I am glad you believe in God, but it seems strange to me that your belief is based on a football punt. I am not trying to burst your bubble, really I am not. But I don't feel like God cares about my dancing, my cheerleading skills, or even if I eat. I think he has far more important issues than a high school football game. I just don't feel that important to God, for him to be interested in my mundane days.
i was kidding.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
I applaud sponger for starting this thread in an intelligent matter about something he does not believe in. Intelligent debate is something horribly lacking on this board and this thread has sparked some.
I applaud sponger for starting this thread in an intelligent matter about something he does not believe in. Intelligent debate is something horribly lacking on this board and this thread has sparked some.
If this thread is an example of intelligent debate. I fear we are in serious trouble.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The original argument is not assuming there ever was a zero. Some people keep thinking that it does.
The original argument is assuming there never was a zero, and that this assumption flies in the face of the bang bang theory, which apparently assumes there was nothing before the big bang.
So, here are the highlights:
big bang = there was a zero
creationism = there never was a zero
The argument: The fact that there never was a zero means there is something out there that exists beyond the realm of what can be mathematically explained.
One person said the zero can be explained with sophism, but that's not definitive.
Look, we all look at this simple argument and think to ourselves, "Well, that is so simple. It can't really explain anything."
Well, prove it. So far, no one really has. Before slagging the argument, take some time to understand it. That's the problem with many liberals these days. They are experts at tearing down the problem, but are virtually inept at offering a solution. It doesn't take einstein to say that the whole 0 and 1 stuff is retarded. My dog can do that. But, why is it retarded? No one seems to really know.
he was building a death star.... or doing the worlds hardest sudoku thingy... errrrrr.....
obviously not working on his plans for the earths crust... shoddy workmanship there god... people are dying because god didnt create the earth correctly... he's so loving
what did he do between dinosaurs and humans??? 7 days to make the earth, 350 million years rest... thats a shift system i'm interested in!
no dunkman. the earth is perfect. or as perfect as she needs to be. she regenerates and reforms. continues to build and destroy as she is meant to. she brings forth life and that in time that life ceases to exist, to be replaced by something else, maybe. it is not the Earth's fault that Man chooses to live outside nature and not take her into account when he chooses to 'civilise' or 'tame' his surroundings. you can not blame nature for Man's stupidity.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It's trying to simplify something that can not be simplified. Personally I thought it was a better arguement to disprove God's existance.
The Big Bang theory is that there always has been 1. The universe expands and contracts with the Big Bang being a pivotal event in the universal cycle, like when the pendulum starts swinging back the other direction.
From what I understand Big Bang is mostly based on the observation of the distances from stars changing to show the universe contracting. But for all we know this could happen for 400 billion years, then it could reverse and start expanding again. I'm not sure it ever has to form a big condensed ball of energy.
It seems this arguement is trying to say that in order for their to be something there must first be nothing, unless God. So God is something and therefor not nothing, unless God is nothing, then God is nothing. That's why I think it's a better arguement to disprove God. Because if God is something, then by the same logic something must have existed before God. Which is totally contrary to the definition of God.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
no dunkman. the earth is perfect. or as perfect as she needs to be. she regenerates and reforms. continues to build and destroy as she is meant to. she brings forth life and that in time that life ceases to exist, to be replaced by something else, maybe. it is not the Earth's fault that Man chooses to live outside nature and not take her into account when he chooses to 'civilise' or 'tame' his surroundings. you can not blame nature for Man's stupidity.
I view Man as a product of nature. We are biological muti-celled organisms straying shallow distances from the animal world. Therefor our mistakes are nature's mistakes or we are nature's mistake.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The original argument is not assuming there ever was a zero. Some people keep thinking that it does.
The original argument is assuming there never was a zero, and that this assumption flies in the face of the bang bang theory, which apparently assumes there was nothing before the big bang.
So, here are the highlights:
big bang = there was a zero
creationism = there never was a zero
The argument: The fact that there never was a zero means there is something out there that exists beyond the realm of what can be mathematically explained.
One person said the zero can be explained with sophism, but that's not definitive.
Look, we all look at this simple argument and think to ourselves, "Well, that is so simple. It can't really explain anything."
