Is God real post your thoughts!

[I_am_Geed]

I DO think that God is real, no matter what science you can pull on me. I just see it that theres more to life then just dying and just not existing anymore.

 

 

 

Although the theory of creation is a little absurd (*cough*dinosaurs*caugh*) I DO believe there is more then just dying.

 

 

 

I'v been thinking though, what if God was a master of science? Created everything and set everything in motion?

 

(fortuna's wheel)

[l0rd]

I DO think that God is real, no matter what science you can pull on me. I just see it that theres more to life then just dying and just not existing anymore.

 

 

 

Although the theory of creation is a little absurd (*cough*dinosaurs*caugh*) I DO believe there is more then just dying.

 

 

 

I'v been thinking though, what if God was a master of science? Created everything and set everything in motion?

 

(fortuna's wheel)

 

 

 

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?

[I_am_Geed]

I DO think that God is real, no matter what science you can pull on me. I just see it that theres more to life then just dying and just not existing anymore.

 

 

 

Although the theory of creation is a little absurd (*cough*dinosaurs*caugh*) I DO believe there is more then just dying.

 

 

 

I'v been thinking though, what if God was a master of science? Created everything and set everything in motion?

 

(fortuna's wheel)

 

 

 

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.

[l0rd]

I DO think that God is real, no matter what science you can pull on me. I just see it that theres more to life then just dying and just not existing anymore.

 

 

 

Although the theory of creation is a little absurd (*cough*dinosaurs*caugh*) I DO believe there is more then just dying.

 

 

 

I'v been thinking though, what if God was a master of science? Created everything and set everything in motion?

 

(fortuna's wheel)

 

 

 

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.

[l0rd]

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.

 

 

 

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.

[hellbellz]

If Wikipedia needs citations, why doesn't the Bible?

[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.

 

 

 

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.

[l0rd]

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.

 

 

 

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.

[purfishx]

If Wikipedia needs citations, why doesn't the Bible?

 

 

 

I was like :shock: , then :-k but then it got more like :!: so I got -.- and went :roll: which caused me to :lol: thus ultimately ending in :twss: .

[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.

 

 

 

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

[l0rd]

If Wikipedia needs citations, why doesn't the Bible?

 

 

 

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.

[l0rd]

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.

 

 

 

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.

[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.

 

 

 

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.

[mensilater]

If Wikipedia needs citations, why doesn't the Bible?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Another point missed. He means citations for the claims made in the bible. If the bible claims that a guy with a beard walked on water, you can't stick a footnote on that and type, "god said it," at the bottom. Memory is the worst evidence, especially when nobody actually has the original texts.

[Ginger_Warrior]

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

 

Don't be an idiot. 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...

 

 

 

Yours and l0rd's theory that protons just float in and out of existence in an anarchic state is equally as ridiculous to the scientific method as the concept of God itself. The fact of the matter is this: no one knows what was before the Big Bang for sure, and to rule out the possibility that there may have been some deity who orchestrated it, in the light of no evidence to rule that conclusion out, is bigoted and closed minded.

[l0rd]

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.

 

 

 

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.

[l0rd]

 

Yours and l0rd's theory that protons just float in and out of existence in an anarchic state is equally as ridiculous to the scientific method as the concept of God itself. The fact of the matter is this: no one knows what was before the Big Bang for sure, and to rule out the possibility that there may have been some deity who orchestrated it, in the light of no evidence to rule that conclusion out, is bigoted and closed minded.

 

 

 

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

[mensilater]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I think this paradox comes to rest at a very clear point. There is no such thing as an omnipotent being. Whether a god exists or not can be debated, but if one does then they're not omnipotent.

 

 

 

For a omnipotent being, impossibility must be obsolete so something impossibly impossible is impossible.

 

 

 

As far as I can tell here, if we take out the double negative - impossibly impossible - i.e. it can't be impossible, so it is possible - then you just said that something possible is impossible for an omnipotent being. Hm, a recurring theme. I guess there can't be one.

[l0rd]

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.

[mensilater]

Yeah, I'm kind of just being difficult here with the technicalities. I'm usually more apathetic. \

[Saru Inc]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

How do you know?

 

 

 

That's what I don't get; is when people say how God CAN'T be real. How do you know? Why yes, at the moment, there may not be enough sufficient evidence to change some peoples minds, maybe, we just aren't advanced enough? I mean, hell, for all we know, in 200 year,s we'll have discovered something that basically says point blank "God is real." And maybe, just maybe, we'll realize there are somethings a God can do,, that we can't. Why compare us to God in every aspect? While yes, there are many things that, I believe are similar, God is God and Humans are Human for a reason. HUMANS can't make a pie so big they can't eat it, and also eat, that just isn't possible, as far as I know. BUT, for all you know, God could.

[Zierro]

I know it sounds sketchy but I think mensilater is right on this. It is impossible to have unlimited power because if you challenge yourself (such as this pie paradox) you would both win and lose - but being omnipotent means you can't lose.

[Dizzle229]

I can't believe I'm about to dive headfirst into the fire by posting here, but here goes.

 

 

 

The big argument againsts God is this: Why would anyone believe in some magical thing?

 

 

 

But what if there's nothing magical about it? Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it can't be explained by science.

 

 

 

For example, the giant squid. For years sailors were afraid of it, and scientists dismissed it as a legend. A myth. A tall tale. We know know that they're very real, with many body specimens, and even pictures of live ones. Who's to say this isn't the next giant squid?

 

 

 

Edit: Did I just call God a squid?

[Saru Inc]

I can't believe I'm about to dive headfirst into the fire by posting here, but here goes.

 

 

 

The big argument againsts God is this: Why would anyone believe in some magical thing?

 

 

 

But what if there's nothing magical about it? Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it can't be explained by science.

 

 

 

For example, the giant squid. For years sailors were afraid of it, and scientists dismissed it as a legend. A myth. A tall tale. We know know that they're very real, with many body specimens, and even pictures of live ones. Who's to say this isn't the next giant squid?

 

 

 

Edit: Did I just call God a squid?

 

 

 

Well, also, remember, Science deals with empiracle evidence, while Christianity deals with a more qualitative, or spiritual evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

[Obtaurian]

I can't believe I'm about to dive headfirst into the fire by posting here, but here goes.

 

 

 

The big argument againsts God is this: Why would anyone believe in some magical thing?

 

 

 

But what if there's nothing magical about it? Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it can't be explained by science.

 

 

 

For example, the giant squid. For years sailors were afraid of it, and scientists dismissed it as a legend. A myth. A tall tale. We know know that they're very real, with many body specimens, and even pictures of live ones. Who's to say this isn't the next giant squid?

 

 

 

Edit: Did I just call God a squid?

 

 

 

Well, also, remember, Science deals with empiracle evidence, while Christianity deals with a more qualitative, or spiritual evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

 

 

 

I don't think you know what the definition of evidence is.