This thread is closed to replies.
| PAGES: «prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 next» | REPLY TO THIS THREAD START NEW THREAD |
| Asthenia |
Jun 28, 11 at 12:39pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
|
Log in to remove this sponsored message quote DG I do agree with allot of that, and I myself am more persuaded by the science side as they can prove there theory's, but there is only so far back science can go to my knowledge. Know one knows how the galaxy started from scratch, there may be a greater being that made our galaxy. but then again how did that greater being get there? In my opinion I think we wont get answers about god and religion on earth, I think seeing more of space would possibly show more possible answers to our creation. Now thats about how we got here. The whole thing about Jesus healing people, it was a miracle in the bible, but he could have just been good with medicine. Now I say all these things against religion but there must have been something superior to make it stick for so many centurys. I have also stuck with Christianity as that is the religion I have grown up around as allot of my family do believe. But religions do connect in a way, they are just written in someones different prospective. If someone looked at all the religions as one and compared the similarity there could be more of an answer to the religions we know of. There are probably things that are hidden from the bible as well that could stop believers believing if it is something bad. But at the end whatever conclusion you decide to believe (God or science) you can never believe it 100% until you see it with your own eyes, because even if scientists do have proof whats to say its not made up in such a way we believe it? Whats to say all the proof is still just a believable theory? The only way at the end of the day you can fully come to a conclusion is by working it all out yourself, because reading someones proof and saying its true because it seems legit is the same as reading the Bible or Quran and saying they are legit. ------------------- ![]() Credit to min
| |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| D-G |
Jun 28, 11 at 1:07pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
|
Well, you could say the problem I have with religion isn't the scriptures as such.
It's the way in which people "interpret" them to mean whatever they want them to mean. And ignore whichever bits they don't like. And also the way in which people will make things up to fill gaps in their knowledge. It's why I think of "faith" as being the "Polyfilla of ignorance". This whole business of god being used to explain the universe existing is just one such "polyfilla" incident. You need to make a hell of a lot of assumptions about the nature of God, which directly contradict the Bible/other scriptures. (For example, the Talmud says that God sits down in heaven. Therefore, he has a bum. So he must be physically present, not an intangible being outside the universe.) And the end result still explains nothing really, since you end up just saying "God was there eternally before the universe was created". The reason why science is superior is because scientists DO verify all theories via repeat experiments. Obviously no one human can verify all of them personally, without being immortal. -------------------
| |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| silverboner |
Jun 28, 11 at 4:13pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
quote DGBut it didn't produce life as we know it. There are at least two problems. 1. The amino acids had the wrong "handedness". Life is left handed amino acids and his mixture would be toxic to any life on earth cause it had right and left handed amino acids. 2. The composition he started with, the "pre chemicals" that were assumed to be like what would be found on the surface of the earths 3.5billion years ago is now known to be wrong. quote DGKey word...believe. Faith, in what has never been seen. Are you really so different then a Christian at this point? quote DGThey are certainly related, but they are not the same. quote DGYou are right that its an assumption, but you see when it comes to religion, and faith, its more then an assumption its faith. Which is not out of line. However, the same cannot be said for an atheist who is following the evidence and making assumptions about the cause of the universe. That faith is out of line and inconsistant with "following the evidence". Personally the assumption makes sense. If God is "I am" and was never created, then it stands that He is made out of something entirely different then we have ever observed or tested. Its a valid assumption based on reasoning and evidence. Its not verifiable or testable, but it makes logical sense. quote DGThat is only true if you assume that everything that exists has to exist out of energy which decays and loses "usefulness". Personally I think you lack imagination that something else exists outside of physical energy this universe is made out of. But then again...if you are an atheist following the evidence, I don't think its a lack of imagination at all...just a lack of observability. quote DGWhat is inside the universe we know, through observation to be limited, created, and will eventually die out. We have no deity to test or observe or probe in a lab...so assuming that they are the same is an assumption that has NO BASIS what so ever. quote DGI don't follow. Please expand this claim. Some would argue the universe contains the energy...so wouldn't God have contained the energy in the universe? quote DGPossibly...but what kind of energy? The same stuff you and I are made out of or something different? quote DGI fail to see why God has to be made out of the stuff that He creates. I cannot fathom why this would be even close to being true. Do we humans then have to be made out of ceramics to make a tile or clay pot? Do we have to be made out of iron to make horseshoes? Or what about Gold or some of the elements that we don't find in our body? Eventually I would find some element that doesn't exist in our bodies