|
Post by alastairjohnjack on Dec 13, 2009 21:24:45 GMT -5
I'm so stoked on reading all 4 pages before it gets locked This forum is hardly moderated.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 13, 2009 21:30:35 GMT -5
Only when they want it to be.
|
|
|
Post by alastairjohnjack on Dec 13, 2009 21:32:41 GMT -5
It's almost as if they allow freedom of speechi.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 13, 2009 21:34:20 GMT -5
Well only to some people.
|
|
|
Post by lastfirstborn on Dec 13, 2009 22:46:47 GMT -5
Aw yes, another one of these threads I'm so stoked on reading all 4 pages before it gets locked Third page will probably be pure freepostage, though.
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Dec 14, 2009 0:08:39 GMT -5
A creator that wasn't created isn't more logical than a world that wasn't created. Ill bite. Perhaps i misunderstand your words, but I think you are saying "who created the creator"? If so, I respond with a question of my own: why does this creator need a creator. You speak of this creator as if the workings of our existence/universe apply to it. If it can speak a universe into existence, it is clearly not bound by our physical principles. It obviously does not work like things in our universe. Thus, this creator most certainly does not require its own creator.
|
|
|
Post by lastfirstborn on Dec 14, 2009 0:12:23 GMT -5
A creator that wasn't created isn't more logical than a world that wasn't created. Ill bite. Ill ask this: why? You speak of this creator as if the workings of our existence applied to it. If it can speak things into existence, it obviously does not work like things in our universe. Thus, this creator most certainly does not require its ow creator. But where is the evidence that the world requires a creator?
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Dec 14, 2009 0:21:55 GMT -5
Ill bite. Ill ask this: why? You speak of this creator as if the workings of our existence applied to it. If it can speak things into existence, it obviously does not work like things in our universe. Thus, this creator most certainly does not require its ow creator. But where is the evidence that the world requires a creator? Before that, do you agree that this "creator" we speak of needs not follow our universe's physical laws and principles? Maybe 'physical' laws is not the best way to put it, but its the best I've got. If so, Ill respond to your new question: Everything that begins has a cause (Cause and effect. Most people acknowledge this to be be truth.) The universe began. Thus, the universe must have a cause (or "creator" as we can call it). This has to be, or logic is being disregarded. *EDIT* The above doesn't PROVE God exists. But indeed I think, following rationality, its pretty safe to say He does. You also cant PROVE gravity exists. But I'm gonna go ahead and believe it does.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Dec 14, 2009 0:41:14 GMT -5
But where is the evidence that the world requires a creator? Before that, do you agree that this "creator" we speak of needs not follow our universe's physical laws and principles? Maybe 'physical' laws is not the best way to put it, but its the best I've got. If so, Ill respond to your new question: Everything that begins has a cause (Cause and effect. Most people acknowledge this to be be truth.) The universe began. Thus, the universe must have a cause (or "creator" as we can call it). This has to be, or logic is being disregarded. *EDIT* The above doesn't PROVE God exists. But indeed I think, following rationality, its pretty safe to say He does. You also cant PROVE gravity exists. But I'm gonna go ahead and believe it does. Do you know how idiotic this sounds? First you say God doesn't need to follow logic but then you use logic to predict he exists. f**king dumb.
|
|
|
Post by lastfirstborn on Dec 14, 2009 0:42:47 GMT -5
But where is the evidence that the world requires a creator? Before that, do you agree that this "creator" we speak of needs not follow our universe's physical laws and principles? Maybe 'physical' laws is not the best way to put it, but its the best I've got. If so, Ill respond to your new question: Everything that begins has a cause (Cause and effect. Most people acknowledge this to be be truth.) The universe began. Thus, the universe must have a cause (or "creator" as we can call it). This has to be, or logic is being disregarded. *EDIT* The above doesn't PROVE God exists. But indeed I think, following rationality, its pretty safe to say He does. You also cant PROVE gravity exists. But I'm gonna go ahead and believe it does. Again, God simply existing without being created isn't less illogical than the world simply existing without a creator. Existence simply is, it seems. What can be above existence? It'd seem that even God would have to adhere to it as a higher power, simply by existing. (I hope this makes sense.)
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Dec 14, 2009 0:47:45 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying. I admit that I have been making rather bold statements.
Again I say the following:
The creator i refer to as "God" is not bound by the workings of our universe. It is reasonably certain that our universe did indeed begin, rendering it finite. The creator I refer to is not bound by our system of time and space. It is infinite/eternal.
We cannot fully understand how eternal-ness works...But this creator you speak of needs not follow laws that apply within our realm of existence.
@ Brent. Perhaps it is you who forsakes truth here. Nothingness can't spark a universe. Something has to cause the universe. How is this idiotic?
|
|
|
Post by lastfirstborn on Dec 14, 2009 0:52:23 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying. I admit that I have been making rather bold statements. Again I say the following: The creator i refer to as "God" is not bound by the workings of our universe. It is reasonably certain that our universe did indeed begin, rendering it finite. The creator I refer to is not bound by our system of time and space. It is eternal. We cannot fully understand how eternal-ness works...But this creator you speak of needs not follow laws that apply within our realm of existence. If God can transcend the realm of human logic, then why couldn't a non-created existence/universe? Why should I believe in God instead?
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Dec 14, 2009 0:54:33 GMT -5
^^^ Could you clarify meaning on the second part of the above question plz? I'm kinda confused.
|
|
|
Post by lastfirstborn on Dec 14, 2009 0:56:39 GMT -5
^^^ Could you clarify meaning on the second part of the above question plz? I'm kinda confused. I'm asking what would make the existence of a logic-defying creator more probable than a logic-defying lack of one.
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Dec 14, 2009 1:02:55 GMT -5
^^^ Could you clarify meaning on the second part of the above question plz? I'm kinda confused. I'm asking what would make the existence of a logic-defying creator more probable than a logic-defying lack of one. Hmm...I'm afraid I can't word it any better than this. I can't tell you WHY I am virtually positive that "from nothing comes nothing". I just believe that to be so. I think it would be an utter absurdity for me to say "nothingness" acted. That simply doesn't make sense. Im speaking circularly it seems. I simply will not accept the notion of "nothingness" acting. That sentence doesn't even make sense, because "nothingness" is not a thing. Its a lack thereof. Saying that "nothingness acted" (AKA spawned the universe) seems to me to be spitting on rationality and logic. I think it is very LOGICAL to say God exists. @ Brent. FAITH IS LOGICAL. I think thats more accurate.
|
|