The Museum of Hoaxes
Prove God Exists and Get $1,000,000
Posted By:
Lord Lucan
in somewhere strange
Jan 12, 2005
 <a href="http://www.thinkandreason.com/" title="Think and Reason">Think and Reason</a> is offering $1,000,000 if you can<b> prove</b> that God exists. There are conditions attached. But they do say: <i>"All you have to do is prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists. It is really that easy!"</i>

Is there really this money sitting waiting?

Supposing I said I was God - and prove I exist (should be easy) - is the money mine?
Category: Money, Religion; Replies: 1406

Comments
Page 18 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 16 17 18 19 20 >  Last ›
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 | 04:52 PM
The point would be that a finite set of mathematical laws can produce a result of infinite complexity. All the pseudo set-theory in the world doesn't change the fact that a simple algorithm requiring no more than high-school mathematics to comprehend and implement produces infinite amounts of variation.

Your assertion "A system M, say, may generate a consequence N. Now, from this we know that M is as complicated and neat as N." is demonstrably false.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 | 06:36 PM
I say there are no demonstrations to disprove this axiom, because such a demonstration is only taking into account the most obvious laws, visible to "the naked eye".

Our minds can get from a simple set of instructions on a piece of paper to something of infinite complexity, yes (although we cannot comprehend this thing of infinite complexity, any more than we can comprehend *ALL* the laws which govern it)

Just as a movie cannot be more complicated that the code on the DVD. You may anwer that this is disproved in the case of a compressed DVD, or a .jpeg image, but that is because the DVD player is also aware of other laws telling it how to uncompress this data. Tracing back *ALL* the laws, from the DVD code, to the "uncompressing" algorithms, to the laws of mathematics themselves, N is entirely a function of M. So if we get an N that is more complicated than M, we have applied another law which we have forgotten to include in M. Put it this way, if you put in a full DVD and it played a movie, and then you put in a DVD with a byte of data on it, and the DVD player uncompressed this and played the same movie, wouldn't both call for a disney or a dreamworks just as much?
Timmo
Member
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 | 06:50 PM
Because N is "contained" in M. If not, M is not the *COMPLETE* set of laws which governs N. We've forgotten something.

We can't change truths, only what we think they are. Just let it go.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 | 06:55 PM
... let it go ...
David B.
Member
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 | 07:36 AM
So you contradict yourself.

A system M does not generate a consequence N. Because to do so is only taking into account the most obvious laws, visible to "the naked eye".

Now, it seems, the set of all possible systems *M* (to which you have now expanded your argument) generates any consequence *N*. Which is also not true.

Seeing as you seem to be interested inset-theory, I suggest reading up on Cantor, aleph numbers and infinite sets.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 | 06:08 PM
You know, I do hate it when mathematicians give perfectly simple ideas complicated names. Not that you can help it. I'll probably be reading those things soon enough.

But it's just commonsense: If the set M is every law which generates N, then the complexity of N is contained in M, because effectively N in "contained" in M. If you sneak in another law outside M to get from M to N (a law which "expands out the brackets", as it were), then that law ought to have been included in M to begin with.
It is because there exist laws other than the ones stated in these simple algorithms that they generate such complex things. These laws Cantor and Mandlebrot didn't bother write down because they are the same for every human being.


By the way, God (if He or She is Perfect, that is, "All-Powerful") may also be hinted at in a similar argument; for things are limited in power because of laws which restrict them. Thus every mathematical law in the universe must add up to God. For the whole of imperfect existence, as a unit, must have some law outside it to restrict it (not imperfect). Or else there are no laws outside it to restrict it, and as a single unit it is Perfect. So there's something Perfect
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 | 06:21 PM
by the way, when I said "not that you can help it", I was not offending you. I meant not that you can help the fact that they have already gone under such names before you or I were born.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 | 07:31 AM
Pi
thegreatdane
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 | 01:43 PM
Pi??? that is a strange number to come up with.
should more be 42 or phi. phi is a cool number.

x * x = x + 1

x = phi
David B.
Member
Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 | 02:54 AM
"But it's just commonsense: If the set M is every law which generates N, then the complexity of N is contained in M, because effectively N in "contained" in M. If you sneak in another law outside M to get from M to N (a law which "expands out the brackets", as it were), then that law ought to have been included in M to begin with."

Commonsense has very little to do with mathematics I'm afraid.

Let's take a quick diversion into numbers; starting with whole numbers. How many whole numbers are there, starting from 0? Pretty easy question, there's an infinity of them, obviously.

Now what about real numbers (the messy ones, fractions, etc)? How many real numbers are there between 0 and 1? Well yes, there's obviously an infinite number of them as well.

So you have an infinite number of natural numbers and an infinite number of real numbers; so which are there more of? Wanna stop for a minute and guess before I go on?

:

:

:
David B.
Member
Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 | 03:17 AM
The answer to the above question is that there are more real numbers between 0 and 1 than the entirety of natural numbers, even though there are an infinite number of both.

So if we were playing 'think of a number', and you went first with the obvious winning play of "infinity", I could trump you with "the infinity of real numbers", which is bigger than your infinity.

Well that makes a whole lot of commonsense now doesn't it! Still, you'll be reading all about this soon, so I'll skip posting the proof here.
😊

Mind you, if you think the infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1 is large, how large must the number of points be with the co-ordinates (x,y) where both x and y are real numbers between 0 and 1!

"You know, I do hate it when mathematicians give perfectly simple ideas complicated names."

Perhaps the ideas aren't as 'perfectly simple' as you think. You're trying to construct a logical argument for God, and start by saying the 'complexity' of N is 'contained' in M. How did you define complexity? How do you measure it? What do you mean by 'contained'? Sets contain elements, hence a set of rules would contain rules, are you saying the complexity of N is a rule? What is this rule?

