The end of the world!!!!

[Ironslave]

Arcane isn't going to be up for sex tonight, which means leave your back door open Blake, I'm on my way over

Anybody else see the irony in that statement??


Good posts by people, I tend to agree with Braaq. For interest, I'm going to sum up a conversation I had with a woman in Iowa while I was campaigning for Ron Paul. (Huckabee supporter, obviously).

IS: Why do you like Huckabee?
ho: I think he's a sound Christian who's done a lot for his state (couldn't even remember which state it was ). But it doesn't really matter who I vote for, God's going to decide who wins.
IS: What?? How can you say such a thing? (trying to be politically correct) Doesn't God grant us free will? I mean, he doesn't cast the votes.
ho: Oh I know, but he will influence the way people vote.
IS: Well, what about the fact that Huckabee would start war in Iran which would kill thousands of people? What would God say to that?
ho: God already knows we're going to invade Iran, the bible says so.

At that point, I just called her an idiot and walked away. But anyways, point being that I see religion as a form of mind slavery. Serb, the bible isn't a credible source, and numerous contradictions in it exist.


Moses was inarticulate - Ex 4:10
Moses was articulate - Acts 7:22


God instructs man to live on vegetarian diet - Gen 1:29-30
Any food can be eaten - Gen 9:3, Acts 10:12-13, Rom 14:2

God promises Abraham the land of Canaan to live in - Gen 17:8
God did not allow Abraham to live in the promised land - Acts 7:5, Heb 11:8,9,13


God forbids killing - Ex 20:13
God commands killing - Ex 32:27

Saul inquired of God, but God did not answer him - 1 Sam 28:6
Saul died because he did not seek guidance from God - 1 Chron 10:13,14


Drinking alcohol is acceptable - Deuteronomy 14:26, John 2:7-11, 1 Timothy 5:23
Drinking alcohol is not acceptable - Proverbs 20:1, 23:31-34, Hosea 4:11


Point is, we don't know, but I think it's naive to view the world from a monotheistic point of view that an old white guy out there somewhere made everything. Our religion is clearly influenced by the culture we live in, Christianity in North America and other parts of the world, while other parts are predominately Muslim. What makes one right, and the other wrong?

 

[jornT]

18-legged unicorns are invisible and live in the sky.

You don't believe me? Prove to me that I'm wrong.

No no no, you got it all wrong.

They are like vampires (needless to say, they exsist aswell, look at how pale Rocky and his wife are), they can't be photografed.

Elvis lives in the clouds.

 

[Tech]

Vampire Unicorn Vs. Zombie Jesus

 

[high_five]

I agree with Ironslave on his point about religion being a form of mind slavery. The bible is just another means of controlling people.


"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion."

-Robert M. Pirsig

 

[German_Joe]

if you watched Zeitgeist, it does a good job thoroughly explaining the subject. It made perfect sense to me, such a coincidence that so many religous figures shared the same characteristics. It's like buying a new computer ever couple of years, in essence its the same, but the more complicated it becomes the more bugs there are.

 

[Skeptic]

And Skeptic, why would an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being said to have created matter be confined to the limitations of humans? You really don't understand the concept of what makes a god a god.

You still havnt explained to me how something so obviously powerful can be created. You are dancing around my question without actually answering it 'Why would he be confined to the limitations of humans' he isnt, Still shows he has to have been created from something. And if he isnt composed from matter, then he is a figment of peoples imaginations. Ghosts dont exist.

 

[Flex]

Maybe because that would be an animal, and we have seen every animal that would be that large (horse size is generally thought of) using satellites and general exploration. That's why it is funny to think that exists, because the only remaining areas are deep ocean trenches (doesn't make sense for an 18 legged horse), the center of the earth (doesn't support living conditions except for maybe some type of bacteria?), or space (we have yet to find a place with suitable living conditions).

That kind of stuff doesn't apply to an omnipotent being.

