l0rd

What do you mean by master of science? If it was believed that he created the universe and everything in it he would be the master of everything, so of course he would be the master of science. Are there some areas that you think he's not the "master" of or something? He would be a master of everything, both in the mortal world and the world he lives in. Okay, then why do you make a point to say "I'v been thinking though, what if God was a master of science?" when you know he is already the master of everything by default. I think your trying to convey more than just that so I'm curious.

What do you mean by master of science? If it was believed that he created the universe and everything in it he would be the master of everything, so of course he would be the master of science. Are there some areas that you think he's not the "master" of or something?

The difference being, there is proof that the universe happened by accident. The big bang has been proven, what came or happened before it is wild speculation. Either way what created our universe came out of nowhere, whether you believe in it being an all-powerful being or a series of different materials exploding and joining together. One just holds a bit more proof than the other. Thats not at all true, the big bang theory has plenty of evidence behind it and dont get me wrong I'm not at all refuting it, but it says nothing about the cause, there are some theories about possible causes, but none of them are in any sense proven. The Big Bang theory extrapolates back to a point of singularity, it makes no claims about what happened at that singularity or what caused it. Indeed, using that analogy, some religions have actually gone further than most scientists in trying to explain what started the universe. Some would use the 'cause of a cause' analogy to prove God exists - in other words, they do not refute the Big Bang happened, but try and explain the uncaused cause by simply saying this was the point at which God created existence. I'm more open minded to that idea until science comes up with evidence that throws it into doubt. After all, by science's own laws, you cannot create something from nothing. It just doesn't happen. That's the only fallacy in science I'm willing to fill with the idea of God. Actually the Big Bang theory has elaborates on "how did it start?" and "where did the first matter come from?" and I actually just elaborated on this last page and this one. I'll repost the text I copied from a physics website a couple days ago. [hide=How did it start]So how did it all start? A very good question, and one that is highly debated. Most people agree that the universe started very small and very dense and underwent an initial inflation that lasted a infinitesimal fraction of a second (thus the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light (and you thought nothing could move faster than the speed of light...). But the universe was still really hot, so hot that ordinary atoms couldn't even exist. Electrons caused very small packets of light called photons to scatter continuously, and if you can believe it, light was actually linked, or coupled, to the particles, causing the whole universe to glow. This is the stage that scientists like to call the primordial soup because the universe looked like a plasma "soup" of protons, electrons, neutrons, neutrinos, photons, etc. Anyhow, as you all probably know, things start to cool off as they expand, so as the universe continued to expand, it cooled off. Eventually, after about 300,000 years, it cooled off enough so that atoms could form. Photons are far more likely to scatter off ionized particles like protons and electrons (particles that have an electric charge) than neutrally-charged atoms, so finally the photons travelling through space could move in straight paths instead of constantly being scattered by electrons. As a result, the formation of atoms lead to the creation of the elements hydrogen and helium, and the now free-streaming photons made up a nearly uniform light radiation that filled the whole universe. The study of this radiation, which we call the Cosmic Microwave Background, may hold the key to some of the most pressing questions about the universe and its ultimate fate.[/hide] [hide=Where did the matter come from that started the big bang]Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.[/hide] So actually gingerwarrior you're wrong by saying you can't create something from nothing, and your welcome for reaping the small amount of god you held on the matter. :mrgreen:

wohoo, gratz m8, finally.

Of course being called a douchebag is offensive. When people I would label as douchebags are called douchebags they still get offended. If you were trying to convey sarcasm it was poorly done. After jokingly calling me a douchebag you go on to call me stupid, I don't get what is with you and insulting me. Whatever, call me stupid I don't care, and I know you do not have enough evidence to rightfully label me as such things. And according to you if calling someone a douchebag merits the caller the title of douchebag aswell, then according to your logic, you yourself would be one.

Okay, douchebag. ? You're a douchebag Please, enlighten me as to what I did to deserve such an insult. #-o Exactly, also please respond to my question, preferably on PM to avoid more spam, because I'm a little worried that supposedly I come off as something totally different than I think I am. By saying that you've turned an interesting thread into something personal and negative, both Da_Latios and pureprayer.

Okay, douchebag. ? You're a douchebag Please, enlighten me as to what I did to deserve such an insult.

Okay, douchebag. ?

