Is God real post your thoughts!

[zunee_boy]

About a year ago a somebody from a well off family in our church had some medical problems and my family and another pitched in as best we could just to be nice and helpful. 6 months later the other family that helped went into economic problems because of the overall horrible economy. Nobody helped.

 

 

 

Also, Christmas (in all it's falsity) has lost its point. Was it not made to celebrate the alleged birth of Jesus/Sol Invictus? Now it's about iPods and PS3s! Makes me want to bash my head in when my Biology teacher talks about some new toy that you destroy your hourse and blame it on the toy, and the kid had to keep track of it and care for it, and it teaches them to be nice...

 

 

 

Where in the bible is there a rabken or a Chicbit? Easter phails.

[I_am_Geed]

I guess if you wanted to argue God vs science, all i have to say is this

 

 

 

If your so smart how did the "big bang" happen?

 

Sure we have proof it happened but what caused it? Imo a higher power ^.^

[Will H]

 

As for your argument as to "why do humans sin if god created them". Well, there can be many interpretations of this depending on the point of view. In this case I will the view of the believers in the validity of the Old Testament, specifically Genesis. According to Genesis, god first held Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, where they were constantly supervised and talked to by God. Eve then ate from the Tree of Knowledge Good and Evil (if i remember correctly), being the first sin of humanity. They were then kicked out of the garden, still retaining the power in which the fruit provided them - true free will - as well as the different relationship to god. My interpretation, and a common one, is that God had originally intended for Adam and Eve to eat the apple, and didn't want them to always be watched over. He wanted them, and their fellow humans, to be the rulers of the earth, comparably as he is the to the universe. He gave them the privilege to sin or do good, because of their ability to distinguish the good from the bad.

 

 

Ponder this: How can there be any concept of Good if there is no concept of Evil? If there was only one path in life which you are forced to take, how can you say that what you did was good, or even evil for that matter? All you did was the standard action which was neither good nor evil because there was no choice in varying from what you are literally forced to do.

 

 

 

By allowing the possibility of sin, God made the possibility of avoiding it. The nature of the sin is irrelevant, as the idea of the first one being stealing an apple is. What is important is our capacity to sin, as well as not sinning.

[l0rd]

I guess if you wanted to argue God vs science, all i have to say is this

 

 

 

If your so smart how did the "big bang" happen?

 

Sure we have proof it happened but what caused it? Imo a higher power ^.^

 

 

 

Can't explain it so technically, so found this from a physics educational website:

 

 

 

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 infinitismle 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.

[Rebdragon]

Obviously. ;)

 

If you're really aware of the problem at least try and avoid it. Every time you make a post like that on this thread it looks like a call for help asking people to like you or think you're cool. For your own sake, really, stop it.

[Ciel]

Wait.. if God is supposed to be omniscient.. why does he keep "testing" us if he should already know what's going to happen?

[l0rd]

Obviously. ;)

 

If you're really aware of the problem at least try and avoid it. Every time you make a post like that on this thread it looks like a call for help asking people to like you or think you're cool. For your own sake, really, stop it.

 

 

 

Why stop if it works? Obviously you're giving him the time of day to try to help him with one of his problems.

[zunee_boy]

Can't explain it so technically, so found this from a physics educational website:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Sooo... Where did the electrons come from that caused it? The likeliness of an electron appearing out of thin air is about the same as a discussion about God not being an argument.

[l0rd]

Can't explain it so technically, so found this from a physics educational website:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Sooo... Where did the electrons come from that caused it? The likeliness of an electron appearing out of thin air is about the same as a discussion about God not being an argument.

 

 

 

Good argument, and a common one. This calls for another copy & paste from a physics website:

 

 

 

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.

[zunee_boy]

Wow, for once I actually heard a response to that argument. But then again, there has to have been energy to produce that, right? I guess using chaos makes the theory pretty impregnable though.

 

 

 

GF.

[Zierro]

Wait.. if God is supposed to be omniscient.. why does he keep "testing" us if he should already know what's going to happen?

 

 

 

If God did exist, I wouldn't see our lives as some sort of "test".

 

 

 

I think of it this way. We'd all be fragments of "God" and he'd disperse us (or himself, rather) throughout space and then he could experience this great universe that he created via all of our unique perceptions. Kind of like The Sims where you can create an awesome amusement park and then be one of the tourists so you could enjoy the park as a consumer instead of the producer.

[zunee_boy]

Wait.. if God is supposed to be omniscient.. why does he keep "testing" us if he should already know what's going to happen?

 

 

 

If God did exist, I wouldn't see our lives as some sort of "test".