And Skeptic, why would an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being said to have created matter be confined to the limitations of humans? You really don't understand the concept of what makes a god a god.

How do you know they don't exist in another galaxy? Hence, why I said "somewhere."

Like Tech said, maybe eighteen-legged unicorns with two ass holes are just invisible. Maybe they are the real one's we should be worshipping.

 

[SerbMarko]

Only God himself can reveal himself to you by the work of his spirit, sometimes i think threads like this are completely pointless, yet on the other hand rather interesting and fun..

 

[SerbMarko]

You still havnt explained to me how something so obviously powerful can be created. You are dancing around my question without actually answering it 'Why would he be confined to the limitations of humans' he isnt, Still shows he has to have been created from something. And if he isnt composed from matter, then he is a figment of peoples imaginations. Ghosts dont exist.

This question is logically problematic. If everything needs a creator, than no matter what exists, it must have been created. Furthermore, to be created means that someone or something had to create it. But then, who created the creator and so on? Logically, this would mean there would be an infinite regression of creators and we would never be able to find the first, uncaused cause since, by definition (the questions says that "everything needs a creator") there wouldn't be any uncaused cause. This would mean that the sequence of creations is eternal. But, if it exists that there is an eternal regression of creators, then who created the infinite regression of creators? Remember, the question presupposes that all things need a creator -- even the eternal sequence of creators -- which becomes logically absurd. Furthermore, if there is an eternal regression of creators that are eternal, then the question is not answered. In fact, it cannot be answered since it weakness is that "all things need a creator." Of course, this only begs the question in that how did the process begin? Therefore, the question only raises the same problem it asks and it is a question that, by its own design, cannot be answered. Therefore, it is invalid.
The question is better phrased as a statement: "Everything that has come into existence, was brought into existence by something else." This is a more logical statement and is not wrought with the difficulties of the initial question. In the revised statement "Everything that has come into existence," implies that the thing that "has come into existence" did not already exist. If it did not already exist but then came into existence, then something had to bring it into existence because something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence (a logical absolute). This pushes the regression of creators back to what we would call the theoretical "uncaused cause" since there cannot be an infinite regression of creators as discussed above and since in infinite number of creators would mean there was an infinite number of creations and created things including things that cannot be destroyed since they would constitute things that exist. If that is so, then the universe would have had an infinite number of created things in it and it would be full. But it is not full. Therefore, there has not been an infinite regression of creations.
By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the uncaused cause (Psalm 90:2). He was always in existence and He is the one who created space, time, and matter. This means that the Christian God is the uncaused cause and is the ultimate creator. This eliminates the infinite regression problem.
But some may ask, "But who created God?" But the answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.

 

[BigBen]

^^^^

So if matter cannot be created or destroyed... how did god create everything? apparently from nothing. I mean, i dont totally understand the big bang theory, but from what i know it sounds a lot more logical, there is reasoning behind it.

How is there any realistic reasoning behind the bibles creation story?

God is exsistance, and God is timeless always exsisting their is no time for God he exsists at all times at all times, God sees all. God always was, their was no need for His creation b/c their was never an exsistance without God.

 

[skid9832004]

i hate religious deates no point in even argueing i am catholic but i dont agree with all my religion has to say i think faith and knowing there is something else after this life is most important

 

[Skeptic]

