The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: I are a believer on March 11, 2006, 09:45:19 PM
-
Does god exist? If so explain. If you don't believe explain aswell.
-
There is something, but I don't think we have the right concept in god, if you'll pardon the lower case.
Some people call it god, some people call it lifeforce. I don't have a name for it, but I don't think the traditional, Western name and concept of god is accurate.
-
I have a theory on the matter, which theory I dub "tribalistic theogeny". I suggest that gods arose through the deification of tribal leaders or heros.
I believe that worship is a means of expressing allegiance -- if you and I worship the same god / pay tribute to the same chieftan / cheer for the same sports team / idolize the same celebrities, we are in some sense in the same "tribe".
Furthermore, gods often have the same personalities, goals, and desires as chieftans or heros -- monotheistic gods in the former case, polytheistic gods in the latter. Gods typically demand some form of tribute and legislate some form of law. They punish offenders and pass judgement on criminals. Some of them lead or inspire their people in times of war, whereas some mostly lead lives of their own but occassionally mingle with lesser beings.
I'm currently very happy with this theory, as it provides a neat sociobiological explanation for deities. From it, I conclude that all entities that are currently regarded as gods are not really gods, but rather the elevated memories of legendary people (who themselves may never have existed). Thus I conclude that there is no god.
-Erasmus
-
I don't believe in Santa, or the tooth fairy, and therefore I don't believe in God.
If I saw any piece of evidence that proved Gods existence, I would believe in him. Until then, I'm an unbeliever.
-
If I saw any piece of evidence that proved Gods existence, I would believe in him
For me, that happens with answered prayers on a level that seems to be too great to be random or brought about by any other way. A sort of divine intervention (on a very low-key level).
-
If I saw any piece of evidence that proved Gods existence, I would believe in him
For me, that happens with answered prayers on a level that seems to be too great to be random or brought about by any other way. A sort of divine intervention (on a very low-key level).
My prayers, from my long ago christian days never came true. Not on sny level. Unless you ask for the expected prayers do not usually come true. Also could some one enlighten me with a possible theory of how existance came to be? I know it's bassically impossible to answer that wihout saying "god", and "the big bang" only explains the creation of everything, but what caused the big bang? mayhaps a big crunch took place before our universe[like scientists are saying is happening now].
-
mayhaps a big crunch took place before our universe[like scientists are saying is happening now]
Scientists are saying it is happening now? You are aware, aren't you, that the universe is expanding; and in order to be "crunching" right now it would have to be contracting. Many scientists predict that it might happen, but not due to their observations that it's really happening. Unless this just recently started happening and I never heard about it.
-
mayhaps a big crunch took place before our universe[like scientists are saying is happening now]
Scientists are saying it is happening now? You are aware, aren't you, that the universe is expanding; and in order to be "crunching" right now it would have to be contracting. Many scientists predict that it might happen, but not due to their observations that it's really happening. Unless this just recently started happening and I never heard about it.
Well....Yeah I guess your right, but my point was that the big bang could have formed from a big crunch. but where did all this matter come from?
-
Where is the choice for "The very nature of a higher being precludes conclusive knowledge of such a being?"
-
Do you mean 'The fact that we don't know whether or not there is a god, proves that there must be'?
-
Do you mean 'The fact that we don't know whether or not there is a god, proves that there must be'?
I'm pretty sure he does not mean that, but he may feel free to correct me. I got the impression that he meant, "If there were a God, we wouldn't be able to prove it anyway."
I think it was the whole
precludes conclusive knowledge
thing is what clued me in.
-Erasmus
-
Thats what I thought, Erasmus.
Just having fun seeing how many directions it makes sense from.
-
Do you mean 'The fact that we don't know whether or not there is a god, proves that there must be'?
I'm pretty sure he does not mean that, but he may feel free to correct me. I got the impression that he meant, "If there were a God, we wouldn't be able to prove it anyway."
I think it was the whole
precludes conclusive knowledge
thing is what clued me in.
-Erasmus
You hit the nail on the head.
I look at it this way:
Let's say someone (let's call him Pat) told an atheist (let's call him Jean-Paul) that God had revealed Himself to Pat. Now, something that would convince Pat and Jean-Paul of the existence of God would have to be pretty extraordinary, right?
Right.
And the thing is, something that to Pat indicates the existence of God could very easily indicate to Jean-Paul that Pat is having terrible hallucinations. In short, how do you prove that God revealing himself isn't something else?
Of course, it works the other way, too. Let's say that Jean-Paul tells Pat that he has conclusive evidence that God doesn't exist. Because God is, theoretically, an all-powerful being, Pat can easily say that God simply planted that evidence for Jean-Paul to find as part of His infinitely complex plan.
So this is why I'm an agnostic. I vote that I don't believe in God not because I feel that it's impossible for God to exist. Rather, it's because there isn't any particular reason to believe in God that doesn't also apply to, say, unicorns.
-
I believe in god. However, that is the thing: I believe. Belief is not based on facts. Belief is independant of facts. So, although many things might (seem to) confirm my belief of some sort of god (the presise nature of which I am too drunk to type about), nothing proves it. But hey, it makes me that much happier knowing/thinking/believing that I have some purpose in life.
-
If [acoriding to Amdam and Eve] humans were on earth since the very beggining, the how do you explain the mesozoic era? Dinosaurs and humans did not live together, and that means they came BEFORE humans. Adam and eve must have came after. Which either means God failed with dinosaurs, or he isn't real. Maybe he just decided to make humans later because dinosaurs were boring to watch.
-
Which either means God failed with dinosaurs, or he isn't real. Maybe he just decided to make humans later because dinosaurs were boring to watch.
It's amazing how you can offer two explanations yet leave out one that involves God deliberately creating dinosaurs to appear to be much older than they are.