that we can use and make things out of. quote DGIf the energy is different, could it then follow different rules that govern this energy? Are the laws of physics a consequence of the kind of energy that is created, or are you going to claim that no matter what kind of energy exists our laws always apply to it? I think a close examination of matter and energy will find that the laws of physics are derived from the energy itself. That the energy exists in a manner that is described by the laws of physics. In which case, a different energy would have a different set of rules. quote DGYes...I am fully aware that the Flood and the Exodus are major historical issues. Personally I think they have solutions, but they are solutions that most Christians won't accept. quote DGExactly. You are going to shoot down miracles until one happens for you. Go to a church and talk to someone directly who has experienced one. That is the first step to accepting that they happen...otherwise, internet research is going to get you no-where cause you will find flaws and you will disbelieve because you already disbelieve, and reading about them from the comforts of your comfy chair isn't going to get you anywhere. quote DGMaybe its a necessary consequence of our spiritual energy uniting with the energy of the universe, which we can mathematically calculate if we have the transfer equations. Maybe such consequences is why such energy combining doesn't happen all the time becuase its so violent. ------------------- Evil necessitates God. Do you know what is so important about the number 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016mg/cc??? Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| D-G |
Jun 28, 11 at 4:36pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
quote silverbonerCorrect. However, problem 2 might mean that if they used the RIGHT chemical mix, we might get the correct chirality. ("Handedness") The key thing is, if the right chirality did form, and DNA formed, from then on the entire process would be self sustaining. It only had to happen ONCE on the entire planet. That's a much larger sample size than the experiment, therefore much more likely. quote silverbonerThat's not faith. It's merely extrapolation of the evidence into a wider theory, which will be corrected when further evidence is present. quote silverbonerSure, I lack imagination. But the thing is, we've never observed a state of matter which isn't mass or energy. Every single interaction we've ever observed featured the conversion of mass to energy or vice versa. There's no evidence of any third state. There's basically no niche for it to fill in this universe. Outside the universe? Perhaps. But if god was outside the universe, and could not exist within the universe (since he doesn't obey its laws) I don't see how he could interact with it and have any effect upon it. quote silverbonerNo, what I mean is... The universe is made of matter and also contains energy, right? The matter had to be created from energy. So before the universe was here, presumably there was some sea of pure energy. You could call this "god" if you like. But for now, let's assume god is something else, neither matter nor energy. How did the sea of energy get there? God made it? HOW? If he's neither matter nor energy, he can't convert himself into energy. He doesn't contain energy in his own being. So how could he put the energy into the void which would then become matter and become the universe as we know it? The "energy" which I'm referring to is not of a particular kind. That is not important here. It's just energy which can convert to mass. Now, this is my main point. No matter what God were made of... How does his existence explain anything? Even if you decide that he's made of something undetectable, which is neither energy or matter. The same question remains. How did god get there? I just fail to see why it's preferable to have the situation of "God created the universe. Before the universe was there, god was there eternally. We don't know why god was there." compared to "The universe came into existence in a big explosion. Its matter formed from energy. We don't know why that energy was there to start with." To me, there is no distinction. You're left with the same paradox in both scenarios, and when this happens I think the most sensible solution is the simplest one, which is the version not involving a sentient being existing before the universe. Energy existing before the universe is unexplainable, but a living thinking being existing before the universe? That's even LESS explainable. Think about it. With no universe to interact with, what would be the purpose of any being being intelligent? Why would god have any senses? He doesn't need them to feed or deal with danger. Being immortal and with no stimuli, why would he be ANYTHING other than a big blob that sits there and just exists? -------------------
| |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| silverboner |
Jun 28, 11 at 5:26pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
quote DGBut now we are extending belief past empirical evidence. This is fine for a Christian, not fine for an atheist following the evidence. How many times has Miller's experiment been modified to hypothesized atmospheric conditions redone and failed? Enough times to believe that its unlikely to have happened, that is how many times its failed. quote DGIts faith...if you believe. There is no evidence for the claim. Its funny you use the word "extrapolate"...you should look it up. One of the definitions is conjecture. quote DGAnd every interaction has proven that energy decays and becomes less useful, and cannot be created or destroyed. yet...you are then going to say that it was created, and is infinite or always existed? That is the problem with alternative theories, because they contradict what we observe, and to believe in other theories as possible or likely, means one is believing in what has no evidence for. Which is fine in an of itself, as a Christian, I do the same thing...but its inconsistent for an atheist following the evidence. quote