This question is logically problematic. If everything needs a creator, than no matter what exists, it must have been created. Furthermore, to be created means that someone or something had to create it. But then, who created the creator and so on? Logically, this would mean there would be an infinite regression of creators and we would never be able to find the first, uncaused cause since, by definition (the questions says that "everything needs a creator") there wouldn't be any uncaused cause. This would mean that the sequence of creations is eternal. But, if it exists that there is an eternal regression of creators, then who created the infinite regression of creators? Remember, the question presupposes that all things need a creator -- even the eternal sequence of creators -- which becomes logically absurd. Furthermore, if there is an eternal regression of creators that are eternal, then the question is not answered. In fact, it cannot be answered since it weakness is that "all things need a creator." Of course, this only begs the question in that how did the process begin? Therefore, the question only raises the same problem it asks and it is a question that, by its own design, cannot be answered. Therefore, it is invalid.
The question is better phrased as a statement: "Everything that has come into existence, was brought into existence by something else." This is a more logical statement and is not wrought with the difficulties of the initial question. In the revised statement "Everything that has come into existence," implies that the thing that "has come into existence" did not already exist. If it did not already exist but then came into existence, then something had to bring it into existence because something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence (a logical absolute). This pushes the regression of creators back to what we would call the theoretical "uncaused cause" since there cannot be an infinite regression of creators as discussed above and since in infinite number of creators would mean there was an infinite number of creations and created things including things that cannot be destroyed since they would constitute things that exist. If that is so, then the universe would have had an infinite number of created things in it and it would be full. But it is not full. Therefore, there has not been an infinite regression of creations.
By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the uncaused cause (Psalm 90:2). He was always in existence and He is the one who created space, time, and matter. This means that the Christian God is the uncaused cause and is the ultimate creator. This eliminates the infinite regression problem.
But some may ask, "But who created God?" But the answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.

The universe has no limits... it has infinite space. so how could it EVER be full? which means that what you were saying about 'Everything that has come into existence, was brought into existence by something else' could actually be true. This is far more logical than 'an anti-matter essence being created from nothing and just flipping a switch and everything is created.' Even if you cant comprehend this... it is far more logical. Religion isnt about logic, as Ironslave posted earlier. And like i said 'ghosts dont exist.'

 

[Skeptic]

God is exsistance, and God is timeless always exsisting their is no time for God he exsists at all times at all times, God sees all. God always was, their was no need for His creation b/c their was never an exsistance without God.

So what your saying is that God is physics? I would have to agree with people if they said 'physics is god' which means that the universe was created based on what can basically be described as scientific events... which means science is the basis for all things in the universe... not god.

 

[Tech]

one thing that has always bothered me.

To see God and know there is a heaven, you must be dead first...right?


So....how do humans seem to know so much about the afterlife and God?

 

[high_five]

Their indoctrinated. They are constantly told from a young age that there is a god and afterlife, period, so they believe it. they wont even consider the alternative.

For example, if you have a child and tell them from the moment they are able to speak and understand simple things that there is an all powerful turtle who lives on the moon and created everything and if you dont worship him, you'll spend all of eternity in the most horrible place imaginable, they'll believe it and worship an imaginary turtle that doesn't even exist. Thats indoctrination. Just like santa claus, the tooth fairy, etc.

It all started a long time ago as a way to control people.

 

[BigBen]

So what your saying is that God is physics? I would have to agree with people if they said 'physics is god' which means that the universe was created based on what can basically be described as scientific events... which means science is the basis for all things in the universe... not god.

Honestly i believe a more clear anwser will come when they figure out our brains full abilities. even geniuses use less than 15% of their brain poteintial. Sir i scored a 143 on my IQ test and scored extremely well in mathematics, recognizing patterns and cognative abilities.

Just because we dont fully understand something does not mean it doesnt exsist. You use an examle of physics as if their are no flaws, but in fact physics do not apply into the far regions of space, and when applied to these areas of space the anwsers come back not making any sence according to the science applied to them. The anwsers come back WRONG. If you dont believe me just anwser the question what do most of mathematics say when they deal with and unknown or rather a number to big to count or be classified, they call it infinity. The problem with that is their is no such thing as infinity for the exact reason stated above. When physics were applied to vast regions of space the scientists anwsers were incorrect, the laws were not applying. they could not come up with correct anwsers and their reasoning they gave is bc their is no infinity. Now whos to say that that s the right reason, well i guess they thought they were. Thats beyond me i dont claim to understand physics on that level b/c i dont. But i do know that if physics are flawed then they CAN NOT be God because God is flawless.