Well, prove it. So far, no one really has. Before slagging the argument, take some time to understand it. That's the problem with many liberals these days. They are experts at tearing down the problem, but are virtually inept at offering a solution. It doesn't take einstein to say that the whole 0 and 1 stuff is retarded. My dog can do that. But, why is it retarded? No one seems to really know.
* this is not directed specifically at you sponger.
why are people assuming that the big bang came out of nothing?
i was always of the opinion that at the time of the big bang, our universe was very small and very dense. that what transpired from the big bang was the expansion of our universe as we know it today. and that this expansion continues. and that this expansion is a stronger force than gravity, otherwise the universe would collapse back into itself.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
If the big bang theory doesn't state that there was nothing before something, then nevermind. If not that, then the original argument is trying to discuss the origin of energy in general. In which case, I don't have anything to say except for the following.
The difference between the zero and the 1 can be explained by reality and fiction. Reality is always moving forward. Fiction is at a standstill.
The zero is a circle, which represents circular reasoning. When we use fiction, the end result is always being back where we started because we never went anywhere in the first place. So, that's why fiction is zero.
By putting god into the equation, we essentially are attempting to remove the zero, forcing us to move forward. We don't leave zero as an option. That's why religious people are always saying, "It was part of god's plan." It eliminates the speculatory aspect of zero thinking.
And that's why believing in god makes people feel good. They are inspired by the "zero does not exist" thinking. That is, reality is less painful because they learn to accept it faster. They learn to accept it faster because they immediately predispose themselves to the concept that no matter what happens, there will never be a zero. That's why you hear people say, "With god's help..." What they're really saying is, "With the help of knowing that the result can only be progress." In other words, they are inducing self-confidence within themselves.
I view Man as a product of nature. We are biological muti-celled organisms straying shallow distances from the animal world. Therefor our mistakes are nature's mistakes or we are nature's mistake.
i see Man as being outside nature. i think our arrogance at thinking we are the be all and end all of existence puts us at odds with nature. i think our mistake is our short sightedness and the aforementioned arrogance. i do not think we are nature's mistake because i do not believe that nature makes mistakes. the mistakes we make are our own.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i see Man as being outside nature. i think our arrogance at thinking we are the be all and end all of existence puts us at odds with nature. i think our mistake is our short sightedness and the aforementioned arrogance. i do not think we are nature's mistake because i do not believe that nature makes mistakes. the mistakes we make are our own.
Wow really? So how did we get here then?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i did not say we did not come from nature ahnimus. i said we put ourselves outside nature.
OH ok, I misinterpreted sorry.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm kinda having trouble understanding you reasoning, catefrances. You say that we are a product of nature, and that the mistakes we make are those of our doing, not nature's. However, doesn't our propensity to make mistakes represent a natural occurrence?
I'm kinda having trouble understanding you reasoning, catefrances. You say that we are a product of nature, and that the mistakes we make are those of our doing, not nature's. However, doesn't our propensity to make mistakes represent a natural occurrence?
our human nature is not the same as Nature.
but yes perhaps, our mistakes represent a natural occurence. but i see it only insofar as we make them as one of Nature's beings.
When i say we put ourselves outside Nature i mean we do everything in our power to 'tame' Nature and choose to thwart her rather than work with her. we do this in total disregard to everything that is around us. everything within Nature follows an order and Man just screws with it. Why? simply because he can. because his supposed higher intellect allows it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I strongly believe in god.... i dont even need evidence though their is plenty. Read C.S Lewis for some info.
"i believe in god because c.s. lewis said so in the lion the witch and the wardrobe"
??
do you believe in bigfoot as well?? it's the same shit. at least there is video of bigfoot ...somewhat questionable
"i believe in god because c.s. lewis said so in the lion the witch and the wardrobe"
??
do you believe in bigfoot as well?? it's the same shit. at least there is video of bigfoot ...somewhat questionable
Actually Penn & Teller made that Bigfoot Video for their episode on mythical creatures. It's a guy in a gorillia suit. It's also apparent by the way the creature walks that it's a man.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
our human nature is not the same as Nature.
but yes perhaps, our mistakes represent a natural occurence. but i see it only insofar as we make them as one of Nature's beings.
When i say we put ourselves outside Nature i mean we do everything in our power to 'tame' Nature and choose to thwart her rather than work with her. we do this in total disregard to everything that is around us. everything within Nature follows an order and Man just screws with it. Why? simply because he can. because his supposed higher intellect allows it.
