 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 592 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well God exists outside of time, He has no beginning or end, He simply is. His purpose is defined by Himself. God is a Trinity, which is three whos one what, so there is the external qualification .. God is able to love, communicate, etc. apart from His creation through Himself. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
isn't a choad a penis thats wider than it is long |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahaha, my hat's off to you, I haven't heard bonch until now, thats great. i usually spell it 'chode' haha, I wonder if there is a more correct form of the two? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"For example, we lack absolute proof that the earth is spherical rather than flat." one wonders what he would consider absolute proof then. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No man, a choad is a willy, a john thomas, a one eyed trouser snake, jeans jerky. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
rofl |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually choad has two meanings in current slang... another name for the taint, as well as a penis that is wider than it is long(or just a really short-fat dick). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
He is probably using the matrix approach as I did earlier |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
almost enough gods to play a game of bridge. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i've also heard the taint called the gouche (pronounced gootch) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i like "grendel" or "gootch" for the skin flap. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
didn't we get the relativist loophole out of the way earlier? either you follow it through to its logical end, or you accept some form of objective reference. you can't pick and choose. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well God exists outside of time, He has no beginning or end, He simply is. His purpose is defined by Himself. God is a Trinity, which is three whos one what, so there is the external qualification .. God is able to love, communicate, etc. apart from His creation through Himself. That doesn't make any sense to me in logical or evidentiary terms, so I'm going to have to classify it as fiction. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
A short 5 page interview on something actually very interesting; string theory-- kind of the next big thing to develop after quantum physics. It's not technical at all, and It's very interesting towards the end when it talks about non-commutive geometry and particles being represented by matrices rather than euclidean x,y,z coordinates. I feel it's semi related since it is coming closer to describing how space, time and matter actually exist. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Can't we differentiate between when one is actually making a case for subjective relativism and when one is presenting subjective relativism in order to expose that logical end and build a case for objective truth? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well God exists outside of time, He has no beginning or end, He simply is. If this is true, he would not be able to affect any events after the big bang, therefore, he could be a big fucking cosmic clown who likes to molest little boys and we would never find out, nor would it affect us in any way. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah, this article even digs up this old chestnut: a) we exist b) the universe, amazingly, exists in such a way as to allow our existence therefore c) the universe must have been created to ensure our existence when b) is simply a restatement of a). bah, truisms, bah humbug. i prefer this argument: a) we exist b) the universe, sadly, doesn't exist in such a way as to allow our existence c) pity, would have been fun to exist |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Have you ever tried to explain geometry to your cat? If you did, you would soon find that the only thing it will ever respond with is 'meow.' Of course, after observing your cat make an extraordinary leap from one surface to another you should then realize that it operates based on geometrical principals, even if it itself does not understand them. As christians we believe that we can apprehend things about God based on special revelation, although we may not be able to fully comprehend them. To assume that we have to reduce God to terms we can understand in order to validate His existance would be illogical and arrogant to say the least. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah Douglas Adams presented that as "Isn't a fantastic coincidence that that hole in the ground is the perfect shape to contain the shape of the water that is pooled in it?" (or words to that effect) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
heh, it's unfair to extrapolate god's behaviour from the behaviour of his priests. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Time (at least for me) is a man-made concept that is used to measure the sequencing of events. It isn't real, its only real because we created 'time' by giving it a definition and slapping numbers and variables on it. Without man (or any other concious lifeform) to define 'time', it ceases to exist. Bears and foxes wont wear watches, and horses wont mark meetings on their calenders. Same holds true for ALL RELIGIONS. Remove all Christians (or buddhists, or jews, etc) then you effective remove that religion. Burn all the bibles, churches, and memories, then Jesus ceases to exist. Life continues on without a single person mentioning the 'holy trinity'. The earth wont stop rotating just because humans forget about a maryter's actions 2000 years ago. We will just continue to go foward like we have always been. Same goes for organized religion. There are people who believe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
God condescends to operate within time. Think of it this way ... You are a movie editor, the movie you are currently editing has a linear progression, a beginning and an end. However you yourself exist outside of this linear progression. You retain the ability to jump to scenes, splice in new scences, etc. Therefore, while you are able to have a relationship with the linear progression you are not bound by it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nope, nope, simly no indication that this is the case. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That is like saying that 'color' is a manmade concept made to define the visible spectrum of waves eminating from the sun. Yes, but that doesn't negate the fact that they are still there. A dog pees on the carpet, man hits dog with newspaper, next time dog scratches on door because he remembers being hit with paper. This dog has just had a conscious relationship with time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