-
If [acoriding to Amdam and Eve] humans were on earth since the very beggining, the how do you explain the mesozoic era? Dinosaurs and humans did not live together, and that means they came BEFORE humans. Adam and eve must have came after. Which either means God failed with dinosaurs, or he isn't real. Maybe he just decided to make humans later because dinosaurs were boring to watch.
I'd say that you're failing to realize perhaps the most obvious (and to me, most correct) explanation. Perhaps Genesis isn't 100% knowledgable. Perhaps the dinosaurs came first but humans didn't know about them when they wrote Genesis. Maybe the creation story was "created" by man.
-
If [acoriding to Amdam and Eve] humans were on earth since the very beggining, the how do you explain the mesozoic era? Dinosaurs and humans did not live together, and that means they came BEFORE humans. Adam and eve must have came after. Which either means God failed with dinosaurs, or he isn't real. Maybe he just decided to make humans later because dinosaurs were boring to watch.
I'd say that you're failing to realize perhaps the most obvious (and to me, most correct) explanation. Perhaps Genesis isn't 100% knowledgable. Perhaps the dinosaurs came first but humans didn't know about them when they wrote Genesis. Maybe the creation story was "created" by man.
Well then the people who wrote the book of god make some errors. Therefor they werent very well led by god.
-
Well then the people who wrote the book of god make some errors. Therefor they werent very well led by god.
Nor did they need to be.
-
That explanation does mean that the Bible is not the absolute truth.
So, if it's not completely true, how do you know what parts are true or not?
-
Solution: Some parts are more allegory than others.
-
That explanation does mean that the Bible is not the absolute truth.
So, if it's not completely true, how do you know what parts are true or not?
I do not believe God is real. I believe the bible was simply a guidline to life and better living and god represents the almighty judge who is forever watching and there for you in spirit no matter what. Not definately a real thing.
-
To clarify what your saying is God is not real but in fact a lie created by man?
(Which to avoid confusion and out of contxt quoting is definitly not my belief.)
A bemused
Cinlef
-
I believe in god. However, that is the thing: I believe. Belief is not based on facts. Belief is independant of facts. So, although many things might (seem to) confirm my belief of some sort of god (the presise nature of which I am too drunk to type about), nothing proves it. But hey, it makes me that much happier knowing/thinking/believing that I have some purpose in life.
So if beliefs are independent of facts, then is belief in unicorns and the yeti just as acceptable and rational as belief in God?
-
I think he meant "faith"...maybe...in which case he would mean to say that faith excludes facts/proof. That's the only way I can see it making sense.
-
My point was that the whole purpose of faith is that it doesn't require facts. So faith is not rational. But neither does it claim to be. Thus proving the existence of God is not nessecary for having faith in God.
An explanatory (hopefully)
Cinlef
-
My point was that the whole purpose of faith is that it doesn't require facts. So faith is not rational. But neither does it claim to be. Thus proving the existence of God is not nessecary for having faith in God.
An explanatory (hopefully)
Cinlef
I understand this, but choosing to believe in God as opposed to the various things you don't believe in seems purely arbitrary.
-
Exactly. Going solely on facts that are beyond doubt, belief in unicorns is just as reasonable as belief in god.
My faith takes things that some people question (The Bible), and lets me make a leap of faith (That they are true) and I admit it is factually indefensible, even though I think it is true.
-
To clarify what your saying is God is not real but in fact a lie created by man?
(Which to avoid confusion and out of contxt quoting is definitly not my belief.)
A bemused
Cinlef
Yes, I believe man, back in those ages was short of hope. They feared death and figured that something had to have created the earth. Hence the theory of God was created. Nothing to back it up. But I believe The Bible is a guidline more then a book of believing.
-
belief in unicorns is just as reasonable as belief in god
Uhhh not exactly. Unless the unicorns are "spiritual" creatures that don't inhabit this planet. But if you're considering unicorns an actual creatures on earth then I wouldn't consider it as reasonable as a belief in God.
-
belief in unicorns is just as reasonable as belief in god
Uhhh not exactly. Unless the unicorns are "spiritual" creatures that don't inhabit this planet. But if you're considering unicorns an actual creatures on earth then I wouldn't consider it as reasonable as a belief in God.
Why not? There is evidence for neither, and the existence of a horse with a horn actually seems far more probable than the existence of an omnipotent being.
-
Why not? There is evidence for neither, and the existence of a horse with a horn actually seems far more probable than the existence of an omnipotent being.
Because a unicorn would be a creature that inhabits the earth and would be much easier to "discover" right? Don't you think it's easier to conclude that a certain species of bird exists than it is to conclude that God exists?
-
Because a unicorn would be a creature that inhabits the earth and would be much easier to "discover" right? Don't you think it's easier to conclude that a certain species of bird exists than it is to conclude that God exists?
Except that it's a mythical creature, so it could have magical powers of some sort. Besides, there are places in the world where scientists disocover hundreds of new species every day. It could be very rare and live in an uninhabited area.
-
I believe the point bieng made was that while it is a present impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God it is at least in theory possible to scour the entire Earth for unicorns
An diverted
Cinlef
-
Except that it's a mythical creature, so it could have magical powers of some sort. Besides, there are places in the world where scientists disocover hundreds of new species every day. It could be very rare and live in an uninhabited area.
Notice that you've done something here for unicorns that you cannot do for God. You haven't proven/refuted their existence, but you've made a cogent argument about some property of the world's population of unicorns.
We can probably draw lots of predictive conclusions about unicorns, all of which would be in principle falsifiable, and which do not contradict our existing understanding about the universe. For example, we can conclude that there are no unicorns living above ground in Manhattan. This is a statement about the population distribution of unicorns. Next, we can hypothesize that they're as physiologically similar to horses as they are morphologically, and that they therefore fill the same niche in their ecosystem: they eat similar things, and get hunted by similar things. They probably run in packs, just as wild horses do. They probably have skeletons that get left behind when the rest of the animal dies and decays.
We cannot make similar statements about God; we're simply not allowed to.
