insane

Thank you for taking time to actually explain yourself (in regards to thermodynamics) :) They just are. Unmeasured, unsighted, undetected universe just exist providing unmeasureable extra dimensional reactions. They just are because they are. This is where our debate comes to a close, I think. You think that the above makes more sense than God (who by definition is uncaused). And I think that God makes alot more sense than universes that "just are". There's no way around it - we're just going to clash in opinion, I think an animate deity makes more sense than inanimate electrons/protons/neutrons as far as "just being" is concerned. You think opposite. It might seem a little convenient to you that God is by definition uncaused, but I think you will find that many things that are convenient turn out to be true :) I guess we're just clashing on definitions. You believe the church itself to be organized religion, whereas I believe the principles the religion is based on are/is, the religion. I believe the church to be an application of religion. Simple definition mix-up.

This topic was bumped from being very old. This is allowed in the case of an interesting, well thought out post - but, I don't think there is much to be said about typing speeds in general.

I do not know this. Please show me how it doesn't hold water. I just said *if* it doesn't, then it won't affect my belief much. However, it hasn't been shown to be a bad argument... yet. I did, and I provided logical reasoning behind it. At least, reasoning that you did not logically refute. And you also did not show my argument to be "bunk". Oh, I just provided logical reasoning. At least, too logical for you to refute at least. Just calling my arguments garbage doesn't make them so. That, is what is illogical here. So basically, you don't believe in God because you grew up hearing nothing about him and it makes you afraid that if He exists you might have to change your lifestyle. I don't believe this, I just thought I'd stoop to your level of reasoning to show you how it feels to read ridiculous made up comments about your life The only game being played here is you throwing sticks at strawmen. It's not what religion has done, it's religious people. I don't see how religious people can make religion look bad. I've used this example a trillion times, but people don't seem to catch on: You don't blame aerodynamics (the principle) if an airplane (the application), crashes. Therefore, do not blame religion (the principle), if a religious person does something stupid (the application).

So it's more believable to you that there is an invisable man living in the sky that created everything? :roll: 1. God isn't physical, therefore "invisible" is a redundant trait. 2. God isn't a man. He may be perceived as male, but he's definitely not human. 3. He's not living in the sky, give me a break. :| Let's be reasonable now. 4. It makes more sense to me that an uncaused being created the things required for the universe, rather than they just "always existed". It makes more sense that a supreme being could be timeless rather than some stupid inanimate particles that just randomly exploded into a universe. See? I can use loaded terms to sound smart too! So an "uncaused" being makes sense but an "uncaused" universe does not? Because matter in a closed system eventually decomposes into nothing (2nd law of thermodynamics). If the matter for the Big Bang always existed, then an infinite amount of time has to have passed before the Big Bang - surely enough time for it to decompose into nothing! Of course, an answer to this could be that the universe is not a closed system. Then, my response would be, what is outside of it that is feeding it energy? There are only two answers to this: 1.) Another universe, which then springs a vicious cycle about the matter in that universe, or 2.) God is feeding the universe energy. Either way, I end up with a supreme being. And even if my argument with the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't hold up, I still think it's more reasonable to believe a deity being timeless and eternal as opposed to some particles.

So it's more believable to you that there is an invisable man living in the sky that created everything? :roll: 1. God isn't physical, therefore "invisible" is a redundant trait. 2. God isn't a man. He may be perceived as male, but he's definitely not human. 3. He's not living in the sky, give me a break. :| Let's be reasonable now. 4. It makes more sense to me that an uncaused being created the things required for the universe, rather than they just "always existed". It makes more sense that a supreme being could be timeless rather than some stupid inanimate particles that just randomly exploded into a universe. See? I can use loaded terms to sound smart too!

Did you grow up in a christian family? It doesn't matter :P that arguement is a fallacy, 'ad ignorantium'. Just because something cannot be disproven does not mean it is true.

Quit flaming.

Use other topic.

So the "right sort of religion" is one that makes no difference in your lifestyle? :P

OF course no scientific evidence for God exists. Science deals with natural phenomena. That's like saying no biological evidence exists for the existence of airplanes, therefore I do not accept that airplanes exist. Just because some unrelated field doesn't have evidence for an unrelated object doesn't mean the object does not exist. It's simply not logical.

