Was the theory of God just created because of how undevolped people were back then and though that rain was God's tears or that a earthquake was God's wrath?

 

 

 

Im so-so atm, but I'm still gonna respect God enough to use a 'G'

As for the "pie paradox", it's just a replay of the Omnipotence Paradox, used primarily by Thomas Aquinas. There are many different parts to Omnipotence.

 

 

 

 

 

Omnipotence: Being able to do anything. <- Fails the Paradox.

 

 

 

Almighty: Being far greater in power than anything, nothing can contest. <- Defies Omnipotence.

 

 

 

Absolute Omnipotence: God doesn't follow our laws and can thus do anything beyond logic. <- It kind of "cheats" the Paradox but in the end DEFEATS it!

 

 

 

Essential Omnipotence: It's Omnipotent, ONLY BECAUSE OF LOGIC. It can't do anything illogical, but why would it try to defy logic?

 

 

 

SUPER-DUPER GODLINESS!: G0D H4x0rzed j00!

So it's decided.

 

 

 

God is a h4xxj0r.

 

 

 

I'ma call the internet police.

 

 

 

Was the theory of God just created because of how undevolped people were back then and though that rain was God's tears or that a earthquake was God's wrath?

 

 

 

Im so-so atm, but I'm still gonna respect God enough to use a 'G'

 

Theory of God? ...Back then? Not exactly. People have been embodying spirituality since we decided "Hey, I'm not a monkey any more."

 

 

 

Eh, it's not a crime to be ignorant of things most of the world doesn't know, and none of us really understand.

Was the theory of God just created because of how undevolped people were back then and though that rain was God's tears or that a earthquake was God's wrath?

 

 

 

Im so-so atm, but I'm still gonna respect God enough to use a 'G'

 

Theory of God? ...Back then? Not exactly. People have been embodying spirituality since we decided "Hey, I'm not a monkey any more."

 

 

 

Eh, it's not a crime to be ignorant of things most of the world doesn't know, and none of us really understand.

 

 

 

Are you talking about the 'G' in God being capitalized as opposed to 'g'od? Because it's really just simple grammar: God is a proper noun, like a name. Therefore, it's first letter in capitalized...I wouldn't call you lenticular, I'd call you Lenticular. Similiarly, you should call me Raven, not raven.

...Whaaaaaa? I wasn't referring to his little grammar part at all. I like it when people capitalize God's name, but, hey, I guess if they don't believe in Him, they don't really have to.

...Sorry. Just...Raven being Raven. 8-)

 

I'm sorry, I should be studying for finals, but Tip.It called.

 

 

 

Anywhooo. The source of the MONOTHEISTIC Abrahmic God is through prophets and physical appearances of the Lord. Not because people just said so. That was there the polytheistic greek gods, like Hephaestus and Zeus came from.

...Sorry. Just...Raven being Raven. 8-)

 

I'm sorry, I should be studying for finals, but Tip.It called.

 

 

 

Anywhooo. The source of the MONOTHEISTIC Abrahmic God is through prophets and physical appearances of the Lord. Not because people just said so. That was there the polytheistic greek gods, like Hephaestus and Zeus came from.

 

 

 

 

 

I have no Idea if your being sarcastic or not. If you are being sarcastic, then you should make your sarcasm slightly more obvious. If your aren't, then you just made a terrible argument that a 4th grader shouldn't be proud of.

Oooh, insults. I haven't faced those before. I have faith that the prophets like Moses were telling the truth. Maybe physical appearances was a bad choice of words, but...yeah. Direct divine influence.

Oooh, insults. I haven't faced those before. I have faith that the prophets like Moses were telling the truth. Maybe physical appearances was a bad choice of words, but...yeah. Direct divine influence.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not insulting you, I insulted your argument... .Which was terrible.

 

 

 

The reason it was so terrible and looked at first to be sarcasm is because the ancient Greeks had prophets, they had TONS of stories that quite a few believed.(the numbers might have fallen later on in Greek culture.) I think your right personally, but your argument was pathetic.

Mmmmm...except that the polytheistic prophets claimed erroneous things, and largely after the Pantheon had been established. The stories were created by farmers to explain things they couldn't. Things explained by modern religions like Christianity are still - surprise - unexplained. Creation of matter is still unexplained, so God is still a completely viable fallback.

 

 

 

All of the Greek Gods were debunked by science, and until we get some hard proof that everything that God says or said is wrong, then I'ma go with God.