The point of giving concepts complicated names is to nail down the exact meaning of that concept so that other mathematicians can exchange ideas using those concepts without ambiguity. Hence they say 'commutative' rather than 'works both ways round'; that way when someone says matrix multiplication is commutative for matrices with the property 'k', other mathematicians take this to mean M(k).N = N.M(k). If they had said multiplication of matrices with property 'k' is the same both ways round, another mathematician might not know whether this meant M(k).N = N.M(k) or T(M(k)).N = M(k).N, where T() is the transpose function (i.e. turns the matrix 'the other way round').
David B.
Member
Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 | 03:38 AM
Timmo:
"If you sneak in another law outside M to get from M to N (a law which "expands out the brackets", as it were), then that law ought to have been included in M to begin with."

What if there was always another law? What if however many rules you put in M there are things in N that require 'just one more law'?

That's certainly the case in mathematics. When you've got a good handle on set-theory, move on to the work of Kurt Godel.

Alternatively, get a copy of Douglas Hofstadter's classic work Godel, Escher, Bach. I think you'd enjoy it.

David B.:
"Mind you, if you think the infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1 is large, how large must the number of points be with the co-ordinates (x,y) where both x and y are real numbers between 0 and 1!"

Oh the torment, the agony! The sound of it delights me!

Well, actually I guess most people just skimmed that question. So what's the answer?

Well, there are exactly the same number of points with co-ordinates (x,y) both between 0 and 1 than there are values of x!

Just a minute, wasn't I just saying there's some 'bigger than infinity' number of values for x? And doesn't each x in (x,y) have an equally super-infinite number of possible values of y? So just how can there be the same number of points in the square ((0,0),(0,1),(1,0),(1,1)) as there are points between 0 and 1? It doesn't make sense!

Let's separate the two things for a minute. If we say R is the set of all real numbers between 0 and 1, then x and y are members of R (of which there are an infinite number). So let's pick a pair at random... say (0.87325, 0.78448919032874). Now let's say we make a new number z by taking alternate digits from x and y.

x = 0.87325000000000000000...
y = 0.78448919032874000000...

so,

z = 0.87783424580901090003020807040000...

Hmmm, wait a minute, z is a member of R. In fact for any pair of values (x,y) you could map each to a unique value of z which will be a member of R! So there can't be more values of (x,y) than there are values of z!

"Ladies and Gentlemen, commonsense has left the building! I repeat..."
Timmo
Member
Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 | 05:40 PM
okay, I don't want to sound clever or anything, but maths still has everything to do with commonsense. It is commonsense. In the example above, mathematicians never began by treating infinity as a number, but as "undefined". Like they probably said, "one can't say A is greater than B unless A and B are members of this set Z we've defined". We look at how values behave as variables "tends to infinity", which itself took a century of specific defining. If not, if I am wrong, then that argument can be used by any unscientist who wants God to exist (or not)

One final thing I want to mention, and this is BIG, man, is that if God is the idea right now in your head of Perfection, flawlessness. God is the idea "un-stop*-able, with nothing* wrong with it",

(* represents the slightest shadow of an argument running through your mind now)

,which is actually a clear distinct idea if you are an animal with sensations of Good and Bad, then it is immediately obvious that this idea in your head must exist. That is, it must posses these qualities of unstoppable Power and Goodness actually. Think about it; otherwise it wasn't actually that idea to begin with.

Now this is BLOODY good, and BLOODY scary. I can't limit this idea with anything. Everything "Good" comes from it and is part of it (the good emotion in my mind when I see or hear something beautiful, for example, is defined as part of this idea, when I have this idea), and it attaches everything to itself (for the idea contains "all things Perfect", and the idea can be "applied" to anything)

Now I have this overwhelming idea in my head, and I know it is solid. Once you allow yourself to have this idea, to blow your mind, you will know it too. This argument is so beautiful if you're a mathematician, as well as the two on page 52. I can't really think of anything to add to it. It's almost driven me insane in the past. Thank God!
Timmo
Member
Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 | 05:47 PM
by the way I'm off to the south of France for a while. On holiday. If I don't learn about those things you mentioned on my course I'll find out what they are. Who knows? I may learn something from them! It's possible for me to be wrong. I'm not without arrogance or folly; I was ecstatic about the Perfect idea in my brain in the previous post, not myself.
David B.
Member
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 | 02:55 AM
"One final thing I want to mention, and this is BIG, man, is that if God is the idea right now in your head of Perfection, flawlessness. God is the idea "un-stop*-able, with nothing* wrong with it",

(* represents the slightest shadow of an argument running through your mind now)"

That idea 'N' is hence a product of my brain 'M', so by your argument, my brain is as perfect (complex and neat) as 'N', i.e. flawless and unstoppable. Therefore I am God.

Actually, you've continually returned to this argument, but never demonstrated even the tiniest bit of it is plausible.

"(* represents the slightest shadow of an argument running through your mind now)"

Great, I declare '*' to be 'bound to the logical domain'. Hence your perfect, flawless idea of God can't be bound to the logical domain (it would otherwise be limited and hence not perfect and flawless).

"[T]hen it is immediately obvious that this idea in your head must exist."

No, because if that implies that the idea is constrained by logic, which would mean that it is bound by the logical domain, which would be a limitation on the idea, which would not then be perfect. The correct inference is that this idea may or may not exist, or even may have some state other than existing or not existing (as it is by definition not limited to be one of a comprehensive set of possibilities).

"I can't limit this idea with anything."

Therefore you can't use logic to draw inferences from it, as this is limiting it to behave logically.

"This argument is so beautiful if you're a mathematician, as well as the two on page 52."

No, because it is fundamentally inconsistent. Again and again you say "(1) x is without limit" then follow it with "(2) x must exist". Must is a limit, it does not apply to x (see (1)).
David B.
Member
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 | 03:30 AM
"okay, I don't want to sound clever or anything, but maths still has everything to do with commonsense. It is commonsense. In the example above, mathematicians never began by treating infinity as a number, but as "undefined". Like they probably said, "one can't say A is greater than B unless A and B are members of this set Z we've defined". We look at how values behave as variables "tends to infinity", which itself took a century of specific defining. If not, if I am wrong, then that argument can be used by any unscientist who wants God to exist (or not)"

I didn't make up that argument, it's a genuine mathematical example. Cantor showed that some infinities are bigger than others, that there are super-infinities and hyper-infinities and super-hyper-infinites, and so on. There are an infinite number of infinities, each bigger than the last. Each is given an 'Aleph-number' starting with the lowest, Aleph-0, the infinity of integers.