Just because we think science is the anwser to all things doesnt mean that it is and on that same same point just because we know how something works doesnt mean we know how everything must assumably work like that everywhere. Everything might have order but who is to say we have all the tools to classify this order, or even understand it with our current mathematics physics or information we have for classifying everything.

People who rely soley on science are in fact trying to have the exact same comfort that the truley faithful have, except science relys on the flawed man while people who belive in God ,Christians, belive in an unflawed God, who loves us and is timeless and flawless. Do i think one is better than the other? yes, i do. The spirit must flow through you for God to open your eyes and reveil himself to you. You cannot have a hardened heart in order for this to happen, and the reason may infact be because man is unable to try and get past his ego. Those that look past their ego need no more information than is already presented in the bible, or what has been revealed in their own lives to them by God.

EDIT
I AM NOT SAYING THEIR IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH ANYONES BELIEFS, OR WITH RELYING ON SCIENCE FOR SOMETHINGS. Please dont think i am. I do not push my beliefs on anyone. The only reason i replied is bc someone was being based for their beliefs and i had a better understanding of what they were trying to say bc i went out in search for it just like anyone goesout n search for the education they wish to receive. Now you can reply to my post but if you want to, but if you want me to prove the exsistance of something or explain the reasons i believe in what i do you will not get a response becasue as long as im not harming anyone i am not required to explain myself to anyone nor is any of you, and it is often a mistake to do so. It would be most peoples natural reaction to criticize others exspecially if they feel like the other person was trying to force something on them.

God Bless
Ben

 

[Ironslave]

Very good discussion thus far, I'd like to see it kept civil like it has been. I've got respect for people who have faith and use it for good. The problem I have is, most of the wars going on in the world are over religious battles, and it's never going to change.

 

[Skeptic]

Honestly i believe a more clear anwser will come when they figure out our brains full abilities. even geniuses use less than 15% of their brain poteintial. Sir i scored a 143 on my IQ test and scored extremely well in mathematics, recognizing patterns and cognative abilities.

Just because we dont fully understand something does not mean it doesnt exsist. You use an examle of physics as if their are no flaws, but in fact physics do not apply into the far regions of space, and when applied to these areas of space the anwsers come back not making any sence according to the science applied to them. The anwsers come back WRONG. If you dont believe me just anwser the question what do most of mathematics say when they deal with and unknown or rather a number to big to count or be classified, they call it infinity. The problem with that is their is no such thing as infinity for the exact reason stated above. When physics were applied to vast regions of space the scientists anwsers were incorrect, the laws were not applying. they could not come up with correct anwsers and their reasoning they gave is bc their is no infinity. Now whos to say that that s the right reason, well i guess they thought they were. Thats beyond me i dont claim to understand physics on that level b/c i dont. But i do know that if physics are flawed then they CAN NOT be God because God is flawless.

Just because we think science is the anwser to all things doesnt mean that it is and on that same same point just because we know how something works doesnt mean we know how everything must assumably work like that everywhere. Everything might have order but who is to say we have all the tools to classify this order, or even understand it with our current mathematics physics or information we have for classifying everything.

People who rely soley on science are in fact trying to have the exact same comfort that the truley faithful have, except science relys on the flawed man while people who belive in God ,Christians, belive in an unflawed God, who loves us and is timeless and flawless. Do i think one is better than the other? yes, i do. The spirit must flow through you for God to open your eyes and reveil himself to you. You cannot have a hardened heart in order for this to happen, and the reason may infact be because man is unable to try and get past his ego. Those that look past their ego need no more information than is already presented in the bible, or what has been revealed in their own lives to them by God.