I'm interested to know how science "debunked" the Greek gods. :idea:

 

 

 

It seems more likely that science has not debunked the Greek gods, but rather some of the claims that were associated with them. If this is all that is needed to "debunk a god," then the Judeo-Christian God would have been debunked long ago. ;)

I'm interested to know how science "debunked" the Greek gods. :idea:

 

 

 

It seems more likely that science has not debunked the Greek gods, but rather some of the claims that were associated with them. If this is all that is needed to "debunk a god," then the Judeo-Christian God would have been debunked long ago. ;)

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Zombie Nazis! They haven't been debunked. They could exist!

 

 

 

...but logic dictates otherwise. Unless you consider nazis to be zombies...which I'd sympathize with.

 

 

 

The arguments associated with God largely remain un-debunked. Science debunked the Greek gods because once they no longer had any powers associated with them, then they weren't Gods anymore. I suppose there could still be giants astride in the heavens, immortal and watching, but they don't do crap.

 

 

 

EDIT: Lame, they won't let me post from 4chan. >.>

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.

 

 

 

Eh, to some extent they were. I love Greek polytheism, despite how mussed and confusing it is. You never know if the stories are expected to be true or not - because how many were prophesies, were bedtime stories, and whatnot.

 

 

 

Zeus would certainly be high in the rankings for most bad-[wagon] popular deity in history, though. Seriously - he throws lightning, killed his father, and married his sister.

 

 

 

And rides a unicycle.

 

 

 

I just realized I had nothing to really say. AH WELL.

It's OT, Lenticular! My signature is a storm-trooper doing pelvic hip-thrusts! You don't NEED to have something to say!

 

 

 

THE MIND REELS!

Exactly, red-tape rivals, recycling bibles.

 

 

 

Silly storm-trooper, you're not supposed to be thrusting, YOUR A STORM-TROOPER!

Must...resist urge...to divide...by 0!

 

 

 

We don't get anything done. :twss:

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.

 

... Or walk on water, or turn water into wine? ;)

 

 

 

And the Greek gods were not "humans," they were gods.

I call for shenanigans. I'm going to bed. I'll go yell at you all with my ossum-sauce trooper tomorrow.

I call for shenanigans. I'm going to bed. I'll go yell at you all with my ossum-sauce trooper tomorrow.

 

 

 

I don't believe you have a bed. Enjoy your inability to sleep comfortably.

^ Nothing has to be be created from nothing, if it always were. No need for god there either.

 

Don't be an idiot.

 

Can't we just have a civil conversation without resorting to this kind of cheapness? :|

 

 

 

Being an atheist is one thing, denial is another. If the whole basis of science is that everything that occurs has a logical answer, then there must be a cause to the Big Bang. For that to happen, there must have been something already there, no matter how small, for it to occur.

 

 

 

The question is therefore this: What made that small space? What made the particles that caused the Big Bang? And what made those things? And what made that thing? So on, and so forth...

 

 

Why does there has to be a cause to big bang? I think it's as logical, if not even more, that there is no "maker" at all. Or no beginning therefore. The ultimate answer just could be that the time has no beginning. It always has been and always will. Does flower have a maker? No. It just is.

Can't we just have a civil conversation without resorting to this kind of cheapness?

 

 

 

No, what Northern hero said was a load of crap,It didn't even make sense! (How in the hell do you create nothingness? :| )

 

 

 

 

Why does there has to be a cause to big bang? I think it's as logical, if not even more, that there is no "maker" at all. Or no beginning therefore. The ultimate answer just could be that the time has no beginning. It always has been and always will. Does flower have a maker? No. It just is.

 

 

 

 

Because I find it difficult to believe that stuff just happens to exist. Unless science can give me a solid good reason as to why stuff exists for no good reason then I will remain skeptical.

Science can not prove anything. This is the undeniable truth. You can get close by forming theories and testing them, but you have to take that final jump in the faith that your theory is correct. It is the same with religion; it's all about your beliefs in the end. Obviously many people have forgotten this.

 

You need not separate science and religion though; I have theories that combine every seemingly sound scientific belief and exact words from the Bible. I haven't enough information on most other religions to debate those yet though. If you'd like to talk about this, private message me in-game please. I prefer a real-time conversation so I can answer questions more efficiently.

Why does there has to be a cause to big bang? I think it's as logical, if not even more, that there is no "maker" at all. Or no beginning therefore. The ultimate answer just could be that the time has no beginning. It always has been and always will. Does flower have a maker? No. It just is.

 

Of course it has a maker - the bulb or the seed that it grew from, the rain it gained water from, and the soil it drew nutrition from. Everything that exists must have been created by something(s) before it. The universe is surely no exception to that rule, and that's the one fallacy science is unable to explain so far: How do you create something from nothing?

 

 

 

My logical answer would be this: There must have been something there before the Big Bang. In which case, what caused that?