There are an infinite number of natural numbers and there are an infinite number of real numbers; but there are still more real numbers than natural numbers. This is a result so anti-commonsense that some of the world's best mathematicians were still trying to disprove it 50 years later.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 | 06:20 AM
But man, at the end of the day you just have to be reasonable. I recall the first time I saw that suffering was a piece of evidence against God. My counter-argument was basically the same as that in the post at the top of this page, saying "Oh, well, technically one can't know!". Now it is true that suffering doesn't disprove God, but I should have still been reasonable and said that, at the end of the day, I hadn't given it the credit it deserved. And I am afraid that it deserves much.

Nowadays I am still a christian because of the usual answers to this argument. Because it would be impossible to help and love anyone, or tell anyone anything good, or tell anyone anything really, as nothing would be seperate (impossible for you to tell me that God isn't there). I might as well be dead than not be able to love or hate or have Passion.

I wanted to continue the argument about how God must exist is limitless simply because He is limitless (not logical. limitlessness is an split second idea in your brain, and your brain may be wired incorrectly, but nevertheless you know that the idea in your brain must be so), but for some reason felt that I should write this instead. Kind of like when Jesus said "Throw your net over the right side of the boat and you will find some fish"
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 | 10:40 AM
A while back I also proved I was God. It was ignored. I admit my logic was flawed, but that's because the ontological argument itself is seriously flawed. Oddly enough, believers ignore this. I guess you can discount anything that doesn't agree with your premise. It's hard to argue with people who only hear what they want to hear.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 | 12:58 AM
Charybdis said:

"It's hard to argue with people who only hear what they want to hear."

I disagree. It's IMPOSSIBLE to argue with people who only hear what they want to hear. 😊
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 | 03:22 AM
"But man, at the end of the day you just have to be reasonable."

I am reasonably expecting you to stick to your own argument. If you say something is without any limit, when you later try to limit it (by saying it must be something) you contradict yourself. Equally reasonably, I even point out that this contradiction doesn't disprove that the limitless something exists, but merely demonstrates that you won't be able to prove it.

Equally your second argument leads to a reductio ad absurdum in your first. If a perfect something had to exist because the thought of it exists (leaving aside the problems with that argument for a second), you own argmuent implies that the thought is also therefore perfect. If it were in any way less than perfect, even infinitessimally, then the consequence would be greater than the system producing it and your axiom would be disproved. If the thought is perfect, then the thinker must be perfect (from the same argument). That thinker is hence a perfect being, which you maintain is God. Hence either (a) you are God (that'd be the absurdum then), or (b) you are not, in fact, able to truly imagine God.

One possible inferrence from this is that only God (the perfect being) can truly comprehend God, or that God is beyond all mortal comprehension, which is philosophically interesting, but not proof of anything.
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 | 03:41 AM
You also seem to be missing your own points.

(1) If you define God to be perfect and without limit, you cannot prove He exists. Accept the lack of proof of His existence as confirmation of His perfection. Enjoy the fact that this equaly precludes anyone from ever proving that He doesn't. Embrace the new importance that faith now has.

(2) If you maintain that no system can produce something greater than itself, then no-one can ever, not even for the briefest moment, imagine how powerful or perfect God is. You, as a theist, should be comforted that your God is greater than anyone can comprehend.

Unfortunately none of the above is going to win you a $1million.
😜
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 | 03:44 AM
I don't believe (2), BTW.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 | 10:20 AM
ECHO

Echo

echo

*sigh*

I made this exact same argument months ago. Nobody listened to it then, either.
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 | 02:56 AM
Yeah, but you used big words an' stuff.
Lindsay
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 | 09:13 PM
holy crap its started again

hah

ok this is really bothering me and i know i shouldnt but im in such an anayltical mood i have to argue a point. i understand that the atheist here will disagree with every word... but thats ok right?

Before i explain this i would like to say that to truly understand the truth of something you must take your thinking limits above your own experinces, logic, and knoweledge. Life is more than what we have seen and just because we can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done. Just because we've never seen something happen, doesn't mean it hasn't in fact happened.

While the physical composition of life could be argued in evolutionary terms, things that are not physical can't. Such as the rules of the universe that run our lives. Which i think everyone here can admit, there are rules. That is why we have sciences like math and biology, because life is organized under boundries and limitations such as time blah blah. The reason we are having this debate is because some people see that having an ultimate being with no limitations doesnt comply with the boundries, or set of rules, we live under.

So having established that there are rules in life, i have to say something very obvious. Rules don't evolve. I'm not quite so sure that the fact that a force called gravity holds us to this planet is a product evolved by an explosion of energy. I don't think its possible for the basis of logic to evolve, it isnt a physical atrribute. It states what physical atrributes are possible.

Now what I am about to say will seem to contridict what many of you know I am argueing but have patients because it doesnt. One of the rules is that everything must have a beginning. Nothing pops out of no where, things can't make themselves out of nothing. so a rule such as that couldn't really have made itself, that makes no sense.

Therefore something or someone made that rule. Don't ignore this fact because it doesn't rule out evolution or whatever theory you believe. I simply ask you to look past the beginning of things functioning under these rules.

If the rule was made, there was a time before it was made. A time when someone was making it. So... before there was ever a guideline for time and growth and conception, none of these things ever existed. All of the basis for the arguement that there can't be a God because everything had a beginning did no exist. It's very hard to understand that... Our minds are trained on these rules, its all we really know. So looking past them is hard. But if you can, then open your mind too it because unless you can tell me another way around this i dont see one.

