warri0r45

Well, your first line said you disagree with me so I assumed you disagreed with me >_> I quoted BlueLancer when saying that and bolded the part I was specifically disagreeing with.

Umm... Yeah. That was the argument prior to the 17th century. Black swans didn't exist as they were never observed. That's what I said. Yeah... I believe I said that. Yeah... I think I said that as well. You're just repeating things I've already gone over. What's the big deal? I was supporting you.

Exactly. Which is why time is finite. At some point there was a beginning. Energy can be converted to matter and vice versa, but there is a loss in transfer. Yes, that energy is conserved, but not in any usable fashion. It's just there, not energy nor matter. Over time, energy degrades because of this loss. If time was infinite, you might as well be dividing by zero. Because of it's linear fashion, time must be finite. I'm graduating to middle school physics on this one. From rough recall, the 2007 article (from the New Zealand guy?) resolves the thermodynamic problem. Got no idea how, why or if it's solid, but just letting you know. Edit: I'm talking about this, not sure whether the op talked about it.

I was editing my post while you made a reply, I now made that acknowledgement. Ok. I likewise edited my post.

Nope, I still don't understand what the constitution, or accepting what it holds as self-evident truth (basic human rights), has to do with God existing or not. I think you meant flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorn. Just saying... >_> Also, no God has been observed to exist. Sure, I can write a made up story or claim the deity of Apples showed up in human form and demonstrated to me and a crowd of 2000 a blue apple. That's up to your faith to believe or not (and I'd find it quite disturbing if you believed it) Until it can be proven blue apples, red bananas, God, or Santa claus himself are in existance, they do not exist. Appealing to philosophy and the fact I did not personally inspect every apple and banana in existance is bogus science and it would not hold out in a real logic/rational debate. I disagree with you. With your logic, prior to discovering them, black swans didn't exist. That was demonstrated to be wrong. Inductive reasoning isn't a way to absolute truth nor a licence to statements like "x does not exist". We could possibly find an organism not made of cells due to the limits of induction yet we don't say "no organism exists that is not made of cells", we say "cell theory posits that all organisms are made of cells, yet like any good science, it's dynamic and willing to change if contradictory evidence comes up". Edit: That's not to say we can't be very reasonably confident that something is factually accurate. See the following quote from prominent paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould:

This is just too out there... now these Islamic radicals want her dead. For naming a teddy bear Muhammed? Nutjobs.

This is what a lot of people get wrong. Science and God go together perfectly. Is it really possible that a earth so complex could have been made by chance without the influence of a higher being? I'm not saying that God really made the world in six days, some of the bible must not be taken literary. Science also tells us that the universe was made by a big bang. Firstly, i would like to point out that the big bang is just a theory and has not been proven. Having said that, i believe that the Big Bang did happen. But, science also tells us that the big bang was caused by tiny dust particles rubbing against each other over billions of years causing enough friction to make a big explosion. Now, how did these dust particles get there from nothing? There must have been an influence from a higher being? So to answer the question first asked; i do believe in God and believing in God has changed my life for the better. 4 things: 1) Evolution is not random. 2) Where did you read that dust particles caused the big bang? That sounds like absolute and utter rubbish from what I know. Source please. 3) You don't 'prove' things in science (as Sly_wizard correctly pointed out), not the least of which being theory. Theory is a system of explanation regarding a series of phenomena incorporating tested hypotheses, observations, principles and other great stuff linked in some logical framework. 'Theory' in science does not imply a lower level of certainty. 4) How did this 'god' character get there from nothing? Influence from a higher being? People seem not to apply this consideration because the personified character of 'god' seems to do nicely. But, he seems to make people feel better, as you've shown, so good for you (in a genuinely non-condescending way).

This is just one view of time. The article discusses alternative views on time. More interesting quotes from the same article... Before which point? There is no point of origin in the cyclic model -- as I understand it, the universe has infinitely existed, and therefore so has time. What is the start point of a sin function? Hmm. The sine function is a simple example but it makes a good point - it's not as if you'd have to 'make up' an infinite amount of repetitions of the function between it's infinite past and the present observation point - in that sense it's totally arbitrary which repition of the function you're looking at. Perhaps that's how these models look at time (you could probably clarify if this is the case?) - it's always been but it's irrelevant saying 'past' or 'future' cycles because they're just all arbitraty points in the cyclic repetition of the function. As a result of all that, the notion of the entire model having been created, i.e. an event implying the past, would be kind of null and void, considering there is no start to the model. :-k :shock: I'm probably getting in over my head. Philosophy is not my forte, but I can see how the linnear view of time has had it good in general thought in western culture. Interesting. Great example, it really cuts through.