-Erasmus
-
I was once agnostic but after learning of Jean-Paul Sartre in philosophy class I took on the role of an atheist. I'm not sure if any of you have followed any of Sartre's views on existentialism, but according to Sartre God doesn’t exist. And since there is no God there can be no external values and no given human nature which human beings are obliged to fulfill. Therefore man is responsible for everything that he does with no outside aid or support. He is completely helpless. If there were a God, our values and beliefs would be pre-determined rather then up to us to make them. I'm probably going to get ridiculed for this remark but that's just my 2 cents.
-
Plus it is alot easier to live your life knowing that there is nothing up above you watching what you do.
-
I was once agnostic but after learning of Jean-Paul Sartre in philosophy class I took on the role of an atheist. I'm not sure if any of you have followed any of Sartre's views on existentialism, but according to Sartre God doesn’t exist. And since there is no God there can be no external values and no given human nature which human beings are obliged to fulfill. Therefore man is responsible for everything that he does with no outside aid or support. He is completely helpless. If there were a God, our values and beliefs would be pre-determined rather then up to us to make them. I'm probably going to get ridiculed for this remark but that's just my 2 cents.
Well, that's interesting, but the arguments for/against God's existence are germane that the consequences of his existence (that's the topic for another thread).
Maybe you could give us a brief (brief) intro to Sartre's argument....
-
To quote from "Existentialism and Humanism," one of Sartre's many writings, which best explains his overall point.
Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world--and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing--as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism.
http://www.cis.vt.edu/modernworld/d/Sartre.html
-
You can't actually prove to other people that God exists, but I just get a feeling when I pray that makes me sure that someone is listneing.
My God also never said the earth is flat.
-
I define existing as affecting the world. The idea of God certainly does this and that cannot be denied. Therefore, at least as a powerful idea, God exists
-
I think A god exists. Just not the one in the Bible.
-
I don't believe in Santa, or the tooth fairy, and therefore I don't believe in God.
If I saw any piece of evidence that proved Gods existence, I would believe in him. Until then, I'm an unbeliever.
Believing in God is much the same as beleiving in the big bang or some other 'Creation' theory. The difference is a belief in God is usually differentiated because it is a belief in a 'Creator', and a completely viable creation theory. Belief in the christian god, or his existence is not falsifiable.
-ujb.
-
I have a theory on the matter, which theory I dub "tribalistic theogeny". I suggest that gods arose through the deification of tribal leaders or heros.
I believe that worship is a means of expressing allegiance -- if you and I worship the same god / pay tribute to the same chieftan / cheer for the same sports team / idolize the same celebrities, we are in some sense in the same "tribe".
Furthermore, gods often have the same personalities, goals, and desires as chieftans or heros -- monotheistic gods in the former case, polytheistic gods in the latter. Gods typically demand some form of tribute and legislate some form of law. They punish offenders and pass judgement on criminals. Some of them lead or inspire their people in times of war, whereas some mostly lead lives of their own but occassionally mingle with lesser beings.
I'm currently very happy with this theory, as it provides a neat sociobiological explanation for deities. From it, I conclude that all entities that are currently regarded as gods are not really gods, but rather the elevated memories of legendary people (who themselves may never have existed). Thus I conclude that there is no god.
-Erasmus
I couldn't of put it better myself. LOL @ the story of Jesus the Godman.
-
I believe in God and I also believe the people who say "seeing is believing", fall into the category of ignorancy. Do you see the wind? No. Have you seen history? No. Have you literally seen radio waves? No. You can obviously feel the presence of such things such as you do when you believe in God.
God answers every prayer, but sometimes that answer is just "no". So you can't attribute a denial in God's existence because of prayers unanswered....
-
I believe in God and I also believe the people who say "seeing is believing", fall into the category of ignorancy.
I'm not sure anybody has really said that so far in this thread.
Have you literally seen radio waves? No.
Actually, you can see them. You just have to travel very quickly towards something that's emitting them. Eventually the emitting object will appear red.[/quote]
You can obviously feel the presence of such things such as you do when you believe in God.
It's easy to believe in wind despite it not being a visible thing, since it has observable effects that can, almost by definition, only be attributed to it.
It's easy to believe in history since, again, we just defined it to be a certain thing that is meaningful to us.
How can you obviously feel the presence of God? How can you feel it in such a way as to be even slightly unambiguous, i.e., so that you can say, "Well, I could attribute this observation to something other than God, but it seems that attributing it to God is at least a little bit more probable."
God answers every prayer, but sometimes that answer is just "no". So you can't attribute a denial in God's existence because of prayers unanswered....
True, even if it's just an argument of convenience. You've reduced God to the dragon in my garage -- there's an easy way to observe it (go into the garage / pray to God) but there's no guarantee that it'll be there when you go.
-
True, even if it's just an argument of convenience. You've reduced God to the dragon in my garage -- there's an easy way to observe it (go into the garage / pray to God) but there's no guarantee that it'll be there when you go.
There is a difference between the dragon and God, which is that no one claims to have seen a dragon in your basement and the dragon does not explain anything.
However many people claim to have experience some form of deity and it explains various problems that puzzle just aout everyone (where we came from, the meaning of life, etc)
Of course now science can explain just about everything attributed to God, whereas in the past people couldn't explain things so they used God as their explanation.
-
You can feel presence of God during prayer.
If you don't believe in God how do you explain countless cases of terminal cancers being cured, or just disappearing for no reason? Doctors giving patients deadly diagnose, and patients miraculously survive and cancer disappears without a trace.
Just 2 weeks ago I heard a story from a guy who lost ability to speak after a stroke. In his dream an angel gave him specific day and time when he will speak again up to the minute. And guess what, he spoke at exactly that time! How do you explain that with you science?
-
If you don't believe in God how do you explain countless cases of terminal cancers being cured, or just disappearing for no reason? Doctors giving patients deadly diagnose, and patients miraculously survive and cancer disappears without a trace.