The only problem I have is that Man is a he and nature is a she in your post. And He abuses Her.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The only problem I have is that Man is a he and nature is a she in your post. And He abuses Her.
you know ahnimus i get into this trouble at uni. when i say Man (with a capital M) i mean Mankind as opposed to male vs female. but to me Nature will always be a she. she is our mother. our nurturer. she is what gives us life.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"i believe in god because c.s. lewis said so in the lion the witch and the wardrobe"
??
do you believe in bigfoot as well?? it's the same shit. at least there is video of bigfoot ...somewhat questionable
cs lewis is perhaps the world's most renowned christian scholar. his space trilogy is essentially a religious allegory. he also wrote the screwtape letters and numerous essays on the logic of catholicism. his writings are widely considered by the church and academics as the finest out there when it comes to putting the catholic religion to laypeople. there's more to it than narnia.
interesting note: cs lewis was a staunch atheist. he was converted to catholicism by none other than jrr tolkien... yes the author of lord of the rings (a work that contains plenty of its own christian imagery).
cs lewis is perhaps the world's most renowned christian scholar. his space trilogy is essentially a religious allegory. he also wrote the screwtape letters and numerous essays on the logic of catholicism. his writings are widely considered by the church and academics as the finest out there when it comes to putting the catholic religion to laypeople. there's more to it than narnia.
interesting note: cs lewis was a staunch atheist. he was converted to catholicism by none other than jrr tolkien... yes the author of lord of the rings (a work that contains plenty of its own christian imagery).
Yea, but look at ID and the other "logical" arguements. People will believe any kind of twisted logic, especially if they aren't very smart. The whole Beanie Baby craze is a good example of human stupidity. On the other hand, I've never read any C.S. Lewis.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
you know ahnimus i get into this trouble at uni. when i say Man (with a capital M) i mean Mankind as opposed to male vs female. but to me Nature will always be a she. she is our mother. our nurturer. she is what gives us life.
I think nature is a hermaphrodite, so I call nature it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
cs lewis is perhaps the world's most renowned christian scholar. his space trilogy is essentially a religious allegory. he also wrote the screwtape letters and numerous essays on the logic of catholicism. his writings are widely considered by the church and academics as the finest out there when it comes to putting the catholic religion to laypeople. there's more to it than narnia.
interesting note: cs lewis was a staunch atheist. he was converted to catholicism by none other than jrr tolkien... yes the author of lord of the rings (a work that contains plenty of its own christian imagery).
mere christianity and the problem of pain are 2 very good reads...if anyone is interested.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Comments
i was kidding.
~Ron Burgundy
and
religion is a virus of the mind
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
look it up
If this thread is an example of intelligent debate. I fear we are in serious trouble.
The original argument is not assuming there ever was a zero. Some people keep thinking that it does.
The original argument is assuming there never was a zero, and that this assumption flies in the face of the bang bang theory, which apparently assumes there was nothing before the big bang.
So, here are the highlights:
big bang = there was a zero
creationism = there never was a zero
The argument: The fact that there never was a zero means there is something out there that exists beyond the realm of what can be mathematically explained.
One person said the zero can be explained with sophism, but that's not definitive.
Look, we all look at this simple argument and think to ourselves, "Well, that is so simple. It can't really explain anything."
Well, prove it. So far, no one really has. Before slagging the argument, take some time to understand it. That's the problem with many liberals these days. They are experts at tearing down the problem, but are virtually inept at offering a solution. It doesn't take einstein to say that the whole 0 and 1 stuff is retarded. My dog can do that. But, why is it retarded? No one seems to really know.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
no dunkman. the earth is perfect. or as perfect as she needs to be. she regenerates and reforms. continues to build and destroy as she is meant to. she brings forth life and that in time that life ceases to exist, to be replaced by something else, maybe. it is not the Earth's fault that Man chooses to live outside nature and not take her into account when he chooses to 'civilise' or 'tame' his surroundings. you can not blame nature for Man's stupidity.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The Big Bang theory is that there always has been 1. The universe expands and contracts with the Big Bang being a pivotal event in the universal cycle, like when the pendulum starts swinging back the other direction.