Not my kind of music but I'd say she'd like it, if that's the kind of music she likes. Nice thought other than just something material.

If what happened with Adam's original sin and it's consequences was the whole story I would completely agree with you. However, in a way we have the same choice as Adam. For Adam: He could either obey and follow God and remain sinless in God's eyes or he could disobey God and be sinful in God's eyes. For us: We can either obey and follow Jesus and in God's eyes be sinless since Jesus paid for our sins or we can turn our back on Jesus and be sinful in God's eyes since we wouldn't be accepting Jesus' payment for our sins. Yet we're still stuck here brewing in a sea of our own sin and suffering. Adam had to endure no such thing. As a result of his choice and god's descision not to let me have the same choice independant of Adam, I'm left with a life of sin and suffering. Still don't see this as fair (especially if you substitute me for some kid in Africa). The choice to be able to avoid what Adam could not is still irrelevant to the point that I'm indirectly paying for his mistakes.

Here is my understanding from what I have read. Adam and Eve were created without sin. They had no concept of sin. God would even directly converse with them. Since they didn't have any sin in their lives they weren't separated from God. He gave them one rule which was the only way they could possibly sin and they broke it. When they broke it they had sin in their life and it separated them from God. They also gained the ability to know the difference between good and evil. This broke the "deal" God had set up with man. God loves man but hates sin. There are many examples of this in the Bible. Somehow their sin broke that special bond between man and God and man lost the ability to not sin. This is personal opinion from what I have read but I think what was passed down from Adam and Eve's sin is that we are incapable of not sinning. All of us will sin. Some kind of "sin nature" is now in us. As to the whole is there some kind of residual sin passed down where before someone even sins on their own they are still condemned from Adam's failure? I don't know. I do know it doesn't say anything about that in Genesis when Adam and Eve sin. It basically just says they are kicked out of the Garden of Eden, that woman from then on will have to bear children in pain and man will have to slave away farming the earth for food. Paul sums up what I think of when I think of the results of the original sin Adam committed. It is him describing how we don't have the ability to not sin. " I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

And god required no creation because...? I'm letting it be known I don't accept either as an 'explanation', I accept what is and leave belief to people fo faith.

A new theory reasons that the universe has always existed -- it was never "created" by a higher force. See my last post for details... http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=5452578#5452578 I feel like a broken record. :lol: I like this idea, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I 'believe' in it. How do you combat something like the paradox of time having been forever before this point in time, for example? I understand vaguely the idea that time itself is cyclic in some of these cyclic universe ideas. Does this solve the paradox? Your thoughts?

Makes sense.

Does that not show the limitation that reason meets in itself. Therefore would it be fair for me to suggest there is something higher that trancends both reason and logic. I think when observing reason from a rational standpoint you can only observe its explicit flaws. I suppose so. I don't quite get it but I'm not saying no god exists. I don't fully understand the link between reason has limitations, therefore there is something higher that transcends it.

It's not God's fault that there are people suffering in the world. The path of suffering and evil was chosen long ago by Adam and Eve. We should be thankful that God is merciful and wants to restore the world. I've never really been keen on the whole original sin concept. So you'd be ok if you had to serve a life sentence for your dad's crimes and your way out was to repent for your sins? ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThe soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

I think you misunderstand. My argument was that the almighty's approach to create 'free will' (unless it's a misnomer) was counter intuitive given his apparant desire to run us by his will vis a vis the flood, the commandments, etc. I'm not saying you can't have free will with consequences, I'm questioning the motives of creating it then 'gently' guiding us towards the will of god by means of floods and the like. This has always escaped me. Matter just dosen't appear out of nowhere, but the being we assume created it does? We're substituting self creating matter, which I agree we've got no idea whether it's possible, for a supernatural being creating matter, which is an assumtion adding an entity (often described as a personified figure with the epitome of knowledge, wisdom and love) and is often proffered to be adequete because anything is possible in the supernatural world, which in itself is an assumption. Hide the assumption with another assumption. These are the answers we contend with if we choose to say matter dosen't come out of nowhere, which in itself is no answer to me, hence why I don't believe in either. I agree, perhaps people who criticise these holy books do so against a literal interpretation?