EDIT
I AM NOT SAYING THEIR IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH ANYONES BELIEFS, OR WITH RELYING ON SCIENCE FOR SOMETHINGS. Please dont think i am. I do not push my beliefs on anyone. The only reason i replied is bc someone was being based for their beliefs and i had a better understanding of what they were trying to say bc i went out in search for it just like anyone goesout n search for the education they wish to receive. Now you can reply to my post but if you want to, but if you want me to prove the exsistance of something or explain the reasons i believe in what i do you will not get a response becasue as long as im not harming anyone i am not required to explain myself to anyone nor is any of you, and it is often a mistake to do so. It would be most peoples natural reaction to criticize others exspecially if they feel like the other person was trying to force something on them.

God Bless
Ben

Very good points mate

But i dont agree with god being flawless... god is contradictory, got is unreasonably wrathful. It is not until the New testament that god is loving and all. The bible is unreasonable, so to say 'people who look past their ego need look no further than the bible' is somewhat contradictory to you saying everyone can believe in whatever they want.

By saying this, yes you allow people to believe what they want, but you also will treat everyone who thinks different from you condesendingly. You will treat them like you are better than them... despite the fact that they are allowed to believe what they want.

 

[Flex]

Very good discussion thus far, I'd like to see it kept civil like it has been. I've got respect for people who have faith and use it for good. The problem I have is, most of the wars going on in the world are over religious battles, and it's never going to change.

Meh, more wars are fought over land and power.

 

[BigBen]

Very good points mate

But i dont agree with god being flawless... god is contradictory, got is unreasonably wrathful. It is not until the New testament that god is loving and all. The bible is unreasonable, so to say 'people who look past their ego need look no further than the bible' is somewhat contradictory to you saying everyone can believe in whatever they want.

By saying this, yes you allow people to believe what they want, but you also will treat everyone who thinks different from you condesendingly. You will treat them like you are better than them... despite the fact that they are allowed to believe what they want.

That is absoloutley your right to disagree with me. I will not try to change your mind i will try to clarify my statement so that u can read it in the spirit in which it was written.

The old testimate is looked at as a history book. It shows Gods attempt to form a coventant with his chosen people. It also sets up the for the coming of Christ. The old testimate prophesizes about Jesus. This is how i view it, it also shows mans weakness, but the new testemate shows our great strength with God. Also i say God is flawless because it is theology to believe so, and i also do myself believe that God is infact flawless.

I do stand by saying that each person is entitled to believe in anything they choose as long as they arent harming themselves or others. My point i was making about the bible is my belief, it is where i find my truth and where i believe others can find theirs aswell, but in reading the bible you must humble yourself to more clearly understand the bible. You must humble yourself in order to read the bible in the spirit it was written in. i should of more clearly stated that. I think you made the assumption that i have the habit of condeming others beliefs by comparing them to my own, which i do not. As long as no one is harming others with their beliefs they are entitled to know their own mind and live their own life. If someone tells me they are a buhddist i think to myself well excellent this is another kind person who cares about others, and i am happy to hear that. I look foward to interaction with them bc we are probably like minded in our beliefs about morals. Mabye they havent gotten that far in their jounrey towards the truth most people end up searching for in life rather it be form science or religion or philosophy.

Thats the thing, most religious philosophies are all about helping other people and humbling yourself. We really can all get along and have respect for one another. Now can we individually believe mine is better than his, sure bc it is YOURS, you have the right to beieve that, just dont speak negatively towards others about their beliefs because that is destructive towards hat person. I usually NEVER have conversation about religion unless its someone of my own faith or someone of the same morals. I can only anwser questions that i get asked hoping that it helps people view the same truth that i found bc i am much more peaceful now. I still have ambition and have very specific big goals and things i want to achieve i just have a good life philosophy to live by, which in turn enables me to act accordingly to succeed with out harming others. THANK GOD!

I hope this makes my points more clear. I know i said iwouldnt post to justify anything but this was a misunderstanding of my post so i clarified my points.... hopefully.


So as always

God Bless Bro
Ben