Medical miracles. I agree that it could be the work of God, but you can't really prove that. I read something about a study a few months ago where people going in for a surgery (or something to that effect) were split into two groups: (1) Prayed for group; (2) Not prayed for group. Turned out that group two fared a little better. I think the Bible says that whatever you ask of God will be granted (provided that you're a true Christian). So how come group one wasn't 100%?
-
ahh makes me think of the simpsons.
"Please lord let everything remain exactly the way it is, if this is your will give me absolutely no sign"
" As a token of my thanks i offer you these millk and cookies, if you wish me to eat these milk and cookies give me absolutely no sign."
"Thy will be done"
-
I dont believe in god as i'm not even Christian. I'm a viking. prooving God's existence is very hard if you base it on the "Seeing is believing" term. I'd say God is kinda like air. You cant see him but you know he's there. Same thing with ghosts and nature's spirit.
Just my 2 krowns.
-
I believe in God and I also believe the people who say "seeing is believing", fall into the category of ignorancy. Do you see the wind? No. Have you seen history? No. Have you literally seen radio waves? No. You can obviously feel the presence of such things such as you do when you believe in God.
God answers every prayer, but sometimes that answer is just "no". So you can't attribute a denial in God's existence because of prayers unanswered....
Radio waves and wind can be observed and detected through instruments. feelings and emotions that are produced in your brain by chemical reactions with your biological nervous system are attributed to god by those that want to give some higher meaning or purpose to what has proved to be so far a pretty pointless existance. I'm not praying to any god. If there is a god, then he is obviously not interested in proving he exists and seems to want it that way. perhaps seeing for a laugh what crazy and illogical things people will do in his name haha. He knows where to find me if he needs me. otherwise i'll keep going along chuckling at those such as yourself that make up gods and religions for yourselves to try to give your futile and insignificant lives purpose.
(why you need a omnipresent and all-powerful being to give yourself purpose is beyond me)
-
You can feel presence of God during prayer.
I have prayed, in my lifetime, and not felt any different from when I wasn't praying.
If you don't believe in God how do you explain countless cases of terminal cancers being cured, or just disappearing for no reason? Doctors giving patients deadly diagnose, and patients miraculously survive and cancer disappears without a trace.
"There's no explanation for it, so it must be the work of the gods" is, I think, a fairly antiquated line of reasoning.
Just 2 weeks ago I heard a story from a guy who lost ability to speak after a stroke. In his dream an angel gave him specific day and time when he will speak again up to the minute. And guess what, he spoke at exactly that time! How do you explain that with you science?
For every person who had some sort of premonitory experience that receives notoriety, there are thousands of people who did not have visions and went unnoticed. These mystical events occur rarely enough that they can be disregarded as coincidences -- however unlikely the coincidences are, they're bound to happen once in a while.
In this particular case, I have no reason to believe that the person's story is true. I'm not claiming he's making it up; however, it's very, very common for the brain to make false memories. It happens to me with some regularity. A person who already has religious leanings is more likely to invent (entirely without the intention to do so) religiously charged false memories.
In addition, it's worth noting that this guy has suffered brain damage. Do we really want to take every experience of his as complete truth? The probability that he has had hallucinations is pretty good. And lastly, some forms of brain damage -- especially legions in the temporal love -- actually cause religious visions and feelings of being touched by God or angels.
Of course, that's not evidence that they're not touched by angels. However, before you suggest that God reveals himself to people through epilepsy, or remind me that the Bible states that no man can look upon the face of God and live (so maybe those few who do live merely suffer brain damage, hence the correlation), I'd also like to mention that there's a device that causes people to have these visions, is non-invasive, and has no long-term side effects. Is it reasonable to suggest that God is being forced to reveal himself to people on whom this device is used?
So while there might not be a scientific explanation for spontaneous remission, there is an explanation for why you hear about them, and there's an explanation for religious visions.
-
hi im new :),anyway
let me put it like this i would rather live my life illusioned by the existance of a god,and then when i die:
case1) a god actually exists and i will be very satisfied with my believing
case2) there is no god,so no consciousness after life so i dont fell anything
if u dont believe in god there are other 2 cases
1) a god actually exists and u get pwned
2) same with case2) from believeing
now the most efficien thing would be believing anyway,without any proof.
by not believeing u can fail through case 1
there is no rate of failing with believeing since WORST CASE SCENARIO nothing happens...
-
It doesn't matter if God exists. Really. We can be happy without being religious, and what else matters?
Btw, for religious people reading this post, God would see no sense in hurting people = he would see no sense of punishing them. Saying that there exist a hell is the same thing as lowering God. No parent would ever punish their childrens with eternal damnation. Especially not God..
That said, I say I believe in God.
-
there might be some higher being, but i doubt his name is god, and that he has a son jesus, witch was born in bethlehem etc. so no there is no God
-
let me put it like this i would rather live my life illusioned by the existance of a god,and then when i die:
Pascal's wager? Okay, not bad, except that it's fairly antihumanistic, in that it's based on fear of what God might be like and resignation to his tyranny.
I have a wager of my own:
I'll strive to be a good, moral person, and to improve myself and the world around me using the talents that maybe God gave me or maybe were basically random.
1) If there's a God, and that's what he wants from me, perfect -- we'll be great friends.
2) If there's a God, and all he really wants is subjugation, then we ought to rebel against him.
3) If there's no God, then at least I've improved myself and the world around me, and been a good and moral person.
-
Good thinking Erasmus religion it;s not a form of slavery per say,but a means to improve urself as a person ,dont know what pascal's wager is by the way...
-
Good thinking Erasmus religion it;s not a form of slavery per say,but a means to improve urself as a person ,dont know what pascal's wager is by the way...
