l0rd

No, the Greek gods were physical beings, not an illusive and esoteric deity like the Judeo-Christian God. It has been proven, scientifically, that humans cannot throw lighting, stand on clouds, be invincible...etc.

What you're doing is not making sense and contradicting yourself, OR I'm totally missing the point. You say that religion is the main fairy tale that when taken its' spirit you have a reason to live, but this has nothing to do with God. If so, then other such fairy tales exist, ones like the common ones in book form, written by people like you and me. These people's imaginative storytelling makes life worth living? How can you possibly have to rely on someone else to make your life worth living?

So when editing the god out you're basically saying what I thought you meant in a few posts ^^: You believe that fictitious stories and the spirit of them must be absorbed into ones life one way or another or else he sees no reason to live?

You're a bad liar. Lying about what? If you mean I'm lying about not wanting another religion debate, your sort of right :twisted:

Paintball is a sport, and my school has a team DAMN IT ALL!!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :wall: :wall: :wall: You suck. I freaking LOVE paintball. Where do you live at, I want to transfer. Nauru

So one might summarize your point as: I believe that fictitious stories and the spirit of them must be absorbed into ones life one way or another or else he sees no reason to live? Or is it: I see no reason to live without a God.

Paintball is a sport, and my school has a team

I don't believe in fairy tales, but calling your believe in a god a "tale" is kinda working against you, it gives it a fictitious connotation. Anywho, I don't want this to turn into another religion debate thread cause there is enough of those. I'm not fond of the common fairy tales either really. If the Narnia series is considered a fairy tale then I guess that'd be my favorite. Oh, and how do I go about living without a God held true in my life? Hmm, I live it, and get the most out of it.

Why don't I find any Saturday Night Live skit funny at all? :|

Yeah we kinda changed topics....but its all good. I like the idea of perceiving reality in different ways, because there really is no correct way. I wish I was able to alter my reality in some ways and the way I perceive things but that's mostly too embedded. Some people make their own realities unintentionally so different than reality that they're diagnosed - schizophrenia. :mrgreen: Oh and shinjula, if Saruman was put into my shoes, rewound in time, I still don't think he would follow the same paths. You state it like its a fact but its really debatable and brings about the argument nature vs. nurture.

In junior high, my school didn't let us go out when it was lightening/thundering because of the 0.000001 chance of being struck by it.

But dont you get that it only seems more reasonable to you because thats the way youve grown up? We each of us have a sense in our heads of what 'feels right' and just as christians are using that sense to guide them in what they believe you are using it to guide you to your 'belief'. Even if virtual particles have been proven to exist they can never be shown to be behind the cause of the big bang because of the problems with singularities, at the point of a true singularity all physical laws will break down. Even if it can be shown that a pair of virtual particles were present at the big bang theres just no way to show a god (of any sort) didnt create them (after all its as good a method for creating a universe as any, probably better than some). Isnt the true scientific mind one which says "I cannot know what happened here so I will not judge"? Why not maintain an open mind about what the cause of the big bang is? I'm not suggesting for a moment that you accept a god created the universe. I'm suggesting that you accept that you dont know what happened and neither does anyone else. It's the only logical course of action in the situation. Of course I don't know what happened, and never said I did. And I was not "grown up" to be an atheist, and actually know 0 atheists on a personal level in my life. I've pursued that topic without anyone that I know having the same views as me, don't assume that people are so subjective as to only have views shaped by the way they "grew up", I like to find out things for myself, and for this I think of myself more open-minded than most. Disregarding my atheism, my argument was trying to explain where two things came from nothing (god and big bang particles) is less tangible than explaining one thing (just the particles). If you woke up and found a brick of gold in your room, which materialized from nothing or you woke up in your room and found a bricks of gold and a brick of silver in your room materialized from nothing. The second one produced twice the product, and defied our belief that things can't materialized from nothing twice as much as when only one brick materialized, making it slightly more tangible.

Its not a theory, its factual that subatomic particles can appear from absolutely nothing. Not its not, its a theory, and sure its an interesting one too, and theres some good maths behind it, but as of yet there hasn't been any evidence which categorically shows it happening, for example, hawking radiation, which is one of the main ways scientists expect it to be found (particle and anti particle appearing at the event horizon of a black hole and one of the pair is suckied into the hole). The Casmir Effect is good evidence of 'virtual particles' but just because its makes sense if the particles exist, doesnt really mean that it proves that the particles exist. Think of it this way, there arent any predictions one can use virtual particles for which have been found to be true, they have merely been used to explain things we have seen before but dont understand how they can work. [This at least is what the internet seems to have offered me up when I double checked on information about virtual particles] Okay, although still a theory, it seems more reasonable than God creating what caused the big bang. Logically, we realize that it would be simpler to explain one thing rather than the explain the origin of god as well as the particles. Not to mention it seems to be a pretty credible theory and really explains it without delving into the spiritual world or any other dimension.

