That post will not influence anyone who isn't Christian. Dogma doesn't do much in debate.
[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yoboseyo?
[/CENTER]
Yoboseyo?
[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]Nick and Kris on Skype. wrote:
[7:16:21 PM] Nick: kris, i'm martha stewart.
[7:18:37 PM] Kris: oh really? lol
[7:18:43 PM] Kris: how was prison?
[7:18:47 PM] Nick: hot.
TheHeroicOne wrote:
^That's true. I always feel though, that even with logic, it all links together pretty simply. The hard part is just getting people to believe it. Even looking up articles and books completely devoting to using logic to disprove God's existence, I see flaws just by reading and digesting the material and applying it to the own ideas I believe. That's a completely different debate though, on the count of the Big Bang:
I do think there is another place in which time doesn't function the same, or possibly even exist, and the link between there allowed for the big bang to happen. Time just makes events possible and things progress, right? So in a realm of no time, there won't need to be a start or a beginning, it'll just always, be. That would clear up how it started from nothing if that was me, but only dogma and personal revelation backs me up there. What do you all think?
CaptainAwesome wrote:
I agree basically with the common notion that our mind/development of technology has no yet allowed us to percieve certain factors that only logically would have contributed to the creation of the Universe. We have no means of providing concrete evidence on a logical explanation, therefore the only explanation must be that there is Existence outside of our understanding of existence.
I've always had a theory that perhaps and the origin of the universe, there is a completely undiscovered particle/particles, things that exist at a size smaller then any perceivable particle we've found. Smaller then the smallest sub-atomic particles that we have discovered. These things interact or whatnot to create the particles that "exist", and particles that could also give us insight into the workings of universal origins.
Also a kind of subtheory, is that of an "existence" of some kind of anti-mass. Implausible and probably more confusing and illogical then the creation of something from nothing i realise. Yet what if there was SOMETHING (adhering to human perception) that could EXIST in NOTHING (human perception) that inverted itself to create SOMETHING (human perception). This something then developed from resulting energy to create particles and etc...
That's my 2 cents. and i completely fucked my mind thinking about it.
Zen wrote:
Thank you for clearing that up. I don't think anyone except a couple of the more religious here will disagree that the beginning of the universe is still up for debate.
Just...how?God is timeless and exists constantly. He has no beginning, nor an end, nor a present. He is everywhere and anywhere possible.
The post was edited 1 time, last by Blastoise ().
How is that contradictory?CaptainAwesome wrote:
That is possibly the most contradictive statement that I have ever read. No offence to religious individuals.
Why does omnipresence require an origin?CaptainAwesome wrote:
Because according to the religious views, he "exists", and is even existent everywhere? (not to knowledgeable on the subject) So if he is existent on any degree, he must have some sort of origin?
The post was edited 1 time, last by LuklaAdvocate ().
Who was that directed at?JCpatriots wrote:
So a big invisible man in the sky making things magically appear makes more logical sense? :confused:
[CENTER]The greatest thing you'll ever learnWithout sensibility no object would be given to us, without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. ~Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
Did the OP say anything about God being behind the creation of the universe? I don't recall him mentioning God once. To the contrary, he said he's not religious. Also to the contrary, he's agnostic.JCpatriots wrote:
Umm, it was directed at the OP. I didn't care to read all the typical religious debate bullshit that always comes with these threads, because they appear every single week. But the whole "big bang theory making no logical sense" part had me perplexed as to how the insinuation that a big invisible man (how that is a "kindergarden" interpretation of God is beyond me, because that's what God is, correct?
Is he invisible? Depends on the God you're referring to.JCpatriots wrote:
No one has ever seen God, right? He's invisible. People look up into the sky and pray to him. He must be pretty big, right? He has a penis, right? He's a man. Big invisible man, and he's in the sky.
I said a kindergartners version of God. How did you get kindergartners debating God out of that?JCpatriots wrote:
. I can't say I've ever heard any kindergardeners debating about God before.)
You'd have a point, if it weren't for the fact that you blatantly assumed the OP believes that God was what started it all.JCpatriots wrote:
making everything suddenly come to life makes any more logical sense than scientific explanations for how the universe was created. Both of them give the interpretation that someONE, or someTHING, made everything suddenly appear, so they both make equally as little sense when thought about in perspective. Yet one of them has hundreds of years of science research/data to back it up and another is based off what? Which one makes more logical sense? I'm gonna go with the scientific explanations.
AlexMason wrote:
The belief that God created the world and all that inhabits it. It was the very first belief before there was any other, because it is the only true belief. It has been proven, but only on the individual level. God proves Himself to those who are willing to accept Him. If He were to prove Himself to the point where doubt is no more then there would be no need for faith. Christianity requires us to put faith in what cannot be proven. If you close your heart to God you will never understand, but those who open it up will be filled with the Holy Spirit.