Pascal's wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager) is:
let me put it like this i would rather live my life illusioned by the existance of a god,and then when i die:
case1) a god actually exists and i will be very satisfied with my believing
case2) there is no god,so no consciousness after life so i dont fell anything
if u dont believe in god there are other 2 cases
1) a god actually exists and u get pwned
2) same with case2) from believeing
-
let me put it like this i would rather live my life illusioned by the existance of a god,and then when i die:
Pascal's wager? Okay, not bad, except that it's fairly antihumanistic, in that it's based on fear of what God might be like and resignation to his tyranny.
I think Pascal's wager works not only for God but for Santa Claus too.
If you believe in Santa, you get a Christmas present.
If you don't, you lose nothing.
-
I never heard of pascals wager before ... and i figured it on my own a while ago :) ,anyway i believed in god way before i figured that out.
-
God exists, and he only saves those who believe in him.
Bless you all.
-
If you believe in Santa, you get a Christmas present.
If you don't, you lose nothing.
Don't tell my dad this, but I stopped believing in Santa long ago, and I still get Christmas presents from him. Teehee!
-
Sarthos, Im so glad someone know's math!! Whoopie!! :D:D:D:D:
-
err sarthos isn't that physics not maths (i mean i know physics is just maths with big words attached, but still).
and you will also find that you can create matter you muppet
it is energy you can create or destroy.
matter is merely a lot of energy stored in a potential.
you can also conserve momentum, spin, parity (however there are exceptions to conservation of parity depending on the decay route).
but i'm afraid matter can be created and destroyed. Infact the amount of energy that it takes to separate two quarks is greater than the energy it takes to create two quarks - this is why you can never have quarks existing by them selves).
also what is your +8 in there for?
not entirely sure what your trying to say with your - infinity stuff.
Also if you were ever able to prove the existence of god that, in its self, would disprove the existence of god since god demands that belief in him is based apon blind faith.
-
-infinity is negative infinity (you know, if you subtract infinity from zero)
+8 because infinity + 8 is still infinity
and it means a supernatural force (if you looked at the post) created it. So, there's a chance some other supernatural force could have created it.
And if you switch the word "matter" with "energy" it gives the same meaning.
Also, any non-believers should be shot.
-
actually you'll find that infinity +8 has no meaning
and i damn well know what negative infinity is i was just wondering what on earth all that waffling you did was about.
you can't say that -inf +8 =- inf. -inf + 8 has NO MEANING....it is sorta like saying 0 x 5... it is pointless, redundant. and you wouldn't say 0 x 5 = 0, so 0/0=5 therefore god exists.
what you are wanting is a particle flux density integrated over all time (which is infinity to -infinity). If the integral has no dependency on time, then the number of particles in the universe is constant at all points of time. you cannot do it your way because it makes f*ck all sense.
-
i just do.
-
I most definitely believe in a God. There was a time when I didn't, but I was converted to the LDS church (Mormon in layman's terms) after merely investigating it for informational purposes. Not only does it make more sense to me than other forms of Christianity, but also there is no way that I can deny it. I felt, as missionaries would put it, a "burning in the bosom". This basically means that you feel a very strong, warm sensation in your chest. I felt this when I prayed about it. The Holy Ghost was telling me that it was true. I cannot deny this experience, thus I believe in God.
-
I most definitely believe in a God. There was a time when I didn't, but I was converted to the LDS church (Mormon in layman's terms) after merely investigating it for informational purposes. Not only does it make more sense to me than other forms of Christianity, but also there is no way that I can deny it. I felt, as missionaries would put it, a "burning in the bosom". This basically means that you feel a very strong, warm sensation in your chest. I felt this when I prayed about it. The Holy Ghost was telling me that it was true. I cannot deny this experience, thus I believe in God.
Wow, I found the Mormon beliefs (or at least the story of John Smith) the most hard to believe! Unless I was given a distorted description.
On a related matter, a guy called John Safran in Australia went to Utah as part of his show, dressed up in the mormon like attire (suit without jacket, backpack, name tag) but his name tag said aethiest, and he went around doorknocking (liek we get heaps of here in Aus) trying to seel them Aethiesm. It was funny - turns out most mormons don't like people selling religiong door to door either. Funny that!
-
If there is a God is he all powerful?
1.) no - then why worship him?
2.) yes - then can he make a sandwich so large that he himself can't eat it?
a.) yes - then there is a limit to God (his belly)
b.) no - then there is a limit to his power
-
Feralkitten, for 2)
I believe that the traditional response to thi particular thought experiment is that God is not necessarily bound by our own conception of logic, so he can make a sandwich so large that he couldn't eat it, and then eat it in any case.
-
Yes, I belive in God. I have seen him answer my prayers (not exactly how I expected it and not right away, mind you) an I have seen him work in the lives of other people. Also, in Acts of the apsotles (the book after the gosples in the new testament) the number of Christians grew from about 20 to about 3,000 in less than a month. I figure that there must have been something to what they were saying that made people convert so quickly.
-
For the record... Roman Catholic
20 to 3000 though, simple. Two monotheistic religions
1. Judism (sorry if it is spelt wrong) you have to wait for the messiah some few thousand years, you have no heaven or hell.
2.Christianity... Messiah is here, trust in him, you go to heaven, don't, you go to hell.
make a choice.
-
Yes, I belive in God. I have seen him answer my prayers (not exactly how I expected it and not right away, mind you) an I have seen him work in the lives of other people. Also, in Acts of the apsotles (the book after the gosples in the new testament) the number of Christians grew from about 20 to about 3,000 in less than a month. I figure that there must have been something to what they were saying that made people convert so quickly.
You're using the Bible... to prove the Bible? Talk about circular reasoning. :roll:
-
Yea, you can't really do that.
Only problem is that now, legitimate historical sources that relate to the church are all being called into question.
Seems historical fact is only historical fact if an atheist wrote it, eh?
-
Pretty much, yeah.