Same here, although this year we haven't had one. The weatherperson has predicted about 3 a week for the last 2 months, but they've been wrong every time =\.

It's a gesture. It shows you care enough to force your way through it for her, even if you don't believe. It shows you're putting her first, which is exactly the attitude that will make a good marriage. Love isn't always logical. But it is selfless always.

Canada (unfortunately they now have Stephen Harper, who is a social conservative) Nowadays the government seems to be giving into minority groups more and more, so it's no longer what the majority wants - all the government does (in Canada often) is to try and not tread on anyone's toes. However, I don't know what you're complaining about with Stephen Harper - can you give me anything he has done that you disagree with? Or are you just opposed to social conservatists because it's socially acceptable, or "in", to do so?

This is advertising - if not directly, then underhandedly. Sorry mate.

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. I don't mean marriage should be thrown out the window - my point was merely that it's kind of funny how Christians who have never opposed or spoken out against divorce are now blaming same-sex marriage for destroying it. I totally agree. The government is not in place to enforce Christian laws - the government is in place to enforce socially accepted laws.

Er... reason I'm locking this is because if everybody told all the mundane stories of their everyday lives we'd be drowning in uninteresting threads =\

This topic is a little old :S However, it wasn't bumped with spam - the post was useful. We'll see what happens yet.

I just got back from there :) Aha! That's where you've been! Good trip? What you get up to? :) Heck yes it was good! I stayed with a friend in northern Sweden actually, i was only in Stockholm for a few days (with a friend), so we kind of just wandered around the old district and looked at all the super sweet buildings. Up north we just went sight seeing, it's incredible up there. We went to the Arctic Circle, white water rapids, waterfalls, lakes and forests everything. It's like northern Canada on steroids pretty much :P

I just got back from there :)

16 in my cross-country era.

It's not same-sex marriage that is going to "destroy marriage". It's the 50% straight marriages that end in divorce that already have destroyed marriage. The term marriage nowadays is a joke and therefore people can marry animals for all I care, it doesn't really matter anymore. An interesting side-note; a professor in Ontario is possibly having an honorary degree revoked because she opposed same-sex marriage. She supports people being openly homosexual, etc. She just beleives children have the right to a mother and a father. Story here or here

Or we're just ignoring/spiting this instilled morality.

I always thought Christ said that he was speaking in parables so that they would not understand. This is why Christ had to explain all of his parables to his disciples. I'd like to hold a discussion about Lewis' analogies but could you first show me how they are flawed? I could just as easily say "Lewis' analogies are perfect" and that statement would be just as credible as yours about them being flawed, as you provided no reasoning behind it. I understand you were summarizing your thoughts on the book, so I'm not accusing you or anything, just wanted to know what you specifically thought about a few things :)

I just cannot see how any positive attribute can be applied to something that will punish its creations for ever, and ever, and ever, and ever; especially when they're only alive for 50-80 years. Infinite punishment for finite sins-why? I believe it is the heart behind the choice - saying no to God is saying "I can do life on my own" - the whole message of Christianity is "I can't do life on my own, I need God" - and this independent attitude is what God so strongly dislikes, or hates, if you will. All of this "It's my life, I can do what I want", i believe is coming from a selfish and flawed mindset - if God exists, and Christianity is true, then it's not *your* life - God is creator, and you belong to Him whether you like it or not. And just like aerodynamics can be applied incorrectly, so can free will, so can Christianity. Just like there are bad Christians, there are bad choices. So if you dislike God, you do not choose Him - that is what the definition of "hell" is... seperation from God - so you're getting exactly what you want, if you choose *not* God during your life on earth - you're choosing *not* God for after - all of this physical pain and suffering is located in the book of Revelation and that is most likely the most symbolic book in the Bible; the point of hell is not pain and suffering, the point of hell is "not God", the exact thing you are choosing here on earth by rejecting Him. So I don't think it is fair for atheists who think they should be able to choose *not* God - and then find it unfair when that's what they get after life - to expect God to put them in heaven (which by defintion, is the presence of God - the very thing an anti-Christian would abhorr); this seems ludicrous to me.

Can I get an actual parent's affirmation on this unsubstantial opinion? Maybe good parents are the ones that spank their children, and not the other way around.