Whatever made that rule once functioned with out, therefore it could do anything. An ultimate being. A God. I'm not saying this God was Jesus although I believe he was. All I'm saying is that there has to be a God because we are organized under rules, the rules have to be made my something, and therefore whatever made them has been exempt from them. The only reason you have logic, the only reason you can argue against God, is beacuse of the rules God has made.
lindsay
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 | 09:13 PM
For alot of people just the mention of the word God almost sends revolt through them. The people who are reading this are very very intellegent people, alot of you live by science. Which makes sense because science is us defining what life is and what life can do. but remember... we are still looking for that and everything we know, is what imperfect humans such of ourselves have known to be true. no matter how true we think it is, we are wrong in something every day of our lives. science is not perfect our knowedlge isnt perfect, so it is possible, that some of our science is wrong... no, more like incomplete. we can only see so far.

so bare in mind that all of your basis for arguement rests within the knowedlge of beings who cannot alter the rules of reality. just because a science book says something is so, does not mean something is so. dont get me wrong, I am not saying I don't believe in what we call facts, I just wanted to make the point that science is not... for lack of a better word God. Our studied didn't create us, they can be wrong.

forgive my ramlbing, I could have shortened that considerably, I just wanted it to be perfectly clear what I was trying to say. I'm not saying that evolution is not impossible despite my beliefs and further logic, so I don't want anyone to think I am cutting down their belief. Whatever you want to establish beyond this is a completely different arguement than that. I just wanted to make it clear that the world we live in and our boundries, can't attest to everything that exists....

geeze that was long. ^_^
Lindsay
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 | 10:12 PM
Going back a page, I am happy that some strange person I've never seen, met, or heard, is adopting a part of my speech for a day.

It's honor is quite greatly above any of my previous honors.

:cheese:

actually thinking back that is a weird phrase, when i tried to use it again i had to think a moment. i dont blame you for taking the time to make fun of it. i think i may have to start saying it more often.
David B.
Member
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 02:33 AM
Quick reply

Lindsay wrote:
"I dont blame you for taking the time to make fun of it. I think I may have to start saying it more often."

I'm not making fun of it, seriously. I like language that sounds or reads a 'little odd' as it derails the listener's expectations. It's a mountain in their way when they're on linguistic autopilot.

The rest of the posts get an answer another time (busy).
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 12:16 PM
<i>All I'm saying is that there has to be a God because we are organized under rules, the rules have to be made my (sic) something, and therefore whatever made them has been exempt from them.</i> - Lindsay

Who made God?
Lindsay
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 02:06 PM
charbydis in hell-
Ok... Man I am soo sorry but that is by far one of the most idiotic responses I would have imagined getting.

No one had to make God, because God is a being who made the rules we live under, therefore he has once been exempt from them and is an ultimate being so to speak. The law that everything must have a beginning, was created by this being, and so did not exist before him. Which means, God didn't have to have a beginning. And the law did have to have a beginning, such physics can't just come out know where or else they would completely contridict themselves. Our sciences are based on what that law is and the things that function under them, so evoluntairy theories are still argueable under the theory i just stated. What I was looking at, was beyond what our science is trying to figure out, To what made science basically...

I can't think of a way to make that point more obvious I truly hope you understood that because I really really don't want to have to say it again.

david- You're pretty amusing, i like that thinking. I think it's funny how you wrote that, "It's a mountain in their way when theyre on lingustic autopilot." just out of curiosity, do you any of you talk like that all the time? Or do you have a casual speach. I think it would be pretty funny to just talk like that for a day.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 03:16 PM
I'm taking this step by step, so you don't get confused or ignore important points. I've tried just correcting all of the logical phallacies in this argument all at once, and it doesn't work.

How come laws and physics can't just come out of nowhere, but God can? What, specifically, is it that makes God different?
Lindsay
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 04:55 PM
How could laws and physics just come out of no where? That's illogical, and though what im saying may sound as illogical to you, its really not.

A law is not a breathing living organism, its not alive at all. It's not even something physical. The laws I am speaking of are simply what is possible and not possible, and unless everything I know about life is wrong, then they can't make themselves. They still however do exist, and they exist as the world/universe we know. But why can't there be something more than what we know and can witness? The laws coming out of no where doesn't make any sense, it contridicts itself. They are obviously organized. Biology, math, physics, they are all studies of how our world functions under these rules and there are formulas in them, classifications. Evidence of order. That you must be able to admit, science is organized.

The world we live in is organized then, wether or not we evolved from a burst of energy, or w/e, something had to decide the organization of our world. You have to look at life before these laws, before what you know existed. Life is much bigger than our world, but our simple minds have a hard time grasping something so complex. The only way anyone can sucessfully win this sort of debate, is to go back to the beginning... and to realize that humans are not the ultimate being as so many feel we are. That there can be things more than what we think there should be, want there to be, or deem there to be. To understand what im saying you have to lower yourself to the level that you really are at, and know that life as a whole is much larger than you, and what you can imagine.

Why does it seem more logical to think non-living, nonphysical organizational laws came from now where, than to think something made them? You can't understand what im saying until you switch your perspective from your eyes, to eyes that can see a bigger picture.