:wink:
-
I most definitely believe in a God. There was a time when I didn't, but I was converted to the LDS church (Mormon in layman's terms) after merely investigating it for informational purposes. Not only does it make more sense to me than other forms of Christianity, but also there is no way that I can deny it. I felt, as missionaries would put it, a "burning in the bosom". This basically means that you feel a very strong, warm sensation in your chest. I felt this when I prayed about it. The Holy Ghost was telling me that it was true. I cannot deny this experience, thus I believe in God.
i think that burning in your chest is called heartburn. You need antacids, not religion. You believe a guy who put on a magic hat and claims that he was lead to a holy book made of gold in upstate new york by an angel while wearing this hat.
GO YOU.
-
If there is a God is he all powerful?
1.) no - then why worship him?
2.) yes - then can he make a sandwich so large that he himself can't eat it?
a.) yes - then there is a limit to God (his belly)
b.) no - then there is a limit to his power
From what I have learned about physics and the realms of physical science, you find that there are no paradoxes. There have been plenty of times when issues in science seemed like a paradox, then turned out not to be. Most of these temporary scientific paradoxes arose from scientists taking traditional or conventional methods to explain new phenomona. Then someone comes along with new ideas and shows that infact, there is no paradox.
It seems the tired old believe that there is some onmipresent and all powerful being creates one such paradox. If one is all powerful, then how can one create something more powerful then one's self. Like "god" making a sandwich too big for himself to eat or whatever because he is all powerful and can do that. But if he does it, he is no longer all powerful since he cannot eat the sandwich. If one applies the rules of scientific thinking to this, you come to the conclusion that the existance of an all powerful god cannot exist. It's the equivalent of reaching an infinity in a mathmatical equation. The Infinity renders the equation meaningless at descibing the real world at that point.
This leaves 2 possiblities.
1. there is no god, no higher being that created everything.
2. there is a god(s) or some kind of higher being responsible for creation and other things. But this god(s) is infact NOT all powerful. As if it was it would create a paradox.
-
I believe in god. However, that is the thing: I believe. Belief is not based on facts. Belief is independant of facts. So, although many things might (seem to) confirm my belief of some sort of god (the presise nature of which I am too drunk to type about), nothing proves it. But hey, it makes me that much happier knowing/thinking/believing that I have some purpose in life.
So long as you admit your faith is not rationally based, there's nothing wrong with that. The problems comes when religious people start asserting that their personal God is true independent of their own belief and decide that other people must realize this "truth".
-
I most definitely believe in a God. There was a time when I didn't, but I was converted to the LDS church (Mormon in layman's terms) after merely investigating it for informational purposes. Not only does it make more sense to me than other forms of Christianity, but also there is no way that I can deny it. I felt, as missionaries would put it, a "burning in the bosom". This basically means that you feel a very strong, warm sensation in your chest. I felt this when I prayed about it. The Holy Ghost was telling me that it was true. I cannot deny this experience, thus I believe in God.
i think that burning in your chest is called heartburn. You need antacids, not religion. You believe a guy who put on a magic hat and claims that he was lead to a holy book made of gold in upstate new york by an angel while wearing this hat.
GO YOU.
How tolerant of you. For your information, I have never experienced heartburn. Why would it start when I started praying to God? Anyways, to each his own. I'm not going to start insulting your beliefs just because they differ from mine, so I would ask that you not do it to me.
By the way, where did you hear this thing about a magic hat? I think that you've been listening to too many of the rumors that other sects of Christianity spread about us. Because we have scripture other than the Bible, they think that we are heathens, and I've heard everything from Mormons growing horns at midnight, to thinking that we can't eat spaghetti (and this person really thought we grew horns). So, please make sure you get your information straight, and I would ask you to be more tolerant of my beliefs. Thank you.
-
I most definitely believe in a God. There was a time when I didn't, but I was converted to the LDS church (Mormon in layman's terms) after merely investigating it for informational purposes. Not only does it make more sense to me than other forms of Christianity, but also there is no way that I can deny it. I felt, as missionaries would put it, a "burning in the bosom". This basically means that you feel a very strong, warm sensation in your chest. I felt this when I prayed about it. The Holy Ghost was telling me that it was true. I cannot deny this experience, thus I believe in God.
i think that burning in your chest is called heartburn. You need antacids, not religion. You believe a guy who put on a magic hat and claims that he was lead to a holy book made of gold in upstate new york by an angel while wearing this hat.
GO YOU.
How tolerant of you. For your information, I have never experienced heartburn. Why would it start when I started praying to God? Anyways, to each his own. I'm not going to start insulting your beliefs just because they differ from mine, so I would ask that you not do it to me.
By the way, where did you hear this thing about a magic hat? I think that you've been listening to too many of the rumors that other sects of Christianity spread about us. Because we have scripture other than the Bible, they think that we are heathens, and I've heard everything from Mormons growing horns at midnight, to thinking that we can't eat spaghetti (and this person really thought we grew horns). So, please make sure you get your information straight, and I would ask you to be more tolerant of my beliefs. Thank you.
How about your magic underpants??? I have a dvd of a guy who went to utah and bought some. What's the deal with that? and why did you ignore my last post re: Mormonism?
-
I most definitely believe in a God. There was a time when I didn't, but I was converted to the LDS church (Mormon in layman's terms) after merely investigating it for informational purposes. Not only does it make more sense to me than other forms of Christianity, but also there is no way that I can deny it. I felt, as missionaries would put it, a "burning in the bosom". This basically means that you feel a very strong, warm sensation in your chest. I felt this when I prayed about it. The Holy Ghost was telling me that it was true. I cannot deny this experience, thus I believe in God.
i think that burning in your chest is called heartburn. You need antacids, not religion. You believe a guy who put on a magic hat and claims that he was lead to a holy book made of gold in upstate new york by an angel while wearing this hat.
GO YOU.
How tolerant of you. For your information, I have never experienced heartburn. Why would it start when I started praying to God? Anyways, to each his own. I'm not going to start insulting your beliefs just because they differ from mine, so I would ask that you not do it to me.
