."
As we all know, there are many intellectually honest atheists, and there are many intellectually dishonest believers in the Divine. Nevertheless, I believe that any objective person would have to conclude that the belief that everything came about by itself and that randomness is the creator of everything created is infinitely less intellectually sound than the belief in a Creator/Designer.
However, many people come to doubt the existence of a Divine Creator simply because so many powerful, influential intellectuals are atheists. It is also necessary to admit that God fearing people are usually viewed with barely held contempt by intellectuals who have the tendency to regard Jeovah or Allah on the same level as Santa.
But it was a major scientist, Professor Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, who best explained the atheism which is easily found amongst many scientists.
In his book "G-d and the Astronomers," Jastrow tells of his surprise when so many fellow astronomers refused to accept the Big Bang hypothesis for the origins of the universe. "How could this be?" wondered Mr. Jastrow. Well, Jastrow writes, many astronomers were actually unhappy about it because the Big Bang implied abeginning to the universe. And a beginning implies a Creator. And a Creator is not something many scientists are willing to believe in.
From Jastrow's perspective then, many scientists have vested, non-scientific interests in some of their beliefs and especially to the non-existence of God. Their position is of a psychological or emotional nature not intellectual one, and that's why many scientists prefer to believe that given enough monkeys, enough time, and enough typewriters, one of them will eventually type out a Don Quixote and another one will be able to read it.
But from my miserable, ignorant station in life, it seems to me that neither math nor science argues that all the crap that surrounds us came about randomly, by pure accident, and without Divine intervention. Only a keen desire to deny God explains such a belief; it couldn't possibly be anything else. And it is a belief that perhaps we would better lay to rest beneath a large pile of monkey shit and pee as soon as the next random chance allows us to do so. [/b][/quote]
Good post!
NeighborMike
08-11-2004, 10:50 PM
I exist, isant that all that matters?
slystaff
08-11-2004, 10:50 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
I think this could go on forever, if this is really your stance I respect that... however I reserve the right to start this discussion up again when I get bored enough at work :D [/b][/quote]
Black you have to realistically consider the implications of a billion year old Earth. Considering what is happening to the Earth in our lifetime and in history and the time frames thereof (I wont give examples....just want you to think) what type of condition do you think the Earth would be in today if it were Billions of years old?
What about the sun? What about the moon?
Think about such things.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
slystaff
08-11-2004, 10:54 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> sly conveniently ignores the post where i posted a link to a guy that totally trashes his "young earth" ideal and how he thinks dating methods are inaccurate [/b][/quote]
I choose to ignore you....because of your vulgar manners! :D
The Sly One has Spoken!!
black06
08-11-2004, 10:55 PM
Let me make one last interjection, scientists are not sitting around conspiring against creation & trying to prove evolution. If there was no bible, just work with me on this, the age of the earth would still be determined to be much older than thousands of years.
BadkittyM
08-11-2004, 10:56 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> sly conveniently ignores the post where i posted a link to a guy that totally trashes his "young earth" ideal and how he thinks dating methods are inaccurate [/b][/quote]
I choose to ignore you....because of your vulgar manners! :D
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
Ooh, dodgeball!
Can I play?
http://students.gallatin.nyu.edu/gsc/aug2003/photos/images/dodgeball-2-eryn.jpg
slystaff
08-11-2004, 10:57 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Let me make one last interjection, scientists are not sitting around conspiring against creation & trying to prove evolution. If there was no bible, just work with me on this, the age of the earth would still be determined to be much older than thousands of years. [/b][/quote]
Nope. That's where we disagree. Scientists would never think the Earth was that old unless they were working from an assumption.
There is nothing about the planet that suggests that it is that old. Population, recorded human history, erosion of the continents....NOTHING.
The Sly One has Spoken!!
BadkittyM
08-11-2004, 11:00 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Let me make one last interjection, scientists are not sitting around conspiring against creation & trying to prove evolution. If there was no bible, just work with me on this, the age of the earth would still be determined to be much older than thousands of years. [/b][/quote]
Nope. That's where we disagree. Scientists would never think the Earth was that old unless they were working from an assumption.
There is nothing about the planet that suggests that it is that old. Population, erosion of the continents....NOTHING.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
:shaneUD12Oscar: :shaneUD12Oscar:
Oh...my...god.
:( :( :( :( :( :(
Nope. nothing at all...no continental drift, no ICE AGES THAT CREATED MASSIVE VALLEYS AND FJORDS AND...AND...*explodes*
We are currently experiencing technical difficulties...please stand by
black06
08-11-2004, 11:00 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
I think this could go on forever, if this is really your stance I respect that... however I reserve the right to start this discussion up again when I get bored enough at work :D [/b][/quote]
Black you have to realistically consider the implications of a billion year old Earth. Considering what is happening to the Earth in our lifetime and in history and the time frames thereof (I wont give examples....just want you to think) what type of condition do you think the Earth would be in today if it were Billions of years old?
What about the sun? What about the moon?
Think about such things.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
Uhm, about what they are? Just take a look at the moon and all the craters from asteroids crashing into it... how many asteroids have crashed into the moon in recorded human history? Because it has no atmosphere we can see what it looked like a loooong time ago... the same isn't true for earth, because of it's atmosphere (winds, soil erosion, rain etc) it wouldn't look the same b/c it repairs itself so to speak.
black06
08-11-2004, 11:02 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Let me make one last interjection, scientists are not sitting around conspiring against creation & trying to prove evolution. If there was no bible, just work with me on this, the age of the earth would still be determined to be much older than thousands of years. [/b][/quote]
Nope. That's where we disagree. Scientists would never think the Earth was that old unless they were working from an assumption.