Get unpicky and only have vegetables, whole grains in pure form(millet, brown rice, quinoa, etc) and nuts, some pure meats. You'll feel great. Taste really is so insignificant, don't think of eating as a hobby think of it as a necessity. As Gandhi said: "Eat to live, don't live to eat".

Obviously...

I'd rather change the definition of omnipotent than totally disregard the concept of a omnipotent being, not to support God or anything but in case anyone ever wants to use it in a story or something. Good fight modern bible @ word choice....good fight.

Its not a theory, its factual that subatomic particles can appear from absolutely nothing.

If he was omnipotent, the part you have wrong is that he "can't" do something, because he can. Omnipotence would mean he could make an infinity big pie but still manage to eat it. I want 2 b liek this awmnipohtent sew i can has lots of M&M's and koolaid wut. You just totally missed the point. He has to make a pie so big that he can't eat it. He either can't make a pie that he can't eat, or he can't eat the pie he made. He can't do one of the things either way. No exceptions. No, what I'm saying is that saying that it is possible for him to fabricate a pie that he can't eat contradicts the very definition of the word. Being omnipotent would mean that it would be impossible for him the fabricate a pie that he can't eat, because he can eat any size pie. Being omnipotent would mean that it would be impossible for him the fabricate a pie that he can't eat, because he can eat any size pie. Exactly. You said it yourself. It would be impossible for him to fabricate the pie. Not so omnipotent now are we? You can't be omnipotent when something's impossible. ;o There's a difference between not being able to do something, and it being impossible. Oh what? I thought omnipotent beings had to have the ability to do the impossible. Guess we're lowering our standards here. By impossible I mean impossible to an omnipotent being. Paradoxes have to come to a rest at some point in this situation, however many of them there are. For a omnipotent being, impossibility must be obsolete so something impossibly impossible is impossible.

Yup, I heard the president of Lebanon said something along the lines of "That man did with a pair of old shoes, what we have been trying to do for years." I feel bad for GWB :|

If he was omnipotent, the part you have wrong is that he "can't" do something, because he can. Omnipotence would mean he could make an infinity big pie but still manage to eat it. I want 2 b liek this awmnipohtent sew i can has lots of M&M's and koolaid wut. You just totally missed the point. He has to make a pie so big that he can't eat it. He either can't make a pie that he can't eat, or he can't eat the pie he made. He can't do one of the things either way. No exceptions. No, what I'm saying is that saying that it is possible for him to fabricate a pie that he can't eat contradicts the very definition of the word. Being omnipotent would mean that it would be impossible for him the fabricate a pie that he can't eat, because he can eat any size pie. Being omnipotent would mean that it would be impossible for him the fabricate a pie that he can't eat, because he can eat any size pie. Exactly. You said it yourself. It would be impossible for him to fabricate the pie. Not so omnipotent now are we? You can't be omnipotent when something's impossible. ;o There's a difference between not being able to do something, and it being impossible.

I did a reasearch paper on Genesis for my school, and there is a correct way to do citations for Biblical texts, can't remember it at the top of my head, but I used it in my paper. So the Bible does need citations.

If he was omnipotent, the part you have wrong is that he "can't" do something, because he can. Omnipotence would mean he could make an infinity big pie but still manage to eat it. I want 2 b liek this awmnipohtent sew i can has lots of M&M's and koolaid wut. You just totally missed the point. He has to make a pie so big that he can't eat it. He either can't make a pie that he can't eat, or he can't eat the pie he made. He can't do one of the things either way. No exceptions. No, what I'm saying is that saying that it is possible for him to fabricate a pie that he can't eat contradicts the very definition of the word. Being omnipotent would mean that it would be impossible for him the fabricate a pie that he can't eat, because he can eat any size pie.

If he was omnipotent, the part you have wrong is that he "can't" do something, because he can. Omnipotence would mean he could make an infinity big pie but still manage to eat it. I want 2 b liek this awmnipohtent sew i can has lots of M&M's and koolaid wut.

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?