By the way, where did you hear this thing about a magic hat? I think that you've been listening to too many of the rumors that other sects of Christianity spread about us. Because we have scripture other than the Bible, they think that we are heathens, and I've heard everything from Mormons growing horns at midnight, to thinking that we can't eat spaghetti (and this person really thought we grew horns). So, please make sure you get your information straight, and I would ask you to be more tolerant of my beliefs. Thank you.
If I went around telling people that angels talked to me and showed me to a magic holy book that was some lost testament I would most likely end up in a mental hospital. The very fact that John Smith was able to get away with his cult was because people in general were much more gullible and less skeptical back then. Much like how "visions" and "feelings" were taken direly serious during the middle ages as some kind of interaction from god.
Just because I respect your right to practice your kooky religion, doesn't mean I don't think it's full of shit. Nor will I stop from telling you and everyone else it's a bunch of cooked up crap. This goes for christianity in general in my case, but I have a special place in my heart for your mormons. You exhibit a higher level of stupidity when it comes to your beliefs then other christians. Just because mormonism exists, does not make it worthy of some kind of tolerance in my eyes. And since I have to respect your right to walk around door to door trying to convert people, you have to respect my right to chew you out and slam the door right back in your face.
-
I apologize Rick_James. It was not my intention to ignore your post. The Joseph Smith story is rather hard to believe. Especially the first time you hear it. But, for reasons I have already explained, I cannot ignore what I feel to be true. As for the other thing about the "Mormon" atheist, I have never heard of this, and did not know that would be the reaction. But, one problem with joining a religion is being clumped together.
The same way that FE'ers don't all believe the same thing, many Mormons feel differently about issue. Obviously not major ones, but we all choose to have our own beliefs about things such as other religions tracting in a similar fashion. It sounds to me like the biggest problem they had with this man was the fact that he was mocking us, rather than actually trying to show his religion to other people.
Though you can hardly call atheism a religion. One of the things I always found funny about atheists is how a lot of them (I won't say all, but most of the ones I've met fall into this category) will be all like, "We just want to be able to have our own beliefs and not be yelled at and antagonized by other religions," and then go out and antagonize and insult the religions they just asked to not do that to them. I know a lot of atheists like that. I obviously don't know every atheist, so I'm not going to say they all do. Heck, there's probably not even half of them that do that, just most the ones I know do.
-
I most definitely believe in a God. There was a time when I didn't, but I was converted to the LDS church (Mormon in layman's terms) after merely investigating it for informational purposes. Not only does it make more sense to me than other forms of Christianity, but also there is no way that I can deny it. I felt, as missionaries would put it, a "burning in the bosom". This basically means that you feel a very strong, warm sensation in your chest. I felt this when I prayed about it. The Holy Ghost was telling me that it was true. I cannot deny this experience, thus I believe in God.
i think that burning in your chest is called heartburn. You need antacids, not religion. You believe a guy who put on a magic hat and claims that he was lead to a holy book made of gold in upstate new york by an angel while wearing this hat.
GO YOU.
How tolerant of you. For your information, I have never experienced heartburn. Why would it start when I started praying to God? Anyways, to each his own. I'm not going to start insulting your beliefs just because they differ from mine, so I would ask that you not do it to me.
By the way, where did you hear this thing about a magic hat? I think that you've been listening to too many of the rumors that other sects of Christianity spread about us. Because we have scripture other than the Bible, they think that we are heathens, and I've heard everything from Mormons growing horns at midnight, to thinking that we can't eat spaghetti (and this person really thought we grew horns). So, please make sure you get your information straight, and I would ask you to be more tolerant of my beliefs. Thank you.
If I went around telling people that angels talked to me and showed me to a magic holy book that was some lost testament I would most likely end up in a mental hospital. The very fact that John Smith was able to get away with his cult was because people in general were much more gullible and less skeptical back then. Much like how "visions" and "feelings" were taken direly serious during the middle ages as some kind of interaction from god.
Just because I respect your right to practice your kooky religion, doesn't mean I don't think it's full of shit. Nor will I stop from telling you and everyone else it's a bunch of cooked up crap. This goes for christianity in general in my case, but I have a special place in my heart for your mormons. You exhibit a higher level of stupidity when it comes to your beliefs then other christians. Just because mormonism exists, does not make it worthy of some kind of tolerance in my eyes. And since I have to respect your right to walk around door to door trying to convert people, you have to respect my right to chew you out and slam the door right back in your face.
Well, you could at least be a bit more polite about it. I mean, slamming doors is one thing, but sitting here and saying this to my face is completely different. I may disagree with your beliefs, but you don't see me telling you off like this. I'm not going to even try to tell you what to do, but I would ask that you show a bit more respect to at least me.
-
I apologize Rick_James. It was not my intention to ignore your post. The Joseph Smith story is rather hard to believe. Especially the first time you hear it. But, for reasons I have already explained, I cannot ignore what I feel to be true. As for the other thing about the "Mormon" atheist, I have never heard of this, and did not know that would be the reaction. But, one problem with joining a religion is being clumped together.
The same way that FE'ers don't all believe the same thing, many Mormons feel differently about issue. Obviously not major ones, but we all choose to have our own beliefs about things such as other religions tracting in a similar fashion. It sounds to me like the biggest problem they had with this man was the fact that he was mocking us, rather than actually trying to show his religion to other people.
Though you can hardly call atheism a religion. One of the things I always found funny about atheists is how a lot of them (I won't say all, but most of the ones I've met fall into this category) will be all like, "We just want to be able to have our own beliefs and not be yelled at and antagonized by other religions," and then go out and antagonize and insult the religions they just asked to not do that to them. I know a lot of atheists like that. I obviously don't know every atheist, so I'm not going to say they all do. Heck, there's probably not even half of them that do that, just most the ones I know do.