Me and my friend were walking down the hallway to our next class, he noticed that someone, I'll call him John Smith was walking behind us. Him: So yeah....don't you think John Smith is ....(stops talking implying I should finish his sentence) Me: a D-bag? yep Him: *laughs* John Smith heard us and he just cleared his throat really loud. He is a D-bag though, and I'm glad he heard me say it, but I'd never say it to his face. ______________________________________________ Another school one, not really a conversation though So there is this teacher walking through my grades hallway and says "Hey guys! :D " everyone in the hallway at the time, including me for some reason just stared at her and watched her make her way to the end of the hallway. I think it was because everyone was preoccupied but still looked up. Thinking back on it is hilarious.

That which you are referring to is commonly known as cancer, rather than organ failure. But you're correct in both senses: it codes itself, which means it codes itself wrong. Which indeed means that the Fountain of Youth does exist, in a metaphorical approach - in genetics. Furthermore, this means that once efforts have been accomplished to "fix" this common genetic malfunction, one could theoretically live until a new source of death arrives. And believe me, efforts are certainly being made. Yeah, organ failure usually is just chemical rather than cellular. Whether it is a deficiency, imbalance or unstable chemicals that cause it, there are many organs and multiple kinds that each one can go through. I guess to prevent ever having organ failure would be to get really lucky and not be born with any dispositions, constantly test the chemical levels of each organ (not a doctor, don't know how it would be done or even if its possible), and not ingest anything that would alter any chemical states (alcohol, many pharmaceuticals, drugs etc.) But then of course you could always get some disease or cancer that would cause organ failure.

The italicised is the main way I achieve happiness and comfort in life. Anyone who knows me knows I'm an incredibly passionate person. There are things we can all do to improve our lives in terms of happiness, but happiness is only one aspect of life, and the fundamental point of my post still remains. Life for the sake of living is not really a justification at all. Life, like all things, has to have some purpose. Therefore, living forever, without any purpose at all, is pointless. The statements your making are way to individualized to apply to all people when given the decision to live forever. For example, some people just have a passion for making music - it is their passion. They don't necessarily have some deeper goal when taking enjoyment in their music, they just love the way it sounds and feels to make it. This is a goal-less passion. Regardless, not everyone runs on passion.

Would I like to live forever? No. Even if you remove all the stuff about 'loved ones'. I'm used to people dying. But what is the point of living, if it never ends? How on Earth can we strive to achieve when we have an infinite amount of time to do so? I suppose if I could put it poetically: What is the point in living, if there is nothing we have to die for? That implies that the only enjoyability one gets out of life is through passions or to strive to achieve goals. I'd say most happiness is derived from things like relationships, being great and accepted, fulfilling the senses and being content with aspects of your life.

Advertisement works, its a fact. Otherwise people wouldn't pay to do it. The want for a customer to buy the advertised product doesn't always happen during or right after the advertisement. Mostly it just gets the name in peoples heads and familiarizes people with the product; this leads to MOAR profit.

That is a totally bias website, despite its name, its whole purpose is to support theism. I don't even want to begin to disprove it. This is what I don't get, no offence Pio, I'm just using you as an example. Why does it matter? I understand that bias websites are bias and usually shade their evidence, but what about when you post sites that 'prove' evolution and 'disprove' creationism? Aren't those bias in the same way? First off, the context in which he posted the link implied that it should please both sides of the debate, with him saying "[/thread]". Secondly, the context in which I post sites is to support my argument. Also I'd hardly consider scientific theories bias, whether your a theist or not, you gotta consider the validity of quantum physics and the like.

What other spam threads? Anyways, I thought there was a chance this would turn into some "deeper meaning" thread, but off-topic is just a little too serious for that. OT: why so serious? and what riku said | | V

No, orbital gravity makes the world go around. Why so serious? Ahh! you got me, I'm so hypocritical. But then again, why are you enforcing rules about being serious.......a little serious don't ya think? ysosrs Your not helping mister

No, orbital gravity makes the world go around. Why so serious? Ahh! you got me, I'm so hypocritical. But then again, why are you enforcing rules about being serious.......a little serious don't ya think?

No, orbital gravity makes the world go around.

Thank you for the unhidden large image and the constructive post lad.

Why so serious?

Take your life and his in a DIVING BARREL ROLL. Or try to talk to him, say something along the lines of: Look, I know I didn't take your money. If you're not willing to believe me then I don't want to talk to you, let alone be your friend. I can't say it more clearly. Makes him look like the bad guy = win Oh and if the money ever turns up buy a lot of peanut butter AND SMEAR IT ALL OVER YER FACEEEEEE :thumbup: :thumbup:

You can't label millions of people, sorry.

......I have no response. Please teach yourself some basic science.

That is a totally bias website, despite its name, its whole purpose is to support theism. I don't even want to begin to disprove it.

You can't be serious. If that technology was invented it would cause the death of the world.