DGBut...God is claimed to exist outside the universe...so that doesn't mean anything for me. quote DGAn assumption. Based on scripture one would have to believe that this assumption is invalid as God has interacted and effected the world. Being omnipotent, perhaps God can temporarily take a form that is consistent with the laws of this universe and interact? Or create beings that can interact between the two worlds? You were so sure his omnipotence can create free will beings without the will for disgusting urges, but now his omnipotence power cannot allow him to interact with the world he created? quote DGIts an interesting assumption, but I personally would never conclude from ignorance what God is unable to do. quote DGi followed you up to this point...based on emirical observation and modern cosmology, the energy in this universe was created with the universe, not existing before the universe. quote DGWell, as you stated, he might contain energy of a different kind...and just modified it. But I still don't understand why it is that God cannot create energy as we observe it out of nothing. Modern cosmology would say that in fact energy was created out of nothing since it all breaks down at a singularity, so even an atheistic world view can have the beleif that energy came from nothing. quote DGI think the question, at least for many...is wrong. Many comologists would state that the universe was created at the same time as energy...meaning that God (or big bang) didn't put the energy into a void, rather the energy and universe are one and the same...created at the same time. The universe doesn't exist independent of energy and energy doesn't exist independent of the universe. The universe is everything that exists inside it, and thus if that doesn't exist (energy), neither does the universe. And some would say there was no void either, because there was nothing prior to the big bang...not even an empty space. quote DGHis existence can explain quite a bit. Why you are here, why the universe is here, why we are created, and how it came to be. Granted we might not have the answers to everything, but it would mean that there are answers to everything about our existence. Some Christians would argue that is only a matter of time. quote DGIts a valid question...but it has a completely different set of limitations then the universe. We know the universe is finite...we cannot say the same thing about God. Its a question that we may not ever know, or we might get an answer too some day. quote DGEvidence is a bitch. The evidence dictates that energy and the universe was not always there. The evidence also dictates that energy cannot be created or destroyed so our own existence is a paradox. The evidence also dictates that this energy decays and becomes useless where life cannot even evolve eventually. The evidence also dictates cause and effect, so believing in a causeless universe contradicts evidence. quote DGI think the evidence makes them worlds apart. quote DGI fail to see the paradox you are referring too. quote DGI don't get it. How can an unexplainable event be less explainable? quote DGAnother assumption. Why is there no stimuli? Then again, maybe our existence just answered your question...maybe we are His stimuli.... ------------------- Evil necessitates God. Do you know what is so important about the number 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016mg/cc??? Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| D-G |
Jun 28, 11 at 6:20pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
|
A lot of what you just said was just semantics. I'm not going to argue about the nature of an atheist "believing" things. It's not relevant.
quote silverbonerThe big bang, if it was an explosion, was surely the conversion of energy into matter, thus causing a violent reaction? I see no other explanation for the sudden expansion from an infinitely small volume. To clarify, when I say universe, I mean the universe as it existed after the big bang. As in mostly made of matter (and empty space). quote silverbonerEh? Where did you hear this? A singularity is only an infinitely dense point in spacetime. Energy cannot ESCAPE from a singularity, but this is the first I've heard about it breaking down at one. To my knowledge, mass can break down into energy, but energy can't break down into anything, since energy is what mass is MADE OF. (Superstring theory. Mass is basically made of energy trapped into vibrating strings.) quote silverboner I still don't follow your argument. Sure, if a god existed it might explain why we're here. Some whim of his. But it then poses a new question. "Why is god there?" You can't explain that one even with the existance of a god. You have replaced one question with another. Thus the situation has not been improved. A lot of the other points you made can be essentially summarised into one thing. You're saying you define the universe as being the entirely of both matter and energy, right? OK, so let's look at it that way. The two options are therefore: 1. Mass and energy suddenly popped into existence. We have no idea why or how. 2. God did it. By magic! We have no idea why god was there in the first place or how he could exist. You still have two scenarios which both lead to an unanswerable question. To me, the more obvious solution is the simplest one. (Occam's Razor) As I said, I say this is the version without a sentient being present before the universe existed. I will address this shortly. quote silverboner Come now. That's a silly question. The universe didn't exist. The multiverse is a void with universes in it. Therefore, imagine existing in a void. No light. No sound. No matter to interact with. No smells. Nothing to touch. Noone to talk to. Therefore, the following would be utterly useless: Sight. Hearing. Sense of smell. Sense of touch. Hands. Feet. The ability to talk. There would be no other life present except this "god". Therefore there would be no need to have predatory instincts, fear, cunning, or anything else associated with the need to hunt or to hide from predators. There would be no other life present to