Yeah I admit it sounds a bit lame - and I'm sure the people who he harrassed didn't deserve it - it's just an amusing contrast to it being the Mormons knocking on the door. Another amusing aspect is that the guy is actually a non-practising Jew (In another segment he went to the US and tried to join the KKK, and didn't tell them he was Jewish until he was talking to the local grand-poobah in the flesh ROFL) so it was a strange and amusing situation all round.
I must admit my knowledge or Mormonism doesnt come from the most reliable sources (not limited to, but have you seen that South Park episode?), so I'm sure you can see why it seemed, if not far-fetched then, at least difficult to swallow. Of course I mean no offense in any way with all this, I'm only contributing to get a better understanding. :)
EDIT: any word on the special (note the change from "magic") underpants?
-
Well, after Googling "Mormon underpants" (I was afraid of typing that in, for fear of what kind of sites might come up. You never know these days) I can say that I have never heard of such a thing, and I know not why it would be neccessary. As many of the sites pointed out, a piece of cloth is not going to stop someone from "touching themselves" if they really wanted to. I'm not sure if this is real or another one of those rumors, since I can't seem to find any official statement on the matter.
-
Here's a little something I found:
(http://www.slappyjack.com/pitchers/mormon_underpnts.jpg)
In those days [the 1970s] garments were one-piece, made of thick nylon, and cut like very loose teddies; they had a scoop neck and little cap sleeves and they came to the knee. The amount of coverage wasn’t accidental: One of the purposes of “garments” is to make sure that Mormons eschew daring clothing. The other is more directly theological: The underwear’s holy nature is expressed by small markings sewn into the cloth over each breast, the navel, and one knee. (The markings signify comforting homilies like “deal squarely with your fellow men,” and are intended to serve as reminders of temple covenants. The symbols themselves derive from the fact that Joseph Smith was a newly initiated and enthusiastic Freemason when he originated the Mormon temple rites in 1842, and so the Masonic compass and square appear on the left and right breasts of the Mormon garments.) The garments had one other characteristic that, if not actually biblical, did have something to do with creation: Women’s garments were slit in the crotch, very generously, so that they flapped open and left a girl’s greatest fascinations exposed.
DISCLAIMER: That's a random bit of text about it, not sure of the truth (if any) behind it. But it's pretty much along the lines of what I've heard. Another (possible misconception) I've heard is that they don't take them off, when bathing, one hand is held out of the water holding the underwear.
I await your reply :)
EDIT: Try "mormon magic underpants" on google.
-
Well, I must say, that is quite a bit of something I have never heard. Neither have any of my Mormon friends that I have asked about it. The next chance I get, I'll ask the missionaries of our church and see if they know anything about this, but I must say I have never heard of this, and it sounds a bit ridiculous. Especially that last bit about the slit in the women's crotch. If anything that would go against what the purpose of the underwear would be, right? From what I read, it seemed to be about being able to not touch oneself, so putting a slit in the crotch would destroy the point of the underwear. It sounds more like a hoax than anything to me, but I will ask someone more educated than myself in my church the next time I do (might be a while since I'm currently on vacation, but I will ask them).
-
Yeah, I hadn't actually heard the bit about the crotch either - but I've definetly heard about the Freemason symbols and the bathing etc before. As I said, John Saffran went the the big LDS HQ in Utah to the gift shop and bought some.
Any word yet?
-
If there is a God is he all powerful?
1.) no - then why worship him?
2.) yes - then can he make a sandwich so large that he himself can't eat it?
a.) yes - then there is a limit to God (his belly)
b.) no - then there is a limit to his power
This is more of a problem with the capabilities of your inferior language and squishy, puny human brain than deeper religious issues.
Here, I'll demonstrate:
The below statement is false
The above statement is true
-
if you believe in God do you believe that the Bible is the word of God, or do you think it's just a book? if it is the word of God then how do you explain the mistakes? if it isn't then why take any of it into account seeing as you just disregard the bits you know aren't true, like Genesis.
It's all very silly and pointless this religion malarky.
-
This leaves 2 possiblities.
1. there is no god, no higher being that created everything.
2. there is a god(s) or some kind of higher being responsible for creation and other things. But this god(s) is infact NOT all powerful. As if it was it would create a paradox.
If a being is essentially omnipotent, then it can also resolve the paradox (as long as we take omnipotence not to require absolute omnipotence). The omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent, and therefore it is impossible for it to be non-omnipotent. Further, the omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible. The creation of a stone which the omnipotent being cannot lift would be an impossibility, and therefore the omnipotent being is not required to do such a thing. The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone, but nevertheless retains its omnipotence.
Think about it.
-
www.whywontgodhealamputees.com
-
JDECHOL! you're from Utah - what do you know about these magic underpants? (which were bought from the LDS GQ in Utah)
-
Hi, if any of you are flat earth believers, please contact me back! We want you on the infidelguy radio show! PLEASE CONTACT ME IF INTERESTED!
Thanks!
-
Pay?
-
It is an internet radio show, it pays nothing, but you get to share your views on the earth being flat with hundreds and hundreds of people. That alone should be worth it right? :)
-
Well I'm a devil's advocate, so it doesnt matter.
I would expect compensation. but anyway, I'm sure dogplatter might possibly be happy to, I don't happen to know where he is though
-
Hubbard, the Bible ( we Muslims believe) was originally the word of God, but it eventually got changed over time due to the fact that people were careless when they copied it, changing words, phrases etc. and these flaws accumulated over the years. The Qu'ran's copies, unlike the Bible were pain-stakingly checked over and over again throughout the years to ensure that every copy was flawless. Sorry if I seem to be insulting Christians or their Holy Book, it was not what I intended.
-
I don't believe in Santa, or the tooth fairy, and therefore I don't believe in God.
If I saw any piece of evidence that proved Gods existence, I would believe in him. Until then, I'm an unbeliever.
That is generally my attitude.
(http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/8929/sfunnelps9.png)