From what I understand Big Bang is mostly based on the observation of the distances from stars changing to show the universe contracting. But for all we know this could happen for 400 billion years, then it could reverse and start expanding again. I'm not sure it ever has to form a big condensed ball of energy.
It seems this arguement is trying to say that in order for their to be something there must first be nothing, unless God. So God is something and therefor not nothing, unless God is nothing, then God is nothing. That's why I think it's a better arguement to disprove God. Because if God is something, then by the same logic something must have existed before God. Which is totally contrary to the definition of God.
I view Man as a product of nature. We are biological muti-celled organisms straying shallow distances from the animal world. Therefor our mistakes are nature's mistakes or we are nature's mistake.
* this is not directed specifically at you sponger.
why are people assuming that the big bang came out of nothing?
i was always of the opinion that at the time of the big bang, our universe was very small and very dense. that what transpired from the big bang was the expansion of our universe as we know it today. and that this expansion continues. and that this expansion is a stronger force than gravity, otherwise the universe would collapse back into itself.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The difference between the zero and the 1 can be explained by reality and fiction. Reality is always moving forward. Fiction is at a standstill.
The zero is a circle, which represents circular reasoning. When we use fiction, the end result is always being back where we started because we never went anywhere in the first place. So, that's why fiction is zero.
By putting god into the equation, we essentially are attempting to remove the zero, forcing us to move forward. We don't leave zero as an option. That's why religious people are always saying, "It was part of god's plan." It eliminates the speculatory aspect of zero thinking.
And that's why believing in god makes people feel good. They are inspired by the "zero does not exist" thinking. That is, reality is less painful because they learn to accept it faster. They learn to accept it faster because they immediately predispose themselves to the concept that no matter what happens, there will never be a zero. That's why you hear people say, "With god's help..." What they're really saying is, "With the help of knowing that the result can only be progress." In other words, they are inducing self-confidence within themselves.
Anywho, thanks for participating.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
i see Man as being outside nature. i think our arrogance at thinking we are the be all and end all of existence puts us at odds with nature. i think our mistake is our short sightedness and the aforementioned arrogance. i do not think we are nature's mistake because i do not believe that nature makes mistakes. the mistakes we make are our own.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Wow really? So how did we get here then?
i did not say we did not come from nature ahnimus. i said we put ourselves outside nature.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
OH ok, I misinterpreted sorry.
no apology necessary. at least you were civil.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
our human nature is not the same as Nature.
but yes perhaps, our mistakes represent a natural occurence. but i see it only insofar as we make them as one of Nature's beings.
When i say we put ourselves outside Nature i mean we do everything in our power to 'tame' Nature and choose to thwart her rather than work with her. we do this in total disregard to everything that is around us. everything within Nature follows an order and Man just screws with it. Why? simply because he can. because his supposed higher intellect allows it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i hope you're not suggesting we read 'the tales of narnia'
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"i believe in god because c.s. lewis said so in the lion the witch and the wardrobe"
??
do you believe in bigfoot as well?? it's the same shit. at least there is video of bigfoot ...somewhat questionable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw7NMt-LSh0
Double True
Actually Penn & Teller made that Bigfoot Video for their episode on mythical creatures. It's a guy in a gorillia suit. It's also apparent by the way the creature walks that it's a man.
The only problem I have is that Man is a he and nature is a she in your post. And He abuses Her.
look it up
you know ahnimus i get into this trouble at uni. when i say Man (with a capital M) i mean Mankind as opposed to male vs female.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
cs lewis is perhaps the world's most renowned christian scholar. his space trilogy is essentially a religious allegory. he also wrote the screwtape letters and numerous essays on the logic of catholicism. his writings are widely considered by the church and academics as the finest out there when it comes to putting the catholic religion to laypeople. there's more to it than narnia.
interesting note: cs lewis was a staunch atheist. he was converted to catholicism by none other than jrr tolkien... yes the author of lord of the rings (a work that contains plenty of its own christian imagery).
Yea, but look at ID and the other "logical" arguements. People will believe any kind of twisted logic, especially if they aren't very smart. The whole Beanie Baby craze is a good example of human stupidity. On the other hand, I've never read any C.S. Lewis.
I think nature is a hermaphrodite, so I call nature it.
mere christianity and the problem of pain are 2 very good reads...if anyone is interested.
it is like a "tooth fairy theorist"