mate with, or even interact with, so there would be no need for genitals, no need for artistic expression, no need for social interaction, no need for the intelligence required to interact. A being existing eternally, that does not need to eat, sleep, hear, see, smell, touch, talk, communicate, or indeed anything else. What would you call this being? Even a bacterium needs to eat and detects stimuli. Basically, I'm envisioning a lifeform which has no need to do anything. It exists without needing to do anything. We've seen how life on this planet only evolves to be intelligent when there is a reason to do so. This means stimuli must be present. A god existing in a void without stimuli would be something like one of the gods from the Cthulu mythos. Specifically, Azathoth. The "blind idiot god". Sure, our existence as "toys" would make sense, but only if this deity possessed the intelligence to feel the need for amusement. And he wouldn't have it. There would be no reason to have intelligence if you were eternal, immortal, and alone. Also, in this scenario, there is no way whatsoever that god would have a human appearance, or even anything like one. It rather mystifies me why the Bible mentions us being made in his image. Edit: Jun 28, 11 11:50am -------------------
| |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| silverboner |
Jun 28, 11 at 8:35pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
quote DGSemantics? Where have we disagreed about a definition? quote DGIts perfectly relevant when blind faith is inferred to be an issue in the case of religion. But you are free to drop that portion of the conversation. quote DGExcept that energy existed only fractions of a second before matter. One second no energy, no universe, not even a singularity...the next second energy and matter. quote DGThe laws of physics including general relativity break down at a singularity. Meaning that energy and matter can be destroyed, or created which is nice for atheism and or scientists but only until one asks why energy was created...and not destroyed...or where the singularity came from and why there was an infinitely dense point of spacetime to begin with. quote DGThat is how I understand it...but all the energy/mass of the universe in a single point smaller then an atom? How does that make sense? And why was it in a single point to begin with, and maybe all the energy was created at that point, since the law of conservation of energy breaks down at a singularity, but where did it come from? Why was it created in a singularity and where did it come from? How did it start? quote DGYou said god wouldn't explain anything...and yet His existence would explain lots. quote DGWhich is a valid question, but one that is not the same as "why the universe is there", since God and the universe are not known to be made out of the same substances and all evidence and observations we have indicate that the universe is finite. quote DGAgreed... quote DGNo. I have answered many questions...only to raise different questions. But we can do that all day with physics and science. You think Einstein simply replaced one question with another with his Theory of General Relativity? Hell no. He answered some questions...but in that case...we have asked far more questions then he answered. But that doesn't change the fact that some questions were answered. And the questions I have answers for, about are existence and purpose and reasons we are created give meaning to our lives if you so accept them. The questions those answers raise to do not subtract from my answers, they do not make the answers null and void. They are certainly good questions, but being unable to answer those raised questions doesn't mean our life then has no purpose or meaning. So not I have not simply replaced on question with another. I have answered some very important questions, only to raise some other questions that need not be answered for the answers that I do have to be of any value. I don't think the same can be said with an infinite regression of "naturalistic explanation" of the universe. I suppose a "it just popped into existence" avoids an infinite regression, but at that point, such an answer is no different then "God did it". quote DGThat is the position taken by most physicists and cosmologists. Ignoring souls and spirits...I would agree. quote DGThere are a lot more options then that. Hawking has a different approach to name someone with an alternative option, though I suppose it could arguably qualify as 1, but we would have to remove the qualification "we have no idea of why or how" if we were to categorize it that way. quote DGFYI...Occam's Razor merely suggests selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects i don't think "God" and "natural occurrence" qualify as hypotheses equal in other respects"...but this is neither here nor there. Ignore my ramblings...lots of people do anyways.... quote DGI would say your assumption that God has no stimuli is silly. As though the Al-Mighty God, omnipotent in power (at least assumed so for the sake of the conversation...or at least assumed to be capable of creating all that we see) is just "sitting" around doing nothing. quote DGSeems to be a common theme in life...amusement. Most of the highly intelligent animals are observed amusing themselves and others. One might even claim its common to all intelligent beings.... quote DGI would buy that argument...the problem I have is in the assumption that God is alone. quote DGI am not sure the Bible says God has a human appearance. The "in His image" doesn't necessitate that God does have a human appearance, rather I think it means we have some characteristics of god...like intelligence or free will, ability to think, to evaluate and reach conclusions...etc etc. ------------------- Evil necessitates God. Do you know what is so important about the number 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016mg/cc??? Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| D-G |
Jun 28, 11 at 8:46pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
|
Wait, how could god NOT be alone in his void?