It's scary to think that there might be a reason for this life, that there are things that are right and wrong that we don't control. It's scary to think that there is something far more powerful than anything you can imagine. People have twisted their perspective to make that seem impossible and illogical, we have become an overly conceited race. Life is bigger than what we live in. Period. once again I apologize for seeming to ramble, but it is a hard thing to explain. Just for a moment, open your mind up and think about that there could possibly something that can live beyond the boundries of what you know.
Lindsay
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 04:58 PM
In short the difference between laws and God, is that God is alive. Hope fully all the crap i just wrote clears that up a bit, forgive me if it doesn't completely make sense to you. It's a hard thing to explain, espcially while my little brother is screaming in my ear about how someone wants to eat his brain while he sleeps. 😊
Ashley
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 06:07 PM
Does God even have to be logical? HE'S FREAKING GOD. HE MADE EVERYTHING HE CAN DO WHAT EVER THE FRICK HE WANTS! You can't just pop up outta no where...look at a monkey....think "could that monkey be president one day?" I don't think thats how it goes...God created us in His image and He freaking made everything look beyond whats writen in your science book and THINK FOR YOUR FREAKING SELF!
Ashley
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 06:40 PM
Okay I can see how you may not take my last post very well, but that's the basics of it. I know I don't have the best spelling or grammer, but deal with it, I have logic and I know that God does exsist, so if you don't like it, you can piss off. If God doesn't exsist, then where did we all come from, a little cell? I think not. That cell had to come from something. The Theory of Spontainious Gerneration was disproved a loooooooooooooong time ago. Let's say that HYPOTHETICALLY, that the cell did just pop up outta nowhere...does that mean every living think came from that cell...or do you have to change your theory to take in the facts that the cell is either prokaryotic or eukaryotic...if I trce back my family tree, am I going to come from the same cell as a tree? Did the little flea that lives on my dog, a mere parisite, come from the same cell as an emu? Did I come from the same cell as the cow I just ate...'cause I don't wanna be a cannible... I'm going to doubt it. God made everything. Just because it's in a text book doesn't mean it's true. Yeah ,sure a2+b2=c2 as my math book says, but acording to my english book some Medusa lady has snakes for hair. If Darwins Theory of Evolution rings so true, then why did he retract every statement made on the subject? Yeah, things evolve in nature, but 300 species didn't evolve from the same thing. If there is no God, then there must be no Heaven or Hell, well why don't you go ahead and explain to me, in your textbook like terms, what happens to you after you die. I know you rot and all, but that's physical, do you litteraly just sleep forever then? Could you please explain to me how I somehow acculated that ability to speak in tounges after my Pastor filled me with the Holy Spirit? It's been SCIENTIFICALLY proven that when you pray in tounges there is a hormone that is released ONLY when you pray in tounges, and it builds you're bodies immune system.
lindsay
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 09:22 PM
^^ i love your arguement
how does someone piss off? do they just start spewing urine and it launches them away?

i have amazing urine launching powers. ^_^ dude no remember urine man? o man what did we call him? the yellow guy? You know?
Ashley
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 09:35 PM
lol YES I remember him...it think it was just Urination-Man
Ashley
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 09:37 PM
oops typo...I think it was...not it think it was
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 09:38 PM
Again, I'm taking this very simply and slowly. I wasn't the one who tried to prove God by using logic, I'm just using logic to get some answers to some very important questions.

<i>The laws I am speaking of are simply what is possible and not possible, and unless everything I know about life is wrong, then they can't make themselves.</i> - Lindsay

Why can't they always have existed, like God? What is it about God that allows Him to have no creator while everything else in existence has to have had one?
Ashley
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 10:04 PM
Okay, let me put this as simple as I can...


HE'S GOD!!!!!!

I see where you're comming from with this, but you have to open you're mind to this a little bit and look at what's beyond what you know. God has always been around HE is the creator...If you're going to say that everything came from one cell, then to you, that's God. No one created God, He created all, without God there is nothing. He made everything, and again, if you want to belive that every living thing came from that one cell, then that can be your God. It's not by any means the Almighty God...but obviously you don't want to think that there is a reason you're here. You don't wanna think that you have to obey certian guidlines that God has set for the human race...it just illudes me that you have to argue people about this. You would rather think that one puny little cell created you, rather then an all loving God who sent his son to die for you.
Lindsay
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 10:55 PM
charbydis-

Ok... I am going to try and put this in terms you can understand but you seem to be having a problem with it. Have you read anything I wrote but that quote? I'm sorry, I just don't like reiterating myself like that...


The rules aren't alive. They don't have a will because they aren't creatures or objects. The rules are not physical beings. They are our world, its science in its truest form. A science we havent yet known how to discover because we aren't smart enough. Understand that it's not something like a planet, or a fish, or a God. I really don't know how to explain this to you its such a simple concept... The rules didn't create themselves unless they are some sort of being with a will to create themselves. ACtually, if the rules created themselves as I said, they would contridict themselves and the whole fabrication of them would be destroyed in that instant, they would never be the rules we are speaking of.

YOu know I think I'm not making it very clear in that last paragpragh. Basically, the rules are just the outline for our life, stating how things work, and what can and cant happen. It's something that someone had to create. So, its possible the God I speak of is a part of the rules, thats a little weird but plausible i suppose.

ashley-
It illudes me as well. If there is no creater, then we're here by some freakish chance that I can't even fathom ever coming to be.

If in fact this life ended when my heart beat for the last time, then I guess that there was no point to my life at all and it didnt really matter if i lived it believing my creation was a platonic coincidence, or if i was created for a reason and felt loved and comforted. so really, if there is no God than there is no structure in our psyche, ethical, and moral world and we can do whatever we want. Which is why people don't want a God, its their lease to control the only part of the world they really truly have control over, their mind and actions...

Personally Id rather believe that theres more to life unfeeling molecules and pointless lives... which btw isnt my reason for being a christian, so dont throw that in my face that i just wanna be comforted..
Danae
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 | 11:00 PM
Heh. Nice, Ashley. That's actually what I would have said. He's God. Plain and simple.
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 06:54 AM
Timmo:
"I think it's funny how you wrote that, "It's a mountain in their way when theyre on lingustic autopilot." just out of curiosity, do you any of you talk like that all the time?"

All the time. Mostly I am a riverboat of bad metaphores, sailing dangerously close to the waterfalls of linguistic madness. Sometimes I'm a veritable Madagascan Fossa of verbal agility.

"How could laws and physics just come out of no where? That's illogical, and though what im saying may sound as illogical to you, its really not."

They didn't. They existed have for all time without beginning or end.

Not a very satisfactory answer, is it? The point is that it is not logical to say that everything must have a cause, therefore there must be an ultimate cause, i.e. God, because that implies that God does not have a cause, which contradicts your premise. You can argue that God is a special case of course, but then I am equally able to argue that the laws of physics are a special case also.

In fact I have a stronger case:

"A law is not a breathing living organism, its not alive at all. It's not even something physical."

If it is not a physical thing to be created, why would it need a creator? Hence laws are not made, only discovered, having previously have existed forever.

"That you must be able to admit, science is organized."

Science is a human endeavor. It is organised by scientists. We formulate the laws, develop, categorize and arrange them. We also have no absolute proof that they are (a) right, (b) universal, (c) constant or (d) complete.