want to take man out of the picture, use dog and skunk or dog and porcupine. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nope |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and here you've made the leap that renders this argument pointless. as a christian, you have access to divine revelation, which is unimpeachably true regardless of any evidence that may contradict it. the rest of us only have geometry and cats. and happily so. eventually, that will be the divide that prevents any common ground. we could patiently refute every claim on that site, but we could not refute your divine insight. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
who defines which color is which? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh I have no problem with the notion that there are things we'll never understand... the human brain evolved through selective adaptation to understand enough about its surroundings to give humans a competitive edge over other creatures; everything else it can do is icing - we shouldn't expect it to have some sort of infinite capacity to comprehend everything. But why should I believe anything you say about your incomprehensible, ineffable God? Why shouldn't I believe instead that a race of invisible, malevolent tea-kettles is directing world events from a headquarters at the Earth's core? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You are right, it is a non-falsifiable and non-verifiable statement. However I believe there are other statements within the bible that are verifiable that could be used to strengthen the credibility of those statements that are not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
which makes me wonder about the director and producer. 'hey god, ya wanna chuck in more sex and violence? the kids go crazy for that.' |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Here is where I would begin presenting prophecy and fullfillment, but I think we have already been down this road. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
btw: there is nothing scientific about 'creation science'. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How does the addition of a God solve the "How did anything come to be?" problem? It simply takes one unknown (the origin of the universe) and attributes it to a greater unknown (supernatural immaterial entity that just happens to arbitrarily exist in an uncreated state), but furthermore, the greater unknown is inherently unknowable. Personally, if I am to believe in something, it will have to logically follow evidence of its own and not be a product of sheer ignorance. Perhaps you are familiar with the "God of the Gaps" argument. This argument has the form: - There is a gap in scientific knowledge. - Therefore, the things in this gap are best explained as acts of God. This is not based in logic. It is simply a statement of pessimism about the future progress of science. Down through the centuries, science has eliminated a great many of its gaps. People who had used the Gap argument were embarrassed, since their God shrank in power with each new scientific advance. For example, after the work of Galileo and Newton, it was no longer thought that angels pushed the planets across the heavens. A more recent example is the argument by some Creationists that complex molecules (such as amino acids) could not have arisen by natural processes on the early earth. Hence, life could not have arisen by natural means, and God must have miraculously created these chemicals while creating life. The chemicals were part of a purpose. The basis of this argument was a gap in scientific knowledge. This basis fell apart when molecules (including organic molecules) were detected in interstellar space by astronomers. The argument came further apart when amino acids were found inside the Murchison meteorite. Apparently the basic molecules of life form naturally in some quite harsh places, and there is a way for vast quantities to have arrived intact on the early earth. So, their existence has Purpose only to the extent that the entire galaxy does. But ultimately, asking "what came before the first |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But ultimately, asking "what came before the first thing ever", whatever the first thing might be, is a loaded question. The first thing ever, by definition, is the first thing that ever happened and thusly has nothing before it. If anything preceded it, it could not be called the first thing. There could not be an infinite regress of things causing things because an infinite regress has no beginning and thusly can't exist under universal laws and basic logic as we know them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hmm, that tea kettle thing would explain a lot. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
where'd you get that from? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
check out the posting board there. Full of debates and info. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I know eh! Let me tell you about my theory of Hitlercakeology, the theory that the tea-kettles have constructed a massive cake (vanilla, white icing) that says Happy Birthday Hitler. Now just because you can't see the center of the earth is no reason to believe the cake isn't there. You can't see the back of your head and you know that's there, don't you? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I am burned alright, burned out anyway |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oyeah, i've been there, funny site. Has a cool skinny puppy song in the intro |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a) there is design in the universe b) christine aguilera reconcile these two statements |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats usually what happens to most christians. They get burned out because the evidence is so overwhelming, they cant possibly concieve that their religion for what it is: JUST ANOTHER RELIGION |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
:: cognitive dissonance :: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its funny because its true :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
andnow something kind of funny |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What would happen is ... I would post a prophecy about Tyre and it's destruction and never being inhabited again .. Then one of you would post an article showing that the area is now inhabited and therefore the prophecy could not be true.. Then I would counter that the area is no longer Tyre, citing that if New York were completely wiped out and then 1,000 years later Eskimos came down and built a villiage there it wouldn't really be New York but something different ... etc. and etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, and the whiteness of the icing would help dissipate the heat of the earth's core and tea kettles! this is scientifically viable. more so than this rather dubious 'back of head' phenomenon. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No I am more burned out because you are coming into the discussion late and bringing up points that have already been made. :P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