Are you saying you think there are multiple gods? But if there were, then why create humans/ other lifeforms? This is another paradox. The only reason for an omnipotent being to create us is basically for something to do. If other beings are around to interact with, then why bother? (The paradox being that if there weren't then I don't think he'd be intelligent.) Unless god is some kind of intergalactic teenager who prefers to shut himself in his room and play video games? (We are a game of Spore.) Also, by saying god wasn't alone, aren't you basically contradicting the most basic tenet of Christianity, being that YHWH is the ONE GOD? Then again I think it's pretty obvious from the Bible that there are more than one. To me, YHWH is just saying that the others are his enemies. But to a Christian I would have thought this would be a problem. -------------------
| |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| GuardianReaver |
Jun 28, 11 at 8:57pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
quote Recipe quote Arjy quote DGIf all you intended to say is that faith can't be proven then you should have done so in Loungin'. There is no value in talking to a wall. Even a biased and opposed idividual should be able to give more then bouncing words back at someone. Biased thread titles tend to be rubish. As a matter of point it was others in this thread that even gave this thread a reason to stay open or even on the first page. Your initial topic is shit. Hijacking and improvisation FTW. I just used this thread as another bible thread with the added bonus of talking about other faiths too. quote Seeker XJanists are pacifists. This requires others to enforce the peace because not everyone will believe or properly conform to this or any other faith or mantra. Some people who worship the god in other faiths are also pacifists. Again they need the other ones to keep the other violent people away but in this case there is motivation to protect the pacifists in your religion. This leads to the domino effect of society taking care of the pacifists. Only when a nation is compleatly controled by a violent faith is it a danger to others because of the faith. The democratic design of the US makes it easy to avoid this danger. It is not Islam that is evil but the corrupt leaders of other nations and a few sects who have taken up a holy war. It is not Christianity or any other faith that is evil but the contents of the hearts of those who seek blood. Leading into... Evil, good, bad, just, unjust, moral, and immoral are not factual, logical, or scientific words. These words can't stand up to the same test that theories in science can. These are philosophical, psychological, social, and religous questions. The only way to prove faith scientificaly is to look at its practical aspects from a social and psychological way. In such a case the what ifs are far less important then the what does happen or what will happen standpoint. One is just a theory and the other is what we know happens. From observation we have learned that the faith operates in a less violent way in a civilized nation. If the nation isn't civilized then you will have violence despite what religion tryes to accomplish. Leading into... Cherry picking you call it. I am a practical person. You point to passages that everyone ignores unless they are already pissed with enough blood lust to be violent anyways as proof that the religion is violent. Your approach is less then scientific. From a psychological standpoint, the other passages I pointed out are the only relivent ones on the topic you brought up. They are the most current version of the mantra and people will favor them when both points are expressed. In addition first understanding where someone is coming from, or pretending you do, is a psychobable trick to get them to take your advice. These are horrible monsters but you should be good and loving because you are better then that is a very interesting argument for a 'violent' religion. ------------------- Warning: Definitive nature may cause comments to appear more aloof then they actually are. Never show your back to those who can't be trusted with the truth, but love all. Judgment is feeling better because your neighbor is bad. | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| D-G |
Jun 28, 11 at 9:15pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
|
Your argument is flawed.
I'm a very peaceful person. I never hurt anyone. I never hurt animals, even. I'm a vegetarian. Has that stopped me from picking out horrible passages from the Bible? No. It has nothing to do with violence. It has plenty to do with BIAS, of course... -------------------
| |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| silverboner |
Jun 28, 11 at 9:31pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
quote DGYou are assuming He exists in a void. As though we and Him are all that exist. I don't accept that assumption...thus I disagree with the presumption hidden in your question. quote DGNo. Stimulus need not come from other gods. quote DGI failed to understand what paradox you were referring to previously, and I continue to fail in understanding how this is a paradox. I also do not agree with your assumption that the "only reason" for an omnipotent being to create us is basically for something to do. Many humans have found much satisfaction in their creation. The act of creating something new and unique, even creating intelligence can be a drive for even God to create, just as its a drive for us humans to create. That alone is far more then simply because God needs something to do. quote DGI fail to see a paradox in this. quote DGStimulus need not come from other gods. quote DGWell then...I wouldn't be contradicting a basic tenet of Christianity if its supported in the Bible...now would I? ------------------- Evil necessitates God. Do you know what is so important about the number 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016mg/cc??? Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| D-G |
Jun 28, 11 at 9:44pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
|
*facepalm*
It's in the Bible, but so is YHWH claiming to be the one true god. It's contradictory, like most of the Bible. But priests if asked about it will usually stick to him being the ONE TRUE GOD. So you're contradicting the priests if you say there's more than one god. But it seems you're saying something else... Ok, so if the stimuli are not coming from other deities, then what stimuli do you imagine God would be recieving? Humans couldn't exist there. Neither could any life as we know it. What would be there? It should be an empty space between universes. I don't see how anything COULD exist there. Unless universes are visible when you're in there? But what else? -------------------
| |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| silverboner |
Jun 28, 11 at 10:05pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
quote DGI have never found a contradiction in the Bible. Everything I have scene can be explained through context and an understanding of historical culture and language. You don't really think the Bible has every detail in there about God's existence do you? The Bible might claim that the other gods ancient humans worshiped are not real, but that doesn't mean that some other beings (non-gods) or things, or even other gods who have never even been thought of or worshiped or interacted with humans doesn't exist in what ever dimension or space that God exists. I am not saying there are other Gods, merely I am saying that assuming God has nothing to do other then play a game of Spore to keep himself occupied is something that I do not agree with. Satan for instance is another being that exists in Christian theology. That alone is enough put your claim that God is alone in serious doubt. quote DGI have no idea. Its a fantastic question. But I imagine the universe, and the 5 billion people on this planet can keep Him pretty occupied, either through grief or amusement. That can account for 13.7billion years of God's existence...that is if he experiences time linearly...which I don't believe is the case. Just because I won't or cannot name a stimulus to your satisfaction doesn't mean I then have to agree with your assumption...or that your assumption is then valid....FYI. ------------------- Evil necessitates God. Do you know what is so important about the number 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016mg/cc??? Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| D-G |
Jun 28, 11 at 10:20pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
|
Ah, so you're claiming that God already existed in heaven before he created earth, and lived there with the angels?
But Genesis says that in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. Unless this is referring to the sky/stars etc rather than actual "heaven", this means that before he created heaven, he presumably was elsewhere. And did god not create the angels? (Including Satan and Lucifer) So what about before he created those? He'd be alone. Right? So my argument still holds. I hope you realise that humans haven't been around for 13.7 billion years... Anyway, what about before that? Most Christians, if not all, claim God to be eternal. Eternity is a hell of a lot longer than 13.7 billion years. I was asking about the stimuli BEFORE the universe was created. -------------------
| |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| silverboner |
Jun 28, 11 at 10:37pm ^
re: Challenge - Give proof for your religion of choice WITHOUT using scripture
|
quote DGI am going to need to see something other then your assumption for this claim...like a verse reference perhaps. quote DGNot until you provide some verse reference....otherwise its just an assumption as far as I am concerned. Maybe God created Lucifer...maybe he didn't. Maybe Lucifer was another "Spore" game and before that...some other spore game. Either way...I have no reason to believe that God would be alone without anything to do but boredom. I don't pretend that this isn't a possibility, but to just assume it, as a basis to reach some other conclusion about God...that I cannot and will not do. quote DGI know plenty of intelligent people that have spent years trying to understand the complexities of the universe...sheer energy is enough to keep a human occupied for more then his life time. I imagine such could keep the creator occupied for a number of "years". After all, there is some satisfaction in discovery, but the satisfaction in creation...well its unmatched in my experience. It very well could be similar with respect to God...after all, I was made in His image. quote DGEternity only has meaning if time exists in some meaningful manner. Time is meaningful in this universe because of death and decay...but if nothing died, if there was no decay...1000 years...or 1 year...is all the same. I am sure you won't agree with this, but God is claimed to exist outside of time...or at least outside our time...so 13.7billion years might have only been a few "days" for God...like maybe 7? Maybe that was the inspiration of general relativity... quote DGAs to which I have no answer. But I will stress again...not being able to come up with a stimulus to your satisfaction doesn't validate your assumption. ------------------- Evil necessitates God. Do you know what is so important about the number 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016mg/cc??? Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| [All dates in (PST) time] | Threads List « Next Newest Next Oldest » |
| REPLY TO THIS THREAD START NEW THREAD | PAGES: «prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 next» |
Powered by neoforums v1.6.5b (aperture)
Copyright Neo Era Media, Inc. 1999-2013