There is nothing about the planet that suggests that it is that old. Population, erosion of the continents....NOTHING.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
:shaneUD12Oscar: :shaneUD12Oscar:
Oh...my...god.
:( :( :( :( :( :(
Nope. nothing at all...no continental drift, no ICE AGES THAT CREATED MASSIVE VALLEYS AND FJORDS AND...AND...*explodes*
We are currently experiencing technical difficulties...please stand by [/b][/quote]
:rolleyes:
slystaff
08-11-2004, 11:13 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
:shaneUD12Oscar: :shaneUD12Oscar:
Oh...my...god.
:( :( :( :( :( :(
Nope. nothing at all...no continental drift, no ICE AGES THAT CREATED MASSIVE VALLEYS AND FJORDS AND...AND...*explodes*
We are currently experiencing technical difficulties...please stand by [/b][/quote]
None of those things suggests Billions of years Marcy.
Funny post btw.... :D
The Sly One has Spoken!!
atomicdOGg34
08-11-2004, 11:19 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> sly conveniently ignores the post where i posted a link to a guy that totally trashes his "young earth" ideal and how he thinks dating methods are inaccurate [/b][/quote]
I choose to ignore you....because of your vulgar manners! :D
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
no no, dont get it twisted
you choose to ignore the article because the guy absolutely tears your "argument" the fuck up
bam^^^
08-11-2004, 11:32 PM
this thread sucks
atomicdOGg34
08-11-2004, 11:32 PM
i would like to hear more about how God just exists, didnt come from anywhere, just is
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> i would like to hear more about how God just exists, didnt come from anywhere, just is [/b][/quote]
Believe.........don't ask questions, don't seek answers, just BELIEVE!! :D
atomicdOGg34
08-11-2004, 11:50 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> i would like to hear more about how God just exists, didnt come from anywhere, just is [/b][/quote]
Believe.........don't ask questions, don't seek answers, just BELIEVE!! :D [/b][/quote]
wow, i never thought about it like that
evolution is wack
vote God '04
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Just read your entire post Joe Basooka...excellent stuff!
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
No, it's nonsensical.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> i would like to hear more about how God just exists, didnt come from anywhere, just is [/b][/quote]
Believe.........don't ask questions, don't seek answers, just BELIEVE!! :D [/b][/quote]
wow, i never thought about it like that
evolution is wack
vote God '04 [/b][/quote]
Exactly. I prayed to the Lord for sustenance, and miraculously I had a fridge full of beer the next day. My wife insisted that she bought it, but I don't believe her. I believe the Lord.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> LIFE is a MIRACLE.
The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote]
Life is complex chemistry, no more. Talk to a biologist.
black06
08-12-2004, 01:08 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> i would like to hear more about how God just exists, didnt come from anywhere, just is [/b][/quote]
Because there HAS to be something that fits that description for there to be anything at all. Time as we know it is a part of our universe (space-time continuum), we quickly see the universe & nothing in it fits that description because it changes & is affected as time passes. So whatever it is exists independent of time (and created time if you're a believer).
To look at it another way, we know it's not anything in the universe because we can point to a present moment in time, the present or NOW. By the mere fact that we have a starting point (the now) we've already shown that the universe hasn't always been here. If the universe has always been here that would mean we can regress backwards to infinity (because we had to traverse all the previous time to get to the present) but we know this is impossible just like it's impossible to start counting and count to infinity. If you have a starting point it's impossible to get there. So whatever you want to call that initial, first, timeless constant, it has to exist.
Juggernaut
08-12-2004, 01:14 AM
GoD is DoG backwards! Both Serves Man! Man is the real God!!!!!!
Dobie G
08-12-2004, 01:19 AM
One question...
Did man and Dinosaur live together? If so, why didn't cave writings have them in their images.
Did dinosaurs live 8000 years ago and were they the original lifeform?
SLY, WILL YOU AVOID THIS?
This is not an athiest speking. I believe without doubt but your theory is comical.
Capone
08-12-2004, 01:20 AM
I believe god does exist...
However, what do you guys feel about the bible saying the earth is only 6000 years old? when science proves it is much older, like 5 billion years.
What do you guys think about the bible saying the earth , man, and vegitation were made in 6 days?
Why do you think animals were created?
if there is heavan where does it exist?
black06
08-12-2004, 01:41 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I believe god does exist...
However, what do you guys feel about the bible saying the earth is only 6000 years old? when science proves it is much older, like 5 billion years.
What do you guys think about the bible saying the earth , man, and vegitation were made in 6 days?
Why do you think animals were created?
if there is heavan where does it exist? [/b][/quote]
Read the thread Capone, the bible doesn't say that... in short "day" in Hebrew has three meanings one of which means an indefinite period of time. Translated to english we understand it as one of it's other meanings which is a 24 hour period.
copernicus
08-12-2004, 02:24 AM
:spadafora: :spadafora: :spadafora: :spadafora:
sorry, continue.....
Juggernaut
08-12-2004, 02:31 AM
Sly: Here is a logic one for you.
God can do everything right?
Can he create a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift?
If he can create that rock, then he can't lift the rock, therefore there is something God can't do.
If he can't create that rock, then again God can't do everything.
What can we learn from this? Some suggest it proves the concept of God is not logical.
The Great Juggernaut has spoken!!!!!!
:box:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.