"The world we live in is organized then, wether or not we evolved from a burst of energy, or w/e, something had to decide the organization of our world."

Why? The organisation may be an inescapeable consequence of laws that have existed for all time without beginning or end. Or it may be a consequence of chance that we are able to observe because we are a consequence of the consequence.

"You have to look at life before these laws, before what you know existed. Life is much bigger than our world, but our simple minds have a hard time grasping something so complex."

If the big-bang created all space and time then there was no before.

"The only way anyone can sucessfully win this sort of debate, is to go back to the beginning... and to realize that humans are not the ultimate being as so many feel we are."

Evolutionary biology teaches that we are but one animal species that is neither more successful, more numerous, nor more long-lived than thousands that have come and gone before us. The bible teaches that we a the special creation of God, made in his image and given dominion of all other living things.

Who exactly needs a sense of perspective here?
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 07:45 AM
"If God doesn't exsist, then where did we all come from, a little cell? I think not. That cell had to come from something."

Take water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, and a sparkplug (all occur naturally in open space... except the sparkplug which is special order). Mix chemicals and hit with sparkplug for a couple of centuries, next try applying electricity to sparkplug in line with manufacturers instructions. When mix is a uniform shade of brown shake for a billion years. Cells will now form.

"The Theory of Spontainious Gerneration was disproved a loooooooooooooong time ago."

Yes, by Louis Pasteur. In 1862. If whatever science text you are basing your criticism one mentions SG, I'd get a more up to date one. One that mentions the work of Millar, Urey or Ponamperuma.

"Let's say that HYPOTHETICALLY, that the cell did just pop up outta nowhere...does that mean every living think came from that cell...or do you have to change your theory to take in the facts that the cell is either prokaryotic or eukaryotic..."

Nope, everything came from the one cell (line). Eukaryotic cells are a development of prokaryotic cells (c.f. Charlotte Avers), many of the organelles of eukaryotic cells resemble nothing more than endosymbiotic bacteria (prokaryotes).

"if I trce back my family tree, am I going to come from the same cell as a tree? Did the little flea that lives on my dog, a mere parisite, come from the same cell as an emu? Did I come from the same cell as the cow I just ate...'cause I don't wanna be a cannible... I'm going to doubt it."

If you mean does everything eventually share a common ancestor, yes. And you would be a cannibal because that is eating the same species, which you and a cabbage are not.

"God made everything. Just because it's in a text book doesn't mean it's true. Yeah ,sure a2+b2=c2 as my math book says, but acording to my english book some Medusa lady has snakes for hair."

And according to my bible some bloke called God made talking snakes that stood upright, and talking donkeys too, and made the sun stand still in the sky, and move backwards, and turned someone into rock. Mind you, it's only in a book so it doesn't mean it's true.

"If Darwins Theory of Evolution rings so true, then why did he retract every statement made on the subject?"

He didn't. This is a story made up by Elizabeth Reid Cotton (based apparently on wishful thinking), who was not at Darwin's deathbed, nor visited him any time after he had fallen ill (and stopped publishing). Darwin's daughter wrote (in 1922) "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. [...] He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier."

"Yeah, things evolve in nature, but 300 species didn't evolve from the same thing."

Why not? There are more that 300 breeds of dog, a large number of which have been specifically created from earlier breeds.
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 07:46 AM
"If there is no God, then there must be no Heaven or Hell, well why don't you go ahead and explain to me, in your textbook like terms, what happens to you after you die. I know you rot and all, but that's physical, do you litteraly just sleep forever then?"

No, sleep is something you do when you are alive. You have ceased to be (nihilism). You come back as something else (reincarnation). Your facet of the higher dimensional oneness has closed but your mystical energies are contained within an unbreakable crystal of being and their vibrational energies will someday cause another facet of being to open in one of the many adjoining dimensions of the hyperreality (hodgepodgicity).

"Could you please explain to me how I somehow acculated that ability to speak in tounges after my Pastor filled me with the Holy Spirit? It's been SCIENTIFICALLY proven that when you pray in tounges there is a hormone that is released ONLY when you pray in tounges, and it builds you're bodies immune system."

Good, you'll have no problem providing us with the peer reviewed published paper that demonstrates this remarkable result. Plus all the astounded confirmations from the dozens of scientific institutions that have replicated it?

Certainly reducing stress improves your immune system. And prayer definitely reduces stress in some people. Mind you so does playing computer games, but we don't build shrines to 'Minesweeper' do we?
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 07:56 AM
All of your arguments are basically assertions, devoid of evidence. So what you are really saying is "I believe in God!".

Good for you. And? Unless you're deliberately aiming for that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denzel_Q._Crocker">Denzel Q. Crocker</a> look...

<FLASHSCENE>
"Wait a minute, there's no way a yutz like Timmy Turner could have evolved from a prokaryotic cell! So this must be the work of *HAIRY* *GOD* *PERSON*"
</FLASHSCENE>

Sure, have faith (nothing wrong with 'faith', very admirable is 'faith'). Just don't confuse it with proof.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 08:28 AM
David, you do realize that most people are just skipping everything you post because it's so long, don't you? 😉

Lindsay, you still haven't answered my basic question. How has God always existed? Why does God not require a creator?

Ashley, saying, "Because he's God" isn't an answer. It's a cop-out for those unable to think for themselves. At least Lindsay seems to me making an attempt at the thought process.

Again, Lindsay attempted to prove God through logic. Ashley, you can't then turn around and say that logic doesn't apply, that invalidates Lindsay's entire argument.

If you wish to resort to faith to explain God, then I have no argument. Faith is subjective, and not everyone has or needs faith. But when you attempt to prove God logically, then don't bitch and moan when that logic gets thrown back in your face.
Ashley
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 11:22 AM
Okay if htere was no God and we all come from the same thing, why isn't there more diferentiation within the same species. If humans came from monkeys then (a) we evolved to survive in our suroundings, meaning that the entire species of monkeys would be gone being unable to survive any longer, or (b) mutation, we are mutant monkeys. Not all mutations are the same, so what are the chances of us being the mutation of a species of monkey? Even If we were there would be more of a difference between us. Example: Trisomy 21, a mutation of chromosome 21commonly known as Down Syndrome.There are alot of people with this, but not one of them are the same. They have different levels of it. Some more severe then others, but I cannot see that mutation comming to be domanint, for many reasons, when something is mutated it usual, not always, has a shorted life span. There are also other mutations out there, like going back to the Down Syndrome thing, Down Syndrome isn't the only chromosomal mutation, there's quite a few. Other dissorders like Tay Sachs, just simply kill you. Early onset Tay-sachs usually kills by the time the child is 5 years old, do to the destruction of the central nervous system. I get that those aren't the mutations that we came from, but it's called a mutation for a reason, it doesn't happen very often. The ressesive mutation becoming domanint in order to from every thing that exsists seems to me to be completely irrational.
Lindsay
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 11:44 AM
"Lindsay, you still haven't answered my basic question. How has God always existed? Why does God not require a creator?"

I think I am going to be polite... Yeah, I'll try...


Ok I have answered this very question multiple time throughout the year.

God does not require a creator because he is a supernatural being which means that we cant put limitiations on him, because all we know or can test is the natural. I'm sorry but I have to say that question is the epitome of ignorance. God doens't need a creatore because he was here before the structure of our world, which means that the rule 'everything must have a beginning' did not apply, it wasn't created yet. The one who created it was therefore exepmt from it. Do you understand what im saying yet? I can argue the point of whether a God must have created the laws, but im not going to argue any further why if there is a God, he doesnt need a creator.

You also asked why the laws couldnt create themselves and I assume if you had to ask your previous question you still don't understand that. The laws couldn't have created themselves first off because they are not alive, they are not physical beings, they have no will. Something with no will can create nothing. Also, a part of that law is everything must have a beginning, and the law must abide within itself. The first of that would be to have a beginning. Whatever made it as I said however, did not h ave to have a beginning because he made that law. I guess you could argue that is a part of the wall but that is unnecessary and quite frankly very confusing.

I understand your degrading attitude toward creatists, you've been condiscending towards me everytime we talk. But I ask you to consider that I do have a brain. It can think. And maybe just maybe, my ineptitude isnt so that great that I might be able to think of something logical for once. At least consider what I have said or else you make the terrible mistake of ignorance. If you aren't willing to consider all the viewpoints and theories then you have no place in this sort of debate.

David-

I am interested in your take on my theory. It would be nice to be able to debate it and work out its holes, and since charbydis is still stuck on trying to understand that God isnt a human, Im afraid I have no one to debate.with. :down:
Lindsay
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 11:48 AM
ashley-

Nice job on using your logic. I'm not alone!! 😊 Thank you for suggesting just one of the ways evolution is too coincidental and improbable.

I think its funny that you look at things like time, species, science in all and see how its clearly orderly and organized... Organized implies that someone created a structure for it to abide in, yet people can't believe that life as a whole was organized. its all some crazy impossible coincidence.
Lindsay
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 11:50 AM
Although thinking it through I do have to say that not all the monkeys would die if they had to adapt to their surroundings because it could be a centralized problem in a community on some far off island. Still, to think of such things happening over and over again do seem a little less likely than taht someone wanted them that way. but o well, micro evolution is basically a fact so it is argueable i suppose.
Lindsay
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 11:51 AM
oops david you did debate me, I missed that post i shall have to reply to it
Lindsay
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 12:00 PM
ok ill start with this, because unless this is cleared up nothinig else can be debated.

"If it is not a physical thing to be created, why would it need a creator? Hence laws are not made, only discovered, having previously have existed forever."

Basically you are saying that these laws are just around and we are discovering them, true. But that is our narrow minded side of them. Why should we assume that they have always just been around? Why would they always have just been around? Is it some mystery that doesnt correspond with anything else in our universe/dimension? The laws themselve are the reason that I can't believe they were not created. In our world, which includes these mystery laws that we discover and do not know the orgin too, things have a beginning. The structure cannot contridict itself by having no beginning or else it would have failed long ago. If someone is going to function under the rule, then the rule must function over itself.

To dismiss these rules as just having been around for an infinite amount of time is just the same as humans to say evolution isnt real because God said so. The thing which you have stated doesnt aline with the rest of theories. The reason science is able to be organized, which i do believe it is, is because there are definite possibilities in the world we live in. and unless something that exists beyond those rules changes it, we have no power to defy the laws of our nature.

I am challenging you to think back before everything and wonder where those laws came from. Because the most logical reasoning would be to think that they have come from something that existed before them, a supernatural being, something we only know how to classify as God. As ive said before, I think in order for things to function under the laws, they must function under themsevles. So please don't ignore this question because i do believe it is one that needs adressed.
Lindsay
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 12:02 PM
HOw did the big bang theory accomdate for the creation of time and where did the energy come from? unless its God, and has just always been or created itself, then thats impossible. Its what ive been saying for a year. If you so chose to believe that whatever caused the big bang is God, then cool I guess we can debate that.

The bible says that God put us in charge of the animals and the earth, to manage them. Our world is run through order or else everything would be out of control. I dont think anarchy was intended for us.
Kiki
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 12:20 PM
Charybdis in Hell, could you please close the textbook and think for yourself? You're a moron who can't think for yourself. You have ONE point, so you keep repeating it over and over and over again after they've ALREADY explained their point of views. Why don't you go stand in the corner and think about it for a while while the big boys and girls have a chat.

Love
Me! :D
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 12:22 PM
Alright, I'll try this the hard way, even though I know it won't work.

<i>God does not require a creator because he is a supernatural being which means that we cant put limitiations on him, because all we know or can test is the natural.</i>

Prove to me that God is a supernatural being.

Prove to me that supernatural beings don't have limitations.

These seem to be assumptions on your part, without any evidence to back them up.

<i>I'm sorry but I have to say that question is the epitome of ignorance. God doens't need a creatore because he was here before the structure of our world, which means that the rule 'everything must have a beginning' did not apply, it wasn't created yet.</i>

Prove to me that God was here before the begining of the world. By 'world', I assume you mean the universe because the world isn't very old at all.

Explain why why rules didn't exist before the universe. If God can, certainly there's no reason rules can't. Sentience and free will have nothing to do with existence, do they?

Again, assumptions.

<i>The one who created it was therefore exepmt from it. Do you understand what im saying yet? I can argue the point of whether a God must have created the laws, but im not going to argue any further why if there is a God, he doesnt need a creator.</i>

Why must the creator be exempt from laws? There's no logical reason to assume this.

Assumption.

<i>You also asked why the laws couldnt create themselves and I assume if you had to ask your previous question you still don't understand that. The laws couldn't have created themselves first off because they are not alive, they are not physical beings, they have no will. Something with no will can create nothing.</i>

Prove that the laws are not alive with free will.

Prove that life and free will is necessary for creation.

Prove that the laws can't have always existed.

Assumptions.

<i>Also, a part of that law is everything must have a beginning, and the law must abide within itself. The first of that would be to have a beginning. Whatever made it as I said however, did not h ave to have a beginning because he made that law. I guess you could argue that is a part of the wall but that is unnecessary and quite frankly very confusing.</i>

What law states that everything must have had a beginning? I know of no such law.

Assumption.

<i>I understand your degrading attitude toward creatists, you've been condiscending towards me everytime we talk. But I ask you to consider that I do have a brain. It can think. And maybe just maybe, my ineptitude isnt so that great that I might be able to think of something logical for once. At least consider what I have said or else you make the terrible mistake of ignorance. If you aren't willing to consider all the viewpoints and theories then you have no place in this sort of debate.</i>

I don't think you're an idiot, I just think you haven't realized how much your faith rests on unproven assumptions. You used logic to try to prove God. I simply used logic to point out the holes in your argument. Logic should never be used to prove God because you immediately have to abandon it to get your point across.

You're argument is "God exists because He's God". Guess what, I can make exactly the same argument for the existence of anything I can possible imagine, including the idea that I am God.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from your beliefs. You're entitled to believe whatever you want, and express your beliefs. I'm free to disagree with you and point out why your beliefs don't make any logical sense. In fact, I'm compelled to do so when you incorrectly use logic to bolster your beliefs, as you did at the start of this particular discussion.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 12:25 PM
Kiki, posting a comment falsely attributed to me doesn't say much for your morals. I thought true believers were supposed to be better people than that?
Timmo
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 01:03 PM
I will not say anything about wishful thinking here. Because of miraculous experiences in my life I know 97% that Jesus Loves you, so obviously my arguments will seem narrow-minded. It is obvious that I want God to exist and many of you want otherwise. So we may as well admit what we want.

What they are trying to say is that time, space and all the laws of physics are limited if they are under other laws (whatever "caused" them), but are unlimited if they are not under any laws, and they are defining the top of the hierachy (even if a never-ending series of big bangs occured, then the whole of existence as a single unit has no laws limiting it) as God, who would then be the ultimate cause and therefore unlimited by any limits.

it is not immediately obvious to me that the idea of you or I Perfect must be true in the same way that it's obvious that the unlimited idea I described before must be true, for you or I mean that the idea is not perfect. I did say that I thought the idea meant God would make All Perfect, but we are the extensions to that idea in the sense that an idea of us means an idea of "us, as we are - that is, imperfect"

As to evolution, I believe that the first "life" was probably along the lines of a carbon atom or what-have-you with a "positive pole" or something, which would then hit another carbon atom and maybe pass on the pole. And eventually one would have, say, a nitrogen atom attached to it which would make the process twice as quick, or more stable, or whatever, and over colossal periods of time, they would accumulate. At the same time I think that my "the complexity of N is contained in ****ALL**** the laws that generate N" thing still makes the designer argument, if anything, even more valid, for think of what life could be like given that earth existed for a time which would make our evolution seem a nanosecond long.
Lindsay
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 01:09 PM
charbydis-

I got through about half of that and decided it wasn't worth reading, because you obviously read nothing of what I wrote. And, if you did, then you didn't really think about it.

I am very much tired of repeating my reasoning and trying to do it in different ways.

One final freaking time.

God is a what we would call a supernatural being, who is capable of things above the boundries of our universe. That is the whole point of him being God. I figure when i say the word god, which i am not classifying who i think is God, i am simply talking about a being that is not confined by our limitations, that its a little self explanatory.

The set of laws is not a living thing because they are just what is possible and not possible. You speak of it as if its a being. The part of it that would be a being if you so chose to think of it this way, would be the supernatural being we would call a God. If you're not reproducing by instinct, or something is not being created by the chance of two things coming together or some form of asexual reprodoction, then you must have had the will to create. You must have thought through the process of how to create it, and then have done so. I'm not quite sure you understand what a boundry is because its impossible for it to be a being of any sort, living or non. It is simply organizationg, such as time, birth, and many other things we function under. None of this is something i assumed.

As I said before, one of my points was that a law must abide by itself if anything is to abide by it, or else it would not really be a law and if it was would have been eradicated. however, what made that law, has obviously been without it before. It's like the seat belt law. It used to be that if you weren't wearing your seat belt and got pulled over, then you didn't get fined. Now, because someone made a law, if you don't wear a seat belt and get pulled over you are fined. Someone made that law, the law wasnt just mystically around. And the law is not a physical being(except for the paper its written on but thats not what im talking about). Do you understand? If you're speaking of a law being alive and having no begginning, then its not the law you talk of, but what created the law and created the organization we function under.

if he doesnt understand that then can someone please explain it to him? None of it is something i assumed, and I'm tired of having to make three paragraphs about something ive explained about five times.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 | 01:11 PM
And I personally believe a christian is wrong if (s)he thinks being a believer means you are better (in the sense that being better means you may be arrogant). In actual fact, all have done wrong, and giving out the distress call "Jesus, Help!" means God does The Better through you and rids you of past wrongs if only you will let him.
Page 18 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 16 17 18 19 20 >  Last ›

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.