 

 

 

I think of it this way. We'd all be fragments of "God" and he'd disperse us (or himself, rather) throughout space and then he could experience this great universe that he created via all of our unique perceptions. Kind of like The Sims where you can create an awesome amusement park and then be one of the tourists so you could enjoy the park as a consumer instead of the producer.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe we, since we're parts of God, according to your opinion, made Sims so that God could play God? In that case, are our Sim characters God? Because if so... there's going to be some smiting... I hope their merciful...

[NoMoreDead]

Wait.. if God is supposed to be omniscient.. why does he keep "testing" us if he should already know what's going to happen?

 

 

 

If God did exist, I wouldn't see our lives as some sort of "test".

 

 

 

I think of it this way. We'd all be fragments of "God" and he'd disperse us (or himself, rather) throughout space and then he could experience this great universe that he created via all of our unique perceptions. Kind of like The Sims where you can create an awesome amusement park and then be one of the tourists so you could enjoy the park as a consumer instead of the producer.

 

 

 

We're all "fragments" of God? He's got a lot of pieces, then. Going to be tough to put humpty dum-- excuse me, God back together.

 

 

 

On a more serious note (although I can't be sure how serious), don't you think that if God sees all and knows all he's pretty much seen it all? Also, you said "universe" when you mentioned what God would be experiencing through us. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've not gone too far into this universe. We've seen such a small fraction of this universe, so there is no reason to suggest that God is experiencing it though us.

[Joes_So_Cool]

Obviously. ;)

 

If you're really aware of the problem at least try and avoid it. Every time you make a post like that on this thread it looks like a call for help asking people to like you or think you're cool. For your own sake, really, stop it.

 

 

 

 

 

Naahhh, I like it, I was trying to celebrate the 1 year :D

[Zierro]

On a more serious note (although I can't be sure how serious), don't you think that if God sees all and knows all he's pretty much seen it all?

 

 

 

If we're only fragments then how can we be omniscient? We'd only be part-knowing as opposed to all-knowing.

 

 

 

Also, you said "universe" when you mentioned what God would be experiencing through us. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've not gone too far into this universe. We've seen such a small fraction of this universe, so there is no reason to suggest that God is experiencing it though us.

 

 

 

That would be the point in fragmenting yourself - maybe he is 'bored' of knowing it all so that is the reason behind giving himself an adventure of mystery. Just because we don't know everything right now that doesn't mean we don't have a long way to go ahead of us.

[Lateralus]

On a more serious note (although I can't be sure how serious), don't you think that if God sees all and knows all he's pretty much seen it all?

 

 

 

If we're only fragments then how can we be omniscient? We'd only be part-knowing as opposed to all-knowing.

 

 

 

Also, you said "universe" when you mentioned what God would be experiencing through us. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've not gone too far into this universe. We've seen such a small fraction of this universe, so there is no reason to suggest that God is experiencing it though us.

 

 

 

That would be the point in fragmenting yourself - maybe he is 'bored' of knowing it all so that is the reason behind giving himself an adventure of mystery. Just because we don't know everything right now that doesn't mean we don't have a long way to go ahead of us.

 

 

 

Is this what you actually think? It seems wildly speculative. What's the basis for these ideas?

[Zierro]

Only as wildly speculative as a universe that just happened completely by accident.

[Lateralus]

Only as wildly speculative as a universe that just happened completely by accident.

 

 

 

I don't make any claims about the origin of the universe. Did my question seem insulting? Is that why you avoided the question and gave me such a fatuous reply? I'd like a real one.

[Zierro]

I was just saying if God existed, I think that scenario sounds more meaningful than him 'testing' us.

[RichieMcD]

Only as wildly speculative as a universe that just happened completely by accident.

 

 

 

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.

[Shinjula]

Only as wildly speculative as a universe that just happened completely by accident.

 

 

 

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.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Only as wildly speculative as a universe that just happened completely by accident.

 

 

 

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.

[NorthernHero]

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

 

 

 

That would be the point in fragmenting yourself - maybe he is 'bored' of knowing it all so that is the reason behind giving himself an adventure of mystery.

 

Thats Hinduism right there, my friend. Well, kinda. Fyi, hindu believe that god indeed is experiensing himself trought us. But thats wrong way to say it. Better way to say it is, I, (god) am experiensing myself. Because, everything is god. God is playing games, he is playing hide and seek with himself. He hides from himself, so it wont get boring.

 

 

 

Word 'god' for hindu's isn't quite the same as 'god' for christians ofcourse.

[mensilater]

If he's omnipotent, can he make a pie so big that he can't eat it? :o

 

 

 

He either can't make the pie or can't eat it.

 

 

 

I call this the pie paradox.

 

 

 

Pumpkin preferably.

[l0rd]

Only as wildly speculative as a universe that just happened completely by accident.

 

 

 

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: