No offense, but while that's a good thought, it's pretty much common sense, no?

As for "God", "God" is said to exist beyond and outside our realm, dimension, whatever, so obviously, the laws of our world (including, but not limited to, the effects of the passing of time, specifically, the need for a beginning, etc., etc.) do not apply to "God", as "God" would have been the "creator" of these "rules" themselves, and "exists" beyond it/them. It's thinking outside the box, and with logic, a very strict and concrete set, you have to use it, and not let it use you (confine you to thinking only with it's rules/inside the box).

By the way, if this does inevitably turn into a debate, I'm not participating, because I don't care for arguing with others about the subject. For the record, I'm not Christian, and I don't believe in "God" as most people do (i.e., that he's an old guy, etc.), but I do believe a higher "thing" does exist (which I might refer to as "God"). I'll leave it at that.

P.S. I know you didn't make it, but the chart is a bit wrong, no? I'm assuming there are/were times where Christianity was proven wrong, so it should say "God", not Christianity.

 

No offense, but while that's a good thought, it's pretty much common sense, no?

As for "God", "God" is said to exist beyond and outside our realm, dimension, whatever, so obviously, the laws of our world (including, but not limited to) time, the need for a beginning, etc., etc.) do not apply to "God", as "God" would have been the "creator" of it and "exists" beyond it. It's thinking outside the box, and with logic, a very strict and concrete set, you have to use it, and not let it use you (confine you to thinking only with it's rules).

By the way, if this does inevitably turn into a debate, I'm not participating, because I don't care for arguing with others about the subject. For the record, I'm not Christian, and I don't believe in "God" as most people do, but I believe a higher "thing" does exist. I'll leave it at that.

P.S. I know you didn't make it, but the chart is a bit wrong, no? I'm assuming there are/were times where Christianity was proven wrong, so it should say "God", not Christianity.

I found the chart to use as a logical example... it's truth isn't really relevant.

This is more a debate on logic than it is god vs. nothingness. I'd much rather it be a logical debate. Random paradoxes are fun as hell to discuss.

 

Oh, well, in that case, you can use my post to support these thoughts. I've been saying such things for a long time, but few people seem to understand it (or they think beating around the bush at other aspects of the idea makes this one irrelevant).

P.S. I knew the accuracy wasn't really relevant, but I was just pointing it out.

 

Uh... Schrodinger's cat?

 

Oh, well, in that case, you can use my post to support these thoughts. I've been saying such things for a long time, but few people seem to understand it (or they think beating around the bush at other aspects of the idea makes this one irrelevant).

P.S. I knew the accuracy wasn't really relevant, but I was just pointing it out.

Then we'll put yours in the textbook, Zedeck and we'll put mine on 4chan.

 

nevermind. deleted

 

As you can see... god has never been dis-proven. .

It is impossible to disprove a negative.

 

lol. Where did you find this?

That putting faith in its place video springs to mind. (Credit to Spyhop for finding this video.)

 

Trying to use logic? Isn't the whole issue about logic?

 

i thought the whole issue was about god.

 

Nah. He/she/it's a secondary player. The real argument is whether or not to believe by faith or proof. You could replace 'God' with Big Foot, or the Kebler Elves.

 

Using logic to explain the unexplainable is stupid.

 

i found that chart on 4chan... lol

This is why im agnostic, theres no proof for or against god.

 

Is it just me or does this resemble the logic used in the witch-hunts of the dark ages?

 

This kind of logic is what inspired the infamous Python 'Witch' scene...

 

Personally I do find it hard to believe in either way. I mean on one hand everything couldnt have possibly just been here, right? I mean how do you create something from nothing?

Then you have to think, if GOD does exsist, how or where did he/she come from? Its almost two different things that is hard to explain either way and from what I can guess, we wont know till the ship we call life sinks.

 

its not god, that i have a problem with.

its his fanclub.

 

Personally I do find it hard to believe in either way. I mean on one hand everything couldnt have possibly just been here, right? I mean how do you create something from nothing?

Then you have to think, if GOD does exsist, how or where did he/she come from? Its almost two different things that is hard to explain either way and from what I can guess, we wont know till the ship we call life sinks.

Who says anything was created? I see the universe as always existing.

 

Believing is seeing. And to those that believe, proof is unnecesary.

 

Who says anything was created? I see the universe as always existing.

That doesnt explain how it just came to be though.

 

Believing is seeing. And to those that believe, proof is unnecesary.

No, seeing is knowing. If you see something it's fact and belief is no longer required.

 

 

its not god, that i have a problem with.

its his fanclub.

There are jerks everywhere, some consider me one in emulation, but that shouldn't keep people from enjoying MAME.

It's my belief, and many Christians, that nobody is perfect but God, and the trinity if you believe in it as well, as I do.

Going by that logic, any gathering of people is going to have trouble makers and jerks.

Let me tell you a story...

Back around 1990, I was involved with a computer club, it had many different subgroups, apple, atari, IBM, and Commodore. Well the Commodore Amiga members hated me, they spoke ill of me to others, and generally thought of themselves as better than me, but irregardless of their behavior, I like Commodore Amiga computers, and hopefully before I kick the bucket, I'll get to own one and play some of the games, experiment with the art, sound, and desktop publishing programs, and learn about this system. The fact a few Amiga users looked down on me didn't spoil my opinion about the computer.

 

Paratech which church do you belong to?
I ask as a fellow christian by the way (I'm a reformist) not as someone intending to bash it.

 

That doesnt explain how it just came to be though.

I think the point was that the concept of the universe being 'created' is a man-made construct. Given the concept of 'passage of time' is a completly fabricated construct, then the idea that the universe itself has any kind of beginning or end can also conceivably be a creation. We shoehorn these kinds of things within the parameters of our own understanding, without allowing for the fact that we might simply just not know.

Unfortunately, people (as in, people in general) aren't comfortable with not knowing, so people cling to explanations like 'god' or something that must have created everything at some point, otherwise it falls outside of our understanding. Even if these explanations completely contradiction rationality, common sense and existing knowledge. Scientists don't know everything yet, simply because not everything has been understood yet. That is what scientists strive to achieve - an informed understanding based on observations and theories founded in research. Unfortunately people sometimes find it hard to accept that we just might not know at this current point in time, and progress in the future will give us more answers. Just like how our knowledge of the world has vastly progressed from 100 years ago.

For the record, I have nothing against religion. I don't necessarily discard it as such. As my post implies, I'm happy to admit ignorance to something I don't know.