The argument would still stand if you're of the view that we have free will and it's true that god sought to limit that will in one way or another. Apart from that, my argument would basically be against a literal interpretation, so point taken.

Silly, silly, silly little boy. Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School? Can't compare O.T. with N.T. there, ace. :shame: Why not. You are absolutely right. You can. Not in the context that he is though. Read up a couple posts. He is talking about the stoning of a woman for not being a virgin before the commandment "you shall not kill"m and uses that as proof as the Bible's contradictions. He also fails to mention when Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adultress Mary of Magdalene in the N.T. Ok, let me try and make sense of this: Before 10 C's, there was stoning to death if you're not a virgin when you marry ----> 10 C's dictated from god through Moses ----> Jesus eventually speaks out against stoning adultress. Makes sense. Its called a process. Yes, before 10 C's there was stonings. Yes God "spoke through Moses" against these things. He saw his people acting in a way He did not like, so he set some "rules". And Jesus "eventually speaks out against stoning"? Why did He send His only son again? Ah yes. Because He saw His people acting in a way He did not like. What is so hard about this? It's simple to understand. I do wonder, though, if we're supposed to have free will, why is god trying to 'fix' us all the time (at least in the past with Noah, dictating 10 C's and bringing Jesus to us). It's like "ok, go do your thing, you have free will, but I'm going to kick you up the bum a few times if you don't follow my will." Take it how you will. I take it as He is allowing us to have free will. Is he controlling what you are writing right now? [/hide] You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either god's intention was for us to have free will or his intention was to limit what exactly we could do, which, according to the bible, is true. He imposed limitations on us thus limiting free will. Whether he is controlling us right now is irrelevant and regardless of the fact, he very may well be. You can't actually tell. How can you say He is imposing limitations? Yes, the 10 C's are "law" in some sense. Yes, you break them, you are going to Hell. But, He is not forcing us to follow them by ANY means. Your dad tells you to turn off the light and go to bed. Is he forcing you to do that? No. You still have the choice to defy him. My argument is that it's counter intuitive to make us with 'free will' but then impose limitations, which include genocide, to keep us in line with god's will. If we have free will, why is he trying to fix our sinful ways? Why make us with sinful propensities in the first place? I understand your argument, but this goes back to what I was saying with "take it how you will". This will not be resolved, and frankly, there is nothing to be resolved. It is a question of beliefs, which, no matter what religion you belong to, will always be individual. Let me get this straight. You believe it's sensible that god should intend to make us with 'free will' only to impose limitations when we stray from what he deems acceptable, including a world wide flood that kills all but 8 people? Why make free will in the first place or why impose the limitations? God seems to want to have it both ways - he made us with 'free will' but dosen't like it when we stray from common lines in which case he deems it acceptable to bypass everyone having their own free will and impose his own will. Kind of like god's little footnote - "you have free will*" *unless I really really don't like what you do If you don't want to continue I won't hammer the point after this post but I just can't see the sense in the almighty's approach on this issue.

Silly, silly, silly little boy. Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School? Can't compare O.T. with N.T. there, ace. :shame: Why not. You are absolutely right. You can. Not in the context that he is though. Read up a couple posts. He is talking about the stoning of a woman for not being a virgin before the commandment "you shall not kill"m and uses that as proof as the Bible's contradictions. He also fails to mention when Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adultress Mary of Magdalene in the N.T. Ok, let me try and make sense of this: Before 10 C's, there was stoning to death if you're not a virgin when you marry ----> 10 C's dictated from god through Moses ----> Jesus eventually speaks out against stoning adultress. Makes sense. Its called a process. Yes, before 10 C's there was stonings. Yes God "spoke through Moses" against these things. He saw his people acting in a way He did not like, so he set some "rules". And Jesus "eventually speaks out against stoning"? Why did He send His only son again? Ah yes. Because He saw His people acting in a way He did not like. What is so hard about this? It's simple to understand. I do wonder, though, if we're supposed to have free will, why is god trying to 'fix' us all the time (at least in the past with Noah, dictating 10 C's and bringing Jesus to us). It's like "ok, go do your thing, you have free will, but I'm going to kick you up the bum a few times if you don't follow my will." Take it how you will. I take it as He is allowing us to have free will. Is he controlling what you are writing right now? [/hide] You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either god's intention was for us to have free will or his intention was to limit what exactly we could do, which, according to the bible, is true. He imposed limitations on us thus limiting free will. Whether he is controlling us right now is irrelevant and regardless of the fact, he very may well be. You can't actually tell. How can you say He is imposing limitations? Yes, the 10 C's are "law" in some sense. Yes, you break them, you are going to Hell. But, He is not forcing us to follow them by ANY means. Your dad tells you to turn off the light and go to bed. Is he forcing you to do that? No. You still have the choice to defy him. My argument is that it's counter intuitive to make us with 'free will' but then impose limitations, which include genocide, to keep us in line with god's will. If we have free will, why is he trying to fix our sinful ways? Why make us with sinful propensities in the first place?

