Nenga Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I'm just to obsessed with the fact that there has to be something missing...there has to be something greater than god himself...Something had to create him...but then, how did that get there? I read on some forum a while back that dinosaur bones were planted by Satan to confuse us and make us not believe the bible. I also had a thought. What if Jesus is the antichrist? What if Satan is actually the true Christ? Just a thought...nothing too serious. Religion or not something did have to come first. The true argument is, is the thing that came first conscious, does it know it exists, does it know anything else exists? I think the story about Satan putting the dinosaur bones there to confuse us is just something to disprove any evidence we find that the bible isn't exactly true. As for Satan being the true Christ, well Christ was just the name of the guy. But hey if you'd be "evil" to if the person you hated just sent every person he doesn't like to you. No wonder he doesn't like humans, he only sees the worst ones. Ponies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baalboy5 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Reminds me of the old atheist theory bough up during the 1700s(I think). It was very clear, goes like this. Everything has a orginial pusher, and that the pusher's pusher can be traced back. God can't exist for the fact that he can't push himself. Kinda rusty, but simple nonetheless. Don't you know the first rule of MMO's? Anyone higher level than you has no life, and anyone lower than you is a noob. People in OT eat glass when they are bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 um...no... He had to come from somewhere. There is no possible way something has always just "Been there". God, thinking about this too much is making my head wanna explode. Because that's what you're used to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspokaspofkjsopfkapo Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 um...no... He had to come from somewhere. There is no possible way something has always just "Been there". God, thinking about this too much is making my head wanna explode. If that's the conclusion you've come to then the only rational answer is that god does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiriyama Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 um...no... He had to come from somewhere. There is no possible way something has always just "Been there". God, thinking about this too much is making my head wanna explode. If that's the conclusion you've come to then the only rational answer is that god does not exist. Say we prove God exsists, and prove that he is the creator. Then we ask "What created God?" It can go on forever. Denizen of Darkness| PSN= sworddude198 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspokaspofkjsopfkapo Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 um...no... He had to come from somewhere. There is no possible way something has always just "Been there". God, thinking about this too much is making my head wanna explode. If that's the conclusion you've come to then the only rational answer is that god does not exist. Say we prove God exsists, and prove that he is the creator. Then we ask "What created God?" It can go on forever. Exactly *waits for someone to ask who created the uni* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgedThesis Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 When we speak of origins we can either say that God is without beginning or end or that the Universe is without beginning or end. I've already explained how we already know that the Universe is timeless. It makes sense just to disregard God--he isn't needed to explain anything. But I don't want to go among mad people!Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I've already explained how we already know that the Universe is timeless. We do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgedThesis Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The Universe is totality. All matter, all space, and all time. Meaning, the Universe encompasses Time, not the other way around. The Universe does not move through Time, since one of the constituents of the Universe is Time. So the Universe essentially never 'happened'. It has no place in a temporal beginning or end, because it is all beginnings and all ends. But I don't want to go among mad people!Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspokaspofkjsopfkapo Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The Universe is totality. All matter, all space, and all time. Meaning, the Universe encompasses Time, not the other way around. The Universe does not move through Time, since one of the constituents of the Universe is Time. So the Universe essentially never 'happened'. It has no place in a temporal beginning or end, because it is all beginnings and all ends. Also to add, "creation" is a property of time which is in turn a property of matter. Chances are, matter didn't exist before the big bang so time didn't exist and the act of being created didn't either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alg Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The Universe is totality. All matter, all space, and all time. Meaning, the Universe encompasses Time, not the other way around. The Universe does not move through Time, since one of the constituents of the Universe is Time. So the Universe essentially never 'happened'. It has no place in a temporal beginning or end, because it is all beginnings and all ends. Also to add, "creation" is a property of time which is in turn a property of matter. Chances are, matter didn't exist before the big bang so time didn't exist and the act of being created didn't either. If you're to believe physics, it can't be created or destroyed though. I painted some stuff and put it on tumblr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgedThesis Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The Universe is totality. All matter, all space, and all time. Meaning, the Universe encompasses Time, not the other way around. The Universe does not move through Time, since one of the constituents of the Universe is Time. So the Universe essentially never 'happened'. It has no place in a temporal beginning or end, because it is all beginnings and all ends. Also to add, "creation" is a property of time which is in turn a property of matter. Chances are, matter didn't exist before the big bang so time didn't exist and the act of being created didn't either. The Big Bang explains the expansion of space and time, not their creation. EDIT: But yeah, you definitely get the idea. Since the Universe is everything, the concept of 'creation' shouldn't apply. Edited. Seemed like I was berating you-- I wasn't But I don't want to go among mad people!Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspokaspofkjsopfkapo Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The Universe is totality. All matter, all space, and all time. Meaning, the Universe encompasses Time, not the other way around. The Universe does not move through Time, since one of the constituents of the Universe is Time. So the Universe essentially never 'happened'. It has no place in a temporal beginning or end, because it is all beginnings and all ends. Also to add, "creation" is a property of time which is in turn a property of matter. Chances are, matter didn't exist before the big bang so time didn't exist and the act of being created didn't either. The Big Bang explains the expansion of space and time, not their creation. I never said anything about their creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alg Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 In that case, we could argue about the cause of the Big Bang. Since the universe itself has no beginning or end, what could we say caused it to expand? I painted some stuff and put it on tumblr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The Universe is totality. All matter, all space, and all time. Meaning, the Universe encompasses Time, not the other way around. The Universe does not move through Time, since one of the constituents of the Universe is Time. So the Universe essentially never 'happened'. It has no place in a temporal beginning or end, because it is all beginnings and all ends. How does that sit with these ideas? I want your thoughts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Specu ... e_Big_Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgedThesis Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 If there truly is a Multiverse, I guess the expansion of our Universe really does have a beginning. The existence of something outside what we know as totality kind of breaks down my way of thinking. Physical laws that apply in this Universe wouldn't apply in the next, and something like Time would be difficult to think about. My problem is that I still cannot conceive of Time as something physical--something interwoven with space and filling out the Universe. I still think of it with a layman's mind: the ticking of seconds, the passing of days, etc. It was easy to explain when I thought of it as something whole and within something else (within the Universe). I'll need to read up on some more theoretical physics--right now I'm the purest example of a layman. For the explanation that doesn't entail a Multiverse: Even if Time had boundaries (the Big Bang and then the End, however that would play out), the whole of it would be encompassed by the Universe. Things within the Universe would 'move' through it, going through beginning to end. But the Universe would remain timeless, as it exists outside of Time. (And if the concept of Time is consistent within the larger system of Universes, then that system would also exist 'outside' of Time. So you could say the Multiverse is timeless.) But I don't want to go among mad people!Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utopianflame Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 If you're to believe physics, it can't be created or destroyed though matter-antimatter annihilation, nuclear fission and nuclear fusion all destroy matter. there are no stupid questions just way too many inquisitive idiots balance is scary to people who like things easy for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rien Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 If you're to believe physics, it can't be created or destroyed though matter-antimatter annihilation, nuclear fission and nuclear fusion all destroy matter. In physics, [annihilation] is used to denote the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle. Since energy and momentum must be conserved, the particles are not actually made into nothing, but rather into new particles.This is from the annihilation page on Wikipedia. Concerning nuclear reactions, some of the mass is simply converted into energy (light and heat); nothing is "destroyed" in the process. Interested in helping the Tip.It Crew? Check out our Website Updates & Corrections Board! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 If you're to believe physics, it can't be created or destroyed though matter-antimatter annihilation, nuclear fission and nuclear fusion all destroy matter. e=m(c^2) matter and energy are the same thing in different forms. If you had ice and it melted into water you wouldnt say the ice was destroyed. When matter and antimatter colide the mass turns into energy; one thing science is looking for is a way to do the reverse and create particles out of energy. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utopianflame Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Which is rather hard, as crashing 2 high energy gamma photons into each other correctly isnt an easy task. Although I do consider the changing matter into energy to be destruction, ultimately that depends on which particulary definition of 'matter' is used. there are no stupid questions just way too many inquisitive idiots balance is scary to people who like things easy for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Which is rather hard, as crashing 2 high energy gamma photons into each other correctly isnt an easy task. Although I do consider the changing matter into energy to be destruction, ultimately that depends on which particulary definition of 'matter' is used. Well, to be technical, matter is being destroyed. The important part is that energy is created in equal proportion. To return to the ice analogy, if we start with 10 pounds of ice and 5 melts; yes we have "destroyed" 5 pounds of ice, but we have "created" 5 pounds of water. Of course 1gram of matter into however many joules isnt as clear, but its still conservation of stuff. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nenga Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 What kind of benevolent God would willingly allow his children to be cast into an eternity of torture? The christan one? Ponies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzle229 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Now I've posted my beliefs before, the belief in God but not in religion, this lead me to an opinion that seems to be mutual to everyone on TIF. Religious people annoy the hell out of me now. Today some kid said I'd burn in hell and when I told him I don't believe in hell, we got into a religious debate. In response to challenges, I gave answers, he gave the repeated use of the phrase "the Bible said so." :roll: Get back here so I can rub your butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alg Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I wonder how many Christians have really read the Bible, personally. I know I haven't, because my copy is paraphrased in modern English, and therefore, definitely not God's exact words. I painted some stuff and put it on tumblr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nenga Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I wonder how many Christians have really read the Bible, personally. I know I haven't, because my copy is paraphrased in modern English, and therefore, definitely not God's exact words. Well the bible wasn't written by god so no version will be gods exact word. Ponies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now