[hide] Silly, silly, silly little boy. Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School? Can't compare O.T. with N.T. there, ace. :shame: Why not. You are absolutely right. You can. Not in the context that he is though. Read up a couple posts. He is talking about the stoning of a woman for not being a virgin before the commandment "you shall not kill"m and uses that as proof as the Bible's contradictions. He also fails to mention when Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adultress Mary of Magdalene in the N.T. Ok, let me try and make sense of this: Before 10 C's, there was stoning to death if you're not a virgin when you marry ----> 10 C's dictated from god through Moses ----> Jesus eventually speaks out against stoning adultress. Makes sense. Its called a process. Yes, before 10 C's there was stonings. Yes God "spoke through Moses" against these things. He saw his people acting in a way He did not like, so he set some "rules". And Jesus "eventually speaks out against stoning"? Why did He send His only son again? Ah yes. Because He saw His people acting in a way He did not like. What is so hard about this? It's simple to understand. I do wonder, though, if we're supposed to have free will, why is god trying to 'fix' us all the time (at least in the past with Noah, dictating 10 C's and bringing Jesus to us). It's like "ok, go do your thing, you have free will, but I'm going to kick you up the bum a few times if you don't follow my will." Take it how you will. I take it as He is allowing us to have free will. Is he controlling what you are writing right now? [/hide] You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either god's intention was for us to have free will or his intention was to limit what exactly we could do and keep us on the straight and narrow, which, according to the bible, is true. He imposed limitations on us thus limiting free will. Whether he is controlling us right now is irrelevant and regardless of the fact, he very may well be. You can't actually tell.

Silly, silly, silly little boy. Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School? Can't compare O.T. with N.T. there, ace. :shame: Why not. You are absolutely right. You can. Not in the context that he is though. Read up a couple posts. He is talking about the stoning of a woman for not being a virgin before the commandment "you shall not kill"m and uses that as proof as the Bible's contradictions. He also fails to mention when Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adultress Mary of Magdalene in the N.T. Ok, let me try and make sense of this: Before 10 C's, there was stoning to death if you're not a virgin when you marry ----> 10 C's dictated from god through Moses ----> Jesus eventually speaks out against stoning adultress. Makes sense. Its called a process. Yes, before 10 C's there was stonings. Yes God "spoke through Moses" against these things. He saw his people acting in a way He did not like, so he set some "rules". And Jesus "eventually speaks out against stoning"? Why did He send His only son again? Ah yes. Because He saw His people acting in a way He did not like. What is so hard about this? It's simple to understand. I do wonder, though, if we're supposed to have free will, why is god trying to 'fix' us all the time (at least in the past with Noah, dictating 10 C's and bringing Jesus to us). It's like "ok, go do your thing, you have free will, but I'm going to kick you up the bum a few times if you don't follow my will."

Silly, silly, silly little boy. Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School? Can't compare O.T. with N.T. there, ace. :shame: Why not. You are absolutely right. You can. Not in the context that he is though. Read up a couple posts. He is talking about the stoning of a woman for not being a virgin before the commandment "you shall not kill"m and uses that as proof as the Bible's contradictions. He also fails to mention when Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adultress Mary of Magdalene in the N.T. Ok, let me try and make sense of this: Before 10 C's, there was stoning to death if you're not a virgin when you marry ----> 10 C's dictated from god through Moses ----> Jesus eventually speaks out against stoning adultress. Makes sense.

So the upshot is we pick and choose the bits that corroborate with modern values and culture?